I Mina Bente Ocho Na Liheslaturan GruThan 2005 (FIRST) Regular Session

Transcription

1 I Mina Bente Ocho Na Liheslaturan GruThan 2005 (FIRST) Regular Session Resolution No. )Ji (LS) Introduced by: A. R. Unpingc B. J.F. Cruz',/ 8'. ea Wo Relative to Endorsing the Report and Recommendations of the Guam War Claims Review Commission BE IS RESOLVED BY I LIHESLATURAN GUAHAN: Whereas, Guam is now the only United States Territory that was occupied by Imperial Japanese forces during World War II, and Whereas, except for a brief period during the War of 1812, no United States Territory has ever been occupied by any enemy forces, and Whereas, during World War II, the People of Guam were enslaved, tortured and over 1,000 Chamorros die~were executed by the Imperial Japanese Forces, and Whereas, as a result of the Occupation by the Imperial Japanese Forces and the Liberation by the United States Forces in 1944, the capital city of Hagatfia was completely destroyed as were most of the homes and ranches of the People of Guam throughout the island, and Whereas, recognizing the suffering, death and destruction of property wrought by the War, the United States Congress, in November of 1945, passed Bill No. S which was enacted into Public Law known as the "Guam Meritorious Claims Act" and ' Whereas, the Guam Meritorious Claims Act authorized the creation of a Land and Claims Commission to determine and award claims of less that $5,000, and Whereas, the Guam Meritorious Claims Act required Congressional approval and appropriation of any award over $5,000 and all death benefit awards, and Whereas, as a result of a large number of complaints about the Land and Claims Commission's actions and the implementation of the Guam Meritorious Claims Act, the Secretary of the Navy a directive on January 8, 1947, appointing a three-member committee to evaluate the Navy's handling of its reconstruction and rehabilitation responsibilities, and Whereas, this committee, known as the "Hopkins Committee" did conduct extensive interviews and investigations, and issued a highly critical report, and 1

2

3 t f {". 1 Whereas, the "Hopkins Report" resulted in some positive changes as well as 2 prompted continued criticism of the Claims Act implementation, and 3 Whereas, though the United States Congress passed some legislation to address 4 some of the concerns and criticisms of the People of Guam and the Hopkins Report, said 5 amendments were never considered adequate, and 6 Whereas, Guam's Delegates to Congress have introduced bills to address the 7 perceived inadequacy of previous laws to address claims resulting from the Japanese 8 Occupation, and 9 Whereas, the first Guam Delegate to Congress, Antonio B. Won Pat, introduced Io the first bill on September 21, 1983 to establish a "commission to review the facts and 11 circumstances surrounding Guamanian losses caused by the occupation of Guam by 12 Japanese Imperial forces in World War II," and 13 Whereas, Guam's second Delegate to Congress, retired Marine Corps General Ben 14 Blaz introduced four bills during his four terms, and 15 Whereas, on April 18, 1989, at the request of the Twentieth Guam Legislature, 16 Delegate Blaz introduced H.R to provide compensation to any eligible person who 17 received a compensable injury as a result of World War II, and 18 Whereas, after a hearing and extensive discussions between House and Senate 19 leaders a substitute bill was proposed by Senator Inouye, Delegate de Lugo and 20 Congressman Lagomarsino representing the Republican Minority and the Republican 21 Administration, and 22 Whereas, the Guam War Reparations Commission and the Guam Legislature 23 recommended substantial changes to the proposed substitute bill which materially 24 changed the bill's intent thereby causing the bill to be die in committee, and 25 Whereas, Delegate Robert Underwood introduced five bill during his five terms, 26 the last being the "Guam War Claims Review Commission Act" enacted into law on 27 December 16,2002 as Public Law ,and 28 Whereas, the statutory duties of the Review Commission are set out as follows: (1) (2) review the facts and circumstances surrounding the implementation and administration of the Guam Meritorious Claims Act and effectiveness of such Act in addressing the war claims of American nationals residing on Guam between December 8, 1941, and July 21, 1944; review all relevant Federal and Guam territorial laws, records of oral testimony previously taken, and documents in Guam and the Archives of the Federal Government regarding Federal payments of war claims in Guam; 2

4 (3) receive oral testimony of persons who personally experienced the talcing and occupation Guam by Japanese military forces, noting especially the effects of infliction of death, personal injury, forced labor, forced march and internment; (4) determine whether there was parity of war claims paid to the residents of Guam under the Guam Meritorious Claims Act as compared with awards made to other similarly affected U.S. citizens or nationals in territory occupied by the Imperial Japanese military forces during World War II; (5) advise on any additional compensation may be necessary to compensate the People of Guam for death, personal injury, forced labor, forced march, and internment; (6) not later than 9 months after the Commission is established a report, 14 including and comments or recommendations for action, to the 15 Secretary of the Interior, the Committee on Resources and the 16 Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives and the 17 Committee on Energy and Natural Resources and the Committee on the 18 Judiciary of the Senate, and 19 Whereas, on September 10,2003, Secretary of the Interior Gale Norton appointed 20 five individual to serve on the Commission, and 21 Whereas, pursuant to their statutory mandate, the Commission held its first public 22 hearing on Guam on December 8 and 9, 2003 to receive testimony from survivors 23 and descendants of Guamanians killed or injured during World War II, and 24 Whereas, conducted hearings in Washington, D.C., Long Beach, California, San 25 Diego, California, Hayward, California, Las Vegas, Nevada, and Seattle, 26 Washington, and 27 Whereas, pursuant to its statutory mandate, the Guam War Claims Review 28 Commission published its "Report in the Implementation of the Guam Meritorious 29 Claims Act of Whereas, after extensive research, review, discussion, and analysis, the Review 31 Commission made the general finding that there is a moral obligation on the part of 32 our national government to pay compensation for war damages in order to ensure 33 to the extent possible that no single individual or group of individuals bears more 34 than a just part of the overall burden or war; and 3

5 I Whereas, the United States Congress recognized this obligation with respect to 2 Guam is evidenced by its prompt enactment of the Guam Meritorious Claims Act of (the "Guam Act"), within weeks after the termination of World War II; and 4 Whereas, the Review Commission affirms that the United States Government is 5 not obligated as a matter of law to pay such compensation; and 6 Whereas, the Review Commission finds that the compensation paid to claimants 7 under the Guam Act, some Eight Million Dollars ($8,000,000), was a substantial measure 8 of compensation in redress of the losses sustained by the residents of Guam during and 9 after World War II; and Io Whereas, the Review Commission further finds that the Japanese occupation of 11 Guam was particularly cruel, oppressive, and brutal, and that the loyalty and 12 steadfastness shown by the people of Guam in the face of the atrocities and barbarism 13 inflicted on them by their Japanese occupiers was all the more extraordinary in the 14 circumstances in which they were forced to live; and 15 Whereas, the Review Commission further finds that the U.S. Congress was 16 misinformed when it excluded Guam from coverage for World War II property damage 17 and loss claims under Title II of the War Claims Act of 1948, amended in 1962, because 18 it incorrectly assumed that all of the claims of residents of Guam had been adequately 19 resolved under the Guam Act leaving a number of claims that had not been timely filed 20 under the Guam Act due to lack of notice and a short, truncated filing period; and 21 Whereas, in April 1990, after the hearing of former U. S. Congressional Delegate 22 Ben Blaz's bill (R.R. 2024) to pay additional compensation to Guamanians, the bi- 23 partisan leadership of the Subcommittee on Insular and International Affairs along with 24 Senator Daniel Inouye, offered to introduce an amendment in the nature of a substitute to 25 R.R is strong evidence that there was U.S. Congressional awareness of the 26 willingness to provide additional compensation; and 27 Whereas, the Review Commission considers it regrettable that the Guam 28 Legislature did not positively respond to the Inouye/De Lugo/ Lagomarsino substitute 29 proposal which was made after consultation with the Administration in 1990; and 30 Whereas, it has been fifteen (15) years since then and, in the meantime, '7:1J:;II;. 31 claimants who could have been included under the legislation and compensated have 32 died; and 33 Whereas, it is now over sixty (60) years since the Japanese occupation and the 34 people of Guam cry out for closure; and 35 Whereas, the Review Commission further finds that it would be appropriate to 36 limit eligibility for any further compensation for suffering during the Japanese occupation 4

6 1 of Guam to individuals who were alive as of 1990, and their descendants, because that 2 year represents the last time that the Administration, the leadership of the U. S. Congress, 3 and the leadership of I Liheslaturan Guahan were within reach of achieving agreement 4 on claims legislation to arrive at the closure which the people of Guam have been 5 seeking; and 6 Whereas, the Review Commission further finds that the U. S. Congress and the 7 Navy should have adopted the 1947 Hopkins Report's recommendations regarding the 8 Guam-related claims, including raising the ceiling on the amounts that could be paid to 9 claimants on Guam and abandoning the complicated processes followed and calculating 1 o amounts due in death and personal injury claims; and 11 Whereas, the Review Commission further finds that there was parity with respect 12 to the types of claims covered by the Guam Act as compared with the types of claims 13 covered by the Guam Act as compared with the types of claims covered by the 14 Philippines Rehabilitation Act of 1946 in that the latter did not cover claims for personal 15 injury, death, or loss of use of real property; and 16 Whereas, the Review Commission further finds that although the Micronesian 17 Claims Act and Claims Program enacted twenty-six (26) years after the Guam Act, did 18 not involve war claims of United States citizens or nations, there was parity with respect 19 to the types of claims covered by the Guam Act in that it did not provide greater actual 20 amounts of compensation for wartime losses than did the Guam Act; and 21 Whereas, the Review Commission further finds that there was lack of parity 22 between the Guam Act and the Aleutians Act, in that the Aleutians Act provided for 23 payment of a greater amount of compensation than did the Guam Act and also provided 24 for compensation to be paid in a single, uniform lump sum amount to each claimant; and 25 Whereas, the Review Commission further finds that there was lack of parity with 26 respect to the types of claims covered by the Guam Act as compared with the types of 27 claims covered by the War Claims Act of 1948, in that the Guam Act did not cover 28 claims for civilian internment by the enemy; and 29 Whereas, the Review Commission further finds that there was lack of parity with 30 respect to the filing period provided for in the Guam Act as compared to all of the other 31 claims statutes covered in their report to the Secretary of the Department of Interior and 32 Insular Affairs and to the U. S. Congress, with the exception of the 1962 Wake Island 33 Amendment to the War Claims Act of 1948, in that the Guam Act effectively provided 34 for only a seven-month period for filing of claims, due to the delay between the 35 enactment of the Guam Act on November 15, 1945, and the Secretary of the Navy's 36 promulgation of the Implementing Regulations on May 3, 1946; and 5

7 1 Whereas, the Review Commission further finds that all other statutes, except for 2 the Wake Island Amendment, provided for an actual filing period of at least one (1) year; 3 and 4 Whereas, the Review Commission further finds that as a result of inaccurate 5 dissemination of information regarding claims eligibility by some local village 6 "commissioners" (mayors) in informing the people of the Guam claims program, a 7 number of the residents of Guam were erroneously dissuaded from filing claims under 8 the Guam Act during the filing period; and 9 Whereas, the Review Commission further finds that the U. S. Navy put forth 10 vigorous good-faith efforts to address the war damage and loss claims of the residents of 11 Guam, beginning as early as January 1945, but that it was hampered by the lack of 12 modem communications media on island; by the ongoing build-up of forces on the island 13 in preparation for the Allied assault on Japan; by the frequent turnover of Navy 14 personnel, as evidenced by the fact that before 1950, a total of seven (7) Land and Claims 15 Commissions were successfully appointed; and by the fact that at the same time the Navy 16 was dealing with the claims, it was also responsible for conducting a large-scale land 17 acquisition program on the island, under which the U.S. Government eventually came to 18 occupy nearly three-fourths (3/4) of the Island; and 19 Whereas, the Review Commission further finds that there was lack of parity with 20 respect to the composition of the Land and Claims Commission established by the Guam 21 Act as compared to the Commissions established by the Philippines Act and the 22 Micronesian Claims Act, in that the latter statutes provided for inclusion of a Filipino 23 Commissioner and of two (2) Micronesian Commissioners while the Guam Act required 24 that the Land and Claims Commission be composed exclusively of uniformed officers of 25 the U.S. Navy or Marine Corps; and 26 Whereas, the Review Commission recogmzes that at the time, the Navy 27 Department was charged with administration of Guam and that hostilities continued 28 during the early period of implementation of the program by the Navy. 29 Whereas, the Review Commission further finds that there was lack of parity with 30 respect to the prosecution of the claims filed under the Guam act as compared to the 31 claims under the other statutes covered by this report, in that claimants under the Guam 32 Act had no possibility of obtaining private counsel to represent them before the Navy's 33 Land and Claims Commission, due to the absence of private attorneys in practice on 34 Guam in the 1940' s; and 35 Whereas, the Review Commission further finds that there was lack of parity with 36 respect to payments of interest on claims, in that residents of Guam did not receive 6

8 1 interest payments on claims for property loss and damage that arose after the securing of 2 Guam by U. S. Military on August 10, 1944 while claimants under Title II of the 3 Micronesian Claims Act with claims for property losses arising after the secure dates of 4 the various Micronesian islands did receive such interest payments; and 5 Whereas, the Review Commission further finds that there was parity with respect 6 to the finality of claims and availability of appeal under the Guam Act as compared to the 7 other statutes covered by their report, in that both the Guam Act and the other statutes 8 provided that the determinations on claims were final and conclusive, and not subject to 9 any outside review; and 1 o Whereas, the Review Commission was not aware of any comparable situation 11 other than on Guam where virtually the entire population was either interned, in hiding to 12 avoid capture, or subjected to forced march at one time or another while under Japanese 13 occupation during World War II. 14 Whereas, the Review Commission further finds that there was lack of parity for the 15 residents of Guam under the Guam Act as compared to the War Claims Act of because the latter covered only claims of persons who were U. S. Citizens during World 17 War II and did not cover loyal Guamanians who had the status of U. S. nationals at that 18 time nor was it made retroactive when the residents of Guam were granted United States 19 citizenship under the Guam Organic Act in 1950; and 20 Whereas, the Review Commission further finds that there was lack of parity with 21 respect to claims for property loss and damage under the Guam Act as compared to 22 claims filed under the other statutes covered by their report, in that unlike those other 23 statutes, the Guam Act included a Five Thousand Dollar ($5,000.00) ceiling on payments 24 that could be disbursed by the Navy on Guam while claims exceeding this amount would 25 require U. S. Congressional approval which only produced pressure on some claimants 26 with valid property claims of over Five Thousand Dollars ($5,000.00) to reduce their 27 claims below the ceiling in order to obtain payment quickly; and 28 Whereas, the Review Commission is satisfied that there was parity with respect to 29 the payment of Guamanians' claims for wartime loss and damage of real and personal 30 property under the Guam Act as compared with awards made in similar such claims 31 under the Philippines Act, the War Claims Act of 1948, and the Micronesian Claims Act, 32 in that the awards made for wartime property losses under all of the latter were only paid 33 pro rata, while the awards made under the Guam Act were paid in full; and 34 Whereas, the Review Commission is satisfied that there was parity with respect to 35 the payment of Guamanians' claims for loss and damage of real and personal property 7

9 1 under the Guam Act as compared with awards made in similar such claims under Title II 2 of the War Claims Act, added in 1962; and 3 Whereas, the Review Commission further finds that there was lack of parity with 4 respect to death claims under the Guam Act as compared to death claims under the War 5 Claims Act of 1948, in that the maximum that could be claimed under the Guam Act was 6 Four Thousand Dollars ($4,000.00) while the maximum that could be claimed under the 7 War Claims Act was Seven Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($7,500.00) with the Guam 8 Act requiring U.S. Congressional approval; and 9 Whereas, the Review Commission further finds that there was lack of parity with 10 respect to death claims under the Guam act as compared to death claims under Title II of 11 the Micronesian Claims Act setting the maximum that could be claimed under the Guam 12 Act at Four Thousand Dollars ($4,000.00) and the maximum that could be claimed under 13 Title II of the Micronesian Claims Act was Five Thousand Dollars ($5,000.00) with the 14 Guam Act requiring U.S. Congressional approval; and 15 Whereas, the Review Commission further finds that the most appropriate method 16 for apportioning compensation for death claims is to grant one (1) single uniform lump- 17 sum amount covering all death claims; and 18 Whereas, the Review Commission further finds that there was lack of parity with 19 respect to the personal injury awards issued to residents of Guam under the Guam Act as 20 compared to the personal injury awards issued to American citizens or other American 21 nationals resulting from the occupation by Japanese Imperial Forces during World War 22 II, in that the amount that could be awarded for the loss of prospective earnings to a 23 resident of Guam compared to the amount that could be awarded to a civilian American 24 citizen was grossly disparate; and 25 Whereas, the Review Commission further finds that there was lack of parity with 26 respect to the personal injury awards that could be issued to residents of Guam under the 27 Guam Act as compared to the personal injury awards issued to American citizens or their 28 American nationals resulting from the occupation by Japanese Imperial Forces during 29 World II, in that under the Navy's Guam Act Implementing Regulations, a claim based 30 on the death of a person that resulted from an injury for which compensation had 31 previously been awarded was expressly barred, while under the War Claims Act, the 32 survivor(s) of a person who died as the result of an injury for which compensation had 33 been awarded under section 5 (f) of the War Claims Act of 1948 could claim additional 34 compensation of up to Seven Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($7,500.00) based on the 35 person's death; and 8

10 1 Whereas, the Review Commission further finds that there was lack of parity 2 between the Guam Act and the War Claims Act of 1948, in that the wage level used in 3 claims for personal injury and death under the Guam Act was limited to the average wage 4 paid to a claimant or decedent between January 1 and November 30, 1941, up to a 5 maximum of fifty dollars ($50.00) per month, while under the War Claims Act of the wage level was specified to be thirty-seven dollars and fifty cents ($37.50) per week; 7 and 8 Whereas, the Review Commission further finds that due to the passage of years 9 since the 1944 liberation of Guam and the loss of relevant records, it is virtually 1 o impossible to differentiate among the survivors of the Japanese occupation of the island 11 as to the types of harm they suffered-whether it was damage resulting from personal 12 injury (including rape and malnutrition), internment (including hiding to avoid capture), 13 forced labor, or forced march--0r the extent of the harm suffered in each of their cases 14 concluding that the best method for apportioning compensation for their suffering would 15 be to grant one single uniform lump-sum amount covering all categories of harm, 16 irrespective of how may types of harm a person may have suffered; and 17 Whereas, the Review Commission further finds that during the testimonies given at 18 the Public Hearings held on Guam, a significant number of the survivors of the Japanese 19 occupation of the island continue to suffer psychologically from their experience; and 20 Whereas, the Review Commission recommends that U. S. Congress acknowledge 21 both the suffering of the Guamanians during the Japanese occupation of Guam in World 22 War II and the loyalty shown by the Guamanians to the United States during the war; and 23 Whereas, the Review Commission recommends that Congress provide funding in 24 an amount sufficient to pay compensation in a single lump-sum total amount of Twenty 25 Five Thousand Dollars ($25,000.00) to those identified and defined as eligible claimants 26 in the Review Commission's Report [limited to a spouse, child or children, or parents, 27 respectively, in this order of priority, who constitute the classes of survivors identified as 28 eligible successor claimant(s) in subsection 5(d) of Title I of the War Claims Act of 1948, 29 as amended (50 U.S.C. App. 2004(d)t and 30 Whereas, the Review Commission's recommends that the compensation figure of 31 Twenty-Five Thousand Dollars ($25,000.00) is comparable to the Twenty Thousand 32 Dollars ($20,000.00) in compensation to which the eligible survivors of decedents killed 33 by the Japanese occupiers would have been entitled under the 1990 substitute to the 34 proposed legislation, H.R. 2024, as well as other proposed legislation and when adjusted 35 forward from the 1940's, it is comparable to the Seven Thousand Five Hundred Dollars 36 ($7,500.00) to Fifteen Thousand Dollars ($15,000.00) for death which eligible 9

11 1 Guamanians could have sought under subsection 5(f) of the War Claims Act of 1948, had 2 they not been excluded from the coverage of that law and that the figure of at least one 3 thousand (1000) deaths have been cited requiring a funding of at least Twenty Five 4 Million Dollars ($25,000,000); and 5 Whereas, the Review Commission recommends that due to the passage of years 6 since the 1944 liberation of Guam and the loss of relevant records, it is virtually 7 impossible to differentiate among the survivors of the Japanese occupation of the island 8 as to the types of harm they suffered-whether it was damage resulting from personal 9 injury (including rape and malnutrition), internment (including hiding to avoid capture), IO forced labor, or forced march--or the extent of the harm suffered in each of their cases 11 concluding that the most appropriate method for apportioning compensation for their 12 suffering would be to grant one (1) single uniform lump-sum amount covering all 13 categories of harm, irrespective of how may types of harm a person may have suffered; 14 and 15 Whereas, the Review Commission's recommends that the U. S. Congress provide 16 funding in an amount sufficient to pay compensation in a single lump-sum amount of 17 Twelve Thousand Dollars ($12,000.00) to each person who was a resident of Guam 18 during the Japanese occupation and who personally suffered one or more of the types of 19 harm in question, or to the eligible survivor( s) of such individual, who were alive as of 20 the year 1990 and to those who were living in 1990 but who are no longer living, the 21 compensation provided in this category shall be limited to claimants who are a spouse, 22 child or children, or parents, respectively, in this order of priority, who constitute the 23 classes of survivors identified in the War Claims Act of 1948, as amended (50 U.S.C. 24 App. 2004(d)); and 25 Whereas, the Review Commission recommends that after adjustment forward from 26 the 1940's, the compensation figure of Twelve Thousand Dollars ($12,000.00) is at least 27 comparable to the compensation of up to Nine Thousand Four Hundred Twenty Dollars 28 ($9,420.00) that the eligible survivors of the Japanese occupation ;of Guam or their 29 eligible successors would have been entitled to for thirty-two (32) months of internment 30 (sixty dollars or One Thousand Nine Hundred Twenty Dollars) ($60.00 per month, or 31 $1,920.00), and up to (Seven Thousand Five Hundred Dollars) ($7,500.00) for either 32 personal injury or death authorized under the War Claims Act, had they not been 33 excluded from the coverage of that law; and 34 Whereas, the Review Commission recommends that based on the 1990 Census 35 figure, there are eight thousand five hundred fifty-one (8,551) survivors on Guam which 10

12 '' 1 will require a funding of approximately One Million One Dollars ($101,000,000) for 2 compensation to eligible claimants of this category; and 3 Whereas, the Review Commission recommends that before any payment of 4 compensation is made in a claim under Death or Injury, there should be deducted any 5 amount of compensation previously paid under the Guam Act of 1945 of One Thousand 6 Dollars ($1,000.00) or more for Death claims, or Five Hundred Dollars ($500.00) or 7 more, on Injury claims; and 8 Whereas, the Review Commission recommends that the FCSC should be charged 9 with creating a sub-commission modeled after the Micronesian Claims Commission and 1 o that this new commission be composed of some Guamanian and some non-guamanian 11 commissioners; and 12 Whereas, the Review Commission recommends that a filing period of one (1) year 13 should be set for the filing of claims and that the one (1) year period should commence 14 on the effective date of any required implementing regulations; and 15 Whereas, the Review Commission recommends that objections to and appeals of 16 the new Commission's decisions should be to the Commission, and upon a rehearing, the 17 decision should become final and not subject to outside review by any court or agency; 18 and 19 Whereas, the Review Commission recommends that the acceptance of payment by 20 an eligible individual should be in full satisfaction of all claims arising out of the 21 Japanese occupation of Guam during the war and that no interest should be payable on 22 the amounts awarded; and 23 Whereas, the Review Commission recommends the establishment of a Trust Fund 24 for scholarship, medical facilities, and other public purposes for the benefit of the People 25 of Guam, and 26 Whereas, the Review Commission further recommends that within 90 days after 27 the end of the period for filing of claims as recommended, the Board of Directors of the 28 Trust Fund be authorized to submit a claim to the Guam Commission, on behalf of the 29 Trust Fund, for any person, who while eligible as a Category I or Category II claimant, 30 failed to file a claim for compensation. Any awards issued in such claims would be 31 deposited in the Trust Fund, and 32 Whereas, the Review Commission further recommends that in the event that an 33 individual refuses in writing to accept an award and files the refusal with the Board of 34 Directors of the Trust Fund, the amount of such award would pass to the Fund and no 35 payment may be made to such individual at any time after such refusal. Additionally, 11

13 credit for uncashed checks that become stale after the normal one-year period should be transferred to the Fund and should be reissued to the payee, and Whereas, the Review Commission recommends that the activities of the Trust Fund should be modeled after the fund established the Aleutian and Pribilof Island Trust Fund to sponsor research and educational activities, so that the events surrounding the wartime occupation and liberation of 'Guam as well as the loyalty of the People of Guam will be remembered, and so that the causes and circumstances of this and other wartime events may be illuminated and understood, now therefore be it Resolved, that I Mina Bente Ocha Na Liheslaturan Guahan does hereby express its unequivocal endorsement of the Guam War Claims Review Commission "Report on the Implementation of the Guam Meritorious Claims Act of 1945 and the findings and recommendations contained therein, and be it further Resolved, that I Mina Bente Ocha Na Liheslaturan Guahan does hereby petition Guam's Delegate to the United States Congress, the Honorable Madeleine Z. Bordallo, to immediately introduce legislation implementing the recommendations contained in the report of the Guam War Claims Review Commission, and be it further Resolved, that I Mina Bente Ocha Na Liheslaturan Guahan does hereby petition the United States Congress to support the expedited passage of the House Resolution introduced by U. S. Congressional Delegate Bordallo implementing the Recommendations contained in the Report of the Guam War Claims Review Commission, and be it further Resolved, that I Mina Bente Ocha na Liheslaturan Guahan does hereby petition the President of the United States, the Honorable George W. Bush to show his support for the findings and recommendations made by the Guam War Claims Review Commission by directing the relevant Secretaries and Federal Agency heads to expedite their favorable responses and comments to the Report and the Legislation to be introduced implementing the recommendations, and be it further Resolved that the Speaker certify to and I Liheslaturan Guahan's Secretary attest the adoption hereof and that copies of the same be thereafter transmitted to the Governor of Guam, the Guam Delegate to Congress, the Chairman, Foreign Claims Settlement Commission, the Director, Office of Management and Budget, the Secretary of the Interior, the Attorney General of the United States, the Secretary of State, the Chairperson of the Committee on Resources and Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources and the 12

14 .. I Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate, and The President of the United States of 2 America, 3 4 DULY AND REGULARLY ADOPTED ON THE DAY OF JANUARY 2005 Edwardo B. Calvo, Legislative Secretary Mark Forbes, Speaker 13