at least in the case of the Miami Indians, and the same thing is true with you, that that claim is vis-a-vis the Federal Government and not against innocent landowners in 2.6 million acres, and we framed this legislation as narrowly as possible, despite the parallel legislation that was pending a year ago in the Senate, which was broad-based legislation, which would do what the distinguished ranking member said, and that is simply to obliterate all claims of Native Americans.

We do not want to do that. We want to effect justice for everybody, but justice also includes people who were not around in 1805, just like Illinois was not a state in 1805, and still be able to strike a balance on your behalf.

So I do respect and appreciate your testimony as well as the indulgence of the members of the Committee and hope that you agree that our approach is one that is moderate and fair.

Mr. HAYWORTH. I thank the gentleman from Illinois.
Gentleman from Hawaii, any questions, comments?
Mr. ABERCROMBIE. No.

Mr. HAYWORTH. My friend from New Mexico? Friend from Texas? New Jersey, Mr. Pallone?

Mr. PALLONE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I just wanted to take issue with what my colleague from Illinois said. I think this is a major change in policy here with this bill. I mean, the way I understand it, basically, you would be extinguishing the land claims, and, you know, that is a pretty meaningful, significant thing that would happen here. And it also, I think, sets a bad precedent for other land claims that might be out there not only in Illinois but in other states that would just sort of, you know, willy nilly extinguishing land claims without an opportunity for, you know, for the tribes and others to have some sort of negotiations.

Just listening to what the panel said, I think that it was quite clear that the panel members were saying, you know, look: we have these claims out there. We want to be able to sit down and have some sort of consultation and some sort of opportunity to negotiate this issue. One of the suits was dropped, I think, because the feeling was that, you know, rather than take this to court, it made more sense to try to sit down and work this out.

And this is what is done throughout the country with land claims. We just had the situation in New York State, where there were a number of land claims, and they sat down with the Governor and the state representatives, and they worked out their differences and came to a settlement that, from what I understand, the legislature, the Governor and everyone I mean, I am sure that everyone is not always happy with anything, but it seemed to me that most of the people who were involved were very happy with that result.

And I think the same thing can happen here. I think it is very premature for us to try to move legislation that would extinguish the claims when the precedent in Indian Country is the opposite, which is to sit down and consult. From what I understand, there has been no consultation or very little consultation if any with the tribes on this issue, and I just wanted to ask Jacqueline Johnson: my understanding from what you said in your testimony is that

you have actually talked about an alternative solution that would have some structure in terms of arbitration or some kind of consultation.

Did you want to maybe elaborate that on a little more? It sounded eminently reasonable to me, and I just wanted you to, you know, give a little more detail if there is some detail.

Ms. JOHNSON. Well, basically, what we are trying to say is following pretty much on what you just said is that there needs to be an opportunity for the tribes to build the record. You actually heard comments and questions given to both of these tribal members, representatives here today, and help build records. And on both sides, there are records on both sides that people need to sit down and to discuss those, to negotiate.

We saw the cases with the Oneidas of Wisconsin, the Stockridge Muncies, the other tribes who have been going through these various land claims processes and negotiating them out with the states and trying not to harm innocent landowners as well as innocent tribal members who had their lands taken away from them to work those things through.

Sometimes, you know, the lawsuits continue, and the court helps resolve those, but in most cases, they are done through a negotiated process, and I would just recommend that that negotiated process continue.

Mr. PALLONE. And to me, that makes sense. One thing here today, and I think my colleague Mr. Kildee made the point, what we are saying with this legislation is that we do not want to do that. We just want to extinguish the claims, and I think it is an affront to Indian sovereignty, and it is an affront to our obligations under the Constitution that, you know, treaties have to be upheld, and we should not just get in there and overrule everything with this legislation.

I think it is a huge mistake, and I would hope that we would not move the bill.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. HAYWORTH. I thank the gentleman from New Jersey.

The Chair just feels constrained to follow up on this whole notion that Ms. Johnson raises in her testimony and my colleague from New Jersey brought up now. In terms of land claims and a sufficient record being developed, in part what we are doing here today with the hearing on the legislation-Ms. Johnson, when do you consider the record fully developed, and how long do you believe Congress should allow the process to go on before there is Congressional involvement vis-a-vis legislation?

Ms. JOHNSON. I do not know that you can put a timeframe on that, and like I said in my testimony, every case is individual. And every case has different circumstances. Even the three tribes that are mentioned here today, they all have totally different circumstances. And so, you know, the record develops as you come through negotiations. I know that the Department of the InteriorI believe that they are also wishing that we would allow the process to continue.

You, Mr. Chairman, as much as anybody else in this room, know the frustrations we have dealt with with dealing with the Department of the Interior on a number of other issues. And at some

point, you know, when we feel like we have no other recourse, we always turn to you and to the Members of Congress to assist us through that. I just think it is a little premature at this point in this particular case. And I am very concerned about the precedent it may set for other states where these issues have not been fully discussed or developed.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Thank you, ma'am, for your amplification on that particular issue.

The gentleman from Oklahoma?

Mr. CARSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Let me say I have a great personal interest in this matter, as Mr. Angelo and the Ottawa Tribe are my constituents in northeast Oklahoma, and my father was superintendent of the Potawatomi Tribe reservation as well as the Kickapoo and Iowa and Sackenfox reservations in the 1970's, so I know that area well.

I do think it is important when we try to adjudicate these very complicated land disputes with a history that goes back now well over a century that involves archival evidence that is sometimes very difficult to retrieve and to assimilate, that we take these matters very deliberately and work as slowly as possible.

Now, I understand the concerns of Mr. Johnson, Mr. Shimkus and Mr. Phelps in saying that for the current landowners that we do not want to hold them responsible for what they have called the sins of the past. We need to be very careful that we, ourselves, do not commit the sins of the past in extinguishing land title for tribes that exists validly, as Mr. Kildee points out, recognized in the Constitution and as a tremendous asset to these tribes, tribes that, many times, find themselves bereft of those kinds of efforts.

And so, let me thank the panelists for being here. Let me state my opposition to this bill as it currently is and urge everyone on the Committee who is concerned about these issues to go very slowly in trying to deal with these matters and let the tribes develop the kind of archival record it takes to properly ascertain who has title to these lands.

Mr. HAYWORTH. I thank the gentleman from Oklahoma.

Any questions from the majority side or comments at this point? If not, happy to turn back to the minority and entertain any other comments or questions for this panel.

Hearing none, we thank the witnesses for their testimony and subsequent amplification of the testimony, and we look forward again to any written testimony they may want to offer in the days ahead to offer further quantification of their viewpoint.

Thank you to panel two.H.R. 521

Mr. HAYWORTH. Now, the Committee will entertain panel three, and this panel will deal with H.R. 521, the legislation sponsored by our friend from Guam, Mr. Underwood. And we welcome to the witness table Chris Kearney, the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy and International Affairs, from the Office of Policy Management and Budget in the Department of the Interior; the Honorable F. Philip Carbullido, the Acting Chief Justice of the Guam Supreme Court, obviously from the Supreme Court of Guam; and the Honorable Alberto C. Lamorena III, Presiding Judge of the Superior Court of Guam.

Welcome all to the table, and we thank our witnesses from earlier, and as we have a little rearranging and people meeting their schedules, we will allow for the traffic of both witnesses and those in the public area to subside, and we will allow you to get a glass of water to deal with dehydration. Those of us from Arizona have more than a casual interest in water. So if you would like to get a drink of water, we are happy to have that.

And first, we will hear from Deputy Assistant Director Kearney. Welcome, sir, and we look forward to your testimony.

STATEMENT OF CHRIS KEARNEY, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY, POLICY AND INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS, OFFICE OF POLICY MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Mr. KEARNEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and good morning, members of the Committee.

It is a pleasure for me to be here to appear before you today to discuss the administration's views on H.R. 521, a bill to amend the Organic Act of Guam to clarify Guam's local judicial structure. H.R. 521 would establish the local court system of Guam as a third coequal and unified branch of government alongside the legislative and executive branches of the Government of Guam.

Enacted by Congress, the Organic Act of Guam is the equivalent of a constitution in one of the 50 states. Amendments over time have continually added to self-government in the territory. The Organic Act established a Legislature and was later amended to change the executive from an appointed Governor to an elected Governor and in 1984 to authorize the Legislature to establish a local appeals court.

In 1994, under the authority granted in the Organic Act, the Legislature of Guam established a Supreme Court. But 2 years later, the Legislature removed from the Supreme Court its administrative authority over the Supreme Court of Guam, and since then, Guam has had a bifurcated local court system at a time when virtually all states have unified court systems.

It is argued that only-I am sorry. H.R. 521 would amend the judicial provisions of the Organic Act of Guam to specifically name the Supreme Court as Guam's appellate court and outline the powers of the Supreme Court, including full administrative authority for the Supreme Court over the local court system. It is argued that only an act of Congress can bring unity and dignity to Guam's local courts. Proponents of H.R. 521 suggest that if the Legislature retains control, the court system is subject to influence by the Legislature. Only by placing local court authority in Guam's "Constitution," that is, the Organic Act of Guam, can the judiciary of Guam be a coequal and independent branch of the government.

Opponents suggest that the system is working fine and that an administrative function divided between the Supreme Court and the Superior Court is healthy for the judicial system.

The structure of Guam's local judiciary is largely a self-government issue for Guam. As such, opinion from Guam should be given the greatest consideration as long as issues of overriding Federal interest are not involved. In 1997, the executive branch examined H.R. 2370, an earlier version of the bill under consideration today.

A number of suggestions were made at the time for improving the bill and harmonizing it with the Federal court system. H.R. 521 includes the suggested modifications in language. The administration, therefore, has no objection to the enactment of H.R. 521 in its present form.

That concludes my statement. I would be happy to answer any questions.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Kearney follows:]

Statement of Christopher Kearney, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy and International Affairs, U.S. Department of the Interior

Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, it is a pleasure for me to appear before you today to discuss the Administration's views on H.R. 521—a bill to amend the Organic Act of Guam to clarify Guam's local judicial structure. H.R. 521 would establish the local court system of Guam as a third co-equal, and unified branch of government, alongside the legislative and executive branches of the Government of Guam.

Enacted by the Congress, the Organic Act of Guam is similar to a constitution in any of the fifty states. Amendments over time have continually added to self-government in the territory. The Organic Act established a legislature. It was later amended to change the executive from an appointed Governor to an elected Governor, and in 1984, to authorize the Legislature to establish a local appeals court. In 1994, under the authority granted in the Organic Act, the Legislature of Guam established the Supreme Court of Guam. But, two years later, the Legislature removed from the Supreme Court its administrative authority over the Superior Court of Guam. Since then Guam has a bifurcated local court system at a time when virtually all states have unified court systems.

H.R. 521 would amend the judicial provisions of the Organic Act of Guam to specifically name the Supreme Court of Guam as Guam's appellate court, and outline the powers of the Supreme Court, including full administrative authority for the Supreme court over the local court system.

It is argued that only an act of Congress can bring unity and dignity to Guam's local courts. Proponents of H.R. 521 suggest that if the Legislature retains control, the court system is subject to influence by the Legislature. Only by placing local court authority in Guam's "constitution"-the Organic Act of Guam-can the judiciary of Guam be a co-equal and independent branch of the Government of Guam. Opponents suggest that the system is working fine, and that an administrative function divided between the Supreme Court and Superior Court is healthy for judicial system.

The structure of Guam's local judiciary is largely a self-government issue for Guam. As such, opinion from Guam should be given the greatest consideration, as long as issues of overriding Federal interest are not involved. In 1997, the Executive branch examined H.R. 2370, an earlier version of the bill under consideration today. A number of suggestions were made for improving the bill and harmonizing it with the Federal court system. H.R. 521 includes the suggested modifications in language. The Administration, therefore, has no objection to the enactment of H.R. 521 in its present form.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Thank you very much, sir.

And now, we turn to Chief Justice Carbullido. Mr. Acting Chief Justice, welcome. We appreciate your testimony.

STATEMENT OF THE HON. F. PHILIP CARBULLIDO, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE GUAM SUPREME COURT

Justice CARBULLIDO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee. For the record, my name is Philip Carbullido, and I am the acting chief justice of the Guam Supreme Court. It is an honor to speak before this distinguished Committee on a bill that will have a profound impact on the advancement of the Territory of Guam.