REFERENCE: Vol. 139 No. 147

TITLE: 100TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE OVERTHROW OF THE HAWAIIAN KINGDOM

SPEAKER: Mr. AKAKA; Mr. BROWN; Mr. DANFORTH; Mr. FORD; Mr. GORTON; Mr. INOUYE

TEXT:

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the clerk will report message to Congress on December 18,1893, President Grover Cleveland described the overthrow of the Kingdom ofHawaii as "an act of law [sic] committed with the participation of a diplomaticrepresentative of the United States without the authority of Congress," and heacknowledged that by such acts, the government of a peaceful and friendly peoplewas overthrown.

No official apology has ever been made to native Hawaiians, nor has thereever been an attempt at a Federal policy addressing their rights.

Too often, when the American public and U.S. policymakers think about NativeAmericans, they mistakenly consider only native American Indians and AlaskaNatives as native peoples of the United States.

This misperception is based on a lack of knowledge of events surrounding the1893 overthrow of the Kingdom and the current status of native Hawaiians in ourNation's political system.

Long neglected by the United States, native Hawaiians have literally fallenthrough the cracks when it comes to a comprehensive Federal policy towardsnative Americans.

Mr. President, native Hawaiians are, indeed, native Americans. While we areculturally Polynesian, we are descendants of the aboriginal people who occupiedand exercised sovereignty in the area that now constitutes the State of Hawaii.Like the varying cultures among the hundreds of American Indian tribes or AlaskaNatives, native Hawaiians likewise have a unique political and historicalrelationship with the United States.

My colleagues, we are in an era of dramatic political and social evolutionthroughout our world community. America righteously leads civilized coalitionsin nation-building and military actions against tyrants around the globe. It isan incredible irony that native Hawaiians, having had the most politicallydeveloped nation of all indigenous peoples in the history of the United Statesitself, continue to be the only such population that has never been accorded ourcountry's recognition of its loss of sovereignty as a people.

The deprivation of Hawaiian sovereignty, which began a century ago, has haddevastating effects on the health, culture, and social conditions of nativeHawaiians, with consequences that are evident throughout the islands today.

My resolution simply seeks to reconcile the growing alienation by nativeHawaiians toward the United States, which stems from a century of this Nation'sneglect of their plight.

If we are to continue to tout our Nation as a model to the world community onfreedom, justice, and democracy, then it is incumbent on us as leaders toreflect on America's own history and recognize past wrongs committed against allof its native peoples.

The purpose of Senate Joint Resolution 19, Mr. President, is to educate mycolleagues, as I mentioned earlier, and the American public on eventssurrounding the overthrow. It would also provide for reconciliation between theUnited States and the native Hawaiian people.

Earlier, I mentioned the efforts of the United Church of Christ in Hawaii toreconcile with native Hawaiians. Just this past week, Mr. President, thepresiding bishop of the U.S. Episcopal Church, Rev. Edmund Browning, condemnedthe injustices committed against native Hawaiians a century ago.

In remarks before the convention of the Episcopal Church in Hawaii, ReverendBrowning stated:

What happened 100 years ago in the islands with the overthrow of a legitimateand sovereign government is a memory that challenges us powerfully today, thewhole church, the whole country, not just the diocese or this State. Until weunderstand our common grounds and common interests to be more important thanthose things which make us different from one another, we cannot act fromcompassion.

I would like to commend Reverend Browning for his compassion and for thegenerous support of the U.S. Episcopal Church in the Native Hawaiian cause.

Mr. President, in concluding my remarks, I would like to close with a pleamade by Queen Liliuokalani to the American people 100 years ago in which shelamented the plight of her people.

Oh, honest Americans, as Christians, hear me for my downtrodden people. Donot covet the little vineyard of Naboth's, so far from your shores, lest theinstrument of Ahab fall upon you, if not on your day in that of your children.

The children to whom our fathers told of the living God *** are crying aloudto Him in their time of trouble; and He will keep His promise and will listen tothe voices of His Hawaiian children lamenting for their homes.

I ask my colleagues, Mr. President, to finally acknowledge QueenLiliuokalani's plea for justice. Let us pass this resolution and commence thehealing process between the Federal Government and the Native Hawaiian people.

I yield the floor.

I reserve the remainder of my time, Mr. President.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?

The Senator from Washington is recognized.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, in the summer of 1989, this Senator, with a numberof his colleagues, attended a conference on the future of Eastern Europe, whichtook place in Dubrovnik, Yugoslavia, in either the last or the next-to-the-lastsummer during which that then multi-ethnic community was at peace with itself.

The most striking impression that this Senator has of the message that wereceived from at least those Yugoslavs of Serbian dissent was that that summermarked the 600th anniversary of the Battle of Kossovo, a battle in which TurkishMoslems slaughtered the Serbian Christian army and ended the independence ofSerbia for the better part of half a millennium. I remarked at the time that itseemed to me that that battle was more green and vivid in the minds of manySerbs than events which had taken place every bit as tragically during thecourse of their own lifetime.

A short 2 years later and continuing today, many of those Serbs are in theprocess of killing Bosnian Moslems in significant measure to revenge their lossat Kossovo in 1389.

That combination of ethnic politics and claims to particular pieces of landis literally lethal across stretches of Eastern Europe, throughout much ofAfrica, and in many nations in Asia.

It is an evil which we as Americans have largely avoided. And with all of therespect that I can possibly muster for my two friends and colleagues from Hawaiiand for all of the evident goodwill in the world which they show, thisresolution is a signpost pointing toward that dark and bitter road.

The operative language of this resolution -- not about the State's historywhich seems to this Senator to be largely accurate -- but the operative languageof this resolution apologizes to Native Hawaiians on behalf of the people of theUnited States for the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii more than a centuryago, and expresses our commitment to acknowledge the ramifications of theoverthrow of that kingdom in order to provide a proper foundation forreconciliation.

What those ramifications are is mentioned nowhere in the course of theresolution or in the modest committee report on that resolution.

But it is clear that the resolution accomplishes one goal. It divides thecitizens of the State of Hawaii who are of course citizens of the United Statesinto two distinct groups, Native Hawaiians and all other citizens.

I may say, Mr. President, that Native Hawaiians are defined as any individualwho is the descendent of any person, any aboriginal people who prior to 1778lived in or occupied what is now the State of Hawaii. That is to say in somecases people with 1/16th or 1/32d blood of Native Hawaiians.

It does so in what seems to this Senator, and I suspect it seems to bothSenators from Hawaii, to be the single multiethnic community in the entire worldin which a multitude of people from many ethnic backgrounds, perhaps a majority of them from mixed ethnic backgrounds, live together in peace and friendship.

In guidebooks about the State of Hawaii, and it is mentioned in our ownhistory, that State is given as an example of how people from differentbackgrounds can live together happily and peacefully. Yet here we begin thatprocess of division.

At the time of the commemoration of this coup, or this overthrow, lastJanuary the Governor of Hawaii caused the flag of the United States to beremoved from the capitol for 5 days. I must hasten to add he was denounced bythe two Senators from Hawaii for having done so. But it was symbolic of thedivisive nature of this kind of proposal.

My distinguished friend, the junior Senator from Hawaii, made no mention inhis opening speech of what these ramifications were or of how thisreconciliation was to take place. Many members of the Native Hawaiian communityin the State however have done exactly that. I will quote from stories fromnewspapers on the subject. The Los Angeles Times says:

A small minority advocates total independence, in effect the re-creation ofthe old kingdom, and an even smaller minority has gone on record for totalindependence coupled with expulsion of many non-natives from the State. A broadmiddle group wants a nation within a nation -- --

With a form of sovereignty perhaps, a legislative and an executive and ajudicial set of bodies coupled with claims for somewhere between 200,000 and 1.4million acres of public lands owned by the Federal Government and by the Stateof Hawaii, and I suspect some kind of monetary compensation at some point oranother.

Mr. President, these demands for compensation differ profoundly from thoseoffered to Japanese-Americans by this body in a bill of which this Senatorbelieves that he was a sponsor not many years ago. Those reparations were givento individuals who were greatly wronged by their Government, who were deprivedof their homes and of their livelihoods solely by reason of their race andethnic origin, and who were alive to receive reparations granted to them byMembers of this body and the other body almost all of whom were alive when thatterrible injustice to individuals took place.

This coup took place more than 100 years ago. No one is alive who played anyrole in it. No one is alive, perhaps there are a couple of centenarians who mayhave been there when this took place. This is a different time and a differentgeneration.

It goes without saying in this body, it seems to me, that every square inchof the United States of America was acquired in a manner which bears certainsimilarities to the acquisition by the United States of America of what is nowthe State of Hawaii.

Certainly this can be precedent for the Government of Mexico reclaiming Texas-- which was seized first in a war of independence and confirmed in a waragainst Mexico in which many died only about 50 or 60 years before the overthrowof the Kingdom of Hawaii. Does this justify some kind of special acknowledgmentto citizens of Mexico? The rest of this country was acquired either from itsnatives or by way of England, France, Spain, or Russia.

In fact, we are no different than any other society in the world today. Idoubt that there is a square mile of the world which is occupied by exactly thesame people who were the original human beings on the spot. But it is the geniusof us as Americans, it seems to me, Mr. President, that this does not count inAmerica. What counts is that we are all citizens, and that we are all equal.

In no realistic way did we apologize for the acts by people over whom we hadno responsibility and with whom we shared no life whatsoever. As a consequence,it seems to me we must look toward the consequences not only of what we do herebut the consequences of that coup. The consequences of that overthrow are thefact that Hawaii is the 49th State of the United States. The fact that it hasmore than 1 million inhabitants live together in peace and harmony in anextremely prosperous society, the fact that all except for aliens are citizensnot only of the State of Hawaii but of the United States of America.

Are these adverse or unhappy consequences? Are these consequences orramifications of that overthrow which we wish to undo? I know that the twoSenators from Hawaii do not agree with the radicals who wish independence as aresult, but the logical consequences of this resolution would be independence.That is the only way that the clock can ever truly be turned back.

This Senator intensely regrets the fact that we are in this process creatinga division which does not exist. I probably can come up with no betterdescription of both what Hawaii is like and what some thoughtful people think isan appropriate response than to quote a couple of paragraphs from a speech by aformer president of the University of Hawaii, Harlan Cleveland. He says, afteracknowledging the history that is included in this resolution, and I quote him:

But my judgment is also that diffusion of American democracy and enterprisewith Hawaiian culture mixed now by immigration and intermarriage with Japanese,Chinese, Korean, Filipino, and other workways and mindsets has produced one ofthe worlds most intriguing experiments in the building of a multiculturalsociety.

That is the actual real world consequence of something which took place morethan a century ago. President Cleveland goes on to say that sovereignty which iswhat many of the native Hawaiian groups wished is unlikely to be the answer;that the way in which any individual problem should be dealt with is througheducation and through quite a different course of action than seems clearlyimplied from the proposal which we have before us here.

Mr. President, in concluding these remarks, I would like to remind mycolleagues of a remarkable part of our early history and of our genius. On theFourth of July in 1858, while he was in the midst of the campaign -- ultimatelyunsuccessful -- to be elected to the Senate of the United States, AbrahamLincoln spoke to a throng of his constituents about something which troubledthose constituents even then: The distinction between Americans who could tracetheir descent to the generation which signed the Declaration of Independence andfought for our freedom, and those who were immigrants or the sons or daughtersof immigrants.

This is what Abraham Lincoln said on that day, a century and a half ago:

We have, besides these who are descended by blood from our ancestors, thosewho are not descendants at all of the men who signed the Declaration ofIndependence or fought to establish it. But when they look through that oldDeclaration, they find: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all menare created equal ..." and then they feel that that moral sentiment evidencestheir relation to those men, and that they have a right to claim it as thoughthey were blood of the blood and flesh of the flesh of the men who wrote thatDeclaration; and so they are.

That is Abraham Lincoln on the true American heritage, on the Americanheritage that all are created equal and that all deserve equal treatment -- nota divisive sentiment, but a uniting and inclusive one. That is the genius of theState of Hawaii, whether its inhabitants are native Hawaiians, Japanese,Chinese, or Caucasians from the mainland. And it is, regrettably, that equalheritage which, in the view of this Senator, this resolution significantlyundercuts.

Mr. DANFORTH. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. GORTON. Yes. I yield such time as the Senator wishes.

Mr. DANFORTH. Mr. President, I want to say to my friend, Senator Gorton, thathe obviously has undertaken a thankless job here, but I think a very importantone, in making the statement he just made on the floor of the Senate. I say thiswith all due respect to all Senators, especially the Senators from Hawaii, whomI admire very much.

The great challenge of this country has always been the challenge ofattempting to hold together diverse people. The statement over the PresidingOfficer's head, carved in the marble of this room: "E Pluribus Unum," from one,many. That is the motto and challenge of the United States of America, to keepus all together.

It is a challenge which is tested constantly. It is tested by bigots and byhateful people; by mean people; by people who like to lord over others anddiscriminate against other people. For most of our history, that has been theterrible challenge of America, from slavery on. How do we overcomethat kind of mean divisiveness?

There is another kind of challenge, I think, to the test of living together,and that is that it is possible to divide not only by being mean, but by makingourselves victims. I think this is something of a national trend, of whatevergroup, to be treated terribly and to say: Well, we have been victims. And if wehave not been victims ourselves, then somebody else has been a victim, someancestor has been a victim, so please apologize.

So it is possible to keep others off balance and on guard, defensive at alltimes. Therefore, not only by meanness, but also by making ourselves a nation ofvictims, it is possible to emphasize what divides us and separates us, ratherthan what keeps us glued together.

For obvious reasons, I have not been one who has been constantly taking thefloor of the Senate citing Scripture, but the words of Isaiah did come to mindas I listened to Senator Gorton. The prophet said:

Comfort, comfort my people, says your God; speak tenderly to Jerusalem andcry to her that her warfare is over, that her inequity is forgiven.

That, to me, is one of the messages that we should be proclaiming, those ofus who are in public life -- that warfare and divisions are not things to beemphasized constantly; that the past is not something to be constantly relivedwith a view toward how to get other people to apologize.

There comes a time to put warfare behind us and divisiveness behind us and todedicate ourselves to a common purpose, because we are all Americans, andbecause it is challenging enough to live together in this one country as onepeople, without constantly fighting the battles of the past.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Kerrey). Who yields time?

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, before proceeding with my remarks, I will respondto the statement of my distinguished colleague from Washington.

To suggest that this resolution is the first step toward declaringindependence for the State of Hawaii is a painful distortion of the intent ofthe authors. To suggest that this resolution is intended to expel non-Hawaiiansfrom the State of Hawaii is something that even the most severe critics of thisresolution in Hawaii would not even consider.

Mr. President, this is a very simple resolution. It was authored by my friendfrom Hawaii because he loves America. It is because of our love for this Nationthat this resolution was presented, to make it possible for all of us, evenafter 100 years, to cleanse one of our pages, to make it a bit brighter.

Mr. President, I realize that we are deluged with problems, and there aremany pressing issues before us. Just to name a few: Bosnia, Haiti, Somalia, anda few moments ago, the President of the United States presented to Congress hishealth bill. And there is NAFTA, our economy, and jobs. So there may be someamong us who would question the propriety of bringing this up at this time.

Why this measure? Is it that important? I wish to assure my colleagues that Ibelieve it is important and most appropriate that we bring this matter beforethe body.

Mr. President, for the past few weeks, we have considered and debated longinto the night the appropriateness of the deployment of our troops on foreignshores in Somalia and in Haiti.

While this was going on, the citizens of Hawaii were recalling another timein history when the United States sent troops to an island kingdom that wasconsidered at that time to be far away and exotic.

Mr. President, a century ago, a company of uniformed U.S. Marines and twocompanies of U.S. sailors landed on the shores of the Kingdom of Hawaii at thebehest of the Minister of the United States of America, Mr. Stevens, and by sodoing, assisted a handful of American and European businessmen, the pillars ofsociety, in an illegal overthrow of the kingdom, a kingdom which was theninternationally recognized by treaty by the United States, Great Britain,France, and Germany with exchange of Ambassadors.

The overthrow of Queen Liliuokalani on January 17, 100 years ago, Mr.President, was not supported by the people of Hawaii. It was not supported bythe elected members of the legislature of the Kingdom of Hawaii, and mostcertainly, it was not approved by the Queen.

It was an illegal act committed in violation of the constitution of theKingdom of Hawaii, and most importantly, it was an act which was supportedwithout proper authorization by agents and representatives of this country.

But the Queen, fearing bloodshed of her native people, gave up her throne,not to the revolutionary Americans and Europeans, but to the Government of theUnited States, to the ship's captain. The Queen believed that once the factswere presented to the leader of the country, the United States would undo theunlawful acts, but history shows that she was not successful.

I think it will be well for all of us to look back 100 years ago -- and I amnot saying this to be facetious -- but at that time we had no CNN, notelevision; we did not have the technology which would have enabled theCongress to know of and thus be able to debate the appropriateness of theactions taken by the Minister of the United States and Captain Wildes, thecommanding officer of the USS Boston, who authorized the landing of marines andsailors upon the undefended shores of Hawaii.

We did not know, so the Congress could not debate whether Minister Stevensand Captain Wildes had exceeded the authority granted to them by the laws of theUnited States. We in the Congress could not debate whether the actions and thelanding of U.S. troops was consistent with the foreign policy of our Nation. Norcould the Congress debate whether the actions of these unauthorized agentsviolated treaties between the United States and the Kingdom of Hawaii. And,obviously, we could not debate or demand an immediate withdrawal.

Our inability to act then and in the months and years that follows should notprevent our actions on a measure before us today. Some will suggest that ithappened 100 years ago so why not forget about it?

I am chairman of the Indian Affairs Committee, Mr. President, and if that isthe attitude, we should do away with that committee. This committee has to actupon 800 treaties -- 800 treaties -- entered into by sovereign Indian nationsand the sovereign Government of the United States. But, shamefully, 430 of thesetreaties were not even considered by this body. And of the 370 that we didconsider and ratify, we violated provisions in every one of them.

Are we to forget that? That happened over 100 years ago. But it is theessence of the goodness of this country to remember that if we have done wrongwe admit that, and if it calls for an apology we do so. That is all we areasking for.

So we stand here today in solemn observance and remembrance of that day inJanuary 1893, yes, in hindsight, and extend an apology for the role of theagents of the United States in the illegal overthrow of Queen Liliuokalani, theconstitutional sovereign of Hawaii.

We are here to recognize the results of the unfortunate events of that day.We all know that the history and actions of our great country have been lessthan honorable in dealings with native peoples of this Nation. But, as I haveindicated, this fact should not prevent us from acting to recognize and rectifythese wrongs. Obviously, we cannot change history. We are not here to changehistory. But we can acknowledge responsibility.

So I say to my colleagues the measure before us is important. It isappropriate. And it is significant as a first step in that process, as mycolleague has so eloquently stated, to bring about some understanding andreconciliation.

Before I close, Mr. President, just a few footnotes in history, and thismight give one a better picture of what happened. This so-called revolution thatoverthrew of our Queen was engineered by 12 men, leaders of the businesscommunity, owners of great sugar plantations and shipping companies. They calledthemselves the Committee of Safety. On that fateful day when the flag of theKingdom of Hawaii was lowered over Iolani Palace and the American flag went up,it is reported that one of the Committee of Safety remarked to the others: "Thisis a glorious day. We need something to remind us of this auspicious moment." Sosomeone is reported to have suggested, "Why don't we cut that flagin 12 parts; each of us take a piece, a piece of the action?"

And that is what happened. It is said that one piece remains today, the lastremaining piece of the flag of the Kingdom of Hawaii.

I think that would give you an idea of the attitude of the Americans who wereresiding there at that time. It is not an attitude that we would condone today.We would not raise that attitude with accolades. Why not recognize it for whatit was?

The United States is an extraordinary country. Though we may express hatredand animosity, we have certain principles that we have always abided with.

For example, I took part in the great war, World War II, and we had to seekthe permission of the Pope to destroy the Monte Cassino Abbey because that wasused by the Germans as an observation point. We did not want to destroy that. Itwas against our principles. And we promised the Pope once the war is over wewill replace it.

In the same attitude of principle, we issued orders, orders that weredevastating to our men -- and many lost their lives as a result of this militaryorder -- not to bomb the palace of the Emperor of Japan, our most hated enemy,but not to bomb the palace, not to bomb the city of Kyoto, because that is theroyal city, that is the sacred city.

But in this case, the first thing they did was take over the palace, the onlypalace in the United States at this time, ran the legislature in the throneroom, imprisoned the queen in her bedroom, desecrated the palace, something thatwe Americans have never done before or since.

I think these footnotes might give you a different flavor of what happened onJanuary 17.

And so I say to my colleagues, I think the time has come. One hundred yearshas been long enough. All we have to say is that we are sorry.

Mr. GORTON addressed the Chair.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington is recognized.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I intend in just a moment to yield to the Senatorfrom Colorado, but I wish to make only one or two preliminary remarks.

Of course, this Senator does not believe that either of his colleagues fromHawaii wish the consequences of this resolution to be the restoration of theindependence of Hawaii itself. What this Senator said was that there are somesplinter groups in Hawaii who believe that is the only appropriate response tothe overthrow and they will clearly use this resolution as the basis on which tomake such a demand.

This Senator finds that he has been unable to disagree in most respects withanything that either of the Senators from Hawaii has said about the historywhich led up to the overthrow and the annexation of Hawaii by the United States.

But this Senator needs to point out that neither Senator from Hawaii has saidone word about what the ramifications of the overthrow and the proper foundationfor reconciliation is to be. In fact, the senior Senator from Hawaii said it isnot to be independent. This Senator believes that, on the record of this debateshould be spread the intentions of the two Senators from Hawaii in that respect.

Is this a purely self-executing resolution which has no meaning other thanits own passage, or is this, in their minds, some form of claim, some form ofdifferent or distinct treatment for those who can trace a single ancestor backto 1778 in Hawaii which is now to be provided for this group of citizens,separating them from other citizens of the State of Hawaii or the United States?

At the very least, before we vote on their resolution, we ought to understandwhat the two Senators from Hawaii mean those ramifications and consequences tobe.

With that, how much time does the Senator from Washington have remaining?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington has 8 minutes and 3seconds.

Mr. GORTON. I yield 4 minutes to the Senator from Colorado.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado is recognized.

Mr. BROWN. Thank you, Mr. President.

First, Mr. President, let me recognize the very thoughtful and very sincereand very moving words of the senior Senator from Hawaii. His comments and hisobservations, I think, hold great meaning for all Americans, regardless of theirbackground or heritage.

As I read through the resolution, I have concerns -- concerns because I fearit is not clear as to what it implies or means.

Let me be specific. The apology states:

Apologizes to Native Hawaiians on behalf of the people of the United Statesfor the overthrow of the Kingdom.

Included in the whereases that precede this is a recitation that at that timeit involved communal land tenure.

That, as my friend knows, has been replaced by a concept of private property.Surely, we do not mean to suggest that we apologize for bringing the concept ofprivate property to replace the concept of a communal land tenure system.

The whereases also note a unified monarchical government.

As everyone knows, that has been replaced by a representative democracy.Surely, we do not intend -- and I do not mean to imply that anyone intends thatwe apologize for having replaced a monarchy or a form of monarchy with arepresentative democracy.

My guess is, Hawaiians take great pride in our representative democracy, justas every American does.

I notice in the first section, it ends with these words, referring to the"event which resulted in suppression of the inherent sovereignty of the NativeHawaiian people."

Mr. President, it seems to me, we ought to be clear that we are not hereapologizing for democracy or the concept of private property.

We do indeed and should apologize for a violent, forceful overthrow of thegovernment.

I would like an opportunity to clarify this, which, I think, would meet theintentions of all parties. I ask unanimous consent that we be allowed anadditional half hour of debate wherein amendments may be offered to clarify theintent of this resolution.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, reluctantly, on behalf of the leader, I mustobject, because a schedule has been established for the rest of the afternoon.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.

Mr. BROWN. Let me simply conclude my remarks with this concern.

I, for one, am not going to be able to vote for this resolution, not becauseI do not sympathize with the very eloquent remarks of the distinguished seniorSenator from Hawaii, but because I believe this is not clearly worded andperhaps may imply some things that this Chamber and the Members would not agreewith. Specifically to lament or to imply a lamentation of moving privateproperty away from communal property, I think, would be a mistake; specificallyto lament or imply that we lament moving away from a monarchy to arepresentative democracy, I think, would not represent the feelings orintentions of the Members of this Chamber.

I yield the floor.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?

Mr. INOUYE addressed the Chair.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii has 2 minutes and 20 secondsand the Senator from Washington has 4 minutes and 30 seconds.

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, may I once again say that the suggestion that thisresolution was the first step toward declaring independence or seceding from theUnited States is at best a very painful distortion of our intent.

The whereases were placed in the resolution for a very simple reason: So thatthose who are studying this resolution or those students of history in years tocome can look back and say that is the way it was in Hawaii on January 17, 1893.

To suggest that we are attempting to restore the Kingdom, Mr. President, Ifind it most difficult to find words to even respond to that.

Mr. President, I indicated that we submitted this resolution because ofour love for our country. It is that simple. Because we believe thatour country is big enough and great enough to recognize wrong and admit it. Itis simple.

And for those who may somehow question the patriotism of the people ofHawaii, it may be well to note that in World War II -- that great war -- therewere more volunteers from Hawaii on a per capita basis than any other State inthe Union. We sent more sons and daughters than any other State in the Union.Never did we complain, because we felt it was a matter of honor.

No, no, this is not seceding or independence. We fought for statehood longenough and we cherish it and we want to stay there. I can assure you, I do notwish to leave this place.

So, Mr. President, I hope that our assurance would suffice. After all, we arethe authors of this resolution, and that is not our intention.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.

The Senator from Washington has 4 minutes and 28 seconds.

Mr. GORTON addressed the Chair.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I will suggest through the President to eitherSenator from Hawaii, that this Senator, as he has already said twice, has neverhad the remotest idea that independence was the meaning of this resolution onthe part of the two sponsors. But this Senator will be happy to yield his owntime to either Senator from Hawaii if they will tell us what their operativeintention is. What are the appropriate consequences of passing this resolution?Are they any form of special status under which persons of Native Hawaiiandescent will be given rights or privileges or reparations or land or moneycommunally that are unavailable to other citizens of Hawaii?

Mr. INOUYE. If the Senator will yield?

Mr. GORTON. I will be delighted to do so.

Mr. INOUYE. As I tried to convince my colleagues, this is a simple resolutionof apology, to recognize the facts as they were 100 years ago. As to the matterof the status of Native Hawaiians, as my colleague from Washington knows, fromthe time of statehood we have been in this debate. Are Native Hawaiians NativeAmericans? This resolution has nothing to do with that. This resolution does nottouch upon the Hawaiian homelands. I can assure my colleague of that.

It is a simple apology.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, this Senator wants to sincerely thank the seniorSenator from Hawaii for that answer and accepts it as such. This Senatorbelieves the Senator from Hawaii has said this resolution is unrelated to --it neither advances nor detracts from -- any kind of special treatment forNative Hawaiians.

In fact, if this Senator believed that this resolution could not be used inthat fashion there would have been no such debate here. The Senator does notdisagree with the history and would have been happy to restate it. This Senatorfeels, unfortunately, that the consequences of the portions of this resolutionafter the whereas clauses do in fact provide a basis -- perhaps even a legalbasis -- for some kind of demand for special treatment or for the return oflands. It is for that reason, for that reason which this Senator believes to bevery divisive within our society, that the Senator regretfully opposes theresolution, and at this point, Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?

There is a sufficient second.

The yeas and nays were ordered.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, how much time remains?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has one minute and 20 seconds.

Mr. GORTON. I yield the remainder of my time to the Senator from Colorado.

Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I simply wanted to make it clear I certainly hadnot suggested that the resolution implies we wanted the monarchy back. Icertainly hope it does not.

What I have said is the resolution is not clear. To apologize or to lament,and then spell out communal land and a monarchy government, in areas that Ithink can be implied as lamentation, does not represent the feelings of thisSenate, does not represent, I believe, the feelings of any Member of the Senate.

What I am hoping is that we would have an opportunity to make that clearbecause I think the resolution, with the whereases, is not clear. The function,I think, of any legislator is to try to develop common grounds and develop clearlanguage. It strikes me that we do agree as Members that a violent overthrow ofthat government in an unauthorized way is something we ought to apologize for.

Having that apology, though, linked with the resuscitation of a monarchalgovernment and communal land tenure I think misrepresents what we believe andwhat we have to apologize for.

It is thus, why I wanted an opportunity to clarify the intent and I am sorrywe were not afforded that opportunity.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired.

The yeas and nays have been ordered.

The clerk will read the joint resolution for the third time.

The joint resolution ( Return to the Nation of Hawaii Home Page