[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 21 (Tuesday, February 25, 1997)]
[House]
[Pages H616-H618]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                         A FAIR HEARING ON GUAM

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Gibbons). Under the Speaker's announced 
policy of January 7, 1997, the gentleman from Guam [Mr. Underwood] is 
recognized for 60 minutes.
  Mr. UNDERWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I take this opportunity to tell a story 
about Guam and its quest for political dignity in the context of recent 
stories about fundraising, some trends in the Asian region regarding 
the strategic utilization of Guam and the aspirations

[[Page H617]]

of the people that I so proudly represent.
  In President Clinton's State of the Union Address he called on 
Congress to look to the East no less than to the West, and this 
demonstrates the growing perspective shift which is taking hold in this 
country recognizing the Asian Pacific region's importance to global 
affairs and recognizing the trend that the United States is indeed a 
Nation not just with interests in the Pacific but is indeed a Pacific 
Nation.
  The United States commitment to the Asia-Pacific region provides the 
framework for the stable conditions which in turn promote trade and 
commerce. The resulting trade and commerce then provide the basis upon 
which there are further advancements in the peaceful relations of the 
region. And as the Department of Defense continues with the Quadrennial 
Defense Review, the QDR, it is imperative that the Department of 
Defense act on Secretary Cohen's belief that any force structure 
changes be strategy driven and not budget driven.
  The future dynamics of the Asia-Pacific region require that the 
United States examine its role in the region. One key element of U.S. 
policy will be a forward deployed military presence. And in this 
analysis, Guam is uniquely situated to play a major role in the forward 
presence of this country in this vital region. Guam, as many of you 
know, is 9,000 miles away from here, some 1,800 miles south of Japan, 
approximately 4 to 5 flying hours to most parts of the Asian mainland.
  The strategic uses of Guam have been heightened recently. There is 
this week, I believe tomorrow Guam time, arriving on Guam the USS 
Independence, which is a carrier home ported in Japan, and it marks the 
first time that a carrier has visited Guam in over 30 years. This 
highlights our strategic importance in supporting the 7th fleet as well 
as the mobility of the 7th fleet. I believe it also sends a message to 
the entire Pacific region about Guam's role in that and also the 
general mobility of American forces.
  Guam is also being studied in the context of some Marine Corps 
activities in line. Considering some of the problems that the Marines 
have in Okinawa, there is serious consideration today of perhaps 
deploying a unit of marines on Guam.
  This general strategic use of Guam is entirely in concert with its 
geographical location, but much more important than that, I believe, is 
its relationship to this country as an American territory. One of the 
reasons why it becomes vital to the overall deployment of forces in 
Asia is because if securing base rights in other countries and 
Southeast Asia or perhaps even Australia prove difficult or undesirable 
or problematic in some way, Guam, as an American territory, provides 
basing opportunities within the region. And also, because of its status 
as an American territory, it was of enormous value in the placement of 
Kurdish refugees during Operation Pacific Haven dealing with the Kurds 
that came out of northern Iraq, and also in fact during the air strikes 
in Iraq itself. Air Force B-52 bombers landed on Guam prior to 
continuing their mission in the Persian Gulf. This was facilitated by 
the fact that there were no air space requirements that had to be dealt 
with.
  Admiral Prueher, the U.S. Commander in Chief of the Pacific, CINCPAC, 
uses the term ``cooperative engagement'' to describe United States 
strategy in the Asia Pacific region. The three-part strategy includes 
peacetime involvement, crisis response, and maintaining fighting 
ability. All of these elements can be accomplished with Guam as a 
partner in this strategic initiative.
  I think it is important, in line with this cooperative engagement 
theme, that it is important now, I think, for the Federal Government to 
ensure some cooperative engagement with Guam in its aspirations for 
greater political autonomy. We need to do this in order, I believe, to 
continue to count on Guam as an important part of America's forward 
deployed forces and to fulfill its security role.
  The Federal Government must also address the political aspirations of 
the people of Guam as well as some of their economic concerns. One of 
the main items that is of importance to the people of Guam is that land 
no longer needed by the U.S. military should be returned to Guam. And 
by most estimates, including the military's own estimates, the acreage, 
the amount of acreage held by the military is roughly double that which 
they really need to use, even in the severest contingency.
  In addition, the legitimate political aspirations of the people of 
Guam are connected to the military utilization of the island. After 
all, the U.S. presence on Guam is not an accident of history but a 
result of the island's strategic location. To the extent that military 
planners can see a connection between forward deployment and the 
democratization of the Asian region, we must also be able to envision 
how it would work in microcosm form on a small island within the 
American family.
  The pursuit of commonwealth status remains the single most important 
political issue for the people of Guam. The Draft Guam Commonwealth Act 
clarifies and strengthens the relationship with the Federal Government, 
places the island on a full path to full self-government, and frees the 
island from many Federal restraints on our economic development. For 
almost 100 years since Guam became a possession of the United States as 
a result of the Spanish-American War, the people of Guam have been 
waiting for the full measure of rights guaranteed to other American 
citizens. Our current status is unsatisfactory, and we are seeking an 
improved relationship which we believe will be mutually beneficial to 
both Guam and the Federal Government.
  Since 1987, the leadership of Guam, through the Guam Commission on 
Self-Determination and the Office of the Guam Delegate to the U.S. 
House, have been engaged in the pursuit of commonwealth for Guam. On 
numerous occasions I have spoken on the House floor to try to tell the 
Guam story and to explain what Guam wants in our quest for 
commonwealth.
  One of the most important provisions of the Guam Commonwealth Act is 
the mutual consent provision. What this means is that we are hoping 
that once the Federal territorial negotiations are completed, the 
provisions of the act would not be changed by either the Federal 
Government or the Government of Guam without some mutual action. This 
is a key element in the act because I believe that it symbolizes the 
ability of the people of Guam to govern themselves rather than be 
governed from afar.
  In addition, the Guam Commonwealth Act would create a joint 
commission on U.S. and Commonwealth of Guam relations. This joint 
commission would be used for regular consultations and will be central 
to the maintenance of the commonwealth. It ensures that the integrity 
of this special relationship between the United States and Guam will be 
protected and respected.

  These provisions raise constitutional issues in the minds of many, 
and we on Guam recognize this. But if we are to perfect the meaning of 
American citizenship for people who are not, who do not and 
realistically cannot have the aspirations for statehood, we must push 
the envelope, think outside the box and engage these issues in a 
meaningful way.
  Another crucial element of the draft commonwealth proposal is Guam's 
desire to control its own immigration. It is the historical and 
contemporary application of U.S. immigration standards to Guam which 
drives our need to modify and manage the flow of people who migrate to 
Guam to make either their voluntary residence or their place of 
employment.
  This brings me to what is clearly a painful and uncomfortable topic, 
and that is recent media reports linking the Clinton administration 
position on commonwealth and campaign contributions by people of Guam 
to the Democratic Party. What disappoints me most about these reports 
is how they have blurred the lines between Guam's contributions and 
foreign contributions. Guam has been a U.S. territory since 1898, and 
its residents have been citizens since 1950. To include Guam in lists 
of foreign countries allegedly making campaign contributions is not 
only misleading, it reveals a lack of understanding about Guam's 
participation as an American community.
  These are contributions by fellow Americans, not foreigners. Last 
week the Los Angeles Times quoted a Member of the other body as saying, 
``Allegations have been made about Cuba, Indonesia, even Guam. And this 
is the

[[Page H618]]

first time since we reformed campaign financing 23 years ago that 
there's been allegations of foreign involvement in American political 
campaigns.''
  Clearly, this Member is making Guam out to be a foreign contributor 
instead of the active American community that we are. I wonder what the 
people of his home State would have thought if that Member had spoken 
of allegations made about Cuba, Indonesia and even Arizona.
  It is important to make this distinction between foreign 
contributions and American contributions in the context of these 
discussions because it seems that it rubs Guam in a negative way in 
both directions.
  To the extent that the people of Guam cannot vote for President of 
the United States, the one way that perhaps they can provide evidence 
of their support for the candidacy of an individual running for 
President is to make a campaign donation. And now that very campaign 
donation has many doubts cast upon it, and its utility has been 
besmirched and run through the media mud.
  These reports have also failed to point out that the President 
committed to appointing a special White House representative and moving 
forward with the commonwealth negotiations during a meeting that I 
participated in in 1993, and in which I made a request for the 
President and in which he agreed that he would appoint a special 
negotiator. This was well before any campaign contributions were made. 
To link this process to political contributions delegitimizes the very 
legitimate efforts of the people of Guam to attain a fuller measure of 
political dignity through a commonwealth.
  The article printed in the Washington Post last week alleged a quid 
pro quo policy shift based on campaign contributions from the people of 
Guam. The quid pro quo alleged by the article simply has not occurred.
  While there have been serious discussions with the administration 
since 1993, about Guam's quest for commonwealth, to date there has been 
no specific policy shift. What has changed is the context in which our 
desires for the local control of immigration have been portrayed. This 
distortion has been suggested by members of the Federal bureaucracy 
whom we from Guam are very familiar with because we have negotiated 
rather unsuccessfully with them over the years.
  It is also important to note that, when we look at it in terms of 
from Guam, we are wondering how we are portrayed in the national media. 
I heard in the radio this morning a reporter for one of the national 
magazines making again the claim, and this has been repeated in a 
number of media interviews, that our policy toward Guam had shifted as 
a result of campaign negotiations.
  It is the extension of the meaning of the word ``our'' and the 
portrayal of the people of Guam as being foreign, out there. I doubt if 
our policy toward Arizona or our policy toward Montana would be 
portrayed in that way because the pronoun our is used in that context 
in the terms of foreign policy. It seems that certainly to the people 
of Guam that for military purposes we are treated very domestically. 
But apparently for fundraising purposes, we are quite foreign.
  The type of immigration control that Guam desires is not unusual in 
the context of territorial relations. In the past the National 
Government has designated territorial leaders to issue passports and 
administer other functions normally reserved for Federal agencies, and 
these are parts of the organic acts or the organizing acts for many 
territories.
  Today two territories control immigration locally, American Samoa and 
the Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas. Our desire for immigration 
control is also consistent, we believe, with the national trend toward 
the shift of power from the National Government to local government. We 
on Guam strongly support and even accept and support existing U.S. 
statutes with respect to fair labor standards, the protection of 
workers rights, safety and health, and the U.S. minimum wage 
system. They have become inherent in the way we operate daily in our 
offices, in our businesses, in our commercial enterprises on Guam. What 
we seek is economic relief through the ability to procure workers on a 
temporary basis while continuing to administer these standards 
ourselves and not their abandonment, as some would suggest.

                              {time}  1700

  We also want to rectify the negative social impact caused by existing 
Federal immigration law. Guam proposes a standard-driven process 
whereby the government of Guam will earn the gradual assumption of 
control congruent with its direct administration of these standards. 
This has been the tenets of the process of negotiation that we have had 
with the administration, not the kind of farfetched portrayal that has 
been made in the media.
  What allegedly goes on in other areas is not the desire of the people 
of Guam. We are not only mindful of the accusation of labor abuses 
elsewhere in the Pacific region, we too are greatly concerned about 
them. What the leaders of Guam hear most is not the sound of money 
changing hands, but the cries and the aspirations of the people about 
serious policy concerns.
  Guam contributes enormously to the strength of our country and Asia 
and we deserve to be heard on the merits of our arguments. The 
extension of democracy should have no price.
  America's rationale for a strong defense is not only to provide 
security but to provide the basis to increase the democratization of 
the Asian Pacific region. If the Federal Government is not willing to 
deal with Guam's concerns, this rationale is made empty and degraded. 
If the United States is to increase and stand for democracy in Asia, it 
must start at home and even when that home is some 9,000 miles away 
from Washington.
  The call of the people of Guam is a call to open-mindedness. We call 
on the administration to continue the negotiations to their final 
conclusion and we ask this Congress to give the people of Guam a fair 
hearing. We not only desire it, we deserve it, and for the past 100 
years, in reality, this is all that we have been asking for.

                          ____________________