it was impossible to visit the families. The visits were being made by invitation, and we were not going into a family's home unless we were invited. The counselors managed to visit 90-plus percent of all of the families on the HPL several times. One of the reasons for this was obvious, just to find out who was there. But the more important reasons were to find out the situation, the life styles, the needs, and the concerns of those people who lived in those hogans and those homes around the reservation so that as we planned the development of the new land, it could be planned in a way that was consistent with improving the life style and not degrading the life style of the current residents of the Hopi Partitioned Lands. It would be very impractical for us to simply go down and build 200 homes and say here it is, move into it. It has been stated by both chairmen, particularly Chairman MacDonald, that the life styles of the Navajo at western Navajo and particularly in this area of the HPL is different from anything most of us would ever understand. I would say that in the time that I have been involved—and this has been almost on a monthly basis of my visiting in areas associated with the new land or on the HPL—that I don't fully comprehend the life style or the mind set of the people and their needs and wants. I think that the counseling staff has come much closer to this understanding and has done a much better job than could have been expected in determining what the needs and wants and desires are of these people. So, as we began our development of the new land, it was a slow process. It wasn't one where we simply went in and struck at it with roads and started building fences here and there. We let the people of the Hopi Partitioned Land become a part of the planning process. We took people from the Hopi Partitioned Land to the new land for site visits so they could see all of the new land, and then we let them help us develop what are now called range units. We let them help develop where the homes could be located and the configuration of those developments that were going to house the Navajo people. As we have built homes on the new land, we have fully involved the people that were going to live in those homes in the design, the construction, and the living within those homes to the advising about utilities and water, livestock, and everything that would be necessary. One of the early commands that I gave to our area office was that as range improvements were made on the new lands, I insisted that those people who were being relocated be offered the first opportunity at those jobs, and that has happened. So, we have been able to provide interim jobs and work for some of those people who have been coming down to the new land from the HPL so that they would become acclimated to the land, learn its contours, provide and participate in putting up fencing, and earn some money doing it. We know we have a lot of Navajo people of traditional life styles and many that are grazing families. They have sheep, cattle. We had to make provisions for range units and for livestock water, and these things are extremely expensive when you are developing 350,000 acres of land that is going to be occupied by a few hundred people. However, I think that the cost in the long term will be worthwhile, and it will ease the burden of the Federal Government in working with the people who will be on the new land for years to come. We believe that the development of the new lands will enable several hundred families to have life styles compatible with what they are coming from. We believe that everyone who is situated on the HPL now will be able to have a life style to what they enjoy now and that they will be worked into that life style and not at ours. I believe that there will be a need for some agreement between the two tribes when the process is over for those people who cannot either mentally or physically move from their present locations on the HPL. Presently, we have 54 families who have not made a decision on whether to move. They are not necessarily resistors. Some of them are simply waiting to see what their alternatives are. The quicker that the two chairmen could come together and determine an alternative, whether it is a small acreage, whether it includes some kind of grazing opportunity, a lease from the Hopi, a lease paid for by the Navajo to the Hopi, whatever arrangements might be made—and I have taken this up with both chairmen and asked them to think about this—that would go a long way in determining the exact number of families what will be left on the Hopi Partitioned Lands, and it would be, I anticipate, somewhat less than 54 families. The other families we have talked to have selected places they would like to live. They are either on the new land, on the large Navajo Reservation, or they are off the reservation. The commission's work will be to assist in locating those people who want to move off the HPL if it is not on the new lands. Our work has been exclusively with the residents of the HPL. We have not been working with the 1,200 or so that are determined eligible and are living someplace else. It has been with the people who are currently resident, because they are the ones who were originally there, they are the ones who have remained there through these 12 years, and, for the most part, the ones who still have livestock permits. Our work in that regard has led us to the new lands where we have been almost exclusively working on the development of the new land. I endorse the work of the commission. They have a hard job to do. They have a lot of work ahead of them. There might be alternatives to paying the obligation of the Federal Government or satisfying it to the 1,200 people who are not living on the HPL, but as far as the people living on the HPL, it is essential that we find them adequate housing and a suitable life style so that they can continue living in a manner that is satisfactory to their way of life currently. With that, I would be happy to entertain questions about our work or give you comments on any of my observations on this project. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to share some of my thoughts with you. [Prepared statement of Mr. Swimmer appears in the appendix.] [Material to be supplied appears in the appendix.] The Chairman. Mr. Secretary, you have heard reference to the so-called McCain-DeConcini amendments. Have you had an opportunity to study these amendments? Mr. Swimmer. We have had an opportunity to review them very briefly. As the commission stated earlier, we have not been able to achieve an Administration position on the amendments, although they are still being discussed between me and the commission and the Office of Management and Budget and the Justice Department. The Chairman. Will you be ready to provide us with your position by January 15? Mr. Swimmer. Without doubt, we would come up with an Administration position at that time or before then. The Chairman. I have been asked by Senator McCain and Senator DeConcini to submit questions to you for your consideration. So, if we may, we would like to submit them to you for your study and response. Mr. Swimmer. Certainly. The Chairman. Well, I think it has been a good day, Mr. Secretary. Earlier, I thought this was beyond solution, but I think it can be done. With your help and the help of the commission and with the guidance and leadership of our two leaders, I am certain we can do it. I stand ready to work with you to assist the two nations in bringing about a solution. Mr. Swimmer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think the issue of the relocation is virtually solved as far as being able to provide for the people who are left. I would encourage the committee's work and the chairman's work on the 1934 issue. That is one that has literally a stranglehold on both of these tribes and is preventing the development and improvement in jobs in the Tuba City and the Moenkopi area. The quicker that we can arrive at a negotiated solution without relocating people, the better it will be for all people concerned out there. I guess if I were asking you or the two chairmen, I would ask that whatever solution we come up with that it not include a relocation of people, regardless of who winds up owning the land. The Chairman. I think having gone through one exercise with relocation should be enough to convince us that that is not the path to follow. So, I think your words are very wise, sir. With that, I would like to thank all of you for participating in today's hearing and adjourn with the thanks of the committee. [Whereupon, at 6:07 p.m., the committee adjourned, to reconvene subject to the call of the Chair.] APPENDIX Additional Material Submitted For The Record STATEMENT OF SENATOR DENNIS DeCONCINI ON S. 1236 : NAVAJO-HOPI RELOCATION HOUSING PROGRAM REAUTHORIZATION SENATE SELECT COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS DECEMBER 9, 1987 MR. CHAIRMAN, THANK YOU FOR DEVOTING THIS COMMITTEE'S TIME AND RESOURCES TO ADDRESS A MATTER WHICH IS VERY IMPORTANT TO THIS SENATOR AND THE STATE OF ARIZONA. I KNOW THAT YOU HAVE A COMMITMENT TO RESPOND TO THE CRITICAL NEEDS OF THE NATIVE AMERICANS. I WANT TO EXPRESS MY GRATITUDE FOR YOUR OUTSTANDING LEADERSHIP ON THIS AND OTHER MATTERS. I ALSO WANT TO WELCOME A NUMBER OF PEOPLE FROM ARIZONA WHO ARE HERE TO PRESENT THEIR COMMENTS ON S. 1236 AND SUGGESTED CHANGES IN THE STRUCTURE OF THE RELOCATION COMMISSION. AS I HAVE SAID MANY TIMES CONGRESS CREATED THE MOST DIFFICULT TASK IMAGINABLE WHEN IT MANDATED THE USE MS RELOCATION TO SOLVE A DISPUTE OVER LAND BETWEEN TWO INDIAN TRIBES. BY ENACTING PUBLIC LAW 93-531: THE NAVAJO-HOPI INDIAN RELOCATION ACT, CONGRESS LAID THE RESPONSIBILITY FOR IMPLEMENTING THE RELOCATION PROGRAM UPON THE THREE MEMBER COMMISSION WHICH WE NOW HAVE. UNFORTUNATELY, NO MATTER WHERE OR HOW A FORCED RELOCATION PROGRAM IS CARRIED OUT, IT IS THE MOST DIFFICULT JOB YOU CAN ASK GREAT DISMAY ANYONE TO DO. TO W MY OUR EXPERIENCE IN THIS CASE IS NOT MUCH DIFFERENT. THERE ARE MANY PROBLEMS WHICH HAVE DEVELOPED IN THE COURSE OF THE EFFORT TO CARRY OUT THE LAW. A THE BURDEN OF THE UNJUST SITUATION CREATED BY THE LAW FALLS HEAVIEST ON THOSE WHO ARE CLOSEST TO THE SITUATION -- THE FAMILIES WHO ARE FORCED TO MOVE AND THOSE WHO ARE CHARGED WITH THE RESPONSIBILITY OF HELPING THE FAMILIES TO MOVE. I HAVE ARGUED FOR A CHANGE IN THE BASIC LAW. I HAVE INSISTED THAT THE FAMILIES WHO ARE AFFECTED BE TREATED WITH THE UTMOST SENSITIVITY. I STILL BELIEVE THAT THE BEST RESPONSE TO THE PAIN AND SUFFERING OF THE FAMILIES IS FOR CONGRESS TO ENACT A COMPREHENSIVE AND FINAL SETTLEMENT. A SETTLEMENT WHICH RESOLVES THE 1882 AND 1934 DISPUTES WITHOUT FORCING PEOPLE TO GIVE UP LANDS WHICH THEY HAVE LIVED ON DAILY FOR AUNDREDS OF YEARS. I AM STILL CONVINCED THAT OUR MORAL OBLIGATION TO THESE CITIZENS OF OUR COUNTRY DESERVE NOTHING LESS THAN THE MOST HUMANE TREATMENT. |