By Michael McDonald
American Pacific Resources

In American Samoa, we remember Congressman Eni Faleomavaega for many things: his decades of public service, his commanding voice in Washington, his advocacy for Pacific
peoples, and his insistence that our small islands should never be treated as an afterthought in decisions affecting the Pacific.

But there is another part of Eni’s legacy that deserves renewed attention today.

More than fifteen years ago, Eni was asking a remarkably forward-looking question:

What lies beneath the waters surrounding America and its Pacific territories—and shouldn’t we find out?
Today, in 2026, American Samoa is discussing a Proposed Leasing Notice from the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management for a potential offshore critical-minerals lease sale in federal waters near our islands.

The subject may seem new. For Eni Faleomavaega, it was not.

He Saw the Strategic Importance Early
By 2010 and 2011, Eni was already raising concerns about seabed minerals and America’s growing dependence on foreign sources of critical materials.

At a September 2011 congressional hearing examining China’s dominance of rare earth minerals, Eni warned that America’s dependence on China posed risks to both national security and economic well-being.

But he did more than identify the problem.

He asked whether America had taken the time to understand the resources potentially available within its own jurisdiction—including around the U.S. territories.

During that hearing, Eni specifically discussed the mineral wealth of the Pacific seabed, describing manganese nodules containing cobalt, manganese, copper and other elements distributed throughout the Pacific.

His own words are striking today. Speaking at the September 2011 hearing, Eni told his colleagues: “We call it seabed minerals: Manganese nodules that contain cobalt, manganese, copper, so many other different rare elements, quite extensive throughout the Pacific region.”

He then identified what he believed was missing from the national discussion: “We have not done a very good job in putting our focus on this issue.”

His question was fundamentally one of knowledge: Do we actually know what we have?

That question remains extraordinarily relevant sixteen years later.

Eni’s Answer Was Exploration and Science
In 2011, Eni introduced H.R. 2803.

The legislation would have directed the Department of the Interior, acting through the federal offshore energy agency that preceded today’s BOEM structure, to conduct a technological capability assessment, seabed survey and economic feasibility study regarding nonfuel minerals in America’s shallow and deep seabed.

Importantly for us, his proposal specifically contemplated areas associated with the United States territories and possessions.

And this was not a subject Eni discovered in 2011. A year earlier, while chairing a congressional hearing on the South Pacific, he deliberately looked beyond the immediate issue of tuna and toward the long-term significance of the ocean itself.

He said: “I even understand in the Samoan Islands there is cobalt found there.”

Then he explained the broader vision: “So not just fishing, tuna, but on a more long-term vision in terms of looking at these island countries, as small as they may be, beyond just fishing for tuna.”

And he put a direct question to the federal government: “Does our Government have any interest in this area besides just tuna, the worth of manganese nodules in the seabeds of these island countries throughout the Pacific?”

Think about what that meant.

Eni was not proposing that America simply rush into the Pacific and start mining. He was proposing that America survey, assess, study and understand.

Before making decisions about resources, we should first know what resources exist.

Before debating their economic potential, we should understand their characteristics.

Before deciding what should or should not happen in the future, we should develop the scientific information necessary to make an informed decision.

That distinction matters enormously today.

From 2011 to 2026
Sixteen years later, the federal government is finally asking many of the questions Eni was raising.

BOEM’s current process for American Samoa concerns a potential critical-minerals lease sale on the federal Outer Continental Shelf.

The Proposed Leasing Notice released in July is another step in that process. But a lease sale is not authorization to begin commercial mining.

BOEM itself explains that the environmental review conducted at this stage covers leasing and certain preliminary activities—activities and surveys intended to characterize the environment without significant adverse impacts to natural resources.

Any future testing, delineation or mining would require additional plans, federal approval and separate environmental review.

That distinction should be central to American Samoa’s conversation.

Exploration is not mining.
Exploration is how we learn.

And remarkably, that is essentially where Eni began this conversation more than a decade and a half ago.

Imagine What Eni Would Ask Today
None of us can say how Congressman Faleomavaega would view every aspect of today’s BOEM process. We should not put words into the mouth of a leader who is no longer here to speak for himself.

But we do have his record. And his record tells us the kinds of questions that interested him.

What minerals exist?
Where are they?
What is their strategic importance?
Does America possess the technology to responsibly recover them?
What is their economic potential?
And what role should America’s Pacific territories have in understanding resources located in the vast ocean areas surrounding them?

Those were sophisticated questions in 2011.
They are even more important in 2026.

Knowledge Before Conclusions
American Samoa does not need to decide today whether deep-sea mining should someday occur near our islands.
There are still enormous scientific, environmental, cultural, technological and economic questions that must be answered.
But neither should we be afraid of acquiring the information necessary to answer them.
There is a profound difference between studying a resource and exploiting it.
Scientific exploration gives us knowledge.
Environmental research gives us baselines.
Mapping tells us what is actually there.
And participation in the federal process gives American Samoa an opportunity to insist that our interests, culture, ocean traditions and economic aspirations are understood before decisions affecting our region are made.
We should approach this process carefully.
We should demand strong environmental safeguards.
We should insist upon transparency.
We should listen to fishermen, scientists, traditional leaders, environmental advocates, young people and our communities.
But we should also continue learning.
Because decisions made without knowledge are not necessarily more protective than decisions made with it.

Eni Was Looking Beyond the Horizon
Perhaps that is the most remarkable part of revisiting Eni Faleomavaega’s words today.
In 2010 and 2011, deep-seabed critical minerals were hardly part of the everyday political conversation in American Samoa.
China’s dominance of critical-mineral supply chains was not yet the major national-security issue it has become today.
And a federal critical-minerals leasing process near American Samoa probably seemed distant.
Yet Eni was already looking beyond the horizon.
In fact, the phrase he used in 2010—“a more long-term vision”—may be the best description of what his record represents today.
He understood that the Pacific was not simply an empty blue space between continents.
He understood that the ocean surrounding Pacific islands held scientific, strategic and potentially economic significance that the United States had barely begun to understand.
And he believed America should find out what was there.
Now, sixteen years later, American Samoa finds itself standing at almost exactly that doorway. We do not yet know where it leads.
And we certainly do not have to predetermine the destination.
But perhaps Eni’s vision offers us some guidance about how to begin:

Explore. Study. Document. Understand.
Then, armed with knowledge rather than speculation, make informed decisions about the future.
That was a remarkably forward-looking idea in 2011.
In 2026, it may be more relevant than ever.