Mr. JOHNSON. The hour of 1:30 has arrived, and the subcommittee will resume its hearing on H. R. 12340. When we recessed this morning, Mr. Bordallo was on the witness stand.

Sir, we would like to ask you a question or two on your remarks included in your statement. First, I would like to say that we very much appreciate the statement that was given to the committee. It was an outstanding statement on behalf of yourself as a representative in the Guam Legislature. I presume that you have discussed this issue many times prior to this meeting in the legislature.

I am wondering just how many park and recreation areas have been set aside by the Government of Guam? What is their size, and what is their purpose?

Mr. BORDALLO. Mr. Chairman, at the present time I think there would be about half a dozen parks that have been officially set aside. The areas are not anywhere the size that is contemplated here. This is an area, I feel, that our government, involved in the rehabilitation of the people, has not been able at this point to fully implement.

Mr. JOHNSON. Now, as I understand the impact of your statement, you want to set these areas aside for posterity for the people of Guam. Now, your first comment was as to size. What would you recommend as a reasonable size for this proposed seashore?

Mr. BORDALLO. The three areas that we will at this point definitely agree to are the Fena watershed, naval ammo depot area, and the area along the coast from Sagua to Fua. Mr. Chairman, this would encompass a land area of perhaps 10,000 to 12,000 acres, plus the 4,500 acres encompassed by the tidelands, so this would leave about 2,000 to 3,000 acres contemplated to be within the seashore park under the jurisdiction of the Territory of Guam.

Mr. JOHNSON. Now, you realize you raise the question concerning the communities of Umatac and Merizo. You are quite familiar with national seashore legislation as it has been recommended heretofore by this committee as it relates to areas within the continental United States. Are you familiar with any of the national seashores that have been set aside in the United States?

Mr. BORDALLO. Mr. Chairman, I could not say that I am really intimately familiar with the parks. I am aware of certain ones, especially in the Cape Cod area. I lived in Boston for 2 years and have been in Providence, but as I understand it from the bill that is presented here, H.R. 12340, a national seashore allows for private uses and development within the park area.

Mr. JOHNSON. You mentioned Cape Cod. That was one that was very controversial to start with, as you may recall. We sat through all of the hearings and made field trips and finally, we worked out a piece of legislation that I think is satisfactory to most of the people.

Now, we had a very controversial area in California known as Point Reyes. We worked out all of the problems there, and I think now, under the master plan that has been developed, we are finding out that Point Reyes is quite acceptable to these people even though it was very controversial to start with.

Then there are others that have been provided for. I would say that, in the area of Umatac and Merizo, they would certainly give just consideration to those communities.

How much land, additional land, would you say should be set aside in those areas?

86-023-72- -5

Mr. BORDALLO. In that area, I would say an area of around 2,000 acres that is now encompassed by this report in the seashore would be under the territorial jurisdiction. These are the areas comprising the environment of two villages and the lowland areas that have long been occupied and utilized by the property owners and the Guamanians in this area. I think, in support of this again, Mr. Chairman, I would like to bring out that we in Guam, as Guamanians, are located and separated from the mainland not just by distance alone, by geography. I think I agree that the Guamanian people have certain ethnic and cultural aspects arising from their development not quite equal to the rest of the country, and therefore local autonomy in the development of the occupied village areas, we feel, ought to be within the territorial government and would not be out of consonance with the park objectives as a whole.

Mr. JOHNSON. I don't know how much zoning is in effect at the present time in those areas, but would you and the people of Guam be willing to work on the proper zoning for the National Park Service? Mr. BORDALLO. Yes, sir.

Mr. JOHNSON. Another matter of concern here is the relationship with the Guamanian people and the other Federal agencies that are found here on the island. I know there is a lot of criticism and opposition to the way some of the other Federal agencies carry on their activities here, but I am certain that your comments here, as they relate to the proposed naval pier, are something that we will be confronted with, too. Certainly, the military authorities who are found here now, especially the Navy, are interested in this facility, but it appears to be very controversial as far as the people of Guam and the Government of Guam are concerned.

Now, I know that if we were to set up a national seashore here. I am sure that it would be open to use-and the prime purpose of the national seashore here would be to protect the values that you see here now including the environment and the way of life-by all of the people of Guam. I am sure that you people would want it that way, that there would be no restriction in the area whatsoever.

You made comment about some of the facilities that were built on military lands here that were sort of for their purpose and for their purpose only, to the detriment of the people of Guam. Now, I don't know anything about the requirements of the military at this point, but I do know that if we were to establish a national seashore, it would be managed and operated much differently than military property.

You also raised the question here about actual operation of the facility. I can only say that if a national seashore is established I think every consideration would be given to Guamanian people having an opportunity to seek employment and become a part of it. I doubt, however, whether the Congress would authorize a national seashore and have it operated by the government of Guam, but this is just my personal opinion.

Mr. BORDALLO. On that point, Mr. Chairman, may I make a comment?

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes.

Mr. BORDALLO. We are certainly concerned about the control, but this is a point that is certainly also negotiable, and I think that, if there is a serious give and take, and consultation with the local

government and the local people as to the boundaries involved, and especially with the recognition of the proposal that would be advanced on reserving the occupied village areas to the jurisdiction of the territory of Guam, that we could understand the necessity of relinquishing the actual control, and perhaps the Government of Guam would base its discussion on a consultative position relative to the Park Service.

Mr. JOHNSON. Now, I think you mentioned land exchanges. This might be worked out, because there are some lands here, I am sure, that are excess to the needs of some of the Federal agencies. Probably an exchange for some of the territorial lands could be worked out for some of those properties.

Mr. BORDALLO. I would like to add to that, Mr. Chairman. I just want to mention that the Federal military holdings here originated with World War II. I was a boy here. I saw it. People were removed from their homes willingly, because we were preparing for the invasion of Japan. Subsequently came the Korean war with Guam playing also a valuable part. Most recently is the Vietnam war. The point is that Guam was occupied 80 percent by the military during the war with 250,000 troops on the island, and that we have never yet had real normalization of relations between the military and nonmilitary in Guam, because one national emergency has occurred after another. It has come to the point where we should take stock as to what ought to be military and what ought to be civilian, and this is where we now stand with regard to military holdings. We are requesting that the resolution requiring the General Services Administration, GSA, take inventory of the holdings of the Federal agencies, with the point that what is excess would be turned over to the territory of Guam. We do not in any way try to obstruct the military services from fulfilling their valid mission.

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. Burlison?

Mr. BURLISON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Senator, I would like to commend you on a very fine, comprehensive statement. I would like, for the purposes of the record, to summarize your position with respect to the acreage involved in the proposal. The master plan of the Park Service encompasses approximately 19,000 acres. Now, in your view, how many acres should our proposal be composed of?

Mr. BORDALLO. The 19,000 acres defines the total perimeter. Of that, 4,500 acres is tidelands, so the actual land area involved here is about 13,500 or 14,000 acres. So, of the 14,000 acres, I would say there would be no more than 2,000 acres that we feel should be in the territorial government's jurisdiction. That leaves a balance of 11,000 or 12,000 acres as part of the National seashore park with the 4,500 acres of tidelands.

Mr. BURLISON. And those 2,000 acres you would use in reserve for the two communities of Merizo and Umatac?

Mr. BORDALLO. Yes. These 2,000 acres are required by the local communities for two basic reasons: First, the living space for the communities that are there now, sir; and the second point is that these areas reserved for private use and development would be included in the taxrolls of the territory. It would prevent all development occurring, for example, in the actual cnbeach area, from becoming a kind of Waikiki. But what they would allow is the developing of well planned resort areas. I think the southern coast folks have small opportunity for developing that, and we feel it would contribute substantially to

the economy of the territory. So, from those two standpoints, we feel that this reserve area is vital to be left outside the control and ownership of the Seashore Park Service.

Mr. BURLISON. I would reiterate a point made by the chairman with respect to joint control, or Guamanian control and management of the seashore. I was pleased to hear you say that this is a matter that you think there would be a great deal of give and take on, and it is a matter that would be negotiable. I am pleased to hear that, because I think the Congress would be very reluctant to deviate from the practice that has always been followed with respect to the national parks and the national seashores, and I think the Congress would not agree to Guamanian control and management, or even joint control and management. I think that your suggestion of possibly consultation. close consultation, between your people and the Park Service is something that I think could be worked out.

Mr. BORDALLO. May I add there, sir, that in my opening statement, we sincerely and enthusiastically support the passage of this legislation. and we are for the seashore park. Therefore, whatever would prevent a seashore park from developing, we would be willing to negotiate. Mr. BURLISON. Thank you very much.

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. Ruppe?

Mr. RUPPE. I think the points that you have brought up certainly indicate that, while there is a good deal of natural concern over further Federal encroachment or acquisition, there seems to be a good deal of room, too, for negotiation or compromise, or at least further study of this proposal. I would suggest that in the communities of Umatac and Merizo, the Park Service would be very anxious to provide for the preservation of those historic cultural and present-day activities and sites. I am certain, too, that the Park Service would want to be sure that these communities had adequate area to grow into and develop into in the years ahead. I think that the Park Service is quite flexible in its attitude here, and I think, too, it should be brought out that while some of the land would have to be necessarily acquired in fee by the Federal Government, other land certainly could be left in private hands. Land could be left in private hands with certain easements or use restrictions on these lands. So there is, I think, a great deal of flexibility; not necessarily that all of these problems can be resolved, but I think there is a lot of room for agreement, or a lot of room, as you have indicated, for give and take on the part of the people in the government of Guam and the Federal Park Service.

On one point, however, I think the Congress would not accept any proposal for a Federal park that would be controlled by the Guamanian government, just as they have not accepted into the Park Service any lands on the mainland that are retained in any other control other than by the Park Service itself. If that were not the case, then perhaps you might well think about the possibility of State parks. We have a number of these in my own State of Michigan.

I might point out one other thing. There are advisory committees for national parks, seashores, lakeshores set up by the Secretary of the Interior to give the Secretary and the Park Service guidance in the application of the legislation that would govern it.

I note you are very concerned about any further acquisition of land by the Federal Government. I would be very interested in knowing what your feeling is toward what I understand is some very broad

land purchases and acquisitions by people from other countries here. I understand that in recent months a good deal of your private land has been acquired by people from Japan, Taiwan, or Hong Kong, and by business interests there. Would you care to comment on this acquisition and your feelings toward permitting this to continue?

Mr. BORDALLO. Yes, sir. As chairman of the Committee on Resources and Development, this is a problem within my area, and I have been involved with examining the operations of corporations that have come in here under tax incentives and other incentives from the Government. We are just concluding this part, but we are preparing to undertake an examination of the landownership, particularly of persons that are not citizens of the United States.

Now, the manner in which this is now occurring is that in the corporate laws of the territory, where there is no requirement now for residence or citizenship in the United States to start local corporations, to get a local charter, and any corporation locally chartered could own land, this did not exist prior to 19- I think 1967. There was a very strict law at that time that only U.S. citizens could own land, and it is from a change in the local statute that this situation now prevails. We are ready at this time to examine this matter. So as not to appear to be avoiding the issue, I would like to say at this time that a blanket denial of ownership or control of lands by aliens might not be desirable inasmuch as the bulk of the capital needed, arriving for development of our economy, seems to be coming from sources outside of the continental United States. So there might have to be acquisition and an allowance for this fact since, after all, economic development of the territory is most valuable in order that the citizens of Guam could enjoy a high standard of living. But, on the other hand, an indiscriminate ownership of land by noncitizens, we feel, is one of our serious problems in the territory, and we feel this should be controlled. Mr. RUPPE. Would you be in a position to estimate the amount of nongovernmentally owned land that is in the hands of non-U.S. citizens or corporate entities?

Mr. BORDALLO. Taking the rule that one-third of the territory of 150,000 acres is privately owned, the other two-thirds equally owned by the Federal and territorial governments, therefore taking off from the 50,000 acres privately owned, I would say that at this time no more than 5 percent is now alien owned. However, there are announced negotiations for sizable tracts, and these amount now to maybe as large as 10,000 acres, which we see is one-fifth of the land. They have not yet been consummated, so the handwriting is on the wall, but we feel we still have time to act.

Mr. RUPEE. One final question. Has the government of Guam acquired more land of its own, or released lands, or is the present ownership of lands by the Guamanian government something that has been a rather constant thing for the past decade or two?

Mr. BORDALLO. The government of Guam is holding large tracts of land, but these may have not been surveyed, because they were inaccessible and in high lands not usable even for agriculture. There are large sections of this. We now have a program on surveying the government of Guam land holdings, and there is a program of homesteading where small tracts will be made available to local landowners. But I would just like to state the need of the territory for public facilities is using up a good part of this land that we now own in the