Aloha kakou. I am pleased to be here today with the individuals most responsible for providing, promoting and seeking the best educational resources available for our Native Hawaiian youth. I commend you for supporting and convincing the State Legislature to pass and the Governor to sign, the bill creating a graduate program for an indigenous language. I know that you realize the huge significance the signing of the bill by Governor Cayetano today at this 1997 Native Hawaiian Education Summit has on the future of the Hawaiian Language College at Hilo. It opens a new door for the educators and students seeking a bachelor's degree in the Hawaiian language and culture and the master of arts degree in Hawaiian language and literature. All of you should be commended for taking the time to participate in this important summit, but more importantly, for achieving your own personal goals of educational attainment. I am proud that we have more Native Hawaiian educators with advanced degrees than ever before. This is a trend that must continue.

I would like to especially commend Kamuela Chun and the members of the planning committee for organizing this conference. As a former educator, I believe that there is no greater tool than education which we can provide to our children. Education becomes even more important in Hawaii considering the continuing need to preserve our culture, our language, and our heritage, in a rapidly changing and technology-based environment.

I am sure that you have heard from the other Hawaii delegation members about the budgetary climate in Washington and the need to better coordinate Native Hawaiian education needs with the limited federal funding available. What I would like to talk about today is an issue which is very important to me and which I am seeking your kokua. I am referring to my efforts to reclassify Native Hawaiians under Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Directive No. 15, an important guideline governing racial and ethnic data collection by federal agencies. For years I have been advocating that the federal government rectify a longstanding misperception that Native Hawaiians are not indigenous peoples. In 1993 congressional and 1994 OMB hearings, I proposed to reclassify Native Hawaiians in the same category as American Indians and Alaskan Natives rather than the Asian or Pacific Islander category. Last month, I testified once again before a House subcommittee which has jurisdiction over census issues, and I challenged opponents to my proposal to provide evidence on why they believe it is fair to leave Native Hawaiians in the current Asian or Pacific Islander category.

The reason that I want to bring this issue to your attention is that shortly, OMB will be publishing in the Federal Register, recommendations on proposed changes, if any, to Directive No. 15, which has been unrevised since 1977. This will be the final opportunity for public comments on this issue. A final OMB decision is expected in mid-October of this year. Once OMB publishes its proposed recommendations, I will be issuing a call for support from the Hawaiian community and I hope that the participants of this summit will give this issue their fullest attention.

There are two main arguments against my proposal. First, it is argued by federal officials that my proposal would likely disrupt their ability to monitor trends or skew the statistics in the affected populations. I find such statements baffling and misguided. Any disruption of either the Asian or Pacific Islander or American Indian and Alaskan Native category is negligible compared to the benefits which federal officials will accrue in being able to fairly assess the Native Hawaiian community. Between 1980 and 1990 the Native Hawaiian population increased by 22.4 percent, compared to the American Indian or Alaskan Native population which increased by 37.9 percent. The aggregate Asian or Pacific Islander population by contrast doubled in size between 1980 and 1990, just as it did between 1970 and 1980. As a result, the Native Hawaiian percentage of the Asian or Pacific Islander category decreased from 4.6 percent in 1980 to only 2.9 percent in 1990. If Native Hawaiians were added to the American Indian or Alaskan native category for 1990 Census purposes, they would have comprised 9.7 percent of the category. I believe that this is fairer for statistical purposes and because the aggregate demographics of the American Indian or Alaskan Native population more closely match the Native Hawaiian population.

If one simply looks at health statistics, for example, Native Hawaiians are more comparable to American Indians and Alaskan Natives, rather than the healthier Asian populations, in infant mortality, cancer, and life expectancy rates. A 1987 Office of Technology and Assessment Report found that Native Hawaiians had a death rate 34 percent higher than the death rate for all other races in the United States. One alarming statistic was the death rate from diabetes. Native Hawaiians die from diabetes at a rate 222 percent higher than for all other races in the United States. If you look at other federal statistics like immigration, you might wonder what use the current Asian or Pacific Islander category serves federal officials when it comes to Native Hawaiians. According to the 1990 Census, over 63 percent of the aggregate Asian or Pacific Islander population were foreign born. This means that this category is largely comprised of individuals who have immigrated to the United States. Comparatively, only 1.3 percent of Native Hawaiians were foreign born. The 1990 Census also revealed that over 63 percent of the Asian or Pacific Islander population speak an Asian or Pacific Islander language at home, compared to 7.7 percent of Native Hawaiians. In education, 37 percent of the total Asian or Pacific Islander population over the age of 25 had completed college, compared to 12 percent of Native Hawaiians and 9.3 percent of American Indians or Alaskan Natives.

The second concern raised about my proposal is that it would adversely impact federal programs for American Indians and Alaskan Natives. OMB Directive No. 15 specifically states that the directive should not be viewed as determinants of eligibility for participation in any federal program. It should also be emphasized that the majority of federal programs established for the benefit of American Indians and Alaskan Natives, particularly the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Indian Health Service, are based on a trust relationship between the federal government and federally recognized American Indian tribes. My proposal does not affect the government-to-government relationship which exists between federally recognized American Indian tribes and Alaskan Natives and the federal government. It also does not affect the political status of Native Hawaiians. That is something, we, as Native Hawaiians, will resolve through the legislative process. OMB Directive No. 15 cannot grant federal recognition to Native Hawaiians. Federal recognition can only be granted through the Bureau of Indian Affairs recognition process, treaties, Presidential executive orders, statutes and case law.

How can reclassification, therefore, help Native Hawaiians? Some of the purposes that federal statistics under OMB Directive No. 15 are used for include:

• reviewing state redistricting plans;
• collecting and presenting population and population characteristics data, labor force data, education data, and vital and health statistics;
• establishing and evaluating federal affirmative action plans and evaluating affirmation action and discrimination in employment in the private sector;
• monitoring the access of minorities to home mortgage loans;
• enforcing the Equal Credit Opportunity Act;
• assisting minority businesses under the minority business development programs; and
• monitoring and enforcing the Fair Housing Act.

Apart from these standard reasons, however, I believe that the most important reason for us to be moved involves how we view ourselves. As far as I'm concerned, our current classification by the federal government denies us our identity as indigenous peoples. While there have been proposals put forth to have Native Hawaiians as a separate category or as part of a separate Pacific Islander category, I am realistic about the opposition by federal officials of any new category for any group in the nation. In addition, such proposals have not received broad-based support from the communities affected. Lastly, to prevail on this issue, unity will be key. Therefore, I will continue to be advocating for my reclassification proposal and ask for your support. During the 104th Congress, I opposed the English only bill introduced by Senator Shelby of Arkansas. A number of ethnic organizations joined me to oppose the bill which we felt would be used against future non-English programs in the nation. It would establish English as the official language and English in all official documents by law, even though 97% of the U.S. population speaks English. If passed, it would have had an adverse effect on Hawaiian and indigenous people's programs.

My resolution to set standards for indigenous peoples was passed by the U.S. Senate. The United Nations excitedly considered the resolution and declared a Decade for Indigenous People. We are now in the decade. I held an Indigenous Peoples conference at the East-West Center with Samoans, Chamorros, Hawaiians, and directors from the Departments of State, Justice and Interior. It was the first phase of setting standards for indigenous peoples of the United States. We will continue this effort.

Mahalo for giving me this opportunity to share my mana`o. I wish all of you the best as you move forward with the recommendations proposed at this summit.