Micronesian Area Research CenterRichard F. Taitano

An online publication of the Micronesian Area Research Center

University of Guam

An online publication of the Micronesian Area Research Center

University of Guam

september 2003

Dr. robert a. underwoodby

Two of three

loyalty, taxes and citizenship in washington d.c.

No representation without taxation

guam humanities council lecture seriesThinking out loud

Thinking Out Loud

No representation without taxation Loyalty, taxes and citizenship in Washington D.C. By Robert A. Underwood Washington D.C. is a tough place to work in. It takes good ideas and tests them against conventional wisdom and asks you to modify the ideas into something unrecognizable. It takes optimism and wears it down until sarcasm and even cynicism emerges from the lips of the most Pollyannaish elected officials. Friendships and relationships are measured by their contribution to moving legislation and policy. No wonder, President Harry Truman once remarked, “In Washington, if you want a friend, get a dog.” In Washington D.C., the easiest thing in the world to do is to stop good ideas and to keep change from happening. If someone has a good idea, keeping it from moving forward is relatively easy. There are a myriad of reasons why something won’t work and lots of unsuccessful precedents for similar ideas. The American system of government as envisioned by the founding fathers and in practice is essentially conservative in character. The separation of powers, a strong executive branch, a strong judiciary and divided legislative authority makes any kind of change a major challenge. The legislative gauntlet is daunting and securing executive support requires a policy strategy worthy of a major military campaign. Making change happen in this environment requires more than good ideas and good intentions. Even when everyone acknowledges that change should occur, it rarely does. When it does, the need for compromise means that the policy may not look much like the original idea. To turn good ideas into meaningful policy change, it takes political muscle. But that muscle doesn’t necessarily come only through influence peddling, high-powered lobbyists or the utilization of communication specialists. Political muscle that comes from influence and money is important, but it may not mean much at the end of the day, especially if opposing forces are able to generate their own muscle. There is always the distinct possibility that political values do matter and that the democratic purpose of the United States affects policy and its chances of succeeding. Washington D.C. is not just comprised of lobbyists, fundraisers, jaded politicians and cynical bureaucrats. There is an ample supply of such characters, but it is also a city animated by historical purpose and excited by the possibility that a political value can be honestly held and forthrightly advanced. Any move to change policy that can speak to the core political values of America

and issues of fairness and justice can find a willing and supportive audience, even in Congress and the executive branch. This is what makes the issues pertaining to Guam so fundamentally frustrating for us. We are convinced that our story of loyalty is unique and our political essence is defined in our novel experiences. We tend to think of loyalty as Americans as a primary value which should bring us recognition and positive policy change. We think that our experiences of sacrifice (especially during World War II) place us in a different category of citizenry from the rest who have not suffered as much. Lastly, we think that this sacrifice is a kind of reciprocal obligation that should be paid for periodically. The U.S. owes Guam and the Chamorro people positive treatment from the federal government over and above others in similar political conditions. We readily recount the history of sacrifice and loyalty especially when there are issues that use terms like fairness and equity. We make the link between loyalty and fairness in ways we find compelling. We need to examine how loyalty is perceived in Washington and to understand how fairness is used in political discussion and debate. The use of these terms in discussing territorial issues is especially critical. There are many possible dimensions to this discussion. We have to see where loyalty fits in as a core American political value. We need to understand how fairness is applied to participation in federal programs and the rights and responsibilities of citizens. For those of us who are Americans but not inhabitants of states, the discussion of fair treatment necessarily becomes a discussion of the political relationship of territories to the federal government. Are territories treated fairly? Is the relationship democratic? What kinds of programs should territories participate in? Do territories have fair access to programs? We see each and every possible question of funding, program participation and policy formation as a matter of fairness to us. We almost always begin with the premise that we are being short-changed, ignored, misunderstood and it always has some connection to our political relationship to the federal government. We take advantage of this discussion as an opportunity to wax eloquent about America’s democratic values and its historical purpose. We discuss freedom, justice and equality as if the conclusions about territorial policy are self-evident. Anyone who wants to talk about America’s commitment to democracy and the core values of freedom, justice and equality cannot help but conclude that the territories are developmentally truncated. We have not become democratic societies in the sense that other Americans live in democratic communities. The federal government has a historic mission to resolve these issues in a way, which would contribute to the extension of democracy and fairness to Guam. But do we really explore the full meaning of fairness? We ignore the other side of the question of fairness. While our proposed changes appear manifestly fair as

we seek to increase funds and expand participation, do we ask whether these changes are fair to the inhabitants of the states? Fairness is about the treatment of all members of the body politic. It is a balancing act which requires policy to examine how all groups are affected, not just the group that appears to be disadvantaged at any given moment. Fairness has to be more than just the extension of advantages. It must speak to core principles, which apply to all citizens and sectors of the national community. We also ignore or dismiss other issues, which speak to fairness in government policy. Tax policy, customs duties, special laws, a lager share in some federal programs is ignored because they seem a little less significant. These are not discussions of freedom and equality. These are policy items, which do not touch the core American political values. At least, this is what we in the territories think. When we get a favorable deal, we deserve it because of some special circumstance. When we get an unfavorable deal, it is a violation of some core American political value. We sometimes whine that we are treated like a foreign country for some purposes, a state for others. I remember former Lt. Gov. Rudy Sablan pointing out that we are neither “fish nor fowl.” We forget that we like it that way and that sometimes we like to swim and other times we want to fly. Loyalty is not a political value Our emphasis on loyalty is genetic. Every generation of political leaders from the time of the original Guam Congress in 1917 has pointed out how the people of Guam are loyal to America. Members of the Guam Congress in prewar Guam stressed this loyalty in response to Japan’s offer to purchase Guam, leaders from the Philippines who wanted to annex Guam as a province and the campaign for American citizenship. The World War II occupation experience demonstrated that the loyalty was very real and each succeeding war had over representation in combat by Guam service personnel. We proved our loyalty in the battlefield; whether that field was Guam itself, the Korean peninsula, the jungles of Southeast Asia or the deserts of the Middle East. Each political leader in Guam knows how important these experiences are not only in explaining who we are to Washington D.C., but in understanding ourselves. They are at the core of our political essence and historical self-perception. A strong record of combat participation is also used by other territories to emphasize their connection to the rest of the country and as an exclamation point to expressions of loyalty. Combat deaths, injuries and high rates of participation introduce every discussion of territorial-federal policy in Washington D.C. It is part of the standard insular rhetorical package. Guam’s case is made more compelling by the World War II experience and we certainly have utilized it. Several years ago, in one of the interminable hearings on political status change for Puerto Rico, we were treated to a very emotional discussion of Puerto Rico in combat. This included a history of a special all Puerto Rican unit, which fought

with great distinction in the Korean War, and all the individuals who won medals in combat. After the hearing, one member leaned over to me and said, “Robert, my constituents fight, die and are loyal too, but they also pay taxes.” I think the origins of the emphasis on loyalty go back to a time when there was some doubt about the inclusion of the territories in the American family, especially for Puerto Rico. The options of becoming independent or remaining outside the American family was very real. America was itself unsure whether the definition of American should include inhabitants of overseas territories. This uncertainty resulted in the Insular Cases, which fashioned a new legal definition of incorporated and unincorporated territories, a decision which shapes the basis of our relationship with the federal government and which leaves us outside of parts of the Constitution. In addition, all the territories were administered by military governments. Army and Navy administrators emphasized loyalty and affinity to American symbols. Proclaiming loyalty in that environment was meant as a reassurance that the territories weren’t going anywhere and, in a way, challenged America to do something about inclusion and exclusion. Being American in this context had to have some definition and resolution. Proclaiming loyalty helped bring the issue of US citizenship in the territories to the forefront. But today, expressions of loyalty no longer serve the purpose of reassurance to the rest of America. It is most often heard as a form of political rhetoric, which serves as a prelude to a request for funding, a change in law or policy or some request to grant the territories some additional advantage. Some members of Congress have heard it all before and some are becoming jaded by repeated stories of loyalty. In any case, I don’t think loyalty is seen as a political value in Washington D.C. or the rest of the country. It is seen as an obligation of citizenship that merits recognition in civic ceremonies. We speak of loyalty as an admirable characteristic or virtue, but it isn’t an abiding value like freedom or justice. Freedom, justice and equality are political values, which animate our entire society. They speak to values, which are not static but subject to debate and discussion. Moreover, they are values, which are never fully realized. These values imply process, contention and perfectibility. Loyalty is expected and there are laws, which require each citizen to provide evidence of this trait. Sacrifice in the expression of loyalty is seen as being the same. It should be individually recognized. There is no reason to believe that loyalty and sacrifice are expressions of corporate political entities, which generate special consideration or treatment. We tend to believe that the sacrifices of the Chamorro people or Guamanians in uniform earns all of us in Guam a kind of political currency which we can use in making federal policy. This belief is a foreign language in Washington.

Individuals sacrifice for the nation, not on behalf of small groups within the nation. The core American characteristic of individuality short circuits any attempt to demonstrate a legal and binding relationship between groups of people. We are a single nation made up of individuals in the legal sense. We are members of diverse groups in a cultural, but not a legal sense. For example, many of us know about the Navajo code talkers who were used in Saipan and even here in Guam during World War II. They developed a code for use on the battlefield that the English-speaking Japanese could not break. While the code talkers bring honor to the Navajos, it doesn’t mean that the Navajos ought to get a better deal that other groups of Indians. Similarly, there is frequent celebration of the fact that Hispanic Meal of Honor winners outnumber all others, even when there was rampant discrimination. But other than asking for special attention to Hispanic veteran outreach, there is no attempt to link battlefield heroics to educational or health programs for Hispanics. This brings us back to our member of Congress who claims that his constituents are equally loyal to the country as territorial residents but they also pay taxes. Perhaps our fellow American was growing weary of hearing the story and connecting it to federal financial support and special political attention. It also brings us to the issue of taxes and citizenship. Taxation, federal programs and fairness Federal programs from defense to welfare, from food stamps to No Child Left Behind are funded primarily from the collection of income taxes. Tax policy and its impact on the average American family, the economy and the availability of programs occupies most of the attention of law makers and policy wonks in Washington D.C. The crafting of the federal budget, the payment of the national debt and the interminable arguments over tax cuts and tax rates are the main event in Washington politics. Taxpayer associations, tax policy advocates and lobbyists are amongst the most numerous and vigorous in the nation’s capitol. While all of their activity impacts us directly as American citizens and as residents of Guam it is hard to imagine how seriously we can participate in the discussion of the mega tax issues of the day. While we pay income taxes, those taxes come back to Guam’s treasury under the mirror tax code. For us, this is part of the original bargain between Guam and the United States as outlined in the Organic Act. Moreover, we also recoup the income taxes for federal employees and military personnel who live in Guam but are not residents here. Referred to as Section 30 funds, it is of enormous benefit to us. For Washington policy makers and for Americans concerned with taxes, this is an advantage worthy of envy. I don’t know how many times members of Congress have told me that their constituents would gladly switch places with

mine if all it cost them was a voting member of Congress and voting for President. I don’t think they are serious, but they are very aware of the differences that exist between territorial residents and residents of the various states. It also means that a territorial delegate will never sit in the tax code-writing Ways and Means Committee. Taxes are connected to program creation and, more importantly, program participation. The Ways and Means Committee has jurisdiction over Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. Territories are treated differently from States in these programs. Participation in Social Security and Medicare is based on the collection of payroll taxes, which are collected from all of us. We are eligible as individuals. Social Security Supplemental Income and Medicaid are funded from income taxes. We are not eligible for SSI and Medicaid is capped for the territories. Other programs have a wide variety of arrangements. We are partial participants for some, fully eligible for others and out of luck for some programs like LIHEAP (low income home energy assistance program). Food stamps, public housing and welfare (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families or TANF) that is funded primarily by income taxes, include us. Many educational programs statutorily fund the small territories (except Puerto Rico) at .5 percent. In some cases, this means that territories get more on a per capita basis than most states. For smaller programs, the amounts are so small as to be relatively meaningless. We get our “share” of highway funds even though we don’t pay fuel taxes at the pump. Over the past decade, Guam has received more than $130 million in highway funds. A recent Congressional Research Service Report notes that there is opposition to expanding the territories’ participation in highway programs since we do not pay into the Highway Trust Fund. Navigating through this maze of programs and securing the best deal for Guam requires a full time Delegate in Congress. We have argued for state like treatment under the assumption that this means full participation in these programs. It was part of the Commonwealth proposal for Guam in the 1980s and it always drew negative attention. We think of programmatic participation as a function of American citizenship, not the payment of taxes. Policy makers in Washington think of the programs as individually arranged. It depends upon need and the vagaries of the legislative process. Sometimes it works to our advantage, and sometimes it doesn’t. Uniform treatment may not be a good idea. In any case, we think of program participation as a function of our overall relationship. In Washington, each program is fashioned independently and we should think of each reauthorization and appropriation as the opportunity to expand our share.

As each individual program is reauthorized and territorial delegates attempt to get a better deal, the issue of taxation is sometimes made explicit and other times it is the unstated background to the discussion of territorial participation. We think it is only fair to participate in federal programs in the same way other Americans do. If we start looking at a uniform, fair policy we run the risk of uniform opposition in the name of fairness as well. Representatives of other constituencies sometimes imply that it isn’t fair for them to pay the taxes to benefit other constituencies that pay nothing into the federal treasury. You have to pay to play; you must help pay the freight to get the cargo. It is only fair and equitable. Interestingly, issues of taxation and payments into the national strategy are seen as different from the issue of loyalty and payment in the form of sacrifice. Earlier, we saw that loyalty is seen as an obligation but that sacrifice does not accrue any benefits to the body politic of Guam. In this instance, the payment of taxes is seen as an obligation of the body politic and our failure to participate has negative consequences to the island. This gives new meaning to the phrase, “Heads I win, tails you lose.” Taxes, their collection and their redistribution, are at the core of federal policy making. Nothing speaks to the core of how we see ourselves as citizens in a society than to track where our dollars go. We think of social spending as issues that involve charity, merit, incentives and fairness. Giving the territories a share of federal resources to which they do not contribute raises issues of fundamental fairness, which we cannot ignore. Failure to address these matters makes us look like ne’er-do-wells seeking additional advantages. Taxation and political representation For the past few years in Washington D.C., the issue in which our different tax treatment is used against the territories is voting representation for the District of Columbia in Congress. Advocates for the District of Columbia use the slogan “no taxation without representation” repeatedly to make their case. It utilizes every American’s knowledge about the American Revolution to make a dramatic point. King George and England imposed taxes upon the American colonists without their consent. These taxes were authorized by a Parliament in which the American colonies have no voice. We sometimes forget that tax policy was the major source of conflict in the American Revolution. Freedom and democracy were not as immediate to the revolutionaries as were the Stamp Tax, the Tea Tax and other duties. Today, the District of Columbia license plates read “No Taxation Without Representation.” It is as if we had placed, “Commonwealth Now” on our own license plates rather than “Where America’s Day Begins” or “Tano y Chamorro.” President Bush created a mild stir when his administration decided to use the older D.C. license plates on his limousines. He prefers “Celebrate and Discover”

on White House vehicles. The D.C. City Council is now considering placing the slogan on the flag. In the 107th Congress, Delegate Eleanor Holmes-Norton introduced HR 1193, the “No Taxation Without Representation Act of 2001.” The act, which had 119 cosponsors, granted the District of Columbia two Senators and a voting representative in the House of Representatives. The legislation offered an interesting twist to make its point. Until the time full representation is available in Congress, “individuals who are residents of the District of Columbia shall be exempt from federal income tax until full voting representation takes effect.” Like most legislation in Congress, there is a list of findings. Since the legislation deals with the extension of democracy and political representation, we would expect appeals to core American values of freedom; fairness as outlined in the Constitution or as has been extended in history. Instead, out of the five findings, the first four refer to taxation. We are informed that D.C. residents are the “only Americans who pay federal income taxes and are denied voting representation in the House and Senate.” We are told that the principle of one person, one vote requires that residents who have met every element of American citizenship should have every benefit of American citizenship. Less we doubt what meeting every element means, we are told in the third finding, D.C. residents are denied equal representation twice; because they do not have voting representation like other “tax-paying Americans” and are “required to pay federal income taxes unlike the American who live in the territories.” With pride, we are told that D.C. residents are second per capita in the nation in paying federal taxes. Only finally are we told that “unequal voting representation in our representative democracy is inconsistent with the founding principles of the nation and the strongly help principles of American people today.” It is the last of the findings. In her statement introducing the legislation, Delegate Norton reiterates these findings and draws particular attention to what she labels as a “fresh approach to the denial of voting rights to almost 600,000 residents of the District.” She says she is asking Congress to erase the “shameful double inequality” borne by D.C. residents. They pay taxes and get no voting representation and the territories get the same representation, but don’t pay taxes. I don’t know whether it is a single or double inequality. But it was enough to convince me that I couldn’t cosponsor the legislation. Labeling our non-taxpaying status as an inequity just didn’t sit well with me. Perhaps, D.C. residents would like to be only partially eligible for federal programs like the territories. Delegates Eni Faleomavaega and Donna Christensen were cosponsors but not Puerto Rico’s Resident Commissioner or Guam’s delegate. The Senate had a companion version in the 107th Congress, but it did not include the exemption from federal taxes section (in a questionable historical reference, Norton had said that the founding fathers told King George “Give us our vote or give us our taxes.”) The Senate report on its legislation, the Committee

concluded, “In a country founded upon a cry of ‘No taxation without representation,’ D.C.’s lack of congressional representation is an intolerable state of affairs that is incompatible with core American values.” I have tried to counteract that statement by constantly reminding Members of Congress that the Revolutionary War was fought on the slogan, “No Taxation Without Representation,” not “No Representation Without Taxation.” Therefore the territories should be included in voting representation. We have to believe that the extension of democracy must be a higher priority than the extension of taxes. Senator Joe Lieberman leads the effort in the Senate. On February 14, 2002, he raised the D.C. representation issue in a debate on S. 565, the Equal Protection of Voting Rights Act. He said, “The vote is a civic entitlement of every American citizen. We believe the vote to be democracy’s most essential tool. Not only is the vote the indispensable sparkplug of our democracy, the vote is the sine qua non of democracy and equality because each person’s vote is of equal vote, no matter what their wealth is or their station in life – or is it?” It is an eloquent statement about American representative democracy. Unfortunately, like many others in Washington, the Senators don’t see the territories as being denied representation in the same way at the District. The legislation has been reintroduced this year with the same title, but with no reference to being exempted from paying income taxes. It has a smaller list of cosponsors, but still includes the delegates from the Virgin Islands and American Samoa. Puerto Rico and Guam are absent from the list. There is a school of thought which says go ahead and support the legislation because the territories will follow suit as they did with the creation of the offices of the Delegates. I have my doubts about that strategy because there is a clear distinction being made on the basis of taxpayer status. The two classes of Americans are clear and we are in the favored group when it comes to taxation, but it is clearly second-class when it comes to representation. In any event, what happens to the District doesn’t always happen in the territories. The Presidential vote was extended to the District by the 23rd amendment in 1961 and to date, no territory has followed suit. Loyalty and sacrifice in the aftermath of September 11, 2001 The United States went to war in Iraq this year after successfully dealing with the Taliban in Afghanistan. The country’s focus after September 11 has turned outward and concerns about national security and the defense of our way of life have been part of the national experience since then. In introducing the same legislation earlier this year for the 108th Congress, Delegate Norton sounded a different tone from her pre – 911 statements. On March 13, 2003, Norton no longer emphasized the link between citizenship and the payment of taxes. Instead, on the “eve of war” she mentioned that the District had 50,000 veterans. She mentioned several combat veterans from the District and proclaimed that the

“people I represent have indeed had more casualties than many others in this House.” In a note that sounded like Guam elected officials, she stated, “… it is one thing to give your taxes to your government without a vote. It is quite another to lay your life on the line for your country without a vote.” She concluded, “Taxes without a vote in return is awful… But patriotism without a vote for it is a shame and a shame on us, particularly given the kind of war we now want to fight, a war for democracy in Iraq and in the Middle East.” Seizing the moment is a time-honored practice in politics. Framing an argument in light of the current situation is smart politics. But neither Norton’s sudden emphasis on “patriotism” nor our own efforts to link “loyalty” to compact impact aid or visa waivers really speak to the fundamental responsibilities and rights of citizenship. They touch on it, but only to score political points for a given policy. There is no explicit discussion of a hierarchy of duties and rights as U.S. citizens. Such a discussion will clarify where we stand in Washington D.C. It seems to me that service to country in the form of putting oneself in harm’s way has to be a higher duty than the payment of taxes. The payment of taxes is based on laws and income that can change dramatically. People who pay taxes today may pay less or none next year. Does this make them less a citizen? Of course, it can always be argued that we in Guam are not subject to the payment of any taxes other than to our own local government, so we are in a qualitatively different condition. This being the case, it can be maintained that any federal program extended to Guam is a gift from taxpaying Americans. Until we pay full freight for participation in national programs, we are in no position to feel aggrieved by our lack of participation across the board. We can ask, but we cannot demand. But if putting your life on the line is a higher duty of citizenship than the payment of taxes, then voting representation in Congress must be a higher benefit than participation in LIHEAP or any federal program. There is no more basic right in our form of representational democracy than to participate in the making of laws that one must obey. I take you back to William H. Harrison’s quotation, “The only legitimate right to govern is from the consent of the governed.” Voting for President and having a vote in Congress will meet the consent test. It seems to me that the new approach taken by the supporters of voting representation for the District of Columbia cannot continue to ignore the territories. While not paying taxes may justify our partial participation in federal programs, our patriotism and loyalty qualifies for basic representation. Once we get some kind of vote in Congress, then we can vote for the expansion of Guam’s participation in federal programs. In conclusion, finding the right message

For nearly all of our time under the American flag, we have been trying to influence federal policy and decision-making by proclaiming our loyalty. These expressions of loyalty are validated in our eyes by the sacrifices our people have made here during World War II and in uniform throughout the world. We have tried to profit from this record of loyalty in every federal policy ranging from capital improvements, to health care to compact impact aid to building a hospital. In today’s environment, this approach seems out of touch with the realities of Washington politics and appears to many Washington policy makers as little more than story telling designed to extract more resources. Making a link between loyalty and federal programs and resources seems justifiable in our eyes. We feel that our treatment is unfair since we are American citizens. However, in Washington’s eyes, programmatic participation is determined on a case-by-case basis. Moreover, the issue of fairness could be used against the territories because we do not pay income taxes into the federal treasurer. By not doing so, federal funding of programs in Guam is not a right, but is best seen as a political deal or a privilege. Into this political debate comes the District of Columbia. They argue that they are subjected to a double inequity. They have no voting representation in Congress just like the territories. But they pay income taxes unlike the territories. I think their argument forgets that they have full participation in federal programs because they pay taxes. So they are not subjected to a double inequity and they should recognize that all non-state jurisdictions are being denied voting representation. By their efforts to make a distinctions between taxpayers and non-tax paying Americans, they help expose the nature and value of the arguments we have been utilizing for years. They want to use the distinction to grant them voting rights in Congress. But taxpaying status is more related to programmatic participation and less to issues of freedom and democracy. The former Chair of the House Resources Committee, Don Young, once told me that the payment of all taxes by the territories would lead to state-like treatment for federal programs. Fairness in the form of full participation is not based upon who possesses citizenship or who has a record of loyalty, but on which jurisdictions pay into the federal treasury. Full voting participation in Congress and voting for President should be directly related to citizenship and the continuing perfecting of American democracy. While paying taxes is the responsibility of each citizen in accordance with the law, the payment of taxes is not the best basis for arguing that voting privileges should be extended only to those who pay. Such distinctions seem to violate the American creed more than fulfill it. In arguing for voting status in the Congress, loyalty and sacrifice seem more pertinent. This was acknowledged in the change of rhetoric used by advocates of

D.C. voting rights after 9/11. Delegate Norton has told us that taxation without a vote is awful, but patriotism without a vote is a shame. I couldn’t agree more. Finding the right message for the right issue and recognizing the right time to use it requires a great deal of understanding Washington as well as ourselves. For years, we have used the rhetoric of loyalty to justify every single issue. For years, we have ignored the tax question, which lies at the heart of most politics in Washington and in the distribution of resources and services. We offer few new arguments for obtaining more federal funds other than the fact that we are loyal Americans and all Americans deserve them. Obtaining more funds is a policy objective, a political agenda worthy of sustained effort, but it isn’t a matter of fairness unless we are participants in the collection of resources or we come up with some new perspectives. We must speak to the core values of America. We must recognize that fairness is a value that is applied to everyone. Loyalty is important, but it is not as important as conveying that our political struggles are really the struggles to extend American democracy and to fully apply core values of freedom, fairness and equality in the territories. Our rhetorical basis must change to find meaning in today’s world. --

Editor's Note: This is the second in a three part Guam Humanities Council lecture series, Thinking Out Loud presented in September 2003.