Filibuster squabble may stall vote on Akaka bill

By Dennis Camire
Advertiser Washington Bureau

WASHINGTON — Legislation recognizing Native Hawaiians could be among the bills facing delay in the Senate because of the unrelated dispute simmering over President Bush's judicial nominees.

Senate Republican leaders promised Hawai'i's two Democratic senators at the end of the last congressional session that the Native Hawaiian bill — aka the Akaka bill after its sponsor, Sen. Daniel K. Akaka, D-Hawai'i — would come to a vote by Aug. 7.

But if majority Republicans exercise a so-called "nuclear option" and change rules to stop filibusters of judicial nominees, Senate Democrats have threatened to retaliate.

Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada said that if the Republicans change the filibuster rules, Democrats might use other Senate rules to slow or stop all but the most essential legislative business.

Exempted would be military and national security legislation and bills related to the continuation of critical government services, Reid said.

The Akaka bill would be stalled along with everything else.

The legislation, originally introduced in 2000, would lead to federal recognition for Native Hawaiians in the same way that it recognizes American Indians and Native Alaskans. It would create a framework for Native Hawaiian governance.

The fight over judicial nominees could also delay the transportation bill, which includes an authorization for a proposed Honolulu rail transit system, and the energy bill, which could lead to oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

"If the Republicans go ahead and push the button on their 'nuclear option' and Democratic leadership reacts, it will most likely cause the Native Hawaiian bill to stall," said Mike Yuen, spokesman for Sen. Daniel K. Inouye, D-Hawai'i.

Both Inouye and Akaka are working with the Senate leadership to have the bill, which has three Democratic and four Republican co-sponsors, scheduled for full Senate consideration.

"Thus far, we have not received a commitment because of the heavy schedule," Akaka said. "But they are considering it. We're going to push again ... to get a time specific."

Inouye also is requesting a debate and vote at the earliest opportunity, Yuen said.

In the meantime, the senators have been conducting a low-key information campaign to persuade other lawmakers to support the Native Hawaiian bill.

"We're not formalizing it like having appointments, but I see them on the floor or as we have a minute or two, we can just mention it," Akaka said. "But I never really say what position are you going to take. I try to act like a good lobbyist by giving them all the information and letting them think about it."

The senators remain cautiously optimistic about the bill's chances, if and when it comes up for a vote.

"I still feel that we have a good chance that we can get the votes we need to pass it," Akaka said. "But we need that floor time, and as the days roll by, I'm getting more anxious to be able to get a time certain."

Inouye still expects that those opposed to the bill will do all they can to derail it, Yuen said.

"He and the members of the Hawai'i congressional delegation believe that the biggest challenge to enactment will be the support — or lack of support — from (President Bush's) administration, Yuen said.

On the House side, both of Hawai'i's congressmen said the support is there for the bill's approval.

"No question," Rep. Neil Abercrombie said. "We've had it over and over and over again, including even passing it out of the House (in 2000)."

Both Abercrombie and Rep. Ed Case said they were concerned about the impact of the Senate battle over the filibuster of judicial nominees.

"I think that would present the greatest unknown right now to putting that bill on the (Senate) floor," Case said. "It has nothing to do with the Akaka bill. It just has to do with the flow of legislation through the Senate."

Senators could come to a full-scale confrontation over the judicial nominee issue as soon as next week when they return from a weeklong recess. The stakes are high since the battle's outcome is likely to determine who will fill future U.S. Supreme Court vacancies.

Both Republicans and Democrats already have offered compromises in the struggle only to have them rejected by the other side.

The Republicans, who control the chamber with 55 members compared with 44 Democrats and one independent, say all of Bush's nominees deserve a vote on the Senate floor and the Constitution guarantees it.

The minority Democrats say the filibuster is a well-established Senate rule and a 200-year-old tradition that protects the rights of the minority party, no matter which party is in that position.

Democrats also note that only 10 nominees have been blocked since 2001 when Bush took office, compared with 206 that have been confirmed. That includes J. Michael Seabright, who was confirmed last week to be a U.S. District judge in Hawai'i.