Ka Wai Ola - Office of Hawaiian Affairs, Volume 18, Number 1, 1 January 2001 — Federal recoginition for Hawaiians [ARTICLE+ILLUSTRATION]

Federal recoginition for Hawaiians

ĪHE DEMISE of the "Akaka Bill" is yet another setback on the journey to self-determination. The proposed legislation would have provided the foundation for self

governance and insured a protection of Hawaiian programs presently funded I by the federal and state governments. Regardless of whether it I was the controversy over | the Bush presidency as stated by U.S. Senators Akaka and Inouye or insurmountable opposition j by Republican Senators, the fact remains that it's back to the reintroduction of the Akaka Bill for Native Hawaiians in 2001. Unfortunately, the larger | eoneem with the withdrawal of the Akaka Bill is

the impact that the congressional decision will mean to the State of Hawai'i, the Department of Hawaiian Homelands (DHHL), the Office of Hawaiian Affairs

(OHA) and Native Hawaiian gathering rights. For example, John Goemans (in the Barrett v.y. Cayetano lawsuit) represents an individual who

seeks to dismantle the Department of Hawaiian Homelands, the Office of Hawaiian Affairs and rights of access for Native Hawaiians to gather traditional and customary cultural resources. Brian Yamono (in the Carroll v.v. Nakatani lawsuit) represents former U.S. Senate candidate John Carroll in a lawsuit that seeks to dismantle the Office of Hawaiian Affairs only. Both cases are presently pending before the

federal District Court in Hawai'i. The Barrett case asserts that DHHL and OHA are unconstitutional under the 14th amendment to the United States Consti-

tution because non-Hawaiians are discriminated against while the Carroll case asserts that only OHA is unconstitutional. Both cases assert ttiat under the 14th amendment of the U.S. Constitution, the DHHL, OHA and Native Hawaiian gathering rights violate the equal protection section under the U.S. Constitution. The consequences of the Barrett and Carroll cases are equally if not far more profound than the Freddy Rice case whieh was merely a voting rights issue. Setbacks are not new to Hawaiians and others and I am certain the joumey will continue and success for Native Hawaiians is nearer today than yesterday. The Akaka Bill has established the framework for the congressional delegation's agenda regarding Hawaiian issues. Like other Native Americans the Hawaiian effort will not be easy but let's look at why the effort is worth every step. There are today 558 Native American nations, 226 of whieh are in the State of Alaska alone. Nearly every state in the "lower 48 states" includes other Native Americans who enjoy federal status and recognition, such as the Cherokee, Navajo, Apaehe and hundreds of other organized and established indigenous peoples. The California Coast Miwok Indians

were granted federal recognition in December 2000. It took eight years of lobbying the U.S. Congress. However, as a result of their newly granted status the Miwok nation, like all of the other 557 Native American Indigenous nations who have achieved federal recognition, is qualified to receive federal money for housing, health, eeonomie development and educational benefits. The New York Oneida and the Conneticut Mohegan Indian nations retumed 2.7 million federal dollars to the Bureau of Indian Affairs in 2000 so that other needy Indian Nations could use their appropriation. They did so because of their successful eeonomie activities on their native lands including gaming and a service station ehain. The Oneida nation provides its people as well as the people of the Iroquios nation health insurance, college tuition, elderly care and improved living conditions. The Akaka Bill setback is but another opportunity to redouble our efforts. So let us begin anew and recommit ourselves to "advocate harder" to support the effort, because the successes of other Native Americans ean also be benchmarks of achievement for the Hawaiian people and the State of Hawai 'i. ■

[?]

TRUSTEE MESSAGES

[?]