Madeleine’s dilemma .
Friday, 16 October 2009 03:45 by Gerardo Partido
Marianas Variety News Staff
Poor Madeleine, she was really caught unaware this time in a perfect political storm that was beyond her control.
The veteran politico, usually always one step ahead in reading political scenarios, is now finding herself in the unfamiliar position of having to defend her action in Congress.
For several years now, Bordallo has been diligent in pushing for Guam’s war claims, making sure that legislation is introduced each time a new congressional term begins.
This year, the Guam war claims legislation stood its best chance of being acted upon as Bordallo found a way to tie it in with the U.S. defense spending bill.
But with the Guam war claims legislation put so prominently before U.S. lawmakers’ attention, realpolitik set in and Congress decided against approving the Bordallo legislation.
When push came to shove, U.S. lawmakers decided that the Guam war claims bill, as currently written, could set a precedent, paving the way for additional millions of dollars in payout to other, non-Guam related claims.
With the U.S. economy the way it is, it was really doubtful whether Congress would agree to the Guam war claims legislation.
Unfortunately for Bordallo, the issue didn’t stop there.
At the last minute, a compromise was offered, proposing to approve Guam war claims but only limiting compensation to first generation descendants of those killed during the war and living survivors of the Japanese occupation.
Had Congress just disapproved the war claims bill entirely, Bordallo would not be in the hot seat she’s in right now. She could even be credited with bringing Guam war claims legislation closer to passage than it had ever been.
But the compromise offer put Bordallo in a tough situation. It was a damned if you do, and damned if you don’t situation.
Had she accepted the compromise, those excluded from the legislation would have damned her while if she declined the compromise, those who would have been included would have damned her just the same.
To make matters worse for Bordallo, the compromise was offered when the U.S. defense spending bill was all set to be voted upon and there was virtually no time to consult with constituents back home.
Of course, it’s also important to note that Bordallo’s congressional seat is up for grabs and accepting the compromise offer would have alienated several thousand voters who would have been excluded from the settlement.
But in rejecting the compromise, Bordallo may now have alienated both camps and she may suffer from this in the next election, which would be unfortunate since Bordallo has been tireless in working for Guam’s interests in Congress.
As expected, the congresswoman has already received sharp criticism for not accepting the compromise, most notably from Sen. BJ Cruz, who was himself a member of the war claims review commission.
Incidentally, tongues are wagging about Cruz’s vehement protest because BJ is not just a partymate of Bordallo but a Democrat of the Sunshine stripe. Wasn’t Bordallo once upon a time the lieutenant governor of Carl T.C. Gutierrez?
Some Democrats say it’s okay for BJ to express his views and his opposition, but he shouldn’t be doing it so loudly. It seems the previously solid Gutierrez-Bordallo alliance has now truly gone to pot.
But I say Cruz is entitled to express his strong feelings because the Guam war claims issue is one of those that transcend politics.
Meantime, some of the anger has been directed towards the federal government, the military in particular.
Sen. Judi Guthertz threatened to impose a toll on most vehicles entering or leaving Guam’s military bases, obviously in retaliation for the non-passage of Guam’s war claims.
Of course, the proposal was so out there that the military didn’t even deign to respond in public although I’m sure the military’s views on the matter were sent through back channels.
DPW’s Larry Perez also made a lot of noises, warning that the feds could call Guthertz’s bluff and withhold federal highway funding from Guam. Perez also pointedly remarked that his department wasn’t even consulted.
The toll plan has since been withdrawn but at least it has done its job of raising more awareness about the unfair U.S. decision on Guam’s war claims.
So where are we now?
The bitterness over the decision still hasn’t abated but as Sen. Ben Pangelinan pointed out it would be a shame if this bitterness (and the resulting division in the community) now stops the Guam war claims initiative just when the legislation has already gone so far.
Bordallo has said that she will introduce the bill again during the next session of Congress, this time with a public hearing on the measure.
Between now and that time, lobbying efforts for Guam’s war claims must be redoubled. We must push for a public hearing in Washington D.C. itself so that the Guam war claims issue would become more familiar to the nation’s lawmakers.
If we can, we should invite to the island Sen. Carl Levin and other members of Congress who don’t support Guam war claims so that they may feel first hand the injustice that has been done and realize that the issue is not something abstract that can just be measured by dollars and cents.
On Guam, more townhall meetings should also be held explaining the issues related to Guam war claims, especially the legal ramifications and precedents involved in previous claims.
This is necessary to inform the public about the possibility that we may not get 100 percent of what we want.
After these consultative meetings, Team Guam would hopefully have a united response in case a compromise is offered again next year.
For feedback, email gerry@mvguam.com
Showing posts with label Senate Committees. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Senate Committees. Show all posts
Monday, October 19, 2009
Wednesday, October 07, 2009
No War Reparations This Year
News from Congresswoman Madeleine Z. Bordallo
Conference Committee Reaches Compromise on War Claims in FY10 National Defense Authorization Act:
Hearings and a Commitment to Readdress War Claims in NDAA FY 2011 Bill Secured
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE – October 7, 2009 – Washington, D.C. –
Congresswoman Madeleine Z. Bordallo today announced that a compromise has been reached on H.R. 44, the Guam World War II Loyalty Recognition Act, as part of the final defense authorization bill that was reported out of Conference Committee. Earlier today, leaders from the House Armed Services Committee and the Senate Armed Services Committee signed off on the Conference Report for the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010. The conference report has been referred to the House Committee on Rules and is expected to be debated and voted on by the full House of Representatives Thursday afternoon. The bill will then be sent over to the Senate for their consideration and a vote on final passage. If approved by the Senate the bill will be sent to the President for his signature.
Over the past month, leaders of the House and Senate Armed Services Committee have been in negotiations to resolve the differences between the House and Senate defense authorization bills. During these negotiations, Senator Carl Levin, Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, and Senator John McCain, Ranking Republican Member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, raised serious concerns about keeping war claims in the final defense authorization bill. Their objections focused on two areas: 1) The precedent that might be set for future defense authorization bills if war claims remained in this year’s final defense bill, and 2) The payment of claims for personal injury to spouses and children of survivors who have since passed away after World War II.
Chairman Levin and Ranking Member McCain offered to keep war claims in the final defense bill if claims were awarded solely to those killed during the war and to living survivors of the occupation. Congresswoman Bordallo rejected this counter proposal. However, a compromise was reached whereby the House Armed Services Committee and the Senate Armed Services Committee will hold hearings on H.R. 44 and that the issue will be again be addressed in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 if it has not been resolved by other legislative means in the Senate by next year.
“I did not accept the offer from the Senate conferees because it would not recognize all of those who endured Guam’s occupation,” Congresswoman Madeleine Z. Bordallo said today. “While I am disappointed that H.R. 44 was not included in the final defense authorization bill, the compromise that was reached allows another opportunity to build on the progress we have made and to bring closure to this issue within a year. I believe that hearings on H.R. 44 would allow the Senate’s concerns to be aired openly, and to have our concerns heard by the House and Senate Armed Services Committees. I will continue to build on the support that we have received from the House leadership, the Obama Administration and key committees in the Senate. I believe that our local leaders and our community would use this opportunity to help us make Guam’s case for H.R. 44 and for full inclusion of all those affected by the occupation. We are on a path to closure, and we have additional time to make our case. I hope that the commitments made by the House and Senate conferees to hold hearings and to readdress war claims in next year’s bill will give us the best opportunity to resolve this issue and to finally have closure.”
# # #
Contact: Matthew Mateo in Washington, D.C. at 202-225-1188 or Derek Mandell at 671-477-4272/4.
Conference Committee Reaches Compromise on War Claims in FY10 National Defense Authorization Act:
Hearings and a Commitment to Readdress War Claims in NDAA FY 2011 Bill Secured
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE – October 7, 2009 – Washington, D.C. –
Congresswoman Madeleine Z. Bordallo today announced that a compromise has been reached on H.R. 44, the Guam World War II Loyalty Recognition Act, as part of the final defense authorization bill that was reported out of Conference Committee. Earlier today, leaders from the House Armed Services Committee and the Senate Armed Services Committee signed off on the Conference Report for the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010. The conference report has been referred to the House Committee on Rules and is expected to be debated and voted on by the full House of Representatives Thursday afternoon. The bill will then be sent over to the Senate for their consideration and a vote on final passage. If approved by the Senate the bill will be sent to the President for his signature.
Over the past month, leaders of the House and Senate Armed Services Committee have been in negotiations to resolve the differences between the House and Senate defense authorization bills. During these negotiations, Senator Carl Levin, Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, and Senator John McCain, Ranking Republican Member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, raised serious concerns about keeping war claims in the final defense authorization bill. Their objections focused on two areas: 1) The precedent that might be set for future defense authorization bills if war claims remained in this year’s final defense bill, and 2) The payment of claims for personal injury to spouses and children of survivors who have since passed away after World War II.
Chairman Levin and Ranking Member McCain offered to keep war claims in the final defense bill if claims were awarded solely to those killed during the war and to living survivors of the occupation. Congresswoman Bordallo rejected this counter proposal. However, a compromise was reached whereby the House Armed Services Committee and the Senate Armed Services Committee will hold hearings on H.R. 44 and that the issue will be again be addressed in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 if it has not been resolved by other legislative means in the Senate by next year.
“I did not accept the offer from the Senate conferees because it would not recognize all of those who endured Guam’s occupation,” Congresswoman Madeleine Z. Bordallo said today. “While I am disappointed that H.R. 44 was not included in the final defense authorization bill, the compromise that was reached allows another opportunity to build on the progress we have made and to bring closure to this issue within a year. I believe that hearings on H.R. 44 would allow the Senate’s concerns to be aired openly, and to have our concerns heard by the House and Senate Armed Services Committees. I will continue to build on the support that we have received from the House leadership, the Obama Administration and key committees in the Senate. I believe that our local leaders and our community would use this opportunity to help us make Guam’s case for H.R. 44 and for full inclusion of all those affected by the occupation. We are on a path to closure, and we have additional time to make our case. I hope that the commitments made by the House and Senate conferees to hold hearings and to readdress war claims in next year’s bill will give us the best opportunity to resolve this issue and to finally have closure.”
# # #
Contact: Matthew Mateo in Washington, D.C. at 202-225-1188 or Derek Mandell at 671-477-4272/4.
Friday, August 28, 2009
Guam Leaders and Feds Discuss Compact Impact
Guam, feds discuss Compact impact
By Clynt Ridgell
Published Aug 28, 2009
KUAM News
The subject of Compact impact dominated discussions this morning between lawmakers and a delegation from Washington. Allan Stayman and Isaac Edwards, who are staffers with the U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources along with Wendy Fink and Steve Sander from the Office of Insular Affairs are on island meeting with local elected leaders.
Speaker Judi Won Pat said, "The focus of our topic this morning was exactly that - the compact impact and a suggestion was actually made by Senator [Ben] Pangelinan and Senator BJ Cruz, that when Congress agreed to look at the war reparations, they actually created then a Commission and we were suggesting they need to do the exact same thing so they can bring in the major players Guam, Hawaii, the CNMI, and the other major players who are claiming that they have a large number of FAS citizens."
A meeting was held Thursday afternoon in the Speaker's Office with Senator Frank Blas, Jr., officials from GMH, Public Health and the consul generals of the FSM and Palau. Hawaii reportedly made the decision to cut the free services because the U.S. has not been living up to its obligations of fully reimbursing the state for Compact impact costs.
By Clynt Ridgell
Published Aug 28, 2009
KUAM News
The subject of Compact impact dominated discussions this morning between lawmakers and a delegation from Washington. Allan Stayman and Isaac Edwards, who are staffers with the U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources along with Wendy Fink and Steve Sander from the Office of Insular Affairs are on island meeting with local elected leaders.
Speaker Judi Won Pat said, "The focus of our topic this morning was exactly that - the compact impact and a suggestion was actually made by Senator [Ben] Pangelinan and Senator BJ Cruz, that when Congress agreed to look at the war reparations, they actually created then a Commission and we were suggesting they need to do the exact same thing so they can bring in the major players Guam, Hawaii, the CNMI, and the other major players who are claiming that they have a large number of FAS citizens."
A meeting was held Thursday afternoon in the Speaker's Office with Senator Frank Blas, Jr., officials from GMH, Public Health and the consul generals of the FSM and Palau. Hawaii reportedly made the decision to cut the free services because the U.S. has not been living up to its obligations of fully reimbursing the state for Compact impact costs.
Friday, May 02, 2008
Akaka Speaks to Seante Committee on Guam's Military Buildup
U.S. Senator Daniel K. Akaka (D-Hawaii) has attended a hearing this week on the military buildup on Guam, and the impact on the civilian community, planning, and response, in the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, which has jurisdiction over U.S. territories such as Guam.
His opening statement follows:
Thank you Chairman Bingaman and Ranking Member Domenici for holding this hearing. I see that we are also joined by my former colleague, Congressman Ben Blaz of Guam, Aloha Ben.
I welcome our witnesses, especially those that have traveled a great distance to testify today. I look forward to receiving your testimony as the Committee explores the impact that the DOD’s plans for an increased military presence will have on the population Guam. I also look forward to the opportunity to discuss the planning and resources needs of the civilian community in preparation and response to the build-up.
It is my understanding that while the Department of Defense has established a broad framework for military build-up on Guam, the DoD continues their planning process including a the preparation of the of a Join Guam Joint Military Master Plan which I understand is still in the DOD review process. Similarly, I know that the Government of Guam is still in the initial stages of addressing the many infrastructure challenges associated with the military build-up. I want to congratulate you for the work you have all done thus far. I know this process poses many inherent challenges and unexpected difficulties and you are to be commended for your efforts.
As we move forward, it is crucial that DoD and other federal agencies continue to work in close coordination with one another and Guam's local government. In particular, it is vitally important that each entity and contributing partner share a collective understanding based on accurate and timely information with respect not only to the military’s but also the community’s needs. Only by working collaboratively will we truly be able to plan accordingly including ensuring that federal resources are appropriately allocated to this undertaking.
I also want to take this opportunity to express my support of H.R. 1595, the Guam World War II Loyalty Recognition Act, which passed in the House and is currently pending before the Senate Committee on Judiciary. The people of Guam deserve no less than to be recognized for the loyalty and courage they displayed during the World War II occupation of Guam by the Japanese.
Once again, thank you to the witnesses for appearing before us today.
His opening statement follows:
Thank you Chairman Bingaman and Ranking Member Domenici for holding this hearing. I see that we are also joined by my former colleague, Congressman Ben Blaz of Guam, Aloha Ben.
I welcome our witnesses, especially those that have traveled a great distance to testify today. I look forward to receiving your testimony as the Committee explores the impact that the DOD’s plans for an increased military presence will have on the population Guam. I also look forward to the opportunity to discuss the planning and resources needs of the civilian community in preparation and response to the build-up.
It is my understanding that while the Department of Defense has established a broad framework for military build-up on Guam, the DoD continues their planning process including a the preparation of the of a Join Guam Joint Military Master Plan which I understand is still in the DOD review process. Similarly, I know that the Government of Guam is still in the initial stages of addressing the many infrastructure challenges associated with the military build-up. I want to congratulate you for the work you have all done thus far. I know this process poses many inherent challenges and unexpected difficulties and you are to be commended for your efforts.
As we move forward, it is crucial that DoD and other federal agencies continue to work in close coordination with one another and Guam's local government. In particular, it is vitally important that each entity and contributing partner share a collective understanding based on accurate and timely information with respect not only to the military’s but also the community’s needs. Only by working collaboratively will we truly be able to plan accordingly including ensuring that federal resources are appropriately allocated to this undertaking.
I also want to take this opportunity to express my support of H.R. 1595, the Guam World War II Loyalty Recognition Act, which passed in the House and is currently pending before the Senate Committee on Judiciary. The people of Guam deserve no less than to be recognized for the loyalty and courage they displayed during the World War II occupation of Guam by the Japanese.
Once again, thank you to the witnesses for appearing before us today.
Thursday, May 01, 2008
Senate Committee Hears About Buildup's Impacts to Guam
Senate committee hears testimony on buildup's impacts on Guam
by Clynt Ridgell, KUAM News
Friday, May 02, 2008
Congresswoman Madeleine Bordallo and Governor Felix Camacho testified before a U.S. Senate Committee on Natural Resources and Energy this morning. The full committee hearing was held to hear testimony on the U.S. Military buildup on Guam with regards to its impact on the civilian community. Both elected leaders say they were able to present Guam's concerns and needs related to the military buildup during this morning's hearing.
The congresswoman explains in more detail some of the things she discussed with the full committee, telling KUAM News, "Specifically, I raised the issue of memorandums of understanding between the Government of Guam and their federal counterparts. MOUs will help keep a level of continuity in the buildup process as administrations here in Washington, DC will change at the end of the year."
Governor Camacho says while it was a privilege to sit before the committee. More importantly, it was an opportunity to make the community's case to the Senate about the buildup. "I focused specifically on the fact that this is going to have a severe impact on the people of Guam and that there are monies appropriated to take care of the Department of Defense commitment to the buildup but not to the civilian government, not to the people of Guam," the chief executive recalled.
The governor says he also stressed the importance of MOUs and, in fact, has already coordinated at least one. "We have established a memorandum of understanding with the Maritime Administration, upon which they will administer any funds that would come through, be it federal. It's been back and forth and right now I believe it's with the Maritime Administration for their final acceptance once they sign off on it it'll come back to me. I believe there was a $100,000 commitment as seed money to begin this process," Camacho added.
In addition to MOUs, the congresswoman says she's working on a bill known as the Joint Guam Projects Oversight Act, which she will be introducing shortly. "We cover the MOUs, we cover all of the concerns that the people of Guam have with about this buildup, so we're just putting it in bill form. It will probably be included in the appropriation measure, but we want to be sure it's specific and that we get what we feel is owed to us with this buildup, we're taking care of the people of Guam," Bordallo said. "So certainly I hope this is favorably received."
The congresswoman says this will likely be included in the 2010 Appropriations Act. Both the congresswoman and the governor agree that Guam will need assistance in beefing up the port and it's infrastructure from the U.S. federal government if this move is going to happen. Governor Camacho said, "Something of this nature and magnitude and the severity of it, in such a short compressed timeline, no American community can be expected to be bear such a burden and certainly they could not place that burden on the people of Guam.
"And we are asking and requesting for their help in the way of appropriations."
by Clynt Ridgell, KUAM News
Friday, May 02, 2008
Congresswoman Madeleine Bordallo and Governor Felix Camacho testified before a U.S. Senate Committee on Natural Resources and Energy this morning. The full committee hearing was held to hear testimony on the U.S. Military buildup on Guam with regards to its impact on the civilian community. Both elected leaders say they were able to present Guam's concerns and needs related to the military buildup during this morning's hearing.
The congresswoman explains in more detail some of the things she discussed with the full committee, telling KUAM News, "Specifically, I raised the issue of memorandums of understanding between the Government of Guam and their federal counterparts. MOUs will help keep a level of continuity in the buildup process as administrations here in Washington, DC will change at the end of the year."
Governor Camacho says while it was a privilege to sit before the committee. More importantly, it was an opportunity to make the community's case to the Senate about the buildup. "I focused specifically on the fact that this is going to have a severe impact on the people of Guam and that there are monies appropriated to take care of the Department of Defense commitment to the buildup but not to the civilian government, not to the people of Guam," the chief executive recalled.
The governor says he also stressed the importance of MOUs and, in fact, has already coordinated at least one. "We have established a memorandum of understanding with the Maritime Administration, upon which they will administer any funds that would come through, be it federal. It's been back and forth and right now I believe it's with the Maritime Administration for their final acceptance once they sign off on it it'll come back to me. I believe there was a $100,000 commitment as seed money to begin this process," Camacho added.
In addition to MOUs, the congresswoman says she's working on a bill known as the Joint Guam Projects Oversight Act, which she will be introducing shortly. "We cover the MOUs, we cover all of the concerns that the people of Guam have with about this buildup, so we're just putting it in bill form. It will probably be included in the appropriation measure, but we want to be sure it's specific and that we get what we feel is owed to us with this buildup, we're taking care of the people of Guam," Bordallo said. "So certainly I hope this is favorably received."
The congresswoman says this will likely be included in the 2010 Appropriations Act. Both the congresswoman and the governor agree that Guam will need assistance in beefing up the port and it's infrastructure from the U.S. federal government if this move is going to happen. Governor Camacho said, "Something of this nature and magnitude and the severity of it, in such a short compressed timeline, no American community can be expected to be bear such a burden and certainly they could not place that burden on the people of Guam.
"And we are asking and requesting for their help in the way of appropriations."
Tuesday, April 01, 2008
Call Your Senators Today!
The Federalization of the CNMI is still very much an issue, and right now we need people around the United States to call their Senators to inform them about how it is being snuck into a larger bill without adequate hearing or vetting.
Here are the links if you are interested in getting involved, and I'm pasting below a sample phone transcript to help inform you about the issue:
Click here for the telephone numbers of Senators on the Judiciary Committee
A letter to the editor of the Guam Variety on the Federalization Issue
A letter calling on all friends of the Marianas to contact the Senate Judiciary Committee
A letter to the Senate against Federalization
Articles on the Federalization issue from Minagahet
CNMI faces "Federal Typhoon" article from Guam PDN
CNMI borders are a "Security Risk" article from Guam PDN
Letter to the editor of the Saipan Tribune on Federalization
*************************
Dear Senator:
As a registered ____________________________(for e.g. California voter and indigenous to the Mariana Islands), I would like call your attention to an item on today’s Senatorial agenda, omnibus bill S. 2483. At first glance, it looks to be non-controversial, however, upon closer inspection, Title 7, which has passed in the house under HR 3079, is an unjust and controversial
bill.
The fact that:
1) it is hidden amongst bills that seem non-controversial will circumvent much needed public debate on the federalization issue of immigration and labor of the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI).
2) it is concurrently introduced with 2 other Omnibus bills (S. 2616, and S. 2739) is a way to fast-track the bill in order to increase its chances of passing before current administration’s term is over and before the General Accounting Office releases its report on the impact of the bill.
Some of the controversies surrounding Title 7 of S. 2483 (S. 2616, and S. 2739) are:
1) It is discriminatory. It proposes to finalize an immigration and labor policy for a region that does not have a voting member in the Senate and even before a bipartisan agreement (spearheaded, most notably, by Senator Kennedy and Senator Specter) for a national immigration and labor policy has been developed.
2) It undermines the sovereignty of the indigenous peoples of the CNMI and the mutual and trust and cooperation that has endured for decades between the governments of the CNMI and the United States of America. (The political rights of the inhabitants of the CNMI were determined to be governed by the solemn Covenant, which was negotiated upon the termination of the United Nations trusteeship and which granted local control of labor and immigration).
3) It puts at risk the human rights to self-determination of the Chamoru people on Guam, by enabling a means to bring in a large workforce in order to expedite the $10 billion military buildup currently ongoing without public scrutiny and without the consent of the indigenous people.
The proponents of this bill will argue that the CNMI is not fit to govern themselves because of human trafficking and labor abuses and that those arguing against Title 7 have special interests.
Because of the controversy surrounding this bill, I urge the Senator that it is not too late to set a date for a public hearing for Title 7 in order to shine a light on the facts in full view before this Honorable Body. Moreover, because those of us who care for justice and who view the restructuring of the relationship between the governments of CNMI and the USA, in terms of immigration, as a serious matter, I strongly believe that Title 7 should not be dealt in the shadows or in secret, but using a democratic fashion with a public hearing and proper notification for those of us who are traveling from as far away as the Mariana Islands, which this bill will greatly impact.
Sincerely,
*******************************
Here are the links if you are interested in getting involved, and I'm pasting below a sample phone transcript to help inform you about the issue:
Click here for the telephone numbers of Senators on the Judiciary Committee
A letter to the editor of the Guam Variety on the Federalization Issue
A letter calling on all friends of the Marianas to contact the Senate Judiciary Committee
A letter to the Senate against Federalization
Articles on the Federalization issue from Minagahet
CNMI faces "Federal Typhoon" article from Guam PDN
CNMI borders are a "Security Risk" article from Guam PDN
Letter to the editor of the Saipan Tribune on Federalization
*************************
Dear Senator:
As a registered ____________________________(for e.g. California voter and indigenous to the Mariana Islands), I would like call your attention to an item on today’s Senatorial agenda, omnibus bill S. 2483. At first glance, it looks to be non-controversial, however, upon closer inspection, Title 7, which has passed in the house under HR 3079, is an unjust and controversial
bill.
The fact that:
1) it is hidden amongst bills that seem non-controversial will circumvent much needed public debate on the federalization issue of immigration and labor of the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI).
2) it is concurrently introduced with 2 other Omnibus bills (S. 2616, and S. 2739) is a way to fast-track the bill in order to increase its chances of passing before current administration’s term is over and before the General Accounting Office releases its report on the impact of the bill.
Some of the controversies surrounding Title 7 of S. 2483 (S. 2616, and S. 2739) are:
1) It is discriminatory. It proposes to finalize an immigration and labor policy for a region that does not have a voting member in the Senate and even before a bipartisan agreement (spearheaded, most notably, by Senator Kennedy and Senator Specter) for a national immigration and labor policy has been developed.
2) It undermines the sovereignty of the indigenous peoples of the CNMI and the mutual and trust and cooperation that has endured for decades between the governments of the CNMI and the United States of America. (The political rights of the inhabitants of the CNMI were determined to be governed by the solemn Covenant, which was negotiated upon the termination of the United Nations trusteeship and which granted local control of labor and immigration).
3) It puts at risk the human rights to self-determination of the Chamoru people on Guam, by enabling a means to bring in a large workforce in order to expedite the $10 billion military buildup currently ongoing without public scrutiny and without the consent of the indigenous people.
The proponents of this bill will argue that the CNMI is not fit to govern themselves because of human trafficking and labor abuses and that those arguing against Title 7 have special interests.
Because of the controversy surrounding this bill, I urge the Senator that it is not too late to set a date for a public hearing for Title 7 in order to shine a light on the facts in full view before this Honorable Body. Moreover, because those of us who care for justice and who view the restructuring of the relationship between the governments of CNMI and the USA, in terms of immigration, as a serious matter, I strongly believe that Title 7 should not be dealt in the shadows or in secret, but using a democratic fashion with a public hearing and proper notification for those of us who are traveling from as far away as the Mariana Islands, which this bill will greatly impact.
Sincerely,
*******************************
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
Clarification on Federal Takeover Bill
Letter to the Editor: Clarification on federal takeover bill
CNMI Editorials
The Marianas Variety
Tuesday February 12, 2008
MR. Howard Willens asked me to respond to the letter from the communications director of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee published in the Variety on Feb. 8, 2008. Mr. Willens is still waiting for a written response from a committee lawyer to his detailed analysis of the plain meaning of H.R. 3079.
It is clear that Mr. Wicker does not understand H.R. 3079. It establishes a permit system under which each employer in the commonwealth must have a permit in order to hire a nonimmigrant foreign worker. It does not matter whether the foreign worker is presently in the CNMI or enters under the H visa program. He or she cannot get a job unless the employer has a permit to hire a foreign worker for the particular job. Under the current bill, these permits must be reduced to zero by Dec. 31, 2013. If there is no extension of the transition period, the law would require the departure of more than 19,000 foreign workers currently working here.
Mr. Wicker’s lack of familiarity with the legislation is also made clear by his suggestion that, after the termination of the transition period, “the nonimmigrant worker program under the INA will continue indefinitely, along with all of the provisions of the U.S. immigration laws.” He seems to forget that by that time the CNMI will be subject to the national caps on H-1B and H-2B visas. If they are allocated proportionally to population, that will entitled the commonwealth to ten or fewer workers in each category, which would clearly fall far short of CNMI’s labor needs.
Mr. Wicker’s letter, however, did provide some new information. The Senate committee has finally decided to write a committee report regarding its recommendation that the Senate pass H.R. 3079. When the committee decided last December to bundle this “non-controversial” bill with 50 or more other bills from the House of Representatives, there was no suggestion that the committee would file a report explaining its action. Why is the committee asking the full Senate to vote on a bill any day now without any explanation from the committee as to what the bill means and what will be its impact on the commonwealth’s economy, citizens, and foreign workers?
Why should we be surprised? This is the same committee that endorsed a bill based on the facts of 10 years ago, when Allen Stayman was in the Clinton administration, rather than the situation existing today in the commonwealth. This is the same committee that requested a report from the Government Accountability Office and then refused to defer action until the GAO completed its work — now only a few months away. This is the same committee that endorsed a House bill that is substantially different from the version considered by the committee at its hearings in July 2007, without pausing to evaluate the changes made by the House of Representatives or asking for comments from the commonwealth.
CHARLES P. REYES JR.
Gualo Rai, Saipan
CNMI Editorials
The Marianas Variety
Tuesday February 12, 2008
MR. Howard Willens asked me to respond to the letter from the communications director of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee published in the Variety on Feb. 8, 2008. Mr. Willens is still waiting for a written response from a committee lawyer to his detailed analysis of the plain meaning of H.R. 3079.
It is clear that Mr. Wicker does not understand H.R. 3079. It establishes a permit system under which each employer in the commonwealth must have a permit in order to hire a nonimmigrant foreign worker. It does not matter whether the foreign worker is presently in the CNMI or enters under the H visa program. He or she cannot get a job unless the employer has a permit to hire a foreign worker for the particular job. Under the current bill, these permits must be reduced to zero by Dec. 31, 2013. If there is no extension of the transition period, the law would require the departure of more than 19,000 foreign workers currently working here.
Mr. Wicker’s lack of familiarity with the legislation is also made clear by his suggestion that, after the termination of the transition period, “the nonimmigrant worker program under the INA will continue indefinitely, along with all of the provisions of the U.S. immigration laws.” He seems to forget that by that time the CNMI will be subject to the national caps on H-1B and H-2B visas. If they are allocated proportionally to population, that will entitled the commonwealth to ten or fewer workers in each category, which would clearly fall far short of CNMI’s labor needs.
Mr. Wicker’s letter, however, did provide some new information. The Senate committee has finally decided to write a committee report regarding its recommendation that the Senate pass H.R. 3079. When the committee decided last December to bundle this “non-controversial” bill with 50 or more other bills from the House of Representatives, there was no suggestion that the committee would file a report explaining its action. Why is the committee asking the full Senate to vote on a bill any day now without any explanation from the committee as to what the bill means and what will be its impact on the commonwealth’s economy, citizens, and foreign workers?
Why should we be surprised? This is the same committee that endorsed a bill based on the facts of 10 years ago, when Allen Stayman was in the Clinton administration, rather than the situation existing today in the commonwealth. This is the same committee that requested a report from the Government Accountability Office and then refused to defer action until the GAO completed its work — now only a few months away. This is the same committee that endorsed a House bill that is substantially different from the version considered by the committee at its hearings in July 2007, without pausing to evaluate the changes made by the House of Representatives or asking for comments from the commonwealth.
CHARLES P. REYES JR.
Gualo Rai, Saipan
Friday, February 08, 2008
Letter to the Editor
Letter to the Editor: Incorrect
CNMI Editorials
Friday February 8, 2008
I AM writing on behalf of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources to correct the conclusion in Howard Willen’s article “The Plain Meaning of H.R. 3079,” that appeared in the Marianas Variety on Feb. 5.
Mr. Willens incorrectly states, “There is nothing in either the language of H.R. 3079 or its legislative history that refers to two separate guest worker programs during the transition period.” In fact, the language of proposed Section 6(d)(2) of the Covenant included in Section 103(a) of H.R. 3079, states that the Secretary of Homeland Security shall establish a new Commonwealth Only Transitional Worker program for nonimmigrant workers, “who would not otherwise be eligible for admission under the Immigration and Nationality Act…” In other words, there will be a second, separate program to provide for the entry of nonimmigrant workers who will not be eligible to enter the CNMI under the existing federal nonimmigrant worker program, the so-called “H-visa” programs.
Mr. Willens is also incorrect that the legislative history does not refer to two programs because, in fact, the legislative history is not complete. The committee has not yet filed a report on its recommendation that the Senate pass H.R. 3079. That report will further clarify the existence of these two nonimmigrant guest worker programs, and that while the Commonwealth Only Transitional program will eventually be phased-out, the nonimmigrant worker program under the INA will continue indefinitely, along with all of the provisions of the U.S. immigration laws.
It is important to emphasize that the goal of H.R. 3079 is to extend U.S. immigration laws, but do so in a way that is sensitive to the special conditions in the CNMI. In general, this means that the CNMI can take advantage of all of the provisions in the U.S. immigration laws, but that the CNMI can also take advantage of the several CNMI-only provisions included in H.R. 3079.
It is unfortunate that instead of working with the U.S. government to extend U.S. immigration laws as agreed to over 30 years ago, there are those who misrepresent and misinterpret the U.S. government position in an effort to further delay reforms that are vital to the CNMI’s future.
BILL WICKER
Communications Director
U.S. Senate Energy
& Natural Resources
CNMI Editorials
Friday February 8, 2008
I AM writing on behalf of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources to correct the conclusion in Howard Willen’s article “The Plain Meaning of H.R. 3079,” that appeared in the Marianas Variety on Feb. 5.
Mr. Willens incorrectly states, “There is nothing in either the language of H.R. 3079 or its legislative history that refers to two separate guest worker programs during the transition period.” In fact, the language of proposed Section 6(d)(2) of the Covenant included in Section 103(a) of H.R. 3079, states that the Secretary of Homeland Security shall establish a new Commonwealth Only Transitional Worker program for nonimmigrant workers, “who would not otherwise be eligible for admission under the Immigration and Nationality Act…” In other words, there will be a second, separate program to provide for the entry of nonimmigrant workers who will not be eligible to enter the CNMI under the existing federal nonimmigrant worker program, the so-called “H-visa” programs.
Mr. Willens is also incorrect that the legislative history does not refer to two programs because, in fact, the legislative history is not complete. The committee has not yet filed a report on its recommendation that the Senate pass H.R. 3079. That report will further clarify the existence of these two nonimmigrant guest worker programs, and that while the Commonwealth Only Transitional program will eventually be phased-out, the nonimmigrant worker program under the INA will continue indefinitely, along with all of the provisions of the U.S. immigration laws.
It is important to emphasize that the goal of H.R. 3079 is to extend U.S. immigration laws, but do so in a way that is sensitive to the special conditions in the CNMI. In general, this means that the CNMI can take advantage of all of the provisions in the U.S. immigration laws, but that the CNMI can also take advantage of the several CNMI-only provisions included in H.R. 3079.
It is unfortunate that instead of working with the U.S. government to extend U.S. immigration laws as agreed to over 30 years ago, there are those who misrepresent and misinterpret the U.S. government position in an effort to further delay reforms that are vital to the CNMI’s future.
BILL WICKER
Communications Director
U.S. Senate Energy
& Natural Resources
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)