[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 77 (Friday, June 6, 1997)]
[House]
[Pages H3572-H3575]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          ISSUES AFFECTING GUAM AND NORTHERN MARIANAS ISLANDS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 7, 1997, the gentleman from Guam [Mr. Underwood] is recognized 
for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
  Mr. UNDERWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I want to associate myself with the 
remarks just made by the previous speaker the gentlewoman from Oregon 
[Ms. Furse].
  Today, Mr. Speaker, I want to talk a little bit about some recent 
stories regarding the Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas Islands who 
are neighbors to my home island of Guam, and I want to be able to 
explain not for the purposes of comparison but certainly for the 
purposes to distinguish and to clarify perhaps for Members of the House 
and to certainly clarify at least for the record what the situation is 
in the Marianas Islands.
  Over 2 or 3 months ago, there were a number of stories that appeared 
in the Washington Post and other newspapers which referred to a series 
of allegations about fundraising scandals in the Clinton reelection. As 
part of this corpus of stories regarding this issue, there was an 
effort to stigmatize my home island of Guam in the context of those 
donations. It was alleged that the people of Guam were seeking local 
control of immigration in order to be able to bring

[[Page H3573]]

in thousands of foreign workers under exploitative conditions in order 
to set up sweatshops for the purpose of moving cheaply made goods into 
the United States, into the 50 States. Those allegations, of course, 
are unfounded and have absolutely no basis in fact or even 
interpretation. The people of Guam have consistently wanted local 
control over immigration in order to mitigate population growth and in 
order to limit population growth. All the existing laws regarding labor 
and minimum wage that are fully applicable in the 50 States are also 
applicable in Guam and there is no desire on the part of the people of 
Guam to get out from under those applications of those laws.
  For the past week, there have been stories, many of them have been 
prompted by a letter written by President Clinton to the Governor of 
the CNMI, the Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas, Froilan Tenorio, 
regarding alleged labor abuses in the Commonwealth of the Northern 
Marianas and calling basically for changes to the covenant which 
governs the relationship between the U.S. Government and the CNMI.
  The reason why I come to the floor today is to try to provide a 
little bit of historical background as to how the covenant came to be 
and also its relationship to my own home island of Guam. It is 
important to understand that the Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas 
Islands and Guam are both part of the Marianas Islands chain. This is a 
chain of some 15 islands of which only 5 are inhabited. The islands 
were all settled originally by the same group of people, the indigenous 
people of the Marianas Islands called the Chamorro people of which I am 
a member and, of course, the people of the CNMI are in the 
preponderance, also descendants of the original inhabitants as are the 
people of Guam.
  Guam is by far the largest island of this 15-island chain, but the 
island which is most known in the CNMI is Saipan. Ironically both Guam 
and Saipan are probably better known in the context of larger American 
society for being battlegrounds during World War II. Guam, of course, 
has been a major military facility since World War II as well as being 
a major battleground.
  The CNMI and Guam, what is now referred to as the Commonwealth of the 
Northern Marianas Islands and Guam, were part of an integrated island 
chain sharing the same culture, sharing the same language and sharing 
the same basic historical development. The Spaniards came to the 
region. Magellan in his trans-Pacific voyage stopped on Guam and the 
Marianas Islands were the first islands to be settled by the European 
nation in the late 1670's.
  In 1898, as a result of the Spanish-American War in which we are 
commemorating the 100th anniversary next year, Guam was separated from 
the remaining group of the Marianas Islands. Guam was taken 
specifically by the United States in the Treaty of Paris ending the 
Spanish-American War. But the balance of the Marianas Islands was left 
to Spain. As a consequence since that time, 1898, Guam and basically 
our cousins in the Northern Marianas have experienced different 
political and economic as well as social developments.
  The Northern Marianas were then turned around and sold to Germany by 
Spain in 1899, and then subsequently Japan inherited the Northern 
Marianas as part of the settlement ending World War I and they became 
part of a League of Nations mandate, the Micronesian Islands mandate, 
all this time Guam being a United States territory being run by the 
United States Navy.
  At the end of World War II, as a result of World War II and the 
Pacific war between Japan and the United States, the entire Micronesian 
region, again remembering that Guam all this time was a United States 
territory, the entire Micronesian region was put in what was called the 
Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands or the TTPI. The sovereignty 
over this was inherent in the native people and it was to be 
administered by the United States with the oversight of the United 
Nations. There were 11 such trust territories coming out of World War 
II. All of those trust territories have since been resolved and almost 
all of them have become independent nations. The Trust Territory of the 
Pacific Islands split into three what are now freely associated states 
with the United States, technically independent but having a 
contractual or a compact arrangement with the United States, and those 
are the Republic of Palau, the freely associated states of Micronesia 
and the Republic of the Marshall Islands which is more well known again 
in the American public eye with the atomic bomb testing and hydrogen 
bomb testing in the late 1940's and into the 1950's as well as the fact 
of Kwajalein which continues to be part of the missile targeting range 
from California.
  The CNMI, the Northern Marianas, became a commonwealth of the United 
States which is different than the other three remaining areas. And so 
in 1976 when the Northern Marianas became the Commonwealth of the 
Northern Marianas Islands, it represents the only territorial 
acquisition by the United States in this century. This is a fact that 
is not often noted and not often fully understood. After World War II 
there was also the acquisition of the United States Virgin Islands as 
purchased from Denmark as a consequence of World War I, but the 
Northern Marianas was acquired in 1976 as part of the breakup of the 
trust territory, and the CNMI then signed a covenant with the United 
States establishing the fact that the people became United States 
citizens. But there were four elements of the compact and laws related 
to the compact which gave authority to the Commonwealth of the Northern 
Marianas Islands. One was the right to control immigration into the 
Northern Marianas; the right to be exempted from the Federal minimum 
wage; the right to participate in the Headnote 3A Program which allows 
an area like the Northern Marianas, which is outside the customs zone 
of the United States, to manufacture goods and bring them into the U.S. 
customs zone as if they were made in the United States.
  In fact, they are a U.S. area, but because of the anomaly of the 
customs zone, they are outside the customs zone but they are part of 
the United States. But they are allowed to bring in products under the 
Headnote 3A. Fourth, is a land alienation provision which is very 
unique and there is only the Northern Marianas and American Samoa, 
where the only people who can own land are natives of the islands of 
American Samoa and the Northern Marianas.
  The purpose of granting the CNMI authority over immigration and 
authority over exemption over the Federal minimum wage and 
participation in the Headnote 3A Program is to understand that it was 
meant to facilitate the economic growth of the people of the Northern 
Marianas Islands while not overwhelming the local population. That was 
the original intent, the original purpose.
  In 1976, when the commonwealth first became part of the United 
States, the average wage of anybody who was working in the CNMI was 
probably around 75 cents an hour. So it was clear that the economy was 
very different than the rest of the United States even though it was 
coming into the United States It was also very different even from Guam 
which had always had the Federal minimum wage applying, even though 
they are our neighbors, only 40 to 50 miles to the north of us. The 
purpose of bringing the CNMI into the fold and granting them this 
authority was to facilitate the economic growth of the place without 
overwhelming the local population.
  Guam, on the other hand, had an entirely different historical and 
political experience. It became a United States territory in 1898 as a 
result of the Treaty of Paris, was basically administered by the 
Department of the Navy until the onset of World War II, was occupied by 
the Japanese as part of World War II, therefore making Guam the only 
United States area with civilians on it that was occupied by a foreign 
power in this century.
  Then in 1950, Guam was granted what is called an organic act or an 
organizing act by Congress which establishes the framework for local 
government and made the people of Guam U.S. citizens. But the people of 
Guam do not have local control over immigration and they do not have 
nor do they seek exemption from the Federal minimum wage. They do 
participate in the Headnote 3A Program, but it is hard to participate 
in the Headnote 3A Program and compete when you have minimum

[[Page H3574]]

wage laws applying and you have basically a pretty healthy economy like 
you have on Guam which is run primarily by bringing in tourists from 
Asia.
  Recent stories, and obviously there have been efforts by various 
Members of this body, including most notably the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Miller], an effort to try to take back some of this 
authority, accepting the fact that they have somehow abused this and 
have, in a sense, perverted the original purpose of granting this 
authority.
  It is important to understand in order to fully comprehend not only 
the differences between Guam and the CNMI but just to understand 
generally the tenor of United States territorial policy which is an 
area which of course is primarily of little consequence to most U.S. 
citizens except to those U.S. citizens who happen to live in the 
territories. But I want to make clear some characteristics of Federal 
policy toward territories.
  Territories are not fully integrated into the American political 
system. They are non-self-governing, meaning that they are not fully 
participant in all the processes of government which have control over 
their lives and, of course, most notably they have no participation or 
minimal participation in the Federal lawmaking and rulemaking process, 
nor do they elect officials who make decisions about that.
  Technically the title of the position I hold is nonvoting delegate to 
the U.S. House of Representatives, which means that I represent Guam 
here, but I am not entitled to vote on the floor of the House. What 
that means basically for the people of Guam is that although they are 
U.S. citizens, and also it means this for other territorial delegates, 
although they are U.S. citizens, they may participate in the debate and 
introduce legislation and otherwise try to effect legislation as other 
Members of this body, but they do not make a final vote on any 
legislation, even that legislation which affects them.

                              {time}  0930

  Of course they also do not vote for President, and as a consequence 
they are not part of the process when the President is elected. The 
President in turn selects Cabinet members and the departments then in 
turn make regulations which also govern and regulate the lives of 
citizens in the territories.
  So clearly, citizens of the territories are non-self-governing, 
although they have various levels of local self-government, meaning 
they do elect their own Governor and they do elect their own 
legislature, but the laws and the regulations that they deal with are 
purely local in scope. It is also up to Congress to make the 
distinction between what is purely local in scope and what is Federal 
in nature, because in the territorial clause, Congress can come in and 
overturn any law that is made by a local legislature, and Congress can 
come in and basically work its will on anything regarding the 
territories.
  There is no Federal representation, not because of taxation, as some 
people like to surmise. It is always interesting that when a discussion 
of territories comes up, they always say, well, there is no 
representation because there is no taxation, thereby inverting the 
Revolutionary War slogan, which was no taxation without representation, 
but in this instance there is no representation without taxation. I 
think that is kind of a curious version of what the original intent and 
purpose of that was, which was not really about taxation but, again, 
about representation in the process of making laws and regulations 
which govern our lives.
  So territories in that sense are clearly non-self-governing, and they 
are qualitatively different from States. States obviously are the meat 
and substance of the United States of America, exactly statehood, and 
the preponderance of relationships and intergovernmental relationships 
that we are always dealing with are also in the context of what 
appropriately Federal authority and what is appropriately State 
authority.
  It used to be historically that we always thought of territories as 
in the 19th century, the territory of Arizona or the territory of 
Kansas, as kind of States-in-waiting. They were undergoing a form of 
tutelage, awaiting the day in which they would eventually become 
States.
  Well, that is not necessarily the case, obviously, because we are now 
dealing with territories that are quote, overseas territories, and we 
are dealing with Guam, the Northern Marianas, Puerto Rico, which is a 
special example on its own, American Samoa, and the U.S. Virgin 
Islands. So the point of referencing this is to point out that the 
nature of territorial and Federal relationships is not governed by 
State relationships. That is a qualitatively different relationship, 
and it is I think inappropriate to assume that somehow statehood is the 
apex of the relationship and that territories are trying to become 
States but are not quite there yet, or to assume that what is granted 
to a territory cannot exceed that which is granted to a State, and that 
is clearly not the case.
  Territories can be outside the customs zone. I do not think one can 
take any State outside the customs zone. Some territories, two 
territories, have local control over immigration. I do not think one 
can grant Texas or Hawaii or any State local control over immigration.
  The reason for that is inherent in the constitutional process which 
has been organized, which makes a distinction between the laws and 
regulations that Congress can do in relationship to territories under 
the territorial clause, and the rest of the Constitution which 
regulates and unifies the relationship between States and the Federal 
Government.
  So the territorial policy of the Federal Government of the United 
States basically is characterized by three things. One is that they are 
flexible, that they can do things with territories they cannot do with 
States. They could also minimize the authority of a territory far below 
that which a State has, but they could also maximize in certain 
instances the authority of a territory beyond that which a State has.
  So as I have indicated, not all Federal laws apply to the 
territories. That is up to Congress making that decision. It is part of 
my task here, sometimes an unhappy task, to continually make the case 
and ask the question, does this law apply to Guam or does this law not 
apply to Guam, what is the intent and purpose, and sometimes the laws 
apply to Guam and sometimes they do not.
  As I pointed out, the other items, the Jones Act, which is an act 
regulating the maritime trade, some territories are exempted from that, 
the Northern Marianas and the Virgin Islands and American Samoa. But 
other territories are included in that. Notably, Guam and Puerto Rico.
  So we have a whole series of laws, some which apply to some 
territories, some which do not apply to others. That brings us to the 
second characteristic of the relationships, and that is that there is a 
recognition of the fact that each territory is treated differently, and 
each territory is treated differently in large measure because they 
came into the U.S. system under different conditions.
  The Virgin Islands came in under a bill of sale, so to speak, from 
Denmark, in which there were certain conditions about that. The 
Northern Marianas came in from the first territory under certain 
conditions. Guam came in under the Treaty of Paris, and specifically it 
entrusts Congress to determine the political status of the native 
inhabitants of the territories, thereby indicating that the political 
change of Guam must consult directly the native inhabitants of that 
territory.
  So each area has been dealt with differently, in large measure as a 
result of the conditions that they have come under.
  Now, this does not mean that each territory cannot be mindful of some 
basic American principles, and I think those apply in general, such as 
fair treatment for people, fair treatment for workers, 
nondiscriminatory treatment. So it is legitimate to make the claim, if 
one so feels, that even if Congress grants a specific authority to a 
territory, for example, immigration control, it does not mean that the 
territory can then engage in all kinds of various machinations of that 
immigration control without being called into question for applying 
what we would call basic American principles.
  So the bottom line, the bottom line in this whole discussion is to 
understand that territories are treated differently, not only from the 
rest of the

[[Page H3575]]

country as a general principle, but even within that context, each 
territory has an unique relationship with the Federal Government.
  Now, some people would argue that this is odd and confusing, and 
maybe we should just have a one-size-fits-all for territories. The 
problem is that we are really treading on the relationship between what 
is the meaning of my being a U.S. citizen and other people from the 
territories being U.S. citizens and not being self-governing, and how 
do we resolve that dilemma. That dilemma could be resolved by a grant 
of statehood, but admittedly it is a steep political hill to climb. It 
is already a steep enough political hill to climb for those who 
advocate statehood for Puerto Rico, let alone trying to consider how 
that might work for people who come from what are admittedly small 
jurisdictions. My own home island of Guam has approximately 135,000 
people on it.

  So it remains open to question, and it remains clearly in the will of 
Congress and for the people of the territories to rely on the good 
judgment of the people of Congress, which sometimes makes us feel very 
vulnerable, as indeed it does the general American public. But it 
remains open to question, and that is why it is a very serious matter 
to us, because we have no specific governing relationship other than a 
series of commitments that may have been made historically at a given 
point in time.
  So I want to come back to the general issue of what has been termed 
labor abuses in the CNMI and its relationship to Guam.
  The CNMI, in 1976, was given a grant of authority to regulate 
immigration, was specifically exempted from the application of the 
minimum wage, was specifically authorized to participate in the 
Headnote 3A Program. This authority and this grant of authority has 
allowed them to grow their economy in a very dramatic way.
  It is also clear that there has been an increased number of 
allegations regarding labor abuses, regarding the garment, so-called 
garment sweat shops, regarding the abuses of domestic workers for 
people that have been brought in as domestic workers. So we really are 
running the issue here of what constitutes basic American principles, 
are there violations of basic American principles, and the manner in 
which the Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas Islands is conducting 
its business as legitimately authorized by the U.S. Congress.
  I would argue that in the CNMI, if there are problems in the CNMI, 
and I recognize that there are, we need to address them in the context 
of the enforcement of existing laws and possible changes in the 
existing laws, while keeping in mind the original purposes of the 
freedoms and the latitude that have been given to them in the CNMI.
  If the original purposes of granting them this authority, local 
control over immigration and exemption from the minimum wage, if those 
original purposes have been perverted or taken advantage of, then I 
certainly would support an effort to put them back on track. But at the 
same time, it must be made clear that it is very easy to make 
comparisons and say, well, what happens in one jurisdiction will happen 
in another.
  In the meantime, while this has been occurring, remember that the 
CNMI has only been associated under the United States since 1976. It 
has been barely 20 years. In the meantime, Guam has been under U.S. 
sovereignty almost 100 years, and it has successfully dealt with U.S. 
labor laws and it has successfully dealt with their economic 
livelihood, even with the application of Federal minimum wage.
  So I would hasten to add that anyone who wants to make these 
comparisons is going to make them on very shaky ground. But in the 
meantime, it is important to be mindful that the people of the 
Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas are not an evil population, they 
do not have a corrupt political leadership that is designed to abuse 
people who come to the CNMI for work. They are new Americans. Think 
about it. They are new Americans, barely 20-year-old Americans, who 
have deep traditions of their own and, as I have indicated, have a very 
unique historical experience.
  We have to engage them as fellow citizens with whom we have an 
existing legal framework, the covenant of the Northern Marianas, to 
resolve differences. We have to clarify when we think they have 
violated basic American principles. But we also have to understand 
their circumstances. Some of the articles regarding the CNMI I think, 
and certainly in my experience with the CNMI, have gone beyond the 
reality of the CNMI and have reached certain levels of almost 
caricature.

                              {time}  0945

  The CNMI is not the hotbed of labor abuse as some have portrayed, but 
I want to point out just as clearly, it is not the conscious experiment 
of economic freedom that some think tanks want to believe that it is. 
This is not about a government that is consciously trying to deal with 
how to survive without a minimum wage. The argument about all of that 
is very unrealistic if we look exactly within the context of the CNMI.
  The CNMI is the product of an historical experiment in the extension 
of American principles of some 20 years duration. When a small Pacific 
island population like the CNMI has experienced the sudden impact of 
change which has occurred in the CNMI during the past 20 years, it is 
understandable that there will be problems. Like new automobile 
drivers, it is inevitable that there will be wrong turns and it is 
inevitable that they will go down a blind alley and perhaps inevitable 
that they will have some fender-benders, but we should engage them in a 
process which teaches them to have better driving habits and not simply 
take away their license.

                          ____________________