![](media/image1.png){width="1.4277777777777778in"
height="1.4277777777777778in"}

STATEMENT OF JUAN T. GUERRERO,

PRESIDENT, SAIPAN CHAMBER OF COMMERCE,

BEFORE THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES

July 19, 2007

Hafa Adai, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee. I am Juan T.
Guerrero, current president of the Saipan Chamber of Commerce. I
represent the Chamber's 167 members and am honored to testify before
this Committee a second time concerning the potential extension of
federal immigration law to the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana
Islands.

**INTRODUCTION**

When I testified before this Committee in February of this year, I
discussed the concerns of the Commonwealth business community with
regard to the application of federal immigration law to the islands, and
I appealed for an opportunity for the Commonwealth to work together with
the federal government to address federal concerns in a manner that
recognized local realities. At the same time, Lieutenant Governor
Timothy P. Villagomez asked this Committee for a careful and independent
study of the CNMI by the Government Accountability Office. 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. It saddens me to report that the
apparent response to our testimony and our requests was a few-day visit
to the islands by three congressional staffers, one of whom has a
well-documented and long-standing history of animosity towards the
government of the Commonwealth, and a new Senate bill, 1634, that does
little to address the concerns of those of us whose lives and
livelihoods hang in the balance.

**DISCUSSION**

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 my February testimony, Lieutenant
Governor Villagomez's February testimony, as well as the CNMI
government's response to the "24 questions" in March of this year
(attached as Appendix I to the February 8, 2007 hearing transcript of
this Committee on Conditions in the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana
Islands), 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 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, including my own, 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? While we
appreciate the congressional staffers' brief visit to the Commonwealth
following the last hearing, we doubt it yielded much more than
additional opinion. 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 at the February hearing,
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.

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. As I pointed
out in February, 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, in February, opposed any "U.S.
action" with respect to improving our local labor and immigration
processes. In the Chamber's written testimony, 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, I stated that the Chamber "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." And while I
agreed with the Honorable Chairman's characterization that the Chamber
opposed any legislated changes with regard to federal authority over
local immigration policy, the Chamber has never opposed, but in fact has
and does support, working with the federal government to address any
legitimate concerns. The testimony submitted in February, and answers I
gave, were made in the absence of any draft immigration legislation and
under the assumption that any "federalization" would be pursuant to
Section 503 of the Covenant, which seems to permit the application of
existing federal immigration and naturalization laws to the
Commonwealth, but not the crafting of new federal law specific solely to
our island community. 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 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 your staff's 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 Senate 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, 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**

I, once again, 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.