2006-05-12 Akaka Fact Check - Revision history

Jere Krischel: /* Point/Counterpoint */

2006-05-12T21:43:52Z

‎Point/Counterpoint

Jere Krischel at 21:25, 12 May 2006

2006-05-12T21:25:44Z

Jere Krischel: /* Akaka's remarks with corrections */

2006-05-12T20:20:25Z

‎Akaka's remarks with corrections

Jere Krischel: /* Akaka's remarks with corrections */

2006-05-12T20:18:49Z

‎Akaka's remarks with corrections

Jere Krischel: /* Akaka's remarks with corrections */

2006-05-12T20:16:17Z

‎Akaka's remarks with corrections

Jere Krischel: /* Akaka's remarks with corrections */

2006-05-12T20:13:56Z

‎Akaka's remarks with corrections

Jere Krischel: /* Akaka's remarks with corrections */

2006-05-12T20:12:43Z

‎Akaka's remarks with corrections

Jere Krischel: /* Akaka's remarks with corrections */

2006-05-12T20:11:30Z

‎Akaka's remarks with corrections

Jere Krischel: /* Akaka's remarks with corrections */

2006-05-12T20:10:19Z

‎Akaka's remarks with corrections

Jere Krischel: /* Akaka's remarks with corrections */

2006-05-12T20:08:22Z

‎Akaka's remarks with corrections

@@ Line 5: / Line 5: @@
 {{point|Akaka lists the Co-Sponsors of S.147, asserting bi-partisan support for his bill.}}
-{{counterpoint|The Akaka bill would put Hawaii on the chopping block.  Those co-sponsors should be asking if their states will be next.  If anyone with a a drop of blood indigenous to Hawaii can participate in carving out of the State of Hawaii their own new separate sovereign government, not subject to all the constitution & laws of the State of Hawaii and the United States, why shouldn’t anyone with a smidgen of ancestry indigenous to their state have the same right?  }}
+{{counterpoint|The Akaka bill would put [[Hawaii on the chopping block]].  Those co-sponsors should be asking if their states will be next.  If anyone with a a drop of blood indigenous to Hawaii can participate in carving out of the State of Hawaii their own new separate sovereign government, not subject to all the constitution & laws of the State of Hawaii and the United States, why shouldn’t anyone with a smidgen of ancestry indigenous to their state have the same right?  }}
 {{point|Akaka says the bill will be good for the State of Hawaii and all its people, natives and non-natives.}}
@@ Line 13: / Line 13: @@
 In addition, the new government will surely seek dominion and control of submerged lands, reefs, territorial waters, the peaks of Mauna Kea and Haleakala, the NorthWestern Hawaiian islands.  Kamehameha Schools will likely want its 370,000 acres to be under the jurisdiction of the new government.
 The likely result?  The State of Hawaii will end up as a shrunken-down, decimated version of what Congress promised in 1959.  80% of the State citizens will be in servitude to the new Congressionally-sponsored hereditary elite.}}
 =Akaka's remarks with corrections=
 Mr. President, I rise again to talk about legislation of critical importance to me and the people of Hawaii, S. 147, the Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act. As my colleagues are aware, we have been trying to schedule this bill for a debate and vote on the Senate floor. Unfortunately, the bill has been blocked by a handful of my colleagues who fail to understand the importance of this issue to the people of Hawaii.

@@ Line 2: / Line 2: @@
 <small>Back to [[Correcting Akaka]]</small>
 =Akaka's remarks with corrections=
 Mr. President, I rise again to talk about legislation of critical importance to me and the people of Hawaii, S. 147, the Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act. As my colleagues are aware, we have been trying to schedule this bill for a debate and vote on the Senate floor. Unfortunately, the bill has been blocked by a handful of my colleagues who fail to understand the importance of this issue to the people of Hawaii.

@@ Line 67: / Line 67: @@
 Mr. President, I want to express my sincerest appreciation to our Majority and Democratic Leaders for working with me and Hawaii's senior Senator on scheduling the Senate's consideration of S. 147, the Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act of 2005. It is my understanding that the motion to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to S. 147 will be filed when we return from our Memorial Day recess.
-I look forward to this opportunity to finally discuss S. 147. As my colleagues have heard over the past week, this is an issue of importance to all of the people of Hawaii, and this is not a native versus non-native issue in Hawaii. Rather, this is about authorizing a process for the people of Hawaii to be able to address longstanding issues resulting from a tragic, poignant period in our history. This is about establishing parity for Hawaii's indigenous peoples in federal policies. This is about clarifying the existing political and legal relationship between Native Hawaiians and the United States.
+I look forward to this opportunity to finally discuss S. 147. As my colleagues have heard over the past week, this is an issue of importance to all of the people of Hawaii, and this is not a native versus non-native issue in Hawaii.
 {{correction|1=Despite the characterization of [http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:S.147.RS: S.147] as merely extending existing federal policy, and providing "parity", it actually goes where no legislation has gone before.  Although Congress DOES have plenary power over federally recognized tribes, it DOES NOT have plenary power to create tribes out of thin air; and in fact court decisions have ruled that Congress cannot give federal recognition arbitrarily or capriciously: [http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=231&invol=28 United States v. Sandoval, 231 U.S. 28, 39-47 (1913)]

@@ Line 53: / Line 53: @@
 Colleagues, you can see from the process that I have just outlined, that this legislation is based on the collective thoughts of a wide array of individuals, native and non-native, from Hawaii and across the entire nation. It is based on the contributions of individuals well-versed in the federal policies dealing with indigenous peoples - by those who understand the legal and political relationship the United States has with its indigenous peoples. It is based on federal law and is substantiated by the many judicial rulings on the political and legal relationship between the United States and its indigenous peoples. It reflects the respect that the people of Hawaii have for the preservation of the culture and traditions of Hawaii's indigenous peoples - the culture and traditions which form the basis of the spirit of Aloha - which all citizens of Hawaii are proud to demonstrate.
-Mr. President, this bill is supported by Hawaii's Governor, Linda Lingle, the Hawaii State Legislature, Office of Hawaiian Affairs and Department of Hawaiian Home Lands. The National Congress of American Indians and the Alaska Federation of Natives have passed resolutions in support of this bill. The bill is also supported by a number of organizations, native and non-native, including the American Bar Association, Japanese American Citizens' League, Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, and the Hawaii State Teachers Association.
+Mr. President, this bill is supported by Hawaii's Governor, Linda Lingle, the Hawaii State Legislature, Office of Hawaiian Affairs and Department of Hawaiian Home Lands.
-{{comment|Despite the support of politicians, the Akaka bill continues to have little support amongst the public of Hawaii.}}
+{{comment|They are all heavily dependent on continued funding of racially exclusionary programs, and the votes of what they regard as a monolithic 20% swing vote. }}
 Mr. President, I want to express my sincerest appreciation to our Majority and Democratic Leaders for working with me and Hawaii's senior Senator on scheduling the Senate's consideration of S. 147, the Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act of 2005. It is my understanding that the motion to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to S. 147 will be filed when we return from our Memorial Day recess.

@@ Line 40: / Line 40: @@
 I want all of my colleagues to know that when the Senate considers this bill, I will offer a substitute amendment. The substitute amendment has been widely distribute since September 2005 and is the result of successful negotiations between the Executive Branch officials and our Congressional delegation and Governor. I thank the Chairman and Vice Chairman of the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs for helping to facilitate the negotiations process.
-{{correction|1=The DOJ continues to have severe reservations about S.147, as mentioned in this [http://honoluluadvertiser.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050922/NEWS23/509220357 September 22, 2005 editorial] (only 8 days after Akaka claimed [http://www.hawaiireporter.com/story.aspx?0f392df1-b036-443e-bb73-40ae6148d4b3 "I am pleased that our negotiations with the White House and Executive Branch officials were successful."]).
+{{correction|1=It is false that the alleged substitute amendment is the result of successful negotiations.  A few days after Senator Akaka's press release announcing a negotiated agreement, the Department of Justice issued a statement that the new proposal does not satisfy their objections as mentioned in this [http://honoluluadvertiser.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050922/NEWS23/509220357 September 22, 2005 editorial] (only 8 days after Akaka claimed [http://www.hawaiireporter.com/story.aspx?0f392df1-b036-443e-bb73-40ae6148d4b3 "I am pleased that our negotiations with the White House and Executive Branch officials were successful."]).
 <blockquote>''The administration appreciates the work of the Hawai'i delegation to address some of the concerns raised by the Justice Department but there are substantial, unresolved constitutional concerns regarding whether Congress may treat Native Hawaiians as it does the Indian tribes, and whether Congress may establish and recognize a Native Hawaiian governing entity," said John Nowacki, a Justice Department spokesman. "As the Supreme Court has stated, whether Native Hawaiians are eligible for tribal status is 'a matter of some dispute' and 'of considerable moment and difficulty.' ''</blockquote>}}
 The substitute amendment satisfactorily addresses the concerns raised in a letter from the Department of Justice to the Chairman of the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs. The letter addressed four concerns with the legislation: liability of the United States, civil and criminal jurisdiction, military readiness, and gaming. The legislative language in the substitute amendment has been cleared by the Executive Branch and addresses the practical concerns expressed in the July 13, 2005 letter. I look forward to the debate on the substitute amendment.
-{{comment|1=There has still been no satisfactory amendment to respond to the criticism of the U.S. Commision on Civil Rights.  The criticism of the USCCR was not in regards to liability, military readiness, civil and criminal jurisdiction, or gaming. It was criticized because it was divisive and race-based.  From the USCCR report:
+{{comment|1=The so-called substitute amendment was posted on Senator Akaka's official website in September 2005, but has never been officially introduced in the Senate during the 8 months since then.  Why?
 <blockquote>''The Commission recommends against passage of the Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act of 2005 (S. 147) as reported out of committee on May 16, 2005, or any other legislation that would discriminate on the basis of race or national origin and further subdivide the American people into discrete subgroups accorded varying degrees of privilege.''</blockquote>

@@ Line 31: / Line 31: @@
 {{comment|Why weren't the voices of those in opposition to the race-based legislation and false history listened to?  Who were they?  Where is the transcript of the views they stated in opposition?  Why wasn't it until the USCCR report castigating the Akaka bill that these voices of opposition were heard?  Despite the unified front presented by politicians in Hawaii brought into line by the special interest lobbyists and power-brokers, there is still great opposition to the Akaka bill in Hawaii, by members of every race.}}
-The bill was first considered by the 106th Congress. Five days of hearings were held in Hawaii in August 2000. While the bill passed the House, the Senate failed to take action. The bill was subsequently considered by the 107th and 108th 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.
+The bill was first considered by the 106th Congress. Five days of hearings were held in Hawaii in August 2000.
 Despite the many modifications to the legislation over the past seven years, I have ensured that the process authorized in this bill has always retained the appropriate balance between the structure necessary to comply with federal law and the flexibility necessary to ensure that Native Hawaiians can make the critical decisions necessary to form their governing entity.

@@ Line 29: / Line 29: @@
 We held several public meetings in Hawaii with the members of the Native Hawaiian community working group and the state working group. Individuals who were not members of the working group, and many who opposed our efforts, were allowed to attend and participate in the meetings. Overall, we had over 100 individuals provide initial input to the drafting of the legislation.
-{{comment|Why weren't the voices of those in opposition to the race-based legislation and false history listened to?  Why wasn't it until the USCCR report castigating the Akaka bill that these voices of opposition were heard?  Despite the unified front presented by politicians in Hawaii brought into line by the special interest lobbyists and power-brokers, there is still great opposition to the Akaka bill in Hawaii, by members of every race.}}
+{{comment|Why weren't the voices of those in opposition to the race-based legislation and false history listened to?  Who were they?  Where is the transcript of the views they stated in opposition?  Why wasn't it until the USCCR report castigating the Akaka bill that these voices of opposition were heard?  Despite the unified front presented by politicians in Hawaii brought into line by the special interest lobbyists and power-brokers, there is still great opposition to the Akaka bill in Hawaii, by members of every race.}}
 The bill was first considered by the 106th Congress. Five days of hearings were held in Hawaii in August 2000. While the bill passed the House, the Senate failed to take action. The bill was subsequently considered by the 107th and 108th 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.

@@ Line 7: / Line 7: @@
 Mr. President, S. 147 is a bipartisan bill. It is supported by members on both sides of the aisle. I want to thank my colleagues who have cosponsored this legislation: Senators Cantwell, Coleman, Dodd, Dorgan, Graham, Inouye, Murkowski, Smith and Stevens. Your support for the people of Hawaii has not gone unnoticed.
-{{comment|Their support for the Akaka bill goes against the wishes of the people of Hawaii, and their support for race-based government is not going unnoticed.}}
+{{comment|Their support for the Akaka bill goes against the wishes of the people of Hawaii.
 Mr. President, I want to talk about what we did to draft this legislation. I want to explain the broad and inclusive process that we used. My colleagues should know that in drafting this legislation we consulted a broad array of individuals, both native and non-native.
@@ Line 14: / Line 16: @@
 Mr. President, my colleagues need to understand that the issue of political status for Native Hawaiians is not a new issue. It has been a hot topic for many, many years and in fact has been a topic of contention since Hawaii became a state in 1959. Given its history, I wanted to tap into the experience of the many individuals who have addressed this issue and who would be impacted by federal recognition for Native Hawaiians. I decided to establish five working groups: the Native Hawaiian Community working group, the State officials working group, the Federal officials working group, the Native American and Constitutional Scholars working group, and the Congressional members and caucuses working group. Overall, more than 100 individuals were involved in meeting and advising Hawaii's Congressional delegation on what should and shouldn't be included in this legislation.
-{{comment|Apparently not one of the more than 100 individuals involved understood the true history of the Hawaiian Revolution.  Because of the complete lack of diversity amongst the viewpoints of those chosen for these working groups, and the lack of public transparency, it is no wonder that they managed to craft legislation that was unconstitutional on its face.  See Thurston Twigg-Smith's book, [http://www.hawaiimatters.com ''Hawaiian Sovereignty:Do the facts matter?''] for more details on the historical lies promulgated by the ethnic separatists in Hawaii.}}
+{{comment|Those involved were chosen because they support the concept of the bill.  Their work was done in secret.  Because of the complete lack of diversity amongst the viewpoints of those chosen for these working groups, and the lack of public transparency, it is no wonder that they managed to craft legislation that was unconstitutional on its face, would be bad public policy, and is based on a false interpretation of Hawaiian history.   See Thurston Twigg-Smith's book, [http://www.hawaiimatters.com ''Hawaiian Sovereignty:Do the facts matter?''] for more details on the historical lies promulgated by the ethnic separatists in Hawaii.}}
 The Native Hawaiian Community working group's role was to advise us as to the views of the Native Hawaiian community. The membership of the working group was balanced to include a broad variety of individuals from different islands, professions and backgrounds.