Aloha! Aloha Kakahiaka no oukou. Mahalo Aha Hawai’i ‘Oiwi for inviting me to be here today to share ko’u mana’o, my thoughts, with you about the history, purpose and future of Public Law 103-150, the Apology Resolution. This is truly an exciting time for Native Hawaiians. The Executive Branch, under the leadership of President Clinton, has taken significant actions to acknowledge the status and unique history of Native Hawaiians as an indigenous people.
In 1993, President Clinton signed Public Law 103-150, the Apology Resolution, which acknowledged the illegal overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawai’i and the denial of the rights of Native Hawaiians to self-determination. The United States acknowledged the overthrow and its ramifications to provide a proper foundation for reconciliation between the United States and the Native Hawaiian people.
It is important to understand the background and purpose of the Apology Resolution. Its legislative history reflects the impediments and challenges faced by Native Hawaiians in dealing with the federal government. Let me begin by explaining the political atmosphere regarding Native Hawaiian issues prior to the enactment of the Apology Resolution.
One of the most damaging actions occurred in 1983. In 1980, Congress created the Native Hawaiians Study Commission consisting of nine members, three of which were to be from Hawai’i. Kina’u Kamali’i served as the chairperson. Winona Beamer and H. Rodger Betts were the other two members on the Commission from Hawai’i. The majority of the remaining members of the Commission were agency officials appointed from the Reagan administration. The Commission held hearings on all of the major Hawaiian islands.
The Native Hawaiians Study Commission’s Majority Report concluded that the United States government was not liable for the loss of sovereignty or lands of the Hawaiian people in the 1893 overthrow. A minority report which refuted the findings and conclusions of the majority report was filed by Kina’u Kamali’i, H. Roger Betts and Winona Beamer. Unfortunately, the majority report played a larger role in enunciating federal policy towards Native Hawaiians than the minority report.
An additional impediment for the Native Hawaiian people was the Department of Interior’s change in its opinion regarding a political relationship between Native Hawaiians and the federal government. During the Carter Administration, the Interior Department’s position was that a federal trust relationship existed between Native Hawaiians and the federal government under the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act. This position was repealed in 1989 by the Bush Administration and attacked in 1993, when as President Bush left office, the Interior Department issued a damaging legal opinion referred to as the Sansonetti opinion.
The Sansonetti opinion concluded that the federal government “had no trust responsibilities to the native Hawaiians either before Statehood or thereafter” and that the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act “did not create a fiduciary responsibility in any part, for the United States, the Territory of Hawaii, or the State of Hawaii.” The opinion stated that the analysis used by the Department of the Interior was in agreement with the majority conclusions issued by the 1983 Native Hawaiians Study Commission.
In 1993, President Clinton rescinded the Sansonetti opinion, but its ill effect persisted because the Interior Department failed to enunciate any new policy. The result was the withdrawal of all legal opinions on whether or not the federal government had a trust relationship with Native Hawaiians. The federal government’s opinion as to the political status of Native Hawaiians remained unspecified for the last six years.
How did this affect Native Hawaiians and why was this an impediment? The lack of clarification regarding the status of Native Hawaiians was an impediment because it hindered legislative initiatives and programs for Native Hawaiians. There was uncertainty regarding whether Native Hawaiians were an indigenous people or a racial classification. Congress recognized Native Hawaiians as an indigenous people and not as a racial classification. The Executive Branch, however, had difficulty clarifying its position. For that reason, Native Hawaiians were not always included in legislation to benefit other indigenous peoples like the American Indians and Alaska Natives.
Understanding this background, let me now explain the history of the Apology Resolution. The Apology Resolution was introduced a total of four times during the span of three Congresses. The original Apology Resolution, Senate Joint Resolution 360, offered a U.S. apology to Native Hawaiians for the 1893 overthrow, and declared a trust relationship between the U.S. government and Native Hawaiians.
The same resolution was introduced in the 102nd Congress. Again, no action was taken. In 1992, I redrafted the resolution with the purpose of 1) recognizing the centennial of the 1893 overthrow; 2) educating the American public and the Congress on the history of U.S. involvement in the 1893 overthrow and its aftermath. I wanted the United States to admit liability for the 1893 overthrow to neutralize the 1983 Native Hawaiians Study Commission’s Majority Report conclusion that the U.S. government was not liable for the loss of sovereignty or lands of the Hawaiian people in the 1893 overthrow. This new strategy reflected the fact that the trust relationship language was problematic for congressional passage and executive branch approval given the lack of understanding regarding the political status of Native Hawaiians.
Senate Joint Resolution 335 passed the Senate by voice vote. The House of Representatives adjourned without considering the resolution in time for the centennial of the 1893 overthrow. I re-introduced the legislation during the 103rd Congress and it passed the Senate by a roll call vote of 65 to 34. The resolution subsequently passed the House of Representatives and was signed by President Clinton on November 23, 1993.
Since its passage, the Apology Resolution has sparked debate about political and legal issues surrounding the 1893 overthrow. The criticisms I have heard about the Apology Resolution do not change my belief that it was the right thing to do. I look at the Apology Resolution as the first step in healing, not in creating new barriers. I see the Apology Resolution as the first pohaku, stone, set in building a bridge towards efforts of reconciliation between the United States and the Native Hawaiian people.
As I have stated before, the goals of the Apology Resolution were to educate the Congress and the American public on the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawai’i, provide a continuing forum for discussion, and lay the foundation for reconciliation efforts between Native Hawaiians and the federal government. Reconciliation efforts were never intended to be unilaterally determined by the federal government. Rather, it should be an evolving process determined in conjunction with Native Hawaiians and with Hawai’i’s Congressional delegation.
Reconciliation should not be viewed as one particular issue or a narrowly defined process. It requires a multitude of positive steps between Native Hawaiians and the federal government to improve the understanding between each party, better the social and economic conditions of Native Hawaiians, and resolve longstanding political status issues and land claims.
In March 1999, I wrote Attorney General Janet Reno and Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt requesting the designation of officials to address the reconciliation process as called for in the Apology Resolution. Secretary Babbitt designated John Berry, Assistant Secretary, Policy, Management, and Budget to represent the Department of Interior in reconciliation efforts. Similarly, the Department of Justice appointed the Director of the Office of Tribal Justice, Mark Van Norman, to assist Mr. Berry in implementation of the Apology Resolution. This is a significant step given the fact that I have worked for the past five years to encourage the federal government to establish a dialogue with Native Hawaiians to address reconciliation efforts.
Last month, Mark Van Norman and Karen Sprecher -Keating, a representative for John Berry, traveled to Hawai’i. I suggested that Mr. Van Norman and Ms. Sprecher-Keating travel to Hawai’i in an effort to assist them in the planning of formal consultations between the federal government and Native Hawaiians so that they could get a better perspective of what the reconciliation process might encompass. During their stay, these individuals visited different sites and met informally with a number of Native Hawaiians and Native Hawaiian organizations, including your chairperson, Charlie Rose, to discuss suggestions about how to proceed with their mission. All meetings were informal. This process is in its infancy, still in the planning stage. These officials returned to Washington last week and will arrange for formal consultations to begin later this year. Anyone wishing to provide suggestions to these officials is encouraged to submit them in writing to my staff.
Both Mr. Berry and Mr. Van Norman understand the unique history of the Hawaiian people. They have worked with our Congressional delegation and my staff on Native Hawaiian issues for a number of years. They will work closely with me and the delegation in planning these events. We all want to move forward to create a better future for Native Hawaiians. I expect this process to be as open and inclusive as possible.
In looking towards the future, I want to emphasize that reconciliation should not be viewed as one particular issue or as a narrowly defined process. Native Hawaiians, through dialogue with the federal government, must determine the direction for efforts towards reconciliation. The 1893 overthrow affected Native Hawaiians as a class of people. As such, the remedy for this injustice must be determined collectively.
I’d like to share with you my three goals for this process. First, we must establish permanency to this continuing dialogue. As it stands, the Interior Department is represented by a political appointee who will more than likely leave that position during the next Presidential administration. For that reason, I intend to pursue the establishment of an office within the Department to deal with Native Hawaiian issues in order to provide continuity for the dialogue between Native Hawaiians and the federal government.
The second goal is to help Native Hawaiians and the federal government set a framework for addressing longstanding issues such as self-determination and ceded lands. The challenge that all of us in Hawai`i face on self-determination is the need to respect diverse views within our community. We cannot move forward as a people if Hawaiian leaders continue to show disrespect for each other. I believe that each organization that advocates a form of self-governance should represent its beliefs on what is best for the Hawaiian people while respecting other viewpoints. Diversity of views is healthy. Animosity is not. I encourage everyone here to imua, to move forward, and to contribute individually and collectively to helping the cause. We, as a people, must have the will to unite. Unity among our people can only occur if we have the moral will to rise above our differences and reach a common understanding of what is in the best interests of our people.
The final goal is to take maximum advantage of the fifteen months we have left with the Clinton Administration. We need to focus on actions which can be taken to better the social and economic conditions of Native Hawaiians.
I would like to update you on recent actions taken by the Clinton Administration towards Native Hawaiians. In addition to the Departments of Interior and Justice designating officials to further implement the Apology Resolution, the Department of Justice has acknowledged Native Hawaiians as an indigenous people with whom the United States has a special relationship, ending six years of limbo on the status of Native Hawaiians.
On July 28, 1999, the United States filed an amicus brief supporting the State of Hawai’i in the case of Rice v. Cayetano. In its brief, the United States asserted that it has a special responsibility for the welfare of the Native peoples of the United States, including Native Hawaiians. The United States also acknowledged its trust responsibility towards Native Hawaiians.
This is extremely significant because the United States is now on record recognizing Native Hawaiians as an indigenous people. Congress, for the past twenty years, has recognized Native Hawaiians as an indigenous people. Legislation, however, was sometimes difficult because of the reluctance of the Executive Branch, during previous administrations, to define Native Hawaiians as an indigenous people and to acknowledge a federal trust responsibility with Native Hawaiians. This action is truly significant because it clarifies the status of Native Hawaiians, removing an impediment we have faced in dealing with the federal government.
President Clinton recognized the unique needs of Native Hawaiians when he signed Executive Order 13125 this summer. The President issued the Executive Order to improve the quality of life of Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders through increased participation in federal programs where they may be underserved. The native, aboriginal, indigenous peoples of Hawai`i are specifically referred to in the definition of Pacific Islander. This measure is significant because it acknowledges that Native Hawaiians, as Pacific Islanders, have special needs that must be addressed, and it also calls for resources to address these needs through the establishment of an advisory commission and by effective coordination between all federal agencies.
The federal government has begun to move forward to address the issue of reconciliation with Native Hawaiians. We as a people, must also move forward. As I stated earlier, we must work together with our best mana’o for each other.
We also face the struggle to reconcile our Hawaiian cultural values with other ethnic nationalities which comprise some of our identities. Hawai’i is a multi-cultural state. In our efforts to revitalize the Hawaiian culture, we need not disavow other cultural identities in order to strengthen the Hawaiian values within ourselves. What we share with other cultures enhances and strengthens our own Hawaiian tradition and culture. As the world continues to rapidly change, both culturally and technologically, we must search deeply into our culture to preserve it while learning and respecting what other cultures have to offer. Aloha does not differentiate between cultures. I am certain that what we are all striving for, apart from justice, is the protection of our natural resources and environment and a bright future for all children of Hawai’i.
Again, I share with you, that this is an exciting time for Native Hawaiians. We stand not only at the dawn of the 21st century, but at the beginning of a dialogue with the United States to address a multitude of issues to preserve the traditions and culture of Hawai’i and to provide a better future for Native Hawaiians. This is the beginning of a process. We will continue to move forward, to set more stones, to continue to build a bridge towards reconciliation. The progress begins within ourselves as we unite together as a people to move forward.
I thank Aha Hawai’i `Oiwi for inviting me here and for giving me the opportunity to speak about the history, purpose and future of the Apology Resolution. I encourage all of you to take what I have shared back to your communities so that everyone can be informed about the exciting actions that are occurring and are about to take place for Native Hawaiians. The success of this process demands maximum participation and understanding by the Native Hawaiian people as they must determine the future of for Native Hawaiians. Kulia ka nu’u! Reach for the best.
Mahalo nui loa. E ke Akua, e hoomaikaika’i ia oukou. God bless you.
