Aloha. I would like to begin by thanking you all for taking the time to join us. As this is the first opportunity that we have had to meet with members of the Native Hawaiian Community working group and the State working group, I want to express my deep appreciation for your individual and collective efforts in helping us with the legislation last year. We are looking forward to working with all of you during the 107th Congress.
Our purpose in meeting is to share our thoughts about legislation which we have introduced to clarify the political relationship between Native Hawaiians and the United States.
This morning we will share what we learned from our efforts during the last Congress and how we plan to move forward in the 107th Congress. Before addressing the modifications in the legislation, I will address the issue of why the modifications are necessary.
106TH CONGRESS
During the 106th Congress, we introduced identical legislation in both the Senate and the House of Representatives. Both versions of the bill, S. 2899 in the Senate, and H.R. 4904, in the House of Representatives, were reported favorably from the committees of jurisdiction, the Senate Indian Affairs Committee and the House Resources Committee. H.R. 4904 passed the House of Representatives and was sent to the Senate for consideration. In the Senate, we tried to pass H.R. 4904 by unanimous consent. Passing a bill by unanimous consent means that the legislation does not need to be debated and does not require a roll call vote. Unanimous consent, however, requires that there is no objection. If one Senator has an objection, the measure will not be passed.
During the few days before the adjournment of the extended session of the 106th Congress, there were a handful of Senators who had objections to the legislation. Concerns were expressed about the impact that a government-to-government relationship with Native Hawaiians would have on program funding for American Indians and Alaska Natives. Concerns also included the following:
- that the legislation would lead to race-based entitlements for Native Hawaiians
- that the legislation would lead to gaming activities in Hawaii
- that the legislation was meant to circumvent the Supreme Court's decision in the case of Rice v. Cayetano
- that the bill provided for recognition of a governing entity that did not exist
- that the bill mandated a process of reorganization for Native Hawaiians
We addressed these concerns on a member-to-member basis by both talking to our colleagues as well as sending them written materials.
We have been asked why we did not bring H.R. 4904 to the Senate floor for a debate. From September through December 2000, the Senate debated measures dealing with appropriations and national issues. The option of taking H.R. 4904 to the Senate for debate and a roll call vote was simply not available.
While we continued our efforts to pass the bill by unanimous consent, we also attached H.R. 4904 to the omnibus appropriations measure for FY 2001. Prior to the Senate's consideration of the omnibus measure, we were informed that several members would not agree to H.R. 4904's inclusion in the omnibus bill. We were informed that the only way for H.R. 4904 to pass as part of the omnibus measure was for us to modify the legislation so that all it did was authorize a commission to study the issue of whether or not the federal policy of self-determination and self-governance should apply to Native Hawaiians.
This was an unacceptable option for me as it failed to address the primary objective of the legislation - which was to clarify the political relationship between Native Hawaiians and the United States through federal recognition of the Native Hawaiian governing entity for a government-to-government relationship with the United States. We decided to withdraw the legislation from the appropriations measure and to reintroduce it at the first available opportunity during the 107th Congress.
107TH CONGRESS
January 22, 2001, was the first day that the Senate was accepting legislation - Senator Inouye and I introduced S. 81 that day. H.R. 617 was introduced by Representative Abercrombie and Representative Mink on February 14, 2001. Since then, we, as a delegation, have considered comments on the legislation from our colleagues in the Senate and the House of Representatives. We reviewed the concerns expressed about the bill from the Native Hawaiian community during the hearings held in Hawaii last year. We assessed the anticipated response of the Bush Administration to the legislation. After doing all of this, we, as a delegation, revised S. 81, and introduced S. 746.
We introduced S. 746 on Friday, April 6, 2001. The primary purpose of the legislation--to clarify the political relationship between Native Hawaiians and the United States through the authorization of federal recognition of the Native Hawaiian governing entity for the purposes of a government-to-government relationship--remains the same.
S. 746 retains the three objectives in the legislation. The three objectives are to establish an office within the Department of the Interior to focus on Native Hawaiian issues, to establish an inter-agency coordinating group to be composed of representatives from federal agencies to coordinate existing federal policies and programs impacting Native Hawaiians, and to extend the federal policy of self-determination and self-governance to Native Hawaiians.
MODIFICATIONS
The first and most substantive change in S. 746 is the removal of the reorganization process which previously mandated how the Native Hawaiian governing entity would be formed. The majority of the comments we received regarding this legislation dealt with the reorganization process. Even the most ardent supporters of the legislation expressed concerns with provisions within the reorganization process.
As a delegation, we are confident that the Native Hawaiian community is well on its way and is fully capable of organizing the Native Hawaiian governing entity without a federally mandated process. After reassessing the concerns expressed by the Native Hawaiian community and our colleagues in the Senate and the House of Representatives, we deleted the reorganization process from the bill.
We retained what we believe to be the most important aspect of the bill - the process for federal recognition. Once the Native Hawaiian governing entity has formed, approved its organic governing documents, and elected its officers, the officers then submit the organic governing documents to the Secretary of the Interior for certification. Once the organic governing documents meet the requirement certifications as outlined in the bill, federal recognition will be granted.
We have added a provision to the certification process which requires the Secretary of the Interior to certify that the State of Hawaii supports recognition. This was done in response to growing concerns among members regarding federal recognition. A number of our colleagues would rather have the Native Hawaiian governing entity submit its organic governing documents to Congress, which would require a second bill to be submitted following the organization of the governing entity. This is based on the desire of some Members to ensure that States are allowed to be heard in this process.
Our objective is to establish the process of federal recognition for the Native Hawaiian governing entity now, rather than waiting for the governing entity to be formed. We added this provision to the bill to address this concern.
The second substantive modification in the legislation is the addition of section 9, entitled, "Applicability of Certain Federal Laws." The purpose of this section is to clarify exactly what we have been saying regarding the bill's impact on program funding for American Indians and Alaska Natives and gaming. Section 9(a) clearly states that S. 746 does not authorize gaming in Hawaii under the Indian Regulatory Gaming Act. Section 9(b) states that S. 746 does not authorize eligibility in programs administered by the Bureau of Indian Affairs. This legislation never did authorize gaming or eligibility in BIA programs. However, by including this section, we can squarely address the concerns expressed by our colleagues in Congress.
The third modification in the bill is the removal of the section entitled "Disclaimer." A disclaimer often raises concerns because it leads to additional scrutiny of what we are trying to protect. Instead of highlighting the fact that this bill does not act as a settlement of claims against the United States in a disclaimer section, we placed this language in section 7(b), which addresses the negotiation of lands, assets and resources between the United States, the Native Hawaiian governing entity and the State of Hawaii.
This section authorizes the United States to negotiate and enter into agreements with the Native Hawaiian governing entity and State of Hawaii regarding the transfer of lands, resources and assets dedicated to Native Hawaiian use. We believe it is more appropriate to state that this bill is not intended to serve as a settlement of claims in this section.
S. 746 focuses solely on the federal relationship and does not preclude Native Hawaiians from continuing their efforts at the international level. I'm aware that this bill has been called the "sovereignty bill." The issue of sovereignty is to be determined by the Native Hawaiian community. This bill was never intended to determine the sovereignty issue. Rather, this bill addresses the federal relationship between Native Hawaiians and the United States and ensures that the United States fulfills its responsibility towards Hawaii's indigenous peoples, Native Hawaiians.
Let me be clear - It is not my intention, nor the intention of the delegation, to preclude efforts of Native Hawaiians at the international level. The scope of this bill is limited to federal law.
Other changes to the bill include changing the name of the office in the Department of the Interior from United States Office of Native Hawaiian Affairs to the United States Office for Native Hawaiian Relations. The previous name led to the misunderstanding that the bill moved the Office of Hawaiian Affairs to the federal level. This is not the intent of the bill.
The office in the Department of the Interior is intended to serve as a liaison between Native Hawaiians and the United States. The office would assist in continuing the reconciliation process and to assist with the government-to-government relationship between Native Hawaiians and the United States. All federal programs administered by federal agencies would remain with those agencies, which is the reason why the interagency coordinating group is important.
S. 746 changes the name of the Native Hawaiian Inter-Agency Task Force to the Native Hawaiian Inter-Agency Coordinating Group. The purpose of the Coordinating Group would be to require federal agencies to coordinate federal policies and programs impacting Native Hawaiians. A number of federal agencies implement and administer programs affecting Native Hawaiians. There is no requirement for coordination of these policies at the federal level. S. 746 would address the lack of coordination in federal policies by mandating that federal agencies work together and talk to each other about the programs they administer which impact Native Hawaiians.
S. 746 no longer requires the Attorney General of the United States to designate an official within the Department of Justice to work with the Department of the Interior. The requirement was duplicative given the role of the Native Hawaiian Interagency Coordinating Group.
Finally, the bill removes the Department of the Interior's rulemaking authority. This section is no longer necessary as we have deleted the reorganization process from the bill.
These are the substantive changes in the legislation and the background for these modifications. We believe this is a better bill, with increased chances of success during the 107th Congress. We are committed to working towards its enactment during this Congress.
FUTURE ACTIONS
I would like to now address the issue of what happens from this point. For federal recognition to occur, the Native Hawaiian governing entity must be in existence. It is critical, therefore, for the community to continue its efforts to organize the Native Hawaiian governing entity. We sent our staff to discuss this issue in February. We were concerned that the Native Hawaiian community was waiting for the legislation to pass before engaging in the process of reorganization. As the entity is necessary for the actual goal of federal recognition, it is essential that the community reorganize the Native Hawaiian governing entity as we are working to enact this legislation.
Let me be clear - I am not saying that the bill cannot pass without the entity. What I am saying is that the passage of the bill does not create federal recognition. Federal recognition cannot occur until the Native Hawaiian governing entity is in existence to be recognized and to enter into the government-to-government relationship with the United States.
As the Native Hawaiian community continues its progress towards the reorganization of the Native Hawaiian Governing entity, we will be actively working to enact S. 746. This requires us to continue to work with our colleagues in the Senate and the House of Representatives.
We must also work with the Bush Administration towards convincing the President to sign this bill once it is passed by Congress. We are faced with the reality that several key positions in the Administration remain unfilled. As these positions are confirmed and filled, we will be working with these individuals to ensure that they understand the importance of S. 746 to Native Hawaiians. We have already had a meeting with Secretary of the Interior Gale Norton.
During the 106th Congress we received tremendous support from grassroots organizations as well as individuals in Hawaii and on the mainland. There were a number of e-mail and letter writing campaigns to members of Congress emphasizing the importance of extending the federal policy of self-determination and self-governance to Native Hawaiians. I want to thank those of you who traveled to the mainland in support of this legislation.
During the meetings held in February, our staff discussed the idea of a mechanism to assist with coordinating the efforts of support. We understand that efforts are underway regarding this matter. We support those efforts.
CONCLUSION
At this point, I will turn to my colleagues for comment. Again, mahalo nui loa for all of your support. I look forward to working with you as we continue towards our goal of clarifying the political relationship between Native Hawaiians and the United States.
A hui hou!
