[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 55 (Friday, March 24, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H3804-H3806]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


                              {time}  1530
                         GUAM COMMONWEALTH ACT

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Funderburk). Under the Speaker's 
announced policy of January 4, 1995, the gentleman from Guam [Mr. 
Underwood] is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority 
leader.
  Mr. UNDERWOOD. Mr. Speaker, this afternoon I want to go on record and 
discuss an issue that is of serious concern to people in small 
territories. It is going to take a great deal of attention and I am 
going to provide it as much context as I can because it is an issue 
that is frequently not understood in the context of national issues in 
the United States.
  Taking a page from the previous speaker who discussed the meaning of 
democracy and the ties between Greece and the United States, I would 
like to, in the same vein, talk about the application of democracy, the 
full application of democracy, to the entire country, and not just the 
50 States and not just the District of Columbia but, indeed, all of the 
offshore territories.
  Today the United States holds a number of offshore territories that 
are small in nature, that are sometimes seen as not serious political 
issues, and are sometimes seen as areas that lead idyllic existences 
that somehow don't merit the attention and consideration that they 
deserve.
  These include Guam, American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern 
Marianas, the Virgin Islands, and Puerto Rico, Puerto Rico is a 
slightly different example from the rest because the other four share 
something that Puerto Rico does not have and, that is, that they share 
a very small size. Most of these areas have populations that number 
under 150,000. All but one, the Northern Marianas, is represented in 
this body by a delegate.
  On February 24, 1995, I introduced H.R. 1056 called the Guam 
Commonwealth Act with 41 cosponsors from both sides of the aisle. This 
draft act, this commonwealth draft act that we are proposing and we are 
hopeful will get the serious attention that it deserves during the life 
of the 104th Congress represents the expressions of the hopes of the 
people of Guam that have been associated with the United States since 
the Spanish-American War in 1898.
  As a result of the Spanish-American War, the United States acquired 
the Philippines, Puerto Rico, and Guam. The case of the Philippines was 
resolved after World War II with full independence, the situation of 
Puerto Rico remains unresolved to some extent, and the situation of 
Guam remains unresolved to a much greater extent.
  The commonwealth draft act that we have proposed is composed of 12 
articles and it took approximately 5 years to draft, from its very 
beginning, through an electoral process which was taken upon by the 
government of Guam on its own, despite the fact that the Federal 
Government, the U.S. Government, is obligated and has willingly placed 
small territories on a United Nations list of areas to be decolonized, 
the Federal Government and the Federal policy in these areas has been 
unclear, erratic, and inconsistent. At no point in the entire history 
of Guam's relationship with the United States has the Federal 
Government ever taken the issue of political status on its own as an 
obligation to fulfill. It has always been instead an effort on the part 
of Guam to try to get at the substance of the issue that underline the 
problems that we face.
  The commonwealth draft act is composed of 3 basic parts: One deals 
with some historical injustices, some of which I will touch on. Another 
deals with the nature of the relationship between the government of 
Guam and the Federal Government. And the third deals with some economic 
issues which remain areas of serious contention between Guam and the 
United States, especially if we hope to develop in a more autonomous 
fashion.
  Our act, the Guam Commonwealth Act, H.R. 1046, works toward improving 
the Federal-territorial relationship between Guam and the United 
States. The commonwealth that we are proposing is something that has 
not been proposed before. It is something that pushes the envelope of 
Federal-territorial relations.
  Currently whenever Guam asks to do something, we are constantly and 
it is a mind-set and it is a natural mind-set, it is something that is 
part and parcel of the American psyche when it comes to discussing 
issues of government, and, that is, that the Federal Government is seen 
only in its connection and its relationship to States. There are such 
things as State-Federal relationships. There is the District of 
Columbia, which in the Constitution has a special relationship. But 
then there is the case of territories in which the Constitution refers 
to as having plenary, the Congress has plenary authority over the 
territories but there is no clear definition of what it means to have 
Federal-territorial relations.
  Every time that in the past Guam attempts to do something to expand 
its autonomy, sometimes that is compared on the basis of what is 
allowable in the context of the Federal Government and the State 
relationship, Federal-State relationships. In fact, in many instances, 
in many discussions that I have participated in over the life of being 
very directly involved with the issue of political status change for 15 
years, sometimes the comment is made that you can't ask for that 
because not even States are allowed to do something. Not even States 
are allowed to have that kind of authority over their own existence, so 
that somehow or other State is seen as the apex of the system, as the 
standard against which territories will be measured. And sometimes 
almost in the same breath you will hear the subtle reminder, and, by 
the way, Guam will never be a State.
  There you have the amazing quandary in which small territories find 
themselves. Small territories are composed of U.S. citizens. What does 
it mean to be a U.S. citizen from Guam versus a U.S. citizen from
 Wisconsin? What does it mean to have your territorial government 
relate to the Federal Government when you are fully aware that 
statehood is really not on the table for you?

  What do you need in order to reshape that relationship, catch the 
attention of important people so that they understand it, so that they 
understand that there are bits of America that are not likely to become 
States, how do you resolve that fundamental principle that you seek 
when you say you want political equality for citizens for everybody who 
is a U.S. citizen and yet they continue to survive and exist in areas 
of the United States which are small territories not likely to be 
candidates for States and are living in a kind of permanent political 
limbo?
  That is why I feel very strongly that we need to push the envelop on 
this. We need to conceptualize and think of what are some possible new 
relationships which territories may aspire to which will give them the 
dignity that they deserve, which will give them as individuals, as 
residents, as individual citizens the kind of dignity that they 
deserve, because they have the same basic obligations to this country.
  There is no area of the United States that has provided on a per 
capita basis as many people to join the armed services as has Guam. 
There are more people who died per capita in Vietnam in comparison to 
other jurisdictions that died from Guam. There is always the quandary 
that there are people from Guam who joined the service and are asked to 
put their lives on the line for the supreme sacrifice to that flag and 
if by chance they happen to die, they come home in a casket under that 
flag, but lo and behold they cannot vote for President, lo and behold, 
they have no voting representation in this House, and lo and behold, 
there is no mechanism, no Federal-territorial relationship which will 
give them the dignity and increased autonomy over their existence that 
could perhaps compensate for the fact that they will not ever be full 
States of the union. That is what we are proposing and that is what we 
are putting on the table.
  Since the arrival of the Clinton administration, there has been a lot 
of 
[[Page H3805]] attention to a concept called REGO, reinventing 
government.

                              {time}  1545

  Since the victory of the majority party, the Republican party, in 
November, there has been a lot of attention addressed to devolution, 
the returning of power to the States. The question, of course, that you 
must ask if you are a resident of a territory is that when the Federal 
Government says that they are returning power to the States, does that 
mean that they are returning power to the territories? And the answer 
is it is not clear.
  When the Clinton administration says they are reinventing government 
in order to make it more user friendly and also create a new pattern, a 
new federalism, which will increase autonomy in local governments, does 
that include the territories? And again, the answer is not clear, 
because in point of fact, neither the Republican Contract With America 
nor the reinventing government initiatives under Vice President Gore 
addreses territories.
  So there you have yet another item in which when you represent a 
small area like I do and the other Delegates that represent small 
areas, in fact, sometimes, I tell people that whenever I raise these 
issues, I get the response that, you know, this was an oversight; ``We 
forgot, we are sorry. It was not that we intended to forget about you. 
It was an oversight.'' And I have always replied that one day if I was 
ever fortunate enough to become a committee chairman or a subcommittee 
chairman, I would have an oversight hearing on all the oversights that 
I have experienced, and certainly all the oversights that territories 
have experienced.
  So there is no clear answer in the new federalism because there is no 
attempt to try to interpret what the new federalism means in the case 
of some 4.1 million American citizens that live outside the 50 States.
  Now, one of the core principles of American government and one of the 
core principles of democracy is that government flows from the consent 
of the governed, and yet clearly in the case of the small territories, 
this is not the case. There is no consent of the governed in terms of 
passing the laws that are passed right in this body. This is the 
people's House, we are always reminded, and I am a person, I think I am 
one of the people, but yet my powers, my role of participation in this 
is circumscribed.
  And in that, when they pass laws, the full application of these laws 
are expected to fall with the same weight as they would on citizens in 
Wisconsin or Montana, as they would on the citizens of Guam or American 
Samoa, and yet there is no meaningful participation in terms of voting 
by which you could legitimately say that there is consent of the 
governed, because there is not voting representation in the House of 
Representatives.
  So what we have offered in our Commonwealth Draft Act is a process 
which will, in a sense, compensate for that, which will attempt to 
provide a new mechanism to deal with that, because we do not want to 
get into the issue of whether voting representation will resolve that 
issue, because that will take a constitutional amendment. It is tough 
enough passing a constitutional amendment when the issue has serious 
national attention. The odds against passing a constitutional amendment 
for territorial representation in this House are long, very long, and I 
recognize that.
  But instead, perhaps we could pass some legislation in this body 
mindful of its responsibility to perfect and apply democracy wherever 
the U.S. flag flies and see if some kind of mechanism cannot be 
established by which there is consent of the governed.
  And we have offered that in the context of our Commonwealth Draft 
Act, and we have labeled it mutual consent, and basically what we are 
saying is that if we pass this Commonwealth Draft Act as it stands is 
that we say that in order to change the Draft Act it should be 
incumbent on both sides to agree. That is in lieu of the fact we have 
forgone the possibility of being full in the sense of consent of the 
governed, but we are seizing upon a document which will clearly outline 
and bring clarity to the nature of the Federal Government's 
relationship with the territories.
  In this bill, the Guam Commonwealth Draft Act has been introduced. 
This makes the fourth successive Congress, two by my predecessor, the 
Honorable Ben Blaz, two by myself. In that, we have always deferred to 
the administration, because we knew that the administration has to get 
its support behind it, and with the onset of the Clinton 
administration, we were able to get a representative of that 
administration in the period of I. Michael Heyman. A few weeks ago Mr. 
Heyman decided that he no longer wished to engage in this. It was not 
lack of interest. It was basically a concern about all the other 
responsibilities he has.
  What this means for us is that if the administration does not replace 
Mr. Heyman in short order, then valuable time will be wasted in terms 
of discussing some of the specifics of the Draft Act with the 
administration so that a hearing can be held here in Congress in which 
this administration comes with a coherent position. Because of the far-
reaching nature of our Draft Act, which talks about taxation, which 
talks about military issues, which talks about transportation issues, 
as well as the political relationship, we felt it, as did the 
administration, as did the congressional leadership, that it is most 
important that some kind of clear, coherent, comprehensive position be 
drafted by the administration and then that be presented in the form of 
a congressional hearing.
  Well, time is running short on this time period in the 104th 
Congress. If we do not get that person on board, if we do not get them 
on board in short order, then I fear that we will not be able to 
complete the time, the process of discussion which will inevitably
 lead to a congressional hearing.

  Guam's relationship with the United States is a long one and is most 
known to most people, I guess, by the context, its military 
relationship, and, indeed, it is no surprise that that is the very 
reason, because of its military strategic location, that Guam came to 
be part of the United States family to begin with.
  But the world is changing, and what we have now on Guam is that at 
one point in time in our existence and especially in the time period 
after World War II and during the cold war, during the height of the 
cold war, Guam played a very important and integral part of a huge 
forward presence by the United States in East Asia. Well, that time 
period has shifted, and good relationships and military security 
depends much more on good relationships than it does on good weaponry, 
and so the role of Guam in that process has shifted, and we recognize 
that.
  But we sometimes get very confused signals. In the recent proposal by 
the Department of Defense, before the Base Realignment and Closure 
Commission, the Department of Defense has argued for the closure of 
four military facilities on Guam which will effectively put out of a 
job 10 percent of the entire work force. This is an enormous cut. This 
has enormous impact. If this were carried out in the State of 
California it would have proportionately had the effect of cutting 1.5 
million jobs. So the magnitude of this proposal indicates that the 
nature of the relationship between Guam and the United States is 
entering a new transition period.
  I would also like to point out that even though military spending 
forms an integral part of the Guam economy, it is a declining part of 
the Guam economy, and I would also like to point out that Guam 
probably, among the small territories, is clearly the most self-
sufficient in terms of its economy. We have approximately a million 
tourists a year come to Guam, primarily from the Asian market. Two-
thirds of the world's people live within a 4-hour flight from Guam, 
just to bring into context the possibilities and the economic 
possibilities of tourism and doing business on Guam, even for United 
States interests, as they do business in East Asia.
  So we have opportunities, and we have a great deal of self-
sufficiency. In fact, in terms of the kinds of Federal assistance that 
the Federal Government gives to Guam, we did an analysis of this, and 
35 States have a higher percentage of direct Federal assistance into 
their local operating revenues, and Guam ranks No. 17, if you look from 
the bottom, if you look at all the States and the territories.
  [[Page H3806]] So we are not a political welfare case. We are not a 
political charity case. We are a proud people, looking for a new 
mechanism through which we can become even more autonomous, obtain some 
political dignity, and receive some of the freedoms that every other 
American enjoys and takes for granted.
  When you are a territory, you live in an existence, in a political 
existence, in which any Federal bureaucrat, in which any Federal 
official may misunderstand whether you are a domestic entity, whether 
you are a foreign entity, or whether you are a nonentity.
  And in this, I would just give you some examples. Federal aviation--
for purposes of airline routes, we are regulated as a domestic entity.
  For communications--for purposes of communication, we are regulated, 
we are treated as a foreign country. What does that mean? Well, 
basically what that means is, if you are trying to run a viable economy 
on Guam, is that you have telephone rates that
 are incredibly high because you are treated as a foreign country.

  And if you want to bring more air routes in from the surrounding area 
in order to contribute to the growth of your tourist industry, you are 
not able to because the routes that Guam, the Guam-to-Japan routes, 
Guam-to-Taiwan routes, Guam-to-the-Philippines routes are part of the 
basic negotiation of United States-foreign country routes.
  So you can see in those two examples right there how sometimes we are 
being in a sense jerked around. Basically, it seems like the Federal 
Government, when it is favorable to the Federal Government, we are 
treated as a domestic entity. When it is favorable to the Federal 
Government to treat us as a foreign country, we are treated as a 
foreign country.
  So we have a number of trade arrangements we would like to engage in. 
We seek clarity in these arrangements. We seek political autonomy. We 
seek political dignity.
  And in all of these dimensions, we try to be open. We are clearly, 
clearly a political anomaly which needs solution.
  It is unconscionable for this country to continue to keep small 
territories in political limbo, not clearly offering them the option of 
being full participants as States, but instead seemingly only offering 
the option of being a political dependency in which your dignity as a 
people, in which your rights as a citizen are clearly mitigated, 
misunderstood on a daily basis.
  If I could be afforded, Mr. Speaker, a personal note, there is no 
individual from Guam, there is no individual on Guam, there is no 
elected political official from Guam or from any of the territories who 
could feel or understand what this continual turmoil is on this issue 
of political status than the people who sit as Delegates. On a daily 
basis, you are reminded that for one reason or another--some 
historical, some military--you are part of this great country, and you 
are a U.S. citizen. But for reasons that are equally sometimes unclear, 
you are not part of the full participation of this body.
  If you look around this room, you will see the seals of each of the 
50 States that are on the ceiling, as you look around the room, and you 
will see in a corner, tucked away, seals of various territories as an 
afterthought.
  When voting time comes, we are given--Delegates are given--a card, 
and everyone calls it a voting card. But I guess in the case of 
Delegates it is really a nonvoting card. You put it in the machine and 
nothing happens, because you are ineligible to vote, and most 
importantly and most, I guess, where if symbols count, and this is the 
House of the people, and the people come to vote, and the people's 
Representatives come to be represented, your name is not even listed on 
the board up there, so that you become a nonperson.
  That is not meant to bemoan that existence, because every Delegate 
who gets elected to this body clearly knows the parameters of working 
and living in this body, but what it is meant to note is that when the 
territories and when Representatives, elected officials of the 
territories, have a proposal in hand which seeks to resolve the 
anomalous status of these jurisdictions, that it is the obligation, I 
think, of people who propound almost on a daily basis on the meaning of 
democracy to entertain those in as serious a manner as possible.
  And on that note I would like to close by asking for cosponsorship by 
all the Members of the House of H.R. 1056.


                          ____________________