Have you checked out The Hot Seat? It's our opinion-page blog that brings in your elected leaders and people in the news and lets you ask the questions during a live online chat.

On The Hot Seat last week was U.S. Sen. Daniel K. Akaka, chairman of the Senate Committee on Veterans Affairs.

Here is an excerpt from that Hot Seat session. (Names of questioners below are screen names given during our online chat.)

Russell Ho'okano Ryan: Have you read The Aloha Aina Anti-Annexation Petitions of 1897-1898? If you have not, then please do. Also, the Federal Reorganization Bill (S.310) has been changed several times since its introduction, and we have not been able to vote on these changes. Before this bill is presented to the U.S. Senate, shouldn't all of us Hawaiians have a vote on your new and rewritten bill?

Sen. Akaka: Aloha, Russell, and thank you for your suggestion. This is, as you know, a very complex and emotional issue.

The bill I've introduced this year, S. 310, is essentially the same bill that we came up with years ago after extensive meetings with Native Hawaiian community leaders. I do not want to dictate how the Native Hawaiian representatives will operate, only to begin the process. Native Hawaiians will be able to vote for representatives that can shape the Native Hawaiian Governing Entity together as a community. It's up to future generations to move forward. Russell, I hope you will vote and help shape the governing entity when it gets started.

David Henkin: The 9th Circuit held (that) the Army violated the National Environmental Policy Act when it failed to consider locations other than Hawai'i for stationing the Stryker brigade, locations where the Army could achieve its national security goals without destroying Native Hawaiian cultural sites or critically endangered native species. Why then, at the Subcommittee on Readiness hearing, did you urge the Army to not even consider moving the Stryker brigade from Hawai'i? If your concern is to keep military dollars flowing into the state, aren't there other projects you could champion that would not destroy our host cultural and fragile environment?

Sen. Akaka: I support the transformation of the United States Army, including the assignment of the 2nd Brigade, 25th Infantry Division (Light) into a Stryker Brigade Combat Team.

As chairman of the Senate Armed Services Subcommittee on Readiness and Management Support and co-chairman of the Senate Army Caucus, the readiness of our military to defend our country is of significant importance to me. However, I believe it is necessary to find a solution that is reasonable and strikes an appropriate balance between national security needs and environmental protection.

I believe we can achieve a safe and appropriate balance between preserving natural and cultural resources and providing necessary training opportunities for the men and women in our Armed Forces.

Andrew Valdez: Media reports about things happening around the world that may be caused by global warming are a bit frightening. I don't understand why our country is so slow in addressing this issue. We have had enough warnings about what is coming. What kind of solutions are being looked at?

Sen. Akaka: Our country emits the most greenhouse gases in the world. We must be accountable in reducing emissions and combating the threats resulting from global warming. Hawai'i is disproportionately susceptible to increases in sea-level rise and ocean temperature that jeopardize public safety, economic development, and the health of our unique island ecosystems and wildlife.

I am an original co-sponsor of S. 309, The Global Warming Pollution Reduction Act of 2007. This legislation sets ambitious goals, which will put the U.S. on a path to provide necessary requirements and incentives for EPA to minimize U.S. emissions and assist in the stabilization of global atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations. Supporting a substantial investment in research and development plays a critical role in reducing emissions.

Jeff Hickman: What is being done to make Hawai'i a leader in the biofuel technology? With all of the plantations closing up shop, are there plans in place to assist, lead or guide usership of the land for bio-friendly fuels? It is an industry that can thrive in Hawai'i with support at all levels.

Sen. Akaka: Hawai'i is positioned to take the lead in the transition from fossil fuels to biofuels and other sources of renewable and alternative energy. I am working closely with Hawai'i's agricultural producers, economic and business leaders, and technology/science industry to work toward this goal. I am co-sponsoring comprehensive legislation that provides incentives and support that specifically addresses Hawai'i's unique economic and agricultural needs.

Richard O. Rowland: It is noted that the Akaka Bill cites the American Indian precedent to justify the passage of the bill.

Does that mean that the current legal and social conditions of American Indians are to be a desirable model for a new native Hawaiian nation? Why or why not?

Sen. Akaka: Through S. 310, the Native Hawaiian people will finally be able to reorganize a governing entity within the framework of U.S. law. Unlike American Indians and Alaska Natives, Native Hawaiians are denied this right under current law. I believe this will empower Native Hawaiians and all the people of Hawai'i to move forward together as a state.

Native Hawaiians are fortunate to be able to learn from the successes and failures of native communities throughout the country. The bill provides the necessary structure and flexibility to best meet the needs of the Native Hawaiian people and all of Hawai'i.

Steve Doyle: Sir, many Hawaiian voters are deeply troubled with your continued support of the Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act of 2007 (S.310/H.R.505), also known as the "Akaka Bill."

Most of the citizens of Hawai'i were given little or no opportunity to provide input and ask questions about the ramifications of such a bill.

Your public relations with people in Washington continue to insist that Native Hawaiians and non-Native Hawaiians are showing "widespread support" for your bill; however a sizable number of Native Hawaiians are still incensed that they were not consulted before the drafting of this bill.

I would refer you to the letter to Sen. Ben Nighthorse Campbell (Chairman, Senate Committee on Indian Affairs) back in September 2000 by Kekuni Blaisdell, convenor of the Kanaka Maoli Tribunal Komike where he states that you (and your office) ignored repeated requests for information and communications on this proposed bill.

So, after your many years of honorable and distinctive service in the U.S. House and Senate, why would you wish your legacy to be a bill that some are calling the Native Hawaiian "Act of Apartheid" while so few Hawaiians have had a chance to voice their opinions and have their concerns listened to?

Sen. Akaka: When I first started this process in 1999, our Congressional delegation created five working groups to assist with the drafting of this legislation. The working groups were composed of individuals from the Native Hawaiian community, the state of Hawai'i, the federal government, Indian Country, members of Congress, and experts in constitutional law. Collectively, more than 100 people worked together on the initial draft of this legislation. The meetings held with the Native Hawaiian community were open to the public and a number of individuals who had differing views attended the meetings and provided their alternative views on the legislation. In the eight years since, I've had continuing communications with people from all sectors and backgrounds. In all the legislation I've worked on, I can't think of one that has had more input in its development.

Kekoa McClellan: If you would, could you please tell us a little bit about our exit strategy from Iraq?

As a veteran, you know first-hand the challenges our men and women in uniform are facing. What are the Democrats doing to help get us out of this quagmire?

Sen. Akaka: In October of 2002, I voted against authorizing the use of military force against Iraq because I did not believe that the threat Iraq posed was fully assessed, nor was there an exit strategy to limit the length of the occupation.

I oppose President Bush's plan to increase funding and the number of troops in Iraq. I cannot support a plan that still lacks measurable goals and an exit strategy. Our troops must be afforded the security of knowing that they will not be involved in an indefinite occupation of Iraq.

I support the withdrawal of our military personnel from Iraq. As you may know, in the 109th Congress, I was one of 13 senators who voted for a withdrawal of our armed forces in order to further a political solution in Iraq and encourage Iraqis to provide for their own security.

We owe it to our honored dead and wounded that we work to stabilize the Iraqi government and return the country to the hands of its sovereign government and people. I believe that it is incumbent on us to ensure that we fully support the troops who are currently deployed and are preparing to be deployed to Iraq. We must not endanger them by denying them the equipment and resources they need.

However, I strongly believe that we cannot provide the president with a blank check for the war. As a United States senator, the responsibility of Congressional oversight rests with my colleagues and me. It is our duty to our men and women in arms, who are sacrificing a great deal to our nation, that we thoroughly examine the mission and also provide our full support when we send them off.