[Senate Hearing 108-748]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 108-748
CONVEYANCE OF LAND IN CLARK COUNTY, NV; WILDLAND FIRE SAFETY; EXCHANGE
OF LAND WITHIN SIERRA NATIONAL FOREST; AMEND THE ORGANIC ACT OF GUAM;
AND FEDERAL LANDS IN RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CA
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON PUBLIC LANDS AND FORESTS
of the
COMMITTEE ON
ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
S. 2378 S. 2410
H.R. 1651 H.R. 3874
H.R. 4170 S. RES. 387
__________
SEPTEMBER 29, 2004
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
97-902 PDF WASHINGTON : 2005
______________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512-1800
Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico, Chairman
DON NICKLES, Oklahoma JEFF BINGAMAN, New Mexico
LARRY E. CRAIG, Idaho DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii
BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL, Colorado BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota
CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming BOB GRAHAM, Florida
LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee RON WYDEN, Oregon
LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota
JAMES M. TALENT, Missouri MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana
CONRAD BURNS, Montana EVAN BAYH, Indiana
GORDON SMITH, Oregon DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California
JIM BUNNING, Kentucky CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York
JON KYL, Arizona MARIA CANTWELL, Washington
Alex Flint, Staff Director
Judith K. Pensabene, Chief Counsel
Robert M. Simon, Democratic Staff Director
Sam E. Fowler, Democratic Chief Counsel
------
Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests
LARRY E. CRAIG, Idaho, Chairman
CONRAD R. BURNS, Montana, Vice Chairman
GORDON SMITH, Oregon RON WYDEN, Oregon
JON KYL, Arizona DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii
BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL, Colorado BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota
LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota
LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana
JAMES M. TALENT, Missouri EVAN BAYH, Indiana
DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California
Pete V. Domenici and Jeff Bingaman are Ex Officio Members of the
Subcommittee
Dick Bouts, Professional Staff Member
David Brooks, Democratic Senior Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
STATEMENTS
Page
Bordallo, Hon. Madeleine Z., Delegate from Guam in the U.S. House
of Representatives............................................. 6
Cameron, Scott, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Performance and
Management, Department of the Interior......................... 14
Cantwell, Hon. Maria, U.S. Senator From Washington............... 2
Craig, Hon. Larry E., U.S. Senator From Idaho.................... 1
Pyron, Christopher, Deputy Chief for Business Operations, Forest
Service, Department of Agriculture............................. 9
Reid, Hon. Harry, U.S. Senator From Nevada....................... 2
APPENDIXES
Appendix I
Responses to additional questions................................ 29
Appendix II
Additional material submitted for the record..................... 35
CONVEYANCE OF LAND IN CLARK COUNTY, NV; WILDLAND FIRE SAFETY; EXCHANGE
OF LAND WITHIN SIERRA NATIONAL FOREST; AMEND THE ORGANIC ACT OF GUAM;
AND FEDERAL LANDS IN RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CA
----------
WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 29, 2004
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests,
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:55 p.m. in
room SD-366, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Larry E.
Craig presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. LARRY E. CRAIG,
U.S. SENATOR FROM IDAHO
Senator Craig. The Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests
will convene. I apologize for running late. We had a couple of
extended votes on the floor.
In bringing this hearing to order, I want to especially
thank Congresswoman Bordallo who represents the island of Guam
and is here to offer a statement on H.R. 2400, a bill to amend
the Organic Act of Guam for purposes of clarifying the local
judicial structure of Guam. I see she is joined by Governor
Moylan, or Lieutenant Governor Moylan. Welcome. We appreciate
you being here also.
I would also like to welcome Christopher Pyron, Deputy
Chief of Business Operations, the U.S. Forest Service, and
Scott Cameron, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Performance and
Management at the Department of the Interior. Welcome, both of
you. They are here to testify on the following legislation:
Senator Harry Reid and Senator Ensign's S. 2378, which is a
bill to provide for the conveyance of certain public lands in
Clark County, Nevada, to be used for a heliport;
Senator Cantwell's bill, S. 2410, a bill to promote
wildland firefighter safety;
Representative Radanovich's bill, H.R. 1651, which provides
for a land exchange within the Sierra National Forest of
California and allows a long-time Boy Scout camp to continue to
operate;
The Congresswoman's bill, H.R. 2400, which I have already
mentioned;
Representative Bono's H.R. 3874, which is a bill to convey
for public purposes certain BLM lands in Riverside County,
California;
Representative Pombo's H.R. 4170, which is a bill to
authorize the Secretary of Interior to recruit volunteers to
assist with or facilitate the activities of various agencies
and offices of the Department of the Interior;
Senator Feingold's Senate Resolution 387, which
commemorates the 40th anniversary of the Wilderness Act.
Given the very limited time for this hearing, I would ask
that all subcommittee members and witnesses adhere to the 5-
minute rule. We will accept all additional testimony or
statements until 10 days after the close of the hearing if you
feel the need for additional comment.
Senator Wyden is not with us at this moment, but Senator
Cantwell is, so let me turn to her for any opening statement
she would like to make, and welcome.
[The prepared statement of Senator Reid follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Harry Reid, U.S. Senator From Nevada,
on S. 2378
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you
today to testify on S. 2378, a bill that Senator Ensign and I
introduced that addresses a controversial issue in the Las Vegas area.
The number of helicopter tours departing from the Las Vegas area
has increased by 50 percent in the last three years, accounting for
almost 65,000 flights a year. This has resulted in a conflict with
local residents that live near the current heliport at McCarran
Airport. Also in the area are the Sloan Canyon National Conservation
Area and North McCullough Wilderness Area that have the potential to be
impacted by helicopter operators. In developing this bill, we have
worked with many stakeholders to arrive at a compromise that resolves
the conflicts and manages the land and airspace in the public interest.
S. 2378 would convey 229 acres of public land managed by the Bureau
of Land Management (BLM) to Clark County, Nevada, for its use as a
heliport. It would also impose fees on operators for all helicopter
flights that occur over the Sloan Canyon National Conservation Area
(NCA) with the proceeds used for the management of cultural, wildlife,
and wilderness resources on public lands in the State of Nevada.
Finally, this bill would restrict helicopter operators to a detailed
flightpath, with appropriate elevations, that will ensure the
protection of the values found in the Sloan Canyon National
Conservation Area and the sanity of residents who have been subject to
the noise of the helicopters.
There have been a few other sites proposed that I would also,
provided Clark County maintains final authority over the site
selection.
This solution is only possible if the land is provided at no cost
to the County. With the soaring land values in the Las Vegas area,
there would be no way to develop a heliport in any proximity to the
city. In addition, Nevada is in the unique position of being a state
where 87% of the land is managed by the Federal government, leaving
opportunities for public services on non-federal land severely limited.
The solution crafted in this legislation gives the aerial tourism
industry a way to continue providing to the public the scenic and
recreational opportunities it demands while resolving the potential
conflicts helicopters may have. I thank the Chairman and the Committee
for their consideration of this important piece of legislation to the
Las Vegas area.
STATEMENT OF HON. MARIA CANTWELL, U.S. SENATOR
FROM WASHINGTON
Senator Cantwell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for
holding this hearing.
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to talk about
the Wildland Firefighting Safety Act, which is S. 2410 on
today's agenda. Many of my colleagues on this committee are
from the West and are probably aware of the fact that every
summer we send thousands of our constituents, many of them
brave men and women, college students on summer break, into
harm's way to protect our Nation's rural communities and public
lands. These men and women serve our Nation bravely.
Since 1910 more than 900 wildland firefighters have lost
their lives in the line of duty. According to the U.S. Forest
Service, a total of 30 firefighters across this Nation perished
in the line of duty last year. These firefighters represented a
mix of Federal and State employees, volunteers, and independent
contractors, and they lost their lives for an array of reasons.
We all realize that fighting fires on our Nation's public
land is inherently dangerous business. What we cannot and must
not abide are the preventable deaths; losing firefighters
because rules were broken, policies were ignored, and no one
was held accountable. A number of my colleagues will recall
that in 2001, this issue was pushed to the forefront in the
State of Washington because of a horrible tragedy. On July 10,
2001, near Winthrop in Okanogan County, in the midst of the
second worse drought in the history of our State, the
Thirtymile Fire burned out of control. Four courageous young
firefighters were killed: Tom Craven, 30; Karen FitzPatrick,
18; Jessica Johnson, 19; and Devin Weaver, 21.
Sadly, a subsequent investigation revealed these young men
and women did not have to die. In the words of the Forest
Service's own report on the Thirtymile Fire, the tragedy,
quote, ``could have been prevented.''
Since then, I do believe the courage of the Thirtymile
families to stand up and demand change has had a positive
impact on the safety of young men and women who are preparing
to battle blazes as wildland firefighters. Yet, I am deeply
saddened by the fact that it is clear we have not done enough.
In July 2003, 2 years after Thirtymile, two more
firefighters perished under similar circumstances, this time in
the Cramer Fire in Idaho's national forest. The findings
associated with the Cramer Fire really are simply mindboggling.
After Thirtymile, the Occupational Safety and Health
Administration, OSHA, conducted an investigation and levied
against the Forest Service five citations for serious and
willful violation of safety rules. Then, just this March, OSHA
concluded its investigation of the Cramer Fire. The results:
another five OSHA citations for serious and willful and repeat
violations.
Reading through the list of casual and contributing factors
for Cramer and putting them next to those associated with the
Thirtymile Fire, my colleagues would be struck by the
disturbing similarities. Even more haunting are the parallels
between this list, this particular list, and the factors cited
in the investigation of the 1994 South Canyon Fire on Storm
King Mountain in Colorado. So basically it has been 10 years
since these 14 firefighters lost their lives on Storm King
Mountain, and yet the same mistakes are being made over and
over again.
Mr. Chairman, these facts have also been documented by an
audit and memorandum just issued yesterday by the Department of
Agriculture's Inspector General. The IG found that accidents on
South Canyon, Thirtymile, and Cramer, all of which involved
fatalities, could have been avoided if certain individuals had
followed standard safety practices and procedures in place at
the time. The IG also noted that the Forest Service has not
timely implemented actions to improve its safety programs. Some
27 of the 81 action items identified as a result of Storm King
and Thirtymile, or roughly a third, have not been implemented
years later.
I do not believe that is acceptable, Mr. Chairman. I know
that the IG's report is just being issued and people are just
reading it, but I hope my colleagues will look seriously at the
Wildland Firefighter Safety Act and its modest proposal. It has
already passed the Senate once as an amendment to the healthy
forests legislation and I hope that we can pass it again and
that we will give serious attention to the issue.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Senator Cantwell follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Maria Cantwell, U.S. Senator
From Washington, on S. 2410
Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this important hearing today on
my legislation, the Wildland Firefighter Safety Act (S. 2410).
Many of my colleagues on this Committee are from the West and are
probably aware of the fact that every summer, we send thousands of our
constituents--many of them brave young men and women, college students
on summer break--into harm's way to protect our nation's rural
communities and public lands. These men and women serve our nation
bravely. Since 1910, more than 900 wildland firefighters have lost
their lives in the line of duty.
According to the U.S. Forest Service, a total of 30 firefighters
across this nation perished in the line of duty last year.
These firefighters represented a mix of federal and state
employees, volunteers and independent contractors. And they lost their
lives for an array of reasons. We all realize that fighting fires on
our nation's public lands is an inherently dangerous business. But what
we cannot and must not abide are the preventable deaths--losing
firefighters because rules were broken, policies ignored and no one was
held accountable.
A number of my colleagues will recall that, in 2001, this issue was
pushed to the fore in the State of Washington, because of a horrible
tragedy. On July 10, 2001, near Winthrop in Okanogan County, in the
midst of the second worst drought in the history of our state, the
Thirtymile fire burned out of control.
Four courageous young firefighters were killed. Their names:
Tom Craven, 30 years old;
Karen FitzPatrick, 18;
Jessica Johnson, 19; and
Devin Weaver, 21.
Sadly, as subsequent investigations revealed, these young men and
women did not have to die. In the words of the Forest Service's own
report on the Thirtymile fire, the tragedy ``could have been
prevented.'' At that time, I said that I believe we in Congress and
management within the firefighting agencies have a responsibility to
ensure that no preventable tragedy like Thirtymile fire ever happened
again.
I'd like to thank my colleague Sen. Bingaman, the distinguished
Ranking Member of the Senate Energy Committee, as well as Sen. Wyden,
who was then chair of the Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests. In
the wake of the Thirtymile Fire, they agreed to convene hearings on
precisely what went wrong that tragic day. We heard from the grief-
stricken families.
In particular, the powerful testimony of Ken Weaver--the father of
one of the lost firefighters--put into focus precisely what's at stake
when we send these men and women into harm's way.
Mr. Chairman, I can think of no worse tragedy that a parent to
confronting the loss of a child, especially when that loss could have
been prevented by better practices on the part of federal agencies.
At the Senate Energy Committee hearing, we also discussed with
experts and the Forest Service itself ways in which we could improve
the agency's safety performance. And almost a year to the day after
those young people lost their lives, we passed a bill--ensuring an
independent review of tragic incidents such as Thirtymile that lead to
unnecessary fatalities.
Based on subsequent briefings by the Forest Service, revisions to
the agency's training and safety protocols, and what I've heard when I
have visited with firefighters over the past two years, I do believe
the courage of the Thirtymile families to stand up and demand change
has had a positive impact on the safety of the young men and women who
are preparing to battle blazes as wildland firefighters.
Yet, I'm deeply saddened by the fact that it's clear we haven't
done enough.
In July 2003--two years after Thirtymile--two more firefighters
perished, this time at the Cramer Fire within Idaho's Salmon-Challis
National Forest. Jeff Allen and Shane Heath were killed when the fire
burned over an area where they were attempting to construct a landing
spot for firefighting helicopters. Certainly some 28 others lost their
lives fighting wildfires last year, and we must recognize the sacrifice
and grief befalling their families.
After the Thirtymile Fire, however, I told the Weavers and the
Cravens, the families of Karen FitzPatrick and Jessica Johnson that I
believed we owed it to their children to identify the causes and learn
from the mistakes that were made in the Okanogan, to make wildland
firefighting safer for those who would follow. That is why the findings
associated with the Cramer Fire simply boggle my mind.
We learned at Thirtymile that all ten of the agencies' Standing
Fire Orders and many of the 18 Watch Out Situations--the most basic
safety rules--were violated or disregarded. The same thing happened at
Cramer, where Heath and Allen lost their lives two years later.
After the Thirtymile Fire, the Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA) conducted an investigation and levied against the
Forest Service five citations for Serious and Willful violations of
safety rules. It was eerie, then, when just this March OSHA concluded
its investigation of Cramer. The result: another five OSHA citations,
for Serious, Willful and Repeat violations. Reading through the list of
causal and contributing factors for Cramer and putting them next to
those associated with the Thirtymile fire, my colleagues would be
struck by the many disturbing similarities. Even more haunting are the
parallels between these lists and the factors cited in the
investigation of 1994's South Canyon Fire on Storm King Mountain in
Colorado. It's been ten years since those 14 firefighters lost their
lives on Storm King Mountain--and yet, the same mistakes are being made
over and over again.
Mr. Chairman, these facts have also been documented by an audit and
memorandum issued just yesterday by the Department of Agriculture's
Inspector General. The IG found that ``while there were many factors
common to all three fires, the most important was a failure by [Forest
Service] fire suppression personnel to establish fire safety rules and
guidelines and to exercise acceptable supervision and judgment.'' The
audit also stated ``accidents on the South Canyon, Thirtymile, and
Cramer Fires, all of which involved fatalities, could have been avoided
if certain individuals had followed standard safety practices and
procedures in place at the time.'' Lastly, the IG noted that the Forest
Service ``has not timely implemented actions to improve its safety
programs.'' Some 27 of 81 action items identified as a result of the
South Canyon/Storm King, Thirtymile and Cramer fires--or roughly a
third--have not been fully implemented years later.
I don't believe that's acceptable. The firefighters we send into
harm's way every year--and the ones we've already lost--deserve better.
And in view of the Inspector General's report, issued just yesterday, I
find it positively astounding that the Forest Service still finds my
bill ``not necessary.''
Training, leadership and management problems have been cited in all
of the incidents I've discussed. What can we do, from the legislative
branch, to provide our firefighting agencies with enough motivation to
change? I believe the first step we can take is to equip ourselves with
improved oversight tools, so these agencies know that Congress is
paying attention. That is why I introduced the Wildland Firefighter
Safety Act.
If my colleagues take the time to review the Inspector General's
audit, they will find important recommendations for improving the
safety of our wildland firefighters. The provisions included in my bill
will ensure we have the tools at our disposal to make sure these
recommendations are being implemented.
The Wildland Firefighter Safety Act of 2004 is a modest yet
important proposal. It was already passed once by the Senate, as an
amendment to last year's Healthy Forests legislation. However, I was
disappointed that it was not included in the conference version of the
bill.
But it is absolutely clear to me--particularly in light of OSHA's
review of the Cramer Fire, as well as the IG's audit released
yesterday--that these provisions are needed now more than ever.
First, the Wildland Firefighter Safety Act of 2004 will require the
Secretaries of Agriculture and Interior to track the funds the agencies
expend for firefighter safety and training.
Today, these sums are lumped into the agencies' ``wildfire
preparedness'' account. But as I have discussed with various officials
in hearings before the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee,
it is difficult for Congress to play its rightful oversight role--
ensuring that these programs are funded in times of wildfire emergency,
and measuring the agencies' commitment to these programs over time--
without a separate break-down of these funds.
I understand the Forest Service objects to this measure because it
will somehow ``undermine'' agency-wide safety initiatives. Particularly
given the well-known practice in which the agencies are forced to
borrow from other accounts to pay for emergency fire suppression,
Congress and taxpayers deserve to know how and whether federal funds
are being spent to ensure the safety of these firefighters. It defies
common sense to suggest that a level of greater level of accountability
would actually undermine safety. In fact, I think it's just the
opposite.
Second, it will require the Secretaries to report to Congress
annually on the implementation and effectiveness of its safety and
training programs.
Congress has the responsibility to ensure needed reforms are
implemented. The IG's recent audit has given us the beginnings of a
roadmap. We need to make sure it is followed. As such, I believe that
Congress and the agencies alike would benefit from an annual check-in
on safety programs. I would also hope that this would serve as a
vehicle for an ongoing and healthy dialogue between the Senate and
agencies on these issues.
Third, my bill would stipulate that federal contracts with private
firefighting crews require training consistent with the training of
federal wildland firefighters. It would also direct those agencies to
monitor compliance with this requirement.
This is important not just for the private contractor employees'
themselves--but for the federal, state and tribal employees who stand
shoulder-to-shoulder with them on the fire line. States have been
making strides toward improving their oversight of these contract
crews, but federal agencies should be their willing partners in this
endeavor. It appears from the witnesses' testimony today that the
federal agencies have begun to take steps to address some of the
problems we have seen in the field. But I think requiring this
monitoring and enforcement by law will ensure that we see sufficient
attention devoted to this matter.
Congress owes it to the families of those brave firefighters we
send into harm's way to provide oversight of these safety and training
programs. And so, Mr. Chairman, I hope my colleagues on this Committee
will support this simple legislation. As the Inspector General's audit
and the OSHA investigations over the past few years make clear,
Congressional oversight of federal firefighter safety programs is far
from unnecessary.
We owe it to our federal wildland firefighters, their families and
their state partners--and to future wildland firefighters.
My bill will provide this body with the additional tools it needs
to do the job. Despite the Administration's opposition to the Wildland
Firefighter Safety Act, I hope that we can come together to pass this
legislation, and I remain open to working with these agencies. I thank
the Chairman, and look forward to the testimony of today's witnesses.
Senator Craig. Senator, thank you very much for that
opening comment on S. 2410.
Now let us turn to the Congresswoman. Thank you again,
Congresswoman Bordallo, for joining us. We look forward to your
testimony. Please proceed.
STATEMENT OF HON. MADELEINE Z. BORDALLO, DELEGATE FROM GUAM IN
THE U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, ACCOMPANIED BY KALEO MOYLAN,
LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR, TERRITORY OF GUAM
Ms. Bordallo. Good afternoon, Chairman Craig and members of
the subcommittee, Senator Cantwell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman,
very much for inviting me to testify in support of H.R. 2400, a
bill I introduced last year at the request of local leaders in
Guam to clarify the structure of Guam's judicial branch of
government.
Mr. Chairman, I know you did introduce him, but I would
like to thank our Lieutenant Governor of Guam, Mr. Kaleo
Moylan, for joining me in Washington during this testimony.
With your permission, Mr. Chairman, I would like to enter
into the record my full statement in support of H.R. 2400, as
well as statements in support from: the Governor of Guam, the
Honorable Felix Camacho; the Lieutenant Governor of Guam, Kaleo
Moylan; the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Guam, the
Honorable Philip Carbullido; and a resolution of support from
the Guam legislature; as well as a resolution from the Judicial
Council. I think we have already turned over these statements.
Senator Craig. Sure. Without objection, they will all
become a part of our record. Thank you.
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you.
In 1984, Mr. Chairman, Congress amended the Organic Act of
Guam to allow the Guam legislature to create an appellate court
under local law, and in doing so Congress inadvertently left
the Guam Supreme Court inferior to the other two branches of
local government. H.R. 2400 would place the Supreme Court where
it should be, a co-equal branch of government, independent of
the Guam legislature and executive branches.
The Organic Act of Guam is much like a State constitution
in that it defines our territorial government structure. It is,
however, Federal law and only Congress can amend it. Amending
the Organic Act to clarify the authority of the Supreme Court
would enshrine an independent and free judicial branch for
Guam. As Alexander Hamilton wrote in ``The Federalist No. 78,''
quote: ``There is no liberty if the power of judging be not
separated from the legislation and the executive powers.''
This good governance measure has received strong support,
as I mentioned earlier, from the local leadership in Guam. The
Guam Bar Association, the Judicial Council, the Guam
Legislature, each passed resolutions urging Congress to enact
H.R. 2400, and the Governor of Guam, Felix Camacho, and the
Lieutenant Governor have also expressed and written their
support for the bill.
I would like to thank each of you for the expeditious
manner in which you have considered this legislation. Given the
daily work of the Supreme Court, I hope that this legislation
can be passed by the 108th Congress as soon as possible. I look
forward to being able to tell the people of Guam that the lack
of clarity inadvertently created by Congress 20 years ago has
finally been corrected. With your help, Mr. Chairman, the
people of Guam will share in the same protection of their legal
system as enjoyed by every other citizen of the United States.
That concludes my statement and I would be happy to answer
any questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Bordallo follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Madeleine Z. Bordallo, Delegate
From Guam to the U.S. Congress, on H.R. 2400
Good afternoon Chairman Craig, Ranking Member Wyden, and Members of
the Subcommittee. Thank you for inviting me to testify on H.R. 2400, a
bill I introduced last year at the request of local leaders in Guam to
amend the Organic Act of Guam for the purposes of clarifying the local
judicial structure of Guam.
Under the Omnibus Territories Act of 1984, Congress amended the
Organic Act of Guam to allow the Guam Legislature to create an
appellate court under local law for Guam. Pursuant to this authority
the Guam Legislature established the Guam Supreme Court in 1992 under
Guam Public Law 21-27, the Frank G. Lujan Memorial Court Reorganization
Act.
However, the 1984 amendment to the Organic Act unintentionally left
the Guam Supreme Court inferior to the other two branches of
government, leaving the Court vulnerable to shifts in power within the
legislative and executive branches. H.R. 2400 would make the Guam
Supreme Court an ``Organic'' court equal in stature to the Guam
legislative and executive branches and provide the Guam Judiciary the
same protections afforded the other branches under the Organic Act of
Guam. Just as the Governor cannot disband the Legislature, and the
Legislature cannot abolish the executive, so too should the Judiciary
be free from the threat of abolishment by the legislative or executive
branches if their judicial decisions come under political fire. The
Guam Judiciary needs to be insulated from the possibility of political
interference by the legislative and executive branches, and the balance
of power among these branches needs to be protected.
H.R. 2400 would also clarify that the Supreme Court of Guam is an
appellate court with administrative authority over the Superior Court
of Guam and any other local courts that have been and may be
established by Guam law. The need for clarification is evidenced by
previous attempts by the Guam Legislature to restructure the judiciary.
In one instance the Guam Legislature passed a law placing the Guam
Supreme Court, the appellate court, under the administrative authority
of the Guam Superior Court, the trial court. Although this law was
eventually invalidated by the Ninth Circuit of Appeals, this highlights
the weakness of the Court's current status.
I would like to note that the leaders of the Guam Legislature, the
executive branch and the Judiciary of the Government of Guam believe
the structure of the Guam Judiciary should be set forth in the Organic
Act absent a Guam Constitution. The people of Guam have not adopted a
Constitution, largely due to concerns about the preemption of the
exercise of the right of self-determination. An amendment to the
Organic Act of Guam, as proposed in H.R. 2400, is the only recourse
available to Congress to meet this objective.
The leadership of the three branches of the Government of Guam have
signaled strong support for an ``Organic'' judiciary in the absence of
a Guam Constitution. On April 23, 2004, all 15 members of the Guam
Legislature sponsored and passed a resolution supporting H.R. 2400 and
requesting expeditious passage by the Congress. The Guam Judicial
Council also passed a resolution on May 6, 2004 which reiterates their
support for H.R. 2400. In a letter dated May 7, 2004, the Honorable
Felix P. Camacho, Governor of Guam, also expressed his support for H.R.
2400.
The framers of the United States Constitution recognized that an
effective and independent judiciary could only be realized if judges
were free from political interference in their decision-making.
Alexander Hamilton wrote in The Federalist No. 78, ``there is no
liberty if the power of judging be not separated from the legislative
and the executive powers.'' H.R. 2400 seeks to realize this goal by
establishing the Guam Judiciary as a separate and co-equal branch of
government consistent with the principles espoused by our founding
fathers.
I would like to thank each of you for the expeditious manner in
which you have considered this legislation. Given the daily work of the
Supreme Court, I hope this legislation can be passed by the 108th
Congress as soon as possible. I look forward to being able to tell the
people of Guam that the ambiguity inadvertently created by Congress
twenty years ago has finally been corrected. With your help, the people
of Guam will share in the same protection of their legal system as
enjoyed by every other citizen of the United States.
Senator Craig. Well, thank you very much. I have no
questions. I do appreciate this effort and think it is an
important one and I support it, and we will see if we cannot
effectively move it through the Congress this year.
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you so very much, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Craig. Senator.
Senator Cantwell. No questions, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
Senator Craig. Well, again we thank you. Lieutenant
Governor, thank you for being with us. We appreciate it.
Now we will ask the administration witnesses to come
forward on the balance of the legislation: Chris Pyron, Deputy
Chief of Business Operations, U.S. Forest Service; and Scott
Cameron, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Performance and
Management, Department of the Interior. Welcome both before the
committee.
Chris, we will allow you to start if you wish. Please
proceed with the testimony you would want to give on all of the
underlying legislation.
STATEMENT OF CHRISTOPHER PYRON, DEPUTY CHIEF FOR BUSINESS
OPERATIONS, FOREST SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE,
ACCOMPANIED BY THOMAS HARBOUR,
DEPUTY DIRECTOR FOR FIRE AND AVIATION MANAGEMENT
Mr. Pyron. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will try to be brief.
Today I am joined by Tom Harbour. He is our Deputy Director
for Fire and Aviation Management.
Senator Craig. Check and see if that mike is on, would you,
please.
Mr. Pyron. Can you hear me now?
Senator Craig. Ah, we can hear you now.
Mr. Pyron. Just give me 30 seconds. I cannot help myself,
but I was a legislative affairs specialist for 5 years from
1992 to 1997. I have prepped a lot of witnesses, wrote a lot of
testimony. This is the first time I have ever done this and I
am much more nervous than I thought I would be sitting out
there for all those years watching other people do this. So it
is a real pleasure to be here today.
Senator Craig. First of all, you put both feet flat on the
floor.
[Laughter.]
Senator Craig. You pull your chair up a little bit.
Mr. Pyron. You are helping me; I appreciate that.
Senator Craig. You take a very deep breath.
Mr. Pyron. How about a drink of water?
Senator Craig. Get your water close at hand, take a swallow
of water.
Mr. Pyron. Thank you.
Senator Craig. Please proceed.
Mr. Pyron. Most of my 5 minutes are already up.
Senator Craig. All right. Well, we will give you a little
more, then.
Mr. Pyron. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee: Thank you for
the opportunity to present the Department's views on three
measures: S. Res. 387, commemorating the 40th anniversary of
the signing of the Wilderness Act; H.R. 1651, the Sierra
National Forest Land Exchange Act; and S. 2410, the Wildland
Fire Safety Act.
The Department supports S. Res. 387. The Forest Service has
played a large and significant role in forging a wilderness
philosophy and bringing into existence the wilderness
preservation system. Early leaders of the wilderness movement,
Aldo Leopold, Bob Marshall, Arthur Carhart, were Forest Service
employees. In 1924, at Leopold's insistence, the Gila
Wilderness, part of the Gila National Forest, became the first
designated wilderness area in the entire world. Commemorating
the signing of the Wilderness Act appropriately honors the
effort of these and other wilderness visionaries.
For H.R. 1651, which authorizes the exchange of 160 acres
of Federal land on the Sierra National Forest in California for
80 acres of non-Federal land, the Federal land would in turn be
conveyed to the Sequoia Council of the Boy Scouts of America.
The Department supports the bill, but would like to work with
the subcommittee on amendments and report language to clarify
the Secretary's authority regarding the easement associated
with the subject lands.
I would like to begin my remarks on S. 2410, the Wildland
Firefighter Safety Act, by thanking the bill's sponsor, Senator
Cantwell, for her untiring efforts to help us improve safety
and increase safety awareness. Her continuing efforts have led
to an increased emphasis on safety issues within the Department
of Agriculture and the Department of the Interior, particularly
as it relates to firefighting, and we appreciate that
contribution.
The Department of Agriculture and the Interior recognizes
the importance of firefighting training for all wildland
firefighters and have taken significant steps to improve
training and ensure our existing systems document performance
regarding safety. However, the Departments believe the bill is
not necessary. If the committee ultimately disagrees, we would
like to work with you to address concerns with the current
version of the bill.
The Departments are concerned that the inclusion of a
budget line item within the proposed legislation may not
achieve the oversight desired and may undermine the benefits of
agency-wide safety efforts. These efforts occur across multiple
budget activities and will not be visible at the budget line
item level. Virtually every firefighting training course that
is offered today includes some element of fire safety training.
The safety of our firefighters rests not just on the
quantity of the training we provide, but also on its quality
and how each firefighter uses that training in performing his
or her job. Quality assurance is an important component of any
safety effort.
Rather than focus on budget structure, the Department
suggests that the establishment, use, and reporting of
firefighter safety performance measures and practices would
better serve the goals of improved safety performance.
A recent review of the Forest Service firefighter safety
program completed by the USDA Office of Inspector General
identifies four areas in which the agency can strengthen
efforts to promote firefighter safety. These are: One,
monitoring the agency's response to fire safety
recommendations; two, maintaining centralized records to
support firefighting qualifications; three, conducting
administrative investigations on serious fire accidents; and
four, incorporating firefighting safety standards as critical
elements in firefighter performance evaluations. We concur with
these findings and are working with the Office of Inspector
General on its list of recommended actions.
In reviewing the similarities among the incidents that led
to the fatalities over the last 10 years, we realized the need
for Type 3 incident commanders to be capable of performing at a
higher level of competency to oversee and manage transition
fire operations. We now require Type 3 ICs to undergo a
simulation to test their decision-making skills when faced with
the kinds of conditions that led to the tragedies at Storm
King, Thirtymile, and Cramer. Every Type 3 incident commander
was tested for sufficient leadership and decision-making skills
prior to the 2004 fire season.
It is important to note that most of our efforts in
firefighting are done safely and well. Of the 10,000 plus fires
that the Forest Service fights on an average year, 98 to 99
percent of those are controlled through initial attack, and our
safety record in this phase of firefighting is good. When faced
with megafires, such as the Rodeo-Chediski Fire, the Biscuit
Fire, or the Hayman Fire, we do that well and safely, too, and
in fact our safety record is even better.
But on some transition fires, as evidenced by our
experience at Storm King, Thirtymile, and Cramer, agency
performance has been lacking, contributing to the loss of life.
We are working diligently to improve our performance and we
believe we are working on the right things.
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, it grieves us
terribly to lose any firefighter. We have made many changes to
respond to the gaps in our programs. We believe that thinking
of firefighter preparedness as a whole, rather than the
specific training courses, helps us in assessing quality and
effectiveness. We welcome the oversight from Congress to help
us make further progress in this area.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee. I
would be happy to answer your questions at this time. Thank
you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Pyron follows:]
Prepared Statement of Christopher Pyron, Deputy Chief for Business
Operations, Forest Service, on S. Res. 387, H.R. 1651, and S. 2410
Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to discuss with you these measures.
SENATE RESOLUTION 387 COMMEMORATING THE 40TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE SIGNING
OF THE WILDERNESS ACT
The Department supports Senate Resolution 387 commemorating the
40th anniversary of the Wilderness Act.
With the signing of the Wilderness Act by President Lyndon B.
Johnson on September 3, 1964, the National Wilderness Preservation
System was established to ``. . . secure for the American people of
present and future generations the benefits of an enduring resource of
wilderness.''
The Forest Service has played a large and significant role in
forging a wilderness philosophy and bringing about the Wilderness
Preservation System that we see today. The early supporters of
wilderness in America, Aldo Leopold, Bob Marshall and Arthur Carhart
were all Forest Service employees who had a vision of preserving
portions of the American continent to retain its primeval character and
influence, without permanent improvement or human habitation. They saw
the increasing encroachment of civilization onto the American landscape
and realized the value of setting aside tracts of land where man is but
a visitor and natural processes are allowed to occur.
In 1924, at Aldo Leopold's insistence, the Forest Service
designated the Gila Wilderness located on the Gila National Forest in
southern New Mexico, as the world's first designated wilderness area.
Today the Forest Service oversees nearly 35 million acres of wilderness
which represents 32% of the National Wilderness Preservation System.
H.R. 1651 SIERRA NATIONAL FOREST LAND EXCHANGE
H.R. 1651 authorizes the exchange of 160 acres of Federal land on
the Sierra National Forest in California for 80 acres of non-Federal
land within one year. The bill would provide for the exchange of a
private in-holding in two isolated parcels of federal land, this
improving management efficiency for the Sierra National Forest. A
portion of the federal parcel us subject to an existing federal
hydropower license.
The Department supports the bill but would like to work with the
Subcommittee on amendments or report language to clarify the
Secretary's authority regarding the easement associated with the
subject lands.
H.R. 1651 specifies the value of the Federal land to be $250,000
and the value of the non-Federal land to be $200,000. The bill gives
the Secretary the authority to accept a cash equalization payment of 20
percent of the value of the Federal land or 25 percent of the value of
the non-federal land. The conveyance would be subject to a condition
that the recipient of the Federal land would agree to convey the land,
within four months to the Sequoia Council of the Boy Scouts of America.
The conveyance would also be made subject to valid existing rights
including the easement required under 4(c).
S. 2410 WILDLAND FIREFIGHTER SAFETY ACT
S. 2410, the Wildland Firefighter Safety Act of 2004, would require
the Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary of the Interior to track
funds expended for firefighter safety and training programs and
activities and to include a line item for such expenditures in annual
budget requests. This bill would also require the Secretaries to
jointly submit a report on the implementation and efficacy of wildland
firefighter safety and training programs and activities to Congress
each year. In addition, the bill would direct the Secretaries to ensure
that any Federal contract or agreement with private entities for
firefighting services requires the entity to provide firefighting
training consistent with qualification standards set by the National
Wildfire Coordinating Group. The Secretaries would be further directed
to develop a program to monitor and enforce compliance with this
contracting requirement.
Both Departments recognize the importance of firefighting training
for all wildland firefighters and have taken significant steps to
improve training and ensure that our existing systems document
performance regarding safety. However, for reasons I'll explain
shortly, the Departments believe the bill is not necessary. If the
Committee ultimately decides S. 2410 is necessary, the Departments of
Agriculture and the Interior would like to work with the Committee to
address our concerns with the current version of the bill.
Safety and training are the major part of firefighter preparedness.
Formal classroom training, on-the-job training, drills, discussions,
and reviews are part of an extensive training program. Firefighters
must complete both coursework and multiple training assignments before
they are certified for positions.
The Departments are concerned that the inclusion of a budget line
item within the proposed legislation may not achieve the oversight
desired and may undermine the benefits of agency-wide safety efforts.
These efforts occur across multiple budget activities and would not be
visible at the budget line item level. Virtually every firefighting
training course that is offered today includes some element of fire
safety training. It is difficult to assess the entire cost of
firefighter safety because it is not just the quantity of training but
also the quality of the training and the performance of each
firefighter. Quality assurance is an important component of any safety
effort.
Rather than focus upon budget structure, the Departments suggest
that the establishment, use, and reporting of firefighter safety
performance measures and practices would provide improved safety
accountability and assist with our efforts to improve safety
performance, assure quality, and implement lessons learned and best
practices in an open and transparent manner.
With regard to contracts and agreements for contract firefighters,
our Forest Service and Department of the Interior contracts require
firefighting training and experience as prescribed by the qualification
standards established by the National Wildfire Coordinating Group. We
agree that a program to monitor and enforce compliance with these
standards is essential. This has been a challenge due to the explosive
growth in the number of contract resources available. However, positive
steps are underway to address this concern:
The Pacific Northwest region has the bulk of contract fire
fighting resources. A task group has been formed to design
effective business processes for managing a contracted resource
program and these ``best practices'' will be considered for
adoption in other parts of the country.
This past summer, a contract was issued to perform pre-
season inspections of fire crews, engines and water tenders.
This effort is promising and will be continued.
Additional training for agency personnel to act as
inspectors and contract administrators for contract resources
on assignment is on going.
Recently, the USDA Office of Inspector General (OIG) completed a
review of the Forest Service Firefighting Safety Program. That report
identified four areas in which the agency can strengthen efforts to
promote firefighter safety. The report noted that the Forest Service
has made significant improvements in the safety of its firefighting
operations. The report also noted that the Occupational Safety and
Health Administration (OSHA) investigative report for the Thirtymile
Fire identified weaknesses in the enforcement of safety standards but
acknowledged that the Forest Service had excellent written firefighting
safety policies and procedures. Units visited by OIG during their audit
conducted regular fire safety training. Those firefighting personnel
interviewed as part of the audit gave positive reviews of the manner in
which the agency emphasized and incorporated safety into training
operations. Finally, OIG found that the Forest Service continues to
improve its coordination with other wildland firefighting organizations
and has required additional courses for its own firefighting personnel.
The four areas that the OIG identified as needing greater attention
were: (1) monitoring the agency's response to fire safety
recommendations, (2) maintaining centralized records to support
firefighting qualifications, (3) conducting administrative
investigations on serious fire accidents, and (4) incorporating
firefighting safety standards as critical elements in firefighter
performance evaluations. We concur with these findings and their
associated recommendations. We are working with OIG on its list of
recommended actions.
In reviewing the similarities among the incidents that led to
fatalities over the last ten years, we realized the need for Type 3
Incident Commanders (ICs) to be capable of performing at a higher level
of competency to oversee and manage transition fire operations. We now
require Type 3 ICs to undergo a simulation to test their decision
making skills when faced with the kinds of conditions that lead to the
tragedies at Storm King, Thirtymile and Cramer. Every Type 3 incident
commander was required to be tested for sufficient leadership and
decision making skills for the 2004 fire season. One thousand sixty
eight people completed simulation; 64 retook the simulation; in all, 30
did not pass the assessment. We are working with the National Wildfire
Coordinating group for protocols to test other types of firefighting
positions.
We continually evaluate our firefighter safety programs. As this
Subcommittee is aware, after the investigations of fatal fires in the
last 10 years, we reexamined our programs in depth and implemented
numerous, significant changes. These changes were developed in
cooperation with the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, the
Department of the Interior and other interagency partners through the
National Wildfire Coordinating Group. For example, we improved our fire
complexity analysis; enhanced the training and accountability of agency
administrators involved in fire suppression; clarified and emphasized
fatigue awareness; and improved work/rest guidelines. We also modified
driving guidelines for our employees and our contractors. We recently
began the use of the Incident Qualifications Certification System. The
new certification system enhances our ability to track the formal
training and on-the-job training of each federal firefighter. With this
system, managers and supervisors can better measure previous training
and determine future training needs.
Beyond procedural steps and guidelines, we are concentrating on
human factors such as experience, leadership, and performance. One of
the major initiatives in this realm is the interagency Wildland Fire
Leadership Development Program. The program is comprised of three major
components. The first is a set of leadership values and principles that
define good leadership and provide a framework for evaluating the
performance of firefighters in leadership roles. The second component
is a curriculum of formal leadership development courses that are
designed to span the career of wildland firefighters from entry levels
to management levels. The third component is an on-line resource
(www.fireleadership.gov) that assists individual firefighters seeking
to improve their leadership skills through self-directed continuing
education efforts. Emphasis is placed on preparing leaders for the
decision-making demands of firefighting.
The OIG audit examined the performance of some of our contract
crews and concluded there is no indication the recently implemented
control improvements would not be effective in improving contract crew
quality. Contracted firefighting resources are an important capability
for the agencies. We recognize our responsibilities for these
resources, and we are striving to improve our management oversight of
these resources to ensure safe, reliable performance.
Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, it grieves us
terribly to lose any firefighter. We have made many changes to respond
to gaps in our programs. We believe that thinking of firefighter
preparedness as a whole, rather than specific training courses, helps
us in assessing quality and effectiveness. We welcome continuing
oversight from Congress to help us make further progress in area.
summary
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee. I would be
happy to answer your questions.
Senator Craig. Well, thank you very much, Chris.
Now let us turn to you, Scott, for your testimony, and then
we will ask questions of both of you. Thank you.
STATEMENT OF SCOTT CAMERON, DEPUTY ASSISTANT
SECRETARY FOR PERFORMANCE AND MANAGEMENT,
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Mr. Cameron. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, Senator
Cantwell.
I also cannot resist making a personal observation. Back in
the 1980's I was a legislative assistant for a Senator on this
very committee, and it is good to be back here, although I am a
little bit more nervous to be on this side of the dais than it
was to be on that side. But I am glad to be with you today to
testify on a number of bills.
S. 2378 would convey without consideration 229 acres of
BLM-managed public lands to Clark County, Nevada, for its use
as a heliport. The Department supports the goals of this
legislation, but cannot support a conveyance of public lands
that does not involve payment to the Treasury for the value of
those lands. The BLM as a matter of both policy and practice
receives market value for public lands transferred out of
Federal ownership. Therefore we strongly recommend that the
bill be modified to require the receipt of fair market value
for the lands to be conveyed.
Alternatively, and absent legislation, I should point out
that BLM could convey or lease appropriate lands to Clark
County under existing authorities under the Federal Land Policy
Management Act and other statutes.
The Department also has concerns regarding the designated
flight paths over Sloan Canyon National Conservation Area,
which is home to a large population of desert bighorn sheep.
H.R. 3874 would transfer approximately 44 acres of land
managed by the Bureau of Land Management to the city of Palm
Springs, California, actually in the city of Palm Springs, to
the SVDP Management, Inc., again at no charge, for purposes of
providing a homeless shelter, a training center, and affordable
housing on those lands. The Department genuinely applauds the
goals of this organization and its record of service to the
people of the area. Under the Recreation and Public Purposes
Act, the BLM can administratively transfer lands at reduced
price to nonprofit organizations.
While we understand that there is urgency in completing the
transfer proposed under this legislation and the sponsor may
not wish to pursue an administrative transfer under the
Recreation and Public Purposes Act, we nevertheless believe
that the pricing regime under that act should apply in this
instance.
H.R. 4170 is a bill to authorize the Secretary of the
Interior to recruit volunteers to assist with the activities of
various bureaus and offices of the Department. The Department
strongly supports this bill and urges that it be enacted. It is
consistent with the administration's program.
The bill would fill several statutory gaps, providing
authority for the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Office of
the Secretary to work with volunteers and perfecting the
existing volunteer authority of the U.S. Geological Survey and
the Bureau of Reclamation. The bill is entirely consistent with
existing volunteer authorities that Interior has. For instance,
our Fish and Wildlife Service, the Park Service, and Bureau of
Land Management have used volunteers very successfully for
many, many years.
The bill does not disturb the current volunteer authority
of those bureaus that presently have sufficient authority and
it does not disrupt the existing programs of any of our
bureaus. It is also important to note, I think, that providing
this additional volunteer authority would not have any negative
impact at all on Interior employees. There have certainly been
no Interior employees displaced as a result of having enhanced
volunteer authority at Interior.
Finally, I will address H.R. 2400 that we heard about at
the very beginning of the hearing, to amend the Organic Act of
Guam to clarify Guam's local judicial structure. H.R. 2400
would establish the local court system of Guam as a third, co-
equal, and unified branch of government alongside the
legislative and executive branches of the government of Guam.
The administration has no objection to passage of the bill.
In 1994, the legislature of Guam established the Supreme
Court of Guam, but 2 years later the legislature removed from
the Supreme Court its administrative authority over the
Superior Court of Guam. Since then Guam has had a bifurcated
local court system, at a time where virtually every other
entity, every other state, every other territory in the United
States, has had a unified court system.
H.R. 2400 would amend the judicial provisions of the
Organic Act of Guam to specifically name the Supreme Court as
Guam's appellate court and outline the powers of the court,
including full administrative authority for the Supreme Court
over the local court system.
So again, I appreciate the opportunity to testify and my
full statement on all these bills is inserted for the record,
and I look forward to any questions you might have, Mr.
Chairman or Senator Cantwell.
[The prepared statements of Mr. Cameron follow:]
Prepared Statement of Scott Cameron, Deputy Assistant Secretary,
Performance and Management, Department of the Interior
on s. 2378
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you
today to testify on S. 2378, a bill that would convey 229 acres of
public lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to Clark
County, Nevada, for its use as a heliport. S. 2378 would also impose
fees on operators for all helicopter flights that occur over the Sloan
Canyon National Conservation Area (NCA) with the proceeds used for the
management of cultural, wildlife, and wilderness resources on public
lands in the State of Nevada. The Department supports the goals of S.
2378, but cannot support a conveyance of public lands that does not
ensure a fair return to the public for the use of those lands.
The BLM recognizes the massive growth occurring in Clark County and
understands the need to accommodate local interests and tourism in a
way that balances local needs with important environmental
considerations. Congress chose to address these concerns through the
Southern Nevada Public Lands Management Act (SNPLMA) and subsequent
amendments that have established a sale boundary within which BLM has
worked to provide public lands to accommodate the growth in and around
Las Vegas.
The public lands proposed for conveyance in S. 2378 consist of 229
acres that lie immediately west of the Sloan Canyon National
Conservation Area, which includes the North McCullough Wilderness Area,
and are bordered on the west by Interstate 15. These lands are adjacent
to, but fall just outside of, the SNPLMA disposal boundary. The
legislation directs the BLM to convey these lands to Clark County for
no consideration subject to valid existing rights. The BLM, as a matter
of both policy and practice, and in accordance with the Federal Land
Policy and Management Act (FLPMA), generally requires receipt of fair
market value for public lands transferred out of public ownership. This
serves to ensure that taxpayers are fairly compensated for the removal
of public lands from federal ownership.
Given the high market value of these lands, we strongly recommend
that the bill be modified to require the receipt of a fair market value
payment for the lands to be conveyed. Alternatively and absent
legislation, the BLM could lease these lands to Clark County under the
existing authority of Section 302 of FLPMA. Under this scenario, the
Department would grant a lease to Clark County and would charge an
annual rental that reflects the market value of the land.
S. 2378 also imposes a $3 conservation fee for each passenger on a
helicopter tour if any portion of the helicopter tour occurs over the
Sloan Canyon National Conservation Area. The bill directs the Clark
County Department of Aviation to collect these fees and deposit them in
a special account in the United States Treasury to be used by the
Secretary of the Interior for the management of cultural, wildlife, and
wilderness resources on public land in the State of Nevada. The BLM
supports the concept of this provision but recommends that the fees be
adjusted for inflation and be deposited in SNPLMA's Special Account.
This would preclude the BLM from having to establish another permanent
operating fund with essentially the same function as SNPLMA's Special
Account. It would also give the Secretary additional flexibilities, as
provided for in SNPLMA, in addressing environmental needs in Nevada in
addition to those defined in the bill.
While the Department defers to the Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA) regarding safety and other airspace issues, we note that the FAA
generally opposes legislative mandates for specific flight paths. The
Department of the Interior also has concerns about the flight path
identified in this legislation. The flight path as identified in the
bill, and the anticipated frequency of flights, would greatly impact
the very wilderness characteristics and visitor use values that the
Congress sought to protect and preserve when it established the Sloan
Canyon National Conservation Area and the North McCullough Wilderness
Area in the Clark County Conservation of Public Land and Natural
Resources Act of 2002. These areas contain sites frequently used by
Native Americans and others for religious ceremonial purposes. They
also provide important migration corridors and resting, breeding, and
feeding grounds for desert bighorn sheep, which are a special status
species in Nevada. Moreover, visitor solitude and quality recreation
experiences would be diminished.
The Department of Justice advises that it has concerns regarding
inconsistencies in the bill which we would like to work with the
Committee to address.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify on this bill. We look
forward to working with the Committee to resolve the issues discussed
above and address the needs of local communities and critical
environmental issues in the State of Nevada. I will be happy to answer
any questions.
H.R. 3874
Thank you for the opportunity to present testimony on H.R. 3874,
introduced by Representative Mary Bono and which passed the House of
Representatives on July 19, 2004. H.R. 3874 would transfer
approximately 44 acres of land managed by the Bureau of Land Management
(BLM) in the City of Palm Springs, California, to S.V.D.P. Management,
Inc., for the purposes of providing a homeless shelter, training
center, and affordable housing on the lands. The Department supports
the goals of this legislation, but recommends some modifications.
The proposed transferee under the bill, S.V.D.P. Management, Inc.,
transacts business as Father Joe's Villages. Father Joe's Villages is a
nonprofit organization operating in the southwest United States
offering education, job training, child care, health care and substance
abuse counseling to thousands of families and individuals. Helping the
homeless has been a major focus of the organization and the proposed
facility in Palm Springs seeks to further that goal.
The lands proposed for transfer under the bill lie on the northern
outskirts of Palm Springs, near an Army Corps of Engineers flood
control dike and a parcel of land previously conveyed by the BLM to the
City of Palm Springs for a park. The legislation directs the Secretary
of the Interior to transfer the lands without consideration to Father
Joe's Villages. While the Department applauds the outstanding goals of
this organization, we typically require that the government receive
fair market value for lands transferred outside the Federal government.
Under the Recreation & Public Purposes (R&PP) Act, the BLM can
administratively transfer lands at a reduced price to nonprofit
organizations for certain purposes. Specifically, nonprofit
organizations may be required to pay only 50% of fair market value if
the lands are to be used for such things as public recreation, museums
and social services that are open to the public. While we understand
that there is urgency in completing the transfer proposed under this
legislation, and the sponsor may not wish to pursue an administrative
transfer under the R&PP, we nevertheless believe, at a minimum, that
the R&PP pricing guidelines should be applied.
Section 1(b) of H.R. 3874 states that the lands conveyed are to
provide a homeless shelter, a training center and affordable housing.
While a homeless shelter may well qualify for a reduced R&PP rate,
affordable housing is not an allowed use under the R&PP, and it is
unclear whether or not the training center would qualify. We would like
the opportunity to work with the Committee to clarify the legislative
language to specify exactly which lands are proposed for which specific
uses and the appropriate compensation to the Federal government.
We should note that because these lands are within the City of Palm
Springs, their full development value is significant. The value of
these lands would normally be determined through an objective appraisal
conducted in accordance with the Uniform Appraisal Standards for
Federal Land Acquisitions (UASFLA). However, we are mindful that
legislated land transfers often promote varied public interest
considerations that may not lend themselves readily to the standard
appraisal process or to equal value exchanges in all cases. In these
instances, the balancing of important public policy considerations
against the financial implications of proposed transfers are ultimately
a question that rests with Congress. In balancing these considerations,
Congress may wish to seek more detailed information concerning the
proposed uses of the lands sought for transfer.
Section 1(c) of the bill, as passed the House, provides for the
discretionary reversion of these lands to the Secretary of the Interior
if they are not used for the purposes specified in the legislation. We
recommend a further modification of the reverter clause to provide that
such a reversion is subject to the transferee's cleanup of any
hazardous materials at the site. This would ensure that the Federal
government is not forced to assume potential liabilities that may
arise.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify. Again, we look forward to
working with the Committee to help achieve a positive result. I will be
happy to answer any questions from the Committee.
ON H.R. 4170 AND H.R. 2400
Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, it is a pleasure for me
to appear before you today to discuss the Administration's views on a
number of bills of concern to the Department of the Interior.
First, I would like to speak about H.R. 4170, a bill to authorize
the Secretary of the Interior to recruit volunteers to assist with the
activities of various agencies and offices of the Department of the
Interior. The Department of the Interior strongly supports this bill
and urges that it be enacted. It is consistent with the
Administration's program. Through our Take Pride in America program,
the Department of the Interior recruits, supports, and recognizes
volunteers who work to improve our public lands and cultural and
historic sites. Volunteers across America help public land managers fix
fences and trails, stabilize soils, replant stream banks devastated by
forest fires, restore historic buildings, teach kids to fish, collect
data and monitor bird populations. They direct their energy to serving
the American public and building a culture of responsibility.
Currently, just five of the Interior Department's eight bureaus
have authority to accept volunteers, and two of these have only limited
authority to use volunteers. Statutory provisions regarding the proper
limitations on using volunteers are inconsistent or nonexistent. H.R.
4170 would provide clear authority to pay for incidental services or
costs associated with volunteers, such as providing supplies or
transportation to a work site, and for training and supervision of
volunteers. This bill would fill many statutory gaps, providing
authority for the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Office of the
Secretary to work with volunteers to support the renewal of the Take
Pride in America program, and perfecting the existing volunteer
authority of the United States Geological Survey and the Bureau of
Reclamation. The Department of the Interior is therefore pleased to
support the passage of this legislation.
The bill is entirely consistent with existing authorities. It does
not disturb the current statutory volunteer authority of the three
bureaus that presently have sufficient authority and avoids disruption
of existing programs to the maximum extent possible. This bill would
not displace employees.
The Department of the Interior is a leader in the federal
government in providing opportunities for volunteer service. Because of
our unique mission in support of the Nation's natural and cultural
heritage, we believe that expanding volunteer authority makes eminent
good sense and that this bill is suitably drafted for that purpose. If
this bill is enacted, Americans will have opportunities, for example,
to volunteer as tutors in BIA schools. Nineteenth century French writer
Alexis de Tocqueville observed that the United States was a nation of
voluntary associations. H.R. 4170 will help to make sure our 21st
century laws keep this spirit of volunteerism alive.
Next, I will address H.R. 2400--a bill to amend the Organic Act of
Guam to clarify Guam's local judicial structure. H.R. 2400 would
establish the local court system of Guam as a third co-equal, and
unified branch of government, alongside the legislative and executive
branches of the Government of Guam. The Administration has no objection
to the passage of this bill.
Enacted by the Congress, the Organic Act of Guam sets out the
structure of the government of Guam. Amendments over time have
continually added to self-government in the territory. The Organic Act
established a legislature. It was later amended to change the executive
from an appointed Governor to an elected Governor, and in 1984, to
authorize the Legislature to establish a local appeals court. In 1994,
under the authority granted in the Organic Act, the Legislature of Guam
established the Supreme Court of Guam. But, two years later, the
Legislature removed from the Supreme Court its administrative authority
over the Superior Court of Guam. Since then Guam has had a bifurcated
local court system at a time when virtually all states have unified
court systems.
H.R. 2400 would amend the judicial provisions of the Organic Act of
Guam to specifically name the Supreme Court of Guam as Guam's appellate
court, and outline the powers of the Supreme Court, including full
administrative authority for the Supreme court over the local court
system.
It is argued that only an act of Congress can bring unity and
dignity to Guam's local courts. Proponents of H.R. 2400 suggest that if
the Legislature retains control, the court system is subject to
influence by the Legislature. Only by placing local court authority in
the Organic Act of Guam can the judiciary of Guam be a co-equal and
independent branch of the Government of Guam. Opponents suggest that
the system is working fine, and that an administrative function divided
between the Supreme Court and Superior Court is healthy for judicial
system.
The structure of Guam's local judiciary is largely a self-
government issue for Guam. As such, opinion from Guam should be given
great consideration, as long as issues of overriding Federal interest
are not involved. In 1997, the Executive branch examined an earlier
version of the bill under consideration today. A number of suggestions
were made for improving the bill and harmonizing it with the Federal
court system. H.R. 2400 includes the suggested modifications in
language. The Administration, therefore, has no objection to the
enactment of H.R. 2400 in its present form.
Senator Craig. Scott, thank you very much.
Let us start right with you, and let me ask one question
about the legislation for Guam. Is it the Department of the
Interior's position that a Federal amendment to Guam's Organic
Act is necessary to solidify the independent judicial structure
in Guam?
Mr. Cameron. Yes, sir, it is.
Senator Craig. Let me ask about S. 2378, the Clark County,
Nevada, conveyance bill. What is the estimated value of the
land to be conveyed in this bill?
Mr. Cameron. Approximately $57 million.
Senator Craig. In your testimony you indicate that there is
an administrative process for authorizing a heliport. What is
involved in the process and what would the rental cost of this
be?
Mr. Cameron. Under the Recreation and Public Purposes Act,
the local government, Clark County in this instance, would
apply to the Bureau of Land Management office and, depending
upon the particulars, land would be made available at roughly
50 percent of fair market value. There is an option for
conveying the land in fee title. There is also an option under
a 1928 statute and I believe a 1982 statute for potentially
leasing the land, again at 50 percent of fair market value.
So I could not give you an exact figure on what the rental
rate might be at this point, but there are opportunities for
significant discounts, if you will, compared to the fair market
value, whether you are talking a lease arrangement or conveying
fee title.
Senator Craig. Do you know if there are alternative sites
available for this heliport?
Mr. Cameron. My understanding is that the county and the
congressional delegation have had a number of conversations and
that they are thinking of some alternative sites. BLM has not
been a party to those discussions, so I could not tell you
specifically what those might be.
Senator Craig. Thank you.
Chris, I noted--and I am talking about the Northern Sierra
Forest California conveyance bill, H.R. 1651. I note that the
bill established the values for both the lands that the Boy
Scouts will be eventually receiving as well as lands that the
Forest Service will be receiving, rather than the normal
requirement of an equal value exchange after the normal
prescribed appraisal.
How comfortable is the Forest Service that these legislated
values are fair to the American taxpayer?
Mr. Pyron. We believe it is a good exchange, in the sense
that we are giving up a parcel that is outside the forest
boundaries. It is 160 acres, but it is mostly under water.
There is only about 15 acres that is actually outside of the
FERC license for Southern California Edison. We had significant
conversations as we went through this and, given the condition
of our land, of which we also do not have dedicated access, it
seemed to our folks that it made sense and it was reasonable
and we were comfortable with the valuations contained in the
bill.
Senator Craig. Now, the legislation does deal with an
easement across private property.
Mr. Pyron. That is correct.
Senator Craig. Do you know if the current private property
holders accept that?
Mr. Pyron. The easement would be established by the Forest
Service granting the easement to Southern California Edison
before the conveyance took place to the other party. So the
easement does not currently exist. It is a condition of the
bill.
Senator Craig. I see, okay.
Mr. Pyron. It is something it is my understanding Southern
California Edison asked for.
Senator Craig. I see that by the bill the Federal land is
deemed to be worth about $1,560 an acre and it is lakefront
property. Can you give us any comparable land sales, suggest
comparables that would be lakefront land in California?
Mr. Pyron. Actually, again if you look at the condition of
the land, the fact that most of it is inundated, most of the
160 acres is inundated because of the FERC license that covers
all but about 15 acres of the land, the lack of access, we did
not have any real comparables that I am aware of, but that all
detracts from what would otherwise seem to be a very low price
for the value of the land.
Senator Craig. I see that we have a value of non-Federal
land, whether it is a comparable or not I am not sure, at
around $2,500 an acre. So if those conditions exist and there
is no access currently, then I can appreciate the difference in
value.
Mr. Pyron. And my understanding is the other land was
compared--we had other land to compare it to to make that
determination, so we are comfortable with that valuation.
Senator Craig. Well, my time in this round is up, so let me
turn to Senator Cantwell for questions of the administration.
Senator Cantwell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Pyron, you were right in your testimony that this body
or no member can manage the Forest Service. We cannot. But we
can have oversight, and I would like to know, in regards to the
Senate bill and your testimony, which provisions do you
specifically object to? Do you object to the specific calling
out of how much money the Department would spend on training so
that Members of Congress would know exactly how much money that
is? Does the agency specifically object to that section?
Mr. Pyron. We have concerns about the difficulty that we
would have in collecting, defining what constitutes training
and then going out and collecting that information across the
wide variety of activities. As I said before, training is an
integral part of almost everything we do, safety training and
the safety aspects of training. To separate that all out would
be very, very difficult for us.
We could come up with a lot of different numbers that would
satisfy various definitions, but would not tell us a lot. That
is more what we are concerned of, is the value of the number--
--
Senator Cantwell. Wouldn't a specific amount of money tell
you at least some goal and focus and convince people that you
were not constantly raiding those dollars to be used for
emergency firefighting instead of training people in advance? I
mean, we have a system today which basically said there was an
identified item in 417, a suspicious substance. That was part
of our preparedness efforts here in the Capitol to make these
buildings safe. I do not know that anybody would have put that
communication and that particular incident down as part of the
cost. So we are not looking for every detail.
But right now the public is left without any information
about what we are spending on training within the Forest
Service, an agency that employs lots of people who go out and
fight these fires. And as OSHA and the Inspector General are
now saying, you are still, after 10 years, making the same
mistakes and it is costing lives.
Mr. Pyron. Well, one of the things that the OIG audit did
laud us for is our safety programs. It said some good things
about the way we do safety training in the OIG report. And we
are not raiding our safety training dollars. In fact, we have
safety training standards in the Forest Service that exceed
those imposed by the National Wildfire Coordinating Committee.
We hold ourselves to a higher standard than other folks. We are
very much committed to doing that.
Senator Cantwell. So you think the IG report and previous
OSHA reports give you a good report card?
Mr. Pyron. I did not say that. I said the IG report--let me
just see if I can find it very quickly--said that the safety
training aspect of it, in interviewing 80 different folks, that
they lauded us on the quality of the training and generally
said it was well done, this on safety training.
It had the four areas that I mentioned before where we need
to do better work on. We accept that and we are working to
improve those areas. But a broad-based safety program is not
focused on what is causing us the most trouble, and it is
fighting fires, those transition fires that you had at Cramer,
that you had at Thirtymile, and that you had at Storm King,
where you have a Type 3 incident commander who is suddenly
faced with a blowup in the fire and these folks are not
adequately--we as an organization, not just the ICs, are not
adequately responding to those changed conditions.
We need to be focused on how we handle those situations,
because that is where we are having our fatalities. It is not
in fighting the Hayman Fire, the Biscuit Fire, huge fires. The
Rodeo-Chediski Fire, my parents were evacuated because of that
fire for a week and a half. It burned over 400,000 acres and we
had no accidents.
Senator Cantwell. I see we are on yellow here and my time
may be expiring, but I am trying to understand. Now I get it,
because we have asked Mr. Rey for these numbers before and he
promised to get them to us and now we hear the agency is not
going to get them to us or does not want to tell the public.
If I could, because I do not have a lot of time, I want to
follow up a question, which I am still amazed that the agency
will not come up with the number that they spend generally on
training.
But according to a Seattle Times article on this
investigation and a memo written by Joseph Ferguson, a deputy
incident commander for the Forest Service, quote: ``If we do
not improve the quality and the accountability of this program,
we are going to kill a bunch of firefighters. Although there
were two to three good to excellent crews on each fire, that
was offset by 20 to 30 that were hardly worth having.''
Ferguson added, quote: ``It was apparent that training for most
of these crews had been done poorly or not at all.''
So we want to get this right. I guarantee you that me
sitting up here, hearing after hearing, is not going to get it
right, because I cannot create a culture. But we can track
budgets and we can hold people accountable. Now we are hearing
that the agency does not want to be held accountable to the
amount of investment it is making within its agency, which I
find amazing.
Mr. Pyron. In the first place, we did come up with the
figure of $30 million for the cost of the safety training. We
are very uncomfortable with that number, but we worked really
hard to come up with it. It has got a large variability.
We do not have a problem with reporting what we spend on
things if in fact we do not get distracted from what is really
causing people to be at risk, which is the way we fight these
transition fires. The part that I am trying to express is
training folks to fight large fires or training folks for
initial attack is not relevant to what is getting people in
trouble. It is these transition fires.
Senator Cantwell. I think it is very clear what is getting
people in trouble, is that you have young crews who are not
taught the discipline of issues such as making sure there are
escape routes. That is exactly what happened in Thirtymile Fire
and that is exactly what happened in Cramer. There were no
identified escape routes for these individuals. So yes, that is
the kind of training I am talking about, so that you do not
have some really qualified crews and young kids who are 18, 19
years old who are doing this because this is the way that they
are going to make money and they are sure, they think that they
are well trained, and then go out and find out that they are
put in harm's way without these identifying factors that were
the same factors identified in Colorado, in Washington, and now
are happening in Idaho about not knowing the basics of escape
routes and whether a situation is too dangerous to be in.
Mr. Pyron. In the reality--I do not want to be
argumentative, but the reality of the Colorado fire, Storm
King, those were smokejumpers there. They were very, very well
trained folks that got themselves in trouble. So it is
something beyond simply saying that we have not trained people
to properly identify escape routes. There is an issue there
that we need to deal with and we are trying very diligently to
do that.
We are working--as I said before, the simulation exercise
we are doing for Type 3 incident commanders to make sure that
they have the decision-making skills to confront these changing
environments is a huge step forward for the organization that
came out of the Cramer Fire and our evaluation of where we were
really falling down on the job.
So I think we are in the same place, that we have got to
make changes in the way we do it. We are just saying that
measuring the amount of safety training across the entire
firefighting organization is not going to produce the kind of
results that you are seeking and we are seeking, which is to
deal with these certain incidents or instances that are
producing the fatalities we are facing.
Senator Cantwell. I see my time has expired in this round,
Mr. Chairman.
Senator Craig. Well, thank you.
Let me continue this line of questioning. I think it is
important with the legislation at hand and with the issue and
the Inspector General's report now out. Obviously we are
greatly concerned about this, as our fire seasons become even
more catastrophic. What is your explanation for 27 of the 81
recommendations not being implemented yet? The Senator had
mentioned that earlier. I note that was a last January effort.
Could you tell us how many recommendations of the 27
outstanding recommendations have been addressed since January?
Mr. Pyron. I am going to turn to Tom. He has the specifics
on that.
Senator Craig. All right, please, Tom. Pull that forward,
turn it out. Thank you.
Mr. Harbour. Sir, 12 of those 27 have since been
implemented and we have made substantial progress on the
remaining 15.
Senator Craig. When you say progress, what kind? What are
you doing out there? Give the committee an example of the work
at hand that is going to bring you in general compliance with
that study.
Mr. Harbour. Yes, sir. We went to each national forest
through the regional offices of the Forest Service and asked
each national forest to certify compliance with those
outstanding items that had not been completed, and then
aggregated those items back up to the national level.
Senator Craig. With this report being done, with the
concern Congress expressed and the obvious concern that I think
is now beginning to be demonstrated by the Forest Service, we
have just completed a fire season--well, I guess in parts of
the country we are still in it, California and others. While
most of those acreages that burned were in Canada--excuse me--
in Alaska, obviously we still had some critical fires in the
lower 48.
Based on what you know now and the work at hand and the
training being done, what is your assessment of the 2004 fire
season?
Mr. Pyron. From the position that I serve in, I get
confronted with mostly the things that go really wrong. This
year we have not had those kinds of things like we had with
Cramer, that were such a tragedy back in 2003. This year has
been a year that has been remarkably free of those incidents
for us. But it has also been a very much smaller fire year,
too.
We would like to attribute that success to some of the
things we have done with the Type 3 incident commanders, but
time will tell whether that has produced the outcomes that we
are seeing.
Senator Craig. In the Senator's legislation we are talking
about accountability and being able to determine money spent.
Give us an example of why you see that would be a problem? I
mean, administrative problem, okay; what would it cost? What
are we talking about here? Why can we not establish an ongoing
figure as it relates to the kind of training being done so
Congress can get some level of assessment from a dollars and
cents standpoint?
Mr. Pyron. I think we could work together if we were
careful to define what we were costing out and that we reported
those costs. I do not see us having a problem with that. What
is difficult is just to have a blanket statement saying that,
report the cost of safety training, when it is so, as I said
before, so integrally involved in so much of the things that we
do, and coming up with a number that is consistently aggregated
that we can stand behind, that everybody does it the same way.
It is one of the biggest problems we have in trying to cost out
things across the organization, and we are working on some of
that.
The other problem we have with having the budget line item
is our training costs change from year to year, and trying to
predict them 2 years out is pretty difficult. One thing we
would not want to have happen is having a training budget that
we could not exceed when we do more in the area of training,
just as we would not want to spend money on training folks when
it was not really necessary just to hit a budgetary target.
The reporting back is not as onerous, again if we define it
appropriately, as it is just having this target in and of
itself for how much training we are going to do.
Senator Craig. I have been associated with firefighting and
observed it, been around it, for a good number of years, and I
have seen a significant improvement in training and talent and
expertise. You still cannot forgive incidents of the kind that
the Senator and I are concerned about.
But I am also willing to accept the character of the fires
you are talking about, phenomenally explosive under certain
circumstances and nearly impossible to predict or to make
determinations on.
Give us a little more detail about the certification of a
Type 3 incident commander? How did we assess those skills? What
are we doing out there now to really bring a level of
experience and professionalism into, if you will, the front
line of these catastrophic environments?
Mr. Pyron. I am going to turn to Tom on that.
Mr. Harbour. Yes, sir. The recertification for our Type 3
incident commanders consisted of bringing a cadre of skilled
professionals at much higher technical levels together with a
group of students and then putting them through a combination
of either computerized training or what we have adapted from
the Marine Corps, the sand table exercise, where we present the
student with a situation and then assess their capability to
respond.
These simulations involve simulated radio traffic,
situations that they were presented with as they would be
presented on the ground, assessment by the cadre over a 6 to 8-
hour period, and then finally a face to face assessment with
the student by the cadre of how they had done.
Not everyone succeeded in becoming recertified and those
that were most concerned about the lack of skills did not even
attend the recertification.
Senator Craig. I see my time is about up, but let me ask
one more question, and I think you are the one that would need
to respond to it. When will the Forest Service have completed
its response to the recommendations of the IG report? What is
your time line on that?
Mr. Harbour. We believe, sir, that by the end of October we
will have the bulk of these items completed, and certainly we
will be working closely with the IG in the mean time.
Senator Craig. ``The bulk of them'' meaning all 81?
Mr. Harbour. Yes, sir.
Senator Craig. Senator.
Senator Cantwell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I would like to talk about the training in general, because
I am assuming that you also object to reporting on the
effectiveness of training, which is the second provision of the
bill. But if you do not, if that is not your major objection,
you can say so in the answer to this question.
I am concerned about the Inspector General's report, where
they found, quote, ``documentation missing to support
firefighters' qualifications.'' In particular for 65 of the 80
sample firefighters, which was about 81 percent, the IG was
unable to locate sufficient documentation to support their
position and qualifications. Quote: ``Without supporting
documentation, we cannot provide adequate assurance that all
firefighters have required training, skills and experience to
perform the jobs which they have been issued credentials for.''
What is your comment about that Inspector General criticism
of the number of people that were missing credentials and what
skill level they had actually been--they have been able to
achieve?
Mr. Pyron. From my perspective, I am reasonably confident
that most of those folks had the skills that we thought they
had. But what we obviously have learned from this is we are
doing a pretty bad job of documenting that, and without the
documentation it does not matter whether they have done that or
not. So we are working very diligently to acquire that
documentation and only let those folks serve in those red-
carded positions that can demonstrate that they have the
documentation to support their qualifications.
Mr. Harbour. Senator, if I may, using myself as an example:
nine different moves in my Forest Service career over 34 years,
moving from a firefighter on the ground to a Type 1 incident
commander and area commander. I have gone through an iteration
of not only the naming and numbering of these courses, but an
iteration of the location at various district and
administrative offices of the records of the training that I
have kept.
So in some cases it is simply a lack of the documentation
or the lack of ability as we have gone through four different
systems in the 34 years I have been acquainted with
firefighting to move those records from one system and one
location to another. We are attempting, based on the IG report,
to go back and make certain that the documentation standards
are met as per the IG's advice.
Mr. Pyron. We have committed ourselves to having this done
by May 2005.
Senator Cantwell. So you think there is no issue where
individual firefighters were not adequately trained; they just
did not have credentials?
Mr. Pyron. There may be instances of where that happened.
But as a systemic problem, I do not think that is the case. But
there may be an isolated instance somewhere.
But by complying with the OIG recommendation here, we are
going to go back for every single firefighter and make sure
that that documentation is available so we do not have that
problem at all.
Senator Cantwell. The IG report was also very big on
performance standards, basically that the Forest Service did
not have a performance standard for firefighting safety,
specifically the fire safety performance, underscore, what are
called individual responsibilities and accountability for the
firefighting practices. What is your understanding about what
the agency is doing to improve those standards?
I think what we have seen from Storm King, Thirtymile, and
now Cramer is a list of things that people do not--every
hearing is the same: We are working on them, we are improving.
And then we come back to the same, the recommendations, which I
could have here, are very similar. So I think what the Forest
Service, Thirtymile on one side and Cramer on the other, same
recommendations. So years pass, then you see the same
recommendations.
I think what the IG report is saying is that you have to
have performance standards so that you know exactly what these
requirements mean and when they are being violated. Otherwise
you do not really know whether someone is able to achieve those
goals. We always hear that, we are working on it, but we still
come back to incidents involving escape routes.
Mr. Pyron. Let me return to your basic question, but I want
to respond to the second part of that first. We are doing
things differently than we have in the past. The sandbox
exercise and the simulation is a totally new approach to try to
deal with something that we think has real promise for
increasing the capability and the competency of our Type 3
incident commanders. And we have done that. We did it for 1,068
ICs. So that is not saying we are working on it. It is
something we have done.
Senator Cantwell. An ``IC'' is?
Mr. Pyron. Incident commander, on a Type 3 fire, which was
the kind of fire that we had at Storm King or at Thirtymile or
Cramer.
My point is this is not all prospective. We are doing
things now. But we are also trying to work outside of the box
for the first time and look to organizations like the JFK
School of Government to help us think about the way we are
thinking about these things. We have gone to the military, the
Marines, to look at how they deal with these kind of
situations, to make sure that we are not missing something
because we are locked in our view of how the world should work.
We are doing those things. But as it relates to the first
part of your question, the answer is the Forest Service has
issued performance standards that were responsive to the
recommendation for forest supervisors, district rangers, and
fire program managers and supervisors, and the OIG position has
been to accept the Forest Service management decision on this
point. So I think we have completed that.
Senator Cantwell. You think performance standards now are
in place?
Mr. Pyron. They are.
Senator Cantwell. What are they?
Mr. Harbour. Senator, in late May we issued performance
standards. Chris and the Chief issued those performance
standards, and the regions certified by the end of June that in
fact those performance standards for fire program managers,
line officers, are in place. We can provide a copy of those.
Senator Cantwell. That would be great. So the IG report
that was issued basically saying they need performance
standards for firefighter safety, you think that they somehow
missed those or the timing did not correspond?
Mr. Pyron. I think when they issued the report we had not
completely fulfilled that obligation in every circumstance.
There was some percentage that we had not done it yet. What we
have done since then is gone back and made sure we had
compliance for 100 percent.
Senator Cantwell. I see my time is up again, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Craig. If you have some more questions, please
continue for a few moments.
Senator Cantwell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Well, we certainly would like a copy of the performance
standards.
Mr. Pyron. We will provide that.
Senator Cantwell. Then the third issue of the legislation
that we have been proposing is basically taking the private
contractors and treating them with the same kind of training as
the Federal wildland firefighters. What is your objection to
that?
Mr. Pyron. I think right now--well, in the first place, the
bill requires that we do that. We do that as a matter of course
now. It is a requirement of the contracts that they meet the
training standards contained in the National Wildland Fire
Coordinating Committee.
Senator Cantwell. The private contractors do?
Mr. Pyron. The private contractors do, correct.
Senator Cantwell. They receive the same amount of training?
Mr. Pyron. That they have to have the same qualifications,
which requires the training, that we require of our
firefighters across the board.
Senator Cantwell. But are we not talking about the
difference between somebody being trained for a couple of weeks
versus a long period of time?
Mr. Pyron. Which all depends on which job you are
fulfilling in the fire organization. I mean, our entry level
firefighters have less training than somebody who is a crew
boss or a squad boss or that kind of stuff. It depends on the
position that you are in, and they have to meet the
qualifications to hold those positions.
Now, what we are working on is we have a requirement, but
our contract administration has got to be beefed up to make
sure that they are living up to those requirements. We have
been working very closely with the Oregon Department of
Forestry, which is actually the contractor for most of these
crews, to help us to ensure that they are meeting the
qualification standards that we are contracting for, that they
have the training that we are contracting for, they have the
experience that we are contracting for.
One of the things that the audit report found is that we
are making good strides in that area and they found no reason
to believe that we were not going to be successful in doing
that. That was a finding in the audit report.
Senator Cantwell. So what do you object to then in that
last section of the bill?
Mr. Pyron. The way the bill is written--and explain to me
if I have got it wrong--you are saying that--the bill says that
the contractors should live up to the standards. We agree with
that. And you are saying that we should have a system in place
to ensure that that happens. We agree with that.
I think that is good common sense. There is no reporting
requirements that I am aware of in there. So as that is written
we would not object to that part of the bill, unless I am
missing something.
Senator Cantwell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Craig. Any further questions?
Senator Cantwell. No. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Craig. Well, let me thank both agencies for being
here today. I am pleased to hear that there is substantial
progress in firefighter training. Obviously it is of great
concern, and we in the lower 48 lucked out this year with a
wetter season than planned or we would have been plunged into
another catastrophic fire scenario that, unless we have highly
skilled and trained people on the ground, is going to put
people at risk in these environments.
At the same time, it is a close call--I think we all
understand that--between putting people at risk and when you
have a human structure in the path of a fire, attempting to get
in there and save that structure versus backing crews out and
saying, no, that is a place no one should go. That is a
constant balance of force, but it is also a constant reminder
that you are going to have to have quality, skilled people on
the ground making those kinds of judgments as it relates to
putting firefighters in harm's way versus doing what they are
trained effectively to do.
That is why I think you are seeing this concern expressed,
this legislation being offered, as we adapt to and bring the
level of quality and training and experience up and the
procedural mechanisms necessary to ensure it as these fire
scenarios have significantly changed.
We thank you all for being with us and I have already
mentioned we will leave the record open for a period of time.
The subcommittee will stand adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 3:54 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
APPENDIXES
----------
Appendix I
Responses to Additional Questions
----------
Department of the Interior,
Office of Congressional and Legislative Affairs,
Washington, DC, November 10, 2004.
Hon. Larry E. Craig,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests, Committee on Energy
and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: Enclosed are responses to questions submitted
following the September 29, 2004, hearing on S. 2378, H.R. 2400, H.R.
3874, H.R. 4170 and S. Res. 387.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide this material for the
record.
Sincerely,
Jane M. Lyder,
Legislative Counsel.
[Enclosures.]
Questions From Senator Craig
h.r. 2400, to amend the organic act of guam for the purposes of
clarifying the local judicial structure of guam
Question 1. Locally, Guam has enacted a law that already designates
the Supreme Court as the highest court in the territory. Is it the
Department of the Interior's position that a federal amendment to
Guam's Organic Act is necessary to solidify an independent judicial
structure in Guam?
Answer. Given the history of the Supreme Court of Guam, the short
answer is ``Yes.''
In 1984, the Congress authorized the Legislature of Guam to
establish an appellate court for Guam's local judiciary. Each of the
fifty state court systems in the United States is structured with a
unified hierarchy. Consistent with the authority granted by the
Congress, the Legislature of Guam established a Supreme Court. Shortly
thereafter, the Legislature shifted authority from the Supreme Count to
the Superior Court of Guam, creating a bifurcated system.
At the time the Congress granted appellate court authority to the
Legislature of Guam, no one contemplated that the Legislature of Guam
would tinker with the jurisdiction of the appellate court (i.e.,
Supreme Court of Guam) in order to satisfy political ends. Politics,
however, has played a major role in the shifting of responsibilities
within the judiciary of Guam.
Traditionally, the tripartite structure of government is
established in the foundation document of that government. For the
United States and the fifty states, all three branches of government,
including the courts, are found in their respective constitutions. The
foundation document for Guam is the Organic Act of Guam. The Organic
Act makes provision for the legislative and executive branches, but
only contains authority for establishing an appellate court. The
Organic Act does not establish the appellate court or Supreme Court,
per se. H.R. 2400 would accomplish the task by placing the structure of
the judiciary of Guam in the Organic Act of Guam, i.e., on a par with
the legislative and executive branches of Guam
Question 2. Why are all the parties--the Governor, the Legislature,
and the Judicial Council of Guam--now supportive of this legislation? I
believe this was not always the case.
Answer. In previous years, political divisions on Guam pitted
various Guam institutions against each other on the issue of Supreme
Court authority. These differences now appear to have been resolved.
Direct communication with the Governor, Legislature and Judicial
Council would be the best way to elicit specific reasons for changes in
their positions on the issue.
S. 2378, TO PROVIDE FOR THE CONVEYANCE OF CERTAIN PUBLIC LANDS IN CLARK
COUNTY, NEVADA, FOR USE AS A HELIPORT
Question 1. What is the estimated value of the land to be conveyed
in this bill?
Answer. These lands have not been appraised, but based on
comparable land sales in the area from June 2, 2004, land sales
receipts, the lands could sell for approximately $248,000/acre. The
value of the 229 acres proposed for conveyance is estimated at
approximately $56 million.
Question 2. In your testimony, you indicated that there is an
administrative process for authorizing a heliport. What is involved in
this process? What would the rental cost be?
Answer. The BLM could enter into a long-term lease with the County
through authority provided in Section 302 of the Federal Land Policy
and Management Act. This section allows the Secretary to authorize a
lease to entities for the use and development of public lands for
commercial purposes. It also requires the entity to pay a rental fee
based on the market value of the lands. The application and approval
procedures are outlined in 43 CFR Part 2920.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ A copy of the regulation has been retained in subcommittee
files.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
An individual or entity wishing to lease BLM land for a commercial
purpose is required to submit an application and an application fee to
the BLM. If the purpose of the lease complies with BLM land use plans
as determined by a BLM review, the application is processed and NEPA
and other resource clearances are initiated. An appraisal on the land
is done to determine the rental fee, which is based on fair market
value. A Notice of Realty Action is published for public comment in the
``Federal Register'' and a publication of local interest. Final
decisions to issue a permit are subject to protest and appeal.
Question 3. Are there alternative sites available for a heliport?
Answer. We are aware of ongoing discussions with the sponsors of
the legislation and various interests in Nevada to resolve this issue.
We have not been directly involved with these discussions but we are
always happy to work with the sponsors and the Committee to determine
alternative locations.
h.r. 3874, to convey for purposes certain federal lands in riverside
county, california, that have been identified for disposal
Question 1. What is the estimated value of the land to be conveyed
in this bill?
Answer. We have not completed an appraisal for this property.
However, based on preliminary estimates and comparable values we can
give a general estimate for the 44 acre parcel of $1.3 million.
Question 2. What values or uses are these lands currently being
managed?
Answer. These lands are currently being used for the placement of
two water wells and an electrical power line under BLM rights-of-way
grants. These lands are also used as open space by residents in the
area.
H.R. 4170, TO AUTHORIZE THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR TO RECRUIT
VOLUNTEERS TO ASSIST WITH, OR FACILITATE, THE ACTIVITIES OF VARIOUS
AGENCIES AND OFFICES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Question 1. I am told that this is a priority for Secretary Norton.
From the looks of it, it make sense to provide all agencies in the
Department of the Interior with similar authority to utilize
volunteers.
Question 2. Can you help us understand why, if this is a priority,
it has not been introduced in the Senate and why it was only introduced
in the House of Representatives on July 20th of this year?
Answer. As noted in our testimony, the Department of the Interior
is a leader in the federal government in providing opportunities for
volunteer service. While we have been aware of deficiencies in
volunteer authorities for some of our bureaus for some time, developing
appropriate language that would ensure against any disruption of
existing volunteer programs and would satisfy the concerns of other
agencies of the Federal government was not an easy task. The Department
of the Interior has been working with other Federal agencies since the
beginning of this Administration to develop language that satisfies the
Administration's concerns and ensures an appropriate legal framework
for our volunteers. The provisions in the current bill reflect the
consensus that was reached.
The bill was introduced in the House on April 20th of 2004.
Secretary Norton and Congressman Richard Pombo co-authored an op-ed
that appeared in the San Diego Union-Tribune on April 9th of 2004
explaining the goal of the legislation to secure the place that
volunteers have in helping the Department of the Interior serve
Americans. When the bill passed the House Committee on Resources, the
Secretary issued a press release expressing her support for the bill
and reiterating that ``Volunteers are highly valued and are very
important to our ability to do more in our service to the American
people.'' \2\ H.R. 4170 passed the House on July 19th. As the Senate
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources considers this bill, the
Department of the Interior would like to reiterate our support. We hope
that it will garner the same enthusiasm from the Senate that it has
received from the House.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The op-ed and press release have been retained in subcommittee
files.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
SENATE RESOLUTION 387, COMMEMORATING THE 40TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE
WILDERNESS ACT
The Department of the Interior did not testify on Senate Resolution
387.
Questions From Senator Bingaman
REGARDING S. 2410
Question. For each of the last ten years, how many Department of
the Interior employees were formally qualified to fill wildland fire
positions?
TOTAL EXPENDITURES
[Millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLM BIA NPS FWS DOI Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1996................................................ 3,535 708 3,105 599 7,947
1997................................................ 3,671 674 2,604 615 7,564
1998................................................ 3,989 943 3,284 810 9,026
1999................................................ 4,088 1,623 3,686 982 10,379
2000................................................ 3,832 2,372 2,721 824 9,909
2001................................................ 4,352 3,416 3,007 984 11,759
2002................................................ 5,219 5,506 3,253 1,144 15,122
2003................................................ 5,453 5,973 3,470 1,221 16,117
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Due to system and data-tracking changes, data responding to this request only dates back to 1996. These
numbers also include some Emergency Firefighters and others ``red carded'' and hired on an incident basis, but
not carried on the rolls as DOI employees. For 2004, all DOI agencies are in the process of converting fire
qualifications data to the new Incident Qualifications and Certification System (IQCS), which was deployed in
July 2004. Until the data is fully converted and updated, we are unable to ascertain the exact number of
employees who currently hold red cards for fire duty.
REGARDING S. 2378
Question 1. What is BLM's estimate of the increase in frequency of
flights over the North McCullough Wilderness Area and Sloan Canyon
National Conservation Area that would result from implementation of
this bill?
Answer. There are no scheduled tourist helicopter flights over
Sloan Canyon NCA at this time. Air traffic over the NCA consists of
higher elevation jet traffic on approach to or take-off from McCarran
International Airport and intermittent small, fixed-wing aircraft
flying in and out of the Henderson Executive Airport, which is just
north of Sloan Canyon NCA. If the proposed heliport is built, it is
estimated that there would be 180 helicopter overflights, or 90 round-
trips per day over the NCA.
Question 2. Your testimony refers to the ``high market value'' of
the lands to be conveyed. What is the estimated value of the land?
Answer. These lands have not been appraised, but based on
comparable land sales in the area from June 2, 2004, land sales
receipts, the lands could sell for approximately $248,000/acre. The
value of the 229 acres proposed for conveyance is estimated at more
than $56 million.
REGARDING H.R. 3874
Question 1. Does the bill preclude for-profit use of the property
to be conveyed?
Answer. H.R. 3874 states that the lands conveyed under this bill
are to be used ``to provide a homeless shelter, a training center, and
affordable housing.'' Section 1(c) of H.R. 3874 states that if the
lands are not used for the purposes set forth in the bill, then the
lands revert to the United States. The legislation does not directly
address nonprofit versus for-profit enterprises.
Question 2. What is the estimated value of the property?
Answer. We have not completed an appraisal for this property.
However, based on preliminary estimates and comparable values we can
give general estimate for the 44 acre parcel of $1.3 million.
Questions for the Record for Delegate Bordallo Regarding H.R. 2400
Questions From Senator Bingaman
Question 1. During the 107th Congress, the House and Senate
considered H.R. 521 and S. 2823, the precursors to H.R. 2400. However,
final action was blocked by opposition from Guam. Please explain what
factors were behind that opposition and why they are not factors this
year.
Answer. I believe this question as well as others that relate to
consideration of H.R. 521 during the 107th Congress can best be
answered by my predecessor, Congressman Robert A. Underwood. I
understand, as you have noted, that in 2002 some unfavorable views on
H.R. 521 were received and entertained by the House Committee on
Resources as well as possibly by the Senate Committee on Energy and
Natural Resources. The House Committee on Resources held a legislative
hearing on H.R. 521 in Washington, D.C. on May 8, 2002, during which
the Honorable F. Philip Carbullido, the Acting Chief Justice of the
Supreme Court of Guam, and the Honorable Alberto C. Lamorena, III, the
Presiding Judge of the Superior Court of Guam, testified. Statements
from several other leaders in Guam were received by the House Committee
on Resources. This testimony is a part of the hearing transcript. Some
of the testimony received indicated that opponents would prefer that
this issue be addressed in a Guam Constitution. However, advocates
point out that the process to draft and ratify a Constitution would be
lengthy and that the need to address this issue is immediate and
significant. I believe earlier stated opposition to the legislation
became moot and concerns assuaged when the Guam Legislature amended the
Guam Code on October 31, 2003, to unify and reorganize the judiciary of
Guam (Guam Public Law 27-31). This Act of the 27th Guam Legislature
reorganized the judiciary in a manner consistent with H.R. 2400. Guam
Public Law 27-31 recognizes and empowers the Supreme Court of Guam as
the highest court of Guam. H.R. 2400 ensures that the Supreme Court of
Guam and a unified judiciary is not subject to future adverse actions
of the legislature. H.R. 2400 would solidify the changes made by Guam
Public Law 27-31 in the Organic Act of Guam to ensure the continued,
uninterrupted functioning of an efficient, unified, and independent
judicial branch of local government for the people of Guam.
Question 2. It is unusual for territorial governments to petition
Congress to limit their scope of self-government, as H.R. 2400 would
do. What is the reason that the Government of Guam requests this
limitation?
Answer. In his June 5, 2003, letter requesting the re-introduction
of H.R. 521, the Honorable F. Randall Cunliffe, Chairman of the 27th
Guam Legislature's Committee on Judiciary and Transportation, states
that the legislation ``is necessary to protect Guam's local judiciary
from infringement from the other branches of our government.'' Without
the Organic Act amendment the judiciary in Guam will be left vulnerable
to local politics and undue political interference. Recent developments
in Guam have emphasized the need for H.R. 2400 inasmuch as the Supreme
Court of Guam has rendered judgments on local disputes between
different branches and elected officials of the Government of Guam.
H.R. 2400 is a practical solution until Guam embarks on a process to
draft and ratify a Constitution. H.R. 2400 empowers the judiciary by
establishing separation of powers for the three branches of government
in the Organic Act of Guam, and by correcting the oversight of the 1984
Omnibus Territories Act (Public Law 98-454) H.R. 2400 strengthens
Guam's self-government. H.R. 2400 firmly establishes a unified
judiciary in Guam with a Supreme Court equivalent in authority to
Supreme Courts established in the 50 States. I do not view H.R. 2400 as
a limitation on self-government. The Organic Act of Guam is the de
facto constitution of Guam. This amendment to the Organic Act, while
setting limitations, is a limitation within a constitutional framework
on the powers of the other branches of government, just as the United
States Constitution, in establishing a tripartite form of government
limits, through checks and balances, the powers of each branch of
government.
Question 3. Can you can assure the Committee that enactment of H.R.
2400 is supported by a consensus of the government, courts, and
legislature of Guam?
Answer. I can assure the Committee that favorable views on H.R.
2400 have been expressed and received from leaders in every branch of
the Government of Guam. Many of these views have been transmitted to
Congress. I have submitted several documents that testify to the
unified support for the principles of this legislation for the
Committee's record.
It is important to note that the 27th Guam Legislature took action
on October 31, 2003, with the enactment of Guam Public Law 27-31, to
establish the Supreme Court of Guam as the highest court with
administrative control over the judiciary in the territory.
Additionally, on April 23, 2004, the 27th Guam Legislature adopted a
resolution (Resolution No. 139), sponsored by all 15 of its members,
that requests Congress to ``expeditiously and favorably pass H.R.
2400'' to amend the Organic Act to reflect the changes made by Guam
Public Law 27-31.
Furthermore, on May 6, 2004, the Judicial Council of Guam,
comprised of the justices and judges of the Supreme Court of Guam and
the Superior Court of Guam, adopted a resolution that also requests
Congress to pass H.R. 2400.
Moreover, the Honorable Felix P. Camacho, the Governor of Guam, has
written to me in support of H.R. 2400. In his letter of May 7, 2004, he
states that it is his ``personal preference'' for a ``tripartite
structure of government to be established in a Guam Constitution.''
However, he states that until Guam adopts its own constitution, he
supports the efforts to establish Guam's judicial branch in the Organic
Act.
The support for H.R. 2400 from local government leaders in Guam is
further evidenced by the presence of the Honorable Kaleo S. Moylan, the
Lieutenant Governor of Guam, at this hearing and in his statement for
the record.
All of these actions and communications testify to the broad
support H.R. 2400 has received among stakeholders and local leaders in
Guam. In addition to government leaders, the Guam Bar Association has
been firm in its support for the legislation.
Question 4. Are you aware of any significant opposition to H.R.
2400, and if so, by whom and for what reasons?
Answer. I introduced H.R. 2400 at the request of the Honorable F.
Randall Cunliffe, Chairman of the 27th Guam Legislature's Committee on
Judiciary and Transportation, on June 10, 2003. I have not received any
opposing views relating to H.R. 2400. Again, I would reiterate that the
local dispute regarding the authority of the Supreme Court over the
Superior Court and the entire judicial branch of the Government of Guam
has been settled by local law. Opponents to H.R. 521 in the 107th
Congress have accepted and come to recognize that the Guam Legislature
has taken the view that a unified judiciary is in Guam's best interest.
H.R. 2400 enjoys bipartisan support in Guam. The Republican Governor
and Lieutenant Governor, and the Democrat-controlled 27th Guam
Legislature are all in support of this legislation.
Questiion 5. I understand that Mr. Jack Abramoff was the lobbyist
hired to block enactment of this bill in the last Congress. As you may
know, he is now under investigation by the Senate Committee on Indian
Affairs and by the Justice Department for possible illegal activity. Is
there any reason to believe that his activities in Guam may have
involved any illegal activity that should also be investigated?
Answer. I do not have first-hand knowledge of Mr. Abramoff's
activities with regard to this issue. It is accurate that both the
Supreme Court of Guam and the Superior Court of Guam retained the
services of consultants on this issue. Mr. Abramoff signed a lobbying
registration form that was filed with the Secretary of the Senate on
June 20, 2002, and that lists an attorney contracted by the Superior
Court of Guam as his client. This registration on file with the
Senate's Office of Public Records indicates Mr. Abramoff was retained
to lobby on ``public policies related to issues of judicial and legal
structures for states and possessions.'' He also signed a mid-year
report that was filed on August 14, 2002, and a year-end termination
report that was filed on February 3, 2003, for this client. Both of
these reports identify H.R. 521 by bill number as the specific lobbying
issue and specify both the House and the Senate as contacts. Together
these reports indicate $540,000.00 was received by Mr. Abramoff's firm
to lobby on this issue in 2002. Local media in Guam have reported on
the manner of payments made to consultants and lobbyists on this issue.
These reports also indicate that the Supreme Court of Guam paid its
consultant $80,000.00 from its budget for contractual services.
Appendix II
Additional Material Submitted for the Record
----------
Office of the Governor of Guam,
Hagatna, Guam, May 7, 2004.
Hon. Madeleine Z. Bordallo,
Congresswoman, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Madeleine: This letter is written in reference to H.R. 2400, a
bill to amend the Organic Act of Guam for the purposes of clarifying
the local judicial structure of Guam.
As I stated in previous testimony in reference to a similar bill
introduced by your predecessor in the 107th Congress, ``I certainly
support the independence of all branches of government, inclusive of
the judicial branch of Guam.'' As the Chief Executive of our Territory,
I certainly appreciate our tripartite form of government which was
crafted by the founders of our great nation and unanimously adopted by
the states of our union. I fully recognize that the effectiveness of
our system of government, both on the federal and local level, rests in
checks and balances. To this end, I recognize that the judicial branch
of our Territory, like our executive and legislative branches, must be
``constitutionally'' established or in our case, have an ``Organic''
existence with similar powers to govern, reorganize, manage and account
for its branch with judicial independence founded under our U.S.
Constitution. To the extent H.R. 2400 furthers this principle, I am
supportive of your efforts and the assistance of your colleagues.
My personal preference is for our tripartite structure of
government to be established in a Guam Constitution. Further, the
specifics of the internal operation of our judicial branch should be
established locally. However, I am cognizant that since I submitted my
previous testimony to Congress on this issue, local law affecting the
Guam judiciary has changed. In addition, until Guam adopts its own
constitution, the Organic Act functions as Guam's de facto
constitution. For these reasons, I support your efforts to establish
Guam's judicial branch in our Organic Act.
With Warm Personal Regards,
Felix P. Camacho,
Governor of Guam.
______
Office of the Lieutenant Governor of Guam,
Hagatna, Guam, September 29, 2004.
Hon. Peter V. Domenici,
Chairman, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Re: H.R. 2400: To amend the Organic Act of Guam for the purpose of
clarifying the local judicial structure of Guam.
Dear Mr. Chairman and Members of the Senate Committee on Energy and
Natural Resources: For the Committee record I am Kaleo S. Moylan,
Lieutenant Governor of Guam. At the onset, let me offer a sincere
appreciation for this opportunity to express our support for H.R. 2400.
The purpose of H.R. 2400 is to amend the Organic Act of Guam for the
purposes of clarifying the local judicial structure in Guam.
Mr. Chairman, H.R. 2400 amends the Organic Act of Guam to establish
the Supreme Court of Guam as the highest local court in Guam.
Furthermore, it also amends the Organic Act to require a unified
judicial system composed of:
An appellate court designated as the `Supreme Court of
Guam';
A trial court designated as the `Superior Court of Guam';
and
Other lower local courts as may have been or may hereafter
be established by the laws of Guam.
Originally, appellate cases in Guam that fell under territorial
jurisdiction were reviewed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit. In 1973, the 12th Guam Legislature established the first
Supreme Court of Guam to hear these appealed cases. The establishment
of the court was ruled to be unauthorized by the U.S. Supreme Court in
Territory of Guam v. Olsen, 431 U.S. 195 (1977). Congress, in response
to the Olsen case, amended the Organic Act of Guam (1984) authorizing
the Guam Legislature to create an appellate court to hear all cases in
Guam over which any court established by the Constitution and laws of
the United States does not have exclusive jurisdiction.
In 1992 when the Guam Legislature passed legislation to create the
Supreme Court of Guam, it intended to make this entity the highest
local court and vest it with those powers traditionally held and
exercised by the highest court of a State or territory.
In authorizing the creation of an appellate court for Guam, the
Congress left the newly created court subordinate to Guam's other two
branches of government. Because the judiciary was established under
Guam law, it can be subject to changes based upon shifts in control of
Guam's executive and legislative branches. Establishing the Supreme
Court of Guam within Guam's Organic Act will make the judiciary a
coequal branch of government. H.R. 2400 corrects the unintended
oversight of the Omnibus Territories Act of 1984 (Public Law 98-454)
and insulate the judiciary in Guam from local politics and undue
political interference. More importantly, it removes any uncertainty
regarding future actions that threaten to undo the clarity of roles
established by local statute.
Recent developments in Guam have emphasized the need for H.R. 2400
in as much as the Supreme Court of Guam has rendered judgments on local
disputes between different branches for the Government of Guam and
between elected officials in the territory. In the 107th Congress,
there was local opposition; however, the Guam Legislature subsequently
took action with the enactment of Public Law 27-31, which established
the Supreme Court of Guam as the highest court with administrative
control over the judiciary in the territory.
In closing, let me just reiterate that the 27th Guam Legislature,
has adopted Resolution No. 139, sponsored by all 15 of its members,
expressing their support of H.R. 2400. Also, the Governor of Guam in a
letter to Congresswoman Bordallo has expressed his support to.
Thank You and ``Dangkulo na Si Yu'us Ma'ase para todus
hamyu!''
Kaleo S. Moylan,
Lieutenant Governor of Guam.
______
National Landscape Conservation System Coalition,
c/o The Wilderness Society,
Washington, DC, September 29, 2004.
Hon. Larry E. Craig,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests, Committee on Energy
and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Craig: As members of a coalition that seeks to protect
and enhance the National Landscape Conservation System (NLCS), we urge
you to amend S. 2378, legislation which would subject Sloan Canyon
National Conservation Area to frequent helicopter overflights. We would
like to submit the following comments regarding S. 2378 to the Senate
Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests as part of the official record
of the hearing scheduled for 29 September 2004.
When designated a National Conservation Area in 2002, Sloan Canyon
became the newest addition to the National Landscape Conservation
System (NLCS). The NLCS is comprised of 26 million acres of spectacular
Western landscapes managed under the auspices of the Bureau of Land
Management. NLCS National Monuments and Conservation Areas harbor
irreplaceable natural, cultural, and scientific treasures, like Sloan
Canyon's 1,700-plus petroglyphs and its bighorn sheep.
In addition to protecting the physical resources of these large
western landscapes, the National Landscape Conservation System is
intended to help safeguard the remote, wild character of Sloan Canyon,
and of other sites ranging from to Arizona's Grand Canyon-Parashant
National Monument, to California's King Range. In the face of
increasing urbanization, the NLCS and wild, quiet places like Sloan are
tremendously important to Americans nationwide. Solace and solitude are
rapidly dwindling commodities, even within many of our public lands.
Accordingly, legislation that would route helicopter overflights at
intervals of 1-10 minutes every day over Sloan Canyon fundamentally
undermines the concept of the National Landscape Conservation System.
Such legislation would destroy the special quiet character of this
National Conservation Area and the 17,000 acres of wilderness it
contains--quiet that is a treasure, given the area's proximity to Las
Vegas. Helicopter overflights could also increase stress on the local
bighorn sheep population. Modifying S. 2378 to utilize the Sunrise
Landfill site for the heliport, and directing flights away from Sloan
Canyon, would be a far better choice--one that minimizes conflicts with
residents, conservationists, historic preservation advocates, wildlife,
hikers, and others.
Sloan Canyon is a national treasure, of concern to our wide array
of organizations from across the country and our millions of members
who believe in protecting America's ecological, cultural, and historic
heritage in the National Landscape Conservation System. Like all the
lands in the NLCS, Sloan Canyon should remain a place where Americans
can enjoy peace, quiet, wildlife, and cultural history without the
visual or aural intrusion of helicopter noise.
Sincerely,
Kelly Burke, Executive Director, Grand Canyons
Wildlands Council; Amber Clark, Public
Lands Coordinator San Juan Citizens
Alliance; Larry Copenhaver, Conservation
Director, Montana Wildlife Federation; Jim
DiPeso, Policy Director, Republicans for
Environmental Protection; Gerry Jennings,
President, Montana Wilderness Association;
Don Hoffman, Director, Arizona Wilderness
Coalition; Emily Kaplan, Public Lands
Advocate, U.S. Public Interest Research
Group; Bill Martlett, Executive Director,
Oregon Natural Desert Association; Chuck
McAfee, Founder, Friends of the Monument
(Canyons of the Ancients); Sean McMahon,
Senior Policy Specialist for Land
Stewardship, National Wildlife Federation;
Maribeth Oakes, Director, Lands Protection
Program Sierra Club; Bill Patterson,
Western Colorado Congress; Tom Robinson,
Director of Government Affairs, Grand
Canyon Trust; Wendy Van Asselt, NLCS
Project Director, The Wilderness Society;
and Dave Willis, Chair, Soda Mountain
Wilderness Council.
______
International Mountain Bicycling Association,
Boulder, CO, October 1, 2004.
Hon. Larry Craig,
Chair, Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests, Committee on Energy
and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Hon. Ron Wyden,
Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests, Committee on
Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Chair Craig and Ranking Member Wyden: Thank you for your
letter of September 20, 2004, regarding the Lewis and Clark Mount Hood
Wilderness Act. I appreciate the opportunity to respond to questions
from Senator Gordon Smith, on behalf of the International Mountain
Bicycling Association.
1. There is document published by your association (IMBA) entitled
``Natural Resource Impacts of Mountain Biking. `` I'd like to read a
quote from that document:
``A body of empirical, scientific studies now indicates that
mountain biking is no more damaging than other forms of
recreation, including hiking . . . The wisdom of prohibiting
particular user groups in order to satisfy the desires of other
groups is a matter for politics rather than science.''
With this in mind, do you believe that mountain bikers are more
harmful to Mt. Hood than hikers or horseback riders who would still be
allowed access to Wilderness Areas?
No, IMBA is not aware of any evidence that would indicate that
mountain bike access to trails in the Mount Hood region is more harmful
than the impact of hiking or equestrian use. To the contrary, IMBA
believes there is strong evidence to show that mountain bike impacts to
trails and wildlife are similar to hiking and less than equestrian
impacts. As Senator Smith correctly points out, IMBA's document
``Natural Resource Impacts of Mountain Biking'' demonstrates that
mountain biking is no more damaging than other forms of recreation,
including hiking. While there are no specific studies for the Mount
Hood region, studies of mountain bike impact in other areas are
persuasive.
Science demonstrates that all forms of outdoor recreation--
including bicycling, hiking, running, horseback riding, fishing,
hunting, bird watching, and off-highway-vehicle travel--cause impacts
to the environment. Trails deteriorate over time. Yet, to date, no
scientific studies show that mountain bikers cause more wear to trails
than other users.
To the contrary, in 1994, John Wilson and Joseph Seney of Montana
State University published ``Erosional Impacts of Hikers, Horses,
Motorcycles and Off-Road Bicycles on Mountain Trails in Montana.''
Wilson and Seney found no statistically significant difference between
measured bicycling and hiking effects. They did find that horses caused
the most erosion of the trails, and that motorcycles traveling up
wetted trails caused significant impact. Wilson and Seney suggested
that precipitation will cause erosion even without human travel and
this factor may significantly outweigh the effects of travel. Trail
design, construction, and maintenance may be much more important
factors in controlling erosion.
In 1986 the Santa Clara County Parks and Recreation Department of
northern California studied the erosional effects of bicycling on the
Edwards Field Trail. The researcher, Christopher S. Crockett, observed
minimal change in the visual trail characteristics in most cases. The
data led the county parks department to open trails to mountain biking.
In addition, no scientific studies indicate that bicycling causes
more degradation of plants than hiking. Trails are places primarily
devoid of vegetation, so for trail use in the center of existing paths,
impacts to vegetation are not a concern. This issue is relevant with
regard to widening of trails and travel off established trails.
One study concluded that hiking and bicycling trample vegetation at
equal rates. Eden Thurston and Richard Reader of the University of
Guelph, Ontario, published ``Impacts of Experimentally Applied Mountain
Biking and Hiking on Vegetation and Soil of a Deciduous Forest'' in
2001, with three principal findings. First, impacts on vegetation and
soil increased with biking and hiking activity. Second, the impacts of
biking and hiking measured were not significantly different. Third,
impacts did not extend beyond 30cm of the trail centerline.
Based on these studies, IMBA believes that mountain biking is no
more damaging than other forms of recreation, including hiking.
Furthermore, we are confident that the study called for by the Mount
Hood Pedalers Demonstration Experiment Area (HoodPDX) will show similar
results to the studies mentioned above.
2. IMBA 's official position on wilderness designations says that
prohibition of mountain bikes in Wilderness Areas ``is not based on
valid resource protection concerns. Under current regulations, IMBA
cannot support the designation of additional Wilderness Areas where
significant biking opportunities would be eliminated. ``
How many miles of trail closure on Mount Hood would IMBA and its
members tolerate before opposing this legislation?
IMBA is unable to quantify this issue at this time. The true extent
of the closures is not fully presented in the legislation or its
supporting maps and background materials. We believe that the Forest
Service is not aware of many trails in the Mount Hood National Forest.
Furthermore, the maps accompanying this bill are inadequate for clear
public analysis. Drawn in black and white and scaled too small, the
maps obscure or do not depict critical topographic features and many of
the trails at issue. The committee and the public need to have maps
that clearly display relevant geographic features and impacted trails.
While IMBA believes that the bill affects more than 200 miles of
trails, we cannot say how many of those miles the mountain bike
community would accept losing, or alternatively, tolerate before
opposing the legislation. In addition, there are other issues to
consider, not only the number or mileage of closed trails but their
location, type, usage.
Generally, IMBA believes that mountain bikers should have access to
all trail miles because we reject the notion that trails need to be
closed to bikes in order to protect lands. As I discussed in response
to the previous question, mountain bike impacts on land and wildlife
are very similar to hiking and equestrian impacts. Therefore, IMBA
believes that mountain bikes should have access to the same areas as
hikers and equestrians, subject to the discretion of local land
managers to regulate the carrying capacity of any particular trail or
trail system. Ideally, legislation passed by Congress would establish
that trails are open to bikes unless closed, and the decision is left
to the discretion of the relevant land manager based on an impact
analysis and subject to adequate notice and opportunity to comment by
interested stakeholders.
3. Backpackers cite the need for solitude in their support for
additional wilderness areas. Do mountain bikers also enjoy solitude in
nature? And is solitude likely if current mountain biking use is
concentrated in the mountain biking demonstration area (``Hood-PDX'')?
Yes, mountain bikers value and enjoy solitude. As I mentioned in my
testimony, all experienced trail users prefer narrower, singletrack
trails that provide the most opportunity for solitude. Cyclists are no
different. Most trail users want to experience a close connection to
Nature. Singletrack provides this better than roads because it blends
into the surrounding environment, disturbs much less ground, and is
easier to maintain. The experience just isn't the same when you are
walking or pedaling on an open, wide road. When one is moving slowly on
singletrack, you feel connected to the natural world.
Solitude will be the typical experience provided that access is not
denied to the more than 200 miles of trail identified by IMBA. It is
not clear that mountain biking will be concentrated or limited to the
Mount Hood Pedalers Demonstration Experiment Area (HoodPDX), so I
cannot say whether solitude will be diminished. This uncertainty is a
product of the mapping and designation problems I identified in the
previous question. Without clear maps we are unable to determine at
this time, how many trail miles will be lost. We have been assured by
the bill's proponents that a significant number of the trails on Mount
Hood are not within the proposed Wilderness areas in the bill. If this
is so, then concentration of mountain biking becomes less likely and
the experience of solitude on the mountain is not likely to be
diminished. It is absolutely critical however that most, if not all, of
the more than 200 trail miles remain open in order to preserve this
experience.
4. What would be the impact of significant trail closures on local
small businesses that rely on mountain bikers?
The impact of trail closures on local small business that rely on
mountain bikers is likely to be negative. Closure of trails to
bicycling affects a significant number of local companies including
manufacturers, distributors, bicycle dealers, and tourism-related
businesses. A good example is Chris King Precision Components, which
produces high performance mountain bike components with more than 60
employees and $5 million in annual revenues. Chris King recently
relocated its corporate headquarters and operations from California to
Portland, Oregon because of the strong mountain bike community, local
support for the sport, availability of local trails, and incredible
natural environment.
In Oregon, mountain biking is a popular sport with close to 400,000
people participating last year (Outdoor Industry Foundation). The July
2004 edition of Bike Magazine justly highlighted the fact that ``some
of the finest singletrack in the mountain bike universe lie within an
80-mile radius of Hood River, Oregon,'' as it noted that that ``tourist
economy in Oregon and Washington depends heavily on the states'
magnificent old-growth forests.'' A 1994 study of the economic impact
of mountain biking conducted by Colorado State University at the
premiere mountain biking destination, Moab, Utah, concluded that the
bike trails in the Moab area produce approximately $200 in consumer
spending per person, per trip. A recent study by the North Carolina
Department of Transportation found that mountain biking brings at least
$60 million a year to the Outer Banks of North Carolina; and more than
1,400 jobs have been created to support the more than 40,000 people who
bicycle in the region. A similar study found that bicycling contributes
more than $1 billion annually to Colorado's economy. As another popular
mountain bike destination, it seems reasonable to conclude that Mt.
Hood and Oregon will enjoy a similar experience and positive economic
impact.
Since your hearing on September 14, I have spoken again with
numerous cyclists and shop owners in Hood River and Portland, and with
others on Mt. Hood, who have confirmed that Mt. Hood is increasingly
becoming a popular destination location for mountain biking. Hundreds
of visitors each year bring new money into the Oregon economy in a
clean, environmentally friendly and sustainable industry. If the trails
on Mount Hood are closed, these mountain bike visitors have told me
they will not find other trails in the Mt. Hood area, but simply will
not come to the area. Consequently, I am even more convinced now than
when I sat before your committee, that the potential loss of more than
200 miles of nationally recognized mountain bike trails will have a
negative impact on the local Oregon economy.
Thank you once again for the opportunity to offer comments on the
Lewis and Clark Mount Hood Wilderness Act. I hope this information
proves helpful to you.
Respectfully,
Chris DiStefano,
MBA Board of Directors.
______
Statement of Hon. F. Philip Carbullido, Chief Justice,
Supreme Court of Guam, on H.R. 2400
Mr. Chairman, for the record, my name is F. Philip Carbullido, and
I am the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Guam. It is an honor to
submit testimony to this distinguished Committee on a Bill that will
have a profound impact on the advancement of the Territory of Guam.
As Chief Justice of Guam, I have reflected upon the history of our
nation's judiciary, and its role in the overall governmental structure.
A basic and constant principle underlying the development of our system
of government is a constitutionally created, co-equal and independent
judiciary, something which we are lacking in the Territory of Guam.
H.R. 2400 was conceived in response to the infirmities of the present
language of the Organic Act.
The Organic Act of Guam functions as Guam's constitution. While the
Organic Act establishes the executive and legislative branches of the
Government of Guam, the Act does not establish a judicial branch.
Instead, in 1984, the United States Congress passed the Omnibus
Territories Act, amending the Organic Act and giving the Guam
legislature the authority to create the courts of Guam, including an
appellate court. Under the present language of the Organic Act, the
existence of Guam's judicial branch, the scope of its powers, and its
organizational structure, have been subject to, and remains subject to
persistent uncertainty and frequent legislative manipulation. Nowhere
else in this nation does this occur. The present state of the law has
fostered a peculiar and unprecedented system wherein our island's
judicial branch is marked not by independence, but rather, by political
influence.
I offer several examples to illuminate the problems created under
the present language of the Organic Act. In 1993, pursuant to language
in the Organic Act granting the Guam Legislature the power to create an
appellate court, local legislation was passed creating the Supreme
Court of Guam and establishing that Court as the administrative head of
all local courts (``1993 Law''). In 1998, another bill, re-structuring
the judiciary, was passed by the Guam legislature. This 1998 Bill
contained a rider which stripped the Supreme Court of its
administrative [and supervisory] authority, which was previously
granted by the 1993 Law. The 1998 Law remained in effect, until it was
invalidated by
the Ninth Circuit in 2001. The effect of the Ninth Circuit's
decision was to revive the 1993 Law, once again completely
restructuring the judiciary. Two years later, in 2003, the Legislature
passed yet another law, again re-structuring the judicial branch of
Guam. This 2003 legislation currently governs the judiciary of Guam.
As is evident by the legislative actions over the past ten years,
the simple fact is that under the present language of the Organic Act,
the local legislature retains the power to control the internal
structure of the judicial branch or even abolish the branch in its
entirety.
It is this condition that has necessitated the introduction of H.R.
2400. The measure would firmly establish, within the Organic Act,
Guam's judicial branch as a co-equal, independent branch, alongside the
executive and legislative branches.
I, with the concurrence of Guam's Judicial Council and other
members of Guam's judiciary, recognize the clear need for judicial
independence. We understand this need from a practical standpoint by
virtue of our experience. From a more fundamental standpoint, we
appreciate the role of the judicial branch in the American, tripartite
system of government.
Importantly, the judiciary of Guam is not alone in its conviction.
All three branches of Guam's local government are unanimous in their
support of the principle of an independent and co-equal judiciary.
The Governor of Guam, Felix P. Camacho, recently sent a letter to
our Delegate Madeleine Bordallo, stating his support for an amendment
to the Organic Act as set forth in H.R. 2400. Governor Camacho stated:
``I fully recognize that the effectiveness of our system of government
both on the federal and local level, rests in checks and balances. To
this end, I recognize that the judicial branch of our Territory, like
our executive and legislative branches, must be, ``constitutionally''
established, or in our case, have an ``Organic'' existence with similar
powers to govern, reorganize, and manage its branch with judicial
independence founded upon our U.S. Constitution.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ A copy of Governor Camacho's Letter dated May 7, 2004 has been
retained in subcommittee records.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In a similar vein, the Guam Legislature has passed a resolution,
wherein it recognized that under the current language of the Organic
Act, the local law creating the Supreme Court of Guam and organizing
the judiciary of Guam can be amended by local legislation at any time.
The Legislature further stated its belief, that ``absent a Guam
constitution, an amendment to the Organic Act is needed to firmly
establish the judicial branch of Guam, with the Supreme Court of Guam
at its head, as a separate co-equal, and independent branch within the
government of Guam.'' \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ A copy of the Guam Legislature's Resolution (LR 139) has been
retained in subcommittee records.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The unanimous endorsement by Guam's local leaders of a
``constitutionally'' established independent judiciary finds support in
national precedence spanning over 200 years. It is clear that the
judicial branch of our Territory can neither effectively operate as a
necessary check on the other two branches, nor properly fulfill its
obligation to interpret the law, without a ``constitutional,'' or in
this case, an ``Organic'' existence.
The judiciary of Guam, with the support of the People of Guam,
through their elected leaders in the executive and legislative branches
of the government of Guam, come before you to advocate an amendment to
what is, essentially, our constitution, to finally and permanently
provide for an independent and co-equal judicial branch within the
government of Guam.
We respectfully request that you act in furtherance of this
significant legislation, and that you act expeditiously. H.R. 2400 is
important, and indeed vital, to the people of our Territory.
Thank You Mr. Chairman. It has been a privilege to offer this
testimony for your consideration.