February 25, 1980
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD —-HOUSE
the {sland where many have waited over
30 years to obtain adequate compensation from the Federal Government for
lands taken unfairly by U.S. military
forces. It is only fair and just that they
be granted interest payments sinceanything less would result in claimants who
now are pursuing their claims before
the U.S. district courts being paid in
1946 dollars. Obviously, that would be un-
thinkable and the payment of interest
is in the best interest of this country.
Section .301 of title ITI of. H.R. 3756,
which is nn act to authorize appropriations: for certain insular areas of the
United States and for other purposes,
proposes to amend subsection (C) of sec-
tion 204 of Public Law 95-134, the Guam
Omnibus Act, by deleting the second
sentence of the subsection. The effcct of
this changeis to provide for the payment
of interest on awards made under the
act.
\
The existing law grants authority to
- the District Court of Guam to review
claims of persons, their heirs, or legatees, from whom interests in land on
Guam were acquired by the United
States between July 21, 1944 and August
23, 1963, where the property was acquired by the United States other than
through adjudicaticn following contested judicial condemnation proceed-
ings in the District Court of Guam. .
.
H 1233
will continue to apply without change.
These are: Did the United States acquire
extend their remarks on the legislation
just considered,
and August 23, 1963 for less than fair
objection to the request of the gentle-
property in Guam between July 21, 1944
market value because of: First, duress,
unfair influence. or other unconscionable
actions; or second, unfair, unjust, and.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there
man from California?
There was no objection.
i
x
e.
+,
inequitable action by the United States?
CONVEYANCE OF
There is no necessity that fraud be AUTHORIZING
‘LANDS IN THE CITY OF HOT
proven, and where duress is one of the
SPRINGS,ARK
|. grounds for providing additional compensation, there are others such as “unMr. PHILLIP BURTON. Mr. Speaker,
fair influence or other unconscionable I ask unanimous ccnsent for the imm>2actions,” and “unfair, unjust and in- Giate consideration of the Senate bill
equitable actions of the United States.” (S. 1850) to authorize the conveyance
Finally, I deeply regret the circum- of lands in the city of Hot Springs. Ark.
stances which led to the deletion of my
The Clerk read the title of the Senate
proposed amendment which would have bill.
a
excluded Guam from several] provisions
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there
of the Clean Air Act. Up to the present Objection to the request of the gentletime I remain unconvinced that the in- man from California?
°
a*
clusion of Guam in the Clean Air Act has
There was no objection..
oe
any practical clean air benefits. It is with
The Clerk read the Senatebill, as folgreat reservation and reluctance that I lows:
foe
oo
§&. 1850
mt
.
acceded.to the request of GPA to delete
the proposed amendment. It is my sinBe it enacted by the Senate and Nouse
cere hepe, however, that the U.S. Envi-
ronmental Protection Agency will not
subordinate the legitimate interests of
Guam to its concern over amending the
Clean Air Act. Above all else, we must
think first about the economic problems
facing Gunm and I hope EPA will under«
stand my desire to save my constituents
of Representatives of the United States of
America tn Congress assembled, That noitwithstanding any provisions of the Act of
May 8, 1922 (42 Stat. 506), the Leo N. Levi
Memorial Hospital Assoctatioa Is authorized
‘to assign or convey all or any portion of or
interests In and to lots one and two, tn block-114 in the city of Hot Springs, Arzan-
sas, to a nonprofit corporation orpanized
Under these circumstances, whereit is ‘millions of dollars that should not be _ under the Iaws of the State of Arkansas, its
‘determined that less than fair market spent to mect the Clean Air Act standvalue was paid as a result of: First,
duress, unfair influence, or other unconscionable actions, or second, unfair,
ards that are not relevant to Guam.
In the original language of H.R. 3756,
I asked for 2 30-year extension of GPA's
loan guarantees. Anything less, Ireasoned
unjust, and inequitable actions of the
United States, fair compensation can be
now provided to the former landowners.
in my statements, would impose an un-
under the present Jaw.
The existing statute prevides that fair
that throughout my support of GPA in
becrable financial obligation on Guam’s
successors or assigns, for the purpose of
erecting and maintaining thereon a housing facility for. the elderly. Execution of
such assignment or conveyance by the Leo N. Levi Memorlal Hospital Associztion and
execution
of mertgrees by said ponprost
re.
corporation or its. successors or assigns, irg™
connection with the housing facility, shai
hot constitute a forfeiture of any rights *~
In otner words, an award can be made in hard-pressed power users who pay what
such amcunt as will insure that the may be one of the world’s highest rates Granted to the Leo N. Levi Memorial THospital Association by said Act of May 8, 1922.
former landowners will receive fair come .for electricity.
i
,
If at any time after lots one or two of block
pensation for their properties. Land acAt the Senate hearings on H.R. 3756, 114 are assigned or
conveyed to said nonquisitions which were effected through GPA testified strongly in favor of a re- ‘profit
corpora
the Property is used or
judicial condemnation proceedings in duction of the payback period from 30 permitted to tion
be used for Purposes other
which the issue of compensation was years to only 10 years. As a result the
than housing facilities for the elderly
or the
adjudicated in a contested trial in the Senate deferred to GPA's request,
purpose
s
provided for in the Act of May 8
.
_
1922,
aH
District Court of Guam, remained res
the
rights,
privileges, and powers
My concerns have been expressed to
judicata and are not subject to review the Senate and I want to make it clear in such property authorized by this Act or
compensation to the former landowners
will be those additional amounts which
are necessary to effect payment of fair
market value at the time of acquisition.
In other words, this is a remedial statute
which provides relief for former landwners in Guam whose property was
taken by unfair means or under unfair
circumstances, The nature of this unfairness must be proven in court in order
to authorize the award. The proposed
amendment would merely permit these
lancowners to obtain interest on such
additional compensation, from the date
their fiscal problems, my major concern
has always been to seek ways to reduce
power rates on Guam in any manner
that is practical and consistent with
prudentfiscal management,
‘
Thank you.9
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there
objection to the request of the gentleman
from California (Mr. Puiriie Burton)
_ that the House amendments to the Sen-
ate amendment be considered as read
and printed in the Recorp?
There was no objection. .
;
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is ther
the date of the payment of the new
objection to the initial request of the
gentleman from California (Mr. Procure
Burton) ?
land over the intervening period without
There was no objection.
A motion to reconsider was laid. on
the table.
of its acquisition by the United States to
award. This is no more than fair because the Government has used the
having paid full value forit.
I would like to emphasize that, with
the exception of now allowing interest on
the new awards, no changes are made in
the existing statute by section 301 of
TLR. 3756. On the contrary, the same.
tests'as are nowset forth in the statute
GENERAL LEAVE
Mr. PHILLIP BURTON.I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5
legislative days in which to revise and
May 8, 1923,* shell be forfelted
t ofStates.
saldAc
by
United
to the
Mr. PHILLIP BURTON. Mr. Speaker
the Comunittee on Interior and
Insular
Affairs amended S. 1850 to add
&wo pro-
visions which have previously been approvedby the House this Conzress.
Section 2 of the revised bill amen
ds
the Land and Water Conservation
Fund
Act of 1965 to permit additional
acaui-~
sition funds of up to the greaterof
either
@ million dollars or 10 percent of &@ leg-
Islative ceiling to be appropriat
ed in a
given fiscal year, in the case of limit
a~
tions enacted for national recre
ation
areas prior to the 96th Congress. This
is
an extension of similar authority whic
h
already exists for oll similar cellings enacted prior to the 95th Coneress.
The:
House earlier passed an extension
of this
authority for all national park syste
m.
and related areas. This latest versi
on,
however, would apply only-to these
national recreation areas whose authoriza-
tions were fixed during the 95th Con-“#'
gress. In thecase of the Santa Monic
a‘* .
Mountains National Recreation Area
Statute, which contains authorizations
”