[House Hearing, 111 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.A.S.C. No. 111-110]
ASSESSING THE GUAM WAR CLAIMS PROCESS
__________
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
HEARING HELD
DECEMBER 2, 2009
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
58-101 WASHINGTON : 2010
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC
area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC
20402-0001
HOUSE COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
One Hundred Eleventh Congress
IKE SKELTON, Missouri, Chairman
JOHN SPRATT, South Carolina HOWARD P. ``BUCK'' McKEON,
SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas California
GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland
NEIL ABERCROMBIE, Hawaii MAC THORNBERRY, Texas
SILVESTRE REYES, Texas WALTER B. JONES, North Carolina
VIC SNYDER, Arkansas W. TODD AKIN, Missouri
ADAM SMITH, Washington J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia
LORETTA SANCHEZ, California JEFF MILLER, Florida
MIKE McINTYRE, North Carolina JOE WILSON, South Carolina
ROBERT A. BRADY, Pennsylvania FRANK A. LoBIONDO, New Jersey
ROBERT ANDREWS, New Jersey ROB BISHOP, Utah
SUSAN A. DAVIS, California MICHAEL TURNER, Ohio
JAMES R. LANGEVIN, Rhode Island JOHN KLINE, Minnesota
RICK LARSEN, Washington MIKE ROGERS, Alabama
JIM COOPER, Tennessee TRENT FRANKS, Arizona
JIM MARSHALL, Georgia BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania
MADELEINE Z. BORDALLO, Guam CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, Washington
BRAD ELLSWORTH, Indiana K. MICHAEL CONAWAY, Texas
PATRICK J. MURPHY, Pennsylvania DOUG LAMBORN, Colorado
HANK JOHNSON, Georgia ROB WITTMAN, Virginia
CAROL SHEA-PORTER, New Hampshire MARY FALLIN, Oklahoma
JOE COURTNEY, Connecticut DUNCAN HUNTER, California
DAVID LOEBSACK, Iowa JOHN C. FLEMING, Louisiana
JOE SESTAK, Pennsylvania MIKE COFFMAN, Colorado
GABRIELLE GIFFORDS, Arizona THOMAS J. ROONEY, Florida
NIKI TSONGAS, Massachusetts TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania
GLENN NYE, Virginia
CHELLIE PINGREE, Maine
LARRY KISSELL, North Carolina
MARTIN HEINRICH, New Mexico
FRANK M. KRATOVIL, Jr., Maryland
ERIC J.J. MASSA, New York
BOBBY BRIGHT, Alabama
SCOTT MURPHY, New York
WILLIAM L. OWENS, New York
DAN BOREN, Oklahoma
Erin C. Conaton, Staff Director
Julie Unmacht, Professional Staff Member
Aileen Alexander, Professional Staff Member
Caterina Dutto, Staff Assistant
C O N T E N T S
----------
CHRONOLOGICAL LIST OF HEARINGS
2009
Page
Hearing:
Wednesday, December 2, 2009, Assessing the Guam War Claims
Process........................................................ 1
Appendix:
Wednesday, December 2, 2009...................................... 29
----------
WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 2, 2009
ASSESSING THE GUAM WAR CLAIMS PROCESS
STATEMENTS PRESENTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS
McKeon, Hon. Howard P. ``Buck,'' a Representative from
California, Ranking Member, Committee on Armed Services........ 2
Skelton, Hon. Ike, a Representative from Missouri, Chairman,
Committee on Armed Services.................................... 1
WITNESSES
Babauta, Hon. Anthony M., Assistant Secretary of the Interior for
Insular Affairs, U.S. Department of the Interior............... 3
Barcinas, Tom, Survivor of Guam's World War II's Occupation...... 12
Blas, Hon. Frank F., Jr., Senator, 30th Guam Legislature......... 9
Pangelinan, Hon. Vicente C., Senator, 30th Guam Legislature...... 7
Tamargo, Hon. Mauricio J., Former Chairman, Guam War Claims
Review Commission.............................................. 5
APPENDIX
Prepared Statements:
Babauta, Hon. Anthony M...................................... 33
Barcinas, Tom................................................ 65
Blas, Hon. Frank F., Jr...................................... 51
Pangelinan, Hon. Vicente C................................... 42
Tamargo, Hon. Mauricio J..................................... 37
Documents Submitted for the Record:
Testimony of Felix P. Camacho, Governor of Guam.............. 73
Witness Responses to Questions Asked During the Hearing:
[There were no Questions submitted during the hearing.]
Questions Submitted by Members Post Hearing:
Ms. Bordallo................................................. 77
ASSESSING THE GUAM WAR CLAIMS PROCESS
----------
House of Representatives,
Committee on Armed Services,
Washington, DC, Wednesday, December 2, 2009.
The committee met, pursuant to call, at 1:20 p.m., in room
HVC-210, Capitol Visitor Center, Hon. Ike Skelton (chairman of
the committee) presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. IKE SKELTON, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM
MISSOURI, CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
The Chairman. Good afternoon.
We welcome our witnesses today. And with us, we have as
witnesses Anthony Babauta, Assistant Secretary of Interior for
Insular Affairs for the Department of Interior; and the
Honorable Mauricio Tamargo, the former Chairman of the Guam War
Claims Review Commission; the Honorable Vicente Pangelinan,
Senator of the 30th Guam Legislature; the Honorable Frank Blas,
Junior, who is also a Senator of the 30th Guam Legislature; and
Mr. Tom Barcinas, a survivor of the World War II occupation of
Guam.
Appreciate your being with us here.
This important matter--and as you know, my colleague, our
friend the gentlelady from Guam, Madeleine Bordallo, has worked
tirelessly on this issue for many years, and she is such an
outstanding legislator. We appreciate her keen interest and her
recommendations in this regard.
She has introduced legislation on Guam war claims that has
passed the House twice. It was also recently included in the
House-passed National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for next
year.
Today I hope you will address some of the objections and
provide us with any other information that might be helpful for
possible future considerations of the Guam war claims matter.
And I hope Mr. Tamargo will share with us the findings and
recommendations of the Guam War Claims Review Commission and
that others will clarify any questions that we might have.
It is important, and as any relevant proceeding--precedent
for providing the conversation at issue and your thoughts on
how the Guam war claims matter may impact United States
military buildup on Guam which, of course, is the issue at
hand.
Of course, having survived the brutal occupation of Guam
during the Second World War, we are fortunate to have the
unique personal perspective of Mr. Barcinas on some of the
issues before us today, and we appreciate him being with us.
Before we get our testimony, I ask my friend, my colleague,
the ranking member from California, Mr. McKeon, if he has
comments.
STATEMENT OF HON. HOWARD P. ``BUCK'' MCKEON, A REPRESENTATIVE
FROM CALIFORNIA, RANKING MEMBER, COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
Mr. McKeon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I note that many of our witnesses came all the way from
Guam to be here today. Having traveled to Guam last February
with Chairman Skelton and Ms. Bordallo, I know you have an
important story to tell because you have come a long way.
I expect our hearing today will put into motion the
legislative changes needed to allow the citizens of Guam a
reasonable opportunity to submit claims for damages arising
from the Japanese occupation during World War II.
As part of our conference agreement during the recently
enacted National Defense Authorization Act for the Fiscal Year
2010, the House and Senate Armed Services Committees each
agreed to hold hearings on this issue.
In point of fact, the House passed H.R. 44, which
authorizes the payment of Guam war claims. It is valid
legislation that the Senate could take up and pass today if
they chose to take action during this Congress.
As a matter of general principle, most would agree that it
is rarely prudent to review 63-year-old claims, especially when
we contemplate compensating relatives of the survivor who
actually suffered the damages.
Even though I was initially skeptical of the merits of this
legislation, I think the people of Guam have made a good case
that they did not have a reasonable opportunity to file their
claims at the end of the war. Indeed, they hardly had any
opportunity at all.
Congress recognized the suffering and patriotism of the
people of Guam by enacting the Guam Meritorious Claims Act
shortly after the end of the war in 1945, much earlier than
subsequent war claim measures were enacted for the Philippines,
Wake Island, the Aleutian Islands and the Northern Marianas.
Even though the island was ravaged by the war, had few
roads and poor communications, Guam war claim regulations were
established on May 1946, setting a claim deadline of December
1, 1946. That is where things stand today.
If a Guam citizen did not submit a claim by December 1,
1946, 63 years ago today, the citizen missed out. There were no
extensions. For these reasons, I voted for H.R. 44 and support
its enactment into law.
I don't think we can ever make anything fair and equal in
this world, but we should give the courageous people of Guam a
fair chance to make their claims.
Other people on other islands occupied by the Japanese had
sufficient time to document their damages under far more
favorable conditions. The people of Guam deserve a second
chance.
You are represented by a great representative, Ms.
Bordallo, who has done a great job of telling all of us your
case, taking us to Guam, and I enjoyed serving with her on the
committee.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. McKeon.
Let me mention that the speaker and the governor of Guam
were invited to be with us today, and although they can't
attend, I understand that they will be submitting statements
for the record.
[The statement of Governor Camacho can be found in the
Appendix on page 73. The Speaker's statement was not available
at the time of printing.]
The Chairman. With that, we will go to the Assistant
Secretary of Interior, Mr. Anthony Babauta, please.
STATEMENT OF HON. ANTHONY M. BABAUTA, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF
THE INTERIOR FOR INSULAR AFFAIRS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE
INTERIOR
Secretary Babauta. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and
members of the Committee on Armed Services.
I am pleased to be here today to aid in your assessing of
the Guam war claims process. It has been nearly 68 years since
the Imperial Japanese military forces invaded and occupied the
U.S. territory of Guam, subjecting its residents to 33 months
of horrific pain and death.
Through it all, however, the largely native population, the
Chamorro, remained ever loyal to the United States. In prayer
and song, all longed for the return of the Americans.
In a monumental operation, U.S. naval ships bombarded the
island and ground forces stormed the beaches of Asan and Agat
on June 21, 1944. It took nearly two months to dislodge a well-
hidden enemy, but Guam was finally secured on August 10, 1944.
Though our forces had been tempered by fierce battle
throughout the Pacific, what they found and learned of Guam's
occupation was harrowing.
Fellow Americans, innocent civilians, were subjected to
summary executions, beheadings, rape, torture, beatings, forced
labor, forced march and internment.
Approximately 1,000 people had died due to the brutality of
occupation. Among current members of the American political
family, no state, territory or group of civilians suffered any
similar fate during World War II as did the people of Guam.
In November 1945, just after the surrender of Japan, the
U.S. Congress passed the Guam Meritorious Claims Act of 1945.
Other areas and people occupied by Imperial Japanese military
forces were also granted relief by Congress at later dates.
Guam, however, was not included in subsequent legislation
under the mistaken belief that the Congress had already taken
care of Guam.
Over the years, it became evident that although Guamanians
may have been first to receive relief, they may not have
received treatment equivalent to that later given other
Americans in Japanese-held areas.
For nearly 30 years, beginning in the 1970s, Members of
Congress from Guam introduced legislation regarding Guam war
claims. It was not until December 10, 2002 that the Guam War
Claims Review Commission Act became Public Law 107-333.
Under the Act, the Secretary of the Interior appointed the
five-member commission, all of whom had experience relevant to
the task at hand.
Mr. Mauricio Tamargo, who was and is Chairman of the
Foreign Claims Settlement Commission, was selected to be
chairman of the Guam Commission. This fortuitous connection was
of great benefit to the Guam commission because Mr. Tamargo was
able to contribute not only his own expertise but that of
members of his staff to the Guam war claims review effort.
The primary task of the Guam Commission was to determine
whether there was parity of war claims paid to the residents of
Guam under the Guam Meritorious Claims Act that compared with
the awards made to other similarly affected U.S. citizens or
nationals in territory occupied by the Imperial Japanese
military forces during World War II.
The Guam commission met on numerous occasions, held lengthy
hearings both in Guam and in Washington, D.C., and exhaustively
analyzed relevant information and materials before committing
its collective judgment to paper in its 2004 report on the
implementation of the Guam Meritorious Claims Act of 1945.
The report is, indeed, comprehensive and carefully stated
32 findings and developed 6 recommendations for the Congress.
Included in the recommendations are, one, $25,000 for the
heirs of Guam residents who died during Japanese occupation;
two, $12,000 for personal injury, including rape and
malnutrition, forced labor, forced march and internment, to
each person who was a resident of Guam during the Japanese
occupation and who personally suffered or to the eligible
survivors; $5 million for grants to the Department of the
Interior for research, education and media to memorialize the
events of the occupation and the loyalty of the people of Guam.
Congresswoman Bordallo introduced legislation which drew
from the report, and her legislation has passed the House of
Representatives. However, it has failed to receive the support
that would see it through to enactment that we believe it
deserves.
As members of the Committee on Armed Services, you are
aware of the bilateral agreement between the U.S. and Japan
under which 8,000 Marines and approximately 9,000 dependents
will move from Okinawa to Guam.
With planning for the military buildup under way, many hope
that the passage of H.R. 44, the World War II Loyalty
Recognition Act, would exhibit goodwill on the part of the
Federal Government and would act as reciprocity for the
goodwill and loyalty the people of Guam have always exhibited
and will exhibit by hosting the Marines.
It is for the reasons of fairness, equity and justice that
the Department of the Interior expressed a formal policy
position on behalf of the Administration in September 22, 2009
letters to Chairman Skelton and Chairman Levin, urging that
H.R. 44 be included in the conference report on the National
Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2010.
The Department continues to strongly support enactment of
H.R. 44, which would restore the dignity lost during occupation
and heal wounds bound in the spirits of those who survived. For
the 1,000 who passed by saber or savagery, their memory remains
in stories of principle, courage and sacrifice.
The island of Guam has undergone tremendous change since
World War II, and it will continue as its strategic value is
realized in the 21st century. The opportunity to reach back and
provide equity, parity and justice is manifested in the Guam
World War II Loyalty Recognition Act.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Secretary Babauta can be found
in the Appendix on page 33.]
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
Before I call on Mr. Tamargo, let me point out that we are
joined today for the very first time by our colleague from New
York, the Honorable Bill Owens, from New York's 23rd district.
He represents Fort Drum and will fill the large shoes left by
our good friend the current Secretary of the Army, John McHugh.
We welcome you and hope you enjoy the committee, Mr. Owens.
Mr. Owens. Thank you.
The Chairman. Mr. Tamargo.
STATEMENT OF HON. MAURICIO J. TAMARGO, FORMER CHAIRMAN, GUAM
WAR CLAIMS REVIEW COMMISSION
Mr. Tamargo. Chairman Skelton, members of the committee,
thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to
speak about the work of the Guam War Claims Review Commission
which the Commission completed on June 9, 2004.
I am Mauricio Tamargo, chairman of the Foreign Claims
Settlement Commission in the Department of Justice. I appear
before you today as former Chairman of the Guam War Claims
Review Commission, an advisory body established by the
Secretary of Interior under the Guam War Claims Review
Commission Act, Public Law 107-333, which was enacted in
December 2002.
I served in that capacity on a part-time basis from October
3, 2003 until the Review Commission went out of existence in
June of 2004. The vice chairman of the review commission was
the late Antonio Unpingco, former speaker of the Guam
legislature.
And the other members of the Commission were the Honorable
Robert Lagomarsino, former Member of Congress from Ventura,
California; the Honorable Benjamin Cruz, former Chief Justice
of the Guam Supreme Court; and Ms. Ruth Van Cleve, former
career senior executive in the Department of the Interior.
The Guam War Claims Review Commission was established to
determine whether there was parity of war claims paid to the
residents of Guam under the Guam Meritorious Claims Act as
compared with awards made to other similarly affected U.S.
citizens or nationals in territories occupied by Imperial
Japanese forces during World War II, and to advise on any
additional compensation that may be necessary to compensate the
people of Guam for death, personal injury, forced labor, forced
march and internment suffered from the Japanese occupation of
the island during the war.
The island of Guam, a U.S. territory, was attacked by
Japanese forces on December 8, 1941, the same day as the attack
on Pearl Harbor but on the other side of the International Date
Line.
Two days later, on December 10, the Japanese forces overran
and occupied the island. What followed after that was a period
of 32 months of cruel, brutal and barbaric oppression of the
people of Guam by the Japanese Imperial occupation forces.
Great numbers of islanders were beaten, whipped. Many of
the women were raped. There were numerous beheadings. In the
last months of the occupation, nearly all of the islanders were
subjected to forced labor, forced marches and were herded into
concentration areas, causing them to suffer acutely from
malnutrition, exposure and disease.
After beginning the liberation of Guam on July 21, 1944,
United States forces declared Guam secure on August 10, 1944
and immediately began organizing it as a base from which to
launch air and sea attacks in the direction of the Japanese
homeland.
At the same time, the Japanese devoted as much material and
effort as could be spared to constructing shelter for the local
citizens.
Within weeks after the termination of hostilities, Congress
then enacted the Guam Meritorious Claims Act of 1945,
authorizing and directing the U.S. Navy to provide immediate
relief to the people of Guam. This included the U.S. providing
monetary payments to the people of Guam.
In undertaking its task, the Guam War Claims Review
Commission conducted research on the administration of the Guam
Meritorious Claims Act conducted by the U.S. Navy's Land and
Claims Commission and compared that statute and the claims
program conducted pursuant to it with the following statutes
and the claims programs conducted pursuant to them.
Those other statutes were the Philippine Rehabilitation Act
of 1946, the War Claims Act of 1948, including the 1952, 1954,
1956 and 1962 Wake Island amendments to the Act, as well as the
Title 2 amendment to the Act added in 1962, as well as
Micronesian Claims Act of 1971 and the Aleutians and Pribilof
Islands Restitution Act of 1988.
We also conducted hearings on Guam at which we heard moving
testimony from survivors of this terrible period in history. We
then held a legal expert conference in Washington, D.C., at
which relevant legal issues were discussed.
Finally, we submitted a report to the Secretary of Interior
and to specific congressional committees summarizing our work.
The Review Commission's findings and recommendations are
set forth in chapters six and seven of the Review Commission's
final report. I stand by those findings and recommendations and
continue to believe strongly that they should be implemented.
I would also like to say that those of us who came to the
review commission from the Foreign Claims Settlement Commission
were pleased to have had the opportunity to use our familiarity
and expertise regarding war claims issues to assist in the
implementation of this important work.
As former chairman of the Guam War Claims Review
Commission, I wish to also say that I strongly support H.R. 44,
the Guam World War II Loyalty Recognition Act, as it seeks to
come close to implementing the recommendations of the Review
Commission report.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. I will be happy
to respond to any questions that you or your other members of
the committee may have. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Tamargo can be found in the
Appendix on page 37.]
The Chairman. Thank the gentleman.
Mr. Pangelinan, please, the Honorable Mr. Pangelinan,
Senator.
STATEMENT OF HON. VICENTE C. PANGELINAN, SENATOR, 30TH GUAM
LEGISLATURE
Mr. Pangelinan. Honorable Chairman Ike Skelton and esteemed
members of the Armed Services Committee, I am Vicente Cabrera
Pangelinan, a senator of I Mina' Trenta Na Liheslaturan Guahan.
I testify before you on behalf of those voices silenced by
fear, incapacitation or death. Today we come before you, our
liberators from a war not of our own making and not waged to
suit our needs, thankful and grateful.
We are here to seek justice and not merely in pursuit of
recognition. Despite all the rejections of the past 60 years,
we, as we did in war, we will do in peace. We will not beg.
We stand tall and tell you we have earned the justice we
seek. We still have faith that America is the one place on
earth where justice will prevail. We look to this committee and
this Congress to prove our faith is not in vain.
I pray that we will finally see action, because we have had
our fill of, ``We hear you, we understand your pain, we
sympathize with how you were treated,'' and I am referring to
the Japanese treatment of the Chamorros during the occupation
of Guam.
I am here today, traveling over 7,938 miles, crossing half
the world's time zones, coming from tomorrow to be here today,
on behalf of the people of Guam. I am here to plead for not
just mere recognition of their sacrifices but seeking justice
for how they were treated, not just by the enemy occupiers
during the war but the liberators after the war.
The people of Guam deserve more than perfunctory
recognition. The Chamorros of Guam deserve action, action that
our people will never forget. Time cannot heal all wounds, and
the Federal Government knows this all too well in the Pacific
area.
A history of inaction continues the festering of the wounds
earned by unmet obligations. We are not afraid to tell you,
``Basta, basta, basta,'' ``No more, no more, no more.'' We are
no longer a generation rooted in the gratefulness of a
liberation. We are a generation whose hearts have been hardened
by unkept promises and transgressions unresolved.
Knowing this, you have no reason to be surprised if you are
met with arms raised in opposition rather than arms open to
accept your plans to take our lands again, change our way of
life and to once again suit your needs.
While today we address war reparations, it is not the only
issue that remains unresolved between the people of Guam and
the United States.
The United States plans to expand military activities on
Guam, placing our lands and resources at certain risk of
environmental and ecological harm, yet our lands remain
contaminated and wait for remediation and cleanup from an
earlier occupation.
The damage done to our people's health from the dreaded
disease of cancer, which befalls our people at a greater rate
than almost any other community in the country, from proven
exposure to radiation fallout, continues.
And we are made to wait for inclusion in programs to heal
these wounds available only to our continental cousins.
Self-determination continues to be denied to the native
inhabitants and not supported by any action until just a few
weeks ago with a hearing on H.R. 3940.
When we finally see action in the return of lands taken
after the war, albeit 45 years later, we see even quicker
action to reverse the course.
Today we again face the taking of our lands to support the
relocation of 8,000 Marines and over 85,000 of their dependents
that will come to support the military buildup on Guam. They
are being relocated to relieve the burden of hosting the
Marines by the people of Okinawa.
If there is a burden to hosting the Marines being borne by
the people of Okinawa, there will be a burden associated with
the hosting of the Marines by the Chamorro people.
I ask that you listen to a generation savoring freedom
after three years of brutal occupation, the gratefulness for
liberation they generously showered upon America.
Hear it, understand it, sympathize with it, but do not
think for a moment of taking advantage of it again and do not
accept it by its continued inaction.
I recognize your responsibility and heavy obligation to act
on evidence that there were disparities in the treatment of
people of Guam in war claims compensation compared to other
compensation programs.
Do not focus on the claims that were filed and the payments
made. Listen to the stories. See and hear of the claims not
filed and paperwork not submitted as Chamorros told each other
the value placed upon their lives, their homes and the
suffering, and of the dollars claimed and the pennies paid and
the decision that it was not worth it.
The issue of whether the people of Guam were treated fairly
by those who had authority over the process of claiming and
paying for taking advantage of the lands, the damages inflicted
upon their lives and the destruction of their belongings has
been studied literally to death.
Many of those harmed have succumbed to the injuries after
the war, and some just were not able to outrun father time.
From there, first, there was a Hopkins Commission in 1947 and
now the War Claims Commission.
Both these reports issued by commissions concluded
something more needs to be done to make things right for the
people of Guam, to give them justice and peace in the remaining
years of their lives.
The findings of these commissions state that in the process
of resolving their claims, the people of Guam were misinformed
and mistreated. For the people of Guam, there was no parity.
There is no justice to bring them with peace at America.
Each time the issue has come before this august body, the
recommendations remain the same. The people of Guam deserve
recognition for loyalty they displayed to the United States in
the face of a brutal enemy and the atrocities inflicted upon
them.
Now we have the findings of a federal commission, which
found that there was no parity in the treatment of the people
of Guam and others in compensation programs of those similarly
situated.
Throughout our island, we still see evidence of Guam's
historical struggle. Concrete bunkers remain on our seashores,
heavy artillery become landmarks overgrown with jungle, and war
zones claiming the lives converted to national parks.
Chamorros throughout our island can attest to the plight of
their ancestors, forced to march to concentration camps in
Manenggon and to massacres in the case of Tinta, Faha and Fena.
The Chamorros of Guam do not expect to turn back time,
change history or alter the future. But recognition of a
people's sacrifice in upholding the honor of America in the
face of a brutal enemy, maintaining their dignity in their
fight for liberty and demonstrating that steadfast loyalty
remains priceless.
That is the evidence of everything our founding fathers
envisioned, everything thousands of young American soldiers
died on the shores of Guam's beaches, and that will memorialize
our history, bring peace to a dying generation, and alter the
future of new generations.
We, too, fought for our freedom or held our dignity and
earned this compensation. We know we deserve it. And yes, we
want all America to understand it. With faith in democracy and
the will of our leaders and our people, we slowly close one era
while educating the next.
I believe, as Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., remarked, we
will not be satisfied until justice rolls down like waters and
righteousness like a mighty stream. The book of history is
never complete. The writing continues. The judgment will come.
And while it may never be too late to make a difference, I
ask that you correct this injustice today. Not a single
generation should again pass without sharing in the justice
deserved.
Let there be no more naysayers. The Congress endorses it.
The Administration supports it. And our Nation's place in
history as a just and caring government demands it.
Today I am grateful you invited all of us to the table. Let
no more time pass. Lady justice and the people of Guam must not
be made to wait any longer. Thank you yan si yu'os ma'ase.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Pangelinan can be found in
the Appendix on page 42.]
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
Next, Frank Blas, Jr., Senator.
Mr. Blas.
STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK F. BLAS, JR., SENATOR, 30TH GUAM
LEGISLATURE
Mr. Blas. Chairman Skelton, members of this esteemed
committee, thank you for the opportunity to provide in this
hearing testimony in this hearing on assessing the Guam war
claims process.
My name is Frank Flores Blas, Jr., a senator with the 30th
Guam Legislature and son to Frank Flores Blas and Lydia Ada
Calvo, grandson to Vicente Cepeda and Beatrice Flores Blas and
Jose Leon Guerrero and Herminia Ada Calvo, and son-in-law to
Regina Manibusan Reyes.
I mention my relations because they were survivors of the
horrors and atrocities of the Japanese occupation of Guam
during World War II.
I mention them because for them, along with the thousands
of Chamorros who suffered as well or died during the
occupation, I come before you to ask of closure to their 65-
year-old struggle for recognition of their loyalty to the
United States in the face of a brutal enemy force.
While preparing this testimony, I thought it best to speak
to survivors to get their advice on what to say. When I told
them that the hearing was on assessing the war claims process,
all of them started with a two-word question, ``What process?''
Many had informed me that immediately after the war they
had heard that the United States Government wanted details of
how they were treated and of the savagery they witnessed. Some
were told that because of what happened to them they would be
compensated but, more importantly, that their struggles would
not be forgotten.
Still, there were others who did not know at the time that
their Nation's government wanted to know of their sufferings,
because either the information never got to them or they were
too busy trying to rebuild their lives.
Nevertheless, every survivor that I spoke to expressed that
despite what they were told or what they heard being told,
nothing ever happened.
In December of 2003, almost six years to this date, a few
of the survivors who were still alive at the time gave
testimony to the Guam War Claims Commission.
Survivors like my mother-in-law, Regina Manibusan Reyes,
Mr. Edward Leon Guerrero Aguon, Mr. Jose Afaisen Pinaula, Mr.
Juan Martinez Unpingco, and Mrs. Rosa Roberto Carter gave their
personal accounts of the beatings and humiliations they
endured, the slavery they were subjected to and the beheadings
they were forced to witness.
They told of the nightmares that they still have about how
their childhood was taken away and about how they did not know
how to play with their grandchildren today because they were
stripped of the opportunity to grasp that concept in order to
survive.
Today, Mr. Chairman, if you were to ask these same people
to come before this committee to provide their testimony again,
many of them will not be able to make it because they have
since passed on.
One such survivor is Mr. Edward Leon Guerrero Aguon. In
2003, he ended his testimony by saying, ``I am 77 years old. If
you ask me again in another 10 years, I may not be here to
testify.'' Mr. Aguon passed away on September 28, 2007.
Mr. Chairman, as I had been told to ask at this hearing,
what war claims process does Congress want to assess? My people
have told their stories time and time again.
Our delegates to Congress, starting with the late Antonio
B. Won Pat, then retired Brigadier Ben G. Blaz, Dr. Robert A.
Underwood, and now the Honorable Madeleine Z. Bordallo have all
made Guam's war claims a priority during their tenures. For 65
years my people have been waiting. When will it end?
There is a demoralizing sentiment that is growing amongst
the survivors. This sentiment is that the United States
Government is waiting for all of the war survivors to pass on
so that this issue will not have to be dealt with.
Although my upbringing has taught me to apologize for this
statement, I choose not to and challenge our Nation's leaders
to prove that opinion wrong.
I thank you for keeping your commitment, Mr. Chairman, to
hold this hearing in order to move this issue along.
I can tell you with confidence that if given the
opportunity, the physical stamina and the financial resources
to do so, many of the survivors will come before this committee
or any other panel one more time in the hopes that this time
they will have closure to their struggle.
But because many of the people whom I speak of could not be
present today or will not be able to make the long trip it
takes to get from Guam to here, I humbly and very respectfully
request that you have continued hearings on Guam or require
that any future process for the war claims be held on Guam as
well.
Attached to my testimony today are newspaper articles of
the individual accounts of four of Guam's war survivors.
As you read through their stories, I also ask that you look
at their faces. It is said that a picture is worth a thousand
words. I will tell you that at the time their photos were being
taken, they were not asked to pose or provide a specific
expression. They were only told to be comfortable.
Comfortable, Mr. Chairman, as I am providing this testimony
to you, forces beyond the control of my island's people are
mobilizing the largest and most expensive peace-time military
buildup on Guam.
And I can confidently say that if you ask any Guam resident
if they knew the two countries who partnered in this activity,
they will all say the United States and Japan. This leads to an
uncomfortable conversation that will ensue if you ask that
question to a survivor of the war.
When word of the inclusion of Guam's war claims bill into
the defense authorization act was received on Guam, many of our
survivors were cautiously optimistic. Their unenthused reaction
bewildered me at first.
I was perplexed as to why there as no excitement with the
prospect that their 65-year wait will end. Even the efforts to
drum up support through petition drives and letter-writing
campaigns received lackluster responses.
Then one tired and dejected war survivor told me something
that made sense of the reactions I was observing. He told me,
``The United States and Japan don't give a damn about the
Chamorro people. Putting the war claims into a bill that would
help the military build their bases on Guam, to help Japan out,
just puts donne,'' or, in my language, pepper, ``into the
wound. With war claims, I will believe it when I see it.''
When news that the war claims provision was stricken from
the final version of the bill, obviously there was
disappointment. Unfortunately, there was also recurred feeling
of dejection and the emergence of a sentiment uncommon amongst
survivors, resentment.
As one survivor has directed me to ask, ``You want me to be
comfortable with the building of military bases on my island
with Japan when you haven't even recognized what Japan did to
us during the war?''
This survivor further requested that I say, ``Enough talk
and enough planning. Deal with our war claims before you start
to build your bases.''
Comfort, this word best describes what I am asking for the
people of Guam. Give my man'amko, the elderly people of my
island, the peace and the peace and comfort they so rightfully
deserve before they become just a memory of a Chamorro people
who suffered and died yet remained loyal and patriotic.
Give my man'amko the comfort of knowing that even after all
these years their suffering has not gone unnoticed.
Thank you for giving me this opportunity to speak for those
who cannot be here and for those who can never speak again.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Blas can be found in the
Appendix on page 51.]
The Chairman. Thank the gentleman.
Mr. Barcinas.
STATEMENT OF TOM BARCINAS, SURVIVOR OF GUAM'S WORLD WAR II'S
OCCUPATION
Mr. Barcinas. Thank you.
Good morning yan Hafa Adai, Chairman Skelton and honorable
members of the House Armed Services Committee. My name is Tom
Barcinas. I was born on November 14, 1937 in Malesso, in the
southern part of the island, a very small community.
Through the grace of God, I survived World War II. But like
so many others who lived through those days, lived through the
war, who have since died, I am quickly getting old, as you can
see. So many who lived through the war are advancing in age,
and so many have passed on without closure to the issues
arising because of the war.
Mr. Chairman, in 1946 there were approximately 20,000
survivors enumerated by the U.S. naval personnel who were part
of the liberating forces. Today it is estimated that fewer than
9,000 are still living.
In the month of November, this last month, 12 more
individuals living prior to July 21, 1944 died. Because of
advancing age, more are passing away at alarmingly quicker
rates.
Just yesterday I left a warm tropical island, traveled for
22 hours to be here in this cold climate. I will always
remember this December as I made the hard call to appear before
you, hopeful that the Members of Congress will find it in their
hearts and conscience to bring closure to the people of Guam
who, 65 years ago, proved beyond any doubt that they are loyal
Americans.
I am very honored to be here in our Nation's great capital,
the fulcrum of mankind's dedication to peace, justice and
fairness of all people. I have been looking forward to this
very memorable experience since the day I received your
invitation to appear before this very important committee.
I am even more eager to bring back to my fellow survivors
good news of hope that this closure they have waited for for 65
years may soon be a reality. Very vividly, like those who
testified before the War Claims Review Commission nearly six
years ago to this day, I remember the occupation of my
homeland.
Memories such as those never leave you, no matter how old
you get and no matter how hard you try to forget. Those
survivors spoke eloquently about their experiences, bravely
stating their pain as they recalled the fear of torture, death
which filled every waking moment during those dark days.
Some relive the horrors of public beheadings. Some recall
the massacres of Tinta, Famha and Chiguian massacres--mass
massacres at that, where they witnessed the ruthless slaughter
of innocent neighbors, brothers and sisters.
The records are full of vivid and graphic details of the
atrocities endured by the Chamorro people over 30 months of
occupation from December 8, 1941 to July 1944. I do not have to
relate them to you, as they are always available for your
review.
What is also available for your review, hopefully, so that
you will never forget, are the records of the United States
indemnifying Japan from any responsibility or obligation to
make right the lives of the Chamorro people for the atrocities
they endured at the hands of the Japanese soldiers frenzied by
thoughts of their impending doom.
With the stroke of a pen, America told Japan, ``Don't worry
about what happened on Guam, no one will ever hold Japan
responsible.''
However, in contrast, America did assume full
responsibility for the making right the lives of the Alaskan
Aleuts evacuated from their island homes in anticipation of
invasion by the Japanese forces.
Why did it have to be different for the Chamorro people who
were abandoned on their island while American military
personnel and dependents were evacuated because invasion and
occupation by Japanese forces was imminent?
In 1988, 42 years after the end of the war, America assumed
full responsibility for injustices served upon Japanese
Americans by Americans who herded them into concentration camps
during the war to ensure their personal safety from perceived
assumed potential dangers.
Housed in warm quarters with sanitary facilities, they had
a roof over their heads, ate three meals a day and had medical
attention.
Eight thousand miles to the west, we lived on the banks of
Ylig River, slept on dirt floors and, because it was the rainy
season, many days in unyielding mud. We never knew where our
next meal would come from. And because of a lack of medical
attention and sanitary facilities, many, too many, children
died and were buried in unmarked mass graves.
It was righteous of America to assume responsibility for
bringing closure to the Alaskan Aleuts and Japanese Americans.
So why does America hesitate to do the same for the people of
Guam?
The Guam War Claims Commission report, published in 2004,
clearly stated that there was an obvious absence of parity in
the administration of war claims of the people of Guam.
Honorable congressmen, where there is lack of parity in the
official statement of people, there is an absence of justice
and, more seriously, there is the presence of injustice.
The Chamorro people have always demonstrated their faith in
American democracy and loyalty and patriotism to the U.S. Our
sons and daughters have the highest per capita percentage of
enlistment in the U.S. military service.
On a per capita basis, more of her sons have made the
ultimate sacrifice in the Vietnam conflict and the continuing
war in the Middle East. We have never wavered in our sense of
loyalty and allegiance to our great Nation.
That faith, loyalty and patriotism will soon be tested
again. Despite recent indicators of growing discontent and
questions relating to the truthfulness and accuracy of
pronouncements by the Department of Defense (DOD), current
surveys indicate that our people continue to support that
promised military buildup and relocation of the 3rd Marine
Expeditionary Forces from Okinawa, Japan to Guam.
There is no doubt that the buildup will impact the very
lives of our people and will substantially change our social
and cultural traditions, our environment and our political and
economic way of life. We know that our lifestyles, customs,
traditions, and our language as we know it today will change.
But we are willing to accept it because we love our Nation.
And we love and cherish the freedom its flag guarantees and the
prosperity it promises.
Those of us who have experienced the tyranny and oppression
of enemy occupation, those of us who have lived through the
horrors of war, are prepared to accept these changes, just as
we accepted the changes that came in the post-World War II
years.
But we ask that this great Nation also live up to its
promise that this loyalty and patriotism, this willingness to
serve, will not be in vain nor taken for granted.
Mr. Chairman, no one must underestimate the importance of
resolving the issues of parity, fairness and justice related to
the administration of the war claims. Resolving these issues
will prove beyond any reasonable doubt that America does live
up to its promises and responsibilities.
When Congress set up the first meritorious claims
commission immediately after the war, it promised resolution to
the losses suffered by people in a conflict to which they were
but innocent bystanders.
When Congress authorized the War Claims Commissions Review
Commission, rather--it promised that should the commission find
an absence of parity or injustices, that these issues would be
resolved.
The meritorious Claims Commission never completed the
mandated task, and the War Claims Review Commission indeed
found an obvious lack of parity.
The people of Guam now ask that these issues be resolved
expeditiously and equitably, that we may proceed and continue
with the work of good in Guam and to America's most strategic
and powerful bastion of freedom and democracy in the western
Pacific.
In our vernacular, I extend my heartfelt dangkulo na si
yu'os ma'ase. Thank you, and may God bless you, God bless Guam,
and God bless America.
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I have with me--
but I am not going to do as I intended, just to bring to your
attention, like he mentioned, if we could have the hearing on
Guam, I have here a song just to that effect.
It says, here in Guam, paradise calls you--it is a song,
very nice song, and you will find this song in a book called
``Bisita Guam,'' means visit Guam, written by a retired general
of the American--of the Marine Corps--and you find that song on
page 173 of this book.
I also will submit as part of my testimony--I call your
attention to a booklet--a story of a lady like 17 years old.
Here is what happened to her. They took her from home back
then, and she was never returned back home, and she was never
found.
[The information referred to is retained in the committee
files and can be viewed upon request.]
Mr. Barcinas. So these are some of the stories I relate to
you, and I submit this as part of my testimony, and I hope
someday--that the hearing will be conducted in Guam.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Barcinas can be found in the
Appendix on page 65.]
The Chairman. Mr. Barcinas, thank you very much.
Let me point out to the panel that the gentlelady from Guam
has been a real champion for you. This committee has supported
this claims matter, and it was also included in our bill, that
passed the House, for the authorization in 2010, and your
problem is not before this committee or the House of
Representatives.
I might also mention I have a personal recollection of
having attended a military school and high school in my
hometown of Lexington, Missouri. And a fellow high school
student a year ahead of me was on Guam during the Japanese
occupation, and he was quite talented and a musician, and had
to play the piano for the Japanese on occasion.
And I think later on he became a well-known band leader in
both Guam and on the west coast here in America.
We thank you very much for your testimony.
Mr. McKeon.
Mr. McKeon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I have just a couple of questions. Do any of the witnesses
have an estimate of the number of claims--this is something
that came up in our discussion, and it would have helped if I
had had some of these answers. I hope that you might be able to
help me--the number of claims that would be submitted if the
legislation were adopted.
And if so, do you know how many of those would be survivors
of the occupation and how many descendants of survivors?
Mr. Tamargo. Thank you, Congressman. Before I answer your
question, I wish to point out to the committee that I brought
copies of the Guam War Claims Review final report, if anybody
or the committee staff or any members wish to take a copy with
them, as well as the Foreign Claims Settlement Commission's
annual report that explains how the commission operates and
what claims programs it has administered over our 58-year
history.
It would be hard to estimate the number of claims. I would
say that at the time of liberation there were, as one of the
witnesses testified, approximately 20,000 people. And if you
add the ones who died during the occupation, it probably would
be 21,000 people.
And many of them over the years have moved off the island
and are located throughout the U.S. But as to the ratio of
survivors to heirs, that would be very difficult to calculate.
I think one of the witnesses said 9,000 survivors might
still be living. I think it could be nine. It could be 10. It
is, again, difficult because they don't live on Guam, and they
are all over the U.S.--I mean, many of them have moved off the
island.
So based on those numbers, I would say it is 10,000--10,000
survivors and 10,000 that have passed away.
Mr. McKeon. Anyone else have any differing information?
Mr. Pangelinan. No, but just to kind of gauge it, we had a
program in Guam for Chamorros, which would be those that were
there during--after the war, part of that 20,000, for a land
program. And of those eligible--we had about 30,000 eligible--
about one-third applied for the land, so--and that was for a
99-year lease on a piece of property.
So if we were to kind of gauge that generation, which would
be maybe one-third, so we probably would not see the entire
9,000 remaining file claims, but it would be somewhere between
one-third of that to, of course, the ultimate would be 100
percent.
So that would be the range of numbers, given the--having a
local program of those same eligible people that have taken
advantage of--of a program geared towards them.
Mr. McKeon. Those would all be--both of those groups would
be direct survivors.
Mr. Pangelinan. That is correct.
Mr. McKeon. But the legislation also goes to descendants.
Do you have any kind of guess on that?
Mr. Pangelinan. No, I would not.
Mr. Tamargo. It would be, Mr. Chairman--I mean,
Congressman, the--it would be impossible to calculate how many
heirs there are. It would be simpler to look at how many claims
there would be, because it would be one claim per survivor or--
I mean, one claim per resident of the island during the
occupation.
And that number is limited to the population at the time of
the occupation, and that was 20----
Mr. McKeon. So the most would be, then, 20,000.
Mr. Tamargo. Yes. That would be the number of claims
possible. Of course, it is not a guarantee that all would
pursue their claims. Many may not pursue their claims, and that
would be up to--hard to estimate.
Mr. McKeon. I know that was one of the questions that came
up with the senators. There was concern about--not so much
about claims by survivors but descendants. You know, how would
they--how were they harmed, and what would be the justification
for giving a benefit to them?
Mr. Tamargo. Well, if I may----
Mr. McKeon. Sure.
Mr. Tamargo [continuing]. The Guam Claims Review Commission
included survivors in its recommendations strictly because as a
matter of parity that is how all the other claims programs were
administered. They all allowed for heirs to pursue the claims
of their decedent war victim. And that was why we included it
in the report.
And if one wishes to, you know, achieve parity, that would
probably be an element of parity.
Mr. McKeon. Okay. I bring it up because I think that
probably would be one of the problems in the other body in
getting it passed.
I yield back my time, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
The Chairman. Thank the gentleman.
Dr. Snyder.
Dr. Snyder. Mr. Chairman, I would be glad to let Ms.
Bordallo go first, if I can have my time whenever----
The Chairman. You bet.
Dr. Snyder [continuing]. Her name comes up in the queue.
The Chairman. The gentlelady from Guam is recognized.
Ms. Bordallo. I thank my colleague for yielding his time.
And I do have a few opening remarks, Mr. Chairman, and then
I have a couple of questions.
First, I want to thank Chairman Skelton and Ranking Member
McKeon for convening this hearing today on a very important
issue of the Guam war claims.
But as our chairman mentioned, really, you are preaching to
the choir here. This body of Congress has passed this
legislation twice, and also when it was included in the Defense
Authorization Act of 2010. So we are the good guys. We have to
convince the other body of Congress.
And I want to thank both Chairman Skelton and Ranking
Member McKeon. You have been steadfast supporters of this
issue, and I appreciate all your hard work during conference
this year trying to protect the provision.
And I also welcome our panel of witnesses. We are very
proud of our new Assistant Secretary, Babauta, a son of Guam.
Mr. Tamargo, who has been very, very supportive, a former
chairman of the Guam War Claims Review Commission--and of
course, he has got a lot of the information that I think the
Senate has--during conference, some of the questions that they
asked. I am sure that your expert testimony will help us today.
And I also want to thank our senators who have traveled
many thousands of miles, Senators Ben Pangelinan, Frank Blas,
Jr., from the 30th Guam Legislature.
And finally, our survivor--thank you very much, Mr. Tom
Barcinas, for giving us some very insightful comments today at
the hearing.
The issue of the Guam war claims is a very sensitive issue
for my constituents. And it is an issue that must be
legislatively resolved by the Congress.
The need for this Congress to take action and resolve the
matter of Guam war claims heightens by the day. Continued
popular support for the military buildup on Guam is tied, to a
certain extent, to finally solving this longstanding issue for
many of us on Guam.
People wonder how we can spend over $14 billion in military
construction but their suffering and patriotism during the
Imperial Japanese occupation of Guam has yet to be fully
recognized and redressed.
My colleagues on this panel know about the importance of
the Guam war claims. The issue of the Guam war claims takes the
form of legislation H.R. 44, which carries broad bipartisan
support in the House of Representatives.
As I mentioned earlier, the House has now passed the bill
on three separate occasions, twice as a bill and during the
defense authorization. But securing the favorable concurrence
of the other body remains the challenge before us today.
So I am hopeful that this hearing today will illuminate
further the facts and circumstances surrounding the occupation
endured by the people of Guam and the injustice that they hope
will finally be redressed by this Congress.
This is an injustice rooted in their having been treated
differently from their fellow Americans, as it was pointed out,
by the Federal Government in redressing their war-time losses
and their damages.
The hearing today presents another opportunity to review
this history, however painful it may be, to recount and repeat.
We further this discussion today in the name and the pursuit of
justice and with faith in our government and for a cherished
principle of equal protection under the law.
We also remain focused and determined because of the very
findings and the recommendations of now two federal commissions
that have independently and thoroughly examined this matter
against all its political and legal sensitivities.
The Commission's report speaks for itself. But this hearing
affords us an opportunity to explore this issue in greater
present-day context and to gain and place in the record answers
to the questions that were posed during and leading up to the
consideration of this issue as part of the National Defense
Authorization Act.
I want to thank again--I can't thank him enough--Chairman
Skelton and our Ranking Member McKeon for agreeing to hold this
hearing so soon. So we have our hearing out of the way. Now it
is up to the Senate to call a hearing, and we look forward to
that.
I have a question that I know came up during conference,
and this is directed to you, Mr. Tamargo. It has been stated by
some here on Capitol Hill and in the community that H.R. 44,
the Guam World War II Loyalty Recognition Act, would set a new
legal precedent.
Can you comment on whether we as a Congress should be
concerned that if compensation is provided to the people of
Guam for war damages that they suffered that this could lead to
new legal precedents for future war claims and lead to a flood
of claims from other affected people like the POWs and the
veterans?
Mr. Tamargo. Thank you, Congresswoman. My short answer to
that is that it would not establish any new legal precedents
because everything in the Guam War Claims Review Commission
report's recommendations has precedent elsewhere in the
previous claims programs that have existed in U.S. history.
And furthermore, as compared to those other possible people
that might have some sort of claim, international claims law
treats civilians differently than it treats military claimants,
and so this sort of--these recommendations would not be the
same sort of situation that would apply to those other possible
victims of the war.
Additionally, those other claimants were covered by other
claims programs that were conducted after the war. Some of them
were covered as a group, not individually, but by multiple
programs, so they could have--they did have--and they did
pursue their own claims in the other programs that the Foreign
Claims Settlement Commission administered.
Ms. Bordallo. Well, thank you, Chairman. That clears up
that issue.
Was there anything else you wanted to add? No?
Mr. Tamargo. No. No, that is it.
Ms. Bordallo. All right. I have a question for Secretary
Babauta.
I believe that further support could have come from the
Administration on the issue of maintaining war claims in this
year's defense authorization bill, so can you give us a
commitment that the Administration will make this issue a top
priority if it is attached to next year's defense authorization
bill?
Secretary Babauta. Thank you very much, Congresswoman. The
Administration, as you know, through the Department of the
Interior, submitted two letter--or submitted letters to
Chairman Skelton and Chairman Levin in support of keeping H.R.
44 within the conference report of the defense authorization.
Again, I am here testifying on behalf of the Administration
that we continue to support the inclusion and the future
enactment of the legislation.
Ms. Bordallo. So this support will continue.
Secretary Babauta. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you very much, Secretary.
And I yield back my time.
And thank you, Congressman Snyder.
The Chairman. Thank the gentlelady.
Before I call Mr. Bartlett, you have touched on this, Mr.
Babauta, and let me ask you, though, what are the differences
between the Guam war claims program that was authorized back in
1945 and the other World War II claims programs that were
subsequently implemented for other Americans who suffered
damages?
Secretary Babauta. Mr. Chairman, I am going to pass this
off to Mr. Tamargo, as the commission itself did a thorough----
The Chairman. Yes.
Secretary Babauta [continuing]. Analysis.
The Chairman. Go right ahead, please.
Mr. Tamargo. Mr. Chairman, I would say that the main
difference between--or the key difference between the Guam
Meritorious Claims Act and program as compared to the other
claims programs was the filing period.
The filing period for any claims program is essential. It
is a threshold issue. If it is inadequate, then large numbers
of claimants never get an opportunity even to file a claim, let
alone have its merits considered.
And the Guam Meritorious Claims Act and program had a very
truncated filing period. It was basically seven months. And in
today's age of communication and advertisement and
telecommunications, claims programs typically even now have a
year.
Back then, during the war, and the communications problems
that were existing, one would probably expect not even a year--
you would probably expect to have a two-year filing period for
a sufficient number of the population to have a proper
opportunity to file a claim.
In the case of the Philippines, they had two years. In the
War Claims Act, they had two years. And many of the other
claims programs we compared this to had at least a year. So
that was the main flaw.
Besides that, there were also lower cash limits for
personal injury and death than the other claims programs had,
and they also needed congressional appropriations individually
for all death and personal injury claims. And that doesn't
normally happen with the other claims programs.
So those were the main flaws and the main inequities
between the Guam program and the other claims programs, but the
filing period being the main one.
The Chairman. Thank the gentleman.
Mr. Bartlett.
Mr. Bartlett. Thank you very much.
Thank you for your explanation of why we need to be here
today. I have been to Guam several times. I have seen the
beautiful Chamorro children perform. By the way, they have the
most beautiful skin, the most beautiful complexion, that I have
seen anywhere in the world.
I have read Ben Blas' book, and I am embarrassed that we
have to be here today talking about this. We should have
resolved this thing a long time ago.
I don't have any questions. You know, I am enormously
supportive of this. And again, I am embarrassed that we have to
be here today talking about this. This should have been
resolved a long time ago. Let's make it go away now. Thanks.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Dr. Snyder.
Dr. Snyder. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I don't
want you to think I was being magnanimous when I offered
Madeleine the time ahead of me, because she is so nice to work
with she generally gets her way around here anyway. I thought I
might as well let her have the time.
Mr. Tamargo, the question Mr. McKeon brought up about heirs
of decedents--I assume that the reason that--and Mr. McKeon
thought of that as the obstacle in the Senate side, or one of
the obstacles on the Senate side.
I assume the reason that heirs would be recognized is to
deal with this emotional issue that we have run into other
aspects of legislating, which is you are waiting for us to die,
that if you--I am getting a nodded head--if you recognize that
regardless of when this thing kicks in, even the people who
predecease the beginning date of the bill, their heirs will be
recognized also.
Is that the rationale for having that? I assume that is
part of the emotion behind the----
Mr. Tamargo. It is. I cannot speak for the emotions. I
assume that might be----
Dr. Snyder. Well, I got a nodded head down here from Mr.
Barcinas, so I assume we are on track there, so----
Mr. Tamargo. But the reason we included it in our
recommendations, and I assume the reason it is in the report,
is because justice--in that the other programs all had that
element to them as well. They all included heirs.
Dr. Snyder. Yes.
Mr. Tamargo. And the number of heirs can be intimidating.
Again, you shouldn't look at the number of heirs. You should
look at the number of claims.
Dr. Snyder. No, no, I understand. We understand.
Mr. Tamargo. Okay.
Dr. Snyder. Mr. Secretary, I am going to digress and take
on another issue that you and I have talked about, which is the
issue of the Marshall Islanders which has impact on Guam also.
In fact, Madeleine, I was listening to a Guam radio station
that was interviewing Secretary Babauta a few--month or two
ago, I guess, when you were there--over the Internet I listen
to Guam radio. And one of the things that he brought up there
was the presence of Marshall Islanders outside of the Marshall
Islands.
As you know--and, Mr. Chairman, you may not know this, but
the compact came about after World War II to recognize the
contributions of Marshall Islanders, the Federated States of
Micronesia and the Nation of Palau to World War II, and part of
it was that--the nuclear testing.
But Marshall Islanders now can come into the United States
at will, no health inspections, and what has--the expectation
is that a lot of them would go to Guam. A lot of them would go
to Hawaii. And so a compact came about that gives some
financial aid to Guam and to Hawaii and to Mariana Islands.
The problem that we have and the challenge in Arkansas is
we love the Marshall Islanders and they have been great, great
contributors to Arkansas. But there are now more Marshall
Islanders in Arkansas than any other place than the Marshall
Islands.
Some of them came up there back in the late 1980s and liked
it, and word got around, and it has just been--there is now a
consulate up there. I think you have got some--up there for the
consulate opening.
They have just been great, great contributors--candidates
in the Marshall Islands have to campaign in Arkansas because
there is so many Marshall Islanders there.
Here is the challenge, and we want them to continue to come
and to be free to come and--but the resources for public health
are lacking in Arkansas. And as you may know, Marshall
Islanders have high rates of tuberculosis. They have leprosy.
They have other infectious diseases that we need to get a
handle on. And they don't qualify for a lot of the federal
programs. So I have two questions for you, Mr. Secretary.
Number one--and Guam has experience also--I see some
nodding heads here from our legislator. Is the amount of money
that the Federal Government is now giving to Guam and Hawaii
and Mariana Islands--is that sufficient to handle the impact of
keeping our obligations to the Marshallese?
And second, does it need to be evaluated because of places
like Arkansas, which now has the highest population outside of
the Marshall Islands? Do we need to revisit how we are handling
the financial impact?
And I ask that question in the spirit of we really admire
and love the Marshall Islanders' contribution to Arkansas and
America and do not want to do anything that would interfere
with our obligations and affection for them, but we are not
able to do as good a job as we would like to because of the
cost.
Mr. Secretary
Secretary Babauta. Thank you very much, Congressman Snyder.
And I have appreciated the conversation that we have been able
to have over the presence of Marshallese in northwest Arkansas.
I also appreciate the fact that you listen to Guam radio,
especially when I am there.
Dr. Snyder. Guam radio.
Secretary Babauta. The question of is the compact impact
money sufficient--I think based on the claims that have been
submitted by the primary jurisdictions that have--that receive
the immediate effect of compact migration, which for large
measure is Hawaii, Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands--based
on the claims of those governments, the $30 million that is
currently made available for--annually for compact impact to be
divided amongst those three jurisdictions is probably not
sufficient in response to the claims that they have made.
There has not been, however, I will say, a thorough
analysis of the claims that each of them have given. But
clearly, there is a measurable impact on those jurisdictions.
Should it be reevaluated? The Administration every five
years reevaluates the presence of Micronesian citizens in those
three primary areas. For many years, for decades, there was no
compact impact money available, and it wasn't until 2003, with
the reauthorization of the compact with the Marshall Islands
and Micronesia that actually $30 million became available.
So for very many years there was no money available--very
small pots of money got through the legislative process.
Dr. Snyder. And Arkansas?
Secretary Babauta. Currently, Arkansas does not participate
in the division of compact impact money.
Dr. Snyder. We are not allowed to, correct?
Secretary Babauta. I believe so.
Dr. Snyder. We are not allowed to.
Secretary Babauta. I believe that Arkansas is not factored
in----
Dr. Snyder. So that is the inequity.
Mr. Babauta [continuing]. Into the formula.
Dr. Snyder. We have more Marshall Islands--Marshallese in
Arkansas that any other place outside of Guam but get no impact
money, and so I would argue that we really do need to look at a
different way of approaching that, in fairness to everyone,
because everyone wants to do a good job for these folks.
Secretary Babauta. Certainly.
Dr. Snyder. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Mr. Kissell.
Mr. Kissell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And just a quick opening comment and then a couple of
questions. I recently had the opportunity to travel with the
gentlewoman from Guam, and I come today to--in support of her
and her efforts here.
If there is a better spokesperson for all aspects of the
good qualities of Guam, I don't know where they would be.
Matter of fact, on our trip, the gentlewoman spoke so much
about Guam we teasingly told her we didn't have an opportunity
to talk about other things, like Fort Bragg.
But also, based upon the soldiers that we saw from Guam, I
am not sure so much she is a representative but royalty.
Everywhere she went, she was adored by the good folks in Guam,
and we appreciate the young men and women that serve in our
Nation from Guam.
And just a couple questions that I have. This is my first
term here, so I am not as familiar with this question other
than what the gentlewoman told me while we were on the trip.
But in the 20,000--approximately 20,000 claims that may be
there, is there a monetary amount that that would total? Has
anybody put some numbers on that?
And, Mr. Tamargo, I am not sure if you are the right one or
not, but, you know, if you--if somebody has any numbers on
that----
Mr. Tamargo. Well, do you want to answer?
Secretary Babauta. I don't have a definitive answer. I
believe that the legislation calls for an authorization of
appropriations that attempts to capture what the number of
claims and the type of claims could amount to.
I don't think that until the legislation is enacted,
however, and claims are actually made that you can come up with
a definitive number, final number.
Mr. Kissell. And it was mentioned--I think the number was
20,000 people in Guam at the--was it July of 1944? Is there an
estimate of how many people in Guam lost their lives during the
time of occupation? And anybody who might have that answer?
Mr. Tamargo. We believe it is roughly 1,000.
Mr. Kissell. One thousand, okay. Okay.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
The Chairman. The gentlelady from California, Mrs. Davis.
Mrs. Davis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman--I know that I have
been coached by my colleague on this, and I appreciate it as
well as all my colleagues do. We have a course out here because
we have been to Guam with her.
We have seen the exceptional way that she has represented
and is so much a part and, you know, it really means a lot to
see the response that she receives. And we just know she is
doing a wonderful job, and I just wanted to be here to also
support her.
There is a question that I know has been touched on, and I
wondered, Mr. Babauta, if you could help us to understand the
extent to which you think that the claims issue, which is very,
very important, really does undermine in many ways the plans
that the U.S. government has to work toward leases and the
buildup--military building on Guam.
How involved is this--is that in the decisions that are
being made and in the discussions and what role, if any, do you
think that Congress needs to be playing?
Secretary Babauta. Thank you very much, Congresswoman, for
the question. I believe you are asking what sentiment does non-
enactment or non-movement of the legislation have with bearing
on the planned program of military buildup in Guam.
I think we have gotten a good sense from the local
legislators here themselves that though generally there is a
strong support for the Guam military buildup itself.
And I think that there is a sense of what that would mean
for Guam as it moves forward in terms of the new economy and
jobs and so on and so forth. There is a concern that there is
this problem that has existed for more than 60 years that has
been viewed and analyzed by 2 different federal commissions,
the Hopkins Commission and the Tamargo Commission, or the most
recent commission, coming up with very similar conclusions that
there was not parity, there was not enough time for people of
Guam who suffered during the war to actually file a claim, and
then later on, that the claims in and of themselves weren't at
the same level as subsequent pieces of legislation to address
other victims of war in a similar manner.
So that is hard, I think, for any community to accept when,
at the same time, you have within the next several years a very
aggressive buildup plan to bring more Marines and more U.S.
military presence to Guam, which, as one of the senators
pointed out, is an agreement between U.S. and Japan which, at
one time, of course, was Guam's occupier.
Mrs. Davis. Well, I appreciate that. I know Ms. Bordallo
spoke to that briefly as well.
Mr. Barcinas, I don't know if you wanted to add anything
more. I know that you have touched on that. But is there
anything else that we should know?
Mr. Barcinas. Oh, yes, I will be very happy to comment on
that issue. Like I said in my testimony, the people of Guam now
have been called upon again and being tested for their loyalty
and their support of the--and I think I mentioned that recent
surveys said--indicated that the people of Guam are supportive
of the buildup on the island.
But I think they would be more supportive if they think
that the U.S. Congress will live up to that commitment and say,
``Hey, look.'' You see, America is Guam. We need America. And I
think I personally am in favor--like the idea of coexistence
and work side-by-side in a win-win situation.
And I think the people of Guam will be more--let's call it
ready to accommodate whatever U.S.--just give us that
indication that yes, we are together, and just give us that--
let's call it a measly $127 million--I think is what we are
asking. Hopefully it could be more, not less.
Mrs. Davis. Thank you. Thank you very much.
I have 30 seconds----
Mr. Barcinas. Thank you for the question.
Mrs. Davis [continuing]. If I can yield to my colleague,
Ms. Bordallo, if she wants to--well, not enough. I think you
will be next.
Thank you.
The Chairman. Thank the gentlelady.
The gentlelady from Guam has a comment or question.
Ms. Bordallo. I just have a couple of questions I think we
should clear up, Mr. Chairman. It would be good for--when we
are working on this in the future.
The two senators, if you would give me your answers to
this. As members of the 30th Guam Legislature, can you tell me
whether the issue of resolving Guam war claims will affect your
decision to permit the leasing of Chamorro land trust property
to be used by the Department of Defense as part of the buildup?
Senator Pangelinan.
Mr. Pangelinan. Thank you very much for that question. I
think the issue of the military's plan for Guam is affected by
the way Guam treats--or the United States treats Guam and the
fairness that it treats Guam in any of these issues.
I don't want to mislead and say that you pay war
reparations and we will welcome everything with open arms. I
think the military buildup has to be studied independent of
these issues.
They may link with the terms of the sentiment, but in terms
of the obligations that the United States has, paying war
reparations does not remove any obligations that they have to
do the military buildup in a manner that is consistent with
respecting the rights of the people of Guam and what is good
for Guam.
So it is not one or the other, but it certainly is going to
assist the United States in terms of its ability to present
itself and say, ``These are the plans we have. There are going
to be problems with the military buildup as we have already
seen with the current EIS (Environmental Impact Statement), and
if we pay reparations we don't have to resolve those
problems.''
Those problems still have to be resolved, have to be dealt
with in that manner. And the taking of land--of lands that have
been given back, to be taken right back after 45 years, where
the people don't have the use of those properties, and not
adequately compensated, is going--is another issue.
There are many issues between the people of Guam and the
United States Government, and war reparations is but one of
them. And it has got to be in terms of fairness and equity that
we have to deal with it in terms of accepting--both sides
accepting their obligations to this country.
And we are ready to do ours, as we have always demonstrated
we have. It is the United States that has failed to demonstrate
its commitment to fairness and equity in the treatment of the
Chamorro people over the years.
Ms. Bordallo. Right. Well, I think I want to make myself
clear. I didn't say taking of the lands. I said leasing. And so
your answer would still be the same. It depends on----
Mr. Pangelinan. That is correct. I think that----
Ms. Bordallo. All right.
Mr. Pangelinan [continuing]. The current plans by the
military says that they are going to reserve the federal lands
that are available for the military expansion and not take
the--not use those properties----
Ms. Bordallo. Right.
Mr. Pangelinan [continuing]. But they want the local
properties that are under the control of the government of
Guam. Why would they want more property?
They currently have federal property that they are not
going to develop and they are going to leave in the inventory.
Why would they want to come and take the properties we have?
Ms. Bordallo. Well, I am not so sure they are going to be
leasing Chamorro trust property. I think they are really
looking at private property, is what I understand.
Senator Blas, do you want to----
Mr. Blas. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Congresswoman. And
yes, we all share the same sentiment here, that, you know, the
war reparations, the war payments, is probably the single most
morally significant issue that is faced, when you start to look
at it in the context and the pretext of what is happening with
the military buildup.
And I have to agree with my colleague here that the--you
know, that is not--it is not just the one only--one and only
issue. You know, there are other issues. The discussion
earlier----
Ms. Bordallo. I understand, but I just asked that one
issue----
Mr. Blas. And it will have an effect. It does have an
effect on whether or not, you know, I as a legislator and
representing my constituents would see--look fairly and look on
the issues and concerns with regard to the utilization of the
Chamorro interests if war claims have not been resolved.
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you.
And one final question for Mr. Barcinas.
This came about when we were in conference over the war
claims with the Senate. And they wanted me to compromise, which
I did not. So in your opinion, should Congress limit
compensation for war damages to the living survivors of Guam--
the World War II occupation--and exclude the descendants? Your
answer?
Mr. Barcinas. Thank you so very much for asking--bringing
that point up. No. I don't want no limit. I don't want no
separation. And I will tell you why, and I feel very, very
strongly about this.
It is not my grandfather's fault, it is not my father's
fault, for not being given whatever compensation is due to him.
And so that if it ever is--look, I am a survivor.
And if I don't get that compensation before I pass on, I
think that the government of the United States owes my
descendants or my heirs whatever there is coming to me, Madam
Congresswoman.
And you know what? It is American law. Assuming now my
father dies, he has an estate. And you know what? If my father
owes tax to the government of Guam or the Federal Government,
you know what happens?
I would like to have it but I cannot get hundred percent of
that because under probate law that property or real estate
or--will be probated and he will--he would be--the estate would
be required to pay whatever that is to the government.
So for the same token, whatever that is owed to my dad
should come to me, and whatever that is due to me, owed to me,
if I pass on, is--goes to my heirs. Simple as that. It is
fairness.
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you. Thank you very much.
Mr. Barcinas. Yes, ma'am. Thank you for that question.
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you very much.
And, Mr. Chairman, before I close off, I just want to thank
you and Mr. McKeon and all of my colleagues for supporting me
in this measure, and we will look forward to having a hearing
with the Senate in the near future.
Thank you very much, and I yield back.
The Chairman. Thank the gentlelady.
The gentlelady is right. The Senate did commit to a hearing
on this subject. We appreciate the panel for being with us, and
I know some of you made a long, long trip to be with us. It is
awfully good of you to do that. And frankly, it is very
helpful.
No further questions? We are adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 2:45 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]
=======================================================================
A P P E N D I X
December 2, 2009
=======================================================================
PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD
December 2, 2009
=======================================================================
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
=======================================================================
DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD
December 2, 2009
=======================================================================
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
=======================================================================
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS POST HEARING
December 2, 2009
=======================================================================
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MS. BORDALLO
Ms. Bordallo. Has the issue of Guam war claims generally, or more
specifically of H.R. 44, been addressed at federal interagency meetings
that focus on coordination for the Guam build-up? More specifically,
has this issue been addressed in terms of what impact the legislation
has on public support for the build-up? If not, is this an issue that
will be addressed at any future federal interagency meeting?
Secretary Babauta. To date, H.R. 44, the Guam World War II Loyalty
Recognition Act, has not been discussed in a meeting of the Interagency
Group on Insular Areas (IGIA). Because the issue is being further
considered by the Congress, the Guam World War II Loyalty Recognition
Act will be on the agenda of the IGIA at its next meeting in late
February 2010. It has, however, been reviewed by the Administration as
reflected in the letter submitted to the Committee on H.R. 2647, the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010, and testimony
presented on this issue on December 2, 2009.
Ms. Bordallo. Can you comment on the rationale as to why the United
States should pay for Guam War claims and not Japan?
Mr. Tamargo. The Japanese cannot be held responsible for any
further payment of reparations for World War II wrongs committed
against Americans, including the World War II claims of the American
residents of Guam, because the terms of the 1951 Treaty of Peace
released the Japanese from such responsibility.
At the same time, notwithstanding that the actual funding to pay
those Guam claims will come from taxpayer funds, it could be argued
that the funds are, in some sense, traceable to the funds derived from
the postwar liquidation of the Japanese and German assets frozen at the
beginning of World War II. Those Japanese and German funds were lumped
together and distributed by the Department of the Treasury, pursuant to
the various War Claims Commission and Foreign Claims Settlement
Commission claims programs. No distinction was drawn between Japanese
and German responsibility for any particular claim or set of claims.
(This contrasted with the funding of war claims against the Axis
countries Hungary, Romania, and Bulgaria. Title III of the
International Claims Settlement Act of 1949 mandated separate funds,
derived from the respective countries' frozen assets, to cover claims
against each of those countries.) Insofar as the Foreign Claims
Settlement Commission is aware, it has not been possible to determine
whether all of the proceeds from liquidation of the Japanese and German
assets have in fact been expended. Therefore, in this sense, it could
be said that these Guam claims would be paid with Japanese funds.
Ms. Bordallo. In previous war claims programs administered by the
United States, is it typical for an Administration to request funds for
the claims program in its annual budget request to Congress prior to
the authorization of the program by the Congress and the subsequent
approval of valid claims under that program?
Mr. Tamargo. The Administration has not requested funding to pay
claims under any program of the nature currently contemplated for the
residents of Guam, prior to the Foreign Claims Settlement Commission's
evaluation of the claims. This is necessarily so, as it would be nearly
impossible to know how much funding to request.
There have been a few claims programs in which Congress
appropriated funds to pay claims after it had conferred authority to
adjudicate the claims on a commission, but before the commission had
evaluated specific claims. These claims programs arose out of post-
World War II conflicts and involved inadequate rations and inhumane
treatment of American servicemen held as prisoners of war.