-4

exclusively within the Navajo Reservation shall be credited to the Hopi Tribe.

Subsection (b) provides that the authority of the Secretary to credit such funds to the Hopi Tribe shall expire after the Hopi Tribe has been credited a sum equal to $200,000,000.

Section 8

(Payment to Hopi of $100,000,000 from profits of Paragon Ranch.)

Subsection (a) provides that effective with the Navajo

resolution, the Hopi tribe shall be entitled to 25% of the annual revenues derived by the Navajo tribe from the development of coal or other minerals on Paragon Ranch.

Subsection (b) specifies that the Hopi entitlement under subsection (a) shall terminate after the Hopis have been credited a sum equal to $100,000,000.

Subsection (c) and (d) provide that 50% of the remaining Navajo revenues from paragon Ranch shall for the next 20 years be deposited in a Navajo Rehabilitation Fund and shall be used solely for the benefit of those families who were actually relocated from lands partitioned to the Hopi Tribe.

Section 9

(Extinguishment of Law Suits authorized under 1974 Act.)

Subsections (a) and (b) provides that effective with the

publication of the Navajo Resolution all claims that the Hopi Tribe may have against the Navajo tribe as asserted in six named law

suits authorized under the 1974 Act (P.L. 93-531) shall be

extinguished.

Subsection (c) specifically repeals upon publication of the Navajo resolution certain provisions of the 1974 Act authorizing

-5

the two tribes to file certain claims against each other.

Section 10

(Extension of relocation deadlines and relocation benefits.)

Subsection (a) provides that Navajo families that are still subject to relocation pursuant to the 1974 Act shall have up to July 6, 1987 to do so. The current deadline is July 6, 1986.

Subsection (b) allows those Navajo families located or the 80,000 acre Moencopi parcel being transferred to the Hopi Tribe, one year from the date of enactment of this bill to relocate. The subsection provides that each such family shall be eligible for all relocation benefits provided under the 1974 Act unless it is granted a 160 acre assignment under subsection (d) of this section.

Subsection (c) provides that Navajo families who now resides or the 350,000 acres of Hopi lands (HPL) which are being transferred to the Navajo Tribe shall cease to be eligible for relocation benefits since they will not have to be relocated.

Subsection (d) provides that any Navajo family who will still be on the Hopi partitioned lands after the land transfers provided under this bill shall continue to be eligible for relocation

benefits unless it is granted a 160 acre assignment. The

subsection authorizes the Secretary to grant such assignment upon

such request.

This subsection also provides that the Secretary shall compensate the Hopi tribe for the fair value of such assignment. Only 60 such assignments are authorized to be granted in the

HPL and two assignments are allowed in the Moencopi parcel. (The

-6

reason for such limit is that available information indicates that

there are only 62 such Navajo families in these areas.)

Section 11

(Expiration of the Commission.)

This section provides that the Navajo-Hopi Relocation Commission shall cease to exist 180 days after the enactment of this Act and its responsibilties shall be transferred to an Office of Navajo relocation located within the Office of the Secretary of the Interior.

Section 12

This section provides that Congress is passing this law in the exercise of its plenary power over Indian Affairs and in its role as guardian and Trustee for the Navajo and Hopi Tribes. Congress believes that this settlement is a good faith effort to resolve these issues to the best interest of the two tribes.

Section 13

Therefore

Subsection (a) repeals the so-called Bennett Freeze language in the 1974 Act under which any development in the disputed Moencopi area could only occur upon the consent of both tribes. This section also repeals language in the 1974 Act providing for increase relocation benefits in case the tribes agree to land exchanges under the authority granted in the 1974 Act.

Subsection (b) provides that unless repealed by this Act or inconsistent with this Act, all provisions of the 1974 Act shall

remain in effect.

The CHAIRMAN. Let me begin by thanking the witnesses and the participants who have come a long way today, many of them, to be with us. I know it has been expensive and difficult for many of you, but this is important, the matter that we take up today.

At the time the Navajo-Hopi settlement legislation was being considered, I opposed the bill which required the partition of the land and the relocation of Indian families.

I supported the approach that the tribes should be given the opportunity and the encouragement to settle the dispute themselves, and failing that, to require a form of binding arbitration. The move for arbitration failed, and the law was passed.

The relocation deadline of July 1986 is fast approaching. It brings with it anger and fear of the families who still face relocation. Both tribes are again mobilizing their scant resources to support or oppose an extension of the deadline or to support or oppose some more comprehensive resolution to the remaining issues.

Once again I find myself standing between old and good friends, in the midst of a painful and very personal situation, for I grew up in northeastern Arizona and I know the land as well as I know many of you and I share the heartache of both the Hopi and the Navajo.

The relocation effort has had some successes, but in many ways, it has not done well. I think on that we can all agree. We would like to see the Navajo-Hopi dispute resolved, and on that we may all agree.

Just as I was not happy with the original relocation law, I don't see the bill that I and Congressman McCain introduced, the legislation we are to discuss today, as necessarily the best approach. My best hope was that the introduction of this legislation might serve as a catalyst that might lead us to a fresh approach to settling this difficult problem.

Sadly, there is no apparent consensus down the road. I don't see it. Despite that, I believe that the issue is far too important to simply drop. Therefore, it seemed to me that we might at least have an exploratory hearing today to see if there is any avenue we may have missed. For that purpose, I have scheduled this limited hearing to hear from the principal parties.

It is my hope that this hearing might clear the air, to clarify major points of contention and provide some guidance to this committee and to the two tribes on where we all might go from here.

It may be that at the conclusion of today's hearing further hearings may be in order when a far broader range of opinion can be heard. But that is down the road, and we will see what develops after today's hearing.

The gentleman from Arizona, Mr. McCain.

Mr. MCCAIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to commend you for your leadership in this issue. Your institutional knowledge of the Navajo-Hopi dispute and past congressional actions on this issue, I believe, provide a basis for decisionmaking.

I think it is important that we and other members of the committee understand that the chairman of this committee has been involved in these issues for over three generations. I know of no American or Arizonan who is more committed to both tribes and Indian issues

with a proven record in Congress and a commitment to Indians across this country and in Arizona.

I, as a colleague and a friend, resent any statements or inferences that Chairman Udall has anything but the highest motives in attempting to gain a resolution to this issue. Mr. Chairman, I believe that I reflect the opinion of the people of Arizona and across this country when I say that.

I believe, Mr. Chairman, we are here today because of the following facts. And I believe they are facts: The Federal Government is not and cannot be in compliance with the 1974 act. Relocation cannot be completed by the July 1986 deadline.

Relocation as performed by the Commission has been less than successful; that is the mildest way I can describe it. At least onefifth of those relocated have lost their homes and returned to the HPL.

I think that in these days of Gramm-Rudman, we have to be concerned about financing. In 1985, the Commission testified that it would take another 7 years at a cost of $350 million to complete the relocation task.

However, in its February 1986 report to Congress, the Commission revised this estimate and is now estimating that the task of relocating the 1,700 families, who are eligible but have not yet received their relocation benefits, could be done by 1993 at a total cost of $225 million. This brings the total cost of relocation to about $360 million, which amounts to about $150,000 per family. And I don't suggest that each family would, in fact, receive $150,000 worth of relocation benefits.

Also, Mr. Chairman, I think it would be well to mention that there is another individual, Senator Barry Goldwater, who has also committed a great deal of his life to this issue. I know he will watch these proceedings with a great deal of interest, and I know that Senator Goldwater shares the desire to have a resolution of this issue as early as possible.

The CHAIRMAN. I will urge him to be outspoken on this and let us know exactly where he stands.

Mr. MCCAIN. Mr. Chairman, we have a problem with the deadline close at hand, and I believe that we would be negligent of our duty if we did not have this hearing to make a clear record of the situation.

We are going to hear from three witnesses today. All three are as outstanding native Americans and Americans, as I have ever known.

Mr. Ross Swimmer is a first head of the BIA that this country has had who was a tribal chairman. I believe he has attacked this issue with enthusiasm and with a degree of dedication that we have seldom seen in the past.

It has been a great pleasure for me to have had made the friendship of both Chairmen Ivan Sidney and Peterson Zah. I believe they are both committed to a resolution to this issue, and the greatest disappointment to me as a Member of Congress has been to see the dissolution of what was once a very friendly and hopeful relationship many of us believed it could bring a resolution to this issue, but now causes us to be in the situation which we arrive at today.