acres of land because we're giving them the money to do it and designating that they purchase it. It's just a bit of sophistry to pretend otherwise.

Ms. SCHIFFER. We are as interested in finality here as you are and encourage that approach of yours.

The CHAIRMAN. One of the biggest problems is, as you know, the determination of how many families are eligible. As you know, it's been an incredible and bizarre experience to find that we relocated more people than were actually estimated at the time of the passage of the Act and yet there is a waiting list that seems to grow longer each year.

That is what leads me to the question of how have you arrived at the number between 100 and 200 Navajo families residing on the Hopi partitioned land, and why is this number so imprecise after all these years of negotiating?

Ms. SCHIFFER. I think you have indicated pretty well why it is imprecise. It is something that is very difficult to figure out what is a family. Frankly, I think if I said to you, are you part of one family or many families, we all have different ways that we think about our family.

I think what is the great accomplishment of the agreements we have is we do not actually have to get that issue resolved. What we have given is a way for people to sign onto the Accommodation Agreement without really having to parse through exactly the very complicated question of what is a family.

The CHAIRMAN. What happens if the Navajo Nation does not pay rent to the Hopi Tribe at some time during the Navajo families' 75year lease term?

Ms. SCHIFFER. That would be an issue between the Hopi Tribe and the families and I think it is like any other renter, the Navajo Nation has an obligation to pay and the Hopi Tribe would have a right to that rent.

The CHAIRMAN. At page 17 of your written testimony, you indicate that the settlement agreement will "diminish the need for forced relocation." Does this mean that the Justice Department believes forced relocation will still be required?

Ms. SCHIFFER. We have every hope and expectation there would not need to be any forcible relocation. I think it is our real sense of not wanting to do forcible relocation that has launched us into these settlement discussions that we now think we have achieved. The CHAIRMAN. Let me just give you a for instance. For instance, a group of families at one part of the Hopi partitioned lands decide that they are not going to move and they are not going to sign a lease, and they are not going to pay rent using the argument that they have used for all these years and that is that is their ancestral home and they have every right to remain there. What happens then?

Ms. SCHIFFER. What happens is the Office of Navajo and Hopi Indian Relocation builds housing for those people; anyone who does not sign the Accommodation Agreement will have housing built for them and it will then be their obligation to move to that housing. We really hope that through this agreement, we will have most of the people signing up for the Accommodation Agreement, signing

on to the Agreement to stay and that we will not face forcible relocation in any way.

The CHAIRMAN. In all due respect, you didn't answer my question. What if they say, we're not moving and we're not signing a lease because we believe that we've not only had this land for 75 years, but we have it for 75,000 years?

Ms. SCHIFFER. Senator McCain, the purpose of this agreement is for us not to have to face that question. There is every encouragement for people to sign onto this agreement and to stay or alternatively, to have housing built for them and to leave. We will all face a very difficult set of circumstances if there are people who nevertheless, despite all this, do not sign onto the Agreement and do not move, but I think the United States is serious about accomplishing a result short of having to do forcible relocation. I think none of us would welcome the prospect of facing that hard question and the whole purpose of this agreement is, by consensual arrangements, to take care of the problems of the Navajo families and retain Hopi sovereignty.

The CHAIRMAN. I think we're going to have to get an assessment of whether there are indeed people who will refuse, families who will refuse to relocate because it would not be appropriate to believe that we've reached settlement when there are numbers of people or families who have not agreed to this proposal.

What purpose is served by conditioning payment of almost onehalf of the Hopi Tribe's funds under the settlement on whether the Congress passes a 75-year lease authority?

Ms. SCHIFFER. Essentially, the crux or a crucial component of this agreement is that the Hopi Tribe would be able to grant 75year leases to the Navajo families. So until Congress passes a law that provides for that, that will be a condition of having the Navajo families sign up. We want to see that we don't ask the families to sign an agreement until the Hopi Tribe has the 75-year lease, but then as soon as they have the leasing authority, but if Congress passes that legislation, as soon as it is there, we want to move the accommodation signatures on as much as we can.

The CHAIRMAN. As a practical matter, how do you expect the Office of Navajo-Hopi Indian Relocation to build and keep ready but vacant housing for an unknown number of Navajo families and given the time it may take to carryout eviction procedures for an unknown length of time?

Ms. SCHIFFER. I think you may want to address that question to that office who I know is testifying here.

Senator McCain, let me add one more piece of response on the previous question and that is I do want to add that we would take it very seriously if there were Navajo families who stayed on the land who did not sign on for leases and did not move into housing that was built for them by the Relocation Office. They would be trespassers and we would have to look at what are the appropriate remedies for trespassers, but I think your point that it is not a good thing to have people in that circumstance, and our aim here is to not have that happen, is exactly right. We would take it very seriously. We would think they would be trespassers at that point. The CHAIRMAN. I want to thank you for all your hard work, you and your staff, and you, Mr. Anderson. You've done an admirable

job. We look forward to moving forward working with you. We are very appreciative and I know that many others are appreciative of the efforts you have made.

I want to again congratulate you for bringing the two parties together in the largely unusual agreement which, as the vice chairman mentioned, 10 years ago, we couldn't get the two tribal leaders to sit down at the same table, much less move forward. You all have been very important in this process and we appreciate it very much. We appreciate your testimony today.

Ms. SCHIFFER. Thank you, Senator McCain.

I just want to add that I very much appreciate your leadership and that of Senator Inouye on this. It has been a very encouraging thing for me to see that we really may move toward a settlement here.

Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Anderson. Our next panel is Ferrell Secakuku, chairman of the Hopi Tribe, and Herb Yazzie, the attorney general of the Navajo Nation. Please come forward.

Good morning, gentlemen, and thank you for coming. Mr. Chairman, I'm glad to see you, and Mr. Attorney General, I'm happy to see you again.

Mr. Chairman, if you would proceed with your statement. As I mentioned earlier, your complete statements will be made a part of the record. We appreciate you being here this morning.

STATEMENT OF FERRELL SECAKUKU, CHAIRMAN, THE HOPI TRIBE, KYKOTSMOVI, AZ, ACCOMPANIED BY TIM ATKINSON, ESQUIRE, TRIBAL ATTORNEY

Mr. SECAKUKU. Thank you, Chairman McCain. I'm glad to be here this morning.

I'm really happy to be here on behalf of the Hopi Tribe to testify and support the Accommodation Agreement that we have reached with the Navajo families and the settlement agreement that we have reached with the U.S. Government.

As you remember, we have been working on this dispute for a long time. It has taken us a long time, since 1958 when the Congress gave us the authority to file a quiet settlement against each other. Many lawsuits and legislations have been developed to settle the dispute between the two tribes.

Now, at the end, what it took was the two tribes sitting together, talking to one another and coming up with a solution that will remain open until 1996. We have bent over backwards to try to hear them out, we talked about their concerns, many letters have been submitted to us, their position papers have been submitted to us, we have met on it several times in the Navajo hogans, and at our community centers. I believe the Hopi Tribe has responded with a historic offer, the Accommodation offer that we have developed.

What we have offered to the Navajo people and the Navajo families that are living on the Hopi partitioned lands is a 75-year lease, with a 3-acre home site and up to 10 acres for farming land and a portion of 2,800 sheep units of grazing, to continue nonexclusive use of the Hopi partitioned lands. In addition, we have said that we would eliminate the two frictions on Hopi partitioned lands

the new construction orders which freezes housing construction and limited grazing. What we ask is for the families to respect the Hopi law.

Based on the exchanges of all letters between the families and us, and all the meetings we have done together, we now have a settlement. The only thing that is preventing us from going ahead with the lease at this time is the limitation of 25 U.S.Č., Subsection 415, which only gives the Hopi Tribe two 25-year periods to lease our land. We have previously submitted the language to amend that section to allow us a 75-year leasing authority.

At this time, we have a number of families who want to sign the lease but we are unable to do that. Therefore, we are requesting to have that done as quickly as possible. The more time these families have to talk about it, to change their minds that they would like to see the lease arrangement done between them and the Hopi Tribe, I think it would be better for them.

I would like to say just a couple of things for the benefit of relocation before I go into the settlement agreement. The United States also agreed that they would relocate anyone, any Navajo within the Hopi partitioned lands that wanted to relocate within three years time. Therefore, we feel that the Relocation Office should remain open until the year 2000 or the beginning of it, but not further than December 2000 so they can carryout these tasks.

The second issue I wanted to mention is that I understand that there are a number of Navajo families that have not received the relocation benefits who want to relocate and they should be given the opportunity to do so.

With regard to the settlement agreement with the United States, the Hopi Tribe believes that it is a fair settlement with Hopi perspective, that the tribe has experienced and witnessed the deterioration of its 1882 reservations at the hands of the U.S. Government and the Navajo Nation and further witnessed the Navajo Nation receiving additional lands as compensation for relocation. At the same time, it was promised to the Hopi that we would be given free and clear use of our lands, whatever was left to us, which has not been fulfilled to this date. The settlement allows the Hopi Tribe to recover some of its aboriginal lands and to gain some moneys from the injustices that we, the Hopi people, have endured for many years.

From the United States perspective, the Hopi Tribe is taking over the responsibility of the land dispute and the Federal Government is avoiding millions and millions of dollars in potential liability. The settlement now allows the tribe and the United States to work together rather than fight. We wanted to focus on things that are better for our people than to have disagreements.

With this, I would like to close by saying that I want to thank you for allowing both tribes, in sitting down, talking over this, of one what I believe is the hardest matters to deal with and to come to a settlement that is workable. We want to continue with this dialog between the two tribes and help one another. There are a lot more issues facing us, social issues, education issues, and more human issues that we now can focus on and put this land issue in the past.

With that, I will close. Thank you very much.

[Prepared statement of Mr. Secakuku appears in appendix.] The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. SECAKUKU. I'd like to introduce Mr. Atkinson; he is the tribal attorney. If there are any questions you want to ask, he can help

me answer.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. After Attorney General Yazzie, we will have questions for both of you.

I appreciate your testimony today but also, I appreciate very much your commitment to peaceful and reasonable settlement of this issue. I know you have devoted an enormous amount of your time and energy and I'm deeply appreciative of your commitment to a reasonable settlement of this very difficult issue.

I thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. SECAKUKU. Thank you very much.

The CHAIRMAN. Attorney General Yazzie, welcome back. It is nice to see you again.

Please proceed. Your full statement will be made a part of the record. Proceed in whatever fashion you feel most comfortable with.

STATEMENT OF HERB YAZZIE, ATTORNEY GENERAL, THE NAVAJO NATION, WINDOW ROCK, AZ

Mr. YAZZIE. Thank you, Senator McCain.

I wish to thank the Senator and the committee for allowing us the opportunity to present this statement.

My name is Herb Yazzie and I'm from the Navajo Nation. I wish to fully introduce myself. I'm a member of the Tabaaha clan, born for the Kinlichiinii Clan. My grandparents on the maternal side are To'ohani and on the paternal side are of the Todich'ii'nii.

I make that point because we talk of lands, ancestral lands of both tribes here. We are taught that we must recognize ourselves before the gods because then can we remember those values of love, brotherly love that The Creator placed in us.

We come to Washington to inform this committee and the United States that our people have negotiated with the Hopi Tribe an agreement. The agreement is the means by which my people will have some assurance against the fear and the continuing threats of relocation.

We are dealing with a law that was enacted without regard to Navajo religion. It is an old law; we have suffered under it; it is an attack on Navajo religion. How does one Native people live under the law and still comply with their own conscience, with their religion? That has been our struggle.

We have demonstrated, the Hopi partitioned lands residents have demonstrated that this is a matter of religion and of survival. The Navajo Nation supports the Accommodation Agreement because protective provisions allowing Hopi partitioned lands residents to remain where they have resided for generations to live consistent with Navajo religions are part of the agreement. That is why we support the Agreement.

It has always been the position of the Navajo Nation that the protection of not only the individual belief in that religion, but this is also a matter of tribal religion, that must first be protected and addressed. That is why we support the Accommodation Agreement.