So I would like to ask you just three questions, and just a yes or no is fine. Were you at any time contacted by Don Fowler or anyone else at the Democrat National Committee on Guam Commonwealth issues, and if so, how and when? Mr. GARAMENDI. Your question goes to the Guam Commonwealth issues and the specifics of the negotiations. Mrs. LINDA SMITH. Yes. Were you contacted by Don Fowler from the Democrat National Committee on Guam Commonwealth issues? Mr. GARAMENDI. I would prefer to give you a written reply to that question so as to be quite accurate. My process in this was over a 2-year period, and I want to be accurate in my statement so I will provide you with a written reply. Mrs. LINDA SMITH. OK; then I will give you others. Did you at any time during your tenure as negotiator discuss with anyone or correspond with anyone about the impact of Guam Commonwealth decisions on the Presidential campaign? Mr. GARAMENDI. No. Mrs. LINDA SMITH. Did you at any time during your tenure as negotiator discuss or correspond about political contributions with anyone, including but not limited to the Governor of Guam, anyone from the Guam Commission on Self-Determination, or their lobbying firm, Brady or Berliner? Mr. GARAMENDI. If your question goes to the issue of whether I was involved in any solicitation of contributions or had any role in any contributions that were made, the answer is no. If the question is broader did I ever talk to anybody about contributions?-there were newspaper articles about that, and I certainly discussed those newspaper articles with my staff. Mrs. LINDA SMITH. Would you put that in writing, also, and the connection to your position and how you separate your position from those particular discussions? There is a great amount of concern with this administration and the money flowing for foreign policy, and so I am concerned about this. And it makes it very difficult to look at any decision in light of this. Thank you. [The information referred to follows:] Mr. PETERSON. [presiding] Any other members wish to question? Mr. Kildee. Mr. KILDEE. Just one question; I know you have to leave. Aside from the status of Guam as a whole, what is the administration's position on a special status for the Chamorro people, similar to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of federally recognized Indian tribes on the mainland? Mr. GARAMENDI. We have not explored that issue, and at this point there is no policy about that. Mr. KILDEE. So you would have no-you're not on record of having any objection to, say, the Chamorro people having sovereignty similar to that of the 500 Mr. GARAMENDI. I do not want you to misconstrue my answer. My answer was, we have not considered that and we have no position. Mr. KILDEE. But you have not rejected it, either. Mr. GARAMENDI. We have no position either for or against it. We have not considered that issue. Mr. KILDEE. Could you comment on that type of status, where the Chamorro people would have a sovereignty and a territorial integrity similar to the over 500 sovereign tribes on the mainland? Mr. GARAMENDI. I would defer my comments and present them to you in writing. This is a complex issue on the mainland and certainly would be even more so in one of our territories, a Pacific Island territory. Mr. KILDEE. It's not that complex. Mr. GARAMENDI. It would deserve a written response and a thoughtful response, which I'm not prepared to give you today. Mr. KILDEE. It's not really that complex on the mainland. It dates back to 1789 and our Constitution, and dates back to 1832 when Justice John Marshall said that the natives on the continent were sovereign nations. And so it's long in our history, and the Constitution itself recognizes three sovereignties. It talks about foreign nations, the States, and Indian tribes, and then John Marshall, in his famous 1832 decision, clearly outlined the real sovereignty of the Native American tribes in the mainland. Mr. GARAMENDI. Your understanding of American history on this matter is obvious. This is a complex issue. Guam is considerably different in its history and in its acquisition than other parts of America, and certainly different and came substantially after Mr. Marshall's statement on these matters. As it applies, I am uncertain. It would be inappropriate for me to give you a response other than what I have said, which is it is complex; it deserves a full analysis, and I will present you with an analysis in writing from this administration. [The information referred to follows:] Mr. KILDEE. I really would suggest, in the meantime, before you prepare the answer, to read Worcester v. Georgia and John Marshall's decision because it has some very profound statements on sovereignty, and that was issued by John Marshall-Worcester v. Georgia-in August 1832. Mr. GARAMENDI. I would happy to receive from you your thoughts, in writing or otherwise on this matter, and your obvious legal analysis which you have done. Mr. KILDEE. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. GARAMENDI. Thank you. Ms. CHRISTIAN-GREEN. Mr. Chairman? Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Chairman, I really must leave. Mr. PETERSON. [presiding] You must leave OK; we'll excuse Mr. Garamendi. Mr. GARAMENDI. I'm about to really mess up California water policy if I miss this airplane. Mr. PETERSON. OK; please feel free to leave. Mr. Underwood. Mr. UNDERWOOD. Thank you very much, Mr. Garamendi, and I'm sorry that we've delayed you more, but I just wanted a rejoinder to the point made by Mr. Kildee. This doesn't involve you directly. The issue of Mr. GARAMENDI. May I take leave? Mr. UNDERWOOD. I think the issue of the Chamorros becoming a tribe in the sense that Native American tribes have sought tribal sovereignty is best resolved through the issue of Chamorro self-determination, and that's really an issue which is a core part of the draft Commonwealth Act. And I would certainly invite every person who is here representing Guam, all of them are Chamorros themselves except for maybe two or three, to put that question into their testimony, whether they really are seeking this status or not. I must confess that this is a red herring issue. The issue of how the Chamorro people see themselves is rather clear. It is embodied in this Act. People want to get on with the exercise of Chamorro self-determination. I have never heard of any reputable person from Guam stand up and say that the Chamorro people are seeking tribal status and seeking any kind of reservation on the island of Guam. We see the exercise of Chamorro self-determination as indistinguishable between the Chamorro people and the island of Guam. Thank you. Mr. PETERSON. Thank you. At this time we will call upon Allen Staymen, Director, Office of Insular Affairs, U.S. Department of the Interior, to share with us his testimony. STATEMENT OF ALLEN STAYMEN, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF INSULAR AFFAIRS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Mr. STAYMEN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I ask that my statement on S. 210 and H.R. 2370, the other two bills on the agenda today, be made a part of the record, and I will quickly summarize. Mr. PETERSON. Without objection. Mr. STAYMEN. Except for sections 7 and 10, the administration supports enactment of S. 210. My written statement details several technical and clarifying amendments to the bill, and I would like to highlight those which are most significant. On section 1, regarding food assistance to the communities affected by the U.S. nuclear weapons testing program in the Marshall Islands, we believe additional language is needed to deal with the procedural constraints of determining baseline population estimates for these communities and obtaining additional appropriations. On section 4, regarding excess lands on Guam, the administration seeks modifications to resolve several concerns. First, changes to ensure that those Federal agencies that have been legitimately using DOD lands for the 2-year period prior to the time the land is declared excess will be able to continue those uses. Second, that the definition of refuge be clarified to read, quote, "overlay component of the refuge", close quote, because refuge lands, per se, are not subject to administrative transfer or the Federal Property Act. Third, that the phrase at the end of subsection (c) that states, quote, "to the extent that the Federal Government holds title to such lands", close quote, be deleted. This phrase is misleading. Obviously, if the Federal Government does not own land, it cannot be accessed or subject to the provisions of this bill. Fourth, the definition of public purpose needs to be clarified. It might be argued that by referencing the public benefit definition of the 1994 Guam Excess Lands Act, with its congressional review of a Guam lands use plan, there is a possibility that subsequent transfers of lands to private parties could be found to be within the definition of public purpose. We recommend that the definition of public benefit, incorporated by reference to the 1994 Act, include only those purposes specifically enumerated in that Act. Fifth, we would like to clarify that any conservation protections on excess land would remain in effect pending congressional action pursuant to subparagraph (d)(3)(E). This is a concern, because the agreements between the Fish and Wildlife Service and the Department of Defense automatically terminate upon transfer of the land to any other party. We do not believe it was the intent to have these conservation protections lapse as the result of the transitional transfer of lands to the GSA. This amendment is essential to maintain the status quo with respect to conservation protections until either the Government of Guam and the Fish and Wildlife Service have reached an agreement on its future disposition, or the Congress Acts. The administration has no objection to H.R. 2370, but we do have clarifying amendments detailed in my written statement. I'm pleased to respond to any questions you have on these two bills. Mr. PETERSON. Yes, Mr. Staymen. First, there are a number of provisions in S. 210 affecting the freely associated States, including the majors, to help those communities affected by U.S. nuclear testing. The U.S. established trust funds for their radiological clean-up of nuclear materials on affected islands, which involves the Department of the Interior. Since the people of these and affected islands must remove the nuclear contaminants in order to be able to safely resettle, where would you recommend the radioactive materials be stored? Mr. STAYMEN. In fact, Mr. Chairman, most of the scientific research that has been done on the resettlement of those islands suggests that the material does not have to be removed. The problem is not so much direct exposure from people living on those islands; it's the dose which they would get from eating the food grown on that island. Research has shown that if the islands are treated with normal potassium fertilizer, that the plants will not absorb the radioactive elements in nearly the proportion that they would without such treatment, so that the dose which a person gets subsequent to a fertilizer application is on the order of one-tenth of what they would get before. In other words, there could be a 90 percent reduction in the effective dose to individuals without any removal of soil. Nevertheless, some of the islands have prudently decided to do a limited scrape in those areas where housing would be built and children would be playing. And my understanding is, those soils are anticipated to be used in construction for things like bridges and breakwaters where they will essentially be out of the way from regular use. But the levels of radioactive materials and the dose that currently exists on those islands-I think it's fair to say-it's right on the fence on whether or not it is a health concern or not. But it's prudent that they do the scrape, and it's prudent that they do the potassium treatment. Mr. PETERSON. Any other questions? Mr. Underwood. Oh-Mr. Faleomavaega. Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Staymen, I assume you're going to be answering questions concerning Mr. Garamendi's earlier statements. Or are you just going to be responding to Mr. STAYMEN. That's right; I'm just authorized on these two bills. Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. All right. I do have a couple of questions on the earlier statements that Mr. Garamendi made concerning H.R. 100. He mentioned there were some constitutional problems affecting the relationship between Guam and the United States, and I wanted to ask you this may be an exercise in futility, but I think there are some problems that I have with his statement about constitutional issues here. As you know, under the United Nations there is a category called non-Self-Governing Territories, and you're also aware of the fact that Guam, the Virgin Islands, and American Samoa are listed under that classification as non-Self-Governing Territories. Now, on the other hand, the word "territories" under provisions of the Federal Constitution provides for the plenary authority that Congress has over territories. But there are several classifications of territories, and let me share with you a couple of them. Guam, Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands, and American Samoa are all unincorporated territories. Now American Samoa is the only territory that is both unincorporated and unorganized. Now my understanding is that territories are such that not all the provisions of the Federal Constitution apply to these certain classifications given to territories. Now we all know that territories that have now become States were all incorporated territories, at least according to the insular cases the Supreme Court has held on that, that eventually they would become States. Well, none of these territories, I don't think, has any chance with the exception of my friend from Puerto Rico on the question of Statehood. My question on the constitutional issues is that where does it say that there's a conflict in the Constitution, given the fact that Guam is under this classification as a non-Self-Governing Territory, where not all of the provisions of the Federal Constitution apply? Mr. STAYMEN. I will have to take your question back for Mr. Garamendi to answer in writing, Mr. Congressman. Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Now, if I'm correct in listening to Mr. Garamendi's reasoning, it is that the territorial clause of the Federal Constitution applies absolutely to Guam, the Virgin Islands, and American Samoa. Am I correct in that? Mr. STAYMEN. That's my understanding of the administration's position, yes. Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. OK. And if this is so, then why are we listed under the United Nations classification as a non-Self-Governing Territory? Well, anyway I— Mr. STAYMEN. The actions of the United Nations don't necessarily have to be coordinated with the actions of the U.S. Federal Government. I think the dilemma is that all of us here and all of you there have to swear to uphold the provisions of the U.S. Constitution. |