STATEMENT OF KAWEHI-KANUI GILL, ANAHOLA, HI

Ms. GILL. Aloha, Senator and your staff.

My name is Kawehi-Kanui Gill. I'm originally from the island of Oahu, Waimanalo. My mother is a homesteader.

I'm here living on the island of Kauai. I'm working with the Anahola Hawaiian Homes Association as one of its consultants, and I reside on the Anahola Beach.

What I have to say here, Senator, is an oral presentation.

What I want to do here today is give you some of my observations since most of what has been said in yesterday's hearings with regard to what Billy Beamer had to say, what Ona Friedas had to say, and our youth from Waimanalo, there's no need to repeat that again.

But, I did want to focus today on two subjects which I think need attention. One is the 150-excuse me, 134-recommendations made by this State and Federal task force, which I think for the Native Hawaiians, they should know that some of the things missing from those recommendations need to be addressed. I think Papa Inn touched on one of those subjects, being the taxes issue.

The other issues are the conflicts between the State and the beneficiaries, particularly its attorney general, his role to the department and no support in that regard to defend the Native Hawaiian rights to this act.

The other aspect that I feel was not addressed well in those recommendations that could be added in the State and Federal task force are the amendments to the act. After the State and Federal task force went ahead with the 134 recommendations, there were other areas that came out later on.

The second aspect I wanted to point out is the 52 amendments that went up to Washington. I was also a part of an organization called Kupia, Inc. We did file a notice and demand to Washington calling for the indictment of the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands for its mismanagement, for the indictment of the county for its arrest of our Native Hawaiians who were on their own lands. We got no answer, so I would like to know what happened with that.

The 52 amendments, I can say for myself, I was there at the meeting when they held the so-called public meeting and there was under 12 people from the whole State that attended that meeting. I did not feel that it was a fair meeting.

I would like to see the 52 amendments recalled back and put back into the communities, so we can get feedback from the people. There was not adequate hearing.

I read the Congressional Record. To some extent, I think that comments made by some of the congressional members lacked understanding and experience that we were experiencing here in Hawaii.

If that could be raised up and done properly, I think we could get a clearer consensus as to where we agree on the amendments or not agree on the amendments.

The CHAIRMAN. You will have to help us. Do you have a copy of

So, though there are times when one gets very impatient, I would hope that the individual recommendations would be looked at and I think if you do, as we have in the committee, we feel satisfied that with the resources available to the agencies involved, they have done a credible job.

Mr. TRASK. Forgive me, Mr. Senator.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes?

Mr. TRASK. Please? Is it Ms. Van Cleve?

The CHAIRMAN. Correct.

Mr. TRASK. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. If you have got a question, can we ask it for you? Mr. TRASK. Pardon me?

The CHAIRMAN. The rules of the committee would require the chairman or the members to ask the question. I will ask it for you.

Mr. TRASK. Oh. Of Ms. Van Cleve, I just wondered whether or not-forgive me, Senator. In 1936 I went up to Alaska. The dust bowl of the Midwest-the dust bowl of the Midwest-

The CHAIRMAN. What is the question?

Mr. TRASK. The farmers were dying. The farmers were wiped out of the sky. Alaska-the State Department, the Government paid all of them for everything for shipping the people up there.

I wonder whether she could dig out the records for your committee. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Trask, I assure that that will be one of the questions I will send Ms. Van Cleve.

Ms. PI'IANAIA. Senator, I wanted to thank you for the remark you made because implementing what has been implemented has taken not only at least 80-hour weeks by my staff and also the work of my predecessor of hundreds of hours on the part of commission members, but it's taken the beneficiary group working as well as all the State government at this time. With more Federal assistance, we can do more.

The CHAIRMAN. One final question, if I may ask, Ms. Van Cleve: Yesterday a State senator, the Honorable Mike Crozier, referred to a letter from Solicitor Ralph Tarr?

MS. VAN CLEVE. That's correct.

The CHAIRMAN. It was a letter that was sent to the President of the United States Senate indicating that the Department intends to submit legislation to remove the requirement that amendments to the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act be approved by the U.S. Congress. At the present time, whenever there is a change, we in the Congress have to look it over.

What was the rationale or policy justification for this proposal? Ms. VAN CLEVE. That was the product of the executive branch clearance process. As you know, proposed legislation and covering letters attached to it can go to the Congress from Executive departments only with a clearance by the Office of Management and Budget and it, in turn, clears those documents with other interested agencies, of which several were involved in our latest consent bill.

The letter in question is a letter of May 31 transmitting what I call the Interior Department's second consent bill. That's because the first was enacted, as you know, in 1986. The second is the bill that would provide consent from the United States to the enact

33-292-90 - 3

ments of the State from June 30, 1985 through the ensuing two terms of the legislature.

In the clearance process, we encountered the question of federalism. There are, as you, I am sure, know very well, a great number of people in the Executive branch today who are devoted to this principle by which the States' business is to be left to States without Federal interference, and vice versa.

It was a product of the federalism principle that caused that paragraph to be added, and it was necessary that it be added in order that our legislative proposal go forward.

We will, of course, keep the commitment that we were required to make in order to send forward our consent legislation. The CHAIRMAN. All right. Thank you very much. Congressman Blaz, do you have questions?

Mr. BLAZ. Yes, I do. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Although I've only had a few minutes to look at this task force report, I must say that I associate myself with the comments of the chairman regarding its quality.

I guess one of the reasons I had great admiration for this gentleman is because earlier he said that he would introduce legislation to revisit the issue of statute of limitations. That is very appealing and a very nice thing to do.

On the other hand, just a few minutes ago he told about the realities of accepting this. It's all very nice to accept it, but you could tell from the lack of applause that there are many people who don't share the acceptance. Nevertheless, it takes quite a bit of courage to say these things, and I must say them publicly, because it's one of the things we have to make sure that emerges from these hearings.

There's not a single person, at least not this gentleman, who would not want to do something, but we have to balance it against the practical realities of 1989, 1990, and 1991.

My question, however, has to do with the document itself. No. 1, was this generally disseminated to the public so that people got a chance to see it?

Ms. NATHANIEL. Yes, sir; it was. We had a preliminary report that was printed in a digest form. It was printed in a newspaper of wide circulation. It was also circulated in the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands newsletter. We had public hearings on every one of the islands and the impacted areas. There were 300 individuals in attendance at these hearings, and their responses were given every consideration when the final recommendations were written.

Mr. BLAZ. All right, then, this is a followup question. During yesterday's testimony as well as today's, have you heard anything that has been broached by the witnesses that in one way or another had not been covered in the 134 items in this task force report?

Ms. NATHANIEL. I have not heard anything that was not broached in any of the testimonies so far.

Mr. BLAZ. So that the task force report then could be a very good guide for us in terms of a reflection of the general sentiment of the questions that are being asked now, so that that testimony plus this would give a reader like me a very good cross section of some of the problems that have arisen over the last few years?

tural survival problems facing Hawaii's indigenous people, defined in the Hawaii Admissions Act as those of 50 percent or more aboriginal blood.

Only the Hawaiian homestead and 5(f) provisions of the Statehood Admission Act exclusively address the issue of saving Native Hawaiians of 50 percent or more aboriginal blood from extinction. Unfortunately, Federal funds to assist Hawaiians of any amount of blood seldom reach this neediest minority, those 30,000 to 40,000 Hawaiians of 50 percent or more aboriginal blood.

Most, if not all, Federal fund moneys are expended on programs benefiting an ever-expanding group consisting of those with little and, I daresay, in some cases no Hawaiian blood.

While Federal support for all Native Hawaiians regardless of blood quantum is needed and appreciated, there still exists a core of Native Hawaiians of 50 percent or more aboriginal blood who are entitled to specific considerations under the Hawaiian homestead and 5(f) provisions of the Hawaii Admissions Act.

Reducing the 50 percent aboriginal blood requirement for Hawaiian beneficiaries began by reducing the homestead blood quantum eligibility to 25 percent for successorship only. Harmless as this action may appear, it tends to confuse rather than clarify who a Native Hawaiian really is. A better way would be to amend the act to grant a homestead to any Native Hawaiian of 50 percent or more aboriginal blood in perpetuity, allowing their direct descendants to be heirs to their land without further blood quantum requirements. This would simplify it. Then everybody would know the Native Hawaiian has entitlements, and that his children will go on without the necessity of arguing about the blood.

The promise of the Hawaiian Homestead Act has not been fulfilled because the State of Hawaii and the legislature have heretofore failed to properly fund the act. They ignored the fact the Statehood Admission Act clearly designated 5(f) resources to be utilized for the betterment of the conditions of Native Hawaiians as defined in the Hawaiian Homestead Act of 1920 by encouraging farm and home ownership on as wide a basis as possible.

Instead of fulfilling their trust responsibilities, the State of Hawaii in its 1978 constitutional convention opted to form a separate organization, the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, OHA, to be the recipient of 20 percent of 5(f) resources. This isn't exactly why they formed it. It was really to get reparations. They only went after the 5(f) resources when they found out that the basis for their getting reparation wasn't really there.

OHA chooses to interpret "for the betterment of the condition of Native Hawaiians" as standing alone, but it is an incomplete and meaningless phrase without "by developing as much residential and farm lands as possible." Now this unquestionably was congressional intent.

Okay, I've just been told I'd better start to wrap it up. You have a copy of my entire presentation, and I think that what you'll see is that I've tried to reach a logical conclusion.

I would like to sum up what the real problem here is.

The problem is that because the U.S. Government would not address the rights of a tiny minority, you now have a situation where

a much larger group for political purposes has stepped into that gap.

Now I would think that the U.S. Government would see that if they're going to be dealing with 300,000 to 400,000 discontented people claiming any amount of Hawaiian blood acting in the name of the Native Hawaiian, they are building a problem that will be insolvable in the future.

Far better that they would face the real problem and recognize the fact, whether it be a property owner who owns land whose in a tiny minority and has the right to be protected by the Constitution and the type of government we have or whether it be a tiny minority of Hawaiian people, you don't want a government by populace where you say, well, what does the majority think? What do the majority of people under 65 think about getting social security? I'm sure they think we'd like to have it, but the law says we'll give it to those over 65. We have the exact situation here.

What does the law say about who the United States intends to help? Those of 50 percent aboriginal blood or more. Now some people will argue, well, Prince Kuhio said one-thirty-second percent. Naturally he could say that because there weren't any Native Hawaiians that weren't full blooded at that time. He was talking about something that didn't exist. But now we have to look at the reality that they made it 50 percent at that time, not for the reason that they didn't want to see the Hawaiian race continue. They wanted to encourage Hawaiian people to marry Hawaiians and have the people of the blood go on.

Now I think that if we look at the realities of those things and if the Senator and the Select Committee on Indian Affairs will look upon what's possible in Hawaii and not allow confusion to step in by making promises to us that can never be kept, I believe that the United States right now is in a position to right the wrongs of the past. I'm hopeful they'll see it to their advantage to do so.

I really want to thank this committee today for allowing me to make this presentation.

[Prepared statement of Kamuela Price appears in appendix.]
[Applause.]

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Price.
Now may I call upon Mr. Maui Loa.

STATEMENT OF MAUI LOA, CHIEF OF THE HOU

Mr. Loa. Honorable Senator Inouye, Honorable Representative Akaka, and Honorable Representative Blaz, aloha, brothers and sisters.

My name is Maui Loa. I am hereditary chief of the HOU, the Ohana tribal family who brought the 1979 lawsuit requesting the Federal Government to enforce the Hawaiian homestead provisions of the Hawaii Admission Act. As a result of the lawsuit, my father, Kamuela Price, was appointed by Hawaii's Governor, the Honorable George Ariyoshi, to serve on a Hawaiian homestead task force created specifically to make recommendations for accelerating the distribution of the homestead lands to Native Hawaiian benefici