2006-05-12 Akaka Fact Check
(Speech text taken from Akaka's website.)
Back to Correcting Akaka
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.
| * * * Correction: The bill has been blocked by those who do understand the importance and impact of this bill, and the threat it poses towards the civil rights of those in Hawaii. (See Senator Alexander's comments here: "Akaka Bill Should Be Opposed by U.S. Senate") * * * |
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. * * * |
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.
In 1999, Hawaii's Congressional delegation formed the Task Force on Native Hawaiian Issues. The Task Force was composed of myself, the senior Senator from Hawaii, and our colleagues in the House of Representatives, Representative Neil Abercrombie and Patsy Mink. It was determined that I would serve as the head of the Task Force.
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, 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.
The state officials working group was composed of State legislators as well as the heads of state agencies who would be directly impacted by a Native Hawaiian governing entity participating in a government-to-government relationship with the United States. This group advised us on the impact of such a policy on state programs and agencies.
The federal officials working group was composed of federal officials from agencies currently administering services and programs impacting Native Hawaiians. The role of this working group was to advise us of how best to extend the federal policy of self-governance and self-determination to Hawaii's indigenous peoples.
The Native American and constitutional scholars working group was composed of a number of tribal leaders and key constitutional scholars in Indian law. We benefitted from the advice provided by tribal leaders who were willing to share lessons learned and from constitutional scholars well-versed in federal Indian law.
The Congressional members and caucus group was composed of our colleagues who sought to help us at the member level to move this legislation.
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. * * * |
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.
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.
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. Template:Correction1=
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: 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: 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. * * * |
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.
| * * * Comment: Despite the support of politicians, the Akaka bill continues to have little support amongst the public of Hawaii. * * * |
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.
| * * * Correction: Despite the characterization of 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: United States v. Sandoval, 231 U.S. 28, 39-47 (1913) If Congress were to create a new mega-tribe out of anyone with Native American ancestry (4,315,865 as per the 2000 Census), and abrogate the rules required for tribal recognition, it would come close to S.147. |
Again, I express my deep appreciation to our Majority and Democratic Leaders, to the cosponsors of this legislation, and to the senator from Arizona for helping to work out this agreement. I want to express my deep appreciation to Hawaii's senior senator who has stood firm with me as we have sought to do what is right for the people of Hawaii. Passing this legislation will make it right.
| * * * Correction: Passing the Akaka bill will divide the United States by racial lines, and make a mockery of over 200 years of growth and evolution in Hawaiian government. It will assert that people should govern themselves according to what race they are, no matter if their race has a history of racial tolerance and equality or not. Passing this legislation will make things more wrong than they ever have been. * * * |
