[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 28 (Monday, March 16, 1998)]
[House]
[Page H1164]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                        ISSUES SURROUNDING GUAM

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 7, 1997, the gentleman from Guam (Mr. Underwood) is recognized 
for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
  Mr. UNDERWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I take the opportunity today to discuss 
the matter of Federal policy towards insular areas.
  H.R. 856, the Puerto Rico Status Bill, passed this House by the 
narrowest of margins almost 2 weeks ago. I supported that effort 
because the fulfillment of democratic principles that this country 
stands for and clarity in the relationship of people to people is not 
just better, it is the right thing to do.
  Today, I want to draw attention to issues surrounding Guam, my home 
island, which was also taken during the course of the Spanish-American 
War in 1898, some 100 years ago.
  In the course of the debate over Puerto Rico, a debate which touched 
on the meaning of, I think, our fundamental beliefs in the exercise and 
implementation of democratic principles, the fact of 100 years of 
American rule was raised repeatedly. There was much discussion about 
the meaning of the Spanish-American War, the commitments made under the 
Treaty of Paris which ended it and the subsequent rule of territories 
by this country.
  We are the shapers of our destiny, the planners of our future. But we 
are also creatures of our own history and we must seek to understand 
the meaning of that conflict, as distant as it is in time, and its 
consequences today if we are to successfully resolve the issues 
pertaining to territories in this country.
  We must recognize that the enduring legacy of the Spanish-American 
War are the challenges presented to us as a consequence of conquering 
distant islands thousands of miles from our shores and not knowing what 
to do

[[Page H1162]]

with them politically after we have used them for strategic purposes 
which so animated American interests in the beginning.
  In June of this year, we will commemorate the 100th anniversary of 
the raising of the American flag over Guam to which we pledged 
allegiance to, ironically held by myself just a few minutes ago. This 
began an unique relationship between the United States and Guam which 
continues today in a fashion which most can say is satisfactory but one 
in which disputes and disagreements get resolved in a 
characteristically unAmerican way, a way in which U.S. citizens do not 
elect voting representatives to represent them in this body and there 
is no representation in the other.
  Nor do they assist in the selection of the occupant of the White 
House at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue. Nor do they have a 
charter which governs the relationship which could conceivably function 
as a contract, as people do have with each other.
  Nor do they have any ``constitutional status'' as do Native Americans 
or residents of the District of Columbia or native-born citizens. They 
simply exist at the pleasure of Congress under the territorial clause. 
This means that their issues and their dissatisfactions and their 
concerns are addressed in a framework in which Congress unilaterally 
decides. Congress can and usually is benign in this unique 
relationship, but I doubt if anyone can call it truly an American 
relationship. And I doubt that, as we go into the next century and into 
the next 100 years of American rule over Guam, that we think such a 
relationship truly reflects American principles of democracy.
  How did my home island of Guam get to this point and what is its 
ultimate resolution? Well, these are issues which the people of Guam 
have dealt with since the arrival of the U.S.S. Charleston on June 20, 
1898, and as a people in earnest since the 1930s when the people of 
Guam tried many different strategies to change their status under the 
United States flag.
  Guam was taken as part of the Spanish-American War, as part of 
America's effort to, on the one hand, free the Cubans from Spanish 
control but take over from Spanish from the Spaniards the reins of 
control over the Philippines, Puerto Rico and Guam, in 
contradistinction to the original purpose of that conflict.
  The turn of the century saw America become a world power. It seemed a 
natural step as America emerged from its industrialization and there 
was an end to the frontier which always seemed to absorb American 
energies. But the frontier no longer existed as America reached the 
Pacific shores.
  The Treaty of Paris, which ended that war, required the Congress to 
``determine the civil and political status of the native inhabitants of 
Guam and Puerto Rico.'' The war was fought over Cuba, but the United 
States ended up acquiring the Philippines and Puerto Rico and Guam 
insular areas, which were not only distant but populated with people 
speaking different languages and adhering to unique cultures.
  Subduing the Philippines and defeating the Filipino revolutionaries 
took more than 4,000 lives, over 10 times the number of battle deaths 
during the actual Spanish-American War in which the United States 
acquired the Philippines. And the experience of the Spaniards in Cuba 
in the 1890s was now being experienced by the Americans in the 
boondocks of the Philippines in the early 1900s.
  Also during the same time period, Wake Island and American Samoa and 
Hawaii were also taken under the American flag as America flexed its 
muscles and made its way across the Pacific ocean, guaranteeing coaling 
stations and naval bases as they moved across the Pacific towards a 
perceived importance of a China trade.
  As a result of acquiring these new territories, the country came up 
with a new model of dealing with territories. This model posited that 
there were two kinds of territories the United States now had; there 
were incorporated and unincorporated.
  The incorporated territory was the kind that always existed. In 
American history, whenever the United States expanded, the newly 
acquired territories were always seen as areas which would eventually 
become states. Such territories would eventually become states whenever 
a petition for statehood was accepted by Congress.
  In the meantime, these areas, like the territory of Arizona or New 
Mexico or territory of Kansas, were organized by Congress through 
instrumentalities called organic acts; and the Constitution was fully 
applied to U.S. citizens in those territories. There were no provisions 
to keep people in those territories from becoming U.S. citizens unless 
treaty obligations made special conditions for the acquisition of the 
territories in question. The new territories at the turn of the century 
were unincorporated, meaning that they were owned by the United States 
but not part of the United States; and that is where we stand today.
  Imagine, if you will, being the member of a body politic where the 
country and the courts rule that you are owned by that country but you 
are not part of that country. Now what does that mean? Well, that means 
that there is limited application of the U.S. Constitution. This body 
decides what parts of the Constitution apply to Guam and other insular 
areas, that your political status is yet to be determined, that there 
is no implied right to statehood.

  The new territories which were acquired at the turn of the century 
were unincorporated, meaning that they were owned by the U.S. but not 
part of the U.S. What this means in actual application is that there is 
limited application of the U.S. Constitution, that a political status 
has yet to be determined, that there is no implied right to statehood.
  Many feel that this new category of territories was based in large 
measure on the racial climate of the time at the turn of the century in 
which some people equate the Supreme Court cases which created 
unincorporated territories as the moral equivalent of ``separate by 
equal,'' ``Plessy vs. Ferguson.''
  Now the idea that the United States was going to take territories and 
not treat them the same as other people, the possibility of this 
phenomenon was clear to many, including the very strong and dynamic 
anti-imperialists movement at the turn of the century, amongst the 
leaders being Mark Twain, who argued long and hard that the United 
States should not take territories overseas that it was not going to 
accept as political equals. If you acquire territories overseas, you 
must be willing to accept them as equals. If the United States decides 
to take territories overseas from other countries through conquests and 
decides that they cannot be a full part of this country, then that says 
something about the United States as a country.

                              {time}  1415

  Of course, this is exactly what has happened. The case of Guam 
perhaps would be as compelling as the case of Puerto Rico to the Nation 
if its people were as numerous as those of Puerto Rico and perhaps if 
it were as close as Puerto Rico. But Guam indeed is a small area with 
only a limited population, 150,000 today, and only 10,000 at the time 
of the conquest. But the implementation of democratic principles should 
not be compromised, should not depend on the size or importance. 
Principles, after all, are supposed to be principles.
  Guam was taken 100 years ago through the Treaty of Paris because it 
fit into the naval plans of the time. It became a coaling station, part 
of a larger access network across the Pacific, including Hawaii, Wake 
islands, Guam, the Philippines. Not needed were the other islands which 
also Spain had a claim to. The other islands, the Marianas and the 
Caroline Islands, the rest of the Marianas Islands and the Caroline 
Islands were sold by Spain to Germany. Germany in turn lost those 
islands to Japan for Japanese support of the Allies during World War I. 
It became a mandate under the League of Nations. Japan in turn lost 
those islands back to the United States during World War II, in which 
the names of Peleilu and Saipan and Truk and Ponape joined the lexicon 
of World War II discussions.
  But what happened to Guam in the meantime? Well, Guam was given over 
to the Department of the Navy to administer. The people were held to be 
in complete political limbo. Unlike foreigners, unlike even foreigners 
who came to this country, the people of Guam could not petition to 
become

[[Page H1163]]

citizens of the United States and many attempts were turned down by the 
courts. Naval Court Martial Order 1923 issued by the Navy about the 
status of the natives of Guam, quote, held, while a native of Guam owes 
perpetual allegiance to the United States, he is not a citizen thereof 
nor is there any mechanism through which he can become a citizen. You 
owe allegiance to the United States, but you cannot become a citizen of 
the United States. Thus, the complete colonialization by a handful of 
naval officers became truly cemented. Taken by the greatest democratic 
Nation on Earth, they were given over to naval officials to be governed 
as if their home island was little more than a battleship. The people 
were forbidden to become citizens, and the native Guamanians or the 
Chamorros settled down to nearly 5 decades of highly autocratic rule by 
naval officers who issued citations for not cutting the grass, 
whistling in the streets of Agana and who passed laws segregating the 
natives in their own home island.
  In spite of this treatment, when Guam was occupied by Japanese forces 
during World War II, the people were exceptionally loyal, proud of 
their affiliation with America, even when it was not reciprocated and 
proved through forced marches and internment and injury and even brutal 
death through beheadings that the flag which was raised on June 20, 
1898, was their flag as well, the flag that is draped behind me in this 
body, the cradle of democracy. The people of Guam suffered enormously 
as the only people of the only U.S. territory taken by an enemy Nation 
in this century.
  World War II changed many other things. Guam became, in the words of 
the Victory At Sea documentary about Guam and the battle for Guam, the 
supermarket of the Pacific for the military in winning the war against 
Japan. Much of its land was confiscated by U.S. military authorities 
from people who were not citizens and who had no civilian courts to 
adjudicate their claims. This, too, was clearly un-American. But even 
then, as long as people saw it as contributing to the victory over 
Japan, the people of Guam did not complain.
  World War II also saw the world change in its attitudes toward 
colonial areas. In the completion of the United Nations Charter, the 
concept of trust territories and nonself-governing territories were 
fashioned right into the Charter of the United Nations at the behest, 
at the urging of the United States Government over the objections of 
its colonial minded allies like Great Britain. Trust territories were 
created from the dependencies of enemy states, including ironically the 
islands which were taken from Spain and sold to Germany at the turn of 
the century. What happened to areas like Guam? Well, they came under a 
system called nonself-governing territories, territories which were 
understood to be in a state of political development with obligations 
upon the administering power, in this case the United States. All those 
areas which belonged to the winning side of World War II were put into 
this nonself-governing territory system. Guam as an unincorporated 
territory was placed on that list by the United States, and there it 
sits to this day awaiting its final resolution for political status.
  World War II also changed the people of Guam, who became more 
assertive and resisted the reintroduction of naval government. Naval 
government tried to be reintroduced even after all of this experience. 
An organic act was eventually passed which made possible the current 
civilian government of Guam and the people were declared citizens en 
masse. The people of Guam became what are known as statutory citizens. 
They had statutory citizenship; that is, citizenship by virtue of 
congressional action. There is dispute about what this means, whether 
there is a distinction between citizens who became citizens by virtue 
of the U.S. Constitution, meaning you are born in the United States or 
you were naturalized a citizen. Well, the people of Guam are clearly 
not that. Whatever the debate is, the people of Guam are clearly not 
like citizens, like most American citizens, and the United States could 
withdraw Guam as a place which makes United States citizens. It may not 
be likely, but it could technically happen.
  The experience of the people of Guam since then has been good. The 
population has grown to 150,000, it has a very strong economy of over 
$3 billion annually. Most of it is fed by over a million tourists who 
come from Asian countries. The dependence on Federal expenditures on a 
per capita basis is lower than two-thirds of the States of the Union. 
The people of Guam are confident, are well-educated and eager to be 
full participants in the Asia-Pacific economy which surrounds them and 
to continue to be contributors to American influence, both 
strategically and politically in that, what I think is the most 
important part of the world economy today. The people of Guam have 
contributed enormously to the well-being of the United States. It has 
demonstrated its loyalty to this country in World War II through 
sacrifice and hardship not endured by very many as a civilian 
population during the war years. Its young people have joined the 
military service in large numbers and have fought with distinction in 
Korea and Vietnam and the Persian Gulf war. The 77 men who died in 
Vietnam was the highest per capita of any political jurisdiction in the 
United States.
  The land of Guam has been used to extend American influence into Asia 
in countless other ways. Admiral Prueher, the current Commander in 
Chief Pacific, calls Guam America's bridge to Asia for logistics and 
the extension of military power in any future conflict. This has been 
the experience of the people of Guam in the course of these 100 years 
since the raising of the Stars and Stripes. No human experience of that 
nature that I am talking about can be one of unmitigated joy or 
unmitigated sorrow. It stands by itself. It is a proud experience and a 
proud history that is still filled with many unresolved political 
issues. Like any other group of people in the world, the people of Guam 
desire in their lives progress and plan for the perfection of their 
democratic experience.

  But when the people of Guam today sit down to resolve problems with 
their Federal Government, they do not have the tools to do it. They are 
not part of any meaningful process of participation here in Washington. 
They must rely on the good will of some bureaucrat or the attention of 
some powerful person here in Washington. To some extent all of us share 
in that experience. But I hope that Members of this House will agree 
that unincorporated territories owned but not part of the United 
States, of the political status that I have described, are living in a 
decidedly unique political world, a very un-American world. It is in 
honor of this experience which I have described and in recognition of 
the American creed that I call on this House to join me in seeking ways 
to resolve the quandary of unincorporated territories.
  This should not be interpreted as a plea for independence or 
statehood. It is a call to exercise our creativity to deal with Guam in 
other ways which recognize that full American political democracy does 
not yet exist there but that we will spare no effort to move in that 
direction. In the course of the debate over Puerto Rico, it struck me 
as odd that some individuals would raise their suitability for 
statehood in terms of language or welfare rates or Federal benefits as 
serious impediments to that legislation. To begin with, that 
legislation only set up a process for the selection of a political 
status and the result may not ultimately be statehood. But how curious 
and how demeaning to the principles of American democracy, to decide 
upon the right to participate from your fellow citizens on such hollow 
criteria. The inalienable rights to which we often pontificate are 
either inalienable and belong to American citizens or they do not. Our 
perfection of the ideas generated by the Founding Fathers tell me that 
inalienable political rights are not to be bounded by economic status, 
the inability to use English well or my cultural legacy. If we feel 
these elements to be above the democratic creed, then we have degraded 
all our country and all of our history.
  Territories today do not have the most basic of all democratic 
rights. As stated by William Henry Harrison in a quote that is right 
off the Members' dining room, and I invite them to look at it and visit 
it every time they come out of the dining room, quote, ``The only 
legitimate right to govern is an

[[Page H1164]]

express grant of power from the governed.'' The territorial clause 
inherently denies this. It is up to us to make it work for Guam. One 
hundred years is a long time to work in this system. Let us work 
together in a framework that the people of Guam have provided and 
suggested in H.R. 100 in honor of the centennial, the Guam Commonwealth 
Act, to provide for a new framework, one commensurate with the American 
sense of fair play and one which does honor to this Nation.

                          ____________________