« AnteriorContinuar »
And also section 91 of the Hawaiian Organic Act indicates that the United States relinquished the absolute fee and ownership prior to the admission of Hawaii as a State of the United States. Unless subsequently placed under the Department of Land and Natural Resources and given the status of public lands, then, and only then, State and county laws is applicable, in accordance to the State Constitution, the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act of 1920 as amended or other laws.
In the State constitution it states, article 12, section 1, that the moneys diverted from those lands is to go directly for the benefit of the inhabitants of these lands and nowhere else.
Article 12, section 2, that it made a compact with the inhabitants, which is you, the Native Hawaiians, that all income will go directly into the trust for the benefit of the inhabitants and that they will uphold the treaty, which they have failed to do.
Article 12, section 3, indicates that they will uphold the constitution and the treaty between the United States and the Kingdom of Hawaii, which has not been done.
Article 12, section 4, the State constitution excludes "available lands" from others, upon which the trust is imposed by the Statehood Act, so that “available lands” could not be used to benefit the remainder of the Hawaii public.
The Federal-State task force in their findings and recommendations that Hawaiian homelands are assessed in the same manner as privately-held lands for real property tax purposes. And since Hawaiian homelands cannot be alienated, that it would be appropriate for such lands to be assessed differently.
Like how? Discount. Who ever heard of discount on real property tax unless they have that trend on Indian reservations?
I will say definitely that it would be inappropriate to assess real property taxation on Hawaiian homelands as they are incognizant, or are they cognizant of the section 1712 of the Joint Resolution which clearly shows that Hawaiian homelands is distinctly separate from public and/or private lands.
The State of Hawaii and the city and county have based their authority of taxation in part: At the time of the enactment of the act, the relevant statute read, “taxable as fee: land held under homestead lease shall be liable to taxation as estates held in fee.”
It's fine for public lands. Hawaiian homelands don't carry that status of public lands, as indicated in section 1712.
The key to the solution of this problem that has been plaguing the Native Hawaiians for decades, the beneficiaries of the act, lies in the State constitution; section 4 and section 5(f) of the Hawaiian Admissions Act of 1959; section 91 of the Hawaiian Organic Act that was created from the Joint Resolution; and section 1712 of the Joint Resolution that was created to provide for annexation of the Hawaiian Islands to the United States.
I believe the State of Hawaii has breached the treaty in accordance to my documents. Now it is the Federal Government who should sue the State of Hawaii for the breach, and they have caused us untold irreparable damage for decades. They are causing us undue hardships, denying us of our Native Hawaiian and civil rights, and depriving us of food for our tables, life, liberty, and the
pursuit of happiness. And yet we cannot sue the State of Hawaii because of the treaty.
"But, if the State of Hawaii is found guilty of the breaches, all that was given to the United States shall be returned back to the Kingdom of Hawaii, its people, the inhabitants who is the Native Hawaiians, the successors of these lands.
"The United States will never let that happen.”
What I am saying, is Hawaiian homelands is completely separate in its entity. It's not together with public lands. We are being assessed on our lands in the same category as the public lands are being assessed in valuation, and we cannot sell our homes to anyone that wishes to purchase these properties.
We are illegally being assessed on our homelands, and I havesubmitted to you today also letters from the State of Hawaii and letters from the city and county of Honolulu on their stand in authorizing them to tax Hawaiian homelands. And a letter has also been submitted from the State of Hawaii, along with the county, to tax Hawaiian homelands. The State have relinquished this authorization and turned it over to the counties of Hawaii. We are saying that we are not public lands; we are Hawaiian homelands. We cannot be considered in the same market value as the county of Hawaii or Honolulu.
Gentlemen, even by this mode of communication, I deem it a pleasure, even under the circumstances we are undergoing at the present time; that we will meet soon under more pleasurable atmosphere.
We have taken it thus far to this position. As you well know, we are not allowed to pursue the State of Hawaii through the court system. This is why I, as many other Native Hawaiians, approaches the Congress and the Senate committees today, in asking you to investigate this matter where the State of Hawaii and its constituent agencies has entered into the encumbrances of Hawaiian homelands, and, therefore, for you to investigate and to join us and pursue this action toward the State of Hawaii.
Thank you. [Applause.)
STATEMENT OF HAROLD JIM, KAPAA, KAUAI
My subject matter on this here is the violations of land patent. I'll give you a slight briefing. You have a briefing in front of you and testimony.
I feel, I'm going to use the words, Hawaiians are losing out because of these violations. Let me go back to give you a little idea of what has happened back from 1920 onward today.
My family, which is Mr. Chili DuWatt and many members from our Hawaiian homes, when after these violations of the territorythe 1915 law states that the Governor is not allowed to make Executive orders on the Department of Hawaiian Homelands.
e n much documentatie such as the
Lands have been given out from 1930 and 1920 by a lawsuit way back in 1977, after 1976. And out of this lawsuit they found out that the territory executive orders was violated.
We resolve on this that Congress and the Secretary of the Interior will assume those lands back to the status to Hawaiian Home Lands.
It is well known that this battle was a small portion, a little over an acre. They have restored 28,000 acres back to the Department of Hawaiian homes. It's an achievement of the Senator and this committee. We would like to see the same thing happen. We got an issue on violations of deed restriction. On my research and our organization found that the argument we're arguing today on this brief in the testimony before you is a small portion of 55 square feet that was violated of a deed restriction.
We believe that these lands should be restored back to the 5(f) and to the betterment of the Native Hawaiians. It's another big hassle, you might use the word. Do Native Hawaiians go after the lands like the Anahola beach property, the executive orders to restore 28,000 acres? I believe by this research we have made thousands of acres will be replaced back to the trust. We're using this as an example.
By research, you'll find that these lands are a breach of trust for the deed restrictions for such a large quantity of lands.
We have documentation for one case. What really hurts me very, very much,we took this to all agencies that we've got in the government of the State of Hawaii, through the process, and we feel it should be taken. We have got no results.
We took it as high as to the courts from the circuit court all the way up to the supreme court and wrote a brief, and you should look at the brief to give you distinctly what has happened.
The management and operation of the State for the 5(f) is unbelievable. It reminds me back in the territory that they ignore the people's voice of the Executive order.
Well, we got the brief in the supreme court and we had results on it during this subject matter, and it is very, very clear by the courts that we, as Native Hawaiians, are the culprit of this trust.
And before you, Senator Inouye, they just got through saying that they are trustees under section 5(f). I'm glad to hear that. And the State is the management of these lands.
But the trust, which is us, Native Hawaiians, based on the Joint Resolution, based on the Organic Act of 1900 and the Joint Resolution's Admission Act of 1955 for statehood-it clearly violates 5(f).
I ask the committee to look over these documents and to continue to see what we can do toward restoring some of our lands that belong to the 5(f) trust.
[Remarks given in native tongue.] [Applause.]
The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Jim, your attachments will be made part of the record and we will look over them. Mr. Jim. Thank you.
[Prepared statement and supporting documents of Mr. Jim appear in appendix.]
The CHAIRMAN. And now, to give us the Federal perspective of trust responsibility-yes?
Mr. FLORES. Excuse me for interrupting. May I have a few minutes in place of Roselle Bailey?
The CHAIRMAN. Are you speaking for Ms. Roselle Bailey?
STATEMENT OF KALANI FLORES Mr. FLORES. Kalani Flores. I represent myself. I represent the vision and goals of various Hawaiian individuals and organizations of Kaua'i.
What I have presented you with is a Kaua'i Resource Management Plan. We, as Hawaiians, we're not waiting to get Hawaiian homes. We cannot wait 69 years. What we're doing is taking the initiative as Hawaiians to organize and that's what we've done.
We've looked at what groups on this island have been doing as individuals, as organizations. We have organized together to put together a plan of management and we have come up with solutions for two basic elements of cultural perpetuation and economic development. These affect, directly and indirectly, Hawaiian homeland beneficiaries as well as Hawaiians abroad.
We have identified four parcels of lands and they are described as Ke'e, Wailua, Waimea, and Hanapepe. Three of these parcels of lands contain Hawaiian cultural, sacred, and religious spiritual sites. One of these lands is proposed for economic development.
Just briefly, as far as these cultural sites are concerned, they are in disrepair, improperly used, not managed and maintained as they are supposed to be by the DLNR, the Department of Land and Natural Resources of the State of Hawaii. So we've taken it as Hawaiians and individuals and organizations to take this responsibility.
Hawaiians have not only inherited the right of access to their traditional religious, spiritual, and sacred sites, but Hawaiians have also inherited the responsibility to preserve and perpetuate these physical links of Hawaiian history for our ancestors. It is not just our right; it's our responsibility for those ancestors, those who have passed on, those still living, and those not yet born.
And so we have various groups and organizations on this island that are pooling their resources together. One of these groups, under the direction of Roselle Bailey, has been caretaking one of the parcels at Ke'e which involves the hula platform and other sites.
Another organization, under the direction of Reverend Kaleo Paterson of Na Kahu Hikina'akala, they have been maintaining with the curatorship the Wailua area sites, sites that are sacred to our ali'i, our royalty, of Kaua'i and Hawaii.
At Waimea we have another site under the leadership of Kaleo Ho'okano at the Russian fort. We should do other Hawaiian activities in that area for the youth of that area and for the people of that area.
These are basically our three cultural sites and parcels that we have identified on this island that need to be addressed.
Now it comes to the question of economic development. Hawaiians are tired of service-oriented jobs and the tourist industry. You hear about the sugar plantations that are going to close in 1993.
What will happen to the Hawaiians that work in the sugar industry?
We're proposing the use of one of the sites, the old AMFAC building in Hanapepe which was formerly State crown lands. There is a vacant warehouse building approximately 50,000 square feet and 6 acres of land, and we're proposing a project of economic development in this parcel, which would include an incubator. An economic incubator for small businesses, services, and products, so that Hawaiians can be their own entrepreneurs, their own small businesses, and don't have to work for the sugar company, not to put down the sugar company, but we are tired of being a laborer, the custodians, the waiters. It's about time we become our own business people, and that's a part of sovereignty, a part of self-sufficiency and self-determination.
And so we're proposing these four parcels for cultural perpetuation and economic development. Basically, what we need are the curatorship status from the State, DLNR, for various parts of these parcels, for the lease of the State, DLNR, for these parcels. What we are asking is to help expedite these matters.
And it's a question why, as a Hawaiian and Hawaiian organizations, we have to plead with the State to take care of our own sites, which we are doing their work. They are supposed to be taking care of and maintaining our sacred sites and our cultural sites, and they are not doing their job. When we ask to do it, we get hung up in politics.
For example, one organization presented—they asked for a management plan, to present a management plan. It's been since April and nothing has been done with it. That's the kind of discouragement as Hawaiians we have.
We personally don't benefit as individuals; we benefit as a whole, as Hawaiians as a whole.
I could be comfortable just as a school teacher. This is my vacation. I could be at the beach today. But we see the benefits of not only Hawaiians, but everyone in the State of Hawaii.
So, basically what we're asking is for our visions-we have the visions; we have the plans; we have the talent of Hawaiians on this island to complete this plan successfully. We ask basically for your trust and support of this resource management plan for Kaua'iallowing Hawaiians opportunities to properly manage these natural, man-made, and human resources which will bring social and economic benefits as well as spiritual benefits not only to Hawaiians, but to all Hawaii's people.
If any type of assistance could be rendered in this matter for you, we would appreciate it. I can be contacted here. [Applause.]
[Prepared statement of Mr. Flores appears in appendix.] The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Flores
Now to review the matter of trust responsibility and to assess this from a Federal perspective, our first witness is a prominent Indian attorney from Albuquerque, NM, Ms. Susan Williams. STATEMENT OF SUSAN WILLIAMS, ATTORNEY, ALBUQUERQUE,