[House Hearing, 110 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
H.R. 3079, TO AMEND THE JOINT RESOLUTION APPROVING THE COVENANT TO
ESTABLISH A COMMONWEALTH OF THE NORTHERN MARIANA ISLANDS
=======================================================================
LEGISLATIVE FIELD HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON INSULAR AFFAIRS
of the
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
Wednesday, August 15, 2007, in Saipan, CNMI
__________
Serial No. 110-41
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/
index.html
or
Committee address: http://resourcescommittee.house.gov
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
37-528 PDF WASHINGTON DC: 2008
---------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866)512-1800
DC area (202)512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail Stop SSOP,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia, Chairman
DON YOUNG, Alaska, Ranking Republican Member
Dale E. Kildee, Michigan Jim Saxton, New Jersey
Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, American Elton Gallegly, California
Samoa John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee
Neil Abercrombie, Hawaii Wayne T. Gilchrest, Maryland
Solomon P. Ortiz, Texas Chris Cannon, Utah
Frank Pallone, Jr., New Jersey Thomas G. Tancredo, Colorado
Donna M. Christensen, Virgin Jeff Flake, Arizona
Islands Stevan Pearce, New Mexico
Grace F. Napolitano, California Henry E. Brown, Jr., South
Rush D. Holt, New Jersey Carolina
Raul M. Grijalva, Arizona Luis G. Fortuno, Puerto Rico
Madeleine Z. Bordallo, Guam Cathy McMorris Rodgers, Washington
Jim Costa, California Bobby Jindal, Louisiana
Dan Boren, Oklahoma Louie Gohmert, Texas
John P. Sarbanes, Maryland Tom Cole, Oklahoma
George Miller, California Rob Bishop, Utah
Edward J. Markey, Massachusetts Bill Shuster, Pennsylvania
Peter A. DeFazio, Oregon Dean Heller, Nevada
Maurice D. Hinchey, New York Bill Sali, Idaho
Patrick J. Kennedy, Rhode Island Doug Lamborn, Colorado
Ron Kind, Wisconsin Mary Fallin, Oklahoma
Lois Capps, California Kevin McCarthy, California
Jay Inslee, Washington
Mark Udall, Colorado
Joe Baca, California
Hilda L. Solis, California
Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, South
Dakota
Heath Shuler, North Carolina
James H. Zoia, Chief of Staff
Jeffrey P. Petrich, Chief Counsel
Lloyd Jones, Republican Staff Director
Lisa Pittman, Republican Chief Counsel
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON INSULAR AFFAIRS
DONNA M. CHRISTENSEN, Virgin Islands, Chairwoman
LUIS G. FORTUNO, Puerto Rico, Ranking Republican Member
Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, American Elton Gallegly, California
Samoa Jeff Flake, Arizona
Raul M. Grijalva, Arizona Don Young, Alaska, ex officio
Madeleine Z. Bordallo, Guam
Nick J. Rahall II, West Virginia,
ex officio
------
CONTENTS
----------
Page
Hearing held on Wednesday, August 15, 2007....................... 1
Statement of Members:
Bordallo, Hon. Madeleine Z., a Delegate in Congress from Guam 5
Prepared statement of.................................... 7
Christensen, Hon. Donna M., a Delegate in Congress from the
Virgin Islands............................................. 1
Prepared statement of.................................... 3
Faleomavaega, Hon. Eni F.H., a Delegate in Congress from
American Samoa............................................. 4
Statement of Witnesses:
Babauta, Hon. Oscar M., Speaker of the CNMI House of
Representatives............................................ 38
Prepared statement of.................................... 41
Borja, Jesus C., The Enterprise Group........................ 108
Prepared statement of.................................... 110
Cohen, Hon. David B., Deputy Assistant Secretary for Insular
Affairs, U.S. Department of the Interior................... 8
Prepared statement of.................................... 10
Cruz, Gregorio Sanchez, Jr., President, Taotao Tano CNMI
Association Inc............................................ 78
Prepared statement of.................................... 80
Fitial, Hon. Benigno R., Governor, Commonwealth of the
Northern Mariana Islands................................... 28
Prepared statement of.................................... 32
Knight, Lynn, President, Hotel Association of the Northern
Mariana Islands............................................ 100
Prepared statement of.................................... 102
Reyes, Hon. Pete P., Vice President of the Senate of the CNMI 49
Prepared statement of.................................... 51
Sablan, Alexander A., Vice-President, Saipan Chamber of
Commerce................................................... 93
Prepared statement of.................................... 96
Sablan, Tina................................................. 70
Prepared statement of.................................... 72
Sagana, Bonifacio V., President, The Dekada Movement, Inc.... 83
Prepared statement of.................................... 85
Tenorio, Hon. Pedro A., Resident Representative of the CNMI.. 43
Prepared statement of.................................... 46
Additional materials supplied:
List of individuals submitting statements for the record..... 121
LEGISLATIVE FIELD HEARING ON H.R. 3079, TO AMEND THE JOINT RESOLUTION
APPROVING THE COVENANT TO ESTABLISH A COMMONWEALTH OF THE NORTHERN
MARIANA ISLANDS.
----------
Wednesday, August 15, 2007
U.S. House of Representatives
Subcommittee on Insular Affairs
Committee on Natural Resources
Saipan, CNMI
----------
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 9:09 a.m., at
the Guma Hustisia Supreme Court Building, Saipan, CNMI, Hon.
Donna Christensen [Chairwoman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Christensen, Faleomavaega, and
Bordallo.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. DONNA CHRISTENSEN,
A DELEGATE IN CONGRESS FROM THE VIRGIN ISLANDS
Mrs. Christensen. The Legislative Field Hearing by the
Subcommittee on Insular Affairs will come to order. The
Subcommittee is meeting today to hear testimony on H.R. 3079,
to amend the Joint Resolution Approving the Covenant to
Establish a Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands.
Good morning and Hafa Adai. It is my honor to welcome
everyone to this very historic moment both for the U.S.
Congress and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands.
Today, the Subcommittee on Insular Affairs is convening what I
believe is the very first congressional hearing to take place
in the CNMI, to hear testimony on H.R. 3079, legislation which
I introduced in the House, which would apply U.S. immigration
laws to this archipelago and also provide for a non-voting
Delegate from the CNMI in the U.S. House of Representatives.
Let me first thank the CNMI Supreme Court and Chief Justice
Miguel Demapan for so graciously providing a venue to hold this
hearing. It is appropriate that as we move forward in this
legislative process, we will be able to look back and
acknowledge that it began not only in the CNMI, but also in a
place where justice and equality prevails. I also want to thank
your Resident Representative Pete Tenorio. He has become a very
good friend of mine, and all of us up here, and does an
excellent job of representing the interests of the people of
CNMI in Washington D.C. As a non-Member of Congress with the
responsibility of working across the Federal Government, as
well as developing relationships with the members of Capitol
Hill, all of us who deal with these issues realize how
challenging the job is for him. Keeping in mind his
constituents and how a change in immigration policy will affect
the CNMI, he requested that we come to listen to your leaders
in the community. We responded and have made this effort to
come to the CNMI because there is no better way to ensure that
we achieve what is best for the people of the CNMI and for our
nation than for us to be here with you to see firsthand the
challenges that you face and to convene this hearing here in
the Commonwealth.
I want to welcome the witnesses and thank them for taking
time to be here to present their testimonies. I also want to
welcome those of you in the audience, as well as those just
outside this venue, who are exercising their right to express
their positions, whether in favor or in opposition, on this
legislation in the effort which will be made by Congress to
normalize the immigration policy of this U.S. territory by
applying U.S. immigration laws and to address the plight of the
non-resident workers.
Much has been said about the efforts of the Subcommittee
and of our counterparts in the U.S. Senate. Questions have been
raised about our timing, demonizing the motive for change and
suggesting that this endeavor runs counter to the spirit of the
covenant which brought these islands from trust territory into
the American family. The CNMI has had two decades of local
control over immigration policy. For the future prosperity of
the CNMI and for the security of our nation I believe the path
should now lead us in a different direction.
Let us be clear though, concern over the exercise of
immigration policy in the CNMI is not new. It spans four U.S.
Presidents and nearly 20 years. It began under the Reagan
Administration when in May of 1986, then Assistant Secretary
Richard Montoya began his letter to former CNMI Governor Pedro
``Pete'' Tenorio saying, and I quote, ``The recent news reports
on the tremendous growth of alien labor in the Northern Mariana
Islands are extremely disturbing.'' That was 1986.
At that time there were 6,600 non-resident guest workers
let in by the CNMI Government. By comparison, Montoya noted
that the Guam alien labor population, which was Federally
administered, was only at 1,200. Mr. Montoya continued with
expressions of concern and forecasted, and again I am quoting,
``That the uncontrolled influx of alien workers in many
segments of the NMI economy can only resolve in increased
social and cultural problems.''
The warnings continued through the administrations of Bush
One, Clinton and currently in President George W. Bush's term,
where we already know that the Administration has expressed
their support for extending U.S. immigration laws--once in 2001
in the letter from the Department of Justice to Senator Frank
Murkowski, and the other in testimony presented to the Senate
Energy and Natural Resources Committee during the hearing on S.
1634, whose language is identical to Title 1 of H.R. 3079.
In addition, the people of the CNMI and those non-residents
brought here, at times under false pretenses, deserve better. I
believe that normalizing the immigration policy does just that
and provides a better environment for residents and all they
hope for their island--a strong economy, opportunities for
themselves and their children, good paying jobs, reliable
infrastructure, strong schools, and adequate healthcare. This
is the American way, and you are Americans.
And as Americans you should have representation in the U.S.
Congress. With the proposed changes that H.R. 3079 would enact
if passed, having a CNMI delegate to Congress will be critical
to ensuring that your voices continue to be heard and your
interest considered as the implementation unfolds. I have
always strongly supported the CNMI having a nonvoting delegate
in the U.S. House of Representatives and I am committed to
ending this injustice to the people of the Commonwealth.
Again, I want to take this opportunity to thank everyone
who has taken time to reach out to us, to meet with us and to
be here today. I thank all of the people of the CNMI for their
warm hospitality and I look forward to the testimony that we
will be receiving this morning. And at this time, the Chair
would now recognize Mr. Faleomavaega for any statement he may
have.
[The prepared statement of Mrs. Christensen follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Donna M. Christensen,
Chairwoman, Subcommittee on Insular Affairs
Good Morning and Hafa Adai.
It is my honor to welcome everyone to this very historic moment for
both the U.S. Congress and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana
Islands.
Today the Subcommittee on Insular Affairs is convening what I
believe is the very first Congressional hearing to take place in the
CNMI, to hear testimony on H.R. 3079, legislation which I introduced,
which would apply U.S. immigration laws to this archipelago and also
provide for a non-voting delegate from the CNMI in the U.S. House of
Representatives.
Let me first thank the CNMI Supreme Court and Chief Justice Miguel
Demapan for so graciously providing a venue to hold this hearing. It is
appropriate that as we move forward in this legislative process we can
look back and acknowledge that it began not only in the CNMI, but also
in a place where justice and equality prevails.
I also wish to thank your Resident Representative Pete Tenorio. He
has become a good friend of mine and does a fine job of representing
the interests and the people of the CNMI in Washington, D.C.
As a non-Member of Congress, with the responsibility of working
across the Federal government as well as developing relationships with
Members on Capitol Hill, all of us who deal with these issues realize
how challenging the job must be for him.
Keeping in mind his constituents and how a change in immigration
policy will affect the CNMI, he requested that we come to listen to
your leaders and the community
We responded and have made this effort to come to the CNMI because
there is no better way to ensure that we achieve what is best for the
people of the CNMI and for our nation than for us to be here with you,
to see first-hand the challenges you face, and to convene this hearing
here in the commonwealth.
I want to welcome the witnesses and thank them for taking the time
to present their testimonies, and I want to also welcome those of you
in the audience as well as those just outside this venue who are
exercising their right to express their positions--in favor or
opposed--on this legislation and the effort which will be made by
Congress to normalize the immigration policy of this U.S. territory by
applying U.S. immigration laws and to address the plight of the non-
resident workers.
Much has been said about the efforts of this Subcommittee and our
counterparts in the U.S. Senate. Questions have been raised about our
timing, demonizing the motive for change, and suggesting that this
endeavor runs counter to the spirit of the Covenant which brought these
islands comprising this archipelago from trust territory into the
American family.
The CNMI has had two decades of local control over immigration
policy. For the future prosperity of the CNMI and for the security of
our nation, I believe the path should now lead in a different
direction.
Let us be clear, concern over the exercise of immigration policy in
the CNMI is not new. It spans four U.S. Presidents and nearly twenty
years. It began under the Reagan Administration when, in May 1986,
then-Assistant Secretary Richard Montoya began his letter to former
CNMI Governor Pedro P. Tenorio; ``The recent news reports on the
tremendous growth of alien labor in the Northern Mariana Islands are
extremely disturbing.''
At that time, there were 6,600 non-resident guest workers let in by
the CNMI government. For comparison, Montoya noted that Guam's alien
labor population--which was federally administered--was only at 1,200.
Mr. Montoya continued with expressions of concern and forecasted
that the ``uncontrolled influx of alien workers in many segments of the
NMI economy can only result in increased social and cultural
problems.''
The warnings continued through the Administrations of Bush I,
Clinton, and currently in President George W. Bush's term, where we
already know that the Administration has expressed their support for
extending U.S. immigration laws; once in 2001 in a letter from the
Department of Justice to Senator Frank Murkowski and the other in
testimony presented to the Senate Energy and Natural Resources
Committee during a hearing on S. 1634 whose language is identical to
Title I of H.R. 3079.
The people of the CNMI and those non-residents brought here, at
times under false pretenses, deserve better. I believe that normalizing
the immigration policy does just that and provides a better environment
for residents and all they hope of their island--a strong economy,
opportunities for themselves and their children, good paying jobs,
reliable infrastructure, strong schools and adequate healthcare. This
is the American way, and we are Americans.
And as Americans you should have representation in the U.S.
Congress. With the proposed changes that H.R. 3079 would enact if
passed, having a CNMI Delegate to Congress will be critical to ensuring
that your voices continue to be heard and your interests considered as
the implementation unfolds.
I have always strongly supported the CNMI having a non-voting
delegate in the U.S. House of Representatives and am committed to
ending this injustice to the people of the Commonwealth.
Again thank everyone who has taken the time to reach out to us, to
meet with us and to be here today. Thank all of the people of the CNMI
for their warm hospitality.
I look forward to the testimony that will be provided to us.
______
STATEMENT OF THE HON. ENI F.H. FALE0MAVAEGA,
A DELEGATE IN CONGRESS FROM AMERICAN SAMOA
Mr. Faleomavaega. Thank you, Madam Chair. I am very happy
to be here. I just got here this morning at 4 o'clock and
unfortunately the concierge of the hotel was supposed to send
me a wake-up call and he never did, so I am somewhat frustrated
at this time but I think I can wing it.
Madam Chair, thank you for allowing me the opportunity to
make a couple of observations on this morning's hearing. First
of all, I am sure the leaders of the good people of CNMI join
me in thanking you for your leadership and tremendous
sensitivity to the needs and interests of our fellow Americans
who live in the insular areas. Your presence and your
initiative to conduct this field hearing in CNMI is a good
example of your commitment to bring Washington to CNMI and not
always the other way around. Madam Chair, I do not want to
repeat what has already been said both through the media and
other public hearings concerning the circumstances surrounding
CNMI's difficulties in having to deal with its guest worker
program and immigration and how the Federal Labor Standards Act
applies to CNMI's own local labor laws.
As you are very well aware, Madam Chair, too often that the
needs of U.S. insular areas or territories in Washington either
do not get the necessary attention they need and deserve or the
one-size-fits-all mentality, both in the Congress and in the
Administration, sometimes apply and produce unintended
consequences that started with very good intentions. A classic
example of that is the minimum wage that we're going through
right now and I am sure that we'll be examining the proposed
immigration bill as well.
While we all share a common political association with the
United States, our histories and socio-political developments
have been quite different, and CNMI is a good example of this.
I don't need to say this great people have had a colonial
legacy that they had to put up with over the years and that
rather than to seek independence from the United States, the
people of CNMI opted to establish a very unique political
relationship with the United States, and it is now known as the
Covenant Relationship.
And I am curious if the provisions of the Covenant
Relationship complements or agrees with the proposed provisions
of H.R. 3079, which attempts to amend the joint resolution of
the approved Covenant. We are about to subject the CNMI to the
convention on torture, a convention on refugees, and at the
State Department and Homeland Security, supposedly they made a
finding that the CNMI does not comply automatically with
Section 208 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (audible but
unintelligible) and where do we go from there? I have a whole
bunch of questions that I look forward to asking some of our
witnesses who will be testifying this morning. And Madam Chair,
again, I want to thank you for giving me this opportunity to be
here and I want to say to my good friends in the Northern
Marianas, Hafa Adai and si Yu'us ma'ase.
Mrs. Christensen. Thank you, Mr. Faleomavaega, and we
really appreciate your making the extra effort to come after a
very long trip that you--another official trip that you've been
on to come and be with us this morning. The Chair now
recognizes Ms. Bordallo for any statement she may have.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. MADELEINE BORDALLO,
A DELEGATE IN CONGRESS FROM GUAM
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you very much, Madam Chairwoman.
Congressman Faleomavaega, welcome to the CNMI. Thank you, Madam
Chairwoman, for holding this hearing today and for your
leadership on the issues important to the CNMI and our
territories. I welcome the Governor this morning, your Delegate
to Congress, my friend Mr. Tenorio, to all of the witnesses who
are in the audience, and all of the distinguished guests who
are here to witness this very important historic occasion.
Hafa Adai. This is an important day for the people of the
Northern Marianas in the Commonwealth's relationship with the
Federal Government. Although the distance between Guam and the
Northern Marianas Island of Rota is only roughly 40 miles, we
are closer in our bonds as people of this island chain that we
call home. Our Congressional Delegation members have traveled
thousands more miles to be here with you, to listen to your
concerns regarding the proposed federalization of immigration
control and the realization of a Delegate to the Congress for
the Commonwealth. As we begin this legislative process with
this hearing, allow me to make a few observations of my own.
First, in a post-9/11 world, the security of our nation's
borders has moved to the forefront of the many issues before
Congress, and its relevancy to the CNMI is very legitimate, an
accelerant issue being addressed at this time and in this
context. Concerns have been raised regarding the ability of the
CNMI to meet these security challenges, and as with many issues
before Congress, this issue has reached the level of interest
that demands action, whether it be by this bill's proposals or
in the form of another modified plan. To the extent that your
leaders and the stakeholders in your community can inform and
enlighten us, we would be well served in taking appropriate
action and all of us would be serving our national interest.
Second, I believe that the economy of the CNMI should be and
remain a central consideration in any bill that makes changes
to the current immigration system. To some extent, it defeats
the purpose of the bill to have a collapsing economy become the
stimulus that would send boat loads of CNMI workers to Guam's
northern shores as has already been evidenced in the past when
some workers arrived after garment factories suddenly closed.
Thus, I remain open to listening to an array of views and ideas
today and tomorrow by how best and most effectively to
structure proposed changes to the immigration system and how
cooperation between the Local and the Federal Governments can
best be achieved in a way to meet both to security challenges
and the economic interests before us. Third, if the CNMI is
folded into the Federal immigration system, with flexibility
for guest workers and visitors, then this may be an appropriate
time and opportunity to consider regional approaches to these
issues that would mutually benefit Guam and the CNMI. We should
consider opportunities for guest workers that may be needed
anyway to support the military buildup on Guam that is sure to
include benefits for the CNMI. This approach may indeed be one
of the positive aspects of the Committee's efforts to address
issues of mutual concern and to realign our economies to take
full advantage of the military buildup. In this regard, many
business leaders both in Guam and in the CNMI have already
begun to consider scenarios that would be beneficial to both of
our economies. I urge us to keep these scenarios and
possibilities in mind as we continue this dialogue and as we
explore proposed improvements and reforms through the
immigration and border security systems.
Last, let me be very direct in saying that a delegate to
Congress for the Northern Marianas is long, long overdue. I
strongly support your quest for a delegate in whatever
legislation is moving forward or as a stand-alone bill. I have
stated in the past my belief that the CNMI deserves a delegate
to Congress, not because of the policies or the actions of your
government, but because of your citizenship and the democratic
principles that Congress is charged with protecting. I pledge
to continue working, as I have in the past, with your Delegate,
Mr. Tenorio, and with your leaders, until we achieve success
and until you have the rightful representation in Congress that
you all deserve.
I look forward to working with you and your leaders on
these issues and to hearing from our many witnesses today. And
again, I thank the people of the Northern Marianas for their
kind hospitality. Si Yu'us ma'ase.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Bordallo follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Madeleine Z. Bordallo,
a Delegate in Congress from Guam
Chairwoman Christensen, Thank you for holding this hearing today
and for your leadership on the issues important to the CNMI and to the
territories.
This is an important day for the people of the Northern Marianas
and the Commonwealth's relationship with the federal government.
Although the distance between Guam and the Northern Mariana Island of
Rota is only roughly forty miles, we are closer in our bonds as people
of this island chain we call home.
Our Chairwoman and our staff members have traveled thousands more
miles to be here with you to listen to your concerns regarding the
proposed federalization of immigration control and the realization of a
Delegate to Congress for the Commonwealth.
As we begin this legislative process with this hearing, allow me to
make a few observations of my own.
First, in a post 9-11 world, the security of our nation's borders
has moved to the forefront of the many issues before Congress, and its
relevancy to the CNMI is a very legitimate and salient issue being
addressed at this time and in this context.
Concerns have been raised regarding the ability of the CNMI to meet
these security challenges, and as with many issues before Congress,
this issue has reached a level of interest that demands action, whether
it be by this bill's proposals or in the form of another modified plan.
To the extent that your leaders and the stakeholders in your community
can inform and enlighten us, we would be well served in taking
appropriate action and all of us would be serving our national
interest.
Second, I believe that the economy of the CNMI should be and remain
a central consideration in any bill that makes changes to the current
immigration system. To some extent, it defeats the purpose of the bill
to have a collapsing economy become the stimulus that would send
boatloads of CNMI workers to Guam's northern shores, as has already
been evidenced in the past when some workers arrived after garment
factories suddenly closed. Thus, I remain open to listening to a range
of views and ideas today and tomorrow about how best and most
effectively to structure proposed changes to the immigration system and
on how cooperation between the local and federal governments can best
be achieved in a way to meet both the security challenges and the
economic interests before us.
Third, if the CNMI is folded into the federal immigration system
with flexibility for guest workers and visitors, then this may be an
appropriate time and opportunity to consider regional approaches to
these issues that would mutually benefit Guam and the CNMI. We should
consider opportunities for guest workers that may be needed anyway to
support the military buildup on Guam that is sure to include benefits
for the CNMI. This approach may indeed be one of the positive aspects
of the Committee's efforts to address issues of mutual concern, and to
re-align our economies to take full advantage of the military buildup.
In this regard, many business leaders both in Guam and in the CNMI have
already begun to consider scenarios that would be beneficial to both of
our economies. I urge us to keep these scenarios and possibilities in
mind as we continue this dialogue and as we explore proposed
improvements and reforms to the immigration and border security
systems.
Lastly, let me be very direct in saying that a Delegate to Congress
for the Northern Marianas is long overdue. I strongly support your
quest for a Delegate in whatever legislation is moving forward, or as a
stand alone bill. I have stated in the past my belief that the CNMI
deserves a Delegate to Congress not because of the policies or actions
of your government, but because of your citizenship and the democratic
principles that the Congress is charged with protecting. I pledge to
continue working with your leaders until we achieve success and until
you have the rightful representation in Congress that you deserve.
I look forward to working with you and your leaders on these
issues, and to hearing from the witnesses today.
Thank you, again, Madam Chairman, for convening this important
hearing.
______
Mrs. Christensen. Thank you, Ms. Bordallo. If there are no
objections, I'd now like to submit for the official record the
testimony of the following individuals. Mr. Engracio ``Jerry''
Custodio of the Human Dignity Movement, Ms. Wendy Doromal, Mr.
Ron Hodges, Ms. Daisy Mendiola, and Mr. Anthony Wibberly.
Hearing no objections, so ordered.
Mrs. Christensen. We thank all of the witnesses that will
appear before the Subcommittee today and look forward to your
testimony, and I would now like to recognize the first panel,
The Honorable David B. Cohen, Deputy Assistant Secretary for
Insular Affairs of the U.S. Department of Interior. The Chair
now recognizes the Assistant Secretary to testify for five
minutes. And just for the benefit of all of those who will be
testifying today, the timing lights are on the table. They will
indicate when your time has been concluded, and all witnesses'
statements will be submitted for the hearing record. Mr. Cohen?
STATEMENT OF THE HON. DAVID B. COHEN, DEPUTY ASSISTANT
SECRETARY FOR INSULAR AFFAIRS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR
Mr. Cohen. Thank you, Hafa Adai, (unintelligible; greets
committee in several languages), a pleasant good morning. Madam
Chairwoman and members of the Committee, thank you for the
opportunity to testify on H.R. 3079, the bill containing
immigration provisions subsequently identical to those
contained in S. 1634, as well as the second title which will
give the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands a
nonvoting Delegate to the U.S. House of Representatives.
My testimony today will begin by reiterating the position
expressed by the Administration with respect to the immigration
provisions in S. 1634. I come before you today wearing at least
two hats. As Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Interior for
Insular Affairs, I am the Federal Government's official that is
primarily responsible for generally administering, on behalf of
the Secretary of the Interior, the Federal Government's
relationship with the CNMI. I also serve as the President's
Special Representative for consultations with the CNMI on any
matter of mutual concern, pursuant to Section 902 of the U.S.-
CNMI Covenant.
I will begin my statement with an overview of concerns that
make a compelling case for Federalization. The CNMI is hampered
by a lack of an effective prescreening process for aliens
wishing to enter the Commonwealth. In a post-9/11 environment,
given the CNMI's location and the number of aliens that travel
there, we believe that continued local control of CNMI's
immigration system presents significant national security and
homeland security concerns. Human trafficking remains far more
prevalent in the CNMI than it is in the rest of the U.S.
During the twelve-month period ending on April 30, 2007, 36
female victims of human trafficking were admitted to or
otherwise served by the Guma' Esperansa shelter. All of these
women were victims of sexual exploitation. Secretary Kempthorne
personally visited the shelter and met with a number of women
from the Philippines who were underage when they were
trafficked into the CNMI for the sex industry. He found their
stories heartbreaking. The State Department estimates that a
total of between 14,500 and 17,500 victims are trafficked into
the U.S. each year. This estimate includes not only women in
the sex trade but men, women, and children trafficked for all
purposes including labor.
Assuming a CNMI population of roughly 70,000 and the U.S.
population above 300 million, the numbers above suggest that
human trafficking is between 8.8 and 10.6 times more prevalent
in CNMI than it is in the U.S. as a whole. This is a
conservative calculation that most likely makes the CNMI look
better than it actually is. The number of victims counted for
the CNMI includes only actual female victims in the sex trade
who were served by Guma' Esperansa. This is being compared with
the U.S. estimate of human trafficking victims of both genders
that is not limited to the sex trade. In an apples-to-apples
comparison, the CNMI's report card would be worse.
A number of foreign nationals have come to the Federal
Ombudsman's Office complaining that they were promised a job in
CNMI after paying a recruiter thousands of dollars to come
there only to find, on arrival in the CNMI, that there is no
job. Secretary Kempthorne met personally with the young lady
from China who was a victim of such a scam and who was
pressured to become a prostitute. She was able to report her
situation and obtain help in the Federal Ombudsman's Office.
We're also concerned, as Congresswoman Bordallo was
pointing out, about recent attempts to smuggle foreign
nationals from the CNMI into Guam by boat. A woman was recently
sentenced to five years in prison for attempting to smuggle
over 30 Chinese nationals from the CNMI into Guam. With the
planned military buildup in Guam, the potential for smuggling
aliens from the CNMI into Guam by boat is a cause for concern.
We have very serious concerns about the CNMI Government's
administration of its refugee protection system. In my
testimony in July before the Senate Energy Committee, I
described a particularly disturbing exchange of correspondence
between the CNMI Attorney General and the U.S. Department of
Homeland Security. In this exchange the CNMI refused to provide
information on the status of particular refugee protection
cases, accusing the Department of Homeland Security and the
Department of State of inappropriate interference in these
cases. The CNMI's response to the inquiry reflected a lack of
acknowledgement of the legitimate role of the Federal
Government in monitoring the CNMI's compliance with the U.S.
Treaty Obligations.
In the aftermath of the Senate hearing, there has been some
reason to believe that the CNMI may now be moving toward a less
confrontational approach to this important issue--a development
the Federal Government would welcome, but substantial concerns
remain about the ability of the Federal Government effectively
to ensure that the CNMI's process is being implemented fairly
and properly, in accordance with international treaty
obligations. If these issues cannot be resolved, it presents
the Federal Government with a dilemma. If the Federal
Government can't verify that the CNMI's administering its
refugee protection program in a manner that accords with the
U.S. compliance with international treaty obligations, then
extending the protections available under U.S. immigration law
to cover aliens in the CNMI may be the only way to ensure that
compliance.
However, making aliens in the CNMI eligible to apply for
protection in the U.S. is a potentially serious problem if the
CNMI maintains control over its immigration system and
continues to determine which aliens and how many are able to
enter the CNMI. Under that scenario, the U.S. could be required
to provide refugee protection to aliens who have been admitted
to the CNMI through a process controlled not by the Federal
Government but by the CNMI. The U.S. will be subjecting itself
to potential costs and other consequences for decisions made by
the CNMI. This is a strong argument in favor of Congress taking
legislative action to take control of the CNMI's immigration
system.
The above are some of the factors that have led us to
conclude that the CNMI's immigration system must be Federalized
as soon as possible. We believe that H.R. 3079 is generally
sound legislation that embodies the concept of ``Flexible
Federalization,'' that is Federalization of the CNMI's
immigration system in a manner designed to minimize damage to
the CNMI's fragile economy and maximize the potential for
economic growth. Last month, I testified before the Senate on
behalf of the Administration on S. 1634 which would Federalize
the CNMI immigration system through provisions which are
identical to those of H.R. 3079. I announced the
Administration's support for S. 1634, subject to a few, most
are technical, points that are summarized in my written
statement.
We point out, however, that one of this Administration's
principles for considering immigration-level legislation for
the CNMI is that such legislation should be carefully analyzed
for its likely impact in the CNMI before they implement it.
We've also urged that such analysis occur expeditiously. The
need to study must not be used as an excuse to delay.
Mrs. Christensen. Mr. Cohen, would you try to wrap up--
we'll get to a lot of your statement in the questions.
Mr. Cohen. Sure. And just in conclusion, I'd say that when
we again point out that people of the CNMI must participate
fully in the decisions that will affect their future. And as I
have said in the past, a better future for the people of the
CNMI cannot be unilaterally imposed from Washington D.C.,
ignoring the insights, wisdom and aspirations of those to whom
this future belongs. And that's why we commend you for coming
here, holding this hearing, speaking with the people of the
CNMI and for Title II, with respect to which this
Administration reiterates its strong support for a nonvoting
delegate from the CNMI to the U.S. House of Representatives.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Cohen follows:]
Statement of David B. Cohen, Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Interior
for Insular Affairs
Madame Chairwoman and members of the Committee, thank you for the
opportunity to testify on H.R. 3079, the Northern Mariana Islands
Covenant Implementation Act and Northern Mariana Islands Delegate Act,
a bill containing immigration provisions substantively identical to
those contained in S. 1634 as well as a second title which would give
the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands a nonvoting Delegate
to the United States House of Representatives. My testimony today will
begin by reiterating the position expressed by the Administration with
respect to the immigration provisions in S. 1634. I come before you
today wearing at least two hats: As Deputy Assistant Secretary of the
Interior for Insular Affairs, I am the Federal official that is
responsible for generally administering, on behalf of the Secretary of
the Interior, the Federal Government's relationship with the
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI). I also serve as
the President's Special Representative for consultations with the CNMI
on any matter of mutual concern, pursuant to Section 902 of the U.S.-
CNMI Covenant. In fact, I was in Saipan in March for Section 902
consultations with CNMI Governor Fitial and his team. I was also in
Saipan in June with Secretary Kempthorne as part of his visit to U.S.-
affiliated Pacific island communities.
Under the Covenant through which the CNMI joined the U.S. in 1976,
the CNMI was exempted from most provisions of U.S. immigration laws and
allowed to control its own immigration. However, section 503 of the
Covenant to Establish a Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands in
Political Union with the United States of America (P.L. 94-241)
explicitly provides that Congress has the authority to make immigration
and naturalization laws applicable to the CNMI. Through the bill that
we are discussing today, Congress is proposing to take this legislative
step to bring the immigration system of the CNMI under Federal
administration. We believe that any federalization of the CNMI's
immigration system must be flexible because of the CNMI's unique
history, culture, status, demographic situation, location, and, perhaps
most importantly, fragile economic and fiscal condition. Additionally,
we would need appropriate time to address a range of implementation
issues as there are a number of Federal agencies that would be involved
with federalization. In testimony before this Committee earlier this
year, I offered, on behalf of the Administration, five principles that
we believe should guide the development of any federalization
legislation.
In previous testimony before this Committee and others, I have
described at length the impressive amount of progress that the CNMI has
made to improve working conditions there since the 1990s. The CNMI
should be congratulated for this progress. However, serious problems
continue to plague the CNMI's administration of its immigration system,
and we remain concerned that the CNMI's deteriorating fiscal situation
may make it even more difficult for the CNMI government to devote the
resources necessary to effectively administer its immigration system
and to properly investigate and prosecute labor abuse. I will begin my
statement with an overview of concerns that make a compelling case for
federalization.
Need for an Effective Screening Process
The CNMI is hampered by the lack of an effective pre-screening
process for aliens wishing to enter the Commonwealth. Under the
Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), before traveling to the
continental United States, Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, Guam and the
U.S. Virgin Islands, aliens must obtain a visa from a U.S. consular
officer abroad unless they are eligible under the Visa Waiver Program
or other legal authority for admission without a visa. Carriers are
subject to substantial fines if they board passengers bound for these
parts of the United States who lack visas or other proper
documentation. All visa applicants are checked against the Department
of State's name-checking system, the Consular Lookout and Support
System (CLASS). With limited exceptions, all applicants are interviewed
and subjected to fingerprint checks. After obtaining a visa, an alien
seeking entry to these parts of the United States must then apply for
admission to an immigration officer at a U.S. port of entry. The
immigration officer is responsible for determining whether the alien is
admissible, and in order to do so, the officer consults appropriate
databases to identify individuals who, among other things, have
criminal records or may be a danger to the security of the United
States. The CNMI does not issue visas, conduct interviews or check
fingerprints for those wishing to travel to the CNMI, nor does the CNMI
have an equivalent to CLASS. Furthermore, CNMI immigration inspectors
determine admissibility under CNMI law rather than federal law. The
CNMI does have its own sophisticated computerized system for keeping
track of aliens who enter and leave the Commonwealth. A record of all
persons entering the CNMI is made with the Commonwealth's Labor &
Immigration Identification and Documentation System, which is state-of-
the-art. However, that is not a substitute for comprehensive pre-
screening by Federal government authorities. In a post-9/11
environment, and given the CNMI's location and the number of aliens
that travel there, we believe that continued local control of the
CNMI's immigration system presents significant national security and
homeland security concerns.
Human Trafficking
While we congratulate the CNMI for its recent successful
prosecution of a case in which foreign women were pressured into
prostitution, human trafficking remains far more prevalent in the CNMI
than it is in the rest of the U.S. During the twelve-month period
ending on April 30, 2007, 36 female victims of human trafficking were
admitted to or otherwise served by Guma' Esperansa, a women's shelter
operated by a Catholic nonprofit organization. All of these women were
victims of sexual exploitation. Secretary Kempthorne personally visited
the shelter and met with a number of women from the Philippines who
were underage when they were trafficked into the CNMI for the sex
industry. As you can imagine, he found their stories heartbreaking. The
State Department estimates that a total of between 14,500 and 17,500
victims are trafficked into the U.S. each year from many places in the
world. This estimate includes not only women in the sex trade, but men,
women and children trafficked for all purposes, including labor.
Assuming a CNMI population of roughly 70,000 and a U.S. population of
roughly 300 million, the numbers above suggest that human trafficking
is between 8.8 and 10.6 times more prevalent in the CNMI than it is in
the U.S. as a whole. This is a conservative calculation that most
likely makes the CNMI look better than it actually is: The number of
victims counted for the CNMI includes only actual female victims in the
sex trade who were served by Guma' Esperansa. This is being compared
with a U.S. estimate of human trafficking victims of both genders that
is not limited to the sex trade. In an apples-to-apples comparison, the
CNMI's report card would be worse. We note that most of the victims
that have been served by Guma' Esperansa were referred by the CNMI
government (as a result of referrals from the Federal Ombudsman to
local authorities). However, it is clear that local control over CNMI
immigration has resulted in a human trafficking problem that is
proportionally much greater than the problem in the rest of the U.S.
A number of foreign nationals have come to the Federal Ombudsman's
office complaining that they were promised a job in the CNMI after
paying a recruiter thousands of dollars to come there, only to find,
upon arrival in the CNMI, that there was no job. Secretary Kempthorne
met personally with a young lady from China who was the victim of such
a scam and who was pressured to become a prostitute; she was able to
report her situation and obtain help in the Federal Ombudsman's office.
We believe that steps need to be taken to protect women from such
terrible predicaments.
We are also concerned about recent attempts to smuggle foreign
nationals, in particular Chinese nationals, from the CNMI into Guam by
boat. A woman was recently sentenced to five years in prison for
attempting to smuggle over 30 Chinese nationals from the CNMI into
Guam. With the planned military buildup in Guam, the potential for
smuggling aliens from the CNMI into Guam by boat is a cause for
concern.
Refugee Protection
We have very serious concerns about the CNMI government's
administration of its refugee protection system, which was established
pursuant to a Memorandum of Agreement signed by former Governor Juan
Babauta and me in 2003 with the financial support of the Office of
Insular Affairs. Establishing a refugee protection system in the CNMI
was important to the U.S. because of our concerns regarding U.S.
compliance with international treaties to which the U.S. is a party,
including the 1967 United Nations Protocol Relating to the Status of
Refugees and the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or
Degrading Treatment or Punishment. Even though the CNMI for the most
part is not included in the Immigration and Nationality Act, the U.S.
is obligated to ensure that aliens in the CNMI are not returned to
their home countries if there is a sufficient risk under the Convention
Against Torture or the Refugee Protocol that they will be tortured or
persecuted there.
Under the Memorandum of Agreement, the CNMI has established its own
refugee protection system with the assistance of U.S. Citizenship and
Immigration Services (USCIS) acting as ``Protection Consultant.'' In
this role, USCIS assisted the Commonwealth in drafting regulations and
forms, trained all staff for the program, provided quality assurance
review prior to a decision on all cases, and performed background
checks on all applicants. The two-year performance period during which
the duties of the Protection Consultant were enumerated in the
Memorandum of Agreement terminated in September 2006. USCIS and the
CNMI have yet to enter into a subsequent instrument to delineate the
assistance that USCIS has offered to provide to the CNMI, because of a
delayed response by the CNMI to USCIS's requests for cooperation since
the new ``Letter of Agreement'' was first proposed and drafted by USCIS
in February 2007.
In my testimony on July 19, 2007 before the Senate Energy
Committee, I described a particularly disturbing exchange of
correspondence between the CNMI Attorney General and USCIS. In this
exchange the CNMI refused to provide information on the status of
particular refugee protection cases, accusing the Department of
Homeland Security and the Department of State of inappropriate
interference in these cases. The CNMI's response to the inquiry
reflected a lack of acknowledgement of the legitimate role of the
Federal Government in monitoring the CNMI's compliance with U.S. treaty
obligations.
In the aftermath of the Senate hearing there has been some reason
to believe that the CNMI may be moving toward a less confrontational
approach to this important issue--a development that the Federal
Government would welcome--but substantial concerns remain regarding the
ability of the Federal Government effectively to ensure that the CNMI's
process is being implemented fairly and properly, in accordance with
international treaty obligations.
The circumstances described above present the Federal Government
with a dilemma: If the Federal Government cannot verify that the CNMI
is administering its refugee protection program in a manner that
accords with U.S. compliance with international treaty obligations,
then extending the protections available under U.S. immigration law to
cover aliens in the CNMI may be the only way to ensure that compliance.
However, making aliens in the CNMI eligible to apply for protection in
the U.S. is a potentially serious problem if the CNMI maintains control
over its immigration system and continues to determine which aliens,
and how many, are able to enter the CNMI. Under that scenario, the U.S.
could be required to provide refugee protection to aliens who have been
admitted to the CNMI through a process controlled not by the Federal
Government, but by the CNMI. The U.S. would be subjecting itself to
potential costs and other consequences for decisions made by the CNMI.
This is a strong argument in favor of Congress taking legislative
action, as contemplated under Section 503 of the Covenant (P.L. 94-
241), to take control of the CNMI's immigration system.
Recommended Changes to this Bill
The above are some of the factors that have led us to conclude that
the CNMI's immigration system must be federalized as soon as possible.
We believe that H.R. 3079 is generally sound legislation that embodies
the concept of ``Flexible Federalization''--that is, federalization of
the CNMI's immigration system in a manner designed to minimize damage
to the CNMI's fragile economy and maximize the potential for economic
growth. We also believe that H.R. 3079 reflects the principles
previously spelled out by the Administration as those that should guide
the federalization of the CNMI's immigration system. Last month, I
testified before the Senate on behalf of the Administration on S. 1634,
which would federalize the CNMI immigration system through provisions
which are identical to those of H.R. 3079. I announced the
Administration's support for S. 1634, subject to the following points:
Long-term Status to Temporary Workers. At this time, the
Administration is evaluating the specific provisions granting long-term
status to temporary workers in the CNMI in light of the
Administration's immigration policies. We look forward to working with
Congress on this important issue.
Protection from Persecution and Torture. Consistent with
the general transfer of immigration to Federal control on the
transition period effective date, the bill should clarify that U.S.
protection law, including withholding of removal on the basis of
persecution or torture, would apply and be administered by Federal
authorities beginning on the transition period effective date. However,
given the uncertainties inherent in changing the CNMI immigration
regimen, we recommend that extension of the affirmative asylum process
under section 208 of the INA to the CNMI be delayed until the end of
the transition period. We would also recommend a provision requiring
the CNMI to maintain an effective protection program between date of
enactment and the transition period effective date.
Authority of the Secretary of Homeland Security. In
general, it is important that the Secretary of Homeland Security have
sufficient authority and resources to effectively administer the new
responsibilities that would be undertaken under the bill. Improvements
to the bill in this regard would include ensuring that the Secretary
has full authority in his discretion to designate countries for the new
CNMI visa waiver program (giving due consideration to all current CNMI
tourist source countries); and providing the necessary fiscal and
operational authority to conduct all necessary activities in the CNMI.
Visa Waiver. As noted above, it is essential that the
Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of
State, have full authority to determine countries authorized to
participate in a visa waiver program for the CNMI. We would also
recommend consideration of authorizing integration of the proposed CNMI
visa waiver program with the Guam visa waiver program as a possible
means of increasing the value of these programs to those jurisdictions,
such as, for example, allowing visitors qualifying for both programs a
combined 30 days, with a maximum stay of 21 days in either territory.
Employment-Based Visas. The bill would authorize the
Secretary of Homeland Security to establish a specific number of
employment-based visas that will not count against the numerical
limitations under the Permanent Alien Labor Certification (PERM)
program, if the Secretary of Labor, after consultation with the
Governor of the Commonwealth and the Secretary of Homeland Security,
finds exceptional circumstances with respect to the inability of
employers to obtain sufficient work-authorized labor. We would
recommend that this provision be removed from the bill as unnecessary
because the CNMI will have an uncapped temporary worker program during
the 10-year transition period.
Conforming and Technical Amendments. We would like to
work with Congress on a number of other conforming, technical and other
amendments necessary to fully effectuate the transfer of
responsibilities and effectively administer and integrate the CNMI-
specific programs with the INA. For example, the CNMI should be added
to the definitions of ``State'' and ``United States'' in section 101 of
the INA.
Conclusion
We point out, however, that one of this Administration's principles
for considering immigration legislation for the CNMI is that such
legislation should be carefully analyzed for its likely impact in the
CNMI before we implement it. We have also urged that such analysis
occur expeditiously: the need to study must not be used as an excuse to
delay. We understand that the Senate has requested an analysis of the
provisions of S. 1634, and that the results of this analysis would of
course apply equally to H.R. 3079. We note that H.R. 3079 provides a
flexible framework to federalize the CNMI immigration system, and that
the results of any study could be accommodated in the development of
implementing regulations.
It is important to remember that H.R. 3079 deals with a unique
situation, and hence does not establish any precedents that are
relevant to the discussion of national immigration reform. H.R. 3079 is
designed to bring under the ambit of Federal immigration law a
territory that generally was not previously subject to Federal
immigration law. Accomplishing this transition without causing severe
economic disruption requires special transitional provisions that take
into account the reality that CNMI society has been shaped by
immigration policies that vary significantly from Federal immigration
policy. Because CNMI society has evolved in a unique manner under
unique circumstances, it would not be prudent to apply immigration
policy designed for the 50 states to the CNMI in a blanket fashion with
no transition mechanisms. The special transitional provisions contained
in this bill are designed to move CNMI society from one set of
governing principles to another in a manner that minimizes harm to CNMI
residents.
Finally, Madame Chairwoman, we again point out that the people of
the CNMI must participate fully in decisions that will affect their
future. As I have said in the past, a better future for the people of
the CNMI cannot be imposed unilaterally from Washington, D.C., ignoring
the insights, wisdom and aspirations of those to whom this future
belongs. That is why I applaud you and the members of this panel who
have traveled so far to give the many voices of the CNMI an opportunity
to be heard--an opportunity that many of today's witnesses and most of
the people you will meet during your stay would not otherwise have had.
At a time when young men and women from the CNMI are sacrificing their
lives in Iraq in proportions that far exceed the national average, the
CNMI has more than earned the right to have the Federal Government act
collaboratively and with great care as we consider policies that will
change these islands forever. Therefore, with regard to Title II of the
bill, I am pleased to again express the Administration's support for a
nonvoting Delegate from the CNMI to the House of Representatives.
Thank you.
______
Mrs. Christensen. Thank you, Mr. Cohen. I'll now recognize
myself for five minutes of questions. And I'd like to begin
where you ended Mr. Cohen, because I am very pleased to hear
that the Administration supports the addition of the Delegate
to Congress from the CNMI. Can you just give us your views as
to how that would benefit the CNMI?
Mr. Cohen. Well, you know particularly in--and thank you
for the question, Madam Chairwoman. The CNMI is the only U.S.
territory without a seat at the table. As Congress makes
decisions that so profoundly affect the lives of the people of
the CNMI, it's wrong for the CNMI to be the only territory
without a seat at the table. The very issue we're discussing
today has something that would drastically change the rules of
the game that affect the people of the CNMI, their ability to
earn a livelihood, the character of this society. For better or
worse, this is something that will have a drastic impact on the
CNMI and the people of the CNMI need to be at the table.
Now, your Committee and your counterpart Committee in the
Senate have made excellent efforts to make sure that the views
of the people of the CNMI are included, and there are diverse
views throughout this community as you well know. But there is
no substitute for having the people of the CNMI elect their
representative to your body to be able to sit at the table, as
all of you do, and have the ability to introduce legislation,
to introduce amendments to the legislation, to vote in
committee, and to persuade colleagues to account for the
interest of the CNMI. So, we commend you for introducing this
legislation and I believe this is a very important development
for the people of the CNMI.
Mrs. Christensen. Thank you, Mr. Cohen, for that answer. Of
course, Title I of the legislation deals mostly with
immigration, and I was wondering if you could tell us if there
are any circumstances under which a territory would have
control over its immigration and be able to properly control
the administration of that immigration. Do you have examples of
this happening?
Mr. Cohen. Well, certainly, Madam Chairwoman. I'd like to
clarify that it is not the Administration's position that under
no circumstances could a territory successfully control its own
immigration. In fact, we don't address that at all. The
Administration's position is that, under these circumstances in
the CNMI, that Federalization is the right answer. Given the
CNMI's location, given the number of aliens that it lets in,
and other factors, including the challenges that it faces in
trying to have a proper immigration system with declining
revenues, that Federalization is the best answer, but we do not
take a position as to whether this will always be the best
answer under all circumstances.
Mrs. Christensen. Are there other territories that have
control over their immigration?
Mr. Cohen. Yes. Currently American Samoa controls its own
immigration. Primarily it uses control of that immigration to
let in people who are Samoan. You know, the various, most
obviously strong historical ties between the Independent State
of Samoa and American Samoa. There are strong economic ties.
Their economies and their labor markets are inextricably wound
together, and they're located in a much different (audible but
unintelligible). And the circumstances of American Samoa's
geography, history, and culture, as well as the way it is
administered, its immigration system are in no way comparable
to those of the CNMI. So, we're not trying to extrapolate any
conclusions we make about the CNMI to any other territory.
Mrs. Christensen. Thank you. Governor Fitial suggested
during the Senate Hearing in July, and I believe he'll suggest
it again today, that if the Federal Government were to take
control of immigration, it would be inconsistent with the right
of self-government and there would be no reason to exist. And I
believe you'll hear that also said in other testimony. So, in
your opinion, does the Federal Government taking control of
immigration, is it inconsistent with the right to self-
government as expressed in the Covenant?
Mr. Cohen. Madam Chairwoman, I do not believe that the
Federal Government exercising the authority that's expressly
granted in the Covenant itself to take control over immigration
is inconsistent with the right of self-government. All of the
territories enjoy the right to self-government and the
territories, as you all well know, there are different terms
and conditions that apply to their respective rights of self-
government. But the right of self-government for a territory is
not an exemption from U.S. sovereignty and the U.S. expressly
retained the right to Federalize immigration in the manner and
time of its choosing.
People of the CNMI enjoy self-government in that they elect
their Governor and the Lieutenant Governor; they elect the
members of the two houses of their legislature; they elect a
Resident Representative to Washington, who we all hope will be
the Congressman; and this is the same level of self-government
that is enjoyed by people of the U.S. Virgin Islands, the
people of American Samoa, the people of Guam, and the people of
Puerto Rico.
Mrs. Christensen. Thank you. I have exhausted my first five
minutes. Mr. Faleomavaega, you are now recognized for your
questions.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Thank you, Madam Chair. I do want to also
apologize for not extending my personal warm welcome to the
Governor, the Lieutenant Governor, and my good friend Pete
Tenorio for him being here and certainly the outstanding
service that he's rendered on behalf of the people of the
Northern Marianas in Washington.
Secretary Cohen, I tried to go through the proposed bill,
very comprehensive to say the least. In developing this
proposed legislation, was there close consultation from the
leaders of the CNMI in getting their input as part of the
process?
Mr. Cohen. Yes, there was Congressman. You know, I have
heard different opinions expressed as to the nature of that
cooperation, but--when I was here in March, for example, for
the 902 talks, we had extensive consultations where, under the
auspices of Section 902, where I heard in great detail concerns
that the CNMI would have things that they would want addressed
in any legislation. It was in support for legislation that
wasn't offered, but we discussed in great detail over the
course of two days the types of things that would have to be
addressed in order for any Federalization of immigration to
work properly for the CNMI. All of these things, we think, were
taken into account.
Mr. Faleomavaega. But let me ask you that, because my time
is running. As a consequence of your consultations, was there
ever any resolution, or petition, or even a letter from the
executive branch of CNMI attesting to--agreeing to the proposed
provisions of the proposed bill? I am trying to--you say that
there was close consultation. Now, my next question is, is
there any documentation to acknowledge that there were
consultations and they approved the provisions of the proposed
bill? That's what I am trying to get at.
Mr. Cohen. Oh, well, no, in fact, the CNMI Administration
does not approve the provisions of the proposed bill and it was
never on our understanding that the current Administration of
the CNMI would have a veto right over what was proposed. So,
we're still obviously in the process and this hearing is part
of the process of soliciting their views, and by the way we
provided an advance copy to the Administration's consultants in
Washington D.C., giving them an opportunity to provide input.
And I also want to stress that we make strenuous efforts, not
only to solicit input from the current Administration of the
CNMI, but we--I spent nine days here in March and I met with
almost every community group that would be willing to meet with
me----
Mr. Faleomavaega. All right, I am sure you've been very
earnest and diligent in carrying out your responsibilities, Mr.
Secretary. But what if the consensus coming from the CNMI
people says ``We don't approve; we don't accept H.R. 3079 the
way it's currently written.'' What if it comes to that part of
the process where they strenuously object to the provisions of
the proposed bill? Where do we go from there?
Mr. Cohen. Congressman, I think that the views of the CNMI
must be--the people of the CNMI must be taken into account. And
obviously, it's up to the Federal Government to decide what the
Federal Policy is going to be. But I strongly believe that the
views of the people of the CNMI must be taken into account. Let
me say, however, that from my extensive conversations with
groups across the spectrum of the CNMI society, I believe that
that scenario will not be the case. An overwhelming majority of
people that I have spoken to in the CNMI either support
Federalization or they're not vehemently opposed to it.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Mr. Secretary, I am sorry I didn't mean
to cut you off, but my time here is my concern. The CNMI sense
of identity, we're a part of the American family, we understand
that, but we have this covenant, we have this covenant
relationship that provided this very unique relationship. I
recall during the Carter Administration when we were
negotiating the provisions of the Compact of Free Association
separate and apart from the Covenant Relationship Negotiation.
And I recall the attitude that we had with Washington was
``take it or leave it.'' You know, it wasn't like a mutual,
friendly process. It was like ``take it or leave it.'' You
know, you either fish or cut bait. And I am a little concerned
if in fact that in terms of the process of consultations that
CNMI has been given their opportunity to express a very
comprehensive, I suppose, response and wanting to know exactly
where they stand in relation to the provisions of the Covenant
document that they signed off on 2/6/1976.
And I am concerned too, and one more question, Madam Chair,
if I may, do you consider the Covenant document as your treaty
relationship between the CNMI and the U.S. or is it just a
proposal saying, ``Hey, we want to be part of the America, so
the joint resolution accepts it and from there on, you're part
of the American family; you're going to eat McDonald's
hamburgers whether you like it or not''?
Mr. Cohen. Well, if I can actually try to address both
parts of your question. The first part of your question
expresses concern and a concern that I would share that the
people of the CNMI are not given a chance to provide their
input into this proposal. I think that would be a very bad
thing. So let me reiterate that we have made extensive efforts
to solicit views and accommodate the views in our drafting
service, not only of the current Administration of the CNMI,
but of political leaders of all points of view, of different
community groups. I have met separately with----
Mr. Faleomavaega. Mr. Secretary, my time is up, but I know,
Madam Chair--can you point out each point of the provisions
where it shows that CNMI disagreed as part of this consultation
that you've taken extensively with the leaders of the people,
because I am very curious----
Mr. Cohen. Well, if you're talking about the
Administration's view, they will be here to express their views
soon, and the current Administration does have differences of
opinion with the legislation, and you should hear and consider
those views thoroughly.
Mr. Faleomavaega. I am sorry. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank
you, Mr. Secretary.
Mrs. Christensen. You're welcome. I expect that we'll have
another round if you have further questions. I was also remiss
in not recognizing the Governor and Lieutenant Governor this
morning and members of the Senate and the House. I also want to
recognize any students that are with us from Kagman High School
that we visited with yesterday and who will be coming in to
join us. At this time, the Chair recognizes the Ms. Bordallo
for such questions.
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you. Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
Mr. Cohen, I'd like a real clear yes or no on this question,
and I think Mr. Faleomavaega pointed out a very good point and
in a way you did clarify that, but I'd like it clear. Does the
Administration or the Department of the Interior have a formal
position on H.R. 3079, either Title 1, The Immigration
Provisions or Title 2, The Authorization for CNMI Delegate? And
if there isn't a formal or official position on the introduced
legislation to date, is there one in formulation?
Mr. Cohen. Well, the answers are as follows: No, for H.R.
3079, because we have a policy against taking a formal position
on legislation at a field hearing, and that's just a
technicality. The answer is, yes, on S. 1634 because we were
committed to take the position on the hearing in Washington,
D.C. So, Title 1 is identical to S. 1634 and hence, formally,
the Administration has taken a position on S. 1634 in favor
with certain exceptions that are in my written testimony. The
Administration also was taking a position in favor of extending
a nonvoting delegate to the CNMI. That's been in my testimony
in Washington, D.C., that, you know, at a proper hearing.
However, we formally, and this is just a technicality, I cannot
say that we've taken a position on H.R. 3079, even though the
two bills were identical. So that is just a technicality.
Ms. Bordallo. So, the answer really is, no?
Mr. Cohen. That's correct.
Ms. Bordallo. The second question I have pertaining to the
protection for refugees, I would like to ask you to address, to
the extent you are able to do so here, your support for the
provision contained within H.R. 3075 that would effectively
apply to the CNMI, the 1951 Geneva Convention relating to the
status of refugees. I recall in the past that there was
cooperation being pursued between the CNMI and the Federal
Government in offering protection to guest workers or others
who face deportation here from the CNMI. Such protections had
been afforded to aliens in the United States since the U.S.
exceeded to the 1967 U.N. Protocol on refugees. Can you please
give us a sense of the level of cooperation that has been
achieved to date between the CNMI and the Federal Government
with respect to the protection of refugees in the CNMI and
speak to the importance of the provisions contained in the bill
that would extend and apply these important international
agreements to the CNMI?
Mr. Cohen. Thank you, Madam Congressman. Let me first
clarify that the application of those international treaties
and conventions to the CNMI is not done by virtue of the bill.
It's done automatically by virtue of the fact that the United
States is party to those treaties and conventions. So, that is
a pre-existing condition, that the United States' obligations
under those treaties includes the obligation to ensure that all
parts of the United States, including the CNMI, comply with
those treaties and obligations.
Since the CNMI has had a separate immigration system, we
had to create a separate refugee protection system for the CNMI
in order to make sure that the United States remained in
compliance with those obligations. The cooperation was good for
a period of time, when I brought a decision to the attention of
the previous Administration. We negotiated a memorandum of
agreement between my office and the Government of the CNMI, and
we hired the U.S. Department of Homeland Security as the
protection consultant to help the CNMI develop a refugee
protection system. We've had concerns recently about the
willingness of the CNMI to enable the Federal Government to do
its very necessary oversight functions as to confirm that we,
the United States, remain in compliance because the CNMI
remains in compliance. There was an unfortunate exchange of
letters which reflected a non-cooperative stance by the CNMI.
Hopefully that is changing. There have been conversations and
e-mails, I think, between the Attorney General's Office here in
CNMI and the Department of Homeland Security that are hopeful.
But if the CNMI Administration is willing to renounce the
sentiments that were expressed in the letter from the Attorney
General which basically said--basically compared the Federal
Government's communications to the CNMI with foreign
government's attempts to interfere in the refugee protection
process, then we might have a basis for moving forward. But if
they're not willing to renounce and retract those statements,
then we might have a problem resolving these issues.
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you, Mr. Cohen. I know my time is up,
but I do have further questions, Madam Chair.
Mrs. Christensen. Thank you, we will come back to you
again, Ms. Bordallo, if you have further questions. In the
Governor's Supplemental Statement, he will claim that the
Senate version of the CNMI Immigration Bill is far more than an
immigration law in that it imposes an unprecedented Federal
guest worker program on the CNMI. According to the Governor, no
other community in the U.S. has been subjected to such a
Federal intrusion on local matters. Do you agree that that's a
valid point?
Mr. Cohen. Thank you for the question, Madam Chairman. No,
we do not agree with that. What is extraordinary is that a non-
Federal entity has control over its own immigration, and that
can work in certain circumstances, but that is a special right.
So, to say that it's unprecedented, for example, for the
Federal Government to establish immigration policies, including
the ability to import labor for a specific small community, it
isn't really a valid statement because no other small
communities with only one exception, American Samoa, has the
right to bring in labor from outside to determine which workers
from what other countries, and how many will enter. So,
communities like California or Los Angeles or small towns
across the U.S. simply don't have this power so that statement
would be inapplicable.
On the statement about intrusions to labor law as well as
immigration law, I would point out that U.S. immigration law
covers in great detail the qualifications for labor entering
the United States; how many, their caps. All of this is under
immigration law and the recent debate on Immigration Reform,
some were in favor of the guest worker program; that was in the
context of immigration legislation. So, this is all a part of
immigration law and that's just a label, it doesn't really
matter how you label.
But what the Federal Government is attempting to do in this
legislation is not to impose a guest worker program on the
CNMI. The intent is to take the existing guest worker program
in the CNMI, put it under Federal control, and then phase it
out, but then compensate by replacing it with a very generous
provision to provide for ongoing labor needs. For example,
exemptions from all age caps. So, going forward, the CNMI will,
under the auspices of established immigration law be able to
bring in the workers that it needs to run its economy.
Mrs. Christensen. Thank you. I'll probably ask this one
other question under this round, but you spent a fair amount of
time in your testimony on the issue of human trafficking, which
you said is between 8.8 and 10 times more prevalent per capita
in the CNMI than in the rest of the U.S., and the Governor says
that he doesn't agree. So that's a misuse of statistics and
maybe it's about 6 more times more prevalent. How would you
respond to that? I think he also feels that you owe him an
apology.
Mr. Cohen. Well, with all due respect, and actually in
those circumstances where I believe we do owe an apology, I am
very quick to give it. In this case, in this particular
circumstance, I would suggest that I don't owe the Governor an
apology this time, maybe for other things in other contexts. I
think people who are owed an apology, frankly, are the victims
of human trafficking, the victims that you, Madam Chairwoman,
and Congresswoman Bordallo visited with yesterday in the
Federal Ombudsman's Office, and Congressman Faleomavaega would
have been here with us but his flight didn't arrive until 2:30
in the morning. We appreciate that you spent the afternoon
yesterday talking to real people who have addressed these
problems.
I have about two pages of notes as to why I strongly
disagree with the current Administration's statistical or
numerical analysis that purports to show that other
performances is much better. We can submit that for the record.
I think the argument about statistics is really besides the
point and I'd be happy to drop it if we can just get a clear
statement from the current Administration. And I think they're
probably ready to make the statement that human trafficking is
a very serious issue here in the CNMI. And that's not just this
Administration saying so. We have Bishop Camacho's, who wrote a
beautiful pastoral letter about the subject. The Catholic nuns
of Karidat will say that this is a very serious issue. The
social workers of Guma' Esperansa say that this is a very
serious issue. We've heard moving testimony from victims of
human trafficking saying this is a very serious issue. And of
course, my Administration says that this is a very serious
issue. We--the numbers back us up and with the--if the currency
in my Administration says, ``Yes, we agree this is a very
serious issue so let's all work together to address it,'' then
I am happy to say, ``OK. We'll go with your numbers'' and I'll
drop that argument and then we'll all continue to work together
to address the problem. And----
Mrs. Christensen. So, the number of times more prevalent is
really not the issue. The issue is basically, is there a
problem or is there not a problem?
Mr. Cohen. Yeah. And we stand by our numbers and let me
say, in defense of the current Administration, this problem, it
didn't start with the current Administration and this current
Administration has significant victories in the battle against
human trafficking. But our concern was it attempted to use a
statistical analysis on their part, which is heavily flawed to
contradict our statements. We don't mind being contradicted,
but we're concerned that any interpretation that this is an
attempt to suggest that we don't have a problem. If that's not
their intention, then we're all in agreement.
Mrs. Christensen. OK. So if you feel that theirs are flawed
and they feel that yours are flawed, that can be set aside if
everybody agrees that there is a problem.
Mr. Cohen. And that we'll all work together to address it.
Mrs. Christensen. OK. I got it. OK. The Chair now
recognizes Mr. Faleomavaega for five minutes.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. Mr.
Secretary, I point with interest to page 7 of the proposed
bill, where it says that the Government of the CNMI shall
comply with the Convention on Refugees as well as with the
provisions of the United Nation's Convention on Torture and
other Cruel, Inhuman or Degraded Treatment or Punishment under
the New York Act of 1984. I am a little concerned. Why are we
are picking just on the CNMI and they have to comply with these
two international conventions? Or the fact that Abu Ghraib and
Guantanamo Bay is one of the most embarrassing foreign policy
questions that my own government doesn't even comply with the
Provisions on Torture and all of this. I am a little confused
here. Are all other states and territories subject to the same
requirement that we have to comply with the Refugees
Convention? I was under the impression that that's already
under the administrative authority of the United States for all
territories and states.
Mr. Cohen. We are----
Mr. Faleomavaega. Why are we singling out CNMI in this
instance?
Mr. Cohen. Thank you Congressman, that's a good question.
The only reason we're singling out the CNMI on this particular
question is that CNMI is the only non-Federal jurisdiction
under U.S. sovereignty that has its own refugee protection
system. So, we're just reiterating in the statute what is
already the case, which is, the CNMI and the administration of
its separate special CNMI-only refugee protection system must
comply with those treaties and conventions to which the U.S. is
a party. And the particular context of that provision is, this
legislation would enable the CNMI to continue to operate its
separate refugee protection system and, for reasons that I can
explain at length, that is good for the CNMI. That is an
accommodation to the CNMI that will help it in its efforts to
have more flexibility to attract tourism and admit aliens.
However, if they do so, we're reiterating they have to comply
with the international treaties.
Mr. Faleomavaega. In addition to that, the law, the
proposed bill, gives the Secretary of Homeland Security and the
Secretary of State discretionary authority. If, in their
opinion and their judgment, CNMI doesn't comply with the
Refugee Convention and the Torture Convention, bang. Section
208 automatically then is triggered into being authorized and
applied here in the CNMI. Is that a usual policy of how we
conduct a--how the Immigration and Nationality Act applies to
other territories and states as well?
Mr. Cohen. Well, Congressman, there is no usual policy
because the CNMI is the only jurisdiction within U.S.
sovereignty that----
Mr. Faleomavaega. Oh, I understand that. Why do you suppose
the CNMI is the only jurisdiction that is given this
discretionary authority in applying or drawing up its own
immigration laws? Was that because of the Covenant Relationship
that was developed between CNMI and the U.S.?
Mr. Cohen. Oh, yes. Under the Covenant, the CNMI was given
the authority to administer its own immigration system, until
such time that Congress exercises the authority to take it
back. But to get back to, I think, an important point that you
had made in your question, why would the Secretary of Homeland
Security and the Secretary of the State have the ability to
apply Section 208 of the Immigration Nationality Act relating
to asylum to the CNMI if it wasn't--if they weren't satisfied
with the CNMI's conduct of the refugee protection systems?
That's because it's the Federal Government's signature on those
treaties and conventions. The Federal Government is ultimately
responsible for making sure that we're in compliance, including
the CNMI, and if the CNMI----
Mr. Faleomavaega. So, if we're making this happen in the
CNMI, does this mean that the Convention on Torture doesn't
apply to other territories like American Samoa or Guam? Do we
have to go through the statutory requirement that is stated in
the proposed bill?
Mr. Cohen. It applies to all--it applies to the United
States in general, because the other territories, with the
exception of the American Samoa, do not control their own
immigration. They don't need special provisions like this. Now,
in American Samoa, it's in a much lower risk environment, but
if we have people showing up in American Samoa that are
applying for asylum----
Mr. Faleomavaega. Is----
Mr. Cohen --We have to address that issue as well.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Is the Covenant Relationship between the
CNMI and the U.S. a treaty relationship or is it something
else?
Mr. Cohen. Well, Congressman, I am going to decline to
express a legal opinion on that until I'll get legal advice,
but we could answer that question in writing. What I will say
is, the CNMI constitutionally, under the U.S. Constitution, is
considered a territory of the United States, subject to the
Territories Clause of the Constitution, and as subject to
plenary authority of the U.S. Government--of the U.S. Congress.
Mr. Faleomavaega. According to your--yes, I understand. I
understand that according to your interpretation, but my
understanding is that CNMI leaders are co-equals when they
negotiated the provisions of that Covenant Relationship. And in
my humble opinion, as a layman's understanding, it's a Treaty
Relationship. And because it is a Treaty Relationship, it is
far beyond the provisions of the U.S. Constitution. In other
words, if there is any changes to be done in this Covenant
Relationship, it's got to be by mutual consent on both parties,
and not just one party saying, ``You're going to get it whether
you like it or not.'' Now, I am just--just a layman's view of
this, am I wrong in taking it on those terms?
Mr. Cohen. Well, Congressman, what I would point out is
that this Covenant itself, whether you call it a treaty or a
contract, whatever----
Mr. Faleomavaega. Yes. Mr. Secretary, I have to say it is
very critical that we need to understand whether the Covenant
is a Treaty Relationship or otherwise, because if it is a
Treaty Relationship, we've got a very serious problem in our
hand.
Mr. Cohen. Well, Congressman, let me respectfully point out
that however you--and I don't disagree that it's important to
characterize it properly, we'll get legal advice on that, but
however you characterize it, the Covenant itself expressly
provides that the U.S. Congress has the authority to exert--to
assert control over the CNMI Immigration Systems. So, that's
not in doubt and that is not a mutual consent provision in the
Covenant. The Covenant has certain provisions that should only
be modified by a mutual consent, I believe. This is not one of
them.
Mr. Faleomavaega. I am sorry. My time is up. I have a
hundred more questions I wanted to ask you. [Laughter]
Mrs. Christensen. The Chair now recognizes Ms. Bordallo for
her questions.
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman. Governor
Fitial has referenced in his written testimony legislation that
has been introduced in the House of Representatives--H.R.
3165--``To amend the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United
States, to provide for more flexible local content requirements
for products manufactured and assembled in U.S. territories.''
Duty-free access to the U.S. Customs Zone and the U.S. market
for goods from the territories has been one of the economic
pillars for which the CNMI economy has developed. And this has
been jeopardized due in part to the liberalization of world
trade rules and the elimination of quotas with key U.S. trading
partners. This is a matter of fairness from my perspective. I
believe that products imported from the U.S. territories should
be afforded the same and no less preferential treatment as
afforded to products imported from countries with which the
United States has entered into a free trade agreement. What are
your thoughts Mr. Cohen and the Administration? Does the
Administration support reducing the local content requirements
for duty-free importation from 50 to 30 percent? Why and why
not?
Mr. Cohen. Thank you for the question, Madam Congresswoman.
The Administration does not have a position on that particular
proposal. I will say that when the proposal came around
earlier, when it was proposed in the last Congress, my office
worked very actively within the Administration to try to get a
position formulated and at the end of the day the
Administration did not take the position but we recognize the
importance of that issue to the economy of the Commonwealth.
One question I would have in any attempt to formulate
Administration position on this, again, would be in light of
the fact that the garment industry is drastically downsized
even from the end of last year when this proposal was being
considered to now. We would in the Administration want to have
a better understanding of how that amendment to General Note 3A
would be used. What is the economic vision to utilize that and
having an understanding of that would enable us in the Interior
then to take that to our colleagues in the Federal Government
to see if we could get an Administration position.
Ms. Bordallo. I'll follow-up on that. It seems to me that
some very, very important decisions for the U.S. territories,
in particular the CNMI, are being discussed by the
Administration but yet the Administration has no official
position and has never requested officially Members of
Congress. And I just want to point that out.
The next question I have for you, Mr. Cohen, is in visiting
with some of the leaders here in the CNMI in the last couple of
days and at least to some of the written testimony that I have
written ``far more economic studies should be made before
action should be taken to implement any proposed reforms to the
immigration, the border security or labor systems.'' Do you
believe Congress and the Administration have sufficient and
reliable data to act responsibly on the proposals to H.R. 3079
at this time? And how do you respond to the calls for more
studies before adopting one proposal over another? Do you
believe any additional study should be prudent or should be
pursued at this time? And if so, in what areas would we be best
served to have more data?
Mr. Cohen. Thank you, Madam Congresswoman. We believe that
we need more data in almost every area you can imagine because
the economic statistics and social statistics available in the
CNMI are not adequate, and it's really the fault of the lack of
resources. It's nobody's fault, but there are perhaps
insufficient resources devoted to the task. However, we do not
believe that the need for additional studies, and we believe
that additional information on all of these factors would be
extremely helpful, but we do not believe that the need for
additional studies requires a delay in acting on S. 1634, which
the Administration has endorsed because S. 1634--and of course
Title 1 is of this bill----
Ms. Bordallo. I know that. Yeah.
Mr. Cohen. S. 1634 provides a flexible framework to
establish these policies and most likely provides really the
outer bounds of flexibility that the Federal Government would
be willing to live, with given the need to address its homeland
security and national security concerns. But a lot of the
specifics, for example, what would be the regulations that will
govern the 10-year phase out guest worker program, which by the
way can be extended indefinitely in 5-year increments. That's
plenty of flexibility. Within that, as the studies become
completed, the relevant agencies can look at those studies and
promulgate regulations that account for the CNMI's needs and
the statutes, legislation specifically says ``You are supposed
to take into account the CNMI's fragile economy, provide them
as much flexibility as possible.'' On the tourism side, the
legislation provides flexibility to choose additional countries
for visa waivers. It creates a presumption that any country
that has sent tourists in the CNMI within the last five years
including China, Russia, Taiwan, and Japan and the others, it
creates a presumption that those countries will get visa
waivers and that presumption can be defeated if the Secretary
of Homeland Security gets information that says ``You know,
this wouldn't be a good idea.'' It also gives the Secretary of
Homeland Security the flexibility to create, in consultation
with the Government of the CNMI, to create new categories of
special CNMI visas to maybe let in retirees, investors,
students, if it's not covered by immigration laws. So, the
framework is in place. You don't need additional studies to act
on this bill, and delaying acting on this bill will create a
longer period of uncertainty which would have a chilling effect
on investment. It will delay the start-time and end-time for
the warm-up period. But the studies will be very valuable as we
fill in the details for regulation to make sure that this
policy, the statute, and the regulations taken together work
well for the needs of the CNMI.
Ms. Bordallo. Madam Chair, my time is up. But I do have an
additional question on the next round.
Mrs. Christensen. Do you have another question?
Mr. Faleomavaega. Madam Chair, I know that you have a
hundred more witnesses with you----
Mrs. Christensen. Yes.
Mr. Faleomavaega. I do want to say--if I could just say a
real brief statement again to thank Secretary Cohen for taking
the time to come and participate in the hearing. I just want to
say for the record, Madam Chair, the mood in Washington, D.C.
has been one of outright confrontation. Very partisan
politicking on the part of both national parties in the
leadership. The CNMI and American Samoa are caught between
these very partisan forces. And my concern is that, to what
degree are the Insular areas allowed to do their own thing
locally without being imposed upon, I suppose, in this--at some
point that we become Federalized? I suppose that's the--I think
it was someone who once said the ``Golden Rule'' is that--the
way it's applied, ``He who has the gold makes the rule.'' No
such thing as helping each other out. But I am very concerned,
Madam Chair. And I say this specifically on the minimum wage
issue that has caught both the CNMI and American Samoa in a
very, very, negative way where it's really, really unfortunate
that we find ourselves in this situation.
Now, every time something happens to CNMI, American Samoa
is dragged into it. [Laughter] Or if something happens to
American Samoa, CNMI is going to be dragged into it. I envy
Guam, they never seem to have any problems at all in this kind
of situations. [Laughter]
I do want to say, Madam Chair. I hope this will not be the
last of the times that in your leadership that you bring our
Subcommittee here to meet with the people, because sometimes
Washington gets into a deaf ear, and really understanding and
appreciating what are some of the problems associated with the
issues affecting the lives and the people, the good people here
of CNMI, as an example. I just wanted to say that, although I
wanted to ask Secretary Cohen a couple of more questions, but I
am going to forgo that for now. I'll catch you in Washington,
Mr. Secretary. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. And thank you
Mr. Secretary.
Mrs. Christensen. Ms. Bordallo?
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you very much, Madam Chairwoman. I
would like to straighten out the record. Congressman
Faleomavaega, Guam has problems. [Laughter] And I try to take
care of Guam and the CNMI, until such time that you have a
voting Delegate. But, Mr. Cohen, can you please address for us
the considerations that were given in the drafting process by
the Administration internally regarding the Visa Waiver Program
provisions? How did the Departments of State, Homeland Security
and Interior work together to develop the language presented to
the Senate that is also contained in H.R. 3079 with respect to
the establishment of a CNMI-only Visa Waiver Program? What are
the Administration's views and thoughts about appropriate
integration of such program with the established Guam Only
Program?
Mr. Faleomavaega. And American Samoa.
Ms. Bordallo. And American Samoa. And do you support
increasing the authorized stay period under the Guam program to
more closely mirror what is provided for in the law for the
U.S. Visa Waiver Program, and that is a 90-day period? And, was
extension of the authorized stay period for the Guam program
explored in this discussion and in the drafting process that
the Administration undertook to respond to the Senate request?
Mr. Cohen. Thank you for the question, Madam Congresswoman.
In drafting the provision, I guess our guiding light--we had a
few guideposts. The first was the Administration's testimony
before the Senate that set forth the objective of providing as
much flexibility as possible for the CNMI to strengthen its
economy, including tourism, and we use as a model the Guam Visa
Waiver Program, and we looked at the opportunity for extending
it. We consulted in-house about sensitivities that may exist
for homeland security and national security issues, because we
wanted to try to present a proposal that would have a
reasonable chance of acceptance by the Administration once we
have submitted it. So, we looked at all those things. We
considered the integration with Guam and this legislation, as
you know, does have some degree of integration with Guam. It's
not full integration, and it enables there to be shared
countries--that would be the general rule--there'd be shared
countries where there'd be a Guam-only visa waiver and a CNMI-
only visa waiver, but they would have them in common and a
traveler could spend 15 days in Guam, 15 days in the CNMI or 30
days total. It also provides some flexibility though, for
example, if we have greater sensitivity to people from certain
countries traveling without a visa to Guam, perhaps because of
the military facilities--that we could still approve visa
waivers for the CNMI, but not approve it for Guam or vice
versa. We might have some sensitivities that go in the other
direction. So, there is some flexibility to do that. We have
been discussing, behind the scenes extensively, how we can make
Guam more accessible to the travelers that it needs and the
CNMI more accessible to the travelers that it needs.
As you know, I am very heavily involved in the
Administration's efforts to coordinate for the military buildup
on Guam. And that's an issue that is front and center in our
deliberations together with representatives from Guam. And as
everything--you've made, I think, an important comment before
that we have discussions within our Administration but
sometimes we don't come out with a position. That's symptomatic
of the phenomenon that Congressman Faleomavaega had pointed out
is that, whenever we at the Interior bring issues on behalf of
the territories to our colleagues in the Administration,
different people and different agencies they have different
concerns, and sometimes we win and sometimes we don't. Same
thing in Congress. All of you are strong advocates for the
Insular areas and sometimes you get your colleagues to go along
with you and sometimes you don't. So, we face the same issues
in the Executive Branch. But all of the issues that you raised
are issues that we have been addressing in great detail on our
conversations and we think we're getting traction on some of
them. So, we'll keep working as you know as well.
Ms. Bordallo. Well, since you represent an island yourself,
Mr. Cohen, I hope you're in there really fighting for us.
Mr. Cohen. Oh, believe me, I have the scars to prove it.
[Laughter]
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you very much for your answers to our
questions this morning and I yield back, Madam Chair.
Mrs. Christensen. Thank you and, since Congressman
Faleomavaega raised that, we do have plans to hold some
hearings on the minimum wage and, as you know, Chairman Miller
has agreed to have a hearing after the GAO report comes out.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Will you have a hearing here, Madam
Chair, on minimum wage?
Mrs. Christensen. Well, I know that we will be visiting
American Samoa at some point, so we'll see where that leads us.
And Mr. Cohen, just briefly, outline the considerable amount of
consultation that has taken place leading up to this point. Can
you assure us that that same level of consultation will
continue from here on in?
Mr. Cohen. Absolutely, Madam Chairwoman, and of course now
that the legislation has been introduced, it is now a--it's a
bill of Congress and by your presence here today and the--the
sense of consultation that your Committee and staff have had
with the representatives and people in the CNMI, that is just
as important.
Mrs. Christensen. And the consultation that took place
leading up to this point did result in some changes as the bill
was being drafted, did it not?
Mr. Cohen. Yeah, it certainly did and it resulted in our
best effort to provide a drafting service that was as flexible
and accommodating of the legitimate needs of CNMI to have a
properly staffed workforce and be accessible to tourists and
others as we can possibly do within the confines of our other
concerns.
Mrs. Christensen. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Cohen, for your
testimony and the answers to our questions. We are going to
have to take a break because of some camera issues that need to
be taken care of between this panel and the next panel. So,
you're dismissed and we'll take a five-minute break.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Madam Chairwoman, I wonder if it's at all
possible, Madam Chair, that Secretary Cohen could stick around
and maybe he might be able to respond to maybe some of the
questions or things that we may be anticipating and I think it
would be helpful for the record to have his input as well on
the process, if that's possible to do it.
Mrs. Christensen. Well, we would be guided by time because
we are on the time constraints, but we welcome you to stay and
whatever we cannot get to you today, we will be submitting to
you in writing and expect your responses in writing back to us
on issues that may arise and things that go through the panel.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Mrs. Christensen. So we'll take a five-minute break and
we'll call up the next panel. Thank you.
(Off the record from 10:24 a.m. To 10:30 a.m.)
Mrs. Christensen. The Committee will come back to order. I
trust that the audio problem was fixed and that the people who
are outside will be able to hear us. And I'd now like to
recognize the second panel of witnesses. The Honorable Benigno
Fitial, Governor of the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana
Islands, The Honorable Oscar M. Babauta, Speaker of the CNMI
House of Representatives, The Honorable Pete A. Tenorio,
Resident Representative of the CNMI, and The Honorable Pete P.
Reyes, Vice President of the Senate of the CNMI.
Mrs. Christensen. And the Chair now recognizes Governor
Fitial to testify for five minutes.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE BENIGNO FITIAL, GOVERNOR,
COMMONWEALTH OF THE NORTHERN MARIANA ISLANDS
Governor Fitial. Good morning, Madam Chairwoman and members
of the Subcommittee. This is a great occasion for us. This is
the first time a Congressional Subcommittee has had an official
hearing here in the Commonwealth. We are proud to be U.S.
Citizens. In that tradition, I will not mince words with you, I
wish you were here to examine firsthand the serious state of
the Commonwealth economy. I wish you were here in Saipan to
consider how best the Federal Government might move quickly to
address the suffering of my people. But you are here for
another purpose; to hear testimony about House Bill 3079.
You are being urged to act immediately on the Bill because
of an alleged law enforcement crisis in the Commonwealth. This
is simply false. I have described in my statement our record in
enforcing our labor immigration laws, our effective prosecution
of criminal activity, and our cooperation with Federal Law
Enforcement officials from various agencies. Claims to the
contrary are not based on fact or probably the statistics and
certainly do not support any urgency justifying enactment of
this legislation. I am opposed to the bill prepared by the
Interior and supported by Congressional staff because it is
harmful to our people, harmful to our economy, and not
necessary. The Interior officials may label the bill as
flexible Federalization. I can think of many other adjectives
that might be used, but not one of them can express the
anticipated burdens and frustrations when the heavy hands of a
five-fingered bureaucracy reach this small island community. In
my written statement, I summarized the current state of the
CNMI economy and our plan for recovery. I reported on some
recent favorable developments with respect to new investment in
the CNMI, but I emphasized that there is no quick fix for the
CNMI's current problems, which can only be described as a
hopeless economic depression. My assessment of the economy is
shared by witnesses from the business community who have
submitted statements and would appear here today from the
Chamber of Commerce and the Hotel Association, and we know that
this bill will seriously damage the CNMI economy. We know it
will generate uncertainty throughout the economy.
I know from personal conversations with current and
potential investors that it will cause them to reconsider
investment in the Commonwealth. I have spent most of my time
away from the CNMI in Japan, Korea, China trying to introduce
investment and committing their funds and energy to projects in
the CNMI. I know they value the fact that the Commonwealth is
part of the United States with an established legal system, but
I also know that they value special economic tools provided to
the Commonwealth under the Covenant and our ability to exercise
meaningful self-government over local affairs.
What often is forgotten in this debate about
Federalization, flexible or otherwise, is that we, the
Commonwealth, have already been there. Most of us lived for
decades under the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands. I
have worked under the Trust Territory for more than 10 years.
We became familiar with the way trust territory officials
commissioned by Interior Department govern the peoples of
Micronesia. We suffered from their frequent rotation in office,
their lack of knowledge of local conditions, their lack of
funding, their inability to get timely decisions from
Washington, their discriminatory dual-paying system and their
disdain for the local people. Anyone who lived under the Trust
Territory and today supports Federalization provides further
evidence of our human impulse to allow hope to triumph over
experience.
The Federal Government's performance under the Covenant has
been mixed at best. In recent years, the response of the
Interior Department to our economic situation has been very
disappointing. Time and time again we have been reminded that
the Interior does not have and will not give funds to assist
the Commonwealth in dealing with economic forces beyond its
control. When the Commonwealth urged the reimbursement of some
$200 million of cost incurred in the past 20 years in
supporting Micronesians immigrating to our community under
arrangements negotiated by the Interior, our plea was rejected
by an Interior official stating that the Federal Government did
not have any legally binding contractual obligation to
reimburse the Commonwealth for this cost.
The fact is, we do have a contract. Section 701 of the
Covenant obligates the Federal Government to assist the
Government of the Northern Mariana Islands in its efforts to
achieve a progressively higher standard of living for its
people as part of the American economic community and to
develop the economic resources to meet the financial
responsibilities of local self-government. My budget for Fiscal
Year 2008 will be lower than our budget was in 1994. In fact,
we are stalled by economic conditions here in Pacific Region
that make a progressively high standard of living for
Commonwealth citizens an increasingly distant hope.
My opposition to H.R. 3079 is supported by the vast
majority of all the elected leaders in the CNMI. Every past
Governor who was faced with comparable Federal legislation
opposed it for reasons similar to mine, irrespective of
political affiliation. Of even greater importance is the
concern of indigenous people in the Commonwealth.
I am submitting today to the Subcommittee a short statement
of Mr. Vicente N. Santos, the President of the Marianas
District Legislature from its commission in 1963 to the
beginning of the CNMI Government under its own constitution. He
was the Vice Chairman of the Marianas Political Status
Commission, which represented the Northern Marianas people in
their negotiations with the United States that led to the
Covenant. Mr. Santos is truly a founding father. No one person
worked so hard or so long as he did to pursue the aspiration of
his people to achieve U.S. citizenship and a political
relationship with the Federal Government that met the needs of
his community. Mr. Santos speaks for most of the Chamorro and
Carolinian citizens in opposing this legislation.
These citizens are concerned about many aspects of the bill
but especially the unprecedented provision giving guest workers
in the CNMI the right to become permanent legal residents here
or elsewhere in the United States. He and other local citizens
worry about the impact of this provision on the CNMI community.
No one knows exactly how this would operate, but the
possibility clearly exists that such an option would permit
thousands of guest workers to stay in the Commonwealth and to
bring in their relatives under the new status granted by this
bill.
We would then have advanced your burden, perhaps even
exceeding the $200 million we have already spent because the
Interior Department opened our doors 20 years ago to those
otherwise ineligible to come to the United States. This
particular provision of the bill is directly contrary to
certain factions under U.S. immigration law, where persons who
are admitted as temporary guest workers must meet one set of
criteria and people who are admitted to the United States as
permanent residents are required to get an entirely different
set of criteria.
This bill allows alien workers who are admitted only as
guest workers to become permanent legal residents and exempts
them from the requirements they would have to meet in the
United States to achieve their status of permanent legal
resident.
We believe that this Subcommittee should not act on H.R.
3079 until the Government Accountability Office has completed
the study requested by members of both Houses of Congress. Our
reasons for these are very straightforward. First, we believe
that this bill was predicated on outdated facts that present a
seriously inaccurate picture of today's Commonwealth. In my
written statement, I gave some examples of the vast differences
between the CNMI that existed when Congress last examined this
issue in 1998 and 1999 and the CNMI, a decade later, its
population, its workforce and its economy.
Second, it is clear that the drafters of this legislation
do not have the expertise regarding the U.S. immigration laws
or even the written entry topic models necessary to deal with
these very difficult and important issues.
Third, the only way to assess fairly the objections that we
have presented regarding this bill is to have them analyzed by
impartial professionals. Our concerns with respect to the
impact of this bill on the Commonwealth economy and community
are not privileged nor are they raised as have been charged
only to the reconsideration of the bill. What is at stake here
is the future of the Commonwealth over the next 20 years. Its
people deserve to have legislation of its importance evaluated
in line with existing facts and informed projections of the
future before it is adopted by this Subcommittee.
The members of this Subcommittee might well ask the
supporters of this bill, ``Now, tell me again, what's the
emergency here that requires us to act before the GAO study is
completed?'' I have repeatedly stated that the Commonwealth
does not oppose legislation aimed at improving the security of
the CNMI borders. We believe that the issue on border security
can and should be separated from the intrusive provisions of
H.R. 3079.
I am submitting today, Madam Chairwoman and members of the
Committee, a proposed bill for your consideration. It is
entitled ``Enhanced Border Control of the Commonwealth of the
Northern Mariana Islands'' and it does the following: First, it
retains the Asylum Provisions of H.R. 3079.
Second, it directs the Secretary of the Department of
Homeland Security, in consultation with the Government of the
Commonwealth, to prepare a plan for supporting the
Commonwealth's immigration laws, the reuse of resources
available to Federal officials and assignment of appropriate
department personnel to assist the Commonwealth.
Third, it specifically directs that all persons entering
the Commonwealth shall be screened upon entering into the
Commonwealth by Department of Homeland Security personnel using
the national databases and other informational resources not
available to the Commonwealth.
Fourth, it directs the Department Personnel, in sufficient
numbers, be assigned to designated Saipan and Tinian entry
points where they can use the classified databases and other
resources to assist local immigration officials.
Fifth, it requires the Department to provide the Coast
Guard station in the CNMI with the necessary resources
including at least one boat that meets Coast Guard standards to
implement an effective program of monitoring the borders of the
14 islands in the CNMI.
Sixth, it directs the Governor of the CNMI to advise the
Department of Homeland Security 30 days in advance of
implementing any new Visa Waiver Program designed to support
its visitor or educational industries or other economic
development projects in the CNMI.
We believe this legislation provides the improved border
security measures desired by both the Federal Government and
the CNMI. It accomplishes this objective at far less cost to
the taxpayers than would be entailed by the complete type of
Federalization proposed in H.R. 3079. It lists Commonwealth
officials responsible for making the critical decisions with
respect to economic development and managing the work force
necessarily to achieve the level of development desired by the
community. We ask the Subcommittee to consider our proposal
carefully. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Governor Fitial follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Benigno R. Fitial, Governor of the
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands
I am Benigno R. Fitial, the Governor of the Commonwealth of the
Northern Mariana Islands, and I represent the government of this
territory of the United States, and the people who elected me into
public office. I appear before you today to testify on H.R.3079,
legislation to amend the Joint Resolution Approving a Covenant to
Establish a Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas Islands.
Hafa Adai, Madame Chairwoman and Members of the Committee. Welcome
to the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands. We appreciate your
time and personal commitment in visiting our islands.
Before I turn to H.R. 3079, I would like to thank Representative
Flake and Delegate Fortuno for their introduction of H.R.3165, amending
Headnote 3A. Enactment of this legislation would greatly assist the
Commonwealth in its efforts to preserve and develop the diversified
economy required to meet the needs of its citizens.
H.R. 3079 is virtually identical to Senate Bill 1634 with respect
to its immigration and labor provisions. Lt. Governor Villagomez and I
have each testified before the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources this year and set forth our reasons for opposing S.1634. We
have supplemented our testimony with extensive materials and met with
Members of both Houses and their staffs to discuss these proposals. Let
me summarize some of our main concerns.
The Need for a GAO Study
We have consistently urged the need for a careful and professional
study of the Commonwealth before enactment of legislation such as
H.R.3079. We are pleased that Members of Congress have requested the
Government Accountability Office to undertake this task. Such a study
would necessarily focus on two objectives of critical importance to
consideration of H.R.3079: (1) to provide current and reliable
information about the Commonwealth as it exists today--its economy,
workforce, changing population, and labor and immigration programs; and
(2) to assess the economic, political, and social consequences of
preempting the CNMI immigration and labor laws and substituting a
federally managed guest work program in the Commonwealth. We do not
understand why the Interior Department and other supporters of this
legislation are unwilling to let GAO complete its work before urging
Members of Congress to enact legislation that will damage the
Commonwealth economy and its U.S. citizens.
The Commonwealth in 2007
Congress last considered these issues during hearings in 1998 and
1999, which resulted in a bill passed by the Senate in 2000. The most
frequently cited facts supporting this legislation were a 1997 report
from the U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform, a 1997 report from the
Department of the Interior, a 1998 report from the Immigration and
Naturalization Service, 1999 data on wages, a 1999 statement by the INS
General Counsel, and 2000 data on unemployment. We are concerned that
these very same facts--now long out of date--are still being urged on
the Members of Congress to justify legislation such as H.R.3079. We
believe this is unfair. It is why we emphasize the need for a GAO study
before Congress acts. Let me give you a few examples.
The two-tiered economic model that prompted the Senate to
act in 2000 no longer exists in the Northern Marianas. We have
substantially reduced our reliance on alien workers. With the closures
of most apparel factories and the economic decline over the past two
years, the number of alien workers has fallen from its peak of about
30,000 a few years ago. We expect the figure to be approximately 20,000
by the end of this year, and decrease further to about 15,000 in 2008.
The old allegation that the ``bloated'' CNMI Government
is an employer of last resort for local residents also fails to
acknowledge today's facts of life. With a recent ten percent reduction
in government payrolls--and the likely need for more reductions in the
next year--we are compelled to work harder to train and place our U.S.
citizens in the private sector. I have insisted on more rigorous
enforcement of our current labor laws to achieve this objective. Our
legislature is currently considering a new comprehensive labor law,
with several provisions aimed at increasing the training of local
residents so that they can replace alien workers in the private sector.
Contrary to past allegations, we have an effective and
fair system for handling complaints by alien workers. My Administration
has eliminated a backlog of 3,400 pending labor cases that I inherited
from my predecessors. In almost all these cases, the worker filed the
case in order to stay in the Commonwealth beyond the time legally
permitted under her or his entrance visa. They did so because the work
environment in the CNMI and the earning potential are much more
favorable than in their home country. The statistics show that there
were relatively few cases of wage disputes--far lower than the
comparable statistics in most States--and there were only two cases
involving claims of on-the-job injuries.
New procedures at our Department of Labor are designed to
prevent any new backlog from developing. The Department's Hearing
Office has dramatically increased the number of hearings and the dollar
amounts awarded and collected. Increased use of mediation supervised by
a hearing officer resulted in the resolution through mediation of more
than 50% of the cases filed in 2006.
We have achieved the repatriation of several thousand
alien workers. The closure of the 3,400 backlog cases in many instances
eliminated the basis on which the alien worker was remaining in the
CNMI. The Department's efficient handling of the apparel factory
closures also prompted the voluntary repatriation of hundreds of
workers, as did the publication by the Department of its first ``no
hire'' list early in 2007. Further efforts are underway to identify,
and deport if necessary, those alien workers no longer entitled to
remain in the CNMI.
Commonwealth Control of Immigration
Commonwealth immigration laws and regulations control the entry of
aliens into the CNMI in a manner consistent with the intent and
policies of the federal immigration system. This Administration in 2006
appointed Melvin Grey, a man with 29 years of experience with the U.S.
immigration system, to serve as Director of Immigration. (I invite you
to meet Mr. Grey and his staff during your visit to Saipan.)
The Commonwealth's commitment and institutional ability to maintain
an effective system of immigration control is evidenced by its
implementation of a computerized arrival and departure tracking system.
Financed by the federal government, the Border Management System has
been fully operational since 2003, with the entry and departure of each
traveler recorded. The Commonwealth also operates the Labor and
Immigration Identification System, which records the immigration entry
permits to the various classes of immigrants entering the CNMI. We are
currently reevaluating these computerized systems to determine whether
their components should be updated or replaced to reflect the advances
in technology over the past decade. Even within their limitations,
however, these systems give local immigration officials controls that
their federal counterparts do not have.
The Commonwealth administers a visa waiver system that is fully
consistent with the federal system and, in some respects, more
stringent. For example, the Commonwealth excludes some countries, such
as Indonesia and Malaysia, because of security risks, document
availability risks, and document fraud risks, even though their
citizens are permitted entry into Guam. In contrast with federal
immigration officials, CNMI officials have relatively few travel and
identity documents to process for compliance. With very few exceptions,
all travelers to the CNMI, regardless of citizenship, are required to
present a passport for entering and departing the CNMI. Electronic
passport readers capture the significant data from the passports in a
secure electronic database.
In supporting federal legislation such as H.R. 3079, the Interior
Department emphasizes the screening process used by federal consular
officers abroad and suggests that the CNMI procedures are ineffective
in comparison. We disagree. The CNMI Visitor Program requires a sponsor
for most aliens seeking admission to the Commonwealth. The sponsor must
supply documentation identifying the visitor, the intent of the visit,
contact information for the alien and the sponsor while the visitor is
in the CNMI, and an affidavit of support. In this affidavit, the
sponsor must promise to support the visitor if necessary, that the
visitor will not become a charge of the community, and that the sponsor
will reimburse the CNMI for all expenses incurred as a result of the
visitor becoming a deportable alien, including detection, detainment,
prosecution, and repatriation. Some exceptions or waivers to these
sponsorship requirements are available on a very restrictive basis,
such as for nurses and student nurses coming to the CNMI to take the
National Collegiate Licensure Examination.
The Division of Immigration allows some selected travel agencies to
gather information regarding prospective visitors and submit the
completed applications to the Division for its consideration. Each of
these agencies, however, has posted a $500,000 bond which is subject to
forfeiture in the event of a breach of the operating agreement between
the CNMI and the travel agency or tour operator. These procedures have
been used effectively in connection with charter flights to the CNMI
from China and Russia--critical new markets for the CNMI visitor
industry. More effective screening procedures have produced a
significant decline in the number of exclusions in recent years. From a
total of 74 exclusions in calendar year 2001, the figure has fallen to
only seven in 2006.
The Commonwealth's law enforcement efforts over the past several
years show many successful prosecutions and a strong record of
cooperation with federal law enforcement agencies. These prosecutions
have involved alien smuggling, international firearms trafficking,
employment of illegal aliens, prostitution, and various forms of
document fraud. The CNMI assisted federal immigration officials in
processing shiploads of smuggled aliens into Guam that the federal
officials were unable to address.
In light of this record, we were disappointed by the recent
allegation by the Interior Department before the Senate Committee that
``human trafficking remains far more prevalent in the CNMI than it is
in the rest of the U.S.'' Upon examination, however, it became clear
that Interior's conclusion resulted from a very basic misuse of
statistics. To support its indictment of the Commonwealth, Interior
compared the number of trafficking incidents in the CNMI and the United
States with the number of residents in each of the two areas (about
70,000 for the CNMI and 300 million for the U.S.). The proper
comparisons to be made are between the number of victims in the U.S.
and the CNMI and the respective number of entrants into each
jurisdiction annually. In recent years the CNMI has had about 450,000
entrants annually and the United States in 2005 had 33,675,608
entrants--based on data published by the Department of Homeland
Security and GAO. Using these statistics, it appears that the CNMI had
one trafficking offense for each 12,500 entrants, whereas the U.S. had
one trafficking offense for each 1,924 entrants. Contrary to Interior's
allegation, in fact the U.S. has a rate of trafficking incidents six
and one-half times the CNMI figure. What is troubling about Interior's
contention is not that it is so wrong, but that Interior feels
compelled to present such incorrect data to Congress in order to
persuade the Members to enact legislation before they have a objective
report of the relevant facts from GAO.
Interior's recently expressed concerns about the Commonwealth's
administration of its refugee protection program are similarly
overstated. The Commonwealth recognizes the international obligations
of the United States under the relevant treaties. We realize that the
Department of Homeland officials are entitled to monitor and protect
the integrity of our refugee protection program. Under my
Administration we have followed the same policies and procedures under
the Memorandum of Agreement with the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration
Services (USCIS) as was done by the prior Administration. We believe
the system has worked well over the past few years, during which a
total of 32 refugee cases were initiated--two in 2004, 13 in 2005, 14
in 2006, and three to date in 2007. I am unaware of any serious
differences of opinion between CNMI and USCIS officials that developed
during this period regarding the administration of the program. I
understand that the Attorney General is consulting with USCIS officials
regarding the assistance that USCIS has offered to provide to the CNMI.
I am confident that these current discussions will produce a mutually
satisfactory accommodation.
The CNMI Economy and the Path to Recovery
This Committee is generally aware of the economic circumstances
that have adversely affected the Commonwealth over the past several
years. (Attachment 1 to this testimony sets forth the details
documenting the extent of this depression and its impact on government
revenues and our budget.) Let me touch on some of the main points:
Apparel Industry: The number of apparel factories has
declined from 34 to 15 ``with additional closures anticipated later
this year or early next year. The number of alien workers in apparel
manufacturing has declined from 16,000 to 6,000. The value of apparel
sales has declined from $1.06 billion in 1999 to $489 million in 2006.
The taxes and fees paid by the apparel industry to the CNMI fell from
$80 million in 2001 to an expected $30 million in 2007.
Visitor Industry: Visitor arrivals are down 40% since
1996. The causes were obvious: the Asian financial crisis (1997), 9/11
attack, SARS, and increased fuel costs. The discontinuation of flights
to Saipan by JAL and Continental in 2005-2006 was a serious blow to our
most important tourist market--Japan. The decline in arrivals has led
to the closure of hotels and tourist-oriented businesses.
Government revenues have declined from a peak of $248
million in 1997 to an estimated $163 million in 2007--a decline of
about 34%.
Increased unemployment
Dozens of closed businesses in the CNMI
The Commonwealth does have a program for recovering from this
depression. In my State of the Commonwealth speech last April, I
emphasized five major points: (1) continued effective law enforcement;
(2) creating new work opportunities for our citizen labor force; (3)
improved utility operations and service; (4) expansion of the base for
our visitor industry; and (5) continued efforts to secure new
investment. This overall plan has the endorsement of both the
Legislature and the private sector. We have made some significant
progress towards achieving these objectives.
We have a revised 2007 budget that reflects our declining
revenues, protects essential public services, and does not add to the
deficit that we inherited.
We have reduced government employment, enforced an
austerity program, and are ready to implement a reduction in force if
that becomes necessary.
To deal with the need to increase airline seat capacity
for the CNMI, we have obtained a major increase in flights from Korea
that began last May, some short-term commitments from Continental for
this summer, increased charter flights from China, and a substantial
commitment by Northwest for renewal of flights from Osaka beginning in
December 2007. I am personally engaged in discussions with Japanese,
Chinese, and Korean officials and airline executives regarding our need
for increased flights from those countries.
As the apparel manufacturing business has declined, we
are having some success in attracting different kinds of new
industries--financial services companies and educational institutions
offering English-language training and other courses primarily for
foreign students.
We have attracted major new investments from Japanese
companies (Sumitomo and NTT DoCoMo Inc.) and Korean companies. Kumho
Asiana, the parent of Asiana Airlines, has purchased one of our golf
courses and is committed to major renovations and improvements
involving several hundred million dollars. Last month, I attended the
groundbreaking ceremony at the future site of a $300 million hotel and
villa complex on Saipan undertaken by the KSA Group of Korea--the first
new hotel on Saipan in many years. These were two of the many projects
described in my State of the Commonwealth address--most of them
scheduled to begin within the next 6-12 months.
Let me state the obvious: there is no quick fix for the
Commonwealth's current problems. Because of the delay in implementing
new airline commitments and the need for additional such commitments,
we are unlikely to see any substantial increase in visitor arrivals for
about 18 months. The benefits of the recent--and scheduled--investments
in hotels and other tourist attractions will also take time to develop.
Although the construction activity on such projects produces some
needed stimulus to the economy, substantial increase in revenues for
both the private and public sectors takes more time. But we do have a
vision. And, with all due respect for our critics, we prefer our vision
to that of the government bureaucrats 8500 miles away.
The ability of the private sector and my Administration to deal
with our economic crisis has been complicated by the recent imposition
of the federal minimum wage on the Commonwealth. I am pleased to report
that collaboration between federal and local labor officials was very
successful in preparing for as smooth a transition as possible given
the short time frame for compliance and the variety of questions
presented by employers and employees. Employers throughout the
Commonwealth are concerned by the uncertainty under the federal law
with respect to additional yearly increases in 2008 and beyond and the
difficulty in planning ahead under these circumstances. We will be
monitoring the impact of this first increase and will be requesting
this Committee's assistance as appropriate.
Impact of H.R. 3079 on the CNMI
The enactment of H.R.3079 will seriously damage the CNMI economy.
It will drastically change the rules under which investors commit their
funds to the Commonwealth. It generates uncertainty throughout the
economy. This uncertainty is real. It leads potential investors to
reexamine the profitability of investment in the Commonwealth. It leads
committed investors to reexamine the nature and timetable for
implementing their plans. It raises serious questions regarding the
continuation of the special visa programs vital to the visitor
industry, the educational industry, and retirement facilities for Asian
nationals.
Once the several federal departments begin to exercise their
responsibilities under H.R. 3079, an entirely new element of
uncertainty is created. It will be clear that no Northern Marianas
Governor will be able to make the commitments necessary to attract
investment to the Commonwealth from predominantly Japanese, Korean, and
other Pacific Rim companies. In order to appraise investment prospects
in the Northern Marianas, potential investors will have to deal with a
new bureaucracy of five departments in Washington. To whom should such
investors go for guidance regarding the future course of the CNMI
economy? Department of Homeland Security? Department of State?
Department of Justice? Department of Labor? Or the Interior Department?
Or all of the above? Why should they bother--if there are other areas
in the Pacific of equal promise which provide greater certainty and
security which major investors reasonably demand?
Enactment of H.R.3079 will almost certainly result in increased
financial dependence on the federal government by the CNMI. The
Commonwealth will soon thereafter be on the dismal course being
experienced by the freely associated states and most island communities
in the Western Pacific--a trajectory featuring outmigration,
remittances, large government payrolls, and foreign aid. This was not
the objective of the United States and Northern Marianas negotiators of
the Covenant. They envisioned and promised a self-sufficient local
economy, to the extent possible, and a standard of living comparable to
that of the average American community. In recent years the federal
government has failed to honor these commitments to the Northern
Marianas--such as the failure to reimburse the CNMI for the $200
million in costs incurred by the Commonwealth providing public services
to Micronesians from the other former districts of the Trust Territory
of the Pacific Islands. Coming so soon after the imposition of the
federal minimum wage, enactment of H.R.3079 would be another serious
blow to the Commonwealth--its economy and its U.S. citizens, who lack
even a token vote in the U.S. Congress.
We do not understand why this Committee cannot wait to examine the
GAO's economic data, assessments, and conclusions in the study
requested by Congress before acting on H.R.3079. We urge this Committee
not to act on H.R.3079 until the GAO completes its analysis and reports
to the Committee.
Specific Deficiencies of H.R.3079
Attached to this Statement is a section-by-section analysis of
H.R.3079. Let me draw your attention to a few of its most important
deficiencies.
H.R. 3079: A New Federal Bureaucracy
House Bill No. 3079 creates a new federal bureaucracy composed of
five separate departments to implement the bill's provisions. It is
unclear that any of these departments--with the probable exception of
the Interior Department--wants to add these new responsibilities to
their already full dockets. The Department of State is so overwhelmed
by passport applications that it has assigned more than one hundred of
its consular officers on an emergency basis to deal with these demands.
The same is true of the Department of Homeland Security, as evidenced
by the recent reports of its backlogs with respect to visa
applications. A short time ago, a conflict between the Department of
State and the Department of Homeland Security resulted in the reversal
of a commitment to provide work-based visas to thousands of well-
educated, highly skilled, legal immigrants, with long experience in the
country. A spokesman for Homeland Security acknowledged that there had
been a failure of communication between his department and State. (New
York Times, July 6, 2007, p.A9) Does anyone seriously believe that the
needs of the Commonwealth--8,500 miles from Washington without a vote
in the Congress--would get a higher priority?
We believe that the Committee should hear directly from all five
agencies given duties under the bill before it is enacted. H.R.3079
raises significant issues of funding, personnel, expertise, and agency
coordination that should be addressed before--not after--the bill is
passed.
The House bill provides only a year for the five departments to
consult with each other and the Commonwealth, and produce the many sets
of regulations required by the bill. After the effective date of the
legislation, all CNMI immigration and labor laws are expressly
preempted by the legislation, with no failsafe provision in the event
that the federal agencies are not ready at that time to enforce the new
law. It would be only prudent to anticipate such a possibility and
provide for it in the proposed legislation.
H.R. 3079: An Unprecedented and Unnecessary Assertion of Federal
Authority
With respect to the authority of Congress to enact H.R.3079, the
Commonwealth recognizes that the Covenant does permit application of
the U.S. immigration laws to the CNMI after termination of the
Trusteeship Agreement. However, H.R.3079 is far more than an
immigration law. For the first time in American history, it imposes a
federally designed and controlled guest worker program on a single
community of U.S. citizens. It purports to pay deference to the promise
of local self-government in the Covenant, but its terms are quite
clear: all critical decisions regarding the future economy of the
Commonwealth will be in the hands of federal officials. They will
decide which industries or new investments will be entitled to access
to alien workers. They will decide which special visa programs will be
available to the Commonwealth's critical visitor industry. They will
decide what incentives or sanctions are required to stimulate
businesses to employ local workers. Local laws to the contrary are
expressly preempted. To the Members of this Committee who have served
in local or State government, we pose a single question: How would you
have responded if Congress authorized five federal departments to
descend on your community and supersede local authority over the local
economy?
The Commonwealth believes that its immigration enforcement system
can be more effective than a federal system administered from
Washington. The small size and island character of the Commonwealth
facilitates an effective immigration system--both in excluding illegal
entrants and in identifying and deporting persons no longer qualified
to remain in the community. However impressive the resources of the
United States appear in the abstract, the federal performance in this
distant location almost always falls far short of expectations. This
certainly has been the experience in the Northern Marianas, even after
the Senate hearings in 1998-99 when the Chairman of the Senate
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources chastised the federal law
enforcement authorities for failing to implement their responsibilities
in the CNMI. It is reflected today in the performance of federal
agencies responsible for handling labor cases under federal laws and in
the under funding of essential border protection agencies. A case in
point is the U.S. Coast Guard operation in the CNMI, which lacks even a
single boat to patrol the 400 mile chain of the Northern Mariana
Islands and to act in a timely fashion to apprehend smugglers or other
criminals. If lack of funding is the problem here, perhaps the
Commonwealth can be of assistance.
The Commonwealth acknowledges and welcomes the national security
interests of the United States in protecting the borders of the
Commonwealth. However, we believe that border control concerns can be
addressed separately from control of the local guest worker program or
the special visa programs essential to the CNMI visitor industry. With
respect to the guest worker program, the decisions with respect to the
nature and extent of economic development could be left to local
elected leaders where such a responsibility belongs, but no guest
worker would be admitted before his or her name was checked against the
federal data bases to ensure that the guest worker did not present a
security risk to the United States. With respect to the special visa
programs used by the Commonwealth to attract visitors from destinations
such as China and Russia, CNMI could similarly follow its usual
procedures, which then could be supplemented by reliance on the federal
data bases to provide an additional level of protection against
security risks. We are prepared to work with the Committee to develop
an alternative legislative approach that would address our mutual
interest in having enhanced border security in the Commonwealth.
H.R.3079: Permanent Legal Residence Status for Alien Workers
In a significant departure from current immigration policy, H.R.
3079 declares which non-U.S. citizens will be given permanent legal
status and permitted to stay in the CNMI or move to any part of the
United States. H.R.3079 expressly grants a form of amnesty to nearly
8000 alien workers in the Commonwealth by granting them this
nonimmigrant status, comparable to that enjoyed by Micronesians from
the freely associated states. The bill's drafters chose to ignore that
such an enhanced status was not permitted or contemplated when these
workers elected voluntarily to come to the CNMI many years ago to enjoy
the economic opportunities available in the CNMI. The recent Senate
debate on immigration suggests that such a provision would never have
been supported on the national level--either because it smacks of an
amnesty provision or because it imposes an enormous burden on the
Commonwealth of permanent alien residents numbering about 25% of the
local United States citizen population.
The drafters of H.R. 3079 seemingly have no concern about the
impact of this provision on the integrity and vitality of the
indigenous Carolinian and Chamorro peoples in the Commonwealth.
Permanent legal residence status permits such individuals to bring
children and other relatives into the community where the status-holder
elects to live. Consequently, the impact on the local CNMI community
might be far greater than anticipated if most of these new permanent
legal residents elected to stay in the Commonwealth and bring in
children and other relatives not presently allowed to reside in the
CNMI. However well-intentioned this proposal appeared to its drafters,
its consequences already have seriously affected the quality of life in
the CNMI. The proposal has generated unrealistic expectations among the
guest worker population in the Commonwealth, stimulated boycotts of
businesses because their owners have opposed this provision, and
contributed to increased divisiveness between guest workers and the
indigenous peoples of the Commonwealth. We recommend that the provision
be eliminated from H.R.3079.
H.R.3079: Provision for a Non-Voting Delegate in the House of
Representatives
We appreciate the inclusion in H.R.3079 of a provision authorizing
the Commonwealth to be represented in the House of Representatives by a
non-voting delegate. We strongly support such a proposal. It is a
disgrace that the U.S. Congress has for years denied the Commonwealth
the same privileges as have been afforded to the other insular areas.
We believe, however, that legislation providing for a non-voting
delegate should be considered on a stand-alone basis. Notwithstanding
our support for such a proposal, therefore, its inclusion in H.R.3079
does not alter our view that enactment of the legislation would
seriously damage the interests of the CNMI.
Lastly, we believe that the CNMI should be entitled to have a non-
voting delegate in the House of Representatives before critical
legislation such as H.R.3079 is enacted by the House.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify on H.R.3079. We appreciate
your consideration of our views.
______
Mrs. Christensen. Thank you, Governor, for your testimony
and I am sure the other witnesses have noticed that we let the
Governor go well over his time. We don't intend to continue
that for everyone. Thanks. [Laughter] I now recognize the
Speaker, Oscar M. Babauta, for five minutes of testimony.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE OSCAR M. BABAUTA,
SPEAKER, CNMI HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Speaker Babauta. Hafa Adai, Chairwoman Christensen and
members of the Subcommittee. Thank you for providing me the
opportunity to comment on H.R. 3079. I would first like to
thank the Subcommittee for traveling so far to conduct a
legislative hearing here in the CNMI for the first time. It's
encouraging to know that the U.S. House of Representatives has
given this such a high priority. On behalf of the people of the
Northern Mariana Islands, I would like to extend my very warm
greetings to you, Chairwoman and members of the Subcommittee
and your staff. I would also like to thank all the witnesses
who will be testifying today, although we will likely be
disagreeing on specific policy matters.
I would offer comment on four aspects of H.R. 3079. The
first three aspects are areas of concern I have with the bill
as drafted, namely: Number one, the part for total and complete
Federal Immigration takeover; two, the provision granting non-
immigrant status to certain foreign nationals; and three, the
transitional oversight provision. The fourth aspect I would
like to discuss is our Non-voting Delegate Provision. First on
the issue of Federalization, let me begin with assuring the
Subcommittee that we welcome cooperation with Federal
authorities in the areas of border security and law
enforcement. The efforts of the main Federal agencies that
assisted our government over years are appreciated and produced
very real results on the ground. In particular, law enforcement
and immigration training, the assistance of the Department of
Homeland Security in developing our Refugee Protection Program
and Coast Guard patrols of our large island archipelago, are
grateful for ensuring our immigration system is sound.
I feel, however, that for the extension of the Immigration
and Nationality Act is inappropriate at this time given the
historical relationship between the United States and the CNMI.
When our people voted overwhelmingly to join the American
political family, it was with the understanding that ours was a
unique relationship, and that certain powers and
responsibilities will be left to the local government. Indeed,
the Covenant and subsequent legislation on Federal and local
jurisprudence have all recognized that unique relationship. I
believe that a blanket application of the INA under a ``one
size fits all'' approach impinges upon the ideal of self-
government that framed the Covenant negotiation process.
Moreover, as the CNMI pursues new development strategies in
order to rehabilitate our ailing economy, local immigration
control is of critical importance. We are taking steps to
diversify our tourism industry and have in recent years
cultivated new tourism markets in China, South Korea, and
Russia. Under local control, our CNMI immigration authorities
are able to work directly with officials within other
jurisdictions and respond to changing market conditions as
needed. I do not believe that the CNMI could have achieved our
current level of success in these markets without localized
immigration authority.
An additional problem, an additional problem with
Federalization is the negative impact it would have on our
ability to engage with the foreign national labor workforce for
jobs that simply cannot be filled locally. Because our physical
isolation from the American mainland and also because a lack of
adequate training programs in the past, we have difficulty
filling many positions with U.S. citizens. At the moment, we
have too small a jurisdiction to support a law school, medical
school, or major university where local residents can seek
training in technical and scientific professions. Although we
continue to focus on job training for residents, the foreign
national labor force is critical to our ongoing plan of
recovery.
The recent passage of Federal legislation applying the
minimum wage to CNMI should provide a greater amount of
security for our workers here. This would help to ease any
lingering fears that national workers, foreign national workers
in CNMI, are not being compensated appropriately. Furthermore,
we are now debating final passage of House Bill 15-38, an Act
to Repeal and Re-enact the Commonwealth Nonresident Workers
Act. The bill has passed the House and is awaiting Senate
action here in the Commonwealth. H.B. 15-38 reforms current
labor laws, provides for increased local participation of
workforce, and ensures fair treatment of workers in going to
CNMI.
In addition, the legislature continues to update our local
statutes to address new developments in immigration
enforcement. In 2005, we passed a Human Trafficking and Related
Offenses Act through Law 14-88. Also in 2005 the Legislature
passed Public Law 14-92, an act to amend our voluntary
departure provision. Public Law 14-59, that refers to Anti-
Terrorism Act of 2004 and Public Law 14-63, an Act to Establish
the Homeland Security.
I continue to support U.S. involvement in our immigration
program short of the application of INA. I wish to be clear,
however, that full Federalization of our immigration system is
not to the best interest of our island economy at this time.
My second concern as the leader of the Chamber charged with
preparing the CNMI's yearly budget is the ``One-Time
Nonimmigrant Provision for Certain Long-Term Employees.'' I am
troubled by this potentially large--very large unfunded
mandate. I fear the demand of long term--banking on long-term
status for contract workers who meet certain residency
requirements and their family members may create a massive
financial drain in our already modest public resources,
particularly in the areas of education, public health, and
public safety. We have had a very bad experience with this kind
of unfunded mandate in the past when the Department of Interior
negotiated a compact agreement with the Freely Associated
States, the current provision that allows those citizens to
come to the CNMI without visa control. Many people took
advantage of the provision and settled here more or less
permanently. Over the past 20 years, the impact of this
settlement has been over $200 million in documented cost. We
have the ability to try to improve (audible but unintelligible)
quandary without success. To date, roughly and only about $20
million has been paid so far. We have had to absorb $180
million in cost for a decision that we did not participate in.
My third concern is the Transitional Oversight Program. I
feel the provision is vague and leaves many unanswered
questions about the roles of various Federal agencies on our
government. Although I understand that the Department of
Homeland Security would be tasked with drafting transitional
regulations, the provision offers us no clear role in the
transition process. Further, the transitional oversight by not
only one, but by five agencies is likely to slow down the
immigration processing and discourage further tourism and, of
course, economic development.
I am very much in support of H.R. 3079 provisions--Delegate
provisions, and I feel that representation in the U.S. Congress
is important for both political and practical reasons. The CNMI
should, like all the insular areas, have a place at the
congressional table. Our ability to send a delegate to
Washington will allow us to participate more directly in policy
decisions such as those considered in H.R. 3079.
We're faced with difficult times at this time, Madam
Chairwoman, substantial steps to manage our immigration program
in a responsible manner. I would like to use our local
immigration authorities to revitalize and grow our economy,
rather than rely on the Federal assistance. I hope you will
consider these comments as you debate the passage of H.R. 3079.
Once again, I thank you for the opportunity and we thank
you from the people of the CNMI for listening to CNMI and
bringing this hearing. Thank you, Si Yu'us ma'ase.
Mrs. Christensen. Thank you Mr. Speaker.
[The prepared statement of Speaker Babauta follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Oscar M. Babauta, Speaker of the House,
Fifteenth Northern Marianas Commonwealth Legislature
Hafa Adai Chairwoman Christensen and members of the Subcommittee.
Thank you for providing me with the opportunity to comment on H.R.
3079, a bill ``To amend the Joint Resolution Approving the Covenant to
Establish a Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and for other
purposes.''
I would first like to thank the Subcommittee for traveling so far
to conduct this legislative field hearing. It is encouraging to know
that the United States House of Representatives has given this issue
such a high priority. On behalf of the people of the Northern Mariana
Islands, I would like to extend a very warm greeting to the committee
and staff. I hope your stay is a pleasant one and I look forward to
assisting the Subcommittee in any way I can.
As the leader of the House, I have three main areas of concern with
H.R. 3079. First, I object for legal and practical reasons to a
complete federal takeover of the CNMI immigration system. Second, I am
concerned that the provisions for granting nonimmigrant status to
certain contract employees may overwhelm our public service providers.
Third, I feel that the transitional oversight provision is vague and
leaves many unanswered questions about the various roles of federal
agencies and of the CNMI Government. As an additional matter, I do
thank the Committee for including a delegate provision in H.R. 3079. I
feel this provision is an important step forward for the people of the
CNMI.
1. Federalization of the CNMI's Immigration System
As for the ``federalization'' of our immigration system, I feel
that the full extension of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) to
this Commonwealth is neither necessary nor appropriate given the
historical relationship between the United States and the CNMI. When
our people voted overwhelmingly to join the American political family,
it was with the understanding that ours was a unique and mutually
respectful relationship, and that certain powers and responsibilities
would be left to the local government. The Covenant (48 U.S.C.
Sec. 1801), subsequent federal and local legislation, and federal and
local jurisprudence have all recognized the unique nature of our
islands and the importance of preserving local control over certain
legal functions. I believe that a blanket application of the INA to
this jurisdiction under a ``one size fits all'' approach impinges upon
the ideal of self-government that framed the Covenant negotiation
process.
Moreover, as our Commonwealth pursues new economic development
strategies in order to reinvigorate an ailing economy, local
immigration control is of critical importance. We are taking steps to
diversify our tourism industry, and have in recent years cultivated new
tourist markets beyond the CNMI's traditional market of Japan. These
new markets include China, South Korea, and Russia. In 2004, the CNMI
signed an Approved Destination Status Agreement with China, an
agreement that facilitates Chinese travel and provides for direct
flights from major Chinese cities. Because of the anticipated boom in
Chinese outbound tourism, we hope to experience significant growth in
this market in the coming years. Maintaining local control over
immigration is critical to the development of this growth, as our local
immigration authorities are able to work directly with Chinese
government officials and respond to the changing conditions of the
market as needed. Our long term strategy also focuses on the
development of the South Korean market. Arrivals from the Republic of
Korea have been steadily increasing even as other country numbers
decline. Finally, we have been working diligently to develop an eastern
Russia tourist market with regular (via Seoul) and charter flights to
the CNMI. The Russian market is characterized by longer than average
visits resulting in increased revenues, a high percentage of return
visitors, and little to no legal complications. As with the development
of the Chinese market, I do not believe the CNMI could have experienced
such a rate of success without local immigration control. I feel that
our full absorption into the INA could threaten this growth and, as a
consequence, undermine our economic recovery.
An additional problem with federalization is the negative impact it
will have on our ability to engage a foreign national labor force for
important positions that simply cannot be filled locally. In many areas
of our economy it is difficult to find resident employees to fill
specific jobs. This is in part because of our remote location and
physical isolation from the American mainland. It is also due to a
shortage of skilled professionals (and even unskilled laborers) among
the local population, and a lack of adequate training programs in the
past. At the moment we are too small a jurisdiction to support a law
school, medical school, or major university where local residents can
seek training in the technical and scientific professions. Although we
continue to focus on job training for residents, foreign national
professionals, and our ability to process these professionals locally,
have become important components in our continued economic development.
In addition, efforts to rebuild critical industries such as tourism and
higher education will require the hiring of both professional and
unskilled workers beyond the current capacity of the local labor force.
The recent passage of federal legislation applying the minimum wage
to the CNMI will eventually raise local wages to the national level and
provide more economic security to both resident and foreign national
workers. This should help to alleviate any lingering fears that foreign
national workers in the CNMI are not being compensated appropriately.
Furthermore, the Legislature is now debating final passage of House
Bill 15-38, an Act to Repeal and Re-enact the Commonwealth Nonresident
Workers Act. The bill has passed the House and is awaiting Senate
action. The Act will reform current foreign national labor laws,
provide for increased local participation in the workforce, and ensure
the fair treatment of both citizens and foreign nationals working in
the CNMI.
The House and the Legislature as a whole continue to update our
immigration laws to address new developments in immigration
enforcement. In 2005, we passed the Human Trafficking and Related
Offenses Act through Public Law 14-88. The Act, supported by the U.S.
Department of Justice, has become an important and effective tool in
the CNMI's continuing efforts to combat labor fraud and trafficking.
Also in 2005, the Legislature passed Public Law 14-92, an act to amend
our voluntary departure law to provide immigration prosecutors with
improved procedural options in deportation cases. This law should lead
to a more consistent and expedient system for resolving pending cases.
Additionally, in the 2005 session the Legislature passed Public Law 14-
59, the ``Anti-Terrorism Act of 2004,'' Public Law 14-63 ``An Act to
Establish the Office of Homeland Security,'' and Public Law 14-84,
legislation which corrected constitutional deficiencies in certain
immigration statutes that were struck down by the U.S. District Court
for the Northern Mariana Islands in Gorromeo v. Zachares, Civil Action
No. 99-0018 (D.N.M.I. 2000). Most importantly, the impending passage of
House Bill 15-38 (see above) will serve as a means of decreasing our
traditional reliance on foreign labor through the training of local
residents and through stronger local hiring preference rules. It will
also ensure that resident and foreign national workers alike are
treated fairly in the employment process.
Finally, the Division of Immigration continues to work on closing
potential loopholes in our immigration system. The Division has
implemented effective border management and labor identification
systems and efficient investigatory techniques. The Border Management
System (BMS) generates a record of all entries to and exits from the
Commonwealth, regardless of citizenship. Immigration investigators have
instant access to arrival information and can confirm the departure of
those foreign nationals with expired contracts and those ordered
deported from the Commonwealth for violating local law. The Labor and
Immigration Identification System (LIIDS) tracks all foreign national
labor contracts, job category authorizations, and permit status of non-
citizen workers in the Commonwealth. This allows investigators to
quickly determine the permit status of all foreign national workers
involved in labor complaints and administrative hearings, as well as
compile data on overstaying aliens in every entry permit category. As
always, local officials welcome cooperation with U.S. agencies, and any
technical or financial assistance they may provide, in the training of
our local immigration investigators, inspectors, and processing
personnel.
I continue to support U.S. involvement in our immigration program
short of the complete application of the INA. I wish to reiterate,
however, my opposition to the ``federalization'' of a system that is
economically beneficial to our islands.
2. The One-Time Nonimmigrant Provision
As the leader of the chamber charged with preparing the CNMI's
yearly budget, I am concerned with the ``One-Time Nonimmigrant
Provision for Certain Long-Term Employees.'' I am afraid that the grant
of long term resident status to contract workers who meet certain
residency requirements and their family members may create a massive
financial drain on our modest public resources, particularly in the
areas of education, health, and public safety. This will result in a
lower quality of life for everyone within our borders. I am concerned
that H.R. 3079 does not establish adequate financial assistance
mechanisms to allow us to sustain a large and long-term foreign
national population, a very real problem that Congress has previously
acknowledged through the provision of Compact-impact funding (Federal
funding intended to offset the financial impact to the CNMI created by
the long-term residency of citizens from the Federated States of
Micronesia, the Republic of the Marshall Islands, and the Republic of
Palau).
3. The Transition Provision
With regard to the transitional oversight program, I feel the
provision is vague and leaves many unanswered questions about the
various roles of federal agencies and the CNMI Government. Although I
understand that DHS will be tasked with the primary responsibility of
drafting transition regulations, the complete delegation of authority
to federal executive agencies offers the CNMI no certainty in the
transition process. Further, transitional oversight by not one, but
five agencies is likely to slow down immigration processing and
discourage potential tourists.
4. The Delegate Provision
I am very much in support of H.R. 3079's Delegate provision. I feel
that representation in the U.S. Congress is important for both
political and practical reasons. First, the CNMI should, like all of
the territories, have a place at the Congressional table. Second, our
ability to send a delegate Washington will allow us to participate more
directly in policy decisions such as those considered in H.R. 3079.
We are facing difficult economic times in our Commonwealth but have
taken substantial steps to manage our immigration program in a
responsible manner. We would like to use our local immigration
authority to revitalize and grow our economy, rather than rely on
federal assistance for the same. I hope you will consider these
comments as you debate the passage of H.R. 3079. Thank you again for
visiting our Commonwealth and for providing me with the opportunity to
address the Subcommittee on this critical issue.
Si Yu'us Ma'ase and Thank you.
______
Mrs. Christensen. The Chair now recognizes The Honorable
Pete A. Tenorio, Resident Representative, for his testimony.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE PETE A. TENORIO,
RESIDENT REPRESENTATIVE OF THE CNMI
Representative Tenorio. Good morning. Hafa Adai, Chairwoman
Christensen, Congressman and a good friend, Faleomavaega,
another good friend in Guam, Congresswoman Bordallo, welcome to
our islands. It is my privilege and honor to welcome you and
your delegation to our islands. I would like to express my
deepest appreciation to this Subcommittee for holding this
first ever and indeed historic U.S. Congressional Hearing in
our Commonwealth. We're thankful for your willingness to allow
an unprecedented number of people to testify before you today.
I hope that our people who are not able to testify will
understand the time constraints that the Subcommittee is
working under. Your presence in our Commonwealth demonstrates
the U.S. Congress' genuine interest and concern for the people
of the CNMI and the serious problems we face. Si Yu'us ma'ase
again for your visit.
I am testifying before you today to demonstrate my
commitment as an elected representative of my people to work
with Congress and particularly with your committee. It is my
understanding that the legislation being discussed today offers
new benefits and promises as well as a Federal commitment to
ensure that these proposed changes will not be disruptive, but
instead will provide protection for the people of the CNMI, now
and in the future. In 1975, an overwhelming 78.8 percent of the
people of these islands, exercising their right to political
self-determination, voted in support of the Covenant between
the United States and to become citizens of our great nation.
The Covenant provided us unique authority and responsibility
not shared by our sister territories or the 50 states. I am
speaking of local control of immigration and minimum wage. We
have administered this Federal policy for the last 30 years. I
can proudly say that for a time, we used this authority wisely
and to the benefit of the people of the CNMI. Our political
union has brought both wealth and security to our people, and
for a while we lived in a world filled with opportunities for
each one of us to achieve the American Dream. Unfortunately,
the good times were not sustainable and relatively short-lived
because we grossly mismanaged our temporary authority to
administer immigration locally. Our wealth, which for the most
was dictated by how efficient and effective our administration
of immigration was, vaporized right in front of our eyes and
today the once shiny and prosperous future holds little hope.
As a member of the Marianas Political Status Commission, I
work hard to renegotiate the Covenant, and I can say with great
confidence that it was our intention that non-resident workers
would be employed only to supplement our local workforce.
Unfortunately, however, it has become obvious that non-
residents have supplanted our local workforce in the private
sector, creating a wholly unsustainable economy. When we were
negotiating the Covenant, we were concerned about immigrants to
the U.S. overrunning our indigenous population, but our own
shortsightedness and complacency in our control of immigration
has led us to this end.
I hear reports daily about overstaying workers, tourists
seeking employment illegally, and even phony employment scams.
I do not believe that our overall track record in administering
immigration speaks to an effective system of monitoring a non-
resident workforce or providing protections for our resident
workforce. It is my position that in summation, we have failed
miserably and it is time to rectify these recurring mistakes by
making a drastic course correction.
Section 503 of the Covenant allows the U.S. Congress to
assume authority over immigration and minimum wage in the
manner and to the extent made applicable to them. Congress, and
I repeat, Congress has the right to exercise this prerogative
as it sees fit and I, for one, am grateful that Congress is
allowing us the opportunity to have input into this process.
Madam Chairwoman, we need to protect the indigenous population
from losing the promise of achieving the American Dream
entrenched in the Covenant. It is my understanding that
Congress intends to implement Section 503 of the Covenant in
order to bring about long-term diversification on economic
growth by, one, providing stability and confidence to current
and future investors. We have changed laws, inconsistently
enforced laws, and repealed laws that would have benefited the
people.
Two, securing current and future tourist markets. The
Covenant provides that the Federal Government will have
authority over foreign affairs and treaty obligations. This
includes bilateral talks on air service which holds the promise
of securing access to new tourism markets.
Number three, providing a closely monitored transition
program that will ensure we have uninterrupted access to a
needed skilled workforce. We cannot train and prepare our local
population within a short time to take over most jobs currently
occupied by non-residents nor can we practically prevent the
outward migration of our own people to other locations
overnight. But we must have a goal and a plan to provide job
opportunities and sound reasons for our people to remain in or
to return to our islands, especially our students attending
colleges in the states or Guam. I have every hope that this
legislation will help us achieve that goal.
Many people in the CNMI fear the outcome of Senate Bill
1634. They fear political and social alienation as well as the
loss of their homeland. However, I feel in reality we face this
already. If things do not change, we are at the greatest risk
of losing our culture, our way of life, and control over our
own destiny, if we have not already. Many local families are
leaving the CNMI for Guam, Hawaii, or the mainland because just
surviving in the CNMI is too difficult. I have recently learned
that every--that many families are leaving the CNMI for Guam. I
will really--I am sorry, I have recently learned that nearly
every year, half of our high school graduating seniors enlist
in the U.S. Armed Services. Many of them enlist out of a deep
sense of duty and patriotism, but some of them enlist because
there are simply no employment options for them in their
homeland.
Madam Chairman, I see this bill as a mechanism for
restoring the CNMI to the Chamorros and Carolinians who have
always called it home. I believe that Senate Bill, Section 34
and 79 from the House Bill is a good beginning. However, I have
a few suggestions, which you can find in my written testimony.
These are to strengthen the bill so that we can regain the CNMI
as the homeland for its indigenous population.
Today, I will mention just one. I want to emphasize the
critical importance of Section 3(e) of the bill. There is no
doubt that we need to invest in training for residents to
prepare them for jobs currently held by non-residents. While
this is included in the current language of the bill, I would
like to see specific funds dedicated to areas that require
formal training that leads to certification in the various
trades and technical fields. We must invest in our educational
system to produce skilled labor. Without these funds and this
training, I feel that this legislation would also lead to a
failed policy in the CNMI.
Mrs. Christensen. Can you wrap up, please, Mr. Tenorio?
Representative Tenorio. And finally, Madam Chairwoman, a
Delegate for the CNMI is a matter of fairness, democracy, and
the basic tenets of our nation. The people of the CNMI are in
support of a Delegate, as you have heard, and I have waited
long enough for it to become a reality. I have, over the years,
provided this Committee with countless resolutions, letters of
support, and testaments of the people's desire to participate
in the national legislative body.
Madam Chairwoman, the CNMI needs a ``course correction.''
Our chosen path to self-sufficiency and prosperity has led us
to an unsustainable economy. I believe that the people of the
CNMI are ready for positive change and to work in partnership
with the Federal Government to turn our Commonwealth around and
so that, once again, we have the hope of achieving our dreams.
Thank you.
Mrs. Christensen. Thank you, Mr. Tenorio.
[The prepared statement of Representative Tenorio follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Pedro A. Tenorio,
CNMI Resident Representative to the United States
Hafa Adai, Chairwoman Christensen, Members of Congress. It is my
privilege and honor to welcome you and your delegation to our islands.
I would like to express my deepest appreciation to this subcommittee
for holding this first ever and indeed historic U.S. Congressional
hearing in our Commonwealth. We are thankful for your willingness to
allow an unprecedented number of people to testify before you today. I
hope that our people who are not able to testify would understand the
time constraints that the Subcommittee is working under. Your presence
in our Commonwealth demonstrates the U.S. Congress' genuine interest
and concern for the people of the CNMI and the serious problems we
face. Si Yu'us Ma'ase again for your visit.
Please allow me to introduce a number of prominent CNMI citizens
including former governors, Covenant negotiators, mayors. We have with
us today our first Governor Carlos Camacho, our three time Chief
Executive Governor Pedro P. Tenorio, Governor Froilan Tenorio, and
Governor Juan Babauta. We are honored with the presence of several
former Covenant negotiators Vicente N. Santos, Herman Q. Guerrero,
Benjamin T. Manglona, Mr. Joaquin I Pangelinan, Bernard V.
Hofschneider, Manuel A. Sablan and Oscar C. Rasa.
Thank you for the opportunity to share with you my position on this
most important piece of legislation, which, if enacted, will have
profound affects on the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands. I
am confident that a majority of our people agree with my position on
the two issues being heard today i.e., a flexible framework for
federalizing our immigration and representation in Congress.
Before I get into the specifics, I would like to express my deep
appreciation to this committee, the Secretary of the Interior and the
Office of Insular Affairs for including my and the majority of our
Legislature's recommendations in the drafting of this bill. While I
have a few comments aimed at improving this bill. Overall I believe
that this bill is in the best interest of our people, entirely
consistent with our Covenant, and is responsive to the concerns I
outlined before this committee's April 19th oversight hearing.
I am testifying before you today to demonstrate my commitment as an
elected representative of my people to work with Congress and
particularly with your committee to ensure that the legislation being
discussed today offers new benefits, and promises as well as a federal
commitment to ensure that these proposed changes will be successful and
provide protection for the people of the CNMI, now and in the future.
In 1975 an overwhelming 78.8 % of the people of these islands,
exercising their right to political self-determination, voted in
support of the Covenant to join the United States and to become
citizens of this great nation. The Covenant provided us unique
authority and responsibility, not shared by our sister territories or
the fifty states. I am speaking of local control of immigration and
minimum wage. We have administered these federal policies for the last
thirty years. I can proudly say that for a time we used this authority
wisely and to the benefit of the people of the CNMI. This union brought
both wealth and security to our people, and for a while we lived in a
world filled with opportunity for each one of us to achieve the
American Dream. Unfortunately, the good times were not sustainable and
relatively short-lived because we grossly mismanaged our temporary
authority to administer immigration locally. Our wealth, which for the
most part was dictated by how efficient and effective our
administration of immigration was, vaporized right in front of our eyes
and today the once shiny and prosperous future holds little hope.
As a member of the Marianas Political Status Commission which
negotiated the Covenant, I can say with great confidence that it was
our intention that non-resident workers would be employed only to
supplement our local workforce. Unfortunately, however, it has become
obvious that non-residents have supplanted our local work force in the
private sector, creating a wholly unsustainable economy. When we were
negotiating the Covenant we were concerned about immigrants to the U.S.
overrunning our indigenous population, but our own shortsightedness and
complacency in our control of immigration has led us to this end. I
hear reports daily about overstaying workers, tourists seeking
employment illegally, and even phony employment scams. I do not believe
that our overall track record in administering immigration speaks to an
effective system of monitoring a non-resident workforce or providing
protections for our resident workforce. It is my position that in
summation, we have failed miserably and it is time to rectify these
recurring mistakes by making a drastic course correction.
Section 503 of the Covenant allows the U.S. Congress to assume
authority over immigration and minimum wage in the manner and to the
extent made applicable to them. Madame Chairwoman we need a major
course correction to protect the indigenous population from losing the
promise of achieving the American Dream entrenched in our Covenant. The
implementation of Section 503 of the Covenant is expected to bring long
term benefits and stability by:
Providing stability and confidence to current and future
investors. We have changed laws, inconsistently enforced laws, and
repealed laws that would have benefited the people.
Securing current and future tourist markets. The Covenant
provides that the federal government will have authority over foreign
affairs and treaty obligations. This includes bilateral talks on air
service which hold the promise of securing access to new tourism
markets.
Providing a closely monitored transition program that
will ensure we have uninterrupted access to a needed skilled workforce.
We cannot train and prepare our local population within a short time to
take over most jobs currently occupied by non-residents nor can we
practically prevent the outward migration of our own people to other
locations over night. But we must have a goal and a plan to provide job
opportunities and sound reasons for our people to remain in or return
to our islands, especially our students attending college in the states
or Guam. I have every hope this legislation will help us achieve that
goal.
I would like to inform the Committee, that the immediate future
obviously offers little hope in improving the livelihood of our people.
Because of misunderstanding, and sometimes deliberate misinformation by
others, a substantial number of people in the CNMI fear the outcome of
House Bill 3079. They fear political and social alienation as well as
the loss of their homeland and overcrowding by outsiders. However, I
feel in reality we face this situation already. If things do not change
we are at the greatest risk of perpetuating massive overcrowding,
losing our culture, our way of life, and control over our own destiny,
if we have not already. Many local families are leaving the CNMI for
Guam, Hawaii, or the mainland because just surviving in the CNMI is too
difficult. I have recently learned that every year nearly half of our
high school graduating seniors enlist in the U.S. Armed Services. Many
of them enlist out of a deep sense of duty and patriotism, but many of
them enlist because there are simply no realistic employment options
that offer them a decent living wage.
Madam Chairwoman, I see this bill as a positive initiative to
gradually restore the benefits of the Covenant to the Chamorro and
Carolinians for whom it was negotiated. I believe that H.R. 3079 is a
good beginning; however I have a few suggestions. These are to further
strengthen the bill so that the economic intent and promise of improved
living standards provided in the Covenant are realized and sustainable.
1. The New Section 6(a) of the Covenant--Immigration and
Transition. The bill currently calls for a transition period to begin
one year after enactment. This seems a little ambitious, and I would
suggest including language that would allow for a delay, if needed, to
the beginning of the transition period. There are many things that need
to be done during this time including the writing of federal
regulations and amending local CNMI laws to conform to this Act.
Hastily written rules would be difficult to enforce and could lead to
unintended consequences. Likewise, unless carefully studied, the
necessary changes to CNMI laws that currently cover immigration and the
use of foreign labor could leave gaps in local statutes and affect our
right to self government.
2. The New Section 6(c)(2) of the Covenant--Family Sponsored
Immigrant Visas. I believe that this section is already covered by
Section 506(c) of the Covenant and one or the other should be deleted.
3. The New Section 6(c)(3) of the Covenant--Employment Based
Visas. This section would allow skilled workers to enter the CNMI as
U.S. legal permanent residents outside of INA caps. While this would be
an asset in helping us attract doctors and nurses, I see that it will
become a revolving door for immigrant health care professionals
entering the U.S. I would suggest that other provisions in the bill
could be utilized to bring in these professionals and that this section
be deleted.
4. The New Section 6(d) of the Covenant--Nonimmigrant Investor
Visas. With the current on-going economic downturn in the CNMI, I
respectfully request that this section include language that would
allow for easy processing of new investors into the CNMI.
5. The New Section 6(h) of the Covenant--One-Time Nonimmigrant
Provision for Certain Long-Term Employees. This is probably the most
controversial and discussed section of this bill, and while there are
no compromises that will make everyone happy I would like to share a
few thoughts on this topic.
I appreciate OIA's and the committee's intent to preserve the
political and cultural rights of the indigenous populations in the
CNMI, but I do not feel that this section truly addresses the problems
at hand. We need these long staying non-resident workers as much today
as we did when they were hired. The change of status for potentially
thousands of these workers early in the transition period could leave
us without a workforce if they exercise their option to leave
immediately. Although this bill allows for a temporary guest worker
program, I would like to see the transition period utilized to train
and place as many indigenous persons into our private sector as
possible. During this time I hope that we can refocus our educational
system on training and skill development for our local people so they
are ready to assume jobs currently held by non-residents, stabilize our
economy, and build the Commonwealth we envisioned when we negotiated
the Covenant.
6. Section 3(b) ``Waiver of Requirements for Nonimmigrant
Visitors. This section would grant a visa waiver program for the CNMI.
This is vital to begin the recovery of our tourism economy. While
countries are not specifically named, this would allow tourists from
China and Russia, the two potentially promising new markets that the
Marianas Visitors Authority has worked so hard to develop, to visit the
CNMI. I would like to take this opportunity to make the committee aware
of the continued bilateral talks between the Peoples Republic of China
and the United States. As more and more Americans wish to travel to
China including to the 2008 Olympic Games to be held in Beijing, there
is increased pressure for Chinese citizens to visit U.S. destinations.
In recent bilateral talks the Chinese delegation expressed its desire
that the U.S. Government make modifications in visa policy and
procedures to promote travel to the United States including the CNMI by
Chinese citizens. The Chinese delegation said such modifications would
be conducive to expanding the bilateral air services agreement with a
view to reaching full liberalization of air transport between China and
the United States as the ultimate objective. I am attaching documents
relating to these recent talks.
The CNMI plays a vital role in meeting the U.S. obligations in this
bilateral agreement. Allowing us to include China in a visa waiver
program will help the U.S. meet its obligation under this agreement.
7. Section 3(d)(3) This section calls for the collection and use
of appropriate user fees from employers of aliens during the transition
period. I believe that this section is contrary to Section 703(b) of
the Covenant, and that the fees should be covered over to the CNMI
Government.
8. Section 3(e) ``Technical Assistance Program. There is no doubt
that we need to invest in training for residents to prepare them for
jobs currently held by non-residents. While this is included in the
current language of the bill, I would like to see specific funds
dedicated to areas that require formal training that leads to
certification in the various trades and technical fields. We must
invest in our education system to produce skilled labor. I believe that
programs similar to Guam Community College which provides trades,
technical and occupational training needs to be established. Without
these funds and this training, made available by the federal
government, I feel that this legislation will not work and instead lead
to a failed federal policy in the CNMI.
9. I would like to see throughout this bill a greater role for the
CNMI Government before, during, and after this transition period. I
fear that decisions made in Washington without the active involvement
of our local government, will not embrace the needs and true situation
being faced in the CNMI.
Madam Chairwoman, Thank you for including the Northern Marianas
Islands Delegate Act as part of this bill. I know you share my
sentiment that this piece of legislation should have been enacted years
ago, and I appreciate your and the subcommittee's continued support for
this bill. It would have been my preference that the CNMI have a
Delegate sitting with you in the Committee when the issues of
immigration and minimum wage were brought up. Unfortunately, that did
not happen.
A Delegate for the CNMI is a matter of fairness, democracy, and the
basic tenets of our nation. The people of the CNMI are in support of a
Delegate, and have waited long enough for it to become a reality. I
have over the years provided this committee with countless resolutions,
letters of support, and testaments of the peoples desire to participate
in the national legislative body.
Madame Chairwoman, the CNMI needs a ``course correction.'' Our
chosen path to self sufficiency and prosperity has led us to an
unsustainable economy. I believe that the people of the CNMI are ready
for positive change and to work in partnership with the federal
government to turn our Commonwealth around and so that once again we
have the hope of achieving our dreams.
Si Yu'us Ma'ase, Ghilisow,
Thank you
______
Mrs. Christensen. The Chair now recognizes The Honorable
Pete P. Reyes, Vice President of the Senate, for five minutes.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE PETE P. REYES,
VICE PRESIDENT OF THE SENATE OF THE CNMI
Senator Reyes. Thank you, Madam Chair. I am going to skip
the introductions and all that, so, I'll get back when I have
time to do that. Let me take this opportunity to applaud this
Committee for including the CNMI Nonvoting Delegate Provision
in House--H.R. 3079. Whereas, I stand by my belief that the
CNMI should first be given a voice in Congress before any
attempt at Federalizing our immigration system is made. This
portion of the bill is an improvement to our current situation
and a step in the right direction.
Let me also take this opportunity to thank Congresswoman
Bordallo for looking over the interest of her brothers and
sisters in the CNMI during this period of time that they have
been without a representative in Congress. Some of you may not
notice, but Congresswoman Bordallo has her humble beginnings in
the CNMI before moving to our sister island in Guam. Please
correct me if I am wrong.
If enacted into law, H.R. 3079 will have far reaching
repercussions that will forever change the Commonwealth's
economic, political, and cultural landscape. Therefore, I ask
that the committee members take a thorough and measured
approach to reviewing this piece of legislation and fully
consider all of the ramifications this bill will have on the
people of the CNMI. Please allow me this opportunity to point
out some of my concerns on the bill as drafted. I'm skipping
Paragraph 02 to make sure I am working the facts in, Madam
Chair. As for the Federalization of our immigration system, I
feel strongly that the traditional relationship between our
islands and the U.S. Government has been a strong and
productive one, but also one born of a mutual recognition that
we are in many ways very different from a U.S. state or even
other U.S. territories. The Covenant, subsequent legislation,
and Federal and local jurisprudence have recognized the unique
nature of our island Commonwealth and the importance of
preserving local control over certain legal functions. I
believe that our blanket application of the Immigration and
Nationality Act to our islands under a ``one size fits all''
approach would cause irreparable harm to our struggling economy
and impinge upon the notions of self-government that underlined
the Covenant negotiation process.
Furthermore, I must voice my concern with the ``One-time
Nonimmigrant Provision for Certain Long-term Employees.''
Because we are a very small territory with a modest financial
base, I fear that the granting of long-term resident status to
contract workers and their family members who meet certain
residency requirements may create massive financial drain on
our limited public resources. Simply put, the more or less
permanent presence of foreign nationals and the influx of their
eligible family members will most likely tax our public
services beyond capacity. This will result in a lower quality
of life for everyone within our borders. I have no objection to
granting nonimmigrant status to certain long-term nonresident
workers similar to that granted to citizens of the Federated
States of Micronesia. However, I am concerned that H.R. 3079
does not establish adequate financial assistance mechanisms to
allow us to sustain a large, permanent foreign national
population, a very real problem that Congress has previously
acknowledged through the Provisions of Compact-Impact Funding.
Indeed, this bill is silent on the long-term economic and
social impact of this new class of resident foreign nationals.
I respectfully suggest that the committee consider this impact
as it will certainly create a hardship for our already
overburdened public services.
With regard to the traditional oversight program in the
bill, I feel the provision is vague and leaves many unanswered
questions about the various roles of Federal agencies in the
CNMI Government. Although I understand that the Department of
Homeland Security will be tasked with the primary
responsibility of drafting transitional regulations, the
complete delegations of authority to executive agencies offers
the CNMI no certainty in the transition process. The bill
provides ``for recognizing local self-government, as provided
for in the Covenant through consultation with the Governor of
the Commonwealth.'' But consultation is not self-government. If
Congress can and will do whatever it wants, regardless of any
objections to it, the Governor may raise in the course of
consultation, then the consultation is meaningless formality,
and the proponent recognition of self-government is a facade.
Our recent inclusion 902 talks are a case in point. This
legislation should have been shelved until those negotiations
produced an agreement. Otherwise, what is the point of the
talks? Self-government means never having to say, ``Please do
not do this to us.'' Moreover, transitional oversight by not
one, but five Federal agencies could bring a struggling tourism
industry to a screeching halt. Bureaucratic red tape could
hamper the issuance of tourist visas to the extent that we lose
all of the momentum we have thus far achieved.
Let me end by commending this Committee for taking into
consideration our concerns over the Federalization of our
immigration system as stated by our very capable Washington
Representative, Pete A. Tenorio. In a letter to The Honorable
Jeff Bingaman, Chairman of the Senate Committee on Energy and
Natural Resources, dated March 1st of this year, a majority of
the CNMI legislature endorsed Representative Tenorio's position
and his seven items of concern that were, for the most part,
incorporated in H.R. 3079. In that letter, we asked for the
consideration of two additional components.
First, the creation of an immigration board that would be
comprised of members of both the local and Federal governments
for the purpose of reviewing on a periodic basis the
effectiveness of our immigration policies. This board could
make appropriate changes to immigration regulations without
having to pass future laws or regulations.
Second, the provision to mandate an independent study to
evaluate the impact of changing the residency status of
nonresident workers as it relates to the economic and political
futures of the CNMI. If asked if Federal immigration laws
should be applied to the CNMI, my answer would be an emphatic
no. However, if Federalization is inevitable, I ask that these
provisions be incorporated into the current bill. In closing,
let me be clear that we at the CNMI take the matters of
national security very seriously and are willing and active
participants in making sure that our borders are secure. We
welcome any Federal support in this regard.
It would be noted, it should be noted, that the CNMI is
home to the only live-fire artillery ground available to the
United States Navy and Air Force during training exercises. We
have opened up our resources in the Northern Mariana for this
purpose without complaint. Further, the Commonwealth may hold
the distinction of having the most number of active personnel,
military personnel and all casualties breakout in the War of
Iraq. We are Americans first and are proud of our patriotism to
the United States. As a veteran of the Vietnam War myself,
should our national security ever be threatened or come under
attack, I would be the first one to come to the support of our
nation's defense.
And, finally, my primary concerns with this bill are,
first, the Federalization of the CNMI's Immigration System will
have a negative impact on our already troubled economy by
stripping our Commonwealth of its ability to effectively manage
tourist arrivals and foreign national laborers.
Second, the creation of a new class of permanent resident
aliens who would drain our public resources.
And third, that the transition period is vaguely defined
and offers the CNMI no assurances about which of the many
successful elements of our immigration program can continue to
operate under the transitional structure.
And, ma'am, I wish you would extend your trip and enjoy the
scenery and the beauty of our islands. I am not alleging that
CNMI is better than any of the islands, I know you all come
from an island.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Sure you are. [Laughter]
Senator Reyes. If you have time, we have beautiful golf
courses and the beaches are superb. So please, enjoy.
[The prepared statement of Senator Reyes follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Pete P. Reyes, Senate Vice-President,
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands
Chairwoman Christensen and Members of the Committee, thank you for
allowing me this opportunity to present testimony in regards to H.R.
3079, ``To amend the Joint Resolution Approving the Covenant to
Establish a Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and for other
purposes.''
Senate President Joseph M. Mendiola has had the honor of submitting
testimony on similar legislation in S 1634 to the U.S. Senate Committee
on Energy and Natural Resources earlier this year. For the record, I
concur with the President's position as stated in that testimony and
will repeat the salient points for this Committee along with some
comments of my own. Let me also take this opportunity to applaud this
Committee for including a CNMI non-voting delegate provision in H.R.
3079. Whereas, I stand by my belief that the CNMI should first be given
a voice in Congress before any attempt at federalizing our immigration
system is made, this portion of the bill is an improvement to our
current situation and a step in the right direction.
If enacted into law, H.R. 3079 will have far reaching repercussions
that will forever change the Commonwealth's economic, political, and
cultural landscape. Therefore, I ask that the committee members take a
thorough and measured approach to reviewing this piece of legislation
and fully consider all of the ramifications this bill will have on the
people of the CNMI. Please allow me this opportunity to point out some
of my concerns with the bill as drafted.
As a member of the CNMI Legislature, I have three main areas of
concern with the bill as drafted. First, I object generally to a
complete federal takeover of the CNMI immigration system. Second, I am
concerned that the provisions for granting nonimmigrant status to
certain contract employees may overwhelm our already strained public
resources. Third, I feel that the transitional oversight provision is
vague and leaves many unanswered questions about the various roles of
federal agencies and the CNMI Government.
As for the federalization of our immigration system, I feel
strongly that the traditional relationship between our islands and the
U.S. Government has been a strong and productive one, but also one born
of the mutual recognition that we are in many ways very different from
a U.S. state or even other U.S. territories. The Covenant, subsequent
legislation, and federal and local jurisprudence have recognized the
unique nature of our island Commonwealth, and the importance of
preserving local control over certain legal functions. I believe that a
blanket application of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) to our
islands under a ``one size fits all'' approach could cause irreparable
harm to our struggling economy and impinge upon the notions of self-
government that underlined the Covenant negotiation process.
``[T]he authority of the United States towards the CNMI arises
solely under the Covenant....[I]t is solely by the Covenant
that we measure the limits of Congress' legislative power.''
United States ex rel. Richards v. De Leon Guerrero, 4 F.3d 749,
754 (9th Cir. 1993) The Covenant provides that U.S. immigration
laws will not apply to the CNMI ``except in the manner and to
the extent made applicable to them by the Congress by law after
the termination of the Trusteeship Agreement.'' (Covenant
Sec. 503.)
However, the Covenant also provides that ``[t]he people of the
Northern Mariana Islands will have the right of local self-government
and will govern themselves with respect to internal affairs in
accordance with a Constitution of their own adoption.'' (Covenant
Sec. 103) We cannot simply focus on Section 503 and ignore the conflict
or tension with Section 103. The whole Covenant was approved together,
and its various sections need to be reconciled and read in harmony with
each other.
Section 103 especially cannot be ignored, because the development
and establishment of self-government was the whole point of the
Trusteeship and the Covenant. There could be no Covenant without
Section 103--it is the only essential provision in the whole document.
Everything else (US citizenship, application of federal laws, etc.) was
optional, and could all have been done differently (as it was with the
freely associated states, for example). Section 103 is the what of the
Covenant; everything else, including Section 503, is just the how.
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has established a balancing test
for resolving questions of this kind: ``[W]e think it appropriate to
balance the federal interest to be served by the legislation against
the degree of intrusion into the internal affairs of the CNMI.'' United
States ex rel. Richards v. De Leon Guerrero, 4 F.3d 749, 754 (9th Cir.
1993)
Those are the terms in which the debate should be framed. What is
the federal interest to be served by the proposed legislation? How
important or significant is that interest? How greatly does the
proposed legislation intrude into the internal affairs of the CNMI?
Does it intrude more deeply than it needs to in order to serve any
legitimate federal interest? Currently in the Commonwealth we have the
presence of various federal agencies including the Transportation
Security Administration, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the
United States Coast Guard. It may be only that additional resources to
the agencies already established here are necessary to achieve the
desired federal effect of increased border security.
As we look beyond our current economic downturn to a future with a
much diminished apparel industry, we continue to search for alternative
economic activities to generate income for our Commonwealth. Past and
present administrations have taken steps to diversify our tourism
economy, and have in recent years opened new tourist markets beyond the
CNMI's traditional tourist market of Japan. These new markets include
China, South Korea, and Russia. In 2004 the CNMI signed an Approved
Destination Status Agreement with China, providing the CNMI with access
to Chinese tourist markets and direct flights from major Chinese
cities. Because of the anticipated boom in Chinese outbound tourism and
the proximity of the CNMI to the Chinese mainland, we hope to
experience significant growth in the Chinese tourist market in the
coming years. Maintaining local control over immigration is critical to
the development of this market, as our local immigration authorities
are able to work directly with Chinese government officials and respond
to the changing conditions of the market as needed. Our long term
strategy also focuses on the development of the South Korean market.
Arrivals from Korea have been steadily increasing even as other country
numbers decline. Finally, we have been working diligently to develop an
eastern Russia tourist market with regularly scheduled charter flights
to the CNMI. The Russian market is characterized by longer than average
visits resulting in increased revenues, a high percentage of return
visitors, and little to no legal complications. As with the development
of the Chinese market, I do not believe the CNMI could have experienced
such a rate of success without local immigration control. It is here
that we should consider both national security and the economic well-
being of the Commonwealth. Immigration is paramount to national
security, but we must be cognizant of the impact federalization will
have on our economy. I feel that our full absorption into the INA and
the paternalistic nature of the transition plan will threaten this
growth and, as a consequence, undermine our economic recovery.
An additional problem with federalization is the negative impact it
will have on our ability to engage a foreign national labor force for
important positions that simply cannot be filled locally. Foreign
nationals, and our ability to process them locally, have become an
important component of our continued development. For twenty-five years
foreign laborers have contributed in a vital way to our islands:
sustaining businesses, building schools, and improving public works.
They have helped to transform the CNMI into a dynamic, multicultural
society teeming with potential. In light of our struggling economy, I
feel that local control over foreign national labor is essential to
efforts to rebuild critical industries such as tourism and regional and
international education. The recent passage of minimum wage legislation
in the U.S. Congress will eventually raise local wages to the federal
level and provide more economic security to foreign national workers.
This should help to alleviate any lingering fears that our foreign
national workers are not being compensated appropriately. Furthermore,
we are now debating a labor reform bill in the CNMI Legislature. This
Act will reform current foreign national labor laws, provide for
increased local participation in the workforce, and ensure the fair
treatment of foreign nationals working in the CNMI.
I would like to assure the Committee that the CNMI is making every
effort to ensure that our borders are secure and our immigration
policies reflect current best practices among the nations of the world.
In 2005, the Commonwealth Legislature passed the Human Trafficking and
Related Offenses Act through Public Law 14-88. The Act, supported by
the U.S. Department of Justice, has become an important and effective
tool in the CNMI's continuing efforts to combat labor fraud and
trafficking. Also in 2005, the Legislature passed Public Law 14-92, an
act to amend our voluntary departure law to provide immigration
prosecutors with improved procedural options in deportation cases. This
law should lead to a more consistent and expedient system for resolving
pending cases. Additionally in the 2005 session the Legislature passed
Public Law 14-59, the ``Anti-Terrorism Act of 2004,'' Public Law 14-63
``An Act to Establish the Office of Homeland Security,'' and Public Law
14-84, legislation which corrected constitutional deficiencies in
certain immigration statutes that were struck down by the U.S. District
Court for the Northern Mariana Islands in Gorromeo v. Zachares, Civil
Action No. 99-0018 (C.N.M.I. 2000). Most importantly, the impending
passage of our labor reform bill will serve as a means of decreasing
our traditional reliance on foreign national workers through the
training of local residents. It will also ensure that resident and
foreign national workers alike are treated fairly in the employment
process. Finally, the Division of Immigration continues to work on
closing potential loopholes in our immigration system and should be
commended for its reform efforts. The Division has assisted in
developing effective border management and labor identification systems
and continues to welcome the assistance of federal agencies. The Border
Management System (BMS) generates a record of all entries to and exits
from the Commonwealth, regardless of citizenship. Immigration
investigators have instant access to arrival information and can
confirm the departure of those foreign nationals with expired contracts
and those ordered deported from the Commonwealth for violating local
law. The Labor and Immigration Identification System (LIIDS) tracks all
foreign national labor contracts, job category authorizations, and
permit status of non-citizen workers in the Commonwealth. This allows
immigration and labor investigators to quickly determine the permit
status of all foreign national workers involved in labor complaints and
administrative hearings, as well as compile data on overstaying aliens
in every entry permit category. As always, we welcome cooperation with
U.S. agencies, and any technical or financial assistance they may
provide, in the training of our local immigration investigators,
inspectors, and processing personnel.
I wish to be clear that we welcome U.S. involvement in our
immigration system short of the complete application of the INA.
Immigration issues can sometimes have defense and foreign policy
implications, and as such are a legitimate area of federal concern.
However, the status of aliens in the CNMI is also deeply interwoven
with internal affairs, since they constitute approximately half the
population and are involved in nearly all facets of our social and
economic life. The impact of the extension of federal immigration laws
on the CNMI's internal affairs may not have been so great had it been
done in, say, 1978 when there were very few aliens here. The impact now
is much greater, and that must be taken into consideration.
I feel strongly that several components of our immigration program
are both secure and economically beneficial to our islands and do not
require federal pre-emption. Our BMS system tracks both entries and
exits, giving us the advantage of knowing not only who is arriving but
also who is leaving the Commonwealth. Our foreign national labor
program will enable us to redevelop an economic infrastructure that has
suffered setbacks as a result of garment closures, SARS, global
terrorism, and a downturn in several Asian economies. Finally, local
control over visitor entries is critical to the success of our major
remaining industry--tourism. With local control, we can continue to
work on developing markets that are uniquely suited for the CNMI
because of geography or cooperative agreements.
I must voice my concern with the ``One-Time Nonimmigrant Provision
for Certain Long-Term Employees.'' Because we are a very small
territory with a modest financial base, I fear that the granting of
long term resident status to contract workers and their family members
who meet certain residency requirements may create massive financial
drain on our limited public resources. Simply put, the more-or-less
permanent presence of foreign nationals and the influx of their
eligible family members will most likely tax our public services beyond
capacity. This will result in a lower quality of life for everyone
within our borders. I have no objection to granting nonimmigrant status
to certain long-term nonresident workers similar to that granted to
citizens of the Federated States of Micronesia, however I am concerned
that H.R. 3079 does not establish adequate financial assistance
mechanisms to allow us to sustain a large, permanent foreign national
population, a very real problem that Congress has previously
acknowledged through the provision of Compact-Impact funding. Indeed,
the bill is silent on the long-term economic and social impact of this
new class of resident foreign nationals. I respectfully suggest that
the Committee consider this impact, as it will certainly create a
hardship for our already overburdened public services.
With regard to the transitional oversight program in the bill, I
feel the provision is vague and leaves many unanswered questions about
the various roles of federal agencies and the CNMI Government. Although
I understand that DHS will be tasked with the primary responsibility of
drafting transition regulations, the complete delegation of authority
to executive agencies offers the CNMI no certainty in the transition
process. The bill provides for ``recognizing local self-government, as
provided for in the Covenant...through consultation with the Governor
of the Commonwealth.'' But consultation is not self-government. If
Congress can and will do whatever it wants, regardless of any
objections to it the Governor may raise in the course of consultation,
then the consultation is a meaningless formality, and the purported
recognition of self-government is a facade. Our recent inconclusive 902
talks are a case in point. This legislation should have been shelved
until those negotiations produced an agreement. Otherwise, what is the
point of the talks? Self-government means never having to say, ``Please
do not do this to us.'' Moreover, transitional oversight by not one,
but five federal agencies could bring our struggling tourism industry
to a halt. Bureaucratic red tape could hamper the issuance of tourist
visas to the extent that we would lose all of the momentum we have thus
far achieved.
Furthermore, the cost-sharing requirement under the Technical
Assistance Program is not feasible at this time due to the poor
financial health of our government. If the transition plan will direct
most or all immigration fees to the federal government, then local
agencies will not be in a position to cost-share. In the event that the
federal government sees fit to take control of the immigration system
that gives us a competitive advantage over other regional tourist
destinations such as Guam, Palau, the Philippines, Hawaii, and Bali,
the federal government should shoulder one hundred percent of the cost
to retrain our local workforce and develop new industries in the
Commonwealth.
Let me end by commending this Committee for taking into
consideration our concerns over the federalization of our immigration
system as stated by our very capable Washington Representative Pete A.
Tenorio. In a letter to The Honorable Jeff Bingaman, Chairman of the
Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, dated March 1st,
2007, a majority of CNMI legislators endorsed Representative Tenorio's
position and his seven items of concern that were for the most part
incorporated into H.R. 3079. In that letter we asked for the
consideration of two additional components. First, the creation of an
immigration board that would be comprised of members of both the local
and federal government for the purpose of reviewing on a periodic basis
the effectiveness of our immigration policies. This board could make
appropriate changes to immigration regulations without having to pass
future laws or regulations. Second, a provision to mandate an
independent study to evaluate the impact of changing the residency
status of non-resident workers as it relates to the economic and
political futures of the CNMI. If asked if federal immigration laws
should be applied to the CNMI my answer would be an emphatic no.
However, if federalization is inevitable I ask that these provisions be
incorporated into the current bill.
Finally, the more the federal government intervenes in CNMI
matters, the more it will be called upon to intervene in the future.
Will Congress, having once intervened, show any restraint when faced
with the inevitable future complaints? We should be at the table with
Congress as equal partners, hammering out a fair and mutually agreeable
solution to any differences there may be between us. Our critics should
address you and us together, not you over our heads.
We do not want the fate of the CNMI indigenous population to be the
same as those in Guam, Hawaii, and the U.S. mainland. We do not want to
become a marginalized, alienated minority because of unilateral federal
action. We do not want to face a political future of ``native rights''
movements that go nowhere, but never end because of dispossession that
feeds endless frustration and bitterness.
Substantive 902 consultations are necessary in order to maintain
the mutual respect, good faith, and understanding that the Covenant
guarantees, and without which the entire system that the Covenant
establishes would fail. This is particularly true in time of
differences or disputes between the parties. Successful 902 talks
should precede any legislation that would so drastically alter the
nature of the relationship between the United States and the Northern
Mariana Islands such as that now proposed.
The CNMI was exempted from U.S. immigration laws in the first place
in order to avoid a repetition of what occurred on Guam, where the
political power of the native population was significantly diluted by
foreign immigration under U.S. laws, and where the indigenous
population was overwhelmed by immigration laws over which it had no
control.
The removal of local authority over the terms and duration of
aliens' stay here, not to mention the granting of long-term residency
rights to all or any substantial portion of this population, would
drastically and permanently change the social, economic and political
landscape of the CNMI, and would create exactly the situation that
everyone had intended to prevent when the Covenant was first entered
into.
The people of the United States are currently engaged in their own
vigorous debate regarding the national capacity to assimilate large
numbers of immigrants. The proportion of immigrants who would
potentially need to be absorbed in the CNMI is very much greater, and
the society into which they would be absorbed very much smaller and
more fragile than in the case of the United States. We need to have our
own debate, and reach conclusions we can accept. There must be some
middle path between making them all future citizens and not inviting
them here at all, and we need to find that path ourselves.
Here is what I would like to hear from the Committee: 1) The
Committee recognizes and respects the CNMI's unique self-governing
status under the Covenant; 2) The Committee wishes to sit down with the
CNMI, as equal and fraternal partners, to discuss matters of our mutual
interest regarding immigration, population, and the future course of
economic development in the CNMI; 3) The Committee stands ready, if
necessary, to assist the CNMI with manpower, expertise, technology,
cooperative enforcement, mutually reinforcing legislation, or
otherwise, as we may mutually agree to be appropriate to the
improvement or enhancement of the CNMI immigration system, and to
advance the best interests and prosperity of the CNMI people; and 4)
Any such assistance would, of course, be provided solely at the request
and with the free consent of the CNMI government, and would be
immediately withdrawn whenever the CNMI government deems it to be no
longer necessary or appropriate to its purpose.
In closing, let me be clear that we in the CNMI take matters of
national security very seriously and are willing and active
participants in making sure that our borders are secure. We welcome any
federal support in this regard. However, my primary concerns with this
bill are first that federalization of the CNMI's immigration system
will have a negative impact on our already troubled economy by
stripping our Commonwealth of its ability to effectively manage tourist
arrivals and foreign national labor, second that the creation of a new
class of permanent resident aliens will drain our public resources, and
third that the transition period is vaguely defined and offers the CNMI
no assurances about which of the many successful elements of our
immigration program can continue to operate under a transitional
structure.
I thank you for considering my comments on H.R. 3079 and for
allowing me this opportunity to address the Committee on this critical
issue.
______
Mrs. Christensen. Thank you, thank you. We did take the
time yesterday to do some touring and visiting the island. We
appreciate it and we appreciate all of your testimony.
I will now recognize myself for five minutes of
questioning. I guess I will begin with the Governor. In spite
of the standing that during the Covenant negotiations the U.S.
Government was really reluctant to give control of immigration
to the CNMI, they agreed eventually to do it for a period of
time.
So, Governor, is it not true that while the Covenant
exempted CNMI for most of the provisions of U.S. immigration
laws, that allowed you to control your own immigration, that
Section 503 of that same Covenant, Public Law 94-241,
explicitly provides that Congress has the authority to make
immigration and naturalization laws applicable to the CNMI? And
having that in the Covenant, wasn't that something that was
agreed to, that the U.S. would have authority to change this at
some point?
Governor Fitial. I don't have any qualms over that, Madam
Chairwoman. I believe that Section 503 explicitly allows the
Federal Government to extend the application of U.S.
immigrations to the islands, but my concern here is; is it
necessary? Because we have been operating our immigration and
labor systems for quite some time. And although we have made
mistakes in the past, we have also corrected those mistakes.
And I am speaking from my experience as Governor now. I believe
that our worker guest program is doing very, very well and we
have enforced those labor laws and as you can see from my
written testimony, I have included the proponents of this
administration and enforcement of these labor laws and
immigration laws. So, the point is, is there assurance that
under a Federal system our economy will grow? That's my
concern.
Mrs. Christensen. Well, the problems that occurred that
exist now that everyone has explained, the downturn of the
economy, the leaving, and so forth, has taken place while CNMI
has had the control over immigration. So, I am not clear now
why, you know, not only bringing full Federalization, but
providing for some very special provisions that allow for guest
workers, for people to be brought into work that are outside of
the normal caps of the rest of the United States, and other
special provisions within this legislation that say that the
agencies that you're concerned about must provide flexibility
so as not to interfere with tourism, and so forth and so on. I
am still not clear why this immigration now would worsen the
condition that developed while the CNMI had control over
immigration.
Governor Fitial. The provisions of both 1634 and 3079 are
hopeful. Hopeful means never been tested. But my experience,
not hope, when we were under the Trust Territory, we came away
from the Trust Territory in 1978 with only $12 million of
revenues, resources. Why? There was no private sector
development during the time when we were under the Trust
Territory. So, when we became Commonwealth by using the
economic tools provided to the Commonwealth under the Covenant,
the ability to control our own immigration and also labor, we
were able to bring in skilled workers and that really helped
grow the $12 million to $260 million dollars of local resources
within 20 years.
Mrs. Christensen. Thank you for your answer. Let me ask
both the Speaker and the Vice President of the Senate, do you
feel that this Federal takeover of immigration in the CNMI is
inconsistent with the right of self-determination--when the
Covenant was negotiated and the U.S. agreed to allow the CNMI
to have control over immigration as I stated before. However,
the CNMI--and it was to control the coming in of people from
outside, to limit that, and the opposite of the meaning has
happened, that the CNMI used the authority to build a non-
sustainable economy on the backs of the guest workers in that
program, which has really supplanted the local workforce, which
is the majority of the population now. So, in light of this, do
you really believe that this immigration--the Federalization is
in conflict with your self-governance, considering that all of
the states and the territories are under Federal immigration
laws? Both of you, yes.
Senator Reyes. Thank you, Madam Chair. I will try to
respond to that to the best of my ability. I believe that the
Federalization--the Covenant provides for the U.S. Congress to
unilaterally change immigration; that's very clear. But at the
same time, it also provides for the CNMI to be self-governing,
and those were approved at the same time. I believe that by
changing the issue on immigration, it questions the provisions
of self-governing plus the CNMI being given the authority to
govern itself. That's my answer.
Mrs. Christensen. Mr. Speaker?
Speaker Babauta. Furthermore, Madam Chair, as the Governor
earlier responded to that part of that question. It does.
Personally, to me, as I can see in the bill as it was drafted,
it impinges and infringes upon the local control, primarily
lowering our depressed economic Commonwealth. And that, in a
sense where it disengages our ability to be able to procure and
adjust or otherwise control whether we need or do not need
those Foreign National Workers Act as it is required by our
government and that of the private sector.
Mrs. Christensen. I am going to recognize the Congressman
from American Samoa for five minutes. My time is up.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to thank
the Governor, the Speaker, and my good friend, Representative
Tenorio, and the Vice President for their most eloquent
statements and presentations. I can't think for a moment the
combined sense of experience that all of you gentlemen have had
in the development of CNMI's political--from infancy, and I
still recall in the days that when the various island groups of
Micronesia were all under one umbrella under the Trust
Territory of the Pacific Islands. Thirty-one years now, there
has been some very serious problems attending the needs of the
CNMI, its unique relationship with the United States and its
sister territories, and I have so many questions, I don't know
where to start. Maybe I could start with one.
I recall ten years ago or about ten years ago, I was a
member of the delegation led by then-Chairman of the House of
Natural Resources Committee, Congressman Don Young from Alaska,
and I think there were at least 12 of us who came to CNMI. And
the Congressman then, former Congressman Bob Underwood, and I
had the unpleasant experience of having to meet with some 700
guest workers who were screaming bloody murder and what to do
with their status, some of them stateless conditions or the
situations, I'll be up front with you gentlemen, was not very
positive.
And I realized that sometimes the perspectives were taken
quite differently how we view things here and how Washington
also views things there. I have always said that sometimes as a
matter of perspective, the Westerners' point of view about
things, it's either a bird's eye or a worm's eye view of
things. And I say the Pacific Islander's point of view is a man
sitting on top of the mountain looking at the horizon of the
ocean, seeing a different perspective about what's out there in
the ocean. Then a man also sitting on top of the tree looking
and noticing that there is a man in the canoe doing something
in the ocean. And the third perspective is the man in the canoe
actually catching fish. And who is to say that one perspective
is better than the other? And this has always been the problems
that we've had over the years in dealing with the insular
areas.
I don't know how else I could square with you gentlemen and
be up front and be frank with you in terms of, if whether or
not insular areas and the issues and the needs of the people
living in insular areas are that important to provide attention
from the national leaders both in the Congress as well as in
the Administration. In my humble opinion, we're not even on the
radar screen. Now, take it or leave it, but that's been always
the struggle over the years. And I don't mean to say that it's
because of the insincerity or the lack of wanting to do things
on the part of our national leaders, both Executive and in the
Congress, but because the whole world is centered in wanting to
get their attention in some other issues affecting global
issues and not necessarily just insular affairs. So, I just
wanted to give you that perspective.
Governor, you've mentioned that you've made tremendous
improvements on your guest worker program. Can you elaborate a
little more on that, because I still see people outside this
courthouse building complaining something about their status as
nonimmigrant workers or whatever they said they should be
entitled to?
Governor Fitial. Well, most of the people that you see
outside are illegals. [Laughter]
Mr. Faleomavaega. OK. And as illegals, what is the
Government of Northern Marianas doing about it?
Governor Fitial. We're processing them, you know, and
eventually they will all be deported.
Mr. Faleomavaega. And in the process that some of these do
not have passports, and so they become stateless and they are
given countries of origin do not allow them to return, what do
we do about that?
Governor Fitial. Well, for the stateless, then we have to--
because some of these nonresident workers, they deliberately
destroy their passports when they get here.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Oh, I know that. They do it even to us.
Governor Fitial. That's true.
Mr. Faleomavaega. We've had several, and with all due
respect, aliens who literally throw away their passports as
they're about to come to American Samoa, then they claim
asylum, refugee or whatever you want to call it, and they
expect us to take care of them.
Governor Fitial. That's true. But under the human
trafficking, you know, that's Federal, although we are helping
out in that regard. But on these assignees (sic), we have a
procedure by statute that we have to follow in processing
asylum seekers. So--well, let me just say this, that we have 32
cases altogether, asylum seekers, and all of them except one
have been processed. So, that's the reason why I am saying that
we are enforcing these labor immigration laws more effectively
now than before.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Do you honestly believe that the proposed
bill can do a better job in taking care of the guest worker
program than what you're doing now, as what CNMI is doing?
Governor Fitial. Congressman, if the Federal Government
wants to take over this asylum program, they may have it, any
time.
Mr. Faleomavaega. No, the guest worker program.
Governor Fitial. Oh, the guest worker program? No, we need
them.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Oh.
Governor Fitial. Because we need the guest workers in order
to grow our local economy. And once we allow them to become
permanent residents, they will go for where pasture is greener.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Do you see the danger where CNMI could
become a conduit for aliens who just want to come and take
advantage of whatever it might be, their immigration status for
the one exact purpose is to go to the United States and not
live here in the CNMI. I know the complaints you have is that
they're not going to stay here so, therefore, it's not going to
help the workforce here in CNMI. But, do you see that this has
been one of the problems that you are confronted with--aliens
who come here with only one purpose? They want to go to the
U.S.; they don't want to stay in the CNMI.
Governor Fitial. Few of them do that. You know, they would
come and these are the asylum seekers. You know, they try to
use the CNMI as a stepping stone.
Mr. Faleomavaega. You know, right now the immigration issue
in our national government is one big, big controversy.
Governor Fitial. And I know that.
Mr. Faleomavaega. And it's not getting any better, it's
getting worse. My time has run out. I'll wait for the second
round, Madam Chair, thank you.
Mrs. Christensen. Thank you, Mr. Faleomavaega. The Chair
now recognizes Congresswoman Bordallo for questions.
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you, Madam Chair. Senator Reyes, first
to answer your question in your testimony, my father taught in
the public school system here and while he was here my family
lived here. I'd like to ask the Governor the first question. In
your position, Governor, do you know the number of guest
workers who have fled the CNMI by boat or otherwise to come to
Guam illegally in the last five or so years, and when was the
most recent case, and does the CNMI track such occurrences?
Governor Fitial. Well, I don't have the actual figures with
me, but we do have that figure and----
Ms. Bordallo. Could you provide that for the Committee?
Governor Fitial. I am more than willing to provide that to
the Committee.
Ms. Bordallo. All right. My next question is for Speaker
Babauta. You testified that you believe that full application
of the Immigration and Nationality Act, the INA, to the CNMI
could threaten growth in China and Russia visitor markets. Now,
what is the current practice for entry into the CNMI for
citizens from these two countries and are standards imposed
similar to the regulations in the Federal system? Can you
elaborate further why this would threaten the CNMI visitor
program?
Speaker Babauta. Thank you, Madam Chair, I mean,
Congresswoman Bordallo. Although I don't have the real specific
policies of the local immigration, but normally we are using
now the so-called Approved Destination Status, Visa Waiver
Program, where applicants are admitted to our CNMI Immigration
System and are screened, and individually are being processed
by our immigration system. That's how we allow these tourists
in the market to come to the CNMI.
Ms. Bordallo. Could you provide the Committee also with
more information on that?
Speaker Babauta. Definitely, with the assistance of our
Immigration Director, that is.
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you, Speaker. I have another question
for you. You testified that Federalization will have a negative
impact on sourcing foreign labor that cannot be filled locally.
Now, can you elaborate as to what types of training are
currently available here and what marketing plans have been
pursued to attract local hires, and what specific suggestions
might you have for increasing public awareness and
participation in other industries that currently utilize
foreign labor.
Speaker Babauta. The Administration has engaged in a very,
very adventurous policy that would now require a majority of
the private sector to induce and process local applicants from
the indigenous population who are jobless through our labor
systems and allow these people to be picked up by the private
sector.
Ms. Bordallo. Do you have training programs?
Speaker Babauta. Most of the use industry has training
programs, although our Northern Marianas College has a very
small program that allows for training for the nursing and very
small technical fields.
Ms. Bordallo. And would you say they are successful and you
do have a lot of the local people applying for these training
programs?
Speaker Babauta. I would say yes and no. I have seen
technical people be certified by our embassy in various
technical fields, engineering, masonry, carpentry. I have seen
people are now serving in the offices and serving our people
through the specific program that they want.
Ms. Bordallo. And the third question, Speaker, in your
written statement you've claimed that the CNMI continues to
update its immigration laws to address new developments in
immigration enforcement, and this is clearly seen with the
passage of five bills into laws since 2004. Now can you
elaborate on the current House Bill 15-38 and explain how it
addresses immigration concerns in the CNMI?
Speaker Babauta. Thank you very much. 15-38 deals mostly
with labor issues, on labor policy, performing the policy. That
particular bill enables more, in the aspects of enforcement, at
the same time catering to the needs of the private sector.
There is one thing, one provision that affects the immigration
issue there and that's the duration of any non-immigrant or
rather, non-resident workers, foreign national workers, that
would enter the Commonwealth to stay longer than three years.
So, we inject an interval of three years at the most, with a
six months working service, to allow for an additional three
months if one employer wishes to continue the employment of
that particular individual or individuals.
Ms. Bordallo. All right. I see my time is up, and I would
like a second round, Madam Chair.
Speaker Babauta. Thank you.
Mrs. Christensen. Thank you. We'll have a second round of
questions, and I hope we won't take too long with them. But, I
guess I would ask Representative Tenorio my next question. You
know we were warned that the enactment of H.R. 3079 would have
far-reaching repercussions that will forever change the
Commonwealth's economic, political, and cultural landscape. In
your opinion, do the positive impacts outweigh the negative or
vice versa?
Representative Tenorio. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. I have
said in my written statement and also in my statement for the
record, and my older statement, that we have probably reached a
point now where we do have major, major problems with the
presence of non-resident workers and the presence of so many
non-residents here that continue to draw in, in an
uncontrollable manner. I see the new proposal by this bill to
correct those errors to provide an institutionalized control so
that there is an organized way to bring in people, to treat
them, to keep them working over here, and to also repatriate
them if the business community does not need them anymore.
What I am saying now is that we want to rely almost 100
percent on a non-resident workforce. We seem to forget the fact
that we do have our own indigenous people here that are also
looking for jobs, that need jobs. As a matter of fact, they
should be prioritized in being hired, but we're so used to the
idea of an easy recruitment and, you know, cheaper recruitment
for that matter, and we forget to train our own people. We
become so complacent to the idea that, what's easy is good for
us, good for business, and we have to change that mentality.
And I see this as a major problem for our community. I see
our people leaving the islands because there is no opportunity
for them. It's good that we now have a somewhat nominal
increase in our minimum wage that would encourage new workers
to take local jobs from local businesses, but at the same time,
we continue to lose our own talented workforce, going off
island who's just not--there many opportunities.
I see the proposed bill has something that is positive. I
know that there will be problems in the beginning, that there
is always this concern and fear about, you know, you're faced
with new conditions and new compliance to meet, but I think
overall if the bill is properly reviewed and provided with the
necessary regulations and procedures, I am sure that it would
work in the long run. And I just want to also mention, Madam
Chairwoman, that it is in the interest of the Commonwealth
Government to look at the relationship with the Federal
Government as one that should be protected. I, for one, as a
negotiator, fully acknowledge the fact that the U.S.
Government, the Congress has the prerogative to amend the
Covenant to take away immigration control. Of course, subject
to, as the negotiated history had indicated, that it's not by
capricious manner, but in a way that Congress will take into
account the then existing situation, not conditions, in the
Commonwealth. What the Committee or the Senate or the House is
doing is precisely that. Providing opportunities for the local
government to be engaged in this process and to also take into
account the current economic conditions. We are worried that
this proposal would destroy the economic future of the
Commonwealth. I don't believe that it will. I think by
institutionalizing this framework of immigration, it would
protect, it would enhance, in the future, the economic well-
being of the Commonwealth. Right now we're in a--really worse
situation than it is. We're bankrupt just about. We don't have
any investment coming in, and people are not sure whether or
not to stay or go out and seek investment someplace else. And
we do have a very unstable situation. We need to fix that. And
I believe the Federal law that would be provided under this
framework would provide for that solution, not all of it, but
to a large extent it will be the solution to many of our
problems. Thank you.
Mrs. Christensen. Thank you. Let me just try to squeeze in
another question here to the Speaker. You referenced the new
labor law that has been introduced. You said that it will
provide more protections for the guest workers and more--and, I
haven't seen the bill. Now, the Federal Government contends
that despite the protections that already exist, there continue
to be injustices perpetrated on the temporary guest workers.
How will the bill change that? They are protections that are
already in place, and yet we still find people being brought in
here with promises that are empty. No jobs. We have people who
are continuing to remain here without jobs and without any
legal protections, and very little enforcement. How will this
bill change that?
Speaker Babauta. Thank you, Chairwoman. It further re-
enhances and reinforces present labor provisions, and primarily
the aspects of enforcement of fines and penalizes the
activities of illegal recruitment, criminalizes it.
Mrs. Christensen. Isn't that illegal right now, to bring
someone in without--who does not have a job to come to
(unintelligible)?
Speaker Babauta. Yes, ma'am. But on some aspect cases, as I
have read from reports, many of these have used the entry as
tourists and many that they arrived here for 30 days and, like
the Governor mentioned earlier and so has Congressman
Faleomavaega, some of these people are just tend to have excuse
of losing their passports. We don't know whether they lost it
or not.
However, there are recent cases now that have, I would say,
high profile ramification or the systems out here used by not
only--not the local people, that foreign nationals who have
capriciously established themselves as a legitimate business
people, introducing their own national to the CNMI in a
different manner other than allowing to pass through in the
system.
Mrs. Christensen. I see the Governor wants to answer, but
before he does I just want to say that we saw some instances of
cases where Labor had granted the number and they had gone
through the process with Labor and the Department of Justice
here to be allowed entry and still the problem persists.
Governor Fitial. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chairperson
for allowing me to extend the response of the Speaker. The
guest worker program came into being in 1982 as Public Law 3-
66. That particular statute only allows non-resident workers to
come in and just be employed by one employer of record. And
when that employee is no longer needed, that employer of record
is mandated by that statute to repatriate that employee.
Well, they changed that law, they amended that law a few
times, allowing non-resident workers to leave the employer of
record and transfer to another employer and transfer to
another, another, another employer, you know, and they gave the
employees 45 days grace period after they leave an employer to
look for another job. And that is the root of all these legal
problems that I have dealt with in my Administration, and I
have managed to close more than 3,400 of these pending labor
disputes that I inherited from the previous Administration. And
I will continue fighting for agency cases. I promised Senator
Akaka that I still have 1,500 agency cases of which I have
closed more than 700 between July 19th and today.
Mrs. Christensen. Thank you. The Chair now recognizes Mr.
Faleomavaega for questions.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Just for the record, gentlemen, I just
want to put for the record, the current population of the CNMI
is about, what, 85,000 now?
Mrs. Christensen. Seventy.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Give or take a couple of thousand. All
right, 70-some thousand. And the percentage of the guest
workers is within that 70,000 population. How many guest
workers altogether do you now have?
Governor Fitial. Right now it's less than 30.
Mr. Faleomavaega. 30 percent?
Governor Fitial. No, 30,000.
Mr. Faleomavaega. 30,000 are guest workers. And in terms of
the tourism industry, which I gather is your number one
industry right now in the territory----
Governor Fitial. Yes, Mr. Congressman. Tourism is number
one.
Mr. Faleomavaega. And the status of your garment industry
now?
Governor Fitial. It's slowly getting out.
Mr. Faleomavaega. To my understanding, and correct me if I
am wrong, the gentlemen took all his factories back to China;
am I correct on that?
Governor Fitial. Some went to Vietnam.
Mr. Faleomavaega. To Vietnam. So, in this sense, you are
basically totally relying on your tourism industry as the basis
of your economic development?
Governor Fitial. That's very true.
Mr. Faleomavaega. And as Pete, you have indicated earlier,
you're very concerned about the presence of the indigenous
Chamorros and their status in their own island here. You're
saying that many have left for better economic opportunities.
What does this mean?
Representative Tenorio. Well, it means a number of things,
Congressman. First of all, it means that we are going to be
losing, almost permanently, those talented individuals that
have been a part of our local workforce here.
Mr. Faleomavaega. So, with the indigenous Chamorros
leaving, you're going to be relying even more to alien guest
workers to be part of your workforce?
Representative Tenorio. Well, it appears to be that if
nothing is done regarding educating our folks in trades and
technical areas where they can gradually replace non-residents
that are now holding those positions. I mentioned in my
testimony that there is an extreme need for a formalized
education to be established, and education that involves
training, technical and educational--vocational training for
individuals, local individuals, in the islands that could be
provided with a certification of completion----
Mr. Faleomavaega. Pete, we've been talking about this ever
since the beginning. Just about every insular areas involved
are saying, training, education, for your experience, 30 years
for us. It's been 50 years, and we're still short of a nucleus
of professional people to work--CPAs, engineers, doctors,
lawyers. Where do you stand on that in terms of a nucleus of
professionals here at CNMI? How many lawyers do you have? How
many doctors? How well has your educational program really been
part of that effort? Because, hey, I have the same problem too.
We're here; we cry about the imposition of Federalism, but yet
at the same time----
Governor Fitial. Congressman, if I may.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Please, Governor, I----
Governor Fitial. I really believe in your golden rule, you
know.
Mr. Faleomavaega. He who has the gold makes the rule?
[Laughter]
Governor Fitial. Right. And let me just make it very clear.
Our people are leaving the CNMI to look for jobs outside of the
CNMI. It's not because of the existence of non-resident
workers----
Mr. Faleomavaega. It's not that they don't like you,
Governor. It's just that they don't have jobs.
Governor Fitial. Because of the economy. Because of the
economy, not because of the non-resident workers. You know,
look at the Marshalls, FSM. They don't have non-resident
workers, but they're leaving their places looking for jobs
outside of their places. It's the economy. It's not because of
the non-resident workers.
Mr. Faleomavaega. So, it's the economy, stupid, is that
basically the situation that we're faced with? [Laughter]
Governor Fitial. And we will be having our new medical
school here. You asked for doctors, so we will be having it
soon.
Mr. Faleomavaega. You're going to have a medical school
here at CNMI?
Governor Fitial. Yes.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Certified, board, everything?
Governor Fitial. Yes.
Mr. Faleomavaega. U.S. standards or other standards?
Governor Fitial. U.S.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Well, congratulations. I wish my little
territory would have a medical school set up like you do. It
was someway or somehow that the central frustration is, I would
sense that--and I don't know I am being a racist to just
suggest that the needs of the Chamorros should be looked of
that with the highest priority. They're no different if you're
going to India, they're not going to give you any tax breaks or
anything. They're going to expect you to toe the line like you
would in any other place and I would think CNMI would have that
same concern, too, for its local residents.
But I am concerned that if this bill is to be implemented,
will that really be a door to have more Chamorros leave the
territory because of the restrictions that are going to be
placed upon anybody coming to CNMI? Am I giving a wrong picture
of what I sense, of your concern, Governor?
Governor Fitial. We need a legislation that would help us
grow our economy. When we grow our economy, our people will not
run away.
Representative Tenorio. Well, Madam Chairwoman, we do have
a--[Laughter]
Mr. Faleomavaega. No, this is Madam Chairwoman. [Laughter]
She's prettier than me, I realize that, but Pete I----
Representative Tenorio. You know, even right now we do have
the right to control our immigration. We are under the current
system operating our own immigration. But look at what's
happening. Problems are just being compounded. I mean, it's not
that it all has to do with the way we administer our
immigration. There is this global problem that we are faced
with. Our garment industry, of course, it's being affected,
having closed down because of the global competition that we
can't compete anymore. Tourism has been affected by other
economies of the world or other countries.
At the same time, we do have access now to non-resident
workers. We do have access to tourists in many parts of the
world. Japan used to be a major tourist market for us, but now
because Japan Airlines have decided to quit flying, we lost out
a number of tourists, and we develop in other places. So, what
I am saying is that, we should not blame the proposed
legislation as the instrument that would drive us broke, or
drive us bankrupt, or stop our economic progress. We're not
making any progress right now. Simple as that.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Let me just close by saying the bottom
line is that we're all members of the American family. We want
to be treated like Americans. But then there is another catch
that comes here that other members here are very concerned
about; we want to be treated differently. That's where other
members come up and say, ``Hey, I thought you want to eat
hamburgers, what's this? You want unique or different special
treatment separate and apart from the rest of America?'' And
this is where things really get a little complicated with some
members of the Congress, on whether or not you should be given
the same equal treatment, because we're not equal, in that
sense. We don't pay Federal income taxes. In my own territory,
we're not even U.S. citizens. You know what a U.S. national is?
It's a person who owes allegiance to the United States, but is
neither an alien nor a U.S. citizen. What does that mean? It's
exactly the way we are. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you, Madam Chair, my questions will go
to my brother from Washington, Mr. Tenorio. Representative, you
stated in your testimony that you would like to see a greater
role for the CNMI Government during the transition period. What
specific roles would you like to see the CNMI Government assume
during this process?
Representative Tenorio. Thank you, Congresswoman Bordallo.
Very simply is the involvement in decision making. Not only
does the Commonwealth complained in the past, as I am sure that
other territories have complained about, how Washington tries
to deal with local government issues, you know, that affect the
local community. If the proposed bill here is implemented as
is, without any regards to involvement of the local government,
it will present a problem because decisions cannot be made that
quickly. Yesterday, we were talking about the fact that we need
to see that the local government is given opportunity to have
their request addressed very quickly.
I mentioned the fact that as part of the Homeland Security
Organization in the Commonwealth under the proposed legislation
that a person be designated that can make a decision locally
here on island. When the Governor asked for application
approval for critical land power needs for some investors, that
the decision be made here locally and not three to six months
later down the line, because that's the problem that we face in
the past and even up to now. We do have a problem where even I
write to aid of agencies in the Federal Government and I don't
get any response until six months later. And I am sure that you
have experienced the same thing. So----
Ms. Bordallo. Absolutely.
Representative Tenorio.--that is what I am talking about.
Ms. Bordallo. I couldn't agree with you more and I am sure
that Congressman Faleomavaega would state the same. You also
stated in your testimony that you would like to see specific
funds dedicated to areas that require formal training that lead
to certification in the various trades and technical fields.
Well, Section 3 of the H.R. 3079 calls for fees to be collected
from employers of guest workers during the transition period.
Should these fees be dedicated to the training that you
suggest?
Representative Tenorio. Well, that's part of it and that's
pretty much really fees that I would like to see the local
government get a hold of and get to spend the money. It's
mandated anyway under Article, I mean, Section 703 of the
Covenant, that any fees collected by the Federal activities in
the island has to be rebated back to the local government. So,
I don't see the problem there. What I am talking about mostly
is not just the fees but solid funds that can be provided by
the Congress to implement the intent of the framework we're
talking about.
I believe that we need to have our people educated
formally, and this is not just a high school education where a
couple of courses on vocational training could be offered. I
believe that in order for this arrangement to work, we need to
educate our students here in the technical and vocational
areas. We need to have them certified. Just like in Guam
Community College, a very successful program, and I believe
that if we can copy that kind of process, it would help our
local people here to be fully trained, to get a real education
in the vocational and technical areas. This way then they can
gradually replace those non-resident workers that are holding
that kind of position that now could be taken over by a local--
--
Ms. Bordallo. So you do agree then that this bill does need
fixing?
Representative Tenorio. It does need fixing. As a matter of
fact, I visited Congressman Miller's office before I came here
and submitted a proposal, because he's the Chairman of the
Education and Workforce Committee, and I wanted him to start
looking at this possibility. When there is a Federal mandate,
as for example, this particular legislation is, I consider it a
Federal mandate, the Federal Government has to come up with the
necessary funds to ensure that the mandate is implemented and
it's beneficial to those that--the recipients.
Ms. Bordallo. And one other question before my time is up.
You stated again in your testimony that language should be
included in the bill that would allow for easy processing of
new investors into the CNMI. Could you elaborate on what
specific language should be included?
Representative Tenorio. Well, I was looking at the current
provision of the bill that doesn't have very specific--we do
have special cases over here, and I don't have any real
specific proposal yet, but I already mentioned about specific
incidents where foreign investors that have come here,
investing substantial amounts of money for example, for their
development, are not given the kind of protection in terms of
their status and their investment. At the moment, at the
present situation, I see that the arrangement in the U.S. law
where they could either be granted resident or green card
status or a citizenship status because of their investment. I
would like to see something that would provide that kind of
endorsement, inducement.
Ms. Bordallo. More specific then?
Representative Tenorio. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Bordallo. I understand. My time is up, but I have a
couple more questions for Mr. Reyes.
Mrs. Christensen. Why don't you go ahead and ask those
questions.
Ms. Bordallo. All right. They'll be quick.
Mrs. Christensen. And try to get them out quickly.
Ms. Bordallo. All right. Senator Reyes, you testified that
one of the strong components of the immigration program within
the CNMI is the Border Management, or the BMS System. Can you
elaborate more on this system and speak to its relationship to
the CNMI having received Advanced Destination Status, or ADS,
from China? What has been the impact of tourism from
implementation of BMS?
Senator Reyes. Well, I think Congresswoman Bordallo was
enjoying the fact that I wasn't bringing any attention to
myself or something. And then you have to come up and--
[Laughter] I am sorry.
Ms. Bordallo. I apologize, Mr. Reyes.
Senator Reyes. I think we need a break or something.
[Laughter]
Ms. Bordallo. If you'd like to think about that and perhaps
give us a statement----
Mr. Faleomavaega. Submit it in writing.
Senator Reyes. I'll put it in writing.
Ms. Bordallo.--submit it in writing, that will be just fine
by me. All right. And the second one is, in what ways is the
legislature organizing and focusing itself to address local
concerns and needs surrounding the possible Federalization of
immigration? How are the concerns of those who are not able to
vote or voice their comments due to their immigration status
addressed? And are committees working together or is a separate
or special committee devoted to addressing the concerns raised
by the local people?
Speaker Babauta. In my testimony, I alluded to the fact
that I have no objection to the granting of a special or the
different type of immigration status to non-resident workers,
and I mentioned that that would be similar to that of the
Federated States of Micronesia, where non-residents are allowed
to migrate and to move from any U.S. jurisdiction for purpose
of employment, or education, or other things that any citizens
would do.
Ms. Bordallo. So, in answer then, Speaker, is--would you
say then your local legislature is organizing and focusing
itself to address the pending legislation? In other words,
you're thinking about it, you're organizing, you're going to be
able to face it if there is changes made or if it's status quo,
then continue on?
Speaker Babauta. Yes, we are.
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Mrs. Christensen. Thank you. I just want for the record to
just state that, just going through the bill rather quickly, I
note over ten references to consultation with the Governor and
of the Government of the CNMI and various issues. And I would
just wanted to read that, in those agreements that the
different agencies are supposed to negotiate with the
government and implement, the agreement should address, and I
am reading from the Bill, at a minimum, procedures to ensure
Commonwealth employers have accessed that with labor and the
tourists, students, retirees and other visitors have access to
the Commonwealth without unnecessary delay or impediment. And
the training of the local residents is also included in another
section.
I have one last question, and I am going to ask for quick
answers, but anyone can answer that because again, going back
to this proposed CNMI Immigration Labor Bill, one of the
requirements is for a Coast Guard Resources for the borders of
CNMI--oh, this the Governor's Bill. OK. The proposed CNMI
Immigration Bill has a requirement for Coast Guard Resources to
patrol the borders of CNMI's 14 islands. Will this help address
the issue of boats originating in the CNMI with non-resident
workers escaping and landing on Guam shores? That some--direct
to the Governor--the Coast Guard----
Governor Fitial. Yes. Yes.
Mrs. Christensen. It would--it would----
Governor Fitial. That's the function of the Coast Guard.
Mrs. Christensen. Well, you know, it just seems strange to
me that Federal Maritime Resources would be called upon to work
in an environment and rules of engagement that they're not
accustomed to, because you're wanting them to do this under
current immigration laws here in the CNMI, and then use to
protect one U.S. territory from another due to the fact that
those immigration practices here are lax enough that it
threatens the security. Does that trouble you in any way, that
we're using the Federal resources----
Governor Fitial. Well----
Mrs. Christensen.--in an environment where the laws are not
consistent with Federal legislation and then protecting one
territory from another?
Governor Fitial. Oh, that's the same issue that we're
facing with implementing the asylum statute. There is a Federal
law that governs this particular issue and yet we are also--we
have no problem with that, but it seems like we control our own
immigration at this time and yet we're allowing something that
would--that runs against that particular policy.
Mrs. Christensen. Well, those are like----
Governor Fitial. But, you mentioned----
Mrs. Christensen. I am going to wait on----
Governor Fitial.--but actually----
Mrs. Christensen --the Deputy Assistant Secretary to give
us a reading on, and I think as you promised, on some of those
issues around asylum so that we can better understand the
context in which those requirements are being made.
Governor Fitial. But we don't have any qualms in helping
enforce that particular Federal statute, because we strongly
believe that we should be supporting the international treaties
of the United States.
Mrs. Christensen. I think it will be very difficult for the
U.S. Coast Guard to work in an environment where U.S. laws will
fully apply. That's just the point I was trying to make.
But, you know, at this point we are at 12:00 noon. I want
to thank the witnesses for their valuable testimony and members
for the questions that you asked. The Subcommittee may have
additional and I am sure will have additional questions on
this. Ms. Bordallo has already indicated some that she would
like to have responded to in writing. And we now thank you
again, and this panel will be dismissed with gratitude and we
call up the third panel.
Governor Fitial. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman----
Mrs. Christensen. Thank you.
Governor Fitial.--and members of the Committee.
Mrs. Christensen. The third panel of witnesses includes Ms.
Tina Sablan; Mr. Gregorio Cruz, the President of Taotao Tano;
Mr. Bonifacio Sagana, President of Dekada.
We thank you for your patience. We probably had another
hour worth of questioning for each of the first two panels. So,
we realize that the time is limited and we needed to also value
your time. Thank you, witnesses.
Mrs. Christensen. And the Chair now recognizes Ms. Sablan
to testify for five minutes.
STATEMENT OF TINA SABLAN
Ms. Sablan. Thank you, Madam Chairman, and good afternoon
to all the members of (unintelligible) and welcome to the
Mariana Islands.
Mrs. Christensen. Speak right into the mic please, so we
can make sure to hear you and we are able to pick you up.
Ms. Sablan. Thank you for the invitation to submit this
testimony on House Resolution 3079. My name is Tina Sablan, and
I speak to you today as one of many CNMI citizens wanting
change in our community. I wanted immigration and labor reform.
My testimony is based not only on my own experiences having
lived in these islands for most of my life, but also on the
insight I have gained from the discourse that has been taking
place in our community, especially in recent months.
I will begin by stating the obvious. This is the time of
great crisis for the CNMI. We face not only an economic crisis
but also a social crisis and the crisis of governance. These
three kinds of crises are interrelated, largely in our own
making, and inseparable from the dysfunctional Immigration and
Labor System that has persisted in our island's obvious ways.
If any good can come out of our struggles now, it will be that
we've realized the extraordinary opportunity before us to learn
from our mistakes and set ourselves on the path to meaningful
and sustainable development.
We in the CNMI have yet to climb for, let alone experience,
economic development that truly benefits the entire community.
Instead, we know too well the consequences of rapid and
unrestrictive growth. On the whole, this program has suppressed
economic opportunities for residents, made non-residents
extremely vulnerable to exploitation, and exerted tremendous
pressure on our infrastructure and natural resources.
Our local Immigration and Labor System is at the core of
this unsustainable program of growth, and I am convinced that
it is also at the core of our economic crisis. An immigration
and labor program that is properly funded, well staffed, and
consistently enforced would do much to stabilize our local
economy. Although I do not believe that the CNMI has the
capacity to establish and maintain such a program on its own,
not when it cannot at this time effectively provide even the
most basic public services, I do believe that we can and should
participate in the development and implementation of this
program in cooperation with the Federal Government.
I would like to shift now to what is perhaps the most
polarizing aspect of the immigration and labor issue, and that
is the future of long-term non-residents in the CNMI. There are
some who fear that the granting of permanent residency to long-
term non-residents would mean an abrupt mass exodus of our
skilled workforce. And on the other hand, there are those who
worry about the implications of the non-residents staying for
good on the CNMI. In response to concern about the CNMI
suddenly losing its skilled work force, it has been suggested
that qualified long-term non-residents be required to stay in
the CNMI for some period of time before they would be allowed
to move elsewhere. Although that decision will ultimately be up
to Congress, I definitely do not think that it would be the
right thing to do by these long-term members of our community.
If there is work available, if they consider these islands
their home, and are personally committed to staying here, and
if their employers take care of them, these people will stay.
Anyone would stay for that matter; citizen, permanent resident,
or otherwise.
But suppose there is no work, or not enough work, for the
next five years to sustain everyone who would be living here,
what other such circumstances, what good does it do for the
islands to keep anyone shackled here?
Then there is the alternate fear that granting permanent
residency to non-resident workers would result in them staying
in the islands for good and that somehow the indigenous
Chamorro and Carolinian would eventually become a marginalized
people. I do not share these fears. We are indeed already an
incredibly diverse community today compared to what we were 30
years ago, and I don't think that's a bad thing. In addition to
Chamorros and Carolinians, people from all over the world call
our islands home and they bring with them their own skills,
ideas, and cultures. I believe that in this time of crisis,
what we need is to pull together and maximize our resources,
including the talents of all the people.
I also believe that granting permanent residency to long-
term non-residents would lend still more stability to our local
economy, because it would help expand the pool of skilled
resident workers who are already here and are likely to have a
vested interest in our community.
If this measure is coupled with other provisions to address
the economic needs on our current residents, the need for
greater vocational and technical training for example, or for
expanded small business assistance perhaps, I am convinced that
at least some of the fears and attention associated with the
status of long-term non-residents might be alleviated.
And now, I introduce you to the plight of our current
residents. It will be important to consider the needs of our
current residents as much as we do those of our non-residents.
Many of our people have left our islands, and in droves, out of
frustration and aspiration. And the ones who remained on island
have faced gloomier and gloomier prospects and increasingly
limited opportunities. If nothing changes and if the status quo
remains, the Chamorros and Carolinians will be a marginalized
and displaced people. And so indeed, everyone else that calls
this place home.
In closing, I would like to say that I support House
Resolution 3079, because I believe that it fairly balances the
diverse needs and aspirations of all people of the CNMI and
sets the groundwork for finally addressing the immigration and
labor problems that have given rise to an unsustainable economy
and an unjust society. I am glad that in addition to addressing
concerns related to border protection and human rights, this
bill also responds to local appeals for a nonvoting Delegate
and for special provisions concerning guest workers in the
islands.
I hope to see our local government continue to work closely
and constructively with the Federal Government to ensure the
development and implementation of a sound immigration and labor
program for the island that meets both Federal standards as
well as local needs. I also hope that our efforts today signal
the start of a new era of maturity as a self-governing
Commonwealth in union with the United States, and that we
finally begin to seek meaningful and sustainable development
that benefits all our people. Thank you.
Mrs. Christensen. Thank you, Ms. Sablan.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Sablan follows:]
Statement of Tina Sablan
Dear people of the Commonwealth,
In recent months, the immigration, labor, and economic conditions
of the Commonwealth have come under intense federal scrutiny. On
February 8, 2007, the U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources convened an important and eye-opening hearing on our economic
and social situation, and this week, a delegation of Senate staffers
will arrive to conduct further meetings and assessments. This is
certainly not the first time our Commonwealth has fallen under such
vigorous examination. But in this deepening economic and social crisis,
and with the benefit of hindsight, we must now do what we failed to do
before: we must change.
For so long, we have been living in a false and unjust economy that
has hurt all of us--nonresidents, residents, and businesses as well.
For so long, our political and business leaders have defended the
distortions and injustices of our economy and society. For so long, and
against conscience and common sense, we have failed to challenge their
claims. If we are ever to lift ourselves up from the quagmire we have
created, we must fully confront the truth about our situation, and
accept responsibility for our mistakes.
The truth is that much of our economic and social woes can be
traced to our dysfunctional immigration and labor system. The truth is
that raising our immigration and labor system to meet federal standards
would help us all in the long run. The truth is that freely abiding by
these federal standards would enhance, not threaten, our capacity for
effective self-government, and would honor the Covenant that many of us
hold dear.
For far too long, we, the people of this Commonwealth, have
trampled upon the spirit and intent of the Covenant, and abused our
powers to manage our own affairs, especially with respect to
immigration and minimum wage. Local control over these issues was a
temporary privilege that was granted to the Commonwealth out of concern
for our developing economy and vulnerable local culture. But upon
receiving that license, what did we do?
Instead of carefully building an economy at a rate and scale that
was appropriate for our islands, we launched into a poorly planned,
hyper-accelerated program of growth that far outpaced the development
of local infrastructure and ravaged our natural environment. Instead of
prudently restricting the entry of large numbers of immigrants like we
said we would, we threw open the floodgates. Between 1980 and 1999, the
Commonwealth posted the highest population growth rate in the world, a
staggering 373.4% increase, from 16,800 people to nearly 80,000. This
population growth was due primarily to the entry of tens of thousands
of temporary foreign workers taking up jobs in the private sector, and
especially in the labor-intensive garment industry.
As we all know, our immigration and labor system lacked the
institutional capacity and political will to properly control the
overwhelming flow of immigrants. It failed to adequately screen for
health concerns and criminal backgrounds; to monitor effectively for
illegal overstays; to safeguard the workers against exploitation and
abuse; and to adequately protect job opportunities for the U.S. citizen
resident population. We see the results of this ineffective immigration
and labor program and the failures of our government all around us
today. They impact everyone.
Presently, the majority of people living in the Commonwealth belong
to a class of ``temporary'' foreign workers occupying permanent jobs in
the private sector. No matter how long they live here, paying taxes,
raising their families, and contributing to the life of the community,
they never attain a political voice, and their social and economic
status is forever precarious. They are easily exploited and easily
ignored. Because they can't vote, and because they occupy a vast
majority of private sector jobs, there is little political will to
raise wages or institute far-reaching reforms to create a healthier and
more sustainable private sector.
Meanwhile, with private sector wages depressed across the board and
a minimum wage that has languished for years at a meager $3.05 an hour,
U.S. citizen residents find themselves with limited opportunities to
make a viable living in the Commonwealth. Unable to secure decent
livelihoods in the private sector, many residents look for work in the
government--where wages are higher, and where there is greater
political will to provide jobs in order to secure favorable votes in
the next election. Other readily available alternatives for residents
include welfare, theft, gambling, and drugs. Our expanding welfare
rolls, rising crime rates, and increasing numbers of families destroyed
by poker addiction and drugs, are sad testimonies to that fact. Faced
with such choices, it is no wonder so many residents choose to leave.
It is also no wonder that our government is so chronically bloated
and ineffective, prone as it is to the political pressures of residents
in need of jobs who may or may not have the necessary qualifications.
Combine big government with fiscal mismanagement and widespread
incompetence and we get a massive government deficit and failed public
services and infrastructure--in short, exactly what we see today.
Businesses suffer, too, in this dysfunctional economy, especially
businesses with a vested interest in the community. They suffer because
they pay taxes to support a bloated government that continues to
provide inadequate public services. They also suffer because their pool
of qualified, hard-working resident workers shrinks with a
deteriorating economy. Businesses that complain about residents who
``don't want to work'' and who lack necessary skills fail to see the
whole picture. Talented, industrious, and qualified residents have left
the islands in droves and they are taking up many of the same jobs that
are occupied by foreign workers here. Those residents do want to work--
they just don't want to work for artificially low wages and they want
to be able to support themselves and their families.
What kind of development have we been pursuing in the Commonwealth,
and what has it done for us? Yes, hundreds of millions of dollars in
garment and tourism revenues and federal aid have flowed through our
government and economy over the years--but where did the money go? What
did we do with it? How much have we squandered, and how much more have
we given away in public land, overly generous tax breaks, and viable
jobs that could have been filled by residents? In 2005 alone we lost
$114,000,000 in guest worker remittances--how much more are we losing
now, in remittances and also in the personal savings that are being
taken out by foreign workers and residents leaving the islands, and in
the capital that is being siphoned out to foreign business interests?
If the Commonwealth is such a miracle of economic development as some
have claimed, why are our public schools, hospital, sewer systems,
electric and water utilities, environment, and public health still
floundering?
One can blame external factors only so much. Yes, the September 11
attacks, the SARS epidemic, the Asian economic crisis, the pullout of
Japan Airlines, and the changes in global trade rules all had
significant impacts on our economy. But externalities are a fact of
life, and they affect other places too. Economies that aren't resilient
enough to begin with have the most difficulty recovering, as we in the
Commonwealth know painfully well.
There is no time like the present to choose a dramatically
different, more sustainable course of development. But to do that, we
must move forward from the personal interests, political rhetoric, and
fears that have been distracting us from the truth about our current
situation, and we must decisively abandon the status quo.
Let us move forward from reactionary attacks against people like
Ms. Lauri Ogumoro, Sister Stella Mangona, and Ms. Kayleen Entena, who
testified truthfully about their firsthand knowledge of social
injustice in our Commonwealth. For their courage and honesty, and their
calls for social awakening and reform, these individuals (and the many
others who came before them) deserve our deepest respect and gratitude.
Let us also move forward from the rhetoric of ``federal takeover.''
The calls for secession and the inflammatory accusations of political
vendettas being wielded against us and federal legislation being
``shoved down our throats'' do us far more harm than good. Furthermore,
since the beginning of the Commonwealth, there has been, and continues
to be, extensive dialogue between our local representatives and the
federal government--in hearings, in correspondence, in 902 talks, and
other official discussions. If we have any issues with the results of
all the discussions and meetings that have taken place over the years,
the people we should take to task are our own leaders who have for so
long and on our taxpayer dollars defended a status quo that has failed
us all.
Even the passionate calls to defend the Covenant and protect our
right of self-government are misguided, however sincere in intentions
they might be. The Covenant is not truly at risk except by our own
abuses, and in the first place, local control over immigration and
minimum wage was never negotiated to be a permanent privilege. Besides,
the Commonwealth already abides by numerous federal laws, including
those pertaining to labor (with the exception of minimum wage), the
environment, airport security, and banking, and our right of self-
determination remains intact. Clearly, it is possible--and, indeed,
necessary for the good of the Commonwealth--to freely embrace a new
program of immigration and labor that meets federal standards and
provides adequate protections for all the people who live here. It
might be a painful transition, but we can and should be part of the
process of determining the best course of transition for the
Commonwealth.
Now is the time to finally take responsibility for the crisis we
have created and acknowledge that there are real and profound problems
with our economy and society. Let us begin to right those pervasive and
systemic wrongs by accepting the necessity of federal standards for
immigration and labor and maturely engaging in talks with the federal
government to decide how to apply those standards for the greater good
of the Commonwealth. Let us also recreate our long-term vision for our
islands. What kind of community do we want for ourselves and our
families? How can we achieve good governance, social justice, and
economic renewal in our Commonwealth? In addressing these vital
questions, we prove ourselves worthy of both self-government and U.S.
citizenship, and set ourselves and future generations on a new path
towards a resilient and sustainable economy, and a freer, more
prosperous society.Tina Sablan
FORUM #4--March 29, 2007 (Immigration & Labor Reform)
Venue: Northern Marianas College, Room D-1
Time: 6:30pm--8:30pm
# of people: approximately 70
Facilitators: Patricia Coleman & Brooke Nevitt
Notetaker: Tina Sablan
Timekeeper: Martha Mendiola
Format: Ground rules were reviewed and agreed upon; forum
participants also agreed to set time limits for speakers to five
minutes. Historical overview of the immigration and labor issue was
presented by long-time resident, social scientist, and NMC instructor,
Mr. Samuel McPhetres (15min), followed by open forum on immigration and
labor reform (1.75hr).
VIEWS OF POLITICIANS
It was noted that many politicians have expressed alarm over the
prospects of federalized immigration, and have said that such a
possibility could spell economic disaster for the CNMI. Forum
participants asked what basis politicians have for these claims. What
evidence is there that the CNMI economy would actually get worse than
it already is as a result of immigration and labor reforms? Is it
possible that the CNMI might actually be better off in the long run?
Some forum participants suggested that the root of many
politicians' fears is that federalized immigration would result in the
extension of voting rights to nonresidents, and that this scenario
could spell the end of their political careers.
It was said the only politicians who have anything to worry about
are the ones not doing their jobs. It was also said that a non-
indigenous politician who does his job well and has the interests of
the community at heart is far more preferable to an indigenous
politician who doesn't do his job at all.
FUTURE OF NONRESIDENT WORKERS
It was noted that there has been a great deal of concern expressed
by some in the community about whether or not green cards should be
issued in the CNMI if federalization of immigration takes place, and if
so, to whom and under what circumstances. The green card issue has had
a polarizing effect on the community. It was suggested that alternative
programs be considered to shift some of the polarization (i.e., a
``blue card,'' or some other modified program for long-term nonresident
workers living in the CNMI).
Enfranchisement of nonresident workers was also raised for
discussion. Some forum participants objected to nonresident workers
having any prospect of citizenship or voting rights in the CNMI because
these rights were never promised to them. Guest workers come into the
CNMI with the full understanding that they are here for jobs on a
temporary basis, not for permanent settlement.
Other participants said that nonresident workers who have lived
here for years, raising their families, paying taxes, and contributing
to the community are in fact part of the community and have a stake in
the CNMI's future--don't they deserve a greater political voice?
FUTURE OF DEMOCRACY
Participants expressed concern about the state of democracy in the
CNMI when only a minority of the population (i.e., residents) have a
political voice, and make decisions that affect the majority of the
population (i.e., nonresidents). Many long-term nonresidents consider
the CNMI their home, and yet they have no prospects for a political
voice.
It was noted, however, that there are democratic mechanisms that
nonresidents can and do use, even though they do not have the right to
vote--they are organizing themselves more effectively and becoming much
more visible and vocal members of the community. People can still
participate in democratic processes even though they're not citizens.
JOB OPPORTUNITIES FOR RESIDENTS
Forum participants expressed great concern about limited job
opportunities for residents. Some participants suggested that certain
jobs should be reserved only for residents, particularly higher-paying
jobs in the service industry. It was also said that the Nonresident
Workers Act has never been properly enforced, nor local preference
laws, nor the Fair Compensation Act. The Public Auditor's job audit of
the private sector was described as an important measure for
identifying which jobs in the private sector are available and
desirable for residents, and what skill sets are required. It was also
said that the experience, training, and aspirations of residents should
be studied carefully, so that individuals are matched with compatible
jobs.
Other forum participants objected to the notion of classifying jobs
for residents vs. nonresidents and asked what basis there was for such
a classification. Who decides which jobs are better than others for
residents, and how is that decision made? Isn't any honest job a good
job? It was noted that jobs in the CNMI are closely tied to ethnicity
and nationality, and that there was a time when residents occupied jobs
in every sector and at various levels. Participants asked, when did
that change? When did residents move out of the private sector and why?
And why is unemployment so high among residents when there are tens of
thousands of guest workers?
One participant pointed out that certain nationalities are
sometimes targeted for certain positions, especially if there are high
numbers of people with specific desired skill sets from those
particular countries.
It was noted that job vacancy announcements in the papers often
advertise unattractive wages for residents (usually the minimum $3.05/
hr) are often not commensurate to the jobs (many of which are
professional-level). It was also noted that many announcements are only
formalities, and the position being announced is actually intended for
renewal for a nonresident worker already in place. Such jobs often pay
more than is advertised; the low wages are intended to dissuade
residents from applying. The Department of Labor does not cross check
the wages that are announced in the papers versus the wages that are
ultimately actually paid to nonresident workers.
Participants also said that it may simply be a fact of life that
not every job will be desirable to every resident, but very low wages
will ensure that few jobs will be desirable at all to any resident.
HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT
Forum participants observed that some fears about federalization
center on concerns that the Chamorros and Carolinians will become an
``endangered species'' in the islands--that is, that all the
nonresident workers will be granted citizenship or green cards. It was
said that people with such fears should not only consider that
federalization does not necessarily and automatically grant
citizenship, but also see that the real root of their fears lies in the
failure of the government to truly invest in education and human
resource development, which are the keys to economic development. As
long as it remains so easy to import cheap labor, education and human
resource development for residents will continue to be neglected, and
the CNMI will continue to be dependent on imported foreign workers.
It was also said that those people who feel threatened by the
diversity of the community should change their mindsets and see a
challenge to which they could rise. People should not be hired on the
basis of their Chamorro or Carolinian heritage (or any ethnicity, for
that matter), but for their qualifications. Hiring on the basis of
qualifications forces people to invest more seriously in education and
professional development, and to compete more effectively in the job
market.
It was also said that education has never truly been a priority in
the history of the CNMI, despite the claims of some politicians. Higher
education has always been treated as a luxury, and this mentality has
severely limited economic development and progress.
Several participants expressed pity for younger generations and
asked, what opportunities do young people really have in the CNMI?
Students are being failed at all levels of the educational system. They
are not given the proper skill sets to pursue higher education or enter
into the workforce here, and there are very limited programs in career
counseling and vocational training. The failure of the school system to
prepare students for jobs in the hospitality sector was cited as an
example. Most schools still do not offer the languages that are spoken
by the CNMI's tourists--Japanese, Chinese, Russian, and Korean, for
instance. Students still cannot pursue hospitality or culinary arts
degrees in the CNMI, and many other fields that would be useful for the
local economy.
Some concerns were expressed about developing residents' work
ethic. One participant said that she heard too many stories about
residents who chronically show up late for work or not at all, who are
unproductive, or miss days of work to attend funerals, etc. Other
participants responded and said that although there are residents who
lack work ethic, there are also many residents who work hard and
conscientiously--and often those are residents who work for companies
or agencies that pay them well. It was also said that there is a need
for employers to be more sensitive to cultural and social needs, and to
provide opportunities for more part-time work.
Finally, it was said that one of the reasons that education and
other key development programs are so poorly funded is because the CNMI
does not have a proper tax system in place, and taxes are too low.
MINIMUM WAGE
Participants suggested that one possible result of raising the
minimum wage is that businesses will tend to rely more on mechanized
processes as opposed to manual labor, because it makes business sense.
It is possible that raising wages in the CNMI will lessen the need for
large numbers of immigrant workers.
It was also said that the discussion of the minimum wage should not
be based on whether or not a family can sustain itself on it. Minimum
wage jobs should be entry-level positions--for students, inexperienced
workers, etc.
BUSINESS ENVIRONMENT
It was noted that immigration and labor conditions in the CNMI have
created an unlevel playing field for businesses here. High-quality
businesses with a vested interest in the community who want to train
and hire residents and pay them well must compete with other businesses
with little long-term interest in the community, who want to pay the
lowest wages possible, and therefore will bring in the cheapest workers
they can. The immigration system makes it easy to bring in large
numbers of cheap workers.
It was said that the CNMI needs to develop its small businesses and
entrepreneurs. Where are the dried mango producers, the coconut candy
kiosks, and canoe ride tours to Managaha (to name a few possibilities)?
Forum participants pointed out that assistance for aspiring small
business owners is very limited here--loans are extremely difficult to
come by, for example, including loans from the Commonwealth Development
Authority, and most legislation is designed to help only big
businesses.
It was also noted that in the past, local immigration laws have
been used to build up industries like the garment industry, but there
is no need to continue in this vein. Now that the garment industry is
exiting the CNMI, this is a good time to build more sustainable
industries, such as education and tourism, and maximize the advantages
that the CNMI still has (i.e., location, U.S.-affiliation, etc).
TOURISM
Much concern was expressed over the future of the tourism industry
in the CNMI if federal immigration laws are applied. Will the CNMI lose
access to Korean, Chinese, and Russian markets, which have helped bring
some relief to the loss of Japanese tourists the CNMI has experienced?
It was suggested that the federal government might have political
concerns with the CNMI providing tourist visas to Russian, Korean, and
Chinese nationals. One forum participant asked, ``How is the CNMI going
to meet the governor's stated goal of 1-million tourists in four
years?'' Another forum participant suggested that perhaps the 1-million
tourist goal should be revisited. One million tourists might not even
be desirable, and perhaps there are more meaningful goals to set for
the CNMI's tourism industry.
Some forum participants questioned the fear that has been
expressed, that federalized immigration will destroy the CNMI's tourism
industry. It was pointed out that Guam and Hawaii observe federal
immigration laws, and tourism in both locales is booming.
EDUCATION INDUSTRY
It was said that the CNMI has great potential for being the center
of the education industry between the U.S. and Asian countries--
especially for training Certified Public Accountants and nurses from
Asia (particularly China and the Philippines). More schools are
receiving certification to bring in students from foreign countries to
train to become CPAs, or to take the U.S. licensure exam for nurses.
Such programs are not only attractive to foreign students, but also for
residents interested in pursuing such careers.
Another advantage of the education industry is that it can help
support the CNMI's needs for certain skilled workers--i.e., for nurses
and accountants. It was said that foreign-born nurses who are educated
in the CNMI may soon also have the opportunity to work here.
IMMIGRATION AND LABOR LAW ENFORCEMENT
It was said that the CNMI government has made positive strides
towards improving enforcement of immigration and labor law. Labor
violations are investigated and resolved more quickly than in the past,
and there are fewer cases of immigration violations (i.e., overstays)
than some people might think.
On the other hand, forum participants stated that they believed
there are simply too many unemployed nonresidents living in the CNMI,
moonlighting for various jobs--all on valid entry permits. How did they
get those permits, and why are they allowed to stay if there are no
jobs available for them?
It was said that it is time for everyone in the community to face
the reality that the CNMI has not done a good job of managing
immigration and labor--otherwise, there would be no need for a forum.
It was also said that many of the problems we face in the CNMI are due
to failed leadership, and that people should vote more wisely this
year.
BORDER SECURITY
Concern was expressed about the security of the CNMI's borders
against criminal elements (i.e., organized crime; drug smuggling; human
trafficking). It was said that relative to other U.S. jurisdictions,
the CNMI at least enjoys excellent cooperative relationships among its
law enforcement agencies, and fewer security concerns because the CNMI
is remote, and there are no potential terrorist targets here (i.e., a
military base). It was also said that the CNMI enjoys protection by the
Coast Guard.
It was also said that neither local nor federalized immigration is
a guarantee of more secure borders, but that if federalization should
happen, it should not be a cookie-cutter policy that does not take into
consideration local circumstances. Rules that work in California, for
example, may not apply so well in the CNMI.
FEDERAL RELATIONS
Some forum participants expressed the belief that federalized
immigration is inevitable whether people like it or not. What the CNMI
should do at this point is find ways to participate in the drafting of
any legislation that would be extended to the islands, to ensure that
the legislation considers local needs and circumstances. The CNMI need
not be adversarial in its relationship with the federal government, and
it is possible to pursue a mutually cooperative relationship that will
allow continued access to tourists and foreign students; screen out
criminal elements; conduct better health checks; enhance border
security; and close any loopholes that compromise the welfare of
workers, both residents and nonresidents.
Other forum participants expressed a distrust that the federal
government will be able to develop an effective and appropriate
``hybridized'' immigration system. Disappointment over the U.S.
Congress' recent characterization of the CNMI as criminals, and the
belief that the CNMI was being used as a political pawn, were also
expressed.
Participants also said that the CNMI should have official
representation in the U.S. Congress.
______
Mrs. Christensen. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Cruz for
five minutes.
STATEMENT OF GREGORIO CRUZ, PRESIDENT,
TAOTAO TANO CNMI ASSOCIATION, INC.
Mr. Cruz. Thank you, Chairwoman. Hafa Adai, Honorable
Chairwoman Donna Christensen, Members of the Committee, Mr.
Faleomavaega. My name is Gregorio Sanchez Cruz, Jr., and I am
the President of the Taotao Tano CNMI Association Incorporated.
We would like to take this opportunity to extend our sincere
gratitude and honor to testify on this important piece of
legislation, H.R. 3079, to amend the Joint Resolution Approving
the Covenant to Establish a Commonwealth for the Northern
Mariana Islands. Madam Chairwoman, our home island is faced
with economic and fiscal challenges, including social
breakdowns. We have been addressing these issues with our
government, our legislative lawmakers, the public, and with
respective Federal agencies, specifically, with the Office of
Insular Affairs.
Madam Chairwoman, we the local indigenous people in the
Northern Mariana Islands acknowledge--I am kind of nervous--
that the negative outweighs the positive in our current state.
Our CNMI leaders have failed us in many ways and their failures
have caused great harm. This is apparent. Otherwise we, the
people of the CNMI, will not be suffering to this day, and I
say this with great confidence. Their mismanagement,
miscalculations, and unaccountability are the very reason we
are in this predicament. It is a shame that these are our
leaders whom we entrusted to deliver and serve in our best
interest. They have failed to prioritize this daunting issue
over our local labor and immigration system for so many years.
Presently, the quality of life on our home island continues
to shift downward. Unemployment is high, commodities are
expensive, fuel prices are high, utility rates are outrageous,
while high employment rate is high and the minimum wages is
low. Public schools are overcrowded, public services are low,
healthcare is unaffordable, and Government retirement fund is
collapsing, withdrawals of medical health insurance--I mean,
early withdrawals, early withdrawals in retirement. Indeed,
many of our people are moving off island to greener pastures,
and the overall outlook of our economic condition is
detrimental for our well-being and stability of our island.
The administration's defiance and denial that they can pull
our island out of this economic crisis is none but
disheartening. We disagree with the administration's stand on
the Federalization of our labor and immigration, including the
Attorney General's defiance on the asylum refugee issue. This
is a clear, blatant ignorance toward the people of the NMI, and
the Federal Government, and their ethics and conduct is in
question. The late submission of a fiscal budget is also a
clear indication of failure in fiduciary duty. Additional
closure of garment factories, decline in visitor arrivals,
government revenues declined, and the 20 percent rule of hiring
the locals enforced at a critical time is a complete failure.
Still this administration's optimistic and they have a recovery
plan. Their recovery plan is going to take years in the making
while our people continue to suffer and are fast becoming
extinct by leaving their home island.
Madam Chairwoman, currently there is a 10 percent reduction
in government payrolls, including in budget cuts, and a
likelihood of continuance next year, but the administration is
still optimistic. The administration and the business sector
oppose the newly installed Federal minimum wage, which we all
believe was long overdue. Our elected leaders then and now had
the opportunity to correct what we were wrong years ago but did
nothing to address or rectify this forthcoming. The
government's dependency on hiring lobbyist after lobbyist to
bail our island out and keep the minimum wage down is pure
self-interest. Hired lobbyists live lavishly on NMI taxpayers'
money, and for years they have been in business earning
thousands and thousands each year while the common people, such
as myself, earn $3.05 per hour, and we were barely surviving
everyday living expenses.
The influx of thousands of non-resident workers has
supplanted our local workforce in the private sector, which
could create an unsustainable economy. This is a result of
miscalculations and failures of our past and present leadership
of not implementing an economic impact study years before. The
lack of proper funding and priority for our educational system
and the implementation of a technical education in the field of
carpentry, electrical, masonry, plumbing, electronic, A/C
technicians, mechanics, heavy equipment mechanics and operators
has proven devastating to our local workforce. As a result many
of our locals were left unemployed.
Recently while conducting our own research, our
organization, the Taotao Tano, stumbled on a local issue with
our labor and immigration system, which in 1995 our legislative
branch passed a law that would have balanced the issue of
employment benefits----
Mrs. Christensen. Mr. Cruz, I am going to have to ask you
to try--we do have your full record, your full statement on the
record----
Mr. Cruz. Yes.
Mrs. Christensen --including the recommendations so we
could begin to----
Mr. Cruz. OK.
Mrs. Christensen --close up.
Mr. Cruz. All right. I'll continue with that point. All
right. In 1995, our legislature branch passed a law that would
have balanced the issue of employment benefits between local
residents and non-resident guest workers' employment benefits.
Public Law 9-71, entitled ``The Resident Fair Compensation
Act,'' this law was shelved, you know, and to this point, is
still a law. The fees collected from labor and immigration
processing were appropriated to the Northern Marianas College
in support of local resident training in the field of technical
schools--I mean, education. But unfortunately, through our
research we found that this funding was reprogrammed into
tourism and nursing curricular. So, I will skip to the rest and
go right through ahead.
Madam Chairwoman, our silence has proven devastating. We,
the people of the Commonwealth, are now wide awake and armed
with greater knowledge. We, the people, will ensure that our
local control over our labor and immigration are prioritized
and fully addressed. We will no longer sit back and ignore our
elected leaders' failures, for we, the people, the voters, the
taxpayers, voted them in and we can vote them out if these
measures are not addressed and prioritized immediately. It is
time for change and it's time to clean house, Madam Chairwoman.
The future and the destiny of our people are fast
approaching and at stake. There is an urgent need for a course
of action to correct the wrong and protect our indigenous
population from losing the promise of achieving an American
Dream as intended in the Covenant. Our people fear political
and social alienation as well as the loss of our core identity
and existence of our home island.
H.R. 3079, Madam Chairwoman, is a well-thought piece of
legislation, but we would like to point out a few areas of
concerns that----
Mrs. Christensen. And we do have--we're approaching nine
minutes, so I am going have to ask you to hold right there. We
do have your recommendations and all of us up here have heard
and read them and we may get to them on questioning.
Mr. Cruz. Thank you.
Mrs. Christensen. OK? But thank you for your testimony.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Cruz follows:]
Statement of Gregorio Sanchez Cruz Jr., President,
Taotao Tano CNMI Association, Inc.
Good morning and Hafa adai honorable Chairwoman Donna Christensen,
and Members of the Committee welcome to the beautiful island of Saipan.
My name is Gregorio Sanchez Cruz Jr. President of Taotao Tano CNMI
Association Inc. We would like to take this opportunity to extend our
sincere gratitude and honor to testify on of this important piece of
legislation H.R. 3079. To amend the Joint Resolution Approving the
Covenant to Establish a Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Island.
Madam Chairwoman, our home island is faced with economic and fiscal
challenges, including social breakdowns. We have been addressing these
issues with our government, legislative lawmakers, the public, and with
respective Federal agencies, specifically with the Office of Insular
affairs.
Madam Chairwoman, we the local indigenous people of the Northern
Mariana Islands acknowledge that the negative outweighs the positive in
our current state. Our CNMI leaders have failed us in many ways and
their failures has cause great harm; this is apparent, otherwise we,
the people of the CNMI, would not be suffering to this day and I say
this with great confidence. Their mismanagements, miscalculations, and
unaccountability are the very reason we are in this predicament. It is
a shame that these are our leaders whom we entrusted to deliver and
serve in our best interest. They have failed to prioritize this
daunting issue of our local labor and immigration system for so many
years.
Presently the quality of life on our home island continues to shift
downward. Unemployment rate is high, commodities are expensive, fuel
prices are high, utility rates are outrageous while high unemployment
rate is high and minimum wage low. As a result of this economic
deficiencies and social decays, public services are low, public schools
system is overcrowded, healthcare is unaffordable, and Government
retirement fund is collapsing, withdrawals of medical health insurance,
early withdrawals on retirement. Indeed, many of our people are moving
off island to greener pastures, and the overall outlook of our economic
condition is detrimental to our well-being and stability of our island.
The administration's defiance and denial that they can pull our
island out of this economic crisis is none but disheartening. We
disagree with the administration's stance on the federalization of our
Labor and Immigration, including the Attorney Generals defiance on the
asylum refugee issue; a clear blatant ignorance towards the people of
the NMI and the federal government and his ethics and conduct is
questionable. Delayed submission of a Fiscal Budget is also a clear
indication of failure in fiduciary duty, additional closure of garment
factories, decline in visitor arrivals, government revenues declining,
and the 20% rule of hiring locals just enforced at a critical time is a
complete failure. Still the administration is optimistic and they have
a recovery plan. Their recovery plan is going to take years in the
making while our People continue to suffer and are fast becoming
extinct by leaving their home island.
Madam Chairwoman, currently there is 10% percent reduction in
government payrolls, including budget cuts and a likelihood of
continuance next year, but the administration is still optimistic. The
administration and the business sectors opposed the newly installed
federal minimum wage, which we all believe was long overdue. Our
elected leaders then and now had the opportunity to correct what were
wrong years ago but did nothing to address or rectify this forthcoming.
The government's dependency on hiring lobbyist after lobbyist to bail
our island out and keep the minimum wage down is pure self-interest.
Hired Lobbyist, lavished on NMI's taxpayers money and for years they
have been in business, earning thousands each year while the common
people earned $3.05 per hour barely surviving everyday living expenses.
The influx of thousands of non-resident guest workers has
supplanted our local work force in the private sector, which created an
unsustainable economy. This is a result of miscalculations and failures
of our past and present leadership of not implementing an economic
impact study years before. The lack of proper funding and priority of
our educational system and implementation of a technical education in
the field of Carpentry, Electrical, Masonry, Plumbing, Electronics, A/C
technicians, Mechanics, Heavy equipments mechanics and operators, has
proven devastating to our local workforce. As a result, many of our
locals were left unemployed.
Recently while conducting our own research, our organization
stumbled on a local issue with our Labor and immigration system. In
1995, our legislative branch passed a law that would have balanced the
issue of employment benefits between local residents and non-resident
guest workers' employment benefits. Public Law 9-71 entitled the--The
Resident Fair Compensation Act of 1995--a law that is still currently
in place as we speak, but never promulgated remained and shelved. The
Fees collected from labor and Immigration Processing were appropriated
to the Northern Marianas College in support of local resident training
in the field of Technical skills but unfortunately funding was
reprogrammed towards Tourism and Nursing curricular.
We, the people of the Northern Mariana Islands, have watched and
witnessed non-resident guest workers conduct massive protests in front
of the Federal Ombudsman and the Horiguchi Federal building complaining
of being discriminated, exploited, forced into prostitution and so
forth. These abuses should not be tolerated but the image painted is
not entirely accurate. Who are these employers? Are they local
businessmen? No Madam Chairwoman, no local resident owns a garment
factory, a prostitution ring, or illegal gambling operations. They are
solely owned by foreigners. Their own people abused their own; their
abusive and exploitative practice has created the most disastrous image
to our Commonwealth. However, these non resident guest workers should
not demand citizenship. They have gone so far in their reasoning for
citizenship to even include the use of children and religion as their
front line is injustice.
In the early 1990's, an incident with one of the Garment factories
concerning labor abuse issues surfaced and was televised nationwide.
This garment factory paid a substantial amount of fines in the
millions. However, the scars remained. It gave our island a permanent
reputation from being a beautiful tropical destination, to an island
Paradise of abusers. Since then, foreigners have been using these past
issues to build a case to gain status, special treatments or prolong
their stay in the Northern Mariana Island and we must end this type of
abuses of our local labor and immigration system. It is unquestionable
that our local officials have mismanaged our labor and immigration to
the detriment of the people of the NMI. A federal takeover is not a
solution which will automatically award U.S. resident status to a
select group of non-resident guest workers, solely based on the number
of years spent in the Northern Mariana Islands. Such a proposal,
without a more careful review can only lead to a greater detriment to
our island. The United States must recognize the potential risks and
problems if this was implemented.
We believe this Federalization issue is nothing other than National
Security, especially with the Military build-up on the island of Guam.
All do respect madam Chairwoman, our island is not a stepping stone.
The United States government has a system in place concerning
applications to citizenship. There are steps and procedures that have
to be followed to gain lawful citizenship and our weaknesses and
loopholes of our local labor and Immigration system is not an excuse
for anyone to take advantage and abuse. We, the people, recommend an
advisory mechanism established to work alongside our local labor and
immigration to foster a stronger and effective boarder control. Funding
is essential to enforce a stronger and stringent boarder control and
policy, an area of great importance for which our local government
failed to recognize and prioritize for years until recent.
Madam Chairwoman, our silence has proven devastating. We, the
people of the Commonwealth, are now wide-awake and armed with greater
knowledge. We, the people, will ensure that our local control of our
labor and immigration are prioritized and fully addressed. We will no
longer sit back and ignore our elected leaders failures, for we the
people, the voters, the taxpayers voted them in and we can vote them
out if this measures are not addressed and prioritized immediately. It
is time for a change and time to clean the house.
The future and destiny of our people are fast approaching and at
stake. There is an urgent need for a course of action to correct the
wrong and protect our indigenous population from losing the promise of
achieving the American Dream as intended in the Covenant. Our people
fear political and social alienation as well as the loss of our core
identity and existence of our home island.
Madam Chairwoman H.R. 3079 is a well thought piece of legislation,
but we would like to point out a few, concerns and request;
1. We the people of the CNMI request a consideration of a STAY on
this federalization issue of our local control on Labor and Immigration
for we the people are as much victims of our past and present
leadership mismanagements.
2. We acknowledge the non-residents guest worker contributions to
our economy, infrastructures and development of our Commonwealth. Both
the Commonwealth and non-resident workers have benefited financially
and socially. Our Commonwealth must begin working toward self
sufficiency in the workforce and someday we will no longer be dependent
on the non-resident workers.
3. Sec. 6 (a) Immigration and Transition of H.R. 3079 calls for a
1 yr. Transition after date of enactment is a challenge and we the
people request a STAY. Mass exodus of non-residents guest workers is of
great concern for it will further cripple our ailing economy including
business establishments closing its doors. Our local work force is
neither fully trained nor skilled in some areas that non-resident guest
workers now occupy. A STAY will ensure that proper steps, procedures
and regulations are promulgated and in place.
4. Sec. 6 (c) ``(2) Family-sponsored Immigrant Visas: There is a
need for compact impact negotiations or study, the local government is
in no position to be shouldering cost of additional sponsored
immigrants, this has been part of our failed economy.
5. Local House Bill 15-38 currently pending addresses some of
these issues. This is a good start towards strengthening our local
labor and immigration system with a few amendments on provisions
required. Enforcement and funding is of a priority in order to move
forward and correct the past issues that have haunted the NMI for
years. Full enforcement of this bill if enacted is of outmost priority
and we the Taotao Tano's fully support this local bill, now with the
senate awaiting passage.
6. Non-Voting Delegate: The CNMI's potential economic development
and growth are critically dependent upon a secure and sound
relationship with the U.S. government. Justice, equality, and fairness
for the people of the CNMI demand that we have representation in the
U.S. Congress equal to those of other U.S. Territories, for the CNMI is
the only self-governing commonwealth of the United States that does not
have a Non-Voting Delegate to the United States House of
Representatives.
In closing madam Chairwoman, The Taotao Tano group requests this
sub-committee to recommend to the United States congress what is in the
best interest of the people of the Northern Mariana Island. Whereas
either side will provide results, the realization of H.B. 3079 will
stifle the progress for our self-governance and will continue our
dependency on the United States for support. On the other hand, the
extension for a STAY on H.B. 3079 will provide us the opportunity to
learn from our own mistakes and the Taotao Tano members have awaken to
watch any undesirable leadership. We the Commonwealth have gone through
the tough times and the journey we have taken has taught us a great
lesson. Allow us to get back to the path that leads to self governance
and sufficiency that is consistent with the intention of the Covenant.
Thank you, Si Yu'us Ma'ase, and Olomwaay.
______
Mrs. Christensen. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Sagana for
five minutes.
STATEMENT OF BONIFACIO SAGANA, PRESIDENT,
THE DEKADA MOVEMENT, INC
Mr. Sagana. Chairwoman Christensen, Congresswoman Bordallo,
Honorable Committee Members, distinguished staffers and others
in attendance. It is a distinct honor and privilege to be
allowed to appear here before this distinguished committee and
I speak on behalf of long-term alien residents of the
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands and, particularly,
the organization of which I am President, the Dekada Movement,
Inc. If I go a little over my time with this then I hope the
Committee will give me some leeway.
Dekada was born over three years ago out of frustration of
long-term alien contract workers in the CNMI labor and
immigration, a system that failed to recognize these years of
economic productivity, ties to the Commonwealth, and the
contribution to the community, subjecting them instead to the
uncertainty of annual renewals, the vagaries of constantly
shifting labor and immigration regime more characteristic of
cruel individuals than of workers and effectively indentured to
their employers.
Today, Dekada truly is a movement. Not just an organization
with the word movement in its name. It is my honor and
privilege today as the one representative of foreign contract
workers invited to testify, to also recognize and speak in
behalf of other organizations that have now joined Dekada in
the quest to improve the status and working condition. And I am
proud to convey the support for the Human Dignity Act Movement,
the Filipino Contract Workers Association and the Multi-
Sectoral Overseas Workers Movement for this legislation, and
the greetings and appreciation of these organizations and their
members to the Committee.
We find it particularly fitting that this hearing is taking
place in the CNMI House of Justice for what--for that is what
we seek justice and status commensurate with our place in the
community. The Dekada Movement is backed by more than 4,000
Filipinos, Bangladeshis, Nepalese, Thais, Chinese, Korean, Sri
Lankans, and Indians and others who have been lawfully living
and working in the CNMI for five years or more. We also have
the support of many U.S. citizen residents. The CNMI is
probably the most cosmopolitan place in the entire world. Over
30 different nationalities live together peaceably here
providing incredible cultural diversity and richness to these
islands.
Attorney Joe Hill has served the CNMI, he stands as a
living testament to the Martin Luther King dream of racial
harmony and diversity. He is the harvest wreath for the long-
term alien workers, investors, business people and immediate
relatives who have made the CNMI their home and sown their
energy and talents here.
Unfortunately, most of the CNMI political leadership does
not recognize our contribution. It is not sensitive to our
needs. It is blind to fairness and humanity, even
internationally recognized principles of human rights. This is
because we are the minoritarian majority, with no vote to hold,
(audible but unintelligible) are indifferent to our interest.
Dekada strongly supports H.R. 3079, but we also seek
improvements. Support for Federalization has not always been
our position. In June 19, 2005, we published a position paper
in the Saipan Tribune, at the time we're for minimum wage
increase, but against Federalization of minimum wage. We sought
green cards for long-term alien residents of CNMI, but we're
opposed to overall Federalization of immigration.
We called the local government to address this issue. On
March 25, 2006, we wrote to Governor Fitial with a specific
proposal of local legislation to provide improved status for
long-term alien residents. Although CNMI political leaders
promised us support, to support, there was no action taken,
ever, even though our proposal would have produced substantial
additional revenue to the cash-strapped CNMI government. Thus
it became clear that the only way out of stagnation, with
change and progress, was through the Federal Government and we
came out in support of Federalization of minimum wage and
Federalization of the CNMI immigration system.
We find arguments against this legislation to be
insubstantial, often contrived, as it becomes clear the
Federalization and Federal improvement of status of long-term
alien residents a real possibility, there has been a far
(audible but unintelligible). Fears that were never voiced
before announced but apologize for the status quo. Suddenly
it's a no longer ``you go home'' but worry that all workers
given improved status will leave. Organizations no one has ever
seen or heard before line up with certain politicians to
attempt to create an impression of wise predissension (sic) or
in a position to Federalization. But the reality on the street
is mostly support, when it's straight up and down, both
Federalization wins. From my experience, impression, and
observation, I believe that a majority of U.S. citizens they
found support Federalization and so does a very large
proportion of indigenous Chamorro and Carolinian population, if
not the majority.
Here are some of the improvements that we recommend. We
continue to believe that long-term alien residents of Saipan
should get admitted to U.S. lawful permanent residency, with
the grant of citizenship should they choose it, rather than the
local non-immigrant status proposed by the bill. Given current
economic condition in CNMI, this status shall be granted
without necessity of meeting the current income requirements.
If the Congress is not prepared to grant this status to the
entire class of long-term alien residents of the CNMI, it
should grant it to at least the following groups: parents of
U.S. citizen children, long-term alien resident of 10 years or
more, foreign workers with uncollected labor awards or poor
judgment in their favor, long-term alien residents with
marriage of long duration ultimately ending unfortunately with
divorce or death of the spouse without ever having obtained
lawful U.S. permanent residency.
The status should be provided to all long-term alien
residents not just foreign workers. Especially provision needs
to be made for individuals and immediate relative status under
CNMI immigration system, and better provision needs to be made
for foreign investor and business permit holders.
Provisions should be made for admission of immediate
relatives of individuals granted locally non-immigrant status
by the bill. As H.R. 3079 is presently drafted, existing CNMI
immigration rules actually are more preferable in spec. Special
provision will be inside long-term immigrant terms and instead
granted immigrant status of U.S. lawful foreign resident.
Current rules for admission of immediate relatives of Federal
resident under the INA would be adequate in that event.
Mrs. Christensen. Mr. Sagana, you're over 7 minutes, so
could you wrap up, please.
Mr. Sagana. H.R. 3079 is not a perfect bill, but is that
can be achieved at this time. We don't disagree for its
enactment. This bill, even in its present form, is a huge step
in the right direction toward fairness and justice, toward free
labor markets, toward improved economic productivity, toward
restoring confidences in CNMI business environment. H.R. 3079
is an urgent need. We look forward to its passage as a priority
for the current Congress. Thank you for the opportunity to
testify. I'll be happy to do my best to answer any question
that the Committee may have.
Mrs. Christensen. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Sagana follows:]
Statement of Bonifacio V. Sagana, President,
The Dekada Movement, Inc.
Chairwoman Christensen, Honorable Committee Members, Distinguished
Staffers and Others in Attendance. It is a distinct honor and privilege
to be allowed to appear here before this distinguished committee and
speak on behalf of long-term alien residents of the Commonwealth of the
Northern Mariana Islands and, particularly, the organization of which I
am President, The Dekada Movement, Inc.
When I speak of DEKADA, I am speaking of our organization, but I am
also speaking of something more. For DEKADA truly is a movement, not
just an organization with the word ``movement'' in its name.
It is my honor and privilege today, as the one representative of
foreign contract workers invited to testify, to also recognize and
speak on behalf of other organizations that have now joined Dekada in
the quest for improved status and working conditions. I am proud to
convey the support of the Human Dignity Act Movement, the Filipino
Contract Workers Association, Inc. (Pilco), and the Multi-Sectoral
Overseas Workers Movement (MOVER) for this legislation, and the
greetings and appreciation of these organizations and their members to
the Committee.
DEKADA was born of the frustration of long-term alien contract
workers with a CNMI labor and immigration system that failed to
recognize their years of economic productivity, ties to the
commonwealth, and contributions to the community, subjecting them
instead to the uncertainty of annual renewals and effectively
indentured to their employers.
In early 2004, a group of Filipino workers, taking heart in remarks
by a prominent local official reported in the February 27, 2004
Marianas Variety, began a signature campaign for permanent residency,
also known as the Isang Dekada Movement. Board of Education member and
President of the 1985 and 1995 Northern Marianas Constitutional
Conventions Herman T. Guerrero (brother of current Saipan Chamber of
Commerce President Juan T. Guerrero) had observed that workers who had
been living in the CNMI for 15 to 20 years would have already gotten
permanent residency status if they were in the United States. He
stated, ``We need to address this issue. We cannot continue to
disenfranchise them.''
From the signature campaign came an association, and then The
Dekada Movement, Inc. received formal corporate existence on October
12, 2004. From the very earliest days, Dekada counted its members and
supporters at around 3,000 alien workers, although less than a third of
these were formally enrolled as members and fewer still had fully paid
their membership dues and registration fees.
Resistance was swift and opposition vocal. Much of the response was
aimed at weakening Dekada by discouraging alien workers from
contributing financial support to the organization and efforts to
obtain improved status for long-term alien residents of the CNMI.
We were told that Dekada had ``no chance'' of obtaining U.S.
permanent residency, or ``green cards,'' for our members and that the
U.S. Congress could only grant citizenship, not permanent residency.
Dekada's leadership, though our legal counsel, of course knew better,
but it is hard to get the correct information out to the mass of
workers.
Public statements were made cautioning alien workers against giving
money to anyone ``promising'' green cards. Of course, Dekada had always
been careful never to suggest that payment of the registration and
membership fee would assure them of a ``green card.'' It was very clear
that the purpose of the money was to support the quest for improved
immigration and other status for long-term alien residents and that
``green cards'' for long-term alien residents was just one way to
achieve this, one thing (perhaps the most important thing to some) for
which Dekada was campaigning. Many, if not most, of our members and
supporters, however, made it clear that they would be satisfied with an
improved immigration status short of admission to lawful permanent
residency under U.S. immigration laws.
Recently, Dekada was accused (without a shred of evidence to
support it) of orchestrating a text message campaign calling for a
boycott of businesses owned by Chamber of Commerce President Juan T.
Guerrero on account of his opposition to the immigration benefits for
long-term alien contract workers in S. 1634 and H.R. 3079. Individuals
passing on this baseless allegation would say that some alien contract
worker had told them that Dekada was behind the text campaign.
Given the similarity between these false aspersions and other
persistent disinformation campaigns against Dekada, we cannot help but
wonder if the text campaign is not the work of agents provocateur,
carrying it out for the principal purpose of blaming it on Dekada. We
observe that a prominent radio commentator on Saipan uses a similar
tactic of defaming Dekada through ``information'' purportedly provided
by a nameless contract worker source. For example, he has repeated said
on the air that he was told (by this unnamed, alleged contract worker)
that Dekada officers, allegedly on instructions of their legal counsel,
were promising workers ``green cards'' if they would pay $100.
This, of course, was and is absolutely untrue. To the best of the
knowledge of Dekada's officers and counsel, no one associated with
Dekada has ever promised anyone a ``green card'' (with or without
payment). Dekada has always been very clear about the purpose of the
$100 combined registration fee and membership dues: to pursue improved
status for long-term alien residents of the CNMI.
Even the Department of the Interior's Office of the Labor Ombudsman
has been affected by these unwarranted derogatory insinuations. Not
long ago that office established a ``hot line'' for workers to report
anyone promising ``green cards'' in return for a payment of money. This
misguided action naturally suggested there might be some merit to the
spurious allegations being spread about Dekada. It is telling that the
``hot line'' never received even a single report of someone promising
``green cards'' for money. Instead, the hot line was flooded with calls
from people wanting to know when federalization would occur and how and
when they might be able to apply for an improved immigration status.
Today, over three and a half years after its inception, the DEKADA
movement is backed by more than 4,000 Filipinos, Bangladeshis,
Nepalese, Chinese, Koreans, Sri Lankans, Indian, Japanese and others
who have been lawfully living and working in the CNMI for five years or
more. They are individuals who have become part of the community,
forming and raising families here, whose ``born in the CNMI'' children
have never known any other home, and who daily are lending their backs
and hands, minds, skills, talents, experience, and energies to the
social, religious, cultural, and economic life of the Northern Mariana
Islands and forming pillars that help support the CNMI economy and keep
it alive, strong, and vibrant.
That is the way we were able to describe our role back in March of
2005. Today it will be more accurate to speak of our desire and
critical place in restoring the strength and vibrancy to the CNMI
economy.
Passage of H.R. 3079 is imperative. The bill is acceptable in its
present form but still can be improved substantially. This legislation
should be made a top priority for the current Congress, finalized and
passed as soon as possible.
The CNMI economy cannot begin the road to recovery until certainty
and stability in the area of labor and immigration make it possible for
businesses to reliably forecast future risks and make confident
business decisions to enter, remain, expand, and invest in the Northern
Mariana Islands. The current bureaucratic morass of vacillating laws,
regulations, policies, and practices must be replaced with labor market
in which all workers, citizen and non-citizen, can freely market their
skills and economic productivity is maximized both in terms of return
to labor and business efficiency. In short, because H.R. 3079 can do a
great deal to meet this need, it is good for labor (both indigenous and
foreign of long residency) and good for business.
We recognize that some businesses oppose this legislation,
particularly certain big businesses and businesses with close ties and
business dependencies to other businesses whose management oppose this
legislation. A number of factors motivate this opposition, including
fear and prejudice. Some business leaders have argued there should be
no federalization of immigration until after studies have been done on
what the impact would be, yet these same business leaders have no
studies to support their cries that grant of improved status to long-
term alien residents would have deleterious affects on the CNMI.
Dekada respectfully observes that all studies merely look at
current conditions and data together with information and data from
other spatial and temporal milieu and attempt to make an informed guess
at what the future impact would be. H.R. 3079 provides for a transition
period during which all aspects of the CNMI experience with
federalization will be monitored. Dekada respectfully suggests that
this is a lot more meaningful way of studying the matter than stalling
and delaying to provide time for a static analysis, a snapshot of the
CNMI economy as it exists today, and formulation of a set of
assumptions--likely subject to dispute--upon which projections can be
made. Necessary adaptations and adjustments can be made dynamically
along the way, based on actual experience and observation, not esoteric
models and abstract academic postulates.
DEKADA strongly supports H.R. 3079 but also urges improvements.
Similarly, Dekada expressed its support for S. 1634--with improvements.
H.R. 3079 is a better bill than S. 1634 but more needs to be done. One
of the improvements Dekada sought for S. 1634, inclusion of a non-
voting delegate in the U.S. Congress for the NMI, has been incorporated
into H.R. 3079.
One of the improvements DEKADA believes should be made is
incorporation of H.R. 3165. H.R. 3165 makes changes to the local
content rules of General Note 3(a)(iv)(A) of the Harmonized Tariff
Schedule of the United States that would shore up the shriveling CNMI
economy by helping to preserve part of its diminishing manufacturing
sector. Maintenance of a healthy manufacturing sector is not just a
corporate business interest, it is also a labor interest.
As the CNMI manufacturing sector has declined, retail prices have
skyrocketed, to the detriment of all workers and consumers. Part of the
reason for this is that ships bring imports to the CNMI must now return
to the U.S. mainland largely empty due to the lack of exports. The
effect is that CNMI consumers must pay the costs of empty vessels
returning, since shippers get no outbound cargo revenue.
Some Concerns Not Adequately Addressed By H.R. 3079
Current long-term alien residents (five years or more)
should be eligible for admission to U.S. lawful permanent residency
without having to meet the current income requirements.
Although Dekada believe U.S. lawful permanent residency
should be granted all aliens resident in the CNMI for five years or
more, Dekada recognizes Congress may not prepared to go this far.
However, Congress should at least provide U.S. lawful permanent
resident status to the following classes:
parents of U.S. citizen children.
long-term alien residents of ten years or more.
Persons with long-term investor status in the CNMI of 7-
10 years or more should be granted either U.S. permanent residency or
the same lawful nonimmigrant status established by the bill for long-
term alien employees.
The bill does not address the situation of individuals
holding immediate relative status. This is a critical issue affecting
families of U.S. citizens, families of citizens of the Freely
Associated States, and families of alien workers, both long-term and
short-term.
Recently proposed new CNMI regulations that would degrade
the status of immediate relatives of citizens of the Freely Associated
States point out the critical need to make this a matter of federal
law, beyond the reach of misguided CNMI impulses. The proposed new
regulations reflect a drift net and purse seine approach to immigration
policy and enforcement, targeting an alleged problem perceived to exist
but lacking any documentary or statistical evidence relative to its
magnitude, proportion, or any actual adverse impact on the community or
the economy, and utterly disregarding the reality of its impingement on
the constitutionally protected fundamental right of marriage.
The foregoing issue also demonstrates the need to ensure
that citizens of Freely Associate States have, at a minimum, no lesser
rights under the immigration laws of the Untied States than aliens
admitted to lawful permanent residency.
Many foreign workers in the CNMI have labor awards or
court judgments in their favor that they never have been able to
collect. Such individuals should be granted admission to U.S. lawful
permanent residency.
Long-term alien residents of the CNMI who have recently
departed (say within the preceding six, twelve, or eighteen months)
should also be eligible for whatever status is granted under the bill.
The bill requires lawful status in the CNMI to qualify
for immigration recognition under the new or transitional regime. Some
aliens who have maintained lawful status for a long time recently have
fallen out of status as a result of the present economic depression or
for other reasons such a family calamity or medical problem. There
should be provision for such individuals to qualify for status under
federalization notwithstanding a recent loss of status under CNMI law.
Perhaps there should be a system of waivers for defects in
qualification.
U.S. lawful permanent residency should be available to
long-term alien residents of the CNMI who had marriages of long
duration (over 7 or 10 years) but never obtained ``green cards'' and
unfortunately ultimately had the marriage end in divorce or death of
the spouse.
There is a need to provide U.S. ``green cards'' and a
path to citizenship for those ``semistateless'' children who were born
in the CNMI between the approval of the Covenant and the effective date
of Section 501 (individuals who acquired the citizenship of their
parents at birth but have known no other home but the CNMI and were not
helped by the Sabangan case).
Legislation should make employers of foreign workers in
the CNMI who know at the time of recruitment that the workers are
required to pay recruitment fees in their country of origin in order to
secure overseas employment legally responsible to the worker for those
recruitment fees.
Nationals of countries that do not have tax treaties with
the U.S. are required to have FICA and Medicaid taxes withheld. Such
individuals who have been paying into the system for years should
either be granted U.S. permanent residency (so they can receive the
benefit of their contributions) or should be entitled to refund of
their contributions upon repatriation to their home country.
Attachments:
Attachment 1--Letter from DEKADA leadership to Governor Benigno R.
Fitial proposing local legislation to provide improved status for long-
term alien residents. Absolutely no action was taken by CNMI elected
officials to address this issue, despite potential fiscal benefits to
the CNMI government and assurances from the Governor and certain
legislative leaders that the proposal would be seriously considered.
Attachment 2--June 19, 2005 op-ed piece in the Saipan Tribune by
Bonifacio V. Sagana and Stephen C. Woodruff, ``Dekada aspirations equal
CNMI's long-term best interest.''
Attachment 3--Open letter to Interior Secretary Kempthorne from
Human Dignity Act Movement President Engracio ``Jerry'' B. Custodio
published in the June 6, 2007 Saipan Tribune, after which Mr. Custodio
was given notice that his contract and non-resident worker permit would
not be renewed by his employer, in retaliation for Mr. Custodio's
active role in the campaign for improved status for long-term alien
workers (and increase in the minimum wage).
Petition Copies for retention in committee files for review and use
by the Committee:
Attachment P-1--July 2007 Statement of foreign contract workers
prepared with the assistance of human rights activist Wendy Doromal and
submitted to the Senate Committee on Energy and Resources in connection
with July 19, 2007 hearing on S. 1634, with 144 pages of signatures
supporting, in substance, S. 1634, the Senate counterpart of H.R. 3079.
Attachment P-2--Eight additional pages of signatures supporting
legislation extending U.S. immigration law to the Northern Mariana
Islands and improving the immigration status of long-term alien
residents of the CNMI, collected or received too late to be included
with original submission to the Senate Committee on Energy and
Resources.
Attachment P-3--Final set of 30 pages of additional signatures
received or collected too late to be included with original submission
to the Senate Committee on Energy and Resources, petitioning the U.S.
Congress for extension of U.S. immigration law to the Northern Mariana
Islands and improvement of the immigration status of long-term alien
residents of the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands.
[NOTE: Attachments have been retained in the Committee's official
files.]
______
Mrs. Christensen. I now recognize myself for five minutes
of questions. Ms. Sablan, when the Covenant was negotiated, its
intent, as is ours, was to improve the lives of the people of
the CNMI. And as I listened to your testimony and I listened to
Mr. Cruz' testimony I hear very little of that improvement and
I wonder if you could tell me one or two areas where the
Chamorro and Carolinian people of the CNMI lives have improved
since the Covenant.
Ms. Sablan. How it's improved.
Mrs. Christensen. Yes, under the Covenant system. Were
there any areas of improvement?
Ms. Sablan. Well, I think that--and the first one that
comes to mind is that I think we have come a long way as far as
our understanding and expectation for the government. We have a
stronger grasp of community and democracy and what we should be
able to expect from our elected leaders. Certainly now,
especially. I think the crisis has a way of raising people's
awareness of how much our government has failed, as in how much
of that we deserve. I think that's an improvement. At least
there are people coming out now and expressing their concerns
and their discontent, and that wasn't something that happened
so commonly by the people.
There are certain freedoms that I appreciated as a U.S.
citizen, all the freedoms (unintelligible) and everything that
comes about with being a U.S. citizen. And, you know, those are
not so much tangible improvements maybe, but we experience and
enjoyed them. And I think that that has certainly been an
improvement.
Mrs. Christensen. Do you think that the Federalization of
immigration here takes away self-government?
Ms. Sablan. No, I don't. And I think there are many, many
people who recognize--(pauses). Actually, I haven't heard
anybody dispute that we agree that the United States would have
the authority to come in and Federalize immigration. I mean,
they are very clear in the Covenant, and self-government has
been retained. There are other places that also abide, many
more places that abide by Federal immigration law, and as far
as I know, their self-government is still retained. We will
continue to elect our leaders and we will continue to strive to
improve public services and to provide adequate services for
our people. I think that those are all important aspects of
self-government and I don't think they're compromising
anything. I think that they would be enhanced by a more stable
immigration program here.
Mrs. Christensen. Thank you. Mr. Cruz, you have asked,
despite the many negatives that you cite in your testimony, you
still asked that we should hold off and place a stay in
consideration of this bill to give CNMI a chance to learn from
its mistakes. Now, I was here in '98 and in my opening
statement, we go back to even 1986, where concerns were being
raised and cautions where being given around, specifically
around the immigration issues. Do you still think that
providing a longer time, again, would help us to, as you say,
learn from our own mistakes?
Mr. Cruz. Yes. Yes, Madam Chair. For one, I resent the fact
that our island is called a stepping stone. I disagree with
that. My own island is not a stepping stone to an enemy. I do
have concerns with the issues on the labor and immigration
complaints in the past. And one of those is, like back in the
90's, like you mentioned, you know, this garment factories
here, this non-resident guest workers here. You know, they come
and go, come and go and they make complaints of abuses,
exploitations, human smuggling and all kinds of complaints.
But, I sat back, Madam Chair, and I thought about this and as a
witness, I can't remember or I can't even recall any local on
this island that--the richest local, I believe, here is Joe
Ten, for that matter. There is no local here that owns a
garment factory. There is no local that owns a sex trade
business here. And there is no local here that owns an illegal
gambling system or whatever you want to call them.
And, yes, we are for a stay, because there is a need to do
a study, and do a study on this Federal take-over issue. And I
believe that the government at this point, as we speak, has
been doing a good job at cleaning house, cleaning this labor
abuse issues here, complaints. And it's sad that it took up to
this point here, to bring new people here to have this issue
really addressed. So, it really touches my heart that our own
leaders have really failed us in the past. And, yes, I am very
saddened about the issues of the locals being put to the back,
you know, and just up to this year, the 20 percent rule putting
the locals priority was just enforced. Where was this priority
in the beginning? You know, I would say that at the same time,
the foreign non-resident workers abused themselves. At the same
time, I feel the same way with our local people, our leaders,
them discriminating against their own people. And that really--
I grew up with that.
Mrs. Christensen. Thank you. My time is up and I'd like to
recognize Congressman Faleomavaega for his questions.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to thank
the witnesses for their most thought-provoking statements and
testimony before our Subcommittee. Mr. Sagana, I am listening
to your testimony as the leader of the long-term alien and
contract workers. You know, many countries in the world do have
guest worker programs, especially countries like in the Middle
East. I think our Filipino community throughout the world, I
think they probably have little over half a million workers all
over the world which bring in about $20 billion dollars a year
to the Philippine economy, or something to that nature. Is it
your understanding, when you were first brought here at CNMI
that you're to become as a guest worker not with any further
intention of seeking status difference of becoming maybe
eventually a U.S. citizen or some other status?
Mr. Sagana. No, sir. I just came here to work. I don't have
any intention when--a plan to use that to get another
opportunity.
Mr. Faleomavaega. So, it was never your intention to seek
different status? You're here just to work and send the money
back home and continue under that status just as a guest
worker, but not later on to seek a different status as a
permanent resident alien now; am I correct in this.
Mr. Sagana. You're correct, sir. The reason why is because
of my family. I just want to work for my family, to send them
the money for--to support them. That's it.
Mr. Faleomavaega. And it's perfectly understandable. You
know, we have about 12 million illegal aliens that are working
in the United States and they bring in about $52 billion
dollars to the Central and the South American economies, which
go directly to the needs of the families, which I think it's a
better way of doing it rather than have you go through
government, which then the poor families never get the resource
of these people who really work hard for. And you're saying
that, in representing the long-term alien conflict needs, is
that about 30,000 long-term alien workers currently in
residence in CNMI?
Mr. Sagana. I believe more than 20,000. I am not really
sure if it's 30,000.
Mr. Faleomavaega. So, about 30,000 of you right here, right
now.
Mrs. Christensen. We know it's not even 20,000--it's no
more than 20,000.
Ms. Bordallo. It's about 20,000.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Well, 20 to 30,000, give or take a couple
of thousand; all right. So, it's about 20,000.
Mr. Sagana. More than 20,000.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Twenty thousand long-term alien workers
and for many of them, their status is not clear; am I correct
on that.
Mr. Sagana. They have their status.
Mr. Faleomavaega. They're legally here.
Mr. Sagana. Legally.
Mr. Faleomavaega. I see, but they're also now seeking a
more--a better relationship status with the United States as
well as with the CNMI; is this----
Mr. Sagana. Yes, sir.
Mr. Faleomavaega. OK. But that was never the intent of your
coming here; it was just to work and send money back home.
Mr. Sagana. Yes sir, that's our intention. Just to work for
our family.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Do you feel that the CNMI government had
not been fair to the needs of the guest worker program here in
CNMI for all these years?
Mr. Sagana. There is some--like there is some labor case
like stated in the statement that we have uncollected labor
awards. Actually, I am a part of it. I am waiting for 13 years,
until now I wasn't able to get the award. But there is a
decision wherein----
Mr. Faleomavaega. Mr. Cruz, you had made a very, very
strong statement and I have to commend you for your courage to
speak out. I recall the statement by Martin Luther King Jr. who
said that, ``In the end we will not remember the words of our
enemies, but the silence of our friends.'' And I wanted to ask
you, do names like Jack Abramoff and Tom DeLay sound familiar
in terms of how this whole situation had come up in a very
controversial, to put it mildly?
Mr. Cruz. Lobbyist and (audible but unintelligible) on our
taxpayer--tax money, and I thank God they are put away.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Well, Mr. Abramoff is in jail obviously,
and Mr. Tom DeLay is under indictment. You don't agree with the
current efforts by the Administration to take corrective
actions in trying to improve the economic standing of the
territory of CNMI? If they're making this good faith effort,
what do you recommend? Do you think this proposed legislation
is going to cure a lot of problems that we face here in CNMI.
Mr. Cruz. I read the entirety of 3079 and there are some
provisions that I am quite concerned about. It's not a negative
issue. I mean, I feel like I could address some of them, a few.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Just one because my time is already up.
Mr. Cruz. OK. The most important thing is on the labor
immigration control. I believe that we can come up with a
mechanism, you know, such as a monitoring mechanism like, I
believe, Mr. Reyes earlier said that we will put the local and
probably the Federal alongside together with each other. You
know, because then the very issue is labor immigration here.
And we all know for a fact that it's a matter of national
security, especially when that buildup--the military buildup in
Guam. And I am kind of really touched with this because to make
an issue for this national security issue, which is very
important and is very crucial and critical, to use excuses,
make excuses on our island, such as the abuses and so forth.
Why don't we just come up straight up and let's be fair in
saying, it's a matter of national security, you know. And I
believe that there should be a mechanism, I guess, in our local
control, because the Covenant is protecting us with this self-
governing issue. And that is, 101, 102, 103 of the Covenant,
you know. And I believe that we could work around this--you
know, find better solutions.
Mr. Faleomavaega. I am sorry my time is up. I am sorry, Mr.
Cruz. I don't have time to ask you another question.
Mrs. Christensen. We're running up against time. So, I'd
now like to recognize Ms. Bordallo.
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you. Thank you very much. First, Ms.
Sablan, I want to commend you for your civic contributions to
the discussion regarding the Federalization of immigration. I
have read your testimony. It's in depth and certainly reflects
your stand. And I always think it's important to hear from the
younger generation.
Now, you testified that the immigration and labor systems
in place lack the institutional capacity and political will to
control the influx of immigrants, their health, their criminal
backgrounds, and their illegal overstays. You further testified
that in 2005, the CNMI lost $114 million dollars in guest
worker remittances. So, in the last two years, how was the
system changed to address these problems? Is it worse?
Ms. Sablan. Well, there have been, from what I can tell,
some considerable strides that have been made in this
Administration. You know, our Governor referred to labor
(audible but unintelligible) that have been closed. And, I just
think that there are deeper systemic problems with our
immigration and labor program. And, you know, we have something
like 20,000 to 30,000 guest workers here and our government is
losing revenue in all departments. And if we don't have the
resources to properly monitor the people that we have here and
we continue to bring people in still, I can't imagine that
things will get that much better.
Ms. Bordallo. So then you do support Federalized
immigration?
Ms. Sablan. Oh, yes, yes.
Ms. Bordallo. All right. I just wanted to get it on the
record.
Ms. Sablan. Yes.
Ms. Bordallo. All right. And now Mr. Cruz and Mr. Sagana, I
appreciate you coming here before us to give your testimony and
I want to state for the record that we have a very large
Filipino community on Guam. You came out with some solutions to
some of the problems that you stated. And, Mr. Cruz, I always
like to hear from the indigenous people, I think you represent
them. And from your testimony it seems to me that the CNMI
Government is unable to cope with the challenges of revamping
its labor and immigration systems and yet you oppose a Federal
intervention. So, what suggestions do you have on how the
Federal government or the local government can revamp these
systems without the implementation of proposed measures
contained in H.R. 3079? What is your answer? You mentioned all
the negatives. So, I just wondered if you feel that the local
government can handle this.
Mr. Cruz. Yes, yes we can. And, as I said, at this point,
they have been doing a good job. And, I am not opposing this
bill, this Federalization. I am not for it. But rather, I am
saying I would like a stay on it, you know, to further----
Ms. Bordallo. Would you like more impact studies on certain
aspects of the bill?
Mr. Cruz. Yes, ma'am, exactly.
Ms. Bordallo. All right. Thank you very much and I yield
back my time. Thank you.
Mrs. Christensen. Thank you. And we all thank the witnesses
for their testimony and the members for their questions, and we
may have additional questions because, as I said, you know,
we're running up against a time wall here and we appreciate
your taking the time, we appreciate your patience in waiting so
long. And at this point, we thank you and you're dismissed from
this session.
Mr. Cruz. Thank you.
Mrs. Christensen. And now I'd like to recognize the fourth
panel of witnesses; Mr. Alexander Sablan, Vice-President of the
Saipan Chamber of Commerce, Ms. Lynn Knight, President of the
Hotel Association of the Northern Mariana Islands, and Mr.
Jesus C. Borja of the Enterprise Group. And we thank you also
for your patience.
The Chair now recognizes Mr. Sablan to testify for five
minutes.
STATEMENT OF ALEXANDER SABLAN, VICE-PRESIDENT, SAIPAN CHAMBER
OF COMMERCE
Mr. Sablan. Good afternoon. Hafa Adai, Madam Chairwoman and
Members of the Committee. I am Alexander A. Sablan, Vice-
President of the Saipan Chamber of Commerce. I am honored to
testify before this committee concerning H.R. 3079 and the
possible extension of Federal immigration law to the
Commonwealth of Northern Mariana Islands.
I would like to begin my testimony by clarifying a rather
distorted message of propaganda, if you will, that has been
advanced by individuals in news reports. A message that does
not reflect the correct position of the Saipan Chamber of
Commerce. Madam Chairwoman and the Members of the Committee,
the Saipan Chamber of Commerce and its members support the
general intent of H.R. 3079. We do not purport to deny
Congress' unilateral right under Section 503 of the Covenant to
take control and implement the Immigration and Nationality Act,
and the subsequent enforcement of the Department of Homeland
Security that oversees this Act.
In a recent majority vote, the members of the Saipan
Chamber of Commerce upheld the decision of the Board of
Directors in support of making very compelling statements
regarding our concern about the vagueness of the legislation
presented in H.R. 3079.
On July 19, 2007, our President, Juan T. Guerrero, stated
similar concerns about S. 1634 in his presentation before the
U.S. Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee. It is our
hope that we can draw a favorable response with good amendments
to H.R. 3079 as currently drafted. And with all due respect,
this legislation has far more questions than answers within our
business community. Anxiety is high about what several
Administration Cabinet Secretaries will provide in the way of
opportunities and challenges for the CNMI after propagated
regulations are drafted and implemented without further input
from the people of the CNMI, the very people that these
regulations will affect most.
I want to clearly state that a majority of the Chamber
members are extremely concerned that this legislation has not
considered the realities of our current and future economic
opportunities and our geographically remote region from
America.
Furthermore, there is additional concern that members of
the U.S. Congress, that live approximately 8,000 miles from our
borders, may not truly understand the impact of legislation
before a careful, impartial, and unbiased study is completed by
the General Accountability Office. We plea for this study to be
completed so that good legislation that makes sense for our
economy and community will be passed into law to ensure
sustainable economic growth in the perceivable future.
The Chamber is keenly aware of the state of our fragile and
weak economy. Many members have donated thousands of hours of
their time in recent years to ensure we clearly understand our
predicament and assist wherever possible to help grow and
diversify our island's economy.
We have appreciated the efforts of the Office of Insular
Affairs Deputy Secretary David Cohen to help us conduct various
island business opportunities conferences to entice U.S.
mainland investors to seek opportunities in expanding in our
islands, and we certainly have seen some fruits of our labor.
I hope this committee understands the strength of our
conviction, and the continued hope and aspiration of those
locally that roll-up their sleeves to sit at the table and
discuss the many good systemic changes that we made in our
community. Changes such as improving our education. We believe
in improving education; we want to see magnet schools in the
Commonwealth.
We have looked at workforce development. We recently sat
through a job study with the Office of the Public Auditor. We
are keenly aware of the labor reforms that are going on in the
Commonwealth. We have sat at the table with Congresswoman
Jacinta Kaipat for a year, talking about 15-38 and working
toward good, good reform measures in labor laws.
Market diversification, again, talking to the issue of
looking at the opportunities document. Enforcement in all
levels of government are local recognition that, while things
are not perfect, we live in the same recognition that all the
insular areas currently strive with the realities of limited
resources. We have heard it said that we pose a threat to
homeland security in the United States because we are outside
the auspices of U.S. Immigration control. We understand that
homeland security for the region is far more complicated than
merely controlling waters and borders. But what we would
recommend is that legislation explore the option of maintaining
the CNMI Immigration Policy while working hand in hand with
U.S. Federal agencies for technical support, training, and
sharing intelligence or screening of our guest workers and
tourists. These would achieve the end result of homeland
security while still maintaining the potential for a viable and
robust tourism economy.
We are continually amazed at the Federal Government and in
particular the Office of the Insular Affairs, who continue to
spend millions of dollars over ten years to help us build a
border management and labor immigration identification system,
better known as LIDS, only to now disparage the process.
Legislative process is self-sustaining through the fees that
are collected, and has allowed the respective CNMI agencies to
be more alert and aware of those who enter and who depart. And
how the LIDS process works is, we capture if anybody comes in,
we capture if anybody goes out. Not many jurisdictions do that.
Despite the conjecture and innuendos concerning our
immigration policy, this system has markedly changed from years
past when most of the infractions that our critics often
referred to occurred. Our immigration labor system works for
our economy and community that has a limited pool of U.S.
citizen to draw from, the skilled workers. Because of our
remote geographical location, we rely greatly on the backdrop
of Asia for our labor pool needs and not the over 300 million
U.S. citizens and 13 million illegal aliens at its doorstep, as
does the mainland United States. Now, what we have is a system
that conforms to our unique immigration and labor requirements
and our coveted tourism markets and our service industries that
maintain a very good track record of ensuring that those that
enter as guest workers and tourists leave in the same manner.
There has been much debate concerning the issue of status of
our long-term guest worker population. The Chambers recognizes
and heralds the contributions to the hundreds and thousands of
guest workers that have come and gone, building and growing our
economy over the last 24 years since the inception of the Non-
Resident Worker Act. We are cognizant and sympathetic to their
situations as they seek only to improve their standard of
living as compared to the limited opportunities that may
present them in their own country. We have heard much
conjecture concerning the moral obligation extending status for
individuals that have lived and made the CNMI home for over
five years.
We would pose the question, though. Would our moral
obligations have been fulfilled if we had sent them home
prematurely just to avoid the wrath of the Federal government?
Was it not in the best interest, as well as ours, to continue
their employment when the services were needed and a qualified
local resident was not available? If these statements are
indeed true, why are we now being urged to set forth policies
that will cut their proverbial economic legs out from
underneath them?
Our community completely understands our moral obligations
and we do not condone or tolerate the exploitation of an abuse
of anyone. It upsets our people to no end to read disparaging
news reports, and more recently press releases, that reflect
unfortunate isolated circumstances perpetrated by unscrupulous
individuals onto others but portrayed as a moral epidemic
infecting all of the people in the CNMI.
Mrs. Christensen. Are you close to finishing?
Mr. Sablan. Yes, I am. I am closing. I make an emphatic
plea to take pause and study the likely impact of legislation
before it is enacted. We ask that you recognized CNMI law was
never developed with the potential of grandfathering of
thousand of workers, and the potential of tens of thousands of
their family members, as lawful non-immigrants in mind. The
likely financial impact of lawful non-immigrants, that
according to a recent interview of Deputy Secretary David
Cohen, spells volumes to the paradoxical policy regarding
Freely Associated States citizens and the Federal Government's
continued position that they will not guarantee Compact-Impact
money to support the huge migration to Guahan, CNMI, and Hawaii
that has occurred. How can this likely impact be ignored?
In closing, and to end on a high note, I would like to
thank you, Madam Chairwoman, and Congressman Nick Rahall and
sponsoring members of the Committee for including the provision
in H.R. 3079 that provides for the CNMI a nonvoting Delegate to
the U.S. Congress. The Chamber has long supported the effort to
lobby for a Delegate, and we are very supportive of this
provision. It is truly time that the CNMI to have a rightful
seat in Congress. Si Yu'us ma'ase. Urumai (phonetic). Thank
you.
Mrs. Christensen. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Sablan follows:]
Statement of Alexander A. Sablan, Vice-President,
Saipan Chamber of Commerce
Hafa Adai, Madam Chairwoman and Members of the Committee. I am
Alexander Sablan, Vice-President of the Saipan Chamber of Commerce. I
thank the committee for the privilege to be submitting testimony
representing the Chamber's 167 members and am honored to provide our
testimony before this Committee concerning the potential extension of
federal immigration law to the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana
Islands.
INTRODUCTION
Our President Juan T. Guerrero of the Saipan Chamber of Commerce
provided testimony on July 19, 2007 on similar legislation (S.B. 1634)
before the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources with
respect to its labor and immigration provisions that are virtually
identical to H.R. 3079. We recognize the distinct addition of a U.S.
Delegate Representative and at this time we thank Madam Chairwoman
Christensen and Representative Nick Rahall for supporting this
particular provision in this legislation. I will submit that the
Chamber's position has always been to support the effort to secure a
U.S. Congress Delegate Seat we hope that passage of amended good
legislation in H.R. 3079 the CNMI will finally achieve the
representation in Washington, D.C., that the U.S. Citizen people of the
CNMI so richly deserve. Madam Chairwoman and committee members we have
extensively discussed the concerns of the Commonwealth business
community with regard to the application of federal immigration law to
the islands, and on the onset we appeal for an opportunity for the
Commonwealth to work together with the federal government to address
federal concerns in a manner that recognizes local realities. Both
Governor Benigno R. Fitial and Lieutenant Governor Timothy P.
Villagomez on two separate occasions and testimonies before the U.S.
Senate and now before your committee have requested for a careful and
independent study of the CNMI by the Government Accountability Office.
Our Resident Representative to the United States Pedro A. Tenorio also
asked this Committee that a joint congressional, administrative, and
CNMI study group be formed to enable careful study, deliberation, and
consultation prior to the enactment of federal legislation affecting
the Commonwealth's immigration policies.
DISCUSSION
There has been much rhetoric concerning the perceived position the
Saipan Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors and more recently in a
Special General Membership Meeting earlier this month, in an
overwhelming vote of confidence, the majority of our members support
the Chambers overall position. I wish to convey to you Madam Chairwoman
and members of this committee that the Chamber recognizes and
understands that under Section 503 of our Covenant Agreement the United
States Congress has unilateral power to take control and implement the
national policy of the Immigration and Naturalization Act upon the
CNMI. We do not contest this apparent right and I further want to
assure you it is not our position to reject this legislation but rather
it is our hope that you and your fellow colleagues listen to the very
real concerns we have conveyed, probably, more in questions we have
concerning implementation of this legislation in promulgated rules and
regulations, than in true substantive amendments that we can offer to
help improve the legislation. Most of this written testimony I submit
today is the same exact position paper we submitted to the Senate
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. I have provided an abridged
version to ensure consistency with our submittal before your committee
but our message and position is much the same.
Over the past 24 years, the Commonwealth has administered a labor
and immigration program, that was designed and agreed upon by the
federal and local governments to address the unique labor and tourism
needs of the islands, consistent with the letter and intent of the
Covenant to Establish a Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands in
Political Union with the United States of America. This program was
not, and is not, intended to be parallel to or wholly consistent with
the federal immigration and naturalization policies and objectives of
the United States. The Covenant, and related laws, contemplated and
provided for unique treatment of tourism and labor issues singular to
the Commonwealth. Now, 29 years after the implementation of the
Covenant, the Commonwealth is being taken to task by staff members of
the United States Congress for not fulfilling some apparently unstated
objectives of the federal government and for allegedly abusing this
system in a manner that has not violated the Covenant, or the
federally-approved CNMI Constitution, or federal laws, or local laws.
There was an observation in 1998 that the CNMI labor and
immigration system ``is broken and cannot be fixed locally.'' This has
been proven wrong. As more fully addressed in our February testimony
before the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, Lieutenant
Governor Villagomez's February testimony, the Commonwealth has made
great strides in proactively discouraging labor and immigration abuses,
as well as in the investigation and prosecution of alleged abuses. In
comparison with the unmitigated immigration control failures of the
mainland United States during the same time frame, the marked
improvements in the locally-administered Commonwealth immigration
program should be acknowledged and fostered.
There is a reason that you may have heard many requests for serious
study of the overall issues facing the Commonwealth before the United
States Congress continues to legislate our future--requests from the
Chamber of Commerce, from the local administration, from our Resident
Representative, and in written form from individuals, as well as a
local group that collected hundreds of signatures of both United States
citizens and non-resident workers. The reason that there is much clamor
for such a study is that so many people believe it is impossible for
this Committee or the United States Congress to formulate sound policy,
or even to determine if federal policy needs to be formulated at all,
without the benefit of an impartial, unbiased, and current review of
the Commonwealth's strengths and weaknesses. All of the testimony you
have heard and read to this point, including previous testimony from
the Chamber, comes from specific viewpoints and with certain hopes and
expectations. If you do not have access to underlying facts, how can
you move forward in a fair fashion? What is needed before Congress can
continue is the serious and comprehensive study that has been asked for
from many quarters--not additional opinion.
While media reports might lead the uninformed to believe otherwise,
the CNMI government and its agencies have worked closely with various
agencies of the federal government for 24 years, in an attempt to
ensure that programs designed to stimulate economic growth did not
condone, promote, or tolerate labor abuses. The Commonwealth's foreign
worker program solves a labor shortage problem with respect to many job
categories and provides attractive employment opportunities for foreign
workers who earn many of times what they would earn in their home
countries, at salaries that are affordable to local businesses
struggling to survive in an isolated and depressed economy, and which
jobs would be unattractive to mainland workers at the prevailing wages.
Workers are free to transfer to different employers with the consent of
their current employer, or may unilaterally choose to transfer at the
end of their contract period (which is usually one year). Workers enjoy
all legal protections available to United States citizens, and in some
respects, even more. All employers are required to provide medical
coverage for non-resident employees, and are also required to provide
return airfare to each non-resident employee's country of origin at the
termination of each employee's contract term if that employee desires
to return home. All of this information has been disclosed on many
occasions, in many forms, by many individuals and groups. There is
little more that I can add to the detailed testimony offered by the
local administration, the Chamber, and others, as well as in other
forums with federal officials, other than a plea that you study and
consider facts and not tired, biased, and demonstrably false
allegations.
Former Director of the Office of Insular Affairs (Clinton
Administration) Mr. Allen Stayman has referred to our local immigration
and labor departments as ``essentially organized crime.'' To suggest
that trafficking, prostitution, or other human rights abuses are the
result of the policies, procedures, or efforts of the CNMI government
is irresponsible, false, and unbecoming of a federal official. There
occurs, in the mainland United States, frequent and well-publicized
human trafficking, with related prostitution and human rights abuses.
No one, including me, would suggest that these terrible acts, committed
by criminals, are somehow the fault of the Immigration and
Naturalization Service, or that law enforcement agencies are turning a
blind eye. It is unfair and disingenuous for Mr. Stayman to ascribe
broad criminal intent and/or behavior to our local government as a
result of similar individual unfortunate events that may occur in the
Commonwealth. There will always be bad people who commit criminal acts.
The most we can expect of any government is that best efforts are made
to deter such behavior, and vigorous prosecution occurs whenever such
behavior is uncovered. That is what happens in the Commonwealth, both
at the local and federal levels.
While there has been much discussion that ``federalization'' is the
only option, there is simply no empirical evidence that the
Commonwealth's immigration system can be more effectively run through
federal offices than by retaining local control for purposes of
administering a tourism-based and employment-based immigration program.
Our economy is small and fragile. The much-improved processes and
procedures in the Commonwealth allow for nimble adjustment to the ever-
changing needs and requirements of the countries from which workers and
tourists originate. Unlike the mainland United States, the Commonwealth
will not have the luxury of waiting for federal machinery to gear up
and effectuate changes required by any country or in response to the
needs of that country's citizens--those travelers will simply opt to
travel to another Pacific-rim tourist destination with less onerous and
time-consuming visit requirements for vacationing. If the well-
publicized visa delays currently being experienced by many visitors to
the United States were to occur in the CNMI, the results would be
disastrous to the tourism industry and the business community as a
whole.
It has been suggested that the Chamber has opposed any ``U.S.
action'' with respect to improving our local labor and immigration
processes. In the Chamber's testimony before the U.S. Senate on S.B.
1634, we averred, ``across-the-board imposition of federal law...will
[not] solve any problems, real or perceived, that may exist in the
CNMI.'' (Emphasis added.) More importantly, the Chamber would ``look[s]
forward to an opportunity to work with federal officials to reach
agreement on these important issues in ways that answer the concerns of
all interested parties without destroying our local economy.'' The
Chamber has never opposed, but in fact has and does support, working
with the federal government to address any legitimate concerns. The
Chamber did and does object to any such across-the-board imposition of
federal immigration law to the CNMI, especially in the absence of any
serious consultation and study.
The Chamber fully supports the enforcement of border protection by
the federal government. This is a component of an overall immigration
program that is distinct from the Commonwealth's ongoing need to
control locally the admission of foreign workers as well as tourist
visitors. The federal government's border patrol obligations are
explicitly contemplated in the Covenant. Federal control of local visa
programs is not.
The ``grandfather clause'' contained in the Senate bill
contemplates allowing workers who have lived in the Commonwealth for
more than five years prior to the enactment of the law the right to
``lawful nonimmigrant'' status. Such action allows these individuals
the right to remain in the Commonwealth (or, for that matter, relocate
to the mainland United States) for purposes of living and working. This
action would allow the right to immigrate family members to the
Commonwealth under ``immediate relative'' status. Such status would be
renewable by those individuals every five years. They would not be
eligible to vote or to receive federal entitlements, such as Medicaid/
Medicare, federal scholarships, and the like. We have estimated that
approximately 8,000 current workers in the Commonwealth would qualify
for such status. There are two possible outcome scenarios under this
grandfather clause, and neither is good. The implications of allowing
almost 8,000 individuals, who are currently required to return to their
countries of origin when they are no longer able to obtain employment
in the islands, to remain--and to immigrate immediate relatives to join
them, for the long-term--are profoundly negative for the Commonwealth.
These tens of thousands of lawful nonimmigrants would be given the same
preference for local jobs that this Senate has repeatedly claimed to be
attempting to protect for United States citizens. These lawful
nonimmigrants and their families would prove an immense burden on the
local infrastructure in a way, and to a degree, that was never
contemplated by--nor allowed--under the Commonwealth's existing guest
worker program. In addition to our objection to the apparent intent to
amend the Commonwealth's Covenant-sanctioned immigration program ex
post facto, we note that there seems to be absolutely no congressional
contemplation of the funding for the enormous costs that would
certainly be shouldered by the Commonwealth in such an event.
There is another possibility concerning these individuals who would
be granted lawful nonimmigrant status and who would be able to travel
freely to and work in the mainland. They could simply move to the
continental United States in search of higher-paying job opportunities
than exist in the Commonwealth, thereby depriving the vast majority of
local employers of the qualified and experienced labor pool that they
have, for years, paid and treated fairly in accordance with CNMI law
under the provisions of the Covenant. Aside from the implications for
the United States of allowing the immigration of thousands of foreign
nationals to the mainland, which is not the concern of the Commonwealth
government or business community, it would prove a tremendous blow to
business in the Commonwealth. While we have heard the concerns with
``fairness issues,'' we believe (except when employers violate the
law), that the business community and the local government have treated
these individuals fairly. Non-resident workers are hired for limited-
duration contracts, which may be, and usually are, renewed on an annual
basis. There has never been any promise of permanent residency, or any
other federal immigration status. These workers have, for the most
part, elected to remain in the Commonwealth and work for wages, and
under conditions superior to other alternatives they have. Those who
have received better offers have left. ``Unfairness'' has been created
by federal officials who raised the issue of ``likely'' federal
immigration status for non-resident workers in an effort to bolster
support for federal immigration control in whatever quarters they
could.
To a large degree, our most serious reservation with the House bill
is that it appears to legislate through yet-to-be-determined
regulation. While we have no doubt that this Committee and this
Congress have only the best intentions, and the best interests of the
Commonwealth at heart, we must object to any legislation that places so
much power with so little congressional direction in the hands of
future Cabinet Secretaries.
In January of this year, Mr. David Cohen spoke at the Chamber's
inaugural dinner and noted,
I was at a meeting the other day, and one of our local
legislative leaders remarked that at most, only 20 percent of
the Members of Congress have even heard of the CNMI. And I
thought to myself, ``That's the good news; the bad news is that
that 20 percent has only heard about the CNMI because they read
Ms. Magazine.'' Most Americans who have any sort of impression
at all about these islands have the wrong one.
Mr. Cohen's apt comments about the power and impact of biased and
misleading reporting sum up my feelings about the negative and untrue
publicity that continues to parade as ``fact.'' We have asked for
serious study by an independent government agency, the General
Accountability Office, before the finalization of any legislation. What
we received instead was no study by anyone and a bill apparently not
based on our current reality that commits significant issues to future
determination by unknown appointed federal officials.
CONCLUSION
We plead with this Committee to study the likely impact of this
legislation before it is enacted, and not after. It is manifestly
unfair to the people of the Commonwealth--United States citizens--for
this Congress to impose a law on the islands that will not only wreak
havoc with our labor pool and our tourism industry, but will also
dramatically alter the quality and nature of life, the demographic
make-up, and the right to local governance over local issues that we
negotiated for and agreed to in the Covenant.
The Chamber would be pleased to answer any questions or provide
further information that might be of assistance to this Committee.
Si Yu'us Ma'ase, Olomwaay, and Thank You.
______
Mrs. Christensen. The Chair now recognizes Ms. Knight for
five minutes.
STATEMENT OF LYNN KNIGHT, PRESIDENT, HOTEL ASSOCIATION OF THE
NORTHERN MARIANA ISLANDS
Ms. Knight. Thank you. Madam Chair and distinguished
members of this Committee, on behalf of the Hotel Association
of the Northern Mariana Islands, thank you for the opportunity
to discuss the impact of massive changes to our economy as
contemplated in the H.R. 3079.
The CNMI is in a depression that has been largely caused by
outside forces. Respectfully, we don't need this legislation to
fix our problems. We need a helping hand. Once a raging
success, our tourism industry today is challenged to recover
significant losses. This requires a stable, supportive business
climate, not the recipe for the perfect storm. This legislation
would force the exit and replacement of a large and necessary
segment of our workforce. It would limit tourist access at a
time when we most need to diversify and bring commerce into our
islands. It would increase the already high cost of doing
business while offering no mitigating incentives to ensure the
survival of our private sector. Why would anyone want to do
this to our community? Our tourist industry began in the late
'80s, fueled by Japanese and Korean money. Simultaneously, we
built a garment industry, selling designer clothes to American
consumers. We were fortunate to have two legs to stand on.
Businesses in the early '90s boomed and we became one of the
most self-sufficient areas under the U.S. flag, but not with
American investment. This was done with help from our Asian
investors and neighbors. At that time there was little presence
of Federal officials, no one to interpret where local and
Federal laws intersected. Yes, during those growing pains, some
mistakes were made, but we worked very hard on self-
improvement. Today, both our major industries are in double-
digit declines. The competition, the instability of our air
service, rising costs of fuel, utilities, shipping, food, and
labor are all taking their toll. This is the problem.
Today, we have over 4,000 operating hotel rooms and more
than 200 in moth balls. Average hotel occupancy is only half of
our rooms. Sadly, on Rota, there is now a ghost town, as hotel
occupancies run from 0 to 10 percent. The island's one resort
hotel struggles to subsidize essential inter-island air
service. On Tinian, a lone hotel holds up the entire island
economy with tourist charter flights from China.
With local control over immigration, we have the
flexibility to issue visas at our own pace to tourists,
students, and investors from Asia. Earlier this year, we even
welcomed direct flights from Russia, only seven hours away, and
that's closer than it is to fly to Hawaii. Now, if we follow
under U.S. immigration, then Russian tourists must fly all the
way across their country to the U.S. Embassy in Moscow. We'll
lose our Russian market overnight.
Being where we are geographically, it not only makes sense
for us to develop Russian but also Chinese tourism. Even states
like Hawaii want this. Capitalizing on our approved destination
status, we enjoy nonstop flights from Guangzhou, Shanghai, and
Beijing. What an incredible opportunity. We've grown our China
market with the visitor entry permit designed to control and
pre-qualify visitors. Local businesses actually assume total
responsibility for each tourist's return. We're taking such
precautions because we must diversify.
Now, let me talk for a minute about our workforce. Our
Hotel Human Resources Managers are better equipped than ever
before to recruit and mentor fellow citizens, and they're doing
so. But the islands lack tourism education to motivate
potential employees. There is also little interest in service
positions that make up the majority of jobs, and that's the sad
fact. Also, our local workforce is shrinking, mostly because
people are leaving to where they can afford the cost of power.
We believe the local government is better able to help us
deal with these unique challenges. The CNMI has developed a
labor system to sustain our needs and with little help and
encouragement from the Federal Government. We've seen the U.S.
spend billions in aid to foreign countries and foreign wars.
Many more billions will be spent in Guam. But for CNMI, asking
for assistance on critical issues is often like competing for
scraps from the table.
Madam Chair, we're grateful that your Committee has
recognized the need for representation in the Congress, but we
need more help than this. If you'd like us to be like the
mainland, please help us reduce our cost of doing business and
rebuild the engines needed to fuel our economy and employ more
people.
The U.S. Military built millions of infrastructure that
have accelerated the economy of Guam, while each year our
hotels must invest millions in the basics, making power and
water. We've had only one military ship visit this year. We
have unused land held by the military in Tinian. We have a
half-built American Memorial Park occupying prime tourist space
in Garapan. Why not fast-track these developments for the
betterment of our economy, for tourists and locals alike.
Please help us to stabilize shipping and reduce the cost of
aviation fuel. Please help us with regional issues like
developing tourism and education for our citizens. Outside this
building, people want jobs and a better quality of life, but
this won't come in an unstable business environment. In the
worst of our economic crisis, this very debate and the early
promises made by American officials who have been here, are
hurting the morale of our employees, causing division in our
community, and destroying investor confidence.
Our industry opposes this legislation because we, the Hotel
Association, know that this will create certain havoc on our
industry and on the business community. Careful study of the
economy is critically important. Without a study and a plan for
economic recovery, we are planning to fail. And I submit to you
that passing the bill like this is like shooting without taking
aim. Thank you very much.
Mrs. Christensen. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Knight follows:]
Statement of Lynn A. Knight, President,
Hotel Association of the Northern Mariana Islands
Dear Chairwoman Christensen and Honorable Subcommittee Members:
The Hotel Association of the Northern Mariana Islands (HANMI)
offers this testimony for your consideration regarding H.R. 3079.
Commencing in 1992 with our testimony before the House Subcommittee on
Insular Affairs, and continuing thereafter through numerous hearings,
including September 1999 when we appeared before this committee, HANMI
has detailed our position in favor of retaining local control over
immigration and our foreign work force.
As a remote group of islands, we need continued flexibility and
local knowledge in planning for our economic future. Unlike the U.S.
mainland, the island economy of the Commonwealth of the Northern
Mariana Islands is experiencing unprecedented decline due to external
forces that are largely beyond our control.
Today, our tourism industry--once a raging success story--is
challenged not only to recover losses of the past decade, but also to
become perhaps the sole major industry of the future. Full recovery
requires a stable and supportive business climate. Quite to the
contrary, we believe that H.R. 3079 would cause hardship to our
community by:
Forcing the exit and replacement of a large and necessary
segment of our workforce
Limiting access to our tourists at a time when we most
need to diversify and bring commerce into our islands
Increasing the costs of doing business, while offering no
mitigating incentives to ensure our private sector can survive
Why do we feel so strongly about this? This legislation was crafted
based on outdated information rather than our current economic
conditions. Further study of the prospective impact on our current
economic state is vital to avoid aggravating our already fragile
economy. Without sufficient study and a plan, there is little chance of
an economic recovery in the near future. Put simply: failing to plan
means planning to fail.
We cannot help but compare this scenario to what is happening in
nearby Guam. The federal government desires to increase its military
base, which will greatly affect the economy and future of Guam. Before
any moves are made, the federal government is undertaking a detailed
and lengthy environmental study to assess the impact of a military
build up. This thorough study is being done precisely so that a proper
plan can be put in place to minimize and mitigate any negative impacts
on the community and prepare for proper transitions.
Ironically, just while Guam is undergoing studies, it would seem
that there is little such care given to our smaller islands. We are
about to experience a ``Perfect Storm'' with existing economic
challenges compounded by the massive changes that are proposed in this
bill--yet Congress is not taking the time to properly study the
effects. There is something gravely wrong with this scenario.
We acknowledge that the bill may be well intentioned to increase
security of our borders and bring the CNMI into the protection of the
U.S. system. We do share the concern of the U.S. regarding the need to
protect our country from terrorism.
We also acknowledge that the CNMI needs help. There are numerous
problems in our economy that are beyond our control due to external
factors. It may be time for a greater presence and financial assistance
by the federal government. But without a well-conceived plan, we are
taking a great risk that more businesses may fail.
Under this bill, an immigration and labor system completely new to
our islands would be administered by five Presidential cabinet members
and their agencies headquartered nearly half a world away. These
agencies have never had a significant presence in the Northern
Marianas. Therefore it is difficult to imagine that they would have
sufficient understanding and flexibility to meet the unique needs of
our community.
We urge members of U.S. Congress to conduct a census and surveys of
our business community and our people. We must study the effects of
this bill before passing a law that would damage our economy. It is
only through study that certain inevitable impacts can be truly
understood.
If a proper study were conducted, you would see that we do not have
enough local residents to provide all of the specialized skills and
language capabilities necessary to operate existing businesses without
foreign labor. It therefore makes no sense to pass an overly rigid bill
that would call for the complete phase out of our foreign work force,
even after 10 years, without the flexibility to reassess future needs.
The Northern Marianas have always been challenged to be self-
sustaining with a small, indigenous population. This situation has not
changed and in fact, may have gotten worse. With rapidly rising costs
of living, including utility costs, fuel costs, and basic food costs,
many of our best and brightest citizens are leaving. This exodus of
qualified local workers places an even greater strain on the scarcity
of the pool of local employees. It is current challenges like these
that must be considered in the needed study that should shape a more
responsible bill. Even with the inevitable down-sizing of our
government, our citizen population is still too small to run essential
government services across three islands and still have enough people
to provide an adequate work force for our private sector.
Of equal importance to our future is the recognition that we must
diversify our tourist markets. As small islands near the heart of Asia,
we have unique opportunities to diversify. This diversification would
not appear to be permissible under the current bureaucracy and
restrictions of U.S. Immigration procedures.
Challenges Facing our Tourism Industry
Approximately 21 years ago, the economic growth of the Northern
Mariana Islands was one of the highest of any American state or
possession. Resorts and smaller hotels were built in the late 1980's
and early 90's, and visitor arrivals brought prosperity to the islands.
The Northern Marianas welcomed 728,621 tourists at its peak in 1997.
These visitors were almost exclusively from Japan and Korea. Last year
in FY 2006, our tourism industry struggled with just 443,812 visitors.
This year due to further losses in air capacity from Japan, we are
expected to drop to less than 400,000 visitors.
Because we were so dependent upon Japanese tourists and investment,
quite naturally the early golden days ended with the bursting of the
Japanese ``bubble'' economy in the mid-1990's. The Asian economic
crisis in both Japan and Korea followed, and a series of other natural
and manmade calamities also took their toll.
When Japan's and Korea's economies declined, hotel owners who were
saddled with debt began to sell their properties. From approximately
2002 to the present, many hotels changed hands. The turnovers in the
CNMI's hotel industry were not unique, but were repeated in Guam and
Hawaii. Like the Marianas, Hawaii's original resorts were heavily owned
by the Japanese, and like our islands, Hawaii's tourism industry
deteriorated prior to the entry of new investors.
Hotel buyouts in Hawaii took place from the late nineties up to
2002, just a few years before Japanese hotels in Guam and the CNMI also
began selling. Hawaii today is enjoying a boom in tourism due to
massive turnover at over $5 Billion in hotel sales, renovations, and a
destination enhancement program by the government. The transformation
in Hawaii has happened at a faster pace than the Marianas, due to the
islands' proximity to the U.S. mainland and the influx of American and
Canadian tourists and investors. The Northern Mariana Islands, by
contrast, see few American tourists except inter-island travelers from
Guam and an occasional military ship's visit.
In the Northern Marianas, the only other major industry--garment
manufacturing--has declined by nearly 60% over the past two years. With
the increase in the minimum wage that was passed by U.S. Congress
earlier this year, many expect we will completely lose the industry in
2008. When this happens, the full weight of generating the islands'
revenues will fall on tourism.
The sudden pullout of Japan Airlines in 2005 has been one of the
most difficult challenges our industry has ever had to overcome. In the
same year, we also lost Continental Airlines service from Hong Kong and
Taiwan.
Northwest Airlines picked up some of the routes from Japan, but
this did not completely make up the gap in lost air seats. Since that
time, Northwest's service has seen ever-changing schedules, and now the
downsizing of their planes to more fuel efficient models. While this
may help to eventually stabilize their service, unfortunately it has
cost the CNMI dearly in terms of visitor numbers.
In September, we will lose a further 130 seats per day as Northwest
changes its plane. We fully expect a major tourist decline to last at
least until late December, when the airline will start a new flight
from Osaka. Many hotels and tourism operators are bracing for perhaps
the worst period in our industry's history.
The air service crisis has led tourism officials to join together
to learn much more about the business of the airlines. An international
air service consultant was hired by the CNMI government, and after
frank and open discussions with existing carriers and dozens of other
airlines operating in the Asian-Pacific region, we learned that we are
a ``low yield'' destination that is also suffering because of small
economies of scale, intense competition for air slots out of Narita
airport in Japan, and high costs of aviation fuel. Absent a government
subsidy of essential air service, our entire economy is now at the
mercy of our air carriers.
About the Hotel Industry of the CNMI
HANMI members are all located on Saipan and represent 3,018 of the
3,394 total hotel rooms that are open for business on Saipan. Some 100
rooms are currently ``moth-balled'' due to a lack of business, while
182 more rooms have recently been converted to apartments. The island
of Tinian has 452 hotel rooms, of which 42 are closed. Rota has 250
rooms, with 60 closed at this time.
Hotel occupancy in the past three months has averaged only 52%. For
reference, the average break even point for most hotels is estimated to
be in the 70% range. In 2007, average hotel room rates for HANMI
members hovered at $90, following more than $60 M in renovations and
improvements that have been made in recent years on Saipan alone. For
comparison purposes, Guam's average room rate is near $110, while
Hawaii surpassed the $160 mark. (Please see Appendix I for HANMI
Average Rates and Occupancies from 1992 to 2006.)
Tinian's tourism industry has survived thus far due to privately
chartered flights from China, which provide the majority of visitors to
the island's one resort hotel and several locally-owned small hotels.
Tinian received 64,083 tourists in 2006. Without Chinese tourists, the
island's economy would likely collapse.
Our smallest inhabited island of Rota has been the hardest hit by
the loss of air service, resulting in hotel occupancies from a
frightening zero to 10% on any given day. Sadly, the island's major
village now resembles a ghost town.
The Northern Marianas compete directly with Asian tropical
destinations including the Philippines, Thailand, Malaysia, Maldives,
Palau, and Bali, Indonesia, where the cost of labor is low and service
standards are high. Our islands also compete with Guam and Hawaii,
which are hubs of air service and shipping for the region. Both Guam
and Hawaii have benefited from billions of dollars of investment by the
U.S. military. By comparison, a large portion of land on our island of
Tinian has been held by the U.S. military for many years, but with
absolutely no investment.
Conditions of doing business in the Northern Mariana Islands are
vastly different than in Guam and Hawaii, due to inadequate
infrastructure and a much smaller population. Our hotels have had to
invest millions of dollars in their own power and water-making systems.
In the CNMI these investments are a necessary cost of doing business,
requiring capital outlays that could otherwise be spent on marketing,
business enhancements and employee development.
Employment Challenges and Concerns
If the CNMI's immigration authority is taken away and our guest
worker program is to be phased out, we have grave concerns about the
hardships that could be caused by reduced access--and even a phase
out--of our valued employees from overseas. Members of the Hotel
Association feel it is unrealistic to expect the tourism industry to
completely phase out foreign workers.
In total, our hotels employed 1,959 people as of June 2007, of
which 32% were local residents. We are hiring more local residents each
year, but turnover must be done gradually to avoid business disruption.
Increased employment of local residents requires training and tourism
education we do not currently have on island. Again, it is more
difficult to find potential local qualified resident candidates as many
are leaving the islands for greener pastures on the U.S. mainland.
The hotels provide a wide range of benefits and employee assistance
programs, as well as training and development to create a sense of
community and build morale among our multi-cultural staffs. But despite
these efforts, we have seen that there are certain jobs for which the
indigenous community consistently has shown little or no interest. This
is evidenced by the high number of foreign workers in housekeeping,
maintenance, and most food and beverage positions. These positions
roughly equal the 60+% of the jobs held by foreign workers in our
hotels.
For culinary arts, no training is currently available and many of
our chefs are recruited from Asian countries to meet the tastes of our
hotel guests. The ability to recruit highly skilled chefs from foreign
countries is seen as one of our few competitive advantages.
The CNMI's resort hotels have recently invested in the development
of luxury spas. However, indigenous residents will generally not apply
for jobs as spa therapists due to a general shyness in serving guests.
Therefore, most of the personnel working in luxury spas today are
recruited from Bali, Thailand and the Philippines.
Despite our challenges, we are proud of the progress that our
industry has made in hiring local residents. Successful career paths
have been established and proven in the ever-increasing number of local
residents that have joined hotel management teams. Currently all of the
resort hotels have local citizens in human resources management. With
networks in the community, these professionals are better equipped
today than ever to hire and mentor other residents.
HANMI members have a good record of treatment of both foreign and
local employees. In the mid-1990's, our association initiated an inter-
hotel committee for human resources of the hotel industry to regularly
join together to share ideas and training. The expansion of this
committee 10 years ago resulted in the founding of the CNMI chapter of
the U.S. national organization, the Society for Human Resources
Management (SHRM).
To help ensure we provide safe work places, in 2005 HANMI members
entered into a voluntary partnership agreement with the U.S. Department
of Labor's OSHA Division out of Region IX, San Francisco. This program
provides for voluntary inspections, annual conferences and joint
cooperation in ensuring safe and healthy working conditions.
An ongoing challenge is the fact that our islands simply do not
have any specialized education necessary to grow local employment in
tourism. As one example, although the Korean market is the second
largest tourism market for the CNMI today, there are no Korean language
classes available.
Without the flexibility to retain a certain number of our employees
from overseas, this industry will not survive. We will clearly not be
able to provide the service level that our guests expect. If we lose
our competitiveness as a tourist destination, eventually more
businesses will close and even some of the best and brightest local
workers will lose their jobs.
Further, the CNMI has come a long way in addressing the labor
concerns that have plagued the image of the islands in the national
media. Our CNMI Department of Labor has taken great strides in
substantively tackling reports of labor complaints by the non-resident
workforce. While there is always room for improvement, our current
conditions are far safer than the sinister images that have been
sensationalized in the media.
Specific Labor Concerns of H.R. 3079
Section 6(e)(2) of the bill would authorize foreign workers already
lawfully present in the CNMI to continue to remain only up to two years
after the transition program's effective date. This will negatively
impact our hotels as there is yet no regulation in place to for renewal
of employment authorizations to remain in the CNMI once that period
expires. Without any regulations yet established, there is no way to
determine how stringent or costly this would be for our tourism
industry to retain such workers thereafter.
Transitional Workers. Sec. 103(d) provides for the entry of aliens
into the CNMI as nonimmigrant workers. However, such entry shall be
determined at the sole discretion of the Secretary of Homeland
Security, which would be charged with establishing, administering, and
enforcing a system for allocating and determining the number, terms,
and conditions of permits to be issued to prospective employers.
Moreover, this system would provide for a reduction in allocation of
permits to zero by December 31, 2017. As discussed above, we do not
believe that our industry could ever completely phase out its foreign
work force.
Subsection (5)(A) would authorize foreign workers to transfer
between employers without advance permission of the employee's current
or prior employer. This provisions appears contrary to H.R. 3079's
intent to assist that employers could secure needed workers if
employers could not expect to retain the workers they hired in the
first place.
The members of HANMI must also voice our opposition to the bill's
plan to convert the status of long-term foreign workers who have
remained continuously in the Commonwealth for more than five years to
immigrant status. This has regrettably become a highly emotional issue
in the islands, one that has created significant morale problems in our
workforce today. This is also one of the provisions in the bill that
has the greatest potential to cause the uncertainty and expense for our
businesses. It is a proposal that should not be carried through without
thorough study.
We believe that the outcome of the proposed changes of immigration
status for foreign workers would be that many would choose to leave the
Commonwealth to find higher paying jobs in Guam and the U.S. mainland.
This would cause a major disruption in our industry as we would have no
means to immediately replace large numbers of people, especially with
our dwindling available local workforce.
For foreign workers who would not qualify for a change in status,
the bill and its transition period leaves many questions about rising
costs. In our weakened economic state, most businesses could not afford
the legal expenses, fees and lengthy approval process under the U.S.
system of work visas. Once again, these issues should be discussed in
detail and an economic study completed before Congress votes on this
bill.
The Need for Diversification of our Tourist Markets
A critical reason why HANMI supports continued local control over
immigration is the need for flexibility to diversify our tourist
markets. It is recognized that Japan and Korea will always be major
source markets for our islands, but we must keep the doors open for
other nationalities in order to lessen our dependence on any one
market. We share great concern about change to our immigration system
because the U.S. does not currently recognize countries we have
invested in for a decade, namely China and Russia.
Diversification will protect our island economy from an unhealthy
dependence upon only one or two markets--or one or two air carriers
that could make or break us at any given time. Islands in the Caribbean
are fortunate to be able to attract tourists from the U.S. mainland and
Europe; Southeast Asian destinations can rely on Europe and many other
Asian countries, while the Northern Marianas is investing and tapping
into a number of Asian countries within a short flying distance.
Even before the loss of JAL, tourism industry stakeholders
identified the need to invest in the most promising new markets in our
region. Diversification is critically important in light of the
vulnerability of island economies such as ours.
While the bill states that it will consider special CNMI-only
tourist visas, we have many questions about how this would be
implemented. There is great uncertainty over the potential costs, lead
time and approvals involved with dealing with U.S. embassies overseas.
We question whether such a program could be anywhere near as efficient
and as the program we now have in place under the care of the local
government.
Our Russian Tourism Market
Since 1998, Russian tourists have become a lucrative market for the
islands, as these guests stay for long periods of time. The Japanese
and Korean markets stay for only 3 nights, while it is not uncommon for
wealthy Russian tourists traveling with their children to stay for up
to 3 weeks. These visitors come to our islands to avoid bitterly cold
weather in Russia and to enjoy a taste of American life on the closest
tropical island to their country. Many of these guests travel on
business class fares via connecting flights from Korea and Japan, which
helps our air carriers.
Russian families spend a great deal on dining, patronizing all
resort hotel services including kids' clubs and spas. They spread money
throughout our economy when they buy retail goods, and enjoy a wide
variety of the optional tours available in the islands.
Marketing efforts to Russian tourists have largely been developed
through the initiative and investment of Saipan's resort hotels. Today
many of our resorts have invested in marketing to and serving the
Russian market.
In the year 2006, there were just over 1,500 Russian tourists who
came to the Northern Marianas, resulting in estimated sales of 31,500
room nights. In this year, we hope to attract 3,000.
The shortest travel time from Russia is only 7 hours or roughly
less time than it takes to travel from the CNMI to Hawaii. This makes
our islands a viable destination for Russian tourists. If we convert to
a U.S. immigration system and Russian tourists are required to fly for
many hours to the U.S. Embassy in Moscow to apply for a visa to the
CNMI, we would likely lose all of our Russian tourists overnight.
China Tourism Market
Another bright spot on the horizon for the recovery of the CNMI's
tourism industry is the China market. We believe that retaining the
CNMI's privilege of local control of immigration and our Approved
Destination Status with China, which is an essential element to growing
this new market.
As recently stated by the general manager of a resort hotel on
Saipan, ``Being where we are geographically, we cannot survive without
a China strategy. It is a different world. In the future, we have to
find a way to open these markets.'' For the CNMI, it only makes sense
for our local tourist industry to have a China strategy to capitalize
on the rapid economic growth of this nearby country, which is only a 4
to five hour non-stop flight away.
Since 2002 when a hotel on Tinian first took the initiative to
charter flights from Guangzhou, the Northern Marianas have grown this
market slowly and carefully with a selective visitor entry permit (VEP)
designed to control numbers, qualify visitors, and guarantee their exit
prior to allowing entry into the islands.
In December 2004, following several years of effort, former
Governor Juan Babauta signed an agreement with Chinese officials in
Beijing to grant the CNMI Approved Destination Status. ADS allows the
CNMI to legally promote itself as a recognized tourist destination in
China, an honor we share with more than 100 other countries. More than
half of the world--including Australia, Europe and many other Western
countries--currently have this coveted status.
China has already surpassed the number of outbound tourists from
Japan and is now the largest tourist market in the world, with more
than 36 Million people traveling overseas in 2006. As a result, there
is probably no major tourist destination in the world today that does
not have a China marketing plan. The Northern Marianas have a major
advantage in attracting this market due to our close proximity, direct
non-stop flight service and locally controlled visa.
Guam officials have visited China numerous times, in the hopes of
welcoming tourists. As early as 2003, Hawaii conducted a comprehensive
study of the China market and its potential for the state. Hawaii has
since set up an office in China and has been marketing heavily in
preparation for a ``green light'' for Chinese tourists to visit. San
Francisco and Nevada have also set up offices in China. In 2005,
California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger led his first trade mission
to China, while the states of Florida and Texas were the first U.S.
destinations to exhibit at Beijing's International Travel and Tourism
Market in 2006. The state of Georgia also sent tourism officials to
China in the year 2005, in anticipation of opening tourism and trade
offices.
Just like other tourists, Chinese families come to the CNMI to
enjoy the beautiful clean environment, golf, marine sports and other
optional tours. While the Chinese may be second to Japanese travelers
in terms of the total amount they spend on trips, they have begun to
out-rank the Japanese in how much they spend on shopping.
Over the years to date, the CNMI has welcomed more than 334,000
Chinese tourists to Tinian and Saipan, bringing millions of dollars
into our economy. In FY 2006, the arrival figures grew modestly to
38,385.
The CNMI eventually targets to build arrivals from China to 150,000
tourists per year according to the Marianas Visitors Authority (revised
target announced in June 2007). The CNMI currently benefits from six
direct, non-stop chartered flights from Shanghai, Guangzhou and
Beijing. It is our hope that we can continue this growth through a
gradual build up of flights from the most modern and affluent cities in
China.
To summarize, the Northern Mariana Islands today are in a pivotal
moment in our economic history. We have never been more economically
challenged. We believe that for U.S. Congress to force rapid change
without sufficient local input and a sound plan would cause havoc and
almost certain collapse of many local companies.
We would like to state for the record that our position is not
solely based on economics, but also a genuine concern for our
community. We are in unprecedented territory in our history and
recognize that tourism may be the only major provider for our islands
in the near future. As industry leaders, we feel a great sense of
responsibility to provide for our people. At the same time, continued
investments in our businesses can only be made within a stable and
supportive business climate.
If the federal government would like to help us transition to an
economy patterned after the U.S. mainland, we would welcome help. But
we must humbly ask that U.S. Congress and federal agencies first work
in partnership with our community and local government to create a
realistic WORKING PLAN for business incentives, mitigation and economic
recovery.
In other words, if the U.S. would like the CNMI to be like Guam or
Hawaii, help us to become like these more advanced economies. Invest
with us in our infrastructure and help the local government to reduce
the high costs of doing business. Help us to stabilize and provide
essential air service. Help us to reduce our rising costs of shipping
resulting from higher fuel costs, our isolated location, and the rapid
loss of our garment industry.
Finally, please help us to develop a tourism education program so
we can prepare more local people for jobs, while allowing us to retain
the level of foreign workforce we need to serve our customers and
compete against other tourism destinations.
The members of the Hotel Association thank you for your kind
consideration of our views.
APPENDIX
1. Hotel room Occupancy and Rate Statistics, as prepared by the
Hotel Association of the Northern Mariana Islands for Saipan's hotels,
1992 to 2007.
ADDITIONAL REFERENCES
``Strategic Initiatives for 2006-2010,'' a strategic plan for
tourism, prepared for the Office of CNMI Governor by the Ad Hoc Tourism
committee, Strategic Economic Development Council, May 2006.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 37528.001
.eps__
Mrs. Christensen. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Borja for
five minutes.
STATEMENT OF JESUS C. BORJA, THE ENTERPRISE GROUP
Mr. Borja. Thank you. Good afternoon. The CNMI Enterprise
group thanks Representative Christensen and the members of the
House Subcommittee on Insular Affairs for extending an
invitation to it to testify before the Subcommittee. We welcome
you to our great Commonwealth and to Saipan in particular. Mr.
Jose S. Dela Cruz regrets that he could not appear before you
due to a previous commitment that he could not get out of.
The Enterprise Group is completely in support of the
primary intent of the bill, to protect the national and
homeland security of the United States. The members are also in
complete support of Section 201, permitting a resident of our
Commonwealth to sit as a Delegate to the House of
Representatives of the U.S. Congress. Although a nonvoting
delegate at least it is putting us on a par with the other
insular areas. Hopefully, all insular areas in Washington,
D.C., will eventually have a seat equal to all the states from
this great country of ours. We also support Section 103,
dealing with asylum.
While we do support the provisions I just mentioned, we do
have serious concerns that we wish to share with your
Subcommittee. Our concerns have been stated in writing and
submitted to you. I would like to emphasize a few of those
concerns.
Section 701 of our Covenant is the source of the language
used in the bill that the United States will assist the
Commonwealth ``to achieve a progressively higher standard of
living for its people as part of the American economic
community and to develop economic resources needed to meet the
financial responsibilities of local self-government.'' This
provision became effective on January 9, 1978, when our
Constitution went into full force and effect, and our
Constitutional Government was established. From 1978 to 2007,
29 years, the promise made by the United States in Section 701
of our Covenant has still not been accomplished. This is
evident with the use of the same language in the bill.
If after 29 years, the United States has still not met its
goal of a standard of living for our people equal to the
American economic community and the development of the economic
resources needed to meet the financial responsibilities of
local self government, how is it that the bill concludes that
such will be accomplished in ten years? The transition period
should be made flexible so that it may be extended if
warranted. A possible amendment would be to include a provision
that the transition may be extended if a panel consisting of
CNMI and Federal officials agree that it should be extended.
The Enterprise Group knows that what is stated in Section
102(a)(2) regarding the intentions of the bill will not be
accomplished with the plan that is contained in the bill. The
Enterprise Group surely believes that the bill is in
retaliation for abuses that our Commonwealth has committed. If
this is really the case, is it fair that the majority of the
people of our Commonwealth, good and decent people, be
penalized for the sins of the few? The Enterprise Group does
not condone the abuses that have occurred, but the Enterprise
Group does not believe it fair that the United States enact a
law that punishes even good people and derogates from its
promise to assist us achieve a standard of living comparable to
the standard of living of the American economic community and
from developing our resources so that we can meet the financial
responsibilities of local self government.
We firmly and sincerely believe that the bill can be
drafted so that the United States will actually continue to
live up to its promise under Section 701 of our Covenant. In
particular, the Enterprise Group sincerely believes that the
bill can be crafted so that the much needed tourist and foreign
investors can continue to arrive into our Commonwealth without
endangering our national and homeland security.
We do not believe that having a provision saying that after
ten years employers can only have non-resident employees, if
the employees become immigrants of the United States, is in the
best interest of the Commonwealth. Neither do we believe that
stopping all foreign investors is in the best interest of the
CNMI. These specific provisions sound and smell of
vindictiveness and retaliation.
Our economy is very fragile and is affected by events
occurring outside the CNMI without much control by us. Our only
industry now is the tourist industry, and it not only is not
improving, it is going down. Our human resources are very
limited and we doubt very much that it would be sufficient both
in terms of numbers and in terms of types of skills in ten
years to meet the demands of our economy.
We hope and pray that your Subcommittee will review the
bill and do the necessary amendments so that the bill is really
for the good of the people of the Commonwealth of the Northern
Mariana Islands. Thank you.
Mrs. Christensen. Thank you, Mr. Borja.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Borja follows:]
Statement of Jesus C. Borja on behalf of The
CNMI Enterprise Group
On behalf of the CNMI Enterprise Group, I would like to thank the
Chairwoman of the House Subcommittee on Insular Affairs, Representative
Donna Christensen of the Virgin Islands, for inviting our Group to
testify at the hearing to be held on August 15, 2007, with respect to
H.R. 3079. It is a privilege and an honor to testify before the U.S.
Subcommittee on Insular Affairs, which has oversight jurisdiction over
the territories and commonwealths of the United States.
It is indeed rare for a Subcommittee of the United States Congress
to conduct its hearing in one of the territories or commonwealth. It is
to the Subcommittee's credit that it is conducting this particular
hearing in the Northern Mariana Islands. The legislation under
consideration, which proposes the inclusion of the Northern Mariana
Islands within the overall scope and jurisdiction of the U.S.
Immigration and Nationality Act, is of great importance to the
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands and its people.
General Overview of H.R. 3079
If the proposed federal immigration legislation is enacted into
law, the CNMI immigration regime that the Commonwealth of the Northern
Islands has practiced for almost thirty (30) years will cease within
one-year of enactment of the federal legislation. The measure is,
therefore, of great significance to the Commonwealth of the Northern
Mariana Islands and its people because of its potential effect on the
economy of the Northern Mariana Islands and its potential impact on the
social fabric, political make-up and cultural dynamics of its people.
The legislation would, we believe, affect adversely the economic well-
being of the Northern Mariana Islands, particularly at a time when the
local economy is extremely depressed and is not moving. The legislation
would change in a very fundamental way the social demographics of the
local population. And it would make sweeping changes to the social
fabric and local dynamics of the fairly small population of the
Northern Mariana Islands. Finally, this federal legislation would bring
major social and political changes to the CNMI that we believe would
adversely affect the Commonwealth's welfare and well-being, because of
the timing and the manner in which the legislation is being
implemented--abruptly and without much consideration as to its
potential consequences on the local economy. We believe that the
effects of this legislation on the people of the CNMI should be the
second paramount objective of this legislation. The first of course is
our national security objectives.
About the CNMI Enterprise Group
As the Subcommittee may be aware, the CNMI Enterprise Group is a
voluntary association of concerned citizens of the Northern Mariana
Islands that meets every now and then to discuss some of the major
issues affecting the Northern Mariana Islands and its people. Whenever
the Group feels it appropriate or necessary to do so, we make formal
recommendations either to the local government or to business and civic
leaders to enact legislation, promulgate regulation, or adopt
appropriate public policy or directive that would address an issue
affecting the CNMI and its people. Major issues affecting the CNMI
which our Group has reviewed and considered in the past has run the
gamut from the problems affecting the CNMI visitor industry (in view of
its demise in recent years), to our recommendation to the CNMI
government early last year strongly urging an increase in the local
minimum wage, but on an incremental basis and based on the living
standard here in the CNMI, not on the comparatively high living
standards of the U.S. mainland.
Our Group has also reviewed the emotional and very divisive issue
pertaining to the CNMI land alienation restriction. We have addressed
the fundamental need for CNMI residents to be trained and to acquire
the skills needed to be gainfully employed by the private sector; as
well as the corresponding need for the CNMI government to begin weaning
itself out of its long-time role as the biggest employer in the CNMI.
We are, in a sense, a public interest group. So our testimony before
the Subcommittee is as a CNMI public interest group, whose primary
concern is the welfare and well-being of the people of the CNMI, now
and in the future.
Statement of General Concerns Regarding the Impact of H.R. 3079 on the
CNMI Economy
While the Group understands and appreciates the basic intent of the
proposed legislation, namely, to implement the U.S. Immigration and
Nationality Act in the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, so
that every jurisdiction under the U.S. flag follows the same uniform
rules of immigration, we are very concerned about the legislation's
potential impact on the fragile economy of the CNMI. We understand and
appreciate the underlying reasons for doing so: namely, to ensure that
the national security interests and the homeland security interest of
the United States are promoted, and so that effective border control
procedures could be implemented and carried out.
Our Group wholeheartedly agrees with these national security
objectives and concerns. Indeed, in this day and age when the overall
security interest of the United States is being actively threatened, it
is not only necessary but mandatory as well for every member of the
American political family to participate in and help implement such
overriding national security objectives. Every resident of the Northern
Mariana Islands, we believe, understands this and each resident gladly
agrees to do his/her share to help ensure that our national security
interests are preserved and protected. The best example of our
commitment is the participation of our young people in the Iraq and
Afghanistan conflicts.
The issue that our Group has with the proposed legislation relates
to the second part of the legislative intent:
(2) to minimize, to the greatest extent practicable, potential
adverse economic and fiscal effects of phasing out the Commonwealth's
nonresident contract worker program and to maximize the Commonwealth's
potential for future economic and business growth...
Section 102 (a) (2). Our Group has great difficulty agreeing with
this part of the legislative intent because we believe that such
statement is only paying lip-service to the intent (a) to as much as
possible not disrupt the economy of the Northern Mariana Islands; and
(b) to encourage the development and growth of a diverse economy for
the Northern Mariana Islands. Our Group feels very strongly that the
proposed legislation, as now drafted (with the many exceptions being
carved out from the uniform immigration laws of the United States),
would instead when implemented adversely affect the economic well-being
of the Northern Mariana Islands and its people. Why is the proposed
legislation carving out so many exceptions from the uniform immigration
laws of the United States? Many of the provisions of the proposed
legislation depart quite radically from the uniform immigration laws of
the United States. Many of them do not make any sense both from a
national perspective and from a CNMI economic perspective.
Put differently, how could an insular economy, like the fragile
economy of the Northern Mariana Islands, ``develop, diversify and
grow'' when limitations are being imposed under the proposed federal
legislation which would, among other things, prohibit new foreign
investors from coming in and investing in the CNMI? How could a
fragile, insular economy grow and develop when the proposed federal
legislation would prohibit the future hiring of guest workers that
local businesses would need, because there are not enough trained or
skilled workers locally to supplement the labor needs of local
businesses and the visitor industry? Why can't the application of the
Immigration and Nationality Act in the CNMI be drafted in a manner that
would truly help to ``develop, diversify and grow'' the economy of the
CNMI? After all, the Federal Government, and not the CNMI Government,
will be enforcing the federal immigration law regime. Any fear of the
CNMI government ``fumbling'' its responsibility on immigration and
labor matters, as some have stated in the past, should no longer be the
case. It will be the Secretary of Homeland Security that would make the
call, not the CNMI government.
The Fragile, Insular Economy of the CNMI
The Group urges the Subcommittee to please seriously consider the
fact that the CNMI has a very fragile, insular economy, which is
completely different from the developed economy of the United States
mainland where the standard of living is probably three to four times
higher than here in the islands. The Group also urges the Subcommittee
to recognize that the CNMI has almost no natural resources to
supplement its tourist-based economy. Although we are surrounded by the
vast Pacific, the CNMI does not have the capability or the means to
harvest the abundant resources of the ocean so as to be able to have a
viable fishing industry. Indeed, when we began local self-government
thirty (30) years ago, the economy of the Northern Mariana Islands was
essentially a subsistence economy. In other words, the people of the
Northern Mariana Islands used to live by fishing and farming for their
livelihood; and a good number of our people still fish and farm to
supplement their meager salary.
It is, therefore, imperative on the part of the U.S. Congress,
whenever it enacts legislation affecting the Northern Mariana Islands
and the other insular territories, that it takes a more sensitive
approach to and closely scrutinize how a federal legislation that is
being proposed would impact on our small, insular population and our
fragile and limited resources. They have a saying here in the Northern
Marianas that when Japan sneezes, the CNMI catches a cold. Indeed, the
CNMI is so dependent on Japan for our local tourist industry and for
investments in the islands that when Japan Airline stopped servicing
the islands in October 2005, the CNMI visitor industry literally became
paralyzed.
Resolving the visitor industry problem has now been one of the top
priorities of the CNMI government and business leaders, but so far no
new air carrier has stepped in to replace Japan Airline. Indeed, this
is one area where the Federal Government could be doing something
concrete to help the CNMI. It could be actively participating in
assisting the CNMI get another air carrier to come and service the
Japan-CNMI route. This is one very practical way that the Federal
Government could help ``develop, grow and diversify'' the economy of
the Northern Mariana Islands, not by removing the CNMI's ability to
hire guest workers whenever there is a need to do so.
That is why when one reads the second part of the legislative
intent in the proposed legislation, namely, that one of its purposes is
to ``encourag[e] diversification and growth of the economy of the
Commonwealth,'' the Subcommittee needs to ask itself how such intent
could actually and successfully be carried out, if we all know now that
the proposed legislation would most likely do just the opposite:
namely, it would decrease the number of guest workers needed by CNMI
businesses from what it is now, to zero by the year 2017. Such guest
worker ``attrition formula'' is clearly unrealistic because it presumes
that by the year 2017, there would be enough local workers to
accommodate the needs of all employers in the CNMI.
What would happen if that is not the case? Do we then ask the
Congress to amend the law again? We believe that the proposed
legislation should be drafted now in a manner that realistically
addresses the actual guest worker needs of the CNMI as the years go by,
rather than to allow guest workers to be employed in the CNMI for a
period of only ten years, during which period the guest worker
population will begin dwindling down to zero. Is the worker-attrition
approach economically realistic? We don't think so. And we also believe
that this Subcommittee would not think so.
We urge the Subcommittee to seriously consider the extremely
critical suggestion made by the CNMI Administration that the General
Accountability Office (GAO) of the U.S. Congress should first perform a
study on the potential impact of the proposed legislation on the
economy of the CNMI, before the measure is acted upon by Congress. It
is better to find out the potential consequences in advance, rather
than find out later on that the legislation became the final blow that
destroyed the CNMI economy. Does Congress want this to happen? The
answer, we believe, is clearly ``No.''
The Apparent Inconsistency of Certain Provisions in Title I with the
Provisions of the U.S. Immigration and Nationality Act
Under the Immigration and Nationality Act's (INA) H-2 worker visa
program, we understand that the need of the employer to hire a guest
worker is one of the key criteria required in order to hire a guest
worker. But under the proposed immigration legislation for the CNMI
alone, if the CNMI needs additional guest workers they could only be
admitted as immigrants, i.e. as permanent residents. The irony with
this particular requirement--that all new guest workers hereafter could
only be admitted into the CNMI as immigrants--is that for the guest
workers who are now and have been here in the CNMI for five years or
more, the ``status'' that these long-time guest workers are being
accorded under the proposed legislation is as ``non-immigrants,''
similar to the status accorded citizens of the Freely Associated
States. We realize, of course, that this matter, i.e. the granting of
``status,'' is strictly a federal prerogative, but the approach being
taken under the proposed federal legislation appears illogical or is
intended to simply make it extremely difficult for CNMI employers to
hire additional guest workers in the future.
The proposed legislation is essentially telling the CNMI: ``If you
need more guest workers, you could only bring them in as part of the
permanent population of the CNMI.'' The additional irony with this
particular requirement is that under the existing Immigration and
Nationally Act, H-2 workers who are admitted to work in New York,
California, Idaho or Kansas (or anywhere in the United States), are not
admitted as immigrants, but as non-immigrant H-2 workers, who must
leave the United States when their term of employment ends. So why is
this very strange twist on the uniform federal immigration law being
made for the CNMI alone? It simply doesn't make sense. It makes you
wonder whether this provision is somehow a form of retribution against
the CNMI for its alleged past labor abuse and misdeeds, by those who
drafted the language of this legislation.
We urge the Subcommittee to look very closely at this provision;
and we also urge the Subcommittee to seriously reconsider the ``ten-
year winding down of guest worker'' provision. Both of these provisions
do not make any sense, and both are unrealistic for the development and
growth of the economy of the CNMI. How these provisions would help
``develop, grow and diversify'' the economy of the CNMI is truly
incomprehensible. Indeed, it may also be wise for the Subcommittee to
ask those who drafted this legislation how some of these provisions
came about. The Subcommittee should require them to explain to the
Subcommittee why they think these unusual provisions would help in the
growth and development of the economy of the CNMI. They should be asked
to provide the Subcommittee with answers that make sense. If it turns
out that some of these provisions are in essence, as we suspect, a form
of retribution against the CNMI for allegedly being ``an errant
member'' of the American political family in the past, we believe that
an august and hallowed institution, as the United States Congress is,
should not be used wittingly or unwittingly by individuals in such a
cavalier manner. We sincerely hope that our suspicion on this matter is
incorrect, and that the people who drafted this legislation were
motivated entirely by a truly sincere interest in the growth and
development of a diverse economy for the CNMI. The burden of explaining
this should, however, be on the drafters of the legislation: to show
the Subcommittee that such is indeed the case, and not otherwise.
Specific Concerns with Respect to Certain Provisions of Title I of the
Act
In addition to the foregoing concerns, we would like to point out
to the Subcommittee several particular concerns that our Group has with
some of the provisions of the proposed federal legislation. First, the
Group would like to ask the Subcommittee to please clarify the
provisions relating to ``immigrants,'' as set forth in section 6 (c) of
the proposed Amendment to the Joint Resolution Approving the Covenant.
This particular subsection provides that no alien shall be admitted at
a port of entry of the CNMI for purposes of admission as an immigrant
alien, except family-sponsored immigrants and employment-based
immigrants. We have earlier noted our concern as to why we do not
understand why new admissions into the CNMI of additional guest workers
have to be conditioned on their being admitted as immigrants only, and
not as non-immigrants as is now and has been a long-standing rule under
the INA. We are also not clear as to why a numerical limitation on
family-sponsored immigrants is being set for the CNMI alone. Does this
mean that once the numerical limit agreed to by the CNMI governor and
the Secretary of Homeland Security has been reached, additional
immediate relatives of U.S. citizens residing in the CNMI cannot be
admitted into the CNMI? If so, why?
As to additional guest workers who could only be hired as
immigrants, we urge the Subcommittee to seriously consider the impact
the addition of such immigrants into the permanent population of the
CNMI may have on the social demographics and dynamics of the CNMI.
Would it have an adverse social impact on the relatively small
population of the CNMI? We believe that unanticipated social, political
and cultural issues would likely arise in the CNMI considering its
small size: land-wise, population-wise and resource-wise. We,
therefore, urge the Subcommittee to please consider the potential
impact of the proposed federal legislation on the local demographics
and on the social and cultural dynamics. The Subcommittee might also
want to consider the question: what if the guest worker does not want
to be an immigrant?
What has happened during the CNMI immigration regime in the past
has been bad enough in terms of the lopsided population between
residents and guest workers, as the Congress is fully aware of. So why
is the proposed federal legislation trying to compound the problem by
requiring that all new guest workers could be admitted only as
permanent residents? It is almost as if the primary concern of the
proposed legislation is not on the people of the CNMI, but on how guest
workers would fare under the proposed federal legislation. We believe
that the federal legislation should treat both residents and guest
workers fairly and decently. Indeed, we wish to point out that the
people of the Northern Mariana Islands are the rightful subjects of the
United States. The people of the CNMI are the ones who voted to join
the American political family in 1978. Inasmuch as our leaders may not
have done a commendable job in the area of immigration and labor in the
past, we are urging this Subcommittee to please listen to and take into
account our people's concerns. All we are asking is for the Congress
correct the problem, not compound it further with this legislation.
The Extension to the CNMI of the Guam Visa-Waiver Program
Our group appreciates the proposed extension to the CNMI of the
statutory visa-waiver program for visitors to Guam from several
countries in Asia. For the Northern Mariana Islands-Only Visa Waiver
Program, however, the Secretary of the Homeland Security is given the
discretion to determine by regulations which other countries would be
given visa-waiver privilege to be able to visit the CNMI. We wish to
point out that the CNMI has been issued an ``approved-destination''
status by the People's Republic of China, for the CNMI to be able to
receive visitors from China. Because of the sharp decline in the number
of visitors from Japan over the past several years, the CNMI visitor
industry is trying its best to bring in more visitors from China. Our
Group is urging that a special provision be inserted in the proposed
federal legislation so that the Secretary of Homeland Security would
actually allow tourists from China to visit the Northern Mariana
Islands.
The Matter of Long-Term Investor Visas for Future Investors
The proposed federal legislation would allow the issuance of non-
immigrant investor visas for aliens that have been admitted to the
Commonwealth, have been given long-term investor status, and have
continuously maintained residence in the CNMI as long-term investors.
The Group's concern is with respect to new alien investors who
hereafter wish to invest in the CNMI. Could the proposed legislation be
amended so that the legislation provide for the Secretary of Homeland
Security to promulgate regulations that would allow new foreign
investors to also be given non-immigrant investor visas? This is a very
important matter for the economic growth and development of the CNMI:
the infusion of fresh capital into the CNMI economy. The Subcommittee
should be aware that most of the investors in the CNMI are from foreign
countries like Japan and Korea; not from the United States, due in
large part because of geographical consideration.
The Matter of Granting ``Status'' to Long-Term Guest Workers
Our Group has no particular comment on the granting of non-
immigrant ``status'' to guest workers who have been in the CNMI for at
least five years. This is a matter that we feel is strictly for the
Federal Government to decide. But as with our previous comments, we
urge the Subcommittee to determine the basis or the rationale for the
granting of what is essentially a permanent residency status on such
guest workers. Would it adversely affect the social, political and
cultural dynamics in the CNMI? Also, is it the eventual plan to grant
U.S. citizenship to these guest workers after having such status for
five years? That is the sense we have in reading this provision;
otherwise it does not make sense to have a group of ``non-immigrants''
staying permanently all over the United States, almost as if
``stateless.'' Because such proposed ``status'' does not make sense, we
request that the Subcommittee have this matter clarified by the
drafters of this legislation.
The Matter of Granting Asylum to Refugees
Our Group has no problem whatsoever with the provisions requiring
the CNMI Government to comply with the treaties and conventions entered
into by the United States with respect to asylum for refugees. Indeed,
our position on this matter is unconditional: that the CNMI must comply
with all the laws pertaining to asylum for refugees. The only caveat is
that if the matter involving refugees overwhelms the ability of the
CNMI to handle an influx of refugees, then the Federal Government must
step in to assist financially, logistically, manpower-wise and so
forth.
The Collection and Retention by the Secretary of Homeland Security of
User Fees Paid by Employers of Guest Workers
The proposed legislation provides for the Secretary of Homeland
security to establish and collect user fees from the employers of guest
workers. It further provides that such fees shall be retained by the
U.S. Treasury to be used to administer the guest worker program,
notwithstanding section 703 (b) of the Covenant which mandates that all
fees collected by the Federal Government in the CNMI shall be
transferred over to the CNMI Government treasury for use by the CNMI
Government. We urge the Subcommittee to continue the application of
section 703 (b) of the Covenant to such user fees. First, we believe
that the burden of footing the expenses for the work of the Department
of Homeland Security in the CNMI is best left to the Federal Government
pursuant to federal budgetary appropriations. Second, the user fees
collected should be transferred to the CNMI Government, whose general
revenue collection during the past two years has decreased
dramatically. Third, we believe that section 703(b) of the Covenant
should be honored by the Federal Government, because to do otherwise
would give the impression that the United States is reneging on the
terms of the Covenant.
The Ten Percent (10%) Matching Fund Contribution from the CNMI for
Technical Assistance and Support Provided by the Department of
Interior
Our Group appreciates the provisions of the proposed legislation
that would provide the CNMI with technical assistance and support from
the Department of Interior in economic matters. Section 103(e)(3). We
urge the Subcommittee, however, to please consider removing the ten
percent (10%) matching fund contribution that the CNMI would be
required to pay for such technical assistance and support. As we have
stated several times earlier in this testimony, the CNMI Government is
literally broke and simply cannot afford to make this matching fund
contribution. Maybe in the distant future, when the CNMI economy gets
back to normal, such matching fund requirement would be reasonable to
impose, but not for the foreseeable future.
TITLE II: THE NORTHERN MARIANA ISLANDS DELEGATE ACT
The CNMI Enterprise Group wholeheartedly endorses and supports
Title II of the Act. If enacted into law, the people of the Northern
Mariana Islands would, after thirty long years of waiting, finally have
real representation in the United States Congress. We thank the present
Subcommittee on Insular Affairs and its distinguished Chair for its
willingness and sensitivity in agreeing with the people of the Northern
Mariana Islands that the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands,
as a member of the American political family, should be accorded
representation in our national lawmaking body. Democracy demands no
less; and America, as we know, is the bulwark of democracy. Thank you
very much for having the determination and commitment to make our
representation in the U.S. Congress representation a reality. We are
clearly elated with this very important proposal.
CONCLUSION
The foregoing sets forth the testimony of the CNMI Enterprise Group
with respect to H.R. 3079. On behalf of the members of our Group, I
wish to thank the Subcommittee Chair and Members for giving us the
opportunity to comment on a very significant piece of legislation, one
that will directly affect the future welfare and well-being of the
people of the Northern Mariana Islands for years to come. Our Group
will be happy to answer questions that the Subcommittee may have
regarding our testimony.
______
Mrs. Christensen. I now recognize myself for five minutes.
I'll begin questions with Mr. Sablan. You testified that the
Administration, you would prefer for us to wait until the GAO
report was issued and get a chance to look at it. Mr. Cohen
testified that the Administration does not want to wait until--
unless it feels it's needed and necessary to wait for that GAO
report, but that the security needs and the state of affairs
here should bring that flexible Federalization into play right
now, and that the report itself will then inform the transition
period, which is to be worked on between the Government of the
CNMI and the Federal Government. Do you not agree that, that--
given what Mr. Cohen said, do you still feel that we should
wait?
Mr. Sablan. Yes.
Mrs. Christensen. And why?
Mr. Sablan. I believe so because, it's quite interesting
obviously, by virtue of the fact that this bill has been
brought to task and we're now addressing the homeland security
effort, but we've had six years to do so in the Commonwealth.
2001 occurred and yes, we have gotten great grants through
Homeland Security. We have an office here. We have--provisions
have been put into play that affect homeland security. But
where is the great urgency, I guess, is the point we're trying
to make.
Mrs. Christensen. Well, I think some of it may be because
of the military buildup and the fact that we're bringing, you
know, the number of Marines, Navy, Air Force to the region and
we do want the CNMI to also be the beneficiaries of some of
that buildup.
Mr. Sablan. I understand that. And what we would like to
see is, yes, the buildup in Guahan occur. It will definitely
benefit the region, but we also need to be cognizant that,
looking at the dynamic that we have here, we do not have a
military base as a second pillar of our economy. We had the
garment industry; maybe if we'd gotten some provision changes
and had done 3A earlier, we may have been able to salvage that.
We did not get that, political or whatever. What we have now is
tourism left. That is the only pillar we've got left. And so
looking around in the region, what diversification
opportunities do we really have? I think we need to look around
us. I think Guahan is a prime example. In '93 when the military
was pulling out, it had tourism left and, forgive me
Congresswoman Bordallo, but you know Guam is in trouble and
they do have the horizon to look forward to $15 billion dollars
potentially coming over 15 years is what everybody hears. We
don't have that potential.
Mrs. Christensen. Well, what I was saying is that you will
share in some of that potential and I am sure she'll----
Mr. Sablan. As the Governor was saying, the hopes, I think
is the----
Mrs. Christensen. Well----
Mr. Sablan.--the scenario we're looking at.
Mrs. Christensen. I think you know, well--I am not going to
address that but, you know, we're not here to blow smoke.
Mr. Sablan. Sure. I am not like that.
Mrs. Christensen. Let me ask Ms. Knight. I hear your very
clear opposition to the bill, and I take it then that the Hotel
Association doesn't believe that the bill's provisions
providing for a special visa waiver for the CNMI to allow
tourist to come in, who might even otherwise not qualify for a
visa to enter the Mainland U.S., the screenings, as well as the
special H2-visa, to be able to continue to allow the CNMI to
have the unprecedented ability to bring in necessary labor,
also under the safeguards of the Federal law, but outside of
the cap to have their own ability to do that. Do you not feel
that those are enough to mitigate any potentially negative
effects--impacts that the bill might have otherwise?
Ms. Knight. Madam Chair, that's a very good question, but
unfortunately, no, our members do not have the confidence. And
the reason is because there is absolutely no detail here. There
is no detail about cost; there is no detail about how or who or
where visas will be obtained. U.S. Embassies, we have some
experience with that. We have some experience with I20-visas
for students for example and it's all very bureaucratic, very
expensive, very, very long processing. So, our members do not
have confidence.
Mrs. Christensen. And the fact that this will be negotiated
with the Governor of the CNMI and the agencies, the Federal
agencies involved and you would have representation in Congress
acting on your behalf does not increase your confidence?
Ms. Knight. No. A number of Federal offices have opened and
closed here over the years. And there hasn't been any that have
had real significant long-term presence that gives us
confidence. It's kind of like, how could we support something
without a plan? That's why I am saying this is just too--this
is very, very uncertain. You can't plan business investments.
We can't plan next year's business plan on something like this
without more detail.
Mrs. Christensen. Well, I am going to yield to my
colleagues, but the plan has ten years to be put into place and
this is just setting the framework for that plan to be
developed between the Federal government and the local
government. I yield five minutes to Mr. Faleomavaega.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Thank you, Madam Chair. I thank the
members of the panel for their statements. Underlying the
comments that had been made by Ms. Knight, this is the final
leg of the stool so to speak in terms of the most basic
fundamental industry that is now currently left here in the
economy of the CNMI. How do you contrast that the--and I assume
that there has been full implementation of the national
immigration laws, for example, a place like the State of
Hawaii, and their tourism industry seems to be still in real
good condition. I noticed Continental and Japan Airlines have
left and I guess making it more difficult for you to attract
tourists coming from the Asian countries. Are you saying that
this proposed bill is going to kill the tourism industry rather
than help in getting a more even-handed format, I suppose, and
making sure that immigration and all of this is to be carried
out in a more fair way? Can you comment on your concerns about
the fact that you feel that this bill is not going to be
helpful to your tourism industry?
Ms. Knight. Well, let me address the first part about
Hawaii. Hawaii is booming because of mainland American and
Canadian tourists. We cannot get mainland American and Canadian
tourists out here to the CNMI. We're dependent on Asia. And
we're competing with destinations like Okinawa and Phuket and
Maldives and Hainan Island, and that's what we're competing.
So, it's a whole----
Mr. Faleomavaega. How many tourists are you getting right
here?
Ms. Knight.--whole different ball game.
Mr. Faleomavaega. How many tourists are you getting right
now?
Ms. Knight. This year, it will be around 400,000. Our peak
year was 775,000. So you can see how far down we are. And
that's because of competition. But mostly it's because of air
service.
Mr. Faleomavaega. How does that compare to Guam?
Ms. Knight. Guam is 1.2 million, and trying for 1.5.
Ms. Bordallo. A little bit over, yes.
Ms. Knight. But it's largely an air service problem,
Congressman. We lost so much of our Japan Air service because
there are only a certain number of slots out of the Narita
Airport in Tokyo and there are other destinations that are
larger, like Guam, that have a little bit higher yield than we
do. We have a very, very high cost of aviation fuel. That's why
I am saying these are some issues that are beyond our control
that perhaps the U.S. Government can work with us and help.
Mr. Faleomavaega. You don't think that the provision of
H.R. 3079 is in the right direction in helping you?
Ms. Knight. These don't solve our problems, in my opinion.
Our economic problems will be compounded by this bill.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Very interesting observation there. Mr.
Borja, you mentioned about Section 701 of the Covenant. Twenty-
nine years later you feel that the U.S. has not fulfilled its
obligations or responsibilities under that provision of the
Covenant?
Mr. Borja. That's correct, Congressman.
Mr. Faleomavaega. You think that perhaps--while I can
understand the Federal government does--will take
responsibilities of the failure of the development of Section
701, but perhaps part of that failure can also be due to the
problems of the CNMI had created itself?
Mr. Borja. Possibly.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Possibly?
Mr. Borja. Yes. Yeah, as I mentioned in my testimony,
Congressman, there have been--we don't deny the abuses that
have occurred. We don't deny that there have been problems in
the running of our immigration, but I have yet to hear from
anybody to tell me that the immigration laws of the United
States are perfect when applied on the Mainland.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Oh, I don't think we're talking
specifically about just on immigration issues. I am talking
about the overall situation in terms of the benefits and many
other programs that the people of CNMI are beneficiaries coming
from the Federal Government. I mean the----
Mr. Borja. Well, Congressman, if I may, the bill itself
makes mention of trying to up the standard of living here. So,
to me, that's an admission that the promise made by the United
States under 701 has not been fulfilled. Otherwise, it would
say here that we've done it, but we want to help you some more.
Mr. Faleomavaega. So, what is your proposed solution to
alleviate this?
Mr. Borja. Well, like I suggested----
Mr. Faleomavaega. Demand more assistance from the Federal
government?
Mr. Borja. Perhaps. But what the plan has in the bill,
Congressman, won't do it. That we're pretty certain of. You
asked Ms. Lynn Knight here as to what specifically in the bill
would be detrimental to the tourist industry and the plan here
is vague on a lot of things, but you have a plan that aims on a
zero non-resident workers after ten years. Everybody here knows
we're not going to have human resources to assist and support
the tourist industry without non-resident workers. How is that
going to help us? You have a provision in the bill that says no
more foreign investors after ten years. How is that going to
help us?
Mr. Faleomavaega. Well, I appreciate your response and
comments. I wish I had more time, but my time is up, and Madam
Chair, thank you.
Mrs. Christensen. Thank you. I am not sure that the bill
says anywhere that there would be zero guest workers at the end
of ten years, but--and we'll find the reference. Ms. Bordallo?
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to
thank Mr. Sablan and Ms. Knight and Mr. Borja. Your testimonies
to follow-up on what Congressman Faleomavaega said, your
testimonies are very interesting and you know I think it's very
important that we look at the economic side of this issue. I
consider the members of the business community to be of utmost
importance as we go forward with deliberations on this bill. I
was a member for two terms of the Small Business Committee in
the U.S. House of Representatives, and I know businesses are
the engine of the community, and it's important what you have
to say.
I do serve on the Armed Services Committee and I think
someone referenced the military buildup. In the military
briefings we have had so far in Washington, there are plans to
include the CNMI in the buildup. So, I want to assure you that,
I can't go into specifics, but I do know that you are included.
And because of the interest of time, I have been told that
we're really very limited. I have some closing statements, but
I will yield back my time.
Mrs. Christensen. If you didn't have any questions, I would
now refer to--yield time to Mr. Faleomavaega for his closing
statement and then return to you, Ms. Bordallo.
Mr. Faleomavaega. I just want to make a closing statement,
again, to thank Governor Fitial and the members of the
Administration, the leadership of the Legislature of CNMI and
the various leaders of the business community, and in general
the good people of CNMI for, again, allowing us to come in to
share with us some of their concerns and problems, not only
relating to the proposed bill, but overall just the need for
those of us working in Washington to pay more attention to the
problems affecting the needs of the people here in the CNMI.
Thank you, Madam Chair and thank you members of the Panel.
Mrs. Christensen. Ms. Bordallo, I recognize you for your
closing statement.
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you. Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
Ladies and gentlemen, I want to thank you all for your warm
welcome, your wonderful hospitality, and for all the ideas and
views that you have shared with us regarding H.R. 3079, and the
associated matters of interest to the CNMI and your community.
My colleagues and our professional (unintelligible) staff and I
came here to listen, listen to your views. And I will keep them
in mind as I continue to evaluate proposals in Washington, as a
member of the Committee on Natural Resources and, of course, on
the House Armed Services Committee, which will be of great
interest to all of the insular areas here in the Pacific. So, I
am pleased that I have a seat in that committee. I share a deep
affection for your islands and your people. Resident
Representative Pete A. Tenorio and I work well together in
Washington, as he will allude to, and I look forward to the day
when Congresswoman Christensen, Congressman Faleomavaega, our
colleagues in the House and I can work alongside and with our
Representative in Congress from your community. Until such time
that that happens, I will be your Representative through Mr.
Tenorio.
The people of Guam and the CNMI share a common heritage and
a history together. We are islanders. We're proud of our
families and our way of life, proud of our customs and our
traditions that have helped shaped our people and communities
over time. And today, we face many challenges together and
together we must approach solutions to them. When we work
together, we achieve the best results. I found this out when I
became a member of the U.S. Congress. I look forward to
continuing to do my part in addressing these issues of concern
and to meet the interest of our nation and the people and the
leaders of the CNMI.
And I want to again, in closing, thank the Governor, the
Lieutenant Governor and your offices, the Resident
Representative and his staff, the members of the Legislature,
the community, civic and business leaders and all of the others
who have participated in this hearing today, and who strive to
make this dialogue with Congress most meaningful and
informative. I thank you very much, Si Yu'us ma'ase.
Mrs. Christensen. Thank you, Ms. Bordallo and Mr.
Faleomavaega. I just wanted to reference page 29 of the bill,
where it states that the government can, within 180 days at the
end of the 10-year transition period, extend the provision for
the program for increments of five years. So, it doesn't really
end--does not have to end at that 10-year period. And the plan
is to phase out the CNMI Guest Worker Program either in the 10
years, or either the five-year extensions, if requested, and
then replace it with the Federal Guest Worker Program. So, I
hope that clarifies, but you can go to page 29 and beyond to
the spot. I am going to give my closing.
Mr. Borja. Madam Chair, if I may, you also referenced our
statement to the effect that you're not sure that the bill
mentioned zero. On page 26, lines 10 to--(pauses; peruses
document)----
Mrs. Christensen. That's the end of the CNMI program, but
there is a provision to extend it in five-year increments. So,
I mean, it's not--all I am saying is that, it does not end in
five years, if the CNMI sees the need to extend it in five-year
increments thereafter. So, there is no hard and fast closure.
Mr. Borja. (Audible but unintelligible).
Mrs. Christensen. Right, and just being referred to the
page where it says, ``in five-year increments, of the
provisions of this paragraph are necessary to ensure an
adequate number of workers will be available for legitimate
businesses in the Commonwealth.'' We take every--we take your
comments and your concerns, but I just wanted to clarify that
for the record.
And in closing, I want to assure the people of the
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands and your
leadership that this committee hearing is not an empty
exercise. Both your oral and your written statements as
submitted and admitted into the record would be fully
considered as H.R. 3079 goes through the legislative process. I
also want to assure you that the Subcommittee, the members of
which are chiefly Delegates from your sister territories, will
keep foremost in our minds and our work, the well-being of the
people of the CNMI, as we seek to find resolutions to the
plight of the temporary guest workers who've been allowed to
live here for many years and as we respond to the needs for the
increased security of this very important and sensitive region
where so many of our U.S. territories and freely associated
states exist. Again, the Subcommittee considers it a very high
honor to have been able to convene this historic hearing in the
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands. And we thank the
Governor, the Lieutenant Governor, Representative Tenorio, the
members of the Senate and the House, and the people of the CNMI
for their hospitality. We thank everyone who has testified
today. We thank the Deputy Assistant Secretary for coming. But
again, we particularly want to thank all of you for your very
gracious hospitality. We will return to our homes and to
Washington, D.C., with very pleasant memories and warm feeling
for all of you. Si Yu'us ma'ase.
If there is no further business before the Subcommittee,
the Chairman again thanks the members of the Subcommittee and
our witnesses and we stand adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 1:28 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
NOTE: Statements submitted for the record by the following
individuals have been retained in the Committee's official
files.
Daniel Aquino Jr.
Engracio ``Jerry'' Custodio, Human Dignity
Movement
Wendy Doromal
Ron Hodges
Maribeth Lumasag
Daisy Mendiola
Senator Maria Frica T. Pangelinan, 15th Northern
Marianas Legislature
Pukar Patel
Antony Wibberly
Reynaldo O. Yana
Vincent Santos
Li, Helian; Wang, Hongmin; Li, Pengfei; Li,
Shanshan; Guo, Baolong; Guo, Qiang; Wu, Yinglai; Liu, Changmei;
He, Jeing; Liu, Lanlan; He, Ganglan
Ambrose M. Bennett
Pachino Tat
Jennifer Kordell