[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 152 (2006), Part 6]
[Senate]
[Pages 7246-7248]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




         NATIVE HAWAIIAN GOVERNMENT REORGANIZATION ACT OF 2005

  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, today the U.S. Civil Rights Commission 
announced its opposition to S. 147, the Native Hawaiian Government 
Reorganization Act of 2005, which the Commission found to 
``discriminate on the basis of race.''
  It is possible that the Senate will be asked in the next few weeks to 
consider this legislation. I hope my colleagues will agree with the 
Civil Rights Commission and oppose this legislation.
  Here is what the Commission had to say:

       The Commission recommends against passage of the Native 
     Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act of 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.

  S. 147, the act to which the Commission refers, would create a 
separate, independent, race-based government for native Hawaiians. It 
would undermine our unity in this country. It would undermine our 
history of being a nation based not on race but upon common values of 
liberty, equal opportunity, and democracy.
  The question the bill poses is thus one that is fundamental to the 
very existence of our country. It creates a new government based on 
race. Our Constitution guarantees just the opposite--equal opportunity 
without regard to race.
  Hawaiians are Americans. They became United States citizens in 1900. 
They have saluted the American flag, paid American taxes, fought in 
American wars. In 1959, 94 percent of Hawaiians reaffirmed that 
commitment to become Americans by voting to become a state. Like 
citizens of every other state, Hawaii votes in national elections.
  Becoming an American has always meant giving up allegiance to your 
previous country and pledging allegiance to your new country, the 
United States of America.
  This goes back to Valley Forge when George Washington himself signed 
and then administered this oath to his officers: ``I . . . renounce, 
refuse, and abjure any allegiance or obedience to [King George III]; 
and I do swear that I will to the utmost of my power, support, maintain 
and defend the said United States. . . .''
  America is different because, under our Constitution, becoming an 
American can have nothing to do with ancestry. That is because America 
is an idea, not a race. Ours is a nation based not upon race, not upon 
ethnicity, not upon national origin, but upon our shared values, 
enshrined in our founding documents, the Declaration of Independence 
and the Constitution, upon our history as a nation, and upon our shared 
language, English. An American can technically become a citizen of 
Japan, but would never be considered ``Japanese.'' But if a Japanese 
person wants to become a citizen of the United States, he or she must 
become an American.
  That's who we are as Americans, and when we forget that, we run the 
risk of undermining our greatest strength. Some say that diversity is 
our greatest strength. And it is a great strength, but hardly our 
greatest. Jerusalem is diverse. The Balkans are diverse. Iraq is 
diverse. Our greatest strength is that we have taken all that 
magnificent diversity and forged it into one Nation.
  My heritage is Scotch-Irish. In early America, the Scotch-Irish 
referred to themselves as a race of people. But despite Scotch-Irish 
contributions to

[[Page 7247]]

American independence and some injustices before independence, they did 
not ask for a separate nation based on race.
  It is suggested that ``native Hawaiians'' are different because they 
lived on the islands of Hawaii before Asian and white settlers came 
there, and that their previous government was undermined by Americans 
who came. So, the argument goes, they should be treated as an American 
Indian tribe.
  But U.S. law has specific requirements for recognition of an Indian 
tribe. A tribe must have operated as a sovereign for the last 100 
years, must be a separate and distinct community, and must have had a 
preexisting political organization. Native Hawaiians do not meet those 
requirements. In 1998 the State of Hawaii acknowledged this in a 
Supreme Court brief in Rice v. Cayetano, saying: ``The tribal concept 
simply has no place in the context of Hawaiian history.''
  If the bill establishing a ``native Hawaiian'' government were to 
pass, it would have the dubious honor of being the first to create a 
separate nation within the United States. While Congress has recognized 
pre-existing American Indian tribes before, it has never created a new 
one. This is a dangerous precedent. This is not much different than if 
American citizens who are descended from Hispanics that lived in Texas 
before it became a republic in 1836 created their own tribe, based on 
claims that these lands were improperly seized from Mexico. Or it could 
open the door to religious groups, such as the Amish or Hassidic Jews, 
who might seek tribal status to avoid the constraints of the 
Establishment Clause of the Constitution. If we start down this path, 
the end may be the disintegration of the United States into ethnic 
enclaves.
  Hawaii itself is a proud example of the American tradition of 
diversity. According to the 2000 Census, 40 percent of Hawaiians are of 
Asian descent. Twenty-four percent are white. Nine percent said they 
were Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islanders. Seven percent claimed 
Hispanic ethnicity and 2 percent were black. Twenty-one percent of 
Hawaiians reported two or more racial identities. Their two Senators 
are of native Hawaiian and Japanese ancestry. Their Governor is white 
and also happens to be Jewish. But what unites Hawaii is not its 
diversity, but its common Hawaiian traditions and the fact that 
Hawaiians are all Americans.
  The proposed new government for ``native Hawaiians'' would be based 
solely upon race. S. 147 makes individuals eligible to be ``native 
Hawaiian'' specifically by blood. Surely we have by now learned our 
lesson about treating people differently based upon race. Our most 
tragic experiences have occurred when we have treated people 
differently based upon race, whether they were African-Americans, 
Native American, or of other descent.
  In the documents to which we have pledged allegiance, the way we have 
sought to right those wrongs is to guarantee respect for each American 
as an individual, regardless of his or her race. This legislation 
instead would compound those old wrongs. It would create a separate 
government, and separate rules--perhaps later even separate schools--
based solely upon race.
  To destroy our national unity by treating Americans differently based 
upon race is to destroy what is most unique about our country. It would 
begin to make us a United Nations instead of the United States of 
America.
  The Senate should heed the advice of the U.S. Commission on Civil 
Rights and defeat this 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 and 
create a new, separate, race-based government for those of native 
Hawaiian descent.
  This idea is the reverse of what it means to become an American. 
Instead of making us one nation indivisible, it divides us. Instead of 
guaranteeing rights without regard to race, it makes them depend solely 
upon race. Instead of becoming ``one from many,'' we would become many 
from one.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii is recognized.
  Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise in response to my good friend and 
colleague, the junior Senator from Tennessee, who spoke about 
legislation that is critical to the people of Hawaii, S. 147, the 
Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act of 2005.
  S. 147 would extend the Federal policy of self-governance and self-
determination to Hawaii's indigenous peoples, the native Hawaiians, by 
authorizing a process for the reorganization of a native Hawaiian 
governing entity for the purposes of a government-to-government 
relationship with the United States.
  My colleague raised the actions by the U.S. Commission on Civil 
Rights last week. The Commission issued a report in opposition to S. 
147. The report was based on a briefing that was conducted on January 
20, 2006.
  I am seriously concerned about the lack of objectivity in the 
Commission's review. The Commission never contacted its Hawaii advisory 
committee, which includes members who are experts in Hawaii's history 
and Indian law. Not once was the advisory committee informed of the 
briefing or allowed to contribute to the Commission's report.
  Further, despite the fact that the Commission was provided with the 
substitute amendment which reflects negotiations with the executive 
branch, the Commission chose to issue its report based on the bill as 
reported out of committee. The substitute amendment to S. 147 will be 
offered when we consider the bill and reflects negotiations with the 
officials from the Department of Justice, Office of Management and 
Budget, and the White House.
  The substitute amendment satisfactorily addresses the concerns 
expressed by the Bush administration regarding the liability of the 
U.S. Government, military readiness, civil and criminal jurisdiction, 
and gaming. The amendment has been publicly available since September 
2005 and has been widely distributed.
  I applaud the efforts of Commissioners Arlen Melendez and Michael 
Yaki who voted in opposition to the report and tried to inject 
objectivity and fairness into this process. It really saddens me when 
an independent commission begins to act in a politically motivated 
manner.
  Despite this fact, I remain committed to my constituents and the 
people of Hawaii. I will continue to work to bring this bill to the 
Senate floor as it has been promised by the majority leader and the 
junior Senator from Arizona. The people of Hawaii deserve no less than 
a debate and a vote on an issue of critical importance to them and to 
their State.
  When I first started my career in Congress over 30 years ago, there 
was a protocol and a courtesy. If legislation was going to impact a 
particular State, and the leaders of that State all supported the 
issue, it was protocol that other Members would not interfere or 
obstruct efforts to legislate on behalf of that State. Unfortunately, 
this longstanding protocol and courtesy, I am ashamed to say, no longer 
exists.
  S. 147 is widely supported in Hawaii--widely supported in Hawaii. The 
bill enjoys the bipartisan support of my colleagues, Senators Cantwell, 
Coleman, Dodd, Dorgan, Graham, Inouye, Murkowski, Smith, and Stevens. 
It is strongly supported by Hawaii's first Republican Governor in 40 
years, Linda Lingle. She supports this bill. It is supported strongly 
by Hawaii's State Legislature which has passed three resolutions in 
favor of extending the Federal policy of self-governance and self-
determination to native Hawaiians. It is supported by almost every 
single political leader in Hawaii. S. 147 is also supported by native 
Hawaiians and non-native Hawaiians.
  Why, you might ask? Because in Hawaii, native Hawaiian issues are 
nonpartisan. We have tremendous respect for the indigenous peoples who 
have shared their lands, traditions, and cultures with the rest of us.
  Mr. President, I have been patient, and the people of Hawaii have 
been patient. For the past 3 years, the majority and Democratic leaders 
have been working with me to uphold a commitment that was made at the 
end of the

[[Page 7248]]

108th Congress that we would consider and vote on this bill. 
Unfortunately--again, unfortunately--their efforts have been thwarted 
by a handful of colleagues who have taken it upon themselves to block 
this bill despite the widespread support from the State of Hawaii.
  After 7 years of delay by a few of my colleagues, it is time we are 
provided with the opportunity to debate this bill in the open. I will 
be coming to the floor to talk about my bill every day until we begin 
debate on the bill. I will use every day to talk about what my bill 
does and does not do and to respond to the outright untruths that have 
been spread about the legislation. I will use every day to help share 
Hawaii's history with my colleagues as the opponents of this 
legislation have taken it upon themselves to rewrite the tragedies of 
Hawaii's history in a manner that suits them for the purposes of 
opposing this legislation.
  I am deeply saddened by their tactics, but I am committed to ensuring 
that the Members of this body and all of the citizens in the United 
States understand Hawaii's history and the importance of extending the 
Federal policy of self-governance and self-determination to Hawaii's 
indigenous peoples, the native Hawaiians.

                          ____________________