Imágenes de páginas

Mr. ZAH. We take the position that there are something like 500 families that are physically residing on HPL and if there are something like 4 to 5 to each family, we are talking about 2,000.

Mr. LEVINE. How many have signed the contracts; what percentage of families have signed the contracts, according to your numbers?

Mr. ZAH. I don't have those numbers, and I think it is indicated in my testimony.

Mr. LEVINE. Thank you.
Mr. SIDNEY. Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Sidney wanted to respond.

Mr. SIDNEY. Yes; I do. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I believe for the record Mr. Zah talked earlier about grazing for sheep and if he is talking about humane, he is saying that people, we are talking about people, he just stated that earlier, and I felt that I should say that. And also, we are the people that are surrounded by this vast reservation and we are the people that are squeezed in.

We cannot expect to give us land elsewhere. How can we continue to move? No other reservation is that way. They can expand, and I want you to know, Mr. Congressman, at one time I was told there were 42 villages, but because of the encroachment of the Navajo, we have moved to where we are, and our people there are waiting to move out. It is very important for me to say that to straighten the record. We don't have the 8,000. Our people are increasing in numbers and we need to talk about how we are going to look in the future.

Mr. LEVINE. I am pleased to see what a simple and easily resolvable situation we have, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. McCain.

Mr. McCain. Mr. Chairman, I think that what we again have illuminated here is why this issue has been with us for 104 years now, and the immense difficulty involved with an inability to understand certain native Americans' attachment to the land. What a life estate means to one person, means a death estate to another. This illustrates some of the extreme difficulties that we face in trying to work out an equitable solution.

I appreciate the efforts of Mr. Swimmer. I appreciate both tribal chairmen and their dedication to their peoples.

Mr. Chairman, I don't think it would be inappropriate at this time to thank you for your leadership on this issue. I would suggest that the record show that all of your adult life you have been involved in this issue seeking an equitable agreement for all concerned.

I think that the struggle goes on. I don't know where you will go with this legislation. I do know that you will consult with me and many others. I don't know whether we will have further hearings, or want to give Mr. Swimmer's proposal a chance, but I do thank you for the years of effort you have made in trying to resolve this very difficult issue and one which you could have easily avoided if you had not had the dedication and the concern for this issue.

Thank you.
The CHAIRMAN. I thank the gentleman for the kind remarks.
Mr. Richardson.
Mr. RICHARDSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I just wanted to ask one question to all three, and that is you have just stated that there will be no forceable relocation. I think that has come up several times. You have stated that July 6 is a date guideline. You have got relocatees uncertain about their future. You have got taxpayer funds expended on this whole process.

I guess, Mr. Swimmer, what would be the disadvantage of perhaps giving a negotiated settlement one more time pending congressional action on H.R. 4281 and perhaps imposing some kind of a moratorium on any kind of future relocations and funding expenses, taxpayer expense on this, until we-perhaps we should assign it to the Navajo and Hopi elders. Everyone else has tried. Maybe we should give them a chance to resolve this.

I am hopeful that we can work the congressional process on the Udall-McCain bill, but it is no secret that on the other body, Senator Goldwater has said that he is not going to act on that bill, and I am looking at the long range, and long range in this framework, we are talking about 1 year. What do we do, gentlemen? The three of you? Is there any harm imposing a moratorium on this whole matter until we act on Congressmen Udall and McCain's bill or a new proposal or get the elders together. You know, we are just kind of

talking at each other and nothing is being resolved, and the anguish of people is continuing.

The CHAIRMAN. We have got a vote on. Would each of the three of you quickly, in 1 minute, tell us where we go from here? Ivan, do you want to go first?

Mr. SIDNEY. Yes. I believe that I stated earlier, Mr. Congressman, that I believe the moratorium is only going to instill false hopes of people. I feel that what needs to happen here is to not have a moratorium, let those people that want to move, move. Let's do that first and I think that can be done. Mr. Swimmer indicated that, and I believe that Mr. Zah has the willingness.

I believe the moratorium is probably going to in one respect assists Mr. Zah in his reelection, and we don't want this thing to get into that, and I know that will happen with that.

I have already stated earlier, Mr. Congressman, that I have already proposed your recommendation and I appreciate for you bringing it up again, but I believe it is time now that the elders from both tribes to sit down and talk on this issue because we have had a traditional settlement. We have done it in a different way all along, and it is time to come together, but we have been waiting. We have been waiting all this time.

I think you and others who are very interested in this could encourage Mr. Zah that he recognize who those leaders are and bring them to our leaders, because they are then prepared to discuss this. But I believe the moratorium is going to have more difficulties because numbers seem to increase. That is the problem we have been faced with.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Zah. Mr. Zah. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, the position of the Navajo Tribe all along was that relocation is not a remedy to this whole situation and we still stand by that, and the tribal council resolution is still in effect.

Moratorium, we would welcome and accept a moratorium basically because relocation, the manner in which it is done, the way they are relocating people is just unworkable. In the act itself, there are certain provisions that says that we are supposed to have an infrastructure, the running water, the homes, everything, and I think Mr. Swimmer is committed to that.

But that whole process takes time and I would suggest that we have a plan that he can share with us and see how that plan is going to work out and then while the plans are being put together, moratorium would be something that we would certainly welcome in the process of trying to do this thing right, if there is such a thing as right.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Swimmer, do you want to finish it up here?

Mr. SWIMMER. A substantial amount of time and money has been spent on the process. We admitted earlier that the process has not been too effective. To try and go back to 1974 and in effect repeal all parts of this act, I think are beyond our capacity. I don't believe a moratorium is effective.

My concern is, in fact, for those people waiting the resettlement and seeing the new lands as an opportunity that they don't have now, and I think it would be an injustice to those people if we continue leaving them in a state of confusion, not allowing them to construct homes, not allowing them to add to their pasture, not allowing them to have their continued sheep grazing that the new lands would offer. The new lands were recently acquired by the Congress, by the Navajo Tribe, for the purpose of allowing their people to move there offer them the opportunity. It does take care of the issue as far as the drawing of the line, the partition and all, and I am convinced that with the kind of assistance we are giving, it can be done and it can be done humanely. The planning is there. We are prepared to move on it. I think a moratorium would just be unjustified to continue leaving these people in a state of indecision and doubts about what their future can be.

Mr. Zah. Mr. Chairman, in response to Ross Swimmer's claim, I think if those people were given a choice whether they want to move to new lands or stay where they are, I think many, many of them will tell you that they want to stay where they are rather than moving

The CHAIRMAN. This has been a useful and productive hearing. I will be consulting with my colleagues to see where we go next. It has been very useful and I want to thank everybody who helped make it possible.

The hearing is adjourned.
(Whereupon, at 12:30 p.m. the subcommittee was adjourned.]

[blocks in formation]

Thank you for asking me to submit comments for the Committee's hearing on May 8, 1986, on the Navajo-Hopi dispute.

As you know, I assisted William P. Clark beginning more than a year ago in an effort initiated by President Reagan to determine whether the Hopi and Navajo Indian Tribes might themselves resolve long-standing inter-tribal differences by negotiations. Our efforts and the results of those efforts were stated in a September 10, 1985 Memorandum, a copy of which is attacher and incorporated by this reference for the record. Neither I nor, I believe, Mr. Clark have departed from the views expressed in the Memorandum.


The concluding view expressed in the Memorandum urges that "responsible agencies of government now undertake whatever action they deem appropriate to solve inter-tribal issues. If action is to be taken, it is hoped the whole range of issues not just today's relocation problem be addressed. Unless a comprehensive plan be thoughtfully developed and put in place, fundamental tribal disputes may persist for still another century." Certainly H.R. 4281 must be recognized as an effort to put in place such a comprehensive plan as contemplated in the Memorandum.

Please advise whether I can be of further service to the Committee.

[blocks in formation]
« AnteriorContinuar »