Akaka Bill -- U.S. Senate June 2006 (materials collected from the Congressional Record including transcripts of floor debates, text of proposed amendments, roll call votes names and totals)

Here is an outline showing where the major speeches on the Akaka bill can be found below. Keep in mind that each page in the Congressional Record contains enough material to fill 5 or 6 ordinary pages in a word-processor. Therefore each item indicates Congressional record page number, word-processor page number, and percentage position down this webpage.

Senator's name, favor or oppose, Congressional Record Senate page #, word processing page # (about 300 pages), percentage of distance down this webpage

June 7, 2006

Alexander, oppose, 5554-5556, 16-26, 5-9

Kyl, oppose, 5556-5557, 27-31, 9-10

Dorgan, favor, 5557, 31-36, 10-12

Akaka, favor, 5557-5562, 36-64, 12-21

Alexander, oppose, 5562-5563, 64-70, 21-23

Sessions, oppose, 5563-5566, 70-86, 23-29

Craig, oppose, 5566-5567, 86-91, 29-30

Inouye, favor, 5567-5572, 91-122, 30-42

Akaka, favor, 5572-5573, 123-125, 42-43

Sununu, oppose, 5573-5574, 126-132, 43-44

Cornyn, oppose, 5574-5575, 132-139, 44-46

Stevens, favor, 5575-5576, 140-144, 46-48

Obama, favor, 5576, 145-147, 48-49

Akaka, favor, 5576, 148-149, 49-50

Murkowski, favor, 5576-5578, 149-162, 50-54

[Estate Tax; Hunger Awareness] 5578-5587, 162-208, 54-66

Sessions, oppose,
** Important letter from William Moschella, assistant Attorney General,
5587, 208-213, 66-71

[Chicago schools; Estate Tax] 5587-5590, 213-233, 71-78

June 8, 2006

McConnell, oppose, 5631-5632, 240-246, 80-82

Cornyn, oppose, 5632, 247-250, 82-83

Akaka, favor, 5632-5634, 251-261, 84-87

Alexander, oppose, 5634-5635, 261-271, 87-90
** includes the letter from Assistant Attorney General William Moschella, plus a letter from Peter Kirsanow, of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, strongly opposing the bill

Enzi, oppose, 5636, 271-273, 91

McCain, oppose, 5636-5637, 274-277, 92

Reid, favor, 5637, 277-280, 92-93

Inouye, favor, 5637-5640, 280-294, 93-98

Alexander, oppose, 5640, 295, 98

** EVERYTHING IS IN CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER. FIRST SOME BRIEF PRELIMINARY EVENTS, THEN THE FLOOR DEBATE SPANNING JUNE 7 AND JUNE 8, THEN THE ROLL CALL VOTE.

SETTING THE STAGE: MAY 25 AND 26, 2006 THE FIRST AND SECOND "READINGS" OF THE NEW AKAKA BILL S.3064, AND PLACING IT ON THE CALENDAR. THE SENATE THEN ADJOURNED FOR THE MEMORIAL DAY RECESS. HOWEVER, IT LATER TURNED OUT THAT S.3064 WAS NEVER MENTIONED, AND THE CLOTURE PETITION AND DEBATE WERE FOCUSED ON S.147. IT NOW APPEARS THAT S.3064 WAS MERELY A DECOY WHOSE PURPOSE WAS TO CONFUSE THE IMPORTANT ISSUES, OR TO PROVIDE A "PLAN B" OPTION WHICH NEVER ACTUALLY GOT USED.

[Page: S5295]
---

   Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I understand there is a bill at the desk, and I ask for its first reading.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will read the title of the bill for the first time.

   The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

   A bill (S. 3064) to express the policy of the United States regarding the United States relationship with Native Hawaiians and to provide a process for the recognition by the United States of the Native Hawaiian governing entity.

   Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I now ask for its second reading, and in order to place the bill on the calendar under rule XIV, I object to my own request.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection having been heard, the bill will receive its second reading on the next legislative day.

END

[Page: S5394]
---

   Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I understand there is a bill at the desk that is due for its second reading.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will read the bill for the second time by title.

   The legislative clerk read as follows:

   A bill (S. 3064) to express the policy of the United States regarding the United States' relationship with Native Hawaiians, and for other purposes.

   Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, in order to place the bill on the calendar under the provisions of rule XIV, I object to further proceedings.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill will be placed on the calendar.

END

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

NOW BEGINS JUNE 2006

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

** Note from website editor Ken Conklin: The cloture petition mentioned below was filed for the Akaka bill S.147, not the newer version S.3064 that was recently introduced. S.3064 (in draft form before it had any bill number) was announced with great fanfare by the Hawai'i delegation in September 2005 and was placed on Senator Akaka's official Senate website. This new bill was touted as being the results of negotiation with the Department of Justice whereby DOJ objections were resolved. A few days later, DOJ issued a statement saying it still had grave concerns about the bill. The new version sat on Senator Akaka's website since mid-September 2005 and was never officially introduced until May 25, 2006. And now we see that the bill on which cloture has been filed is the older version S.147. One explanatation for this strange turn of events is that S.3064 was never intended to be proposed by Senator Akaka, and was merely a decoy intended to stop the Bush administration from actively opposing the bill. Also, if cloture fails on S.147, it is possible that S.3064 might then have a cloture petition filed, to keep things rolling. In any case, more stealth and deception seem to be underway. **

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

[Page: S5510]
---

   CLOTURE MOTION

   Mr. McCONNELL. I move to proceed to Calendar No. 101, S. 147, a bill related to Native Hawaiians.

   On behalf of the Democratic minority, I send a motion to the desk.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. The cloture motion having been presented under rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the motion.

   The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

   Cloture Motion

   We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, hereby move to bring to a close the debate on the motion to proceed to Calendar No. 101, S. 147, Native Hawaiians Governing Entity.

Daniel K. Akaka, Daniel K. Inouye, Charles Schumer, Jack Reed, Patrick Leahy, Joe Biden, Barbara Mikulski, Evan Bayh, Barbara Boxer, Frank Lautenberg, Harry Reid, Jay Rockefeller, Richard Durbin, Jeff Bingaman, Edward Kennedy, Herb Kohl, James M. Jeffords, Mark Dayton, Jon Kyl, Norm Coleman.

   Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the live quorums required under rule XXII be waived.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

   Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President and Members of the Senate, a clarification. These cloture votes will occur on Thursday. We will set aside some time for debate on both of these issues tomorrow afternoon.

END

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

ORDERS FOR WEDNESDAY, JUNE 7, 2006 -- (Senate - June 06, 2006)

[Page: S5514]  GPO's PDF
---

   Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 9 a.m. on Wednesday, June 7; I further ask that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved, and the Senate resume consideration of the motion to proceed to S.J. Res. 1 and the time until 9:40 be equally divided between the two leaders or their designees; provided further that the time from 9:40 to 9:50 be allocated to the Democratic leader or his designee, and the final 10 minutes be allocated to the majority leader or his designee; further, that the vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed occur at 10 o'clock in the morning. I further ask that following the vote, the Senate stand in recess until 12 noon to accommodate the joint meeting I was referring to earlier.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

   Mr. McCONNELL. I further ask consent that the time from noon until 3 o'clock be allocated for debate on the motion to proceed to H.R. 8, the death

[Page: S5515]  GPO's PDF

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

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

PROGRAM -- (Senate - June 06, 2006)

[Page: S5515]  GPO's PDF
---

   Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, tomorrow morning at 10:00, we will have a cloture vote on the motion to proceed to the Marriage Protection Amendment. We have had a good debate during the last few days on that matter. It is my hope that cloture will be invoked in order to address this important issue.

   As a reminder to Members, as I indicated, we have a joint meeting in the House at 11 o'clock to hear an address by the President of the Republic of Latvia. We will gather at 10:40 in the Chamber and proceed as a body to the House. After that is completed, we will debate the motions to proceed to the death tax relief bill and the Native Hawaiian bill.

   Moments ago, I filed cloture on both those motions, the death tax and Native Hawaiians. Those votes will be occurring sometime on Thursday.

** OUTLINE OF CONGRESSIONAL RECORD FOR WEDNESDAY, JUNE 7, 2006 FOR ITEMS RELEVANT TO THE HAWAIIAN GOVERNMENT REORGANIZATION BILL. MOST OF THIS CONTENT IS THREE HOURS OF FLOOR DEBATE PUNCTUATED BY OCCASIONAL QUORUM CALLS (DEAD TIME WITH NOBODY SPEAKING AND THEREFORE NO TRANSCRIPT) TOWARD THE END ARE VERY IMPORTANT REMARKS BY SENATOR SESSIONS WHICH PROVIDE TEXT OF A NEW LETTER FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE (THOSE REMARKS OF SENATOR SESSIONS CAME IN THE MIDST OF A DIFFERENT TOPIC DISCUSSING REPEAL OF THE ESTATE TAX) **

Beginning page S-5554

NATIVE HAWAIIAN GOVERNMENT REORGANIZATION ACT OF 2005--MOTION TO PROCEED -- (Senate - June 07, 2006)
Page: S5554
Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, one of the parliamentary mysteries of the Senate... Page: S5555
Page: S5556
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum...
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I rise today in strong opposition to the Akaka bill. If...
Page: S5557
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I expected my colleague from Arizona would speak on...
Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President,
Page: S5558
Page: S5559
Page: S5560
Page: S5561
Mr. AKAKA. After 6 long years, we will be voting tomorrow on a motion to invoke...
Page: S5562
Mr. AKAKA. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the...
Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I said earlier that I think we will hear on the...
Page: S5563
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Tennessee, Mr....
Page: S5564
Page: S5565
Page: S5566
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I quote:
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to proceed for 3 more minutes.
Mr. CRAIG. I thank my colleagues for allowing that to happen.
Page: S5567
Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I rise at this moment to join Senator Akaka...
Page: S5568
Page: S5569
Page: S5570
Page: S5571
Page: S5572
Mr. INOUYE. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the quorum call...
Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I thank my dear colleague from Hawaii, the senior...
Page: S5573
Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I just want to mention on the sovereignty rebuttal,...
Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to this legislation. I do,...
Page: S5574
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I rise to speak on this bill with some trepidation,...
Page: S5575
Mr. STEVENS. Can Senator Akaka yield me some time to comment on the...
Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I yield such time as the Senator desires from our side.
Mr. STEVENS. I ask unanimous consent I be allowed to speak using the time of...
Mr. STEVENS. I am in support of the legislation, and I will take my time from...
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I am saddened to hear some of the comments I have...
Page: S5576
Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I yield as much time as he needs to the Senator from...
Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Native Hawaiian Government...
Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, before I yield time to the Senator from Alaska, I...
Ms. MURKOWSKI. I thank the Senator from Hawaii for his leadership on this...
Page: S5577
Page: S5578
In Support of the Hawaiian People
Ms. MURKOWSKI. Celebrating the distinctive cultures and ways of our first...
Page: S5579
Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Alaska for her support. I...
Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, first of all, I compliment my colleagues from...
Mrs. LINCOLN. Yes. I ask unanimous consent to proceed for 5 minutes.
Mr. GREGG. Reserving the right to object, and I have no desire to object, my...
Mrs. LINCOLN. If there is an objection, I will certainly yield.
Mr. GREGG. That will still be on our time, as I understand it. If the Senator...
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I apologize to the Senator, but Senator...
REPEAL OF THE ESTATE TAX
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I rise today to support the effort which is being...
Page: S5580
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I couldn't agree more with Senator...
Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, I commend the Senator from Alabama, Mr....
Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, Senator Sessions is absolutely correct,...
Page: S5581
Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum...
Mr. DODD. Will the Chair repeat his statement?
Mr. DODD. I hear no objection, Mr. President. Since no one is on the floor,...
MARRIAGE PROTECTION AMENDMENT
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, if I can, I wanted to spend a couple of minutes on a...
Page: S5582
THE ESTATE TAX
Page: S5583
Page: S5584
NATIONAL HUNGER AWARENESS DAY
Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I want to take this opportunity to spend a few...
Page: S5585
Page: S5586
Mr. DURBIN. Will the Senator from Arkansas yield for a question?
Mrs. LINCOLN. Absolutely, I yield to my good friend from Illinois who has done...
Mr. DURBIN. Let me say at the outset it is my great honor to cochair with the...
DEATH TAX
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, with regard to the death tax, I will be offering...
** Note that on page 5587 Senator Sessions enters into the record the full text of the letter just received from U.S. Assistant Attorney General William Moschella to Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist **
Page: S5587
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the...
CHICAGO SCHOOLS
Page: S5588 ** page irrelevant to Hawaiian issue but included for continuity
ESTATE TAX
Page: S5589 ** page irrelevant to Hawaiian issue but included for continuity
Page: S5590 ** page irrelevant to Hawaiian issue but included for continuity
Page: S5591 ** order of procedure for next day's session
Pages S5592 through S5607 not provided here because irrelevant to Hawaiian issue
Page: S5608 ** program for next day's session

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

** CONTENTS OF CONGRESSIONAL RECORD FOR JUNE 7, 2006 AS OUTLINED ABOVE. SCROLL DOWN TO THE END OF JUNE 7 TO SEE AN OUTLINE AND CONTENTS FOR JUNE 8 (MORE DEBATE, AND CLOTURE VOTE)

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

[Page: S5554]
---

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the hour of 3 p.m. having arrived, the Senate will proceed to consideration of the motion to proceed to S. 147, which the clerk will report.

   The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

   Motion to proceed to S. 147, a bill to express the policy of the United States regarding the United States relationship with Native Hawaiians and to provide a process for the recognition by the United States of the Native Hawaiian governing entity.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the time from 3 p.m. until 6 p.m. shall be divided for debate as follows: 3 to 3:30, majority control; 3:30 to 4, minority control, alternating between the two sides every 30 minutes until 6 p.m.

   The Senator from Tennessee is recognized.

   Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, one of the parliamentary mysteries of the Senate is that we are now about to move, as was reported, to the Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act. Some might wonder why. I was presiding, as the Senator from Minnesota is now, earlier in the week. I heard an eloquent speech by a Senator from the other side of the aisle, the Senator from Vermont, who said we ought to ``focus on solutions to the high [gasoline] prices, something that hurts people in your state and mine, the rising cost of health care ..... the ongoing situation in Iraq. ..... We're not going to talk about any of those things,'' said the Senator from Vermont, from the other side of the aisle.

   Yet as a result of efforts there, on that side of the aisle, we are now moving ahead to the Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act, S. 147.

   The legislation may seem insignificant, but I am here today to say that, in this seemingly insignificant piece of legislation, is an assault on one of the most important values in our country. It is a value so important that it is carved in stone above the Chair of the Presiding Officer. It is our original national motto: E Pluribus Unum, one from many. This bill is an assault on that principle because it would, for the first time in our country's history, so far as my research shows, create a new, separate, sovereign government within our country, based on race, putting us on the path of becoming more of a United Nations than a United States of America. It will set a precedent for the breakup of our country along racial lines, and it ought to be soundly defeated.

   No one has to take my word for this. The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, a body established to protect the rights of minorities and the underprivileged, has publicly opposed this legislation. Here is what the Commission on Civil Rights said:

   The Commission recommends against passage of the Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act of 2005 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.

   So this bill undermines our unity. It would undermine our history of being a Nation based not upon race but upon common values of liberty, equal opportunity, and democracy.

   We have had many great accomplishments in our country. Our diversity is a magnificent accomplishment. But the greater accomplishment, greater even than our diversity, is our ability to unite all of that diversity into one Nation. We should be going in that direction and not in the opposite direction.

   Our Constitution guarantees equal opportunity without regard to race. This legislation does the opposite.

   Those who favor this bill like to describe a bill that is not the bill I have read. Those who favor the bill say it is not about sovereignty, it is not about land and money, it is not about race, it is what we did once in Alaska and that the Native Hawaiians would be just another Indian tribe. It is a nice bill, they say. It is sponsored by the two Senators from the State of Hawaii, whom we all greatly respect and admire, so, they say, let's just pass it.

   Let me address each of those claims one by one--sovereignty, to begin with. Those who favor the bill say this is not about sovereignty. After all, they argue, the new government that would be set up would be subject to the approval of those who are ``Native Hawaiians,'' and it would have to be approved by the U.S. Secretary of the Interior. But the bill expressly states in section 4(b) that its purpose is to establish a ``political and legal relationship between the United States and the Native Hawaiian governing entity for the purposes of continuing a government-to-government relationship.''

   A government-to-government relationship--such as a government relationship between the United States and France or England or Germany or any other country. That sounds like a sovereign government to me.

   That's not the end of it. In an interview on National Public Radio on August 16 last year, the Senator from Hawaii, who is the sponsor of this bill, was asked if this could lead to secession of the State of Hawaii from the United States. The NPR reporter stated, ``But [Senator Akaka] says this sovereignty could even go further, perhaps even leading to independence.'' And the Senator from Hawaii responded, ``That could be. As far as what is going to happen at the other end, I'm leaving it up to my grandchildren and my great-grandchildren.''

[Page: S5555]

   The office of Hawaiian Affairs, an office of the Government of the State of Hawaii at one time said on its Web site that under this bill:

   The Native Hawaiian people may exercise their right to self-determination by selecting another form of government, including free association or total independence.

   Total independence, Mr. President. This bill clearly allows for the establishment of a new, sovereign government within the United States of America. I have not found another example of that in our history.

   No. 2, those who favor the bill say this is not about race. But the bill itself says something else. It says that anyone ``who is a direct lineal descendant of the aboriginal, indigenous native people'' of Hawaii is eligible to participate in creating this new sovereign government. By this definition, anyone who may have had a seventh-generation Native ancestor, making him 1/256 Native Hawaiian, can qualify. They do not need to have been part of a Native Hawaiian community at any point during their lifetime. They don't even need to have lived in Hawaii. In fact, of the 400,000 Americans of Native Hawaiian descent in the United States,

   approximately 160,000 don't even live in Hawaii. They live all over the United States of America. But they all would be eligible to be part of this new sovereign government under the bill.

   So eligibility to participate in this new government is not based on where you live. It is not based on being part of a specific community. It is based on your ancestry. That is why the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights has specifically said the bill ``would discriminate on the basis of race or national origin.''

   No. 3, land and money. Those who favor the bill say it is not about land and money, but the bill says something else. My staff counted 35 references to ``land'' or ``lands'' in the text of the bill, and in section 8 of the bill it specifically delegates to this new race-based government the authority to negotiate for:

   (A) the transfer of lands, natural resources, and other assets, and the protection of existing rights related to such lands or resources;

   (B) the exercise of governmental authority over any transferred lands, natural resources, and any other assets, including land use.

   So the bill says this is about land and ``other assets.'' It is not surprising. According to an Associated Press article from April 14 of last year on this bill, ``there is a general belief the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands would be folded into this new native government. According to that department's Web site, ``Approximately 200,000 acres of homestead lands are provided for the Hawaiian Home Lands program.'' That is from the Associated Press.

   According to the Wall Street Journal, the state's Office of Hawaiian Affairs controls a trust fund worth $3 billion for the benefit of Native Hawaiians. One has to ask whether some or all of that $3 billion would be given to this so-called tribe. The bill expressly allows the transfer of land and assets, so this is a serious question.

   Then the last two arguments the proponents make. They say that this is similar to what we did for the Alaska Natives. But there are some profound differences between Alaska and Hawaii. First, the history is different. When the United States acquired Alaska from Russia, the treaty stipulated we needed to deal with the Alaska Natives. And when Alaska became a State, we included in the law that Alaska Natives would have a special status. That is not true for Native Hawaiians. They have always been part of the State and lived under its jurisdiction.

   Second, the provisions in S. 147 for the recognition of a native government are different from those for Alaska Natives. Alaska Natives were recognized to form corporations and other local forms of government, based largely on the village communities in which they lived. Most Native Hawaiians don't live in separate villages or communities in Hawaii and elsewhere in the United States. They are everyone's next-door neighbor. Of the 240,000 Native Hawaiians living in Hawaii, the U.S. Census reports that less than 20,000 live on ``Hawaiian homelands.'' The rest are mixed with the States' population.

   Finally, there is another argument that those who support this bill make. They say: We are just recognizing another Indian tribe. This puts Native Hawaiians on an equal footing with other Native American groups.

   That is their argument. 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. That is what the law says. Native Hawaiians do not meet those requirements.

   In fact, in 1998 the State of Hawaii acknowledged this in a Supreme Court brief in the case of Rice v. Cayetano, saying, ``the tribal concept simply has no place in the context of Hawaiian history.'' It would be difficult to argue that Hawaii was not well represented in that debate because the current Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, Justice Roberts, was the lawyer for the State of Hawaii in this argument before the Supreme Court and they said, ``the tribal concept simply has no place in the context of Hawaiian history.''

   If the bill establishing a Native Hawaiian government would pass, it would have the dubious honor to be the first to create a separate nation within the United States. While Congress has recognized preexisting American Indian tribes before, it has never created one. That is the difference. Of course, we have recognized preexisting American Indian tribes who meet a very specific definition of what an Indian tribe is in our law. But so far as I can tell, we have never created an Indian tribe, and the State of Hawaii itself recognized before the Supreme Court that its native peoples are not a tribe.

   To pass this legislation would be a dangerous precedent. It wouldn't be much different than if American citizens who were descended from Hispanics who lived in Texas before it became a Republic in 1836 created their own tribes based on claims these lands were improperly seized from Mexico or it could open the door to religious groups such as the Amish or Hasidic 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.

   Hawaiians are Americans. They became U.S. citizens in 1900. They have saluted the American flag, paid American taxes, fought in American wars. The distinguished Senator from Hawaii has won the Congressional Medal of Honor fighting in American wars.

   In 1959, 94 percent of Hawaiians reaffirmed that commitment to become Americans by voting to become a State. Similar to citizens of every other State, they vote 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 all the way back to Valley Forge when George Washington himself signed such an oath, and his officers did as well.

   Today, in this year, more than 500,000 new citizens will take that oath where they renounce their allegiance to where they came from, not because they are not proud of it but because they are prouder to be an American. And they know if we are going to be one Nation in this land of immigrants, they must become Americans.

   All around the world, countries are struggling with how to integrate and assimilate into their societies people from other countries: Muslims in Europe, specifically in those countries, Turks in Germany, Great Britain, France, and Italy--all are struggling with this. They are envious of our two centuries of history of helping people from all countries come here, learn a common language, understand a few principles, and become Americans. They are proud of where we came from, prouder of who we are.

   This goes in exactly the opposite direction. This may seem like an insignificant piece of legislation, but within it is embedded an assault on one of the most important fundamental values in our country: the value that is expressed and carved right there, ``E Pluribus Unum,'' one from many.

   This legislation would undermine our national unity by treating Americans differently based on race. It would begin to destroy what is most unique

[Page: S5556]

   I hope the Senate heeds the advice of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights and defeats this legislation, legislation which the commission said ``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.

   I have tried in my remarks to show that this bill is about sovereignty, that it is about land and money, that it is about race, that it is not like what we did for Alaskans, that the Native Hawaiians would not just be another Indian tribe. We don't create new tribes in our country. We recognize preexisting ones, and we have very specific provisions in the law about how we do that.

   The question before us is about what it means to become an American. And this bill is the reverse of what it means to be 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.

   I yield the floor.

   I suggest the absence of a quorum.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.

   The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.

   Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be dispensed with.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

   Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I rise today in strong opposition to the Akaka bill. If cloture is invoked on that bill, there is a process by which we will debate and amend the bill.

   I would like to discuss with my colleagues today some of the infirmities with the bill that we would hope to address through the amendment process. There is no way to sugarcoat this bill.

   This bill proposes that the Federal Government establish a racial test for Americans who want to participate in the creation of a new government--a government that will gain, according to section 8 of this legislation, lands and natural resources, civil and criminal jurisdiction, and governmental authority and powers. It is unconstitutional, it offends basic notions of American values, and it should be rejected.

   I would like to spend a few minutes talking about an amendment that we would be voting on should this bill be brought forward.

   First, keep in mind that we are going to have to decide once and for all if we believe in racial tests and race-based government. Government anticipated by this bill is created through a racial test. Read section 3, subparagraph 10: Native Hawaiians, those eligible to participate in the creation of this government, are defined ``as an individual who is one of the indigenous, native peoples of Hawaii and who is a direct lineal descendent of the aboriginal, indigenous, native people in the Hawaiian islands on or before January 1, 1893, and exercised sovereignty there, or a person who descends from one who was one-half Native Hawaiian in 1921.''

   What is that test? It is a racial test. As the Supreme Court emphasized, ancestry is a proxy for race.

   Some advocates insist that it is not a race-based government, no matter what the actual language of the bill says.

   So we will offer an amendment to put this question to the Senate.

   The amendment will say that this new government will not have any governmental powers if membership in the entity is in any way determined by race or ancestry. The Senate will have a straightforward up-or-down vote on whether it supports or rejects the principle of race-based government. If I am wrong and the bill's text is wrong, and this isn't about race, then that amendment will surely pass overwhelmingly.

   When I discussed this amendment with the bill's sponsors in the past, they have said they would strongly oppose it. So we will let the Senate vote directly and resolve the issue. All Senators should look forward to a vote on whether they support race-based government.

   Second, we will have to decide whether the Constitution and basic civil rights are to be left to a negotiation process after the bill's passage.

   As I have explained previously, this bill would allow the creation of a government not subject to the Constitution and Bill of Rights. It could also be immune from the Civil Rights Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, and all other State and Federal civil rights laws. It would authorize creation of an enclave where Native Hawaiians would be subject to a different set of legal codes, taxes, and regulations.

   Proponents deny this. They say it is preposterous to say that civil rights won't be protected. They say the bill won't result in unequal tax and legal systems in Hawaii. They say basic fairness would be preserved. But then they say just how this happens is entirely up to subsequent negotiations between the Native Hawaiian entity and State

   and Federal bureaucrats.

   Obviously, basic civil rights should not be up for negotiation. So we will offer an amendment to clear this up. My civil rights amendment will apply the entire Bill of Rights to the new government. It will apply all Federal antidiscrimination laws. It will ensure that the new government doesn't have any special immunities from lawsuits under those laws.

   It will prevent the creation of any racially defined liabilities, so that no person is subject to any law, regulation, tax, or other liability if any person is exempted on the basis of race or ancestry. And it will guarantee fairness and equal treatment. It will not leave these matters up to future ``negotiations.''

   This civil rights amendment deserves a vote, and it will get one.

   The New York Times editorialized today that the bill does not ``supersede the Constitution.'' I disagree, but we can resolve this.

   So let's vote and not leave it up to chance. Let's adopt my amendment and guarantee civil rights and equal treatment.

   Again, I have shared the drafts of this amendment with the sponsors of the bill who said they oppose it. Perhaps they will reconsider, but the Senate will have an opportunity to vote on this amendment.

   Third, there is a dispute over whether the people of Hawaii, who are most personally affected by this legislation, actually want this bill. The sponsors say yes, and point to opinion polls that speak vaguely of ``recognizing'' Native Hawaiians. I can point to alternative polls which show strong majorities opposed when the citizens understand that with recognition comes the potential for unequal treatment. Do the Hawaiian people want this? We know much of the political establishment does. But what about the citizens? I am concerned that this bill will divide Hawaii and encourage racial division there and elsewhere.

   Indeed, as the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights noted in its report, if you listen to the citizens of Hawaii rather than just their political leaders, it is clear that this legislation has already divided that State. Why would the Senate want to impose a divisive result upon the State of Hawaii without giving Senators a voice?

   So one of my colleagues will offer an amendment that will give us the answer to the question. It will simply require that all citizens of Hawaii have a voice by requiring a statewide referendum once the negotiations are complete.

   The Senate should not be passing on the question of what is good for Hawaii when we have evidence of such division.

   Again, I have floated this idea by the bill's sponsors, and they have opposed a referendum requirement. But why would they not want to ensure that the people of Hawaii have a direct voice in approving or rejecting the final product of the negotiations called for in the bill?

   So we will have an amendment. The Senate can decide if the people of Hawaii should be denied their opportunity to speak.

   As I have said in the past, I will support a cloture vote and will support the Senate having an opportunity to debate and vote on amendments to this bill.

   But should cloture be accepted and the Senate get on this bill, I have also

[Page: S5557]

   I look forward to that debate. I look forward to the debate and amendments that will be offered as a result.

   I yield the floor.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. At this time, the hour of 3:30 having arrived, the next 30 minutes is under the control of the minority.

   The Senator from North Dakota.

   Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I expected my colleague from Arizona would speak on the estate tax. He, in fact, spoke about the subject which we will now spend the next 30 minutes on, on this side, the Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act. He raises some questions, and my expectation is that debate and discussion about this proposal will promote some rather aggressive discussion in the Senate. That is fine. It is nice at this point that after all these many years we are debating this issue.

   I will give a little bit of the history as vice chairman of the Committee on Indian Affairs. That committee is the committee that brought this legislation to the Senate. The action was bipartisan. We have decided this is a worthy piece of legislation. I support it. The committee supports it. That is the basis on which it is in the Senate now.

   I don't know the history nearly as well as my colleagues, Senator Akaka and Senator Inouye, but let me describe a little of the history, if I might. I know a bit of this because I represent a State in which we have numerous Indian tribes. Those are the first Americans. Those are the folks who were there before my ancestors showed up. They owned the land. They farmed along the Missouri River. I understand something about Indian tribes, tribal governments and self-determination. I understand that because I work in that area a lot with the Indian tribes from my State.

   Let me describe the issue of aboriginal and indigenous peoples in the United States, and especially in Hawaii, from the small amount of history that I know. Again, the rich history here will be better recited by my colleagues, Senator Inouye and Senator Akaka.

   January 16, 1893--that is a long, long time ago--the United States Minister John Stevens, who served, then, as Ambassador to the court of Queen Liliuokalani, directed a marine company onboard the USS Boston to arrest and detain the queen. This is the queen that served the indigenous people in Hawaii. She was arrested. She was placed under arrest for 9 months at the palace.

   That event was engineered and orchestrated by the Committee of Public Safety which I understand consisted of Hawaii's non-native Hawaii businessmen, with the approval of Minister Stevens.

   So we have a people in Hawaii who were the first Hawaiians, the indigenous people to Hawaii, who had a government, who had a structure. The head of that government was summarily arrested and a new government was created in Hawaii. That new government apparently was a government that would meet at the pleasure of those who engineered the arrest of the queen.

   Today, after many decades raising questions, should there not be an opportunity for Native Hawaiians, very much as there has been an opportunity in our country in what is called the lower 48 for Indian tribes to seek reorganization, to seek reorganization--there should be some opportunity along the way for there to be a Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act. The reason this is a ``reorganization'' is because that government existed. This is not the creation of a new government. This is a government that previously existed, but many decades ago was essentially dissolved or destroyed as a governing unit by the actions I previously described.

   My colleagues have come to the Congress from the State of Hawaii and have asked that a bill authorizing the reorganization of a Native Hawaiian governing entity that could negotiate agreements with the United States and the State of Hawaii to address a good number of issues relating to self-determination and self-governance of the Native Hawaiians be brought to the Senate and be considered and debated. That is the basis on which it is here today.

   Upon introduction last year by my colleagues from Hawaii, this bill was referred to the Committee on Indian Affairs. We held a hearing on the bill, received testimony that demonstrated broad bipartisan support, strong support for this bill in Hawaii and also in Indian country around America.

   We heard from Governor Lingle from the State of Hawaii about the importance of this bill to the people and to the economy of Hawaii. We heard from Native Hawaiians about the significance of this bill on all aspects of Native Hawaiian life. We heard from the National Congress of American Indians about its long-standing support for Native Hawaiians to be formally afforded the right to self-determination. This bill does not by itself do that. It establishes the process for a reorganization in order to create that structure.

   There has been back and forth between interested parties on this bill. There are some who have concerns and questions about it. Significant efforts, I know, have been spent by my two colleagues, Senator Akaka and Senator Inouye, to address concerns relating to jurisdiction, claims and gaming issues. I believe these concerns in almost all cases have been adequately resolved.

   Even more importantly, I believe the Members of the Senate, finally, deserve the opportunity, and my two colleagues from Hawaii deserve the opportunity, to have this legislation before the Senate open for discussion and open for debate.

   Senator Akaka requested floor time for this bill 1 year ago. His request was not granted because we were compelled to address other imminent concerns relating to hurricane relief and other matters at that time that were urgent.

   Bills on this issue have been introduced since the 106th Congress. None have received time for floor debate. Fairness, I believe, now requires this Congress to offer this bill in the Senate for full debate.

   Let me finally say this. I know of no two Members of the Senate who have worked harder, with greater determination to advance the cause in their State that has broad bipartisan support in their State on behalf of Native Hawaiians, a right that is already afforded to many other aboriginal and indigenous peoples around the United States that has not been afforded to those Native Hawaiians. I know of no one in this Senate who has worked harder for an important issue of passion in their hearts than Senator Akaka and Senator Inouye. I am very pleased that the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs was able to pass this legislation and bring it to the Senate today.

   I yield the floor.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.

   Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President,

   today I discuss legislation that is critically important to the people of Hawaii, all the people of Hawaii, the Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act of 2005. While I am pleased to see this bill finally come to the Senate floor after 6 long years, I remain perplexed by the constant barrage of misinformation that has been provided by opponents to this legislation.

   Tomorrow we will be voting on a motion to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to S. 147, the Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act of 2005. I ask all of my colleagues, to let this bill come to the floor for a debate--whether you are for or against it. At the minimum, we should be allowed to discuss what this bill is really about.

   I also want to alert my colleagues to the fact that a new substitute amendment has been drafted which incorporates legislative language negotiated between Senator Inouye and myself and officials from the Executive Branch to address policy concerns 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. While I realize that we will not consider the substitute amendment until we get to the actual consideration of the bill, I share this with my colleagues so that they know that our negotiations with the administration have been successful in addressing their concerns and adhering to the intent and purpose of this bill.

   This bill is about process and fairness. Hawaii's indigenous peoples, Native Hawaiians, have been recognized

[Page: S5558]

   We have bipartisan support for the enactment of this bill. I extend my deep appreciation to the cosponsors of this legislation, Senators Cantwell, Coleman, Dodd, Dorgan, Graham, Inouye, Murkowski, Smith, and Stevens, for their unwavering support of our efforts.

   I especially want to recognize Hawaii's Governor, Linda Lingle, who serves as the first Republican governor in Hawaii in 40 years. Despite our political differences, Governor Lingle and her cabinet, primarily Attorney General Mark Bennett and Hawaiian Homes Commission Chairman Micah Kane, have worked tirelessly with us for the past 4 years in an effort to enact this bill for the people of Hawaii.

   In Hawaii, support for the preservation and culture of Hawaii's indigenous peoples is a nonpartisan issue. In Hawaii, diversity is precious. The more we understand our culture, traditions, and heritage, the more we can contribute to the fabric of society that has become the local culture in Hawaii. While my opponents see diversity as a threat, the people of Hawaii embrace diversity and celebrate it as a means of understanding the foundations upon which our local culture, the culture that brings us all together, is based.

   Let me be the first to say that the people of Hawaii, including Hawaii's indigenous peoples, are proud to be Americans. The many Native Hawaiians in the National Guard who were away from their families for eighteen months, serving in Operation Iraqi Freedom, are proud to be American. In fact, it is a well-documented fact that native peoples have the highest per capita rate of serving in our military to defend our country. It is absolutely offensive to read opponents' mis char acter ization of this bill as an effort to secede from the United States or to question the right of Hawaii's indigenous peoples to have a mechanism of self-governance and self-determination within the framework of Federal law.

   This bill is of significant importance to the people of Hawaii. It is significant because it provides a process, a structured process, for the people of Hawaii to finally address longstanding issues resulting from a dark period in Hawaii's history, the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii. The people of Hawaii are multicultural and we celebrate our diversity. At the same time, we all share a common respect and desire to preserve the culture and tradition of Hawaii's indigenous peoples, Native Hawaiians.

   Despite this perceived harmony, there are issues stemming from the overthrow that we have not addressed due to apprehension over the emotions that arise when these matters are discussed. I have mentioned this to my colleagues previously, but it bears repeating that there has been no structured process. Instead, there has been fear as to what the discussion would entail, causing people to avoid the issues. Such behavior has led to high levels of anger and frustration as well as misunderstandings between Native Hawaiians and non-Native Hawaiians.

   As a young child, I was discouraged from speaking Hawaiian because I was told that it would not allow me to succeed in the Western world. My parents lived through the overthrow and endured the aftermath as a time when all things Hawaiian, including language, which they both spoke fluently, hula, custom, and tradition, were viewed as negative. I, therefore, was discouraged from speaking the language and practicing Hawaiian customs and traditions. I was the youngest of eight children. I remember as a young child sneaking to listen to my parents so that I could maintain my ability to understand the Hawaiian language. My experience mirrors that of my generation of Hawaiians.

   While my generation learned to accept what was ingrained into us by our parents, my children have had the advantage of growing up during the Hawaiian renaissance, a period of revival for Hawaiian language, custom, and tradition. Benefiting from this revival is the generation of my grandchildren who can speak Hawaiian and know so much more about our history.

   It is this generation, however, that is growing impatient with the lack of progress in efforts to resolve longstanding issues. It is this generation that does not understand why we have not resolved these matters. It is for this generation that I have written this bill to ensure that we have

   a way to address these emotional issues.

   There are those who have tried to say that my bill will divide the people of Hawaii. My bill goes a long way to unite the people of Hawaii by providing a structured process to deal with issues that have plagued us since 1893.

   This bill is also important to the people of Hawaii because it affirms the dealings of Congress with Native Hawaiians since Hawaii's annexation in 1898. Congress has always treated Native Hawaiians as Hawaii's indigenous peoples, and therefore, as indigenous peoples of the United States. Federal policies towards Native Hawaiians have largely mirrored those pertaining to American Indian and Alaska Natives.

   Again, let me reiterate, Congress has enacted over 160 statutes to address the conditions of Native Hawaiians including the Native Hawaiian Health Care Improvement Act, the Native Hawaiian Education Act, and the Native Hawaiian Home Ownership Act. The programs that have been established are administered by federal agencies such as the Departments of Health and Human Services, Education, Housing and Urban Development, and Labor. As you can imagine, these programs go a long way to benefit Native Hawaiians, but they also serve as an important source of employment and income for many, many people in Hawaii, including many non-Native Hawaiians. There are many Hawaii residents whose livelihoods depend on the continuation of these programs and services.

   While I took the time a few weeks ago to talk about Hawaii's history, I want to spend the next few moments discussing that history once again. This is very important to understand the context of what we are trying to accomplish with this bill.

   The year 1778 marks the year of first contact between the Western world and the people of Hawaii. That year, Captain James Cook landed in Hawaii. Prior to Western contact, Native Hawaiians lived in an advanced society that was steeped in science. Native Hawaiians honored their land (aina) and environment, and therefore developed methods of irrigation, agriculture, aquaculture, navigation, medicine, fishing and other forms of subsistence whereby the land and sea were efficiently used without waste or damage. Respect for the environment and for others formed the basis of their culture and tradition.

   Society was structured. Chief, alii, ruled each of the islands. Land was divided into ahupuaa, triangular-shaped land divisions which stretched from the mountain to the ocean. Each ahupuaa controlled by a lower-chief. The lands were worked on by the commoners, referred to as makaainana. There was an incentive for the chiefs to treat the makaainana well as they could always move to another ahupuaa and work for another chief.

   The immediate and brutal decline of the Native Hawaiian population was the most obvious result of contact with the West. Between Cook's arrival and 1820, disease, famine, and war killed more than half of the Native Hawaiian population. By 1866, only 57,000 Native Hawaiians remained from the basically stable pre-1778 population of at least 300,000. The result was a rending of the social fabric.

   This devastating population loss was accompanied by cultural, economic, and psychological destruction. Western sailors, merchants, and traders did not respect Hawaiian kapu, taboos, or religion and were beyond the reach of the priests. The chiefs began to imitate the foreigners whose ships and arms were so superior to their own.

   By the middle of the 19th Century, the islands' small non-native population had come to wield an influence

[Page: S5559]

   The mutual interests of Americans living in Hawaii and the United States became increasingly clear as the 19th Century progressed. American merchants and planters in Hawaii wanted access to mainland markets and protection from European and Asian domination. The United States developed a military and economic interest in placing Hawaii within its sphere of influence. In 1826, the United States and Hawaii entered into the first of the four treaties the two nations signed during the 19th Century.

   King Kamehameha I began the Kingdom of Hawaii in 1810 upon unifying the islands. The Kingdom continued until 1893 when it was overthrown with the help of agents of the United States. The overthrow of the Kingdom is easily the most poignant part of Hawaii's history. Opponents of the bill have characterized the overthrow as the fault of Hawaii's last reigning monarch, Queen Lili'uokalani. Nothing could be further from the truth.

   America's already ascendant political influence in Hawaii was heightened by the prolonged sugar boom. Sugar planters were eager to eliminate the United States' tariff on their exports to California and Oregon. The 1875 Convention on Commercial Reciprocity eliminated the American tariff on sugar from Hawaii and virtually all tariffs that Hawaii had placed on American products. It prohibited Hawaii from giving political, economic, or territorial preferences to any other foreign power. It also provided the United States with the right to establish a military base at Pearl Harbor.

   While non-Hawaiians were determined to ensure that the Hawaiian government did nothing to damage Hawaii's growing political and economic relationship with America, Hawaii's King and people were bitter about the loss of their lands to foreigners. Matters came to a head in 1887, when King Kalakaua appointed a prime minister who had the strong support of the Hawaiian people and who opposed granting a base at Pearl Harbor as a condition for extension of the Reciprocity Treaty.

   The business community, backed by the non-native military group, the Honolulu Rifles, forced the prime minister's resignation and the enactment of a new constitution. The new constitution--often referred to as the Bayonet Constitution--reduced the King to a figure of minor importance. It extended the right to vote to Western males whether or not they were citizens of the Hawaiian Kingdom, and disenfranchised almost all native voters by giving only residents with a specified income level or amount of property the right to vote for members of the House of Nobles. The representatives of propertied Westerners took control of the legislature. This is the constitution that the opponents to the bill have characterized as bringing democracy to Hawaii.

   A suspected native revolt in favor of the King's younger sister, Princess Liliuokalani, and a new constitution were quelled when the American minister summoned United States Marines from an American warship off Honolulu. Westerners remained firmly in control of the government until the death of the King in 1891, when Queen Liliuokalani came to power.

   On January 14, 1893, the Queen was prepared to promulgate a new constitution, restoring the sovereign's control over the House of Nobles and limiting the franchise to Hawaiian subjects. She was, however, forced to withdraw her proposed constitution. Despite the Queen's apparent acquiescence, the majority of Westerners recognized that the Hawaiian monarchy posed a continuing threat to the unimpeded pursuit of their interests. They formed a Committee of Public Safety to overthrow the Kingdom.

   On January 16, 1893, at the order of U.S. Minister John Stevens, American Marines marched through Honolulu, to a building known as Arion Hall, located near both the government building and the Hawaiian palace. The next day, local revolutionaries seized the government building and demanded that Queen Liliuokalani abdicate. Stevens immediately recognized the rebels' provisional government and placed it under the United States' protection.

   I was deeply saddened by allegations made by opponents of this legislation that the overthrow was done to maintain democratic principles over a despotic monarch. As you can tell by the history I just shared, our Queen was trying to restore the Kingdom to its native peoples after Western influence had so greatly diminished their rights. Colleagues, I want you to understand Hawaii's history and the bravery and courage of our Queen, who abdicated her throne in an effort to save her people after seeing United States Marines marching through the streets of Honolulu.

   The Republic of Hawaii was formed in 1893, and in 1898, Hawaii was annexed as a territory of the United States. At the time of the overthrow, the Republic of Hawaii took control of approximately 1.8 million acres of land which were held in a trust for the people of the Kingdom of Hawaii. The driving force of the overthrow, the formation of the Republic, and the drive towards annexation was land ownership and control over land.

   Native Hawaiians, like other indigenous cultures, could not grasp the concept of fee simple ownership of land. The concept of owning land was as foreign to them as the concept of owning air would be to us today. For ancient Hawaiians, and for many Hawaiians today, it is understood that all fortune comes from the aina, or land. Therefore, it was important to cultivate and protect the aina and its resources, but the concept of owning it was inconceivable. Ancient Hawaiian society was based on sharing--everyone cultivated, everyone protected, everyone reaped the benefits.

   From the time of annexation until present day, as I noted previously in my statement, Congress has treated Native Hawaiians in a manner similar to that of American Indians and Alaska Natives. Federal policies towards Native Hawaiians have always paralleled policies towards American Indians and Alaska Natives. As early as 1910, Congress included Native Hawaiians in appropriating funds to study the cultures of American Indians and Alaska Natives.

   In 1921, Congress enacted the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act of 1920, which set aside approximately 203,500 acres of land for homesteading and agricultural use by Native Hawaiians. The act was intended to ``rehabilitate'' the Native Hawaiian race which was estimated to have dropped from between 400,000 and 1 million, to 38,000. At the time, prevailing Federal Indian policy was premised upon the objective of breaking up Indian reservations and allotting lands to individual Indians. Indians were not to be declared citizens of the United States until 1924, and it was typical that a 20-year restraint on the alienation of allotted lands was imposed. This restraint prevented the lands from being subject to taxation by the states, but the restraint on alienation could be lifted if an individual Indian was deemed to have become ``civilized.'' The primary objective of the allotment lands to individual Indians was to ``civilize'' the native people. The fact that the United States thought to impose a similar scheme on the native people of Hawaii in an effort to ``rehabilitate a dying race'' illustrates the similarity in federal policies toward Native Hawaiians and American Indians.

   Opponents of my bill have unfortunately conjured a theory that there was no intent to recognize Native Hawaiians as indigenous peoples at the time of Statehood. I've gone back and reviewed the constitutional convention of 1950 which resulted in the constitution that was adopted in 1959 when Hawaii was admitted to the Union. The delegates to this convention reflected the multi-ethnic diversity in the islands. Only 19 percent of the delegates were Native Hawaiians. The 1950 convention deliberately incorporated provisions of the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act of 1920.

   It was not without controversy. At least one delegate opposed its inclusion. Yet, the majority of convention delegates voted to include the provisions and the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act remains a part of the Hawaii State Constitution today.

[Page: S5560]

   In addition, the Hawaii Admission Act also required the State to take title over the majority of the public lands which had been ceded to the United States at the time of annexation. The Act required that the lands be held by the state as a public trust, with income and proceeds being used for five public purposes, one of which was to address the conditions of Native Hawaiians. It is clear to me after reviewing these documents that while this issue has not been unanimous, there has always been overwhelming support for efforts to recognize Native Hawaiians as Hawaii's indigenous peoples, and to accord them such treatment.

   From 1959 to 1978, little was done at the state level to benefit Native Hawaiians. In 1978, the state held a constitutional convention. One of the results of the constitutional convention was the establishment of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, a quasi-State agency which was set up to address Native Hawaiian issues. The agency would be directed by a Board of Trustees, all Native Hawaiians, who were to be elected by Native Hawaiians. The State of Hawaii ratified the constitutional convention's proposal and from 1978 to 1999, the Board of Trustees for the Office of Hawaiian Affairs was elected by Native Hawaiians.

   In 1999, the United States Supreme Court ruled in the case of Rice v. Cayetano that because OHA receives state funds, the vote for the Board of Trustees could not be restricted to Native Hawaiians. The vote for the Board of Trustees has since been open to the entire State of Hawaii and all state citizens are eligible to run for a position on the Board of Trustees. The people of Hawaii have elected Native Hawaiians to each of the nine positions.

   Some of my opponents have claimed that this bill would circumvent the Rice case. There is no intent to circumvent the Rice case. Nothing in this bill would address the election of the Board of Trustees for the Office of Hawaiian Affairs.

   In 1993, P.L. 103-150, the Apology Resolution, was signed into law. The bill apologized to Native Hawaiians for participation of U.S. agents in the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii and committed the United States to a process of reconciliation with Native Hawaiians. In 1999, officials from the Departments of the Interior and Justice traveled to Hawaii for public consultations with Native Hawaiians. In 2000, the Departments issued a report, From Mauka to Makai: The River of Justice Must Flow Freely. One of the primary recommendations in the report is that legislation should be enacted which would provide Native Hawaiians with greater self-determination within the federal framework over their assets and resources. S. 147 would make this recommendation a reality.

   The reconciliation process I referred to is still an ongoing process. I see this measure as an important step in the reconciliation process--a necessary step that provides the structure for us to continue to progress in reconciliation between Native Hawaiians and United States.

   I also want to share a unique fact about Hawaii's history. We have had six forms of government. Pre-1810 the islands were ruled by chiefdoms. The Kingdom of Hawaii was established, following the unification of the Islands by King Kamehameha I in 1810, and continued until the overthrow of the Hawaiian Monarchy in 1893. From 1893-1898, the Republic of Hawaii ruled. The territorial government followed from 1898-1941. During World War II, martial law was declared, resulting in the civilian government being dissolved and a Military Government ruling the territory of Hawaii from 1941-1944. We returned to our territorial government in 1944 and in 1959 we were granted admission into the Union.

   I can assure my colleagues that the political status of Native Hawaiians has been a hot topic in Hawaii since 1959. In 1999, Hawaii's Congressional delegation formed the Task Force on Native Hawaiian issues. I was selected to head our delegation's efforts. I immediately established five working groups to assist us in addressing the clarification of the political and legal relationship between Native Hawaiians and the United States. The groups included the Native Hawaiian community, state officials, including agency heads and state legislators, Federal officials, Native American and constitutional scholars, and Congressional members and caucuses. 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 more than one hundred individuals provide initial input to the drafting of the legislation.

   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. For each Congress, the bill

   has been favorably reported by the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs and the House Committee on Resources. Unfortunately, until now, we have not had an opportunity for the Senate to consider this legislation.

   S. 147 the Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act of 2005, does three things: (1) it establishes a process for Native Hawaiians to reorganize their governing entity for the purposes of a federally recognized government-to-government relationship with the United States; (2) creates an office in the Department of the Interior to focus on Native Hawaiian issues and (3) establishes an interagency coordinating group comprised of federal officials from agencies who implement federal programs impacting Native Hawaiians.

   The process for the reorganization of the Native Hawaiian governing entity has received the most publicity and most attention. I am very proud of the careful balance between structure and flexibility provided in the reorganization process. Native Hawaiians will truly be able to make critical decisions in shaping their reorganized governing entity.

   Some have asked, why do you need to reorganize the entity? My answer is simple--our history requires it. Unlike some of our native brethren, when the Kingdom of Hawaii was overthrown, our native peoples were not allowed to retain their governing entity. Article 101 of the Constitution of the Republic of Hawaii required prospective voters to swear an oath in support of the Republic and declaring that they would not, either directly or indirectly, encourage or assist in the restoration or establishment of a monarchical form of government in the Hawaiian Islands. The overwhelming majority of the Native Hawaiian population, loyal to their Queen, refused to swear to such an oath and were thus effectively disenfranchised.

   Similarly at the time of annexation, an overwhelming number of Hawaiians signed a document in protest of annexation, referred to as the Ku`e Petition. It is this document that I have here. A substantial number of Native Hawaiians signed this document in further protest of what had happened to their government.

   My bill provides for the reorganization of the governing entity, because upon the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii, Native Hawaiians lost their governing entity. Despite the lack of a government, Native Hawaiians have maintained distinct communities and perpetuated their culture, traditions, customs, and language. While the United States has always treated us in a manner similar to that of American Indians and Alaska Natives, the Federal policy of self-governance and self-determination has not been extended to us because we lack a governmental structure.

   Opponents of my bill say that I am creating a government. I believe it is clear that, rather than creating a government, I seek to provide an opportunity for the restoration of a government which requires the reorganization of an entity.

   Similarly, because of our history, the governmental authority in Hawaii is held by the State, local, and Federal governments. For that reason, the bill requires that following the reorganization of the entity and the recognition of the entity by the United States, the Native Hawaiian governing entity will negotiate with the State and Federal governments regarding matters such as the transfer of lands, assets, and natural resources, and the exercise of governmental authority. Everything remains status quo until addressed and resolved in the negotiations process.

[Page: S5561]

   It is anticipated that Hawaii's State Constitution is likely to require an amendment which will require the vote of all residents in Hawaii. It is also anticipated that implementing legislation at the state and federal levels will be required to implement negotiated matters. This is what I referred to as the structured process that would allow the people of Hawaii to address the longstanding issues resulting from the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii. This process is inclusive and allows for all interested parties to participate.

   Opponents of my bill have sought to either mischaracterize potential outcomes or to predetermine the process. I have opposed both efforts. As you can see, enactment of this bill alone does not, for example, allow for the native government to exert criminal and civil jurisdiction over people in Hawaii. Rather, for the Native Hawaiian governing entity to exert any jurisdiction, the state and federal government would need to agree to allow the Native Hawaiian governing entity to exercise such authority. Implementing legislation at the state level would also need to be enacted to make this a reality.

   Others have sought to predetermine this matter. Given the inclusive process that the bill provides, and the fact that the people of Hawaii need to address these matters, I do not believe it is appropriate for Congress to predetermine the outcome of this process. Given everything that I have shared with you, I would hope that you agree with me.

   Finally, before I conclude, I'd like to speak briefly about what this bill does not do. The enactment of S. 147 will not lead to gaming in Hawaii. There is only one federal statute that authorizes gaming in Indian Country, the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, and it does not authorize Native Hawaiians to game. In addition, the State of Hawaii is one of two states in the union that criminally prohibits all forms of gaming. Therefore, gaming by the entity would only be allowed with changes to both federal and state law.

   The enactment of this bill also does not impact funding for Indian programs and services. As I described earlier, Congress has established programs and services for Native Hawaiians. These programs are appropriated from accounts completely separate from those that fund Indian programs and services. The bill clearly states that it does not create eligibility for Native Hawaiians to participate in Indian programs and services.

   I will conclude where I began. Colleagues, for the people of Hawaii, native issues are not partisan. Many of my constituents merely ask that we do right by Hawaii's indigenous peoples and enact this measure that provides 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. Many of my constituents ask that you enact this bill because it provides a structured process for us to finally address longstanding issues resulting from a painful history so that we can all move forward as a State.

   Mr. AKAKA. After 6 long years, we will be voting tomorrow on a motion to invoke cloture to proceed to S. 147. Whether you are for or against it, I ask all Members to let this bill come to the Senate so we can discuss its merits. It is only through this dialog, through the airing of facts and the dismissal of misunderstandings and myths, that we can provide a fair and honest consideration of what this measure really means to Native Hawaiians as well as to this great Nation of ours. That is what this honorable body has always done. This is why we gather in this Senate to discuss matters of law and governing and of fairness and of human and civil rights.

   At the heart of it, this bill is about fairness and about creating a process to achieve it. Native Hawaiians have been recognized as indigenous peoples by Congress. After more than 160 statutes, for more than 100 years, Congress has treated Native Hawaiians in a manner similar to American Indians and Native Alaskans. But when it comes to having a process and Federal policy on self-governance and self-determination, Native Hawaiians have not been treated equally.

   What this bill does is authorize a process to examine whether a policy of self-governance and self-determination can be extended to Native Hawaiians, thereby creating parity in the way the United States treats its indigenous peoples.

   We have bipartisan support for this bill. I extend my deep appreciation to its cosponsors, Senators CANTWELL, COLEMAN, DODD, DORGAN, GRAHAM, INOUYE, MURKOWSKI, SMITH, and STEVENS for their unwavering support. Again, I especially want to honor Hawaii's first Republican Governor, Governor Lingle, in 40 years. Despite our different political affiliations, Governor Lingle, Hawaii's Attorney General Mark Bennett, Hawaiian Homes Commission Chairman Micah Kane, and the rest of the Lingle administration have worked tirelessly with us to support this bill.

   While that may surprise some in Washington, DC, you have to understand back home, support for Hawaii's indigenous peoples is a nonpartisan issue. We see our diversity as our strength and not as a threat. It is a point of pride and a thing that unites, not divides us. We embrace our diversity and celebrate it as part of our social fabric. It is who we are as a people and as a State. That is why we are not threatened by efforts to preserve and strengthen the culture and traditions of Hawaii's indigenous peoples.

   Let me also say that the people of Hawaii, including Native Hawaiians, are proud to be Americans and to share that system of government that always has and allows us to be many and also to be one. They include the many Native Hawaiians who are members of the Hawaii National Guard and who are called away from their families to serve in operation Iraqi Freedom. Moreover, it is a well-documented fact that native peoples have the highest per capita rate of those serving in our military.

   That is why it is absolutely offensive to read mischaracterizations of this bill as an effort to secede from the United States.

   What this bill really does is provide a structured process to finally address long-standing issues resulting from a dark period in Hawaii history, the overthrow of the kingdom of Hawaii.

   A few weeks ago I took time to talk about Hawaii's history. I have given a review of that history and its ramifications on this measure. I believe it is absolutely essential for anyone voting on this bill to understand historical context. I strongly encourage all Members to again review this history because there remain issues stemming from the overthrow that have not been addressed because of apprehension based on emotions rather than facts.

   Instead, there has been fear of where these discussions might lead, causing people to avoid the issue altogether. Such behavior has led to frustration and misunderstanding between some Native and non-Native Hawaiians.

   But let me bring this complex history and how it has affected us down to a more human scale and to a more personal level.

   As young child, I was discouraged from speaking Hawaiian because I was told it would not allow me to succeed in the Western World. My parents, God bless them, lived through the overthrow and endured the aftermath, when all things Hawaiian, including language, hula, custom, and tradition, were viewed negatively. I was discouraged from speaking the language and practicing Hawaiian customs and traditions. I was the youngest of eight children. I remember as a young child sneaking to listen to my parents so that I could maintain my ability to understand the Hawaiian language. My experience mirrors that of many other Hawaiians of my generation.

   While we dealt with the stigma of being Hawaiian, my children have had the advantage of growing up during a period of revival for Hawaiian language, custom, and tradition. My grandchildren, who can speak Hawaiian and know so much more about our history, also benefited from this revival. It is this generation, knowing the history, that grows impatient with the lack of progress and efforts to resolve longstanding issues. It is this generation, steeped in American values of justice, equality, and self-determination, who cannot understand why we have not yet resolved these matters. It is for this and future generations that we have written this bill to address these important issues.

[Page: S5562]

   There are those who have tried to say that my bill will divide the people of Hawaii. I believe my bill goes a long way to unite the people of Hawaii by providing a structured process to deal with unresolved issues and unhealed wounds that have plagued us since 1893.

   Essentially, the Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act does three things: One, it establishes a process for Native Hawaiians to form a government-to-government relationship with the United States. Two, it creates an office in the Department of the Interior to focus on Native Hawaiian issues. And three, it establishes a coordinating group comprised of officials from Federal agencies who implement programs impacting Native Hawaiians. But it is the process for reorganizing a governing entity that has received the most attention. That is why I am very proud of the careful balance between structure and flexibility provided in this process. Native Hawaiians will truly be able to make critical decisions in shaping their government.

   Some have asked: Why do you need to reorganize a governing entity? My answer is simple: Our country's history requires it. Our sense of justice and fairness requires it. When the kingdom of Hawaii was overthrown, our native peoples were not allowed to retain their governing entity. Article 101 of the Constitution of the Republic of Hawaii required prospective voters to swear an oath in support of the Republic and declare that they would not, either directly or indirectly, encourage or assist in the restoration or establishment of a monarchy in the Hawaiian Islands. The overwhelming majority of the Native Hawaiian population, loyal to the Queen at that time, refused to swear to such an oath and was thus effectively disenfranchised.

   Similarly, at the time of annexation, an overwhelming number of Hawaiians signed a document of protest referred to as the Ku'e petition--it is this document that I have--as a substantial number of Native Hawaiians signed this document in further protest of what had happened to their government. Despite the lack of a government, Native Hawaiians have maintained distinct communities and perpetuated their culture, tradition, customs, and language.

   Opponents of the bill say I am creating a new government. I believe I am providing an opportunity for the restoration and reorganization of a government that once existed and was unjustly removed.

   Before I conclude, I wish to speak briefly about what this bill does not do. This bill will not result in the taking of private lands in Hawaii. No one will lose their home or business because of my bill. The enactment of S. 147 will not lead to gaming in Hawaii. There is only one Federal statute that authorizes gaming in Indian Country--the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. And it does not authorize Native Hawaiians to game. In addition, the State of Hawaii is one of only two States that criminally prohibits all forms of gaming. Therefore, gaming would only be allowed with changes to both Federal and State law.

   Enactment of this bill does not impact funding for Indian programs and services. Congress has established separate programs and services for Native Hawaiians. These programs are appropriated from accounts separate from those that fund Indian programs. Moreover, the bill clearly states that it does not allow Native Hawaiians to participate in Indian programs and services.

   Finally, gaining an understanding of a history of a culture and people we are not familiar with is not an easy task. I commend Members of the body for doing their homework. It can be so easy to simply dismiss this bill as racially based, as a threat to the sovereignty of the United States or as a ploy for one group to gain an undeserved advantage. The harder task is a studied one. But it is the right one.

   If I might take you back in history one more time for just a moment: In the 1840s, recognizing the strategic importance of the Hawaiian Islands, the great maritime powers of the day--principally England, France, and the United States--jockeyed for positions of advantage, even as they acknowledged the islands as an independent nation. It was a time of much international intrigue. Urged on by local British residents, the commander of the British squadron in the Pacific sent an armed frigate to Honolulu to ``protect British interests.''

   King Kamehameha III was forced to yield to British guns, and for 5 months the islands were placed under British rule. International pressure, as well as personal intervention from Queen Victoria herself, eventually forced the British Government to declare the action as unauthorized. On July 31, 1843, the Hawaiian flag was raised once again.

   During a service of thanksgiving held at historic Kawaiahao Church in Honolulu, Kamehameha III recited a phrase that has since become Hawaii's State motto: Ua mau ..... ke ea ..... o ka aina ..... I ka pono--the life of the land ..... is perpetuated ..... in righteousness. That has always been the case, not only in Hawaii but throughout our Nation's history.

   The people of Hawaii are asking that we do right by Hawaii's indigenous peoples and enact this measure that provides Native Hawaiians with an opportunity for self-determination and self-governance. They ask that we enact this bill because it provides a structured process to finally address longstanding issues resulting from a painful moment in our history, so that we can move forward as a State. They ask that we enact this bill because it is just, because it is fair, because it is the right thing to do.

   We are a nation of immigrants, and we celebrate our diversity every day at dining room tables around the country. In this grand experiment of democracy, we have found we can be many and yet be indivisible. The United States of America has pledged itself to liberty and justice for all people. This bill does that for the Native Hawaiians.

   I yield the floor.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 2 minutes 7 seconds remaining on the minority's time.

   Mr. AKAKA. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.

   The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.

   Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

   Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I said earlier that I think we will hear on the Senate floor many times during this debate about the enormous respect we have for our two colleagues from Hawaii and how much we would prefer not to disagree with them. I think it is fair to say that this bill would not have a chance of being seriously considered on the floor if it weren't for our respect for them.

   Despite that respect, I have to say, after hearing the Senator from Hawaii, this bill is worse than I thought. Many of my colleagues in the Republican caucus have come to me and said this is not about sovereignty or about race. The Senator from Hawaii made very clear that this is about sovereignty. He said in his own words that this is a bill to create--he says ``restore''--let's just say establish--a new government within the United States of America, and admission to that government is based upon race. So you cannot pass this bill off and say it is not about sovereignty. It is about sovereignty. There is no difference of opinion about that between the Senator from Hawaii and me.

   He said specifically that the first objective of this legislation is to establish a process to establish a government which would have a government-to-government relationship with the United States. That is a sovereign government composed of American citizens who would now become part of a new government because they might be a small percentage Native Hawaiian, and certain benefits would come to them. So it is about sovereignty and race.

   Why is that a problem? Let me add that the Senator from Hawaii referred to this new sovereignty as their government. But we have one government. That's why there are Americans, just like my family, which is Scotch-Irish American, like those of African descent who are Americans, and like those of every descent who are Americans, who share in our government.

   That is what is special about this country. Of course we admire our diversity. What a great strength diversity is. No country is more diverse. We are a land of immigrants. Out of that

[Page: S5563]

   How do we do that? We do it in an extraordinary way that goes all the way back to Valley Forge, when George Washington administered an oath to his officers that said:

   I renounce, refuse, and abjure any allegiance or obedience to the king, and I swear that I will, to the utmost of my power, support, maintain, and defend the United States of America.

   Now, new citizens of this country have ``become Americans'' ever since then by taking that same oath. In the immigration bill we passed a couple weeks ago, we codified that oath. So every year, a half million people come here from countries such as Bangladesh, China, France, and every part of the world. They don't come to salute India or speak the language of China or to adopt the principles of France. They respect where they came from, and they are proud of it, but they become Americans. We don't do it based on race. We don't do it based on ancestry. We do it based upon a few principles in our founding documents. One of those is that we don't discriminate based upon race or ancestry, and another great principle is E pluribus unum, which this bill would turn upside down.

   So this is not a bill which should be passed just because we greatly respect our colleagues, which we do. But Hawaiians are Americans. Tennesseans are Americans. Oklahomans are Americans. Hawaiians have been American citizens since 1900. In 1959, they voted 94 percent to become a State, to be Americans. When you become American, you renounce your allegiance to some other government and pledge allegiance to the United States of America. If we don't do that, we take step toward being a sort of United Nations instead of a United States.

   I hope my friends, who have looked at this bill and said: We love our colleagues and this doesn't seem like a very important bill, so let's do it for them, will look at the assault upon a tremendously important principle embedded in this bill. It is about sovereignty. It is about land and money. It is about race. It is not the same as what we did in Alaska. Native Hawaiians are not just another Indian tribe. We don't create Indian tribes; we recognize Indian tribes. This is not an Indian tribe under the language of our laws.

   I am afraid that what has happened here is that in 1998, the Supreme Court of the United States made a decision and they said Native Hawaiians could not have an organization if the voting membership was based upon being Native Hawaiian because the 15th amendment to the U.S. Constitution says you cannot vote based on race. So this is an attempt--it is a breathtaking attempt--to establish a new nation within the United States of America.

   I suppose there might be a lot of aggrieved people in the United States who might like to establish a nation. This Nation isn't without pain. We have stories from our beginning, whether it is Native Americans, whether it is African Americans, whether it is Mormons who may have felt mistreated, murdered in State after State, whether it is one religion today--maybe it is Hasidic Jews or an Amish group. There are a great many people who, in our history, may not have been properly treated. But an understanding of American history is that it is a great saga of setting high goals for ourselves and then always moving toward those goals. We never reach them. We say ``all men are created equal,'' but we have never been. The men who wrote that owned slaves. But what have we done? We have systematically, over our history, chipped away, moving ahead, falling back, fighting a great Civil War, saving the Nation, waiting another hundred years before African Americans could sit at a lunch counter in Nashville, always moving toward that goal. Most of the debates in this Senate are about establishing

   high goals--pay any price for freedom, equal opportunity, E pluribus unum. Those are our goals, and we never reach them, but we always try for them.

   What is our goal here? Our goal is that we should hope that every single citizen in this wonderful State of Hawaii be equal--if there ever were a multiethnic, diverse State, it is Hawaii. It is a wonderful example of our diversity. According to the 2000 census, 40 percent of Hawaiians are of Asian descent, 24 percent are White, 9 percent say they are Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islanders, 7 percent claim to be Hispanic, 2 percent Black. Twenty-one percent report two or more racial identities. There is much diversity of which Hawaiians are proud and of which we are proud. What unites them? What unites us all is that we have become Americans. We are proud of where we came from, proud of our ancestry, but prouder to be American.

   There may be some issues that need to be addressed. We can find ways to address them. There may be some wrongs that need to be righted. Certainly, Native Hawaiians would want to renew their culture and their customs and their language. All of us do that. I go to my family reunion of Scotch-Irish Presbyterians every summer. I have been to the Italian-American dinner here in Washington, DC. I never went to an event where there was more emotion or Italianness. But the greatest emotion came when the Italian Americans stood up and pledged allegiance to the United States. They didn't have a problem saying: We are proud to be Italian, but we are prouder to be American. So how could we be seriously discussing on the floor of the Senate establishing for 400,000 Americans who live there, I think from almost every State of this country, a new government based on race to which they would be privileged and the rest of us could not be a part of? That is not American. That might be the United Nations, but it is not the United States. It is not consistent in the most basic ways with the history of this country.

   So I hope that my colleagues, who have considered this legislation as maybe not too important, as something that should be done primarily out of respect for our two distinguished friends from Hawaii, will look at this carefully and not be lulled in by comments that this isn't about sovereignty. I think Senator Akaka was very candid and very direct when he said the first objective of this bill was to establish a process to create an entity which would have a government-to-government relationship with the United States.

   Mr. President, this is a dangerous precedent. It is the reverse of what it means to be an American. We have other issues that should come to the floor before this. I hope colleagues will think carefully before moving ahead on this piece of legislation.

   I see the Senator from Alabama has arrived.

   I yield the floor.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama is recognized.

   Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Tennessee, Mr. Alexander, for his thoughtful comments on this subject and other related subjects. He taught me a phrase that he uses, which is that we need to make sure everyone who grows up in this country knows what it means to be an American. To be an American is not a racial thing. An American is a person who adopts the American ideal of equal justice under law, without regard to race, religion, national origin, or any other matter of that kind.

   Our Founders of this Nation were very wise in a number of important ways. One of the most important ways was they had a clear vision of the Nation they birthed and they saw it far into the future. They always considered the importance of principle because principle was important to the growth and progress of the Nation they loved for the long term. They never failed to think of the impact their actions may have on the future, even the distant future of the country they birthed, the country they loved.

   I do not believe we are as thoughtful today in that matter as we used to be. Too often, we make decisions based on perceived immediate needs or on political forces at the time or friendship or some deal we thought we were forced to make or needed to make at a given time; and too seldom in this busy, hectic place do we take the time to consider the long-term implications of our actions on the great Republic which we have been given.

   We simply must think in the long term in a principled way as we consider the Native Hawaiian legislation. It is not too much to say the legislation could create a crack in the American ideal of equal rights and colorblind justice. This would be a huge step. It is a

[Page: S5564]

   crystal clear policies on this question. The Republic must firmly reject, must nip in the bud now and whenever it may appear in the future, any notion of creating sovereign governments within our borders unless they meet every criteria of the Indian Tribe Program.

   National Review said in a recent article:

   You might have thought after watching the immigration debate that the Senate could not be more cavalier about the unity and sovereignty of the Nation. Think again. The Senate is about to vote to pave the way with a bill to create a race-based government which is on the verge of passing.

   This bill has been around a number of years, but we have never had a full debate about it. Unfortunately, many in Congress don't seem to fully understand yet the enormous implication of establishing what can really fairly be said to be a race-based government. And further, the American people have not been informed of the breadth and significance of the legislation. That is why it is good we are having the debate at this time.

   We must talk about it. We ought to let the American people know that this bill would create a nation out of United States citizens. The territory known as Hawaii is the epitome really of our country's great melting-pot concept and has always been made up of a diverse group of citizens with different racial backgrounds. They are famous for that.

   If we pass this bill, we will divide them. The bill would result in the State of Hawaii giving up substantial lands to the new nation which would begin a downward spiral from an America that is based on a shared ideal to one where race, ancestry, our nationality constitute a legally approved basis for segregation and really discrimination.

   What is discrimination? Discrimination is saying you have an advantage or a disadvantage based on race.

   This legislation seeks to create an extra constitutional race-based government of Native Hawaiians by arbitrarily labeling that race of people as an Indian tribe.

   Essentially, it seeks to create a sovereign entity out of thin air, something that the Supreme Court said as far back as 1913 cannot be done. Indian tribes existed before our Constitution, before our Nation, in many cases, with continuity of leadership, centralized locality, and cultural cohesiveness. Therefore, the United States recognizes qualified Indian tribes as sovereign entities. Indeed, we signed treaties with many of them and made promises in those treaties to provide them certain degrees of sovereignty.

   Equating Native Hawaiians with a legitimate Indian tribe is not possible because Native Hawaiians share none of the unique characteristics possessed by recognized tribes. Native Hawaiians never lived as a separate, distinct, racially exclusive community, much less exercise sovereignty over Hawaiian lands. They never established organizational or political power. They never lived under a racially exclusive government. All Hawaiians, regardless of race, were subjects to the same monarch in 1893. In other words, Native Hawaiians have never exercised inherent sovereignty as a native indigenous people, as the bill asserts and must assert if it were to have any chance of withstanding constitutional muster.

   Nonetheless, the bill would carve out a special exemption in the Constitution for these people based on race solely. A special exception being sought for Native Hawaiians is extraordinary.

   Under the bill, there is no guarantee that members of a new government would be subject to constitutional rights and protections, such as the first, fourth, and 15th amendments. The U.S. Constitution guarantees to every citizen a republican form of government, and this has been defined to mean all the protections of our Constitution.

   At a minimum, the Founding Fathers intended that a republican form of government ensure popular rule and no monarchy, but under this bill, nothing guarantees these basic principles will be honored. This new government, this new sovereignty will be free to reinstate a monarchy or establish any other method of government they may choose.

   Essentially, persons who are now citizens of the United States and who are now guaranteed these protections, a republican form of government, would now be turned over to a government that is not bound to honor that.

   One should not be deprived of the right to vote or be denied free speech or have property taken without due process. These are deeply rooted principles in the United States, but they will not be guaranteed as part of a Native Hawaiian government. Under the bill, Congress would strip United States citizens of these and other great protections they now enjoy.

   Perhaps this is why there is a lot of unease in Hawaii about this legislation. Indeed, so many residents oppose it. In May of 2006, in a telephone pole, 58 percent of Hawaiian residents said they opposed the bill. Of the respondents identifying themselves as Native Hawaiian, only 56 percent said they supported it. Of the Native Hawaiians, only a little more than half said they supported it. Given this split among even Hawaiians, is it not surprising that 50 percent of all respondents said they want a vote on the bill before it becomes law, which is not provided for in this legislation?

   I will share a few thoughts by the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. They oppose the bill. The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights voted recently to oppose the legislation because of its concern with the bill's discriminatory impact.

   The Commission is an independent Government agency tasked with the duty to examine and resolve issues related to race, color, religion, sex, age, disability, or national origin. It is composed of eight members, though currently only seven. Four are appointed by the President and four are appointed by Congress. At no time may more than four members of the same party sit on the Commission.

   Pursuant to its authority to submit reports, findings, and recommendations to the Congress, the Commission released their report last month on this bill recommending ``against the passage of the Native Hawaiians Government Reorganization Act 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 various degrees of privilege.''

   That is strong language. I submit that is what the bill does. I submit that is why we should not pass it.

   Let me repeat that. They oppose this act and 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.'' And, I would add, based on their national ancestry or race.

   ThIs report was issued after--the Commission held a hearing on January 20, 2006, where experts--both opposing and supporting the bill--testified about the legislation. The Commission held the briefing record open until March 21, 2006, to receive additional comments from the public. Sixteen public comments were received during the period, and most of the commentators wrote to express their opposition to the bill.

   Interestingly, the report notes that ``While most commenters oppose the legislation, the governmental and institutional commenters primarily support it. The report also states that ``Many [opponents] argued, in very personal terms, that the proposed legislation would be inconsistent with basic American principles of equality, traditional Hawaiian values, and their own personal ethics.

   Commission Chairman Gerald A. Reynold, himself an African American, agreed with opponents, stating that:

   I am concerned that the Akaka Bill would authorize a government entity to treat people differently based on their race and ethnicity ..... This runs counter to the basic American value that the government should not prefer one race over another.''

   In a case called Rice v. Cayetano, the Supreme Court found a similar attempt to create a race-based classification

   unconstitutional. In that case, the Court struck down a race-determinative voting restriction in Hawaii as a violation of the fifteenth amendment, which bars racial restrictions on voting. By a vote of 7 to 2, the Court held unconstitutional a system under which non-Native Hawaiians were barred from voting for or serving as

[Page: S5565]

   One of the reasons race is treated as a forbidden classification is that it demeans the dignity and worth of a person to be judged by ancestry instead of by his or her own merit and essential qualities. An inquiry into ancestral lines is not consistent with respect based on the unique personality each of us possesses, a respect the Constitution itself secures in its concern for persons and citizens.

   Proponents of this bill seek to circumvent this Supreme Court decision by completely separating the Native Hawaiian community into its own sovereignty, placing it and its members outside of Constitutional protections. This is the only way it can be done.

   Instead of carving Native Hawaiians out from constitutional protections, and separating them from America, we must uphold constitutional principles, as well as American--especially Hawaiian--ideals, by not discriminating against anyone on account of race.

   Our Constitution seeks to eliminate racial separatism, not promote it. How can we promote equality while separating our people into distinct, legally-recognized racial sovereignties with more or less rights and still be ``one nation''?

   Because they existed prior to the establishment of our Constitution and Federal Government, Native American Indian tribes have long been recognized as sovereign entities--most signed treaties to that effect.

   Tribes have never been, nor can they now be, created out of thin air by Congressional legislation. Instead, ``tribes'' seeking recognition after statehood must adhere to a process established by the Federal Government. To be formally recognized, a tribe must demonstrate that it has operated as a sovereign for the past century, was a separate and distinct community, and had a preexisting political orgranization. The Native Hawaiian people cannot meet these criteria and have conceded such on at least one occasion. In the case that I previously mentioned, Rice v. Cayetano, the State of Hawaii argued in its brief that:

   [F]or the Indians the formerly independent sovereign entity that governed them was the tribe, but for native Hawaiians, their formerly independent sovereign nation was the Kingdom of Hawaii, not any particular `tribe' or equivalent political entity. ..... The tribal concept simply has no place in the context of Hawaiian history.

   Let me reiterate and further explain why Native Hawaiians cannot meet the Bureau of Indian Affairs' standards for tribal recognition. Those

   standards boil down to two basic requirements: one, the group must be a separate and distinct community, and two, a prexisting political entity must be present.

   The BIA requires a tribe to demonstrate that it represents a separate and distinct community. Yet, Native Hawaiians live in almost every state in the Nation and have fully integrated into American society. Native Hawaiians do not live as a cohesive, autonomous group of people and have not done so at any point in history. Rather, they are fully immersed in all aspects of American life. For example, almost half of all marriages in Hawaii are interracial. Hawaiians serve in the U.S. military, dedicating their lives to the service of America. They are a part of American culture and certainly do not live separate and distinct from the rest of us.

   The BIA requires a tribe to demonstrate that it had a preexisting political organization. Yet, no political entity--whether active or dormant--exists in Hawaii that claims to exercise any kind of organizational or political power. Knowing this, the bill's advocates rely on findings in the bill declaring that ``Native Hawaiians'' exercised ``sovereignty'' over Hawaii prior to the fall of the monarchy in 1893, and that it is therefore appropriate for Native Hawaiians to exercise their ``inherent sovereignty'' again. This argument is fatally flawed because there was no race-based Tribal Hawaiian government in 1893, so there is no ``Native Hawaiian'' government to be restored. Since the early 19th century, the Hawaiian ``people'' included many native-born and naturalized subjects who were not ``Native Hawaiians'' in the sense of this bill--those people included Americans, Chinese, Japanese, Koreans, Samoans, Portuguese, Scandinavians, Scots, Germans, Russians, Puerto Ricans, and Greeks. All were subjects of the monarch, not just those with aboriginal blood. Further, Hawaiian government, including the monarchy that existed until 1893, always employed non-Natives, even at the highest levels of government. Therefore, it would be impossible to ``restore'' the ``Native Hawaiian'' government of 1893--as the bill purports to do--because no such racially-exclusive

   government--or nation--ever existed.

   If there ever was a time for Native Hawaiians to establish themselves as an Indian tribe, it has long passed. When Hawaii was considering statehood, there was absolutely no push to establish any tribal sovereignty. In fact, 94 percent of voters supported statehood in 1959, and at the moment it was attained, all people living in the territory became full-fledged citizens of the United States of America. They deserve every protection that our Constitution ensures.

   There are many practical consequences of this legislation that must be considered. If this bill passes, it would allow for the creation of Hawaiian ``tribes'' in every State. This would have extreme social consequences--sporadic pockets of people in almost every State would be governed differently than their neighbors and would be immune from State and Federal laws and taxes. The result would be a chaotic intermixing of different rules and regulations throughout the entire country. Native

   Hawaiian business owners, exempt from state and local taxes, could displace non-Native Hawaiian business-owning neighbors, giving them an enormous competitive advantage. Further, the bill could conceivably lead to complete secession from the United States. In fact, a group of supporters, including the State of Hawaii's own Office of Hawaiian Affairs, views this bill as a potential step towards ``total independence.'' On a website operated by that agency, the following passage appears under a section called, ``How Will Federal Recognition Affect Me?''

   [The bill] creates the process for the establishment of the Native Hawaiian governing entity and a process for federal recognition. The Native Hawaiian people may exercise their right to self-determination by selecting another form of government including free association or total independence.

   How breathtaking is that? We simply cannot return to a government where different races of Americans are

   governed by different laws.

   The bill itself does not require any percentage of Native Hawaiian blood for inclusion in the new race-based government, which could therefore include someone with only ``one drop'' of native blood. Hawaiians with significant traceable blood heritage oppose the bill, in part, for this very reason. Those Hawaiians with at least 50 percent blood quantum were given Federal assistance and lands by the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act of 1921, a requirement which still exists today, with the only exception being for children of homesteaders with 25 percent blood quantum.

   Doesn't this entire process of dividing money, property, and benefits based on a person's race--the percentage of ``blood'' they have--sound an alarm? Yet this bill positively seeks to divide people based upon race and blood--all in the name of apology and restitution.

   What about the French who held the Louisiana territory? Should they be given special benefits because we forced them into a sale?

   We cannot go down this path. Not only would all Americans suffer if we sever Native Hawaiians from our American community, but those individuals who would become citizens of a Native Hawaiian sovereignty would lose rights that we as Americans cherish.

   One of the many lessons learned from the Civil War is the importance of national unity. Abraham Lincoln referred to the principle of secession as ``one of disintegration, and [one] upon which no government can possibly endure.''

   We fought a war over the issue, and the question was settled for all time. We are one Nation and will not be separated--whether by secession of a State or a racial group. Certainly we cannot promote this state-sanctioned racial separatism. If passed, this bill would create a slippery slope that could lead

[Page: S5566]

   We cannot set a precedent that would allow every racial group in America to become its own independent sovereignty. Native Hawaiians, just like any other racial group in this country, are free to practice and promote their culture. They are free to pass down their traditions from generation to generation. America celebrates her diversity, but she cannot allow her diversity to divide her citizens.

   E Pluribus Unum--out of many, one--is fundamental to our national character. This bill seeks to turn that fundamental principle upside down and would make us many out of one.

   Mr. President, I see my colleague from Idaho is in the Chamber. I will conclude with these thoughts. We are as Members of this Senate particularly charged with thinking about the long-term future of our Republic. That is how we are today in a relatively healthy condition because our forefathers thought about those matters. They thought about the principles on which this Nation was founded.

   The concept is that once an American, based on adoption of the American ideal, you become an American regardless of your race, your ancestry, your religion, or your national origin. That is who we are as a people. And I submit, it is a matter of the greatest danger that we move away from the classical acceptance of Indian tribes to now start creating sovereign entities.

   Sovereign means independent, to a certain degree uncontrollable by the U.S. Government. Sovereign entities within our Nation based on race, with people spread all over the Nation actually, being a member of a new government, a new government that according to the supporters and even the Hawaiian Web site indicates could lead to separation and independence, that is not a step we ought to take. We need to nip this in the bud. We need to end this now. We need not go down this road.

   I so respect my colleagues from Hawaii. They are committed to their people. They understand the concerns of their citizens. They want to help them. They have a particular desire to be compassionate to the Hawaiian people, the Native Hawaiians who have grown up on the islands for many years. But I say with all due respect, in terms of the overall National Government of which we are a part and the principles to which we must adhere, that we should not go down the road creating an independent sovereign entity based on race, as this bill would do. Therefore, with reluctance and great respect for my colleagues who support this legislation, I urge our Members to vote no.

   I yield the floor.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho is recognized.

   Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I quote:

   Hawaii illustrates the Nation's revolutionary message of equality of opportunity for all, regardless of background, color, or religion. This is the promise of Hawaii, a promise for the entire Nation and, indeed, the world, that peoples of different races and creeds can live together, enriching each other, in harmony and democracy.

   That is Lawrence H. Fuchs, Hawaii Pono, 1961, written at the time of statehood.

   Today, with that quote in mind, I rise in opposition to the Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act of 2006. As my colleague just mentioned, I respect both of my Hawaiian colleagues and the work they have done to promote the culture and heritage of their native people. At the same time, I must disagree with the underlying notion of this bill.

   The major argument in favor of this bill is the notion that Congress should create a Native Hawaiian tribe in order to treat them the same as American Indians and Native Alaskans. But Congress cannot simply create an Indian tribe. Only those groups of people who have long operated as an Indian tribe, lived as a separate and distinct community--geographically and culturally--and have a preexisting political structure can be organized as a tribe.

   Hawaiians could never qualify as an American Indian tribe. First, they do not have the preexisting political structure. Prior to secession from the Republic of Hawaii, Hawaii operated under a monarchy and not a tribe. Even if they were once organized in tribal governments, they have had no type of Native Hawaiian government for over 100 years.

   Furthermore, in 1959, 94 percent of Hawaiians voted favorably to approve the Hawaii Statehood Act and become American citizens.

   At this time, there was an understanding that Hawaii's native people would not be treated as a separate racial group and that they would not be transformed into an Indian tribe.