Rep. Mike Honda’s approach to the Amah Mutsun sovereignty
application problem seems exactly backwards to us.
Rep. Mike Honda’s approach to the Amah Mutsun sovereignty application problem seems exactly backwards to us.
While we understand that a decades-long wait for a sovereignty application to be processed by the Bureau of Indian Affairs is obscene – and we’ve editorialized on that point – the truth is it’s a problem for all Native American tribes submitting applications. When Rep. Richard Pombo introduced a bill that would speed action on applications for federal recognition of sovereignty that were submitted before 1988, we complained that it was too narrow.
Honda’s bill, which applies only to the Amah Mutsun tribe, is ridiculously narrow. What it is, in fact, is special interest legislation. Our elected representatives do not need to micromanage the BIA. They need to establish policies – and apparently the BIA needs an explicit time frame in which to process sovereignty applications – and should not intervene on behalf of specific tribes.
This bill’s constricted focus is even more egregious when you consider the history of the Amah Mutsun tribe. It is a split group, with deep divisions over who should belong to the tribe and how to use their native lands should sovereignty by granted.
By introducing his bill, Honda has taken the side of the faction headed by Irene Zweirlein who has already signed a development agreement for the Sargent Ranch land with developer Wayne Pierce. If Honda wants to serve all of his constituents, he would do better to direct the BIA to fully investigate the dispute, deliver a written report to Congress and try to resolve the conflict such that all the local Amah Mutsuns are treated equally and fairly.
In addition, Honda and Pombo would better serve all of their constituents if they introduced legislation that could find a way to keep some form of local land use control in areas where Native American tribes with federal sovereignty recognition have land.
Instead, we’ve got two examples of special-interest legislation: Pombo’s HR 512, narrow, and Honda’s HR 3475, narrower.
With these pieces of legislation, our disappointment with Pombo is broad and with Honda it is broader.
