Dialog; Hawaii's Ceded Lands

You Dialogue is brought to you by Hawaiian Electric Company, people with a powerful commitment. Last summer, Judge Daniel Healy ruled that the state of a Y owed the office of Hawaiian

affairs between $250 million and $1 .2 billion. This depends on who you're listening to. The amount represents revenues collected from certain seeded lands, 20 % of which, plus interest, should go to OHA according to the judge. The seeded lands are some 2 million acres, or 1 .7, or 1 .5, or the numbers again are a little shifty, that once belonging to the Hawaiian monarchy and following annexation were turned over to the federal government without compensation to the Hawaiians. The state is appealing, Judge Healy's decision. Governor Ben Cayatano has expressed the fear that if the decision stands in already difficult state budgetary situation will grow nightmarish. Two weeks ago, on dialogue, however, the governor expressed optimism that OHA and the state could work out their differences. The seeded lands issue has not escaped the legislature. Both House and Senate have been wrestling with the problem these last few weeks. Good evening and welcome to Dialogue. My name is Dan Borland. Joining me tonight are representatives from OHA, the legislature, and the University's Hawaiian Studies program.

All of them are vitally interested in the seeded lands issue. Malama Solomon has represented the big island of Hawaii in the state senate since 1982. Prior to her elections, she served two years as a trustee of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs. Senator Solomon is a graduate of the Kamehameha Schools and received degrees from the University of Hawaii at Manoa and Hilo, one each. She also holds a doctorate from Oregon State University. She is the co -chair of the Senate's Water, Land, and Hawaiian Affairs Committee. Clayton Hee has chaired the Board of Trustees of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs for the past seven years. He also is a graduate of the Kamehameha Schools and the University of Hawaii. Mr. Hee served one term in the state house of representatives and one term in the state senate. He has been a teacher, a cultural consultant, a union official, and is now president of the cowboy company. Randy Iwasse served one term on the Honolulu City Council before his election to the state senate in 1990 from Central Oahu District. Mr.

Iwasse is a graduate of Kamehameha School, the University of Florida, and the University of San Francisco School of Law. He served eleven years as a deputy attorney general before entering politics. With Senator Solomon, he co -chairs the Senate Water, Land, and Hawaiian Affairs Committee. Hounani K. Trask is the director of the Center for Hawaiian Studies at the University of Hawaii, Manoa. She is a poet, the author of three books, a political organizer, and the producer of an award -winning documentary film on the overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom. With her sister, Miele Lani, Dr. Trask has been a very visible and influential leader of the Somrady Organization, Calahui, Hawaii. Dr. Trask received her BA, MA, and PhD from the University of Wisconsin, and is the third Kamehameha School's graduate at Dialogues Table. Ed Case is not a Kamehameha School's graduate. He is in his second term in the State House of Representatives, where he looks after the interest of a Manoa University District and chairs the committee on Hawaiian Affairs. Born, raised, and schooled on the Big

Island, Representative Case attended Williams College and Hastings Law School. Besides his legislative work, he is also a practicing attorney with a law firm of Carl Smith, Paul, Wickman, Case, and E. Cheeky. How did I do on that? These well -informed people will be an underutilized resource without your questions and comments. So please call them at 973 -1000. A member of the Professional Secretaries International Hawaii Chapter, or one of the friends of Hawaii Public Television, will answer the phone. She or he will jot down your question. I guess they're all she's, and send it over here to me on a little blue card like this one. I'll try to get to as many questions as possible before our hour is up. And we will also provide the panel with copies of your questions and comments after the show. The number again is 973 -1000, neighbor island residences ever made call us collect 973

-1000. We are live here at Hawaii Public Television and Dialogues being simulcast on Hawaii Public Radio. Public radio listeners are urged to call us as well. Our sign language interpreter this evening is Loretta McDonald. Clayton, he is simply as possible. What's OHA's beef with the state? Well, I guess as simply as possible is that there are entitlements, legal entitlements which were written into the law by the legislature that the state has yet to fulfill. And we have gone to court and we have prevailed and we have received a favorable ruling by Judge Healey. Just a minor correction. He did not say it was, he didn't give the amount. He said that the entitlement was a legal entitlement old to native Hawaiians under the law. It's simple as that. My apologies, Clayton, that was my bad grammar. Well, correct. Constructing a sentence. Tell us a little bit more about,

define the seeded lands a little bit for our audience. Well, you did a good job in very general terms of seeded land trust where those public lands, someone by the monarchy which were taken in 1893 at the overthrow, held by the United States. And then in 1959, receded back to the state less the amount of lands that continue to be held today by the military, lands such as Pearl Harbor, Fort D 'Rousi, Fort Shafter, and other military installations. But simply put, you are correct that these are the public land of the, and defined in the admissions act. And one of the definitions is that the Hawaiians shall enjoy a share of the pro, a pro -rata share of the seeded land trust revenues. Yeah, now give it, could you give us an example of where these lands are, for example, and what kinds of revenues come to the state from them? Well, it seems to me the best example is looking at the Honolulu International Airport.

Those are lands which, some of which are seeded, 35 % of the 100 % of the toll area is seeded. So the best example at the airport is the re -front way, which are re -dredged coral spoils, which are seeded under the law. Each time an air carrier brings people to Hawaii, they pay for the privilege of landing at Honolulu International Airport. That privilege is interpreted in the form of a landing fee. By law, 20 % of the landing fee are legal entitlements to the Native Hawaiian people through the Office of Hawaiian Affairs. It's important to note, however, that in cases where there are, like the airport, 35 % seeded and 65 % non -seeded, that the Office has asserted its legal claim to 20 % of 35 % and not 20 % of 100%. Therein is a

vast difference between Jeff Watanabe's voodoo economics, which has been embraced. But the voodoo economics is the 1 .2 billion figures you're saying. We're a billion dollars of port, and basically embraced by the Attorney General and the governor, and we have had an audit firm, and they know that it's de -loyed in Tush, and our numbers stand for themselves. It's ironic that we're asking for the lower number. Now, which is your number? I've seen 1 .2, I've seen 250 million, and then I've seen something less than that. The latest number I received from Gary Nishikawa, who's a senior partner in de -loyed in Tush, is as of 1991, the number is 262 million dollars in principle. The interest is an interest which is owed by law, would be owed to anyone, regardless of the situation. Senator Owase or Senator Solomon, either one of you are a representative case, you're dealing with the budget down at the legislature this session. Can the state

take a payment of 260 some million dollars to the 2 .0? Well, if it's this year, no, we can't afford giving a lump sum amount of 260 million dollars. I think the pressure that's put on us, as Clayton mentioned, is the interest that generates assuming that the decision of Judge Healey is upheld, and his findings are upheld, and the debt continues to mount. Is this your reading of it? Well, I'm not on the Finance Committee side of it. I think the state probably could absorb some kind of a settlement with Ohio. The question is how to get to that settlement. Essentially what's happened in the last couple of years is that Ohio and the state have been locked in litigation, they've been arguing this out in court. And as we looked at it in terms of the House of Wine Affairs Committee, basically what Judge Healey was doing was taking a purely matter of state statutory law. And dealing with some issues that the legislature hadn't yet decided as a matter of state law, statutory law,

not the Constitution, not the federal law, nothing. What the legislature said, and basically got in there and decided something that the legislature had not really addressed. And so one of the approaches that we took in the Hawaiian Affairs Committee was to say, hey, this is for the legislature to decide. We're going to go back and decide this. That's really what the Hawaii Supreme Court did in a case that we're all familiar with from 1987 called the Yamasaki case where the Supreme Court basically said, hey, don't bring your problems down to court, figure it out in the legislature before you come down here. So the real problem is partially a matter of interpretation of what the legislature intended and to try and get the parties that kind of de -politicize and delitigate it, get it into kind of a settlement mode. Try to get the parties to sit down at a table. That was Oha's suggestion when it testified in front of the Hawaiian Affairs Committee was to basically set up a neutral group with kind of even representation from Oha on the state and get these people to figure it out and then go forward with possibly some kind of a lump sum settlement of the entire question in one, two year timeframe. Dr. Tress, don't you, doesn't Kalahui have some difficulty

with the whole idea of Oha? Oh, yeah. I mean, our position is that what we're talking about here is 20%. The seated lands belong to the Hawaiian people. They were stolen from, which is what Clayton mentioned. They were stolen from the Hawaiian government. There are two beneficiaries of the seated lands that general public and native Hawaiians and those beneficiaries were identified in the admissions act in 59 and they were identified when the lands were taken by the federal government at annexation. So the position of Kalahui and the Hawaiian people is that 20 % although ironically I actually support the Oha position of 20%. We have rights to all the seated lands and there's no question legally that the United States has not served our interests. The Congress hasn't served our interests and what we need is for another mechanism of self -government so that we can have those seated lands under our control as native Hawaiians. And there's lots of legal opinions on this, especially in law review journals, about how we ought to be included in the federal policy on native peoples and those lands ought to be

segregated so that there are no longer two beneficiaries. The state has its portion and Hawaiians have our portion. But as far as the fight with Oha goes, I mean, I don't see how the state can get away from it. They created Oha. They said what would happen in the Kankan in 78 and they should pay up. The problem too is that there's a criticism to be lodged against the Department of Land and Natural Resources. They do not have extant maps of the seated lands. I just called them three days ago in preparation for the show. You have to have tax map keys in order to access where those lands are. I'm still trying to figure out where the lands are for the University of Hawaii because I want to argue that native Hawaiians should go to school for nothing. And that's part of the breaking of really the trust relationship is that the state and the federal government have used those lands as if they were a private pocketbook. And now that Oha is trying to have an accounting, everybody's upset when in fact what we need before Oha actually gets into its accounting as an accounting of all the lands. Where are they? Where are the maps? In fact, the legislative auditor said the same thing. Where are the maps? Deal in R was given

$250 ,000 a year for five years to map the lands. And yet when I call deal in R, they say, well, do you have the tax map key on any because we can't really give you whether this part of UH is seated lands or that part of UH is seated lands. So the maps they haven't really done it and they haven't done it in a way that would be accessible to all the people so that we can decide what is really old. But as far as the state claiming that they don't have any money and if the governor can float bonds for $1 billion for construction projects, he can pay Hawaiians what is their due under state law. Senator Solomon, do you think that this problem between the state and the sort of a sovereign Hawaiian nation or that where is the proper place for this whole seated lands issue? Well, I just wanted to follow up to, you know, as to what Dr. Trass has shared with us because I have to agree with her. Because to our surprise, even my co -chair, Manny Wassey, when we had asked deal in R as to, you know, where

exactly it has the inventory been mapped. I mean, are there visuals that we can see? They said, no, as a matter of fact, they just sent us a whole portfolio of TMKs. And I just wanted to... Excuse me, but do you mean that we don't know exactly what this is? No, no, I'll just give you an example. And I'll give you an example, like, for example, with Kalau Papa. 7 ,000 acres and they say, for example, seated lands and that whole Kalau Papa may be approximately two to three hundred acres. We don't know where that two or three... Yeah, two or three hundred acres located. Where is it? We don't know. Why is that? Because the INA has never been surveyed. We cannot exactly tell you where it is. So what's been happening is, I guess, in the settlements with the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, what they've been doing is if there's two hundred acres and it's situated, say, in a 7 ,000 -acre parcel, and because they don't know where the INA is located, they've been paying OHA on these approximates. I just wanted to follow up on another thing with Chairman He, because I was on the original

negotiating team when we first put this all together, and this was approximately 12 years ago. And the legislature felt that this is why we use the word proceeds. And I'm thinking that we have just gotten so far away from the original intent of the legislature, which means we're not just actually talking dollars. There is no reason why the governor, the administration, can't come up with a proposal in terms of property type settlements. They can come up with proposals in terms of, you know, any kinds of housing projects. In other words, there's a lot of ways of coming up with the package in order to pay the Hawaiian people with their own. And the Senate has more or less always advocated that position, you know, up to now. And I'm hoping that we will continue to advocate that, because we feel that the state has tremendous flexibility in coming up with the package so that we can satisfy our obligations. But the House does the same thing. Doesn't it represent a case? Exactly. I think one of the interesting things is so far,

we've all agreed on one point, which is that we needed a pretty exact inventory of what the seated lands are. Every one of us agrees with that. That's in the House bill right now. The other thing that I think we may be agreeing on right now is that, well, I'll take a chance on this, but I don't think any of us think that the current formula is really working. It's cumbersome. It leaves all kinds of questions all over the place. You have to decide 20 % of what you have to decide what revenue is. You have to decide as revenue improves, as unimproved land, as it grows versus net, all this stuff. And we can go on arguing about this for the next 100 years. I promise. Probably the better way to approach the seated lands is to come up with some kind of a solution that will be a combination of conveyance of 100 % to OHA or to a successor to OHA of, you know, some portion of the seated lands. And we don't have to argue over 20 % of what? Perhaps Native Hawaiian services at the university? These things have been suggested by a lot of people. There's a better way to package a settlement and a resolution with OHA. I agree with that. I think what we ought to do is we ought to go through Congress, get an act of self -determination for Native Hawaiians, use that act

of self -determination and work out the question of sovereignty. That doesn't mean that OHA doesn't get what they deserve. What it means is that the seated lands then come under two separate trusts instead of one trust. Right now, we are not being served by the state, we, meaning Native Hawaiians, are not being served by the state of the federal government. But we have to look at why we're not included in the federal policy regarding Native people. We have a claim to sovereignty. There's no question about it. If anything was proved by 1993, it's that we have a claim to sovereignty. Now, this kind of argument is really internal to a non -sovereign discussion. If we could solve the sovereignty problem, we could settle everybody's disagreements. But as long as there's a violation of the trust relationship, you're going to have fights with OHA. You're going to have fights with the University of Hawaii. I don't know why the University doesn't say, hey, we want free tuition for Ohoans, which is really what, following on what Malama is saying. They certainly could say that and say, that's your payment. Yes. We want free tuition for Ohoans. My students say they want free parking, they want free housing, they want free

meals. I mean, there's so much creativity that is lacking in this kind of fight. Collar is a holly and always read that Clayton, he was a terrible person. After listening to him, he seems reasonable. How do you like that Clayton? How much money is generated from seated land revenues? That's Clayton's tenure. That's right. How much money is generated from seated land? Well, I think you have to ask Clayton that. I mean, the figure is very, I think, the figure is we've heard over this year in the ways the Means Committee is from $12 to $17 million. However, I think they also, Oho, also pointed out that that is what is not disputed. There are areas that are disputed, so there may be more revenues, which they believe they're entitled to. But it's about $12 to $17 million a year. Is what you're getting now? It fluctuates because the state sometimes is derelict in paying the Native Hawaiians. For example, you may go three years and harbors won't pay. And then in the third year they pay a bigger amount, so you get a little spike here and there.

I know the state has been trying to address this and they should be given credit for that. Where I'm mystified at listening to some of the dialogue is that, you know, I just flat out disagree with what Representative Case is saying. And I suspect that Judge Healey would flat out disagree because as far as I am concerned, as far as our lawyers are concerned, as far as Judge Healey is concerned, the legislature has decided what are and what are not, and legal entitlements to the Office of War and Affairs. That's what Yamasaki was all about. As far as I am concerned, you know, we have talked about land, we have talked about cash, we have talked about structured settlements, we've talked about everything that we can on a table as wide as we can make it. You know, I've laid the governor to his credit has been more amenable to sitting down and discussing this in a more, what I believe, more productive way. But this is not new. This was started on the Governor Waahe. Actually, it was started before Governor Waahe when Senator

Solomon was a member of OHA. I think where we're at is that the issues of economics versus justice are being blended when justice is separate, entirely separate from economics. And what takes priority over the other when they're separate. They're separate issues. And we can deal with that as separate issues when you blend them. And then by implication, find fault with the Hawaiians for asserting their legal entitlements. I mean, then the arguments way off the table. Representative, did you want to respond to that? Well, I don't find fault with the Hawaiians for advocating for their cause. I think that's noble. And Chair, he does a very good job of it. He's the Chair of OHA. You should be doing that, and he does it very well. I think the real problem is that we have to find a way to fashion this overall settlement with OHA in the context of a bigger state picture. And the state picture is partly financial, partly frankly emotional, partly trying to build a broader consensus for the kind of settlement that we're going to need really to put this to rest.

We have some very practical problems as we go through that. We have the national bond companies that are very concerned over some of the issues that have been put in the table and some of the rulings that have come down. We have a very specific practical problem with the airports, for example, the Department of Transportation Inspector General, which is the equivalent of the auditor, says we shouldn't be paying any money from the airport to OHA. Now OHA gets 15 million a year in seated land revenues and half of that comes from the airports. And so because they have made that claim, the governor, I think rightly, chair he thinks wrongly, has basically escrowed that money and said, well until we get this worked out, we're going to hold it back. So OHA's revenues are actually down to about 7 million a year from the seated lands. Now the bill that the House is working with right now says we recognize that problem to OHA and we're going to make up the difference in the short term where we get this settlement worked out, we're going to set the amount to be paid to OHA at $15 million.

We'll take care of the airport problems separately. And there's another problem that's related to this. And that is what we all know of as Act 304, which was the law in 1990 that set how you would define revenues in which chair he and our discussing right now, has what's called a non -severability clause. And that says basically if any part of this is found to be no good, the whole thing falls. And the Attorney General has raised in the hearings that we've had that because the Inspector General has questioned the payments from the airport that maybe there's some problem with Act 304 overall. So we have a lot of pieces that are moving here and we're trying to kind of get them all on the table and everything calms down so we can sit down and talk about it. I'd like the Senate chair to tell me, is the position that you folks have developed similar to that of the House or is it different markedly? Well, I think, you know, what this case has done, Judge Healey's decision has done, given the present fiscal situation of the state, has forced everyone for the good to look at how we can

bring some resolution, finality to the whole issue of revenues and from seeded land and Senator Solomon and I, and she may want to join in and talk about it. But we have, you know, thought about what we could do. We have not sent over a bill to the House. I understand the House has a bill which we are going to have to look at. And I think we're going to look at with an open mind and to see if that's a direction we want to go. Yeah, well, just as a follow -up, I think that when we put this whole package together way back when, you know, 12 or 14 years ago, I think that the vision and the hope was that we would arrive at the, what Dr. Trass has shared with us when we would actually look at a partition of the lands, turn what is old, the Hawaiian people, partition the seeded lands, give them their share and allow them to do with it as they so desire. And I've always been a very strong advocate of that. I feel that in this fiscal situation that it provides us

with those opportunities to really look at that as a viable solution to be able to resolve what is old, the Hawaiian people. And it's, as indicated earlier, I just wanted to make comment with on Representative Case. You know, the fiscal problems of the state, I would just like to make a statement because I've sat on the Ways and Means Committee for 14 years is the failure of the legislature to come up with any revenue enhancement legislations that we, in fact, can boost our economy. We, in fact, can bring in new dollars to the state of Hawaii. You know, we shouldn't be kind of looking at what's in place now and the obligations that, and I'm not talking just to, oh, I'm talking to the unions. I'm talking to, you know, what was promised to our commitments to education, our commitments to healthcare. We cannot just be looking at tearing apart of what is there. I think that the state has to be progressive. We have to look at revenue enhancement pieces of legislation, move our economy forward, create the kinds

of revenue so that we can meet all of these obligations. No, Malaman's point is really well taken. If the state would say, let's work with the federal government to set up a sovereign enactment through Congress, we can settle some of those claims through the setting up of the Hawaiian nation. And what you do is say, here's a land base, just like with American Indians. Here's your, or federally recognized American Indian tribes. Here's your land base. Now, let's go through litigation, negotiation, discussing what the payment is. But as long as you have this problem, it's so interesting that what this whole fight is about is 20%. Yes. When, in fact, those are all stolen Hawaiian lands. And what we need to do is start talking about returning the lands. And it's fine. The state can say, we owe you $20 million. Here's a piece of land that's worth $20 million. I would love for the state to give us the airport. You know, the state sits there and says, no, you Hawaiians, you get 20 % and, oh, I'm sorry, we're broke now. You don't get anything. No, no. If we went through Congress, got

an act of Congress, became a federally recognized Native people, set up a trust relationship, you could do land and money and educational programs. State of Michigan lets all their Indian tribe people go to Michigan for free. Why can't they do that for Hawaiians? Because they're dicking around talking about 20%. 20 % is nothing. We own the land. That's the main issue. The land belongs to us. And we're fighting now about, you know, when the economy goes up, well, we'll give you $10 million. The economy goes down, we'll give you $0 .30. You'd be the biggest supporter of tourism in town. If you got that airport, you'd have those planes coming in. No, no. No, no, I joke. No. Clayton, if the seated lands were public lands under the monarch and used by all people, how is that different today? Why should Hawaiians get any money at all? Hawaiians have a legal entitlement to the land. Regardless of how one wishes to characterize what has happened to history, the lands were stolen. The government was illegally overthrown. Grover Cleveland himself said they were illegally

overthrown. And he said they should be returned back to the lawful kingdom of Hawai 'i. It's a real simple question. The other thing is, you know, there are two trusts. Those trusts are set up in the admissions act of 59. And in the act that made Hawai 'i a territory. So the caller needs to, you know, take my class. I mean, you don't know your facts. When Hawai 'i was admitted as a territory, the lands were to be used for the benefit of the inhabitants of the Native Hawaiian Islands. And in 59, there were two beneficiaries, Native Hawaiians, defined, unfortunately, by Blood Quantum and the general public. So there are already beneficiaries in the law. They're there. Why does Ohio plan to do with the money once they collect it? What are you folks doing with your money? I know you put some things in the newspaper. Ohio has our first big settlement was in 1993, received the money in July 1993. It hasn't been that long a time for the board members. But as they have been moving forward, and it's not been an easy time. And I'll be very candid about that. They have begun to put out new

programs. We're looking right now into merging some of our resources with our sister agency, the Department of Wine Homelands. And put together a mortgage company because we believe mortgage financing, refinancing, lease -to -fee financing, rent -to -own financing, home repair financing, our areas of large importance to the Hawaiian people. We have put 20 million into housing. We're going to put together with Hawaiian homes, a multi -family coupon housing and $1 million. So we're doing a lot of things. I'm sure it's not as fast and as quick as people would like it to be. But, you know... It's never hard. I have to re -enter up to our conversation for a break. But we will be back in 60 seconds with more dialogue on Hawaii's seeded lands. There is a tiny kingdom locked between Tibet and

India, where time stands still. Encounter the world of extraordinary environments, where life, in all its many incarnations, receives an everlasting respect. Experience Bhutan, the last Shangri -La, as readers digest world presents the Living Edons, coming in May to PBS. Welcome back to our dialogue on a Hawaii's seeded lands. My name is Dan Boylan. The handsome volunteers answering our phones this evening are members of the professional secretaries, international, Hawaii

chapter, and the friends of Hawaii Public Television. Call them please at 973 -1000 with your questions and comments for our guests. Neighbor Island residents may call us collect 973 -1000. There are lots of questions regarding what defines a native Hawaiian as far as getting benefits as concerned. I should ask the lawyers, I suppose. What defines a native Hawaiian as far as getting benefits? Well, it depends what law you look at. If you look at the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act, you're talking about 50 % blood quantum. If you're talking about traditional and customary rights in our Constitution, it's a descendant of a native Hawaiian who lived here in the islands prior to 1778. And then there's the Oha Law, which I defer to Chairman here about. Well, I just think it's ridiculous to characterize us as a certain definition to meet a to be Hawaiian, you have to be something. But someone wants to do that, don't they? It does, unfortunately it does, and San Diego is

correct. Blood quantum is at 50%. Well, you know, I don't know how one measures that in terms of practical reality. Because it is a diminishing return when you look at it from a numbers point of view. That's a good point, because not only are there less and less 50 % horns due to outmarriage, but also diaspora, horns leaving Hawaii because of the high cost of living. The other thing is, we should all be aware that racial classifications are now called by the United Nations racist classifications. That classifications based on race occurred in the South, and the United States occurred in South Africa, and other parts of the African continent. They're looked upon very badly as being racist classifications. And they were put in place, in our case, to make sure that those numbers of Hawaiians have 50 % or more blood quantum with diminishing numbers, and therefore the trust would go back to the thieves, the people who took the land to begin. Yeah, one of the real problems that O 'Hud does have is who it services,

because part of the law that sets up O 'Hud, if you trace it back historically, defines the Native Hawaiian that O 'Hud is supposed to serve as 50 % or more blood quantum under the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act of 1920. And yet another part seems to indicate that it's any Native Hawaiians, including as Senator Iwasi, has said anybody descended from part of 1778. And so O 'Hud has a practical problem of what money goes to what class of beneficiaries, because there is certainly the argument that the money from the seeded land should go only to 50 % or more. There's at least that argument. One of the things that we are trying to do in this house bill, which we expressly talk about in the house bill, is that during this time of trying to sit down, settle, work everything out, whether we could see, whether we could basically change that. So the flexibility that O 'Hud wants to service, I think, all Native Hawaiians and the Hawaiian Homes Commission would continue to service 50 % or more possibly. Those are the kind of issues that we need to work out. May I make a sermon on that? I think that there's too much intervention

on part of the legislature when we're looking at these issues. I think that the Office of Hawaiian Affairs should make those determinations. I feel that the Constitution has empowered them. They are the duly elected representatives of the Hawaiian people. And I think that the Hawaiian people themselves should deal with these issues and come up with recommendations to the federal government as well as to the state legislature to say, look, this is what, how we want to deal with the blood quantum issues. I think that politically it has been convenient for both the federal and the state government to use this as a very divisive way of dividing the community into the haves and have nots. And I feel that we have to move beyond that. You know, we're going to the two year of 2000. There's a whole federal report called Broken Trust, which is on Hawaiian Homes, but actually would be applicable to O 'Hud and the whole sovereignty question, which says, the way to get around all this is just to give Hawaiians self -determination and settle the issues after that. Because this is what's happening now is that first up the

admissions we get the seated lands, then we get a portion of the seated lands, now we get 20%. I mean, you don't have to be really smart to see that down the road, you're not going to get anything. Because the diminishing return is first the land, then co -beneficiary, not 20%. Now the legislature says we're broke, you don't get anything. Hey, wait a minute. You know, we're not getting what we really deserve, which is self -determination. That's why I keep coming back to that. Because otherwise, it's like a gambling table. What are you fighting over? 10 bucks, 20 bucks? Senator Solomon, none of us were responsible or even born when the overthrow happened. Why do we have to pay for it? Well, I just would like to follow up in what Chairman he had shared with us, and even Dr. Trask, I think that, you know, who are we to rewrite history? The events did happen, I think, that we have gone through extensive appeal process through the judicial, through the political processes, and we have all come to the determination and agreement that we do all for these injustices.

And I feel that we have an obligation to pay. I just would like to remind us here, it was about 10 years ago when we kind of got into a disagreement with the federal government and how they handled the Department of Hawaiian Homelands. And we felt that the federal government has never, never acknowledged the fact that they truly are a trustee for the Hawaiian people, as well as the state of Hawaii. It was my position then, and it's still my position now, that that should be stated, we should amend the act itself, we should confine the DHHL's problems to that of corporate law, where the state of Hawaii as a trustee should sue the federal government, as the other trustee, to get the kinds of dollars and monies that's owed the Hawaiian people to help them rehabilitate and do what they so desire with their entitlements. And you know, the broken trust report tells the federal government to sue the state. I mean, they're both saying you guys are trustees and you are

not doing their jobs. And in response to your question, to add to it, Dan, why pay? I think it's important to remember that much of this responsibility that we are mandated to follow comes out of our constitution. The constitution was voted upon back in 78 and supported by all segments of our population. And so we are mandated to do that, and it is our job to go see how we can flesh these things out, and to the best to our ability to execute on the mandates in our constitution, which the people approved. Common. Traditionally, a Hawaiian people did not own the land that Queen did, thus compensation should not be to all Hawaiians, but to descendants of the Queen. Need better understanding of traditional society. That's not true, isn't it? No, they should just inform themselves. Hawaiian studies gladly accept non -registered people, take my class. Also, be nice if they'd read something like the Blunt report. I'm knowledgeable and hold a PhD in American

history. Why are we locals being penalized for something that occurred between Queen Lille O 'Colani and Washington, D .C.? Washington, D .C. should pay not a why. What about that? All that means is I guess a PhD don't mean what a PhD is supposed to mean. Can I answer that? Yeah. I think we all get asked that. I think reasonable people can probably differ as to what obligation is owed for something that happened a hundred years ago. But I think what nobody can disagree with is the fact that under the law, the lands were conveyed to the state at statehood as a public trust. And there were five reasons, five reasons, one of which was to benefit Native Hawaiians. So whether or not you accept that anybody should be bearing any responsibility for what happened in 1893, the lands were conveyed. They weren't just given to the state of Hawaii unconditionally. They were given as a public trust. And I think that's

one thing that people that ask those questions don't understand is that these lands have conditions attached to them. And that's the conditions that are attached to them is what we're all trying to work out right now is how do we administer that public trust? It's not just free and clear land. And actually I would add to Ed's statement that if you look at the joint resolution of annexation, it clearly says that the lands of Hawaii are to be used to benefit the residents of Hawaii. And at annexation, the federal government took 400 ,000 acres of land which technically were supposed to be used for the benefit of the inhabitants, later that was broken up into Hawaiians and other residents. So, you know, really from the legal document that brought the Hawaiian Islands into the United States, there were listed obligations that the government had to fulfill to certain classes of people. So, I mean, it's not only the money that we're talking about, it's about, you know, is the word of the United States good or

bad. So far, it's been real bad and they ought to pay up, not just in terms of money, but in terms of their trust obligations. They have two obligations. One is from the joint resolution of annexation and the other one is from, well, there's three, the Hawaiian Homes Act and then statehood. There's three trust obligations and the US, as far as I'm concerned, has not taken care of business in any of those trust obligations. I do think in response to the question that was asked. The state has taken the greatest burden if you want to call it that, the lead if you want to call it that, in dealing with this issue. It is in our Constitution, we have the responsibility for the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act, we have the laws relating to OHA. At some point in time, whether it's resolving the issue of sovereignty and approving it by some federal act, the federal government has to become more actively involved in helping us to reach a solution or reparations or partitioning, and we are going to have to become more active as a community in drawing the federal government into this issue.

You know, Milliganian, I went to see the Department of Interior Timothy Gliddens to talk about their failure to include Hawaiians in the federal policy on Native Peoples. And their answer was, come back under another president. I mean, that is about as shoddy as you can get in terms of fulfilling your responsibility. The state is shouldering a lot of this burden, and the federal government owes too, especially regarding the military lands. I mean, how come we never got Louis Louis laid back into the Hawaiian Homes Corpus? That's outrageous. That whole thing is outrageous. They don't even need that land. Clay, with gambling coming through the state legislature, where are those seeded lands located on the big island where gambling might take place? Without drawing a map of the big island on the table, I think you could reasonably conclude that wherever the state owns lands, it's more likely than not that those lands were seeded at one time. So if you look for wherever lands are owned by the state, they are more likely than not to be seeded. For example, the

state owns quite high that those lands are seeded. And naturally, Hawaiian Homes lands are former seeded lands that are now in the Hawaiian Homes inventory. Someone calls when and where does it all end? If lands are given back 50 years from now, how much more will they want? I guess it ends when justice is delivered. Justice is denied, presently. I can imagine something here. Thank you. I think that everybody really plays light on the apology bill. But I just want to remind us here in the audience that in the apology bill, which was signed by President Clinton, it does acknowledge the inherent sovereignty of the Hawaiian people. And I think that this is an issue that the state should pursue. I think it's an issue that we have the administration has not championed. And I feel very strongly that we are in and this is an opportunity for us because we do have a president that has already acknowledged through the apology.

And we have to pursue that. And I'm so much focused. So much of our energy is dealing with this. But to me, this is just technical things. The big picture out there is the federal government. And I would hope that the office of Hawaiian Affairs with the legislature and the administration could get together and come up as joiners to party. All parties. And if Kalahui or others, Hawaiian groups would like to join and really pursue that at the federal level. The other thing is going back to what Clinton said, when you deny justice, you actually injure people. And when people are injured for a long time, they get very angry. So for people out there who say, well, forget justice for Hawaiians, you can expect to see a big rise in crime against tourists. In people being really angry. We know that's true for black Americans. Why deny justice? Why? That is a terrible way to look at how to treat

human beings. Why not say, let us discuss justice? Why not say that? I mean, you cannot have peace unless you have justice. Clinton, he, Oha seems choosy who they loan money to. Why can't all Hawaiians borrow money from Oha? This includes middle class Hawaiians. By definition, we try to service a priority on those who have not generally and Hawaiians overly represented in the lower income areas. It's not an effort to deny middle class Hawaiians an income from the office of Hawaiian Affairs. We have a process that everyone is invited to participate in. We have a joint partnership loan program with the federal government whereby you need to be turned down by two banks before you can come to us. So by definition, presumably someone of the middle class should be able to get a more conventional loan at a bank and allow those higher risk Hawaiians to have the opportunity

to get out from under. And the trustees by and large have adopted that policy of helping our Hawaiians who need the greatest help. Why are, I think this is, I guess this is a criticism. Why are taxpayers funding Oha who in turn is lobbying to take money from the taxpayers? Let me answer that. It's really an outrageous question from this. It's old. It's an entitlement. It's a legal entitlement. These are legal entitlements that are owed period. The fact that we're Hawaiian is incidental to the law as it's being applied. But I have to blame the legislature as well as the administration for that. I think that when we pit these kinds of problems, I think Oha's, their entitlements should be treated as entitlements. But when you go up there and make statements that we have to

cut back on yours because we have to pay this or we have to take care of welfare or we have to, you know, we're the ones that are sending those messages out to the general public. And that is wrong. That is absolutely wrong. These are, like I say, reparations, whatever you want to call them. These are hard to, for injustices that we've all agreed that we owe money on. Let's be real clear about the 1997 legislature. The effort by the House and the Senate where they seek to change chapter 10, they use the word clarify. Let's be real clear and clarify what they mean. It's an effort to reduce the entitlement for whatever reason, whether they don't have money or whatever. But to say it's clouded and it needs clarity. Look, we hire lawyers today. We used to throw rocks at the courtroom window. We walk through the door. We don't tell the judge

how to rule. We present our case and we win. We haven't lost yet. The only difference in what we do now than what my parents could do is they couldn't afford a lawyer. Oha can afford to pay lawyers who are non -Hawaiian, by the way. Representative, case, do you want to respond if this is not an effort to reduce the amount of money that's paid to Oha. It's an effort to take care of some short -term problems that are both Oha's problems and the problems of the state in general. And the ability to satisfy obligations admittedly owed to Oha. This is an effort to set up a settlement process that will work for everybody. This settlement process was suggested by Oha in our public hearings. Oha asked the Hawaiian Affairs Committee for three things, four things. A level source of funding because their funding was going up and down of being impacted by the airport situation, which again reduced the amount of money that was being paid to Oha. Number one, number two, they wanted an inventory. We agreed with that. Number three, they wanted to set up some process by which we

could all sit down. We adopted Oha's suggestion exactly in terms of the commission. Equal number of people from Oha, equal number of people from the governor. So this is not an effort to trim back Oha. This is an effort to get this settled. The questions tonight have indicated something that perhaps I think is sometimes lost to us that deal in Native Hawaiian issues. And that is there's a very broad population out there that doesn't understand it, frankly, is losing some tolerance over it, and they want it to end. And perhaps we all want it to end. And sometimes bringing some of these things to an end is threatening to many people. The question is, how do you bring it to an end in a way that everybody will walk away feeling that it was done fairly? This is one part of that. But let me ask you a political question. If you are as Oha is at the moment, winning in the courts. If I'm winning in the courts, am I going to go to the table with you guys, with legislators, or with Ben time? I think I'm winning in the courts. Ironically, we have always been at the table. We've always been at the

table. We've never left the table. We're still at the table. And you know, in all due respect. What if you think you're going to win the next day in court, and the guy in the table is asking for D. We think we're going to win. We wouldn't be in court unless we thought we were going to win. We're not there to play games. We think we're going to win. But it's not as if we are looking for solutions in partnering with the state. We recognize the problem. But you know, the legislative speak here is if it's not an effort to reduce the entitlement, what is the end result? A reduction in entitlement. That's the answer. What has the bill done? It has taken many of the entitlements, such as public housing, public health facilities, other interest on interest, and representative case, has made them exclusions under the law. We didn't ask them to make those exclusions. He took it upon his own volition. He took Judge Haley's decision, and he unraveled it. He unraveled it back to 1980. Evidently, we either have forgotten what co -equal branches of government are, or we

apparently in the legislature have the power now to change judicial decisions. This is really important because judges in the federal court have ruled for Native Indian sovereignty, and states have said enforce it, because we are not paying anything. And that's exactly what's going on in this case. And that's why Hawaiians need land and not just money. Because when you get to decisions, the Cherokee Nation, when you look at decisions, courts can say, yay or nay, but who has to actually pay up? Once you have a land base, if Hawaiians had their own land base, they could say to the state, you want to use our land you pay. You can't pay, get off. I mean, that'd be wonderful to kick the state off of Hawaiian land. Now, it's Hawaiians that are kicked off the land by a state that is increasingly saying, well, we know you're entitled to this, but we can't pay you. Representative, case, did you want to respond? Well, again, just the point that under the House bill that is before the House right now, the amount of cash that would go to or how it would

double in the next year or two. Because the governor is imparguing those airport funds, that's true, Cherokee. Number one, number two, as you said, there are two branches of government here, legislature and the judicial. The question that we're facing right now in terms of, and this is really the only, I think, the only major issue between OHA and the House position thus far, is that we are talking about what do we do with Act 304, which is the basis of Judge Heli's ruling, part of it at least. Well, we're trying to get ourselves through the settlement process. They have what they regard as a victory in the lower courts. They want to keep it. We're saying the judge made a mistake that was a legislative decision to make and the consequences of the state are devastating and harmful to the overall effort to get the settlement in place. Other than that, I don't think we're really that much far apart. But that one central issue, which is what do we do with Judge Heli's ruling while we're getting through this process, Cherokee is correct. That's the know of it, right there. Senator Wasey, you were taking

notes a minute ago, as though you were wanting to say something. I was just taking notes. You wanted that. It was such an interesting conversation. Under segregation, the federal court said, the Supreme Court of the United States said unanimously, segregation is wrong. Segregation of schools, one for blacks, one for whites is wrong. The southern states resisted and resisted. And in many cases, they're still resisting. That's what Mr. Case is talking about. The courts have said, Heli said, you owe this and the legislature is saying, well, you know, it's not clear what we owe. No, it's clear you don't want to pay. Isn't it interesting that Judge Heli is no longer in the state of Hawaii? He's in New York. How did he get to New York? They said, oh, this guy, we don't want this guy. His wife is so endless, get him out of the state of Hawaii. No. And that, you know, there is lots of precedent in segregation in the South. The Supreme Court said. No, I'm a political theorist. I'm telling you, that's my political analysis. Heli makes a good

decision and he disappears from the state. Come on. Let's get smart here. The difference between the two is in the case of segregation is an interpretation of the federal and state constitution. All Judge Heli was doing was talking about what is the state statute, state statute, enacted by the legislature. Now, who's the better person to decide that? The legislature or the court? That's why we have a division of government. That's why government has three branches and not just you guys. I thought you wouldn't need a judiciary. That's right. You just have a legislature. I'll give you the school because this is dialogue. You know, we need it. You need it. You know, this embargo, the so -called embargo on landing fees, you heard it first. We're going to sue the state and we're going to win. We're going to beat the state with its own attorney general. You heard it first. The inspector general's opinion, and that's all it is. The inspector general's opinion was not embraced by the attorney general's office, is not embraced by the congressional delegation and has not been embraced by the FAA. You heard it

here. We're going to beat the state because they don't want to sit here and talk to us about settlement. Those newspaper guys better be listening, hadn't they? Clayton there, we've been on a lot of calls on this one. Many complaints over Ohio's management of money. What can people with complaints do to change Ohio's ways? Well, let me put it, let me put it to you this, then. I think my friend here would say it better than I would. We just had an audit by marrying Higa. The one thing of anything else, which came out squeaky clean, sparkling bright, was a management of Ohio's money. In fact, she said, Ohio has much to be proud of for its financial management of its funds, period. I will concur. I read that audit as report three hours ago. It just came out this afternoon. In fact, it was a good audit as report and had a lot of praise for Ohio. So congratulations on that. Well, I should get some comments out. Here's somebody who calls in and says, what is the point of this conversation? Someone else calls and said, very good program speakers are very clear so we can pat ourselves back. This is a great panel. We should have this

panel with all the same guests on every month that is a well -balanced panel to educate Hawaiians. Are we going to get an agreement on this? We're down to very long time. But only if you're here. We're going to get an agreement on the seated lands issue of this session. We think so. It's a 30 second answer. I hope so. If I get 30 seconds, I think Representative Case pointed out this issue of this growing concern from the broader community and I think it's there. I think it's our obligation because it is in our constitution to fulfill that mandate. And to do it in a way that's fair to all parties. Perhaps the seated land issue, the things that Senator Solomon talked about, partitioning is something that we have to look at. Our hours, Paul, many thanks to our guests, Dr. Hanani K. Trask, Ohad Trustee Clayton, he, Representative Ed Case and Senators Malama Solomon and Randy Awasey. And to our volunteer phone answers from the professional secretary's international Hawaii chapter and the friends of Hawaii Public Television.

For the next two weeks, dialogue will be dormant. Hawaii Public Television will be in a live pledge period, soliciting funds for telecasts like this one. But I'll be back in March 21st when dialogue delves into the subject of cannabis, marijuana and hemp, to be specific. So if you'd like to send in your questions for that show, our new email address is dialogue at kgt .pbs .org. And here's another bit of information for you beginning tomorrow at 12 noon. Dialogue will be repeated on Saturdays from 12 to 1. Those of you who found it so good can watch seated lands again tomorrow at 12 or rerun. Guess that covers it for the night. So until next time for all of us at Hawaii Public Television. Thank you for watching dialogue. Good night. Dialogue is brought

to you by Hawaiian Electric Company, people with a powerful commitment. Hello, I'm Dan Borland. Last summer, Circuit Court Judge Daniel Healy ordered the state of Hawaii to pay to the office of Hawaiian Affairs more money from the

proceeds of seated lands. The estimated cost of Judge Healy's decision ranges from $120 million to $1 .2 billion. Governor Coyotano complains the payments will break the state. Hawaiian activists answer that they merely constitute justice. Join us for a dialogue on seated lands Friday at 8. I'm Dan Borland. Last summer, Circuit Court

Judge Daniel Healy ordered the state of Hawaii to pay to the office of Hawaiian Affairs more money from the proceeds of seated lands. The estimated cost of Judge Healy's decision ranges from $120 million to $1 .2 billion. Governor Coyotano says the payments will break the state. Hawaiian activists answer that they merely constitute justice. Join us for a dialogue on seated lands tonight at 8.