Honorable James V. Hansen, Chairman U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Page 2 Currently, the executive and legislative branches of the government of Guam are creations of Guam's Organic Act, as is the Superior Court of Guam. I urge the House to make the existence and authority of Guam's Supreme Court a function of the Organic Act rather than local legislation. H.R. 521 is appropriate and carefully drafted, and I would ask the House to pass it as presently constituted. Once the authority of Guam's Supreme Court is organically institutionalized, the curative effect on Guam's other two branches of government should be inevitable. Sincerely, DOOLEY LANNEN ROBERTS & FOWLER LLP Thomas L. Roberts [A letter submitted for the record by The Hon. James E. Ryan, Attorney General, State of Illinois, on H.R. 791 follows:] May 6, 2002 The Honorable James V. Hansen House Committee on Resources Dear Congressman Hansen: On behalf of the People of the State of Illinois, the Attorney General of the State of Illinois wishes to submit the following written testimony expressing the State of Illinois' full support for H.R. 791, a bill that concerns the resolution of Indian land claims in Illinois. The Attorney General wishes to thank the U.S. House of Representatives' Committee on Resources for the opportunity to present this written testimony, and believes that the State of Illinois has experience with the subject of this legislation that will benefit the Committee's consideration of H.R. 791. H.R. 791. The proposed legislation concerns two specific treaty-based claims to lands in Illinois brought by Federal Indian tribes. One claim is based on the August 21, 1805 "Treaty of Grouseland." The other claim is based on the July 29, 1829 "Treaty with the United Nations, etc." The former treaty relates to a claim to 2.6 million acres in eastern Illinois, and the later treaty to much smaller claims to land in DeKalb county. Section (b) of H.R. 791 extinguishes all tribal claims based on both treaties, and Section (c) authorizes the claimant tribes to sue in the Court of Claims based on the treaties against the United States alone, for money damages. Tribal Land Claims In Illinois. The legislation is necessary and important to the State of Illinois because based on the foregoing treaties, Indian tribes have asserted that they are the true owners and title-holders of millions of acres of Illinois lands. As of the middle of the 19th Century, the United States government believed it had properly extinguished any tribal claims to Illinois land through a series of treaties with the tribes and others who lived in our State. After executing these treaties, the United States proceeded to open lands in Illinois to private settlement. For the past 150 years, the tribes never asserted that they retained land rights in Illinois. Moreover, in the 1950s and 1960s, the United States created a Federal administrative forum for Indian claims against the Federal Government called the Indian Claims Commission, and the tribes never brought their current claims before that tribunal. Recently, however, for the first time in over 150 years, the tribes have claimed that the United States breached certain early treaties, and that valid tribal claims to Illinois lands persist. The lands claimed by these tribes are currently owned primarily by private citizens, and have been in private ownership since as early as the middle of the 19th Century. The current owners trace their title back to 19th Century grants from the United States government. Tribal Land Claims Litigation. In June 2000, one tribe filed a Federal law suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois claiming that it was the rightful owner of 2.6 million acres of Illinois. (Miami Tribe v. Walden et al., No. 00 CV 4142). The tribe named as defendants 15 randomly chosen private citizens who owned land in each of the 15 Illinois counties covered by the claim. On behalf of the People of the State of Illinois, the Attorney General of Illinois moved to intervene in the litigation. This motion was granted, and the State of Illinois filed a motion to dismiss the tribe's suit. The State's motion asserted that the United States was the only proper defendant, and that the suit against innocent modern-day owners must be dismissed because it was barred by the sovereign immunity of the United States and the State of Illinois. In June of 2001, the tribe voluntarily withdrew its suit without defending against the State's motion. However, the tribe continues to talk publicly about its claim, that claim has not been extinguished by Congress or the courts, and the claim continues to cloud title and property values in a huge expanse of Illinois. Damage And Disrpution Caused By Tribal Land Claims. Despite the State's view that the tribal claims have no merit, the emergence of 21st century tribal claims that attack over 150 years of private ownership has adversely impacted land transactions and property values in our State. In particular, the Miami litigation caused great consternation in a 15-county area of east-central Illinois. Families who in some instances had held title to their farms for over 100 years were suddenly threatened with dispossession. The named defendant in the tribe's lawsuit was a 90year old senior citizen. The tribe's suit treated private landowners in the 2.6 million acre claim area as trespassers. To protect these innocent people, the State of Illinois was forced to pass legislation providing funding for the legal defense of landowners who in some cases had no title insurance and limited means to defend themselves. The State also retained certain private Special Assistant Attorneys General to assist in defending the novel historical and legal issues raised by the tribal claims. The Need For A Federal Solution. The State of Illinois feels that the tribal claims lack merit, and that the nearly 200 year-old treaties cited by the tribes do not create any heretofore unknown tribal rights to Illinois land. Against this background, H.R. 791 offers the claimant tribes a generous resolution to their current claims. These claims attack the validity of actions taken by the United States government nearly 200 years ago. The legislation before this Committee, H.R. 791, protects innocent modern day landowners by prohibiting the tribal claimants from asserting claims to Illinois land based on these ancient treaties. The legislation is also fair to the tribes, however, because it authorizes them to sue the United States directly in the Court of Claims, so that they may obtain a judicial hearing on the treaty breaches they have alleged. The State of Illinois expects that the result of such a hearing would be a finding that the tribal claims lack merit. On behalf of the People of the State of Illinois, the Attorney General wishes to thank the Committee for hearing this testimony. Sincerely James E. Ryan Attorney General of Illinois [A statement submitted for the record by The Hon. Joe T. San Agustin, Former Speaker of the Guam Legislature, on H.R. 521 follows:] Statement of The Honorable Joe T. San Agustin, Former Speaker of the Guam Legislature, on H.R. 521 Chairman Hansen and Members of the Committee on Resources: Thank you for affording me this opportunity to provide written testimony on H.R. 521, to Amend the Organic Act of Guam for the purposes of clarifying the local judicial structure of Guam. I am the former Speaker of the 20th, 21st and 22nd Guam Legislatures, and I had served ten (10) terms in the legislative branch as a Senator. I am currently the Chairman of the Democratic Party of Guam. As the former Speaker of the 21st Guam Legislature, I presided over the session of the Guam Legislature during which the bill was passed establishing the Supreme Court of Guam (Guam Public Law 21-147). This had been an effort many years in the making, and the Frank G. Lujan Memorial Act was a bipartisan bill that enjoyed widespread support within the legal community. The Court Reorganization Act, titled the "Frank G. Lujan Memorial Act", was an effort that had been undertaken with great care and deliberation and with numerous consultations with the legal community on Guam. From the first introduction of this bill in 1984 to its passage in 1993, we ensured that all segments of the community were consulted and that we were building a consensus. We knew that we were undertaking a most important court reorganization, and we wanted to be sure to get it right the first time. The Frank G. Lujan Memorial Act passed unanimously in 1993 in the 21st Guam Legislature and was signed into law by a Republican Governor. There was no controversy then concerning Judicial oversight by the Supreme Court, and administrative and policy-making authority by the Supreme Court over the lower courts. These are relatively new issues, but we considered these settled issues in 1993 when the enabling legislation was passed. The lesson that we now have learned is that the stability of the Supreme Court and the Judicial branch requires certainty that the Supreme Court would be insulated from the politics of the moment to do what is right for the Judicial branch and to avoid involvement in local politics. This can only be accomplished by ensuring that the Supreme Court of Guam is a "constitutional" court, by amending the Organic Act of Guam as H.R. 521 does. I would like to point out that the Frank G. Lujan Memorial Act was a bipartisan effort, and that at that particular point in time, no one could predict whether a Democratic or Republican Governor would have the honor of appointing the first Supreme Court Justices after the gubernatorial elections of 1994. In a sense, we were operating based on our concept of how to best establish a strong and independent Judiciary, and we were free from the calculations of political advantage due to the timing of the gubernatorial election two years later. We worked to ensure a Judicial branch that was a co-equal branch of government, that had its own internal administrative structure, and that was unified. Since 1993, we have seen the turbulence caused by the legislature's exercise of its power to revisit the Judicial structure, and we have seen the negative consequences of an internal struggle over the authority of the Supreme Court of Guam. This is unfortunate and a step backward from where we wanted the Judiciary to be in 1993. H.R. 521 clarifies the role of the Supreme Court of Guam as a constitutional court, and establishes the administrative structure of the Judicial branch as is the case throughout the United States. To do otherwise is to accept that Guam can have a Judiciary very different from that of the other states and territories with no rational basis for the distinction. Congress amends the Organic Act of Guam. If there were another recourse, perhaps we would not need H.R. 521, but the only means now available to the people of Guam to establish a Supreme Court of Guam as a constitutional court is the Congressional process. H.R. 521 is needed to ensure a Judicial branch as a co-equal and independent branch of the Government of Guam. I strongly urge the Committee on Resources to report out H.R. 521 and I urge Congress to pass this bill for Guam. [A letter submitted for the record by Marcelene C. Santos, President, University of Guam, on H.R. 521 follows:] RE: HLR. 521-- Organic Act Amend cat, Judicial Structure of Guam Dear Rep. Hansen: I write this letter in support of HR. 521 that is scheduled for a legislative hearing on May 8, 2002, I am a Chamorro woman and a practicing attorney, licensed in both Guam and California. Since my return to Guam in 1993, I have witnessed many instances of what has been termed “only on Guam” (OOG). As an attorney the “OOG” regarding the Supreme Court of Guam is untenable. The "separation of powers" is the principle that ensures checks and balances among the three (3) branches of government. In the U.S. Constitution, the Supreme Court is established as one of the three (3) branches of the federal government and the Congress, as another branch, is empowered only to establish all lower federal counts. In the Organic Act the opposite is true. Currently the provision regarding the courts of Guam, 48 U.S.C. § 1424(a), grants the Legislature of Guam the authority to establish the local courts of Guam, and as of January 5, 1985, was further authorized to establish at its discretion an appellate court. In 1998, Substitute Bill 495 was passed by the Guam Legislature to update Guam's Solid Waste Management Plan, commonly referred to as "the Garbage Bill," and also had a rider which acted to reorganize the distribution of power within the judicial branch. It supposedly lapsed into law as Public Law 24-139 without action by the Governor but it was challenged successfully. The Supreme Court of Guam that was upheld by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that PL 24-139 was never enacted into law since there was a valid pocket veto of the bill sent to the Governor of Guam. However, the legal battle surrounding Bill 495 lasted more than three (3) years and created dysfimction and dissention within the courts of Guam. |