The Treaty of Paris, by which Guam was ceded to the United States from Spain, should have been the vehicle to speedily provide the basic mechanism by which the Chamorros will attain the greatest measure of self-government. Apparently, as if by some sort of conspiracy, between the U.S. President and the Congress and in cahoots with Spain, entered into a treaty which provides that the future political and civil status of the natives of Guam shall be determined by Congress.

Guam is a distant island and Congress is not indisposed to ambitiously look for the welfare of the Chamorros, especially after relegating the Chamorros as mere commodities. There were a phenomenal steady but slow growth in the social, educational, economic, aspirations of the people of Guam. This pace in steady but slow growth was to be expected after the administration of the island was assigned to the Navy Department.

Gradually Chamorros, like our ancestral leader, Hurao, by instinct, began to understand the fundamental principles of democracy, its central value being the rights of individuals. The quest for enjoyment of the full protection of the Constitution and the rights enjoyed by other Americans began to be felt and remissed. Somewhere, we have been cheated. We are only half American.

The Congress allows Guam to freely express the type of relationship most desirable to the well being of the people of Guam. I join the ranks of those who felt that it is fundamentally significant to embody in the act the principle of self-determination. To strike this down is to invalidate free expression, freedom of choice as to the type of relationship between the United States and the people of Guam that best promotes and enhances their common desire and interests.

Let me rephrase this-that to strike down the Chamorros rights of self-determination as expressed in the Draft Act as repugnant to the Constitution is like a strike call before the pitcher throws a ball to a batter.

Thank you for the honor and privilege to testify before this subcommittee.

Mr. DE LUGO. Thank you very much, Mr. Sanchez. [Prepared statement of Mr. Sanchez follows:]

Statement of Vicent Q. Sanchez

State of Hawaii, Dec. 12, 1989

Mr. chairman and members of the committee conducting this heering on the proposed Guam Commonwealth Act at the outset, I like to identify myself as simply an ordinary Chamorro from the tiniest village in the island of Guam, Umatac. My name is Vicente Q. Sanchez, a private citizen. I have been inspired by the call of our leaders in Guam for us Chamarro to stand up and help the cause for a Chamorro Commonwealth status or improve relationship with United States.

Time and again the orbital chracter that the island of Guam has been experiencing with the United States was reflected by island leaders as a continuing political stuggle and drama of well over 90 years. What is the Chamarro people struggling for in this span of time, or was it really 90 years of some form of denial or oppression?

Until recently, we began to put into a framework the thoughts that seems to be a mystery in our character as people. We call it the Chammorro right of self determination, When such an expression was first ennunciated, it brought about some public revulsion and one segment of the Guam population thought that it was to be trampled upon by the other segment.

But we can relieve our thoughts and feeling by looking back at where the march of history has stumbled.

The first white men from Europe, the Spaniards discovered Guam in 1521. Within several decades after Spain colonized the island the conflicts that ensued between the colonizing nation and the Chammorros were in fact blunted by the messianic mission of the Catholic fathers.

The driving forces of the Spaniards and their seemingly apparent purpose to put the Chommoro under bondage let to the resurgent of civil disobediant by the Chammoros that has a far reaching effect.

Mr. chairman, It was in 1671 that a bold, Chammorro chief by the name of Hurao who with a vision addressed a group of Chamorro Chiefs in the ancient village of Agana. I made copies available to all of you of that speech.

Mr. chairman and members of the Committee, this speech was the first advocacy of a Chamoro chief Hurao and leader to shake of the yoke of an oppressive ruler (Spain) as it was clear to the Chamorro people that it is not destined to promote the Chamorro liberty and customs, in fact sought to destroy them. Mr. chairman, let me be the first to insist that the forerunner of our present guest to provide the Chamorro people a constitutional governmrnt, base on the choosing of that group of people that properly fall within the mmeaning of the draft Act which states that he people of Guam also ask for special recognition by our federal government of the inaleinable democratic rights of the decendants of the

original Chamorros, to ultimately chose for ourselves the nature and extent of our political relationship with the United States.

The treaty of Paris by which Guam was ceded to United States from Spain should have been the vehicle to speedily provide the basic mechanism by which the Chamorros will attain the greatest measure of self-government. Apparently as if by some sort of conspiracy, between the U.S. President and the Congress and in cahoot with Spain entered into a treaty which provide that the future political and civil status of the native of Guam shall be determind by Congress.

Guam is a distant island and Congress is not indisposed to ambitiousely look after the welfare of the Chamorros, specially after relegating the Chamorros as mere commodities, there were a phenomenal steady but slow growth in the social, educational, economic, aspirations of the people of Guam. This pace in steady but slow growth was to be expected after the administration of the island was assigned to the Navy Department.

Gradually Chamorros, like our ancestral leader, Hurao, by instinct began to understand the fundamantal principles of democracy. Its central value being the rights of individuals. The quest for enjoyment of the full protection of the Constitution and the rights enjoyed by other Americans began to be felt and remissed. Some where, we have been cheated. We are only half Americans!!

There are many living example and evidence that the full meaning and protection of the Constitution do not cover the people of Guam. The solution is to devise a system where constitutional acomodation can be assured. Such a plan is conceived in the proposed Commonwealth Act for Guam.

The Congress allows Guam to freely express the type of relationship most desirable to the welbeing of the people of Guam. I join the ranks of those who felt that it is fundemantely significant to embody in the Act the pprinciple of Selfdetermination. To strike this down is to invvalidate free expression, freedom of choice as to the type of relationship between United States and the people of Guam that best promote and enhance their common desire and interests.

Let me rephrase this, that to strike down the Chamorros rights of self determination as expressed in the Draft Act as repugnant to the constitution is like a "strike" call before a picher throws a ball to a batter!!

Thank you for the honor and privilege to testify before this committee.

SPEECH OF CHIEF HURAO BEFORE OTHER

CHAMORO CHIEFS IN THE ANCIENT VILLAGE OF

AGANA IN 1671, FOR THE CHAMORROS TO RISE AND

PROTECT THEIR LIBERTY AND CUSTOMS AGAINST THE SPANIARDS

"The European", he said would have done better to remain in their own country. We have no need of their help to live happily. Satisfied with what our islands furnish us, we desire nothing else. The knowledge which they have given us has only increased our needs and stimulated our desires. They find it evil that we do not dress. If that were necessary, nature would have provided. They treat us as gross people and regard us as barbarians. But do we have to believe them? Under the pretext of instructing us they are corrupting us. They take away from us the primitive simplicity in which we live. They dare to take away our liberty which should be dearer to us than life itself. They try to persuade us that we will be happier and some of us have been blinded into believing their words. But can we have such sentiments if we reflect that we have been covered with misery and maladies ever since these foreigners have come to disturb our peace? Before they arrived on the island we did not know insects. Did we know rats, flies, mosquitoes and all the other little animals which constantly torment us? These are the beautiful presents they have made to us. And what have their floating machines brought us? Formerly we did not have rhumatism and inflamation. If we had sicknesse we had remedies for them. But they have brought us their diseases but do not teach the remedies. Is it necessary that our cupidity and evil desires make us want to have iron and other bagatelles which only render us unhappy? The Spaniards reproach us bcause of our poverty, ignorance and lack of industry. But if we are poor, as they claim, then what do they search for here? If they didn't need us, they would not express themselves to so many perils and make such great efforts to establish themselves in our midst. For what purpose do they teach us except to make us adopt their customs and subject ourselves to their laws and lose the precious liberty left to us by our ancestors? In a word they try to make us unhappy in the hope of an ephomoreal happiness which can be enjoyed only after death.

They treat our history as fables and fictions. Haven't we the same right concerning that which they teach us as incontestable and good faith. All their skill is directed towards tricking us; all their knowledge tends only to make us unhappy. If we are ignorant and blind, as they would have us beleive, it is because we have learned their evil plans too late and have allowed them to settle here. Let us not loose courage in the presence of our misfortune. They are only a handful. We can easily defeat them. Even though we do not have their deadly weapons which spread distruction all over, we can overcome them by our number. stronger than we think and we can quickly free ourselves from these foreigners and regain our former freedom.

We are

Mr. DE LUGO. I want to thank all of the members of this panel for your presentations.

The Chair would like to announce that we will have one more panel and then we are going to break for lunch. The next panel will be Mr. Poka Laenui, Mr. Carl J.C. Aguon, Mr. Antonio T. Artero, Ms. Maria G. Iglesias, and Soledad A Lujan.

I want to welcome you all here before the subcommittee. We will begin with the testimony of Mr. Poka A. Laenui.

PANEL CONSISTING OF POKA LAENUI, ANTONIO T. ARTERO, MARIA G. IGLESIAS, AND CARL J.C. AGUON

Mr. LAENUI. Greetings to everybody. I am Poka Laenui, I am a Hawaiian. I am not Guamanian, I am not American.

Mr. Chairman, I have already submitted my written testimony before this committee and therefore, I will not stick very closely to that, because I believe the committee will make it a part of its record anyway.

Mr. DE LUGO. Yes, it will.

Mr. LAENUI. I speak in behalf of the World Council on Indigenous People, which has consultative status with the United Nations and we are in what is known as being in Category II. We have very much engaged in advocacy of human rights for indigenous people throughout the world. The document explains the different memberships we have in various regions of the world of indigenous people. As I said, I will not go through all the documents. However, I do want to express some thoughts, having been requested by various Chamorro people to express our views on this subject

matter.

First, I would like to say that the Guam Draft Commonwealth Act now before this committee and before the United States Congress cannot be hidden under the cloak of internal affairs of the United States. This matter falls squarely within the process of decolonization. The mere labeling of Guam by its administrative power, the United States of America, as a unincorporated territory does not alter the fact that we do have a situation where the colonized are crying out for decolonization.

Mr. Chairman, we have heard the term self-determination used over and over and over again before this subcommittee. What I would like to do in the interest of saving time is address two specific points and that point is self, and the second point is determination.

Mr. Chairman, what we have seen, what I have heard, and having visited Guam, is that what we have throughout the Pacific is too often times a manipulation of the self so that the people who are actually making the determination of what their future status should be is not its self, not the people who supposedly should be making that decision, but oftentimes an altered self, altered by the administrating powers or those who are called the trustees whoever the trust people.

Let me give you a very specific example:

When the United States controls transmigration into Guam and when the United States says we shall determine who will participate in this election, the United States is altering this self. When