History of the Hawaiian Government Reorganization bill from January 1 through March 31, 2007. Akaka bill introduced January 17, 2007 (114th anniversary of Hawaiian revolution of 1893). Important book on Hawaiian Apartheid published March 1. Stealth maneuver attempted in House Resources Committee scheduled markup of Akaka bill March 7; markup was aborted under threat of a hostile amendment. A Hawaiian housing bill was temporarily defeated March 21 on floor of U.S. House after Republican Leader warned against it for the same reasons that apply to Akaka bill; housing bill was passed March 28 after on-the-record assurances it is not a back door stealth recognition.

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

This is a subpage covering the history for the three month period January 1, 2007 through March 31, 2007. It runs about 110 pages, including news reports, editorials, commentaries, and excerpts from the Congressional Record. First an index of the contents; then the full text of each item in chronological order.

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

INDEX OF ITEMS FOR JANUARY 1, 2007 THROUGH MARCH 31, 2007. The index runs about 8 pages. Full text of each item follows the index and runs about 100 pages.

January 14, 2007: Honolulu Star-Bulletin reports Senator Akaka plans to introduce the Akaka bill very soon, and is rounding up co-sponsors. He says he plans to incorporate amendments that were proposed a few days before the failed cloture motion in June 2006, which were allegedly the product of negotiations with the Department of Justice [although DOJ denied there was any agreement]

January 17: AKAKA BILL FORMALLY INTRODUCED IN SENATE. (1) Honolulu Advertiser prints transcript of Akaka's floor speech. (2) Ken Conklin and Jere Krischel color-coded corrections and comments to the speech. (3) Senator Akaka's revised and extended speech as posted on his official U.S. Senate website, includes some comments on amendments made since last year's bill failed to survive a cloture vote on June 8. (4) SENATOR LAMAR ALEXANDER (R, TN) BRIEF FLOOR SPEECH AND PRESS RELEASE OPPOSING AKAKA BILL. (5) KGMB 9 TV news report quotes Governor Lingle sounding a bit "testy."

January 18: (1) Peter Kirsanow (U.S. Commission on Civil Rights), National Review, "Disunited States; Multiculturalism run amok" (2) Washington Business Journal (Pacific Business news) spins the Akaka bill for a business audience, saying the new version has safeguards against gambling, would protect military interests, and would not cause jurisdictional chaos of conflicting laws. (3) Associated Press, short Los Angeles Times version with interesting spin: You'd better give us what we want or else there'll be trouble! (4) Associated Press full-length version published in "The Free New Mexican" -- full length version may have been published in a newspaper with that name to appeal to readers affiliated with MEChA (Moviemento Estudiantil Chicano de Aztlan) who view the Akaka bill as paving the way for the liberation of all American residents of Mexican ancestry and all American lands that formerly belonged to Mexico, on a theory that anyone with a drop of indigenous blood (Aztec) is entitled to self-determination. (5) Honolulu Star-Bulletin (author affiliated with AP). (6) Honolulu Advertiser includes video of Senator Akaka's 9-minute speech introducing the bill in the Senate. (7) Hawaii Tribune-Herald (Hilo) fair and balanced report. (8) Hawaii Trinune Herald letter to editor from Akaka resistance leader William Burgess.

January 19: (1) Honolulu Star-Bulletin editorial "Akaka Bill's chances improve in Congress"; (2) National Review online identifies Akaka bill as its top story of the week, and calls Senator Akaka "Hawaii's John C. Calhoun" (referring to a Civil-War era secessionist Southern Senator)

January 21: Letter to editor opposing Akaka bill by Jimmy Kuroiwa, ethnic Japanese 4th generation citizen of Hawaii

January 22: Honolulu Advertiser editorial says Hawaii's people need to become better educated about the Akaka bill, and OHA is the right one to do the edu(ma)cating

January 23: Cartoonist Corky Trinidad published the follwing cartoon in the Honolulu Star-Bulletin. The cartoon had its own URL of
http://starbulletin.com/2007/01/23/news/corky.jpg

February 12: Citizens Equal Rights Alliance publishes a special newsletter on the Akaka bill for nationwide distribution.
https://www.angelfire.com/planet/bigfiles40/AkakaCERA021207.pdf

February 13: Professor John Warren Kindt publishes an article delivered to Harvard business conference entitled "Gambling's Strategic Socio-Economic Threat To National Security." His article says: "Fueled by gambling and the Akaka Bill philosophy of Native Americans as "independent sovereigns," in 2006 for example, Navajo President Joe Shirley announced "a trade agreement between two sovereign nations," the Navajos and Fidel Castro's Cuba. Tribes are using billions of gambling dollars for legal test cases and strategies expanding "tribal sovereign immunity"—superseding federal/state laws and opening U.S. borders.""
http://www.hawaiireporter.com/story.aspx?a1956736-63a9-4133-ad3d-55a36a08c4eb

On February 15, Honolulu Advertiser "breaking news" reported that Native Hawaiian programs are getting $62.5 million in legislation being sent to President Bush. The "breaking news" story includes this phrase: "the President has eliminated Native Hawaiian education and health care projects from the administration's proposed budget for the next fiscal year." However, that detail was omitted in an AP news report published February 16 in both the Honolulu Advertiser and the Honolulu Star-Bulletin.

February 16: Two articles in "Indian Country Today": (1) "Overcoming neocon campaign against Akaka Bill key for tribal rights" describes opposition to Akaka bill as actually being opposition to all Indian tribe race-based rights; (2) Members of the Republican Study Committee supported an unexpected amendment to a bill reauthorizing Native Hawaiian housing programs at a Financial Services Committee hearing in the House of Representatives Feb. 13. The rejected amendment would have said "''Nothing in this title shall be construed to confer a constitutionally special political and legal relationship, based on Native Hawaiian race or ancestry, between the United States and the Native Hawaiian people for purposes of establishing a government-to-government relationship."

February 20: Attorney Mililani Trask will offer a series of 4 lectures about pathways to Hawaiian sovereignty at University of Hawai'i. Topics include the Akaka bill, U.S. Indian law, and the United Nations draft declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples. Trask has worked for many years seeking Hawaiian sovereignty at the international level.

February 23: "Indian Country Today" article analyzes Republican opposition to Akaka bill, saying the bill's opponents are attacking race-based programs as a beginning of a campaign attacking the whole concept of tribal sovereignty. Article warns that if Akaka bill is defeated because it is race-based, then the next target will be the Alaska native groups, and then the mainland Indian tribes.

February 24: New webpage: "Road Rage or Racial Hate Crime? (Thinking carefully about an actual incident of racial violence in February 2007, and how such violence can be used as a political tool to bolster demands for Hawaiian sovereignty)" includes discussion of academic survey regarding whether violence is likely to be used as a tool to get sovereignty; and review of threats of violence made by some ethnic Hawaiian leaders; and review of Senator Akaka's threat of violence.
https://www.angelfire.com/planet/bigfiles40/RoadRageVsRacialHateCrime.html

February 27: Article in Hawaii Reporter analyzes an advertisement by OHA in Honolulu Advertiser whose purpose was to persuade everyone that "Hawaiian" properly refers to a racial group rather than to citizens of Hawai'i. "This is what the Akaka bill and OHA are asking for. They ask you to be ignorant of the multi-ethnic history of the Kingdom of Hawaii. They ask you to take an internationally recognized nation, which established equal rights over 100 years before our own civil rights movement, and to undo their progressive political acts."

March1: New book published by Ken Conklin "Hawaiian Apartheid: Racial Separatism and Ethnic Nationalism in the Aloha State." The 302 page book clearly shows how the Akaka bill fits into the "big picture" of Hawaii's racially exclusionary programs and would empower the ethnic nationalist secessionist movement. Cover, detailed table of contents, and entire Chapter 1 are at
https://www.angelfire.com/planet/bigfiles40/BookPromo.html

=========

From March 2 through March 7 a STEALTH MANEUVER was attempted and defeated. On March 2 the Congressional Record for the House included information buried in the "fine print" that H.R. 505 (the Akaka bill) had been placed on the agenda for a meeting of the House Resources Committee on March 7 at which several bills were to be "marked up" (reviewed and possibly amended, prior to being reported to the floor for action). However, the agenda for that committee is routinely placed on the Committee's website where it is easily visible to the public; and that agenda never mentioned H.R.505 among the list of numerous bills to be considered on March 7. The posted agenda is copied below, with no H.R.505 on it. No newspaper and no Hawaii politician reported that the Akaka bill was on the agenda. Then on March 7 Congressman Neil Abercrombie (D, HI) withdrew the bill from the (unpublished) agenda, claiming he was unable to attend the meeting. The attempted stealth was reported in an article in "Indian Country Today" on March 9, indicating that a hostile amendment was anticipated and perhaps that was why Abercrombie removed it from the agenda.

March 8: House Resources Committee agenda for March 7 markup meeting lists all bills discussed and includes note saying they were all reported favorably; but no mention was made of Akaka bill.

March 9: (1) "Indian Country Today" article explains removal of Akaka bill from House Resources Committee markup for March 7; (2) Article in "Indian Country Today" by Chief Maui Loa of the Hou Hawaiians claims his "tribe" already has federal recognition, and opposes Akaka bill as dilution of blood quantum to favor Asians over Hawaiians of the Blood.

==========

March 11: Book review of Kenneth Conklin, "Hawaiian Apartheid -- Racial Separatism and Ethnic Nationalism in the Aloha State" published in newspaper "West Hawaii Today" (Kona) portrays Akaka bill as intended to protect an evil empire of racial separatist programs, and divisive.

March 16: Kamehameha Schools files a brief with the U.S. Supreme Court arguing that the Court should deny a petition for certiorari, partly on the grounds that the Akaka bill is under consideration in Congress. The argument is that the mere fact that the bill is under consideration makes the Kamehameha admissions policy a "political question." In other words, merely introducing the Akaka bill should have the same effect as though it has passed.

March 22: Honolulu Advertiser and Star-Bulletin report that on March 21 a bill to provide racially exclusionary benefits for ethnic Hawaiian homeowners was defeated on the floor of the House of Representatives when it failed to get the 2/3 vote required under the rule in effect when it was brought to the floor. The bill failed after Republican Leader John Boehner sent an e-mail urging a NO vote. Boehner said ethnic Hawaiians are nothing like an Indian tribe, and race-based government benefits are unconstitutional.

March 23: Indian Country Today article provides more detail about the defeat of the Hawaiian housing bill.

March 24: Honolulu Star-Bulletin editorial laments defeat of the housing bill and once again restates the newspaper's support for the Akaka bill as a way to protect racially exclusionary programs in Hawai'i.

March 21 (as reported on March 22 and March 23): Native Hawaiian housing bill (part of Native American housing bill reauthorization) temporarily killed when it fails to get 2/3 vote needed for non-controversial legislation. Republican Leader John Boehner torpedoed it by sending e-mail to colleagues saying ethnic Hawaiians are nothing like an Indian tribe, and race-based government handouts are unconstitutional -- the same issues involved in the Akaka bill. American Samoa Delegate Eni Faleomavaega tells the same falsehood told by Inouye and Dorgan during the Senate Akaka bill debate in June 2006 -- U.S. troops overthrew the Hawaiian monarchy in 1893 (and therefore the U.S. owes ethnic Hawaiians housing assistance in 2007!).

March 26: Honolulu Advertiser Editorial says Department of Hawaiian Homelands should use other sources of revenue because federal assistance is becoming less reliable as budgets are cut.

March 27 and 28 (as reported on March 29): Native Hawaiian housing bill gets several segments of debate and two recorded votes over a two day period, in which important issues related to the Akaka bill were discussed. A rule was adopted for this bill which prohibited consideration of an amendment which would have made explicitly clear that this bill is not a back door vehicle for granting federal recognition of ethnic Hawaiian sovereignty. During the debate Rep. Abercrombie told an outright falsehood about the 9th Circuit Court decision in the Arakaki#2 lawsuit, saying that decision was a substantive one upholding the constitutionality of the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act when in fact the decision merely ruled that plaintiffs lack "standing" as state taxpayers in light of a supreme Court decision in DaimlerChrysler.

March 30: Grant Jones editorial "The Akaka Bill -- A Moral Disaster"

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

FULL TEXT OF EACH ITEM, IN CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER; about 120 pages.

http://starbulletin.com/2007/01/14/news/story06.html
Honolulu Star-Bulletin, January 14, 2007

Revival of Akaka Bill planned
The congressman is optimistic about its passage with the new Democratic majority

By Richard Borreca

WASHINGTON » U.S. Sen. Daniel Akaka will again seek passage of a native Hawaiian recognition bill possibly as early as this week, some seven months after a procedural defeat on the Senate floor. Cheered by his new Democratic majority, Akaka was rounding up signatures of both new and old supporters last week. As soon as he gets what is a politically viable number, Akaka said, he will introduce the so-called Akaka Bill.

"I wanted to drop (introduce) it this week, but there were some members I wanted for co-sponsor," Akaka said Friday.

Last year, Akaka had the backing of the Democrats, but was not able to get the 60 votes needed to stop a GOP filibuster of the measure and bring it to the floor for a vote.

Haunani Apoliona, Office of Hawaiian Affairs chairwoman, said, "It's good news that immediate introduction will be occurring."

She added: "We look forward to passage early rather than later in 2007. There's a lot at stake for the present and future of native Hawaiians."

Because it is a new piece of legislation this year, the Akaka Bill will have to go back to committee. Akaka said he is confident it will get a good reception at the Indian Affairs committee, because the new Democratic chairman, Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., "is excited about getting the bill passed."

Akaka's timetable is to have the Hawaiian recognition bill clear the Senate by as early as March. It would then have to be approved by the House before it could go to President Bush.

The measure has had a confusing legislative history since it was first introduced by Akaka and fellow Hawaii Democrat Sen. Daniel Inouye in 2000.

The bill, officially called the Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act, would recognize native Hawaiians' status as an indigenous people, and establish a process for official U.S. recognition of a future native Hawaiian representative body.

Akaka said he is optimistic after six years of delays as the bill was rejected or stalled by GOP opponents, and then blocked by a last-minute letter of objections from the Justice Department last year.

"I would say we are better off, and we are in the majority. We will have a better chance working with the majority," Akaka said.

Last year, Akaka and the administration of Republican Gov. Linda Lingle, which also supports the bill, negotiated much of the summer to meet objections from the White House and the Justice Department.

To get the bill to the floor for a vote, Akaka and Lingle had agreed to a series of amendments, which legal consultants said wouldn't change the impact of the measure, but would make it palatable to the GOP administration.

Charles Wilkinson, a University of Colorado law professor, wrote last year that the proposed amendments would still accomplish the bill's purpose. "Without question, the central thrust of the bill -- especially the overarching goal of establishing a sovereign native Hawaii government, recognized by the United States and assuming responsibility for the significant financial and land resources currently administered by state agencies -- remains completely intact," Wilkinson said in an opinion posted on the OHA Web site.

Opponents have said the Akaka Bill illegally discriminates in favor of one race and would not be constitutional, while supporters say the bill is about the former Hawaiian nation and not an ethnic group.

Akaka said his plan is to introduce a bill that incorporates the amendments, and that should be more convincing to opponents.

"The bill will include the substitute amendments that the Justice Department and the administration had concerns about," Akaka said in an interview here.

"I think the substitute amendments will show that they had a hand in this and they can't say it is unconstitutional because this bill indicates they just wanted some clarifications and they are in the bill," he said.

ON ASSIGNMENT
Honolulu Star-Bulletin Capitol Bureau Chief Richard Borreca will be filing reports from Washington, D.C., all this week on Hawaii's congressional delegation as the new Democratic majority in Congress takes power.

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

http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2007/Jan/17/br/br6384592710.html
Honolulu Advertiser, Wednesday, January 17, 2007, breaking news updated at 7:50 a.m

Sen. Akaka again introduces Hawaiian recognition bill

The following is a transcript of the introduction of the Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act of 2007. Sen. Daniel K. Akaka, D-Hawai'i, today proposed the bill on the U.S. Senate floor.

SEN. AKAKA: Mr. President, I rise today with the senior Senator from Hawaiæi to introduce the Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act of 2007. This bill which is of great importance to the people of Hawai'i, establishes a process to extend the federal policy of self-governance and self-determination to Hawaii's indigenous people. The bill provides parity in federal policies that empower our country's other indigenous peoples, American Indians and Alaska Natives, to participate in a government-to-government relationship with the United States.

Mr. President, January 17, 2007, commemorates the 114th anniversary of Hawai'i's beloved Queen Liliuokalani being deposed. Although this event may seem like a distant memory, it is a poignant event that expedited the decline of a proud and self-governing people. The overthrow facilitated Native Hawaiians being disenfranchised from not only their culture and land, but from their way of life. Native Hawaiians had to endure the forced imprisonment of their Queen and witness the deterioration and near eradication of their culture and tradition in their own homeland at the hands of foreigners committed exclusively to propagating Western values and conventions.

Today I provide my colleagues with a framework to understand the need for this legislation by briefly reviewing (1) Hawai'i's past, ancient Hawaiian society prior to Western contact, (2) Hawai'i's present, the far reaching consequences of the overthrow, and (3) Hawai'i's future.

HAWAI'I'S PAST

Few know that Hawai'i was originally settled by Polynesian voyagers arriving as early as 300 A.D, who braved immense distances guided by their extensive knowledge of navigation and understanding of the marine environment. Isolation followed the era of long voyages, enabling Native Hawaiians to develop distinct political, economic, and social structures which were mutually supportive. As stewards of the land and sea, Native Hawaiians were intimately linked to the environment and took cautious care in developing intricate methods of agriculture, aquaculture, navigation and irrigation.

HAWAI'I"S PRESENT

With an influx of foreigners into Hawai'i, Native Hawaiian populations plummeted due to the lack of immunity to common Western diseases. Those that survived witnessed foreign interest and involvement in their government grow until Queen Liliuokalani was forced by American citizens to abdicate her right to the throne. This devastated the Native Hawaiian people, forever tainting the waters of their identity and tattering the very fabric of their society. For some this injustice, this wound has never healed, manifesting itself in a sense of inferiority and hopelessness leaving many Native Hawaiians at the lowest levels of achievement by all social and economic measures.

Mr. President, 14 years ago the United States enacted the Apology Resolution (P.L.103-150), which acknowledged the 100th anniversary of the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawai'i in which the United States offered an apology to Native Hawaiians and declared its policy to support reconciliation efforts. This is a landmark declaration for it recognizes not only are Native Hawaiians the indigenous people of Hawai'i, but of the urgent need for the U.S. to actively engage in reconciliation efforts. This acknowledgement played a crucial role in initiating a healing process and although progress has been made, the path ahead is UNCERTAIN.

HAWAI'I'S FUTURE

Frustration has led to anger and festered in the hearts of Hawaii's younger generations, with each child that is taught about this period of Hawaiian history, a loss is relived. It is a burden that Native Hawaiians since the overthrow continue to carry, to know that they were violated in their own homeland and their governance was ripped away unjustly. Despite the perceived harmony, it is the generation of my grandchildren that is growing impatient and frustrated with the lack of progress being made. Influenced by a deep sadness and growing intolerance, an active minority within this generation seeks independence from the United States.

It is for this generation that I work to enact this bill so that there is the structured process to deal with these emotional issues. It is important that discussions are held and that there is a framework to guide appropriate action. For Hawaii is the homeland of the Native Hawaiian people.

Mr. President, a lack of action by the U.S. will incite and will only fuel us down a path to a DIVIDED Hawai'i. A Hawai'i where lines and boundaries will be drawn and unity severed. However, the legislation I introduce today seeks to build upon the foundation of reconciliation. It provides a structured process to bring together the people of Hawai'i, along a path of healing to a Hawaii where its indigenous people are respected and culture is embraced.

Respecting the rights of America's first peoples, American Indians, Alaska Natives, and Native Hawaiians is NOT UN-American. Through enactment of this legislation, we have the opportunity to demonstrate that our country does not just preach its ideas, but lives according to its founding principles. That the United States will admit when it has trespassed against a people and remain resolute to make amends. We demonstrate our character to ourselves and to the world by respecting the rights of our country's indigenous people. As it has for America's other indigenous peoples, I believe the United States must fulfill its responsibility to Native Hawaiians.

I ask my colleagues to join me in enacting this legislation which is of great importance to all the people of Hawai'i.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my full written statement and text of this measure be printed in the record.

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

** Text of Senator Akaka's speech at the time of introducing the Akaka bill on January 17, 2007 INTERSPERSED WITH COLOR-CODED CORRECTIONS AND COMMENTS by Jere Krischel and Ken Conklin

http://wiki.grassrootinstitute.org/mediawiki/index.php?title=2007-01-17_Akaka_Fact_Check

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

** Senator Akaka's "revised and extended" version of his speech, as published on his own official U.S. Senate website. Contains interesting comments on amendments made from the S.147 that failed a cloture vote in June 2006

http://akaka.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Speeches.Home&month=1&year=2007&release_id=1490

Introduction of the Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act of 2007 January 17, 2007

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise today with the senior Senator from Hawaii to introduce the Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act of 2007. This bill which is of great importance to the people of Hawaii, establishes a process to extend the federal policy of self-governance and self-determination to Hawaii's indigenous people. The bill provides parity in federal policies that empower our country's other indigenous peoples, American Indians and Alaska Natives, to participate in a government-to-government relationship with the United States.

Mr. President, January 17, 2007, commemorates the 114th anniversary of Hawaii's beloved Queen Liliuokalani being deposed. Although this event may seem like a distant memory, it is a poignant event that expedited the decline of a proud and self-governing people. The overthrow facilitated Native Hawaiians being disenfranchised from not only their culture and land, but from their way of life. Native Hawaiians had to endure the forced imprisonment of their Queen and witness the deterioration and near eradication of their culture and tradition in their own homeland, at the hands of foreigners committed exclusively to propagating Western values and conventions.

While Congress has traditionally treated Native Hawaiians in a manner parallel to American Indians and Alaska Natives, the federal policy of self-governance and self-determination has not been formally extended to Native Hawaiians. The bill itself does not extend federal recognition - it authorizes the process for federal recognition.

The Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act of 2007 does three things: (1) It authorizes an office in the Department of the Interior to serve as a liaison between Native Hawaiians and the United States; (2) It forms an interagency coordinating group composed of officials from federal agencies who currently administer programs and services impacting Native Hawaiians; and (3) It authorizes a process for the reorganization of the Native Hawaiian governing entity for the purposes of a federally recognized government-to-government relationship.

Once the Native Hawaiian governing entity is recognized, the bill establishes an inclusive, democratic negotiations process representing both Native Hawaiians and non-Native Hawaiians. Negotiations between the Native Hawaiian entity and the federal and state governments may address issues such as the transfer of lands, assets, and natural resources and jurisdiction over such lands, assets, and natural resources, as well as other longstanding issues resulting from the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii. Any transfers of governmental authority or power will require implementing legislation at the state and federal levels.

The Hawaii Congressional Delegation has devoted much time and careful consideration into crafting this legislation. 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 August 2000, the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs and the House Committee on Resources held joint field hearings on the legislation in Hawaii for five days. While the bill passed the U.S. House of Representatives in the 106th Congress, the Senate failed to take action. The bill was subsequently considered by the 107th, 108th, and 109th Congresses. In each Congress, the bill has been favorably reported by the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs and its companion measure has been favorably reported by the House Committee on Resources in the 106th through the 108th Congress.

Mr. President, most recently in the 109th Congress clarifications were made to the bill. I want to inform my colleagues to the fact that this bill is identical to legislative language negotiated between Senator Inouye and myself, and officials from the Department of Justice, Office of Management and Budget, and the White House. The language satisfactorily addresses concerns expressed in July 2005 by the Bush Administration regarding the liability of the United States in land claims, the impact of the bill on military readiness, gaming, and civil and criminal jurisdiction in Hawaii.

LIABILITY OF THE UNITED STATES

With respect to liability of the United States as it relates to land claims, as the author of the Apology Resolution (P.L. 103-150) as well as the Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act, I have always maintained that this legislation is not intended to serve as a settlement of any claims nor as a cause of action for any claims. The negotiated language makes clear that any grievances regarding historical wrongs committed against Native Hawaiians by the United States or by the State of Hawaii are to be addressed in the negotiations process between the Native Hawaiian governing entity and federal and state governments.

MILITARY READINESS

As a senior member of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, as well as the incoming Chairman on the Subcommittee on Readiness and Management of the Senate Committee on Armed Services, military readiness for our Armed Forces is of great importance to me. Due to concerns raised by the Department of Defense (DoD) to the consultation requirements expected to be facilitated by the Office of Native Hawaiian Relations in the Department of the Interior and the Native Hawaiian Interagency Coordinating Group; negotiated language exempts the Department from these consultation requirements. However, these exemptions do not alter nor terminate requirements of the DoD to consult with Native Hawaiians under the Native Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), and other existing statutes.

GAMING

Mr. President, the bill does not authorize gaming by the Native Hawaiian governing entity. Negotiated language clarifies that gaming may not be conducted by Native Hawaiians or the Native Hawaiian governing entity as a matter of claimed inherent authority or under the authority of any federal laws or regulations promulgated by the Secretary of the Interior or the National Indian Gaming Commission. The bill also makes clear that the prohibition applies to any efforts to establish gaming by Native Hawaiians and the Native Hawaiian governing entity in Hawaii and in any other State or Territory. This language only applies to efforts to establish gaming operations as a matter of inherent authority as indigenous peoples or under federal laws pertaining to gaming by native peoples.

CIVIL AND CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

The bill makes clear that civil and criminal jurisdiction currently held by the federal and state governments will remain with the federal and state governments unless otherwise negotiated and implementing legislation is enacted.

I have described the clarifications that have been made so my colleagues know that our negotiations with the Administration have been successful. This language has been publicly available since September 2005 and has been widely distributed. Although such clarifications have been made, I am proud to report that the bill remains true to its intent and purpose -- to clarify the existing legal and political relationship between Hawaii's indigenous people, Native Hawaiians and the United States.

Along with our efforts to work with the Bush Administration; during the past 4 years, we have worked closely with Hawaii's first Republican governor in 40 years, Governor Linda Lingle to enact this legislation. We have also worked closely with the Hawaii State legislature which has passed three resolutions unanimously in support of federal recognition for Native Hawaiians. I am pleased to announce today that I am again joined by members from both sides of the aisle to introduce this important measure. I mention this, to underscore the fact that this is bipartisan legislation.

In addition to its widespread support by both Native Hawaiians and non-Native Hawaiians in Hawaii, in resolutions adopted by the oldest and largest national Indian organization, the National Congress of American Indians, and the largest organization representing the Native people of Alaska, the Alaska Federation of Natives, the members of both groups have consistently expressed their strong support for enactment of a bill to provide for recognition by the United States of a Native Hawaiian governing entity. Organizations such as the American Bar Association, Japanese American Citizen League, and the National Indian Education Association have also passed resolutions in support of federal recognition for Hawaii's indigenous peoples.

Today I provide my colleagues with a framework to understand the need for this legislation by briefly reviewing (1) Hawaii's past, ancient Hawaiian society prior to Western contact, (2) Hawaii's present, the far reaching consequences of the overthrow, and (3) Hawaii's future.

HAWAII'S PAST

Hawaii was originally settled by Polynesian voyagers arriving as early as 300 A.D, 12-hundred years before Europe's great explorers Magellan and Columbus. The Hawaiians braved immense distances guided by their extensive knowledge of navigation and understanding of the marine environment. Isolation followed the era of long voyages, enabling Native Hawaiians to develop distinct political, economic, and social structures which were mutually supportive. As stewards of the land and sea, Native Hawaiians were intimately linked to the environment and they developed innovative methods of agriculture, aquaculture, navigation and irrigation.

HAWAII'S PRESENT

With an influx of foreigners into Hawaii, Native Hawaiian populations plummeted due to death from common Western diseases. Those that survived witnessed foreign interest and involvement in their government grow until Queen Liliuokalani was forced by American citizens to abdicate her right to the throne. This devastated the Native Hawaiian people, forever tainting the waters of their identity and tattering the very fabric of their society. For some this injustice, this wound has never healed, manifesting itself in a sense of inferiority and hopelessness leaving many Native Hawaiians at the lowest levels of achievement by all social and economic measures.

Mr. President, 14 years ago the United States enacted the Apology Resolution (P.L.103-150), which acknowledged the 100th anniversary of the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii in which the United States offered an apology to Native Hawaiians and declared its policy to support reconciliation efforts. This is a landmark declaration for it recognizes not only are Native Hawaiians the indigenous people of Hawaii, but of the urgent need for the U.S. to actively engage in reconciliation efforts. This acknowledgement played a crucial role in initiating a healing process and although progress has been made, the path ahead is UNCERTAIN.

HAWAII'S FUTURE

Mr. President, a lack of action by the U.S. will only incite and fuel us down a path to a DIVIDED Hawaii. A Hawaii where lines and boundaries are drawn and unity severed. However, the legislation I introduce today seeks to build upon the foundation of reconciliation. It provides a structured process to bring together the people of Hawaii, along a path of healing to a Hawaii where its indigenous people are respected and culture is embraced.

I am proud of the fact that this bill respects the rights of Hawaii's indigenous peoples through a process that is consistent with federal law, and it provides the structured process for the people of Hawaii to address the longstanding issues which have plagued both Native Hawaiians and non-Native Hawaiians since the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii. We have an established record of the United States' commitment to the reconciliation with Native Hawaiians. This legislation is another step building upon that foundation and honoring that commitment.

I ask my colleagues to join me in enacting this legislation which is of great importance to all the people of Hawaii.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my full written statement and text of this measure be printed in the record.

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

** Press release and floor speech by U.S. Senator Lamar Alexander (R, TN) opposing the Akaka bill, January 17, 2007, as posted on Senator Alexander's own official U.S. Senate website

http://www.alexander.senate.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressReleases.Detail&PressRelease_Id=1089

ALEXANDER OPPOSES NATIVE HAWAIIAN LEGISLATION

January 17th, 2007 - WASHINGTON, D.C. -

Senator Lamar Alexander (R-TN), responding to the reintroduction of the Native Hawaiian Reorganization Act by Senator Daniel Akaka (D-HI), announced his opposition and placed the following statement in the Congressional Record:

On the Introduction of the Native Hawaiian Reorganization Act

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, today the Senator from Hawaii reintroduced the Native Hawaiian Reorganization Act, a bill that would create a new, race-based government within the borders of the United States. I strongly oppose this bill. This legislation was considered and rejected by the Senate last year; we ought not waste one moment of the Senate's time on it this year. Instead, we should consider legislation that unites us all as Americans. Our nation must remain ‘one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all' – not many nations, divided by race, with special privileges for some. Here are four reasons this bill should be stopped in its tracks:

1. It would create a new, sovereign government within our borders.

2. As noted by the U.S. Civil Rights Commission, the bill "would discriminate on the basis of race or national origin."

3. The bill is really about transferring control over "land" and "other assets" to this new, race-based government.

4. Native Hawaiians are not just "another Indian tribe" since they do not meet the requirements under current law of being sovereign for the last 100 years, living as a separate and distinct community, and having a preexisting political organization.

I hope my colleagues will join me in opposing this dangerous piece of legislation

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

http://www.kgmb9.com/kgmb/display.cfm?storyID=10197
KGMB 9 TV, January 17, 2007

The Akaka Bill is Back

Senator Daniel Akaka is once again trying to get Federal recognition for Native Hawaiians. Seven months after the Akaka bill failed to get a vote in the Senate, the Hawaii Senator reintroduced it Wednesday. He says it will have a better chance of passage this time with democratic majority in both houses of Congress, and Hawaii lawmakers agree.

"When he and I spoke Tuesday on the telephone, I made it very clear to him that while I like to be a part of this effort, it's going to have to be done differently from last time," said Governor Linda Lingle.

In a written statement, Senator Daniel Inouye says, "I am pleased to join my colleague, Senator Akaka, as a co-sponsor. We have every confidence that the Native Hawaiian people will take their rightful place in the family of governments that makes up our constitutional system of governance."

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

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NTE0MmUwNjE5ODYxMWQxY2ExMTc3ZmU0OGY3Yzk1YzE=
National Review Online, January 18, 2007

Disunited States
Multiculturalism run amok.

By Peter Kirsanow

The worst piece of legislation ever analyzed by the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights has been brought back from the dead and may be enacted in the next few weeks.

On Wednesday, Senator Daniel Akaka reintroduced the Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act, also known as the Akaka Bill.

The bill died in the Senate last June when the administration came out against it. Assistant Attorney General William Moschella wrote then Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist that "[t]he Administration strongly opposes passage of [the Akaka Bill]. As noted recently by the U.S. Civil Rights Commission, the bill risks ‘further subdivid(ing) the American people into discrete subgroups accorded varying degrees of privilege.' As the President has said, ‘we must…honor the great American tradition of the melting pot, which has made us one nation out of many peoples" (ellipsis in the original).

A cloture vote on the bill failed 56-41, just four votes shy of the 60 necessary for a final vote. Thirteen Republicans voted in favor of cloture.

The cloture vote took place on June 8, 2006, when Republicans held a 55-44 Senate majority. Now, with seven more Democrat or Democrat-leaning senators, cloture is likely to succeed and the prospects for final passage of the bill appear bright. (Simply because a senator votes for cloture doesn't necessarily mean he will vote for final passage of the bill, but the odds aren't bad.)

The bill was a terrible idea seven months ago. Nothing's changed to make it more acceptable today.

The bill authorizes the creation of a race- based government (the Native Hawaiian Governing Entity (NHGE) for the estimated 400,000 Native Hawaiians living throughout the United States. That government is empowered to negotiate with the U.S. government regarding a broad range of issues, including matters related to criminal and civil jurisdiction, civil-rights protections, the delegation of powers from the U.S. to the NHGE, and the transfer of land, natural resources, and other assets. These negotiations would be carried out by members of the NHGE who've been certified as Native Hawaiian. The bill defines Native Hawaiian as someone who is (1) a direct lineal descendent of the indigenous peoples who resided on what is now Hawaii on or before January 1, 1893 and who occupied and exercised sovereignty over such area; or (2) one of the native peoples of Hawaii who was eligible in 1921 for programs authorized by the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act or is a direct lineal descendant of such individual.

A nine-member commission decides who qualifies as Native Hawaiian. Aside from the obvious potential for fraud, the entire racial-identification mechanism is fundamentally repugnant, implicating the odious "one drop rule" contained in the racial-segregation codes of the 19th and early 20th centuries. That, combined with some of the other predicates to creation of the NHGE, renders the act's constitutionality suspect under the Supreme Court's decision in Rice v. Cayetano.

The bases for recognition extended to sovereign Indian tribes are different from those contemplated by the bill for Native Hawaiians. The bill doesn't require a showing of historical political continuity, cultural cohesiveness, geographical continuity, or autonomous community. Rather, race combined with an assertion of prior rule by an entity other than the U.S. are the primary prerequisites for sovereignty.

Given that the bill would confer sovereignty primarily on the basis of race untethered to traditional indices of tribal status, it would be surprising if other races/ethnicities didn't follow the example of the bill. What prevents, say, Acadians, Cajuns, or Mexican Americans from doing the same?

Last year the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights held a hearing on the Akaka Bill. One of the commission's findings was that the bill appears to be an effort to preserve the racial-preference system administered on behalf of native Hawaiians by the Office of Hawaiian Affairs.

This creates a Pandora's Box. Loose standards for racial/ethnic sovereignty combined with the potential distribution of racial preferences by a newly recognized sovereign may prove to be a strong incentive for other racial and ethnic groups to establish their own governments wherever members of such groups are concentrated.

Furthermore, the bill promises to be the source of abundant lawsuits. Section 8 (c) (1) of the bill provides as follows:

Nothing in this Act serves as a settlement of any claim against the United States.

That provision should be a huge red flag to sober-minded senators; effectively an earmark to end all earmarks. Section 8 ( c ) (1) is a function of the 1993 Apology Resolution in which Congress, on behalf of the United States, apologized to the Native Hawaiian people for the 1893 overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom. The Resolution implicates a host of possible claims against the U.S. for losses and "ramifications" related to such overthrow. The statute of limitations for bringing any claim is a full 20 years from the date the U.S. recognizes the NHGE.

There are innumerable constitutional and policy issues raised by the bill. It merits the same fate this year as last.

— Peter Kirsanow is a member of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. He is also a member of the National Labor Relations Board. These comments do not necessarily reflect the positions of either organization.

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

** Article spins the Akaka bill for a business audience, saying the new version has safeguards against gambling, would protect military interests, and would not cause jurisdictional chaos of conflicting laws.

http://washington.bizjournals.com/pacific/stories/2007/01/15/daily35.html
Washington Business Journal, DC; January 18, 2006
[** apparently taken from Pacific Business News (Honolulu) - 8:43 PM HAST Wednesday]

New Akaka Bill has different features

The newest version of the Akaka Bill, introduced Wednesday, includes language negotiated with the Bush administration in 2005, the office of Sen. Daniel Akaka (D-Hawaii) said Wednesday night.

"The bill would begin a process to form a Native Hawaiian governing entity that could negotiate with the state and federal government on behalf of Hawaii's indigenous people. No jurisdiction would be taken from the state or federal government without further legislation," Akaka's office said.

The senator's office said the negotiated language makes clear that the bill does not authorize gaming by the Native Hawaiian governing entity.

The Department of Defense is exempt from consultation requirements contained in the bill, but obligations under existing statues, including the Native Graves Protection and Repatriation Act and the National Historic Preservation Act remain.

As the bill is written, any grievances regarding historical wrongs committed against Native Hawaiians by the United States or by the state of Hawaii are to be addressed in the negotiations process between the Native Hawaiian governing entity and federal and state governments, not through the courts.

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

** Associated Press usually sends a full-length news report to all the newspapers that subscribe to it. Different newspapers then publish different portions of the report, depending on how much space they have and what sort of "spin" they want to put on the story. First, a very short version published in the Los Angeles Times which emphasizes Senator Akaka's warning: If you don't give us what we want, there'll be trouble. Next, what appears to be the full-length report, published in "The Free New Mexican" which perhaps has readers affiliated with MEChA (Moviemento Estudiantil Chicano de Aztlan) who view the Akaka bill as paving the way for the liberation of all American lands that formerly belonged to Mexico and all Americans of Mexican ancestry, on a theory that anyone with a drop of indigenous blood (Aztec) is entitled to self-determination. Then the story published in the Honolulu Star-Bulletin, where the author, Alexandre Da Silva, has previously published in his capacity as a reporter for AP.

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

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-hawaii18jan18,1,4634940.story?coll=la-headlines-nation
Los Angeles Times, January 18, 2007

Hawaii bill reintroduced

From the Associated Press

WASHINGTON — Hawaii Sen. Daniel K. Akaka warned fellow senators on Wednesday that failure to adopt his bill to grant Native Hawaiians federal recognition could lead to a "divided Hawaii," with many young Hawaiians wanting the islands to become a separate nation.

The Democrat reintroduced his Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act in a Congress controlled by Democrats for the first time in 12 years.

An identical bill was introduced in the House by Democratic Reps. Neil Abercrombie and Mazie K. Hirono, both of Hawaii.

"Despite the perceived harmony, it is the generation of my grandchildren that is growing impatient and frustrated with the lack of progress being made," said Akaka, 82. "Influenced by a deep sadness and growing intolerance, an active minority within this generation seeks independence from the United States."

** A similar article made it all the way to Paris, France, where it got published in the International Herald-Tribune of January 18.
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/01/18/america/NA-GEN-US-Hawaiian-Recognition.php

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

http://www.freenewmexican.com/news/55397.html
Free New Mexican, January 18, 2007

Bill granting federal recognition to Native Hawaiians re-introduced in Senate

By BRIAN CHARLTON | Associated Press

HONOLULU (AP) - Hawaii Sen. Daniel Akaka warned the U.S. Senate Wednesday that failure to adopt his bill to grant Native Hawaiians federal recognition could lead to a "divided Hawaii," with many young Hawaiians wanting the islands to become a separate nation.

After years of failing to overcome mostly Republican opposition to the Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act, the Democratic senator reintroduced his legislation to Congress controlled by Democrats for the first time in 12 years.

An identical bill was introduced in the House, where Hawaiian recognition legislation has passed before.

In the text of a Senate floor speech provided by his Washington office, Akaka said "a lack of action will only fuel us down a path of a divided Hawaii."

Akaka scheduled the introduction on the 114th anniversary of the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii and the 14th anniversary of the United States offering an apology to Native Hawaiians by declaring support for reconciliation efforts.

"The overthrow facilitated Native Hawaiians being disenfranchised from not only their culture and land, but from their way of life," he said.

Akaka said young Hawaiians have grown frustrated and many feel they were "violated in their own homeland and their governance was ripped away unjustly."

The legislation would build reconciliation by providing a structured process to bring together the people of Hawaii so the indigenous people could gain respect and embrace their culture, he said.

The measure also would protect programs that help Hawaiians receive affordable housing, preserve their culture and seek government financial support.

Akaka said the bill authorizes an office in the Department of the Interior to serve as a liaison between Native Hawaiians and the United States, forms an interagency coordinating group composed of officials who currently administer programs and services to Hawaiians and authorizes a process for the reorganization of the governing entity.

It was referred to the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs. The House bill was introduced by Hawaii Reps. Neil Abercrombie and Mazie Hirono.

"This measure gives the Native Hawaiian community the tools to guide its own destiny and manage the lands and assets set aside for it by law," Abercrombie said in a statement. "Native Hawaiians fully deserve a seat at the table and a direct voice on issues critical to their well being and cultural identity."

The effort comes seven months after the bill failed to get a final vote in the Republican-controlled Senate. All votes against considering it were from Republicans.

The legislation, nicknamed the Akaka Bill, is part of a seven-year push for legislation to recognize Native Hawaiians as indigenous inhabitants of the 50th state _ a legal status similar to that of American Indians and Alaskan Natives.

"Respecting the rights of America's first peoples, American Indians, Alaska Natives, and Native Hawaiians is not un-American," Akaka said in the speech.

The bill provides a process to set up a Native Hawaiian governing body and then start negotiations to transfer some power and property from state and federal authorities to Hawaiians. The form of the ruling body and the amount of public land to be granted would be decided later.

The bill fell short on a 56-41 procedural vote that required 60 votes to keep it on the Senate floor in June. Now, with a Democratic majority in both the House and Senate, Akaka says the legislation could have a better shot at passage. But it still might need 60 votes if Republicans decide to stage a filibuster. It could also face a veto from President Bush.

The legislation introduced Wednesday is identical to the bill Akaka negotiated with the Bush administration in 2005, but a different version then was debated in the full Senate because the "amendments" were left off when the Republican-controlled Senate passed them out of committee.

The added sections specifically say that gambling is banned in Hawaii, that individual wouldn't be able to sue the government on land disputes as the Hawaiian entity would handle those disputes, and that the Department of Defense would have no additional requirements for Hawaiians.

Some Hawaiian groups have opposed federal recognition because they say it will place them under the authority of the U.S. government and stop the drive toward sovereignty. Others simply say it would create a race-based, sovereign sub-nation within the United States.

"It sounds like the bill is the same outrageously bad idea it has been since it was first introduced seven years ago," said Honolulu attorney H. William Burgess, who has been a longtime critic of the bill. "It would sponsor a separate government for one race; break up and give away much of the state of Hawaii; set a dangerous precedent for the United States and almost certainly lead to secession."

There are about 400,000 people of Native Hawaiian ancestry nationwide, and 260,000 of them live in Hawaii. No one would be required to join the Hawaiian body provided for under the bill.

"From the standpoint of making right and reconciling the past for a better future we must step forward, especially Native Hawaiians," said Haunani Apoliona, chairwoman of the state Office of Hawaiian Affairs, which has tried to rally support for the legislation.

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

http://starbulletin.com/2007/01/18/news/story05.html
Honolulu Star-Bulletin, January 18, 2007

Akaka says revised bill can pass this term
Opponents doubt the changes will swing enough votes

By Alexandre Da Silva

U.S. Sen. Daniel Akaka reintroduced a bill yesterday to grant native Hawaiians their own government, saying this time the Democratic majority in Congress gives him hope the revised measure will finally pass.

Akaka, whose legislation has been blocked for six years, expects it to have a smooth ride out of the Senate Indian Affairs Committee, chaired by Sen. Byron Dorgan, a fellow Democrat from North Dakota.

"We are the majority in the Senate, and therefore we can move the bill in a way that we couldn't," said Akaka, who wants the bill considered by the committee next month. "We have more control. Although the numbers are close, 51 to 49, we have that edge."

The 82-year-old Akaka timed his Senate floor speech to coincide with the 114th anniversary of the overthrow of Queen Liliuokalani in 1893. That event, Akaka said, "expedited the decline of a proud and self-governing people" and "facilitated native Hawaiians being disenfranchised from not only their culture and land, but from their way of life."

The so-called Akaka Bill, also known as the Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act, would create a "government-to-government" relationship that would address issues such as the transfer of lands, assets and natural resources.

The bill was reworked to address concerns raised in 2005 by the Bush administration as well as by lawmakers who felt it was racist and unconstitutional. The revisions clarify that civil and criminal jurisdiction currently held by federal and state governments will remain intact, and that the bill does not authorize gambling in the islands. The new language also says grievances having to do with historical wrongs against native Hawaiians should go through federal and state governments instead of the courts.

Opponents, however, doubt the changes are enough to get the measure passed.

"I don't think the bill will get any more favorable consideration, just because it is really such an outrageously bad bill," said William Burgess, an attorney with the group Aloha for All. "It would sponsor a separate government for one race; it would break up and give away much of the state of Hawaii; it would set a dangerous precedent for the United States; and it would almost certainly lead to secession."

Burgess's objections were echoed by Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., who said the bill "is really about transferring control over land and other assets to this new, race-based government."

"I strongly oppose this bill," Alexander wrote in a statement posted on his Web site. "Our nation must remain 'one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all' -- not many nations, divided by race, with special privileges for some."

The Office of Hawaiian Affairs welcomed the bill's introduction with a symbolic news conference behind Iolani Palace, where the overthrow of the Hawaiian kingdom happened.

"We urge all peoples of Hawaii, native Hawaiians and those who love Hawaii, to join us in seeking what is right for native Hawaiians," said Chairwoman Haunani Apoliona, noting the bill would help shield Hawaiian programs like OHA from lawsuits. "There's a lot at stake for the present and for the future of native Hawaiians."

Gov. Linda Lingle, who traveled to Washington, D.C., last year to lobby for the bill, said she had called Akaka to tell him she would help again.

"I made it very clear to him that while I would like to be a part of that effort, I would like it to be differently than last time," she said. "We have to have a coordinated strategy going in that sets up a battle plan in order to get this adopted, rather than everyone doing their own thing."

In June the proposed legislation suffered a procedural defeat and did not reach the Senate floor. Akaka had the backing of the Democrats but was not able to get the 60 votes needed to stop a GOP filibuster of the measure.

If the bill moves out of the Indian Affairs Committee and clears the Senate, it would then have to be approved by the House before it could go to President Bush.

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

http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070118/NEWS23/701180350/1001/NEWS
Honolulu Advertiser, Thursday, January 18, 2007

Akaka bill foes ready for new fight

By Dennis Camire and Gordon Y.K. Pang

Hawai'i lawmakers are banking on the new Democratic leadership in Congress to help push the Native Hawaiian recognition bill over the top, but the bill's critics say they, the Bush administration and other opposition remain ready to block its passage.

Sponsors in the House and Senate introduced a version of the bill yesterday for the seventh straight year.

U.S. Sen. Dan Akaka, D-Hawai'i, the bill's lead Senate sponsor, said he believes the measure — with four Democratic and four Republican co-sponsors — has a better chance than ever before to get through the Senate, where Democrats now hold a 51-49 majority.

"Our side has been firm with supporting my bill, but we've never had the numbers," Akaka said. "Now we have the numbers."

Noting the 114th anniversary of the overthrow of the kingdom of Hawai'i on Jan. 17, 1893, Akaka said yesterday on the Senate floor that the bill "provides a structured process to bring together the people of Hawai'i along a path of healing to a Hawai'i where its indigenous people are respected and culture is embraced."

Democratic Reps. Neil Abercrombie and Mazie Hirono of Hawai'i introduced the bill in the House.

"Native Hawaiians should have the same rights to self-determination and self-governance enjoyed by the other indigenous people of the United States," Hirono said.

The bill is similar to a previous version that included revisions designed to meet concerns raised by the U.S. Department of Justice on behalf of the Bush administration.

CONTINUED CONCERNS

Despite the revisions, the Justice Department issued a letter the week before a key vote last June raising continued concerns about the bill's constitutionality and other issues.

Sen. Daniel K. Inouye, D-Hawai'i, was blunt about the effort that will be put behind the measure this year.

"We are going to do our damnedest to get it through," he said.

But Senate Republicans showed no sign yesterday of backing down from their opposition to the bill.

"This is a bill that should not pass," said Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., an ardent opponent. "The circumstances (with Democratic control) are different now, but I will do what I can to ensure that it does not pass."

Video: Akaka reintroduces Hawaiian recognition bill

http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070118/VIDEO/70118005/1001/NEWS

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

http://www.hawaiitribune-herald.com/articles/2007/01/18/local_news/local03.txt
Hawaii Tribune-Herald (Hilo), Thursday, January 18, 2007

Revived legislation draws a mixed reaction locally

by Nancy Cook Lauer
Stephens Honolulu Bureau

HONOLULU -- Local reaction was mixed Wednesday to the reintroduction of U.S. Sen. Daniel Akaka's bill paving the way for federal recognition of Native Hawaiians.

Akaka, a Democrat, introduced the bill, which was referred to the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, on the 114th anniversary of the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii and the 14th anniversary of a U.S. apology that declared support for reconciliation efforts. Hawaii representatives, both Democrats, introduced a companion bill in the House.

"Frustration has led to anger and festered in the hearts of Hawaii's younger generations, with each child that is taught about this period of Hawaiian history, a loss is relived," Akaka said in prepared text. "It is a burden that native Hawaiians since the overthrow continue to carry, to know that they were violated in their own homeland and their governance was ripped away unjustly."

Akaka says the bill is needed so "there will be a structured process to deal with these emotional issues," or the state will become divided.

In June, a similar bill failed to be taken up by the Republican-controlled Senate on a 56-41 vote. The new bill has had some changes to make it more acceptable to the Bush administration, Akaka staff said.

The added sections specifically say gambling is banned in the state, that individuals wouldn't be able to sue the government over land disputes and the Department of Defense would have no additional requirements for Hawaiians. No jurisdiction would be taken from the state or federal government without further legislation.

Office of Hawaiian Affairs Chairwoman Haunani Apoliona held a news conference praising Akaka's bill at the deposed Queen Liliuokalani's statute behind Iolani Palace, the scene of the overthrow.

"This is the right time for federal recognition," Apoliona said. "This bill is part of a long road to reconciliation."

But Native Hawaiians gathered on the palace grounds themselves couldn't disagree more. The group, calling themselves subjects of the Hawaiian Kingdom, posted signs around the grounds declaring themselves exempt from U.S. law.

"It's just perpetuating the crime," said Mahealani, who said she uses no last name, the head of state for the Hawaiian Kingdom. "It's not good for us. It's just trying to give us a little to pacify us. It's an insult, really."

Some non-Hawaiians don't like the bill either. Ken Conklin, a retired philosophy professor from Boston, is a longtime opponent.

"It would authorize federal recognition for a phony Indian tribe invented out of thin air," Conklin said. "Twenty percent of Hawaii's people, completely integrated and intermarried, living, working and praying side-by-side with everyone else throughout all neighborhoods, would be singled out by law solely because they have a drop of native blood and given a new government."

The Democratically controlled state House and Senate and Republican Gov. Linda Lingle have supported the Akaka bill over the years.

But Lingle told reporters she urged Akaka in a telephone conversation Tuesday to have a "battle plan" to ensure success this time.

"Introducing it is OK, but that doesn't get it adopted. That doesn't move us toward protecting the Hawaiian programs and allowing the Hawaiian people to finally have responsibility for their own assets," Lingle said. "We need a more comprehensive strategy going in -- it can't be everyone off doing their own thing."

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

http://www.hawaiitribune-herald.com/articles/2007/01/18/opinion/your_views/letters03.txt
Hawaii Tribune-Herald (Hilo), Thursday, January 18, 2007
Letter to editor

Akaka: Still a bad idea

As expected, the Akaka bill (Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act of 2007) was introduced Wednesday, the 114th anniversary of the overthrow of Queen Liliuokalani.

Cutting through the good senator's nice words, it sounds like the bill is the same outrageously bad idea it has been since it was first introduced seven years ago. It would sponsor a separate government for one race, break up and give away much of the state of Hawaii, set a dangerous precedent for the United States, and almost certainly lead to secession.

As Henry V said before the battle of Agincourt, "Once more onto the breach, dear friends."

H. William Burgess
Honolulu

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

http://starbulletin.com/2007/01/19/editorial/editorial02.html
Honolulu Star-Bulletin, January 19, 2007
EDITORIAL

Akaka Bill's chances improve in Congress

THE ISSUE
Sen. Daniel Akaka again has introduced a bill that would grant Hawaiians federal recognition as a sovereign nation.

SEN. Daniel Akaka has good reason to be optimistic about Senate approval of his bill granting federal recognition to a Hawaiian government. Questions remain about sentiment in the House and the ability to override a potential veto by President Bush, but the attempt is worthwhile.

Proponents of the bill fell four votes short in June of reaching the 60 votes needed for cloture to break a filibuster and bring the Akaka Bill to a Senate vote on its substance. All Senate Democrats voted for cloture, and their numbers, including an independent, have risen since then from 45 to 51. All 13 of the Republicans who voted for cloture are back, although they include chief opponent Sen. John Kyl of Arizona, who had agreed to stop blocking it from consideration.

The Senate's new makeup should overcome any attempted filibuster. The bill never has been put to a recorded vote in the House, which has been more socially conservative than the Senate in recent years.

The Bush administration stated its opposition to the bill on the eve of last year's Senate vote, maintaining that it would "divide people by their race." Although the bill would limit membership in the sovereign nation to those who can trace their ancestry in the islands prior to Captain James Cook's arrival in 1778, Congress has broad authority to decide the characteristics of sovereignty.

Rep. Neil Abercrombie suggested before last year's election that the Akaka Bill be changed by extending membership in the sovereign nation to all people who can trace their lineage to anyone living in Hawaii at the time of the 1893 overthrow. The bill's opponents point out that the Hawaiian monarchy at that time was multiracial.

Such a change would anger many Hawaiians, even though few non-Hawaiians are able to claim Hawaii lineage to 1893 because of cross-racial marriages. Such a change in the bill should be considered only as a last resort.

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

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZDI4ZDY0YTZjNjM1YzRiYjQwMDdjMjYzMGY0ZWI2Yzc=
The National Review online

Window on the Week — 1/19/07

By The Editors

EDITOR'S NOTE: "Window on The Week" acts as our weekly, quick-and-punchy, "between-the-issues" survey of some of the hot topics of the day. "Window on The Week" gives you a sense of what "The Week" — a popular feature that appears fortnightly in National Review — looks like.

** Ken Conklin's note: The #1 item at the top of a long list is the Akaka bill.

Hawaii's John C. Calhoun, Sen. Daniel Akaka, is sponsoring, for the second time, legislation that would hand over sovereignty of our island state to native Hawaiians. Akaka seeks to create what he calls the Native Hawaiian Governing Entity, a race-based government that would deal with Washington on issues legal, fiscal, and otherwise. "Native Hawaiians" — a group presumably to be based on blood, although it will be up to a nine-member panel to supply a precise definition — are in the minority on the island, but Akaka's bill would nevertheless grant them a racial oligarchy, and in theory the right to secede from the union. Even if it never comes to that, the bill is an affront to anyone who believes in E pluribus unum.

===========

http://starbulletin.com/2007/01/21/editorial/letters.html
Honolulu Star-Bulletin, January 21, 2007

Akaka Bill would divide multiethnic families

I will passionately oppose the Akaka Bill, for it will separate my ohana by race.

Our great-grandparents arrived in Hawaii from Kumamoto, Japan, during King Kalakaua's reign and our grandmother was born in Hawaii the year Queen Liliuokalani was overthrown by subjects of the kingdom.

My family residing in Hawaii prior to 1893 does not change my opposition on the Akaka Bill and does not change my deep-rooted belief that we are one people in Hawaii as Americans.

The recorded history of Feb. 26, 1894, was when the U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations presented its report (Morgan Report) on the floor of the Senate clearing the United States and Minister John Stevens of being complicit in the Jan. 17, 1893, overthrow.
(libweb.hawaii.edu/digicoll/annexation/annexation.html)

The recorded history and U.S. Court of Claims records dated May 16, 1910, decided that the Crown Lands are part of the Government Lands and belonged to all the people of Hawaii.

The Akaka Bill is extremely offensive and will divide Hawaii by race.

Jimmy Kuroiwa
Honolulu

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

http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070122/OPINION01/701220301/1105/OPINION
Honolulu Advertiser, Monday, January 22, 2007
EDITORIAL

Public needs briefing on new Akaka bill

The partisan climate of chilly Washington, in which the embattled Akaka bill is trying to sprout again, has grown a bit warmer with the Democratic tilt in both the House and Senate. This should give hope to those who support this push to grant federal recognition to Native Hawaiians as a political class.

At home, however, there's lots of work to do. There's just as much general confusion about the meaning of the bill as there was before November's election.

Sen. Daniel Akaka has re-introduced his namesake bill, known more formally as the Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act, now assigned the bill number S. 310. It's identical to last session's failed S. 147, except that it includes the amendments suggested by the Department of Justice.

These include limitations on the powers that a Native Hawaiian government could have, including authorizing gambling here.

It makes sense to move the bill in a form that has been vetted by as many people on both sides of the aisle as possible. A Democratic majority in both chambers improves its chances but does not guarantee them; even less clear are the prospects for a Bush administration veto.

Turning the clock back seven years to where deliberations began, at hearings held in Hawai'i, would be pointless. But there's a growing feeling that Hawai'i residents, Hawaiian and non-Hawaiian, feel estranged from the entire process.

At the very least, the Office of Hawaiian Affairs — the agency that has been lobbying the hardest for the bill — needs to restart the conversation here at home.

OHA has conducted surveys indicating that popular support for the bill has narrowed somewhat. Some of that may arise from belief that the bill accords too much or not enough control over resources to Native Hawaiians.

But some of the sentiment may be misplaced. Misperceptions about the effect of the bill persist in the community. It does not affect the disposition of private lands, for example, although this concern continues to be raised. It does not exempt Hawaiians from taxation or other civil laws.

Akaka and the rest of the congressional delegation need to educate especially the newcomers in the House and Senate about the bill. The political landscape may have changed in their favor, but they can't afford to make too many assumptions.

But they also need to reconnect with the base here; uncertainty at the grassroots level won't help their case. A clear understanding of the law, on the homefront as well as on the Hill, is essential.

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

On January 23, 2007 cartoonist Corky Trinidad published the follwing cartoon in the Honolulu Star-Bulletin. The cartoon had its own URL of
http://starbulletin.com/2007/01/23/news/corky.jpg

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

February 12: Citizens Equal Rights Alliance publishes a special newsletter on the Akaka bill for nationwide distribution.
https://www.angelfire.com/planet/bigfiles40/AkakaCERA021207.pdf

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

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

http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2007/Feb/15/br/br0769521834.html
Honolulu Advertiser, Breaking news, Posted at 6:32 a.m., Thursday, February 15, 2007

Native Hawaiian programs get $62.5 million

Advertiser Staff

Nearly $62.5 million in Native Hawaiian initatives has been included into the final appropriations measure for the current fiscal year, members of the Hawai'I Congressional Delegation announced Thursday. The fiscal year ends Sept. 30.

In a news release, politicians from Hawai'I called their advocacy of vital Native Hawaiian initiatives "even more crucial now because the President has eliminated Native Hawaiian education and health care projects from the administration's proposed budget for the next fiscal year."

They also expressed unhappiness with the president's 2008 fiscal year budget.

Senators Daniel K. Inouye and Daniel K. Akaka, and Representatives Neil Abercrombie and Mazie Hirono comprise the delegation.

The legislation cleared its final legislative hurdle the evening of Wednesday when the Senate voted 81 to 15 for passage. The measure, which was passed by the House of Representatives on Jan. 31 by a vote of 286 to 140, now moves to the White House to be signed into law.

The continuing funding resolution for the remainder of this fiscal year includes:

# Nearly $34 million for Native Hawaiian education programs, under the No Child Left Behind Act.

# Nearly $14 million for Native Hawaiian health care, under the Native Hawaiian Health Care Improvement Act.

# Nearly $9 million for Native Hawaiian Housing Block Grants

# Nearly $6 million through the Native Alaskan/Native Hawaiian Institutional Aid provision of the Higher Education Act.

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

http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070216/NEWS21/702160365/1171/NEWS
Honolulu Advertiser, Friday, February 16, 2007

$62.5 million budgeted for Native Hawaiians

Associated Press

Congress has approved a federal budget bill that allocates $62.5 million for Native Hawaiian education, housing and healthcare, Hawai'i's congressional delegation said yesterday.

The Senate passed the legislation 81-15 on Wednesday. The House voted 286-140 to approve the bill late last month.

The legislation now goes to President Bush for his signature, Hawai'i's four Democratic representatives in Washington — two in the Senate and two in the House — said in a joint statement.

"I am pleased that Hawai'i's congressional delegation, and the Democratic Party as a whole, came together to preserve vital health and education opportunities for Native Hawaiians," said Sen. Daniel Akaka.

The funds, if signed by Bush, would benefit overall public health in Hawai'i and the state's education infrastructure, Akaka added.

Sen. Daniel K. Inouye said the bill enabled lawmakers to fund items that were left out of the budget for this fiscal year, which runs through Sept. 30.

"Fortunately, we were able to rectify some of the shortcomings of the current budget as it pertains to Native Hawaiian initiatives," Inouye said.

The new bill includes:

# Nearly $34 million for Native Hawaiian education programs under the No Child Left Behind Act.

# Nearly $14 million for health-care under the Native Hawaiian Health Care Improvement Act.

# Nearly $9 million for Native Hawaiian Housing Block Grants.

# Nearly $6 million through the Native Alaskan/Native Hawaiian Institutional Aid provision of the Higher Education Act.

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

http://www.indiancountry.com/content.cfm?id=1096414510
Indian Country Today, February 16, 2007

"Parker: Overcoming neocon campaign against Akaka Bill key for tribal rights"

by: Alan Parker

Editor's note: The following appeared in a Jan. 22 memo from Mr. Parker to Joe A. Garcia, president of National Congress of American Indians; Ernie Stensgar, president of the Affiliated Tribes of Northwest Indians; and Martha Ross, Washington Bureau Chief, Office of Hawaiian Affairs.

On Jan. 17, Sen. Daniel Akaka, D-Hawaii, introduced S. 310, the Native Hawaiian Government Recognition Act, commonly known as the ''Akaka Bill.'' On the same day, statements opposing the bill were filed by Sens. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., and Jon Kyl, R-Ariz. The next day, Peter Kirsanow, a member of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, National Labor Relations Board attorney and chair of the Center for New Black Leadership, published an attack, ''Disunited States: Multiculturalism run amok,'' at National Review Online.

As I recently pointed out in remarks to the more than 200 tribal delegates attending [January's] Tribal Leaders Forum in San Diego, the highly orchestrated political campaign attacking the Native Hawaiian bill is clearly aimed at U.S. tribes. The Akaka Bill is a proxy for an attack by the neoconservative movement on the right of tribal sovereignty and it is clear that their line of attack would be the same if a tribal sovereignty issue were up for a vote in the Congress. For this reason I believe that it is absolutely necessary for all tribal leaders to actively engage in this fight and to make sure that this anti-Native Hawaiian/anti-tribal sovereignty attack is defeated. If not, they will be emboldened to attack the weakest link that they can find in the armor of tribal rights with all the resources at their disposal.

Students of the political tactics and strategies of the neo-conservative movement will recognize the elements of their campaign. They focus upon several buzzwords that are known to evoke a particular negative response in the American public and then just keep repeating their arguments on as many levels of media as possible. It is irrelevant that their arguments are false or distortions of the truth (as they certainly are in this case) because they are not appealing to logic, but prejudice. These tactics have been well-documented and were effectively analyzed in George Lakoff's book, ''Don't Think of an Elephant!'' As Lakoff points out, you cannot win a public debate on their chosen terms.

Just as the late President Nixon was lost as soon as he tried to argue ''I am not a crook,'' we cannot win by arguing that Native rights are not race-based preferences. To do so simply reinforces their arguments. Affirmative Action as a progressive public policy was defeated on exactly these claims of ''reverse discrimination.'' A plurality of the American public concluded after several years of being subjected to such a right-wing campaign that Affirmative Action unfairly penalized average white people by creating an uneven playing field.

After analyzing the track record of political opposition to the Native Hawaiians over the past several years, I see convincing evidence that the American Enterprise Institute and other right-wing think tanks are prepared to mount a full-scale attack on the right of tribal sovereignty as a form of racial preference. In certain periodicals, their shills have already called tribal sovereignty simply a legal fiction cloaking race-based preferences that support an unfair monopoly for tribal casinos. We know that they have put their support behind ''One Nation United,'' the national anti-tribal rights organization based in the Northwest. Recently, they combined their ''Native-rights-are-just-racial-preferences'' argument with the need to preserve the ''great American melting pot social policy'' (the Bush administration's Justice Department letter to the Senate this past June opposing the Native Hawaiian bill).

The Office of Hawaiian Affairs has acknowledged and thanked NCAI and ATNI for their leadership and their existing resolutions of support, and for including Native Hawaiian Recognition in NCAI's top legislative priorities in 2006. It is important to continue this support on behalf of S. 310/H.R. 505 and see that their bill is included in NCAI's top priorities for 2007. It was particularly valuable that the NCAI 2006 Legislative Priorities brochure highlighted Native Hawaiian recognition among NCAI's top legislative priorities because this is a talking tool for tribal leaders who meet with senators, representatives and their staff. It is also a document that is later used by many NCAI members and their staff as a resource for understanding American Indian and Alaska Native legislative priorities.

U.S. tribal representatives must go beyond even this level of support and make it a priority to push this bill through Congress as soon as possible. NCAI working papers on legislative priorities for the 110th Congress should include the Native Hawaiian bill as an immediate priority. NCAI should step up their level of engagement, recognizing that this is not just solidarity [behind] another Native people but self-protection for our most important tribal rights. If our common political opponents can defeat, or even simply stall, this bill again, we are all at risk. Tribal leaders should be telling their congressional delegates, especially the new Democratic leaders on the Senate and House Indian Affairs committees, that this is must-pass legislation. Passing the bill early in this session will not end the political campaign of the neoconservatives against tribal sovereignty, but it will send an important message throughout the Congress and Indian country.

Alan Parker is the Director of the Northwest Indian Applied Research Institute and an Evergreen State College faculty member in Olympia, Wash.

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

http://www.indiancountry.com/content.cfm?id=1096414515
Indian Country Today, February 16, 2007

Racially motivated Native Hawaiian housing amendment fails in committee

by: Jerry Reynolds

WASHINGTON - Members of the Republican Study Committee supported an unexpected amendment to a bill reauthorizing Native Hawaiian housing programs at a Financial Services Committee hearing in the House of Representatives Feb. 13. The amendment failed when several Republicans, including Rep. Rick Renzi, R-Ariz., co-chairman of the Congressional Native American Caucus, sided with Democrats against it. The committee went on to approve the reauthorization, as it had last year when Republicans, as the majority party in Congress at that time, didn't offer to amend despite controlling a majority of committee votes.

The change in attitude toward the bill reflects a strategic change within the Republican Party following the elections of last November, according to a Capitol Hill lobbyist. Speaking on condition of anonymity because clients would not want to be associated with statements that could be construed as anti-Republican, the lobbyist said the more conservative members of the congressional GOP, represented by the Republican Study Committee, took Republican losses last November as a mandate to move right on the political spectrum, on grounds that moderate Republicans took the heaviest losses. The cluster of more than 100 arch-conservative House members has already produced opposition to the Indian Health Care Improvement Act reauthorization as race-based legislation.

The failed amendment to the Native Hawaiian housing reauthorization bill, H.R. 835 in the House, concerned race: ''Nothing in this title shall be construed to confer a constitutionally special political and legal relationship, based on Native Hawaiian race or ancestry, between the United States and the Native Hawaiian people for purposes of establishing a government-to-government relationship.''

Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., said several times that nothing in the bill does so. The ranking member on the committee for the minority GOP, Rep. Spencer Bachus, R-Ala., responded that the amendment originated in concerns that the bill as written could be unconstitutional in view of a Supreme Court ruling that found Native Hawaiian voting preferences race-based, and therefore unconstitutional.

Democrats on the committee, led by Rep. Melvin Watt, D-N.C., were quick to discard that argument and suggest that if amended, the bill would fall within the jurisdiction of the Judiciary Committee.

The lobbyist referenced above said the intent behind the attempted referral to Judiciary was simply to kill the bill.

Brad Dayspring, a press officer in the office of Rep. Jeb Hensarling, R-Texas, one of the amendment's backers, said the only purpose of the amendment was to bring the bill into compliance with the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. On a day disrupted in Washington by inclement weather, he did not fulfill a request for further information.

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

http://starbulletin.com/2007/02/20/news/story11.html
Honolulu Star-Bulletin, February 20, 2007

Trask will discuss Hawaiian sovereignty

Hawaiian activist Mililani Trask will hold four symposiums at the University of Hawaii at Manoa to provide insight into laws and processes to establish Hawaiian sovereignty.

For more than a decade, Trask, an attorney, has been working at the international level for Hawaiian and indigenous rights.

Here is the symposium schedule:

Topic: The Akaka Bill
» The session will focus on versions of the bill and compare the bill with current standards in U.S. and international law relating to self-governance and self-determination. The session will also present the U.S. domestic policies on indigenous people and native Americans.
» The session will be held at the Halau o Haumea Kamakakuokalani Center for Hawaiian Studies, 2645 Dole St., from 4:30 to 8 p.m. Friday.

Topic: The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People
» The session will focus on the history and current status of the declaration. It will also review objections of the U.S. and other states to provisions relating to self-determination, state sovereignty and the indigenous global legal response.
» The session will be held in Classroom 2 of the William S. Richardson School of Law, 2515 Dole St., from 4:30 to 8 p.m. March 9.

Topic: Racism in U.S. Jurisprudence
» The session will examine U.S. domestic case law dealing with people of color and native Americans.
» The session will be held at Saunders Hall 624 at 2424 Maile Way, 2:30 to 4 p.m. March 16.

Topic: Hawaii, the United Nations Violations of International Law and the Way Forward
» The session will trace the history of Hawaii in the U.N. It will also cover recently filed briefs under the International Covenants on Civil and Political Rights. The session will also consider processes and procedures for Hawaiian nation-building and how self-determination can be used as a process for conflict resolution.
» The session will be held at Halau o Haumea Kamakakuokalani Center for Hawaiian Studies, 2645 Dole St., from 4:30 to 8 p.m. April 4.

The symposiums are sponsored by the Kamakakuokalani Center for Hawaiian Studies; Center for Excellence in Native Hawaiian Law, William S. Richardson School of Law; and Indigenous Politics Program, Department of Political Science.

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

http://www.indiancountry.com/content.cfm?id=1096414542
Indian Country Today, February 23, 2007
Editors Report

A GOP roadmap: From 'treaty' to 'race-based'

A faction of Republicans has decided to interpret the GOP collapse in last November's mid-term elections as a call to conservative action. Moderate Republicans were the big losers because they abandoned the conservative camp on social values, fiscal responsibility and law enforcement. To restore the party's credibility with the electorate, a corps of the ever-faithful must impose a conservative agenda from within the halls of Congress. It is known as the Republican Study Committee.

As evidenced so far, they go to some faraway places for their legislative interpretations. Philosophically speaking, they seem to have adopted the fatal steady-state intellectual modeling system - everything else will stay the same while they get their act together. On the political front, some fellow Republicans speak of them in disparaging terms, asserting that some of their positions, on Native people for instance, are not in fact ''Republican.''

So while it will be inconvenient to have Republican Study Committee members hindering every Indian-specific bill as race-based law and offering amendments to any bill that so much as contains the words ''Native Hawaiian,'' still the question arises of whether this handful of steady-state nostalgias represents any larger threat to Indian country.

Probably not. But they count on the court system to help them effectuate policy change. They have allies in the Department of Justice and believe a majority of U.S. Supreme Court justices will prove tonic to their social agenda; few legal interpretations are set in stone.

For instance, in offering an amendment to a Native Hawaiian housing reauthorization bill on Feb. 13, the Republican Study Committee and its members wanted not just to stop the reauthorization. The larger goal was the de-authorization of all Native Hawaiian housing programs, based on a previous Supreme Court decision that found Native Hawaiian voting preferences unconstitutional.

In the eyes of the federal government, Native Hawaiians are neither tribes nor Alaska Native villages. The Supreme Court has ruled, therefore, that a voting preference for Native Hawaiians is not based on a government-to-government relationship, but on race, which makes it unconstitutional under the 14th Amendment.

Efforts to establish a Native Hawaiian governing entity are ongoing in Congress, and the Native Hawaiian housing reauthorization bill has been swept up in the opposition. Look for a similar scenario to play out around Native Hawaiian issues throughout the current 110th Congress. In the last Congress, the bill to authorize a Native Hawaiian governing entity, better known as the ''Akaka Bill,'' got a hearing only because Linda Lingle, Hawaii's governor and a strong advocate of the Akaka Bill, happens to be a Republican. It will be interesting to see whether Republicans, now in the minority, are more prepared than last time to meet the Supreme Court's stand for justice under the 14th Amendment by extending an equally elemental justice to Native Hawaiians in the form of the Akaka Bill.

This is not the place to consider the fine points of the Akaka Bill. Here we simply hope to understand why Republicans who are returning to a traditional GOP agenda would be against it -

Republicans are generally against the extinction, by the state, of local communities and their norms. Conservatives should want to conserve, and that should include the social institution of self-governing tribes. But inspired by the outcry against illegal immigrants and the distress of small communities over off-reservation gaming proposals, they now find it politically expedient to define Native Hawaiians not as Native people or tribes, but as special interests.

Should they get another Native Hawaiian case before the Supreme Court, their hope is that a majority of justices will narrow the definition of ''Indian tribes'' in the Constitution so as to preclude any accommodation for Native Hawaiians under the commerce clause: ''The Congress shall have Power ... To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes ...''

Historically, Congress and the courts have interpreted ''Indian tribes'' in the commerce clause somewhat broadly, to include, for example, Alaska Natives and Native Hawaiians. But if the high court can be persuaded to adopt an interpretation narrow enough to exclude Native Hawaiians, would Alaska Natives be susceptible to court challenge on grounds that the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act treats Alaska Natives not as tribes, but as corporations?

The table would then be set for challenges to tribes and nations in Indian country. Perhaps ''Indian Tribes'' in the commerce clause meant only federal treaty tribes? Perhaps it doesn't mean tribes of more than 20,000 in population?

Every conceivable iteration of ''Indian Tribes'' under the Constitution will be probed for weaknesses of interpretation, always in hopes of narrowing plain language for partisan purposes. In the wings will be a Supreme Court that ought to have more sense than to defy its own precedents; yet it has also spoken of tribes as anomalous within the federal system.

It's a scenario that hasn't played out yet and that may never get traction in Congress or the legal system. But that lawmakers consider it worth pursuing at a time like this in the nation's history is tragic. After decades of berating all things ''tribal'' as parochial and benighted, and after long insisting that local allegiances give way before a loyalty owed to the union, the United States has become too enormous for governance. We saw it in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, when atrocities might not have occurred had bureaucracies been able to communicate with each other. Again, we saw it when members of Congress had good reason to risk their re-electability just long enough to give their best on obscure intelligence committees. We see it in federal agencies that can't mend their spectacularly wasteful ways and in war planning that couldn't have damaged this country more if it had come from an al-Qaida cell.

Tribes are, among other things, living examples of just what America needs: sustainable cultural cohesion on a territorial scale. Shame on those who seek to weaken the Constitution, and the country itself, at their expense.

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

http://www.hawaiireporter.com/story.aspx?1632aa4e-06ff-462b-b2e0-56cb47f1cd5b
Hawaii Reporter, February 27, 2007

Hawaiian Misrecognition

By Jere Krischel

In the Valentine's day edition of The Honolulu Advertiser this year, Office of Hawaiian Affairs (OHA) took it upon itself to inform us with a slick advertisement on page A4 that we must define ourselves by race. Not content to use traditional ethnic terms like "oiwi" or "kanaka maoli", they've decided that the only proper use of the word "Hawaiian" is to refer to a pre-1778 immigrants to the Hawaiian island chain.

Such a bald statement of abject racism cannot go unchallenged - Hawaii is a place, not a race, and all the immigrants to Hawaii, whether before 1778, during the Kingdom period, or as a part of the United States of America, have just claim to the distinction of being Hawaiian.

Their question was stated as "Who is Hawaiian?" Here are their answers, with corrections:

1) Hawaiians are the lineal descendants of the aboriginal, indigenous, native people who lived in Hawai'i and practiced their culture and sovereignty in their homeland prior to the arrival of Captain Cook in 1778.

First of all, before Kamehameha the Great conquered the entire island chain, with the help of his haole partner John Young, people on Maui weren't Hawaiians. Neither were people on Oahu. Or on Kauai. Taken literally to mean those people who can trace lineage to the Big Island pre-1778, this may be strictly speaking, true.

But OHA instead applies the term to only one racial group that was a part of the original, multi-ethnic, fully sovereign Kingdom of Hawaii, asking us to separate ourselves from each other on the basis of blood alone.

In 1839, over 100 years before our own civil rights movement in the United States, Kamehameha III offered up a Declaration of Rights, claiming "God hath made of one blood all nations of men". OHA seems to be woefully ignorant of Hawaiian history in their statement.

2) Native Hawaiians are part of the family of Polynesians who settled throughout the Pacific centuries ago. Similar to the American Indians and Alaska Natives, they are indigenous people of the United States and are integral to the spiritual and cultural fabric of Hawai'i.

Although the first sentence is undeniable, the parallel to American Indians and Alaska Natives is pure fiction. Native Hawaiians were explorers and colonists, much like the first European travellers abroad. The 400 years of relative isolation in the Hawaiian islands before European contact isn't nearly as long as the 12,000+ years experienced by American Indians and Alaska Natives.

Furthermore, they give a grave insult to all the other Hawaiians in Hawaii who do not share their blood - surely all of the various ethnicities and cultures who have been a part of Hawaii for over 200 years are integral to the spiritual and cultural fabric of Hawaii. Get rid of the Filipinos, Japanese, Chinese, Portuguese or any other immigrant group to our islands, and you eliminate something that is integral in both the spirit and culture of Hawaii.

3) Unlike other states whose residents are often called by the state's name; ie, Californians, Texans, Georgians, etc. "Hawaiian" in Hawai'i refers to its aboriginal, indigenous, native people.

And finally, OHA's racist decree - Hawaii to them is a race, not a place. No matter if your ancestors have lived here for over 200 years, you have no claim to the distinction of being "Hawaiian". No matter how integral to the spiritual or cultural fabric your ancestors may have been for generations, without the proper blood, you are not worthy.

Hawaiian, in Hawai'i, refers to all the people of Hawaii, regardless of race. He Hawaii kaua - We are Hawaiian.

4) The United States has a special political and legal relationship to promote the welfare of the native people of the United States, including Native Hawaiians.

Of course, the whole point of OHA's ad is to promote the Akaka Bill. As a predicate to getting special racial treatment, they must first establish firmly that they are just like American Indians and Native Alaskans. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Had the Navajo nation been an internationally recognized, multi-ethnic Republic before becoming a part of the United States, would we impose racial segregation upon them, that they had never had before? Had any tribal group included a majority of non-natives when they entered into a political relationship with the United States, would it be fair to dictate a disenfranchisement of the majority of their tribe?

This is what the Akaka bill and OHA are asking for. They ask you to be ignorant of the multi-ethnic history of the Kingdom of Hawaii. They ask you to take an internationally recognized nation, which established equal rights over 100 years before our own civil rights movement, and to undo their progressive political acts.

They ask you to give them the term "Hawaiian" as their own racial label, and to denigrate the integral nature of the spiritual and cultural contributions made by immigrants to the Hawaiian islands after 1778.

They ask you for permission to divide our islands by race with the Akaka Bill.

Hawai'i loa kulike kakou! E ku'e kakou i ka palapala a Akaka!

(All Hawaii, stand together! Let's all resist the Akaka Bill! )

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

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

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

http://resourcescommittee.house.gov/hearings/hearingdetail.aspx?NewsID=28

House Committee on Resources
Hearing
Full Committee Markup

March 7, 2007 [** Contents captured on March 8, including results from March 7**]

The House Natural Resources Committee will meet in an open markup session to mark up the following bills:

· H.R. 162 (Jindal), To adjust the boundary of the Barataria Preserve Unit of the Jean Lafitte National Historical Park and Preserve in the State of Louisiana, and for other purposes. "Jean Lafitte National Historical Park and Preserve Boundary Adjustment Act of 2007"

· H.R. 249 (Rahall), To restore the prohibition on the commercial sale and slaughter of wild free-roaming horses and burros.

· H.R. 285 (Doyle), To establish the Steel Industry National Historic Site in the State of Pennsylvania. "Steel Industry National Historic Site Act"

· H.R. 309 (Pearce), To direct the Secretary of the Interior to establish a demonstration program to facilitate landscape restoration programs within certain units of the National Park System established by law to preserve and interpret resources associated with American history, and for other purposes.

· H.R. 319 (Wolf), To establish the Journey Through Hallowed Ground National Heritage Area, and for other purposes. "Journey Through Hallowed Ground National Heritage Area Act"

· H.R. 865 (D. Young), To grant rights-of-way for electric transmission lines over certain Native allotments in the State of Alaska. "Copper Valley Native Allotment Resolution Act of 2007"

· H.R. 886 (Larsen), To enhance ecosystem protection and the range of outdoor opportunities protected by statute in the Skykomish River valley of the State of Washington by designating certain lower-elevation Federal lands as wilderness, and for other purposes. "Wild Sky Wilderness Act of 2007"

Subject:
House Natural Resources Committee, Full Committee Markup

When:
Wednesday, March 7, 2007, at 1:30 p.m.

Where:
Room 1324 Longworth House Office Building

Committee Action

The Committee on Natural Resources met in open markup session on Wednesday, March 7, 2007, and considered the following bills:

H.R. 162 (Jindal), To adjust the boundary of the Barataria Preserve Unit of the Jean Lafitte National Historical Park and Preserve in the State of Louisiana, and for other purposes. "Jean Lafitte National Historical Park and Preserve Boundary Adjustment Act of 2007"
By unanimous consent, the Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands was discharged from further consideration of H.R. 162.
Ordered favorably reported to the House by voice vote.

H.R. 249 (Rahall), To restore the prohibition on the commercial sale and slaughter of wild free-roaming horses and burros.
An amendment offered by Mr. Flake.017 was offered and withdrawn.
Ordered favorably reported to the House by voice vote.

H.R. 285 (Doyle), To establish the Steel Industry National Historic Site in the State of Pennsylvania. "Steel Industry National Historic Site Act"
By unanimous consent, the Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands was discharged from further consideration of H.R. 285.
An amendment offered by Mr. Grijalva.012 was agreed to by voice vote.
Ordered favorably reported to the House, as amended, by voice vote.

H.R. 309 (Pearce), To direct the Secretary of the Interior to establish a demonstration program to facilitate landscape restoration programs within certain units of the National Park System established by law to preserve and interpret resources associated with American history, and for other purposes.
By unanimous consent, the Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands was discharged from further consideration of H.R. 309.
An amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. Grijalva.008 was agreed to by voice vote.
Ordered favorably reported to the House, as amended, by voice vote.

H.R. 319 (Wolf), To establish the Journey Through Hallowed Ground National Heritage Area, and for other purposes. "Journey Through Hallowed Ground National Heritage Area Act"
An amendment in the nature of a substitute was offered by Mr. Grijalva.
The following amendments were offered to the Grijalva.010 amendment in the nature of a substitute:
An amendment offered by Mr. Flake(A) to the Grijalva amendment in the nature of substitute was not agreed to by a roll cal vote of 15 Yeas, and 22 Nays.
An amendment offered by Mr. Pearce.021 to the Grijalva amendment in the nature of substitute was not agreed to by a roll call vote of 15 Yeas, and 22 Nays.
An amendment offered by Mr. Flake(B) to the Grijalva amendment in the nature of substitute was offered and withdrawn.
The Grijalva amendment in the nature of a substitute was agreed to by voice vote.
Ordered favorably reported to the House, as amended, by voice vote.

H.R. 865 (D. Young), To grant rights-of-way for electric transmission lines over certain Native allotments in the State of Alaska. "Copper Valley Native Allotment Resolution Act of 2007"
Ordered favorably reported to the House by voice vote.

H.R. 886 (Larsen), To enhance ecosystem protection and the range of outdoor opportunities protected by statute in the Skykomish River valley of the State of Washington by designating certain lower-elevation Federal lands as wilderness, and for other purposes. "Wild Sky Wilderness Act of 2007"
Ordered favorably reported to the House by voice vote.

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

http://www.indiancountry.com/content.cfm?id=1096414634
Indian Country Today, March 9, 2007

Washington in brief
by: Jerry Reynolds
** Relevant portion of the article

Native Hawaiian bill pulled from House mark-up hearing

A bill that would authorize the first steps in a federal process for recognizing a Native Hawaiian governing entity got pulled from a scheduled mark-up hearing in the House of Representatives March 7.

Patricia Zell, of Zell and Cox Law in Washington, said Rep. Neil Abercrombie, D-Hawaii, could not get back to Washington from his district in Hawaii in time for the hearing, and decided to pull the bill from a mark-up session of the House Natural Resources Committee. (Mark-up is Capitol Hill jargon for committee meetings at which bills are reviewed, debated and perhaps amended prior to being voted out of committee, or not, to the consideration of the full House.) Zell said the bill will be re-scheduled for mark-up, possibly in April. She added that Rep. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., is preparing to offer a hostile amendment to the bill, possibly in cooperation with Sen. Jon Kyl, also R-Ariz., who led Senate opposition to the so-called ''Akaka Bill'' in the last Congress. The Akaka Bill, after Sen. Daniel Akaka, D-Hawaii, is the Senate counterpart of Abercrombie's bill in the House, H.R. 505; it failed last year in the Senate on a procedural vote, following a Republican-orchestrated campaign of public assertions that it sought to establish racial preferences rather than a governing entity for Native Hawaiians.

''We are hearing, as you well know, that the same race-based assault is going to take place against the Indian Health Care Improvement Act,'' Zell said. ''So we assume those concerns have not abated. They've spread to other things.''

===========

http://www.indiancountry.com/content.cfm?id=1096414630
Indian Country Today, March 09, 2007

Akaka Bill threatens tribal sovereignty

by: Maui Loa

I am a tribal chief, the only one in Hawaii, and I am already recognized by the United States. I am not a ''neocon,'' but I have encouraged those who are to oppose the Akaka Bill.

On Feb. 16, Indian Country Today published ''Overcoming neocon campaign against Akaka Bill key for tribal rights'' [Vol. 26, Iss. 37], wherein Alan Parker wrote, ''As I recently pointed out in remarks to the more than 200 tribal delegates attending [January's] Tribal Leaders Forum in San Diego, the highly orchestrated political campaign attacking the Native Hawaiian bill is clearly aimed at U.S. tribes. The Akaka Bill is a proxy for an attack by the neoconservative movement on the right of tribal sovereignty and it is clear that their line of attack would be the same if a tribal sovereignty issue were up for a vote in the Congress.''

I am writing to debunk this hoax. This is really about a contest between ancestry and blood. The U.S. Supreme Court already ruled that in Hawaii, ancestry is a proxy for race.

Those who need an Akaka Bill are descendants primarily of Japanese, Chinese and Filipino immigrants to Hawaii who have one drop of the blood of my people. They make a living by working for the colonial royalist missionary trusts that now own my people's land and by working for the state of Hawaii as ''state Indians.''

Up until 1999, when the U.S. high court removed their unconstitutional foundation in state law, they hated the idea of being categorized as ''tribal'' because they consider it an inferior category to being of ''royal'' lineage. They use the term ''50 percenters'' to refer to us, trying to make blood seem derogatory.

Now, the Asian-Americans who support the bill want a special law just for them, which would actually subordinate the tribal people to the ''royal'' state. It would have the effect of producing a template for replacement of tribal sovereignty by substituting ancestry for blood and replacing tribal governments with departments within a state's government to receive and then hand out federal assistance to ''descendants'' selected from among the public.

Their misguided belief is that this is the new wave of watered-down ''sovereignty,'' and they are leading the way as the means to overcome the blood quantum rules that stymie them with one drop of blood ancestry via the Akaka Bill.

Rather than graciously back down, now that the United States ruled their scheme is not Indian policy, they instead seek to convert all other states to the same upside-down scheme they tried to set up using Hawaii state law. It would make more sense for them to seek federal assistance as Asian-American minorities instead of trying to corrupt tribal law.

I have written in these pages earlier pieces, describing in detail the misrepresentations and distortions that abound in the propaganda being published by spending taxpayer money on lobbyists trying to garner support for this bizarre distortion of tribal law.

The Office of Hawaiian Affairs, mentioned but not identified as a state government outfit in Mr. Parker's story, is trying to float what is without a doubt the most dangerous twist on tribal sovereignty. It is even more bizarre than the Alaska Scheme.

Imagine in your own states, a state Office of Oneida Affairs, or a state Office of Choctaw Affairs. And imagine that all the citizens of your state elect the ''trustees'' of this office. And imagine that this ''office'' is the recipient of all federal assistance intended for you. And imagine that this ''office'' is staffed by political party insiders who give you some small percentage of this federal assistance in the form of grants, while squirreling away the rest invested as a ''trust'' for future generations.

Well, if you can imagine all this, you know precisely what the state of Hawaii's OHA is up to, since it was this very scheme that the U.S. Supreme Court found unconstitutional.

There is a secret amendment in the Akaka Bill: ''The Indian Non Intercourse Act and the Indian Title and Indian Land Doctrine of the United States never has, does not now and never will apply in Hawaii.''

Imagine if your state had such an exemption, and you will comprehend that this is the hidden agenda designed to preserve the titles to aboriginal land now held by either the state or another of our colonial missionary royalist land trusts by converting their failed hybrid state law/kingdom law scheme into one ''protected'' by a weirdly distorted new version of tribal law. In other words, we are being used - something we know a lot about already.

The United States established homelands exclusively for my people, reserved from public lands in the territory of Hawaii before the state of Hawaii existed to express the Indian land policy of the United States.

In 1790, Congress passed the first Indian Non-Intercourse Act. It reserves the right to acquire Indian lands for the United States to the exclusion of individuals, states, kings and queens. (Act of July 22, 1790, 1 Stat. 137.) It embodied a foundation of the new nation's Indian land doctrine, which was recently restated by the U.S. Supreme Court:

Oneida Indian Nation v. County of Oneida, 414 U.S. 661, 667 (1974) states:

''It very early became accepted doctrine in this Court that although fee title to lands occupied by Indians when the colonists arrived became vested in the sovereign - first, the discovering European nation and, later, the original states and the United States - a right of occupancy in the Indian tribes was nevertheless recognized. That right, sometimes called Indian Title and good against all but the sovereign, could be terminated only by sovereign act. Once the United States was organized and the Constitution adopted, these tribal rights to Indian lands became the exclusive province of the federal law. Indian title, recognized to be only a right of occupancy, was extinguishable only by the United States.''

Maui Loa is chief of the Hou Band of Native Hawaiian Indians of the Blood, Oahu, Hawaii.

** Note from website editor Ken Conklin: Two years previously, Chief Maui Loa published an open letter to President Bush opposing the Akaka bill for similar reasons. That open letter was more lengthy and includes a more complete development of his position, as well as analysis by Ken Conklin. See:
https://www.angelfire.com/hi5/bigfiles/ChiefMauiLoa040605.html

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

http://www.westhawaiitoday.com/articles/2007/03/11/features/features02.txt
West Hawaii Today (Kona), Sunday March 11, 2007

Conklin takes on sovereignty
Author questions race-based programs favoring Native Hawaiians

by Bobby Command

"Hawaiian Apartheid: Racial Separatism and Ethnic Nationalism in the Aloha State." By Kenneth Conklin. $16.95.

It's an incredibly divisive issue, one that inspires, at best, persuasive and thought-provoking discourse, and, at worst, intimidation and violence.

On one side is a diverse and divided constituency united only by a feeling that an injustice has been committed against Native Hawaiians by the presence of the United States. On the other side are those who feel the Native Hawaiian independence movement is a self-serving threat to all people in the United States, including Native Hawaiians.

Kenneth Conklin, a retired professor of philosophy, is an outspoken opponent of race-based programs, powerful government and private institutions supporting them and the current drive for sovereignty.

"Hawaiian Apartheid: Racial Separatism and Ethnic Nationalism in the Aloha State" is Conklin's self-published treatise on the "growing menace of Hawaiian racial separatism and ethnic nationalism."

In the book, Conklin describes more than 160 federal programs as racially exclusionary. He says the same about the Office of Hawaiian Affairs and Department of Hawaiian Homelands.

"Race-based institutions have grown so powerful they now control Hawaii's political establishment," according to Conklin.

Of particular interest to Conklin is the Akaka Bill, which he calls a plan for a racial separatist government. "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."

However, Conklin said polls show that two-thirds of all Hawaii's people, including about half of the ethnic Hawaiians, oppose the Akaka 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."

Haunani-Kay Trask, the first full-time director of Hawaiian studies at the University of Hawaii and an internationally recognized advocate of Native Hawaiians and other indigenous people, said Conklin's views are those of a typical right-wing settler who only sees things from his perspective.

"It never dawns on him that there was an illegal overthrow of our government, and that the United States -- his beloved government -- has recognized that it violated international law by doing so. This is not a story that is hidden," she said.

Trask, who said she has not read Conklin's book but is very familiar with him and his arguments, said Conklin is motivated by some kind of internal psychological problem. "He's what local people mean when they say, 'he like be 'sum-ba-de,''" Trask said. "He's just a crude person trying to get into the newspaper."

Conklin says "junk-science" victimhood claims of the Hawaiian grievance industry play upon public sympathy for the "plight" of an allegedly poor, downtrodden ethnic group.

"This argument is advanced by flaunting -- actually celebrating -- victimhood statistics which stereotype all members of the group as sharing the same demeaning racial profile, even when most individuals in the group have low racial blood quantum and are neither poor nor downtrodden," Conklin writes.

"Should we give credence to the highly touted victimhood statistics and thereby racially profile ethnic Hawaiians as poorly educated, impoverished, diseased, drug abusers, spouse abusers, likely to be incarcerated?" said Conklin.

"No doubt some are like that. Perhaps too many are like that," he added. "But most are just like everyone else, loving their families, working hard to pay the bills, getting wealthy or falling into poverty according to their efforts and abilities, and proud to be Americans."

Conklin says government assistance should be based on need alone and not race. "If one racial group is really more needy than others, then it will receive the lion's share of government help when help is provided based on need alone."

But Trask said statistics don't lie, and Native Hawaiians continually show up on the low end of socioeconomic statistics.

"Every year the Department of Health puts out a list, and every year it says our life expectancy is going down? Why is this?" she said. "We were better off as a nation before white people came here."

Conklin said the "evil empire" also uses historical grievances, many of which are false or grossly exaggerated. The historical grievances and victimhood statistics have even been used successfully in court, where judges relied on them to justify racial segregation at Kamehameha Schools under the guise of affirmative action to remedy past injustices or present deficits.

Trask said history does not lie. "Who forced the overthrow? Who introduced the diseases? Who forced the mahele?" she said. "The problem is, history started when Ken Conlklin arrived in Hawaii. If the federal government has recognized the overthrow, then so should he."

Conklin has lived in Hawaii since the early 1990s and was the first person of non-native ancestry to run for trustee of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs. He has made numerous TV and radio appearances, and published more than a hundred articles in newspapers and magazines.

Conklin's Web site on Hawaiian sovereignty is at http://tinyurl.com/6gkzk

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

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals earlier upheld Kamehameha Schools admissions policy in a 15-judge en banc decision by a vote of 8-7. Eric Grant, attorney for plaintiff Doe, filed a petition for certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court. On March 16, 2007 Kamehameha Schools filed its brief in opposition to Eric Grant's petition. The entire Kamehameha brief is available on the Kamehameha website at
http://www.ksbe.edu/pdf/writresponse.pdf

The final two pages of the Kamehameha brief make the argument that the Akaka bill is currently under consideration by Congress and therefore the Court should defer to the political judgment of Congress and not grant certiorari. The theory is that if the Akaka bill passes then Kamehameha will be essentially the same as a tribal school on tribal lands and is therefore entitled to engage in racial discrimination. Of course this argument would allow any individual Senator or Congressman to halt Court scrutiny forever merely by continuing to introduce legislation. This argument says that legislation which has been introduced should have the same effect as though it had passed! The Akaka bill has been continuously under consideration in Congress since July 2000. Even if it passes, there would still be great dispute whether Kamehameha would be exempt from racial discrimination laws, at least until such time as Kamehameha reincorporates itself as a tribal school.

This legal argument is mentioned here because it is an example of the profound effects the Akaka bill would have upon the State of Hawai'i, and the effects it is already having even though the bill has not passed. Here are the relevant three paragraphs from pages 27-28 of the Kamehameha brief.

The Political Status of the Native Hawaiian People Is Currently Under Debate in Congress

As the court of appeals noted, see Pet. App. 36a, 51a, Congress has acknowledged that the United States has a special political relationship with and a special trust obli- gation to Native Hawaiians. The 2002 NHEA explained that "Congress does not extend services to Native Hawaiians because of their race, but because of their unique status as the indigenous people of a once sovereign nation as to whom the United States has established a trust relationship," 20 U.S.C. § 7512(12)(B) (emphasis added), and that "[t]he political relationship between the United States and the Native Hawaiian people has been recognized and reaffirmed by the United States," id. § 7512(13) (emphasis added). Congress also has stated that "the political status of Native Hawaiians is comparable to that of American Indians and Alaska Natives," 20 U.S.C. § 7512(12)(D).

Congress is currently giving active consideration to a bill that might further confirm and clarify this status. On January 17, 2007, Hawaii Senator Daniel Akaka introduced The Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act of 2007, S. 310, 110th Cong. (2007) (commonly known as the "Akaka Bill"). A previous version of the Akaka Bill came within several votes of proceeding to a Senate floor vote during the last session of Congress. The Akaka Bill, if enacted, would launch a process to form a Native Hawaiian governing entity that could negotiate with the state and federal government on behalf of Native Hawaiians, enabling a government-to-government relationship with the United States similar to that of American Indians and Alaska Natives. The House of Representatives is also considering a similar bill, H.R. 505, 110th Cong. (2007), which was introduced by Hawaii Representative Neil Abercrombie on January 17, 2007.

Given that the status of Native Hawaiians is being currently debated by Congress, it would be premature for the Court to decide a strictly statutory case related to these issues. While nothing in the court of appeals' decision turns on the outcome of congressional debate on the Akaka Bill, and while the decision was correct regardless of the outcome, congres- sional action might have a bearing on the Court's con- sideration of the issues presented. Thus, out of respect for a coordinate branch as well as concerns of judicial economy, this Court should decline Petitioner's invitation to enter this "difficult terrain." Rice, 528 U.S. at 519.

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

http://honoluluadvertiser.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070322/NEWS23/703220355
Honolulu Advertiser, Thursday, March 22, 2007
** Excerpts relevant to the Akaka bill

Native Hawaiian housing bill hit

By Dennis Camire
Advertiser Washington Bureau

WASHINGTON — A bill to reauthorize funding for Native Hawaiian housing suffered an embarrassing defeat yesterday at the hands of Republicans.

The House rejected the bill on a 262-162 vote — 28 votes short of the two-thirds majority needed for passage under a special procedure for uncontroversial legislation.

"I'm very pleased that we got a big, strong majority," said Rep. Neil Abercrombie, D-Hawai'i, the bill's sponsor. "But what happened was we ran into ... a particular segment of the Republican Party who is determined to demonize Hawaiians."

The bill is not dead and will likely pass when it is reintroduced under rules requiring only a majority for approval, Abercrombie said.

House Republican Leader John Boehner of Ohio urged his party to vote against the measure.

Benefits for Native Hawaiians are unconstitutional because the Rice v. Cayetano Supreme Court decision declared they could not have different statewide voting rights than other Hawai'i citizens, Boehner said in a news release.

Boehner said the court suggested that special legal privileges for Native Hawaiians are unconstitutional.

If approved, the legislation would ensure that the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands would get $8 million to $9 million annually that would go toward roads, water lines, sewer systems and other infrastructure needed for housing projects developed for those with 50 percent Hawaiian blood or more.

Abercrombie said he thought he had an understanding with Boehner to keep the bill from becoming a partisan issue.

But as Abercrombie was on the floor profusely thanking Republicans for not taking a partisan stance on the bill, the House Republican leadership office was sending out an e-mail to its members telling them to oppose the bill as being unconstitutional.

"I find it a bit ironic that I'm up there thanking him for his courtesy while his press office is out kicking us," Abercrombie said. "It's no fun, I assure you, but we're not little kids around here. These things happen."

The Republican e-mail said the bill was unconstitutional because it would guarantee special federally backed housing benefits for Native Hawaiians.

The Republican alert said the bill would give Native Hawaiians an arrangement like that between the federal government and Indian tribes.

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

Meanwhile, on the floor, Abercrombie apparently was unaware of the GOP missive.

"I want to reiterate my thanks to Mr. Boehner for his open-mindedness and his attitude of being willing to listen on issues that might otherwise have been easily misunderstood," Abercrombie said.

Abercrombie said later he regretted the comment but did not want to take it back. "I never regret thanking people for extending courtesies," he said. Abercrombie said the statements in the Republican e-mail were things that came up in the debates over the Native Hawaiian bill that would extend a federal policy of self-governance and self determination to Native Hawaiians. "This is about home ownership," he said. "This isn't about ideology."

H. William Burgess of the group Aloha for All, which has mounted legal challenges against the Hawaiians-only nature of the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands and the state Office of Hawaiian Affairs, said the Republicans are right in opposing the funding. "It's pretty clear that the way to go is to eliminate race restrictions," he said, adding that both agencies should open up their services for all Hawai'i residents. "A lot of people need help with home ownership."

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

http://starbulletin.com/2007/03/22/news/story03.html
Honolulu Star-Bulletin, March 22, 2007

Republicans kill funding for Hawaiian housing
State officials plan to revive the bill in the U.S. House

By B.J. Reyes

State officials say they plan to continue lobbying to win passage of a bill in the U.S. House to reauthorize federal funding for native Hawaiian housing assistance programs.

Although the bill was supported 262-162, it fell short of the two-thirds majority needed for passage under a special House procedure. The vote came after Republican leadership in the House argued it could be unconstitutional.

U.S. Rep. Neil Abercrombie said he will work to bring the bill back to the floor under standard procedure, which would require only a simple majority for passage. That vote could come as early as next week, he said. "I think it's very unfortunate that at this stage the Republican leadership is trying to politicize this bill," Abercrombie, D-Hawaii, said in a telephone interview from Washington.

While no projects are immediately put at risk by the bill's defeat, state Hawaiian Homes Director Micah Kane said planning for future projects could be affected if the bill is ultimately defeated. "There is no immediate impact right now, but should this program not be funded, it will have a significant impact on our construction budget," Kane said.

Abercrombie and Kane said they will continue talking with lawmakers to ensure the bill's passage if and when it comes up for another vote.

The bill would have reauthorized a 2000 provision of the Native American Housing Assistance and Self Determination Act. Under that provision, the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands had received about $10 million a year in federal block grant money for housing assistance projects for native Hawaiians.

The provision expired in 2005, but funding has been included each year for the department through various spending bills: $8.8 million in 2006 and $9.4 million in 2005.

Kane said the renewal of the provision is needed to ensure a secure source of funding over several years, rather than having to fight for funding each year. "We've been successful in doing that, but it's hard to plan -- development is a three-year process at minimum," Kane said. "It does highlight and recognize the importance of the department's efforts to generate income and not rely on this type of funding, because there's just too much uncertainty."

The reauthorization fell 28 votes short of the two-thirds needed for passage under a special procedure aimed at limiting debate on noncontroversial bills.

Abercrombie said on the House floor that he and Republican Leader John Boehner (R, Ohio) had come to an agreement on the measure, but while Abercrombie was speaking, the GOP leader's office issued an e-mail alert urging a no vote.

A telephone message left after business hours at Boehner's Washington office was not immediately returned.

In his news release, Boehner argued that benefits for native Hawaiians were unconstitutional because of the Supreme Court's landmark decision in Rice v. Cayetano, which declared they could not have different statewide voting rights than other Hawaii citizens. Boehner said the court had suggested that special legal privileges for native Hawaiians are unconstitutional.

Abercrombie argued that the decision has nothing to do with the funding bill, noting that it is simply carrying out the provisions set forth by Congress in 2000. "Unfortunately, there's an element in the Republican party that is hell-bent on attacking Hawaiians as symbolic of their opposition to native interests," Abercrombie said. "I'm hoping that Mr. Boehner will understand that if we want to have an argument on what the proper role for native Hawaiian legislation is, that we not confuse that with this activity."

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

http://www.indiancountry.com/content.cfm?id=1096414723
Indian Country Today, March 23, 2007

Native Hawaiian housing bill gets first-round rejection

by: Jerry Reynolds

WASHINGTON - Late in the business day on March 21, the Hawaiian Homeownership Opportunity Act fell short of a two-thirds vote in the House of Representatives. The tally meant lawmakers had rejected a motion to suspend the ordinary rules of the House and pass the bill with limited debate.

The bill received solid majority support, with 262 in favor, 162 opposed and nine not voting. The totals led advocates of the bill to believe it can be enacted under ''regular order'' of business, which permits full debate but requires only a simple majority of votes for passage, rather than the two-thirds majority required to pass a bill with limited debate.

The bill would expand the use of federal housing loan guarantees from tribes to Native Hawaiians.

No Democrat voted against the bill. Thirty-four Republicans cast yea votes, resisting pressure from GOP leadership to oppose. Among them were Reps. Tom Cole of Oklahoma, Rick Renzi and John Shadegg of Arizona, Steve Pearce of New Mexico, Don Young of Alaska, Chris Cannon of Utah, Dennis Hastert of Illinois (Speaker of the House in the last Congress), Mary Bono and Duncan Hunter of California, John Pickering of Mississippi, Christopher Shays of Connecticut and Steven LaTourette of Ohio.

Pressure to oppose the bill came in the form of a ''GOP Leader Alert'' issued from the leadership office of Rep. John Boehner, R-Ohio, the House minority leader. The alert termed the bill, H.R. 835 in the House, ''an unconstitutional bill that would guarantee special federally-backed housing benefits to Native Hawaiians. ... HR 835 would confer on Native Hawaiians an arrangement like that between the federal government and American Indian tribes.'' Boehner cited the Rice v. Cayetano Supreme Court decision as the basis of his claim that Native Hawaiians and American Indian tribes ''are not comparable,'' leaving little doubt that Native Hawaiian-specific legislation in the House will be the subject of similar alerts in the current 110th Congress. Boehner gave the limitation on debate as another reason to oppose the bill.

In committee debate on a similarly worded amendment to the bill, Democrats disputed the interpretation and voted down the amendment.

Linda Lingle, the Republican governor of Hawaii, supports the housing bill. Her office, like Boehner's, could not be reached for comment after business hours.

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

http://starbulletin.com/2007/03/24/editorial/editorial01.html
Honolulu Star-Bulletin, March 24, 2007, EDITORIAL

OUR OPINION

Hawaiian sovereignty faces strong House opposition

THE ISSUE
The U.S. House has voted not to continue authorizing funds for Hawaiian housing.

A bill to reauthorize federal funding for Hawaiian housing hit a bump in the road, but more serious roadblocks might occur if Hawaiian sovereignty continues to be denied. A House vote on the housing bill indicates that the sovereignty measure could lack congressional support to overcome a veto by President Bush, which might force sovereignty proponents to look toward the next administration for more favorable consideration.

The House vote of 262-162 in favor of the housing bill fell short of the two-thirds vote needed for passage under a special House procedure -- and also needed to override a presidential veto of the sovereignty bill proposed by Sen. Daniel Akaka. Republicans followed the advice of GOP Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, who maintained that the housing measure was unconstitutional, which is precisely the contention by opponents of the Akaka Bill.

Boehner is wrong in stating that benefits for Hawaiians violate the Supreme Court's 2000 decision in Rice v. Cayetano, which disallowed Hawaiians-only voting for Office of Hawaiian Affairs trustees. In the Rice ruling, the court pointed out that congressional funding of Hawaiian programs "is a matter of dispute" and that the court "can stay far off that difficult terrain."

However, opponents of the Akaka Bill have inferred as much. William E. Moschella, the assistant attorney for legislative affairs, said in a letter four years ago that inclusion of Hawaiians among native Americans as recipients of funding for small-business startups and expansions "raises significant constitutional concerns."

The Senate voted 56-41 last year in favor of proceeding with the Akaka Bill -- short of the 60 votes needed. On the eve of the vote, a letter by Moschella to then-Majority Leader Bill Frist made clear that the Bush administration opposes the Akaka Bill because it would "divide people by their race."

Rep. Neil Abercrombie said he now recognizes "an element in the Republican Party that is hell-bent on attacking Hawaiians as symbolic of their opposition to native interests," and he should plan accordingly. Future measures aimed at funding Hawaiian programs probably are not threatened as long as they are attached to other bills that are not controversial.

The housing bill that fell short of the votes needed would have reauthorized $10 million a year in federal block grant money for projects providing housing assistance to Hawaiians. Abercrombie said he plans to bring the bill back to the House floor as early as this week under a standard procedure that requires a simple majority for passage.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled last year that both federal and state funding are safe from taxpayer lawsuits, although they may be challenged by people claiming to have been denied benefits because of race. Enactment of the Akaka Bill is needed to protect Hawaiian programs from such congressional and court challenges.

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

** From Congressional Record for the House on March 21, 2007: American Samoa Delegate Eni Faleomavaega tells the often-heard falsehood that U.S. troops overthrew the Hawaiian monarchy in 1893 [and therefore the U.S. owes ethnic Hawaiians help with housing in 2007?]

[Page: H2771]

Unbeknownst to our colleagues again, if I might add, Mr. Speaker, the people of Hawaii indigenous to the State of Hawaii, many of the people of our country do not know that there was a sovereign and independent nation of Hawaii that was ruled by a series of kings which started from the great King Kamehameha. From 1800, for some 19 years, he ruled his people, and on to the legacy of the King Kamehameha and his dynasty, which he founded for about 100 years before U.S. Marines of our government illegally and unlawfully took over that sovereign government that was ruled by that time by Queen Lili'uokalani. I want to share that bit of history with my colleagues, and especially and I sincerely hope that they will understand and appreciate the fact that the Native Hawaiian community does definitely need this program, and I urge my colleagues to please support this legislation.

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

http://honoluluadvertiser.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070326/OPINION01/703260305/1105/OPINION
Honolulu Advertiser, March 26, 2007
** excerpts relevant to Akaka bill

EDITORIAL

DHHL must rely less on federal funding

Community block grant programs are among the endangered species of the federal budget.

The Department of Hawaiian Home Lands got a close look at the rocky terrain it must cross to secure these funds last week, when a Republican maneuver fended off the quick reauthorization of two funding programs in the U.S. House.

An e-mail campaign by House Republican Leader John Boehner blocked the required two-thirds vote needed for passage of an annual allotment of at least $8 million over the next five years. This money was targeted for roads, water lines, sewer systems and other improvements needed for DHHL Hawaiian homestead housing projects.

Boehner cited the same arguments the GOP made opposing the Native Hawaiian federal recognition bill last year: Funding to benefit Hawaiian-only programs is unconstitutional. Extending that argument to Hawaiian homesteading, which has had federal authorization for 85 years, is hard to rationalize.

But if one sets aside the whole argument over whether Hawaiians merit the same constitutional leeway as Indian tribes, the fact remains that these federal programs are drying up.

The safe bet is that the federal gravy train is running out of fuel, so alternate routes toward funding are essential.

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

http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070329/NEWS23/703290362/1001/NEWS
Honolulu Advertiser, Thursday, March 29, 2007

House OKs Hawaiian housing

By Dennis Camire
Advertiser Washington Bureau

WASHINGTON — The House yesterday voted to reauthorize funding for Native Hawaiian housing programs for five years, despite opposition from a large segment of Republican lawmakers.

"This is good news for eligible families who want to buy or refinance homes located in the Hawaiian Home Lands," said Rep. Neil Abercrombie, D-Hawai'i, sponsor of the bill.

The programs would ensure that the 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 for residents with 50 percent Hawaiian blood or more.

The House vote was 272-150. Only 45 Republicans joined 227 Democrats supporting the bill, which still must be approved by the Senate.

Sen. Daniel Inouye, D-Hawai'i, is expected to introduce the bill there with Sen. Daniel Akaka, D-Hawai'i, as a co-sponsor.

Akaka said he was pleased the House voted to pass the bill. "I along with my good friend and partner, Senator Inouye, will work to enact this important measure in the Senate," he said.

Earlier yesterday, Abercrombie pleaded with opponents to not block the bill because they believed programs targeting help for certain segments of the population are unconstitutional, such as the original 1921 law that set aside land in Hawai'i for Hawaiians.

"On the contrary, that issue has been raised and it, perhaps, should be raised in another context, namely if someone wants to change the underlying law," Abercrombie said on the House floor.

"But we shouldn't punish my constituents or anybody's constituents" because the law requires Congress to approve changes so that Native Hawaiians can have their home mortgages refinanced, he said.

The legislation would reauthorize through 2012 the Native Hawaiian Housing Block Grant and Native Housing Loan Guarantee programs, administered by the Department of Housing and Urban Development.

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

Hawaiian Home Lands Chairman Micah Kane has said if the federal program is not renewed, it could affect his agency's ability to provide homes for an estimated 80 families each year.

No Republicans spoke on the House floor yesterday in opposition to the bill.

But Rep. Spencer Bachus, R-Ala., who voted "present" on the bill, said late Tuesday some Republicans believe the Rice v. Cayetano court decision — which declared Native Hawaiians could not have different voting rights than other Hawai'i citizens — suggested special privileges for Native Hawaiians are unconstitutional.

Bachus said many Republicans would support the bill if language were added clarifying that the federal program could not be construed as conferring "a constitutionally special political or legal relationship based on Native Hawaiian ancestry between the United States and the Native Hawaiian people."

Abercrombie said a federal appeals court ruled in February that funding programs that benefit Native Hawaiians were not unconstitutional discrimination.

The House rejected the same bill last week, falling 28 votes short of the two-thirds needed under a special parliamentary procedure, after House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, urged Republicans to vote against the measure. He used the Rice v. Cayetano decision to argue against passage.

** Note from Ken Conklin: This newspaper report fails to mention that on March 27 there was a lengthy debate regarding the rule under which the bill would be voted on the following day, allowing no amendments. The nature of that amendment, and the debate concerning issues related to the Akaka bill, were very interesting, and are provided in excerpts from the Congressional Record. The vote on March 27 was quite narrow, passing the rule by yeas 234, nays 188, not voting 11.

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

Congressional Record for March 27; consideration of Native Hawaiian housing bill, excerpts relevant to Akaka bill

[Page: H3165]

Mr. BACHUS. Others of my colleagues are concerned about some of the statements made in the Rice v. Cayetano case, that some of these benefits, and there are some 160 benefits that go to Native Hawaiians. And some of these benefits actually date back to statehood and, I think, the founding of the State of Hawaii. So there is some historical basis for these. But, as I have said, some of my colleagues are concerned about that. Some of them have pointed out the words of Justice Kennedy in that decision where he said this: "America is a melting pot of cultures from around the world." And he said, "As the State of Hawaii attempts to address these realities, it must, as always, seek the political consensus that begins with a shared purpose. One of the necessary beginning points is this principle: The Constitution of the United States too has become the heritage of all the citizens of Hawaii." And that Constitution, as we know, in almost all cases is opposed to racial set-asides. So this disturbs many of my colleagues on my side of the aisle. Let me simply close by saying we had hoped to come united together in supporting this legislation. Mr. Campbell in committee had offered an amendment, and in closing I will read that amendment. Had this amendment been accepted, we would have been prepared, I think, to almost unanimously to have supported this bill. Mr. Campbell's amendment said: "Nothing in this title shall be construed to confer a constitutionally special political or legal relationship based on Native Hawaiian race or ancestry between the United States and the Native Hawaiian people for purposes of establishing a government-to-government relationship."

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. I am also very grateful to Mr. Bachus for his commentary and his observations and will indicate that, at least as far as this Member is concerned, there will be time enough, I believe, tomorrow to deal with the question should there be a recommittal offered on the issues that were raised by either the Campbell amendment or any of the other points that were raised as a basis or foundation for possible opposition to the bill. I believe they can be answered. I believe that this is fundamentally a very conservative approach that merits the support of Members across the various ideological spectrums that exist here in the House of Representatives; and I hope, with the opportunity to speak about them at some length, perhaps tomorrow, that we will be able to
[Page: H3166]
satisfy one and all here on the floor that this is a bill worthy of support. The principal thing I would say, just simply in quick response, is that the Rice versus Cayetano decision which was mentioned does not affect these programs, has literally nothing to do with the issue at hand in this H.R. 835. The decision invalidated an election system for a State agency, the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, a State agency. The decision did not affect the agency itself. It did not even question the validity of the agency. It had to do with the question of who could vote for the trustees of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs. The Office of Hawaiian Affairs still exists today. It exists for the benefit of Native Hawaiians and is voted on by the entire voting population of the State of Hawaii. So it had to do with an election issue and absolutely nothing to do with this, and the Court declined to address the question of Native Hawaiian programs authorized by Congress. So we are dealing with an entirely separate set of issues here, and I hope to make that clear tomorrow.

Ms. HIRONO. The bill in no way addresses the question of whether or not Native Hawaiians should be recognized as a sovereign entity akin to Alaska Natives or American Indians. During debate on this bill last Wednesday, no Member came to the floor to speak in opposition to the bill. In fact, the gentleman from Arizona, who managed the time, expressed support for the bill. Unfortunately, either during the debate or afterward, e-mails were sent to Members containing at least two erroneous assertions: first, that this bill is unconstitutional and, second, that this bill "would confer on Native Hawaiians an arrangement like that between the Federal Government and American Indian tribes." Opponents then compounded the error by citing the Rice v. Cayetano voting rights Supreme Court decision in support of their broad assertions. As to the first assertion, the constitutionality of any measure must be decided by the courts; and, clearly, the courts have not opined on the constitutionality of this bill. As to the second assertion, there is nothing in the bill that speaks to creating a political relationship between Native Hawaiians and the Federal Government akin to the relationship between the Federal Government and American Indian tribes. This bill, which promotes homeownership, a goal that all of us can support in bipartisan fashion, has been targeted for defeat by opponents who are misreading the bill as well as case law. I was a member of the Cayetano administration in Hawaii and sat in the Supreme Court when arguments in the Rice case were heard. It may interest some of you to know that one of the lawyers arguing the State of Hawaii's case was John Roberts, who is now Chief Justice of our Supreme Court. The central issue in the Rice v. Cayetano case was the narrow question of whether the State of Hawaii could hold an election for trustees of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs where only Native Hawaiians could vote. In holding that the State could not so limit these elections, the majority opinion of the Court deliberately avoided the question of whether or not Native Hawaiians deserved the same right of self-determination granted to American Indians and Alaska Natives. Nothing in the Rice decision holds that programs that benefit Native Hawaiians are unconstitutional. The majority court decision did not call into question the trust relationship between the U.S. Government and the Native Hawaiian people. It did not strike down the Office of Hawaiian Affairs or any other program benefiting Native Hawaiians as unconstitutional. While the entire Hawaii congressional delegation, Hawaii's Governor, who happens to be a Republican, and the Hawaii legislature supports self-determination for Native Hawaiians, that is not the subject of the bill before us today. My colleague and I have introduced H.R. 505, the Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act of 2007, also known as the Akaka bill. We can discuss the merits of self-determination for Native Hawaiians when and if the Congress considers that bill. ... Because the issue of Native Hawaiian rights as a native people lies at heart of the opposition of this bill, I would like to quote attorneys H. Christopher Bartolomucci, Viet Dinh, and Neal Katyal, who stated in a February, 2007, legal document prepared for the Office of Hawaiian Affairs: "Congressional legislation dealing with indigenous groups is political, not racial, in character and therefore is neither discriminatory nor unconstitutional. Rice v. Cayetano specifically declined to address whether `Native Hawaiians have a status like that of Indians in organized tribes' and 'whether Congress may treat Native Hawaiians as it does the Indian tribes'.'' As previously mentioned, we can and should have the debate on whether or not Native Hawaiians should enjoy the rights to self-determination given to other Native American groups when that bill is squarely before us in H.R. 505. Native Hawaiians deserve no less. This bill before us today simply provides Native Hawaiians who are eligible for homesteads under the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act passed by Congress with the financing tools to allow them to realize for their families the dream of homeownership which otherwise would be available to very few of them.

[Page: H3087]
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Unfortunately, as we all now know, there are some in this body who believe that it is in their best interest to create a partisan divide where no such division should exist. They have in my opinion falsely accused my friends and representatives from Hawaii of ulterior motives, and in doing so, have delayed justice and fairness to some of our most loyal citizens. Contrary to the false accusation made by its opponents, this bill is not a bill aimed at achieving Native American status for Native Hawaiians, no matter how important that issue may be. This bill provides low-income Native Hawaiians access to the American Dream. They, just like all of us in this body, have had at one point in our lives a dream to own a home. This bill brings them one step closer to realizing that dream. Shame on those who continue to paint this bill as anything other than what it is.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this closed rule and the potentially unconstitutional measure that the Democrat
[Page: H3088]
majority is presently bringing before the House. I also rise in opposition to the majority's gaming of the system by bringing this legislation up under a closed rule with no input from the minority, even after this measure failed to win the support of two-thirds of the House when it was considered under the suspension of the rules just last week. I believe that the 162 "no" votes that were cast last Wednesday prove that this measure carries with it some measure of controversy. I have heard the gentleman from Florida explain very clearly and carefully in addressing this issue his desire for us to understand that in fact nothing more other than the words that are on the paper are intended and implied in this bill. However, I would say there is also room to make sure that is not only correct, but also to improve this legislation. I am also confident that an overwhelming number of Members would likely support the final measure if they were given a chance to improve it through the amendment that perhaps we are hearing that the majority intended perhaps in the first place or at least did not unintend to make it happen. Unfortunately, in what is becoming a standard practice for the Rules Committee, last night the Democrat majority rejected along party line the only amendment offered to this legislation that would have offered the solution on behalf of the 162 "no" votes. This amendment was offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Neugebauer) who simply would have made it clear that there is nothing in this legislation that should be constructed to confer a special relationship between the United States and the Native Hawaiian people for the purpose of establishing a government-to-government relationship. This amendment is necessary because in 2000 the Supreme Court decided in Rice v. Cayetano that the current configuration of Justices would likely strike down most Federal benefits flowing to Native Hawaiians as an unconstitutional racial set-aside if, given a chance, by accepting Mr. Neugebauer's amendment, or at least allowing its merits to be debated and voted on, Congress would have had the opportunity to make it crystal clear to any future court that this legislation should not be construed as Congress' abuse of its power under the Indian commerce clause to indirectly confer tribal status on the Native Hawaiian people. I will take the words that have been given to me by the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie) as well as the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) from the Rules Committee that they do not intend this legislation in any way, and it should not be construed as told to the minority, that they would intend to pass power under the Indian commerce clause to indirectly confer tribal status on the Native Hawaiian people. I will take them at their word as the understanding and the basis and the intent of this legislation. But by shutting out this amendment, the Democrat majority has done nothing to address the concerns of the 162 Members of this body who do believe that this legislation under consideration is vague at best and unconstitutional at worst. Nor have they done anything to clarify the intent of this legislation to the courts. While, Mr. Speaker, you and I recognize that courts in their deliberations would look at congressional intent, we would like for it to be so stated. While the majority has indicated they do not intend this, we wish it had also been in the form of an amendment. Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed that, once again, the majority has silenced the minority in this effort. I am disappointed also that, by failing to include this amendment, Congress may very well be opening up this legislation to be overturned by the courts. In doing so, Congress would be depriving Native Hawaiians access to the loan guarantee programs provided for in this bill simply for the sake of speed at the cost of accuracy and good legislation. I urge my colleagues to oppose this rule so that this legislation can be passed in a clear, constitutional way that makes it transparent to the courts that this is not a back-door attempt to lay the groundwork for other legislation to confer tribal status on the Native Hawaiian people. Native Hawaiians are just as much a part of America, this great land, as any of us. Their history is covered by the Constitution, and they are part of this country. I oppose this rule and the underlying legislation.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I do appreciate the gentleman from Florida, his conduct on the Rules Committee, him working with the minority on a number of bills. We wish we could have been successful on this amendment, just the one amendment to add into this piece of legislation. We will take them at their word that they do not intend for this to be any sort of a back-door attempt to form a government-to-government relationship with the tribal Native Hawaiians. I will tell you that we do believe that public housing and housing for Hawaiians, who are many times faced with increasing not only land costs but prices that escalate in the beautiful, beautiful State of Hawaii, that this is a good idea. We should be helping these people out. We simply wish that the amendment had been made in order for the proper clarification.

[Page: H3098]

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The unfinished business is the de novo vote on adoption of House Resolution 269.

The Clerk read the title of the resolution.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.

The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that the noes appeared to have it.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

The yeas and nays were ordered.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.

The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 234, nays 188, not voting 11, as follows: [each of the 433 votes was listed].

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

** Congressional Record for March 28, 2007, excerpts relevant to Akaka bill

HAWAIIAN HOMEOWNERSHIP OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 2007 -- (House of Representatives - March 28, 2007)

[Page: H3190]

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Madam Speaker, I will just recapitulate for a couple of moments, then perhaps we can move to the conclusion. I indicated last night, and I think it was agreed to by Mr. Bachus of Alabama and others, by way of material that has been entered into the Record, like Mr. Renzi of Arizona, that this should not be a partisan fight. In fact, "fight" probably is the wrong word, but, I mean, even a disagreement here. The reason that this bill passed overwhelmingly last week, with significant support from the Republican side of the aisle, was that it was supported in committee by Republicans and Democrats. The bill is here before the Congress as a result of a request by Hawaii's Republican Governor, and the former Chair of the Hawaii Republican Party, who is now the head of the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands. We have always had legislation in this area based on the underlying law, which was passed in 1921, by the Congress, setting aside certain lands for Hawaiians. The issue before us is about refinancing of home mortgages. This is not about whether the original law, under which the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands was established, it is constitutional. On the contrary, that issue has been raised, and it perhaps should be raised in another context; namely, if someone wants to change the underlying law. But we should not punish my constituents or anybody's constituents for the fact that they appear before us in the form of a bill trying to carry forward on the admonitions required of them, in this instance, by the Department of Housing and Urban Development in order to get their mortgages refinanced. Let me say, just as recently as February 9 of this year, the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against a group of individuals who came before the court, saying that funding for programs that benefit Hawaiians, in this instance, of this bill, the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands, constitutes an unconstitutional discrimination against non-Hawaiians. The Federal appeals court ruled that was not the case. In fact, they returned it to the U.S. District Court to see if the plaintiffs were eligible "in any
[Page: H3191]
other capacity." That is to say, other than whether it was constitutional. So we have, as recently as the last 30 days, appeals court admonitions that the constitutionality of having programs for Hawaiians is, in fact, constitutional. If someone wants to argue that, please let's argue it on the basis of a bill that addresses that itself, rather than the bill which is before us, which has to do with the refinancing of mortgages. Please don't punish people that are trying to own their own homes, to keep their own homes, because of some ideological difference that we might have.

** Note from Ken Conklin: Representative Abercrombie lied to his colleagues, totally mischaracterizing a decision of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in the Arakaki lawsuit against the Hawai'i state agency that administers HHCA. Abercrombie tells his colleagues that the Court ruled that plaintiffs have no standing because the HHCA is constitutional. But the 9th Circuit decision was entirely on the procedural issue of state taxpayer "standing," and had nothing to do with the merits of the issue whether HHCA is constitutional. The 9th Circuit decided Arakaki on the basis of the recent Supreme Court decision in DaimlerChrysler that state taxpayers have no standing to challenge in court the political decision of their legislature regarding granting tax breaks to corporations an an inducement to build new manufacturing plants. The 9th Circuit decision in Arakaki was NOT a decision on the substantive issue of whether the HHCA is unconstitutional, and Abercrombie is probably smart enough to know that. The case is returned to the District Court to determine whether plaintiffs have standing in any capacity other than as state taxpayers. The question whether HHCA is unconstitutional racial discrimination was never reached by the court due to procedural issues regarding state taxpayer "standing." **

* [Begin Insert [of revised and extended remarks]]

Mr. RENZI. Last week, this bill failed to receive the two-thirds majority necessary to pass under the suspension calendar, although the majority of members voted to approve the bill. I believe that the bill's failure to pass was the result of misconceptions about this bill that I would like to address. This is not a bill about Native Hawaiian sovereignty. The subject of Native Hawaiian sovereignty is a separate issue altogether and is not addressed in this legislation. This bill simply reauthorizes and makes some small improvements to an existing program. It does not confer any special rights to the Native Hawaiians--nor does the bill suggest that Native Hawaiians should be given a status equal to that of Native Americans. It simply reauthorizes a program created by Congress in the year 2000, just 7 years ago. At that time, Congress chose to establish a housing program to benefit poor Native Hawaiians living on their home lands--200,000 acres scattered throughout the islands of Hawaii.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Madam Speaker, I rise today to support the final passage of H.R. 835, the Hawaiian Homeownership Opportunity Act of 2007. Opponents of this bill believe this program may be unconstitutional based upon a mistaken interpretation of Rice v. Cayetano. But Rice v. Cayetano was a voting rights case. The question put to the Court was whether limiting the right to vote for trustees of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs to Native Hawaiians violated the 15th amendment. The court in Rice specifically declined to rule on the status of Native Hawaiians and Native Hawaiian programs created by Congress. Moreover, this bill and these programs have never been a partisan issue in the past. This reauthorization and improvements were requested by Hawaii's Republican administration and Governor Linda Lingle. The Department of Hawaiian Home Lands is chaired by the former head of Hawaii's State Republican Party. This bill was introduced last year by Congressman Bob Ney and was reported out of the Financial Services Committee by voice vote and without amendment. Last Congress's Republican chairman of the Financial Services Committee, Mike Oxley, cosponsored this bill. I mention these pieces of background information to illustrate the wide support for the program and the fact that it has been both Democratic and Republican. Last week, when this bill was up for consideration in the House under a suspension of the rules, the GOP leadership issued a statement just hours before the vote, calling the bill "unconstitutional" and charged that it would "confer on Native Hawaiian an arrangement like that between the federal government and American Indian tribes." Despite these charges, the bill was able to garner 34 Republican votes. The status of Native Hawaiians needs to be debated and should be debated in the House. However, this is the wrong venue for that. I have another bill pending in the House of Representatives that would establish a process for the Federal recognition of Native Hawaiians. I hope to have this legislation considered by the House Natural Resources Committee and will gladly debate these issues at that time. This measure is about helping low-income Native Hawaiians own their own home. The programs reauthorized by H.R. 835 simply provide funds for infrastructure, helps Native Hawaiians obtain mortgages and allows for refinancing to lower the cost of homeownership. This bill is about assisting Native Hawaiians to reach the American dream of owning their own home. I believe this bill can, and should, pass with overwhelming bipartisan support. I urge my colleagues to vote for final passage of this bill and support efforts to get more low-income people into their own homes.
* [End Insert]

[Page: H3205]
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The unfinished business is the question of the passage of the bill, H.R. 835, on which further proceedings were postponed earlier today.

The Clerk read the title of the bill.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill, on which the yeas and nays are ordered.

This is a 5-minute vote.

The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 272, nays 150, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 10, as follows: [423 individual votes listed]

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

http://kalapanapundit.blogspot.com/2007/03/akaka-bill-moral-disaster.html
The Dougout blog for Friday March 30, 2007
and also
http://www.hawaiireporter.com/story.aspx?d6846e23-0654-4034-8ca7-44931cdbd3b0
Hawaii Reporter, March 30, 2007

The Akaka Bill: A Moral Disaster

By Grant Jones

On January 17th, Senator Dan Akaka (D-HI) re-introduced the Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act. This bill S. 310, otherwise known as the Akaka Bill, would allow native Hawaiians to form a raced based government. Once this state within a state is created, S. 310 would require automatic recognition by the federal government. There is no requirement for a plebiscite by all the voters of Hawaii on whether a racially exclusive state should be carved out of state lands. Apparently, the numerous Hawaiians now living on the American mainland would also qualify to join this government while living outside of Hawaii.

Supporters of S. 310 claim some form of sovereignty is due Hawaiians because of the 1893 overthrow of the Monarchy. Their claim is that Hawaiians were deprived of their "right" to self-determination by the actions of outsiders. The Hawaiian kingdom established by Kamehameha I had always been multi-ethnic. The opening line of the Kingdom's first Constitution of 1840 states: "'God hath made of one blood all nations of men to dwell on the earth,' in unity and blessedness. God has also bestowed certain rights alike on all men and all chiefs, and all people of all lands." The "God" referred to here is the Christian God of the New Testament, not Kukailimoku, Kane, Pele, Lono or the many others that exist in the Hawaiian pantheon.

The Akaka Bill would establish a government based on racial nationalism. Fundamental to racial nationalism is the idea that certain ethnic groups "own" specific geographically areas. This doctrine holds that real property is owned collectively by the race instead of individuals who are free to sell or trade their property to whomever they choose. Land was "publicly" owned in traditional Hawaiian society. This meant that land was owned by the ruling elite, the Alii. Kamehameha I gave land to those American and Englishmen who helped him in his wars of unification, while retaining the authority to revoke the gift.

Lorrin A. Thurston was one of the principals of the overthrow of 1893; his four grandparents were missionaries who came to Hawaii in the early nineteenth century. A hundred years later Lorrin's grandson, Thurston Twigg-Smith was asked by a Hawaiian boy: "Why did your grandpa steal my land?" The boy's older sister then asked: "Yeah, and why did he steal our culture, too?" The children's mother was beaming approvingly; her youngsters have learned the lessons of racial nationalism all too well. These two questions illustrate the basic premises of both the Akaka Bill and racial nationalism.

The first question's basis is the idea that rights are collective in nature. In the liberal view the purpose of government is to protect the rights of the individual against transgression by criminals. A large part of these rights are property rights, including the right to own, improve and trade land. The citizen is sovereign in the liberal state. The liberal government ensures the right to property by codifying this right into law and providing a process of acquiring and documenting title to land. During the period of 1848-1852 King Kamehameha III did just that with the Great Mahele which divided the land between the Crown, the royalty and the commoners. After the overthrow of 1893 Crown i.e. government land was transferred to the Republic. The so-called "ceded lands" are now held by the state of Hawaii. The liberal philosophy upholds individual rights to life, liberty and property. The racial nationalist view upholds that rights are conferred by membership in a particular ethnic group.

The second question posed to Twigg-Smith illustrates another premise of the racial nationalist: the inability to distinguish race from culture or values from insignificant biological differences. As Thomas Sowell observed in Conquests and Culture: "Cultures are not museum-pieces. They are the working machinery of everyday life." By 1840, as noted above, Hawaiian culture had greatly changed as a result of contact with European ideas. The story of cultural change due to contact with other societies has become the subject of study by the discipline of world history. Cultural values evolve over time and are open to anyone who accepts them.

The ideas that animate the Akaka Bill would turn the clock back over two-hundred years to an allegedly better time. The Akaka Bill is not the representative of a bright future, but the harbinger of an atavistic tribalism. To see the future the Akaka Bill promises Hawaii look at the violence, disorder and racial hostility occurring in Fiji.

Grant Jones is a Big Island writer who has a blog located at
http://kalapanapundit.blogspot.com/2007/02/slings-stones-and-hand-cuffs.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