away from the HPL, but they did have a tie to it and they were certified as eligible. That is the issue that Chairman Sidney brought up, about the original heads of households numbered about 680 to 700.

In fact, there are nearly 2,500 heads of households certified eligible under some criteria. In fact, the people who are physically resident of the HPL today also signed similar contracts nearly 10 years ago, so in point in time, we are talking about a group of people that would be entitled to the benefits and, in fact, one of the purposes for the acquisition of the new lands was to provide the ability to replicate the lifestyle, and those people who are still physically residents of the HPL are the ones who are more traditional, who have grazing as a lifestyle and would need to have that on the new lands.

We don't know how many of the 1,215, although we are aware there are some similarly situated and we are hoping to make some allowances there, too, that some of those people would be able to have grazing. It just depends on the capacity of the lands after we have made the final moves.

But we believe it can be and will be done fairly, and it will be done in accordance respecting those people who had moved and those who were actually not living there but had signed up.

The law that we are operating under and the amendments, however, specifically state that the new land would be made available for those people who are physically resident of the HPL today and those who were physically resident of the HPL as of a date in 1980, I believe. So those are the first priorities by law.

And then those who would be related to those people that might be grazers and have made plans to have home site leases, this would be some of the 1,215 who would have home site leases on the new lands, and again, we are attempting to work with family groups, so that these family groups could be located together in areas on the new land that would be compatible. And along with the grazing permits, we would be able to have home site leases where individuals could have homes, although they would not have the grazing permit.

Mr. MCCAIN. According to your testimony, and information that I have, you believe that you can complete this in 18 months; is that correct?

Mr. SWIMMER. I believe we can complete the resettlement of the 240 families on the HPL that are physically resident there now within the next 18 months. I need the cooperation of the Commission and the cooperation of the Navajo Tribe and the Hopi Tribe, but given those things, I believe it can be done; yes, sir.

Mr. MCCAIN. How do you reconcile this with the Commission estimate of 1993?

Mr. SWIMMER. I don't propose to answer for the Commission. I really don't know how they are operating. I believe that they have said in statements that they would relocate about 200 people a year, and I think perhaps they are talking about some of the 1,215 families. I am not aware of work that they might be talking about on the HPL.

In our memorandum of understanding with the Commission, we have assumed a great deal of that responsibility and I do believe

that given the information I have now we can complete the process with the cooperation I talked about.

Mr. MCCAIN. Could I just ask one more question, Mr. Chairman? I appreciate the time.

The CHAIRMAN. We will have an additional round.

Mr. MCCAIN. I would just like to ask Chairman Sidney if he has any comment on the offer that Chairman Zah made concerning welcoming back the Hopi relocatees?

Mr. SIDNEY. I believe the Hopi people that have been assisted by the Hopi people to rebuild their lives where they are today, and that is entirely what they are working on. I just wish that he would have the same spirit in saying, you can have all of your land back.

Mr. MCCAIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. I think Mr. Kildee is next.

Mr. KILDEE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I really have no questions at this time. I only desire to be just in this matter, and I seek that. I wish I had the wisdom of Solomon, but I must stumble along on my own wisdom. I want that wisdom reinforced by the wisdom and knowledge of the Hopis and the Navajos, along with that of Mr. Swimmer, who I know has been working very hard in this. We need your input. We need your wisdom and your knowledge, and I look forward to working with you on this.

It is a most difficult question, but human beings are required to solve the most difficult things and we have to get together and try to solve it, so I want to work with all of you on this question.

Thank you very much for your testimony, and thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Lagomarsino.

Mr. LAGOMARSINO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield to the gentleman from Arizona, Mr. McCain.

Mr. MCCAIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a letter that I received yesterday from Peabody Coal concerning their interest in the settlement, and with your permission, I request unanimous consent that it be made part of the record.

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, so ordered.

[EDITOR'S NOTE.-The letter referred to above may be found in the appendix. See table of contents for page number.] Mr. MCCAIN. And I have no further questions.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Richardson.

Mr. RICHARDSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Swimmer, I was encouraged by the Hopi chairman's statement about violence, and I fully believe him. I think he is a man of honor. But I wondered if the administration as the law enforcement leader in this whole process has made some kind of contingency plans in case there is some kind of violence by insiders or outsiders, or whomever?

Mr. SWIMMER. We believe that we will be prepared for that kind of action. We are anticipating some form of demonstration, perhaps, from outsiders and we do have law enforcement on both reservations, and access to other resources as needed, so I really believe that we can protect the interest of the tribes and the individuals on those reservations, along with the help of the two tribes.

Mr. RICHARDSON. You have only been in this job a few short months and you obviously are not responsible for many of these things, but I am going to try to get out of you in layman's language, what are you for? You are against the Udall-McCain bill. I read your testimony.

It seems that you have rejected the recommendations, if any, of Mr. Morris and Mr. Clark. They did give some guidelines. Mr. Secretary, what are you for? Are you for the status quo? Are you for the act as it is now, and if so, what is the administration's interpretation of what is going to happen after July 6, 1986?

Mr. SWIMMER. My belief is that if there is to be any change in the legislation that has taken place in 1974 and subsequently amended, that that change should only take place upon agreement of the two tribes; the elected leadership of those two tribes that represent their constituents.

In the meantime, it is my responsibility to carry out the law as it presently is and in doing that, I looked upon coming into this job as to how it has been carried out and I wasn't too pleased with it.

I believe that even though I had no obligation or responsibility to step into that issue that it was something that affected all of us in the Federal Establishment, the administration, and Congress.

I took on the responsibility by virtue of that memorandum of understanding with the Commission, to accept the responsibility of moving forward and completing the law as it was on the books, but to do it in a way that is humane, that is beneficial to the people that are currently resident of the HPL, and we ultimately hope to the benefit of both of the tribes, so the Hopi Tribe can have the land that was awarded to them by the courts and by this Congress and they can expand their population and begin building the lives, and so that the Navajo people that are going to be relocated on the new lands can do likewise.

It was obvious to me that it could not be completed by July 6. I cannot meet the deadline, nor do I believe the Commission can meet the deadline set by Congress.

It is the opinion of the solicitor of our department that the deadline is a target date. It was set by Congress. It does not create any new liabilities or any new authorities on behalf of any party, either tribe or the Government, that in fact, in not meeting that deadline, the deadline simply passes, that we must continue using our best efforts to carry out the law as it is written.

We are charged, we, being the Department of the Interior, are charged with the responsibility of protecting the lives and the assets of the Navajo people living on the HPL until they are

Mr. RICHARDSON. So it sounds like you are minimizing the legality of that July 6 date, that it really is a guideline; it is not a date when forcible relocation has to take place.

Mr. SWIMMER. That is right. The land already belongs to the Hopi and the land of the Navajo belongs to the Navajo. There are Navajo residents on Hopi land. We are charged by law to protect those people until they are resettled and we will do that, and I do not believe that there are any causes for concern or alarm that there would be some kind of forced movement after July 6.

I certainly intend with the authorities given me by that memorandum of understanding to move as expeditiously and as humanely as possible through this process.

Mr. RICHARDSON. Is that also the position of the Hopi chairman? In other words, the eviction? When you mentioned your very constructive statement about violence, does that apply to the eviction situation, as you see it, after July 6, Mr. Chairman?

Mr. SIDNEY. Speaking for the Hopi people, Mr. Congressman, July 6, we look at it today, after all what we have gone through since 1958, we are going to finally get control of this whole land issue. Come July 6, we will know who is out there, where are they, how many, why they are there, and I have a lot of confidence in the Hopi people and the tribal council that they would entertain such kind of a report, because not having control, we have had an open door to the U.S. Treasury and the liberal laws of relocation, we have just continued this whole effort. And that is why July 6 is an important date. And that is why I feel violence is not going to be there and be part of it, but we finally get control of this whole issue.

Mr. RICHARDSON. Chairman Zah, you mentioned that you thought that the $300 million figure, which I understand would be primarily for mineral royalties in the Udall-McCain bill was excessive, yet I sense in principal, you appear to be supportive of the thrust of the bill. Do you have an alternative figure, or do you have an alternative suggestion in terms of that component of the legislation?

Mr. ZAH. Congressman, we have closely examined the bill, and conceptually support the bill because it not only addresses the current problem that we had in 1882 with the relocation project and the relocation program, but it really goes at the heart of issues that are pending between the two tribes now as well as future issues that will be undoubtedly raised between the two tribes.

We are not in the position to give you any kind of concrete numbers, to try to lower the $300 million, but we basically believe that since the Federal Government was a lead agency in this whole controversy, that they should also be required to pay some amount of money for the damages that have been done to families.

That is all I could say, is that we believe it is excessive, but that is all up for negotiations.

Mr. RICHARDSON. Most of that mineral money is in New Mexico in Paragon Ranch. Is there any percentage which you might give us in terms of the New Mexico impact of those mineral rights?

Mr. ZAH. As we understand the spirit of the resolution, $200 million will come off Peabody Coal Co., Peabody Mine in Arizona on Black Mesa; $200 million of that will come off that mining. The other $100 million will be coming from Paragon Ranch, the land that we have selected pursuant to the 1974 act, 35,000 acres in New Mexico, and the generating station that has been proposed is only a proposal. It will be up to the local residents, people who live in Eastern Navajo Agency, around Crown Point area, it will be up to them whether in fact they want a powerplant in their community, and we have left that question to them to answer.

The bill says that once that this is in place, if the Navajos should decide to develop the coal, then the additional $100 million will be coming from that, so it is speculative right now.

Mr. RICHARDSON. I would like to come back.

The CHAIRMAN. We will. We will have further rounds.
The distinguished gentleman from Connecticut.

Mr. GEJDENSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Secretary, are there any things that we could do if the Udall-McCain bill doesn't pass, looking at present law, to make any changes that occur occur, with less pain and less turmoil than we have seen in the past? Is there some additional money from the Congress, or is there additional power from the Congress that would assist you in doing the job if no change in the law occurs that would create less hardship on the Navajos and the Hopis?

Mr. SWIMMER. There is some procedural things that need to be done if the Bureau of Indian Affairs is going to continue to play a role in this issue. We don't have certain authorities, as I mentioned earlier, to step into this issue, and in talking with your Appropriation Committee, there would need to be some authority as far as expending funds on behalf of Navajo people to do counseling and other kinds of things.

We have recently sought and requested a reprogramming of certain funds already appropriated to do some work, but on the 1,215 families, we still don't have authorities there.

Generally speaking, however, I think that the mechanism is present, and even though I know we have had some problems, the Relocation Commission has had problems in getting geared up for whatever reason, it just seems like the process hasn't worked too effectively there.

I think it is a process problem, and I believe that with the team of people that I assembled to help work on this project, both from outside the Bureau of Indian Affairs and inside, that we can carry out the law as it is now, again, however, needing the cooperation of those three entities, the Commission and the two tribes.

And we have been working closely with both tribes and with the Commission. We have a sense of frustration but things are moving ahead. We have plans now to begin construction on the new lands in as little as a week.

One of the main concerns I have is considering using this land as a trading tool is that the Navajo are genuinely concerned that if they accept the offer to move there and they move, they might very well have to move back, if a change is made now. So it is causing us some consternation out there, not knowing whether we can really use the new land, because we do have families ready to move there.

Mr. GEJDENSON. Let me ask Mr. Zah, and try to get a sense of how he would feel if there was a proposal here that took some of your present Navajo land in the exchange. It seems to me that there are a couple of ingredients here. The immediate concern is for the 1,200 or so individuals and families in the region. Another concern from a longer term perspective and maybe from a historical perspective, is that about the only thing that the Indians have at this point to hold them together is their land, and if we were to come up with a proposal that took some Navajo land and moved