Date: 1989-06-27
Speaker: DE LUGO (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker. I thank the gentleman from New York for yielding me this time. and I rise in strong support of the legislation. I congratulate the gentleman from California for his leadership in this matter. Mr. Speaker. I support H.R. 2214. a bill which would effectively amend the Compact of Free Association Act of 1985 to make a minor change in Federal representation in two of the insular areas. the Federated States of Micronesia and the Marshall Islands. The Compact Act Included a compromise between the Interior and Insular Affairs and Foreign Affairs Committeesand the Interior and State Departmentson the issue of Federal relations with the freely associated states. The Committee on Energy and Natural Resources of the other body was also a major factor in this compromise. advocating the position supported by the Interior and Insular Affairs Committee and the Interior Department. Under the compromise. the Interior Department provides all Federal assistance to and coordinates all Federal programs in the freely associated states. The State Department handles governmenttogovemment contacts. U.S. representation in the freely associated states is supervised by a representative. who is a State Department employee. It is supposed to include a representative of the Interior Department. to supervise Federal assistance and programs under the representative. H.R. 2214 would alter the compromise on the Compact Act of 1985 by enabling the Federal representative in the freely associated states to carry the title of Ambassador. This proposal was not included in the compromise on the Compact Act of 1985 so as not to suggest that the Compact Act would make the Federated States and the Marshall Islands Independent countries. Instead of independence. these insular areas had chosen free association. a status different from independence which the Compact Act approved. Under free association. these Insular areas have full powers of selfgovernment in all matters not affecting security. for which the United States remains responsible. are largely supported by Federal assistance. Including many domestic programs. and enjoy free access for their citizens to the United States. and other preferences. Because this relationship is unprecedented for the United States. It required us to decide how Federal relations with the freely associated states should be conducted. among other things. To prevent confusion. we decided In 1985 against full diplomatic relations. as I have indicated. Since U.S. responsibilities in the freely associated states would go far beyond diplomatic responsibilities. including security and providing most of the insular governments revenue. we felt that diplomatic relations would not be adequate. We did not think it would be preferable to have Ambassadors in insular areas for which our Nation retains such special responsibilities of a domestic nature. Instead. we felt we should be represented in them by a new kind of representative. officers whose position and mission would recognize both the autonomy and sovereignty possessed by the freely associated states and continuing U.S. responsibilIties. Why. then. do we now support a bill that would have relations conducted on a diplomatic basis? The reason Is not that the Federated States and the Marshall Islands have moved from free association to independence or that the nature of Federal responsibilities regarding them have changed. They have not. The reason is that we have compromised on legislation to authorize the Compact of Free Association with Palau to be put into effect. This compromise includes a provision proposed on the other side of the Capitol to approve agreements signed by a State Department official in March 1988but only formally endorsed to Congress by the executive branch last monthto conduct relations with the Federated States and the Marshall Islands according to the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations. We can agree to this provision of the compromise because it would in no way actually change the fundamentals of the status of the Federated States and the Marshall Islands. although It may cause some confusion about it. although It changes the compromise on the Compact Act. and although there are some concerns about its advisability. As a provision of the compromise. the provisions of this bill are part of the legislation authorizing the compact with Palau to be put Into effect which has just passed the House. Why. then. Is this bill being considered separately? Separate consideration was also agreed to our of deference to the gentleman from California. our colleague BoB LAGOMARSINO. The ranking Republican of the Insular and International Affairs Subcommittee. which I am privileged to chair. he has been the principal proponent of this legislation. Separate consideration was also agreed to. out of respect for the Chairman of the Committee on Foreign Affairs. my valued friend DANTE FASCELL. who has supported the gentleman from Californias request. On behalf of the chairman of the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs. MO UDALL. our ranking Democrat. GEORGE MILLER. objected to consideration of this bill a month ago. He now agrees to consideration with me. There were a number of reasons that the leadership of the Interior and Insular Affairs Committee objected to..consideration of this bill last month. One was that the bill had not been considered by our committee. which has always had jurisdiction over matters concerning these Insular areas. has jurisdiction over the Compact Act. and specifically wrote this provision of the Compact Act with the Foreign Affairs Committoe in the compromise in 1985 that I described. This jurisdiction was recognized when a bill containing similar provisionsbut no others within our committees Jurisdictionwas referred to the Interior and Insular Affairs Committee in the last Congress. Of course. it was also recognized when the Palau Compact legislation just before the House was referred to our committee. Another reason for objection was that separate consideration last month would have come ahead of consideration of the Palau Compact legislation. At that point. the Palau Compact legislation was still uncertain to be considered because the administration had not followed through on commitments made in the compromise on it. As I have indicated. we agreed to the provisions of this bill as part of the compromise in spite of reservations about these provisions. The reason for our agreement was to reach the compromise. The compromise did not eliminate our reservations to the extent that we would agree to go ahead with a Senate provision of the compromise without certainty that House provisions would be acted upon. In addition to the reservations related to the unique status of the freely associated states and Federal responsibilities in them that are dlstinct from responsibilities In Independent countries. there are reservations related to the continuation of the Pacific Islands Trusteeship. Our Nation was assigned full responsibility for the Federated States and the Marshall Islandsas well as Palau and the Northern Mariana Islandsunder a 1947 agreement with the United Nations Security Council. The United States long maintained that Security Council action was required for termination of this agreement. According to the American Law Division of the Congressional Research Service. this remains the position of most legal commentators. The Compact Act did not purport to terminate the trusteeship for the Federated States and the Marshall Islands and the Security Council has not acted to terminate It. Federal courts have recognized that it remains in legal effect even though President Reagan proclaimed it ended. A primary reason that termination of the trusteeship has not been proposed in the Security Council Is that the United States also long took the position that the trusteeship cannot be terminated piecemeal. This is why the trusteeship continued to apply to the Northern Mariana Islands for a decade after the covenant to establish the Commonwealth of the Northern Marlana Islands in political union with the United States was approved. The relevant difference between the Covenant and the Compact Acts Is that the Covenant Act asserted that a Presidential proclamation that the trusteeship was terminated for the Northern Mariana Islands would not be reviewable and the Compact Act contained no similar authorization for a Presidential proclamation. One of the factors Impeding Security Council agreement to terminate the trusteeshipis the unquestioned continuation of United States trusteeship responsibility for Palau. Hopefully. the legislation just passed on the Palau Compact. including the agreement between the administration and leaders of Palau which made it possible. will lead to the implementation of Palaus future political status. Although the compact with the Federated States and the Marshall Islands Is in effect. as Congress intended. the trusteeship agreement may. therefore. still be applicable in an international legal sensefor whatever that Is worth. This raises the question of whether the United States should have Ambassadors in trust territory entities In addition to the question of whether its representatives In freely associated states should be called Ambassadors. There Is. though. another aspect of this Issue that I would like to mention. It Is that some representatives of the Fedorated States and the Marshall Islands believe that having the United States agree to conduct its relations with them according to the Vienna Convention will help them obtain recognition from other countries and help their development This factor Is a very important one to me. I very much want the sovereign status the compact provides the freely associated states to be recognized throughout the world. Even more. I want to help them to develop in any way I can. So. I attach great weight to this argument in favor of the bill and hope that there Is really something to it. Finally. I want to reiterate that simply conducting relations with the freely associated states according to the Vienna Convention cannotand It not In any way intended toactually change either their unique political status. or our Nations unique responsibilities in them. including the unique nature of the Federal representatives mission in them. For the reasons I have explained. I am willing to support this legislation. I am hopeful that it will not be misunderstood.