eligible for Hawaiian home lands. The lands that were made available were lands that were not in sugar cultivation.

Soon after the Joint Resolution of annexation was signed, the U.S. military was successful in getting the President to issue an Executive order suspending all public land transactions in Hawaii. This order was followed by a series of other Executive orders which set aside substantial acreage for military use. In one order alone, over 15,000 acres of land on Oahu was taken for Federal use.

By the time Hawaii became a State in 1959, over 287,078 acres of Hawaii public land had been set aside for Federal Government use. More than 227,972 of these acres became national park lands, with the remainder going to the Department of Defense. In addition, the Federal Government obtained permits and licenses for an additional 117,412 acres of land and acquired the fee interest in 28,234 acres through purchase or condemnation.

In 1959, Hawaii was then admitted as a State. In the Hawaii Admissions Act, the special status of Hawaii's public lands was recognized and the Federal Government relinquished title to most of the crown and government lands it held at the time of statehood.

It is section 5 of the Admissions Act which provides the key to understanding Hawaii's ceded lands and the State's responsibility in relation to these lands. The statute guaranteed the State of Hawaii title to all public lands and other property, all available lands under the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act, and any lands which had been acquired in exchange for those properties.

Lands specifically set aside for the use by the Federal Government by an act of Congress or an Executive order were exempted and remained the property of the United States.

The act also provided that the Federal Government could set aside, within 5 years of statehood, any ceded lands that it was using under permit, license, or permission of the territory immediately prior to statehood. Once set aside, these lands would also become the property of the United States. While the act allowed the President to convey unneeded lands back to the State, it set a 5-year deadline on this authority and vested title in the United States to all lands which were not returned.

Section 5 of the Admissions Act also set forth the State responsibilities in connection with ceded lands. The State was to hold all ceded lands, including the proceeds from their sale or disposition and the income they generated, as a public trust for five purposes, among which is the betterment of conditions of Native Hawaiians, and the United States reserved the right to sue to enforce this trust.

At the time of statehood, 280,078 acres of land had been set aside for the Federal Government and, as of 1964, only 595 acres had been returned. In addition, the 117,412 acres on which the Federal Government had permits or licenses were retained under Federal Government control.

In 1963, Congress enacted Public Law 88-233 which abolished the 5-year deadline on land returns for all but national park land, which then constituted approximately 227,972 acres. Despite the good intentions of this law, less than 500 acres of land had been returned since its enactment. Even today, Federal properties which are considered surplus are generally sold by the United States. We

tion that has arisen today is, Does the Federal Government have a continuing trustee relationship to this trust or did the trustee relationship end at statehood, as the Solicitor General of the United States has claimed it did?

Our position is, no, the Federal Government has a continuing trust obligation, and that trust obligation is derived from a couple of areas. One, what they said to the State of Hawaii is, first off, take this trust in the shape we're giving it to you and, by the way, you can't change the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act without us going along with it.

Second, we're the ones who have to enforce this trust. So they gave us this entity and they sat for thirty or forty years and didn't do anything. They didn't give any guidance as to how it was supposed to be enforced. The State clearly at this point in time did things they probably shouldn't have done, but the Federal Government was supposed to be there watching. It didn't do it.

Again, there are a number of people to blame, but that's not the way to get the solution on the table. In the recent years, and particularly since Governor Waihe'e took office, a number of things have happened.

There have been first-time appropriations for the Hawaiian Homes Commission. There has been—the EOs have been rescinded a few years ago. Again, it's true that all this land has not been transferred back, and that's an area that has to be explored.

There's been a right-to-sue bill passed which is a limited right to sue. That does give a remedy where a right is involved.

There have been efforts by the State to improve the condition and to repair the trust. To our knowledge, there has been no effort by the Federal Government to do the same. Indeed, I harken back to the Lualualei case where, instead of coming forward on the issue, they basically ducked behind a technicality.

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, again this is a question for those in different positions than the lawyers, but I certainly would urge this committee to look at this as something that must be done, and will take legislation to do. It will take money to do, and to work with the State and the beneficiaries to keep it out of the courts as best as possible, because with the lawyers come the delays. I think only in that fashion are we going to get to the bottom of this and get a solution that's fair for everybody.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[Prepared statement of Warren Price appears in appendix.] [Applause.]

The CHAIRMAN. In the event the court determines that there is a breach of trust and there are identifiable damages involved, who should receive the damages?

Mr. PRICE. It is the position of my office, Senator, that—and this gets into right to sue, but I'll just in a moment explain where we're coming from. We feel that if there are damages recovered, that the money should go back in to repair the trust, as opposed to going in someone's pocket; and, to be very honest with you, into some lawyer's pocket.

If we keep picking away at the corpus of this trust and the money keeps going out the window, we're going to continually face the problems of repairing the trust sooner or later. The right-to-sue

As I sat there and listened to testimonies being given today, sir, if I may take the liberty to talk to you straight from the na'ausome of the information that you received today, we have been asking for for 9 years.

The level of frustration in our community is so high. We have been abused, mistreated, manipulated. We are now being forced to fight each other over the the crumbs and arguing over methology, and that maybe okay. But the tears I have is what a waste of time. How many more layers of bureaucratic garbage do we have to go through to make a point that our people are like other people but not tribes? There is no model for us. We collectively have to develop this nation that we want. All of us must have input into the structure.

What belongs to my people-I witness on a daily basis the struggles of my people with drugs. They refuse to assimilate totally. I needed to tell you that, Senator, because in my heart you have done this for us at long, long last, and I'm sorry I lost it. I'm really

sorry.

But the struggling-it's popular now to Hua Kukae because of the level of frustration, and we accept that. You know what it is to try to lead and people go against you.

Our lands are very spiritual. The foundation of our culture is ripped asunder by the U.S. Government with the continual bombing of Makua and Kaho'olawe.

Our people cannot be put together in a basket like any other people. Our spiritual ties to the aina-without that, we're dead; we're dead as a people.

I love you, sir, and I declare that openly and publicly, for allowing us to come to you and with your strong commitment to resolve this problem for my people. I hope to live long enough to see that future Hawaiians are a happy race and not a burdened race.

Mahalo io oe apau.

[Applause.]

[Prepared statement of Mrs. DeSoto, appears in appendix.]

The CHAIRMAN. There is nothing wrong with sharing your frustration and anger. If you did not do that, you would not be the Frenchy I know.

STATEMENT OF RODNEY KEALIIMAHIAI BURGESS, VICE CHAIRMAN, OFFICE OF HAWAIIAN AFFAIRS, AND MEMBER, BOARD OF TRUSTEES

Mr. BURGESS. Aloha again, Senator.

My name is Rodney Burgess, vice chairman of OHA and one of three trustees who have held office since the inception of OHA in 1980. I have chaired the Land and Resource Committee at OHA during our formative years and have had direct jurisdiction over our land claims quest, obviously not so successful. This includes pursuit of a Hawaii constitutional provision and Hawaii State law that is supposed to fund OHA at 20 percent of all income on State ceded lands.

Before I elaborate upon that, however, it is imperative that you understand the plight of our people since the overthrow of our queen and the illegal taking of our lands. Our nation, which once

flourished with over 400,000 people, had diminished to a mere 40,000 people by the early 1900's. Foreign diseases and mass displacement of families who were stripped of their home lands, their culture, and their pride had taken a serious toll. The perception of foreigners, who were now in charge of all political decisions which impacted upon our fast-dwindling numbers, was that soon the Hawaiian would be totally assimilated into their society, a victim of the melting pot concept.

That's the origin of the political decision to divide the Hawaiian people and limit the 1920 Hawaiian Homes Act beneficiaries to those possessing at least 50 percent Hawaiian blood quantum in spite of the objections raised by Hawaii's Delegate Prince Kuhio. The attitude of the time was that within a few generations the 50 percent Hawaiian would fade away and the mere 200,000 acres of trust lands would again become the property of the U.S. or the sugar plantations, the dominant political forces of the time. I guess we fooled them.

Furthermore, the ability of the Hawaiian to unite into a viable political unit was effectively suppressed by this history of removing the people from the land and the arbitrary division of the Hawaiian people. Hawaiian organizations, civic clubs, societies, community groups sprouted up in an attempt to preserve the culture and to unite the people once again. First they separated us from the land and then they separated us from each other, mother from daughter, father from son, as a result of this blood quantum requirement. Time goes on. From statehood in 1959 and for 20 long years, no income nor lands were set aside for their intended beneficiaries, as described in the Admissions Act. At no time has the Federal Government or the State government prepared a proper inventory of our lands.

From 1893, the overthrow of our kingdom, until 1980, the formation of OHA, there was no united political voice of the Hawaiian people.

The constitutional convention in 1978 was a milestone in Hawaiian history. It provided the very first opportunity for the Hawaiian people to elect its own leaders who would lead them back to their lands and protect and enhance their very rich and proud cultural heritage.

The enthusiasm was overwhelming and, as stated earlier, in a few short months nearly 50,000 people of Hawaiian ancestry registered to vote in the first elections. As Frenchy has stated, those numbers have grown and we're now at 63,000.

While the powers vested to this office by chapter 10 of the Hawaii revised statutes are very broad, the ability to formulate and structure a viable agency was hindered from the very onset by a lack of funding. It sounds just like the Hawaiian homes situation. The OHA trustees had rightfully expected to receive 20 percent of all revenue and income from the 1.4 million acres of State ceded lands, income we estimated to be in excess of $20 million a year. We were astonished to find that:

First, receipts of only $1.2 million a year were received, and only on those lands administered by the Department of Lands and Natural Resources. Not one cent of revenue from the airports was re

States, because it did not act officially, that there is no congressional or overt presidential action. Those acts could not be deemed the responsibility of the United States Government. We would argue otherwise. We have done so before this committee, I think, at another point in time.

The CHAIRMAN. I agree with you.

MS. MACKENZIE. Second, we would like to agree with the attorney general with regard to the Lualualei situation. Our office filed an amicus brief on behalf of six Hawaiian Native clients who are qualified beneficiaries who are on the waiting list on Oahu.

The lands of Lualualei composed one-fifth of the homestead lands on Oahu. There are now over 9,000 people on the waiting list for those Oahu lands, so they are very important.

In our amicus brief, in which we sided with the State, we argued that the Federal Government was, in effect, a co-trustee with the State and, therefore, had a higher duty to give notice to the Native Hawaiian beneficiaries, the Hawaiian Homes Commission, and the State that they were claiming that land.

Unfortunately, on appeal in the Ninth Circuit, the Ninth Circuit Court held that the effect of the trust relationship had no bearing on the running of the statute of limitations. So, as Mr. Price has suggested, we would be strongly in favor of some amendment to the statute of limitations.

We would also suggest maybe some direct action-which would be a direct exchange of lands of comparable value and comparable accessibility that could be effectuated. Another possibility is the United States Navy and it's being used as a naval ammunition and storage area right now-that the U.S. Navy relinquish title to that area in recognition of the trust responsibilities. Those are two direct ways that this committee could effect the Hawaiian Homes Commission trust.

Second, we would like to address some of the issues that have been raised with regard to the State trust responsibility. While Mr. Price has spoken extensively about the Federal trust responsibility, we think it's our duty today to point out some of the breaches of the State trust responsibility.

Two of those also involve the Federal Government. One of them is the lease of 295 acres at Humu'ula Mauka on the Big Island, 295 acres leased to the Federal Government as part of the Pohakuloa training center for $1 for 65 years. This lease began at the time of statehood. It is Hawaiian home lands. So that is another specific area where the State, through the DLNR at that time, we feel breached a trust responsibility to make the trust lands productive, to manage them in a reasonable, prudent way.

The second area that's also leased to the Federal Government is right here on Kauai, roughly 25 acres at Kekaha, also leased for $1 for the term of 65 years. So these are two specific areas that we think this committee could work on with Congress and probably with the State.

My understanding is at the time of statehood, the State felt that it was in a bit of a pinch; that if the State did not agree to these kinds of long-term leases of what were then State ceded lands and