Mr. President, I quote: Hawaii illustrates the Nation's revolutionary message of equality of opportunity for all, regardless of background, color, or religion. This is the promise of Hawaii, a promise for the entire Nation and, indeed, the…
Mr. President, I quote:
Hawaii illustrates the Nation's revolutionary message of
equality of opportunity for all, regardless of background,
color, or religion. This is the promise of Hawaii, a promise
for the entire Nation and, indeed, the world, that peoples of
different races and creeds can live together, enriching each
other, in harmony and democracy.
That is Lawrence H. Fuchs, Hawaii Pono, 1961, written at the time of statehood.
Today, with that quote in mind, I rise in opposition to the Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act of 2006. As my colleague just mentioned, I respect both of my Hawaiian colleagues and the work they have done to promote the culture and heritage of their native people. At the same time, I must disagree with the underlying notion of this bill.
The major argument in favor of this bill is the notion that Congress should create a Native Hawaiian tribe in order to treat them the same as American Indians and Native Alaskans. But Congress cannot simply create an Indian tribe. Only those groups of people who have long operated as an Indian tribe, lived as a separate and distinct community--geographically and culturally--and have a preexisting political structure can be organized as a tribe.
Hawaiians could never qualify as an American Indian tribe. First, they do not have the preexisting political structure. Prior to secession from the Republic of Hawaii, Hawaii operated under a monarchy and not a tribe. Even if they were once organized in tribal governments, they have had no type of Native Hawaiian government for over 100 years.
Furthermore, in 1959, 94 percent of Hawaiians voted favorably to approve the Hawaii Statehood Act and become American citizens.
At this time, there was an understanding that Hawaii's native people would not be treated as a separate racial group and that they would not be transformed into an Indian tribe.
Second, Native Hawaiians do not have an independent and separate community. In fact, Hawaii is one of the most integrated and blended societies in America. Hawaii is, in essence, America's great melting pot. The creation of a Native Hawaiian race-based government entity would drive a wedge into the now harmonious melting pot of the Hawaiian culture. This bill is asking us to pretend that a tribe existed based on the sharing of one drop of blood. We cannot simply reorganize a tribe that never existed or create a new race-based government entity.
Furthermore, using Congress to create a tribe offends the very idea of equal protection under the law. Creating a Native Hawaiian tribe, especially one with no borders, undermines our constitutional rights.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to proceed for 3 more minutes.
I thank my colleagues for allowing that to happen.
This would establish a set of laws for Native Hawaiians and another set of laws for non-natives, some of whom have lived on the island for generations. This division would create a wedge, in my opinion, in the Hawaiian community. It would create two sets of laws for a group of people who live in the same neighborhoods, attend the same schools, and go to church together. A Native Hawaiian could be subject to one set of laws while his neighbor is subject to a different set of laws. I think not.
The legislation offends a founding principle of this Nation: that all men and women are created equal--we have fought wars and struggled mightily down through the decades to make that happen--not men and women with Hawaiian blood are equal, and those without Hawaiian blood are equal. That is a confusing thought. As the Supreme Court stated, ``In the eyes of the government, we are just one race--it is American.''
It is astonishing that Congress is considering creating a race-based government in Hawaii given the tremendous progress that this Nation has made, as I have mentioned, in eliminating race as a distinguishing characteristic among its citizens. Presumptive color blindness and race neutrality is now at the core of our legal system and cultural environment and represents one of the most important American achievements of the 21st century.
To create a race-based government would be offensive to our Nation's commitment to equal justice and the elimination of racial distinctions in the law. The inevitable constitutional challenge to this bill almost certainly would reach the U.S. Supreme Court. We cannot simply circumvent the Supreme Court's holding and strict scrutiny of race- based tests.
The U.S. Civil Rights Commission issued a report earlier this year that recommended that Congress reject this bill or any other legislation that would discriminate on the basis of race or national origin and further subdivide the American people into subgroups accorded varying degrees of privilege. This bill would authorize a government entity to treat people differently based on their race and ethnicity. Again, this notion runs counter to the basic American value that the government should not give preference to one race.
Our most violent internal conflicts, whether in the 1860s or the 1960s, have revolved around efforts to eliminate the laws of racial distinctions and to
encourage a culture where all citizens become comfortable as a part of the American race.
Creating a race-based government in Hawaii would create a dangerous precedent that could lead to ethnic balkanization. This is a huge step backwards in our American struggle to advance civil rights and to ensure equal protection for all Americans under the law.
This journey is by no means complete, but this bill halts progress in that very important journey and sends an entirely contrary message--a message of racial division and racial distinction and ethnic separatism and of rejection of the American melting pot ideal.
As many of our colleagues have said, and I repeat: We so respect our Hawaiian colleagues, our Hawaiian friends; at the same time, we must reject this idea that there is a separation spoken to in this law unique to a race or a culture.
I yield the floor.