    [Senate Hearing 109-183]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                            S. Hrg. 109-183

                          NAVAJO-HOPI LAND SETTLEMENT

    =======================================================================

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                          COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS
                              UNITED STATES SENATE

                           ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                       ON

                                    S. 1003

                 NAVAJO-HOPI LAND SETTLEMENT AMENDMENTS OF 2005

                                   __________

                                 JULY 21, 2005
                                 WASHINGTON, DC

                        U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
    22-642                      WASHINGTON : 2005
    _____________________________________________________________________________
    For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
    Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov  Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
    Fax: (202) 512�092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402�090001

                          COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS

                         JOHN McCAIN, Arizona, Chairman

                  BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota, Vice Chairman

    PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico         DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii
    CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming                KENT CONRAD, North Dakota
    GORDON SMITH, Oregon                 DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii
    LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska               TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota
    MICHAEL D. CRAPO, Idaho              MARIA CANTWELL, Washington
    RICHARD BURR, North Carolina
    TOM COBURN, M.D., Oklahoma

                     Jeanne Bumpus, Majority Staff Director

                    Sara G. Garland, Minority Staff Director

                                      (ii)

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page
    S. 1003, text of.................................................     3
    Statements:
        Bavasi, Christopher J., executive director, Office of Navajo
          and Hopi Indian Relocation.................................    58
        Bitsue, Roman, executive director, Navajo-Hopi Land
          Commission Office..........................................    66
        Denetsosie, Louis, attorney general, Navajo Nation...........    69
        Inouye, Hon. Daniel K., U.S. Senator from Hawaii.............    57
        McCain, Hon. John, U.S. Senator from Arizona, chairman,
          Committee on Indian Affairs................................     1
        Ragsdale, William P., director, BIA, Department of the
          Interior...................................................    57
        Shirley, Jr., Joe, president, Navajo Nation..................    63
        Taylor, Jr., Wayne, tribal chairman, Hopi Tribe..............    70
        Tessler, Paul, legal counsel, Office of Navajo and Hopi
          Indian Relocation..........................................    58

                                    Appendix

    Prepared statements:
        Bavasi, Christopher J........................................    77
        Bitsue, Roman (with attachment)..............................    82
        Denetsosie, Louis............................................   149
        Ragsdale, William P..........................................    78
        Shirley, Jr., Joe............................................    79
        Taylor, Jr., Wayne (with attachment).........................   157

                          NAVAJO-HOPI LAND SETTLEMENT

                            THURSDAY, JULY 21, 2005

                                           U.S. Senate,
                                   Committee on Indian Affairs,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:35 a.m. in room
    485, Senate Russell Building, Hon. John McCain (chairman of the
    committee) presiding.
        Present: Senators McCain, Dorgan, and Inouye.

       STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN McCAIN, U.S. SENATOR FROM ARIZONA,
                 CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS

        The Chairman. Good morning.
        I want to thank Senator Inouye for stopping by this morning
    because he is one of those who has been involved in this issue
    for many years, as I have. Senator Inouye, for the record, one
    of my earliest memories was in 1983 when I was a member of the
    House, now 22 years ago, traveling to Navajo and Hopi lands and
    having a long series of meetings with Congressman Udall, then
    chairman of the Interior Committee, to try to get the issue of
    Navajo-Hopi land disputes settled, one of the few times in Mo
    Udall's career he was not successful.
        Then I know when I came to the Senate in 1987, this issue
    again was before the committee, the issue of the Bennett
    freeze, how many families needed to be located, how soon would
    we be able to terminate this. And now we have spent since 1974
    now 31 years we have spent $483 million and witnesses will come
    before this committee today and say we are still not finished.
        It is going to be over. It is going to be over. It is going
    to be over. It is time it ended. It is time that we brought to
    a conclusion this tragedy that has afflicted human beings on
    the Navajo and Hopi Reservations for too long.
        I guess, and I would be interested in hearing my colleague
    from Hawaii's comments, maybe the lesson is you should not try
    to settle land disputes through legislation. That may be one of
    the lessons we have learned here since 1974.
        I do not diminish in any way the human tragedy that has
    been associated with this issue. Witnesses today are as well
    aware of that as I am. I am also aware that is a limited amount
    of American taxpayer's dollars that could be devoted to worthy
    causes on both the Navajo and Hopi Reservations: Educational
    facilities, health care facilities, housing, and many others.
        I want to emphasize, we have to bring closure to this. On
    many occasions in the past, all through the 1980's and 1990's,
    I was told just a few more years, just a few more years, just a
    few more years. The year is now 2005, $483 million spent in the
    meantime. It is time to bring closure.
        I want to clarify that the bill is not intended to alter
    prior court decisions on land claims or to impact on ongoing
    negotiations between the Navajo and Hopi Tribes. I commend you
    for the progress that is being made. I also understand there is
    a strong desire to address the deplorable conditions on the
    Bennett Freeze. I, too, want to address this in separate
    legislation.
        When enacted in 1974, the Navajo and Hopi relocation
    process was intended as a temporary means to relocate families
    who were living on the disputed land on December 22, 1974, 31
    years ago. The act originally intended that relocation
    activities would be completed by 1986, and that the total cost
    would be $40 million. Since its inception, the relocation
    process has been plagued with controversy and delay and the
    Congress has had to amend the act several times to expand the
    relocation activity and provide additional appropriations.
        I recognize the deep emotional toll that relocation has
    taken on the Navajo and Hopi Tribes and to the individual
    relocatees. But after 31 years of identifying and relocating
    eligible applicants and appropriations of one-half billion
    dollars, it is time to bring the relocation program to a close.
        This bill intends that by September 2008, the relocation
    office will transfer remaining responsibilities and necessary
    personnel and funding to the Department of the Interior.
        Thereafter the Federal Government will no longer be
    obligated to provide replacement homes for eligible relocatees.
    The funds to provide these homes will be placed in trust with
    Interior for dissemination to eligible relocatees or their
    heirs. All other necessary relocation activity will be
    administered by the department until these activities are
    complete.
        In 1996, I introduced a bill that would have phased out the
    relocation program by September 2001. At a hearing on that
    bill, many witnesses stated that this was a reasonable timeline
    to complete the activity, but opposition remained due to the
    pending approval of the accommodation lease agreements by the
    Department of the Interior. That activity is now complete and
    an additional 9 years have passed in which additional
    relocation activity has occurred.
        I commend the relocation office for its ongoing efforts to
    implement this complex program. I understand that you have
    reviewed over 4,600 applications, considered numerous appeals
    and provided relocation homes for over 3,600 families. You have
    also provided funding to both tribes to address the impacts of
    relocation.
        I welcome you all to the hearing and I look forward to your
    testimony on this important matter.
        [Text of S. 1003 follows:]

        The Chairman. Senator Inouye.

     STATEMENT OF HON. DANIEL K. INOUYE, U.S. SENATOR FROM HAWAII,
                      COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS

        Senator Inouye. Thank you very much.
        As you have pointed out, Mr. Chairman, this problem has
    been with us for over 125 years. It is one based on culture and
    history and much blood has been shed. But as you pointed out,
    Mr. Chairman, the time has come. Yes, the time has come.
        When we first handled this, it was $40 million. Now, it is
    nearly one-half billion dollars and it could get higher.
        But the spirit of cooperation is here, and I am certain
    that the leaders of both the Hopi and Navajo have learned that
    by cooperating one can achieve a lot. I hope that spirit will
    prevail. Some day soon, Mr. Chairman, I hope you and I can go
    there to celebrate this great event.
        The Chairman. Thank you very much, Senator Inouye. I want
    to thank you for your continued involvement and commitment on
    this issue for many, many years.
        I again want to commend Chris Bavasi, the executive
    director of the Office of Navajo and Hopi Indian Relocation,
    and William Ragsdale, but particularly you, Chris, for the
    outstanding job that you have performed over many years and
    exceedingly difficult ones.
        Our first panel today is Christopher J. Bavasi, executive
    director of the Office of Navajo and Hopi Indian Relocation.
        He is accompanied by Paul Tessler. Mr. Tessler, would you
    like to come to the table? Paul Tessler is legal counsel of the
    Office of Navajo and Hopi Indian Relocation in Flagstaff, AZ.
    And William P. Ragsdale, who is the director of the Bureau of
    Indian Affairs, U.S. Department of the Interior.
        I think it would be appropriate to begin with you, Mr.
    Ragsdale.

     STATEMENT OF WILLIAM P. RAGSDALE, DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF INDIAN
                AFFAIRS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

        Mr. Ragsdale. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        First of all, I want to say that I appreciate the
    opportunity to appear here before the committee. I appreciate
    the committee's concern. I want to pledge that we will work
    with this committee, the Navajo-Hopi Relocation Commission, the
    Navajo and Hopi Tribes, to transition the activities required
    by the act and the proposed amendments.
        Mr. Chairman, if it is all right with you, I would like to
    just summarize my views and then answer any questions the
    committee may have. I would request that my written testimony
    be included in the record.
        The Chairman. Without objection, all the written testimony
    will be made part of the record by all witnesses.
        Mr. Ragsdale. Again, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank
    you, Senator Inouye, for being here. I have appeared before
    this committee before in my younger years, both as a tribal
    official and as a BIA official. It is good to see you again.
        Yesterday, I met with the Navajo-Hopi Relocation
    Commission. I think we had a very productive meeting. We talked
    about transitioning the activities of the Commission,
    particularly the land management responsibility that the Bureau
    of Indian Affairs traditionally has on Indian lands throughout
    the country. I think that we will be working closely together
    to make that transition by the time, if not before, the term of
    the Relocation Commission expires.
        We have concerns addressed in my formal testimony about any
    remaining duties that would be required to relocate individual
    Indians and families, and the determinations of their
    eligibility, if that is not completed by the term of the
    Commission. However, the Commission has told me that they
    expect those activities to be closed and completed before their
    term expires.
        In addition to that, we would like to work with the
    committee and the Commission to carry out the transition plans.
    The only other concern that we would have is the personnel
    provisions that I think if we can work out with the committee
    that have been brought to our attention.
        With that, I will end my testimony, Mr. Chairman, and I
    will be glad to answer your questions. Thank you.
        [Prepared statement of Mr. Ragsdale appears in appendix.]
        The Chairman. As part of your opening statement, do you
    believe that this legislation is now necessary?
        Mr. Ragsdale. If it is necessary to complete the work of
    the Commission in finality, yes sir, I do.
        The Chairman. Thank you very much.
        Mr. Bavasi, again I want to thank you for the outstanding
    work you and the Commission have performed over a many year
    period. Please proceed.

      STATEMENT OF CHRISTOPHER J. BAVASI, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, THE
      OFFICE OF NAVAJO AND HOPI INDIAN RELOCATION; ACCOMPANIED BY
      PAUL TESSLER, LEGAL COUNSEL, THE OFFICE OF NAVAJO AND HOPI
                           INDIAN RELOCATION

        Mr. Bavasi. Thank you, Senator.
        I do have a written statement that I will submit for the
    record. I just want to give you the first couple of paragraphs
    here. Actually, in early June of this year, I and my staff met
    with the members of the committee's staff in Flagstaff, AZ for
    the purpose of giving comments on the original draft of S.
    1003. The Office is in agreement with the legislation's
    projected date for completion of relocation and transfer of any
    remaining functions to a newly created Office of Relocation
    within the Department of the Interior.
        I just want to make it clear that we believe that we can
    finish the relocation project and be prepared to turn over the
    land management program to BIA in the time frame that you have
    submitted in your pending legislation.
        With that, I will submit the rest for the record.
        [Prepared statement of Mr. Bavasi appears in appendix.]
        The Chairman. Maybe for the record it might be helpful, Mr.
    Bavasi, to describe to the committee for the record, if I went
    to the Phoenix Rotary Club today and said, you know, we passed
    a law in 1974 that was supposed to cost $40 million and take
    maybe 10 to 12 years, and it has ended up costing one-half of a
    billion dollars and has gone on for 31 years. How would you
    describe this saga?
        First of all, there is a lesson that Congress probably
    should not pass laws dictating relocation. Is that the first
    lesson?
        Mr. Bavasi. Probably, but I would do it carefully. I would
    not want to blame this on anyone. I would merely point out
    that, well, let me back up. I think the record would show that
    when this was originally contemplated that the notion was that
    there would be maybe 1,000 or 1,100 families that needed to be
    moved. The deadline of 1985 then 1986 came about because the
    law required the Office to submit a plan, have plan approved,
    and then 5 years later the project was supposed to be done.
    That was 1985. And then because of some legal issues, it became
    1986.
        So July 7, 1986, this project was supposed to be done and
    originally it had been contemplated there would be 1,100
    families, 1,000 or 1,100 families to be moved. Interestingly
    enough, in 1986 1,100 families had been moved. However, because
    for a whole variety of reasons, ultimately 3,600 families had
    been certified, or ultimately had been certified. So that is
    certainly one reason that it has taken this long.
        Another reason I think is that this has been purported to
    be something less than a voluntary program. But in fact, it has
    always been operated as a voluntary program. So some folks did
    not see the urgency to move through the program perhaps as
    quickly as they would otherwise.
        The Chairman. So no one has ever been forced off of their
    land?
        Mr. Bavasi. No, sir; it has never happened. I will visit
    with you later, if I am able to, about how we think we can come
    to a conclusion so no one will ever be forced off their land.
        So I think those two issues would be one reason we are
    where we are today.
        The Chairman. How would you account for gross
    miscalculation of costs from a $40 million original cost to a
    one-half-billion dollars actual cost?
        Mr. Bavasi. I am not sure I can because I do not know what
    the theory was or the thought process was 30 years ago that it
    would cost $40 million. We believe, and I think we can show
    that we have been fairly frugal in terms of the expenditure of
    money, we are able to even today, in today's housing market, we
    are able to build a home for slightly over $100,000 in 2004. It
    will be slightly higher this coming year.
        The Chairman. I think Mr. Tessler might testify that there
    has been huge, huge amount of legal costs associated with this
    issue. Is that right, Mr. Tessler?
        Mr. Tessler. That is correct.
        The Chairman. Could you estimate out of this one-half
    billion dollars how much has just been expended in continuous
    court battles? I think there have been continuous court battles
    from the day that this bill was passed.
        Mr. Tessler. Yes; there have. I know we provided the figure
    to your staff. I do not have it in front of me, but all through
    this process, the relocatees, if they have been denied
    eligibility for benefits, have been entitled to administrative
    hearings, and the Navajo Nation has provided a legal services
    program to represent them all through that process, which
    involved not only the administrative stage, but also appeals to
    the U.S. District Court, which generated much expense.
        The Chairman. In all due respect to our friends in the
    legal profession, this has been quite a windfall for them.
        Mr. Tessler. Yes; it has.
        Mr. Bavasi. We can get you that number for the record,
    Senator.
        The Chairman. Would you please for the record give us an
    estimate of the legal costs associated with this? I think it
    has really been horrendous. Again, maybe with the benefit of
    31-year hindsight, maybe we should have never passed the law to
    start with.
        Mr. Bavasi, using your expertise, what do you think we
    ought to do about the Bennett Freeze situation, which we all
    know has turned into, with all good intentions, into a
    deplorable economic disaster area.
        Mr. Bavasi. Senator, I do not think there is any easy
    answer to it. As you suggest, it is a deplorable, awful
    situation.
        I think if we all work together, the Navajos, the Hopis and
    Congress, the Federal Government, we can come to some
    conclusion on how that area can be rehabilitated.
        The Chairman. Which I think Congress, by the way, would be
    more than willing to provide funds for, but first we have to
    have a resolution. What if we passed a law tomorrow that said
    Bennett Freeze is lifted? What would happen then?
        Mr. Bavasi. Number one, I do not think that would be wise.
    I think that we should all work together to come to some
    meeting of the minds.
        The Chairman. Wouldn't be wise because what would happen?
        Mr. Bavasi. Chaos might be an appropriate term. I do not
    have any idea what would happen, but I do not think it would be
    good because everyone would be scrambling to get the upper
    hand, and I do not think that is the proper way to handle it.
        The Chairman. But negotiations between the tribes for 31
    years have not succeeded.
        Mr. Bavasi. I am not sure we have tried that hard. I am not
    sure we have tried that hard on the Bennett Freeze issue. I
    could be completely wrong. I am not involved in that, but I
    suspect that we can come to some conclusions, frankly, using
    the relocation as a benchmark of perhaps what not to do going
    in.
        The Chairman. Senator Inouye.
        Senator Inouye. As I have indicated earlier, I am very
    optimistic because I recall the first meeting that this
    committee held during which time the chairman of the Hopi and
    the chairman of the Navajo sat at the same table, and that had
    never happened before. Today, I note that for over 3 years, I
    believe, negotiators and the leaders of both tribes have been
    looking into the access to sacred sites in each other's camps.
    Now, if we can go that far, I am certain all of these matters
    can be resolved.
        I share the chairman's optimism and his directness that
    this be resolved. I am with him.
        Mr. Bavasi. Senator, may I add that I hope I did not leave
    the wrong impression. There is no relocation on the Bennett
    Freeze.
        The Chairman. Yes; but the Bennett Freeze continues to be a
    source of major friction between tribes, and the deplorable
    economic conditions that exist are just, you know, it is an
    outrage that any citizen of the United States should live in
    the conditions that exist on the Bennett Freeze. That was
    created by the Federal Government. Is that an inaccurate
    statement?
        Mr. Bavasi. No; it is not.
        The Chairman. Mr. Ragsdale, do you have any comment on
    that?
        Mr. Ragsdale. No, sir. I think it would have to be
    addressed in separate legislation.
        The Chairman. Mr. Tessler.
        Mr. Tessler. No, sir.
        The Chairman. You guys are surprisingly reticent.
        Mr. Bavasi. We are not a party to that suit, nor have we
    been.
        The Chairman. No; but you are very familiar with the impact
    that the Bennett Freeze has had on this whole issue.
        Mr. Bavasi. That part of the reservation has fallen behind
    even the former joint use area that we are dealing with now in
    terms of development and lack of infrastructure. I do believe
    it is very close to resolution. I believe the tribes are
    considering the compacts which may resolve it anytime now.
        The Chairman. Good.
        Mr. Ragsdale. Mr. Chairman, the freeze was put in place in
    1964 and 1965, about the time I graduated from high school.
        When I learned the other day when I was being briefed on
    the matter that the freeze was essentially still the status
    quo, I was somewhat surprised.
        The Chairman. As I remember history, it was put in as a
    temporary measure that would be an incentive to not have one
    tribe take advantage over the other while the dispute was going
    to be resolved within a short period of time, and here we are
    50 years later, whatever 40-some years later.
        Again, I go back, Senator Inouye. I think that Congress
    ought to be more careful about, and Administrations ought to be
    more careful, as we all know, it was an Executive order, the
    Bennett Freeze, as to how we interfere in these disputes
    because sometimes the laws of unintended consequences prevail
    in an incredible fashion.
        One other issue I had for you, Mr. Bavasi, construction and
    maintenance problems with relocation housing. How severe are
    they?
        Mr. Bavasi. Construction and maintenance problems?
        The Chairman. Yes.
        Mr. Bavasi. Construction problems are minimal. We have
    either purchased or constructed over 3,400 houses. We have a
    program on the new lands, that is an area in Sanders, about
    350,000 acres, there are almost 400 homes there, 397 homes.
        We have a very small portion that originally were started
    by BIA a number of years ago. One of the previous, it was not
    called ``director'' then.
        Mr. Ragsdale. Assistant Secretary.
        Mr. Bavasi. Assistant Secretary then had about $25 million
    to build houses, and decided that BIA wanted to do it
    themselves. There were some earth problems. The houses that
    were begun to be built there, 12 or 13, and then the program
    came back to us. We finished the houses. To make a long story
    short, there are 36 houses there. About 12 of them have had
    some foundation problems. We are now going in and evaluating
    all of that, and we will fix whatever needs to be fixed.
        The point I am making is that besides those, there are very
    few houses, not none, but very few houses over the course of
    these years that have needed to be fixed because of latent
    defects in the construction.
        Maintenance is an entirely different story. We expect our
    clients to take care of the houses, as anybody else would. So
    we frequently get complaints about shingles off the roof,
    broken windows, those kinds of things.
        The Chairman. Mr. Ragsdale, finally, the reason why the
    Office of Navajo and Hopi Indian Relocation was created
    originally was because of the belief that the Bureau of Indian
    Affairs could not handle it. Now, we are going to I guess turn
    over a few loose ends to you, hopefully a minimum. But I hope
    that you will give this issue the attention it deserves as we
    complete this, in my view, unhappy chapter in many ways in
    American governmental relations with Native Americans.
        So I hope that I can get a commitment from you that you
    will place this as a very high priority whatever
    responsibilities may remain, including actively involved in how
    we can get the Bennett Freeze lifted and be equitable to all
    parties.
        Mr. Ragsdale. I will place that, Senator.
        The Chairman. Thank you very much.
        Again, Mr. Bavasi, I know you have been involved in this
    issue for a very long time. I have heard nothing but praise
    from Navajo and Hopi alike. You have been involved in some very
    incredibly traumatic issues for some families who have had to
    move off of land that they occupied for centuries thank you for
    the job that you and the Commission have done.
        Mr. Bavasi. Thank you, Senator. That is very kind of you.
        The Chairman. Thanks very much.
        Mr. Ragsdale. Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman. Yes; go ahead.
        Mr. Ragsdale. I might say, just to express one reservation
    that is included in my formal testimony, that our optimism, and
    I am optimistic that we will be able to effect an orderly
    transition and can work with the Commission, but we do have
    reservations if the activities are not concluded with respect
    to the relocation of individuals. The Bureau of Indian Affairs
    is very reluctant, the Department of the Interior is very
    reluctant to be engaged in the movement and responsible for the
    relocation of individuals from these lands, which was one of
    the purposes of this act initially to put somebody neutral in
    charge of that activity.
        The Chairman. I understand that. Again, it has been 31
    years. People have grown old.
        I thank you.
        Our next panel is Wayne Taylor, who is the tribal chairman
    of the Hopi Tribe; Joe Shirley, who is the president of the
    Navajo Nation. He is accompanied by Louis Denetsosie, who is
    the attorney general of the Navajo Nation. Our other witness is
    Roman Bitsuie, who is executive director of the Navajo-Hopi
    Land Commission Office in Window Rock, AZ.
        I do not know who is older, between Chairman Taylor and
    President Shirley, but President Shirley looks older, so we
    will begin with you. [Laughter.]
        Welcome to the witnesses.

      STATEMENT OF JOE SHIRLEY, Jr., PRESIDENT, THE NAVAJO NATION

        Mr. Shirley. Thank you, sir. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and
    Senator McCain, and the rest of the members of the committee.
        I thank you for the opportunity to discuss the Navajo-Hopi
    Land Settlement Amendments with the committee this morning.
        My name is Joe Shirley, Jr. I am president of the Navajo
    Nation. The Navajo Nation last appeared before this committee
    regarding the Navajo-Hopi land dispute in 1996. Since then,
    five Congresses and two Administrations have had little
    interest in the Navajo-Hopi land dispute. The Navajo Nation and
    the Hopi Tribe during that same period have made significant
    progress by working in a more collaborative approach with each
    other to resolve aspects of the land dispute. These joints
    efforts between the Navajos and the Hopis appears to be moving
    both tribes to the conclusion of the land dispute.
        Following passage of the Navajo-Hopi Land Dispute
    Settlement Act of 1996 and this committee's consideration in
    the 104th Congress of S. 2111, that bill with a similar intent
    to this bill, there has been no action by this committee
    regarding the land dispute. I welcome this opportunity to
    discuss the current status of these matters with the committee.
        The Navajo Nation understands from the introductory
    comments of Chairman McCain that he is concerned that the
    relocation process has cost far more than originally estimated
    and taken too long to complete. The Navajo Nation vigorously
    opposed the Navajo-Hopi Land Settlement Act of 1974 before its
    passage and actively sought its repeal for years afterwards.
    The Navajo Nation unfortunately failed in these efforts. Had
    the Navajo Nation been successful, the Navajo people would have
    been spared a tremendous harm and the Federal Government would
    have been spared a great expense.
        That said, now that the Navajo people have had to live
    through the nightmare of relocation, we do not think Federal
    budgetary issues alone should be a basis for limiting funds to
    complete the program, and doing so in a way that brings
    humanity to what has otherwise been an inhumane process.
        The chairman is concerned with costs. I ask the committee
    to consider how they would estimate the costs of moving an
    entire town and how they would value the economic and social
    upheaval such a move would impose. This is what happened to the
    12,000 Navajos who lost their land, their livelihood and their
    identity; 12,000 people, which is approximately the population
    of Kingman, AZ. How much would it cost to relocate the entire
    population of Kingman to the Phoenix area? One billion dollars?
    Two billion dollars? How long would it take if the funds were
    appropriated bit by bit over 30 years? What would be the impact
    if the land that these people were expected to relocate to was
    already populated? What would happen if these people suddenly
    had to unlearn their skills as farmers and learn to survive in
    a cash economy? How long would be too long? How much would be
    too much?
        The Chairman. Let me answer to that: One-half billion would
    be too much and 31 years would be too long. That is my response
    to you, Mr. President, and I think most of my citizens,
    including your constituents, would agree with that.
        Mr. Shirley. Since 1996, the Navajo Nation and the Hopi
    Tribe have settled three major pieces of litigation: The Use
    Case that arose from 25 U.S.C. 640(d)-17(a)(2); the Damage Case
    that arose from 25 U.S.C. 640(d)-17(a)(3); and the Tax Case
    that arose from 25 U.S.C. 640(d)(7), and the continued joint
    ownership of minerals between the Navajo Nation and the Hopi
    Tribe.
        The Use and Damage Cases concluded in 1999 when the Navajo
    Nation paid the Hopi Tribe $29.1 million, and the Hopi provided
    the Nation with satisfactions of judgment in both the Use and
    Damage Cases. Nothing remains of these lawsuits.
        Similarly in 2002, the Navajo Nation and the Hopi Tribe
    settled the Tax Case with a significant payment equal to one-
    half of the taxes from the Black Mesa Mine through 2007 were
    paid by the Nation to the Hopi Tribe.
        Currently, with some assistance from the Office of Navajo
    and Hopi Indian Relocation, ONHIR, the Hopi Tribe and the
    Navajo Nation are near resolving the final aspects of
    relocation without any Navajo evictions from the Hopi
    partitioned land.
        One of the more significant issues presented by S. 1003 in
    relation to this potential for forced evictions is one of
    timing. Currently, S. 1003 requires ONHIR to certify
    eligibility of all outstanding claims by September 30, 2005.
        I understand that this date will be revised to September
    30, 2008. Such a change should avoid the need for any forced
    relocation of Navajos because the contemplated agreement can be
    implemented.
        Ideally, if more time is needed to complete these efforts,
    with the specter of eviction, that time should be afforded.
        This is especially true for interested parties who are
    working together to complete difficult tasks.
        S. 1003 raises other areas of specific concern including,
    first, rehabilitation efforts should be focused on the Navajo
    partitioned land. The NPL Navajo communities have borne much of
    the cost of the relocation, having absorbed thousands of
    relocatees and their livestock in an area that has long been at
    or over capacity. The NPL's extremely limited infrastructure,
    already overtaxed by the influx of relocatees, was further
    constrained by the construction freeze that was in place from
    1963 until approximately 1979. This infrastructure continues to
    be grossly insufficient to meet the current needs resulting
    from the relocation law.
        Second, the relocation law currently authorizes the
    Commissioner to make grants which significantly assist the
    Commissioner or assist the Navajo Tribe or Hopi Tribe in
    meeting the burdens of the law. S. 1003 would strike this
    provision, but this is the very provision that provides ONHIR
    the flexibility to address the needs of families and
    communities as they arise. Pursuant to this provision, the
    Navajo Nation has proposed various projects such as a community
    center for the Navajo families that have signed accommodation
    agreements with the Hopi Tribe, range and road improvement,
    power line extensions, and some housing improvements for
    heavily impacted NPL host families.
        Third, the Navajo land selections in New Mexico should not
    be prejudiced. Section 107(c) of S. 2003 provides that the
    authority of the Commissioner to select lands in New Mexico
    shall terminated on September 30, 2008. Since the
    Commissioner's authority would terminate on that date, it is
    not clear that this authority would continue in the new Office
    of Relocation at the Department of the Interior.
        The Navajo Nation has not yet completed its new Mexico land
    selections due largely to circumstances beyond its control.
        Completion of some of those selections is the subject of
    legislation introduced in this Congress, specifically S. 692,
    the Bisti/PRLA Dispute Resolution Act. The Navajo Nation is
    concerned that this provision in S. 1003 could impact that
    selection process and potentially prejudice Navajo interests.
        This authority should be carried over into the Department
    of the Interior if the selections are not completed by
    September 30, 2008.
        Fourth, the transfer of ONHIR's responsibilities to the
    Department of the Interior. ONHIR has developed critical and
    hard-won experience in working on and near the Navajo Nation
    and is ideally suited to addressing the rehabilitation of the
    Bennett and Statutory Freeze areas. Based on this institutional
    knowledge, ONHIR should not be eliminated, although it
    certainly can be downsized.
        I strongly believe that all Navajos want to put the land
    dispute with the Hopis behind and move forward. In order for
    the Nation to do that, the final tasks that will complete
    relocation in a just and human fashion must be accomplished.
        One alternative approach that the committee may want to
    consider, rather than S. 1003 as presently crafted, would be to
    evaluate and enumerate all the tasks the ONHIR needs to perform
    to finish its tasks, with input from the Navajo Nation and the
    Hopi Tribe, then set out a reasonable timeframe to accomplish
    those tasks. That timeframe could be used as a period that
    begins after passage of the legislation to complete the tasks
    identified.
        Such an approach may not have worked prior to 1996, but in
    the present collaborative era, the Nation, ONHIR and the Hopi
    Tribe can devise a plan to take these final steps. The Navajo
    Nation wants this dispute behind us, but we do not want to
    leave individuals behind.
        In addition to my comments, the Navajo Nation attorney
    general has prepared comments on certain specific legal issues
    presented by S. 1003. Those matters are also of special concern
    because of their impact on cases currently pending in the
    courts of the impact these provisions may have on individuals
    seeking relocation benefits. Roman Bitsuie, the executive
    director of the Navajo-Hopi Land Commission Office, will
    discuss the efforts of the Office to serve the relocatees in
    the Bennett Freeze area.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        [Prepared statement of Mr. Shirley appears in appendix.]
        The Chairman. Thank you.
        Before we go with you, Chairman Taylor, we will go with Mr.
    Bitsuie since it follows. Go ahead. Mr. Attorney General,
    please proceed. I mean, Mr. Bitsuie, the executive director,
    please go ahead.

    STATEMENT OF ROMAN BITSUIE, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, THE NAVAJO-HOPI
                         LAND COMMISSION OFFICE

        Mr. Bitsuie. Chairman McCain, Ranking Member Dorgan, and
    members of the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, thank you
    for this opportunity to comment on the Navajo-Hopi Land
    Settlement Amendments of 2005.
        The introduction of S. 1003 provides an important and
    timely opportunity to address the status of the Navajo-Hopi
    land dispute and the Bennett Freeze. It also provides an
    important opportunity to focus attention on the need for
    developing a plan for the orderly and humane completion of the
    relocation law, including implementation of a rehabilitation
    program for affected areas and communities.
        I am from the Hardrock Chapter of the Navajo Nation which
    was divided in half between the Hopi partitioned land and the
    Navajo partitioned lands. I can testify first-hand to the many
    hardships resulting from the relocation law. In 1989, I became
    the executive director of the Navajo-Hopi Land Commission
    Office, the Navajo entity responsible for dealing with all
    Navajo and Hopi land-related matters.
        Every day, Navajo tribal members come into my office to
    tell me of the hardships that they have suffered because of the
    relocation law, including lots of young people whose families
    relocated and now are homeless and landless. The impact of the
    land dispute will be with the Navajo Nation for many
    generations to come. Although we may not agree with everything
    that will be discussed today, I am sure that we can agree that
    relocation has been a fiasco. At a cost of nearly $500 million,
    the Federal Government has destroyed the subsistence lifestyle
    of thousands of Navajos, uprooted whole communities, and left
    the Navajo Nation and the Navajo people to bear much of the
    burden of addressing the extraordinary economic, social and
    psychological consequences of relocation.
        If the Navajo Nation could have its dream bill, it would
    overturn the relocation law and provide for a right of return
    for affected Navajo families. Of course, we know that this is
    not going to happen. Still, our spiritual ties to the land run
    deep and it would be a betrayal of our beliefs if I did not
    again remind the committee of the nature of the sacrifice the
    Navajo families who have left their ancestral lands had to
    make.
        From the beginning, Federal policy in this area has been
    plagued by lack of understanding of the true situation of the
    land. When the 1882 Executive Order Reservation was
    established, it was an arbitrarily drawn rectangle, one degree
    of longitude wide, one degree of latitude high, containing both
    Navajo and Hopi populations. In the early 1970's when the
    relocation law was under consideration, the Federal Government
    grossly underestimated the costs of relocation, again because
    they did not take the time to understand properly the situation
    on the land.
        Now, with the relocation process approaching its end, it is
    critically important to not repeat past mistakes and take
    action without proper understanding of the situation. We urge
    that a study be undertaken to assess the impact of the
    relocation law and to serve as a policy and fact-based tool for
    developing a humane closure plan. The Navajo Nation began
    pushing for a study in the mid-1990's. In the 107th Congress,
    this committee actually considered two pieces of legislation
    that would have provided for such a study. Unfortunately, the
    Hopis opposed the study provision and it was dropped. If either
    of these initiatives had been acted upon, we would be sitting
    here today with quantifiable data about what has transpired and
    what is needed to close out the relocation in a humane manner.
        Well, we do not have the empirical data, but we do have
    loads of anecdotal information that tells us that many
    relocated families have been traumatized and suffer from a much
    higher incidence of alcoholism, poverty, suicide, depression
    and physical illness than the rest of the local population.
        In addition, the burden of caring for these families has
    fallen on the surrounding communities, as well as the Navajo
    Nation. In my written testimony, I describe at length the
    hardships imposed by the relocation law and the related
    construction freeze.
        Further funding of the Navajo Rehabilitation Trust Fund
    should be undertaken to complete its mission of addressing
    impacts from the relocation law. The Nation has viewed the
    trust fund as a resource for addressing unforeseen and
    unintended consequences of the land dispute, not only over the
    short term, but also over the long term. When initially created
    through the 1980 amendments to the act, it was presumed that
    the authorized amount of $60 million would provide a
    significant start when invested to address the impact of the
    relocation law. It would then be supplemented on an ongoing
    basis by the development of Paragon Ranch energy resources.
    However, the Navajo Nation received only $16 million through
    the trust fund. The fund itself has generated about $8 million
    in interest. Thus, the total value of the fund to the Navajo
    Nation has been about $24 million.
        The Navajo Nation has expended approximately $13 million
    since 1999, and it currently has obligated for near-term
    expenditure another $2 million, leaving about $9 million in the
    trust fund, roughly the amount of interest earned on the
    account. Of the $9 million, about $8.3 million has been
    committed for the purchase of land in Arizona, some 13,000
    acres remaining to complete the land selection provision in
    section 640(d)(10)(a)(2) of the current law.
        As you know, when the 1882 land was partitioned, the Navajo
    Nation lost 911,000 acres of land upon which Navajo families
    resided, and only received as compensation 250,000 acres, plus
    the right to purchase up to 150,000 acres. Land is extremely
    important in Navajo culture. The commitment to purchase
    additional land with trust fund moneys falls within the
    statutory requirement of the law which is that the moneys are
    solely for purposes which will contribute to continuing
    rehabilitation and improvement of the economic, educational and
    social condition of families in Navajo communities affected by
    the law's provision.
        The Navajo Nation has considered and is currently
    considering several properties. However, because it is
    critically important that any newly acquired lands truly
    benefit the affected Navajo families, the Navajo Nation is
    exercising due caution. Until the land purchases are made, the
    Navajo Nation is using the interest from the trust fund to pay
    for ongoing projects to mitigate the effects of the relocation.
        We were encouraged that S. 1003 would authorize additional
    appropriations for the trust fund. We now understand that this
    was a mistake. We would ask that the trust fund in fact be
    reauthorized and that it receive full funding, and that the
    obligation of the Navajo Nation to repay the Navajo
    Rehabilitation Trust Fund be lifted. The coal resources at the
    Paragon Ranch were to be the source of funds to repay the
    United States. However, Paragon Ranch has not been developed as
    expected, and no significant development is anticipated in the
    foreseeable future.
        Notably because of the lawsuit authorized by the relocation
    law which created unexpected liabilities of the Navajo Nation,
    the Navajo Nation has already paid the Hopi Tribe approximately
    $40 million to settle several cases. The Navajo Nation is not
    in a position to pay back the trust fund. The greatest cost of
    the relocation program has been housing, the majority of which
    has been completed. The costs that remain relate to items that
    support the relocation process or assist the Navajo Tribe or
    Hopi Tribe in meeting the burden imposed by the relocation law
    and are therefore very important.
        Unfortunately, only a small fraction of the budget of the
    Office of Navajo Indian Relocations has been spent on this
    important component of the relocation process. We believe that
    the United States must finish the job with regard to Navajo-
    Hopi land dispute and assure that all those who have been
    adversely affected by the relocation law have a chance at a
    decent life.
        As a matter of comparison, I would like to note that the
    entire cost of the Federal Government over the last 36 years of
    the Navajo-Hopi land dispute is roughly equal to what the
    United States spends in Iraq every 36 hours.
        Another high priority of the Navajo Nation is
    rehabilitating the Bennett Freeze area. I do support the
    statement that has been made by the chairman and Senator Inouye
    regarding that.
        Due to a 39-year Federal construction freeze, the Bennett
    Freeze Navajos are the poorest of the poor. We hope that all
    parts of the Freeze will be lifted in the near future and truly
    rehabilitation of this area can begin. I am happy to learn from
    your staff of your support for addressing this issue. The
    sooner we can develop a specific approach, the better. It would
    make sense to make the Office of Navajo-Hopi Indian Relocation
    to carry out the Bennett Freeze rehabilitation as they have
    hard-won expertise at working in the western Navajo area.
        Of course, there should be no forced relocation of Navajo
    families. About eight Navajo families who continue to live on
    HPL have refused to sign the accommodation agreement. There is
    real hope that arrangement among the parties can be made to
    allow these families to remain on their ancestral land. We
    believe S. 1003 should support this approach, rather than
    reinforce the deeply troubling idea that Navajo families will
    be forcefully removed from land that they have called home for
    generations.
        We urge the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs to schedule
    a hearing on the Navajo Nation in order to facilitate
    participation by the people most affected by the land dispute
    and to provide the opportunity to visit affected areas and
    families in order to deepen the committee's understanding of
    the long-lasting effects of this relocation law.
        Thank you for your consideration of these remarks. I look
    forward to working with the Committee as it considers S. 1003.
        Thank you.
        [Prepared statement of Mr. Bitsuie appears in appendix.]
        The Chairman. Thank you very much.
        Chairman Taylor, welcome.
        Mr. Attorney General, did you have an opening statement?
        Mr. Denetsosie. Yes; I do.
        The Chairman. It better be a short one.

      STATEMENT OF LOUIS DENETSOSIE, ATTORNEY GENERAL, THE NAVAJO
                                 NATION

        Mr. Denetsosie. Thank you, Senator McCain and members of
    the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs.
        I would just like to summarize my testimony.
        The Chairman. Without objection, your full statement will
    be made part of the record.
        Mr. Denetsosie. I will submit the written testimony for the
    record.
        I would just like to address four aspects of the
    legislation. I think that on the existing land claims
    litigation between the two tribes, we would agree with the
    committee, and also I have had a chance to review Chairman
    Taylor's testimony that the legislation should not amend the
    laws with respect to that ongoing litigation, specifically the
    so-called Owelty case. That case is near completion and we just
    need to complete that. Judgments have been entered twice by the
    Court of Appeals and litigation should just continue. We ask
    that section 2 of the bill be deleted.
        With regard to 640(d)(11)(f) and (g), the legislation
    creates two offices. I think that causes a lot of confusion for
    everyone concerned. The Department of the Interior office
    should follow sequentially after the Navajo-Hopi Indian
    Relocation Office is taken out of commission. With regard to
    640(d)(13)(d) and 640(d)(14)(i), we do have a problem with the
    September 30, 2005 date for close of certification. We
    understand that that will be extended to 2008. We would agree
    with that.
        And finally, the legislation creates a new appeals process
    to take the appeals of benefit certifications to the Court of
    Appeals. We believe that is unnecessarily cumbersome and
    probably not the best use of judicial resources. We believe
    that the current procedures should be kept in place to allow
    for appeal to the Federal District Court.
        With that, Senator, I agree with you. A lot of good men
    have tried to resolve this dispute. I think the dispute has
    proven to be bigger than any of them.
        Thank you.
        [Prepared statement of Mr. Denetsosie appears in appendix.]
        The Chairman. Thank you very much, Mr. Attorney General.
        I would like to say that we would like to be in close
    communication with you as we move forward with developing this
    legislation, particularly in the form of amendments. I thank
    you for those recommendations. They sound like they are very
    important and helpful ones. And thank you for being here today.
        Mr. Denetsosie. Yes; and we look forward to working with
    the staff on that during the break.
        The Chairman. Thank you, sir.
        Chairman Taylor, welcome.

    STATEMENT OF WAYNE TAYLOR, Jr., TRIBAL CHAIRMAN, THE HOPI TRIBE

        Mr. Taylor. Thank you, Chairman McCain.
        The Hopi Tribe appreciates the opportunity to appear before
    you today to offer testimony on S. 1003. My name is Wayne
    Taylor, Jr. I am the democratically elected chairman of the
    Hopi Tribe of Arizona. The tribe has submitted written
    testimony in reply to specific provisions of S. 1003.
        The Hopi Tribe is grateful for the committee's effort in
    attempting to bring to a close the long struggle by the Hopi
    people to both protect our aboriginal lands from encroachment
    and secure jurisdictional control over those lands. The Hopi
    people have lived on our northeastern Arizona homeland since
    ancient times. Our original reservation of more than 2.6
    million acres established in 1882 by Executive order of then-
    President Chester Arthur was only a small portion of our
    aboriginal homeland. Since that time, because of encroachment
    by the Navajo and action and inaction by the United States, we
    have lost over 40 percent of our reservation. We are today
    completely surrounded by the Navajo Nation, which overlaps
    three States. Many of our sacred and archaeological sites are
    no longer on the Hopi lands.
        The Navajo-Hopi Indian Settlement Act of 1974 was intended
    to resolve more than a century of land disputes between the
    Hopi and Navajo Nations. It partitioned disputed lands and
    required Hopi and Navajo to relocate off property that belonged
    to one tribe or the other. Hopi people years ago moved off
    disputed Navajo land. However, more than 30 years after passage
    of the 1974 Act, we are still waiting for the Navajo to move
    off Hopi land.
        S. 1003 should not rewrite existing dispute resolution
    provisions between the Hopi Tribe and the Navajo Nation.
        Section 102 of S. 1003 could undo years of litigation
    between the Hopi and Navajo in the courts of the United States.
    The bill affects the Owelty lawsuit provision of the 1974 Act
    by changing the Owelty decisionmaker from the Federal District
    Court to the Secretary of the Interior.
        The bill also changes how Owelty is calculated. The Owelty
    case was decided at the District Court level by two judgments,
    both of which were appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of
    Appeals. The case is now on remand to the District Court for
    further proceedings. The Hopi Tribe opposes any changes to the
    Owelty provision of the 1974 Settlement Act.
        S. 1003 is intended to complete the work of relocating
    Navajo off Hopi lands and close off the Navajo-Hopi Indian
    relocation by 2008. We certainly welcome those goals, which
    under the 1996 Settlement Act were supposed to be completed in
    2000.
        However, we are concerned that the deadline will prejudice
    the rights and interests of the Hopi Tribe.
        S. 1003 will be effective only so long as it enables the
    Hopi Tribe to retain complete jurisdiction over all its
    reservation lands are provided in 1974 Act. S. 1003 states that
    relocation duties remaining after 2008 be turned over to the
    Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs. The Hopi
    Tribe believes all relocation be completed before the Office is
    closed. We do not believe the BIA, which is already
    overburdened, is equipped to handle relocation. In addition,
    the BIA has trust responsibility to both the Hopi and Navajo
    Nations. Injecting the BIA into the relocation matter may be a
    breach of the Federal trust responsibility that BIA has to both
    tribes.
        The Hopi Tribe fears that provisions of S. 1003 may delay
    final relocation. The bill provides that relocation funds may
    be placed into a trust for heirs of those who refused to
    relocate, rewarding them for continued illegal occupation of
    Hopi lands. While the bill establishes removal eviction
    requirements, it leaves much to the discretion of the U.S.
    Attorney. Evictions should be mandatory and deadlines or
    appeals should not stretch the process beyond 2008.
        Finally, we are concerned that the Office of Relocation
    receives sufficient time and funding necessary to complete its
    work. Certification deadlines for applying for relocation
    benefits must be reasonable and not arbitrary as to encourage
    legal challenges and other delays. Congress must provide the
    Office of Relocation with funding necessary for such
    substantive work as building houses for relocated families.
        My people are faced with many challenges, Senator, some of
    which you have described, high unemployment, inadequate
    housing, lack of economic development on a semi-arid and remote
    homeland, and the erosion of our cultural traditions and our
    way of life. We are faced with a very real thirst for survival.
    Too much of our time and resources have been spent in a
    seemingly endless struggle to preserve and protect what has
    been ours for two millennium, what is most precious to us than
    life itself, our homeland.
        The Hopi people ask that this committee help us in ending
    this tortured chapter in our existence so that we may finally
    move on to the creation of a viable homeland for future
    generations.
        Chairman McCain, let me again thank you and members of this
    esteemed committee for this opportunity to testify before you
    today. I am ready for any questions.
        [Prepared statement of Mr. Taylor appears in appendix.]
        The Chairman. Thank you very much.
        President Shirley and Chairman Taylor, suppose that you had
    dictatorial powers. What would you do about the Bennett Freeze?
    What would be your solution to the Bennett Freeze issue? We
    will begin with you, President Shirley.
        Mr. Shirley. I do not know if I want dictatorial powers,
    Senator
        The Chairman. Some say the president of the Navajo Nation
    has close to it. [Laughter.]
        Seriously, in other words, if you had a magic wand and
    said, okay, this is the way we settle the Bennett Freeze. This
    is important because we are going to try to address that issue.
        Mr. Shirley. I hope there is a time, Senator, when the Hopi
    Nation and the Navajo Nations live together harmoniously. I
    guess I would like to get back to that. I know many of our
    children are inter-married, meaning that Navajo people are
    married to Hopi people, and so we have children who are Hopi
    and Navajo. I think also with the Hopi Nation. I think the two
    nations at this point in time, and working with Chairman Taylor
    and with the Council to try to resolve just that, the Bennett
    Freeze. We have not resolved it. Hopefully, we begin to see the
    harmonious relationship that has gotten away from us and to
    begin to develop our lands the way we should. That is what I
    would like to see.
        The Chairman. You would like to see it lifted?
        Mr. Shirley. Yes; I would like to see it lifted, sir. I
    think that is what we need.
        The Chairman. Chairman Taylor.
        Mr. Taylor. Chairman McCain, the 1934 Land Settlement Act
    is in litigation between the two tribes, as you well know. We
    have been waiting on the District Court to pick this matter
    back up. We have waited for a very long time. It is still on
    the docket.
        The Chairman. Let me ask you this. Suppose we lifted the
    Bennett Freeze tomorrow. What do you think would ensue on the
    Bennett Freeze? Would it be chaos? Would it be people trying to
    move in on other people's land? What do you think would happen?
        Mr. Taylor. Chairman McCain, in fact what I was getting
    ready to say is we have been in the negotiations, and in fact
    have reached agreement and have developed a compact which would
    settle this lawsuit. In fact, the Hopi Tribal Council has
    already ratified this agreement and we are awaiting on the
    Navajo Council to do likewise.
        The Chairman. And roughly the outlines of that agreement
    would be?
        Mr. Taylor. The lands have been largely partitioned. What
    is remaining, Chairman McCain, are in the case of the Hopi, the
    sacred sites, the religious sites that we have remaining on the
    Navajo 1934 areas. We want those areas to be protected and we
    want to have access to all those areas so that we can continue
    to practice our religious duties and responsibilities.
        The Chairman. President Shirley, your version of this
    compact?
        Mr. Shirley. We are very diligently working together, the
    two nations, to come to agreement about the compact, sir. I
    think if we can continue to do that, I think in short order we
    will have that agreement. The Navajo Nation Council has been
    apprised of it. They are looking at it. I think, God willing,
    maybe we will have an agreement.
        The Chairman. Within the year?
        Mr. Shirley. Giving caution, I would like to see it within
    the year.
        Mr. Taylor. Chairman McCain, again the Hopi Tribal Council
    has already approved the compact. We are anxious to see it
    happen this year. That would, in effect, also lift the Bennett
    Freeze.
        The Chairman. Mr. Attorney General, do you have a comment
    on that?
        Mr. Denetsosie. Thank you, Senator. The terms of the
    compact are subject to a confidentiality agreement.
    Unfortunately, we cannot really divulge the details in it. The
    negotiations involve a senior judge of the Ninth Circuit Court
    of Appeals as the mediator. He also signed onto the
    confidentiality agreement, so we are very cautious about that.
        It is impossible to predict when the two tribes will carve
    out the final terms. Like we said, it could be this year or it
    could be next year. That is the best we can say, but we look
    forward to the assistance of the United States, not only the
    Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife, and the United
    States Senate in helping us resolve this quite in the near
    future, I hope.
        The Chairman. Well, I do not have to tell any of the
    witnesses that it is a national shame and disgrace the
    conditions that exist in the Bennett Freeze area. It is long
    overdue that addressed it, and I hope that this compact or
    agreement may be consummated as soon as possible so we can let
    those people get on with some kind of development. President
    Shirley, so keep us informed, would you?
        The Paragon Ranch in New Mexico was purchased with the
    intent that the coal reserves would generate revenues that
    would in turn reimburse the Navajo Rehabilitation Trust Fund.
    It is my understanding there is no coal resources that are
    producing.
        What do you intend to do with this land?
        Mr. Shirley. I will go ahead and have our Attorney General
    answer that, sir.
        The Chairman. Sure, whichever you want to.
        Mr. Denetsosie. Honorable Senator, the land has not been
    transferred to us at this point in time because of appeals by
    the existing owners of the preference right lease applications.
    It is not for lack of effort on our part, but there have been
    appeals within the Bureau of Land Management and the appeals
    involve litigation. For those reasons, we still have not
    acquired the resources. When we do get the resources, then we
    can look at the opportunities available for development of the
    coal resources. It is something that is ongoing. There is a
    separate bill, as you are aware, through the Natural Resource
    Committee of the Senate to try and resolve that issue at this
    time.
        The Chairman. Mr. Bitsuie, $16 million was appropriated for
    the Rehabilitation Trust Fund. I understand that after the
    conceptual framework was signed, these funds went into an
    interest-bearing account that accrued an additional $8 million.
    I understand that $11 million of that fund remains.
        The appropriations were made between 1990 and 1995. Why has
    there been a 10-year delay in spending that money?
        Mr. Bitsuie. Mr. Chairman, the Federal Government loaned
    the Navajo Nation $16 million to fund the trust fund. We have
    spent on community housing and other similar projects about $15
    million to $16 million. But the original loan has also
    generated another $8 million in interest, which is roughly the
    unexpended amount remaining in the account. We are using the
    interest from the $8 million to fund further projects. The $8
    million itself has been earmarked by the Navajo Nation for
    critical land purchases. Those land purchases have not been
    completed as the Navajo Nation is being extremely careful in
    seeking to acquire lands that will actually generate revenue
    for addressing the adverse impact of the land dispute for years
    to come.
        We are stretching out and maximizing the value of the trust
    fund. Land is very important in Navajo culture. For years, the
    policy of the Federal Government has been to increase tribal
    self-determination. In our judgment, we have appropriately
    allocated the resources from the trust fund.
        The Chairman. Well, in my view, you haven't. It was
    appropriated 10 and 15 years ago, and it has not been spent.
        I am sure that if that had been the conditions under which
    it was appropriated, the money would not have been
    appropriated.
        Mr. Bitsuie, the Land Commission received $1.5 million in
    1998 from the Trust Fund to build or improve 48 replacement
    homes on the HPL. What is the status of this project? That has
    only been 7 years.
        Mr. Bitsuie. The Navajo Nation allocated $1.5 million from
    the Trust Fund for the construction of 48 homes on Hopi
    partitioned land. Under the accommodation agreement that has
    been entered between the Navajo Nation and the Hopi Tribe, we
    were instructed to use or identify the land or have the land
    withdrawn for the accommodation signers to use the land within
    a certain period of time. So the money was made available.
        The $1.5 million only represents about one-half the cost of
    those homes. In an effort to stretch trust fund dollars, we
    reached an agreement with the Navajo Housing Services that they
    would provide labor. Unfortunately for their own financial
    reasons, the Navajo Housing Services was not able to fulfill
    its contractual commitment. Six homes were not built, but most
    of the other 42 have significant problems.
        The Navajo Nation recently has committed another $800,000
    to fix the homes and complete the projects. When complete, the
    total cost of this project to the trust fund for 48 homes of
    $2.3 million is still a bargain. Today, it would cost about
    $100,000 per home, as was provided by the Relocation
    Commission, Mr. Bavasi. To build these homes, it would cost
    approximately $4.8 million. But we will complete the homes at a
    cost of one-half of that amount, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman. So if we waited another 20 years, it would
    probably cost $1 million per home, so we should wait longer. Is
    that the logic that you are giving me, Mr. Bitsuie?
        Mr. Bitsuie. We are on a timeframe that we will complete
    the renovation of these homes by the end of this year, as well
    as the six homes that were not constructed, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman. Thank you very much.
        Could I just ask, how often, President Shirley, do you and
    Chairman Taylor communicate with each other?
        Mr. Shirley. We communicate as often as is needed, sir, on
    the different issues relative to the Bennett Freeze or
    whatever.
        The Chairman. So you have good lines of communication?
        Mr. Shirley. Yes; we do.
        The Chairman. Chairman Taylor.
        Mr. Taylor. We do. Mr. Chairman, we do communicate quite
    frequently. This is just one of a number of issues that we are
    dealing with. We are working together to preserve the Mojave
    plant, which is a major part of the economic revenue stream for
    the two nations. That also is another matter that takes
    tremendous amounts of our time. We do work together with our
    teams on those projects.
        The Chairman. I suggest that there are a lot of issues now,
    maybe more than in the past, that exist that are in the mutual
    interests of both tribes. As you mentioned, the Mojave
    powerplant situation, housing, the Bennett Freeze, pending
    compacts between the two tribes. I would suggest that you two
    schedule a regularly scheduled meeting as happens between
    leaders that have issues of mutual interest, so that you can
    have an agenda, meet and see what can be resolved and report
    back to the tribal councils and the Hopi and Navajo people.
        It is my suggestion, given the number of issues that exist
    that are in the mutual interest of both tribes that you
    establish a set of regularly scheduled meetings between the two
    of you, at least in this period while we are addressing major
    issues that affect both tribes. I encourage it. I am not saying
    that you must. I am just saying that it would be helpful to us
    to know the agenda that both tribes are pursuing, the Navajo
    Nation and the Hopi Tribe are pursuing, in order to try to
    achieve some of these goals.
        I think I started this hearing, and maybe I should close it
    by saying that when Congress gets involved in issues such as a
    land dispute, many times the law of unintended consequences is
    going to prevail. I do not think anyone thought that in 1974
    that we would be sitting here 31 years later without some of
    these issues having been resolved. I think that if in 1974 if
    the two tribal leaders had been able to sit down and negotiate
    these issues out that we would be discussing other important
    and compelling issues like education, like health care, like
    housing. There are a number of issues that clearly the Federal
    Government has not fulfilled its responsibilities to either
    tribe. I would like to be able to put these issues behind us so
    that we can concentrate on providing proper health care,
    education and housing to both tribes, which we all know is
    terribly lacking and behind the rest of the Nation.
        Do you have any comment, Chairman Taylor.
        Mr. Taylor. Mr. Senator, I think you are very much on
    point. I could not agree with you more.
        The Chairman. President Shirley.
        Mr. Shirley. A point well taken, sir. I totally agree.
        The Chairman. It all, I think, is going to depend on, a lot
    of this is going to depend on the cooperation between the two
    or you elected leaders. I am pleased to see that this
    relationship has matured in a way that perhaps was not the case
    in previous Administrations in both organizations.
        Mr. Attorney General, it is always a pleasure to see you
    again. Do you have any other comments you would like to make?
        Mr. Denetsosie. I am ready to leave for the Southwest.
    [Laughter.]
        The Chairman. Mr. Bitsuie.
        Mr. Bitsuie. Thank you very much, sir.
        The Chairman. Thank you very much. We will work very
    closely with you as we proceed on this issue. Thank you very
    much.
        This hearing is adjourned.
        [Whereupon at 10:47 a.m., the committee was adjourned, to
    reconvene at the call of the Chair.]

    =======================================================================

                                A P P E N D I X

                                  ----------

                  Additional Material Submitted for the Record

    =======================================================================

    Prepared Statement of Christopher J. Bavasi, Executive Director, Office
                      of Navajo and Hopi Indian Relocation

        Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, good morning. I
    appreciate the opportunity to come before you today to provide
    testimony and answer any questions you may have regarding the Office of
    Navajo and Hopi Indian Relocation and its position on the pending
    legislation.
        In early June of this year, I and my staff met with members of the
    committee staff, in Flagstaff, AZ for the purpose of giving comments on
    the original draft of S. 1003. The Office is in agreement with the
    legislation's projected date for completion of relocation and transfer
    of any remaining functions to a newly created Office of Relocation
    within the Department of the Interior. I understand that the
    Administration opposes the language concerning enhanced retirement
    computation and the Office of Personnel Management will be in touch
    with the committee in regards to these concerns. Committee staff have
    already made some changes to the proposed legislation based on
    recommendations from the Office and we believe the remaining
    recommendations that the Office will put forth below are sufficiently
    important to the efficient and timely completion of our mission and the
    closure of the Office, that they should be implemented.
        For convenience, the comments below are made by reference to page
    and line numbers of the most recent version of S. 1003.
        Page 13, lines 3-7. This change carries forward the Secretary's
    authority to take lands into trust acquired under section 1B, but has
    omitted the authority to take into trust lands described under section
    1A. Land selection has not been completed in either of these categories
    and therefore, the Secretary's authority to take lands into trust
    should extend to both categories. The Office would therefore, recommend
    that page 13, line 5 read, (1)(A) (1)(B).
        Page 19, lines 11-13 and lines 23-25, page 52, lines 22-24 and page
    59, line 25. These three citations all deal with the termination of
    ONHIR authority, the establishment of the Office of Relocation within
    the Department of the Interior and the date of commencement of the
    Secretary's authority over transferred relocation activities. The
    original draft of the legislation included a date of September 30, 2008
    for the termination of ONHIR and the transfer of the functions to the
    Secretary. The original draft of the legislation stated that the
    Secretary's authority commenced with the enactment of the legislation.
    In the most recent version of the proposed legislation that has been
    corrected to indicate that the effective date of the Secretary's
    authority will be September 30, 2008. The only date not in synch with
    these two dates is the date of the establishment of the Office of
    Relocation within DOI which still reads October 1, 2006. The Office
    recommends that the date for the establishment of the Office of
    Relocation within the Department of the Interior be changed to
    September 30, 2008 so that all three dates are consistent.
        Page 22, line 16-19. This section states; ``(d) P Prohibition.--No
    payment for benefits under this act may be made to any head of
    household, if as of September 30, 2005, that head of household has not
    been certified as eligible to receive the payment.'' The Office has
    several comments in regard to this language.
        (a) The prohibition conflicts with page 20, line 10-24 and page 30,
    line 1-2 of S. 1003 which provides that ``a final determination is made
    by ONHIR for each appeal described in paragraph (1) by not later than
    January 1, 2008.
        (b) The prohibition conflicts with page 28, Line 15-23 of S. 1003
    which requires that eligibility determinations be made by ONHIR,
    ``before July 1, 2008, but not later than 90 days after receiving a
    notice of the imminent removal of a relocatee. . . .''
        (c) The prohibition conflicts with page 30, line 4-25 which
    requires the Commissioner to provide notice not later than 30 days
    after the enactment of the Navajo Hopi Settlement Act of 2005 to
    individuals who may have a right to a determination of eligibility.
        (d) This prohibition also conflicts with the Office's recently
    arrived at agreement with the Navajo-Hopi Legal Services Program to
    accept certain late applications and certain appeals under very strict
    guidelines to prevent the possibility of litigation on these clients.
    It is anticipated that fewer than 20 heads of household will become
    eligible under this agreement with the Navajo-Hopi Legal Services
    Program. However, more time is required to complete the review of these
    cases and the prohibition as stated above, would not allow the Office
    to fulfill its side of the agreement.
        (e) The Office, therefore, recommends that the date in the above
    citation be changed to September 30, 2008 for all of the reasons stated
    above, as well as for the reason that it makes all of the transition
    and completion dates consistent.
        4. Page 30, lines 4-25. The steps outlined in the referenced
    sections have already been accomplished. The Office recommended this
    language in the 1996 legislation in order to provide an organized
    vehicle for completing notifications and certifications prior to
    termination of the agency. Since the legislation was not enacted, the
    Office implemented these steps under its regulations. To include this
    language might necessitate the Office repeat steps already taken and
    might open the door to further relocations and/or litigation. The
    Office recommends eliminating this entire section.
        5. Pages 47 and 48, section 202. The draft legislation cites an
    outdated section of title 5 (5 U.S.C. 5597) which was DOD's original
    authorization to provide separation incentives without OPM approval.
    DoD has since updated their Voluntary Separation authority under the
    NSPS law, 5 U.S.C. 9902 (see P.L. 108-136, sec. 1101). We can use the
    existing voluntary separation authority under 5 U.S.C. 3523, recently
    updated under the Homeland Security Act (P.L. 107-296, sec. 1313). This
    updated separation authority gives the agency head the option of
    offering $25,000 or less for separations and provides the agency great
    flexibility in determining how, when, and under what conditions these
    incentives will be offered--with OPM approval.
        Mr. Chairman, That concludes my formal statement. I would be happy
    to try to answer any questions the committee has for me and we look
    forward to working with the committee to refine this legislation.
                                     ______

     Prepared Statement of William P. Ragsdale, Director, Bureau of Indian
                      Affairs, Department of the Interior

        Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, my name is William P.
    Ragsdale. I am the Director of the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA). I am
    pleased to be here today to provide the Department's views on S. 1003,
    a bill to amend the Navajo Hopi Land Settlement Act of 1974. We applaud
    Senator McCain for his efforts to bring this 150 year dispute to a
    close. Although, we cannot support the bill as written, we would like
    to work with the committee to achieve a favorable result.
        On December 16, 1882, President Chester Arthur signed an Executive
    order that set aside approximately 2.5 million acres of land in
    northern Arizona for the Hopi Tribe and ``such other Indians as the
    Secretary may see fit to settle thereon.'' At the time of the 1882
    Executive order, there was a small but indeterminate number of Navajos
    residing on the portions of the reserved lands. Throughout the 1890's
    and to this day, members of the Hopi tribe and the Navajo Nation have
    disputed the right to occupy lands within the 1882 reservation. In
    1962, the Federal District Court ruled that both the Hopi Tribe and the
    Navajo Nation had joint rights to use the 1882 Executive order
    reservation lands. The joint use proved unworkable. In 1974, Congress
    enacted legislation to resolve the joint use rights by partitioning the
    land and relocating members of each tribe from lands adjudicated to the
    other tribe. The 1974 Act provided relocation benefits to tribal
    members residing on lands partitioned to the other tribe, and
    established the Navajo and Hopi Relocation Commission to provide those
    benefits. To date, all Hopi families that were residing on Navajo land
    have been relocated and approximately 90 Navajo families are in some
    stage of the relocation process.
        S. 1003 The Department has several concerns with S. 1003. S. 1003,
    proposes to terminate the Navajo and Hopi Indian Relocation Office
    (Relocation Office) in 2008 and transfer any remaining responsibilities
    of the Relocation Office to the BIA. At this point, as the Relocation
    Office is an independent agency, we are uncertain what responsibilities
    would be transferred or the policies in effect at the Relocation Office
    and therefore, we do not know exactly how this legislation would impact
    the BIA. In addition, in light of not knowing the universe of
    responsibilities that the BIA would be responsible for, we are
    concerned that the BIA does not have the necessary expertise or
    resources to complete the work of the office. We have recently started
    a dialog with the Relocation Office to determine the work the Office
    has accomplished and the manner in which it operates. We expect to
    learn the funding details for these activities from the Relocation
    Office which will assist us in identifying any limitations.
        Furthermore, any transition would take time and could further delay
    any relocation activity. There are currently about 90 families that are
    in some phase of the relocation process. Eight of these families are
    resistant to signing an accommodation agreement, and a number of
    appeals are also in various phases of the appeals process. Any
    agreements will require significant coordination with the Navajo
    Nation. It is difficult to predict how many of these cases will be
    resolved prior to relocating and then ultimately terminating the
    Relocation Office, especially considering the complex history of this
    relocation effort. Although under the Commission's published
    regulations the time for filing applications for relocation assistance
    has expired, applications continue to be filed. Therefore, we suggest
    specific deadlines be included in the bill of when applications for new
    housing and any appeals have to be filed. Without some specific
    timeframe, it will be extremely difficult to assess the BIA's future
    workload.
        The BIA is also concerned with building houses for the relocated
    families. The BIA has a very small program to assist tribes in their
    pursuit of funding for housing repairs or renovations. We would suggest
    including the Department of Housing and Urban Development in any
    discussions pertaining to housing assistance.
        The Administration objects to the proposed language which would
    provide enhanced retirement benefits to Office of Navajo and Hopi
    Relocation employees as this is unfair compared to the benefits
    available to other similarly situated Federal employees. The
    legislation also does not keep the Retirement Trust Fund whole for the
    increased cost of these benefits. In addition to the Administration's
    objection to the retirement provisions, the Administration also has
    concerns with the new separation pay authorized in section 202. S. 1003
    cites an outdated section of title 5 (5 U.S.C. 5597), which was the
    Department of the Defense's (DOD) original authorization to provide
    separation incentives without Office of Personnel Management approval.
    DOD has since updated their Voluntary Separation authority under the
    National Security Personnel System law, 5 U.S.C. 9902 (see P.L. 108-
    136, sec. 1101). Instead, existing voluntary separation authority under
    5 U.S.C. 3523, recently updated under the Homeland Security Act (P.L.
    107-296, sec. 1313), should be used. This updated separation authority
    gives the agency head the option of offering $25,000 or less for
    separations and provides the agency flexibility in determining how,
    when, and under what conditions these incentives will be offered--with
    OPM approval.
        Finally, we request that great care be taken to ensure that
    property interests are not impacted by any changes contained in the
    legislation.
        This concludes my prepared statement. I will be happy to answer any
    questions you may have.
                                     ______

        Prepared Statement of Joe Shirley, Jr., President, Navajo Nation

        Good Morning Chairman McCain and Ranking Member Dorgan. I thank you
    for the opportunity to discuss the Navajo-Hopi Land Settlement
    Amendments with the committee this morning. My name is Joe Shirley,
    Jr., I am the president of the Navajo Nation. The Navajo Nation last
    appeared before this committee regarding the Navajo--Hopi Land Dispute
    in 1996. Since then five Congresses and two Administrations have had
    little interest in the Navajo-Hopi Land Dispute. The Navajo Nation and
    the Hopi Tribe, during that same period, have made significant progress
    by working in a more collaborative approach with each other to resolve
    aspects of the land dispute. These joint efforts between the Navajos
    and Hopis appears to be moving both tribes to the conclusion of the
    land dispute. Following passage of the Navajo-Hopi Land Dispute
    Settlement Act of 1996 and this committee's consideration in the 104th
    Congress of S. 2111, a bill with similar intent to this bill, there has
    been no action by this committee regarding the Land Dispute. I welcome
    this opportunity to discuss the current status of these matters with
    the committee.
        The Navajo Nation understands from the introductory comments of
    Chairman McCain that he is concerned that the relocation process has
    cost far more than originally estimated and taken too long to complete.
    The Navajo Nation vigorously opposed the Navajo-Hopi Land Settlement
    Act of 1974 (``relocation law'') before its passage and actively sought
    its repeal for years afterward. The Navajo Nation unfortunately failed
    in these efforts. Had the Navajo Nation been successful, the Navajo
    people would have been spared a tremendous harm and the Federal
    Government would have been spared a great expense. That said, now that
    the Navajo people have had to live through the nightmare of relocation,
    we do not think Federal budgetary issues alone should be a basis for
    limiting funds to complete the program, and doing so in a way that
    brings humanity to what has otherwise been an inhumane process. The
    chairman is concerned with cost. I ask the committee to consider how
    they would estimate the cost of moving an entire town, and how they
    would value the economic and social upheaval such a move would impose?
    This is what happened to the 12,000 Navajos who lost their land, their
    livelihood, and their identity; 12,000 people; approximately the
    population of Kingman, AZ. How much would it cost to relocate the
    entire population of Kingman, to the Phoenix area? One billion dollars?
    Two billion dollars? How long would it take if the funds were
    appropriated bit-by-bit over 30 years? What would be the impact if the
    land these people were expected to relocate to was already populated?
    What would happen if these people suddenly had to unlearn their skills
    as farmers and learn to survive in a cash economy? How long would be
    too long? How much would be too much?
        By far the greatest cost of the relocation program has been
    housing; the majority of which has been completed. The costs that
    remain relate to items that support the relocation process or ``assist
    the Navajo Tribe or Hopi Tribe in meeting the burdens imposed'' by the
    relocation law (25 U.S.C. 640d-25) and are, therefore, very important.
        Since 1996, the Navajo Nation and the Hopi Tribe have settled three
    major pieces of litigation: The Use Case that arose from 25 U.S.C.
    Sec. 640d--17(a) (2); the Damage Case that arose from 25 U.S.C.
    Sec. 640d--17 (a) (3); and the Tax case that arose from 25 U.S.C.
    Sec. 640-d7 and the continued joint ownership of minerals between the
    Navajo Nation and the Hopi Tribe. The Use and Damage Cases concluded in
    1999 when the Navajo Nation paid the Hopi Tribe $29.1 million, and the
    Hopi provided the Nation with Satisfactions of Judgment in both the Use
    and Damage Cases. Nothing remains of these lawsuits. Similarly, in
    2002, the Navajo Nation and the Hopi Tribe settled the Tax Case with a
    significant payment, equal to one-half of the taxes from the Black Mesa
    Mine through 2007 were paid by the Nation to the Hopi Tribe.
        Currently, with some assistance from the Office of Navajo and Hopi
    Indian Relocation (OHNIR) the Hopi Tribe and the Navajo Nation are near
    resolving the final aspects of relocation without any Navajo evictions
    from the Hopi Partitioned Land (HPL). One of the more significant
    issues presented by S. 1003 in relation to this potential for forced
    evictions is one of timing. Currently, S. 1003 requires OHNIR to
    certify eligibility of all outstanding claims by September 30, 2005. I
    understand that this date will be revised to September 30, 2008, such a
    change should avoid the need for any forced relocation of Navajos
    because the contemplated agreement can be implemented. Ideally, if more
    time is needed to complete these efforts with the specter of eviction
    that time should be afforded. This is especially true where interested
    parties are working together to complete difficult tasks.
        Another major concern of S. 1003 relates to the Navajo Nation's
    need and ability to address the impacts of both the 1966 Bennett
    Freeze, and the 1980 Statutory Freeze in the western portion of the
    Navajo Nation. Between the administrative and statutory prohibitions on
    development the Nation is faced with approximately 1.5 million acres of
    its reservation that have had no meaningful development since before
    1966. In 1997, The Navajo Nation and the Hopi Tribe entered into a
    stipulation in the District Court that limited the development ban to
    approximately 700,000 acres that are currently subject to pending
    litigation. Upon resolution of the 1934 Act Reservation Case presumably
    the ban on development will cease, but these lands and its
    approximately 5,000 residents will require special attention to bring
    them up to the standards of other parts of the Navajo Nation. It is my
    understanding that the committee has chosen to address the Bennett and
    Statutory Freeze issues in subsequent legislation and not in S. 1003. I
    therefore raise these issues to reinforce their importance to the
    Navajo Nation.
        S. 1003 raises other areas of specific concern including:
        First, rehabilitation efforts should be focused on the Navajo
    Partitioned Land (NPL). The NPL Navajo communities have borne much of
    the cost of the relocation, having absorbed thousands of relocatees and
    their livestock in an area that has long been at, or over, capacity.
    The NPL's extremely limited infrastructure, already overtaxed by the
    influx of relocatees, was further constrained by the construction
    freeze that was in place from 1963 until approximately 1979. This
    infrastructure continues to be grossly insufficient to meet the current
    needs resulting from the relocation law.
        Second, the relocation law currently authorizes the Commissioner to
    make grants ``which significantly assist the Commissioner or assist the
    Navajo Tribe or Hopi Tribe in meeting the burdens'' of the law (25
    U.S.C. 640d-25). S. 1003 would strike this provision (Section 122), but
    this is the very provision that provides ONHIR the flexibility to
    address the needs of families and communities as they arise. Pursuant
    to this provision, the Navajo Nation has proposed various projects such
    as a community center for the Navajo families that have signed
    Accommodation Agreements with the Hopi Tribe, range and road
    improvement, power line extensions, and some housing improvement for
    heavily impacted NPL host families. Although OHNIR has not yet approved
    any of these proposals, they are exactly the kind of projects that
    bring humanity to the relocation process while addressing the real
    needs that resulting from the process. Notably, the draft substitute
    bill that the committee staff have released would restore the
    discretionary fund authorized by this section, but would not retain the
    directing guidance that the funds are to be used to ``assist the Navajo
    Tribe or Hopi Tribe in meeting the burdens'' of the law. The
    legislation should preserve this guidance.
        Third, the Navajo land selections in New Mexico should not be
    prejudiced. Section 107(c) of S. 1003 provides that the authority of
    the Commissioner to select lands in New Mexico shall terminate on
    September 30, 2008. Since the Commissioner's authority would terminate
    on that date, it is not clear that this authority would continue in the
    new Office of Relocation at the Department of the Interior. The Navajo
    Nation has not yet completed its New Mexico land selections due largely
    to circumstances beyond its control. Completion of some of those
    selections is the subject of legislation introduced in this Congress,
    specifically S. 692, the Bisti/PRLA Dispute Resolution Act. The Navajo
    Nation is concerned that this provision in S. 1003 could impact that
    selection process and potentially prejudice Navajo interests. This
    authority should be carried over in to the Department of the Interior
    if the selections are not completed by September 30, 2008.
        Fourth, the transfer of ONHIR's Responsibilities to the Department
    of the Interior. ONHIR has developed critical and hard-won experience
    in working on and near the Navajo Nation and is ideally suited to
    addressing the rehabilitation of the Bennett and Statutory Freeze
    areas. Based on this institutional knowledge ONHIR should not be
    eliminated, although it certainly can be downsized. However, whether
    ONHIR is maintained, or its responsibilities are transferred to a new
    Office of Relocation in the Department of the Interior, it is
    critically important to the Navajo Nation that the issues set forth
    above are adequately and fully addressed. Only by completing all the
    necessary tasks can this chapter be closed without future
    repercussions.
        I strongly believe that all Navajos want to put the Land Dispute
    with the Hopis behind and move forward. In order for the Nation to do
    that, the final tasks that will complete Relocation in a just and
    humane fashion must be accomplished. One alternative approach that the
    committee may want to consider rather than S. 1003 as presently
    crafted, would be to evaluate and enumerate all the tasks that ONHIR
    needs to perform to finish its tasks, with input from the Navajo Nation
    and the Hopi Tribe, then set out a reasonable timeframe to accomplish
    those tasks. That timeframe could be used as a period that begins after
    passage of the legislation to complete the tasks identified. Such an
    approach may not have worked prior to 1996, but in the present
    collaborative era the Nation, ONHIR, and the Hopi Tribe can devise a
    plan to take these final steps. The Navajo Nation wants this dispute
    behind us, but we do not want to leave individuals behind.
        In addition to my comments, the Navajo Nation attorney general has
    prepared comments on certain specific legal issues presented by S.
    1003. Those matters are also of special concern because of their impact
    on cases currently pending in the Courts or the impact these provisions
    may have on individuals seeking relocation benefits. Roman Bitsuie, the
    executive director of the Navajo-Hopi Land Commission Office, will
    discuss the efforts of the Office to serve the relocatees.

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2642.001

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2642.002

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2642.003

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2642.004

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2642.005

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2642.006

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2642.007

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2642.008

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2642.009

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2642.010

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2642.011

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2642.012

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2642.013

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2642.014

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2642.015

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2642.016

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2642.017

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2642.018

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2642.019

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2642.020

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2642.021

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2642.022

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2642.023

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2642.024

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2642.025

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2642.026

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2642.027

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2642.028

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2642.029

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2642.030

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2642.031

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2642.032

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2642.033

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2642.034

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2642.035

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2642.036

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2642.037

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2642.038

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2642.039

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2642.040

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2642.041

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2642.042

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2642.043

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2642.044

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2642.045

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2642.046

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2642.047

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2642.048

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2642.049

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2642.050

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2642.051

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2642.052

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2642.053

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2642.054

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2642.055

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2642.056

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2642.057

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2642.058

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2642.059

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2642.060

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2642.061

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2642.062

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2642.063

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2642.064

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2642.065

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2642.066

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2642.067

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2642.068

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2642.069

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2642.070

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2642.071

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2642.072

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2642.073

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2642.074

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2642.075

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2642.076

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2642.077

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2642.078

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2642.079

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2642.080

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2642.081

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2642.082

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2642.083

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2642.084

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2642.085

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2642.086

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2642.087

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2642.088

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2642.089

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2642.090