Is Eni hurting our friends?
February 26, 2006

Guest Commentary

If our delegate wanted to respond to Papalii David Cohen's remarks about the challenges territories face trying to influence Washington, it would have had more impact and been more in keeping with the Pacific spirit if he used a little humor and was gracious about it. If he wanted to give a recital of all the federal benefits adopted for American Samoa that he takes some credit for, he could have done that in a positive and respectful way. That would have been far more effective than his tirade against the well-intentioned Papalii David Cohen.

Everyone knows Mr. Cohen was merely stating the obvious, and every one knows he did not deserve to be made the target of an abnormally aggressive and irrational attack by the representative of the people of American Samoa.

Mr. Cohen is the Deputy Assistant Secretary in the Department of Interior who heads the Office of Insular Affairs. Over the years we have had some uneven and unpredictable policies come out of that office, and Mr. Cohen is certainly one of the most reasonable, decent, disciplined and organized political managers to ever occupy that position.

Like all government officials, taking criticism is part of his job, but our Delegate's attack on Mr. Cohen went beyond the bounds of fairness. All Cohen did was observe that the residents of U.S. territories have less influence than they should, due to the political reality that they do not vote for President, do not have representation in the U.S. Senate, and do not have voting representation in the House of Representatives. The last point was clearly understood to mean a vote on the floor of the House with respect to final passage of legislation, so the discussion of committee votes and the debate over floor votes in Mr. Faleomavaega's letter really had nothing to do with Mr. Cohen.

Yet, Faleomavaega accuses Cohen of being "condescending" and "belittling" the people of American Samoa, Guam, Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands and Washington D.C. "who vote for their Delegates" to Congress. Of course, he is wrong about Puerto Rico, because the residents of that territory vote for a Resident Commissioner who serves for four years, not a two year Delegate like the other territories, and he fails to address in any meaningful way the fact that our fellow Americans in the CNMI do not yet have even non-voting representation.

However, those are technical flaws in his release. More importantly, it is ironic that David Cohen should be criticized in such a vociferous and personal way for making an observation that elected leaders from all the territories make at every opportunity. If recognizing the lack of full representation is belittling to the residents of Washington D.C., why does the D.C. delegate raise the issue in virtually every major speech, and why is the problem of representation officially recognized by a slogan stamped on every automobile license plate issued by the D.C. government?

Why do the Governors and the Delegates from all the territories regularly recognize the problem of disenfranchisement of residents in the territories in the national political process? Are we belittling ourselves and being condescending toward our own people and leaders by recognizing reality, by speaking the truth?

A while back our Delegate was unduly aggressive in his criticism of the Governor for daring to have his own proposal for keeping the tuna canneries in American Samoa, in the event the 936 extension is not approved or does not achieve the result we all want. Faleomavaega suggested that any competing proposal would undermine his effort to win approval of the Section 936 extension.

In the case of our Delegate's proposal for a 936 one year extension, it was not passed before Section 936 expired. But that was for reasons that had nothing to do with the alternative proposals offered by the Governor, or the alternative wage tax proposal I offered. Now the Delegate is apparently getting nervous about getting 936 restored, but even if he is successful the current version that is on the table in the House-Senate conference is merely a one year extension.

So that makes it confusing for him to belittle the Department of the Interior's support for a 936 extension for American Samoa. The Department of Treasury and the Office of Management and Budget agree with the Senate Finance Committee and the House Ways and Means Committee that Section 936 is bad tax policy, and not even good development policy. They are glad the provision expired last year, and any extension even for American Samoa makes them nervous and unhappy.

However, Mr. Cohen was able to work quietly and with support from his superiors to carve out an exception, not for the one year extension our delegate supports in the House tax bill, but DOI has gone on record against the preferred position of Treasury and OMB supporting a five year extension for American Samoa. Faleomavaega should be singing the praises of Cohen, not setting him up to take the blame if the extension for Americans Samoa is rejected by the House-Senate conference committee trying to reconcile the Senate and House version of the tax bill.

Now the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources on March 1 is holding a hearing on economic issues in the small territories, and apart from the tax bill debate this may be an opportunity to begin the process of planning for a post-936 economic development strategy that should have been started ten years ago when Congress decided Section 936 was bad tax policy.

In addition, the GAO is going to issue a report on the impact of the Section 936 termination on Puerto Rico, and hopefully the GAO will identify substitute economic development strategies for Puerto Rico that may contribute to post-Section 936 development policy for American Samoa as well. The upcoming Senate hearing may lay the foundation for a new federal-local partnership on economic planning. So despite the mixed signals coming from our Delegate, there is a lot of support and opportunity to actually do something for American Samoa.

The real issue is why our Delegate waited until the year Section 936 was set to expire to provide any leadership on these issues? Why has he made a one year extension of Section 936 the only option for American Samoa? Why has he tried to monopolize this issue and attack our Governor and Mr. Cohen for even opening their mouths about it? Why does he seem to suggest that if his Section 936 strategy fails it will be the fault of the Governor or Mr. Cohen?

Also, why has the Governor of Puerto Rico come out in support of a one year extension of Section 936 for American Samoa? Why has our Delegate reportedly agreed to act as a lead sponsor in the House of political status legislation for Puerto Rico that is supported by the Governor of Puerto Rico?

What are the real trade-offs going on behind the scenes on these issues? Is the strategic goal to win extension of Section 936 for more than one year? Is the plan to extend Section 936 for both American Samoa and Puerto Rico? If the GAO finds that Section 936 is needed in Americans Samoa even if it is bad tax policy, will that help Puerto Rico to get an extension as well?

If our Delegate has tied his Section 936 strategy to Puerto Rico's strategy, he should tell us. If not, he should tell us that as well. If linkage with Puerto Rico's status issue and Section 936 for Puerto Rico is what is going on, he should say so. We need to know the truth so we can have informed self-government. Ultimately, we need an economic development program not linked to the Section 936 controversy as it relates to Puerto Rico, which is why I proposed a wage credit for the canneries not tied to Section 936 or Section 30A, which are forever linked to Puerto Rico. But if our Delegate has a reason for linkage of American Samoa and Puerto Rico we should know.

By the way, the political status legislation for Puerto Rico which our Delegate reportedly now supports is based on the need to address the lack of full democratic participation by residents of Puerto Rico in the federal political process, including the lack of voting representation in Congress. How can our Delegate support that legislation if he thinks recognition of the lack of representation is belittling and condescending to the people of the territories?

It is hard to figure out what is going on with our Delegate, but a few things are clear. He is angry and looking for someone else to blame if whatever his secret strategy is blows up. Let's just hope our friends in Congress salvage something for American Samoa from all this confusion and misdirected anger.