Aloha Kakou, I hope you will find the time to review this analysis and do whatever you can let people know what this bill actually is. The amount of misinformation being put out in a deliberate effort to mislead people demands the truth be represented. The analysis below is the truth. The Roll has been added back into this version of the bill after it was removed in S746. You may want to look at it closely if you aren't sure who is preparing the roll, and who certifies it, It appears no one knows, not even the people who wrote this bill.
Malama Pono...david
S 344 RS1S
(Star Print)
Calendar No. 185
108th CONGRESS
1st Session
S. 344
[Report No. 108-85]
Expressing the policy of the United States regarding the United States relationship with Native Hawaiians and to provide a process for the recognition by the United States of the Native Hawaiian governing entity, and for other purposes.
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
February 11, 2003
Mr. AKAKA (for himself, Mr. Inouye, Mr. REID, and Mr. STEVENS) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Indian Affairs
June 27, 2003
Reported by Mr. CAMPBELL, with an amendment
A BILL
Expressing the policy of the United States regarding the United States relationship with Native Hawaiians and to provide a process for the recognition by the United States of the Native Hawaiian governing entity, and for other purposes.
[ The intent of this bill is to provide a process to secure an agreement from Hawaiians to change their political relationship with the United States .
The bill seeks to change Hawaiians political status from descendents of the subjects of the Illegally overthrown Kingdom of Hawaii. to the Status of domestic dependent wards of The United States.
As the descendents of subjects of an Illegally overthrown Kingdom Hawaiians are entitled to restoration of self government under the Kingdom and control of their national lands and national jurisdiction. As domestic dependent wards Hawaiians relinquish their rights to independent government and their national lands and jurisdiction.
Hawaiian's present political relationship with the United States and the rest of the world includes a definition of Hawaiian as the descendent of subjects of the Illegally overthrown Kingdom of Hawaii. The bill seeks an agreement from Hawaiians to change this definition to the descendants of all "pre- Western contact" "Aboriginal" "Indigenous" people of the United States. Here lies the political deception presented by this bill: An attempt to get Hawaiians to agree to a change from the political status of Hawaiians that history has established to a political status Congress has developed for the purpose of controlling the rights, Land, and resources of governments established long before the United States ever claimed jurisdiction to their homeland.
The United States acknowledged that the government of the subjects of the Kingdom of Hawaii was unlawfully taken from them without their consent in their 1993 apology to Hawaiians. Congress further committed to "acknowledged the ramifications of that overthrow" Any ramification from the overthrow that impacts "Native Hawaiians" as defined in this bill, also impacted every Kingdom subject regardless of race and yet, Kingdom subjects who were not "Native Hawaiian" are not included in the political relationship this bill seeks to "express" .
History dictates Hawaiians political relationship with the U.S. as the descendants of the subjects of an illegally overthrown Kingdom whom the United States now claims are citizens of the U.S without their consent. History dictates Hawaiians political relationship with the U.S. as the descendants of the subjects of an illegally overthrown Kingdom who never gave up their consent to U.S. control of their land, rights and resources.
This bill seeks to gain Hawaiians consent not only to U.S. control of Hawaiian land, rights and resources, but also seeks to gain Hawaiians consent to accept a political relationship that is far inferior to the relationship that now exists, and to forever bar Hawaiians from restoring the political status they are rightfully entitled to as the sovereign government of the Hawaiian islands. ]
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the `Native Hawaiian Recognition Act of 2003'.
Comments on Section 2 " Findings" coming later.....
SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act:
(1) ABORIGINAL, INDIGENOUS, NATIVE PEOPLE- The term `aboriginal, indigenous, native people´ means people whom Congress has recognized as the original inhabitants of the lands and who exercised sovereignty prior to Western contact in the areas that later became part of the United States.
[ The rights of "Aboriginal indigenous people" are very different from the rights of the citizens of sovereign nations in U.S. law. The rights of Aboriginal Indigenous people are limited to the right to use and occupy the land until a claims extinguishment agreement is reached where indigenous lands are transferred to the U.S. in exchange for what is known as the "trust responsibility". The "Trust responsibility" , or "special political and legal relationship" Hawaiians are being asked to accept arises when Indigenous people give up the means to sustain themselves (land,resources and rights) to the United states in exchange for a promise from the U.S. to provide for the welfare of those indigenous people who have surrendered the means to sustain themselves, (land, rights and resources).
It has never been clear how the U.S. plans to provide for both its own citizens and the Indigenous people from whom it took the land, and statistics show they have never been able to live up to their commitment. Hawaiians have never surrendered their land, rights and resources to the United States either as Aboriginal people or as the people of a sovereign nation. This bill is aimed at getting the "Native Hawaiian governing entity to surrender Hawaiian land rights and resources after the bill becomes law in negotiations between the U.S. and the entity.]
(2) ADULT MEMBER- The term `adult member´ means a Native Hawaiian who has attained the age of 18 at the time the preparation of the roll authorized under section 7(b)(1)(A) is initiated.
[ This roll is to be prepared ,and maintained, by the Department of the Interior, not by Hawaiians, persons on this roll are eligible to be elected in Department of the Interior run elections in which Hawaiians from the roll will draft a Hawaiian constitution.]
(3) APOLOGY RESOLUTION- The term `Apology Resolution´ means Public Law 103-150 (107 Stat. 1510), a Joint Resolution extending an apology to Native Hawaiians on behalf of the United States for the participation of agents of the United States in the January 17, 1893, overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii.
[ This is a rewording of the apology resolution in which Congress committed to "acknowledge the ramifications of the overthrow", but then committed to reconcile with only a portion of the kingdom subjects, "Native Hawaiians", rather than all the subjects of the Kingdom. This work by Congress adds yet another racial political division in the Hawaiian Islands where none ever existed under Kingdom law. This work by Congress disenfranchises any person suffering the "ramifications of the overthrow" who does not meet the Congressionally installed racial definition of " Native Hawaiian" from their political rights as subjects of an illegally overthrown Kingdom.
(4) COUNCIL- The term `council´ means the Native Hawaiian Interim Governing Council established under section 7(b)(2).
[ it is important to get a good handle on understanding the difference between the "council" and the "Native Hawaiian governing entity" The council's responsibility , under the guidance and direction of the Department of the Interior, is to place Hawaiians under the plenary power of Congress by conscripting Hawaiians to participate in the process of forming a government, drafting and securing the approval of Hawaiians of the draft governing documents, then, amending the documents to conform to any requirements set forth by the Secretary of the Interior, and them conducting an election of officers to serve in the "entity". After this is accomplished, the "council" is dissolved and the "entity" takes over.
(5) INDIGENOUS, NATIVE PEOPLE- The term `indigenous, native people´ means the lineal descendants of the aboriginal, indigenous, native people of the United States.
[ This clause has been misquoted in OHA, CNHA, and other pro recognition literature as " indigenous native people of Hawaii" but that's not what it says here in the bill. The intention of Congress in the construction of this bill is to set up a process where the U.S. title to Hawaii is perfected. To perfect their title they must have an agreement from a government representative of Hawaiians agree to extinguish their claims to the Hawaiian Islands. Even U.S. law acknowledges Hawaiians right to use and occupy the Hawaiian Islands until Hawaiians relinquish that right.
The United States presently relies on the treaty of annexation of the Republic of Hawaii to substantiate their title, however the United States acknowledged in the apology that the illegal provisional government became the Republic of Hawaii and it is certain that the Republic of Hawaii did not represent Hawaiians. this is a serious cloud on U.S. title to the Hawaiian Islands that this bill seeks to eliminate by getting the descendants of the Aboriginal indigenous people to relinquish their claim to title over the Hawaiian islands in negotiations by forming a government representing Hawaiians and then getting that government to agree to give up their claims in exchange for a the use of a small fraction of the Islands and a handful of entitlements. the modern day equivalent of a handful of glass beads.]
(6) INTERAGENCY COORDINATING GROUP- The term `Interagency Coordinating Group´ means the Native Hawaiian Interagency Coordinating Group established under section 6.
[ The department of the Interior which has been proven corrupt in its management of its trust responsibilities in U.S. courts, will be the lead agency of the "Interagency Coordinating Group." This group will be responsible for making decisions affecting Hawaiians and yet, Hawaiians are merely consulted separately by this group and not an integral part of it. This effectively relegates Hawaiians to the role of advisor or consultant, rather than decision maker, in making decisions that will impact their lives. ]
(7) NATIVE HAWAIIAN- For the purpose of establishing the roll authorized under section 7(b)(1) and before the recognition by the United States of the Native Hawaiian governing entity, the term `Native Hawaiian´ means--
[The term before, as in "before the recognition. . ." here is held over from a previous version of the bill that provided for a separate definition "after" recognition. The "after" definition was to have been that applied to the term "Native Hawaiian" by "entity" in the organic governing documents. Under this version of the bill there is no provision for the entity to define the term "Native Hawaiian". The change means that Hawaiians will not be able to apply a definition that would have enabled them to qualify themselves for programs and benefits reserved to Indians and Alaska Natives. as it stands now Hawaiians will be lucky to keep the entitlements they receive now, but even those will come at a very dear price in negotiations. Proponents of the bill will be quick to point out that they retain the right to define their citizenry, but few of them understand that with the deletion of the "entity's" right to define "Native Hawaiian" , also deleted was the "entity's" authority to define who would qualify for benefits and entitlements under the bill. Congress, and not the "entity" will determine who qualifies for what benefits. History, and existing U.S. Law reveal Congress has commonly does retain the right to differentiate between not only tribes, but between individual Indians.]
(A) an individual who is a member of the indigenous, native people of Hawaii who are the direct lineal descendants of the aboriginal, indigenous, native people who--
(i) resided on or before January 1, 1893, in the islands that now comprise the State of Hawaii; and
[ This further reduces those who qualify by excluding the descendants of Hawaiians who lived abroad prior to the January 1, 1893 date. why the January 1 date is used here rather than the actual January 17 date is unclear, but I would love to know the reason.]
(ii) occupied and exercised sovereignty in the Hawaiian archipelago, including the area that now constitutes the State of Hawaii; and
[ Important to understand that both (i) and (ii) here must apply not either or.
(B) an individual who was a Native Hawaiian eligible during 1921 for the programs authorized by the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act (42 Stat. 108, chapter 42) (including lineal descendants of that individual).
[ It is not clear here whether one must meet both (A) and (B) or whether a person must meet either requirement. Interesting to note here though that there is an entire class of Hawaiians who are excluded if both (A) and (B) are required to meet the definition (this will have to be decided first by the Department of the Interior, and then, if contested, by U.S. courts or Congress since it is not clear whether either or both of (A) and (B) are required. If the courts decide, or Congress later it meant both (A) and (B) here, only the descendents of people who in 1921 were both 50% koko and at least 18 years old will qualify. This would potentially eliminate some people who were or are 50% koko now.
Suppose for the moment a Hawaiian's father was 100% and his mother was Haole. suppose his father was born in 1917, in 1921 he was 4 years old and so would not have met the age requirement. suppose his parents and his grand parents would not have qualified either since they were both dead in 1921. If it is decided that both (A) and (B) above were required to qualify as a "Native Hawaiian", even though this person had 50% koko he would not qualify since he is not the descendent of someone who qualified for Hawaiian Homes in 1921.
This definition, as written, is sure to be a source of litigation in the years ahead because if the Department of the interior in implementing this legislation decides both (A) and (B) must be met, more than half of Hawaiians with any degree of koko will be excluded from the process of forming the "Native Hawaiian governing entity. In S1783, a previous version of the bill reflecting the DOI and DOJ's recommendations, Hawaiians meeting (B) were to have been the only Hawaiians who qualified for the council that will draft the organic governing documents. In this version of the bill only Hawaiians who choose to register on the role and meet the ambiguous definition here qualify for the council. ]
(8) NATIVE HAWAIIAN GOVERNING ENTITY- The term `Native Hawaiian governing entity´ means the governing entity organized by the Native Hawaiian people.
[ If the governing entity is truly organized by the majority of Kingdom subjects it will have the effect of a popular revolution not against the United States, but against the Kingdom of Hawaii. Even though it is sure to be argued later that the United States violated Hawaiians rights by influencing and actively participating in this revolution. Rectifying this illegal action will only add to the burden Hawaiians have now in rectifying the illegal actions by the United States. ]
(9) OFFICE- The term `Office´ means the United States Office for Native Hawaiian Relations established under section 5(a).
[ This office is to be lead by the Department of the Interior which oversees internal U.S. policy. U.S. International policy is managed by the Department of State. This further demonstrates the intention of this bill to change the political relationship between
Message Board by American Patriot Friends Network [APFN]
