[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 109 (Tuesday, August 9, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[Congressional Record: August 9, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
THE GUAM WAR RESTITUTION ACT
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of
February 11, 1994, and June 10, 1994, the gentleman from Guam [Mr.
Underwood] is recognized for 30 minutes as the designee of the majority
leader.
(Mr. UNDERWOOD asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. UNDERWOOD. Mr. Speaker, tonight I will continue telling the
Nation the story about the people of Guam and their unique experience
in World War II, and I will continue telling the Nation of my efforts
to bring closure to this story and justice to the people of Guam. This
is not the first time I have spoken to this House and to the American
people about the wartime atrocities that were endured during World War
II by the people of Guam, and today is a most auspicious day to be
telling this story--today is the anniversary of the dropping of the
atomic bomb on Nagasaki.
But it is not to reopen old wounds that I raise this subject--rather
it is to heal the wounds of a people, the people of Guam, who have a
compelling case to make before their Federal Government, and of a
government that seems unwilling to hear this story and unwilling to act
to correct the injustices committed against the people of Guam in World
War II.
I want to make it clear from the start that my chronicling of the
atrocities committed on my people is not meant to justify the bombing
of Hiroshima and Nagasaki--those events clearly stand apart from the
experience of the people of Guam. But there is a parallel in that while
some events in the tragic history of World War II--events etched in
our collective memory from Pearl Harbor to Hiroshima--command
attention, other equally important events suffer from the neglect of
history. And if the neglect of history in and of itself is not a crime,
the neglect of the Federal Government to right the wrongs committed on
Guam by the enemy occupation of our island is as close to criminal
neglect as a government can come.
The central point is that Guam was the only American territory
occupied in World War II--not the Philippines, which although was an
American territory at the time, was promised its independence before
the outbreak of war, and in fact became independent in 1946; and not
the Aleutian Islands, which were also occupied by the Japanese but
whose inhabitants were evacuated by the U.S. Army prior to the start of
hostilities.
So from the invasion day of December 10, 1941 to Liberation Day on
July 21, 1944, Guam was the only American soil with American nationals
occupied for 32 months by an enemy; something that has not happened on
American soil since the War of 1812.
It is now 50 years since the Liberation of Guam in 1944, and if
anything, time has not meant that all is forgotten and forgiven--not
until there is national recognition of what happened to our fellow
Americans on Guam and how their Federal Government failed to make them
whole and to right the wrongs of the occupation.
The 50th anniversary of D-day in Normandy in June, and today's
anniversary of the bombing of Nagasaki, as well as the 50th anniversary
of the events of World War II being commemorated across Europe and the
Pacific, have afforded an opportunity to reflect on the war experience.
For the people of Guam, it has also focused attention on our own
experience, and on the unfinished business of that war.
The occupation of Guam which lasted from December 1941 to July 1944
was especially brutal for two reasons--one, the Japanese were occupying
American territory with American nationals whose loyalty to the United
States would not bend; and two the Chamorus, the indigenous people of
Guam dared to defy the occupiers by assisting American sailors who had
evaded initial capture by the enemy by providing food and shelter to
the escapees.
In the final months of the occupation, the brutalities increased.
Thousands of Chamorus were made to perform forced labor by building
defenses and runways for the enemy. Others were put to labor in rice
paddies. The war in the Pacific turned for the worst for the Japanese
occupiers, and in the final weeks, as the preinvasion bombardment by
American planes and ships signalled the beginning of the end for the
occupation army, the atrocities likewise escalated.
Forty six Chamorus in the southern village of Malesso were herded
into caves, and were summarily executed by the enemy throwing hand
grenades into the caves and spraying the caves with rifle and machine
gun fire. Miraculously, some survived by pulling the bodies of their
fallen fellow villagers over themselves to protect against the rain of
shrapnel and bullets. They survived as witnesses to the atrocities.
One elderly woman called on me during my campaign for Congress and
asked me to never let this country forget what happened on Guam and to
promise that I could do everything I could to bring justice and
recognition to the people of Guam.
Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, I wish to
commend the gentleman from Guam, who is my next-door neighbor on the
fifth floor of Cannon, for his tenacity, to bring home to the people of
America what happened on that island. The gentleman is a historian,
comes from the academic community in Guam, and has had many displays
here in Congress, one of which are recently displayed in the rotunda of
the Cannon Office Building.
I examined very closely what the gentleman had done, and I commend
the gentleman for making history something that we should never forget,
because we never want to repeat the errors and the punishment of it. I
thus commend the gentleman for his devotion to the history of the area
that he represents.
{time} 2310
Mr. UNDERWOOD. I appreciate those comments very much from my very
distinguished neighbor on the fifth floor. It is neighbors like you
that make sitting in this House worthwhile.
Continuing with the story, she survived the massacre in Malesso, and
bore the scars of that massacre in the shrapnel in her back and in her
feet, so that every time she walked, with every step, she was reminded
of that nightmarish occurrence on Guam. Sadly, she died last year.
In the capital city of Agana, another group of Chamorus were rounded
up, and one by one, executed by beheading and mutilation by swords.
Again, miraculously, one survived, Mrs. Beatrice Flores Emsley, to bear
witness to what happened on our island. Mrs. Emsley still bears the
long scar down the side of her neck where a sword struck her. She
fainted after being struck, and awoke 2 days later with maggots all
over her neck, but thankful to be alive. Mrs. Emsley will, of course,
never forget what happened on Guam.
Judge Joaquin Manibusan, a retired Judge on Guam, was a young man
during the war. Again, in the last weeks before liberation, he was
rounded up along with a large group of Chamorus to bear witness to
another atrocity. Judge Manibusan was forced to help dig a shallow hole
in front of a Chamoru man. Three men were then made to kneel in front
of three freshly dug graves, and each man was in turn beheaded.
Judge Manibusan still lives to bear witness to this atrocity, [but if
his bearing witness is not convincing enough, he was able to obtain a
picture of that execution scene from the records of the war crimes
trial on Guam. This picture depicts to the three Chamoru men kneeling
in front of their shallow graves moments before they were struck down.
I am thankful that he kept this picture for over 50 years, so] that
even as all these brave Chamorus died from the passing of time, we,
their sons and daughters, will be able to continue their fight and bear
their witness until we achieve justice for the people of Guam.
Thousands of Chamorus, not hundreds, but thousands, were forced to
march from their villages in northern and central Guam to internment
camps in southern Guam in the weeks before liberation. Everyone
marched, old men and women, newborn babies, children, and the sick.
They were marched to internment camps at Maimai, Malojloj and Manengon,
where they awaited their fate for the next few weeks--many did not live
to see Liberation.
Many did not live, but their brothers and sisters survived, their
children survived and the fellow Chamorus survived, again to bear
witness to these atrocities.
In their final acts of retribution against the people of Guam, the
Japanese occupiers inflicted a violence against our people that can not
be easily forgotten. The Catholic High School for young men on Guam,
Father Duenas Memorial School in Tai, bears witness to the courage of
one young priest, who in the last days before Liberation, was also
beheaded as revenge for the occupiers' frustration in not capturing the
lone American sailor who had evaded their grasp with the aid of the
Chamorus. The memory of this noble young priest lives on as the high
school named in his honor stands witness to his courage.
Against this backdrop of terror, the Liberation of Guam began on July
21, 1944. On that fateful day, two groups of people came together--one
was in uniform and the other was in rags; one used weapons of war and
the other used tools for survival; one came in from the sea and the
other came down from the hills; one left their families behind and the
other tried to keep their families with them; one liberated the island
from without and the other liberated the island from within.
In their meeting the great historical drama that Guam alone could
play came to pass, as American soil was liberated from enemy hands, as
American Marines and American soldiers were united with American
civilians held captive in internment camps on American soil.
The battle hardened American servicemen came to Guam concerned about
meeting a determined enemy; but these men soon came to understand the
special nature of this battle among all of those in the Pacific War--
indeed among all the battles of World War II. This was a reoccupation,
this was retaking what was once lost, what was once American.
And as the young Marines and soldiers saw our people come down from
the hills, they broke down and openly wept, as the saw Guam's children
emerge from the hills carrying hand made American flags; as they saw
Guam's old men and women emerge from the internment camps clutching
rosaries and thanking the young liberators for their deliverance from
certain death.
The story of the people of Guam cries out for attention and
understanding. And the story has a dimension of unfinished business, of
an injustice that must be corrected, and of a legacy of loyalty that
has been tarnished by the neglect of the Federal Government.
In the aftermath of Liberation, a grave injustice occurred that to
this day, 50 years later, has yet to be undone.
The Treaty of Peace with Japan, signed on September 8, 1951 by the
United States and 47 Allied Powers, effectively precluded the just
settlement of war reparations for the people of Guam against their
former occupiers. In the Treaty, the United States waived all claims of
reparations against Japan by United States citizens.
Consider now how ironic it is that the people of Guam became American
citizen just 1 year earlier, on August 1, 1950, by virtue of the
Organic Act of Guam--a citizenship that was granted to the people of
Guam largely because of their demonstrated loyalty to America during
the occupation.
The historical events surrounding the signing of this Treaty of Peace
creates a compelling argument that the Federal Government, including
the United States Naval Government of Guam and the U.S. Congress,
failed to address the circumstances of the Americans on Guam and
allowed a situation to develop over the years where justice was
delayed, and ultimately denied.
The bitter irony then is that the loyalty of the people of Guam to
the United States has resulted in Guam being forsaken in war
reparations.
Did the Federal Government simply forget what had happened on Guam?
Unfortunately, the answer is not that Guam was forgotten at all, but
that at critical historical moments, Guam's unique situation escaped
the attention of lawmakers in Congress and government officials in the
Naval Government of Guam.
In fact, the record shows a deliberate attempt by Congress and the
Navy to address the reparations issue and to do right by the people of
Guam for their wartime loyalty--that they fell short in their attempts
is the cause for our efforts to seek redress 50 years later.
This is not a case of people belatedly asking for something that they
are not entitled to by justice or by design--it is a case of the law
falling short in the goal of making Guam whole after the War, and of
Congress neglecting to address the issues that were raised by its own
War Claims Commission and the recommendations made by the committee
appointed by the Secretary of the Navy to investigate the war claims
issue on Guam after the war.
Recognizing the immense devastation and the dramatic and urgent need
for rehabilitation after the war, on November 15, 1945, scarcely 3
months after the end of hostilities against Japan, Congress passed the
Guam Meritorious Claims Act, Public Law 79-224, ``granting immediate
relief to the residents of Guam by the prompt settlement of meritorious
claims''. The following year, 1946, Congress also passed the Guam Land
Transfer Act, Public Law 79-225, and the Guam Rehabilitation Act,
Public Law 79-583. While the Guam Meritorious Claims Act (PL 79-224)
became the primary means of settling war claims for the people of Guam,
the Guam, Land Transfer Act provided a means of exchanging land for
resettlement purposes and the Guam Rehabilitation Act (PL 79-583),
which appropriated $6 million for construction, was the means for
economic rehabilitation.
Unfortunately, conditions on Guam in 1945 and 1946 did not lend
themselves to the best of Congressional intentions. During the battle
to liberate Guam, over 80 per cent of the buildings were destroyed. The
capital city, Agana, and the second largest city, Sumay, were
completely destroyed.
Once the island was secured, Guam became the forward operating base
for the subsequent invasions of the Philippines, Iwo Jima and Okinawa.
Over 45 per cent of the land mass was acquired for this wartime effort,
and over 200,000 military personnel came to Guam to prosecute the war
against Japan. The Chamorus, numbering about 20,000, were temporarily
housed in refugee camps set up by the military--their former cities of
Agana and Sumay were razed to make room for the new bases and the mass
mobilization of troops.
To their great credit, the Chamorus did not complain; in fact, they
helped the military in every way they could to help defeat their former
oppressors.
The post war period brought more upheaval. The Naval Government of
Guam, which governed the island during and after the war, used the
authority of the Guam Land Transfer Act and the Guam Rehabilitation Act
to first fulfill its priority of building permanent naval bases. The
concerns of the civilian community were a distant second to the Navy,
and in 1950, six years after Liberation, the Report of the War Claims
Commission With Respect To War Claims Arising Out Of World War II
stated that, ``no organized program for reconstruction of damaged or
destroyed civilian facilities had been undertaken.'' (House document
Number 580, 81st Congress, 2nd Session, page 44)
If the cities were not being rebuilt, and I must point out that the
city of Sumay was never rebuilt and became a footnote of history
because it had the misfortune of being located next to the new Naval
Station at Apra Harbor, where were the Chamorus living? In makeshift
houses, built largely with war scraps, in twenty one villages scattered
along the length of the island. It is in this atmosphere of liberation
and displacement that the Navy attempted to administer a flawed war
claims program.
In asking Congress in 1994 to revisit the Guam war reparations issue,
I am not asking Congress to embark on anything new, or to create new
precedents. I am simply asking Congress to correct the errors of the
Federal Government's attempts in 1946 to resolve these issues.
I am also asking Congress to complete the task it set out to do in
1946; a task made all the more necessary because of the historical
circumstances surrounding the Treaty of Peace with Japan. I am simply
the latest elected leader from Guam, in an unbroken line from the first
Speaker of the First Guam Legislature in 1951, to the first elected
Governor of Guam in 1970, and the first elected Delegate to Congress in
1972, and all their successors, to ask congress to address the
injustice of the Guam war reparations on behalf of our people.
When Congress passed the Guam Meritorious Claims Act in 1945, the
intent was to make Guam whole and to address the claims arising out of
enemy occupation and damage caused in the battles to liberate Guam.
Both the House and Senate reports on the Guam Meritorious Claims Act,
Senate bill S. 1139, state that:
The Japanese invasion and occupation resulted in extensive
damage to private property on the island. Further damage
resulted from our reconquest. As a result of the two periods
of combat and the actions of the Japanese occupying force
during the interim, the people of Guam have suffered
extensively, and it is believed that immediate steps should
be taken to alleviate their suffering. The fairest, most
equitable, and most immediate method of achieving this end
would be through the early settlement of claims for damages
arising in the period since December 6, 1941, and caused by
the activities of the Japanese and American military
forces.'' (Senate report 442, 79th Congress, 1st session,
page 1; House report 1135, 79th Congress, 1st Session,
page 2).
Congress, in 1945, was concerned about conditions on Guam and the
need to address the war claims of the Chamorus. In a hearing on March
14, 1945, just eight months after the Liberation of Guam and before the
war ended, Congressman Walter Ploeser testified on the Navy's
appropriations bill for 1946, that:
At the time we were there (on Guam) no one of the civilian
group or the inhabitants of the island had ever made a
complaint to our Government, or to our naval forces occupying
the island about their claims for the destruction of their
property.
The story goes that these people stood on the hill and
cheered every time we knocked a building down and did
everything in their power to help us in our fight against the
Japanese. That is quite unusual for an American national.
Certainly it would be most unusual for an American citizen
not to make a claim after the Government had destroyed his
property, but these people have not done so. There has been
no complaints whatsoever. They were waiting patiently,
feeling confident that the Americans would do something about
it.
I should mention that the record shows that Congressman Jamie Whitten
of Mississippi, a Member of the current Appropriations Committee, was
present at this particular hearing.
Hearings were held in October 1945 to address the Guam war claims
issue, and on November 15, 1945, the Guam Meritorious Claims Act became
law (Public law 79-224). Public Law 79-224 provided for a one year
period to file claims to a Commission composed of Naval and Marine
officers, who could authorize property settlements up to $5,000.
Property settlements over $5,000 as well as all death and injury
claims, must be forwarded to the Secretary of the Navy in Washington
for certification, and then submitted to Congress for appropriation. In
a bizarre twist of bureaucratic logic, death and injury claims were to
be considered only as a basis for property damage; in other words, a
claim could not be paid solely for a man executed for loyalty to the
United States, but could be paid for a man who died if that claim was
related to other property damage.
There are a number of significant flaws in the Guam Meritorious
Claims Act, and the resolution of these issues that remain with us
today is the reason I introduced on July 13 H.R. 4741, the Guam War
Restitution Act, to complete the work that was never finished by
Congress, and to bring closure to this issue.
The 1945 Guam Meritorious Claims Act allowed only one year for
claimants to file with the Claims Commission. The deadline for all
claims expired on December 1, 1946. Many Chamorus were not aware of the
Claims Commission's work due to language barriers, displacement from
their homes and misunderstanding of the procedures. However, due to the
cumbersome procedures the Navy employed in processing the claims, the
one year deadline did not speed up the processing of claims, and served
no useful purpose except to deny valid claims filed after December 1,
1946.
The Guam Meritorious Claims Act required that claims be settled based
on pre-war 1941 values. This meant that property claims were
undervalued, and that residents of Guam were not able to replace
structures destroyed during the war.
The Guam Meritorious Claims Act did not allow compensation for forced
march, forced labor, and internment during the enemy occupation. This
was a serious flaw in Public Law 79-224. Another law passed in this
same time period for other war claims, the War Claims Act of 1948,
Public Law 80-896, allowed for compensation for American citizens and
American nationals for internment and forced labor. Only Guam was
treated differently, yet Guam stood alone as the only American
territory occupied in the War. In fact, while the War Claims Act of
1948 specifically excluded Guam, it allowed compensation for these
atrocities for the Philippine citizens who were American nationals
during the war, although the Philippines gained its independence from
the United States in 1946.
The Guam Meritorious Claims Act allowed death and injury claims only
as a basis for property claims. This was another provision unique to
the Guam law, and an unexplainable stipulation. The Guam bill, Senate
bill S. 1139, was actually modeled on a claims bill passed for other
Americans in 1943, the Foreign Claims Act. The legislative history for
the Foreign Claims Act emphasized the need to address these claims. In
a floor statement on April 12, 1943 in support of passage of this bill,
Senator Barkley noted that, ``it is necessary to do this in order to
avoid injustices in many cases, especially in cases of personal injury
or death.'' (Senate Report 145, 78th Congress, 1st Session, pp. 2-3).
The original language for S. 1139, following the Foreign Claims Act
model language, allowed the Claims Commission to adjudicate claims for
personal injury and death. But the language was amended by the Senate
Naval Affairs Committee to ensure that the United States Government,
and specifically the Navy, would not be setting a precedent or legal
obligation for the Navy. (Congressional Record, 79th Congress, 1st
session, pp. 9493-9499). However, these types of concerns were not
raised for the almost identical situation of the Philippines, or other
American citizens or nationals when the War Claims Act of 1948 was
passed by Congress.
The Guam Meritorious Claims Act encouraged Chamorus to settle claims
for lesser amounts due to the time delay in having claims over $5,000
sent to Washington for Congressional approval. Again, this was a
procedure unique to the Guam law. No such requirement existed for those
covered under the 1948 War Claims Act. The net effect on Guam was that
Chamorus with property damage over $5,000 would lower their claims just
so that they could be compensated in some fashion and get on with their
lives.
The flaws in the Guam claims program were brought to the attention of
Congress in 1947 by a Committee formed by the Secretary of the Navy,
James Forrestal, to assess the Naval administration of Guam. This
Committee included Mr. Ernest M. Hopkins, retired President of
Dartmouth College, Mr. Maurice J. Tobin, former Governor of
Massachusetts and Mr. Knowles A. Ryerson, dean of the College of
Agriculture at the University of California. The Hopkins Committee, in
its report, addressed the serious flaws and shortcomings of the Guam
Meritorious Claims Act, and reported:
The [Navy] regulations provide in rules 4a and 5b that the
market value of damaged or destroyed real or personal
property shall be determined as of December 6, 1941 . . .
Replacement costs are far in excess of the 1941 value and so
called relief is apt to be only a hollow gesture when the
amount received is a small fraction of what will be needed to
acquire a new home, or furniture, or tools or of what is
required for present day family support.
In reviewing the death and injury claims, the Hopkins Committee
minced no words about the injustice they found:
. . . under the [Navy] regulations, injury and death claims
require an involved computation . . . When the calculation is
finally computed, the amount awarded is often a mere
pittance. Some simpler procedure should be devised and more
latitude should be given to the [Claims] Commission to arrive
at just and equitable figures in view of all circumstances.
I want to emphasize this point again--the Hopkins Committee found in
1947 that payments to Chamorus for death and injury claims paid by the
Navy to be a ``mere pittance''.
Further, with respect to the Guam Meritorious Claims Act requirement
that death and injury claims be allowed only incident to property
damage, the Hopkins Committee recommended that:
The regulations should be amended to eliminate values or
standards as of December 1941, as the measure of damage and
more liberality should be practiced in passing upon claims.
The Hopkins Committee report concluded that:
. . . payment of war damage claims . . . has been
proceeding much too slowly . . . Immediate steps should be
taken to hasten this process and to remove unsound and unfair
distinctions in the allowance of claims--Officials of the
Claims Commission have testified to the basic honesty and
fairness of the Guamanians in presenting their claims. Review
in Washington of claims between $5,000 and $10,000 serves no
useful purposes.
And the Hopkins Committee documented in 1947 what was happening with
claims settlement process:
When many claimants are advised that the local Claims
Commission has power to settle and make immediate payment of
claims not in excess of $5,000, but that claims above that
amount must go to Washington for further action with an
indefinite time required for payment, they offer or agree to
reduce their claims to below $5,000 and accept the loss above
that amount, so as to get some cash for much needed personal
rehabilitation.
Incredibly, a member of the Hopkins Committee that visited Guam
earlier in 1947, Mr. Tobin, testified on May 28, 1947 before the House
Committee on Public Lands hearing on the Guam Organic Act legislation
that:
At the present time, not one settlement has been made to
the people for personal injuries or death. (Organic Act of
Guam Hearing Report p. 169)
A year and a half after the Guam Meritorious Claims Act was passed,
and 3 years after Liberation, the Federal Government had not yet
settled a single claim for injury or death.
Days later, on June 3, 1947, Secretary of the Interior Harold Ickes,
testifying before a House Committee on Public Lands hearing on the
Organic Act of Guam legislation, strongly criticized the Naval
Government's handling of the Guam war claims. Secretary Ickes stated:
I hope that the secretary and members of this committee
have read carefully the report of the Special Civilian
Committee appointed by Mr. Forrestal. That report fully
supports the most important allegations . . . extreme
dilatoriness in the disposal of war damage claims; laxity in
performing the work of rehabilitation . . . the inefficient
and even brutal handling, by the Navy, of the rehabilitation
and compensation of the war damage tasks.'' (Organic Act of
Guam Hearing report, pp 243-249).
Secretary Ickes further chastised the claims process by testifying
that:
. . . only 5.8% of the `estimated value' of claims on file
had been processed . . . At this rate, the settlement of
claims will not be completed for more than twenty years . . .
Such a pittance may be observed by referring to claim No. 21
transmitted to Congress on April 5 last; the life of the man
who was beaten to death by the Japanese because of his
loyalty to the United States was capitalized at precisely
$665 [six hundred sixty five dollars], with .10 [ten cents]
thrown in for good measure.
Such procedures, and such shameful results as above, have
not been forced upon the Navy by Congress or the President or
the Budget or by anyone. They are exclusively the Navy's own
and throw a strong light on the Navy's high regard for human
life. (Organic Act report, pp. 247-249)
The Hopkins Committee transmittal letter of March 25, 1947, of its
report to the Secretary of the Navy, likewise contained strong
criticism of the Navy's handling of war claims on Guam. The transmittal
letter states in part:
In the case of Guam, the war brought wide spread
destruction . . . But over and beyond this it brought deaths
to many, brutalities to more, and ruthless oppression to all
over a long period. Now months after cessation of hostilities
they find themselves, because of the strategic position of
their native island, outnumbered in population by
military forces . . . in considerable number they are
dispossessed of home and lands which have been destroyed
or taken from them and they are without adequate
understanding of the processes by which to secure
replacement or compensation for these . . . There is no
lack of knowledge on the part of Navy officials of what
ought to be done or how to do it . . . Only so can justice
be done to a valiant group of Americans who at great cost
to themselves remained steadfastly loyal during the war
but many of them still lack housing to replace that
destroyed by our bombs and shells . . . It would seem to
your committee that in so special a case as this our
government could well be very generous in method of
distributing its relief as well as generous in amount
awarded, it has been neither. (Hopkins Committee Letter of
Transmittal to Secretary Forrestal, dated March 25, 1947)
In spite of all these recommendations, in spite of the Hopkins
Committee report, in spite of the testimony of Secretary of the
Interior Harold Ickes, nothing happened.
In 1946 Congress passed the Philippine Restoration Act of 1946,
Public Law 79-370, which resulted in the payment of over $390 million
to the Philippines. In contrast, Guam's total war claims amounted to
$8.1 million--$3.75 million for property claims under $5,000 and $4.3
million for death, injury and property claims over $5,000.
Congress then passed the War Claims Act of 1948, to address war
claims of American prisoners of war, and other American citizens with
claims for internment, forced labor, death and injury. It included
religious organizations and defense contract employees, and allowed for
compensation for any American citizen interned by the Japanese.
Thus while American citizens who were captured on Guam and interned
in Japan as prisoners were eligible for reparations under this law, the
American nationals on Guam who were interned in camps on American soil
were not eligible; and in another irony, American nationals from Guam
who were captured on Wake island and interned in Japan were eligible,
but their families who were interned on Guam were not.
So while my grandfather, who was an American citizen on Guam was
eligible for reparations because he was interned in Japan, my
grandmother, and all her children, who were interned in camps on Guam
were not eligible. The people of Guam tragically, were not included in
this legislation in 1948.
The War Claims Act of 1948 also required a Commission to report on
the progress of the settlement of claims. A preliminary report was
issued in 1951, and a final report was issued in 1953. In the
intervening years, the Treaty of Peace with Japan was signed in 1951
and implemented in 1952, waiving all claims of American citizens
against Japan.
The Treaty of Peace with Japan also raised a number of questions
concerning the issue of war reparations. In responding to a Senate
request for clarification of this issue prior to ratification of the
Treaty, John Foster Dulles, who negotiated the Treaty and later became
the Secretary of State, in a Memorandum of January 31, 1952, titled,
``Compensation For Claims Of United States Nationals For Losses
Incurred Outside Japan As A Result Of Japanese Military Operations And
Occupation,'' wrote:
Allied Powers in whose territory United States nationals
sustained property losses may make such United States
nationals eligible to receive such compensation as they are
able to provide for war losses. It does not appear, however,
that American nationals who sustained losses in the
territories of any of the Allied Powers can expect to receive
compensation commensurate with their losses. Accordingly,
United States nationals whose claims are not covered by the
treaty provisions or by the legislation of other Allied
Powers, must look for relief to the Congress of the United
States. (Report on the Hearings of the Senate Committee on
Foreign Relations on the Japanese Peace Treaty, January 25,
1952, pp. 145-147)
Since the War Claims Act of 1948 was an interim measure, Congress
began considering remedial legislation to address the shortcomings in
this law.
In 1962, Congress passed Public Law 87-846, amending the War Claims
Act of 1962, to, as this bill's preamble reads:
provide more than sixteen years after the close of World War
II, for determination of the amount and validity, and for the
payment of claims of American nationals who suffered injury
or death under circumstances specified in the legislation, or
who suffered property losses as a result of military
operations during World War II in certain European countries
and in areas attacked by Japan.
Public Law 87-846 also extended the one year deadline for filing
claims of the Philippine Restoration Act of 1946, but specifically
excluded the island of Guam in section 202. Guam again was neglected,
and it may be that Congress mistakenly thought that Guam's war claims
were resolved long ago. Of course, this was simply not the case.
Not only were the rights of the people of Guam waived by the United
States government under the Treaty of Peace with Japan, but the United
States also failed to seize Japanese property for payment of war
claims, as was its right under Article 14(a)2 of the Treaty. The
Philippine government exercised this right and acquired over $9.0
million in Japanese assets, on top of war claims of over $390 million
provided to the Philippines by the United States Congress in 1946.
During the war, the United States government seized over $84 million
in Japanese assets in the United States and turned these seized assets
over to the Office of the Alien Property Custodian for disposal to pay
for war claims of United States citizens. The United States government
could have seized additional assets from Japan, or entered into
agreements with Japan, as some Allied Powers did, to use Japanese labor
in public projects as a form of war reparations.
Significantly, while the United States government failed to do any of
these things on behalf of the people of Guam, this same government in
1969 negotiated a $10 million war reparations claim on behalf of the
Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands, which the U.S. administered
under authority of the United Nations. The reparations settlement
agreement negotiated between Japan and the United States were for
claims of the Micronesian islands that were under Japanese control
during the war. In 1971, the United States Congress passed the
Micronesian Claims Act implementing this negotiated agreement for the
former Japanese subjects. And again, while the United States provided
for the claims of former Japanese islands, the claims of the United
States citizens of Guam against Japan were neglected.
And finally, it should be noted that while Guam's war reparations
were neglected, the United States Congress appropriated over $2.0
billion in post war assistance to Japan from 1946 to 1951.
But the people of Guam, who themselves bore witness to the atrocities
committed against them, have never forgotten that a bill remains due,
that a debt must be paid. The First Guam Legislature, in its first
session as a civilian government after the war, on August 10, 1951,
passed as one of its first official acts, a resolution asking the
President and the United States Congress to address war reparations for
atrocities committed on Guam. Again, in 1954, in a meeting between
Members of Congress and the Guam Legislature, the case was made to
address Guam's war claims. And again, nothing happened.
Guam's political status has always worked against its efforts to
achieve justice. Guam did not gain representation in Congress until its
first Delegate was elected in 1972. Guam did not have civilian self-
government in the years after World War II leading up to the treaty
with Japan. So it is easy to see how one small island's claims for
justice can be forgotten or neglected in Washington--it is
understandable, but it must nevertheless be corrected.
I introduced H.R. 4741, the Guam War Restitution Act, on July 13,
1994, to resolve this longstanding injustice, an injustice spanning 50
years. I stand as a witness to what happened on my island, to what
happened to my own father and mother, just as every Chamoru bears
witness today to his family's ordeal during the occupation.
The sums of the restitution in H.R. 4741 are quite modest by today's
standards, because for us, it is not a money issue, it is a justice
issue. In the case of death, the compensation is $20,000 to be divided
among surviving heirs. Injury is compensated at $7,000, based on the
values allowed in the 1946 claims, and forced labor, forced march, and
internment is compensated at $5,000, again comparable to the 1946
settlements. The total cost to the Federal Government will be between
$20 million and $80 million, due to the fact that it is difficult to
estimate the numbers of surviving Chamorus who still have valid claims
to this day.
For the thousands of Chamorus whose claims were neglected by actions
of the Federal Government, the issue will not go away just because 50
years have passed--if anything, the issue assumes more intensity.
Let me read for you some claims that were denied by the Naval Claims
Commission in 1947:
Francisco Flores Crisostomo filed a claim on behalf of his son, Jesus
Duenas Crisostomo. The young boy was killed in August 1944 when he
risked his life to show American troops a hidden Japanese position.
Although the boy's actions no doubt saved the lives of some American
soldiers, the claim was denied because it was after the deadline.
Juan Santos Tenorio was beaten so severely on the back and head by
the Japanese that he was bedridden for over 1 month. Although he was
interviewed by Navy officers, this did not count as a filed claim. He
later filed a written claim only to be denied because the claim again
was filed late.
The Guam War Reparations Commission has on file 3,365 cases of filed
claims that were never settled. Each claim is a story of brutality and
unfortunately, a story of injustice by our own Government.
There must be a closure to this saga, there must be an effort by
Congress to address the unfinished legacy of World War II. In closing,
let me quote from the report of the Commission formed to review the War
Claims Act of 1948:
In the final analysis, compensation for war damages rests
upon an oral obligation to see that the individual citizen
does not bear more than a just part of the overall burden of
war.* * * Had United States citizens suffered losses on
American soil, no question would be raised as to their moral
right to compensation. The good fortune which the United
States as a whole enjoyed in having its own cities spared
destruction by war should not, in the opinion of the
commission, be converted into a misfortune to the citizen who
has borne more than his burden of the cost of war.* * * No
nation was ever injured by its justice nor impoverished by
its benevolence.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to cosponsor the bill, H.R. 4741,
the Guam War Restitution Act.
____________________