Akaka said on the floor of the U.S. Senate in December 2010 that "misleading attacks" and "unprecedented obstruction" led to the failure of legislation in the 111th Congress.
The stated purpose of the Akaka Bill is "to provide a process for the reorganization of the single Native Hawaiian governing entity and the reaffirmation of the special political and legal relationship between the United States and that Native Hawaiian governing entity for purposes of continuing a government-to-government relationship".
[3] The government that the Akaka Bill intends to reorganize is identified as the Kingdom of Hawaii in the first paragraphs of Indian Affairs Committee Report 108–85.
However, unlike those groups, the current version of the Akaka Bill prohibits Hawaiians from establishing casinos under current laws without banning the establishment of casinos under future negotiations (Section 9a), from participation in programs and services enjoyed by Indians (Section 9f), from being included on the Secretary of the Interior's list of Tribes eligible for federal benefits because of their status as Indians ("Public Law 103-454, 25 U.S.C.
negotiations, Indians give up their legal and other grievances against the United States in exchange for a portion of disputed land, rights, and resources.
The bill cites the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii, which was multi-racial from its inception, but it does not provide any opportunity for non-Native Hawaiians as defined by the law to participate in the new governing entity.
If despite the expression of this intent herein, a court were to construe the Trade and Intercourse Act to apply to lands or land transfers in Hawaii before the date of enactment of this Act, then any transfer of land or natural resources located within the State of Hawaii prior to the date of enactment of this Act, by or on behalf of the Native Hawaiian people, or individual Native Hawaiians, shall be deemed to have been made in accordance with the Indian Trade and Intercourse Act and any other provision of Federal law that specifically applies to transfers of land or natural resources from, by, or on behalf of an Indian tribe, Native Hawaiians, or Native Hawaiian entities."
As it has for America's other indigenous peoples, I believe the United States must fulfill its responsibility to Native Hawaiians.In a 2005 editorial in the Washington Times, the Republican Attorney General of Hawaii Mark Bennett vigorously defended the Akaka Bill against claims that it would create a race-based government, by explaining that the bill simply respects the “special status of native peoples recognized consistently for decades by the U.S. Supreme Court.” He argued that “Hawaiians are not asking for 'special' treatment — they’re simply asking to be treated the same way … other native indigenous Americans are treated in this country.”[13] In addition, supporters of the bill – including other Congressional delegates, Governor Lingle, Hawaiʻi Attorney General Bennett, Native American groups, and Asian American groups – argue that rejecting the bill would be racially discriminatory.
§ 83.3.... Rather than crack the "melting pot" that is Hawaii (an outcome opponents of S. 147 purport to fear), passage of S. 147 will finally give official and long overdue recognition to the losses Hawaiians have suffered – the blurring, if not diminution, of Hawaiians’ native identity; the erosion of their confidence as a people; the destruction of any semblance of self-determination and self-governance; and, as the United States Supreme Court put it, the loss of a "culture and way of life."
Finally, Native Hawaiians will have restored to them what they lost more than a hundred years ago – status as a people and recognition of their roots.
When the reporter commented that the bill could potentially lead to independence, Senator Akaka replied "that could be" but that it would be up to future generations to decide.
Some who oppose the bill cite this statement as indicative of its potential support of secession of a Native Hawaiian government from the United States.
[18]Opposition to the Akaka Bill includes: Native Hawaiian sovereignty activists who oppose the bill believe that it blocks their attempts to establish their independence from the federal government and disregards 1993 Public Law (103-150), in which Congress apologized "for the overthrow and the deprivation of the rights of Native Hawaiians to self-determination."
In 2006, the United States Commission on Civil Rights held hearings on the Akaka bill, and published a report that recommended against it.
The report did not contain any official findings and its only recommendation stated in part:The Commission recommends against passage of the Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act of 2005 (S. 147) 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.The Commission later reversed its position in 2018.
[26] Regarding the latest version of the bill, S.310, Akaka's website states, "This language has been publicly available since September 2005 and has been widely distributed."
In 2007, at a hearing before the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, Principal Deputy Associate Attorney General Gregory Katsas stated:[27] By dividing government power along racial and ancestral lines, S. 310 (the bill) would represent a significant step backwards in American history and would create far greater problems than those it might purport to solveFreeHawaii.info is a site that documents many of the misgivings of this bill, the history of changes, and a few voices of the many opponents.