[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.

                          ____________________