Peter Kirsanow sent this to the Senate today, in response to Akaka’s distraction (he’s hitting the commission on the floor right now):

The Honorable Senator John Cornyn Chairman, United States Senate Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security and Citizenship Dear Senator Cornyn: The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (“Commission”) found significant problems with the proposed Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act (S.147), also known as the Akaka bill. I maintain that it is the worst piece of legislation the Commission has reviewed during my tenure. The Commission went to great lengths to ensure that its report on the Akaka bill (“Report”) was thorough, well-reasoned and objective. Much of the Report was based upon testimony from a balanced panel of expert witnesses. Public comment on the Akaka bill also was solicited and a number of responses were received from a variety of perspectives—both pro and con. The ABA, for example, issued a letter supporting the bill. Others opposed it. The Commission considered all of these responses and modified the Report based on valid concerns of those critical of some of the provisions in earlier drafts. The final Report reflects these recommendations, reaffirming its balance. The Report was subjected to rigorous controls, several layers of review, checks and balances to insure its accuracy and integrity. Any attempt to discount the Report’s findings on the basis of a GAO report that the Commission somehow lacks procedures for insuring objectivity is completely misdirected. The GAO report cited by proponents of the Akaka bill does not relate to the Report. Rather, the GAO’s findings relate largely to the lack of internal controls at the Commission during and resulting from the previous management that had failed, among other things, to conduct an audit in 12 years; and was repeatedly excoriated for issuing reports perceived as biased. Since assuming a majority on the Commission over a year ago, the Republican commissioners, along with our new Democrat colleagues, have worked vigorously to adopt all previous GAO reform recommendations and to implement a broad series of internal controls and procedures to insure the integrity of Commission reports. These procedures were adopted well before the Commission hearing on the Akaka bill and the issuance of the Report. (For example, the hearing had an equal number of witnesses on each side of the issue, something the Commission was not necessarily known for in prior years). The Commission’s Report on the Akaka bill represents a fair, rigorous and objective assessment of the bill. Although I am writing in my individual capacity, I am sure that the majority of my colleagues hope that the Senate, in it’s deliberations on the Akaka bill, gives the Report serious consideration. Sincerely, Peter N. Kirsanow, Commissioner U.S.Commission on Civil Rights