[House Hearing, 110 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
SUCCESSES AND CHALLENGES OF THE INTERAGENCY GROUP ON INSULAR AREAS
=======================================================================
OVERSIGHT HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON INSULAR AFFAIRS
of the
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
Thursday, July 17, 2008
__________
Serial No. 110-81
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/
index.html
or
Committee address: http://resourcescommittee.house.go
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
43-630 PDF WASHINGTON : 2008
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia, Chairman
DON YOUNG, Alaska, Ranking Republican Member
Dale E. Kildee, Michigan Jim Saxton, New Jersey
Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, American Elton Gallegly, California
Samoa John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee
Neil Abercrombie, Hawaii Wayne T. Gilchrest, Maryland
Solomon P. Ortiz, Texas Chris Cannon, Utah
Frank Pallone, Jr., New Jersey Thomas G. Tancredo, Colorado
Donna M. Christensen, Virgin Jeff Flake, Arizona
Islands Stevan Pearce, New Mexico
Grace F. Napolitano, California Henry E. Brown, Jr., South
Rush D. Holt, New Jersey Carolina
Raul M. Grijalva, Arizona Luis G. Fortuno, Puerto Rico
Madeleine Z. Bordallo, Guam Cathy McMorris Rodgers, Washington
Jim Costa, California Louie Gohmert, Texas
Dan Boren, Oklahoma Tom Cole, Oklahoma
John P. Sarbanes, Maryland Rob Bishop, Utah
George Miller, California Bill Shuster, Pennsylvania
Edward J. Markey, Massachusetts Bill Sali, Idaho
Peter A. DeFazio, Oregon Doug Lamborn, Colorado
Maurice D. Hinchey, New York Mary Fallin, Oklahoma
Patrick J. Kennedy, Rhode Island Adrian Smith, Nebraska
Ron Kind, Wisconsin Robert J. Wittman, Virginia
Lois Capps, California Steve Scalise, Louisiana
Jay Inslee, Washington
Mark Udall, Colorado
Joe Baca, California
Hilda L. Solis, California
Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, South
Dakota
Heath Shuler, North Carolina
James H. Zoia, Chief of Staff
Rick Healy, Chief Counsel
Christopher N. Fluhr, Republican Staff Director
Lisa Pittman, Republican Chief Counsel
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON INSULAR AFFAIRS
DONNA M. CHRISTENSEN, Virgin Islands, Chairwoman
LUIS G. FORTUNO, Puerto Rico, Ranking Republican Member
Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, American Elton Gallegly, California
Samoa Jeff Flake, Arizona
Raul M. Grijalva, Arizona Don Young, Alaska, ex officio
Madeleine Z. Bordallo, Guam
Nick J. Rahall, II, West Virginia,
ex officio
------
CONTENTS
----------
Page
Hearing held on Thursday, July 17, 2008.......................... 1
Statement of Members:
Christensen, Hon. Donna M., a Delegate in Congress from the
Virgin Islands............................................. 1
Prepared statement of.................................... 2
Faleomavaega, Hon. Eni F.H., a Delegate in Congress from
American Samoa............................................. 12
Statement of Witnesses:
Domenech, Hon. Douglas W., Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary
on Insular Affairs, U.S. Department of the Interior........ 5
Prepared statement of.................................... 6
Farrow, Jeffrey, Former Co-Chair of the White House
Interagency Group on Insular Areas, (Clinton
Administration)............................................ 8
Prepared statement of.................................... 10
Tenorio, Hon. Pedro A., Resident Representative, Commonwealth
of the Northern Mariana Islands............................ 3
Prepared statement of.................................... 4
Additional materials supplied:
de Jongh, Hon. John P., Jr., Governor of the U.S. Virgin
Islands, Statement submitted for the record................ 29
SUCCESSES AND CHALLENGES OF THE INTERAGENCY GROUP ON INSULAR AREAS
----------
Thursday, July 17, 2008
U.S. House of Representatives
Subcommittee on Insular Affairs
Committee on Natural Resources
Washington, D.C.
----------
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:00 p.m., in
Room 1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Donna
Christensen [Chairwoman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Christensen, Faleomavaega, and
Flake.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. DONNA CHRISTENSEN, A DELEGATE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE TERRITORY OF THE U.S. VIRGIN ISLANDS
Mrs. Christensen. Good afternoon. The oversight hearing by
the Subcommittee on Insular Affairs will come to order. The
Subcommittee is meeting today to hear testimony on the
Successes and Challenges of the Interagency Group on Insular
Affairs. Under Committee Rule 4(g), the Chairwoman, myself, and
the Ranking Minority Member, who could not be here today, would
make opening statements. If any members join us and have other
statements, they will be included in the hearing record under
unanimous consent.
As I said this afternoon, the Subcommittee is meeting to
hear from witnesses representing some of the U.S. insular
areas, as well as officials from the Department of the Interior
and the former Clinton Administration. The subject of our
attention is the Interagency Group on Insular Affairs.
As many of us here know, traveling to D.C. from islands
involves great preparation both in time and resources, and the
Subcommittee had hoped to have the participation of the
Governors of Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands, American Samoa, and
the Northern Mariana Islands by piggybacking on the National
Governors' Association summer session which is being held in
Pennsylvania, or was held in Pennsylvania earlier this week.
But due to prior commitments and some pressing business for our
own Governor back at home, the majority of Governors were not
able to attend the NGA session or this hearing. But written
testimony has been submitted to the Subcommittee in lieu of
their being here, and it will be entered into the record
accordingly.
I will leave it to our witnesses then to provide the
Subcommittee a more in-depth accounting and history of the IGIA
in their testimony. However, as a brief background, the IGIA is
an outgrowth of efforts taken by my predecessor, Insular
Subcommittee Chair Ron de Lugo. Chairman de Lugo, along with
Senator Bennett Johnston, both recognized the existence of a
policy gap in the way the Federal Government interacted with
U.S. insular areas. Chairman de Lugo and Senator Johnston, who
chaired the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, introduced
similar measures to bridge this gap in the 103rd Congress.
Chairman de Lugo's legislation would have established a
Council on Insular Affairs comprised of policy level officials
from all Federal agencies chaired by the President's chief
domestic and foreign policy advisers and assisted by a staff in
the President's Executive Office. The IGIA was born out of this
legislation and the continuing dialogue and compromise between
Congress, the Department of the Interior and the White House.
The IGIA, as originally established under President Clinton
and reconstituted in 2003 by President Bush, is nearing its
10th anniversary as a working group. The Department of the
Interior holds at least one annual meeting which coincides with
the Governors traveling to D.C. in February. As it has
seasoned, the IGIA has proven to be a regular activity of the
Department of the Interior with occasional success.
The Subcommittee looks forward to the testimony being
offered this afternoon and hopes that the interaction we have
with our witnesses will assist in strengthening the efforts of
the IGIA to address the very unique challenges faced by the
insular areas.
So the Chair would now recognize the panel of witnesses,
and will have you speak in this order: Resident Representative
of the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, The
Honorable Pete Tenorio, Mr. Douglas Domenech, Acting Deputy
Assistant Secretary for Insular Affairs at the U.S. Department
of the Interior, and Mr. Jeffrey Farrow, Former Co-Chair of the
White House Interagency Group on Insular Affairs during the
Clinton Administration.
And I now recognize Mr. Pete Tenorio from the Northern
Mariana Islands to testify for 5 minutes. And we would ask you
to summarize your testimony, and all statements, the full
statement, will be submitted into the record. You may begin.
[The prepared statement of Mrs. Christensen follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Donna M. Christensen, Chairwoman,
Subcommittee on Insular Affairs
This afternoon the Subcommittee is meeting to hear from witnesses
representing some of our U.S. insular areas, as well as officials from
the Department of the Interior and the former Clinton Administration.
The subject of our attention is the Interagency Group on Insular Areas
As many of us here know, traveling to DC from the islands involves
great preparation in both time and resources The Subcommittee had hoped
to have the participation of the Governors of Guam, Virgin Islands,
American Samoa, and the Northern Mariana Islands by ``piggybacking'' on
the National Governors Association summer session held in Pennsylvania
earlier this week. Due to prior commitments, the majority of Governors
were not even able to attend the NGA session or this hearing. However,
written testimony has been submitted to the Subcommittee in lieu of
their absence and it will be entered into the record accordingly.
I will leave it to our witnesses to provide the Subcommittee a more
in depth accounting and history of the IGIA in their testimony. However
as brief background, the IGIA is an outgrowth of efforts taken by my
predecessor--Insular Subcommittee Chairman Ron de Lugo. Chairman de
Lugo, along with Senator Bennet Johnston, both recognized the existence
of a policy gap in the way the Federal Government interacted with U.S.
Insular Areas. Chairman de Lugo and Senator Johnston, who chaired the
Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, introduced similar
measures to bridge this gap in the 103rd Congress.
Chairman de Lugo's legislation would have established a Council on
Insular Affairs, comprised on policy level officials from all Federal
agencies, chaired by the President's chief domestic and foreign policy
advisors, and assisted by a staff in the President's Executive Office.
The IGIA was born out of this legislation and the continuing
dialogue and compromise between Congress, the Department of the
Interior, and the White House.
The IGIA, as originally established under President Clinton and
reconstituted in 2003 by President Bush is nearing its tenth year
anniversary as a working group. The Department of the Interior holds at
least an annual meeting which coincides with Governors traveling to DC
in February.
As it has seasoned, the IGIA has proven to be a regular activity of
the Department of the Interior with occasional success.
The Subcommittee looks forward to the testimony being offered this
afternoon and hopes that the interaction we have with our witnesses
will assist in strengthening the efforts of the IGIA to address the
very unique challenges faced by U.S. insular areas.
______
STATEMENT OF THE HON. PEDRO A. TENORIO, RESIDENT
REPRESENTATIVE, COMMONWEALTH OF THE NORTHERN MARIANA ISLANDS
Mr. Tenorio. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. I would make my
testimony very brief. But before I do that I do want to extend
to you the greetings from the people of the Commonwealth of the
Northern Mariana Islands, and to also thank you and your
committee for your recent visit to our islands, indeed a very
historic visit when you conducted a public hearing on the
Island of Saipan.
We also want to thank your Committee on Insular Affairs,
and also the Committee on Natural Resources, for their very
special initiative to pass U.S. Public Law 110-229, which
contains the initiative for framing of a new immigration for
the Commonwealth, as well as creating a Delegate position to
represent the people of the Commonwealth in the U.S. Congress.
We certainly appreciate this very, very important gesture and
consideration on the part of Congress to finally provide
representation to the people of the Commonwealth who have not
been represented since 1986, when they were granted by a
Presidential proclamation U.S. citizenship pursuant to the
provision of the Covenant.
We look forward to working with this committee in improving
our political relationship with the United States, and we feel
very confident that with the kind of cooperation and
consideration provided by this committee we will definitely
have a much better relationship and a new beginning in our
overall role as part of the American political family.
Chairwoman Christensen, members of this committee, I
remember with great anticipation the signing of the Executive
order that created the Interagency Group on Insular Areas. I
was hoping that IGIA would move the territories from the realm
of, forgive me for these words, forgotten stepchild into the
mainstream where we would finally have powerful advocates on
our side.
Since its inception twice I have been hopeful that the IGIA
could help the CNMI address its critical infrastructure needs.
Included in the Fiscal Year 2005 Omnibus Appropriations Act was
a mandate by Congress calling for the Secretary of the Interior
to develop a comprehensive, coordinated and detailed
implementation program for the CNMI water system plans
developed by the Corps of Engineers.
The Appropriations Act conference report noted that the
magnitude of the funding needs to improve the CNMI water system
far exceeds any possible resolution from funds made available
to the Interior and Related Agencies Subcommittee on
Appropriations, and that existing programmatic expertise of
other Federal agencies is not being used fully.
The report required the Secretary of the Interior to
provide the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations with
an implementation plan that fully utilized and coordinated
those authorities to ensure that the goals of the plans are
achieved in a timely and cost effective manner. The report was
to contain an implementation plan to identify projects,
responsible agencies, funding needs, implementation schedule,
any statutory or other changes necessary to implement the
program, and a specific timetable for full completion.
This task was assigned to the IGIA, which acted very
quickly. But even though various funding sources were
identified, no funding for CNMI water system improvements were
included in the following year's submission by the President or
included in the appropriation. While water volume production
has increased due to appropriations made by Congress in Fiscal
Year 2004 and 2005 budgets, I can tell you that not a drop of
water from the Saipan water system is potable at this point in
time. We cannot drink our water from the households provided by
our government.
Saipan's water system is unhealthy, causing residents to
purchase expensive bottled water for drinking and cooking. It
also greatly increases the cost of doing business by investors.
I am sure everyone here remembers the Territorial Bank Bond
Initiative developed under the auspices of IGIA. Congresswoman
Bordallo generously introduced a bill to implement a plan, but
unfortunately the bill was derailed by a lack of OMB support.
In concept, I believe the IGIA is crucial to increasing the
communication about and the advocacy for insular areas within
the Federal Government. I would like to see our next President
again form the IGIA. I will recommend that it include a greater
involvement by the Office of Management and Budget.
Finally, as I recommended in a past IGIA meeting, I would
like very much that this group conduct its first meeting next
year in one of the territories of the United States.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Tenorio follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Pedro A. Tenorio, Resident Representative,
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands
Madam Chairwoman, members of the Committee. I remember with great
anticipation the signing of the Executive Order that created the
Interagency Group on Insular Areas. I was hoping that IGIA would move
the territories from the realm of forgotten stepchild into the
mainstream where we would finally have powerful advocates on our side.
But that was not to be. I am sure everyone here remembers the
Territorial Bond Bank, developed under the auspices of IGIA, only to be
cut down in its prime by OMB.
At the direction of Congress IGIA did form a working group to
update the Army Corps of Engineers report on the Water Infrastructure
Development Plans for the islands of Saipan, Tinian and Rota. The CNMI
is America's only jurisdiction where the residents are unable to drink
the water. The working group did an excellent job, unfortunately there
was no follow through, and we have yet another report sitting on a
shelf gathering dust.
The CNMI has real problems and unless our governor becomes a
superhero, they are not going to be resolved anytime soon. Whether it
is the nature of the bureaucratic beast or not, the problems facing the
CNMI and the other territories must be resolved. I am not just talking
about money, which does comes in handy, but also expertise.
______
Mrs. Christensen. Well, you know I like that idea, Mr.
Tenorio, and of course we are the closest one, the one most
nearby. But I think that is a good idea.
The Chair now recognizes Mr. Douglas Domenech to testify.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. DOUGLAS W. DOMENECH, ACTING DEPUTY
ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR INSULAR AFFAIRS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE
INTERIOR
Mr. Domenech. Thank you, Madam Chair. I would just say
before I start it was good seeing you at the Energy hearing in
St. Croix and again at the Guam Wreath Laying earlier this
week, and I appreciate the opportunity to be here today.
Madam Chair and Subcommittee on Insular Affairs, thank you
for the opportunity to discuss the activities of the
Interagency Group on Insular Areas, or IGIA, which deals with
the issues of concern in the United States Territories of Guam,
American Samoa, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and the Commonwealth
of the Northern Mariana Islands. I would like to make a brief
opening statement and submit my testimony for the record.
As you know, Secretary Kempthorne has shown great personal
interest in the needs and concerns of our insular areas and
affiliated island communities since his trip to the Pacific
last summer. A little over 2 months ago, upon the departure of
David Cohen, the Secretary named me Acting Deputy Assistant
Secretary for Insular Affairs. One reason was to have the
issues of the islands managed directly out of the Secretary's
Office, since I also continue to serve as his Deputy Chief of
Staff.
Over the last few months I have had the opportunity to
travel to the Virgin Islands, Guam, and CNMI to see issues on
the ground and visit with island leaders directly. As you know,
the U.S. insular areas are uniquely beautiful and yet uniquely
challenged. They have limited land resources, small populations
and generally limited pools of experts, especially in
professional, technical and scientific fields. And because
these areas are not States, a number of legal issues often set
a territory or all territories apart from the 50 States or from
one another. This has resulted in different applications of
issues like minimum wage requirements, customs and border
regulations, census enumerations, trade policy and Medicaid
treatment, to name a few, on the islands.
The previous administration created the IGIA to assist the
territories with these unique challenges. President Bush on May
8, 2003, signed Executive Order 13299 to establish the IGIA and
provide for deliberation within the executive branch on issues
of consequence to the territories. The Secretary of the
Interior serves as the Chairman. The IGIA consists of the heads
of the executive departments and heads of such agencies as the
Secretary of the Interior may designate. The IGIA is a
consultative and collaborative body with a task of obtaining
advice and information on policy issues that the insular areas
face individually and as a group.
Since 2003 the IGIA has met annually. The last meeting of
the IGIA was in February of 2008 in the Secretary's conference
room at the Interior Department. Secretary Kempthorne chaired
most of the meeting. The Governors of Guam, American Samoa and
CNMI were present, along with Delegates to Congress from Guam
and the USVI, as well as the distinguished CNMI Washington
representative.
Executive branch agencies represented in the room, in
addition to Interior, were Defense, Justice, State, Homeland
Security, Labor, Transportation, Education, Agriculture,
Energy, HHS, OMB, Treasury, the Office of the U.S. Trade
Representative, OPIC, EPA, Postal Service, HUD, Small Business,
CEQ and Social Security Administration. All present expressed
appreciation for the productive nature of the meeting.
The IGIA is intended to act as a deliberative body and does
not make executive, legislative or judicial decisions. It does
not take positions on proposed legislation or policy on behalf
of the Administration, and cannot compel any member agency to
take any action or adopt any particular position. Instead, the
goal of the IGIA is to provide a forum and mechanism for the
elected leaders of the insular areas to frame issues for and
participate in IGIA discussions leading to the formulation of
Federal policy and work with Federal agencies that in turn work
with them. Thus, island leaders have a channel of communication
for voicing their concerns. We have always looked for ways to
improve the operations of the IGIA and look forward to working
with Congress to do that.
This concludes my opening statement and I am happy to take
any questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Domenech follows:]
Statement of Douglas W. Domenech, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary
of the Interior for Insular Affairs, U.S. Department of the Interior
Madam Chair and members of the Subcommittee on Insular Affairs,
thank you for the opportunity to discuss the activities of the Inter-
Agency Group on Insular Areas (IGIA), which deals with issues of
concern in the United States territories of Guam, American Samoa, the
U.S. Virgin Islands (USVI), and the Commonwealth of the Northern
Mariana Islands (CNMI).
The Commonwealth of Puerto Rico is not included in the activities
of the IGIA and is not included under the administrative authority of
the Department of the Interior.
The Unique Circumstances of the Insular Areas and the IGIA
As you know, the United States insular areas, or territories, of
Guam, American Samoa, the U.S. Virgin Islands (USVI), and the
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI) are beautiful
isolated island communities, remote from the mainland United States.
They are also unique in that they have limited land resources, small
populations and, generally, limited pools of experts, especially in
professional, technical and scientific fields. They are generally
located in areas prone to typhoons, cyclones or hurricanes. They are
relatively new to United States-style traditions of democracy and
institutions of self-government.
In addition, because these areas are not states, a number of legal
issues often set a territory or all territories apart from the 50
states and from one another. This has resulted in different
applications of issues like minimum wage requirements, customs and
border regulations, census enumerations, trade policy, and Medicaid
treatment, to name a few, on the islands. I would add that people born
in American Samoa are U.S. nationals, not U.S. citizens.
Insular areas do share common factors as well. For instance,
residents of the insular areas do not pay Federal income taxes, cannot
vote for President, and do not have full voting rights in the Congress.
However, now with the CNMI added in 2009, all four territories will
have non-voting delegates to the United States House of
Representatives.
The factors I have just enumerated and others relating to the
disparate histories and traditions of the territories show that there
are important differences among the four territories and with the 50
states. It follows then that there may be unintended consequences when
policies designed for the 50 states are applied to the insular areas.
Just as Federal policy may produce unintended results, so too the
territories may be excluded from Federal policies because they are not
states. In addition, the special circumstances faced by the insular
areas will sometimes merit policy initiatives designed especially for
one or more of them. In view of the peculiar circumstances of the
territories, it is important that the various Federal departments and
agencies coordinate their activities that affect the insular areas,
avoiding the incoherence of policy that may result when different parts
of the Federal Government work at cross purposes or do not consider
insular issues.
Executive Order--Interagency Group on Insular Areas
It is for these reasons that President Bush, on May 8, 2003, signed
Executive Order No. 13299 to establish the IGIA and provide for
deliberation within the Executive branch on issues of consequence for
our four territories. The Secretary of the Interior is the chairman.
The IGIA consists of the heads of the executive departments and the
heads of such agencies as the Secretary of the Interior may designate.
The Executive Order directs that the IGIA shall:
provide advice on establishment or implementation of
policies concerning the four U.S. territories to the President (through
the Office of Inter-Governmental Affairs in the White House) and the
Secretary of the Interior,
obtain information and advice concerning insular areas
from governors and other elected officials in the insular areas through
meetings, at least annually, in a manner that seeks their individual
advice and does not involve collective judgment or consensus advice or
deliberation,
obtain information and advice concerning insular areas,
as the IGIA determines appropriate, from representatives of entities or
other individuals in a manner that seeks their individual advice and
does not involve collective judgment or consensus or deliberation, and
at the request of the head of any agency who is a member
of the IGIA, unless the Secretary of the Interior declines the request,
promptly review and provide advice on a policy or policy implementation
action affecting one of the insular areas proposed by the agency.
The IGIA as a Consultative Body
The Interagency Group on Insular Areas is a consultative and
collaborative body with the task of obtaining advice and information on
policy issues that the insular areas face individually and as a group.
The Executive Order states:
Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or
otherwise affect the functions of the Director of the Office of
Management and Budget relating to budget, administrative, or
legislative proposals.
The IGIA was intended to act as a deliberative body and does not
make executive, legislative or judicial decisions. It does not take
positions on proposed legislation or policy on behalf of the
Administration and cannot compel any member agency to take any action
or adopt any particular position.
Instead, the IGIA provides a forum and mechanism for the elected
leaders of the insular areas to frame issues for and participate in
IGIA discussions leading to the formulation of Federal policy and work
with Federal agencies that, in turn, work with them. Thus, island
leaders have a channel of communication for voicing their concerns.
The provisions of the Executive Order and the fact that the IGIA
has no dedicated budget or staff make it clear that the IGIA is
intended to be a consultative and collaborative body, not a decision-
making body.
Recent Meeting of the IGIA
The last meeting of the IGIA was held on February 26, 2008, in the
Secretary's conference room at the Interior Department. Secretary
Kempthorne, who has taken great and personal interest in the concerns
of the islands, chaired most of the meeting. The Governors of Guam,
American Samoa, and CMNI were present along with Delegates to Congress
from Guam and the USVI, including the CNMI Washington Representative.
Executive Branch agencies represented, in addition to the
Department of the Interior, were the Department of Defense, Department
of Justice, State Department, Department of Homeland Security,
Department of Labor, Department of Transportation, Department of
Education, Department of Agriculture, Department of Energy, Department
of Health and Human Services, Office of Management and Budget,
Department of the Treasury, Office of the United States Trade
Representative, Overseas Private Investment Corporation, Environmental
Protection Agency, United States Postal Service, Department of Housing
and Urban Development, Small Business Administration, Council on
Environmental Quality, and Social Security Administration.
All present expressed appreciation for the productive nature of the
meeting.
IGIA Issues
Numerous issues have been the subject of IGIA discussion with the
island governors and representatives to Congress. The IGIA meetings
have provided a forum for federal agencies to hear directly from
elected leaders and, in some cases, provide answers to these issues.
For many of our colleagues across the Federal government, their
first encounter with these issues came in an IGIA meeting. Federal
agencies address their challenges in the territories as appropriate to
its respective agency.
IGIA Working Groups
The IGIA has the flexibility to form working groups on special
issues as needed.
One example is related to the planned military build-up on Guam.
Working with DOD, other Federal agencies, and the Government of Guam,
the IGIA is addressing as many civilian issues as we can so the buildup
proceeds in an efficient way.
The IGIA has provided a framework to discuss the many issues and
challenges arising from these developments. Recently, the Government of
Guam raised concerns about the adequacy of civilian infrastructure to
support the many components of the military buildup. Many of these
concerns were aired at the November 2007 and February 2008 meetings of
the IGIA Working group dealing with the build-up, and were raised in
Congressional hearings before this Committee.
One result of these discussions came recently, when OIA staff
traveled to Guam with Janet Creighton, Deputy Assistant to the
President for Intergovernmental Affairs to meet with Governor Camacho
and other leaders and learn first hand the challenges facing Guam
related to the buildup.
Conclusion
We believe the IGIA is a useful forum for the leaders of the
territories to speak directly and frankly to the leaders of Federal
agencies. One of the main advantages of this dialogue is educational.
As both the Federal agencies and the territories learn more about each
other's issues and how things work in the other's domain, they will be
able to develop deeper understanding of each other's needs and how to
resolve common problems. The IGIA members have taken on some big
issues, and we hope this work will continue.
______
Mrs. Christensen. Thank you, Acting Assistant Secretary.
And now the Chair recognizes Mr. Jeffrey Farrow for his
testimony.
STATEMENT OF JEFFREY FARROW, FORMER CO-CHAIR OF THE WHITE HOUSE
INTERAGENCY GROUP ON INSULAR AFFAIRS (CLINTON ADMINISTRATION)
Mr. Farrow. Madam Chair and distinguished members, I am
honored to have been invited to testify to the Subcommittee
which I was privileged to serve during most of my years on the
committee staff, and I am delighted to do regarding the
Interagency Group on Insular Areas which I helped establish and
co-chaired during the Clinton Administration.
Let me begin by complimenting you, Madam Chair, for this
hearing. The Interagency Group should be a needed means for
addressing problems concerning American Samoa, Guam, the
Northern Mariana Islands, and our home of the U.S. Virgin
Islands. In establishing it, President Clinton noted that the
situations of unincorporated territories are sometimes
different from those of the States. This creates issues. The
issues span the range of agencies, and Federal officials have a
special responsibility to consider territories' issues because
the areas lack the representation that a State has in the
Federal process.
Regrettably, the Interagency Group has not fulfilled its
potential during the Bush Administration, despite the best
efforts of its leadership. The reason is a fundamental change
that the Administration made in the Interagency Group.
Originally it was co-chaired by designees of the Secretary of
the Interior and the Director of the White House Office of
Intergovernmental Affairs. As reconstituted, it is presided
over by an Interior Department official alone. White House co-
leadership was an essential element of the Interagency Group
and a reason for its establishment. Although Interior has
responsibility for relations with the areas, its responsibility
does not extend to programs within the jurisdiction of other
agencies.
Most issues are within the jurisdiction of other agencies.
Agencies rarely defer on matters within their jurisdiction to
other agencies. Many decisions are made above the agency level
by the Office of Management and Budget. Secretaries of the
Interior can sometimes overcome opposition at other agencies
but cannot do so on a regular basis. The issues are generally
relatively small in the national and even interior context, and
it is difficult to get high level attention to such matters.
And White House influence is often needed to move agencies and
OMB.
The Interagency Group was established after the Interior
Department failed to convince the Department of Justice to
support application of immigration laws to the Northern Marian
Islands, and from the White House, at Interior's request, I got
the Clinton Administration to advocate application. It also
came after the President's Interagency Group on Puerto Rico had
obtained changes in policy, including some benefiting the other
insular areas. Interior Deputy Assistant Secretary Allen
Stayman then convinced the Department of the Interior to
support a compromise in the earlier proposed Interagency Group
on Insular Areas that involved joint Interior and White House
leadership. Interior had previously opposed White House
leadership.
In fact, the Interagency Group was established years later
than it would have been otherwise due to this opposition and
opposition in the Senate comfortable with Interior and
concerned unnecessarily about jurisdiction over an interagency
group with White House co-leadership. As the Clinton
Administration took office, members of this Subcommittee,
including the Chair's predecessor, Ron de Lugo, Delegate
Faleomavaega, and Chairman Miller, had promoted Executive
Office of the President leadership of an interagency group but
were rebuffed by Interior. Chairman de Lugo obtained White
House staff commitment to the idea of White House co-
leadership, but the agreement was not implemented because of
the Senate objection.
The change in the Interagency Group's leadership in 2003
came after the Bush Administration did not fulfill the position
that I held at the White House dealing with all insular areas
matters. Puerto Rico's Commonwealth Party Governor and Resident
Commissioner, shortsightedly, did not want it filled, fearing
my replacement would be someone whom they believed favored the
Statehood Party. In addition to my position, the Interagency
Group on Puerto Rico was not continued. The Interagency Group
on the less populous territories continued to exist only on
paper and the work it had begun languished. The disengagement
from Puerto Rican issues Puerto Rican officials sought has cost
Puerto Ricans a lot. Another consequence was the virtual
elimination of White House assistance on issues of the other
territories. Executive Office of the President's attention
could be assured by statute. You could also try to obtain White
House involvement by asking the next President to restore White
House co-leadership of the Interagency Group and staffing.
I note in this regard that Chairman Bingaman and Senators
Akaka and Murkowski recently suggested that this Administration
consider White House staffing and co-chairing. You may run into
resistance, but I recommend that you press for White House
involvement to have territories' issues more successfully
addressed. This may be the most beneficial measure that you can
initiate regarding the territories.
Madam Chair, I request that you include in the record a
progress report of the Interagency Group on Insular Areas
issued within months of its establishment and a list of
accomplishments of the Interagency Group on Puerto Rico. These
documents will help members evaluate the Interagency Group on
Insular Areas without White House co-leadership.
I will be happy to answer questions.
[NOTE: The information submitted for the record by Mr.
Farrow has been retained in the Committee's official files.]
[The prepared statement of Mr. Farrow follows:]
Statement of Jeffrey L. Farrow, Former Co-Chair of the White House
Interagency Group on Insular Areas (Clinton Administration)
Madame Chair and Distinguished Members,
I am honored to have been invited to testify to the subcommittee
which I was privileged to serve as Staff Director during most of my
nearly 13 years on the Committee Staff. And I am delighted to do so
regarding the Interagency Group on Insular Areas, which I helped
establish and co-chaired during the Clinton Administration.
Let me begin by complimenting you, Madame Chair, for calling this
hearing. The Interagency Group was intended to--and should--be a needed
means within the Executive Branch for addressing problems in policy
concerning American Samoa, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, and our
mutual home of the U.S. Virgin Islands. In establishing it, President
Clinton noted, as he had earlier in the case of Puerto Rico, that the
situations of unincorporated territories are sometimes different than
those of the States, this creates issues, the issues span the range of
federal agencies, and federal officials have a special responsibility
to consider territories issues because the areas ``lack the
representation that a State has in the Federal process.''
Regrettably, however, the Interagency Group has not fulfilled its
potential during the Bush Administration, despite what I trust have
been the best efforts of its leadership.
The reason is a fundamental change that the Administration made in
the Interagency Group. As originally established, it was co-chaired by
designees of the Secretary of the Interior and the Director of the
White House Office of Intergovernmental Affairs. As reconstituted, it
is presided over solely by an Interior Department official.
White House co-leadership was an essential element of the
Interagency Group and a reason for its establishment. It was recognized
that:
although the Department of the Interior has
responsibility for relations with the areas in addition to some
specific assistance functions, its responsibility does not extend to
programs within the jurisdiction of other agencies;
most of the issues are within the jurisdiction of other
agencies;
agencies rarely defer on matters within their
jurisdiction to other agencies;
many decisions are made above the line agency level by
the Executive Office of the President's Office of Management and
Budget;
secretaries of the Interior can sometimes overcome lower-
level opposition at other agencies and OMB with personal intervention
but cannot do so on a regular basis;
the issues generally are relatively small in the national
and, even, Interior Department contexts and it is difficult to get
high-level attention to such matters; and
White House influence is often needed to move agencies
and OMB.
The Interagency Group was established after the Interior Department
failed to convince the Department of Justice to support application of
immigration laws to the Northern Mariana Islands and, at Interior's
request, from the White House I got the Clinton Administration to
advocate application. It also came after the President's Interagency
Group on Puerto Rico had obtained a number of changes in policy,
including some benefiting other insular areas. Interior Deputy
Assistant Secretary for Insular Affairs Allen Stayman then convinced
his department to support a compromise in the leadership of the
earlier-proposed Interagency Group on Insular Areas that involved joint
Interior and White House leadership. Interior had previously opposed
White House leadership.
In fact, the Interagency Group was established at least five years
later than it would have been otherwise due to this opposition and
opposition in the Senate comfortable with exercising jurisdiction over
the Interior Department and concerned--unnecessarily as the Interagency
Group on Puerto Rico later demonstrated--about jurisdiction over an
interagency group with White House co-leadership. As the Clinton
Administration took office, Members of this Subcommittee, including the
Chair's predecessor--Ron de Lugo, Delegate Eni Faleomavaega, and
Chairman George Miller had promoted Executive Office of the President
leadership of an insular affairs interagency group but were rebuffed by
the Interior Department. In 1994, Chairman de Lugo obtained White House
staff commitment to the idea of White House co-leadership--but the
agreement was not implemented because of the Senate objection.
The change in the Interagency Group's leadership in 2003 came after
the Bush Administration in 2001 did not fill the position that I had
held at the White House handling all insular areas matters. Puerto
Rico's then ``commonwealth'' party governor and resident commissioner
shortsightedly did not want it filled fearing that my replacement would
be someone whom they believed favored the statehood party. The White
House is inundated with requests for action on issues, and its staff
routinely tries to shift responsibility for matters considered lesser
in scope to agencies so that they can concentrate on priorities: The
request for inattention was not a hard sell. In addition to my
position, the Interagency Group on Puerto Rico was not continued. The
Interagency Group on the less-populous territories continued to exist
only on paper and the work it had begun languished. The broad
disengagement from Puerto Rican issues that Puerto Rico officials
sought has cost Puerto Ricans a lot. Another consequence, however, was
the virtual elimination of White House assistance on issues of the
other territory areas.
Madame Chair and Distinguished Members, Executive Office of the
President attention to territory issues--and probably greater success
in resolving issues--could be assured by statute. You can also try to
obtain the White House involvement needed by asking the next president
to restore White House co-leadership of the Interagency Group and
staffing on territories matters. I note in this regard that Chairman
Bingaman and Senators Akaka and Murkowski of the Senate Committee on
Energy and Natural Resources recently suggested that this
Administration consider White House staffing and co-chairing. You may
run into resistance from Interior and from a White House staff consumed
by existing responsibilities but I recommend that you press for White
House involvement to have territories issues more successfully
addressed.
Madame Chair, thank you for the invitation to testify. I request
that you include in the record a progress report of the Interagency
Group on Insular Areas issued in 2000 within months of its
establishment and a list of accomplishments of the Interagency Group on
Puerto Rico to help Members evaluate the Interagency Group on Insular
Areas without White House co-leadership. I will now be happy to answer
questions.
______
Mrs. Christensen. I would like to thank everyone for their
testimony. We have been joined by Congressman Eni Faleomavaega
of American Samoa and Congressman Jeff Flake of Arizona. And I
was wondering if either of you had an opening statement that
you would like to make.
Mr. Faleomavaega.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, A DELEGATE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE TERRITORY OF AMERICAN SAMOA
Mr. Faleomavaega. Madam Chair, I would like to personally
welcome our witnesses this afternoon. Our Acting Deputy
Assistant Secretary, and forgive me, sir, in pronouncing your
name. Shall I just say Dennis--Doug. I can't even pronounce
Dennis or Doug or whatever. And my good friend, the
Representative from CNMI, Mr. Tenorio, and of course my long-
term friend, and certainly I consider one of the few experts
that we have left when it comes to insular affairs, Mr. Jeff
Farrow.
I will wait for the questioning aspects of this, Madam
Chair, but I do want to thank you for calling this hearing. I
think it is important, and we need to pursue this issue a
little more and hopefully that we can come up with some
practical solutions whether or not interagency groupings that
we have done for all these years has really been a help or a
detriment to the needs of our territories.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Mrs. Christensen. Thank you, Mr. Faleomavaega.
Mr. Flake, would you like to make an opening statement.
Mr. Flake. No.
Mrs. Christensen. Thank you. I now recognize myself for 5
minutes of questions. And I guess I would start with Mr.
Tenorio and Mr. Farrow, just to follow up on the last part of
your statement about comparing the outcome of the Interagency
Working Group under the Clinton Administration, not just
because it was under the Clinton Administration but because it
was co-chaired by the White House and the Department as opposed
to being co-chaired just by Interior at this point. And Mr.
Tenorio, you mentioned one issue, at least the water issue.
Are there issues that you felt were adequately addressed
that you had taken to the Interagency Working Group other than
the water, which apparently was not?
Mr. Tenorio. There was another issue that I thought was
handled very well through the Interagency Group, and that was
the change on the taxation problem, the taxation issue on
residency. And I thought that that particular issue was
addressed very shortly, and the Northern Marianas was requested
to participate in that discussion. I remember it, and believe
that there was a final resolution to that in the form of
amending the regulations to provide for an appropriate
residence definition for the Northern Marianas for taxpayers
there.
I couldn't recall any other issue because my primary issue,
Madam Chairperson, has always been improving the water system
as something that is so basic to us. Because being a
hydrologist by profession and having worked in the Commonwealth
for a long time developing privately owned water sources, I was
very familiar with the weaknesses of the system since the trust
territory time. Knowing that, you know, we are subject under
the United States public health drinking water standards, we
were always in violation of the standards in terms of drinking
water because of the weak infrastructure, the dilapidated
infrastructure on water, and the lack of funding to address the
water issue once and for all.
We received a very, very strong report, very comprehensive
report from the United States Corps of Engineers as to how best
to deal with the water problem there. Those recommendations of
course encompasses a huge amount of funding requirements, to
the tune of about $400 million, to fix the water systems
throughout the populated islands of the Northern Marianas.
Unfortunately, as I said in my statement, not much was done in
that respect. Although we were thankful that the Congress
appropriated $3 million of over ceiling, a request from my
office to enable us to at least drill some of the wells, some
more wells to add volumes. And I am talking just volume of
water to be able to provide and sustain the livelihood of our
population in terms of convenience, washing and cooking. But
nothing to speak of about drinkable water that ever happened.
Thank you.
Mrs. Christensen. Mr. Farrow, do you feel that you can
answer in terms of product outcome?
Mr. Farrow. Well, I hesitate to comment on specifics of
what the IGIA has done.
Mrs. Christensen. Let me re-ask the question, and I will
direct it to both you and the Deputy Assistant Secretary. One
of the biggest criticisms of the current IGIA process as it is
currently constructed is that it lacks its ability to
effectively achieve results on behalf of the insular areas. Do
you believe that the current IGIA, which was set up as a
consultative and deliberate body, has enough clout to get
Federal agencies to respond to the issues of concerns brought
by the island leaders?
Mr. Farrow. No, I do not. As I mentioned in my statement, a
reason for the creation of the IGIA in the first place was to
have the involvement of the White House to ensure that the
territories were considered as policy was developed at the
highest level and to address issues that are decided by
agencies within the Executive Office of the President, such as
OMB. Line agencies can't effectively direct OMB. It is the
other way around. The Secretary of the Interior can personally
sometimes go to the Director of OMB, sometimes personally go to
the President to raise an issue. The Secretary cannot do that
every day. He would not have credibility if he did. He has got
his own department to mind. So it was recognized in the
original creation of the IGIA that you needed higher level
authority.
The purpose, as Mr. Domenech has described it of the IGIA,
is a little different from that of the original IGIA, and I
think it is great that the Administration has continued the
IGIA to the extent it has and that it is a consultative and
deliberative body and that there is communication between
agencies and some issues are resolved. But there are issues
that cannot be resolved by communication alone among the
agencies. You need policy guidance from the White House, you
need budgetary guidance from the White House, you need to be
able to say to the Secretary of the Treasury that the President
wants to have X done as opposed to the Secretary of another
department wants to have something done.
So I do not think it has been as effective as it should
have been and was intended to be, and its current purpose is
not all that the original purpose was intended to be. As I have
communicated with--you mentioned the Governors in your opening
statement--with Governors and others who represent the insular
areas, I think there is a level of dissatisfaction with the
IGIA, not that it has not accomplished some things, but it
should be accomplishing more. It was meant to fill a gap in the
policy process that is only partially filled, and that relates
to the areas in particular not having voting representation in
the Federal process and the full voting representation in the
Congress, representation in the Senate, or electoral votes that
get policy attention at the highest levels.
This is no criticism in particular of the current
leadership of the IGIA. I think they have done the best that
they could within the structure that they have been allowed to
operate.
Mrs. Christensen. Deputy Assistant Secretary.
Mr. Domenech. Thank you, Madam Chairman. And I also want to
thank Mr. Farrow for the background and history on the IGIA,
some of which I had not heard. So it is very helpful to hear
that and I mean that sincerely.
There are a number of successes I think we can point to in
the way the IGIA is currently established. That doesn't mean
that it can't be improved certainly and that these problems
aren't ongoing.
If I could use the example as a matter of fact that The
Honorable Tenorio has said, in 2003 when the water situation on
Saipan was initially brought up to the IGIA, we formed a
working group. That working group was made up of EPA, USDA,
HUD, DOI and the Army Corps. And the working group tried to
establish essentially what was the situation there, made a
request in the President's 2006 budget of $1 million to do that
infrastructure assessment, and continued to meet to try to
solve that. Meanwhile, Interior itself in 2005 provided $6.4
million, in 2006, $5.6 million, 2007, $1.4 million, 2008, $2.3
million specifically on the issue of potable water in Saipan.
So I think there are accomplishments to be pointed to. That
doesn't mean the problem still doesn't exist, and it is a
problem that we are very concerned about, along with a power
situation in the CNMI. In some ways they go hand in hand, as
you well know.
There are other issues that we can point to as having some
sort of success, whether that is the visa waiver situation or
the work that is being done on the Guam military buildup, which
of course again is another working group established to try to
coordinate between what DOD and the Federal agencies are doing.
We have had a substantial amount of work through the IGIA
related to economic development. That has resulted in trade
missions to the USVI and other places to the business
opportunity conferences we have held, as well as other
activities. So there are some successes to point there.
On cabotage, which has been an issue of course for many of
the islands, that was brought up at the IGIA, and DOT responded
by providing some emergency exemptions for American Samoa and
for Guam. So there are a number of these. And as Mr. Farrow
said often, maybe they are small things in the big scheme of
the Federal Government, but it does provide an opportunity for
the leaders to give us their priority list and then for us to
get that in front of all the Federal agencies.
Mrs. Christensen. Thank you. The Chair now recognizes Mr.
Flake for any questions he might have.
Mr. Flake. Let me go back to the water issue. Would that
have happened because it was a pressing issue? You are saying
the IGIA was helpful. But would it have happened anyway, the
solution or the actions that were taken, without the IGIA
simply because it was a pressing issue, or was the IGIA
actually helpful in resolving that?
Mr. Domenech. I think probably both. Obviously the water
situation on CNMI is something Interior knew about, but the
IGIA gave us an opportunity to have the leaders from CNMI
explain that to the other Federal agencies who can be helpful
on the water situation, the Corps and other people. So that is
the advantage.
Mr. Flake. Without that forum, is it tough to have them
return your calls or is it just easier coordination?
Mr. Domenech. I think they will return our calls. But it
probably is just more of a communication opportunity. I think,
as others have said, often, too often, people in the Federal
Government don't think about the territories. And of course we
think about them all the time and continue to try that drum
beat of telling other people about them. So that we find that
is the most valuable part of the IGIA, is getting these people
in the same room with the leaders so that they can see these
and hear about these problems firsthand.
Mr. Flake. Mr. Farrow, you are quite critical in your
testimony. I am sorry I didn't hear that, but I did read it,
about the IGIA and what has not happened in particular. Do you
think it is a structural problem or has it just been
personalities that haven't seen a need, or was it simply when
it went from one administration to another it didn't have the
importance in the new administration? Would you scrap the
organization and start anew or just revive it?
Mr. Farrow. I think, Mr. Flake, it is a structural problem;
it is not the personalities involved. I think they have done
the best they could within the structure that they had to
operate. I would not scrap the organization at all, but I would
go back to the original organization to have White House co-
chairmanship of the Interagency Group. You know, when Puerto
Rico obtained local self-government, the responsibility for
issues regarding Puerto Rico were shifted to the White House.
When the other territories achieved the equivalent self-
government, that did not occur. And the White House is in a
position to relate to other agencies the way that an agency
like Interior cannot.
Mr. Flake. Right, and your testimony basically says that
Interior plays too, or just still all meaningful activity is
centered at Interior and not in the other agencies.
Mr. Farrow. I think other agencies are meaningfully engaged
by Interior. But what they don't get is when there are disputes
between the agencies on taxes, on--when a budget request is
made for CNMI water and it goes to OMB, the direction is not
being given to OMB that this is something that we need to
attend to and this is a priority. OMB can get that direction
from the White House but not from Interior. They can get a
request from Interior.
Mr. Flake. Mr. Tenorio, is there a structural change you
would seek to have to the IGIA?
Mr. Tenorio. Well, I believe that the organization as is
structured should continue on. But I want to be very specific
about what the role is of the responsible Federal person in
each of the agencies. And this was what was lacking, I thought.
We had meetings over here in Washington, D.C. and, after the
meeting and after having made a statement and declared our
issues to the group, not much follow-up really took place. And
what I would recommend as part of the reforming the structure
is to specifically assign a person from each of these relevant
agencies to be in charge of the issues that the territorial
governments bring up and have a follow through by visitation or
communication with the people back home so that there is a
continuity in the process of addressing the issue.
I found this to be completely lacking. We communicated and
we thought that, you know, finally we got somebody that would
deal with us on a more prompt basis, but we found ourselves
having to wait for a response to our letter, sometimes 6 months
late. And issues like power generation or the lack of power in
the Commonwealth is one huge issue that we feel has reached a
critical level. And I would like to see that issue addressed
and provide a plan that is doable and get our people engaged in
how to go about helping them--you know, to the Federal
initiatives to get the job done.
I could go on and on and talk about how bad the power
situation is, but I know this is not the forum to address it,
Madam Chairperson. That is one area where not only should the
Congress and the Administration collaborate to help us, but we
need to have some solid plan flexibility in how the Federal
policies should be handled with respect to this critical issue.
I am not talking about all issues, just basically power
generation problem, because it is an issue that encompasses
every single aspect of our life back home.
Thank you.
Mrs. Christensen. Thank you. And if I could just interject
before I recognize Mr. Faleomavaega. A simpler issue, and you
have heard, all of us have heard testimony from the GAO and
from the Department itself and the problems in financial
management that the territories have. And in several years,
over several years, I have some of my statements going back to
2002, my suggestion was that each of the agencies that send
funding to the territory set aside a part of that funding to
set up financial management systems over and over and over
again. In the Virgin Islands we are on our way to setting up
our own at this point. To me infrastructure is a major issue,
and I think that that is something that you really need the
White House clout to be brought to bear on it. But a simple
issue such as setting aside funding for financial management
from each agency was never addressed.
Let me recognize Mr. Faleomavaega for his questions.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Thank you, Madam Chair. And Madam Chair,
I would like to ask unanimous consent, and I notice that one of
our--I will say not only an institutional memory, but someone
who really understands the insular areas well, and especially
our good friend Mr. Jeff Farrow, is Mr. Al Stayman who is there
in the audience, and we would welcome his presence and have him
sit there because I do have some extra questions that I want to
address to him directly. And I just think is that possible? I
ask unanimous consent. I think with unanimous consent anything
is possible, if the Chair does not object. But I see no reason
why Mr. Stayman cannot come and share with us the benefit of
his historical activities in the things that he has done for
the insular areas more than anybody that I can perceive. Is
there any objection to that? He works for the Senate.
Mrs. Christensen. Let me get a clarification from the
staff.
Mr. Faleomavaega. All right. Can we get a clarification?
Mrs. Christensen. Can you go ahead in the meantime?
Mr. Faleomavaega. Yes, Madam Chair.
I have always said with tremendous hesitancy about the
establishment of the IGIA. And I do want to thank my good
friend Mr. Farrow for giving us a real historical summary of
exactly how this whole concept of an IGIA came about. It wasn't
because of any interest in the insular areas, it was an
interest toward Puerto Rico. And the fact that we have 4.4
million U.S. citizens living in Puerto Rico, the fact that
Puerto Rico being a highly charged political issue because it
has its potential of being a State, if it ever becomes a State
with seven Members of Congress and two new senators, that is
why Puerto Rico has always been part of the White House
collaboration in making sure whatever Puerto Rico's future will
be or has been or hopes to be. This is a never-ending issue
that has been ongoing now for the last 50 years. And Mr. Farrow
is smiling because he knows what I am talking about.
Madam Chair, historically we all know this, for the last 50
years, insular areas are not even on the map in any way or form
as far as Washington, D.C. is concerned. Not because the
Senators or Members of Congress don't like insular areas,
simply because when you put it in terms of priorities insular
areas were never a high priority in the minds of the Members of
the Congress as well as the Administration.
So what has happened over the last 30 or 40 years perhaps,
Congress decided to authorize providing these insular areas
with congressional Delegates. And now we have the completion of
this cycle now that finally Congress has said we want a
congressional Delegate from the Commonwealth of the Northern
Mariana Islands. So there it is. The picture is now completed.
We have five congressional Delegates that will begin. I don't
know if Mr. Tenorio is going to run for that office come this
November. And I know that it is very unpolitical about this
hearing, and what we are discussing is nonpartisan, whether
Republican Or Democrat.
But the point I am making here is that that was the very
reason why we have congressional Delegates elected. And if you
really want to be realistic about the IGIA, with all due
respect, Mr. Domenech, you were not there in the hearings that
I have attended. You cited about 15 different agencies. As far
as any real policymakers coming up from those departments, come
on, let us be serious. They were not policymakers. And if they
were good for taking notes or for whatever reasons, my biggest
criticism is that we have so many agency representatives each
time we have this IGIA hearing or meeting. But in terms of--we
ended up having to deal with 30 separate issues. And all cross-
wired in the terms of it may relate to that territory's need
and totally irrelevant to another territory.
So I would like to suggest that maybe we can do this a
little better. And the fact that these congressional Delegates
are supposed to be the mouthpiece, the liaison, or whatever you
want to do in connection with any Federal issue in Washington
now that CNMI is in the picture, I really don't see the
relevance of why we should have to continue the IGIA the way it
is currently structured. But in having a liaison, let us face
the facts, the Interior Department's real administration is
with the FSM, with Palau and the Marshall, administration of
those funds, and American Samoa. But as to any other real
policy in terms of any serious funding coming out of Interior
appropriations going into these insular areas, I don't see it,
with the exception of the Federated States that we are having
to deal with now, right now, and even in the years to come.
So what I am saying, Madam Chair, is that I am seriously
questioning whether there is any real relevance in having the
presence of an IGIA. The way it is currently structured it just
to me is totally overly cumbersome. And I think that is the
very essence of what we are trying to eliminate here, is
Federal layers of bureaucracy, so that we can cut right into
the chase and get results of the issues and the questions that
these territories have in relation to the Federal Government.
It seems that we have a problem here even dealing with the
Interior Department.
American Samoa is very unique and very different from all
the other insular areas. We are an unincorporated and
unorganized territory of the United States. And interestingly
enough, even Puerto Rico is an unincorporated territory of the
United States. So there is another gray area that we still have
not really made a decision in terms of what is the future of
American Samoa's relationship to the United States.
Have we found out from the counsel if we can invite Mr.--
still waiting? Sorry, Al, I really wanted you to come and
participate because I really think it is good. And Madam Chair,
I want to say that this is great that we finally have this
chance to hold this hearing.
I think it was Mr. Farrow that mentioned the whole essence
of the IGIA is to give more clout, if it was Mr. Farrow or Mr.
Domenech that made this statement, more clout to what? And the
fact that there are avenues, there are procedures, there are
ways that we can go about, I guess, trying to put a thread
through the camel's eye--what do you call it, camel's--I don't
know, the eye of a camel, the eye of a camel?
Mrs. Christensen. The eye of a needle?
Mr. Faleomavaega. Yeah, threading the camel, the eye of a
needle or something like that.
The point is that I really think that maybe another way to
suggest in how we can better--the whole idea is how we can
better streamline, how we can better produce results of the
issues affecting the insular areas. I feel that now with Saipan
now coming into the picture, maybe we should have an
interagency of the congressional Delegates, regardless of party
affiliation, and then work together with the Governors directly
of each insular area and leave the interagency with Puerto Rico
and the White House. And of course we would like to have a
White House linkage in terms of what we are doing, because they
have a domestic assistant to the President, they also have
assistant to the President in other major areas that Mr. Farrow
is very familiar with.
So in essence what I am suggesting here, Madam Chair, is
that the way it is now structured I just don't see the
practicality of having 15 or 20 subagency representatives that
don't even make decisions. And when we talk about issues that
in many instances doesn't relate to my needs, I am wasting my
time being there.
So I think if we want to talk about an interagency
organization, I see that now that Saipan is into the fold, we
now complete the role of what congressional Delegates should be
doing on behalf of their territories and making sure the
information or the needs are brought to the attention of the
Congress and that relevant Federal agency.
And so my time is up. I will wait for the second round,
Madam Chair.
Mrs. Christensen. While we wait for the legal counsel to
get back to us, I will go ahead with my questions.
Acting Assistant Secretary Domenech, I have asked this
question before, too, and I really have never gotten a good
answer. It is a two-part question. Who within the Federal
Government has the responsibility for setting the Federal
policy for the territories and, more fundamentally, can you
tell us what that Federal policy is?
Mr. Domenech. That is a very broad question, Madam
Chairman. I believe the correct answer for that is every
Federal department has its own piece of that pie. I think,
shorthand, a nonlawyer's answer to that is the Secretary of the
Interior retains the administrative authority over the
territories in the areas essentially that no other department
is involved in. So our piece of the pie is, we have one piece,
and to the extent that the Department of Education is involved
in each of the territories, they do their own thing, HUD,
Labor, et cetera. And so there is not a single policy point for
the territories per se, as you construct the question.
Mrs. Christensen. It just seems to me that--I don't know if
anyone else at the table wants to take a stab at answering or
making a suggestion or if you want to make a suggestion as to
how that policy is going to be set. Because I have not sensed
in my 12 years here an overarching policy with regard, from the
Federal Government, from the White House, the Administration,
let me say, to the territories. So I don't know if anyone else
wants to take a stab at answering that. Did one exist before
that I missed?
Mr. Farrow. Madam Chair, I think that there has never been
a clear, consistent policy in a simplified fashion with respect
to the territories. President Carter submitted to the Congress
a comprehensive policy, maybe 1979, 1980, I think it was. But I
don't recall that since that time there has been a
comprehensive policy proposal, either administratively or
legislatively proposed.
And policy, I think if you look at it, as Mr. Domenech
said, there is education policy and energy policy and tax
policy, all of which have separate responsibilities and
missions. One of the reasons for the Interagency Group was to
coordinate those policies as they affect the insular areas,
since the insular areas don't have the same representation that
States have in the Federal process to get their concerns heard
and their issues attended to. To the extent that there is a
policy direction of an administration, it is set by the
President and his office. And for that reason I think it is
ineffective to have one agency try to assume that role.
Mr. Domenech I think correctly described the responsibility
of Interior with respect to policy making in the territories
and the other agencies. But there has been a change in the
status of the territories since that arrangement was enacted
into law, and it is law, with respect to all of the territories
in the Revised Organic Act, I believe, of the Virgin Islands
and other statutes. And that changes now that the insular areas
all have local self-government and set their own priorities and
chart their own direction. Prior to that time Governors were
appointed by the President and reported to the Secretary of the
Interior. The territories had limited self-government. So it
made sense for the Secretary to be that preeminent authority.
The Interior Department was local government, even in places
like Samoa. Samoa now has substantial autonomy. As much as the
Secretary may provide funding for the territory, Congress
provided that the Constitution of American Samoa, written under
the authority of the Secretary of the Interior, can only be
amended with the approval of act of Congress.
So there is a great deal of autonomy that the territories
now have, and they can relate to other agencies that in the
past few decades they have been included in most Federal
programs. At one point most of the budgetary support,
programmatic support, even on education matters or health care
matters, came through the Department of the Interior and now
comes through HHS and Education, and so forth. And that is why
you need a leadership and guidance on policy and budgets within
the Executive Office of the President and not in any particular
agency. Interior has tried, but can only do so much.
I would point out that it was Interior--Mr. Stayman, who is
with the Senate committee staff now, who came to me in the
Clinton Administration and said let us revive this idea of an
Interagency Group on Insular Affairs when he was at the
Department of the Interior, the Interior Department recognized
that it did not have, to use Congressman Faleomavaega's words,
the clout to have many decisions made on budgets and on
fundamental policies, tax policies and others, that the
territories were interested in. Most issues are not within this
jurisdiction of Interior.
Mrs. Christensen. Let me ask Mr. Flake if he might have
another line of questioning, because I know a vote is on and he
might have to leave.
Mr. Flake. No.
Mrs. Christensen. Thank you. Then the Chair now recognizes
Mr. Faleomavaega for any further questions he might have.
Mr. Flake. Let me just, to Mr. Faleomavaega's point, now
that the Commonwealth is going to be represented, is it past
time for this, can we make do now that all the territories are
now represented in Congress? I know it is not full
representation of the Senate and what not. But, Mr. Tenorio, I
would be interested in your response to that. Do you think that
that would suffice or is it still useful or productive to have
this body?
Mr. Tenorio. I always view the relationship between the
United States and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana
Islands with having in mind as a term of reference the
Covenant. The Covenant of course is a very special document and
it was entered into between two entities, and that was when the
Northern Marianas was part of the trust territories. So we were
able to fortunately negotiate an agreement that is unique and
other jurisdictions just don't have it. And that is why I feel
that the term of reference insofar as developing a policy to
guide the Northern Marianas should be the Covenant. The
Covenant is very specific on all of its 10 chapters; the
political relationship, how we are to deal with citizenship and
nationality, the provision on immigration and minimum wage, and
other aspects that were spelled out.
So I feel that applying a common territorial policy to
encompass all jurisdictions may be the wrong approach to
addressing issues in the territories. There may be some
similarities, some problems that all share, but there are also
unique situations that each of the territories have that would
not be addressed by having a common territorial policy
throughout.
Mrs. Christensen. Thank you. The Chair now recognizes Mr.
Faleomavaega.
Mr. Faleomavaega. As I said earlier, we have such a mixed
stew here among the different insular areas, you cannot make
all of us in the same status because we are not. American Samoa
does not even have an organic act; and we don't even have a
government, technically, if you want to put it in those terms.
We have never--we had several attempts in the 1930s that--
there were proposed bills to have an organic act for American
Samoa, but it never came through. As Mr. Tenorio said earlier,
CNMI has a covenant relationship which is very unlike the other
insular areas, and to me it is a treaty relationship, very
unique.
Then when we start talking about the Federated States of
Micronesia--Palau and the Marshalls--then we really get into
grey areas that are not very well addressed, in my opinion; but
it is there, and we have to deal with that reality.
As Mr. Farrow has said earlier about the fact that now
there is a provision as an amendment in the law that says that
the local constitution--which, by the way, was never approved
by the Congress; it is American Samoa's constitution. It was
approved only by the Secretary of the Interior because of the
preliminary authority that the Congress has under the Federal
Constitution. In 1929, the Congress just simply said, all
judicial, military, administrative authority of this island's
territories is given to the President. And then the President,
by executive order, now to this day has given it to the
Secretary of the Interior.
My point here, when we had electing our Governor, it did
not even require congressional approval, unlike other
territories. It just required the executive authority of the
Secretary of the Interior. To this day, this is how we end up
electing our Governor through an executive authority of the
Secretary of the Interior and not because the Congress voted.
This is very weird, but that is the reality that we are
faced with.
Now, a classic example where the stimulus package is an
example, thanks to Donna, myself, and Madeleine Bordallo and
Mr. Fortuno, we bound together and this is how the territories
ended up in getting the benefits of the stimulus package.
Ironically, too, there were serious questions raised: Because
we don't pay Federal income taxes, why should these territories
get the same benefit? But somehow friends like Charlie Rangel
and all the others in the House supported this effort.
So I would say that I think, as has been stated earlier--I
hate to say this, but sometimes our friends in the Interior
Department make selective decisions. When they feel like
getting involved in an insular area issue, they will be
involved; otherwise, just let the territories swim on their
own. if they can't make it, that is their tough luck.
And I don't know if that is really what we want to achieve
here as far as getting a better, streamlined procedure in how
to deal with the insular areas, as I am sure that this is not a
personal attack on any of our friends who are working their
darnedest.
And the Interior Department should try to provide
assistance to the insular areas. As you said, Mr. Tenorio, the
covenant relationship is the foundation in the standard that--
however, CNMI has to deal with its issues.
You have mentioned about the fact that you had potable
water issues. This is 4 years ago. We have 200 inches of rain
in American Samoa. I wish we could give you some of our water,
which is never our problem and our issue.
But sometimes I think this is something that I feel that
the IGIA--I feel, as an issue, is totally irrelevant to my
needs. But I am happy to sit there and listen to the problems
that other territories have that does not pertain to me
directly. So this is why I am a little fuzzy when it comes to
IGIA continuance of putting some 15 or 20 representatives of
the different Federal agencies, all meeting in this one room in
the Interior Department, talking about some issues for only 1
hour. And then after that everybody goes back, and it seems
like we have really accomplished something, and we ended up
really accomplishing almost nothing.
Now, I hate to make that point in being critical about the
issue, but I just feel that maybe there is a better way that we
can streamline the IGIA in concept, as well as structurally, on
how we can make this more forthcoming--or producing results is
what we are trying to achieve here.
As Mr. Domenech has said earlier, some things we have done.
But I think--by and large, I don't think our batting average
has been very high, in my humble opinion, of all the things
that we went through, discussing about twenty different issues
and only accomplishing about one or two.
And that is not the reason why I didn't come to the
February meeting, by the way. I think I was sick on that day,
OK?
But I really do want to say that I think it is an important
issue, Madam Chair, in the coming year or this season when we
have a new administration, new policy--assuming I get
reelected; I don't know if I am still going to be around.
But this issue I think we need to address more seriously,
and hopefully it will make a better structure out of it,
because I really--in my personal opinion, Madam Chair, it is
not working.
And, by the way, as Mr. Farrow said earlier, there was a
policy--there was even a policy of getting rid of the entire
agency of insular affairs altogether. So we have some
structural challenges ahead of us, and hopefully we will
continue this dialogue and see what--we need to make some good
decisions to make this thing a go if we are going to continue
it.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Mrs. Christensen. OK. I do have a--thank you, Mr.
Faleomavaega. I share some of your concerns, but I think they
can be fixed moving forward.
I want to ask about two particular issues that came up in
the 2000 IGIA. Among the 15 action plans of phase one items
that were listed in the progress--2000 IGIA progress report,
that you asked to be made a part of the hearing record, was a
question of applying U.S. statistical programs in insular
areas.
And you may be aware that we recently held a joint hearing
with the Subcommittee on Census to raise the issue of the lack
of available data in the territories--something that again I
have raised, I think, at every IGIA that I have attended--and
the impact, in this case the impact it was having most recently
preventing the U.S. Labor Department from being able to
determine the likely impact of an additional 50 cent increase
in the minimum wage on the economy of American Samoa.
In applying U.S. fiscal programs in the insular areas, do
you recall what the outcome of the IGIA was on that issue?
I know I am asking a lot.
Mr. Farrow. Well, a little bit. There was an agreement that
the Census Bureau and the Office of Insular Affairs would
identify statistical programs, such as the American Community
Survey, that did not apply in the insular areas and clarify the
cost and other issues surrounding the application of the areas.
And by ``other issues surrounding the application,'' they were
talking about different forms of addresses that are used in
some areas versus others that are different from the standard
in the States and the complexity that that added to the process
of fact gathering, the different information that the local
governments themselves had available. So that was agreed to.
I know that, as well, we agreed with the Census Bureau,
obtained an agreement that they would include information
regarding Puerto Rico, at least in the 2000 census, equally
with the States. I don't know what the implementation was after
that, after 2000 when the administration changed. The
Interagency Group on Insular Areas wasn't active for the next
few years until 2003, so I don't think there was follow-up at
that level. There wasn't--as I said, my position at the White
House wasn't filled. So no one from the White House was
following up with the Census Bureau.
I can't say for sure that nothing was done for the next few
years, but I am not aware of it being done and maybe the
Interior Department is.
Mrs. Christensen. I think the Puerto Rico--the issue you
raised about Puerto Rico was done. We are back to square one,
but I think we are making some progress now on the American
Community Survey, based on the responses we got from Census
during our hearing.
Mr. Farrow. One of the issues that we dealt with was that
I--was the economic census in the territories. And the
Department of Commerce had sent up legislation to discontinue
the economic census in the territories because of these same
types of issues--budget was going to cost $5 million and the
different forms of address--and we successfully reversed and
had the Administration actually recall that legislation that
had been submitted by the Department of Commerce.
And I think that is an example of what I am talking about
with the need for some White House direction, because OMB was
sympathetic to the position of Commerce that this is a way to
save $5 million: On a per capita basis, it was going to cost a
lot more to do the economic census in the territories than the
States, so get the White House to push OMB to go along with the
$5 million.
Mrs. Christensen. Let me ask a question on another issue
that came up in the 2000 IGIA progress report.
One of the phase 2 issues by island was a question of the
Virgin Islands' desire to receive a cover-over of taxes on
gasoline. The report indicated that a working group meeting was
held with the Department of Treasury in February of 2000,
resulting in an action plan statement that said the Supreme
Court ruled against the V.I. Gasoline tax claim, and there is
no interest in the part--and this is a quote--``there is no
interest on the part of the Federal Government to revisit this
issue.''
While that statement--the quote is fairly straightforward
because this issue comes up over and over again at home. Can
you elaborate a bit on the analysis that led to the conclusion
of the lack of interest of revisiting this issue?
Mr. Farrow. I recall this more specifically because it is
an issue that has come from my home territory, and it has come
up over the years so often. And there are three elements of the
analysis and they are simple and straightforward.
One you stated in the question, and I guess was stated in
the report, which was, the Supreme Court of the United States
had ruled that the Virgin Islands did not have a legal claim to
the money, so as a matter of law, that argument from the
territory was not valid.
Number two, the Congress and the President had agreed and a
couple of administrations had agreed upon legislation that
limited the cover-over provision of the revised organic act of
the Virgin Islands, which provided the Federal taxes on
products of the Virgin Islands transported to the United States
and consumed in the United States would be covered into or
transferred or granted into the Treasury of the Virgin Islands.
The Congress and the President had agreed that those--that
would be amended to only provide to the product of rum. So
Congress and the President had all reached this decision, and
the Supreme Court had reached this decision before.
There was an effort to negotiate a settlement of the Virgin
Islands' claim before the Supreme Court ruled, and the
administration at the time, as part of that decision, offered
to give the Virgin Islands $30 million a year. This was, I
believe, in the late 1970s. And the Virgin Islands turned down
that offer.
But subsequent to that, as I said, the Supreme Court ruled,
Congress and the President changed the law. So there is no
legal basis and there is a policy decision. When the
provision--and the third element, when the provision of the
revised organic act was enacted in 1954, it was clear that
everybody was talking about returning taxes on rum. The Virgin
Islands sought--this same provision of law applied to Puerto
Rico; it also applied to the Philippines before that. And the
product used in Puerto Rico was rum, and the product that was
intended in the Virgin Islands was rum.
Congress did not intend in enacting the cover-over to begin
with that it would apply to gasoline. So because there was not
congressional intent in the beginning and the law was not
intended to cover gasoline, because the Supreme Court ruled
that the Virgin Islands didn't have a valid legal claim because
the Congress and the President had recently determined that not
only--not gasoline, but not only other alcoholic beverages
would not provide taxes that would be covered over, there was--
the decision was made as it was.
Mrs. Christensen. I have one last question, and then I will
turn it over to Mr. Faleomavaega if he has any other questions.
There has been discussion this afternoon about the
importance of the White House involvement in insular area
issues being essential to assuring success. I am not sure if
everybody agreed to that, but Mr. Farrow does, and I tend to
agree.
So I would ask the panel, really, if you believe--if we
were to propose putting the Executive Office of the President
attendant to territorial issues in statute, would we encounter,
do you think, the same opposition that Congressman de Lugo did
when he proposed something similar in 1992 and 1993, or do you
think the environment is more accepting of that type of a
proposal?
I am asking everyone.
Mr. Farrow. I think you quite likely may encounter
opposition as well. The opposition would come from an Interior
Department, and I am not now talking about the current
officials, but the officials of the next administration.
You may encounter an Interior Department that wants to keep
as much responsibility and jurisdiction as it can. You may
encounter a White House that has--or Executive Office of the
President, in a broader context, that is overwhelmed with the
new responsibilities it is facing; and every White House wants
to shift responsibility for agencies to departments so it can
concentrate on what it considers priorities.
You will also encounter, likely, a White House and OMB that
will want to limit the staffing and budget within the Executive
Office of the President. Every President has come in wanting to
do that. And so they will not be anxious to assume
responsibilities that will require additional staffing.
But I still think you need to go ahead in the interest of
the insular areas and the interest of the Federal Government
dealing with the insular areas and press for it.
I would note that the opposition that Chairman de Lugo
encountered to this concept was not so much putting this in
statute, although that will be an issue. Presidents don't like
to be restricted more than they have to be, and they will try
to resist that. But it really was the view of the Secretary of
the Interior in 1993, who was an extraordinarily capable
Secretary who thought that he could address and handle these
issues himself. And he was very successful Secretary in a lot
of ways and very capable.
But with the advice of Mr. Stayman, as I mentioned and with
experience over the years, by 1999, the Secretary realized he
was not in a position to successfully lead the administration
on every issue involving the territories that needed leadership
and policy guidance.
So I think you may have a new Secretary who thinks, I can
do this; but I think experience will tell you and you should
impress upon the new administration that the change needs to be
made.
Mrs. Christensen. Mr. Tenorio, do you have to be excused at
this time or did you want to speak before you leave? I know you
had a time constraint.
Mr. Tenorio. Yes, Madam Chairperson. I feel that there is
always a need to have contact in the administration, whether it
is IGIA as an official group or a smaller subgroup of IGIA. The
main thing, at least from my own experience, is that we need to
continue to have dialogue. We need to have an open channel of
communication with the agencies that we feel can help us out.
Not having a group like this or not having a formalized way of
discussing things with them would just leave us in the dark in
many cases, as I said before.
So I really do not have any major recommendations on how to
structure. My main concern is that we need to have the Federal
folks communicating with the local government folks as much as
possible so that issues can be discussed timely and that
possible solutions could be offered quickly.
Thank you.
Mrs. Christensen. I want to thank you for being here and
for your testimony and answering the questions, and you are
excused if you need----
Mr. Faleomavaega. If I could, Madam Chair, I would like to
have Representative Tenorio stay for half a minute, 30 seconds,
45 or so.
The reason for my saying this, one question--and, Madam
Chair, you had raised the issue of minimum wages. Secretary
Kempthorne went to CNMI. Secretary Kempthorne also went to
American Samoa. As you know, we authorized an economic study
report through the Bureau of Labor Statistics that came out,
and both Chairman Miller and Chairman Kennedy were very
critical because the report was not comprehensive enough to
really tell us whether or not to justify a raising the minimum
wage to the 50 cent criteria that the law provided.
And what I want to ask you, Secretary Domenech--I would
like to make this as an official request, because going through
the legislative process is almost nearly impossible 3 months
before--we are out of session in September. And I would very
much appreciate it Secretary Kempthorne to take the initiative,
using technical assistance funds, and come out with funding
some kind of a comprehensive economic report study--now, as
soon as possible--so that we don't have to wait for another
period of how many months before we come up in addressing this
issue.
Because to all the efforts that we have made, our Members
even on the Senate side, and Mr. Stayman's terrific help, and
also with Governor Fitial and Mr. Tenorio, the problem that we
are faced with, and rightly so, is the fact that even in our
own situation, the report was not comprehensive enough, even
though they made general statements to the effect that the
economies of these territories will be affected negatively if
the 50-cent increase was to be made.
Well, lo and behold, when Chairwoman Christensen and I went
to American Samoa, we conducted the oversight hearing. And one
of the first questions I asked the managers of our local two
canneries, Were there any layoffs when we instituted the 50-
cent increase? They said, No.
So if that does not encourage Chairman Miller and Chairman
Kennedy says, we really don't have an economic problem here. It
is a sense of honesty and being a little more forthright in
telling us exactly--and this is the thing that really has
bothered me so much. We really don't know what the economic
status is of both CNMI, as well as American Samoa, and that is
why we requested the Department of Labor to conduct this study,
especially as it relates to the minimum wage issue, which was
never properly addressed.
So I am making this as a formal request, Secretary
Domenech, if you could take this issue quickly to Secretary
Kempthorne, to see if an initiative could be taken by the
Interior Department, which you have the authority--you don't
need the authority from us--to use your technical assistance
funds to conduct a comprehensive economic study as soon as
possible and not have to wait for the next Congress to come out
next year.
It will be too late. In May of next year, the next increase
comes up. And I really, really--and I think this is what the
Congress is trying to get.
Unfortunately, your Department of Labor was not very
cooperative when questions were given--I don't know how it is
with CNMI, but certainly with American Samoa--for follow-up
questions on some of the economic study reports coming from our
two main companies that do business there, was not very
forthcoming.
So I would like to ask if there is any way possible that
Secretary Kempthorne can take the initiative and see if we can
do this, as soon as possible and not have to wait. Because,
unfortunately, we have done everything we can from this end.
But the fact of the matter is, we still have not received a
comprehensive economic report for both CNMI and American Samoa.
And at this time, I would like to ask, Mr. Secretary, if the
Interior Department can do this for us. And you can do it
administratively, we can consult and find out exactly how we
can go about doing it. But I really think this is something
that the Interior Department should help us with as soon as
possible.
And the second issue that I want to raise--and I am sorry,
Ped, I didn't mean to delay your stay here, but I wanted you to
hear that this is coming from the horse's mouth and making this
as an official request to our good friend here, Secretary
Domenech, and see if we can get some results on this request.
The COLA issue, Mr. Secretary, has been a real--for some
reason or another, American Samoa has simply been overlooked
for all these years. And why we have never been part--of
course, the Census Bureau has not been very cooperative either
in going about and conducting possible surveys and whatever is
necessary to give us better data and information.
And, by the way, this has been the complaint of all the
insular areas. Census Bureau simply does not have the
appropriate data information to give us a better understanding
of what not only our economic status is, but just simply as it
will relate to whether or not we have become beneficiaries to
some of these--for several Federal grants programs simply
because we don't have the proper information.
But I think my first request, Mr. Secretary, will--I really
would appreciate it if you could take that immediately to
Secretary Kempthorne. And I will develop a letter in support of
this request with Madam Chair, and hopefully, she will accept
this verbal request from me.
And with that, Madam Chair, I thank Ped--I am sorry, I
didn't mean to delay you--and Secretary Domenech and Jeff and--
sorry, Al; there is a House rule that we cannot allow Senate
staffers to testify here.
So with that, Madam Chair, I actually withdraw my earlier
request for you--to have you appear.
Mrs. Christensen. Without objection.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you so much for coming here and to testify.
And, Madam Chair, again, thank you for your leadership and
initiative in conducting this oversight hearing. And I look
forward in working closely with our friends here from the
Interior Department.
And to Jeff and Mr. Secretary and Mr. Tenorio, thank you
again for your testimonies.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Mrs. Christensen. Thank you, Mr. Faleomavaega. I also want
to thank Mr. Flake for attending.
I thank the witnesses also for their valuable testimony and
members for their questions. Members of the Subcommittee may
have some additional questions for the witnesses. I will ask
that you respond to those in writing, and the hearing record
will be held open for 10 days.
Mrs. Christensen. I also, in thanking the witnesses, I want
to say that the personal experiences and the expertise from the
standpoint of how the IGIA operates internally and the history
of the IGIA has helped us to better understand where flaws may
exist. In the past year and a half, the Subcommittee has held
hearings on a number of issues important to our fellow
Americans residing in American Samoa, Guam, the Northern
Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico and my home--our home, Jeff--the
U.S. Virgin Islands. Some of our work resulted in the House
considering and passing legislation addressing outstanding war
claims, the construction of schools, the repeal of taxes, final
financial accountability and the extension of U.S. immigration
laws.
Our hearings have also built upon previous congressional
efforts to resolve political status for our largest territory
of Puerto Rico and to understand the challenges faced by U.S.
territories in financial management accountability and
implementing alternative energy, diversifying economies and
raising the standards of living.
I am certain that we can all agree that because of the
territories' unique status within the American family, there is
a special obligation resting with the Federal Government to
resolve issues and make policy recommendations reflecting the
islands' distinct circumstances. This responsibility holds true
for both unresolved problems of the past and challenges of the
future.
The differences between the IGIA approaches of the Clinton
and the Bush Administrations are clear and speak to the insular
legacies one President has left behind and the other will soon
follow. The Subcommittee is interested in building upon the
lessons learned from two very different approaches to
leadership; and what is clear to me is that the Federal
Government should, at the very least, provide continuity for a
group which can have a very serious impact for Americans
residing in the U.S. territories.
In the near future, we hope to collaborate with you and
other island leaders in putting something together that would
offer the kind of continuity and reliability needed to move our
islands forward.
And, again, I thank the witnesses and the members of the
Subcommittee and the staff for their work on this hearing. If
there is no further business, the hearing of the Subcommittee
on Insular Affairs now stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 3:30 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
[Additional material submitted for the record follows:]
[A statement submitted for the record by The Honorable John
P. de Jongh, Jr., Governor, U.S. Virgin Islands, follows:]
Statement of The Honorable John P. de Jongh, Jr.,
Governor of the U.S. Virgin Islands
Madam Chairwoman and Distinguished Members of the House Resources
Committee, I am honored to present the views of the Government of the
U.S. Virgin Islands (``GVI'') on the effectiveness of the current
interagency process for developing federal territorial policy under the
mandate of the Interagency Group on Insular Areas (``IGIA''). For the
reasons discussed below, the GVI believes that the IGIA process, while
well-intentioned, is structurally deficient and unable to achieve its
objective of ensuring fair consideration of territorial interests and
proper coordination between federal agencies in the development of the
federal-territorial policy.
Before describing these structural deficiencies and offering
prescriptive remedies, I believe it would be useful to review the
history leading to the formation of the IGIA, which history should
inform the Committee in legislating, or making recommendations for,
changes in the structure and mission of the IGIA.
The insular territories of the United States, including the U.S.
Virgin Islands, historically were administered as agencies of the
federal government. Acquired by war and by purchase, the territories in
the beginning lacked sovereignty, self-government and representation in
the policy-making processes of the administering departments of the
U.S. government. Indeed, the U.S. Virgin Islands were initially
administered by the U.S. Department of the Navy in 1917 and only later
transferred to the Department of the Interior. With the enactment of
the Revised Organic Act of 1954, the Virgin Islands assumed increasing
powers of self-government, culminating in the popular right to elect
the Governor of the Virgin Islands in 1968 and a non-voting Delegate to
Congress in 1972. Today, the GVI exhibits, as the courts have affirmed,
the attributes of sovereignty similar to a state government, full
autonomy in matters of local self-government (including the right to
determine the size, form and powers of the local government pursuant to
a constitution of its own making), but still lacks full voting
representation in the Congress of the United States and the right to
vote for President of the United States.
As an unincorporated territory of the United States, the Virgin
Islands is subject to the plenary power of Congress pursuant to the
Territorial Clause of the Constitution. Indeed, the Congress has
authority, and exercises such authority, over such critical areas of
territorial development as the income tax laws, customs regulations and
trade policy, federal programs and appropriations. To the extent that
federal policy towards the territories often originates in the
Executive Branch, it is essential that the U.S. territories have full
and fair access to the federal policy-making process, particularly in
view of their lack of full voting representation in the Congress.
The Department of the Interior was chosen as the lead agency, first
for administering, and later for developing, federal policy towards the
territories because of its traditional role as the steward over the
public lands and territories within the continental United States. With
the tremendous expansion of the federal role in the national economy
over the last 40-odd years, including in such vital areas as federal
tax policy, trade policy and health care policy, the Department of the
Interior is ill-equipped and ill-suited to properly represent the
interests of the insular territories in those areas in which it has no
jurisdiction or even expertise. Indeed, as former Chairman of the
Senate Interior Committee, J. Bennett Johnston, observed over a decade
and a half ago, the Department of the Interior often finds itself ``in
a weak and isolated position when advocating special treatment for the
[territories]. Other agencies generally discount Interior's views
regarding non-Interior programs, and they often give the [territories]
a low priority when allocating program resources.''
This structural weakness was most recently exhibited in the
development of Treasury regulations implementing the provisions of the
American Jobs Creation Act of 2004 (``Jobs Act'') which has had a
devastating impact on the Virgin Islands Economic Development
Commission (``EDC'') Program. The Department of the Interior supported
the reasoned and balanced approach developed by the GVI to the
implementing regulations, but the Department was unable to effectively
engage Treasury or otherwise advance our cause on this critical issue.
Recognizing these structural weaknesses, the Chairmen of the House
and Senate Insular Affairs Committees separately introduced legislation
in the early 1990's to coordinate and centralize federal policymaking
for the insular areas. Then-Chairman of the House Subcommittee on
Territorial and Insular Affairs Ron de Lugo introduced a bill in 1992
entitled the ``Insular Areas Policy Act'' which would have established
a Cabinet Council on Insular Affairs to ``develop, coordinate, and
oversee the implementation of [federal] policies regarding the U.S.
insular areas.'' The Council would include representatives of the heads
of all federal departments and agencies, chaired by the President's
chief foreign policy and domestic advisors and would be located within
the Office of the President.
Then-Chairman Johnston of the Senate Interior Committee in the same
year introduced his own bill which would have established an
interagency ``Insular Areas Policy Council,'' which was also charged
with coordinating ``the activities of federal agencies'' in the
Territories, determining the ``appropriate role of the [territories] in
U.S. domestic and foreign policy,'' ``considering'' the policy
recommendations of Council members and ``proposing'' policies to the
President and the Congress. Significantly, the Senate bill would have
retained the primary role of the Secretary of the Interior in federal-
territorial policy by establishing the Secretary as Chairman of the
Council.
Neither the House nor the Senate bill was enacted into law,
primarily as a result of opposition at the time in both the Congress
and the Administration. The need for some interagency mechanism to
ensure greater coordination of federal-territorial policy persisted,
and President Clinton, by executive memorandum, established the
predecessor to the current IGIA on August 9, 1999. The IGIA, consisting
of ``senior officials selected by the heads of executive departments,
agencies and offices,'' was mandated to ``give guidance on policy
concerning [the] insular jurisdictions.'' The White House memorandum
established the Secretary of the Interior and the White House Director
of Intergovernmental Affairs as the co-chairs of the IGIA.
The IGIA held its initial organizational meeting in January 2000
and a series of internal issues meetings in the months thereafter. The
IGIA produced a draft report outlining major issues affecting the
territories and a ``roadmap'' of follow-up and action items. Because
the 1999 executive memorandum had no legal effect upon the expiration
of the Clinton Administration, the IGIA did not automatically continue
with the advent of the Bush Administration and the momentum of the
first year died. The IGIA was not reconstituted until nearly three
years later when President Bush signed a Executive Order on May 8, 2003
reviving the interagency process. Importantly, the 2003 Executive Order
established the IGIA ``within the Department of the Interior,''
altering in our view both the architecture and potential effectiveness
of the IGIA process.
The Effectiveness of the Current IGIA Process
The subject matter of the present hearing is the ``Successes and
Challenges of the IGIA.'' The IGIA, even under its current structure,
offers an important opportunity for the governments of the U.S.
territories to raise issues of concern directly to the attention of the
Secretary of the Interior and the representatives of the federal
departments and agencies. The ability of the IGIA, in its current form,
to effect needed change and to develop fair and equitable policies
towards the off-shore territories, however, is a different matter.
For example, at the February 26, 2008 annual meeting of the IGIA,
the GVI presented a list of critical federal issues affecting the U.S.
Virgin Islands, including recommendations for (1) support for
legislation ensuring equal treatment of the territories in individual
benefit programs, including Medicaid funding, S-CHIP funding and the
Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program, (2) providing a reasonable
cost-sharing formula for the administration of the Earned Income Credit
(``EIC'') program in mirror tax code jurisdictions, and (3) support for
legislation to remove the unfair cap limiting the amount of rum excise
taxes returned to the Virgin Islands under long-established tax
principles governing the relationship between the United States and the
Virgin Islands. Many of the issues were previously raised by the GVI in
earlier IGIA meetings. To date, there has been no significant
reportable progress in resolving any of these long-standing critical
issues. As previously noted, the GVI requested the Secretary of the
Interior over three years ago to invoke the IGIA process to resolve the
economically critical issue of the Jobs Act implementing regulations;
the Secretary, however, was unable to persuade the Secretary of the
Treasury to submit this issue to the IGIA process.
While there have been some modest advances and policy ``successes''
as a result of the IGIA process, it appears, at least from our
perspective, that the larger and more important the issue, the more
``territorial'' and protective of its jurisdiction becomes the federal
agency and the less effective becomes the IGIA. Indeed, it is our view
that this record is reflective of the systemic or structural weaknesses
of the IGIA itself. Pursuant to the terms of the 2003 Executive Order
itself, the Secretary of the Interior has the power to ``chair'' a
consultative body and to make ``recommendations'' to the President or
to other agency heads, but lacks authority to effectively coordinate
the policies emanating from the federal agencies themselves. It is our
view that the IGIA process can only be effective if all agencies submit
their policy-making, insofar as it relates to the territories, to the
IGIA process. Unfortunately, the political realities are that that can
be assured only if the IGIA chair is organizationally superior to the
agency head itself. That is, in order to be effective, the IGIA must
operate with the cloak of authority of, and be located within, the
Office of the President.
Recommendations
Madam Chairwoman, I believe the interagency process, first proposed
by your distinguished predecessor in 1992, offers an enlightened and
thoughtful blueprint for this Committee. An effective interagency
process should reflect the following important principles;
1. The IGIA process should be authorized by statute and
administered according to criteria established by Congress exercising
its constitutional function. The process cannot be left to the
discretion of an executive memorandum or order.
2. The IGIA chair must be established within the Office of the
President, rather than at the agency level. The IGIA chair must report
to, and operate with the color of the authority of, the President of
the United States in order to effectively coordinate the interests of
competing agencies. And,
3. The IGIA must have independent staff and sufficient resources
to be able to effectively carry out its mission.
Madam Chairwoman and Distinguished Members of the Committee, I look
forward to working with you to elaborate on these thoughts and to
strengthen the IGIA process. The welfare of all of our citizens in our
offshore territories depends on it. Thank you very much.