What follows is public comment and testimony offered by Richard O. Rowland for the Grassroot Institute of Hawaii (GRIH) to the Hawaii State Advisory Committee and the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. It was delivered on September 11, 2007.

I am Dick Rowland, President of Grassroot Institute of Hawaii, a nonpartisan, nonprofit public policy analysis and educational institution based in Honolulu. Thank you for this opportunity to address this panel.

It is understood that there have been several verbal attacks on Grassroot Institute of Hawaii before this panel in the last few days. I have come to clear the air by giving you the five key concerns we have regarding the proposed Akaka Bill.

First, we believe that much more public debate and discussion of this legislation and how it will affect Hawaii and the nation are needed. This hearing contributes to that purpose. Thank you.

Second, we refuse to believe that persons of Native Hawaiian ancestry are in any way inferior to persons of other ancestry. The reason we make this point is that proponents of the bill constantly cite poor education, unemployment or under employment, poor health, social unrest, homelessness etc. among persons of Native Hawaiian ancestry as a reason to enact the Akaka Bill.

Third, and related to the above point, even if we were somehow incorrect in our confidence in the immense inherent capabilities of all human beings including those of Native Hawaiian ancestry, we reject the idea that the solution to inferior performance is a law to create political superiority of one ancestral group over those of all other ancestry. That is exactly what the creation of a separate, exclusive Native Hawaiian Governing Entity accomplishes and it does so in perpetuity.

Fourth, the Akaka Bill is intended to be imposed upon Hawaii from the federal government level without any provision for the explicit consent of the people of the State of Hawaii. A vote of the people of Hawaii should be required before Congress acts.

Fifth, the Apology Resolution of 1993 passed by Congress implies that the U.S. supported the overthrow of the Queen of Hawaii in 1893. That conclusion is bad history, thoroughly refuted by two earlier extensive studies ordered by Congress that reach the opposite conclusion. Accordingly, we believe the Apology Bill should be rescinded. In any event the people of Hawaii should not be punished by allowing the confiscation of land owned by the people of Hawaii, worth billions of dollars and transferring it without compensation to the new Hawaiian government.

In summary, GRIH is not explicitly opposed to the Akaka Bill. Instead, we object to:

1. The lack of adequate debate and discussion to develop full understanding of the proposed bill by the people of Hawaii and the nation.
2. The notion implied by backers of the bill that those of Native Hawaiian ancestry are somehow inferior or inadequate. We believe that to be false.
3. The notion that such supposed inadequacy could be corrected by perpetual superiority imposed by law.
4. The absence of any provision for the people of Hawaii to approve the Akaka Bill prior to action by the US government.
5. The imposition of all costs for implementation of the bill on the innocent people of Hawaii.

Richard O. Rowland is President of Grassroot Institute of Hawaii.