It was no surprise to read that William Burgess, our fellow Hawai'i State Advisory Committee member to the United States Commission on Civil Rights, wants the Akaka bill to "end up in the trash can where it belongs" (Advertiser Oct. 25).

We have witnessed firsthand his venom for this measure, and his push to get the HISAC to vote down the Akaka bill and then use that as ammunition in the upcoming debate before the U.S. Senate.

He is, after all, actively pursuing litigation against a number of Hawaiian organizations. And he's not alone on the newly constructed committee appointed this year by the USCCR, which (surprise!) voted last year against the Akaka bill.

One of Burgess' clients sits with us, along with a member of the Grassroot Institute of Hawai'i and others who have signed petitions against federal recognition for Native Hawaiians.

There is an obvious conflict. They oppose the Akaka bill because its passage would protect the programs they are suing. The USCCR powers stacked this commission to fit their agenda.

We may now be part of the HISAC minority, but we intend to put up a fight in our support for federal recognition, which we consider an important civil rights measure.

We note that the last position taken by the HISAC was in support of legislation formally recognizing the political status of Native Hawaiians. The 2001 HISAC report, "Reconciliation at a Crossroads," said:

"The Hawai'i Advisory Committee considers the denial of Native Hawaiian self-determination and self-governance to be a serious erosion of this group's equal protection and human rights."

We feel that is the case today and are alarmed that the USCCR is now ignoring that report and is in the forefront to roll back or eliminate all the gains made through past civil rights issues.

For example, the USCCR in January 2006 held its own Akaka bill briefing without seeking or obtaining input from HISAC. The USCCR then reconstituted the local committee and appointed Bill Burgess and his friends. Now the USCCR wants a report, as the Akaka bill is the only measure this committee so far has been tasked to address (surprise again!).

We also disagree with the White House position paper opposing the bill. The administration claims Native Hawaiians cannot be compared with other indigenous peoples given the "substantial historical and cultural differences."

Again, from the "Reconciliation at a Crossroads" report:

"The history of the Hawaiian nation has many parallels to the experiences of Native Americans. There is no rational or historical reason, much less a compelling state interest, to justify the federal government denying Hawaiians a process that could entitle them to establish a government-to-government relationship with the United States. That process is available to Native Americans under the Indian Commerce Clause of Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution."

We will continue to back federal recognition to protect the civil rights of all Americans, and that would include Native Hawaiians. We urge Congress to pass the Akaka bill and we urge the president to ignore the misinformation from the critics and sign the bill. As the last HISAC report on the Akaka bill said, further delays are not acceptable. "The federal and state governments must break the cycle of promises made to the Native Hawaiian people, only to be broken thereafter. The Hawai'i Advisory Committee concludes that true reconciliation between Native Hawaiians and the United States can serve as both a reaffirmation of the democratic ideals upon which our nation was founded and a worthy example of peaceful dispute resolution for the international community."

Hawai'i has long been in the forefront of civil rights. We are proud that our values respecting ethnic differences, cultural sensitivity and fairness have so far stood the test of time.

The Akaka bill is today's headline, but if it fails, America's other indigenous groups, Native Americans and Alaska Natives, will come under attack, followed by legal assaults on affirmative action and equal opportunity laws. That's the big picture that is so depressing to those of us who passionately believe in civil rights.

By Amy Agbayani and Linda Colburn

Is it "respectful" to Native Hawaiians to treat them as children, incapable of ever growing up and acting as responsible adults; congenitally unable to hold private property or compete in a democratic market economy; as permanent victims permanently dependent on government guardians?

Is it "the right thing to do" to put them into the same legal category as federally recognized Indian tribes whose rank and file members, despite billions of federal and casino largesse, continue in grinding poverty, addiction, family violence and despair?

With all due respect to the views of our friends who promote the Akaka bill, I suggest the answer to all those questions is "no." It is just plain nuts for the United States to go into the most integrated state and reverse course.

First, let's look at what the Akaka bill (S. 310/H.R. 505) would do. It proposes to create a Native Hawaiian "tribe" or "governing entity" where none now exists; and to do so using a test for participation in the process virtually identical to that which the Rice decision held to be racial.

The avowed purpose of creating the new government is to "protect" Native Hawaiian entitlements from scrutiny under the Equal Protection clauses of the U.S. Constitution. It is therefore clear that the new government cannot and will not be required to treat all persons equally. On Oct. 24, U.S. Rep. Jeff Flake moved to recommit to make the Native Hawaiian governing entity subject to the U.S. Constitution and federal and state civil rights laws. The bill's proponents refused that perfectly reasonable request.

The bill further provides that once formed, the new entity would be deemed recognized by the U.S. as "the representative governing body of the Native Hawaiian people." The bill then authorizes the state and federal governments to negotiate with the Native Hawaiian governing entity for the transfer of some unspecified amount of its land, natural resources, governmental power and civil and criminal jurisdiction.

Let me emphasize that.

In my view, the Akaka bill would sanction the breakup and giveaway of unlimited amounts of the state of Hawai'i's land, power and domain.

It is a given that the lands to go to the new government would include: the 200,000 acres of Hawaiian Home lands now held in trust for "native Hawaiians" ("not less than one-half part of the blood of the races inhabiting the Hawaiian Islands previous to 1778"); the island of Kaho'olawe and at least some of the other ceded lands or revenues which are held in trust for all citizens of Hawai'i; and all lands, property and assets (including about $400,000 of ceded lands revenues) now held by OHA.

As noted in the opposing commentary, I represent Hawai'i citizens (including some of Native Hawaiian ancestry) challenging the constitutionality of the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands and the Office of Hawaiian Affairs. They believe those programs and other "entitlements" have harmed, not helped, Native Hawaiians.

My clients also believe that, as part of a global settlement terminating those programs and as a positive alternative to the Akaka bill, existing Hawaiian homesteaders should be allowed to acquire the fee simple interest in their homestead lots for no, or at a discounted, consideration. They would then have all the joys, pride, responsibilities and respect as other homeowners.

Census 2000 and the Census 2005 American Community Survey for California demonstrate that Native Hawaiians are quite capable of making it on their own without special treatment.

Our national experience with racial and political segregation, like that of the rest of the world, demonstrates that no good comes from such things; that the advantages of the dominant race or class, if any, are transitory; and such segregation plants seeds of hatred that flourish generations after the inevitable abolition of the formal structures of segregation.

Collectivist schemes like the Akaka bill represent the road to serfdom. Private property and a democratic market economy enrich the masses. In life, as in sports, it is best when we all play the game by the same rules.

By H. William Burgess