developmental areas. Now, in the other areas, we have need for just simply not parks, but it even has to do with the water resources where we could not open up large some of these areas because they are vital to the ground water that is needed, you know, as much of our source of water is from wells, deep wells. So we could not say that this land owned by the government of Guam would be given to private use and development. I think a large part of this would have to be retained as part of our resources.

Mr. RUPPE. Senator, as you step aside, could you mark on the map that portion of the seashore that you feel the Federal ownership in any seashore should be limited to?

Mr. BORDALLO. From this area all the way to here.

Mr. RUPPE. Coming just short of Umatac, is that right?

Mr. BORDALLO. Yes; that's right; and the mountain areas.

Mr. RUPPE. Thank you very much, Senator.

Mr. JOHNSON. Senator, just one other question. Is there a land tax here in Guam at the present time?

Mr. BORDALLO. There is, sir.

Mr. JOHNSON. What would be the loss if this were to be enacted. roughly?

Mr. BORDALLO. At this point, sir, quite insubstantial-quite insubstantial at this time. I really could not estimate, but less than a million dollars.

Mr. JOHNSON. I would like to get that figure for the record, because the chairman of our full committee is very much concerned with this particular matter.

Now, as I viewed the land here, I don't know what your land tax amounts to for lands that are not developed. Most of the developed areas there would be left on the tax rolls in the national seashore in the way of improvements that are found there in the two communities. Now, as to the other lands, I don't know what your land tax amounts to. Could you give us that, just roughly?

Mr. BORDALLO. The land tax now is 3 percent of assessed value, which is 35 percent of the market. My rule of thumb is 1 percent of the appraised value. Presently, the tax structure of that area is, as I said earlier, quite insubstantial, probably no more than a quarter of a million dollars. That is a safe amount.

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, I would hope that you would develop these figures further, and we will accept them for the record.

Mr. BORDALLO. We will be happy to submit the figures to the committee.

Mr. JOHNSON. We want to thank you for your very fine statement and for your replies to our questions, and I want to take this opportunity to thank you personally for the trip on the water. We had quite a flotilla out there, and we all enjoyed our trip. Thank you very inuch.

Senator George M. Bamba, who testified earlier this morning on the other proposal, will be our next witness. I would ask that you read your statement at this time.

STATEMENT OF SENATOR GEORGE M. BAMBA, CHAIRMAN,

COMMITTEE ON ECOLOGY AND ENVIRONMENT

Mr. BAMBA. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee. First allow me to say that I am very grateful for this opportunity to

appear before your committee. We here in Guam are particularly appreciative of this rare opportunity since we know that there are other important matters facing the Nation which are competing for equal time.

To begin with, my testimony is directed at both H.R. 12340 and H.R. 1726 which I support, and I shall make my presentation under three basic assumptions:

(1) That the committee is interested in all facets and issues associated with the bills under consideration.

(2) That as Americans we are intensely loyal to our way of life and dedicated to the preservation of our American form of government. (3) That the problems we face, if not quickly arrested, may lead to a crisis of national or international proportion.

THE PROBLEMS

Although the problems are numerous, I shall only list those that are readily apparent but nevertheless fundamental. Foremost is the limited geographical area of Guam-about 215 square miles-coupled with the fact that the island is blessed with only meager natural resources.

Second, military and local priorities are competing for these limited areas and resources.

Third, during the last 3 years outside-foreign-interests have successfully been able to obtain inordinately large areas of privately owned real properties through outright purchase or long-term lease arrangements.

Fourth, the ability of the local government to restrain the creeping alienation of land by the Navy, and foreign entrepreneurs is problematical. In short, management of public lands under the circumstances. is extremely difficult.

Lastly, the high rate of population growth of about 2.5 percent coupled with the continuing influx of people from without.

The proposed measures, as they are known to us, seek to set aside large tracts of public and privately owned land for the development of national seashore and historic parks, for the recreation and enjoyment of present and future generations. Hence, the thrust of this testimony is aimed at the more fundamental and broader issues involved. I'll leave for the others to discuss the economic, social, and ecological aspects of the proposed bills.

The fundamental issue, therefore, is whether under the present construction of the Organic Act, the people of Guam, through their established institutions can effectively quash any creeping alienation of public and privately owned land.

BRIEF BACKGROUND

It is difficult to pinpoint the exact date the Navy decided to relocate its ammunition wharf to Sella Bay, but it is safe to assume that studies were made as early as October 1968. Through a letter dated June 30, 1969, then Governor Guerrero reiterated to the local Navy command his administration's strong objection to the proposed taking of the areas between Facpi and Umatac. In spite of the government's opposition, on November 16, 1969, the local Navy command

publicly announced its plans to relocate the ammunition wharf to Sella Bay.

Shortly thereafter, the 10th Guam Legislature adopted several resolutions, including resolution 331, expressing the deep concern of the people of Guam over the proposed taking of Sella Bay, and other areas, by the Navy. Similarly, the Science Teachers Association announced on February 12, 1970, the adoption of a position paper opposing the taking, and again on July 31, 1970, the Guam environment council wrote to the President of the United States relating the council's concern over the increased land holdings the Department of Defense has in Guam.

On June 15, 1970, the board of directors of the Guam Chamber of Commerce, through the executive vice president, Carlton B. Jones, a former Navy admiral on Guam, told a committee of the Guam Legislature that the selection of Sella Bay as a site for the ammo wharf is clearly understandable and logical. The chamber, through Mr. Jones, even went as far as to tell this legislature that the Houseapproved appropriation of $3,287,000 for the ammunition wharf at Sella Bay, and the order of the Chief of Naval Operations to proceed with the relocation plans have effectively precluded the necessity for further action by the Guam Legislature.

The position of the chamber became immediately apparent once the interests and complete background of their membership was known. Parenthetically, let me say that over 30 percent of the 1,340 corporations licensed to do business in Guam are subsidiaries of outside business interests.

But the point that I would like to make here is if, notwithstanding the widespread opposition of the people of Guam to the use of Sella Bay as a site for the Navy ammunition wharf, the Department of Defense proceeds with the taking of these areas, then in the eyes of our Asian friends, Guam is not a show case of American democracy but a classic example of American hypocricy. And it would be à mockery to the memory of our 68 men who died in Vietnam if their home government is but a laughing stock of our neighbor:.

LEGAL BASES

The issue here is not the constitutionality of the taking, it is the question of whether the taking of Sella Bay for the use of the U.S. Navy as an ammunition wharf is proper and equitable in the eyes of the Guamanian people as well as to the eyes of our neighbors and counterpart residents in the mainland.

The facts are that the Federal Government is currently in possession in fee simple of approximately one-third of the land in Guam. An agency of the Federal Government has studied U.S. landholding in the territory and has determined that the Department of Defense is holding on to land in Guam in excess of its actual needs. This leads us to the question that should be appraised: Whether the military in Guam should be allowed to continue to hold real properties in excess of their actual needs simply because it is customary for them to have large areas. As it is now, the Navy has expanded its mission in Guam to include real estate brokerage.

While we do recognize and accept the exclusive and plenary right of the U.S. Congress, under the article IV, section 3, to make needful

ules and policies for all territorial possessions, the people of Guam would not want to be immune from the hazards of Federal statutes that are incompatible with the needs, culture, and aspirations of the people of Guam. More so when it is realized that the makers of those laws, and those who are entrusted with their enforcement, hold no responsibility to those on whom the laws apply. Over the years in which the Organic Act has had the force of law, the U.S. Congress has conferred an increasing amount of responsibility upon the people of Guam. The Guam elective governorship bill amended the Organic Act, transforming the Governor of Guam from a representative post into a chief executive responsible to and therefore more responsive to the electorate of the territory. The delegate bill now before the Congress is also a step toward more local autonomy; while Guam is cloaked with many aspects of self government, the present Organic Act of Guam does not overcome the well-established democratic principle of consent of the governed.

We, therefore, entreat the Congress' kind and serious consideration to allow the people of Guam a voice not only on how they are to be governed, but to enable them to deal effectively with the problems of creeping alienation of their resources. I don't believe that the delegation of this power to the people of Guam will disturb or erode the authority of Congress. On the contrary, it would be a public manifestation of our continuing faith in our national credo, "The Rights of the Governed," and the Congress' assertion of its constitutional authority over U.S. territories.

EFFICACY OF THE ORGANIC ACT

Another fundamental problem is whether in the future the U.S. Government can guarantee the political integrity of Guam as a possession of the United States. It has been expressed elsewhere that given the legal status of Guam as an unincorporated possession and considering also the fact that Guam is a "non-self-governing" territory, it is theoretically possible that it could be annexed by a government other than the United States. Guam, it should be remembered, is not an integral part of the United States. If purchase of lands in Guam by noncitizens cannot be contained and if alien migrations should effect a political shift in Guam's attitude towards the United States, should it then seek to perpetuate its hegemony over Guam in the fact of unsympathetic or even hostile sentiment which inevitably would be supported by critical international opinion? It is not likely.

Guam faces a crisis of unprecedented proportions. In the first place, it lies over 5,000 miles from the U.S. mainland. For this reason alone, the island is situated outside the mainstream of American life, despite the advent of air transportation capacity and a modern communications technology. Noncontiguity of Guam with the mainland adversely affects the political growth of its people. Secondly, Guam is confronted on the north by an emerging economic giant, Japan, which has within the last 3 years made phenomenal inroads into its economic heartland. For all practical purposes, Guam has become an economic colony of Japan (as well as the Chinese and Koreans). Examples of this are the establishment of a Japanese-run hotel resort facility, which are the center of island activities, the proposed Chinese cement

86-023-726

factory, and Korean land development projects. While these projects may infuse greatly needed capital into the island's economy and facilitate its continuing economic growth, that resident businessmen are relinquishing control over their island's economic power is unde niable. The inordinately large land holdings in the hands of outsiders is a case in point.

Today, Guam's status as an unincorporated territory of the United States carries one particularly important implication for the future of Guam. The concept of unincorporation implies self-determination in that is has no "progressive" significance in the sense of movement towards statehood. Furthermore, as citizens of a nonself-governing territory, the residents of Guam in the future will be able to decide by plebiscite which changes in the island's political status will occur. If either Filipino, Japanese, or Chinese influence becomes more powerful in Guam than that of the United States (simply by geographical proximity if for no other reason), and island residents from those areas identify sympathetically with their respective mother countries more strongly than they do with the United States, it is not altogether impossible that cultural, linguistic, social, and economic ties could lead Guam and the trust territory into political alliance and eventual incorporation with a nation other than the United States of America.

PROPOSAL

While I support wholeheartedly the development of Sella Bay and adjacent areas as a national seashore, I am afraid that this remedy is aimed at the symptoms rather than the cause of the problem.

I offer here the proposition that the Navy, as an alternative to Sella Bay, consider the possibility of using ships now in mothballs as a seaborne ammunition wharf. This has the advantage of mobility, elimination of hazard in the hauling of explosives through populated areas, less costly road maintenance, less security requirements, minimum deleterious effects on the environment plus a wealth of good will. For the loading and unloading of ordnances, I further suggest that the present facilities at Anderson Air Force Base be utilized.

I respectfully request your committee to support and coordinate your committee's findings with bills H.R. 5540 and S. 1215 relative to the review of Federal land takings in Guam. Thank you and si

yuus maase.

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. Burlison?

Mr. BURLISON. I have no questions.

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. Ruppe?

Mr. RUPPE. Thank you, Senator. My notes may be a little bit out of order at this point, but I believe that you indicated or spoke of the real needs of the people of Guam. Perhaps you could just touch on those rather briefly.

Mr. BAMBA. Well, in the Organic Act, the Government of Guam, or the legislature, has limited jurisdiction of matters pertaining to local, or the U.S. Congress as original jurisdiction. Now, in the case of the use of land, for example, and in the case of Sella Bay, we enacted, or we adopted, resolutions regarding the will of the people to the representatives objecting to the Sella Bay hotel wharf. Now, you, as Congress, saw fit to go ahead and proceed with the development of the hotel wharf notwithstanding the local wishes of the government.