GUAM EXCESS LANDS ACT 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

INSULAR AND INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS 

OF THE 

COMMITTEE ON 

NATURAL RESOURCES 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED THIRD CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

ON 

H.R. 2144 

TO PROVIDE FOR THE TRANSFER OF EXCESS LANDS TO THE 

GOVERNMENT OF GUAM, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES 

73--296 

HEARING HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC 

JULY 29, 1993 

Serial No. 103-89 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources 

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 

WASHINGTON : 1998 

For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office 

Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office, Washington, DC 20402 

ISBN 0-16-041732-5 

73-296 0 - 93 - 1 
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES 

GEORGE MILLER, California, Chairman 

PHILIP R. SHARP, Indiana DON YOUNG, Alaska, 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts RankiTI{! Republican Member 

AUSTIN J. MURPHY, Pennsylvania JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah 

NICK JOE RAHALL II, West Virginia BARBARA F. VUCANOVICH, Nevada 

BRUCE F. VENTO, Minnesota ELTON GALLEGLY, California 

PAT WILLIAMS, Montana ROBERT F. SMITH, Oregon 

RON DE LUGO, Virgin Islands CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming 

SAM GEJDENSON, Connecticut JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee 

RICHARD H. LEHMAN, California JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado 

BILL RICHARDSON, New Mexico JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon WAYNE ALLARD, Colorado 

ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American RICHARD H. BAKER, Louisiana 

Samoa KEN CAL VERT, California 

TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota SCOTT MciNNIS, Colorado 

LARRY LAROCCO, Idaho RICHARD W. POMBO, California 

NEIL ABERCROMBIE, Hawaii JAY DICKEY, Arkansas 

CALVIN M. DOOLEY, Califoi;llia 

CARLOS ROMERO-BARCELO, Puerto Rico 

KARAN ENGLISH, Arizona 

KAREN SHEPHERD, Utah 

NATHAN DEAL, Georgia 

MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York 

ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam 

SAM F ARR, California 

LANE EVANS, lllinois 

PATSY T. MINK, Hawaii 

THOMAS J. BARLOW III, Kentucky 

THOMAS M. BARRETT, Wieconsin 

JOHN LAWRENCE, Staff Director 

RICHARD MELTZER, General Counsel 

DANIEL VAL KlSH, Republican Staff Director 

SUBCOMMI'ITEE ON INSULAR AND INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS 

RON DE LUGO, Puerto Rico, Chairman 

ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American ELTON GALLEGLY, California, 

Samoa . RankiTI{! Republican Member 

CARLOS ROMERO-BARCELO, Puerto Rico BARBARA F. VUCANOVICH, Nevada 

ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam 

AUSTIN J. MURPHY, Pennsylvania 

GEORGE MILLER, California 

Vacancy 

JEFFREY L. FARROW, Staff Director 

BRIAN MODESTE, Pro{eiiBional Staff Member 

DAISY M. MINTER, Clerk 

MA.NASE MANSUR, Republican Con~~ultant on In~~ular and International Affairs 

(II) 
CONTENTS 

Hearing held: July 29, 1993 ................................................................................... . Text of the bill: H.R. 2144 ...................................................................................... . Member statements: 

~~:: ~~: K~frnd~;;~ .. :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: 

Hon. Elton Gallegly ......................................................................................... . Hon. Eni F.H. Faleomavaega ......................................................................... . Witness statements: 

Panel consisting of: 

Rear Adm. Edward K. Kristensen, Commander, Naval Forces, Marianas, Guam ........................................................................................... . Maj. Gen. H. Hale Burr, Jr., Commander, Thirteenth Air Force ......... . Panel consisting of: 

Hon. Frank F. Bias, Lieutenant Governor of Guam ............................ .. Hon. Joe T. San Agustin, speaker of the Legislature of Guam ............ . Hon. Thomas C. Ada, senator, Legislature of Guam ............................ .. Hon. Marilyn D.A. Manibusan, senator, Legislature of Guam ............. . Hon. Edward D. Reyes, senator, Legislature of Guam ......................... . Material submitted for the hearing record from: 

Hon. Robert A. Underwood: 

1. Policy statement on land issues ......................................................... . 2. Prepared statement of Frank C. San Nicolas ................................... . 3. Prepared statement of David T. Lotz ............................................... .. Department of the Interior: Prepared statement of Leslie M. Turner, 

Assistant Secretary of the Interior for Territorial and International 

Affairs ........................................................................................................... . Federal Aviation Administration: Prepared statement of Dale E. 

McDaniel, Acting Assistant Administrator for Policy, Planning, and 

International Aviation ................................................................................. . Hon. Edward D. Reyes: Resolution No. 93 (as amended by author), 22d 

Guam Legislature ........................................................................................ . 

APPENDIX 

JULY 29, 1993 

Additional material submitted for the hearing record: 

Letter of corres:liondence from Congressman Robert A. Underwood, Guam, 

~d!:;~~tr~tio:rG:Af~~.~: .. ~~.~~~.~.' ... ~~~~~~~~.~.~~: .. ~~~~~~ .. ~.~~~~~ Letter of correspondence from Congressman Robert A. Underwood, Guam, 

Delegate, Gov. Joseph F. Ada, Governor of Guam and Joe T. San 

Agustin, Guam Legislature to Hon. Les Aspin, Secretary of Defense ...... Letter of correspondence from Chairman Ron de Lugo, Subcommittee on Insular and International Affairs, Delegate, Virgin Islands to Roger W. Johnson, GSA ........................................................................................ .. Letter of correspondence from Congressman Robert Underwood, Guam, 

Delegate, Joseph F. Ada, Governor of Guam, and Hon. Jose T. San 

Agustin, Guam Legislature to Hon. Bruce Babbitt, Office of the Secretary, Department of the Interior ............................................................ .. Letter of correspondence from Congressman Robert A. Underwood, to 

Hon. Leslie M. Turner, Assistant Secretary, Office of Territorial and 

International Affairs ................................................................................... .. 

illll 

Page 

1 

4 

1 

9 

22 

53 

24 

40 

71 

83 

95 

110 

117 

16 

150 

153 

64 

156 

128 

159 

161 

164 

165 

168 
IV 

Additional material submitted for the hearing record-Continued 

Letter of correspondence from Hon. Roger W. Johnson, Administrator, 

GSA to Hon. George Miller, chairman, Committee on Natural Re- Page 

sources ........................................................................................................... 171 

Newspaper clippings responding to hearing held on H.R. 2144 .......................... 173 
H.R. 2144, GUAM EXCESS LANDS ACT 

THURSDAY, JULY 29, 1993 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON INSULAR AND INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10 a.m. in room 1324, 

Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Ron de Lugo (chairman of 

the subcommittee) presiding. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF BON. RON de LUGO 

Mr. DE Luoo. The Subcommittee on Insular and International 

Affairs hearing on the Underwood bill, H.R. 2144, will come to 

order. 

I want to welcome everyone here, and I want to thank you for 

coming this far to be present at this very important hearing this 

morning on the legislation that has been introduced in the Congress by Congressman Underwood. 

I want to welcome Rear Admiral Edward Kristensen, Commander, Naval Forces, Marianas, Guam; and Major General H. 

Hale Burr, Jr., Commander, Thirteenth Air Force. Welcome. 

I would like to welcome from Guam, a good friend of ours on the 

panel, the Honorable Frank F. Bias, Lieutenant Governor of Guam, 

a long-time friend. And also another long-time friend, the Honorable Joe T. San Agustin, Speaker of the Legislature of Guam; and 

the Honorable Thomas C. Ada; the Honorable Marilyn D.A. 

Manibusan; and the Honorable Edward Keyes, Senators from the 

Legislature of Guam. They are all known to the Chair and have 

long served as time acquaintances who have helped us many, many times with working in a constructive way towards solving problems for Guam and for other issues in the Pacific. 

I want to welcome you all here this morning. There may be no part of the country in which the tragic legacy of World War II lingers on as much as in Guam. Unprotected from 

an enemy invasion, the U.S. nationals of the island were subjected 

to a harsh enemy occupation. Many Chamorro people lost their 

lives due to their patriotism and their loyalty to the United States. 

All were taken from their homes. Many really never had their 

property returned. 

In the years after liberation, a substantial portion of the island 

was acquired by the U.S. military, often in a manner that today we 

would not look upon as being fair. ' 

The Chamorro people !f.ave up their land in these transactions 

because they either didn t know better, in some cases, out of a 

(1) 
2 

sense of obligation in others, or quite possibly because they had little choice. 

A significant amount of land that the military acquired was 

transferred to the local government under the territory's Organic 

Act some four decades ago. The purpose was to rehabilitate the island from the devastation of the war and to resettle its people. 

But, much of the island has remained under military control, in 

fact, some 30 percent at the present time. And, it is this situation 

that is at the heart of one of the most persistent problems in U.S.-

Guam relations. 

Several factors keep the issue alive. One is that much of the land 

does not appear to be used or even needed. It sits idle and the people think that it should be made available. 

Another is that Japanese and other investors abroad have bought 

up substantial amounts of privately owned lands. These purchases 

have dramatically increased the value of the property on the island 

and as a result decreased the amount under local control. 

And finally, many Chamorros feel denied their birthright. Their 

families lost the land, but were not properly compensated for it. 

People naturally feel a strong bond to their homeland, something 

that is perhaps not always understood in this Nation of immigrants. People of small islands often highly prize their tiny piece 

of this earth that we all live on. 

The land of their island is their world and their identity. So the 

Guamanian people's desire to reclaim formerly owned property is 

understandable, in light of the circumstances. 

Guam's first delegate, my late friend Tony Won Pat, launched 

two initiatives to address this problem. One was to get fair payment for former owners of land who had not been adequately paid originally. 

A law that I am proud to have joined him in sponsoring enabled 

former owners to sue the Federal Government for fair payment. An 

amendment provided that payments would be made with interest. 

The second initiative was to get the Federal Government to give 

up land that it did not need. The Carter administration responded 

by identifying some 5,000 acres. With transfers and reevaluation, 

the Reagan administration revised the inventory downward to 

about 3,500 acres. 

Won Pat's successor, Ben Blaz, then proposed that this land be 

given to a Guam court for the eventual transfer to its former owners. We held a hearing on his bill almost 5 years ago to this date. 

But without consultation, the Interior Department's territories office complicated the issue by arguing that the designated land 

should benefit all land claimants with an involved land bank proposal and national park and Guam Government land trade proposal, which just muddied the waters, so to speak. 

In the end, no bill was passed. And frustration grew on the island. Meanwhile, more and more of the original claimants died off. 

Federal lawyers won settlements of suits that OMB had originally 

told Congress they thought would cost some hundreds of millions 

of dollars, but the settlement of the suits ended up costing the Federal Government just $39.5 million. The value of land on Guam 

skyrocketed in the 1980s boom. 
3 

Late in 1990, the Senate tacked on an amendment to transfer 

unneeded land in Guam to local ownership to a bill that we had 

been working on which would provide insular areas with special 

disaster aid. There were strong objections, but I worked out a compromise that would have transferred, for public benefit uses, the 

3,200 acres remaining of the land identified a decade earlier. Although it passed both Houses in an omnibus bill, it did not become 

law because of late final Senate action after the land's value was 

questioned. 

Surprisingly, Delegate Blaz did not want to have it included 

when we reintroduced the omnibus bill early in 1991. After he finally reintroduced it, the Interior Department's territories office effectively prevented passage by suggesting that it be amended to enable land to go into private hands without compensation and by not 

being able to provide back-up information. 

Meanwhile, on Guam frustration with the overall issue has 

boiled to the point where the military is anxious to transfer the 

land that it was willing to get rid of in 1980. In addition, they also 

wish to relinquish control of land which confrontationalist 

Chamorro activists have taken it upon themselves to occupy. 

This issue does not just involve Federal land, though. Chamorro 

activists forced the Government of Guam to implement its 

Chamorro land trust law, reserving unneeded local land for what 

is now the indigenous minority. And there is now a debate about 

how much land ought to go into this trust. 

There are also calls for a comprehensive review of all Federal 

land needs, which the Speaker and the Legislature of Guam have 

proposed, and my good friend, the Representative from Guam, Bob 

Underwood, has been speaking to me about. So does the Guam 

commonwealth bill. It would set up a panel of mostly islanders to 

do this review and put land into the Chamorro trust. 

Guam's new Delegate, Robert Underwood, has approached the issues with good sense. He has moved to get the land that can be 

obtained now from the Federal Government, and he has proposed 

a gathering of all concerned parties to work out other land issues 

separately. 

He lobbied extremely effectively with Governor Ada, Speaker San 

Agustin, and others in Guam's government to relocate the operations of the Naval Air Station that is now using prime property 

next to the Won Pat Airport in the center of the island to the Air 

Force base in the north. 

He has sponsored the bill needed to provide for the transfer of 

the long available 3,200 acres for local public benefit. 

Consistent with his approach, our hearing today is on this bill 

that he introduced, H.R. 2144. We will not deal with other and 

other larger Guam land issues that will probably, at this point, 

take much longer to resolve. 

As he recognizes, there is a choice between trying to finally get 

this land transferred-which would be a major accomplishmentand tying it up in grander ideas for solving all of the Guam land 

issues at one time. 

[The bill, H.R. 2144, follows:] 
4 

103D CONGRESS H R 2144 1ST SESSION • • 

To provide for the transfer of excess land to the Government of Guam, 

and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 18, 1993 

Mr. UJ\'DERWOOD introduced the following bill; which was referred jointly to 

the Committees on Natural Resources, Government Operations, and 

Armed Services 

A BILL 

To provide for the transfer of excess land to the Government 

of Guam, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives ofthe United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the "Guam Excess Lands 

5 Act". 

6 SEC. 2. TRANSFER. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.-The Administrator of General 

8 Services shall, subject to section 3, transfer all right, title, 

9 and interest of the United States in and to the lands de10 scribed in subsection (b) (together with any improvements 
5 

2 

1 thereon) to the Government of Guam for public benefit, 

2 by quitclaim deed and without reimbursement, after the 

3 head of the Federal agency which controls such lands de4 termines whether any of those parcels arP- excess to the 

5 needs of such agency. 

6 (b) LANDs DESCRIBED.-The lands referred to in 

7 subsection (a) consist ofNavy Parcels 

South Finegayan .............................................................. . 

Nimitz Hill Parcels and 1 and 2B ................................... . 

NAVMAG Parcel 1 .......................................................... . 

Apra Harbor Parcel 7 ..................................................... .. 

Apra Harbor Parcel 8 ...................................................... . 

Apra Harbor Parcel 6 ...................................................... . 

Apra Harbor Parcel 9 ...................................................... . 

Apra Harbor Parcel 2 ...................................................... . 

Apra Harbor Parcel 1 ..... , ................................................ . 

Asan Annex ...................................................................... . 

NAVCAMS Beach .......................................... .................. . 

ACEORP l\isui Tunnel .................................................... . 

Agat Parcel 3 ................................................................... . 

Air Force Parcels 

Andersen South (portion of Anderson Admin. Annex) ... .. 

Camp Edusa (Family Housing Annex 1) ....................... .. 

Harmon Communication Annex No. 1 ........................... .. 

Harmon Housing Annex No. 4 ....................................... .. 

Harmon POL Storage Annex No. 2 ............................... .. 

Harmon VOR Annex ........................................................ . 

Harmon POL Storage Annex No. 1 ............................... .. 

Andersen Radio Beacon Annex ........................................ . 

Harmon Annex VOR ........................................................ . 

Federal Aviation Administration Parcel 

Talofofo "HH" Homer Facility ...................................... .. 

445 acres 

208 acres 

144 acres 

73 acres 

6 acres 

47 acres 

41 acres 

30 acres 

6 acres 

17 acres 

14 acres 

4 acres 

5 acres 

395 acres 

103 acres 

862 acres 

396 acres 

35 acres 

226 acres 

14 acres 

23 acres 

82 acres 

37 acres 

8 (e) LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS.-The exact acreages and 

9 legal descriptions of all lands to be transferred under this 

10 Act shall be determined by surveys which are satisfactory 

11 to the head of the controlling Federal agency referred to 

12 in subsection (a). The cost of such surveys, together with 

•HR 21-u m 
6 

3 

1 all direct and indirect costs related to any conveyance 

2 under this section, shall be borne by such controlling Fed3 eral agency. 

4 SEC. S. TERMS AND CONDITIONS. 

5 (a) LA.i'W USE PLAN.-The lands to be transfeiTed 

6 under this Act shall be eligible for transfer after the Gov7 ernment of Guam enacts legislation which establishes a 

8 detailed plan for the public benefit of such lands and the 

9 Governor of Guam submits such plan to the committees 

10 of the Congress specified in subsection (b), and provides 

11 copies of such plan to the Secretary of the Interior and 

12 the Secretary of Defense. 

13 (b) SUBl\HSSIONS.-The plan required to be submit14 ted to the committees of the Congress under subsection 

15 (a) shall be submitted to the Committee on Natural Re16 sources, the Committee on Armed Services, and the Com17 mittee on Government Operations of the House of Rep18 resentatives and the Committee on Energy and Natural 

19 Resources, the Committee on Armed Services, and the 

20 Committee on Governmental Mfairs of the Senate. 

21 (c) REVIEW BY COMMITTEES.-Lands shall be trans22 ferred under this Act 180 days after the submission to 

23 the committees of the Congress specified in subsection (b) 

24 of the land use plan provided for in subsection (a). 

•HR 21.u m 
7 

4 

1 SEC. 4. GENERAL PROVISIONS. 

2 Any property subject to this Act shall not be subject 

3 to Public Law 100-77 (101 Stat. 482), and section 

4 818(b)(2) of Public Law 96-418 (94 Stat. 1782), as 

5 amended. 

0 

•HR 21« m 
8 

Mr. DE Luoo. Having said that, let me recognize the distinguished gentleman from Guam, Mr. Underwood. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. de Lugo follows:] 

STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN RoN DE LUGO 

There may be no part of the country in which the tragic legacy of World War Two 

lingers on as much as Guam. 

Unprotected from an enemy invasion, the U.S. nationals of the island were sub· 

jected to a harsh enemy occupation. Some lost their lives-often for their patriotism. 

All were taken from their homes. 

Many really never got their property back. 

In the years after liberationi a substantial portion of the island was acquired by the U.S. military-often unfairly. 

Chamorros gave up their land in these transactions because they didn't know better, out of a sense of obligation, or because ther, had little choice. 

A significant amount of the land that the IIlllitary acquired was transferred to the 

local government under the territory's Organic Act four decades ago The purpose was to rehabilitate the island from the devastation of the war and resettle people. 

But much of the island has remained under military control-some 30% at 

present. 

And this situation is at the heart of one of the most persistent problems in U.S.· 

Guam relations. 

Several factors keep the issue alive. 

One is that much of the land does not appear to be used . . . or needed. It sits 

idle and people think it can be made available. 

Another is that Japanese and other investors have brought up substantial 

amounts of privately-owned lands. These purchases have dramatically increased the 

value of property on the island and also decreased the amount under local control. 

And, finally, many Chamorros feel denied their birthright. Their families lost the 

land but were not paid fairly for it. 

People naturally feel a strong bond with their homeland (something that is not 

always understood in this nation of immigrants.) People of small islands often even more highly prize their tiny piece of the Earth. 

The land of their island 1s their world . . . and their identity. 

So the Guamanian desire to reclaim formerly owned J>roperty is understandable. 

Guam's first Delegate, my late friend Tony Won Pat, launched two initiatives to 

address this problem. 

One was to get fair payment for former owners of land who had not been fairly 

Pat·law that I am proud to have joined him in sponsoring enabled former owners to sue the federal government for fair payment. An amendment provided that payments would be made with interest. 

The second initiative was to get the federal government to give up land it didn't 

need. 

The Carter Administration res{'Onded by identifying about 5,000 acres. With transfers and re-evaluation, the Reagan adnlinistration revised the inven· 

tory to about 3,500 acres. Won Pat's successor, Ben Blaz, then proposed that this land be given to a Guam 

court for eventual transfer to its former owners. We held a hearing on this bill almost five years ago to this date. 

But, without consultation, the Interior Department's territories office complicated the issue by arguing that the land should benefit all land claimants with an in· 

volved land bank proposal and national park and Guam government land trade pro- posal. 

In the end, no bill passed. 

And frustration grew on the island. More and more of the original claimants died 

off. Federal lawyers won settlements of suits that O.M.B. thought would cost hun· 

dreds of millions of dollars for just $39.5 million. The worth of Guam land sky- rocketed in the SO's boom. 

Late in 1990, the Senate tacked on an amendnlent to transfer unneeded land in 

Guam to local ownership to a bill we had been working on to provide insular areas with special disaster aid. 

There were stronfi: objections, but I worked out a com~;~romise that would have 

transferred for pubhc benefit uses the 100 acres remainmg of the land identified a decade earlier. Although it passed botn Houses in an omnibus bill, it did not be- come law because of late final Senate action after the land's value was questioned. 
9 

Surprisingly, Delegate Blaz did not want to have it included when we reintroduced the omnibus bill early in 1991. 

After he finally reintroduced it, the Interior Department's territories office effectively prevented passage by suggesting that it be amended to enable land to go into 

private hands without compensation and by not being able to provide back-up information. 

Meanwhile, frustration with the overall issue on Guam has boiled to the point where the military is anxious to transfer land that it was willing to get rid of in 

1980 and where Chamorro activists are occupying plots of federal land, willing to 

engage in confrontation. 

The issue doesn't just involve federal land, though. Chamorro activists forced the government of Guam to implement its Chamorro 

land trust law, reserving unneeded local land for what is now the indigenous minority. And there is now a debate about how much land ought to go into the trust. 

There are also calls for a comprehensive review of all federal land needs. The 

Speaker and Legislature of Guam have proposed this. 

So does the Guam commonwealth bill. It would set up a panel of mostly islanders 

to do this and put land into the Chamorro trust. 

Guam's new Delegate, Robert Underwood, has approached the issues with good sense. He has moved to get the land that can be gotten now from the federal government. And he has proposed getting all concerned together to work out other land 

issues separately. He lobbied effectively with Governor Ada, Speaker San Agustin and others in 

Guam's ({OVernment to relocate the operations of the Naval Air Station that is now using prune property next to the Won Pat Airport in the center of the island to the 

Air Force Base in the north. 

He has sponsored the bill needed to provided for the transfer of the long available 

3,200 acres for local public benefit. 

Consistent with his approach, our hearing today is on that bill, H.R. 2144, and 

not on other and larger Guam land issues that it will probably, at this point, take 

much longer to resolve. 

AB he recognizes, there is a choice between trying to finally get this land transferred-which would be a m!ijor accomplishment-and tying it up in grander ideas 

for solving all Guam land issues. 

STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD 

Mr. UNDERWOOD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the 

speed with which you have taken to hold this hearing and your cooperation and your staffs cooperation in making this hearing possible. 

I would also like to welcome General Burr and Admiral 

Kristensen as well as the distinguished members of the Guam Leg- islature, as you have Senators San Agustin, Manibusan, Reyes, and 

Ada, and of course the Lieutenant Governor of Guam, Frank Bias. 

Today's hearing on H.R. 2144 marks the beginning of a very important process to resolve long-standing issues on Guam that have 

been a source of frustration and disappointment to the people of 

Guam since the military acquisition of our homes and farms begin- ning in 1944. 

As a newly liberated people, the Chamorro people were willing 

to help the war effort and allowed use of their land for military bases to help defeat their former oppressors in World War II. Immediately after the war, the American military proceeded to continue its massive land takings and justified it in the name of national security. Historical injustices occurred in the means used to 

condemn these lands by the military government, and in the compensation offered to the landowners. 

As a patriotic people, the people of Guam questioned these actions and sums, but most acquiesced. Some acquiesced because 

they truly believed they were contributing to the national security, 

and once the menace of aggression was over, they would get their 
10 

properties back. Others tried to protect their ancient homelands, 

but were thwarted by language barriers and the lack of civilian 

legal assistance. Others yet simply did not understand what was 

happening to their homes or were simply misled to believe the military needs were temporary. 

The most common belief was that the Chamorros were helping 

to preserve the peace and that eventually they would get their land 

back. And when the land takings were completed, whole villages 

vanished, and whole families were displaced and impoverished. 

Nearly 50 years later, we find ourselves trying to right the 

wrongs perpetrated on the people of Guam, trying to restore dignity to a people now landless in their own homeland. 

The imperial aggressors are gone, the Cold War enemy has crumbled, and while there will always be aggressors, the threats to 

America's existence as a Nation have been subdued by the worldwide triumph of democracy and human rights in our lifetime. More 

importantly, this has now freed us to do the right thing. 

If there is an enemy now of the people to Guam, it is in those 

who seek to deceive us about the past. If there is a threat t~ the 

peace now, it is the frustration born of the exploitation of the past. 

The end of the Cold War gives us an opportunity to address the 

past injustices in a new context. A fundamental shift in the relationship between the military and the island of Guam has occurred. 

This new dynamic is dramatized and manifested by the recent 

Base Realignment and Closure Commission decision on NAS 

Agana. In a previous time, the needs of the military and the strategic importance of the island would have dominated the discussion 

today. Now the central question is how these land issues affect the 

people of Guam and our island community. 

And while there is no doubt that there will always be military bases on Guam, the community of Guam is finally being heard on 

these issues. 

The BRAC decision has shown we can question the military use 

of our land and that we can prevail with logical, reasoned arguments that take into account the realistic military requirements on 

Guam. 

I have taken the time to lay out this historical perspective because without it the land issue cannot be understood. As we review 

the bill to return a modest 3,200 acres to the Government of Guam, 

we must remember that the process of resolving the underlying issues borne out of the injustices 49 years ago is just beginning and 

we must continue to focus our attention and energies on this issue. 

I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your support of the people of 

Guam in this effort. I know that you have been in the forefront of 

this issue in Congress since the days when our former delegate, 

Mr. Won Pat, fought to bring congressional attention to this issue, 

and I look forward to working with you in the days, weeks, months 

and years ahead until these issues are finally resolved. 

Since 1975, there has been a relentless effort to get the military 

and other Federal agencies to give up all lands excess to their 

needs. The lands to be returned in H.R. 2144 were identified as excess to the Federal Government in the Army report of 1986. We 

will continue to argue for a review of those military needs and a 
11 

stricter standard of what is excess, and we will continue to argue 

for the return of more Federal lands. 

But for today, we will argue that H.R. 2144 must be passed as 

the first step in a process to correct historical injustices and to put 

these long-standing issues on a road to resolution. H.R. 2144 is a 

start, not an end. It conveys parcels not disputed by the Air Force, 

the Navy or the FAA. It transfers the parcels to the Government 

of Guam so that the lands can be returned to local control. 

The needs of the original landowners will be heard and they will 

be part of a comprehensive solution as the process continues. H.R. 

2144 removes the 3,200 acres of land from Federal control and begins the process of finding solutions that are rooted in the context 

of Guam's history and are conducive to a future for the Chamorro 

people. 

I have proposed a land conference to be held in Guam in the fall 

to continue the problem-solving process so that the momentum for 

change and the opportunity to build consensus solutions will not be 

lost. 

We may hear today from Guam witnesses a number of suggestions concerning where we go from here. I encourage this dialogue 

and encourage those seeking a common, sensible solution to the 

land issues to join us in this dialogue that the land conference will 

hopefully engender. 

I encourage all parties to participate, the Federal Government, 

the original landowners, the Government of Guam, and the business community, and I encourage a dialogue so that the solutions 

are Guam-based and Guam-supported. I encourage a commitment 

from all those involved to seek solutions that will work on Guam. 

Without objection, I am also entering for the record my policy 

statement on land issues which clearly outlines the process for resolving these long-standing issues surrounding landownership, the 

return of excess lands, and future land use plans for Guam. 

Mr. Chairman, let us expedite passage of H.R. 2144 and let us 

get on with the larger task of resolving in a comprehensive and fair 

way the land issues on Guam. Thank you. 

Mr. DE LUGO. Thank the gentleman from Guam. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. Underwood follows:] 
ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD 

ARMED SERVICES 

MlloTOOVI"ST"""'"'"ISUICOM"OTTU 

... OCOTAOV , f000""1<SUICOMMOTTU 

NATURAL RESOURCES 

'"'U<UM ... •sSUKOMMOTT .. 

N•no"ALPAOUSuocO""'"" 

12 

€OU!Jrt~~ Of tbe mnittb •tatt~ 

.,oust of l\tprtlltntatibtll 

Masbington, ~~~ 20515-5301 

WASHINGTON OFFICE 

507 C•NF'ION HO.,SE 0F»~E B"FLO!OIG 

WASHINGTON, QC 20515~5301 

PH1202)225-11118 

Fox(202)226-0341 

GUAM OFFICE 

S"FU101! 

190 HIIIOIAN CO~TU SUUT 

1\GAOIA, GU 96910 

PH:(671t477-o( 272-73J" 

Fox)IH1) .. 77-2587 

Congressman Robert A. Underwood 

Statement on H.R. 2144 

The Guam Excess Lands Act 

Subcommittee on Insular and 

International Affairs 

July 29, 1993 
13 

Mr. Chairman: 

Today's hearing on H.R. 2144 marks the beginning of a process to resolve 

long-standing land issues on Guam that have been a source of frustration and 

disappointment to the people of Guam since the military acquisition of our 

homes and farms beginning in 1944. 

As a newly liberated people, the Chamorros were willing to help the war 

effort and allowed use of their land for the military b11ses to help defeat their 

former oppressors in World War II. Immediately after the war, the American 

military proceeded to continue its massive land takings and justified it in the 

name of national security. Historical injustices occurred in the means used 

to condemn the lands by the military government, and in the compensation 

offered to the landowners. 

As a patriotic people, the Chamorros questioned these tactics and sums, but 

acquiesced. Some acquiesced because they truly believed that they were 

contributing to the national security, and that once the menace of aggression 

was over, they would get their lands back. Others tried to protect their 

ancient homelands, but were thwarted by language barriers and the lack of 

civilian legal assistance. Others yet simply did not understand what was 

happening to their homes, or were simply mislead to believe that the military 

needs were temporary. 

The most common belief was that the Chamorros were helping to preserve 

the peace and that eventually they would get their land back. 

And when the land takings were completed, whole villages vanished and 

whole families were displaced and impoverished. 

Nearly fifty years later, we find ourselves trying to right the wrongs 

perpetrated on the people of Guam. We find ourselves trying to restore 

dignity to a people now landless in their own homeland. 

The imperial aggressors are gone, the Cold War enemy has crumbled. While 

there will always be despotic tyrants and petty aggressors, the threats to 

America's existence as a nation have been subdued by the worldwide 

triumph of democracy and human rights in our lifetime. This has freed us 

now to do the right thing. 
14 

If there is an enemy now to the people of Guam, it is in those who seek to 

excuse or deceive us about the past. If there is a threat to the peace now, 

it is the frustration borne of the exploitation of the past. 

The end of the Cold War gives us an opportunity to address the past 

injustices in a new context. A fundamental shift in the relationship between 

the military and the island of Guam has occurred. 

This new dynamic is dramatized by the recent Base Realignment and Closure 

Commission (BRAC) decision on NAS Agana. In a previous time, the needs 

of the military and the strategic importance of the island would have 

dominated the discussion today. Now, the central question is how these land 

issues affect the people of Guam and our island community. While there is 

no doubt there will always be military bases, Guam is finally being heard on 

these issues. 

The BRAC decision has shown that we can question the military use of our 

land. We can prevail with logical, reasoned arguments that take into account 

the realistic military requirements on Guam. 

I have taken the time to lay out this historical perspective because without 

it, the land issue can not be understood. As we review this bill to return a 

modest 3200 acres to the Government of Guam, we must remember that the 

process of resolving the underlying issues borne out of the injustices 49 years 

ago is just beginning. We must continue to focus our attention and energies 

on this issue. 

I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your support of the people of Guam in this 

effort. I know that you have been at the forefront of this issue in Congress 

since the days when our former Delegate, Mr. Won Pat, fought to bring 

Congressional attention to this issue. And I look forward to working with 

you in the days, weeks, months and years ahead until the issues are resolved. 

Since 1975, there has been a relentless effort to get the military, and other 

federal agencies, to give up all lands excess to their needs. The lands to be 

returned in H.R. 2144 were identified as excess to the federal government in 

the Arny report of 1986. We will continue to argue for a review of those 

military needs, and for a stricter standard of what is excess. We will 

continue to argue for the return of more federal lands. 
15 

But, for today, we will argue that H.R. 2144 must be passed as the first step 

in a process to correct historical injustices, and to put these long-standing 

issues on a road to resolution. H.R. 2144 is a start, not an end. It conveys 

parcels not disputed by the Air Force, Navy and F.A.A. It transfers the 

parcels to the Government of Guam so that the lands can be returned to 

local control. The needs of the original landowners will be heard and they 

will be part of a comprehensive solution as the process continues. H.R. 2144 

removes the 3200 acres of land from federal control, and begins the process 

of finding solutions that are rooted in the context of history and are 

conducive to a future for the Chamorro people. 

I have proposed a land conference to be held on Guam in the fall to 

continue the problem-solving process so that the momentum for change and 

the opportunity to build consensus solutions will not be lost. 

We may hear today from the Guam witnesses a number of suggestions 

concerning where we go from here. I encourage this dialogue, and 

encourage those seeking a common, sensible solution to the land issues to 

join us in the dialogue that the land conference will engender. I encourage 

all parties to participate; the federal government, the original landowners, the 

Government of Guam, and the business community. I encourage a dialogue 

so that the solutions are Guam-based and Guam-supported. And I encourage 

a commitment from all those involved to seek solutions that will work on 

Guam. 

I am also entering for the record my policy statement on land issues which 

clearly outlines the process for resolving these long-standing issues 

surrounding land ownership, the return of excess lands, and future land use 

plans for Guam. 

Mr. Chairman, let us expedite passage of H.R. 2144 and let us get on with 

the larger task of resolving, in a comprehensive and fair way, the land issues 

on Guam. 

* * * * * 
16 

1 

POLICY STATEMENT ON LAND ISSUES 

bi 

GUAM•s CONGRESSIONAL DELEGATE 

TilE HONORABLE ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD 

NEED FOR A PROCESS 

For the people of Guam, nothing is more critical than the resolution 

of issues concerning land. For the people of Guam, no single issue raises 

the emotions more than a discussion of land ownership and military land 

planning. And for the people of Guam, it is vitally important that we 

confront these issues. However, it is more important that we establish a 

process: a plan for the resolution of these issues. We need a process 

which invites participation, clarifies the issues, and develops solutions. 

From this type of process or plan, sound policy and identifiable steps will 

emerge. A sensible process is necessary now to clarify and resolve the 

many controversies surrounding land ownership, the return of excess 

lands, and future land use plans for the Island of Guam. 

I have developed such a process: a plan if you will, which if 

followed by the Government of Guam, will put into motion a step-by-step 

solution to many of the land controversies which continue to persist on 

Guam. 

For almost a century, Guam's strategic location as a military 

outpost in the Western Pacific has been of extreme importance to the 

American Government. The presence of the United States military on 

Guam i'i a fact of life: part of being associated with the American family 

which is necessary for our strength. However, for national security 

reasons during and immediately after World War II the United States 

military took over half of our island. Tragically, the manner and 

methods used by the military in acquiring these private lands constituted 

gross historical injustices on the people of Guam. Many were displaced 

from their ancestral farms and homes for the military's runways, 

housing, offices, recreational facilities, or support activities. 
17 

2 

Fifty years ago, there wasn't any resistance to the land needs of the 

United States for military purposes, but people learned to resent the use 

of duress, unequal bargaining power and fraud. Today, the United 

States military holds one-third of the island. The Federal government 

holds forty thousand acres of prime land on Guam, despite the fact that 

the Cold War has ended and the military's land needs have substantially 

decreased. Now, many of Guam's families remain landless, taunted by 

their idle ancestral property still in the hands of the military. 

Any solution-oriented plan must be fair to all. Simply saying land 

must be returned to original land-owners is not a real resolution of our 

problems. Some original landowners believe they received fair 

compensation, while others may have made bad deals for their land. 

Those that owned the land now under Naval Station or Andersen Air 

Force Base will likely never get their property back. There were so many 

different situations that a Federal lawsuit directed at this problem 

resulted in three classes of claimants. All of the individual cases must 

eventually be heard and justice restored. 

The Federal government will not make these determinations. 

Historically, decisions regarding title to property are within the province 

of local government. The Government of Guam and its legislature must 

also fight social problems: lack of adequate education, hunger, poverty 

and homelessness, to name a few. Land and other resources must be 

committed to this fight as well. 

Any solution-oriented plan must enhance the Government of 

Guam's battle against these obstacles to everybody's well being. 

While we duly accept our obligation to contribute to the defense of 

our Nation, the people of Guam have never accepted a military policy 

which hinders their well being. Fifty years after the second world war 

and now, after the Cold War, thousands of acres of military property 

still lay dormant. As an island territory striving for a self-sufficient 

economy, we cannot afford this kind of land ownership by the Federal 

government. 
18 

3 

Guam is merely 215 square miles: any and all excess lands, no 

longer necessary for military purposes, should be returned to local 

control and for the public's benefit and use. Guam's economic survival, 

and the survival of future generations, depends on this land return. 

However, our future also greatly depends on a world in peace, and 

consequently, a strong relationship within the American family. 

So, any solution-oriented plan must also allow the United States 

military the proper amount of land for national security activities. 

My plan takes all these competing concerns into the mix. This strategy 

must unfold over time, and can only be accomplished in a step-by-step 

fashion. 

While the current confrontations between individual landowners 

and the military will be resolved through the courts in a respectful 

fashion, these demonstrations are not solution oriented. These public 

displays are helpful in focusing attention to the issues, and they may be 

productive in bringing all parties to the table for policy discussions. My 

office neither encourages nor discourages these demonstrations; however, 

acts of civil disobedience have a distinguished history of bringing 

attention to problems. Confrontation that leads to dialogue is good; 

confrontation that leads to violence is harmful. 

It is up to the political leadership, at both the territorial and federal 

levels, to accept the responsibility to foster constructive dialogue among 

all interested parties. I strongly urge everyone to practice restraint in 

diffusing the highly emotional rhetoric and the understandable, but 

explosive, signs of outrage. 

THE PLAN 

STEP l 

The first step of my plan addresses almost 3200 acres of land 

identified 16 years ago by Congressman Antonio B. Won Pat. Guam 
19 

4 

should first get this acreage, which has already been declared as excess. 

Since there is no controversy on these parcels, my solution oriented plan 

separates them from the rest of the land now held by the Federal 

Government. 

Right now, the Department of Defense ("DOD") supports the 

expeditious transfer of these 3200 acres. These properties are not 

needed for presently envisioned military needs in support of our national 

security. In fact, three former Secretaries of Defense supported the 

transfer of these excess lands from federal to local control. This is not 

a contentious issue for the Defense Department. 

On May 18, 1993, I introduced H.R. 2144, the Guam Excess Lands 

Act, which would complete the process of transferring the excess lands 

begun 16 years ago by former Congressman Won Pat. In order to 

expedite this bill, I seek your patience, understanding, and support as 

this bill makes its way through the legislative process. We will not wait 

to begin step two which addresses the remainder of Federal holdings on 

Guam. But we must keep the parcels contained in H.R. 2144 apart from 

the unresolved issues which I have outlined. 

I am working with the leadership of the Armed Services Committee, 

the Natural Resources Committee, and the Government Operations 

Committee to consider H.R. 2144 as quickly as possible. A congressional 

hearing on the bill has been scheduled for July 29, 1993. My goal is to 

pass H.R. 2144 in the U.S. House of Representatives within the next 

several months. 

We waited 16 years to where we are today on these specific parcels 

of excess land. We certainly have the fortitude to wait several more 

months to reclaim our rightful lands which we desperately need. 

STEP2 

We need not wait for the completion of Step 1 to begin seeking 

sound, comprehensive solutions to the complex and controversial land 
20 

5 

disputes and land use issues which are receiving much attention on Guam 

these days. 

It is time to move on to another, and more sensible, playing field. 

I am offering the services of my congressional office to facilitate a 

"territorial/federal land conference" to occur on Guam sometime this fall. 

I will be inviting representatives from the Department of Defense, the 

Department of the Interior, the Federal Aviation Administration, the 

General Services Administration, the Government of Guam, the Guam 

Legislature, present and former landowners, and others who may have 

an interest in presenting concrete and reasonable solutions to the complex 

issues surrounding land ownership and land use plans on the Island. 

This territorial/federal land conference will address the historical 

injustices resulting from the land takings of the World War II era, 

future land use plans by both Federal and local governments, how to 

excess future lands, and the conditions under which the lands will be 

excessed. This conference will provide a common venue for these 

problems to be adequately addressed. 

I know that this land conference will be conducted in a peaceful, 

orderly fashion. I think we can accomplish this because historically, 

peaceful techniques of getting things done mark the character of our 

people. We are a consensus building people and if there is a consensus 

to be reached, we will fmd it, cultivate it, and act on it. 

We will not be able to satisfy everyone's wish list during the 

territorial/federal land conference. Hopefully, all issues will be balanced 

with reasonable compromises resulting from the conference dialogue. 

Time permitting, all will be heard and aU will be able to enter into the 

record of these proceedings statements from a variety of individuals --

from landless people, former landowners, military representatives, 

federal officials, local leaders, and others. 
21 

6 

STEP3 

In addition to the territorial/federal land conference held on Guam, 

I plan to conduct follow-up meetings on the West Coast and in 

Washington, D.C. These meetings will continue the dialogue on excess 

lands, historical injustices, and future land use policies on Guam. These 

smaller workshop sessions will focus on the specific concerns of individual 

agencies. They will be detail and solution oriented. 

STEP4 

As a result of the land conference, as well as the subsequent 

meetings, I expect to draft legislation to address the solutions to these 

complex issues. 

CONCLUSION 

As public servants, we are in the "solution" business -- our goal is 

to improve the lives of our people. We should not be in the 

business of creating problems or obstacles which frustrate our people and 

which stifle their livelihood. 

The process which I have outlined above -- (I) moving H.R. 2144 

expeditiously: let's get the land that's been waiting 16 years, (2) working 

through the land conference to devise an equitable solution to benefit the 

greatest number of people affected by these land policies, (3) continuing 

the dialogue with all affected Federal and Government of Guam agencies 

and, (4) drafting the legislation which will foster the ultimate solution. 

These steps, I believe, are the most judicious way of addressing the 

loss of lands by the people of Guam. Together we can reclaim the 3200 

acres of excess lands now, reclaim the maximum amount of Federal lands 

soon, and begin to shape land use policies for our children and for 

future generations on Guam. Basta na ta fan "Tai-tano"; nehe ya ta 

na'fan "gai tano" i taotao Guam. Si Yu'os Ma'ase. 
22 

Mr. DE Luoo. And let me recognize at this time the Ranking Minority Member and a very good friend and supporter of the territories, the gentleman from California, Congressman Gallegly. 

STATEMENT OF BON. ELTON GALLEGLY 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Thank you, very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Chairman, the subject of the transfer of excess Federal land 

on Guam is an issue that has been before the Subcommittee a 

number of times before. Guam's former delegate to Congress and 

my good friend, Ben Blaz, introduced legislation and pushed hard 

to resolve the disposal of lands which the U.S. Government has determined not to be necessary to carry out various Federal respon- sibilities in Guam. 

While legislation dealing with this matter was passed by both 

the House and Senate, a pressing legislative agenda during the last 

two sessions of Congress did not allow us final action. I was 

pleased to see the introduction of H.R. 2144 by Guam's new delegate, our good friend, Bob Underwood, to deal with this important 

matter. 

Having traveled previously with the Committee to Guam, I do 

understand the significance of resolving the issue. Both the U.S. 

Federal Government and the Government of Guam should benefit 

by the enactment of legislation to enable a transfer of those parcels 

which have been determined to be in excess of the needs of the 

Federal agencies in Guam. However, I do have some concerns 

about the land being transferred to Guam without knowing in advance how the land will actually be used. 

The legislation does indicate that the land will be used for public 

benefit and requires the enactment of a land use plan by the Government of Guam. Although Section 3 of H.R. 2144 provides for a 

180-day period for the review of this plan by the executive and leg- islative branches of the U.S. Government, I am not sure that will 

be sufficient time to allow the Federal Government to address the 

concerns which may arise concerning the proposed use of the excess 

parcels in Guam. 

However, the testimonies of the representatives of the Navy, the 

Air Force, and the Federal Aviation Administration should be helpful in considering whether the proposed review mechanism is adequate. Similarly, the views of the territorial government may provide specific information on what uses are being contemplated for 

the public use of the parcels designated to be transferred. Mr~ Chairman, I commend you for scheduling this hearing. It is 

one of the many issues of importance pertaining to the territories, 

trust territory, and freely associated States within the jurisdiction 

of this subcommittee, and I look forward to the hearing. 

Mr. DE Luao. Thank you. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. Gallegly follows:] 
Mr. Chairman: 

23 

Statement of 

THE HONORABLE ELTON GALLEGLY 

Committee on Natural Resources 

Subcommittee on Insular and International Affairs 

Subcommittee Hearing on H.R. 2144 

Guam Excess Lands Act 

1 uly 29, 1993 

The subject of the transfer of excess federal land on Guam is an issue that has been before 

the Subcommittee a number of times previously. Guam's former Delegate to Congress, Ben 

Blaz, introduced legislation and pushed hard to resolve the disposal of lands which the U.S. 

Government had determined not to be necessary to carry out various federal responsibilities 

in Guam. 

Wh.le legislation dealing with this matter was passed by both the House and Senate, a 

pressing legislative agenda during the last rwo sessions of Congress did not permit final 

action. I was pleased to see the introduction of H.R. 2144 by Guam's new delegate, Robert 

Underwood, to deal with this important matter. 

Having traveled previously with the Committee to Guam, I understand the significance of 

resolving this issue. Both the U.S. federal government and the Government of Guam should 

benefit by the enactment of legislation to enable the transfer of those parcels which have 

been determined to be in excess of the needs of federal agencies in Guam. 

I have some concerns about the land being transferred to Guam without knowing, in 

advance, how the land will actually be used. The legislation indicates that the land will be 

used for "public benefit" and requires the enactment of a land use plan by the Government 

of Guam. Althought Section 3 of H.R. 2144 provides for a 180 day period for the review 

of the plan by the executive and legislative branches of the U.S. Government, that may not 

be sufficient to allow the federal government to address concerns which may arise 

concerning the proposed use of the excess parcels in Guam. 

However, the testimonies of the representatives of the Navy, Air Force, and Federal 

Aviation Administration should be helpful in considering whether the proposed review 

mechanism is adequate. Similarly, the views of the territorial government may provide 

specific inforniation on what uses are being contemplated for the public use of parcels 

designated to be transferred. 

I commend Chairman De Lugo for scheduling this hearing. It is one of many issues of 

importance pertaining to the territories, trust territory, and freely associated states within the 

jurisdiction of this Subcommittee which I look forward to addressing. 
24 

Mr. DE Luoo. Our first witness, panel actually, we have from the 

Department of Defense, as I said, Rear Admiral Edward 

Kristensen. I see it is spelled with a "K." In my part of the world, 

which is the Virgin Islands, we had many Kristensens, but with a 

"C." 

Admiral KRISTENSEN. "C-h." It is the Danish spelling, sir. 

Mr. DE Luoo. Is "K" Danish? 

Admiral KRISTENSEN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. DE Luoo. Well, you know, the Virgin Islands has a long history with Denmark. 

Admiral KRISTENSEN. Yes, sir. My grandfather was confused, or 

all of his mail was confused when he first came to this country by spelling it "C-h," so he changed it to "K". 

Mr. DE Luoo. Well, we still have that problem with our postal 

system. 

Admiral Kristensen is Commander of Naval Forces Marianas in 

Guam; and Major General H. Hale Burr, Jr., Commander, Thirteenth Air Force. 

Gentlemen, we welcome you and thank you very much for traveling this far and we welcome your testimony. Your statements are 

made a part of the record in their entirety and you may proceed 

as you wish. 

PANEL CONSISTING OF REAR ADM. EDWARD K. KRISTENSEN, 

COMMANDER, NAVAL FORCES, MARIANAS, GUAM; AND MAJ. 

GEN. H. HALE BURR, JR., COMMANDER, THIRTEENTH AIR 

FORCE 

STATEMENT OF REAR ADM. EDWARD K. KRISTENSEN 

Admiral KRISTENSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, good morning. 

As the Chairman indicated, I am Rear Admiral Edward Kristensen, 

Commander, U.S. Naval Forces, Marianas, and the Senior Naval 

Officer in the Territory of Guam. 

I am pleased to appear before the subcommittee to present the 

views of the Department of the Navy on H.R. 2144. This bill will 

transfer 3,200 acres of excess DOD land, with any improvements, 

directly and at no cost to the Government of Guam. 

These DOD parcels of land were identified as excess by a 1977 

study entitled the "Guam Land Use Plan," or GLUP. GLUP identified some 5,000 acres of excess Federal land. Approximately 1,400 

acres have already been transferred to the Government of Guam, 

3,200 acres remain available at this time. 

H.R. 2144, introduced by Delegate Underwood, is substantially 

similar to legislation introduced by former Delegate Blaz in previous years. My predecessor, Rear Admiral James Perkins, and I, 

as well as our superior military officers in Hawaii, actively sup- ported previous legislative efforts designed to transfer this DOD excess land to the Government of Guam. 

I continue to support in principle the disposition of land which 

was previously declared to be excess to the needs of the Department of Defense. I have the following comments about bill H.R. 

2144 itself. 
25 

First, the public benefit referred to in Section 3(a) of the bill 

needs to be clearly defined. H.R. 2144 does not provide for any Federal approval. Once the Government of Guam Land Use Plan is 

submitted to the designated committees of the Congress and 180 

days have elapsed, the land identified in H.R. 2144 is required to 

be transferred. 

Perhaps a better approach might be to require the Government 

of Guam to identify up front its intended use for the land so that 

the proposed use actually inures to the public benefit. 

If the land is to be transferred free of any constraints or public 

benefit approval by the Federal Government, as H.R. 2144 currently envisions, then I believe it to be fiscally prudent to require 

the Government of Guam, and not the controlling Federal agency, 

to bear the costs related to the transfer of excess land. It seems 

eminently reasonable to require the Government of Guam, as the 

beneficiary, to bear any such costs. 

Land issues are important to the people of Guam. Those land issues occupy much of my time as the local representative of one of 

the biggest landowners on the island, the Department of Defense. 

I am hopeful that the transfer of lands identified in H.R. 2144, if 

approved by the Congress, will demonstrate to the people of Guam, 

and their government, that their governments in Washington and 

in Agana are working in their best interests. 

Guam has played a strategic role in many major conflicts, be that 

World War II, the Korean War, the conflict in Vietnam, or more recently the conflicts in Iraq and Somalia. Guam remains an important constant in a rapidly changing world arena. With the removal 

of U.S. forces from the Philippines and with the increased calls for 

reduction of forces in Japan, Guam remains of vital significance in 

protecting U.S. strategic interests in the Pacific theater. 

Whatever actions are taken concerning DOD land holdings on 

Guam, those actions must not hamper the ability of the United 

States to defend its global and regional interests. Land issues on 

Guam have been clouded recently by several factors external to the 

Department of Defense. 

For example, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has under consideration a proposal to designate large tracts of land on Guam as 

critical habitat. In similar fashion, the recent decision of the Base 

Realignment and Closure Commission to close the Naval Air Station at Agana, an active operational base, will have a major impact 

on military operations on Guam. 

It is with the foregoing land issues in mind I have recommended 

to the Pacific Fleet Commander, Admiral Kelly, that the military 

conduct a comprehensive review of DOD land holdings on Guam. 

General Rutherford, Commander of the Pacific Air Forces, has 

concurred, and Admiral Larson has approved the concept. Major 

General Burr, the Senior Air Force Officer on Guam, and I have 

already jointly convened a group to review DOD land requirements 

on Guam. The product of this review should be an updated GLUP, 

which we can call "GLUP 93" to distinguish it from its 1977 version. 

Any such review must be a thorough and comprehensive one and 

attempt to project the Nation's defense requirements into the twenty-first century in a complex and changing global environment. 
26 

The issues which I have outlined above are but a recognition that 

there are many complex variables in the DOD land equation on 

Guam. This equation cannot and should not be viewed in discrete 

parts. I believe that the defense needs of the United States, which 

include the territory of Guam, must take priority. The Navy and 

the Air Force are actively reviewing those needs at this time. 

Mr. Chairman, Members, I thank you for this opportunity to appear before the Subcommittee and present the views of the Department of the Navy on this subject. I welcome any questions the subcommittee may have. 

Mr. DE LUGO. Thank you, AdmiraL 

[Prepared statement of Admiral Kristensen follows:] 
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNTIL RELEASED 

BY THE COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES 

UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

STATEMENT OF 

REAR ADMIRAL EDWARD K. KRISTENSEN 

BEFORE THE 

INSULAR AND INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS SUBCOMMITTEE 

OF THE 

HOUSE COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES 

ON H.R. 2144 

JULY 29, 1993 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNTIL RELEA~:' :, 

BY THE COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESCLFCES 

UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
28 

GOOD MORNING/ AFTERNOON. I AM REAR ADMIRAL EDWARD KRISTENSEN, 

COMMANDER, U.S. NAVAL FORCES MARIANAS, AND THE SENIOR NAVAL OFFICER 

IN THE TERRITORY OF GUAM. I AM HERE TODAY TO ADDRESS H.R. 2144, 

A BILL WHICH WOULD TRANSFER CERTAIN EXCESS DOD LAND, AMOUNTING TO 

APPROXIMATELY THREE THOUSAND, TWO HUNDRED ACRES OF LAND, WITH ANY 

IMPROVEMENTS, DIRECTLY AND AT NO COST TO THE GOVERNMENT OF GUAM. 

THESE THIRTY-TWO HUNDRED ACRES COMPRISE SOME THIRTEEN NAVY PARCELS 

OF LAND, SOME NINE USAF PARCELS OF LAND, AND ONE PARCEL OF LAND 

OWNED BY THE FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION. THE VARIOUS DOD 

PARCELS OF LAND WERE IDENTIFIED AS EXCESS BY A 1977 STUDY ENTITLED 

THE "GUAM LAND USE PLAN," OR "GLUP." GLUP IDENTIFIED SOME 5000 

ACRES OF EXCESS FEDERAL LAND. BETWEEN 1978 AND 1990 SOME 1400 

ACRES OF GLUP LAND WERE TRANSFERRED TO THE GOVERNMENT OF GUAM. IN 

1986 APPROXIMATELY 500 ACRES WERE WITHDRAWN, FOR USE AS A FLEET 

HOSPITAL WAREHOUSE AND LAYDOWN AREA, AND SMALL BUFFER AT THE NAVAL 

MAGAZINE AND A FAMILY HOUSING r\PEA. ACCORDINGLY, APPROXI!-'.A n: < 

3200 ACRES REMAIN AVAILABLE AT TIME, AS EXCESS TO THE ~;;' ' 

OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE. 
29 

H.R. 2144, INTRODUCED BY DELEGATE UNDERWOOD, IS SUBSTANTIALLY 

SIMILAR TO LEGISLATION INTRODUCED BY FORMER DELEGATE BEN BLAZ IN 

PREVIOUS YEARS. BOTH MY PREDECESSOR, REAR ADMIRAL JAMES PERKINS, 

AND I, AS WELL AS OUR SUPERIOR MILITARY OFFICERS IN HAWAII 1 

ACTIVELY SUPPORTED PREVIOUS LEGISLATIVE EFFORTS DESIGNED TO 

TRANSFER THIS DOD EXCESS LAND TO THE GOVERNMENT OF GUAM. I 

CONTINUE TO SUPPORT IN PRINCIPLE THE DISPOSITION OF LAND WHICH HAS 

PREVIOUSLY BEEN DECLARED TO BE EXCESS TO THE NEEDS OF THE 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE. HOWEVER, I HAVE THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS 

ABOUT H.R. 2144. 

FIRST, THE PUBLIC BENEFIT REFERRED TO IN SECTION J(a) OF H.R. 

2144 NEEDS TO BE CLEARLY DEFINED. IN MY VIEW, THIS DEFINITION 

SHOULD BE PREPARED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF GUAM AND APPROVED BY THE 

FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IN CONNECTION WITH THE DETAILED LAND USE PLAN 

MENTIONED IN THAT SAME SECTION. AS NOW DRAFTED, H.R. 2144 DCFS 

NOT PROVIDE FOR ANY FEDERAL GOVER :Y~ENT APPROVAL. REGARDLESS OF 

CONTENT OF THE PLAN OR THE PROPGSED cJSE OF THE LAND, WHICH c 

2 

73-296 0 - 93 - 2 
30 

INCLUDE OUTRIGHT SALE FOR PROFIT, ONCE THE LAND USE PLAN IS 

SUBMITTED TO THE DESIGNATED COMMITTEES OF THE CONGRESS AND 180 DAYS 

HAVE ELAPSED, THE LAND IDENTIFIED IN H.R. 2144 IS REQUIRED TO BE 

TRANSFERRED TO THE GOVERNMENT OF GUAM. I THINK A BETTER APPROACH 

IS TO REQUIRE THE GOVERNMENT OF GUAM TO IDENTIFY UP FRONT ITS 

INTENDED USE FOR THE LAND, SO THAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT CAN 

DETERMINE THAT THE PROPOSED USE ACTUALLY INURES TO THE PUBLIC 

BENEFIT. SECTION 3 OF THE BILL ESTABLISHES NO CRITERIA FOR 

DETERMINING PRECISELY WHAT USES ARE "FOR THE PUBLIC BENEFIT." 

IF THE LAND IS TO BE TRANSFERRED FREE OF ANY CONSTRAINTS OR 

PUBLIC BENEFIT APPROVAL BY THE CONGRESS, AS H.R. 2144 CURRENTLY 

ENVISIONS, THEN I BELIEVE IT TO BE FISCALLY PRUDENT TO REQUIRE THE 

GOVERNMENT OF GUAM, AND NOT THE CONTROLLING FEDERAL AGENCY, TO BEAR 

THE COSTS RELATED TO THE TRANSFER OF EXCESS LAND. THIS MAY INCLUDE 

COSTS OF SURVEYS OF THE LAND, EtN I RONMENTAL STUDIES, AND CERTAIN 

ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANUP COSTS. SEEMS EMINENTLY REASONABLE TO 

REQUIRE THE GOVERNMENT OF GUA11, liS fHE BENEFICIARY TO BEAR .~" SUCK 

3 
31 

COST. THERE MUST BE A BALANCE HERE, AND H.R. 2144 AS PRESENTLY 

DRAFTED PROVIDES NONE. 

IT DOES NOT TAKE A VISITOR TO GUAM LONG TO APPRECIATE THAT LAND 

IS AN EXTREMELY IMPORTANT COMMODITY - ON AN ISLAND THERE IS A 

FINITE SUPPLY, AND YOU CANNOT CREATE MORE. IT IS THEREFORE 

UNDERSTANDABLE WHY LAND ISSUES ARE IMPORTANT TO THE PEOPLE OF GUAM 

AND THEIR GOVERNMENT, AND WHY GUAM LAND ISSUES OCCUPY MUCH OF MY 

TIME AS THE LOCAL REPRESENTATIVE OF ONE OF THE BIGGEST LAND OWNERS 

ON THE ISLAND - THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE. 

THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE ACQUIRED MUCH OF ITS LAND ON GUAM 

AFTER WORLD WAR II. SUBSEQUENTLY PUBLIC LAW 95-134 AUTHORIZED THE 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE TO PAY ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION FOR THESE 

LANDS. HOWEVER, SOME FORMER LANDOWNERS REMAIN DISSATISFIED. THE 

ISSUE OF RETURNING THESE LANDS TO FORMER OWNERS REMAINS 

CONTROVERSIAL. A FEW ARE VOCAL ABCUT THIS ISSUE - SOME HAVE SIMPLY 

MOVED ONTO FEDERAL LAND TO PROTEST; IT IS A SUBJECT OF DA I L't' 

4 
32 

CONVERSATION ON GUAM, RECEIVING CONSTANT ATTENTION IN THE MEDIA. 

I AM HOPEFUL THAT THE TRANSFER OF THE LANDS IDENTIFIED IN H.R. 

2144, IF APPROVED BY THE CONGRESS, WILL DEMONSTRATE TO THE PEOPLE 

OF GUAM THAT THEIR GOVERNMENTS - IN WASHINGTON AND IN AGANA - ARE 

WORKING IN THEIR BEST INTERESTS. 

SINCE THE END OF WORLD WAR II, THE UNITED STATES HAS ATTEMPTED 

TO BE GOOD STEWARDS OF THE LAND WHICH IT OWNS ON GUAM. THIS HAS 

BEEN A DELICATE BALANCING ACT - ATTEMPTING TO SATISFY LOCAL LAND 

NEEDS, WHILE ENSURING THAT THE VITAL SECURITY INTERESTS OF THE 

NATION WERE PROTECTED. GUAM HAS ALWAYS PLAYED AN IMPORTANT 

STRATEGIC ROLE IN OUR NATION 1 S DEFENSE. ONE ONLY HAS TO RECALL THE 

JAPANESE OCCUPATION OF GUAM FROM 1941- 1944, AND THE THOUSANDS OF 

AMERICAN LIVES LOST TO RECLAIM GUAM FROM JAPANESE CONTROL. THE 

RESIDENTS OF GUAM ALSO SUFFERED HORRIBLY DURING THAT OCCUPATION, 

AND MANY CHAMORROS DIED VALIANTU tN THE DEFENSE OF THEIR LAND AND 

OF' THE UNITED STATES. JULY 1994, WILL BE THE FIFTIETH 

ANNIVERSARY OF THE LIBERATION CF ·'.AM, AND "LIBERATION DAY" TAKES 

5 
33 

ON A VERY SPECIAL MEANING FOR THOSE WHO CALL GUAM THEIR HOME, EVEN 

TEMPORARILY AS I DO. 

GUAM PLAYED A STRATEGIC ROLE IN OTHER MAJOR CONFLICTS OF RECENT 

TIME, BE THAT THE KOREAN WAR, THE CONFLICT IN VIETNAM, OR MORE 

RECENTLY THE CONFLICTS IN IRAQ AND SOMALIA. GUAM REMAINS AN 

IMPORTANT CONSTANT IN A RAPIDLY CHANGING WORLD ARENA. WHILE THE 

THREAT OF CONFLICT MAY HAVE LESSENED SOMEWHAT IN EUROPE, THE 

POTENTIAL FOR CONFLICT IN THE FAR EAST AND THE MIDDLE EAST REMAINS. 

WITH THE REMOVAL OF U.S. FORCES FROM THE PHILIPPINES, AND WITH 

INCREASED CALLS FOR REDUCTION OF FORCES IN JAPAN, GUAM REMAINS OF 

VITAL SIGNIFICANCE IN PROTECTING U.S. STRATEGIC INTERESTS IN THE 

PACIFIC THEATER. WHATEVER ACTIONS ARE TAKEN CONCERNING DOD LAND 

HOLDINGS ON GUAM, THOSE ACTIONS MUST NOT HAMPER THE ABILITY OF THE 

UNITED STATES TO DEFEND ITS GLOBAL AND REGIONAL INTERESTS. 

DOD HAS ATTEMPTED TO SATISFY . :c~AL LAND NEEDS ON GUAM WHE~; c . ' 

POSSIBLE. SINCE 1977 THE NAVY "·' .;rR FORCE HAVE TRANSFERRr. 

6 
34 

EXCESS OF 1400 ACRES TO THE GOVERNMENT OF GUAM, IN ACCORDANCE WITH 

U.S. LAW, FOR SPECIFIC NEEDS OF THE PEOPLE AND THEIR GOVERNMENT. 

WE HAVE TRANSFERRED OR PROVIDED ACCESS TO LAND FOR SCHOOLS, PARKS 

AND ROADS; FOR HOUSING, AGRICULTURE, WILDLIFE CONSERVATION AND 

RECREATION; FOR SEWAGE TREATMENT FACILITIES AND OTHER HEALTHRELATED NEEDS; FOR IMPROVEMENTS AT THE PORT AND AT THE AIRPORT; AND 

FOR OTHER PURPOSES BENEFICIAL TO GUAM AND THE PEOPLE OF GUAM. IN 

MOST INSTANCES THESE ACTIONS HAVE BEEN AT NO COST TO THE GOVERNMENT 

OF GUAM IN ACCORDANCE WITH FEDERAL LAW. AT ANY GIVEN TIME MY STAFF 

ON GUAM IS WORKING ON SEVERAL REQUESTS OR PROPOSALS FROM THE 

GOVERNMENT OF GUAM FOR THE TRANSFER OF, OR ACCESS TO, PARCELS OF 

LAND FOR VARIOUS PUBLIC USES. WE DO NOT VIEW THESE REQUESTS AS A 

BURDEN; RATHER, WE HAVE ATTEMPTED TO ACCOMMODATE AS MANY OF THESE 

REQUESTS AS POSSIBLE, CONSISTENT WITH OUR UNDERLYING NEED TO ACT 

IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE NATION'S DEFENSE. 

I AM NOT AN APOLOGIST FOR THE ACTIONS OF MY PREDECESSORS AF: c·? 

WORLD WAR II. IF THERE WERE ANY MISt;NDERSTANDINGS - AND I AM ', . 

7 
35 

NAIVE ENOUGH TO BELIEVE THAT NONE OCCURRED - THE UNITED STATES HAS 

ATTEMPTED ON MORE THAN ONE OCCASION TO REDRESS THOSE PERCEIVED OR 

ACTUAL WRONGS. LEGAL RECOURSE HAS BEEN AFFORDED THE FORMER 

LANDOWNERS OF GUAM, AND MUTUALLY-AGREED UPON COMPENSATION PAID. 

ANY FUTURE REMEDIES MUST COME FROM THIS AUGUST BODY, SINCE IT IS 

THE CONGRESS THAT DETERMINES HOW THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT DISPOSES 

OF ITS ASSETS, INCLUDING LAND. 

H.R. 2144 REPRESENTS BUT ONE EFFORT ON THE PART OF THE PEOPLE 

OF GUAM TO RECLAIM FEDERAL LAND. OTHER EFFORTS EXTEND TO LAND NOT 

PREVIOUSLY DECLARED EXCESS TO FEDERAL NEEDS. THIS IS NOT A ONETIME EFFORT; DELEGATE UNDERWOOD, SPEAKING BEFORE THE CONGRESS ON 

MAY 18 OF THIS YEAR, IDENTIFIED H.R. 2144 AS (AND I QUOTE) "A MAJOR 

COMPONENT OF THE PROCESS OF ADDRESSING HISTORICAL INJUSTICES IN 

LAND TAKINGS EXPERIENCED BY THE CHAMORRO PEOPLE OF GUAM. 11 (UNQUOTE) 

THIS PROCESS ENVISlONED BY . f:CATE UNDERWOOD MUST CERTAINLY 

TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE GOVERNMENT Cf C'.'AM-GPONSORED INITIATI'lE WHIC;! 

8 
36 

ASKED THE U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE TO DESIGNATE VAST AREAS 

OF THE ISLAND OF GUAM AS CRITICAL HABITAT - AND THE MAJOR IMPACT 

THIS COULD HAVE ON THE AMOUNT OF LAND REQUIRED BY THE DEPARTMENT 

OF DEFENSE TO ACCOMPLISH ITS MISSION. THIS ENTIRE ISSUE REMAINS 

UNRESOLVED, AND ITS RESOLUTION IS CLOUDED BY A RECENT LAWSUIT FILED 

BY THE NATIONAL AUDUBON SOCIETY AND THE MARIANAS AUDUBON SOCIETY 

AGAINST THE U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE, SEEKING THE IMPOSITION 

OF THE CRITICAL HABITAT DESIGNATION. THE OVERALL FINAL IMPACT OF 

THIS PROCESS ON DOD LAND, AND ON DOD OPERATIONS, REMAINS UNCLEAR 

AT THIS TIME. 

AND CERTAINLY, AN IMPORTANT COMPONENT IN THE LAND REVIEW 

PRQCESS MUST BE THE RECENT DECISION OF THE BASE REALIGNMENT AND 

CLOSURE COMMISSION, DIRECTING THE CLOSURE OF NAS AGANA. RELOCATION 

OF NAVAL AIR OPERATIONS TO ANDERSEN AIR FORCE BASE, PARTICULARLY 

WITH THE UNCERTAIN IMPACTS OF POTENTIAL CRITICAL HABITAT 

DESIGNATION, WILL PRESENT SIGNIFICANT LAND USE CHALLENGES TO THE 

MILITARY. 

9 
37 

IT IS WITH FOREGOING LAND ISSUES IN MIND THAT I HAVE RECENTLY 

RECOMMENDED TO THE PACIFIC FLEET COMMANDER, ADMIRAL KELLY, THAT 

THE MILITARY CONDUCT A COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW OF DOD LAND HOLDINGS 

ON GUAM. GENERAL RUTHERFORD, COMMANDER OF THE PACIFIC AIR FORCES, 

HAS CONCURRED, AND ADMIRAL LARSON HAS APPROVED THE GENERAL CONCEPT. 

MAJOR GENERAL BURR, THE SENIOR USAF OFFICER ON GUAM, AND I HAVE 

ALREADY JOINTLY CONVENED A GROUP TO REVIEW DOD LAND REQUIREMENTS 

ON GUAM. THE PRODUCT OF THIS REVIEW SHOULD BE AN UPDATED "GLUP," 

WHICH WE CAN CALL "GLUP 93" TO DISTINGUISH IT FROM ITS 1977 

VERSION. ANY SUCH REVIEW MUST BE A THOROUGH AND COMPREHENSIVE ONE, 

AND ATTEMPT TO PROJECT THE NATION'S DEFENSE REQUIREMENTS INTO THE 

TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY, IN A COMPLEX AND CHANGING GLOBAL ENVIRONMENT. 

THE ISSUES WHICH I HAVE OUTLINED ABOVE ARE BUT A RECOGNITION 

THAT THERE ARE MANY COMPLEX VARIABLES IN THE DOD LAND EQUATION ON 

GUAM. WHILE I UNDERSTAND FULL'i ;·HE DESIRES OF DELEGATE UNDERWOOD 

AND THE PEOPLE OF GUAM TO SPEED c 'i: c; PROCESS ALONG, IT IS A PROCESS 

THAT CANNOT AND SHOULD NOT BE VE;<[D IN DISCRETE PARTS. I BELIE\E 

10 
38 

THAT THE DEFENSE NEEDS OF THE UNITED STATES - WHICH INCLUDES THE 

TERRITORY OF GUAM- MUST TAKE PRIORITY. THE NAVY AND THE AIR FORCE 

ARE ACTIVELY REVIEWING THOSE NEEDS AT THIS TIME. 

GENTLEMEN [AND LADIES], I THANK YOU FOR THIS OPPORTUNITY TO 

APPEAR BEFORE YOU AND PRESENT THE VIEWS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF THE 

NAVY ON THIS SUBJECT. I WELCOME YOUR QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS. 

11 
LEGEND 

I

NAW 

"""''""' 

GLUP~~I.S 

GUAM EXCESS LANDS 

® 0~======,;;5 ML 

39 

NCTAI.!S WESTPA.C 

FINEGAYAN 

ITEM NAVY PARCELS 

SOUTH F!NEGA't'AN 

NiM!l:Z HILL PARCELS 1 AND 2S 

NAVM4G PAACEL i 

Af>AA HAA90A PAAC€1.1 

APAA HARBOR PARC€l6 

APRA HARBOR PARCEl & 

APRA HAReOR PARC€l9 

APRA HARBOR PAACEl2 

9 APRA HAROOA PARCE:l l 

10 ASANANNE:X 

11 NAVCAMS BEACH 

tl ACEORP ~Ul TUNNEl 

13 AGAT PARCEL 3 • 

TOTAL AREA 

AIR fORCE PARCELS 

;.:; ANDERSEN SOUTH (PORTION OF 

ANOEFISEN ADMIN ANNEX) 

~ 

<li45Acres 

20!>Acres 

t44Acres 

73Aaes 

6Acres 

47Acres 

<1 1 Acres 

30Acres 

SAcres 

l7Acres 

'4Acres 

4Aoes 

5ACfl;iS 

15 CAMP EDUSA (FAMILY HSG ANNEX 1) · c·; flcr<~s 

16 HARMON PARCELS 

COMMUNICATIONS ANNEX NO.1 (962 Ac ~ 

HARMON HOUSING ANNEX N.O. <4 (300 Ac:;-\ 

HARMON POL STOR. ANNEXN<:l2 (35 Af'>• 

HARhAON VOR ANNEX (226 Aes) 

HA.RMON POLSTOO. ANNEX N0.1 (14 Ac:; HARMON ANNEX 1/0R (62 Aes) * 

> 7 ANDERSEN PAOlO BEACON ANNEX • 

TOTAL AREA 

FEDERAl AVIATION ADMIN PAAC~_ \. 

18 TALOF~O"'HH" HOMER FACILITY 

TOTAL AREA~ LANDS 

• NOT ANORJCINAL GWPEXCESS PARe£: 
40 

Mr. DE Luoo. General Burr. 

General BURR. Mr. Chairman, with your permission I would like 

to submit my formal statement for the record, and I will now give 

a short summary of the Air Force's position on excess land in 

Guam. 

Mr. DE Luoo. Without objection, your statement will be placed 

in the record in its entirety, and we will proceed with your summation. 

STATEMENT OF MAJ. GEN. H. HALE BURR, JR. 

General BURR. Mr. Chairman, honorable members of the congressional Subcommittee, good morning. I am Ml\ior General Burr, 

Commander, Thirteenth Air Force and the Senior Air Force Officer 

in the territory of Guam. I am here today to address H.R. 2144, a 

bill which would transfer certain excess DOD land, amounting to 

approximately 3,200 acres of land, with improvements, directly and 

at no cost to the Government of Guam. 

The Air Force position is that the Federal Government properly 

obtained title to all military lands on Guam, as upheld by the U.S. 

District Court rulings of 9 and 10, June, 1993. The Air Force has 

regularly supported and encouraged enabling legislation which 

would facilitate the disposal of land declared excess, such as those 

identified in this legislation. Current U.S. law governing disposition of excess land includes certain restrictions. 

For example, if the property is declared excess, other Federal 

agencies may request excess DOD property before it is released by 

the United States. Land given to the Government of Guam at no 

cost or less than fair market value must be used for public benefit. 

If returned to individuals, it must be purchased at fair market 

value. In addition, environmental requirements must be satisfied 

before the property can be transferred. 

The Air Force does not oppose relief from these restrictions to facilitate the transfer of excess real property. Because of our continuing statutory obligation for environmental cleanup, it would be difficult to transfer excess parcels at no cost. 

The Air Force will continue to evaluate and identify land which 

is no longer required for military needs. In conclusion, the Air 

Force sup:ports an equitable transfer of Air Force land on Guam 

identified m H.R. 2144. 

Mr. DE Luoo. Thank you very much, General. 

[Prepared statement of General Burr follows:] 
41 

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE 

PRESENTATION TO THE COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON INSULAR AND INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS 

UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SUBJECT: H.R. 2144, A BILL TO PROVIDE FOR THE TRANSFER OF LAND TO 

THE GOVERNMENT OF GUAM 

STATEMENT OF: MAJOR GENERAL H. HALE BURR, JR., 

COMMANDER, THIRTEENTH AIR FORCE 

29 JULY 1993 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNTIL RELEASED BY THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON 

NATURAL RESOURCES, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. 
42 

THIRTEENTH AIR FORCE POSITION STATEMENT 

ON 

EXCESS MILITARY LAND ON GUAM 

HONORABLE MEMBERS OF CONGRESS: 

GOOD MORNING/AFTERNOON: I AM MAJOR GENERAL H. HALE BURR, JR., 

COMMANDER OF THIRTEENTH AIR FORCE AND THE SENIOR AIR FORCE OFFICER 

IN THE TERRITORY OF GUAM. I AM HERE TODAY TO ADDRESS H.R. 2144, A 

BILL WHICH WOULD TRANSFER CERTAIN EXCESS DOD LAND, AMOUNTING TO 

APPROXIMATELY THREE THOUSAND, TWO HUNDRED ACRES OF LAND, WITH 

IMPROVEMENTS, DIRECTLY AND AT NO COST TO THE GOVERNMENT OF GUAM. 

THE PURPOSE OF THIS STATEMENT IS TO REVIEW SOME OF THE OUTSTANDING 

HISTORICAL LAND ISSUES ON GUAM INVOLVING THE US MILITARY SERVICES, 

TO IDENTIFY SPECIFIC CURRENT PROBLEMS RESULTING FROM THOSE ISSUES, 

AND OUTLINE RESTRICTIONS IMPOSED BY CURRENT LAWS RELATING TO THE 

RELEASE OF EXCESS MILITARY PROPERTY THAT DEMONSTRATE THE NEED FOR 

SPECIAL LEGISLATION. 

GUAM IS A RELATIVELY SMALL ISLAND, AND THE AVAILABILITY OF LAND IS 

A SENSITIVE ISSUE INVOLVING MYRIAD GROUPS. FOR TWENTY YEARS OR 

MORE, IT HAS BEEN THE CONSISTENT POSITION OF THE AIR FORCE AND 

OTHER DOD COMPONENTS TO DECLARE LAND AS EXCESS WHEN IT IS NO 

LONGER NEEDED FOR MILITARY REQUIREMENTS. 

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND 

PRIOR TO 1898, THE SPANISH CROWN OWNED 27 PERCENT OF THE LAND AREA 

OF GUAM, OR ABOUT 36,015 ACRES. THIS INCLUDED ROADS, HIGHWAYS, 

BRIDGES, AGRICULTURAL LAND, PUBLIC AREAS AND BUILDINGS. ALL 

SPANISH GOVERNMENT LAND WAS TRANSFERRED TO THE UNITED STATES 

GOVERNMENT ON 10 DECEMBER 1898 BY THE TREATY OF PARIS, ENDING THE 

SPANISH-AMERICAN WAR. 

DURING WORLD WAR II, JAPANESE FORCES OCCUPIED GUAM AND TOOK 

ADDITIONAL PROPERTY FROM LOCAL CITIZENS, CONSTRUCTING SEVERAL 

BASES AND AIRFIELDS. THESE WERE LATER OCCUPIED AND USED BY US 

FORCES FOLLOWING THE LIBERATION OF GUAM. SUCH LAND INCLUDED THE 

CURRENT NAVAL AIR STATION AGANA, ANDERSEN AIR FORCE BASE (NORTH 

FIELD) , AND HARMON ANNEX. US MILITARY FORCES BUILT NORTHWEST 

FIELD IN ANTICIPATION OF THE INVASION OF JAPAN. 

BETWEEN 1945 AND 1950, US MILITARY FORCES CONTINUED TO DEVELOP 

BASES ON GUAM IN RESPONSE TO POST-WAR INSTABILITIES IN THE WESTERN 

PACIFIC. ADDITIONAL LAND WAS ACQUIRED USING LEASES. IN 1948, 

1949, AND 1950, HOWEVER, THE NAVAL GOVERNMENT OF GUAM CONSOLIDATED 

FEE SIMPLE TITLE IN THESE AND OTHER PARCELS BY FILING VARIOUS 

CONDEMNATION PROCEEDINGS IN THE GUAM FEDERAL COURT. TITLE WAS 

LATER PASSED TO THE INDIVIDUAL SERVICES. THESE WERE NOT 

NEGOTIATED PURCHASES; THEY WERE CONDEMNATIONS. THE FAMILIES 

INITIALLY RECEIVED COMPENSATION WHICH WAS LATER INCREASED IN AN 

AMOUNT AGREED UPON BY THE GOVERNMENT AND THE FAMILIES' ATTORNEYS 

BASED ON A FAIR MARKET VALUE REAPPRAISAL. THE ORGANIC ACT OF GUAM 

(1 AUGUST 1950) TRANSFERRED ALL FEDERAL LAND ON GUAM TO THE 
43 

GOVERNMENT OF GUAM, EXCEPT LAND SPECIFICALLY RESERVED BY THE 

PRESIDENT. THIS RESERVATION WAS ACCOMPLISHED BY EXECUTIVE ORDER 

10178 (30 OCTOBER 1950), WHICH INCORPORATED MOST OF THE CIVIL 

CONDEMNATION PROCEEDINGS WHICH HAD BEEN FILED. THIS IS THE SOURCE 

OF TITLE FOR THE MAJORITY OF USAF AND NAVY LAND ON GUAM TODAY. 

IN 1962 AND 1963, THE NAVY CONDEMNED LAND AT RITIDIAN POINT. 

THIS, TOGETHER WITH LAND TRANSFERRED FROM THE AIR FORCE, BECAME 

NAVAL FACILITY GUAM (NAVFAC). THIS WAS SIGNIFICANT BECAUSE 

CLASSIFIED OPERATIONS BY THE NAVY AT NAVFAC, AND BY THE AIR FORCE 

IN CONDUCTING STRATEGIC BOMBING OF VIETNAM FROM ANDERSEN AIR FORCE 

BASE, RESULTED IN THE CLOSING OF ROUTE 3A (THAT PORTION OF ROUTE 3 

TRAVERSING MILITARY PROPERTY) TO THE PUBLIC. IT ALSO MEANT MORE 

STRINGENT SECURITY REQUIREMENTS FOR PRIVATE LANDOWNERS LANDLOCKED 

BY MILITARY PROPERTY. 

IN ALL, PERHAPS 1,250 FAMILIES GAVE UP LAND TO THE FEDERAL 

GOVERNMENT, THROUGH SALE OR CONDEMNATION. THE GOVERNMENT OF GUAM 

ESTIMATES THAT THEIR HEIRS AND ASSIGNS MAY NOW TOTAL 8,000 

INDIVIDUALS. THE AIR FORCE OWNS ABOUT 20,350 ACRES AND THE NAVY 

ABOUT 22,500 ACRES ON GUAM. THAT TOTALS ALMOST 43,000 ACRES, OR 

NEARLY ONE-THIRD OF THE TOTAL LAND AREA OF GUAM. 

INVOLVEMENT !!X GOVERNMENT Q! Q!1N:l (GOVGUAM) 

AS EARLY AS 1965, GOVGUAM CHALLENGED USAF OWNERSHIP AND CONTROL OF 

ROUTE 3A, CONTENDING IT WAS A PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY. BY 1972, 

LANDLOCKED PRIVATE PROPERTY AT URUNAO BEACH HAD BEEN ZONED FOR 

HOTEL DEVELOPMENT, RESULTING IN CONTINUOUS EFFORTS BY THE ARTERO 

FAMILY OVER THE LAST TWO DECADES TO DEVELOP THAT PROPERTY AND 

INCREASE COMMERCIAL ACCESS TO IT. IN 1982, THE LEGISLATURE SET UP 

A REVOLVING LOAN FUND TO ASSIST LANDOWNERS TO SUE THE FEDERAL 

GOVERNMENT FOR TITLE TO PROPERTY (GUAM PL 16-111). IN 1984, 

GOVGUAM DIRECTLY ASSUMED FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY TO HELP RECOVER 

SUCH PROPERTIES FOR PRIVATE CITIZENS, OR INCREASE THEIR 

COMPENSATION (GUAM PL 17-52). THIS LAW SPECIFICALLY STATED THAT 

FEDERAL CONDEMNATION AND RETENTION OF LAND HAD, "ADVERSELY 

AFFECTED NEARLY EVERY FAMILY ON GUAM." 

IN 1987, THE GOVERNOR AND THE NATIONAL AUDUBON SOCIETY PETITIONED 

US FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE REQUESTING DESIGNATION OF CRITICAL 

HABITAT OF SEVEN ENDANGERED SPECIES ON GUAM. THE PETITION 

REQUESTED CRITICAL HABITAT FOR NORTHWEST FIELD, ANDERSEN AIR FORCE 

BASE, AND OTHER AREAS. IN DECEMBER 1990, THE GOVERNOR SIGNED THE 

"NORTHWEST TERRITORIES ACT" (GUAM PL 20-222). THIS ACT ALLOCATED 

$1,000,000 TO ASSIST LANDLOCKED LANDOWNERS AT JINAPSAN BEACH AND 

URUNAO BEACH TO LITIGATE AGAINST THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT FOR TITLE 

AND ACCESS. IT ALSO DECLARED ROUTE 3A TO BE A PUBLIC RIGHT OF 

WAY, ILLEGALLY CONTROLLED BY THE US. 

MILITARY EXCESS LAND PROGRAM 

IN 1977, ~R~CE AND NAVY COMPLETED A GUAM LAND USE PLAN 

WHICH IDENTIFIED 5100 ACRES AS EXCESS. SUBSEQUENTLY, 1,400 ACRES 

WERE TRANSFERRED, 500 ACRES WITHDRAWN, AND 3,200 ACRES, OF WHICH 

2,200 IS USAF PROPERTY, REMAIN SUBJECT TO DISPOSITION. ALTHOUGH 
44 

APPROVED FOR RELEASE BY CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEES AND TRANSFERRED 

TO GSA, THIS 3,200 ACRES OF EXCESS LAND BECAME THE SUBJECT OF 

PROPOSED LEGISLATION. AS A RESULT, GSA RETURNED THE EXCESS LAND 

PACKAGE TO PACIFIC DIVISION (PACDIV), NAVY FACILITIES COMMAND, IN 

HAWAII, UNTIL CONGRESS ACTS TO DETERMINE DISPOSITION. THE AIR 

FORCE STILL CONSIDERS THE PARCELS INCLUDED IN THIS LEGISLATION AS 

EXCESS TO ITS NEEDS. 

IN RECENT YEARS, THE NAVY AND AIR FORCE HAVE COOPERATED TO RELEASE 

14 SMALLER PARCELS OF LAND TO GOVGUAM TOTALING 1,600 ACRES. THE 

AIR FORCE IS NOT AWARE OF ANY ENVIRONMENTAL CONTAMINATION ISSUES 

WITH RESPECT TO AIR FORCE PARCELS IN H.R. 2144. HOWEVER, IT HAS 

CONTRACTED FOR AN ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE SURVEY AS A PRECAUTION. 

THAT SURVEY SHOULD BE COMPLETED AND A FINAL REPORT RENDERED BY THE 

END OF THE YEAR. SOME OF THE PARCELS IN H.R. 2144 ARE UNDER 

CONSIDERATION BY THE US FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE FOR DESIGNATION 

AS CRITICAL HABITAT TO PROTECT ENDANGERED SPECIES ON THE ISLAND. 

NONE OF THE LANDS IN H.R. 2144 ARE INCLUDED IN THE PROPOSED 

NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE THAT IS UNDER CONSIDERATION BY THE US 

FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE. 

PUBLIC TRESPASSES ON MILITARY LAND 

SOME LEADERS IN THE CHAMORU NATION, A NATIVE RIGHTS GROUP ON GUAM, 

LED A NUMBER OF "PROTESTS" WHICH TARGETED BOTH THE FEDERAL 

GOVERNMENT AND THE GOVERNMENT OF GUAM. IN JULY 1992, CHAMORU 

NATION MEMBERS, JOINED BY FOUR LOCAL LEGISLATORS, ENTERED POTTS 

JUNCTION AND MARCHED ONTO AIR FORCE PROPERTY ALONG ROUTE 3A. 

SUBSEQUENT TO THE JULY DATE, NUMEROUS ADDITIONAL TRESPASSES 

OCCURRED ON THE PROPERTY BY THIS GROUP. SHORTLY THEREAFTER, A 

CHAMORU NATION LEADER, ANGEL SANTOS, LED A GROUP OVER THE FENCE AT 

NAVAL AIR STATION AGANA. BEGINNING IN NOVEMBER 1992, ANGEL SANTOS 

OCCUPIED A PORTION OF ANDERSEN AIR FORCE BASE WHICH HE CLAIMED WAS 

IMPROPERLY TAKEN FROM HIS GRANDFATHER. MR. SANTOS ERECTED A 

PERMANENT STRUCTURE ON THE PROPERTY IN VIOLATION OF A FEDERAL 

COURT ORDER. 

IN APRIL 1993, MEMBERS OF THE BLAS FAMILY OCCUPIED A PORTION OF 

ANDERSEN AIR FORCE BASE, CLAIMING THAT LAND BEING RETURNED TO 

GOVGUAM FOR A NORTHERN HIGH SCHOOL WAS THEIR ANCESTRAL LAND, AND 

THEREFORE, SHOULD BE RETURNED TO THEM ONCE NO LONGER NEEDED FOR 

MILITARY PURPOSES. WITHIN WEEKS, AT LEAST THREE OTHER FAMILIES 

OCCUPIED PORTIONS OF AIR FORCE PROPERTY, DEMANDING THAT THE LAND 

BE RETURNED TO THEM. WOODEN STRUCTURES AND CANVAS TENTS WERE 

ERECTED. ON 9 JUNE 1993, THE JUDGE FOR THE GUAM US DISTRICT COURT 

GRANTED A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AGAINST THE BLAS FAMILY, AND 

ORDERED THE DEFENDANTS AND EVERYONE ACTING IN CONCERT WITH THEM TO 

LEAVE MILITARY PROPERTY AND TO REMOVE THEIR STRUCTURES BY 12 JUNE. 

ON 10 JUNE 1993, THE JUDGE GRANTED SUMMARY JUDGEMENT AND A 

PERMANENT INJUNCTION IN FAVOR OF THE UNITED STATES AGAINST ANGEL 

SANTOS AND OTHER NAMED DEFENDANTS, ORDERING THEM TO REMAIN OFF 

MILITARY PROPERTY ON GUAM. THE BASIS FOR THE RULING WAS A FINDING 

THAT TITLE VESTED PROPERLY IN THE UNITED STATES THROUGH THE 

CONDEMNATION PROCEEDINGS DISCUSSED ABOVE, AND CANNOT NOW BE 
45 

ATTACKED BECAUSE OF THE QUIET TITLE TO LAND ACT, 28 USC 2409A. IN 

RESPONSE, ANGEL SANTOS STATED THAT HE WOULD OBEY THE COURT ORDER 

AND ENCOURAGE ALL OTHER PROTESTERS TO LEAVE MILITARY PROPERTY. 

THERE IS NO INDICATION THAT THE OTHER THREE SITES HAVE BEEN 

ABANDONED, ALTHOUGH THE NUMBER OF TRESPASSERS AT EACH SITE HAS 

DECREASED OVER PAST WEEKS. 

AIR FORCE POSITION 

THE AIR FORCE POSITION IS THAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT PROPERLY 

OBTAINED TITLE TO ALL MILITARY LANDS ON GUAM, AS UPHELD BY THE US 

DISTRICT COURT RULINGS OF 9 AND 10 JUNE 1993. THE AIR FORCE HAS 

REGULARLY SUPPORTED AND ENCOURAGED ENABLING LEGISLATION WHICH 

WOULD FACILITATE DISPOSAL OF LANDS DECLARED EXCESS, SUCH AS THOSE 

IDENTIFIED IN THIS LEGISLATION. 

CURRENT US LAW GOVERNING DISPOSITION OF EXCESS LAND INCLUDES 

RESTRICTIONS. FOR EXAMPLE, IF THE PROPERTY IS DECLARED EXCESS 

OTHER FEDERAL AGENCIES MAY REQUEST EXCESS DOD PROPERTY BEFORE IT 

IS RELEASED BY THE US. LAND GIVEN TO THE GOVERNMENT OF GUAM AT NO 

COST OR LESS THAN FAIR MARKET VALUE MUST BE USED FOR PUBLIC 

BENEFIT; IF RETURNED TO INDIVIDUALS, IT MUST BE PURCHASED AT FAIR 

MARKET VALUE. IN ADDITION, ENVIRONMENTAL REQUIREMENTS MUST BE 

SATISFIED BEFORE THE PROPERTY CAN BE TRANSFERRED. THE AIR FORCE 

DOES NOT OPPOSE RELIEF FROM THESE RESTRICTIONS TO FACILITATE THE 

TRANSFER OF EXCESS REAL PROPERTY. BECAUSE OF OUR CONTINUING 

STATUTORY OBLIGATION FOR ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANUP, IT WOULD BE 

DIFFICULT TO TRANSFER EXCESS PARCELS AT NO COST. THE AIR FORCE 

WILL CONTINUE TO EVALUATE AND IDENTIFY LAND WHICH IS NO LONGER 

REQUIRED FOR MILITARY NEEDS. 

CONCLUSION 

IN CONCLUSION, THE AIR FORCE SUPPORTS AN EQUITABLE TRANSFER OF AIR 

FORCE LAND ON GUAM IDENTIFIED IN H.R. 2144. 
46 

Mr. DE Luoo. You both made fine statements. They are constructive regarding the issues and they are helpful to this Subcommittee. I thank you for traveling from Guam to do so. I think that this 

appearance indicates how seriously the Department of Defense 

takes land issues on Guam in general, and I think that it bodes 

well towards reaching a solution to these problems. 

You have noted that the Department of Defense has already transferred to Guam some 1,400 acres of the 5,000 acres identified 

in the late 1970s as excess to military needs. What process was 

used for transferring that property? 

Admiral KRISTENSEN. The property was transferred through 

licenses and permits for the Government of Guam's use. We transferred ground, land for schools, for veterans' cemeteries, and various other projects that the Government of Guam desired to undertake for the good of the people. 

Mr. DE Luoo. You have said that the Governor of Guam's request to have the Fish and Wildlife Service designate substantial 

areas of Guam as critical habitat could have an unclear impact on 

the Department of Defense land use and transfers. Could you elaborate on that? 

Admiral KRISTENSEN. Yes, sir. The critical habitat designation would require the Department of Defense to reevaluate the use and 

the requirements we have on Guam. As you know, critical habitat 

would severely restrict our use of that land that has been placed 

under the critical habitat designation. 

Training, any new construction, any movement even with NAS, 

if critical habitat happened to be invoked, movement of NAS to Andersen Air Force Base would become extremely difficult. We have 

infrastructure that has to be built, we have field carrier landing 

practice patterns that have to be flown, and if critical habitat were 

mvoked, it would make it almost impossible to do those kinds of 

things on that land, sir. 

Mr. DE Luoo. All right. I was impressed by your support of a 

new comprehensive Department of Defense review of the land 

needs of Guam. You made your recommendations in your statement, you said to Admiral Kelly, and you indicate that that is moving forward. 

Admiral KRISTENSEN. Yes, sir. General Burr and I have been 

chartered by General Rutherford and Admiral Kelly to form a 

working .. group to, in fact, study the DOD land requirements on 

Guam. We have started that process. We are in hopes that by this 

fall, when Congressman Underwood holds the land conference, that 

we will be along enough in the process that we may be able to add 

our requirements and our needs to that picture with that land conference this fall. 

Mr. DE Luoo. Then it would be your hope to participate in the 

land conference that Congressman Underwood is proposing? 

Admiral KRISTENSEN. Yes, sir, I think the Department of Defense 

is on record that they would support and participate in the land 

conference that Congressman Underwood has proposed. 

Mr. DE Luoo. That is good. I think that would be very constructive, and the more we work together, the quicker we will be able 

to resolve these long-standing issues. 

Admiral KRISTENSEN. Yes, sir. 
47 

Mr. DE Luoo. You have also mentioned litigation against the 

Federal Government regarding beaches on the northwestern part of 

the island. My late colleague, Antonio Won Pat, and I worked with 

my friend who now chairs the Armed Services Committee, Congressman Ron Dellums of California, on this issue. 

What is the status of this issue at the present time? 

Admiral KRISTENSEN. I believe you are referring to the NAVFAC 

property Ritidian Point. 

Mr. DE LUGOo This is the Urunao Beach on the northwestern 

part of the island. 

Admiral KRISTENSEN, Congressman, I will have to say I am not 

aware of any litigation on the Urunao Beach property. We have 

property on the northwest coast, Ritidian Point, which was the old 

NA VF AC properties, also public properties with the Artero and 

Aguero families and the Castro family. 

There was litigation with one of the Artero family members who 

is being accused of environmental damage to Federal property, trying to build a road into his family's property, the Artero property. 

That litigation is in fact still in progress and has not come to 

fruition. 

Mr. DE Luoo. That was what we were referring to, the Artero 

property. 

Admiral KRISTENSEN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. DE Luoo. You have mentioned the controversy regarding 

whether Route 3A is public or not. What is the current status of 

that issue? 

Admiral KRISTENSEN. Route 3A is Federal property. It was declared sometime ago or at least reported to be public property 

through a government action in Guam. However, title to that property is still held by the Department of Defense and the Air Force. 

We have worked an agreement, in principle, with the Government of Guam that we would grant easement of Route 3A to a 

beach area or recreation area on the old NAVFAC property. We are 

currently waiting for the Government of Guam to return to us with 

a recreation use plan and an environmental assessment of the use 

of that property as a recreation area for the people of Guam. 

It was an area previously used for recreational purposes by the 

military, by the Navy, on the NAVFAC properties when NAVFAC 

was, in fact, in operation and commission. 

We have actively participated with the Government of Guam in 

trying to open up that beach area for the public good in conjunction 

with the Fish and Wildlife Service, who are looking at that piece 

of property as well as part of a wildlife refuge overlay that they are 

in fact working on now. 

Mr. DE Luoo. Do you have any sense of when you will be getting 

a determination on this? 

Admiral KRISTENSEN. The environmental assessment for the 

wildlife refuge has been completed. It is being placed into a final 

form and Region IX of the Fish and Wildlife Service will have to 

make a ruling with regard to a finding of no significant impact 

with regard to the wildlife refuge. 

We are hoping that the wildlife refuge will in fact be placed in 

effect and we feel that it can meet the special management require-
48 

ments for the endangered species that was asked for in the critical 

habitat petition. 

Once the overlay refuge is, in fact, put in place, then we are hoping that the critical· habitat question will be resolved. 

Mr. DE Luoo. The Chair has some additional questions, but at 

this time let me recognize the gentleman from Guam for any questions that he might have of the witnesses. 

Mr. UNDERWOOD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for 

your testimony, both General Burr and Admiral Kristensen, and I 

am particularly pleased by the open discussions that we have had 

in the past and your willingness and your support of doing another 

land use plan, GLUP 93, and I trust that coming out of that we 

will find some kind of comprehensive solution process that is responsive both to your needs as well as to the people of Guam. 

There are a number of questions that I have relative to the presentation that was not given formally but was more or less given 

in written form and which I would like to ask. You have mentioned, Admiral, that there are certain issues pertaining to the 

land uses that the Government of Guam wants. A certain concern 

is being expressed about what uses the Government of Guam will 

put these lands to, and I think, to some extent, that was also mentioned by Mr. Gallegly, and it has been mentioned, I know, on previous occasions by the Department of the Interior. 

I am curious as to what these concerns are all about. I mean, 

what is the great fear? What is it, the concern here? Is there something that could be expressed to us and perhaps could be included 

in the context of the legislation so that we can make sure that it 

does not happen? Would you care to comment? 

Admiral KRISTENSEN. Yes, sir. I think the concern is, in fact, if 

the property is returned to the Government of Guam at no cost, 

will it be used for the benefit of the people of Guam and that is 

all the people of Guam. 

I think our concern is that perhaps that might not be the case 

without some type of oversight in a land use plan by the Federal 

Government over the Guamanian Government on the use of that 

property. 

Mr. UNDERWOOD. Well, as you well appreciate in the context of 

this legislation, we have a 180-day period from which to review any 

future land use plans, and I am sure that you are well aware that 

there are a number of land use plans being circulated in Guam 

now and that in fact the 3,200 acres has been discussed in the context of those land use plans. 

I am sure you are aware of the Chamorro Land Trust Act. Is 

there any kind of specific objection on the part of DOD to seeing 

some of this land given to the Chamorro Land Trust? 

Admiral KRISTENSEN. No, sir, that is not the concern. The concern is that perhaps there is no approval process for the land use 

plan. I think the bill reads that once the land use plan is submitted, that it automatically, without any possible change or requirement to change that plan in the 180 days, it becomes effective and 

the land automatically goes to the Government of Guam. 

Mr. UNDERWOOD. Then along the same line, would it not, then, 

be useful for us to describe in more detail, perhaps in committee 
49 

language, what is meant by "public benefit use" and that that 

would take care of some of these concerns? 

Admiral KRISTENSEN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. UNDERWOOD. In a sense, there is a difference between ensuring adherence to legislation and management of the property, and 

there are a number of people, and I am certainly one of them, that 

are concerned this allows for a continual line of management. 

In point of fact, the lands have been declared excess and it is 

clearly not in your interest to continue to exert some kind of influence or authority over that. Am I correct in that assumption? 

Admiral KRISTENSEN. Yes, sir. 

General BuRR. We would very much like to see the land removed 

from the DOD rolls and put to use by the people of Guam. And I 

think that if H.R. 2144 could be revised in order to better define 

what benefit for the people means, that would then become more 

acceptable to DOD. 

Mr. UNDERWOOD. In terms of the critical habitat restrictions 

mentioned in both presentations, and this is a question to both of 

you, have you thought about the alternative wildlife refuge and 

what does DOD intend to do about that and given the court case? 

Admiral KRISTENSEN. We have given considerable thought to the 

wildlife refuge and we feel that with a wildlife refuge which would 

bring on-site an on-island Fish and Wildlife management team to 

manage the wildlife in conjunction with the Federal agency that 

owns the property, being the Air Force or the Navy, in this particular case, that wildlife refuge will provide us with the flexibility 

needed in order to continue the operations that we currently conduct on the property as well as any future operations that may be 

conducted in the areas of training or other operational needs. 

Wildlife refuge, as I said, would give us the flexibility that we 

need in order to continue our operations on that property. 

General BURR. The Air Force supports the designation of the 

property as a wildlife refuge as opposed to critical habitat. We 

would much prefer a wildlife refuge for that land that covers Andersen Air Force Base. 

Mr. UNDERWOOD. And does either the Air Force or the Navy or 

DOD plan to participate in this court case that the Audubon Society has? 

Admiral KRISTENSEN. Yes, sir, we are supporting and providing 

background information to the Fish and Wildlife Service in order 

to assist them in this court case. 

Mr. UNDERWOOD. Also, I note that in both of your presentations 

you noted that the Government of Guam was an initial party in the 

action concerning the critical habitat. I know this matter has been 

brought up on a number of occasions, but I am sure both of you 

recognize that, as I understand it, certainly the Guam Legislature 

and the Governor's office are now on record as being in favor of the 

wildlife refuge as opposed to the critical habitat. I imagine you are 

both aware of that. 

Admiral KRISTENSEN. Yes, sir, I am. It was last fall at a public hearing for the critical habitat that the Governor of Guam did come 

out at those hearings in opposition to the critical habitat and in 

favor of the overlay refuge. 
50 

Mr. UNDERWOOD. In your presentation, Admiral, you mention 

that the Government of Guam should pick up the costs related to 

environmental cleanup, and I have noticed in some of the presentations, noticeably that by Speaker San Agustin, yet to come in the 

next panel, there is some discussion about the lands that are being turned over in these 3,200 acres. 

What is your understanding of the environmental condition of 

these lands? 

Admiral KRISTENSEN. At this point in time we have two IR 

sites-environmental restoration sites-involved in the 3,200 acres. 

We are currently at the remedial investigation stage of those sites, 

so that is we really don't know what the extent of those two particular environmental sites are at this point in time. 

I think our feeling is the fact if the land is returned to the Government of Guam at no cost, and we are talking about land worth 

the value somewhere close to $900 million, that perhaps it is the 

Government of Guam's responsibility to transfer that land and put 

it to use; that they should pick up the cost of any transfer of that 

property, surveys and the like. 

Mr. DE Luao. Would the gentleman yield at that point? 

Mr. UNDERWOOD. Sure. 

Mr. DE Luao. Well, of course, Admiral, I admire the fact you are 

doing a good job of protecting the Federal Government here and 

the Department of Defense I think this is some lands around Apra 

Harbor. 

Admiral KRISTENSEN. Yes, sir, Apra Harbor. 

Mr. DE Luao. And parcel 7, it is toward parcel 7, it is thought 

that might possibly be contaminated with toxic waste. 

You know, I know we have a budget problem here, a deficit and 

all that, but it would seem to me, I realize this is being transferred 

at no cost to the Government of Guam, but if the military contaminated this area, it should be cleaned up. Admiral KRISTENSEN. Yes, sir, and in fact we are in the process 

of doing just that. We are following the required procedures in 

order to establish the scope of the cleanup. We are at the remedial 

investigation stage and proceeding forward with that and funding 

that, sir. 

Mr. DE LUGO. And funding it? 

Admiral KRISTENSEN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. DE LUGO. All right. 

Mr. UNDERWOOD. Thank you. Were these conditions included in 

any previous GAO reports on environmental pollution, the sites on 

Guam? 

Admiral KRISTENSEN. What conditions are that, sir? 

Mr. UNDERWOOD. The conditions you are referring to here, in 

terms of the two sites that you have identified as having potential 

environmental problems. 

Admiral KRISTENSEN. Yes, sir, they have been identified as environmental sites, and as I said, they are in the process Qf being developed. Just exactly what extent the environmental damage has 

been that has taken place, and the remedial investigation will 

scope that problem so that we understand what it is that we have 

to clean up and the extent of the cleanup. 
51 

Mr. UNDERWOOD. In terms of the remaining Federal property that is on Guam, the land that is not part of this 3,200 acres, there 

is, obviously, a continuing responsibility on your part to assess the 

environmental conditions on those properties and clean them up as 

deemed necessary. Are there current plans under way for that? 

Admiral KRISTENSEN. As the regional environmental coordinator 

for the Department of the Navy, we continually assess the land 

that we have the stewardship of to ensure that we are not environmentally contaminating that land. When we find contamination, 

we take the necessary steps to stop the contamination and clean 

up what is there, yes, sir. 

Mr. UNDERWOOD. Just a comment on a point that you made in 

your written testimony regarding the balancing of the military 

strategic needs and the local civilian community of Guam. I would 

like to simply make the point, and this is not meant to be disrespectful of military needs, but I think, clearly, that the perspective of the people on Guam of this issue is that the balance has 

been noticeably on the side of the military, and I would just like 

to make that point. And along those lines, in your presentation, General Burr, you 

mention a couple of historical items in your fresentation that I 

don't necessarily want to take issue with, but do want to clearly 

indicate that the history here is being a little skewed. 

You made mention of the fact that in 1898, under the tenns of 

the Treaty of Paris, that 27 percent of the land of Guam was 

deemed crown lands and that the Federal Government, in a sense, 

inherited those crown lands. There is some scholarship ongoing 

now that indicates that the crown lands that the Spanish allegedly 

owned is limited basically to the property on which the public buildings existed, and that this figure of 27 percent, we are still 

trying to figure out where actually it came from, and so there is 

kind of a cloud over that particular item. 

Also in your presentation you made reference to the fact that 

some of the property owned by the military now was originally 

taken from the people during the Japanese occupation, and in a 

sense, it transferred over to the U.S. military as a result of that. 

And those are two historical points that seem to me quite curious 

because those historical points really pertain not to issues o(justice and the issues of what happened and what did the Federal Government do after World War II in terms of these lands, but rather 

refer to a kind of justification of the right of conquest, and that 

somehow or other, because previous governments, which we acknowledge now, both Spain and Japan, which had perpetrated a series of things on the people of Guam, somehow provides some legit- imacy to the acquisition. 

I want to make it clear that we do not dispute the fact that the 

Federal Government has title to this property, and we do not dispute the fact there are military needs on the island, but we do take 

issue with the fact that the Federal Government acquired this 

property in a legitimate way, and we do take issue with the fact 

that there has to be a clear perspective on what are the needs of 

the people of Guam in this instance, and it is not the whole rhetoric and the whole agenda attached to the land protestors and all 
52 

the issues that are attached to this which point this up in a very dramatic fashion. 

So I think if we were to use history as an example or as justification for any legislation here in Congress, history would clearly fall 

on the side of the people of Guam and their experience after World 

War II. 

Thank you. 

Mr. DE Luoo. I thank the gentleman from Guam, and at this 

time let me recognize the gentleman from Puerto Rico for any questions. 

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I was just bothered by a couple of statements that I would like 

to ask a little bit more about, where they are coming from. 

Was it your statement, Admiral, that the transfer of the lands 

to Guam, that the Government of Guam should pay for the environmental cleanup; am I correct, is that what you said? 

Admiral KRISTENSEN. Yes, sir, I think they should pay the cost 

for the transfer of the land, which would include survey costs, environmental costs and those types, yes, sir. 

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. What is the reasoning behind that? Has 

the Navy paid rent throughout all these years to Guam? 

Admiral KRISTENSEN. No, sir. 

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. They just paid an amount of money to 

Guam or to the people that owned the land originally, or if the 

lands were taken over during the Japanese occupation and then 

the Navy took them over-DOD took them over, apparently? 

Admiral KRISTENSEN. Yes, sir, at the end of World War II. There 

were condemnation procedures and there were payments made to 

the original landowners at fair market value at the time. There 

was an additional suit brought against the Federal Government in 

which $39 million was awarded to the original landowners and 

then paid to those original landowners. 

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. So during this time, if it was used by the 

Armed Forces and it has been contaminated by the use, why should 

the people of Guam pay for that, the cleanup? I just don't understand that. 

Admiral KRISTENSEN. Well, we feel if the land is returned at no 

cost to the Government of Guam, rather than going through the 

regular excess procedures where fair market value is usually assessed for excess property, that with the Government of Guam receiving over $900 million worth of properties, they should pay for 

the cost. 

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. You say $900 million is at today's price? 

Admiral KRISTENSEN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. Shouldn't it be at the original price? You 

have not paid any rent for all that time. You have saved a lot of 

money, the Armed Forces. Why should it be at today's price and 

not the original price? What is the fairness of that? 

Admiral KRISTENSEN. We use the fair market value because that 

is what the excess process calls for, sir. 

Mr, ROMERO-BARCELO. Well, then, the process could be unfair, it 

could be unjust to the people of Guam, couldn't it? 

Admiral KRISTENSEN. Yes, sir, it could be. 
53 

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. And then the other thing that bothered 

me is when you said the land is transferred to Guam and then 

there should be some authority by the Department of Defense to 

look over and oversee what would be good for Guam for the use of 

those lands. So Guam itself could not determine what is good for 

itself? Why is that? I don't understand that one. 

Admiral KRISTENSEN. Well, we feel that the legislation is not 

clear; that is, H.R 2144 is not clear in what the benefit of the good 

of the people really means. 

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. Isn't that up to them and not up to the 

Department of Defense? '(Jp to the people of Guam. 

Admiral KRISTENSEN. We are not saying the Department of Defense, we are saying the Federal Government should have some 

oversight as to what that is used for so that, in fact, it ends up to 

the good of all the people of Guam. 

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. Why should the Government of the United States be determining what is good for the people of Guam? 

Isn't that up to them? In the State of the Union, the people of the 

State determine what is good for the people of the State, within the 

law. There are Federal laws applicable but it is a determination of 

the State. Why should the U.S. Government be involved in telling 

what is good for Guam? What moral authority is there to tell the 

people of Guam what is good for them? Isn't that their choice? 

Admiral KRISTENSEN. We are just attempting to ensure that the 

land is used for the benefit of all the people of Guam, sir. 

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. That means there is a presumption, then, 

that the people of Guam will not use it for their own benefit, somehow use it for some harmful benefit to themselves. There is a presumption understood like that, that is what bothers me. 

Admiral KRISTENSEN. Yes, sir, you could read it that way, I 

guess. 

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. Thank you. 

Mr. DE LUGO. Thank the gentleman from Puerto Rico for those 

observations, and we would like to recognize at this time the gentleman from American Samoa, Congressman Faleomavaega. 

STATEMENT OF HON. ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want .to certainly thank you for taking this initiative in calling this hearing, and especially to hear the testimonies with reference to the bill 

that has been introduced by my good friend, Congressman 

Underwood, from Guam. And I want to initially express my appreciation and commendation to Congressman Underwood for doing 

such a splendid job in providing for the provisions of this bill. That 

is such a controversial issue that has evolved with the people of 

Guam and the military for so many years now. 

My only regret, Mr. Chairman, is that the bill does not go far 

enough to actually return other portions of land that rightfully 

should be returned to the people and the Government of Guam. I 

will have some questions that I want to follow up on that line. 

First of all, I also want to express my personal Hafa Adai to 

Lieutenant Governor Bias and Speaker San ~stin and our Senators Manibusan, former Lieutenant Governor Edward Reyes, and, 

I am sorry if I didn't see everyone else. 
54 

Mr. UNDERWOOD. Speaker Ada. 

Mr, FALEOMAVAEGA. Speaker Ada, sorry. 

We all know that aperoximately 30 percent of the land in Guam 

is controlled by the military. Whether it was taken by due compensation I am not clear on that, but I wanted to ask our panelists this morning a couple of questions. 

I hear that there is no objection from the Department of Defense, 

through both of you gentlemen, that the 3,200 acres that we are 

talking about should be returned to the Government of Guam? 

Admiral KRISTENSEN. Yes, sir, that is correct. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. With the condition that the Government of 

Guam has to pay for the environmental costs or cleanup? Admiral KRISTENSEN. Not with the condition, sir, but we are recommending if the land is transferred at no cost that the Government of Guam might be responsible for the transfer costs of that 

property. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Let me ask you this, if there is a sense of 

consistency in our policies emanating here from Washington within 

the Beltway. 

You are recommending the Government of Guam be responsible for the cleanup of the transfer of these 3,200 acres, and by the 

same token, after bombing this island called Kaho'olawe in the 

State of Hawaii, the approximate cost that will take to clean up this island before it can be transferred to the Native Hawaiians is 

approximately $360 million. That has been proposed it be borne by 

the Federal Government. I see a clear contradiction here in our pol- icy. 

We are asking the Guamanian Government to take responsibility 

for the cleanup and yet we are willing to take the responsibility to 

expend over $300 million to clean up the island of Kaho'olawe before it is returned to the Native Hawaiians. 

Can you explain that, Admiral? If I am way off on this one or 

am I singing the blues here-I am trying to clarify this policy. 

Admiral KRISTENSEN. I cannot address the policy with regard to 

Hawaii, sir, I am not knowled~eable in that area. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Well, 1t is quite simple. The military controls the island of Kaho'olawe. They have been conducting bombing missions for all these years. There are a lot of duds there, a lot of 

bombs that did not explode. The island is approximately 65 square 

miles. It is a big island. And the way it was done, when it was 

transferred for the use of the military, was as a target to conduct 

tal'get ~ractice both by the Air Force as well as by the Navy. 

The mformation that has come to my attention recently is that 

there has to be some responsibility before this island is to be returned either to the Government of Hawaii or to the Native Hawaiians, the indigenous and original owners of this island. 

Admiral KRISTENSEN. Well, sir, I can't provide an answer at this 

time but I will provide an answer for the record to that question, 

[The information follows:] 

The Navy is actively working with Senator Inouye's staff to draft legislation which 

will provide for the transfer of Kaho'olawe Island to the State of Hawaii, and for 

certain environmental cleanup at federal expense. Kaho'olawe Island is markedly different from federal excess land on Guam. Kaho'olawe Island was a military bombing range for many years, and contains substantial amounts of unexploded ord- nance. By comparison, the Navy parcels of land identified in H.R. 2144 contain only 
55 

two IR sites, which are in the process of being cleaned up by the Navy. No other 

environmental problems have been discovered, so the costs of environmental cleanup are not expected to be so extensive. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Well, I will have to strongly disagree then 

and oppose your recommendation that the Government of Guam 

take up this responsibility if we see in other instances that the 

Government of the United States is willing to take responsibility 

for cleaning up other areas of properties that the military had once 

utilized. 

What is the total acreage of the Naval Air Station? 

Admiral KRISTENSEN. Total acreage of the Naval Air Station is 

approximately 2, 700 acres. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Three thousand seven hundred? 

Admiral KRISTENSEN. Two thousand seven hundred. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. What about Andersen Air Force Base? 

General BURR. It is in excess of 20,000 acres. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. So when we talk about 30 percent of the islands controlled by the military, we are talking about how many 

acres, total? 

Admiral KRISTENSEN. About 42,000 acres, sir. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Forty-two thousand acres. 

I believe things have changed tremendously. Obviously, gentlemen, we all realize here that the Cold War is over. I am always 

curious what exactly is the policy of the Department of Defense, 

our strategic and military interests, towards the Pacific. 

I know the Department of Defense always seems to have the 

higher hand when it comes to planning our overall policies as far 

as affecting our strategic interests both in the western Pacific region as well as all over the Pacific Ocean, for that matter. 

I want to ask you, gentlemen, what exactly is DOD policy now 

towards the territory of Guam? Do we consider it still the highest 

priority as far as our military interests are concerned? Or do you 

see that perhaps because we have moved out of Subic Bay, no more 

Clark Air Force Base, do we see now Guam even more important 

or do you see perhaps we have other options we can exercise? Because this seems to be really the bottom line, our presence in 

Guam is because of our strategic interests at the cost of the welfare 

of the needs of our Chamorro U.S. citizens. 

Can you share with us what is DOD policy now with reference 

to the territory? Admiral KRISTENSEN. The territory of Guam is an integral part of the strategy, military strategy, in the western Pacific. It is a tremendous logistics o~eration in support of all of the forces deployed under the 7th Fleets area of responsibility: The Indian Ocean, Persian Gulf, the entire western Pacific. 

It has become more valuable, as you have indicated, with the 

closing of Cubi Point Naval Air Force Station, Subic Bay Station, 

and Clark Air Force Base in the Philippines. We moved approximately 1,700 active duty billets on the Navy side from the Philippines to Guam in support of the strategic needs of the military 

in the western Pacific. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Do both you gentlemen feel it is absolutely 

necessary we have two air bases in Guam, one run by the Air Force 

and the other run by the Navy? 
56 

Admiral KRISTENSEN. Well, I think that question has been answered by the BRAC Commission, sir. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. And what was that answer? 

Admiral KRISTENSEN. Naval Air Station Agana, Guam is going to 

be closed. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. When will that be? 

Admiral KRISTENSEN. Once the legislation is approved, I believe 

we have 1 to 5 years to close that air station, sir. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. And then the land will be returned to the 

Government of Guam? 

Admiral KRISTENSEN. Through the excess process, and I believe 

the Government of Guam is in that process, yes, sir. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Will it be at a later time that the Government of Guam will have to take up some financial responsibility for 

the value of the air station? 

Admiral KRISTENSEN. Well, the entire 2,700 acres, I don't believe, 

will be going back to the Government of Guam. We are going to 

maintain our military family housing and our bachelor quarters as 

directed by the BRAC Commission on that naval station right now 

atNAS. 

So it will be the operational areas of the Naval Air Station that 

will be returned to the Government of Guam. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. What is the approximate total investment of 

our milital)' presence in Guam? 

Admiral KRISTENSEN. We estimate our input to the economy of 

Guam at about $650 million to $700 million a year. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. To the economy of Guam? 

Admiral KRISTENSEN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. What about the total investment of the fixtures, all the things that the military has put in place? Admiral KRISTENSEN. I don't have an estimate of that figure. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Can you provide that for the record? 

Admiral KRISTENSEN. Yes, sir, we will provide that for the 

record. 

[The information follows:] 

The total Navy investment since 1945 in facilities at Naval Air Station Agana, 

Guam is $67 million. This equates to a current plant value of $24 7 million which 

approximates the replacement cost. These figures do not include the 488 units of 

married family housmg but do include bachelor housing (barracks) and all associated support and recreational facilities. These housing areas and associated support and recreational facilities are to be retained by the Navy, pursuant to the rec- ommendation of the Base Realignment and Closure Commission. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. So you are saying our presence in Guam 

provides for about $600 million to $700 million to the Guam economy? 

Admiral KRISTENSEN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. And the number of military personnel we 

have on the island? 

Admiral KRISTENSEN. Twenty four thousand active duty and dependents. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Chairman, I thank both gentlemen for 

their responses, and thank you again, Mr. Chairman. I have some 

other questions but will take them in the next round. Thank you 

very much. 

Mr. DE Luoo. Thank the gentleman from American Samoa. 
57 

I have one or two questions for General Burr. General, you mentioned individuals on Guam occupying Federal land and being told 

by the courts to leave the areas. What is the current situation and 

have any of the 3,200 acres that are covered in this bill been occupied? General BURR. One of the parcels of land in this bill has been 

occupied by squatters. The current situation is that Mr. Santos and 

Mr. Bias/DeSoto have vacated the property that they were squatting on. It was clearly Air Force prorerty. In Mr. Santos' case, his 

squatting was not on his grandfather s original land. 

There are some three or four other squatters' camps, where tents 

and other structures have been raised, and there are still varying 

amounts of activity around those other camps. But Mr. Bias/DeSoto 

and Mr. Santos have both been to court and they have vacated the 

property that they were occupying. 

Mr. DE Luoo. General, Congressman Underwood, along with 

Governor Ada, Speaker San Agustin, worked tirelessly to get the 

operations of NAS Agana transferred to Andersen Air Force Base, 

and there was an exchange a moment ago between Congressman Faleomavaega and Admiral Kristensen regarding the air base. 

Can you tell us how this will work and what it will mean to the 

Navy and the Air Force and to the people of Guam? 

General BURR. Once the Navy decides which operational missions they are going to move to Andersen, the Air Force's position is that we welcome the Navy to come to Andersen. We obviously 

have parking space to put their flying missions there. We do not 

have the infrastructure to support operations, maintenance structures and hangars, nor do we have excess housing. So it will require money to be poured into Andersen Air Force Base to bed 

down those flying operations that the Navy decides to move into 

Andersen from NAS Agana. 

Mr. DE Luoo. How many aircraft are at Andersen at the present 

time? 

General BURR. There are approximately three C-130s, about six 

or eight S-3s, and about ten or twelve C-2s at the current time. 

Mr. DE Luoo. Those are all the questions the Chair has. 

Gentleman from Guam, do you have any additional questions of 

these witnesses? 

Mr. UNDERWOOD. Yes, the question goes back again to the issue 

of the land planning and the issue pertaining to the cost of possibly cleaning up, because this land is being given back to the Government of Guam without cost. 

AB I understand it now, you are indicating that the value of the 

property here, the 3,200 acres, is around $900 million; am I correct? 

Admiral KRISTENSEN. That is our estimate of the current market 

value. 

Mr. UNDERWOOD. The current market value. Why would it not be 

logical that if the Government of Guam, if they wanted to put them 

in a position to purchase back the land at the original price that 

the military paid for it, then the Government of Guam could do 

with the property whatever it sees fit, given the circumstances 

under which the land was taken, in which case we had the Department of the Navy setting up a court system through which they 
58 

condemned the property and then the people were asked to adju- dicate their concerns through a court system that was in fact established by the military. 

It seems to me that would be clearly a logical case of dealing with it on a just basis, given all the things that had occurred. 

Admiral KRISTENSEN. Yes, sir, the process through which the 

land was acquired was, to my knowledge, legal at the time. The 

Federal excess process for land today, that process calls for the 

land to be sold at current market value. 

If the Government of Guam went through the process, current 

market value would have to be paid for that property to have it returned to a new owner. And we feel that if, in fact, the process is 

legislatively not followed through with and that the excess property 

is returned at no cost, then with the downsizing of the Federal 

budgets today, then we feel it would be beneficial for the benefactor 

of that property to pay for the transfer costs. 

Mr. UNDERWOOD. Well, part of the reason why we are doing this 

legislatively is because there are indeed special circumstances here. 

If indeed there were no special circumstances or no unusual characteristics about how this land was taken and the kinds of concerns 

and issues that have been raised about it, it would seem entirely 

appropriate to use the standard Federal excess process that is in 

existence, a process which, according to my calculation, has netted 

the Government of Guam 49 acres per year. So it seems to me that one of the reasons why we are using this 

process is to step outside the bounds of that and to take into account the special considerations. I think this is the reason why 

there is a great deal of concern about the tendency to continue to 

use existing Federal rules and procedures to impact this return of 

excess property, when one of the reasons why we are trying to do 

this on a "fast track basis" and which we failed miserably on a fast 

track basis in the past is because there are unusual circumstances 

here. 

If there were no unusual circumstances, Admiral, I think that 

clearly we could use the existing circumstances. 

Admiral KRISTENSEN. Yes, sir, and, again, this is a concern of 

mine and the Department of the Navy's with regard to the transfer 

of this property. But if it is the sense of Congress that it should 

be done at no cost, and the Department of the Navy to pick up the 

transfer costs, then that would be the law, sir. 

Mr. UNDERWOOD. Okay. I would like to again thank you personally, both of you gentlemen, for your cooperation on this. I know 

that this is a difficult process to go through, and I thank both of 

you for your openness and your willingness to discuss this issue 

here, not only here but in our previous meetings on Guam. Thank 

you. 

Mr. DE Luoo. The gentleman from American Samoa. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We were discussing earlier the value of the 3,200 acres that is to be transferred. Can you state that again, the value of this 3,200 acres? 

Admiral KRISTENSEN. We estimate the value of the 3,200 acres 

to be somewhere in the area of $900 million. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. $900 million? 

Admiral KRISTENSEN. Yes, sir. 
59 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. And who did the appraisal, the Department 

of Defense? 

Admiral KRISTENSEN. My staff, sir. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. This is on the commercial value or military 

value. 

Admiral KRISTENSEN. Commercial value, sir. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. And the appraisal is sustained also by the 

government officials of Guam as well as the private sector? They 

agree this is the value of this excess land? 

Admiral KRISTENSEN. We used the commercial value that land is 

being sold for on Guam today. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. How did the Department of Defense determine the 3,200 acres are considered excess? $900 million is considered excess? 

Admiral KRISTENSEN. This land was considered excess, it was 

part of 5,000 acres that was originally considered and found to be 

excess by the Guam Land Use Plan that was developed in 1977, 

sir. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Is this piece ofland adjacent to NAS or NCS 

or Andersen? 

Admiral KRISTENSEN. The 3,200 acres are the red areas on this 

chart here, sir. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Is that next to NAS? 

Admiral KRISTENSEN. No, sir. If I can go to the chart I will point 

to it. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. I see the red spot but that is--

Admiral KRISTENSEN. It is up in Dededo. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Oh, Dededo by the Naval Communication 

Station? 

Admiral KRISTENSEN. Just south of the Naval Computer Telecommunication Master Station. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. I used to go to Whitten Elementary School 

in Houston so I have my bearings. I thought maybe I lost my bearings there, Admiral. I wanted to make sure. 

You know, in the past, the Department of the Interior has 

thrown a couple of monkey wrenches on this whole issue of land. 

Have you been in consultation with our friends in the Department 

of the Interior. Are they also involved in the whole deliberation 

process? I hope they don't mess it up again. 

Admiral KRISTENSEN. We have been in discussions with the Department of the Interior for some time. I have been on Guam for 

15 months and I have been in discussions with the Department of 

the Interior that whole time with regard to critical habitat, overlay 

refuge, land use, my whole area of responsibility, sir. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. So you have not heard any objections or concerns from the Department of the Interior? 

Admiral KRISTENSEN. Yes, sir. 

[Clarification follows:] 

"Yes, sir'' may be misleading (since the question posed a double negative). For 

clarification, the response is intended to indicate that I (RADM Kristensen) had 

heard of concerns from the Department of the Interior. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. I was listening to your dialogue with Congressman Underwood about the historical perspective about Guam. 

I have my own prejudices, too, about the history of Guam. 
60 

We recently sent a satellite or some sort of thing up in the solar 

system called the Magellan, and if it wasn't a butcher, then I would 

like to label without any hesitation, that this man that came to the 

islands, we call him the butcher of Guam and the island people, is 

Mr. Magellan. Of course, his conduct and some of the things he did, 

not only to the Chamorros but to the Filipino Natives, is not exactly my kind of conduct that I consider to be very Christian, by 

way of history, and some of the things that he did against the 

Chamorro people. 

It concerns me, and I just wanted to ask you, in your statement 

about the historical aspects of how Guam was annexed and all of 

this, was this based on a battery of historians with the Department 

of Defense that were very scholarly in their research in saying how 

this relationship evolved and that the people of Guam, given the 

fact they were never given any exercise of their self-determination, 

as a nonself-governing territory under the provisions of the United 

Nations Charter? 

I am just curious if you could help me put it in a proper way as 

it was shared by my friend Congressman Underwood. There seems 

to be a disagreement on the history and exactly how Guam was annexed and our war with Spain. I suppose that was how this whole 

thing evolved. 

Was there at any time and at any point in our relationship with 

the Chamorros, did we ever ask the Chamorros at that time after 

the war with Spain what is their perspective for their future and 

their problems? 

Like anything, we have been exposed to this kind of thing for 

several other Amy groups, but I wanted to know your feelings 

about this. 

General BURR. Mr. Congressman, I am obviously not an expert 

on Guamanian history. I can just refer to the facts that the United 

States did acquire the current situation after the Spanish-American War of 1898, and I would have to submit for the record any 

dialogue that the United States Government had with the 

Chamorro people on their status. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. There was not one speck of light somewhere 

indicating that perhaps the Chamorros in some way or somehow 

are somewhat sovereign as indigenous people to this island, way 

before Magellan came, way before the Spanish came, way before 

the Spanish-American War. 

I was just wanting to ask if we have any historians at the Department of Defense that would like to submit more documents and 

materials for the record on how this whole historical dialogue came 

about. 

I, certainly, Mr. Chairman, would love to get more information 

about that, as, I am sure, my good friend--

Mr. DE LUGO. Well, I understand where my friend from American Samoa is going, and if we go back to my area, we had Columbus down there, but that is not the purpose of this hearing today. 

We have two distinguished military officers here before us. We 

certainly don't blame them for the mistakes of Magellan, that is for 

sure. 

Admiral KRISTENSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 
61 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. I couldn't agree more, Mr. Chairman. I was 

just suggesting for the purposes of our hearing the fact there was 

an historical account giving our relationship with Guam in the 

past, and I wanted a greater clarification of some of the historical 

points and issues affecting our relationship and I thought that per- haps this will certainly help this Member to appreciate it more. 

But in closing, Mr. Chairman, and to our good friends on the 

panel, the next anthropologist coming to my islands, I think I will 

shoot him. 

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. DE Luoo. Let me just say, in listening to the gentleman from 

American Samoa, your statements. are important because many 

times, because of a lack of understanding of history and certainly 

a lack of understanding of many of the native or indigenous people 

who were involved, you get into-did you say that there is a satellite named for Magellan? 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Yes, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. DE LuGO. Well, you see, that is the same thing. You know, 

one group of people will view Magellan in a positive way and other 

people looking at the history may have a completely different view 

of Magellan and the conquistadors, depending on what end of the 

bayonet you were on. 

So many of these things are offensive to many people. Many people are enlightened as to what went on, and I understand what you 

are saying. But, as I said, these gentlemen are not responsible for 

Magellan. They may have a responsibility here with regard to the 

cleanup. That is different. 

Admiral KRISTENSEN. Mr. Chairman, if I may? 

Mr. DE LUGO. But we will not use Magellan as a cover here. 

Admiral KRISTENSEN. Mr. Chairman? 

Mr. DE LUGO. Yes, Admiral. 

Admiral KRISTENSEN. General Burr and myself really cannot 

take responsibility for Magellan and those that followed up until 

about a year and a half ago, but I would like just to say thatMr. DE LUGO. Let me interrupt to say about a year and a half 

ago things started to look up. Admiral KRISTENSEN. Well, thank you, sir. I would like to say, though, that we feel that the military presence on Guam is reallythat Guam is a one-community island. We don't see it as a civilian 

population and a military population. We attempt in every way to 

involve the community in what we are doing as well the community involves us in what they are doing. 

In the parcels of land that have already been transferred to the 

Government of Guam for schools for the good of the people of 

Guam, I think that we have made every effort to take into account 

the Chamorros' desires, what they want to see happen on Guam. 

Thank you. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Would the Chairman yield? 

Mr. DE LUGO. Yes. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. I just want to say, Mr. Chairman, that I did 

not in any way intend to caste any- aspersions on our friends on the 

panel, and certainly not to you. You are absolutely correct, we do 

have different perspectives about history, some in a very glorious 

way and some in a very inhuman way. But because of the fact that 

73-296 0 - 93 - 3 
62 

our friends gave us the historical account with what had happened in our relationship with Guam, I felt that perhaps we ought to 

delve into it a little more so that we could be further enlightened. 

But I couldn't agree with the Chairman more, let's get on with the 

work of the 3,200 acres. 

I do not want to dwell on the sins of the past, but given the Floor 

deliberations yesterday, one of the Members was advocating we 

should give some thought to the process and the things we need 

to correct some of these deficiencies, and the gentleman from Mary- land said we also have to have a good understanding of history so 

that we can better appreciate what we are planning for now and 

especially for the future. 

I thank the Chairman. 

Mr. DE Luao, Thank you, I understand the gentleman from 

Guam has one final question. 

Mr. UNDERWOOD. Right. In terms of your discussions with other 

Federal agencies on this particular 3,200 acres, has there ever been 

any discussion about use of any of these 3,200 acres by any other 

Federal agency? 

Admiral KRISTENSEN. Not in my discussions with any other Federal agency, no, sir. The only discussions we have had with other 

Federal agencies, they have all indicated that they agreed, in prin- ciple, to the transfer of that 3,200 acres. 

Mr. UNDERWOOD. Okay, very good. And not to belabor the point about the $900 million, since it is your figure, but just to point out 

that in the compensation for the entire 40,000 acres, which is now 

under military control, the original payoff was $1.7 million for all 

of it, and then in the second round, it was $39.5 million, yet we 

are talking about the value here of less than 10 percent of that 

property at being $900 million. 

I want to know who your broker is and where I can get in on 

some of that action. 

Admiral KRISTENSEN. I would like to know also, sir. 

Mr. DE LUGO. That certainly is a dramatic appreciation. Well, I want to thank both of you for having come again. You 

have been very helpful. When we quote this figure of $900 million and you go back and 

take a look at what the land was originally acquired for, it is a fact 

that most of this land was taken by eminent domain and other 

land was willingly-the people of Guam did believe that they were 

helping our country. They are a very patriotic people. They proved 

this during World War II. 

And I think that we are all aware of this and I think that we 

can move forward with good will on both sides to try to resolve this 

whole issue; that it will be best not only for the people of Guam 

but also for the United States and for the Department of Defense 

dealing with this new world situation that we deal with today. 

Again, I want to thank both of you. Thank you. 

Admiral KRISTENSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

General BURR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. DE LUGO. Our next witnesses are a panel from the territory 

of Guam. The Honorable Frank F. Blas, Lieutenant Governor of 

Guam; Honorable Joe T. San Agustin, Speaker of the Legislature 

of Guam; the Honorable Thomas C. Ada; Honorable Marilyn D.A. 
63 

Manibusan; and the Honorable Edward Reyes, all Senators of the 

Legislature of Guam. 

Let me welcome you all here on behalf of our Subcommittee. Let 

me say that we appreciate your traveling all this way and crossing the State line to be with us here today. I have known all of you for a long time, have spoke to some of you recently about the prob- lems with Guam, and as I indicated privately, before assuming the 

Chair this morning, I will have to ask the gentleman from Guam 

to assume the Chair at shortly before 12 o'clock today because of 

other responsibilities that I have. I am a conferee on the President's budget package, the reconciliation package, and as you 

know, we are trying to resolve that and I have that meeting and 

several other conflicts. 

So I will try to come back before this is over, but if I cannot, 

please understand it does not indicate any less of an interest. 

With that, let me say without objection all of your statements 

will be pl~ced in the record at this point: Also, let me say that we 

have rece1ved a statement from the Assistant Secretary of the Interior, Secretary Turner, on this legislation, and without objection, 

the Secretary's statement will be placed in the record just before 

the appearance of this panel. 

[Prepared statement of Ms. Turner follows:] 
STATEMENT OF LESLIE M. TURNER, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE 

INTERIOR FOR TERRITORIAL AND INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS, REGARDING 

H.R. 2144 AND THE CONVEYANCE OF SURPLUS FEDERAL LAND ON GUAM. 

SUBMITTED FOR THE JULY 29 1 1993 HEARING OF THE HOUSE 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON INSULAR AND INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS ON H.R. 2144. 

Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee on Insular and 

International Affairs, I am pleased to submit this written 

statement on H.R. 2144 and the conveyance of surplus Federal 

land on Guam, and to offer the Department of the Interior's 

position on several issues raised by the bill. 

On a personal note, Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank you, 

several other members of the subcommittee, and Chairman Miller 

for the warm reception given me in initial meetings we have had 

over the past several months. I look forward to a cooperative 

and mutually beneficial working relationship as we attempt to 

resolve issues confronting the insular areas. 

It is significant that in my initial statement for your 

subcommittee, the subject is land. Land has profound 

implications in insular areas. The intensity of debate about 

land issues is heightened on islands because it is a limited 

resource and because its historic value is so intertwined with 

cultural identity. During my visit to Guam in mid-July, I had 

the opportunity to extensively tour the island. I have seen 
65 

the island's beauty and I recognize the need to address the 

issue of surplus Federal land in an expeditious manner. 

Delegate Robert Underwood, as sponsor of the Guam lands 

legislation, is to be commended for introducing H.R. 2144. The 

Department of the Interior agrees with the major principle of 

Mr. Underwood's bill -- that unneeded Federal land on Guam 

should be returned to the Government of Guam and that the 

Government of Guam, within parameters that adequately address 

environmental and stewardship concerns, should determine the 

optimum public benefit use of the properties. 

Brief History 

Most of the 45,000 acres on Guam that is owned by the United 

States was acquired after the United States liberated Guam from 

Japanese occupation in 1944. Other statements at today's 

hearing provide a more detailed chronicle of Federal land 

holding in Guam. For the purposes of my statement, it suffices 

to say, that the private landowners from whom the land was 

acquired through condemnation procedures remembered the 

Japanese occupation. They were happy to see the United states 

return, and, for the most part, were willing to make their land 

available to the military, if needed. These private landowners 

received $1.6 million in initial compensation for the land in 

the late 1940s and early 1950s. Most of these landowners also 

received additional compensation from a $39.5 million 

2 
66 

settlement made available through the courts in 1983, pursuant 

to Public Law 95-134. That 1977 statute had authorized the 

u.s. District Court on Guam to adjudicate claims from former 

owners who believed they had not received fair market value for 

their property. 

These 45,000 acres are Federal land. The Department of the 

Interior, however, recognizes the special interest of the 

people and Government of Guam and seeks to accommodate those 

interests within current legal and political limitations. The 

Government of Guam and many former landowners or their heirs 

would like to acquire the lands once owned by residents of 

Guam. However, under existing law, [P.L. 152, Chapter 288, 63 

Stat 377 (40 u.s.c. 471) - The Federal Property and 

Administrative Services Act], it was anticipated that much of 

the land would be sold to the highest bidder, which would 

likely be foreign interests which have substantial resources 

available to pay the market price for this valuable property. 

It would not seem appropriate for this land to pass into 

foreign hands, especially in light of the history of land 

issues on Guaa and the scarcity of land on the island. 

Accordingly, in 1985, members of the u.s. Congress wrote to the 

Administration and urged that surplus Federal lands on Guam DQt 

be conveyed under existing law, but that Congress be given an 

opportunity to pass legislation designed to deal with the 

3 
67 

special circumstances on Guam. To date, Congress has been 

unable to enact such legislation. It is important to note that 

of the approximately 5,100 acres of Federally-held land 

identified as excess in the 1977 Guam Land Use Plan, the 

Government of Guam has already acquired about 1400 of those 

acres for public purposes under the Federal Property Disposal 

Act. In addition, about 500 acres were withdrawn from the 

excess list over the years. The remaining excess land, about 

3,200 acres, is the object of Mr. Underwood's bill. 

support for Legislation with Changes 

The Administration supports Mr. Underwood's hill, with its 

ultimate conveyance of land to the Government of Guam, if a 

number of issues are resolved. 

Transfer Procedures 

First, the hill provides for transfer of named parcels of land 

to the Government of Guam 180 days after Guam submits a land 

use plan for the properties. The rationale for this method of 

transfer is to foreclose withdrawals from the excess land list. 

The Administration does not see DOD's reporting of its unneeded 

property to GSA as an impediment, provided a procedure is 

established that ensures a careful analysis of potential uses 

of the land under Guam's ownership, and assures compliance with 

Administration and Congressional guidelines on such uses. This 

desire for careful planning can be accommodated if, for the 

4 
68 

temporary planning period, the land is transferred to the 

Secretary of the Interior. The Government of Guam would then 

be required to submit its land use plan for the properties to 

the secretary of the Interior. The Secretary would work with 

DOD, other relevant agencies and the Government of Guam to 

revise the plan, if necessary, to ensure it meets public 

benefit use guidelines, before the Secretary issues final 

approval. 

GSA should also be designated as the transferring agency once 

the plan is approved. All conveyance costs should be borne by 

Guam. 

Public Benefit Use 

Second, in order to insure that the transfer is for public 

benefit use and to guard against turn-around sales to foreign 

interests, we believe it is vital that the Government of Guam 

work closely with the Secretary of the Interior to develop the 

public benefit use plan. There has been debate in the past 

over what the appropriate definition of "public benefit use" in 

Guam should be. Providing flexibility for the secretary and 

the Goverruaent of Guam to work out an appropriate "public 

benefit use• definition is appropriate. In order to guarantee 

continued public benefit use, however, there should be an 

additional stipulation. If the Government of Guam were to 

subsequently decide, after the Secretary had conveyed the 

5 
69 

lands, to use certain of those properties for purposes outside 

the scope of the public benefit use plan, the Government of 

Guam should be required to pay the Federal Government the then 

existing appraised fair market value of those lands. 

War in the Pacific National Historical Park 

A third issue not factored into H.R. 2144, at present, is the 

unfinished land acquisition program for the War in the Pacific 

National Historical Park. This includes privately held land 

within the Park's boundaries as well as Government of Guam 

lands (most of which are submerged lands} which have not yet 

been transferred to the park. It would be imprudent of the 

Federal government, in these times of severely tightened 

budgets, to release valuable lands without compensation, only 

to turn around and appropriate new funds to pay for the 

purchase of all private inholdings in the Park. Therefore, the 

Secretary of the Interior, while holding the lands for 

conveyance, should have the authority to make arrangements for 

the acquisition of privately-held Park lands necessary for the 

park by exchanging excess Federal lands for the inholdings and 

to securing the conveyance of Government of Guam lands in the 

Park before the remainder of the surplus Federal lands are 

transferred to the Government of Guam. 

Critical Habitat versus National Wildlife &efuge 

6 
70 

Finally, it also is important to note the potential effects on 

Federal excess lands on Guam of a recent National Audubon 

Society legal action against the Department of the Interior. 

The complaint seeks to compel Interior to issue a critical 

habitat designation which was initially requested by the 

Government of Guam in 1987. However, over the past several 

years, the Government of Guam has been working with the 

Department of the Interior's Fish and Wildlife Service and the 

Department of Defense to develop protective land management 

measures which may obviate the need for critical habitat 

designation. This would be accomplished through the 

establishment of a National Wildlife Refuge OVerlay on 28,000 

acres of Federal and Government of Guam lands. 

However, should the courts impose a critical habitat 

designation, a larger land area may be affected than under the 

Refuge overlay alternative, and the restrictions on use and 

development of those lands could be more stringent. 

Conclusion 

For the reasons set out above, it is necessary to recommend 

modifications to Mr. Underwood's bill. With revisions that 

adequately address the issues we have outlined, the Department 

of the Interior could support the measure to convey surplus 

Federal property to the Government of Guam for public benefit 

use. Thank you. 

7 
71 

Mr. DE LUGO. So at this point, we will begin with the Lieutenant 

Governor. Good to have you with us, Governor Bias. Please begin. 

PANEL CONSISTING OF HON. FRANK F. BLAS, LIEUTENANT 

GOVERNOR OF GUAM; BON. JOE T. SAN AGUSTIN, SPEAKER 

OF THE LEGISLATURE OF GUAM; AND BON. THOMAS C. AD~ 

BON. MARILYN D.A. MANIBUSAN, AND BON. EDWARD D. 

REYES, SENATORS, LEGISLATURE OF GUAM 

STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK F. BLAS 

Mr. BLAS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Good morning, and to our Congressman from Guam, Mr. 

Underwood. Thank you for this opportunity to testify on this most 

important measure. 

I am here of course representing the views of our Administration, 

as a proud member of the Team Guam, to support H.R. 2144, introduced by our Congressman. 

This is indeed an important measure, addressing as it does one 

of the deepest concerns of our people, especially the indigenous 

Chamorro. Our people look forward to the return of this first 3,200 

acres. 

Our people see the return of this land as a possible way to address the needs of landless Chamorros, many of whom are landless 

in part because of these condemnations that took place in Guam 

years ago. They see possibilities in addressing housing needs for 

our people, for other good uses of public benefit, and of course addressing the needs of those people from whom this land was taken 

so long ago. 

It is fitting that this hearing take place so soon after the fortyninth anniversary of the recapture of Guam by American forces, on 

July 21, 1944. Fitting, because the subject matter we are discussing is a direct product of those turbulent times. World War II was 

a very traumatic time, of course, for Guam and for the Chamorro 

people. 

But as devastating as the loss of so many loved ones was, as 

much as our people suffered during that time, we do not dwell on 

it. It is past and nothing can be done to bring them back. And although the losses were great, the events which had the longest and 

most profound continuous effect upon Guam and the Chamorro 

J>eople were those that took place m the years immediately after 

World War II. I speak of the massive taking of land from our people by the U.S. military. The takings were almost universal. 

But after World War II, the Federal Government overnight became by far the largest landowner in Guam, destroying forever the 

basis of our pre-war economy. We talk frequently about the Federal 

Government holding one-third of Guam's land area. What we sometimes overlook is that in the immediate post-World War II period, 

Federal takings were greater even than that. In fact, at one point 

prior to 1950, and according to the best information we currently 

have, the military possessed more than 79,000 acres in Guam. 

Now, that may not sound like so much land to someone from 

Texas. But my friends, I remind you that Guam is only some 230 

square miles in area. All of Guam is only about 130,000 acres. 
72 

The results of these massive takings live on to this very day, and 

no doubt have forever changed the future of Guam, for good and 

bad. 

And many of our people, thousands of them, no longer could walk 

the land that their parents had always intended they would inherit. 

The conditions under which the military took this land have long been the subject of controversy. When many of these condemnations occurred, Chamorros were not even U.S. citizens. And while 

the power of the Federal Government is always very broad when 

it comes to administering territories and people who are viewed as 

spoils of war, the question arises: Is it moral to exercise eminent 

domain over people who are denied full and equal participation in 

the Government exercising sovereignty over their property? And 

who indeed were not even token citizens at the time? 

And why was basic due process denied in the execution of these 

condemnations? In America, when the Government condemns land, 

the executive branch condemns, the people literally have their day 

in court, in the judiciary, to seek just compensation. In Guam at 

that time, the military was the taker, the prosecutor, the judge and 

the court, all rolled into one. The only way in Guam, in 1949, to 

pursue a grievance about compensation in a Federal land taking 

was to go to precisely the same people who took the land from you 

in the first place and complain. That hardly sounds like due process. 

All these issues were, in theory, dealt with in the land claims 

cases of several years ago, but what about the final consideration? 

We had just gone through a military occupation during World 

War II. The people taking this land represented the biggest, the 

most intimidating military machine that our people, or the world 

for that matter, had ever known. 

Is it any wonder that these condemnations went as smoothly as 

they did? 

Although there are those who say that these issues of taking and 

compensation became moot with the land claims cases, others 

argue that there are still issues, especially dealing with the fiduciary responsibilities implicit in the Treaty of Paris that ceded 

Guam to the United States, that must still be addressed. 

In any event, why was it necessary for the U.S. military to acquire so much of our land? In fact, when the military condemned 

all these properties after World War II, it was to implement a 

strategy that never came to pass. Initially, as you know, Guam was 

to be a major staging area for the invasion of Japan, an invasion 

which thankfully became unnecessary as a result of Hiroshima and 

Nagasaki. 

Subsequently, it was planned that Guam would become a major 

forward deployment area, not just for a strategic air wing and 

naval forces, but for land forces. This strategy changed due to the 

fall of China to Mao Tse Tung in 1949, and the outbreak of the Korean War. Suddenly, a forward military position in Asia became 

the Asian continent itself. From the very day that these lands were 

condemned, to this day in 1993, a good percentage of the lands 

taken by the military in Guam have never been used, never been 

used, for anything. 
73 

Even at the height of the Vietnam War, when military activity 

in Guam was at its peak, many thousands of acres were unused. 

How much more is this the case today, when military activity is 

at a post-war low in Guam, and with further military cuts likely. Consider the fact that the Base Realignment and Closure Commission has recommended the closure of NAS Agana. If even an active military base in Guam is no longer of significant value to the 

Federal Government, how much less valuable must be the thousands upon thousands of acres of land that has been kept fallow 

for more than 40 years? . The time has come to return, not just the 3,200 acres in this bill, 

but thousands of acres more. This bill, however, is a great first 

step, but it is only a first step. 

We believe that if a new and honest study of the military requirement for land in Guam would be conducted immediately, the 

amount of land available for return to Guam would be tripled at 

the very least. 

It is vital that we take this first step, however-the passage of 

this bill. We cannot continue to delay this process. Chamorro families have camped on Federal properties in Guam, protesting the 

continued Federal holding of these properties. These people, my 

people, these families, my families, have risked so much to make 

the1r point in Guam. And in spite of our deep affection for America 

and our long history of cooperation, and even devotion to American 

causes, voices are being raised in that most original of American 

cause-dissent-and the search for justice and fairness. 

A dynamic is under way in Guam. After decades of acquiescence, 

Chamorros are beginning to say no, that most powerful of words, 

in defense of their rights. In Guam, our people are no longer willing to look at injustice as simply our lot in life, and are determined 

to work, indeed struggle, to make things better. The Chamorro peo- ple no longer simply look at things as they are and ask why. In 

the words of Robert Kennedy, they are looking at things as they should be and demanding why not. 

What was viewed as radical but a few years ago is today mainstream thinking in Guam. Perhaps the greatest lesson we have 

learned in Guam, in the past two decades, is the American lesson 

that states clearly that one must vociferously speak out in defense 

of one's own liberty. 

The dynamic I speak of has many manifestations. In its most 

pristine, it is a desire to maintain our language and our culture; 

our desire to promote the welfare of our people. In its deepest expression, it is our move to regain the right of self-government and 

self-determination that God gave us and that no man may take 

away. It is our fervent desire to make our own decisions for ourselves, as all free people must. 

And in its most emotional context, it is the move to reclaim our 

natural resources because land is sacred to us, perhaps because we 

have so little. We will be grateful to you, Mr. Chairman and Subcommittee, if as a first step the bill becomes law, a first step in a 

lol!g journey towards justice, · The dynamic I speak of in Guam is historically rooted, and in the 

final analysis, an inevitable consequence of the worldwide movement towards freedom and self-determination, a movement that 
74 

this Nation has done much to sponsor. We all pray, we hope, and 

we work towards harnessing this dynamic to forge even stronger 

friendship and partnership with America. Our success in this goal 

depends on legislation such as this bill. If you pass this bill, you 

will bring hope to many of our elderly who saw these lands taken 

from them and have dreamed of a da;r when they would be restored. If you pass this bill, you will gtve a new chance for thousands of our young ones, who will have, at long last, the opportunity to reclaim at least a part of their lost birthright. 

Please pass this bill. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. DE Luoo. Thank you very much, Governor Bias, for an excellent statement. A very compassionate, moving statement. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. Bias follows:] 
75 

, 7.-m,// ,y''!fuam 

, :f~,,t/iuqon ~9'u~ 

TESTIMONY 

H. R. 2144 

before the 

HOUSE SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

INSULAR AND INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS 

The Honorable Frank F. Bias 

Lieutenant Governor of Guam 

JULY 29,1993 

CHAIRMAN DE LUGO ... MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE ... THANK YOU FOR THIS 

OPPORTUNITY TO TESTIFY ON THIS MOST IMPORTANT MEASURE. 

I AM HERE REPRESENTING THE VIEWS OF OUR ADMINISTRATION, AS A 

PROUD MEMBER OF TEAM GUAM. I AM HERE, ALONG WITH THE SPEAKER OF 

OUR LEGISLATURE, THE HONORABLE JOE T. SAN AGUSTIN, TO SUPPORT BILL 

2144, INTRODUCED BY OUR DELEGATE, THE HONORABLE ROBERT UNDERWOOD. 

THIS IS INDEED AN IMPORTANT MEASURE, ADDRESSING AS IT DOES ONE OF 

THE DEEPEST CONCERNS OF OUR PEOPLE, ESPECIALLY THE INDIGENOUS 

CHAMORU PEOPLE OF GUAM. OUR PEOPLE LOOK FORWARD TO THE RETURN OF 

THIS FIRST 3,200 ACRES. IN GUAM, WE ARE IN THE PROCESS OF 

CONDUCTING SURVEYS TO DETERMINE PUBLIC ATTITUDES ABOUT LAND 

RETURN AMONG OUR PEOPLE. AND ALTHOUGH THE SURVEYS ARE NOT YET 

COMPLETE, I CAN SHARE SOME PRELIMINARY FINDINGS FROM THESE EFFORTS. 

OUR PEOPLE SEE THE RETURN OF THIS LAND AS A POSSIBLE WAY TO 

ADDRESS THE NEEDS OF LANDLESS CHAMORUS, MANY OF WHOM ARE 

LANDLESS IN PART BECAUSE OF THESE CONDEMNATIONS THAT TOOK PLACE 

INGUAM YEARS AGO. THEY SEE POSSIBILITIES IN ADDRESSING HOUSING 

NEEDS FOR OUR PEOPLE, FOR OTHER GOOD USES OF PUBLIC BENEFIT, AND OF 

COURSE, ADDRESSING THE NEEDS OF THOSE PEOPLE FROM WHOM THIS LAND 

WAS TAKEN, SO LONG AGO. 
76 

IT IS FITTING THAT THIS HEARING TAKE PLACE SO SOON AFTER THE 49TH 

ANNIVERSARY OF THE RECAPTURE OF GUAM BY AMERICAN FORCES, ON JULY 

21,1944. FITTING, BECAUSE THE SUBJECT MATTER WE ARE DISCUSSING IS 

A DIRECT PRODUCT OF THOSE TURBULENT TIMES. WORLD WAR II WAS A 

VERY TRAUMATIC TIME FOR GUAM AND FOR THE CHAMORU PEOPLE. WE WERE 

INVADED, WE WERE OCCUPIED, WE SUFFERED FORCED LABOR, INTERNMENT, 

BEATINGS, AND IN MANY CASES, MURDER. DURING THE RECAPTURE OF 

GUAM, WE WERE BOMBED, SHOT AT ... MUCH OF WHAT OUR PEOPLE HAD WAS 

DESTROYED. MORE THAN 1,000 OF OUR PEOPLE DIED ... A FULL TWENTIETH 

PART OF WHAT WAS THEN, OUR SMALL POPULATION. 

BUT AS DEVASTATING AS THE LOSS OF SO MANY LOVED ONES WAS ... AS 

MUCH AS OUR PEOPLE SUFFERED DURING THAT TIME ... WE DO NOT DWELL ON 

IT. IT IS PAST AND NOTHING CAN BE DONE TO BRING THEM BACK. AND 

ALTHOUGH THE LOSSES WERE GREAT ... THE EVENTS WHICH HAD THE 

LONGEST AND MOST PROFOUND CONTINUOUS EFFECT UPON GUAM AND THE 

CHAMORU PEOPLE WERE THOSE THAT TOOK PLACE IN THE YEARS 

IMMEDIATELY AFTER WORLD WAR II. I SPEAK OF THE MASSIVE TAKING OF 

LAND FROM OUR PEOPLE BY THE U.S. MILITARY. 

THE TAKINGS WERE ALMOST UNIVERSAL. PRIOR TO WORLD WAR II, GUAM 

WAS AN AGRARIAN ECONOMY AND MOST LAND BELONGED TO PRIVATE 

CHAMORU LANDOWNERS. THE ACREAGE TRANSFERRED TO THE U.S. NAVAL 

GOVERNMENT BY THE TREATY OF PARIS AT THE END OF THE SPANISHAMERICAN WAR, WAS MINUTE IN COMPARISON TO FEDERAL LANDHOLDINGS 

TODAY, AND ALTHOUGH THERE WERE TAKINGS PRIOR TO THE SECOND WORLD 

WAR, THESE WERE MINOR. 

BUT AFTER WORLD WAR II, THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OVERNIGHT BECAME 

BY FAR THE LARGEST LANDOWNER IN GUAM, DESTROYING FOREVER THE 

BASIS OF OUR PRE-WAR ECONOMY. WE TALK FREQUENTLY ABOUT THE 

FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HOLDING ONE THIRD OF GUAM'S LAND AREA. WHAT 

WE SOMETIMES OVERLOOK IS THAT IN THE IMMEDIATE POST WORLD WAR II 

PERIOD, FEDERAL TAKINGS WERE GREATER EVEN THAN THAT. 

2 
77 

THOSE OF YOU WHO HAVE SOME KNOWLEDGE OF GUAM WILL UNDERSTAND 

WHAT I MEAN, WHEN I SAY THAT IN ADDITION TO THOSE LANDS, 

CONSTITUTING A THIRD OF GUAM, THAT THE MILITARY CONTINUES TO 

OCCUPY ... AT ONE TIME THE MILITARY OCCUPIED MOST OF TUMON BAY AS 

AN OFFICER'S RECREATION AREA ... THE MILITARY CONDEMNED A GOOD PART 

OF AGANA. IN FACT, AT ONE POINT PRIOR TO 1950, AND ACCORDING TO 

THE BEST INFORMATION WE CURRENTLY HAVE, THE MILITARY POSSESSED 

MORE THAN 79,000 ACRES IN GUAM. 

THAT MAY NOT SOUND LIKE SO MUCH LAND TO SOMEONE FROM TEXAS. BUT 

MY FRIENDS, I REMIND YOU THAT GUAM IS ONLY SOME 230 SQUARE MILES IN 

AREA. ALL OF GUAM IS ONLY ABOUT 130,000 ACRES. 

THE RESULTS OF THESE MASSIVE TAKINGS LIVE ON TO THIS VERY DAY, AND 

NO DOUBT HAVE FOREVERCHANGED THE FUTURE OF GUAM ... FOR GOOD AND 

BAD. AS SAID EARLIER ... OUR AGRARIAN ECONOMY WAS DESTROYED 

FOREVER THE SECURITY RESTRICTIONS PLACED ON US BY THE MILITARY, 

PREVENTING FREE TRAVEL TO GUAM ... EVEN BY RETURNING CHAMORUS ... 

RETARDED THE DEVELOPMENT OF A BUSINESS-BASED ECONOMY. 

AND MANY OF OUR PEOPLE ... THOUSANDS OF THEM ... NO LONGER COULD WALK 

THE LAND THAT THEIR PARENTS HAD ALWAYS INTENDED THEY WOULD 

INHERIT. 

THE CONDITIONS UNDERWHICH THE MILITARY TOOK THIS LAND HAVE LONG 

BEEN THE SUBJECT OF CONTROVERSY. WHEN MANY OF THESE 

CONDEMNATIONS OCCURED, CHAMORUS WERE NOT EVEN U.S. CITIZENS. AND 

WHILE THE POWER OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS ALWAYS VERY BROAD 

WHEN IT COMES TO ADMINISTERING TERRITORES AND PEOPLE WHO ARE 

VIEWED AS SPOILS OF WAR, THE QUESTION ARISES: IS IT MORAL TO 

EXERCISE EMINENT DOMAIN OVER PEOPLE WHO ARE DENIED FULL AND EQUAL 

PARTICIPATION IN THE GOVERNMENT EXERCISING SOVEREIGNTY OVER THEIR 

PROPERTY. AND WHO INDEED WERE NOT EVEN TOKEN CITIZENS AT THE 

TIME? 

3 
78 

AND BY WHAT AUTHORITY DID THE NAVY EXERCISE SUCH CONDEMNATIONS? 

IF INDEED CONGRESS HAD THIS POWER IN THE POST-WAR PERIOD, BY WHAT 

MECHANISM WAS IT CONFERRED UPON THE U.S. NAVY OR THE U.S. AIR FORCE? 

THE TRUTH IS, MQ SPECIFIC MECHANISM EVER CONFERRED UPON THE WAR 

OEPARTMENT THIS AUTHORITY. 

AND WHY WAS BASIC DUE PROCESS DENIED IN THE EXECUTION OF THESE 

CONDEMNATIONS? IN AMERICA, WHEN THE GOVERNMENT CONDEMNS LAND, 

THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH CONDEMNS, AND PEOPLE LITERALLY HAVE THEIR 

DAY IN COURT, IN THE JUDICIARY, TO SEEK JUST COMPENSATION. IN GUAM 

AT THAT TIME, THE MILITARY WAS THE TAKER, THE PROSECUTOR, THE 

JUDGE AND THE APPEALATE COURT, ALL ROLLED INTO ONE. THE ONLY WAY 

IN GUAM, IN 1949, TO PURSUE A GRIEVANCE ABOUT COMPENSATION IN A 

FEDERAL LAND TAKING WAS TO GO TO PRECISELY THE SAME PEOPLE WHO 

TOOK THE LAND FROM YOU IN THE FIRST PLACE AND COMPLAIN. THAT 

HARDLY SOUNDS LIKE DUE PROCESS. 

ALL THESE ISSUES WERE, IN THEORY, DEALT WITH IN THE LAND CLAIMS 

CASES OF SEVERAL YEARS AGO, BUT WHAT ABOUT THE FINAL 

CONSIDERATION? 

WE HAD JUST GONE THROUGH A MILITARY OCCUPATION DURING WORLD WAR 

IL THE PEOPLE TAKING THIS LAND REPRESENTED THE BIGGEST, MOST 

INTIMIDATING MILITARY MACHINE THAT OUR PEOPLE, OR THE WORLD FOR 

THAT MATTER, HAD EVER SEEN. 

IS IT ANY WONDER THAT THESE CONDEMNATIONS WENT AS SMOOTHLY AS 

THEY DID? 

ALTHOUGH THERE ARE THOSE WHO SAY THAT THESE ISSUES OFT AKING AND 

COMPENSATION BECAME MOOT WITH THE LAND CLAIMS CASES, OTHERS 

ARGUE THAT THERE ARE STILL ISSUES, ESPECIALLY DEALING WITH THE 

FIDUCIARY RESPONSIBIL TIES IMPLICIT IN THE TREATY OF PARIS THAT 

CEDED GUAM TO THE UNITED STATES, THAT MUST STILL BE ADDRESSED. 

4 
79 

IN ANY EVENT, WHY WAS IT NECESSARY FOR THE U.S. MILITARY TO ACQUIRE 

SO MUCH OF OUR LAND? IN FACT, WHEN THE MILITARY CONDEMEND ALL 

THESE PROPERTIES AFTER WORLD WAR II, IT WAS TO IMPLEMENT A 

MILITARY STRATEGY THAT NEVER CAME TO PASS. INITIALLY GUAM WAS 

TO BE A MAJOR STAGING AREA FOR THE INVASION OF JAPAN, AN INVASION 

WHICH THANKFULLY BECAME UNNECESSARY AS A RESULT OF HIROSHIMA AND 

NAGASAKI. 

SUBSEQUENTLY, IT WAS PLANNED THAT GUAM WOULD BECOME A MAJOR 

FORWARD DEPLOYMENT AREA, NOT JUST FOR A STRATEGIC AIR WING AND 

NAVAL FORCES, BUT FOR LAND FORCES ... BOTH ... MARINE AND ARMY. 

THIS STRATEGY CHANGED DUE TO THE FALL OF CHINA TO MAO TSE TUNG IN 

1949, AND THE OUTBREAK OF THE KOREAN WAR, SUDDENLY, A FORWARD 

MILITARY POSITION IN ASIA BECAME THE ASIAN CONTINENT ITSELF. 

FORCES ORIGINALLY INTENDED FOR GUAM BECAME PERMANENT FIXTURES AT 

JAPANESE AND EVENTUALLY KOREAN BASES. YET, ALTHOUGH MILITARY 

NEEDS FOR GUAM CHANGED, THE MILITARY DESIRE TO ACQUIRE PROPERTY 

DID NOT. FROM THE VERY DAY THAT THESE LANDS WERE CONDEMENED, TO 

THIS DAY IN 1993, A GOOD PERCENTAGE OF THE LANDS TAKEN BY THE 

MILITARY IN GUAM HAVE NEVER BEEN USED ... FOR ANYTHING. 

EVEN AT THE HEIGHT OF THE VIETNAM WAR, WHEN MILITARY ACTIVITY IN 

GUAM WAS AT ITS PEAK, MANY THOUSANDS OF ACRES WERE UNUSED. HOW 

MUCH MORE IS THIS THE CASE TODAY, WHEN MILITARY ACTIVITY IS AT A 

POST WAR LOW IN GUAM, AND WITH FURTHER MILITARY CUTS LIKELY. 

CONSIDER THE FACT THAT THE BASE REALIGNMENT AND CLOSURE 

COMMISSION HAS RECOMMENDED THE CLOSURE OF NAVAL AIR STATION 

AGANA. IF EVEN AN ACTIVE MILITARY BASE IN GUAM IS NO LONGER OF 

SIGNIFICANT VALUE TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, HOW MUCH LESS 

VALUABLE MUST BE THE THOUSANDS UPON THOUSANDS OF ACRES OF LAND 

THAT HAS BEEN KEPT FALLOW FOR MORE THAN FORTY YEARS? 

5 
80 

THE TIME HAS COME TO RETURN, NOT JUST THE 3,200 ACRES IN THIS BILL, 

BUT THOUSANDS OF ACRES MORE. THIS BILL IS A GREAT FIRST STEP, BUT 

IT IS ONLY A FIRST STEP. 

WE BELIEVE THAT IF A NEW AND HONEST STUDY OF THE MILITARY 

REQUIREMENT FOR LAND IN GUAM WOULD BE CONDUCTED IMMEDIATELY, THE 

AMOUNT OF LAND AVAILABLE FOR RETURN TO GUAM WOULD BE TRIPLED AT 

THE VERY LEAST. WE LOOK FORWARD TO A NEW LAND USE STUDY THAT 

WILL DO THIS. 

IT IS VITAL THAT WE TAKE THIS FIRST STEP, WE CANNOT CONTINUE TO 

DELAY THIS PROCESS. CHAMORU FAMILIES HAVE CAMPED ON FEDERAL 

PROPERTIES IN GUAM, PROTESTING THE CONTINUED FEDERAL HOLDING OF 

THESE PROPERTIES. THESE PEOPLE, THESE FAMILIES, HAVE RISKED SO 

MUCH TO MAKE THEIR POINT, IN GUAM, AND IN SPITE OF OUR DEEP 

AFFECTION FOR AMERICA AND OUR LONG HISTORY OF COOPERATION ... AND 

EVEN DEVOTION TO AMERICAN CAUSES ... VOICES ARE BEING RAISED IN THAT 

MOST ORIGINAL OF AMERICAN CAUSE ... DISSENT ... AND THE SEARCH FOR 

JUSTICE AND FAIRNESS. 

A DYNAMIC IS UNDERWAY IN GUAM. AFTER DECADES OF ACQUIESCENCE, 

CHAMORUS ARE BEGINNING TO SAY NO ... THAT MOST POWERFUL OF WORDS 

... IN DEFENSE OF THEIR RIGHTS. IN GUAM, OUR PEOPLE ARE NO LONGER 

WILLING TO LOOK AT INJUSTICE AS SIMPLY OUR LOT IN LIFE. .. 

AND ARE DETERMINED TO WORK, INDEED STRUGGLE, TO MAKE THINGS 

BETTER. THE CHAMORU PEOPLE NO LONGER SIMPLY LOOK AT THINGS AS 

THEY ARE AND ASK WHY ... IN THE WORDS OF ROBERT KENNEDY, THEY ARE 

LOOKING AT THINGS AS THEY SHOULD BE ... AND DEMANDING "WHY NOT?" 

6 
81 

WHAT WAS VIEWED AS RADICAL BUT A FEW YEARS AGO IS TODAY 

MAINSTREAM THINKING IN GUAM. INDEED THE MAN WHO REPRESENTS US IN 

THE HALLS OF CONGRESS, ELECTED BY HIS PEOPLE, WAS ONLY A DECADE AGO 

LABELED A RADICAL HIS ELECTION BY HIS PEOPLE IS ... IN SOME WAYS, 

BELL WEATHER OF DEEP SOCIAL CHANGES. WE HAVE LEARNED, THAT OUR 

DESIRES ARE NOT RADICAL AT ALL ... OR THAT IF THEY ARE ... THEY ARE 

RADICAL ONLY IN THE WAY OF SUCH GREAT AMERICAN RADICALS AS SAMUEL 

ADAMS, THOMAS JEFFERSON ... AND THE MAN FOR WHOM THIS CITY IS 

NAMED, GEORGE WASHINGTON. PERHAPS THE GREATEST LESSON WE HAVE 

LEARNED IN GUAM, IN THE PAST TWO DECADES, IS THE AMERICAN LESSON 

THAT STATES CLEARLY THAT ONE MUST VOCIFEROUSLY SPEAK OUT IN 

DEFENSE OF ONES OWN UBERTY. 

THE DYNAMIC I SPEAK OF HAS MANY MANIFESTATIONS. IN ITS MOST 

PRISTINE, IT IS A DESIRE TO MAINTAIN OUR LANGUAGE AND OUR CULTURE ... 

OUR DESIRE TO PROMOTE THE WELFARE OF OUR PEOPLE. IN ITS DEEPEST 

EXPRESSION, IT IS OUR MOVE TO REGAIN THE RIGHT OF SELF-GOVERNMENT 

AND SELF-DETERMINATION THAT GOD GAVE US AND THAT NO MAN MAY TAKE 

AWAY. IT IS OUR FERVENT DESIRE TO MAKE OUR OWN DECISIONS FOR 

OURSELVES, AS ALL FREE PEOPLE MUST. 

AND IN ITS MOST EMOTIONAL CONTEXT, IT IS THE MOVE TO RECLAIM OUR 

NATURAL RESOURCES ... TO RECLAIM OUR LAND. LAND IS SACRED TO US, 

PERHAPS BECAUSE WE HAVE SO LITTLE. WE WILL BE GRATEFUL TO YOU IF 

AS A FIRST STEP ... THIS BILL BECOMES LAW ... A FIRST STEP IN A LONG 

JOURNEY TOWARDS JUSTICE 

THE DYNAMIC I SPEAK OF IN GUAM IS HISTORICALLY ROOTED, AND IN THE 

FINAL ANALYSIS, AN INEVITABLE CONSEQUENCE OF THE WORLDWIDE 

MOVEMENT TOWARDS FREEDOM AND SELF-DETERMINATION, A MOVEMENT 

THAT THIS NATION HAS DONE MUCH TO SPONSOR. WE ALL PRAY, WE HOPE ... 

AND WE WORK TOWARDS HARNESSING THIS DYNAMIC TO FORGE EVEN 

STRONGER FRIENDSHIP AND PARTNERSHIP WITH AMERICA OUR SUCCESS 

IN THIS GOAL, DEPENDS ON LEGISLATION SUCH AS THIS BILL 

7 
82 

IF YOU PASS THIS BILL, YOU WILL BRING HOPE TO MANY OF OUR ELDERLY, 

WHO SAW THESE LANDS TAKEN FROM THEM, AND HAVE DREAMED OF A DAY 

WHEN THEY WOULD BE RESTORED. IF YOU PASS THIS BILL, YOU WILL GIVE 

A NEW CHANCE FOR THOUSANDS OF OUR YOUNG, WHO WILL HAVE, AT LONG 

LAST, THE OPPORTUNITY TO RECLAIM AT LEAST A PART, OF THEIR LOST 

BIRTHRIGHT. 

PLEASE PASS THIS BILL. 

THANK YOU. 

8 
83 

Mr. DE LUGO. Our next speaker, and before I recognize the next 

speaker, I want to say again that I am going to have to leave the 

Chair in a few minutes, and I really deeply regret that. I had a lot 

of questions that I wanted to engage in a colloquy with you alL I 

am deeply concerned about this issue, but unfortunately, I simply 

must leave in a few minutes. Please accept my apologies and let 

me assure you that my interest is very deep here and that I greatly 

appreciate your coming all this way. 

Our next witness is the distinguished Speaker of the Legislature 

of Guam and a good friend of the Chair, the Honorable Joe T. San 

Agustin. Mr. Speaker, welcome. 

STATEMENT OF BON. JOE T. SAN AGUSTIN 

Mr. SAN AGUSTIN. Mr. Chairman, Congressman de Lugo, my 

good friend, Delegate Faleomavaega, American Samoa, and Mr. 

Underwood have left the room. 

I am pleased to have this opportunity to once again appear in 

this forum to offer testimony on an issue of great importance to the 

people of Guam. H.R. 2144, sponsored by our own Congressman, 

Robert Underwood, represents a significant step in addressing the 

issue of excess Federal lands on Guam and their rightful return to 

Guam's people. For this reason, I am pleased to support this measure in order that the 3,200 acres identified in this bill may be returned to our community. 

Mr. Chairman, the concerns which have prompted this legislation, in many ways, transcend the specifics regarding the 3,200 

acres identified in this bill. This is more than a question of whether 

the Federal Government needs the 23 parcels identified in the bill 

or the possible future utilization of these properties by the civilian 

community on Guam. As in the case of other such measures directly related to Guam, the specifics of this bill are merely a reflection of larger Federal-territorial issues which are in need of resolution. To a great extent, the issues surrounding Federal land on 

Guam are not really land use issues as much as they are self-determination issues. 

As you know, Congressman Underwood plans to convene a land 

conference on Guam later this year to delve into this subject more 

fully. It is our hope and expectation that the larger questions regarding Federal land use on Guam can be addressed at this conference. In the interim, though, I believe this bill represents a posi- tive first step in arriving at a comprehensive solution to this important question. 

Aside from commonwealth, there is no issue of greater interest 

to our people than the issue of land. A high regard for land is ingrained in our culture, traditions, and our people's outlook for their 

community. The challenges brought by modern society have served 

to reinforce this concern. Guam, being an island, is limited in its 

land resources. An expanding population and economy have intensified the demands for these resources. As is natural, I guess, these 

demands are often conflicting. The Federal Government, being the 

owner of almost one-third of our island, is sometimes drawn into 

these conflicts. Indeed, as evidenced by today's hearing, the scale 

of Federal ownership on Guam becomes a question in and of itself. 
84 

This question has at times proven to be contentious, even more 

so in recent years. Certain aspects of Federal or military land ownership on Guam are the source of considerable controversy for several reasons. First of all, there is the manner in which the Federal 

Government is using, or rather not using, the property it controls. 

Our people have alwa;rs been proud of the role our island plays in 

the Nation's defense. To the extent that Federal land on Guam is 

used for this cause, our people are generally supportive. However, 

it has long been evident that a great deal of the land on Guam 

owned by the Defense Department is not used for defense purposes. 

As a matter of fact, as far as we can tell, much of this land has 

not been used for any purpose whatsoever for the past 40 years. This brings me to the second reason why the question of Federal 

land ownership has developed into such an irritant. In considering 

this issue, one needs to be cognizant to how so much of our island 

ended up in Federal hands in the first place. Specifically, the massive Federal land takings in the period immediately following 

World War II bear examination. If you will recall, Mr. Chairman, 

I referred to this history in my June 17, 1993, letter to the Chairman of the full Committee, Representative George Miller. In my 

letter, I elaborated at length on the Naval Government's approach 

to these land takings. Suffice to say that I believe that given the 

limited political, legal, and financial resources available to Guamanians at that time, it remains questionable as to whether those 

land takings were truly fair or just. 

Allow me to restate, Mr. Chairman, the people of Guam support 

the presence of the U.S. military on Guam in the performance of 

missions vital to our Nation's defense. What our people have difficulty in accepting, though, is DOD's insistence on retaining control of so much of our land without actually using the land for any- thing. In this regard, H.R. 2144 is welcome progress in securing 

DOD's cooperation in releasing much of this unused land. I believe, 

though, that it also serves, in part, to depict the perceived reluctance of the military to approach this issue realistically. To begin with, let us keep in mind that the 3,200 acres identified in this bill 

represents only a small fraction of the 30 percent of our island 

which is in Federal hands. Even so, it is clear that many of these 

parcels were released not because they were excess but because 

they were unusable. 

By way of illustration, consider the parcels the NavY has identified as excess. One of the largest lots, Apra Harbor Parcel 7, contains areas contaminated with toxic waste. This parcel is, in fact, 

a likely Superfund candidate, if it is not on the list already. 

In the case of Apra Harbor Parcel 7, there were discussions a few 

years ago about using this as a site for a sewage treatment plant. 

However, this idea was dropped when it was found that the soil 

was contaminated. Actually, the 73 acres which comprise Apra 

Harbor Parcel 7 is part of a larger, contiguous piece of naval property. The front portion of this property runs along the main highway and amounts to about 26 acres. The NavY, though, decided to 

retain this front 26 acres, which is uncontaminated, and release 

the back 73 acres which is contaminated. Interestingly, though, 

neither the uncontaminated 26 acres, nor the contaminated 73 

acres, has not been used by the NavY for the past 40 years. As a 
85 

matter of fact, part of the uncontaminated 26 acres is now licensed, 

by the Navy, to the Government of Guam for use as a bus transfer 

station. Even so, the Navy evidently does not consider this area excess. The Navy apparently feels it needs to retain the 

uncontaminated 26 acres while giving the people of Guam the contaminated 73 acres. It is, nevertheless, our soil and we look forward to its return. 

Much of the remainder of the Navy parcels are suitable only as 

conservation areas. Nimitz Hill Parcel 1, for example, starts up at 

a 40 percent slope, stretches around a reservoir, and then extends 

across a road, which is the only access for an existing residential 

neighborhood. On top of this, there are existing Navy fuel line 

easements which run through this property and several of the 

other Navy parcels. Difficult as it may be to use this land for other 

than conservation purposes, we seek the return of this parcel as 

well. 

As a further illustration of the difficulty inherent in utilizing 

some of these properties, I would like to draw your attention to the 

four-acre parcel known as ACEORP Maui Tunnel. Again, this parcel is part of a much larger lot which is adjacent to Marine Drive, 

a major thoroughfare on Guam. The Navy has retained use of the 

front portion of this lot which runs along Marine Drive. What has 

been declared excess is the remaining portion, which as I indicated, 

is in the back and cut off from Marine Drive. The other three sides 

of this parcel are adjacent to private property. As a matter of fact, 

one side of this property is flush against a sheer cliff. As a result 

of being blocked off by Navy property, and a cliff line which is over 

100 feet high, the parcel we are left with is essentially landlocked. 

Even though there is no legal ingress or egress to it, our people 

would welcome the opportunity to determine for themselves the 

best use of this land. 

In contrast, I must say that the Air Force has been far more generous in its determination of excess land. These parcels are located 

outside the Andersen Air Force Base fence are all on flat land and, 

to the best of our knowledge, environmentally sound. These parcels 

are eminently suited for a number of public purposes including the 

construction of low-cost homes to address Guam's affordable housing shortage. We are convinced, though, Mr. Chairman, that given 

the current level of military activity on Guam, additional DOD 

property can be declared excess. We believe that it would be appropriate if the Defense Department were to conduct a new, comprehensive assessment of its land requirements in order to identify 

further excess property. Indeed, I sincerely hope they will do so as 

soon as possible. 

To a great extent, Mr. Chairman, the real value of H.R. 2144 

goes beyond the advantages or deficiencies of either the Navy or 

Air Force parcels identified in this bill. This bill is important to the 

people of Guam because it allows them to determine for themselves 

the future use of this land. Yes, the bill only deals with 3,200 acres 

and larger questions regarding Federal land use on Guam will need 

to be dealt with at some future point. Such a step, no matter how 

small, is nevertheless welcome and vitally significant for us. If enacted into law, bill H.R. 2144 would represent an important mile-
86 

stone in ongoing efforts to deal with the serious questions of Federal land use on Guam. 

It is on this basis, Mr. Chainnan, that I ap~eal to your Subcommittee and to Congress as a whole for thetr support of this 

measure. As you know, this proposal, in one fonn or another, has 

been on the table for over 15 years now. We hope that during this 

Congress we will finally see its enactment into law. In this regard, 

we would like to respectfully request that the Congress grant the 

Government of Guam as much flexibility as possible in detennining 

the use of these parcels. When this matter was last before Congress, the Bush Administration supported the concept of fully empowering the local government in the design of a land use plan 

that would best serve the interests of our people. In her letter to 

the House Interior Committee, dated June 22, 1992, then-Assistant 

Secretary Stella Guerra outlined the Administration's position with 

respect to this matter. 

Noting that this position was endorsed by the Office of Management and Budget, Ms. Guerra suggested a broad definition for the 

tenn "public benefit" as used in the pending excess lands legislation. As in the case of this bill, previous excess land bills provided 

that the parcels, upon transfer, would be used for public benefit. 

The Bush Administration's suggestion, as presented by Ms. Guerra, 

called for pennitting the Government of Guam to define "public 

benefit," which definition may include the use of land for government activities, including the return of the land to fonner owners. 

In approving the transfer of these parcels, we hope that the Congress will provide similar latitude to the Government of Guam in 

determining the future use of this land. 

In the final analysis, this legislation is not really concerned so 

much with land as it is with people. What is really at issue here 

is the people of Guam, their rights to self-detennination, their 

place in the American family, and the extent to which they will 

have a say in deciding how the land of their ancestors will be used 

in the future. It is my hope that the Congress will respond posi- tively to these concerns and grant its expeditious approval to H.R. 

2144. 

Thank you and si yuus maase. 

Mr. UNDERWOOD [presiding]. I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for your 

very detailed and infonnative presentation. [Prepared statement of Mr. San Agustin follows:] 
51!NA TOll .101 T. JAN Alllolfi'IN IDl 

-

87 

Q)ffitt of U,t 6ptaltrr 

TWENTY-SECOND GUAM LEGISLATURE 

ISS HHier St. 

Alam, Guam U.S.A. 96910 

Tel: (67l)<ln.a527/9120 • Pax: (671)477-$570 

Speaker Joe T. San Agustin 

Testimony before the House Subcommittee on Insular & 

International Affairs 

July 29. 1993 

Good Morning Mr. Chairman and Members of tho Subcommittee. I ain pleased 

to have this opportunity to once again appear in this fonun to offer testimony on an 

issue of great importance to the People of Guam. H.R. 2144, sponsored by our own 

Congressman Robert Underwood. represents a sipificant step in addressing the issue 

of excess federal lands on Guam and their rightful retum to Guam's People. For this 

reason, I am pleased to wpport this measure: in order that the 3,200 acres identified 

in the H.R. 2144, may be retumcd to our community. 

Mr. Chairman, the concerns which have prompted this legislation, in many 

ways, transcend the specifics regarding the: 3,200 acres identified in H.R. 2144. This 

. is more than a question of whether the Fedc:ral Government needs the 23 parcels 

identified in the bill or the pom'ble future utilization of these properties by the civilian 

community on Guam. As in the case of other such measures directly related to Guam, 

the specifics of H.R. 2144 are merely a reflection of larger federal-territorial issues 

which are in need of resolution. To a great extent, the issues surroWJding federal land 

on Guam· arc not really land use issues as much as they are self-determination issues. 
88 

As you know, CongrcsSinlln Underwood plans to convene a Land Conference on 

Guam later this year to delve into tbis subject more fully. It is our hope and 

expectation that the larger questions regarding fcc1ctal land use on Guam can be 

addressed at tbis Conference. In the interim though, I believe that H.R. 2144 

represents a positive first step in aniving at a comprehensive solution to this important 

question. 

Aside :from Commonwealth, there is no issue of greater interest to our people 

than the issue of Land. A high regard for land is ingrained in our culture, traclitions, 

and our people's outlook for their eommunity. The challenges brought by modern 

societY have served to reinforce this concern. Ouam, being an island, is limited in it's 

land resources. An expanding population and economy have intensified the demands 

for these resources. AB is natural I guess, these demands are often conflicting. The 

Federal Government, being the owner of almost one third of our island, is sometimes 

drawn into these conflicts. Indeed, as evidenced by today's hearing, the scale of 

federal ownership on Quam becomes a question in and of itself. 

This question has, at times, proven to be contentious - even more so in recent 

years. Certain aspects of federal or military lll.lld ownc:rship on GIWil are the source 

of considerable controversy for several reasons. First of an. there is the manner in 

. 2. 
89 

which the Federal Government is usins, or rather not uslq the property it controls. 

Our people have always been proud of the role our island playa in the nation's defense. 

To the extent that federal land on Guam is used for this cause, our people arc 

generally supportive. However, it has long been evident, that a great deal of the land 

on Guam, owned by the Defense Department, is not used for defense purposes. As 

a matter of fact, as far as we can tell, much of this land has not been used for any 

purpose whatsoever at all, for the past 40 years I 

This brings me to the second reason why the question of federal land 

ownership has developed into ·such an irritant In considering this issue, one needs to 

be cognizant of how so much of our island ended up in Federal hands in the first 

place. Specifically, the massive federal landtakings, in the period immedietely 

following World War II, bear examination. If you'll recall Mr. Chaimtan, I referred 

to this histocy in my June 17, 1993, letter to the Chaimtan of the full Committee, Rep. 

George Miller. In my letter, I elaborated at length on the Naval Government's 

approach to these landtakings. Suffice to say that I believe, that given the Hmiled 

political, legal, and financial resources available to Guamanians at that time, it remains 

questionable, as to whether those landtakings were truly fair or just. 

Allow me to reiterate Mr. Chaimtan, the People of Guam support the presence 

• 3 -
90 

of the U.S. Military on Guam in the performance of missions vital to our Nation's 

Security. What our people have difficulty in accepting though, is DOD's insistence 

on retaining. control of so much of our island without actually using the land for 

anything. In this regard, H.R. 2144 is welcome progress in securing DOD's 

cooperation in releasing much of this unused land. I believe though that it also serves, 

in pan, to depict the perceived reluctance of the MilitaJy to approach this issue 

realistically. To begin with, let us keep in mind that the 3,200 acres identified in the 

bill represents only 1 small fraction of the 30% of our island which is in federal 

hands. Even so, it is clear that mmy of these parcels, were released not because they 

were excess, but because they were unusable. 

By way of illustration, consider the parcels the Navy has identified as "excess." 

One of the largest lots, Apra Harbor Parcel 7, contains areas contaminated with toxic 

waste. This pmel is in fact, a likely Superfund candidate, if it is not on the list 

already. In the case of Apra Harbor Parcel 7, there were discussions a few years ago 

about using this as 1 site for a sewaie treatment plant. However, this idea was 

dropped when it was found that the soil was contaminated. Actwllly, the 73 acres 

which comprise Apra Harbor Parcel 7 is pan of a larger, contiguous piece of Naval 

Property. The front portion of this property runs along the main highway and amounts 

to about 26 acres. The Navy thouib decided to retain this front 26 acres, which is 

-... -
91 

uncontaminated, and release the back 76 acr s which is contamineted. Interestingly 

though, neither the uncontaminated 26 acres, nor the contaminated 73 acres, has been 

used by the Navy for the past 40 years. As a matter of fact, part of the 

uncontaminated 26 acres is now licensed, by the Navy, to the Government of Guam, 

for use as a bus transfer station. Even so, the Navy evidently does not consider this 

area excess. The Navy apparently feels it needs to retain the UDContaminated 26 acR!s 

while a:iving the People of Guam tbe contaminated 73 acres. It is nevertheless, our 

soli, and we look forward to it's return. 

Much of the remeinder of the Navy parcels are suitable only as conservation 

areas. Nimitz Hill Parcel 1, for example, starts up a 40% slope, stretches around a 

reservoir, and then extends across a road which is the only access for an existing 

residcntiel neighborhood. On top of this, there are existing Navy fuel line casements 

which run through this property and several of the other Navy parcels. Difficult as it 

may be to usc this land for other than conservation purposes, we seek the return of 

this parcel as well. 

As a further illustration though, of the difficulty inherent in utilizing some of 

these properties, I would like to draw your attention to the 4 aero parcel known 

ACEORP Maui Tunnel. Again, this parcel is part of e much larger lot which is 

- 5-
92 

adjacent to Marine Drive, a major thoroughfare on Guam. The Navy has retained use 

of the front portion of this lot which runs along Marine Drive. What has been 

declared excess, is the remaining portion, which as I indicated, is in the baek and cut 

off ti'om Marine Drive. The other three sides of this parcel are adjacent to private 

property. As a matter of fact. one side of this property is flush against a sheer cliff. 

As a result of being blocked otf by Navy property, private propeny, and a cliffiine 

which is over a hundred feet high, the parcel we are left with is essentially landlocked. 

Even though. there is no legal ingress or egress to it, our people would welcome the 

opportunity to determine, for themselves, the best use of this lmd. 

In contrast, I must say that the Air Force has been far more generous in it's 

determination of excess land. These parcels are located outside the Anderson Air 

Force base fence, are ali on flat land and to the best of our knowledge, 

environmentally sound. These parcels are eminently suited for a number of public 

purposes including the construction of low cost homes to address Guam's affordable 

housing shortage. We are convinced though Mr. Chairman, that given the current level 

of military activity on Guam, additional DOD property can be declared excess. We 

believe that it would be appropriate if the Defense Department were to conduct a new. 

comprehensive assessment of it's land requirments in order to identifY further excess 

property. Indeed, I sincerely hope they will do so as soon as possible. 

- 6-
93 

To a great extent though, Mr. Chairman, the real value of H.R. 2144 goes 

beyond the advantages or deficiencies of either the Navy or Air Force parcels 

identified in this bill. H.R 2144 is important to the people of Guam because it allows 

them to detennfne for themselves the fllture use of this land. Yes, the bill only deals 

with 3,200 acres and larger questions regarding federal land use on Guam will need 

to be dealt with at some :future point. Such a step, no matter how small, is 

nevertheless welcome and vitally significant for us. If enacted into law, H.R. 2144 

would represent an important mile.stonc in ongoing efforts to deal with the serious 

questions of federal land use on Guam. 

It is on this basis Mr. Chairman, that I appeal to your Subcommittee and to 

Congress u a whole, for their support of this measure. As you know this proposal, 

in one form or another has been on the table for over 15 years now. We hope, that 

durinll' this Congress, we will finally see it's enaettnent into law. In this regard, we 

would like to respectfully request that the Congress grant the Government of Guam 

as much flexibility as possible in determining the use of these parcels. When this 

matter was last before Congress, the Bush Administration supported the concept of 

fully empowering the local government in the design of a land use plan that would 

best servo tho interom of our people. In her letter to the HoU$o Interior Committee, 

dated June 22, 1992, then Asst. Secretary Stella Guerra, outlined the Administration's 

- 7. 

73-296 0 - 93 - 4 
94 

position with respect to this matter. Notina that this position was endorsed by the 

Office of Management and Budget, Ms. Gueua suggested a broad definition for the 

term "public benefit" as used in the pending excess lands legislation. As in the case 

ofH.R. 2144, previous excess land bills provided that the parcels, upon transfer, would 

be used for "public benefit" The Bush Administration's suggestion, as presented by 

Ms. Guerra, called for permittin& the Government of Guam to define "public benefit", 

which definition may include the use of land for governmental activities, including 

return of the land to former owners. In approving the transfer of these parcels, we 

hope that the Congress will provide similar latitude to the Government of Guam in 

determining the tUture use of this land. 

In the final analysis, this legislation ia not ruDy concerned so much with land 

as it is with people. What is really at issue here is the People of Gwun. their ri&bts to 

self determination, their place in the American family, and the extent to which they 

will have a say in deciding bow the land of their ancestors will be used in the furore. 

It is my sincere hope that the Congress will respond positively to these concerns and 

grants it's expeditious approval to H.R. 2144. 

THANK YOU AND SI YUUS MAASE . 

. 8. 
95 

Mr. UNDERWOOD. And now we will go to the remainder of the 

Senators present and we will go by alphabetical order to rove that 

we are not favoring anyone. Having a last name ing with 

"U," I know how unfair that has been throughout my , but nevertheless we will go to Senator Ada. 

STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS C. ADA 

Mr. ADA. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much, and Members of 

the Subcommittee. 

I am in full support of H.R. 2144, insofar as it proposes the release of federally held excess lands and their return to the Government of Guam. However, I must object to the requirements which 

must be complied with before return is effected. 

At any rate, this bill will be a positive factor in reducing the 

strife and disharmony rapidly building within our community. To 

get a full grasp of the importance and the equity issues which compel its passage, it is imperative the issues relevant to the topic of 

federally held lands be briefly examined. My intent is not the 

pointless heaping of disparagements, but rather to bring attention 

to the unique circumstances of a situation which would be found 

intolerable were it applied within the United States. 

Points at issue which need to be conveyed for your consideration 

are: One, fiduciary obligations; two, international commitments by 

the United States; three, the impact of breach of trust; and four, 

a growing local sentiment an~ movements. 

With regard to earlier actions on this issue, some will argue the 

matter has been adequately addressed pursuant to U.S. Public Law 

95-134 which is the Omnibus Territories Act of 1977. However, 

from the perspective of the Chamor:ro people, such is not the case. 

The 1977 Act was little more than a symbolic gesture but effectively minimized U.S. liabilities. The Federal land taking remains 

a devastating economic injury that has not been adequately redressed through fair compensation for usage and return of surplus lands. 

Perhaps the dilemma is due to the fact that the land taking issues are often argued by Federal officials in terms of minimizing U.S. liabilities, instead of within the context of how the mother 

country might assist the people of Guam in optimizing their economic opportunities. 

In establishing that a fiduciary relationship existed, dominance 

becomes a key point. The acute dominantJsubordinant relationship 

which most notably existed from 1898 through 1963 is readily exemplified by Naval Government policies which sanctioned the closure of borders, restrictions on economic activities, and neo-slavery. 

The Naval Government kept Guam's borders closed until 1963. 

This restriction effectively excluded most trade and commerce op- portunities, which in the long run would have contributed to economic self-sufficiency. In particular, economic development oppor- tunities were limited to activities compatible with military interests. 

As a consequence of the economic restraints and the taking of 70 

percent of Guam's most productive land areas, employment with 

the Naval Government was virtually our only option in pursuing 

an economic livelihood. 
96 

Contrary to American history books, slavery, pursuant to policy, 

ended in the 1940s, not the 1860s. Once a Chamorro was employed 

by the Naval Government, quitting or absenteeism without permission was punishable by fine or imprisonment. Additionally, a system of multiple wage scales was established which invariably 

placed Chamorros at the bottom of that scale for identical work. 

Furthering an argument of responsible trust, it must be recognized that gratitude for being rescued from the Japanese occupation forces made Chamorros reticent to object to these policies. Few 

objections were raised, most trusting to the good will of an entity 

they identified as their protector and benefactor. 

Unfortunately, military strategic considerations became the overriding factor for policy decisions. All else became secondary to include the needs and interests of the Chamorro people. As a consequence, the trust inherent in the fiduciary relationship was 

breached. 

I raise these points not for the purpose of shock effect but rather 

to demonstrate that complete dominance was a fact of life in Guam 

and that a fiduciary relationship, in fact, existed. Basic to this relationship, therefore, is an inherent prohibition against a dominant 

party taking any action to the detriment of the subordinate. 

On the premise that the actions taken were detrimental, there 

is an inherent mandate to justly correct it in a timely manner. Although we acknowledge the earlier attempts to address the landtaking issue, these efforts were plagued with major impediments; 

such as the limitation of fair compensation to a period prior to the 

existence of an open market economy, the restriction that the security closure of Guam's borders was not to be considered as sufficient proof of duress, unfair influence, or other unconscionable and 

inequitable actions, thereby limiting U.S. liabilities, the placement of the burden of proof on the victimized subordinate, in favor of the 

dominant trustee, and, finally, the inability of the Chamorro claimant to fight a protracted and costly legal battle. 

Pursuant to its treaty obligations under Article 73 of the U.N. 

Charter, the United States, in 1946, specifically pledged to protect 

and promote the social, political, economic and resource interests of 

the Chamorro people. Extra care was taken towards commitment 

to the protection of land rights within the U.S. policy of Guam for 

the Guamanians. 

Certainly there has .been a raising of the standard of living, medical care, education, and a recent expansion of economic opportunities. Great strides have been made thanks to U.S. influences. However, it must be recognized that our best case opportunities have 

been denied and subjugated to suit American strategic needs. 

Collectively, Chamorros have been unable to replace even a small 

fraction of the lands taken. Inhibited as well has been the ability 

to convert these precious assets into investment or educational endeavors thereby limiting their ability to effectively compete in 

Guam's modern economy. 

Frustrated by unfulfilled commitments, shortage of land and an 

inhibited economy, the situation is resulting in growing tensions 

and mounting acts of dissension by our people. In defiance, some 

Chamorros have moved on to the lands in question and public dem-
97 

onstrations of civil disobedience heretofore unheard of are becoming 

more frequent. 

Although I am definitely not calling for a storming of the gates, 

I am nonetheless moved to denounce the historical circumstances 

which have motivated these acts of civil disobedience. The blame 

for resorting to civil disobedience by otherwise law-obeying citizens 

lies at the feet of the U.S. political leadership to effectively address 

the land-taking issue and provide alternative solutions. 

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, the passage of H.R. 2144, is of 

great importance to the people of Guam. However, the people of 

Guam should be the ones to make the final decisions on the beneficial public use of these surplus lands within the context of the 

Chamorro Land Trust Act. While recognizing the necessity of the 

military presence in Guam and its land needs, there must nonetheless be a process which continues to legitimately assess the true 

scope of these land requirements. 

Concurrently, the creation and support of programs premised on 

indigenous rights, comparable to the Hawaiians Homes Commission and the Alaskan Aboriginal Native Claims Settlement Act, 

should be actively pursued. Thank you. 

Mr. UNDERWOOD. I thank you, Senator Ada. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. Ada follows:] 
98 

Senator Thomas C. Ada 

Twenty-Second Guam Legislature 

July 29, 1993 

Testimony on 

H. R. 2144 

Mr. Chairman, Congressman, I am in full support of H.R. 2144, in 

so far as it proposes the release of Federally held lands, and 

their return to the Government of Guam. However, I must object 

to the requirements which the Government of Guam must comply 

with before return of lands is effected. 

None-the-less Mr. Chairman, I respectfully call upon this SubCommittee to support H.R. 2144, and further, request that 

appropriate steps be taken to expedite Its passage. When 

considered within the overall context of Guam's land controversy, 

H.R. 2144 will be a positive factor in reducing the strife and 

disharmony rapidly building within our community. 

Furthermore, we strongly hope that H.R. 2144 not be amended to 

conform to traditional conservative or liberal doctrine. Conceivably, 

the conservative school of thought would push for the sale of surplus 

federal lands to ofFset the national debt. Conversely, liberals would 

promote the conversion of surplus lands into parks or give it to the 

homeless. Either consideration would be a travesty of justice. 

In this regard, I cannot overstate the importance of this 

Subcommittee. The ability of the people of Guam to bring to 

Congress an awareness of our unique circumstances is severely 

hindered by a fact of geography and economics. Education is a 

precursor to any resolution to the issues with which we are faced. 

Your facilitation of the dissemination of information provided today or 

subsequently, is vital to the process. 

Page 1 of 12. 
99 

Our land situation is a long standing topic of serious concern; a 

contentious issue neither appropriately addressed, nor justly 

resolved. Those who have the power must be made to understand 

the reality of our situation. Regardless of whether the land takings 

were conducted with callous intent or simply the result of a colonial 

bureaucratic mind-set, the outcome remains the same; the economic 

and social displacement of a native people within their own 

homeland. 

Historically, the Department of Defense has utilized 'worst-case' 

scenarios, never implemented through three wars, as a justification 

for continued control. Today, such creative justifications for extended 

control include establishing large tracts as conservation areas or 

wildlife refuges. These actions are viewed as unreasonable and 

another unjustified attempt at retention and control versus return. 

To get a full grasp of the economic importance and the equity issues 

involved in the passage of H.R. 2144, it is imperative that the issues 

relevant to the topic of federally held lands be briefly examined. I beg 

your indulgence and request that you allow me to elaborate. My 

intent is not the pointless heaping of disparagements, but rather to 

bring to your attention the unique circumstances of a situation you 

would find intolerable were it applied within the United States. 

Points at issue which need to be conveyed for your consideration are: 

(1) Fiduciary obligations; (2) International commitments made by the 

United States; (3) Impact of breach of trust; and (4) Growing local 

sentiment & movements. 

The attached document entitled, Socio-Economic Influences In The 

Territory of Guam. 1898 Through 19631, is a critical part of my 

testimony. The basis for asserting the existence of America's legal 

1 "Abnormal Socio-Economic Influences In The Territory of Guam, 1898 Through 

J.a.6,l", August 12, 1981, John Bohn, Atty., for the Guam Landowners Association, 

hereinafter Socio-Eco. 

Page 2 of 12. 
100 

T.C. Ada I H.R. 2144 

and fiduciary responsibility to the Chamorro people is succinctly 

discussed therein and merits your consideration. 

If accomplishing little else, the passage of US P .L. 95-134 (Omnibus 

Territories Act of 1977 (Title II, Section 204)) allowed Guam's 

researchers to compile the citations referenced in the aforementioned 

document. Heretofore, official documentation of the conditions which 

existed in Guam through the mid-sixty's had never been made 

available for public review. 

US Attorneys will argue that US P.L. 95-134 adequately addressed 

and resolved Guam's Federal land taking issues. However, from the 

perspective of the Chamorro people, the aggrieved party, such is not 

the case. 

The Omnibus Territories Act of 1977 was little more than a symbolic 

gesture which effectively minimized US liabilities. The federal land 

taking remains a devastating economic injury that has not been 

adequately redressed through fair compensation for usage and 

return, of lands deemed to be surplus. The latter being the 

commitment made by the US at the time of taking. The optimal 

realization of economic opportunities will continue to be impeded until 

full redress is made as mentioned above. 

Perhaps our current dilemma is due to the fact that the land-taking 

issues are often argued by federal officials in terms of minimizing US 

liabilities, instead of within the context of how the mother country 

might assist the people of Guam in optimizing their economic 

opportunities, aru1 the humane application of American fair play. It is 

with high expectations and confidence that we specifically solicit your 

help Mr. Chairman. 

I. FIPUCIABY RELATIONSHIP & OBLIGATIONS 

Page 3 of 12. 
101 

T.C. Ada I H.R. 2144 

In a democracy, absolute control and dominance carries with it an 

obligation of 'responsible trust', in favor of the subordinate. An 

examination of US policies (Attachment-1) applied to Guam prior to 

1963, will clearly demonstrate circumstances of absolute control and 

dominance. 

The acute dominant/subordinant relationship which existed is readily 

exemplified by policies which sanctioned: (1) the military closure of 

civilian borders2, (2) restrictions on economic activities3, to include 

the sale or transfer of real property4, (3) establishment of multiple 

wage systems5, and (4) neo-slavery6. 

For purposes of control, but under the guise of protecting the people 

of Guam from "outside exploitation"?, the Naval government closed 

Guam's borders until 1963. By controlling entry and exit, as deemed 

appropriate by the Naval Government, trade and commerce activities 

were controlled. 

In addition to restricting interstate commerce, intrastate commerce 

was also controlled by the Naval government by determining who 

could engage in business activities, as well as the types of 

businesses to be engaged in - compatibility with military interests 

being the main criteria. 

Strict military control (between 1944 through 1950) of the transfer or 

sale of real property included price fixing and prohibitions against sale 

to non-Chamorros, the latter requiring the approval and/or permission 

of the Department of the Navy. Although again justified as a 

2 "Sea and Air Space Military Reservation Area (Security Zone)"; See also Socio-Eco, 

p.76,@ 9. 

3 Socio-Eco, p. 44, @ 21. 

4 Socio-Eco, p. 47,@ 21. 

5 Socio-Eco, p. 34, @ 3. 

6 Socio-Eco, p. 46, @ 28. 

7 "Report to the United Nations, 1946, Department of the Navy". See also Report to the 

United Nations, 1947; and 1948 .. 

Page 4 of 12. 
102 

T.C. Ada I H.R. 2144 

protection against "outside" exploitationS, Naval records demonstrate 

an intent to minimize inflationary shifts in the real property market, 

thus impacting the federal takings relative to compensation. The 

post-Organic Act continuation of the security closure through 1963 

effectively maintained real property values at pre-1950 levels. 

Economically stifled through restriction of free trade and commercial 

activities, and the taking of about 70% of Guam's most productive 

land areas, employment with the Naval government was virtually our 

only option in pursuing an economic livelihood. Unfortunately, the 

Navy implemented a system of multiple wage scales which invariably 

placed Chamorros at the bottom of that scale for identical work, 

regardless of qualifications. Ironically, this multiple wage system9 

was justified before the United Nations in 19461 o as a 'United States 

effort to protect us by avoiding the creation of a false economy prior 

to our exercise of self-determination'11. 

Contrary to American history books, slavery, pursuant to policy, 

ended in the 1940's, not the 1860's. Once a Chamorros was 

employed by the Naval Government, quitting or absenteeism, without 

permission, was punishable by fine or imprisonment. This practice 

was limited to the non-self-governing territory of Guam. No matter 

how one would try to gloss over or minimize the policy and practice 

referenced, it was in fact a situation of nee-slavery, by policy, 

promoted with the defacto blessing of the Congress albeit without it's 

knowledge. 

When considered alongside the closure of our borders, prohibitions 

on private sector development, the loss of our lands, and the multiple 

wage system, this policy of nee-slavery becomes even more heinous. 

Especially when you consider it was conducted under the guise of 

American democracy, for our benefit. 

8 Socio-Eco, p. 47,@ 21. 

9 Socio-Eco, p. 46, @ 21. 

10 Socio-Eco, p. 47, @1. 

1 1 Report by the Naya! Government of Guam to the United Nations, 1946. 

Page 5 of 12. 
103 

T.C. Ada I H.R. 2144 

Furthering an argument of responsible trust, it must be recognized 

that gratitude for being rescued from Japanese occupation forces, 

made Chamorros reticent to object to the administrative application of 

laws for purposes of control. Unfortunately, Chamorro acceptance of 

'the law', was well known to American military planners12. Few 

objections were raised, most trusting to the good will of an entity they 

identified as their protector and benefactor13. 

Strategic necessity, both during and subsequent to WWII, motivated 

policy makers and planners alike to take any and all actions deemed 

necessary to protect America's strategic interests. Ironically, the 

zealous accomplishment of their mission took priority over the 

principles of democracy they were tasked to defend. This 

dominance, carried to the extreme, created situations not conducive 

to the optimal interests of the subordinate, and thereby breached the 

trust. 

Compensation through judicial due process, by circumstance and 

policy, was neither timely nor applied with any sense of equity14. 

Initial efforts by Congress were handicapped by a lack of funding, and 

the failure of the Department of the Navy to carry out the intent of the 

Congress. In this regard, Naval administrators, lacking an 

understanding of civil due process, saw their mission as one of 

minimizing federal liabilities, as opposed to the dispensation of 

justice. An examination of the policies applied evidence this fact15. 

Efforts during the 1950's (post Organic Act) to revisit this issue faired 

poorly, with only the guise and trappings of due process. The 

conclusion of these proceeding accomplished little more than the 

protecting of federal interests, which from our perspective, was the 

actual intent. 

12 Socio-Eco, p. 18, @ 11. 

13 Socio-Eco, p. 1 9, @ 1. 

14 Socio-Eco, p. 59,@ 28. 

15 Socio-Eco, p. 68, @ .29; see also p.69, @ 28. 

Page 6 of 12. 
104 

T.C. Ada I H.R. 2144 

I raise these points, not for the purpose of shock effect, but rather, to 

demonstrate that complete dominance was a fact of life on Guam. If 

such was not the case, these contradictions to American principles 

could not have occurred. Since complete dominance was, and is, a 

fact, a fiduciary trust did, and does, exist. 

We contend that a fiduciary relationship does in fact exist, therefore 

there is an inherent prohibition against the dominant party taking any 

actions to the detriment of the subordinate. If such actions are taken, 

which we contend were, then there is an inherent mandate to justly 

correct it in a timely manner. 

It took forty years before rising frustrations over US laws, which 

continue to unilaterally serve the interests of the United States, 

culminated in public displays of extreme displeasure and, recently, 

civil disobedience by families who have, until now, been respectable 

and law abiding citizens. 

II. INTERNATIONAL COMMITMENTS 

MADE BY !HE UNITED STATES 

The argument of fiduciary responsibility carries with it two 

assumptions. First, that the parties live within, or are a part of, a 

democratically structured government wherein the interests of the 

subordinant take precedent16. Second, that the dominant party, even 

though moved to take actions in its own interests, is not relieved 

thereby of its obligations to the subordinate. Should a fiduciary 

argument not suffice, I bring to your attention an international treaty 

commitment. 

Pursuant to its treaty obligations under Article 73 of the United 

Nations Charter, the United States, in 1946, specifically pledged to 

16 Socio-Eco, p. 84, @ 40, through p. 91, @ 18. 

Page 7 of 12. 
105 

T.C. Ada I H.R. 2144 

protect and promote the social, political, economic and resource 

interests of the Chamorro people. Extra care was taken towards 

commitment to the protection of land rights within"~ I I the U,SI policy 

of 'Guam for the Guamanians ... "17. Though realizing that rights, 

pursuant to United Nation treaty, is a touchy subject with certain 

members of the Congress, it is none-the-less a legitimate US 

commitment. 

Up until 1992, the United States annually reported to the United 

Nations on the status of the people of Guam, relative to US 

commitments, and our right to self-determination. Having met with 

little success in other forums, representatives of non-governmental 

organizations from Guam began petitioning the UN Special 

Committee on De colonization in 1979. More recently, 

representatives of the Government of Guam have followed suit. 

The United States has utilized the United Nations forum to defend 

and justify the rights of peoples around the world. Interestingly, the 

US reaction to Guamanian participation has been one of distress, 

embarrassment and the denial of well documented facts. Most 

distressing to them are the discussions on Guam's land and selfdetermination issues. 

I bring to the attention of this Subcommittee, the 1986 statement of 

US Ambassador Harvey J. Feldman, before the Fourth Committee of 

the United Nations. Ambassador Feldman, accompanied by former 

Congressman Ben Blaz, emphatically stated 'that the lands, we are 

discussing here today, had if fact already been returned'. He further 

stated that 'the issue of utilization was now in the hands of the people 

of Guam'. Needless to say, this federal tap-dance is wearing thin the 

patience of our people. 

Ill. IMPACT OF BREACH OF TRUST 

17 Socio-Eco, p. 47,@ 23. 

Page 8 of 12. 
106 

T.C. Ada I H.R. 2144 

What has not been recognized is the rights and capabilities of the 

Chamorro people to make best use of this valuable piece of realestate. There is the assumption that American governance and 

influences have only promoted best case circumstances. Such an 

assumption is only correct when the examination is conducted within 

the limited comparative context of a colonial beauty contest. It is 

inappropriate to consider Guam within the scope of regional progress 

or by comparison to non-self-governing territories held by other 

countries. An examination of rights per US commitments, versus our 

actual situation, is the only legitimate criteria for evaluation. 

Chamorro landowners are the exclusive source of all lands currently 

held by the Department of Defense for US bases. Regardless of 

whether the land takings were conducted with callous intent, or are 

simply the result of a bureaucratic mind-set, the outcome remains the 

same; the economic and social displacement of a native people 

within their own homeland. 

Certainly, there has been a raising of the standard of living, medical 

care, education and a recent expansion of economic opportunities. 

Great strides have been made thanks to US influences. However, 

the question cannot be limited to a comparison of current status vs. 

1898, 1944, or even 1950. It must be recognized that our best case 

opportunities have been denied and suborned to suit American 

strategic needs. 

The effects in 1993 are readily seen through an examination of the 

demographics of land ownership, as compared to 1941, and the level 

of economic participation in private sector activities. Just 

compensation, AT THE TIME OF TAKING, was necessary if the 

desired replacement of lands taken was to be realized. Redress 

must be reflective of the times. The US Department of Justice and 

the Courts have applied "adequate compensation" in the 1990's at 

artificially depressed 1953 levels. This has only served to inflame the 

sense of injustice, and continues to skirt the issue of redress. 

Page 9 of 12. 
107 

T.C. Ada I H.R. 2144 

Lacking this, land claimants have been unable to replace even a 

small fraction of the lands taken. Inhibited as well has been the 

ability to convert this precious asset into investment or educational 

endeavors, thereby limiting their ability to fairly compete in Guam's 

modern economy. It is the contention of most, that compensation to 

date is unconscionably inadequate, even if considered with the 

context of rental, let alone payment for fee simple purchase. 

The major impediments to !ust redress, pursuant to P.L. 95-134, have 

been: (1) the limitation of "fair compensation" to a period prior to the 

existence of an open market economy, i.e. "time of taking"; (2) the 

restriction that the security closure of Guam's borders was not to be 

considered as sufficient proof of "duress, unfair influence, or other 

unconscionable actions ... and inequitable actions", thereby limiting 

US liabilities; (3) the inability of Chamorro claimants to fight a 

protracted and cost prohibitive engagement with a world superpower; 

and {4) the placement of the burden of proof upon the victimized 

subordinate, in favor of the dominant trustee. 

Attached for your consideration is a document entitled, "The Markets 

for Lots No. 10001-REM and 317AT". It is offered for its historical 

references to US Statues relative to federal land taking on Guam, as 

presented from the perspective of an appraiser representing two 

claimants in the point case argued pursuant to US P.L. 95-134 (Title 

II, Section 204). 

IV. GROWING LOCAL SENTIMENT & MOVEMENTS 

Angered by broken commitments, a shortage of land and an inhibited 

economy, the situation is resulting in growing tensions and mounting 

acts of dissension by our people. Frustration has reached such high 

levels that the original landowners and/or their heirs have acted to 

take physical possession of their lands by moving on to them and 

building homes in defiance of the official position that the United 

States legally own these lands. The response of the Federal 

Page 10 of 12. 
108 

T.C. Ada I H.R. 2144 

Government to the acts of the landowners has been the filing of 

actions in the courts for criminal trespass and the eviction of these 

families. 

Although I am definitely not calling for a storming of the gates, I am 

none-the-less moved to denounce the historical circumstances which 

have motivated these families to take matters into their own hands. 

The blame for resorting to civil disobedience, by otherwise law 

abiding citizens, lies with the refusal of US political leadership to 

provide alternative solutions. 

Recommendations and Direction 

Foremost at this point in time, is the passage of H.R. 2144. Despite 

any other considerations I have proffered, it's passage is of great 

importance to the people of Guam. 

We, the people of Guam, must be the ones to make the final 

decisions. It is incumbent upon this body to facilitate this right, 

thereby playing a positive role in our islands future, and the 

realization of collective efforts towards making Guam a true 

showcase of democracy. 

At the heart of this issue, is the need for the establishment of 

processes, within US law, requiring (1) the realistic evaluation of 

federal land use on Guam, (2) the timely return of all lands for which 

utilization cannot be legitimately justified, and (3) the creation and 

support of realistic programs of protection, economic development 

and redress18, comparable to the Hawaiian Homes Commission and 

the Alaskan Aboriginal Native Claims Settlement Act, but not so 

limited in scope. 

18 Programs comparable to those for Native Hawaiians and Alaskan aboriginals, and 

structured to fully comply with US in 1946 commitments before the United Nations. 

Page 11 of 12. 
109 

T.C. Ada I H.R. 2144 

We cannot idly accept the argument that Federal lands cannot be 

released because of US Statutes - or that those statutes are written in 

stone. Any policy prohibiting the direct and unconditional return of 

lands to the Chamorro people must be seen as a matter of attitude -

not law. What the Congress has created or condoned, it can change. 

Because of the rapidly increasing volatility of this issue, local efforts 

to seek acceptable solutions have increased. Most notably, the plans 

of Delegate Underwood to organize and hold a 'Lands Summit' on 

Guam, and the local initiative of the Guam Legislature's funding of the 

Chamorro Land Trust. I look forward to the proposed Land Summit, 

and strongly encourage the sincerely cooperative participation of the 

various administrative entities of the United States. 

It is within our means to at least partially redress the unique situation 

of Guam. Certain actions are required by this body - other actions 

are required by the political leadership of Guam. Action is required of 

both. If the United States does not become a legitimate part of the 

solution, it will remain as a part of the problem. Any failure to redress 

our situation can only be seen as the acceptance of injustice. 

Though we fully recognize that the situation is politically difficult to 

resolve, such can no longer be accepted as an excuse to avoid the 

issue altogether. Firm decisive steps must be taken which address to 

the greatest extent possible some form of solution, for the greatest 

number possible. 

Page 12 of 12. 
110 

Mr. UNDERWOOD. And at this time I will call for a recess of approximately 10 minutes so I can get over there and vote in the 

Committee of the Whole and then come back. So with your indulgence, we will recess for 10 minutes. I am going to vote even if it 

doesn't count. 

[Brief recess.] 

Mr. UNDERWOOD. We will now reconvene the subcommittee hearing, and we will go to Senator Manibusan. 

STATEMENT OF HON. MARILYN D.A. MANIBUSAN 

Ms. MANIBUSAN. Mr. Chairman and Members of the subcommittee, I am honored to join the Guam delegation on behalf of our people, and I thank you for the opportunity to present testimony on 

H.R. 2144. 

As you are all aware, land is a sensitive issue in Guam and the 

Federal Government's resolution of the land issue is long overdue. 

Land is a precious resource in Guam, and the issue of land, specifically federally held lands, continues to be an art;,a of serious difficulty between the people of Guam and the Federal Government. 

That the issue is an emotional one is undeniable. In the first instance, it should be remembered that the manner in which the 

Federal Government acquired its property holdings is questioned, 

even to this day. 

In the second instance, on an island as small as Guam, land is 

a precious commodity. Idle land in the hands of a strange government when the children and grandchildren of so many of the original owners are landless becomes a very tense point of contention. 

While the Commander of Naval Forces Marianas was recently quoted as saying, "We own the property whether you agree with 

the means by which we acquired title to it or not. . . ." Chamorro 

families are explaining to their children and grandchildren why they are landless. This contentious issue is not simply going to go 

away. Moreover, the amount of land to be returned to Guam in 

H.R. 2144 is not the end of this process. The return of these prop- erties should be but the beginning. 

In an attempt to soothe many of the bruised emotions and to assuage many of the volatile tempers, much effort has been expended 

since the mid-1970s. The late Congressman Antonio Won Pat, 

Guam's first delegate to Congress, introduced legislation to return 

to the people of Guam land identified by the Federal Government 

as excess to its requirements. The excess property identified in 

what many refer to as the Amy Report, after its author, former Assistant Secretary of the Navy, Wayne Amy, was approved by the 

Department of Defense and submitted to the General Services Administration where it was further approved for release. Since that 

time, Mr. Chairman, the list of properties has been reduced from 

7,000 to 3,400 acres and there is fear that with the inclusion of 

NAS Agana on the base closure and realignment list that that 

amount of 3,400 acres will again be reduced substantially. 

In this vein, the Guam Legislature, on behalf of the people of 

Guam, is requesting your assistance to secure the passage and enactment of H.R. 2144, legislation introduced by Guam's Congressman, Robert Underwood, which would return those 3,200 acres to 
111 

the Government of Guam for utilization beneficial to all of the people of Guam, now and in the future. 

We are requesting that H.R. 2144 be amended so as to expedite 

its passage, as it now appears that the legislation may be bogged 

down. 

First of all, it is difficult to comprehend why H.R. 2144 must be 

referred to more than one congressional committee. A13 the congressional process would have it, this multiple referral would effectively 

relegate the legislation to the back burnero The length of this limbo 

cannot be ascertained simply because no one can accurately determine the priority the measure would receive by each committee nor 

the workload that each committee has. More so, it is incomprehensible why any other committee than the House Committee on the 

Interior or the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources would have oversight jurisdiction over Federal properties in 

an unincorporated territory such as Guam. 

Therefore, in response to this, it would be most beneficial if the 

sequential referral could be reviewed with the purpose of having 

H.R. 2144 referred but to a single committee for the sake of expedition. 

Mr. Chairman and Members, with respect to the disposition of 

the returned properties, it is also likewise very difficult to understand why a land use plan would be necessary for the release of 

excess Federal land holdings. I trust that a satisfactory explanation 

can be given to H.R. 2144's requirement that a land use plan be 

submitted by Guam to congressional committees. I recognize that 

the same provision existed in a similar bill submitted by former 

Delegate Bias, but I am, frankly, at a loss in seeing the need to 

require the Government of Guam to report to committees in Congress on what it specifically intends to do with returned lands no 

longer required by the United States. 

If a land use plan developed by Guam is a bottom line issue in 

the Congress, then I am sure we will develop one. However, in 

principle, I personally consider this requirement demeaning, particularly since the U.S. agencies which hold the properties have not 

had an active land use for the last 20 years, and since all these 

lands taken under conditions have been a source of contention in 

Guam for almost five decades. 

If the Congress is concerned about the Government of Guam selling returned lands to Japanese, Korean or Taiwanese investors, 

then let me put your fears to rest: Any such move would be the 

equivalent of signing a political death warrant given the real needs 

of the people of Guam for affordable housing and other public infrastructure. 

The point is, Mr. Chairman, these properties will result in a public benefit, not just because it is a requirement of a congressional 

legislation here in H.R. 2144, but also because of our own political 

processes. The people of Guam in the Commonwealth Act have 

mandated for a new process of land return and it is instructive to 

keep this in mind as we look beyond this initial return of 3,200 

acres that is outlined in H.R. 2144. 

I suggest that the Congress allow these processes to run their 

course without the paternal requirement of oversight. 
112 

We support the provisions in H.R. 2144 that would exempt the 

release of the property from provisions of law requiring the disposition of the real estate through the General Services Administration 

system. If the GSA procedures are to be followed, the release of the 

property to the Government of Guam would actually be of a reduced priority. Rather, other Federal agencies would have first 

crack at the lands to be released. 

We additionally support the provisions which call for the exemption of these properties from the McKinney Act which would make 

the real estate available to nonprofit organizations which are involved in caring for the homeless. As understandable and desirable 

as care for the homeless is, it must be remembered that land on 

Guam is a very limited resource. To require that the properties be 

subject to the McKinney Act would be to relegate the needs of our 

people of Guam to a priority below the homeless of California or 

other jurisdictions in the United States. This would not only perpetuate an injustice but would add insult to injury. It is our contention, our peoples' contention, and understandably so, to you that 

the benefit of the people of Guam should be foremost in the eyes 

of many, even those who work to provide a decent living to the 

homeless. 

Mr. Chairman and Members, as I mentioned earlier, the lands 

identified have been in the process of return for nearly 20 years. 

They should be returned now. A new process for evaluating the 

military's true need for property should be developed. These properties are, in fact, a part of a patrimony that has been sidelined 

for half a century. Like anyone or anything that once belonged to 

a family and was taken from them, Mr. Chairman and Members, 

these properties will be welcomed back in Guam with open arms. 

Finally, Mr. Chairman and Members, you are to be commended 

for your concern and sensitivity in moving this issue forward. I join the people of Guam in celebrating your actions and look forward 

to the liberation of Guam property for the benefit of our island 

community. Dangkolu NaSi Yu'os Ma'ase'. 

Mr. UNDERWOOD. Thank you, Senator Manibusan, for your pres- entation this morning. [Prepared statement of Ms. Manibusan follows:] 
113 

TWENTY-SECOND GUAM LEGISlATURE 

MARlil'N D.A. MANIBUSAN 

Senator 

Stat.enw:Jt of Sellator Marilyn Jlrfaw'bus:an 

Member. 22nd Guam Legislature 

Before the HDuse Interior Subcommittee on Insular and International Affairs 

on H..R. 2144 

July 29, 1993 

Mr. Chairman and Members of tfle Committee, I am honored to join the Guam 

delegation on behalf of our people, and I thank you for the opportunity to present tcstimony 

on H.R. 2144, an Act to provide for 1be transfer of excess land to the government of Guam. 

As you are an aware, land is a sensitive issue in Guam and the federal government's 

-resolution of tbe land issue is long over due. 

Land is a precious resource in Guam, and the issue of land, specifically federally-held 

lands, rontinues to be an area of serious difficulty between the people of Guam and the 

federal government. 

That the issue is an emotional one is undeniable. In the first instance, it should be 

remembered tha1 the manner in which !he federal government acquired i1s property holdings 

is questioned even to this day. In the second instance, on an island 

as small as Guam, land is a precious commodity. Idle land in the hands of a strange 

govemrnent when the children and grandchildren of so many of the original owners are 

landless becomes a very tense point of contention. 

While the Commander of Naval Forces Marianas \VaS recently quoted as saying, 'We 

own the pmperty whether you agree with the means by which we acquired title to it or 

not. •. • (National Journal, June 12, p.l418), Chamorro fumilies are explaining to their 

l 
114 

children and grandchildren why they are landless. This contentious issue is not simply going 

to go away. Moreover, the amount of land to be rell.lroed to Guam in H.R. 2144 is not the 

end of this process. Th.e return of these properties should be but the beginning. 

In an anempt to soothe many of the bruised emotions and to assuage many of the 

volatile tempers, much effort has been expended since the mid 1970's. The late 

Congressman Antonio Won Pat:, Guam's first delegate to Congress, introduced legislation 

to relllm to the people of Guam land identified by the federal government as excess to its 

rutuirernenJS. The excess property was ideotifioo in what many refer to as the Amy Report., 

after its author, former Assistant Secretary of the Navy Wayne Amy. This list was approved 

by the Department of Defense and submitted to the General Services Administration where 

it was fu:rrl:Jer approved for release. Since that time the list of properties has been reduced 

from 7000 to 3400 ac:res and there is fuar that wiJh the inclusion of NAS Agana on the base 

closure and realignment list that the 3400 acres will again be reduced substmtially. 

In this vein, the Guam Legisla!JJ:re, on behalf of the people of Guam, is requesting 

your assistance to secure. the passage and enactment ofH.R. 2144, legislation introduced by 

Guam's Congressman Robert Underwood, which would return those 3400 acres to the 

government of Guam for utilization beneficial to an of the people of Guam, now and in the 

future. 

We are requesting that R..R. 2144 be amended so as to expedite its passage as it now 

appears that the legislation may be bogged down by several factors which are inherent in the 

manner in which the legislation was prepared. 

First of aJI. i1 is difficult to comprehend why HR, 2144 must be referred to more 

than one Congressional comrrrinee. As the Congressional process would llave it, this 

multiple refeml would effeaively relegate fue legislation to the back burner. 'The length of 

this limbo cannot be ascertained simply because no one can accurately detennine the priority 

fue measure would receive by each com.rnittee nor the workload that each committee has. 

Moreso, it is incomprehenwl.e why any committee other than the House Committee on the 

Interior or the Senate Commin.ee on Energy and Nall.lral Resources would have oversight 

ju:ri<;diction over federal properties in an unincorporared territory such as Guam. Therefore, 

in response to this, it would be most beneficial if the sequential refeml could be reviewed 

2 
115 

with the plU1)0se of having RR. 2144 referred but to a single co!ll1IliJ.1ee for the sake of 

ex-pedition. 

Mr. Chainna.o and Members, with respect to tbe disposition of the returned property, 

it is also likewise difficult to u:od~ why a land use plan would be necessary for the 

relea.<ie of excess ferlerallandholdings. I trust that a satisfactory explanation can be given 

to ILR. 2144's requirement that a land ose plan be submi!ted by Guam to Congressional 

Committees. I recogn:i2e that the S3J.J1e provision existerl in a similar bill submiued by 

former Delegate Blaz, but I am franldy at a loss in seeing tbe need to requ.ire the government 

of Guam to report to Committees in the Congress on what it specifically intends to do with 

retnmed lands no longer required by the United States. If a land use plan deve!opei! by 

Guam is a bottom line issue in the Congress then I am sure we "'ill develop one. Ho .... -ever, 

in principle, I pe:rsooally consider this requirement demeaning, particularly since the U.S. 

agencies which bold the properties have not had an active land use for the last 20 years, and 

since all these lands taken u:oder conditions have been a source of contention in Guam for 

almost five decades. If the Congress is conremed about the Government of Guam selling 

retnmed lands to Japanese, Korean or Taiwanese investors, then let me put your fears to 

rest: any such move would be the equivalent of signing a political death warrant given the 

real needs of the people of Guam for affordable housing and other public infrastructure. The 

point is, Mr. Cbairtoan, these properties will result in a public benefit, not just becanse il: 

is a requirement of H.R. 2144, but also because of our o'Wll political processes. The people 

of Guam, in the Commonwealth Act, bave mandated for a new process of land return and 

it is instructive to keep this ro mind as we look beyond this initial return of 3,200 acres that 

is outlined in H.R.2144. 

I suggest that the Congress allow these processes to run their course without the 

parernal requirement of oversight. 

We support the provisions in H.R. 2144 that would exempt the release of the pro~rty 

rrom provisions of law requiring the disposition of the real esmte through the General 

Services Administration system. lf the GSA procedures are to be followed, the release of 

the property to the government of Guam would actually be of a reduced priority. Rather, 

other federal agencies would have first crack at the lands to be reJeased. 

3 
116 

We additionally support provisions which call for the exemption of these properties 

from the McKinney act which would make the real estate available to non-profit 

organizations which are involved in caring for the homeless. As unders1andab!e and 

desirable as car for the bomdess is, it IIIllSt be remembered that land on Guam is a very 

limited resoura:. To require that the properties be subject to the McKinney Act would be 

to relegate the needs of the people of Goarn to a priority below the homeless of California 

or other jurisdictions in the U.S, This would not only ~ an injustice but would add 

insult to injury. It is our contention that the benefit of the people of Guam should be 

foremost in the eyes of many, even those who work to provide a decent living to the 

borileless. 

Mr. Chainna:n and members, as I mentioned earlier, the lands identified have been 

in the pro=s of rerum for nearly twenty (20) years. Thev should Qe returned now and a 

new process for evaluatfug the rrnlitazy's trne need fo~ deve~l These 

properties are in fact a part of a patrimony that has been sidelined for half a century. Like 

anyone or anything that once belonged to a family and 'N3S taken from them, these 

properties will be welcomed back with open arms. 

Fmally, Mr. Chairman and members, you are to be commended for your concern and 

sensitivity in moving this issue forv.'a!d. I join the people of Guam in celebmling your 

actions and look forward to the libexation of Goarn property for the benefit of our island 

coiillJlllllity. 

Dangkolu NaSi Yu'os Ma'ase'. 

4 
117 

Mr. UNDERWOOD. Now we go to Senator Reyes. 

STATEMENT OF HON. EDWARD D. REYES 

Mr. REYES. Thank you. Good morning, Congressman Underwood. 

I want to personally congratulate you for introducing H.R. 2144. I 

think it is something that is vitally needed for our territory and 

you are to be commended. 

I also want to thank the Chairman of the Subcommittee, Congressman de Lugo, for expeditiously hearing this important resolution for our people, and also thank the other Members who were 

here earlier, who came to share the testimony today. 

Of course we are pleased to be here, Mr. Chairman, to testify on 

this very important measure. The introduction of H.R. 2144 I believe provides the people of Guam with some reassurances that 

their pleas concerning excess Federal land issues have not fallen by 

the wayside. 

For many years now, island residents have voiced concern that 

the U.S. military authorities on Guam that control some 44,000 

acres of land, of prime lands, have been reluctant to apply or even 

suggest mutual consent guidelines in the planning and development of military lands in Guam. In fact, the BRAC Commission's 

hearing on the closure of the NAS, the Naval Air Station on Guam, 

was one of the few occasions Government of Guam officials had the 

opportunity to participate in upper level land-related discussions. 

Nevertheless, the Commission's decision to consolidate operations 

at the Naval Air Station and Andersen Air Force Base, and the anticipated passage, I am confident, of H.R. 2144, clearly demonstrate 

to the people of Guam that there are alternatives available to resolve the Guam excess lands issue but that these solutions will not 

evolve without the active participation and persuasion of yourself, 

the Members of this Committee, and the U.S. Congress. 

At first glance, the process for releasing lands as described in 

Section 3 of the Act appears simple and straightforward. However, 

there are concerns shared that the process established in the bill 

relies too heavily on the mood of the Federal agency, its authorities 

and other considerations as well. For instance, most Federal lands 

in Guam fall under the charge of the Department of the Defense, 

and historically, there has not been an inclination by DOD to readily, to readily, identify what lands could be returned to the Government of Guam and its people. As alluded to earlier, of the approximately 44,000 acres controlled by DOD, only some 14,000 have 

thus far been released to the Government of Guam in over 15 years 

and many of these lands were returned with conditions. 

At this rate, it is reasonable to assume that it may take centuries before the excess land issue is resolved. As it stands, the 

military utilizes no more than 12,000 acres for its facilities and operations with less than 50 percent utilization rate, and in some 

cases 30 percent utilization. 

I maintain that they could physically double or even triple their 

operations without requiring any more lands. In spite of this, there 

is little indication that DOD is willing to accelerate disposal of 

lands not needed for their families or operations both today, tomorrow, and a year from now. 
118 

Another concern with the process delineated in H.R. 2144 lies in 

the fact that certain costs would have to be incurred by any Federal agency when disposing of excess lands. This implies that the 

Federal entity would have to secure funds from the Congress to 

support any land conveyance to the Government of Guam. Frankly 

speaking, and noting the extent of the budget cuts that have been 

imposed upon the DOD, I believe that this type of funding request 

will not be a higher priority within the Defense Department or any 

other respective agency. I can only hope that such financial requests when it comes to this Committee or to the other Committees 

of the Congress that they be looked at favorably for funding so that 

the process of return could be expedited. 

In Section 3 of H.R. 2144, there is a provision requiring the Government of Guam to develop a land use plan for properties identified as excess to the Federal Government's needs. I fully appreciate 

the concern of the Congress with respect to the need of such a plan, 

and I support the intent of such provision; however, this provision 

would further extend the time and cost elements associated with 

the release of excess lands. It is my feeling that the Government 

of Guam could assure the Federal Government that such plans will 

be developed for the respective lands but it would be unreasonable, 

inefficient, and costly to approach such land use planning in a fragmented manner. In other words, we more than likely will be expecting more lands to be returned back to the Government of 

Guam, and to do planning now, without those future lands to be 

returned, will be inefficient. 

The people of our island already have a plan at hand. Presidential Executive Order 10178, dated back in October 1950, which 

reserved Guam lands for use by the Federal agencies and which 

delegated responsibility by the Secretary of the Interior to transfer 

other lands not reserved by the President of the United States to 

the Government of Guam was followed on August 29, 1951, with 

the policy established by the First Guam Congress, through the 

Public Lands Act, directing priorities for sale or lease of land being 

returned to the Federal Government as follows: 

First of all, the First Guam Congress indicated that, as a matter 

of priority, resettlement and rehabilitation should be given to persons who have had all their land acquired by the United States to 

the Naval Government of Guam or the Government of Guam and 

who have owned no lands since January, 1945; second, within that 

category, persons who have had their lands substantially taken or 

acquired by July 1, 1944, by the United States Naval Government 

of Guam, the remaining portion of their land is not adequate or 

sufficient for reasonable agricultural or residential purposes. 

The second major category that the First Guam Congress articulated is that the land could be disposed of for homestead purposes, 

for vacant and unreserved public lands of Guam. In other words, 

we have this priority for the disposition of lands returned by the 

Federal Government as far back as 1950, Mr. Chairman, and we 

can use that as a point of departure. 

What can be recommended is that clusters or aggregated parcels 

of properties be cleared for release prior to the formulation of the 

land use plans. 
119 

I would like to bring to the committee's attention, Mr. Chairman, 

the Resolution 93, Guam legislation, Resolution 93, which proposes 

what I believe is a viable system for addressing the excess lands 

dilemma. Resolution 93, which I am attaching as part of my testimony, with your permission, I would like for it to be inserted as 

part of the record, recommends a reversal of the current excess 

lands process. · In other words, instead of allowing the Department of Defense to 

determine what lands should be declared excess, they should be 

mandated to determine and justify the amount of land needed for 

their operations based on reasonable Department of Defense basing 

requirements. The Congress then could determine lands outside of 

that need as excess to be returned to the people of Guam. 

I strongly feel that with the approval of this Committee and the 

Congress, there is the possibility of having this entire system simplified. AB envisioned in the said measure, there would be numerous advantages to having the Federal agencies in Guam develop a 

comprehensive land use plan for the properties based on their mission requirements. It is proposed that this plan be submitted to the 

Congress for review, ratification, and funding. 

Once approved, the plan should provide clear guidance for the 

Federal entities insofar as what, when, and how much land is 

needed to support the respective agency's mission, and further, 

that all lands found by the Congress to be in excess to the Federal 

Government's needs be returned to the people of Guam for their 

benefit. 

Resolution 93 also makes the U.S. Government, asks, rather, the 

U.S. Government to allow original landowners to use their properties in question on a temporary basis pending resolution of the 

entire excess land issue. I sincerely feel that this will streamline 

the entire process and, moreover, eliminate the layers of bureaucracy envisioned in H.R. 2144. 

Resolution 93 identifies a system for disposing of excess lands in 

a rational, efficient, and economical way. There may be certain features of this measure that the Committee may want to improve on, 

but after much deliberation and debate by the Guam Legislature, it is the sense of the people of Guam that this is the one alternative course and perhaps is the course that the Committee could 

pursue. 

I respectfully suggest that this Committee transfer the control of 

Federal land outside the immediate confines of the U.S. military 

installations in Guam to some other entity within the U.S. Federal 

Government. Land management is outside the scope of the military 

department any place in the world. It has become a bone of contention in Guam that the DOD is having a difficult time with the civilian community as of right now because of this situation of the 

landlordship problem that arose because the military has been 

chartered to manage all of the land held by the Federal Government in Guam. 

To further illustrate this problem, Mr. Chairman, I refer to a 

group of individuals comprised of the members and descendants of 

the DeSoto/Bias family on Guam who elected to stage a peaceful 

public protest concerning their displeasure with a particular land 

transaction negotiated between the U.S. Air Force and the Depart-
120 

ment of Education, an entity of our Government of Guam. The 

transaction involved the assignment of long-term conditional lease 

agreements for certain properties which had been conveyed by the 

U.S. Naval Government pnor to 1950 and which was claimed to be 

ancestral lands belonging to the Bias/DeSoto family, despite several 

attempts to secure authorization or permission from the local and 

regional military authorities to allow the Bias/DeSoto family to access and conduct a peaceful demonstration at the site in question 

and to cause enjoyment of the family's constitutional rights guaranteed under the First Amendment. 

To date, there has been no encouraging response offered by the 

respective military commands. Instead, there have been notices of 

disbarment issued to the protecting family members and their supporters, litigation initiated by the military officials charging individuals with trespassing, harassment of the DeSoto/Bias family by 

active duty personnel and other gestures of intimidation. 

I defer to the judgment of this Committee, Mr. Chairman, and 

the wisdom to identify other government entities within the U.S. 

Government as far as the control of Federal land in Guam. 

Once again, Congressman Underwood, Mr. Chairman, H.R. 2144 

is a good measure, a good beginning. It sends the right message to 

our people, that the Congress is still willing to address the excess 

lands issue on behalf of the people of Guam. It is my fervent hope 

that the Committee would find a way to return the parcels of land 

identified in H.R. 2144 to the people of Guam without conditions. 

This will allow us to ameliorate the injustices suffered by many 

original landowners whose properties were taken without complete 

due process. 

It is imperative that some measure of equity and justice be accorded these original landowners before we can close this chapter 

on Federal land taking. I realize that addressing these issues now 

may jeopardize the passage of H.R. 2144. I would, therefore, ask 

the question of yourself, Congressman Underwood, that these and 

other related matters be addressed in some other forum in the future such as the upcoming land conference proposed by yourself. 

I believe that we should continue to address the injustices imposed on our original landowners and, of course, the entire island 

of Guam, and, again, I commend you for introducing H.R. 2144 and 

having the foresight in planning that land conference, and hopefully we can have all of the people involved in the land situation 

in Guam together for an eventual solution of this very thorny problem in our island. 

Thank you. And I will be pleased to respond to questions that 

you may have, Mr. Chairman, and the rest of the Subcommittee 

when they come later on. Thank you. 

Mr. UNDERWOOD. Thank you, Senator Reyes. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. Reyes and attachment follow:] 
121 

ADDENDUM TO TESTIMONY OF SENATOR EDWARD D. REYES ON H.R. 2144 

Once again Mr. Chairman, H.R. 2144 is a good measure, a good 

beginning. It sends the right signal that Congress is still 

willing to address the excess lands issue on behalf of the people 

of Guam. 

It is my fervent hope that the Committee would find a way to return 

the parcels of land indentified in 2144 to the people of Guam 

without conditions. This will allow us to ameliorate the 

injustices suffered by many original land owners whose properties 

were taken without complete due process. It is imperative that 

some measure of equity and justice be accorded these original land 

owners before we can close the chapter on federal land taking. I 

realize that addressing these issues now may jeopardize the passage 

of H.R. 2144. I would therefore ask that these and other related 

land matters be addressed in some other forum in the future such 

as the upcoming land conference proposed by Congressman Underwood. 
122 

Testimony of Senator Edward D. Reyes, Chairman. 

Committee on Housing and Community Development, 22nd Guam 

Legislature 

before the 

House Subcommittee on Insular and International Affairs 

U.S. House of Representatives. Washington, DC 

July 29, 1993 

Honorable Chairman Congressman Ron de Lugo, Congressman Robert 

Underwood. Distinguished Members ofthis Committee: 

My name is Edward D. Reyes, a member of the 22nd Guam Legislature and 

currently presiding Chairman of the Committee on Housing and Community 

Development. 

I am happy to appear before this Committee to present testimony on House 

Resolution 2144, a measure that proposes "to provide for the transfer of excess 

lands to the Government of Guam and for other purposes." I would like to thank 

Congressman Robert Underwood for introducing H.R. 2144 and the Chairman of 

the Committee as well for expeditiously hearing this important measure and, of 

course, to all the distinguished Committee members who have set time aside to be 

present today. From the people of Guam and my colleagues in the Twenty-Second 

Guam Legislature, let me extend a warm Hafa Adai to all of you .. 
123 

The introduction of H.R. 2144, I believe, provides the people of Guam with some 

reassurance that their pleas concerning excess federal lands issue have not fallen 

by the wayside. For many years now island residents have voiced concern that the 

U.S. military authorities on Guam who control some 44,000 acres of prime lands 

have been unwilling to apply or even suggest mutual consent guidelines in the 

planning and development of military lands in Guam. In fact, the BRAC 

Commission's hearing on the closure of the Naval Air Station facility on Guam 

was one of the few occasions government of Guam officials had the opportunity to 

participate in upper policy level land-related discussions. Nevertheless, the 

Commission's decision to consolidate operations at Naval Air Station and 

Andersen Air Force Base and the anticipated passage of H.R. 2144 clearly 

demonstrates to the people of Guam that there are alternatives available to resolve 

the Guam excess lands issue but that these solutions will not evolve without the 

active participation and persuasion of the U.S. Congress. 

At first glance, the process for releasing lands as described in Section 3 of the Ac 

appears simple and straightforward. However, there are concerns shared by some 

that the process established in the Bill relies too heavily on the mood of th• 

Federal agency, its authorities and other considerations as well. For instance, mm 

federal lands in Guam fall under the charge of the Department of the Defense an 

historically, there has not been an inclination by DOD to readily identify wh~ 

lands could be returned to the government of Guam. As alluded to earlier, of tl: 

approximately 44,000 acres controlled by DOD, no more than 1,000 acres ha' 

been released to the government of Guam in over 15 years and many of the: 

lands were returned with conditions. At this rate, it is reasonable to assume that 

may take centuries before the excess land issue is resolved. As it stands, tJ 

military utilizes no more than 12,000 acres for its facilities and operations wi 

2 
124 

less than 50% utilization. I maintain that they could physically double or even 

triple their operations without requiring any more lands. In spite of this, there is 

little indication that DOD is willing to accelerate disposal of lands not needed for 

their facilities or operations, both in the near or longer term .. 

Another concern with the process delineated in H.R. 2144 lies in the fact that 

certain costs would have to be incurred by any Federal agency when disposing of 

excess lands. This implies that the Federal entity would have to secure funds from 

the Congress to support any land conveyance to the government of Guam. Frankly 

speaking and noting the extent of budget cuts that have been imposed upon the 

Department of Defense, I believe that this type of funding request will not be a 

higher priority of DOD or any other respective agency. I can only hope that such 

financial requests coming before this or other committees of Congress would be 

given favorable consideration, however. 

In Section 3 of the Act, there is a provision requiring the government of Guam to 

develop a land-use plan for properties identified as excess to the federal 

government's needs. I appreciate the concern of the Congress with respect to the 

need for such a plan and I support the intent of such a provision, however, this 

provision would further extend the time and cost elements associated with the 

release of excess lands. It is my feeling that the government of Guam could assure 

the federal government that such plans would be developed for the respective 

lands but it would be unreasonable, inefficient and costly to approach such land 

use planning in a fragmented manner. The people of Guam already have a plan of 

action at hand. Presidential Executive Order 10178, dated October 30, 1950, 

which reserved Guam lands for use by Federal agencies and which delegated 

responsibility to the Secretary of Interior to transfer other lands not reserved by 
125 

the President to the government of Guam was followed on August 29, 1951 with 

policy established by the Guam First Congress, through the Public Lands Act, 

directing priorities for sale or lease of land being returned by the Federal 

government as follows: 

a. Resettlement and Rehabilitation of: (I) persons who have had all their 

land acquired by the United States, the Naval government of Guam, or the 

government of Guam, and who have owned no other land since January 1, 1945; 

and, (2) persons who have had a substantial portion of their land acquired by the 

United States, the Naval government of Guam, or the government of Guam, since 

July 1, 1944, the remaining portion whose land is not adequate or sufficient for 

reasonable agricultural or residential purposes; 

b. A Homestead Program for vacant and unreserved public lands of Guam. 

What could be recommended is that clusters or aggregated parcels of properties be 

cleared for release prior to the formulation of land-use plans. 

I would like to bring to the Committee's attention Resolution 93 which proposes 

what I believe is a viable system for addressing the excess lands dilemma. 

Resolution 93, which I am attaching as part of my testimony, recommends a 

reversal of the current excess lands process. In other words, instead of allowing 

DoD to determine what lands should be declared excess, they should be mandated 

to determine and justify the amount of land needed for their operations based on 

standard DoD basing requirements. The Congress could then determine lands 

outside of that need as excess to be returned to the people of Guam. I strongly feel 

that with the approval of this Committee and the Congress, there is the possibility 

of having this entire system simplified. As envisioned in the said measure, there 

would be numerous advantages to having the Federal agencies in Guam develop a 

comprehensive land-use plan for the properties based on their mission 

4 

73-296 0 - 93 - 5 
126 

requirements. It is proposed that this plan be submitted to the Congress for review, 

ratification, and funding. Once approved, the said plan should provide clear 

guidance to the federal entities in so far as what, when and how much land is 

needed to support the Federal agency's mission and further, that all lands found by 

the Congress to be in excess to the federal government's needs be returned to the 

people of Guam for their benefit. Resolution 93 also asks the U.S. government to 

allow original land owners to use the properties in question on a temporary basis, 

pending resolution of the excess land issue. I sincerely feel that this would 

streamline the entire process and moreover, eliminate the layers of bureaucracy 

envisioned in H.R. 2144. Resolution 93 identifies a system for disposing of excess 

lands in a rational, efficient and economical way. There may be certain features of 

this measure that the Committee may want to improve on but, after much 

deliberation and debate by the Guam Legislature, it is the sense of the people of 

Guam that this is the proper course to pursue. 

I respectfully suggest that this Committee transfer the control of Federal land 

outside the immediate confines of the various military installations from the 

Department of Defense to some other entity within the U.S. government. Land 

management is outside the scope of the normal assigned mission of the military. It 

has become a bone of contention that disrupts sustaining good relations between 

the Defense Department and the civilian community. To further illustrate the 

problem, I refer to a group of individuals comprised of the members and 

descendants of the Bias/DeSoto family on Guam who elected to stage a peaceful 

public protest concerning their displeasure with a particular land transaction 

·negotiated between the U.S. Air Force and the Department of Education, an entity 

of the government of Guam. The transaction involved the assignment of a longterm conditional lease agreement for certain properties which had been 
127 

condemned by the U.S. Naval Government prior to 1950 and which was claimed 

to be ancestral lands belonging to the Bias/DeSoto family. Despite several 

attempts to secure authorization or permission from the local and regional military 

authorities to allow the Bias/DeSoto family to access and conduct a peaceful 

demonstration at the site in question and to cause enjoyment of the family's 

constitutional rights under the First Amendment. To date, there has been no 

encouraging response offered by the respective local military command. Instead, 

there have been notices of disbarment issued to protesting family members and 

their supporters, litigation initiated by military officials charging individuals with 

trespassing, harassment of the Bias/DeSoto family by active duty personnel and 

other gestures of intimidation. 

I defer to your collective wisdom to identify another government entity, which 

surely will be an improvement. 

Thank you for the opportunity to present testimony before the Committee 

and once again, A Warm Hafa Adai. 

6 
128 

1WENTY-SECOND GUAM LEGISLATURE 

1993 (FIRST) Regular Session 

Resolution No. 93 (LS) 

Ar. amended by the author. 

Introduced by: E. D. Reyes 

J. T. San Agustin 

M. Z. BordaUo 

T. S. Nelson 

M. D. A. Manibusan 

V. C. Pangelinan 

P.C. Lujan 

T.C.Ada 

J.P.Aguon 

E. P. Arriola 

J.G. Bamba 

A. C. Blaz 

D. F. Brooks 

F. P. Camacho 

H. D. Dierking 

C. T. C. Gutierrez 

D. Parkinson 

F. R. Santos 

D. L. G. Shimizu 

T.V.C.Tanaka 

A. R. Unpingco 

Relative to requesting the United States Government to 

reverse the process for determining as excess all 

remaining Federal lands in Guam not yet determined as 

excess and mandating that the U.S. military precisely 

determine what lands are needed to support the local 

military mission using standard basing requirements and 

further, to request that lands beyond military needs be 

returned to the people of Guam. 

1 BE IT RESOLVED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE TERRITORY OF 

2 GUAM: 

1 
129 

1 WHEREAS, prior to and at the end of the Second World War, after the 

2 reoccupation of Guam by the U.S. Armed Forces, thousands of acres of 

3 property to establish military and defense-related facilities throughout the 

4 island were acquired "as a result of duress, unfair influence or other 

5 unconscionable actions of the United States"; and 

6 WHEREAS, the above action allowed the U.S. Government to gain 

7 control of approximately 85,000 acres or sixty·three percent of the island's 

8 prime properties on which were situated whole communities containing the 

9 homes and farmlands of thousands of Chamorro families, this condemnation 

10 of homelands by the U.S. Naval government causing major social and 

11 economic displacement of families, irreversibly altering patterns of ancestral 

12 land uses, thereby disrupting the socio-economic and cultural values of the 

13 people of Guam; and 

14 WHEREAS, aside from its indigenous human resources, the island of 

15 Guam is not blessed with abundant natural resources or other forms of 

16 wealth, thus causing local people to place the highest intrinsic value and 

17 importance on land inherited from their ancestors; and 

18 WHEREAS, at the end of the Vietnam War era (mid-70's), the 

19 Department of Defense was prepared to designate an additional 8,000 acres 

20 of Chamorro homelands as "excess lands", but of this figure, only 1,000 acres 

21 has actually been released to the government of Guam for port development, 

22 bringing the total of Federal lands released to Guam since 1950 to 

23 approximately 41,000 acres; and 

24 WHEREAS, of the remaining 44,000 acres of land under the military's 

25 control only twenty-seven percent (27%) or no more than 12,000 acres have 

26 been physically separated through fencing, and of these 12,000 fenced acres, 

2 
130 

1 less than 6,000 acres are presently under use, thus reflecting a utilization rate 

2 of less than fifty percent of lands confined, making it the sense of the 

3 Legislature that the Department of Defense could double or perhaps triple its 

4 operations within an area consisting of 12,000 acres leaving a total of 32,000 

5 acres that could be identified as excess and released without adversely 

6 hampering the level of U.S. security needs in Guam and throughout the Asia7 Pacific region; and 

8 WHEREAS, the current political stability in the Pacific region and in 

9 most parts of the world and the improving relations between the U.S., Asian 

10 and the Pacific Rim nations establish a declining need for military expansion 

11 in the region and worldwide as seen in the recent base closure policies and the 

12 planned reduction in DOD expenditures that have affected the U.S. Armed 

13 Forces globally; and 

14 WHEREAS, the Legislature finds it unreasonable, insensitive and unjust 

15 for the Department of Defense to continue to possess excessive amounts of 

16 land beyond its current and future needs, particularly when thousands of 

17 Guam landowners who have been deprived of access and productive use of 

18 such lands for over forty years were not accorded due process and full 

19 protection under the Constitution of the United States at the time the Naval 

20 government acquired the properties in the mid-40's; and 

21 WHEREAS, the current process used by the Department of Defense and 

22 in particular by the authorities overseeing U.S. military base operations in 

23 Guam, does not require the said authorities to justify to the U.S. Congress 

24 and the people of the United States what lands in Guam should be classified 

25 as excess to the military's needs, using established plans and programs and 

26 standard-basing criteria and requirements; and 

3 
131 

1 WHEREAS, it is the sense of the people of Guam and their elected 

2 leadership that Guam must convey its plea and increasing concern to the U.S. 

3 Congress to obtain the support and assistance of the U.S. Congress in 

4 directing the Secretary of Defense to examine what basing standards, 

5 requirements and criteria are applied to Guam in light of the military's 

6 overall mission in the region and to determine the compatibility and 

7 justification of the military's use of and control over Guam lands in view of 

8 its current mission; and 

9 WHEREAS, it is the finding of the Legislature that there is mounting 

10 tension between the military authorities and Guam residents due to the issue 

11 of landtakings described earlier herein and that such relations will continue to 

12 worsen if policy guidance and decisions regarding the lands controversy are 

13 not satisfactorily addressed; and 

14 WHEREAS, it is the sense of the people of Guam that a strong and 

15 continued presence of the U.S. military is both needed and welcomed in 

16 Guam as long as such presence does not interfere with the social, economic, 

17 cultural and political aspirations of the people of Guam, the people of Guam 

18 recognizing the need for the military establishment to possess, safeguard and 

19 control a certain amount of land compatible with the applicable standards for 

20 base requirements and the mission of the military in the region; now, 

21 therefore, be it 

22 RESOLVED, that the Twenty-Second Guam Legislature does hereby 

23 respectfully demand that the Secretary of Defense and the United States 

24 Congress assist the people of Guam in their plight caused by the Federal 

25 acquisition of invaluable ancestral homelands consisting of approximately 

26 32,000 acres which for more than forty-five years have been set aside for 

4 
132 

1 national defense and for security of the nation, although, because of the 

2 current peace and stability in the region and growing global peace, such land 

3 may never be used for the purpose for which it was acquired either now or in 

4 the future; and be it further 

5 RESOLVED, that the Legislature desires to continue the process of 

6 returning without conditions those Federal excess lands identified in the 

7 Guam Land Use Plan and enumerated in H.R. 2144; and be it further 

8 RESOLVED, that the Legislature respectfully demands that the 

9 procedure for releasing Federal excess lands in Guam under the jurisdiction 

10 of the Department of Defense be altered and reversed by the Secretary of 

11 Defense whereby the appropriate local military authorities shall be required 

12 to justify through short-term or long-term plans or programs the need to 

13 continue holding lands for national defense purpose or purposes through the 

14 use and application of established Department of Defense basing standards; 

15 and be it further 

16 RESOLVED, that the Legislature respectfully requests that in the event 

17 the Secretary of Defense refuses to reverse the procedure for determining 

18 what lands are excess to defense needs in Guam, the Congress of the United 

19 States through legislation of its choice require the Secretary to reverse the 

20 Department of Defense policy for determining excess military lands in 

21 accordance with the request contained in the preceding resolve clause and 

22 declare that all lands beyond defense needs shall be excess lands to be 

23 returned to the people of Guam; and be it further 

24 RESOLVED, that the Legislature further respectfully requests that the 

25 procedure for the release of excess Department of Defense lands in Guam be 

26 exempt from the McKinney Act and any provision of the General Services 

5 
133 

1 Administration regulations that require excess Federal lands in Guam to be 

2 cleared and released by Federal agencies before such properties are declared 

3 excess and conveyed to the people of Guam; and be it further 

4 RESOL VEO, that the Legislature hereby seeks the approval of the 

5 Secretary of Defense to allow original property owners to have access to and 

6 temporarily use of their former lands until such time as the final disposition of 

7 the property is determined; and be it further 

8 RESOLVED, that the Speaker certify to and the Legislative Secretary 

9 attest the adoption hereof and that copies of the same be thereafter 

10 transmitted to the U.S. Secretary of Defense; to the Commander-in-Chief 

11 Pacific; to the Commander Naval Forces Marianas; to the Administrator, 

12 General Services Administration; to the U.S. Secretary of Interior; to the 

13 Honorable Ron De Lugo, M.C., Chairman of the House Subcommittee on 

14 Insular and International Affairs; to the Honorable Robert A. Underwood, 

15 M.C., Guam's Delegate in Congress; and to the Governor of Guam. 

DULY AND REGULARLY AOOPTED ON THE 9Tii DAY OF JUNE, 1993. 

PILARC.LUJ 

Senator and Legislative Secretary 

6 
134 

Mr. UNDERWOOD. And thank all of you for your very large stirring statements. I think the tone that certainly has been set by all 

of you on this differs radically from the previous panel and indicates some of the sentiments that motivate the people of Guam towards a clear resolution of these issues, and I commend each and 

every one of you, I know for the great deal of thought and soul 

searching that went into your testimonies. 

Even though some people may argue and some people may indicate that the statements are strong, I think all of you have practiced a great deal of restraint in making your remarks. I think that 

there is no doubt in my mind that even more strong statements 

could be made. I don't think the depth of the emotions of the people 

of Guam relative to this question has been yet touched, even by the 

stirring statements that have been made this morning and this 

afternoon. So I want to thank you for that. 

I have a series of questions and I think most of them have been 

discussed, even in the previous panel, but there are a couple of 

items that I would like to be addressed and one of them pertains 

to the statement introduced in the record at the request of the Assistant Secretary of the Interior, Ms. Leslie Turner, and I would 

like to have some comments on that particular statement. 

I know you have only had a brief time to review that, but there 

are a number of items in there that should attract your attention. 

The other is perhaps we could begin by clarifying a statement 

that I made, and I hope I didn't misspeak, but perhaps you can 

clarify it, and this pertains to the discussion on the critical habitat 

and the wildlife refuge. At the time Admiral Kristensen and General Burr were here, I indicated, as a point of contrast, that the 

wildlife refuge was inefficiently better than the critical habitat designation, and I had indicated, and perhaps you can clarify, that the 

Government of Guam, either through the legislature or the Governor's office or perhaps both, has indicated a preference for the 

wildlife refuge over the critical habitat. 

So perhaps the Lieutenant Governor and the Speaker or other 

Senators may wish to speak to that point. 

Mr. BLAs. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. I think that with 

regard to the issue of critical habitat and, more specifically, the 

legal suit that is in the courts now, I think the Administration's position as of late has been that if they had to, they would choose to 

go with a refuge, wildlife refuge, provided that the management 

and control of that refuge be vested in the people of Guam, the 

Government of Guam. 

That, of course, is an alternative to the more cumbersome and 

the more encompassing critical habitat that has been proposed in 

the early stages of even our administration when we did not realize 

the impact that it would have. . The position has now been that in order for us to continue to acknowledge that there is a need to protect, for example, the species 

that are there, the endangered species, there must be some form 

of consideration made to address that issue. 

Mr, UNDERWOOD. Okay, thank you. Any of the Senators like to 

speak to that? Senator Reyes? 

Mr. REYES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 
135 

I personally support the protection of wildlife. I think it is important. Some of the members of the legislature may correct me, but 

as I recall, this issue of designation of wildlife refuge and critical 

habitat has never really been addressed by the legislature. This is 

my second term down there, and some of these areas fall under my 

cognizance. 

The business about designation of critical habitat, wildlife refuge, 

is a very significant event. I see it as a way, perhaps, if we are not 

careful, to prevent or delay the return of excess Federal land to our 

people. In other words, should designations be made, we are going 

to have to cope with various Federal regulations to surmount the 

restrictions. 

The fact of the matter is, because of the importance of this designation, during the last session of the 21st Guam Legislature, Mr. 

Congressman, there was a provision in one of the bills that was 

passed by the legislature, signed by the Governor, now law, that 

says the Department of Agriculture, in collaboration with the Department of Parks and Recreation in Guam, in collaboration with 

the Federal Government, may come up with a plan and a designation of conservation, wildlife refuge, and such plans shall be submitted to the legislature for ratification. Public hearings will be 

made and so forth. That is now law, Mr. Chairman. 

And just the other day, because of the importance of this matter, 

I went down to see the head of the wildlife refuge in the Department of the Interior, the assistant secretary for that agency of Wildlife refuge, and pleaded, and I asked the folks in there, to please 

hold in abeyance any impending designation of Federal lands, or 

even our own Government of Guam land, so that we in the legislature, that the Governor, the executive branch, would have a chance 

to ask the people of Guam how they would want this designation. 

I believe it is unfair to designate some 30,000 acres of land on our 

island without asking the people of Guam how they feel about it. 

So that is my sense about it. I believe the whole situation now 

should be held in abeyance until we have had a chance in Guam 

to look at it; ask our people how they feel about it, instead of this 

unilateral action on the part of even the Federal Government or 

even our own Government of Guam. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. That is my comment on that. 

Mr. UNDERWOOD. Thank you. Anyone else wish to make a comment? 

If not, then just so that we understand, I only raise the issue so 

that I make sure that everyone clarifies what their sentiments are 

on this, but obviously there is a court case somewhere on this 

issue, and my understanding is that even Interior is not free to 

hold that decision in abeyance as of this time. And so whatever discussions need to take place in order to provide a unified Government of Guam approach, perhaps in collaboration with the Department of the Interior, should take place rather quickly. 

Mr. BLAS. Mr. Chairman, just a moment, if I could? 

Mr. UNDERWOOD. Yes, certainly. 

Mr. BLAS. Just a few minutes. 

A representative of the Department of the Interior requested that 

I relay the message to the Governor's office of the Department of 

the Interior's request whether we might want to participate in the 
136 

response to that court case that you speak about here. And so it 

is, I think, my duty to come back to Guam, then, and ask what our 

position would be. Because as I was made to understand, and I 

think we were the ones who first put it out, the first responses are 

due on or about August 6, which is just a matter of days away. 

So I wanted to make sure the record shows we have been requested already and we will be consulting with the legislature to 

see what we can come up with. 

Mr. UNDERWOOD. Okay, thank you, Governor. 

Senator Manibusan, did you wish to speak on this issue? 

Ms. MANIBUSAN. I think that on behalf of Senator Santos, who 

is one of the distinguished colleagues in the legislature, I remember that he had a position that embraces the majority of the legislature's sentiments in opposing the critical habitat. 

I am not sure that that is actually reduced and a resolution was 

passed by the 21st Guam Legislature, but I would like to offer assistance in providing such a resolution, if there is one. 

Mr. UNDERWOOD. In your testimony, Senator San Agustin, you 

mentioned that perhaps we should look for an expansive definition 

of public benefit use. This is an issue that comes up repeatedly and 

it is in a sense tied with the issue of the land use plan. 

I asked the question to the earlier panel and I have asked this 

question before, what is the great fear here? What is it that is anticipated that the Government of Guam would do with this land 

and if there was a great fear to it, then perhaps we could encode 

to prevent that, I don't know. Perhaps we can put that in the legislation. 

But what I would like to ask you is to perhaps respond to what 

are some examples that you think of that public benefit use or perhaps what is the expansive definition that we are looking for? 

Mr. SAN AGUSTIN. Well, I think in responding to that, you said 

what is the great fear? To quote our late President Roosevelt, he 

said the main difficulty of fear is the word itself, "fear," and I think 

that is the fact the Federal bureaucracy still has not seen that 

Guam now can be very able to determine for itself. 

I think it is an insult to the people of Guam to suggest that they 

should provide administrative veto power on the rights of the people to determine for themselves. The idea of having legislation delegate authority to an administrative agency is like subjugating our 

people. Continuing again, as for more than a century, as we have 

been doing. And I see no basis for that other than to just try to 

hang on to the umbilical cord. They have been going on for the last 

50 years on Guam. 

As I said, the issue of land is not just land itself but more of the 

right to self-determination for our people to decide for ourselves. I 

think we are mature enough. We are good enough to fight for the 

wars of the United States; we are good enough to die in the wars, 

but we are not good enough to decide for ourselves what is the destiny of our island. That is my response. 

I think these lands were taken from the people of Guam. They 

were compensated, perhaps, but it was decided by a military tribunal. It was decided by people at an executive department level 

which has no legislative authority from this Congress, their right 

to acquire these properties. 
137 

Mr. Chairman, I had the opportunity to work for the Land and 

Claims Commission in 1946 and 1947, and I have seen these arbitrations, stipulation process procedures. I have seen the appointment of a Navy judge to expedite. I have seen the suspension of 

laws. Before 1950 there were laws that were actually put out by 

a Naval Governor. He was the judge, the Governor, the executive 

all in one body, in one pie. 

People of Guam didn't have rights before 1950. It was never determined by this Congress. It was only by perhaps the body-elect 

of this Congress that the United States, the executive branch, administer the island of Guam through an executive order. And so I 

think it is about time. That is why we are still struggling for selfdetermination. 

Ai3 they say, Congress should let go. And. this administration, 

people continue to hang on to their very vested interests. They 

have a vested interest to feel that Guam needs to be babysat. 

Guam needs to be considered as wards. 

In about two or three years from now, Mr. Chairman, we will be 

over a century under the administration of the United States. We 

are proud to be American, but we are not really Americans if we 

continue to have some bureaucrats in the Federal establishment 

say what is good for us and what is not. 

There is a statute that we cannot whistle in Guam. That is a famous case. We cannot whistle or walk on the right side of the 

street. I thought we were Americans. If that is the case, let the 

people decide. Americans are supposed to decide for their own, for 

their own self-determination, and I don't see what is the fear. 

I think, again quoting the late President Roosevelt, it is the word 

"fear" itself. The word "fear." And, unfortunately, the Federal bureaucracy doesn't seem to understand that. 

Mr. UNDERWOOD. I think in the provision we have articulated 

here in H.R. 2144 it is, of course, as you can tell, far less restrictive 

than any of the stipulations that are being suggested by the executive branch. And the restrictions that are being proposed by the executive branch implies some element of continuing administrative 

review. 

It is interesting to note that in Ms. Turner's submission she proposes that what is done with the lands is to be turned over to the 

Secretary of the Interior and, in a sense, subject to that process of 

review. And so I don't know whether this is the agency that Senator Reyes had in mind in terms of adjudicating the 3,200 acres, 

but perhaps all of you would like to respond to this, 

Mr. REYES. Heavens no, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. SAN AGUSTIN. Ai3 I said, Mr. Chairman, I think giving it to 

the Secretary of the Interior, again providing a veto power, only 

this Congress has that right. And if Congress decides to relegate 

the people of Guam to the auspices of the Secretary of the Interior, 

then all the progress that has been made in the last, say, 20 years, 

from elected government or progress made in Guam will be in vain 

if we are going to go right back again to the Secretary of the Interior's benign benevolence. 

Mr. BLAS. Mr. Chairman, it is almost an affront for the Secretary 

of the Interior to suggest that your bill be rewritten, if you will, to 
138 

designate that the Secretary of the Interior be the chief, if you will, 

of these lands that are declared excess. 

What is she suggesting? She is suggesting it may be excess to the 

military but not to the U.S. Department of the Interior? What will 

she use it for? 

I think it is bothersome, it is bothersome some people continue 

to suggest, as the Speaker implied here, that we on Guam are not 

capable of determining what is good for us and what is not good 

for us. I come here, you know we are all educated by the U.S. and 

we are told we have to make some decisions on our own so that 

the future looks good. Well, I think it really is bothersome that we 

continue to hear from this vantage point, if you will, up here that 

the people of Guam are still not in the minds of some people capable of determining what is good for them or what is not good for 

them. 

I take very, very great exception to that. 

Mr. UNDERWOOD. Okay, thank you. Senator Reyes. 

Mr. REYES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

You raised a couple of points that I would just like to make a 

comment on. Regarding the land use, you asked what specific purposes perhaps the Government of Guam would find uses for these 

lands. 

Of course, you know, there are many things we could look at, and 

I believe one of the things that comes to mind right now is, as I 

indicated in my testimony, that somehow these lands could be used 

to address the injustices done to the original landowners. That 

would be one measure or degree of justice and equity. 

And, of course, the resettlement and the rehabilitation program 

that was initiated back in the late 1940s, can you imagine, Mr. 

Chairman, Congressman Underwood, that some of our people still 

have not resettled? Let me give you an example. 

The de Nissan family up in Dededo has some 20 acres of land 

on northwest field that was taken away from them. At the time of 

the taking, back in the late 1940s, the whole family, now comprised 

of some 40 people, were relocated over to a Government of Guam 

land and settled in a land use permit type land, meaning year to 

year. Up to now those people have not resettled. 

So what should we do with that kind of situation? Obviously, 

they would have priority to help those people whose lands are inside the northwest field and probably is going to take many, many 

more years to get those lands returned. So the resettlement issue, 

the rehabilitation situation, and also homesteading, we could look 

at those things. There are so many, many things we could do with 

the land. 

I agree with the Lieutenant Governor and the Speaker that we 

are quite mature on our island to be able to decide what to do with 

our own land. After all, we know the island, we live there, we have 

been there for years. Our ancestors have been there for thousands 

of years, even before America was ever born. So let us take the 

land back, hopefully without conditions; let us figure out what to 

do with it. We are going to put it to good use. 

That would be my response, Mr. Chairman. Regarding my recommendation to remove the DOD's control over 

the land mass, Federal land in Guam, surely I didn't have DOD in 
139 

mind, but certainly they would have a role, you know, but more 

than likely, with the wisdom of yourself and the other Committee 

Members, could come up with-an approach might be to form a 

group around the Subcommittee, maybe yourself, maybe Chairman 

de Lugo, Representatives from the respective committees of the 

House, Armed Services, maybe; Resources, Governmental Operations, certainly DOl representation and DOD, and this way we 

will have a cluster of groups of people that will continue to review 

the situation and hopefully build consensus around that, around 

the land issue, and acquire advocacy to that process. 

This is something that perhaps you folks may want to consider. 

You know, the historical record of DOD on Guam as landowners 

has not been too swift, so I would say that we should find a way 

for improvement. Not DOl by itself, no, sir. Mr. UNDERWOOD. Thank you, Senator Manibusan. Senator Ada. 

Mr. ADA. Regarding the land use plan that has been referred to 

many times this morning, Mr. Chairman, I would like to bring to 

the attention of the Chairman that we do have the Chamorro Land 

Trust Act, which was passed recently, and in that particular Act 

it does outline the uses of land, which have been declared as available lands. Additionally, that particular Act also does specify that 

any lands which the Government of Guam may come into possession of will be then declared as available lands and will be used 

either for providing residential lots to Chamorros to be used, to be 

leased out for commercial activities so that the revenues received 

from that will then go into special funds that will assist 

Chamorros, and also to set aside land for agricultural and pastoral 

uses. 

I think the use of land that is set out in the Land Trust Act, although it is still very general, has enough definition to it to at least 

determine what those lands, what these surplus lands, will come 

under. Now, we can sit here I guess and we can speculate about 

all kinds of uses for the lands and whatnot, that is, if somebody 

is willing or dares to go and amend the Chamorro Land Trust Act, 

but I daresay I don't think anybody is going to do that. So I think 

we should take a look at the use of these lands within the context 

of the Chamorro Land Trust Act. 

Second, on this matter about turning over the control of the 

lands from the Department of Defense to the Department of the Interior, quite simplistically, I think if we take a look at that it looks 

like the net gain is zero so why are we going through this exercise 

in futility? So I am quite surprised the Department of the Interior 

would take that position. And as I agree with the Lieutenant Governor, I think it is an outright affront. 

Mr. UNDERWOOD. Thank you. Senator Manibusan. 

Ms. MANIBUSAN. Just simply put, I am equally shocked to realize 

the position of the Department of the Interior, and I just support 

all the statements made by all my colleagues here. 

You know, these lands have been deemed to be returned and you 

have heard the testimony from the first panel upon your inquiry 

whether the Navy had any reason to think that other Federal 

agencies would want them, and on record he said no. And so I hate 

to think that the statement on the position of the Department of 

the Interior would be another means through, for example, the Na-
140 

tional Audubon Society to continue to frustrate returning and then 

would find any mechanism that they could use to frustrate the return of lands to Guam that have been deemed excess and not to 

be of any use to the Federal Government, or to the military. So I find it to be very demeaning, quite frankly, and I am just 

shocked. 

Mr. UNDERWOOD. Okay, thank you very much. I would assume 

that there is also in the proposal not only a shift, as a transitory 

measure of the control of the property over to Interior, but Interior 

approval of land use plans, and I am sure you recognize in the fimte world of choices, we have made a good faith effort in this legislation to have some Federal input into the process by including a 

provision for committee review. 

And now I know that in your own presentations some of you 

have considered that a paternalistic step. I can imagine what you 

think of the idea of OTIA or Interior approval of such plans. Would 

anyone like to comment on that? 

Mr. REYES. Mr. Chairman, I just want to make one last point regarding the submission of land use plans. Some of us may remember there was a Supreme Court decision made some years ago regarding that matter; what constitutes use of land for public purposes. There is a Supreme Court decision that says whatever the legislature decides for the use of land will meet the criteria of public 

pu1pose. 

With regard to the review by the various committees, you know, 

I don't have any real problem with that except for the fact that it 

is conceivable that the action by those committees before the 180 

days might be up, but the receipt of the plan, if in fact the plan 

comes up, that they may have a chance to just unilaterally stop the 

return of the plan. I hope that is not the case. Because if they don't 

like the plan, they can say, Underwood, stop it, don't return any 

more land because I don't like the plan, go down and tell Guam to 

do more planning. In other words, no plan to my satisfaction, no 

land. 

Mr. UNDERWOOD. Go ahead, Senator. 

Mr. SAN AGUSTIN. Just one, for the record. It seems like the Department of the Interior did a complete 360-degree tum from the 

previous Administration, and I quote this from the record, June 26, 

1992, on a similar bill of last year that was introduced by then 

Congressman Ben Blaz, which was very, very supportive of the bill. 

In fact, it was even supportive to the point of expanding, which I 

quoted in my testimony. And this was submitted and it also had the benefit of the blessing of the Office of Budget and Management, so I am not so sure 

where DOI is coming from unless it is purely for vested interest. 

But the record speaks for itself that they have changed their policy 

statement completely, 360 degrees, within one year. 

Ms. MANIBUSAN. That is right. 

Mr. UNDERWOOD. I would like to ask Mr. Mansur if he has a 

question from the Minority. 

Mr. MANsUR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

There have been a number of very compelling testimonies presented today by our distinguished panel of Representatives from 
141 

Guam, certainly also mentioning a number of adverse situations 

that a number of past and current landowners find themselves in 

in Guam, such as the resettlement description that Senator Reyes 

talked about, as well as the lack of egress or access to some of the 

parcels of land that currently remain in the hands of people in 

Guam but they are not able to fully develop it. 

Also, something that was touched on briefly, I believe in relation 

to the statement of the Assistant Secretary of the Interior, had to 

do with more in the Pacific part than Guam. I think most people 

are aware that there are a number of landowners who have the 

inholdings in there. 

Rather than suggesting that it be necessarily mandatory, the 

question I would like to put forth to the members of this panel is 

would the Government of Guam agree to some type of exchange 

mechanism whereby a landowner who has an inholding within the 

park could opt to exchange for some of the land that is being declared excess? 

Senator Reyes. 

Mr. REYES. Well, I certainly think that that is an option, but I 

would imagine that the Government of Guam would not have any 

objection if something like that could be cleared with the owner. 

Because whoever owns that land that has been condemned by the 

Department of the Interior for the park, you would think that 

whatever he or she says would be determinant. Not necessarily the 

Federal Government, us saying, yeah, it is okay. What if the owner 

says no? 

It seems to me that ought to be determinant. So it would be a 

good idea if they agree. 

Mr. MANSUR. And that was precisely the nature of my comment, 

and the question was, although certainly I know the intent, ideal 

intent, of the Park Service is to acquire at some point all those 

inholdings, given that they have not come up with the money to do 

so, it leaves the owners in the position, still, of a very difficult posi- tion of should they develop their property or not. But if they so 

chose to go ahead and do an exchangeMr. REYES. One difficulty with that, Mr. Congressman, is that in 

the event the parcel so identified for possible exchange, say an acre 

or two in the 3,200 acres that is excess, in the event that an original landowner for that particular small parcel identified for possible exchange may have an interest in that, too. So that could be 

a complicating factor to it. 

But the concept is fairly sound so long as you could get everybody to agree with it, especially the owner whose land was condemned. 

Mr. MANSUR. Thank you. 

Mr. DE LUGO. Thank you. 

I want to thank Congressman Underwood for assuming the 

Chair during the period where I had to be elsewhere. 

I take it that the proposal of OTIA came up while I was out. 

Mr. BLAS. We would rather not have heard it. 

Mr. DE LUGO. Well, I saw it this morning for the first time and 

I was, I must say, very taken aback by it. First of all, OTIA is saying don't transfer the land back to Guam, transfer it over to us and 

we are going to determine what is best for Guam. But, the worst 
142 

of it as far as I was concerned is that we may use some of this land 

as park land. Whew. Well, I think that is a bit much. We want this 

land to go back to the people of Guam. 

Mr. REYES. Hooray. 

Mr. DE Luoo. I think that is what we have indicated for years. 

I thought that was the direction we were going. 

Gentleman from Guam. 

Mr. UNDERWOOD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I wanted to elaborate a little more about the question asked by 

Mr. Mansur regarding the national park. I want to make it clear 

what is being proposed or suggested. 

What is being suggested is that a mechanism be allowed to exchange probably on a value basis the inholdings in the national 

park based on the 1976 boundaries of that park. What this may 

end up is that if you take value for value the SN beach property, 

it may eat up a significant amount of the 3,200 acres being proposed. I had hoped that a discussion of this kind would get real 

specific before it was suggested as an intermediary step, but that 

did not come about. 

So what I would like to know is, given the dynamics of that kind 

of proposal, perhaps it may be more useful by legislation, redraw 

the boundaries and deal with the continuing issue of the national 

park on that basis. So perhaps the Speaker and the Lieutenant 

Governor and others might want to speak to that. 

Mr. BLAS. Thank you. It did seem earlier that that was the suggestion, that we trade this land. I think it was the position of the 

Governor's office some time ago that because of this question of 

how long it has taken the Federal Government to put together this 

park, that they use other Federal lands, not identified in this bill 

here, as an exchange. 

Certainly, I think the panel here would agree that there are 

more than 3,200 acres that are available if you go down to Guam 

and see it for yourself rather than hear some of the testimonies; 

in fact, that would be a possible alternative-that other excess 

lands be made available to exchange. 

I dare say that if we went down and surveyed, and do the study 

right now, especially with the thought in mind that there will be 

continued downsizing, if you will, of the military establishment 

throughout the world, that you would get probably land excess that 

would be appropriate to exchange to those private landowners. 

Mr. DE Luoo. If I may, wouldn't the land summit you have recommended be an ideal place to bring it up? 

Mr. UNDERWOOD. That is a very important venue for that. Issues 

that are more comprehensive, and regarding issues pertaining to 

the national park, certainly would be appropriate to address at the 

land conference. Addressing it through this 3,200 acres seems to be 

holding the 3,200 acres in a kind of a hostage situation, whereas 

there are obviously going to be more lands excess. 

Perhaps someone else would like to make a comment, just on the 

national park issue, because there may be some opportunity to redraw the boundaries. , Mr. SAN AGUSTIN. Well, I think the designation of the land has 

been thought about for quite some time. The Interior's position of 

using the 3,200 acres as a trade-off for the national park is really 
143 

uncalled for, because there are other lands they could exchange, 

and it does not necessarily have to be declared excess. It is just not 

usable, in a sense, for them. 

But this 3,200 acres is now in the hopper, and it should be returned to them and not be held hostage for the national park or, 

for that matter, for any other use. It has already been declared and 

has been in the hopper for the last 15 years. And this adverse position by Interior has been going on for so long, and it is another 

stumbling block. 

I think it is another common item that the Federal bureaucracy 

uses with respect to Guam to set up roadblocks. This is another example of saying Guam is not yet ready for self-determination. It is 

another example of saying we are not of age yet. I think the Department of the Interior needs to grow up. This is now the twentieth century. 

Mr. REYES. Yes, Congressman Underwood, I fully agree with you 

that this issue could and should be addressed at the land conference that you proposed instead of dealing with it now. This is 

why I didn't insist in my testimony that you amend the bill to deal 

with the original landowner situation, because I think that will 

probably more than likely jeopardize it. 

Second point, I didn't exactly say it in my testimony in a direct 

way, but we are looking at 3,200 acres of land to be returned back. 

I was going to say in my testimony-and the Lieutenant Governor 

and the rest of these folks here will agree with me-that somehow 

there is a zero that is missing. It should be 32,000 acres of land. 

That is my calculation that could be excess, and hopefully, the land 

conference will somehow take us fairly close to that. 

So certainly we could find acreages of lands not identified in the 

3,200 acres in that 32,000 acres that is not being used and, in my 

judgment, not planned to be used in the future. 

Mr. UNDERWOOD. Senator Ada. 

Mr. ADA. I think with regard to the park issue, unfortunately the 

suggestion of trading out some of the land holdings with some of 

that 3,200 acres that is being contemplated is analogous to trying 

to pay Peter with what was taken from Paul, and all it will do is 

complicate the problem. Maybe what we should be taking a look at 

is probably downsizing the park and so we can get around that 

problem of the land holdout. 

So I think the proposal, as you suggested, might just complicate 

the issue further. 

Mr. UNDERWOOD. Thank you. 

Senator San Agustin, in your testimony, you indicated that some 

of the land-and I commend you for taking the time to go out and 

actually visit this property; you are probably one of the few people 

that has done that. Basically, you indicated that the land is not 

just unneeded but actually it is kind of undesirable, and that what 

may be an instance of not declaring excess in the sense that we 

normally think of excess is that, you know, I have no particular 

plans for this, I have no need for it; therefore, it is excess, is more 

a case of perhaps a little bit of unloading of the property. 

In the testimony earlier, in the first panel, there was some discussion about expecting the Government of Guam to clean up that 
144 

property that is now undesirable or unneeded. How do you respond 

to that? 

Mr. SAN AGUSTIN. Well, Congressman, as I indicated, I did go 

through each parcel of land in the last two weeks before I got here, 

and some of those lands are just discard, if you want to look at it. 

They are not usable and only good for conservation areas. Several 

properties are even going through an area that is right up across 

Camp Covington. That front 26 acres was not contaminated, but 

the back 73 acres are contaminated, and they are giving that up. 

There is also another area down by Nimitz Hill, which is right 

behind the Navy housing. It is smack into a reservoir and there is 

a 40 percent slope. There is no way you can use anything-you cannot even get into it. They also have easements, fuel lines, petroleum fuel lines, from what is called the Ollow tank farm all the 

way up to NAS Agana up the back side. It is a conservation area; 

no way to use it. 

The area down by what you call the Old Polaris Point, the Sub 

Point, which is wetland, is so contaminated because it used to be 

a fuel dock. I happened to work for the naval supply depot for 6112 

years. I used to work that area; I know that area intimately, because we have what we call a drum lot where they convert oil and 

put it in drums so they can be shipped out. And there is also a fuel 

dock there where they pumped the oil up to the Sasa Valley for the 

fuel farm, and that is the area they want us to have. It is useless. 

It is so contaminated not even a coconut crab can live in it; that 

is how bad it is. It is so environmentally unsound. 

You go to another area, by Marine Drive, the frontage is the 

PWC telephone station, the Code 300, and is right by the Old Club 

Pescador or the Old Cockpit, and it is so locked in that you have 

to have a helicopter to get into that. And yet they have a Maui 

Tunnel there, which is an underground tunnel which used to be 

connected before right after the war where they pumped the oil to 

the Harmon Field. 

And there are so many of those tunnels that there actually is a 

line for fuel lines in servicing the area up at Harmon-what used 

to be Harmon Airfield-and, in fact, there is one area right in between of nowhere. But as I said, in contrast to the Air Force-the 

Air Force has been very generous. We have the cliff line, the NCS 

for that; all the soft, beautiful space, usable. 

Yet within the Air Force compound, it is interesting to note there 

is one little, maybe four acres of property which is Navy land, and 

they did not declare that as excess but it is abandoned for the last 

10 years. It is what they used to house the Navy printing and publication office. It is fenced in, but nobody is in there. 

And if this land was transferred to Guam, Navy is going to be 

iandlocked because there is no way to get out of that, because it 

is a small four acres of property right in the middle of all that huge 

land in the Harmon Finegajan or Harmon cliff line area. 

In fact, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Underwood, we have used that. 

We have our own sewage treatment plant. We have our own generators for our own, for the water plant, and that area has all been 

more or less in a license-as the Admiral said this morning, the 

permitting process. They let us have it. The Harmon cliff line, we 

have had that for more than 20 years because it was an abandoned 
145 

Harmon housing area. I used to administer that housing program 

for the Olfalon teachers. It is old delapidated hous· structures. 

We went in there andfut our Olfalon teachers and used them. 

It is a beautiful piece o property now, but it is abandoned. They 

never use it, for the last, I dare say, 30 years. So these properties are basic conservation areas on the Navy side. In fact, some of these properties are only given to Federal 

Aviation in permitting use to the soil conservation area. So I went 

to each of them, and as I said, for the great part of the Navy side, 

it is useless. They are discard, but we will take it. It is our land, 

you know. 

Mr. DE Luoo. I want to thank you for those observations. 

Mr. REYES. Mr. Chairman, I want to make a comment regarding the Speaker's comments. 

Mr. DE Luoo. Just a moment, Senator. I was just going to say 

I was glad you made those observations. I saw Mr. Morgan of Interior making rapid notes here, and OTIA may want to reassess the 

situation. They may want to have this land after all. 

Yes, Senator. 

Mr. REYES. One minute, the Speaker was saying sounds like we 

are getting whole bunch of junky land. This is precisely the reason 

why, in my testimony, that I am asking the Committee and the 

U.S. Congress to consider reversing the process of identifying excess land. 

In other words, when you reverse the process, you can mandate 

that the military identify exactly what land they need instead of 

what land should be excess-identify what you need, Mr. Military; 

we want you there, but identify the land that you need-and if 

they are true to the basic requrrements, anything outside of that 

land, which I believe outside of the fences should be automatically declared excess, which is that 32,000 acres, not the 3,200. 

Thank you. 

Mr. DE Luoo. Thank you very much, Senator. 

I have some questions I would like to ask, and I know that we 

spent a lot of time on the statement of OTIA; and it has whipped 

up a lot of emotions. But let me get back to the other issues on the 

legislation before us. 

Lieutenant Governor Bias, the Government of Guam is imple- menting the Chamorro land trust laws. I have seen reports that 

local agencies want to exempt 11,000 acres of territory government land from going into the Trust. It was reported that Senator Reyes' committee cut that amount by 90 percent. 

Why has it taken so long to establish the Chamorro Land Trust 

when the law establishing that Trust was enacted back in 1975? 

Maybe you wish I didn't ask that question. 

Lieutenant Governor BLAS. I was going to say, Mr. Chairman, 

just that the answer to your question lies in the court. They have 

decided it should be implemented. 

I can't answer for all these ;ears that it has not been imple- mented. We did, as a matter o fact, the next day after the court 

decision that the governor had no right not to implement it. I, as 

acting governor, appointed the Chamorro Land Trust Commission. 

And since then, everyone on the panel would agree that we have 

gone and expedited the implementation of that Commission. And I 
146 

think we are all working in concert now as a Government to make 

sure that the objectives of the Trust Commission are achieved. 

Mr. DE Luoo. Congressman Underwood has proposed that we try 

to get these 3,200 acres transferred now, and then discuss the overall complicated land issues with all parties with a series of comprehensive land conferences that we have discussed today during this hearing. 

Do all of you agree with that approach? Senator REYES. Yes. 

Lieutenant Governor BLAB. Yes. 

Speaker AGUSTIN. Yes. 

Lieutenant Governor BLAB. The Administration will say, yes, we 

will support that. 

Mr. DE Luoo. The Administration and the legislature? 

Senator REYES. Yes. I fully support that Mr. Chairman. Congressman Underwood and I talked about it, and I look forward to 

participating. We are really enthusiastic about it. I see many good 

things coming out of it moving us towards that 3,200 acres that I 

am talking about. 

Mr. DE Luoo. Thank you, Senator Reyes sir. 

Senator Ada, two Federal laws provide an extraordinary opportunity for people whose land was unfairly acquired by the military 

to get fair compensation. Federal agencies opposed these laws 

when they were being considered because they thought that the 

cost of compensation would be hundreds of millions of dollars. 

However, an out-of-court settlement was reached with the claimants for $39.5 million. Many people on Guam were dissatisfied with 

the settlements. 

Why do you think the settlement was agreed to by the land 

claimants? 

Senator ADA. Well--

Mr. DE Luoo. Why did the land claimants settle for $39.5 million 

when the figures that had been bandied about were so much larg- er? Why do you think they did? 

Senator ADA. I couldn't even take a guess at that. I really don't 

know. 

Senator REYES. Yes. Well, I have some familiarity with the situation, Mr. Chairman. 

There are three categories of land claimants in Guam that went 

through the process. And judging from the number of years that it 

has taken, before compensation could be had, some people decided 

to do this, do that, and not the other. 

The three categories are these people who are pretty well satisfied, you know, with the compensation that was being proposed at 

the time; maybe they don't need the land back, they are completely 

land full, so to speak. The second category are those people who are not satisfied with 

the compensation but took the money anyway and indicated that, 

put in the record, that we will see you in court; we are going to 

continue pursuing adequate compensation. The third category are people that flat refused. They don't want 

to see one penny of it because some of the compensation was based 

on three cents, five cents a square meter, so that that is the category that is dissatisfied. 
147 

So you have three of them. So we cannot categorically say that 

everybody is satisfied. That is the situation. As far as I know, they 

are pursuing it in court. 

Mr. DE LUGO. Thank you. 

Mr. Speaker, your statement provided valuable information, as 

you always do. And you also were very helpful in the letter you addressed to Chairman Miller. 

You heard the statement of the Air Force and military commanders. You have remarked on the land that you have personally gone 

over. But do you have any further observations regarding the statements made by the military here today? 

Speaker AGUSTIN. Well, one statement made by the Air Force, 

saying that these lands were basically condemned through a Federal district court. There were no district courts in Guam prior to 

1950 though; and Congress never acted or authorized the executive 

branch to establish a court. 

My understanding on the separation of powers doctrine, only 

Congress has the right to establish courts, and what the Administration did was establish his own tribunal court. And I am familiar 

with the letter--

Mr. DE LUGO. They actually had a Navy court? 

Speaker AGUSTIN. Yes. 

Mr. DE Luoo. The Navy set its own price? 

Speaker AGUSTIN. Yes, sir. I had the opportunity to work in the 

Land and Claims Commission in my early days in 1946 and 194 7, 

in which I have some of these documents. And I am familiar with 

the procedure that they went through. 

They went through the stipulation process, so-called added decision of Judge Fischer; the Hopkins Commission recommended they 

should put aside the local code, civil procedure of condemnation 

and go and appoint a Navy judge, which they did obtain, by the 

name of Judge George Fischer, who I knew at that time. He was 

a Navy judge. He was basically paid a salary by the Commission, 

and he settled it by arbitration, by a stipulation process. 

You see a lot of people would go out to the communities, here is 

a piece of paper, you sign it, we need your property; if you don't, 

we will see you in court. 

In those days, there were no private attorneys in the picture. Mr. 

Chairman, there was no legislature--

Mr. DE Luoo. This is shortly after World War II? 

Speaker AGUSTIN. Exactly. The laws were suspended up to 1946. 

The Code of Civil Procedures was suspended because of the War 

Powers. 

But under the Naval Government policy then, there was still no 

legislature, no separate judicial, no three separate branches of government as we know now. , So they established a military tribunal, the Land and Claims 

Commission, made up of three people. 

Mr. DE Luoo. It is very important that this be put in the record 

because many, many people have no appreciation for this. 

In my area, too, we were under military rule when we were purchased from Denmark in 1917. It was Navy captains that ran the 

government of the Virgin Islands up until, I think it was the mid-
148 

1930s when we got an Organic Act and we got the first civilian governor. But before that, we were under the Department of War. 

I am sure that many Members of Congress would assume when 

they hear testimony coming from the military that these properties 

were acquired by condemnation, and they assume these were before civilian courts and there was due process and that it was a fair 

process. This is not so. 

In fact, the entire island was really occupied by the military. The 

military was running the whole show, and the decisions were actually arbitrated by military judges. 

So that gives you some idea of why there is this tremendous feeling among the Chamorro people that there was a great deal of unfairness. This is part of the reason why some of us find that when 

the Federal Government is now trying to use this property as leverage, we find it to be a little offensive. Certainly it is not something 

that I am proud of as an American to sit here and say that here 

we are trying to organize a process where we are going to return 

this property to the Chamorro people. At the same time we are 

hearing from Departments that they want to use this property, and 

lay out parameters that perhaps Congress doesn't want them to lay 

out and use the property as coin to acquire property for the Federal 

Government. 

Senator Manibusan, you questioned the viability of of the fact 

that the Government of Guam must disclose to the Federal Government how it will use the property that is transferred. 

This requirement is a compromise which perhaps should be 

judged in the context that important elements of the Federal Government want the Federal Government to have to approve Guam's 

plans. You have heard that from Interior today. 

This bill would not require approval. If an element of the Federal 

Government disapproved of Guam's plans, it would have to enact 

a law within 180 days. That is something that is very hard to do, 

particularly if there is not a consensus on the position. 

There is a difference between the approach of this legislation and 

the approach that is being recommended by the Interior Department. 

Do you oppose both approaches? 

Senator MANIBUSAN. I definitely oppose the Interior approach. 

But I think my comment with regards to the land use plan is that 

we have talked about it. We the people of Guam know what we 

want to do with land. Our Congressman said there seems to be a 

fear that we need to justify the return of lands that we were title 

owners of before it was actually taken, and that as far as the land 

use plan is concerned, we are going to be looking at our Y-Tano 

Tata Plan. 

And we also have a plan to mandate for the people of Guam to 

return any excess land to the Government of Guam and let the 

Government determine the destiny of its people and determine 

what that plan is going to be. 

The comment I offer about the requirement to have Guam issue 

a land use plan, at this moment, we have never had to require the 

Federal Department to have a land use plan for that. They have 

never had any. 
149 

So we just find it to be a condition more than we don't want to 

see, maybe because we have waited for the last 15 years to see the 

return of 3,200 acres. The people don't want to see this as a condition or a restriction for the expeditious return of land that has been 

denied us for the last 20 years. 

Mr. DE Luoo. Thank you, Senator. 

I want to thank you all for your testimony here today. 

Congressman, do you have any further questions? 

Mr. UNDERWOOD. Not at this time. I would just like to ask unanimous consent to enter two statements into the record, statements 

that were submitted to my office by Frank C. San Nicolas and 

Dave T. Lotz. 

In addition, Mr. Chairman, I would ask unanimous consent that 

the hearing record be kept open for 10 days to allow other individuals an opportunity to enter statements into the record. 

Mr. DE Luoo. Without objection we will do that. 

[Prepared statements of Mr. San Nicolas and Mr. Lotz follow:] 
150 

"FONDON KORASONHU" 

I am here to represent my grandfather, Jose V. Martinez, and my grandmother, 

Rosa A. Martinez. I am here to stake rightful claimant, to "camp out", to fight, to 

struggle and to support for as long and whatever it takes for what is RIGHI'. FAIR. and 

,MI. 

I am here for my family and !or my peace of mind; to show support for the other 

families on Guam whose ancestral land rights are still being held illegally, unlawfully and 

unnecessarily; because it was taken improperly, unfairly, and unjustly. It is for their 

ancestors whose rights were not safeguarded, provided, nor respected. Fundamentally, 

I am here to stress the importance of DUE PROCESS OF LAW. md EQUAL and FAIR 

REPRESENTATION. 

It is for Guam, the ancestral Chamorro heirs of Guam, and the people of Guam 

who for too long have been American citizens, CONPITIONALLX. They were e:xpcctcd 

to give, and they have given, that most ultimate sacrifice for their family, country, duty, 

honor, and our democratic way of life, honorably. Many of whom never returned. Those 

conditions must end now. 

I am here to serve, fight, and protect my rightful heritage to this land. Because 

my grandfather and the others did not know, if at all barely, bow to read, write or speak 

english, he was exploited. He was intimidated; he w.u placed under duress, coerced and 

suffered other similar tactics during the course of land condemnation proceedings and 

eventual taking of his land, our lands. fu was denied, !hn: were not afforded by the 

Federal government: 

• freedom of speech 

• freedom to assemble and petition 

·due process 

• fair and equal representation 

Not even trial by jury ... or a lawyer. 

For my gnndfather, I am concerned primarily for the period between 1945 and 

1955. Anything after that has only added fuel to the fire. The Federal government as a 

result, not only im:rcased their heat, but it also threw them out of the Crying pan and into 

that fire:. And as far as I'm concerned here, they've been burning like Hell since! How 

can this fire be put out now? 

-What with "piecemeal" fire extinguishers?" 
151 

The land c:ond=tions md ta.kiDg began before 1950; before the ~gnnting" of 

Amc:ri= c:it:izcnsbip to Chamorros :md their heirs. I have not seen, ~nor heard of any 

d~ent to c:ithc:r support or convince me that right. fair, just and equal t::reatment was 

grrcn due my grandfather. Or anybody ds.e's for that r:n.mer. Simple bzic rights whic:h 

would h:rve been tre:atcd md respcctr:d diffc:rendy c:lsewherc in Amerlc:a. And I know that 

alot of simil:u:itics oc.c.urred with 1112ll:Y other f:unilles here.! 

Although no polit:ic;al status c:ona:rning Gu:.a.m has chan;e<i sinc:e., I challenge 

Amerlca and An:u:ricms, on and off·island.loc:U and fedc:r:ol governments, to tell me just 

where and how do I really stand as a so-<::illed "American Cl=norro" ci:t:izcn for if my 

grandfather was denied his rights then, which was, I c:h:allenge whomever or wlw:c:ver is 

out there to deny me mine :md yours, .Ql!t rights now. 

Espec:Wly afu:r hmng been to anothc:r c:ountty, for another people a.ud for the 

.wne a.uses that other full-fledged so-cilled • Americans" fought for and with a per capita 

death rate ovc:r and above those of America's, I challenge any American to deny me this 

now. 

Since my grandfathCr's laud was deemed "neces:sary" during his time. it was taken, 

thm condemned and retakcu. in tbe interests of national se.:urlty. However, litdc use has 

been made of it, timiud to t1!mpor.u:ily howe Filipino workc:rs back in the 1950s and 

'60s, •• .and as hunting ~ands. No other local, national, or worldly ac::ti:vity has occurred 

Nlc:e., to maint:Un and sbow caDSC that the coadmmation and n:taking of ill of his land 

and property, as well as the M;riorit:v of othc:rs concemed (M'arbo, NCS, Ritidian and 

othc:rs} is all that nca:ssu:y for and in the interestS of Dational sc::auity then, or now! 

My grandparctts are gone now; we'll all have our callings, howc:vc:r that calling 

may be. I am one. we ue Amerlca's "'unsung heroes•, but I am neither looking for :l 

song. nor going to sing one here. I zm asserting my nptful heritage rights stronger and 

Ill.Orc fcrTem!y here th%11 I did for r:ny fellow c:oumadc:s in arms and the Vietnamese people 

during my most umorget!llhle tour of dUV in Victnam. My song, if :.u:ty, is Olllinc now 

but to a different tanc:; and I will either march or d:ma: :til the way until this is resolved 

rightfully, fairly and jusdy, ... or you'll h:r;ve to carry me out. it is with sincerity, hope, 

prayer :md work th:d: with the current leadership, our .trength :md pc:rscvc:rancc, we = 

pull cac:h other out honorably and get this issue resolved once and for :tll, ••• righdy, birly, 

and justly. 

As such. I 2I1l petitiolling for a redress of """ongdoings, IDegal and unlawful, the 

injustice and unfairn= that prcvallcd then and continJJous to now. This island prevailed 

bc:asr, although tzmcd tbroagh all these "progrcsstvc• times, has finally ba:n 

awa.kened...and will be compelled to f%h1;, if necc::ss:u:y. I will cooperate and assist with 

whatever is nec=xy in good faith to ac;wmplish that re.dress, for it is a mutwl fight. 

Mew.time, as a reciprocal showing of good faith by the Federal government and its 

cohorts, do not force nu: and mine to Ic:a:vc. Clear tide: was not rightfully, fairly or justly 

obtained. It 1w; been :m:Wmed in all rightness, fairness, and justly as you had taken it 

in the: first pl.acc. leave me, lc:a:ve os alone, until due process :md equal and fair 
152 

Court, ... or God will move or keep me away. But, not by stipulation of any sort. 

Tentative plans exist that a new school be built on the properties of and adjacent 

to my grandfather's land, fine. But with just compensation first. If what is being used 

now is and will continue to be vital and necessary in the interests of our national security, 

fine, keep it, but pay for it fairly and return the rest. I will retain what I have staked 

claim for my grandfather's unfair, unjust and wrongful land taking by the Federal 

government as his rightful heir and claimant if you still desire it all, pay for it fairly. If 

an exchange is possible, full consideration to terms will be made. And all terms will be 

at current local values. Nobody in his right mind will build a house here now with 

homes as was built then. It is all in rightness, fairness, and justice, long and way 

overdue ... But not as it was with token and piecemeal compensations. 

I am asking support especially from our local government leaders and whom now 

are not leading nor ruling a naval government of and for Guam. 

I am asking of my brother veterans to show support for our cause here, as those 

of our brothers did so honorably elsewhere ... and did not return. 

I am asking other fellow American Chamorros, American Guamanians •.• Americans 

to sing, march and honk in support as we continue to fight and protect what is rightfully 

ours here, on Guam, where America's day dpes begin , and UNCONPIDONALLX so. 

Soon, we will be going over a century of being taught and have learned the 

American way of life, principles, values and beliefs. Practicing those basic: principles, 

values, and beliefs had been only conditionally honored and respected previously; let alone 

acknowledged. In order for any resolution or compromise, I demand that our rights be 

acknowledged and respected, rightly, fairly and justly. 

Sincerely, 

Frank 

~L~ C. San Nicolas 
153 

The Honorable Robert A. Underwood 

Member of congress ~07 Cannon House Office B~lding 

Washington, D.C. 20515-5301 

Dear Congre~sman Onde~ood; 

P o. 3.:. .... 20721 

GM!', Guam 96921 

.July 18, !993 

I am sUbm1~~1nq testtmonv on RR2144, a bill to provide tor 

tbe t~ansfer o£ excess l~d to the Gove~~~t of Guam. 

My concern-S is that all ot . p~cel N!'.VC,I!Jo!..S Beach i!ld a 

portion {;If the' liout:h· Pine9'e~n and rrc:r.non percel~· ~hould be · transferred to the Gove=ment of G•.;l!.m for a park area. The area required tor a par~ includes 938 acres are noted on the attached 

map to be the Eilail::!. !'ark. The aree co!l.tl!.i:!:!3 the 3ceni:: coa:~tlinc 

from Puntan dos Amantes north ~o Bilcan Point along with 

sufficient area above the clift for the park and an entrance from ~oute 3. In ~ddition to tbe oo~otline, the ~rc~ cont~ino ~ 

r.h..,mnrrn Vl I I .:~gA, 111 I l'lllT'I, nni"P.rl hy I .111"1'1'! l'lf'.nnft!'l :n'lrl nt.hP.r 

,u:\..i.!Ac;.s. InlcUJ.d !.c.o"' U1~ beech l.:; i.llo:~ l.lmt:::si.vn~: toL-e$\. 

aztend.i.ng up the cliff&. Eidden i!l the limeetone fo::aet towa.rd 

the nortb.em end l.S r..he M.aqol. or LO:.t: l'onn. 

Already thi£ coa&tline receivae exteneive recreation u~e 

w1t!l pic..~ics. scuba diving, snor.lclinq, hikinq. campL'lg. a."!d · related activities. A proposal for Hilaan Park could improve the 

existinq Tanguisaon Bea~. establish & Cultu-~1 cultu:al eenter, 

establish a campground, and improve hi~~~ trails in this unique portion of Glla.!ll. 

tstabl1Sh1Dq and protectinq ~ilaa.'l Park preserves a unique 

part of Guem., provides opportunities tor reerea.tio.n, and would 

establish an aad.itional tourism destination on Guam. Of the thr90 

parcels stated, 1,026 acres would' St11l ~e·le!t- !or· other• uses. 

. T a~ ~nelosinq some addito~al information on Hilaan. In 4uUl ~ou, ! ¥m offer~9 my ~erv!ces to lead a tour of the 

propoacd Hil~<m t>=k dU!:i!!.g the iort.hcom' "'9' Cl.!tm !.ll!ld!J 

("f.l" 1'erence. 

Th~\'l.k you for your iltt;;.ntion to thio propo::u::l. 

~;;/1:-io_~ 

DAVID T. LOTZ 
I 

! 

J 

i 

I 

I 

cti 

j 

' 

I 

i 

! 

l 

154 
155 

Mr. DE LUGO. At this time, also without objection, hearing no obw 

jection, I will introduce into the record a statement from the FAA, 

from Dale E. McDaniel, Acting Assistant Administrator for Policy 

and Planning, International Aviation, with FAA. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. McDaniel follows:] 
lW 

STATEMENT FOR THE RECORD OF DALE E. McDANIEL, ACTING ASSISTANT 

ADMINISTRATOR FOR POLICY, PLANNING, AND INTERNATIONAL AVIATION, 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION, BEFORE THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON 

NATURAL RESOURCES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON INSULAR AND INTERNATIONAL 

AFFAIRS, CONCERNING THE TRANSFER OF LAND TO THE GOVERNMENT OF 

GUAM. JULY 29, 1993. 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: 

I welcome the opportunity to provide a statement for the record 

concerning H.R. 2144, which is pending before the subcommittee. 

H.R. 2144 provides for the trans!er of 3,200 acres of Federal land 

in Guam to the Government of Guam. The transfer is conditional 

upon a determination by the head of each Federal a9ency, which 

controls the land, that it is in excess of the needs of the United 

states Government. 

The Department of Defense oversees the vast majority of land 

described in H.R. 2144, with the FAA-owned parcel named in H.R. 

2144 comprised of only about 37 acres. These 37 acres were used 

by the FAA for an HH-Homer Facility, which is a long-range, 

non-directional beacon for guiding airplanes. That use was 

discontinued several years ago, and the FAA anticipates no future 

aviation uses of this parcel. Although FAA personnel continue to 

be stationed on Guam and play an important aviation role there, 

the FAA's activities are concentrated on DOD-owned land, which is 

not considered for transfer in the bill. 
157 

At tha present time, the FAA parcel is currently used by the u.s. 

P•partment ot Aqriculture. USDA's Soil conservation Service, 

pursuant to a memorandum ot agreement with the FAA, is working 

with the Government of Guam to train farmers farming techniques on 

the type of soil tound on the FAA-parcel. 

Since FAA has no expected future use for this property, we 

anticipate no siqnjficant issues in a potential transfer of this 

land. Thus, the FAA has no objection to the general thrust of 

H.R. 2144, which would contemplate such a transfer. We would, 

however, defer to the views of the Departments of Interior and 

Defense and the General Services Administration on the specifics 

of the legislation, as their missions and authorities are more 

directly affected or associated with the proposed bill. I can 

assure you that we plan to continue to play a role in this process 

as it evolves, ~orking in conjuction with other Federal agencies, 

this Committee, and the Government of Guam to achieve the best 

approach on this issue. 

I appreciate the opportunity to provide the FAA's views for the 

record of this hearing. 

73-296 0 - 93 - 6 
158 

Mr. DE Luoo. If there are no further--

Mr. UNDERWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I would like to close my participation by thanking these distinguished guests from Guam for commg here and spending their time and explaining some of the concerns that they have. 

I think, from the perspectives of this panel and the first panel 

and some of the testimonies submitted for the record, we can see 

from these testimonies that there is a wide range of views and perspectives about the whole issue of land and the Federal role in the 

Government of Guam-in Guam in general-in terms of land issues. 

I think this points out clearly the need for a land conference. I 

think this points out the need for having some kind of meeting 

where people can dialogue and participate to understand these issues. 

It is, in many respects, not a land problem; it is a people problem. It is a problem that is borne out of the fact that the people 

of Guam trusted the Federal Government and placed themselves in 

the hands of the Federal Government and assumed that all would 

work well. And it hasn't worked well. 

On the other hand, there are admittedly people on Guam who 

are presenting scenarios regarding Federal land 1ssues that are not 

realistically going to happen-that are presenting people with false 

hopes about what will happen to Federal lands on Guam. 

The Federal land conference will hopefully not take a middle 

course between those two positions but will hopefully free people 

to come up with alternate ideas that will lead to some kind of land 

summit and comprehensive plan for justice for the people of Guam. 

I would like to thank you for your honesty and your directness 

in answering these questions. And I know that we will continue to 

work together in what is best for our island. 

Thank you. 

Mr. DE Luoo. I thank the gentleman from Guam. 

The Chair wants to associate himself with the statements just made by my friend from Guam. I agree that this hearing this 

morning has been very helpful and certainly, I believe, does point 

out the wisdom of addressing the acquisition of this land separately. 

Let's go forward with this, and let's also move on the land conference or land summit that has been suggested by Congressman 

Underwood. 

That is a wise course, and I commend you all for your participation here. 

The committee stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 2: p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 
APPENDIX 

JULY 29, 1993 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD 

UNDERWOOD 

!rfltl' 

,....tO SERVICE$ 

-...u•~~~t• .. -·-.lo.IM_ .... v.w:-h:-~-...,, 

llofvu.tN•••••fwu"'""""'• 

......... ,.hllllll(""'"'""' Qton1Jfe55 of tbe 1tniteb &tates 

J1ou!le of l\eprtitntatitle!l 

Bubinuton, ~c 20515-5301 

August 10, 1993 

The Honorable Roger w. Johnson 

Administrator 

General services Administration 

Washington, o.c. 20405 

Dear Mr. Johnson: 

WA$HtNGTON OFFtet 

l07C•WJM:WHOvstOffl«~ w"'""""'OM. oc 201 n ... ~, fl)t(20~t2U~1llt 

ru,tl02fUf,.03C1 

GOAM OFftC£: 

$ti1TI tot J.O Htlll"#f COIITU $tKU 

A4U4.-GUJ .. 1~ 

Pl-l.t1?1 n7-4:ZU~1'3.14 

h~:t.71tiH~2ll1 

This is in reference to your letter to Chairman George Miller 

regarding H.R. 2144, the Guam Excess Lands Act. As you know, the 

House Committee on Natural Resources held a hearing on this legis- lation on July 29 and received testimony from individuals 

representing Guam, the Navy and the Air Force. 

' The ~sistant Secretary for Insular and International Affairs 

(OTIA) al the u.s. Department of the Interior submitted a written statement during the July 29 hearing advocating that (1) the excess lands identified in H.R. 2144 be transferred to the Department of 

the Interior, and (2) that the land use plan must be approved by the Secretary of the Interior. 

The people of Guam, the Guam dele9ation which testified at the 

hearing, and I are unanimous in our opposition to the OTIA 

position. We do not believe OTIA's proposal will expedite the land 

transfers, not do we believe that the Interior Department can represent the best interests of the Territory of Guam. 

We take exception to your point that the Office of Territorial 

and International Affairs (OTIA) has administrative jurisdiction over the Territory of Guam. Under current law, the Government of 

Guam answers to the Congress, not to OTIA. Our understanding of 

the role of OTIA is to assist in certain projects as identified by 

the Congress. 

I introduced H.R. 2144 to provide a short cut around the long and restrictive Federal Property Act process of disposing excess lands. The intent of this legislation is not to transfer the lands 

from one federal agency to another, but instead to expedite returning the excess lands back to the people of Guam. 

(159) 
160 

The Honorable Roger w. Johnston 

August 10, 1993 

Page :i! 

H.R. 4!144 is the first step in resolving long-standing land 

issues on Guam. It is important that we bring to a closure the 

transfer of federal excess lands begun about 16 years ago. In 

addition, I will be convening a land conference on Guam this coming November to address the complex issues surrounding land ownership, the historical injustices of land takings, and future land use plans on the island. 

we welcome your support for H.R. 2144, the Guam Excess Lands 

Act. 

RAU:ts 

Sincerely, 

Gt.u ~LX~~ Robert A. Underwood 

Member of Congress 
161 

ROBEflT A. UNDERWOOD 

~Ill: 

AAMtD UIMCES IIIOOtloh __ __ 

-~----

NAlUAAL ---RESOURCES e:ongreii of tf)e 1tniteb 6tatti 

Jlloullt of 1\rpnllentatibtll 

Rubington, 1)(: 20515-5301 

Honorable Les Aspin Secretary of Defense 

The Pentaqon 

August 6, 1993 

Washington, D.C. 20301-1155 

Dear Mr. Secretary, 

WASHINGTON OFFICi: 

501 C.o..,_OJII HOUII OJ'flel llm.CII"O 

W~GfOft. DC 20S11 ... l01 

'"' (2:0:Q :Uf..t1fl f4:.t:(202)22--.oS41 

GUAMOFflCE: 

$Vt« lot 1to Mt- COIITU lnuf AGNu..GUHttO rt-t (e71J n7 ... nz..n.H f.a.t:f&11t477-l'llll 

A hearinq was held on JUly 29, 1993 on H.R. 2144, The Gua~ 

Excess Lands Act, which provides for the return of over 3200 acres of excess ~ilitary lands to the people of Guam. The return of our ancestral lands is as critical to the Chamorro people of Guam as our struggle for self-determination. 

Mr. Secretary, other than the people of Guam, no one else has a stronger interest in resolving Guam land issues than the 

Department Of Defense (DOD). We are writing this joint letter to convey our most serious concern that certain proposals advocated at the Guam land hearing would be extremely harmful to the 

relationship that Guam and the military have enjoyed for the past fifty years. While we do not excuse historical injustices that 

occurred in the land condemnation proceedings after World War II, we have always been cognizant of the important role of our island to the national defense. 

It is important that you know our positions regarding certain 

proposals that we vigorously oppose. The land hearing has served to galvanize our community in a way that no other singular event has done in recent history. Your ,representatives on Guam, Rear 

Admiral Kristensen and Major General Burr, have found themselves 

cauqht in a vortex of public opinion and controversy. However, as the major landowner on Guam, DOD must be willing to be a part of 

the solution to our land problems. 

H.R. 2144 is the first step in resolving these issues. This 

bill transfers excess lands first identified in 1977. We support the illllllediate passage of this bill as a first step. We also 

support the eonvenint; of a land conference on Guam this November to resolve, in a thoughtful and comprehensive way, the broader land 

issues. It is critical that DOD be a participant in this land 
Letter to Secretary Aspin August 6, 1993 

Page 2 

162 

conference, and that the military review of its land needs on Guam, 

which Admiral Kristensen has already initiated as the revised Guam 

Land Use Plan, be realistic given the end of the Cold War. 

We support the following positions: 

Tbe lands identified in H.R. 2144 should be transferred to the 

Government of GuAm Without delay. These lands were first 

identified in a process dating back to 1977 and in the DOD Arny 

Report of 1986. since the military does not need the land, it must be returned immediately to the people of Guam. 

Tbe lands must be conveYed to the Government of Guam without ~ Historical injustices occurred in the takings of this land. 

Guam has paid a price in the adverse economic impact of losing one- third of its land to the military and in the military security clearance procedures imposed on the island from 1945 to 1963. We 

view the costs of conveyance, environmental cleanup costs, and 

other such provisions with suspicion as ways to bill Guam 

indirectly for these lands, which we believe are ric;htfully ours to begin with. At the hearing on H.R. 2144, Admiral Kristensen 

estimate& ··the value of the 3200 acres at $900 million. This 

statement, taken in context with other suggestions in his testimony to pass on conveyance costs or recoup other costs, has caused alarm on Guam. OUr strong opposition to any conveyance or indirect 

costs, or any implication that the land should be sold back, is 

rooted in the injustices of the land condemnations. 

Th' military must bear the environmental cleanup costs associated witb tbe transfer. The military is statutorily obligated to clean up these lands, and must not be allowed to pass on to the people of Guam costs associated with their custody of our land. 

The wildlife refuge issue shoUld be dealt with in the land 

conference. This is a separate issue, and should not be used to delay the transfer of the parcels in H.R. 2144. 

The lands must be transferred to the people of Guam, not to 

another federal agengy. We vigorously oppose the proposal of the 

Office of Territorial and International Affairs (Department of the 

Interior) to transfer the lands to the Department of the Interior. 

We do not find this process to be helpful in any way. We do not believe that this will expedite the land transfers, and we do not believe that DOI can represent the best interests of the people of 

Guam. 
Letter to Secretary Aspin August 6, 1993 

Page 3 

163 

Mr. Secretary, we hope that you qive careful consideration to the issues we have raised. Above all, we urge you to oppose any 

attempt to transfer these excess lands to the Department of the 

Interior, to delay these transfers, or to sell back to the people of Guam their ancestral homeland. 

Si Yu'os Ma'ase. 

$1ncerely, 

G(,~.J;f\. Lt.~(}~>~ ROBER'!' A. UIIOERWOOO 7 1-'~0SEPH r, ADA 

Kember ot •. c::pnqress Governor of CUaal 

J44JE 'I', SAil AGUSTitf 

Speaker, 22nd Cuaa 

Legislature 
164 

~ • .tilit. ~OU.fS£ 01 ~tprtl:ltliUIUUt.» 

(:ommittet on ftatural 1\tl.iourcel.i 

illilallbington, ili:l€ 20515-6201 

August 5, 1993 

The Honorable Roger w. Johnson 

Administrator 

General Services Administration 

Washington, D.C. 20405 

Dear Mr. Johnson: 

I have received a copy of your letter of July 30th to Chairman 

Miller regarding H.R. 2144, a bill introduced by Delegate · Underwood of Guam to provide for the transfer of some 3,200 acres of Air Force, Navy, and Federal Aviation Administration land on Guam from federal to territorial ownership, and will include i~ 

in the record of the Subcommittee on Insular and International 

Affairs hearing on the bill. 

The letter said that GSA defers to the Department of the Interior on Guam land issues because Doi "exercises administrative 

jurisdiction over the Territory of Guam" through its Office of 

Territorial and International Affairs. 

'In fact, OTIA's authority regarding Guam is limited to a few matters specifically provided for by statute (principally 

relating to special assistance) and other "matters ~ the 

program responsibility of another Federal department or agency 

(48 u.s.c. 1421a - Doi's Office of Inspector General does have 

auditing authority, though.) 

I assume that the suggestion of much broader authority was not 

meant intentionally. ~ 

U,ii./4--

Chairman 

Subcommittee on Insular 

and International Affairs 

cc: The Honorable George Miller 

The Honorable Robert Underwood 

The Honorable Bruce Babbitt 
165 

''~"' O."••oh"'O'""''"'" ~-'"'"" ..... ~ • • ,¢ .. ~'"" (ongrr55 of tbt ltnittb iltattJS 

~oulit of ~tprelitntahbtf 

Rla!!bin~tton, ll£ 20515-5301 

August 2, 1993 

Honorable Bruce Babbitt 

Office of the Secretary 

Department of the Interior 

1849 c Street, NW 

Washington, D.C. 20240 

Dear Mr. Secretary, 

Ct.. A~ OH·CE 

s..,,,, •o& '90 _.,~,..~''''!I $'""" -'<:.~u Uv'J61J•O 

Fl<ii$.111•J1U!2dJH. 

t._. i01t;H1-H I 7 

At the hearing on July 29 on H.R. 2144, the Guam Excess Lands 

Act, Assistant Secretary Leslie M. Turner, Office of Territorial 

and International Affairs (OTIA), submitted written testimony for 

the record that we find objectionable. In response to questions from the Members of the House Subcommittee on Insular and 

International Affairs, the Guam delegation responded to Ms. 

Turner's proposals in several areas. We are in agreement with the 

Guam delegation's responses. We are writing this joint letter to voice our vigorous opposition to several proposals in Ms. Turner's 

testimony, and to unequivocally state our support for the following 

positions: 

We oppose transferring the excess lands listed in H.R. 2144 to the Qepartment of the Interior. We do not find this procedure to be helpful in any way. We do not believe this will expedite the 

land transfers, and we do not believe that DOI can represent the 

best interests of the Territory of Guam. 

We oppose any attempt to sell these lands back to Guam in any f2.l:m.... You cannot separate the "cost" issue from the historical 

injustices that occurred in the takings of this land. Guam has 

paid a price in the adverse economic impact of losing one-third of 

its land to the military and in the military security-clearance procedures imposed on the island from 1945 to 1963. If the 

military does not need the land, then it must be returned to the 

people of Guam.. We view the costs of conveyance, anvironmental 

cleanup costs, and other such provisions with suspicion as ways to indirectly bill Guam for these lands, which are rightfully ours to begin with. 

we oppose pepartment of the Interior approval of the land use P.lru:!... Congress, not DOI, has oversight responsibility over the 

territories. The Government of Guam will formulate a plan that 
Letter to Secreta~y Babbitt 

August 2, 1993 

Page 2 

166 

uses the land for the best public benefit to the people of Guam. 

DOI cannot even begin to define for us the best uses of this land 

for the people of Guam. Especially onerous is the stipulation that 

if Guam deviates from DOI's interpretation of a land use plan, then 

Guam must pay fair market value for the land. We refuse to turn the clock back fifty years and become wards of DOI. The Government 

of Guam shall be responsible to the people of Guam, not DOI, in 

fulfilling its mandates. 

We oppose delaying the transfer of the 3200 acres of excess lands in order to accommodate the environmental issues raised about 

the critical habitat and the wildlife refuge. These issues should 

be discussed and dealt with in the comprehensive context of the 

land conference, The 3200 acres must not be held hostage to the 

broader issues, and must be returned as a separate issue from the 

land conference. These lands were declared excess in a process 

dating back to 1977, and listed in the Arny report of 1986. 

Furthermore, in the discussions between the Government of Guam and 

the u.s. Fish and Wildlife Service over the past two years, the 

parcels in H.R. 2144 were not identified as being necessary for the 

establishment of a wildlife refuge overlay. 

We oppose delaying the transfer of the 3200 acres of excess lands in order to accommodate the exchange of land with inholdings at the War in the Pacific National Historical Park. This problem 

should also be addressed in the land conference on Guam, however, we emphasize again that the return of the 3200 acres must not be 

held up in anticipation of the land conference. We also raise the 

point that any such exchanges be accommodated from other federal excess lands, and that the war in the Pacific Park must review its 

land requirements. We find that a downsizing of the Park from its 

intended 1978 borders may be necessary and desirable, given the 

land issues facing Guam. 

There is a strong parallel in our history between the land 

issues and Guam's quest for self-determination. As we fight for 

the return of our land, we also fight for our rights to selfdetermination and self-governance. The injustices that accompanied the military land condemnations might not have occurred had the 

political rights of the people of Guam been recognized and full 

civil government instituted as a prelude first to any land 

condemnations. 

Mr. Secretary, you have been most supportive of Guam's quest 

for self-determination. we hope that you will recognize that 

OTIA's proposals are a step backward--they represent a bureaucratic 

mentality that says the federal government knows what's best for 

Guam and must protect the people of Guam from their own decisions. 

It is a regression to outdated colonialist attitudes and flies in 
Letter to Secretary Babbitt 

August 2, 1993 

Page 3 

167 

the face of decades of progress in securing the rights of our people within the American system. The resolution of land issues 

is an integral part of the Guam Commonwealth Act in order that our people may be empowered to truly shape the destiny of their own community. The recognition of the rights of the people of Guam must include the recognition of our ancient culture and our ancient 

homeland. 

we hope that Assistant Secretary Turner's written testimony on H.R. 2144 does not suggest a fundamental shift in the 

administration's policy concerning self-governance and selfdetermination· in the territories. While we question and vigorously 

oppose the OTIA proposals, we remain confident that the commitment 

of the Clinton administration on the issue of Guam's quest for 

self-determination, as expressed in meetings with you, will be 

honored. 

Your continuing support for the process of the land conference to address a comprehensive solution to these land issues is now more critical than ever. We hope that you will prevail on OTIA to recognize this process and to amend their positions regarding H.R. 

2144. 

Si Yu'os Ma'ase. 

Sincerely, 

Q.w l: ~-..J (}'7"' ). a._ 

ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD ;r~JOSEPH f. ADA 

Member of Congress Governor of Guam 

J,J~- E T. SAN AGUSTIN 

Speaker, 22nd Guam 

Leqislature 
R08EAT A..- UNDERWOOD 

·-(OIIIWirft": 

ARMED SfAVICE.S 

MUI!d•I<IV•IU-I~l'tU 

_, . .., .... _ ............. , .. -·•us--'"'' 

168 

NATUAAl fUSOURCE$ 

_.........,.. ...... $_ ............ , 

.... -~-................ " (:ongrtss of tbt Wniteb ~tatef 

_,oult of l\eprtlrntatibtl 

lla~in~tlon, ~(; 20515-5301 

July 30, 1993 

Honorable Leslie M. TUrner 

Assistant secretary, Office of Territorial and 

International Affairs 

Department of the Interior 

1849 C Street, NW 

Washington, D.C. 20240 

Dear Ms. TUrner, 

WA$HIHG.10N OffiCE 

so1 c""'- ;;- On~tt .... ~.~:~.-. 

W~$t<llt!(:.•c.. oc l.Ot1~~s:tO 1 

_..H;iJOli2:U-It11 

hx;(202it~~:Jotl 

GUAM OfFIC£: 

Sll'ft 106 ItO HUIOu CotrU l1•1u 

All.lt.JI.t..GOlUHI 

l'H; !611!477·012~7l.H 

fU;j$711 tll-1511 

Your testimony on H.R. 2144, the Guam Excess Lands Act, was submitted by Chairman De Lugo for the record at the hearing 

yesterday held by the Subcommittee on Insular and International 

Affairs. I am writing to convey my response to the positions 

articulated in your testimony. 

I would also liKe you to know that my response is in complete 

harmony with the Guam delegation that attended the hearing: 

Lieutenant Governor Frank F. Blas (representing the Ada 

administration), Speaker Joe T. san Agustin, Senator Thomas c. Ada, 

Senator Marilyn Manibusan, and Senator Edward D. Reyes. The 

subcommittee asked the Guam delegation to respond to your 

proposals, and their unanimous opposition is a matter of record. 

For us, this is not a matter of •politics• or "federal bashing•--

rather, it is a matter of how we view interference by the Office of 

Territorial and International Affairs (OTIA) and your eleventh hour 

policy shift on the most volatile issue on Guam, land. 

I will summarize the positions articulated by the Guam 

dele9ation, which I fully and unequivocally support. I will also 

work relentlessly to advocate these positions in the Con9ress: 

We oppose transferring the excess lands listed in H.R. 2144 to the Department of the Interior. We do not find this procedure to be helpful in any way. We do not believe this will expedite the 

land transfers, and we do not believe that DOl can represent the 

best interests of the Territory of Guam. 

We oppose any attempt on sell these lands back to Guam in any 

.t:.Qm,.. You cannot separate the •cost• issue frolll the historical 

injustices that occurred in the takings o! this land. Guam has 

paid a price in the adverse economic impact of losing one-third of 

its land to the military and in the military security-clearance 
169 

Letter to Assistant Secretary Turner 

July JO, 1993 

Page 2 

procedures imposed on the island from 1945 to 1963. If the 

military does not need the land, it must be returned to the people of Guam. We view the costs of conveyance, environmental cleanup 

costs, and other such provisions with suspicion as ways to indirectly bill Guam for these lands, which are rightfully ours to begin with. 

We oppose Pepartlllent of Interior approval on the land use ~ Congress, not POI, has oversight responsibility over the 

Territories. The Government of Guam will formulate a plan that uses the land for the best public benefit to the people of Guam. 

POI cannot even begin to define for us the best uses of this land 

for the people of Guam. Especially onerous is the stipulation that 

if Guam deviates from POI's interpretation of a land use plan, then 

Guam must pay fair market value for the land. We refuse to turn the clock back fifty years and become wards of POI. The Government 

of Guam shall be responsible to the people of Guam, not POI, in 

fulfilling its mandates. 

We oppose delaying the transfer of the 3200 acres of excess lands in order to acCOl!!J!lOdate the environmental issues raised about 

the critical habitat and the wildlife refuge. These issues should 

be discussed and dealt with in the comprehensive context of the 

land conference. The 3200 acres must not be held hostage to the 

brol!.der issues. These lands were declared excess in ll process dating back to 1977, and listed in the Arny report of 1986. Let's 

get on with it. 

We oppose delaying the transfer of the 3200 acres gf excess lands in order to accommodate the exchange of land with private inholdings at the War in the Pacific National Historical Par!\:. 

This problem should also be addressed in the land conference on Guam. We also raise the point that any such exchanges be 

accommodated from other federal excess lands, and that the War in 

the Pacific Par!\: must review its land requirements. We find that a downsizing of the Park. from its intended 1976 borders may be 

necessary and desirable, given the land issues facing Guam. 

I want you to !\:now that the positions put forth by OTIA are troubling because, once again, OTIA just does not seem to get it. 

H.R. 2144 is a vehicle to get these lands transferred as a first 

step in a comprehensive process to solve the long-standing land 

issues. This last minute attempt by OTIA to change the process is 

outrageous. 
170 

Letter to Assistant Secretary Turner 

July 30, 1993 

Page 3 

Enough is enough! Let's simply get the land transferred. 

Let's agree to meet on Guam, with the Government of Guam, the 

former landowners, the National Park Service, the Fish and Wildlife 

Service, the Air Force, the Navy, and anyone else who has an interest in solving these land problems. 

This is not just about land, it is about people. It is about a people who have been told what to do tor a hundred years. It is 

about a people who were exploited and taken advantage of. And it 

is now time for the people of Guam to be listened to, to govern themselves, and to determine their own destiny. 

since>:ely, 

Gl)~~0t~ ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD 

Member of congress 
July 30, 1"993 

171 

Administrator 

General Services Administration 

Washington, DC 20405 

The Honorable George Miller 

Chairman, Committee on Natural Resources 

House of Representatives 

Washington, DC 20515 

Dear Mr. Chairman: 

Your committee requested the views of the General services 

Administration (GSA) on H.R. 2144, a bill •To provide for the 

transfer of excess land to the Government of Guam, and for other 

purposes." 

If enacted, H.R. 2144 would direct the Administrator of General 

Services to transfer all right, title, and interest of the United 

States in and to certain lands on Guam to the Government of Guam 

for the benefit of its people after the head of the Federal 

agency which controls the lands determines that they are excess to its needs. 

The Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 

(Property Act), as amended, the law from which GSA's chief 

authorities and functions are derived, governs the disposition of 

most Federal real property. On .:January 2, 1975, the Property Act was amended to enable Guam, as well as American Samoa and the 

Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands, to acquire Federal real 

property in the same manner as the 50 States under these 

provisions. 

Through its Office of the Assistant Secretary for Territorial and 

International Affairs, the Department of the Interior (DOl) 

exercises administrative jurisdiction over the Territory of Guam. 

In this regard, by letter dated .:June 1, 1987, DOl requested that 

GSA continue to defer disposal of unneeded Federal real property on Guam until Congress could take action on legislation regarding 

that land. In light of this request and DOl's responsibil.i ty for 

administering territorial affairs, we have deferred to DOl 

regarding enactment of legislative solutions to the Guam land 

issues, including H.R. 2144. 
172 

-2-

The Office of Management and Budget has advised that from the 

standpoint of the Administration's program there is no objection 

to the submission of this report to your committee. 

SincereJ..y', 
173 

!'(~)PIN I 0 N 

I Plan for returned 

>: 

jJfl.nd.a good idea 

r.ri The word "limd" has certainly been well-used in 1993. 

E!: The use of land. the return of land, excess land, the land z trusts have all been prominently in the news and in the 

>- minds of the people of Guam. ~ The current flap over just. how 3,200 acres <i currently 

i::l unused federal property will be retumed to Guam has turned u into a politically inl:om!d; embarrassment for the Navy and 

&_ Department of Interior._ The people of Guam are justifiably u- outraged by the condescendiDg attitudes in Washington. It ~ is clear that we citizens have few friends in D.C. who really understand Why land has been the big word of the year on Guam. - . . 

The one suggeStion the federal goyernment did m8ke that 

made any sense in all of this was that it wanted the. government of Guam. to have a plan ready for the dispersal of 

the excess land. Sen. Eddie Reyes has also ecblled this sen- timent. . . ·. . ·: ·· · --- . 

Right now, for the federal government to llanafer land. it cannot return the .land direetly to the original landOwners. 

It must give it to the _local government. The local pem- ment must then decide what to do with. the !arid.·:; c.· .•. :; 

.l.ocal.offic.ials are :amstrained by'federallaw when it ames' 

to returning land to original OWDel'!l. This is one area where our politicians have been conspicuously absent. Only-.a few 

have made appearances at the places where families -· and 

clans have set up camps in hopes of regaining land froiD 

the feds. Officials have vaguely spoken of assessing oom-, 

munity needs and using the land for the benefit of all. -

In the past. some families took advantage of Guam's booming real estate market. They are now wealthier monetarily 

but without prime land. That is their prerogative in a free 

enterprise system and. some have prospered grmtly using 

their nest egg to make wise business investments. _ . 

But the sentiment of the common man nowadays seems 

to run in favor of lands being returned to families. And the 

sentiment among the families seems to point toward settle- ment rather than sale. People seem to have realized the 

value of family property and want to hold on to it. Before 

they get their hopes up too high, they should be aware of 

what their elected and appointed leaders plan_ to do with 

land coming back to the loeal pemment. 

Current pemment land programs are struggling. The 

Land for the Landless is short of funds needed to develop 

infrastructure on the plots it has assigned. The Chan:iorro 

Land 'Ii-u.st Commission has just. appointed a director and 

needs to develop a plan itself. What is the pemment going to do with more land? It doesn't lmow. - _ The military is in the process of ~ssmg its land 

needs on Guam. The Guam government should be doing 

the same. There is talk of a major land summit to be 

held here later this year. There are only four months left. 

to hold this much vaunted affair. This leaves little time 

to draft. a proposed land use plan that can stand the scrutiny of the community. 

A local land use plan is not only a good idea, it is a necessity. The government must fonnulat.e it smartly and quickly. A grmt number of its citizens are keenly interested in it. 
fKUUIII:ftll .. WY RUVUI" lllf.U W ll"&ft. Ciftt .... Wt~W ~- ..... • .... ...,.. _r,- ~· ~ , -•-

electric typowrtten, artlklallloaiU, wool~ 70" • 1\ad. Til-- U.. ..,_ whm t.be N'"l' cauW bu1 pitondtiuyawearfnceilntnp;ForUIUniubaremen~ land rw bOO OD- on Nl.UI& Hill; and t.la on& 

No cheap shots allowed in. G4~m 

twouldlle~e~mowwbJill\ttt-'ev· VOICE OI"' TIJT:"' PEOIJLE 

oeytboo a local~ btre em Quam, bo • ·u.J 

I~ a Chnanorro, n Ji'IUplno or llll.)''bodyelao 

for Ulol maU.Or, lltanda liP and aiiMb · 

l.holr mind Oil an 1111101 (for OJCampil_,.. • ~· 1 

tum of oxte1111 fodomlumd) tborii 1111 al- 1 .... 

Wli)'B aome emori (w ehould l1111yldlotlc) ·· , 

nloc wllo.wlll.l"ftepond b,y ao;,lngln1111 . 1lti · · 

n11my words, •lryouiJ\1.)'11 don't llko bolng ,~: ··· · 

und.,.· U10 U.S., wll)' don'l.,yoo tlll'llln JOUr • •· · · •. 

U.S. IN>81J10rl:e?" 

I would llko w know lrtho •n•m~ bokil 

t.111o If etlll\00110 In Clevol!llld 1hould lllAmd 

IIIJ n1td li!J'CAk t.helr mind on tho fedoml . 

govermnon._ ll'ot• oxamplo, wbyil ll tha\ nLina• now rol!!Uotlll!IP. with tho Unltocl 1!1 Mddont. UIIOIHid to A ra1lnu f

~ho PUOIJio Wllotll wo vo!Gtllnto omeo ean• Slal01, d001 ~ 11111111\ II; It opoll-1 for Oro, tho rlllllpllllt epldlot10l Rro tliil~ 

llUL do tho ,lob 1111 woll Wl wo would llh.o llOOf'lo In ol.her tti~JCC~t to bl.ko cl-p ahoto lhlll,lloaftnl ancl wv tall- IIIM

U!OIII to'/ 1y Implying lo p ln\loplmdOI" or whnl Ol'lllo wiUII.ho nroRgblonlllaw onl

I dun'l u.ln k lhuro will bo hlltclly 11111· lmvo JOtl. . monl opclOI to put 011, t.ho llro bur

ono In o uol~rhborlng d!tlo who will ro- Amoriro 18 IIIJI'I*t COIIII!lr)', ir not IJio atoril. ltOYJ? 

upoml hy ""YblfJ, "llty, ~· lhoro lu Cloves· (Jn!llkat. n will couUnuo to liOn booc:o11 of My llton1 lbtl101' ohockod my h,)'p

lund, why don't J1111 l:ttn• In .)'l)llr Jlllll- hopo nncl romnlnal)'mbollbr' htdlvldllnl U•lty whon I WIIIIIIJI'UM achool bo

)Jorta nnd go ooek to Donmui;k o1'. Our- •·IJible lll1d ftooollofn, lOr lndiYidlll\11 nnd 1111111118 of prlndl.!ft l!puttkl~•g or clin

numy or whCJI'U t.bo holl .)'011 ctttno fultn'l" t'lllUon• ~tlllto. But do not bo 10oled,lf7011 lnu J IP'OW liP to bo II uioillll 7011l

Whv le &bat? 'r:Jtoanawol'll nro llmplo. look CJ101101y, t11o foola wtllaliow 'ba&.·tl10 not ll!iloldllflo IIGl dril'lklng beOr'tll'•

'1'1!0 lndlvldunlln Oloveland le tlnllei:lod gro11b* tlvlll~~r~Ucm on onrib It on Kl do- lJoall\10 or mnrrl11iro rnlll•l'll• I ll.

utulor\JMJFinii.Atlltllldmontondovoryouu ueondoney, · . 11molllng 11t tho !lllO ofllli, At 41!.1 

l'll<:Ogulwe Uml Anotltor roruwn e0111ld bo MA'l'HmW PHILIPS 11mokl11g, Sonroblng tho Scrh•tn

Uu1\ Lho dleon~itnntn10nt Ill nationwide. Dedodo Alnnd thnt n.tbol'lllrll oht.t111t1id•by 

Slmllntly, tho llOOillo ofGuum llrD 11111- S h to "traan \lp II vblld In lllo WIIJ r10 lh

tochxl UJ\(~r !.ho Fl...t Amondm011,j11fi 01 OIUtlon start a at ome If« and Wl1011l10 "'old he wlU 1101; c

lhulr li'londa Ill CIIIYolnml, .,,Mll"O wlllnl· '1110 llroblolll or drng lltldh:\lon nnd l'rutnlt." By 110 doing, 01111111 WQIIId b

WU)'!I bo IHII\1\!Q t.hal GOIIW friction u ... ~ tll-!nhll~t~llkobol, Ill 111011.- Is llnkod l'llculrn llllaml wllb 110 IIIIIOkt~nl, dri

en lie for dial•lfi'•IO 11hd dllllllllltllon. Jua~ lo lnlai\UOIIDI or unlntonUonnlll~111i011 or d\cl11 nud alcobollca. •n10ro l11 1101. n e

1Jottli1Bo Ounmle nlon·ltol')' oftho Unit· k\lllng~~. D1ivlnu undot Lhu lnll11011eu o(' tJOUccmol\ 011 tbntlela11d. No 1111f0'7 

od Slnlollnmlllllnlhotlt'lleotll'! or nogol.t- eltltor 11111111Ur rolllltlln lllJtuing or ldllloj imd fGIUlatlonl,llO ponnl&loa aetl'IOI
PACIFIC DAILY NEWS, 'l'b'CU'Ida

~r~~~~~~~o~~~[l!!tlf.iri.~ii ij~liJ 

lg. f a:;· !\i!lill~l~::f&~;h·l iHSii 

i'l r,p S'cl:S 

••. h i.H~~~ 't•I-S't;=!lt• a.~""i ttlaj§ 

rt.t ·t:lt 1 J[ll~~~~~ ~,~. ~ • 

tlud ·rJ!tlblfUth hHf 

'-li 1 !I 't'Inf~Hr • 

1 ~J~itmr~~

.•• tl r~ fji rl ttlfl ~rr1 ttiJt 

J:&tf[!:l' .. ·~~~ ;;r.;: r-=22 r• i 1 

s1~l frt!ti ~~·f t~t tij i 1 a-I i 

r ~ si •••[ J·li [~9Jrii~ I In ll~ JJl . ~h.~ lr~J . .,j·.rr l 
176 

Turner defends 

her stance on 

land return ~VIDJUDSON 

Ganneit News seti4Cio-~·--

WASHINGTON- Assistent 

Interior Seoretery Lealie Turner juet wants to help out. Guam's governor. delegate and legislative speaker juet want Turner to get out. So, a decision on who will be 

in on the terms by which Guam regains 3,200 acres of excess lands now appears beaded to .In· 

terior Secretary Bruce Babbitt or even to President Clinton. 

Turner, the new OTIA chief who promised in her April con- firmation hearing that "it is not for the department to imp(,se 

1deas or values," was sticking to the view Monday thst the road to Guam's-land return should run through her office. 

Del. Robert Underwood, DGuam, who oountered that •once 

again, OTIAi::. ~ not seem togetit"was · achar!!eto 

go around Turner - up the ladder to her hoes. 

The Nndoft"between the V...:.. 

ied officlala stsrted lest Thursday, at a hearing of a House ter- ritorial subcommittee called to weigh Guam's decade-old etfort 

to secure return of 3,200 acres deelared .._ by the federal 

govet"lll%leilt.. 

The iuutlhas importance be--

yond the immediate acreage, as whatever furmuls ill used for the 

first step transfer is likely to set the guidelines when Guam goes after as much as 30,000 additional acres the military now holds hut doom't use. 

i 

•J 

LESLIE TURNr:.E-!..R_,_;;~~. ,j 

.•. the wrench in. the Works·. ; .. :]._,~.: So when Turner, in Thurs- · day's surpriee move, BI1I!PSted ·. Comtress not return the Tlind di· · rectfy, but rather hsve her of. ~ fice W!8U1ne ownenbip to assure ·~ 

proper davelopment, tempers 

to 

~·=-~;:=1· be creatmg new Work. fur it-· 

s.elf, just when. Guam ... anians -. thought they were cl011e to a shot at self-determination. 

After a meeting on Friday . 

• ::e::u: ~ith I !\"-.! 'l" 

Tumer. Page 4 ->i 

• Senator advocates I 

land plan. Page 4 , ~ 

---·--

Turner: Interior as 'mediator' 

0 contlniiiid from Page 1 

between Turner and Under· 

wood, and a series of conversations through the weekend 

between Underwood and officials on Guam, neither side 

had moved. 

"We are steadfastly op· posed to what OTIA is trying 

to do," Underwood said. • And we want to make sure that 

this does not signal a shift. in 

the federal government's policy toward our self-deternri· 

nation and our self gover- nance." Late Monday, Underwood, 

Gov. Joseph Ada and Speak- er Joe T. San Aguetin, sent a letter to Babbitt asking him to help persuade Turner to change her mind. 

"We hope that you will rec- ognize that OTIA's proposals are a step backward. They 

represent a bureaucratic 

mentality that says the federal government knows 

what's best for Guam and must protect the people,p! """1:l 

Guam from their own ·decif \:;:·. 

sions," the trio wrote in tbeii <... 

letter to Babbitt. "It is a re- -

~ssion to outdated coloniaf.. "" 1St attitudes and flies in the 

face of decades of progress.• · .), 

Turner said she does not ..s> 

envi.sion OTIA holding onto w the land but believes the 

quickest way for the land to ~ be returned will be ifber of· --""" !ice acts as a mediator. · 
4·JSLANDS· 1 "\ ... "1 .. ).~., ..,_,_,,, .. ,

iUnderwood: 'Enough is e

~ ByO~J:II:)VAN BR(lOKS the .Interior Depa~ment ,:; Daily News Staff unttl Guam submll . .s - ~ The Department of In- and the. department ap- ~ terior cannot represent proves - a land-use plan 

.E! the best interests of that meets public-benefit ·~ Guam, Del. Robert Un- guidelines. !!:: derwood wrote yesterday. She eaid that if the land 

cr.i Giving Interior temporary wasn't used as outlined in 

!!:: ovel'!light of3,200 acres of the approved plan, Guam ~ unused federal lands will would have to pay market 

>= only worsen the problem, value for the land. Unt:l he added. derwood opposed tlWi pro-

:;o: . In a letter to Leslie 'potiiil. 

0 Turner, asaistant secre- The Interior De~rtQ tary of the Interior, Un- ment cannot even · S derwood made clear that to define the best 1l8e8 r u he W8.6 a~ with the de- the land lOr the people of ;1; partment s last-minute Guam, Underwood wrote.··: policy shift and didn't For this reason, the deagree with the written tes- partment has no business 

timony Turner presented asking that it be given au- · to the Subcommittee on thority to approve how the 

Insular and Internation- land will be used, he 

a! Affairs July 29. added. 

"Once again, OTIA (Of- "We refuse to tum the 

flee of Territorial and In- clock back fifty ye3l'11 and 

temational Affairs) just become wards of 

does not seem to get it," DOI ... This last mioute at- Underwood wrote in his tempt by OTIA to change · letter. . the~ is outrageous. 

Turner said excess land Enough is enoughr Unshould be transferred to derwood stated. 
00 

t-

-

§ 

~ Clinton gang 

·Fi! ~WGrldWarBOIIII&Unde&m.p/«Ja-­

AJGvam, doeon\ honetbe-rinctoii- Me?l'm a loyal, JMllriotic .o\m«iaon, ool nut•"-" i<an who 1111'-ribes to the ~y, "my _,try, 

right or WJ<IIl8, my coonlryl I think the - ol JUt Friday did ...... to ....... tho llln1ng li!elinp tho! Gull- . ......._ 1118Dian people bad lOr tho United Slateo !han 1111J11>inc ... .lin,. U..y _., oirtuallr ---in l!NL l"...,.,._....,. .... ......._ .. _tlritb Wllllhiaatoa, .,.. omo~ it is just plain ~tins to .... em whenoucholupid 

r.:~- dedoiono are boin& made. 

to r..":i:r~~-::..u~..:'\'i';"! ~ tiono to Washiagton to .... uul that deoJPatioa.ll-

~ ajoyvuooa:aoionwhonl'nol.loalT.,_,.....Ihoo,.. • KOOic Ac\. making all Ouamoniauo "-ritano. I can\ und..nland wh)o olthe U.S._,.. 

f; 

mento.,nawpingoutol-:::':ytoalionatetbillllffection. II would be ~ juot to aay they are in- sonlrilive, or ifmorant ol c:ondiliono on Gullm. 

Don't !hey n:aliu that tbiiJ oouJd hut our CDUDtry In 

tho~ run' w.· ... a heady loot our-in the Pblllp- ,.._ at leaot partly doe to the oomelock oiiii!IIOiliri- ty, treoliujJ them like oor 'tiW. ....,_ boolhera." Havinc Guam,. • an American~ • edDIMaie 

t. d,__ad<mocnlic'-niOJ thoeofaofhia- be a welcume pluo.IMWIOd oftok~.iilnntopoflhio 

~:-"..'=.~~~:-.:~-: ~ ~ a "lft!d8e hetween w,.,m,pm and "ff-.. 

~ The nert thing that will happen • that Gu-, in- otoad of purouing a "dNe nlo-hip" 1ritb the U.S. throu&h the eoiiUI1011weaNJ Ad. wilf be ~ow 

• ~ olridenl in demando for total iadeponde..,., 

t. I can't add Rnything to what ooriiJJoolll""""'- hoftl 

already ..nd. Their aoijectiws. their i......t~ ... - ouf- fKienl. GWIDt it~ mak.it~~t .,. ei5Jrt to eet'UI't! the return m up to 30,000 """"'of....,..... miJitory land, land .... 

'M ~ Cnlmthe p<OPie of Guam""""'" tho-...-- ~ liWe cimunstanc:e~. . 

~ 

hasn't done its hom

JOE MURPHY 

Pipe Dreams 

SadoJoidy, Jib .............. Ill-.. opbiot "--

durin« lilt lillonlloD, tbolioloo-al---liD: 

•IWllbo ....... a...aa-atliit-ut ....... Tbo ldr matllal ..... ..._... .. ._ Mm. l!dwanllt 

x..-.., and hlo Mit J. $100 111i11ion, or $70 • .,.. tor,900~-tMatbaM..,.._~ 

I& daimM the lad..,.. World Warn. • 'Jhe~oflnlorioBLeor .. ,...._ ....... 

tbalthe ........ landbe-lotho~ ofi-WIIlla ......._,.....__..,.tbe8eo>-

retary ollhe lnl<riar ...... .,.-Jiltic tbalooando. 

• - Adm. Mr-.. .........,t that-..., - ,_,...,. ... OooOuam lobo 11'-. 0...-

~:.. m::: 'b_,"'3',. u:=up- olaay tatThew throeclo~or ........... ...,.......,. .._ 

dimiiUI ... tbelr ,.__ 

Suo:h riditulouo .,..,..,.... .....,., iadieate • - .... mialob:alion, one tbal'-'l"'-IIAI._.._., 'l"be7 

cet&aiDI.J ..._,_lbe hialmy ore- and lbe ~of land. ......... pl-. that at the lime of 

lihentioa, - 22,000 ~ li-' ., lhe ioJanoJ. It ...................... --_.. .. __ _ • third of !he ioland'oloaoJ at tho liaoe. Toda,y, Gullm'o population~ 160,000, ... eiPt.-IJid mer-. UJilib ia tbe O.s. -miond. """';,the-criticol;,. -l'acia!rtbaialand. 

-Gwuunlano ..... ......,.li!lt that tho u.s. milit.]' - not.1n ito..._ here, the .,..,.pliob being 

NASApu......_ltm

it.]' alrfleldo within ....

oee no - in allcnri"

-~idle, while

Le&'abe ......... blo. A

ID the--'eon Gu

tune with the-milltieo ol!

lel_....._,ollicio

--... Gaana

All&u- • lateri

--,lei'• h fad.. S

her .......-.. ordero """

..,t tho iaJaDdo, only 1

that bath Kri- aod

Onolidonl ollio:iallol

IDOdla J. tlluUu: tbio ot

Kr\otoaooil ai.d 'l'lmwt- n

Jaado ~ be retume.l

P.rbepo,OOI their .....

......... 'the ....... --

nm, --it pte alllh

M..,... Guam'o leadon 

,.._,......,.altaapt ..,.

the ........ of A-x., wh

-.blo bearing. 

Or beniar; that, they m

b. Lao& ..... AJaab 0...

lioD --tho fo

ollodenol ~-pole

I,. the- Tho lawouil 

Btalehoad Qapod. of 1

Aiub tho~loooll

tu-Jll!l1enllad by 

lioD - ollidenllando

Atthelut.--<an-lo

~1t.::n'::!.~I'J-10

-------------

Joe lllurpky 
179 
180 

Air Force supports land transfer 

N&VMAA 1170/1 {1·121 
z 

i 

~ 

i 

; 

rfrt:r:::rft~ f, . r; I'M (00 Jrff'J

11;~-[~rr~,,. If•. r . o.l ii 1. af 

f 1: Ia. I~" : . t• s , l:f 

tliJ [. r• oil&ll"" '. '~r r ··lf

:~'ril! : R Dlt,lf!bttt•tittrf~'~ .... ',~.; r

a.f •• ~.! rt rrt IJflillllt' ~if . 'l 

'!.~1.· ~ fi iff ~ .,, I ~.,!~fifi U

l

·; -r If r tr • ~~ ~ • r!..& 1. , .. e. s. ~~ 

. If I tt }i 'a.f ~f!!MA n f:o~~rrtr!"'U ·· r;J
182 

New Interior official's 'shocking suggestions' 

w.n::.n.gwuiST : c"i~ I:J.~~~~~~~~~n,, 1'un>or ~~~lf~~':l~ttny of" bu- l:,~~~r,r~ '~~~~~ ~t:•P·~ Wbon nowly Ul>po!nt.>d Aa- sold Ulo Doperimontofl.ntotior "So mucl..rartiO>honoymoon,• clllo NoUono! Hlotorlcol Po•·lL ololonl Socrotary ofUIDlnroti· loin oupp01taftholand ntu1·n. oommonted Lt. GoY. Frnnl< !'. 'It wouldbolmprudorl<ofllu or !..colla Tumor v!olled Ouom · Hntovo•·, aha a lao rocom- Diu, cmnparinr'l'unlora oorll• J.l'odoml govo1'11D18nl., In CheSt 

lnJuly,olM>t>mmindanow0111 mondod lhatlho land tom· oi:l~oduooO!IGUOJatol!orwrit;. ,U.nooof.lovorolyllglltonodbud of roiAIIoua hetwoon tl>G fodet- porarlly bo lnnolorrod to IJ>o ton llla"tolnonbl, whlolr:lio ·do •. pt.o, <orolcooo.·YUiuablolandt 

al nnd local g01'01'nmoal. llolonor Dol••rl>nonl unlll ICtibed lui an hllllll to lbo poo- w!llooul co~llon, Ollly I< • Juol. wnl.ch ua, • 'l'uraer clull- Guam oo>no• up wllh o UiO plan Jlla of Guam. 'U w"u dollnltoly wm around ed opproprioi< longod lho Oumn .oo>nmun!ly. ror tho Jlropori:l& . lhon;.!Jyod." ..... lllntlf to 1,.,. for U>O PW' • Judge ua by whn< we do.' In lid dillon, abo roc:01nmond-. 'j.'umor oleo rocoin.inondod choooor.U printo lnhol<llnGo !< YllO!ordoy, Tumor took bor ad U>lltlmt(1ian bo~rovod by lhol GovGuam bo ""!!lli"Cd to the pAI'k.' 1'omor wrc!o. Rrsl action with roepocl 1o 1110 Soct·otlll7 of tho lntorloo· be- pay fe!< mari.ol voluo for any .Qua!Jl Dol. lloborl Undor· Guoaa'o IOJ>d t..uoe 1lnco >noll- fill'> land~ fi1IS1. mtumod. to b>· inOuorlloo not wood DCCOrdh>rln woad iodd bo -•'t omcily"""' lng thai olalomont- and 1111r0 tJau""rdldl6;>ubllo bono- lho~pan plan, She OJr· whai;.-..pTumorluleoldec Guo>nofficlolldofln114lydldn\ lltGUidolluoo. · : pMIMG'~adaUIO'W!Illld"an- 1o COilVOJ' wllb hor teeUmony llko what llae7 board.. •n ""' elaocl<lniJ <ha< i.ba· 1111'11 !bot th..lrmaor.-II for pub- IInce lho -~ht thO hoaring Althouch &111 dld l1lK ._.- -ld como up with oruch a •ur- llo bonoll~ uoo a ad to guard. to imphala '-It . 

wrlllea lull many for yoolor- S.n A1JU1Un, w 10. 141Ufiocl al o lnlonll& • Ua~ oald Tamer'•ldou ·In p.,...,n, Tumor oubmllkd ...Uon," •lei sr,oakor Joe T. •~•tlllnHrDuildoaleolofOI' Hnenr ._..ue.rorlnt.cnl, 

day'e conpeoolomil heoiina' in U10 heating, · nally, ·Tumor •uuootod ,.... ~ "l'hon .ob· Wllllllngtan, D.C., on o bill to "11'1 W..goillgbock to U,.pro- thahcmo or lho _, londf 'rlauily hu to bulolohdUco· rotu"!3,200-offodonl01!· Orpni~ dayo whon we won bo..-lto-dro,UuvlllJhlarul Uooa,"iald Unci"""'"· 

Land plan frustrates officials ~- ~AU RUNQUIST g .:::-Z~a~o ;ycotvrdny oald ' J t's the same old thing. JUst as we are get- ~ uaoy--. ... -.., n. .. trelod tlng close to getting something thAV throw "" 

wlU1 tootlmOIIJ on Ulo .,._· I h ' -3 ~ IAntlf bill tha fedora! omcta1• n a some wrenc and we get screwed. • · . do!lvorod at • congroulonal - GOY. JOSEPH F. AD•A hoorfntr Ia WMhllll!lcn, D.C. · · • • " llland·omclllt ollo.111ktllaoy on IBnd "/8/Um ~ wom WMriocl tho& U10 loltlmcinr- wlaleh l'oeanlmandod·thal u.rwo- Gwim Dol. Robort. ~oCtho!Gollmon "W> U1o. foclonl pwraniont h!'v• Undo;;;;.!. olha bill'• autJ>or,i II>G NAB buo ._./~t .. : ::: · mora conUoii>Ditt..~ "!''t! ho wu tUII.,.alldont tho 011d lho~a oa ooUYO miUtary ro- lit ~~~ ~~.~f lbo U.S. Co--lid ultl·· e· Nowii>OfWilDI uo to Jll3 qo.., l•v tho·blll'o .-..1

""""',, . "": 11Ullol7 p.UID· btU a poolthv OO:mllllon for land lbat 1w I"" -v . .-.-r-.-,. . . 'lolo·-....-oll)oil-lbof'od- wadorullltzcdrar,..,...• ··--- oral ~~VY~rDmanl doalarod lb. ~oodldDOI-ID t;; ~~lobo •-mon than =•llho boarJns,AilloiGnl lS 

. m,~nk" ll(tho t.ooUmo- .:=t.,~LOoU~~ ~lwill!>wo&.,.. ._,olllld Un- to GliDDl't lire. Tumer - -~who hlono of- -.doc1Uaa&jl10lanlllbolftno. iii.Guam·olllolal. who toellllod · am.! Ia 1110 ~-or tho . oa tho bl.ll bo6>ro 11111 fiUoom- lnloriaranCIJ aliuad~ for mlltoo on IntuiiU' .... In...,. · lho.JII'GPOrl,y It np "'U10 

~Alt"""~-IUM ~orthora ,· '*"for':~..~~~~ ..J! llolhononao tJant10mo 

· · · AaiaoiJrr tho loollmooj IK lho :.W:~~/!r.~ ng, .......un, toGuua oOI- "dooldo thomoaiVM wl>alclo do· wao Nav, ~ Adm. Jld. wllll tho laud," oold lA. GoY, lL~t..........,. · Fronk Dl01, who toollllod o&U>t U..llho--nLofG"-ol- IID!I"!nlo"Irnlooollololylacllo.' u.., pay for U10 coot. ortrandn- OllaOi oJIIalola -ln11D11lcular aina'tho~)'cwbuJU>Giazld. Uae pvoFnor- oald U>o g.,.. Aocarillar to Krio~ rotr ammon~ ..... ploctn1 obilocloo morkaiY&IuooiUaeB,20011CrU In tbo palb oHho land ri- ta $900 million, or about. ·~.urn.•rro U10•mo old U>lllfL" $280,000 ,,.,. nero. eoldllda. 'Juol .. woaroiJDIUa>c "lbat'a ndlculouo,• o.eld Goy, clooo w BOtllnf!IOlllotlllng 1.boF 

Joaopla 1!'. Ada! wloo did not at. thmw Ia a110111e wroncfa .;,d wo lond Uoci h~ar I'll but rocoiYod Blli ..,....od. • 
Jlacifie JBaijy 

liiOt13GUiml'llblclllono;lno. . . . . . , • 

__ ._ .. _ ..... ··-·· · .... · . 1 iftfi!1lii''Pr1ff'fi•NI 

'I want tO. knoW who your broker Is and where I 

can gat In on eo~ of:thet 

actloo.' - GUAM DEL. ROBERT . UNDERWOOD 

R&8clng to the ~281,000 piN acrG 

asii6SSlld by ~·a 8lell 

Admt~al':,~tf!I'IOi i,tcs 
·•t••'A'''4"4i1Mt~qtt•H•·

••-d'-~ tenC.r irk
Lan·d.: One idea 'Uke·.rob~ling Pete·r, and 

· rom Pll!J8 1 llMod on 11118~ alOuo~ rlotlilll:a-l AtTain oll'orod lb t.km. elau~a th11L wou

. .. lnnd nlue ~bnl KaWtenaon Mlcl ....: :wl'ltt.en o•id aon~ to tba com· · an:Jrotumod la

roa11011lng for fodorol ovoralght wo.ro Jlfoporod b7-'hla 1tafY~ U1a . mlitoo, .not. doll"fOI'Iid In JK*ioo, · \'olo irll.oraebl b

In o lund tll\II&IOr bolng· ~KC~~m· btltln13,200 oci'OII are )'IGI'IJa tOOO · '1110 ciftlco oftbrad to llf.op In to turo, . tbo lalan

IJIIallOd by Jeglalutlon. . million (obout$2!11,000 an aero),·· o etew!lrdllbl.P fl!lo ahould U,ao . would be nqnlr

A lo«<aloUve · tronafor moona th~ odmlrol auld. · · . mU~r,v lltGjluut. '1110 olnco'e ltloa orallovomtnll!

iho land Ia "'no" to OUam, IIUf'. 1 \YIInt to lu16w.wbo)'Ourbro· Ill to hold lbaland.·llndwork w~th · uooCtbo land·_

fiOBtlng 0 fodoral rlghL to llllpor- . kor Ia ond whon .1 CIID go& bl on Quam'• govornmorit to OlliUIQ . . . A Rnal thonil

Vloo,ondn'J'H!•ttoliilpoeo"LI'IIll• 801rlOofthol;ooUon,•811ft C!,un· 

0 pinna "moe' ttubllo bonen' uao wulba~luilltn

~~:~~b~n~l~n=~ ·~=.~~~~: ::b:l altho 'C: fll~:~':~ onvlal~llll anothor · ~~J:t:..:.!

'l'ho olLornatlvo - wll.h no land al\or Worl!l-War II puL tho lbderalqenoy UaoOonoral flor.. ewopped b7 th

alting~~at~ehod - would bo·an wortl1 ofolllta liGldlnp aL llllghl- vlooa Admln~mtlo11, bocoml1111 mum to pranto 

odmlnldrol~vo La·a~~~~fol', lao ex· IJtltOI'o 'titan $1 mlllfrat, "lho tmrillforrlatll ogo1rooy.• wltb . Tho (JOal wo

plolnod, ·and that would roq(llro BuL moro owe wpa In atoro · lho c:OIII8 oCllllnow !luUaa )told All· awop tho DXeoB

tho !JOVDmmonl of Ouom to pny whon the lnklrlor Dciporlmon~ll by Ou~m.L. · an,y prlvalo la

folr mnrto& Ynlno. · . orne. of 'l'onilol:'fallllld l••t.Ur· ··. Thl! omoo alao a1kod for o netdildlo cotilp

____ :_,_. ·-· -· . 
186 

0 

73-296 (192) 

ISBN 0-16-041732-5 

90000 

9 7801 1732