[House Hearing, 107 Congress] [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office] H.R. 521 and H.R. 791 ======================================================================= LEGISLATIVE HEARING before the COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION __________ May 8, 2002 __________ Serial No. 107-115 __________ Printed for the use of the Committee on Resources Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/ house or Committee address: http://resourcescommittee.house.gov U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 79-494 WASHINGTON : 2002 __________________________________________________________________________ For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001 COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah, Chairman NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia, Ranking Democrat Member Don Young, Alaska, George Miller, California Vice Chairman Edward J. Markey, Massachusetts W.J. ``Billy'' Tauzin, Louisiana Dale E. Kildee, Michigan Jim Saxton, New Jersey Peter A. DeFazio, Oregon Elton Gallegly, California Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, American John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee Samoa Joel Hefley, Colorado Neil Abercrombie, Hawaii Wayne T. Gilchrest, Maryland Solomon P. Ortiz, Texas Ken Calvert, California Frank Pallone, Jr., New Jersey Scott McInnis, Colorado Calvin M. Dooley, California Richard W. Pombo, California Robert A. Underwood, Guam Barbara Cubin, Wyoming Adam Smith, Washington George Radanovich, California Donna M. Christensen, Virgin Walter B. Jones, Jr., North Islands Carolina Ron Kind, Wisconsin Mac Thornberry, Texas Jay Inslee, Washington Chris Cannon, Utah Grace F. Napolitano, California John E. Peterson, Pennsylvania Tom Udall, New Mexico Bob Schaffer, Colorado Mark Udall, Colorado Jim Gibbons, Nevada Rush D. Holt, New Jersey Mark E. Souder, Indiana Anibal Acevedo-Vila, Puerto Rico Greg Walden, Oregon Hilda L. Solis, California Michael K. Simpson, Idaho Brad Carson, Oklahoma Thomas G. Tancredo, Colorado Betty McCollum, Minnesota J.D. Hayworth, Arizona C.L. ``Butch'' Otter, Idaho Tom Osborne, Nebraska Jeff Flake, Arizona Dennis R. Rehberg, Montana Tim Stewart, Chief of Staff Lisa Pittman, Chief Counsel/Deputy Chief of Staff Steven T. Petersen, Deputy Chief Counsel Michael S. Twinchek, Chief Clerk James H. Zoia, Democrat Staff Director Jeffrey P. Petrich, Democrat Chief Counsel ------ C Of N T E N T S ---------- Page Hearing held on May 8, 2002...................................... 1 Statement of Members: Carson, Hon. Brad, a Representative in Congress from the State of Oklahoma, Prepared statement on H.R. 791.......... 24 Christensen, Hon. Donna M., a Delegate in Congress from the Virgin Islands, Memorandum dated July 24, 2000, from Derril B. Jordan, Associate Solicitor, Division of Indian Affairs, U.S. Department of the Interior, submitted for the record on H.R. 791................................................ 9 Hansen, Hon. James V., a Representative in Congress from the State of Utah.............................................. 1 Prepared statement on H.R. 521 and H.R. 791.............. 2 Hastert, Hon. Dennis, Speaker of the House, and a Representative in Congress from the State of Illinois, Statement submitted for the record on H.R. 791............. 79 Hayworth, Hon. J.D., a Representative in Congress from the State of Arizona........................................... 2 Johnson, Hon. Timothy V., a Representative in Congress from the State of Illinois...................................... 3 Prepared statement on H.R. 791........................... 3 Kildee, Hon. Dale E., a Representative in Congress from the State of Michigan, Prepared statement on H.R. 791.......... 7 Pallone, Hon. Frank Jr., a Representative in Congress from the State of New Jersey, Prepared statement on H.R. 791.... 80 Phelps, Hon. David D., a Representative in Congress from the State of Illinois.......................................... 6 Prepared statement on H.R. 791........................... 7 Shimkus, Hon. John, a Representative in Congress from the State of Illinois.......................................... 4 Prepared statement on H.R. 791........................... 5 Underwood, Hon. Robert A., a Delegate in Congress from Guam.. 77 Prepared statement on H.R. 521.......................... 78 Statement of Witnesses: Angelo, Larry, Second Chief, Ottawa Tribe of Oklahoma........ 40 Prepared statement on H.R. 791........................... 41 Response to questions submitted for the record........... 43 Carbullido, Hon. F. Philip, Acting Chief Justice, The Supreme Court of Guam.............................................. 58 Prepared statement on H.R. 521........................... 60 Response to questions submitted for the record........... 63 Johnson, Jacqueline L., Executive Director, The National Congress of American Indians............................... 45 Prepared statement on H.R. 791........................... 47 Kearney, Christopher, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy and International Affairs, Office of Policy Management and Budget, U.S. Department of the Interior.................... 57 Prepared statement on H.R. 521........................... 58 Lamorena, Hon. Alberto C. III, Presiding Judge, Superior Court of Guam.............................................. 65 Prepared statement on H.R. 521........................... 67 Response to questions submitted for the record........... 74 Mitchell, Gary, Vice Chairman, Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation 24 Prepared statement on H.R. 791........................... 26 Letter and affidavits submitted for the record on H.R. 791.................................................... 29 Additional materials supplied: Ada, Hon. Joseph F., Senator, 26th Guam Legislature, Letter submitted for the record on H.R. 521....................... 92 ............................................................. Ada, Hon. Thomas C., Senator, 26th Guam Legislature,Statement submitted for the record on H.R. 521....................... 95 Aguon, Hon. Frank Blas, Jr., Senator, 26th Guam Legislature, Letter submitted for the record on H.R. 521................ 96 Arriola, Joaquin C., President, Guam Bar Association, Letter submitted for the record on H.R. 521....................... 97 Bernhardt, David L., Director, Office of Congressional and Legislative Affairs and Counselor to the Secretary, U.S. Department of the Interior, Letter submitted for the record on H.R. 521................................................ 99 Blair, William J., et al., Law Offices of Klemm, Blair, Sterling & Johnson, Letter submitted for the record on H.R. 521........................................................ 100 Bordallo, Hon. Madeleine Z., Lieutenant Governor of Guam, Statement submitted for the record on H.R. 521............. 103 Brooks, Terrence M., et al., Brooks Lynch & Tydingco LLP, Letter submitted for the record on H.R. 521................ 104 Camacho, Hon. Felix P., Senator, 26th Guam Legislature, Letter submitted for the record on H.R. 521................ 107 Charfauros, Hon. Mark C., Senator, 26th Guam Legislature, Letter submitted for the record on H.R. 521................ 109 Cruz, Hon. Benjamin J.F., Honorable Chief Justice of Guam (Retired), Letter submitted for the record on H.R. 521..... 112 Cunliffe, F. Randall, and Jeffrey A. Cook, Cunliffe & Cook, Letter submitted for the record on H.R. 521................ 114 Forbes, Hon. Mark, Majority Leader, 26th Guam Legislature, Statement submitted for the record on H.R. 521............. 115 Forman, Seth, Keogh & Forman, Letter submitted for the record on H.R. 521................................................ 120 Gray, Gerald E., Law Offices of Gerald E. Gray, Letter submitted for the record on H.R. 521....................... 122 Guerrero, Hon. Lou Leon, Senator, 26th Guam Legislature, Letter submitted for the record on H.R. 521................ 123 Gutierrez, Hon. Carl T.C., Governor of Guam, Statement submitted for the record on H.R. 521....................... 123 Hale, Elizabeth, Affidavit submitted for the record on H.R. 791........................................................ 38 Lannen, Thomas J., Dooley Lannen Roberts & Fowler LLP, Memorandum submitted for the record on H.R. 521............ 125 Leonard, Floyd E., Chief, Miami Tribe of Oklahoma, Statement submitted for the record on H.R. 791....................... 127 Lujan, Hon. Pilar C., Former Senator, Guam Legislature, Statement submitted for the record on H.R. 521............. 130 Maher, John B., McKeown, Vernier, Price & Maher, Letter submitted for the record on H.R. 521....................... 132 Manibusan, Judge Joaquin V.E. Jr., on behalf of the majority of Superior Court of Guam Judges, Statement submitted for the record on H.R. 521..................................... 133 McCaleb, Neal A., Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs, U.S. Department of the Interior, Letter submitted for the record on H.R. 791......................................... 137 McDonald, Joseph B., Legal Counsel, Citibank N.A. Guam, Letter submitted for the record on H.R. 521................ 138 Pangelinan, Vicente C., Minority Leader, 26th Guam Legislature, Statement submitted for the record on H.R. 521 140 Roberts, Thomas L., Dooley Lannen Roberts & Fowler LLP, Letter submitted for the record on H.R. 521................ 142 Ryan, Hon. James E., Attorney General, State of Illinois, Letter submitted for the record on H.R. 791................ 144 San Agustin, Hon. Joe T., Former Speaker of the Guam Legislature, Statement submitted for the record on H.R. 521 145 Santos, Marcelene C., President, University of Guam, Letter submitted for the record on H.R. 521....................... 147 Siguenza, Peter C., Jr., et al., Chief Justice, Supreme Court of Guam, Letter and supporting documents submitted for the record..................................................... 150 Troutman, Charles H., Compiler of Laws, Office of the Attorney General, Department of Law, Territory of Guam, Letter submitted for the record on H.R. 521................ 160 Unpingco, Hon. Antonio R., Speaker,, 26th Guam Legislature, Letter submitted for the record on H.R. 521................ 166 Wagner, Annice M., President, Conference of Chief Justices, Letter and Resolution submitted for the record on H.R. 521. 170 Warnsing, Mark R., Deputy Counsel to the Governor, State of Illinois, Letters submitted for the record on H.R. 791..... 167 Won Pat, Hon. Judith T., Senator, 26th Guam Legislature, Statement submitted for the record on H.R. 521............. 172 LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON H.R. 791, TO PROVIDE FOR THE EQUITABLE SETTLEMENT OF CERTAIN INDIAN LAND DISPUTES REGARDING LAND IN ILLINOIS; AND H.R. 521, TO AMEND THE ORGANIC ACT OF GUAM FOR THE PURPOSE OF AMENDING THE LOCAL JUDICIAL STRUCTURE OF GUAM. ---------- Wednesday, May 8, 2002 U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Resources Washington, DC ---------- The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:04 a.m., in room 1334, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. James Hansen (Chairman of the Committee) presiding. STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES HANSEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF UTAH The Chairman. The Committee will come to order. Today's hearing is on two bills that address very different issues. The first is H.R. 791, which was introduced by Congressman Tim Johnson in response to the Miami Tribe's lawsuit against private landowners in Illinois. H.R. 791 seeks to extinguish all land claims in Illinois asserted by the Miami and Ottawa Tribes of Oklahoma and the Potawatomi Tribe of Kansas and provides the tribes with recourse to pursue their claims against the United States in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims. The Chairman. The second bill is H.R. 521, introduced by Congressman Underwood. This legislation attempts to amend the Organic Act of Guam to modify the internal structure of the Guam local court system. H.R. 521 has generated a great deal of controversy in Guam over whether U.S. Congress or the local Guam Government is in the best position to address the internal structure of the local courts. The Chairman. We appreciate the efforts of the witnesses in being here today and look forward to hearing from them this morning. I would like to express special thanks to Justice Carbullido and Judge Lamorena for literally traveling halfway around the world to be at this hearing. Before we begin with our first panel, I would like to mention that the administration, in lieu of presenting testimony today on H.R. 791 has submitted a letter for the record. I ask unanimous consent that following the testimony, the gentlemen from Illinois, Mr. Johnson and Mr. Shimkus, be allowed to sit on the dais and participate in the hearing. Is there objection? Hearing none, so ordered. I have a number of things to do today, and I have asked my good friend from Arizona, Mr. Hayworth, if he would take the gavel and conduct this meeting. He is also our expert on some of these areas and a very qualified individual. So with that said, Mr. Hayworth, thank you so much for being here, and thank all the witnesses. I will turn the gavel over to you, sir. [The prepared statement of Mr. Hansen follows:] Statement of The Honorable James V. Hansen, a Representative in Congress from the State of Utah Today's hearing is on two bills that address very different issues. The first is H.R. 791, which was introduced by Congressman Tim Johnson in response to the Miami Tribe's lawsuit against private landowners in Illinois. H.R. 791 seeks to extinguish all land claims in Illinois asserted by the Miami and Ottawa Tribes of Oklahoma and the Potawatomi Tribe of Kansas and provides the tribes with recourse to pursue their claims against the United States in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims. The Second bill is H.R. 521, introduced by Congressman Underwood. This legislation attempts to amend the Organic Act of Guam to modify the internal structure of the Guam local court system. H.R. 521 has generated a great deal of controversy in Guam over whether U.S. Congress or the local Guam Government is in the best position to address the internal structure of the local courts. We appreciate the efforts of the witnesses in being here today and look forward to hearing from them this morning. I would like to express special thanks to Justice Carbullido [Car-bo-lee-doe] and Judge Lamorena [La-mo-ren-a] for literally traveling half-way around the world to be at this hearing. Before we begin with our first panel I would like to mention that the Administration, in lieu of presenting testimony today on H.R. 791, has submitted a letter for the record. ______ STATEMENT OF HON. J.D. HAYWORTH, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ARIZONA Mr. Hayworth. [presiding] Mr. Chairman, we thank you. We will move forward to panel one, which currently includes two of our members. We also would make note that our other colleague from Illinois, Mr. Phelps, may join us, and we would certainly welcome his statements as well for the record. But the Chair would first call on our colleague from Illinois, the author of H.R. 791, the Honorable Timothy V. Johnson. Congressman Johnson, the Chair and the Committee are very happy to hear your testimony and welcome you to the Resources Committee, sir. And we would point out for the record that your statements would be put in the record in their entirety, and we thank you for your testimony today. That will be true for every witness who joins us. Thank you, sir, and welcome. STATEMENT OF THE HON. TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this important hearing regarding Indian land claims in Illinois. I also want to thank the Members of the House Resources Committee for their time and attention today. In the summer of 2000, 15 landowners in east-central Illinois received notice that the Miami Indian Tribe of Oklahoma was suing them. These 15 individuals from 15 separate counties were told that they were being sued because the Miami was claiming that some 2.6 million acres in east-central Illinois rightfully belonged to them under a treaty, the Treaty of Grouseland, signed in 1805. Illinois was granted statehood in 1818, a full 13 years after the Treaty of Grouseland was signed by the U.S. Government and the Miami Tribe. For this reason, I introduced H.R. 791. Basically, the legislation will waive sovereign immunity and says that if, in fact, there is a valid claim--and we do not make judgment on that--the claim is to be filed against the Federal Government and not against innocent landowners, 15 of whom have been specifically named; one of whom is over 100 years old and a good friend of mine in the Champaign County area, and a number of others over whom a cloud hangs on their title anytime land is transferred in this 2.6 million acre area. As I indicated, the Potawatomi and Ottawa Tribe have also made similar claims in Speaker Hastert's district, and that provision is included in this bill. There is a significant problem not only with the sword of Damocles, so to speak, hanging over the head of a number of landowners--all the landowners--in a wide, multicounty area, including part of the area that is in the current 19th District but obviously with the transference of land within that area. Whether or not there is a valid claim--and there is no question there have certainly been examples throughout history of wrongs committed on Native Americans--my constituents are innocent. This treaty was executed before Illinois was a state. They have done nothing wrong, and the whole essence of this bill is to say we want to provide justice for everyone, and we want to assure once and for all that people in 2.6 million acres do not have to live with the potential of losing their land. I believe that this is a just bill, a just approach, a shotgun approach--a rifle approach as opposed to a shotgun approach that is sometimes taken. There is counterpart legislation in the Senate. I have reason to believe that this ought to enjoy and has enjoyed widespread support, and I certainly appreciate, Mr. Chairman, yours and the other members of the Committee's consideration here, consideration of what I think is a very common sense bill. I appreciate it. [The prepared statement of Mr. Johnson follows:] Statement of The Honorable Timothy V. Johnson, a Representative in Congress from the State of Illinois Thank you Chairman Hansen, for holding this important hearing regarding Indian land claims in Illinois. I also want to thank the Members of the House Resources Committee for their time and attention today. In the summer of 2000, fifteen landowners in east-central Illinois received notice the Miami Indian Tribe of Oklahoma was suing them. These 15 individuals from 15 separate counties were told they were being sued because the Miami was claiming that some 2.6 million acres rightfully belonged to them under a treaty, the Treaty of Grouseland signed in 1805. Illinois was granted statehood in 1818, a full 13 years after the Treaty of Grouseland was signed by the United States Government and the Miami Tribe. For this reason, I introduced H.R. 791. Basically, the legislation will waive sovereign immunity and allow the tribe to file its claim in the U.S. Federal Court to seek settlement. I'm not in front of this Committee today to say whether the Miami tribe is right or wrong in its pursuit of this claim. I am here today, however, to say that the property owners of east-central Illinois should not be part of this claim. The Miami's fight should not be with the hard-working, honest citizens of Illinois, nor should it be with the state of Illinois, but rather with the Federal Government. I am not opposed to the Miami Indian Tribe as a society within our great nation. I fact, I am encouraged by their stature and their ability to diversify our country and influence our future. And, I will concede that at one point in our nation's history, the Miami may have been rightful owners of the land they are now trying to reclaim. However, I do not feel they are justified in victimizing hard working landowners who live within the area I represent. Those families have owned and paid taxes on their land, in some cases for many generations. The Miami Indian Tribe alleges that the U. S. Government never properly obtained land title from them as required by the 1805 Treaty. Therein lies the dispute. No one would argue that Native Americans were not wronged in our country's past. We would also welcome all attempts to improve the standard of living to which our Native Americans are subject. However, the landowners of east central Illinois should not pay this price. Just over a year ago, Speaker of the House, Dennis Hastert and I, visited the home of one of the landowners being sued. His name is Rex Walden of Urbana, Illinois. Mr. Walden is a 98-year-old retired farmer. He told the Speaker and I about his life spent on the farm. All he wants now is to leave the farm to his children. Mr. Walden worked the farm and paid taxes all his life. To be sued and face the possibility that he could lose that land because of a 200 year-old treaty is unjust, at best. The problem goes beyond Rex Walden and the 14 other landowners. A cloud has been cast over the titles of all property in the 2.6 million acre region. Imagine if you were thinking of locating a business in east central Illinois. Why locate in the region in question when you could locate that business, those jobs, and that tax revenue outside that region? In closing, I want to thank you again, Chairman Hansen and the Members of the House Resources Committee for holding this hearing. This issue, while regional in scope, is of the utmost importance to the citizens of my congressional district in east central Illinois. ______ Mr. Hayworth. Congressman Johnson, we thank you for your testimony. Now, we turn to your colleague from the 20th District of Illinois, the Honorable John Shimkus. Good morning, Congressman Shimkus, and thank you for joining us. STATEMENT OF THE HON. JOHN SHIMKUS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS Mr. Shimkus. Good morning. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the Resources Committee. It is a pleasure to be here today on H.R. 791, a bill that would protect private landowners in Illinois from American Indian claims to their land. The bill was introduced by my friend and colleague, Mr. Tim Johnson, and I want to thank you for the opportunity to debate and discuss this. First, I would like to commend Congressman Johnson for introducing this important piece of legislation. During my campaign for office, I ran on just a few central promises. One of my promises to voters was that I would protect private property rights. My voting record in Congress so far would strongly back up that claim. That is why I cosponsored this legislation, even though at the time, it did not impact any part of my Congressional district. However, under a new Congressional map, 3 of the 15 counties impacted by this claim could be in my new Congressional district. The legislation is straightforward and fair to both sides. First, it protects property owners in Illinois who have acted in good faith and done nothing wrong and ensures that they will not lose their homes, farms and businesses. Second, it provides the tribes recourse to the Federal courts. The Miami claim is based upon an assertion that the U.S. Government never properly obtained land title for the tribe, as required by an 1805 treaty between the tribe and the Federal Government. This legislation would allow them to pursue their claim against the United States, with whom their argument is, really, since Illinois was not a state until after 1805; in fact, 13 years later, 1818. The State of Illinois has carefully reviewed this claim and thoroughly studied the issue raised by the tribe and the relevant historical documents. Based upon this review, the state concluded that the claim lacks any merit. These claims have been made for the sole purpose of establishing a casino and not for any true reparations for the tribe. State law in Illinois limits casino gambling to the 10 existing licenses. Furthermore, I firmly believe that the current landowners cannot and should not be held accountable for any claims by the Miami or any other Native American tribes. They are innocent people in this claim. Mr. Chairman, thank you again for allowing me to testify on this important piece of legislation, and I am willing to answer any questions the Committee might have, and I yield back my time. [The prepared statement of Mr. Shimkus follows:] Statement of The Honorable John Shimkus, a Representative in Congress from the State of Illinois Mr. Chairman, members of the Resources Committee, it is a pleasure to testify today on H.R. 791, a bill that would protect private landowners in Illinois from American Indian claims to their land. The bill was introduced by my fellow Illinois Congressman, Tim Johnson. Thank you for the opportunity to share my thoughts with you and your Subcommittee. First, I would like to commend Congressman Johnson for introducing this important piece of legislation. During my campaign for office, I ran on just a few central promises. One of my promises to the voters was that I would protect private property rights. My voting record in Congress so far would strongly back up that claim. That is why I cosponsored this legislation, even though, at the time, it did not impact any part of my Congressional District. However, under a new Congressional map, 3 of the 15 counties impact by this claim will be in my new District. The legislation is straightforward and fair to both sides. First it protects property owners in Illinois, who have acted in good faith and done nothing wrong, and ensures that they will not lose their homes, farms, and businesses. Second, it provides the tribes recourse to the Federal Courts. The Miami claim is based upon an assertion that the United State government never properly obtained land title from the Tribe as required by an 1805 treaty between the Tribe and the Federal Government. This legislation would allow them to pursue their claim against the Unites States, with whom their argument is really with since Illinois was not a state in 1805. The State of Illinois has carefully reviewed this claim and thoroughly studied the issues raised by the Tribe and the relevant historical documents. Based upon this review, the State concluded that the claim lacks any merit. These claims have been made for the sole purpose of establishing a casino and not for any true reparations for their tribe. State law in Illinois limits casino gambling to the 10 existing licenses. Furthermore, I firmly believe that current landowners cannot and should not be held accountable for any claims by the Miami or any other native American tribes. They are innocent people in this claim. Mr. Chairman, thank you again for allowing me to testify on this important piece of legislation. I am willing to answer any questions the Committee might have. ______ Mr. Hayworth. Thank you, Congressman Shimkus. And the Chair would note that you have been joined at the witness table by our friend, Congressman Phelps. We welcome you, sir, and look forward to hearing your comments on this legislation as well. STATEMENT OF THE HON. DAVID PHELPS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS Mr. Phelps. May I proceed now, sir? Mr. Hayworth. Yes, indeed, you may proceed, and we thank you for joining us. Mr. Phelps. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity, even though I just heard a few minutes ago that this hearing was taking place on this subject. I wanted to jump to the chance and let the record show my support. I have several counties presently--I represent the 19th District--that are involved in this situation, and hopefully, it is going to be resolved, because it is an issue that encompasses a rather large part of my district in central Illinois. This issue has been of great concern for quite awhile now, and I am pleased that we are working here today to get it resolved once and for all. The Miami Tribe is currently seeking to claim 2.6 million acres of property, including Illinois' Wabash watershed, which includes all or part of 15 counties. Fifteen landowners have been named in the lawsuit, one in each county affected by the lawsuit. The tribe claims this land was not included in the 1805 Treaty of Grouseland. They gave up most of their land to the Federal Government for $600 when they signed that treaty. The tribe now estimates that the value of the land to be around $30 billion. I am in support of Congressman Johnson's legislation, H.R. 791, and I commend him for his leadership on this issue, which will place this issue's accountability where it belongs, with the Federal Government. This is not a question of who is right and who is wrong, the Miami Tribe or the landowners. This is a question of who is going to take responsibility. It is no secret that Native Americans have not been treated fairly in the past. However, it is not fair to place blame on the hardworking landowners of today when the whole issue has been brought about by a mistake that the Federal Government made over 150 years ago. These landowners have gone through much hardship to get where they are today, and they should not have their life's work taken right out from underneath them. Again, I recognize the problems that this issue has brought about to many people, including several of my constituents, and I hope that this hearing will bring us one step closer to ending this issue. So thanks again, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to speak on behalf of the landowners in the 19th District in Illinois. I appreciate it. [The prepared statement of Mr. Phelps follows:] Statement of The Honorable David D. Phelps, a Representative in Congress from the State of Illinois Thank you Chairman, for the opportunity to speak today on this issue that encompasses a rather large part of my district in central Illinois. This issue has been of great concern for a while now, and I am pleased that we are working here today to get it resolved once and for all. The Miami Tribe is currently seeking to claim 2.6 million acres of property included in Illinois' Wabash Watershed, which includes all or part of 15 counties. Fifteen landowners have been named in the lawsuit one from each county affected by the lawsuit. The Tribe claims this land was not included in the 1805 Treaty of Grouseland. They gave up most of its land to the Federal Government for $600 when it signed that treat. The tribe now estimates that value of the land to be around $30 billion. I am in support of Congressman's Johnson's legislation, H.R. 791, which will place this issue's accountability where it belongs, with the Federal Government. This is not a question of who's right and who's wrong, the Miami tribes or the landowners. This is a question of who is going to take responsibility. It is no secret that many Native Americans have not been treated fairly in the past, however it is not fair to place blame on the hardworking landowners of today when the whole issue has been brought about by a mistake that the Federal Government made over 150 years ago. These landowners have gone through much hardship to get where they are today and they should not have their life's work taken right out from underneath them. Again, I recognize the problems that this issue has brought about to many people, including several of my constituents, and I hope that this hearing will bring us one step closer in ending this issue. Thank you again, for giving me the opportunity to speak on behalf of the landowners of the 19th district of Illinois. ______ Mr. Hayworth. And, Congressman, we thank you for your testimony. The Chair would invite any questions from either side of the aisle, if there are any questions from our colleagues. Ms. Christensen. I do not have a question, Mr. Chairman. I just ask unanimous consent that two documents be placed in the record. One is a statement by Congressman Dale Kildee, and the other is a Department of the Interior memo released in July of 2000. Mr. Hayworth. Without objection, we are happy to enter that into the record, and the Chair would also note that our trio from Illinois is cordially invited to join us on the dais to hear subsequent testimony about this legislation, if you care to and can accommodate your schedules. Please, by all means, gentlemen, join us here on the dais. [The prepared statement of Mr. Kildee follows:] Statement of The Honorable Dale E. Kildee, a Representative in Congress from the State of Michigan Mr. Chairman, I oppose H.R. 791, a bill that extinguishes any claim to land, including the claim of aboriginal title, or interest in land within the State of Illinois by the Miami Tribe of Oklahoma, the Ottawa Tribe of Oklahoma, and the Potawatomi Tribe of Kansas or their members or predecessors or successors in interest that could be derived from treaties. This bill also: 1. Lgives exclusive jurisdiction of claims to the U.S. Court of Federal Claims; 2. Llimits liability to the United States thereby preventing potential claims arising out of other Federal statutes; 3. Lgives Indian tribes one year from date of enactment to file claims; and 4. Lprovides only monetary compensation for claims against the United States. The Department of Interior has acknowledged the validity of one the tribe's claims. Last year, the Interior Department wrote a letter to Speaker Dennis Hastert and Illinois Governor George Ryan stating that the Prairie Band of Potawatomi has a credible claim to certain land in Illinois. The letter also states the U.S. continues to bear a trust responsibility for that land. I believe that Congress would be in breach of its trust responsibility to these three tribes by passing this bill. This bill does not provide the same structure afforded to other tribes that are negotiating a fair settlement between all interested parties. Instead, the bill establishes restrictions for these tribes that are not currently set for all other tribes negotiating settlements for claims against the U.S. Furthermore, this bill would reverse longstanding Federal policy, several Federal laws, and Federal court decisions allowing tribes to pursue claims. That concludes my remarks. I look forward to hearing the testimony today. Thank you. ______ [The memorandum dated July 24, 2000, from Derril B. Jordan, Associate Solicitor, Division of Indian Affairs, U.S. Department of the Interior, submitted for the record on H.R. 791 follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 79494.003 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 79494.004 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 79494.005 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 79494.006 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 79494.007 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 79494.008 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 79494.009 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 79494.010 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 79494.011 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 79494.012 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 79494.013 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 79494.014 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 79494.015 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 79494.016 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 79494.017 Mr. Carson. Mr. Chairman, can I ask unanimous consent also to submit an opening statement for the record, please? Mr. Hayworth. Without objection, the Chair would welcome opening statements from all those inclined to offer them this morning, and we make note of that and thank the gentleman from Oklahoma. [The prepared statement of Mr. Carson follows:] Statement of The Honorable Brad Carson, a Representative in Congress from the State of Oklahoma Thank you Chairman Hansen and Ranking Member Rahall for providing this Committee with the opportunity to examine the serious implications of this legislation. I would also like to thank the witnesses for being here today to present their testimony. H.R. 791 would extinguish treaty claims to land within the State of Illinois by the Miami and Ottawa Tribes of Oklahoma, two Tribes within my district, and the Prairie Band of Potawatomi Nation. Furthermore, the bill would limit the Tribes to monetary damages filed against the Federal Government in the United States Court of Federal Claims. I have some serious concerns about this bill. While I can appreciate the land claim as a regional issue that the Members from Illinois would like resolved for their constituents, I do not support the Federal Government unilaterally abrogating terms of a treaty entered into in good faith by an Indian Nation. I hope that the parties involved can work to find a better alternative. In following this issue, I have noted a common statement made by property owners and other affected parties. They state that, although historically Native Americans in this country have been treated very poorly, today's property owners are not to be punished for the sins of the past. With this thought in mind, I would like to conclude my statement with one question--by unilaterally and irrevocably terminating the terms of a Treaty, agreed to in good faith by an Indian Tribe and the Federal Government, are we not in fact repeating the sins of the past? ______ Mr. Hayworth. With that in mind, we welcome our friends from Illinois to the dais if that accommodates their schedules. And even as we welcome them to the dais, we welcome panel two concerning H.R. 791, and our panelists include Gary Mitchell, the Vice Chairman of the Prairie Band of the Potawatomi Tribe of Kansas; Larry Angelo, the Second Chief of the Ottawa Tribe of Oklahoma; and Jacqueline L. Johnson, Executive Director of the National Congress of American Indians. Again, we welcome you to our hearing this morning. We look forward to your testimony, and again, the Chair would note that your entire statements would be included in our record, and we would appreciate a summation in a 5-minute time period of the gist of your statements, and then, of course we invite you to remain for questions. So with that in mind, we are ready to begin the testimony from our second panel, and we would begin with Vice Chairman Mitchell of the Prairie Band Potawatomi Tribe of Kansas. Mr. Vice Chairman, we welcome you, and we would appreciate hearing your testimony now, sir. STATEMENT OF GARY MITCHELL, VICE CHAIRMAN, PRAIRIE BAND POTAWATOMI TRIBE OF KANSAS Mr. Mitchell. OK; good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee. My name is Gary Mitchell. I am the Vice Chairman of the Prairie Band Potawatomi Tribe in Kansas. Our reservation is located 20 miles north of Topeka and 80 miles due west of Kansas City. And in some circles, I am regarded as a tribal historian. I have a B.A. in political science and a master's degree in history, and I wrote a history of our tribe, and we have that on the Internet if anyone wants to read it. And I am thankful and honored that you asked me to come here and talk in front of this Committee. We would just like to outline--we already had this testimony submitted already, and I would just like to outline some of the things that went on with our tribe here and our association with Shab-eh-nay, the Shab- eh-nay land up there. We had a treaty in 1829, the Prairie-Du-Chien treaty, and our tribe, we gave up quite a bit of land there in the Illinois area. And we were relocated to Missouri, the Black Country. Then, we went to the Council Bluffs area then to Kansas in 1846. So we had 5 million acres at those two sites. And the Shab-eh-nay land, he was married into our tribe, and that is how the association came about with our tribe. And he had--he believed in our people, and he followed us down when we went to the Council Bluffs area. And he did not want to leave us, because we wanted to stay together. Then, eventually, he had time to--when he went down there, they made all of these claims that he abandoned his land. And he did not abandon any of the land. They just made an opinion. There was another tribal member--his name was Shab-eh-nera, and they thought that when he died in 1852, that was him that was the man of record. The Shab-eh-nay were still there. And our focus is not so much like some of the testimony you heard here before. We are not here to say no, we are just going to take this land away from them. What we want to do is to do a fair and equitable manner here. You know, we want to buy the land back at whatever today's prices are. We are not trying to take anything away from anybody. That has not been our focus at all. Like I said, in that area, Shab-eh-nay, the people thought a lot of him because he helped them there. And they gave him 20 acres of land just south of there, and he eventually died there, and that is where he is buried today. So we have documentation of all of the Boy Scout markers; the school kids, what they did with his--they wanted to remember him. And we have, as this lady over here said, we are submitting the BIA's opinion on that where it says that we have some say in this yet. So we submitted that part of the record, and we have another one that I would like to submit sometime. It is testimony from one of our tribal members. Her name is Elizabeth Hale, and she was 92 at the time she signed this affidavit. And she was the granddaughter of Shab-eh-nay, and she outlines in this affidavit how our governing body was there for the last 150 years, and we have been trying all this time to get this land back. It has not been something that we have done just here in the last few years. This has been an ongoing effort, and that was what our people believed in. It was our land, and we wanted to keep it. And we are going to try to be as fair as possible in all of our dealings with everybody here. We are not going to go into a court case and say we want this back and take it away from people. Like it was stated earlier, that is not our primary focus here. And just some of the--I want to, like they said in that movie, the Godfather, I do not want to insult your intelligence here, so I do not want to read word-for-word what I submitted here. So if you want to ask, you know, any questions, I could do the best I can to answer them. [The prepared statement of Mr. Mitchell follows:] Statement of Gary Mitchell, Vice Chairman, The Prairie Band of Potawatomi Nation Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Members of this Committee. My name is Gary Mitchell. I am the Vice Chairman of the Prairie Band of Potawatomi Nation, a Federally recognized tribe presently located on our reservation 20 miles north of Topeka and 80 miles northwest of Kansas City. I am also the Tribe's historian. The Tribe maintains a government-to-government relationship with the United States. Thank you for inviting me to testify before you today on H.R. 791, a bill ``to provide for the equitable settlement of certain Indian land disputes regarding land in Illinois.'' The Prairie Band does not want a dispute with its Illinois neighbors and wishes a truly fair settlement of its land claim in Illinois. The Shab-eh-nay land and Shab-eh-nay himself have been a part of the Tribe's interest, history and culture for more than 150 years and earlier efforts have been made to pursue the Potawatomi Nation's claim. We do not believe that H.R. 791 would provide such a settlement, as I will explain to you. Perhaps I should say right up front that the Prairie Band's claim is to 1280 acres of land set aside by treaty, that the reservation still exists, that the Prairie Band is the legal successor in interest to the rights under that treaty and that the Nation does not want to displace any land owners from their homes. As an Indian Nation, we know all too well how that feels and its devastating effect. May I first tell you about the history of the Potawatomi Nation in relation to the treaty and land referred to in H.R. 791. On July 29, 1829, the Treaty of Prairie du Chien between the United States and The United Nations of Chippewa, Ottawa and Potawatomi, reserved two sections of land in Northern Illinois, the future Dekalb County, as a reservation for the Potawatomi Chief Shab-eh-nay and his Band. Although the Illinois-Wisconsin Potawatomi ceded 5 million acres west of the Mississippi in the 1833 Treaty of Chicago and most were removed west, they did not cede the Shab-eh-nay Band's reservation. Nonetheless, in late 1836, the Shab-eh-nay Band was driven from their land and eventually relocated to Council Bluffs, Iowa, where they merged politically and culturally with most of the Illinois-Wisconsin Potawatomi removed west after the 1833 Treaty. This coalition, including the Shab-eh-nay Band proper, relocated to a new reservation in Kansas after the Treaty of 1846, which officially renamed the United Bands the ``Potawatomi of the Prairie,'' already known as the Prairie Band Potawatomi.Based on falsified deeds submitted by Ansel and Orin Gates, the Gates brothers whose sordid and criminal reputation was well known in Illinois, commonly known as the ``Bogus'' Gates, part ``of the west Paw Paw banditti, linked with horse thieving and counterfeiting,'' the Commissioner of Indian Affairs determined that Shab-eh-nay's Band had abandoned the Illinois reservation. Then the Commissioner mistakenly concluded that Shab-eh-nay was another Indian, Shobonnier, who died in 1852 and had received his land as an individual grant under the Treaty of 1832. Based on these misassumptions, on November 5, 1849, the Shab-eh-nay Band's reservation was sold by the United States General Land Office. Shab-eh-nay died in 1859 and the Illinois lands were reserved by the Treaty of 1829 for his band, not for him or his family as individuals. Tribal treaty title is recognized and held in trust by the United States. The lands were not public lands within the General Land Office's jurisdiction. They could neither be abandoned nor sold absent express congressional authorization. The patents issued on the lands in 1850 are void, and the land remains in trust. When the Shab-eh-nay Band merged with the Prairie Band Potawatomi at Council Bluffs, it conveyed to the Prairie Band any treaty rights the Shab-eh-nay Band held at the time. Thus, the Prairie Band is the rightful beneficiary of the lands originally reserved for Chief Shab- eh-nay and his Band under the 1829 Treaty of Prairie du Chien. After the disgraceful theft of the Illinois reservation lands, Shab-eh-nay struggled in vain to regain their possession. The Prairie Band has continued that struggle to this date. The historical record is replete with documentation of this 150-year tragedy. We would be glad to present to you that documentation. The Nation's interest in this land did not arise within the last thirteen years. The historical record is also replete with evidence of the affection and respect of the non-Indian people in the now Dekalb County area for Shab-eh-nay as a great leader and friend. In that regard, I would like to tell you a few things. By 1857, Shab-eh-nay, disposed of the Band's reservation in northeastern Illinois, moved around the surrounding area continuing to pursue recourse from the Federal Government. Local settlers in the area of Morris, Illinois (about 20 miles southeast of the reservation) took up a collection to purchase a tract of land for Shab-eh-nay to provide him with a permanent home. Shab-eh-nay selected a 20-acre parcel on a bluff overlooking the Illinois River. This land was set aside for the chief and his heirs forever and removed from the tax rolls. P.A. Armstrong, The Black Hawk War 591-593, Springfield, Illinois (1887)(no publisher listed). The deed granting ``20 acres off S.E. T420: 33.6, [from] John Batcheller and Wife,'' dated June 27, 1857, reads as follows: ``This grant to be held in trust for the use and benefit of Cabana, Indian Chief of the Pottawattamie tribe, and his heirs forever, the use, rents and profits thereof to be enjoyed by said Shabana and his heirs exclusively.'' Recorded 9-23-1857, Book R., Page 215, Grundy County Courthouse, Morris, Illinois. That same year, a group of women in Ottawa, Illinois organized a fund-raiser ball to erect a small cabin on the land. Shab- eh-nay attended the ball. Armstrong 592. In 1958, local Boy Scout Troop 25, Theodore St. Ev. Lutheran Church, Joliet, Illinois, erected a marker on the site of Shab-eh-nay's cabin with a granite memorial; ``On this site Chief Shab-eh-nay occupied a cabin given to him by white friends in 1857, resided here until his death, July 27, 1859.'' Records of the Shabbona Trail Committee, Troup 25, Boy Scouts of America, 1015 Bury Ave., Joliet, IL 60435. Shab-eh-nay died on July 17, 1859, from an illness following a hunting excursion. He was buried in Lot 59, Block 7, in the Evergreen Cemetery in Morris, Illinois, about twenty miles south east of Shab-eh- nay's cabin. Sextant's Records, Evergreen Cemetery, Morris, Illinois. Evergreen Cemetery in Morris, Illinois. The exact site is Lot 59, Block 7. A project was begun in 1861 to raise the funds needed for a monument to Shabbona, but the Civil War left the project incomplete. Letter from Frances Rose Howe to Charles Goold (September 1, 1860), on file with Chicago Historical Society. On August 19, 1897, the 29th reunion of the Old Settlers of La Salle County discussed placing a monument for Shab-eh-nay. It was unanimously agreed that a committee should be formed to devise ways and means for the erection of a suitable monument. Letter of P.A. Armstrong to Miss McIlcvane (17 October 1903), on file with Chicago Historical Society. The monument decided upon was a large boulder inscribed simply, ``Shabbona 1775--1859.'' It was placed on his grave at Evergreen Cemetery in 1903. Letter from P.A. Armstrong to Miss McIlvane (17 October 1903), on file with Chicago Historical Society. In 1922, construction began on Shabbona Elementary School near Shabbona Grove. The students of the classes of 1922--1923 dedicated a handsome monument, containing his sculptured image, to Shab-eh-nay. www.homestead.com/shabbonaelementary/history Now, I would like to turn to the legal aspects of the Prairie Band's efforts to obtain conformation of its Shab-eh-nay claim by the Department of the Interior. For two and one-half years, the Potawatomi Tribe submitted extensive supporting materials from esteemed legal and academic professionals to support the Tribe's claim. In July 2000, the Office of the Solicitor, Division of Indian Affairs, issued two internal legal opinions concluding that based on their review of the Potawatomi Tribe's submitted materials, the Tribe has a credible claim that the lands reserved for the Shab-eh-nay Band by the 1829 Treaty of Prairie du Chien constitute a treaty reservation and that the Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation is the sole successor in interest to the rights of the Shab-eh-nay Band under that treaty. Relying on those opinions, the Tribe's research and additional research by the Division of Indian Affairs, on January 18, 2001, the Solicitor, John Leshy, sent a letter opinion to the Illinois governor and the congressional representative in whose district the Shab-eh-nay reservation is located. The Solicitor concluded that the Prairie Band is the lawful successor in interest to Chief Shab-eh-nay and his Band, that the reservation still exists and that the United States owes a trust responsibility to the Prairie Band Potawatomi for these lands. I have the January 18th Solicitor's opinion with me ask that it be made a part of the record of this earing. I would like to quote just one paragraph from page two of that opinion to you: Our research has also led us to the conclusion that the Prairie Band is the lawful successor in interest to Chief Shab-eh-nay and his Band. The Prairie Band did bring a claim against the United States under the Indian Claims Commission Act of 1946 and was paid for the loss of certain lands in northern Illinois. However, the reservation of land for Chief Shab-eh- nay and his Band was specifically excluded from the lands for which the Commission awarded payment. 11 Ind. Cl. Comm. 693, 710 (1962). As a result, we believe the U.S. continues to bear a trust responsibility to the Prairie Band for these lands. The Tribe has arranged to maintain an option on a portion of privately owned property defined as reservation land by the Department of the Interior. The Tribe wants to clear title of the landowners, have first right of refusal to purchase land within the reservation boundaries from willing sellers and reach an agreement with the state and the county regarding ownership, access to and management of the wildlife refuge and park within the reservation boundaries. The Tribe wants to work with the state, the county and individual landowners. Please note that during the entire time of our preparation of the legal, historical and anthropological elements of the Tribe's claim and also during the entire time of its consideration by the Department of the Interior, and since the issuance of the legal opinions by the Office of the Solicitor, there has been no animosity or legal threat by the Tribe. Neither, we note, has there been any such animosity or legal threat to the Tribe by the state, county or individual landowners. Land title records show that approximately 52% of the two sections of reservation land is now an Illinois state park, 7% is a Dekalb County Forest Preserve, 10 %is a 128 acre farm owned by the Ward family, 5% is owned by the Indian Oaks Country Club, 10% is owned by nine separate landowners and the remaining 2% comprises homes on small tracts owned by 21 separate landowners. It is the Tribe's hope that it can reach an agreement with all parties which can be affirmed by Federal legislation. To do so has been the announced policy of the Prairie Band of Potawatomi Nation since 1997. The Nation has advised the Illinois governor's representatives and the Speaker of the House of Representatives in whose district the reservation lands is located of its policy. H.R. 791 would extinguish the rightful claim of the Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation to its treaty rights under the Treaty of Prairie du Chine. It would rob the Tribe of a significant part of its heritage. I am sure you must ask why money damages are insufficient for the Potawatomi Nation. I ask you simply, ``Could money replace your ancestry, your religion, your home?'' We hope that the two opinions, two legal memoranda, from the Division of Indian Affairs of the Office of the Solicitor have been transmitted by the Department of the Interior to you and that they will be made a part of the record of this hearing. If this has not yet transpired, we request that this Committee obtain those opinions, consider them and make them a part of the record. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to present the strongly held beliefs and legal position of the Potawatomi Nation to you today. I ask that my written testimony be made a part of the record. ______ [A letter and affidavits submitted for the record by Mr. Mitchell follow:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 79494.063 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 79494.064 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 79494.065 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 79494.066 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 79494.067 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 79494.068 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 79494.069 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 79494.070 Mr. Hayworth. Well, Mr. Vice Chairman, we very much appreciate both your written testimony, your oral testimony here today and your generous offer to answer our questions. We are sure that there will be questions that will be forthcoming. I just would make a note that Ms. Hale's affidavit, per your request, will be included in our record today without objection, and we appreciate the opportunity to have that as part of your testimony and point of view as well. [The affidavit of Ms. Hale follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 79494.051 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 79494.052 Mr. Hayworth. So we thank you very much for your testimony, Mr. Vice Chairman, and we will have questions. Now, we turn to Larry Angelo, second chief of the Ottawa Tribe of Oklahoma. Chief Angelo, welcome, and we appreciate your testimony now. STATEMENT OF LARRY ANGELO, SECOND CHIEF, OTTAWA TRIBE OF OKLAHOMA Mr. Angelo. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee. I am Larry Angelo, Second Chief of the Ottawa Tribe of Oklahoma, and I thank the Committee and Chairman for inviting me to testify on behalf of the Ottawa Tribe of Oklahoma on H.R. Bill 791, a bill to extinguish our recognized treaty title and authorize condemnation of property rights of the Prairie Band of Potawatomi and the Ottawa Tribe of Oklahoma to the Shab-eh-nay reservation in DeKalb County, Illinois. This legislation is intended to take our tribal property rights, confirmed by treaty, to the two sections of land as described in Article 3 of the Prairie-Du-Chien Treaty of 1829. The Ottawa Tribe agrees that a legislative solution is needed; however, that that solution is to honor the Prairie-Du-Chien Treaty of 1829 and pay for the lands recognized by treaty title. As Congress is aware, Fifth Amendment taking is worth hundreds of millions of dollars. The background of this bill or our role in this is the bill before you in H.R. 791 would extinguish treaty title to our land in Illinois, which includes a reservation of two sections of land, 1,280 acres, that was set aside for Ottawa Chief Shab-eh-nay and his Ottawa Band in the Treaty of Prairie-Du-Chien, dated July 29, 1829. The Ottawa Tribe of Oklahoma did receive a letter from the Office of the Solicitor on January 18, 2001. In that opinion letter, Solicitor John Leshy determined that the Prairie Band of Potawatomi is one successor in interest to the Shab-eh-nay's band. The Ottawa Tribe responded stating our research was ongoing, and a report would be forthcoming. My tribe has completed its historic review and can document that our Ottawa Tribe, in fact, has an interest in the land as a successor-in- interest. About H.R. 791: this bill is inconsistent, because it extinguishes title to existing property rights based on treaties. These are not just aboriginal claims. Enactment of the legislation relieves the concern of non-Indian landowners in Illinois and transfers the debt for taking private tribal property to the U.S. Government. Although it also purports to extinguish the title of any Indian tribe or individual to claims filed in Illinois within 1 year of enactment of the bill, it does not extinguish Congress' obligation to the Ottawa Tribe. The bill does not provide for the payment of compensation for taking of tribal or individual Indian lands. In this instance, if this bill is enacted into law, the United States will be responsible for paying for the present value of the land plus other damages to our treaty-reserved rights. In conclusion, the Ottawa Tribe of Oklahoma agrees that the claim will require a legislative solution. However, this particular bill in its present form is not beneficial or helpful to any tribe in the State of Illinois, nor is it in the best interest of the United States. Attempts were made to resolve this land claim issue with the State of Illinois from 1997 to 1999. All these attempts have failed. The message received from the Illinois representatives was we got rid of the damn Indians over 100 years ago, and we are not going to have them back. This continues to be a historical theme of racism toward American Indians. Therefore, the Ottawa Tribe of Oklahoma strongly opposes H.R. 791 unless the issues referenced above are addressed, and the land is returned to us, or the bill is modified to authorize just compensation for past and future damages. I thank you, and I am ready for questions whenever you want. [The prepared statement of Mr. Angelo follows:] Statement of Larry Angelo, Second Chief, Ottawa Tribe of Oklahoma Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee. I am Larry Angelo, Second Chief of the Ottawa Tribe of Oklahoma. I thank you Mr. Chairman, and members of the Committee for permitting me to testify on behalf of the Ottawa Tribe of Oklahoma on H.R. 791, a bill to extinguish our recognized Treaty title and authorize condemnation of the property rights of the Prairie Bank of Pottawatomi and the Ottawa Tribe of Oklahoma to the Shab-eh-nay reservation in Dekalb County, Illinois. This legislation is intended to take our tribal property rights confirmed by treaty, to the two sections of land as described in section III of the Prairie-Du-Chien Treaty of 1829. The Ottawa Tribe agrees that a legislative solution is needed: that solution is to honor the Prairie-Du-Chien Treaty of 1829 and pay for lands recognized by Treaty Title. As Congress is aware, this Fifth Amendment ``taking'' is worth hundreds of millions of dollars. Background The bill before you, H.R. 791 would extinguish Treaty Title to our land in Illinois, which includes a reservation of two sections of land (1,280 acres) that was set aside for the Ottawa Chief Shab-eh-nay and his Ottawa Band in the Treaty of Prairie-du-Chien, dated July 29, 1829. The Ottawa Tribe of Oklahoma received a letter from the Office of the Solicitor on January 18, 2001. In that opinion letter, Solicitor John Leshy determined that the Prairie Band of Pottawatomie is one successor in interest to Shab-eh-nay's Band. The Ottawa Tribe responded stating ``our research was on-going and a report would be forthcoming.'' My Tribe has completed its historic review and can document that our Ottawa Tribe, in fact, has an interest in the land as a successor in interest. H.R. 791 The bill is inconsistent because it extinguishes title to existing property rights based on treaties. These are not just aboriginal claims. Enactment of the legislation relieves the concern of non-Indian land owners in Illinois and transfers the debt for taking private Tribal property to the United States government. Although, it also purports to extinguish the title of any Indian Tribe or individual Indians to claims filed in Illinois within one year of enactment of the bill, it does not extinguish Congress obligations to the Ottawa Tribe. The bill does not provide for the payment of compensation for ``taking'' of Tribal or individual Indian lands. In this instances, if this bill is enacted into law, the United States will be responsible for paying for the present value of the land, plus other damages to our Treaty reserved rights. Conclusion The Ottawa Tribe of Oklahoma agrees the claim will require a legislative solution, however this particular bill in its present form is not beneficial or helpful to any Tribe in the State of Illinois. Nor is it in the best interests of the United States. Attempts were made to resolve the land claim issue with the State of Illinois from 1997 to 1999. All the attempts have failed. The message received from the Illinois representative was, ``We got rid of the Damn Indians over one hundred years ago and we are not going to have them back''. Therefore, the Ottawa Tribe of Oklahoma strongly opposes the passage of H.R. 791, unless the issues referenced above are addressed and the land is returned to us or the bill is modified to authorize just compensation for past and future damages. ______ [Mr. Angelo's response to questions submitted for the record follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 79494.021 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 79494.022 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 79494.023 Mr. Hayworth. Thank you, Chief Angelo. I appreciate your testimony. And finally in panel two, we hear from the Executive Director of the National Congress of American Indians, Jacqueline L. Johnson. Ms. Johnson, welcome. We look forward to hearing your testimony. STATEMENT OF JACQUELINE L. JOHNSON, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NATIONAL CONGRESS OF AMERICAN INDIANS Ms. Johnson. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee. As stated, my name is Jacqueline Johnson. I am the Executive Director of the National Congress of American Indians, and I thank you for inviting us to testify for you today on H.R. 791, a bill regarding certain Indian land disputes in Illinois. The National Congress of American Indians, NCAI, was established in 1944 and is the largest and the oldest, most representative national American Indian-Alaskan Native tribal government organization. We appreciate the opportunity to be able to participate on behalf of our member Indian nations in this legislative process of the U.S. Congress to provide this Committee with our views. NCAI is opposed to H.R. 791 and requests this honorable Committee, after giving this bill full and fair consideration, not to report H.R. 791 to the full House of Representatives. In support of this request, we ask that NCAI Resolution MSH-01021, opposing H.R. 791, which is attached with my testimony, which was passed at the 2001 mid-year session of the National Congress of American Indians, be made part of the record of this hearing. We oppose H.R. 791 because it would extinguish any and all claims to land within the State of Illinois by three tribes whose claims arise from treaties entered into with the United States. These tribes are the Potawatomi Tribes of Kansas; the Miami Tribe of Oklahoma; and the Ottawa Tribe of Oklahoma, who entered into the 1829 Treaty of Prairie-Du-Chien, the Treaty of Grouseland and the 1816 Treaty with the United States, Tribes of the Ottawas, Chippewas and Potawatomis. The Indian tribes party to these treaties believe that the United States made solemn commitments, legally binding both to the tribes and to the United States. They believe that they would be able to live forever upon these lands reserved as their homelands from the vast areas that they once occupied. The faith of these tribes proved to be unfounded. The tribes never ceded these lands but were forcefully driven from them, and these lands were sold to others in the United States. I will not here address the particular facts of these three tribes named in H.R. 791. In particular, the history of each tribe and treaty named in this bill differ in each case and underscores the inequity of sweeping all of the claims together and dealing with them exactly in the same manner with this legislation. I want to emphasize that there is an appropriate role for Congress' involvement in and oversight of Indian land claims, including land claims in Illinois. But that is not at this early stage. The Federal courts and the legal process is there for a reason: because Indian land claims are extremely fact- specific and based on treaties and historical circumstances, Congress is not in a good position to declare what is fair until there has been a full development of the record and an effort to settle by the parties. The better process is one that first allows the validity of the land claim to be legally tested, and we should note that the land claims are very difficult to prosecute. It also becomes clear that a claim is a valid claim, and when the tribe should have a chance to work with the state and the local government and the land owners through settlement discussions to come to a resolution. Everyone gets a hearing; all the issues are placed on the table, and the parties can forge relationships, resolve issues and hopefully come to a resolution that everyone can live with. Alternative dispute resolution is a very good option, because parties have the ability to create solutions to fit unique circumstances and because parties have a much better chance of coexisting over a long period of time with a negotiated resolution than with one that is dictated by the court or by Congress. This is a process that has been working for the last 25 years and has been effective in coming to resolution on quite a number of very significant Indian land claims. There has never been an Indian land claim that went all the way to a final judgment where a Federal court has thrown non-Indians off their land. There are incentives for parties to work together and to come to a resolution. We should encourage Congress and the administration to stay the course and to continue to strive for equitable settlements of Indian land claims. Congress must ratify any settlement involving land claims, so Congress always retains the ultimate control over the land claim process as outlined above. After the parties have had a chance to develop a record and come to a resolution, that is when Congressional action is appropriate. In Illinois, that has not had the chance to occur. H.R. 791 would short-circuit the legal process and the settlement process and perpetuate even more injustices against these three tribes. Even if H.R. 791 were to become law, the tribes would be back here next year and for the next thousand years attempting to resolve their claims. Congress cannot simply resolve Indian land claims in this one-sided fashion. It is my hope that there will be agreement among the parties in Illinois that the tribes will receive fair resolution of their claims, and there will be no harm to the people who have done no wrong. I sincerely believe this would happen if the parties would set down together and work to resolve their issues. I know that at least one of the tribes has withdrawn its lawsuit, and the others are working to resolve their issues in the fairest way possible. However, I also think that the controversy that has been raised in Illinois should be placed in its proper context. Indian people were thrown out of their homes, and their treaty lands were taken from them. Now, we are going through some minor amount of legal discussion in Illinois regarding these lands and fair resolution of the tribal claims, and in balancing the equities, Congress should not choose to undermine the legal rights of tribes. Thank you for this opportunity to be able to appear before you today, and I appreciate the work of the Chairman and the members of this Committee, and we would be willing to assist if there is anything that we can possibly do. Thank you. [The prepared statement of Ms. Johnson follows:] Statement of Jacqueline Johnson. Executive Director, National Congress of American Indians Good morning Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee. My name is Jacqueline Johnson. I am the Executive Director of the National Congress of American Indians. Thank you for inviting us to testify before you on H.R. 791, a bill regarding certain Indian land disputes in Illinois. The National Congress of American Indians (NCAI) was established in 1944 and is the oldest, largest, and most representative national American Indian and Alaska Native tribal government organization. We appreciate the opportunity to participate on behalf of our Member Indian Nations in the legislative process of the United States Congress to provide this Committee with our views. NCAI opposes H.R. 791 and requests that this honorable Committee, after giving the bill full and fair consideration, not report H.R. 791 to the full House of Representatives. In support of this request, we ask that NCAI Resolution MSH-01-021 opposing H.R. 791, which passed at the 2001 Mid-Year Session of the National Congress of American Indians, be made a part of the record of this hearing. We oppose H.R. 791 because it would extinguish any and all claims to land within the State of Illinois by three tribes whose claims arise from treaties entered into with the United States. The tribes are the Potawatomi Tribe of Kansas, the Miami Tribe of Oklahoma and the Ottawa Tribe of Oklahoma who entered into the 1829 Treaty of Prairie du Chien, the Treaty of Grouseland and the 1816 Treaty with the United Tribes of the Ottawas, Chipawas and Pottowotomees. The Indian tribes party to these treaties believed that the United States made solemn commitments, legally binding upon both the tribes and the United States. They believed that they would be able to live forever upon the lands reserved as their homelands from the vast areas they once occupied. The faith of these tribes proved to be unfounded. The tribes never ceded these lands, but were forcefully driven from them, and the lands were sold to others by the United States. I will not address the particular facts of each of the three tribes named in H.R. 791. The particular history of each tribe and treaty named in this bill differ in each case. These circumstances underscore the inequity of sweeping all of the claims together and dealing with them in exactly the same manner in one piece of legislation. I want to emphasize that there is an appropriate role for Congress in involvement in and oversight of Indian land claims, including land claims in Illinois, but that it is not at this early stage in the process. The Federal courts and the legal process are there for a reason. Because Indian land claims are extremely fact-specific and based on treaties and historical circumstances, Congress is not in a good position to determine what is fair until there has been a full development of the record and an effort to settle by the parties. The best process is one that first allows the validity of the land claim to be legally tested (and we should note that land claims are very difficult to prosecute). If it becomes clear that a claim is a valid claim, then the tribe should have a chance to work with the state and local governments and the landowners through settlement discussions to come to a resolution. Everyone gets a hearing, all the issues are put upon the table, and the parties can forge relationships, resolve issues, and hopefully come to a resolution that everyone can live with. Alternative dispute resolution is a very good option because the parties have the ability to create solutions to fit unique circumstances, and because the parties have a much better chance of co- existing over a long period of time with a negotiated resolution than with one that is dictated by a court or by Congress. This process has been working for the past twenty-five years and it has been effective in bringing to resolution a number of very significant Indian land claims. There has never been an Indian land claim that went all the way to a final judgment where a Federal court has thrown non-Indians off their land. There are incentives for the parties to work together and come to a resolution. We would encourage Congress and the Administration to stay the course and continue to strive for equitable settlements of Indian land claims. Congress must ratify any settlement involving Indian land. Thusly, Congress always retains ultimate control over the land claims process outlined above. The appropriate time for Congressional actions is after the parties have had a chance to develop the record and come to a resolution. In Illinois, that has not had a chance to occur. H.R. 791 would short-circuit both the legal and the settlement processes and would perpetrate even more injustices against these three tribes. Even if H.R. 791 were to become law, the tribes would be back here next year and for the next one thousand years attempting to resolve their claims. Congress cannot simply resolve Indian land claims in this one-sided fashion. It is my hope that there will be agreement among the parties in Illinois, that the tribes will receive fair resolutions of their claims, and that there will be no harm to people who have done no wrong. I sincerely believe this will happen if the parties sit down together and work to resolve the issues. I know that least one tribe has withdrawn its lawsuit, and that the others are working to resolve issues in the fairest way possible. However, I also think that the controversy that has been raised in Illinois should be placed in its proper context. Indian people were thrown out of their homes and their treaty lands were taken from them. Now we are going through some minor amount of legal discussion in Illinois regarding those lands and the fair resolution of the tribal claims. In balancing the equities, Congress should not choose to undermine the legal rights of the tribes. H.R. 791 would refer the named claims to the United States Court of Federal Claims with money damages as the only remedy. If, indeed, any of the treaty tribes or their successors in interest believes that money is the appropriate and preferred remedy, they are certainly entitled to support H.R. 791. NCAI has been advised that the factual situations of each claim differ and we strongly urge you to hear what the tribes testifying before you today have to say and to give their circumstances your respect. Thank you for the opportunity of appearing before you today. We greatly appreciate the work of the Chairman and the Committee on Indian issues, and would request that our written testimony and the aforementioned resolution be made a part of the record. ______ [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 79494.001 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 79494.002 Mr. Hayworth. And, Ms. Johnson, we thank you for your testimony and the willingness of all three of you now to answer questions from the Chair. Just one thing at the outset, Chief Angelo. You offered a statement that I think was disturbing to every member of the Committee, and I just want some amplification on it. And I may be paraphrasing a bit. You said in the minds of some in Illinois, and I do not know if this is a direct quote or not; maybe you are talking about overriding sentiment, we got rid of the Indians 100 years ago. We do not want that back. Mr. Angelo. Yes. Mr. Hayworth. Or that situation back, something along those lines. Chief Angelo, was that said to you specifically by any governmental official in the State of Illinois, by any Federal officeholder? Mr. Angelo. Yes. Mr. Hayworth. Could you name the person who made that statement and in what forum that came? Mr. Angelo. His name was Mark Warnstein. He was a special counsel or counsel to the Governor. It occurred in my last meeting, our last meeting, in the company of others, and that the situation--let me give you some background on how it occurred--he was questioning whether or not Shab-eh-nay was truly--and his band were truly Ottawa, and of course, this has been a question in the minds of the Illinois people, and I gave him a string of documents bringing out where Shab-eh-nay is listed as an Ottawa and even during the 1829 treaty, in the minutes of that treaty, where he actually received the land, he is documented as an Ottawa chief. And he got upset during that exchange, and I assume he was embarrassed, and he fired out this line to me, and my attorney or ex-attorney was present as well as another witness, and also a BIA agent from Miami Agency was present. And I was offended by this, deeply offended, and I terminated our--basically our meeting at that point. But it was definitely offensive to us. Mr. Hayworth. Well, Chief Angelo, I just wanted to say that in the opinion of the Chair, I think every member of this Committee regardless of political label or partisan division that, you know, we all share your concern about that statement. But I just wanted that amplified if, in fact, that was made to you. And I think you will certainly find, sir, that on this Committee, regardless of some disagreements about public policy, that is not the sentiment shared--the Chair feels confident in saying that--for anyone here, and I thank you for amplifying exactly how and under what circumstances such a comment was made. Mr. Angelo. Well, I appreciate your concern and am grateful that you are making this stance. Mr. Hayworth. And I will call on the gentleman from Illinois later. The Chair would reserve the right as Chairman to first handle questions, and then, we will go alternating with the majority and the minority sides. Let me turn now to Vice Chairman Mitchell. And in listening to the testimony this morning from both you, Mr. Vice Chairman, and Second Chief Angelo, the Potawatomi and Ottawa Tribes' land claim rests on the theory that the 1829 treaty created a recognized title and a permanent reserve that could only be extinguished by Congress and that Congress has failed to validly extinguished that reserve. Now it is this Committee's understanding that in 1852, Congress appropriated $1,600 for payment to Indians claiming descent from Shab-eh-nay and that Congress intended that this payment would extinguish the 1829 treaty reserve. How is this not a valid extinguishment of the 1829 reserve to which you are claiming title? Mr. Mitchell. Well, we spent two and one half years gathering all of this research material together, and we relied on the academic professionals and all of this to develop material, and all of the--even the Leshy opinion said that we were the sole successor to the property there. And as far as the details of any settlement, the other land that we lost in the Illinois area, we were compensated for that, but it was never anything done with that portion of the Shab-eh-nay land. So I would have to go back and look at our research to fully answer that question. Mr. Hayworth. OK; and Mr. Vice Chairman, you will have the option--in fact, in writing, to respond with a more formal and more complete assessment. The Chair and the Committee would certainly welcome that. Chief Angelo, you mentioned in your testimony the opinion letter from John Leshy that he rendered on his final day as solicitor. Aside from that opinion, has the tribe received any formal determinations regarding the validity of its claim? Mr. Angelo. We have not submitted to the solicitor yet. We are within 45 to 60 days from submitting our final report. We are in a rough draft form currently, and new and material evidence has surfaced that, without a doubt, puts us in as a successorship. I might add that one of the issues that we had which we wanted to confirm was a band list, and I think the Potawatomis would agree that--and even the solicitor's office would agree that it was very difficult to find that. We have found a band list that outlines who was on his--who was in his tribe or in his village, and our report will display that as well as how they came into our tribe in Kansas at the time. I would also like to answer your previous question. What was that asked to Vice Chief Mitchell? Mr. Hayworth. Well, to return to that, the Potawatomi and Ottawa Tribes' land claim rests on the theory that the 1829 treaty created a recognized title and a permanent reserve that could only be extinguished by Congress and that Congress has failed to validly extinguish that reserve. Now, we understand--the Committee's understanding is that in 1852, Congress appropriated $1,600 for payment to Indians claiming descent from Shab-eh-nay and that Congress intended that this payment would extinguish the 1829 treaty reserve. So the question becomes, Chief, how is this not a valid extinguishment of the 1829 reserve to which you are claiming title? Mr. Angelo. Well I think in our instance, you mentioned descendants of Shab-eh-nay. Remember, this treaty in 1829 says Shab-eh-nay and his band, and you are forgetting about the band. They are not descendants of Shab-eh-nay. So it is not strictly to descendants of Shab-eh-nay; it also includes his band, and that has been our issue, and that we have uncovered the band list. They are not necessarily descendants of Shab-eh-nay. There were eight to nine heads of family listed on an 1833 annuity role that were part of his village. And clearly, the 1829 treaty says Shab-eh-nay and his band, not his descendants. So to me, the 1852 documentation or legislation did not clearly clear the band. Do you have any information where it did that? Mr. Hayworth. Chief, just wanted to get your perspective on it for the record. Mr. Angelo. OK. Mr. Hayworth. And I thank you for that. Mr. Angelo. Thank you. Mr. Hayworth. The Chair would now turn to the minority side, and I see my good friend, the Co-Chair of the Native American Caucus, the gentleman from Michigan. Mr. Kildee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Co-Chair of the Native American Caucus, one of the founders. I think this Congress should be extremely reluctant to do anything that sets aside the treaties. Our Constitution says that this Constitution and all treaties entered into are the supreme law of the land, and that is very, very, important. John Marshall's decision equated Indian treaties with treaties with France or any other country. There are three types of sovereignties that the Constitution recognizes: the sovereign states, sovereign nations overseas, and sovereign Indian tribes. And these treaties have the same validity as the Constitution, as this Constitution. And all treaties entered into are the supreme law of the land, so Congress should be most reluctant to do anything that would infringe upon the strength and the sovereignty of those treaties. I yield back the balance of my time, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Hayworth. I thank the gentleman from Michigan and turn to my friend from Illinois, the sponsor of the legislation, for any questions or comments he might have for the panel. Mr. Johnson. I will be very brief, and I appreciate, Mr. Chairman, and the Committee your indulgence in allowing me to sit on the panel. This is my honor. I will point out first of all they certainly had very credible presentations; that Mr. Mitchell, Mr. Angelo represent tribes that are not involved in the claim for which I am advocating. That is a different claim, different year, different issues. And so, with all due respect, any responses that may have been made to you in that regard, while I certainly do not in any way validate any claims or statements that may in any way be racist, I would simply say that our claim is something that stands of its own footing and also simply point out to you, ladies and gentlemen, as members of the Committee, that our attempt in this bill is as narrow an attempt as one could possibly effect to obtain justice for everyone. We are not in any way claiming that this is an invalid treaty, although I believe that in our case, the Miami Indians actually have dismissed their case without prejudice. This is simply an attempt to bring closure to the situation in fairness to the landowners. We are simply saying that if, in fact, there is a valid claim, at least in the case of the Miami Indians, and the same thing is true with you, that that claim is vis-a- vis the Federal Government and not against innocent landowners in 2.6 million acres, and we framed this legislation as narrowly as possible, despite the parallel legislation that was pending a year ago in the Senate, which was broad-based legislation, which would do what the distinguished ranking member said, and that is simply to obliterate all claims of Native Americans. We do not want to do that. We want to effect justice for everybody, but justice also includes people who were not around in 1805, just like Illinois was not a state in 1805, and still be able to strike a balance on your behalf. So I do respect and appreciate your testimony as well as the indulgence of the members of the Committee and hope that you agree that our approach is one that is moderate and fair. Mr. Hayworth. I thank the gentleman from Illinois. Gentleman from Hawaii, any questions, comments? Mr. Abercrombie. No. Mr. Hayworth. My friend from New Mexico? Friend from Texas? New Jersey, Mr. Pallone? Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just wanted to take issue with what my colleague from Illinois said. I think this is a major change in policy here with this bill. I mean, the way I understand it, basically, you would be extinguishing the land claims, and, you know, that is a pretty meaningful, significant thing that would happen here. And it also, I think, sets a bad precedent for other land claims that might be out there not only in Illinois but in other states that would just sort of, you know, willy nilly extinguishing land claims without an opportunity for, you know, for the tribes and others to have some sort of negotiations. Just listening to what the panel said, I think that it was quite clear that the panel members were saying, you know, look: we have these claims out there. We want to be able to sit down and have some sort of consultation and some sort of opportunity to negotiate this issue. One of the suits was dropped, I think, because the feeling was that, you know, rather than take this to court, it made more sense to try to sit down and work this out. And this is what is done throughout the country with land claims. We just had the situation in New York State, where there were a number of land claims, and they sat down with the Governor and the state representatives, and they worked out their differences and came to a settlement that, from what I understand, the legislature, the Governor and everyone--I mean, I am sure that everyone is not always happy with anything, but it seemed to me that most of the people who were involved were very happy with that result. And I think the same thing can happen here. I think it is very premature for us to try to move legislation that would extinguish the claims when the precedent in Indian Country is the opposite, which is to sit down and consult. From what I understand, there has been no consultation or very little consultation if any with the tribes on this issue, and I just wanted to ask Jacqueline Johnson: my understanding from what you said in your testimony is that you have actually talked about an alternative solution that would have some structure in terms of arbitration or some kind of consultation. Did you want to maybe elaborate that on a little more? It sounded eminently reasonable to me, and I just wanted you to, you know, give a little more detail if there is some detail. Ms. Johnson. Well, basically, what we are trying to say is following pretty much on what you just said is that there needs to be an opportunity for the tribes to build the record. You actually heard comments and questions given to both of these tribal members, representatives here today, and help build records. And on both sides, there are records on both sides that people need to sit down and to discuss those, to negotiate. We saw the cases with the Oneidas of Wisconsin, the Stockridge Muncies, the other tribes who have been going through these various land claims processes and negotiating them out with the states and trying not to harm innocent landowners as well as innocent tribal members who had their lands taken away from them to work those things through. Sometimes, you know, the lawsuits continue, and the court helps resolve those, but in most cases, they are done through a negotiated process, and I would just recommend that that negotiated process continue. Mr. Pallone. And to me, that makes sense. One thing here today, and I think my colleague Mr. Kildee made the point, what we are saying with this legislation is that we do not want to do that. We just want to extinguish the claims, and I think it is an affront to Indian sovereignty, and it is an affront to our obligations under the Constitution that, you know, treaties have to be upheld, and we should not just get in there and overrule everything with this legislation. I think it is a huge mistake, and I would hope that we would not move the bill. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Hayworth. I thank the gentleman from New Jersey. The Chair just feels constrained to follow up on this whole notion that Ms. Johnson raises in her testimony and my colleague from New Jersey brought up now. In terms of land claims and a sufficient record being developed, in part what we are doing here today with the hearing on the legislation--Ms. Johnson, when do you consider the record fully developed, and how long do you believe Congress should allow the process to go on before there is Congressional involvement vis-a-vis legislation? Ms. Johnson. I do not know that you can put a timeframe on that, and like I said in my testimony, every case is individual. And every case has different circumstances. Even the three tribes that are mentioned here today, they all have totally different circumstances. And so, you know, the record develops as you come through negotiations. I know that the Department of the Interior--I believe that they are also wishing that we would allow the process to continue. You, Mr. Chairman, as much as anybody else in this room, know the frustrations we have dealt with with dealing with the Department of the Interior on a number of other issues. And at some point, you know, when we feel like we have no other recourse, we always turn to you and to the Members of Congress to assist us through that. I just think it is a little premature at this point in this particular case. And I am very concerned about the precedent it may set for other states where these issues have not been fully discussed or developed. Mr. Hayworth. Thank you, ma'am, for your amplification on that particular issue. The gentleman from Oklahoma? Mr. Carson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me say I have a great personal interest in this matter, as Mr. Angelo and the Ottawa Tribe are my constituents in northeast Oklahoma, and my father was superintendent of the Potawatomi Tribe reservation as well as the Kickapoo and Iowa and Sackenfox reservations in the 1970's, so I know that area well. I do think it is important when we try to adjudicate these very complicated land disputes with a history that goes back now well over a century that involves archival evidence that is sometimes very difficult to retrieve and to assimilate, that we take these matters very deliberately and work as slowly as possible. Now, I understand the concerns of Mr. Johnson, Mr. Shimkus and Mr. Phelps in saying that for the current landowners that we do not want to hold them responsible for what they have called the sins of the past. We need to be very careful that we, ourselves, do not commit the sins of the past in extinguishing land title for tribes that exists validly, as Mr. Kildee points out, recognized in the Constitution and as a tremendous asset to these tribes, tribes that, many times, find themselves bereft of those kinds of efforts. And so, let me thank the panelists for being here. Let me state my opposition to this bill as it currently is and urge everyone on the Committee who is concerned about these issues to go very slowly in trying to deal with these matters and let the tribes develop the kind of archival record it takes to properly ascertain who has title to these lands. Mr. Hayworth. I thank the gentleman from Oklahoma. Any questions from the majority side or comments at this point? If not, happy to turn back to the minority and entertain any other comments or questions for this panel. Hearing none, we thank the witnesses for their testimony and subsequent amplification of the testimony, and we look forward again to any written testimony they may want to offer in the days ahead to offer further quantification of their viewpoint. Thank you to panel two.H.R. 521 Mr. Hayworth. Now, the Committee will entertain panel three, and this panel will deal with H.R. 521, the legislation sponsored by our friend from Guam, Mr. Underwood. And we welcome to the witness table Chris Kearney, the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy and International Affairs, from the Office of Policy Management and Budget in the Department of the Interior; the Honorable F. Philip Carbullido, the Acting Chief Justice of the Guam Supreme Court, obviously from the Supreme Court of Guam; and the Honorable Alberto C. Lamorena III, Presiding Judge of the Superior Court of Guam. Welcome all to the table, and we thank our witnesses from earlier, and as we have a little rearranging and people meeting their schedules, we will allow for the traffic of both witnesses and those in the public area to subside, and we will allow you to get a glass of water to deal with dehydration. Those of us from Arizona have more than a casual interest in water. So if you would like to get a drink of water, we are happy to have that. And first, we will hear from Deputy Assistant Director Kearney. Welcome, sir, and we look forward to your testimony. STATEMENT OF CHRIS KEARNEY, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY, POLICY AND INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS, OFFICE OF POLICY MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Mr. Kearney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and good morning, members of the Committee. It is a pleasure for me to be here to appear before you today to discuss the administration's views on H.R. 521, a bill to amend the Organic Act of Guam to clarify Guam's local judicial structure. H.R. 521 would establish the local court system of Guam as a third coequal and unified branch of government alongside the legislative and executive branches of the Government of Guam. Enacted by Congress, the Organic Act of Guam is the equivalent of a constitution in one of the 50 states. Amendments over time have continually added to self-government in the territory. The Organic Act established a Legislature and was later amended to change the executive from an appointed Governor to an elected Governor and in 1984 to authorize the Legislature to establish a local appeals court. In 1994, under the authority granted in the Organic Act, the Legislature of Guam established a Supreme Court. But 2 years later, the Legislature removed from the Supreme Court its administrative authority over the Supreme Court of Guam, and since then, Guam has had a bifurcated local court system at a time when virtually all states have unified court systems. It is argued that only--I am sorry. H.R. 521 would amend the judicial provisions of the Organic Act of Guam to specifically name the Supreme Court as Guam's appellate court and outline the powers of the Supreme Court, including full administrative authority for the Supreme Court over the local court system. It is argued that only an act of Congress can bring unity and dignity to Guam's local courts. Proponents of H.R. 521 suggest that if the Legislature retains control, the court system is subject to influence by the Legislature. Only by placing local court authority in Guam's ``Constitution,'' that is, the Organic Act of Guam, can the judiciary of Guam be a coequal and independent branch of the government. Opponents suggest that the system is working fine and that an administrative function divided between the Supreme Court and the Superior Court is healthy for the judicial system. The structure of Guam's local judiciary is largely a self- government issue for Guam. As such, opinion from Guam should be given the greatest consideration as long as issues of overriding Federal interest are not involved. In 1997, the executive branch examined H.R. 2370, an earlier version of the bill under consideration today. A number of suggestions were made at the time for improving the bill and harmonizing it with the Federal court system. H.R. 521 includes the suggested modifications in language. The administration, therefore, has no objection to the enactment of H.R. 521 in its present form. That concludes my statement. I would be happy to answer any questions. [The prepared statement of Mr. Kearney follows:] Statement of Christopher Kearney, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy and International Affairs, U.S. Department of the Interior Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, it is a pleasure for me to appear before you today to discuss the Administration's views on H.R. 521--a bill to amend the Organic Act of Guam to clarify Guam's local judicial structure. H.R. 521 would establish the local court system of Guam as a third co-equal, and unified branch of government, alongside the legislative and executive branches of the Government of Guam. Enacted by the Congress, the Organic Act of Guam is similar to a constitution in any of the fifty states. Amendments over time have continually added to self-government in the territory. The Organic Act established a legislature. It was later amended to change the executive from an appointed Governor to an elected Governor, and in 1984, to authorize the Legislature to establish a local appeals court. In 1994, under the authority granted in the Organic Act, the Legislature of Guam established the Supreme Court of Guam. But, two years later, the Legislature removed from the Supreme Court its administrative authority over the Superior Court of Guam. Since then Guam has a bifurcated local court system at a time when virtually all states have unified court systems. H.R. 521 would amend the judicial provisions of the Organic Act of Guam to specifically name the Supreme Court of Guam as Guam's appellate court, and outline the powers of the Supreme Court, including full administrative authority for the Supreme court over the local court system. It is argued that only an act of Congress can bring unity and dignity to Guam's local courts. Proponents of H.R. 521 suggest that if the Legislature retains control, the court system is subject to influence by the Legislature. Only by placing local court authority in Guam's ``constitution''--the Organic Act of Guam--can the judiciary of Guam be a co-equal and independent branch of the Government of Guam. Opponents suggest that the system is working fine, and that an administrative function divided between the Supreme Court and Superior Court is healthy for judicial system. The structure of Guam's local judiciary is largely a self- government issue for Guam. As such, opinion from Guam should be given the greatest consideration, as long as issues of overriding Federal interest are not involved. In 1997, the Executive branch examined H.R. 2370, an earlier version of the bill under consideration today. A number of suggestions were made for improving the bill and harmonizing it with the Federal court system. H.R. 521 includes the suggested modifications in language. The Administration, therefore, has no objection to the enactment of H.R. 521 in its present form. ______ Mr. Hayworth. Thank you very much, sir. And now, we turn to Chief Justice Carbullido. Mr. Acting Chief Justice, welcome. We appreciate your testimony. STATEMENT OF THE HON. F. PHILIP CARBULLIDO, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE GUAM SUPREME COURT Justice Carbullido. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee. For the record, my name is Philip Carbullido, and I am the acting chief justice of the Guam Supreme Court. It is an honor to speak before this distinguished Committee on a bill that will have a profound impact on the advancement of the Territory of Guam. H.R. 521 was conceived because of the infirmities of the current language of the Organic Act. The point I want to make today is that the existing framework in which our local government is structured is deficient. The Organic Act of Guam functions as Guam's constitution. While the Organic Act establishes the executive and legislative branches of the Government of Guam, the act does not establish a judicial branch. Instead, in 1984, the U.S. Congress passed the Omnibus Territories Act, amending the Organic Act and giving the Guam Legislature the authority to create the courts of Guam, including an appellate court. Under this language, the Guam Supreme Court's existence and the scope of the court's powers has been subject to and remains subject to frequent legislative manipulation. Because of the current language of the Organic Act, the existence and organization of Guam's judicial branch is plagued by lingering uncertainty. Nowhere else in this nation does this occur. The present situation is such that it has fostered a peculiar and unprecedented system wherein our island's judicial branch is marked not by independence but rather by political influence. It is this condition that has necessitated the introduction of H.R. 521. The measure would firmly establish within the Organic Act Guam's judicial branch as a coequal independent branch alongside the executive and legislative branches. Senator Mark Forbes, the Republican majority leader of the 26th Guam Legislature and Chairman of the Committee on Rules stated in his written testimony on H.R. 521 that the original language in H.R. 521 that establishes the Supreme Court of Guam within the Organic Act is logical. To avoid permanently placing Guam's judiciary clearly among the three branches of the Government of Guam is an error. I am aware that the bill as currently drafted has been criticized as a Congressional attempt to legislate on a uniquely local issue. These criticisms likely arise from the portions of H.R. 521 which comprehensively delineate the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and inferior courts as well as the powers of the Chief Justice. We have reviewed the criticisms and recognize the concerns voiced by opponents of H.R. 521. We now propose changes to the bill which address these concerns. The proposed changes to H.R. 521 both preserve the intent of the original bill H.R. 521 in creating an independent judiciary in the Territory of Guam with the Supreme Court of Guam as the administrative head while reserving powers for the local Legislature to modify administrative rules promulgated by the court. I have included a more detailed discussion of the new sections of the proposed bill in my written testimony submitted to this Committee. I must also mention at this point that some individuals have expressed concern that the recent Ninth Circuit court opinion in the case of Pangelinan v. Gutierrez has negated the need for H.R. 521. This is clearly a misconception, and I clarify the issue in my written testimony. The creation of the judicial branch in the Organic Act is a measure that has been vigorously endorsed by Guam's legal community and the public at large and on a national level by the Conference of Chief Justices. This avid support of a constitutionally established independent judiciary is not without precedent and is well- founded in American jurisprudence. The founders of this nation created a tripartite structure of government which has been unanimously adopted by the states of the union. The efficacy of this system of government, both at the Federal and state level, rests in checks and balances. The judicial branch of our territory can neither effectively operate as a necessary check on the other two branches nor properly fulfill its obligation to interpret the law without a constitutional--or, in this case, an organic--existence. Under the current law, Guam's judicial branch has been created by local legislation and can just as easily be eviscerated by local legislation. This alarming reality is evidenced by the comment of the current Chairman of the Judiciary Committee of the Guam Legislature, who said, and I quote, some members of the legal community may be apprehensive over the fact that the Legislature has the authority to determine the court's future. It has been vested with the authority to create as well as abolish the Guam Supreme Court. I assure everyone concerned that there will be no repeal of the law creating the Guam Supreme Court. That a local legislature has, in the same breadth, acknowledged the power of one branch of government to completely abolish another branch and pledged that this would not happen is far from assuring. The fact that a member of the Guam Legislature can make this statement is, to say the least, chilling. The substance of this statement patently offends the fundamental principles of a tripartite form of government. The ability of a local senator to make this statement is testament to the inadequate governmental structure currently set forth in the Organic Act. In the same vein as the founders, we advocate an amendment to what is essentially our constitution to finally and permanently provide for an independent and coequal judicial branch. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee. It has been a privilege to appear before you. We herein submit with my testimony the proposed amendments to H.R. 521 for your consideration. Thank you. [The prepared statement of Justice Carbullido follows:] Statement of The Honorable F. Philip Carbullido, Acting Chief Justice, Supreme Court of Guam Thank you Mr. Chairman. For the record, my name is Philip Carbullido, and I am the Acting Chief Justice of the Guam Supreme Court. It is an honor to speak before this distinguished Committee on a Bill that will have a profound impact on the advancement of the Territory of Guam. H.R. 521 was conceived because of the infirmities of the current language of the Organic Act. The point I want to make today is that the existing framework in which our local government is structured is deficient. The Organic Act of Guam functions as Guam's constitution. While the Organic Act establishes the executive and legislative branches of the Government of Guam, the Act does not establish a judicial branch. Instead, in 1984, the United States Congress passed the Omnibus Territories Act, amending the Organic Act and giving the Guam legislature the authority to create the courts of Guam, including an appellate court. Under this language, the Guam Supreme Court's existence and the scope of the court's powers has been subject to, and remains subject to, frequent legislative manipulation. Because of the current language of the Organic Act, the existence and organization of Guam's judicial branch is plagued by lingering uncertainty. Nowhere else in this nation does this occur. The present situation is such that it has fostered a peculiar and unprecedented system wherein our island's judicial branch is marked not by independence, but rather, by political influence. It is this condition that has necessitated the introduction of H.R. 521. The measure would firmly establish, within the Organic Act, Guam's judicial branch as a co-equal, independent branch alongside the executive and legislative branches. I am aware that the Bill as currently drafted has been criticized as a Congressional attempt to legislate on a uniquely local issue. These criticisms likely arise from the portions of H.R. 521 which comprehensively delineate the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and inferior courts, as well as the powers of the Chief Justice. We have reviewed the criticisms and recognize the concerns voiced by opponents of H.R. 521. We now propose changes to the Bill, which address these concerns. The proposed changes to H.R. 521 both preserve the intent of original Bill 521 in creating an independent judiciary in the territory of Guam, with the Supreme Court of Guam as the administrative head, while reserving powers for the local legislature to 2 modify administrative rules promulgated by the Court. I have included a more detailed discussion of the new sections of the proposed Bill in my written testimony submitted to this Committee. In addition, Congressman Underwood, a Democrat, has been criticized as being political in introducing this Bill. Mr. David J. Sablan, the Chairman of the Republican Party of Guam in a letter to Senator Hansen stated, ``Certain critics have labeled the Bill as ``political.'' We do not think so. We simply believe it to be right. There is nothing political about wanting an independent judiciary.... The support for H.R. 521 transcends party lines. We believe in an independent judiciary and therefore support the passage of H.R. 521. This Bill's intent is correct and right.'' I must also mention, at this point, that some individuals have expressed concern that the recent Ninth Circuit opinion in the case of Pangelinan v. Gutierrez has negated the need for H.R. 521. This is clearly a misconception; and I clarify the issue in my written testimony. The creation of the judicial branch in the Organic Act is a measure that has been vigorously endorsed by Guam's legal community and the public-at-large, and on a national level, by the Conference of Chief Justices. (A copy of CCJ Resolution 17 is attached.) This avid support of a ``constitutionally'' established independent judiciary is not without precedent and is well-founded in American jurisprudence. The founders of this nation crafted a tri-partite structure of government, which has been unanimously adopted by the states of the union. The efficacy of this system of government, both on the Federal and state level, rests in checks and balances. The judicial branch of our Territory can neither effectively operate as a necessary check on the other two branches, nor properly fulfill its obligation to interpret the law, without a ``constitutional,'' or in this case, an ``Organic'' existence. Under the current law, Guam's judicial branch has been created by local legislation, and can just as easily be eviscerated by local legislation. This alarming reality is evidenced by the comment of the current Chairman of the Judiciary Committee of the Guam Legislature, who said, and I quote, ``some members of the legal community ... may be apprehensive over the fact that the Legislature has the authority to determine the court's future--it has been vested with the authority to create as well as abolish the Guam Supreme Court ... I assure everyone concerned that there will be no repeal of the law creating the Guam Supreme Court.'' That a local legislator has, in the same breath, acknowledged the power of one branch of Government to completely abolish another branch, and pledged that this would not happen, is far from assuring. The act that a member of the Guam legislature can make this statement is, to say the least, chilling. The substance of the statement patently offends the fundamental principles of a tri-partite form of government. The ability of a local senator to make this statement is testament to the inadequate governmental structure currently set forth in the Organic Act. In the same vein as the founders, we advocate an amendment to what is, essentially, our Constitution, to finally and permanently provide for an independent and co-equal judicial branch. Thank you Mr. Chairman. It has been a privilege to speak before you. We herein submit with my testimony the proposed amendments to H.R. 521 for your consideration. ATTACHMENT 1- PROPOSED AMENDED H.R. 521 to amend the organic act of guam for the purposes of clarifying the local judicial structure of guam. in the house of representatives february 7, 2001 Mr. UNDERWOOD introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Resources a bill To confirm the right of the People of Guam to establish an independent judiciary WHEREAS, in 1950 Congress provided a civil government and confirmed the right of the People of Guam to an independent legislature in the Organic Act of Guam; WHEREAS, in 1968 Congress confirmed the right of the People of Guam to an independent executive branch in the Guam Elective Governor Act; and WHEREAS, Congress desires to confirm the right of the People of Guam to an independent judiciary-- NOW THEREFORE BE IT ENACTED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled. SECTION 1. TITLE. This Act may be cited as the Guam Independent Judiciary Enabling Act. SECTION 2. JUDICIAL STRUCTURE OF GUAM. (a) JUDICIAL AUTHORITY; COURTS- Section 22 (a) of the Organic Act of Guam (48 U.S.C. 1424(a)) is amended to read as follows: '(a) (1) The judicial authority of Guam shall be vested in a court established by Congress designated as the 'District Court of Guam, and a local judicial branch of Guam which shall constitute a unified judicial system and include an appellate court designated as the 'Supreme Court of Guam' which shall be the highest local court of Guam with final appellate jurisdiction, a trial court designated as the 'Superior Court of Guam', and such other lower local courts as may have been or shall hereafter be established by the laws of Guam. '(2) The Supreme Court of Guam may, by rules of such court, create divisions of the Superior Court of Guam and other local courts of Guam. '(3) The courts of record for Guam shall be the District Court of Guam, the Supreme Court of Guam, the Superior Court of Guam (except the Traffic and Small Claims divisions of the Superior Court of Guam) and any other local courts or divisions of local courts that the Supreme Court of Guam shall designate.' '(4) The Supreme Court shall make and promulgate rules governing the administration of all local courts. It shall make and promulgate rules governing practice and procedure in civil and criminal cases in all local courts. These rules may be changed by the Legislature by two- thirds vote of the members. '(5) The Legislature shall provide for the compensation of all justices and judges. The salaries of justices and judges shall not be diminished during their terms of office, unless by general law applying to all salaried officers of Guam. (c) TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS- (1) Section 22B of the Organic Act of Guam (48 U.S.C. 1424-2) is amended---- (A) by inserting 'which is known as the Supreme Court of Guam,' after ' appellate court authorized by section 22A(a) of this Act,'; and (B) by striking 'Natural Resources' and inserting 'Resources'. (2) Section 22C(a) of the Organic Act of Guam (48 U.S.C. 1424-3(a)) is amended by inserting 'which is known as the Supreme Court of Guam,' after 'appellate court authorized by section 22A(a) of this Act,'. (3) Section 22C(d) of the Organic Act of Guam (48 U.S.C. 1424-3(d)) is amended---- (A) by inserting ', which is known as the Supreme Court of Guam,' after ' appellate court provided for in section 22A(a) of this Act'; and (B) by striking 'taken to the appellate court' and inserting 'taken to such appellate court'. SECTION 3. RESERVATION OF RIGHTS TO THE PEOPLE OF GUAM. The provisions of this Act may be altered or modified by the People of Guam by a duly adopted Constitution and by amendments thereto duly adopted from time to time. ______ [Responses to questions submitted for the record by Mr. Carbullido follow:] supreme court of guam suite 300 guam judicial center, 120 west o'brien drive, hagatna, guam 96910-5174 telephone: (671) 475-3162 facsimile: (671) 475-3140 email:[email protected]; website:www.justice.gov.gu/supreme chamber of the honorable f. philip carbullido acting chief justice direct line (671) 475-3413 direct email: [email protected] May 22, 2002 Hon. James V. Hansen, Chairman Committee on Resources United States House of Representatives Washington, D.C. 20515 Re: H.R. 521 Dear Chairman Hansen: This letter is in response to your letter dated May 14, 2002 wherein you propounded four additional questions in reference to H.R. 521. Question No. 1: In your testimony you elude to the fact that it is necessary to create an independent judiciary. Are you asserting that the disputes going on locally in Guam between and within the three branches of the local government, regarding the administration of courts, is preventing the Supreme court from ruling in legal cases according to its determination of what the law is in those or other cases? Answer: The dispute between and within the three branches of the local government, regarding the administration of the courts, has not compromised the Guam Supreme Court's opinion-writing and law-declaring duties. We have reviewed every case that has come before us objectively and in accordance with established legal principles. However, the current system, wherein the legislature retains the power to dictate the authority of the Guam Supreme Court, has, in at least once instance, prevented the Supreme Court from reaching the merits of a case. On June 12, 1997, the Guam Legislature, by resolution, filed a request, (Supreme Court Case Number CRQ97-001), asking that the Court render a declaratory judgment on whether a measure ratified by the voters which reduced the number of senators from twenty-one to fifteen violated the Organic Act. The request was filed in the Supreme Court of Guam pursuant to a local statute, Title 7 Guam Code Annotated Sec. 4104, which gave the Guam Supreme Court jurisdiction over questions, submitted by either the Governor or Legislature, asking for an interpretation of any law which affects the powers, duties and operations of the executive or legislative branches. Pursuant to internal procedures, on July 15, 1997, the Chief Justice certified the issues as being appropriate for consideration under section 4104. On September 12, 1997, the Legislature filed a motion to withdraw the request. The court scheduled a hearing on the motion to withdraw. On September 15, 1997, four days before the hearing on the motion, the Legislature, without public hearing, inserted a rider to a bill unrelated to the judicial branch, which repealed and re-enacted 7 GCA Sec. 4104, to add a provision which removed the Supreme Court's jurisdiction in an action filed under section 4104 if the requesting party withdraws the request before an opinion is issued. On September 17, 1997, the Governor signed the Bill into law. Pursuant to the amended section 4104, on November 5, 1997, the Supreme Court dismissed the Legislature's request for declaratory judgment. Therefore, while the Supreme Court has made all decisions in the cases before us in a fair and impartial manner, and in accordance with the law, the above-described case illustrates that the Guam Legislature has used its authority over the structure and power of the judicial branch to shape the law in a manner that has influence over the outcome of a case filed in the Supreme Court. Question No. 2: Constitutional courts are defined by constitutions. Statutory courts are defined by statutes. The courts of Guam are either going to under a local statute or a Federal statute. How then does it promote judicial independence for the courts of Guam to be created by a Congress where the U.S. citizens of Guam do not have voting representation? Would it not be better for the local court system to be established by the local legislature where citizens do have voting representation? Answer: Guam's constitution is a Federal statute. Guam has not adopted its own constitution although it has had the authority to do so for the past twenty-five years. Guam's constitution, the Organic Act, was flawed from the start because it did not contain the foundation for a tri-partite system of local government. The only court specifically created by the Organic Act is the district court of Guam, which does not have jurisdiction over issues of local law. Under the Organic Act, the Legislature has plenary authority to establish local courts. Thus, the situation here is that one branch of government has unfettered control over another. This is the antithesis of judicial independence. H.R. 521 corrects the Organic Act flaw by properly creating a tri- partite system of local government, where each branch is independent and co-equal. In the absence of a constitution, all branches of the government of Guam are statutorily created. The executive and legislative branches are established by Federal statute, the Organic Act, and the local judiciary is established by local statute. To even the playing field and to create three independent branches of government, the local court system must be created by Federal statute. This is similar to the Federal model where one supreme instrument, the United States Constitution, creates all three branches. The alternative, to await the enactment of a local constitution, is unacceptable given the uncertainty that exists between the branches of government and inherent political disputes. It is necessary that three independent branches be constitutionally created now. H.R. 521 properly creates a tri-partite system of local government in our present constitution, the Organic Act. We must emphasize that judicial independence is gained from the inability of the other branches to manipulate the internal workings of the judicial branch. This is not to suggest that the judiciary should be completely immune from appropriate legislation. However, it should be at least as difficult for the Guam Legislature to manipulate the judiciary as it is for the Rhode Island Legislature to manipulate the Rhode Island judicial branch, or for the United States Congress to amend laws affecting the authority of the United States Supreme Court. As the case shown in the answer to question number one illustrates, presently all it takes is eight votes by the Legislature and attachment of a rider to an important bill to effectuate a change in the authority and the jurisdiction of the Guam Supreme Court. We further point out that although Guam does not have a voting representative in Congress, our interests are represented by Delegate Robert Underwood. Delegate Underwood is a locally elected official. We are confident in his ability to adequately protect the interests of the people of Guam. Question No. 3: Are you in favor of enacting a constitution for Guam? Answer: While a constitution would be ideal, it may not be appropriate for the judiciary to take a specific position on this issue. It cannot be overlooked, however, that Guam has had twenty-five years to enact such an instrument, but has yet to do so. Whatever the founding instrument may be, whether a Federal statute, a commonwealth act, or a constitution, it should create a tri-partite system of government, wherein each branch is co-equal and independent to assure a complete system of checks and balances. Given the current political reality on Guam, the enactment of a constitution will not occur soon and the establishment of a tri-partite system should not be delayed as a result. Question No. 4: In the Federal system, the U.S. Congress statutorily establishes the Federal courts (district courts, appellate courts, patent courts, tax courts, etc...). If we take the model proposed in H.R. 521 (Section 1(a)) to the Federal level, Chief Justice Rehnquist, rather than Congress would have the power to unilaterally determine the structure and division on the court system. Why should we adopt a model for Guam that we would never adopt at the Federal level? Answer: Article III Section 1 of the United States Constitution provides that the judicial power of the United States is vested in one Supreme Court and in such inferior courts as the Congress may establish. The goal of H.R. 521 is to parallel the local system to the Federal model, wherein the judicial power of Guam should be vested in the Supreme Court of Guam. The current language of H.R. 521 which deviates from the Federal constitutional model mirrors Title 7 Guam Code Annotated Sec. 2101, which provides ``[t]he Supreme Court of Guam may, by rules of court, create such divisions of the Supreme and Superior Courts as may be desirable....'' This section reflects the Legislature's intent to defer to the Supreme Court of Guam the authority to determine the structure and divisions of the local court system. The current language of H.R. 521, which vests in the Supreme Court of Guam the power to create divisions of the Superior Court of Guam, reflects the power the Legislature has already conferred to the Supreme Court. The Legislature's grant of authority to the Supreme Court of Guam in this regard is not without precedent. The State of Vermont has similarly vested in its Supreme Court the power to create by judicial rules geographical and functional divisions within its court system. Vt. Const. chpt. 2, Sec. 31. We note, though, that the Vermont Legislature shares this function. To the extent that the language of H.R. 521 can also be read as granting the Supreme Court of Guam the power to create other local courts, it may have been a reaction to the Legislature's stripping of the court's authority. Admittedly, no other jurisdiction at the Federal or state level vests within its Supreme Court the power to create inferior courts. Thus, the amendment to H.R. 521 that I proposed addresses this matter, deleting this section and simply providing that the Guam Supreme Court is the highest local court of our territory with the Chief Justice at its head under a unified judiciary. This is similar to the court structures of the other fifty states. We only wish to be similarly treated. If the Committee has any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, F. PHILIP CARBULLIDO Chief Justice, Acting ______ Mr. Hayworth. Thank you, Mr. Acting Chief Justice. We appreciate your testimony and what you provided in writing. It goes without saying, but I will repeat: everyone's testimony will be made part of the complete record. Now, we turn to Presiding Judge Lamorena. Sir, welcome. We look forward to your testimony. STATEMENT OF THE HON. ALBERTO C. LAMORENA III, PRESIDING JUDGE, SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM Judge Lamorena. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee. I would like to thank the Committee for inviting me to testify on H.R. 521. The Organic Act of Guam is predicated on the principle that the United States citizens of Guam should be self-governing in the administration of their local civil affairs to the greatest extent possible, consistent with the current political status of Guam as an unincorporated territory. Congress has shown restraint and declined to intervene in local affairs, even when requested by parties to the local debate and deliberative process unhappy with the results or outcome of the internal mechanisms of self-government under the Organic Act. The Organic Act provisions codified at 48 USC 1424, et al., carefully prescribes the relationship between the Federal and local courts. In doing so, Congress clearly and unambiguously and explicitly identified what matters of judicial administration involve Federal interest and what matters of judicial administration were to be locally determined and regulated. Thus, Section 1424-1 states clearly that the organization and operation of the local courts shall be as prescribed by the laws of Guam. Section 1424-2 addresses in exceedingly precise and exact terms the manner in which Federal interests would be preserved and protected during the transitional relations between the local and Federal courts necessitated by the establishment of the appellate court in Guam. In doing so, Section 1424-2 carefully preserves local authority under the local courts, respecting what can be referred to as a bright line between Federal and local law concerning operation and administration of Federal and local courts respectively. Under any reasonable and rational standard, this represents a successful statutory policy to ensure that the exercise by Guam of its authority to establish the Guam Supreme Court will be managed properly to continue good, orderly relations between the local and Federal courts. Instead of a reasonable standard, H.R. 521 implicitly declares the Congressional policy embodied in the Organic Act, including Section 1424-2, a failure. H.R. 521 is an attempt to enlarge and expand the scope and extent of Federal interest and the exercise of Federal powers to encompass and include matters already determined by Congress to be local. H.R. 521 proceeds from the false premise that the Guam Supreme Court should operate in a political vacuum. Under this bill, on the issue of defining its powers and role in the lives of the community it was created to serve, the Supreme Court will only answer to Congress, in which the United States citizens of Guam have no voting representation. Even though the Guam Supreme Court is a local court created under local law, H.R. 521 proposes to isolate and insulate the Guam Supreme Court from the political and legal processes of the Organic Act, the very instrumentality through which the will of the citizenry and the consent of the government are redeemed as to all local institutions and civil affairs. If the manner in which local law governs and regulates the administration and operation of the local courts is so defective, so deficient and so disruptive to good order as the supporters of H.R. 521 claim, then how is it that the Ninth Circuit has found that the Supreme Court is functioning in a manner which fully vindicates Federal interest as defined by Congress in Section 1424-2? In Section 1424-1, Congress vested in the United States citizens of Guam and their elected representatives the subject relations between and among the local courts. That is good policy today, just as it was when this Committee declined to approve H.R. 2370 after the hearing conducted on October 29, 1997. My previous testimony emphasizes the irony of Congressional authorization of a local appellate court became the pretext for Congress to take back the authority over local court organization it granted to Guam under the Organic Act. What have we gained if we are empowered to establish a local appellate court only to be disempowered as to the operation and administration of the entire local court system itself? We believe the Superior Court is best able to determine what is necessary and proper in order to carry out the court's responsibility. The Superior Court should be responsible for hiring, promoting, assigning and managing its own personnel as well as preparing its own budget requests. That is why the great majority of judges of the Superior Court of Guam and the Guam Legislature support the judicial council model. It creates a check and balance between the trial court, with a caseload 400 times larger than the appeals court, and precludes control of the trial courts by a Supreme Court that does not understand or have to live with resource management challenges of the trial court. The U.S. Supreme Court has recognized that the power to establish internal structure of local courts is at the heart of self-government. In the case of Calder v. Bull, it was noticed that establishing courts of justice, the appointment of judges and the making of regulations for the administration of justice within each state according to its laws on all subjects not entrusted to the Federal Government appears to me to be peculiarly and exclusive the province and duty of the state legislature. For these reasons, we oppose H.R. 521 as an attempt to Federalize the local courts of Guam, which would be a step backwards from self-government and self-determination. Again, thank you for the Committee and Mr. Chairman for allowing me the opportunity to testify before you today. [The prepared statement of Judge Lamorena follows:] Statement of Alberto C. Lamorena, III, Presiding Judge, Superior Court of Guam, on H.R. 521 The Organic Act of Guam constitutes a fifty-two year old Federal statutory policy promulgated and sustained by every Congress for the last five decades. It is predicated on the principle that the U.S. citizens of Guam should be self-governing in the administration of their local civil affairs to the greatest extent possible, consistent with the current political status of Guam as an unincorporated territory. Under the Organic Act, Congress has implemented a policy of democratic institution building, enabling Guam to develop the customs and capacity for internal self-government. The principal purpose of the Organic Act has been to promote local responsibility for local affairs, and to prepare the people of Guam for the time when Guam adopts a local constitution and addresses the question of its future political status. Within the framework of the Organic Act, Congress has tended to legislate on local matters otherwise governed by the Organic Act only to the extent necessary to bring Guam within national law and policy, or under extraordinary circumstances. Congress wisely has exercised sparingly its power to legislate solutions to local problems. As a general rule Congress has shown prudential restraint and declined to intervene, even when requested by parties to the local political debate and deliberative process unhappy with the results or outcome of the internal mechanisms of self-government under the Organic Act. Although the U.S. citizens of Guam do not live in a state of the union and under the protection of the 10th Amendment to the Federal constitution, the Organic Act and the manner in which Congress has implemented it are consistent with the principle of reservation of local power and responsibility over local issues. This is particularly true with respect to the provisions of the Organic Act which govern the role of the Federal and local judiciary in Guam. Subchapter IV of the Organic Act, comprising the provisions codified at 48 U.S.C. 1424, et seq., is a carefully prescribed scheme of judicial empowerment which respects the principles of separation of powers and checks and balances that are the pillars of American constitutional democracy. In addition to establishing and defining the jurisdiction of the Federal court in Guam, these provisions governing the judiciary prescribe the relationship between the Federal and local courts. In doing so, Congress clearly, unambiguously and explicitly identified what matters of judicial administration involved Federal interest, and what matters of judicial administration were to be locally determined and regulated. Thus, Section 1424-1 states clearly that the organization and operation of the local courts shall be as prescribed by the laws of Guam. Nevertheless, Section 1424-2 also recognizes the unique circumstances surrounding the authorization by Congress for establishment under local law of an appellate court. In this provision Congress addressed in exceedingly precise and exact terms the manner in which Federal interests would be preserved and protected during the transition in relations between the local and Federal courts necessitated by the establishment of the appellate court in Guam. Section 1424-2 is an artfully drawn statutory scheme that fully, adequately and effectively regulates relations between the newly established Supreme Court of Guam and the Federal courts. As such, it is dispositive with respect to Federal interest arising from the establishment of the local appellate court. There is no failure to anticipate additional Federal policy matters, no errors or omissions in the legislative language. Rather, Section 1424-2 carefully preserves local authority over local courts, respecting what can be referred to as a bright line between Federal and local law concerning operation and administration of Federal and local courts, respectively. The best proof of this is the report that the Judicial Council of the Ninth Circuit submitted to Congress in 2001 as required by Section 1424-2. That report states that the decisions of the Guam Supreme Court are of comparable quality to decisions of the highest courts of the states in the Ninth Circuit, and ``'do not compel additional appellate review beyond that provided for decisions of the state supreme courts.'' This finding by the Judicial Council pursuant to its mandate under Section 1424-2 sets the stage for review of decisions of the Guam Supreme Court by the U.S. Supreme Court. This means the transition in relations between the local and Federal courts is going very well, that Federal interests at stake in the transitional process, as defined by Congress, are being preserved and protected. Under any reasonable and rational standard, this represents a successful statutory policy to ensure that the exercise by Guam of its authority to establish the Guam Supreme Court would be managed properly to continue good order in relations between the local and Federal courts. Instead of a reasonable standard, H.R. 521 implicitly declares the Congressional policy embodied in Section 1424-2 a failure. It is an assault on the carefully prescribed scheme determined by Congress for the very purposes of protecting Federal interests without intruding upon local authority over local courts. H.R. 521 is an attempt to enlarge and expand the scope and extent of Federal interests and the exercise of Federal powers to encompass and include matters already determined by Congress to be local. H.R. 521 proceeds form the false premise that the Supreme Court of Guam should operate in a political vacuum. Under this bill, on the issue of defining its own powers and role in the lives of the community it was created to serve, the Supreme Court will answer only to a Congress in which the U.S. citizens of Guam have no voting representation. Even though the Guam Supreme Court is a local court created under local law, H.R. 521 proposes to isolate and insulate the Guam Supreme Court from the political and legal processes of the Organic Act, the very instrumentality through which the will of the citizenry and the consent of the governed are redeemed as to all local institutions and civil affairs. Again, the best proof that this in not warranted, that it is an invasion of already limited local self-government, is the report of the Judicial Council of the Ninth Circuit. For if the manner in which local law governs and regulates the administration and operation of the local courts is so defective, so deficient and so disruptive to good order as the supporters of H.R. 521 claim, then how is that the Ninth Circuit has found that the Supreme Court is functioning in a manner which fully vindicates Federal interests as defined by Congress in Section 1424-2? If the independence of the Guam Supreme Court were being usurped, if the new court were institutionally dysfunctional, then perhaps Federal interests beyond those identified in Section 1424-2 might need to be addressed by further legislation. Similarly, if local political debate, legislative proceedings, as well as executive measures, were producing a crisis in the administration of justice in Guam for which there were no local remedy, then perhaps there would be a more compelling reason for this Committee to be considering this bill. But the local political process under the Organic Act is the mechanism Congress created to address the subject matter of H.R. 521. The fact that it may take time for that democratic process to play itself out is not a reason for Congress to return Guam to an earlier stage in the evolution of self-government by imposing a Federal solution. Indeed, resolving this issue locally, debating its merits, is part of the process through which Guam is preparing itself for eventual constitutional self-government and political status resolution. H.R. 521 is an assault therefore, on democratic self-government and progress toward political status resolution through self-determination. The fact that local legislation addressing these local issues has been swept up in litigation having nothing to do with the subject matter of H.R. 521 is irrelevant. So the real question before us is whether there is a legitimate and compelling Federal interest that is being put at risk because Guam law, not Federal law, governs the operation and administration of the local courts? The record before this Committee and Congress on this matter was complete after the hearing held in 1997 on H.R. 2370. The primary difference between circumstances at that time and the present is that the Ninth Circuit has confirmed that the Guam Supreme Court is ahead of the schedule many observers may have predicted in becoming the fully functional local high court of Guam that we all have envisioned for so many years. The fact that the Ninth Circuit Judicial Council or other national or state organizations may have opinions about local court administration is well and good. However, under Section 1424-2, Congress did not empower the Ninth Circuit Judicial Council or any other organization to exercise an official responsibility in this matter. Rather, Congress defined the central role of the Ninth Circuit Judicial Council to reporting its findings on certain matters concerning relations between the local and Federal courts. In contrast, under Section 1424-1, Congress vested in the U.S. citizens of Guam and their elected representatives the subject of relations between and among the local courts. That is good policy today, just as it was when this Committee declined to approve H.R. 2370 after the hearing conducted on October 29, 1997. In my testimony at that time I pointed out that throughout U.S. history Congress has left the formation of the internal organizational structure of local court systems to the local political process in the states and the territories. These are issues that properly are determined under state and territorial constitutions or statutes. My previous testimony also emphasized the irony if Congressional authorization of a local appellate court became the pretext for Congress to take back the authority over local court organization it granted to Guam under the Organic Act. What have we gained if we are empowered to establish a local appellate court, only to be disempowered as to the operation and administration of the entire local court system itself? The U.S. Supreme Court has recognized that the power to establish internal structure of local courts is at the heart of local self- government. In the case of Calder v. Bull (1798), it was noted that ``Establishing of courts of justice, the appointment of judges, and the making of regulations for the administration of justice, within each state, according to its laws, on all subjects not entrusted to the Federal Government, appears to me to be the peculiar and exclusive province and duty, of the state legislature''. The fact that Guam is a territory and not a state is not a reason, or an excuse, to Federalize the administration of local courts. The mere fact that there is a robust debate in the local political process over how the local courts should be organized at this juncture in Guam's history is not an intrusion on judicial functions. Differences of philosophy among members of the Judicial Council of Guam do not threaten the independence of the judiciary. The claim we have heard about the present local law being a threat to the independence of the judiciary is not a responsible way to frame this discussion. The law-making process through which the local community organizes its courts is political, but that does not invade the adjudicative function. The Guam Legislature has a duty to organize the local courts as it deems best, and doing so is no more an interference with the courts than the process for confirming judges. Indeed, H.R. 521 is the real threat to the independence of the local judiciary. For in creating the Supreme Court the Guam Legislature reaffirmed the existence of the Judicial Council, a policy-making body since 1950. As in many other court jurisdictions in the United States, the administration of the court system is delegated to the Judicial Council. On Guam, the Council is made up of Representatives from the Supreme Court, the Superior Court, the Attorney General, and the Chairperson of the Legislature's Committee on Judiciary. Similarly, in California, a judicial council made up of members of different courts, the state legislature, and the community oversees the administration of courts, setting policies for a court system that handles one of the largest caseloads in the nation. Somehow the independence of that judiciary has not been usurped. Likewise, in Utah and in the District of Columbia (also under Congressional control without 10th Amendment protection) a judicial council model is in place. I am told that in D.C. the trial and appeals courts are managed separately by the council. On Guam the justices and judges are appointed by the Governor and confirmed by the legislature. We believe that the Superior Court is best able to determine what is necessary and proper in order to carry out the court's responsibilities. The Superior Court should be responsible for hiring, promoting, assigning and managing its own personnel, as well as preparing its own budget requests. That is why the judges of the Superior Court and the Guam Legislature support the judicial council model. It creates a check and balance between the trial court with a caseload 400 times larger than the appeals court, and precludes control of the trial courts by a Supreme Court that does not understand or have to live with resource management challenges of the trial court. In closing, I would like to return to the first point I made, which is that the Organic Act did not give control of the local judiciary to the local government by accident, or unintentionally. U.S. Senate report 2109 from the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs described the charter for local self-government as follows: ``This bill is reported in the belief that the time has come for the Congress to pass an organic act permitting the people of Guam to govern themselves. It establishes democratic local government for the island and guarantees human freedom under the authority of Congress,...a bill of rights is provided, a representative local government in the American tradition, an independent judiciary administering a system of law based on local needs and traditions, all within the American framework of fundamental fairness and equality.'' Attached to this testimony is the response of the Superior Court of Guam regarding the report of the Ninth Circuit Judicial Council on the Supreme Court of Guam pursuant to 48 U.S.C. 1424-2. This document was transmitted to the Chairman of this Committee on November 30, 2001. Thank you for the opportunity to submit this written testimony in opposition to H.R. 521. ______ superior court of guam comments and analysis regarding the report of the pacific islands committee judical council of the ninth circuit prepared pursuant to title 48, section 1424-2, united states code On April 13, 2001, the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court of Guam was notified by the Chairman of the Pacific Islands Committee of the Judicial Council of the Ninth Circuit that its Report on the Supreme Court of Guam has been approved by the Council and transmitted to Congress in accordance with Title 48, section 1424-2 of the United States Code. It is historic that the Council states at page 24 in Part IX that opinions of the Supreme Court of Guam are of sufficient quality that, ``...they do not compel additional appellate review beyond that provided for decisions of state supreme courts.'' This recognizes that decisions by the territorial supreme court are ``comparable'' to decisions by the highest courts of other states in the Ninth Circuit, and sets the stage for direct review by the Supreme Court of the United States from final decisions of the Supreme Court of Guam. It also is significant that Paragraph 8 in Part IX of the report calls upon the U.S. Congress to consider early termination of certiorari review by the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. This would accelerate state-like treatment for decisions by the local supreme court, as a judicial body operating under the laws of Guam. The findings and conclusions referred to above, based on the quality of judicial decisions by the local supreme court, are matters clearly within the cognizance of the Council given its task of reporting to Congress as charged under Title 48, section 1424-2 of the United States Code. The Committee also comments on issues relating to judicial administration of local courts other than the Supreme Court. Within the framework of applicable Federal law, these matters involving administration of other local courts clearly remain within the cognizance of the legislative, executive and judicial branches of the local territorial government. Unfortunately, the Council's comments on local court administration go beyond assessment of the quality of decisions rendered by the Supreme Court. Instead, the Council has entered into the matter of local court administration even though it is an issue of local self- government under the Organic Act, and notwithstanding the deference of Congress to the local political process on this very matter. For example, Part V of the Committee's report contains a discussion of the relationship between the Supreme Court of Guam and the other two branches of the local government, followed by the discussion in Part VI regarding relations with the Superior Court of Guam. Understandably given the actual purpose and scope of the report, these parts of the Committee's discussion describe some but not all of the legal and political nuances of the difficult history of efforts to establish a local supreme court in Guam. While the discussion of local court administration policy in the report is insightful, regrettably both the nuances and insights in earlier parts of the report are lost in the summarization contained in Paragraph 7 of Part IX. Without duplicating here views previously presented in the already extensive record regarding local judicial administration now before the local and Federal courts, as well as the political branches of the both the local and Federal Governments, there are a few observations that should be made regarding Paragraph 7, which appears at page 26 of the Committee's report as follows: ``7. An inordinate amount of time and effort is being expended on many fronts in attempting to resolve the issue of judicial administration of the Guam courts. Certainly, the perception, and perhaps the reality, is that judicial administration in Guam has become politicized. This situation has not helped the institution of the Supreme Court grow as it should. The judiciary should consider examining alternative models with shared responsibility which can begin on a very limited basis and grow over a period of time as the judges and justices desire.'' A cursory reading of the Paragraph 7 might lead anyone not well informed about the evolution of local and Federal law concerning the administration of courts in Guam to conclusions that contradict those actual findings of the Council that are directly relevant to its mandate under Title 48, section 1424-2. Specifically, Paragraph 7 could lead many readers to believe the Committee found that local politics relating to court administration are encumbering the development, in the words of the Council's mandate from Congress, ``...of institutional traditions to justify direct review by the Supreme Court of the United States'' from decisions by the Supreme Court of Guam. To avoid this misreading of Paragraph 7, it is important to recognize that the Council has found the Supreme Court of Guam to be functioning well enough for its rulings to receive state-like treatment even earlier than Congress has provided in the Federal statute defining the Council's role and the scope of the report. While it may be true as stated in the vague terms of Paragraph 7 that the debate over its relations with other local courts may not have ``helped'' the Supreme Court of Guam to develop its institutional traditions, that is not what the Council was asked by Congress to address. Rather, consistent with its actual mandate from Congress the Council's report concludes that decisions of the Supreme Court of Guam are sufficiently ``comparable to opinions of the supreme courts of the states in Ninth Circuit'' that Congress should consider authorizing direct review of the territorial court's decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court.'' The clear result is that the debate over local court administration policy has not prevented the Supreme Court of Guam from developing the institutional traditions Congress necessary to its qualification for state-like treatment in the Federal judiciary appellate process. In this context, it would have been more accurate if Paragraph 7 had noted that the Supreme Court is functioning as intended by Congress notwithstanding the debates which have taken place in the local legislative process regarding administration of courts in Guam. The fact that there is a debate over local policy on court administration, as a matter that Congress has vested in the political branches of the local government, does not mean that the orderly administration of justice has been ``politicized'' in a manner or to an extent that it has interfered with the ability of the Supreme Court of Guam to develop and define its role in the local legal and political process. While it may be true that officials in all three branches of the local government have staked out differing positions on judicial administration issues, and, as we invariably find when comparable issues arise at the Federal level, the political parties tend to support the official policy positions staked out by officials who represent their party interests in the political arena. That is the essential nature of self-government and rule of law in an ordered but also pluralistic political system. There is no way the Supreme Court of Guam can or should operate in a political vacuum free of a legitimate policy debate over its operations in the political branches of the local government. As long as the independence of the judiciary in performing its judicial duties and role in the governmental system is not undermined, policy regarding court administration is a legitimate subject of legislative deliberations. The fact that a political process has ensued and resulted in the current policy under local law with respect to administration of other local courts, at the same time the Supreme Court of Guam has been organizing and developing its jurisprudence, is entirely logical and fitting. This is especially true considering that the Superior Court of Guam has been functioning effectively for decades while the Federal political and judicial branches wrangled over the parameters for establishing the local Supreme Court in the first place. That long and twisted history of the local high court's establishment was far more ``politicized'' in Congress, as well as the local legislature, than the more recent debate over its relationship with the local Superior Court of Guam. The political debate in at the Federal level has been the principle challenge faced in instituting the local Supreme Court, and in its development of institution traditions required for state-like treatment. As to how ``politicized'' the local system for court administration has become, the Committee's report as approved by the Council notes that the Republican controlled legislature and the Superior Court bench have been supportive of the development of the institutional traditions of the Supreme Court of Guam in accordance with applicable Federal and local laws establishing the court. In addition, at Part VIII, page 22, the Council's report notes that in the Council's meetings with Superior Court judges, ``There was unanimous rejection of the idea of eliminating the Supreme Court.'' In Part V at page 17, the report states that, ``In meeting with the Senate Judiciary Committee'the Subcommittee observed no indication that legislation might be introduced to eliminate the Supreme Court. Indeed, there appears to be general agreement that on issues of law, the Supreme Court is supreme.'' Thus, as to matters of substance and primacy of the local supreme court on matters of law, the local system of self-government is not politicized in a way that is impeding the court's progress. Those unhappy with current local law and policy regarding judicial administration assert that budget execution and information system management. This is not a compelling reason for local political brinkmanship over court administration, much less Congressional intervention. Unless the Legislature of Guam alters current law, the proposals to end decades of continuity in court operations in Guam in favor a of new order probably would better be the subject of deliberations and debate in the context of Guam's quest for a greater degree of self-government. For example, at such time as a constitutional convention is convened to replace the Organic Act structure for self-government with a commonwealth structure under a locally adopted constitution, the framers of a new charter for local self-government presumably would want to address the question of whether the existing court system should be preserved, modified or reorganized. Thus, in the absence of local legislature action, the course most consistent with current Federal policy is to leave the present court system as it is, until a local constitution is adopted. This is especially true since Congress authorized state-like self-government under a locally adopted constitution under the terms of P.L. 95-584 two decades ago. It is through formulation of a local constitution that the reconciliation of competing institutional legacies in the structure of local self-government, including elimination of anomalies in structure of all three branches of the local government under the Organic Act, can be accomplished in a democratic and deliberative process. That is why on June 17, 1998, the Chairman of the House Resources Committee, one of the two committees of jurisdiction over this matter to which the Council must submit its report under Title 48, section 1424-2 of the United States Code, made the following statement in opposition to H.R. 2370, Delegate Underwood's proposed legislation to preclude local self-determination in Guam of policies for administration of Guam's local courts: ``...currently there is no compelling Federal reason for Congress to regulate the administrative operations of Guam's courts in order to promote Federal interests. Indeed, the greater Federal interest at this time is to promote local self- determination and self-government over Guam's internal affairs. Guam already has the tools of self- determination which augment the Organic Act and empower the residents of the territory to reform the local judiciary though adoption of a local constitution. Under Public Law 95-584, a constitution could establish the Commonwealth of Guam and enable the United States citizens of Guam and an internally self-governing body politic to exercise self-determination in local affairs...'' Letter from Don Young, Chairman, Committee on Resources, U.S. House of Representatives, to Mark Charfauros, 24th Guam Legislature. The argument against employing the P.L. 95-548 procedure for reform of the local government structure, used over the years by those who misconceived the process of self-determination for Guam under U.S. and international law, was that adoption of a local constitution would be used as an excuse by Congress to defer further self-determination on the ultimate status of Guam. In this regard, it should be noted that October 13, 1998, the U.S. House of Representatives adopted House Resolution 494, expressly stating that, ``Congress has continued to enact measures to address the various aspirations of the people of Guam, while considering legislative approaches to advance self-government without precluding Guam's further right to self-determination.'' In explaining the resolution to the House before it was adopted, Resources Committee Chairman Don Young made the following statement on the floor of the House that is now part of the legislative history of resolution 494: ``Today, while the people of Guam continue their quest for increased self-government within the United States community, they can be assured that the adoption of a constitution as authorized by Congress will not prejudice or preclude their right of self-determination and the fundamental right to seek a change in their political status in the future.'' The significance of the preceding discussion of Guam's local court structure is plain. The question of local court administration has been ``politicized'' by those who do not accept the outcome of the local process of self-government and want Congress to intervene to unilaterally alter the court system under the Organic Act, and thereby preempt determination of the future court system under a locally adopted constitution. This would ignore that fact that Congress has authorized adoption of a local constitution that would resolve all organic issues that the existing governing system under the Organic Act has not addressed. Whether adoption of a local constitution would confirm or reform the current system of judicial administration would then be determined democratically. If Congress is going to do anything more than it has already done by declining to intervene in this matter under the Organic Act, and by authorizing a local constitution, it should perhaps continue to sustain a policy of continuity in local court structure until a locally adopted constitution becomes the vehicle for a more permanent determination of this issue. Thus, the Committee's report, as now adopted by the Council, is directly on point in concluding, as noted above, that there is no issue of politicization of the process for development by the Supreme Court of Guam of institutional traditions to justify state-like treatment of the court's rulings. That was, after all, the subject on which the Council was directed by Congress to report, and as the report states regarding the politicized debate among local political factions in Part V, at page 18, ``'the division is over administrative control.'' The Committee's report as adopted by the Council then goes on to discuss the three options for resolving the question of court administration:LAllow the judicial administration system established through the local political process to continue; LAmend the Organic Act to transfer effective control over administration of all courts to the Supreme Court of Guam; LEstablish a consultative process through which the justices and judges of the Supreme Court of Guam and the Superior Court agree on arrangements to share administrative functions in order to create a blended system of judicial administration, integrating operations where possible and preserving separate administration where necessary. While neither illogical nor without precedent as a model for court administration, the ``third path'' of partial integration faces one very serious and possibly fatal obstacle. For it contradicts the one element of Paragraph 7 with which all concerned with this entire matter must agree: ``An inordinate amount of time and effort is being expended on many fronts in attempting to resolve the issue of judicial administration of the Guam courts.'' By every standard of measurement, the cost of the effort to end continuity and impose a new order through highly politicized initiatives has been too high. The ability to work toward local consensus has been undermined by the attempt of those unwilling to accept the outcome of local self-government to orchestrate the imposition of a result through high profile political tactics not normally associated with the issue of judicial administration. To avoid a situation in which the performance of Guam's courts may be impaired by expenditure of time and effort addressing proposals for change of the current system of court administration, perhaps the best course for now is to operate as effectively as possible under the existing system. That may have to do until a consultative process can be established free of controversial proposals and high-pressure tactics. ______ [A letter and responses to questions submitted for the record by Mr. Lamorena follow:] Honorable Congressman James V. Hansen Chairman Committee on Resources Office of native and Insular Affairs U.S. House of Representatives Washington, D.C. 20515 Dear Chairman Hansen, I wish to thank you for the opportunity to testify before the Committee on Resources on Wednesday May 8, 2002 with regards to H.R. 521. Your efforts to allow the various views on Guam of an issue effecting Guam's people speaks well of you as Chairman and the Committee on Resources as a whole. I wish to thank you and all the members and I was certainly honored to participate and present my testimony. I am writing in response to your letter of May 14, 2002 requesting a response to four additional questions the Committee had. I have attached my responses. I hope they prove of some assistance to the members as they deliberate on H.R.521. Once again, on behalf of myself and the Superior Court of Guam, my sincerest dunkalo si Yu'os maase and thank you. ALBERTO C. LAMORENA III ______ Response to questions submitted for the record by Presiding Judge Alberto C. Lamorena III Committee Question on H.R. 521: ``Do the three branches of the Government of Guam have the legal authority and governmental power to resolve the problems that have arisen over administration of the local courts? Presiding Judge Alberto C. Lamorena III response: Yes. It is important to recognize that the Organic Act was approved by a Congress in which the U.S. citizens of Guam do not have voting representation, and signed into law by a President chosen in a national election without participation by the U.S. citizens of Guam. As such, at both the Federal and local level, the Organic Act itself neither results from or by its nature implements the principle of government by consent. 1950 was the year Congress authorized adoption of a local constitution in Puerto Rico. In the case of Guam, Congress did not authorize a local constitution until 1976. Thus, the Guam Organic Act of 1950 represents a statutory policy to implement a more limited form of local self-government for Guam than for Puerto Rico, as an interim step until adoption of a local constitution was deemed appropriate and authorized by Congress. However, the Organic Act does create a system of limited local self-government that allows government by consent as to local law. In order to make this step forward in the development of local government possible, Congress had to establish the political branches of government required to legislate and create a body of local statutory law with the consent of the governed. This is the most Congress could do to promote local self-government in the absence of a local constitution. Recognizing that the citizens of Guam were not empowered by the Organic Act to establish by consent of the governed a ``republican form of government'' with ``separate and co-equal branches,'' Congress determined to limit its exercise of plenary power to the two political branches of government, and allows establishment of the local courts by consent of the government under local law. In this manner Congress committed the statutory establishment and regulation of the local judiciary to the people of Guam. Congress revisited this subject in order to authorize the establishment and regulation of the Guam Supreme Court under 48 U.S.C. 1424-1. At no point since 1950 has Congress provided that these matters are committed to the process of local self-government only unless and until there is a serious political debate over an issue of local statutory policy between opposing factions in the local legislature. To the contrary, it has been the 50-year policy of Congress to allow local issues to be determined locally unless and until Federal interests compelled Congress to alter the Organic Act or local law. Thus, the two political branches of the local government have the legal authority to establish and regulate the courts, and at this time the local courts have the legal authority to exercise the jurisdiction vested in them by local law. Since there is no constitutional form of local government creating separate and co-equal branches of government with consent of the governed, it is sophistry to argue that the Organic Act can be altered to establish the equivalent of a local constitutional system by edict of Congress. Committee Question on H.R. 521: Can this problem be resolved without Congress Intervening? Presiding Judge Alberto C. Lamorena III response: Yes. The issues discussed at the hearing can and should be resolved at the local level without Congressional intervention. The are two kinds of courts: constitutional and statutory. The existence and functions of a constitutional court cannot be regulated by the political branches of the government except as provided under the constitution itself. A statutory court is a creature of statute and subject to statutory regulation. In his testimony before the Committee, the Chief Justice of the Guam Supreme Court suggested that it was an intolerable infringement on judicial independence for the local legislature to have the power to establish, regulate or terminate the functions of the court. Yet, as a statutory court the Supreme Court of Guam necessarily and by definition must be subject to the powers of both Congress and/or the local legislature. The only Federal judges whose courts cannot be abolished by the Congress are the nine members of the U.S. Supreme Court. All other Federal judges, including those to whom decisions of the Guam Supreme Court can be appealed, carry out their duties independently while subject to the very legislative power that Guam's Supreme Court Chief Justice finds intolerable. That is the nature of a statutory judicial system as opposed to a constitutional court. Thus, the question that should have been addressed at the hearing on H.R, 521 is this: Of the two legislative bodies with the power to regulate the Supreme Court of Guam, which should determine the policy for administration of the local courts and the relations between the Superior Court of Guam and the Supreme Court? Should it be the Congress in which the citizens of Guam are not represented? Or, should it be the local legislature in which they citizens have voting representation? Obviously, as long as Guam remains a territory, Congress retains plenary authority over the form of government in the territory. However, the question at hand is whether Congress or the local legislature should prescribe statutory policy for operation of statutory courts. The Chief Justice of the Guam Supreme Court made it clear in his testimony before the Committee that he would rather entrust statutory policy-making over Guam's local courts to the Congress than to the people of the community which the court serves. This is nothing less than an invitation to Congress to take back control of a subject of statutory policy that Congress had transferred to the local level. The Supreme Court Chief Justice's testimony does not call for an end of statutory control by a legislative body of the Supreme Court. H.R. 521 does not end the power of a legislative body to abolish the Supreme Court. Rather, the position of the Chief Justice and the bill itself is simply that Congress should be the legislative body with that power, instead of the local legislature. In other words, the sponsor of the bill, Mr. Underwood, and the Chief Justice, trust a Congress in which the people of Guam are not truly or meaningfully represented more than they do the local legislature in which the people in Guam have voting representation. If that is their position, fine. Why don't they just come out and say so, instead of distracting attention from the real issues by talking about separation of powers and co-equal branches of government, which can only be created with the consent of the governed under a local constitution? Thus, all the rhetoric in the hearing about republican form of government and separate and co-equal branches of government was misplaced and misleading. H.R. 521 will not create a republican form of government with three co-equal branches. It will take the one branch of the local government over which the people have control and the power of consent and make it more like the two other branches of the government that were created by Congress without the consent of the governed. That is a step backward not forward for self-government. If there real intention were to create a local Supreme Court that was not subject to regulation by the local legislature, the way to do that is to establish local constitutional self-government under a structure consented to by the people, and which includes co-equal branches of government with limited powers. Committee Questions 3 & 4 on H.R. 521: ``What is the basic difference between a Supreme Court having sole control over the administration of both courts versus a Judicial Council having the same powers?'' ``In the Federal system, the U.S. Congress statutorily establishes the Federal courts (district courts, appellate courts, patent courts, tax courts etc''). If we take the model proposed in H.R.521 (Section 1 (a)) to the Federal level, Chief Justice Rehnquist, rather than Congress would have the power to unilaterally determine the structure and division in the court system. Why should we adopt a model for Guam that we would never adopt at the Federal level?'' Presiding Judge Alberto C. Lamorena III response: H.R. 521 gives the Guam Supreme Court powers that the U.S. Supreme Court does not have in the Federal judicial system. That includes the power to create lower courts by rule of the Chief Justice, and to define by fiat the divisions and functions of the lower courts. The creation of courts is a legislative function, and the establishment of court policies for administration of the judiciary and relations between local courts, to the extent not prescribed by statute, is a matter that can best be managed under the Judicial Council model. The local legislature, not Congress, should provide the statutory policy governing these matters. Unless Congress is willing to cede its statutory power over creation of Federal courts, it should not take that power away from the Guam Legislature. ______ Mr. Hayworth. And we thank you, Judge Lamorena. Let me begin the questions. Let us go to Secretary Kearney first from the Department of the Interior. Mr. Deputy Assistant Secretary, which does the administration believe is the better way for Guam to improve the structure of local self-government? Is it for Congress to continually attempt to perfect the Guam Organic Act or for the people of Guam to enact a local constitution? Mr. Kearney. Well there has been at least one effort some years ago by local effort to address the constitutional matter, and that was--while I am not familiar with all of the particular details was attempted to be addressed and was addressed unsuccessfully. So there is some question about the extent to which that could be a successful way to achieve it. Congress has plenary oversight responsibility in this area, so it is certainly reasonable and prudent for the Congress to review this matter. I do not have a position one way or the other on which way is the best to proceed. Justice Carbullido. Mr. Chairman, may I add to that response? Mr. Hayworth. Certainly, sir. Justice Carbullido. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Obviously, if we could put this in our constitution, that is the route to go. However, it has been 25 years since the Guam Government has been given the authority to write its constitution, and the very elected leaders who are suggesting that maybe this is something that should be included in the constitution have taken the position that we should not write a constitution until such time as the Federal-territorial relationship has been defined. It has been 25 years since they have been working on that, and we do not think that it would be wise to wait another 25 years before we can determine this should be put in the constitution. And so, the Organic Act of Guam is Guam's constitution today, and this is exactly what is being asked, that we change Guam's constitution and put the judiciary on equal footing with the executive and legislative branch. That is all that is being asked today. Mr. Hayworth. Judge Lamorena, would you like to weigh in on this? Judge Lamorena. The people of Guam have had the opportunity to create its own constitution, and I support that effort in creating its own constitution. I believe that the people of Guam in creating their own constitution do not abrogate their possibility with changing their political status with the United States. I do not think they are totally mutually exclusive. The constitution is essential, because the constitution is a document in which the governed set up parameters on how they are to be governed. The Organic Act, yes, is considered the constitution of Guam, but it is still a Federal statute, and it can be changed by representatives who do not live on Guam. That is why I feel that any changes within the law should be given the opportunity for the people of Guam make those changes. And the Congress did that when Congressman Won Pat passed--the late Congressman Won Pat--passed legislation giving the people of Guam the authority to create the Guam appellate court system. And with that, the Congress had great ability and confidence in the people of Guam to create their own self- governing body. And I would like Congress to keep going in that direction. In fact, recently, Congress passed a law authorizing the people of Guam to empower them to pass legislation to determine how their attorney general should be elected. The people of Guam, through their Legislature, have made the attorney general's position now an elected position. But they did not tell the people of Guam, like they are now doing with this legislation, this is what you should do. This is what you are ordered to do. They told the people of Guam we are giving you the enabling legislation to do what you think is right for you. And that is all we asked, and I think the members of the Legislature asked that, and the people have Guam have that to respect their decisions as people living in Guam. Mr. Hayworth. Thank you, Judge. The Chair would ask the indulgence of the other members, and I understand our friend who is the principal sponsor, the gentleman from Guam, has a statement and, if he so desires, after that statement, to ask a couple of questions. STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT UNDERWOOD, A DELEGATE IN CONGRESS FROM THE TERRITORY OF GUAM Mr. Underwood. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I had an opening statement, and I will not belabor it. I will just ask that it be introduced into the record. The Chairman. Without objection. [The prepared statement of Mr. Underwood follows:] Statement of The Honorable Robert A. Underwood, a Delegate in Congress from Guam Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding today's hearing on H.R. 521, legislation important to the people and Territory of Guam. I would also like to thank the Ranking Member, Congressman Nick Rahall, for his continued support of the territories, and welcome two of our witnesses who have traveled a long way from Guam to testify. A warm Hafa Adai to the Honorable Philip Carbullido, Acting Chief Justice of the Supreme Court Guam and the Honorable Alberto Lamorena III, Presiding Judge of the Superior Court of Guam. H.R. 521 seeks to amend the Organic Act of Guam for the purposes of clarifying Guam's judicial structure, both judicially and administratively. Currently, the Organic Act of Guam delineates the inherent powers of the legislative and executive branches of the Government of Guam. My bill would establish the local court system, including the Supreme Court of Guam, as a co-equal branch of the Government of Guam and place the judiciary on equal footing with Guam's legislative and executive branches of government. I am certain that today's witnesses, as well as the abundance of written testimony that have been submitted for the hearing record, will provide the Committee with ample views on the merits of this legislation. The issue is not new. It is not partisan. It is not a matter of the Federal Government interfering with or taking over a local issue. It is a matter of whether Guam's judicial system should be subordinate to another branch of government, in this case the Guam Legislature, and whether Guam's judicial system should be treated any differently than the majority of judicial systems that exist across our nation, as an independent judicial branch. It has been brought to my attention that there needs to be clarification that the U.S. District of Court in Guam will not be affected by this legislation and I agree that we should do that. I am proud that in the latest review of the Supreme Court of Guam by the Pacific Islands Committee of the Judicial Council of the 9th Circuit, whose review was authorized by Congress, the Committee has acknowledged that Guam's Supreme Court has done a good job by developing sufficient institutional traditions and rendering quality opinions that is generally well done and comparable to opinions fo the supreme courts of the states in the Ninth Circuit. Most notable, however, is that while the Committee has acknowledged that the Supreme Court has become a mark of pride in Guam, it has concluded that an inordinate amount of time and effort is being expended on many fronts in attempting to resolve the issue of judicial administration of the Guam courts. The Committee stated that ``the perception, and perhaps the reality, is that judicial administration in Guam has become politicized. This situation has not helped the institution of the Supreme Court grow as it should.'' I believe that my legislation directly addresses this legitimate concern. Mr. Chairman, our forefathers, the architects of the U.S. Constitution, had the foresight to establish an institutional mechanism that would protect this great nation from potential emergence of an autocratic regime. This mechanism, embodied in the Constitution is the construction of a democratic form of government of three separate but equal branches, each holding exclusive authority over the process of any given policy. This doctrine of separation of powers is the fundamental principle of this great nation and has since laid the foundation for the democratic system of government we now enjoy. The underlying feature of this system is that of checks and balances within the three branches that would ensure the integrity of each branch. The passage of this legislation would solidify the structure of Guam's judiciary and ensure its status as a separate and coordinate branch of government. It would define the Supreme Court's authority as the supreme court of origin and allay the danger in allowing one branch of government to determine the existence of another. This legislation is the work of many years of input from the people of Guam. It has been a long and laborious process and it is time a legitimate and separate branch of government, our judiciary, be afforded the people of Guam. I am pleased that the Administration has no objection to the enactment of H.R. 521, and I commend the Interior Department for continuing to realize the importance of this legislation. I am also pleased by the support for the bill by the Conference of Chief Justices, Guam's Governor Carl T. C. Gutierrez, Guam's Lt. Governor Madeleine Z. Bordallo, Acting Chief Justice Philip Carbullido, the Guam Bar Association and individual attorneys on Guam, various members of the Guam Legislature, and other interested individuals. Guam's Pacific Daily News also supports H.R. 521 and has called on Guam's island government, business and community leaders to come together to support the measure. The PDN says ``If we claim to be a true democracy, we must work to make all three branches of government equal and distinctly separate.'' I am hopeful that Committee Members will also recognize the need for this legislation and I look forward to hearing from today's witnesses. ______ Mr. Underwood. And I also ask that all of the other statements that have been submitted will be entered into the record. Mr. Hayworth. Absolutely. [The prepared statement of Speaker Hastert follows:] Statement of The Honorable J. Dennis Hastert, Speaker, U.S. House of Representatives Thank you Mr. Chairman for the opportunity to provide testimony to the Committee on H.R. 791. As you are well aware, my colleague from Illinois, Congressman Tim Johnson, introduced this legislation and I am an original cosponsor. I appreciate the Committee's recognition of the importance of this issue and thank you for holding today's hearing. Several years ago, representatives of the Miami Tribe of Oklahoma and the Ottawa Tribe of Oklahoma filed claims to tribal land in Illinois. Of this land, the Ottawa Tribe claims 1280 acres of land adjacent to Shabbona Lake State Park in DeKalb County, which I represent. The Prairie Band of the Potawatomi Indian Tribe has also made a competing claim to the land in DeKalb County. The claims of the Ottawa and Potawatomi Tribes are based on an 1829 Treaty between the United States and United Tribes of the Chippewa, Ottawa and Potawatomi that granted the DeKalb acreage for the ``use'' of a chief named Shab-eh-nay and ``his band.'' Shab-eh-nay left the land in the 1830's and moved to Kansas with his band. When Shab-eh-nay attempted to sell the land in the 1840's, Federal agencies determined that the land had been reverted to Federal ownership when he moved west. The Ottawa Tribe, claiming to be a successor-in-interest to Shab- eh-nay's band, now assert that the 1829 Treaty granted a permanent or ``recognized'' tribal land title that could only be taken away by an act of Congress. The Potawatomi Tribe is a rival claimant because although Shab-eh-nay himself was an Ottawa, his wife and ``band'' appear to have been Potawatomi. In addition to the claims made by the Ottawa and Potawatomi Tribes, the Miami Tribe of Oklahoma filed a Federal lawsuit against private landowners in fifteen Illinois counties covering most of east-central Illinois. The property in question includes private homes, farms, businesses, as well as the University of Illinois and part of Eastern Illinois University. The reach and impact of this claim cannot be understated: it literally threatens the lives and livelihoods of tens of thousands of people in my State. As this Committee well knows, in order to reach and a fair and final resolution of outstanding Native American land claims, Congress established the Indian Claims Commission, which heard cases from 1946 until 1978. During this time, while the Miami Tribe did raise other claims and grievances before the Commission with respect to treaty conduct by the United States, they did not assert this claim even though the Commission considered the 1805 Treaty and land now in question with respect to compensation for two other Tribes. The Miami Tribe claim is based on an assertion that the United States government never properly obtained land title from the Tribe as required by the 1805 Treaty between the Tribe and the Federal Government. This Treaty was negotiated between the U.S. government and several Native American Tribes, including the Miami. As such, the Miami Tribe claim involves a relationship between the Miami Tribe and the United States going back nearly two centuries. Mr. Chairman I think it is critical to understand that these actions occurred before there even was a State of Illinois. Make no mistake about it; there is no allegation of wrongdoing by the State of Illinois or its citizens with respect to the 1805 Treaty. If the Miami believe its claim has merit, its argument should be with the Federal Government and not the citizens of Illinois. Because of sovereign immunity, however, Indian Tribes are prohibited from bringing direct claims against the Federal Government. As a result, H.R. 791 provides what we the sponsors believe is a fair and common solution and one which protects the truly innocent property owners in the State of Illinois. H.R. 791 extinguishes the title claims of the Miami and Ottawa Tribes of Oklahoma and the Potawatomi Tribe of Kansas with respect to the lands in Illinois and remands these claims to the U.S. Court of Federal Claims to hear and determine the outcome. This legislation also allows the U.S. government to provide a remedy, if appropriate, in the form of money damages. This legislation makes no claim as to the merits of the case of any of these Tribes--those can and should be made by experts. It does, however, ensure that the citizens of Illinois can be secure in their homes, farms and businesses. This is an important point: while the recent case filed by the Miami Tribe is no longer pending, they could still file another lawsuit against these private landowners at any time. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 791 is commonsense legislation which protects property owners in Illinois who have acted in good faith and done nothing wrong, and ensures that they will not lose their homes, farms, and businesses. In addition, I believe it provides the Tribes fair recourse to the Federal Courts for adjudication. Without judging the merits of their claims, this legislation allows them to pursue their claim against the United States--after all, if the Tribes have an argument, it is with the United States, not the State of Illinois. Once again, I greatly appreciate the chance to offer my thoughts on this important legislation. It is my opinion that this legislation is especially important for the sake of protecting private landowners who have a legitimate right to their land, while providing fair and reasonable treatment for the Miami, Ottawa, and Pottawatomi Indian Tribes. I look forward to continue working with my colleagues and the Committee on this important issue. ______ [The prepared statement of Mr. Pallone follows:] Statement of The Honorable Frank Pallone, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the State of New Jersey Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing on a land right issue in the state of Illinois, which has frustrated Federal, tribal, state and local governments, as well as residents, for many years. Though I have thoroughly studied most, if not all, of the issues and perspectives related to H.R. 791, I look forward to hearing more about this legislation from my colleagues and the representatives that will testify. It is my sincere belief that this hearing will assist in identifying and furthering solutions that meet the needs of all parties involved. I also hope that this hearing will be beneficial to the Miami, Ottawa and Potawatomi Tribes in their efforts to have their treaty rights honored or seek just compensation for lands taken without their consent. As you may know, treaty rights are referred to as the supreme law of the land and as such require the Federal Government to execute related contract obligations with the utmost diligence and good faith. The United States has long recognized the sovereign status of tribes, based on Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 of the Constitution. Hundreds of treaties, the Supreme Court, the president and the Congress have repeatedly affirmed that Indian Nations retain their inherent powers of self-government. The treaties and laws have created a fundamental contract between Indian Nations and the United States: Indian Nations ceded millions of acres of land that made the United States what it is today, and in return received the guarantee of self-government on their own lands. The provision of services to members of Federally recognized tribes grew out of the special government-to-government relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. The United States government has a Federal trust responsibility to Indian tribes that, among other things, requires us to improve the quality of life in Indian communities. Sometimes, as in the Treaty of Grouseland (1805), where ratification occurred prior to the existence of the state of Illinois, the tribe did not relinquish title to certain sections of their property. Such is the case along the Wabash River, where the Miami tribe did not give up their title to what encompasses parts of more than fifteen counties with an estimated value of $30 billion. In cases such as this, where tribes have not ceded their land nor relinquished title in some other fashion, I believe more in-depth discussions and negotiations need to occur in consultation with the tribes and other related parties. I contend that through consultation and negotiation, rather than costly court proceedings and quick legislative fixes, mutually beneficial solutions to such land issues can be realized. In light of this, I would like to take this opportunity to commend the Miami tribe for withdrawing their lawsuit against landowners in Illinois. Your actions are a clear indication of your willingness to participate in building a forum whereby alternative solutions may be sought. In this same spirit, I ask Mr. Johnson and other supporters of H.R. 791 to stop this legislation from moving forward, and instead enter into a more meaningful resolution process with the parties related to this land issue. After all, H.R. 791 was not developed in consultation with the three tribes that this legislation will effect, and thereby ignores some of the primary stakeholders in this land issue. This legislation will establish barriers and institute a tug-of-war between the effected parties and bog down our system of government, especially on the judicial side. As I stated earlier, the United States government has a Federal trust responsibility to Indian tribes that, among other things, requires us to improve the quality of life in Indian communities. This bill does not improve the quality of life in Indian communities; rather it erodes additional aspects of their sovereignty. H.R. 791 as proposed would extinguish all Indian land claims under three 19th century treaties and terminate any aboriginal rights, including hunting, fishing, and related rights in Illinois. Therefore, I urge Congress to withstand pressure from groups that call for back- tracking to old Indian policies, such as termination and reduction of tribal sovereign rights. We must acknowledge and learn from our mistakes, and not repeat them because Indian country is relying upon our commitments. Therefore, I do not support H.R. 791, and I urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation as well. ______ Mr. Underwood. OK; thank you very much. Basically, H.R. 521, because, obviously, what we have before us is testimony that seems to contrast two different elements to this, and I want to make sure that our colleagues on the Committee understand what is at stake in this particular piece of legislation. On the one hand, it has been argued and will be argued by the opponents that this is somehow or other a slap in the face of local self-government, that the Congress had given the Guam Legislature and the Government of Guam the full authority to create an appellate court, the Supreme Court of Guam, and that any attempt to clarify what that Supreme Court is, what is the third branch of government that will comport with what is the general practice in American government is somehow an intrusion on that authority. The fact that the Acting Chief Justice has pointed out that the local legislature had made a statement that the local legislature could abolish the appellate court on its very own indicates that something is fundamentally flawed in the way that it has approached this. I dare say that if anyone in the U.S. House or anyone in Congress said that you know, the Supreme Court of the United States can rest easy, because even though we have the authority to abolish them, we are not, would clearly understand that that is not the republican form of government that is associated with the United States of America. And yet, that is clearly what is at stake here. So it is the merits of that issue alone that I hope the Committee draws its attention to. I hope that in understanding what is at stake here that it is not the-- although people will say that there is some political dimension to this, indeed, we are all in elected office--there is always some political dimension to every issue. But in this case, I think the overriding concern should clearly be the merits. The nature of the testimonies that have been submitted, in which case, the practicing attorneys--in fact, almost virtually the entire legal community of Guam, absent the Superior Court judges is in favor of this legislation clearly indicates that this is a serious matter in Guam. I would like to ask--and before I go into a couple of questions, I want to acknowledge the presence of my predecessor, the distinguished gentleman from Guam--he is still from Guam--Ben Blaz. [Laughter.] Mr. Underwood. So I wanted to acknowledge his presence. And also, I wanted to thank all of the witnesses today, especially Judge Lamorena and Justice Carbullido, both of whom I have known virtually all of my adult life, and I remember very clearly Judge Lamorena being very avidly on the same side in defeating that constitution. And we worked very hard on that together. [Laughter.] Mr. Underwood. So I wanted to point that out for the record as well. Judge Lamorena. And I wish that we were on the same side as well. [Laughter.] Mr. Underwood. That is right. But we are not. [Laughter.] Mr. Underwood. But we are not. [Laughter.] Mr. Underwood. And so, here is the interesting part: it is trying to be framed as an issue of local control when clearly it is not. You know, one of the basic tenets of American government is that there be three coequal branches of government; that there be a system of government where you have three branches that have separation of powers. Now, we are grateful that Congressman Won Pat introduced a small line that allowed for the creation of an appellate court, and you have pointed out, Judge Lamorena, that there has been no--that things are going well under the current system, and in fact, many of the people who oppose 521 say that absent a breakdown in the effective and efficient operation of the courts or rule of law, there is no need to act. I do not know why we have to wait for a breakdown in the rule of law to act on this when it is clearly, on the merits of the case, we need to act, and that you assert as well, Judge Lamorena, that local laws, that unless the court were institutionally dysfunctional or that local laws so deficient and so disruptive to good order as the supporters of H.R. 521 claim, which is absolutely not true; I do not think anyone makes that claim that there is any deficiency in good order in Guam--what my question is is that in your testimony, you made reference to the fact that the Superior Court of Guam should have some administrative authority under local law because you want some system of checks and balances between the Superior Court and the Supreme Court. Is it not more of an overriding concern to have some system of checks and balances between the entire judicial branch and the other branches of government? Judge Lamorena. I think there is no disagreement as far as checks and balances within the three branches of government. I think it is absolutely necessary that we do have that. And in Guam, we do have that. We do have the three branches of government. We have the Guam Legislature; we have the executive; and we have the Guam Supreme Court; and we have the three branches of government, judicial, legislative and executive. What we have here is the basic issue is that the people of Guam, through their elected representatives, should have the opportunity to select what is best for them, and they have selected a system that they feel is best for the people of Guam. And until such time as the people of Guam either defeats these people or changes its mind, I think that the laws passed by the Guam Legislature to their elected representatives should be the law of the land. Mr. Underwood. And could you explain to the Committee how the law that granted the Superior Court this administrative authority--in what context was this law passed? Judge Lamorena. Well, the law was passed through a majority of the votes in the Legislature. Mr. Underwood. And was it not attached as a rider to an entirely different bill without the benefit of a public hearing? Judge Lamorena. It was attached as a rider, like most legislation. Mr. Underwood. Yes. Judge Lamorena. And I feel that if the Guam Legislature wanted to act in that way, they have that prerogative. Mr. Underwood. Of course, and fortunately, the Ninth Circuit has now nullified bill, not on the merits-- Judge Lamorena. Not on the merits of this issue. Mr. Underwood. Not on the merits of this particular issue, but fortunately, it was tied to another issue. But my point is that do you not think that a change of this nature would at least deserve a public hearing? Judge Lamorena. Pardon? I think it does. Mr. Underwood. And we are giving it a public hearing here. Judge Lamorena. You know, I am not a member of the Legislature, so I do not even want to place myself in the shoes of the Guam Legislature. But, you know, every bill deserves a public hearing. Every bill deserves views of all of the people of Guam. But the ultimate determination of what laws should be passed rests still with the legislative body, and the legislative body has spoken. Whether or not we may differ on the methodology, the results are still the same, and I feel that the Guam Legislature or Congress has the prerogative to pass any law it so wishes. That is their power under the Constitution. Mr. Underwood. Whose power under the Constitution? Judge Lamorena. The legislative branch of government, the power to pass laws. Mr. Underwood. Yes, they have the power to pass laws. Judge Lamorena. Yes. Mr. Underwood. But in this particular instance, would you not concede that the Congress could not pass a law to nullify the very existence of the Supreme Court of the United States? Judge Lamorena. You know, I am not going to go into that debate. Mr. Underwood. OK. Judge Lamorena. Because I am not a Member of Congress. Mr. Underwood. But would you concede-- Judge Lamorena. Congressmen have the prerogative to do or say what they wish to say, OK? That is their responsibility as being a representative of their constituency, and that is what the constituency elects them to do is to speak their mind and to vote on an issue that hopefully represents the people that they choose to represent. Mr. Hayworth. The Chair has tried to show great indulgence in deference to the principal sponsor of the legislation. I think we have had a great exchange. But the bells have rung. We have 10 minutes remaining with three votes confronting us on the Floor. I would like to gauge the sentiment of members. I know that the gentleman from Arizona on the majority side has a couple of questions. Are there other questions that you would like to bring up? Well, then, fine. If that is the case, then, what we will do is recess and pick up the questions at the conclusion of the three votes. It will be some time here, but we know it is important to add these things to the record and make sure everyone has a chance to ask questions in this open hearing. So the Chair will deem the Committee now in recess. We will return following the votes. [Recess.] The Chairman. [presiding] The Committee will come to order. I am given to understand that Mr. Underwood has just finished his line of questions, and I guess Mr. Flake would be the gentleman who would now be recognized. Mr. Flake? Mr. Flake. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the opportunity; I appreciate the testimony. I have a bit of an interest in here. I have a constituent who spent a good deal of time on Guam and is familiar with the situation and has encouraged my involvement, and I enjoy this. I spent a year in southern Africa, in the country of Namibia, as they developed their constitution and were struggling with some of the same issues that you are dealing with there. So I was interested in Judge Carbullido or Justice Carbullido, what you mentioned about the suggestion you have for the bill. Do you want to elaborate on that, in that you would allow the Legislature in Guam to have an impact on the ultimate decision on this? Do you want to explain or elaborate for me? Justice Carbullido. Yes, Mr. Congressman, thank you. There are really two objections to the bill in all of the opposition testimonies that I have gleaned: No. 1, that this is a local issue, and it takes away authority from the Legislature to address the local issue. I think it is important that I explain briefly the context of H.R. 521 and why that seems to be the case. H.R. 521, when it was originally introduced in its predecessor form by Congressman Underwood several terms ago was a reaction to the rider that was made reference that stripped the Supreme Court of its authority. The way it was done and how it was done created an uproar in terms of our legal community, and it was a reaction, and maybe it was an overreaction in retrospect. Since then, there has been some sense of calmness in terms of the Ninth Circuit has deleted that. That is no longer with us today, and we have some semblance of an organized structure within our court system. And so, to take away the distraction that this is really a local issue, I have proposed an amendment where the Guam Legislature will continue to have authority in terms of the internal structure of the Guam judiciary, but it does not take away the fundamental issue that the three branches of government should be properly recognized in our Organic Act, our constitution. The second objection that is common to those who oppose the bill is that this should really be left to the people of Guam. It needs to be recognized in our Organic Act, our constitution. The virtue of this bill is that we are trying to recognize the three branches on equal footing; there really should be no issue. Mr. Flake. Mr. Lamorena, if the changes are made as suggested by the Justice, would you still object? And if so, why? Judge Lamorena. Yes, I will still object. I have not seen his proposal, so I am totally not familiar with it. But absent that, I will still object, because it runs against the fundamental concept of self-government. I think if the people of Guam wish to pass a law that affects them directly and that sets up a structure by which they are to be governed, I think the people of Guam should be the ones to determine that structure. Like I quoted earlier, the U.S. Supreme Court said the judiciary is the heart of internal self-government and should be delegated to the state legislatures or to the people that live there. And what I am concerned about is Congress and this Committee have always had a policy to have the people of Guam determine what they want to be. Like I said earlier, the attorney general bill was amended, but it did not say the attorney general shall be elected by the people of Guam. Congress did not state that. Congress said the people of Guam may pass a law to elect an attorney general. So what Congress has always done in the past has always given the option for the people of Guam to self-govern themselves. And I feel that when the late Congressman Won Pat introduced this bill, he was very sensitive to that. He, being a former Guam legislator at the time and former Guam speaker, was very sensitive to have the people of Guam determine what their judiciary should be. Mr. Flake. Well, this fix, does it not address that concern? Because it says if Guam goes ahead and drafts its constitution that that will be the law rather than the Organic Act or rather than any fix that we make here. And just a follow-up question: is there a move at this point, what process are we in at this point on Guam in drafting a constitution? Judge Lamorena. On the first question, I hate to set conditions on what this will trigger in if the people of Guam do this. I think it is kind of a carrot thing, you know, dangling, saying, well, if the people of Guam will pass this law, this legislation, and the people of Guam do a certain thing and follow the carrot, then, it will go that way. I think the whole principle of self-government is to allow the people to determine what they want to do. We all live on Guam, and we all have to live by the laws of Guam, and if the people of Guam decide that those laws should be changed or a constitution should be imposed, then so be it. But I think the people of Guam should determine that and not Congress. I think Congress should follow its policy of allowing the people of Guam the options to pursue its own course. Mr. Flake. I would agree with that. I would just simply state that we are waiting--everyone is waiting for Guam to draft that constitution. We have said please, go ahead, but as long as Guam does not, then, the Organic Act is what rules here. And so, I think it is incumbent on us to have something that makes better sense than what we have right now. Just let me state for the record: I know there are concerns that the Supreme Court determining the structure of the inferior courts may impose or some say, you know, just assign dog bite cases to the rest of the structure and take everything else to itself. I worry less about that than I do having the Legislature have the ability to nullify and to simply get rid of the Supreme Court if they would like. But I thank you, and thanks for your indulgence on this. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Chairman. I thank the gentleman. The gentleman from Hawaii, Mr. Abercrombie? Mr. Abercrombie. Judge, but you would admit--sorry, Judge Lamorena-- [Laughter.] Mr. Abercrombie. We are operating under the Organic Act, right? Judge Lamorena. Yes, that is the Federal statute governing Guam. Mr. Abercrombie. That is right. I mean, you cannot have it both ways, Judge. You know, this is a little ridiculous. You want independence for Guam, or you want to become a state? What do you want to do? I do not like to be lectured here about what my duties here are with respect to local jurisdiction in Guam or any other place. I do not like this whole colonial situation in the first place. You know perfectly well you could have passed a constitution for 25 years; you have not done it. I do not think it is seemly for you to come in here as a jurist and lecture us in this way. Now, the Organic Act, as long as you have the Organic Act, this Congress is going to do it. Now, we are not going to have a situation, as benign as you may want to characterize the situation, where legislatures, if they are in Zimbabwe right now, can overturn the judiciary. I mean, the singular democratic issue, it seems to me, is the equality of the branches of government in our democracy. But here, you have a situation which makes a mockery of it if the legislature can come in and overturn the judiciary anytime it sees some political advantage to do it. Now, unless you can come up with something compelling with respect to whether or not we can pass this legislation, I think you have got a terrific burden to carry. Judge Lamorena. Do you want a response? I feel that the concept--OK--of self-government is fundamental to all peoples, and I think Congress in the past has always given deference to the people of Guam in cases of changes in the Organic Act, the ability to pass laws that would meet the needs of their people. Mr. Abercrombie. You do not think equality of the judiciary is fundamental to the well-being of the people of Guam? Judge Lamorena. Well, if Congress had that position when Congressman Won Pat was there, they had that opportunity, but they did give the opportunity to the people of Guam to create the judiciary, and I feel that was confidence in the people of Guam through their Guam Legislature to create a structure in the judicial branch of government that would maintain the confidence of the people of Guam. Mr. Abercrombie. If something takes place, then, in Guam that the politicians do not like, that a decision is made in the courts, you want to say that you can change the structure of the courts in the Legislature? Judge Lamorena. Well, if you look at the issue of the structure of the courts, Congress can also add circuits to the Federal courts. I think as far as the structure of the court system itself, Congress has that prerogative, and I think the Guam Legislature should have that prerogative as well. Mr. Abercrombie. But this is a contradiction. I will just let it go. You want it both ways. If Congress--do we have the jurisdiction or do we not to pass this legislation? Judge Lamorena. Congress, as any lawmaking body, can pass any legislation it wishes. Mr. Abercrombie. Because you are under Federal jurisdiction, and you do not have a constitution that says otherwise now; is that not correct? Judge Lamorena. Right now, the Organic Act is the Federal statute-- Mr. Abercrombie. Right now, and it has been for more than 25 years. Judge Lamorena. Well, I do not purport to speak for all of the people of Guam whether or not we should have a constitution. That is still an ongoing debate. Mr. Abercrombie. Well, in the absence of--when you say you do not purport to speak for them, but the facts speak for themselves. There is no constitution. Judge Lamorena. Well, in the absence of a constitution, then, the enabling legislation passed by Congress earlier under the late Congressman Won Pat, I think, is still good policy. Mr. Abercrombie. And speaking of enabling legislation, we will enable the people of Guam to have an equal judiciary if we pass this bill. Would that not be the case? Judge Lamorena. Well, I always feel that the people of Guam should be the ones to determine-- Mr. Abercrombie. You mean your position is that the people of Guam can determine whether or not they are actually going to have an equal judiciary, and if they determined they did not want an equal judiciary that I should acquiesce to that as a Member of Congress? Judge Lamorena. But they have spoken already. Mr. Abercrombie. But I have sworn to uphold the Constitution of the United States, which emphasizes, I think, as a beacon to the whole world that we have the rule of law and not the rule of political fashion of the moment and that we uphold the idea that there are three equal branches of government. And for you to argue to me that you get to make a local decision as to whether or not, at any given point, people can decide whether to subject the judiciary to even more political--as Mr. Underwood said, there's politics in everything, but to subject it to legislative fashion, it seems to me an extraordinary statement. How does that comport with the entire history of the struggle for equality of people before the law and the idea of equal branches of government as a cornerstone of our democracy. Judge Lamorena. I think it complements it. One, it does allow the people of Guam to self-govern themselves. We may disagree what the people of Guam may be doing-- Mr. Abercrombie. Judge, excuse me. Judge Lamorena. --but any legislative body passes laws that reasonable people can disagree about. Mr. Abercrombie. We are not talking about reasonable people disagreeing. It is not as if we are talking about what kind of coffee you prefer. You mean to tell me that if the people of Guam decide that if you are a Chamorro-American as opposed to Scottish-American like myself that you could be discriminated against, for example, because that is local decisionmaking? You do not contend that, do you? Of course, you do not. So what you are saying here locally, if people decide locally they do not want to have equal justice that that is OK. Judge Lamorena. I am not saying that. Mr. Abercrombie. But that is the implication of your position, I believe. I am sorry, Judge. You are not making a persuasive case here. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Judge Lamorena. Thank you. The Chairman. The gentlelady from the Virgin Islands. Ms. Christensen. Thank you. The Chairman. As you can see, we have got a vote on. We want to wrap this thing up. Ms. Christensen. Right, and I just want to make a brief statement and probably yield some time to my colleague, Mr. Underwood. I think all of us support the need for Guam and my territory to draft their own constitution, but I just disagree with the position of my colleague on my right, Mr. Abercrombie, because I think the people of Guam have demonstrated that they fully support the separation of the judiciary from the other branches of government. And I just think the issue is one of until such time as we draft our constitution, turning over more authority and governance to the people of the territories, and that is what I see the recommended amendments as being, and I fully support that, and I have done that in several instances in the case of the people of the Virgin Islands. I wanted to take the opportunity to welcome the witnesses from Guam and especially our former colleague, as Congressman Underwood has welcomed him, Congressman Ben Blaz. And I find the issue very interesting. It is one that the Virgin Islands has not yet done completely, anyway, and we still rely on our Federal District Court as our territorial appellate court. So we are even further behind Guam on some of the issues. However, there have been calls by our local bar association as well for the creation of a local appellate court. As a result of the experience of Guam in creating this independent judiciary, it would be key for us as a guide. And I want to take this opportunity to commend our colleague, Mr. Underwood, for this legislation, for the separation of the branches of government is a cornerstone of our democracy, and I trust that the whole Committee will support his bill and in doing so protect the rights of the people of Guam. If my colleague would like some of my time, I would yield the rest of my time to Mr. Underwood. Mr. Underwood. Thank you for yielding me the time. And basically, I just wanted to go over a couple of points that had been mentioned earlier, and I wanted to make sure for the record that it is clearly understood. Reference is made to the authority granted to the people of Guam to draft their own constitution. In doing so, Congress specified that there would be a republican form of government with three co-equal branches. So this is not--even if Guam were to draft its own constitution, I daresay that its constitution would end up looking like--would have the kind of judiciary that we are envisioning here, which is three co-equal branches of government. Second, you have mentioned, Judge Lamorena, I think on several occasions that there was a grant of authority granted by Congress to create this appellate court, and at the same time, you have made comparisons to the creation of the attorney general. I know you have credited Congressman Won Pat repeatedly for the earlier version. Judge Lamorena. For the attorney general, I will credit you for that one. [Laughter.] Mr. Underwood. Thank you, thank you very much. I am glad you acknowledge that that was my legislation. [Laughter.] Mr. Underwood. But more importantly, in vetting that legislation, even though we allowed that to happen, to allow that according to whether the Legislature wanted to have an elected attorney general or not, we did structure it in a way to avoid the kinds of problems that we are simply having in this issue, which is to kind of clearly delineate what it would look like and had this kind of--maybe the Virgin Islands is smarter in this, because they are waiting to see what kind of experiences we have had on this. But just so that I allow Mr. Kearney a chance to make a quick comment, Mr. Kearney, in your testimony, you stated that Guam has a bifurcated local court system at a time when virtually all of the states have unified court systems and by implication saying that, well, Guam is a little bit different than the rest. Can you elaborate on that a little bit? Mr. Kearney. Well, mostly, it focuses on what we have been discussing here, that there is a potential role for the Legislature with respect to the judicial system in Guam currently that is not reflected in the other 50 states. And so, to the extent to which changes in this legislation would be consistent with those 50 states, it would address that inconsistency. Mr. Underwood. OK; so this legislation addresses that inconsistency, and the administration has no objection to the legislation. Mr. Kearney. That is correct. Mr. Underwood. OK; and I would submit, Mr. Chairman, that some of the amendments that the Justice has proposed here deal, I think, with the issue of some of the underlying issues here regarding the actual structure and some of the politicization of this process and attempts to divorce that in an effort to make sure that what we are honing in clearly here is the separate and co-equal nature of the three branches of Guam. So I hope we will get a chance to look at those in a markup 1 day. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Chairman. I thank the gentleman. Mr. Flake. Mr. Chairman? Just 10 seconds? The Chairman. The gentleman from Arizona. Mr. Flake. I just wanted to state for the record that I, too, thank Mr. Underwood for bringing this bill forward, and I hope that the Committee has a chance to mark it up. The Chairman. We would be happy to. And also, I would like to submit some questions to the panel. I would appreciate your response, because we are not going to have time to go into those. I do want to thank all of the people who testified. We appreciate your attendance here at this time, and we will move ahead with this legislation, and Ben, it is always good to see you, my friend. Ben Blaz was one of the true gentlemen of Congress and one we will always remember. So with that, we stand adjourned. [Whereupon, at 12:32 p.m., the Committee adjourned.] [The following information was submitted for the record:] LAda, Hon. Joseph F., Senator, 26th Guam Legislature, Letter submitted for the record on H.R. 521 LAda, Hon. Thomas C., Senator, 26th Guam Legislature, Statement submitted for the record on H.R. 521 LAguon, Hon. Frank Blas, Jr., Senator, 26th Guam Legislature, Letter submitted for the record on H.R. 521 LArriola, Joaquin C., President, Guam Bar Association, Letter submitted for the record on H.R. 521 LBernhardt, David L., Director, Office of Congressional and Legislative Affairs and Counselor to the Secretary, U.S. Department of the Interior, Letter submitted for the record on H.R. 521 LBlair, William J., et al., Law Offices of Klemm, Blair, Sterling & Johnson, Letter submitted for the record on H.R. 521 LBordallo, Hon. Madeleine Z., Lieutenant Governor of Guam, Statement submitted for the record on H.R. 521 LBrooks, Terrence M., et al., Brooks Lynch & Tydingco LLP, Letter submitted for the record on H.R. 521 LCamacho, Hon. Felix P., Senator, 26th Guam Legislature, Letter submitted for the record on H.R. 521 LCharfauros, Hon. Mark C., Senator, 26th Guam Legislature, Letter submitted for the record on H.R. 521 LCruz, Hon. Benjamin J.F., Honorable Chief Justice of Guam (Retired), Letter submitted for the record on H.R. 521 LCunliffe, F. Randall, and Jeffrey A. Cook, Cunliffe & Cook, Letter submitted for the record on H.R. 521 LForbes, Hon. Mark, Majority Leader, 26th Guam Legislature, Statement submitted for the record on H.R. 521 LForman, Seth, Keogh & Forman, Letter submitted for the record on H.R. 521 LGray, Gerald E., Law Offices of Gerald E. Gray, Letter submitted for the record on H.R. 521 LGuerrero, Hon. Lou Leon, Senator, 26th Guam Legislature, Letter submitted for the record on H.R. 521 LGutierrez, Hon. Carl T.C., Governor of Guam, Statement submitted for the record on H.R. 521 LHale, Elizabeth, Affidavit submitted for the record on H.R. 791 LLannen, Thomas J., Dooley Lannen Roberts & Fowler LLP, Memorandum submitted for the record on H.R. 521 LLeonard, Floyd E., Chief, Miami Tribe of Oklahoma, Statement submitted for the record on H.R. 791 LLujan, Hon. Pilar C., Former Senator, Guam Legislature, Statement submitted for the record on H.R. 521 LMaher, John B., McKeown, Vernier, Price & Maher, Letter submitted for the record on H.R. 521 LManibusan, Judge Joaquin V.E. Jr., on behalf of the majority of Superior Court of Guam Judges, Statement submitted for the record on H.R. 521 LMcCaleb, Neal A., Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs, U.S. Department of the Interior, Letter submitted for the record on H.R. 791 LMcDonald, Joseph B., Legal Counsel, Citibank N.A. Guam, Letter submitted for the record on H.R. 521 LPangelinan, Vicente C., Minority Leader, 26th Guam Legislature, Statement submitted for the record on H.R. 521 LRoberts, Thomas L., Dooley Lannen Roberts & Fowler LLP, Letter submitted for the record on H.R. 521 LRyan, Hon. James E., Attorney General, State of Illinois, Letter submitted for the record on H.R. 791 LSan Agustin, Hon. Joe T., Former Speaker of the Guam Legislature, Statement submitted for the record on H.R. 521 LSantos, Marcelene C., President, University of Guam, Letter submitted for the record on H.R. 521 LSiguenza, Peter C., Jr., et al., Chief Justice, Supreme Court of Guam, Letter and supporting documents submitted for the record LTroutman, Charles H., Compiler of Laws, Office of the Attorney General, Department of Law, Territory of Guam, Letter submitted for the record on H.R. 521 LUnpingco, Hon. Antonio R., Speaker,, 26th Guam Legislature, Letter submitted for the record on H.R. 521 LWagner, Annice M., President, Conference of Chief Justices, Letter and Resolution submitted for the record on H.R. 521 LWarnsing, Mark R., Deputy Counsel to the Governor, State of Illinois, Letters submitted for the record on H.R. 791 LWon Pat, Hon. Judith T., Senator, 26th Guam Legislature, Statement submitted for the record on H.R. 521 [A letter from The Hon. Joseph F. Ada, Senator, 26th Guam Legislature, submitted for the record on H.R. 521 follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 79494.018 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 79494.019 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 79494.020 [A statement from The Hon. Thomas C. Ada, Senator, 26th Guam Legislature, submitted for the record on H.R. 521 follows:] Statement of The Honorable Thomas C. Ada, Senator, 26th Guam Legislature Mr. Chairman and members of the House Resources Committee, thank you for this opportunity to offer testimony in support of H.R. 521, to clarify, once and for all, that a truly classic, republican form of government, with three, separate but equal branches of government, will indeed exist for the people of Guam. First introduced in the 105th Congress as part of a bill that addressed other judicial matters pertaining to Guam, the judicial structure issue became mired in a lawsuit in Guam. At the start of this year, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on that case, and in doing so, affirmed the authority of the Supreme Court of Guam, saying, ``The Organic Act, as we have recognized, 'serves the function of a constitution for Guam' and the congressional promise of independent institutions of government would be an empty one if we did not recognize the importance of the Guam Supreme Court's role in shaping the interpretation and application of the Organic Act.'' The Organic Act of Guam of 1950 created the legislative and executive branches of a civilian government for Guam, which had been under military rule since 1899. The Organic Act clearly delineated the powers and authority of the legislative and executive branches of the newly established Government of Guam, but the judicial branch was left to evolve and develop in fits and starts over the years, with jurisdiction and authority residing initially and completely with the Federal courts. Over the years, the Organic Act has been amended to fulfill the ``congressional promise of independent institutions of government,'' In 1968, the Act was amended to provide for an elected governor; in 1972 for a non-voting delegate to the U.S. House of Representatives; in 1986 to provide for an elected school board; and most recently, in 1998, to provide for an elected attorney general. The original version of the elected attorney general bill, now Public Law 105-291, included the judicial structure clarification. In comparison to its counterparts, the growth and development of the judicial branch of the Government of Guam has been a slow and laborious process and continues to this day. Guam's judicial structure must be clarified and clearly established, and its powers delineated under the Organic Act. Through its inclusion in the Organic Act, the foundation of the Supreme Court will be accorded the same protection from the political machinations that so besiege its counterparts. As a creation of local law, the Supreme Court of Guam remains vulnerable to the whims of the legislative branch. Until and unless it is firmly embedded in the Organic Act, the Supreme Court of Guam is not, cannot, will not be a separate and co-equal branch of the Government of Guam. And that condition, no matter how eloquently defended, is in direct contradiction of the ``congressional promise of independent institutions of government'' and the ideals of self-government. The doctrine of the separation of powers, with its underlying system of checks and balances, is the fundamental principle of our democratic form of government and cannot be subject to reinterpretation or politically motivated redefinition. Passage and enactment of H.R. 521 would not only comport with the wisdom and foresight of the architects of the U.S. Constitution, it would restore the faith of the people of Guam in the sovereignty and autonomy of their judicial branch. The people of Guam deserve no less than a free, impartial and independent court system, with, as its name implies, the Supreme Court indeed reigning supreme. I ask the members of this Committee to recall the opening line of Section. 4, Article Four of the U.S. Constitution: ``The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government...'' Mr. Chairman, in H.R. 521, although we are not a State, we in the Territory of Guam respectfully seek that guarantee. Thank you. ______ [A letter submitted for the record by The Hon. Frank Blas Aguon, Jr., Senator, 26th Guam Legislature, on H.R. 521 follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 79494.024 [A letter submitted for the record by Joaquin C. Arriola, President, Guam Bar Association, on H.R. 521 follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 79494.025 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 79494.026 [A letter submitted for the record by David L. Bernhardt, Director, Office of Congressional and Legislative Affairs and Counselor to the Secretary, U.S. Department of the Interior, on H.R. 521 follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 79494.027 [A letter submitted for the record by William J. Blair, et al., Law Offices of Dlemin, Blair, Sterling & Johnson, on H.R. 521 follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 79494.028 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 79494.029 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 79494.030 [A statement submitted for the record by The Hon. Madeleine Z. Bordallo, Lieutenant Governor of Guam, on H.R. 521 follows:] Statement of The Honorable Madeleine Z. Bordallo, Lieutenant Governor of Guam, on H.R. 521 Chairman Hansen and Members of the Committee on Resources: I am submitting this statement in support of H.R. 521 and I would kindly request that my testimony be entered into the record. H.R. 521 would amend the Organic Act of Guam for the purposes of clarifying the local judicial structure of Guam. I believe that this legislation is appropriate and necessary for the proper operation of the Judicial branch of Guam. Mr. Chairman, I was a Member of the 21'' Guam Legislature in 1993 when the Frank G. Lujan Memorial Act was passed establishing the Supreme Court of Guam. I was proud to have had a role is shaping this local legislation and it was a great honor when the Supreme Court was installed during my first term as Lieutenant Governor. Governor Gutierrez and the Guam Legislature had done a fine job in appointing and confirming outstanding jurists to serve on our Guam Supreme Court, and our Supreme Court has matured over the years. The question before Congress is whether the provisions of H.R. 521 are needed to clarify the role of the Supreme Court. I believe that this bill is indeed necessary to ensure that the Judicial branch is unified and insulated from political pressure. The Judicial branch has been buffeted by political maneuvering as control of the administrative and policy making process has been contested between the Supreme Court and the Superior Court. This is not what was envisioned by the authors of the local legislation. We believed we were enacting legislation that was creating a Supreme Court, with all that the term means, Supreme in every sense of the word, and as has been the practice for all similar Judicial systems throughout the United States. H.R. 521 would clarify that the Supreme Court has distinct responsibilities in making Judicial policy and in administering the functions of the Superior Court and local court divisions. That we need this legislation is a clear indication that the Judicial branch has problems and that political interference has managed to seep into the Court processes on Guam. In 1998, in his State of the Judiciary Report to the people of Guam, Chief Justice Peter Siguenza stated that, ``this branch was broken.'' In 1999, then Chief Justice Benjamin Cruz stated in his report to the people that, ``things have gone from bad to worse.'' A 9' Circuit decision earlier this year restored the supremacy of the Guam Supreme Court and began a process of recovery. H.R. 521 is needed to eliminate the interference of local politics in our court system. I commend the Committee for taking up this bill and I thank you for your kind consideration of my statement in support of H.R. 521. ______ [A letter submitted for the record by Terrence M. Brooks, et al., Brooks Lynch & Tydingco LLP, on H.R. 521 follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 79494.031 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 79494.032 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 79494.033 [A letter submitted for the record by Hon. Felix P. Camacho, Senator, 26th Guam Legislature, on H.R. 521 follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 79494.034 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 79494.035 [A letter submitted for the record by The Hon. Mark C. Charfauros, Senator, 26th Guam Legislature, on H.R. 521 follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 79494.036 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 79494.037 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 79494.038 [A letter submitted for the record by The Hon. Benjamin J.F. Cruz, Honorable Chief Justice of Guam (Retired), on H.R. 521 follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 79494.039 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 79494.040 [A letter submitted for the record by F. Randall Cunliffe, and Jeffrey A. Cook, Cunliffe & Cook, on H.R. 521 follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 79494.041 [A statement submitted for the record by Hon. Mark Forbes, Majority Leader, 26th Guam Legislature, on H.R. 521 follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 79494.042 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 79494.043 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 79494.044 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 79494.045 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 79494.046 [A letter submitted for the record by Seth Forman, Keogh & Forman, on H.R. 521 follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 79494.047 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 79494.048 [A letter submitted for the record by Gerald E. Gray, Law Offices of Gerald E. Gray, on H.R. 521 follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 79494.049 [A letter submitted for the record by The Hon. Lou Leon Guerrero, Senator, 26th Guam Legislature, on H.R. 521 follows:] May 8, 2002 Honorable James V. Hansen Chairperson House Committee on Resources 1324 Longworth House Office Building Washington, D.C. 20515-6201 Dear Mr. Chairman, My name is Lou Leon Guerrero and I am a Senator with the 26th Guam Legislature. I am writing this letter to support the passage of H.R. 521, which was introduced by Congressman Robert Underwood, Guam's Representative. H.R. 521 seeks to clarify the local judicial structure of Guam. Local law created the Supreme Court of Guam. Since its establishment as an appellate court, there has been much controversy and discussion as to its responsibility and supervisory jurisdiction over the Superior Court of Guam and all other courts in Guam. There have been efforts made by both the Guam Legislature and Congress to clarify Guam's third branch of government. However, the fact remains that the Judiciary is not truly a co-equal, independent branch of government and subject to changes by the Guam Legislature. If the Supreme Court of Guam is to truly serve as the highest court of the island, as what was originally intended, the amendments introduced in H.R. 521 must receive prompt action by the House of Representatives. There is much support for the passage of this legislation within the legal community, the private sector and the government. By passing H.R. 521, I feel that this may be our only avenue to assure the judicial branch free from political interference and provide them the authority to act independently and be vested with those powers traditionally held and exercised by the highest court of a jurisdiction. H.R. 521 is a vital piece of legislation for Guam and I humbly request its expeditious passage. Respectfully, Lou Leon Guerrero, RN, MPH Senator and Assistant Minority Leader of the 26th Guam Legislature ______ [A statement submitted for the record by The Hon. Carl T.C. Gutierrez, Governor of Guam, on H.R. 521 follows:] Statement of The Honorable Carl T. C. Gutierrez, Governor of Guam, on H.R. 521 Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee on Resources: Thank you for inviting me to appear before the Committee on Resources to present testimony on H.R. 521. Although I am not able to attend this hearing, I would like to submit this testimony for the Committee's consideration and I would appreciate your entering my testimony into the record for this bill. H.R. 521 is a bill to amend the Organic Act of Guam for the purpose of clarifying the local judicial structure of Guam. This bill would clarify the status of the Supreme Court of Guam and would give the Supreme Court of Guam administrative oversight and control of the Superior Court of Guam, divisions of the Superior Court and other local courts. I am in favor of H.R. 521 and I would urge the Committee on Resources to report this bill to the House of Representatives with the Committee's favorable recommendation. H.R. 521 would establish the independence of the Judiciary as a co- equal branch of the Government of Guam, and would insulate the Judicial branch from political interference by the executive and legislative branches. Without the clarifications of the Organic Act, we may find ourselves in the unfortunate situation where political favors are freely traded or where political pressure is applied to the Justices and Judges of the Courts of Guam. The Justices of the Guam Supreme Court have requested this legislation because they know that the current operations of the Supreme Court and the Superior Court are neither efficient nor seamless. We have two policy-making bodies within the Judicial branch, and we have an unhealthy relationship between the Courts. Without the clarifications of H.R. 521, we have a void that the politicians in the Legislature are all too eager to fill. I am pleased that the Committee will hear firsthand from the representatives of the Supreme Court and the Superior Court. In the interest of Judicial independence, I will forego commenting on the current state of affairs of that branch, but I will note that the situation between the Courts cannot be described as ideal, even by the opponents of H.R. 521. The Judicial branch should operate with integrity and should be above the political fray, not immersed in it. A Supreme Court that is not the highest Court is an anomaly and an aberration. A situation has evolved where the fight for Judicial supremacy has created uncertainty and political intrusion into the affairs of the Judiciary. H.R. 521 is a needed fix, and one that is overdue. ______ [A memorandum submitted for the record by Thomas J. Lannen, Dooley Lannen Roberts & Fowler LLP, on H.R. 521 follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 79494.053 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 79494.054 [A statement submitted for the record by Floyd E. Leonard, Chief, Miami Tribe of Oklahoma, on H.R. 791 follows:] Statement of Floyd E. Leonard, Chief of the Miami Tribe of Oklahoma Chairman Hansen, Congressman Rahall and Members of the Committee, I am Floyd E. Leonard, Chief of the Miami Tribe of Oklahoma. I wish to thank you for this opportunity to present written testimony to this Committee on Resources with respect to H.R. 791. H.R. 791, if passed, would extinguish, terminate and take away the aboriginal or treaty titles, and related rights and interests, of the Miami Tribe of Oklahoma, the Ottawa Tribe of Oklahoma and the Prairie Band Potawatomi Tribe of Kansas, without their respective consent, in and to their respective land and land claims in the State of Illinois, and would relegate those Tribes to multiple monetary claims and lawsuits against the United States in the United States Court of Federal Claims for their respectively taken land in Illinois. The Miami Tribe of Oklahoma now accepts the proposition that it is prudent and necessary for the U.S. Congress to assume a material role in balancing equitably the interests of the State of Illinois, its citizens and property owners, at least with respect to the Miami Tribe of Oklahoma, and to legislate a good faith, fair and meaningful resolution of the land claims of the Miami Tribe of Oklahoma in Illinois. For that reason, the Miami Tribe of Oklahoma commends Congressman Johnson for his leadership in starting dialogue in Congress, by introducing H.R. 791. The Miami Tribe of Oklahoma, however, opposes H.R. 791 for the reasons that I will address briefly in this statement, but again accepts the proposition that Federal legislation, in a form and containing such terms that are different than the present form and terms of H.R. 791 but that are also fair and reasonable, is the most appropriate methodology for an expeditious resolution of the recognized and treaty title claims of the Miami Tribe of Oklahoma to land, and related rights and interests, in the State of Illinois. Selected Historical Background--Miami Tribe of Oklahoma: The Miami Tribe of Oklahoma, the Ottawa Tribe of Oklahoma and the Prairie Band Potawatomi Tribe of Kansas, and their respective treaty or aboriginal title claims to lands in Illinois, are the subject of H.R. 791. That is not the only thing these great and historic Tribes have in common. In addition to their rather dubious distinction of being the subject of H.R. 791, each such Tribe possesses a distinctive characteristic that is not shared by most other Tribes in the United States that have asserted or are presently asserting a bona fide land claim under a treaty with the United States. Each such Tribe, that is identified in and the subject of H.R. 791, is and has been since 1787, a beneficiary of the Northwest Ordinance of 1787. The Continental Congress enacted the Northwest Ordinance in 1787, and the U.S. Congress adopted and ratified the Northwest Ordinance in 1789, during its first session after ratification by the original States of the new U.S. Constitution. Congress ratified the Northwest Ordinance as part of the exercise of its Commerce Clause, under Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution. The Northwest Territory, which was defined and created legislatively under the Northwest Ordinance, includes present-day Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio and Wisconsin. The Northwest Ordinance of 1787 is still valid U.S. law, and is part of the organic and constitutional laws of the States of Indiana and Illinois, and the other Northwest Territory States. The Northwest Ordinance, as adopted by the Continental Congress and as ratified by the first U.S. Congress, fostered at least three (3) important national social policies with respect to the Northwest Territory: (i) the westward Euro-American settlement of the Northwest Territory; (ii) the abolition and prohibition of slavery in the Northwest Territory; and, (iii) the self-imposed affirmative duty by and on the part of Congress to use utmost good faith in its dealings with the Indians of the Northwest, and to not take the lands of the Indians in the Northwest Territory without the consent of those Indians. The ``pro-Indian'' component of the Northwest Ordinance of 1787 states, in part, that: ``The utmost good faith shall always be observed towards the Indians [in the Northwest Territory]; their lands and property shall never be taken from them without their consent.'' Emphasis Added. In 1795, and pursuant to the Treaty Clause, under Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution, and fresh on the heels of the espoused ``pro-Indian'' policy under the Northwest Ordinance, the United States, my client and several other Indian Tribes consummated the Treaty of Greenville. The Treaty of Greenville of 1795, along with other treaties entered into by the United States and the Miami Tribe of Oklahoma under the Treaty Clause of the U.S. Constitution, including the Treaty of Grouseland of 1805 as referenced in H.R. 791, is the ``supreme Law of the Land'' under Article VI, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution. Pursuant to the Treaty of Greenville of 1795, the Treaty of Grouseland of 1805 and other treaties between the United States and the Miami Tribe of Oklahoma, the Miami Tribe of Oklahoma still holds, and by corollary has never ceded, its recognized, acknowledged and treaty title to (i) approximately 2.6 million acres of land in Illinois, that is referenced specifically in H.R. 791, and (ii) other substantial and vast acres of land in the original Northwest Territory. Present Status of Illinois Land Claims: In 1999, the Miami Tribe of Oklahoma filed a lawsuit, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois, against several property owners in Illinois who hold titles to lands in Illinois to which the Miami Tribe of Oklahoma claims it owns superior treaty title under the Treaty of Grouseland of 1805. The Miami Tribe of Oklahoma, in 2001, voluntarily dismissed that lawsuit for the sole reason that the lawsuit was disruptive to those Illinois property owners, and would have continued to be disruptive during the anticipated lengthy period of pre-trial proceedings, trial and possible appeals relating to that lawsuit. In February 2001, after the Miami Tribe of Oklahoma had filed the lawsuit in Illinois in 1999, but before the Miami Tribe of Oklahoma voluntarily dismissed that lawsuit in 2001, Congressman Johnson introduced H.R. 791. The U.S. Office of Solicitor has examined the recognized and treaty title claims of the Miami Tribe of Oklahoma to Illinois land under the Treaty of Grouseland of 1805, but, to our knowledge, has not issued a formal opinion or assessment as to the validity or breadth of those claims. The Miami Tribe of Oklahoma is aware generally that the U.S. Office of Solicitor has examined the aboriginal and/or treaty claims of the Ottawa Tribe of Oklahoma and the Prairie Band Potawatomi Tribe of Kansas, but is unaware as to the status or definitiveness of those examinations. H.R. 791--General Points of Opposition: The Miami Tribe of Oklahoma opposes H.R. 791, in its present form, based on the following general observations and for the following general reasons: 1. The Miami Tribe of Oklahoma has not consented to the confiscation and taking of land in Illinois, that it holds or claims by virtue of recognized title under the Treaty of Grouseland of 1805, or otherwise. H.R. 791, in present form, takes those recognized title and related land claims in Illinois of the Miami Tribe of Oklahoma (including, without limitation, all claims for trespass damages, use and occupancy, natural resources and hunting and fishing rights that relate to or arise from such lands), without the consent of the Miami Tribe of Oklahoma, in direct violation of the Northwest Ordinance of 1787, and of course in direct contravention of the policy and obligation of ``utmost good faith'' that the Miami Tribe of Oklahoma is afforded and entitled to receive from the United States and the State of Illinois. 2. The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution attaches to the land and recognized title claims of the Miami Tribe of Oklahoma in Illinois, including all claims for trespass damages, use and occupancy, natural resources and hunting and fishing rights that relate to or arise from such lands. H.R. 791, in its present form, is unfair and unreasonable, and for that reason and possibly other reasons H.R. 791 is or would constitute a violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. 3. In addition, the taking or confiscation of the land and recognized title claims in Illinois of the Miami Tribe of Oklahoma under the Treaty of Grouseland of 1805 (including, without limitation, all claims for trespass damages, use and occupancy, natural resources and hunting and fishing rights that relate to or arise from such lands), as contemplated by H.R. 791, requires the payment of fair compensation to the Miami Tribe of Oklahoma under the Just Compensation Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. 4. H.R. 791, in its present form, is or would be a naked and unprecedented abrogation by the United States of its treaty obligations that it owes to the Miami Tribe of Oklahoma, and violates or would violate the Federal doctrine of trust responsibility. The Miami Tribe of Oklahoma exchanged its vast aboriginal and recognized title claims to land in the Northwest Territory, in reliance on the Northwest Ordinance of 1787 (and other applicable U.S. laws) and its negotiated rights, interests and claims that are set forth in the Treaty of Greenville of 1795, the Treaty of Grouseland of 1805 and the many other treaties between the United States and the Miami Tribe of Oklahoma. Pursuant to the Treaty of Greenville of 1795, the Treaty of Grouseland of 1805 and the many other treaties between the United States and the Miami Tribe of Oklahoma, the Miami Tribe of Oklahoma owns, among other claims, recognized title to land, and rights and interests that relate thereto, in Illinois, as well other areas of the original Northwest Territory. The United States has a duty, pursuant to this trust responsibility, (i) to honor the trust relationship between the United States and the Miami Tribe of Oklahoma, (ii) to fulfill its treaty obligations to the Miami Tribe of Oklahoma, under the Treaty of Greenville of 1795, the Treaty of Grouseland of 1805, and otherwise, and, (iii) as a fiduciary of the resources of the Miami Tribe of Oklahoma, to act in good faith and utter loyalty to the best interests of the Miami Tribe of Oklahoma with respect to the recognized title claims of the Miami Tribe of Oklahoma in Illinois and elsewhere in the original Northwest Territory, and otherwise. 5. H.R. 791, in its present form, is internally inconsistent and legally problematic since it purports to extinguish the recognized title or claims to recognized title of the Miami Tribe of Oklahoma to lands in Illinois under the Grouseland Treaty of 1805, upon Congressional passage of the H.R. 791, but then relegates the Miami Tribe of Oklahoma to file a lawsuit or multiple lawsuits against the United States in the United States Court of Federal Claims for monetary damages attributable to such extinguished claims under the Grouseland Treaty of 1805. 6. The Miami Tribe of Oklahoma is presently investigating and has not determined definitively, as of this juncture, whether the State of Illinois, or any of its citizens or any other party violated the Trade and Intercourse Act of 1790, as amended, or any other applicable Federal laws, with respect to the recognized title or claims to recognized title of the Miami Tribe of Oklahoma to lands in Illinois. H.R. 791, in its present form, also purports to extinguish any claims by the Miami Tribe of Oklahoma, with respect to the recognized title or claims to recognized title of the Miami Tribe of Oklahoma to lands in Illinois, that relate to or arise from possible violations by the Trade and Intercourse Act of 1790, as amended, or any other applicable Federal laws. 7. The investigation and examination by the Miami Tribe of Oklahoma of its recognized title or claims to recognized title of the Miami Tribe of Oklahoma to lands in Illinois or any other part of the original Northwest Territory (including, without limitation, all claims for trespass damages, use and occupancy, natural resources and hunting and fishing rights that relate to or arise from such lands), or any related violations or potential violations under the Trade and Intercourse Act of 1790, as amended, or any other applicable Federal laws, requires the expenditure of significant resources and the compilation of extensive historical research and documentation pursuant to accepted methodologies, which generally cannot be completed within a twelve (12) month period. H.R. 791, in its present form, would purport to take away and terminate any claims, that relate to or arise from its recognized title or claims to recognized title to land in Illinois, or otherwise, that the Miami Tribe of Oklahoma may not presently be aware of or that may be subject to a present but incomplete examination, but that it may uncover or discover or complete its investigation or examination later than one (1) year after passage of H.R. 791. 8. The Miami Tribe of Oklahoma incorporates in this statement, by reference, the statements by or on the part of the Ottawa Tribe of Oklahoma and the Prairie Band Potawatomi Tribe of Kansas, the National Congress of American Indians, and others in opposition to H.R. 791, as presented before the U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Resources, on May 8, 2002, which are not inconsistent with this testimony, and subject to any later clarification or other statement that is or may be furnished to the Committee on Resources by the Miami Tribe of Oklahoma. Conclusion: H.R. 791 purports to embody an ``equitable settlement'' of the recognized treaty title claims of the Miami Tribe of Oklahoma in Illinois under the Treaty of Grouseland of 1805. This characterization is a misnomer and is illusory. H.R. 791, in its present form, is not a ``settlement'' at all. H.R. 791, in its present form and if passed, is simply a bold and unprecedented abrogation by the United States of the treaty rights of the Miami Tribe of Oklahoma under the Treaty of Grouseland of 1805, and is an involuntary taking or confiscation of the recognized title of the Miami Tribe of Oklahoma to its land in Illinois. H.R. 791, in its present form and if passed, simply guarantees multiple lawsuits against the United States in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, for monetary damages attributable to the taking and confiscation by the United States of the recognized treaty title claims of the Miami Tribe of Oklahoma in Illinois under the Treaty of Grouseland of 1805. H.R. 791, in its present form and if passed, is not only a failure of ``utmost good faith,'' but it is bad faith, a violation of due process and the trust doctrine, an involuntary taking, and a belittlement of the ``supreme law of the land'' and rule of law generally. In addition, H.R. 791, in its present form and if passed, is a tragic reminder of the disdain that the United States, through its policies and laws, has demonstrated historically to Indians and their Tribes, including the Miami Tribe of Oklahoma, as well as their respective lands and properties. The Miami Tribe of Oklahoma acknowledges the perceived intent of Congressman Johnson, with respect to H.R. 791--a settlement and resolution of the recognized title claims of the Miami Tribe of Oklahoma in Illinois, under the Grouseland Treaty of 1805, is in the public's best interest, including the best interest of the United States, the State of Illinois and its citizens, and the Miami Tribe of Oklahoma and its peoples. When Congressman Johnson introduced H.R. 791, the lawsuit of the Miami Tribe of Oklahoma in Illinois, against Illinois property owners, was still pending. The Miami Tribe of Oklahoma dismissed that lawsuit, in good faith, to chart a course of resolution which is not threatening to or disruptive of the good citizens and property owners of the State of Illinois, or elsewhere, but which is also protective of the treaty rights guaranteed by the United States to the Miami Tribe of Oklahoma. The Miami Tribe of Oklahoma is desirous of resolving its recognized title claims in Illinois, and, if appropriate, in the other areas of the original Northwest Territory, in a manner that is consistent with the intent and understanding of the Miami Tribe of Oklahoma and the United States when they negotiated and consummated the Treaty of Greenville of 1795, the Treaty of Grouseland of 1805 and any other applicable treaties. H.R. 791 is not an answer or a settlement--it is simply an invitation to multiple lawsuits and possible extraordinary monetary damages and injuries to the culture and interests of the Miami Tribe of Oklahoma. The Miami Tribe of Oklahoma is prepared now to take all necessary, reasonable and appropriate steps and actions to protect the rights of the Miami Tribe of Oklahoma under the Treaty of Greenville of 1795, the Treaty of Grouseland of 1805 and all other applicable treaties; and, without limiting the foregoing, the Miami Tribe of Oklahoma is hopeful that such initiatives will include a reasoned resolution of these claims of the Miami Tribe of Oklahoma. The Miami Tribe of Oklahoma stands firm with all other Tribes in the protection of tribal sovereignty and tribal treaty rights, and hereby reaffirms with the Committee on Resources that the Miami Tribe will not take any action in derogation of those principles. I wish to thank the Committee on Resources for holding a public legislative hearing on H.R. 791, and for inviting allowing the Miami Tribe of Oklahoma to present written testimony to the Committee on Resources with respect to H.R. 791. ______ [A statement submitted for the record by The Hon. Pilar C. Lujan, Former Senator, Guam Legislature, on H.R. 521 follows:] Statement of The Honorable Pilar C. Lujan, Former Senator of the Guam Legislature Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee on Resources: I am honored to submit this statement for the record on H.R. 521 and to comment on an issue that my late husband and I have dedicated much of our public service to, the establishment of the Supreme Court of Guam. I am Pilar C. Lujan, a former six term Senator in the Guam Legislature, and the widow of former Senator Frank G. Lujan who is memorialized in the Guam law establishing the Supreme Court of Guam. The Frank G. Lujan Memorial Act is the culmination of our combined careers in the Guam Legislature and it had been my honor to have authored this bill and managed its passage into law in the 21'' Guam Legislature. I am also honored that one of the first Supreme Court Justices appointed was my daughter Monessa, who served a brief term prior to her untimely death due to illness. I am enormously proud of my family's contributions to the Guam Supreme Court. My commitment to the Guam Supreme Court runs deep, some would say personal, and I am concerned today as much as I have ever been in its survival and its ability to succeed as the head of an independent branch of government. I am a retired public servant, and although I am currently the Chair of the Board of Directors of the Guam International Airport Authority and the Vice Chair of the Democratic Party of Guam, my comments on H.R. 521 are in my private capacity as a citizen and as one who has had a lifelong commitment to the Judiciary on Guam. The Frank G. Lujan Memorial Act, Guam Public Law 21-147, was the culmination of great effort spanning two decades. As a Senator, my husband authored the original legislation in the early 1970s establishing by local law the first Supreme Court of Guam. This local law was challenged successfully on the basis that the Guam Legislature did not have the authority under the Organic Act of Guam to establish a Supreme Court. The Guam Supreme Court was then dissolved while we pursued an amendment in Congress to the Organic Act of Guam giving the Guam Legislature the authority to create the Supreme Court. My husband passed away before the effort was completed, and I ran for a seat in the Guam Legislature to complete his mission. In every Legislature that I served in from the 17th to the 21st I introduced a bill to create the Supreme Court of Guam. I was fortunate to be the Chair of the Guam Legislature's Committee on the Judiciary and Criminal Justice in the 21'' Guam Legislature and to be in a position to usher the Supreme Court bill through the legislative process. We held hearings, received comments and suggestions, made changes and crafted a bill based on a broad consensus that was widely supported by both political parties. The establishment of a Supreme Court of Guam moved us ever closer to our goal of full self government. By having a Judicial branch complete with an appellate review process, we had signaled the maturity of our legal system and the capabilities of the attorneys who practice law on Guam, both in private practice and within the government, to manage our legal affairs. As the principal author and the driving force behind the Frank G. Lujan Memorial Act, I must state for the record that we had always contemplated and envisioned a Supreme Court that would exercise authority over the Judicial branch, both in policy and in administrative matters. This is a founding principle of an independent Judiciary, responsive to the people and the legislature, but also immune from political machinations. Since leaving the Legislature, I have seen the erosion of the authority of the Supreme Court of Guam by the efforts of the Guam Legislature to strip the Court of its oversight responsibilities of the local courts. We in the 21'' Guam legislature had foreseen these very problems, and we had included provisions in the Guam law that would ensure the Supreme Court's oversight of all Judicial matters on Guam. The latest efforts of the Guam Legislature to change the rules threatens the independence of both courts, and exposes the courts to possible political tampering. It should be most troubling to supporters of an independent and co-equal Judiciary that the legislature has the option of changing the rules or abolishing the Supreme Court at will. The fix that H.R. 521 proposes is correct and timely. It is time to ensure an independent Judiciary by giving the Supreme Court of Guam a ``constitutional'' status by amending the Organic Act of Guam. We are appealing to Congress to support us in bringing stability to the Judiciary by clarifying the roles and responsibilities of the Supreme Court and the Legislature. The Judicial branch on Guam should be headed by the Guam Supreme Court, including the administrative and policy making functions. All of my colleagues who worked so hard to establish the Guam Supreme Court did not intend anything less than having a Supreme Court that had authority over the lower courts, and this is exactly what the enabling legislation accomplished. That is how it is in the American system, and that is how it should be on Guam. I urge this Committee and Congress to pass H.R. 521. ______ [A letter submitted for the record by John B. Maher, McKeown, Vernier, Price & Maher, on H.R. 521 follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 79494.055 [A statement submitted for the record by Judge Joaquin V.E. Manibusan, Jr., on behalf of the majority of Superior Court of Guam Judges, on H.R. 521 follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 79494.056 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 79494.057 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 79494.058 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 79494.059 [A letter submitted for the record by Neal A. McCaleb, Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs, U.S. Department of the Interior, on H.R. 791 follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 79494.060 [A letter submitted for the record by Joseph B. McDonald, Legal Counsel, Citibank N.A. Guam, on H.R. 521 follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 79494.061 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 79494.062 [A letter submitted for the record by Vicente C. Pangelinan, Minority Leader, 26th Guam Legislature, on H.R. 521 follows:] Statement of Vicente C. Pangelinan, Minority Leader, 26th Guam Legislature Hafa adai Sinot gehilo' Ginen i taotao tano'', un dangkolo na Si Yu'os Ma'ase put este na opottunidat ni para bai hu prisenta i tistigu-hu pagu na oga'an, put asunton I mas tatkilu na kotte gi ya Guahan. Hafa adai Mr. Chairman, From the people of the land, thank you for the opportunity to present my testimony today, on the topic of the Supreme Court of Guam as embodied in H.R. 521, a bill that would amend the Organic Act of Guam to make the Supreme Court of Guam the chief administrative arm of Guam's judicial branch. The road to democracy for the people of Guam has been one mapped and charted for us by this dignified body. It is a journey on a road fraught with controversy and tenuous coalitions of political and at times personal interest. But throughout Guam's short history of political development and experimentations in democracy, we have met the challenges and our belief in our democratic system of government- rooted in the will of the people- has sustained our growth as a people and progress as a government. Today, I have come to Washington to appear before you Mr. Chairman and quoting some lines from a modern day rock classic must say ``what a long, strange trip its been.'' I first started this journey in the halls of the Guam Legislature in Hagatna, almost ten years ago when the first assault on an independent judiciary was launched; standing steadfast in the defense of a unified judiciary headed by the Supreme Court. Overrun by circumstances, events and legislative adventurism our defense efforts necessitated us to take our fight to court rooms of our local Superior Court and Supreme Court and on to that of the Ninth Circuit Federal District Courts. Undaunted and certain that we were fighting for a court system that will serve the best interest of the people of Guam, rather than the people with the robes, we defended our local Supreme Court victory in the Ninth Circuit Federal District Courts, where we once again prevailed. Regrettably, for the people of Guam, all the court victories will not ensure an independent judiciary since the foundation that this honorable body laid for us in creating our third branch of government lacks the rock solid constitutional protection enjoyed by the executive and legislative branches. That is what I am here to advocate for today. The people of Guam, whose self-government continues to be limited and confined by the lack of clarity on our political status, have strived to enhance our self-government through whatever means possible within the binding scope of the Congress that has plenary powers over our affairs. Notwithstanding these impediments, we have succeeded in gaining some ground. We have been able achieve, among others, an elected Legislature in the early 50's, elected Governor and Delegate to the Congress in the 70's, and most recently, the creation of our territorial Supreme Court. All have been results of a tedious process of persistent urging and lobbying by our dedicated leaders over a prolonged period of time. H.R. 521 if passed, will be hailed as another milestone in our limited self-government. It will result in a sound foundation--a ``constitutional'' one if you will--for our third branch of government, the courts. When the Thirteen colonies declared independence from the Great Britain, the leaders of the Revolution discerned the need to establish an institutional mechanism in the newly-founded nation that would permanently protect the people from the emergence of an autocratic individual or a regime that they so despised and just extricated themselves from. Our forefathers did this at the great risk of life and liberty. Today we enjoy the protections of their toil and wisdom. To that end, the architects of the U.S. Constitution carefully constructed a democratic structure of government comprised of three branches- the legislative, the executive and the judicial branches- with each holding an exclusive authority in the life process of any given policy. This doctrine of Separation of Powers, a basic benchmark and fundamental precept of our nation, laid the foundation for a perpetuation of a democratic system of government that we currently enjoy and cherish. Defining feature of this is the system of checks and balances that would ensure the sanctity and the distinct integrity of the three branches that were created. Under this system, each one of the three branches has, and does practically exercise, its authority to ensure the fair and orderly operations of the others. The legitimate practice and preservation of this doctrine requires the understanding of and conformance to the fine equilibrium that exists between the two notions by the three branches. When that equilibrium is breached, the foundation of our system of government is imperiled. The predicament that we encounter today in our territory infringes upon breaking that balance and corrupts the democracy of our forefathers--which we embrace and desire for ourselves. The judicial branch of Guam, like its two other counterparts that have experienced a series of political evolution and growth, also has undergone a major reformation process to attain its present maturity. Its growth and maturation has however been subject to the whims of politics and interests beyond justice. The Supreme Court of Guam, after a laborious process that lasted 21 years, realized through a local mandate, is administering all functions of the judicial branch, only recently restored by the aforementioned court victories. The Supreme Court of Guam has embarked on a noble task to enhance the efficiency and the effectiveness of our judicial system. Through its inclusion in the Organic Act, the foundation of the Supreme Court's place in our government will be accorded the same protection from erosion emanating from the rage of politics that the Executive and Legislative branch enjoy. Any significant political change within our territory requires an act of Congress. It is a tedious task that nonetheless must be abided by at this juncture of our journey toward self-determination. H.R. 521 is another measure to effect piecemeal change to the Organic Act of Guam, to enhance our self-government. If I may beg the indulgence of the Committee, Mr. Chairman, I wish to advance the following proposal in granting the people of Guam added measure of self-government. I ask the Committee to consider amending H.R. 521 that would allow the people of Guam through a the passage referendum with two-thirds vote by the people to amend the sections of the Organic Act relating to internal self government, much like the states amend their constitutions. The sections that affect territorial- Federal relations shall remain the purview of the Congress. This would be consistent with the authority Congress has granted to Guam to draft it own constitutions, but has been mired in the desire of the people and rightly so, to resolve the question of our ultimate political status. This devolution of the power that Congress grants to the states to the people of Guam and reservation of power that Congress retains for itself will be a small step for Congress to take in dealing with Guam, but is a giant leap in self government for the people of Guam. I ask Congress to act on this proposal and empower the people of America's beacon of democracy in the Pacific with the life of a government emblazoned with democratic ideals and practice. Once again, Hafa adai Mr. Chairman and I thank you and the Congress for is kind and studied consideration of my testimony. ______ [A letter submitted for the record by Thomas L. Roberts, Dooley Lannen Roberts & Fowler LLP, on H.R. 521 follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 79494.071 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 79494.072 [A letter submitted for the record by The Hon. James E. Ryan, Attorney General, State of Illinois, on H.R. 791 follows:] May 6, 2002 The Honorable James V. Hansen Chairman House Committee on Resources U.S. House of Representatives Washington, D.C. 20515 Dear Congressman Hansen: On behalf of the People of the State of Illinois, the Attorney General of the State of Illinois wishes to submit the following written testimony expressing the State of Illinois' full support for H.R. 791, a bill that concerns the resolution of Indian land claims in Illinois. The Attorney General wishes to thank the U.S. House of Representatives' Committee on Resources for the opportunity to present this written testimony, and believes that the State of Illinois has experience with the subject of this legislation that will benefit the Committee's consideration of H.R. 791. H.R. 791. The proposed legislation concerns two specific treaty- based claims to lands in Illinois brought by Federal Indian tribes. One claim is based on the August 21, 1805 ``Treaty of Grouseland.'' The other claim is based on the July 29, 1829 ``Treaty with the United Nations, etc.'' The former treaty relates to a claim to 2.6 million acres in eastern Illinois, and the later treaty to much smaller claims to land in DeKalb county. Section (b) of H.R. 791 extinguishes all tribal claims based on both treaties, and Section (c) authorizes the claimant tribes to sue in the Court of Claims based on the treaties against the United States alone, for money damages. Tribal Land Claims In Illinois. The legislation is necessary and important to the State of Illinois because based on the foregoing treaties, Indian tribes have asserted that they are the true owners and title-holders of millions of acres of Illinois lands. As of the middle of the 19th Century, the United States government believed it had properly extinguished any tribal claims to Illinois land through a series of treaties with the tribes and others who lived in our State. After executing these treaties, the United States proceeded to open lands in Illinois to private settlement. For the past 150 years, the tribes never asserted that they retained land rights in Illinois. Moreover, in the 1950s and 1960s, the United States created a Federal administrative forum for Indian claims against the Federal Government called the Indian Claims Commission, and the tribes never brought their current claims before that tribunal. Recently, however, for the first time in over 150 years, the tribes have claimed that the United States breached certain early treaties, and that valid tribal claims to Illinois lands persist. The lands claimed by these tribes are currently owned primarily by private citizens, and have been in private ownership since as early as the middle of the 19th Century. The current owners trace their title back to 19th Century grants from the United States government. Tribal Land Claims Litigation. In June 2000, one tribe filed a Federal law suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois claiming that it was the rightful owner of 2.6 million acres of Illinois. (Miami Tribe v. Walden et al., No. 00 CV 4142). The tribe named as defendants 15 randomly chosen private citizens who owned land in each of the 15 Illinois counties covered by the claim. On behalf of the People of the State of Illinois, the Attorney General of Illinois moved to intervene in the litigation. This motion was granted, and the State of Illinois filed a motion to dismiss the tribe's suit. The State's motion asserted that the United States was the only proper defendant, and that the suit against innocent modern-day owners must be dismissed because it was barred by the sovereign immunity of the United States and the State of Illinois. In June of 2001, the tribe voluntarily withdrew its suit without defending against the State's motion. However, the tribe continues to talk publicly about its claim, that claim has not been extinguished by Congress or the courts, and the claim continues to cloud title and property values in a huge expanse of Illinois. Damage And Disrpution Caused By Tribal Land Claims. Despite the State's view that the tribal claims have no merit, the emergence of 21st century tribal claims that attack over 150 years of private ownership has adversely impacted land transactions and property values in our State. In particular, the Miami litigation caused great consternation in a 15-county area of east-central Illinois. Families who in some instances had held title to their farms for over 100 years were suddenly threatened with dispossession. The named defendant in the tribe's lawsuit was a 90-year old senior citizen. The tribe's suit treated private landowners in the 2.6 million acre claim area as trespassers. To protect these innocent people, the State of Illinois was forced to pass legislation providing funding for the legal defense of landowners who in some cases had no title insurance and limited means to defend themselves. The State also retained certain private Special Assistant Attorneys General to assist in defending the novel historical and legal issues raised by the tribal claims. The Need For A Federal Solution. The State of Illinois feels that the tribal claims lack merit, and that the nearly 200 year-old treaties cited by the tribes do not create any heretofore unknown tribal rights to Illinois land. Against this background, H.R. 791 offers the claimant tribes a generous resolution to their current claims. These claims attack the validity of actions taken by the United States government nearly 200 years ago. The legislation before this Committee, H.R. 791, protects innocent modern day landowners by prohibiting the tribal claimants from asserting claims to Illinois land based on these ancient treaties. The legislation is also fair to the tribes, however, because it authorizes them to sue the United States directly in the Court of Claims, so that they may obtain a judicial hearing on the treaty breaches they have alleged. The State of Illinois expects that the result of such a hearing would be a finding that the tribal claims lack merit. On behalf of the People of the State of Illinois, the Attorney General wishes to thank the Committee for hearing this testimony. Sincerely James E. Ryan Attorney General of Illinois ______ [A statement submitted for the record by The Hon. Joe T. San Agustin, Former Speaker of the Guam Legislature, on H.R. 521 follows:] Statement of The Honorable Joe T. San Agustin, Former Speaker of the Guam Legislature, on H.R. 521 Chairman Hansen and Members of the Committee on Resources: Thank you for affording me this opportunity to provide written testimony on H.R. 521, to Amend the Organic Act of Guam for the purposes of clarifying the local judicial structure of Guam. I am the former Speaker of the 20th, 21st and 22nd Guam Legislatures, and I had served ten (10) terms in the legislative branch as a Senator. I am currently the Chairman of the Democratic Party of Guam. As the former Speaker of the 21st Guam Legislature, I presided over the session of the Guam Legislature during which the bill was passed establishing the Supreme Court of Guam (Guam Public Law 21-147). This had been an effort many years in the making, and the Frank G. Lujan Memorial Act was a bipartisan bill that enjoyed widespread support within the legal community. The Court Reorganization Act, titled the ``Frank G. Lujan Memorial Act'', was an effort that had been undertaken with great care and deliberation and with numerous consultations with the legal community on Guam. From the first introduction of this bill in 1984 to its passage in 1993, we ensured that all segments of the community were consulted and that we were building a consensus. We knew that we were undertaking a most important court reorganization, and we wanted to be sure to get it right the first time. The Frank G. Lujan Memorial Act passed unanimously in 1993 in the 21st Guam Legislature and was signed into law by a Republican Governor. There was no controversy then concerning Judicial oversight by the Supreme Court, and administrative and policy-making authority by the Supreme Court over the lower courts. These are relatively new issues, but we considered these settled issues in 1993 when the enabling legislation was passed. The lesson that we now have learned is that the stability of the Supreme Court and the Judicial branch requires certainty that the Supreme Court would be insulated from the politics of the moment to do what is right for the Judicial branch and to avoid involvement in local politics. This can only be accomplished by ensuring that the Supreme Court of Guam is a ``constitutional'' court, by amending the Organic Act of Guam as H.R. 521 does. I would like to point out that the Frank G. Lujan Memorial Act was a bipartisan effort, and that at that particular point in time, no one could predict whether a Democratic or Republican Governor would have the honor of appointing the first Supreme Court Justices after the gubernatorial elections of 1994. In a sense, we were operating based on our concept of how to best establish a strong and independent Judiciary, and we were free from the calculations of political advantage due to the timing of the gubernatorial election two years later. We worked to ensure a Judicial branch that was a co-equal branch of government, that had its own internal administrative structure, and that was unified. Since 1993, we have seen the turbulence caused by the legislature's exercise of its power to revisit the Judicial structure, and we have seen the negative consequences of an internal struggle over the authority of the Supreme Court of Guam. This is unfortunate and a step backward from where we wanted the Judiciary to be in 1993. H.R. 521 clarifies the role of the Supreme Court of Guam as a constitutional court, and establishes the administrative structure of the Judicial branch as is the case throughout the United States. To do otherwise is to accept that Guam can have a Judiciary very different from that of the other states and territories with no rational basis for the distinction. Congress amends the Organic Act of Guam. If there were another recourse, perhaps we would not need H.R. 521, but the only means now available to the people of Guam to establish a Supreme Court of Guam as a constitutional court is the Congressional process. H.R. 521 is needed to ensure a Judicial branch as a co-equal and independent branch of the Government of Guam. I strongly urge the Committee on Resources to report out H.R. 521 and I urge Congress to pass this bill for Guam. ______ [A letter submitted for the record by Marcelene C. Santos, President, University of Guam, on H.R. 521 follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 79494.073 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 79494.074 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 79494.075 [A letter and supporting documents submitted for the record by Peter C. Siguenza, Jr., et al., Chief Justice, Supreme Court of Guam, follow:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 79494.076 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 79494.077 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 79494.078 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 79494.079 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 79494.080 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 79494.081 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 79494.082 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 79494.083 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 79494.084 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 79494.085 [A letter submitted for the record by Charles H. Troutman, Compiler of Laws, Office of the Attorney General, Department of Law, Territory of Guam, on H.R. 521 follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 79494.086 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 79494.087 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 79494.088 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 79494.089 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 79494.090 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 79494.091 [A letter submitted for the record by The Hon. Antonio R. Unpingco, Speaker, 26th Guam Legislature, on H.R. 521 follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 79494.092 [Letters submitted for the record by Mark R. Warnsing, Deputy Counsel to the Goveror, State of Illinois, on H.R. 791 follow:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 79494.093 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 79494.094 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 79494.095 [A letter and resolution submitted for the record by Annice M. Wagner, President, Conference of Chief Justices, on H.R. 521 follow:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 79494.096 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 79494.097 [A statement submitted for the record by The Hon. Judith T. Won Pat, Senator, 26th Guam Legislature, on H.R. 521 follows:] Statement of The Honorable Judith T. Won Pat, Senator. 26th Guam Legislature, on H.R. 521 Mr:: Chairman and Members of the Committee on Resources: I would like to thank you for affording me the opportunity to submit written. testimony on H.R. 521. My name is Judith T. Perez Won Pat, an elected representative of the people of Guam, and Assistant Minority Whip of the 26th Guam Legislature. Let me first commend you for holding this hearing on H.R. 521 which seeks to clarify Guam's judicial structure by amending the Organic. Act. I am. in full support of the Guam Judicial Endowment Act by Guam's Honorable Robert Underwood. At this time, the Judiciary of Guam is not on equal footing with the other branches of the government. The Honorable Antonio B. Won Pat was able to have the. Organic Act of Guam amended with. the passage of the Omnibus Territories Act of 1984. This authorized the Guam Legislature to establish an appellate court, but did not provide a structure for the new judicial system. The Supreme Court of Guam was established in 1993 through the Frank G: Lujan Memorial Court Reorganization Act, but the lack of administrative direction in the Omnibus Act leaves the court vulnerable to the political changes of the Guam Legislature. Since the court is the creation. of the Guam Legislature; only amending the Organic Act will: ensure permanence, parity and independence of Guam's Judicial. system. The provisions of H.R. 521 would, once -and for all, clearly define the structure. of our Judicial branch within the framework of the Organic Act and establish the Supreme Court of Guam. as the judicial and administrative head of the Judiciary. I believe that H.R. 521 is long overdue and direly needed to safeguard the integrity and autonomy of the Judicial branch from political interference from the executive and legislative branches. I would urge the Committee to favorably report out this appropriate legislation to the House of Representatives. We need to ensure that the Judiciary can function as a separate but equal branch of government without the threat of the other branches having the authority to modify or strip the powers of the Supreme Court. Once; again I thank you for your kind consideration on the submission of my testimony. -