History of the Hawaiian Government Reorganization bill beginning April 1, 2007 and continuing. U.S. House Committee on Resources passed Akaka bill unamended May 2. U.S. Senate Indian Affairs Committee held hearing on Akaka bill May 3, and passed it unamended on May 10.

The history of the Akaka bill during the entire 110th Congress, January 2007 through December 2008, is divided into subpages covering several time-periods. The index of topics for the entire 110th Congress, with links to the subpages, can be found at
https://www.angelfire.com/planet/bigfiles40/AkakaHist110thCong.html

========================

HERE IS THE INDEX OF ITEMS FROM APRIL 1, 2007 THROUGH MAY 31, 2007. FULL TEXT OF EACH ITEM FOLLOWS THE INDEX, IN CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER, RUNNING ABOUT 200 PAGES.

April 12, 2007: Richard Rowland, President of Grassroot Institute of Hawaii, writes an article consisting entirely of important questions about the Akaka bill which so far have no answers.

April 13: (1) Article in "Indian Country Today" notes that House passage of Native Hawaiian Housing bill was held up by Republicans objecting to race-based benefits, and comments that the Akaka bill will meet far stronger resistance. (2) Senator Akaka responds to questions in a live one-hour internet bulletin-board discussion hosted by the Honolulu Advertiser on its website (full text provided of comments related to Akaka bill).

On April 17 the Western States' Sheriffs' Association publicized a resolution they adopted at their annual convention on March 8. The resolution is relevant to the Akaka bill because it describes the difficulties faced by state and local law enforcement officials dealing with conflicting jurisdictions where there are Indian tribes, and the need for proper training of tribal police and tribal courts. The resolution can be downloaded from
https://www.angelfire.com/planet/bigfiles40/WesternStatesSheriffs2007.pdf

April 20: "Indian Country Today" publishes a commentary by a Hawaiian independence activist opposing the Akaka bill, entitled "Native Hawaiians maintain their inherent sovereignty." The essay concludes "It seems a more critical time than ever for Hawaiians and all U.S. citizens to critically question why there should not be a Hawaiian embassy in Washington, D.C. Instead of negotiating with the Department of the Interior, Hawaiians have the un-extinguished right to negotiate instead with the U.S. Department of State''

April 23: Senate website contains announcement of Akaka bill hearing in the Indian Affairs Committee for May 3.

April 27: Honolulu Advertiser finally publishes article: "U.S. Senate committee sets Akaka bill hearing"

April 29: Honolulu Advertiser editorial supports Akaka bill; includes e-mail address for submitting testimony to the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs for the May 3 hearing

April 30: (1) Honolulu Star-Bulletin editorial supports Akaka bill, encourages a hopeful attitude but says patience may be becessary. Editorial says even if the bill passes, President Bush is likely to veto it and there is probably not a 2/3 supermajority to override a veto; so it will be necessary to wait for a new President. (2) Honolulu Advertiser reports that the House Committee on Resources will hold a hearing on the Akaka bill on Wednesday May 2.

May 2: (1) Honolulu Star-Bulletin lengthy news report describes great worry because several anti Akaka bill people are under consideration to be nominees to the Hawaii Advisory Committee of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, including H. William Burgess [see also May 7]; (2) HONOLULU ADVERTISER REPORTS AKAKA BILL HAS PASSED HOUSE COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES, UNAMENDED, ON VOICE VOTE.; (3) KITV4 news adds more detail about House committee passage.

May 3, 2007 news reports: (1) Hawaii Tribune-Herald (Hilo) [Stephens Media Group] provides detailed reporting about House Natural Resources Committee passage of Akaka bill on May 2; (2) Honolulu Advertiser report on House committee passage AND description of Senate committee hearing scheduled for today; (3) Honolulu Star-Bulletin report on House committee passage AND description of Senate committee hearing scheduled for today; (4) Honolulu Advertiser breaking news reports Dept of Justice official testifies in Senate that "Bush administration 'strongly opposes' Akaka bill" and that Senator Lisa Murkowski (R,AK) objected to the strong language used by the DOJ official who "used words like secession, balkanization, racially isolated government, preferential treatment and corrosive effect."

MAY 3, 2007 HEARING OF SENATE COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS: (1) Roundup of links to previous years' testimony, publications, and speeches on the Senate floor; (2) 2 hour 38 minutes streaming audio/visual movie of the entire Senate committee hearing; (3) Written statements in pdf format by witnesses Gregory Katsas (Dept of Justice), Mark Bennett (Hawaii Attorney General), Haunani Apoliona (Chair, Office of Hawaiian Affairs), Viet Dinh (Professor of law), and H. William Burgess; (4) Testimony published before the hearing in html format from Burgess, Bennett, Micah Kane (Chair, Hawaiian Homes Commission), Richard Rowland et. al (Grassroot Institute of Hawaii and several groups in other states), Kenneth Conklin (including addendum rebutting Bennett), National Leadership Network of Conservative African-Americans, Congressmember Mazia Hirono press release regarding House committee passage on May 2, Press release from Sen. Akaka's office including selected audio segments from the Senate hearing downloaded from "demradio"

May 4: (1) Hawaii Tribune-Herald (Hilo; Stephens Media) lengthy and detailed news report on Senate committee hearing, headlined "White House slams Akaka bill" includes this IMPORTANT sentence: "Akaka said after Thursday's hearing he hoped the bill will pass out of the Senate Indian Affairs Committee next week."; (2) Honolulu Star-Bulletin news report on Senate committee hearing, focusing on harsh words from Department of Justice official and responses; (3) Star-Bulletin editorial: "Prepare for a battle to pass Akaka Bill"; (4) Honolulu Advertiser report similar to Star-Bulletin but different details, and includes this sentence: "Akaka said he hoped the committee would vote on the bill next week."; (5) Honolulu Advertiser editorial cartoon shows Akaka bill running up the steps to the Supreme Court; (6) Indian Country Today "Akaka Bill gathers strength in committee hearings" discusses whether ethnic Hawaiians are assimilating to America or whether it's the reverse, and Burgess' use of terms "apartheid" and "evil empire."; (7) Democracy Now (Amy Goodman) radio/TV interviews Senator Akaka regarding Iraq War, Lt. Ehren Watada, Akaka bill, and the Real ID Act. Akaka says he admires Watada refusal to be deployed to Iraq, and he says Burgess is wrong that the bill will lead to secession. Audio/Video can be downloaded.

May 6: Epoch Times news report "Native Hawaiian Sovereignty Bill Gains New Life" puts Akaka bill into perspective with a brief but wide-ranging review of the Hawaiian sovereignty issue (online newspaper, with print editions in UK, Ireland, USA, Australia, New Zealand)

May 7: (1) Letter to editor: Akaka bill opponents belong on Hawaii Advisory Committee to U.S. Civil Rights Commission; (2) The Maui News editorial "Hawaii needs Akaka Bill"; (3) Jim Growney (a Native Hawaiian) "open letter" testimony opposing Akaka bill

May 8: (1) Senate Committee on Indian Affairs will hold a business meeting on Thursday May 10 at which it will discuss 4 bills, including the Akaka bill and the Native Hawaiian housing bill. It is possible there might be a vote on 1 or more bills. Honolulu Advertiser reports the upcoming committee hearing with misleading headline "Senate may vote on Native Hawaiian bills Thursday" implying the full Senate might vote on them on May 10, which of course is not possible. Committee agenda for May 10 is provided from committee webpage. (2) Kyle Kajihiro, highly paid to be an anti-military activist, publishes lengthy article in Haleakala Times (Maui) describing in detail U.S. military presence in Hawai'i and calling it a monster that is destroying the land and culture of ethnic Hawaiians.

May 9: "Heritage In Focus: Hawaii: Separate but Equal?" Heritage Foundation spokesman Todd Gaziano explains why Akaka bill is bad, in a 2-minute movie on YouTube.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qF7vu81djM0
If link error message says tape is temporarily unavailable, then go to YouTube internal search window and enter "Akaka Heritage" to find it.

May 10: (1) AKAKA BILL PASSES SENATE COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS; (2) Governor Lingle attends Senate committee hearing and continues lobbying Republican Senators and Bush administration while in Washington for a conference. (3) Jere Krischel publishes his testimony contradicting assertions made by Senator Dorgan, Hawaii Attorney General Bennett, and OHA chair Haunani Apoliona

May 11: (1) Very important article in Indian Country Today reports what went on behind the scenes in the House Natural Resources Committee when it passed the Akaka bill on May 2: A Republican opponent of the bill had prepared two amendments to require compliance with the 14th Amendment and to require a referendum on the ballot in Hawaii; but he failed to formally offer those amendments when the committee returned after a recess; (2) Another article in Indian Country Today provides a biased view of history and says "Hearings in the House of Representatives and the Senate May 2 and 3 built up a legislative record of rebuttal to Department of Justice claims that the Native Hawaiian governing entity will divide U.S. sovereignty by encouraging so-called ''secessionist'' sentiment in the islands, foster race-based governance and invite constitutional scrutiny from the courts."

May 11: A collection of 10 news reports and commentaries about Akaka bill: (1) West Hawaii Today (Kona) news report about Senate Indian Affairs Committee passing Akaka bill; (2) The Garden Island News (Kaua'i), news report; (3) Honolulu Advertiser, news report; (4) Honolulu Star-Bulletin, news report; (5) Letter to editor: "On Hawaiian resurgence": "If there is an ugly theme to this land that the haoles like to call paradise, it was brought here by the blue-eyed, white skinned malihini."; (6) LTE: "Hawaiians don’t need Akaka Bill, already have a government": "We all yearn for the U.S. to peacefully end the illegal U.S. occupation of Hawaii and to follow Hawaiian Kingdom laws instead of trying to push the Akaka Bill down our throats."; (7) LTE: "Akaka Bill interpretation: U.S. will control all land": "Wake up, everyone. The poison is on the horizon. The Akaka Bill is still out there. Should the Akaka Bill pass we, the kanaka maoli, would own no land at all. The U.S. government would hold all lands in trust."; (8) LTE: "Akaka Bill would further divide Hawaii on race basis": "The whole purpose of the Akaka Bill is to authorize the breakup of Hawaii. A new government gets created excluding 80 percent of our people by race. Land, money, and jurisdictional authority get divided up. Why do this?" (9) Joseph Gedan published his testimony to the Committee: "Racial Harmony in Hawaii Will Be Marred by Akaka Bill"; (10) Honolulu Advertiser columnist says "It is good to see Republican Gov. Lingle on board with this issue that is so important to Democrats. But if it can't make it through the Bush people, don't blame us. Blame Lingle. She is the one self-"tasked" with winning the hearts and minds of the GOP policymakers in the White House."

May 14: Two lengthy articles in "Indian Country Today" by staff columnist Jerry Reynolds propagandize for the Akaka bill. (1) "Akaka Bill opposition loses ground on constitutionality, race and separatism issues"; (2) "10 Ways of Looking at the Akaka Bill". (3) Letter in The Garden Island News (Kaua'i) "New book is wake-up call" puts Akaka bill into the context of the big picture: "Some recent letters show strong zealotry for Hawaiian sovereignty. I’d like to make readers aware of a new book, “Hawaiian Apartheid: Racial Separatism and Ethnic Nationalism in the Aloha State.” This book is a wake-up call to all America, and especially Hawai‘i, regarding the growing menace of Hawaiian racial separatism and ethnic nationalism."

May 15: (1) 1300-word Commentary by Ken Conklin in INSIGHT MAGAZINE [affiliated with The Washington Times] describes the big picture of racial separatism and ethnic nationalism in Hawai'i, and how the Akaka bill fits into that picture.; (2) Richard Borreca, Honolulu Star-Bulletin columnist, writes "news report" pointing out that the Akaka bill is very important to protect Kamehameha Schools' racially exclusionary admissions policy for the future, even though the settlement of the lawsuit in Doe v. Kamehameha temporarily preserves that policy until the next lawsuit.; (3) After a settlement was announced regarding the Kamehameha School desegregation lawsuit, Congressmember Mazie Hirono issued a press release expressing gladness that Kamehameha admissions policy can continue, and citing the threat to Hawaiian racial entitlements as a reason why the Akaka bill must pass; (4) Commentary by Andrew Walden in Hawaii Reporter points out that the Kamehameha lawsuit is being used as a "dog and pony show" for the Akaka bill. Whether or not the Kamehameha lawsuit was successful and whether or not it still remained actively underway, Akaka bill supporters use such lawsuits to strike fear in the hearts of ethnic Hawaiians to goad them into supporting the Akaka bill and use such lawsuits to explain to Capitol Hill politicians why the Akaka bill must pass.; (5) Hawaii Reporter commentary "Tribalism vs. Republican Governments" by Paul R. Jones of Arizona.

May 18: Two articles in "Indian Country Today: (1) Patricia Zell, a primary pusher of Akaka bill, discusses strategy for including Akaka bill as part of other legislation in order to avoid offering veto-bait to President Bush; (2) Controversy in Alaska regarding whether Alaska Native villages and corporations are really tribes and should be able to have casinos - in relation to Akaka bill and Native Hawaiian housing bill.

May 22 (Insight Magazine) and May 23 (The Hudson Institute): Herbert London, President of The Hudson Institute, writes that the Akaka bill would balkanize America.

May 25: H. William B urgess, who testified in person againsty the Akaka bill before the Senate Indian Affairs Committee, published his answers to 7 followup questions sent to him by the Committee a few days after the hearing was held.

=======================
=======================

FULL TEXT OF EACH ITEM, IN CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER (ABOUT 200 PAGES)

http://www.hawaiireporter.com/story.aspx?25ebf47e-2269-4fca-81df-2304f6e622f3
Hawaii Reporter, April 12, 2007

Questions About the Akaka Bill

By Richard O. Rowland
[Dick Rowland is the President of the Grassroot Institute of Hawaii.]

Have you ever seen an essay that is all questions? Want to try it out?

What does the Akaka Bill actually say? Where can you go to find out? Why should you care?

How much state land would the new Native Hawaiian government require? Twenty percent? Fifty percent? More? How would that be determined? Who would decide? Would you have a say in the matter or even a vote? When? Before or after negotiations?

Would the Akaka Bill affect your taxes? Would you have to pay taxes to support the new tribal government?

Who would compose the population of a Native Hawaiian government? Would a blood quota of some sort be necessary to be a citizen of the new government? If a certain percentage of Native Hawaiian blood was required, could you get a blood transfusion from a 100% Native Hawaiian to meet the qualification?

If all persons with any Native Hawaiian ancestry are to be incorporated into a new tribal nation, will that create a caste system in which some Native Hawaiians are more worthy than others? For example, will full-blooded Hawaiians be granted more voting power, more use of available property and money, etc. than those with less? If not, is an individual's percentage of Hawaiian ancestry meaningless? If so, why is any amount at all important?

Would a tribal government be in competition with the Hawaii State government? Why or why not?

Would Hawaii bond ratings be effected? If so, would your taxes increase?

If the electric company had lines that go through land belonging to the new tribal government, would it have to pay special fees? If so, will the cost of electricity go up?

Who would own the ceded lands on which Honolulu Airport sits? How would travel be impacted?

What if you need to go through Native Hawaiian government lands to get to your own property? Could your access be blocked? What could you do about that? What about existing highways? If they run through lands of the new government, will access fees be charged?

Would residents/ buisnesses of the new Native Hawaiian nation be subject to the Jones Act?

If your next door neighbor is part Native Hawaiian, will the Akaka Bill give him special rights? Will it give him any special obligations to you or you to him?

Will the new tribal government be inclined to protect my interests? Why? Why not?

Under which government (Hawaii state or new Native Hawaiian) would Kamehameha School property fall? What would be the effect if it went to the new nation? What about other Native Hawaiian trusts? Same or different?

Why do we need a new government? We don't have enough now? Do American Indian Tribes on the mainland have separate governments? If so, how has that worked out? Is the average Indian better off? Why? Don't Indian Reservations have bad reputations? Who has power and wealth in Indian Nations? Why? How?

Do Indian Nations pay taxes? Are their citizens Americans? Indians? Both? What does that mean?

Do you have a headache? Why? Why don't you ask these questions of Senator Akaka? Or even your state Senator or Representative. Would that give them a headache? Will they give you a personal guarantee of the correctness of their answers?

Why don't you give it a go? Would you like to send us some new questions? Would you like to see more of ours?

Or, would you like to take two aspirin and one day of bed rest?

----------------

http://www.indiancountry.com/content.cfm?id=1096414834
Indian Country Today, April 13, 2007

Washington in brief

by Jerry Reynolds

NATIVE HAWAIIAN HOUSING BILL GETS THROUGH HOUSE, GEARS UP FOR SENATE

A bill reauthorizing Department of Housing and Urban Development programs for Native Hawaiians passed by simple majority vote in the House of Representatives March 28, a week after falling short of a two-thirds majority vote under special rules that admitted no debate.

The vote after debate was 272 - 150 in favor of the bill, a gain over the 262 - 162 margin that wasn't good enough under so-called ''suspension of the rules.'' All Democrats present cast votes in favor of the bill, H.R. 835 in the House. The improved margin meant 16 more Republicans, 50 instead of 34, had come to support Hawaiian Homeownership Opportunity, as the bill is titled.

Christopher Boesen, a lobbyist with Tiber Creek Associates of Capitol Hill, said he was glad of the gains among Republicans. ''They didn't have to do that, they knew it was going to pass.'' The Democratic majority in the House is sufficient to pass any simple majority vote along party lines.

''I'll tell you the credit I give on that one,'' Boesen said of the extra GOP support. ''Renzi did some really good work.''

Rep. Rick Renzi, R-Ariz., co-chair with Rep Dale Kildee, D-Mich., of the Congressional Native American Caucus in the House, told his colleagues on the House floor that the bill does not concern Native Hawaiian sovereignty or confer it.

Rep. John Boehner, R-Ohio, the Minority Leader in the House, and other House Republicans took issue with the bill on grounds it would grant a preference based on race. That would be unconstitutional if it were so, but in committee debate Democrats dismissed the interpretation as irrelevant to the bill itself.

Boesen agreed. ''They weren't talking about this bill. They were talking about the Akaka Bill.''

The Akaka Bill, after its namesake Sen. Daniel Akaka, D-Hawaii, seeks to authorize a process that would lead to the federal recognition of a Native Hawaiian governing entity. Federal recognition would establish Native Hawaiians as a governmental classification, rather than a racial group. Advocates contend it would complete the country's framework for indigenous relations, following the federal recognition of American Indian and Alaska Native governments. Opponents in the Senate last year successfully opposed the Akaka Bill as race-based legislation. A Senate version of H.R. 835, S. 710, is before the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs. A bill must pass both chambers of Congress in identical form to become law upon the president's signature.

''The Senate's going to be really hard,'' Boesen said. ''We know that.''

===========

** HONOLULU ADVERTISER SPONSORED A "HOT SEAT" SESSION IN WHICH SENATOR AKAKA APPEARED LIVE IN AN INTERNET DISCUSSION FORUM AND ANSWERED QUESTIONS FOR ONE HOUR, NOON TO 1 PM HST ON FRIDAY APRIL 13, 2007. THE EVENT WAS ANNOUNCED THE PREVIOUS SUNDAY, AND PEOPLE WERE ALLOWED TO POST QUESTIONS DURING THE FIVE DAY PERIOD BEFORE THE LIVE EVENT, AS WELL AS DURING THE ACTUAL EVENT. THERE WERE A TOTAL OF 56 ITEMS POSTED, INCLUDING QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS. MANY OF THEM WERE ON TOPICS NOT RELATED TO THE AKAK BILL, SUCH AS VETERANS AFFAIRS, ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES, AND THE WAR IN IRAQ.

** THERE WERE 11 QUESTIONS POSTED DURING THE 5 DAYS BEFORE "HOT SEAT" WENT LIVE. HERE ARE THE ONES RELATED TO THE AKAKA BILL
http://blogs.honoluluadvertiser.com/index.php?blog=19&title=coming_next_u_s_sen_daniel_akaka&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1#comments

--------------

Comment from: chris [Visitor]
Aloha Senator Akaka-

I would like to suggest a new avenue for the recognition bill. If you encouraged OHA&DHHL to create a centralized Hawaiian homeland in Moloka'i it would be much easier for Congress to recognize. The Navajo Nation currently has this. Native Hawaiians are scattered in small pockets all around the islands and lack a centralized homeland. Billionare speculators like BIL Corporation and computer tycoon John Mcafee are moving in quickly to develop Moloka'i while land is still relatively cheap. With these factors the Hawaiian majority may change soon. Quick action to tie Moloka'i land purchases to the recognition bill movement would be very significant in getting your important bill passed.
04/08/07 @ 18:06

-----------

Comment from: Kealii [Visitor]

Aloha Senator akaka I would like to ask how do you feel that a state agency like the "Office of Hawaiian affairs" which has not disclosed all of its spending records to its beneficiaries, with regards to lobbying for passage of your recognition bill is currently promoting the creation and oversight of the new Hawaiian Nation ? Wouldn't this action be considered seditious and can a state agency like "OHA" use tax payer money to lobby for and at the federal level with out consent from its beneficiaries.
04/08/07 @ 20:34

-----------

Comment from: Jere Krischel [Visitor] · http://morganreport.org

Aloha, Senator Akaka. Given the long-standing tradition of hanai, in both the ancient, kingdom, and modern culture of Hawaii, how do you plan on addressing that issue in a newly created "native Hawaiian" government? Will hanai children and relatives be part of that government? Or will you exclude them because of their race? In short, will this "native Hawaiian" government be perpetually racially exclusive, or will its character be changeable over time? Also, do you consider Prince Kuhio a traitor to the kingdom and the native Hawaiian people for supporting the integration of Hawaii, and all of its people, as a State of the Union following the overthrow and annexation? Do you personally believe Prince Kuhio made the wrong choice by encouraging a united Hawaii State Government, instead of a separate government for "native Hawaiians"?
04/10/07 @ 05:19

------------

Comment from: Bill Punini Prescott [Visitor]
Senator Akaka,

There are senior Hawaiian homesteaders like myself with non-Hawaiian spouses who under current law must give up their home upon the death of the lessee. Can't this law be amended to allow the spouse who has given birth or fathered a Hawaiian child to have the right of tenancy for the rest of their life? Local administrators have refrained from addressing this problem.
04/12/07 @ 09:58

--------------

Comment from: Russell Ho'okano Ryan [Visitor]

Senator Akaka,
Have you read The Aloha Aina Anti-Annexation Petitions of 1897-1898? If you have not than please do. Also The Federal Reorganization Bill (S.310) has been changed several times since its introduction and we have not been able to vote on these changes. Senator Akaka before this bill is presented to the U.S. Senate shouldn't all of us Hawaiians have a vote on your new and rewritten BILL?
04/13/07 @ 06:45

-------------

Comment from: Tom [Visitor]

Senator, I have a two fold question...

1) During the debate with Congressman Case you said or inferred that someone who is white could not possibly understand 'Aloha' or 'Ohana' and given that Ed Case is a fourth generation Hawaiian don't you regret making that racist generalization? And don't you think that white people, indeed ALL of us, should have a say in the future of Hawaii?

2) As many of us felt and still feel that you are ineffective and frankly too old to be in office and given the fact that you have not been successful in getting the US Navy's carrier group to be stationed here and given the fact that all the Veterans Hospitals are in such bad conditions... don't you feel it is time for you to resign and allow a younger more aggressive person to do the business of the people?

Respectfully,
Tom & Sharon
Kaneohe, HI
04/13/07 @ 11:14

---------------

** NOW BEGINS THE LIVE HOT-SEAT FROM NOON TO 1 PM HST ON FRIDAY APRIL 13, 2007, TAKEN FROM:
http://blogs.honoluluadvertiser.com/index.php?blog=19&title=on_the_hot_seat_u_s_sen_daniel_k_akaka&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1#comments

THERE WERE 45 ITEMS POSTED. NOTE THAT THERE IS A LAG TIME BETWEEN WHEN A QUESTION GETS POSTED AND WHEN IT GETS ANSWERED, WHILE OTHER QUESTIONS GET POSTED IN BETWEEN. HERE ARE THE ITEMS RELATED TO THE AKAKA BILL, INCLUDING THEIR TIME-STAMPS.

----------------

Comment from: Jeanne Mariani-Belding [Member]

Aloha Senator. And thanks for making time to chat with our readers here on The Host Seat. To get things rolling, here's a question sent via e-mail from Paul Smith: Are you planning to hold public hearings on the Akaka Bill in Hawaii before consideration in the Congress? If not, why not?
04/13/07 @ 12:03

--------------

Comment from: Russell Ho'okano Ryan [Visitor]
Senator Akaka,

Have you read The Aloha Aina Anti-Annexation Petitions of 1897-1898? If you have not than please do. Also The Federal Reorganization Bill (S.310) has been changed several times since its introduction and we have not been able to vote on these changes. Senator Akaka before this bill is presented to the U.S. Senate shouldn't all of us Hawaiians have a vote on your new and rewritten BILL?
04/13/07 @ 12:04

---------------

Comment from: Sen. Akaka [Member]

Aloha!
Mahalo for joining me today in this forum, and mahalo to Jeanne and the Advertiser for giving me this opportunity for this online talk story with all of you out there. There are so many critical issues affecting Hawaii, the United States and the world today. I am looking forward to answering as many questions as I can today to let you know what I'm up to. Let's get started.

To answer Paul's question, at this time we are not planning to hold additional hearings in Hawaii. I continue to work with Chairman Dorgan of the Indian Affairs Committee who is an original cosponsor of the bill to consider the bill in committee
04/13/07 @ 12:07

--------------

Comment from: Sen. Akaka [Member]
Comment from: Russell Ho'okano Ryan [Visitor]
Senator Akaka, Have you read The Aloha Aina Anti-Annexation Petitions of 1897-1898? If you have not than please do. Also The Federal Reorganization Bill (S.310) has been changed several times since its introduction and we have not been able to vote on these changes. Senator Akaka before this bill is presented to the U.S. Senate shouldn't all of us Hawaiians have a vote on your new and rewritten BILL?

Aloha Russell, thank you for your suggestion. This is, as you know, a very complex and emotional issue.

The bill I've introduced this year, S. 310, is essentially the same bill that we came up with years ago after extensive meetings with Native Hawaiian community leaders. I do not want to dictate how the Native Hawaiian representatives will operate, only to begin the process. Native Hawaiians will be able to vote for representatives that can shape the Native Hawaiian Governing Entity together as a community. It's up to future generations to move forward. Russell I hope you will vote and help shape the governing entity when it gets started. Mahalo Nui Loa for your question.
04/13/07 @ 12:11

----------------

Comment from: Marc Williams [Visitor]
Dear Senator Akaka,

It is my sincere plea that you will no longer pursue the Akaka bill. I believe that native Hawaiians have endured enough, and that as the 50th state of the Union, Hawaii has truly been blessed. What a privilege to be part of the most powerful nation on earth. Please allow us all to heal...
04/13/07 @ 12:16

---------------

Comment from: Jeanne Mariani-Belding [Member]
Thank you Senator. Here's one on the Akaka bill from Meheroo:

Your Bill proposes to protect the interests of the native Hawaiians which is commendable. Please tell us how it will impact on the overall economy of Hawaii in terms of employment, investment and per capita incomes of all residents in the state.
04/13/07 @ 12:22

-------------

Comment from: Ana [Visitor]

Aloha Senator, Mahalo for your time and for your hard work. What do you see as the most significant challenge in passing S. 310 in this session of Congress? Can or will any developments with the KS case at the Supreme Court hinder passage of the bill? Also, the state legislature did not pass consider any resolutions to support S. 310 as it did in 2005. Will this have any negative impact on the bill?
04/13/07 @ 12:27

-------------

Comment from: Sen. Akaka [Member]
Comment from: Jeanne Mariani-Belding [Member]
Thank you Senator. Here's one on the Akaka bill from Meheroo:

Aloha Marc and Meheroo, thank you for your comments and questions on the Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act. Federal Recognition will formalize the existing legal and political relationship of the Native Hawaiians with the United States. The true impact will be to restore a measure of social justice and dignity for Native Hawaiians as an indigenous people – without taking anything away from the many others who have worked hard and made invaluable contributions to our beautiful Hawaii. The result will be a strengthened Hawaii, with greater prosperity and esteem for all.
04/13/07 @ 12:28

--------------

Comment from: Richard O. Rowland [Visitor]
Senator Akaka-

It is noted that the Akaka bill cites the American Indian precedent to justify the passage of the bill. Does that mean that the current legal and social conditions of American Indians are to be a desireable model for a new native Hawaiian nation? Why or why not?
04/13/07 @ 12:31

----------------

Comment from: Steve Doyle [Visitor]

Your public relations people in Washington continue to insist that Native Hawaiians and non-Native Hawaiians are showing "widespread support" for your bill, however a sizeable number of Native Hawaiians are still incensed that they were not consulted before the drafting of this bill. For example, I would refer you to the letter to Sen. Ben Nighthorse Campbell (Chair, Sen, Committee on Indian Affairs) back in Sept. 2000 by Kekuni Blaisdell Convenor of the Kanaka Maoli Tribunal Komike where he states that you (and your office) ignored repeated requests for information and communications on this proposed bill. That was almost seven years ago. So, after your many years of honorable and distinctive service in the U.S. House and Senate, why would you wish your legacy to be a bill that some are calling the Native Hawaiian "Act of Apartheid" while so few Hawaiians have had a chance to voice their opinions and have their concerns listened to?
04/13/07 @ 12:32

------------------

Comment from: kealii [Visitor]

-------------

Comment from: Sen. Akaka [Member]
Comment from: Ana [Visitor]

Aloha Senator, Mahalo for your time and for your hardwork. What do you see as the most significant challenge in passing S. 310 in this session of Congress? Can or will any developments with the KS case at the Supreme Court hinder passage of the bill? Also, the state legislature did not pass consider any resolutions to support S. 310 as it did in 2005. Will this have any negative impact on the bill?

Aloha Ana -

It is likely that, as the bill is considered in the Senate, we will have to secure the 60 votes necessary to bring the bill to the floor. This was the challenge last Congress, but we did demonstrate that in an up-or-down vote on the bill, we would have the votes necessary to pass. It has been my standard policy not to interfere with matters that are under litigation. However, I remain committed to enacting legislation that will clarify the existing legal and political relationship of Native Hawaiians with the United States.
04/13/07 @ 12:47

----------------

Comment from: Jeanne Mariani-Belding [Member]
Thank you Senator. You have another question that landed from Bill Punini Prescott in Nanakuli:

--------------

Comment from: tom and sharon [Visitor]
Senator,

I have a two fold question... 1) During the debate with Congressman Case you said or inferred that someone who is white could not possibly understand 'Aloha' or 'Ohana' and given that Ed Case is a fourth generation Hawaiian don't you regret making that racist generalization? And don't you think that white people, indeed ALL of us, should have a say in the future of Hawaii?

Respectfully,
Tom & Sharon
Kaneohe, HI
04/13/07 @ 12:56

-------------

Comment from: Sen. Akaka [Member]
Comment from: Richard O. Rowland [Visitor]
Senator Akaka-

Aloha Richard -

Through S. 310 the Native Hawaiian people will finally be able to reorganize a governing entity within the framework of U.S. law. Unlike American Indians and Alaska Natives, Native Hawaiians are denied this right under current law. I believe this will empower Native Hawaiians and all the people of Hawaii to move forward together as a state.

Native Hawaiians are fortunate to be able to learn from the successes and failures of native communities throughout the country. The bill provides the necessary structure and flexibility to best meet the needs of the Native Hawaiian people and all the people of Hawaii.
04/13/07 @ 12:58

---------------

Comment from: Sen. Akaka [Member]
Comment from: Steve Doyle [Visitor]

Sir, many Hawaiian voters are deeply troubled with your continued support of the Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act of 2007 (S.310/H.R.505), also known as the "Akaka Bill". Most of the citizens of Hawaii were given little or no opportunity to provide input and ask questions about the ramifications of such a bill. We seem to have been left out of the the decision-making process and we smell legislation crafted in Washington,D.C., not Hawaii. Your public relations people in Washington continue to insist that Native Hawaiians and non-Native Hawaiians are showing "widespread support" for your bill, however a sizeable number of Native Hawaiians are still incensed that they were not consulted before the drafting of this bill. For example, I would refer you to the letter to Sen. Ben Nighthorse Campbell (Chair, Sen, Committee on Indian Affairs) back in Sept. 2000 by Kekuni Blaisdell Convenor of the Kanaka Maoli Tribunal Komike where he states that you (and your office) ignored repeated requests for information and communications on this proposed bill. That was almost seven years ago. So, after your many years of honorable and distinctive service in the U.S. House and Senate, why would you wish your legacy to be a bill that some are calling the Native Hawaiian "Act of Apartheid" while so few Hawaiians have had a chance to voice their opinions and have their concerns listened to?

Aloha Steve -

When I first started this process in 1999, our Congressional Delegation created five working groups to assist with the drafting of this legislation. The working groups were composed of individuals from the Native Hawaiian community, the State of Hawaii, the federal government, Indian Country, Members of Congress, and experts in constitutional law. Collectively, more than 100 people worked together on the initial draft of this legislation. The meetings held with the Native Hawaiian community were open to the public and a number of individuals who had differing views attended the meetings and provided their alternative views on the legislation. In the eight years since, I've had continuing communcations with people from all sectors and backgrounds. In all the legislation I've worked on, I can't think of one that has had more input in its development.
04/13/07 @ 13:01

-------------

Comment from: tom [Visitor]
Senator,

Do you consider yourself racist against whites malihini who have moved to the islands? Why or why not? Do you feel responsible in any way for the problems at Walter Reed and other VA facilities?

Mahalo
Tom
04/13/07 @ 13:03

---------------

Comment from: Sen. Akaka [Member]
Comment from: Jeanne Mariani-Belding [Member]
We're out of time folks! A big mahalo to Sen. Daniel Akaka for chatting with us on The Hot Seat. Nice job, Senator Akaka. The Senator tells me he will continue to read the blog and answer every question directly. Wow! That's service. Be sure to watch for excerpts of this community conversation in Sunday's Focus section of The Advertiser.

Mahalo Nui Loa Jeanne and all of you who posted questions today. I'm sorry we ran out of time before I could answer every question, but I hope my responses have helped to shed some light on what we're up to here in Washington. Should you have any further questions, please contact me through the webform on my website:
http://akaka.senate.gov/contactme.htm
Have a great Aloha Friday afternoon, and wish me a good evening because it's getting dark (and cold) up here in D.C.
Aloha, a hui hou kakou
04/13/07 @ 13:13

--------------

Comment from: Tom [Visitor]

Why does it not surprize me that the tough questions were not asked of the Senator even though they were forwarded to Jeannie several days ago and posted again before the 'Chat' started. What a SHAM... Senator you have truly master the DC 2 step! Very sad.

I hold you and the other Senators on the VA committee DIRECTLY responsible for Walter Reed and the sorry state of VA health care.

And on the 'kaka bill' we will not allow your bill to pass nor be enforced nor will we sit by while you and a few others of the vocal -minority- who live in our state try to rip the 50th star off the flag! AND make no mistake that is EXACTLY what its about... sedition and Independence from the United States. NEVER!

Hawaii Nei USA - Then, now, ALWAYS!
04/13/07 @ 13:17

=============

----------------

http://www.indiancountry.com/content.cfm?id=1096414877
Indian Country Today, April 20, 2007

Native Hawaiians maintain their inherent sovereignty

by: Gale Courey Toensing

NEW HAVEN, Conn. - Why should Native Hawaiians who have never relinquished their inherent sovereignty settle for the lesser status of federal recognition that is being put forward in the ''Akaka Bill''?

They shouldn't, says J. Kehaulani Kauanui.

Kauanui, a Native Hawaiian and an assistant professor of anthropology and American studies at Wesleyan University in Middletown, presented a short history of Hawaii/U.S. relations and her views of the Akaka Bill in a talk called ''The Politics of Native Hawaiian Self-Determination: U.S. Federal Policy v. International law'' at Yale University on April 4.

She began with thanks to the event sponsors - the Yale Group for the Study of Native America and the Program in Ethnicity, Race and Migration - and acknowledged the land now known as New Haven as the original homeland of the Quinnipiac people.

A heated debate about Hawaiian sovereignty now centers on the proposed Hawaiian federal recognition bill reintroduced into Congress by Sen. Daniel Akaka, D-Hawaii, in January after six years of defeat in the Senate, Kauanui said.

The Hawaiian sovereignty movement is split between those who support federal recognition and those who want full independence from the United States based on decolonization and de-occupation under international law, Kauanui said.

''At the heart of this division between federal recognition and independence is the debate as to whether or not, and if so, how Native Hawaiians fit into U.S. policy on Native American governing entities,'' Kauanui said.

A compelling argument against federal recognition is how federally recognized tribes are treated now, Kauanui said.

''You have a backlash against tribal nations in this area who are absolutely entitled to federal recognition and you have the state bearing down on them, and the courts continue to erode tribal sovereignty. So the challenge for me, intellectually, legally and politically, has been how to formulate my critique of federal recognition for Hawaiians without it ever being misinterpreted as something that can be used against tribes here, because I support the federal recognition of tribes here,'' Kauanui said.

But the central argument against federal recognition rests on ''the particularity of the Hawaiian claims given the legal history of the Hawaiian kingdom,'' Kauanui said.

Those particularities are embedded as facts in Public Law 103-150 - an apology to the Hawaiian people that was signed in 1993 by President Bill Clinton.

The apology acknowledges the illegality of the U.S. government's military-backed regime change of ''the sovereign Hawaii nation'' in 1893 and its support for the illegally created ''provisional government'' in violation of treaties and international law. The insurgents were wealthy American and European financiers and colonists who owned sugar plantations.

The key statement in the apology reiterates Hawaii's continuing independence: ''The indigenous Hawaiian people never directly relinquished their claims to their inherent sovereignty as a people or over their national lands to the United States, either through their monarchy or through a plebiscite or referendum.

''This legal genealogy makes the current push for federal recognition as reflected in the Akaka Bill extremely problematic,'' Kauanui said.

The word ''people'' itself puts Hawaiians in line with international law that says all peoples have the right to determine their political structures.

''When you say 'people,' you're saying a nation. A people is not an ethnic group,'' Kauanui said, quoting Lumbee legal scholar David Wilkins, who outlined four elements that set American Indians apart from racial minorities.

''Indians are nations, not minorities,'' Wilkins said, because they were the original inhabitants of the land; their pre-existence necessitated the negotiation of political compacts, treaties and alliances with European nations and the United States. As treaty-recognized sovereigns, Indian peoples are subject to U.S. trust doctrine, which is supposed to be a unique legal relationship with the federal government that entails protection; and, stemming from the trust relationship, the United States asserts plenary power of tribal nations, which it deems exclusive and pre-emptive.

Native Hawaiians who want to pursue self-determination through international law contest this U.S. use of the ''doctrine of discovery'' to indigenous peoples' lands and U.S. assertion to legal title to those lands while only recognizing tribal nations' use of the land, Kauanui said.

The ''provisional government'' ceded 1.8 million acres of Hawaiian lands to the United States in 1898, but those lands have never fallen into private hands.

''These are lands the U.S. government accepted from the people that stole them from the Hawaiian monarchy. Never has a penny exchanged hands and never has a case about the legal title of these lands ever been adjudicated so this is a major outstanding land claim - 1.8 million acres of some of the most expensive real estate in the world and one of the most militarized place in the world,'' Kauanui said, referring to the massive U.S. nuclear base in Honolulu, which is the central command for U.S. military interests in the Pacific Ocean.

Supporters of federal recognition say there is nothing in the Akaka Bill that would compromise or foreclose Hawaiian national claims under international law, but U.S. actions in asserting its plenary power to keep tribal nations both domestic and dependent belie that claim, Kauanui said.

Hawaiians may not be able to realize their independence right now, ''but just because you can't see it come to fruition right now doesn't mean you throw it down the toilet. You protect the claims. I'd rather stick with the status quo for the moment and work on cultural sovereignty, get the people stronger and work on educating people about their political rights,'' Kauanui said.

Under the Akaka Bill, Hawaii could never have casinos, never have criminal and civil jurisdiction, never petition the secretary of the Interior Department to take land into trust and never be able to make land claims under the 1790 Non-Intercourse Act, which would mean ''there goes those 1.8 million acres,'' Kauanui said.

No competing Hawaiian sovereignty group would have legal standing in any domestic court or at the United Nations. The Native Hawaiian government would be formed by a commission appointed by and answerable to the Interior secretary, unlike federally recognized Indian tribes who determine their own leadership and membership. And Hawaiians could not have their own civil or criminal jurisdiction.

''Why should we do that? It seems a more critical time than ever for Hawaiians and all U.S. citizens to critically question why there should not be a Hawaiian embassy in Washington, D.C. Instead of negotiating with the Department of the Interior, Hawaiians have the un-extinguished right to negotiate instead with the U.S. Department of State,'' Kauanui said.

---------------

April 23: The Senate Select Committee on Indian Affairs will hold a hearing on the Akaka bill Thursday May 3, starting 9:30 AM Eastern Daylight Saving time which is 3:30 AM Hawaii time. No witness list has been posted yet [although at least one witness has already been invited and received a confirmation]

An announcement has been posted on the Senate website, for at least a day or two. The news media have remained silent -- either they don't know, or else they're cooperating with OHA/Akaka/Inouye stealth tactics. Shall we do the media's job for them?

The basic announcement was at
http://indian.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Hearings.Hearing&Hearing_ID=70

Here is expanded information of special use to those who wish to provide testimony or watch the event on an internet broadcast.

Testimony can be submitted by e-mail to:
testimony@indian.senate.gov

They get a lot of spam, so be sure to put in the subject line
"Hearing 5/3/07 on S.310, Testimony"

Two years ago, in February 2005, the committee hearing was broadcast live over the internet; presumably that will be done again, although no information has yet been posted. Last time there was a link on the Indian Affairs Committee website which went live moments before the hearing began. Links for hearings are posted a few days before the hearing occurs, under the calendar on the right-hand side of the Indian Affairs Committee website at
http://indian.senate.gov/public/

The link often goes "hot" only moments before the hearing actually begins. Those with only dialup internet will probably get a poor quality herky-jerky series of still photos; but can probably hear continuous audio buffered by a few seconds.

----------------

The Advertiser has suddenly "noticed" information that has been publicly available for at least four days]

http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070427/NEWS23/704270371/1173/NEWS
Honolulu Advertiser, Friday, April 27, 2007

U.S. Senate committee sets Akaka bill hearing

By Dennis Camire
Advertiser Washington Bureau

WASHINGTON — A bill extending a federal policy of self-governance and self-determination to Native Hawaiians will be discussed at a Senate Indian Affairs Committee hearing May 3, setting up a new struggle to push it through Congress.

The bill's sponsor, Sen. Daniel Akaka, D-Hawai'i, said Wednesday he was "extremely pleased" the committee set a hearing.

"I remain optimistic about finally providing the parity between Native Hawaiians and our country's other indigenous peoples that is long overdue," said Akaka, who has battled for seven years to gain Senate approval of the bill.

The so-called Akaka bill would create a process for the federal government to recognize a Native Hawaiian government.

Supporters say it would give Native Hawaiians a political status similar to that exercised by Native American and Alaskan Native tribes. The new government would be able to negotiate with the United States and Hawai'i over disposition of Native Hawaiian land and other resources.

Martha Ross, bureau chief for the state Office of Hawaiian Affairs in Washington, said the agency was hoping that the bill would pass this year.

"Everybody is just very, very pleased that we are moving forward," she said. "We are optimistic."

Over the years, Senate Republicans have blocked the bill, arguing that it would set up an unconstitutional race-based government. Last year, they blocked a bipartisan effort to force a final debate and vote on the bill with a 56-41 vote, short of the 60 votes needed.

But the bill's supporters may have a better chance of getting it through the Senate this year, where Democrats and allied independents have a 51-49 majority.

"The new Congress presents a new opportunity for passage of the Akaka bill," said Sen. Daniel K. Inouye, D-Hawai'i, a co-sponsor. "I am confident that this important legislation will eventually receive congressional approval."

But first, the bill must again clear the Senate Indian Affairs Committee, chaired by Sen. Byron L. Dorgan, D-N.D., also a co-sponsor.

Both Akaka and Inouye serve on the 15-member committee, as do three co-sponsors — Sens. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., Gordon Smith, R-Ore., and Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska.

Although no witnesses have been officially announced for the hearing, H. William Burgess, a spokesman for the nonprofit group Aloha For All, which opposes the bill, said he has accepted an invitation to testify.

"It's kind of a landmark ... because no opponents of the Akaka bill to my knowledge have ever been invited to testify before," Burgess said.

He said he opposes the bill because it would give people who have an ancestor who is indigenous to Hawai'i the right to form their own separate sovereign government and negotiate the breakup of the state and the giveaway of lands, resources and governmental authority.

"It would undo the whole idea in the United States that every person is entitled to equal protection of the laws," he said.

The current bill is the same as the one revised last year to answer some of the concerns raised by the Justice Department. Those revisions preclude Hawaiians from bringing land claims against the U.S. and prohibit gambling, which has been a source of wealth for some Indian tribes.

Despite the changes, the Justice Department announced in June that the administration "strongly opposes" the bill, raising the possibility of a presidential veto even if it passes the Senate and the House, where Reps. Neil Abercrombie and Mazie Hirono, both Hawai'i Democrats, have introduced identical legislation.

Reach Dennis Camire at dcamire@gns.gannett.com.

-----------------

http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070429/OPINION01/704290311/1105/OPINION
Honolulu Advertiser, Sunday, April 29, 2007
EDITORIAL

Now's the right time to push the Akaka Bill

The Akaka Bill is back on the table in Washington, D.C. No other piece of legislation has greater potential to change the political and social landscape in Hawai'i.

Now, a rare window of opportunity has opened. Those who have something to say, one way or the other, had better say it now.

The Senate Select Committee on Indian Affairs will hear the bill Thursday (see box), moving the Native Hawaiian federal recognition issue back to center stage. Debate over the bill -- now dubbed S. 310, the Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act of 2007 -- already has simmered long enough for most people to form an opinion.

A lot of those opinions are based on an imperfect understanding of the bill, but even those who are clear on the concept have drawn radically different conclusions.

Supporters -- including The Advertiser's editorial board and most elected leaders in the state -- believe a law to recognize Hawaiians as a political class of people is needed to insulate federal benefits aimed at Hawaiians from constitutional and legal challenges. It would start an admittedly difficult but necessary move toward negotiations to finally settle injustices arising from the overthrow of the Hawaiian monarchy more than a century ago.

Some critics believe it's a complete sell-out -- the current version includes some significant concessions aimed at defusing the organized opposition in Washington, D.C.

Other foes of the bill question the premise that Native Hawaiians are owed anything, not even the recognition offered to Native Americans and Native Alaskans across the Mainland. They also fear the racial qualification for benefits and leadership in a new government would enshrine unequal treatment.

Chief proponents include the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, which has rededicated itself to the fight, despite disappointment with some of the more recent concessions.

Among these: the declaration that sovereign immunity would insulate the state and federal governments from Native Hawaiian court claims, meaning that all settlements would take place in the negotiations between a newly organized Native Hawaiian political entity and the state and federal governments.

However, this should be seen as a compromise that could move the bill past Square One. It would reduce the likelihood that the bill would create a new legal backlog in the state and federal courts.

OHA officials and selected others are heading to D.C. this week, primarily to make the legal case that the Constitution would allow Native Hawaiian recognition. In-person testimony is accepted only by invitation, but anyone can submit it in writing.

The campaign to win the votes needed to bring this bill to the Senate floor should begin now, and elected leaders across the state should make their support known. Last session, the push for a final Senate vote fell short, and some of this opposition remains entrenched. It's going to take a concerted effort, by those in Hawai'i as well as in Washington, to ensure that the effort doesn't fail this time.

Some of the bill's support has been tepid in the past, based as much on political sensitivity as on true dedication to the cause. But those whose heart is really in the fight should not sit on the sidelines any longer. The opportunity may not come again.

GET INVOLVED:

Written testimony on S. 310 can be submitted:

# By e-mail to testimony@indian.senate.gov (the subject line should read: "Hearing 5/3/07 on S.310, Testimony").

# By fax to the Senate Select Committee on Indian Affairs at (202) 228-5829.

-----------------

http://starbulletin.com/2007/04/30/editorial/editorial02.html
Honolulu Star-Bulletin, April 30, 2007, EDITORIAL

OUR OPINION

Optimism, patience needed for Akaka Bill

THE ISSUE
A U.S. Senate committee plans to hear testimony Thursday on a bill to grant Hawaiian sovereignty.

HAWAII's congressional delegation is moving ahead to seek enactment of Hawaiian sovereignty but should not be optimistic. Even if Congress approves the Akaka Bill, President Bush has given every indication that he will veto it, so Hawaiian parity with American Indian tribes may have to wait for the next administration.

Senate opponents of the bill filibustered it last year, and the 56-41 vote fell four votes short of the 60 needed to gain final consideration. The House voted 262-162 last month in favor of a bill for federal funding of Hawaiian housing projects, short of the two-thirds needed for passage under a special House procedure.

Those votes indicate that the two-thirds vote needed to override a presidential veto is lacking in both chambers, even though Democrats have gained control of the Senate. On the eve of last year's Senate vote, the Bush administration made clear in a letter to the Republican Senate leadership that it opposes the Akaka Bill because it would "divide people by their race."

The Senate Indian Affairs Committee is set to hear testimony about the bill Thursday. Both Sens. Daniel Akaka and Daniel Inouye are members of the committee, which is expected to swiftly send it to the Senate.

The push for enactment of the legislation in the current session will not be wasted. The debate should further educate members of Congress about the need for federal recognition of native Hawaiians.

Akaka said he remains "optimistic about finally providing parity between native Hawaiians and our country's other indigenous people that is long overdue." His optimism is warranted, but not until the next president takes office.

----------------

http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2007/Apr/30/br/br0927641835.html
Honolulu Advertiser, Breaking news, 1:32 p.m., Monday, April 30, 2007

U.S. House panel may vote Wednesday on Akaka bill

By Dennis Camire
Gannett News Service

WASHINGTON — The House Natural Resources Committee may vote Wednesday on a bill creating a process for a future Native Hawaiian government to gain federal recognition.

Reps. Neil Abercrombie and Mazie Hirono, both Hawai'i Democrats, introduced the bill in January.

"This legislation is long overdue as Native Hawaiians are the only indigenous group in the United States lacking federal recognition," Hirono said today. "Passage will promote Hawaiian pride and accountability."

Hirono said the bill — known as the Akaka bill due to Sen. Daniel Akaka's sponsorship and ongoing effort to rally support for it — does not threaten the constitutional, civil and property rights of any Hawai'i citizen, as some critics have charged.

"The Akaka bill will also provide a legal shield against the blizzard of lawsuits filed by those groups intent on stopping all programs that assist Native Hawaiians," she said.

Abercrombie, a committee member, said in January that the bill gives the Native Hawaiian community the tools to guide its own destiny and manage assets, such as land and resources, set aside for it by law.

"Native Hawaiians deserve a seat at the table and a direct voice on issues critical to their well-being and cultural identity," he said.

The House committee, which has not held a hearing on the bill this year, and the full chamber has approved the bill in the past only to see it stymied in the Senate.

The Senate Indian Affairs Committee, chaired by Sen. Byron L. Dorgan, D-N.D., has scheduled a Thursday hearing on an identical bill and could bring it up for a committee vote soon after.

-----------------

http://starbulletin.com/2007/05/02/news/story02.html
Honolulu Star-Buletin, May 2, 2007

Critics of Akaka Bill nominated for panel that would judge it
Some of the staunchest critics of the bill could soon sit on an advisory board

By Alexandre Da Silva

Some of the staunchest critics of a bill to federally recognize Hawaiians could soon sit on an advisory board to the U.S. Civil Rights Commission.

Commission Staff Director Kenneth Marcus has recommended attorneys William Burgess and Paul Sullivan as candidates for the Hawaii State Advisory Committee, an independent panel that investigates civil rights issues.

Thomas Pilla, a senior civil rights analyst for the Western Regional Office of the commission, is refusing to support the recommendations, fearing the office could lose credibility.

The head of the U.S. Civil Rights Commission wants to fill vacancies on its Hawaii advisory committee with avowed opponents of a federal bill to recognize Hawaiians.

Candidates picked by Kenneth Marcus, staff director of the commission, to sit on the Hawaii State Advisory Committee include attorneys William Burgess and Paul Sullivan, both of whom have written extensively against the so-called Akaka Bill.

James Kuroiwa Jr., who joined taxpayers in a lawsuit challenging state funding of Hawaiian programs, is another nominee, said Thomas Pilla, the senior civil rights analyst for the Western Regional Office of the commission.

In a report last year, the civil rights commission found the Akaka Bill, named after Sen. Daniel Akaka, would "discriminate on the basis of race or national origin, and further subdivide the American people into discrete subgroups accorded varying degrees of privilege." President Bush's administration quoted the document to reject the bill.

At the time, members of the Hawaii committee faulted the commission for releasing its report without consulting with the group, which supported the bill.

Dave Forman, outgoing chairman of the Hawaii panel, said the Bush administration appears to be "sweeping the committees clean and putting new folks in."

"It's pretty clear that they have an agenda that they are pursuing," Forman said. "I think there's reason to be concerned."

Phone messages seeking comment from Marcus about his nominees were not returned. Burgess, and Kuroiwa also could not be reached, but Sullivan defended the appointments, saying they could add diversity to the committee.

"I do think that all three of us would broaden the spectrum of viewpoints on the commission," he said, adding: "It would be probably not good at all to have all the members of the commission come from one point of view."

The House Natural Resources Committee will consider the Akaka Bill today. The measure is scheduled to be heard by the Senate Indian Affairs Committee tomorrow.

Akaka, who last year called the commission's report on his bill unfair, said he hoped nominees to the Hawaii committee would be knowledgeable about the islands' history.

"I am hopeful the nominees will have the expertise to be dedicated advocates, understanding and respectful of the history and people of Hawaii," he said in a statement yesterday.

The Office of Hawaiian Affairs, a state agency created to manage Hawaiian programs, is "deeply troubled" by the candidates nominated by Marcus, said Martha Ross, Washington bureau chief for OHA.

"They seem to be consistently anti-indigenous," she said.

Micah Kane, chairman of the Hawaiian Homes Commission, said: "It is unfortunate that the vacancies on this Commission appear to have been filled with people based on their opposition to native Hawaiian programs. The opinions of these people do not reflect a true representation of Hawaii's perspective on this and other issues."

Pilla, who oversees Hawaii and eight other state committees, is refusing to send some of Marcus' candidates, including Burgess, for consideration by the eight-member commission in Washington, D.C., fearing the office could lose credibility.

"I want people with open minds," Pilla said. "We've had right-wingers on committees in the past, but I can't put (together) a committee that's gonna have too many of these guys."

Pilla, who is retiring, said he would leave it up to whomever takes over his office to make a decision about the candidates. He also said the Hawaii committee has been inactive since its charter expired in December after losing members to term limits.

[ ** SEE ALSO MAY 7 letter to editor supporting having anti-Akaka bill activists on the civil rights committee]

-----------------

http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2007/May/02/br/br7149508632.html
Honolulu Advertiser, breaking news
Updated at 9:30 a.m., Wednesday, May 2, 2007

U.S. House panel backs Akaka bill today with vote

By Dennis Camire
Gannett News Service

WASHINGTON — The House Natural Resources Committee today passed the so-called Akaka bill with a voice vote.

The committee added no amendment to the bill that would create a process for a future Native Hawaiian government to gain federal recognition.

Reps. Neil Abercrombie and Mazie Hirono, both Hawai'i Democrats, introduced the bill — known as the Akaka bill due to U.S. Sen. Daniel Akaka's sponsorship and ongoing effort to rally support for it — in January.

The House committee and the full chamber has approved the bill in the past only to see it stymied in the Senate. The Senate Indian Affairs Committee, chaired by Sen. Byron L. Dorgan, D-N.D., has scheduled a hearing for tomorrow on an identical bill and could bring it up for a committee vote soon after.

-----------------

http://www.thehawaiichannel.com/news/13247615/detail.html
KITV 4, May 2, 2007, television news transcript

Akaka Bill Passes Congressional Panel
Measure Heads To Senate For Next Step

HONOLULU -- The controversial Native Hawaiian recognition legislation known as the "Akaka Bill" unanimously passed a key House panel on Capitol Hill on Wednesday. The bill seeks to give Native Hawaiians political status similar to American Indians.

"It's always a challenge with a new Congress, and we have to get it on the floor and out of the House, but having it come out of committee with a conservative element that's on our committee that understands what we are trying to do, it speaks well to get it on the floor," Hawaii U.S. Rep. Neil Abercrombie said.

The Senate scheduled time to hear the Akaka Bill on Thursday. Gov. Linda Lingle is expected to testify for its passage.

It is not clear when a vote might follow.

The measure failed to advance last year, when the Senate rejected a motion to bring the bill to the floor.

The issue has supporters and critics in the Native Hawaiian community. Some opponents said that the measure does not represent all Native Hawaiians.

-----------------

http://www.hawaiitribune-herald.com/articles/2007/05/03/local_news/local05.txt
Hawaii Tribune Herald (Hilo), May 3, 2007

Akaka bill is coming back
Panel OKs Native Hawaiians self-determination legislation

by Fred Love
Stephens Washington Bureau

WASHINGTON -- A House panel on Wednesday took the first step toward reviving a bill that would pave the way for self-determination among Native Hawaiians.

The bill establishes a process for the federal government to recognize a Native Hawaiian government, which in turn could negotiate with Hawaii and the United States for control of Native Hawaiian land and resources.

The House Natural Resources Committee approved the bill by voice vote after an impassioned appeal from Rep. Neil Abercrombie, D-Hawaii.

"This is an opportunity for the Native Hawaiians to bring themselves up," Abercrombie said. "This is a self-development bill. This allows Native Hawaiians to take over their own assets to build education, to build healthcare, to build in all the areas they have sought, to have control over their land and over their funds."

He said the bill puts Native Hawaiians in a position to work with the federal government for possession of disputed land and resources.

"All this bill does is enable the Native Hawaiians to be able to come back to the Secretary of the Interior and ask for permission to move ahead to take up governance of land and funds that are in question," Abercrombie said.

Rep. Mazie Hirono, D-Hawaii, a cosponsor, called the bill "one of the most important pieces of legislation to the people of the state of Hawaii" to be considered by Congress this year.

"Native Hawaiians have suffered too long and been deprived of rights allowed other Native Americans due to misinformation and misunderstanding by those who oppose this legislation," Hirono said in a statement.

The vote represented the first step forward in the new Congress for what is popularly known as the "Akaka bill," named after Sen. Daniel Akaka, D-Hawaii, a chief advocate.

Abercrombie couldn't say when the House might act on the measure, which is more controversial than Wednesday's relatively placid committee meeting indicated.

While supporters say it provides Native Hawaiians with a deserved privilege, opponents have challenged whether it is constitutional.

Similar legislation passed the House last year but was held up in the Senate when a motion to invoke cloture fell four votes shy of the 60 necessary to force a final debate and vote on the bill.

The Senate Indian Affairs Committee will take up the issue during a hearing Thursday. Hawaii Attorney General Mark Bennett will speak in favor while Honolulu attorney H. William Burgess, a vocal opponent, also will testify.

-----------------

http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070503/NEWS23/705030362/1173/NEWS
Honolulu Advertiser, Thursday, May 3, 2007

House panel passes Akaka bill on voice vote

By Dennis Camire
Advertiser Washington Bureau

WASHINGTON — Critics and supporters of a bill creating a process for a future Native Hawaiian government to gain federal recognition will square off today before a Senate panel, the day after an identical bill sailed through a House committee without opposition.

The House Natural Resources Committee approved the Akaka bill yesterday on a voice vote.

"What a great day," said Rep. Neil Abercrombie, D-Hawai'i, a sponsor of the bill. "I'm very, very pleased." Efforts to change the bill during the committee's discussion were expected but never took place. "There were no amendments, no objections and it passed unanimously," said Haunani Apoliona, chairwoman of the state Office of Hawaiian Affairs, who attended the House panel session. "It's a great first step in the House."

Today's hearing before the Senate Indian Affairs Committee on an identical bill includes a representative from the Justice Department, which opposes the bill, on a panel with supporters Mark Bennett, Hawai'i's attorney general, and Apoliona.

A second panel includes Viet D. Dinh, a Georgetown University law professor, and former assistant attorney general who wrote a report supporting the bill, and opponent William Burgess, a spokesman for Aloha for All, which argues it would create a race-based government.

The bill, which was first brought before Congress in 2000, would create a process for a Native Hawaiian governing entity to be formed and gain federal recognition. The new entity would be able to negotiate with the governments of the United States and Hawai'i over the disposition of Native Hawaiian land, assets and other resources.

This was the fourth time since 2000 that it received House committee approval. The full House passed it once but it has remained stymied in the Senate.

The next step is for the House leadership to schedule a floor vote on the bill.

"I think we're going to do well," Abercrombie said. "I will keep pushing it and talking to other members, particularly members from the West and the conservative members."

The bill may not find such smooth sailing on the House floor as it did in committee.

In March, the House Republican leadership showed some of its stance on Native Hawaiian issues when it tried to block a bill dealing with a Native Hawaiian federal housing program.

In an e-mail alert telling members to oppose the housing bill, the Republican leadership said the bill would give Native Hawaiians an arrangement like that between the federal government and American Indian tribes.

The alert said the Supreme Court has ruled that Native Hawaiians are not comparable to the American Indian tribes and "suggested that special legal privileges for Native Hawaiians are rightly unconstitutional."

But during the House hearing on the Native Hawaiian bill, Rep. Tom Cole, R-Okla., a committee member and an enrolled member of the Chickasaw Nation, said the bill was an indigenous people issue and the House Republican conservatives should take a harder look at it.

"This is the ultimate of a conservative's bill," said Cole, a member of the House Natural Resources Committee. "It is about allowing people to govern their own affairs, to control their own property and their own destiny."

Rep. Dale E. Kildee, D-Mich., committee member, said the Native Hawaiian bill was about justice for an indigenous people who have suffered since their kingdom was overthrown with American help in 1893.

"This will be a step toward justice," he said.

---------------

http://starbulletin.com/2007/05/03/news/story02.html
Honolulu Star-Bulletin, May 3, 2007

Akaka Bill gets support in House
The measure has bipartisan backing in a committee vote

By Rosemarie Bernardo

The Akaka Bill made headway yesterday in the House, gaining approval by the Natural Resources Committee, which is made up of 49 members -- 27 Democrats and 22 Republicans.

U.S. Rep. Neil Abercrombie, a senior member of the committee, said he is hopeful the bill will pass this year.

Meanwhile, opponents continue to criticize the bill, saying it does not represent the views of native Hawaiians and that it will only weaken their rights.

U.S. Rep. Neil Abercrombie predicted that a bill that gives federal recognition to native Hawaiians will pass Congress this year after the House Natural Resources Committee advanced the measure yesterday. "We're very happy today. To think with a brand-new Congress that we had the opportunity to raise the issue again and it succeeded. There were no dissenting votes. There were no amendments," Abercrombie said yesterday during a conference call.

Forty-nine members of the House Natural Resources Committee -- of which Abercrombie is a senior member -- approved the Akaka Bill yesterday in a consensus vote. The bill, officially called the Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act, is expected to be taken up by the House shortly, Abercrombie said.

Passage of the bill has been an uphill battle since it was first introduced in 2000 by Sens. Daniel Akaka and Daniel Inouye. Last year in the Senate, Akaka was short of obtaining 60 votes needed for a floor vote.

In yesterday's committee vote, Abercrombie said, Rep. Tom Cole, R-Okla., gave a "ringing endorsement," and former committee Chairman Rep. Don Young, D-Alaska, offered supporting remarks on the measure. "So this was not a Republican or Democratic issue. It was an issue of equity for native Hawaiians, and that was agreed to by everybody from conservative Republicans to liberal Democrats," Abercrombie added.

In a written statement, Akaka said he appreciated Abercrombie's leadership in bringing the bill before his fellow committee members. "In passing this measure, my colleagues in the House acknowledge the importance of federally recognizing Hawaii's indigenous people, native Hawaiians," Akaka said.

Members of the Senate Indian Affairs Committee were to hear the bill today. Scheduled to testify were state Attorney General Mark Bennett; Micah Kane, chairman of the Hawaiian Homes Commission; Haunani Apoliona, Office of Hawaiian Affairs chairwoman; and H. William Burgess, spokesman for the nonprofit organization Aloha for All.

Dr. Kekuni Blaisdell, an advocate of native Hawaiian independence, said the bill attempts to describe native Hawaiians as indigenous to the United States. "But we are not indigenous to the United States. We are a separate people. We are a nation that was invaded," he said.

Ikaika Hussey, who represents Hui Pu, a coalition of native Hawaiians who oppose the Akaka Bill, said, "The bill would not accomplish its stated goal, which is to protect Hawaiian rights, and what it will do is erode existing rights."

Both Blaisdell and Hussey, who is in Washington, D.C., to testify against the bill, continue to call for more hearings to be held in Hawaii on the measure.

----------------

http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2007/May/03/br/br5073169824.html
Honolulu Advertiser, Breaking news, Updated at 9:58 a.m., Thursday, May 3, 2007

Bush administration 'strongly opposes' Akaka bill

By Dennis Camire
Gannett News Service

WASHINGTON — The Bush administration "strongly opposes" a bill to create a process for a future Native Hawaiian government because it would divide governmental power along lines of race and ethnicity, a Justice Department official said today.

"The administration believes that tribal recognition is inappropriate and unwise for Native Hawaiians," Gregory G. Katsas, principal associate attorney general for the Justice Department, said in a prepared statement to the Senate Indian Affairs Committee.

But Hawai'i Attorney General Mark Bennett said the bill provides "long overdue" federal recognition for Native Hawaiians.

"The notion of critics that (the bill) creates some sort of unique race-based government at odds with our constitutional and congressional heritage contradicts Congress' longstanding recognition of other native peoples," Bennett said.

Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, a committee member, also said she was not favorably impressed with the language in the Justice Department's statement, which used words like secession, balkanization, racially isolated government, preferential treatment and corrosive effect.

Murkowski said the "harsh and divisive words" were used to draw conclusions about the distinction between Native Hawaiians and indigenous groups of the United States — American Indians and Alaska Natives — that have gained federal recognition.

"Yet nowhere in the statement do I find any historical or anthropological references to support these conclusions," she said.

The bill, first introduced in 2000, would create a process for a future Native Hawaiian government to gain federal recognition.

Sen. Dan Akaka, D-Hawai'i, the lead sponsor of the so-called Akaka bill, said many checks and balances exist in the bill's process, which complies with federal law and maintains the flexibility for Native Hawaiians to determine the outcome.

===============

** PREVIOUS YEARS' TESTIMONY, PUBLICATIONS, AND SPEECHES ON THE SENATE FLOOR (2000-2006):

A large collection of testimony in opposition from the previous 106th, 107th, 108th, and 109th Congresses can be found at
https://www.angelfire.com/hi5/bigfiles/AkakaTestimony109Cong.html

A collection of several hundred major published articles opposing the Akaka bill, grouped by historical periods from 2000 through 2007, can be found at
https://www.angelfire.com/hi2/hawaiiansovereignty/AkakaPublishedOpposition.html

On June 7 and 8, 2006 the U.S. Senate spent about four and a half hours debating the merits of the Akaka bill prior to voting against a cloture motion. There were many speeches both pro and con. Transcripts of all of those speeches were printed in the Congressional Record, and have been collected on a webpage. The following Senators spoke in favor of the bill: Akaka (three), Dorgan, Inouye (two), Murkowski, Obama, Reid, Stevens. The following Senators spoke against the bill: Alexander(four), Cornyn(two), Craig, Enzi, Kyl, McConnell, Sessions(two), Sununu. In addition, a letter was delivered to the Senate from the Department of Justice expressing the Bush administration's strong opposition to the Akaka bill, and from Mr. Kirsanow of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights opposing the bill. Those speeches and letters are all gathered at:
https://www.angelfire.com/planet/bigfiles40/AkakaHistJune2006SenateActionCongRec.html

================

** THE MAY 3 2007 HEARING OF THE U.S. SENATE COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS REGARDING S.310 (AKAKA BILL) IS STORED ON THE COMMITTEE'S WEBSITE. IT CAN BE DOWNLOADED IN "REAL PLAYER" (AUDIO AND VISUAL, JUST LIKE TELEVISION). LENGTH: 2 hours 38 minutes (including a substantial recess between Panel 1 and panel 2). CLICK HERE:

http://indian.senate.gov/public/_files/hrg050307.ram

** Written statements by each of the witnesses at the hearing can be downloaded in pdf format from the Indian Affairs Committee witness list as follows:

Panel 1

MR. GREGORY KATSAS
Principal Deputy Associate Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice (13 pages) [Used very strong language to explain why "the Administration strongly opposes passage of S.310" for both policy and Constitutional reasons. "... the Administration believes that tribal recognition is inappropriate and unwise for native Hawaiians. ... Whatever might be said about past injustices, generations of Americans have fought and died to achieve a single, indivisible country that respects the freedom, equality, and heritage of all of its citizens. Congress should avoid a path that will lead to its balkanization. Finally, S. 310 would create a race-based government offensive to our Nation's commitment to equal justice and the elimination of racial distinctions in the law. ... We are strongly opposed to a bill that would formally divide governmental power along lines of race and ethnicity." His prepared statement drew fire from Senator Lisa Murkowski (R, AK) during her opening remarks, even before Mr. Katsas testified. FOR MR. KATSAS' TESTIMONY CLICK HERE:
http://indian.senate.gov/public/_files/Katsas050307.pdf

THE HONORABLE MARK BENNETT
Attorney General, State of Hawaii, Department of the Attorney General (8 pages)
http://indian.senate.gov/public/_files/Bennett050307.PDF
Accompanied by: MR. MICAH KANE, Chairman, Hawaiian Homes Commission, Honolulu, HI

THE HONORABLE HAUNANI APOLIONA (12 pages)
Chair, Board of Trustees, Office of Hawaiian Affairs
http://indian.senate.gov/public/_files/Apoliona050307.pdf
Accompanied by: MR. WILLIAM MEHEULA, Legal Counsel to the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, Honolulu, HI

Panel 2

PROFESSOR VIET D. DINH (39 pages)
Professor of Law, Georgetown University Law Center
http://indian.senate.gov/public/_files/Dinh050307.pdf

MR. H. WILLIAM BURGESS Aloha for All (7 pages)
http://indian.senate.gov/public/_files/Burgess050307.pdf

=================

** Here is an Index to testimony for the May 3 Senate hearing that was published before that hearing took place. Full text of each item is available at
https://www.angelfire.com/planet/bigfiles40/AkakaTestimonyProConMay2007.html

(1) H. William Burgess, [President of Aloha For All], oppose
http://www.hawaiireporter.com/story.aspx?b205a0f2-23ef-40a3-80d7-dc3886d9c969

(2) Mark J. Bennett [Hawaii Attorney General], support
http://www.hawaiireporter.com/story.aspx?105ecd34-5f93-495a-8e9d-c36ae6da8bb0
** A rebuttal to Mr. Bennett by Ken Conklin is included as an addendum in Conklin's testimony, item (5) below.

(3) Micah Kane [Chair, Hawaiian Homes Commission], support
http://www.hawaiireporter.com/story.aspx?87de2959-fd3c-4d02-ad29-4548b0eab5ac

(4) Richard O. Rowland, Sam Slom, Chris Derry, Gregory Blankenship, Grover Norquist, John McClaughry, Elaine Willman, Matt Kibbe, Ron Williamson and Lewis Andrews [affiliations at end of their article], oppose
http://www.hawaiireporter.com/story.aspx?1c4bd1f3-5a4d-4f11-a378-ac578850e7e8

(5) Kenneth R. Conklin, Ph.D. [independent scholar], oppose
https://www.angelfire.com/planet/bigfiles40/AkakaTestimonyConklin050307.html
** Including addendum rebutting Mr. Bennett's testimony

(6) National Leadership Network of Conservative African-Americans, oppose Akaka bill and oppose House committee passing the bill without a hearing
http://www.nationalcenter.org/P21PR_Native_Hawaiian_Government_050207.html

(7) Congressmember Mazie Hirono (D, HI 2) press release on passage of Akaka bill H.R.505 by House of Representatives Resources Committee on May 2, 2007, support
http://www.hawaiireporter.com/story.aspx?d7970510-757a-4684-9a4a-23d9c99abb25

(8) [Press release from Senator Akaka's office which includes downloadable audio segments from "demradio" of portions of the Senate Indian Affairs hearing's Q&A periods that are favorable to the Akaka bill, but nothing regarding the testimony of the two opponments of the bill, Department of Justice attorney Gregory Katsas and Aloha For All spokesman William Burgess.]
http://www.hawaiireporter.com/story.aspx?22d08084-cc93-426f-ad0b-82c6b11a0bbc

===============

http://www.hawaiitribune-herald.com/articles/2007/05/04/local_news/local01.txt
Hawaii Tribune-Herald (Hilo, Stephens Media), May 4, 2007

White House slams Akaka bill

by Steve Tetreault
Stephens Media Washington Bureau

WASHINGTON -- Hawaii senators on Thursday launched a fresh bid to set Native Hawaiians on a path to self-governance, at a hearing that confirmed the Bush administration will continue to stand in the way.

A representative for the Department of Justice said the administration still opposes the "Akaka bill" that establishes a process for natives to form a governing body and win formal recognition from the U.S. government.

The Akaka bill would confer powers to Native Hawaiians on the basis of their "race and ethnicity," in violation of the U.S. Constitution, said Gregory Katsas, principal deputy associate attorney general.

"The administration strongly opposes that proposal because we think it wrong to balkanize the governing institutions of this country along racial and ancestral lines," Katsas said.

Katsas was the leadoff witness before the Senate Indian Affairs Committee that is rebuilding a public record on the Akaka bill as Congress once again takes up the issue of Native Hawaiian rights.

At a hearing led mostly by Hawaii Sens. Daniel Akaka and Daniel Inouye, witnesses from the state mounted a defense of the bill, saying it enjoys broad and deep support back home.

They also sought to rebut suggestions that the bill could be suspect from legal or constitutional standpoints.

"Those fears are unjustified," Hawaii Attorney General Mark Bennett said. "Native Hawaiians are not asking for privileged treatment -- they are simply asking to be treated the same way all other native indigenous Americans are treated in this country."

Supporters said the bill would give Native Hawaiians parity with American Indian tribes that have a nation-to-nation relationship with the U.S. government.

Akaka said the bill "is the next step in the reconciliation process" that included the 1993 formal apology from the U.S. government for its role in the overthrow of Queen Liliuokalani in 1893.

The resulting social changes were "devastating to the population and to the health and well-being of the Hawaiian people," according to the apology that was signed by President Clinton.

Haunani Apoliona, board of trustees chair of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, spoke in support of the bill, as did William Meheula, Office of Hawaiian Affairs legal counsel, and Micah Kane, chairman of the Hawaiian Homes Commission.

"We believe that the restoration of our native government- will provide the Native Hawaiian people with the tools we need to achieve self-sufficiency, economic security and provide for the health and welfare of our people," Apoliona said.

Speaking against the bill was H. William Burgess, a Honolulu lawyer who is spokesman for a group, Aloha for All. Burgess has pressed lawsuits against state policies on Native Hawaiians, and is a vocal critic of the Akaka bill.

The session kicked off the Senate's reconsideration of the Akaka bill, which was first introduced in Congress in July of 2000.

Since then there have been nine Senate hearings, five formal drafting sessions, and a vote in the Senate last June in which proponents fell four votes short of the 60 they needed to overcome a procedural hurdle to full debate and a vote on the bill's merits.

Earlier this week, the House Natural Resources Committee approved a companion bill sponsored by Rep. Neil Abercrombie, D-Hawaii, and cosponsored by Rep. Mazie Hirono, D-Hawaii.

Akaka said after Thursday's hearing he hoped the bill will pass out of the Senate Indian Affairs Committee next week.

As far as obtaining Senate floor time for final debate, he said he has spoken with Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., and Reid backs the bill.

Support for the Akaka bill appears to have grown in the wake of elections last November where Democrats gained six seats in the Senate. But opponents are likely to mount filibusters in a bid to derail it.

"It appears that it is a little more optimistic than it was last time," Akaka said. "We continue to meet with senators, especially with senators on the other (Republican) side. It appears our side is solid."

Critics say the Akaka bill could create scenarios where a Native Hawaiian government might assert sweeping powers affecting civil rights and property rights in the state.

In his prepared remarks, Katsas said, "no other legislation has ever granted any state or Indian tribe -- much less any broad group of citizens defined by race and ancestry -- the right to declare their independence and secede from the United States."

The testimony drew pointed questioning from Inouye.

"Are you really serious that the people in this entity would seek independence and practice separatism?" he asked Katsas. "Do you think the Congress and the president would allow a move like that?"

Inouye said even Americans Indians have only "limited sovereignty." They do not print their own money, form their own armies, or send ambassadors to other countries, he said. "Some don't even have police departments," Inouye said. Native Hawaiians "are just as American as anyone else," Inouye said. "To suggest they would involve themselves in separatist movements is an insult to them. "I am certain the Native Hawaiians are prepared to run a very responsible government entity," Inouye said. "There is no possibility this bill could lead to secession or anything like that," Bennett added. "The Constitution does not provide for secession. They negotiators would not have the ability to do anything like that."

Viet Dinh, a law professor at Georgetown University, said he concluded the bill was constitutionally sound. "I believe the Supreme Court would uphold the constitutional authority of Congress to treat Native Hawaiians the same way it treats continental natives and Alaska natives," said Dinh, a former top legal counsel in the Justice Department.

Burgess said the Akaka bill would encourage divisions in Hawaii. "It would be the first step in the breakup of the United States," he said

Burgess was critical of the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act that Congress passed in 1921. It set aside 200,000 acres as a land trust for Native Hawaiian homesteaders. Burgess argued it was the first time natives were granted a privilege based on their race.

"Now the Akaka bill would polish it off," he said. "It would be the end of Hawaii being governed by the people of Hawaii."

"With all due respect, I submit the best system for Hawaiians and for the rest of us is that life, as in sports, everyone plays by the same rules."

------------------

http://starbulletin.com/2007/05/04/news/story07.html
Honolulu Star-Bulletin, May 4, 2007

Rewritten Akaka Bill stirs same objections
Isle backers again deny that it creates a race-based state

By Nelson Daranciang

The Bush administration continues to oppose the Akaka Bill, even though the legislation as currently written addresses many of the concerns raised over the previous version, a U.S. Department of Justice representative testified before a key Senate committee yesterday.

In written testimony submitted to the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, Principal Deputy Associate Attorney General Gregory Katsas said the current bill continues to promote the creation of a race-based government that could establish its own citizenship criteria, grant separate civil rights protections for its citizens and even secede from the United States.

"By dividing government power along racial and ancestral lines, S. 310 (the bill) would represent a significant step backwards in American history and would create far greater problems than those it might purport to solve," Katsas said.

Testifying in favor of the bill were Office of Hawaiian Affairs Chairwoman Haunani Apoliona, state Attorney General Mark Bennett, state Department of Hawaiian Home Lands Director Micah Kane and Honolulu attorney William Meheula.

Bennett said the recognition being sought for native Hawaiians is not based on race or ancestry. "Recognition afforded aboriginal groups is based upon a political recognition rather than a racial recognition," he said.

The bill's author, U.S. Sen. Daniel Akaka, questioned the Hawaii contingent in response to objections.

Akaka asked Bennett whether the bill would affect personal property, social services or citizenship rights. "Unless and until there are negotiations between the three governments (native Hawaiian, state and federal), the status quo is completely maintained," Bennett said. For the same reason, Hawaii residents would not be subject to different sets of laws, and native Hawaiians would not be able to bring legal action against private landowners.

Akaka asked Meheula whether people support the bill so native Hawaiians can declare their independence from the United States. "No, Sen. Akaka. There is a small minority that -- a loud, small minority -- that sometimes voices independence. But they do not support the bill," Meheula said.

The committee has yet to vote on the bill.

-----------------

http://starbulletin.com/2007/05/04/editorial/editorial02.html
Honolulu Star-Bulletin, May 4, 2007, EDITORIAL
OUR OPINION

Prepare for a battle to pass Akaka Bill

THE ISSUE
A U.S. House committee has sent the Hawaiian sovereignty bill to the House floor.

SEN. Daniel Akaka's bill to grant federal recognition of Hawaiian sovereignty appears headed for votes in both chambers of Congress, but its destiny is less than certain. The Bush administration opposed the bill last year, and proponents again should prepare for a partisan battle in Congress.

Rep. Neil Abercrombie was beaming this week after the House Natural Resources Committee approved the Akaka Bill and sent it to the House floor, where he is confident of approval. Following a hearing yesterday, the Senate Indian Affairs Committee is expected to take similar action.

A recent move by the director of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights to appoint attorneys William Burgess and Paul Sullivan, staunch opponents of Hawaiian sovereignty, to the Hawaii advisory committee might be a sign of problems ahead for the bill.

The commission recommended in a report last May that Congress reject the Akaka Bill because it would "discriminate on the basis of race or national origin." The Hawaii advisory committee had "strongly" recommended approval of Hawaiian sovereignty in 2001.

The commission is unlikely to issue another report on sovereignty, so the significance of the appointments is unclear. The makeup of the commission itself has not changed since last year's 5-2 vote in opposition.

The five opponents are all Republican appointees, while the two in favor of the bill -- Michael Yaki, who believes his Maui-born grandfather was part-Hawaiian, and Arlan Melendez, the commission's only American Indian -- are Democratic congressional appointees.

A Senate filibuster stopped the measure from final consideration last year. Its chance for success in the new Democratic Congress should become clear as it heads for floor votes.

------------------

http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070504/NEWS23/705040373/1173/NEWS
Honolulu Advertiser, May 4, 2007

Akaka bill strongly opposed

By Dennis Camire
Advertiser Washington Bureau

WASHINGTON — The Bush administration "strongly opposes" a bill to create a process for a future Native Hawaiian government because it would divide governmental power by race and ethnicity, a U.S. Justice Department official said yesterday.

"We think it wrong to balkanize the governing institutions of this country along racial and ancestral lines," Gregory G. Katsas, a senior Justice Department attorney, said at a Senate Indian Affairs Committee hearing on the bill.

Creating a new Native Hawaiian government also would "give rise to constitutional questions recently described by the Supreme Court as 'difficult' and 'considerable,' " Katsas said.

The hearing was the first time the administration had testified before a congressional panel about its opposition to the bill, first broached in discussions last year with U.S. Sen. Daniel K. Akaka, D-Hawai'i, the bill's lead sponsor.

Katsas said the "corrosive effect" of the bill's creation of "favored persons" would be hard-hitting since Native Hawaiians live throughout the country.

"Each of those favored persons would be afforded different rights and privileges from those afforded to his or her neighbors, based solely on race and ancestry classifications," he said.

But sitting on the same panel with Katsas, Hawai'i state Attorney General Mark Bennett said Native Hawaiians were not asking for privileged treatment, only the same treatment the federal government has given other indigenous people. "The notion of critics that (the bill) creates some sort of unique race-based government at odds with our constitutional and congressional heritage contradicts Congress' longstanding recognition of other native peoples," he said.

The U.S. Supreme Court has given "virtually complete deference" to Congress' decision in such cases, Bennett said.

Akaka said he hoped the committee would vote on the bill next week.

Senate Republicans have stymied the bill over the years, arguing it would set up an unconstitutional race-based government. Last year, they blocked a bipartisan effort to force a final debate and vote on the Senate floor with a 56-41 vote, short of the 60 votes needed. But with a Democratic majority now in the Senate, supporters may have a better chance this year.

U.S. Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, a committee member, criticized the language in the Justice Department's statement attacking the bill, which used words like secession, balkanization, racially isolated government, preferential treatment and corrosive effect.

Murkowski said the "harsh and divisive words" were used to draw conclusions about the distinction between Native Hawaiians and indigenous groups — American Indians and Alaska Natives — that have gained federal recognition. "Yet nowhere in the statement do I find any historical or anthropological references to support these conclusions," she said.

The bill, first introduced in 2000, would create a process for a Native Hawaiian governing entity to be formed and gain federal recognition. The new government would be able to negotiate with the United States and Hawai'i over the disposition of Hawaiian land, assets and other resources.

Sen. Daniel K. Inouye, D-Hawai'i, said Native Hawaiians have had a political and legal relationship with the United States for the past 140 years through treaties and federal laws but their government was overthrown with the help of U.S. troops in 1893.

"The courts have concluded that termination (of that government) can only be reversed by an act of Congress," said Inouye. "The time for reconciliation is long overdue — and the time for restoration (of the government) is now."

H. William Burgess, a spokesman for Aloha for All, said the bill would create an unconstitutional class of Native Hawaiians with superior political rights and give carte blanche authority to state and federal officials to give public lands, natural resources and other assets to the new Native Hawaiian government.

While the bill allows for federal and state review of any agreement about land and other assets, Burgess said he did not believe that it would be done if it could be avoided.

Haunani Apoliona, chairwoman of the state's Office of Hawaiian Affairs, said Native Hawaiians were seeking the restoration of their government because they have seen how the federal policy of self-determination and self-governance has enabled native people to thrive.

But outside the committee room, Ikaika Hussey, a representative of Hui Pu, an umbrella group of Native Hawaiians opposed to the bill, was buttonholing people to protest the group's not being invited to participate in the hearing and the lack of public hearings on the bill in Hawai'i. "The only hearings in Hawai'i were held seven years ago," he said. "We want to have our views heard."

-------------

Honolulu Advertiser Dick Adair cartoon shows Akaka bill running up the steps to the Supreme Court

http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/apps/pbcs.dll/misc?url=/misc/zoom.pbs&Avis=M1&Dato=20070504&Kategori=OPINION04&Lopenr=70503005&Ref=AR

---------------------

http://www.indiancountry.com/content.cfm?id=1096414991
Indian Country Today, May 4, 2007

Akaka Bill gathers strength in committee hearings

by: Jerry Reynolds

WASHINGTON - After the May 3 Senate hearing on the Akaka Bill, even Capitol Hill's sternest critics of President George W. Bush and his administration will have to admit it: despite driving congressional members and staff to the limits of frustration by waiting until years of work have gone into particular bills before weighing in heavily against them with second thoughts and untried concepts, the administration is also, when ready, capable of marshaling its powers to demonstrate some of the most durable thinking of the 19th century.

Exhibit one was the melting pot. The Akaka Bill has sought for years now to authorize a process that would result in the federal recognition of Native Hawaiians as a political group, with a government re-established along lines set forth to a fare-thee-well in the federal framework for recognizing Indian tribal and Alaska Native governments. Testifying before the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, chaired for the morning by Sen. Daniel Akaka, D-Hawaii, the Justice Department's principal deputy associate attorney general, Gregory Katsas, right off mentioned ''the melting pot ... which has made us one nation, out of many people ... e pluribus unum, out of many, one. This bill would undercut that principle.'' The administration's leading argument among many is that Native Hawaiians have assimilated to American culture, on the model of many immigrant and settler cultures, so that to separate them out again by Polynesian bloodlines would be to create a racial, rather than a political, class. A racial class is impermissible under the same Constitution that establishes indigenous tribes as governments, a political classification.

Away from the witness table, during a break in the proceedings, Micah Kane, chairman of the Hawaiian Homes Commission, explained the central point at issue in the Katsas testimony: ''Does this bill raise a higher level of Constitutional scrutiny [by the judicial branch of government], if enacted, than the laws that exist to support Alaska Natives and American Indians? And the answer is no ... That's the point, that this law does not raise higher Constitutional questions than what Alaska Natives and American Indians benefit from now.''

Back at the witness table following the first break, Kane provided a 21st century interpretation of the melting pot theory, in which settlers and immigrants assimilate to indigenous culture. In response to a query from Akaka on assimilation, Kane described facts on the ground in Hawaii now that modify the historical assumptions of Katsas and company, assumptions highlighted by the rhetorical question posed in testimony on Native Hawaiian assimilation to America. ''I think the irony of that question is that in Hawaii, Americans have assimilated to Hawaiians. Hawaiians have not assimilated to Americans. And it is seen in cultural practices of our hula, where non-Hawaiians, thousands of them, participate in hula festivals, practicing our cultural hula. We've seen thousands of non-Hawaiians who practice in our language, in our charter schools and in our immersion schools. It is seen in the practices, of our cultural practices on a family basis in celebrating a child's one-year luau, where non-Hawaiians practice that. So it is quite ironic where the question is posed in a way where Hawaiians - are Hawaiians assimilating to Americans when in Hawaii, it's non-Hawaiians who have assimilated to our culture, and the value-set of us who received them to our land.

''Taking it one step further, that value-set of welcoming others ... has brought us to defending our trust, in Hawaii, on Hawaii land. I find that quite, quite ironic.''

Witness H. William Burgess of Aloha for All joined the Justice Department in offering a resistance to the Akaka Bill. Burgess is extreme enough in his apprehensions about so-called ''Hawaiian Apartheid'' that he can describe the alleged beating by ''a Hawaiian family'' of a soldier and his family at an Oahu mall in terms former President Ronald Reagan reserved for the Soviet Union at the height of its nuclear warhead-empowered, Red Army-led, propaganda-guided menace: ''The brutality at Waikele mall is a flashing red light. Over 1 million American citizens in Hawaii are under siege by what can fairly be called an evil empire dedicated to Native Hawaiian Supremacy.''

At the end of the hearing, Sen. Daniel K. Inouye, D-Hawaii, spoke comfort to the somewhat nervous-seeming septuagenarian. ''Chairman may I join you in thanking all of the witnesses who have participated, not just those who are for it, [the Akaka Bill] but those who are opposed to it. It has resulted in a fine discussion, which is necessary for legislation.''

------------------

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/05/04/1418248

LISTEN ONLINE:
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/05/04/1418248

Democracy Now [radical nationwide left-wing group with website and radio/cable TV show; anti-Bush, anti-war, often anti-America], Friday May 4th, 2007

Sen. Daniel Akaka (D-HI) on the Iraq War, Lt. Ehren Watada, Hawaiian Self-Governance and the Real ID Act

** Highlight: Akaka regarding Watada

AMY GOODMAN: That is First Lieutentant Ehren Watada, first officer to say no to deployment to Iraq. Senator Akaka, his mother has visited you in Washington, D.C. You are opposed to the war. What is your response to Ehren Watada? Do you think he should be court-martialed?

** Highlight: Akaka regarding Akaka bill, Burgess, and secession

AMY GOODMAN: Senator Akaka, there's been opposition to your bill, from some who say it would actually hurt the cause for Hawaiian sovereignty, and then there are those who oppose Hawaiian sovereignty outright. I want to play a clip from the Senate hearing on the issue. This is attorney William Burgess, a leading voice in the movement against Hawaiian sovereignty.

WILLIAM BURGESS: As to the question of whether this bill could lead eventually to secession, it is my understanding that you, Senator Akaka, actually acknowledged that that is a possible outcome of this bill and that you would leave it to your grandchildren. And there's many people in Hawaii -- I agree with Bill Meheula that it's probably a minority, I hope so -- but they have expressed a desire for independence. I've heard how Haunani-Kay Trask, a tenured professor at the University of Hawaii say that, "God, I would love to see secession. I hate the United States of America." And there is an active local group of Native Hawaiians who want independence. And as I understand it, the proponents of the bill have gone out of their way to ensure those people that this Akaka bill is just the first step, and it does not rule out eventual secession from the United States.

AMY GOODMAN: William Burgess was speaking at your hearing yesterday, Senator Akaka. Your response? Does this lead to sovereignty?

SEN. DANIEL AKAKA: Yes, William Burgess, as we know, has opposed my bill. The reasons that he mentioned that might come about from the bill -- a secession, independence -- cannot happen, because my bill will be within the law of the state and within the law of this country. And the intention is not to secede and not to be independent, but to work with the United States government on issues concerning Hawaiians and this country. So, of course, there are those who have other ideas as to what they feel Hawaii should be, but my bill brings about a process that organizes a governing entity. And this governing entity then will discuss these and debate these issues and make a decision. Should a decision be made, it will come before the state government as well as the federal government. But there's no way, I feel, that we'll be coming forth with asking for secession or independence using this bill.

------------

"Democracy Now" is a radio/TV/internet hour-long program syndicated nationwide, 5 programs per week Monday through Friday. It is radical left-wing anti-Bush, anti-war, often anti-America.

On Friday May 4 approximately 20 minutes were devoted to an interview of Senator Akaka discussing the Iraq War, Lt. Ehren Watada, the Akaka bill, and the Real ID Act. That 20-minute segment is approximately minutes #17-37 in the program. It includes a portion of the May 3 testimony of Bill Burgess regarding how the Akaka bill could lead to secession, followed by Senator Akaka's semi-denial of that.

Download a movie of the entire hour. The Akaka/Burgess segment runs approximately minutes #17-37, including anti-war material during a break. Additional segments include Joan Baez singing "Where have all the flowers gone?" and describing how Walter Reed Hospital denied her permission to sing for the wounded Iraq War veterans. Boo hoo!
http://www.democracynow.org/streampage.pl?show=2007-05-04

** Complete [rush] transcript of the 20-minute segment with Senator Akaka is copied below, from
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/05/04/1418248

Sen. Daniel Akaka (D-HI) on the Iraq War, Lt. Ehren Watada, Hawaiian Self-Governance and the Real ID Act

by Democracy Now

Friday May 4th, 2007

Two days after President vetoes the Iraq war spending bill, we speak with Hawaiian Democrat Sen. Daniel Akaka. In 2002, Akaka was one of 21 Democratic Senators who voted against the war. Akaka also talks about his efforts to grant Native Hawaiians self-governance rights similar to those of Native American tribes.

JUAN GONZALEZ: Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia has proposed a measure that would repeal the congressional authorization for the Iraq war. The measure would take effect on October 11, the fifth anniversary of the vote to authorize the invasion of Iraq.

The proposal comes as Democratic leaders have opened talks with the White House on a war-funding bill following President Bush's veto earlier this week. Democrats are denying a Washington Post report that said they've already abandoned their call for a timeline for withdrawal.

On Thursday, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton announced she is supporting Byrd's effort. Clinton was among twenty-nine Democratic senators to vote for the original resolution. She has refused to call that original vote a mistake.

AMY GOODMAN: Our first guest is one of the twenty-three Democrats who voted against the war in 2002. Senator Daniel Akaka is a Democratic senator from Hawaii, the first senator of Native Hawaiian ancestry and the Senate's only Chinese American member. Senator Akaka is chair of the Veterans' Affairs Committee and heads the Congressional Task Force on Native Hawaiian Issues. For the last several years, Senator Akaka has led efforts to grant Native Hawaiians self-governance rights similar to those of Native American tribes. Senator Akaka joins us now from Washington, D.C. Welcome to Democracy Now!, Senator Akaka.

SEN. DANIEL AKAKA: Aloha, Amy. It's great to be with you this morning and to be with your audience of Democracy Now!

AMY GOODMAN: Well, it's great to have you with us. We wanted to begin by asking: Senator Byrd took to the floor of the Senate yesterday and announced he will introduce a bill to revoke the authorization for war with Iraq; do you support this?

SEN. DANIEL AKAKA: I was one of the few that voted against invading Iraq, as you know. And I have been working to try to withdraw troops from Iraq. And so, this endeavor by Senator Byrd is one that I will certainly consider to again reauthorize and, in this case, to repeal the authorization that was voted on. And I will tell you that I'm leaning on that side. I just wanted to look at the bill and see what it's all about, before I commit myself.

JUAN GONZALEZ: And could you tell us in Hawaii what the public response has been to the continuing quagmire that our country finds itself in in Iraq?

SEN. DANIEL AKAKA: Yes. The people in Hawaii join the people on the continent in being very, very concerned about the Iraq war and especially the mistakes that have been made over time here. And, of course, we've had troops that have been killed there in Iraq and many local troops, as well. And as a result, they've been increasingly against the war that's there now and are looking for ways of changing the course. And what we've been doing is to try to convince the President to change the course. And we've come to a point in time now where Senator Byrd is not only saying to change the course, but to reverse the course that we have now. And this is picking up, and it's becoming a very popular position for the people in Hawaii at this time.

AMY GOODMAN: Senator Akaka, I wanted to ask you about a Hawaiian man, about Ehren Watada, the first officer to say no to war. He is the soldier from your state of Hawaii who last year refused to deploy to Iraq. He now faces charges of missing movement and conduct unbecoming an officer. If convicted on all counts, he could be sentenced to a dishonorable discharge and up to six years in prison. He faces a second court-martial on July 16, after his first ended in mistrial in February. We talked to him in January after the military judge ruled he could not present evidence challenging the war's legality nor explain what motivated him to resist his deployment order. I asked him to explain why he refused to deploy to Iraq. This is Ehren Watada.

LT. EHREN WATADA: In my preparation for deployment to Iraq, in order to better train myself and my soldiers, I began to research the background of Iraq, including the culture, the history, the events going on on the ground and what had led us up into the war in the first place, and what I found was very shocking to me and dismaying, and it really made me question what I was being asked to do, and it caused me to research more and more. And as I found out the answers to the questions I had, I became convinced that the war itself was illegal and immoral, as was the current conduct of American forces and the American government on the ground over in Iraq. And as such, as somebody who has sworn an oath to protect our Constitution, our values and our principles, and to protect the welfare and the safety of the American people, I said to myself that's something that I cannot be a part of, the war. I cannot enable or condone those who have established this illegal and immoral policy. And so, I simply requested that I have my commission resigned and I separate completely from the military, because of those reasons, and I was denied several times, and I was basically given the ultimatum: either you deploy to Iraq or you will face a court-martial.

SEN. DANIEL AKAKA: I know him, and I know his dad and his mom very, very well in Hawaii. I admire his position. And for me, it's a position that has grown with him being reared and brought up in Hawaii in a diverse population and with diverse culture and a care for people. And what he has done is so difficult for any young man to take a position like that, to the point where he is willing to resign his position as an officer and to leave the service of the United States. But he bases it on the mistakes that this country has made. And so, he needs to be admired for that.

But he has had a difficult time to try to convince the military courts, as well, to just let him resign. But for me, we'll let the courts decide that. But I admire his position. It's very difficult, and we know that we all love our country, and I know he does, too. But his reasons are, as I said, moral, and that's really basic for anybody, as he makes a difficult decision as he has.

AMY GOODMAN: Senator Akaka, we're going to break, but we're going to come back to you. Senator Akaka joins us from Washington, D.C. He is the senator from Hawaii. Stay with us.

[break]

AMY GOODMAN: Our guest is the junior senator from Hawaii. He is eighty-two years old. He is Senator Daniel Akaka, the only senator of Hawaiian ancestry, as well as the only Chinese American senator. I'm Amy Goodman with Juan Gonzalez. Juan?

JUAN GONZALEZ: Senator, I'd like to ask you about the recent legislation, the Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act, and what it would do. As someone born in Puerto Rico, I'm very aware of this whole question of national groups within the American union. Of course, Hawaii became a state in 1960. But what would this do about the overall situation of the Native Hawaiians vis-à-vis the government of the United States?

SEN. DANIEL AKAKA: Yes. This bill is to bring about a recognition that's enshrined in our Constitution. Our country does have special agreements with indigenous peoples of this country. And my intention is to bring about parity between this country, as it has with the Native Americans and the Native Alaskans, as well. The intent and purpose of my bill is to bring about and extend a federal policy of self-governance, self-determination to Native Hawaiians for the purposes of recognizing a government-to-government relationship with the United States.

I feel this is important at this time, because we are the only indigenous group in the United States that does not have this recognition. The Hawaiians date back to 1893, when the kingdom of Hawaii was overthrown by the United States forces at that time, really deprived the Hawaiians of their land, their culture, their livelihood. And the Hawaiians have suffered since then. And many attempts have been made to --

AMY GOODMAN: Senator Akaka, can you tell us about your background, your family background, as illustrative of Hawaii, the population there?

SEN. DANIEL AKAKA: Yes. My family is a local family in Hawaii. My mother was pure Hawaiian. My dad was a mixture of Hawaiian and Chinese. His family came from Fukien, China, in the middle 1800s to Hawaii. And in those days the Chinese men married Hawaiian women. And this is where we come from. And my family now, I should tell you -- Millie and I have grandchildren, and in the grandchildren we have fourteen different bloods around the world. So this is how diverse Hawaii is becoming. And in the case of the Native Hawaiians, we want to bring parity and bring recognition to them and a relationship with the United States government.

AMY GOODMAN: William Burgess was speaking at your hearing yesterday, Senator Akaka. Your response? Does this lead to sovereignty?

JUAN GONZALEZ: Senator, I'd like to ask you about another issue that is parallel to what has happened in the past in Puerto Rico, as well. That is the island in the Hawaiian Islands that the United States military used for many years as a target practice range. Eventually, the military, under the pressure from Senator Inouye, stopped the practice, but the cleanup -- what has happened with the cleanup of that contaminated island, similar to what the Viequenses now in Puerto Rico are trying to get the Navy to do, is to clean up the mess that was left behind?

SEN. DANIEL AKAKA: Yes. The cleanup has gone quite well. I would say the Navy has worked hard with contractors to clean up that island. It is not cleaned up completely because of the depth of some of the ammunition that's there. But things have been worked out where those areas are prohibited from being used, which is a small area, but the rest of the island is being used. The island has been turned over to the State of Hawaii. And a Hawaiian group is setting up activities there, and they've been working and replanting the island. So the island is coming back again as a beautiful island, as it was. But we did work hard to get that island back and to stop the bombing that was going on earlier there by the military.

AMY GOODMAN: Finally, Senator Akaka, the Real ID law, can you explain what it is and why you're calling for it to be revoked?

SEN. DANIEL AKAKA: Yes, I'm calling for a repeal of that law, because there are so many complications that need to be resolved on different levels of government, and until that's done well, we should not move into that. Right now, we've had discussions with the different levels of government, and it is complex. And I would say that my repeal would be one that's needed now, and with the improvement of technology, it might be possible in the future.

SEN. DANIEL AKAKA: The ACLU, talking about the Real ID Act, the Identification Security Enhancement Act of 2006, part of a must-pass military appropriations bill, as one that attacks privacy rights, sets the stage for a national ID.

I want to thank you very much, Senator Daniel Akaka, for joining us from Washington, D.C. And aloha to all of the TV and radio stations of Hawaii who are running Democracy Now! Thanks for joining us.

SEN. DANIEL AKAKA: Aloha, Amy.

AMY GOODMAN: It's good to have you with us.

------------------

http://en.epochtimes.com/news/7-5-6/54935.html
Epoch Times (online newspaper, with print editions in UK, Ireland, USA, Australia, New Zealand)

May 06, 2007

Native Hawaiian Sovereignty Bill Gains New Life

By Si Wang
Epoch Times Honolulu Staff

A bill dealing with sovereignty for Native Hawaiians that has lingered in congress since 2000 might be nearing its end. Although its ultimate future is uncertain, the bill, sponsored by Sen. Daniel Akaka (D-HI) looks like it is headed for a vote in both houses of congress in the near future.

S. 310, the Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act of 2007—or the Akaka Bill—has survived round after round of bitter partisan debate, as well as debate among Native Hawaiians themselves.

The federal government apologized to the Hawaiians in 1993 under the Clinton administration for its role in overthrowing the sovereign Hawaiian monarchy in 1893 and subsequently annexing it in 1898.

Yet debate on the issue has not stopped there. Different opinions promoted by groups with varying interests have made the Hawaiian rights movement a tapestry of sometimes irreconcilable parts.

At the two poles are sovereignty groups made up mostly of Hawaiians on the one end, and equality advocates who are mostly non-Hawaiians on the other. Even Hawaiians are divided in forms of rights they demand, ranging from sovereignty and succession from the United States, to independence from the U.S. government, to rights to lost lands and properties. The Akaka Bill for Hawaiian rights serves as a lightening rod for an array of conflicting opinions.

Two Poles of the Debate

There have been various groups promoting Hawaiian sovereignty, including Hawaii Nation, Kingdom of Hawaii, Free Hawaii, Huaka'i I Na 'Aina Mauna, and Sovereign Hawaiian Government. All of them believe Hawaiians should gain independence. Some aggressive activists even believe that "haole" (Caucasians) should leave.

In addition to activist work, some groups opt to take concrete actions to take back their hopes for the future of native Hawaiians.

Dennis "Bumpy" Kanahele, a descendant of King Kamehameha, who united the Hawaiian kingdom in 1810, successfully negotiated with the state to build a 45-acre village for Hawaiians about 14 miles from Honolulu on the Waimanalo beach. The village, effectively governed by Hawaiians, has been a symbol of Hawaiian sovereignty since its establishment over a decade ago.

Not all actions of independence have been successful. Members of the sovereignty group, The Reinstated Hawaiian Kingdom, were arrested on July 31 last year as they attempted to claim Kaho'olawe, the only uninhabited island of the eight main Hawaiian islands. According to the Honolulu Star Bulletin, the group tried to "reclaim our national land" and "remove it from future contamination" by the U.S. government.

Groups opposing Hawaiian sovereignty consider movements divisive, race-based, and unconstitutional. H. William Burgess, an attorney who lives in Hawaii, has been instrumental in bringing lawsuits against government programs that benefit Native Hawaiians preferentially. Aloha For All, a loosely knit anti-sovereignty group led by Burgess, argues for equality for all citizens.

Kenneth Conklin, a retired schoolteacher from Boston who has moved to Hawaii, has made a name for himself as a major anti-sovereignty figure. Bruce Fein, a constitutional lawyer, wrote a long document challenging the basis for sovereignty. He claims that native Hawaiians never had sovereignty at the time of annexation, and that annexation was not only legal but it also benefited Hawaiians.

Akaka Bill Serves as a Lightening Rod

The Akaka Bill promises to give 400,000 Hawaiians similar rights as those of Native Americans and Alaskan native tribes through the creation of a Native Hawaiian government. Originated in 2000, the bill has been unsuccessful in getting off the Senate floor.

Sen. Akaka vows to continue pushing the bill, saying in a written statement, "We must continue to move forward for Native Hawaiians, the people of Hawai'i, and everyone in this country who believe that ours is a nation which treats all of its people with an equitable hand."

Interestingly, the Akaka bill has excited opposition among Hawaiians was well as non-Hawaiians. Hawaiian sovereignty groups oppose the bill, seeing it as selling out Hawaiian sovereignty in exchange for a lesser autonomy. A notable group called Hui Pu was formed to oppose the bill.

Mililani Trask, a sovereignty movement leader, said to the Honolulu Advertiser last year in May, "I think we all admit that this Akaka bill is nothing more than a failure." According to the interview with Trask, "It doesn't address any of the needs here, whether housing, education, or employment. The (Akaka) bill is simply too little, too late. We really need to look for redress somewhere else."

Sovereignty groups are concerned that once federal recognition is achieved, opportunity for independence would be lost.

Groups such as Aloha For All, opposed to federal recognition for Native Hawaiians, believe that the bill is unconstitutional and that special treatment of Hawaiians violates the principle of equality.

The Grassroot Institute of Hawaii, a conservative nonprofit organization once standing primarily for tax reduction and individual liberties, has emerged last year to be a leading group in opposition to the Akaka bill. The Institute conducted a controversial polling that showed two-third respondents apposed the Akaka bill.

Many support the Akaka bill as a move in the right direction. According to a poll conducted by the Office of Hawaiian Affairs (OHA) in 2005, 68 percent polled support the bill. When asked whether Native Hawaiians should receive federal recognition, 84 percent said yes.

Conflicts in Court and Outside

Those who argue for equal rights have challenged Hawaiian-preferential programs in the court. In 1996, Harold "Freddy" Rice, a non-Hawaiian, sued the state after being turned away from voting in an Office of Hawaiian Affairs election. In February 2000, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the OHA's Hawaiian-only elections were race-based and thus unconstitutional.

In March 2002, a group of 14 plaintiffs filed a lawsuit, challenging the tax-supported programs, such as the state Department of Hawaiian Home Lands and OHA, benefiting only Native Hawaiians. As a result of the court ruling, OHA board elections were opened up to non-Hawaiians. Kenneth Conklin, an anti-sovereignty activist and non-Hawaiian, entered the race for the OHA trusteeship, albeit unsuccessful.

In June 2003, a civil-rights lawsuit was filed on behalf of an unnamed non-Hawaiian student, challenging the Kamehameha Schools' Hawaiian-preference admissions policy. The case is waiting for decision from 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

Sovereignty groups, on their part, have appealed to official institutions to advance their cause. In early 2006, three groups wrote a report to the U.N., citing human rights violation of Native Hawaiians and seeking the removal of the U.S. government from the Hawaiian Islands.

Sovereignty activists also make their voices heard outside the court, sometimes forcefully. In 2002, the University of Hawaii newspaper Ka Leo reported a case of a threat when a seminar was scheduled to cover "another perspective" of Hawaiian sovereignty and to be taught by anti-sovereignty activist Kenneth Conklin.

Course coordinator Rebecca Goodman said she received threatening phone calls and an intimidating visit in her office with a warning "bad things will happen" if the seminar was held. The seminar had to be postponed, the location held secret, and students registered for the seminar ended up dropping for fear of harassment.

Poverty Fuels Sense of Injustice

Hawaiians' poor economic status has also served to intensify discontent and sense of injustice, fueling the sovereignty movements. A 2005 U.S. Census Bureau survey shows Hawaiians at the bottom run of the state's economic ladder.

According to the survey, the Hawaiians' per capita income is $16,932, much less than the state average of $25,326. While the state's poverty rate is less than 8 percent, the rate for Hawaiians is nearly 15 percent.

With housing price sky-high, many people are thrown on the street and to the shelters, creating homelessness in "paradise." On the island of Oahu where Honolulu is located, 60 percent of the homeless are indigenous Hawaiians, according to Anne Keala Kelly, a Native Hawaiian journalist and filmmaker.

----------------

http://starbulletin.com/2007/05/07/editorial/letters.html
Honolulu Star-Bulletin, May 7, 2007, letters to editor

Akaka Bill opponents belong on committee

The Star-Bulletin reported the alarm expressed in some quarters that strong opponents of the Akaka Bill have been nominated to the Hawaii Advisory Committee to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.

Where was the outrage during the past 10 years when that committee was chaired by Hawaiian activist, Akaka Bill supporter, anti-statehood Charles Maxwell? The whole committee marched in lockstep with him.

The biggest civil rights issue in Hawaii is the attempt to create a race-based government, to preserve racial segregation at the $8 billion-$15 billion Kamehameha Schools, to maintain two race-based state government agencies, and so on.

Civil rights activists often struggle against an oppressively dominant viewpoint. We need them to be our canary in the mineshaft. Was it wrong to put Thurgood Marshall on the Supreme Court -- an outspoken chief counsel for the highly partisan NAACP? A reconstituted civil rights committee might even investigate anti-haole racism. Imagine that!

Kenneth R. Conklin
Kaneohe

------------------

http://www.mauinews.com/story.aspx?id=30273
The Maui News, Monday, May 07, 2007
EDITORIAL

Hawaii needs Akaka Bill

The Bush administration arguments against the Akaka Bill giving Native Hawaiians more control over their destiny appear to be grasping at straws.

The bill would set up a procedure for keiki o ka 'aina to negotiate on a one-to-one basis with the state and federal government on land and cultural issues. It would be a step that is important to everyone living in the islands. In addition to the natural environment, the host culture is what makes Hawaii unique among the world's competing sun-and-sea tourist destinations.

The Bush administration opposes the bill named for Dan Akaka, Hawaii's Native Hawaiian senator. The bill is a preliminary but vital step toward redressing a wrong committed in the 1890s. This time opposition is based on the notion the bill would balkanize the country. That is, break the United States into enclaves based on race and culture despite unbreakable commercial, political and historic ties with the nation at large.

Hawaiians are the only indigenous group in the United States that does not have legal standing as a distinct culture. Hawaii is the only sovereign nation that was absorbed by the United States. Territories were annexed by the U.S. as the spoils of war with Spain and Mexico.

Hawaiians who oppose the Akaka Bill say it would just make them wards of the federal government. Most of those full-sovereignty Hawaiians think that somehow more than a century of history and current reality can be ignored. They are so focused on the past they can't see the present or the future.

Basic Hawaiian culture is growing stronger via immersion language schools, an active interest in the use of canoes and voyaging, hula, chant, cosmology and a renewed cultural pride. The Akaka Bill would give Hawaiians a solid, legal place to stand and move into the future.

If Hawaii's residents, with all their ethnic origins, can support Native Hawaiians – and they do – Congress and the Bush administration can rest assured no harm will come to the U.S. by passage of the Akaka Bill. Opponents might start by reading the bill instead of relying on biased, secondhand accounts.

-------------------

http://www.hawaiireporter.com/story.aspx?699e85b8-5eeb-4385-9888-846227a1a74c
Hawaii Reporter (online), May 7, 2007

Study Needs to Be Done on Akaka Bill's Potential Impact
Open Testimony to the Senate Indian Affairs Committee

By Jim Growney, U.S. citizen and native Hawaiian There is concern in this community that there has not been a single study done about the negative social/economic impacts that the proposed Akaka bill could have on the native Hawaiian community, and the spillover effects that an adverse outcome could have on the non-native Hawaiian majority in the state of Hawaii.

The proponents of this legislation have not put forth a position paper that outlines the advantages that the Akaka bill would have for native Hawaiians, yet this issue is vitally important to our small community. My concern is that the advantages both social and economic are not readily apparent, but the disadvantages are all too obvious, and should certainly be addressed. Here are some of the concerns that come readily to mind.

* The administration and certain segments of Congress have expressed concerns about the constitutionality of this legislation. In view of these concerns, is there a possibility that the bill could be delayed by legal challenges that address the question of constitutionality? And could these challenges delay implementation indefinitely while they are being resolved?

* The legislation prevents the Hawaiian nation from introducing any forms of legalized gambling, which is providing the mainstay of revenues for the American Indian tribes. Where then will the new sovereign nation of Hawaii generate the revenues needed to run the nation and care for its citizens? Will it by necessity compete with State of Hawaii businesses by offering tax-free goods and services free of federal and state taxes? Will it be permitted to allow nonunion foreign nationals to produce goods and provide services at lower cost to compete with businesses located in the United States?

* What will be the economic impact on the state of Hawaii of having 50 percent of its land and the revenues generated by these lands transferred to the Hawaiian nation? Could this have an adverse impact on the Hawaii economy, and if so, how severe will it be?

* What will the impact on non-Hawaiian spouses, adopted children, and non-Hawaiian in-laws, of being denied citizenship in the new Hawaiian nation because of their race?

* One of the major reasons for given for introducing the Akaka bill was to protect Hawaiian racial entitlements, which appeared to be jeopardized by the Supreme Court decision, Rice versus Cayetano. Will this create a permanent underclass of native Hawaiians, who will be entitled to welfare assistance based on their race, even when their Hawaiian blood quantum has diminished to almost nothing? If welfare dependence is not good for non-Hawaiians of every race, how could it possibly be good for Hawaiians?

* Is there reason to be concerned that the Akaka bill could have severe social and economic consequences for the non-Hawaiians living in a significantly smaller State of Hawaii? And if the creation of the new Hawaiian nation harms the economy of the State of Hawaii, is there a possibility that this could generate racial discord and animosity in a state that has always been a symbol for racial harmony and cooperation?

The people of Hawaii deserve answers to these and a host of other questions. Before this legislation passes, Congress should determine the benefits and shortcomings of this legislation by initiating extensive and exhaustive economic and social analysis to guarantee that creating a sovereign nation of native Hawaiians does not adversely impact the economic and social structure of the state of Hawaii, which will be home to Hawaiians and non-Hawaiians for generations to come.

Mahalo and aloha for your consideration,

----------------

http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2007/May/08/br/br5487239016.html
Honolulu Advertiser, May 8, 2007; Breaking News Posted at 5:56 a.m., Tuesday, May 8, 2007; further "improved" at 7:03 AM.

Senate may vote on Native Hawaiian bills Thursday

By Dennis Camire
Advertiser Washington Bureau

WASHINGTON — The Senate Indian Affairs Committee may vote Thursday on bills extending self-government and self-determination to Native Hawaiians and reauthorize federal housing programs for them.

The Native Hawaiian bill, sponsored by Sen. Dan Akaka, D-Hawai'i, would create a process for a Native Hawaiian governing entity to be formed and gain federal recognition. The new government would be able to negotiate with the United States and Hawai'i over the disposition of Native Hawaiian land, assets and other resources.

The committee held a hearing on the bill last week.

The housing bill, which the House approved 272-150 over Republican opposition in March, would reauthorize funding for Native Hawaiian housing programs for five years. It would ensure that the state Department of Hawaiian Home Lands continues to receive $8 million to $9 million annually for roads, water lines, sewer systems and other infrastructure needed for housing projects developed for those who are 50 percent Hawaiian blood or more.

The Native Hawaiian housing program's authorization expired in 2005 but funding has been kept alive on a year-to-year basis.

-----------

** Comment by Ken Conklin

The headline is extremely misleading. "Senate may vote on Native Hawaiian bills Thursday" inplies that the full Senate might vote on the Akaka bill on Thursday May 10. The body of the article makes clear that what's happening on May 10 is a meeting of the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, NOT a possible vote by the full Senate. But even the body of the article is somewhat misleading. While it is true that the commitee MIGHT vote on the Akaka bill on May 10, that would not be normal procedure. In fact, the committee is holding open until May 17 the period for submitting testimony on the Akaka bill, so it would seem disrespectful to vote on the bill before all the testimony is received. What's normal procedure would be (a) hold a hearing [that was done on May 3], (b) discuss the bill and perhaps order a committee report to be prepared [in the 108th and 109th Congresses a lengthy report was indeed prepared], (c) discuss possible amendments to the bill [the committee actually did amend the bill in 2005], (d) conduct final "markup" of the bill and vote on the bill, sending the bill to the floor for eventual debate and vote by the full Senate.

--------------

http://indian.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Hearings.Hearing&Hearing_ID=71

** The Senate Indian Affairs Committee lists its agenda for Thursday May 10 as follows:

BUSINESS MEETING to consider pending legislative business.
Thursday, May 10, 2007
9:30:00 AM EDT
[Location is hearing room #] SR - 485

S. 1200, the Indian Health Care Improvement Act Amendments of 2007

S. 310, the Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act of 2007

H.R. 835, Hawaiian Homeownership Act of 2007

S. J. Res. 4, Native American Apology

** The usual "View Hearing" link is offered on the Indian Affairs Committee front page. Presumably there will be streaming audio/video of the hearing in real time, and also available at that link thereafter. Look below the calendar on the right-hand side of the page at
http://indian.senate.gov/public/

--------------

Kyle Kajihiro publishes lengthy article in Haleakala Times (Maui) describing in detail U.S. military presence in Hawai'i and calling it a monster that is destroying the land and culture of ethnic Hawaiians.
http://www.haleakalatimes.com/news/story2527.aspx

Haleakala Times (Maui), Tuesday, May 08, 2007

No peace in paradise
The military presence in the Hawaiian Islands

by Kyle Kajihiro

Kanaka Maoli [** ethnic Hawaiian, one drop or more of Hawaiian native blood] activist Kaleikoa Kaeo described the U.S. military in Hawai'i as a monstrous he‘e (octopus), its head represented by the Pacific Command Headquarters, its eyes and ears the mountaintop telescopes, radar facilities, and underwater sensors, and its brain and nervous system the supercomputers and fiber optic networks that crisscross the islands. The tentacles of the he‘e stretch from the west coast of North America to the east coast of Africa, from Alaska to Antarctica.

Today the enormity of the U.S. military presence in Hawai‘i is staggering: ...

** This newspaper article is quite lengthy, and describes in detail the U.S. military installations and activities in Hawai'i. The military is described as a monster that has taken over Hawai'i at the expense of ethnic Hawaiians, and has destroyed the sacred land.

[** Note from Ken Conklin: Kyle Kajihiro is area program coordinator for the American Friends Service Committee of Hawai'i [Local branch of national Quaker activist group]. He is paid more than $50,000 per year plus expenses to work full-time opposing the U.S. military worldwide, and to help the Hawaiian secessionist movement (those two activities are obviously closely related). In November 2006 he presented to an international anti-military conference a report describing Hawai'i as being under a continuing 114-year belligerent military occupation by the U.S.: "Hawai'i Report for the Asia-Pacific Consultation of Movements Against U.S. Military Bases." That report is at http://tinyurl.com/y2ra7p . See also "Hawai'i's Fifth Column: Anti-Americanism in the Hawaiian Sovereignty Movement" at http://tinyurl.com/5t3nc ]

-------------------

------------------

http://honoluluadvertiser.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070510/NEWS01/705100359/1001
Honolulu Advertiser, Thursday, May 10, 2007

Lingle keeps up fight for Akaka bill

By Dennis Camire
Advertiser Washington Bureau

WASHINGTON — Gov. Linda Lingle said yesterday she will continue to lobby support from Republican lawmakers and talk with the White House about the hard line it has taken against the Akaka bill.

"That's my role and I'm going to continue to play it because I believe so strongly in the importance of passing this legislation," she said.

The Senate Indian Affairs Committee is expected to vote today on the bill, which would create a process for a Native Hawaiian governing entity to be formed and gain federal recognition. Lingle, in Washington for the Pacific Islands Conference of Leaders, said she would be attending the session.

Lingle said the state's congressional delegation hasn't shared its strategy for getting Senate approval or overcoming a possible White House veto of the Akaka bill, and that she wasn't sure Congress would approve it this year.

Lingle said she asked about strategy when the delegation — Democratic Sens. Daniel Akaka and Daniel K. Inouye and Democratic Reps. Neil Abercrombie and Mazie Hirono — introduced the bill in January, but received no clear answer.

"I don't know because I'm never involved in the strategy with them. I don't know if they have a strategy," she said. "I am disappointed by the governor's remarks," Inouye said in a statement.

The Republican governor has said she could be persuasive in winning support from the Bush administration for the Akaka bill, particularly important in light of the congressional delegation's limited influence in the Bush White House, Inouye said.

"The state's congressional delegation has made it clear that (Lingle) could do a great favor for Native Hawaiians by convincing President Bush and his administration to support the passage and enactment of the Akaka bill," Inouye said. "This is the right and just thing to do."

Akaka said he is committed to getting the legislation enacted into law. "I told Gov. Lingle when she visited my office on Monday that I appreciate the meaningful role that she and her administration have played in committee hearings on the bill," Akaka said.

Under the bill, the new government would be able to negotiate with the United States and Hawai'i over the disposition of Native Hawaiian land, assets and other resources.

The bill's chances of passing the Senate and House are better this year with Democratic majorities controlling both chambers, although opposition from Republican conservatives remains strong.

"The numbers look better than they did before, but the success of the bill is still in jeopardy," said Neal Milner, a political expert at the University of Hawai'i.

As the bill gains a higher profile, more Republican conservatives will become aware of it, generating more opposition, Milner said. "That had as much to do with deep-sixing the bill last year as anything else," Milner said.

The House Natural Resources Committee approved the bill yesterday without any objections or changes.

SIGNS OF HOPE?

The best indication of overall House support was a March vote on a federal housing bill for Native Hawaiians. Even after the House Republican leadership called for a vote against it, the bill passed 272-150.

Although the bill passed the House once in 2000, it has never been successful in the Senate, where opponents have used procedural roadblocks to keep it from a final vote. Last year, supporters could only muster 56 of the 60 votes needed to force a final vote on the bill, with 41 Republicans opposing it.

If all Democrats and independents voted for the bill, plus Republicans who supported it in the past, supporters might be able to get 63 votes — enough to overcome Senate roadblocks.

But the potential of a Bush veto looms large.

Michael McDonald, a political expert at George Mason University in Fairfax, Va., said Bush's veto last week of a bill to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and a veto of an embryonic stem-cell bill last year have broken the ice on his use of that presidential power.

A veto requires a two-thirds majority in each chamber to overcome, a big stumbling block given the past Senate vote.

"As it stands, I don't see much of a chance if Bush decides to veto (the Akaka bill)," McDonald said.

The House version of the Akaka bill will be scheduled for floor debate and a vote.

Abercrombie said he will keep pushing the bill and talking with other House members, particularly conservatives. If the Senate Indian Affairs Committee votes on the bill today, that could put it in position to be scheduled for floor debate and vote.

CRUISING UNTIL RECENTLY

The Justice Department, speaking on behalf of the Bush administration, issued a letter opposing the bill on the eve of last year's Senate vote. The letter said it would be "inappropriate" and raise "difficult constitutional issues" to give Native Hawaiians tribal recognition.

Despite that, Lingle said the bill's supporters presented the situation to her this year as one where the bill was cruising through Congress until a Senate Indian Affairs Committee hearing on it last week.

"As things turned out, there was a very strong statement from the Justice Department that focused on policy as opposed to constitutionality, which is their responsibility — not policy," Lingle said.

At the hearing, Gregory Katsas, a Justice Department attorney, said the administration opposed the bill because, "We think it's wrong to balkanize the governing institutions of this country along racial and ancestral lines."

But Lingle said she would continue to lobby Republican lawmakers and to talk with the White House about not taking such a hard position on the bill.

Lingle said that since being in Washington for the conference, sponsored by the Honolulu-based East-West Center, she has talked with some Republican senators about the bill, including Craig Thomas of Wyoming.

Thomas, the top Republican on the Senate Indian Affairs Committee, opposes the bill but Lingle said she keeps touching base with him "just to keep putting my point of view forward."

Lingle said this time, she put her well-known support for the bill in the context of a Republican governor winning re-election in the state by getting a majority in all 51 of the state House legislative districts.

"I'm trying to put that across to them to let them know that people know where I stand and yet they have supported me," she said. "They believe me when I say this is good for the state of Hawai'i, and I firmly and truly believe that."

------------------

http://www.hawaiireporter.com/story.aspx?3f1c8aa7-f6fb-45d6-9f39-b397d26c4868
Hawaii Reporter, May 10, 2007

Need for Akaka Bill Built on False Premises
Open Letter to U.S. Senators and Representatives

By Jere Krischel

Much of the difficulty with this Akaka Bill and its supporters is that they are starting from false premises. In his opening statement, Senator Dorgan wrote:

"It allows for the Native Hawaiian people to once again have an opportunity at self-governance and self-determination."

Contrary to Senator Dorgan's implication, the Native Hawaiian people have both self-governance and self-determination this very moment, only not as a separate racial group. Also contrary to Senator Dorgan's implication, there has never been any race-based government in the entire history of the Hawaiian islands, including before western contact in 1778, and in fact, the Hawaiian Kingdom's first constitution explicitly declared all people "of one blood", and maintained itself without reference to race.

Senator Dorgan continues, stating: "They were here long before my ancestors showed up. They had their own governments and provided for the general welfare of their people."

If Senator Dorgan will accept that the Hawaiian Kingdom was a government that "provided for the general welfare" of native Hawaiians, he should also respect that that government was not race-based. Although until 1893 the head of state had been native Hawaiian, the government did not have any racial qualifications for the office of the monarch, nor any of the offices of government. Had Bernice Pauahi Bishop accepted the monarchy from Lunalilo, her husband, Charles Reed Bishop, born in New York, could have ascended to the throne.

Simply put, we should respect the fact that the Hawaiian Kingdom was a legitimate and independent nation that was not race-based, and was not solely for native Hawaiians. To undo the civil rights afforded to people of all races in the Hawaiian Kingdom, and create a solely race-based entity for the first time in Hawaiian history, is misguided, misinformed, and wrong.

Senator Dorgan establishes some of his false premises:

* 1) Before any Americans settled on the Hawaiian islands, there existed a sovereign Native Hawaiian government.

False. Prior to 1778, there was no singluar native Hawaiian government - warring chiefdoms existed up till 1810, when Kauai finally surrendered to Kamehameha the Great. Not to mention that the unification of the Hawaiian islands was aided, abetted, and guided by non-native Hawaiians such as John Young. If we were to restore the government to before western contact, we should be restoring the original chiefdoms, not the unified government created by the cooperation between natives and non-natives.

* 2) The United States recognized this sovereign Native nation, and negotiated 4 treaties with it.

Again false. The sovereign nation which the United States had treaties with, the Hawaiian Kingdom, was not a "Native nation". It was a multi-racial and multi-cultural nation that afforded equal rights to all of its citizens, regardless of ancestry. The Akaka Bill promises to undo the equality that existed in the nation we had treaties with.

* 3) Once non-natives began settling in Hawaii, the Native Hawaiian government allowed them representation in the government.

False. The Kingdom of Hawaii government allowed them representation - there was no "Native Hawaiian" government of any sort. From the very beginning of unification, John Young, the "white ali'i", was part of the government, and he was distinctly non-native.

* 4) But the non-natives wanted control of the Hawaiian government.

This is so terribly misleading it must be considered false - there were non-natives who wanted control of the Hawaiian government, but these included both Reform Party members interested in annexation with the United States as well as royalists interested in perpetuating a corrupt monarchy. Walter Murray Gibson was famously the "minister of everything", and worked his way into power by appealing to racial demagoguery with the support and friendship of King Kalakaua. Claus Spreckels, aka "King Spreckels", was a non-native who held King Kalakaua in deep debt, and used his influence to line his pockets a great deal. Queen Liliuokalani had a personal psychic of german descent who pushed her to support an ill-fated lottery bill that helped bring about her downfall.

To assert that somehow non-natives were vying for control of the government against natives is a blurred reading of history. Both royalist and annexationist parties had native and non-native supporters - frankly, the vast majority of commoners in the islands had little to do with the machinations of power by the elites. It wasn't until becoming a Territory of the United States, in 1900, that the franchise of voting was made without property requirements, and at that point more native Hawaiians than ever had "self-determination" and "self-governance". Before then, government was in the hands of the elites, be they native or non-native or mixed.

* 5) In 1893, the United States Minister utilized American soldiers to assist non-native revolutionaries in overthrowing the Native Hawaiian government.

False. If anything Minister Stevens simply refused to support Liliuokalani's government in a moment of constitutional crisis.

Liliuokalani had hand-picked a cabinet and forced through a controversial lottery bill and opium bill just before the 1893 Hawaiian Revolution. When she approached her cabinet with plans to abrogate the constitution she had sworn an oath to, they balked. She raged at them, and fearing for their lives, they approached their political enemies in the Reform Party. Once that was set in motion, her government was effectively over. The fact that Minister Stevens ordered troops landed to protect American lives and property, under strict orders of neutrality, may have depressed royalist morale, but it was a far cry from direct assistance.

* 6) Although President Grover Cleveland urged Congress to restore the Native Hawaiian Queen to power, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee ratified the actions of the non-native revolutionaries. The Senate justified its ratification by describing the Native Hawaiian government as a domestic dependent nation, the same description given by the United States Supreme Court to Indian tribes in 1831.

Senator Dorgan is completely mistaken here - not once in the Morgan Report is the Kingdom of Hawaii described as a "domestic dependent nation". From the Morgan Report, p380-381:

"The independence of Hawaii as a sovereign State had been long recognized by the United States, and this unhappy occasion did not suggest the need of renewing that declaration. The question presented in Honolulu on and after the 12th of January, 1893, was whether the Queen continued to be the executive head of the Government of Hawaii. That was a question of fact which her conduct and that of her people placed in perilous doubt until it was decided by the proclamation of a new executive. Pending that question there was no responsible executive government in Hawaii. On the 17th of January that doubt was resolved to the satisfaction of the American minister, and of all other representatives of foreign governments in Hawaii, in favor of the Provisional Government. This recognition did not give to the Government of Hawaii the legal or moral right to expel the troops of any government, stationed in Honolulu in the period of interregnum, until it had so firmly established its authority as to give to foreigners the security to provide for which these troops had been landed. Good faith and an honest respect for the rights of friendly nations would certainly require the withdrawal of all further interference with the domestic affairs of Hawaii as soon as that government had provided security that was reasonably sufficient for the protection of the citizens of the United States. But the Government of the United States had the right to keep its troops in Honolulu until these conditions were performed, and the Government of Hawaii could certainly acquiesce in such a policy without endangering its independence or detracting from its dignity. "

The closest wording Senator Dorgan may be citing is on page 383-384:

"We have always exerted the privilege of interference in the domestic policy of Hawaii to a degree that would not be justified, under our view of the international law, in reference to the affairs of Canada, Cuba, or Mexico. The cause of this departure from our general course of diplomatic conduct is the recognized fact that Hawaii has been all the time under a virtual suzerainty of the United States, which is, by an apt and familiar definition, a paramount authority, not in any actual sense an actual sovereignty, but a de facto supremacy over the country. This sense of paramount authority, of supremacy, with the right to intervene in the affairs of Hawaii, has never been lost sight of by the United States to this day, and it is conspicously manifest in the correspondence of Mr. Willis with Mr. Dole, which is set forth in the evidence which accompanies this report. Another fact of importance in considering the conduct of our diplomatic and naval officers during the revolution of January, 1893, is that the annexation of Hawaii to the United States has been the subject of careful study and almost constant contemplation among Hawaiians and their kings since the beginning of the reign of Kamehameha I. This has always been regarded by the ruling power in Hawaii as a coveted and secure retreat—a sort of house of refuge—whenever the exigencies of fate might compel Hawaii to make her choice between home rule and foreign domination, either in the form of a protectorate, or of submission to some foreign sovereign."

Asserting that our de facto supremacy over the country made it a "dependent domestic nation" is clearly a stretch. In fact, the Morgan Report states on page 382:

"The United States has assumed and deliberately maintained toward Hawaii a relation which is entirely exceptional, and has no parallel in our dealings with any other people."

Let me repeat that once more:

"HAS NO PARALLEL IN OUR DEALINGS WITH ANY OTHER PEOPLE."

One must assume that this includes Indian nations.

Senator Dorgan also fails to acknowledge that after being given the evidence of the congressional investigation completed by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee (http://morganreport.org), President Cleveland reversed his stance, and acknowledged both the Provisional Government and the Republic of Hawaii as the legitimate governments of the Hawaiian nation.

Attorney General Mark J. Bennett also relies on several false premises. Mr. Bennett states:

"Native Hawaiians are not asking for privileged treatment--they are simply asking to be treated the same way all other native indigenous Americans are treated in this country."

In fact, "native indigenous Americans" are not guaranteed tribal membership by the mere fact of their ancestry. The Bureau of Indian Affairs requires the satisfaction of 7 criteria before recognizing a tribe, none of which are present in the Akaka Bill. They are:

* 83.7a - The petitioner has been identified as an American Indian entity on a substantially continuous basis since 1900.
* 83.7b - A predominant portion of the petitioning group comprises a distinct community and has existed as a community from historical times to the present.
* 83.7c - The petitioner has maintained political influence or authority over its members as an autonomous entity from historical times until the present.
* 83.7d - A copy of the group's present governing documents including its membership criteria.
* 83.7e - The petitioner's membership consists of individuals who descend from a historical Indian tribe or from historical Indian tribes which combined and functioned as a single autonomous political entity.
* 83.7f - The membership of the petitioning group is composed primarily of persons who are not members of an acknowledged North American Indian tribe.
* 83.7g - Neither the petitioner nor its members are the subject of congressional legislation that has expressly terminated or forbidden the federal relationship.

Far from asking for the same treatment, the Akaka Bill specifically avoids treating native Hawaiians the same way other "native indigenous Americans" are treated.

Mr. Bennett also states incorrectly:

"Native Hawaiians are not only indigenous, but also share with other Native Americans a similar history of dispossession, cultural disruption, and loss of full self-determination"

Hawaii had no Trail of Tears. Hawaii had no smallpox blankets, and no Little Bighorn, and no wagon trains of settlers moving in and taking territory.

The "cultural disruption" referred to was a choice of the native Hawaiians - their queen Kaahumanu, was the one who abolished the old religion and embraced the christian missionaries who visited in 1820. The adaptation of the native Hawaiian people to western ideas, values, government and technology was a voluntary disruption, and one of the greatest points of pride for the Hawaiian people.

Mr. Bennett's final abandonment of logic and reason happens when he states:

"Finally, some opponents of the bill contend that because the government of the Kingdom of Hawaii was itself not racially exclusive, that it would be inappropriate to recognize a governing entity limited to Native Hawaiians. This objection is absurd. The fact that Native Hawaiians over one hundred years ago, whether by choice or coercion, maintained a government that was open to participation by non-Hawaiians, should not deprive Native Hawaiians today of the recognition they deserve."

Apparently, according to Mr. Bennett, the integration of civil rights in a government is not something we should be worried about undoing. Perhaps he could also argue that the fact that white Southerners, over one hundred years ago, whether by choice or coercion, maintained a government that was open to participation by non-whites, should not deprive these people of separate racial recognition as existed pre-Civil war.

The progression of civil rights simply should not be undone by the whim of legislators and the claims of victimhood by racial separatists. One could hardly imagine limiting the Akaka Bill to include only males of certain property requirements, as was the case during the Kingdom of Hawaii. One could hardly imagine limiting the Akaka Bill to include only those of royal blood. Why would anyone imagine it was a good idea to limit self-determination by race?

Why on earth do people somehow assume that a fully integrated population, such as part-native Hawaiians, should be considered as a distinct racial entity? Most part-native Hawaiians have more in common with other Portuguese, Japanese, Chinese, Filipino and Europeans than they do with other part-native Hawaiians. Yet somehow Mr. Bennett can see his way clearly to segregating people based on this fractional amount of blood into a separate racial group.

Haunani Apoliona also engages in perpetuating false premises. She states:

"Within a little over 20 years of annexation, the Native Hawaiian population had been decimated. Native Hawaiians had been wrenched from their traditional lands, compelled to abandon their agrarian and subsistence ways of life, forced into rat-infested tenement dwellings, and were dying in large numbers."

Examining the Native Hawaiians Study Commission Report of 1983, which has a table on page 69 "ETHNIC STOCK: 1900 TO 1960", shows the following native Hawaiian and part-native Hawaiian population numbers:

* 1900: 37,576
* 1910: 38,409
* 1920: 41,713

Far from being decimated, the native Hawaiian population grew by several thousand during the years following annexation. Under the rule of King Kalakaua, from 1884 to 1890 the native Hawaiian population went from 44,232 to 40,622, making it arguable that native Hawaiian prosperity and health was significantly increased due to annexation.

Furthermore, our first two Congressional representatives from the Territory of Hawaii were native Hawaiian (Robert Wilcox and Prince Kuhio) - far from being disenfranchised, native Hawaiians were the largest voting bloc in the islands for years after annexation due to the restrictions on Asian voting. They controlled the Territorial Legislature, and dominated the government for decades.

Far from being wrenched from traditional lands, or compelled to abandon subsistence living, native Hawaiians actively participated in the transformation of Hawaii into an industrial society. Nobody compelled them to do anything, nor forced anyone into "rat-infested tenement dwellings" (as opposed to rat-infested grass huts). Apoliona's creative fiction is simply that - imagination.

Hawaii is my homeland, and my family has been there for over 100 years, before the fall of the monarchy. Much of my family has part-native Hawaiian blood, and much of my family does not. All of my family deserves to be treated equally.

Please, I implore you, do not support S.310. Its justification is based on false premises, sincerely believed but factually incorrect. Its implementation would divide my people by race, and grant special privileges to an extremely integrated and heterogeneous group. It serves to divide rather than unite, abandons the civil rights granted to all people in the Hawaiian Kingdom, and mistakenly places native Hawaiians into a box that does not apply to them.

The people of Hawaii, of all races, have lived together as one people since the unification of the islands in 1810. The people of Hawaii, of all races, have enjoyed more and more self-determination throughout the years, as we have transformed from a Kingdom to a Republic, to a Territory, to a State. The people of Hawaii, of all races, deserve to be treated equally, with aloha for all.

'Jere Krischel is a Senior Fellow with the Grassroot Institute of Hawaii, born and raised in Hawaii and currently living in California with his wife and two young children. Reach him via email at mailto:jere@krischel.org

==============

http://www.indiancountry.com/content.cfm?id=1096415016
Indian Country Today, May 11, 2007

H.R. 505 clears committee without amendment

by: Jerry Reynolds

WASHINGTON - The latest version of a bill that would authorize a process for re-establishing a Native Hawaiian governing entity in the islands passed from committee without a pair of prepared amendments May 2. Rep. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., brought the hostile amendments forward in draft form, but did not appear after a break in the Natural Resources Committee hearing to offer them formally. The bill, widely known as the Akaka Bill after Sen. Daniel Akaka, D-Hawaii, then passed the committee by unanimous consent and will go to the full House of Representatives, which has passed prior versions of the bill in three successive congressional sessions.

Following a pattern established early in the current 110th Congress by the Republican Study Committee, the conservative wing of the House GOP, Flake prepared one amendment stating that nothing in the proposed law ''shall relieve any sovereign entity within the jurisdiction of the United States'' from compliance with the 14th Amendment, requiring equal treatment of every citizen under the law. A second prepared amendment from Flake sought to prohibit land transfers to the eventual Native Hawaiian governing entity, as well as other governing authorities and privileges, ''unless and until the proposed organic governing documents for the Native Hawaiian governing entity ... are approved by a majority of registered voters in the state of Hawaii.''

According to several witnesses before House and Senate hearings on the Akaka Bill, nothing in it justifies the 14th Amendment concern of Flake's first amendment.

Rep. Neil Abercrombie, D-Hawaii, addressed the substance of the second amendment in debate on the bill. Abercrombie assured Flake and other Western state lawmakers that the Akaka Bill is not dedicated to the seizure of land by government, but to Native Hawaiian control of existing land assets long ago ceded to them.

''This is inherently a very conservative bill ... What we're trying to do in Hawaii is get the government out of the lives of Native Hawaiians so that they can make their own decisions. The bottom line here is that this is a bill about the control of assets. This is about land, this is about money, and this is about who has the administrative authority and responsibility over it. And all this bill does is enable the Native Hawaiians to be able to come back to the Secretary of Interior and ask for permission to move ahead to take up the governance of the land and the funds that are in question.''

In reference to legal arguments that have sprung up against Native Hawaiian assets and decision-making as race-based in the absence of a federally recognized Native Hawaiian government, Abercrombie said they've only cropped up since the assets in question became economically valuable.

''When the original ceded land was there, it wasn't worth anything. It didn't have the infrastructure on it. It didn't have the cachet for housing and all the rest. When the homestead land was put out there, it had no roads, it had no electricity, it had no sewer system, it had no infrastructure of any kind. So that when as you put up your homestead, you couldn't even be sure that you could get water. It wasn't worth anything. The leases weren't out there on the ceded land, like the airport now ... so there wasn't any money coming in.

''When the land wasn't worth anything, and when there was no money in the bank, and when there was no cash flow, nobody gave a damn what happened to the Native Hawaiians. There was no argument about discrimination or whether it was fair or not. But the second the land became worth something, the second that the homesteads were ripe for development, the second that the cash appeared, the second that the cash flow was there, then all of a sudden people got concerned about it.''

Patricia Zell, a lobbyist for the bill with Zell and Cox Law in Washington, added after the hearing that the concerns of Flake's second prepared amendment are already accomplished in the state laws of Hawaii, which would require a change in the state's constitution to approve transfer of the ceded lands to the governing entity. A vote to amend the state constitution is by law open to all registered voters. The same conditions would pertain to the transfer of resources to the governing entity. ''I can understand why perhaps he [Flake] might have been persuaded that the amendment wasn't necessary,'' Zell said.

---------------

http://www.indiancountry.com/content.cfm?id=1096415017
Indian Country Today May 11, 2007

Background and basics on the Akaka Bill

by: Jerry Reynolds

WASHINGTON - The United States participated in the overthrow of the Hawaiian monarchy, the aboriginal governing entity of the islands, in 1893. One hundred years later, the United States passed a resolution apologizing for the nation's role in the overthrow. In the intervening years, Congress passed upward of 100 measures that dealt in whole or in part with Native Hawaiians. The Admission Act that made Hawaii the last state in the union required the state to administer ceded lands and homestead lands for the benefit of Native Hawaiians.

Advocates of the Akaka Bill, which takes its name from Sen. Daniel Akaka, D-Hawaii, argue that it's essential to the preservation of Native Hawaiian identity and resources after a U.S. Supreme Court decision found a Native Hawaiian voting preference to be race-based and impermissible under the 15th Amendment to the Constitution. Other Native Hawaiian benefits provided by the state Legislature and Congress are considered subject to similar challenges until a federally recognized governing entity restores Native Hawaiians to a political classification, rather than the racial one detected in the Rice v. Cayetano Supreme Court ruling on voting rights.

''Failure is not an option,'' said Micah Kane, chairman of the Hawaiian Homes Commission, of efforts to re-establish a Native Hawaiian governing entity.

Enactment of the Akaka Bill by Congress would not establish a governing entity or create a reservation for Native Hawaiians, nor would it transfer land or assign citizenship in the embryonic governing entity. It would signal the formal commencement of a process appointed by Congress to establish the governing entity. The process would produce the foundation documents of the governing entity. The structure, territory and membership of the governing entity would be subject to negotiations and approvals among Native Hawaiian organizations, the state Legislature of Hawaii, and the federal government (including the Justice and Interior departments). Because of provisions in the Admission Act requiring state administration of Native Hawaiian resources, the citizens of Hawaii would have to vote to amend the state Constitution before transfers of land and other resources could be realized.

Hearings in the House of Representatives and the Senate May 2 and 3 built up a legislative record of rebuttal to Department of Justice claims that the Native Hawaiian governing entity will divide U.S. sovereignty by encouraging so-called ''secessionist'' sentiment in the islands, foster race-based governance and invite constitutional scrutiny from the courts. Further questioning from Senate Committee on Indian Affairs members put paid to lesser debates. Under a federally recognized self-governing entity, Native Hawaiians will remain citizens of the United States, will not be able to challenge the property rights of private landowners, will not be a specially titled class of citizens, and will be subject to state and federal negotiations and approvals before they can establish their governing entity. Citizenship in the governing entity will be elective, and the governing entity will be required to observe the civil rights of its citizens.

==============

http://www.westhawaiitoday.com/articles/2007/05/11/local/local04.txt
West Hawaii Today (Kona), Friday, May 11, 2007

Akaka bill for Native Hawaiian government moves forward

by Steve Tetreault
Stephens Washington Bureau

WASHINGTON -- The Akaka bill for a Native Hawaiian government won approval Thursday from the Senate Indian Affairs Committee, as senators put off full debate over the plan until later this year.

The legislation would create a process for a Hawaiian native governing body to be formed and to gain formal recognition from the U.S. government.

The vote marked the fourth time the Hawaii bill has passed out of Senate committee, but it has stalled each time so far.

Sens. Daniel Akaka and Daniel Inouye, both D-Hawaii, have expressed new confidence this year because Congress is controlled by Democrats, who generally have shown to be more supportive.

But critics have remounted arguments the Native Hawaiian sovereignty effort would violate the Constitution, as well as create a race-based government that could divide the state along ethnic lines.

Senate opponents are expected again to erect procedural roadblocks, and it remains unknown whether President Bush would accept the bill or veto it.

"I believe the United States must fulfill its responsibility to Native Hawaiians," Akaka said before the committee passed the bill by voice vote.

The committee also approved by voice vote a bill reauthorizing Native Hawaiian housing programs.

Gov. Linda Lingle, in Washington for a meeting of Pacific leaders, looked on from the front row of the committee's hearing room. "All this bill asks for is for (Native Hawaiians) to be treated fairly, the way other Native Americans are treated," Lingle said after the vote. "This is not a preference bill."

Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., who has opposed the Akaka bill, urged senators not to rush forward until the Justice Department has answered questions about details of the bill. Coburn has asked the department, among other things, how recognition of Native Hawaiians might impact potential claims by other "indigenous groups," and what might happen if the state of Hawaii and a Hawaiian government are unable to reach agreement on a new relationship. "I think this bill, even it passes, is going to be thrown out by the courts," Coburn said.

Akaka said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., has promised to bring the bill to the Senate floor. A Reid spokesman confirmed the promise but said it was not yet clear when that would take place. In a March 27 formal exchange with Akaka and Inouye on the Senate floor, Reid said: "I want to be very clear to every member of this body -- I strongly support (the bill). I am committed to ensuring Senate consideration and will work with the senators from Hawaii to gain the support of members from both sides of the aisle."

In the Senate last June, opponents succeeded in blocking debate on the bill. An effort by the Hawaii senators to overcome the block fell four votes short of the 60 needed. This year, the Hawaii senators say they have more confidence due to the gain of six Democratic seats in the Senate. They assume that all Democrats once again will vote for the measure along with a handful of Republicans and the chamber's two Independents.

Akaka said Thursday he believes he and other proponents also have done a better job building a record to rebut the argument that the Native Hawaiian bill would be unconstitutional. At a Senate hearing last week, Hawaii attorney general Mark Bennett concentrated his testimony on constitutional issues. He was echoed by Viet Dinh, a constitutional scholar from Georgetown University. "This time around we are making more use of the legal aspects of this, which has been a question," Akaka said. "Many of the questions now have been answered."

----------------

http://www.kauaiworld.com/articles/2007/05/11/news/news04.txt
The Garden Island News (Kaua'i), May 11, 2007

‘Akaka bill' moves out of committee

by Blake Jones - The Garden Island

A bill on Native Hawaiian self-government made it out of the U.S. Senate Committee on Indian Affairs yesterday.

Senate Bill 310, also called the "Akaka bill," was originally sponsored by Sen. Daniel Akaka, D-Hawai‘i, about seven years ago. The measure seeks to authorize a process for federal recognition of Native Hawaiians but does not actually extend federal recognition.

"Today's strong committee bipartisan support for S310 sends a clear message that ... the United States must fulfill its commitment to Native Hawaiians," Akaka said Thursday in a press release.

According to the senator's chief press secretary, Jesse Broder-Van Dyke, the bill sets forth a process by which Native Hawaiians can establish formal leadership that will be able to negotiate with the federal government. The first step, he said, is creating a list of Native Hawaiian voters. To determine eligible voters, a nine-person panel of genealogists, all of whom must have the ability to translate Hawaiian into English and have 10 years' experience in Native Hawaiian genealogy, will certify the role.

The panel, which will be overseen by the Secretary of the Interior, will certify individuals who are "direct lineal descendants of the aboriginal, indigenous, native people" who either lived on the islands on or before Jan. 1, 1893, or were eligible in 1921 for the programs authorized by the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act, states the bill.

According to the U.S. Census Bureau's Web site, 6.6 percent of the state's population, or 80,137 people, characterized themselves as Native Hawaiians during the 2000 census.
[** Comment by Ken Conklin: That figure of 80,137 includes only those who identified "Native Hawaiian" as their OLNY racial affiliation, implying that they are full-blooded Hawaiian. But Census 2000 allowed people to select as many racial affiliations as they wished. There were about 401,000 people nationwide who chose "Native Hawaiian" as one of their ancestries, including about 240,000 living in Hawai'i, comprising about 20% of the state's population. All of them will be eligible for the Akaka tribe. Most estimates are that in reality there are fewer than 3,000 full-blooded Hawaiians. But tens of thousands of people chose to mark ONLY the box for "Native Hawaiian" even though that ancestry is the smallest percentage of their genealogical heritage -- they did so because large ethnic Hawaiian institutions urged them to respond to the Census survey in that way, to maximize the footprint of "Native Hawaiians." In effect, nearly all of those 80,137 people were choosing to ignore, suppress, and deny some or even most of their ancestral heritage, as though the only part of them that matters is the [small] "Native Hawaiian" part. Being zealous for political power and financial gain caused them to disrespect and deny their European, American and Asian ancestors. Shameful!]

The eligible voters will then be asked to elect a panel, which will create a system of government. Elected representatives would follow, Van Dyke said.

There is not currently an entity recognized on a federal or state level with the power to bargain and negotiate on behalf of Native Hawaiians.

"It will benefit (Native Hawaiians) to have one group negotiating on behalf of all," Van Dyke said.

The measure also calls for the creation of the Native Hawaiian Interagency Coordination Group to facilitate coordination between a future governing entity and the various federally administered Native Hawaiian programs. In addition, an Office for Native Hawaiian Relations will be created within the Department of the Interior to serve as liaison between the two governments, according to the bill.

The measure now must go before the full Senate for approval.

"We think we have enough votes," Van Dyke said.

A House version must also make it out of the House of Representatives. Presently, the two versions are identical, but in the case of any amendments, a conference committee will have to negotiate a final version for the president's approval, Van Dyke said.

Another bill pertaining to Native Hawaiian rights was also approved by the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs yesterday. H.R. 835, or the Hawaiian Homeownership Opportunity Act of 2007, reauthorizes Native Hawaiian housing assistance programs through fiscal year 2012. That measure was approved by the House of Representatives in March and must go before the full Senate.

Hawai‘i Gov. Linda Lingle was present in Washington, D.C., for yesterday's votes to express her support of both bills, according to her Web site.

-----------------

http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070511/NEWS23/705110333/1173/NEWS
Honolulu Advertiser, Friday, May 11, 2007

Senate panel advances Hawaiian bills

By Dennis Camire
Advertiser Washington Bureau

WASHINGTON — Native Hawaiian bills, one dealing with self-government and another with housing, moved a step closer yesterday to a debate before the full Senate.

The Senate Indian Affairs Committee passed both bills without a recorded vote at the session.

"I am ecstatic that these bills passed," said Sen. Daniel K. Akaka, D-Hawai'i, a committee member who is the prime sponsor of the Native Hawaiian government bill. "These bills will help address the conditions of Hawai'i's indigenous people — Native Hawaiians — and will continue to enhance the quality of life for all the people of Hawai'i."

Lawmakers did not offer any amendments during the committee hearing, although Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., had concerns with both bills, especially with the Native Hawaiian government bill.

That bill, known as the Akaka bill, after its prime sponsor, would create a process for a Native Hawaiian governing entity to be formed and gain federal recognition. The new government would be able to negotiate with the United States and Hawai'i over the disposition of Hawaiian land and other assets.

"Even if this bill passes (Congress), I think it's going to be thrown out by the courts," Coburn said. "If that is the case, what is the Justice Department's view on it? Are they going to defend it or is there a reason why they won't defend it?"

Coburn said he has asked the department to answer questions on the issue but has not received a response yet.

At a hearing on the bill last week, the Justice Department said the Bush administration opposed the bill because it would divide governmental power by race and ethnicity and raise constitutional concerns.

Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., chairman of the Senate Indian Affairs Committee, said he would not seek to take the Native Hawaiian government bill to the floor for at least two weeks and then confer with Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., on the schedule.

Sen. Daniel K. Inouye, D-Hawai'i, said he was pleased that Hawai'i Gov. Linda Lingle was at the session. "She has tasked herself with the important responsibility of winning support from the Bush administration for the Akaka bill," he said. "That responsibility remains as crucial as ever."

Inouye said supporters were "close, very close," to the 60 votes needed to get a final vote on the bill in the Senate over objections from Republican senators who have blocked the bill in the past.

"This is the first time we've been able to report it out (of committee) during the first session of Congress," he said. "That is a very important factor in all of this."

The housing bill, which the House approved 272-150 in March, would reauthorize funding for Native Hawaiian housing programs for five years. It would ensure that the state Department of Hawaiian Home Lands continues to receive $8 million to $9 million annually for roads, water lines, sewer systems and other infrastructure needed for housing projects developed for those who are of 50 percent Hawaiian blood or more.

The Native Hawaiian housing program's authorization expired in 2005, but funding has been kept alive on a year-to-year basis.

Coburn objected to a change in the housing bill that eliminated a provision requiring homebuyers be turned down for a private loan before applying for a federally guaranteed loan. The provision is a Department of Housing and Urban Development rule, Coburn said. "I believe that ought to be reinstalled as part of this," he said.

------------------

http://starbulletin.com/2007/05/11/news/story07.html
Honolulu Star-Bulletin, May 11, 2007

Panel OKs Akaka Bill, programs for housing

Associated Press

The U.S. Senate Indian Affairs Committee approved the native Hawaiian recognition bill yesterday and reauthorized federal housing programs for Hawaii's indigenous people.

"I am pleased that these two very important bills have taken a giant step forward and are advancing through the legislative process," Sen. Daniel Inouye said in a news release issued in Washington. Inouye said he expected the recognition bill, authored by fellow Democratic Sen. Daniel Akaka, to reach the full Senate sometime after May. Inouye said he was pleased to see Republican Gov. Linda Lingle in attendance for the votes.

Lingle is urging passage of the Akaka Bill, which would create a process for a native Hawaiian governing entity to be formed and recognized by the federal government.

"I am hopeful that she will be effective in communicating with President Bush about the worthiness and importance of the Akaka Bill," Inouye said.

Under the measure, the native Hawaiian government would be able to negotiate with the United States and Hawaii over the disposition of native Hawaiian land, assets and resources.

The Akaka Bill has run afoul of the Republican administration of President Bush, which said the legislation would divide the country along racial and ancestral lines.

"This is an important step," Akaka said. "These bills will help address the conditions of Hawaii's indigenous people, native Hawaiians, and will continue to enhance the quality of life for all the people of Hawaii.

"Today's strong committee bipartisan support for S 310 (the Akaka Bill) sends a clear message that Hawaii's congressional delegation is joined by a coalition of colleagues from all parts of the country, that the United States must fulfill its commitment to native Hawaiians," said Akaka, a native Hawaiian.

In the House, companion legislation to the Akaka Bill passed the Natural Resources Committee on May 2.

Funding for the native Hawaiian housing programs has been kept alive on a year-by-year basis after their authorization expired in 2005.

-----------------

http://www.kauaiworld.com/articles/2007/05/11/opinion/edit01.txt
Garden Island News (Kaua'i)
Letters for May 11, 2007

On Hawaiian resurgence

If there is an ugly theme to this land that the haoles like to call paradise, it was brought here by the blue-eyed, white skinned malihini. At one point our Hawaiian voice became so diminished that it was only a whisper and not loud enough to be heard. Our land was stolen, we were made into a U.S. state, and we lost most of our culture.

Now that we have been thoroughly colonized, these same people are telling us that we should forget the past, that it was so long ago, that we should just live happily. However, now we are demanding the reclamation of our culture and the very same racist faction that displaced my ancestors are feeling the resurgence and getting defensive. Like typical colonialists they do this by calling us racist. These same occupiers are calling us the oppressors because we are no longer ashamed to be Hawaiian, and we will no longer stand idle and silent while the last bits of what remains of our culture is quashed.

We must recognize this as typical colonialist actions and not allow them to make us out to be the bad element. We are merely reacting to what is put before us. Don't get confused on how we got to this present time, by the views of the descendants of the blue-eyed, white-skinned Europeans who continue to spread their propaganda. These occupiers will not give up what they stole, and we Hawaiians must not give up our claim to what has been stolen.

Kimo Kimokeo
Waimea

-----------------

http://www.mauinews.com/story.aspx?id=30412
Maui News, LETTERS TO EDITOR, Friday, May 11, 2007

Hawaiians don't need Akaka Bill, already have a government

The Maui News justifies why Native Hawaiians need the Akaka Bill (Editorial, May 7). It is important to set the record straight about who needs the Akaka Bill and why this is not a racial issue but a national one.

As a mother, teacher, grandmother and pure Hawaiian, I am well aware of my history and who I am and where we need to go as Native Hawaiians. My grandmother, May Kamaka Kama'i of Kaupo, taught me to persevere.

My parents, Rudolph and Annie Kamai Naukana Kanui, also from Kaupo, taught me morals and aloha. We all yearn for the U.S. to peacefully end the illegal U.S. occupation of Hawaii and to follow Hawaiian Kingdom laws instead of trying to push the Akaka Bill down our throats.

The fact is, we are not "indigenous" such as the American Indians and Alaskan Natives, as your editorial said. We have our own government, Declaration of Rights (1839), Hawaiian Civil and Penal Laws (1864 Constitution), treaties with the U.S. (1850), Hague and Vienna conventions, our lands intact, the best weather in the world, awesome scenery, purest water, best surf, fresh fish, limu, fruits, vegetables, ohana whose roots go back 2,000 years and a culture that other countries wish was theirs.

The producers and pushers of the bill are the ones who need to use us to get their sinister Akaka Bill passed before they can own Hawaii and hopefully end this talk about independence once and for all.

We definitely don't need the Akaka Bill.

Rita Kanui
Waimanalo

-------------------

http://www.mauinews.com/story.aspx?id=30374
The Maui News, LETTERS TO EDITOR, Thursday, May 11, 2007

Akaka Bill interpretation: U.S. will control all land

Wake up, everyone. The poison is on the horizon. The Akaka Bill is still out there (The Maui News, May 4).

Should the Akaka Bill pass we, the kanaka maoli, would own no land at all. The U.S. government would hold all lands in trust. Our aina would be turned over to the federal government and not to our people.

By law, we have every right to put together a government for all who live here and not be under the control of the USA. That's what we the people should do, not have OHA and Daniel Akaka deal for us. Let us do what's right for our kupuna and our children.

This is what Sen. Daniel Inouye said, which is unreal and unbelievable: "Are you really serious that the people in this entity would seek independence and practice separatism? Do you think the Congress and the president would allow a move like that?"

Inouye said even Americans Indians have only "limited sovereignty. They do not print their own money, form their own armies or send ambassadors to other countries and that "some don't even have police departments."

Native Hawaiians "are just as American as anyone else," Inouye said. "To suggest they would involve themselves in separatist movements is an insult to them."

Shame on him. Wake up, people, we are being sold out again. From 1893 to 2007, nothing's changed. We are still being suppressed.

Kenneth K. Ho'opai Jr.
Wailuku

--------------------

http://www.mauinews.com/story.aspx?id=30415
The Maui News, LETTERS TO EDITOR, Friday, May 11, 2007

Akaka Bill would further divide Hawaii on race basis
[** title as submitted: Akaka Bill Both Un-Needed And Harmful]

The whole purpose of the Akaka Bill is to authorize the breakup of Hawaii. A new government gets created excluding 80 percent of our people by race. Land, money, and jurisdictional authority get divided up. Why do this?

Hawaii already has more racial separatism than any other state. Over 160 federally funded programs plus two state government agencies plus Kamehameha Schools – all Hawaiians only.

The Akaka Bill's purpose is to harden and expand that race-based empire, legitimizing it under its own government. In the process money and power go to activists hoping to rip the 50th star off the flag. See
http://tinyurl.com/2a9fqa .

Let's protect the unity of Hawaii with the U.S., and the unity of all our people. [** submitted but edited out: Let's respect that we are all equal in the eyes of God and should all be treated equally by government.] The May 7 editorial in The Maui News says, "Hawaiians are the only indigenous group in the United States that does not have legal standing as a distinct culture."

False. The U.S. does not recognize "Indians" as an entire racial group. [** submitted but edited out: More than half of all Indians do not belong to any tribe and would not be eligible to join one. Hundreds of Indian groups are seeking tribal recognition; many have been denied.] No other state has 20 percent of its population who are Indians, let alone members of a single tribe.

Your editorial says "Basic Hawaiian culture is growing stronger via immersion language schools, an active interest in the use of canoes and voyaging, hula, chant, cosmology and a renewed cultural pride." Yes indeed. That wonderful cultural revival has occurred under U.S. sovereignty and without any need for a tribe or the Akaka Bill. I'd like to see that continue. E ku'e kakou i ka palapala a Akaka.

Kenneth R. Conklin
Kaneohe, Oahu

--------------------

http://www.hawaiireporter.com/story.aspx?bb41ddce-b172-4d67-969a-4ec752065537
Hawaii Reporter, May 11, 2007 (as slightly revised May 13)

Racial Harmony in Hawaii Will Be Marred by Akaka Bill

By Joseph Gedan

The proponents of the Akaka Bill seek to have Congress recognize and restore an exclusive, Hawaiian race-based sovereign political entity. The question is, did such an entity ever exist? It makes no sense to attempt recreate such a sovereign entity without an historical perspective. If we want to recapture something of the past, we must examine that past and particularly the character of the evolving Hawaii government after European discovery.

In prehistoric times, only Polynesians inhabited Hawaii. This was by happenstance, not design. When European explorers first landed on Hawaiian shores they found a stone age population with a ruling hierarchy. They made contact with ruling chiefs, marked their charts and left. The discovery, however, brought missionaries, mariners and travelers to Hawaii. The missionaries came to preach while others came to rest and/or re-supply. Many of the later travelers were attracted to Hawaii and its people, and decided to settle in Hawaii.

Those who settled in Hawaii had to accept the rule of the individual island chiefs. Kamehaheha, the great then consolidated island rule. This was the beginning of the island monarchy and the Kamehameha dynasty. Foreigners were then subject to the rule of a single monarch, Kamehameha. Under Kamehameha, many foreigners became trusted advisors and a few held high office.

It was during the reign of Kamehameha III that monarchy took on a western style and the concept of citizenship began to develop. Newcomers were welcomed as full citizens and a great many served in important government posts which was the pattern throughout the reigns of succeeding monarchs. Intermarriage was commonplace. It was the beginning of a successful, integrated and peaceful multiracial community of which we are so proud.

The concept of a raced based sovereign entity, such as the American Indians have, and suggested by the Akaka Bill’s proponents was specifically rejected by the Hawaiian monarchy. Kamehameha III in the Declaration of Rights of 1839 said that, “God hath made of one blood all nations of men....” and refers to rights, “given alike to every man....” Equal rights to all, without reference to ethnicity, is the proud tradition of the Kamehameha III. This tradition persisted through the reigns of all succeeding Hawaiian monarchs. That tradition should be supported by the United States Congress, not challenged by it through the Akaka Bill.

The Hawaii experience is the opposite of that of the native American Indian tribes. The pilgrims came to North America with their own political and social structure. The settlers and the American Indians concurrently maintained strictly separate political and social communities. Congress has recognized that peculiar history of American Indians and has accommodated it. There is no such history in Hawaii. There is nothing for Congress to recognize. The experience of the American native Indian tribes has no relevance to Hawaii and certainly does not support the Akaka Bill.

A second rational for the Akaka bill is as recompense for what has been characterized as the United State’s overthrow of the Hawaiian monarchy. This is a gross distortion of history. It is undisputed that the United States Government opposed the overthrow. President Cleveland took an interest in the issue because it was alleged by Queen Liliuokalani that the United States minister in Hawaii, without authority, lent support to the coup plotters. After an investigation, President Cleveland found that his minister did act wrongly. He rebuked his minister and sensing some liability for his minister’s unauthorized conduct, demanded that the provisional government restore Queen Liliuokalani to her throne. However, the leadership of the provisional government refused to comply. It would have taken an armed force to dislodge the provisional government and such an action was not taken. Today it is an open question whether or not the Queen could have earlier quashed the plot or whether or not the coup would have been successful without the US minister's support.

It is now some 114 years since that disputed incident and 109 years since Hawaii became a part of the United States. Following annexation in 1898, native Hawaiians became full participants in territorial affairs with Prince Kuhio acting as Hawaii’s first delegate to congress. And more recently during statehood, as illustrated by Senator Akaka, native Hawaiians have served in critical posts, as governor, judges (including Supreme Court chief judge), congressmen, mayors, state legislators, university professors and labor leaders. Hawaii has been a great success story for all. In that context, the Akaka bill makes no sense and is divisive.

Within Hawaii’s multiracial population, a sense of racial harmony has long been considered Hawaii’s unique blessing, but it can be fragile. That blessing helps us overcome our anthropological beginnings which carries with it a natural tension between races, ethnic groups, religions, etc. The best communities are identified by how well they get past that tension. However, even in progressive communities there will always be those on the fringes harboring racial bigotry. Some measure of anti-white bigotry has been Hawaii’s dirty secret.

The Akaka Bill shortcomings are worse than just being unwarranted and making no sense. It takes us backwards not forwards and heightens inter-racial tensions which can send anti-haole bigots who are on the fringes, over the line. We need to nurture our blessing, not undercut it. One wonders if there were more talk of racial togetherness rather than racial division, would the recent spate of anti-white hate crimes have occurred?
http://starbulletin.com/2007/02/28/editorial/editorial01.html
and
http://starbulletin.com/2007/05/04/news/story03.html

------------------

http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070511/COLUMNISTS20/705110376/1156/OPINION
Honolulu Advertiser, Friday, May 11, 2007, OPINION COLUMN

Translated: It's Lingle's fault, OK?

By Jerry Burris
Advertiser Columnist

One of the most wonderful things about politics is the ability people develop, over the years, to say what they want to say in a manner so smooth and diplomatic that it often takes a while to recognize how deeply the knife has been thrust.

A brief primer:

When a politician describes someone as "my good friend," that usually means sworn lifetime enemy.

If an issue is described as being under "serious consideration," that generally means it is dead as a doornail.

It is easy to say this is all cynical. Why can't people say what they mean in direct language? But the plain fact is that the work of a politician or a legislator is complicated, and there is little to be gained by excessive bluntness. This is all by way of gaining a little better understanding of recent releases out of Washington concerning the Hawaiian recognition, or Akaka, bill.

With Democrats in control of both houses of Congress, there is a slightly improved chance that the measure will make it through this time, although it still faces a likely veto by the Bush White House.

Sens. Dan Akaka and Daniel Inouye put out a statement announcing progress on the measure at the committee level and promising more and better to come. It is instructive to look carefully at what they said.

Here's Akaka's statement:

"I am ecstatic that these bills passed the Committee today. This is an important step. ... Today's strong Committee bipartisan support for S. 310, sends a clear message that Hawaii's Congressional Delegation is joined by a coalition of colleagues from all parts of the country, that the United States must fulfill its commitment to Native Hawaiians."

Translation: In the hothouse atmosphere of Congress, where trade-offs and favors are the currency of the day, this bill has legs. Whether it can get past the Bush administration is another story altogether.

Which brings us to Inouye's statement:

"I was especially pleased to see Governor Lingle in attendance for the votes today. She has tasked herself with the important responsibility of winning support from the Bush administration for the Akaka bill, and that responsibility remains as crucial as ever. I am hopeful that she will be effective in communicating with President Bush about the worthiness and importance of the Akaka bill."

Translation: It is good to see Republican Gov. Lingle on board with this issue that is so important to Democrats.

But if it can't make it through the Bush people, don't blame us. Blame Lingle. She is the one self-"tasked" with winning the hearts and minds of the GOP policymakers in the White House.

==============

http://www.indiancountry.com/content.cfm?id=1096415033
Indian Country Today, Monday May 14, 2007

Akaka Bill opposition loses ground on constitutionality, race and separatism issues

by: Jerry Reynolds / Indian Country Today

WASHINGTON - Full-length hearings on the Akaka Bill in the Senate and House of Representatives built a solid legislative record for the latest effort to authorize a process that would re-establish a Native Hawaiian governing entity. The United States participated in the overthrow of the Hawaiian monarchy, the aboriginal governing entity of the islands, in 1893.

Opponents of federal recognition for Native Hawaiian self-governance, including the U.S. Department of Justice, have raised a host of issues against it. Foremost among them have been arguments that a Native Hawaiian governing entity would divide U.S. sovereignty by encouraging so-called ''secessionist'' sentiment in the islands, foster race-based governance and invite constitutional scrutiny from the courts.

The early May hearings built a detailed case for rejection of these leading arguments against the Akaka Bill. (Its informal namesake is Sen. Daniel Akaka, D-Hawaii; its official number in the Senate is S. 310.) Patricia Zell, a lobbyist for the bill with Zell and Cox Law in Washington, said the hearings had increased her confidence in the bill's constitutionality. ''I think that the issues that the Justice Department identified as their constitutional concerns were very capably addressed by the Attorney General of Hawaii [Mark Bennett] and professor [Viet] Dinh, and given professor Dinh's former capacity as the head of the Office of Legal Counsel in the Department of Justice, I think that should be given great weight.''

Both Bennett and Dinh testified that Congress has the ''plenary and exclusive power'' to establish, terminate and restore Native governments, including ''ample authority to enact this legislation,'' as Dinh put it. Both added that because the historical dealings of Congress with Native Hawaiians have been anything but arbitrary, the Supreme Court is most unlikely to overturn congressional recognition of the Native Hawaiian governing entity that would be negotiated under S. 310, which both said has been modeled on the constitutionally tested Menominee Restoration Act, restoring a terminated tribe to federal recognition. ''Never, in the more than two centuries of this Republic,'' Bennett said, ''has the Supreme Court of the United States struck down the recognition of an aboriginal people by the Congress, pursuant to Congress' authority under the Indian Commerce Clause of the Constitution.''

Race is no basis for federal recognition of indigenous peoples and governments, both maintained. ''The Supreme Court has specifically stated that the recognition afforded to our Native peoples is political and not racial, and this bill specifically states that the recognition afforded Native Hawaiians is of a type and nature of the relationship the United States has with the several federally recognized Indian tribes,'' Bennett said. Dinh added that he does not believe the bill would create a citizen class based on race ''for the exact reason that the Supreme Court has never considered such legislation dealing with Indian affairs to be race-based bills. Sure, it does single out a class, as with a tribe itself, but that in itself is a power expressly granted in the Constitution ... and the court has very clearly and consistently characterized this as a political decision, not a race-based classification.''

The Justice Department's discernment of a secessionist threat came in for incredulous dismissal from Sen. Daniel K. Inouye, D-Hawaii, a member of the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs. Questioning Justice Department Principal Deputy Associate Attorney General Gregory Katsis, Inouye asked if the department was really serious to suggest it. He gave examples of Native Hawaiians' patriotism in time of war and said they have participated so fully in federal and state governance that they are well-prepared to govern responsibly. ''They are just as American as anyone else, and to suggest that they may involve themselves in separatist movements I think is an insult to them.''

Bennett said a loud few in Hawaii who seek Native Hawaiian independence do not support the bill in any case. Seventy-five of 77 Hawaiian state legislators support the Akaka Bill, and 84 percent of polled Hawaii residents support federal recognition for Native Hawaiians, he said. ''That would not be the case if they thought there was any small possibility of secession.'' In fact, there is ''no possibility'' of Native Hawaiian secession, he said.

Dinh said Native Hawaiian separatism would be contrary to everything Native Hawaiians believe ''as Americans and as Native Hawaiians.''

----------------------

http://www.indiancountry.com/content.cfm?id=1096415032
Indian Country Today, Monday May 14, 2007

10 Ways of Looking at the Akaka Bill

by: Jerry Reynolds / Indian Country Today

Abercrombie: 'When the land wasn't worth anything, there was no argument'

Congressman Neil Abercrombie, D-Hawaii, House of Representatives Natural Resources Committee, May 2: Mr. Chairman [Rep. Nick Rahall, D-W. Va.] and members, this is a very big moment for me, I must tell you. Some of the members who have been here for a while know that this is the 48th year, from the time of [Hawaiian] statehood, that we are dealing with the issues involved in 505 [H.R. 505, in the House of Representatives, the Akaka Bill, after Sen. Daniel Akaka, D-Hawaii]. This is the thirty-third year, myself, my personal involvement, since my election to the Hawaii state legislature in 1974, and my appointment to the Hawaiian committee on land, water and Hawaiian homes. And it was no coincidence that that original committee back in the Hawaii state legislature then in the 70s, had to do with water, had to do with the land, had to do with Hawaiian. Because that's the essence of this bill.

I won't go into an extensive history in the brief time I have ... I've got five minutes to try and sum up 33 years of my life and what's involved in that. But I'm going to make an appeal particularly on the following basis, Mr. Chairman. I know that people vote for their reasons, not for mine. If someone votes with you, it's because they've made up their mind that there are reasons sufficient unto the day for them. And if they happen to be my reasons, all well and good. But believe me, we have drafted this legislation, and I have in particular over these last few years, with the direct idea of trying to appeal to my colleagues who may have had some questions raised about some of the issues involved. This is inherently a very conservative bill, and it's drafted accordingly. And the reason it is that I say that, and ask for your consideration, is that just today we've had bill after bill in which the issue has been raised [through proposed amendments to other bills than H.R. 505] about public land, about the government trying to increase the number of land[s], amount of land going to the government, of government control over land. What we're trying to do in Hawaii is get the government out of the lives of Native Hawaiians so that they can make their own decisions. The bottom line here is that this is a bill about the control of assets. This is about land, this is about money, and this is about who has the administrative authority and responsibility over it. And all this bill does is enable the Native Hawaiians to be able to come back to the Secretary of Interior and ask for permission to move ahead to take up the governance of the land and the funds that are in question.

... Anybody, particularly from the West, understands what I am talking about. ... this member [Abercrombie], if nothing else, has been sensitive to issues associated with the peculiar and particular circumstances of how states became states in the West. We're dealing with issues of Native Americans. We're dealing with issues of, as to, how these definitions came about, what treaty obligations are, land issues. I have indicated to members previously, I know Mr. Cole [Rep. Tom Cole, R-Okla.] is well aware of it; we [Hawaii] came from being a kingdom to a shotgun republic, to a territory of the United States, to being a state 48 years ago, the last state to be admitted to the union. Part of the elements associated with the [Admission] Act which allowed us to become a state was specific recognition - we had to accept, in order to become a state of the union, we had to accept that the ceded lands, that is to say those lands which came from the kingdom [of old Hawaii] and passed through the shotgun republic and the territory, were going to pass to the state of Hawaii. This is 1.8 million acres of land ... ceded land. That was recognized because those lands have to be administered, among other reasons, for the benefit of Native Hawaiians. Also, in the 1920s ... the Congress passed the Hawaiian Homelands Act. Two hundred thousand acres of homesteads are there ... established by the Congress. That was also part of the Admissions Act. We had to recognize ... the previous action of the Congress in establishing the Hawaiian Homelands. Part of that requires that when we pass legislation, it comes through the Congress in order to be approved.

So the Congress has recognized Native Hawaiians right from the very beginning, recognized it into the act, in the act of admission, which is one of the reasons why we're here. We tried to come to grips with the issue of dealing with the ceded lands with Hawaiian Homelands by establishing ... we established by constitutional amendment the Office of Hawaiian Affairs. And I'm pleased to say that the chairwoman of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, Haunani Apoliona, is here with us today, elected by everyone in the state, elected by the Hawaiians and elected by everybody else. She's a Hawaiian at heart. We thought we had solved the question, we thought we had solved the issue, by establishing the Office of Hawaiian Affairs by state constitution. In that state constitutional amendment, everybody voted and decided we wanted the Native Hawaiians deciding who is going to run the Native Hawaiian affairs. Some folks didn't like that because it was a state agency. They went to court and said 'Everybody ought to vote.' And of course we said 'Everybody did vote. Everybody voted to let the Hawaiians run their own affairs.' 'That's not good enough, everybody's got to vote for the trustees, with the Office of Hawaiian Affairs.' Well, we had the Office of Hawaiian Affairs originally, when only the [Native] Hawaiians voted. They elected not only Hawaiians, but other people as well ... not Native Hawaiian. When the court ruled that we had to have everybody vote all over again, for all the trustees of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, everybody in the state voted, and they elected all [Native] Hawaiians. ... So now it's all Hawaiians in there, because everybody wants to get this settled. ... Everyone has recognized that the indigenous people of Hawaii, recognized in our constitution of the state, recognized by the United States government when we were admitted [as a] state of the union, is now ready to assume its proper conduct and role of administering the assets that I have mentioned, these two million acres, the hundreds of millions of dollars that are now in the coffers of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs and administered by them for the benefit of Native Hawaiians and the cash flow that's coming from the ceded lands, leases and so on, which amount to fifteen to twenty million dollars a year. I want to conclude by saying this. When the original ceded land was there, it wasn't worth anything. It didn't have the infrastructure on it. It didn't have the cachet for housing and all the rest. When the homestead land was put out there, it had no roads, it had no electricity, it had no sewer system, it had no infrastructure of any kind. So that when as you put up your homestead, you couldn't even be sure that you could get water. It wasn't worth anything. The leases weren't out there on the ceded land, like the airport now ... so there wasn't any money coming in.

When the land wasn't worth anything, and when there was no money in the bank, and when there was no cash flow, nobody gave a damn what happened to the Native Hawaiians. There was no argument about discrimination or whether it was fair or not. But the second the land became worth something, the second that the homesteads were ripe for development, the second that the cash appeared, the second that the cash flow was there, then all of a sudden people got concerned about it. So what this [H.R. 505] amounts to, Mr. Chairman, is an opportunity to get the government out of the land control business, out of managing the asset, and returning this to the opportunity for the Native Hawaiians to bring themselves up. This is a self-development bill. This allows Native Hawaiians to take over their own assets, to build in education, to build in health care, to build in all the areas that they have sought to have control over, over their land and over the funds.

So what I ask fundamentally is this: that I appeal to the members of this committee, both personally and institutionally, that this is an opportunity for us to recognize the last area of indigenous people in the United States for the opportunity to take over control of their own assets, to become masters and mistresses of their own destiny. And I think that this should be extended to anybody ... anybody who is eligible in that regard. And the bottom line is, is that this enabling legislation will allow the Hawaiians to put together their own organizational entity to be able to come back to the Secretary of Interior, having ensured that all civil rights have been taken care of, that everything has been negotiated between the state and the Native Hawaiians, and any other entity that has an interest, and that this will be incorporated into the state constitution. It cannot pass unless we amend our state constitution; it cannot pass unless the Department of Interior assures that all relevant laws, rules, regulations, have been certified constitutionally as far as the United States is concerned. ... This gives us the opportunity to give Hawaiians a chance to come to a final conclusion and resolution of all outstanding issues, and it fully protects every element of civil rights concern, of constitutional concern both from the federal government and from the point of view of the state of Hawaii.

With that, Mr. Chairman, I thank you and ask the members for their kindness and courtesy - thank them for their kindness and courtesy in listening to my presentation.

Rep. Tom Cole, R-Okla.: 'This is rooted in what the people of Hawaii want to do'

Rep. Tom Cole, R-Okla., before the Natural Resources Committee in the House of Representatives, on behalf of the Akaka Bill, H.R. 505 in the House, May 2: I appreciate my good friend [Rep. Neil Abercrombie] from Hawaii's hard work on this. He really has reached across the aisle, and on point after point after point, has been willing to deal with questions, and objections. Frankly, he's shown a great deal more patience in this matter than I would have, had I been in his place. Some of these objections, quite frankly, have been silly, and just totally unfounded if you actually read the legislation.

I think it's worth noting, you know, how much this is rooted in what the people of Hawaii want to do. You know, this legislation is supported by a Democratic congressional delegation and a Republican governor [Linda Lingle] ... I understand it's been through the Hawaiian legislature a couple of times and passed overwhelmingly on a bipartisan basis. So we ought to think twice about trying to stop ... people from doing what they want to do. And indeed as, again, my good friend pointed out, Mr. Abercrombie, we have passed this, and not just in a Democratic [majority] ... but in a Republican House ... both Democrat and Republican Houses have passed this legislation. ... This is an indigenous peoples issue, and the National Congress of American Indians is on record in support of this legislation, and most people that are associated with indigenous groups, you know, see this as simply an extension of long overdue recognition of the right to self-governance here.

And you know, again, to those of my friends who are good conservatives, and I certainly consider myself one, this is the ultimate of conservative bills, as my friend says. It's about allowing the people to govern their own affairs, to control their own property and their own destiny. And indeed like I tell some of my friends, if you - anytime you ever swore, you know, allegiance to the Constitution of the United States, you swear allegiance to the whole idea of Native sovereignty. It's in there, article one, section eight. That's the way in which our government has chosen to deal with indigenous peoples throughout our history, and that's the way frankly in which they have wanted to be dealt with. We've not always dealt with them fairly, not always been to their advantage to be dealt with that way, and ... usually, when the objections are raised, it's because we find it to their advantage to be dealt that way. And in this case that's an advantage that is long overdue. So I would just urge that we respect the wishes of the people of Hawaii, whether they're Native Hawaiian or not, and trust them to control and to govern their own affairs, and recognize that what they're asking for is not unusual, it's very much within our traditions of the country, it's very much solidly based constitutionally, it's been looked at goodness knows how many different times from how many different directions, it's been passed in a bipartisan fashion repeatedly, and it's long, long overdue.

So I'm very proud to be here to vote in support of my friend's long, dedicated efforts to get this really important piece of legislation moving through the House, hopefully this time through the United States Congress and the whole thing.

Hawaii Attorney General Mark Bennett: 'Irrational for the Congress not to recognize Native Hawaiians'

Hawaii Attorney General Mark Bennett before the Senate Indian Affairs Committee, on behalf of the Akaka Bill, S. 310 in the Senate, May 3: Thank you very much for inviting me here to express my and [Hawaii] Governor [Linda] Lingle's strong support for S. 310. We believe that this bill is fair, equitable, just, constitutional, and with respect, long overdue. This bill enjoys strong bipartisan support in the state of Hawaii, including from the governor, the state legislature, our elected mayors and county councils.

I start my analysis of this bill, as Hawaii's chief legal officer, from the organic document admitting Hawaii to the union, the Admissions Act, which contains within it specifically identified fiscal and trust obligations to Native Hawaiians imposed upon the state of Hawaii by this very Congress. Congress could not, would not, and did not condition Hawaii's entry into the union upon Hawaii's perpetuating unceasing violations of the 14th Amendment [defining U.S. citizenship and guaranteeing equal protection of the laws to all citizens]. The very concept is anathema to Hawaii's admission to the union. Nor has the Congress acted unconstitutionally for more than - for almost a century in passing more than 100 acts for the benefit of Native Hawaiians. The legal premise underlying the Department of Justice's testimony casts doubt on the constitutionality of all of these acts, all of which have been defended, when challenged, by the Department of Justice. Never, in the more than two centuries of this Republic, has the Supreme Court of the United States struck down the recognition of an aboriginal people by the Congress, pursuant to the Congress' authority under the Indian Commerce Clause of the Constitution. Indeed, the Supreme Court has stated that in affording recognition, the Congress must act rationally. Indeed, given the recognition that Congress has afforded all of America's other Native peoples, given that the framers of the Constitution itself would have described the aboriginal inhabitants of the Hawaiian archipelago as Indians, given the very crew members of Captain Cook, who made the first Western contact with Hawaii, described the inhabitants of the Hawaiian archipelago as Indians, a strong argument could be made that it would be irrational for the Congress not to recognize Native Hawaiians. The Supreme Court has specifically stated that the recognition afforded to our Native peoples is political and not racial, and this bill specifically states that the recognition afforded Native Hawaiians is of a type and nature of the relationship the United States has with the several federally recognized Indian tribes. And indeed, the specificity with which this recognition is described in the bill, no more and no less, is based on suggestions made in negotiations over the language of this bill with the Department of Justice.

If there were any doubt as to the constitutionality of the Akaka Bill, I would respectfully suggest that that doubt was resolved by the recent United States Supreme Court decision in the Lara case. I find it curious that there is no citation to the Lara case in the Department of Justice's written testimony. In Lara, the Supreme Court described the powers of this Congress of recognition as quote, 'plenary and exclusive.' The court also said, quote, 'The Constitution does not suggest that the court should second-guess the political branch's own determinations. As for Rice v. Cayetano, it was dealing with 15th Amendment [voting rights] questions, not the question of the power of the Congress to afford recognition under the Indian Commerce Clause. Indeed, I would suggest respectfully that the Congress should not let fears of judicial activism or overreaching deter it from fulfilling an obligation to the last remaining one of our nation's Native peoples not yet recognized.

As the chair [Sen. Akaka] pointed out, we engaged in extensive negotiations with the administration, the Department of Justice, the Department of Interior and the Department of Defense over non-constitutional objections to the Akaka Bill. And all of those objections were resolved. And the language in the Akaka Bill today recognizes and addresses those objections. There can be no claims against the United States. The Native Hawaiian governing entity must recognize the civil rights of the citizens of the Native Hawaiian governing entity. And indeed, there is nothing in this bill to suggest the possibility of secession or separatism. Native Hawaiians, Mr. Chairman, do not seek specialized or privileged treatment. Like our nation' other patriotic Native peoples, Native Hawaiians have fought in wars and died for our country for almost one hundred years, including today in Iraq and Afghanistan. Native Hawaiians seek only treatment equal to that afforded to other Native Americans. The Akaka Bill affords Native Hawaiians that treatment, and I respectfully ask that you pass the Akaka Bill. Thank you.

Gregory Katsas for the Department of Justice: 'Troubling constitutional questions'

Gregory Katsas, Department of Justice principal deputy associate attorney general, on the Akaka Bill, S. 310 in the Senate, May 3: The bill broadly defines a separate class of Native Hawaiians to include all living descendants of the original Polynesian inhabitants of what is now modern-day Hawaii. Members of this class need not have any geographic, political, or cultural connection to Hawaii, much less to some discrete Native Hawaiian community. In fact, the class reference encompasses about four hundred thousand individuals, including a hundred thousand who do not live in Hawaii but are scattered throughout each of the forty-nine other states in the union. Members of the class are now diverse, racially, ethnically and culturally. They are set to be the subjects of a government that has not existed since the late 1800s. They are afforded the privilege of forming a separate government not because of actual membership in a discrete Native community, but because they have at least trace elements of Polynesian blood.

The bill would grant broad governmental powers to this racially defined group. In essence, Native Hawaiians would be authorized to conduct a Constitutional Convention. Through referenda, they would decide who may become citizens in the new government, what powers the government may exercise, and what civil rights it must protect. It would also elect officers to the new government. Once constituted, the new government would be authorized to negotiate with the United States over such matters as the transfer of land and natural resources, the exercise of civil and criminal jurisdiction, and the redress of claims against the United States. According to some supporters of the bill, the new government would even be able, on behalf of its constituents, to seek free association or total independence from the United States. This drive for separatism is troubling. It is wrong on its own terms and it seeks to change settled understanding, underlying the admission of Hawaii into the union. In 1950, citizens of Hawaii voted overwhelmingly for statehood. Native Hawaiians supported statehood by a margin of two to one. Over the next decade, they and others advocated for statehood based on the premise that Hawaii had become, in the words of one member of Congress at the time, a melting pot, 'from which had been produced a common nationality, a common patriotism, a common faith in freedom and in the institutions of America.' After a decade-long campaign, Congress accepted that view, admitted Hawaii into the union, and, in contrast to what it had done in many other states, set aside no land for reservations.

The bill also raises troubling constitutional questions. The Supreme Court had made clear that classifications based on race and ethnicity receive the highest level of judicial scrutiny. To diminish such scrutiny, supporters of the bill contend that Congress may permissibly recognize Native Hawaiians as an Indian tribe. Supreme Court precedent makes clear that the power to recognize Indian tribes, although broad, is not unlimited and that courts will strike down any inappropriate extension of that power. In Rice v. Cayetano, the Supreme Court identified the specific question, whether Congress may include Native Hawaiians as an Indian tribe, as one of considerable moment and difficulty. Two concurring justices went farther, and concluded that Congress cannot - or a political state, excuse me, cannot permissibly treat an Indian tribe as the class - treat as an Indian tribe the class at issue here, Native Hawaiians broadly defined to include all descendants of Hawaii's original settlers.

The question whether Congress may define Native Hawaiians as an Indian tribe, entitled to their own separate government, raises serious constitutional concerns. But whatever the constitutionality of S. 310, the administration as a policy matter strongly opposes any provision that would divide American sovereignty along the lines of race and ethnicity. ... Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska: 'We certainly heard this in Alaska ...'

Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, questioning Gregory Katsas, Department of Justice principal deputy associate attorney general, on the Akaka Bill, S. 310 in the Senate, May 3. Following her reference in questioning to her opening statement, a passage is inserted from her opening statement: Mr. Katsas, I guess I'm listening to your responses to Senator [Daniel] Inouye [D-Hawaii, the previous questioner on the committee] about sovereignty and sovereignty issues being on the table. This is where the concern is coming from within the Department of Justice.

We certainly heard this in Alaska, when we were dealing with our Alaska Native land claims settlement. Sovereignty was at hand, we're going to have all these independent nations up there, and the world as we knew it was going to come to an end. ... And if you look to what has happened in Alaska and how the Alaska Natives have truly demonstrated through their form of government a model. And I think for the Department of Justice to say well, for policy reasons, because this small affect may be on the table, and to kind of inflame the issue, I think, by suggesting that we're going to have - we're going to have a separatist entity, we're going to see the factionalism, I think is doing an injustice to the argument from the git-go.

Several times now in questioning you've referred back to Rice v. Cayetano, and I guess my question to you will be simple, because it will require a yes or no response. But do you believe that the Supreme Court holding, in Rice, expressly deprived Congress of the ability to determine that the Native Hawaiians fall within the ambit of the Indian Commerce Clause.

Katsas: The one-word answer is no. The qualification is that, although Rice has no explicit holding to that effect, it does have analysis that underscores our concern.

Well, and you know that case well. But in Rice the majority expressly states, we're going to stay far away from that difficult terrain. That was a comment that I had made in my opening [statement] as well. [From Murkowski's opening statement] Of all the troublesome language in the [Department of Justice] prepared statement I find the passages suggesting that 'Indian tribes enjoy favored treatment' and that the Akaka Bill would create a class of 'favored persons ... afforded different rights and privileges from those afforded to his or her neighbors,' most troubling.

The suggestion is that if Native Hawaiians are regarded as American Indians, they become 'favored persons.' These are words that provoke resentment. They are inflammatory and they are uncalled for.

Language like this is used frequently by those who would have the United States end its financial support for Indian health and Indian housing programs. I don't use this language and I don't think our President has ever used it either to describe our nation's relationship with Native people. If you doubt this, I would suggest that you look at the President's Native American Heritage Month proclamations on the White House Web site.

I spend a lot of time with the Native people who live in rural Alaska, subsisting off of the land and the living resources as their ancestors did. I can assure you that nobody I know feels privileged to live in third world conditions without indoor plumbing or in substandard housing as the price they pay for living in their traditional communities.

Federal Indian programs compensate our Native peoples for the loss of their lands and I think the record will bear out that Native Hawaiian people are similarly situated to Alaska Natives and American Indians in this regard.

Reasonable people can civilly debate the question of whether the recognition of Native Hawaiians falls within the ambit of Congress' broad powers under the Indian Commerce Clause. Citing two law review articles - one pro and one con - the majority opinion in Rice v. Cayetano noted, 'It is a matter of some dispute whether Congress may treat the Native Hawaiians as it does the Indian tribes.' The majority then stated emphatically, 'We can stay far off that difficult terrain however.'

However difficult the terrain, I would suggest the time has come for Congress to address the question. Congress has recognized Native Hawaiians perhaps 100 times in designating eligibility for the same types of programs and services afforded to American Indians because of their status as Indians. I'm speaking of health programs and housing programs.

I fear that if Congress remains silent on whether Native Hawaiians are to be treated as American Indians, the legal challenges [taking their lead from the Rice v. Cayetano ruling on voting rights] to these programs will continue and the intent of Congress as reflected in those laws may be frustrated.

Rep. Dale Kildee, D-Mich.: 'Steeped in the Constitution and the wishes of the people of all Hawaii'

Rep. Dale Kildee, D-Mich., co-chairman of the Congressional Native American Caucus, before the Natural Resources Committee in the House of Representatives, on behalf of the Akaka Bill, H.R. 505 in the House, May 2: I'll be brief ... But I support this enthusiastically. When I established the Native American Caucus about ten years ago, we gave it the name Native American. That included people on the continent, included some groups in Alaska who were not Indians as such, and I had in mind, we had in mind also, Native Hawaiians. This [Akaka Bill] is so well-written, it is so well steeped in the Constitution and the wishes of the people of all Hawaii. I would oppose any amendment trying to weaken this. ... This is seeking after justice, and this will be a step towards justice.

Rep. Don Young, R-Alaska: 'To formalize what has thus far been a kind of informal trust relationship'

Rep. Don Young, R-Alaska, ranking Republican on the Natural Resources Committee in the House of Representatives, on behalf of the Akaka Bill, H.R. 505 in the House, May 2: I am supporting this bill primarily because of his [Rep. Neil Abercrombie, D-Hawaii] undying commitment to having this bill passed. And I do support the long-standing ties between Native Hawaiians and Alaskan Natives, who were themselves in a struggle to be recognized for the purpose of having their aboriginal land rights. Today's struggle involves Native Hawaiians seeking to formalize what has thus far been a kind of informal trust relationship involving the federal government and the state of Hawaii. This Congress has passed several laws under which lands in Hawaii were to be used for the benefit of Native Hawaiians. We have supplemented this with additional benefits and services in recognition of the unique status of Native Hawaiians.

At some point we, the Congress, have to provide a means for the Native Hawaiians to administer these benefits in accordance with our ... policy ... of self-determination among Native people in general.

I understand that some members have a problem with the bill. It might not be perfect, but H.R. 505 has the endorsement of the governor [of Hawaii, Linda Lingle], the congressional delegation and the state legislature. It does not cut into programming for American Indians and Alaska Natives. Enrollment into the governing entity is elective. For these reasons we owe a great deal of deference to the elected representatives of the state of Hawaii. They are the ones who are accountable for this legislation on their islands.

Let's keep in mind, the Congress has recognized Native Americans for various purposes over the years. We're not limited by a strict set of criteria such as those set forth in the Interior Department's federal acknowledgment regulations. ... a quick look at some of the Indian statutes passed in the early days of our Republic make it clear that Congress viewed this power ... in a very broad sense.

With that Mr. Chairman [Rep. Nick Rahall, D-W.Va.] I'm pleased to support H.R. 505 and look forward to advancing this legislation to the floor of the House.

Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D.: 'The Senate justified its ratification by describing the Native Hawaiian government as a domestic dependent nation ...

Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., and chairman of the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, issued a strong endorsement of the Akaka Bill, S. 310 in the Senate, as his opening statement at the committee hearing May 3: ... Before any Americans settled on the Hawaii islands, there existed a sovereign Native Hawaiian government.

The United States recognized this sovereign Native nation, and negotiated four treaties with it.

Once non-Natives began settling in Hawaii, the Native Hawaiian government allowed them representation in the government.

But the non-Natives wanted control of the Hawaiian government.

In 1893, the United States Minister utilized American soldiers to assist non-Native revolutionaries in overthrowing the Native Hawaiian government.

Although President Grover Cleveland urged Congress to restore the Native Hawaiian Queen to power, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee ratified the actions of the non-Native revolutionaries. The Senate justified its ratification by describing the Native Hawaiian government as a domestic dependent nation, the same description given by the United States Supreme Court to Indian tribes in 1831. ...

Although the United States ratified the overthrow of the Native Hawaiian government, we have always recognized a special relationship with the Native Hawaiians. I'm sure that the senators from Hawaii will describe this relationship in more detail, but suffice it to say that Congress has always recognized Native Hawaiians as the indigenous people of Hawaii with whom we have certain obligations. As evidence of this relationship, Congress has enacted over 150 statutes dealing with Native Hawaiians, and providing them with certain benefits. More, in 1993, Congress passed the Native Hawaiian Apology Resolution.

I strongly prefer that our indigenous groups go through the Federal Acknowledgement Process at the Department of the Interior in order to establish a government-to-government relationship with the United States. However, that administrative process is not available to Native Hawaiians. The regulations governing the process state that the process is only available to American Indian groups indigenous to the contiguous 48 states and Alaska. Native Hawaiians are excluded. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld the exclusion of Native Hawaiians from this process. ...

The process was designed to evaluate Indian groups that did not previously have a political relationship with the United States. The Native Hawaiians clearly had a previous political relationship with the United States. The regulations also were not intended to cover indigenous groups who were the subject of congressional action or legislative termination. Numerous Indian tribes that were the subject of legislative termination had to come to Congress or the judiciary to be restored. In the case of Native Hawaiians, it was congressional approval of the illegal acts of others that led to the demise of the Native Hawaiian government. Thus, the administrative process cannot adequately evaluate the status of Native Hawaiians.

To the extent that people feel that Native Hawaiians should go through some sort of process in order to obtain a government-to-government relationship with the United States, those people should take comfort in that S. 310 proposes to do exactly that - establish a process in which the Native Hawaiian people will work with the federal and state governments to reconstitute a Native Hawaiian government - a government that would continue to exist today had it not been for the illicit acts of the United States. S. 310 does not recognize a Native Hawaiian government. Rather it sets forth a process to allow Native Hawaiians to reorganize. The entity that is reconstituted will need to be certified by the federal government. Every step of the way, the federal and state governments will be involved in the process. ...

Rep. Eni Faleomavaega, D-American Samoa: 'Begin the process of empowering our Native Hawaiian community'

Rep. Eni Faleomavaega, D-American Samoa, before the Natural Resources Committee in the House of Representatives, on behalf of the Akaka Bill, H.R. 505 in the House, May 2: I do want to associate myself very much with the comments that have been made earlier by our colleague from the state of Hawaii [Rep. Neil Abercrombie]. Mr. Chairman [Rep. Nick Rahall, D-W.Va.], this is a very important issue for me, I suppose, on a personal sense. As a kin, or as a distant [Pacific Island] relative to the Native Hawaiian people, I do feel that this issue is so important to them that I sincerely hope that my colleagues will support the gentleman from Hawaii who wrote the bill now before us. I strongly support this bill because it reaffirms the special relationship between the United States government and the Native Hawaiian people, and provides Native Hawaiians with a measure of self-determination that is long overdue.

Passage of this legislation is important because it will begin the process of empowering our Native Hawaiian community to address severe health, educational, social welfare and economic problems facing this community today.

The issue also that has been raised, how many times, is to suggest that this is a race-based proposal that will provide some kind of a government that is [an] unconstitutional exercise of congressional authority. I'm here today to address the concerns of some of those who literally raise questions of constitutionality of this proposed bill. My testimony today is just one opinion. It's based on a legal analysis of two of our nation's leading conservatives, one the former assistant attorney general [of the United States], Mr. Viet Dinh, and even the current Chief Justice of the United States [John Roberts] ... both of whom have agreed that Native Hawaiians are within the authority of Congress to enact legislation based on their status as aboriginal, indigenous people within what is now known as the United States - that their status as former sovereign nations is the same manner as American Indians and Native Alaskans. It is woven into the established powers of the U.S. Congress to create legislation addressing the needs of our nation's indigenous people. This authority is based not on race, but on this nation's special obligation and trust relationship with our once-sovereign indigenous people. The only restriction that the Supreme Court has placed on this authority is that it must not be arbitrary.

Plenary authority of Congress in the field of Indian law includes the right to extinguish and to restore tribal authority, as is illustrated by the federal government's treatment of the Menominee Tribe of Indians, whose government-to-government relationship with the United States was extinguished [during the so-called termination era of the 1940s and '50s], and then later restored by Congress. Given that Congress, with its plenary authority over Indian affairs - does this authority include the power to legislate for Native Hawaiians? I say absolutely, yes.

Congress has already determined that it has the right to legislate for Native Hawaiians, through some 160 laws that have already been enacted to address the needs of our Native Hawaiian community. Congress has expressly provided that the authority of the Congress, under the United States Constitution, to legislate on matters affecting the aboriginal or indigenous peoples of the United States, includes the authority to legislate in matters affecting the Native peoples of Alaska and Hawaii.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to conclude by saying this: I believe that a careful reading of the cogent analysis relating to the constitutionality of this proposed legislation is absolutely within authority of the U.S. Congress under the Constitution. This legislation is not race-based, but is based on the authority of Congress to legislate on behalf of this nation's indigenous people, in protecting American Indians, Native Alaskans, and now our Native Hawaiian people. This legislation is not arbitrary and is not unprecedented, and I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. I think after waiting for a hundred years now, it is time that we do something to meet the needs of our Native Hawaiian people. ...

Micah Kane, Hawaiian Homes Commission: 'This storm of distractions that we have to deal with'

Micah Kane, Hawaiian Homes Commission chairman, in conversation May 2 on the Akaka Bill within Hawaii, the Republican Party, and the Republican governor of Hawaii, Linda Lingle: She's been definitely one of the strongest advocates, publicly and privately, about Hawaiian initiatives.

Indian Country Today: Oh, tremendous. She's out there on the point. And they're [national Republican Party] sawing her off [by opposing the Akaka Bill]. Aren't they?

Micah Kane: Well, I mean, they definitely haven't been as supportive as we want them to be, you know. And you know it hurts back home, politically, when we're trying to advance initiatives that should cross all party lines. These issues are not political. They're about people. ...

ICT: Any problem with [Republican] party building in Hawaii [a Democratic stronghold]? The national party isn't getting behind the governor and that's being perceived in Hawaii?

Kane: Well I think the national party is very much behind the governor. You know, there's issues that go far beyond just Native Hawaiian issues. And we've received a tremendous amount of support, you know, in the area of military, defense, homeland security, issues regarding the environment with the establishment of the Northwest Hawaiian Islands being the largest marine sanctuary in the world. So I mean there's been a tremendous amount of support, but on this issue [Akaka Bill] specifically, we're definitely not seeing the type of support we'd like, and it has -- it's an emotionally charged issue for us as Hawaiians, as well for the people of Hawaii. And so on this issue specifically, it makes it challenging for us. But I wouldn't say the administration [of President George W. Bush] hasn't been behind the governor, because they have been. It's just regarding this issue. I think it strikes at some of the ideological differences that perhaps we might have, and certain people in leadership have, with regard to Native rights.

ICT: Well, you know I think that raises the question then of whether there's just a minority up on Capitol Hill that's doing all this [advocacy for and against the Akaka Bill]. ... I think the legislature, the state legislature in Hawaii, has passed Native Hawaiian recognition approvals, right? How many times? Unanimously did I read?

Kane: There's been unanimous support locally across party lines, via resolution, in support of the Akaka Bill. You know most recently I think there has just been a single elected official who has expressed opposition, but otherwise it's been near unanimous. So it is mainstream in Hawaii.

ICT: And do you contemplate that changing because the political environment changes?

Kane: No, I think it's just going to get stronger. Until recognition passes, the threat against Native entities increases. Because the opposition is looking for a crack. Whether it's a John Doe case against the Kamehameha Schools, or a taxpayer status against the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, or an attempt to breach the Hawaiian Homeland Commission Act, those threats are against us every day, and those threats are growing. And it's unfortunate because we spend a tremendous amount of our time every day fighting for our right to exist as a Hawaiian entity in Hawaii. And that's a sad situation to be in when the mission of our trust should be just to be focused on getting Hawaiians back on the land, and yet we have this storm of distractions that we have to deal with in the legal environment.

But you know I mean obviously, the biggest impact we can have is by continuing to have a Republican voice for Native Hawaiians. And that's what we have to fight for. ... because it allows us to get real information into the [party] caucus. Whether they want to hear it or not, they're going to get it. And that's effective. And I think in the future, our best opportunity lies with our ability to have Republicans advocating for this issue. And you do that by electing people who are going to advocate within those caucuses.

... The governor right now is concerned about being a governor, and doing those things. She will say what needs to be said. She's going to speak what she believes is right and will never hold back off that. ... From our side [Hawaiian Homes Commission] it's performance, it's just performance. And Native programs in Hawaii are performing to a very high standard. So no one, Republican or Democrat, can argue that our program isn't doing what it is intended to do, dating back to its origin back in 1921. ... Straight performance. Peoples' lives are changing as a result of the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act, and I think the state of Hawaii recognizes it. I mean today we're the largest affordable homes developer in the state of Hawaii. Ninety-five percent self-sufficient. We add to the quality of life of everybody in that state, whether it's providing a unit for our families that relieves the pressure off the open market or accommodating community needs that not only benefit Native Hawaiians but also, you know, people in the region that we live with. ...

ICT: Is the indigenous, if you will, Native Hawaiian vote or feeling against the Akaka Bill strong in Hawaii?

Kane: Oh, it's extremely weak, extremely weak. It's very much a minority in our community, both in the [Native] Hawaiian community and non-Hawaiian community. You know when there's a threat against the Department of Hawaiian Homes or the Kamehameha Schools, twenty thousand people take to the streets to campaign for the support of those entities. ... Again, I think it's just, people in Hawaii want to see the Department of Hawaiian Homes, Office of Hawaiian Affairs, Kamehameha Schools, Liluokalani Trust, continue to exist without these legal threats. There's no question. And they are passionate about that.

ICT: And it seems there's some -- the idea of sort of seceding from the union, independent Hawaii, Old Hawaii -- seems there's some concern about that within the Department of Justice.

Kane: I don't think there's any mainstream desire to do that, within the Hawaiian community or outside the Hawaiian community. And it's not possible under the Akaka Bill and there's no intent for it to be. It's fear tactics. The opposition has to grab onto something. So you know, create something that strikes the emotional chord of people. ... You know, we're going to succeed on this issue. It's just a matter of time. ...

Again it's just not a partisan issue for us back home. It's beyond political lines, political issues. It's about people and the values of a state, because the values of our state -- the genesis of those values come from the Hawaiian people, the indigenous people that were there that welcomed -- that continue to welcome people to our state. And everybody recognizes that. It's just true. That's the world we live in back home.

------------------

http://www.kauaiworld.com/articles/2007/05/14/opinion/edit01.txt
Garden Island News (Kaua'i), May 14, 2007
Letter to editor

New book is wake-up call

Some recent letters show strong zealotry for Hawaiian sovereignty. I’d like to make readers aware of a new book, “Hawaiian Apartheid: Racial Separatism and Ethnic Nationalism in the Aloha State.”

This book is a wake-up call to all America, and especially Hawai‘i, regarding the growing menace of Hawaiian racial separatism and ethnic nationalism.

One chapter describes Hawai‘i’s current racial separatism of over 160 racially exclusionary federal programs, plus OHA, DHHL, Kamehameha School, charter schools, immersion schools, and a proposal for racial separatist government through the Akaka Bill, S310/HR505.

Another chapter explores the secessionist independence movement, what it means for people with no native blood, and how the Akaka bill would empower secessionists. Other chapters examine some important historical falsehoods; junk-science victimhood claims of the Hawaiian grievance industry; anti-Americanism and anti-military activism; bogus claims to indigenous status; sovereignty frauds and scams; and an agenda for future action to revive unity, equality, and aloha for all.

The entire first chapter can be read at http://tinyurl.com/2a9fqa along with the detailed table of contents. The book’s cover shows the U.S. flag with its 50th star ripped off, and the Great Seal of the State of Hawai‘i broken in half. It’s not pleasant reading.

Kenneth Conklin
Kane‘ohe

---------------------

Insight Magazine, May 15-21, 2007
[** Conservative weekly on-line magazine published every Tuesday, focusing on issues of national importance, and affiliated with The Washington Times]
To see the front page with list of all this week's articles, go to
http://www.insightmag.com
To see this particular article go to
http://www.insightmag.com/ME2/dirmod.asp?sid=5D3B38F8A2584DB5A77BA05660C6045C&nm=Free+Access&type=Publishing&mod=Publications%3A%3AArticle&mid=8F3A7027421841978F18BE895F87F791&tier=4&id=A6E6CC78AC4E44B9A4ED337BAB456DE8
OR
http://tinyurl.com/23xo6p

Hawaii's racial separatism paves way to eventual secession

Commentary by Kenneth R. Conklin

There's trouble in paradise, and it threatens all of America. Racial separatism and ethnic nationalism are growing stronger in the Aloha State, with the U.S. as current accomplice and future victim.

Hawaii's gathering storm has been building strength for several decades. Most people don't recognize the danger. Some Hawaii politicians and community leaders who do recognize the danger prefer to ignore it, or to appease a growing Evil Empire by giving it money, land, and political power. Most U.S. senators were unaware of the issue until June of 2006. That's when the Senate spent several hours discussing the "Akaka bill." Every Democrat and several Republicans voted to bring to the floor an outrageous bill to authorize an apartheid regime for Hawaii.

In the 110th Congress the Akaka bill is S.310 and H.R.505. It has already passed its committees in both the Senate and House, with floor action likely soon.

Race-based institutions have grown so powerful they now control Hawaii's political establishment. A state government agency, eagerly supported by the Democrat legislature and Republican governor, is pushing the Akaka bill with millions of dollars in lobbying and advertising. It would authorize a racially exclusionary government to include 240,000 citizens of Hawaii (20 percent of the state's population) and 160,000 citizens of other states. Only one drop of native blood is required to be considered "Native Hawaiian."

Most support for the Akaka bill comes from Hawaii's large race-based institutions seeking to protect the vast wealth and political power they already enjoy. Polls show that 2/3 of all Hawaii's people, including about half of the "Native Hawaiians," oppose this bill. But the political establishment responds to the money and power of the institutions, and fears to go against a swing-vote of the 20 percent of citizens who have a drop of native blood and are regarded (wrongly) as a monolithic voting bloc.

Some see the Akaka bill as a path to secession. Most independence activists accuse supporters of the Akaka bill of selling out; yet most supporters of the Akaka bill privately dream of eventual independence for Hawaii. Some independence activists accept the Akaka bill as a short-term pragmatic necessity to acquire ever-larger amounts of money, land, and power to fuel a drive for complete secession of the entire State of Hawaii from the United States.

Over 160 racially exclusionary federal programs, plus massive state government programs, plus private race-based institutions valued at $8-15 billion, already provide a substantial amount of racial supremacy to a group that also shares all the benefits available to everyone else. At the end of 2006, nearly 60,000 of America's 400,000 ethnic Hawaiians had already signed a racial registry that would probably become the nucleus of the phony tribe's membership roll.

The situation in Hawaii is unlike any other state in regard to the severity of impact a tribal "recognition" would have on the population as a whole. No other state has 20 percent of its people eligible to join a single tribe, whose members would then be active participants on both sides of negotiations between the tribe and state government over money, land, and political power. No other state has an Indian tribe whose reservation lands, under tribal laws very different from the state's laws, would comprise 40-50 percent of the entire state in a great number of large and small enclaves scattered everywhere.

The Akaka bill to create a phony Indian tribe for ethnic Hawaiians threatens all America because it is based on a new theory of the U.S. Constitution which would encourage and accelerate the racial balkanization of our nation. The theory is that the Indian Commerce Clause authorizes Congress to single out any ethnic group (especially if they are "indigenous") and give them group rights similar to an Indian tribe, even if the group has never functioned as a tribe and even if its members are widely scattered and thoroughly assimilated into the general population. If that theory applies to ethnic groups in general, the Amish could seek tribal status, along with Louisiana Cajuns; and perhaps a Nation of New Africa for all of America's blacks. If the theory is restricted to so-called "indigenous" people whose ancestral lands were engulfed by the United States, then America's people of Mexican ancestry (most of whom have a drop of Aztec or Mayan blood) could demand the right for MEChA to form a Nation of Aztlan controlling those parts of America which formerly belonged to Mexico.

Hawaii is widely known as a paradise. We have a beautiful environment and excellent weather for enjoying it year-round. We are also known as a social paradise—the most racially diverse and harmonious state in America, with the highest percentage of intermarriage producing the world's most beautiful children.

Every racial or ethnic group in Hawaii is a minority. All are represented at every level of government, business, labor, media, etc. Governors and U.S. senators have been Chinese, Filipino, ethnic Hawaiian, Japanese, Jewish, and white. All races are found among owners of multimillion dollar corporations, laborers who work for them, farmers and fishermen, homeless people and prison inmates. Most neighborhoods have all racial groups represented among both homeowners and renters. We live, work, play, and pray in a fully integrated multiracial society. Many Hawaii citizens have a long list of ethnicities in their genealogies, and are very proud to recite them.

If there were to be an ethnic Hawaiian state within the State of Hawaii, its land base could only be filled with people through an exchange of populations similar to what was done when India (mostly Hindu) broke apart to create Pakistan (mostly Muslim). The Akaka bill is not intended to recognize a small Indian tribe living in a compact remote area. Ethnic Hawaiians comprise 20 percent of the state's population, and demand more than 50 percent of the state's land, especially if Kamehameha Schools (Bishop Estate) lands were included. Thus, the best name for the Akaka bill is apartheid—which literally means "apartness."

Hawaii's two Sens. Dan Inouye and Dan Akaka have spent their entire Senate careers as members of the Indian Affairs Committee. Hawaii is the only state which has both of its senators serving on that committee. Why would Hawaii's senators want to serve on the Indian Affairs committee when there have never been any Indian tribes in Hawaii? The obvious answer is: filling the pork barrel. Whenever major legislation was introduced to provide housing, health care, or education for all of America's real Indian tribes, Inouye and Akaka made sure to insert "and Native Hawaiians" into the bills. Over the years more than 160 federally funded programs intended for real Indian tribes have brought billions of dollars into Hawaii for ethnic Hawaiians. Since this "free" money then circulates through Hawaii's economy, the business community and politicians like it. The race-based institutions are sustained and strengthened by federal dollars flowing through their coffers, while other institutions are co-opted by the money they earn providing services. Thus Hawaii's Evil Empire thrives with federal assistance and constantly pushes for more.

The Office of Hawaiian Affairs has cited in legal briefs the fact that there are over 160 federally funded race-based programs for ethnic Hawaiians. OHA argues that the establishment of those programs over a period of about 30 years proves that there is a political "trust relationship" between the U.S. government and ethnic Hawaiians as a group. That claim of a political relationship is asserted in order to argue that the race-based programs are not subject to "strict scrutiny" under the 14th Amendment equal protection clause, but are subject only to a "rational basis test" appropriate to the government-to-government relationships between the U.S. on one side, and the states and the Indian tribes on the other.

It's time to put a stop to Hawaiian apartheid. The Akaka bill should be defeated, Hawaii's plethora of government-funded racially exclusionary programs should be ended, and Kamehameha Schools should be desegregated. Can't we all just get along together?

- Kenneth R. Conklin is a retired professor of philosophy. His book, "Hawaiian Apartheid: Racial Separatism and Ethnic Nationalism in the Aloha State," has just been published. Go to http://tinyurl.com/2a9fqa for more details about the book.

-------------------

http://starbulletin.com/2007/05/15/news/story03.html
Honolulu Star-Bulletin, May 15, 2007

Akaka Bill's necessity stressed
Informal filibusters stall the measure in the U.S. Senate

By Richard Borreca

Kamehameha Schools' decision to settle instead of risk an adverse U.S. Supreme Court ruling on its Hawaiians-only admission policy does not change the need for a native Hawaii federal recognition bill in Congress, according to supporters of the Akaka Bill.

"This action doesn't remove the need for the Akaka Bill," said Gov. Linda Lingle, an Akaka Bill supporter. "The need is stronger than ever."

Lingle, who just returned from lobbying for the measure in Washington, said the chances of passage for the bill have neither improved nor diminished.

The bill, first introduced in 2000, has been stalled in the Senate, where informal filibusters have blocked the measure from a vote on the floor.

The Akaka Bill needs 60 votes to break the filibuster, and neither the Democratic nor Republican supporters have been able to put together enough votes to advance the bill.

"We haven't lost any support on the Republican side, but it is still chasing 60 votes," Lingle said.

Asked about the opposition from the administration of Republican President Bush, Lingle said the bill must clear Congress first.

"I have talked to the president many times about it," she said. "He is very aware of it, but you still need 60 votes and I think it is premature to talk about what the administration is going to do when you need to ask, 'Where do you get the 60 votes?'"

Hawaii's congressional delegation also said the Akaka Bill is still needed.

"The need for the Akaka Bill remains critical," Rep. Mazie Hirono said. "The dismissal doesn't mean we are out of the woods as far as legal threats to other programs that assist native Hawaiians."

----------------------

http://www.hawaiireporter.com/story.aspx?187d9dd4-0faf-47fe-b530-0b8bcbc556f8
Hawaii Reporter, May 15, 2007

Akaka Bill Will Provide Needed Protection for Hawaiian Race-Based Programs

By Congresswoman Mazie Hirono, D-Hawaii

[** Ken Conklin's note: The headline of this press release was obviously not written by Congressmember Mazie Hirono. It was written by Hawaii Reporter editor Malia Zimmerman. While I agree with Zimmerman's viewpoint and disagree with Hirono's, it is unprofessional bad journalism for an editor to write a headline which the author of an article would most surely disapprove of, however accurate it might be.]

I’m extremely pleased with the May 14th settlement (between Kamehameha Schools and the challenger to its Hawaiians-only admission policy). This means this legal case is over and the school’s admissions policy stands.

Our Congressional delegation filed an amicus brief in support of Kamehameha Schools urging the Supreme Court not to review the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling upholding the admissions policy and restating our position that Native Hawaiians are indigenous peoples, as are Alaska Natives and American Indians.

As a member of the House Education Committee, and a long-time proponent of quality education, I believe that, with this dismissal, Kamehameha Schools can focus on its mission to provide Hawaiian children educational opportunities and expand their programs to reach more beneficiaries.

The need for the Akaka bill remains critical. The dismissal doesn’t mean we are out of the woods as far as legal threats to other programs that assist Native Hawaiians.

I along with Congressman Abercrombie and Senators Inouye and Akaka are committed to attain formal federal recognition of Native Hawaiians as indigenous people.

We look forward to Congress stating once and for all that Native Hawaiians have a legal and political relationship with the United States, erasing all claims that opponents have raised that various programs helping Hawaiians are so-called “race-based.” The Akaka bill will provide that protection.

--------------------

http://www.hawaiireporter.com/story.aspx?6c022975-c30c-4cd2-ac03-2e2931af28b4
Hawaii Reporter, May 15, 2007

Kamehameha Schools/Doe Settlement: Akaka Bill Dog and Pony Show?

By Andrew Walden

Kamehameha Schools and a non-Hawaiian applicant to Kamehameha Schools known only as “John Doe” agreed May 11 to an out of court settlement ending efforts by Doe’s attorneys to have the case heard before the US Supreme Court. The settlement leaves in place the ruling by a 15 judge “en banc” panel of the US 9th Circuit court that Kamehameha Schools Hawaiians preference in admissions is legal. The settlement ends one threat to Hawaiians-only admissions, theoretically weakening one of the key arguments for the Akaka Bill. But the timing of the settlement continues a pattern of manipulating disputes over Hawaiian-only entitlements in order to push otherwise dubious native Hawaiians into supporting the Akaka Bill.

This pattern was in full display earlier this year when Rep Neil Abercrombie March 21 moved to hold a House vote on HR 835, reauthorizing $8 million in annual funding for Hawaiian Home Lands road and water line construction, under a special motion to suspend House rules requiring a 2/3 Congressional majority. When the measure was defeated--with 262 for and 162 against—in part due to resistance to federal block grant spending, Abercrombie used the result to highlight the threat to Hawaiian entitlements. He told the Star Bulletin, "Unfortunately, there's an element in the Republican party that is hell-bent on attacking Hawaiians as symbolic of their opposition to native interests." The DHHL funding bill is now closely following the legislative track of the Akaka Bill allowing the two to be covered in the media as if they were similar in nature.

In the aftermath of the “Doe” settlement, Rep Mazie Hirono, a co-sponsor of the bill, said, "The opponents of federal recognition for Native Hawaiians will not be able to use the pending lawsuit to stall movement of the Akaka Bill."

U.S. Rep. Neil Abercrombie, another co-sponsor of the HR 505, the House version of the Akaka Bill echoes Hirono telling the Advertiser: “My understanding of both those rulings is essentially that Native Hawaiians are recognized as an indigenous people and that they have a political status…. That can move the Akaka bill forward."

Perhaps anticipating a lessening in public support for the Akaka Bill as a result of the lifting of the threat, Governor Lingle said, “While I am pleased a settlement has been reached in this case, Native Hawaiian programs will continue to be challenged, which is why it is so critical that the Akaka bill be passed.”

The terms of the “Doe” settlement are confidential, but the Advertiser May 14 quotes Roger Clegg, president and general counsel for the Center for Equal Opportunity saying he believes that Kamehameha Schools settled because "they stood a good chance of losing before the Supreme Court."

"My suspicion is that they opened their wallets in a big way to make this case go away…. It's unusual for somebody to have won a case en banc then settle it on the steps of the Supreme Court." Clegg’s group filed a friend-of-the-court brief supporting Doe.

One of Doe’s attorneys, John Goemans, a former Hawaii State Deputy Attorney General and Democratic State Legislator who worked in the 1980s as an aide to then-State-Senator Malama Solomon said, “We've done the best we can for our client." Eric Grant, a Sacramento-based lawyer also representing Doe said only, “I expect to make a public statement on behalf of John Doe at a later time.”

A May 14 statement released by Kamehameha Schools/Bishop Estate trustees said, “We have reached agreement with “John Doe” to resolve Doe’s lawsuit seeking to overturn our admissions policy. The terms of the settlement are confidential. By settling this case, we protect our right to offer admissions preference to Native Hawaiians. The plaintiff has withdrawn his petition for U.S. Supreme Court appeal of the 9th Circuit Court ruling upholding our preference policy as legally permissible.

“This means that the Circuit Court ruling stands – our legal right to offer preference to Native Hawaiian applicants is preserved…. Settling this case also reserves the rights of other private trusts – Native and non-Native, as well as the rights of all Indigenous people to control and use resources designated for their benefit.

“This settlement, which preserves a favorable 9th Circuit Court ruling, has the same legal effect as a denial of the plaintiff’s petition for Supreme Court review.”

KSBE Statement: http://www.ksbe.edu/article.php?story=20070514062928373

--------------------

http://www.hawaiireporter.com/story.aspx?6fac008a-a6df-4780-b731-0f798fd76f6a
Hawaii Reporter, May 15, 2007

Tribalism vs. Republican Governments

By Paul R. Jones

Our Nation’s Founding Fathers established a Republican form of government in the United States Constitution for the original 13-colonies (states). Congress-in Title 25 U.S.C. and its progeny inclusive of the 1934 Indian Reorganization Act and Amendments-established federally recognized Indian ‘tribalism’ (tribalism is inclusive of ‘pueblos,’ rancheros, etc.) as a form of government for a blood quantum race based select group of U.S. citizens.

This begs the question of (1) what is the difference between ‘tribalism’ as a form of government established in Title 25 et al and the ‘republican’ form of government as established by our Founding Fathers in the United States Constitution? And (2) why should citizens of the United States of America be concerned about establishing ‘tribalism’ (Native Hawaiianism) as a form of government within the United States including the select group of federally recognized Indian tribes whose governments are tribalism?

In order to address the two questions asked above this author asked GOOGLE the following question: Define tribalism.

GOOGLE provided:

Tribalism refers to a view of society as being divided into subgroups, or 'tribes'. Critics believe that tribalistic views can detract from the unity of society, creating an "us versus them mentality." This phenomenon is named for tribes in particular due to the fact that tribal societies lacked any organizational level beyond that of the local tribe, with each tribe consisting only of a very small, local population. ...

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tribalism

'''This author then amplified the definitions above in en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triblism The word "tribalism" can refer to two related but distinct concepts. The first is a social system where human society is divided into small, roughly independent subgroups, called tribes. Tribal societies lacked any organizational level beyond that of the local tribe, with each tribe consisting only of a very small, local population. The internal social structure of a tribe can vary greatly from case to case, but, due to the small size of tribes, it is always a relatively simple structure, with few (if any) significant social distinctions between individuals. Some tribes are particularly egalitarian, and most tribes have only a vague notion of private property; many have none at all. A shared sense of identity and kinship encourages the development of kin selection. Tribalism has also been sometimes been called "primitive communism" but this is rather misleading since allegiance to a communist state is not based on kin-selective altruism. One thing that is certain is that tribalism is the very first social system that human beings ever lived in, and it has lasted much longer than any other kind of society to date. The other concept to which the word "tribalism" frequently refers is the possession of a strong cultural or ethnic identity that separates oneself as a member of one group from the members of another. This phenomenon is related to the concept of tribal society in that it is a precondition for members of a tribe to possess a strong feeling of identity for a true tribal society to form. The distinction between these two definitions for tribalism is an important one because, while tribal society no longer strictly exists in the western world, tribalism, by this second definition, is arguably undiminished. People have postulated that the human brain is hard-wired towards tribalism due to its evolutionary advantages. See Tribalism and evolution below.

GOOGLE defined with one below: Republic.

In a broad definition a republic is a state or country that is led by people who do not base their political power on any principle beyond the control of the people living in that state or country.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic, amplified what a republic is: A republic is a form of government maintained by a state or country whose sovereignty is based on popular consent and whose governance is based on popular representation and control. Several definitions stress the importance of the rule of law as among the requirements for a republic.

These definitions and amplification of Tribalism and Republican forms of government from GOOGLE and WIKIPEDIA answers the first question. A Republican form it would be and Article IV, Clause 4 is explicit:

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.

The United States Constitution explicitly prohibits national and state governments from creating governments not Republic in form i.e. based upon a religion, race or origin.

Any creation of a ‘tribal government’ based on Indian ancestry or Sunni or Shia orTutsi or Hutu or Native Hawaiian or any other from of ‘tribalism’ brings it in to direct disobedience to the United States Constitution and is null and void Ad Initio (from the beginning).

The United States Constitution cannot be circumvented by cleaver semantics or bogus treaties nor can ‘exemptions’ be applied to Constitutional tenets. Thus, part #1 for the answer to the second question is: No branch of the national or state governments can create any government based upon ‘tribalism’ (or Native Hawaiian) any more than it can establish a ‘tribalism’ form of government for U.S. citizens who are Sunni or Shia tribal members as no branch of government can operate outside of the Constitution.

The Preamble to the United States Constitution begins with, “We, the People, in Order to Form a More Perfect Union, …” The Preamble does not says, “We, the Indian tribes (Native Hawaiian), in Order to Form a More Perfect Indian Tribal Union (Native Hawaiian)…”

Our Republican form of government that invites into its house Indian Tribalism or Native Hawaiianism as a legitimate form of government sows seeds of its own destruction in a compact with the Devil in this author’s opinion. This is answer part 2 to the second question above.

Paul R. Jones, a resident of Arizona, can be reached via email at ogauwood@qwest.net

---------------------

http://www.indiancountry.com/content.cfm?id=1096415049
Indian Country Today, May 18, 2007
Washington in brief
by: Jerry Reynolds
** Excerpts related to Akaka bill

A Native Hawaiian bill, S. 310, has also been before the full Senate before. The Akaka Bill, as it is informally known after Sen. Daniel Akaka, D-Hawaii, seeks to authorize a process that would result, over time, in the federal recognition of a Native Hawaiian governing entity. In last year's 109th Congress, the bill faltered on a procedural vote. But a swing of four votes would have brought the bill to a vote on its merits. Since then, changes in the bill, and in the Senate after last November's election, have improved the bill's chances to the point that lobbyists and congressional staff alike have speculated on whether Bush will veto the bill if it reaches his desk. The House of Representatives has passed the Akaka Bill in previous versions and is considered likely to pass it again.

Should the Senate concur [i.e., pass the bill], lobbyist Patricia Zell said a key strategic consideration of the bill's advocates will be whether to send it to the president as a stand-alone item, more easily vetoed, or to attach it to a larger bill in the Senate. Zell said there is no predicting an evolving strategy, but noted that bills with a limited constituency sometimes have better prospects when attached to larger bills.

Apology resolution is again before the Senate

A resolution that would apologize to Indian tribes and Native peoples on behalf of the United States is again before the Senate, but this time its sponsor is a presidential candidate.

Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kan., left the campaign trail long enough to attend the April 28 dedication of the Sand Creek Massacre National Historic Site. He offered an apology, in language similar to the resolution he has sponsored, for historical wrongs and said he'll work to make up for them. Former Sen. Ben Nighthorse Campbell, attending as a Northern Cheyenne descendant and, for years, the lead advocate in Congress of a protected site and federal acknowledgment of the massacre, said Brownback is a good man who means it.

---------------------------

http://indiancountry.com/content.cfm?id=1096415044
Indian Country Today, May 18, 2007
Eklutna Class II gaming hopes bring backlash for Alaska Natives
by: Jerry Reynolds
** Excerpts relevant to Akaka bill

WASHINGTON - A Class II gaming application by the Alaska Native government of Eklutna Village has revived long-standing efforts in the state Legislature to revisit federal recognition of tribes in Alaska.

Two Republican state legislators sent a May 1 letter to Interior Department Secretary Dirk Kempthorne, suggesting that he ''review the legal basis of Alaska's 'purported' tribes'' before ruling on the Eklutna application, according to an account in the Anchorage Daily News. Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin opposed the expansion of gaming in the state.

Press Secretary Kevin Sweeney provided a response from Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska: ''This is not the first time that several Alaska state legislators have asked the Secretary of the Interior to determine whether Alaska Native villages were appropriately included on the list of federally recognized tribes. On all prior occasions the Secretary of the Interior has declined to re-open the matter. The decisions of Secretary Kempthorne's predecessors were legally supportable and we don't see Secretary Kempthorne reversing course, nor is Senator Murkowski encouraging him to do so.''

Two hundred and twenty-seven Alaska Native villages gained federal recognition in 1993, when then-Interior Secretary Ada Deer included them on the list of tribes so recognized. Congress has defined Alaska Native villages and organizations as Indian tribes for specific purposes in acts of Congress that include the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act, the Indian Child Welfare Act and, more recently, the Violence Against Women Act. Federal agencies have also included Alaska Natives.

Don Mitchell, an attorney on retainer to the Alaska state Legislature and a scholar on Alaska Native legal status, said it is perfectly within the power of Congress to deal with Native Americans, including Alaska Natives, through legislation. He also believes that Congress must delegate the authority for a federal officer such as Deer to recognize Indian tribes. ''It's my opinion that to date, Congress has not exercised its power in that way.''

Lloyd Miller, a Native American Rights Fund attorney representing Eklutna and a longtime sparring partner of Mitchell's on Alaska Native issues, said the issue of Alaska Native legal status isn't a live one, politically or otherwise. ''I don't see it getting any traction anywhere.''

A few antennae twitched in Washington at the date on the letter to Kempthorne: May 1. On May 2 and 3, the House of Representatives and the Senate held meetings on the Akaka Bill, which would authorize a process eventually leading to the federal recognition of Native Hawaiians. Conservative factions in the House and Senate GOP oppose the extension of federal recognition to Native Hawaiians and hope to revoke it for Alaska Natives. But Miller and Mitchell poured cold water on the possibility of coordination, for momentum-building or other symbiotic political purposes, between the dates. Eklutna filed the application in April, and the Alaska legislative response followed in due course. ''It's a dispute between Alaskans and it has never been anything but that,'' Mitchell said.

-------------------------

http://www.insightmag.com/ME2/dirmod.asp?sid=5D3B38F8A2584DB5A77BA05660C6045C&nm=Free+Access&type=Publishing&mod=Publications%3A%3AArticle&mid=8F3A7027421841978F18BE895F87F791&tier=4&id=F24A42C0BB4E42EEA10C8AD6D05235C9

Insight Magazine, May 22, 2007

AND

http://www.hudson.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=publication_details&id=4929

The Hudson Institute (New York), May 23, 2007

Bill Sets Precedent for National Balkanization

by Herbert I. London

Once again the Akaka Bill, designed to secure self-governance rights for native Hawaiians, is being seriously entertained by the Democratic-controlled Congress. Indigenous Hawaiians contend that their ancestral rights were abrogated when the United States colonized the island archipelago in 1893. Despite having been defeated by last year’s Congress, this bill is back on the agenda like a bad penny.

Gregory Katsas, deputy associate attorney general, said in testimony prepared for the U.S. Senate Indian Affairs Committee that the Hawaiian legislation would serve to divide the islands along racial and ancestral lines and become a precedent for national balkanization. “Whatever might be said about past injustices, generations of Americans have fought and died to achieve a single, indivisible country that respects the freedom, equality and heritage of all of its citizens,” Katsas argued.

Should the bill become law, it would secure self-government rights for native Hawaiians even though they now represent one percent of the islands’ population and a total dispersed population of 400,000 nationwide. [* Note from Ken Conklin: Mr. London seems to be referring to "pure Hawaiians" when he give the figure of one percent. Ethnic Hawaiians as defined in the Akaka bill, with as little as one drop of native blood, comprise 20% of Hawaii's population *] Presumably this small segment of the population could negotiate with state and federal authorities for control of natural resources and land.

Sen. Byron Dorgan, North Dakota Democrat, maintains that “Native Hawaiians, just like Indian tribes, are the first Americans. They were here long before my ancestors showed up.” Senator Akaka, as the sponsor of the bill, concurred. “Native Hawaiians were disenfranchised,” he said.

While most native Hawaiians support the measure, some radical groups oppose it, arguing this bill will put Hawaiians under federal control thereby militating against the goal of sovereignty.

But the essential reason for opposing the bill is Katsas’ concern that it will be a precedent for others who will claim preferential treatment and a separate government. Acadians, for example, who form the base of Louisiana’s “Cajun Country” are descendents of those who settled in the area after being deported from Nova Scotia in 1755 and might use the bill to claim an Acadian government for Louisiana.

While legislators in Hawaii claim the bill is fair, equitable and constitutional, the last point is questionable since the Constitution does not countenance secession or possible separation from the nation. Moreover, in attempting to redress the wrongs of the past, the bill introduces wrongs of the present. In what sense is it fair for one percent of the population to have a right to dictate to the other 99 percent?

Opening this Pandora’s Box has no end. Every group with ancestral ties to the nation’s founding could conceivably demand preferential treatment. History is filled with mistreatment and claims of malfeasance, but addressing every concern with special treatment would divide the nation in ways that duplicate conditions prior to the Civil War.

It is noteworthy that an America already balkanized by race and ethnicity is now put in the position of having to consider ancestral rights. Groups seeking privilege have now found refuge in the courts and politicians who pander to subcultures.

What the supporters of the Akaka bill do not seem to realize is that Hawaii is a state within the United States with all of the privileges and limitations this status confers. Lincoln fought to keep the union intact arguing that secession violated the spirit and intent of the Constitution. Should we now abrogate tradition and law to redress the allegations of wrongs committed more than a century ago? And if so, why stop with native Hawaiians?

America has become a land of those with grievances. Perhaps one day, the grievants will awaken to a land composed of principalities with little that unites them. The idea of America will be erased without a trace of what held us together. E pluribus unum will be “e unum pluribus.” I hope Congress recognizes what is truly at stake when it considers the Akaka bill for more than the future of Hawaiians is on the agenda.

Herbert London is president of Hudson Institute and professor emeritus of New York University.

-------------------

http://www.hawaiireporter.com/story.aspx?0066c08e-d813-4074-b0c1-7b337bd15112
Hawaii Reporter, May 25, 2007

Hawaii Would Be Unnecessarily Divided with Akaka Bill

By H. William Burgess

Editor's note: H. William Burgess was one of a handful of people from Hawaii invited to testify before the United States Senate Committee on Indian Affairs on the Akaka bill (S. 310, Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act of 2007) on May 3, 2007. There were follow up questions to Mr. Burgess. This is his response to Vice Chairman Craig Thomas.

1. Do you believe the State of Hawaii would be a more cohesive society after this legislation is enacted?

Answer: No. I believe the opposite would be more likely. The Akaka bill (S. 310) defines “Native Hawaiian” as anyone with at least one ancestor indigenous to Hawaii, essentially the same definition the Supreme Court in Rice v. Cayetano, 528 U.S. 495, 514-516 (2000) held to be a racial classification because it uses ancestry as a proxy for race. The bill would give Native Hawaiians political power superior to that of all other citizens (i.e., the right to create their own separate sovereign government and still retain all their rights as citizens of the U.S. and the State of Hawaii).

Racial distinctions are especially “odious to a free people,” Rice 528 U.S. at 517 where they undermine the democratic institutions of a free people by instigating racial partisanship. This was the fundamental evil that the Rice Court detected in Hawaii’s law: “using racial classifications” that are “corruptive of the whole legal order” of democracy because they make “the law itself . . . the instrument for generating” racial “prejudice and hostility.” Rice, 528 U.S. at 517.

It “is altogether antithetical to our system of representative democracy” to create a governmental structure “solely to effectuate the perceived common interests of one racial group” and to assign officials the “primary obligation . . . to represent only members of that group.” Shaw v. Reno, 509 U.S. 630, 648 (1983). Shaw quoted Justice Douglas:

When racial or religious lines are drawn by the State, the multi-racial . . . communities that our Constitution seeks to weld together as one become separatist; antagonisms that relate to race . . . rather than to political issues are generated; communities seek not the best representative but the best racial . . . partisan. Since that system is at war with the democratic ideal, it should find no footing here.

Wright v. Rockefeller, 376 U.S. 52, 67 (1964) (Douglas, dissenting).

In Shaw, the racial partisanship was fostered indirectly by gerrymandering legislative districts. By contrast, as in Rice, the “structure” in the Akaka bill “is neither subtle nor indirect;” The Akaka bill would specifically sponsor the creation of a new sovereign government by “persons of the defined ancestry and no others.” Rice, 528 U.S. at 514.

To advance “the perceived common interests of one racial group,” Shaw, 509 U.S. at 648, the Akaka bill vests public officials with authority to give away public funds and public lands. This cannot stand: “Simple justice requires that public funds, to which all taxpayers of all races contribute, not be spent in any fashion which encourages, entrenches, subsidizes, or results in racial discrimination.” Lau v. Nichols, 414 U.S. 563, 569 (1974) (quoting Senator Humphrey during the floor debate on Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, a provision that is coextensive with the Equal Protection Clause, Alexander v. Sandoval, 532 U.S. 275, 280-81 (2001)).

The government is even forbidden to give money to private parties “if that aid has a significant tendency to facilitate, reinforce and support private discrimination.” Norwood v. Harrison, 413 U.S. 455, 466 (1973). Norwood instructed the District Court to enjoin state subsidies for private schools that advocated the “private belief that segregation is desirable” and that “communicated” racial discrimination as “an essential part of the educational message.” Id. at 469. A fortiori, federal or state agencies, even with the acquiescence of their legislatures, cannot institutionalize racial classifications that are “odious to a free people” and “corruptive” of democracy. Rice, 528 U.S. at 517.

2. In 1998, the State of Hawaii argued that “the tribal concept simply has no place in the context of Hawaiian history.” What has changed since that time?

Answer: Amid many changes in our lives since 1998, one thing has stayed the same: There is no tribe or governing entity of any kind presiding over a separate community of the Native Hawaiian people as defined in the Akaka bill (any person anywhere in world who has at least one ancestor indigenous to Hawaii). Senator Daniel K. Inouye acknowledged this on January 25, 2005 on the floor of the Senate (151 Congressional Record 450).

“Because the Native Hawaiian government is not an Indian tribe, the body of Federal Indian law that would otherwise customarily apply when the United States extends Federal recognition to an Indian tribal group does not apply.”

"That is why concerns which are premised on the manner in which Federal Indian law provides for the respective governmental authorities of the state governments and Indian tribal governments simply don't apply in Hawaii."

3. Given that this legislation modifies the vote of the Hawaiian people in the late 1950’s, should the people of Hawaii be given an opportunity to vote in a referendum on the new proposal?

Answer: Yes. The Akaka bill would usurp the power of the people of Hawaii to govern the entire State of Hawaii as promised by Congress in the 1959 Admission Act. In 1959 Congress proposed, subject to “adoption or rejection” by the voters of the Territory of Hawaii, that Hawaii “shall be immediately admitted into the Union” and that “boundaries of the State shall be as prescribed.” “The State of Hawaii shall consist of all the [major] islands, together with their appurtenant reef and territorial waters.” “The Constitution of the State of Hawaii shall always be republican in form and shall not be repugnant to the Constitution of the United States and the principles of the Declaration of Independence.”

The voters decisively accepted: 94.3% “Yes” for Statehood and 94.5% “Yes” for the State boundaries.

Yet the Akaka bill would authorize negotiations unlimited in scope or duration to break up and giveaway lands, natural resources and other assets, governmental power and authority and civil and criminal jurisdiction. The avowed purpose of the promoters of the bill is to remove vast lands in Hawaii from the jurisdiction of the United States Constitution and to create an unprecedented sovereign empire ruled by a new hereditary elite and repugnant to the highest aspirations of American democracy.

At the very least, the Akaka bill must be amended to require:

Prior consent to the process by the voters of Hawaii before any “recognition” or other provision of the bill takes effect; and

If the electorate approves the process, limit the negotiations both in scope and duration, and, if any transfer is to be made to the new entity the agreement must include a final global settlement of all claims and be subject to ratification by referendum of the entire electorate of the State of Hawaii.

4. If there is no difference between Congress’ power to regulate “Indian tribes” and “indigenous peoples” why does this legislation treat Native Hawaiians differently from Native Americans by segregation of programs and the creation of a new Office of Native Hawaiian Affairs? Answer: Excellent question. It pinpoints the deceptive sales pitch that the Akaka bill would just give Native Hawaiians the same recognition as Native Americans. No Native American group has the right to be recognized as a tribe merely because its members share Indigenous ancestors, as the Akaka bill proposes for Native Hawaiians.

By giving superior political power to Native Hawaiians based on blood alone; and by equating them with Native Americans and Native Alaskans, the Akaka bill would put all three groups into the “race” category and would either threaten the continued existence of real Indian tribes or erase the Civil Rights movement and the Civil War itself from our history.

For over 20 years, a draft Declaration of Indigenous Rights has circulated in the United Nations. The United States and other major countries have opposed it because it challenges the current global system of states; is “inconsistent with international law”; ignores reality by appearing to require recognition to lands now lawfully owned by other citizens; and “No government can accept the notion of creating different classes of citizens.” In November 2006, a subsidiary body of the U.N. General Assembly rejected the draft declaration, proposing more time for further study.

Thus, by enacting the Akaka bill, Congress would brush aside core underpinnings of the United States itself both as to the special relationship with real Indian tribes; and as to the sacred understanding of American citizenship as adherence to common principles of equal justice and the rule of law, in contrast to common blood, caste, race or ethnicity.

5. If existing law was modified, and Native Hawaiians were allowed to apply for tribal recognition through the established process, would it qualify for such status?

Answer: No. The United States has granted tribal recognition only to groups that have a long, continuous history of self-governance in a distinct community separate from the non-Indian community. But there has never been, even during the years of the Kingdom, any government for Native Hawaiians separate from the government of all the people of Hawaii.

Census 2000 counted some 400,000 persons who identified themselves as of some degree of Native Hawaiian ancestry. About 60% of them or about 240,000, live in the State of Hawaii and are spread throughout all the census districts of the State of Hawaii. The other 40%, or about 160,000, live throughout the other 49 states. The Akaka bill would recognize these 400,000 people plus everyone anywhere else in the world with at least one ancestor indigenous to Hawaii, as a tribe. Such widely scattered and disconnected persons would not be eligible for recognition under CFR by the DOI or by Congress under the standards set by the Supreme Court.

If blood alone were sufficient for tribal recognition (as the Akaka bill proposes for Native Hawaiians), Indian law would change radically. Millions of Americans with some degree of Indian ancestry, but not currently members of recognized tribes, would be eligible. Some 60 tribes from all parts of the country were relocated to Oklahoma in the 1800’s. Descendants of each of those tribes would be arguably entitled to create their own new governments in the states where they originated. Indian tribes and Indian Casinos would surely proliferate.

6. Do you believe that the Bill of Rights, and the essential protections it provides, is up for negotiation for any American citizen?

Answer: Yes, the Akaka bill would put the Bill of Rights of every American citizen in Hawaii and in all other states on the table as bargaining chips. If this bill should become law, it would be the first step in the breakup of the United States. Its premise is that Hawaii needs two governments: One in which everyone can vote which must become smaller and weaker; The other in which only Native Hawaiians can vote, growing more powerful as the other government shrinks away.

In the negotiation process called for by S. 310, the transfers of lands, reefs, territorial waters, power and civil and criminal jurisdiction go only one way; and are unlimited in scope or duration. The bargaining can and likely will continue slice by slice, year after year, until the State of Hawaii is all gone, and 80% of Hawaii’s citizens are put into servitude to the new Congressionally sponsored hereditary elite.

But even then it will not be over, because there are today living descendants of the indigenous people of every state. Surely they will take notice and demand their own governments.

7. How does the recognition of Native Hawaiians impact potential claims by other “indigenous groups,” such at those in the Southwest?

Answer: The impact would be ominous. Today, over 1 million American citizens residing in Hawaii are under siege by what can fairly be called an evil empire dedicated to Native Hawaiian Supremacy.

A remarkable book has revealed that America’s largest charitable trust, Kamehameha Schools Bishop Estate (KSBE), has used its $8.5 Billion in assets and vast land holdings to so corrupt the political process in the State of Hawaii that the legislative, executive and judiciary powers have been, and still seem to be, concentrated in the hands of those who facilitated a “World Record for Breaches of Trust” by trustees and others of high position, without surcharge or accountability. Broken Trust: Greed, Mismanagement & Political Manipulation at America’s Largest Charitable Trust, King and Roth, 2006.

KSBE openly flaunts its association with others in supporting passage of the Akaka bill. KSBE and its Alumni Associations of Northern and Southern California are members of CNHA, Council for Native Hawaiian Advancement,
http://www.hawaiiancouncil.org/members.html.

The http://www.nativehawaiians.com website, lists the co-conspirators: CNHA, the Kamehameha Alumni Association, the prominent entities [many under KSBE’s hegemony] that support the Akaka bill; and a number of questionable groups such as the National Council of La Raza, the organization that seeks to “liberate” the SouthWest. http://www.nativehawaiians.com/listsupport.html.

=================

Send comments or questions to:
Ken_Conklin@yahoo.com

You may now

GO TO THE INDEX OF TOPICS FOR THE HISTORY OF THE AKAKA BILL FOR THE ENTIRE 110TH CONGRESS, JANUARY 1, 2007 THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 2008, WITH LINKS TO SUBPAGES COVERING EACH PERIOD OF TIME

SEE MORE INFORMATION ABOUT THE HAWAIIAN GOVERNMENT REORGANIZATION BILL (AKAKA BILL)

GO BACK TO OTHER TOPICS ON THIS WEBSITE