Mr. MEEDS. I don't mean just the kinds of areas that have a religious significance to people because it is land, but I mean special religious significance.

Mr. SCHWARTZ. Yes, sir. We do have that. We have a map in the Hopi office in Keams Canyon, that shows every religious shrine that the Hopis have in that whole area. We have that.

Mr. MEEDS. If you would make that information available, at least, for our file, I would appreciate it.

Mr. SCHWARTZ. Yes, sir.

Mr. MEEDS. We would also like to have that information with regard to the Navajo religious areas of significance.

Mr. SCHWARTZ. Yes, sir.

Mr. MEEDS. I have one other question now. If this plan were implemented, you are saying it would cost $7.5 million. Is that correct?

Mr. KYL. Yes.

Mr. MEEDS. Has that money been available, or will it be made available, to the Department? Is it in the present budget?

Mr. KYL. Mr. Chairman, it is not in the budget. We do have reason to believe that it is available, because OMB did approve this report in lengthy conversations yesterday when we talked about all matters of cost.

As I mentioned a moment ago, too, Mr. Schwartz has also been investigating the possibility of funds from the Small Business Administration to be utilized in some instances. There have been discussions with the Agriculture Department as what might be done by them.

Mr. MEEDS. So we're not really sure that even in the unlikely situation, in which we would get the cooperation of the tribes to enforce the court order, we have the money to put the thing in practice. Is that correct?

Mr. KYL. I am confident that the request for the funds will be made, sir. It still has to be authorized and appropriated.

Mr. MEEDS. Even if you had it in the fiscal 1974 appropriation, which we are working on right now in the Appropriations Committee, as you are well aware.

Mr. KYL. Yes, sir. We would attempt to get that into a supplemental appropriation.

Mr. MEEDS. I hope you can give me some assurance that it would not be taken out of funds available for schoolchildren.

Mr. KYL. It would not.

Mr. MEEDS. I must comment on that. I am sure that Mr. Franklin is misquoted when he was quoted in the Milwaukee Sentinel as having said: "Look what this leadership is costing you. It may well result in closing down your schools."

He was allegedly referring to money for the BIA takeover and Wounded Knee; that it be taken from programs for schoolchildren. Obviously, he was being misquoted. Wasn't he?

Mr. KYL. Yes. And I'm sure the interpretation of his remarks casts an improper and incorrect illusion, sir.

Mr. MEEDS. We certainly wouldn't want to keep anyone as head of Indian Affairs within the Interior Department who was prepared to take funds from little Indian schoolchildren, because some other Indians misbehaved at Wounded Knee.

Mr. KYL. I have been spending countless hours with Mr. Franklin, and I can say with absolute assurance that he would not, under any circumstances, try to take funds from the education program, the health program, or other programs for expenses at Wounded Knee or any other spot.

Mr. MEEDS. Then this quote also would be wrong, too, where he said, that the problems of the American Indian world were due to: "blind leadership, and that the Indians should share the cost of destruction caused by the leadership."

Mr. KYL. I am not aware of this quotation, but I certainly see where he is talking about the deleterious situation that might result as far as the public is concerned, as far as the Congress is concerned, if we have a whole rash of this kind of occurrence that we had at Wounded Knee

Mr. MEEDS. He wouldn't be talking about the actual, monetary cost. Mr. KYL. No, I am positive of this because I know of the conversations we have had, and I know of his firm position; he does not want the cost of operating Wounded Knee to come out of previously appropriated Indian funds. That is absolutely basic with him.

Mr. MEEDS. I'll give you a copy of the Milwaukee Sentinel for Wednesday, April 11, 1973, where these quotes appear, and I hope you'll take it to him. If these quotes are anywhere near accurate, Mr. Franklin is going to have one hell of a time with this chairman. I'll tell you that right now.

Mr. KYL. I am happy you bring this up, sir, because in all of my time in dealing with Indian affairs, as a member of this committee, and since that time-and I can say this in absolute sincerity-I have never found anyone who is so totally dedicated in trying to solve the Indians' problems, and in getting the funds that we need to settle those problems. I say that unequivocally. He is an earnest, total advocate.

Mr. MEEDS. Very good. That's why I was certain that he had misquoted.

The gentleman from New Mexico?

Mr. LUJAN. Thank you. Mr. Chairman.

I am sure that in the Indian Claims Commission, we've had many of these disputes as to where it might have been established that a tribe had aboriginal rights to some particular property, where it may be a whole community of some 5,000 or 6,000 people.

Is there a precedent that where the residents of that community of 5,000 or 6,000 or 7,000 have been moved off the land, or has the tribe been compensated by money, generally?

Can you think of any place where there has been this kind of dispute, and this many people have been moved out?

Mr. KYL. Let me try that first, and then see if these other gentlemen have something. I hope this is responsive.

Of course, the whole Indian Claims Commission establishment was based on the premise that Indians had been moved from their land, or had been improperly paid for their land, and this matter was adjudicated by the Indian Claims Commission and the distribution of funds was decided by the Congress.

You have pending before you now a claim in which there are threeelements of one tribe involved, and the Congress has not been able to get a consensus from the people. You have a recommendation from the Department as to what share of those funds should go to each part of the same tribe; separate, but still part of the same tribe.

And the whole thing-the whole business of the Claims Commission was predicated on that proposition.

Now, I'll ask the Solicitor if there is any specific memory he has of incidences of this nature.

Mr. LUJAN. The basic question is, where has it been determined that a tribe had a right to some particular land and on that land there was a community of 5,000-6,000, 7,000 people. Has there ever been any instance where those 5,000-6,000, 7,000 people have been moved, or is it always resolved in paying the tribe and letting the people stay there? Mr. SOLLER. Mr. Sigler has pointed out a couple of instances with connection to the Missouri River project. It seems that the Missoula Dam on the Seneca Reservation in New York has involved some moving. In the Dakotas, there were some areas established for that community occupying low-lying lands that were flooded by Corps of Engineer projects. The same is true with the Seneca, where people were physically moved or provided with an oportunity to move to new

areas.

Mr. LUJAN. These were for projects of some kind, not just to move them, because the Indian tribe had the right to that land.

Mr. SOLLER. Not to my knowledge.

Mr. KYL. In the case, incidentally of which Mr. Soller speaks, at Fort Thompson in South Dakota, these people were moved to a new location, and the tribe was given certain benefits, developments, and each family was given a family plan distribution to compensate for the move.

Mr. LUJAN. This is because of flooding waters?

Mr. KYL. Because the Big Ben Dam

Mr. MEEDS. The Chair observes that that's pretty strong enforce-ment proceedings; either to move or drown.

Any further questions?

If not, the hearings will be adjourned. And we very much appreciate,. Mr. Kyl, your presence, Mr. Schwartz and the other gentlemen and we hope that we can come to some resolution of this matter.

Mr. KYL. May I add here one thing, sir? We are available for consultation with you at your beck and call.

Mr. MEEDS. Thank you very much.

Before we adjourn I would like to place in the record without objection a letter from Mr. Jim Stewart to Senator Goldwater dated May 17, 1973 and a letter to Hon. Elmer Staats from Hon. Lloyd Meeds, dated October 12, 1973.

[The letters follow:]

The ALBUQUERQUE HILTON,
Albuquerque, N. Mex.

MAY 17, 1973.

DEAR SENATOR GOLDWATER: This is in reference to the Hopi-Navajo land problem.

I was Director of the Indian Bureau "Lands and Minerals" Division from 1933 to May 1942, at which time I transferred to the General Superintendency

of the Navajo Reservation with headquarters at Window Rock, Arizona, as you well know. I was there slightly over 7 years.

It was never considered that the Navajo's had or have any legal rights to lands within the Hopi Executive Order Indian reservation, which as you well know was set aside for the "Moqui and such other Indians as the Secretary of the Interior may see fit to settle thereon". This language is pro-forma, and appears in other Executive Order reservations. It was meaningless during the past 50 or more years, and originated many years ago to provide landless or recalcitrant bands or groups of Indians with a lieu location.

During the 30's I and Commissioner Collier and others prevailed upon Secre tary Ickes to have that conditional language stricken from all such Executive Orders, as we foresaw the possibility of trouble such as is now taking place in the Hopi-Navajo case. However, due to the enormous work load at that time facing me, the proposal was neglected by me and forgotten.

The Hopi Reservation should never be divided as, to me, it would always be a government land steal-not an adjustment.

It is my sincere hope that Congress will pass legislation confirming in the Hopis full title to all the lands and minerals in the Executive Orders area, that those Navajo families now living within the area be allowed to remain, and no others, that after the passage of the legislation the Navajo Tribal Council authorizes and pay a yearly occupancy and lease rental from Navajo Tribal funds to the Hopi Tribe.

In a federal court case of many years ago it was held that an Indian cannot have tribal rights on two reservations. The Indian in question as I remember was named Carl J. Reid Dussome, a Sioux, who had been allotted land on one of the Sioux reservations-had drifted to Oklahoma, married a Kiowa woman and received an allotment of land on that reservation. The court held he must give up one of the allotments. Any law clerk can run this case down for you.

When the colonization program of Hopis and Navajos was being discussed in Commissioner Collier's office. I opposed it on the same grounds, so the matter was referred to the Solicitor's Office of the Interior Department for a legal opinion, which was composed after much research and legal analysis by Mrs. Charlotte Westwood of the Solicitor's staff. This opinion bore out my contention, but was taken quite sourly by the eager beavers on Commissioner Collier's staff-to circumvent it and put their pet colonization program under way Mrs. Westwood's opinion was referred to the Department of Justice for review and of course it was reversed as planned.

I suggest you obtain a copy of Mrs. Westwood's opinion, it would be most helpful to you in this matter. I too would like a copy also, and if not too much trouble a typed copy of this letter.

With all good wishes,

JIM STEWART.

COMMITTEE ON INTERIOR AND INSULAR AFFAIRS,
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
Washington, D.C., October 12, 1973.

Hon. ELMER Staats,

Comptroller General, General Accounting Office,
Washington, D.O.

DEAR MR. STAATS: Enclosed is a copy of an Order of Compliance and related material in the case of Hamilton v. MacDonald handed down in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona. Item 7 of that Order provides that: "No new construction shall be permitted on the Joint-use Area without a permit issued jointly by the two tribes, except that the Hopi Tribe shall be permitted to construct that number of dwellings or other improvements equal to those Navajo dwellings and other improvements which are presently existing or now under construction in the Joint-Use Area."

The Subcommittee has heard allegations that Navajo construction has been begun and continued in the prohibited area in violation of the court order and, further, that federal funding, either directly or indirectly, has and is being made available for such construction. The charges indicate that Bureau of Indian Affairs' funds, through their Home Improvement Program and the Tribal Work Experience Program may have been involved as well as funds from the Department of Housing and Urban Development through the Navajo Tribal Housing Authority.

113

The Subcomittee on Indian Affairs is currently considering legislation to resolve the land dispute between the Navajo and Hopi tribes. In aid of that legislation, the Subcommittee would like an investigation and report on (1) whether new construction has begun by the Navajo within the prohibited area since October 14, 1972 and (2) whether Federal funds, directly or indirectly, have been made available for such construction.

Thank you.
Sincerely,

LLOYD MEEDS,

Chairman, Indian Affairs Subcommittee.

[Whereupon, at 11:45 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.]

The answer to the above letter with the information for the record had not been received when these hearings were printed, therefore, the material will be placed in the subcommittee files when received.]

о

H189 74 1