[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. We wish to make one additional statement about the law that we are dealing with, the 1974 law. From our perspective, it is always been penal in nature. The only question under the law has been the amount of liability the Navajo Nation would have to pay, ignoring the fact that Navajos have been there and will remain there because of their religion. I would venture to add that the United States should be ashamed that such a law exists. Through the efforts of the residents with assistance from the tribal government, we have been able to reach this agreement with our neighbors. Not all Navajos agree with what has been acknowledged and stated for the record with this particular agreement but under the Agreement, the residents, because we are a democratic society, will decide for themselves within the period that's been agreed to, whether they will enter into the Agreement. We will do all we can to assist in the matter. I will mention a couple of other points I believe are before this committee. The closure of the Federal Relocation Program is related to what we talk about here and it is also been addressed at previous hearings. The closure of the offices is also mentioned in the United States-Hopi Agreement. We believe that an arbitrary deadline has been set in the United States- Hopi Agreement, the year 2000. We take the position that the closure should happen, but it should be within a reasonable time period. It should not be set by only two of the parties to this matter. We have many people, as the Honorable Senator has mentioned, who have applied for relocation benefits who are still in the appellate process. Because of the way the Federal Relocation Office has administered the program, it has administered it in an adversarial manner rather than as a service to allow people to move. Because of that system, we still have many people in the appellate process. We don't see how the United States can arbitrarily say we can do this by this certain date without really telling you how many people are still in the appellate process or how many houses they can construct within that period. We want it closed because then we, the Navajo people and the Navajo Government, would have jurisdiction over the lands within declared Navajo land, but we want it within a reasonable period that the Federal program can responsibly close the office. I want to address the Hopi-United States Agreement. Much has been mentioned of the compensation that the Hopi people would receive under the agreement. We support the Hopi people in getting contribution from the U.S Government because it was the U.S. Government who created this dispute, but we believe that the compensation fails to address a critical point. It goes far beyond paying compensation for Hopi accommodation of Hopi partitioned lands residents. In addition to what has been stated, the United States is paying the Hopi Tribe for damage to the Hopi partitioned lands caused by previous use of the Hopi partitioned lands by Hopi partitioned lands residents. These are basically the same claims that the Hopi have been pursuing in many lawsuits against the Nation. Despite the United States payment or the agreement to pay these claims, the Navajo Nation is being held responsible for paying the Hopi Tribe for basically the same things. In addition, the Navajo Nation, pursuant to the Accommodation Agreement, is obligated to make annual rental payments to the Hopi Tribe for the Navajo families. As a result of lawsuits between the two tribes, the Navajo Nation has been ordered to pay amounts exceeding $28 million to the Hopi for damage to and use of the Hopi partitioned lands. Furthermore, the Settlement Act itself laid the foundation for future litigation which would not be in anyone's best interest. We ask quite simply that this Government, this committee, provide that the Navajo Nation is entitled to an offset of its liability against the amount paid to the Hopi Tribe by the United States. That is only fair. As to the closure of the Federal Relocation Program. I want to make one specific request of this committee and Congress. In order to assist in a very delicate, complex matter of human beings suffering under Federal law, we ask that this committee call for the immediate repeal of the Bennett freeze. The way it is related to this matter is that the people who are being asked to relocate from the Hopi partitioned lands cannot do so simply because of the freeze. Many of these peoples have relatives who live just over the line in the Bennett freeze area. They wish to move there but they cannot because of the freeze. The freeze prevents construction of homes. The litigation of the 34 area, the Bennett freeze, has awarded land to the Hopi with one issue remaining about certain lands that might be used for religious use by the Hopi Tribe, but there is no longer a need to keep as law a blanket freeze over the entire 1.5 million acres. I would make that point very clear. Much work has to be done in finalizing and implementing the Accommodation Agreement. The two tribes have to agree to the rental arrangement for the Accommodation Agreement. The system that was enacted by the 1974 Act where the BIA sets the value and then that goes into the dispute is too burdensome. We wish simply an agreement with the Hopi Tribe on that point. We also ask that all existing injunctions and contempt be resolved to implement the Agreement. As I stated, much has to be done. The Hopi partitioned lands residents are not all agreed on this concept, but depending on the action of the United States, the Hopi Tribe and the Navajo Nation, we believe that many of these people will enter into this agreement. In that respect, we ask again that the talks that were initiated between the Hopi partitioned lands residents and the Hopi Tribe continue to resolve additional points that have not been addressed. Only in this way can the two people live on these lands. There are many other concerns that have been raised that should be mentioned, but I would ask this committee to especially note that in your record is a statement from the Nahata Dziil Chapter, the community of relocatees from Hopi land. I encourage the committee to note all of the concerns of this Chapter and those concerns should all be addressed before any closure plan for the Federal Relocation Program is finalized. I want to again thank you for allowing me and the Navajo Nation this opportunity. The President of the Navajo Nation was not able to be with you this day and I hope you understand. Thank you. [Prepared statement of Mr. Yazzie appears in appendix.] The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Attorney General. In line with your last comments about relocation, would the Navajo Tribe be willing to enter into an agreement that the number of applicants would end, in other words, a certain date would be set after which no more applicants for relocation would be allowed? Mr. YAZZIE. I believe an agreement can be reached upon discussions of how many are in the appellate process, how many people are now on Hopi partitioned lands who wish to relocate, and how many were declared ineligible simply because they were minors at the time but are now heads of households and they intend to stay on the Hopi partitioned lands. If all of those can be agreed to, we can agree upon a deadline. The CHAIRMAN. A deadline that after a date certain, there would be no more applicants for relocation benefits? Mr. YAZZIE. I believe so. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. Chairman Secakuku, I believe your attorney would want to respond to some of these questions. What part of the dispute will these agreements not resolve? What parts of the dispute, of the overall Navajo-Hopi land dispute will not be resolved by these agreements? Mr. SECAKUKU. I believe it will resolve all the parts that we have discussed. The main thing is for them to remain on the Hopi partitioned lands for a period of time, 75 years, to which they have agreed. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Chairman, I'm asking what parts of the dispute, of the Navajo-Hopi land dispute will not be settled by these proposed agreements? Mr. ATKINSON. Mr. Chairman, my name is Tim Atkinson with. the law firm of Arnold and Porter and here representing the tribe. This will resolve all of our disputes with the Federal Government up through the year 1996. What we have said is that to the extent that the United States does not get the rental decisions out on time, after that, we may have to do something about that, but through 1996, this resolves everything. What it does not resolve is claims that we have with the Navajo Nation. Right now, there are three of those claims that are currently in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals being determined and then there is also the issue of rent prior to this agreement being entered into. What we have said with the Navajo Nation is that once the agreement is entered into, either we will come to a negotiated settlement with the Navajo Nation as to how to deal with that or we will rely on what the BIA does, but we have a mechanism for dealing with that. So the only thing that is not dealt with at this point are the three lawsuits with the Navajo Nation. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Attorney General, in your view, what parts of the Navajo-Hopi dispute will not be resolved by this agreement? Mr. YAZZIE. I believe I mentioned them through my presentation. The principal one is those areas which still need to be resolved between the Hopi Tribe and the residents. I will use one example. There was an issue that arose about the burial of Navajos on Hopi partitioned lands. We have the sincere hope that the Hopi Tribe will continue to talk to the Hopi partitioned lands residents about that. The CHAIRMAN. Could I just stop you right there? Mr. Chairman, does the Hopi Tribe anticipate settling this very emotional issue of the burial of Navajos on the land on which they live, family burials? Mr. SECAKUKU. I believe we have discussed that in our meetings, both the families and the Hopi Tribe understood that the burial is not going to be a part of the extension to the Navajo families on the Hopi partitioned lands. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. Please proceed, Mr. Attorney General. Mr. YAZZIE. Another example is through the talks between the residents and the Hopi Tribe, the matter of the fencing of Star Mountain, a sacred site to all Navajos was mentioned. The request was made that at a minimum, the fencing be removed and rerouted. This is a matter that goes into the thinking of individual Navajos, whether they will enter into the agreement. If they see a demonstration of good faith and discussion of religious concerns, I am sure that they can enter into the agreement. The other matter that I mentioned that is not resolved, of course, is our point about the need for an offset or a credit to the Navajo Nation of what the United States has agreed to pay to the Hopi Tribe because they arise out of the same facts and circumstances. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Chairman, is there a majority of support on the current Hopi Tribal Council for this settlement? Mr. SECAKUKU. That is correct. We have the resolution that gives that directive. The CHAIRMAN. Speaking of resolutions, I'd be glad to enter into the record at this point a letter that I just received from Governor Symington where he says, Although it is my hope that a permanent solution could be attained instead of a 75-year accommodation, I'm now convinced that this is the best that can be achieved at this time and, therefore, I support the 75-year aspect of the agreement. I also understand the agreement permits Hopi Tribe to use all or part of its money to acquire land in rural, northern Arizona suitable for ranching and farming or similar agricultural uses. This proposed settlement and accommodation agreement, while not perfect, represents a vast improvement over the initial proposal put forth in 1993 by the Federal Government. For this, I reason I support the proposal as a way to put this bitter dispute behind us. [Letter from Governor Symington follows:] EXECUTIVE OFFICE Hon. JOHN MCCAIN, Committee on Indian Affairs, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. DEAR SENATOR MCCAIN: Thank you for your invitation to appear before the Committee on Indian Affairs during the oversight hearing scheduled on March 28, 1996, to present testimony on recent settlement and accommodation agreements concern |