HJRES-96-118
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 775.
Sponsored by Bruce Westerman (R-AR)
What it does
This bill would amend the existing Compacts of Free Association between the United States and three Pacific Island nations: the Federated States of Micronesia, the Republic of the Marshall Islands, and the Republic of Palau. It would renew and update the terms governing financial assistance, migration rights, and other agreements that define the unique political and economic relationship between the U.S. and these nations. The compacts establish that citizens of these nations may live and work in the United States without a visa.
Who benefits
Citizens of the Federated States of Micronesia, the Republic of the Marshall Islands, and the Republic of Palau (collectively called "Compact of Free Association" or COFA citizens) who rely on continued migration rights and access to U.S. programs. U.S. military and national security interests that depend on exclusive access to strategic Pacific territory. U.S. states and territories — particularly Hawaii, Guam, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands — that receive federal funding to offset costs associated with COFA migrants. Pacific Island governments that depend on U.S. financial assistance for public services and infrastructure.
Who is hurt
U.S. taxpayers who fund the financial assistance packages included in the compacts. State and local governments in Hawaii, Guam, and the CNMI, which bear service costs for COFA migrants and may argue federal reimbursements are insufficient. Any parties whose existing compact terms are renegotiated on less favorable terms. U.S. workers in sectors where COFA migrants compete for employment, to the extent migration provisions are expanded.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that renewing and updating the Compacts of Free Association is essential to U.S. national security and strategic interests in the Indo-Pacific. The compacts give the United States exclusive military access to a vast area of the Pacific Ocean — a critical advantage as competition with China in the region intensifies. Supporters contend that the financial assistance provided is modest compared to the strategic value of denying adversaries access to these islands. They also argue the compacts honor longstanding commitments to Pacific Island peoples, some of whom served alongside U.S. forces or were affected by U.S. nuclear testing in the Marshall Islands, and that updated terms would provide more targeted, accountable aid to improve living standards and reduce migration pressure on U.S. states and territories.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that the amended compacts may not adequately address the financial burden placed on U.S. states and territories — especially Hawaii and Guam — which provide education, healthcare, and social services to COFA migrants without sufficient federal reimbursement. Some critics contend the aid packages are too costly or lack sufficient oversight and accountability mechanisms to ensure funds are used effectively. Others argue the migration provisions create unfair competition for local workers and strain public resources. Additionally, some advocates for the Marshall Islands argue the compacts do not go far enough in compensating communities affected by U.S. nuclear weapons testing, leaving unresolved humanitarian obligations that should be addressed before or alongside any renewal.