[GUAM WAR CLAIMS REVIEW COMMISSION]{.underline}

[REPORT ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF]{.underline}

[THE GUAM MERITORIOUS CLAIMS ACT OF 1945]{.underline},

[INCLUDING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS]{.underline}

[TABLE OF CONTENTS]{.underline}

Member Biographies iii

Executive Summary iv

OVERVIEW 1

I. Introduction 2

> A. Establishment and Composition of the Review
>
> Commission 3
>
> B. Historical Background: Guam Before, During, and
>
> After World War II 4

1\. World War II Occupation of Guam 5

> 2\. Post-War Reconstruction and Rehabilitation
>
> of Guam 6

3\. Enactment of the Guam Meritorious Claims Act 15

4\. Promulgation of Implementing Regulations 17

5\. The "Hopkins Committee" 18

II\. Developments after the Close of the Land and Claims

Commission Program 23

A. Questions of Adequacy of Compensation 23

B. History of Previous Legislative Efforts in

> the United States Congress and on Guam 26

1\. Previous Proposed Legislation 26

2\. Estimated Costs of Proposed Legislation 31

III\. Hearings on Guam 32

--List of witnesses 38

IV\. Legal Experts' Conference in Washington, DC 39

-Summary of D.C. meeting 40

V. Review Under Section 5(4) of the Review Act 50

-Comparison Chart of Guam Act vs. Other

War Claims Statutes 52

> A. Comparison of Provisions of the Guam Act with
>
> Those of Other War Claims Statutes 53

1\. Types of Losses Allowed 53

\(a\) Personal and real property 53

\(b\) Personal injury and death 53

\(c\) Civilian internment 53

\(d\) Forced labor 54

\(e\) "Forced march" 55

2\. Nationality Requirement 55

3\. Filing Period 55

4\. Claimants Covered 56

5\. Basis for Valuation of Property 56

6\. Proportion of Awards Actually Paid 57

> 7\. Basis for Compensating for Death and
>
> Personal Injury 58

8\. Basis for Compensating for Forced Labor 59

> B. Review of Implementation of the Guam Act in
>
> Comparison with Implementation of Other War
>
> Claims Statutes 60

1\. Adequacy of Notice to Potential Claimants 60

> 2\. Types of Losses Covered and Amounts of Compensation Allowed 62

3\. Valuation of Property 64

> 4\. Composition of the Commissions Which
>
> Administered the Guam Act and the Other
>
> Claims Statutes 67
>
> 5\. Legal Representation Before the Land
>
> and Claims Commission and the Other
>
> Commissions Which Administered War
>
> Claims Statutes 68

6\. Interest on Awards 68

> 7\. Availability of Appeals 69

8\. Compensation for Internment of Civilians 69

9\. Forced Labor 70

VI\. Findings of the Review Commission 71

A. General Findings 71

B. Findings on Real and Personal Property Claims 76

C. Findings on Death Claims 77

D. Findings on Personal Injury Claims 77

VII\. Recommendations 79

VIII\. Appendices 83

-Member Biographies-

[Chairman Mauricio J. Tamargo]{.underline}

Chairman Tamargo currently serves as Chairman of the Foreign Claims
Settlement Commission of the United States. Chairman Tamargo received
his B.A. from the University of Miami, and his J.D. from Cumberland
School of Law at Samford University.

[Vice-Chairman Antonio R. Unpingco]{.underline}

Vice-Chairman Unpingco was elected to and served in the Guam Legislature
for 24 years, and served as Speaker for three terms. The former Speaker
received his B.A. from Portland State University.

[Robert J. Lagomarsino]{.underline}

Mr. Lagomarsino served 19 years in the U.S. House of Representatives for
the 22nd District of California, and was a member of the Committee on
Interior and Insular Affairs and the Committee on Foreign Affairs. Mr.
Lagomarsino received his B.A. from the University of California at Santa
Barbara in 1950, and his J.D. from the University of Santa Clara Law
School in 1953.

[Benjamin J. Cruz]{.underline}

Mr. Cruz spent over thirteen years as a trial court judge on the
Superior Court of Guam and is a former Chief Justice of the Guam Supreme
Court. Mr. Cruz received his B.A. from Claremont Men\'s College in 1972,
and his J.D. from the University of Santa Clara School of Law in 1975.

[Ruth G. Van Cleve]{.underline}

Mrs. Van Cleve worked for 37 years in the Department of the Interior
specializing in territorial affairs, and served for a time as Acting
Assistant Secretary of the Interior for Territorial and Insular Affairs.
Mrs. Van Cleve received her B.A. from Mount Holyoke College in 1946, and
her LL.B. from Yale University in 1950.

**[EXECUTIVE SUMMARY]{.underline}**

The island of Guam is an unincorporated territory of the United States
situated in the Western Pacific Ocean approximately 3,500 miles west of
Honolulu, Hawaii.

From the sixteenth century until almost the end of the nineteenth, Guam
was a territory of the Spanish Empire. However, under the terms of the
Treaty of Paris, following the United States' military defeat of Spain
in 1898, Guam became a possession of the United States. That same year,
President McKinley placed the island under the administrative control
and governance of the U.S. Navy, and it remained in that status until it
was seized and occupied by Imperial Japanese forces on December 10,
1941.

United States forces declared Guam secure and liberated 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 Navy 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 promptly enacted the Guam
Meritorious Claims Act of 1945 to provide "immediate relief" to the
people of Guam.

**COMMISSION MANDATE**

The Guam War Claims Review Commission ("the 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 territory occupied by the Imperial Japanese military forces during
World War II" and to provide a report, no later than June 10, 2004,
including comments or recommendations.

In preparing the report, the Commission was required to:

\(1\) review the facts and circumstances surrounding the implementation
and administration of the Guam Meritorious Claims Act;

\(2\) take oral testimony of survivors of the World War II Japanese
occupation of Guam;

\(3\) determine whether there was parity in the treatment of Guamanians'
World War II claims as compared with the claims of U.S. citizens or
nationals in other areas occupied by Japan during the war;

\(4\) make findings and recommendations as to any further compensation
to which the people of Guam may be entitled on account of their
suffering/treatment; and

\(5\) submit a report containing the results of its investigation and
its findings and recommendations to the Secretary of the Interior, the
Committees on Resources and the Judiciary of the House of
Representatives, and the Committees on Energy and Natural Resources and
the Judiciary of the Senate. The report is due by June 10, 2004.

**CREATION AND COMPOSITION OF THE COMMISSION**

The Review Commission was created by the Guam War Claims Review
Commission Act, which was enacted into law on December 16, 2002 (Public
Law 107-333, 116 Stat. 2873), and its five commissioners were appointed
by Interior Secretary Gale A. Norton on September 11, 2003.

**THE COMMISSION REPORT**

The report, including its findings and recommendations, is designed to
address the Commission's specific mandate which was to (1) 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 territory
occupied by the Imperial Japanese military forces during World War II;
and (2) 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.

In order to carry out this mandate, the Review Commission carefully
reviewed the provisions of the Guam Meritorious Claims Act of 1945 and
its implementing regulations, as well as the reports of the Navy's Land
and Claims Commission detailing the progress and resolutions of the
claims filed thereunder. In addition the Commission reviewed the Hopkins
Committee Report and its recommendations as well as the history of
legislative efforts in the U.S. Congress and on Guam. In addition, the
Review Commission held hearings on Guam to listen to witness testimony
and held a legal experts conference in Washington, D.C.

The Review Commission's research clearly showed that the treatment
received by the people of Guam at the hands of the Imperial Japanese
forces was oppressive, cruel and barbaric. Though at first, the Japanese
occupiers of Guam sought to convert the island and its population into a
component of Imperial Japan's "Western Pacific Co-Prosperity Sphere,"
their occupation became increasingly oppressive and cruel as the war
progressed. Public executions \-- usually by beheading \-- became
frighteningly common. In addition, in early 1944 the occupiers closed
all the schools on the island and imposed a regimen of forced labor on
all able-bodied citizens.

Finally, in the face of the imminent attack of the island by United
States forces, the occupiers issued a decree on July 10, 1944, ordering
the round-up and concentration of all of the people of Guam in three
areas in the south and southeastern parts of the island. By the time
American forces reached that area after coming ashore on July 21, 1944,
nearly all of the 22,000 men, women, and children living on the island
--- except for those who managed to hide in the jungle \-- had amassed
in those areas, in conditions of utter deprivation.

Providing relief to the Guam population was one of the U.S. Navy's first
priorities after the island's liberation. In arriving at its findings
and recommendations, the Review Commission studied the administration of
the Guam Meritorious Claims Act of 1945 by the U.S. Navy's Land and
Claims Commission, and compared the statute and the claims program
conducted pursuant to it with the following statutes:

\--Philippines Rehabilitation Act of 1946

\--War Claims Act of 1948

\--Wake Island Amendment to the War Claims Act (1962)

\--War Claims Act, Title II (1962)

\--War Claims Act Amendments (1952 & 1956)

\--War Claims Act Amendment (1954)

\--Micronesian Claims Act of 1971

\--Aleutian and Pribilof Islands Restitution Act (1988)

After a careful review and comparison of the provisions and
implementation of the Guam Meritorious Claims Act and the other statutes
mentioned above, the Review Commission determined that there was a lack
of parity in some aspects of the process and the amounts made available
for payment to the residents of Guam. Based on this determination, the
Review Commission is recommending that Congress enact legislation
providing for additional compensation as set out in the findings section
on page 71 and in the recommendations section on page 79 of this report.

[OVERVIEW]{.underline}

On December 16, 2002, the "Guam War Claims Review Commission Act" (the
"Review Act") was signed into law.[^1] The Review Act provided for the
creation of the "Guam War Claims Review Commission" (the "Review
Commission"). Section 5(6) of the Review Act directs the Review
Commission to submit, within 9 months after the Commission is
established, a report, including comments or recommendations for action,
to the Secretary of the Interior and to several Committees of
Congress.[^2]

In preparing this report, the Commission staff conducted extensive
research of government documents held by federal repositories in
Washington, DC, Maryland, and California, military archives, and
archives on Guam. The staff consulted with archivists to determine the
likelihood of identifying relevant materials among their holdings. These
facilities maintain federal records placed in storage by civilian and
military agencies of the government. The federal records typically are
organized by record group and entry numbers and are contained in
consecutively-numbered boxes. The records within each box, usually
official memoranda, bulletins, forms, and reports issued by citizens or
groups, may be organized by sub-topic, by date, by office, or in some
other fashion not readily discernible. The type of organization is
determined by the methods employed by the creators of the documents, by
those responsible for retiring the records to the National Archives, or
under the best circumstances, after a review by archivists and the
creation of detailed "finding aids." Furthermore, a document may be an
original with the signature of the originating official on onion skin or
bond paper, or a mimeographed copy. The record may be fully intact,
missing pages, or barely legible due to age and the durability of the
medium. Some records had been destroyed. At times, the staff received
records that appeared promising based on their description yet they
contained nothing of significance upon review.

While the Commission has been able to construct a general chronology of
the workings of the Guam Land and Claims Commissions, the nature of the
records and the record keeping, as well as the amount of time that has
elapsed since the records were created, make the compilation of a
complete list of claims paid difficult. It would be incorrect to assert
that no additional fragments or records exist. Additionally, this
Commission was working under time constraints, limited financial
resources, and with a very small number of staff available to conduct
the historical research. When all the testimony, papers, documents,
exhibits, and other evidence utilized by the Commission are reviewed, it
becomes apparent that the record is far from complete.

In spite of these difficulties and constraints, the Review Commission
members and staff believe that their efforts have resulted in a
comprehensive report which complies with the mandate given it by the
Congress in the Guam War Claims Review Commission Act. Included in these
preparation efforts were some twenty meetings of the Review Commission,
variously held in Washington, on Guam, and via telephone conference
call, along with a total of over 1,500 hours of staff employee hours.
Additionally, a member of the Commission traveled to several communities
in California, Nevada, and Washington to meet with groups of Guamanians
currently living in those states. In those meetings he discussed the
Guam War Claims Review Commission Act and distributed and collected
questionnaires completed by survivors of the Japanese occupation of
Guam.

[I. Introduction]{.underline}

The AGuam War Claims Review Commission Act@ (the AReview Act@) was
enacted into law on December 16, 2002 (Public Law 107-333, 116 Stat.
2873) to provide for creation of a AGuam War Claims Review Commission@
(the AReview Commission@).

The duties of the Review Commission are set out as follows:

\(1\) review the facts and circumstances surrounding the implementation
and administration of the Guam Meritorious Claims Act and the
effectiveness of such Act in addressing the war claims of American
nationals residing on Guam between December 8, 1941, and July 21, 1944;

\(2\) review all relevant Federal and Guam territorial laws, records of
oral testimony previously taken, and documents in Guam and the Archives
of the Federal Government regarding Federal payments of war claims in
Guam;

\(3\) receive oral testimony of persons who personally experienced the
taking and occupation of Guam by Japanese military forces, noting
especially the effects of infliction of death, personal injury, forced
labor, forced march, and internment;

\(4\) 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
territory occupied by the Imperial Japanese military forces during World
War II;

\(5\) 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; and

\(6\) not later than 9 months after the Commission is established submit
a report, including any comments or recommendations for action, to the
Secretary of the Interior, the Committee on Resources and the Committee
on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives and the Committee on
Energy and Natural Resources and the Committee on the Judiciary of the
Senate.[^3]

[A. Establishment and Composition of the Review Commission]{.underline}

Section 2(b) of the Review Act states that

\[t\]he Commission shall be composed of five members who by virtue of
their background and experience are particularly suited to contribute to
the achievement of the purposes of the Commission.

On September 10, 2003, Secretary of the Interior Gale Norton appointed
the following five individuals to serve on the Commission:

Antonio R. Unpingco, former Speaker, Guam Legislature

Benjamin J. Cruz, former Chief Justice, Guam Supreme Court

Robert J. Lagomarsino, former Congressman from Ventura, California

Ruth G. Van Cleve, former acting Assistant Secretary of the Interior for
Territorial and Insular Affairs

Mauricio J. Tamargo, Chairman of the Foreign Claims

Settlement Commission

Mrs. Van Cleve and Messrs. Lagomarsino and Tamargo were appointed
directly by Secretary Norton. In accordance with Section 2(b) of the
Review Act, the two members from Guam were respectively appointed from a
list of three names submitted by the Governor of Guam and from a list of
three names submitted by the Guam Delegate to the U.S. House of
Representatives.

The Review Commission held its first meeting at the Department of
Interior on October 3, 2003, at which time it unanimously elected
Mauricio J. Tamargo as its Chairman and Antonio R. Unpingco as its Vice
Chairman. The Review Commission also named David E. Bradley, Chief
Counsel of the Foreign Claims Settlement Commission, as its Executive
Director.

At a subsequent meeting, a schedule of hearings on Guam was agreed upon
by the Review Commission members.

[B. Historical Background: Guam Before, During, and After]{.underline}
[World War II]{.underline}

The island of Guam is an unincorporated territory of the United States
situated in the Western Pacific Ocean some 3,500 miles west of Honolulu,
Hawaii. The island has a total area of approximately 212 square miles
and a current population of approximately 160,000 people[^4], including
some 23,000 active-duty Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, Coast Guard, and
other military service members and their families.

From the sixteenth century until almost the end of the nineteenth, Guam
was a colony of the Spanish Empire. However, under the terms of the
Treaty of Paris, following the United States' military defeat of Spain
in 1898, Guam became a territory of the United States. That same year,
President McKinley issued Executive Order 108-A placing the island under
the administrative control and governance of the U.S. Navy, and it
remained in that status until it was seized and occupied by Imperial
Japanese forces on December 10, 1941.

[1. World War II Occupation of Guam]{.underline}

With the exception of six islands in the Aleutian chain west of Alaska
(from which most of the native inhabitants had previously been evacuated
to safety), Guam and the Philippines were the only parts of the United
States that the Japanese succeeded in occupying during World War II.

At first, the Japanese occupiers of Guam sought to convert the island
and its population into a component of Imperial Japan's "Western Pacific
Co-Prosperity Sphere." They changed the name of the island and gave its
capital and towns Japanese names, and ordered the teaching of Japanese
language and culture in the schools. They also forced the population to
practice Japanese customs, such as bowing to the Japanese occupiers and
in the direction of the Japanese homeland, in honor of the emperor.
Failure to execute a bow in precisely the right way would draw
punishment, in the form of a slap, a kick, or a blow with a rifle butt.
In addition, the Japanese forced many of the Chamorro women to work for
them as housekeepers and laundresses, and at their whim the Japanese
raped many of them. A number of them were restricted in one particular
location and forced to work on particular projects. Some were forced to
march from one place to another to work and others were forced to serve
as "comfort women" (i.e., prostitutes).[^5]

As the war progressed, and the Japanese saw their forces meeting defeat
after defeat, their occupation became increasingly oppressive and cruel.
Public lashings of one or more island inhabitants became almost a daily
occurrence and public executions \-- usually by beheading \-- became
frighteningly common. In addition, in early 1944 the occupiers closed
all the schools on the island and imposed a regimen of forced labor on
all able-bodied citizens, including men, women, and children, under
which regimen they were required to work 12 hours per day, six days per
week, either in farming or in the construction of shore fortifications
and airfields. Most of this work, including the heavy construction, they
performed with only simple tools and much of the time with only their
bare hands. At the same time, the Japanese kept more and more of the
available foodstuffs to themselves, allowing the islanders only a meager
daily ration that was entirely inadequate to sustain them in their
labors. As a result, a great many of the islanders suffered from
malnutrition.

Finally, in the face of the imminent attack of the island by United
States forces, the occupiers issued a decree on July 10, 1944, ordering
the round-up and concentration of all of the people of Guam in three
areas in the south and southeastern parts of the island, near the
villages of Yona (Manengon), Talofofo, and Inarajan. By the time
American forces reached that area after coming ashore on July 21, 1944,
nearly all of the 22,000 men, women, and children living on the island
--- except for those who managed to hide in the jungle \-- had amassed
in those areas, in conditions of utter deprivation: there was very
little food or medicine, no potable water, no sanitary facilities, and
at most only makeshift or temporary shelter from the torrential rains.
Many had no shelter at all.[^6]

[2. Post-War Reconstruction and Rehabilitation of Guam]{.underline}

United States forces declared Guam secure and liberated 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, they devoted as much material and effort as could be spared
to constructing shelter for the local citizens. This was a particular
and extremely urgent need, as the American naval and air bombardment of
the island carried out in the month before the American forces' attack
had resulted in the destruction of virtually all of the structures in
the island's capital of Agaña[^7] and heavy destruction in several of
the other towns and villages.

The urgency of the need for housing reconstruction and rehabilitation of
the economy on Guam was recognized at the highest levels of the
Department of the Navy. On February 19, 1945, the Chief of Naval
Operations (CNO) in Washington, DC, issued a memorandum[^8] to the
Commander in Chief, Pacific Operations Area, with copies to the Bureau
of Naval Personnel, Bureau of Yards and Docks, Bureau of Supplies and
Accounts, and the Judge Advocate General, ordering the formation of a
"Land and Claims Unit . . . to examine facts and make recommendations .
. . to the Navy Department for appropriate action" in order to "effect
the restoration of records of boundaries and ownership of all lands on
the Island of Guam and to make preliminary investigation into claims
resulting from military operations of the United States and Japan." In
addition, the memorandum directed the Judge Advocate General to "prepare
the requisite precept for the official appointment by the Secretary of
the Navy of this fact-finding Land and Claims Unit."

On March 3, 1945, the Secretary of the Navy issued his official
"Precept" to the CNO.[^9] It read in pertinent part as follows:

1\. The island of Guam . . . has suffered severe damage as a result of
the war between the United States and Japan. Moreover, the construction
of new military and naval installations necessitates the relocation of
many residents of the island. The problem of rehabilitation,
resettlements and relief of the native population is the responsibility
of the Navy. Its solution will require extensive investigation, a
well-developed plan, and enactment of appropriate legislation.

2\. The Chief of Naval Operations is authorized and directed to develop
a plan for the rehabilitation and resettlement, and for the repair of
war damage, and for the settlement of claims, of the residents of Guam.
[The objective of the plan shall be the restoration, as near as may be,
of the residents of Guam to their pre-war status.]{.underline}(Emphasis
added.)

3\. In the development of such plan, the Chief of Naval Operations is
authorized and directed to create and establish a land and claims
commission for Guam and to delegate to it such authority as may be
necessary to investigate, report, and make recommendations on matters
pertaining to titles to real property, boundaries of real property,
restoration and preservation of boundary markers, land records, the need
for resettlement, and [claims of the residents of Guam arising from
damages to real and personal property and for death and personal injury
incident to the combat and non-combat operations of the armed forces of
the United States and Japan or individual members thereof, subsequent to
December 6, 1941]{.underline}, and to reestablish boundaries and
boundary markers and conduct such surveys as may be required for this
purpose.(Emphasis added.)[^10]

On that same day, March 3, 1945, the CNO issued a memorandum[^11] to
Commander Leslie J. Watson, Civil Engineer Corps, U.S. Naval Reserve,
appointing him as Senior Member of "a Land and Claims Commission for
Guam," and also appointing seven other naval officers as members of the
Commission. The memorandum stated that their duties would include the
submission to the CNO of "findings of fact with respect to . . .\[the\]
extent of damages caused to the persons and property of the inhabitants
of Guam by the military operations of the United States and Japan,"[^12]
and "recommendations with respect to . . .procedures for the settlement,
when authorized, of claims of inhabitants of Guam for damages to real
and personal property and for personal injury or death, incident to
military operations."[^13]

In addition, it stated that "\[t\]he Commission is authorized, as
directed by the Island Commander, to perform duties of a nature similar
to those . . . now being performed by representatives of the Island
Commander, and to take custody of such records as may be delivered to
the Commission by the Island Commander or his representatives."[^14]

Concurrently, the Commission was charged with making findings of fact
with respect to "land titles, records, and boundaries \[and\] land
temporarily used or acquired for permanent use by the United
States"[^15] and to "make recommendations with respect to . . . action
to be taken to determine the ownership of land; restoration of
boundaries and a land record system; \[and\] compensation of owners in
money or in kind for land used, acquired, or to be acquired by the
United States."[^16]

On May 31, 1945, "Report #1\" of the Land and Claims Commission for
Guam[^17] was forwarded to the Deputy Chief Military Government Officer.
With regard to investigation of claims, the Report outlined the
Commission's progress to date and the work that had been accomplished as
of May 31, 1945. Specifically, the Report stated that on April 16, 1945,
the Commission had commenced its "interrogation" program and used the
services of Guamanian interpreters whose backgrounds had been carefully
investigated. On April 23, 1945, the Commission's surveyors had arrived
and commenced worked immediately. The Report indicated that with regard
to the "General Interrogation and Personal Property Section," 1,500
personal interviews were completed, and the results were recorded as
"personal declarations." These personal interviews/hearings were
conducted at four principal centers of population and "hearings are to
be held at about five additional localities." The Report further stated
that approximately 2,700 personal "declarations" were expected.

With regard to "Death and Personal Injury Section", the Report stated
that

\[P\]rior to the delayed arrival of the Commission's court reporters,
the Commission member in charge of this section examined the available
records and conferred informally with a considerable number of the best
informed Guamanians. Following the arrival of the court reporters on May
2^nd^, formal hearings were started and will be continued from day to
day for a considerable time. In these formal hearings, testimony is
taken to develop the circumstances in general with respect to the
actions of the Japanese during the period of the occupation and their
treatment of the people. In view of the fact that many of the Guamanian
officials under the pre-war Naval Government were continued in office by
the Japanese, an excellent record of basic circumstances with respect to
death and personal injury of Guamanian people and with respect to
missing persons, is being recorded. Catholic and other influential
persons are also being included in the general hearings. Following the
recording of all such testimony, the section will proceed with the
program of hearings covering each separate case so that facts may be
established with respect to all pertinent details including facts of
dependency.

The Report stated further that arrangements had been made with the
civilian hospitals for the Military Government for the medical
examinations and certificates that would be required incidental to the
making of award recommendations.

The Report also set forth population figures which indicated that in
1945 the native population of Guam totaled 3,814 males over 21 years of
age, 4,916 females over 21, 6,546 males under 21, and 6,457 females
under 21.[^18] Thus, of the population as a whole, only 40 percent were
of adult age in 1945.

In addition, the Report contained a number of observations regarding the
extent of the deaths and personal injuries suffered by the residents of
Guam during the Japanese occupation and the liberation of the island by
U.S. military forces. It noted that

\[d\]eath and injury suffered by civilians incidental to the retaking of
the Island by our forces in July 1944 was not as great as one would
expect, although there were a number of cases. That the cases were
relatively few was due to the fact that when the Japanese forces were
greatly augmented in March 1944, they took over most of the houses in
what later became the area most intensively bombed and shelled by our
forces preparatory to and during the July landings. A further factor is
that prior to the invasion all Guamanians were confined to concentration
areas outside of the area that was first invaded.[^19]

The Navy's files also contain a personal letter[^20] dated August 27,
1945, from Commander Watson to Captain Frank Gary in the Office of the
Judge Advocate General in Washington, DC, referring to this Report. In
his letter he stated

The status of our work is as follows:

\(A\) Findings of Fact anticipating Passage of "Guam Claims Bill."

\(a\) Death, Missing Persons and Disappearance Section. - All reports
will have been completed within 30 days - excepting for the final typing
and conformance with action to be taken on our May 31^st^ report - and
with the regulations to be promulgated under the Claims Bill.

\(b\) Personal Property Section. - within 30 days our investigations
will have reached the maximum stage of completion possible until action
is taken on our May 31^st^ report and the regulations under the Claims
Bill are promulgated.

\(c\) Damage to Buildings. - All "findings of fact" necessary to
perpetuate evidence, and for action by the Commission to be designated
when the Claims Bill has passed, will be completed during November, or
before.[^21]

In his letter to Captain Gary, Commander Watson also expressed
frustration over what was apparently a lack of cooperation on the part
of the Commanding Officer of the Marianas area and his staff, and
regarding the impending departure of many of his Commission members and
staff and the lack of continuity that this would be likely to cause.

The Navy's files also contain further reports[^22] by the Land and
Claims Commission dated September 11, 1945, and December 18, 1945. The
September 11, 1945, report indicated that extensive efforts through
advertising, personal contact, and contact through village
"commissioners" (mayors) had been made, and that almost 2,600
"declarations" of claim had been received, and that an additional 300
declarations were expected. Subsequently, the December 18, 1945, report
indicated that on November 2, 1945, the CNO had designated a new panel
to replace Commander Watson and his officers, appointing Colonel
Thornton Wilson, U.S. Marine Corps, Retired, as Senior Member and
Commander Albert L. O'Bannon as the other Commission Member. The report
referred to this replacement panel as the "new Commission" and to that
of Commander Watson as the "prior Commission." The report went on to
state that

\[o\]n December 1, 1945, the members of the new Commission reported on
Guam to relieve the prior Commission. From informal reports made during
joint meetings of the prior and new Commissions . . ., it is now known
that the following minimum work load will be required of the new
Commission.

. . .

\(e\) Adjudication and payment of 2800 claims for loss of personal and
real property.

\(f\) Adjudication of 700 claims for loss by reason of personal injury
and death.

\(g\) Adjudication through court proceedings of 700 to 1000 probate
cases for appointment of administrator or for determination of heirs of
deceased persons.[^23]

Included with the Commission's report were five enclosures. Enclosure
(B) set out in detail the duties of the respective sections of the "new
Commission." It provided that among those sections there would be

5\. A Claims Section (Personal Injury and Death) which shall have the
duties of investigating, reporting, and making recommendations for
payment for loss by reason of death and personal injury incident to the
combat and non-combat operations of the armed forces of the United
States and Japan or the individual members of such forces subsequent to
December 6, 1941.

a\. There are approximately 400 cases of loss by reason of death and
approximately 350 cases of loss by reason of personal injury. Hearings
will be necessary to preserve the testimony given as evidence of such
death and personal injury. Percent of disability in cases less than
death must be ascertained. Certificates of death to be prepared and
sworn to by reputable inhabitants of Guam having knowledge of such fact
will be obtained.

. . .

6\. A Claims Section (Personal and Real Property) which shall have the
duties of investigating, recording and making recommendations for loss
by reason of damages to personal or real property incident to the combat
and non-combat operations of the armed forces of the United States and
Japan or the individual members of such forces subsequent to December 6,
1941.

a\. There are approximately 2800 cases wherein claims are made for
damage to or loss of personal and real property.[^24] The taking of
testimony and the review of evidence necessary to verify the claims made
will require an intensive investigation of every claim presented.

b\. Hearings will be necessary and trips to various parts of the island
will be required of the members of this section.[^25] The testimony
taken will be 95% through interpreters, thus retarding the speed in
which the investigations can be finally completed.[^26]

The Land and Claims Commission's report also included an "Enclosure C:
Summary of Work Program as Presented in Joint Meeting Between the Prior
Commission and the New Commission."[^27]

With regard to personal injury and death claims, it stated that

> \[i\]t is estimated that the prior Commission has interviewed ninety
> (90) percent of the individual declarants having claims for death or
> personal injury \[i.e., 90 percent of the approximately 400 claims
> submitted\]. In the majority of the cases submitted the officer having
> this section in the prior Commission has recorded his written opinion
> and recommendation for the amount of the award in each individual
> case. Due to the lack of examining physicians many of the cases must
> be reopened by the new Commission for further certification of the
> injury. . . .\[I\]t will be necessary that each individual claimant be
> again called before the Commission and steps taken toward an amicable
> settlement of the 700 individual declarants for loss by reason of
> death and personal injury. The prior Commission has started a basic
> plan from which to begin work, but the detail work involved in
> processing the cases to a conclusion for a recommended award that will
> be acceptable to the claimant has not commenced.[^28]

With regard to the personal and real property damage claims, Enclosure C
stated that

> It is estimated that the prior Commission has interviewed seventy-five
> (75) percent of the individual declarants having claims for loss by
> reason of damage to real and personal property \[i.e., 75 percent of
> the approximately 2,800 claims submitted\]. In these cases the officer
> having this section in the prior Commission has rendered his written
> opinion and recommendation insofar as buildings and furnishings are
> concerned but did not complete his reports and correlate losses of
> livestock, trees, motor vehicles, farm equipment, and other types of
> personal property. Until a review can be made of these reports it is
> impossible to say that any one of these cases is ready to be turned
> over to a negotiating section for settlement. The detail work has not
> been started insofar as final settlement action can be taken. As
> stated in the basic letter there are about 2800 of these cases to be
> processed.[^29]

As for probate proceedings, Enclosure C noted that "there are 700 to
1000 probate proceedings," and that

> \[s\]ixteen probate cases were started and one completed by the prior
> Commission. In addition \[to those,\]\... local inhabitants of Guam
> have initiated about 400 probate proceedings of their own accord, in
> which proceedings the prior Commission assisted in a few instances.
> These 400 probate proceedings are now in various stages of completion
> . . ..[^30]

[3. Enactment of the Guam Meritorious Claims Act]{.underline}

It is evident from the foregoing that the Navy had already completed a
great deal of investigation and preparation for a war claims
compensation program on Guam even before the United States Congress
completed its deliberations on a bill to authorize and provide funds to
support a claims program. This "claims bill," as Commander Watson had
referred to it in his letter to Captain Gary in Washington[^31], was
introduced by Senator David Walsh, Chairman, Naval Affairs Committee, as
Bill No. S. 1139 and was enacted into law on November 15, 1945. The
statute, Public Law 224, 79^th^ Congress[^32] (the "Guam Meritorious
Claims Act," or "Guam Act"), stated that its purpose was to provide for
"immediate relief to the residents of Guam by the prompt settlement of
meritorious claims arising in Guam."[^33] It authorized the Secretary of
the Navy to create a commission or commissions to, among other things,
settle war claims by residents of Guam for property damage arising in
Guam "when such damage, loss, or destruction is the result of or
incident to hostilities or hostile occupation, or is caused by or
incident to non-combat activities of the United States Army, Navy, or
Marine Corps forces or individual members thereof, where the amount of
such claim does not exceed \$5,000\[.\]"[^34] In addition, it covered
claims for loss of use of real property ("rental claims") in cases where
the U.S. military forces had a temporary need for the property.[^35]

The Guam Act provided that claims could be paid in kind (i.e., with
other property) or in cash. If the war claim arose out of an accident,
incident, or engagement that occurred after December 6, 1941, but prior
to December 1, 1945, residents of Guam had one year from December 1,
1945, to file their war claims. Otherwise, claims had to be filed within
one year from the date they arose.[^36] The law also provided that the
settlements made by such commission(s) would be subject to regulations
prescribed by the Secretary of the Navy[^37], and that if the value of a
claim exceeded \$2,500 but was not more than \$5,000, it would be
subject to the approval of an officer designated by the Secretary of the
Navy.[^38] Property claims in excess of \$5,000 and all claims for death
or personal injury would require certification to Congress for
appropriation and payment.[^39] The statute did not provide for claims
for forced labor, forced march, or internment.

[4. Promulgation of Implementing Regulations]{.underline}

Although it appears that the "new" Land and Claims Commission continued
its efforts to investigate and evaluate claims as the year 1946 began,
the Commission was unable to begin disbursing compensation to claimants
until the implementing regulations called for in the statute were
promulgated by the Secretary of the Navy. That event finally occurred on
May 3, 1946, and copies of the regulations were dispatched to Guam on
May 8.

These claims regulations, entitled "Regulations for the Administration
of Public Law 224, 79^th^ Congress, Approved November 15, 1945," were
twelve pages in length, double-spaced.[^40] Noteworthy provisions
included the following:

\-- Paragraph (h) of section 2 construed the term "resident of Guam" to
mean "natural persons domiciled in the island of Guam"

\-- Paragraph (i) of section 2 stated that claims "arising, or which
have arisen, as a result of activities of Japanese fugitives at large on
the Island of Guam are deemed to be within the provisions of \[the
statute\] relating to damage, loss, or destruction which results from
'hostilities or hostile occupation'"

\-- Paragraph (a) of section 4 and paragraph (b) of section 5 specified
that in cases of damage, loss or destruction of real property and
personal property occurring after December 6, 1941, and before December
1, 1945, the measure of valuation would be the "market value . . . as of
December 6, 1941 (Washington, D.C., time)"

\-- Paragraph (d) of section 6 provided that the amount of compensation
to be recommended in death and personal injury cases was to be "computed
in accordance with the provisions of part 24, as amended, of the
Regulations Governing the Administration of the United States Employees'
Compensation Act of September 7, 1916, as amended."[^41]

In May 1946, the CNO issued a directive[^42] dissolving the "new"
Commission and constituting a "Third Land and Claims Commission" to
continue with the work of adjudicating and paying claims. In November
1946, at the direction of the Secretary of the Navy, the Naval Governor
of Guam then dissolved that Commission and formed a "Fourth Land and
Claims Commission," which was expanded to consist of five officers as
well as an increased number of support staff.

[5. The "Hopkins Committee"]{.underline}

Unfortunately, despite these actions, progress toward rehabilitation of
the island and stimulation of its economy through infusions of
compensation payments remained slow throughout both 1945 and 1946. The
difficulties were such that the Secretary of the Navy issued a directive
on January 8, 1947, appointing a three-member committee to evaluate the
Navy's handling of its reconstruction and rehabilitation
responsibilities, both on Guam and on American Samoa, and to submit a
report containing recommendations for improvements. Former Dartmouth
College President Ernest M. Hopkins was appointed as Chairman and the
other two members were Maurice J. Tobin, former Secretary of Labor, and
Knowles Ryerson, Director of the Davis Campus of the University of
California, and later on, Dean of the College of Agriculture at
Berkeley. According to the committee's report,[^43] which was dated
March 25, 1947, the committee members and staff arrived on Guam on
February 24 and from there traveled on to American Samoa on March 9.
While on Guam, they held formal hearings with the Governor of Guam and
his staff, as well as open public hearings "without attendance of any
members of the Governor's entourage or the Naval establishment,"[^44] at
which they provided themselves with interpreters and "extended an
invitation for speakers to express themselves in Chamorro when
utterances would be easier for them in their native tongue."[^45] They
also attended a session of the Guam Congress and had "numberless
personal interviews with representatives of civic organizations or those
having personal views which they wished to express."[^46]

In the cover letter to its report, the committee noted that

> \[i\]n the case of Guam, the war brought wide-spread destruction of
> homes, public buildings and utilities. But over and beyond this it
> brought deaths to many, brutalities to more, and ruthless oppression
> to all over a long period. Now months after cessation of hostilities
> they find themselves, because of the strategic position of their
> native island, outnumbered in population by military forces of Army,
> Navy and Marines to be stationed there. In considerable number they
> are dispossessed of home and lands which have been destroyed or taken
> from them and they are without adequate understanding of the processes
> by which to secure replacement or compensation for these.

On the subject of claims, the report stated that

> \[e\]xcept for sporadic claims that may hereafter be made on account
> of damage done by the few Japanese stragglers still in hiding on the
> island or occasional damage resulting from non-combat activities of
> the military forces still on Guam, the period fixed by the statute for
> the filing of claims has now expired. Prior to January 1, 1947, 229
> property claims had been settled and paid, in the total amount of
> \$258,000, and 52 death and injury claims (26 of each) had been
> processed to Washington in the recommended total amount of \$48,872
> for the death cases and \$29,131 for the injury cases.[^47]

The report went on to note that 83 property claims with a total value of
\$120,000 were paid in January and February 1947, and that 55 death and
injury claims with a total recommended valuation of \$35,000 were sent
to Washington during those months.[^48] Thus, the claims remaining to be
processed consisted of the following:

\-- Property claims under \$5,000 3,834

\-- Property claims over \$5,000 353

\-- Rental claims under \$5,000 1,513

\-- Rental claims over \$5,000 6

\-- Injury and death claims 659

Based on these statistics, the report observed that "\[i\]t is obvious
that the process of settlement and payment has been advancing too slowly
and that if there is to be any benefit whatsoever to the stricken
Guamanians some changes in procedure must be made."[^49] In the next
several pages, the committee then set forth a number of recommended
changes in both the claims statute and the Secretary of the Navy's
regulations. However, they prefaced their recommendations with the
following:

> The slow rate of progress can by no means be blamed on the members of
> the Claims Commission on Guam or the Island Government. A considerable
> period of time elapsed between the passage of the Act and the issuance
> of the regulations by the Navy Department thereunder; the
> demobilization process and the difficulties in recruitment of
> qualified personnel hampered to a considerable degree getting into
> high gear the machinery for adjudicating the claims; and the Act
> itself and the regulations have proved to be unwieldy and cumbersome
> in some major respects.[^50]

Further, they stated that

> we have found a devotedly conscientious and capable group of Navy
> representatives working eagerly under difficult and frequently adverse
> conditions for the rehabilitation of peoples disorganized through no
> fault of their own by the war.[^51]

In addition, the committee had noted earlier in its report that the
conditions on Guam had been made even worse by "physical devastation
incident to the worst typhoon in years."[^52]

It does not appear that many of the committee's specific recommendations
concerning the claims were adopted. Nonetheless, it is evident that the
Land and Claims Commission, and the naval officers in the chain of
command above it, took the committee's criticisms and suggestions
seriously; records dating from the months and years after March 1947
show that the pace of the Commission's work increased substantially
during that time. By the end of December 1947 the Commission had
forwarded 511 death and personal injury claims to Washington for
payment[^53], and all such claims had been forwarded to Washington by
the end of July 1948.[^54] Between March and December 1947 the
Commission adjudicated some 2,394 claims for property rental payments
and real and personal property loss and damage,[^55] and by the end of
July 1949 all but 134 of such claims had been adjudicated.[^56]

The Review Commission has been unable to locate the Navy's final report
of the Land and Claims Commission detailing the final claim numbers and
payments under the Guam Act. In its search for such a report, the Review
Commission has taken note of the figures listed in the Supplementary
Report of the War Claims Commission[^57] as well as the figures listed
in the Memorandum of July 31, 1949, referred to above. Because these
final figures do not appear consistent, the Review Commission has taken
administrative notice of the total figures and amounts listed in the
"Report Supporting Formation of a Federal Commission on War Reparations
for Guam" which was submitted by Guam Senators George Bamba and Marilyn
D.A. Manibusan, dated August 2, 1988, and which was made part of the
record of the Hearing before the Subcommittee on Administrative Law and
Governmental Relations in support of H.R. 3191 (the "Bamba
Report").[^58] In that report it is stated that they reviewed numerous
documents made available by Congressman Blaz and the Department of
Justice. Among the documents reviewed, there were

> 78 "denial" records; 4,420 listings of claims; accounting records,
> including but not limited to, more than 4,250 payment vouchers, check
> numbers, certifications, and numerous receipts by claimants themselves
> for death, injury and property damage awards amounting to more than
> \$6.4 million between February 1947 and March 1950[^59].

In addition, the Bamba Report noted that "twelve U.S. Appropriation Acts
were examined, along with supporting documents" and that "these laws
appropriated more than \$4.3 million to 1,243 recipients of death,
injury and property damage awards" under the Guam Meritorious Claims
Act. The Bamba Report also states that an examination of the existing
files reveals that

> out of 4,420 people who registered claims, more than 4,250 were paid
> \$6,485,911.27 between February 6, 1947 and March 17, 1950. This
> figure does [not]{.underline} include untotalled payment vouchers. Nor
> does it include \$1,576,553.45 appropriated after March 17, 1950 (the
> last date of existing payment vouchers) for two deaths, one injury and
> 93 property damage claims representing 106 recipients.
>
> In short: at least \$8,062,464.72 was paid to 4,356 recipients -
> \$4,308,483.20 to 1,234 people for death, injury and property damage
> in excess of \$5,000 - and \$3,753,981.52 to 3,113 recipients for
> property damage below \$5,000.[^60]

The Navy's files reflect that on October 18, 1949, the Commander, Naval
Forces Marianas, acting at the direction of the Secretary of the Navy,
issued a directive[^61] dissolving the Fifth Land and Claims Commission
and forming a Sixth Land and Claims Commission to continue and complete
the settlement and payment of the claims which then remained unresolved.
As mentioned above, a final report detailing the completion of the
Commission's work has not been located, but it appears that the last
payments to claimants were disbursed some time in 1957.[^62]

[II. Developments After the Close of the Land and Claims]{.underline}

[Commission Program]{.underline}

[A. Questions of Adequacy of Compensation]{.underline}

One of the recommendations of the Hopkins Report[^63] was for the U.S.
Congress to enact an Organic Act conferring United States citizenship
and a measure of self-government on the people of Guam. This
recommendation was adopted and the legislation was approved on August 1,
1950.[^64] Concurrent with the passage of the Organic Act, President
Harry S. Truman issued an Executive Order transferring governance of the
island from the Navy to the Department of the Interior, and appointed an
Island Governor.[^65] However, because of the tense international
political climate associated with the beginning of the Cold War \--
caused by the Korean conflict, the explosion of nuclear bombs by the
Soviet Union, and the U.S.-Soviet standoff over Berlin \-- the United
States Government continued to maintain tight control of Guam and its
people throughout the 1950\'s and into the 1960\'s. All transfers of
land, other than to the United States Government, required prior
issuance of permits by the Governor,[^66] as did the importers of
commercial goods and services and the providers of transportation onto
and off of the island.[^67] Moreover, individuals wishing to travel to
and from the island \-- even including island residents \-- had to
obtain permission to do so.[^68]

In response to the increasing swell of protest from Guam's residents
over the conditions they were forced to endure, as well as other
pressures, President Kennedy issued Executive Order 11045 on August 21,
1962, abolishing the restrictions and opening Guam's economy and ports
to the same degree of free and open commerce and access generally
allowed in the 50 states. One result of this change was to produce,
almost overnight, a precipitous rise in the price of land on the island.

Based on the islanders' experience with the Navy's Land and Claims
Commissions, there also lingered a feeling that many landowners had been
forced to accept inadequate amounts of compensation, both in the case of
claims for damage and destruction and in the case of takings of land by
the Naval Government for public use. This was seen to have been partly
due to an excessive urgency on the part of the Navy in completing the
land condemnation process and partly due to the failure of the U.S.
Congress to appropriate sufficient funds to pay compensation in fair and
just amounts. In addition, the landowners believed they were
disadvantaged by the fact that at the time there were few, if any,
private attorneys on the island whom they could retain to represent them
in the individual condemnation cases.[^69]

Another cause for discontent was the signing by the United States of the
1951 Peace Treaty with Japan, which included a discharge of all
reparations claims of the United States and its nationals against Japan
arising from World War II.[^70] This waiver gave rise to a view among
many of the people of Guam that the United States Government had
unfairly deprived them of an opportunity to demand reparations from
Japan for the suffering they had endured during the 32-month Japanese
occupation of their island.

Also included in the Treaty was a statement that World War II claims of
the citizens of the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands ("Trust
Territory"), among whom were the Chamorros of the Northern Marianas
Islands, would be subject to "special arrangements" between the United
States and Japan, and in 1969 the United States, as the Trust Territory
citizens' Administrator, obtained an agreement[^71] with Japan providing
for an [ex gratia]{.underline} contribution of goods and services
equivalent in value to \$5,000,000 to compensate the Trust Territory
citizens for their wartime losses. Two years later, the U.S. Congress
passed the Micronesian Claims Act of 1971,[^72] providing for an [ex
gratia]{.underline} payment by the United States of \$5,000,000 to the
Trust Territory citizens on account of their wartime losses. In
addition, Congress appropriated funds ultimately totaling \$34,600,000
to compensate the Trust Territory citizens for property loss and damage
and death and personal injury caused by U.S. forces after the dates on
which the various islands of the Trust Territory had been secured. This
gave rise to a perception among the people of Guam that the United
States Government was giving more favorable treatment to their fellow
Chamorros and others in the Trust Territory, who had never been United
States nationals, than it had given to them under the Guam Meritorious
Claims Act.

Yet further, many on Guam believed themselves unfairly deprived of
eligibility under the provisions of Title II of the War Claims Act of
1948, as amended,[^73] enacted in 1962, which provided for compensation
to U.S. nationals for World War II property damage and loss claims, as
well as certain personal injury and death claims, in both the European
and Pacific theaters of wartime operations. In the language identifying
the countries and areas covered by the law, it was specified that
coverage extended to claims involving "property in territory occupied or
attacked by the Imperial Japanese military forces . . . [except the
island of Guam]{.underline}*.*"[^74](Emphasis added.)

On this point, it is evident that Congress was misinformed when it
excluded Guam from coverage for World War II property damage and loss
claims under Title II of the War Claims Act of 1948, added in 1962,
because it incorrectly assumed that all of the claims of residents of
Guam had been adequately resolved under the Guam Act.[^75]

In addition, by including the Philippines within the areas covered by
the statute, Congress effectively reopened the claims program that the
U.S.-Philippine War Damage Commission had conducted under the
Philippines Rehabilitation Act of 1946,[^76] giving claimants who had
missed the filing deadline of February 29, 1948, a second chance to
obtain compensation that claimants from other areas did not enjoy.

Together, these various factors resulted in a growing movement on the
island during the 1960s and 1970s to question the adequacy of the
compensation the people of Guam had received from the Navy's Land and
Claims Commission, both for the wartime loss and destruction of their
property and in the postwar condemnation cases, and to call for further
compensation to be paid. The condemnation cases are beyond the scope of
this Commission's jurisdiction, but the history of the efforts to
reexamine the adequacy of the compensation for the property loss and
destruction claims \-- and also, to the extent applicable, the claims
for other wartime losses \-- are discussed below.

[B. History of Previous Legislative Efforts in the U.S.]{.underline}

[Congress and on Guam]{.underline}

[1. Previous Proposed Legislation]{.underline}

The passage of the Review Commission Act in December 2002 was the
culmination of numerous prior attempts by Guam delegates to Congress to
have legislation enacted to address claims arising out of the World War
II Japanese occupation. Since 1983, there have been ten bills addressing
such claims.[^77] The first Guam delegate to Congress, Antonio B. Won
Pat, introduced the first bill on September 21, 1983, in the 98^th^
Congress. This bill, H.R. 3954, proposed the establishment of a
"commission to review the facts and circumstances surrounding Guamanian
losses caused by the occupation of Guam by Japanese Imperial forces in
World War II." Subsequently, former delegate and retired Marine Corps
General Ben Blaz and Delegate Robert Underwood continued this effort by
introducing various other pieces of legislation. General Blaz introduced
four bills during his four terms and Delegate Underwood introduced five
bills during his five terms, with the last one, the current legislation,
creating this Commission, passing in the final days of the 107^th^
Congress.

In November 1985, General Blaz introduced H.R. 3758 which would have
directed "the Comptroller General of the United States to review the
report and findings of the Guam Reparations Commission." He also
introduced H.R. 5187 on July 17, 1986, which sought "to establish a
Commission on war claims for Guam" and in August 1987, he introduced
H.R. 3191 seeking to establish a "Commission on War Reparations for
Guam."

On April 18, 1989, at the request of the Twentieth Guam Legislature,
General Blaz introduced H.R. 2024 and it was referred to the House
Judiciary Committee and the House Committee on Interior and Insular
Affairs. On April 24, 1989, the bill was then referred to the latter
committee's Subcommittee on Insular and International Affairs. H.R. 2024
sought to "amend the Organic Act of Guam" to provide compensation to any
eligible person who received a compensable injury as a result of World
War II. In this bill, compensable injury was defined as death, personal
injury, or forced labor, forced march, or internment. It also sought to
establish a Guam Claims Fund in the amount of \$20,000,000 from which
eligible claimants would receive \$20,000 for claims based on death;
\$5,000 for personal injury and \$3,000 for forced labor, forced march,
or internment.

On April 23, 1990, Chairman Ron de Lugo and Ranking Republican Robert
Lagomarsino of the Subcommittee on Insular and International Affairs
wrote to the Speaker of the Guam Legislature seeking support for the
changes that they and Senator Daniel Inouye suggested. Their letter
stated that

> we have been working since the hearing with your congressman and
> Interior Secretary Lujan to try to overcome Bush Administration
> objections to the bill, H.R. 2024.
>
> We (along with Senator Inouye) have had staff draft amendments to the
> bill in an effort to enable it to be approved. The enclosed amendment
> in the nature of a substitute attempts to meet the Nation's
> responsibility in this matter to the greatest extent that appears to
> be possible. We are considering sponsoring it, depending upon the
> support it receives from Guam.

Senator Inouye wrote a separate letter dated April 25, 1990, to the
Speaker regarding specific provisions of H.R. 2024. Senator Inouye,
Delegate de Lugo, and Congressman Lagomarsino requested the consensus of
the Guam Legislature on the proposed substitute bill. They indicated
that, if the Legislature were to adopt a favorable resolution, they
would be willing to support its introduction and passage in
Congress.[^78]

However, on July 9, 1990, Governor Joseph F. Ada, in his capacity as
Chairman of the Guam War Reparations Commission, wrote to Senator Inouye
and to Congressman Lagomarsino recommending substantial changes to the
proposed substitute bill.[^79] The substantial changes made to the
proposed substitute bill materially changed the bill's intent and the
bill did not proceed further. Specifically, the Guam War Reparations
Commission changed the eligibility requirement as well as the finality
of awards, survivability of claims, proof of claims, the appeals process
and the ex-gratia nature of the legislation.

Whereas the proposed substitute bill provided for \$20,000 for death,
\$5,000 for personal injury, and \$3,000 for forced labor, forced march
or internment, the changes put forward by the Guam War Reparations
Commission raised the amounts to \$15,000 for personal injury, 10,000
for forced labor, and \$7,000 for either forced march or internment.
Later on, the Guam Legislature, on or about January 23, 1991, passed a
Resolution supporting the amendments suggested by the Guam War
Reparations Commission.[^80]

These proposed increases, other changes and the lack of a positive
response from the Guam Legislature prompted Senator Inouye, Delegate De
Lugo, and Congressman Lagomarsino to conclude that further efforts to
promote the legislation would not be worthwhile.

The next piece of legislation dealing with Guam war claims, H.R. 4741,
was introduced by Delegate Underwood in 1994. This bill, the Guam War
Restitution Act, also sought to amend the Organic Act of Guam to provide
for restitution to the people of Guam who suffered death, personal
injury, forced labor, forced march or internment and those who did not
meet the one-year filing deadline for death and personal injury claims
under the Guam Meritorious Claims Act. In remarks before the U.S. House
of Representatives on August 9, 1994,[^81] Delegate Underwood stated
that the amounts sought

> are quite modest by today's standards. . . . In the case of death, the
> compensation is \$20,000 to be divided among surviving heirs. Injury
> is compensated at \$7,000, based on the values allowed in the 1946
> claims, and forced labor, forced march and internment is compensated
> at \$5,000, again comparable to the 1946 settlements. [The total cost
> to the federal government will be between \$20 million and \$80
> million]{.underline}\....(Emphasis added.)

This bill also sought to establish the Guam Restitution Claims Fund, the
Guam Restitution Trust Fund, and the Guam Restitution Trust Fund Board
of Directors. After payment of awards to claimants, the Trust Fund Board
could make disbursements from the remaining balance of the funds (1) to
sponsor research and public educational activities relating to Guamanian
wartime experiences; (2) to disburse funds as benefits to eligible
claimants through a revolving fund for purposes such as post-secondary
scholarships and first-time home ownership loans; and (3) for
administrative expenses.

In July 1995, Delegate Underwood introduced a similar bill, H.R. 2041,
which also sought to amend the Organic Act of Guam and set forth award
and benefit eligibility requirements for living Guamanians, or the heirs
or next of kin of deceased Guamanians, who suffered a compensable injury
during the occupation of Guam in World War II. The bill also sought to
establish the Guam Trust Fund and the Guam Trust Fund Commission to make
disbursements from the Fund to: (1) make awards available to Guamanians
who personally received the compensable injury, or to their heirs or
next of kin; (2) make benefits (including scholarships, medical
expenses, or first-time home ownership grants) available to Guamanians
who are heirs or next of kin of the decedent Guamanian who received the
compensable injury; (3) sponsor research and public educational
activities to commemorate the events surrounding the wartime experiences
and losses of the Guamanian people; and (4) pay the Commission's
administrative expenses.

Another bill, introduced as H.R. 2200 in July 1997, also sought to amend
the Organic Act of Guam, to set up a Trust Fund and to pay eligible
claimants \$20,000 for claims based on death; \$7,000 for claims based
on personal injury; and \$5,000 for claims based on forced labor, forced
march, or internment.

The successor to H.R. 2200, Bill No. H.R. 755, which had originally been
introduced on February 11, 1999, as the Guam War Restitution Act, was
later amended in Committee and became the Guam War Claims Review
Commission Act. It subsequently passed the House on September 12, 2000,
and was reported to the Senate on September 13, 2000. Although H.R. 755
died in the Senate that year, it was later reintroduced in the next
Congress as H.R. 308.

This reintroduced Guam War Claims Review Commission Act was referred to
the House Committee on Resources and was passed in the House of
Representatives by voice vote on March 13, 2001. The Senate passed the
legislation without amendment and by unanimous consent on November 20,
2002. The Guam War Claims Review Commission Act was signed by the
President on December 16, 2002 and became Public Law 107-333.

[2. Estimated Costs of Proposed Legislation]{.underline}

The final cost of H.R. 2024, had it been amended as proposed by Senator
Inouye and Messrs. De Lugo and Lagomarsino, and enacted into law, would
have been considerably more than the \$20,000,000 originally proposed in
the bill. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, 8,551 of the residents of
Guam were 45 years of age or older in 1990.[^82] However, this does not
take into account the unknown number of individuals 45 or older born on
Guam who were not living on the island in 1990.

If it is assumed that all of the 8,551 individuals referred to above
were survivors of the Japanese occupation, that all of them were
subjected to forced labor, forced march, or internment, and that none
had previously submitted a claim, the appropriation that would have been
required under the substitute to cover their claims would have amounted
to \$25,653,000. If it is assumed instead that 20 percent of that same
group suffered personal injury at the hands of the Japanese occupiers
(which would have entitled them to claim for \$5,000 rather than
\$3,000), further funds of \$3,420,400 would have been required. As for
death claims, it is generally accepted that 900 to 1,100 Guamanians died
during the occupation. Thus, if it is assumed that 1,000 of these deaths
were caused by the Japanese, an appropriation of another \$20,000,000
would have been required.

Accordingly, the cost of H.R. 2024, as amended by the substitute,
ultimately could have totaled as much as approximately \$49,000,000. By
comparison, the Guam War Reparations Commission estimated that its
counter-proposal would have cost some \$160,000,000, and Delegate
Underwood put the estimated cost of his proposal at "between \$20
million and \$80 million."[^83]

[III. Hearings on Guam]{.underline}

On December 8^th^ and 9^th^, 2003, the Guam War Claims Review Commission
held public hearings at the Guam Legislature Session Hall in Agaña,
Guam. In preparation for the hearing, the Commission during the previous
months had distributed questionnaires to Guamanians on Guam and on the
U.S. mainland, asking survivors for details of their experiences during
the Japanese occupation. The Commissioners selected 90 Guamanians to
recount and relive their compelling stories for the two-day hearing
using a cross-section of over 8,000 questionnaires.

On the first day, the Commissioners heard from Governor of Guam Felix
Camacho, Speaker of the Guam Legislature V.C. Pangelinan, Guam Delegate
to the U.S. House of Representatives Madeleine Bordallo, and former Guam
Delegate to the U.S. House of Representatives Robert Underwood. The
Commission heard testimony from numerous participants consisting of
survivors, relatives of survivors, and many former Guam government
officials and historians. Most of the testimony consisted of survivors
relaying horrific incidents of murder, beatings, rape, and torture of
the people of Guam during the occupation.

One of the main objectives of the public hearing was to determine if any
of the remaining survivors of the Japanese occupation remembered
receiving compensation from the Guam Land and Claims Commission of 1945.
After each witness provided his or her personal testimony, Chairman
Tamargo asked if the witness or his or her family remembered filing a
claim with the Guam Land and Claims Commission. Most of the participants
in the hearing responded by saying that they did not personally remember
filing a claim or that they had not heard any mention from their parents
or family members of submitting a claim to the Naval Government.[^84]

Almost without exception, witnesses testified that they were subjected
to, or witnessed rape, or were beaten, kicked, slapped, or terrorized
and threatened. They also witnessed beheadings of individuals who were
suspected of helping Americans hiding on the island.

Many of the witnesses testified in the Chamorro language of the island
because they could express themselves better in their native language
than in English. Those on the Commission and the staff who did not speak
Chamorro used a simultaneous translation system to understand the
Chamorro-speaking witnesses. That system was manned by volunteer
translators from the University of Guam who were experts in both
languages, Chamorro and English.

Highlights of the two-day hearing are summarized below. The full
transcript of the two-day hearing is attached as Appendix E to this
Report.

-   In one incident testified to, a witness was too upset to speak but
    informed the Review Commission in writing that while she was eight
    months pregnant, a Japanese officer beat her and threw her to the
    ground. She gave birth two days later.

-   A witness indicated that while her mother was in the Japanese
    Manengon concentration camp, her mother was raped by a Japanese
    officer and that she, herself, is the product of that rape.
    Therefore her father is an unknown Japanese officer. Several other
    witnesses testified that they were raped and some were raped while
    being pregnant.

-   A witness testified that her father was appointed Commissioner, or
    mayor, of their village. When another person escaped from the
    Japanese and cut the telephone line near the village, the Japanese
    informed her father, and the Commissioner, that they were going to
    call a meeting of the village to find the guilty party. Moreover, at
    that meeting, they threatened to kill every father and son in the
    village unless they found the guilty person. The witness testified
    that her father committed suicide so as to take the blame and
    thereby save the lives of many others in his village.

-   Another witness testified that as a small boy he was holding a dog
    when a Japanese officer cut the dog in half covering him with the
    dog's blood. The Japanese officer then laughed at the boy.

-   One witness testified that he was present when both his brother and
    his sister were slaughtered but his family received only \$2,000 for
    their loss.

-   One witness testified that her grandmother, while carrying a
    15-month-old baby on the forced march to the concentration camp at
    Manengon was beaten severely as she marched, all the while turning
    and shielding her baby from the blows. The young mother of three
    died shortly after arriving at the camp. Her granddaughter grew up
    to be the witness testifying.

-   Another witness testified that as a ten-year-old boy he was forced
    to watch two Japanese soldiers and an interpreter beat his father to
    death. Some time later as the family was preparing to go on the
    forced march to a concentration camp his brother and his sister were
    summoned by the Japanese soldiers. He later found out that his
    brother was one of a group of men put in a cave and then killed by
    grenade and machine gun, and his sister was part of a group of girls
    who were sexually abused and were going to be killed in the jungle
    when his sister escaped in the darkness.

-   One witness recalled that, as an eight-year-old boy, he watched as
    his father was repeatedly beaten and paraded naked through the
    village for his loyalty to America and as a warning to the others
    that they should be loyal to Japan. One of the brothers of the
    witness had both of his hands severely burned and another brother
    was burned to death.

-   Another witness testified that she saw her mother tied to a tree and
    repeatedly beaten, which caused permanent damage as the broken bone
    fused to her lungs. Her mother later was forced to watch as Japanese
    soldiers pulled her son's fingernails out and then beheaded him. One
    of the witness's brothers was beaten severely while on a forced
    labor detail and another brother was buried alive while on a forced
    labor detail.

-   It is also worth mentioning that many witnesses testified that
    Japanese soldiers evicted them from their homes and took all their
    food and livestock. In fact, one witness who was born during the
    occupation recalled her mother telling her that she was so
    malnourished that when she was born she was bleeding from the eyes
    and rectum, and that her mother feared she would die.

-   Many of the witnesses testified that in the last year of the
    Japanese occupation they were forced to march great distances to
    three different concentration camps with little or no time to
    collect provisions, resulting in many of the elderly dying along the
    way or shortly after arriving at the camps. They also testified that
    conditions at the camps were horrendous. There was little or no
    shelter. Most of the people had only foliage over their heads to
    deflect the torrential rains. They had no food and no water. Some
    were near a small river but that river was very polluted with human
    waste.

-   Witnesses also testified that all able-bodied Chamorros were forced
    to work on different projects. Some worked at military construction,
    such as airstrips or coastal defensive positions; others had to work
    on farms or rice paddies. Some had to work on multiple farms hiking
    vast distances and over sloping hills each day not only to one farm,
    but then, later in the day, to another farm. They were forced to do
    it every day whether they were healthy or not. If they were unable
    because they were sick, they were beaten and threatened with death.

-   Many of the witnesses testified that they were beaten for being
    suspected of hiding George Tweed, a U.S. Navy radioman known by the
    Japanese to be hiding in the jungle. Many of the Guamanians in fact
    did courageously help hide Tweed. Several families took turns hiding
    and feeding the Navy radioman.[^85]

-   Several witnesses testified that they saw their fellow Guamanians
    stabbed by the Japanese with their bayonets. One testified that, as
    a little girl of seven, she was stabbed by a Japanese soldier with
    his bayonet in front of her mother. Neither the mother nor the
    little girl cried out for fear of being killed. The little girl was
    allowed to simply limp to her mother.

It was clear to the Review Commission that during the Japanese
occupation of Guam the local inhabitants were treated in the most
brutal, cruel, and despicable manner. Many of the survivors testified
that they continue to endure the psychological effects of the war. It
has been suggested to the members of the Review Commission that much of
the emotional testimony at the hearings are classic symptoms of Post-
Traumatic Stress Disorder.

The great majority of the witnesses expressed their deep loyalty to the
United States, saying that they remained loyal to the United States
before, during, and after the Japanese occupation. They also believed it
was this loyalty that caused the Japanese to brutalize the Guamanians as
they did. Almost all the witnesses also took a moment in their testimony
to reiterate their continued strong loyalty to the United States.

An example of that American loyalty was seen in a case where a witness
who testified that during the Japanese occupation, when he was an
infant, his parents hid the family's large American flag in his pillow.
He testified further that his family did this knowing that if the flag
were to be discovered by the Japanese, they would in all likelihood have
been killed. The flag was folded into a square shape so as to fit inside
the pillow. During his testimony he and his wife, out of their deep
respect and love for the flag, undid the square and refolded the flag in
the proper triangular shape.

Numerous witnesses testified that many of their relatives served in the
United States armed forces, both before and after World War II;
additionally, they have a long tradition of serving in the U.S. armed
forces, especially in the Navy. In fact, twelve of the sailors who were
killed in the attack on Pearl Harbor were Chamorros from Guam.

There were many acts of courage and bravery testified to by the people
of Guam. Some of them were overt, and some were covert, including the
risky help provided to U.S. Navy radioman George Tweed. In one case, one
young man, with only a knife, alone at first, then with others, killed a
number of Japanese soldiers and saved his whole village from the mass
execution the Japanese soldiers were preparing for them.

Many of the witnesses testified that, more important than any additional
compensation the survivors may be entitled to, they want the United
States Congress and their fellow American people to know what they, the
people of Guam, suffered during the Japanese occupation of the island.
They want, most of all, to have recognition by their nation, the United
States, for all that happened on Guam during that time. They also want
the American people educated or made aware of what the people of Guam
went through at the hands of the Japanese on account of their loyalty to
America.

Another desire expressed by a number of witnesses was that the Japanese
government should apologize and/or recognize and acknowledge what was
done to the people of Guam by the Japanese Imperial Forces during their
occupation of Guam.

\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\--

Below are the names of the participants at the Guam War Claims Review
Commission public hearing on Guam (in the order in which they spoke):

+-------------------------+----------------------+--------------------+
| [December               | [December            | [December 9^th^    |
| 8^th^]{.underline}      | 9th]{.underline}     | (c                 |
|                         |                      | ont.)]{.underline} |
| ##                      | Former Speaker Joe   |                    |
|                         | T. San Agustin       | Manuel Sablan      |
| ##                      |                      |                    |
| Governor Felix Camacho  | Archbishop Anthony   | Teresa Borja       |
|                         | Apuron               |                    |
| Speaker v.c. pangelinan |                      | Julia Garcia (for  |
|                         | Honorable Joaquin C. | Catalina Blas)     |
| Congresswoman Madeleine | Arriola              |                    |
| Bordallo                |                      | Jesus P. Sablan    |
|                         | Marian Taitano       |                    |
| Former Congressman      |                      | Eddie Cruz         |
| Robert Underwood        | Hannah Gutierrez     |                    |
|                         |                      | Magdalena Bayani   |
| Joe Perez               | Former Senator       |                    |
|                         | Carmen Kasperbauer   | Nicolosa Huihui    |
| Maria G. Manibusan      |                      |                    |
|                         | Ben Gumataotao       | Joseph Cruz        |
| Josefina Mantanona      |                      |                    |
|                         | Honorable Paul Calvo | Frank T. Guevara   |
| Regina Reyes            |                      |                    |
|                         | Joaquin San Nicolas  | Eddie Duenas       |
| Maria Leon Guerrero     |                      |                    |
|                         | Mary Flores          | Former Senator     |
| Francisco S.N. Flores   |                      | Jose P. Aguon      |
|                         | Lourdes T. Uncangco  |                    |
| Vicente Taisipic        |                      | Jose Chargualaf    |
|                         | Jesus Naputi         |                    |
| Maria P. Rosario        |                      | Maria Martinez     |
|                         | Juanita Cruz         |                    |
| Antonio T. Lizama       |                      | Arthur Toves       |
|                         | Josefina Selvidge    |                    |
| Dr. Rosa Carter         |                      | Former Mayor Roman |
|                         | Ben Garrido          | Quinata            |
| Pedro Cruz              |                      |                    |
|                         | Rosa Castro          | Antonio Arceo      |
| Edward L.G. Aguon       |                      | Quidachay          |
|                         | Victor Toves         |                    |
| Vicente San Nicolas     |                      | Simon Cruz         |
|                         | Jose Garrido         |                    |
| Joseph Crisostomo Aguon |                      | Juan C. San        |
|                         | Jose Pinaula         | Agustin            |
| Juan M. Unpingco        |                      |                    |
|                         | Eduardo Paulino      | Francisco P.       |
| Former Senator Tony     |                      | Sablan             |
| Palomo                  | Dolores Meno         |                    |
|                         |                      | Lourdes Laguana    |
| Manuel Merfalen         | Former Governor      | Perez              |
|                         | Joseph F. Ada        |                    |
| Barbara De la Cruz      |                      | Antonio A. Sablan  |
|                         | Former Senator John  |                    |
| Elvina R. Rios          | Anderson             | Diana Aflague      |
|                         |                      | Brown              |
| Nick Pangelinan         | Former Senator Pilar |                    |
|                         | Lujan                | Former Mayor       |
| Johnny S. Sablan        |                      | Ignacio "Buck"     |
|                         | Joe Nededog          | Cruz               |
| Rita Franquez           |                      |                    |
|                         | Lucia McDonald       | Joseph Aguon Cruz  |
| Catalina Duenas         |                      |                    |
|                         | Maria Roberto        | Jesusa Cruz        |
| Blandina G. Marquardt   |                      |                    |
|                         | Former Senator Paul  | Juan U. Baza       |
| Former Senator Ted      | Bordallo             |                    |
| Nelson                  |                      | Eloy Hara          |
|                         | Jose Pangelinan      |                    |
| Cristobal Reyes         |                      | Manuel Cruz        |
|                         | Eugenio Santos       |                    |
| Dennis Zermeno (for     |                      | Jonathan Sinoben   |
| GeorgeL.Charfauros)     | Avelina M. Calaguas  |                    |
|                         |                      | Concepcion Judicpa |
|                         | Juan Roberto         |                    |
|                         |                      | Frank L.G. Castro  |
|                         | Cesaria Arce         |                    |
|                         |                      | Angel Santos       |
|                         | Rita Cruz            |                    |
|                         |                      | Doris Charfauros   |
|                         | Antonio Cruz         |                    |
|                         |                      | Rosalia Charfauros |
|                         | Juan Guzman          |                    |
|                         |                      | Senator Carmen     |
|                         |                      | Fernandez          |
+-------------------------+----------------------+--------------------+

[IV. Legal Experts' Conference in Washington, DC]{.underline}

In order to fulfill its duties under section 5 of the Act, including the
duty to "determine whether there was parity of war claims paid to the
residents of Guam" under the Guam Meritorious Claims Act as compared
with similarly situated individuals, the Commission believed it to be
important to consult with experts in the area of international and
domestic war claims. Accordingly, a legal experts' conference was held
in Washington, DC, on February 20, 2004. Guam Delegate Madeleine
Bordallo was in attendance, and the following individuals participated:

> [David J. Bederman]{.underline}, Professor of Law, Emory University
> School of Law
>
> [Ronald J. Bettauer]{.underline}, Deputy Legal Adviser, Department of
> State

[Gen. V.T. "Ben" Blaz]{.underline}

Brigadier General, U.S. Marine Corps (Ret.)

Former Delegate, U.S. House of Representatives

[Mary W.E. Comfort]{.underline}, Attorney Adviser, Department of State

> [Tink D. Cooper]{.underline}, Attorney Advisor, Department of Justice;
> Legal Counsel to the (former) Office of Redress Administration, Civil
> Rights Division
>
> [James G. Hergen]{.underline}, Assistant Legal Adviser, Department of
> State

[David H. Rogers, Esq.]{.underline}

Former Chairman, Micronesian Claims Commission

> General Counsel (retired), Foreign Claims Settlement Commission,
> Department of Justice

[Joe T. San Agustin]{.underline}

Former Speaker, Guam Legislature

Former employee, U.S. Navy Guam Land and Claims Commission

The participants shared their knowledge and information on a variety of
issues but more specifically they focused on:

a\) the types of losses covered in different World War II claims
programs;

b\) types of claimants eligible in different programs;

c\) initial outreach and efforts to give notice in claims programs;

d\) basis for valuation of lost or destroyed property and other losses;
and

e\) justifications/rationales for placing limits on amount and type of
compensation awardable.

[Summary of D.C. meeting]{.underline}

Highlights and pertinent points of the meeting are summarized below. The
complete transcript of the February 20, 2004, meeting is attached as
Appendix F.

At the meeting, General Blaz, former Delegate from Guam, who had not
been able to be present at the hearings conducted on Guam on December
8-10, 2003, stated that he recognized that the work of the Commission
was not easy and emphasized that a definite resolution of this long
outstanding issue needs to be recommended to the Secretary of the
Interior. Further, he hoped that the Guam delegate to Congress would not
be put in the position of having to go before Congress seeking
reparations and that another approach was needed. General Blaz recounted
that together with Senator Daniel Inouye, he traveled to Guam in 1989.
He said that legislation agreeable to the Congressional leadership both
here and in Guam was about to be adopted but that unfortunately it did
not materialize.

Former Speaker of the Guam Legislature, Mr. San Agustin, recounted for
the Commission that as a young man he had worked for the Land and Claims
Commission on Guam from 1946 until 1950 and that he daily dealt with
people who submitted claims and people who sought hearings but were
denied them. Also, he dealt with people whose homes had been destroyed
and had nowhere to go. Generally, Mr. San Agustin described for the
Commission the conditions on Guam at the time, particularly insofar as
the Guam Meritorious Claims Act program was being conducted. He believed
that those claimants represented by attorneys, such as the Catholic
Church, fared better than those without attorneys. He noted his
concerns: that attorneys working for the Navy who conducted the land
appraisals were not adequately familiar with land values back in 1941;
and that the Navy did not allow claims to be filed by Guamanians who
were not then physically on the Island.

In response to the Chairman=s questions regarding the composition of the
Land and Claims Commissions, Mr. San Agustin indicated that
approximately 100 people worked at the Commission and more than
two-thirds of the staff were working on land claims. Because of
virtually intolerable conditions on the island, turnover rate among the
non-Guamanian staff was very high.[^86]

With regard to personal injury claimants, Mr. San Agustin stated that
most of those claimants were employed by the government and had heard of
the program by word of mouth, while most of the rest of the population
had not. In terms of outreach, "Commissioners" (now known as mayors) of
the various island villages were instructed to publicize the program
through the Agrapevine@ system \-- some of the "mayors" did and some did
not.

Mr. Bradley briefly discussed the Philippines Rehabilitation Act, passed
in 1946, which made no provision for personal injury or death claims. It
covered claims of Philippine citizens (who had the status of U.S.
nationals) and allowed for claims for property damage or loss by U.S.
nationals and citizens. The Act allowed for a one-year filing period. In
comparing the two programs and in the course of discussions,
Commissioner Cruz noted for the record that members of the Philippine
Commission were appointed by the President and at least one member was a
Filipino, whereas members of the Guam Act were naval personnel appointed
by the Secretary of the Navy and the Naval governor of Guam.

The discussion then turned to general international law and the manner
in which claims programs are generally conducted. Ronald Bettauer,
Deputy Legal Adviser from the Department of State, stated that the
cornerstone of a fair program is one where there is adequate notice and
an adequate period of time for filing. He stated that claimants also
need to understand the claims criteria and the types of claims allowed
under the statute or settlement agreement. Sometimes a claimant may be
able to claim for every loss and sometimes that is not possible. He
explained that when certain types of claims are not covered, that may
speak not to the fairness of the process, but to whether the statute was
well advised or should have covered more. Mr. Bettauer elaborated that
on its face, the Guam Act appears to provide for full compensation and
appropriations were to be made for full payment. However, to determine
how the program might have been actually implemented is a much harder
task.

Mr. Bettauer elaborated on the question of valuation as of the time of
loss, and was of the opinion that the state of the records may have had
more impact on the valuation process than did the level of competence of
the military lawyers. In this regard, he stated that full value for the
loss is normally interpreted in terms of market value at the time of the
taking or injury plus appropriate interest to the time of payment. He
noted, however, that value at the time of loss becomes a much more
difficult issue when there is no actual market, as in non-market
economies such as those of the former Eastern European countries.

In response to Commissioner Cruz's query regarding military compensation
commissions, Mr. Bettauer pointed to the military compensation
commission that was set up after the invasion of Grenada. Commissioner
Cruz also noted for the record that the "whole program was a military
operation" more concerned with acquiring more land for the military and
it was a program run without oversight by the Department of Justice or
State.

Professor Bederman added that there is long precedent, dating from the
Civil War, that pursuant to the President's Commander-in-Chief
responsibilities under Article II of the Constitution, military forces
can engage in these claims adjustment/settlement processes.
Particularly, with the Guam Act, and to the extent that Guam was
recognized by Congress as a naval reservation prior to the war, this in
itself was not an extraordinary situation that military officers were
deciding claims and dispensing payments. The Judge Advocate General=s
Corps assists in settling claims for damage following military
exercises.

Mr. San Agustin noted that a letter from the Governor of Guam to the
Secretary of the Navy dated February 25, 1948, in response to comments
raised in the Hopkins Report, stated that because it was impossible to
ascertain the precise time of loss or damage, the date of the Japanese
invasion, December 1941, was taken as the date of loss for purposes of
evaluation.

Mr. Bettauer was questioned regarding any U.S. government obligation or
compensation for U.S. citizens who were injured in wartime or had been
detained in Nazi concentration camps. He stated that the concentration
camp internees were U.S. citizens who were detained in Germany and
although Germany had made compensation to citizens of other countries,
it had not done so with respect to citizens of the United States.
Accordingly, those claims of U.S. citizens could be Aespoused,@ or
asserted, by the U.S. Government against Germany. However, Mr. Bettauer
stated that the U.S. Government is never legally obligated to espouse a
claim against a foreign government because Aespousal is a discretionary
act on the part of the executive@ and claims that are "settled via
espousal are, in part, to remove irritants in international relations
between the United States and the foreign governments." He further
explained that "part of the theory is that when you espouse a claim of a
national, that makes it a claim of the country and you=re claiming that
the foreign country did not act in accordance with its international
obligations to the national and thereby the injury is, in a sense, to
the nation. And so that is the basis on which we were able to espouse
the Nazi persecution claims, which were essentially claims on holding
people in concentration camps\..." He elaborated further that the
Holocaust settlements were not done under international law or, as the
Germans asserted, out of a sense of a legal obligation, but rather they
represented small amounts as compensation to anyone who was subjected by
Germany to forced or slave labor.

In response to a query from the Chairman whether an entire island could
be declared a "camp of some sort," Professor Bederman had the following
response:

> In terms of your question, there has to be an important analytical
> distinction made between a territory that is under enemy occupation,
> and the individuals on that island \[who are\] subject to occupation
> by hostile military force. Japan was subject to the Hague Conventions,
> which governed belligerent occupation. Just because an individual may
> be located on an island that is subject to belligerent occupation does
> not make that individual interned or confined under relevant laws of
> war standards.

He further stated that

> \[t\]he crucial question would be whether an individual was subject to
> treatment different and worse from the island population at-large. And
> so that may bear on your inquiries to the extent of whether all
> eligible Guamanian residents or domiciliaries on the island at this
> time would be considered interned by the enemy. I think the more
> precise question is \[whether\] they were all subject to belligerent
> occupation \[and\] all had their right of movement ended.

In addition, Professor Bederman stated that

> under international law, at that time and this time, it is a
> prerogative of an occupying force to limit the movement of individuals
> under occupation. But that is not the same as if \[the\] Imperial
> Japanese forces relocated people from their homes, concentrated them
> in special camps \-- then those individuals might be regarded as
> having been interned.
>
> Obviously, \[if\] they were subject to forced labor, that would be
> different. But to simply \[imply\]\... that every individual on Guam
> from December 1941 until the liberation was, therefore, confined or
> interned, I think would probably run contrary to applicable
> international law standards.

James Hergen, the Assistant Legal Adviser for East Asia and the Pacific
at the Department of State and a retired Army JAG officer, commenced by
confirming the expertise of the military claims officials and the
careful review that is made of their work. He further stated that

> no claims settlement that I am aware of, especially regarding World
> War II, was comprehensive or clean or complete. Everyone who suffered
> at the hands of the Imperial Japanese Army in the Pacific, to this
> day, feels aggrieved whether they were the beneficiaries of some kind
> of claims settlement program or not.

While some "may have been awarded certain amounts under various claims
programs\...they did not receive what they felt was fair, what was just
and they are still seeking compensation." Mr. Hergen made reference to
specific cases before the Supreme Court relative to the 1951 Peace
Treaty that extinguished "claims of millions, uncounted millions of
people who suffered horrible atrocities at the hands of the Japanese."
He specifically mentioned that there existed "a class of 400,000 people,
all Americans who suffered injury in World War II, whether on the
mainland or anywhere else, who never really got compensated."

Commissioner Cruz noted that the size of the Island of Guam and its
distance from the nearest land mass gave it a unique situation and as a
result the whole island could be considered a "giant prison."

Professor Bederman stated that "any kind of forced march, internment,
dislocation from one=s homes and forced labor, that is certainly a
violation \[of international law\]. . .."

David Rogers, former Chairman of the Micronesian Claims Commission, gave
an overview of the Micronesian claims program. He stated that the
Micronesian program was really two distinct programs and resulted from
two separate pieces of legislation which became Title I and Title II.
Title I was for war damage claims and Title II was for property
expropriated by the U.S. Government for its use after the war and for
personal injuries, death etc., which had occurred after the islands were
secured by the United States military. Payments made under Title I for
war damage were [ex gratia]{.underline} meaning that there was no legal
liability for the war damage caused and it was done as a gift.
Accordingly, no interest was awarded on awards made under Title I. Under
Title II, which paid compensation for the value of the expropriated
property, interest was calculated.

Mr. Rogers further stated that because the United States had a trust
relationship with the people of Micronesia, in essence, the latter were
considered Awards@ of the United States for whom Athe United states had
a substantial duty.@ The United States negotiated a settlement with
Japan in which the U.S. contributed \$5 million and Japan contributed in
goods and services the equivalent of \$5 million. However, the
settlement funds were only enough to pay one-third of the Title I awards
made by the Micronesian Commission. Mr. Rogers elaborated on the other
diplomatic issues between the United States and Japan.

It was noted that one of the difficulties encountered in administering
this program was the size of the territory, which is approximately equal
in area to the continental United States, except that it consists of
islands. If compressed, the islands would be one-half the size of the
state of Rhode Island.[^87] The only way to communicate was to send
people out on field trip vessels, scheduled every two months, and
invariably the vessels would break down and people could not get out on
schedule to promote the program. The radio was used to publicize the
program and representatives were sent out to a number of islands to be
present for the filing of claims. Approximately 11,000 claims were filed
and approximately 200 claims were denied for filing after the deadline
had passed.

The population of Micronesia was approximately 55,000 and the
five-member commission included two Micronesians whose names were put
forward by the Congress of Micronesia and the selection made by the
Secretary of the Interior. This program had an appeals process where
claimants could either provide additional documentation or appear for an
oral presentation to the Commission.

Mr. Rogers then discussed the valuation of land in that area and
explained that in Micronesia value of land depended on the reason for
transfer of the land. As an example, he mentioned that if the church or
some charity needed land, then the price of the land would be
significantly lower and if it was being transferred for a commercial
purpose, then price/value would be different. In terms of inheritance,
he discussed the importance of cultural hierarchy versus strict
adherence to probate laws. For instance, in order for a widow to
inherit, a determination of whether she had been a good or bad wife was
very important. However, the commission chose to follow the traditional
American usage regarding legal family relationships.

Mr. Rogers stated that death claims presented a problem but that the
Commission recommended awards based on age: starting at \$500 for a
child and up to a maximum of \$5,000 at age 21 and then sliding
downwards slowly. The rationale was the concept of how much support was
being provided to people left behind. He indicated that under Title II,
the commission was sued because of allegations that they had not taken
"future earnings and future support" into account. Mr. Rogers stated
that there were some private attorneys handling claims before the
Commission but noted that the statute limited recovery for attorneys to
only one percent of any award. Ten or twelve attorneys worked at the
Commission and the Micronesian Legal Services assisted many claimants
with the filing of the claims.

Mr. Rogers elaborated that under Title II, there were some large awards
because there were large amounts of prime land that the Trust Territory
had taken and was still using at the time the Commission was doing its
work. Originally it was thought to pay \$2,000 per acre but in that
manner, the entire fund would have been used up and then the concept of
paying rent for the land was instituted and the maximum amount of rent
per acre was set at \$1,500.

The question of the nationality of the claimants was discussed.
Professor Bederman pointed out that the people of Micronesia were not
regarded as citizens of Japan but were under the League of Nations
mandate to Japan. Hence, under Title I, any payments to those claimants
was [ex gratia]{.underline} as the U.S. had no legal obligation to them.
Although the people of Micronesia were not under the trusteeship of the
United States during World War II, they were when the settlement of
claims was negotiated. Professor Bederman added that the Micronesians
were never nationals of the U.S., rather they were citizens of the Trust
Territory.

According to Mr. Rogers, under Title I, a small number of awards were
made for forced labor. Mr. Bradley noted that such awards had been made
under the theory that the Japanese had entered into implied contracts
with the Micronesians for labor and when the Japanese defaulted, the
debt then became personal property. The Chairman noted that the awards
that may have been paid were made for personal property losses and not
for forced labor.

Professor Bederman gave a brief history of the legal status of
Micronesia from the early 20th century to date. At the request of
Commissioner Cruz, Mr. Rogers discussed again the fact that under Title
I, no interest was calculated but interest was calculated for awards
made under Title II. Mr. San Agustin noted that the conditions in Guam
in 1945 could not have been the same in Micronesia in 1971 as people in
Guam had no homes to go to and no radio from which to receive notice of
claims program.

Ms. Cooper discussed the Civil Liberties Act of 1988 and its
background.[^88] She then elaborated that the bill was signed by
President Reagan on August 10, 1988, and was meant to be a 10-year
program during which time applications from Japanese-Americans would be
processed. The purpose of the Act was four-fold: (1) to acknowledge the
injustice done to American citizens of Japanese ancestry; (2) to
apologize for the injustice during the war; (3) to pay restitution to
eligible individuals for their treatment during the war; and (4) to
provide money for a public education fund to inform the American public
about the internment. One of the unique features of this Act was that it
required the U.S. Attorney General to identify and locate all eligible
claimants without having the claimants make an application to the
Department of Justice.^8^[^89] Another key provision of the Act was to
pay the oldest individuals first. Four basic criteria for eligibility
were that claimants: (1) had to be alive on the date the Act was passed,
namely August 10, 1988; (2) had to be of Japanese ancestry or be the
spouse or parent of a person of Japanese ancestry; (3) had to be an
American citizen or permanent resident alien; and (4) had to have been
evacuated/relocated or interned or, otherwise, deprived of liberty or
property as a result of specific federal government action during the
internment period, which was defined as December 7, 1941, through June
30, 1946.

Ms. Cooper elaborated that if an individual was alive on August 10, 1988
(date of enactment), but died subsequent to that date, there were three
classes of heirs who were able to receive payment in order of priority
(spouse, children, or parents). Each eligible claimant received \$20,000
for his/her evacuation/relocation/internment. Prior to the bill's
passage, there was discussion to the effect that an apology would
suffice and that no monetary payment was required.

Ms. Cooper explained that Title I of the Act dealt with the
Japanese-American program and Title II dealt with the Aleutian program,
which was administered by the Department of the Interior. Under the
Aleutian program, there was compensation for three different types of
losses: (1) Individuals would receive \$12,000 each; (2) there was
separate compensation for damaged church property and \$1.4 million was
set aside for that; (3) the larger portion of the money was set aside
for community losses and the Secretary of the Interior had identified
various villages that had been demolished during the war and the
Secretary of the Interior worked with each of the villages to set up
seven trustees from each village. Then the trustees for each village
were given a sum of money to help distribute for that particular village
or community. Under the Aleutians Act, this money was primarily to be
directed toward the benefit of the elderly, disabled, and seriously ill
persons, as well as to student scholarship programs and to help preserve
Aleutian culture and to improve community centers.

Since the Department of Justice did not administer this portion of the
Act, Ms. Cooper was not sure how the program was conducted, but believed
that claims had to be filed with the Secretary of the Interior. She also
stated that \$5,000,000 was provided for educational purposes under
Title I of the Act. This funding was used to republish the Commission's
Report of "Personal Justice Denied"^9^[^90] for wider dissemination and
to provide grants to various individuals on the West Coast, both at
universities and at the high school level, to publicize the government's
action taken during World War II.

Professor Bederman added that other than Guam and the Philippines, the
only other U.S. territory that was actually occupied by the Japanese
were the westernmost islands of the Aleutian chain. When Imperial
Japanese forces moved into some of the islands after December 7, 1941,
some residents of the islands were actually under Japanese occupation.
There is little information on conditions there. With regard to some of
the more easterly islands, towards the main body of Alaska, the U.S.
Navy undertook to evacuate the people before the impending Japanese
occupation. According to Professor Bederman, the Aleutians had some
choice as to whether they would stay with relatives in Alaska or whether
the Navy would take care of them. Their freedom of movement was not
limited and they were not interned as were the Japanese Americans. Their
condition was similar to a Arefugee@ situation. Little is known of the
condition of the Aleuts who remained behind and lived under Japanese
occupation.

Mr. Bradley added that in APersonal Justice Denied@, there is a section
on the experiences of the evacuated Aleutians and the poor treatment
they received. Many were forced to live in deplorable conditions and
some lived in abandoned canneries. In addition, upon their return to
their villages after the war, little attention was given to the
reconstruction of their destroyed villages.

[V. Review Under Section 5(4) of the Guam War Claims Review]{.underline}
[Commission Act]{.underline}

Section 5(4) of the Review Act requires the Review Commission to
"determine whether there was parity of war claims paid to the residents
of Guam" under the Guam Act as compared with similarly situated
individuals who were in other territories occupied by the Japanese
during World War II. In order to carry out this directive, the
Commission has carefully reviewed the following statutes in comparison
with the Guam Act:

\--Philippines Rehabilitation Act of 1946^9^[^91]

\--War Claims Act of 1948^9^[^92]

\--Wake Island Amendment to the War Claims Act (1962)^9^[^93]

\--War Claims Act, Title II (1962)^9^[^94]

\--War Claims Act Amendments (1952 & 1956)^9^[^95]

\--War Claims Act Amendment (1954)^9^[^96]

\--Micronesian Claims Act of 1971^9^[^97]

\--Aleutian and Pribilof Islands Restitution Act (1988)^9^[^98]

On the following page is a chart comparing the provisions of the Guam
Act with these respective statutes. These comparisons are then discussed
in the next section below.

[A. Comparison of Provisions of the Guam Act with Those of]{.underline}
[Other War Claims Statutes]{.underline}

[1. Types of Losses Allowed]{.underline}

\(a\) Personal and real property

The Guam Act, the Philippines Rehabilitation Act of 1946, Titles I and
II of the War Claims Act of 1948, as amended, and the Micronesian Claims
Act of 1971 allowed for claims based on personal and real property
losses. The Guam Act and the Micronesian Claims Act also allowed
compensation for "loss of use" of real property, which was not the case
in other programs.

\(b\) Personal injury and death

The Guam Act, Title I of the War Claims Act, the Wake Island Amendment,
and the Micronesian Claims Act allowed for claims based on personal
injury and death. However, except in the case of the Guam Act and the
Micronesian Claims Act, such benefits were available only to civilian
American [citizens]{.underline}. Title II of the War Claims Act allowed
for claims for personal injury and death, but only where the personal
injury or death was incurred on board vessels engaged in commerce that
were attacked by enemy forces on the high seas before December 11,
1941.^9^[^99] The other statutes did not authorize compensation for
personal injury or death.

\(c\) Civilian internment

The War Claims Act of 1948 and the Wake Island Amendment authorized
compensation for internment of civilians by Japanese military forces
during World War II. Claimants were entitled to compensation at the rate
of \$60 per month of internment if they were adults, and \$25 per month
of internment if they were minors. To be eligible, they had to have been
either physically confined by the enemy or in hiding to avoid
capture.^10^[^100] In addition, section 5(f) of the War Claims Act
provided that claimants were eligible for lost wages under the "Act to
provide benefits for the injury, disability, death, or enemy detention
of employees of contractors of the United States, and for other
purposes, approved December 2, 1942," and for disability and death
benefits under that Act, in the event they were injured or died during
their internment, regardless of whether they were in fact
employed.^10^[^101] The statutes also provided that the entitlement to
compensation passed to specified classes of survivors of an internee if
he or she was no longer living at the time the award of compensation was
issued.^10^[^102]

The Aleutian and Pribilof Islands Restitution Act ("Aleutians Act")
provided for compensation to individuals for their evacuation by the
United States to internment camps or other temporary facilities. Each
claimant received a lump-sum compensation payment of \$12,000. In order
for the compensation to be payable, the internee had to have been alive
at the time the claims statute was enacted.

\(d\) Forced labor

The claims program conducted under the Micronesian Claims Act was the
only program in which compensation was paid for forced labor. Moreover,
even in that case the payment of forced labor claims was not
specifically authorized in the statute. Rather, they were paid on the
basis of the theory that there were implied contracts with the
Micronesian laborers (who had been living under Japanese governance for
some twenty years before World War II) which the Japanese failed to
honor, thereby giving rise to debts which were mentioned in the 1969
U.S.-Japanese claims agreement.^10^[^103]

\(e\) "Forced march"^10^[^104]

None of the claims statutes authorized compensation for "forced
march."^10^[^105]

[2. Nationality Requirement]{.underline}

Title I of the War Claims Act of 1948, as it related to civilian
internees, was the only statute that limited eligibility to United
States citizens; except for the Micronesian Claims Act, all of the
others covered both citizens and nationals of the United States. The
Micronesian Claims Act was open only to persons who were citizens of the
Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands as of July 18, l947, and the
survivors of decedents who, if living, would have been eligible to claim
such citizenship.

[3. Filing Period]{.underline}

The War Claims Act of 1948 (civilian internee program) and Title II of
that Act, added in 1962, provided for filing periods of 26 months and 18
months, respectively. The Aleutians Act provided for a filing period of
four years. The Wake Island claims statute allowed for a filing period
of only six months. As was the case with the Guam Act, the rest of the
statutes provided for a filing period of one year.^10^[^106] However,
the ability of Filipinos who did not file claims under the Philippines
Rehabilitation Act of 1946 to file under Title II of the War Claims Act
in effect amounted to an extension of the one-year filing period
provided for in the Philippines Rehabilitation Act.^10^[^107] This made
for a total filing period of 2-1/2 years under the latter.

[4. Claimants Covered]{.underline}

Filing of a claim under the Guam Act was open to anyone residing on Guam
between December 7, 1941, and July 21, 1944, or, where permitted, his or
her successor in interest.^10^[^108] It was also open to entities owned
by such persons.^10^[^109] One of the claimants that received
compensation under the statute was the Gaiety Theater, Inc.,^11^[^110]
which owned the movie house in Agaña, the island capital; another was
the Catholic Church on Guam.^11^[^111] None of the other statutes was
more expansive than the Guam Act in this regard.

[5. Basis for Valuation of Property]{.underline}

The Guam Act was silent on this point. However, the implementing
regulations promulgated by the Navy in May 1946 provided that in the
case of claims based on loss or destruction of property before December
1, 1945, the amount of compensation payable would be computed based on
the market value of the property as of "December 6, 1941 (Washington,
DC, time)."^11^[^112] Otherwise, the amount was to be based on the
property's fair market value at the time of loss or damage. Under the
other statutes that covered property loss and damage, except for the
Philippines Rehabilitation Act of 1946, the measure of valuation was
stated to be the property's post-war fair market value. Under the
Philippines Rehabilitation Act, awards were based on the replacement
cost of the property, less depreciation, or its actual cash value at the
time of loss or damage, whichever was lower.^11^[^113]

[6. Proportion of Awards Actually Paid]{.underline}

Claims found meritorious under the Guam Act were paid in the full amount
that the Land and Claims Commission determined to be due the claimant in
each case. The largest individual payment for loss and destruction of
real and personal property went to Mr. Pedro Martinez of Agaña, Guam, in
the amount of \$245,112.72.^11^[^114] On the other hand, Gaily R.
Kamminga received only \$7,129.50 for the destruction of two houses, two
bungalows, a ranch house, livestock, crops, trees, building materials,
and personal effects^11^[^115]. Claims for American-citizen civilian
internment and by religious organizations in the Philippines were also
paid in full,^11^[^116] as were the amounts due the Aleuts.^11^[^117] In
contrast, claims under the Philippines Rehabilitation Act were paid in
full only up to \$500 per claim; amounts above \$500 were payable to the
extent of 75 percent.^11^[^118]

Claims for sequestered bank accounts in the Philippines were paid in
full up to \$500; amounts over \$500 were only paid to the extent of
66-2/3 percent.^11^[^119] Claims under Title II of the War Claims Act
were paid in full up to \$10,000,^12^[^120] except that claims based on
the death of passengers on vessels engaged in commerce attacked by enemy
forces on the high seas were paid in full for \$25,000.^12^[^121] As for
the claims under the Micronesian Claims Act, amounts found to be due for
death, personal injury, and property loss and damage after the Japanese
occupation ended were paid to the extent of 99.9 percent, but claims
arising during the Japanese occupation were only paid to the extent of
34.24 percent.^12^[^122]

[7. Basis for Compensating for Death and Personal Injury]{.underline}

In the case of claims for death and personal injury under the Guam Act,
the Land and Claims Commission computed the amount of compensation
payable based on regulations promulgated under the Federal Employees
Compensation Act of 1916, as amended. In all cases the amount of
compensation that could be recommended for payment was limited to
\$4,000.^12^[^123] The amount recommended was intended to compensate for
loss of prospective support of the decedent's or injured's dependents,
up to a maximum of \$50 per month, although in the case of injuries
occurring after December 6, 1941 (Washington, DC, time), and before
August 1, 1944, the amount of compensation payable was computed based on
the claimant's average earnings during the first eleven months of 1941.
In addition, a reasonable amount was allowed for hospitalization
expenses of the injured and for burial expenses of the deceased. An
award for personal injury barred any further award for death if the
death resulted from the earlier injury.^12^[^124]

In contrast, subsection 5(f) of the War Claims Act provided for a
\$7,500 cap for personal injury claims, and another award up to \$7,500
was allowed if death later resulted from the same personal injury.
Subsequently, the Foreign Claims Settlement Commission ("FCSC")
determined that under Title II of the War Claims Act, added in 1962, an
award of \$25,000 was appropriate compensation for death of any
passenger on board a vessel engaged in commerce and attacked by enemy
forces on the high seas prior to December 11, 1941,^12^[^125] and
amounts up to a maximum of \$10,000 were payable for personal injury and
disability, based on the length of time the claimant was
disabled.^12^[^126]

The Micronesian Claims Act of 1971 made no express provision for a level
of compensation for claims for injury and death. Analogizing to relevant
precedents, including the Guam Act, the Micronesian Claims Commission
determined that claims for death would be paid according to a sliding
scale from \$500 to \$5,000 based on the age of the decedent at the time
of death and the consequently greater or lesser amount of support lost
by his or her dependents as a result.^12^[^127] Claims for personal
injury were paid on a percentage basis using that same scale.^12^[^128]
According to the statistics compiled at the end of the program, the
values respectively attributed to Title II death and injury claims (for
which the United States was responsible) were 0.7 percent and 5 percent
of the values attributed to Title I death and injury claims (for which
Japan was responsible)^12^[^129].

[8. Basis for Compensating for Forced Labor]{.underline}

As previously mentioned, the claims program conducted under the
Micronesian Claims Act was the only program in which compensation was
awarded for forced labor. However, the Act was silent regarding the
level of compensation for forced labor claims. The Micronesian Claims
Commission determined that the appropriate level of compensation was
\$10 per month if the work was of the type usually performed by the
laborer and was performed at home, and \$15 per month if
otherwise.^13^[^130]

[B. Review of Implementation of the Guam Act in Comparison]{.underline}
[with Implementation of Other War Claims Statutes]{.underline}

[1. Adequacy of Notice to Potential Claimants]{.underline}

One of the most frequently heard complaints about the Navy Land and
Claims Commission's administration of its program under the Guam Act is
that potential claimants did not have adequate notice or opportunity to
learn of the program and submit their claims. In this regard, the Navy's
reports from the time stated that it had already begun its investigation
of claims on Guam in the spring of 1945, and claimants then had until
December 1, 1946, in which to file their claims. However, the
implementing regulations were not promulgated until May 3, 1946, thereby
shortening the one year filing period. Furthermore, it appears that some
of the local village commissioners (mayors) who were charged with
dissemination of information to the people, may not have given accurate
or timely information to potential claimants.^13^[^131]

In contrast, claimants in the Philippines had the fixed period of one
year \-- from March 1, 1947, to February 29, 1948 \-- to submit their
claims. Little previous investigation of claims, except for preliminary
surveys of war damage, had been conducted before then, and in fact, the
distribution of claim forms, which was accomplished through placing
supplies of the form in the hands of school teachers on the 7,000
islands of the Philippine archipelago, did not begin until the first day
of the filing period.^13^[^132] It is true that claimants who did not
submit their claims during the filing period had a second opportunity to
do so after enactment of Title II of the War Claims Act in 1962.
However, the FCSC's awards for Philippine property losses under this
statute amounted to only \$1.13 million, out of a total of almost \$341
million awarded under the statute.^13^[^133]

In the case of the Micronesian Claims Act of 1971, claimants also had a
period of only one year in which to submit their claims, despite the
fact that the area of the earth's surface covered by the Trust Territory
was as large as the continental United States. As for the filing period
provided for under Title II of the War Claims Act, added in 1962, the
FCSC initially set a period of one year, but was allowed by the statute
to extend the period by six months, which it ultimately did.^13^[^134]
This was an advantage not available to claimants under either the Guam
Act or other claims statutes. Of course, in both of these cases the
claimants had the advantage of modern radio and television communication
not available to claimants under the Guam Act.

The number of claims filed under the Guam Act as a proportion of the
population of Guam at the time, compared with claims under other
statutes, is also a basis for comparison as to the adequacy of notice.
According to the Land and Claims Commission's files, the Commission
received a total of 5,465 claims,^13^[^135] or one for approximately
every four citizens on the island. This is a higher proportion than was
the case in Micronesia, where 10,648 claims were filed,^13^[^136] or one
for approximately every five citizens of the Trust Territory. In
contrast, nearly 1,157,500 claims were awarded in the Philippines, or
one for approximately every 35 citizens of the archipelago.^13^[^137] On
the other hand, claimants under the Aleutians Act had four years in
which to file, which meant that the question of notice actually was not
even an issue.^13^[^138]

[2. Types of Losses Covered and Amounts of Compensation]{.underline}
[Allowed]{.underline}

The Guam Act covered claims for death, personal injury, and the loss,
damage, and destruction of real and personal property. Additionally, the
Guam Act covered claims for loss of use of real property. As previously
noted, the regulations governing the Land and Claims Commission's
proceedings placed a ceiling of \$4,000 on claims for death and personal
injury, but there was no limitation on the amount that could be sought
for property loss, damage, destruction and loss of use \-- although
property claims for more than \$5,000, and all death and personal injury
claims, had to be approved by the U.S. Congress. There have been
suggestions that claimants limited their property claims to \$5,000 or
less in order to avoid the Congressional approval requirement.^13^[^139]
In any event, the files of the Land and Claims Commission include over
two hundred claims in which payments of over \$5,000 were recommended,
and in fact there were several instances in which the Commission
increased its recommendation to a figure higher than that sought by the
claimant.^14^[^140]

With regard to death and personal injury claims, the Hopkins Report
criticized the Navy for using the regulations in effect under the
Federal Employees Compensation Act of 1916 as the basis for computing
awards.^14^[^141] Considering, in particular, the remote location and
the unsettled conditions in which the Commission personnel were forced
to carry out their work, the Hopkins Report suggested that it would have
been much more sensible, at least in the case of the death claims, to
adopt a simple method of computation based on a measure such as
remaining life expectancy at the time of the decedent's death.^14^[^142]

In fact, such a basis was used in determining the amounts to be awarded
in death claims under the Micronesian Claims Act. In its decision in
[Claim of Minniah Melong, Harvey Melong, and Don Melong]{.underline},
Claim No. 1090-J (March 12, 1973, affirmed by Final Decision December
12, 1973),^14^[^143] the Micronesian Claims Commission adopted a sliding
scale of \$500 to \$5,000 for compensating claims for death, which
provided \$500 for the death of decedents 12 years old or less at the
time of death, with an increase of \$500 for each additional year of age
up to age 21 and a decrease of \$100 per year for each additional year
up to age 61, at which age and above the amount awardable remained at
\$1,000.

It is noteworthy, however, that the Micronesian Claims Commission
mentioned in its decision that it had devised this scale after studying
the Land and Claims Commission's treatment of death claims on Guam, with
the latter's maximum of \$4,000 increased to \$5,000 to account for the
25-year interval between the time when the Land and Claims Commission
was making its recommendations for awards and the time when the
Micronesian Claims Commission was doing its work.^14^[^144] According to
the Land and Claims Commission's files, the average paid in the death
claims on Guam was about \$1,900.^14^[^145] In 1976 dollars, that was
equivalent to about \$4,000.^14^[^146] In contrast, the average amount
awarded for wartime deaths of Micronesian decedents was
\$3,216.39^14^[^147] and the average award for deaths after an island's
secure date was \$728.41.^14^[^148] Moreover, the actual payments for
wartime deaths only amounted to approximately 34.2% of the Commission's
awards, since the awards granted under Title I of the statute amounted
to nearly \$34.35 million but only \$11.762 million was available from
which to make payments.^14^[^149]

Recognizing that this deficiency existed, Congress enacted further
legislation in 1977^15^[^150] authorizing the appropriation of
additional Federal funds to cover the unpaid portion of the Micronesian
Claims Commission's award under Title I of the Micronesian Claims
Act.^15^[^151] However, the statute provided that any such authorization
would be contingent upon the contribution of an equivalent additional
amount of goods and services by Japan, and to date, Japan has failed to
make any such further contribution.^15^[^152]

The two other statutes which provided for compensation for death claims
were Title I of the War Claims Act of 1948, subsection 5(c), and Title
II of that Act, added in 1962. Under Title I, compensation could be
claimed for the death of civilian American citizens interned by or in
hiding from Japanese military forces in areas attacked by Japan in World
War II. Such claims were processed by the Bureau of Employees
Compensation, which was a component of the Federal Security Agency until
it was transferred to the U.S. Department of Labor in 1950.^15^[^153]
The maximum amount awardable was \$7,500.00.^15^[^154]

Under Title II of the War Claims Act, the only deaths covered were of
passengers on vessels engaged in commerce on the high seas that were
attacked by enemy forces before the United States entered World War II.
As noted above, in 1965 the FCSC fixed the compensation amount at
\$25,000, regardless of the decedent's age at the time of death or any
other factor.^15^[^155] In 1949, this would have been equivalent to
\$27,225.00.^15^[^156] However, this Commission is not aware of any
other claims for death of civilians in wartime in which such amounts
have been awarded.

[3. Valuation of Property]{.underline}

The regulations implementing the Guam Act provided that except for
claims arising after the liberation of Guam, the Land and Claims
Commission was to determine property values on the basis of values
existing on December 6, 1941.^15^[^157] The Hopkins Report criticized
the Navy on this point, stating that because replacement costs were "far
in excess" of those values, the "so called relief is apt to be only a
hollow gesture."^15^[^158]

This Commission has also reviewed a memorandum from the "Commander
Marianas and Governor of Guam" to the Secretary of the Navy dated
February 25, 1948, that responded to the Hopkins Report's criticisms and
recommendations.^15^[^159] On the issue of property valuation, the
memorandum stated that

> \[i\]t is the Governor's understanding of the theory of the \[Guam Act
> implementing\] regulations that it was difficult, if not impossible,
> to ascertain the exact time of loss or damage, particularly in the
> case of personal property \-- all that could be determined was that
> the property existed at the time of the Japanese invasion in 1941 and
> that sometime between that date and the reoccupation of Guam by the
> American Armed Forces the property was lost or damaged \-- therefore,
> the December 1941 value standard was adopted as being the only known
> standard existing when the property was known to exist. Furthermore,
> it is the Governor's understanding of the Navy Department's position
> that the Meritorious Claims Act did not seek to make the people whole
> so far as their property was concerned, which would require higher
> value standards, but to grant the people certain relief. It is the
> Governor's feeling that the Navy's position is sound and should be
> adhered to in this respect, especially inasmuch as a great number of
> claims have been processed through to payment based upon the value
> standard prescribed by the Regulations. [Furthermore, the value
> standard used throughout has been liberally
> interpreted]{.underline}.(Emphasis added.)^16^[^160]

For its part, the U.S.-Philippine War Damage Commission was authorized
to pay compensation equivalent to either the replacement cost of the
property at issue or its actual cash value, whichever was
lower.^16^[^161] But "\[w\]ith high reproduction costs in the postwar
period, all claims were settled on the basis of actual cash value at the
time of loss which the Commission determined to be representative
pre-war values less depreciation."^16^[^162] Moreover, all awards in
excess of \$500 were paid only to the extent of 75 percent, and the last
22.5 percent, not to exceed \$25,000, was not paid until 1963.^16^[^163]

In the Micronesian claims program, claimants received compensation for
property losses on the basis of their property's fair market value at
the time of loss or destruction. As in the Land and Claims Commission's
program, it appears that the Micronesian Claims Commission used a set of
standard values for many items that were frequently claimed. For
example, in the Micronesian program sailing canoes were assigned values
from \$50 for a craft up to 14 feet long up to \$100 for a 23-foot
craft, chests and dressers were respectively valued at \$5 and \$15,
coconut palms were valued at \$4 each for the first 10, \$3 each for up
to an additional 140, and so on, and breadfruit trees were valued at \$7
each for the first 10, and \$2 each for all additional.^16^[^164] Here
again, claims for wartime losses were only compensated pro
rata.^16^[^165]

It appears that the claimants who fared best in receiving compensation
for property claims were those who filed under Title II of the War
Claims Act, added in 1962. The FCSC determined the amounts of their
awards on the basis of the actual, fair market value of the property in
issue at the time of loss or destruction.^16^[^166] In this case as
well, however, while awards up to \$10,000 were paid in full, larger
awards were only paid pro rata. Awards over \$10,000 were paid only to
the extent of 72.46 percent of the excess over \$10,000.^16^[^167]

[4. Composition of the Commissions Which Administered the]{.underline}
[Guam Act and the Other Claims Statutes]{.underline}

To the extent that such comparison has a bearing on determination of
parity, the Review Commission notes that the Guam Act provided that the
"Secretary of the Navy, and such other officer or officers as the
Secretary of the Navy may designate . . . are hereby authorized to
appoint a claims commission or claims commissions, each composed of one
or more officers of the Navy or the Marine Corps" to evaluate and settle
the claims arising on Guam covered by the statute. As discussed
previously in this report, the successive Land and Claims Commissions
appointed pursuant to the statute were variously composed of between two
and eight officers. In contrast, the U.S.-Philippine War Damage
Commission was composed of three civilian Commissioners appointed by the
President of the United States, two of whom were United States citizens
and one of whom was a citizen of the Philippines.^16^[^168] Similarly,
the Micronesian Claims Commission, a five-member Commission, consisted
of three United States citizens and two Trust Territory
citizens.^16^[^169] The members were all appointed by the Chairman of
the FCSC, in consultation with the Secretary of the Interior.^17^[^170]
The Micronesian members were selected from a list provided by the
Congress of Micronesia.^17^[^171] All of the other relevant war claims
statutes were administered by the War Claims Commission and its
successor, the Foreign Claims Settlement Commission of the United
States, each with three American-citizen members appointed by the
President and confirmed by the Senate.^17^[^172]

The Commission received information from the people of Guam which
reflects the view that the Chamorros should have been represented on the
Land and Claims Commission. However, Congress wrote the Guam Act so as
to specifically assign legal responsibility for the claims to the Navy,
to be administered by uniformed officers.

[5. Legal Representation Before the Land and Claims Commission and the
Other Commissions Which Administered War Claims Statutes]{.underline}

The Commission has reviewed correspondence from former Guam Congress
Chairman Jose Flores to former Secretary of the Interior Harold Ickes
expressing the need for legal representation for the claimants before
the Navy's Land and Claims Commission^17^[^173]. It appears that there
were few, if any, attorneys in private practice on Guam during the
1945-1950 period. In contrast, at least some claimants before the
U.S.-Philippine War Damage Commission had legal representation, for
there had been law schools in the Philippines for many years before
World War II. In the program conducted in Micronesia in the 1970\'s,
many claimants had legal representation before the Micronesian Claims
Commission; in the majority of cases it was provided without charge to
the claimants by Micronesian Legal Services, a public agency funded from
U.S. Government sources.

In all of the war claims statutes under discussion, except for the
Aleutians statute, the remuneration payable for legal representation was
limited to between 1 percent and 10 percent of the compensation actually
received by the claimant.

[6. Interest on Awards]{.underline}

It has been suggested that the residents of Guam who submitted claims
under the Guam Act were unjustly deprived of interest as part of their
awards. However, a review of the programs conducted under the other
World War II claims statutes with which this Commission has compared the
Guam Act discloses that only the claims awarded under Title II of the
Micronesian Claims Act of 1971 included an interest component. As
explained by Mr. David Rogers at the Legal Experts' Conference in
February 2004, interest was properly awardable in those cases because
the claims in question, which had arisen after the dates of the various
Trust Territory islands' being secured by U.S. forces, were in the
nature of takings by the United States Government, and it is well
settled that when the United States Government effects a taking, it owes
interest to compensate the claimant for the delay in receiving
compensation after the taking date.

It should also be noted, however, that although the Guam Act did not
provide for payment of interest, the implementing regulations required
that lump-sum amounts found due in claims for death and personal injury
were to be discounted at 4 percent per annum, compounded
annually.^17^[^174] This requirement originated in the Federal Employees
Compensation Act of 1916, cited in the regulations.^17^[^175] The same
requirement is found in the current version of the law, enacted in
1966.^17^[^176]

None of the war claims statutes provided for interest as a component of
the compensation payable for losses resulting from the belligerents'
actions in conducting operations of war.

[7. Availability of Appeals]{.underline}

All the statutes as implemented provided for no outside review of
decisions or awards and all appeals for rehearing were before the same
commission.

[8. Compensation for Internment of Civilians]{.underline}

The War Claims Act of 1948 included a section providing for compensation
for civilian United States citizens captured and interned in areas
attacked by Imperial Japanese forces during World War II.^17^[^177]
Compensation was payable at the rate of \$60.00 per month of internment
for adults and \$25.00 per month of internment for minors.^17^[^178] In
addition, the Federal Security Agency, later succeeded by the Department
of Labor, paid compensation to civilian American citizens and their
survivors for personal injury and death during internment or while in
hiding to escape capture. Such compensation was computed based on an
imputed wage of \$37.50 per week, up to a ceiling of \$7,500.^17^[^179]
These were the only statutes that made provision for such
compensation.^17^[^180] In fact, Congress intentionally excluded
American citizens interned in Europe from eligibility for civilian
internee compensation, on the ground that they had been repeatedly
warned to leave Europe before World War II began and had disregarded the
warnings at their own peril.^18^[^181]

The Navy's files indicate that there were a number of civilian United
States citizens residing on Guam when Japanese forces invaded and
occupied the island on December 10, 1941, and that the Japanese took
them to Japan for internment for the duration of the war.^18^[^182] Some
died there.^18^[^183] But because the residents of Guam who sought to
claim compensation for civilian internment while on Guam were United
States nationals but not citizens, their claims were denied.^18^[^184]
In denying their claims, however, there is no indication that the War
Claims Commission went beyond their lack of United States citizenship to
consider any other question, such as whether the restrictions which the
Japanese forces imposed on the population of Guam could be said to have
amounted to civilian internment.

[9. Forced Labor]{.underline}

As previously noted, the only instance in which claims for forced labor
were compensated was in the Micronesian Claims Commission's program
under the Micronesian Claims Act of 1971. However, that compensation was
paid under the theory that there was an implied contract between the
Micronesians and the Japanese which gave rise to a debt covered by the
1969 agreement obtained from the Japanese by the United States on behalf
of the citizens of the Trust Territory. This theory would not apply in
the case of Guam, since the Japanese were hostile occupiers of the
island and, except in a few cases, the population did not willingly
agree to work for them but rather had to be forcibly coerced to do
so.^18^[^185]

[VI. Findings of the Review Commission]{.underline}

After extensive research, review, discussion, and analysis, as set forth
in the preceding pages, the Review Commission makes the following
findings:

[A. General Findings]{.underline}

1\. [Moral obligation to pay compensation for war damages.]{.underline}
The Review Commission affirms that there is a moral obligation on the
part of our national government to pay compensation for war damages, in
order to ensure to the extent possible that no single individual or
group of individuals bears more than a just part of the overall burden
of war. That the United States Congress recognized this obligation with
respect to Guam is evidenced by its prompt enactment of the Guam
Meritorious Claims Act of 1945 (the "Guam Act"), within weeks after the
termination of World War II. The Review Commission also affirms,
however, that the United States Government is not obligated as a matter
of law to pay such compensation.

2\. [Substantial compensation paid previously.]{.underline} The Review
Commission finds that the compensation paid to claimants under the Guam
Act, some \$8 million, was a substantial measure of compensation in
redress of the losses sustained by the residents of Guam during and
after World War II.

3\. [Cruelty of Japanese occupiers.]{.underline} The Review Commission
finds that the Japanese occupation of Guam was particularly cruel,
oppressive, and brutal, and that the loyalty and steadfastness shown by
the people of Guam in the face of the atrocities and barbarism inflicted
on them by their Japanese occupiers was all the more extraordinary in
the circumstances in which they were forced to live.

4\. [Guam erroneously excluded from coverage of Title II of the War
Claims Act.]{.underline} The Review Commission finds that the Congress
was misinformed when it excluded Guam from coverage for World War II
property damage and loss claims under Title II of the War Claims Act of
1948, amended in 1962, because it incorrectly assumed that all of the
claims of residents of Guam had been adequately resolved under the Guam
Act. In fact, there were a number of such claims that had not been
timely filed under the Guam Act due to lack of notice and a short,
truncated filing period.

5\. [Congressional awareness of need for additional
compensation.]{.underline} The fact that in April 1990, after a hearing
on Delegate Ben Blaz\'s bill, H.R. 2024, to pay additional compensation
to Guamanians, the bi-partisan leadership of the Subcommittee on Insular
and International Affairs of the Committee on Interior and Insular
Affairs of the U.S. House of Representatives, along with Senator Daniel
Inouye, offered to introduce an amendment in the nature of a substitute
to H.R. 2024, is strong evidence that there was Congressional awareness
of and willingness to provide additional compensation.

6\. [Regrettable that previous proposed claims legislation rejected by
Guamanian legislators.]{.underline} The Review Commission considers it
regrettable that the Guam Legislature did not positively respond to the
Inouye/De Lugo/Lagomarsino substitute proposal, which was made after
consultation with the Administration in 1990. Fourteen years have passed
since then and, in the meantime, many claimants who could have been
included under the legislation and compensated have died. It is now 60
years since the Japanese occupation and the people of Guam cry out for
closure.

7\. [Limitation on eligibility.]{.underline} The Review Commission finds
it would be appropriate to limit eligibility for any further
compensation for suffering during the Japanese occupation of Guam to
individuals who were alive as of 1990, and their descendants, because
that year represents the last time that the Administration, the
leadership of the U.S. Congress, and the leadership of the Guam
Legislature were within reach of achieving agreement on claims
legislation to arrive at the closure which the people of Guam have been
seeking.

8\. [Hopkins Report Recommendations.]{.underline} The Review Commission
finds that the U.S. Congress and the Navy should have adopted the 1947
Hopkins Report's recommendations regarding the Guam-related claims,
including raising the ceiling on the amounts that could be paid to
claimants on Guam and abandoning the complicated processes followed in
calculating amounts due in death and personal injury claims.

9\. [Parity as to types of claims covered.]{.underline} The Review
Commission finds that there was parity with respect to the types of
claims covered by the Guam Act as compared with the types of claims
covered by the Philippines Rehabilitation Act of 1946 in that the latter
did not cover claims for personal injury, death, or loss of use of real
property, whereas the Guam Act did.

10\. [Technical non-comparability of the Micronesian Claims Act and the
Guam Act.]{.underline} The Review Commission recognizes that the
Micronesian Claims Act and the program conducted pursuant to it, are
technically not comparable to the Guam Act and the program conducted
thereunder because the Micronesian Claims Act and claims program did not
involve war claims of United States citizens or nationals. However,
because it appears to be a cause of concern for the people of Guam in
terms of parity of treatment, the Commission has included a comparison
of it. In this regard, the Review Commission finds that there was parity
with respect to the types of claims covered by the Guam Act as compared
with the types of claims covered by the Micronesian Claims Act. Although
the latter was enacted twenty-six years after the Guam Act, it did not
provide greater actual amounts of compensation for wartime losses than
did the Guam Act.

11\. [Payments under the Aleutians Act.]{.underline} The Commission
finds that there was lack of parity between the Guam Act and the
Aleutians Act, in that the Aleutians Act provided for payment of a
greater amount of compensation than did the Guam Act and also provided
for compensation to be paid in a single, uniform lump-sum amount to each
claimant.

12\. [Civilian Internment.]{.underline} The Review Commission finds that
there was lack of parity with respect to the types of claims covered by
the Guam Act as compared with the types of claims covered by the War
Claims Act of 1948, in that the Guam Act did not cover claims for
civilian internment by the enemy.

13\. [Filing period.]{.underline} The Review Commission finds that there
was lack of parity with respect to the filing period provided for in the
Guam Act as compared to all of the other claims statutes covered by this
report, with the exception of the 1962 Wake Island Amendment to the War
Claims Act of 1948, in that the Guam Act effectively provided for only a
seven-month period for filing of claims, due to the delay between the
enactment of the Guam Act on November 15, 1945, and the Secretary of the
Navy's promulgation of the Implementing Regulations on May 3, 1946. All
of the other statutes, except for the Wake Island Amendment, provided
for an actual filing period of at least one year.

14\. [Failure of some Guamanians to file claims based on incorrect
information regarding eligibility.]{.underline} The Review Commission
finds that as a result of inaccurate dissemination of information
regarding claims eligibility by some local village "commissioners"
(mayors) in informing the people of the Guam claims program, a number of
the residents of Guam were erroneously dissuaded from filing claims
under the Guam Act during the filing period.

15\. [Work of the Navy Land and Claims Commission.]{.underline} The
Review Commission finds that the U.S. Navy put forth vigorous good-faith
efforts to address the war damage and loss claims of the residents of
Guam, beginning as early as January 1945, but that it was hampered by
the lack of modern communications media on the island; by the ongoing
build-up of forces on the island in preparation for the Allied assault
on Japan; by the frequent turnover of Navy personnel, as evidenced by
the fact that before 1950 a total of seven Land and Claims Commissions
were successively appointed; and by the fact that at the same time the
Navy was dealing with the claims, it was also responsible for conducting
a large-scale land acquisition program on the island, under which the
U.S. Government eventually came to occupy nearly three-fourths of the
island.

16\. [Composition of Claims Commissions.]{.underline} The Review
Commission finds that there was lack of parity with respect to the
composition of the Land and Claims Commission established by the Guam
Act as compared to the Commissions established by the Philippines Act
and the Micronesian Claims Act, in that the latter statutes provided for
inclusion of a Filipino Commissioner and of two Micronesian
Commissioners on the respective Commissions. The Guam Act required that
the Land and Claims Commission be composed exclusively of uniformed
officers of the U.S. Navy or Marine Corps. The Commission recognizes
that at the time, the Navy Department was charged with administration of
Guam and that hostilities continued during the early period of
implementation of the program by the Navy.

17\. [Lack of legal counsel.]{.underline} The Review Commission finds
that there was lack of parity with respect to the prosecution of the
claims filed under the Guam Act as compared to claims under the other
statutes covered by this report, in that claimants under the Guam Act
had no possibility of obtaining private counsel to represent them before
the Navy's Land and Claims Commission, due to the absence of private
attorneys in practice on Guam in the 1940\'s.

18\. [Interest.]{.underline} The Review Commission finds that there was
lack of parity with respect to payments of interest on claims, in that
residents of Guam did not receive interest payments on claims for
property loss and damage that arose after the securing of Guam by U.S.
military on August 10, 1944. Claimants under Title II of the Micronesian
Claims Act with claims for property losses arising after the secure
dates of the various Micronesian islands did receive such interest
payments.

19\. [Appeals.]{.underline} The Review Commission finds that there was
parity with respect to the finality of claims and availability of appeal
under the Guam Act as compared to the other statutes covered by this
report, in that both the Guam Act and the other statutes provided that
the determinations on claims were final and conclusive, and not subject
to any outside review.

20\. [Conditions on Guam during Japanese occupation.]{.underline} The
Review Commission is not aware of any comparable situation other than on
Guam where virtually the entire population was either interned, in
hiding to avoid capture, or subjected to forced march at one time or
another while under Japanese occupation during World War II. In fact, it
could well be argued that, as in the War Claims case of Gladys Slaughter
Savary, cited in footnote 100 above, the restrictions and control placed
on the residents on Guam were tantamount to civilian internment of the
entire population.

21\. [Nationals but not citizens.]{.underline} The Review Commission
finds that there was lack of parity for the residents of Guam under the
Guam Act as compared to the War Claims Act of 1948 because the latter
covered only claims of persons who were United States citizens during
World War II and did not cover loyal Guamanians who had the status of
U.S. nationals at that time. Although residents of Guam were later
granted United States citizenship under the 1950 Guam Organic Act, the
grant was not retroactive.

[B. Findings on Real and Personal Property Claims]{.underline}

1\. [Congressional approval requirement.]{.underline} The Review
Commission finds that there was lack of parity with respect to claims
for property loss and damage under the Guam Act as compared to claims
filed under the other statutes covered by this report, in that, unlike
those other statutes, the Guam Act included a \$5,000 ceiling on
payments that could be disbursed by the Navy on Guam in satisfaction of
claims; property claims of over \$5,000 had to be approved by Congress.
This unfairly produced pressure on some claimants with valid property
claims of over \$5,000 to reduce their claims below the \$5,000 ceiling
in order to obtain payment quickly.

2\. [Pro rata vs. full payment of awards.]{.underline} The Review
Commission is satisfied that there was parity with respect to the
payment of Guamanians' claims for wartime loss and damage of real and
personal property under the Guam Act as compared with awards made in
similar such claims under the Philippines Act, the War Claims Act of
1948, and the Micronesian Claims Act, in that the awards made for
wartime property losses under all of the latter were only paid pro rata,
whereas the awards made under the Guam Act were paid in full. For
example, the Philippine Act specified that at the outset the amount due
in each claim of over \$500 found valid was to be reduced by 25 percent.

3\. [Measure of valuation.]{.underline} The Review Commission is
satisfied that there was parity with respect to the payment of
Guamanians' claims for loss and damage of real and personal property
under the Guam Act as compared with awards made in similar such claims
under Title II of the War Claims Act, added in 1962. Although the
Foreign Claims Settlement Commission applied a more favorable measure of
valuation in its adjudication of claims under that statute, this
advantage was offset by the fact that payments on those claims were not
disbursed until the mid-1960\'s, rather than in the late 1940\'s and
early 1950\'s as was the case with the claims on Guam, and by the
further fact that awards in those claims of over \$10,000 per claim were
only paid pro rata.

[C. Findings on Death Claims]{.underline}

1\. [Maximum amount payable: Guam Act vs. War Claims Act.]{.underline}
The Review Commission finds that there was lack of parity with respect
to death claims under the Guam Act as compared to death claims under the
War Claims Act of 1948, in that the maximum that could be claimed under
the Guam Act was \$4,000.00, whereas the maximum that could be claimed
under the War Claims Act was \$7,500.00. Additionally, payments found
due in death claims under the Guam Act had to be approved by Congress.

2\. [Maximum amount payable: Guam Act vs. Micronesian Claims
Act.]{.underline} The Review Commission finds that there was lack of
parity with respect to death claims under the Guam Act as compared to
death claims under Title II of the Micronesian Claims Act. Although the
maximum that could be claimed under the Guam Act was \$4,000.00, whereas
the maximum that could be claimed under Title II of the Micronesian
Claims Act was \$5,000.00, payments under the Guam Act required
Congressional approval.

3\. [Appropriate method of compensation: death claims.]{.underline} The
Review Commission finds that the most appropriate method for
apportioning compensation for death claims is to grant one single
uniform lump-sum amount covering all death claims.

[D. Findings on Personal Injury Claims]{.underline}

1\. [Disparity in amounts of compensation.]{.underline} The Review
Commission finds that there was lack of parity with respect to the
personal injury awards issued to residents of Guam under the Guam Act as
compared to the personal injury awards issued to American citizens or
other American nationals resulting from the occupation by Japanese
Imperial Forces during World War II, in that the amount that could be
awarded for the loss of prospective earnings to a resident of Guam
compared to the amount that could be awarded to a civilian American
citizen was grossly disparate. For example, under the Guam Act, a
resident of Guam injured on the first day of the occupation and unable
to work during the thirty-two months of Japanese occupation would have
been eligible to claim a maximum only of \$1,600 in lost wages (\$50 X
32 months) while an interned civilian American citizen similarly injured
would have been able to claim \$37.50 per week for the one hundred
twenty-eight weeks of the occupation, for a total claim of \$4,800.00.

2\. [Death resulting from previous injury.]{.underline} The Review
Commission finds that there was lack of parity with respect to the
personal injury awards that could be issued to residents of Guam under
the Guam Act as compared to the personal injury awards issued to
American citizens or other American nationals resulting from the
occupation by Japanese Imperial Forces during World War II, in that
under the Navy's Guam Act Implementing Regulations, a claim based on the
death of a person that resulted from an injury for which compensation
had previously been awarded was expressly barred, whereas under the War
Claims Act, the survivor(s) of a person who died as the result of an
injury for which compensation had been awarded under section 5(f) of the
War Claims Act of 1948 could claim additional compensation of up to
\$7,500.00 based on the person's death.

3\. [Disparity in basis for calculating compensation
amounts.]{.underline} The Review Commission finds that there was lack of
parity between the Guam Act and the War Claims Act of 1948, in that the
wage level used in claims for personal injury and death under the Guam
Act was limited to the average wage paid to a claimant or decedent
between January 1 and November 30, 1941, up to a maximum of \$50.00 per
month, whereas under the War Claims Act of 1948 the wage level was
specified to be \$37.50 per week.

4\. [Appropriate method of compensation: personal injury
claims.]{.underline} The Review Commission finds that due to the passage
of years since the l944 liberation of Guam and the loss of relevant
records, it is virtually impossible to differentiate among the survivors
of the Japanese occupation of the island as to the types of harm they
suffered---whether it was damage resulting from personal injury
(including rape and malnutrition), internment (including hiding to avoid
capture), forced labor, or forced march\--or the extent of the harm
suffered in each of their cases. Accordingly, the Review Commission
finds that the most appropriate method for apportioning compensation for
their suffering would be to grant one single uniform lump-sum amount
covering all categories of harm, irrespective of how many types of harm
a person may have suffered.

5\. [Psychological damage to survivors of Japanese
occupation.]{.underline} From the testimony given during the hearings
held on Guam, the Review Commission finds that a significant number of
the survivors of the Japanese occupation of the island continue to
suffer psychologically from their experience.

[VII. Recommendations]{.underline}

Under the Guam War Claims Review Commission Act, this Commission is
directed 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."

After extensive research, review of information, discussion, and
analysis, and the findings made in the preceding section, the Review
Commission submits the following recommendations:

1\. [Recognition]{.underline} - The Review Commission recommends that
Congress acknowledge both the suffering of the Guamanians during the
Japanese occupation of Guam in World War II and the loyalty shown by the
Guamanians to the United States during the war.

2\. [Category I: Claims for Death]{.underline} - The Review Commission
recommends that Congress provide funding in an amount sufficient to pay
compensation in a single lump-sum total amount of \$25,000 to the
eligible survivor(s), as defined below, of each resident of Guam who
died or was killed, and whose death would have been compensable under
the Guam Act and its regulations during the Japanese attack and
occupation of the island, or incident to the liberation of the island.

[Eligibility]{.underline} - The Review Commission recommends that
eligibility under this category of claim be limited to the spouse, child
or children, or parents, respectively, in this order of priority, who
constitute the classes of survivors identified as eligible successor
claimant(s) in subsection 5(d) of Title I of the War Claims Act of 1948,
as amended (50 U.S.C. App. 2004(d)).

[Justification]{.underline} - The compensation figure of \$25,000 is
comparable to the \$20,000 in compensation to which the eligible
survivors of decedents killed by the Japanese occupiers would have been
entitled under the 1990 substitute to the proposed legislation, H.R.
2024, as well as other proposed legislation. Further, when adjusted
forward from the 1940\'s, it is comparable to the \$7,500 to \$15,000
for death which eligible Guamanians could have sought under subsection
5(f) of the War Claims Act of 1948, had they not been excluded from the
coverage of that law. Based on the figure of 1,000 deaths cited on page
31 above, total funding of \$25 million would be required to pay these
Category I claims.

3\. [Category II: Claims for Personal Injury, Including Rape and
Malnutrition; Forced Labor; Forced March; and Internment, Including
Hiding to Avoid Capture]{.underline} - The Review Commission has found
that, due to the passage of years since the l944 liberation of Guam and
the loss of relevant records, it is virtually impossible to
differentiate among the survivors of the Japanese occupation of the
island as to the types of harm they suffered---whether it was damage
resulting from personal injury (including rape and malnutrition),
internment (including hiding to avoid capture), forced labor, or forced
march\--or the extent of the harm suffered in each of their cases.
Therefore, the Review Commission found that the most appropriate method
for apportioning compensation for their suffering would be to grant one
single uniform lump-sum amount covering all categories of harm,
irrespective of how many types of harm a person may have suffered.
Accordingly, the Review Commission recommends that Congress provide
funding in an amount sufficient to pay compensation in a single lump-sum
amount of \$12,000 to each person who was a resident of Guam during the
Japanese occupation and who personally suffered one or more of the types
of harm in question, or to the eligible survivor(s) of such individual,
subject to the conditions set forth below.

[Eligibility]{.underline} - The Review Commission has found that it
would be most appropriate to limit eligibility in Category II claims to
individuals who were alive as of the year 1990. That year represents the
last time that the Administration, the leadership of the U.S. Congress,
and the leadership of the Guam Legislature were within reach of
achieving agreement on legislation to compensate the claims of the
people of Guam arising from World War II. The Review Commission,
therefore, recommends that, in the case of individuals who suffered the
types of harm described above, who were living in 1990 but who are no
longer living, the compensation provided for in Category II claims be
limited to the spouse, child or children, or parents, respectively, in
this order of priority, who constitute the classes of survivors
identified in the War Claims Act of 1948, as amended (50 U.S.C. App.
2004(d)).

[Justification]{.underline} - After adjustment forward from the 1940\'s,
the compensation figure of \$12,000 is at least comparable to the
compensation of up to \$9,420 that the eligible survivors of the
Japanese occupation of Guam or their eligible successors would have been
entitled to for 32 months of internment (\$60 per month, or \$1,920),
and up to \$7,500 for either personal injury or death authorized under
the War Claims Act, had they not been excluded from the coverage of that
law. Based on the 1990 census figure of 8,551 survivors on Guam in 1990
cited on page 31 above, funding of approximately \$101 million would be
required to pay these claims. However, this does not include the unknown
number of eligible survivors living off the island in 1990.

4\. [Deductions]{.underline} - The Review Commission recommends that
before any payment of compensation is made in a claim under Category I
or Category II above, there should be deducted any amount of
compensation previously paid under the Guam Act of 1945 of \$1000 or
more, in the case of Category I payments, or of \$500 or more, in the
case of Category II payments.

5\. [Adjudication of Claims]{.underline} - The Review Commission makes
the following additional recommendations:

> \-- Administration by the FCSC - The FCSC, because of its experience
> and expertise in adjudication of claims, should be charged with
> creating a sub-commission modeled after the Micronesian Claims
> Commission. It is further recommended that this new Commission be
> composed of some Guamanian and some non-Guamanian commissioners.
>
> \-- Filing period - A filing period of one year should be set for the
> filing of claims. The one-year period should commence on the effective
> date of any required implementing regulations.
>
> \-- Appeals and Finality - Objections to and appeals of the new
> Commission's decisions should be to the Commission, and upon a
> rehearing, the decision should become final and not subject to outside
> review by any court or agency.
>
> \-- Release and Notice - The acceptance of payment by an eligible
> individual under this proposal should be in full satisfaction of all
> claims arising out of the Japanese occupation of Guam during the war.
>
> \-- Interest - No interest should be payable on the amounts awarded.

6\. [Establishment of Foundation to Fund World War II Loyalty
Scholarships]{.underline} - The Review Commission recommends the
establishment of a Trust Fund for scholarship, medical facilities, and
other public purposes for the benefit of the people of Guam. The Review
Commission further recommends that within 90 days after the end of the
period for the filing of claims as recommended above, the Board of
Directors of the Trust Fund be authorized to submit a claim to the Guam
Commission, on behalf of the Trust Fund, for any person who, while
eligible as a Category I or Category II claimant, failed to file a claim
for compensation. Any awards issued in such claims would be deposited in
the Trust Fund.

Further, in the event that an individual refuses in writing to accept an
award and files the refusal with the Board of Directors of the Trust
Fund, the amount of such award would pass to the Fund and no payment may
be made to such individual at any time after such refusal. Additionally,
credit for uncashed checks that become stale after the normal one-year
period should be transferred to the Fund and should not be reissued to
the payee.

The activities of the Trust Fund should be modeled after the fund
established under the Aleutian and Pribilof Islands Restitution Act of
1988. Disbursements may be made from the Trust Fund to sponsor research
and educational activities, so that the events surrounding the wartime
occupation and liberation of Guam as well as the loyalty of the people
of Guam will be remembered, and so that the causes and circumstances of
this and other wartime events may be illuminated and understood.

\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\--

**VIII. APPENDICES**

A. Public Law 107-333, 116 Stat. 2873, Guam War Claims Review Commission
Act (December 16, 2002)

B. Historical Documents from National Archives and Navy Historical
Archives

> 1\. Memorandum from the Chief of Naval Operations to the Commander in
> Chief, Pacific Operations Area (February 19, 1945)
>
> 2\. Memorandum from the Secretary of Navy to the Chief of Naval
> Operations (March 3, 1945)
>
> 3\. Memorandum from the Chief of Naval Operations to Commander Leslie
> Watson

(March 3, 1945)

> 4\. Report from Deputy Chief Military Government Officer to Chief of
> Naval Operations (May 31, 1945)
>
> 5\. Letter from Commander Leslie Watson to Captain Frank Gary (August
> 27, 1945)

6\. Reports from Guam Land and Claims Commission (September 13, 1945 and
December 18, 1945)

7\. Public Law 224, Guam Meritorious Claims Act (1945)

8\. Navy Implementing Regulations for Public Law 224 (May 3, 1946)

> 9\. Directive from Chief of Naval Operations to Captain James Roberts
> (May 24,1946)
>
> 10\. Hopkins Committee Report for the Secretary on the Civil
> Government of Guam and American Samoa, Commander in Chief, Pacific
> Operations Area, Fleet No. II (March 25, 1947) (Guam excerpts)
>
> 11\. Memorandum of Claims Filed under Public Law 224, Guam Land and
> Claims Commission (December 1, 1948); Report for Island Command War
> Diary (June 2, 1945); and Report of Guam Land and Claims Commission
> (1946)
>
> 12\. Directive from Commander, Naval Forces, Marianas, to Commander
> Irving Klein (October 18, 1949)
>
> 13\. Memorandum from Commanding Officer to Chief of Naval Operations
> (September 21, 1945)
>
> 14\. Property Claim of Catholic Church (Page 4 of Senate Doc 87,
> incorporated within Public Law 271 - 1947 as an appropriation)
>
> 15\. Property Claim of Pedro Martinez (Page 35 of House Doc. 564,
> incorporated within Public Law 583 - 1950 as an appropriation)
>
> 16\. Letter from Guam Land and Claims Commission (October 7, 1947)

17\. Memorandum of Guam Land and Claims Commission (July 31, 1949)

> 18\. Letter from Assistant Secretary of the Navy to Director, Bureau
> of the Budget, Percival Brundage, (October 22, 1956) (claim was
> incorporated within Public Law 85-58 as an appropriation)
>
> 19\. Memorandum from Commander Marianas and Governor of Guam to
> Secretary of Navy (February 25, 1948)
>
> 20\. Letter from Chairman Jose Flores to Harold Ickes, Secretary of
> Interior (October 21, 1946)

C. Hearing Before the Subcommittee on Administrative Law and
Governmental Relations on H.R. 3191 to Establish a Commission on War
Reparations for Guam, August 4, 1988 (The Bamba Report)

D. Hearings and Documents Relating to H.R. 2024 (1989)

> 1\. Hearing Before the Subcommittee on Insular and International
> Affairs on H.R. 2024 to Amend the Organic Act of Guam, July 27, 1989,
> Statement of Senator Marilyn D.A. Manibusan
>
> 2\. Hearing Before the Subcommittee on Insular and International
> Affairs on H.R. 2024 to Amend the Organic Act of Guam, July 27, 1989,
> Statement of the Honorable Robert J. Lagomarsino
>
> 3\. Series of Letters to and from Guam Reparations Commission

4\. Guam Legislature, Resolution No. 1 (January 23, 1991)

E. Transcript of Hearings on Guam December 8 and 9, 2003

F. Transcript of Legal Experts Conference, Washington, D.C.

February 20, 2004

G. Spreadsheet of Death and Personal Injury Claims

H. Department of Interior, Office of Solicitor's Opinions to the Guam
War Claims Review Commission

1\. Memorandum of February 12, 2004

2\. Memorandum of May 6, 2004

I. Department of Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Alaska

Region

1\. News Release of December 11, 1990

2\. Status Report of July 22, 1991

J. Names and Locations of Historical Records Reviewed

[^1]:
    > A copy of the Review Act is included as Appendix A.

[^2]:
    > The Commission was established on October 10, 2003.

[^3]: The report is due on June 10, 2004.

[^4]:
    > 2000 Census, U.S. Census Bureau, U.S. Department of Commerce.

[^5]:
    > Robert F. Rogers, *Destiny's Landfall: A History of Guam*, p. 171
    > (University of Hawaii Press) (1995).

[^6]:
    > *Id*. at 180.

[^7]:
    > *Id*. at 190.

[^8]: Appendix B represents a compendium of documents from our research
    at the National Archives and the Navy Historical Center, and is
    attached to this report. For ease of reference, each document will
    be referenced individually as a subsection under Appendix B. The
    document referred to is Appendix B(1).

[^9]: Appendix B(2).

[^10]:
    > *Id*.

[^11]: Appendix B(3).

[^12]: *Id*.

[^13]:
    > *Id.*

[^14]: *Id.*

[^15]:
    > *Id.*

[^16]:
    > *Id*.

[^17]:
    > Appendix B(4).

[^18]:
    > *Id*. at 8.

[^19]:
    > *Id*.at 35.

[^20]: Appendix B(5).

[^21]: *Id*.

[^22]: Appendix B(6).

[^23]:
    > *Id.*

[^24]:
    > *Id*. The report notes elsewhere that many of these cases also
    > involved condemnation proceedings.

[^25]:
    > There is no indication in the report that Navy personnel made any
    > such trips to investigate death and personal injury claims.

[^26]:
    > Appendix B(6), *supra* note 22.

[^27]:
    > *Id.*

[^28]:
    > *Id.*

[^29]:
    > *Id.*

[^30]:
    > *Id.*

[^31]:
    > Appendix B(5), *supra* note 20.

[^32]:
    > Appendix B(7).

[^33]:
    > *Id.*, sec. 1

[^34]:
    > *Id.*

[^35]:
    > *Id.*

[^36]:
    > *Id.*

[^37]:
    > *Id.*

[^38]:
    > *Id.*

[^39]:
    > *Id.*

[^40]:
    > Appendix B(8).

[^41]:
    > This law remained in effect, with certain amendments expanding its
    > coverage, until 1966, when it was reenacted as 5 U.S.C. Section
    > 8101 *et seq*.

[^42]:
    > Appendix B(9).

[^43]:
    > Appendix B(10) (Excerpts).

[^44]:
    > *Id*.

[^45]:
    > *Id.*

[^46]:
    > *Id.*

[^47]:
    > *Id*.

[^48]:
    > *Id.*

[^49]:
    > *Id.*

[^50]:
    > *Id*.

[^51]:
    > *Id.*

[^52]: This was Typhoon Querida, which passed within 92 nautical miles
    north of Guam on September 20, 1946, with winds of up to nearly 115
    miles per hour at its center. U.S. Navy Meteorology and Oceanography
    Command, *available at* [htpps://www.cnmoc.navy.mil/nmosw/
    thh_nc2/guam/apra/graphics/tab2-2a.gif]{.underline}

[^53]:
    > Appendix B(11).

[^54]:
    > *Id.*

[^55]:
    > *Id.*

[^56]:
    > Appendix B(17)

[^57]:
    > H. R. Doc. No. 67, 83^rd^ Cong., at 27 (1953).

[^58]:
    > To Establish a Commission on War Reparations for Guam: Hearing on
    > H.R. 3919 Before the Subcommittee on Administrative Law and
    > Government Relations of the House Committee on the Judiciary,
    > 100^th^ Cong. 45-102 \-- attached as Appendix C.

[^59]:
    > *Id.* at 48.

[^60]:
    > *Id.* at 53. The twelve appropriations acts noted in the Bamba
    > Report were enacted from 1947 through 1957: Pub. L. 46, 80^th^
    > Cong., 61 Stat. 58 (1947); Pub. L. 271, 80^th^ Cong., 61 Stat. 610
    > (1947); Pub. L. 519, 80^th^ Cong., 62 Stat. 213 (1948); Pub. L.
    > 785, 80^th^ Cong., 62 Stat. 1027 (1948); Pub. L. 119, 81^st^
    > Cong., 63 Stat. 231 (1949); Pub. L. 343, 81^st^ Cong., 63 Stat.
    > 738 (1949); Pub. L. 583, 81^st^ Cong., 64 Stat. 25 (1950); Pub. L.
    > 45, 82^nd^ Cong., 65 Stat. 52 (1951); Pub. L. 11, 83^rd^ Cong., 67
    > Stat. 8 (1953); Pub. L. 663, 83^rd^ Cong., 68 Stat. 800 (1954);
    > Pub. L. 24, 84^th^ Cong., 69 Stat. 28 (1955); and Pub. L. 85-58,
    > 71 Stat. 176 (1957).

[^61]:
    > Appendix B (12).

[^62]:
    > H. R. Doc. 156, 85^th^ Cong., at 24 (1957) lists one individual
    > who received compensation for property loss under Public Law
    > 85-58, 71 Stat. 176, the appropriations bill (June 21, 1957).

[^63]:
    > See *supra* note 43.

[^64]:
    > 48 U.S.C. §§1421 *et seq*. (2000).

[^65]:
    > Exec. Order No. 10077, 14 F.R. 5533 ( Sept. 7, 1949), as amended
    > by Exec. Order No. 10137, 15 F.R. 4241 (June 30, 1950).

[^66]:
    > Rogers, *supra* note 5 at 230.

[^67]:
    > *Id.*

[^68]:
    > *Id*. at 225.

[^69]:
    > Appendix B(12).

[^70]:
    > Treaty of Peace with Japan, September 8, 1951, TIAS No. 2,490.

[^71]:
    > Agreement Between the United States of America and Japan
    > Concerning the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands, July 7,
    > 1969, TIAS No. 6,724.

[^72]:
    > 50 U.S.C. app. §§ 2018 et seq. (2000).

[^73]:
    > 50 U.S.C. app. §§2017 et seq. (2000).

[^74]:
    > *Id.*

[^75]:
    > 108 Cong. Rec. Part 12, 15874 (daily ed. Aug. 8, 1962) ( 15874
    > (statement of Rep. O'Hara) (consideration of H.R. 7283)).

[^76]:
    > Pub. L. No. 370, 79^th^ Cong., 60 Stat.128 (1946).

[^77]: H.R. 3954, 98^th^ Cong. (1983); H.R. 3758, 99^th^ Cong. (1985);
    H.R. 5187, 99^th^ Cong. (1986); H.R. 3191, 100^th^ Cong. (1987);
    H.R. 2024, 101^st^ Cong. (1989); H.R. 4741, 103^rd^ Cong. (1994);
    H.R. 2041, 104^th^ Cong. (1995); H.R. 2200, 105^th^ Cong. (1997);
    H.R. 755, 106^th^ Cong. (1999); H.R. 308, 107^th^ Cong., (2002);
    Pub. L. No. 107-333, 166 Stat. 2873 (2002).

[^78]:
    > At least some support for H.R. 2024 apparently existed in the Guam
    > Legislature at that time, as evidenced by the "Statement of
    > \[Guam\] Senator Marilyn D.A. Manibusan in Support of H.R. 2024
    > Before the House Subcommittee on Insular Affairs" (sic), July 27,
    > 1989, included in Appendix D (1). Eventually, the bill's chief
    > supporter, Senator George Bamba, resigned from the Legislature's
    > War Reparations Commission in protest of the Commission's failure
    > to support it. *See* Appendix D (3).

[^79]:
    > These exchanges of correspondence and other documents are attached
    > as Appendix D (3-4).

[^80]:
    > Appendix D (4).

[^81]:
    > 140 Cong. Rec. H7293-2 (1994).

[^82]:
    > 1990 Census of Guam, *available at*
    > [http://www2.census.gov/prod2/cen1990/cph6/cph‑6‑g.pdf]{.underline}
    > .

[^83]:
    > *Supra* note 81.

[^84]:
    > The Review Commission has examined the list of those claimants who
    > were granted awards by Congress in enacted appropriations bills
    > and has found that many of those who testified did receive
    > compensation. The Review Commission attributes this disparity to
    > the fact that most of the witnesses were either too young to have
    > been informed by their parents of their awards or too many years
    > have passed and they do not now remember the awards. Additionally,
    > some witnesses testified to incidents for which the Review
    > Commission found no claim or award.

[^85]:
    > He survived because of the help and assistance given to him by the
    > Guamanians, and was rescued by a U.S. Navy destroyer on July 10,
    > 1944. Rogers, *supra*, note 5, at 178.

[^86]:
    > See Appendix B(5).

[^87]:
    > Ruth G. Van Cleve, *The Office of Territorial Affairs,* p. 125
    > (Praeger , Library of U.S. Government Departments and
    > Agencies)(1974).

[^88]:
    > In 1980 Congress established a commission to study the relocation
    > and the internment of civilians during World War II. This
    > commission issued its report, entitled APersonal Justice Denied:
    > Report of the Commission on Wartime Relocation and Internment of
    > Civilians,@ in 1980. The commission=s report and recommendations
    > became the basis for the Civil Liberties Act of 1988, cited
    > *infra* note 98.

[^89]:
    > 9^89^Government records contained detailed listings of the names
    > of over 110,000 internees in the ten camp rosters and other
    > relevant information.

[^90]:
    > 0^90^See *supra* note 88.

[^91]:
    > 1^91^Pub. L. 370, 79^th^ Cong., approved June 30, 1946, 60 Stat.
    > 128; amended by Pub. L. 87-616, approved Aug. 30, 1962, 72 Stat.
    > 411.

[^92]:
    > 2^92^50 U.S.C. app. §§2001 et seq. (2000) (Pub. L. 896, 80^th^
    > Cong., approved July 3, 1948, 62 Stat. 1240).

[^93]:
    > 3^93^50 U.S.C. app. 2005(h) (2000) (Pub. L. 87-617, approved Aug.
    > 31, 1962, 76 Stat. 413).

[^94]:
    > 4^94^50 U.S.C. app. §§2017 et seq. (2000) (Pub. L. 87-846,
    > approved Oct. 22, 1962, 76 Stat. 1107).

[^95]:
    > 5^95^50 U.S.C. app. 2005 (2000) (Pub. L. 303, 82^rd^ Cong.,
    > approved April 9, 1952, 66 Stat.47 ).

[^96]:
    > 6^96^ 50 U.S.C. app. 2005(a) (2000) (Pub. L. 744, 83^rd^ Cong.,
    > approved Aug. 31, 1954 , 68 Stat.1033).

[^97]:
    > 7^97^ 50 U.S.C. app. §§2018 et seq. (2000) (Pub. L. 92-39,
    > approved July 1, 1971, 85 Stat. 92). It should be noted that this
    > statute, and the program conducted pursuant to it, technically are
    > not comparable to the Guam Act and the program conducted under it
    > because the Micronesian Claims Act and claims program did not
    > involve war claims of United States citizens or nationals, but
    > rather were limited to citizens of the Trust Territory of the
    > Pacific Islands B the Northern Marianas, Marshall Islands, and
    > Caroline Islands. Nevertheless, the Review Commission has included
    > the statute among those being compared to the Guam Act, in order
    > to allow it to determine whether the United States Government
    > treated the war claims of the people of Guam more favorably or
    > less favorably in comparison with those of their fellow Chamorros
    > on Saipan and the other islands of the Northern Marianas. The
    > reason for its inclusion is that it is a concern that is raised by
    > the people of Guam and presents many similarities that merit
    > discussion.

[^98]:
    > 8^98^ 50 U.S.C. App. §§1989c-1 *et seq*. ( Pub. L. 100-383,
    > approved Aug. 10, 1988, 102 Stat. 911 (Title II)) . It is also
    > noted, however, that many years before the passage of this Act, on
    > August 7, 1944, President Franklin Roosevelt approved an
    > allocation of \$200,000 from his AEmergency Fund for the
    > President, National Defense, 1942-45\" to be used by the Interior
    > Department for rehabilitation of the Aleutian and Pribilof
    > Islands. (Report of the Commission on Wartime Relocation and
    > Internment of Civilians, "Personal Justice Denied", 1996, *supra*
    > note 88.
    >
    > A question has been raised as to whether comparison of the Guam
    > Act with the Aleutians Act is within the scope of the Review
    > Commission's jurisdiction, since the claimants compensated under
    > the Aleutians Act technically were not "similarly situated U.S.
    > citizens or nationals in territory occupied by the Imperial
    > Japanese military forces during World War II" but rather had been
    > evacuated from their home islands before the Japanese forces
    > arrived. However, the Review Commission has received a memorandum
    > from the Office of the Solicitor in the Department of the Interior
    > expressing the opinion that it is permissible for the Review
    > Commission to include the Aleutians Act in its comparisons with
    > the Guam Act. *See* Appendix I (2).

[^99]:
    > 9^9^ 50 U.S.C. app.2017b (2000) \[War Claims Act of 1948, as
    > amended in 1962, subsec. 202(d)\].

[^100]:
    > 0^100^50 U.S.C. app. 2005(a)(2000). It is also to be noted,
    > however, that in at least one case (Claim of Gladys Slaughter
    > Savary, Claim No. C-87087), the War Claims Commission held that a
    > person was considered to be eligible for compensation based on a
    > finding that she "was by force of the Japanese Army restrained in
    > her movements and activities, was subjected to arrest, and
    > surveillance, her premises searched and property seized to such an
    > extent as to establish that she was captured and held by the
    > Imperial Japanese Government within the meaning of the Act and
    > governing regulations." See *Settlement of Claims by the Foreign
    > Claims Settlement Commission of the United States and its
    > Predecessors from September 14, 1949, to March 31, 1955*, U.S.
    > Government Printing Office, Washington, DC, at 552.

[^101]:
    > 1^01^ Subsec. 5(f)(1) of the Act, *supra* note 92 above. The
    > benefit payable was \$37.50 per week up to a maximum of \$7,500.00
    > for disability and a further \$7,500.00 if death subsequently
    > resulted from the same injury. See *Supplementary Report of the
    > War Claims Commission*, *supra* note 57 at 28. However, such
    > benefits did not accrue to any person to whom benefits had been
    > paid, or would be payable, under the Federal Employees
    > Compensation Act , as amended July 28, 1945, the Act of December
    > 2, 1942, referred to in subsec. 5(f), or the Missing Persons Act.
    > *Id*. at 17, footnote 32.

[^102]:
    > 2^102^*Id.*, subsec. 5(d).

[^103]:
    > 3^103^ *Supra* note 71*.*

[^104]:
    > 4^104^The Review Commission Act requires the Review Commission to
    > consider "forced march" as a category of wrong giving rise to a
    > claim for compensation.

[^105]:
    > 5^105^The Foreign Claims Settlement Commission=s Holocaust
    > Survivors= Claims Program, conducted between 1996 and 1998 under
    > authority of Public Law 104-99, approved January 26, 1996, 110
    > Stat. 26 (22 U.S.C. 1644 note), provided for adjudication of the
    > claims of U.S.-citizen Holocaust survivors, including individuals
    > who endured forced marches at the hands of Nazi German forces.
    > However, the Office of the Solicitor of the Department of the
    > Interior has advised the Review Commission in an opinion
    > memorandum dated February 12, 2004, that the Review Commission=s
    > jurisdiction does not encompass World War II claims of U.S.
    > nationals arising in Europe. See Appendix H, attached.

[^106]:
    > 6^106^It is noted, however, that the implementing regulations of
    > the Guam Act were not finalized until May 3, 1946, thereby
    > shortening the one year filing period to only 7 months.

[^107]:
    > 7^107^ *Supra* note 91.

[^108]:
    > 8^108^ Appendix B(8). Subsec. 4(d) provided that real property
    > claims survived; subsec. 6(g) provided that personal injury claims
    > did not survive.

[^109]:
    > 9^109^*Id.* at subsec. 4(d).

[^110]:
    > 0^110^Appendix B (15) (Pub.L. 583, 81^st^ Cong.(1950)), granting a
    > payment of \$12,707.50.

[^111]:
    > 1^11^Appendix B (14) (Pub.L. 271, 80^th^ Cong. (1947)), granting a
    > payment of \$524,950.55.

[^112]:
    > 2^112^ Appendix B(8), subsec. 5(b).

[^113]:
    > 3^113^ Final and Ninth Semiannual Report of the U.S.-Philippine
    > War Damage Commission (U.S. Government Printing Office, 1951) at
    > 8.

[^114]:
    > 4^114^ Appendix B (15) at 35.

[^115]:
    > 5^115^ *Id.* at 33.

[^116]:
    > 6^116^Supplementary Report of the War Claims Commission, *supra*
    > note 57 at 151.

[^117]:
    > 7^117^ U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs,
    > Alaska Region, News Release (Dec. 11, 1990) and Status Report
    > (July 22, 1991); Appendix I.

[^118]:
    > 8^118^ See *supra* note 91, subsec. 102(c). As it turned out,
    > however, the funds appropriated by Congress only allowed for 52.5
    > percent to be paid at the time. Payment of the remaining 22.5
    > percent of the awards made under the statute, up to a maximum of
    > \$25,000, was later authorized by Public Law 87-616, cited in note
    > 91.

[^119]:
    > 9^119^ See *supra* note 96, subsec. 17(d).

[^120]:
    > 0^120^ See *supra* note 94, Sec. 213; except for awards given
    > priority under paragraph (a)(1) of that section, awards of over
    > \$10,000 were ultimately paid pro rata to the extent of 72.16
    > percent. Source: Annual Report of the Foreign Claims Settlement
    > Commission of the United States for 1968 at 24.

[^121]:
    > 1^21^*Id.*

[^122]:
    > 2^122^Derived by dividing the total amount of awards of
    > \$34,349,509, listed in the Final Report of the Micronesian Claims
    > Commission, included in the Annual Report of the Foreign Claims
    > Settlement Commission of the United States for 1976 at 103, into
    > \$11,762,000, the amount available for payment of Title I claims,
    > as listed in the Micronesian Claims Commission's Final Report at
    > 100.

[^123]:
    > 3^123^Appendix B(8), Subsec. 6(d).

[^124]:
    > 4^124^*Id*., subsecs. 6(b)-(d).

[^125]:
    > 5^125^It will be noted, however, that these claims are not
    > properly comparable to the claims under the Guam Act, since they
    > did not arise in territory attacked by Japan.

[^126]:
    > 6^126^See, e.g., Claim of Edward T. Wilkes, et al., Claim Nos.
    > W-10922, W-10923, and W-10924, Decision No. W-3576, 23^rd^
    > Semiannual Report of the Foreign Claims Settlement Commission of
    > the United States, p. 77 (1965); Claim of Robert Newton Pritchard,
    > Claim No. W-009, Decision No. W-2271, 22^nd^ Semiannual Report of
    > the Foreign Claims Settlement Commission of the United States at
    > 46 (1965).

[^127]:
    > 7^127^Annual Report of the Micronesian Claims Commission for 1973,
    > included in the Annual Report of the Foreign Claims Settlement
    > Commission of the United States for 1973, at 40.

[^128]:
    > 8^128^*Id.* at 48.

[^129]:
    > 9^129^Final Report of the Micronesian Claims Commission, *supra*
    > note 122 at 103.

[^130]:
    > 0^130^*Id.* at 86.

[^131]:
    > 1^31^Appendix B(11). Other documents indicate that there was some
    > notice by public meetings. The Land and Claims Commission Report
    > for May 1945 stated: "The Section handling death and personal
    > injury claims is holding daily hearings with prominent Guamanians
    > relative to details of death or injury of local residents during
    > Japanese Occupation." (Report for Island Command War Diary, June
    > 2, 1945). Further, another report indicated that the Navy held
    > seven monthly meetings, from June to December 1946, with the local
    > village commissioners of fifteen municipalities to discuss many
    > issues which included payments of claims for persons in Agat. In
    > turn, the local commissioners held at least two public mass
    > meetings each month to disseminate new orders, notices, etc.,
    > published during that period.

[^132]:
    > 2^132^ *Supra* note 113 at 6-7.

[^133]:
    > 3^133^Annual Report of the Foreign Claims Settlement Commission of
    > the United States for 1967at 197.

[^134]:
    > 4^134^*Id*., at 96.

[^135]:
    > 5^135^ Appendix B(18).

[^136]:
    > 6^136^Report of the Micronesian Claims Commission, January
    > 1-December 31, 1973, *supra* note 127 at 75.

[^137]:
    > 7^137^ *Supra* note 113 at 57. According to the Encyclopedia
    > Britannica, the 1940 population of the Philippines was
    > approximately 40,500,000.

[^138]:
    > 8^138^ *Supra* note 98.

[^139]:
    > 9^139^ Appendix B(10) at 12.

[^140]:
    > 0^140^E.g., Claim of Gregorio Cruz Perez of Sinajana\-- he sought
    > \$6,407.80 but was awarded \$7,303.30;0; Claim of Alejandro
    > Concepcion Quan of Santa Rita\--he sought \$10,664.75 but was
    > awarded \$11,178.50. See Appendix B(15).

[^141]:
    > 1^41^See Appendix B(10) *supra* note 43.

[^142]:
    > 2^142^*Id.*

[^143]:
    > 3^143^ *Supra* note 127 at 83.

[^144]:
    > 4^144^*Id*. at 85

[^145]:
    > 5^145^Appendix G.

[^146]:
    > 6^146^Consumer Price Index -Urban, 1913-2004, Bureau of Labor
    > Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor.

[^147]:
    > 7^147^Total amount of awards of \$8,767,869, listed in the Final
    > Report of the Micronesian Claims Commission, *supra* note 120 at
    > 103, divided by 2,726, the total number of Title I death claims
    > filed, as listed in the Micronesian Claims Commission's Report for
    > January 1-December 31, 1973, *supra* note 127 at. 75.

[^148]:
    > 8^148^*Id.*

[^149]:
    > 9^149^Id. at 100.

[^150]:
    > 0^150^Pub. L. 95-134, approved October 15, 1977, 91 Stat. 1159.

[^151]:
    > 1^51^The statute also authorized appropriation of additional funds
    > to cover the unpaid portion of the awards made under Title II.
    > This was accomplished the following year, as part of the
    > Department of the Interior Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 1979
    > (Pub. L. 95-465, approved October 17, 1978, 92 Stat. 1289), which
    > included an appropriation of \$12.6 million for payment to Title
    > II award holders.

[^152]:
    > 2^152^Verified by the Office of Insular Affairs, U.S. Department
    > of the Interior.

[^153]:
    > 3^153^Reorganization Plan No. 19 of 1950, effective May 13, 1950,
    > 64 Stat. 1271, 15 Fed. Reg. 3178.

[^154]:
    > 4^154^Supplementary Report of the War Claims Commission, *supra*
    > note 57 at 16.

[^155]:
    > 5^155^See *supra* note 126 and discussion on page 58.

[^156]:
    > 6^156^*Supra* note 146.

[^157]:
    > 7^157^*Supra* note 40, Appendix B (8).

[^158]:
    > 8^158^Hopkins Report, *supra* note 43 at 13.

[^159]:
    > 9^159^Appendix B(19).

[^160]:
    > 0^160^*Id.*

[^161]:
    > 1^61^Final and Ninth Semiannual Report, U.S.-Philippine War Damage
    > Commission, *supra* note 113 at 8.

[^162]:
    > 2^162^*Id.*

[^163]:
    > 3^163^*Id.*

[^164]:
    > 4^164^Final Report of the Micronesian Claims Commission, *supra*
    > note 122 at 72.

[^165]:
    > 5^165^ *Id.*

[^166]:
    > 6^166^Decisions and Annotations, Foreign Claims Settlement
    > Commission of the United States (U.S. Govt. Printing Office,
    > 1968), at 654.

[^167]:
    > 7^167^ *Supra* notes 92 and 118.

[^168]:
    > 8^168^Philippines Rehabilitation Act of 1946, *supra* note 91,
    > subsec. 101(a).

[^169]:
    > 9^169^Micronesian Claims Act of 1971, *supra* note 97.

[^170]:
    > 0^170^*Id.*

[^171]:
    > 1^71^*Id.*

[^172]:
    > 2^172^See Annual Report of the Foreign Claims Settlement
    > Commission of the United States for 2002, *available at*
    > [http://www.usdoj.gov/fcsc/annrep02.htm]{.underline}.

[^173]:
    > 3^173^Appendix B (20); see also Appendix B (13).

[^174]:
    > 3^173^Appendix B(8), sec. 6(d).

[^175]:
    > 4^174^*Id.*

[^176]:
    > 5^175^5 U.S.C. 8135 (2000).

[^177]:
    > 6^176^50 U.S.C. app. 2005 (2000).

[^178]:
    > 7^177^*Id*.

[^179]:
    > 8^178^See *supra* note 118.

[^180]:
    > 9^179^The Aleutians Act, *supra* note 98, did not authorize
    > compensation for internment as such, but rather provided for
    > compensation to each "eligible Aleut" "who, as a civilian, was
    > relocated by authority of the United States from his or her home
    > village on the Pribilof Islands or the Aleutian Islands west of
    > Unimak Island to an internment camp, or other temporary facility
    > or location, during World War II." See "Personal Justice Denied,"
    > *supra* note 88 at 317-359.

[^181]:
    > 0^180^H. R. Rep. No. 976, 80^th^ Cong., pp. 2-7 (1948).

[^182]:
    > 1^81^One was James Holland Underwood, grandfather of former
    > Delegate from Guam Robert A. Underwood. He was interned for
    > exactly 45 months. (Source: Microfilm records of the former War
    > Claims Commission, maintained by the Foreign Claims Settlement
    > Commission of the United States).

[^183]:
    > 2^182^E.g. George Ernest Wusstig, Claim No. SC-145925. *Id.*

[^184]:
    > 3^183^One was Cecilia Leilani Cruz, Claim No. MC-127707. *Id*.

[^185]:
    > 4^184^Rogers, *supra* note 5 at 176.