Ka Wai Ola - Office of Hawaiian Affairs, Volume 10, Number 4, 1 April 1993 — News from Washington D.C. [ARTICLE+ILLUSTRATION]

Help Learn more about this Article Text

News from Washington D.C.

Mai Wakinekona Mai

by Paul Alexander Washington, D.C. Counsel for OHA

Swift action necessary to reverse anti-native rights trend

The effort to have the "midnight " opinion of former Solicitor Thomas Sansonetti overturned is gathering speed and momentum. The Sansonetti opinion, reversing the prior position of the Department of the Interior, held that the United States did

not have a trust responsibility to native Hawaiians under the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act. As noted in my previous eolumn, the entire Hawai'i Congressional delegation has expressed strong opposition to the Sansonetti opin-

ion. In this regard, native Hawaiians have been more fortunate than Alaska natives, whose congressional delegation generally supports the Sansonetti opinion on limiting Alaskan Native rights. While in Washington D.C.

for the National Governor's Conference, Governor Waihe'e met with his colleague, former Arizona Governor and now Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt, and urged him to withdraw the opinion. OHA trustees Abraham Aiona and Kīna'u Boyd

Kamali'i, along with Congresswoman Patsy Mink, also met Babbit and urged him to repudiate the opinion. Babbit assured the trustees that the Sansonetti opinion would have no operational effect in the Department and

would be fully reviewed. Babbitt confirmed his commitment to review the opinion in a letter to the senior member of Hawai'i's congressional delegation, Daniel Inouye. The OHA trustees also met

with John Lesche, who has been nominated to be the new solicitor at the Department of the Interior. Lesche expressed a willingness to consult with native Hawaiians and has requested legal critiques of the Sansonetti opinion. Such critiques have been provided by the Attorney General of Hawai'i and OHA legal counsel.

Sen. Daniel Akaka has received correspondence from former Carter Administration officials, Interior Secretary Andrus, and the former Interior Deputy Solicitor and Associate Solicitor for Indian Affairs (whose views Sansonetti sought to overturn) reaffirming their support for the existence of the trust responsibility. Further, all the editors of the 1982 edition of the Cohen handbook on Federal Indian Law, the pre-eminent text on native rights, affirmed in a letter to Sen. Akaka, the handbook's recognition of a federal trust obligation under the Hawaiian Homes

Commission Act. In other developments of eoncern for native Hawaiians, the future of the Senate Indian Affairs Committee has eome under attack. On the surface, the attack was related to the overall effort to reduce the size and cost of the federal government, including Congress. But most observers believe that the attack is a veiled backlash against the Committee for its aggressive support of native rights. Among those affected have been logging and mining interests and particularly those competing over water

rights and Indian gaming. The committee was able to beat back the first effort whieh focused on eliminating "select" committees. In the process, the committee's name was changed to the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs. Another battle looms, however, because Congress has created a temporary joint Committee on Organization, chaired by Sen. David Boren (D-Oklahoma) and

Congressman Lee HamiUon (DIndiana). It is important that native support for the eonūnuanee of the Indian Affairs Committee be demonstrated. Indian tribes, organizations, and individuals have sent, and should continue to send letters and resolutions to:

Senate Indian Affairs Committee and the Joint Committee on Organization, Congress of the United States, Washington D.C. 20510. In April, there will be several congressional activities in Hawai'i. As part of its national field hearing effort, the Senate Indian Affairs Committee will hold a hearing on April 7 in Honolulu on potential amendments to the American Indian Religious Freedom Act. Because of several recent U.S. Supreme Court cases Native American rights to access and protect reli-

gious sites and to practice traditional religions have been limited. Among other goals, these amendments would seek to reverse the impact of the Supreme Court. The American Indian Religious Freedom Act specifically includes native Hawaiians as Native Americans in its coverage. No specific legislation has been introduced as yet. The Senate Indian Affairs

Committee is also sponsoring a Native Hawaiian Education Summit on April 24-25, 1993 in Honolulu. The Native Hawaiian Education Act, landmark legislation, is up for renewal this Congress.