PREPARED TEXT –CHECK AGAINST DELIVERY OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR LISA MURKOWSKI BEFORE THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON S.310 THURSDAY MAY 3, 2007
Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Vice Chairman Thomas. And may I extend a warm welcome to our friends from Hawaii who have traveled a long distance to be with us today.
The leaders of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs travel often to my State of Alaska to join in the significant events of our Alaska Native community. More remarkably, they travel to Alaska during the fall and winter when the days are short and the temperatures drop. Alaska Native leaders also travel to Hawaii to join in the significant events of the Native Hawaiian community – like the Council for Native Hawaiian Advancement conference. I often wonder who gets the better end of that bargain. The relationship between Alaska Natives and Native Hawaiians is a source of pride for both groups.
1
PREPARED TEXT –CHECK AGAINST DELIVERY
In June of 2006, I went to the Senate floor to speak in support of Senator Akaka’s Native Hawaiian Recognition legislation. I would ask that my floor statement be included in the record of today’s hearing.
The question at the time was whether the Senate would invoke cloture to end a filibuster that prevented the consideration of the Akaka Bill on its merits. Ultimately, 56 Senators, Republicans and Democrats, voted to debate the bill – four short of the number needed to break the filibuster. Many of the views expressed in the testimony to be offered by the Justice Department witness and some of those expressed in Mr. Burgess’ prepared testimony were explored in the debate that preceded that vote.
Yet the 56 bipartisan votes cast in favor of the Akaka Bill suggests that it stands very much in the mainstream of political and constitutional thought. Attorney General Bennett and Mr. Dinh – a veteran of the Bush administration Justice Department - were pivotal in helping many of our colleagues evaluate the arguments that were
2
PREPARED TEXT –CHECK AGAINST DELIVERY
advanced by those who oppose Senator Akaka’s legislation. I welcome them to the committee and look forward to their testimony.
I would also note that the Akaka Bill has enjoyed the support of Hawaii’s Republican Governor Linda Lingle, the major newspapers in the State of Hawaii, the National Congress of American Indians, and the Alaska Federation of Natives. And while much is made of the US Civil Rights Commission’s views on the Akaka Bill, it bears noting that the only American Indian on the Commission dissented from the majority’s conclusion.
Commenting on the testimony of witnesses who appear before our committees is a Senatorial prerogative. Yet I usually reserve those comments until the witnesses have completed their testimony.
I am going to break with that practice today in order to comment on the prepared statement submitted by the Justice Department. I must
3
PREPARED TEXT –CHECK AGAINST DELIVERY
say that the language and tone of the prepared statement do not leave a favorable impression on this Senator.
I am referring to language like “favored treatment,” “class of favored persons,” secession, balkanization, racially isolated government, preferential treatment, differential treatment, separatist government, corrosive effect.
The statement uses these harsh and divisive words to draw many conclusions about the distinction between Native Hawaiians on the one hand and American Indians and Alaska Natives on the other. Yet nowhere in the statement do I find any historical or anthropological references to support these conclusions. The Apology Resolution, Public Law 103-150, is never once discussed in the statement. I am left to wonder whether the distinctions between Native Hawaiians and American Indians are truly distinctions without a difference.
4
PREPARED TEXT –CHECK AGAINST DELIVERY
I feel compelled to call the committee’s attention to the suggestion on page 4 of the prepared statement that this legislation grants -- and I quote -- “a broad group of citizens defined by race and ancestry the right to declare their independence and secede from the United States.” I don’t see anything on the face of S.310 that gives anyone the right to declare independence and secede from the United States.
And I question the credibility of the statement that the legislation grants “sweeping powers” to the proposed Native Hawaiian organizations described in the bill. What it does is give the Native Hawaiian governing entity a seat at a negotiating table. The State of Hawaii and the federal government hold the other seats. As I said on the floor last year, this Senator is not about to presume the outcome of these negotiations.
Of all of the troublesome language in the prepared statement I find the passages suggesting that “Indian tribes enjoy favored treatment” and that that the Akaka bill would create a class of “favored
5
PREPARED TEXT –CHECK AGAINST DELIVERY
persons…afforded different rights and privileges from those afforded to his or her neighbors,” most troubling. The suggestion is that if Native Hawaiians are regarded as American Indians they become “favored persons”. These are words that provoke resentment. They are inflammatory and they are uncalled for.
Language like this is used frequently by those who would have the United States end its financial support for Indian health and Indian housing programs. I don’t use this language and I don’t think our President has ever used it either to describe our Nation’s relationship with Native people. If you doubt this, I would suggest that you look at the President’s Native American Heritage Month proclamations on the White House website. I spend a lot of time with the Native people who live in rural Alaska, subsisting off of the land and the living resources, much as their ancestors did. I can tell you that nobody I know feels privileged to live in third world conditions without indoor plumbing or in substandard
6
PREPARED TEXT –CHECK AGAINST DELIVERY
housing as the price they pay for remaining in their traditional communities.
Federal Indian programs compensate our Native peoples for the loss of their lands and I think the record will bear out that Native Hawaiian people are similarly situated to Alaska Natives and American Indians in this regard.
Reasonable people can civilly debate the question of whether recognition of Native Hawaiians falls within the ambit of Congress’ broad powers under the Indian Commerce Clause. Citing two law review articles – one pro and one con – the majority opinion in Rice v Cayetano noted, “It is a matter of some dispute whether Congress may treat the Native Hawaiians as it does the Indian tribes.” The majority then stated emphatically, “We can stay far off that difficult terrain however.”
7
PREPARED TEXT –CHECK AGAINST DELIVERY
However difficult the terrain, I would suggest that the time has come for Congress to address the question. Congress has recognized Native Hawaiians perhaps 100 times in designating eligibility for the same types of programs and services afforded to American Indians because of their status as Indians. I’m speaking of health programs and housing programs. I fear that if Congress remains silent on whether Native Hawaiians are to be treated as American Indians the legal challenges to these programs will continue and the intent of Congress as reflected in those laws may be frustrated.
I thank the Chair and look forward to hearing from the witnesses.
8