July 2006 | Online Edition
The Akaka Bill
People, Not Government, Reign Supreme
By State Senator Sam Slom
As published in HawaiiReporter.com, June 12, 2006.
A funny thing happened last week on the way to Washington, D.C. and the widely accepted local belief that the Native Hawaiian Reorganization Act, S.147, the "Akaka Bill," was going to sail through and be enacted into law. Even without Hawaii transparency.
Despite six years of political maneuvering and posturing by some of Hawaii's leading political figures, power brokers, special interest groups, mainstream media, outrageous (and untrue) statements, millions of tax dollars spent for advertising, public relations and political consulting, S.147 failed. Despite major political arm twisting, first class junkets, and a successful attempt to keep the issues of the bill concealed from Hawaii residents, the bill is as dead as Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.
Senator Daniel Akaka (D-Hawaii) is in a virtual world of non-reality if he really thinks the bill will come up again with this President and this Congress. It won't happen.
Little reported by the mainstream Hawaii media, was that eight Hawaii residents (including Native Hawaiians) went to Washington last week on their own dime-not taxpayer funds- to set the record straight by talking personally with individual Senators, their staff, and private free market organizations, such as Heritage Foundation and Americans for Tax Reform. The "Hawaii Eight" had different interests and focus in opposition to the bill but were united in the belief that its passage would be bad for Hawaii and bad for Native Hawaiians. Their message was successfully delivered.
My interest in going to D.C. was threefold: (1) to strongly restate my support for a fair settlement of the promises made by the United States government to Native Hawaiians by the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act in 1921 and the Hawaii Admission Act of 1959. I also support the granting of fee simple interests in their homestead leases, and educational provisions of the private will of Bernice Pauahi Bishop. I do not in any way seek to diminish any right or opportunity of Native Hawaiians, or anyone else, to improve their conditions and participate more fully in the American Dream. None of these worthy goals, however, requires carving a separate government out of the State of Hawaii; (2) to support another measure (other than the divisive Akaka bill) or method of righting admitted wrongs at issue, and (3) to explain why I was the only member of the 76-person Hawaii State Legislature to actually vote "no" on the Akaka Resolution (HCR 56, SD1) of 2005, even while our Republican governor has passionately been urging passage of the bill.
I thought it important to speak out and to offer a different perspective on S. 147 (and its last minute amended successor S.3064), the "Akaka Bill." A number of my colleagues, community and business leaders, and Native Hawaiians, had grave unanswered concerns about this measure. There is a broad array of issues and questions not addressed here in Hawaii.
At the very least, one necessary amendment was a requirement that a vote be taken in Hawaii prior to any adoption of the Akaka bill. Supporters were adamently opposed.
During the 2006 Hawaii Legislative Session which concluded May 4, I offered a Resolution (S.C.R. 78) simply calling for a public debate, referendum, or plebiscite here in Hawaii on S147. Hawaii has no statewide initiative, referendum or recall. My Resolution was never given a hearing. Instead, those who have raised questions, have been personally attacked by spokespeople from the Office of Hawaiian Affairs (OHA), the appointed state Attorney General, other members of the State Administration, and the "drive by" media.
The chair of the United States Civil Rights Commission, Gerald Reynolds, was viciously attacked by Hawaii's Attorney General after the Commission advised against passage of the bill, saying, "it was the worst piece of legislation they ever reviewed." I met with Mr. Reynaolds, an African American attorney from Kansas City. He did not deserve the personal attack.
OHA, using Hawaii taxpayer money, has spent lavishly, in a major lobbying and PR effort here in Hawaii and in Washington, including retaining the firm of Patton Boggs at a cost of $660,000-plus, yet still refusing to document its total public expenditures or to sponsor or support a public vote.
A rally, organized on the Capitol lawn by OHA, brought in six of nine OHA Trustees, staff, friends, former Governor John Waihee, former state Supreme Court Justice, now consultant, Robert Klein, U of Hawaii president David McClain and others. Republican Congressional candidate Quentin Kawananakoa, attended, presumably on his own, and used the event for a filmed campaign speech and ad.
Conflicts of interest have been documented related to Native Hawaiian assets previously.
New expensive OHA advertising, under the banner and logo of "Federal Recognition," began yesterday in the Hawaii print media.
In Hawaii, where we poll for everything all the time-including the naming of the State Fish (the "humuhumunukunukuapua'a"), there has been no "official" (released) poll on the Akaka bill. One must wonder why. Three polls-one by OHA and the other two by the free market think tank Grassroot Institute of Hawaii-are the only polls released and publicized and they show different answers to different questions:
In its telephone poll of 604 voters (303 Hawaiians and 301 non-Hawaiians) in July, 2003, OHA said the majority of respondents think Hawaiians should be recognized by the U.S. as a distinct group similar to the special recognition given to Native Americans and Native Alaskans. Meanwhile Grassroot Institute surveyed every household (over 300,000) with telephones in the State of Hawaii, one in July, 2005, and the second just completed in May, 2006, showing that 2 to1 consistently answered "No" to the question, " Do you want Congress to approve the Akaka Bill?"
A reasonable person would have to ask, "why do the supporters not want transparency? why don't they want to openly debate, and perhaps amend, the original Akaka legislation?"
Maybe, part of the reason is that University of Hawaii political science professor, Neil Milner, consultant to the supporters of the bill, urged them to, "keep the bill below the radar." They have succeeded. In Hawaii only.
The latest version of the Akaka bill, S.3064, was shrouded in secrecy, with a reluctance to specifically discuss what the term, Hawaiian "entity" actually means. Issues such as "nationhood," sovereignty, secession, gambling, taxation, land use and claims, in addition to racial preferences, have been shrugged off by the supporters with basically, a "trust me," attitude. In fact, Senior Democrat U.S. Senator Daniel K. Inouye, at the State Democratic Party Convention in Honolulu in late May, spoke to Americans of Japanese Ancestry, reassuring them to put aside their hesitancy on the bill by trusting him.
Troubling to many was the claim by supporters that the bill had in fact been amended several times "to address your concerns." Yet, no one, until the last few days prior to the Washington vote, actually had ready access to the "finished" product which must have been amended behind closed doors.
It seems that the Akaka bill also had been caught up in the desperate attempt to re-elect 81-year old Senator Akaka who is being challenged by Democrat U.S. Congressman Ed Case. You may have read recently in Time Magazine that Senator Akaka was listed as one of the five worst and least effective Senators. That set off a political firestorm here and resulted in renewed efforts to pass the Akaka bill now. It seemed that the bill was more about Senator Akaka than Hawaiian rights. His performance in the Senate, viewed on C-SPAN by many here, and the failure of the bill, did not do anything to erase Time's subjective perception.
But why would the Republican Governor, the first in 45 years, support the Democrat bill and make four trips to Washington on Akaka's behalf? And lobby Republicans here and there so strongly while not honoring her signed No Tax Pledge? The Governor said because she promised OHA she would support the bill during her campaign in 2002. She kept her promise.
Many Republicans here have taken no public position on Akaka because they, like I, support and respect our Governor. She is a breath of fresh air at the Capitol on many issues, but has disappointed on others, while being a tireless lobbyist for this legislation. But privately, they are concerned that the Akaka bill was out of touch with the people of Hawaii and Republicans should more properly support a Republican initiative more closely attuned to the will of the people of Hawaii to guarantee the rights of Hawaiians and all citizens, with support of the U.S. Constitution and the United States of America, rather than rescue a failed Democrat proposal.
Many remember that it was former Republican Congresswoman Pat Saiki of Hawaii who prevailed on then President George H.W. Bush, to halt the military target bombing of Kahoolawe Island; something important to Native Hawaiian groups and something Democrats could not accomplish previously even with a Democrat president and Congress. To this day, neither Mrs. Saiki, nor President Bush, receive recognition or respect from Democrats for their efforts. Many of us believe this will be the same scenario with Akaka; if passed, no respect for Lingle; with lack of passage, Lingle and other Republicans being blamed for the failed Democrat bill, nationally and in the Fall Hawaii elections.
To many people last Thursday, June 8, the cloture vote (not a vote on the bill itself) was a "nailbighter," falling just four votes short of the required 60 votes. The actual vote was 56 for cloture, 41 against and 3 (two Democrats and one Republican) absent. The reality,however, was that it was a carefull choreograped vote that was not in doubt; especially since the President and the Department of Justice, came out with a strongly worded rejection on Wednesday before the vote. Had cloture somehow succeeded, the vote on the bill after debate would have killed it since all 42 present Democrats voted for cloture and for their friends Senators Akaka and Inouye, but stated they would vote against the bill if it went further. (To prove this, note that Senator John Kyl (R-AZ) strongest opponent of Akaka, voted for cloture because of previous promises to Inouye, while he, Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA) and other Democrats would have voted no on the final bill.
Some people just don't get it. After leaving the Senate gallery after the historic vote, one of the OHA Trustees told me in the stairwell, "You better not gloat; this is only one vote." As I told her, I wasn't there to gloat; I was there to secure rights for all citizens of Hawaii regardless of race or ethnicity.
While the bill failed to garner the votes for cloture and an additional vote, the people of Hawaii actually won as did the process of right over might and transparency over back door secretive politics.
Now that the vote has been taken and everyone, except perhaps Senator Akaka, knows his bill is history, maybe we can turn our efforts to passing a bill at the state level that genuinely addresses the real problems facing Native Hawaiians and solving them without political and ego posturing.
Hawaii should settle its internal issues prior to outside federal intervention and can address the problems of Native Hawaiian rights globally by including all residents in an open and fair process.
|
