Statement of
David B. Cohen
Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Interior for Insular Affairs
Before the
Senate Committee on Energy and
Natural Resources
Regarding
H.R. 2010, American Samoa Delegate Plurality Vote
and
H.R. 1189, Matching Funds Waiver
July 14, 2004
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, I am David Cohen, Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Interior for Insular Affairs. I am pleased to appear before you today to discuss H.R. 2010, the American Samoa delegate election bill, and H.R. 1189, the matching funds waiver bill.
H.R. 2010 – American Samoa Delegate Plurality Vote
Current law provides that the Delegate to the House of Representatives from American Samoa shall be elected by majority vote. Under current practice, a runoff is conducted two weeks after the general election in November of each even numbered year if no candidate for Delegate receives a majority in the general election. The result is that members of the armed services and other voters overseas may be disenfranchised in the runoff election due to transportation and communication difficulties that delay the return of runoff ballots in time for counting.
H.R. 2010 would establish a flexible system for ensuring that the votes of American Samoans, who are overseas, are counted. In the first instance, H.R. 2010 would substitute a plurality of votes for election of Delegate for the currently required majority. If, however, the members of the American Samoa Fono, or legislature, believe that a majority vote is preferable, H.R. 2010 would authorize the Fono to establish a primary election prior to the November balloting.
The issues raised in this bill are clearly within Congress’s authority to determine, given American Samoa’s special status as a U.S. territory. However, we note that, subject to certain limitations, the citizens of the various states are generally given the latitude to establish, through their elected representatives, the policies that govern elections for Federal officials who will represent the people of those states.
We recognize that in the special case of American Samoa, this is a matter for Congress to decide. The wishes of the people of American Samoa, however, should be given the same deference that the wishes of the citizens of a state would be given under analogous circumstances. We respectfully suggest, therefore, that the Congress note the positions of recognized leaders of the territory, in order to discern the preferences of the people of the American Samoa. If the Congress finds that this bill is a reasonable reflection of the wishes of the people of American Samoa, the Administration would have no objection to its enactment. We would like to stress, however, that to the extent that deficiencies in the current system may result in the disenfranchisement of absentee voters, including the many men and women from American Samoa who serve honorably in our armed forces, we would urge Congress to correct any such deficiencies as soon as possible.
H.R. 1189 – Matching Funds Waiver
Section 501 of Public Law 95-134 was originally enacted to allow the consolidation of Federal programs within a single department or agency into a single grant for a territory. The law also provided for a permissive waiver of matching fund requirements at the discretion of the department or agency. The law was amended in 1980 to provide a mandatory waiver of “any matching funds under $100,000 (including in-kind contributions) required by law to be provided by American Samoa, Guam, the Virgin Islands, or the Northern Mariana Islands.” The $100,000 waiver figure was later raised to $200,000. The 1980 amendment also provided for a mandatory waiver of all matching requirements relating to grants by the Department of the Interior to a territory.
Over the years, section 501 and its amendments have been the subject of confusion and various interpretations from department to department. The intent of the sponsors of H.R. 1189 was both to clarify the waiver provision and to increase the amount of the waiver for each grant from a maximum of $200,000 to $500,000. In addition, the bill would no longer limit the matching waiver to matching that was required “by law.” Administratively imposed matching would also be waived.
The Administration supports 1189 if it is amended to reflect the following recommendations to improve and further simplify the statute.
First, we recommend that the mandatory waiver apply to formula grants, but not to discretionary grants. Formula grants apply across the board to all fifty states and often to the U.S. territories. They are tailored for use by states with conditions and limitations imposed with the states in mind. Territories are often included as an after-thought. Even the smallest and poorest state has many more resources at its disposal for dealing with grants than do the territories. The waiver, therefore, makes sense for formula grants.
Discretionary grants are another matter. By definition, a department or agency need not give discretionary funds to a territory or a state. The matching requirement helps to ensure that the grant objective is a priority for the territory seeking the grant. Additionally, the matching requirement makes Federal dollars available for use by the maximum number of recipients. If the waiver is mandatory with respect to a discretionary grant, that fact alone may tip a decision of an administrator against a grant to a territory. In the end, the territories could lose more discretionary grant dollars than the dollars saved via a mandatory territorial waiver provision.
In the case of the Office of Insular Affairs (OIA), our grants are specifically tailored to each territory’s needs. Any matching requirement in an OIA grant is specifically designed with the territory, or territories, in mind. We may be trying to spread limited funds to all the territories rather than just one or two. Or, we may believe that we need evidence of a territory’s true commitment to the purpose of a grant in order to determine that the grant funds will not be better spent for another purpose or in another territory.
The Administration, therefore, supports the application of the $500,000 waiver of matching funds in mandatory fashion to formula grants, but not to discretionary grants. Each grant-giving agency should have the flexibility to make its own determination of whether or not to waive matching fund requirements for discretionary grants. The logic in favor of providing waivers for formula grant matching fund requirements is that those matching formulas do not take the unique circumstances of the territories into account. This logic emphatically does not apply to grants issued by OIA, which are designed with the special needs of the territories specifically in mind.
A second concern involves subsection (b) of section 1 of H.R. 1189. Subsection (b) would aid clarification of the statute by deleting most of the material added by three amendments to the original statute (section 501). Left in effect would be a clause that singles out the Department of the Interior for waiver of all matching funds, not just those under $500,000. Consistent with the views I expressed earlier, the Administration urges that this clause be repealed.
Our last concern is with section 2 of H.R. 1189, which calls for a study of the implementation of the new waiver provisions contained in the bill. Such a study would likely yield little information of value. The Administration, therefore, recommends that the study provision be stricken from the bill. If a problem should arise with regard to the newly enacted provisions, I expect that it would be brought to our attention so that remedial action can be taken.