that over, that would create a considerable amount of consternation on your part, I would think, wouldn't it?

Mr. ZAH. Well, every inch of the Navajo land is spoken for by the Navajo families. It may seem to many people that we have land in abundance. But Navajo life style is such that the grazing requirement to subsist so that people can continue to live is such that we need the land to graze our sheep and to graze our livestock, because sheep means everything to Navajo families.

Mr. GEJDENSON. What if we offered you some noncontiguous land? We decided if we had a proposal here, as your proposal, or the bill's proposal does for the Hopis, gives them some land but makes it noncontiguous to their present area, would you see that as a problem?

Mr. ZAH. We would see that as a problem, because even in the 1974 act that was the spirit of the resolution, but because of the failure on the part of the Commission and other Federal agencies, that never happened. We were in the position to select lands immediately subsequent to 1974. But any time, every time we went out there to select land for relocation purposes, people who live, nonIndian people who live around and adjacent to the reservation, always block our effort.

As I stated in my testimony, it was not until this past January, from 1974 on to 1986, it wasn't until this past January that we finally received title to all of the land that we are entitled to. So it does create problems for those Navajo families.

Mr. GEJDENSON. This piece of land down here, which the legislation suggests go to the Hopis, it is down by a highway, noncontiguous to the present Hopi Reservation. You can understand how the Hopis are unhappy with not having land that is contiguous and adjacent to where their population presently lives. Would there be any sense in taking that land and giving it to the Navajos? Mr. SWIMMER. It belongs to them.

Mr. GEJDENSON. This is Navajo land here as well?

The CHAIRMAN. Would the gentleman yield?

Mr. GEJDENSON. I would be happy to yield.

The CHAIRMAN. The essence of the Udall-McCain bill is to transfer to the Navajos a great deal of land in and around the present Hopi Reservation. You got the map here, and I think my colleagues have this map. It looks like this.

Mr. GEJDENSON. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. You have it and I have it. There are a lot of little pieces of grayish land dotted around there. Those lands are equal in total acreage to the lands down at the bottom, which are ranches acquired under the law by the Navajos. The idea was to swap to give the Hopi 360,000 acres of land down there plus interest in the Paragon Ranch in New Mexico-Mr. Richardson can tell you about it-in exchange for these bits and pieces that are drawn carefully to make sure that as many as possible Navajos don't have to move. You substitute land exchange for relocation. But you do a thing to the Hopis which they understandably don't like, and that is, you give them land which is not adjacent to their reservation. And then there is about 70,000 more acres which go to the Hopi. Mr. GEJDENSON. So the Navajos have purchased this land here?

The CHAIRMAN. That is right, under authority granted in the 1974 act.

Mr. GEJDENSON. And you would find it unacceptable to have Navajos pulled 70 or 80 miles away from their people?

Mr. ZAH. We have taken the position, as far back as 1974, that relocation is not a remedy to these kinds of issues. The United States has been put in this position on several occasions during the last 50 to 100 years.

Look what has happened in the State of Maine. In the State of Maine, it was determined that the Indian people, Indian tribes who live in the State of Maine, had a legal right to the property to the land. However, it was already settled by the business groups, enterprises, schools were being built, and everybody that used the land of the State of Maine was already settled there.

The United States took the position and paid off the Indian tribes in giving up that land rights, so nobody was relocated. The same thing happened in the State of New Mexico back in the 1920's, where Indian tribes were paid off for their property of the land, and allowed many of those non-Indians to stay.

In this particular case, we take the position that based on what has happened that that should be exercised by the Federal Government, is essentially the same thing.

If I may walk you through this map that we have, maybe you would have a better understanding, if you don't mind, Congress

man.

Mr. GEJDENSON. Go right ahead.

Mr. ZAH. That is this map over here. Maybe Gregg or somebody can help me. In the proposal, as explained by the chairman, the 1882 area is the one that is in the blue. All of the relocation program that is now taking place is in the 1882 area, that square area. The land that is in the red, west of the 1882 area is now frozen by Indian Commissioner and in that area, if you want to expand your house and if you want to build schools for your children, and if you want to do any kind of economic development, that whole area is frozen so the families that may want to expand for their members of their own family, they can't do it. It is frozen area.

In the Udall-McCain bill, that frozen area would be lifted, so that people can begin to develop an exchange. For that, we are offering that 79,000 acres of land to be turned over to the Hopi Nation and that land would be contiguous to their reservation.

In answering your question that you asked about the land way down at the bottom, the green one, the Hopis have an aboriginal land claims, so they claim that whole area and so it is within their aboriginal claim.

Mr. GEJDENSON. There are no Navajos living there at the moment?

Mr. ZAH. No.

Mr. GEJDENSON. And are there any Navajos living in the area that is shaded pink that you are willing to exchange? In the area of the 79,000 acres?

Mr. ZAH. The 79,000 acres that we are willing to exchange, that is where you have the Hopi villages.

Mr. GEJDENSON. And are there Navajos living in that area?
Mr. ZAH. There are just very few families.

Mr. GEJDENSON. How many families are living in that area?

Mr. ZAH. I think our record shows anywhere between from 5 to 10, maybe even less than that.

Mr. GEJDENSON. And you are going to move those people to another location?

Mr. ZAH. Yes, we have already talked to those families.

Mr. GEJDENSON. And they are willing to move?

Mr. ZAH. They are willing to move across the line, so rather than trying to put them several hundred miles down the road, it is acceptable to them that they move only a few miles down the road to be with their relatives.

Mr. GEJDENSON. And what is the dark red or the maroon, where there are presently Navajo populations? That is where the 1,200 live on what you propose to exchange with the Hopi, there is Navajo land right nearby. Can't you move them?

Mr. ZAH. The dark red area is the land that we propose that it goes back to the Navajo nation because those areas represent a high concentration of Navajo families living there.

Mr. GEJDENSON. Right, but each individual family, whether it is the 5 or the 10 in the area we were previously talking about that would have to be enticed to move are similar to those families in the dark red area; there is more of them and it may take more to entice them to move, but it seems to me that if you have got all the area outside the blue, why can't you make a positive effort to ease the process and try to convince them with enticements and help from the Federal Government to move just across to the Navajo land, that again, is not far from where they are presently living? I mean, all of those Navajo people that live in the dark maroon areas, are short distances from existing Navajo land.

Mr. ZAH. You may have the concept, Congressman, that there is room for those families to move in the light blue area. It is not. All of that land is spoken for and you have many, many people living there, and that is why we are proposing this plan.

Mr. SIDNEY. I would like to explain to you that there is no other Indian tribe in this country that has moved in and taken someone else's. I would like to make the record clear that not every inch of Navajo land is occupied at the present time. You can drive miles today on the vast Navajo Reservation and don't see anything.

Also, not too many Navajos make their total living on raising sheep. So are we questioning that they want it for grazing, and we are talking about human rights?

Also, prior to February 10, 1977, the judge in Tucson asked the Hopi and the Navajo to present a recommendation on how this land should be divided considering equal acreage, eliminating heavy concentrated area to lessen relocation, and consider the value on both sides. Both tribes recommended and this mediator's line was established. The Navajo Tribe did not include the Big Mountain at the time.

Also, the reason why they can't move across the boundaries, Mr. Chairman, is because the Navajos in the last several years have built homes all around the boundaries of the Hopi, but yet beyond that, there are miles of unsettled area, and this is not the case that there isn't an inch of land that is not occupied.

But these are areas that could best be resolved by both sides. I would like to make that clear.

Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman, it may be ironic that these Indian tribes are here before us, a Congress that has historically not helped to solve the problems of the Indians and even the agencies have been less than helpful historically. If this problem rests with us, at least this member would hope that we look at the longterm implications of any settlements. The Hopis are a small tribe and to separate their land holdings, I think, from my perspective, would do some damage.

I would hope that the Secretary would do what he could not to cause any additional hardship to the 1,200 or so families and individuals in that dark red area, and I am not sure I have a great answer for it. If we need more time, maybe we ought to take more time, but my sense is that we need to find a solution that doesn't further break up the territorial holdings of the Hopis. If we do that, I think we just end up causing more damage to their small tribe.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. I welcome the gentleman into the club. I hope you will help us find the answers that have been with us for 104 years.

The gentleman from Oregon, Mr. Weaver.

Mr. WEAVER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I wish I had a solution, Mr. Chairman. My understanding of this issue is far from the deep emotions and feelings of the people involved. I wish I had a clearer understanding and feel the pain that is being felt, obviously.

I know that all parties want to try to resolve this, and it is a very difficult issue. I confess that I cannot come up with any resolution.

I had a number of my constituents, about 20 of them, visit my Eugene, OR, office yesterday, and they raised an issue that I ask in all naivete about, Mr. Zah. They said that the Navajos themselves are divided on this issue; is that correct, or do the Navajos speak with one voice here?

Mr. ZAH. Congressman, I think before you came in, in my testimony, I indicated that the local unit of governments, the Navajo local unit of governments, have voted on the proposed bill and conceptually we are in support. Yes, there are some Navajos who don't support it, but they don't support it for several reasons. One of them is that they think the $300 million is too excessive. But they all support the concept of no relocation.

I think people here have to understand that relocation is a painful, painful experience.

Mr. WEAVER. You yourself do not support the relocation; is that correct?

Mr. ZAH. I do not support relocation. I think in this country we have only relocated people perhaps against their will only on one occasion, during the war time. Here we are, we are a Nation that believes in peace, and we are relocating people in so many ways by force, so that we make their lives intolerable so that they would submit to relocation, and I think that is, to some degree, using force, particularly when you look at the Navajo family.

Many of them are not educated like you and I. Many of them have a different life style than perhaps you and I, and they hold certain beliefs to the land, and the land is sacred, and it just to me intolerable for anyone to ask those people to move to another area. Mr. WEAVER. I appreciate very much those deep feelings. The people who visited my office yesterday felt there should be additional witnesses. Why would they feel that way?

Mr. ZAH. I guess we are just like any other government. We have people that take positions on certain issues, just like you have this committee here that votes on certain issues and you are not always in agreement 100 percent as Members of Congress. If you look at the State government, it is the same way. Within the Navajo Tribal Council, it is the same thing. The council voted 49 in favor and 20 opposed to support this, and I think we do have that, and if they want to testify, and I think that is up to the committee chairman, the committee members here to entertain that.

Mr. WEAVER. That was well said and well answered. How would their position differ from your own?

Mr. ZAH. I think their position would be that if you amend the bill that is before you and address those six points that I made in my testimony, they will probably support that.

Mr. WEAVER. I will read those points, Mr. Chairman. I don't need to take the committee's time any further. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. Ivan, you wish to be heard on that point?
Mr. SIDNEY. I would like to respond to the Congressman.

Mr. Congressman, in 1882, when the President, through Executive order, set aside the land for Hopi, it did not to date say that they also settled the Navajo there as was written in the language. However, we recognize hardships. We gave life estates from the beginning. Land exchanged was proposed; the Navajos did not respond. I think we are looking for the resolution to resolve this land issue so life can go forward. But the Navajos have not assisted those that do want to move, and that is why we are here today. Also, I want to respond to you as far as other people and their views that want to be heard. The Hopi traditional leaders, they have two positions. One position, if they are hurt today, will say we want to repeal the law. And do you know why they want to repeal the law? Because they want to go for all of the Hopi aboriginal land that is pretty much all of the Navajo Reservation, and do you think this Congress can stand relocating all of the Navajos from all of the Hopi Reservation, because that is what the Navajo Reservation is made up of today. It is primarily Hopi aboriginal lands.

They are also going to say to you, we are not going to move Navajos, because their position is that it is not Hopis to move Navajos. It is the Government, because they are not enforcing the law and that they have failed to take control of the Navajos and their treaty of 1868.

Mr. WEAVER. Mr. Sidney, I am curious. Before the Europeans came, did the Hopi and the Navajos fight wars?

Mr. SIDNEY. Yes, they did. The Hopis were the only people occupying the land in 1541 when the Spanish exploration first walked on top of the ruins of Owatove and by the way Owatove has been partitioned to the Navajos in 1974, where the first Spaniards walked on the mesa and saw the Hopis. No Navajos were there.