U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

67-403 PDF 2012

IMPLEMENTATION OF P.L. 110-229 

TO THE COMMONWEALTH OF THE 

NORTHERN MARIANA ISLANDS 

(CNMI) AND GUAM; H.R. 1466, TO 

RESOLVE THE STATUS OF CERTAIN PERSONS LEGALLY RESIDING 

IN THE CNMI UNDER THE IMMIGRATION LAWS OF THE U.S.; AND 

H.R. 44, ‘‘GUAM WORLD WAR II 

LOYALTY RECOGNITION ACT.’’ 

OVERSIGHT AND LEGISLATIVE HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON FISHERIES, WILDLIFE, 

OCEANS AND INSULAR AFFAIRS 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

Thursday, July 14, 2011 

Serial No. 112-49 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov 

or 

Committee address: http://naturalresources.house.gov 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES 

DOC HASTINGS, WA, Chairman 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, MA, Ranking Democrat Member 

Don Young, AK 

John J. Duncan, Jr., TN 

Louie Gohmert, TX 

Rob Bishop, UT 

Doug Lamborn, CO 

Robert J. Wittman, VA 

Paul C. Broun, GA 

John Fleming, LA 

Mike Coffman, CO 

Tom McClintock, CA 

Glenn Thompson, PA 

Jeff Denham, CA 

Dan Benishek, MI 

David Rivera, FL 

Jeff Duncan, SC 

Scott R. Tipton, CO 

Paul A. Gosar, AZ 

Rau ́l R. Labrador, ID 

Kristi L. Noem, SD 

Steve Southerland II, FL 

Bill Flores, TX 

Andy Harris, MD 

Jeffrey M. Landry, LA 

Charles J. ‘‘Chuck’’ Fleischmann, TN 

Jon Runyan, NJ 

Bill Johnson, OH 

Dale E. Kildee, MI 

Peter A. DeFazio, OR 

Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, AS 

Frank Pallone, Jr., NJ 

Grace F. Napolitano, CA 

Rush D. Holt, NJ 

Rau ́l M. Grijalva, AZ 

Madeleine Z. Bordallo, GU 

Jim Costa, CA 

Dan Boren, OK 

Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan, CNMI 

Martin Heinrich, NM 

Ben Ray Luja ́n, NM 

John P. Sarbanes, MD 

Betty Sutton, OH 

Niki Tsongas, MA 

Pedro R. Pierluisi, PR 

John Garamendi, CA 

Colleen W. Hanabusa, HI 

Vacancy 

Todd Young, Chief of Staff 

Lisa Pittman, Chief Counsel 

Jeffrey Duncan, Democrat Staff Director 

David Watkins, Democrat Chief Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON FISHERIES, WILDLIFE, OCEANS 

AND INSULAR AFFAIRS 

JOHN FLEMING, LA, Chairman 

GREGORIO KILILI CAMACHO SABLAN, CNMI, Ranking Democrat Member 

Don Young, AK 

Robert J. Wittman, VA 

Jeff Duncan, SC 

Steve Southerland, II, FL 

Bill Flores, TX 

Andy Harris, MD 

Jeffrey M. Landry, LA 

Jon Runyan, NJ 

Doc Hastings, WA, ex officio 

Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, AS 

Frank Pallone, Jr., NJ 

Madeleine Z. Bordallo, GU 

Pedro R. Pierluisi, PR 

Colleen W. Hanabusa, HI 

Vacancy 

Edward J. Markey, MA, ex officio 

(III) 

CONTENTS 

Page 

Hearing held on Thursday, July 14, 2011 ............................................................. 1 

Statement of Members: 

Bordallo, Hon. Madeleine Z., a Delegate in Congress from Guam ............... 81 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 86 

Duncan, Hon. Jeff, a Representative in Congress from the State of South 

Carolina, Statement submitted for the record on H.R. 44 ........................ 121 

Fleming, Hon. John, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Louisiana ....................................................................................................... 2 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 2 

Landry, Hon. Jeffrey M., a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Louisiana ................................................................................................... 79 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 80 

Sablan, Hon. Gregorio, a Delegate in Congress from the Commonwealth 

of the Northern Mariana Islands, Oral statement on implementation 

of P.L. 110–229 ............................................................................................. 3 

Oral statement on H.R. 44 ....................................................................... 81 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 5 

Statement of Witnesses: 

Aldan-Pierce, Marian, Chairperson, Board of Directors, Marianas Visitors 

Authority ....................................................................................................... 45 

Prepared statement on H.R. 1466 ........................................................... 47 

Blaz, Brigadier General Vicente G., ‘‘Ben,’’ USMC (Ret.), Former Member 

of Congress from Guam ................................................................................ 107 

Prepared statement on H.R. 44 ............................................................... 108 

Calvo, Hon. Eddie Baza, Governor, Island of Guam .....................................

Oral statement on P.L. 110-229 .............................................................. 16 

Prepared statement on P.L. 110-229 ...................................................... 18 

Oral statement on H.R. 44 ....................................................................... 90 

Prepared statement on H.R. 44 ............................................................... 91 

Doctor, Hazel Marie, CNMI Resident ............................................................. 56 

Prepared statement on H.R. 1466 ........................................................... 57 

Fitial, Hon. Benı ́gno Repeki, Governor, Commonwealth of the Northern 

Mariana Islands ............................................................................................ 8 

Prepared statement on P.L. 110-229 and H.R. 1466 ............................ 10 

Response to questions submitted for the record ..................................... 15 

Gootnick, David, Director, International Affairs and Trade, U.S. 

Government Accountability Office ............................................................... 24 

Prepared statement on H.R. 1466 ........................................................... 25 

Highlights .................................................................................................. 34 

Pula, Nikolao I., Jr., Director, Office of Insular Affairs, U.S. Department 

of the Interior ................................................................................................ 39 

Prepared statement on P.L. 110-229 and H.R. 1466 ............................ 41 

Oral statement on H.R. 44 ....................................................................... 99 

Prepared statement on H.R. 44 ............................................................... 101 

Ryan, Kelly, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy, Office of 

Immigration and Border Security, U.S. Department of Homeland 

Security .......................................................................................................... 35 

Prepared statement on H.R. 1466 ........................................................... 37 

Tamargo, Hon. Mauricio, Former Chairman, Guam War Claims Review 

Commission, and Former Chairman, United States Foreign Claims 

Settlement Commission ................................................................................ 102 

Prepared statement on H.R. 44 ............................................................... 104 

Response to questions submitted for the record ..................................... 106 

Additional materials supplied: 

Americans for Tax Reform, Center for Fiscal Responsibility, Letter 

submitted for the record on H.R. 44 ........................................................... 88 

Blas, Frank F., Minority Leader, 31st Guam Legislature, Statement 

submitted for the record in support of H.R. 44 ......................................... 118 

Bock, Valerie J., Resident of Guam, Statement submitted for the record 

on H.R. 44 ..................................................................................................... 119 

Cruz, Hon. Benjamin J.F., Vice Speaker, 31st Guam Legislature ...............

Statement submitted for the record on H.R. 44 ..................................... 120 

Statement submitted for the record on implementation of 

P.L. 110–229 .......................................................................................... 120 

Guerrero, Susana Blas Deleon, President, CNMI Women’s Association, 

Statement submitted for the record on H.R. 1466 .................................... 122 

The Heritage Foundation, ‘‘Wrong Way on Reparations’’ published on 

May 22, 2007 ............................................................................................... 89 

Manglona, Hon. Paul A., President of the Senate, 17th Northern 

Marianas Commonwealth Legislature, Statement submitted for the 

record on implementation of P.L. 110-229 and H.R. 1466 ....................... 123 

Won Pat, Hon. Judith T., Ed.D., Speaker, 31st Guam Legislature, 

Statement submitted for the record on implementation of 

P.L. 110-229 .................................................................................................. 82 

(IV) 

(1) 

OVERSIGHT HEARING ON IMPLEMENTATION 

OF PUBLIC LAW 110-229 TO THE COMMONWEALTH OF THE NORTHERN MARIANA 

ISLANDS AND GUAM; AND LEGISLATIVE 

HEARING ON H.R. 1466, TO RESOLVE THE 

STATUS OF CERTAIN PERSONS LEGALLY 

RESIDING IN THE COMMONWEALTH OF THE 

NORTHERN MARIANA ISLANDS UNDER THE 

IMMIGRATION LAWS OF THE UNITED 

STATES; AND H.R. 44, RECOGNIZES THE 

SUFFERING AND THE LOYALTY OF THE 

PEOPLE OF GUAM DURING THE JAPANESE 

OCCUPATION OF GUAM IN WORLD WAR II. 

‘‘GUAM WORLD WAR II LOYALTY RECOGNITION ACT.’’ 

Thursday, July 14, 2011 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, Oceans and Insular Affairs 

Committee on Natural Resources 

Washington, D.C. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:04 a.m. in Room 

1324, Longworth House Office Building, The Honorable John 

Fleming [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Fleming, Young, Duncan, Harris, 

Landry, Sablan, Faleomavaega, Bordallo, Pierluisi, and Hanabusa. 

Mr. FLEMING. The Subcommittee will come to order. The Chairman notes the presence of a quorum. Good morning. Today the 

Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, Oceans, and Insular Affairs 

will conduct, in essence, two hearings. The first panel will be an 

oversight hearing on Title VII of Public Law 110-229 which requires the application of Federal immigration laws in the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands and a legislative hearing 

on H.R. 1466, a bill to resolve the status of certain persons legally 

residing in the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands 

under the immigration laws of the United States. 

The second panel will be a legislative hearing at the request of 

the gentlelady from Guam, Mrs. Bordallo, on H.R. 44, the Guam 

World War II Loyalty Recognition Act. I will ask that witnesses 

only testify on the issues specific to each panel. 

Under Committee Rule 4(f), opening statements are limited to 

the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Subcommittee so that 

we can hear from our witnesses more quickly. However, I ask 

unanimous consent to include any other Members’ opening stateVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:06 Jul 03, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 L:\DOCS\67403.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
2 

ments in the hearing record if submitted to the clerk by close of 

business today. Hearing no objection, so ordered. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. JOHN FLEMING, A 

REPRESENTATIVE FROM THE STATE OF LOUISIANA 

Mr. FLEMING. One of the first items under consideration today is 

Public Law 110-229, the Consolidated Natural Resources Act which 

was enacted in 2008. The United States and the Northern Mariana 

Islands entered into a political union in 1976 with the enactment 

of the covenant to establish the Commonwealth of the Northern 

Mariana Islands as a self-governing entity under the sovereignty of 

the United States. 

Under the covenant, the Northern Mariana Islands were exempt 

from Federal immigration laws which allowed the local government 

to control immigration. In 2008, Congress amended the covenant to 

require the application of Federal immigration laws in the Northern Mariana Islands. The law created a five-year transition period 

to allow for a smooth conversion from local to Federal control over 

immigration. 

As stated in law, it was the intent of Congress for the orderly 

phasing in of Federal responsibilities over immigration in the 

Northern Mariana Islands. The law’s intent was to minimize, to 

the greatest extent practicable, potential adverse economic and fiscal effects by encouraging diversification and growth of the economy. It was also intended to assist the Commonwealth in achieving 

progressively higher standards of living for its citizens and giving 

it as much flexibility as possible in maintaining existing businesses 

and other revenue sources while developing new opportunities consistent with Federal law and mandates of Public Law 110-229. 

The Subcommittee is interested in hearing from today’s witnesses how the implementation of the various provisions required 

in the law has progressed since the effective date of November 28, 

2009. 

We will also hear testimony on H.R. 1466, a bill introduced by 

Ranking Member Sablan to address the status of certain individuals living legally in the Northern Mariana Islands who will be adversely affected by the extension of Federal immigration laws to 

the Northern Mariana Islands. Approximately 4,000 legal residents 

of the Northern Mariana Islands will be affected by the full implementation of Federal immigration laws set to occur on 

November 28, 2011. H.R. 1466 will allow these residents of the 

Northern Mariana Islands to maintain their current legal status 

and provide them with the opportunity to adjust their status under 

the Federal immigration laws. 

I look forward to hearing the testimony of our distinguished 

witnesses. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Fleming follows:] 

Statement of The Honorable John Fleming, Chairman, 

Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, Oceans and Insular Affairs 

Good morning, today the Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, Oceans and Insular 

Affairs will conduct in essence two hearings. The first panel will be an oversight 

hearing on the implementation of title VII of Public Law 110–229, which required 

the application of federal immigration laws in the Commonwealth of the Northern 

Mariana Islands, and a legislative hearing on H.R. 1466, a bill to resolve the status 

3 

of certain persons legally residing in the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana 

Islands under the immigration laws of the United States. The second panel will be 

a legislative hearing at the request of the gentle lady from Guam, Mrs. Bordallo on 

H.R. 44, the Guam World War II Loyalty Recognition Act. I will ask that witnesses 

only testify on the issues specific to each panel. 

One of the first items under consideration today is Public Law 110–229, the Consolidated Natural Resources Act, which was enacted in 2008. 

The United States and the Northern Mariana Islands entered into a political 

union in 1976 with the enactment of the Covenant to establish the Commonwealth 

of the Northern Mariana Islands as a self-governing entity under the sovereignty 

of the United States. Under the Covenant, the Northern Mariana Islands were exempt from federal immigration laws which allowed the local government to control 

immigration. 

In 2008, Congress amended the Covenant to require the application of federal immigration laws in the Northern Mariana Islands. The law created a 5-year transition period to allow for a smooth conversion from local to federal control over immigration. 

As stated in the law, it was the intent of Congress for the ‘orderly phasing-in of 

federal responsibilities over immigration’ in the Northern Mariana Islands. The 

law’s intent was to minimize, to the greatest extent practicable, potential adverse 

economic and fiscal effects by encouraging diversification and growth of the economy. It also is intended to assist the Commonwealth in achieving progressively 

higher standards of living for its citizens and giving it as much flexibility as possible 

in maintaining existing businesses and other revenue sources, while developing new 

economic opportunities, consistent with federal law and the mandates of Public Law 

110–229. 

The Subcommittee is interested in hearing from today’s witnesses how the implementation of the various provisions required in the law has progressed since the effective date of November 28, 2009. 

We will also hear testimony on H.R. 1466, a bill introduced by our Ranking Member, Mr. Sablan, to address the status of certain individuals living legally in the 

Northern Mariana Islands who will be adversely affected by the extension of federal 

immigration laws to the Northern Mariana Islands. 

Approximately 4,000 legal residents of the Northern Mariana Islands will be affected by the full implementation of federal immigration laws set to occur on November 28, 2011. H.R. 1466 will allow these residents of the Northern Mariana Islands to maintain their current legal status and provide them with the opportunity 

to adjust their status under the federal immigration laws. 

I look forward to hearing the testimony of our distinguished witnesses, and now 

recognize our Ranking Member Mr. Sablan, for any statement he would like to 

make. 

Mr. FLEMING. I now recognize our Ranking Member, Mr. Sablan, 

for any statement he would like to make. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. GREGORIO SABLAN, A DELEGATE 

FROM THE COMMONWEALTH OF THE NORTHERN MARIANA 

ISLANDS 

Mr. SABLAN. Thank you. Thank you very much, Chairman 

Fleming, and thank you again for holding this hearing this morning on the progress of Public Law 110-229 on my H.R. 1466 and 

obviously, of course, H.R. 44. 

I don’t know if you saw the data on the Gross Domestic Product 

in the Northern Mariana Islands that was released yesterday, but 

the economic situation just gets worse and worse. Between 2002 

and 2009, GDP was cut in half. In 2008, GDP fell 12 percent. In 

2009, it fell 20 percent. Prices are going up and incomes are coming 

down. This all happened before Public Law 110-229 really took effect so we can’t say that Federal immigration created this problem, 

but Federal management of the transition from local to Federal 

control has made it more difficult to solve the economic problem. 

4 

Public Law 110-229 was supposed to ‘‘expand economic development in the Commonwealth’’, but it has not. 

We have had some successes in the form of security in the department most responsible for the law. When I was first elected, 

Public Law 110-229 was just about to go into effect, DHS was not 

ready however. So, along with other Commonwealth officials, including our Governor, we convinced Secretary Napolitano to push 

back implementation by six months. That helped. 

When DHS published rules on the visa waiver program created 

by P.L. 110-229, Russia and China were excluded, but tourism 

from these countries was growing and the Northern Marianas 

needed the visitors, so we convinced Secretary Napolitano to use 

her parole authority to keep Russians and Chinese continuing to 

come to the Northern Marianas, and that helped. 

But the parole system is only a stop gap. It can be revoked at 

any time. It does not encourage new investment in the Russian and 

Chinese markets. Today, DHS needs to tell us its plans to normalize the system and fulfill the intent of Public Law 110-229 to, 

‘‘expand tourism’’. 

There has been other problems, some solved, some still outstanding. The biggest unresolved problem is the lack of regulations 

covering guest workers. The purpose of Public Law 110-229 is to 

zero out guest workers and replace them with Americans. We know 

this transition has to be managed carefully, so businesses still have 

the skilled labor they need. 

In October of 2009, DHS did publish regulations explaining how 

to hire these workers, but Governor Fitial went to court and enjoined the regulations. Now almost two years later we still don’t 

have the regulations and employers are supposed to use them for 

hiring starting in November. We often hear that regulations are 

very bad for business. Well, in this case the lack of regulations is 

bad for business. We need answers from DHS today about why is 

it taking so long to get their work done, when we can expect it to 

be done, and whether they will meet the policy goals of Public Law 

110-229. 

Chairman Fleming, I also want to thank you for including my 

bill, H.R. 1466, on the agenda today. You and I talked about the 

families that will be protected by my bill back in January. I will 

never forget what you said. These people have been whipsawed, 

and that is exactly right. One of today’s witnesses, Hazel Doctor, 

is a citizen of the United States who has been whipsawed by this 

law. She was born in America. She has lived there all her life. 

Hazel’s parents are contract workers from the Philippines. They 

are legal residents. They have lived in the Northern Marianas for 

over 20 years, but Public Law 110-229 will require them to leave. 

Congress did not take into account how this requirement will affect 

U.S. citizens like Hazel. They will have to choose between staying 

in the only home they have ever known or leaving with their parents to live in a place they have never known. 

Let me say that again because it is important. Public Law 110- 

229 is asking U.S. citizens to choose between their country and 

their families, and that is wrong. H.R. 1466 would fix the problem. 

Keep families together and keep Americans in America. 

5 

I was very glad to see in yesterday’s paper that Interior Assistant Secretary Anthony Babauta, who is presently in the Marianas, 

thinks that H.R. 1466 is a good start, and I certainly look forward 

to working with the Administration to fine-tune the legislation. But 

I want to emphasize several points because I know H.R. 1466 will 

be criticized today and because we all know that immigration is a 

hot-button issue. 

First, individuals covered in H.R. 1466 are not immigrants. They 

did not cross over the U.S. immigration border. Rather, Public Law 

110-229 extended the border over them so they are not and should 

not be part of the national immigration debate. 

Second, this bill has nothing to do with amnesty. Amnesty is for 

illegals. H.R. 1466 covers people who are legally admitted under 

the law of the Northern Mariana Islands. To qualify under 

H.R. 1466, an individual must still be in lawful status and in full 

compliance with the standards of the Immigration and Nationality 

Act. 

Third, H.R. 1466 provides no new social benefits and adds no 

new societal costs. In fact, by stabilizing the population and the 

workforce, H.R. 1466 will have a tremendous positive economic 

impact. 

I want to thank the bipartisan professional staff of the Judiciary 

and other House and Senate committees who assisted over the last 

year-and-a-half in drafting H.R. 1466, and the 24 Members of Congress from both sides of the aisle who are cosponsors. They understand that H.R. 1466 simply corrects the oversights in Public Law 

110-229 and keeps families together, particularly U.S. citizen families. 

And finally, let me welcome our panelists. First, I want to welcome my Governor, Governor Benı ́gno Fitial from the Northern 

Marianas and I want to welcome Governor Eddie Calvo, both of 

whom have made the physically demanding trip here to Washington to join us today. Thank you, Governors. 

I would also like to welcome Ms. Marian Aldan-Pierce, Chairman 

of the Marianas Visitors Authority. She is President of Duty-Free 

Shops, one of the most important corporations doing business in 

the Northern Marianas, Guam, Hawaii, and worldwide. Let me 

welcome Ms. Hazel Doctor who will be testifying in support of 

H.R. 1466, and welcome to the Federal witnesses, Dr. David 

Gootnick, Mr. Nick Pula and Ms. Kelly Ryan from Homeland Security. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Sablan follows:] 

Statement of The Honorable Gregorio Sablan, a Delegate in Congress from 

the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands 

Chairman Fleming, thank you again for agreeing to hold this hearing. 

I don’t know if you saw the data on Gross Domestic Product in the Northern Mariana Islands that was released yesterday, but the economic situation just gets worse 

and worse. 

Between 2002 and 2009 GDP was cut in half. In 2008 GDP fell 12%. In 2009 it 

fell 20%. 

Prices are going up. Incomes are going down. 

This all happened before Public Law 110–229 really took effect. So we can’t say 

that federal immigration created this economic problem. 

6 

But federal management of the transition from local to federal control has made 

it more difficult to solve the economic problem. And 110–229 was supposed to— 

quote—‘‘expand economic development in the Commonwealth.’’ 

We have had some successes with the Department of Homeland Security. 

When I was first elected to office, Public Law 110–229 was just about to go into 

effect. 

DHS was not ready, however. 

So, along with other officials, I convinced Secretary Napolitano to push back implementation by six months. 

That helped. 

When DHS published rules on the visa waiver program created by 110–229, Russia and China were excluded. But tourism from these countries was growing; and 

the Northern Marianas needed the visitors. 

So we convinced Secretary Napolitano to use her parole authority to keep Russians and Chinese coming to the Northern Marianas. 

That helped. 

But it’s only a stop-gap. It can be revoked at any time. So this parole system does 

not encourage new investment in the Russian and Chinese markets. 

Today, DHS needs to tell us its plans to normalize the system and fulfill the intent of Public Law 110–229 to—quote—‘‘expand tourism.’’ 

There have been other problems as well—some solved, some still outstanding. 

The biggest unresolved problem is the lack of regulations covering guest workers. 

The purpose of Public Law 110–229 is to zero out guest workers and replace them 

with Americans. 

We all know this transition has to be managed carefully, however, so businesses 

still have the skilled labor they need. 

In October 2009 DHS did publish regulations explaining how to hire these workers. But Governor Fitial went to court and blocked them. 

Now, almost two years later, we still don’t have the regulations. And employers 

are supposed to use them for hiring, starting in November. 

We often hear that regulations are bad for business. 

Well, in this case the lack of regulations is bad for business. 

We need answers from DHS today about why it has taken so long to get their 

work done, when we can expect the regs, and whether those regs will meet the policy goals of 110–229. 

Chairman Fleming, I also want to thank you for including my bill, H.R. 1466, on 

the agenda today. 

You and I talked about the families that would be protected by my bill back in 

January. I will never forget what you said: ‘‘These people have been whipsawed.’’ 

That’s exactly right. 

One of today’s witnesses, Hazel Doctor, is a citizen of the United States who has 

been whipsawed by this law. She was born in America. She has lived here all her 

life. 

Hazel’s parents are contract workers from the Philippines. They are legal residents. They have lived in the Northern Marianas for over twenty years. 

But 110–229 will require them to leave. 

And Congress did not take into account how this requirement would affect U.S. 

citizens like Hazel. 

They will have to choose between staying in the only home they have ever known 

or leaving with their parents to live in a place they have never known. 

Let me say that again because it is important: Public Law 110–229 is asking U.S. 

citizens to choose between their country and their families. 

That’s wrong. 

H.R. 1466 would fix the problem, keep families together, and keep Americans in 

America. 

I want to emphasize several points—because I know H.R. 1466 will be criticized 

today and because we all know that immigration is a ‘‘hot-button’’ issue. 

First, individuals covered in H.R. 1466 are not immigrants. They did not cross 

over the U.S. immigration border. Rather Public Law 110–229 extended the border 

over them. So they are not and should not be part of the national immigration debate. 

Second, this bill has nothing to do with amnesty. Amnesty is for illegals. 

H.R. 1466 covers people who were legally admitted under the laws of the Northern 

Mariana Islands. To qualify under H.R. 1466 individuals must still be in lawful status and in full compliance with the standards of the Immigration and Nationality 

Act. 

7 

Third, H.R. 1466 provides no new social benefits and adds no new societal costs. 

In fact, by stabilizing the population and the workforce, H.R. 1466 will have a positive economic effect. 

I want to thank the bipartisan, professional staff of the Judiciary and other Senate and House Committees, who assisted over the last year and a half in drafting 

H.R. 1466, and the 23 Members of Congress—from both sides of the aisle—who are 

co-sponsors. 

They understand that H.R. 1466 simply corrects the oversights in Public Law 

110–229 and keeps families together—particularly U.S. citizen families. 

Finally, let me welcome our panelists. 

Governor Benı ́gno Fitial from the Northern Marianas and Governor Eddie Calvo 

of Guam made the physically demanding trek here to Washington to join us today. 

Thank you, Governors. 

I’d also like to welcome Ms. Marian Aldan-Pierce, Chair of the Marianas Visitors 

Authority. She is also the Saipan President of Duty Free Shoppers, one of the most 

important corporations doing business in both the Northern Marianas and Guam. 

Let me welcome again Ms. Hazel Doctor, who will be testifying in support of 

H.R. 1466. 

And welcome to our federal witnesses: Mr. David Gootnick from GAO, Mr. Nik 

Pula from the Interior Department, and Ms. Kelly Ryan from Homeland Security. 

The final bill on our agenda today is H.R. 44, the Guam World War II Loyalty 

Recognition Act that is sponsored by my colleague from Guam Congresswoman 

Bordallo. 

H.R. 44 would implement the recommendations of a federal commission that was 

authorized by the 107th Congress to look at this specific issue. The commission 

found that the people of Guam were treated unfairly during the war claims process 

immediately following the war as compared with claims programs authorized by 

Congress addressing similarly experienced losses and damages for other Americans. 

Each of the four Delegates from Guam to have served in the House has worked diligently to resolve this longstanding injustice faced by their constituents, and the text 

of H.R. 44 has passed the House on five separate occasions. 

It is long past time that we resolve this issue and provide relief for the people 

of Guam for the nearly three years of brutal occupation they suffered because of 

their steadfast loyalty to our country. 

Thank you again Mr. Chairman for allowing me to make this opening statement. 

I look forward to hearing from our witnesses. 

Mr. FLEMING. I thank the gentleman. Thank you and we will 

now hear from our witnesses. Like all witnesses, your written testimony will appear in full in the hearing record, so I ask that you 

keep your oral statements to five minutes as outlined in our invitation letter to you and under Committee Rule 4(a). Our microphones 

are not automatic, so please press the button when you get ready, 

and I will also add you have to be sort of close. Sometimes we can’t 

hear you if you are too far away from the microphone. 

I also want to explain how our timing lights work. Very simple. 

You have five minutes to give your testimony. The clock will run 

down under the green light to four minute to actually one minute 

left, and then you will get the yellow light and then after that 

minute you get the red light, and at that point we would want you 

to wrap up, of course. 

I would now like to welcome today’s witnesses. First, The Honorable Governor Fitial from the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands. Welcome, sir. 

The Honorable Governor Calvo from Guam. We were just chatting before. I was actually stationed at the naval hospital on Guam 

1979 and 1980, but even apart from that I did a lot of moonlighting 

in the emergency room at the island private hospital, or the community hospital there, and was actually director of the drug and 

alcohol program there as well, so I spent a lot of time with the community. I went to—I believe they are called festivals or fiesta, yes, 

8 

with the most interesting type of rice that I have ever had, red rice. 

Very good. I have never asked what is in it, but it was delicious, 

and I did live in the community, lived in the Village of Yigo, and 

Perez Acres, which I understand is still there today. So we welcome 

you, sir. 

Mr. David Gootnick, Director, International Affairs and Trade, 

U.S. Government Accountability Office; Ms. Kelly Ryan, Acting 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Immigration and Border Security, 

Office of Policy, Department of Homeland Security; Mr. Nik Pula, 

Director, Office of Insular Affairs, Department of the Interior; Ms. 

Marian Aldan-Pierce, President, Duty-Free Shops Saipan Limited; 

and Ms. Hazel Doctor, Northern Mariana Island resident testifying 

by video conference, and welcome to you. I am sure it is very early 

in the morning where you are today. 

Governor Fitial, you are recognized for five minutes, sir. You can 

go ahead with your testimony. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. BENI ́GNO REPEKI FITIAL, 

GOVERNOR OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF THE NORTHERN 

MARIANA ISLANDS 

Governor FITIAL. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Subcommittee, 

good morning. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you 

today. 

Last year, I appeared before this Subcommittee in May and in 

September to comment on the Federal immigration law. I made 

these major points on both occasions. 

First, I brought to the Subcommittee’s attention the failure of the 

Department of Homeland Security to provide the joint visa waiver 

program for the Commonwealth and Guam that was intended by 

Congress in Public Law 110-229. The Secretary’s parole policy is 

not a satisfactory alternative. 

Second, I commented on the fact that the Department’s immigration and customs enforcement component does not have an effective 

program in place to identify and remove illegal aliens from the 

Commonwealth. 

Third, I pointed out that the Department’s customs and border 

protection component does not have an effective exit control method capable of preventing an increase in the number of illegal aliens 

in the Commonwealth. 

Nothing has changed for the better during the past year. Yes, the 

Commonwealth now does have Federal control of immigration. 

What we really have for the first time are all of the very serious 

immigration problems that exist here in the mainland. We have 

many illegal aliens who are not being deported. Some of these illegal aliens are employed illegally and take jobs away from U.S. citizens. Others are unemployed and survive on government benefits 

that provide an incentive not to leave the Commonwealth. 

Since Federal authority came into effect the Commonwealth has 

had an increased flow of tourists and others to enter on a temporary basis, but remain illegally hoping for amnesty that will provide a green card. The burden on taxpayers related to illegal and 

unemployed aliens is heavy. 

Congress recognized that the imposition of Federal control would 

work some hardship on the Commonwealth. It promised benefits 

9 

that would outweigh these disadvantages. We have received none 

of these promised benefits like no effective visa waiver program, no 

technical assistance, no effective immigration enforcement, no new 

funding to compensate for the loss of immigration and other fees. 

Only if this Subcommittee is willing to underwrite a serious systemwide examination of the law and the need for its amendment 

will the Commonwealth see any hope for progress. 

With respect to H.R. 1466, I oppose the bill for these reasons. 

We estimate that there were approximately 23,000 aliens, including illegals, in the Commonwealth at the end of 2008, almost all 

of whom are adults. We believe that nearly all are still present in 

our community and that more than half of them are unemployed. 

Our current estimate is that the U.S. citizen population of the 

Commonwealth is about 30,000, including some 16,000 voters. 

H.R. 1466 creates four categories of potential new U.S. citizens. 

I want to focus on the fourth category, which covers alien parents 

of minor U.S. citizen children. Here is what will happen under 

H.R. 1466. 

1466 is a large-scale amnesty bill. It provides a direct route to 

U.S. citizenship that would create an estimated 11,000 new U.S. 

citizens in the CNMI during the next decade, virtually all of whom 

would be voters. I do not believe that turning this large percentage 

of alien temporary workers into citizen voters would be tolerated 

in any county or state in the United States. These aliens would be 

provided permanent residence in the Commonwealth for all time. 

They are protected from deportation until their minor child of 21 

years of age can petition for a grant of a green card for the parent 

leading to citizenship. This imposes a long-term burden on the 

Commonwealth that occurs nowhere else in the United States. 

The bill’s sweeping terms cover a wide range of parents who, on 

closer examination, might not deserve the benefits offered by the 

legislation. It would include non-custodial parents, it would include 

unemployed and unemployable parents. It would include parents 

with no means of support. It would include parents with a history 

of illegal employment. It would include parents who left the CNMI 

and would return to obtain permanent residents in the Commonwealth provided by the bill. It includes parents who adopt a child 

up to the age of 21 just for the purpose of securing U.S. citizenship. 

H.R. 1466 has other critical defects. It strips away important 

safeguards of the Federal Administrative Procedures Act, and it refers to a definition of immediate relative from the Commonwealth 

code that was repealed by our Legislature sometime ago. 

Let me be very clear. It is the U.S. citizens in the Commonwealth 

who gave up their land and their sovereignty to become part of the 

United States. These U.S. citizens have the right to have their 

community and culture be so radically changed in this fashion unless they decide to do so through their own democratic institutions. 

Mr. Chairman, I have a proposal for an H-5 visa within the regular U.S. immigration system, and the CNMI Senate has a proposal for non-citizenship status somewhat akin to the status of 

freely associated state residents of the Commonwealth. Both of 

these proposals are far better alternatives for the people of the 

Commonwealth than H.R. 1466. 

I thank you. 

10 

[The prepared statement of Governor Fitial follows:] 

Statement of The Honorable Benı ́gno R. Fitial, Governor, 

Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands 

The Subcommittee has invited me to testify on the federalization law, Title VII 

of the CNRA (Public Law 110–22) and to comment on H.R. 1466. I appreciate the 

opportunity to do so. 

Twice during 2010 I appeared before this Subcommittee to comment on the federalization law—on May 18, 2010 and September 16, 2010. Nothing has changed for 

the better since then. To some extent I have been tempted simply to resubmit my 

earlier testimony regarding the federal government’s failure to honor Congressional 

intent and to implement the detailed provisions of the law in a timely, orderly, and 

constructive fashion. 

These were the major points which I made twice to the Subcommittee in 2010: • Failure to grant visa waivers: The Department of Homeland Security’s Interim Rule regarding the proposed Guam-CNMI joint visa waiver program did 

not comply with Congressional intent and is preventing the Commonwealth 

from its potential of significantly increasing visitors from China and Russia. • Failure to deport illegal aliens: The Department’s Immigration and Customs 

Enforcement unit does not have an effective program in place to identify and 

remove illegal aliens in the Commonwealth. • Failure to monitor exits of tourists: The Department’s Customs and Border 

Protection unit does not have an effective exit control method capable of preventing an increase in the number of illegal aliens in the Commonwealth. • Failure to provide Congress with useful reports: The Government Accountability Office and the Department of the Interior have failed to provide the 

Congress with the kind of objective, useful reports assessing the implementation of the federalization law in a way that would assist this Subcommittee. 

One year later—and more than three years after the law was enacted—the situation continues to deteriorate and the Commonwealth suffers as a result. The uncertainty created by this law has created an unacceptable limbo situation that has severely hampered new investment and has created morale problems throughout our 

community. Many businesses have already lost their investments and others are expected to close if this situation is not rectified. Very few businesses have begun the 

process of applying for U.S. employment-based visas for their staffs due to the high 

cost and uncertainty in the regulations. 

This year I have made extensive personal efforts to try to improve this situation. 

I have met with officials with responsibilities for implementing the law in the three 

DHS components (USCIS, ICE and CBP), the Interior Department, and the U.S. 

Labor Department. I can report some progress based on these discussions. 

In my meeting with Director Mayorkas of USCIS, we reviewed important aspects 

of the proposed rules for the issuance of temporary work permits for aliens currently 

in the Commonwealth. He and his staff have listened carefully to our concerns 

about a large number of practical aspects of the work permit program. I believe that 

we in the Commonwealth and USCIS will have both the capability, and a cooperative spirit, to deal with the late roll-out of the worker regulations. The delay in 

issuing these rules in final form has resulted, in part, from our joint staff consultations about the program, and the USCIS efforts to address our concerns. I am persuaded that the new program will better meet the needs of the CNMI and its U.S. 

citizens as well as the alien labor force. 

I have also broken the impasse with ICE about that agency’s desired use of the 

Commonwealth’s correctional facility. On the assumption that a partnership sometimes needs to start with one side giving more than another, I agreed to accept the 

ICE proposal of a relatively low per-diem rate for use of the facility. A few days before this agreement was to take effect, the Commonwealth learned of a 60% reduction in the level of ICE detainees to be authorized. Not only would this have a significant, negative fiscal impact on the CNMI, it would also mean lowered capacity 

to review and remove illegals from the Commonwealth. Nonetheless, we went forward to implement the agreement. 

However, the overall situation remains extraordinarily harmful to the Commonwealth. It is time for the Subcommittee to consider the overall implementation of 

PL 110–229 and its impact on the 30,000 United States citizens living in the Commonwealth. Based on what we have experienced over the past three years, this law 

is being implemented to reshape—and substantially hurt—the Commonwealth’s 

economy and community. In particular, the implementation of this unnecessarily 

complicated law operates to reduce the political authority of the Commonwealth’s 

local government in ways that would not be tolerated in the counties and States on 

11 

the Mainland. By doing so, it harms the indigenous elements in the CNMI population—namely, the Chamorro and Carolinian people—who gave up their land and 

sovereignty in return for U.S. citizenship and the opportunity to enjoy the political 

freedoms and economic opportunities available to all U.S. citizens. 

We have no objection to federal control of immigration if it is done efficiently and 

effectively as Congress intended. What has happened instead is that Title VII of PL 

110–229 has brought to the Commonwealth all of the very serious immigration 

problems that exist on the Mainland. We have many illegal aliens who are not being 

deported—although one of the clearly stated goals of the federalization law was to 

reduce alien workers who could not obtain a standard federal visa to zero within 

a few years. Some of these illegal aliens are employed illegally and take jobs away 

from U.S. citizens. Others are unemployed and survive on government benefits that 

provide an incentive not to leave the Commonwealth. Particularly since federal authority came into effect, the Commonwealth has had an increased inflow of tourists 

and others who entered on a temporary basis but remain illegally in the CNMI hoping for access to amnesty that will provide a green card. The burden on CNMI taxpayers related to illegal and unemployed aliens is heavy. 

With a population of more than 300 million people, the 50 States of the United 

States can absorb the economic and social costs of these immigration failures—although there appears to be a growing awareness across our country that serious immigration reform is necessary. But the Commonwealth has only 30,000 U.S. citizens, with about 16,000 of them being registered voters. Our small community is 

enormously burdened by these failures, which have complicated the Commonwealth’s efforts to address its continued economic decline. 

When it enacted Title VII, Congress promised the Commonwealth a balance between benefits and burdens in connection with this so-called immigration reform. 

All of the burdens we warned about have certainly come to pass, in even worse levels than we predicted. However, we have received absolutely none of the benefits 

that the drafters of the bill promised. 

To be specific: 

1. No visa waivers: The bill provides for a visa waiver program with respect to 

Russia and China, two very important markets for us. The visa waiver program has been blocked. We understand that the Department of Homeland 

Security has twice examined possible national security implications of a visa 

waiver program for the Commonwealth and Guam and has found none. The 

Department of Defense and the Department of the Interior have no objection. 

We understand that the Department of State has refused, on policy grounds, 

to implement what has been mandated by Congress. Our tourist industry— 

the principal economic basis for our economy—has been seriously hurt. While 

we appreciate the efforts of Secretary Napolitano to give us a temporary parole system, such a system simply does not allow for necessary continued investments in growing these markets due to the fact that the program can 

be halted without notice. 

2. No technical assistance: The bill mandates technical assistance from four 

federal agencies—Labor, DHS, Commerce, and Interior. Three years later, 

Labor, DHS, and Commerce have given us nothing under PL 110–229 and 

have denied our very modest requests for grants. Interior has no funding for 

technical assistance specifically with respect to PL 110–229, but has allocated to the CNMI some of the technical assistance funds which we would 

otherwise receive under regular insular area programs. 

3. No effective immigration enforcement: The bill promises effective immigration enforcement. We are given no official statistics by ICE, but immigration 

lawyers report that ICE has deported fewer than 100 aliens in three years. 

At that rate, ICE will not clear the books of illegal aliens in the Commonwealth for many decades. ICE also refuses to fund a very low-cost softwarebased effort to identify illegal aliens who arrived prior to 1996. 

4. Poor performance at the border: The CBP agents who man the border in the 

CNMI are all temporary assignees. We have constant complaints that they 

are rude, arrogant, and slow in processing arriving tourists. Tourism is our 

lifeblood. An unwelcoming atmosphere at the border is unacceptable. In addition, CBP has prevented the Commonwealth from maintaining its exit database that compared entry data to exit data and was very effective in identifying overstaying tourists. CBP has no exit database that can provide current information on overstayers. As a result, it appears that we have an increasing number of aliens in overstayer status and no way to identify them. 

CBP refuses to acknowledge its responsibility for these problems and has insisted on applying the same ineffective program in the Commonwealth that 

12 

1Six States have now passed legislation to deal with some aspects of this problem. Most recently, Louisiana on July 7, 2011, enacted two laws dealing with the usage of the federal E– 

Verify Program. One law requires all state and local contractors to use E–Verify; and the other 

requires private businesses to verify the legal status of their new hires by providing employers 

that use it a safe harbor against sanctions. 2Some of the information currently being provided by the U.S. Census Bureau with respect 

to the CNMI appears to be projections based on unidentified assumptions. For example, its listing for the Northern Mariana Islands contained in its International Programs Division shows 

a population of 48,000 for mid-year 2010, 46,000 for mid-year 2011, and 45,000 for mid-year 

2012. If these figures are correct, then there are fewer U.S. citizens in the CNMI currently than 

reflected in the text. 

it does in the Mainland, although a more effective CNMI program has demonstrated its utility and is available. 

5. No funding to substitute for coverover: The bill takes away a major funding 

source, the coverover to the Commonwealth from immigration and naturalization fees paid to the United States, which is available to other territories. We are given only a very small fee from work permits—about one 

quarter to one-eighth of our prior funding—in return when the regulations 

are finally issued. To date, we have received no funding from this source. 

6. No consultation: The bill provides that we will be consulted before reports 

are submitted to Congress. That has not happened. Executive Branch reports 

are submitted before we have ever had a chance to even see a draft. I should 

note that the GAO routinely allows us to review a draft, but this is not the 

case with the Department of the Interior or the Department of State. 

I could go on at great length about how the burdens have multiplied and the benefits have never materialized. However, it has been my experience that these oversight hearings with a piecemeal approach are not a forum in which meaningful 

change can occur. This Committee cannot get ICE to deport more than a relatively 

few illegal aliens each year or get CBP to stop being rude to visitors who enter the 

Commonwealth, or get Labor or Commerce to provide the technical assistance we 

were promised, or get additional funds for Interior. We are working hard on these 

problems within the Executive Branch, but the Commonwealth is very small and 

our problems are easy for federal bureaucrats to ignore. Only if this Subcommittee 

is willing to underwrite a serious, system-wide reform of the implementation of PL 

110–229, and amendment of its provisions that do not work, will the Commonwealth 

see any progress. 

******************** 

Now I would like to address H.R. 1466. I oppose this bill and urge that it not 

be acted on by this Subcommittee. 

Many of the difficulties encountered in the implementation of Title VII result 

from the fact that it was drafted by persons without any expertise in immigration 

law or understanding of the Commonwealth’s economy. It is our view that 

H.R. 1466, and other bills dealing with immigration in the insular areas, should be 

handled by the appropriate subcommittee of the House Judiciary Committee. I know 

that other bills are being considered there that may have some potential applicability to the Commonwealth, especially federal laws that endorse the authority of 

the States to deal with the employment of illegal aliens by employers. For example, 

I am impressed by the bill introduced by Representative Lamar Smith with respect 

to a national program to deter the employment of illegal aliens.1

I believe that Congressman Sablan proposed this bill without the demographic information necessary to assess its impact on the Commonwealth. That is not his 

fault. The U.S. Labor Department and the U.S. Department of Commerce do not 

provide the Commonwealth with the full range of data services routinely available 

to States and counties in the Mainland. We have recently been told that we will 

not even have the preliminary results of the 2010 census until 2012.2

I did not see a draft of H.R. 1466 before it was introduced, and I understand that 

experts on alien labor in the Commonwealth also were not consulted. After 

H.R. 1466 was introduced, I requested a detailed analysis of its likely social and 

economic impact. We understand that the numbers involved in H.R. 1466 will strike 

some Members of Congress as very small, compared to the U.S. immigration numbers. Some may assume the effect would also be minor. That is wrong. We have only 

30,000 U.S. citizens living in the islands that make up the Commonwealth and 

about 16,000 registered voters who are predominantly of Carolinian and Chamorro 

ancestry. We are like a very small county in one of the 50 States. 

We now estimate that there were approximately 23,000 aliens (including illegals) 

residing in the Commonwealth at the end of 2008. Unlike our U.S. citizen popuVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:06 Jul 03, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 L:\DOCS\67403.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
13 

3Our estimate of the unemployed includes those who may be employed illegally and therefore 

do not show up in our jobs surveys. 4 American Samoa and Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands: Employment, Earnings, and Status of Key Industries Since Minimum Wage Increases Began, GAO–11–427, June 

2011, Government Accountability Office. 5The first category consists of aliens who were born in the Commonwealth between 1974 and 

1978 and who did not get U.S. citizenship under a prior court decree covering this group. We 

estimate there are about 200 persons in this group. 

The second category consists of aliens who were granted permanent resident status by the 

CNMI government prior to 1981. We estimate there are 82 persons in this group. 

The third category consists of aliens who are the spouses and children of people in groups 

1 and 2. We know of only 102 persons in this group, but there may be a few more. 6Our estimates in this regard are based on data with respect to live births and fertility rates, 

public and private school enrollments, ages and genders of aliens in the Commonwealth, umbrella permits, utilization of nutritional assistance programs, U.S. census estimates and projections, U.S. immigration laws and regulations, and other related data. LIDS data are not relevant for these purposes as those data record work assignments. Because the federal authorities 

do not collect data in the Commonwealth that is readily available for all states and most counties, we must rely on estimates. We anticipate that these estimates are on the low side. 

lation, most of these aliens are adults. Most of these aliens, but perhaps not all, 

were present in the CNMI on May 8, 2008, the date of enactment of the federalization law, and therefore would meet one of the requirements of H.R. 1466 to gain 

the bill’s preferred status for parents of U.S. citizen children. Because of CBP’s failure to maintain an exit database that can rapidly identify overstayers, we do not 

know how many of these aliens are still in the Commonwealth. We believe that 

nearly all are still present. At present, more than half of them are unemployed, due 

to the serious economic recession that has caused a 45% decrease in the Commonwealth’s GDP over the past several years.3 A recent GAO report estimates that employment in the CNMI has dropped an unprecedented 35% from 2006 to 2009.4

The Commonwealth began admitting alien workers in numbers in 1985 as the 

garment and tourism industries began to grow simultaneously. Many of these workers were from the Philippines and China, most were female, and most were relatively young. Many gave birth in the Commonwealth, and these children were U.S. 

citizens by virtue of the Commonwealth’s status as a territory of the United States. 

As the federal presence in the Commonwealth grew during the 1990’s, some federal 

officials repeatedly suggested that the alien parents of U.S. citizen children were entitled to special status—although that certainly is not the case under U.S. immigration law. Not surprisingly, the births of children to aliens increased. 

When the Commonwealth controlled its own immigration, we admitted alien 

workers on a temporary basis while they remained employed, and unemployed 

aliens were repatriated. When the garment manufacturers closed down because of 

changes in WTO rules, the Commonwealth repatriated over 16,000 alien workers 

beginning in 2005. After the federalization law was enacted in 2008, some federal 

officials promised a path to US citizenship for aliens who had U.S. citizen children 

or who had lived in the Commonwealth for several years. This gave aliens a strong 

incentive to stay in the CNMI rather than return home. 

Beginning in 2006, U.S. citizen children of aliens reached age 21 in increasing 

numbers and began petitioning for green card status for their alien parents. This 

occurred under the normal U.S. immigration processes, which are available to all 

qualified aliens—and which we think should apply to the Commonwealth in the 

same way as in the States. There is no need for a special citizenship provision applied only to the Commonwealth. When the Judiciary Committee considers immigration reform for the U.S., the Commonwealth will be a part of that reform. We do 

not want or need an amnesty bill now. 

H.R. 1466 creates four categories of new U.S. citizens. I want to focus on the 

fourth category which covers alien parents of minor U.S. citizen children.5 This category is, by Commonwealth standards, very large. 

Here’s what will happen under H.R. 1466: 

1. Large scale amnesty for aliens: H.R. 1466 is essentially a large-scale amnesty bill. It provides a direct route to citizenship that would create an estimated 11,000 new U.S. citizens in the Commonwealth within the next 10 

years—virtually all of whom are adults and would be voters.6 This would 

occur at a time when the current U.S. citizen population of Chamorro and 

Carolinian ancestry is estimated to decline. Our severe economic recession 

has caused some ofthese citizens to move to the Mainland just to earn 

enough to support their families. The social disruption from arbitrarily creating citizens in this large proportion cannot be overstated. I do not believe 

14 

7See section D(iii)(II). 

8This is the reference to Title 3, Section 4303, which was deleted from the Commonwealth 

Code by P.L. 17–1. It no longer exists. 

that turning this large population of alien temporary workers into citizen 

voters would be tolerated in any county or State in the United States. 

2. Permanent CNMI-only residence: Under H.R. 1466, these aliens are granted permanent residence in the Commonwealth for all time. They are protected from deportation until their minor child reaches age 21 and can petition for a grant of a green card for the parent leading to U.S. citizenship. 

That is a significant distortion of the U.S. immigration system. Allowing 

these aliens to remain in the Commonwealth—even if they do not petition 

for adjustment of status to be able to enter the Mainland U.S.—is a longterm burden on the Commonwealth that occurs nowhere else in the U.S. 

3. Non-custodial parents included: A parent who provided no support whatsoever to the minor U.S. citizen child or never lived in a household with the 

minor child is qualified to remain in the Commonwealth. H.R. 1466 only 

requires a parent’s name on a birth certificate—not any evidence of a meaningful parental relationship. 

4. Unemployed and unemployable parents included: A parent who is unemployed will qualify to remain in the Commonwealth forever. The CNMI will 

have to foot the bill for supporting them because, under H.R. 1466, they are 

not allowed to travel to the U.S. The direct and indirect costs to the CNMI 

government each year for unemployed aliens remaining in the Commonwealth is high and a particular burden on CNMI taxpayers. 

5. Parents with no means of support included: A parent who has no means 

of support whatsoever will qualify. The bill attempts to get rid of the requirement for U.S. green cards of a sponsor willing and able to undertake 

the responsibility to pay support in the amount of at least $18,000 a year 

(at present levels) should the alien not be able to support himself or herself.7 This means that aliens with no visible means of support would qualify 

to remain in the Commonwealth or to become U.S. citizens. This is not allowed anywhere else in the U.S. 

6. Parents with a history of illegal employment included: A parent who works 

illegally in the underground economy, and harms the Commonwealth in the 

process, is eligible. This kind of broad amnesty encourages illegal employment as there is no deportation penalty. It also undermines employment opportunities for U.S. citizens. Although H.R. 1466 does not address the 

issue, it appears that this new status would also be available to persons 

who entered the CNMI before or after November 28, 2009, and became an 

illegal overstayer in violation of the INA, notwithstanding the general rule 

that illegal entrants and immigration violators are not allowed to be admitted into the United States. 

7. Parents who have left the Commonwealth included: A parent who left the 

Commonwealth after November 2009 and has not returned to the Commonwealth will qualify if he or she returns by the date of enactment of 

H.R. 1466. The promise of U.S. citizenship is likely to attract a substantial 

number of re-entrants. This will aggravate the Commonwealth’s current 

problem with unemployed aliens. 

8. Parents of children raised elsewhere included: A child who was born in the 

Commonwealth but was sent by his or her parent to live in China or the 

Philippines—and who remains with relatives in the Philippines or China for 

his or her entire childhood to age 21—can still protect his or her parents, 

enabling them to remain in the Commonwealth more or less permanently 

for the prospect of better employment or welfare benefits. 

9. APA protections stripped away: H.R. 1466 strips away the protections of 

the federal Administrative Procedures Act by permitting the Department of 

Homeland Security to promulgate implementing regulations without the 

customary requirement of issuing them in proposed form and providing for 

a period within which the affected parties may comment. Are we incapable 

of learning from experience? We had to go to federal court in November 

2009 to order to require DHS to comply with the provisions of the APA with 

respect to its proposed transitional worker permits. I see no reason for including this exception in this law. 

10. A definition of ‘‘immediate relative’’ rejected by the Commonwealth legislature determines the eligible class: The bill refers to a definition of ‘‘immediate relative’’ that was in the Commonwealth Code prior to May 2008.8

That definition was struck from the Commonwealth Code by our LegislaVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:06 Jul 03, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 L:\DOCS\67403.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
15 

9See, for example, the following: Office of the Legislative Counsel, U.S. Senate, Legislative 

Drafting Manual (1997); Lawrence E. Filson, The Legislative Drafter’s Desk Reference (Congressional Quarterly, Inc., 1992); Donald Hirsch, Drafting Federal Law, 2d Edition (U.S. Government Printing Office, 1989). 

ture. We have found that, under well-accepted drafting rules, cross references to definitions in other legislation may be appropriate in very limited 

cases.9 This is not one of those cases. A cross-reference to legislation that 

was repealed prior to the time of the legislation containing the cross-reference is particularly unacceptable. Among other flaws, it masks the true 

intent of the bill to those who are not lawyers or skilled legislative researchers. 

11. Prior problems of adoption fraud are revived: The old now-repealed definition of ‘‘immediate relative’’ refers to adopted children who are adopted 

prior to age 21. This led to significant problems with adoption fraud in the 

Commonwealth—children who were adopted for the purpose of conveying 

status for immigration purposes. H.R. 1466 allows an alien parent who has 

more than one U.S. citizen child the leeway to consent to an adoption of 

one of the children for the purposes of eligibility under H.R. 1466. If this 

happened to any significant extent, as it has before, this would increase the 

number of eligible parents. 

Let me be clear. It is the U.S. citizens in the Commonwealth who gave up their 

land and their sovereignty to become a part of the United States. The U.S. citizens 

in the Commonwealth have a right not to have their community and culture be so 

radically changed in this fashion—unless they decide to do so through their own 

democratic institutions. 

We treated guest workers well over the years, and we continue to do so. Some 

critics have cited poor working conditions. We corrected those long ago. Some cited 

an estimated $6.1 million in back pay owed to guest workers over the 25 years since 

1985. That estimate was wrong. The total turned out, after investigation, to be far 

lower. All claims of back pay have been adjudicated; and only a relative few cases 

remain in our courts. Other critics have pointed to alleged human trafficking violations. Human trafficking is a federal crime and the only fair measure is convictions 

in federal cases—not allegations or rumors. Federal convictions over the past 10 

years have been very, very few. Our record over the years is the equal to, and we 

think better than, anywhere aliens are employed in large numbers in the United 

States. And we understand why aliens in the Commonwealth want to stay. They 

have freedoms, are treated well, and have employment opportunities and social benefits. 

I have a proposal for an H–5 visa within the regular U.S. immigration system, 

and the CNMI Senate has a proposal for a non-citizenship status somewhat akin 

to the status of Freely Associated State residents in the Commonwealth. Both of 

these proposals are in the supplementary materials to be provided to the Committee. Both of these proposals are far better alternatives for the people of the Commonwealth than H.R. 1466. 

Response to questions submitted for the record by The Honorable Benı ́gno 

Repeki Fitial, Governor of the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana 

Islands 

From The Honorable Madeleine Z. Bordallo 

Q: Could you tell the Committee, have there been any significant issues 

with regard to overstays? The Parole Authority is probationary period 

to see if this program will work. I am not aware of any overstays or law 

enforcement concerns. In my opinion this program works. What is your 

opinion of the parole authority and any enforcement issues? 

A: ‘‘I have testified previously that the Commonwealth looks forward to the inclusion of China and Russia in the formal visa waiver program envisioned by Public 

Law 110–229. Such inclusion would provide an increased measure of certainty and 

stability that would enable the Commonwealth to develop these markets more effectively. We are very appreciative of the Secretary’s decision to use her parole authority to permit tourists from China and Russia to enter the Commonwealth and believe that the program has been administered efficiently and smoothly by Customs 

and Border Protection personnel. Based on figures provided by CBP last month, we 

are pleased that a very small number of visitors (36) were rejected upon arrival in 

the Commonwealth compared with the 20,947 visitors who were paroled in as tourists. The Commonwealth has received no reports from CBP or any other DepartVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:06 Jul 03, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 L:\DOCS\67403.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
16 

ment of Homeland Security component regarding ‘‘overstayers’’ from China and Russia who did not comply with the terms of their permission to enter the CNMI. None 

of the participants in dealing with these tourists—the Marianas Visitor Authority, 

the charter carriers, and the hotels—reports any such ‘‘overstayer’’ problem and all 

emphasize the importance of these markets to the visitor industry and the Commonwealth economy.’’ 

Mr. FLEMING. Thank you, Governor, and we have now Governor 

Calvo. Sir, you have five minutes. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. EDDIE BAZA CALVO, 

GOVERNOR OF THE ISLAND OF GUAM 

Governor CALVO. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and 

Members of the Subcommittee. My name is Eddie Baza Calvo, Governor of Guam. I am here to testify on Public Law 110-229, the 

Guam/CNMI visa waiver program. 

Unlike previous testimonies that you may have heard in the 

past, I am not here to ask you for subsidies. We are here to ask 

you for an opportunity. Release some Federal regulations that 

make no sense for Guam and American, and we can make it on our 

own. As our economy takes a new life, I do believe that Guam can 

be a shining example of economic, American economic strength in 

Asia. 

I am a new Governor with a new doctrine on Federal relations. 

Guam has some major financial problems caused by many Federal 

mandates, but nevertheless my administration is looking internally 

and implementing solutions to fix our fiscal problems. I don’t want 

our government to rely so heavily on Federal subsidies, and I am 

sure that is welcome news to Members of the Congress. 

Guam has a government deficit equal to 51 percent of our revenues, and like other states and territories, we are cutting spending 

and raising revenues to fix this staggering situation. But unlike 

other U.S. communities, Guam’s deficit is a direct result of Federal 

mandates and the Federal Government’s inability to live up to its 

own obligations and its mandates. 

The financial burdens of the compacts that the United States 

signed with the Freely Associate States of Micronesia is nearly at 

$1 billion for the people of Guam. The provision of funding for 

unimpeded immigration rights to Guam have caused a natural population influx, and citizens from these areas are using up to 70 percent of some of our public services. For over 26 years immigrants 

have been migrating and maxing out our capacity to provide services, and without adequate funding to offset the impact from the 

Federal Government our services and infrastructure has fallen into 

disrepair, leading to violations of other Federal mandates. This includes the Federal EITC. We now have to pay for the larger population which does not get reimbursed like the states, and as a result the Federal Government has taken us to court to pay for services we would have been able to afford if we had not breached our 

capacity. 

Now, this is clearly an injustice, but we are dealing with a financial dilemma with local solutions and local economic initiatives underway. Unfortunately, we have hit a regulatory wall. Tourism, our 

number one industry, is stagnated. Our primary market, Japan, is 

no longer the largest potential source of outbound tourists. 

17 

Distinguished ladies and gentlemen, there is a great irony between the financial malaise that beset the Guam government and 

the economic development we have not been allowed to pursue. The 

Federal Government has seemed sometimes cavalier and almost 

uninterested at the burden that is placed on our resources, and we 

have come to Congress to plead our case and get the reimbursements that rightly should be paid, but Congress has refused. 

Yet the Federal Government has been sitting on a regulation 

that would have begun solving our financial dilemma and our economic troubles. Congress mandated a unified immigration policy 

for Guam and the CNMI, but the Department of Homeland Security has been contravening your intent. There is no parole authority for Chinese and Russian tourists to enter Guam despite 

Congress’s determination that such authority would be of significant economic benefit and would not unduly compromise national 

or homeland security. Even one percent market share of China’s 

$55 million outbound tourists and Russia’s 13 million would translate into GDP growth in the billions of dollars for Guam, and for 

our part would mean thousands of jobs to close the 13.3 percent 

unemployment gap we currently have, and more revenues to provide services for our residents and local FAS residents. Put simply, 

if you give us this opportunity we can take care of our problems. 

But there is a larger reason the United States should grant this 

authority for Guam, and it cuts into the heart of the initiative that 

can help reclaim American economic political strength in the Asia 

Pacific Rim. Part of the United States national export initiative is 

to reduce the huge trade deficit with China. Well, Guam could help 

facilitate that. The millions of Chinese outbound visitors are exporting Chinese capital, yet the easiest markets accepting them are 

not U.S. markets. Other Chinese cities and Asian destinations are 

fast depleting the opportunities for the United States. 

Allowing the visa waiver program for Guam will bring millions 

and billions in Chinese currency into the United States, and this 

program can be a part of the winning strategy of the national export initiative. 

The old way of thinking of our island as an isolated military outpost is outdated. We are America in Asia. We are a gateway to the 

Orient, Asia’s bridge to the United States. I came today with a 

message, a very different one. We have financial problems like 

other states, but we are dealing with those problems. Even the cost 

of impact of migration has caused Federal compacts is a cost that 

we are bearing but my message deals less with financial assistance 

for Guam, but it deals more about our desire for economic self-sufficiency. We can do a lot for America if you give us that opportunity. 

Now, some have said the American century is a bit dim, but I 

can see a light in that part of the world on my porch that faces 

the Pacific Ocean where the Star Spangled Banner and the Guam 

flag fly high at the Government House. But ladies and gentleman, 

Members of this Committee, we need your assistance, we need your 

help. We can be that beacon of the American dream in the Western 

Pacific, and I ask for your assistance in, again, granting this authority to Guam. Thank you and God bless. 

[The prepared statement of Governor Calvo follows:] 

18 

Statement of The Honorable Eddie Baza Calvo, Governor, Island of Guam, 

on H.R. 1466, The Consolidated Natural Resources Act 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for inviting me to testify. For the record, I am Eddie 

Baza Calvo. I am the Governor of Guam. This is my written testimony on the implementation of Public Law 110–229, regarding the Guam/CNMI Visa Waiver program. 

I beg your indulgence as I explain the thinking of Guam’s new administration 

below. 

As the new governor of Guam, in my first opportunity to testify before Congress, 

I want to be certain that the Members of the House are aware of the reasons it is 

critical for the Guam-CNMI Visa Waiver Program be implemented and that Chinese 

and Russian nationals be allowed to travel to Guam and the CNMI, as originally 

intended by Congress. 

I have a simple and unique message for Congress today. Unlike previous testimonies you may have heard in years past, I am not here to ask for subsidies. Guam 

is going through a unique transformation that, if done correctly, will result in unprecedented economic self-sufficiency in the long term. 

Today we are far from that self-sufficiency. This fiscal year Guam will receive 

$369 million in federal grants and matching grants. These grants fund several federal and local programs, including our university land grants, the National Guard, 

public assistance, housing for the less fortunate, education programs, etc. These are 

the same grants the other States and territories seek and for which they compete. 

It costs the federal government far less to fund these programs in Guam because 

of our small population. For many of these programs, Guam does not receive the 

same relative share that other American communities do. 

As a new governor, I hesitate to have the government of Guam rely so heavily 

on these grants to sustain local operations. We are taking steps to fix our financial 

house over the long term, but unfortunately, this funding has become critical to 

services. These grants have become increasingly important to Guam over the past 

20 years. The year 1991 is an important year in Guam memory. That was the last 

time the government of Guam was able to pay tax refunds on time. We currently 

owe approximately $280 million in tax refunds, going as far back as Calendar Year 

2005. There are several reasons why this has occurred, including natural disasters 

such as super typhoons, which have wrecked havoc on our island, and global events 

beyond our control, such as SARS, H1N1, and two Gulf wars, which have wrecked 

havoc on our main economic industry, Asian-based tourism. While our people are 

resilient and have rebounded and rebuilt, our government finances were not as resilient. In addition, federal court orders in the hundreds of millions have placed a 

great burden on the backs of our taxpayers. This government had to borrow to finance some of these orders. The annual debt service on the bonds to pay these court 

orders has significantly eroded our revenue base. The Earned Income Tax Credit, 

which we are obligated to pay under the mirror IRC tax code system we have, and 

which the federal government reimburses to the state governments, is not reimbursed to Guam. This is a drain on our General Fund of between $32 to $36 million 

annually. 

Because of declining revenues, the result of Japan’s financial downturn, the decline in military spending, and federal court-mandated new programs, imposed fines 

and application of EITC, the money that should be set aside for tax refunds continues to be used to pay for essential government services. All this, along with the 

growth of freely associated states of the Micronesia (FAS) migration in ever-increasing numbers, has created a structural imbalance in our General Fund. And while 

our community has been growing, along with a greater demand for public services, 

collections have not kept pace with this growth. The cumulative deficit that has 

grown over the years now is $336 million, according to our FY 2010 audit report. 

Distinguished Ladies and Gentlemen, our deficit is 51 percent of our current 

year’s adopted revenues. It is unmanageable. It rides as a burden on the backs of 

taxpayers awaiting their refunds. I’m not here to ask you to solve our problems for 

us. We are working to do that on our own. I directed my Cabinet to begin personnel 

evaluations for performance and I have instituted a 10 percent cut in spending. An 

island-wide reassessment of property values currently is underway to increase revenues. Revenue agents also are going after non-filers and non-payers. I am not asking for a federal bailout. What I am asking is for the federal government to make 

good on its own mandates, with the same fervor and sense of urgency as it has imposed upon our government. 

The year 1991 is the sixth year following the U.S. government’s compact, or treaty, with the freely associated states of Micronesia. In 1985, these new countries entered into an agreement with the U.S. The U.S. government said the people of these 

former U.S. administered territories could migrate freely into the United States. 

19 

Noting the dismal conditions of these countries’ economies and education systems, 

the U.S. promised federal aid to them. Rightly so, our country wanted to leave a 

legacy of progress in former territories it liberated and held in trust. The U.S. government agreed to absorb and pay for the impact of their migration to the States 

and territories of the U.S. 

It’s been 26 years since then. The promise the U.S. made to the citizens of the 

FAS has resulted in meager improvements to their economies and school systems. 

As a result, the bulk of the FAS citizens, tens of thousands of them, have migrated 

to the closest U.S. port of entry: Guam. Our island absorbs well over half the migratory impact of the treaty the U.S. government entered with the FAS. Resultingly, 

Guam’s unemployment rate now is 13.3 percent. The true financial impact of this 

migration has cost the government of Guam nearly $1 billion since the Compacts 

were signed. Yet, Guam has only received $xxx since the Compacts. To put this in 

perspective, our General Fund generates about a half a billion dollars annually. 

Guam has found itself the casualty of another unfunded federal mandate. 

I understand, however, that the U.S. government is itself in a bad economic state 

and will probably never fully reimburse Guam for the impacts of the Compacts. But 

I want to put into perspective how this federal mandate has contributed to, and may 

even be said to have caused, our deficit and the structural imbalance of the General 

Fund. We have been able to quantify most of what it costs to pay for government 

services directly used by citizens of the FAS annually. The figure is $113 million 

a year, for which we have never been reimbursed more than $14.5 million. 

That is about $100 million, or one-fifth of our local budget going to provide unreimbursed social services to FAS migrants. The rate of usage in each service category 

is alarming. I attached a breakdown, but here are some highlights: 

Three years worth of this impact outpaces the size of our General Fund deficit. 

If you consider the direct costs the government of Guam incurs because of this federal mandate, you can see that the appropriations needed to meet the demand for 

services will always outpace the revenues we collect. This federal mandate, Distinguished Ladies and Gentlemen, is driving up the cost of government services in 

Guam; costing us approximately $100 million annually. 

We are told that we need to understand the federal government’s financial situation. We are told we must take into consideration the federal bureaucracy’s hardships and ability to pay. That is reasonable. What is most unreasonable is the hardship unfunded federal mandates, such as the FAS Compacts and EITC, place on our 

island people, forcing us to withhold tax refunds as our government continues to use 

their monies to subsidize the cost of providing government services to our residents 

as a result of the Compacts. Adding insult to injury, while the federal government 

sees no need to reimburse us beyond its ability, some would say its willingness, to 

pay us, it imposes on us additional mandates, orders, receiverships and fees without 

any regard for our ability to pay and sustain services for our residents. Here is a 

list of these orders and fines: 


67403.001.eps 67403.002.eps
20 

The government of Guam has repeatedly asked the federal court and the federal 

agencies pursuing these fines and orders to consider the progress we were making 

in meeting the demands of the federal mandates. We have repeatedly asked for consideration on the rigid timelines imposed to provide the local cash to fund our compliance initiatives. We were told such considerations were not possible. It is a tragic 

irony that the federal government can withhold from us just reimbursement for its 

federal mandates because of its cash situation, despite the overwhelming impact of 

its failure to meet its own mandates, yet give us no consideration of the effect that 

its failure to reimburse us has on our ability to pay its other mandates. 

On top of this, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency now wants the government of Guam to install secondary wastewater treatment facilities at the cost of 

$400 million. The U.S. EPA does not care how this will impact our people; nor has 

it considered other less expensive and environmentally sensitive technological solutions for wastewater treatment. 

How is it right that we are made to pay for more than three-quarters of a billion 

dollars in federal mandates when the federal government still owes us a billion dollars in reimbursements for its obligation to us? 

The federal government is strangling us with mandates it expects our cashstrapped government to meet upon unreasonable timelines and demands. There has 

been no consideration for our ability to sustain our financial house while meeting 

these orders and paying for what is supposed to be the federal government’s bill. 

These extraordinary demands not only drain our financial resources, they rob us of 

the attention and focus we need to pay to our own local programs and initiatives 

to combat poverty and increase wealth among Guamanians. Make no mistake about 

it; we are good American citizens who are doing our part to deal with these problems ourselves. We have a full throttle economic and financial agenda. The only 

thing getting in our way is the federal government’s burdensome bureaucracy, mandates, rules and regulations. 

Despite these challenges, we are moving forward with viable economic initiatives 

to improve the quality of life for Guamanians and increase our presence in the Asia 

Pacific Rim. 

My administration is developing a long-term economic strategic plan, which 

leverages the military buildup investment with our strategic location between Asia 

and the mainland United States. I am bringing the community together to use 

available information and academic methodologies and best practices to forecast 

Guam’s economy and its community of the future. We will project our needs, identify budding industries, shore up our workforce goals and create a community model 

supported by the infrastructure, workforce and regulatory environment fit to meet 

these projections. We will align curriculum in our schools, colleges and university 

to meet these goals, creating certainty in our future in much the same way several 

Asian nations went from lands of scarce natural resources to the economic tigers 

they are today. 

As this planning and implementation process occurs, we have already launched 

an affordable housing initiative to spark construction and generate interest in mortgages for first-time homeowners. Our goal is to build 3,000 affordable homes over 

the next five years. We launched the initiative two weeks ago. Already, 188 homes 

are slated for development in the near future. 

The much-anticipated and recently much-debated military buildup is causing increased interest in the island. Our economic development agency, along with our 

Chamber of Commerce, has been organizing trade missions to Guam from Taiwan, 

Korea, China, the Philippines and Japan. We want Asian capital to flow into our 

economy. I will be leading trade missions to these countries later this year to court 

investors personally. 

The University of Guam is aggressively networking to build research and development parks as incubators of new business and new industry. More so than ever before, the University is taking a commanding role in community development. It has 

become a regional leader in economic initiatives. More importantly, it has begun a 

long-overdue dialogue on sustainability in the islands. One of the initiatives this is 

leading to is the creation of the University of Guam School of Engineering. These 

initiatives will lead to solutions to which both Micronesia and the U.S. government 

have long aspired. 

Stagnation and an increasingly competitive field of nearby emerging destinations 

have impacted tourism, our number one industry. The Japanese disasters of March 

2011 have also had their most recent effect on our Asian-based tourism industry. 

We are adapting and coping as best we can, but there is only so much we can do. 

My message is this: We can make it on our own if the federal government makes 

good on its own mandates, and releases us from restrictions that do not make sense 

for our very unique economy and for the United States. We believe this is an espeVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:06 Jul 03, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 L:\DOCS\67403.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
21 

1 132 Cong. Rec. S4844 (Apr. 24, 1986); see also 132 Cong. Rec.H5274 (Aug. 1, 1986). 

cially appropriate message to send to you as Congress and President Obama try desperately to curb federal spending and reduce the federal deficit. But that’s just one 

narrow way of seeing things. 

Guam and the CNMI are geopolitically positioned in a way no other U.S. community is. Our location, tied with our reputation in Asia and the Pacific of being the 

strongest, closest, most stable and hospitable American community in that part of 

the world presents the United States with an opportunity to increase American 

clout militarily, economically and diplomatically with the fastest growing economies 

in the world. Put simply, we are in a political and geographic position to make our 

country shine. Not only are we proud to be in this position, we are excited to take 

a lead role. This is, after all, in the spirit of the bipartisan call from Congress for 

American communities to exhibit leadership in gaining financial independence and 

economic development. 

I offer to you solutions to make this happen: 

Release Travel Visa Restrictions on Chinese and Russian Outbound 

Visitors to Guam and the CNMI Only 

The United States currently does not have a visa waiver program with China and 

Russia. Two of the main reasons for this are concerns for national security and of 

Chinese and Russian nationals violating their visa conditions and overstaying in the 

U.S. These issues are of obvious significant concern for the U.S. I reiterate, though, 

what Congress already understood when it passed the Consolidated Natural Resources Act of 2008. 

Guam is not part of the contiguous United States. We have 212 square miles of 

land surrounded by the deep blue Pacific. It is not difficult to find people in our island, but it is hard to get past customs and immigration officers at our airport. 

Even Congress supports this in its own findings. When Congress established the 

Guam VWP in 1987 as an amendment to the Immigration and Nationality Act 

(INA), Congress emphasized the inherent protections afforded the United States’ 

welfare, safety and security by Guam’s geographical isolation. Congress determined 

that: 

The unique conditions prevailing on Guam and its isolated location provide 

sufficient safeguards for the welfare, safety and security of the United 

States to justify a broad application of the visa waiver system. Guam’s isolation as an island in the Pacific Ocean easily allows for the restriction of 

visa waiver recipients to the Territory thereby preventing them from traveling onward to Hawaii and the mainland. Guam’s small area and its relatively small population ensure that any non-immigrants who overstay the 

visa waiver period...can be quickly located and removed....Given the inherent protections which Guam offers the welfare, safety and security of the 

United States the visa waiver system should be liberally applied to a broad 

range of countries....It is intended that the visa waiver program should initially be given wide application. If threats to the welfare, safety or security 

of the United States develop those threats should be dealt with on a country by country basis.1

Although China and Russia are currently excluded from the Guam-CNMI Visa 

Waiver Program, because of our remote location allowing Chinese and Russian outbound tourists to vacation in Guam and the CNMI should not cause such alarm to 

our national and homeland security agencies. 

Guam has long sought visa waiver programs with China and Russia. It makes 

sense when you consider what this can do for our island economy and for the investment of Chinese and Russian capital into the U.S. economy. Our local considerations 

are obvious. Guam has relied upon Japanese outbound tourists since the 1960s to 

fuel tourism, our number-one industry. It is this strong economic alliance we’ve built 

with the Japanese that built the Guam economy. That transformation from the rubbles of World War II bombardments and the devastation of a Category 5 storm is 

nothing short of miraculous. 

Unfortunately, when the Japanese economy tanks, Guam feels it. Over the last 

decade, we’ve felt its stagnation. Tourists are not staying as long as they used to. 

They’re not spending as much as they did before. On March 11, 2011, Japan was 

hit by a major earthquake, followed by a devastating tsunami and damage to a nuclear power plant. Guam is still feeling the economic effects of the Japan triple disaster. Tourism numbers from Japan have declined over 20 percent. We’ve been fortunate to increase our share of the Korean market and to attract further interest 

from Taiwan, the Philippines and Australia, but these other countries represent 

only a small portion of our tourism base. While we have struggled to reinvent our 

22 

market and to diversify into markets with existing visa waiver programs, we find 

ourselves competing with several other Asian destinations that have recently 

emerged. They are all attracting the 55 million outbound Chinese and the 13 million 

Russian tourists. Guam is anxious to have its share of these markets and we have 

the infrastructure to support it. Access to Chinese and Russian visitors has the potential of increasing our gross domestic product by the billions and creating thousands of jobs. But Guam isn’t the only body politic that stands to gain from these 

proposed visa waiver programs. 

In fact, the State Department has collaborated with the National Governors Association to bring provincial governors from China to the NGA Annual Meeting in Salt 

Lake City, Utah, later this month, and is also scheduling a state visit by U.S. governors to China for the Fall of 2011. President Obama in 2008 also issued a National Export Initiative designed at doubling U.S. exports, which recognizes tourism 

as an export component. 

Part of the United States’ National Export Initiative is to reduce the huge trade 

deficit with China. Guam can help facilitate that. The 55 million Chinese outbound 

visitors are exporting Chinese capital, yet the easiest markets accepting them are 

not U.S. markets. They are other Chinese cities and Asian destinations that are fast 

depleting opportunities for the U.S. 

Allowing China to participate in the visa waiver program for Guam and the 

CNMI, will bring billions of dollars in Chinese currency to the U.S. The capital will 

flow into U.S. banks on Guam, and then be invested into the imports we receive 

from the U.S. mainland. This program can be part of a winning strategy to meet 

the objectives of the National Export Initiative and begin reclaiming economic 

strength in Asia. 

We need Congress’s help in affirming China and Russia’s participation in the 

Guam-CNMI Visa Waiver Program. 

Provide Funding Certainty to the Defense Department for the Military 

Buildup on Guam 

A growing pillar in our economy is Defense-related activity, spurred by Defense 

spending on Guam. The pending military buildup caused a mini-boom of development when plans were announced a few years ago. Unfortunately, uncertainty and 

anxiety about the buildup has been increasing because of Defense cuts over the past 

year by Congress. 

To date, little has been said or released about the United States’ funding commitment to the Global Realignment of the Armed Forces initiative affecting Guam and 

Okinawa-based forces. The Japanese government has made similar commitments 

and has deposited vast sums of money to the U.S. Treasury. The uncertainty is on 

the part of the U.S. government, which lately has seemed reluctant to honor the 

bilateral agreements effectuated by the State Department. 

We do recognize Congress is in a bind because the cost of the buildup is still unknown. However, even the Senate recognizes there is a buildup happening and there 

are costs. At this point, reducing those costs without any notice of how the buildup 

will proceed and what investments will be made each year sends mixed signals and 

causes confusion. There is a need for federal officials to communicate more effectively with Congress, the Government Accountability Office, and the government of 

Guam on buildup plans and the outlay of spending over the next decade. 

The anxiety on the part of our local government, our private sector and prospective investors has been exacerbated by recent cuts to Defense spending in Guam. 

The Senate Armed Services Committee recently removed an appropriation for improvements to Andersen Air Force Base, and a $33 million appropriation to help 

mitigate the impacts of a firing range and other buildup activities. This, while just 

a fraction of the total cost, is significant to us because it was part of a very much 

criticized negotiation that finally led to the signing of the Programmatic Agreement 

over the disposition of historic artifacts and other such finds during the proposed 

buildup. 

These so-called ‘signals’ from Congress have triggered a standstill on development 

and business activity related to the buildup. Investors now are taking a ‘wait and 

see’ stance with Asian capital that they would have already invested into the U.S. 

via Guam. It is critical to our development that Congress makes good on the United 

States’ promises and provide assurances that it will fund this buildup. 

Inclusion in the Korea Free Trade Agreement and All Current and Future 

Agreements 

The sad part about Guam’s enduring relationship with the United States is it 

seems the U.S. government picks and chooses when to apply mandates and benefits 

to our territory. Sometimes Guam is included as a U.S. territory, many other times 

23 

we are treated as an international community not eligible for the same benefits and 

protections the rest of the country receives. This is the case with the Korea-U.S. 

Free Trade Agreement. 

The President’s Office of the United States Trade Representative says, ‘‘If approved, the Agreement would be the United States’ most commercially significant 

free trade agreement in more than 16 years. 

‘‘The U.S. International Trade Commission estimates that the reduction of Korean 

tariffs and tariff-rate quotas on goods alone would add $10 billion to $12 billion to 

annual U.S. Gross Domestic Product and around $10 billion to annual merchandise 

exports to Korea.’’ It goes on to state: 

‘‘In addition to strengthening our economic partnership, the KORUS FTA would 

help to solidify the two countries’ long-standing geostrategic alliance. 

As the first U.S. FTA with a North Asian partner, the KORUS FTA could be a 

model for trade agreements for the rest of the region, and underscore the U.S. commitment to, and engagement in, the Asia-Pacific region.’’ 

Guam is, without a doubt, at the center of U.S. interests in this Asia-Pacific region. Why, then, have we been excluded from the agreement? We ask Congress to 

push for Guam’s inclusion in the agreement. 

Guam can play a pivotal role as the United States expands its interests in our 

region. We are important for American interests in Asia. We are important for 

Asian interests in America. At the heart of this strategic geopolitical value are many 

factors all related to our location and our proud heritage as the westernmost frontier of the United States: 

1. The major strategic importance of the military bases—present and future— 

on Guam, the ‘‘Tip of the spear’’ 

2. The airline hubs connecting Asia with Micronesia 

3. The frontline role we have in the potential for development in Micronesia 

4. The international web of fiber optic cables based beneath the island 

5. The transnational shipping routes that flow through our oceanic backyard 

6. The international conventions and treaties on fisheries and fishing that is a 

multi-billion dollar industry in our waters 

7. The academic research and consortiums of marine science based out of our 

university. 

8. The opportunity to reduce the U.S. trade deficit and bring billions of Asian 

currency to America through Guam. 

There is a clear connection between Asia and America. Guam is that bridge. We 

are the hosts to American interests in the Western Pacific. We set the stage for 

Asian entrance to U.S. markets. We can be leaders in an economic alliance between 

Asia and America. Give us the opportunities to make it on our own and we will help 

America to shine. 

The American Dream is powerful. It is no wonder we are a nation of immigrants. 

People from across the globe saw from their borders the bright and shining promise 

that is the American Dream. In America, you can work hard and earn a living. It 

doesn’t matter whether your father is a king or your mother is a pauper, or whether 

you grew up poor or you didn’t think you had the right skin color or faith. You can 

own a home. You can be your own boss. You can compete against the best, and you 

can win. This dream is attracting people to our shores in much the same way. While 

we are a small island, we represent America’s heritage of warmth and hospitality 

to all those looking for freedom and opportunity. If you haven’t been to Guam, you 

may be surprised when you get there. People from all walks of life go about their 

business trying to make ends meet and build something great for their families. It 

is a microcosm of these contiguous United States, where freedom is celebrated and 

people take advantage of opportunity. 

We are asking you for those opportunities so the American Dream can become a 

reality for your fellow Americans in Guam. In doing so, we can do our part in bringing the American Dream to more Americans. 

We are pursuing a Guamanian Century of Prosperity at the dawn of an American 

Millennium of Leadership and Hope. Some have said the great American Century 

is over. They say that, like Greece and Rome, the Holy Roman Empire and Spain, 

America’s light above the world is destined to dim. I see the light of the world every 

morning on my porch as warm ocean winds blow upon the Star Spangled Banner 

and the Guam Flag that fly high above Government House. Freedom has no end, 

nor can time limit its virtue. No other country was built upon these ideals. It is a 

blessing from God to see the majesty of His creation illuminated by the dawn of a 

new day. Distinguished Ladies and Gentlemen, as an American living in a land that 

wakes to the first sunrise of this vast nation, I can tell you that the light of the 

world touches America first. Let us be leaders in this country’s future. 

24 

Mr. FLEMING. Thank you, Governor. Mr. Gootnick you are now 

recognized for five minutes, sir. 

STATEMENT OF DAVID GOOTNICK, DIRECTOR, INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS AND TRADE, U.S. GOVERNMENT 

ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE 

Mr. GOOTNICK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Chairman and Members of this Subcommittee, thank you for 

asking GAO to participate in this hearing. The CNMI economy is 

in a severe recession. The garment factories which once fueled an 

economic boom are closed. Tourism has seen a nearly 50 percent 

drop in visitor arrivals. According to figures released yesterday by 

BEA, real GDP fell by 50 percent between 2003 and 2009, and government revenues have shrunk by nearly 50 percent as well. 

In this context regarding P.L. 110-229, I will briefly summarize, 

first, DHS operations in the Commonwealth; second, the status of 

implementing regulations; and third, several pending issues. 

Regarding DHS operations, the key component units had established operations by the start of the transition period. CPD is 

screening over 30,000 arrivals monthly and has admitted over 

60,000 Russian and Chinese visitors to the Commonwealth. They 

now have a long-term lease and are renovating space at both international airports. ICE now has access to a detention facility. They 

have deported about 50 individuals and are prioritizing their resources toward criminal aliens. CIS continues to process applications for citizenship, permanent residency, H visas, parole in place 

and advance paroles, amongst others. 

Regarding the regulations, as has been well stated DHS has 

issued regulations implementing programs for visitors and investors, and has recently submitted to OMB a draft rule on the transitional work permit program. Regarding workers, the delay in 

issuance of the regulations according to many observers has had a 

negative impact on the economy. 

Regarding visitors, DHS continues to employ the Secretary’s parole authority and has left the door open for China and Russia in 

the combined visa waiver program. Regarding investors, CIS has 

thus far had far fewer applications for the transitional investor 

visa than they had anticipated. 

Finally, I will raise three pending issues, first on the worker regulations. During the transition the DHS regulations will provide 

for the number, terms and conditions associated with the worker 

permits. Labor will decide on any extensions of the program beyond 

2014. Many sources, including GAO and the McFee study, have 

found that a rapid substantial decline in foreign workers would 

have a negative impact on the economy and a substantial one. 

Moreover, given the calendar there is limited time for employers 

to petition for workers, for workers and their dependents to complete the required steps, and for CIS to process these applications 

estimated right now at over 15,000. 

Second, on payroll taxes, CNMI workers from the Philippines 

and Korea, currently 75 percent of foreign workers, have in the 

past been exempted from payroll taxes. With the elimination of the 

CNMI immigration categories that form the basis for this exempVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:06 Jul 03, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 L:\DOCS\67403.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
25 

1Pub. L. No. 110–229, Title VII, 122 Stat. 754, 853 (May 8, 2008). 48 U.S.C.§ 1806 note. 

2 Covenant to Establish a Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands in Political Union 

with the United States of America (Pub. L. No. 94–241, § 1, 90 Stat. 263 (Mar. 24, 1976), 48 

U.S.C. § 1801, note. 3 In this statement, unless otherwise indicated, ‘‘foreign workers’’ refers to workers in the 

CNMI who are not U.S. citizens or U.S. lawful permanent residents. (Other sources sometimes 

call these workers ‘‘nonresident workers,’’ ‘‘guest workers,’’ ‘‘noncitizen workers,’’ ‘‘alien workContinued 

tion going forward the Social Security status of these workers is 

unknown. 

Third, on status, Mr. Sablan, as you know your bill would create 

a CNMI-only resident status for four groups of individuals. The 

largest of these groups are certain immediate relatives of U.S. citizens. I must respectfully disagree with the Governor on his figure 

of 11,000 individuals. There is not a lot of data on this. I think 

there are two figures that are worth nothing. 

In, 2005, the household income and expenditure survey found 

that there were about 8,000 children of non-U.S.-headed households, about 8,000 kids; 90 percent of those were U.S. citizens. If 

you figure two kids per family on average, and 90 percent of that, 

you get somewhere between three and four thousand individual is 

eligible under the fourth provision in H.R. 1466. 

Also, the April 2010 Department of the Interior study suggested 

that there were about 3,000 individuals who are immediate relatives of aliens or U.S. citizens, so those are probably the two best 

da ta sources to anchor an estimate on immediate relatives of U.S. 

citizens. 

Also, in April 2010, in a required report, Interior recommended 

that Congress consider among several options allowing foreign 

workers who have resided in the CNMI for at least five years to 

apply for long-term status. This report has engendered controversy 

both on its data source and its options for congressional consideration. Nonetheless, the report reflected a compromise in the CNRA 

itself and reflects difficult choices still to be made in the role of foreign workers in the Commonwealth’s future. 

In summary, Mr. Chairman, five basic points: The CNMI economy is in a severe prolonged recession; DHS components are operational in the Commonwealth; Chinese and Russian visa waivers 

are important to tourism in both Guam and the CNMI; the delay 

in establishing temporary worker program is at present a key 

source of uncertainty; and finally, proposals to grant long-term status to certain workers and their families are pending before Congress. 

Mr. Chairman, this completes my remarks. I am happy to answer your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Gootnick follows:] 

Statement of David Gootnick, Director, International Affairs and Trade, 

U.S. Government Accountability Office 

Chairman Fleming, Ranking Member Sablan, and Members of the Subcommittee: 

Thank you for the opportunity to discuss our work on the status of efforts, in response to the Consolidated Natural Resources Act of 2008 (CNRA), to establish federal immigration control and implement programs for foreign workers, visitors, and 

investors in the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI).1

Under the terms of its 1976 covenant with the United States,2 the CNMI government administered its own immigration systems from 1978 to 2009, using its authority to admit substantial numbers of foreign workers 3 through a permit program 

26 

ers,’’ or ‘‘nonimmigrant workers.’’) ‘‘Foreign workers’’ does not refer to workers from the Freely 

Associated States—the Federated States of Micronesia, Republic of the Marshall Islands, and 

Republic of Palau—who are permitted to work in the United States, including the CNMI, under 

the Compacts of Free Association (48 U.S.C. § 1901 note, 1921 note, and 1931 note). In this 

statement, foreign workers may include aliens who are immediate relatives of U.S. citizens or 

U.S. permanent residents. 4GAO, Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands: Managing Potential Economic Impact 

of Applying U.S. Immigration Law Requires Coordinated Federal Decisions and Additional Data, 

GAO–08–791 (Washington, D.C.: Aug. 4, 2008). 5 CBP is the lead federal agency charged with keeping terrorists, criminals, and inadmissible 

aliens out of the country while facilitating the flow of legitimate travel and commerce at the 

nation’s borders. ICE is responsible for enforcing immigration laws within the United States, 

including, but not limited to, identifying, apprehending, detaining, and removing aliens who 

commit crimes and aliens who are unlawfully present in the United States. USCIS processes 

applications for immigration benefits—that is, the ability of aliens to live, and in some cases 

to work, in the United States permanently or temporarily or to apply for citizenship. 6GAO, Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands: DHS Should Conclude Negotiations 

and Finalize Regulations to Implement Federal Immigration Law, GAO–10–553 (Washington, 

D.C.: May 7, 2010); and GAO, Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands: DHS Needs to 

Conclude Negotiations and Finalize Regulations to Implement Federal Immigration Law, GAO– 

10–671T (Washington, D.C.: May 18, 2010). In our May 2010 report, we recommended that DHS 

and its components establish strategic approaches and time frames for concluding its negotiations; DHS agreed with our recommendation. For a list of related products, see GAO–10–553, 

page 82. 7GAO–08–791 and GAO–10–553. 

8 Additional information on our scope and methodology is available in prior reports. 

for non-U.S. citizens entering the commonwealth. In 2005, these workers represented a majority of the CNMI labor force and outnumbered U.S. citizens in most 

industries, including tourism and garment manufacturing. The CNMI also admitted 

visitors through its own entry permit and entry permit waiver programs and provided various types of admission to foreign investors. 

CNRA required that GAO report on the implementation of federal immigration 

law in the CNMI 2 years after the date of enactment, which was May 8, 2008. In 

August 2008, we reported that decisions by the Secretary of Homeland Security, in 

conjunction with other departments, in implementing CNRA’s provisions regarding 

foreign workers, visitors, and investors would largely determine its impact on the 

CNMI’s economy.4 In May 2010, we reported, and testified before this subcommittee, that several Department of Homeland Security (DHS) components—U.S. 

Customs and Border Protection (CBP), U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement 

(ICE), and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS)5—had established 

border control operations in the CNMI in 2009 but had not concluded negotiations 

with the CNMI government to resolve certain challenges involving access to CNMI 

airport space, detention facilities, and databases.6 We also noted that DHS had not 

yet finalized regulations needed to fully implement CNRA provisions affecting foreign workers, visitors, and investors. 

My statement today will briefly describe CBP, ICE, and USCIS immigration and 

border control operations in the CNMI, including progress in negotiating solutions 

to the challenges we identified in May 2010. In addition, I will describe the status 

of regulations implementing CNRA-required programs for foreign workers, visitors, 

and investors. Finally, I will discuss some pending issues, several of which may lead 

to future challenges related to U.S. immigration control in the CNMI. 

This statement is based on our prior reports,7 updated with information provided 

by DHS and the Department of the Interior (DOI) and obtained in interviews with 

DHS officials in California, the CNMI, Hawaii, and Washington, D.C. In general, 

to establish the reliability of the data that DHS uses to document arrivals, aliens, 

and benefits in the CNMI, we systematically obtained information about the ways 

that DHS components collect and tabulate data. When possible, we checked for consistency across data sources. Although the available data had some limitations, we 

determined that the data were adequate and sufficiently reliable for the purposes 

of our review. We also interviewed private sector representatives in the CNMI regarding implementation. The information contained in this testimony was reviewed 

for technical accuracy by DHS officials. We conducted our work for this statement 

from May 2011 to July 2011 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.8

Background 

The CNMI’s economy is in a prolonged recession due to the departure of its garment industry and decline in its tourism industry. Until recently, the garment industry was central to the CNMI economy and employed close to a third of all workers. However, by early 2009, the last garment factory had closed. The tourism indusVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:06 Jul 03, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 L:\DOCS\67403.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
27 

9 U.S. Department of Commerce’s Bureau of Economic Analysis, ‘‘The Bureau of Economic 

Analysis (BEA) releases estimates of the major components of gross domestic product of the 

Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands,’’ news release, June 6, 2010. 10GAO, American Samoa and Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands: Employment, 

Earnings, and Status of Key Industries Since Minimum Wage Increases Began, GAO–11–427 

(Washington, D.C.: June 23, 2011). 11 CNRA authorizes the Secretary of Labor to extend the CNMI-only transitional work permit 

program indefinitely for up to 5 years at a time. The Secretary may issue the extension as early 

as desired within the transition period and up to 180 days before the end of the transition period or any extensions of the CNMI-only transitional work permit program. The legislation instructs the Secretary to base this decision on the labor needs of legitimate businesses in the 

CNMI. To determine these needs, the Secretary may consider (1) workforce studies on the need 

for foreign workers, (2) the unemployment rate of U.S. citizen workers in the CNMI, and (3) 

the number of unemployed foreign workers in the CNMI, as well as other information related 

to foreign worker trends. In addition, the Secretary of Labor is to consult with the secretaries 

of the departments of Homeland Security, the Interior, and Defense and the Governor of the 

CNMI in making this determination. 12 A grant of parole is official permission for an otherwise inadmissible alien to be physically 

present in the United States temporarily. Parole is determined on a case-by-case basis, and all 

applicants for admission are subject to inspection and removal if determined to be inadmissible 

for reasons other than lack of a visa. On October 21, 2009, the Secretary of Homeland Security 

announced to Congress and the Governors of the CNMI and Guam that she will exercise her 

discretionary authority to parole into the CNMI visitors for business or pleasure who are nationals of the Russian Federation and the People’s Republic of China. 

try has declined as visitor arrivals to the CNMI decreased by 49 percent, from a 

peak of about 727,000 in 1997 to roughly 368,000 in 2010. As the economy contracted, the CNMI’s real gross domestic product dropped at an estimated average 

annual rate of 4.2 percent from 2002 to 2007.9 In addition, revenues available for 

appropriation by the CNMI government have fallen by 45 percent, from $240 million 

in fiscal year 2005 to an estimated $132 million for fiscal year 2011. Moreover, since 

2007, labor costs have increased following the application of the federal minimum 

wage in the CNMI.10

Certain provisions in CNRA were intended to minimize the potential adverse economic and fiscal effects associated with phasing out a CNMI government permit 

program for foreign workers and to maximize the CNMI’s potential for economic and 

business growth. These provisions were to apply during a 5-year transition period 

that began on November 28, 2009, and ends in 2014. In particular: 

• CNMI government–issued permits. Under CNRA, foreigners who lack U.S. immigration status but were admitted under the CNMI’s immigration laws prior 

to November 2009, may continue to live and work in the commonwealth for 

2 years after that date or until their CNMI government–issued permits expire, whichever is earlier. The CNMI issued temporary permits authorizing 

the holders to remain in the commonwealth after November 28, 2009, for a 

maximum of 2 years consistent with the terms of the permit. These ‘‘umbrella’’ permits also include provisions for extending, transferring, and seeking employment. CNRA’s authorization for individuals with these permits to 

remain in the CNMI without U.S. immigration status will expire on November 27, 2011. 

• CNMI-only transitional work permits. CNRA authorizes a federal CNMI-only 

transitional work permit program and authorizes the Secretary of Homeland 

Security to determine the number, terms, and conditions of these permits, 

which must be reduced to zero by the end of the transition period and any 

extensions of the CNMI-only work permit program by the Secretary of 

Labor.11

• CNMI nonimmigrant investor status. CNRA provides for current CNMI foreign investors who meet certain requirements to convert their status from 

CNMI investor to federal nonimmigrant treaty investor during the transition 

period. The Secretary of Homeland Security is to determine whom this 

‘‘grandfathered’’ status applies to and how long it is valid. 

In addition, CNRA amended existing U.S. immigration law to establish a joint 

visa waiver program for the CNMI and Guam that replaced an existing visa waiver 

program for Guam visitors. 

DHS Has Continued Immigration and Border Control Operations and Concluded 

Some Negotiations with the CNMI Government 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection. As of April 30, 2011, CBP officers at the 

Saipan and Rota airports had admitted 514,828 arriving travelers—an average of 

about 30,300 per month—granting 68,764 (13 percent) requests for parole since beginning operations in November 2009.12 The Marianas Visitors Authority reported 

28 

13 CBP originally occupied approximately 9,390 square feet of airport space at the Saipan 

International Airport and sought access to approximately 7,200 additional square feet to bring 

the facility up to DHS standards. The CNMI agreed to provide CBP 5,001 more square feet in 

the inspection areas for, among other things, renovation of administration offices, access to public restrooms, and construction of three holding cells and two interview rooms. 14With the implementation of federal immigration, CNMI courts no longer have the authority 

to issue deportation orders. ICE’s Chief Counsel has an office on the island of Saipan, but the 

office has no permanent attorney or staff. Instead, attorneys represent DHS in removal hearings 

from ICE’s Honolulu office, either through video teleconferencing or temporary assignments to 

Saipan. 15 ICE uses detention space to hold certain aliens while processing them for removal or until 

their scheduled hearing dates. ICE acquires detention space by negotiating intergovernmental 

service agreements with state and local detention facilities, using federal facilities, and contracting with private service contracting facilities. 16 ICE’s agreement with the CNMI government includes, in addition to bed space, services 

that the CNMI detention center will provide when receiving and discharging ICE administrative 

detainees as well as basic needs, financial liability, transportation, and medical services for detainees and office space for ICE officials at the Saipan detention facility. The agreement was 

effective April 20, 2011, and will remain in effect for 5 years, with the option to extend. 17 In May 2010, we reported that DHS was negotiating with the CNMI government for direct 

access to several databases that the CNMI has used to record the permit status of certain aliens 

and to track the arrivals and departures of travelers. See GAO–10–553. For more information 

about these databases—the Labor Information Data System and the Border Management System—see GAO, Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands: Immigration and Border Control Databases, GAO–10–345R (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 16, 2010). 

that 77 percent of arriving travelers in fiscal year 2010 came from Japan or South 

Korea. According to CBP data, of the arriving travelers who were granted parole, 

56,376 (82 percent) were from China, 6,751 (10 percent) were from Russia, and the 

remaining travelers were from other countries. (See table 1.) 

In October 2010, CBP concluded negotiations with the CNMI government and 

both parties signed a long-term lease agreement that includes permission to renovate airport operating space in Saipan and Rota. In February 2011, CBP began to 

renovate approximately 14,000 square feet of inspection space at the Saipan International Airport.13 DHS expects to complete the renovations in both Saipan and Rota by September 2011, at a total cost of $14.2 million. 

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. As of May 31, 2011, ICE officials detailed to Saipan had identified 1,654 individuals in potential violation of U.S. 

immigration laws, initiating removal proceedings for 236 of these cases. Decisions 

had been rendered for 133 of the removal cases, 48 of which resulted in removal.14

In April 2011, ICE concluded negotiations with the CNMI government for access 

to detention space in the CNMI correctional facility.15 Under a 2007 agreement between the U.S. Marshals Service and the CNMI Department of Corrections, the 

CNMI adult correctional facility in Saipan provided the U.S. government 25 detention beds at a daily rate of $77 per bed. Under the 2011 agreement between ICE 

and the CNMI government, the CNMI will provide up to 350 detention beds at a 

daily rate of $89 per bed, including related detention services.16 ICE began detaining aliens at the Saipan detention facility on June 6, 2011, and expects to use approximately 20 beds until the end of fiscal year 2011. 

Although negotiations with the CNMI government have not resulted in DHS components’ gaining direct access to CNMI immigration and border control databases, 

the CNMI government has increased its responsiveness to requests for information, 

according to ICE officials.17


67403.003.eps
29 

18 Advance parole allows aliens in the United States who would otherwise be inadmissible to 

travel abroad and return. Parole-in-place protects eligible foreign nationals who do not qualify 

for any other status from being removed or deported from the CNMI. On April 21, 2010, USCIS 

announced that it will grant parole-in-place to eligible foreign nationals without umbrella permits whose CNMI work permits or CNMI investor permits expire before the CNMI-only transitional worker program and CNMI investor status are available. 19 Employers of foreign workers residing in the CNMI can also apply for other federal immigration categories such as H–2B temporary or seasonal work status, if eligible. 20 Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands Transitional Worker Classification, 74 

Fed. Reg. 55094 (Oct. 27, 2009). An interim final rule allows an agency to implement federal 

regulations but retain the flexibility to amend them as necessary in the future. When issuing 

the interim final rule, DHS announced that it would accept comments in developing the final 

rule but was not following notice-and-comment rulemaking procedures, asserting that it had 

good cause not to do so. 21 Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands v. United States, No. 08–1572 686 F. 

Supp. 2d 7 (D.D.C. Nov 25, 2009). See GAO–10–553 for more details. 

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. Since March 2009, USCIS has operated an Application Support Center in Saipan, where two full-time staff provide 

information, interview residents currently eligible to apply for lawful permanent 

resident status or citizenship, and process requests requiring biometric services such 

as fingerprints or photographs. As of June 1, 2011, USCIS had processed 1,033 

CNMI applications for permanent residency and 96 CNMI applications for naturalization or citizenship, according to data provided by USCIS officials. In addition, 

USCIS had received 6,966 requests for advance parole, granting 97 percent of them, 

and had granted parole-in-place status to 2,625 individuals.18 Also, from October 

2010 to June 2011, USCIS granted nonimmigrant H-visas and other categories of 

worker status classification for 67 individuals. 

DHS Has Not Finalized Regulations Affecting Foreign Workers but Has Implemented 

Program for Visitors and Investors 

DHS Has Not Yet Issued Final Rule for CNMI–Only Work Permit Program 

As of July 12, 2011, DHS had not issued a final rule for the CNMI-only work permit program and the permits were not available.19 DHS previously issued an interim final rule in October 2009 that was to take effect on November 28, 2009;20

however, prior to the transition date, the federal District Court for the District of 

Columbia granted the CNMI government’s request for an order barring implementation of the interim final rule.21 DHS reopened the comment period from December 

2009 to January 2010 and, after considering comments that it received, submitted 

draft final regulations for the program to the Office of Management Budget in June 

2011. 

According to CNMI government officials and private sector representatives, the 

delayed issuance of DHS’s final rule has had a negative impact on the CNMI economy. 

• In a May 2010 letter to the Secretary of the Interior, the Governor of the 

CNMI stated that the lack of final regulations had dramatically slowed foreign investment, travel from other countries, and private sector growth. 

• The CNMI Attorney General and the Governor’s Special Legal Counsel noted 

that the lack of a CNMI-only federal worker permit program has contributed 

to uncertainty among CNMI employers and workers with respect to the status of foreign workers with or without a CNMI umbrella permit and that 

many CNMI foreign investors have left the community. 

• According to Saipan Chamber of Commerce officials, without the final regulations, workers are unable to plan their lives and companies cannot estimate 

their investments and budgets. 

• The former manager of a health clinic for women, infants, and children stated 

that a large number of unemployed contract workers have remained in the 

CNMI hoping for some beneficial result of implementation of federal immigration. 

DHS officials acknowledged that significant consequences will occur if the CNMIonly foreign worker regulations are not implemented by November 27, 2011, when 

CNRA’s authorization for individuals holding the CNMI-issued umbrella permits to 

remain in the commonwealth will expire. 

DHS Implemented Guam-CNMI Visa Waiver Program and Is Still Considering 

Inclusion of China and Russia 

In January 2009, DHS issued an interim final rule for the Guam-CNMI Visa 

Waiver Program, which has operated since November 2009. The rule allows visitors 

30 

22The interim final rule for the Guam-CNMI Visa Waiver Program lists Australia, Brunei, 

Hong Kong, Japan, Malaysia, Nauru, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Republic of Korea, 

Singapore, Taiwan, and the United Kingdom as participants in the program. Japan and Korea 

are the two largest tourism markets for the CNMI and Guam. In March 2011, DHS added individuals from Hong Kong who hold a British National Overseas passport to those eligible for admission under the program. 23 CNRA states that regulations for the Guam-CNMI Visa Waiver Program shall provide for 

a listing of any country from which the Commonwealth has received a significant economic benefit from the number of visitors for pleasure within the 1-year period preceding the date of enactment, unless the Secretary of Homeland Security determines that such country’s inclusion 

on such list would represent a threat to the welfare, safety, or security of the United States 

or its territories. See 8 U.S.C. § 1182(1)(3)(A). 24 E–2 Nonimmigrant Status for Aliens in the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands with Long-Term Investor Status. 74 Fed. Reg. 79,264 (Dec. 20, 2010). 25 CNRA establishes that current CNMI foreign investors who meet certain requirements can 

convert from CNMI long-term investor status to U.S. CNMI-only nonimmigrant treaty investor 

status during the transition period. 26 According to a senior USCIS official, many Japanese and Korean investors apply for regular 

E–2 status at their local U.S. embassy rather than through USCIS. 

for business or pleasure from 12 countries or geographic areas 22 to apply to enter 

the CNMI and Guam for stays of up to 45 days without a nonimmigrant visa. 

Prior to the issuance of the interim final rule, representatives of the CNMI and 

Guam governments asked that China and Russia be included in the Guam-CNMI 

Visa Waiver Program, because visitors from those countries provide significant economic benefits.23 However, DHS decided not to include China and Russia in the interim final rule, citing political, security, and law enforcement concerns, including 

high nonimmigrant visa refusal rates. DHS is still considering whether or not to include these two countries in the Guam-CNMI Visa Waiver Program. Meanwhile, 

CBP continues to parole Chinese and Russian nationals into the CNMI on a caseby-case basis. According to CNMI officials, the exclusion of Chinese and Russian nationals from the Guam-CNMI Visa Waiver Program has increased economic uncertainty in the CNMI, affecting investments in support of the Chinese and Russian 

tourism markets. 

DHS Finalized Rule Providing CNMI Investor Status to Long-Term Foreign 

Investors 

In December 2010, DHS issued a final rule that allows a large proportion of investors holding CNMI long-term foreign investor permits to obtain U.S. CNMI-only 

nonimmigrant treaty investor status during the transition period. Eligibility criteria 

for this status—known as E–2 CNMI investor status 24—during the transition period include, among others, having been physically present in the CNMI for at least 

half the time since obtaining CNMI investor status and providing evidence of maintaining financial investments in the CNMI. In response to public comments received 

on the proposed rule, the final rule reduces the minimum investment required to 

obtain this status from $150,000 to $50,000 for investors holding CNMI long-term 

business investor permits.25

As of June 2011, USCIS had approved 22 applications for E–2 CNMI investor status, far fewer than the 512 applications it had anticipated.26 However, DHS officials 

predicted a surge in applications for E–2 CNMI investor status prior to the expiration of CNMI government–issued foreign investor permits on November 27, 2011. 

Several Pending Issues Could Lead to Future Challenges 

Content and Implementation of Regulations for CNMI–Only Work Permit Program 

Will Determine Impact on CNMI Economy 

The content and implementation of DHS’s final rule for the CNMI-only work permit program will largely determine its potential impact on CNMI’s economy. The 

rule will establish, as required by CNRA, a system for allocating and determining 

the number, terms, and conditions of permits to be issued to prospective employers. 

In particular, CNRA requires that the number of permits issued annually during 

the transition period be reduced to zero by the end of 2014 or any extensions of the 

permit program. Because foreign workers comprise a large proportion of the CNMI 

labor market—59 percent in 2009, according to the CNMI Department of Labor— 

any substantial and rapid reduction in the numbers of CNMI-only permits for foreign workers would have a negative effect on the size of the CNMI labor force and 

therefore on the CNMI economy. In addition, the interaction of DHS and U.S. Department of Labor decisions about, respectively, the number of permits to allocate 

31 

27See GAO–08–791 for our analysis of the potential impacts of DHS and U.S. Department 

of Labor decisions in implementing the CNMI-only work permit program. On March 25, 2011, 

DHS, and the departments of the Interior, Justice, Labor, and State finalized a memorandum 

of agreement that set forth the parameters of the working relationships and responsibilities for 

implementation of CNRA in the CNMI. 28 In its enjoined interim final rule, DHS proposed a new CNMI-only transitional worker classification, CW–1 status, which it deemed to be synonymous with the term ‘‘permit’’ referenced 

in CNRA. 29DHS did not provide the content of the draft final rule for our review. However, generally 

for other nonimmigrant employment based petitions, USCIS and the Department of Labor require that employers submit an attestation regarding wage and labor condition, along with all 

other required paperwork, to USCIS and pay a fee. Similarly, employees must complete all required paperwork for relatives and dependents; submit the paperwork and biometrics, such as 

fingerprints and photos, to USCIS; and pay any necessary processing fee. 30 According to USCIS officials, all applications and petitions from the CNMI that do not require face-to-face interviews are processed at USCIS’s California Service Center. 31For example, according to USCIS California Service Center staff, in processing applications 

for immigration benefits USCIS staff must consider all evidence submitted to adjudicate the petition or application, such as by confirming status; conducting background checks (i.e., checking 

applicants’ names and fingerprints against a Federal Bureau of Investigations system and Interagency Border and Inspection systems); and considering other relevant factors. On December 14, 

2010, USCIS issued guidance on how certain aliens can be granted nonimmigrant status in the 

CNMI under federal immigration law (USCIS–PM–602–0012). 32 Covenant § 606(b). 33Social Security Administration, ‘‘Social Security Taxes: Filipino and Korean Contract Workers’’ (Saipan: January 16, 1997). The Social Security Act states that the definition of ‘‘employment’’ does not include work performed on Guam by Filipino workers who are admitted to Guam 

on nonimmigrant H–2 visas (see 26 U.S.C. § 3121(b)(18)). Article 25 of a treaty between the 

United States and Korea contains a similar provision for Korean workers admitted on H–2 visas 

to Guam (United States-Republic of Korea Income Tax Convention, effective Jan. 1, 1980). However, article 29 of the U.S.-Korea treaty does not allow either country to extend any provision 

of the treaty to one of its territories absent a written agreement that would require implementaContinued 

annually and whether and when to extend the permit program past 2014 will significantly affect employers’ access to foreign workers.27

Limited Time Is Available for Submitting and Processing CNMI–Only Work Permit 

Applications 

The time available for submission and processing of applications for CNMI-only 

work permits will depend on the timing of DHS’s issuance of its final rule implementing the program and on the content of that rule.28 A senior DHS official estimates that approximately 15,000 workers and their dependents will be covered by 

the program. According to a USCIS official, once DHS issues the final rule, CNMI 

employers will submit paperwork petitioning for workers to receive the permits; 

workers will submit biometrics, including fingerprints; and USCIS will process the 

submitted paperwork and biometrics.29 CNRA’s authorization for individuals with 

CNMI-issued permits to remain in the CNMI without U.S. immigration status will 

expire on November 27, 2011. 

In 2009, USCIS anticipated needing nine staff for its California Service Center 

to process the influx of CNMI applications and petitions.30 Currently, four USCIS 

staff were are assigned to this task and five more are trained to work on CNMIrelated cases. Depending on the number of petitions received and the time required 

to process them, USCIS anticipates training an additional 10 to 14 officers after the 

rule is implemented, according to USCIS officials. USCIS officials said that it could 

take up to 90 days for employers to prepare the petitions, for workers to submit the 

biometrics, and for USCIS to conduct the relevant background and security checks 

required of all applicants for U.S. immigration benefits.31

Social Security Coverage for Certain Foreign Workers Is Unknown 

With the elimination of CNMI immigration categories and the transition to federal immigration law, the future status of certain Filipino and Korean workers and 

their employers with regard to the Social Security payroll tax is unknown. According to the Social Security Administration (SSA), Filipino and Korean workers who 

were admitted to the commonwealth under CNMI immigration law are not currently 

covered by Social Security. Specifically, a 1997 SSA document states that, because 

the U.S.-CNMI covenant provides for federal laws on Social Security taxes to apply 

to the CNMI as they apply to Guam,32 the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) determined that the employment of Filipino and Korean contract workers admitted to the 

commonwealth under Section 706(K) of the CNMI immigration law was not covered 

by the U.S. Social Security Act.33 Our review of SSA data for 2009 found that the 

32 

tion through diplomatic channels. We were unable to verify that the IRS had made this determination with regard to Korean workers. 34See GAO, American Samoa and Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands: Employment, Earnings, and Status of Key Industries since Minimum Wage Increases Began, GAO–11– 

427 (Washington, D.C.: June 23, 2011), page 28. 35This information is drawn from W–2 forms prepared by employers and submitted to the Division of Tax and Revenue. The division does not verify workers’ reported citizenship. In calculating the share of CNMI foreign workers who are citizens of Korea or the Philippines, we did 

not count citizens of the freely associated states (Micronesia, the Marshall Islands, and Palau) 

as foreign workers. 36 As we reported in May 2008, foreign workers in the CNMI can obtain H nonimmigrant 

worker status upon petition by their employer. H–2A visas are available for foreign workers providing temporary or seasonal agricultural labor both during and after the initial transition period. However, as of December 31, 2007, only 555 foreign workers were engaged in private farming, about 3 percent of total foreign workers with 706K CNMI nonresident worker entry permits. H–2A employers must comply with the federal labor certification process, which determines whether the employment is agricultural in nature, whether it is open to U.S. workers 

and if qualified U.S. workers are available, whether employment of a qualified alien would have 

an adverse impact, and whether employment conditions (e.g., housing) meet applicable requirements (8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(5)(ii)). The H–2B category applies to residents of foreign countries 

who are coming to the United States temporarily to perform nonagricultural temporary labor 

or service if unemployed persons capable of performing such labor or service are unable to be 

found in the United States (8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(B)). See GAO–08–791, appendix V. 37 H.R. 1466, 112th Cong., (Apr. 8, 2011). 38DOI conducted a voluntary registration of aliens residing in the CNMI in 2009. DOI reported that as of January 2010, there were 20,859 aliens in the commonwealth, of whom 16,304 

were workers and 15,816 had resided lawfully in the CNMI for at least 5 years. DOI concluded 

that two groups were underrepresented in the registration: citizens from the freely associated 

states and illegal aliens. See Secretary of the Interior, Report on the Alien Worker Population 

in the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (Washington, D.C.: Department of the 

Interior, 2010). DOI evaluated its data as consistent with CNMI data for 2008 that showed 

22,000 to 24,000 foreign worker permit holders as well as 19,404 umbrella permits issued by 

the CNMI Department of Labor. The government of the CNMI has challenged the validity of 

DOI’s data collection and analysis; however, DOI has stood by its report. Litigation regarding 

DOI’s data collection effort is currently ongoing. 39 CNRA required the Secretary of the Interior to report to Congress on any recommendations 

he may deem appropriate related to whether or not the Congress should consider permitting 

lawfully admitted guest workers lawfully residing in the Commonwealth on such enactment 

date to apply for long-term status under the immigration and nationality laws of the United 

States. See 48 U.S.C. § 1806(h)(5). 

data excluded Filipino and Korean workers, and SSA officials told us that Social Security payroll taxes are not withheld from these workers’ earnings.34 Data for 2009 

from the CNMI Division of Revenue and Tax show that workers from Korea and 

the Philippines totaled 12,406 and represented 75 percent of foreign workers, or 44 

percent of all workers, in the CNMI.35

Given the transition to federal immigration law—in particular, given the availability of H–2 work visas in the CNMI—it is uncertain whether Filipino and Korean 

workers who obtain CNMI-only work permits will be covered by Social Security.36

If these workers are deemed to be covered, they and their employers will be subject 

to Social Security payroll taxes. The IRS and SSA will need to consider CNRA’s impact on Filipino and Korean workers with regard to Social Security coverage. 

Long-Term Resident Status for Certain CNMI Foreign Workers May Be Considered 

Legislation introduced in Congress proposes CNMI resident status for certain 

long-term residents. Also, DOI has recommended that Congress consider allowing 

certain foreign workers in the CNMI to apply for long-term resident status. • A bill introduced in the House of Representatives provides for CNMI-only 

resident status for certain long-term residents of the CNMI.37 To be eligible 

to qualify for this status, an individual must be either (1) born in the CNMI 

between January 1, 1974, and January 9, 1978; (2) classified by the CNMI 

government as a permanent resident; (3) a spouse or child of an individual 

covered by (1) or (2); or (4) an immediate relative of a U.S. citizen on May 

8, 2008. • In April 2010, DOI recommended that Congress consider permitting guest 

workers who have lawfully resided in the CNMI for a minimum of 5 years— 

which DOI estimated at 15,816 individuals 38—to apply for long-term resident 

status 39 under the Immigration and Nationality Act. DOI recommended that 

Congress consider allowing these workers to apply for one of the following: 

(1) U.S. citizenship; (2) permanent resident status leading to U.S. citizenship 

(per the normal provisions of the INA relating to naturalization), with the 5- 

year minimum residence spent anywhere in the United States or its territories; or (3) permanent resident status leading to U.S. citizenship, with the 

33 

5-year minimum residence spent in the CNMI. Additionally, DOI noted that 

under U.S. immigration law, special status is provided to individuals who are 

citizens of the freely associated states. Following this model, DOI suggested 

that foreign workers could be granted a nonimmigrant status, like that negotiated for citizens of the freely associated states, and allowed to live and work 

either in the United States and its territories or in the CNMI only. 

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman: I testified in May 2010 that DHS components had 

made some progress in establishing federal border control in the CNMI but that 

their inability to conclude negotiations with the CNMI government had resulted in 

continuing operational challenges. I also reported that programs for workers and investors were not yet available to eligible individuals and that DHS had not determined whether or not to include Chinese and Russian nationals in the Guam-CNMI 

Visa Waiver Program. In the past year, DHS has resolved many of those operational 

challenges and has finalized investor regulations. However, it has yet to finalize 

rules for the CNMI-only transitional work permit program, and limited time remains for the submission and processing of approximately 15,000 workers’ and their 

dependents’ applications for these permits. These issues, as well as the unknown future status of Filipino and Korean workers’ coverage by U.S. Social Security, could 

impact the CNMI’s economy as the November 27 deadline approaches. 

Chairman Fleming, Ranking Member Sablan, and Members of the Subcommittee, 

this completes my prepared statement. I would be happy to respond to any questions you may have at this time. 

GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 

GAO Contact David Gootnick, (202) 512–3149 or gootnickd@gao.gov 

Staff Acknowledgements 

In addition to the person named above, Emil Friberg, Assistant Director; Michael 

P.Dino, Assistant Director; Ming Chen; Julia Ann Roberts; Ashley Alley; and Reid 

Lowe made key contributions to this report. Technical assistance was provided by 

Ben Bolitzer, Marissa Jones, Giff Howland, and Bradley Hunt. 

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection 

in the United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in 

its entirety without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may 

contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder 

may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately. 

GAO’s Mission 

The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and investigative 

arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates 

federal programs and policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other 

assistance to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. 

GAO’s commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of accountability, integrity, and reliability. 

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost is 

through GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday afternoon, GAO posts on its 

Web site newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence. To have GAO email you a list of newly posted products, go to www.gao.gov and select ‘‘E-mail Updates.’’ 

Order by Phone 

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of production and 

distribution and depends on the number of pages in the publication and whether 

the publication is printed in color or black and white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s Web site, http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512–6000, toll free (866) 801–7077, or TDD (202) 

512–2537. 

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, MasterCard, 

Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional information. 

To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs 

Contact: 

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov 

Automated answering system: (800) 424–5454 or (202) 512–7470 

34 

Congressional Relations 

Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov, (202) 512–4400 U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125 Washington, DC 20548 

Public Affairs 

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512–4800 U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 Washington, DC 20548 

July 14, 2011 

COMMONWEALTH OF THE NORTHERN MARIANA ISLANDS 

STATUS OF TRANSITION TO FEDERAL IMMIGRATION LAW

Why GAO Did This Study 

In May 2008, the United States enacted the Consolidated Natural Resources Act 

(CNRA), amending the United States’ covenant with the Commonwealth of the 

Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI) to establish federal control of CNMI immigration 

in 2009, with several CNMI-specific provisions affecting foreign workers and investors during a 5-year transition period that began on November 28, 2009, and ends 

in 2014. One of these provisions authorizes a transitional CNMI-only work permit 

program that may be extended for up to 5 years at a time past 2014. In addition, 

CNRA amends existing U.S. immigration law to establish a joint visa waiver program for the CNMI and Guam. CNRA requires that GAO report on implementation 

of federal immigration law in the CNMI 2 years after enactment. 

In May 2010, GAO reported that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) 

had established border control operations in the CNMI in 2009 but had not concluded negotiations with the CNMI government to resolve certain challenges involving access to CNMI airport space, detention facilities, and databases. GAO also 

noted that DHS had not yet finalized regulations needed to fully implement CNRA 

provisions affecting foreign workers, visitors, and investors. 

This statement updates GAO’s May 2010 findings regarding the transition to federal immigration law and discusses several pending issues. GAO based its statement on prior reports, information provided by DHS and the Department of the Interior (DOI), and interviews with CNMI private sector officials. 

What GAO Found 

DHS component units Customs and Border Protection (CBP), Immigration and 

Customs Enforcement (ICE), and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 

(USCIS) have continued immigration and border control operations in the CNMI. As 

of April 2011, CBP had processed approximately 515,000 arriving travelers in 

Saipan and Rota. As of May 2011, ICE had identified approximately 1,700 individuals in potential violation of U.S. immigration laws, processing about 240 for removal. As of June 2011, USCIS had processed approximately 1,000 CNMI applications for permanent residency and 100 CNMI applications for naturalization or citizenship. CBP has concluded negotiations with the CNMI for operational space at 

the Saipan and Rota airports, and ICE completed negotiations for access to the 

Saipan detention facility in April 2011. 

DHS has not finalized regulations for a federal CNMI-only transitional permit 

program for foreign workers, required by CNRA, but has completed regulations implementing other required programs for visitors and investors. In June 2011, DHS 

submitted a draft final rule for the CNMI-only permit program to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB); currently, the permits remain unavailable. In 2009, 

DHS issued an interim final rule for a Guam-CNMI visa waiver program and the 

program became operational. However, DHS is still considering whether to include 

China and Russia in the program, according to CBP officials. In 2010, DHS issued 

a final rule allowing a large proportion of investors holding CNMI long-term foreign 

investor permits to obtain U.S. CNMI-only nonimmigrant treaty investor status during the 5-year transition period that began in 2009. DHS has approved about 20 

applications for this status. 

Several pending issues could affect the CNMI’s labor market and economy. First, 

the content and implementation of DHS’s final rule for the federal CNMI-only work 

permit program will affect CNRA’s potential impact on the CNMI economy. CNRA 

requires DHS to determine the number, terms, and conditions of the permits, reducing them to zero by the end of the transition period in November 2014 or any extension of the program past that date. Because of foreign workers’ prominence in key 

CNMI industries, any substantial, rapid decline in the permits would negatively afVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:06 Jul 03, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 L:\DOCS\67403.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
35 

fect the CNMI economy. Second, CNMI government–issued permits to remain in the 

commonwealth will expire on November 27, 2011. Thus, limited time is available 

for employers to submit petitions for workers to receive the federal work permits, 

for workers and dependents to submit biometrics such as fingerprints, and for 

USCIS to process these submissions. Third, with the transition to federal immigration law, it is uncertain whether Filipino and Korean workers previously admitted 

under a specific CNMI immigration category—about 75 percent of foreign workers 

in the CNMI in 2009—who obtain CNMI-only work permits will be covered by Social Security. In addition to these issues, legislation introduced in Congress proposes 

CNMI resident status for certain long-term residents, and DOI has recommended 

that Congress consider allowing certain foreign workers in the CNMI to apply for 

long-term resident status. 

Mr. FLEMING. Thank you, Mr. Gootnick, and next is Ms. Ryan, 

you are recognized for five minutes. 

STATEMENT OF KELLY RYAN, ACTING DEPUTY ASSISTANT 

SECRETARY FOR IMMIGRATION AND BORDER SECURITY, 

OFFICE OF POLICY, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

Ms. RYAN. Thank you. Chairman Fleming, Ranking Member 

Sablan, and other Distinguished Members of the Subcommittee, 

thank you for the opportunity to testify today on the Department 

of Homeland Security’s efforts to implement Title VII of the Consolidated Natural Resources Act of 2008. 

DHS and our interagency partners have been working hard to 

ensure that we implement the CNRA in a manner that will minimize any adverse effects on the CNMI. Since DHS has last testified 

in May 2009, important steps have been taken to implement Federal immigration law in the CNMI and in the transition program 

which began on November 28, 2009. 

An issue of great importance to both the CNMI and Guam is the 

CNMI visa waiver program. The CNRA replaced the existing Guam 

visa waiver program with a combined Guam, CNMI VWP that allows nationals from participating countries to be admitted to 

Guam, the CNMI, or both for a period of up to 45 days. DHS has 

issued an in interim rule on January 16, 2009, and is developing 

a final rule for the program. 

In recognition of the CNMI’s reliance on visitors from China and 

Russia, Secretary Napolitano announced on October 21, 2009, her 

decision to exercise her discretionary authority to parole into the 

CNMI only on a case-by-case basis eligible visitors for business or 

pleasure or nationals of the People’s Republic of China and the 

Russian Federation. 

Certain provisions of the CNRA affect the CNMI only. DHS has 

worked diligently with its Federal and local partners and stakeholders during the transition in implementing Federal immigration 

law in the CNMI. DHS has identified groups of individuals who 

may not necessarily fall within the INA classifications and for 

whom the CNMI classifications authorized by the CNRA may not 

be appropriate. 

To address these challenges, in November 2009 USCIS implemented a policy under which USCIS favorably considers members 

of certain designated groups for parole. Currently DHS is actively 

considering additional policy options that it is hoped would further 

reduce the uncertainty associated with the ongoing transition to 

Federal immigration law. 

36 

As part of our implementation efforts, DHS has promulgated a 

number of regulations to set for the processes and procedures for 

seeking Federal immigration status in the CNMI. The CNMI E-2 

non-immigration investor final rule became effective on January 19 

in 2011, and it establishes a transition period of non-immigrant 

status for certain foreign investors in the CNMI who had been previously granted long-term investor status by the CNMI. USCIS has 

conducted outreach on the E-2 rule in Saipan and is currently accepting applications for the program. 

In the fall of 2009, DHS and the Department of Justice published 

an interim final rule to update the current immigration regulations 

to ensure they reflect the changes in immigration law made by the 

CNRA. This interim final rule conformed DHS and DOJ regs. to 

the CNRA, including in the areas of employment, verification and 

asylum. DHS and DOJ currently are working toward the issuance 

of a final rule. 

In October 2009, DHS published a transitional worker classification interim final rule. As a result of the pending litigation already 

alluded to those regulations were enjoined. DHS is working toward 

publication of a final rule and we are well aware of the concern 

among CNMI stakeholders about its issuance in light of the upcoming statutory expiration of large numbers of grandfathered CNMI 

umbrella permits. 

DHS has designated experienced personnel within its relevant 

components to serve as points of contact and to lead teams in the 

implementation of this transition. As of April 2011 relevant Federal agencies have completed and signed a memorandum agreement required under the CNRA. In addition, DHS has submitted 

to Congress the required resource report on implementing Title 

VII. 

DHS officials have engaged frequently with representatives of 

the CNMI government and private sector stakeholders. Meetings 

have focused on implementation of the Guam-CNMI-VWP interim 

final rule and of the CNRA generally as well as obtaining detention 

space for ICE. DHS has established a full-time USCIS, ICE, and 

CVP presence on the ground in the CNMI. Beginning in March 

2009 USCIS opened an application support center on Saipan. On 

November 28, 2009, CVP began processing flights into the CNMI 

under U.S. immigration law as well as inspection of passengers and 

performing departure control screenings on flights traveling to 

other U.S. destinations. On that same day ICE opened offices on 

the Island of Saipan. 

Regarding H.R. 1466, DHS shares with its sponsors the general 

view that the unique circumstances of the CNMI deserves special 

consideration. We will carefully examine the bill with the sponsors 

of the legislation to explore particular solutions for the groups in 

the CNMI. DHS recognizes the historic nature of the transition and 

the special circumstances that exist in CNMI, especially the economic challenges faced by CNMI in restoring its economy, implementing minimum wage increases and increasing tourism and 

other investments. DHS will continue to engage in extensive outreach efforts with all the stakeholders throughout the transition 

period. 

37 

Thank you for the opportunity to appear here before the Distinguished Members of the Subcommittee, and I would be happy to 

answer any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Ryan follows:] 

Statement of Kelly Ryan, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy, 

Office of Immigration and Border Security, U.S. Department of Homeland 

Security 

Chairman Fleming, Ranking Member Sablan, and other distinguished Members 

of the Subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today on the efforts 

that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has undertaken to implement 

Title VII of the Consolidated Natural Resources Act of 2008 (CNRA) (Pub. L. No. 

110–229). DHS recognizes the importance of the implementation of Title VII of the 

CNRA to the United States and to the people of the Commonwealth of the Northern 

Mariana Islands (CNMI) and Guam. Since the enactment of this historic legislation, 

DHS and its components have been working hard together and with our interagency 

partners to ensure that we implement the CNRA in a manner that will minimize 

any adverse effects on the CNMI. Further, since DHS last testified in May 2009, 

important steps have been taken toward implementation of federal immigration law 

in the CNMI and the transition program, which began on November 28, 2009 (the 

‘‘transition program effective date’’). 

Because the CNRA has provisions that affect Guam and the CNMI to differing 

extents, I would like to first address those provisions that affect both territories, and 

then will discuss those provisions that are unique to the CNMI. 

The Guam-CNMI Visa Waiver Program 

An issue of great significance to both the CNMI and Guam is the Guam-CNMI 

Visa Waiver Program (VWP). The CNRA replaced the preexisting Guam VWP with 

a combined Guam-CNMI VWP that allows admission to Guam, the CNMI, or both 

for a period up to 45 days. As was the case with the former Guam VWP, the program does not provide for onward travel to the rest of the United States. The GuamCNMI VWP is a separate program under Section 212 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), and is distinct from the Visa Waiver Program authorized for the 

entire United States (including Guam and the CNMI) by Section 217 of the INA. 

Some countries are participants in both programs. A visitor from one of those countries arriving in Guam or the CNMI may choose to travel under either of the programs, but must comply with all the conditions of whichever program is chosen. 

DHS issued an interim final rule, Implementation of the Guam-CNMI Visa Waiver 

Program, on January 16, 2009 and is developing a final rule for the program. 

In recognition of the CNMI’s reliance on visitors from China and Russia, Secretary Napolitano announced on October 21, 2009 her decision to exercise her discretionary authority to parole into the CNMI-only, on a case-by-case basis, eligible 

visitors for business or pleasure who are nationals of the People’s Republic of China 

(PRC) and Russian Federation (Russia). 

Provisions Affecting the CNMI Only 

Certain provisions of the CNRA affect the CNMI only. DHS has worked diligently 

with its federal and local partners and stakeholders in developing our approach to 

implementing the CNRA in the CNMI. 

Through working with the community and both private and public parties, DHS 

has identified groups of individuals who may not necessarily fall within the INA 

classifications and for whom the CNMI classifications authorized by the CNRA may 

not be appropriate. To address these challenges, in November 2009, USCIS implemented a policy under which USCIS favorably considers members of four designated 

groups for a grant of parole under INA section 212(d)(5), subject to case by case review: CNMI permanent residents, immediate relatives of CNMI permanent residents, spouses and children of deceased CNMI permanent residents, and immediate 

relatives of citizens of the Freely Associated States. Currently, DHS is actively considering additional policy options that, it is hoped, will further help to reduce the 

uncertainty associated with the ongoing transition to federal immigration law. In so 

doing, DHS is fully aware of the challenges facing the CNMI economy and considers 

it a priority and goal to support existing businesses when developing policies and 

regulations to implement the legislation. 

As part of our implementation efforts, DHS has promulgated a number of regulations to set forth the processes and procedures for seeking federal immigration status in the CNMI. The CNMI E–2 Nonimmigrant Investor Notice of Proposed Rulemaking was published in September 2009. USCIS received and reviewed public comVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:06 Jul 03, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 L:\DOCS\67403.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
38 

ments and published a Final Rule on December 20, 2010. This rule, which took effect on January 19, 2011, fully implements the CNRA provision that provides during 

the transition period a nonimmigrant status under U.S. immigration law for certain 

foreign investors in the CNMI who had been previously granted long-term investor 

status by the CNMI government. In January of this year, USCIS conducted outreach on the regulation in Saipan and is currently accepting applications for this 

program from eligible investors and their spouses and children. 

In the fall of 2009, DHS and the Department of Justice and its Executive Office 

for Immigration Review published an interim final rule to update the current immigration regulations to ensure they reflect the changes in immigration law made by 

the CNRA. Typically referred to as the ‘‘conforming rule,’’ this interim final rule 

amended DHS and DOJ regulations to conform them to the CNRA, including in the 

areas of employment verification and asylum. DHS and DOJ currently are working 

toward issuance of a final rule. In October 2009, DHS published the Transitional 

Worker Classification Interim Final Rule. As a result of pending litigation, those 

regulations were enjoined. DHS is working toward publication of the Final Rule, 

which was submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for official 

review on June 15, 2011; We are well aware of the interest and concern among 

CNMI stakeholders about the issuance of this rule, particularly in light of the upcoming statutory expiration on November 27, 2011 of large numbers of ‘‘grandfathered’’ CNMI work authorization permits. 

Implementation of the CNRA 

DHS has designated experienced personnel within its relevant components to 

serve as points of contact and to lead teams composed of Headquarters and Field 

Office staff to implement the transition to federal immigration law in the CNMI. 

DHS and its interagency partners, including the Departments of the Interior, Justice, Labor and State, periodically meet to coordinate efforts and identify issues for 

resolution in the CNMI. As of April 2011, all five departments (Departments of the 

Interior, Homeland Security, Justice, Labor and State) had completed and signed 

the Memorandum of Agreement required under Section 702 (a) of the CNRA. U.S. 

Customs and Border Protection (CBP), U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement 

(ICE), and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) representatives have 

participated in meetings in Washington and in the CNMI with representatives of 

the Government of the CNMI and the CNMI private sector. DHS has submitted to 

Congress the required resource report on implementing Title VII and in support of 

the military build-up in Guam and, in doing so, identified some of the challenges 

that remain in implementing the legislation. In addition, DHS has met with the 

Delegates from Guam and the CNMI, the Governors of both territories and their 

staffs, as well as other elected officials and interested parties. Below is a sample 

of the most significant dates and meetings that have taken place with regard to implementation of the CNRA: 

• January 2009—A delegation from DHS Headquarters, Richard Vigna, CBP 

Director of Field Operations for San Francisco District, and Bruce Murley and 

Rocky Miner, the Port Directors for Honolulu and Guam, who oversee the 

Port in the CNMI, traveled to Guam and the CNMI to conduct public outreach and meet with the territorial governments in support of the publication 

of the Guam-CNMI VWP Interim Final Rule. 

• October 2009—A CBP delegation that included Assistant Commissioners 

Thomas Winkowski and Charles Armstrong visited Guam and the CNMI in 

preparation for the November 28, 2009 transition program effective date. During this visit, the CBP delegation met with both the Governor of Guam and 

the Governor of the CNMI regarding implementation of the CNRA. 

• February 23, 2011—Meeting between USCIS Director Alejandro Mayorkas 

and CNMI Governor Benı ́gno Fitial, CNMI Attorney General Edward Buckingham, and other CNMI government representatives. The meeting focused 

on issues related to immigration status and grants of parole in the CNMI. 

• February 24, 2011—Meeting between CBP Deputy Commissioner David 

Aguilar, DHS Assistant Secretary for Intergovernmental Affairs Betsy Markey and CNMI Governor Fitial. 

• February 24, 2011—Meeting between ICE Executive Associate Director for 

Enforcement and Removal Operations (EAD), Gary Mead, CNMI Governor 

Fitial, CNMI Attorney General Buckingham, and other CNMI government 

representatives. At this meeting, Governor Fitial and EAD Mead reached an 

agreement in principle for an Intergovernmental Service Agreement (IGSA) 

to obtain ICE detention space in the CNMI Department of Corrections facility 

at a bed day rate of $89. 

39 

• April 2011—Meeting between Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy 

Kelly Ryan and Governor of Guam Eddie Calvo. The purpose of the meeting 

was to discuss DHS’s implementation of the Guam-CNMI VWP. 

DHS implementation efforts have involved establishing a full-time presence on 

the ground in the CNMI. Beginning in March 2009, USCIS opened an Application 

Support Center (ASC) on Saipan to provide information to the public and conduct 

interviews on the island, including for adjustment of status and naturalization. 

On November 28, 2009, CBP began processing flights in the CNMI under U.S. immigration laws. CBP has officers in Saipan and Rota to conduct the inspection of 

passengers on flights arriving from foreign countries and to perform a departure 

control screening on flights traveling to other U.S. destinations. 

On November 28, 2009, ICE Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO), ICE 

Office of the Chief Counsel (OCC) and Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) 

opened offices on the island of Saipan. Both ERO and HSI are responsible for enforcing U.S. immigration laws in the CNMI. ERO is responsible for detention and 

removal of aliens unlawfully present in the CNMI, while HSI conducts investigations in such programmatic areas as narcotics, money laundering, immigration benefit and document fraud, wire fraud, and human smuggling and trafficking. 

As a result of the February 24, 2011 meeting between ICE ERO Executive Associate Director Mead and CNMI Governor Fitial, the CNMI and ICE agreed to sign 

an Intergovernmental Service Agreement (IGSA) to provide ICE detention space in 

the CNMI Department of Corrections facility at a bed day rate of $89. The IGSA 

was signed in April 2011 between ICE and the CNMI Department of Corrections. 

ERO began housing detainees at the Department of Corrections facility on June 6, 

2011. ERO has funding for 20 beds at the facility through the end of fiscal year 

2011. 

H.R. 1466 

H.R. 1466, introduced on April 8, 2011, would provide CNMI-only status for four 

designated groups of aliens in the CNMI: (1) individuals born in the Northern Mariana Islands between January 1, 1974 and January 9, 1978; (2) individuals who, as 

of May 8, 2008, held permanent resident status under a provision of CNMI law; (3) 

spouses and children of these two groups; and (4) individuals who, as of May 8, 

2008, were immediate relatives of U.S. citizens (regardless of age; i.e., including parents of U.S. citizen children who cannot petition for their parents under U.S. immigration law until the children are 21 years of age). To be eligible, individuals must 

be otherwise admissible to the United States and have resided in the CNMI both 

on the transition program effective date and on the date of enactment of H.R. 1466. 

The bill provides status as a permanent resident of the CNMI only during the transition period (with no resulting travel privileges to any other part of the United 

States), followed by an opportunity for the first three of the four designated groups 

to apply for adjustment to U.S. lawful permanent resident status during calendar 

year 2015. 

Mr. FLEMING. Thank you, Ms. Ryan. Mr. Pula, you are recognized for five minutes. 

STATEMENT OF NIKOLAO PULA, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF 

INSULAR AFFAIRS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Mr. PULA. Thank you. Chairman Fleming and Members of the 

Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to discuss Title VII 

of Public Law 110-229, and H.R. 1466, both dealing with immigration in the CNMI. 

During the past five years the CNMI has experienced ever increasing economic distress. Many businesses are ceasing operations. Many U.S. citizens, permanent residents, freely associates 

state citizens, as well as other aliens have department the CNMI. 

We must be mindful of these economic factors and challenges facing the CNMI.21Public Law 110-229 set in motion a plan for Federal administration and enforcement of immigration in the CNMI 

with the Department of Homeland Security having the lion’s share 

of responsibility. On June 15 of this year DHS submitted a final 

rule creating a CNMI transitional worker classification to the OfVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:06 Jul 03, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 L:\DOCS\67403.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
40 

fice of OMB. We are hopeful that the issuance of this final rule will 

obviate many of the concerns of the CNMI community relating to 

employment for foreign workers during the next three years. 

Title VII calls on the Secretary of the Interior to provide technical assistance to help grow and diversify the CNMI economy and 

assist in recruiting, training and hiring in consultation with the 

Department of Labor and the Secretary of Commerce as well as the 

Governor of CNMI. 

On November 9 of last year, 2010, Assistant Secretary Babauta 

held a day-long Forum on Economic and Labor Development, also 

known as FELD, F-E-L-D, in pursuit of these goals. In the absence 

of dedicated resources, the Office of Insular Affairs committed up 

to $1 million in financial assistance to fulfill requirements of the 

law. 

After the FELD, a report was issued this past May outlining the 

steps for Federal CNMI and local private sector stakeholders to 

forge a plan for growing and diversifying the CNMI economy. 

Another crucial area of the CNMI economy is the labor market. 

Based on FELD discussions, the following areas would benefit from 

technical assistance: tourism, labor, renewable energy, agriculture 

and aquaculture, prevailing wage rate, and the visa waiver program. In fact, Assistant Secretary Babauta is currently in the 

CNMI, hopefully signing grants with the acting Governor there, 

that will give the CNMI about $700,000 for on-the-job training and 

about $300,000 for economic revitalization. 

The Department of the Interior looks forward to working with 

DHS on a number of visa waiver issues, including examining 

whether to extend the exercise of parole authority to Guam and 

whether to add additional countries or geographic areas to the 

Guam and CNMI waiver program. 

Turning to H.R. 1466, the Congress delegates, the Secretary of 

the Interior, and the CNMI Senate have all expressed concern with 

regard to alien residents in the CNMI. H.R. 1466 will provide a 

forum of the CNMI only resident status to four categories of aliens 

who resided in the CNMI on November 28, 2009, and the date of 

enactment of H.R. 1466. The four categories are: 

One, aliens born between 1974 and 1978 in Northern Marianas; 

two, aliens who were permanent residents under CNMI law; three, 

spouses and children of aliens in categories just noted; and four, 

immediate relatives of United States citizens. 

Four months ago the CNMI Senate issues its recommendation on 

approved immigration status which describes as a compromise position, the aliens would have a free associated type status whereby 

they could work and live in the CNMI or elsewhere in the United 

States as non-immigrants without United States citizenship and 

without voting rights. 

In April 2010, the Secretary of the Interior issued the report on 

the CNMI alien worker population. Included was a recommendation to grant long-term status to alien workers who have resided 

in the CNMI for a minimum of five years. The Department suggested five options that the Congress could consider for long-term 

status. H.R. 1466 would provide the long-term status and therefore 

H.R. 1466 is not inconsistent with Interior’s report. 

41 

Mr. Chairman, we appreciate your interest in these important 

issues affecting the Commonwealth of Northern Marianas and 

thank you for this opportunity. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Pula follows:] 

Statement of Nikolao I. Pula, Jr., Director, Office of Insular Affairs, U.S. 

Department of the Interior, on Implementation in the Northern Mariana 

Islands of the Immigration Provisions of Title Vii of P.L. 110–229, and 

H.R. 1466, To Resolve the Status of Certain Persons Legally Residing in 

the Cnmi under the Immigration Laws of the United States 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, Oceans 

and Insular Affairs, thank you for the opportunity to discuss title VII of Public Law 

110–229, and H.R. 1466, both dealing with immigration in the Commonwealth of 

the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI). 

During the past five years, the CNMI has experienced ever-increasing economic 

distress. Many businesses have ceased or are in the process of ceasing operations. 

Austerity measures undertaken by the CNMI government due to the ever-growing 

fiscal crisis (including 16-hours cut per 80-hour pay period, 13 unpaid holidays, 332 

FTE reductions from the 2,100 government workforce) exacerbate the anxiety and 

uncertainty within the community. Many United States citizens, permanent residents, freely associated state citizens, as well as other aliens, have departed the 

CNMI in search of improved economic opportunity. It is expected that the population numbers to be reported by United States Bureau of Census in the coming 

weeks will show a significant reduction in the population of the CNMI, both United 

States citizens and aliens alike. Mindful of these economic factors and challenges, 

the Administration has made further strides in its implementation of Public Law 

110–229. 

IMPLEMENTATION OF TITLE VII IMMIGRATION PROVISIONS IN THE 

CNMI 

Beginning in January 1978, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands 

controlled immigration within its geographic area under agreement with the Federal 

government contained in the Covenant to Establish a Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands in Political Union with the United States of America (Covenant). On May 8, 2008, title VII of Public Law 110–229 was signed into law, which 

set in motion a plan for Federal administration and enforcement of immigration in 

the CNMI with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) having the lion’s share 

of responsibility, and the Departments of Interior, Labor, State, Commerce and Justice sharing that responsibility. 

DHS established operations in the CNMI in advance of the November 28, 2009 

start of the transition period, establishing ports of entry and a USCIS Application 

Support Center and, as of that date has been on the ground in the CNMI administering Federal immigration laws there, including title VII of Public Law 110–229. 

As discussed in its testimony for this hearing, DHS has issued and has in effect 

three sets of regulations necessary for the administration of immigration under title 

VII (E–2 CNMI investors, Guam-CNMI Visa Waiver Program and conforming regulations). On June 15, 2011, DHS submitted a final rule creating a CNMI Transitional Worker Classification to the Office of Management and Budget for review. 

Implementation of the Transitional Worker interim final rule was enjoined as a 

result of litigation. While the issuance of the final rule has been of concern for the 

CNMI’s business community and foreign workers alike who need to plan for their 

employment needs for the three plus years after November 27, 2011, proper formulation of the regulation is necessary. We are hopeful that the issuance of this final 

rule will obviate many of the concerns of the CNMI community relating to employment of foreign workers during the next three years. 

INTERIOR TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE 

Title VII of Public Law 110–229 calls on the Secretary of the Interior to provide 

technical assistance to the CNMI to help grow and diversify the CNMI economy and 

assist in recruiting, training and hiring U.S. citizens and nationals, lawful permanent residents and admissible citizens of the freely associated states. 

On November 9, 2010, Assistant Secretary Babauta held a day-long Forum on 

Economic and Labor Development (FELD) in the CNMI pursuant to Public Law 

110–229’s mandate that the Secretary of the Interior, in consultation with the Governor of the Commonwealth, the Secretary of Labor, and the Secretary of Commerce 

provide— 

42 

• technical assistance and other support to the Commonwealth to identify opportunities for, and encourage diversification and growth of, the economy of 

the Commonwealth; • technical assistance, including assistance in recruiting, training, and hiring of 

workers, to assist employers in the Commonwealth in securing employees 

first from among United States citizens and nationals resident in the Commonwealth and if an adequate number of such workers are not available, 

from among legal permanent residents, including lawfully admissible citizens 

of the freely associated states; and • technical assistance, including assistance to identify types of jobs needed, 

identify skills needed to fulfill such jobs, and assistance to Commonwealth 

educational entities to develop curricula for such job skills to include training 

teachers and students for such skills. 

The FELD provided an opportunity for Interior and interested stakeholders to 

begin a robust discussion on the types of technical assistance that would be appropriate and possibly available to the CNMI for its economy and workforce. Public 

Law 110–229 did not provide funds for this technical assistance. In the absence of 

dedicated resources, the Assistant Secretary Babauta has committed up to $1 million in financial assistance to fulfill requirements of the law. These funds of the Office of Insular Affairs (OIA) will be devoted to two main programs: assisting the 

CNMI with developing an economic revitalization program as suggested by the Governor of the CNMI, and enabling the CNMI government to work with local agencies 

and non-profit organizations to provide on-the-job training for eligible United States 

workers. 

As a result of the FELD, a report was issued this past May outlining the steps 

for the Federal, CNMI and local private sector stakeholders to forge a plan for growing and diversifying the CNMI economy. In selecting areas or sectors of the economy 

that would produce the greatest benefit, OIA reviewed recent statements of the 

CNMI government with regard to economic sectors it considers critical for its economic future. The Governor in his 2010 report to the legislature stated that ‘‘tourism remains the CNMI’s most important industry.’’ Future growth in tourism would 

come, in part, from improving economic and financial conditions in industrial East 

Asia, which has traditionally been the CNMI’s major tourist market. However, some 

immediate assistance to improve the sector’s performance could prove helpful as I 

will explain later in my statement. 

Another critical area of the CNMI economy is the labor market. Title VII extends 

federal immigration laws and regulations, including entry visas for visitors and temporary alien workers. Since the law directly affects the CNMI’s labor market, it is 

critical to understand how stable and predictable it would be in the near-term as 

well as the longer-term. CNMI businesses should be able to anticipate their labor 

needs for both United States citizens and temporary alien workers and the CNMI 

government needs to be able to project its revenue stream based on labor market 

and work force protections. Areas of the labor market identified by the FELD as 

critical factors include the absence of an unemployment insurance program, the lack 

of placement agencies, and the lack of adequate training programs, especially for vocational and specialized skills. 

Based on FELD discussions, the following areas would benefit from technical assistance: 

Tourism: The tourism industry would benefit from hospitality staff that is better 

trained. Lessons can be learned from Hawaii’s hospitality industry. The CNMI can 

learn from the experiences of other destinations that attract repeat tourists and create new markets. 

Labor: The CNMI’s labor market is unique in that it is still heavily dependent 

on foreign labor. Title VII recognizes the CNMI’s special case and includes explicit 

provisions for determining the Commonwealth’s labor needs through consultations 

among Federal agencies, the CNMI government and business community. For Interior’s technical assistance program, the labor component must emphasize training 

and vocational skills. 

Renewable Energy: The CNMI will benefit greatly from an expanded use of renewable energy. Expansion of renewable energy sources and resources will reduce 

dependence on fossil fuels and create jobs. Separately, OIA has entered into a technical assistance agreement with the Department of Energy’s National Renewable 

Energy Laboratory (NREL) to assess renewable energy potentials and uses in the 

territories. OIA is working closely with NREL and the territories to carry the project 

forward. FELD participants also believe that it will be important to improve not 

only the current water and power systems but also provide assistance to create and 

use infrastructure for alternative energies such as solar, wind, biomass, nuclear, 

geothermal and possibly others. 

43 

Agriculture and aquaculture: Agriculture would produce fruits and vegetables 

for local markets and household use; aquaculture would produce valuable seafood. 

Using a technical assistance grant, the CNMI can examine agriculture and aquaculture practices elsewhere and replicate them or enhance existing programs. There 

would need to be an increase in technically trained personnel to operate farms and 

aquaculture projects: animal husbandry, entomology, plant cultivation and aquaculture technicians. This can be accomplished at all educational levels, starting in 

the public schools all the way up to the Northern Marianas College, according to 

the FELD. Curriculum and training facilities would also need to be developed and 

established. 

Prevailing Wage Rate. Another vital project identified by stakeholders at the 

FELD was the need for establishing a CNMI prevailing wage rate. A prevailing 

wage rate is required as part of the procedure for obtaining a foreign labor certification from United States Department of Labor prior to applying for an H nonimmigrant or employment-based permanent immigration status for an alien employee. At present, due to the lack of such a prevailing wage rate in the CNMI, the 

Department of Labor requires employers to compensate alien employees at the nearest market rate in which the occupational category is utilized. In the CNMI’s case, 

this is usually the Guam prevailing wage rate which is much higher than the wage 

rate currently paid by most CNMI employers for any worker, alien or otherwise. 

Assistant Secretary Babauta has held several discussions with the CNMI Governor regarding how to best address the need for such a prevailing wage survey. 

The Assistant Secretary and the Governor agree that the survey is vital for the 

CNMI economy’s recovery and growth. Both also agree that delay in completing the 

survey is detrimental to the business community as well as to the efficient implementation of Federal administration of immigration in the CNMI. Governor Fitial 

has submitted a request for funding such a project to the United States Department 

of Labor and is awaiting its determination. In the meantime, preparations are underway both in the government sector and in the private sector to undertake the 

survey with a targeted completion date of September of this year. 

Visa Waiver Program. The CNRA emphasizes the need to protect the CNMI 

economy and promote economic development. The CNMI has beautiful beaches and 

five-star hotel accommodations that are more than half empty. Given that tourism 

is now the mainstay of the CNMI economy, wherever possible both Federal and local 

officials must seek not only to avoid actions that may harm various sectors of the 

tourism market, but also to consider actions that promote increased tourism. Indeed, the CNRA mandates that economic considerations regarding visitors to the 

CNMI be considered in the development of the regulations for the Guam-CNMI visa 

waiver program. Chinese and Russian tourists accounted for 22 percent of CNMI 

tourists in 2008. For fiscal year 2009, Chinese and Russian tourists accounted for 

9.2 percent of all arrivals. Since October 2009, the percentage of Chinese and Russian tourists have accounted for 12.4 percent of tourist arrivals. While this number 

may seem small, their contribution to the economy is significant; contributing approximately 20 percent of the total economic contribution from tourism. 

United States visa requirements now apply to foreign tourists to the CNMI. 

Title VII created a new Guam-CNMI Visa Waiver Program. For this new GuamCNMI Visa Waiver Program, DHS issued an interim final rule that waives the visa 

requirements for eligible visitors from 12 countries and geographic areas. At this 

time, China and Russia are not among the countries and geographic areas participating in the Guam-CNMI Visa Waiver Program. 

As DHS notes in its statement for this hearing, on October 21, 2009, Secretary 

Napolitano announced her decision to exercise her discretionary authority to parole 

into the CNMI-only, on a case-by-case basis, otherwise admissible (except for the 

lack of a visa) Chinese and Russian nationals seeking to visit the CNMI. DHS announced this discretionary exercise of parole authority in recognition of the contribution of visitors from China and Russia to the CNMI economy. The Department of 

the Interior looks forward to working with DHS on these issues, including examining whether to extend the exercise of parole authority to Guam and whether to 

add additional countries or geographic areas to the Guam-CNMI Visa Waiver Program. 

While immigration transition in the CNMI has encountered a number of issues 

that require resolution, this has not deterred the Federal government from continuing to seek a smooth transition. We realize that change is difficult, but strongly 

believe that the Federal administration of immigration in the CNMI will bring 

about higher security for the Marianas archipelago as well as an improved environment for business and provide economic opportunities to the people of the CNMI. 

44 

H.R. 1466—PATH TO CITIZENSHIP FOR CERTAIN ALIENS IN THE CNMI 

For fifty years, the Department of the Interior has been intimately involved with 

the Northern Mariana Islands, both as a district of the Trust Territory of the Pacific 

Islands and as a commonwealth of the United States. The Department, therefore, 

has a historical perspective that may help inform the Congress of effects that 

H.R. 1466 and other proposals may have on the Northern Mariana Islands and its 

residents. 

LONG–TERM STATUS FOR ALIENS IN THE CNMI 

The Congress, Delegate Gregorio Sablan, the Secretary of the Interior, and the 

Senate of the Seventeenth Northern Marianas Commonwealth Legislature have all 

expressed concern with regard to long-term alien residents in the CNMI, and the 

effect of their presence on the CNMI. 

H.R. 1466, the subject of this hearing, is one of the proposals. It would provide 

a form of CNMI-only resident status to four categories of aliens who resided in the 

CNMI on November 28, 2009 and the date of enactment of H.R. 1466. The four categories of aliens are: 

• aliens born between January 1, 1974 and January 9, 1978 in the Northern 

Mariana Islands District of the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands (which 

later became the CNMI), 

• aliens who were, on May 9, 2008, permanent residents of the CNMI under 

CNMI law, 

• spouses and children of aliens in categories just noted, and 

• immediate relatives (children, spouses and parents) of United States citizens. 

For the first five years, the resident status would be in the CNMI-only. Thereafter, if otherwise eligible, those individuals in the first three categories could apply 

to receive an immigrant visa or to adjust status to that of an alien lawfully admitted 

for permanent residence, which would allow for travel anywhere in the United 

States and its territories, and, if eligible, would place qualified individuals on a path 

to United States citizenship. 

As reported in the Saipan Tribune, CNMI Governor Benı ́gno Fitial estimates that 

potentially 5,000 aliens in the CNMI may be classified as immediate relatives of 

United States citizens and could avail themselves of the opportunities provided in 

H.R. 1466, to become permanent residents and later citizens of the United States. 

Additional aliens would be added by the other categories of eligible aliens in 

H.R. 1466, and together these persons would represent approximately one-third of 

the aliens in the CNMI. 

CNMI Senate 2011 Recommendation Regarding Long-term CNMI Aliens 

In March 2011, the Senate of the Seventeenth Northern Marianas Commonwealth 

Legislature issued its Recommendation on Improved Immigration Status of Nonimmigrant Workers in the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands. The 

CNMI Senate includes what it describes ‘‘as a compromise (recommendation) between the interests of nonimmigrant workers and indigenous residents of the Commonwealth’’: 

All aliens residing legally in the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana 

Islands for ten years on the date U.S. Public Law 110–229 became law, 

shall receive similar immigration status as that held by citizens of the freely associated states (FAS). 

The CNMI Senate is specific in its recommendation, calling for an FAS type status, whereby aliens who have been resident in the CNMI since May 8, 1998 would 

work and live in the CNMI or elsewhere in the United States as nonimmigrants, 

without United States citizenship and without voting rights. 

2010 Interior Recommendation Regarding Long-term CNMI Aliens 

In April 2010, the Secretary of the Interior issued the Report on the Alien Worker 

Population in the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands. Included was a 

recommendation to grant long-term status to alien workers who have resided in the 

CNMI for a minimum of five years: 

Consistent with the goals of comprehensive immigration reform, we recommend that the Congress consider permitting alien workers who have 

lawfully resided in the CNMI for a minimum period of five years to apply 

for long-term status under the immigration and nationality laws of the 

United States. 

The Department through the report suggested five options, among others, that 

could be considered for long-term status, including: 

(1) alien workers could be conferred United States citizenship by Act of Congress; 

45 

(2) alien workers could be conferred permanent resident status leading to U.S. 

citizenship (per the normal provisions of the INA relating to naturalization), 

with the five-year minimum residence spent anywhere in the United States 

or its territories; or 

(3) alien workers could be conferred permanent resident status leading to U.S. 

citizenship, with the five-year minimum residence spent in the CNMI. 

Additionally, under U.S. immigration law, special status is provided to aliens who 

are citizens of the freely associated states. Following this model, 

(4) alien workers could be granted a nonimmigrant status like that negotiated 

for citizens of the freely associated states, whereby such persons may live 

and work in the United States and its territories; or 

(5) alien workers could be granted a nonimmigrant status similar to that negotiated for citizens of the freely associated states, whereby such persons may 

live and work in the CNMI only. 

Department of the Interior Position 

The 2010 report of the Secretary of the Interior recommended a long-term status 

for foreign workers who lawfully resided in the CNMI for a minimum period of five 

years. At the time of the report, the Department’s best estimate was that 20,654 

legal aliens resided in the CNMI. H.R. 1466 is consistent with the Secretary’s report in that it would give long-term status to more than 5,000 of these persons. 

Mr. Chairman, we appreciate your interest is these important immigration issues 

affecting the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands. 

Mr. FLEMING. Thank you, Mr. Pula. I would now like to recognize 

the Ranking Member—I am sorry. Oh, OK, I am sorry. I would 

now like to introduce Ms. Aldan-Pierce and Ms. Doctor before they 

testify. Ms. Aldan-Pierce, you are now recognized for five minutes. 

STATEMENT OF MARIAN ALDAN-PIERCE, CHAIRPERSON, 

BOARD OF DIRECTORS, MARIANAS VISITORS AUTHORITY 

Ms. ALDAN-PIERCE. Thank you, Chairman Fleming, Ranking 

Member Sablan. It is an honor to appear before this Committee 

today. I was asked to provide our views on Public Law 110-229, 

specifically on the Guam/CNMI waiver program. 

My name is Marian Aldan-Pierce, a lifetime resident of the 

CNMI, and I have worked in the tourism industry for over 35 

years. During my tenure in the industry, I have seen tourism in 

the CNMI grow from very humble beginnings to the peak in 1997, 

when we welcomed nearly 700,000 visitors to our islands. Our tourism program focused on Japan and the Japanese visitor. We marketed the CNMI in major Japanese cities. It is a cost-effective, closer alternative to other Pacific beach destinations. As a result, over 

three-fourths of our visitors were from Japan in the mid-90s. However, with the decline of the Japanese economy and other disasters, 

tourism in the CNMI have been on the downward spiral for many 

years, and we are now seeing what we hope to be the bottom of 

the tourism market. 

Last year, the CNMI had approximately 380,000 tourists, a little 

more than half the tourists that were welcomed at the peak of the 

market. We expect a further decline in arrivals with the recent action by air carriers, further reducing seat capacity from Japan and 

Korea to the CNMI during non-peak months. 

Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Sablan, our remote islands in 

the Pacific with very few natural resources are now almost completely dependent on the tourism industry. Our government was 

forced to shut down last year for many days for financial reasons. 

Given these constraints as well as budgetary constrains here in 

46 

Washington, it is clear that in order for the CNMI to survive into 

the future, for the government to sustain its payroll, for the people 

to have continued access to basic necessities of life, power, water 

and education, we cannot come to Washington with our hands out. 

We have to help ourselves. We must invigorate our tourism industry, our sole economic driver. 

I am here to request that DHS issue final rules for the Guam 

visa waiver program, for the Guam/CNMI visa waiver program 

that would allow continued access, visa-free from Chinese and Russian tourists in the CNMI and extend such access to Guam. These 

tourists are vital to the CNMI’s economy and China and Russia 

represent tourism’s future in the Marianas region. 

We are living in a very depressed economy. Buildings stand vacant and deteriorated in our major business district. Homes sit 

empty and abandoned in our villages. Private sector employees 

have suffered layoffs and reduced hours. Government employees 

have had their work hours reduced by 20 percent due to lack of 

funding, and the line for nutrition assistance from the Federal Government is long and only getting longer. The CNMI cannot continue to depend and hope for Federal dollars and expanding Federal assistance programs given the current budgetary climate in 

Washington. 

Reinvigorating our tourism industry in the CNMI would take 

new ideas and a new approach. The CNMI needs to work closely 

with our partners in Guam and market the Marianas region as a 

package destination to tourists. Even though our islands are located only 150 miles apart, we have two different sets of rules with 

respect to tourism. Unlike Guam, Russian and Chinese visitors are 

allowed entry into the CNMI under parole authority. Parole in the 

CNMI has operated flawlessly for nearly two years as DHS security 

protocols have successfully prevent the entry of objectionable visitors. 

Tourism, like any other business, needs regulatory certainty to 

attract investment. Since the enactment of the CNRA in 2008, 

DHS published an interim final rule and later extended parole authority for Russia and China to The CNMI. Unfortunately, despite 

the success of the parole program in the CNMI, DHS has not yet 

extended the same opportunity to Guam with respect to these two 

source countries. 

Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Sablan and Members, we do not 

understand, and hope that we might learn more today why Congress and this Committee enacted legislation three years ago that 

combine visitor entry programs for our islands, the Guam/CNMI 

visa waiver program, and yet two unequal systems still exist today. 

To accomplish the objective of marketing in the region and expanding the tourism economy, the CNRA extended the time allowed for visitors under the Guam/CNMI visa waiver program to 

stay on the island from 15 to 45 days. Congress envisioned by 

doing so visitors will travel to multiple islands for a longer period 

to thereby maximize the economic impact and revenue in the region. We need regulatory certainty to attract investment to the region. We urge this Committee to impress upon DHS that the interim final rule needs to be finalized consistent with congressional 

intent of expanding tourism by ensuring that source markets such 

47 

as China and Russia are included on the list as those markets are 

vital to the CNMI and the Marianas region for future tourism 

growth. 

Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Sablan, and Members, while 

the CNMI’s economy is in a precarious position today, we believe 

that with proper regulatory environment and cooperating with our 

neighbors on Guam we can revitalize our tourism economy and create much needed jobs and investment in the region, thereby reducing our reliance on Federal assistance. 

Thank you very much for giving me the opportunity to appear 

before you today. It has been a real honor and privilege. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Aldan-Pierce follows:] 

Statement of Marian Aldan-Pierce, Chairperson of the Board of Directors, 

Marianas Visitors Authority 

I. Overview 

Beginning in the 1980s, the economy of the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI) was driven by two industries—apparel manufacturing and 

tourism. At the peak of tourism in 1997, when nearly 730,000 visitors arrived, total 

government revenue was $248-million. The economy was vibrant. 

However, beginning in 2005 with the enactment of the World Trade Organization 

(WTO) agreement, the apparel industry began to relocate from the CNMI to locations where the cost of doing business was lower. Due to WTO impact and additional costs added through increases in minimum wage, by 2009, all 34 of the apparel manufacturing factories in the CNMI had closed, leaving the CNMI with only 

one industry leg left to stand on– tourism (APPENDIX A). 

The Consolidated Natural Resources Act (CNRA) of 2008, signed by President 

G.W. Bush on May 8, 2008, required that the CNMI federalize its immigration system beginning in November 2009. The CNRA provides for a Guam-CNMI Visa 

Waiver Program (VWP), whereby visitors from listed countries may make non-visa 

entry into the CNMI and Guam as tourists. In line with the CNRA’s expressed mandate to expand tourism and economic development in the CNMI wherever possible, 

the CNMI strongly recommends that the Final Rules of the VWP be promulgated 

as soon as possible and that they contain a provision for continued visa waiver entry 

for citizens of the People’s Republic of China (China) and the Russian Federation 

(Russia) either into the CNMI only or into the CNMI and Guam. 

This recommendation is based on the following four points: 

• The CNMI economy is now completely dependent on tourism, and the CNRA 

requires that countries from which the CNMI has derived ‘‘significant economic benefit’’ by visitors be included in the list of VWP participating countries 

• Including China and Russia under the VWP listed countries, versus including 

them under the sole parole authority of the Secretary of Homeland Security, 

will create stability and allow the CNMI to attract long term investment for 

these growing markets 

• Since the parole process began, and prior to the CNRA under CNMI immigration measures, visitors from China and Russia have returned to their respective countries, an excellent performance record proving invalid DHS concerns 

of ‘‘high nonimmigrant visa refusal rates’’ 

• If allowable, a uniform VWP between the CNMI and Guam would allow development of multiple destination packages between the two island entities 

for visitors arriving by both air and sea 

As described further in this testimony, the economy of the CNMI is now solely 

reliant on tourism, a delicate industry easily buffeted by international and domestic 

challenges. These include visa access, the health of the economies in neighboring 

Asian countries, the convenience and price competitiveness of air service, and the 

ability to compete with nearby beach destinations. In recent years, the economy has 

taken a nosedive due to these challenges. The permanent inclusion of Russia and 

China in the VWP—or lack thereof—will largely determine if the CNMI economy 

can begin to climb its way to recovery, or whether it will be pushed over the edge. 

48 

II. Sustaining a Diversified Tourism Economy 

A. A Brief History 

According to the U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis BEA 10– 

24, real GDP of the CNMI decreased at an average annual rate of 4.2 percent from 

2002 to 2007. The decrease in real GDP was primarily due to a decrease in the exports of garments, reflecting a contraction in the garment manufacturing industry 

and a decline in tourism. Since 2002, a number of economic shocks have contributed 

to a decline in tourism, including 9–11, the SARS epidemic and the 2005 pullout 

of flagship carrier Japan Airlines, a loss of 35% (182,000) of annual air seats to the 

CNMI at the time and subsequent closure of an affiliate hotel—the second largest 

in the CNMI—and the CNMI’s largest shopping mall. From 2002 to 2007, the population of the CNMI also decreased rapidly as foreign workers left the territory, and 

as a consequence, real GDP per capita increased at an average annual rate of 0.5 

percent. 

To help stabilize the industry and reduce reliance on any one source country, the 

CNMI has worked to diversify its source markets. Historically, visitors from Japan 

had comprised as high as 83% of all visitor arrivals. However, due to the CNMI’s 

diversification efforts and concurrent increase in outbound travellers from those targeted countries, by FY 2010 only 50% were from Japan; 29% were from South Korea 

(Korea), 11% were from China, and 1% were from Russia. For FY 2011 to date— 

through May 2011—the market share has diversified even further, with Japan comprising only 45%, Korea 32%, China 12% and Russia 2%. 

In more recent tourism trends, in FY 2010 visitors arrivals to the CNMI totaled 

only 386,186, only a little more than half of total visitor arrivals during the industry’s peak in 1996 (APPENDIX B). 

From FY 2006–2010, hotel revenues each year dropped at an average of $2.9-million and the CNMI lost approximately $10.5-million annually in direct on-island expenditure. With a multiplier of 1.5, the CNMI business community lost $33.4 million 

in economic activity and $2-million in taxes annually. Additionally, it is estimated 

that 171 public and 191 private sector jobs were displaced annually. 

Compared to FY 2006, direct impact during FY 2010 was down 16% ($274.4-million), while indirect impact also fell 16% ($726.2-million) (APPENDIX C). 

In addition to the overall growth of China and Russia arrivals, the economic impact of each visitor from these two destinations is significant. Russian visitors each 

spend 4.5 times as much as an average Asian visitor, while Chinese expenditures 

are comparable to Japanese and more than Korean visitors. Based on outbound 

growth projections of these countries and other factors, China and Russia are projected to increase in total arrivals and economic impact for the CNMI. 

B. Primary Source Market of Japan 

The CNMI has traditionally relied on Japanese tourists and its hotel industry was 

built largely with Japanese investment. This relationship sprung from both the 

proximity of Japan to this beach resort destination and from the historic political 

ties prior to World War II. Beginning in the late 1980s, the Commonwealth’s visitor 

industry experienced a decade of phenomenal growth. Grand openings of new hotels, 

fueled by Japanese investment, were a regular occurrence during the decade. However, expectations of continued expansion proved unrealistic. The beginning of 

CNMI difficulties was the bursting of the Japanese ‘‘bubble’’ economy, followed by 

the Asian financial crisis beginning around 1997. 

Compared to the peak of tourism in FY1997 when Japan comprised 62% (450,190 

visitors) of total visitor arrivals, so far in FY 2011 through May 2011, Japanese visitors comprise only 45% (102,578 visitors) of all visitors. The outbound Japanese 

travel market has suffered decline in the wake of the March 2011 earthquake and 

tsunami and continuing nuclear crisis, down 34 percent in May 2011 compared to 

May 2010 (APPENDIX D). 

The biggest challenge the CNMI travel industry continues to face for Japan—and 

all markets—is air seat availability to the islands. Since the 2005 pullout of Japan 

Airlines and the loss of 35% of total air seats, the CNMI has yet to recover the same 

level of air seat availability. In December 2010 Delta Air Lines reduced one of its 

three daily direct flights from Tokyo/Narita to only three times weekly. Tokyo/ 

Narita is the CNMI’s largest source city. The loss of this service caused travel capability to slide from 66,430 seats annually from Toyko/Narita to only 37,856 seats. 

In April 2011, the suspended flight was formally terminated altogether. This further 

demonstrates the uncertainty of the tourism industry. 

In addition, since 2009 air service has been only seasonal from Osaka and 

Nagoya, the CNMI’s largest markets outside Tokyo/Narita. Delta Air Lines suspended daily direct flights from Nagoya and only operates during peak periods durVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:06 Jul 03, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 L:\DOCS\67403.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
49 

ing the year. This peak period traditionally runs from mid-December through March 

and from mid-July through September. Likewise, Asiana Airlines provides only seasonal daily flights during peak periods from Osaka. This low peak period represents 

210 days per year during which the CNMI has lost the opportunity to benefit from 

432 seats per day from these two source cities. This translates into lost visitor opportunities from Osaka and Nagoya of an estimated 90,720 visitors annually. 

From an income standpoint, with an estimated $851 in direct and $2,253 in indirect economic impact per Japanese visitor, the CNMI is losing $77.2-million and 

$204.4-million annually in direct and indirect economic opportunity, respectively, 

from its primary source market due to these lost air seats. With regards to impact 

on public and private employment, this results in an annual loss of an estimated 

955 public and 1,067 private sector jobs, based on each public sector job being supported by 95 visitors and each private sector job being supported by 85 visitors (APPENDIX E). 

The long-term forecast for outbound growth from this market is expected to grow 

19.3% over the next five years, from 15.6-million in 2011 to 18.6-million in 2016 

(APPENDIX F). 

C. Primary Source Market of South Korea 

The Korean market to the CNMI had first started to grow in 1988 when the Korean government lifted international travel restrictions on Korean nationals. This 

market was showing phenomenal growth until the Asian economic crisis hit in the 

mid-1990s, Korea was the hardest hit of the CNMI’s source markets. Recognizing 

the CNMI’s extreme vulnerability to the Japanese economy, the islands saw a 

unique opportunity and value in diversification of its tourism base. Korea was the 

first country to become the focus of more marketing and promotions by the Marianas Visitors Authority (MVA) as part of its diversification efforts. 

Since that time, the market share of Korea has grown considerably. During the 

peak of tourism in 1997, Korea comprised 23% of total visitor arrivals. In the 18 

months before federalization of CNMI immigration in November 2009, Korea accounted for 26% of visitor arrivals. In the period since December 2010, Korea now 

comprises 31% of visitor arrivals (APPENDIX G). The outbound Korean travel market was also strongly affected by the March 2011 earthquake and tsunami and continuing nuclear crisis in Japan, with arrivals to the CNMI down 24 percent in May 

2011 compared to May 2010. 

Flight service from Korea has also fluctuated in recent years. Flights from Busan 

were cancelled in June 7, 2011. Asiana Airlines also recently decreased the number 

of daytime flights from Incheon/Seoul to the CNMI from four to two flights weekly, 

marking a loss of 18% of available air seats on a weekly basis. This decrease is expected to be reversed in mid-July, but it underscores the instability of air service 

from the CNMI’s primary source countries. 

According to the Korea Tourism Organization, the long-term forecast for growth 

from this market is considerable, growing 33.3% from an estimated 13-million outbound travelers in 2011 to nearly 18-million travelers on 2016 (APPENDIX F). 

D. Secondary Source Market of China 

The CNMI first began receiving Chinese tourists in 1998. This initially began 

with private sector investments by several hotels and was later expanded to include 

investment by the Marianas Visitors Authority, regional tourism businesses and 

others. At the end of 2004, the CNMI also attained Approved Destination Status 

(ADS), which allowed it to actively market CNMI tourism in China. 

The China market has shown and continues to show significant growth in terms 

of market share. In the 18 months prior to the implementation of the US immigration provisions in November 2009, China accounted for 7% of total arrivals. In the 

18 months since federalization, market share from China increased to 11% of total 

arrivals and continues to grow. 

In terms of air service, today the CNMI has up to 4 direct charter flights weekly 

from two of the most affluent cities in China-Shanghai, and Guangzhou. In additional, regional air carrier Fly Guam currently flies direct air service from China’s 

Special Administrative Region of Hong Kong to the CNMI and Guam three times 

a week, with plans to expand flights into China and other Asian ports. 

The two full years from the achievement of ADS status until the signing of the 

CNRA saw increasing growth from China. However, due to the enactment of the 

CNRA and the delay in the Final Rules, the CNMI has not been able to capitalize 

on the full potential of this market with regular scheduled flights and long-term investment. 

Allowing Chinese nationals into the CNMI as Visa Waivered tourists is doubly 

vital to our vulnerable economy because of changes in travel demand from other 

50 

source countries into the CNMI. The Chinese tourists comprise an even greater proportion of the total number of visitor entries and make the CNMI’s reliance in them 

even greater than reported in the MVA’s previous Official Comments to the Interim 

Final Rules submitted to DHS on in February 2009. In our previous report based 

on 1997 data, visitor arrivals from China totaled 2,478, less than 1% of total arrivals to the CNMI. Based on FY 2010 data, Chinese arrivals comprise 11 percent, and 

for FY 2011 through May 2011, they comprise 12% (APPENDIX D). 

The China market also represents a comparable level of economic impact per visitor as the average visitor from the primary market of Japan and a higher economic 

impact than the average visitor from Korea (APPENDIX E). In FY 2010, Chinese 

visitors accounted for 14% of total CNMI tourism revenue, contributing $39.4-million in direct economic impact and $104-million in indirect economic impact to our 

economy (APPENDIX C). 

What is most promising about the China market is the potential for future 

growth, as the country remains Asia’s largest source of outbound markets. According to the China National Travel Administration, this year’s outbound travel projections stand at 65-million. However, by 2016 the number of outbound tourists is expected to grow 72% to an estimated 112-million. As Chinese outbound travel is projected to greatly outpace outbound travel from Japan, Korea, and Russia, the market share of China in the CNMI tourism industry is expected to grow from 11% in 

FY 2011, to date, to 17% of total market share by 2016 (APPENDIX H). 

Even the federal government has undertaken immigration modifications to capitalize on this opportunity and diversify further into the China market. In 2008, the 

United States entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with China to streamline visa processing. As noted at the December 2010 U.S.-China Joint Commission 

on Commerce and Trade, since the initiation of travel under the MOU in 2008, total 

passenger travel from China to the United States has increased by 23 percent, a 

total export value of $5.5 billion (as of July 2010). China is the country’s fastest 

growing market and by 2015 it is projected to become the 6th largest arrival market 

for the United States (up from 16th before the MOU in 2008). As further reported 

in the commission fact sheet, ‘‘China and the United States agreed to implement 

Phase 3 of the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) opening the market for the 

sale of packaged leisure travel from China to the United States to three additional 

provinces in China. (The United States will continue to press China to broaden the 

scope of access to include additional provinces.) China and the United States successfully established online systems to ensure the timely exchange of lists of Chinese travel agencies and U.S. tour operators authorized to conduct business under 

the MOU.’’ The continued expansion of this MOU is an acknowledgement of the federal government that modified and streamlined visitor entry requirements for Chinese tourists are both feasible and desirable, an approach the CNMI has long practiced with success and now proposes to continue under the Guam-CNMI Visa Waiver Program. 

E. Secondary Source Market of Russia 

The CNMI first began marketing to Russian tourists in 1996. Following the enactment of the CNRA, the Russian market stumbled for several months due to several 

obstacles. The first was the exclusion of China and Russia in the Guam-CNMI VWP. 

Subsequently, when the Secretary of Homeland Security was empowered to provide 

parole to visitors from these countries, there was a short delay in the issuance of 

a diplomatic note to China and Russia. In addition, the CNMI lacked sufficient marketing funds to inform potential visitors in Russia of the parole option. Nonetheless, 

the country has finally rebounded and is recovering in raw numbers. 

In the 18 months prior to the implementation of the US immigration provisions 

in November 2009, Russia accounted for 1.8% of total arrivals. In the 18 months 

since federalization, market share from Russia has equaled 1.3% of total arrivals 

(APPENDIX G). 

Income derived from Russian tourists has become a far larger part of the total 

tourism income than in previous years. For example, a Russian visitor has an economic impact 4.5 greater than an average Asian visitor (APPENDIX E). From December 2009 through May 2011, visitor arrivals from Russia accounted for 7% of the 

total tourism revenue. In FY 2010, visitors from Russia contributed $18.7-million in 

direct economic impact and $49.4-million in indirect economic impact to the CNMI 

economy (APPENDIX C). 

Again, the foremost challenge of the market of Russian and other countries in the 

region is the availability of air service. Currently, there is no scheduled (regular) 

direct service available, and only a handful of charter flights have been flown since 

the markets opened. Most travelers through these countries must route through 

Seoul, Korea. In many cases, potential travelers are also not able track firm seats 

51 

until immediately before departure when seats held by travel agents are released; 

this is not feasible for travel planning. However, negotiations are now underway for 

a connecting flight through Hong Kong via Fly Guam and a Russian airline partner. 

Considerations are being made to provide a two-destination package, Hong Kong 

and the CNMI, a move which would open up western Russia to the CNMI with 

much more convenience. One attractive component of the suggested package is that, 

at this time, visas are waived in both Hong Kong and the CNMI for Russians. 

III. A CNMI Economy without China and Russia 

The CNRA expressly states that its implementation shall develop tourism and 

economic development for the CNMI. In its Interim Final Rules analysis of January 

2009, DHS grossly understated the negative travel demand into the CNMI if visitors 

from China and Russia were required to obtain a U.S. visa prior to entry. DHS had 

estimated the CNMI would lose only 5,017 and 194 visitors annually from China 

and Russia, respectively. Contrary to this, as the MVA gathered in discussion with 

travel partners serving those countries, requiring a U.S. visa for visitors from China 

and Russia would have a 95% negative impact on travel demand. 

With an economy already depressed by the pullout of apparel manufacturing and 

international obstacles to the recovery of the tourism industry, the CNMI is on the 

verge of economic collapse. Business buildings stand vacant and are deteriorating 

along our main thoroughfares. Homes sit abandoned in our villages. The list of 

friends, associates, and family members who have moved off-island to find jobs and 

a better life continues to grow. Private sectors employees have felt the sting of 

shortened hours and layoffs for years. Public sector employees funded locally have 

suffered a 20% reduction in work hours, and when payday does come, it is usually 

late. 

Without continued access to the China and Russian tourism markets, the economic future of the CNMI is bleak, if not dead. Using actual FY 2011 arrivals-todate as a basis, let us examine a CNMI economy without visitors from China and 

Russia. 

The total direct and indirect impact of tourism revenue for FY 2011 through May 

2011 is $450.8-million. Without visitors from China and Russia, that revenue would 

have dropped by 25% or $110.8-million (APPENDIX I). 

The total number of government jobs supported by tourism revenue this year is 

2,180. Without visitors from China and Russia, 15.2% or 331 of those jobs would 

have been lost. 

The total number of private sector jobs supported by tourism revenue this year 

is 2,437. Without visitors from China and Russia, 15.2% or 370 of those jobs would 

have been lost. 

Clearly, to enact a Guam-CNMI Visa Waiver Program without allowing the CNMI 

access to visitors from China and Russia would have a detrimental and long-standing effect on the economy and livelihood of the people and would be contrary to the 

intent of the CNRA. 

V. Conclusion 

The CNMI economy direly needs continued access to visitors from China and Russia. As noted the Government Accountability Office report of June 23, 2011, ‘‘American Samoa and Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands: Employment, 

Earnings, and Status of Key Industries since Minimum Wage Increases Began,’’ 

CNMI employment fell 13 percent from 2008 to 2009 and 35 percent from 2006 to 

2009. The report also noted that in discussion groups, some tourism employers expressed concern that the primary difficulty was the CNMI tourism industry’s decline. 

It is clear that the visitors from China and Russia are critical for reviving and 

sustaining the CNMI economy. The uncertainty about the Final Rules of the GuamCNMI Visa Waiver Program has caused investors and tourism partners both local 

and international to hold off on current spending and on plans for future growth, 

as well. The sooner the Final Rules can be published, and the sooner they contain 

the certainty of continuity for our Russia and Chinese visitors, the sooner the intent 

of the CNRA to expand tourism and economic development can be accomplished. 

This intent may be accomplished by adding China and Russia to the list of allowable countries included under the VWP, or may it be accomplished by a separate 

ruling allowing their entry into only the CNMI, based on the CNMI’s record to date 

of having visitors from China and Russia return to their respective countries and 

due to the limited amount of military assets and activity in the CNMI. 

The CNMI strongly recommends that the Final Rules be promulgated as soon as 

possible and that they contain a provision for continued visa waiver entry for Chinese and Russian citizens either into the CNMI only or into the CNMI and Guam. 

52 


67403.004.eps 67403.005.eps
53 


67403.006.eps
54 


67403.007.eps
55 


67403.008.eps 67403.009.eps 67403.010.eps
56 

Mr. FLEMING. Thank you, Ms. Aldan-Pierce. Finally, we have Ms. 

Doctor. You are recognized for five minutes, ma’am. 

STATEMENT OF HAZEL DOCTOR, A RESIDENT OF THE 

COMMONWEALTH OF THE NORTHERN MARIANA ISLANDS 

Ms. DOCTOR. Thank you and good morning. Chairman Fleming 

and Members of the Subcommittee, my name is Hazel Marie Doctor. I am a 19-year-old college sophomore, and I thank you for giving me the opportunity to testify today as a U.S. citizen, United 

States citizen who faces a terrible choice as a result of Public Law 

110-229. 

As the law goes into effect, I am going to have to choose between 

my country, America, and my family, and that is a choice no one 

should have to face. It is my hope that you will hear my testimony 

and consider amending the law Congress passed three years ago 

without being fully aware of the impact it would have on U.S. citizens like myself. 

Let me first tell you a little bit about myself and my family. I 

was born in Saipan on January 21, 1992, and I have lived on this 

island my whole life. I have a younger sister named Jackie who is 

11 years old and was born and raised on Saipan as well. As persons born in the Northern Marianas my sisters and I are citizens 

of the United States. Like you, we are Americans, and throughout 

our lives we have looked on America as our home. 


67403.011.eps 67403.012.eps
57 

But my story really begins with my wonderful parents. My father 

Alex and my mother Tina are two of the most hard-working people 

I know. They have resided and worked in the Marianas for over 20 

years after leaving the Philippines in search of a better life. They, 

too, call America their home, but unlike my sister and me our parents are not U.S. citizens. They are not even permanent residents. 

Instead, they are considered temporary workers even after all these 

years. They remain nationals of the Philippines because local Mariana’s immigration and labor laws did not afford them the opportunity to become full members of this U.S. democratic society. 

My parents, along with thousands of other temporary workers, 

have contributed enormously to the economic development of the 

Commonwealth as nurses, business managers, construction workers, and in countless other jobs. Over time my parents, like so 

many other people, put their lives here. They put down roots and 

raised their children. They volunteered in the community and 

formed life-long friendships. In short, they became part of the fabric of Marianas society. 

At this point it isn’t clear what will become of us, our parents, 

our relatives, our families. It is the intention of Public Law 110- 

229 to send all foreign workers home. That includes my parents. 

So our family will be faced with some difficult decisions. Should my 

sister and I go with our parents to the Philippines to keep our family together or stay behind in America, the only home we have ever 

known? 

But why should we have to choose between our family and our 

country? We do not want to be separated from our families and the 

one home we know and love. We want our family and all the families of the Northern Marianas to stay together. We also want to 

continue living here in the Northern Marianas to pursue our own 

goals and dreams. For me, my wish is to come back after college 

as a licensed psychiatrist and still see my parents and my sister 

living in their home in Saipan. It is also my wish to see other citizens who are the children of long-term guest workers return to the 

Commonwealth as physicians, accountants, and more to serve the 

community and the economy. 

We believe separating our families would be immoral. It would 

be a grave injustice and a critical democratic error, so we ask you 

to please protect our families. We ask you to support H.R. 1466 

which would allow our families to remain in the Northern Marianas with the same rights they have under Mariana’s immigration 

law, and we ask you to act now for the sake of our families and 

for our future. 

Thank you again for giving me the opportunity to speak before 

all of you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Doctor follows:] 

Statement of Hazel Marie Doctor on P.L. 110–229 and H.R. 1466 

My name is Hazel Marie Doctor. I am a nineteen-year-old college sophomore. 

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to testify today as a United States citizen who faces a terrible choice as the result of Public Law 110–229. 

As this law goes into effect, I am going to have to choose between my country— 

America, and my family. 

That is a choice no one should have to face. 

58 

It is my hope that you will hear my testimony and consider amending the law 

Congress passed three years ago without being fully aware of the impact it would 

have on U.S. citizens like myself. 

Let me tell you a little bit about myself and my family. I was born on Saipan 

on January 21, 1992 and have lived on this island my whole life. I have a younger 

sister named Jackie who is eleven years old and was born and raised on Saipan as 

well. As persons born in the Northern Marianas, my sister and I are citizens of the 

United States. Like you, we are Americans. And throughout our lives, we have 

looked on America as our home. 

But my story really begins with my wonderful parents. My father, Alex, and my 

mother, Tina, are two of the most hard-working people I know. They have resided 

and worked in the Marianas for over twenty years after leaving the Philippines in 

search of a better life. They too call America their home. But unlike my sister and 

me, our parents are not U.S. citizens. They are not even permanent residents. Instead, they are considered ‘‘temporary’’ workers, even after all these years. They remain nationals of the Philippines because local Marianas immigration and labor 

laws did not afford them the opportunity to become full members of this U.S. democratic society. 

My parents, along with thousands of other ‘‘temporary’’ workers, have contributed 

enormously to the economic development of the Commonwealth as nurses, business 

managers, construction workers, and in countless other jobs. Over time my parents, 

like so many other people, built their lives here. They put down roots and raised 

their children. They volunteered in the community and formed lifelong friendships. 

In short, they became part of the fabric of Marianas society. 

At this point, however, it is unclear what will become of us, our parents, our relatives, our families. It is the intention of Public Law 110–229 to send all foreign 

workers home. That includes my parents. So, our family will be faced with some 

difficult decisions. Should my sister and I go with our parents to the Philippines 

to keep the family together, or stay behind in the America, the only home we have 

ever known? 

But why should we have to choose between our family and our country? We do 

not want to be separated from our families and the one home we know and love. 

We want our family—and all families who call the Marianas home—to be able to 

stay together. We also want to continue living here in the Northern Marianas to 

pursue our own goals and dreams. For me, my wish is to come back after college 

to serve as a psychiatrist and still see my parents and my sister living in their home 

on Saipan. It is also my wish to see other U.S. citizens who are the children of longterm guest workers return to the Commonwealth as physicians, accountants, and 

more to serve the community. 

We believe separating our families would be immoral; it would be a grave injustice and a critical democratic error, so we ask you to protect our families. We ask 

you to support H.R. 1466, which will allow our families to remain in the Northern 

Marianas with the same rights they had under Marianas immigration law. And we 

ask that you act now for the sake of our families and our future. 

Thank you again for giving me the opportunity to speak before you. 

Mr. FLEMING. Thank you, Ms. Doctor, for your testimony and 

thanks to all the witnesses for your very fruitful testimony this 

morning. 

At this point, we will begin Members’ questions of the witnesses. 

To allow all Members to participate and to ensure we can hear 

from all the witnesses today, Member are limited to five minutes 

for their questions. However, if Members have additional questions 

we can have more than one round of questioning. I now recognize 

myself for five minutes. 

It is interesting a lot of comments that are made this morning 

relative to immigration are issues we are struggling with here in 

the continental United States. Maybe we can find some of our solutions through our discussions today. 

First of all, I would like to ask Ms. Ryan, the Committee is under 

the impression that certain security measures, electronic travel authorization, biometric entry/exit requirements are needed in Guam 

59 

in order for China and Russia to be added to the Guam/CNMI 

waiver program. Is this still the case? 

Ms. RYAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

In implementing the CNRA, the immigration piece related to the 

inspections at the ports of entry in CNMI and also in Guam there 

is a presence of CBP officers, and they have access to the electronic 

data they need, and in fact there is preflight inspection that occurs, 

so we are able to inspect people and know about their history before they arrive, and they get a full screening both on CNMI and 

in Guam prior to their arriving and when they arrive, so we have 

access to the data that we need to do security screenings for inspections. 

Mr. FLEMING. OK. So just to be sure, I want to be sure I am clear 

on this, so there are no further barriers with respect to electronic 

travel authorization. All of that is now fully in place and resolved? 

Ms. RYAN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. FLEMING. Just as a matter of interest, you say that is done 

prior, I guess, to a flight into Guam and CNMI and then upon arrival. Where does that occur on the first leg? 

Ms. RYAN. When somebody seeks admission to the United States 

as a visitor, we actually get records from the airline industry before 

their arrival, and we run them for security screening measures. 

Then when somebody presents themselves for admission at a port 

of entry, we have to determine whether they are admissible to the 

U.S., and there are about 60 grounds of inadmissibility that an inspector is looking at to determine eligibility for arrival, so there is 

security screening both before and upon arrival for each applicant 

for admission. 

Mr. FLEMING. Does this happen under the visa waiver program? 

Ms. RYAN. Yes, sir. Under visa waiver we still get information 

about applicants for admission prior to arrival. The electronic data 

is still submitted to CBP, and then it is also—under visa waiver 

you are still—we still examine you for whether you are admissible 

to the U.S. and so we use that process both in Guam and CNMI. 

In terms of whether it is ESTA, the computer system you referred to, that is an expensive system and we are not using that 

because of appropriations, but we have the layered security screening that is required in both CNMI and in Guam, both prior to arrival and then at the port itself. 

Mr. FLEMING. So are there other security concerns for prohibiting 

the inclusion of Russians and Chinese? 

Ms. RYAN. The Secretary hasn’t yet made a determination regarding the proposal about whether to extend visa waiver to Russians and Chinese nationals. Security issues are always at the top 

of her list of considerations, obviously, as well as other factors that 

she can consider which would include the economic conditions. So 

we have evaluated the—we are in the process and have asked for 

intelligence about any security threat that would be posed by Russian and Chinese nationals. 

Mr. FLEMING. All right. So as I understand it, this is a two-step 

process. The first step is documentation only. That is prior to their 

leaving wherever their original site and then when they arrive to 

Guam or CNMI where they land, they are then screened both for 

documentation and biometrically at that point. But you are saying 

60 

that still there are some unresolved issues with respect to the Chinese and the Russians, and that is a hang up because you have 

heard today—I know when I was on Guam the Japanese travel industry was a big part of the economy. That was the big honeymoon 

place back in those days, and I know that has flattened out, and 

there is a very big potential with Chinese in particular because of 

the sheer size of the nation. 

So what is our barrier there? What are we running into? 

Ms. RYAN. First of all, with respect to CNMI, as you know, there 

have been parole Russian and Chinese nationals, and so I would 

agree that has been a very good program that is run fairly well, 

both with respect to Chinese and Russian nationals. There are 

questions about who in that population might choose to travel and 

so an evaluation has to be carefully done about whether there 

would be any national security issues or public safety issues in permitting visa waiver for both Guam and CNMI, and the Secretary, 

when the first rule was promulgated, took into consideration the 

economic factors in granting parole, but she will make a decision, 

I hope soon, with all the facts available to her about whether to 

extend the visa waiver program to Chinese and Russian nationals 

into Guam and CNMI, and I know that is a great issue to both 

CNMI and Guam, and she is very aware of that, and she has been 

looking at the totality of the circumstances, the factors to consider. 

Mr. FLEMING. My time is running out but just so I can be clear, 

the issue on the Chinese and the Russians is really the only thing 

left, the only piece left is Secretary of Homeland Security herself? 

Ms. RYAN. The authority is with the Secretary of the Homeland 

Security under the Immigration Nationality Act to make a determination on whether to permit visa waiver or travel extended to 

other countries as she did with the 12 that are in place right now. 

Mr. FLEMING. And we are waiting for her decision at this point? 

Ms. RYAN. Yes, DHS is in the final stages of putting that rule 

together. 

Mr. FLEMING. Right. OK, thank you. My time is up and I now 

yield to the Ranking Member Mr. Sablan. 

Mr. SABLAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Ms. Ryan, it looks like you are going to have a busy morning 

here. Let me start here. 

The one thing P.L. 110-229 requires is an interagency agreement 

describing Federal agency rules and responsibilities. I understand 

that in March of this year a memorandum of agreement was finalized between Federal agencies, and understanding the limitations 

of the time here, could you describe each agency’s role and responsibility here? 

Ms. RYAN. Yes, sir. Very briefly, DHS has, of course, responsibility for the administration and enforcement of the immigration 

laws. Department of State has responsibility for issuing visas. Department of Justice has responsibility for the immigration courts. 

Department of the Interior administers the authorities relating to 

the technical assistance to the CNMI, and then the Department of 

Labor adjudicates the labor certificates and applications, and would 

make prevailing wage determinations. 

Mr. SABLAN. And you have a way of coordinating all these efforts? 

61 

Ms. RYAN. Yes, sir, we do. 

Mr. SABLAN. The Federal Government way? 

Ms. RYAN. Yes, we are trying very hard to do that in a coordinated fashion. 

Mr. SABLAN. That is the way. Could we get a copy of that agreement? Could the Subcommittee get a copy of that? 

Ms. RYAN. Yes, sir. We would be pleased to provide it. 

Mr. SABLAN. Thank you. The CNMI only transitional worker regulations are currently under review by OMB. Why does it take so 

long to get the regs. to OMB? 

Ms. RYAN. The regulation process is a long one. I apologize to you 

for that, but it did take a long time because we were carefully considering all the various aspects of it. I am hopeful that it will be 

promulgated soon, and that will be another reg. that we will have 

out in the final status. But it was coordination within the government and trying to answer all the questions that were raised in the 

implementation phase to anticipate that. 

Mr. SABLAN. Could we expect—I mean, we have seen the first 

one that was issued, you know, sometime back. Is the Department 

responsive to the extensive comments provided by our government, 

by the Guam government, by the CNMI workers? Could we say 

that you guys took a serious look at these things and reacted to it, 

responded to it, did something about it because you had to? 

Ms. RYAN. Ranking Member Sablan, I can’t really talk about the 

final rule until it is actually promulgated, but yes, we absolutely 

took the comments of our stakeholders quite seriously in developing the final rule. 

Mr. SABLAN. And we expect the regs. out within the 90-days? 

Ms. RYAN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. SABLAN. We don’t really think it is going to back to the Department, is it, to OMB? 

Ms. RYAN. I hope we can get it out as quickly as possible, but 

I cannot make any representations on the speed at which it will 

come from OMB, but it is at OMB which is a very good sign. 

Mr. SABLAN. By the time everything went really well, hunkydory, maybe at the latest it would be September, no? 

Ms. RYAN. Hopeful, that is absolutely the case. 

Mr. SABLAN. And your Department is ready to address, to prepare for the volume of applications that will have to be processed 

before November 27? 

Ms. RYAN. Yes, sir. We have actually been anticipating that there 

would be a large volume, and we have been coming up with plans 

in order to address that. 

Mr. SABLAN. Yes, your Hawaii, Guam and CNMI offices are prepared for this? 

Ms. RYAN. Yes, and our California Service Center. 

Mr. SABLAN. All right. And do you have any plans to do outreach 

in the Commonwealth? 

Ms. RYAN. Absolutely, we will do outreach. We will have information on the website as well as in face-to-face meetings and we will 

try to make sure that everybody is aware of the way that the rule 

will operate. 

Mr. SABLAN. But because this is the Federal Government we 

never know what can happen, so in case it doesn’t—the regulations 

62 

don’t come out by November 27, is the Secretary prepared to use 

her parole authority to allow CNMI umbrella permit holders to remain lawfully in the Commonwealth until the regulations are 

issued and the applications are adjudicated? 

Ms. RYAN. I appreciate how important this is and your desire to 

have reassurance on contingency plans, and yes, we have contingency plans. We hope not to have to employ them. We hope to have 

the rule out and employers and petitioners well aware of how to 

take advantage of the new program. 

Mr. SABLAN. I will be back with you. 

Good morning, Hazel. Hazel, good morning. 

Ms. DOCTOR. Good morning. 

Mr. SABLAN. You are not going to fall asleep there on us, are 

you? 

Ms. DOCTOR. Oh, no, I am fine here. 

Mr. SABLAN. Isn’t this wonderful having you 8,000 miles away 

and testifying before Congress? Thank you, Chairman Fleming. 

Chairman Fleming allowed the use of the video and we really appreciate it. 

But Hazel, you are not a boastful person. I have known you practically all of your life. You used to chill out at my house because 

you were classmates with my daughter, and you graduated valedictorian of Mount Carmel High School. I know you have been offered 

a $60,000 scholarship to come to the university in the States. You 

said you plan to become a psychiatrist, return to the Northern 

Marianas to use your skill. We need smart, young people with professional training to build our economy, to make the Commonwealth a prosperous and a beautiful community to live in. 

Let me ask, what if your parents are forced to leave? Are we 

going to lose you? 

Ms. DOCTOR. Most definitely. It would definitely be heartbreaking for me to come back to the islands knowing that my foundation, the people that I have grown up with are gone. It would 

be very sad to see the same people that I grew up with whose parents are also non-resident workers, to, you know, probably come 

back with that same feeling or maybe not at all, and these are the 

types of people who do have the intention of coming back as engineers, as accountants, as business managers and other great and 

very necessary jobs that are critical and important for the economy, 

economic development. 

Mr. SABLAN. I know my time is up. Just one thing. We have 

heard testimony described as families being held by H.R. 1466 are 

unemployed, unemployable, and without means of support. Hazel, 

20 years, your parents have been there for 20 years. Can you tell 

us about your parents? What do they do for a living? How long 

have they worked in the Northern Marianas? How did they get to 

private school? 

Ms. DOCTOR. Well, they are both accountants and they have been 

working here for almost two decades, and they managed to get me 

through a private school, both my sister and I, through a lot of savings and some great financial aid. They have been working very 

hard and I can see that parents with children just like me are 

doing the same thing. They, too, have a low income threshold and 

try to make a great living with whatever they can to send their 

63 

children to a better way of life here on the islands, and I really 

hope it continues that way. 

Mr. SABLAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My time is up. 

Mr. FLEMING. I thank the gentleman, the Ranking Member. 

Now, Mr. Young, sir, you have five minutes. 

Mr. YOUNG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I don’t have questions 

now but I will submit questions to Ms. Ryan, and my interest in 

this is very clear. The delegate came to me and said this is a problem in my district, and the lady from Guam mentioned the same 

thing, and I want to believe that if it is their problem I will help 

them solve it. I believe this very strongly. I always have and always will. 

I just have one question for the sponsor. We are talking about 

4,000 people, correct? 

Mr. SABLAN. Yes, sir. GAO just said that an Interior’s report said 

that. 

Mr. YOUNG. And there is no chance of that increasing if we pass 

this law? 

Mr. SABLAN. No, sir, because on May 28th you have to have been 

a resident on May 28, 2008, and on the day of the enactment of 

this, so there are two ends of law. No, sir, it doesn’t have any 

chance of increasing. 

Mr. YOUNG. Now, is there any restriction of these people if they 

don’t meet the income threshold? I understand they have to be 

making a certain amount of money but they are under minimum 

wage, I believe, some of them, so that is a problem. Can this law 

that you are proposing overcome that? 

Mr. SABLAN. Presently, sir, Chairman Young, the reason I am— 

personally many of these people, the Marianas’ citizens, have for 

many purposes of law met the Immigration Nationality Act requirements. Some of them are walking around with one more additional requirement they need to fill and it is they need to fill a financial sponsor requirement, and that is holding back some of 

these people, holding back from converting the status. 

Now, if 1466 does not help these people, those people who have 

for purposes of the law met all the other requirements will on November 28th be deportable. 

Mr. YOUNG. Will be deportable, but can one of the departments, 

the Homelands or Interior, stop that deportation? 

Mr. SABLAN. I think they do. They may disagree with me but I 

think the Secretary of Homeland Security has the authority to 

issue a parole in place for these people except the parole in places 

are discretionary and they are only for two years at a time, or annual, they are annual. They are for one year at a time. That is free. 

That has no income threshold requirement, but it is the same thing 

that they go through every year now, it is one year at a time, and 

two years from now we could have a different Secretary of Homeland Security and they would just change their mind about the 

whole thing and then we will be in the same place we are at today. 

Mr. YOUNG. That is why it is important to pass this legislation. 

Mr. SABLAN. And urgent. Promptly yes. 

Mr. YOUNG. Urgently. Last may I ask you, the opposition to this 

would be based upon what? 

Mr. SABLAN. I have absolutely no idea. 

64 

Mr. YOUNG. OK, the reason I ask that, and by the way, young 

lady, you do a great job. You are going to go a long way in this 

life of yours. You speak very well. You are well educated, a classic 

example, a classic example of parents putting their money into the 

future, and it would be wrong to have you separated from your parents. 

So what we have to do is look at the solution and get it passed. 

Unfortunately, we have to remember I think we would have luck 

here. You have a sink hole on the other side, like it is on I-95 right 

now, or 495. I don’t know whether you heard the news today, the 

highway sunk. 

Mr. SABLAN. Oh, yes. 

Mr. YOUNG. Well, that is the Senate side. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. YOUNG. So we have to fight that battle but let us see if we 

can do it. I want to congratulate the delegates for their work, and 

the Members that are here, and let us go ahead and get this legislation. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. FLEMING. Thank you. The gentleman from Alaska yields 

back. 

Next, Mrs. Bordallo, the gentlelady from Guam. 

Mrs. BORDALLO. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I 

want to thank Congressman Young for his kind words, and I know 

he will help us as well as yourself. 

Before I begin my questioning I would like to recognize a few 

people in the audience. We have our Speaker, the Guam Legislature who is here. We have Joann Camacho, the former first lady 

of Guam and general Manager of the Guam Business Bureau, and 

I would also like to note the presence of Senator Tina Muna Barnes 

who is with the 31st Guam Legislature and she chairs the Committee on Municipal Affairs, Tourism, Housing, and Recreation. 

They are tireless advocates for Guam’s tourism industry, and I do 

appreciate it, and I want to say a warm ‘‘Hafa Adai’’ to everyone 

in the audience today, my friends from CNMI and Guam. 

If first want to ask Governor Calvo, thank you for your testimony, Governor. Can you give the Committee a sense of the economic importance of extending the Guam CNMI visa waiver program to China and Russia? And how important is this to Guam’s 

future economic prosperity? 

And further, some have suggested you can’t have a military build 

up and an expansion of a visa waiver. Now, I believe that is a false 

choice for the people of Guam, and as such, can you comment on 

where local commanders on Guam, in particular, Admiral Buchan, 

may be on the issue of extending waiver to Russia and China in 

Guam? And if there were to be security concerns, then I would expect those concerns to be raised by the local commanders first. Can 

you comment on that? 

Governor CALVO. Sure, on two points. On the economic importance to Guam, again we have a 13.6 percent unemployment rate 

here. 2009, we were at 9 percent. Within that two-year period we 

have created 1,000 new jobs. The big question, of course, how the 

heck did that happen? How did you get more jobs created but your 

unemployment growing? And that is why it was so important to 

65 

bring up the FAS question, because we have had 87 percent growth 

in five years of FAS immigrants from 2002 to 2007, so we have a 

fast growing population. Right now because of our military industry and our tourism service industry, those are the two pillars. 

The military side right now, we are not too sure, again things are 

happening in the Senate with the Marine buildup, which I am advocate for, but when we had 900,000 tourists coming from Japan, 

our biggest market, out of a total of 15 million outbound market 

out of Japan, when that tsunami hit we experienced a 30 percent 

drop off on the Japanese market, and again it has had a significant 

impact and has thrown us back into a recession. 

We look at China, and I go back to Japan, 15 million outbound 

tourists, China, 55 million, Russia, 13 million. The average American tourist spends around 100 to 150 dollars a day. The Japanese 

tourist spends about 300 some dollars a day. The Chinese tourists 

spends $600 a day and the Russians spend $900 a day. That is just 

how they spend. 

The importance to Guam for that access and how it can help both 

Guam and Northern Marianas in terms of our economic well being 

has a positive effect to the United States. You know, one of the 

things I am concerned about, I have been talking with the State 

Department, I am going from here to Utah for the Governors Conference, and they have a whole bunch of Chinese Governors there 

meeting with American Governors to try to get—how we can get 

this bilateral trade to get a bunch of Uwan back to the United 

States, so we are trying to build this—even this deficit, but again, 

the most easiest way to do it is to get Chinese tourists who are just 

four hours a way to Guam. 

Security issue, I for the life of me can’t understand it. The largest group of college students in the United States today coming in 

from a foreign country, they come from Mainland China. They are 

coming to our universities. I have talked to our military commanders back there in Guam. They are not concerned about it. I 

have talked to Undersecretary Work. They don’t have an issue with 

it. I am not too sure. As far as I am concerned when I am going 

to Washington, D.C. we have been trying to find out where the potential areas of the concern. I am not seeing it from the Defense 

Department so I assume it is coming from Homeland Security. 

Mrs. BORDALLO. Thank you. Thank you very much, Governor. 

You did answer the question, and I am taking up a little of what 

the Chairman had mentioned to Secretary Ryan. You specifically 

said security is not an issue. Did I hear that right? 

Ms. RYAN. I said, Congresswoman, that we take into account, or 

the Secretary, through the interagency consultation with the Department of the Interior, Department of Defense, and Department 

of State would factor in whether there was a security risk in extending VWP for Chinese and Russian nationals, and she has not 

made her final decision yet, but that would be a factor as well as 

the economic opportunity that such travel might bring. 

Mrs. BORDALLO. Maybe I can understand. I thought I understood 

that the decision now is solely up to the Secretary. You have done 

your work. 

66 

Ms. RYAN. The Secretary of Homeland Security has the authority 

under the INA. She is going to make a decision after we had consulted with those departments that I have talked to you about. 

Mrs. BORDALLO. I did meet the Secretary just recently during a 

caucus meeting, and she told me she was going to get back to me, 

and I spoke to her about the urgency of this, and I want to ask a 

couple of pointed questions here if you would. 

The Department of Homeland Security, how much longer do you 

have to study what needs to be done to issue the final rule? We 

have been on hold for too long, and I just want an idea of when 

you think the decision from the Secretary will take place. Can you 

give us any time frame? 

Ms. RYAN. As someone who has worked as an Executive Branch 

lawyer, I hate to give a deadline that I can’t promise and I don’t 

control when she is going to take decisions, so I would say I fully 

appreciate how important this is to Guam and to CNMI, and I will 

make sure I do everything possible to urge a decision, but I can’t 

give you a deadline, but I will take back exactly what you have 

said to her, and make sure that her counselors are aware of how 

important this issue is to you and to the Committee. 

Mrs. BORDALLO. We are simply asking for parole authority. That 

is what we are asking for. Just as the Northern Marianas gets at 

this point, and I just don’t understand. I thought the decision was 

going to be made before the end of last year, and we are still holding onto this, and it is very frustrating to say the least, and I was 

promised that a decision would be made very soon. 

So, you don’t have an answer to any of these questions. In other 

words, security is not entirely out? 

Ms. RYAN. I would have to say representing the Department of 

Homeland Security that looking at the national security issues 

with respect to immigration is always—it is fundamental to our 

job, so that is part of the calculation she would make in deciding 

whether to extend parole to Guam or to extend VWP to Chinese 

and Russian nationals in Guam and CNMI. It is always going to 

be a factor in any calculation she makes as well as the economic 

issues and other factors that are available to her. 

Mrs. BORDALLO. And for the record, Secretary, Admiral Buchan, 

who spoke on behalf of DOD, he is our local admiral, he stated very 

clearly no concerns on their part, so I don’t understand how that 

security just keeps coming up over and over. 

Ms. RYAN. Thank you very much for that information. I wasn’t 

aware of his view but I will let her know that as well. We have 

been talking to DOD here in Washington, but I am very pleased 

to take that information back to her. 

Mrs. BORDALLO. Thank you very much and I yield back, Mr. 

Chair. 

Mr. FLEMING. I thank the gentlelady. Next the Chair recognizes 

the gentlelady from Hawaii, Ms. Hanabusa. 

Ms. HANABUSA. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. 

Secretary Ryan, have you had the opportunity to read the testimony of the Governor of CNMI? 

Ms. RYAN. Are you talking about today’s testimony? 

Ms. HANABUSA. Right. 

67 

Ms. RYAN. No, I have not read it in full. I have only been able 

to listen to his oral testimony today, but I will do that when I get 

back to my office. 

Ms. HANABUSA. Well, let us just go through what you heard in 

terms of his testimony. He has raised an opposition to this particular measure, about 11 different concerns. Do you know if the 

rule that you are proposing to implement, I think, by mid-September was your estimate, would be addressing his concerns that 

you heard him testify to? 

Ms. RYAN. I understood the Governor to be talking about the people that aren’t currently covered in the transition rule, and stating 

an opposition to that, and then I heard my colleague from GAO 

suggest the number that he had raised might be somewhat inflated. 

My understanding with the investor rule is that we will (a) be 

ready for it in advance of the November 28th deadline; and that 

we are fully engaged in having it be operationalized. I don’t think 

it would cover the people covered in Mr. Sablan’s bill as I understand it. They are a different category of people. 

So, I think what we have committed to is looking at parole authority for certain groups that were not covered in the CNRA, and 

also working with the Committee on the legislation itself as it 

moves forward. 

Ms. HANABUSA. OK, that is an important point because I want 

it to be clear in my mind that you are not talking about the same 

group that Mr. Sablan is speaking to. He is talking about 4,000 

very specific individuals. So the rule that you have testified to that 

will take effect in mid-September will not cover those 4,000, so Ms. 

Doctor’s, for example, her parents would fall through the cracks. 

Ms. RYAN. The rule that will come out relating to the worker, the 

worker rule, will permit petitioners to file for persons there, but as 

I understand it the categories of people that Mr. Sablan’s bill is designed to address would not necessarily be covered by that. There 

may be some crossover in some cases. I don’t want to mislead the 

Committee, but my understanding is he is trying to help four specific groups of people, that maybe three to four thousand persons 

in size that would not automatically be covered by our rule that 

will come out before November 28th, hopefully. 

Ms. HANABUSA. So assuming that Ms. Doctor’s parents fall into 

the category that is not covered, what then will happen to them 

come November? 

Ms. RYAN. Well, as I understand from Ms. Doctor, and I don’t 

have access to her family’s records, but as I understand her parents right now don’t have the ability post-November 28th to remain 

lawfully in CNMI absent either parole or some other legislative action. But again, I don’t have specific access, but that is how I understand the situation to be in Ms. Doctor’s case. 

Ms. HANABUSA. So in that situation the only way that we would 

be able to ensure that Ms. Doctor will continue her education in 

the United States and return to CNMI as a psychiatrist would be 

if her parents are somehow covered under 1466? 

Ms. RYAN. As I understand it, there is, I think, three options. If 

the bill passes, that presumably her parents would be covered, 

there would be parole, the potential for parole, and the third option 

68 

would be if her parents’ employers petitioned for her and got her 

employment status based on their working relationship with her, 

so I think there are three avenues that I think are available, depending on the actual circumstances. 

Ms. HANABUSA. And Ms. Ryan, given the fact that, and this is 

no insult but it has taken so long and we are talking about November of this year, is it that the bill is probably the most fail/safe way 

to address this specific group of 4,000? 

Ms. RYAN. On the investor rule, I would say that while it has 

taken a long time part of the reason that that is the case was that 

we were enjoined from implementing it by Federal litigation, so 

that has been a part of the delays that I should say. 

I think, given the timing here, we are very aware that we need 

to get our rule out so that employers have opportunities to make 

those filings. I am not sure about the calendar of the Congress and 

which one will happen first. I suspect our rule will get out before 

there would be an opportunity—— 

Ms. HANABUSA. We already know that your rule will not address 

this group of people. 

Ms. RYAN. It would address it potentially, as I said, some of 

them. 

Ms. HANABUSA. Right. 

Ms. RYAN. Because if they had an employer who could file a petition on their behalf, but as I understand it from the description of 

the Ranking Member, it would not cover all of them. 

Ms. HANABUSA. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

Mr. FLEMING. I thank the gentlelady. Next recognized is Mr. 

Faleomavaega. Thank you, sir. He is passing on questions. Thank 

you, sir. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I do want 

to commend you for your leadership and initiative in bringing these 

two pieces of legislation for consideration, and I also thank your 

Ranking Member for his services and leadership in working in this 

Subcommittee. 

I do want to offer my personal welcomes to our distinguished 

guests on the panel here as witnesses: my good friend Governor 

Fitial and also Governor Calvo. Dr. Gootnick, always good to see 

you. Secretary Ryan and Mr. Nik Pula with the Office of Insular 

Affairs, and Ms. Pierce, we welcome you for your testimony that 

has been born here. 

I have so many questions I don’t know where to begin with, but 

am I correct, Mr. Chairman, that we ought to focus primarily on 

Mr. Sablan’s bill, H.R. 1466? 

Mr. FLEMING. That is correct, but we are going to have a second 

round of questions. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. I understand that. So I do want to thank 

Governor Fitial for his testimony, and very substantive I might 

say, and Governor Calvo, I am going to reserve my questions for 

you in the next panel dealing with our situation in Guam. 

I thought your comments, Governor Fitial, were quite substantive in the fact that you have twice made testimonies before 

this Subcommittee on the same issues—failure to grant visa waivers, failure to depart illegal aliens, failure to monitor exits of tourists, failure to provide Congress with useful reports. 

69 

I understand there is some little disagreement with you and my 

good friend Mr. Sablan and H.R. 1466. Do you think there may be 

a possibility that we can work out some basis of agreement in 

terms of the substance of the proposed bill, and with what Mr. 

Sablan has provided in H.R. 1466? 

Governor FITIAL. Absolutely. Let me just make it very clear that 

we are talking about four classifications of, you know, U.S. citizens, 

and I have no qualms over the first three. I am only concerned 

about the fourth category which would grant, you know, citizenship 

to parents of U.S. citizen children. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. So, Governor, your concerns have been well 

taken, so we can work with Mr. Sablan in a way that we can cure 

some of the concerns that you are raising. 

Governor FITIAL. Right, and the concern of, you know, the young 

lady here, her parents—as long as they have permits, working permits, they have no problem. I want to make that very clear. They 

will not be deported as long as they have valid working permits. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Well, you know we have a similar situation 

here in our country where we have parents who were not here legally but children were born here as U.S. citizens, and questions 

of deportation come into play and a very, very serious problem that 

we are faced with here in our country, and I realized the sensitivities involved here, and I sincerely hope that the concerns that you 

have raised here, Governor, will be such that we can work with my 

good friend Mr. Sablan and—— 

Mr. SABLAN. Would the gentleman—— 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. I would gladly yield but I have real—— 

Mr. SABLAN. Just one comment. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Please 

Mr. SABLAN. Because I don’t think it in the Commonwealth’s 

place to now say that the parents of individuals like Hazel Doctor 

will not be deported because it is Ms. Ryan’s department that controls immigration, no longer Governor Fitial, and that is the law. 

So we can’t continue to be delusional that they will be fine when 

the Commonwealth no longer controls the borders. That is all. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. I thank the gentleman, and I am going to 

ask Secretary Ryan—— 

Governor FITIAL. If I may. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Please, Governor. 

Governor FITIAL. That is why I am proposing, you know, an H5 visa that would accommodate workers instead of just families, 

OK. So if we can accommodate the parents of that young lady, you 

know, to continue working, then that is my proposal. They will 

never be deported. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. OK, Governor, I realize that my time is 

short but I will definitely raise that issue with my good friend 

Sablan. 

Secretary Ryan, it is my understanding the Department of Defense is with the visa waiver program, the Department of the Interior, but the State Department raises objections, and at this point 

in time Homeland Security has not issued. Is it because of the 

State Department’s objections or what seems to be the problem? 

We keep talking about security issues. We have 680,000 foreign 

students attending American colleges and universities and the ChiVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:06 Jul 03, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00073 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 L:\DOCS\67403.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
70 

nese are number one, about 100,000 of those students are from 

China. And so where are the security concerns that Homeland Security might have on the visa waiver program for the Russians and 

the Chinese to come? 

Ms. RYAN. Well, respectfully, sir, I would say that the students 

that come here from all over the world are screened and actually 

obtain a visa, and so they are interviewed to make sure that they 

don’t pose a threat to public safety or national security. So, again, 

it is the totality of the circumstances that the Secretary looks at. 

I would be recalcitrant in my job if I didn’t identify national security or public safety as a critical factor in any determination on 

making categorical parole decisions or visa waiver. 

But I am not here to say which agencies are coming out which 

way, but I can assure you that we are working in consultation with 

those agencies to get a decision from the Secretary.— 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Well, we have been saying that for the past 

three years, Ms. Ryan, and we still haven’t solved some of these 

problems. 

I am sorry. I yield back. My time is up. 

Ms. RYAN. May I make one more point about Ms. Doctor’s family 

which I think is important to the discussion? 

If the bill were to pass, then her family would have, of course, 

access to lawful permanent residence first and then citizenship. 

The other opportunity would be if her parents were able to have 

their employer petition for them. That, of course, would be just a 

transitional or it would be a temporary situation because it is a 

transitional worker, and that non-immigrant status would sense 

that, so they would not have any permanent ability to remain in 

CNMI, and I guess I wanted to make that clear to the Committee 

and to understand the differences in the options that I offered. 

Mr. FLEMING. Well, we have completed a round of questioning 

and I do thank the witnesses for your testimony and your willingness to answer questions very straightforwardly. I think that the 

panel here would like to have another round of questions if you are 

up to the task, so therefore I am going to go ahead and recognize 

myself for five minutes. 

I want to pick up kind of where I left off, and this question is 

for Governor Calvo. We really drilled down, I did and others on the 

panel, on the issue of security risk, particularly on Guam because 

that is an area that seems to be confusing that we don’t have parole authority on Guam for the same visitors that we have on 

Saipan, for instance. So, I want to ask you, sir, are you satisfied 

that the security issues have been explained to you and that you 

are knowledgeable about everything that we may be up against on 

that? 

Governor CALVO. Again, Mr. Chairman, this is my second time 

to Washington, D.C. meeting with folks at the State Department, 

at the Defense Department, at Homeland Security, and, of course, 

again with Members of Congress in the House, I don’t see, at least 

from the point of the Defense Department, the levels that I have 

talked to them, whether it was Under Secretary Work or Secretary 

Forrestal, or the Admiral or the General, these concerns on security. 

71 

You go to an island like Guam, anyone who has been there understanding the access to the military bases, both Anderson and 

Big Navy, which is the base in the harbor area there, those facilities are fenced in and they are secure. So even for local residents 

it is—and in order to get into these facilities you need to have the 

proper credentials. 

The irony I see in all of this, Mr. Chairman, is the concerns that 

they are bringing up with China and Russia, and again the good 

Congressman from Samoa mentioned that, you know. We have 

100,000 students that come in from China to go to school here, and 

once they get into the contiguous 48 states, it is hard to track 

them. Guam is 212 square miles. The security issues, I don’t see. 

It would be more easy for an enemy of the United States to go 

through FAS, the Freely Associated States, because there has been 

a problem, and I have seen it, and I have heard about it from our 

officials in Guam where you have an FAS passport. Some folks 

come in here, then, of course, they have been deported, but they 

just change their names and a year or so later they come back in, 

and when they hit the U.S. officials at the airport, they come right 

in. Hey, there is this treaty. 

So the issues on security to me are ironic because I don’t see it 

coming from China or from Russia. If there was even an issue of 

security is if there would be an infiltration coming from maybe 

someone from an FAS state. 

Mr. FLEMING. OK. Thank you, sir. 

Then, Ms. Ryan, you know, Members of Congress have security 

clearance, and I don’t want your answer to, of course, breach security limits in any way, shape or form, but my question is if we were 

to have a closed door hearing with officials from DHS and State 

Department, would we be able to get a better understanding of 

what some of these obstacles may be? 

Ms. RYAN. We would be pleased to provide all the information in 

a secure setting, and again, I just want to reiterate for all here that 

there seems to be a lot of focus on security as if this was the only 

issue. Obviously, the Secretary looks at the totality of the circumstances and that would include, you know, the overstay rates 

of people who would come in, it would include also cooperation on 

return of their nationals in the deportation context for people that 

we have to remove, but we would be glad to provide you the information that she is privy to that we have gathered through the 

interagency. 

Mr. FLEMING. OK. Well, then I would certainly suggest to the 

panel that we pursue that. That may help give us a better insight 

and understanding, and maybe even timeline because I know that 

is a big issue here today is it is in the Secretary’s hands, but nobody can tell us when she is going to make a decision. 

Well, if we know something that she is looking at maybe we can 

get a better understanding as to what that timeline may be, so I 

will suggest that. 

Well, with that I am going to yield back, and let’s see, the gentleman—the Ranking Member Mr. Sablan is recognized for five 

minutes. 

Mr. SABLAN. Thank you again, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Ryan, please 

bear with me. 

72 

The expiration of asylum Public Law 110-229 provides that the 

asylum provision of INA shall not apply during the transition period to persons physically present or arriving in the Northern Mariana Islands regardless of how or where entry occurs. There are 

two conflicting references to the date on the prohibition. 1702-AC 

states that asylum shall not apply during the transition period 

which expires December 31, 2014. Section 207-J5 states that no 

one is permitted to apply for asylum under INS Section 28 prior 

to January 1, 2014. 

Now, what is the Department’s position on the expiration date of 

that bar? 

Ms. RYAN. Ranking Member Sablan, our position is that it is 

the—under the DHS and Department of Justice rule that we published in October of 2009 we believe that the January 1, 2014, date 

was a clerical error in the CNRA and therefore as a matter of law 

the asylum bar expires on December 31, 2014. 

Mr. SABLAN. Wait, wait, wait. So you have no problem with those 

two conflicting dates? 

Ms. RYAN. Well, our regulations and the DOJ regulations construe the statute to make it December 31, 2014, but we would welcome statutory clarification to resolve the discrepancy. 

Mr. SABLAN. Oh, all right. OK. The Commonwealth government, 

our Governor, my Governor and I agree that the bar on asylum 

should be extended. I have introduced H.R. 2395 to provide for 

such an extension to coincide with extensions to the transition period. The bill is not the subject of today’s hearing but what concerns, if any, does the Department have about the bill or extending 

the asylum bar? 

Ms. RYAN. One of the chief goals of the CNRA was to harmonize 

U.S. immigration law in the CNMI with our Federal immigration 

law, so we think it is especially important in areas of humanitarian 

protection. So we would like persons who need to seek asylum to 

be able to enjoy that ability in the CNMI, so the harmonization 

issue is one that presents itself. 

Mr. SABLAN. Right. No, I am a Democrat. I agree with all those 

human rights thing, but until we clean out some of the issues that 

we have there I think it would be appropriate that we just make 

it to the transition date up here. 

Now let me say another impact of P.L. 110-229—I am running 

out of time here—was recently brought to my attention. A surface 

freight provider that travels between ports, Saipan and Guam. 

They are having difficulty obtaining work visas for the crew as a 

result of the transition. The BART operates routinely between the 

ports and the islands, it provides bi-weekly service, and bringing 

non-perishable and frozen foods, different things between the others. For Tina and Unready, it is personally doing surface, freight 

provider servicing the islands. The CNMI was considered a foreign 

port prior to 110-229. The visas previously held by the crew were 

allowed to—them to travel between Guam because it is part of the 

U.S. 

Recognizing the need for—DHS has cooperated for a one-year period. I mean, thank you very much and I appreciate the help of 

your Hawaii office, very important here, but what can the DepartVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:06 Jul 03, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00076 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 L:\DOCS\67403.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
73 

ment do to assist the company in a situation, particularly now during this transition period? 

Ms. RYAN. Yes. I just became aware of this issue yesterday and 

I am sorry I don’t have a more complete answer, but we can explore ways to—creative ways to try to make sure that the employees on the ship are covered. I don’t have an answer today, but I 

will get you one. 

Mr. SABLAN. Thank you. One more thing before I let you go. I 

promise this is the last one for you. 

If DHS does not issue regs. out by November, you know, if Secretary could use parole authority to allow workers to remain in the 

CNMI, right? 

Ms. RYAN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. SABLAN. But would these workers still also be allowed to 

work? 

Ms. RYAN. With parole authority we can grant employment authorization. 

Mr. SABLAN. Parole allows you to stay, right? 

Ms. RYAN. Parole permits you to stay lawfully in the United 

States. 

Mr. SABLAN. But you need separate authorization to work? 

Ms. RYAN. Yes. 

Mr. SABLAN. And the Secretary can do that? 

Ms. RYAN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. SABLAN. OK, thank you. 

Ms. Pierce, thank you for being here, taking the long trek also. 

And I don’t need your—you know better than I do the importance 

of Russian and Chinese visitors to the Commonwealth. It has 

strengthened the economy. In your view, how would extending parole to Russian and Chinese tourists to enter Guam and eventually 

including Russia and China in the Guam/CNMI visa waiver program have on tourism in the Northern Marianas? 

Ms. ALDAN-PIERCE. Thank you for your question. 

Actually we see this as a positive opportunity. We see it as Guam 

complementing, you know, what we have to offer. We are different 

destinations, so basically what it will do is offer travelers coming 

to the Marianas one more menu of things to do which would work 

very nicely with the extending of the time that is allowed, that 

gives travelers, you know, to stay, being extended from 15 days to 

45 days. That was the intent is to give the traveler the opportunity 

to go and visit, hopefully visit multiple islands. 

You know, we are all very different. There are four inhabited islands in the Marianas—Guam, Saipan, Tinian and Rota—and each 

island offers different—you know, different experience. So we see 

that as an opportunity, plus it is no secret, Guam is a lot bigger 

than we are. They have resources that we don’t have, Governor 

Calvo, and I think it will be—it will help the CNMI, especially in 

trying times such as these. We do not have a budget they do. 

Mr. SABLAN. Thank you. I am running out of time. Just one 

more, may I? 

Ms. ALDAN-PIERCE. I can say more. 

Mr. SABLAN. Making the case for my H.R. 1466, because I say 

it will stabilize the workforce in the Marianas and have a positive 

impact. Out of curiosity, your company, your business DFS, do they 

74 

employ people who are families within the four groups? Because 

I—no question in my mind that your company is one of the best 

companies in the Northern Mariana Islands, and I am so proud of 

what you guys do in the entire Pacific region. 

But do you employ any of these individuals in one of the four 

groups? 

Ms. ALDAN-PIERCE. We actually—DFS, we have a little bit over 

200 employees. Out of those we have 25 who are immediate relatives. Out of those immediate relatives, there are five who are 

married to FAS, so there will be those five impacted. Plus we have 

three who are CNMI permanent residents. 

In terms of how many are contract workers with U.S. citizen 

children, I actually posed the question just last night and we were 

not able to get that information, but I certainly can submit at a 

later date. 

Mr. SABLAN. May I say that if 1466 passes, it will provide stability to your employees and then thus your company and thus the 

prosperity of the Northern Mariana Islands. 

Ms. ALDAN-PIERCE. We have we call the Coffee Hour whereby 

members of the management committee sit down and talk to, you 

know, various groups within our company, and one of the things 

that always comes up, especially for, you know, those classes of 

people who are not covered, the ones who are falling through the 

cracks so to speak, every time we sit down with them they always 

talk about, you know, what is going to happen to them and their 

families. 

So, you know, it is a lot of—they get very emotional, and all we 

can say is not to worry because hopefully things will happen in 

Washington, D.C. 

Mr. SABLAN. Thank you very much. My time is up. 

Mr. LANDRY. [Presiding.] The Chair now recognizes Mrs. Bordallo 

for five minutes. 

Mrs. BORDALLO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I would ask a special request, that I would like for you to recognize my friend from Puerto Rico first. He has another committee 

meeting to go to, and then I will be happy to take up my questions 

later. 

Mr. LANDRY. Sure. 

Mrs. BORDALLO. Mr. Pierluisi from Puerto Rico. 

Mr. LANDRY. Sure. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Pierluisi for 

five minutes. 

Mr. PIERLUISI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Let me first say to the witnesses here present that you have seen 

me coming in and getting out of here. The reason is I am a member 

of the Judiciary Committee and there is a Full Committee markup 

requiring my presence for votes. Otherwise I would be here for the 

whole time. But before I excuse myself once again let me first say 

that I sit here in full solidarity with aspirations and needs of my 

fellow citizens and residents in the two territories that are so well 

represented here today by Governor Calvo and Governor Fitial. So 

count on my support. I represent Puerto Rico, by the way, a sister 

territory. 

Now for the record I would like to show my strong support for 

both legislative measures before us. H.R. 1466 and H.R. 44, and to 

75 

associate myself with the positions of my colleagues, Ranking Member Sablan, and our former Chairwoman Madeleine Bordallo. 

Mr. Chairman, I urge your support for both of these bills and 

hope that with your and Chairman Hastings’ leadership these 

measures will be embraced by the Full House without delay. As our 

witnesses remind us, passage of both bills is time sensitive. Separation of families in the Northern Mariana Islands is not something 

that should occur on this Committee’s watch, and as November 28 

looms, this Committee should take prompt action to report out 

H.R. 1466. 

As a member of the Immigration Subcommittee and the Judiciary Committee, I am keenly interested in resolving this matter. I 

note that a Full Committee—as I said, there is an ongoing matter 

before the Judiciary Committee and that is why I am not going to 

continue being here. But let me also take this opportunity to implore the Subcommittee to embrace H.R. 44. 

The record is complete on this subject, and I was honored to 

speak on the House Floor in support of this legislation in my first 

few weeks as a Member of Congress in 2009. It is disappointing 

this issue remains unresolved for fellow Americans from Guam. 

There simply is no justification for the continued denial of justice, 

and this Congress has before it a thorough and sound report from 

the Federal commission that was appointed by the previous Administration to examine this issue. The findings and recommendations 

are as compelling today as they were when delivered in this very 

room on July 21, 2004. 

So, I also thank the witnesses for their testimony, and Mr. 

Chairman, I yield the balance of my time. 

Mr. LANDRY. Thank you. The Chair will now recognize Mrs. 

Bordallo for five minutes. 

Mrs. BORDALLO. Thank you very much, and I do want to thank 

my colleague for his kind words and words of support for these 

bills. 

After the interim final rule on Public Law 110-229 was released 

by the Bush Administration, I worked closely with DHS to ensure 

that parole authority was extended to CNMI concurrently with congressional intent and because of the immediate economic impact 

loss of Chinese and Russian tourists would have on the CNMI market. Unfortunately, the reason GDP economic data indicates that 

parole authority in the CNMI isn’t working. 

So my question is for both Governor Fitial and Ms. Pierce, can 

you discuss the potential economic benefit to our region if parole 

authority was extended to Guam and the final rule includes China 

and Russia? Governor. 

Governor FITIAL. Thank you, Madam Bordallo. 

I have testified previously on that very issue that you raised and 

I am consistently supporting the visa waiver for both CNMI and 

Guam. I strongly believe that, and I stated in my testimony that 

the parole policy, you know, by DHS is not an alternative. We need 

the visa waiver, you know, to secure the economic benefit that 

comes about as a result of the visa waiver for both CNMI and 

Guam. So that is my request. 

Mrs. BORDALLO. Thank you, Governor. 

76 

Would you agree with this comment: that the current parole authority is a cumbersome and complicated process for visitors? 

Governor FITIAL. That is true. 

Mrs. BORDALLO. All right. And Ms. Pierce, would you have any 

comments to make? If you could make it brief because our time is 

always running out. 

Ms. ALDAN-PIERCE. In terms of—I am not sure about the economic activity. What I know is that there are over—the number for 

China is not 55 million. The projection for 2011 is 65 million outbound market. So in terms of, you know, sheer numbers to Guam, 

I don’t know what you—Guam is lucky because you guys have 

more access to air service, you know. Right now one of the reasons 

why it is very hard for the CNMI to grow our China market and 

Russia market is because of the instability of air service. 

Our China, our PRC visitors come to the CNMI by charters, and 

you know, we can plan and then all of a sudden they stopped because, you know, the cost of fuel, the cost of charter would go up, 

so there is no stability, especially because the parole authority really—it is an administrative authority, you know, like Ranking Member Sablan mentioned. It is something that may change when a 

new Administration comes in. We don’t know. So that is why we 

would like to have under the final rule, you know, it becomes legislative, we can better plan, businesses can plan, the CNMI can go 

out and, you know, get airlines to commit to us. 

Mrs. BORDALLO. Ms. Pierce, would you say that the visitors’ industry in the Northern Marianas has any objection to Guam joining in this—with the parole authority even? 

Ms. ALDAN-PIERCE. No. I think the majority—— 

Mrs. BORDALLO. And I think we can work together, right? 

Ms. ALDAN-PIERCE. Yes, and we actually look forward to doing 

that. 

Mrs. BORDALLO. I think this is one thing we have to do, Governor 

Calvo, Governor Fitial, is to see that our two communities work 

closely together, especially in the area of tourism, because, you 

know, in the old days we used to make the round robin trips 

through the islands, and I think if the two visitors’ bureau industries work together closely that we can really make this a truly Pacific destination that people look forward to. 

There are things in the Marianas, there are items of interest in 

Guam that tourists would certainly like to see and if we work together closely, I don’t think this has been happening in the past, 

so let us—we have the two industry managers, directors here with 

us. I have talked to Joann Camacho on this, and she is very receptive to working closely with the CNMI. So let us let that happen 

because that will make our communities grow. 

Thank you. I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Governor FITIAL. Congresswoman—— 

Mrs. BORDALLO. Yes, go ahead, Governor. 

Governor FITIAL. I just wanted to inform you that Governor 

Calvo and I have pledged to work together, you know, to re-unify 

the Marianas. 

Mrs. BORDALLO. Good. 

Governor FITIAL. So I just want you to know that I need your 

support also. 

77 

Mrs. BORDALLO. You always have my support, Governor. 

Governor FITIAL. Yes, I need your support to allow the CNMI 

also to participate in some economic activities that are presently, 

you know, prohibited in CNMI. 

Mrs. BORDALLO. Like some of the military building? 

Governor FITIAL. Yes. 

Mrs. BORDALLO. All right, Governor. We will work on that. 

Thank you. I yield back, Mr. Chair. 

Mr. LANDRY. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Faleomavaega—— 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. John Wayne, Mr. Chairman. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. LANDRY. I know how it feels. I am from south Louisiana. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Well, let us have some Cajun breakfast 

here, then we will take care of that. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I wanted to just follow up on my good 

friend Mrs. Bordallo’s line of question, Governor Fitial. 

I understand there was some kind of a poll or survey or whatever 

that was taken in CNMI recently in terms of those who want to 

have unification with Guam, and maybe my good friend Mr. Sablan 

can assist. For the record, is there a movement in CNMI to see 

about the possibility of reunification of the Chamorro people between Guam and CNMI? 

Governor FITIAL. The Marianas, including Guam and CNMI, 

have always been together until, you know, after the SpanishAmerican War. So right now as I stated earlier, Governor Calvo 

and I, right after his inauguration, we pledged together to work toward unifying the Marianas. 

CNMI did vote in a referendum to associate or to reunify with 

Guam in the late fifties, 1959, to be exact. However, our brothers 

and sisters in Guam, you know, were not prepared at that time, 

so now it seems—— 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Were they not prepared or just simply objected to the idea of reunification? 

Governor FITIAL. I didn’t want to use a stronger word, but I just 

want to say they were not prepared to accept their brothers and 

sisters from the north, you know, to be together, but as time goes 

on it seems, you know, important and apparent that this is the 

right direction to take, and that is the reason why Guam and 

CNMI along with our brothers and sisters in the Micronesia region 

are now collaborating together. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. I raise this question with interest, Governor, because we seem to have a similar situation in the Samoan 

Islands because 40 miles away from American Samoa is the independent state of Samoan composed of the two largest islands, and 

the misinformation that goes around that we were ever a united 

people, we were never a united people as far as—— 

Governor FITIAL. For your information, you know, American 

Samoa, although it is part of Polynesia, has become an official 

member of the Micronesian Executives. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Well, it is my understanding, you know, the 

people who built those lata stones, if you understand, were 

Samoans that were there that built the lata stones. 

[Laughter.] 

78 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Just wanted to remind the Governor of that 

little bit of history there. 

Dr. Gootnick, I note with interest your testimony that there 

seems to be some strong disagreements of the survey that was conducted by the Department of the Interior, and with that of CNMI. 

Could you comment on this in terms of the number of illegal aliens 

or number of aliens that are in CNMI, and certainly welcome Mr. 

Pula’s response to that. 

Mr. GOOTNICK. Well, it is an interesting question, Mr. 

Faleomavaega. There were a number of objections raised to the Department of the Interior’s study. The first being the Governor was 

concerned that he was not properly consulted as required under the 

CNRA. The second being the way in which data was collected that 

formed the basis of the policy options and some of the quantitative 

information that was presented there. 

I would say that remains an open question. There has been an 

exchange of letters that are in the public record between the Governor and the Assistant Secretary of the Interior, and the Assistant 

Secretary stands by the data that forms the basis of the report. 

There is, in addition, some outstanding FOIA request and litigation in process. I am not an expert on what is taking place in the 

judicial system with respect to this. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. My time is running out so I would like to 

ask Mr. Pula for his comment about this disagreement on data. 

Mr. PULA. Thank you, Congressman. I think in the issue of consultation when both the Governor and Assistant Secretary Babauta 

last year testified in this room, they had a difference of opinion. I 

think, now I hope the Governor is assured that we are now consulting with each other in terms of Interior and the Governor. 

As far as the report that was submitted by OIA in April 2010, 

there is that discrepancy of numbers, and the way perhaps it was 

done. Because there was no—at the time—valid information that 

the Department of the Interior could depend on, and it was a requirement under CNRA for the Department to do a report of how 

many aliens there, our ombudsman’s office in CNMI then basically 

made announcements out to the community—— 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Without consulting with the Governor. 

Mr. PULA. Well, we did to the extent that they know that we 

were going to do a report on the requirement. I think perhaps 

maybe the issue of not consulting with the Governor, at this point 

perhaps it is a difference of definition of consulting. From the Assistant Secretary’s point of view he did consult with the Governor 

in a meeting. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. I am sorry, Mr. Chairman. I know my time 

is up. I will thank you. 

Mr. LANDRY. No problem. At this time I would like to thank all 

of our witnesses for their valuable testimony and contributions. 

Members of the Subcommittee may have additional questions for 

the witnesses, and we ask that you respond to these in writing. 

The hearing record will be open for 10 days to receive these responses. 

We will now prepare for the second panel. 

[Pause.] 

H.R. 44 

79 

Mr. LANDRY. If we can get everyone to take their proper seats. 

All right, we will now move on to the second panel to hear testimony on H.R. 44, the Guam World War II Loyalty Recognition Act 

introduced by our colleague from Guam, Congresswoman Bordallo. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. JEFF LANDRY, A REPRESENTATIVE 

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF LOUISIANA 

Mr. LANDRY. A week from today, July 21, 2011, is the sixty-seventh anniversary of American troops liberating Guam. It is my understanding that this morning Congresswoman Bordallo with 

Ranking Member Sablan and Governor Calvo honored the lives lost 

during the liberation of Guam by the Third Marine Division and 

77th Infantry Division in 1944 at a wreath-laying ceremony at the 

Tomb of the Unknowns at Arlington National Cemetery. 

Arlington Cemetery is a reminder to all of us of the ultimate sacrifice brave American military personnel, both men and women, 

have paid for the price of freedom in this country. Unspeakable actions occurred during the war. I don’t think anyone would disagree 

that the residents of Guam was subjected to many horrors during 

the 32 months of Japanese occupation. Horrible acts were occurring 

in every occupied area during World War II. 

The 79th U.S. Congress responded quickly to the plight of 

Guam’s residents and in 1945 pass the Guam Meritorious Claims 

Act to provide immediate relief to the residents of Guam. The Act 

paid 4,356 individuals over $8 million. Congress also passed the 

Guam Land Transfer Act and Guam Rehabilitation Act. 

The Guam Meritorious Claims Act is said to have been the primary means of settling war claims for the people of Guam. The 

Guam Land Transfer Act enabled land exchanges for resettlement 

purposes and the Guam Rehabilitation Act appropriated $6 million 

for construction, and was the means for economic rehabilitation. 

While I understand that H.R. 44 has been considered in previous 

Congresses, this is my first opportunity to review this measure as 

it may be for other members of the Subcommittee. I understand 

from my preparation for this hearing that many people here today 

believe the Guam Meritorious Claim Act was a start in the process, 

but was incomplete and did not adequately compensate the residents of Guam in comparison to other war claims statutes. 

It is also my understanding from the documents in the Guam Review Commission Report that the intent of the Guam Meritorious 

Claim Act was not to make Guam residents whole; instead it was, 

at least with regard to property, to provide people relief. 

I am concerned that if we go forward with this legislative proposal we could be opening Congress up to additional war claims. 

Documents in the Commission report make note of some 400,000 

Americans who suffered injury in World War II, who never received compensation for their injuries. The President of the Heritage Foundation notes that the U.S. bears no blame here, and no 

responsibility. We fought to prevent the island from being taken by 

the Japanese, and fought to free it again. 

Some 3,000 American were killed and more than 7,000 wounded 

in the 1944 battle for the island. That is a price paid in blood that 

can never be made up in mere dollars. Even the Guam War Claims 

80 

Review Commission stated that the U.S. Government is not obligated as a matter of law to pay such compensation. 

During this hearing I hope to find out why there is a need for 

additional compensation, who will be compensated under H.R. 44, 

why the Japanese Government did not pay the initial compensation 

in 1945, and how the Federal Government is going to pay more 

than $100 million when we are nearly $15 trillion in debt. 

As I indicated at the beginning of this statement, I am deeply 

sympathetic to those living in Guam during the occupation of the 

Japanese Imperial Army. They were treated in a particularly oppressive, cruel and barbaric way. Sadly, paying this compensation 

will not bring back the dead, nor will it undue the 32 months of 

hell which they endured. 

I look forward to hearing the testimony of our distinguished witnesses. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Landry follows:] 

Statement of The Honorable Jeff Landry, a Representative in Congress 

from the State of Louisiana, on H.R. 44, The Guam World War II Loyalty 

Recognition Act 

We will now move on to the second panel to hear testimony on H.R. 44, the Guam 

World War II Loyalty and Recognition Act, introduced by our colleague from Guam, 

Congresswoman Bordallo. 

A week from today, July 21, 2011, is the 67th Anniversary of American troops liberating Guam. It is my understanding that this morning, Congresswoman Bordallo, 

with Ranking Member Sablan and Governor Calvo, honored the lives lost during the 

liberation of Guam by the 3rd Marine Division and 77th Infantry Division in 1944 

at a wreath laying ceremony at the Tomb of the Unknowns at Arlington National 

Cemetery. Arlington Cemetery is a reminder to us all of the ultimate sacrifice brave 

American military personnel—men and women—have paid for the price of freedom 

in this country. 

Unspeakable actions occur during war. I don’t think anyone will disagree that 

residents of Guam were subjected to many horrors during the 32 months of Japanese occupation. Horrible acts were occurring in every occupied area during World 

War II. 

The 79th U.S. Congress responded quickly to the plight of Guam residents and, 

in 1945, passed the Guam Meritorious Claims Act to provide ‘‘immediate relief’’ to 

the residents of Guam. The Act paid 4,356 individuals over $8 million dollars. Congress also passed the Guam Land Transfer Act and the Guam Rehabilitation Act. 

The Guam Meritorious Claims Act is said to have been the primary means of settling war claims for the people of Guam. The Guam Land Transfer Act enabled land 

exchanges for resettlement purposes and the Guam Rehabilitation Act appropriated 

$6 million for construction and was the means for economic rehabilitation. 

While I understand H.R. 44 has been considered in previous Congresses, this if 

my first opportunity to review this measure, as it may be for other Members of the 

Subcommittee. I understand from my preparation for this hearing that many people 

here today believe the Guam Meritorious Claims Act was a start in the process, but 

was incomplete and did not adequately compensate residents of Guam in comparison to other war claim statutes. 

It is also my understanding from documents in the Guam Review Commission report that the intent of the Guam Meritorious Claims Act was to not make Guam 

residents ‘‘whole’’, instead it was, at least with regard to property, to provide people 

relief. I am concerned that if we go forward with this legislative proposal we could 

be opening Congress up to additional war claims. Documents in the Commission report make note of some 400,000 Americans who suffered injury in World War II who 

never received compensation for their injuries. 

The President of the Heritage Foundation notes that: ‘‘The U.S. bears no blame 

here, and no responsibility. We fought to prevent the Island from being taken by 

the Japanese, and fought to free it again. Some 3,000 Americans were killed and 

more than 7,000 wounded in the 1944 battle for the Island. That’s a price paid in 

blood that can never be made up with mere dollars.’’ Even the Guam War Claims 

Review Commission stated that: ‘‘The U.S. government is not obligated as a matter 

of law to pay such compensation.’’ 

81 

During this hearing I hope to find out: why there is a need for additional compensation; who will be compensated under H.R. 44; why the Japanese government 

did not pay the initial compensation in 1945; and how the federal government is 

going to pay more than $100 million when we are nearly $15 trillion in debt. 

As I indicated at the beginning of this statement, I am deeply sympathetic to 

those living in Guam during the occupation by the Japanese Imperial Army. They 

were treated in a particularly oppressive, cruel and barbaric way. Sadly, paying this 

compensation will not bring back the dead nor will it undue the 32 months of hell 

which they endured. 

I look forward to hearing the testimony of our distinguished witnesses, and now 

recognize our Ranking Member Mr. Sablan, for any statement he would like to 

make. 

Mr. LANDRY. I now recognize the Ranking Member, Mr. Sablan, 

for any statement he would like to make. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. GREGORIO SABLAN, A DELEGATE 

IN CONGRESS FROM THE COMMONWEALTH OF THE 

NORTHERN MARIANA ISLANDS 

Mr. SABLAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

H.R. 44, the Guam World War II Loyalty Recognition Act, which 

is sponsored by my colleague and friend, Congresswoman Madeleine Bordallo, would implement the recommendations of a Federal commission that was authorized by the 107th Congress to look 

at this specific issue. The Commission found that the people of 

Guam were treated unfairly during the war claims process immediately following World War II as compared with other claims programs authorized by Congress addressing similarly experienced 

losses and damages for other Americans. 

Each of the four delegates from Guam to have served in the 

House have worked diligently to resolve this longstanding injustice 

faced by their constituents, and the text of H.R. 44 has passed on 

five separate occasions. 

It is long past time that we resolve this issue and provide relief 

for the people of Guam for the nearly three years of brutal occupation they suffered because of their steadfast loyalty to our country 

and nation. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for allowing me to make this opening 

statement. I want to welcome all of our witnesses, especially former 

Congressman Ben Blaz, again Governor Calvo, Mr. Pula and Mr. 

Tamargo, and look forward to hearing your testimony. Thank you. 

Mr. LANDRY. Thank you, and I will recognize Mrs. Bordallo for 

any statement she would like to make on her bill. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. MADELEINE BORDALLO, A 

DELEGATE IN CONGRESS FROM THE ISLAND OF GUAM 

Mrs. BORDALLO. I thank you very much, Chairman Landry, and 

Ranking Member Sablan, and I would like to thank both of you for 

holding today’s hearings on H.R. 44, the Guam World War II Loyalty Recognition Act, which I introduced on the first day of the 

112th Congress, and I want to thank Chairman Hastings and 

Ranking Member Markey for their agreeing to allow a hearing on 

H.R. 44 as well. 

I also want to acknowledge Speaker Won Pat of the 31st Guam 

Legislature. She has traveled here to Washington and has subVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:06 Jul 03, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00085 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 L:\DOCS\67403.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
82 

mitted written testimony for the Committee, and I would like to 

turn this over to the Chairman now. 

Mr. LANDRY. Without objection, so ordered. 

[The prepared statement of Speaker Won Pat follows:] 

Statement of The Honorable Judith T. Won Pat, Ed.D., Speaker, ThirtyFirst Guam Legislature, on the Implementation of P.l. 110–229 in Guam 

(Specific Reference to the Guam-CNMI Visa Waiver Program) 

Buenas yan Hafa Adai (Greetings) from the territory island of Guam. Esteemed Chairman John Fleming, M.D., and members of the Committee; Congressman Don Young, Congressman Robert Wittman, Congressman Jeff Duncan, Congressman Steve Southerland, Congressman Bill Flores, Congressman Andy Harris, 

Congressman Jeff Landry, Congressman Jon Runyan, Congressman Doc Hastings, 

Congressman Eni Faleomavaega, Congressman Frank Pallone, Jr., Congresswoman 

and my friend from Guam, Madeleine Bordallo, Congressman Pedro Pierlusi, Congresswoman Colleen Hanabusa, Congressman Edward Markey. Thank you for the 

opportunity to present testimony for the oversight hearing on the implementation 

of P.L. 110–229, the Consolidated Natural Resources Act, specifically in the matter 

of the Guam-CNMI Visa Waiver program. 

As Speaker of the Guam Legislature this testimony is submitted in support of the 

full implementation of the Guam-CNMI Visa Waiver program. 

The United States and the Marianas, a member of the American family, are both 

facing extreme financial challenges that are rippling through the public and private 

sectors forcing threats of lay-offs, reduced work hours, or a reduction in services. 

Commerce Secretary Garry Locke acknowledges that the United States within the 

past two years has seen itself in the midst of the toughest recession in decades 

(June, 2011). 

Similar to the financial woes plaguing the United States, Guam is also experiencing severe economic challenges. As a whole, Guam has experienced a downward 

economy for the past three years, from revenues of $514.8M in FY 2007 to $491M 

in FY 2010. Guam’s general fund revenues are below budget with projected sustained declines as a result of a depressed tourism market under the current conditions. The unemployment rate on Guam in the past three years has increased steadily from 8.3% in September 2007 to 13.3% in March of 2011 (see Table 1). 

The writing on the wall is clear. The United States government and the government of Guam must look towards developing opportunities that may serve to maintain budget levels in the public sector and jobs in the private sector. Anything less 

would result in a continued economic downward spiral. 

Guam’s economy is greatly influenced by its geographic location. Being that Guam 

is a geographically disparate society when compared to the rest of the contiguous 

United States, the island’s economy is driven by a few key markets. One of the most 

important of these is tourism. For instance, Guam’s designation as an up-scale tropical Pacific vacation destination in addition to its nearness to Japan is a competitive 

advantage. The island’s status as a U.S. territory with a stable government and security adds to this advantage. 

The Guam-CNMI Visa Waiver program is an excellent opportunity to ‘‘test market’’ the Russia and China markets for future consideration under the broader Visa 

Waiver program. The vast market potential inherent in an expanded Guam-CNMI 

Visa Waiver program that is inclusive of Russia and China is consistent with the 

U.S. Travel Association Report ‘‘Ready for Take-Off: A plan to create 1.3 million 

U.S. jobs by welcoming international travellers.’’ 


67403.016.eps
83 

The Guam-CNMI Visa Waiver program represents an opportunity to insulate 

Guam and the CNMI from the woes associated with national and international economic downturn. 

Our other major economy is the U.S. military—and with the increasing uncertainty regarding the military realignment from Okinawa, we must look to maturing 

other markets such as China and Russia in order to offset any deficits in revenues 

tied to delayed activity associated with the realignment. 

The outlook for international tourist arrivals remains promising. According to the 

World Tourism Organization, in 2010 international tourism receipts are estimated 

to have reached US$919 billion worldwide. More to the point, given the optimistic 

outlook for tourism in general and sustained growth in the Chinese and Russian 

travel markets, both the Marianas and the United States stand to gain by making 

such destinations accessible. 

I applaud the Committee for recognizing the potential that tourism activities represent in being able to stabilize-if not outright lift-our respective national and insular area economies. The U.S. Travel Association anticipates that 1.3 million U.S. 

jobs and a $859 billion infusion into the U.S. economy by 2020 will be realized by 

as a result of reforming antiquated visa processes. As you are aware, Congress may 

continue to serve as a critical partner in realizing such economic potential by creating policy that serves to empower regulatory agencies as well as the free market 

to implement programs and procedures that would reduce the barriers to entry into 

the U.S. and the Marianas without sacrificing safeguards that are already in place. 

China is the world’s fastest growing economy with average GDP growth rates 

averaged at 10% over the past 30 years. Over the past three years China arrivals 

into the United States and Guam increased steadily with projected double digit 

growth within this year alone. According to the U.S. Travel Association the U.S. received $5.0 billion from Chinese visitors with an average expenditure per person of 

$6,423. 

According to a forecast from the World Tourism Organization, China will have 

100 million outbound travellers and become the fourth largest source of outbound 

travel in the world by 2020 making China an explosive growth market for tourism. 

Russian foreign travel remains largely untapped. Only 15% of Russia’s 142 million 

people have ever travelled abroad. According to the World Tourism Organization, 

Russia ranked within the tenth largest outbound travel market in the world in 

terms of expenditures. Other sources cite Russian outbound trips at 12 million with 

travel expenditures abroad at $27 billion for 2011 alone. 

Combined, it is estimated that China and Russia non-immigrant visitors may gen- erate $212.2 million in combined payroll, hotel lodging, and gross receipts taxes by 

2018. Without these two markets being added vis-a`-vis the Guam-CNMI Visa Waiver program, Guam may experience a 32% reduction in tourism related revenues over 

the next five years. 

I must underscore that tourism is a significant driver of Guam’s economy. According to one report, tourism ranks as the second largest private industry in the island 

accounting for as much as 35% of the total jobs on Guam. Simply, 1 out of every 

4 workers on Guam is directly employed by the tourism sector. 

An average aggregate visitation rate of approximately 1 million visitors to Guam 

annually generates $1.2 billion in total tourism expenditures. The total impact in 

taxes paid are significant as well, totaling approximately $148.9 M in 2005. 

Although tourism figures worldwide remain optimistic, travel from Japan and 

Korea to Guam have significantly declined this past decade as a direct result of regional crises such as SARS, September 11, natural disasters on Guam and, most recently, in Japan-with its triple earthquake, tsunami, and nuclear power plant crisisas well. These depressed levels, in addition to a negative strategic outlook for these 

two markets as a result of their low birth rates and increasing competition, require 

our island’s leaders to act in seeing the full implementation of the Guam-CNMI Visa 

Waiver program. 

It is essential that the Department of Homeland Security implement the GuamCNMI Visa Waiver program to mitigate the losses in tourism related revenues as 

a result of attrition in the declining mature markets of Japan and Korea. Anything 

less of this may burden hotels and other tourism related employers to reduce work 

hours, lay off employees, or close-up shop. Similarly, without an expanded tourist 

market, the government of Guam may not be able to meet its existing liabilities 

thereby forcing lawmakers to declare financial exigency and request for increased 

federal aid. 

The bright side is this: with an expanded Guam-CNMI Waiver program that is 

inclusive of China and Russia and implemented on Guam, the island’s economy will 

be preserved with projected growth of $1.5 billion from these two new markets in 

five years. 

84 

As most experts agree, the economies of the United States and Guam are in a 

recession. To reinvigorate our economies both the Congress and the administration 

must continue in its path to create and implement a 21st century regulatory framework that will allow us to pursue a bold opportunity for the American and 

Chamorro people. PL 110–229, specifically the Guam-CNMI Visa Waiver program, 

is an example of how government policy may work to continue to foster and support 

entrepreneurship and innovation. 

As we jointly face our financial crises, I am resolved that the Guam-CNMI Visa 

Waiver program will add towards our collective efforts to stabilize and grow our national and state-level economies. Based on market research and data available to 

the government of Guam, even the most conservative of figures associated with an 

expanded tourism base that includes China and Russia will considerably affect 

Guam and the CNMI in a positive way. 

In the wake of extreme financial uncertainty, I humbly submit that the GuamCNMI Visa Waiver program would serve as a significant economic stimulus for the 

Marianas Islands. 

In closing, on behalf of the Thirty-first Guam Legislature and the People of Guam 

I commend the Honorable Doc Hastings, Chairman of the Committee on Natural Resources and Members of the Committee, in addition to the Honorable John Fleming, 

M.D., Chairman of the Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, Oceans and Insular 

Affairs, and Members of the Subcommittee for allowing me to provide testimony on 

the implementation of P.L. 110–229, the Consolidated Natural Resources Act, specifically the Guam-CNMI Visa Waiver program. 

Mrs. BORDALLO. The one Guam approach in resolving this issue 

is something that is very, very important, and I always appreciate 

the participation and the input of our legislative leaders, and pleasure to include her testimony in the record. 

Finally, I would like to thank and recognize each of our witnesses here today. Governor Calvo, we appreciate your traveling to 

D.C. to provide testimony in both of today’s panels. We will appreciate your input on the importance of passing H.R. 44. 

General Ben Blaz, a very distinguished gentleman who has 

served in this Congress from 1985 to 1992. He is also a retired Marine and is a survivor, which is why he is here today, of the Japanese occupation of Guam. General Blaz’s testimony today speaks to 

the atrocities and the hardships endured by our people during the 

brutal enemy occupation, and further, General Blaz’s experience as 

a general in the U.S. Marine Corps can speak to the importance 

of building good relationships with the civilian community and the 

significance of the passage that Guam war claims would have to 

building this type of relationship in Guam. 

Another witness today, Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank Mr. 

Mauricio Tamargo. He is the former Chairman of the Guam War 

Claims Review Commission for his testimony, and in all of these 

years he has stood by us to help us get this bill through. Mr. 

Tamargo understands the issue of the Guam war claims, and I appreciate his expert testimony. He has also held public hearings on 

this issue as well as a public hearing in Guam. 

And finally, I also want to thank the testimony of Mr. Nik Pula. 

I appreciate the Administration’s continued support of H.R. 44. 

Today’s hearing builds on the lengthy and substantive legislative 

record that has already been developed on H.R. 44. The issue of 

Guam war claims is a sensitive issue for my constituents and it is 

an issue that can only be resolved through legislation by Congress. 

Further, it is a matter that has maintained strong support in the 

House. As Ranking Member Sablan said, it has passed this House 

five times, even across party lines. Further, the bipartisan nature 

85 

of our witnesses speaks to H.R. 44’s broad base of support. The 

need for this Congress to take action and resolve the matter or 

Guam war claims heightens by the day. Continued popular support 

for the military build up on Guam is tied to a great extent to finally solving this longstanding issue on Guam. My constituents wonder how we can spend over $10 billion in 

military construction but their suffering and patriotism during the 

Imperial Japanese occupation of Guam is yet to be fully recognized 

and redressed. 

In part, it is for this reason that I attach H.R. 44 as an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act in Fiscal 

Years 2010 and 2011. Unfortunately, the Senate failed to act on 

the stand alone measure on the 110th and 111th Congresses. 

Further, last year we did reach a compromise position on Guam 

war claims, and it was incorporated into conference version of the 

Fiscal Year 2011 NDAA. However, due to the unique legislative 

procedure that was required for passage, a few senators blocked its 

inclusion in the final legislation. This, unfortunately, is a circumstance that many bills face in the Senate, so it is important 

that we build off the agreed upon compromise, and I believe today’s 

hearing will clearly highlight the importance of this legislation. 

As such, on the first day of this Congress I re-introduced 

H.R. 44, and the text of this bill is identical to the compromise 

reached with Chairman Levin and Ranking Member McCain. The 

bill removes the most controversial claimant category of payments 

to the descendants of survivors of the Japanese occupation. I did 

so reluctantly, but in a recognition that including that category 

would not pass in the Senate. So, I am hopeful that this hearing 

will further illuminate the facts and circumstances surrounding the 

occupation endured by the people, and the injustice that they hope 

will finally be redressed by this Congress. 

This is an injustice rooted in their having been treated differently from their fellow Americans by the Federal Government in 

redressing their war claims. The hearing today presents another 

opportunity to review this history, however painful it may be to recount and repeat. We further this discussion today in the name and 

the pursuit of justice, and with faith in our government and her 

cherished principle of equal protection under the law. 

We must also remain focused and determined because of the very 

findings and the recommendations of now two Federal commissions 

that have independently and thoroughly examined this matter 

against all its political and legal sensitivities. 

The last hearing on Guam war claims was held on December 2, 

2009, before the House Armed Services Committee, and at that 

time our survivor witness was Mr. Tom Barcinas. Mr. Barcinas told 

the Committee of his first-hand experience during World War II, 

and of the atrocities suffered by him and his family at the hands 

of the enemy, and I am going to quote something he said. 

‘‘Through the grace of God I survived World War II, but like so 

many others who lived through those days, lived through the war 

who have since died, I am quickly getting old as you can see. So 

many who lived through the war are advancing in age and so many 

have passed on without closure to the issues arising because of the 

war . . . Mr. Chairman, no one must underestimate the importance 

86 

of resolving the issue of parity, fairness, and justice related to the 

administration of the war claims. Resolving these issues will provide beyond any reasonable doubt that America does live up to its 

promises and its responsibilities.’’ 

Just this past April, only three months ago, Mr. Chairman, Mr. 

Barcinas passed away after waiting nearly 70 years for closure and 

for recognition that he never ever received. 

So, it is important that Congress act now to implement the Review Commission’s recommendations and finally resolve this longstanding injustice for the survivors of the occupation of Guam, and 

I thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Mrs. Bordallo follows:] 

Statement of The Honorable Madeleine Z. Bordallo, Ranking Member, 

Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, Oceans and Insular Affairs 

Chairman Fleming and Ranking Member Sablan, I would like to thank you both 

for holding today’s hearing on H.R. 44, the Guam World War II Loyalty Recognition 

Act, which I introduced on the first day of the 112th Congress. I want to thank 

Chairman Hastings and Ranking Member Markey for their agreeing to allow a 

hearing on H.R. 44, as well. 

I also want to acknowledge Speaker Judith Won Pat of the 31st Guam Legislature. She has submitted written testimony for the Committee and is in the audience 

today. Her presence and support today are a tribute to our ‘‘One Guam’’ approach 

in resolving this issue. I always appreciate the participation and input of our legislative leaders and pleasure to include her testimony in the record. 

Finally, I would like to thank and recognize each of our witnesses here today. 

Governor Calvo, we appreciate your travelling to DC to provide testimony in both 

of today’s panels. We will appreciate your input on the importance of passing 

H.R. 44 to the people of Guam. General Ben Blaz is the former Congressman from 

Guam serving in the House from 1985 to 1992. General Blaz is also a retired Brigadier General in the U.S. Marine Corps and is a survivor of the Japanese occupation 

of Guam. General Blaz’s testimony today speaks to the atrocities and hardships endured by the people of Guam during the brutal enemy occupation. Further, his experiences as a General in the U.S. Marine Corps can speak to the importance of building good relationships with the civilian community and the significance the passage 

of Guam war claims would have to building this type of relationship on Guam. I 

would also like to thank Mr. Mauricio Tamargo, former Chairman of the Guam War 

Claims Review Commission for his testimony today. Mr. Tamargo understands the 

issue of Guam War Claims well and I appreciate his expert testimony. Finally, I 

also thank the testimony of Mr. Nik Pula. I appreciate the Administration’s continued support for H.R. 44. 

Today’s hearing builds on the lengthy and substantive legislative record that has 

already been developed on H.R. 44. The issue of Guam War Claims is a sensitive 

issue for my constituents and it is an issue that can only be resolved through legislation by Congress. Further, it is a matter that has maintained strong support in 

the House, even across party lines. Further, the bi-partisan nature of our witnesses 

speaks to H.R. 44’s broad base of support. The need for this Congress to take action 

and resolve the matter of Guam war claims heightens by the day. Continued, popular support for the military build-up on Guam is tied, to a great extent, to finally 

solving this longstanding issue for many on Guam. My constituents wonder how we 

can spend over $10 billion in military construction but their suffering and patriotism during the Imperial Japanese occupation of Guam has yet to be fully recognized 

and redressed. 

In part, it is for this reason that I attached H.R. 44 as an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act in Fiscal Years 2010 and 2011. Unfortunately, the 

Senate failed to act on the stand-alone measure in the 110th and 111th Congresses. 

Further, last year we did reach a compromise position on Guam war claims and it 

was incorporated into conference version of the FY11 NDAA. However, due to the 

unique legislative procedure that was required for passage, a few Senators blocked 

its inclusion in the final legislation. This, unfortunately, is a circumstance that 

many bills face in the Senate. So it is important that we build off the agreed upon 

compromise and I believe today’s hearing will clearly highlight the importance of 

this legislation. 

87 

As such, on the first day of this Congress I reintroduced H.R. 44 and the text of 

this bill is identical to the compromise reached with Chairman Levin and Ranking 

Member McCain. The bill removes the most controversial claimant category of payments to the descendants of survivors of the Japanese occupation who suffered personal injury. I did so reluctantly but in a recognition that including that category 

would not pass in the Senate. 

I am hopeful that this hearing will further illuminate the facts and circumstances 

surrounding the occupation endured by the people of Guam and the injustice that 

they hope will finally be redressed by this Congress. This is an injustice rooted in 

their having been treated differently from their fellow Americans by the federal government in redressing their war claims. The hearing today presents another opportunity to review this history, however painful it may be to recount and repeat. We 

further this discussion today in the name and pursuit of justice and with faith in 

our government and her cherished principle of equal protection under law. We also 

remain focused and determined because of the very findings and recommendations 

of now two federal commissions that have independently and thoroughly examined 

this matter against all its political and legal sensitivities. 

The last hearing on Guam war claims was held on December 2, 2009 before the 

House Armed Services Committee. At that time our survivor witness was Mr. Tom 

Barcinas. Mr. Barcinas told the Committee of his firsthand experiences during 

World War II and of the atrocities suffered by him and his family at the hands of 

enemy occupation: 

‘‘Through the grace of God, I survived World War II. But like so many others 

who lived through those days, lived through the war, who have since died, 

I am quickly getting old, as you can see. So many who lived through the 

war are advancing in age, and so many have passed on without closure to 

the issues arising because of the war. . .Mr. Chairman, no one must underestimate the importance of resolving the issues of parity, fairness and justice 

related to the administration of the war claims. Resolving these issues will 

prove beyond any reasonable doubt that America does live up to its promises 

and responsibilities.’’ 

Just this past April, only 3 months ago, Mr. Barcinas passed away after waiting 

nearly 70 years for closure and recognition that he never received. It is important 

that Congress act now to implement the Review Commission’s recommendations and 

finally resolve this longstanding injustice for the survivors of the occupation of 

Guam. 

Mr. LANDRY. Thank you, Mrs. Bordallo. At this time I would like 

to enter into the record two different letters, one from the Heritage 

Foundation and another one from American Tax Reform into the 

record. Without objection, so ordered. 

[The letters follow:] 

88 


67403.013.eps
89 


67403.014.eps 67403.015.eps
90 

Mr. LANDRY. For those witnesses who were not here for the first 

panel I will repeat what Congressman Fleming, Chairman Fleming 

said earlier; that your written testimony will appear in full in the 

hearing records so I ask that you keep your oral statements to five 

minutes as outlined in our letter of invitation to you and under 

Committee Rule 4(a). 

Our microphones are not automatic, so please press the button 

when you are ready to begin. I will also explain how our timing 

lights work. When you begin to speak our clerk will start the time 

and a green light will appear. After four minutes a yellow light will 

appear, and at that time you should begin to conclude your statement. After five minutes the red light will come on and you may 

complete your sentence, but at that time I would ask that you stop. 

I would now like to welcome today’s witness The Honorable 

Eddie Baza Calvo, Governor of Guam. Governor. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. EDDIE BAZA CALVO, 

GOVERNOR OF THE ISLAND OF GUAM 

Governor CALVO. Yes, thank you very much, Mr. Chair and 

Members of the Subcommittee. 

Again, my name is Eddie Calvo, Governor of Guam. On behalf 

of the people of Guam, especially those who found themselves 

slaves during World War II, I would like to express my support for 

H.R. 44, also know as the Guam World War II Loyalty Recognition 

Act. 

Distinguished Members of the House of Representatives, war 

claims for the people of Guam are long overdue. On December 8, 

1941, our island was changed forever. For all you know, that was 

the day Japan attacked my home. For nearly three years, those in 

Guam were forced out of their homes, were subjected to slavery 

and suffered rapes and beatings. Tragically, many died in the 

hands of the Japanese Imperial Army. 

On July 21, 1944, or what is now known as Liberation Day, 

American Marines and soldiers stormed Guam and began a successful campaign to reclaim the island. Every year the entire island 

commemorates the bravery of these men, remembers their loved 

ones who survived our darkest time in history, and prayed for 

those whose lives were stolen by war. 

Members of Congress, while our survivors are indeed liberated, 

they are not free from the scars of those atrocities. Everyone who 

has spent time in Guam has heard a personal account of what our 

people suffered. In fact, many of our survivors remember this day 

in 1944. They can still hear and feel the bombs exploding as American forces prepared to storm our beaches, and while dodging 

bombs which already seemed inhumane, it pales in comparison to 

the stories all Guamanians have heard. 

Guam suffered like no other place in America. Chamorros were 

raped, they were beaten, they were made slaves. They were forced 

to denounce the country they loved and swear allegiance to a country that was literally killing them, all the while our people remained loyal to the United States. They never lost hope that one 

day and soon America would return and spare them from the suffering and pain. 

91 

These acts were done out of a deep and committed loyalty to the 

United States, and all throughout the occupation this loyalty is 

what gave our people hope. People were certain that the loyalty 

went both ways, and sometimes this hope is what kept our people 

alive; knowing that these horrible circumstances were only temporary. 

In fact, there was a famous song our war survivors sang, and 

when it was safe late at night at the end of every verse it was, and 

I quote, ‘‘My dear Uncle Sam, won’t you please come back to 

Guam.’’ 

The Japanese tried everything to break our resolve. They 

marched Chamorros to concentration camps, they became increasingly violent, and they murdered Chamorros at a more frequent 

rate with more mass casualties at a time. But despite their best 

efforts, many Chamorros survived until they were liberated, and 

sadly, although they survived the atrocities of war, most of them 

have been called by God to rest. 

That is why it is more urgent than ever to grant these claims. 

The time is now while there are still survivors left. Our people who 

lived are still loyal to the company despite 67 years without any 

recognition for their suffering. 

Ladies and Gentlemen, Honorable Congressional Representatives, United States has an obligation to do this. Make no mistake 

about it. The Federal Government took upon this liability after it 

signed the Treaty of Peace with Japan in 1951. Our people are not 

asking for something extraordinary. We are expecting the country 

we fought for, the country we suffered for, the country we died for 

to honor its responsibilities to our elderly, and this not just a statutory obligation, it is a moral obligation. 

Passing this legislation into law is a chance to demonstrate the 

importance of Guam. It is an opportunity to show we truly belong 

to this country. It is a definitive way to prove the mutual respect 

that we have for one another. During the war Chamorros loyalty 

to America was unwavering even in the face of death. All I am asking for is America to recognize this loyalty. 

Thank you for this opportunity, and I express my support for 

H.R. 44. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Calvo follows:] 

Statement of The Honorable Eddie Baza Calvo, Governor, Island of Guam, 

on H.R. 44, The Guam World War II Loyalty Recognition Act 

Thank you, Chairman Fleming for inviting me to testify today. For the record, my 

name is Eddie Baza Calvo and I am the Governor of Guam. On behalf of our people, 

especially those who found themselves slaves during World War II, I would like to 

express my support for H.R. 44, also known as the Guam World War II Loyalty 

Recognition Act. 

Distinguished members of the House of Representatives, war claims for the people 

of Guam are long overdue. On December 8, 1941 our island was changed forever. 

As all of you know, that was the day Japan attacked my home. For nearly three 

years, those on Guam were forced out of their homes, were subjected to slavery, and 

suffered rapes and beatings. Tragically, many died at the hands of the Japanese Imperial Army. 

On July 21, 1944, what is now known as Liberation Day, American Marines and 

soldiers stormed Guam, and began a successful campaign to reclaim the island. It 

began as their tribute to the Chamorros and Americans who fought and died for our 

freedom. It was a celebration of our liberation from slavery and oppression. Over 

the years it’s become a commemoration of the Greatest Generation. It is not simply 

a remembrance of war, but a celebration of what our community has become beVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:06 Jul 03, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00095 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 L:\DOCS\67403.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
92 

cause of the freedom Chamorro and American warriors fought to give us. But, the 

Liberation of Guam should not become a dying memory just because that generation 

is nearly gone. Upon us is the great responsibility to celebrate our identity and traditions with pride. 

Every year, the entire island commemorates the bravery of these men, remembers 

their loved ones who survived our darkest time in history, and prays for those 

whose lives were stolen by war. Members of Congress while our survivors are indeed 

liberated, they are not free from the scars of these atrocities. 

Everyone who has spent time on Guam has heard a personal account of what our 

people suffered. In fact, many of our survivors remember this day in 1944. They can 

still hear the and feel the bombs exploding as American forces prepared to storm 

our beaches. And while dodging bombs already seems inhumane, it pales in comparison to the stories all Guamanians have heard. We have first-hand accounts from 

a generation who endured war and occupation, then rebuilt this island from the 

ground up. Sadly, there aren’t many of them left to tell these stories to our children 

and grandchildren. There are new generations growing up without the special moments Guam’s greatest generation shared with us.I firmly believe sharing some of 

them with you today will help you truly understand and appreciate my position. For 

your reference, there are more attached to this testimony, as compiled by Guam 

Senator Frank Blas, Jr. 

Father Jesus Baza Duenas 

Father Jesus Baza Duenas was born in 1911 and was the second Chamorro to 

be ordained a Catholic priest. He was one of only two Catholic priests that were 

allowed to remain on Guam during the Japanese occupation. Father Duenas was an 

outspoken voice of morality during that time, often expressing his opposition to the 

treatment of Chamorros to Japanese authorities. 

The Japanese occupiers believed Father Duenas knew the whereabouts of an 

American radioman who remained hidden on Guam: George Tweed. This paranoia 

turned out to be deadly for Father Duenas. On July 8, 1944, he was arrested. He 

was tortured for information on Tweed. Days later, the Japanese beheaded Father 

Duenas for his truthful silence. 

Dolores Jones 

The harsh reality of war also forced many children to suffer unimaginably. 

Dolores Jones was orphaned at 11-years old. She was forced to march to a concentration camp, like 18,000 others. That’s a terrible situation for any child to deal 

with alone, but Dolores was also forced to act as a mother to her siblings. 

There was no shelter, latrines, food, or medicine at the concentration camp. It 

soon became apparent this was a death camp, and the Japanese soldiers were planning a massacre. According to one account, forty men were tied up and beheaded. 

Sadly, no records exist that detail how many people died at these concentration 

camps. 

Guam suffered like no other place in America. Chamorros were raped. They were 

beaten. They were made slaves. They were forced to denounce the country they 

loved and swear allegiance to a country that was literally killing them. All the 

while, our people remained loyal to the United States. They never lost hope that 

one day, and soon, America would return and spare them from the suffering and 

pain. As I’ve stated before, many died protecting American lives. These acts were 

done out of a deep and committed loyalty to the United States. All throughout the 

occupation, this loyalty is what gave our people hope. People were certain the loyalty went both ways. Sometimes, this hope is what kept people alive, knowing these 

horrible circumstances were only temporary. In fact, there’s a famous song our war 

survivors sang, when it was safe, to help raise their spirits. And the end of every 

verse was: 

My dear Uncle Sam, won’t you please come back to Guam? 

The Japanese tried everything to break this resolve. They marched Chamorros to 

concentration camps; they became increasingly violent; they murdered Chamorros at 

a more frequent rate, with more mass casualties at a time. It was what our country 

stood for that Chamorros so bravely defended in their defiance of the occupiers. As 

the rumors, arrests and the preparations for marches began on Guam on July 8, 

1944, people were fighting for the very ideals we yearned for. 

But despite their best efforts, many Chamorros survived until they were liberated. 

Sadly, although they survived the atrocities of war, most of them have been called 

by God to rest. 

I’m sure many of you are aware of the strategic importance Guam and the Marianas played in defeating the Japanese Imperial Forces. The U.S. Department of DeVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:06 Jul 03, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00096 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 L:\DOCS\67403.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
93 

fense needed our tiny little islands, and arguably would not have recaptured the Pacific Theater without them. 

In this special relationship we’ve had with America for over a century, it has not 

always been the actions of the federal government that have pleased us. But it has 

always been the ideals of this country, and what it means to people yearning for 

freedom around the world, that we have always loved. It has always been the American serviceman and woman, who was willing to die for us, whom we have honored 

and respected for the freedom we have. It is this way because only 67 years ago 

we were those people yearning for freedom, given to us by those Marines and soldiers who came back for us, bled for us and died for us. 

It is more urgent than ever before to grant these claims. The time is now, while 

they’re are still survivors left. Our people have lived, still loyal to this country, despite sixty-seven years without any recognition for their suffering. 

Ladies and gentlemen, honorable Congressional Representatives, the United 

States has an obligation to this—make no mistake about it. The federal government 

took on this liability after it signed the Treaty of Peace with Japan in 1951. Our 

people are not asking for something extraordinary. We are expecting the country we 

fought for, the country we suffered for, the country we died for, to honor its responsibilities to our elderly. 

This is not just a statutory obligation, it is a moral obligation. Passing this legislation into law is a chance to demonstrate the importance of Guam. It is an opportunity to show we truly belong to this country. It is a definitive way to prove the 

mutual respect we have for each other. 

During the war, Chamorros’ loyalty to America was unwavering, even in the face 

of death. All I am asking is for America to recognize this loyalty. 

Thank you for the opportunity to express my support for H.R. 44. 

Edward L.G. Aguon passed away on September 28, 2007 

‘‘The most agonizing memories come to mind when I think of the occupation of 

being forced to watch people brutalized, tortured and killed, to see the look on their 

face when the final stab of the bayonet pierced their flesh, to hear the cries as their 

last breath leave their bodies. And even then, the attackers continued to thrust the 

bayonet into their lifeless bodies.’’ 

(On the March to Manenggon) 

‘‘Tens of miles in hot and rainy days, we were gathered like cattle being 

led to the slaughter. We could not help anyone who fell behind or fell down. 

Even if that person was your grandmother, a sick relative or a dying friend, 

you had to move on and leave them there.’’ 

Joseph Crisostomo Aguon 80 years old, Survivor 

‘‘I was forced to work at the airport... My job was to dig and sometimes carry 

water for the Japanese Soldiers. At the end of the day, we were getting a handful 

of rice as our payment... I was assigned to work in Canada, Barrigada as a mess 

boy... I was transferred to work in Ordot digging tunnels. If the Japanese were not 

satisfied, we were told to line up face-to-face and slap one another. When my turn 

came, I refused to slap the old man facing me. I was hit by the Japanese guard 

holding a stick. The man whispered, go ahead and slap me. I will understand.’’ 

Magdalena San Nicolas Bayani 94 years old, Survivor 

‘‘We were obligated to work. We worked in Ta’i and every morning we’d go 

through the swamp all the way up to Ta’i morning and night. We’d leave at 5 in 

the morning and return at 8 at night. All day, we’d plant, dig, gather rocks, and 

pull weeds. We’d rarely eat during the day. One day, we were told to stop work, 

stand in line and we stood there without knowing what was going to happen. We 

were warned that whomever whines, cries, or call out, we’d all be killed... There 

were three men who were standing there while some people were digging a hole in 

front of them. When the hole was dug, three Japanese with raised bayonets approached and told the men to kneel down with their hands tied behind their backs. 

They were told to bow their heads with their necks fully exposed. The three Japanese counted to three and the three were then beheaded right in front of us. The 

heads rolled down into the hole. 

‘‘One day, we were all standing facing the East. I didn’t even know what we were 

doing. But, we were supposed to bow to the East, to the Emperor, the god of Japan, 

and the world, supposedly. I didn’t bow quickly enough. I’ll never forget. Nakase 

Sensei kicked me, slapped me first and then kicked me. Kicked my feet and I fell 

down. 

‘‘We would clean, pull grass, pull weeds, whatever. Bare hands. We had to feed 

ourselves with whatever we could bring from home... Later on, of course, I recall 

that they had a night shift. I don’t recall what the night shift was for. But, we were 

94 

all asked to bring our dogs to Tai. Later on, I found out that the Japanese were 

cooking dogs for the night shift. 

‘‘We were told to watch, or if we didn’t watch, we would be next to suffer the fate 

of these three men...One of them was allowed to speak...He started to say the ‘‘Our 

Father, who art in heaven...’’ in Chamorro. Then they were pushed down to kneel. 

Three Japanese men, officers, with Samurai swords, each had water poured on the 

sword. Pushed the men down. Then he cut their heads off... I heard later that one 

of the Japanese officers took one of the heads and was giving it to the neighbors 

to cook it.’’ 

Teresa Reyes Borja 80 years old, Survivor 

‘‘They tied me to the coconut tree like a carabao or a cow. That’s a very sad. And 

right now, like only a couple of months back when they tie me there for almost one 

day, they tie me to the coconut tree and they almost killed us. I hope to God people 

from Merizo so they can know what I’m saying and it’s true. And it’s very painful 

for me when I think about that. Only I know that the carabao and the cow are tied 

not the human being, but that time I was tied up for almost one day when I’m 12 

years old.’’ 

‘‘It’s a long story, and I think the people that came here today, what they say, 

it’s true. And I don’t want to say. It’s a long story to say everything what the Japanese did to us, to me and all my family.’’ 

Rosa Roberto Carter passed away on April 11, 2010 

‘‘Most of us suffered wounds from being forced into the jungle, where we contacted 

scarring napalm from the United States bombing of the Japanese. When the bombing stopped, we were forced to go back to clearing bushes, which were dripping with 

this napalm. And in a proper setting, I could show you some scars, which have irritated me for 60 years. One of my brothers lost parts of two fingers, as well, from 

the live ammunition scattered over so much of Guam after the fighting in 1944. And 

at one time, I found myself clinging to a large breadfruit tree while American planes 

attacked. 

Human limbs, arms and legs, flew through the air on their own. People screamed 

in the grip of hysteria. I saw people going berserk.’’ 

‘‘In regard to the constant terror of being an occupied people, earlier in Mangilao, 

many of us were forced to line up in orderly rows to witness the beating of a family 

for the crime of trying to hide some of its food from the Japanese occupiers. If we 

showed any emotion, we would have been beaten too. ‘‘ 

Francisco Leon Guerrero Castro 79 years old, Survivor 

‘‘We then had the order for a forced march to concentration camp in Manenggon. 

Because of my father’s fear of what the Japanese might have intended...One person 

that testified here, I also recollected that during the Japanese occupation, a Japanese national who was living in Guam, way before the war and during the war, had 

circulated the rumor when they started seeing Uncle Sam come back to Guam, she 

started circulating the rumor that when the Americans gets back to Guam, they 

won’t find nothing but flies. That statement was very true.’’ 

Rosa Tenorio Castro 77 years old, Survivor 

‘‘If I did not march, they will kill me. Also, they will make me work in hot sun 

with no food and water and even though it’s raining or not raining. It’s a forced 

labor for a child. You don’t have any democracy. There’s no say so, ‘‘I beg your pardon.’’ ‘‘Do it or else the end it be of you.’’ In other words, they were very cruel to 

us Chamorros.’’ 

‘‘We went to Manenggon. Then, the marching on Manenggon, I thought, being a 

child, my understanding is only a child’s understanding. But, now it’s not. It’s the 

opposite way around. What I heard as a child, that we were going to go to 

Manenggon, where there’s a camp to be preserved from the American bombing. But, 

that is not true. They put us there so that the Japanese collect the Chamorro and 

give a big bomb. One bomb is enough for many people. That’s what they intended 

to do.’’ 

Jose Quinene Cruz 63 years old, Survivor 

‘‘My only recollection from my grandmother and my father and my mother was 

one morning, when I was playing out in the rain, it was raining real hard and I 

told my mother, ‘‘I wish God would stop this rain.’’ She told me, ‘‘Son, if the rain 

didn’t stop, you would not be born.’’ That’s the only time when she spoke about the 

war. With further query, I said, ‘‘Mom, why, what happened?’’ She said, ‘‘I was in 

a firing squad with Nana,’’ my grandmother, ‘‘and your father and two other siblings. We were there because when the taicho came,’’ because my grandmother was 

95 

the one who was massaging the taicho. Well, the taicho came and Nana was not 

there, they burned their house because they were out in the ranch. They burned 

their house. When they came back, they found out that their house was burned. 

Then, they were actually corralled to go to the river right next to where the Malesso’ 

Church is. They were lined up to be killed. It rained and it rained and it rained. 

Because of the meticulousness of the Japanese, they actually did not kill them. My 

mom said we just slowly slipped out because they were enjoying themselves probably thinking that they’ll kill them.’’ 

‘‘I come here because I think the deprivation that I feel is really the deprivation 

of some of our loved ones. My uncle would’ve probably gotten me really, really advancing with a confidence that he actually had to the family. He was killed because 

of his stature. He was killed because he was a tall man, he was a big man. I’m a 

big person and my father’s smaller than I am. I always told him, ‘‘Gee, if I only 

known Uncle Kin, I probably would actually measure up to him.’’ 

‘‘The atrocity that I bring is really the atrocity of being deprived of the memories 

of all of our heroes, all of my people, all of my elderly and all of the people who 

have merited. I close really with a nightmare that my mother-in-law and father-inlaw actually had. That one, I vividly experience. When Pop is about 80, 79 years 

old, he was starting to have Alzheimer’s. When he leaves the house, there was one 

time when it was really a heavy rain. I think it’s part of the recollection of the war, 

Pop, we found him hiding under one of the bushes. We asked him, ‘‘Pop, what are 

you doing?’’ He said, ‘‘The Japanese are coming.’’... Those are memories of the living. 

But, the memories of the dead I carry. I carry the deprivation of the memories.’’ 

Rita Santos Cruz 72 years old, Survivor 

‘‘I was one person and I believe that there is no amount of money will ever equal 

the horror and pain of such an experience. We have not come to ask for money there 

is no value to suffering, hunger and cruel punishment and that no million will suffice to satisfy that indignity. We have not been acknowledged as a nation of people 

and also that we have suffered under the hands of the Japanese. Many have been 

raped, force to labor and I was forced to pick papaya and coconut for the Japanese. 

We marched to an area As Lucas in Talofofo. When we got there we saw a long 

and huge hole that was dug up but we had no idea what it was until my mother 

asked for a hug because the Japanese were suppose to kill us.’’ 

Barbara Castro Dela Cruz 76 years old, Survivor 

‘‘I witnessed the beheading of three Chamorro men, who the Japanese accused of 

spying for assisting the American George Tweed. During the execution, I was placed 

at the front row, a few feet away from the men who were to be killed. It was a painful experience because the Japanese threatened that anyone who looked away or 

showed any emotion during the execution would be next, saying we were witnessing 

our mirror that could be done to us as well.’’ 

Vicente Diaz Gumataotao 82 years old, Survivor 

‘‘Every day that I see Japanese, they’ll beat me up. Either they wring my ear or 

they knock my head. But, they took us to be slave, forced labor, more likely, in a 

rice field, cornfield and potato, and sweet potato field; they worked 12 hours a day. 

Out of 36 of us, I really feel sorry for those 35 because I’m the only survivor.’’ ‘‘There 

was a lot of atrocities and I witnessed a lot of things that were happening in Guam, 

like the Late Frank Won Pat, when he was beheaded at Pigo’, I was there, it was 

the first person that was beheaded by digging his own grave and they won’t waste 

a bullet for him to be killed. He had to be beheaded by a sword.’’ ‘‘At Orote Point, 

the food that we eat over there is 50% worm and 50% rice. It’s all rotted rice. We 

have to eat because we’re starving.’’ ‘‘I asked for my machete back, they beat me 

up until I was unconscious. When I got up, I don’t even know where I’m at. That’s 

the worse experience I ever had. It’s a horrible experience that I have been through. 

But I’m not the worst. There are a lot of people here that are worse than I am.’’ 

Concepcion Judicpa 66 years old, Survivor 

‘‘Although I did not put in my testimony, I would like to, and maybe I will revise 

that later, but, in my testimony, my sister, up to this point, my sister’s only about 

80 pounds. It’s because she lived during those days. She had, like all the other testimonies, there was malnutrition and so on. I, when I got married, I was only 85 

pounds. Thank God I had five kids and was able to gain some weight. But, I believe 

that was as a result of the times when there was hardly any food to go around.’’ 

Pilar Diaz Cruz Luja ́n 79 years old, Survivor 

‘‘I was 11 years, 2 months old on December 8th, 1941. The mass of the Immaculate Conception was just celebrated in the Santa Cruz Church in Agana. As we were 

96 

coming out of the Church, we heard and saw planes overhead. Instantly, we waved 

and cheered as if we were watching an aerial show. Little did we know that those 

same planes had bombed Sumay... That was the end of the peaceful island paradise 

of Guam. A few days later, the people of Guam were captured by the Japanese and 

that was the beginning of the reign of terror that was forced upon the inhabitants 

of Guam.’’ 

‘‘As far as I’m concerned, the trauma and the lasting negative psychological impact of the people cannot be measured... The point is, the physical scars can never 

measure up to the fear that I carry today, even as old as I am now. The subject 

of war experience is not a subject that is easily passed on from one generation to 

the next. It is painful and horrifying experience that many people want to discuss, 

but most are unable to express without outward signs of emotional release.’’ 

Maria Santos Martinez 83 years old, Survivor 

‘‘I was 14 years old when the Japanese came on Dec. 8, 1941. When the Japanese 

came, they made us run into the jungle right near St. Johns. Our family hid there 

and it was so dark and we couldn’t find each other because we were near a cave 

by St. John’s. In the morning, my father left us to cut his tuba and when he climbed 

down from the coconut tree, he saw a battalion of Japanese coming from the direction of Gun Beach. They stopped at the house of my aunt and found a young woman 

by the name of Maria Camacho whom they dragged out and raped. They held onto 

her father and while a bayonet was pointed at him, the battalion took turns on the 

young woman. My father ran back to us in the jungle and told us about what he 

saw.’’ 

‘‘Every morning, the Japanese would send us off to work. When I didn’t work, 

would then be told to make sure to clean my neck because I would be cut off at 

the neck if I didn’t’ work. I would always cry out of fear. I would tell my mother 

that I didn’t feel like working because I was always so hungry and sick but a Japanese would always remind me that if I refused, I would be killed by being beheaded.’’ 

‘‘When the American planes came they would shoot at us from the air because 

they thought we were the Japanese. We would all run into the jungle where we’d 

pray the Lord’s Prayer. We even tried sticking our heads into holes in the ground 

out of our fear of being hit. When my companions become thirsty and they ask to 

drink, the Japanese would then take their guns and hit them with it.’’ 

Lucia McDonald 83 years old, Survivor 

‘‘Once the Japanese soldiers found out through the interpreter that our father was 

an American Navy man, they tortured us on a daily basis. We would get punched, 

kicked and poked by bayonets and a head choke. On one occasion, my three brothers 

were in prison and beaten badly. One brother was beaten so badly on his leg that 

when they release him months later, he could not walk anymore.’’ 

‘‘We had to hide our food so we wouldn’t get beaten. On one of our work days, 

we were forced to circle around and witness the execution of three men. One was 

beheaded and the others shot. We were told not to cry or yell or else we also would 

be killed.’’ 

‘‘I was afraid to report to the fields because of the plane dogfights that morning. 

The next day, along with three other girls, we were escorted and questioned about 

our accidents at the field that day. I was slapped repeatedly and a sword was placed 

on my shoulder. The interpreter told me that I was going to be killed if I lied about 

my absence. I begged for my life. Later, he asked if I wanted to be drowned in the 

big drum of a container of water. Two girls were told to clean the wounds of the 

Japanese soldiers. One girl was taken into the sleeping quarters of the Japanese 

official and I was told to grind coconut for the soldiers. Three of us were released 

that night. One girl, who was taken into the sleeping quarters was kept there for 

a couple of days before they returned her home. But, then her father hung himself 

because he could not bear to see his daughter suffering and what she went 

through.’’ 

Dolores Cruz Meno 78 Years Old, Survivor 

‘‘There’s two of us girls, because I was so fragile, I was so skinny. My parents 

are very poor, I am the youngest one in the family. So, there’s two of us girls to 

carry that with the bamboo. We put the bamboo on the basket, we slid it into the 

farthest part of the basket and we carry it on our back out to the Manganese to 

deliver it to the Japanese people for their supplies. We do not have anything for 

us. They all get it for themselves.’’ 

97 

Manuel Mafnas Merfalen 82 years old, Survivor 

‘‘One morning, we were visited by a few Japanese and an interpreter and the 

Commissioner of Dededo... They introduced themselves to be the representative of 

the police, and the reason for their being there was because of my sister being married to an American Navy man... So the question went on repeatedly to my sister, 

and my sister was only giving them negative answer. Each time they’re not satisfied 

with the answer, it was followed with a blow in the face, not with the palm open, 

but with the fist closed, to my sister’s face every time she gave a negative answer. 

This went on for almost an hour, and they finally decided to leave, leaving my sister 

with a puffy face, bleeding through the mouth and nose...And then the following 

day, the same people came, informing my mother that we have to deliver my sister 

down to the Agana police station for more investigation...They were tying up her 

hands in front of her, and there was a chair just before her and she was told to 

get on the chair. So they strung up my sister to the beam of that building and I 

watched her dangling on that rope... Every time she gave an answer, it was followed 

with a whip, about a yard long whip, instead of a beating with the hand. I can see 

through the window flashes of blood. Her dress is soaked with blood. She wasn’t crying, but I can see tears dripping through her face... When I was watching through 

the window, they poured this container of liquid over her head, then she started 

screaming. And what it was, it’s not water, but it’s gas. I can smell the fume of that 

gas coming out through that window from a distance of maybe 15 feet. So I started 

moving away from the building. I was crying. As far as I can go from 100 feet away, 

I can still hear my sister yelling.’’ 

‘‘We were on an ammunition and supply detail for some command in Mangilao 

for the military and, at the time, there was a plane flying over us. We were told 

to disperse with what we have on our shoulder into the jungle. My brother, being 

a heavy smoker, he took out his cigarette and light it, and momentarily when the 

supervisor of that crew saw the light, he yelled at one end of the group of people 

where we were and, in no time, he was there already yelling at my brother. I 

couldn’t help watching him, what he was going through, and he was brutally kicked, 

hit with a stick, knocked down unconsciously... And at that time, they tied my 

brother’s arm and dragged him behind a horse, and that was the last time I see 

of him.’’ 

Lourdes Laguana Perez 80 years old, Survivor 

‘‘I watched my aunties, my father’s sisters whipped when their three kamas were 

lost when they were going out. So, the Japanese rounded up all the old people first. 

They started whipping them. The Japanese were taking turns whipping the old people first. They were very strong because they started first. Then, when they went 

to the younger people, they were kind of weak. But, I watched my aunties cry but 

they have to hold their breath because if they cry more, or if we cry because I watch 

them, you’ll get beaten more and you’ll get whipping more.’’ 

Jose Afaisen Pinaula 79 years old, Survivor 

‘‘I have suffered painful burn to both of my hands that lasted at least three days, 

then I was assigned to keep the diesel oil torchlight burning all night. I became 

nervous wreck. My morale was at its lowest breaking point. I was frightened and 

scared for my life, that I did anything the Japanese soldier just to survive and be 

alive. Forced to work, even if I was extremely ill, there was absolutely no excuse 

not to work, unless you on the verge of dying. I reach a breaking point in my life 

when I did not care what happened to me. ‘‘ 

Roman Leon Guerrero Quinata, Sr. 80 years old, Survivor 

‘‘Up to now, I do not understand why the animosity and suffering imposed on us 

by Japanese. Imagine, I was only 12 years old, with no knowledge and experience 

of hard labor. I was made to do all these things. I was forced to work in the rice 

field, after several month of schooling. But, of course, the Japanese ambition is not 

to educate us, but to force us to do hard work, hard labor for their interest in combating this war. No matter what it takes, no matter what it costs, as long as their 

interest is served sometimes I ask myself, ‘‘What have we done to make them hit 

us so much?’’ The Chamorros are a loving and generous people. They don’t even respect the elderly. My mother recently had a baby, was forced to work in the rice 

field. Incidentally, the baby that was born just before the war, died during the war, 

after contracting pneumonia. Nothing matters to them.’’ 

‘‘I will summarize this ordeal as one that I will never forget. The pain, the suffering, the hunger and the beating is beyond my expectation. I am praying that it 

will not happen again, and none of my kids or grandkids will ever experience what 

I have gone through.’’ 

98 

Cristobal Reyes 68 years old, Survivor 

‘‘While at Fenna, he worked for the Japanese in the field crops. It was shortly 

after my father had to move to Fenna when he was made aware that the Americans 

were on their way to Guam. This alerted the Japanese and started ridding the islands of as much Chamorros as they can, so that it will help weaken the attack 

against them whenever it was to take place. This is what led to the massacre of 

Fenna. On one particular morning, all the people were gathered to go into several 

of the caves that were existed there. My father was in one of them. He was later 

called out by the Japanese to collect firewood and barks of trees to place in front 

of the cave. Up to this time, there was no mention or notice of machine gun position 

to fire directly in front of the cave. He witnessed the first cave was being set on 

fire at the entrance, and then was followed by shootings.’’ 

Regina Reyes 95 years old, survivor 

‘‘In 1941, when we heard that the Japanese is in Hawaii, we’re to get away in 

the house. We stay there all day until four o’clock. I go to my other house. Since 

I just got in my house, they got in with gun and shiny bayonet. He asked me—I 

don’t know what to say about this, pointed the gun, and I said, no, I don’t have. 

And then he just pushed me on the wall and do what he want. He raped me.’’ 

Elvina Reyes Rios 81 years old, Survivor 

‘‘I was made to work by the Japanese. I was only 13 years old at the time. I was 

living in Agat with my parents. I was made to work in the rice field. I was made 

to work in Piti planting rice. I worked in the village of Agat to be in the garden. 

I was made to work in Jalaguag. The damage on my back is still there because 

when I was busy clearing land and I would stretch my body, the Japanese would 

throw rocks at me. It is still there on my back... I’d get to Fena at 6 in the morning 

and if I was late at least one minute, I would get one slap on my mouth. For three 

minutes, it was three slaps on my mouth. When I am done in Fena, I would grate 

125 coconuts. I would get off at 6 pm and by the time I got home to the ranch at 

9 at night.’’ 

Francisco Perez Sablan 69 years old, Survivor 

‘‘My father was beaten up and was punished, brutal. They hit him with sticks and 

they break almost every bone in his body. My mother, they grabbed me from my 

mother, they threw me in the fire. They slapped my mother. They kicked my mother. Now, I got about maybe 15% or 30% of my back body burned. So, I’m just here 

today to tell you that it’s a hard life, to grow up with no parents, no father, no mother. I didn’t even finish my education because I have nobody to support me in my 

education. I grew up eating bananas, breadfruit, taros, lucky if I eat spam or corned 

beef in a month or week. It’s a hard life.’’ 

Jesus Perez Sablan passed away on May 21, 2010 

‘‘We arrived in Manenggon without water, food or shelter. We hurriedly installed 

a lean-to temporary shelter using vegetation branches for our bedding. Believe me, 

war is hell. How I managed to journey, to complete the journey, with my partially 

crippled dragging my leg with eventual healing was a mystery. Could only attribute 

it to faith, the will to survive, and, more importantly, the will of God. And I swear, 

that the above remarks were the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help 

me God.’’ 

Vicente Taitingfong Taisipic 73 years old, Survivor 

‘‘They gave me a bucket to patrol the whole area of Yona and collect manure, irregardless what kind of manure. And they gave me a quota that, if I don’t fill up six 

buckets during the field, that I would be beaten up. Practically, I was a walking 

maggot because, the fact of the matter is, that after the field work, I had to walk 

all the way from the school compound down to Asinan Valley. That’s where our 

ranch is located at. And my parents normally told me to go directly to the river, 

stay there with the other carabao or water buffalo. And at that time, soap is a luxury for us. We used lemon leaf for soap so I could get rid of the flies that had been 

following me from the field that I would be beaten up.’’ 

‘‘The Japanese sergeant told me and a few others to round up all the dogs. At 

that time, I was under the impression they’re supposed to eat it, but they behead 

it. And the one time, I came so close to at being cut by a Japanese sword. And then 

the dog, more or less, trying to reach and I reached over to grab it, hold it back, 

and then the Japanese soldier, cut him in half. Then he started laughing at me, 

and then, at the same time, I was bloody all over, then he started getting mad at 

me that I wasn’t doing my job holding the dog down.’’ 

99 

Arthur B. Toves 81 years old, Survivor 

‘‘One afternoon, he ordered me and said to me, ‘‘Get one shovel and go to the cemetery and dig this hole for two.’’ I did that because it’s very soft, sandy part. I finished what they told me to do. I hid under the banana tree and wait for them. Sooner or later the truck came with the two local prisoners and the mother. They followed behind the car with the two Japanese, armed with swords and .45 pistol. 

When they got into the cemetery, they tied the hands of the prisoners. They ordered 

them to kneel down, face one another. ‘‘Look down at the hole and bend your neck.’’ 

Ladies and gentlemen, sooner or later, that sword was flying, whacking the neck. 

One was next to the lady, the other was not, because they used the .45 to kill the 

guy. But, what makes me feel so bad that day, is that the mother was standing 

right next to the grave, watching all the things that being done to her son. I feel 

so bad, but I cannot do anything, or else, I’ll be in the hole also.’’ 

‘‘My father [was] still in prison. They came to the ranch, armed with bayonets, 

looking for anything to prove that we are spy. They didn’t find anything. They 

brought us to Agana, my two oldest brothers, my two oldest cousins and myself. 

They bring up the recent account. My father was on top of that. Nine o’clock in the 

morning, I noticed the executioner in the window... When he came out, he let us 

stand, all of us five, attention. He touches my brother’s neck, the oldest one. He 

said, ‘‘This is no good because this is kind of hard.’’ Going down the line, they came 

to me. He touches my neck and exactly, this is what he said, ‘‘This is very good.’’ 

One time, meaning to say the sword would just go through all the way because I 

was the youngest one.’’ 

Juan Martinez Unpingco passed away on August 10, 2010 

‘‘We seldom go to the other village and to Agana because we were afraid that we 

might meet Japanese soldier who were so mean and brutal. I have seen them slap 

our people with them and even stab people to death with their bayonet. They were 

ruthless and they have no regards to the value of human life. Then one day the Japanese soldiers came to our ranch destroying things and terrorizing us. We were so 

scared, especially when the same soldier rape my auntie Margaret.’’ 

‘‘One day the Japanese soldier armed with rifle and an interpreter telling to forcing us to march to Manenggon concentration camp... If you stopped to rest, you’d 

be whipped and beat. These were the march when my father, got whipped—oh boy 

he was really whipped had no reason, apparent reason. He was whipped with 

tangantagnan stick five feet long, one inch thick, my dad was whipped so severely 

until his body was swollen, lacerated, covered with matted blood and bruises. The 

beating took so long, so the soldiers took turns beating him. When the beating was 

finished, my father went to the nearby river and soaked his wounds for two hours 

to lessen the pain, swelling and bleeding.’’ 

‘‘Our people, as well as my family, endured so much hardship, pain and agony 

and torture. There are times I have nightmare remembering the suffering and torture and the killing that I witnessed as a young man. I still remember the mangled 

bodies with worms and flies feeding them.’’ 

Mr. LANDRY. Thank you, Governor. The Chair would now like to 

recognize Mr. Pula for five minutes. 

STATEMENT OF NIKOLAO PULA, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF 

INSULAR AFFAIRS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Mr. PULA. Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, 

thank you for the opportunity to discuss the Guam World War II 

Recognition Act. 

It has been nearly 70 years since Imperial Japanese military 

forces invaded and occupied Guam, subjecting its residents to 33 

months of horrific pain and death. Through it all, however, the 

largely native population, the Chamorro, remained ever loyal to the 

United States. In a monumental operation the United States 

ground forces surrounded the beaches of Asan and Agat on June 

21, 1944. Although our forces experienced fears of battles throughout the Pacific, what they found and learned of Guam’s occupation 

by the Japanese was shocking. Fellow Americans, innocent civilians were subject to summary executions, beheadings, rape, torVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:06 Jul 03, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00103 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 L:\DOCS\67403.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
100 

ture, beatings, forced labor, forced march and internment. Approximately 1,000 had died due to the brutality of the Imperial Japanese occupation. 

No U.S. state or territories suffered as bitter a fate during World 

War II as did Guam. 

Cognizant of the dire straits of the people of Guam, the U.S. Congress passed the Guam Meritorious Claims Act in November 1945, 

just after the surrender of Japan. The U.S. Government later 

granted relief to certain residents of other areas occupied by Imperial Japanese military forces. Guam was not included in this subsequent legislation under the mistaken belief that Guam residents 

had already been compensated. 

For nearly 30 years, beginning in the 1970s, Guam delegates to 

Congress introduced legislation regarding war claims. It was not 

until 2002 that the Guam War Claims Review Commission Act became public law. Congress had instructed the Commission to determine whether there was parity of war claims paid to the residents 

of Guam under the Guam Meritorious Claims Act as compared 

with awards made to other similarly affected United States citizens 

or nationals in territory occupied by the Imperial Japanese military 

forces during World War II. 

The Commission met on numerous occasions, held lengthy hearings in both Guam and in Washington, and exhaustively analyzed 

relevant information and materials before committing its collective 

judgment to paper in its 2004 report. The Commission carefully 

stated 32 findings and developed six recommendations for the Congress, including $25,000 for eligible survivors of Guam residents 

who died, $12,000 for personal injury, including rape, malnutrition, 

forced labor, force marching and internment to each person who 

personally suffered any of these harms or to the eligible survivors, 

and establishment of a trust fund for research, education, and 

media to memorialize the events of the occupation and the loyalty 

of the people of Guam. 

Legislation which drew from the report has passed the House of 

Representatives on several occasions beginning with the 109th 

Congress. However, it has failed to receive the support that would 

see it through to the enactment that we believe it deserves. As 

Congress is aware, Guam is vital to the protection of American interests. The United States has plans to move about 8,000 Marines, 

including their dependents from Okinawa to Guam. Many hope 

that the passage of the Guam Loyalty Recognition Act would show 

goodwill on the part of the Federal Government and would act as 

reciprocity for the goodwill and loyalty of the people of Guam have 

always exhibited and will exhibit by hosting the enlarged military 

presence. 

The Obama Administration, through the Department of the Interior, strongly supported enactment of the Guam World War II Loyalty Recognition Act in the 111th Congress, and we continue to 

offer our strong support for these provisions. Enactment of H.R. 44 

would restore the dignity lost during occupation and heal wounds 

bound in the spirits of those who survived. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Pula follows:] 

101 

Statement of Nikolao I. Pula, Jr., Director, Office of Insular Affairs, U.S. 

Department of the Interior, on H.R. 44, The Guam World War II Loyalty 

Recognition Act 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, Oceans 

and Insular Affairs, thank you for the opportunity to discuss H.R. 44, the Guam 

World War II Loyalty Recognition Act. 

It has been nearly 70 years since Imperial Japanese military forces invaded and 

occupied the United States territory of Guam, subjecting its residents to 33 months 

of horrific pain and death. Through it all however, the vast majority of the largely 

native population, the Chamorro, remained ever-loyal to the United States. In prayer and song, many longed for the return of the Americans. 

In a monumental operation, United States ground forces stormed the beaches of 

Asan and Agat on June 21, 1944. It took nearly two months to dislodge a well-hidden enemy, but Guam was finally secured on August 10, 1944. Although our forces 

experienced fierce battles throughout the Pacific, what they found and learned of 

Guam’s occupation by the Japanese was shocking. Fellow Americans, innocent civilians, were subjected to summary executions, beheadings, rape, torture, beatings, 

forced labor, forced march and internment. Approximately 1,000 had died due to the 

brutality of Imperial Japanese occupation. No U.S. state or territory suffered as bitter a fate during World War II as did Guam. 

Once Guam was secured, its residents were overwhelmingly thankful that their 

prayers had been answered, and conversely, our grateful nation had immense admiration for them and the pain and suffering they had endured. Cognizant of the dire 

straits of the people of Guam, the United States Congress passed the Guam Meritorious Claims Act in November 1945, just after the surrender of Japan,. 

The U.S. Government later granted relief to certain residents of other areas occupied by Imperial Japanese military forces. Guam was not included in this subsequent legislation under the mistaken belief that Guam residents had already been 

compensated by Congress. While the Guam relief recipients were appreciative, over 

the years it became evident that they may not have received treatment equivalent 

to that later given to Americans in other areas occupied by Japanese forces. 

For nearly 30 years beginning in the 1970s, Guam Delegates to Congress introduced legislation regarding war claims. It was not until December 10, 2002 that the 

Guam War Claims Review Commission Act became Public Law 107–333. Pursuant 

to the Act, the Secretary of the Interior appointed the Commission’s five members, 

all of whom had experience relevant to the task at hand. 

Congress had instructed the Commission to ‘‘determine whether there was parity 

of war claims paid to the residents of Guam under the Guam Meritorious Claims 

Act as compared with awards made to other similarly affected United States citizens 

or nationals in territory occupied by the Imperial Japanese military forces during 

World War II....’’ 

The Commission met on numerous occasions, held lengthy hearings both in Guam 

and in Washington, and exhaustively analyzed relevant information and materials 

before committing its collective judgment to paper in its 2004 Report on the Implementation of the Guam Meritorious Claims Act of 1945. The Report is indeed comprehensive. The Commission carefully stated 32 findings and developed six recommendations for the Congress. 

Included in the recommendations are: 

• $25,000 for the eligible survivors of Guam residents who died during the Japanese occupation, which amounts to approximately $25 million for approximately 

1,000 deaths; 

• $12,000 for personal injury, including rape, malnutrition, forced labor, forced 

march, and internment (including hiding to avoid capture), to each person who 

was a resident of Guam during the Japanese occupation and who personally 

suffered any of these harms, or to the eligible survivor(s) of such individuals, 

which amounts to approximately $101 million for the entire 1990 census population of Guam; and 

• Establishment of a trust fund for scholarship, medical facilities, and other public purposes for the benefit of the people of Guam and for research, education 

and media to memorialize the events of the occupation and the loyalty of the 

people of Guam. 

Legislation, which drew from the report, has passed the House of Representatives 

on several occasions beginning with the 109th Congress. However, it has failed to 

receive the support that would see it through to the enactment that we believe it 

deserves. 

As Congress is aware, Guam is vital to the protection of American interests in 

Asia and the Western Pacific. The United States since 2000 has been building up 

102 

its military forces on Guam, and has plans to move about 8,000 Marines and their 

dependents from Okinawa to Guam as part of a bi-lateral agreement with Japan. 

Many hoped that passage of the Guam World War II Loyalty Recognition Act would 

exhibit good will on the part of the Federal government and would act as reciprocity 

for the good will and loyalty the people of Guam have always exhibited and will exhibit by hosting a large military presence. 

The Obama Administration, through the Department of the Interior, strongly supported enactment of the Guam World War II Loyalty Recognition Act in the 111th 

Congress, and we continue to offer our strong support for these provisions. Enactment of H.R. 44 would restore the dignity lost during occupation and heal wounds 

bound in the spirits of those who survived. For the thousand who passed by saber 

or savagery their memory remains in stories of principle, courage, and sacrifice. 

The Island of Guam has undergone tremendous change since World War II, and 

that change will continue as its strategic value is realized in the 21st Century. The 

opportunity to reach back and provide equity, parity, and justice is manifested in 

the Guam World War II Loyalty Recognition Act. 

Mr. LANDRY. Thank you. The Chair would now like to recognize 

Mr. Tamargo. You are recognized for five minutes. 

STATEMENT OF MAURICIO TAMARGO, FORMER CHAIRMAN, 

GUAM WAR CLAIMS REVIEW COMMISSION, FORMER CHAIRMAN, UNITED STATES FOREIGN CLAIMS SETTLEMENT 

COMMISSION 

Mr. TAMARGO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, 

Members of the Committee, for the opportunity to appear before 

you today to speak about the work of the Guam War Claims Review Commission. 

My name is Mauricio Tamargo. I had the distinct honor of serving as the Chairman of the Review Commission and I served with 

a very talented and knowledgeable group of fellow commissioners 

and staff. For the sake of brevity, I am summarizing my remarks. 

The Review Commission was an advisory body established by the 

Secretary of the Interior pursuant to the Guam War Claims Review 

Commission Act enacted in December of 2002. The Review Commission was established to determine whether there was parity of 

war claims paid to the residents of Guam under the Guam Meritorious Claims Act as compared with awards made to other similarly affected U.S. citizens or nationals in territories occupied by 

Imperial Japanese military forces during World War II, and to advise on any additional compensation which may be necessary to 

compensate the people of Guam for death, personal injury, forced 

labor, forced march and internment suffered at the hands of the 

Japanese forces during the occupation. 

Guam was a U.S. territory when Japanese forces attacked it on 

December 8, 1941. Two days later, on December 10th, the Japanese 

overran and occupied the island. What followed was a period of 32 

months of cruel, brutal and barbaric oppression of the people of 

Guam by the Japanese occupation forces. Great numbers of islanders were beaten. The Commission found that great numbers of islanders were beaten and whipped and many of the women were 

raped. There were numerous beheadings. In the last months of the 

occupation nearly all of the islanders were subjected to force labor 

and forced marches and herded into concentration areas including 

the elderly and the very young, causing them to suffer acutely from 

malnutrition, exposure, and disease. 

103 

The Review Commission found that U.S. forces began the liberation of Guam on July 21, 1944, and the United States declared 

Guam secure on August 10, 1944. We also found that the Navy immediately began organizing the island as a base from which the 

U.S. intended to launch air and sea attacks in the direction of 

Japan. The U.S. Navy also devoted as much material and effort as 

it could spare to constructing shelters and providing assistance to 

the residents of Guam. Housing and shelter was scarce on Guam 

not just because of the combat fighting between the U.S. and Japanese forces, but also because many of the residents were being displaced by the ever-increasing build up of U.S. forces on the island. 

The task of both acquiring all necessary lands for U.S. forces and 

for providing monetary relief for damages to the residents of Guam 

was undertaken by the Navy’s Land and Claims Unit, which later 

became the Navy’s Land and Claims Commission. 

As the first word in both organization’s titles implies, the Navy’s 

priority was acquiring all the necessary land on the island needed 

by the military for the war effort, not attending to the claims of the 

residents of the island. To a great extent, this is understandable 

as the U.S. was still engaged in a very serious war effort. 

The Review Commission report acknowledges that the Navy’s efforts on behalf of the residents of Guam was admirable. However, 

the Review Commission also noted that the two missions of the 

Land and Claims Commission were at cross purposes because while 

the Navy was trying to inform the residents of Guam of their right 

to file a claim, and while it was trying to provide them with shelter 

and housing, the Navy was also displacing much of the population 

of Guam. 

Ultimately the Navy grew to occupy 75 percent of the island. 

Within weeks after the termination of hostilities on Guam, the 

Congress enacted the Guam Meritorious Claims Act of 1945. In addition to providing other authorizations, this Act directed the Navy 

to provide immediate relief to the people of Guam in the form of 

monetary payments. 

In undertaking its tasks, the Review Commission conducted research, extensive research on the administration of the Guam Meritorious Claims Act of 1945 by the Navy’s Land and Claims Commission, comparing that claims program to other claims programs 

conducted pursuant to other acts of Congress. 

The Review Commission also conducted hearings on Guam and 

in Washington, D.C. Finally, the Review Commission submitted its 

report to the Secretary of the Interior and to specified congressional committees summarizing our findings and our recommendations. The Review Commission, as detailed in our report, found 

that the Navy’s Land and Claims Commission administered pursuant to the Guam Meritorious Claims Act of 1945 was significantly 

flawed and fell short on a number of important counts when compared to the claims programs provided to the residents of other 

U.S. territories. 

The most significant of the flaws of this claims program was the 

poor public notice given to the residents of Guam and to the short 

opportunity for residents of Guam to file claims in the claims program. The Review Commission also found, and I would like to now 

make special mention of the fact that the residents of Guam during 

104 

the Japanese military occupation exhibited great courage and loyalty to the United States in case of extreme hostility, and they did 

it at a time when the outlook for the U.S. prevailing in the war 

was far from assured. 

In conclusion, the five commissioners who served on the Review 

Commission came from different points of view and different backgrounds, as well as from both political parties, and yet we came to 

the findings and recommendations unanimously. I stand by these 

findings and recommendations and continue to believe strongly 

that they should be implemented. 

I would also like to say that those of us who came to the Review 

Commission from the Foreign Claims Settlement Commission were 

pleased to have had the opportunity to use our familiarity and expertise regarding war claims issues to assist in this important 

work. 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement and I am happy to 

respond to any questions that you and the Ranking Member may 

have. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Tamargo follows:] 

Statement of The Honorable Mauricio J. Tamargo (Ret.), Partner, Poblete 

Tamargo, LLP, Former Chairman, Foreign Claims Settlement 

Commission of the United States, and Former Chairman, Guam War 

Claims Review Commission, on H.R. 44, The Guam World War II Loyalty 

Recognition Act 

Chairman Fleming and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to speak about the work of the Guam War Claims 

Review Commission. 

My name is Mauricio Tamargo, and I was the chairman of the Foreign Claims 

Settlement Commission at the Department of Justice from 2002 to 2010, and I was 

also chairman of the Guam War Claims Review Commission (Review Commission) 

until June 9, 2004 when the Review Commission completed its work. 

The Review Commission was an advisory body established by the Secretary of the 

Interior under the Guam War Claims Review Commission Act, Public Law 107–333, 

enacted in December 2002. 

I had the honor of serving on the Review Commission with a very talented and 

knowledgeable group of individuals including the Vice Chairman of the Review 

Commission, the late Hon. Antonio Unpingco, former Speaker of the Guam Legislature, the Hon. Robert J. Lagomarsino, former Member of Congress from Ventura, 

California, the Hon. Benjamin J. Cruz, former Chief Justice of the Guan Supreme 

Court-now a Senator in the Guam legislature, and Mrs. Ruth Van Cleve, a former 

career senior executive in the Department of the Interior, and Mr. David Bradley, 

the Executive Director and the rest of the Review Commission staff. 

The Review Commission was established to ‘‘determine whether there was parity 

of war claims paid to the residents of Guam under the Guam Meritorious Claims 

Act as compared with awards made to other similarly affected U.S. citizens or nationals in territory occupied by the Imperial Japanese military forces during World 

War II’’ and to ‘‘advise on any additional compensation that may be necessary to 

compensate the people of Guam for death, personal injury, forced labor, forced 

march, and internment’’ suffered from the Japanese occupation of the island during 

the war. 

The island of Guam, was a U.S. territory when it was attacked by Japanese forces 

on December 8, 1941. Guam was attacked on the same day as the attack on Pearl 

Harbor occurred, but this attack happened on the other side of the International 

Date Line. Two days later, on December 10, 1941, the Japanese overran and occupied the island. What followed after that was a period of 32 months of cruel, brutal, 

and barbaric oppression of the people of Guam by the Japanese occupation forces. 

Great numbers of the islanders were beaten and whipped, and many of the women 

were raped. There were numerous beheadings and, in the last months of the occupation, nearly all of the islanders were subjected to forced labor and forced marches 

and herded into concentration areas, including the elderly and very young, causing 

them to suffer acutely from malnutrition, exposure, and disease. 

105 

The Review Commission found that after beginning the liberation of Guam on 

July 21, 1944, the United States forces declared Guam secure on August 10, 1944, 

and immediately began organizing the island as a base from which the U.S. intended to launch air and sea attacks in the direction of the Japan, the Japanese 

homeland. At the same time, the U.S. Navy devoted as much material and effort 

as it could spare to constructing shelter for the local citizens. 

Housing and shelter was scarce on Guam not just because of the combat fighting 

between U.S. and Imperial Japanese forces but also because many residents were 

being displaced by the ever increasing build up of U.S. forces on the Island. The 

task of both acquiring all necessary land for U.S. military forces, and providing 

monetary relief and damages to the residents of Guam was undertaken by the 

Navy’s ‘‘Land and Claims Unit’’, which later became the Navy’s ‘‘Land and Claims 

Commission’’ when the Congress enacted legislation. As the first word in both organizations title implies, the Navy’s priority was acquiring all the necessary land on 

the Island needed by the military—not attending to the claims of the residents of 

the Islands. To a great extent this is understandable as the U.S. was still engaged 

in a very serious war effort. 

The Review Commission’s Report acknowledges the Navy’s efforts on behalf of the 

residents of Guam as admirable. However, the Review Commission also noted that 

the two missions of the Land and Claims Commission were not aligned and in fact 

were at cross-purposes. Because, while the Navy was trying to inform the residents 

of Guam of their right to file a claim and trying to provide them with shelter and 

housing, the Navy was also displacing much of the population of Guam. Ultimately 

the Navy occupied seventy-five percent of the Island. Leaving a mere twenty-five 

percent for the population of Guam to inhabit. 

With-in weeks after the termination of hostilities in Guam, the Congress enacted 

the Guam Meritorious Claims Act of 1945. In addition to providing authorizations, 

this Act directs the U.S. Navy to provide ‘‘immediate relief’ to the people of Guam. 

This directive included providing monetary payments to the people of Guam. 

In undertaking its task, the Review Commission conducted research on the administration of the Guam Meritorious Claims Act by the Navy’s Land and Claims 

Commission, and compared the claims program conducted pursuant to it with the 

following statutes, and the claims programs conducted pursuant thereto, after the 

war: • The Philippines Rehabilitation Act of 1946 • The War Claims Act of 1948, including the 1952, 1954, 1956, and 1962 (Wake 

Island) amendments to the Act, and Title II of the Act, added in 1962—The 

Micronesian Claims Act of 1971—The Aleutian and Pribilof lslands Restitution Act (1988) 

The Review Commission also conducted hearings on Guam, at which time we 

heard moving testimony from survivors of this terrible period in history. We then 

held a legal experts’ conference in Washington, D.C., where relevant legal issues 

and the history of Guam were discussed. Finally, the Review Commission submitted 

its Report to the Secretary of the Interior and to specified congressional committees 

summarizing our findings and recommendations. 

The Review Commission found that the Navy’s Land and Claims Commission, administered pursuant to the Guam Meritorious Claims Act of 1945, was significantly 

flawed and fell short on a number of important counts, when compared to the claims 

programs provided for residents of other U.S. territories. The most significant of the 

flaws in this program being the poor public notice given for the claims program on 

the war ravaged and chaotic Island and the short opportunity residents of Guam 

had to file claims. 

The Review Commission also found, and I would like to make special mention, 

that the residents of Guam exhibited great courage and loyalty to the United State 

in the face of extreme hostility at a time when the outlook for the U.S. prevailing 

was far from assured. As demonstrated by the time when a number of the residents 

of Guam hid and protected an American sailor during the Japanese occupation. But 

for the assistance by the U.S. national residents of Guam, who knows how WW II 

would have ended? 

The Subcommittee has asked me to address a number of specific questions regarding the work of the Review Commission. These questions are: why should U.S. taxpayers pay for these WW II reparations?; How are the awards under H.R. 44 different from the amounts already received by 4,356 claimants under the Guam Program?; What is the justification for the different levels of compensation in H.R. 44? 

The Japanese cannot be held responsible for any further payment of reparations 

for World War II wrongs committed against Americans, including the World War 

II claims of the American residents of Guam, because the terms of the 1951 Treaty 

of Peace released the Japanese from such responsibility. 

106 

At the same time, notwithstanding that the actual funding to pay these Guam 

claims will come from taxpayer funds, it could be argued that the funds are, in some 

sense, traceable to the funds derived from the postwar liquidation of the Japanese 

and German assets frozen at the beginning of World War II. Those Japanese and 

German funds were lumped together and distributed by the Department of the 

Treasury, pursuant to the various War Claims Commission and Foreign Claims Settlement Commission claims programs. No distinction was drawn between Japanese 

and German responsibility for any particular claim or set of claims. (This contrast 

with the funding of war claims against the Axis countries Hungary, Romania, and 

Bulgaria. Title III of the international Claims Settlement Act of 1949 mandated 

separate funds, derived from the respective countries’ frozen assets, to cover claims 

against each of those countries.) Insofar as the Foreign Claims Settlement Commission is aware, it has not been possible to determine whether all of the proceeds from 

liquidation of the Japanese and German assets have in fact been expended. Therefore, in this case, it could be said that these Guam claims would be paid with Japanese funds. 

With regards to the 4,356 claims received, although I don’t recognize that number, 

the first thing I wish to point out is that while the Guam Program shows a total 

of 6,365 awards, only 318 of those were death claims and only 257 were injury 

claims, the rest were property claims. Again, this breakdown indicates where the 

Navy’s priorities were, understandably with the war effort. The other point I wish 

to make with regard to this question is, as like all such war claims programs, there 

is no legal obligation to make these payments and, as I have said before, the payment of these awards are ex-gratia. 

As to why the Review Commission recommended different categories of claims, 

the Review Commission found that due to the passage of years and the loss of relevant records, it is virtually impossible to differentiate among the many brutal injuries each resident of Guam suffered during the Japanese occupation. We also looked 

at other similar remedial claims programs to this recommended program and found 

that the most appropriate method for apportioning compensation for the resident’s 

suffering would be to grant one single lump some award covering each categories 

of harm, regardless of how many types of harm a person may have suffered. Each 

level of compensation is justified by the different, brutal, and very difficult hardship 

experienced by each of the residents of Guam during the occupation. Even the least 

severe level of compensation, the internment, caused significant illness and death 

due to exposure to the elements for weeks without shelter. 

In conclusion, the five Commissioners who served on the Review Commission 

came from different points of view and backgrounds, as well as both political parties 

and yet we came to these findings and recommendations unanimously. I stand by 

those findings and recommendations and continue to believe strongly that they 

should be implemented. I would also like to say that those of us who came to the 

Review Commission from the Foreign Claims Settlement Commission were pleased 

to have had the opportunity to use our familiarity and expertise regarding war 

claims issues to assist in the accomplishment of this important work. 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. I will be happy to respond to any 

questions that you or the other Members of the Committee may have. 

Response to questions submitted for the record by Mauricio Tamargo, 

Former Chairman, Guam War Claims Review Commission, and Former 

Chairman, U.S. Foreign Claims Settlement Commission 

From The Honorable Madeleine Z. Bordallo 

Q: In previous war claims programs administered by the United States, is 

it typical for an Administration to request funds for the claims program 

in its annual budget request to Congress prior to the authorization of 

the program by the Congress and the subsequent approval of valid 

claims under that program? 

A: ‘‘The Administration has not requested funding to pay claims under any program of the nature currently contemplated for the residents of Guam. This is necessarily so, as it would be impossible to know how much funding to request in advance of ascertaining the universe of potential outstanding claims. 

In a few small claims programs, Congress has appropriated funds to pay claims 

after it had conferred authority to adjudicate the claims on a commission, but prior 

to the commission having evaluated the specific claims. In these particular claims 

programs, the Administration and Congress had an idea of the likely universe of 

outstanding claims. One such Program arose out of post-World War II conflicts and 

107 

involved inadequate rations and inhumane treatment of American servicemen held 

as prisoners of war. 

In this current legislation, as in most claims programs, even though we have a 

rough idea of how many claims there may be, due to the age of the claimants, it 

is too difficult to estimate the appropriated funds that will be needed to cover this 

program.’’ 

Mr. LANDRY. Thank you. I would now like to recognize Brig. Gen. 

V.G. Ben Blaz, and also a former Member of this body for an opening statement. Thank you for being here today, General. 

STATEMENT OF BRIG. GEN. V.G. BEN BLAZ, USMC, RETIRED. 

FORMER MEMBER OF CONGRESS 

Mr. BLAZ. Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, 

Ranking Member, Members of the Committee. 

I came here to use my time reading my statement as the others 

have done. I have decided to forego that, sir, because with all due 

respect in your opening statement I was concerned about some 

comments that I feel that if I don’t respond there might not be another opportunity for me to respond. 

I am very sincere when I say to you, with all due respect, as a 

former Member, I understand fully the responsibilities that you 

have and what decisions you need to make and how you weigh one 

against the other. But having mentioned the Heritage Foundation, 

apparently the source of much of your information, you just admitted something for the record, I say to you, sir, please read my 

statement later on. 

Let me just start with the first thing that you mentioned about the citizens of Guam 1943 to 1956 received $8 million and you said 

apparently that is inadequate. Sir, I would prefer to call it incomplete, incomplete, and the reason it is incomplete is simply because 

there were so many people that were not aware. I was on Guam, 

Mr. Chairman. I was 17 years of age at that time when this thing 

was happening. I come from a family of eight children and my 

mother and father there were 10 of us. Our concern at the time 

was clearing the debris from our home and finding a meal for the 

next time that we sit down. 

We were stunned later on when we discovered that there had 

been this Commission out there, and you just can’t imagine how 

welcome it would be if you are starving and somebody handed you 

a dollar, and that is what we would have embraced the person. 

So I think that there is a sentiment, and I think it is a very distressing sentiment that somehow this thing is now over. I say it 

is incomplete, and I say that we need to give them another shot. 

The second thing that was mentioned was that at least—good 

grief, this distresses me somewhat as a Marine officer—that someone from the Heritage Foundation would characterize the death, 

killed in action, as being that is enough, what else do you want us 

to do? What else do you want us to do? We liberated you. 

It shows an intensely ill-informed person that would write that. 

It presumes that the reason United States came to Guam was to 

liberate us and that alone. It presumes that the reason we captured the Northern Marianas rather than liberate them was to set 

them free. That is not enough because you would have to answer 

the question why did we lose so many people in two of the fiercest 

108 

battles in World War II in either theatre, taking Peleliu, no residents, attacking Iwo Jima, no residents. So the argument falls flat 

on its face, sir, that somehow the United States came. We are 

grateful. I know we are grateful, but by golly, we gave the United 

States, we gave, and besides Saipan and Guam, we practically defeated the Japanese by ourselves because our land was so—forgive 

me, forgive me, sir, for speaking so loudly but this is very dear, 

very dear to my heart. 

I also want to mention that the matter that you mentioned about 

the treaty of—I mean, the $10 million or $10 billion. I agree with 

you. I absolutely agree with you. I cannot imagine, I cannot imagine that an organization such as the House with all its tremendously capable people in the U.S. Government as well that somehow we cannot find a way to say that out of that $10 billion we 

must be able to carve a few pennies and settle this matter. 

Now, why do we want to settle this matter? We want to settle 

this matter, sir, because we need one. Now the military likes to describe Guam as the tip of the spear. Well, Guam has been the tip 

of the spear since 1898. I have here a picture, Mr. Chairman, I 

have here a picture of stamps that were issued in 1990, while I was 

here, and it is a picture of Guam. Guess what it says parenthetically. ‘‘A U.S. outpost.’’ So I challenged the Committee, why do you 

call Guam a U.S. outpost? The Committee staff checked it all out. 

They called me in and said, ‘‘because that is what it is.’’ And I said, 

‘‘I understand.’’ 

That is what it remains, it would appear. 

So, what I would like to say to you, sir, is that this whole idea 

of compensation, the whole idea that somehow we don’t owe the 

people of Guam this, there is a lot more to what is intended here 

than monetary value. At the risk of misquoting it why don’t we call 

it, given the intensely loyal sentiment on Guam for the United 

States, why don’t we call it the lack of response? It is obviously unrequited love, unrequited love. 

We now are about to ask them one more time to look at China 

and to look at North Korea as an outpost and say, hey, will you 

let us know when something else is happening out there? I say to 

you, and I am way past my time, obviously, and I don’t want to 

be chastised about this, but, Mr. Chairman, if you don’t remember 

anything else that I have to say is that, sir, we are not trying to 

get this compensation to bring back the dead. All we are trying, sir, 

is to get this compensation to honor the living. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Blaz follows:] 

Statement of Brigadier General Vicente G. ‘‘Ben’’ Blaz, USMC (Ret), and 

Former Member of Congress from Guam, on H.R. 44, the Guam World 

War II Loyalty Recognition Act 

Chairman Fleming, Ranking Member Sablan and Distinguished Members of the 

Committee 

It has always been an honor for me to be in the halls of Congress as a visitor, 

a witness, and a former Member. Since leaving the Congress, I have frequently told 

my friends that hearing rooms on the Hill are like mini-coliseums. The Members 

are the Caesars and the witnesses the gladiators! 

When Guam was liberated in July of 1944, about 20,000 sons and daughters of 

Guam emerged from the concentration camps ragged and gaunt. Some joyous and 

singing, some quiet with guarded smiles, and others perplexed with lingering fear 

109 

in their eyes! Virtually all the elders, however, were in unison, fingering their rosary beads seemingly in a race as though the ones who finished the fastest would 

be the first to be freed. Of the original number liberated, it is estimated that only 

several thousand are still alive. I am one of them. I appear before you on their behalf. 

My compliments to my successors, Congressman Robert Underwood and Congresswoman Madeleine Bordallo, and you, Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee 

for your efforts in getting us to this juncture in our long odyssey to resolve an issue 

which has torn the hearts of American citizens on Guam, particularly those who 

survived the occupation. To Chairman Tamargo and fellow commissioners on the 

Guam War Claims Review Commission, I tip my hat and extend a hearty, Si Yu’os 

Maase,* for a report well researched, well documented, well written, and exceedingly well done. (*In the language of our people, this translates to ‘‘May God have 

mercy on you,’’ the customary way of expressing gratitude). 

Filing cabinets here in Congress are replete with thousands of pages centered on 

the astonishing brutality suffered by our people during the occupation. The unspeakable evil inflicted on conquered peoples by Imperial Japanese forces during 

World War II pains the heart to recall. The rape of Nanking in 1937, the Bataan 

Death March in 1942, and the Manila Massacre in 1945 stunned the free world. 

Rape, forced marches, forced labor, and massacres were also inflicted on the people 

of Guam. 

Numerically, the number of victims on Guam did not draw notice as those in 

China, Singapore, and the Philippines did; however, statistically, on a per capita 

basis, Guam was spared no quarter. That American nationals, on U.S. soil, under 

the American flagpole could be so brutally and cavalierly mistreated was extremely 

difficult for us to comprehend and accept. It may have earned us the dubious distinction of being the first Americans mistreated in this manner in our own American land. Remarkably, it appeared to me that the harsher the treatment, the deeper the devotion to the United States. The profound loyalty of the people of Guam 

was the subject of many writings and commentaries during and after the war. 

Among those who filed reports from Guam was war correspondent, Quentin Reynolds, who, after spending time in rehabilitation camps, reported, ‘‘These are real 

Americans. There never were any quislings on Guam.’’ Sadly, these ‘‘real Americans’’ have been waylaid from receiving war reparations benefits on technicalities, 

their remarkable patriotic record notwithstanding. 

Once again, Guam’s strategic location in the western Pacific has attracted national attention. Once again, our small island, still only 30 miles long, is slated to 

host thousands of Marines and other military personnel and their families. In the 

early 1970’s, I commanded the 9th Marine Regiment of about 4000 Marines stationed in Okinawa. One of the most challenging problems we had was maintaining 

cordial relations with the neighboring communities. Because we were in a foreign 

country, we were guided by the status of forces agreement between the U.S. and 

Japan. There is no such agreement between the armed forces on Guam and the civilian communities. Good will must prevail between the Americans on the base and 

the Americans outside the base. 

Strategists are generally in agreement that there would be a large military contingent on Guam for the rest of this century. By the time deployments are executed, 

the chances are there would only be a handful of Guam war survivors still alive. 

The sons and daughters of the survivors and their children, many of whom are lawyers, doctors, dentists, engineers and business men and women would be the leaders 

in our communities. Were the contentious matter of reparations continue to remain 

unresolved, it is not likely that the fabled hospitality of the people of Guam would 

be unaffected. Having agonized with their parents for many years over the lack of 

action concerning war reparations matters, the historic goodwill between the military and the people of Guam is likely to be in jeopardy. 

Once again, as it has done in the past during World War I, World War II, Korean 

War, Vietnam War and other conflicts which followed, Guam, by virtue of is strategic location, will have a major role in the security and defense of the United 

States. No other community in the U.S., territory or state, has served the national 

and international security interest of the United States as consistently and loyally 

as Guam and its people. Per capita, more of its sons and daughters have given their 

lives in defense of the United States than any other community its size and population. With China and North Korea just a few time zones from Guam, its strategic 

importance remains indispensable. The U.S. needs Guam’s help again. Meanwhile, 

Guam could use help now in its quest for reparation for its sufferings and losses 

during World War II. 

When Guam was captured and occupied in World War II, it changed our lives on 

Guam profoundly and, for some, permanently. In accordance with national and 

110 

international practice, custom, and tradition, we sought reparation not for broken 

homes but for broken bones. It has been a long journey on a trail with too many 

crossroads. 

I was 13 when the journey started. I am now 83. 

Mr. LANDRY. Thank you, General, and I understand and I appreciate your comments. I can’t imagine what it was like living 

through that. It was a horror for a lot of people around the world 

at that time that I am sure the trials and tribulations that the people of Guam went through was repeated not only in the Pacific Islands but also in Europe as well. 

I would like to recognize myself for five minutes since you took 

some issue with some of my comments. 

Governor, it is my understanding that Guam leaders have rejected past settlement offers. Where is Guam in regard to these settlement offers, these settlement numbers? 

Governor CALVO. As to a poll? Please recite the question. 

Mr. LANDRY. It is my understanding that in 1990 there was an 

offer that was made of approximately $49 million, and then that 

offer was rejected. Do you agree with that? 

Governor CALVO. You know, I was not aware of that. I was not 

in public office back in 1990 so I wouldn’t be the right one to ask 

that question. I don’t have an answer. What I do know is I go funerals every week and every week I see one less person to be compensated because they are in a funeral. 

Mr. LANDRY. I would like to make sure that we understand that 

from the research I have done it is not as if the government has 

said—has been absolutely no money offered to Guam. It is my understanding that—Mr. Tamargo? 

Mr. TAMARGO. Yes, sir. 

Mr. LANDRY. Would you like to comment on that settlement 

offer? 

Mr. TAMARGO. The 1990 settlement offer? Yes, the report studied 

that and makes mention of it in our report, and that was some of 

the members of the Commission, when we decided—when we came 

up with the recommendations we used that as the measure of those 

living at that time because we thought it was unfortunate that 

they did not come to an agreement at the time, and it was unfair 

to hold that against the people of Guam, so that was simply used 

as a marker as to those living at the time should be included in 

the remedial program. 

Mr. LANDRY. Well, I guess my concern is that in 1990 there was 

an offer on the table for $49 million. Here we are some 20 years 

later. There are a lot of people that have passed away between now 

and 20 years, and I am trying to understand why $49 million at 

the time was not enough. I am trying to understand where did we 

come up with this quantity of $100 million. 

Mr. TAMARGO. If your question is, sir, why was the offer not accepted at the time, my information was that the offer was limited 

to those living at that time, and the community of Guam did not 

believe that was—— 

Mr. LANDRY. OK. 

Mr. TAMARGO. That was the issue at the time. 

111 

Mr. LANDRY. So it is not as if there has not been, that Congress 

and this government has been—you know, there wasn’t any offers 

going out there. I mean, there was money on the table, I think a 

considerable amount of money, and I know my time is almost limited. 

Mr. TAMARGO. Mr. Chairman, I would like to add though that 

there was unanimity in the Federal Government to do something 

about the program then. 

Mr. LANDRY. Right. 

Mr. TAMARGO. The administration at the time, the Congress at 

the time—— 

Mr. LANDRY. It is a question of money now. Is it the amount? 

Mr. TAMARGO. Well, these monies are more symbolic than they 

are actual. 

Mr. LANDRY. Well, here is the problem and this goes on, which 

leads into my next question—I only have a minute fifteen—to the 

gentleman and I hope he understands—$15 trillion in debt. At the 

time the $49 million was offered, we were only $3 trillion in debt. 

I guess my question, General, if we pass this bill, where would you 

suggest we take that $100 million from? 

Mr. BLAZ. Sir, last year in the Pigford settlement that awarded 

Black farmers and other minorities recognition of their agricultural 

claim, we found $4.2 billion last year. The year before that we 

found $198 million for the Filipino scouts. In 1998, we found a billion dollars for the Japanese Americans that were relocated which 

was a horrible part of our history, but that is what happened. In 

1988, we found money for the Aleutian restitution, and in 1971, we 

found money for the Micronesian claims. 

Mr. LANDRY. If you don’t mind, General, if I may interrupt, the 

problem we have here is now we are under a different set of rules. 

We are under—if we are going to award $100 million to one, we 

have to cut it somewhere else because in a lot of the instances you 

just explained there was a lot more money available. In the last 

two years we have spent $2.5 trillion more than we spent two years 

ago, and so I respect that, and I wasn’t here in that Congress, and 

look, that is why I am here today asking these questions. I am just 

trying to find out where we would offset that money from because 

we can’t just do what the past Congresses have done over the last 

30 years or so. We can’t just add it to the deficit. We have to cut 

it from somewhere else, and I am sorry that they spent so much 

money in the last two years. They spent an ungodly amount of 

money. I wasn’t here. I want you to understand that. I wasn’t a 

part of that particular spending but, unfortunately, I am now part 

of the group that has to make real tough decisions, and so that was 

all. 

I know my time has gone over, so I would like to go ahead and 

recognize the Ranking Member, Mrs. Bordallo—Mr. Sablan. She 

was looking at me. 

Mr. SABLAN. No, that is fine, Mr. Chairman. I yield my five minutes to Mrs. Bordallo. 

Mr. LANDRY. All right, fine. Mrs. Bordallo. 

Mrs. BORDALLO. Mr. Chairman, I was listening very carefully to 

your exchange her with General Blaz, and if I find an offset will 

you then support H.R. 44? 

112 

Mr. LANDRY. I couldn’t commit to that but what I would tell you 

is I would be interested in where—you know, in where. 

Mrs. BORDALLO. Good, because this bill has passed the Congress 

five times. It is only the Senate, and I have been told that if I find 

an offset over there in the Senate they will agree, so I am just asking you. Would you agree? 

Mr. LANDRY. I couldn’t commit on that right now, but it certainly 

would—it certainly would be a starting point. 

Mrs. BORDALLO. All right, the Chair entered—yes? 

Governor CALVO. With all due respect, I was reading the newspaper the other day. One of the things as a loyal citizen of the 

United States, and Congresslady you see some of the issues just on 

FEA that I mentioned or AITC, what I brought up earlier, and it 

would be too long to recount all the Federal mandates that have 

really bankrupted our island, but I could recommend—I just saw 

in the news Pakistan. If they are cutting aid to Pakistan, why don’t 

you offset some of that money with a loyal American territory such 

as Guam? A little recommendation. 

Mrs. BORDALLO. Thank you. Governor, just for the record I would 

like to ask you the same question I asked General Blaz. The Chair 

entered a statement from the Heritage Foundation that suggests 

that whatever war claims are due do not take into account the sacrifice of lives and injuries to liberate Guam. How would you respond to this? 

Governor CALVO. What I understand is I don’t think the Heritage 

Foundation is—I am wondering whether anyone from the Heritage 

Foundation has ever stepped foot on our island. 

Mrs. BORDALLO. Probably not. 

Governor CALVO. You know, when I first came to college out 

here, when I said I was from Guam, and it was well meaning, a 

lot of folks were saying, oh, is that near South America? 

Mrs. BORDALLO. Yes. 

Governor CALVO. Or do you live in huts? And unfortunately, you 

know, we are so far away that there is little understanding of our 

island. 

Mrs. BORDALLO. That is true. 

Governor CALVO. Just myself, my grandfather was first cousin of 

Father Duen ̃as. Father Duen ̃ as had his head chopped off. My father didn’t take off his shoes when he went into a classroom and 

the sensi beat him up. 

Mrs. BORDALLO. Yes. 

Governor CALVO. You know, I had another uncle, when you have 

an uncle whose father was a U.S. Marine, what they did with him 

was they stuck a hose in his mouth and he filled up with water. 

When it is filled sufficiently, they put the board on top of him and 

jump on him. These are things—I don’t know if you can quantify 

it. 

Mrs. BORDALLO. No. 

Governor CALVO. But they were all loyal citizens—— 

Mrs. BORDALLO. Yes. 

Governor CALVO.—when they were alive, and their children are 

still also loyal citizens. 

Mrs. BORDALLO. Loyal citizens. 

Governor CALVO. This has been 67 years. 

113 

Mrs. BORDALLO. Governor, I just want to mention to the Chairman, yes, when I came to Congress, you know, this is my fifth 

term, and when I came to Congress, just to show you how much 

they know about the territories, that is not just Guam but all of 

us, they asked me if Guam was part of Hawaii, one of my colleagues. So, you know, we have a big job here. We work three times 

as hard as any other Member when it comes to explaining our situation and why we are important to our country. 

Mr. Tamargo, can you explain the Review Commission’s finding 

that there is not a legal obligation for Guam war claims as one of 

the statements for the record states while the Commission report 

also states there is a moral obligation? Would you explain the distinction? 

Mr. TAMARGO. Certainly, Congresswoman. War claims, there is 

never an obligation by a nation to pay—to create a claims program. 

That is simply a moral obligation, and that is what I was going to 

explain to the Chairman also. These are war claims given to citizens so that no one citizen has a disproportionate burden in the 

war. Soldiers have different programs for them but civilians are 

given the opportunity to file a war claim if they are so eligible, but 

Heritage’s remarks about soldiers dying on the beaches—I have 

great respect for the American servicemen, but those are apples 

and oranges. We are not talking about soldiers. We are talking 

about civilian population that suffered war damages, and the mission of the Commission was to compare the claims program that 

was given to civilians on Guam and compare it to the civilians 

given to other U.S. civilians elsewhere in the Pacific, and there is 

disparity in the comparison, and that is just the facts. 

So, if the facts that they were not treated fairly, then what would 

be called for as a moral obligation was to achieve parity. They 

would need to re-create a remedial program to give equity to the 

civilians of Guam, so it is a moral obligation. 

Mrs. BORDALLO. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Sablan, would 

you yield your time to me? Yes, to continue. 

Mr. SABLAN. To continue, I yield my time. 

Mrs. BORDALLO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. LANDRY. The Chair now recognizes Mrs. Bordallo for five 

minutes. 

Mrs. BORDALLO. Mr. Tamargo, I want some clarifications here 

because I think our Chairman is new to Congress and probably 

doesn’t understand all of the situation, but can you explain for the 

Committee the legal rationale for why the United States would pay 

for Guam war claims and not the government of Japan under this 

legislation? 

Mr. TAMARGO. Certainly. Well, in the Treaty of Peace in 1951, 

the U.S. relieved Japan of all further liability and accepted all 

debts against Japan have been satisfied and they seized the frozen 

Japanese assets that were in U.S. banks at the time as settlement 

for all damages caused by the Japanese in World War II. 

It was done with the Germans as well and it was commingled 

with U.S. funds, and so I would say these funds that would be paid 

to these, as were with all the other claims programs, these funds 

are indirectly coming from the Japanese and from the Germans, 

frozen assets that were seized and put into the Federal treasury. 

114 

Mrs. BORDALLO. Very good. 

Mr. TAMARGO. So in my view Japan is paying for the damages. 

This is Japanese funds that are paying for these claims. 

Mrs. BORDALLO. I don’t know if you were listening, Mr. Chairman, but—right, oh, to explain. I see. 

Another question that comes up when we have been through all 

of this for the last nine years is would this set a legal precedent? 

For example, people have come up to me and said, well, if we do 

this, then that would open up a flood of claims from other groups 

like the POWs, the veterans or the Filipinos. 

Mr. TAMARGO. In my opinion it would not open up other claims. 

As the Chairman said earlier, and as others have said, and I have 

said, this is a moral obligation, not a legal obligation. So in the 

case it satisfies this moral obligation does not necessarily open you 

up to other obligations because there is no legal bind. It is just a 

moral obligation that the country feels they owe to these nationals. 

Mrs. BORDALLO. Thank you. And Governor Calvo, how important 

is it to resolve this matter of Guam war claims? Can you speak to 

its priority on all the issues of our territory, and I know you have 

a lot of issues in addressing with respect to Federal territorial relations? 

Governor CALVO. I just got through an election and I barely won 

it, but going through that election, going out there, especially with 

the young people, and I think it is very important not only for the 

Chairman but of people from the House of Representatives and the 

Senate to recognize, we are a loyal people, but that young generation, they are much smarter than us and they are getting—they 

are knowing history. Guam and the Marianas are strategic to the 

United States, and I do not want to repeat all—I would be here all 

day—the issues that have happened since World War II, but there 

are so many issues that now our young people are aware of. 

As we move forward in political self-determination, I do believe 

the goodwill of Members of this Congress, this Administration, the 

Federal Government, or the ignorance or the nonchalance or the 

uncaringness will have an impact on these later generations on 

what direction we will go politically, I really do. 

I would like to see closer union with the United States, but there 

is a burden that has been part of the people of Guam because we 

have been so—you know, 9,000 miles away. We are a forgotten people, and we have been so loyal. 

Mr. Chair, I am a great grandson of a U.S. Marine who came in 

in 1901, so there is this history like many of us have with the U.S. 

military. There is a love of the men and women in uniform, but unfortunately some of the decisions that have been made in Washington, D.C. I do believe will have an impact on the direction of 

where our people will want to go in the future. 

Mrs. BORDALLO. Thank you. 

Governor CALVO. And this is one of those decisions. 

Mrs. BORDALLO. I wish to reclaim my time here, and one final 

question I have is for the Department of the Interior. For the 

record, Mr. Pula, can you clarify once and for all does President 

Obama support H.R. 44? 

115 

Mr. PULA. I believe in my statement I said the Obama Administration through our Department of the Interior support the amendment. 

Mrs. BORDALLO. Thank you. And will you then help us find an 

offset? 

Mr. PULA. We are always looking for offsets these days. 

Mrs. BORDALLO. Thank you. And I yield back, Mr. Chair. I yield 

back. 

Mr. LANDRY. Thank you. The Chair now recognizes Mr. 

Faleomavaega for five minutes. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have been listening very closely not only for the most eloquent statements from 

my colleague, the gentlelady from Guam, Mrs. Bordallo, but also 

the statements made by our witnesses this morning, Governor 

Calvo, Mr. Pula, Mr. Tamargo, and my good friend Brigadier General Blaz, a former Member of this great institution. 

Mr. Chairman, this is like a broken record for the past 65 years 

since we have been discussing this issue before the Congress, a broken record to the fact that five times this bill has passed this 

House, and for some reason or another somehow we just cannot 

seem to persuade our colleagues in the other body to do the right 

thing in giving the proper compensation for these people who suffered so much. 

I do appreciate your concerns to the fact that we have some very 

trying period in our country’s situation, economic situation with the 

deficit and the some $14.5 trillion national debt that we are faced 

with. But, Mr. Chairman, there are some historical aspects that I 

want to share with you in my understanding formerly not only as 

a Vietnam veteran, but someone who has lived in Guam, and with 

a real deep respect for the Chamorro people and understanding 

their concerns, and what they were confronted with. 

In the first place before the Japanese attack on Guam in 1941, 

Mr. Chairman, it was a very unusual situation on the part of our 

government because these people were U.S. nationals, and somehow our military leadership decided not to take the people off the 

Island of Guam before the invasion by the Japanese. Is it because 

they were not U.S. citizens but they are U.S. nationals? And as 

U.S. nationals, according to the immigration laws, is defined as any 

person who owes permanent allegiance to the United States, and 

this is another bit of history, Mr. Chairman, in wanting to know 

why these U.S. nationals were never evacuated before the invasion 

of the Japanese forces in Guam in 1941. That still remains to be 

a question why this was done. Is it because they are not U.S. citizens, but I have just defined what a U.S. national is according to 

our own immigration laws. 

Mr. Chairman, I don’t know what the Heritage Foundation, I 

have not received a copy of the letter from the Heritage Foundation. If they raise objections to the substance of this bill, I just 

want to say that I do have a high respect for the Heritage Foundation for its conservative positions and issues that we discussed here 

nationally, but this one instance, Mr. Chairman, I cannot believe 

that the Heritage Foundation questions the validity of this proposed bill. 

116 

Now, there are some questions raised about, well, where are we going to get the money. Somehow we are able to find $10 billion 

for the relocation of some 9,000 Marines and their dependents in 

the coming years, and part of the funding of some five to six billion 

dollars is going to come from the Japanese government. And I wonder in that respect, Mr. Chairman, that maybe this is the pot we 

ought to look at seriously in providing compensation as part of the 

$16 billion transfer. If we can do it for 9,000 Marines and their dependents, then I am certainly—I cannot believe that we cannot find 

funding as part of the $16 billion transfer. I do want to offer that 

recommendation strongly since Japan is also paying part of this 

transfer at five to six billion dollars. 

Mr. LANDRY. Will the gentleman yield? 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. I will be glad to yield to my friend. 

Mr. LANDRY. If I may, I think that is a great point, but if I could 

clear up the air here on this Heritage Foundation letter—— 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Please. 

Mr. LANDRY.—that seems to have created some fire storm. I will 

tell you how I feel and that is why I am here is to ask these questions and to understand, and you are right. Guam is a distance 

away from the mainland. At this particular time, in this particular 

Congress with the financial situation that we are in it is very, very 

sensitive subject, and it is hard because it is personal to people like 

the General. But those finances are just as personal to the U.S. 

taxpayer as well, and I am sure, Governor, that the U.S. Government and these Congresses have appropriated millions, maybe tens 

of millions, maybe hundreds of million dollars over the last 50 

somewhat odd years in support of infrastructure and things on 

Guam. 

I want you to know that I believe in supporting the territories 

of this country. I was in Puerto Rico not too long ago, and telling 

someone I think it is a great place. I don’t know why it is not a 

great vacation place for a lot of people in the United States. It is 

a great place, beautiful. I would look forward to going to Guam. I 

enjoy visiting those islands. I would like to support them economically. 

The tension here is a matter of cost of where we are financially 

in this country. So understand that that is why I chose these 

issues. It was not to slight anyone from a personal standpoint, but 

I think a lot of U.S. taxpayers out there are asking those particular 

questions, but I think you raise a great point of where we could get 

the money from. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. And Mr. Chairman, I do want to thank you, 

and I never, never to question your sincerity in wanting to reach 

out and trying to understand where can we possibly get the proper 

funding. It is of interest, too, Mr. Chairman, and I really don’t believe it is the money, it is the principle, Mr. Chairman. I think that 

all the Chamorro people are asking for as loyal citizens of this 

great nation of ours. 

Let me just say Guam is the most important military strategic 

island that we have in that whole region of the Asian Pacific. Let 

me just share another point with my good Chairman. When I first 

came here 20 years ago as a Member of this great institution, as 

a Member of the Foreign Affairs Committee I wanted to be on the 

117 

Asia Pacific Committee. Becoming a member of that subcommittee, 

nobody wanted to be on the Asia Pacific Subcommittee on Foreign 

Affairs. Do you know why? Because the whole mentality here in 

Washington was on Europe and the Middle East. The Asia Pacific 

region was not even on the radar screen. If it was, we were not— 

if we were not bashing the Japanese, we were bashing the Chinese. 

It was never a positive experience, and understanding now the 

Asia Pacific region we have to make better attention, and our relationship with this area, which is almost 60 percent of the world’s 

entire population, and Guam is part of that. 

Again, I realize my time is up but I do want to share this with 

the Chairman. I cannot have a better witness than someone whom 

I have always considered not only as a father figure but as a military veteran himself and for someone who has my utmost respect 

as a retired Brigadier General of the United States Marine Corps, 

and I will never forget the words that he shared with this institution in terms of how we have treated people from the islands, and 

this is what he said, this is what my good friend General Blaz said, 

and I will never forget what he said. ‘‘We are equal in war but not 

in peace.’’ 

So it is OK for people from the islands to get their guts spilled 

and killed and all of the battles and the things that we volunteer 

to be part of our defense system, but when it comes to situations 

where we are giving proper compensation for what the good people 

of Guam is asking for, and as some of our witnesses said and I am 

sure my good Chairman will agree, this is a moral obligation that 

our government has toward these people, and I cannot think of a 

higher standard than we would have to suggest that if we do otherwise, then I think we failed as a nation to do what we should be 

doing in honoring the sacrifices that the Chamorro people have 

made on behalf of our country, on behalf of our country, and never 

once did they ever fail to prove their loyalty and their absolute convictions that this is a great country, but they just feel like they are 

not being just treated fairly. I think that is the bottom line, Mr. 

Chairman. 

I know my time is up and I just want to say that I have 100 

more questions I wanted to raise here but I know time is up, and 

hopefully maybe wait for the second round. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. LANDRY. I was just informed that they need this room for another meeting that is coming up. I find that there is another hearing, so we won’t be able to have a second round, so I thank the gentleman for his comments, and I would like to thank the panel again 

for their valuable testimony and contributions. Members of the 

Subcommittee may have additional questions for the witnesses, 

and we ask that you respond to these in writing. The hearing 

record will be open for 10 business days to receive your responses. 

Finally, again I would like to thank the Members and the staff 

for their contributions to this hearing. And if there is no further 

business, without objection this Subcommittee will stand adjourned. 

[Whereupon at 1:24 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

[Additional material submitted for the record follows:] 

118 

Statement submitted for the record by Frank F. Blas, Jr., on behalf of the 

Guam Survivors Memorial Foundation, in support of H.R. 44 

Hafa Adai (Greetings) Mr. Chairman and members of the House Subcommittee 

on Fisheries, Wildlife, Oceans, and Insular Affairs. I am Frank F. Blas, Jr., Minority 

Leader for the 31’’ Guam Legislature and also President of the Guam War Survivors 

Memorial Foundation, and I want to thank you for the opportunity to submit written testimony in support of H.R. 44 (the Guam World War II Loyalty Recognition 

Act). 

In December 8th and 9th of 2003, a War Claims Review Commission (a panel created by Public Law 107–333, L16 Stat. 2873, known as the Guam War Claims Review Commission Act) held hearings on Guam to receive oral testimony from survivors of the World War II Japanese occupation of the island. In the two day period, 

the Commission heard from over 90 individuals who testified about the brutality, 

the fear, the agony, and the pain that was endured by the people of Guam from 

December, L94L to July of 1944. 

During those hearings, the Commission received testimony from Dr. Rosa Palomo 

Carter, who stated that she was twelve when Guam was first occupied by Japanese 

Imperial Forces. She told of the squalid conditions she and her family were forced 

to live in. She told of the forced labor and interrogation she was subjected to as a 

child. And she also told of having to forage for food and fearing many times that 

she would starve to death. 

The Commission also heard from Mr. Edward L.G. Aguon, who stated that he was 

fifteen when Guam was invaded. Mr. Aguon testified that during the occupation, he 

and others were forced to watch as people were brutalized, tortured and killed. He 

had agonizing memories of seeing people’s faces as the final stab of the bayonet 

pierced their flesh, and hearing their cries as their last breath left their bodies. 

Mr. Aguon ended his testimony by stating that he was77 years old, and if he was 

asked again to testify in another ten years, he may not be able to testify. 

Mrs. Delores Cruz Meno also testified before the Commission in 2003. Mrs. Meno 

provided that she was ten years old and the youngest in a family of ten children 

when Guam was occupied. She told of the farm labor she was forced to perform in 

order to feed the Japanese occupiers. She also told of a forced march that she and 

others feared would lead them to their deaths. Mrs. Meno testified that while the 

march was unexplainably halted, she later learned that her two oldest brothers 

were killed by Japanese soldiers at the place she was supposed to march to. 

Mr. Cristobal Reyes was also given the opportunity to testify before the War 

Claims Review Commission in December 2003. While there, Mr. Reyes testified that 

although he was just an infant during the occupation, he was informed of the atrocities by his father and wanted to share his father’s information. Mr. Reyes stated 

that because of his father’s complexion and build, the Japanese soldiers suspected 

that he was part American and subjected him to brutal beatings. Mr. Reyes’ father 

feared that he was going to be killed but an old Japanese friend and pre-war Guam 

resident convinced the Japanese soldiers that Mr. Reyes’ father was not American, 

but was of Chinese ancestry. 

Another survivor that was allowed to testify in the 2003 hearings was Mr. Jesus 

Perez Sablan. Mr. Sablan said that he was fourteen when Guam was thrust into 

the war, and throughout the occupation, was he was subjected to continuous forced 

labor. Mr. Sablan testified that although his family was originally from Sumay (a 

village that was once located near the south of Guam), the family was forced to 

move to different villages around the island, and when they thought that they could 

finally settle in Yigo (the northern-most village on the island), they were forced to 

march to a concentration camp in Mannenggon. To sum up his experience, Mr. 

Sablan stated in his presentation, ‘‘Believe me, war is hell.’’ 

Lastly, the War Claims Review Commission received testimony from Mr. Juan 

Unpingco who stated then that he was seventeen when the war started on Guam 

and that throughout the occupation, he witnessed so many horrible incidents that 

he now suffers from nightmares. Mr. Unpingco testified that his aunt was raped, 

his parents were brutally beaten, and he and his siblings were forced into labor. In 

his testimony, Mr. Unpingco told of a time when he, his father, and his brother were 

rounded up with other individuals to carry munitions for the Japanese soldiers. His 

father and brother were sent with a group that headed to the south of the island, 

and he was to carry munitions with others to the north. Mr. Unpingco stated that 

during the trek he found an opportunity to flee and was grateful that he did so because he later learned that all the individuals in his group were beheaded after delivering their supplies. 

119 

In the introduction of his book, ‘‘Bisita Guam: Let Us Remember (Nihi Ta Hasso),’’ 

former Guam Delegate to the U.S. Congress and retired Marine Brigadier General 

Ben Blaz wrote the following: 

‘‘For the People of Guam, World War II was as personal as war could get. 

That is not to say that for people throughout the country, the war did not 

strike directly into their homes. From loved ones going off to battle, to rationing, to the makeup of the workforce, every American was deeply affected. But no Americans could say that the cities or towns where they had 

been born were invaded, none could say they lived under the harsh dictates 

of an occupying force, no one in the United States could say he or she suffered unique privations simply for being American except the people of 

Guam. The only other American territory occupied by hostile forces was the 

Aleutian lslands off Alaska, but they had no permanent population. 

Among Americans, only the people of Guam know what it means to live 

under the hostile yoke of a foreign conqueror. Each of the 22,000 people 

who lived on the island through the occupation has his or her tale to tell. 

As must happen, however, those who experienced the occupation first hand 

are inexorably growing fewer and fewer. It will not be too many more years 

before those of us who were there will be gone, and there will be no one 

left to attest to the facts of life under the control of a foreign military that 

viewed Guamanians as potential, if not outright enemies—people who had 

to be subjugated by iron, totalitarian rule to keep us in line.’’ 

General Blaz himself is a survivor of the Japanese occupation of Guam. 

During the House Hearing held on this measure on July 15, 2011, it was obvious 

that Members of the Subcommittee were concerned that passage of this bill could 

result in additional war claims and there was further concern of where the funding 

would come from to pay such compensation. I submit that the testimony and answers provided by Mr. Mauricio Tamargo and Brigadier General Vicente G. Blaz, 

USMC (Ret.) adequately addressed the concerns expressed by the Honorable Jeff 

Landry. I further submit that there exists no reasonable or logical explanation to 

continue to deny the people of Guam who endured the cruelty and agony of the Japanese occupation their rightful recognition and compensation. 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, I began my testimony by giving 

you excerpts of previous testimonies because had Dr. Carter, Mr. Aguon, Mrs. Meno, 

Mr. Reyes, Mr. Sablan, or Mr. Unpingco been given the opportunity to testify before 

you, I am sure that they would have provided you the same. But I submit to you 

that their chance to again relive their experiences would not be possible, because 

they have all since passed away. These survivors, along with almost twenty thousand (20,000) of the twenty-one thousand (21,000) people of Guam who were ‘‘liberated’’ from enemy occupation sixtyseven (67) years ago have since left their earthly 

dwellings. The tragedy in their passing is that they were never recognized for their 

loyalty to the United States or for the suffering they endured because the enemy 

saw them as Americans. lt is in their honor that I plead their case for recognition 

and ask that you fook favorably on and support the passage of the Guam World War 

ll Loyalty Recognition Act. 

Thank You. 

Statement submitted for the record by Valerie J. Bock, Resident of Guam, 

Representing self, on H.R. 44, The Guam World War II Loyalty 

Recognition Act 

My interest in H.R. 44, Guam World War II Loyalty Recognition Act is not as a 

recipient but, as Floridian-American. I’ve been a resident of Guam for five years. 

The responsibility of the Japanese invasion rests solely on the shoulders of the 

United States of America. The Guam survivors should be compensated for the atrocities they endured. These atrocities were born from Guam’s relationship with the 

United States. 

The point is very simple; the Japanese would never have invaded Guam had it 

not been a territory of the United States. Had Guam been independent, the Japanese would never have bothered them. This elucidates the United States as responsible for the brutality endured by the residents of Guam. 

It’s not a matter of how much the Guamanians suffered during the Japanese occupation. Although, it is well known they suffered atrocities only seen on soil foreign 

to the United States. 

It’s not a matter of how long it took the United States to remove the Japanese 

invaders. Priorities were illustrated by the very short response for Hawaii versus 

a two year response time for Guam. 

120 

It’s not even a matter of the patriotism of the Guam survivors. Though, their patriotism has been a constant source of United States military veterans even after 

the draft was repealed to today. Guam has the highest number per capita of United 

States soldiers who have paid the ultimate price. 

Then after the war was won, peace treaties were signed, forgiveness was shared 

and the United States forgave Japan with a promise to pay all claims against Japan 

for the suffering by U.S. citizens. Was it truly the right of the United States to 

speak for Guam? I don’t think so. 

Now that the United States has spoken for Guam, it is their responsibility to 

repay the survivors for the two, long, hard years of slavery and occupation they endured as a result of their association with the United States. At the very minimum, 

the payment should include two years of salary. 2005 average salaries equaled 

$46,300. This would equate to a salary repayment of $92,600. Add a small token 

of consideration for the pain and suffering would amount to about $192,600 owed 

to each survivor of the war. Less than 1000 World War II survivors are still alive. 

This amount certainly isn’t going to break the United States budget! 

I am so embarrassed by the actions of my country. We treat our fellow citizens 

of Guam with total disregard for their membership in our country. I find the many 

years that have passed with no reparations to the Guamanian survivors is frustrating to them and embarrassing to me. It should be embarrassing to every member of the United States Congress. 

I implore you to correct this wrong. Let us help these survivors move on and let 

them know they are important United States citizens. 

Thank you for your time. 

Sincerely, Valerie Bock, P.O. Box 7145, Agat, GU 96928 

Statement of The Honorable Benjamin J.F. Cruz, Vice Speaker, 31ST Guam 

Legislature, on H.R. 44, Guam World War II Loyalty Recognition Act 

Buenas yan Hafa Adai! Chairman Fleming and members of the Committee, thank 

you for the opportunity to submit written testimony on H.R. 44, Guam World War 

II Loyalty Recognition Act. 

H.R. 44 is the latest attempt in a long and arduous effort to resolve an issue very 

dear to the people of Guam. I applaud Congresswoman Madeleine Bordallo’s introduction of this measure as a standalone as opposed to its inclusion in the National 

Defense Authorization Act, as this proposal should be evaluated on its own merits. 

As a member of what was then the Guam War Claims Review Commission, I 

know that we have substantial evidence against the Government of Japan for war 

claims, yet we chose to forgive Japan and this sensitive issue is now before the federal government to settle. I am hopeful that you have all had the opportunity to 

read the Commission’s final report which was submitted years ago. 

The findings of the Guam War Claims Review Commission were affirmed on five 

separate occasions by members of this House only to fail in the Senate through the 

efforts of a small minority. In spite of this continued refusal, Guam’s people have 

never disavowed their pursuit of Justice. 

It is my sincere hope that 70-year-old atrocities are given closure through federal 

recognition. The trials of the Chamorro people endured during the Japanese Occupation of Guam were especially heinous and fully deserving of an end to this long 

chapter in our history. 

Too often legislative bodies are confronted with seemingly insurmountable problems; dilemmas which have no immediate solution or clear way forward—this is not 

one of those situations. 

President Obama has lent his support for war reparations, the House has passed 

this measure repeatedly, and Guam’s WWII survivors still believe that old sacrifices 

will not be forgotten. 

Statement of The Honorable Benjamin J.F. Cruz, Vice Speaker, 31st Guam 

Legislature, on the Implementation of Public Law 110–229 to the 

Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands and Guam 

Buenas yan Hafa Adai! Chairman Fleming and members of the Committee, thank 

you for the opportunity to submit written testimony on the Implementation of Public 

Law 110–229 to the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands and Guam. 

Let me preface by stating: If the original intent of passing Public Law 110–229 

several years ago was to align U.S. Immigration Policy for Guam and the CNMI and 

to promote tourism, that intent is not being fulfilled. In November 2009, Parole AuVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:06 Jul 03, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00124 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 L:\DOCS\67403.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
121 

thority was extended to the CNMI for China and Russia tourists and not to Guam. 

This is clearly in contradiction to Congressional Intent. 

The current policy of allowing visitors from China and Russia to enter the CNMI 

under parole authority while requiring visas for those entering Guam is unfair and 

discriminatory. 

It is even more unfair given the new the obligations now posed on the Guam community to support the realignment of U.S. forces in the region and the unique set 

of circumstances now facing the visitor industry as a result of the disasters in 

Japan. 

Last year, this committee was informed by officials of the Government of Guam 

and the Guam Visitors Bureau that the sustainability of the Japan market, the primary source of visitors for Guam, was in question because of fierce competition from 

lower Asian resort destinations and an aging Japan population. 

This year, I am afraid to report that the state of affairs has become worse given 

the tragedies in Japan last March. Please note that three out of every four visitors 

to Guam are from Japan. According to statistics provided by the Guam Visitors Bureau, the number of Japan visitors as of March is down by over 18 percent. As you 

can imagine, the impact is substantial given Guam’s level of dependence on visitors 

from Japan. However, it should also be noted that this market has been in an ongoing and gradual decline. Japan arrivals have declined by 27% between Fiscal Years 

2000 and 2008. 

This is why every opportunity must be taken to improve other tourism source 

markets in order to keep Guam viable. This is why parole authority should be 

granted for Guam for visitors from China and Russia. 

The combined number of outbound tourists from the People’s Republic of China 

and Russia is approximately 70 million. The number of outbound tourists from 

Japan is 16 million, of which 5.5% (or 900,000) visited Guam last year. Thus, Guam 

through existing federal policy is being denied a tremendous opportunity to repair 

and advance its visitor industry and to provide gainful employment to Americans 

living on Guam. 

Based on CNMI figures, China and Russia provide compelling market viability for 

Guam. Spending by Chinese and Russian tourists in the CNMI in 2008 reached $58 

million, with per-person spending for Chinese visitors averaging $967 and for Russian visitors, $4,323. Overall, Chinese and Russian tourists contribute approximately 20% to the CNMI’s tourism revenues. Based on research conducted by the 

Guam Visitors Bureau, China and Russia may potentially generate $212.2 million 

in combined payroll, hotel lodging, and gross receipts taxes by 2018. 

Furthermore, it should be noted that the experience in the CNMI has yielded no 

significant issues with respect to asylum seeking and overstays. Nor has there been 

reported instances of asylum and overstays for the 4200 visitors to Guam from 

China permitted under existing Charter flights from China to Guam. 

The full implementation of PL 110–299 is also imperative to the entire region, not 

just for Guam. An improved Guam economy provides carryover benefits to the other 

communities in Micronesia including the Republic of the Marshal Islands, the Republic of Palau and the Federated States of Micronesia. You should be aware that 

Guam is host to thousands of migrants permitted to live on Guam under the Compact of Free Association. 

By working to improve the Guam-CNMI visa waiver program, Guam will be in 

a better position to improve its economy, reduce its dependency on the federal government, and provide carryover benefits throughout the region. It will also serve to 

provide the island with some level of sustainability after the military buildup. 

I realize that the House Subcommittee on Insular Affairs, Oceans and Wildlife is 

committed to fostering economic development in Guam and the CNMI in a fair and 

equitable manner. I respectfully request that the members take my testimony into 

consideration and seriously consider the economic consequences of not acting to address the inequity. 

Thank you for your time and kind consideration. 

Statement of The Honorable Jeff Duncan, a Representative in Congress 

from the State of South Carolina 

America is broke. We are $14 trillion in debt, which is more than enough for one 

nation. Worse, our current budget deficit remains over a trillion dollars. This requires us to tighten our belts and live within our means. 

I stand strongly opposed to H.R. 44, the Guam World War II Loyalty Recognition 

Act. My heart goes out to the people of Guam for the violence that they suffered 

during World War II. However, the United States committed no crimes against the 

122 

people of Guam. To the contrary, we liberated Guam from Japanese occupation in 

1944. Out of sheer generosity of spirit, the United States paid Japan’s restitution 

of $8 million in 1951, which would be equivalent to nearly $100 million in current 

dollars. 

During this time of great economic uncertainty, I cannot support legislation that would cost this country another $126 million of taxpayer money. As we debate a 

debt ceiling increase, it is fiscally irresponsible to be paying for something that was 

not our fault and that we cannot afford. 

Statement of Susana Blas Deleon Guerrero, President, 

CNMI Women’s Association®

Hafa Adai Chairman Fleming and members of the subcommittee. I am Susana 

Blas Deleon Guerrero, President of the CNMI Women’s Association (CWA). I am testifying on behalf of the CNMI Women’s Association, which seeks to protect the indigenous people of the Northern Mariana Islands, the native Chamorros and Carolinians, from displacement in their ancestral homeland, and other matters. The 

CWA rejects House Resolution 1466, a bill to resolve the status of certain persons 

legally residing in the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI) 

under the immigration laws of the United States, introduced by U.S. Delegate 

Gregorio C. ‘Kilili’ Sablan, NMI-at-large, also a Ranking Minority Member of this 

subcommittee. 

The CNMI Women’s Association agrees with CNMI Governor Benı ́gno R. Fitial regarding the arguments behind Public Law 110–229, a Consolidated Natural Resources Act of 2008 and its effects in the CNMI. Please take time to read Governor 

Fitial’s written testimony. 

The CNMI Senate Committee on Federal Relations and Independent Agencies 

held seven public hearings regarding the implementation of Public Law 110–229 

and other matters affected by such law. After many written and oral testimonies 

submitted and recorded during the hearings, it was evident that the indigenous people of the CNMI who attended the hearings reject any improved status of thousands 

of aliens (including illegal immigrants) residing in the CNMI. It is not that those 

in opposition refuse aliens to have some status, but the people oppose being displaced in their own ancestral homeland—the only home they have ever known. 

The CNMI Women’s Association acknowledges the plan under Public law 110–229 

to phase-out alien workers in the CNMI by November 28, 2011 and then the final 

transition period in December 31, 2014. 

House Resolution 1466, introduced by U.S. Delegate Gregorio C. ‘Kilili’ Sablan, 

NMI-at-large, introduces four types of categories that aliens can gain improved status. Furthermore, H.R. 1466 will allow also 11,000 and possibly more new U.S. citizens in the CNMI within 10 years or less. Some may state that this number is small 

compared to the immigrants in the U.S., but one must understand that there are 

currently 30,000 U.S. citizens residing in the CNMI most of whom are Chamorro 

and Carolinian. Additionally, according to the U.S. Ombudsman’s Office in the 

CNMI, there are approximately 23,000 aliens residing in the CNMI, excluding their 

children. Subsequently, it is arguable that there are more aliens residing in the 

CNMI than there are indigenous Chamorro and Carolinians. Unfortunately, many 

agencies over the years have failed to control the immigration of aliens into the 

CNMI. However, the indigenous people acknowledge the need to stop this massive 

increase of aliens and the possibility of displacing indigenous people of the CNMI. 

House Resolution 1466 is not the best solution to address the 23,000 aliens in the 

CNMI. 

According to the information provided by the CNMI Commonwealth Health Center, from calendar year 1990 to May 2011, out of 31,180 live births, 18,431 were 

of Filipino, Chinese, Korean, Japanese, Thai, Indian, Nepalese, Bangladesh Taiwanese, Vietnamese, Malaysian, Burmese, and Sri Lankan descent. That is more 

than half and almost 60% of total live births during a ten year period. This appalling number of 18,481live births of aliens in the CNM has begun to disenfranchise 

the local indigenous population. 

Based on the said numbers, H.R. 1466 will have a negative impact on the amount 

of social programs that will be available to the local residents. A bothersome fact 

for many people in the CNMI is that H.R. 1466 fails to address such devastating 

problem for local U.S. citizen residents. 

A true story: A single mother, family of four, only receives $136 in food stamp 

benefits. She used to receive $250, which decreased to $196, and now at $136. This 

mother of four, works two jobs, and allows her 15 year old son to watch over his 

three siblings while the mother goes to work. 

123 

One possible reason behind this decline is the additional hundreds of new qualified applicants for food stamps, including aliens with children born in the CNMI. 

On July 11, 2011 as published in the local newspaper, Marianas Variety, the Department of Community and Cultural Affairs Secretary Melvin Faisao states, ‘‘that 

more than 500 people eligible for food stamp benefits were on a waiting list. . .there 

are about 9,700 residents receiving assistance from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.’’ Within the past year, part of the agreement with the U.S. Department of Agriculture, SNAP benefits decreased by 26.7% in food stamp benefits. 

Now, does House Resolution 1466 address this issue? It does not. 

Consequently, H.R. 1466 will also place the local indigenous population at a disadvantage in terms of employment and voting in local elections. Before Public Law 

110–229, the CNMI immigration office mirrored laws to that of the federal immigration pertaining to sponsorship. According to the CNMI law, only those non-resident 

aliens who could sponsor their spouses were those who were identified as ‘‘professionals.’’ Any non-resident alien who were identified as ‘‘professionals’’ had to have 

earned an annual salary of over $20,000. Many aliens residing in the CNMI today 

make much less than $20,000. 

It is the purpose of the CNMI Women’s Association to bring forth to your committee that H.R. 1466 may seem like a plausible humanitarian bill, which in actuality is the opposite and more harmful for the indigenous people. Not only will 

H.R. 1466 displace thousands of indigenous Chamorro and Carolinian people, it will 

also deprive them of full potential benefits from social programs and another small 

benefits provided by the CNMI government especially during our severe declining 

economy. 

Chairman Fleming, we humbly and sincerely ask your committee to think of our 

indigenous Chamorro and Carolinian people of the CNMI, who have been 

colonialized and oppressed for over 500 years, to please reject House Resolution 

1466. 

Un dangkulu na si yu’us ma’ase—Ghilisoow—Thank you. 

————————————— 

The written and oral testimonies during the Senate Committee on Federal Relations and Independent Agencies’ public hearings on Public Law 110–229 and other 

matters can be accessed at: http://www.cnmileg.gov.mp/resources/files/Official_Senate_Recommendation_Appendices_A_thru_F.pdf. From page 21–365. 

Statement of The Honorable Paul A. Manglona, President of the Senate, 

Seventeenth Northern Marianas Commonwealth Legislature, on ‘‘The 

implementation of P.L. 110–229, the Consolidated Natural Resources Act 

of 2008 and a legislative hearing on H.R. 1466, a bill to resolve the status 

of certain persons residing the CNMI under the immigration laws of the 

United States’’ 

Good morning Chairman Fleming and members of the Subcommittee. I am Senator Paul A. Manglona, Senate President of the Seventeenth Northern Marianas 

Commonwealth Legislature. Thank you for the opportunity to submit my written 

testimony on the implementation of Public Law 110–229, the Consolidated Natural 

Resources Act of 2008 and H.R. 1466, a bill to resolve the status of certain person 

legally residing in the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI) 

under the immigration laws of the United States. Although I previously testified before this Subcommittee in the 111th U.S. Congress on the same issue, the CNMI 

Senate appreciates this Subcommittee’s consideration on the implementation of Public Law 110–229 in the CNMI as well as other matters concerning the CNMI. 

I. Implementation of Public Law 110–229 to the CNMI Generally 

Public Law 110–229, the Consolidated Natural Resources Act of 2008, was signed 

into law on May 8, 2008. The Congressional intent of Public Law 110–229 was to 

extend the U.S. Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) to the CNMI with special 

provisions to allow the orderly phasing-out of the nonresident contract worker program of the CNMI and the orderly phasing-in of federal responsibilities over immigration in the CNMI. See Public Law 110–229, Title VII, Subtitle A, SEC. 701(a)(1) 

codified as 48 USC 1806. 

Federal immigration laws were to become applicable to the CNMI one year after 

the date of enactment of PL 110–229 on May 8, 2008 (transition program effective 

date). See Public Law 110–229, Title VII, Subtitle A, SEC. 702(a) codified as 48 

USC 1806((a)(1). However, the Secretary of Homeland Security was given discretion 

to delay the transition program effective date for a period not to exceed 180 days 

124 

after such date. See 48 USC 1806(a)(3). On March 31, 2009, Secretary of Homeland 

Security Janet Napolitano exercised her discretion pursuant to PL 110–229 and extended the transition program effective date for another six months to November 

28, 2009. Section 1806(a)(2) further provided for a transition period beginning the 

transition program effective date (November 28, 2009) and ending on December 31, 

2014 during which the Secretary of Homeland Security shall establish, administer, 

and enforce a transition program to regulate immigration to the CNMI (transition 

program). The implementation of Public Law 110–229 created significant changes 

in the CNMI and has impacted all aspects of the CNMI government and economy. 

Below are some areas that were severely affected by the implementation of Public 

Law 110–229. 

A. Generally. Public Law 110–229 superseded the local immigration laws of the 

CNMI, which immediately resulted in the displacement of over 70 CNMI immigration employees. Many of the displaced employees worked for the CNMI government 

for ten years or more and a few employees were close to completing the required 

CNMI retirement service. The implementation of PL 110–229 further caused the 

CNMI government to lose approximately $5,000,000 in revenue collected each year 

from nonresident worker fees beginning fiscal year 2010. The loss of nonresident 

worker fees has dramatically reduced our annual budget. For FY2010, the CNMI 

budget was $135M and in FY2011 our budget was $105M. The CNMI is in dire 

straits financially and its economy continues to decline each year. Although the law 

authorizes the Secretary of Homeland Security to impose an annual supplemental 

fee of $150 per alien worker on employers under the CNMI transitional worker program, the fees can only be used to develop vocational and educational programs by 

CNMI educational entities, not for general purposes to augment the loss of government revenue. 

B. CNMI Prevailing Wages. Public Law 110–229 does not discuss which ‘‘prevailing wages’’ to be applied in the CNMI transitional worker visa program. However, the U.S. Department of Labor requires the prevailing wages of an occupation 

to be applied to H category visa workers. Pursuant to US Public Law 110–28, federal minimum wages became applicable to the CNMI in gradual increments of $ .50 

per year until it reaches the actual federal minimum wage. Today, the CNMI-federal minimum wage is $5.05 per hour and will be increased to $5.55 in September 

30, 2012. 

The CNMI’s prevailing minimum wages for all occupations are far lower than that 

of the United States due to the low minimum wage. The Guam Department of Labor 

is authorized to conduct wage surveys for H2B workers, which must be approved 

by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). The Saipan Chamber of 

Commerce is presently working on a CNMI prevailing wage survey which, among 

other things, is needed by CNMI employers to support their applications for U.S. 

work visas for their foreign employees. The survey will provide valuable data for the 

process of determining prevailing wage rates for individual job classifications, while 

petitioning for foreign labor work visas under the new requirements of the USCIS 

and the U.S. Department of Labor’s Foreign Labor Certification Office. The CNMI 

Governor will be commissioning its own prevailing wage study to ensure that the 

end results are fair and impartial. I recommend that the U.S. Department of Labor 

grant the Governor of the CNMI the same certifying authority and apply CNMI prevailing wages for its alien workers under any visa classification. 

C. CBP Lack of Professionalism. Since the time the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) took over the immigration functions of the CNMI Division of Immigration, there have been numerous complaints regarding long lines, delays, and the demeanor of CBP officials at the Saipan International Airport. Unfortunately, two senators and I witnessed these complaints first hand on April 16, 2011 when we returned from a business trip in Korea. Upon our arrival, the CBP officers were not 

prepared and all the passengers had to stand in line for about 15 minutes. Also, 

a CBP Officer was rude and abrasive to the pilot and crew. In the United States, 

the pilot and crew are usually given first class treatment and cleared through immigration without delay and hesitation. It should not be any different on Saipan. 

Moreover, CBP officers took at least 10–15 minutes to clear each passenger. The 

CBP officers did not seem too concerned about the passengers standing in line who 

have been traveling a long distance to get to Saipan. The Asiana Airlines agent 

present at the Saipan International Airport informed us that the appalling treatment of the pilot, crew, and passengers from China by CBP officials is a regular 

occurrence at the airport. We understand and appreciate CBP’s mandate to protect 

the American borders. However, the CNMI’s ailing economy is heavily dependent on 

foreign investors and tourists to stimulate commerce. The treatment of visiting investors and tourists is crucial to the survival of our tourism industry. Investors and 

125 

tourists must feel welcomed as soon as they set foot on our islands. The officers 

must do their job diligently and efficiently. 

Moreover, PL110–229 provides that ‘‘it is the intent of the Congress that the Commonwealth be given as much flexibility as possible in maintaining existing businesses and other revenue sources, and developing new economic opportunities, consistent with the mandates of [Title VII, Subtitle A).’’ CBP officers are required to 

fulfill the U.S. Congress’ intent in implementing U.S. Immigration policies in the 

CNMI. In order to ‘‘expand tourism and economic development,’’ CBP officers must 

conduct themselves professionally and courteously and refrain from abrasive and 

unwelcoming remarks and actions towards visitors from China and other foreign 

countries. 

On May 13, 2011, CBP Deputy Commissioner David V. Aguilar responded to the 

Senate’s complaint regarding the April 16, 2011 incident. Commissioner Aguilar had 

many excuses for the poor service and lack of professionalism of CBP officials that 

day. However, as I stated earlier, the Asiana Airlines agent present at the airport 

reported that the appalling treatment was a regular occurrence and the Senate and 

other public officials have received countless complaints regarding the same unacceptable behavior of CBP officials at the Saipan International Airport. Please conduct an official investigation into this matter to ensure that CBP officials refrain 

from objectionable conduct and treatment of U.S. citizen and non-citizen passengers 

at the airport and seaports of the CNMI. 

II. Implementation of Public Law 110–229 as to Foreign Investors and 

Businesses 

The CNMI heavily relies on foreign investors for its businesses and economic 

growth. As such, the implementation of Public Law 110–229 created a ‘‘freeze’’ on 

new investments in the CNMI due to the uncertainty of foreign investors’ status 

under the law. Foreign investors were reluctant to invest even the smallest amount 

not knowing if their investments would be lost during the transition period. The 

freeze on new foreign investments has stifled economic growth and reduced the government revenues by the millions. 

Public Law 110–229 authorizes the Secretary of Homeland Security to classify, 

during the transition period, a foreign investor in the CNMI as an E–2 nonimmigrant investor. On December 17, 2010, USCIS published final regulations with 

respect to investors, which allows foreign long-term investors to reside in the CNMI 

through December 2014 in CNMI E–2 nonimmigrant investor status. This rule temporarily resolves the immigration status of long-term investors in the CNMI and 

provides them time in which to obtain another lawful immigration status under the 

provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). 

At the end of December 2014, the transition period will expire and the E–2 CNMI 

investor status and visa will expire. Therefore, individuals in the CNMI with E–2 

CNMI status must depart the CNMI at the end of the transition period or qualify 

for and obtain another nonimmigrant or immigrant status in order to lawfully remain in the CNMI. The CNMI-only investor status ends at the end of the transition 

period regardless of whether an extension to the transitional worker provision occurs. Any extension by the Secretary of Labor will apply only to the CNMI transitional worker category. 

To qualify for E–2 CNMI Investor status, the primary applicant must: (1) Have 

been admitted to the CNMI with a long-term investor visa under CNMI immigration law before Nov. 28, 2009; (2) Have continuously maintained residence in the 

CNMI under long-term investor status; (3) Currently maintain the investment(s) 

that formed the basis for the CNMI long-term investor status; and (4) Otherwise 

be admissible to the United States under the INA. 

Individuals who were admitted to the CNMI in long-term investor status under 

CNMI immigration law qualify, specifically: (1) A long-term business investor who 

was issued a long-term business certificate by the CNMI based upon an investment 

of at least $50,000; (2) A foreign investor with a foreign investment certificate 

issued by the CNMI based upon an investment of at least $100,000 in an aggregate 

approved investment in excess of $2 million or at least $250,000 in a single approved investment; and (3) A retiree investor over the age of 55 years who was 

issued a foreign retiree investment certificate based upon a qualifying investment 

in an approved residence in the CNMI (but not including the 2-year non-renewable 

retiree investor program limited to Japanese nationals). 

The final rule implements the CNMI nonimmigrant investor visa provisions of 

Public Law 110–229 during the transition period only, after which CNMI E–2 investors would need to apply for another nonimmigrant status under the INA, such as 

the E–2 treaty investor visa. However, as noted by USCIS, a majority of CNMI investors would not meet the requirements for such treaty-visas. As stated in its comVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:06 Jul 03, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00129 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 L:\DOCS\67403.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
126 

ments in the federal register, ‘‘a review of the CNMI eligibility criteria and anecdotal evidence indicates that many of (the current CNMI foreign investors) would 

not meet the minimum financial investment necessary to be eligible for U.S. E–2 

status.’’ 

Moreover, an E–2 ‘‘treaty investor must be a national of a country with which the 

United States has a treaty of friendship, commerce, or navigation and must be entering the United States pursuant to treaty provisions.’’ This will have a significant 

and detrimental effect on the CNMI economy as foreign investors, who fail to qualify for the E–2 visas after the transition period, will be forced to pick up their assets 

and relocate. Chinese and Russian investors in particular will be negatively impacted at the conclusion of the transition period and risk the loss of substantial investment in the CNMI. 

Pursuant to the INA, the Treaty Trader (E–1) visa or Treaty Investor (E–2) visa 

is for ‘‘a national of a country with which the U.S. maintains a treaty of commerce 

and navigation who is coming to the U.S. to carry on substantial trade, including 

trade in services or technology, principally between the U.S. and the treaty country, 

or to develop and direct the operations of an enterprise in which the national has 

invested, or is in the process of investing a substantial amount of capital, under the 

provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act.’’ E–2 visa holders must be nationals from a list of participating treaty countries. Notably absent from this list are 

Chinese and Russian nationals who make up a substantial and growing segment of 

the CNMI foreign investor population. 

Many of the current foreign investors residing in the CNMI will fail to meet the 

financial threshold for investment and other E–2 visa requirements once the transition period has expired. Over the decades, the small business community in the islands has been built by foreign investors, including but not limited to supermarkets, 

restaurants, and tourism related industries. It is debatable whether it may be in 

the best interests of the CNMI to have U.S. citizen investors fill these niches, and 

it certainly cannot be guaranteed. Our proximity to Asia has made the CNMI reliant on these foreign economies, and investors, and it is unlikely U.S. investors will 

be able to fill this void in the short-run. At a minimum, a majority of foreign small 

business owners will have to sell businesses that they have spent their lives building, and as a consequence eliminating a significant portion of the CNMI economy. 

Further, current CNMI foreign retiree certificate holders will not qualify as U.S. 

E–2 investors after the transition period given the current E–2 visa requirements. 

These foreign retirees will be subject to the same visa requirements of other E–2 

visa holders, post transition period. Elderly foreign retirees have made significant 

investments in CNMI homes. To revoke their status would be a hardship on these 

individuals and a detriment to the CNMI economy. 

Public Law 110–229 intended to apply federal immigration laws to the CNMI 

while minimizing to the greatest extent practicable the potential adverse economic 

and fiscal effects and to maximize the CNMI’s potential for future economic and 

business growth. See SEC. 701. Public Law 110–229’s Congressional intent of maximizing the CNMI’s potential for economic and business growth during the implementation of federal immigration laws to the CNMI could be achieved by the following: 

1. Maintain the final rule CNMI only E–2 visas eligibility requirements after 

the transition period. 

2. Grandfather in foreign retirees or create CNMI-only foreign retiree visa. 

3. Grant Treaty Investor waiver for Chinese and Russian nationals. 

Similar to the tourist visa waiver for Chinese and Russian nationals entering the 

CNMI, it is recommended that Russian nationals presently holding CNMI foreign 

investor certificates, or CNMI long-term business certificates, be allowed E–2 Treaty 

Investor status as provided to participating treaty member countries. It is suggested 

that this be applied on a CNMI only basis. 

III. Implementation of Public Law 110–229 as to Alien Workers 

A. Lack of Regulations for CNMI Transitional Worker Visa Classification 

PL 110–229 requires DHS to promulgate regulations to implement the provisions 

of the law. It is now July 2011, more than three years after the enactment PL 110– 

229 and more than one year since I testified before this subcommittee in the 111th 

U.S. Congress and pleaded for USCIS to publish the CNMI Transition Worker regulations so the CNMI and its businesses can prepare for the transition program. It 

is unacceptable and outrageous that USCIS has not filed the transitional worker 

visa final interim rules. The fact that USCIS had draft interim rules in October 

2009 makes it even more difficult to understand why the rules are still pending with 

the Administration at this time. PL 110–229 clearly mandates all federal agencies 

to comply with Congress intent to implement the law giving the CNMI as much 

127 

flexibility as possible in maintaining existing businesses and other revenue sources, 

and developing new economic opportunities consistent with the mandates of 

Title VII, Subtitle A. 

USCIS must publish final rules on the transitional worker visa for the CNMI in 

a timely manner to afford the CNMI government, employers, and employees the opportunity to comment on the regulations before they take effect. The final regulations must consider and address the adverse and detrimental consequences, if any, 

of the proposed regulations. For example, it is crucial that the hotel hospitality alien 

workers be able to continue working under the regulations while training U.S. citizens and permanent residents to takeover such positions. 

USCIS’s failure to publish the final interim rules at this time is a violation of PL 

110–229 and an example of the continued lack of respect and candor by the agencies 

of the Department of Homeland Security. The CNMI and the businesses should not 

be held hostage by DHS’ inability to timely carry out its mandate set forth in PL 

110–229. Once again, USCIS has failed to give the CNMI more than ample time 

to comment on the transitional worker regulations. There is only four months left 

before the regulations take effect. Four months is insufficient time for employees 

and employers to prepare for the changes in the transitional worker regulations. As 

such, I request this subcommittee to amend PL 110–229 to extend the employment 

authorization grandfather provision set forth in SEC. 6(e)(2)(B) from two years after 

the transition program effective date to three years after the effective date. This will 

give employers and employees more time to adjust to the new regulations that will 

become effective on November 27, 2011. Extending the employment authorization 

grandfather provision is different from extending the transition period which commenced on November 28, 2009 and will expire on December 31, 2014, unless extended by the Secretary of Labor. Extending the employment authorization grandfather provision will allow the existing nonresident workers to continue working in 

the CNMI under the umbrella permit conditions for one more year after November 

27, 2011. 

B. ICE not Deporting Overstayers in the CNMI 

Public Law 110–229 provides that no alien lawfully admitted under CNMI immigration laws shall be removed from the CNMI until the earlier of the expiration 

date of the alien’s employment authorization or 2 years after the transition program 

effective date, which is November 28, 2009. The law further authorizes the Secretary of Homeland Security to remove any alien from the CNMI who is removable 

under federal law except as provided herein. Moreover, the Secretary may execute 

administrative orders to remove aliens under U.S. or CNMI law prior or after November 28, 2009. 

In 2009, the CNMI Department of Labor provided U.S. Immigration and Customs 

Enforcement (ICE) with the names and identification of over 1,300 illegal or overstaying aliens in the CNMI. In the last three years, ICE has deported fewer than 

100 aliens. Moreover, although ICE does not have its own exit data base, ICE has 

prevented the CNMI from maintaining an exit database of passengers necessary to 

identify overstaying tourists. Since the implementation of federal immigration, it appears that we have an increase in the number of overstaying alien workers, family 

members, and tourists. 

IV. Guam-CNMI Visa Waiver Program 

The CNMI’s only industry today—the tourist industry—has tremendously declined since the enactment of Public Law 110–229 on May 8, 2008. The CNMI’s 

tourist arrivals decreased after the enactment of Public Law 110–229 especially 

from the Russian and Chinese markets. The decreased tourist arrival translates into 

low hotel occupancy, low tourist-related activities, low business gross receipt taxes, 

and less revenue for the CNMI. 

Public Law 110–229 replaces the existing Guam Visa Waiver Program with a new 

Guam-CNMI Visa Waiver Program at INA § 212(l). The law extends the authorized 

period of stay under the Guam-CNMI Visa Waiver Program from 15 to 45 days. As 

of November 28, 2009, U.S. immigration law applies to the CNMI and the GuamCNMI Visa Waiver Program is in effect; and DHS, Customs and Border Protection 

operate ports of entry in the CNMI for immigration inspection of arriving aliens and 

establish departure control for certain flights leaving the CNMI. 

The major CNMI tourist markets are Japanese, Koreans, Chinese, and Russians. 

Under CNMI immigration laws, Chinese and Russian nationals were allowed to 

visit the CNMI for up to ninety-days without a visa. However, the new regulations 

on the Guam-CNMI Visa Waiver program do not include the Chinese and Russian 

nationals. As such, these nationals are required to apply for a visitor’s visa to enter 

the CNMI. This posed a great threat to the CNMI’s only industry at this time— 

128 

its tourist industry. The Chinese and Russian tourists represent a large portion of 

CNMI visitors. In order to preserve such tourist markets, the Governor of the CNMI 

requested DHS for a visa waiver for these tourists. 

Public Law 110–229 authorizes the Secretary of Homeland Security to promulgate 

regulations that include a listing of all countries whose nationals may obtain the 

visitor’s visa waiver. Public Law 110–229 further requires the Secretary to provide 

a listing of any country from which the CNMI has received a significant economic 

benefit from the number of visitors for pleasure within a one year period preceding 

the enactment of the law unless US welfare or security is threatened. The Department of Homeland Security determined that the People’s Republic of China (PRC) 

and Russia meet this economic threshold. 

Accordingly, on October 21, 2009, the Secretary of Homeland Security announced 

that she will exercise her discretionary authority to parole Chinese and Russian 

visitors into the CNMI for business or pleasure. Parole will be authorized on a caseby-case basis only for entry into the CNMI and will not extend to other areas of 

the United States. While the CNMI appreciates the Secretary’s decision to parole 

Chinese and Russian visitors into the CNMI, I recommend that a more permanent 

arrangement be established such as amending the regulations to add China and 

Russia to the list of visa waiver countries. The CNMI needs its Chinese and Russian 

tourists indefinitely to keep the economy afloat. Making it difficult for these tourist 

markets to visit the CNMI will detrimentally affect the industry. Economic growth 

in the CNMI cannot be achieved without our Chinese and Russian markets. 

V. Technical Assistance for the CNMI 

Public Law 110–229 mandates that the Secretary of the Department Interior 

(DOI) provide technical assistance to the CNMI to advance recruitment of U.S. citizens. The law states that technical assistance and other support to the CNMI shall 

be provided to identify opportunities for, and encourage diversification and growth 

of, the economy of the Commonwealth. This technical assistance shall also include 

assistance in recruiting, training, and hiring of workers to assist employers in the 

CNMI in securing employees first from among the U.S. citizens in the CNMI. The 

law also provides that federal assistance should further include the identification of 

the types of jobs needed, identify skills needed to fulfill such jobs, and assistance 

to Commonwealth educational entities to develop curricula for such job skills. 

In May 2011, the Department of the Interior, Office of Insular Affairs issued a 

report entitled ‘‘Guidance for the Design and Implementation of Technical Assistance Program Relating to Immigration in the CNMI Required under Title VII, Public Law 110–229, Consolidated Natural Resources Act, May 2008.’’ The report outlines DOI’s plan for technical assistance to the CNMI. In November 2010, the Assistant Secretary of the Interior for Insular Affairs held a public meeting, Forum 

on Economic and Labor Development (FELD), on Saipan. This was an opportunity 

for all stakeholders to begin a discussion on what types of assistance would be appropriate and made available to the CNMI. 

PL 110–229 does not appropriate funds for the aid it mandates. The Office of Insular Affairs (OIA) has committed up to $1 million in financial aid, from existing 

technical assistance funds, to fill the requirements of the law. OIA funds will be devoted to two main programs: (a) assisting the CNMI to develop an economic revitalization program as suggested by the Governor of the CNMI, and (b) enabling the 

CNMI government to work with local agencies and non-profit organizations to provide on-the-job training for eligible U.S. workers. 

Using the FELD’s list as the guide, OIA designated areas of the economy and the 

labor market for technical assistance grants that would generate the greatest possible benefit for the CNMI. Primary areas to receive first priority for assistance are: 

tourism, which is the CNMI’s largest income source and has growth potential; the 

labor market, which currently relies on foreign labor and whose stability is crucial 

to the transition and beyond; and renewable energy, agriculture and aquaculture, 

which reduce dependence on fossil fuels, contribute to food supply and create jobs. 

OIA’s technical assistance will be committed to these areas. Although not the first 

priority, OIA has identified other areas of concern to be the health care industry, 

education, transportation, and communication 

While the Senate appreciates all the technical assistance provided by OIA, the 

pledge of $1 million dollars in financial aid to the CNMI is insufficient to provide 

technical assistance in the tourism industry and labor market. The DOI’s report 

suggests that the CNMI tourism industry would benefit from better trained hospitality staff and lessons can be learned from Hawaii’s hospitality industry. The report 

further suggests that the labor market must be seen as a critical component with 

emphasis on training and vocational skills. These DOI suggestions cannot be 

achieved with $1 million financial aid. It will cost millions and many years to acVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:06 Jul 03, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00132 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 L:\DOCS\67403.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
129 

complish these goals. I request that the U.S. Congress appropriate funds for the 

technical assistance mandate under to PL 110–229. The federal government must 

be cognizant of the fact that the immigration and technical assistance mandates of 

PL 110–229 were established by the U.S. Congress but not funded accordingly. 

VI. Senate Recommendation for Improved Status of Guest Workers in the 

CNMI 

Public Law 110–229 requires the phasing-out of the CNMI’s nonresident contract 

worker program by turning over responsibility for immigration to the Federal government. As required by PL 110–229, the Secretary of the Interior submitted a report to the U.S. Congress in April 2010 on the current status of the nonresident 

contract worker program and recommendations on how best to implement the law 

in the Commonwealth. Additionally, the U.S. Congress held an oversight hearing on 

the implementation of PL 110–229 and invited elected officials from the CNMI and 

Guam to testify. 

At the hearing in May 2010, Governor Benı ́gno R. Fitial, Chairman Frederick DL. 

Guerrero of the CNMI House Committee on Federal and Foreign Affairs and I testified before this Subcommittee on the implementation of P.L. 110–229 in the CNMI. 

The Senate was concerned that the leaders and people of the Commonwealth were 

not consulted in the Department of the Interior’s report and its recommendations 

as required by PL 110–229. 

In response to these concerns, the CNMI Senate Committee on Federal Relations 

and Independent Agencies held public hearings on the islands of Rota, Saipan, and 

Tinian, in June and July of 2010, regarding the implementation of Public Law 110– 

229. The public was overwhelmingly alarmed about offering so many nonresident 

workers an immigration status that would allow them to become citizens of the 

United States in the CNMI, and the effect it would have on the status and rights 

of citizens who are of Northern Marianas Descent (NMD or Indigenous). Several 

months after the hearings, the CNMI Senate produced a preliminary draft recommendation and scheduled hearings to gauge public sentiment. At the latest hearings in February 2011, indigenous residents and nonimmigrant workers reacted to 

the Senate’s recommendation stated in this report. We produced this final report as 

a compromise between the interests of nonimmigrant workers and indigenous residents of the Commonwealth. 

The CNMI Senate offered the following recommendation to the U.S. Congress: all 

aliens residing legally in the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands for 

ten years on the date U.S. Public Law 110–229 became law, shall receive similar 

immigration status as that held by citizens of the freely associated states (FAS) as 

set forth in U.S. Public Law 99–229. The Senate presented its report to Chairman 

Fleming and other members of Congress at a meeting in Washington, D.C. in March 

2011. 

The CNMI Senate made this recommendation acknowledging that persons who receive improved immigration status will be eligible for social welfare benefits, at a 

time when our economy is facing a major recession. CNMI revenues are negatively 

impacted by changes in federal law. For example, federalization of immigration 

means the U.S., not the CNMI, Department of Labor, now collect revenues from licensing and permitting nonimmigrant workers, resulting in a loss to the Commonwealth of nearly $5 million dollars annually. We encourage the U.S. to consider this 

impact, and appropriate the funds necessary to maintain sufficient federal benefits 

for our citizens. 

VII. Senate Supports the Passage of H.R. 1466 

In the 112th U.S. Congress, First Session, Congressman Gregorio Kilili Sablan introduced H.R. 1466—To resolve the status of certain persons legally residing in the 

Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands under the immigration laws of the 

United States. The purpose of this Act is to provide to certain persons residing in 

the CNMI an immigration status applicable solely within the CNMI in order to 

allow such persons to remain lawfully in the CNMI. There are four groups of persons affected by this Act: (I) Aliens born in the CNMI between January 1, 1974 and 

January 9, 1978; (II) Aliens who were on May 8, 2008, permanent residents as defined in 3 CMC § 4303; (III) alien spouses and children of aliens described in subclasses (I) and (II); and (IV) Aliens who were on May 8, 2008, immediate relatives 

[as defined by 3 CMC § 4303] of a U.S. citizen notwithstanding the age of the U.S. 

citizen. Pursuant to the Act, the aliens in subclasses (I)-(III) shall be eligible to 

apply for permanent resident status between January 1, 2015 and January 1, 2016. 

The aliens in subclass (IV) shall be able to apply for permanent resident status 

when the U.S. citizen immediate relative reaches 21 years of age. 

130 

The Senate supports the passage of this bill with amendments. Most of the aliens 

under subclasses (I)-(III) have been in the CNMI at least twenty years and would 

also qualify for special status under the Senate’s recommendation as set forth above. 

Moreover, the immediate relatives in subclass (IV) should be allowed to stay together with their U.S. citizens relatives in the CNMI until such time that the U.S. 

citizen may petition for the adjustment of the status of his or her immediate relatives. However, the Senate requests that H.R. 1466 be amended to require certain 

conditions for subclass (IV) such as the immediate relative shall be lawfully admitted in the CNMI, the immediate relative must have continuously maintained residence in the CNMI for at least five years prior to May 8, 2008, and any other condition as may be required by Congress. The Senate believes that these conditions will 

ensure that this special status conferred by H.R. 1466 will be limited to those lawfully admitted aliens residing in the CNMI. Moreover, if practical, the Senate further requests that H.R. 1466 be amended to include the CNMI Senate’s recommendation for the improved status of guest workers in the CNMI as set forth 

in Section VII of this testimony. 

VIII. Conclusion 

Based on the foregoing reasons, the Senate submits that without proper consideration for the CNMI’s employment requirements, present economic needs and future 

economic growth as mandated by Public Law 110–229, the implementation of the 

law will continue to adversely impact the CNMI government and business sectors. 

The Congressional intent of the law extends federal immigration laws to the CNMI 

with special provisions to allow for the orderly phasing-out of the alien worker program of the CNMI and the orderly phasing-in of federal responsibilities over immigration in the CNMI, and to minimize to the greatest extent practicable, the potential adverse economic and fiscal effects of phasing-out the alien worker program and 

to maximize the CNMI’s potential for future economic and business growth. 

The Senate submits that the Congressional Intent of Public Law 110–229 can be 

achieved if federal agencies adhere to and adopt regulations consistent with such 

intent. I recommend that this subcommittee authorize grandfathering into the federal system existing CNMI foreign investors and retirees to preserve those economic 

markets and grow the economy. Without these measures, the CNMI would lose 

most, if not, all of its foreign investors and businesses. Moreover, we need further 

clarification on the ‘‘prevailing wages’’ that will be applied to alien workers in the 

CNMI. The Saipan Chamber of Commerce and CNMI government are working on 

a ‘‘CNMI Prevailing Wage’’ survey to determine the appropriate wages to apply to 

the transitional worker program. 

The Senate further recommends that this subcommittee direct the Department of 

Homeland Security to (1) collaborate and work with the Governor of CNMI on the 

implementation and enforcement of Public Law 110–229, (2) publish final regulations regarding the transitional worker visas in a timely manner to allow the CNMI 

to comment and recommend changes, if any; the CNMI must maintain its current 

employment workforce to maintain and grow the economy, (3) authorize visa waivers for Russia and China, (4) address the issue of overstayers in the CNMI, and (5) 

treat our residents and visitors with respect and courtesy when they enter the 

CNMI at the airport and seaports. 

Finally, due to USCIS’s delay in timely publishing the transitional worker regulations, the Senate requests that the U.S. Congress amend PL 110–229 to extend the 

employment authorization grandfather provision to three years after the transition 

period effective date to give employers and employers at least one year to adjust 

and train employees to transfer to transitional worker program. The Senate further 

requests that the U.S. Congress appropriate funds necessary to carry out the technical assistance mandate of PL 110–229 and instruct the Department of Interior to 

work closely with the CNMI government and the stakeholders on the technical assistance program by providing additional financial aid for job training, business diversification, and economic growth. The CNMI needs more than $1 million in technical assistance financial aid to accomplish the training and diversification necessary to implement PL 110–229 while simultaneously growing the economy. At a 

minimum, fulfillment of these requests and recommendations would make the implementation of Public Law 110–229 more efficient and workable. Thank you for 

your time and consideration of the CNMI’s issues and concerns regarding the implementation of PL 110–229 and H.R. 1466. 

Æ