The Native Hawaiian federal recognition bill is "fair and just — nothing more, and nothing less," according to Gov. Linda Lingle and Attorney General Mark Bennett.

The bill, commonly known as the Akaka bill, will not set up a foreign nation in Hawai'i, they said. "It will, however, put Hawai'i on an equal footing with its 49 sister states, and it will end the second-class status of Hawai'i's indigenous people — Native Hawaiians," they said.

Their comments are in a 10-page response to the U.S. Senate Republican Policy Committee's recent statement in opposition to the bill.

The response, and a 37-page "position statement" by Bennett, were sent July 1 to all Republican senators, according to Russell Pang, a spokesman for Lingle.

Bennett's statement contends the Akaka bill is constitutional. The bill, which cleared the Senate's Indian Affairs committee in March, would grant Native Hawaiians the same rights of self-government enjoyed by American Indians and Native Alaskans, and would lead to U.S. recognition of a native governing entity.

The Senate could begin debate on the bill as early as Monday. Sen. Daniel Akaka, who introduced the bill, and Sen. Daniel Inouye have said they believe there are enough votes for its approval, including those of all 47 Democrats.

The Republican Policy Committee, chaired by Sen. Jon Kyl of Arizona, issued a report last month saying the legislation would create a race-based government for Native Hawaiians and promote "racial division and ethnic separatism."

The bill "would lead the nation down a path to racial balkanization, with different legal codes being applied to persons of different races who live in the same communities," said Kyl's report.

The Republican Policy Committee's arguments against passage of the bill are "just plain wrong," said the response from Lingle and Bennett.

The bill "neither further balkanizes the United States nor sets up a race-based separate government in Hawai'i," said Lingle and Bennett. "It provides a simple measure of justice and fairness to Native Hawaiians.

"We believe there is no basis for the Policy Committee's suggestion that S. 147 (the Akaka bill) is unconstitutional," they said.

They cited a 2004 U.S. Supreme Court decision confirming the plenary power of Congress to legislate pursuant to the Indian Commerce Clause.

"Indeed, it is impossible to read (the decision) without concluding that it provides very strong support for S. 147's constitutionality," they said.

The bill does not treat Native Hawaiians specially, and they are not asking for special treatment, the response said. They only want to be treated the same way all other native indigenous Americans have been treated, it said.

"The history and experiences of American Indians, Alaska Natives, and Native Hawaiians are in many ways indistinguishable, and thus there is no justification to argue against the passage of a bill that would extend similar treatment and political recognition to the last of these native groups," Lingle and Bennett said.

"Indeed, because Native Hawaiians, Native Americans, and Alaska Natives share similar experiences, it would be grossly unfair and wholly arbitrary to treat one of them — Native Hawaiians — differently."

The purpose of the bill is to allow Native Hawaiians to "re-form and restore the governmental structure that the United States has since acknowledged it had a substantial hand in destroying," the Lingle-Bennett response said.

"The only reason Native Hawaiians have no sovereign entity today is because the United States aided in the extinguishment of Hawaiians' sovereignty," they said, referring to the 1893 overthrow of the Hawaiian kingdom by a group of U.S. businessmen, followed by annexation by the United States five years later.