The president himself has not commented specifically on the idea of federal recognition to Native Hawaiians, but this week more light was shed on how the Bush administration views the measure known as the Akaka bill, which would grant this political status for Hawai'i's indigenous people.

For both supporters and opponents of the Akaka bill, the letter from William E. Moschella, assistant attorney general for the U.S. Department of Justice, provides important insight. It identifies some of what the administration sees as fault lines in the legislation, although some concerns are left unclear.

The Justice position on the issue of claims seems foggy. In one sentence, Moschella writes that language should preclude potential native claims — clearly, the federal government can't bar the doors of the federal courthouse. Then he asserts that the 20-year statute of limitations is too long, which suggests that claims could be entertained but that the period they'll be accepted should be curtailed.

On the other points, the administration makes more straightforward complaints. While open to debate, none of these objections seem to be deal-breakers. First, Justice wants certainty that negotiations would not result in any impediment to U.S. military operations. Notwithstanding the more radical assertions by some Hawaiians that Pearl Harbor by rights belongs to them, there's no evidence that this position enjoys broad support.

Second, the current bill already states that it does not authorize native gaming provisions, but perhaps this can be stated more strongly.

Third, Justice makes a strong case that jurisdictional questions, especially over criminal law enforcement, should be answered. In a state as unsegregated as Hawai'i, such conflicts would be insurmountable.

Finally, Justice wants the commissioners who will certify the membership rolls be required only to show expertise on Native Hawaiian issues and not necessarily be Native Hawaiians themselves. It's wise to remove provisions that unnecessarily test constitutional boundaries set out in the landmark Rice v. Cayetano case.

With a vote on the bill expected within about one week, it's important for those on either side of the fence to craft a response that addresses these points — either by crystallizing objections overlooked here, or by clarifying how the concerns either are unwarranted or can be resolved in a final draft.

In either case, the next few days demand timely, thoughtful responses.