« AnteriorContinuar »
them under various provisions of the Admissions Act. So the State did end up leasing those lands.
We feel that the trust responsibility at this time calls for both the State and the Federal Government to take action on that.
Another area we would like to address with regard to the State trust responsibility has to do with funding of the Hawaiian homes program. Now you've received a lot of testimony in the past and probably will in the next week with regard to funding. There have been some improvements recently. As Mr. Price noted and others have noted, recently the State legislature did agree to provide funding for the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands. Ninetyeight positions were funded on the department staff for the 19901991 biennium, I think.
And, also, there was an appropriation of $50.7 million in CIP. Unfortunately, 92 percent of that $50.7 million is going to be in revenue bond financing. What that means is the department will eventually have to pay that back if they choose to use that authority for bond financing. So that puts them, we believe, in the conflict, the conflict being that in order to generate revenues, they will again have to lease their lands to the highest bidder.
The problem has always been that the department has had to generate incomes for operating expenses, and this means that in some instances they put the interest of generating income over the interest of the beneficiaries and getting the beneficiaries onto the land.
Now in 1978 the State constitutional amendment was amended to provide that the State legislature shall provide funds for the operating of the department, shall provide funds for homesteading lots. That has not happened to date except in the last 2 years.
We believe that this is a direct contravention of State law; that the legislature has directly contravened State law. In essence, the State has broken the law. It's not an enforceable law because, as you probably know, it raises a separation of powers issue. In other words, if a Native Hawaiian beneficiary attempted to sue the legislature in order to force them to fund the Hawaiian homes program, they would be thrown out of court under the separation of powers doctrine.
So, it is a problem of enforcement. The remedy to some extent is there. The remedy is for the legislature to fulfill its fiduciary responsibility.
I've pretty much abandoned my formal testimony this afternoon in order to address some of the issues raised by Mr. Price, and specifically point out the breaches that our office has encountered in our work.
The CHAIRMAN. Do you have a list of all of those breaches? Ms. MACKENZIE. I don't think that anyone has a list of all those breaches. As you know and as Mr. Price mentioned, the legislature in 1988 enacted the State Right-To-Sue Act. Part of that process is allowing the Governor within the next three years to survey those breaches to determine, at least on the State end, what the cost would be in order to remedy such breaches and then to present them to the legislature.
So, right now I think the Office of Hawaiian Affairs as well as our office is attempting to compile as much information on that as
so; in lands thwaiian An that vehier toda
possible. But what we would suggest as probably a longer-term kind of solution is to look at State ceded lands, Hawaiian Home Commission lands and the Federal lands and start beginning to identify those areas where homesteaders have a real chance of making it as homesteaders and effectuate some land exchanges, supplement the lands that the Homes Commission already has in order to get the beneficiaries onto the lands.
Now in doing that kind of a survey of all the lands and determining which really are the best for homesteading, you have to take into consideration the beneficiary needs on each island and the different kinds of beneficiary needs there are. Each island is very different.
On Oahu, of course, most of what we're looking at is residential, but on the neighbor islands that's slightly different.
Also, in surveying those kinds of lands, you have to be sure that the ceded lands that were in use would not undercut the funding of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, the 20-percent share that Native Hawaiians receive through that vehicle.
As Mr. Burgess pointed out earlier today, there has been an instance of that where one repair, one effort to repair a breach resulted in the detriment of another Hawaiian trust.
That's the kind of avenue that our office would advocate. Our ultimate vision is self-governance and, within that self-governance, a land base consisting of Hawaiian homelands, portions of the State ceded lands trust, portions of the Federal lands. That's an ultimate vision that we have, but, as we work toward that vision, we see that there are concrete steps that can be taken to improve the record of Federal and State trusteeship. We would ask the committees' cooperation in doing so.
Since the Admissions Act makes it very clear that the United States Government has the responsibility of monitoring the activities of the State government as it relates to the trust. If there are any breaches, we have the right to sue or the obligation to sue.
In order to carry out our responsibilities, we have to know what is considered breach here. Ms. MACKENZIE. That's quite true.
The CHAIRMAN. Can you submit to us a list setting forth the date of this breach and the authority of the transfer, say the executive order? Ms. MACKENZIE. We can do that to the best of our ability. The CHAIRMAN. And a description of this breach? Ms. MACKENZIE. Yes; we can do that to the best of our ability, but, as I indicated, some of the breaches are not breaches that are readily recognized. It's not as easy as an executive order or a proclamation withdrawing Hawaiian home lands. You understand that.
But with that caveat, of course, we can provide that information.
The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Ms. MacKenzie. [Applause.]
Mr. AKAKA. I'm interested in your remarks about the Republic of Hawaii which came into—which was established after 1893. In
We need Hawaiian ownership of the Hawaiian trust lands. We need management and administration. We need justice. At present, I see no other solution than total and complete return of title and control of the ceded lands to the Native Hawaiian people. Only then can we insure that these lands and their revenues will be properly utilized. Mahalo, Senator. [Prepared statement of Mr. Burgess appears in appendix.] [Applause.]
The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Burgess. We will start working on that project right away. It helps to read the newspapers. STATEMENT OF THOMAS KAAUWAI KAULUKUKUI, SR., CHAIR
MAN, BOARD OF TRUSTEES, OFFICE OF HAWAIIAN AFFAIRS Mr. KAULUKUKUI. Senator Inouye and members of your committee, I am pleased and honored to be appearing before you today.
Much of the testimony that you have already heard highlights the significant legal and political differences between the way the United States deals with Native Hawaiians and the way the United States deals with other Native Americans. For most Native Americans, the dominant relationship is between the Federal Government and self-governing Indian tribes.
Every President in the last 20 years has embraced the policy of Indian self-determination and government-to-government relations with other Indian tribes. By stark contrast, the dominant relationship for Native Hawaiians has been between the State of Hawaii and a Native Hawaiian community that lacks the powers of selfgovernment and self-determination.
In the area of land claims, often termed "entitlements” or “reparations” or “restitution,” we face a Federal Government that received 1,750,000 acres of Native Hawaiian land from basically the same governmental entity that overthrew the Hawaiian kingdom. While many Native American land claims have been addressed and compensated, the Federal Government has virtually ignored Hawaiian claims.
I raise these points to demonstrate that much of Federal Native Hawaiian policy is outdated when contrasted with Federal Indian policy. Federal Indian policy has swung back and forth between pro and anti-tribal positions, with debate and consideration of pertinent issues. On the other hand, Federal legislation for Native Hawaiians is from the anti-tribal periods, reflecting the sentiments of an imperialistic era devoid of contemporary philosophy.
To illustrate, in 1920, when the Hawaiian Home Lands Act was passed, the dominant political Federal Indian philosophy was "forced assimilation” of Native Americans. Land was divided into individual parcels for farming to encourage the assimilation of native people.
As in the mahele of 1848, basic guidelines of a continental mindset were applied and superimposed on an insular, oceanic culture. Any trust relationship was viewed as only temporary until natives were integrated into the mainstream of American life, without regard for pluralism and native cultures. The Indian Reorganiza
tion Act of 1934 rejected much of this philosophy of “manifest destiny," but no review of Native Hawaiian policy was conducted that might lead to change favorable to the natives.
In 1959, when Hawaii gained statehood, the dominant political philosophy with respect to native people was termination of the Federal trust relationship, the breakup of tribal government, and enhancement of State power over native issues. Jurisdiction of Hawaiian home lands was passed to the State, with a subsequent lessening of Federal accountability. However, 10 years later, when Federal policy shifted again into self-determination, again no change was made in Federal Native Hawaiian policy.
Thus, the Federal statutes and policies that affect Native Hawaiians today are out of date. They in no way reflect the modern era of self-determination and self-governance for native people.
It is extremely critical to keep this in focus. We can improve the operation of the Hawaiian homelands and gain greater revenues from ceded lands, and while these efforts are important, they do not address the key issue of how to achieve self-governance and self-determination.
In 1982, OHA submitted to the Native Hawaiian Study Commission a report entitled, “Reparations and Restitution,” which set out four general principles to bring Native Hawaiians into the modern era of Federal Native American relations:
First, acknowledgment by the United States of the wrongful taking of Hawaiian land; second, provision of self-government for Native Hawaiians; third, provision of a land base for Native Hawaiians; and, fourth, monetary compensation.
OHA pointed out, 6 years ago, that no final plan for reparations can be achieved without significant input and ultimate approval by the Native Hawaiian community. To that end, we are about to begin a detailed and extensive consultation process with the community.
We believe that Native Hawaiians are intelligent, aware, and capable of making decisions on issues such as self-determination, but the concepts must be developed by the Hawaiian people themselves. Our role is to be the conduit for this development and repository of the concepts. As facilitator, OHA has developed a longrange plan called "I Luna A'E”, “moving upward."
Operation 'Ohana is a project in the "I Luna A'e" program. 'Ohana is one of those special words inspired by Hawaiian reverence for life past, present, and future. It comes from the word “Oha," meaning the rootlets by which the taro plant reproduces itself. It also means family in the most important and extended sense.
In order to grow and flourish, the Hawaiian people are re-establishing their familial relationships. The goal of Operation 'Ohana is to encourage all Native Hawaiians to join together in one alliance beginning with families and expanding to include the entire community and culture. To accomplish this, we have organized an enrollment program which builds on the traditional family system and seeks to give all Native Hawaiians an opportunity to transform family decisions into action which keeps the community moving upward. OHA's goal is to enroll some 150,000 Native Hawaiians by July 1990.
De is designent orespond with em confide Hawai
Operation 'Ohana will not only serve to unite the Native Hawaiian community, it will also provide the first true demographic information on our people, giving us data based on wants and needs identified by Hawaiians for Hawaiian use.
I am pleased to report great interest in Operation 'Ohana. At a recent festival in Southern California, Native Hawaiians stood in long lines in the hot sun to enroll. I am confident that Native Hawaiians everywhere will respond with similar enthusiasm.
A second component of “I Luna A'e" is Operation Po'e. Operation Po'e is designed to provide an opportunity for the Native Hawaiian community to define its own membership. It asks the question: who is a Native Hawaiian? Through Operation Po'e, OHA will launch a large number of public meetings, mailings, questionnaires, and media campaigns designed to stimulate thinking about this important topic and to provide a forum where those thoughts can be heard. We feel strongly we must exercise self-determination to define who we are and what we stand for without outside interference. This self-definition process is a critical step in our eventual goal of self-governance.
A third component of "I Luna A'e" is Operation Ea, our approach to Federal entitlements. Native Hawaiians believe that the Federal Government has breached its trust responsibility to the Native Hawaiian community. All the problems we are currently experiencing stem from the loss of our Native Hawaiian lands and self-governmental authority. To determine what approach should be taken, we have developed a discussion document called "the draft blueprint.” Despite newspaper articles to the contrary, the draft blueprint is a committee print concept paper proposing possible approaches to the issues of claims and self-governance. It is absolutely not a final plan.
On September 2, OHA will mail copies of the draft blueprint to members of the Native Hawaiian community and make copies available in public places. We will hold public meetings in Hawaiian communities to explain the draft blueprint and obtain comments and suggestions. All information obtained at those hearings will be recorded, and those recordings will be open to public view to members of the community.
After the conclusion of hearings and meetings, OHA staff will summarize the comments presented and distribute that summary to the members of the community along with changes in the blueprint which have been as a result of those comments.
This process will continue until OHA feels confident that the document truly reflects the views of the Native Hawaiian community. We invite you, Senator and Congressmen, to return at that time for a round of meetings on this blueprint.
Through our efforts on enrollment, definition, and Federal entitlements, OHA's goal is to develop a proposal which it can present to the State and Federal Government which truly comes from the Hawaiian people with OHA serving as facilitator-coordinator.
Thank you very much. [Prepared statement of Mr. Kaulukukui appears in appendix.] [Applause.] The CHAIRMAN. Thank you.