Mr. President, I rise once again to discuss legislation I have introduced to extend the federal policy of self-governance and self-determination to Hawaii’s indigenous peoples. S. 147 would provide parity in the federal policies towards indigenous peoples in the 50 states, to include American Indians, Alaska Natives, and Native Hawaiians.
To understand the importance of this legislation, one must understand Hawaii’s history. Despite the fact that the Congress passed P.L. 103-150, the Apology Resolution, which recites Hawaii’s history, many of my colleagues are unaware of our history. Let me provide some context of what we have experienced so that you might better understand the importance of this bill to my state.
Captain James Cook landed in Hawaii in 1778. Prior to Western contact, Native Hawaiians lived in an advanced society that was steeped in science. Native Hawaiians honored their land 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.
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. This devastating population loss was accompanied by cultural, economic, and psychological destruction.
By the middle of the 19th Century, the islands' small non-native population had come to wield an influence far in excess of its size. Westerners sought to limit the absolute power of the Hawaiian king over their legal rights and to implement property law so that they could accumulate and control land.
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.
The Kingdom of Hawaii, which began in 1810 under the leadership of King Kamehameha the first, continued until 1893 when it was overthrown with the help 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 also 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.
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. It 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. The Bayonet constitution has been characterized as bringing democracy to Hawaii by opponents to S. 147. The constitution was not about democracy - it was about a shift in power to business owners from natives.
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, a Committee of Public Safety was formed 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 Lili’uokalani 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 the rights of the native peoples in Hawaii. Colleagues, I want to ensure that you understand our true history and the bravery and courage of our Queen, who abdicated her throne after seeing U.S. Marines marching through the streets of Honolulu. She did so to save her people
Mr. President, I also want to discuss the diversity of Hawaii’s people. As I’ve said before, we celebrate our diversity as the sharing of our cultures, traditions, and languages is what makes us so special in Hawaii. Our diversity unifies us.
Colleagues, I want you to know that during the period of the Kingdom, many people traveled through and to Hawaii. In 1832, records indicate that there were 400 foreigners in Hawaii. Starting in 1852, sugar plantations began to recruit foreign workers to Hawaii. They included Chinese, Portugese, Japanese, and Filipino workers. While many of these workers were temporary and returned to their homelands, a number of them stayed in Hawaii and have embraced the culture and traditions of Hawaii’s indigenous peoples.
The opponents of this legislation first tried to represent this issue as a Native vs. Non-Native issue. They failed to understand how we celebrate diversity in my home state and how so many embrace all things Hawaiian whether or not they can trace their lineage back to the aboriginal, indigenous peoples of Hawaii. The opponents also fail to understand the tremendous respect the people of Hawaii have for Native Hawaiian culture and the fact that the average person is not threatened by the idea of Native Hawaiians having recognition. The people of Hawaii understand that the preservation of rights for Native Hawaiians does not happen to their detriment.
The opponents of this legislation have tried to spread misinformation about the bill to lead non-Hawaiians to believe that their rights will be taken away if the bill is passed. This is not true. In the days to come I will elaborate more. Today, however, I wanted to share Hawaii’s history and to explain the celebration of diversity and of multiculturalism in my home state. I am proud of my constituents - proud of their many cultures and traditions - and the fact that they are secure enough in their heritage to be able to support parity in federal policies for Native Hawaiians.
I ask my colleagues to join me in helping to do what is right, what is just for Native Hawaiians.
