[Congressional Record Volume 160, Number 145 (Tuesday, December 2, 2014)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E1698-E1699]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




     HISTORICAL RECORD OF POLITICAL STATUS ISSUE IN AMERICAN SAMOA

                                 ______
                                 

                       HON. ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA

                           of american samoa

                    in the house of representatives

                       Tuesday, December 2, 2014

  Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to include, for 
historical purposes, the following information on the political status 
of American Samoa.

                     [Press Release, Oct. 2, 2006]

       Faleomavaega Testifies Before Political Status Commission

       Congressman Faleomavaega announced today that he testified 
     before the American Samoa Political Status Commission in a 
     hearing held on Saturday, September 29, 2006 at BYU-Hawaii in 
     Laie, Hawaii.
       I believe the work of this commission is critical for 
     American Samoas political future, Faleomavaega said. I am 
     honored to provide input as the commissioners deliberate our 
     political status options.
       In my opinion, before we get too far ahead of ourselves in 
     examining our political options we need to look inward to 
     resolve some lingering ambiguities regarding our current 
     territorial status. Currently, American Samoas political 
     relationship with the United States is governed by the two 
     Treaties or Deeds of Cession signed in 1900 (Tutuila) and 
     1904 (Manua). These documents provide no clear protections 
     for our culture, no clear guidance for our relationship with 
     the United States, and no expression of political unity 
     between our own islands.
       To me, it makes sense that we should address these issues 
     first before we can develop a roadmap for our future. 
     Otherwise, unresolved questions will always remain regarding 
     our internal (Tutuila and Manua) and external (with the 
     United States) political relationships.
       One source of ambiguity in these documents is that, in a 
     Samoan context, this was understood to be a treaty of 
     cession, rather than a deed of cession. In the Samoan version 
     of these documents, our chiefs used the term feagaiga, which 
     means treaty, but in the English version, the word treaty is 
     never mentioned. To our Samoan chiefs this treaty 
     relationship meant that Samoans would maintain a measure of 
     autonomy the terms of the agreement allowed the U.S. the 
     right to use the land and the harbor, in exchange for 
     providing protection against hostile nations. Viewed as a 
     deed, however, this agreement would have meant that the 
     chiefs were giving over the land as well as their sovereignty 
     over the land. The problem inherent in this ambiguity is that 
     a deed of cession offers our people something less than the 
     sovereign status that a treaty would provide, and in fact the 
     term deed implies ownership of property rather than a sense 
     of the rights and privileges of a sovereign people.
       Another source of ambiguity related to these two treaties/
     deeds is that they were negotiated separately between the 
     United States and each of the island groups. Because these 
     two instruments were two separate acts, by themselves they 
     did not unite American Samoa into one political entity. 
     Therefore, the fact remains that to this day, there is no 
     officially declared political union between the island groups 
     of Tutuila and Manua, only separate understandings with the 
     United States.
       Furthermore, despite what others may have said was the 
     understanding in the past, these treaties do not provide for 
     the protection of the basic rights of American Samoas people. 
     While these two treaties have proven instrumental in 
     providing stability to the people of American Samoa for the 
     past 106 years, the deeds do not cover many of the most basic 
     issues of concern for our people, such as citizenship, 
     immigration, international trade and commerce, national 
     security, marine and communal property rights, or membership 
     in international organizations, to name a few. Rather than 
     being instruments that express some vague obligation on the 
     part of the United States to protect our culture, I see these 
     two treaties as asserting United States sovereignty over our 
     lands and our lives.
       While the Deeds of Cession still stand as the basis upon 
     which American Samoa can claim a political relationship with 
     the United States, there is still some confusion even within 
     the United States government as to the effect of these two 
     treaties. A review of the U.S. Department of State listing of 
     U.S. treaties in force makes no mention of any treaty 
     existing between the United States and the island groups of 
     Tutuila and Manua.
       Also, as a current conflict in federal law illustrates, the 
     U.S. Congress has its own problems in defining the U.S. 
     relationship with American Samoa. The U.S. Congress approved 
     these documents under the 1929 Ratification Act (48 U.S.C. 
     1661). Section 1661 states as follows:
       Until Congress shall provide for the government of such 
     islands, all civil, judicial, and military powers shall be 
     vested in such person or persons and shall be exercised in 
     such manner as the President of the United States shall 
     direct; and the President shall have power to remove said 
     officers and fill the vacancies so occasioned. (emphasis 
     added)
       Congress did not ratify the 1900 and 1904 Deeds until 1929, 
     and then delegated its constitutional authority to administer 
     the territory to the President, who transferred the 
     administration of American Samoa to the Secretary of the 
     Navy, primarily because the U.S. wished to establish a naval 
     station in Pago Pago Bay.
       In 1951, President Truman transferred the administration of 
     American Samoa to the Secretary of the Interior. The transfer 
     of all administrative, judicial, and military authority from 
     the Congress to the President has not been amended since 
     1929. Notwithstanding this 1929 law delegating authority over 
     the territory to the President, in 1984 Congress passed a 
     bill, signed into law by the President (Pub. L. 98-213, 
     codified at 48 U.S.C. 1662a), that now requires congressional 
     approval of any amendment to the territory's constitution. In 
     view of this new law, several questions and problems are now 
     being raised. First, why does American Samoa now require 
     Congressional approval of any amendments to its territorial 
     constitution when Congress never expressly approved the 
     territorial constitution to begin with? Second, there are 
     several provisions in our territorial constitution that would 
     raise serious constitutional issues that Congress has not yet 
     addressed. In fact, it is questionable if Congress would 
     approve such provisions in light of the U.S. Constitution. 
     Unfortunately, Congress has never fully examined the 
     contradictions between these two statutes.
       The question here is whether the territorial constitution 
     should be subject to congressional or presidential authority. 
     If the authority is congressional, the 1929 law should be 
     amended to rescind the authority delegated to the President; 
     if the authority is presidential, the 1984 law should be 
     rescinded and the approval of changes to our constitution 
     should be returned to the complete authority of the President 
     via the Secretary of the Interior. In either case, we have to 
     face the fact that our present constitution and our current 
     measure of sovereignty are nothing more than an extension of 
     the presidential power of the Secretary of the Interior.
       As we discuss our possible options in our quest for a 
     greater measure of self-government, where are we now in our 
     relationship with the United States? American Samoa is 
     described as an unorganized and unincorporated territory of 
     the United States. American Samoa is considered unorganized 
     because since 1929 Congress has not officially organized a 
     government for the separate island kingdoms of Tutuila and 
     Manua under one organic act. Our territory is unincorporated 
     because, according to Supreme Court decisions regarding the 
     constitutional rights of insular territories, Congress has 
     never intended to incorporate American Samoa into the Union.

[[Page E1699]]

       From 1900 to 1951, the U.S., through the Department of the 
     Navy, appointed military officers to govern the affairs of 
     the islands. According to the 1921 Codification of the 
     Regulations and Orders of the Government of American Samoa, 
     on May 1, 1900 Commander Benjamin Tilley, the first naval 
     commandant of Tutuila and Manua, declared that the 
     Governor, for the time being, of American Samoa is the 
     head of the Government. For fifty-one years, this self-
     made regulation governed American Samoas course with one 
     appointed Naval Governor after another acting as the maker 
     of all laws and appointments with little regard for the 
     will of the people. During this period of martial law 
     there were no elected leaders.
       With the transfer of power in 1951 to the Department of the 
     Interior, American Samoa experienced little more than a 
     transition from military to civilian rule. Civilian-appointed 
     governors still had full authority over island affairs. In 
     the 1960s a territorial constitution was drafted and there 
     began to be some involvement from the Samoan Legislature. One 
     unintended consequence of the law passed in 1984 requiring 
     Congressional approval of amendments to the American Samoa 
     constitution is that, whereas between 1960 and 1984 our local 
     leaders had extensive practice at constitution-writing, after 
     the law was passed this practice ceased. To date, the final 
     steps toward some measure of self-government were taken when 
     in 1977 the first Governor was elected by popular vote and in 
     1980 when American Samoa elected its first Delegate to the 
     U.S. Congress.
       Given this background and history of our political 
     relationship with the United States, Faleomavaega offered the 
     following recommendations. First, Tutuila and Manua must 
     officially declare a union as one political entity or 
     governing body, thereby sanctioning its authority to deal 
     with the United States as we negotiate our future status. 
     This would address one of the major shortcomings of the 
     separately negotiated Deeds of Cession.
       Second, I would recommend that a national convention be 
     called to deliberate the specific provisions of the 1900 and 
     1904 Deeds of Cession. As I mentioned, these Deeds do not 
     provide any real protection for our communal lands and 
     culture as our forefathers intended. I believe we need to 
     formulate a statement of principles underlining our desire to 
     either amend certain provisions of the two deeds or establish 
     an entirely new agreement with the United States. The 
     provisions of any such agreement should define our political 
     relationship with the United States, whether it is a covenant 
     status like the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, 
     free association status like the Federated States of 
     Micronesia, Palau, and the Marshall Islands, commonwealth 
     status like Puerto Rico, or even an Organic Act such as the 
     one governing Guams relationship with the United States.
       Third, once we have defined what American Samoas 
     relationship should be with the United States under the terms 
     of an agreement that is agreeable to both sides, the 
     leadership of Samoa should then call a constitutional 
     convention and organize a government based upon the terms and 
     conditions outlined in the agreement, not the U.S. 
     Constitution. Moreover, I believe this must be done as soon 
     as possible the longer this uncertainty surrounding these two 
     Deeds remains, the further we drift from our forefathers 
     treaty intentions and risk the erosion of our culture, of 
     becoming less Samoan and more American or, in other words, 
     Americans of Samoan ancestry. As it stands, we cannot claim 
     loyalty to the United States and at the same time refuse to 
     apply federal standards that are incompatible with our local 
     traditions and land-tenure system.
       To summarize, Faleomavaega said, what I asked of the 
     esteemed members of the Political Status Study Commission is 
     that, before they become too deeply involved in examining all 
     possible future options, they focus first on clarifying the 
     original sources of authority underpinning our current 
     political relationship with the United States, the two Deeds 
     of Cession, as a foundation for a unified approach to 
     determining our political future.
       The full text of the Treaties/Deeds of Cession, in English 
     and Samoan, as well as the 1929 and 1983 laws discussed in 
     the Congressmans statement are available on Congressman 
     Faleomavaega's website at www.house.gov/faleomavaega/
historical.shtml
____


                     [Press Release, May 24, 2007]

  Future Political Status Study Commission Report Now Available Online

       Congressman Faleomavaega announced today that a copy of the 
     Future Political Status Study Commission Report is now 
     available online for the public and particularly members of 
     the Samoan community all around the world to read.
       ``Many people in our Samoan community, especially those 
     residing outside of American Samoa, have contacted my office 
     to request copies of or to find out how to obtain a copy of 
     the Future Political Status Study Commission Report,'' 
     Faleomavaega said. ``So, I am pleased to inform everyone that 
     a copy of the report is now available online on my website 
     and on the American Samoa Governor's website for anyone to 
     read.''
       ``I want to congratulate and thank The Honorable Tufele 
     Li'amatua--Chairman, The Honorable Tuaolo Fruean--Vice 
     Chairman, High Talking Chief Fofo Sunia--Executive Director, 
     and all the Commissioners and staff of the Future Political 
     Status Study Commission for the tremendous work they did in 
     completing this report.''
       ``Now that we have the report, everyone concerned should 
     take time to thoroughly review the Commission's 
     recommendations, especially our Fono and the Administration. 
     As I have stated before, I believe the next logical step in 
     this important process is for the Fono to conduct hearings to 
     discuss the different recommendations made by the Commission. 
     Only after such a careful review and discussion I feel we 
     should proceed to the next steps or implementation,'' 
     Faleomavaega concluded.

                          ____________________