OHA is the Hawaiian group fighting against the AKAKA BILL

GUESS what "John Roberts" lost this case for the Hawaiians at Supreme Court?
says... "It could be worse..."

JMHO I don't want him to be allowed to screw all the women now too (abortion rights) Even if he is on your side, you might lose!

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

Hawaii's law restricting OHA trustee selection to Hawaiians is struck down

By Helen Altonn and
Christine Donnelly
Star-Bulletin
1999

The United States Supreme Court today struck down Hawaii's practice of letting only people with Hawaiian blood vote for Office of Hawaiian Affairs trustees.

The voting restriction allows unlawful racial discrimination, the justices ruled by a 7-2 vote. "A state may not deny or abridge the right to vote on account of race, and this law does so," Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote for the court as it invalidated a Hawaii constitutional provision.

Harold "Freddy" Rice, a Big Island caucasian rancher, challenged the state's limits on who can vote for trustees of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, which administers state funds and proceeds of public land to aid descendants of original Hawaiians.

POINTS OF CHALLENGE
These are points Harold "Freddy" Rice cited in his challenge:
He claims that allowing only Hawaiians to vote in Office of Hawaiian Affairs elections violates the 14th amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which provides equal protection for all citizens under the law, and the 15th amendment, which states:

"The right of the citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude."

READ IT ON THE WEB
The Rice vs. Cayetano decision of the U.S. Supreme Court can be viewed online through the Legal Information Institute Web site. The Internet address is
http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/98-818.ZS.html.

"I'm very pleased that we've won," Rice said by telephone this morning from his ranch. He said his lawsuit was "not about OHA --not at all. I was defending my rights to vote in any public election and I think it's a good thing for everybody in Hawaii.

"I think the whole case was a real education process, so much was written and talked about that people became aware of some things. I'd like to see this be the end of any racial preferences concerning public funds and facilities."

OHA Chairman Clayton Hee said, "My take on this is people like Freddy Rice, the court holds, should be allowed to participate in the election of Office of Hawaiian Affairs trustees."

Gov. Ben Cayetano, on a trip to Silicon Valley in California, said some time is needed to digest the Supreme Court decision, according to spokeswoman Kathleen Racuya-Markrich. Cayetano planned to discuss the decision today with Attorney General Earl Anzai and look into implementing a contingency plan, she said.

Attorney John Roberts, with the Washington law firm Hogan & Hartson, who argued the state's case before the Supreme Court, said the decision "could have been a lot worse."

He said, "The good news is that the majority's opinion was very narrowly written and expressly did not call into question the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, the public trust for the benefit of Hawaiians and native Hawaiians, but only the particular voting mechanism by which the trustees are selected." Since the opinion is limited to the voting aspect, he said it shouldn't encourage other challenges to Hawaiian benefit programs.
-----------------------
---------------------------------------------------------
The court said the state's argument for the voting restriction "rests on the demeaning premise that citizens of a particular race are somehow more qualified than others to vote on certain matters.

"There is no room under the (15th) Amendment for the concept that the right to vote in a particular election can be allocated based on race."

OHA, created in 1978, administers a $300 million trust that provides economic, social, health and education aid for about 200,000 residents of Hawaiian blood.

The state constitution limits voting for the trustees to people descended from the original Hawaiians on the islands in 1778, date of the first known arrival by Europeans.

Hawaii was a kingdom until 1893, when the last queen was overthrown with U.S. help. In 1993, the Clinton administration acknowledged the action was illegal and apologized to Hawaiians for the U.S. involvement.(see the apology below.)

Hawaii was a U.S. territory until 1959, when it became the 50th state.

Rice has no Hawaiian blood but his family has lived on the islands since the mid-1800s.His lawyers argued that the voting restriction was racially discriminatory. He did not challenge the state's right to create a trust to benefit people with Hawaiian blood.

State officials, supported by the federal government, argued that the voting law was valid because Congress and the state have an obligation to native Hawaiians who lost their land, similar to the government's obligation to American Indians.

"When the culture and way of life of a people are all but engulfed by a history beyond their control, their sense of loss may extend down through generations and their dismay may be shared by many members of the larger community," Kennedy said.

But he added that Hawaii's attempt "to address these realities" must keep in mind that the federal Constitution "has become the heritage of all citizens of Hawaii."The court refused to treat Hawaii's practice as one similar to federal programs to aid Indian tribes.

Concurring with the opinion, delivered by Kennedy, were Justices William H. Rehnquist, Sandra Day O'Connor, Antonin Scalia, David H. Souter, Clarence Thomas and Stephen Breyer.Justices John Paul Stevens and Ruth Bader Ginsburg dissented. Stevens said the decision "rests largely on the repetition of glittering generalities that have little, if any, application to the compelling history of the state of Hawaii."

The decision is a rare one for modern times because it rests on the Constitution's 15th Amendment, a Civil War-era measure aimed at protecting the rights of former slaves.

The case is Rice vs. Cayetano, 98-818.

The Associated Press contributed to this report

Key dates in the case
1978: The Office of Hawaiian Affairs is created to help improve the lives of Hawaiians, with state constitutional amendments stipulating that trustees be Hawaiians elected by Hawaiians. OHA is funded mainly by revenues from ceded lands -- 1.8 million acres taken by the U.S. government after annexation and later transferred to the state -- but also some taxpayer money.

1980: The first biennial election of OHA trustees occurs. Hawaii's attorney general issues an opinion the same year that the "Hawaiians-only" voting rule is legal.

March 1996: Big Island rancher Harold "Freddy" Rice, who is white, applies for and is denied an OHA election ballot.

April 25, 1996: Rice files a lawsuit in U.S. District Court in Hawaii claiming his rejection violates the 14th and 15th amendments of the U.S. Constitution, which guarantee equal protection and voting rights regardless of race.

May 6, 1997: U.S. District Court Judge David Ezra rules against Rice, finding the voting restrictions valid because they are based "upon the unique status of native Hawaiians" and because Hawaiians are OHA's only direct beneficiaries. Rice later appeals to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

June 22, 1998: The 9th Circuit upholds Ezra's ruling, finding OHA's voting restrictions are "not primarily racial, but legal and political" and "rooted in historical concern for the Hawaiian race." Rice later appeals to the U.S. Supreme Court.

March 22, 1999: The U.S. Supreme Court agrees to hear the case. Eleven "friend of the court" briefs are subsequently filed, eight supporting the state and three supporting Rice. Among those supporting OHA is the U.S. solicitor general -- commonly referred to as the "10th justice" -- representing the federal government.

Oct. 6, 1999: Supreme Court hearing. Rice's lawyer argues there is a clear violation of voting rights. State lawyers claim OHA's voting restrictions are allowed by Congress based on Hawaiians' special status with the federal government, similar to American Indians on the mainland who are allowed restricted tribal elections. Then-OHA Chairwoman Rowena Akana emerges from the hearing dismayed, saying the justices seemed to focus more on racism than on whether Hawaiians have special political status.

Feb. 23, 2000: The U.S. Supreme Court in a 7-2 vote strikes down the practice of

allowing only native Hawaiians to vote in OHA elections.

Sources: Office of Hawaiian Affairs, U.S. Supreme Court, 9th U.S. Circuit Court of

Appeals, Honolulu Star-Bulletin library.

Office of Hawaiian Affairs

January '97 OHA Ceded Lands Ruling

Rice vs. Cayetano
U.S. Public Law 103-150

http://starbulletin.com/2000/02/23/news/story1.html

(if i had argued the case instead of Roberts, I would have brought up the following apology, and won the case.)
----------------------------------------------
at least the hawaiians got an apology in 1993
------------------------------------------------

UNITED STATES PUBLIC LAW 103-150

103d Congress Joint Resolution 19
Nov. 23, 1993
To acknowledge the 100th anniversary of the January 17, 1893 overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii, and to offer an apology to Native Hawaiians on behalf of the United States for the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii.

Whereas, prior to the arrival of the first Europeans in 1778, the Native Hawaiian people lived in a highly organized, self-sufficient, subsistent social system based on communal land tenure with a sophisticated language, culture, and religion;

Whereas, a unified monarchical government of the Hawaiian Islands was established in 1810 under Kamehameha I, the first King of Hawaii;

Whereas, from 1826 until 1893, the United States recognized the independence of the Kingdom of Hawaii, extended full and complete diplomatic recognition to the Hawaiian Government, and entered into treaties and conventions with the Hawaiian monarchs to govern commerce and navigation in 1826, 1842, 1849, 1875, and 1887;

Whereas, the Congregational Church (now known as the United Church of Christ), through its American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions, sponsored and sent more than 100 missionaries to the Kingdom of Hawaii between 1820 and 1850;

Whereas, on January 14, 1893, John L. Stevens (hereafter referred to in this Resolution as the "United States Minister"), the United States Minister assigned to the sovereign and independent Kingdom of Hawaii conspired with a small group of non-Hawaiian residents of the Kingdom of Hawaii, including citizens of the United States, to overthrow the indigenous and lawful Government of Hawaii;

Whereas, in pursuance of the conspiracy to overthrow the Government of Hawaii, the United States Minister and the naval representatives of the United States caused armed naval forces of the United States to invade the sovereign Hawaiian nation on January 16, 1893, and to position themselves near the Hawaiian Government buildings and the Iolani Palace to intimidate Queen Liliuokalani and her Government;

Whereas, on the afternoon of January 17,1893, a Committee of Safety that represented the American and European sugar planters, descendants of missionaries, and financiers deposed the Hawaiian monarchy and proclaimed the establishment of a Provisional Government;

Whereas, the United States Minister thereupon extended diplomatic recognition to the Provisional Government that was formed by the conspirators without the consent of the Native Hawaiian people or the lawful Government of Hawaii and in violation of treaties between the two nations and of international law;

Whereas, soon thereafter, when informed of the risk of bloodshed with resistance, Queen Liliuokalani issued the following statement yielding her authority to the United States Government rather than to the Provisional Government:


"I Liliuokalani, by the Grace of God and under the Constitution of the Hawaiian Kingdom, Queen, do hereby solemnly protest against any and all acts done against myself and the Constitutional Government of the Hawaiian Kingdom by certain persons claiming to have established a Provisional Government of and for this Kingdom. "That I yield to the superior force of the United States of America whose Minister Plenipotentiary, His Excellency John L. Stevens, has caused United States troops to be landed a Honolulu and declared that he would support the Provisional Government.

"Now to avoid any collision of armed forces, and perhaps the loss of life, I do this under protest and impelled by said force yield my authority until such time as the Government of the United States shall, upon facts being presented to it, undo the action of its representatives and reinstate me in the authority which I claim as the Constitutional Sovereign of the Hawaiian Islands.". Done at Honolulu this 17th day of January, A.D. 1893.;

Whereas, without the active support and intervention by the United States diplomatic and military representatives, the insurrection against the Government of Queen Liliuokalani would have failed for lack of popular support and insufficient arms;

Whereas, on February 1, 1893, the United States Minister raised the American flag and proclaimed Hawaii to be a protectorate of the United States;

Whereas, the report of a Presidentially established investigation conducted by former Congressman James Blount into the events surrounding the insurrection and overthrow of January 17, 1893, concluded that the United States diplomatic and military representatives had abused their authority and were responsible for the change in government;

Whereas, as a result of this investigation, the United States Minister to Hawaii was recalled from his diplomatic post and the military commander of the United States armed forces stationed in Hawaii was disciplined and forced to resign his commission;

Whereas, in a message to Congress on December 18, 1893, President Grover Cleveland reported fully and accurately on the illegal acts of the conspirators, described such acts as an "act of war, committed with the participation of a diplomatic representative of the United States and without authority of Congress", and acknowledged that by such acts the government of a peaceful and friendly people was overthrown;

Whereas, President Cleveland further concluded that a "substantial wrong has thus been done which a due regard for our national character as well as the rights of the injured people requires we should endeavor to repair" and called for the restoration of the Hawaiian monarchy;

Whereas, the Provisional Government protested President Cleveland's call for the
restoration of the monarchy and continued to hold state power and pursue annexation to the United States;

Whereas, the Provisional Government successfully lobbied the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate (hereafter referred to in this Resolution as the "Committee") to conduct a new investigation into the events surrounding the overthrow of the monarchy;

Whereas, the Committee and its chairman, Senator John Morgan, conducted hearings in Washington, D.C., from December 27,1893, through February 26, 1894, in which members of the Provisional Government justified and condoned the actions of the United States Minister and recommended annexation of Hawaii;

Whereas, although the Provisional Government was able to obscure the role of the United States in the illegal overthrow of the Hawaiian monarchy, it was unable to rally the support from two-thirds of the Senate needed to ratify a treaty of annexation;

Whereas, on July 4, 1894, the Provisional Government declared itself to be the Republic of Hawaii;

Whereas, on January 24, 1895, while imprisoned in Iolani Palace, Queen Liliuokalani was forced by representatives of the Republic of Hawaii to officially abdicate her throne;

Whereas, in the 1896 United States Presidential election, William McKinley replaced Grover Cleveland;

Whereas, on July 7, 1898, as a consequence of the Spanish-American War, President McKinley signed the Newlands Joint Resolution that provided for the annexation of Hawaii;

Whereas, through the Newlands Resolution, the self-declared Republic of Hawaii ceded sovereignty over the Hawaiian Islands to the United States;

Whereas, the Republic of Hawaii also ceded 1,800,000 acres of crown, government and public lands of the Kingdom of Hawaii, without the consent of or compensation to the Native Hawaiian people of Hawaii or their sovereign government;

Whereas, the Congress, through the Newlands Resolution, ratified the cession, annexed Hawaii as part of the United States, and vested title to the lands in Hawaii in the United States;

Whereas, the Newlands Resolution also specified that treaties existing between Hawaii and foreign nations were to immediately cease and be replaced by United States treaties with such nations;

Whereas, the Newlands Resolution effected the transaction between the Republic of Hawaii and the United States Government;

Whereas, the indigenous Hawaiian people never directly relinquished their claims to their inherent sovereignty as a people or over their national lands to the United States, either through their monarchy or through a plebiscite or referendum;

Whereas, on April 30, 1900, President McKinley signed the Organic Act that provided a government for the territory of Hawaii and defined the political structure and powers of the newly established Territorial Government and its relationship to the United States;

Whereas, on August 21,1959, Hawaii became the 50th State of the United States;

Whereas, the health and well-being of the Native Hawaiian people is intrinsically tied to their deep feelings and attachment to the land;

Whereas, the long-range economic and social changes in Hawaii over the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries have been devastating to the population and to the health and well-being of the Hawaiian people;

Whereas, the Native Hawaiian people are determined to preserve, develop and transmit to future generations their ancestral territory, and their cultural identity in accordance with their own spiritual and traditional beliefs, customs, practices, language, and social institutions;

Whereas, in order to promote racial harmony and cultural understanding, the Legislature of the State of Hawaii has determined that the year 1993, should serve Hawaii as a year of special reflection on the rights and dignities of the Native Hawaiians in the Hawaiian and the American societies;

Whereas, the Eighteenth General Synod of the United Church of Christ in recognition of the denomination's historical complicity in the illegal overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii in 1893 directed the Office of the President of the United Church of Christ to offer a public apology to the Native Hawaiian people and to initiate the process of reconciliation between the United Church of Christ and the Native Hawaiians; and

Whereas, it is proper and timely for the Congress on the occasion of the impending one hundredth anniversary of the event, to acknowledge the historic significance of the illegal overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii, to express its deep regret to the Native Hawaiian people, and to support the reconciliation efforts of the State of Hawaii and the United Church of Christ with Native Hawaiians; Now, therefore, be it Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,


SECTION 1. ACKNOWLEDGMENT AND APOLOGY.
The Congress -

(1) on the occasion of the 100th anniversary of the illegal overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii on January 17, 1893, acknowledges the historical significance of this event which resulted in the suppression of the inherent sovereignty of the Native Hawaiian people;

(2) recognizes and commends efforts of reconciliation initiated by the State of Hawaii and the United Church of Christ with Native Hawaiians;

(3) apologizes to Native Hawaiians on behalf of the people of the United States for the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii on January 17, 1893 with the participation of agents and citizens of the United States, and the deprivation of the rights of Native Hawaiians to self-determination;

(4) expresses its commitment to acknowledge the ramifications of the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii, in order to provide a proper foundation for reconciliation between the United States and the Native Hawaiian people; and

(5) urges the President of the United States to also acknowledge the ramifications of the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii and to support reconciliation efforts between the United States and the Native Hawaiian people.


SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.
As used in this Joint Resolution, the term "Native Hawaiians" means any individual who is a descendent of the aboriginal people who, prior to 1778, occupied and exercised sovereignty in the area that now constitutes the State of Hawaii.


SEC. 3. DISCLAIMER.
Nothing in this Joint Resolution is intended to serve as a settlement of any claims against the United States.

Approved November 23, 1993

______________________________
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY - S.J. Res. 19:

SENATE REPORTS: No. 103-125 (Select Comm. on Indian Affairs)
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 139 (1993):

Oct. 27, considered and passed Senate.
Nov. 15, considered and passed House
_________________________________________

http://www.hawaii-nation.org/publawall.html
---------------------------
AKAKA BILL
Akaka Bill Faces Critical Congressional Vote
Critics, Supporters To Attend Washington Hearing

POSTED: 5:11 pm HST July 13, 2005

HONOLULU -- Proponents and opponents of the controversial Native Hawaiian recognition bill are preparing for a showdown in Washington. A critical vote in Congress happens next week.

"This is the closest we've come with this bill in six or seven years," Office of Hawaiian Affairs Chairwoman Haunani Apoliona said. "This is the closest. It's like walking into the arena. You know?"

Apoliona leaves for Washington this weekend. She is one of many who plan to testify on the Native Hawaiian recognition act, which has been called the Akaka Bill after U.S. Sen. Daniel Akaka.

The bill would give Native Hawaiians the same rights as Native Americans and Native Alaskans.

The Justice Department Wednesday said it wants to make sure the bill doesn't affect military bases, doesn't allow gaming and doesn't affect the enforcement of criminal laws on Native Hawaiian lands.

"Up to this point, they hadn't said anything really. So, it helps," Apoliona said.

Both Gov. Linda Lingle and Akaka said they are encouraged that the President George W. Bush's administration seems willing to work with Congress on the issue.

A number of floor amendments are expected to be added to the bill, including one by Arizona Sen. Jon Kyle, who opposes the bill. He is expected to offer up to five floor amendments, including a call for a referendum on the issue by Hawaii residents. Debate on the issue begins on Monday.

Previous Stories:
July 7, 2005: Hawaiian Group Wants OHA To Air Ads Against Akaka Bill
March 31, 2005: Hawaii Congressional Leaders Optimistic About Akaka Bill
March 2, 2005: Lingle, Groups Lobby Congress On Hawaiian Recognition
January 25, 2005: Akaka Reintroduces Hawaiian Rights Bill
October 11, 2004: Senators Abandon Hawaiian Recognition Bill For 2004
September 15, 2004: Akaka Bill Passes Out Of Congressional Committee
July 9, 2004: Hawaii Senators Battle To Keep Akaka Bill Alive
July 8, 2004: Akaka Bill Suffers Setback
February 24, 2003: Hawaiians Rally Against Akaka Bill
December 13, 2000: Akaka Expects Hawaiian Bill To Die

http://www.thehawaiichannel.com/news/4721127/detail.html

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

Again I bring to your attention Hawaii's 2 Democrat Senators, both voted for drilling in Alaska. The 'akaka' bill is named after Sen. Akaka.

Sen. Inouye is part/chair of the hearings now deciding if...
'AS IT HAS BEEN SUGGESTED...
ALL FUNDING BE CUT TO PBS AND NPR
BECAUSE THEY ARE, LIBERAL, AND UN-BALANCED." Sen. Inouye says he supports funding. But today had almost no questions to ask of the person's testifying. (These hearings are going on right now and the outcome's are undecided, I urge you to watch them on C_SPAN because they effect the funding to go digital to keep us all connected, we may have to FEDX PBS AND NPR news to you from now on)

*~*
This is about the AKAKA BILL still pending.
1st, the latest from the 'pitiful' one channel who says they are fair and balanced. 2nd Akaka's bill.
*~*

I am un-clear as to how much personal opinion I am able to insert into this forum. My last posts on my Senators were politely moved to the soapbox. So I am saying as little as possible and only reporting facts and perhaps CONCERNS AS TO WHICH WAY TO LOOK! I would appreciate any guidance as to my posting to clarify the rules. But will assume, since this is a democratic blog and I am a democrat, I do have a right to my opinion. I do not believe my democratic Senators represent the HAWAIIAN CITIZENS and that anyone wanting to know what Hawaiians want should try to dig deeper than our representatives and our media.

~~~*~~~

Hawaiian Group Wants OHA To Air Ads Against Akaka Bill

POSTED: 2:29 pm HST July 7, 2005
UPDATED: 2:36 pm HST July 7, 2005

HONOLULU -- A Native Hawaiian group voiced its opposition against the Hawaiian
recognition bill before Congress Thursday at an Office of Hawaiian Affairs board meeting.

The Native Hawaii Recognition Act, nicknamed the Akaka Bill, after U.S. Sen. Daniel Akaka, would give Native Hawaiians the same federal recognition as Native Americans and Native Alaskans.

The group known as Hui Pu said it wants OHA to sponsor hearings immediately to air all points of view on the Akaka Bill. Hui Pu feels opposition to the Akaka bill has been silenced by OHA's spending of thousands of dollars of state money to publicize only support for the Akaka Bill.

"There are many voices out there and there is only a one-sided story that is being told right now and its not pono (good)," said Andre Perez, of Hui Pu. "We reject the Akaka bill because we refuse to sell our ourselves, our keiki (children) our aina (land) and our resources."

"Others can have their opinions, but we believe the Office of Hawaiian Affairs trustees have unanimously supported the passage and we are staying the course," OHA Chairwoman Haunani Apoliona said.

Previous Stories:
March 31, 2005: Hawaii Congressional Leaders Optimistic About Akaka Bill
March 2, 2005: Lingle, Groups Lobby Congress On Hawaiian Recognition
January 25, 2005: Akaka Reintroduces Hawaiian Rights Bill
October 11, 2004: Senators Abandon Hawaiian Recognition Bill For 2004
September 15, 2004: Akaka Bill Passes Out Of Congressional Committee
July 9, 2004: Hawaii Senators Battle To Keep Akaka Bill Alive
July 8, 2004: Akaka Bill Suffers Setback
February 24, 2003: Hawaiians Rally Against Akaka Bill
Copyright 2005 by TheHawaiiChannel.com All rights reserved.

http://www.thehawaiichannel.com/news/4697075/detail.html

________________________________________________________

In my humble opinion there is no-one who has any power that will be able to stop this steam-rolling of the Hawaiian people. Unless someone some where begins to care about this issue the Hawaiians will lose there ability to right any wrong that may have happened to them. During the election, Kerry said he supported the AKAKA BILL in an effort to gain votes, when he was informed that the bill didn't reflect the native hawaiians true stand, Kerry stopped 'talking' about it. I still see no-one caring about this enough to educate themselves on this issue and further even understanding that as a SOVEREIGN NATION, when the US came in and took Hawaii, it is de'kine (Like) the US coming in and jailing and killing, Queen Elizabeth and all the BRITISH Royality, telling them they could no longer, worship, marry, govern, speak Hawaiian, own their own lands and on and on and on... It's along story but suffice it to say...

The AKAKA BILL would make Hawaiians, NATIVE AMERICANS...

NATIVE AMERICANS WITH NO TREATIES UNDER THEIR BELT! No Nothing!

WE ALL KNOW HOW THE INDIANS WERE TREATED,
WHY DON'T YOU KNOW HOW HAWAIIANS WERE TREATED?


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

AND NOW THE AKAKA BILL, etc...
from... Senator Akaka's Website
http://akaka.senate.gov/akakabill-b.html
Thursday May 5, 2005, 9:56 am Hawaii time

S. 147, the Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act of 2005I introduced this legislation with Hawaii’s Congressional delegation to extend the federal policy of self-governance and self-determination to Native Hawaiians. We have been working to enact this legislation since 1999. I have made clear to my colleagues in Washington, D.C. that this is a nonpartisan issue. This is a team effort and we greatly appreciate the efforts of everyone involved who is working to enact this bill.


BACKGROUND

S. 147, the Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act, was introduced on January 25, 2005, and was referred to the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs. On March 1, 2005, the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs held a hearing on the legislation. Witnesses included Governor Linda Lingle, who was accompanied by Hawaii State Attorney General Mark Bennett and Hawaiian Homes Commission Chair Micah Kane; Haunani Apoliona, Chair, Office of Hawaiian Affairs Board of Trustees; Jade Danner, Vice-President, Council for Native Hawaiian Advancement; Tex Hall, President, National Congress of American Indians; and Julie Kitka, President, Alaska Federation of Natives.

On March 9, 2005, the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs voted to adopt a substitute amendment offered by myself, Senator Daniel K. Inouye, and Senator John McCain. The Committee also voted to favorably report the bill as amended. On March 18, 2005, Senator Inouye and I wrote to the Majority Leader Bill Frist and Democratic Leader Harry Reid to request that S. 147 be brought before the Senate for debate and a roll call vote at the earliest opportunity.

The Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act does three things. It establishes the Office of Native Hawaiian Relations in the Department of the Interior to serve as a liaison between Native Hawaiians and the United States. It establishes the Native Hawaiian Interagency Coordinating Group to be composed of federal officials from agencies which administer Native Hawaiian programs. Both of these provisions are intended to increase coordination between the Native Hawaiians and the federal government. And third, the bill provides a process of reorganization of the Native Hawaiian governing entity. I am very proud of the fact that while the bill provides structure to the process, it also provides the Native Hawaiian community with the flexibility to truly reorganize its governing entity.

The substitute amendment, which was adopted by the Committee on March 9, 2005, further clarified that the enactment of the bill does not establish eligibility for Native Hawaiians in Indian programs and services, unless Native Hawaiians are otherwise eligible for such services. The substitute amendment clearly states that Native Hawaiians have federal programs that are established to benefit Native Hawaiians and are appropriated separately from Indian programs and services. We have never intended to “cut into the pie” of funding for Indian programs and services and had previously believed that the language in the bill was sufficient to alleviate the concerns of Members of Congress. We clarified the bill further and successfully addressed the concerns expressed by Tex Hall, President, National Congress of American Indians, and certain Members of Congress who were still concerned that the language in S. 147 did not adequately protect Indian programs and services.

NEXT STEPS FOR S. 147

As for the “prognosis” of the bill, I remain cautiously optimistic that given the opportunity for a roll call vote on the passage of S. 147, we have the necessary votes in the United States Senate to pass the bill. Senator Inouye and I have been meeting with our colleagues to talk about the legislation and to address any concerns that they may have about the bill. We have had the full support of our Democratic colleagues for the past six years. In addition, we have support from a number of our colleagues across the aisle. I continue to meet with my colleagues on the legislation and will do so until the bill is considered by the Senate. Our biggest challenge in the enactment of this bill remains with the Executive Branch. The White House wields a tremendous amount of authority over the Legislative Branch in terms of which bills are allowed to be considered in the House and Senate. This is due to the majority that the Republican party currently wields in the House and Senate. This is why I greatly value the efforts of Governor Linda Lingle who has reached out to her contacts in the Executive Branch regarding the importance of this bill for the State of Hawaii.

At the end of the last session, Senator Inouye and I were able to reach an agreement with Senator Jon Kyl (R-AZ) and the Senate Leadership, that the bill would be considered for debate and a roll call vote in the U.S. Senate no later than August 7, 2005. I am confident that this agreement will be honored. For far too long, a few members have used Senate rules to prevent this legislation from being considered by the full Senate. I believe these actions were based on the knowledge that we have the necessary votes to enact this bill. I am pleased that the Senate will finally have the opportunity to consider this legislation during the 109th Congress. While we continue to press for immediate consideration of the bill, we do not yet have a firm date for its consideration in the Senate.


ROLE OF THE STATE LEGISLATURE UPON ENACTMENT OF S. 147

The Committees’ second question dealt with what the Hawaii State Legislature should be doing to assist with the implementation of the bill upon enactment. As you know, section 8( provides that once federal recognition is granted to the Native Hawaiian governing entity, the entity then will begin negotiations with the State of Hawaii and the federal government to resolve a number of matters, most specifically, the exercise of any governmental powers by the Native Hawaiian governing entity. Until that time, the bill does not provide a clear role for the State of Hawaii.

What I see as one of the biggest challenges in implementation will be the establishment of the roll. The roll identifies the Native Hawaiians who meet the definition of Native Hawaiian in the bill and choose to participate in the reorganization of the Native Hawaiian government. The bill establishes a certification commission to be composed of Native Hawaiians with expertise in genealogy to certify that those individuals who are applying to be on the roll meet the definition of Native Hawaiian. I anticipate that this process will have a tremendous impact on the state offices that handle birth certificates, marriage certificates, and death certificates. The Hawaii State Legislature may be helpful in providing resources to address the increase in demand that these offices will face once Native Hawaiians begin to apply to be listed on the roll.


RECONCILIATION AND RECOGNITION

S. 147 is not about redress and it never was. This bill is about process and opportunity. I am proud of the balance this bill achieves between structure and flexibility for Native Hawaiians to reorganize their governing entity for the purposes of a federally recognized government-to-government relationship. This is just one of many steps that we will take as we move forward as a people to provide a better future for our children.

The claims section in this bill is intended to protect any claims that anyone may have. This bill has always contained language stating that “Nothing in this Act is intended to settle any claims.” This is the same language that I included in the Apology Resolution to protect any claims as it has never been my intent to address claims in the legislation I have drafted to date. My intent with the Apology Resolution was to educate members of Congress about the history of Hawaii in an effort to lay the foundation for the process of reconciliation.

My intent in drafting this bill is to provide Native Hawaiians with the opportunity to reorganize their governing entity for the purposes of a federally recognized government-to-government relationship with the United States. This is important because it provides parity in the way the federal government deals with the indigenous peoples who inhabited the lands which have become the United States. There are many, many more steps that we will take as a people. I believe it is wrong to predetermine the outcome of these longstanding matters in legislation. For that reason, I have deliberately not sought to resolve longstanding issues, such as land conflicts, in this bill. I believe that once the entity is reorganized, it will be in a position to negotiate these issues for its citizens with Native Hawaiians controlling the outcome of the process.
http://akaka.senate.gov/akakabill-b.html

This post has been edited by faith1: Jul 21 2005, 10:08 PM