have left if we continue to compliment the Navajo's lawbreaking is you are going to see one day the Hopi sitting on their mesa tops with their foot dangling down, because that is all we are going to have left.

We are fighting for our survival. Navajos are fighting for the expansion of their reservation. I would like to also make an informal statement to you, that we do have the backing of our traditional people, that we do have the backing of our younger people.

I am lost for words on where we are today. It breaks my heart to see the suffering of people. That is why we have talked to them. I have made my efforts to speak to the Big Mount elders, but 2 weeks ago in my office, they were not even in agreement who was their spokesperson. This is what Chairman Zah should be doing.

When Mr. Morris and Judge Clark came out to Keams Canyon, AZ, when they were assigned by President Reagan in July 1985, Chairman Zah said to Mr. Morris, "I want you to come out and visit my people." My response was, "It is our responsibility to go out to our people. It is our responsibility to be the bearers of the good news and the bad news." I said to Mr. Morris, "If you go out, all you are going to do at the end is to talk about the hardships of the Navajo, and exactly what the Navajos are not wanting to be responsible over." And that is what exactly happened.

At our White House meeting, Mr. Zah did not tell you that the beginning of the meeting, our discussion was, we all agree there will be no extension of relocation. We all agree that there will be no land exchanges. We all agree that Hopi's land was not for sale. What more do we have to talk about?

The proposal that you are seeing today in the form of H.R. 4281 that several weeks before the White House meeting, the Navajo Tribe was trying to have a congressional person introduce what you are seeing today. That is what you are not aware of. That was introduced at the White House meeting. Mr. Morris responded and said, "We agree there will be no land exchange and no moneys offered to the Hopi." That is why we could not discuss that today. And when I asked you, Mr. Chairman, when you handed to me, after you introduced the Udall-McCain bill, I said, this is exactly what the Navajos proposed before the White House meeting and you told me that I was correct.

But it is time now that this Congress tell the Navajos they have to be responsible over their people. They have the most share of Federal moneys. They selected Paragon Ranch, with millions of dollars of resources. You can direct them to use that money to help their own people.

On October 1985, an article appeared in the Navajo Times. They already sent a team to Paragon Ranch to prepare those Navajos that may be moving as the mining comes in as the new selected lands for resettlement.

Why is it then that they can do that in the Hopi partition land? Two weeks ago, I was given a letter by the Bureau of Indian Affairs that the Hopi law enforcement people were harassing Navajos. Chairman Zah wrote to Mr. Swimmer. Why is it that he can't come to me as a landowner? Why is it that he can't telephone me and complain to me? We will both go out, get our law enforcement people and solve any kind of allegation.

But the Navajos have found that their accessibility to you and waiving the registered votes have gotten us here, and I'm telling you again, it is not the Government's fault. The Navajo have got you into this aggressive movement. Their history says that they were pneumatic and they are saying today they can't move.

But look how much land has been taken from Hopi today. We are a proud people. I have a resolution with me, Mr. Chairman, to submit to the record that the tribal council passed a resolution that we are not going to advocate violence.

Come July 6, 1986, I am sure you will ask me what is going to happen that day. Nothing is going to happen. There will be no violence, but I am assured outside people are trying to make this a Government, a Government problem, a coissue. We, as Indian people, we as Indian leaders, need to accept responsibility over our people. Isn't that what you want us to do? Don't you want us to be self-sufficient people? What we have been exhibiting to you, what the Navajos have been exhibiting to you is their inability to accept responsibility over their people.

Mr. Chairman, on my right sits the chief of Oraibi, Stanley Bahnimportantewa, the oldest, continuous inhabitant in the north continent. Every American should be proud of the history of Hopi. We know we stand alone today. It is our prophecy because the Hopi were set to stand for the rights of all Indian people, because if we failed to, the outside will assimilate us. No longer will there be any tradition.

If Chairman Zah is a traditional person, that he told me he was, there was a traditional treaty between the Navajo and Hopi. We have their "teaponi." We have it today. I want to give it to him, if he is a traditional person, see what he thinks about it. Maybe he don't respect that. I have already agreed. We asked him, a traditional chief said, bring your leaders to me, let's talk about it. We have been waiting since then. Our leaders want to talk to their leaders. We are still open for that.

On my left is Mr. Harry Chaca, representing the chief of First Mesa. They have the custody over this traditional treaty. With me today is Ethel Mahle, First Mesa, who remembers when we lived in fear.

We talk about good neighbors today. Navajo say we are good neighbors. Yes, maybe other Navajos are different today, but it was not so true. Why did we live on Mesas? Because of fear; because of aggression; because of property stolen, but today, maybe things are different, but because of the Navajos propaganda, because of their wealth and public relations, we have no alternative but to bring back out the history and talk about it, because it is time now for the Hopi people to speak up. We need to go to every State and say we are the people who are going to be terminated.

On my right, also, is Ramona Ladeyo, from the village of Kykotsmoui, Nona Tuchawena from the village of Kykotsmoui, Jerry Sekayumptewa from First Mesa, Clifford Honahui from Monecopi, Robbi Honahi from Shipauloui, Loretta Talas, who is a member of the Bear Clan representing the new chief of Mishungnoui. We have Clifford Clifford Balenguah from Cacaui Village. I also have my wife with me, Evonne Sidney, who is a mother and interested in our young people as our survival as Hopi people. I also have Rosa

lind Chase-the-Bear from Moencopi. These are people that are representing us today.

We oppose the Udall-McCain bill. I know because of time restraints, Mr. Chairman, I would like to cite to you more information, but it is time now that the Navajo leadership be given the responsibility to accept more responsibility over their people.

If we can move the people that want to move today, 238 people actually physically living on Hopi partition lands, if we can move them, we can enjoy our lands. Then they can deal with the Government or the other people that are not living on the lands.

I might just mention here, they are talking about the 1934 settlement that is next in line. Did you know that in 1973 in a form of Steiger bill, 230,000 acres was in that bill, so that we don't have to be talking about it today? Did you know that the Navajos lobbied against it and that is why it didn't pass? And today now they are saying that we should talk about it. They are willing to give us 79,000 acres. Do you know where that 79,000 acres is? It is a wash, to connect the village of Moencopi. That is how good neighbors we

are.

And also, I am saying here, why the friendship did not work. Because if you negotiate on the terms of what is mine and what is yours, let's talk about it, it don't work.

And there are Navajos that don't agree with this bill either.

But, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the time. This is a dear subject to all of us. We join you in having this resolution come to an end. We are doing all we can to lessen violence, to minimize hardships. Maybe because of minimizing hardships, the Hopis have come a long way.

And I want to say again, it is not the Government's fault. It is the Navajo that have to accept responsibility over their people. Members of the committee, I thank you for your time. Thank you very much.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Chairman Sidney.

If we could ask you to move over and stay there at the table, and I am going to ask Chairman Zah to take one of the chairs over here. I don't want to get you too close. Secretary Swimmer, if you will sit in the middle.

I said earlier that both tribes were fortunate in having eloquent and honorable spokesmen and I reiterate it. I just want to clear the air on a couple of things.

It is old history that Mr. McCain is running for another office this year, and it is kind of ironic I am supporting another candidate in that contest, but I want to say that it has been no secret to anybody that he hired a campaign assistant of some kind who is also doing some work with the Navajos. I don't think anybody needs to testify to Mr. McCain's honesty and integrity, but I don't see any serious question there and I regret this is raised.

Mr. MCCAIN. Mr. Chairman, could I make an additional comment, if I could, sir?

The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

Mr. McCAIN. My campaign manager is a person who has never had anything to do with this issue. I have a campaign consultant whom I have had for many years who is doing public relations

work for the Navajo Tribe and is not lobbying Members of Congress.

I also would like to point out that a member of my campaign steering committee-I don't know if Chairman Sidney will remember the name-Mike Morales, is also a paid consultant for the Hopi Tribe.

There are members of my steering committee and others who are Arizonans who have come down on one side or the other on this issue, and I believe that all of them are trying to come to a reasonable solution of this issue. I also regret that this allegation was raised, but I am glad to respond.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, this has been a bipartisan operation throughout. Senator Goldwater and I have generally been tagged as on the Hopi side of this over the years with all the legislation. I tried to put together a comprehensive approach, which is the bill before us, that would do more than solve the relocation problem. It would resolve a lot of other problems that are going to plague these tribes into the next century, I am afraid.

But, some of the outsiders who have been involved in this as the self-appointed spokesmen of the Navajos, and I was glad to see Chairman Zah set the record straight on that, seemed to be saying two things; defeat what Udall is trying to do; he is the enemy of the Navajos, and second, to save the Navajos by passing the Udall bill. It seems to me they can't have it both ways.

My sole purpose in producing this bill was to avoid violence, to see if we could get a settlement because lawsuits and acts of the Congress have a way of coming apart, but settlements between equals on fair grounds can endure that.

One of the Navajo leaders said to me not too long ago, and I have found the same thing in conversing with some of the Hopis, that they don't want their children to spend the next 100 years suing each other in Federal court.

My sole desire was to see if we could find a comprehensive formula that would not only settle the relocation problem, but would exchange lands so that everybody ended up with the same lands at the same value, but lines would be drawn in ways that would minimize the number of people who would have to move.

The proposal doesn't seem to be going very far. It is shot at from all sides. But I wanted to set the record straight on that. The bill, I might add, is different in several respects from the Navajo proposal. The Navajo proposal and Judge Clark and the White House asked us to produce was the comprehensive approach. So is the bill that I introduced. It deals with other things except relocation. The bill I introduced extinguishes the land claims, which was not in the Navajo bill, and the $300 million payment which the Navajos would be required to pay under my bill was not in the Navajo bill. So, I say, Mr. Sidney, there are many similarities, the overall approach, yes, is the comprehensive approach, but there are differences. I don't know if this bill is going anywhere at all, but if it does, we would be glad to have suggestions how it might be made fair, because I want to be fair to both sides in all of this. The gentleman from Arizona, Mr. McCain.

Mr. MCCAIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I also appreciate the comments of Chairman Zah concerning non-Navajo's who purport

to speak for the Big Mountain people, or others. I believe it has been damaging to this effort at conciliation and negotiations. I regret that if there are problems come July 6, I don't believe it will be generated by Navajos or Hopis. I believe it will be generated by others who are not residents or Indians or people who really understand the issue and the difficulties involved.

First of all, Mr. Swimmer, I understand from your statement that you would like to move the 240 to the new lands and feel that that would be a major step forward in resolving the relocation issue. What about the 1,200 who have been moved off the lands already and have not either found homes or land, some of whom have been off of the HPL for many years?

Mr. SWIMMER. I share an equal concern about those people because they in fact in some cases moved and in some cases were already off the land but were certified eligible, but they have not been served, some as long as 10 years.

I believe that efforts need to be made to take care of those people and to resolve the benefit package to which they are entitled. They are wholly within the jurisdiction of the Navajo-Hopi Indian Relocation Commission at this time.

In a recent hearing before Congressman Yates, I offered, at his request, to take on some additional responsibility of starting some work with those people to locate the people, identify the needs, and attempt to do some counseling and resolve their particular situation.

We do not have any authority for appropriations in our budget to do such a thing with those people, but I have been using my best efforts to work with the Commission to encourage them to continue their work with these 1,125 families. I know some of these people by virtue of the Bureau of Indian Affairs work and social services, and some of these people are in pretty dire straights. We are very concerned, and we are hoping that these people will be able to be resettled satisfactorily also.

Mr. MCCAIN. I think we have a basic question of fairness here, people who agreed to relocate long ago are not receiving housing or land and those who have held out to the end or have not been approached by the Commission, therefore, will now jump to the head of the line. I don't see the fairness there. In fact, I think if I were one of those who had left years ago, I would have a serious concern as to whether my judgment was correct or not.

Also, we have information that at least one-fifth, some estimates are as high as one-quarter, of those who have been relocated, have lost their homes for a variety of reasons, including an inability to adapt to some of the areas they have been relocated to, and are now back on the reservation again which they left. What are we going to do about that issue?

Mr. SWIMMER. As the first situation, it is our information as best as we determine it, without actual contact with each one of the 1,215 so far, the majority of those people were off of the HPL in the beginning. They, in fact, came to the Relocation Commission and were certified eligible because of some contact they had had with the HPL at some point in time.

But they are not prejudiced in that they moved; in some cases that they actually physically moved, that they were already living