Ka Wai Ola - Office of Hawaiian Affairs, Volume 4, Number 1, 1 Ianuali 1987 — Mai Wakinekona [ARTICLE+ILLUSTRATION]

Mai Wakinekona

Federal Legislation: Past and Present Issues

By Larry Kamakawiwo'ole Fpdpral I iaknn Offirpr

This article begins a three-part series on federal legislation and its impact on Hawaiians. Issues raised in the last Congress concerning Hawaiians and federal legislation will probably be raised in the current Congress. I raise these vital issues before the Hawaiian community for

your deliberation. • Public Law 99-557: Hawaiian Homes Commission Act Amendments. Although H.J. Res. 17 was enacted into law, President Reagan and certain members of the House of Representatives have raised important issues. First, the President expressed eoneem that the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act (hereinafter "Act") contains an express racial classification in providing that certain public lands may be leased only to persons having "not less than one-half of the blood of the races inhabiting the Hawaiian Islands previous to 1778." Therefore, the continued application of the Act raises serious equal protection questions. The P.t dent further commented that the amendment thai reduces the native-blood requirement to one-quarter for successorship casts additional doubt on the original justification for the racial classification. Finally, President Reagan urged the Congress to give further consideration to the justification for the racial classification. The Hawaiian community should continually be aware of racial classification as applied to public lands, such as Hawaiian Homes lands. The constitutional issue of racial classification has been raised before the Supreme Court of the United States. The Court, however, has traditionally struck down racial classification arguments when it has found that the group in question has suffered a history of discrimination. A study of current socio-economic data reveal that Hawaiians as a group has a history of discrimination in Hawai'i. Additionally, although the reduction of the nativeblood requirement to one-quarter applies only to successorship and not to Hawaiian Homes applicants, members of the House Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs raised questions concerning blood quantum ai the public hearing on H.J. Res. 17 held on Nov. 21, 1985. For example, will the Hawaiian Homes Commission return to Capitol Hill in the future to seek approval of an amendment to the Act to further reduce the native-blood requirement for successorship? Similarly, questions have been raised in Washington as to whether the Hawaiians are an identifiable group. Historically, intermarriage has been an integral part of the Hawaiian community. Moreover, blood quantum has been only one factor in determining who is a Hawaiian. Other factors include religious and cultural values, beliefs and practices and language. Although the Hawaiian community is quite capable of responding to questions of blood quantum and ethnic identification, it should be aware of what questions concerning Hawaiians are being raised in Washington. Second, Representatives McCain, Lagomarsino, Strang, Barton, Vucanovich and Craig expressed a dissenting opinion concerning H.R. Res. 17. They raised three important issues: (1) it is unclear whether the 9,000 possible qualified native Hawaiians would have supported the amendment concerning the reduction of the native-blood requirement for successorship. Unfortunately, only 16 percent responded out of approximately 1,000 questionnaires sent out, and only 57 percent of those responding supported the amendment: (2) the House Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs had not adequately reviewed the 53 other State-enacted changes to the Act; and (3) as a result of the reduction of the native-blood requirement for successorship, a

series of lawsuits may result by other nonqualified native Hawaiians based on an equity argument: how ean the law treat one class of one fourth Hawaiians as qualified, and another class of one fourth Hawaiians (applicants) as unqualified? Fublic Law 99-457: Education of the Handicapped Act Amendments of 1986. The Senate passed S. 2294 on June 6, 1986, with four Hawaiian provisions in the bill: (1) a grant to address the needs of native Hawaiian children with handicaps: (2) an amendment to include Hawaiian children with handicaps in research, innovation, training and dissemination activities; (3) a grant to address the needs of parental training; (4) a grant to develop program models and demonstrations for native Hawaiian children with handicaps. However, Congress passed H.R. 5520 and the President signed it into law on Oct. 8, 1986 with the Hawaiian provisions deleted. The reason for the deletion is that the House Republicans did not want to single out any particular group (e.g., Hawaiians), but instead have everyone compete for program funds. As a result, a bipartisan bill was forwarded to the President. In exchange for the deletion of the Hawaiian provisions in the bill, House Republicans agreed to use strong language concerning Hawaiian children with handicaps in the House Report, H. Rept. 99-860. For example, the House Committee on Education and Labor "directs the Secretary (of Education) to make. . .a separate grant. . ,to the State of Hawaii for the purpose of addressing the needs of native Hawaiian children with handicaps." H. Rept. 99-860, p. 26. Furthermore,"(the) Secretary is also direct ed to make a separate grant to a nonprofit agency in the State of Hawaii for the purpose of training native Hawaiian parents. Id. at 30. Finally, (t)he Committee directs the Secretary to make a grant to. . .an educational agency in the state of Hawaii. , .for. . .developing program models and demonstrations for native Hawaiian children and youth." id. at 32' Although the language used in the House Report is strong, the Secretary of Education need not do anything about it. Because the preceding statements are in the House Report, there is no violation of law should the Secretary of Education ignore thgm. H.R. 3247: Native Americtm Programs Amendments of 1986. President Reagan vetoed H.R. 3247. The purpose of that bill is to amend the Native Ameriean Programs Act of 1974 (hereinafter "Native Ameriean Act") to authorize appropriations through 1990. The purpose of the Native American Act is to promote the goal of eeonomie and social self-sufficiency for American Indians, Hawaiian natives and Alaskan natives through financial assistance to support locally developed*projects, training and technical assistance and financial assistance to support research, demonstration and evaluation activities. The administration of the Native American Act is vested in the Secretary of Health and Human Services who is directed to delegate those responsibilities to the Commissioner of the Administration for Native Americans (ANA).

The President vetoed H.R. 3247 because it would substantially increase administrative requirements (e.g., require the Secretary of. Health and Human Services to justify eaeh grant decision to the Congress) and costs (e.g., require that every general statement of agency policy or procedure be made throughformal notice and comment rulemaking). However, the President stated the he supports the objectives of the Native American Act. In that light, he urged the Congress to provide funding for programs under the Native American Act in the fiscal year 1987 and also urged that the new Congress promptly consider new legislation to authorize appropriations for those programs. In conclusion, because any law ean be divisive, the Hawaiian community needs to conduct a thorough examination of all issues affecting Hawaiians on Capitol Hill and at the White House well before they are enacted into law.