Doesn't the '93 Apology Resolution trump the Morgan Report?

The Apology Bill of '93 was passed with only one hour of debate on the Senate floor with only five senators participating, three opposed (Slade Gorton, Hank Brown, John C. Danforth) and two in favor (Akaka and Inouye). It passed the house on November 15 in less time with no debate and no objections. Senator Inouye, wrapping up the debate, said:

"As to the matter of the status of Native Hawaiians, as my colleague from Washington knows, from the time of statehood we have been in this debate. Are Native Hawaiians Native Americans? This resolution has nothing to do with that."--Senator Inouye

The 1993 Apology Resolution, U.S. Public Law 103-150, was voted on with no debate over the merits of the wheras clauses, no presentation of any evidence, and cannot be considered as a decision against the Morgan Report - in fact, had the Morgan Report been easily available in 1993 to the Congress, the Apology Resolution surely would not have passed.

Furthermore, as described by Senator Inouye, the Apology Resolution was mere a "simple apology", and has a disclaimer at the end in Section 3:

Section 3. Disclaimer. Nothing in this Joint Resolution is intended to serve as a settlement of any claims against the United States.

Inouye also made very clear the intent of the Apology Resolution, with several pointed statements decrying any use of it for the purposes of declaring independence, or asserting any support for a restoration of sovereignty:

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

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

...

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

The whereases were placed in the resolution for a very simple reason: So that those who are studying this resolution or those students of history in years to come 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, I find it most difficult to find words to even respond to that.

As a token resolution, with no evidence presented, no debate on the merits, and an explicit disclaimer of its use in claims against the U.S., Public Law 103-150 cannot possibly be considered as an official finding of the Congress that trumps the Morgan Report. If anything, it merely illustrates how stealth legislation can be passed through Congress regardless of the merits or existing evidence to the contrary.

For a more thorough review of the historical inaccuracies of U.S. Public Law 103-150, please read Hawaii Divided Against Itself Cannot Stand, by Bruce Fein.