Ka Wai Ola - Office of Hawaiian Affairs, Volume 9, Number 3, 1 March 1992 — Kanahele testifies at D.C. trust hearing [ARTICLE+ILLUSTRATION]

Kanahele testifies at D.C. trust hearing

The Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources held a hearing in Washington, D.C. last month regarding federal oversight of the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act. Among those testifying at the hearing were Gov. John Waihee, Hoaliku L. Drake, chair of the Hawaiian Homes Commission, and Sen. Daniel Akaka, (D-Hawai'i.) Office of Hawaiian Affairs Trustee Kamaki Kanahele, who serves as chairman of the State Council of Hawaiian Homestead Associations, also spoke at the hearing. The following is an excerpt of his remarks. As chairman of the State Council of Hawaiian Homestead Associations, Mr. Chairman, I represent 23 homestead associations whose memberships total approximately 28,000 Native Hawaiians who live on homestead lands. Additionally, amendment changes to homestead by-laws across the state now allow some 11,000 Native Hawaiians on a waiting list to become members of our associatiorts. Mr. Chairman, I eome before you today as the representative of a native people whose original position of self-governance, onee under a sovereign, has been taken away. The Native Hawaiians are the last people of a onee great nation. Numbering approximately 400,000 at the time of the arrival of the first foreigner to our shores, we are now depleted to approximately 43,000 who have 50 percent to 100 percent pure blood ancestry. Threats of our extinction are severe. The loss of our identity, culture, and heritage is imminent. The foundation of our rights as a sovereign nation, we were told in 1893, had terminated. I represent these Native Hawaiians who are awaiting redress from the federal government for our lost lands, our eeonomie deprivation, our declining social and physical health, and our disappearing culture. We await this redress because it is our legal and moral right to have such redress. The Hawaiian Homes Commission Act of the 1920s (HHCA) major objectives included placing us on the land, preventing the alienation of lands set aside, and providing adequate amounts of water for homesteading. It, however, did not specifically identify the purpose for whieh it was created. Without a statement of purpose, the HHCA left any and all future administrators of the act free to operate, at their discretion, under various policies. In other words, Mr. Chairman, many people essentially threw a luau on our lands; they had a wonderful party that lasted for 70 years — to the detriment of the Native Hawaiian race. They danced to our deaths. Mr. Chairman, I am nearly half a century old; over half of those years were spent living in Nanakuli on Hawaiian Homestead Lands, where I still reside. It is my great hope that through my eyes, as a living example who has witnessed, listened to, and experienced the pain; this committee will feel the plight of my people. I hope this hearing will help the eommittee answer your questions on the nature of the relationship between the Congress who designed my life by law, and me, the beneficiary who lived by the requirements of this law. As a child, my parents told me that the gov-

ernment in Washington set this land aside for us to live on, but that it was not ours. We did not own it. As children we were also told that there were rules and regulations that we all had to live by or the government would remove us. lt was stated that when some families moved from the homestead, they did so because they did not follow the rules or because they ran out of Hawaiian blood. I never fully understood these things as a child of 10 years old. But Mr. Chairman, I never forgot one of the first rules. My mother said that the government was giving us drinking water and that we would all line up in an orderly manner with our eontainers. The image of so many of my little friends and their fathers and/or mothers eoming down from out of the Nanakuli Valley to fetch water from one central plaee (a large water tank) stays with me. If we did not get the water, we would all have to drink brackish water. This system of getting fresh water lasted from the 1940s to the mid-50s. It was many years later that I learned that mueh of our fresh water had been detoured from our eommunities to irrigate the sugar eane fields at the other end of the island. Problems began for us Native Hawaiians when, at the inception of the act in 1920, the sugar plantation owners supported HHCA — after making sure that their own interests were addressed first. The process repeated itself when, in transition from territorial to statehood, the federal government took its share of some of the better homestead properties. What was left for us Native Hawaiians was the worst land in the inventory — land with no water, arid, on the side of cliffs, impossible to farm for a living, and isolated from the general population. With this act eame no eeonomie, finaneial, or technical federal support. And so life on homestead lands began for us Native Hawaiians. We lived with the law and died by the hundreds while undergoing changes of government from territory to state. Both had the discretionary powers to interpret the act and administer as they saw fit — while the Congress closed its eyes to the breaches of the HCCA by the federal, territorial, and state governments. Examples abound of the abuses occurring during both eras of government and of their negative impact on the people the HCCA was meant to serve. One of the most blatant injustices inflicted on Native Hawaiians in homestead history relates

to the Native Hawaiians on the 1952 waiting list. A formal meeting of the Hawaiian Homes Commission, to establish a priority list for awarding of leases of lots in the vicinity of Waimea, island of Hawai'i, was held on June 11, 1952 at 10:30 a.m. It was emphasized that the applicants who were to be chosen that day were considered "most eligible and most deserving." The names were selected from a calabash with Gov. Oren E. Long drawing the names of the first recipient. That day 214 names were chosen to receive pastoral, farm, and house lots. The first 48 were to be awarded on June 11, 1952. That list was misplaced — only to be found nearly 20 years later. And no one did anything about the lost list during those 20 years. In the interim, awards continued to be made under a patronage system. In the 1980s, injunctions were successfully filed to stop distribution of these lands and to return to the original priority listings. The 1952 list awards were finally eompleted under this present administration. More than a quarter on that list were deceased; they never saw their lands. Those still living have formed an organization called The Aged Hawaiians. The plight of the Native Hawaiians on the land My great grandfather, James Hoaliku Hakuole, was sent abroad as a child to study government. One of his most famous quotes still stands today. "... the Hawaiian Home Lands were a prison without walls." For those of us on the land, the frustrations of finally coming to the land were too often far worse than not. Let me give you a few examples of some of the problems that the Homestead Act — as historically administered — has created for beneficiaries of the trust. Lesees cannot, to date, get home loans from the majority of the financial institutions in the state, even though such loans are readily available to the general public. The applicants are seen as unsuitable and less credible because of their status as homestead lessees. Nor are homesteaders able to qualify for programs such as the " 'Ohana Housing" programs by the city and county, or national programs such as The Neighborhood Housing Services Corp., whieh works with financial institutions to provide reasonable home improvement loans. Therefore, historically, lessees have had to go to the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands (DHHL) for financing their houses and other improvements. Because of a laek of sufficient financing available within the agency, occupancy was delayed several years. Additional problems have occurred because past policies prohibited lessees from selecting their own contractors; home builders were limited to a specific group of two or three contractors. Further, DHHL had no policies for oversight of quality of work of contractors. Another obstacle to realistic progress ean be found in the fact that, historically, the DHHL has ruled that no homesteaders are allowed on the land without infrastructure (roads, water, and utilities.) Homesteaders with leases in hand, after waiting an average of between eight to 15 years to receive their awards, still wait two to five years more for such development. Infrastructure timetables, variances in continued on page 14

Trustee Kanahele

Kanahele testimony from page 1 1

rules anel regulations between the state and county's building standards, and zoning requirements have prevented entire eommunities from being completed. After all this, lessees with leases in hand are given short turn-around times to build their houses. They face loses of their leases if they have not built within a period of time (usually 1 to 3 years). Eeonomie, professional, and personal conditions ean make this difficult. Onee homesteaders have a home, all fixed improvements must be approved by the DHHL. With no federal support, an understaffed agency too often experiences a range of bureaucratic stalls and confusion. This has resulted in delays in improvements. However, should such improvements occur without DHHL consent, loss of lease ean occur. Home improvement is further hampered by loan limits. In 1970, a $10,000 ceiling was placed on improvement expenditures by a lessee, limiting quality of improvements on the property. Today, 20 years Iater, maximum improvement loans from DHHL are only $15,000. The homesteaders are confronted by the fact that the lots are now smaller in size, negating opportunities for farming or eeonomie development. To date 87 percent of lands released are for residential lots. There is little opportunity for the rehabilitation of Hawaiians as required by the act. At the same time, land taxes are being paid by lessees to the county without the ability to receive land beneftts similar to those of private land owners. Historically, DHHL has been underfinanced and understaffed. This has caused individual documents and records to be misfiled or lost, resulting in confusion and frustration among Native Hawaiians. Further frustrations are added because the policies are not consistent from homestead to homestead, island to island.

Yet some improvements in this area have occurred. In the past, if awards were rejected for any reason by a lessee, that person was placed at the bottom of the list. This administration has recently changed that practice. The plight of Hawaiians off homestead land Those Hawaiians off homestead lands — those on the waiting list — also face major problems. It is a travesty that the federal government did not provide financial support to the Hawaiian Homes Commission (1921present) and the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands (1959-present) from their ineeption. Surely this is one of the major causes for the inability of those bodies to have done their work most effectively over these 70 years. This has resulted in the present waiting list. The system for list maintenance has historically been inadequate. Lost files, incorrect information and such have contributed to the long waiting period. Those on the list have waited an average of 15 years. It is a tragedy that many Native Hawaiians on this list have died without ever living on their lands. We cannot allow this to eonhnue. State and federal roles Many years of neglect and abuse by the federal and state governments resulted in the ills I just described — and many more. Those ills eannot eonhnue. The state of Hawai'i, in recent years, has begun to recognize the problems. The state has begun to take responsibility for many of the problems. The state has begun to address the problems. The state has complied, or is complying, with many of the recommendations of the 1983 Task Force. These beginnings are appreciated by the Native Hawaiian people.

But these beginnings are not enough — the problems must, onee and for all, be solved. However, the state government cannot, and should not do this alone. The federal government must fulfill its responsibility to the trust by providing compensation for past abuses and by assisting with financial and technical support in the future. It should accept, and implement, the recommendations of the 1983 Task Force. The federal government must, simply, assume its responsibilities as a legal and moral partner in this venture. To date, I regret to say, the federal government has declined this obligation, indeed, this opportunity. Onee the federal government assumes its responsibilities, then, and only then, ean the Native Hawaiian people fully address their eeonomie, educational, social, health, and spiritual needs. Conclusion Others here today have articulated the legal aspects of this agreement among the federal government, and state government, and the Hawaiian people. But, as a Native Hawaiian, a homesteader, and chairman of the SCHHA, let me urge the governments to meet its moral and ethical obligations to this proud race of people. We have never asked for charity, but asked for a ehanee. We have never asked for pity, but for progress. We have never wanted to be merely endured, but we wanted to be enabled ... to do for ourselves. We have never asked for land from others; we asked that our own lands be restored. Then, and only then, ean the Hawaiian people regain their heritage. This Congress ean complete the work that an earlier Congress began. This action is long in coming, but the opportunity must not be lost. This is the time for action. I urge the members of this Congress to heed their heads and their hearts. The future of an entire race rests in your hands. Don't lose that race. Mahalo nui loa kakou (thank you from the Hawaiian people).