WASHINGTON — A Native Hawaiian federal recognition bill took heavy fire yesterday from conservative Republicans in a historic debate in the Senate, with some saying they could not let their respect for Hawai'i's two senators lead them to support a bill they consider dangerous and un-American.

The three-hour debate, the first time the bill has been considered at length in the Senate since it was introduced in 2000, sets the stage for a vote today on whether the bill will proceed. Sens. Daniel K. Akaka and Daniel K. Inouye need 60 votes to overcome a procedural roadblock and bring the bill to the floor for further debate. Several congressional aides predicted the vote will be close.

"Now that my colleagues have begun to hear the arguments, it is my hope that they will join us in voting to move this bill to the floor for an up-or-down vote," Akaka, D-Hawai'i, said after the debate. "I remain optimistic that we have enough votes to make this happen."

The bill has been stalled in the Senate, often through anonymous holds, for nearly seven years, so the debate yesterday was itself a breakthrough. But it also showed that Akaka and Inouye have not been able to satisfy conservative Republicans who insist the bill would create a race-based government in violation of the Constitution.

The U.S. Department of Justice yesterday also sent a letter to Senate leaders saying the Bush administration strongly opposes the bill. The Justice Department under Bush has raised constitutional concerns about the bill but had not said publicly that it opposed it until yesterday.

Gov. Linda Lingle, a Republican, has been asking the Bush administration to at least remain neutral on the bill while it moved through Congress.

Clyde Namu'o, the administrator for the state Office of Hawaiian Affairs, downplayed the Justice Department's letter and said it did not carry the weight of a White House policy statement.

The bill would establish a process for a Native Hawaiian government to be recognized by the federal government, similar to American Indians and Alaska Natives. The more than 400,000 Hawaiians living in the U.S. would have the choice of whether to belong to the new government. Supporters have said the nature of the relationship would be political, not racial, but several Republican senators argued yesterday that the bill would be a step backward on equality.

"This bill would, for the first time in history, create a new, separate and independent race-based government within our borders," said Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn. "It is about sovereignty. It is about land and money. It is about race."

Alexander said the bill would set a dangerous precedent that could be followed by other racial or ethnic groups. "It is a reverse of what it means to be an American," he said.

But Akaka was confident he would overcome the Republican opposition.

'ABOUT FAIRNESS'

"At the heart of it, this bill is about fairness," said Akaka, who said Hawaiians have not been treated equally as indigenous people. "What this bill really does is provide a structured process to finally address long-standing issues resulting from a dark period in Hawaiian history — the (1893) overthrow of the kingdom of Hawai'i."

Akaka said the bill "goes a long way" to unite the people of Hawai'i and deal with the wounds that have plagued Hawaiians since the overthrow.

But many of the bill's opponents said they were concerned the bill would divide the country by race.

"It's not too much to say the legislation could create a crack in the American ideal of equal rights and color-blind justice," said Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala. "It is a step we must not take."

Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, said the U.S. has made significant progress toward ensuring all citizens are treated equally under the law.

"If we are to embrace for the first time in American history, as a matter of our legislative actions, race-based distinctions for Americans, it will be a day we will long rue and it will be a black mark in our nation's long march toward equal justice," he said.

But Inouye, D-Hawai'i, said Hawaiians would still be subject to the Constitution and state and federal laws if the bill were to become law. Any new Hawaiian rights over land use or other resources would have to be negotiated with the state or federal governments, he said.

"This bill does not secede the state of Hawai'i or any part thereof from the United States," Inouye said. "They can set up businesses, establish schools, but they will never under this bill pass any measure that will be in contravention with the Constitution ... or the laws of the United States."

Lingle, state Attorney General Mark Bennett and several OHA leaders have been on Capitol Hill this week urging the Senate to pass the bill as a matter of justice for Hawaiians. The furious lobbying continued yesterday with opponents holding a news conference to blast the bill as misguided.

Gerald A. Reynolds, chairman of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, said the commission rejected the bill because it would discriminate on the basis of race and divide Americans into subgroups with different privileges.

"One of the bad things, one of the negative things, one of the blights on our history is the government's sanctioning the use of racial preferences," Reynolds said. "In the 21st century, we should be moving away from that."

'TERRIBLE DISTORTION'

Leon Siu, of the Kaua'i-based Koani Foundation, which favors Hawaiian independence, said that Hawaiian culture has always been inclusive of other races and that many Hawaiians oppose the bill's racial classification.

"It's a terrible distortion of what the Hawaiian people really want," he said. "It will drive wedges between Native Hawaiians and non-Native Hawaiians and it will drive wedges within the Native Hawaiian community itself."

Hawai'i's senators and the Lingle administration had worked with the Justice Department on several amendments to make the bill more acceptable to the Bush administration. Akaka agreed to revise the bill to preclude Hawaiians from bringing land claims against the U.S. and to prohibit gambling.

But the department, which endorsed a previous version of the bill under President Clinton, has consistently cited constitutional objections. In the two-paragraph letter to Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., and Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., the department mentioned the civil-rights commission report and Bush's belief of honoring the nation's melting pot.

"This bill would reverse that great American tradition and divide people by their race," wrote William Moschella, an assistant attorney general.

"Closely related to that policy concern, this bill raises the serious threshold constitutional issues that arise anytime legislation seeks to separate American citizens into race-related classifications rather than 'according to (their) own merit(s) and essential qualities.' "

Official statements of administration policy are issued by the White House Office of Management and Budget, but the Justice Department's letter could be used by Senate Republicans in their arsenal and could be another issue for Akaka and Inouye to overcome.

"The Department of Justice does not speak for the administration. The Office of Management and Budget would be the one that actually would issue a statement of the administration's position," Namu'o said. "So that letter from Moschella is not a statement of administration position."

Jon Van Dyke, a law professor at the University of Hawai'i- Manoa, said the race-based arguments against the bill could be overcome by comparing Hawaiians to other Native Americans. Van Dyke has written in favor of the legislation.

"The U.S. Constitution recognizes the special status of native people at several places and since the founding of our country native people have been given that special and preferential status in many respects," he said.

"We've also, of course, abused native people dramatically in the history of our country but, during the past 30 or 40 years, we've tried to remedy those injustices."

Reach Dennis Camire at dcamire@gns.gannett.com.