As a consequence, we have requested the parties to make a limited presentation with 2 hours allotted to each. We do not want to prevent the parties from having an ample opportunity to comment on the pending legislation or stating their position on the dispute. However, we feel that, in view of the record made and available, the time allotted is sufficient.

I'm sure the witnesses will be addressing themselves to the provisions of all the bills; what we on the committee and everybody are seeking is a solution that would be offering the greatest equity under extremely difficult circumstances.

We are delighted to be joined this morning by our colleague and member of the full committee, Mr. Runnels from New Mexico. It's my understanding that Senator Goldwater will be testifying briefly, and that he will interrupt the testimony of the first witness. We will be happy to hear his testimony when he arrives.

The gentleman from New Mexico will be recognized for any opening statement that he wishes to make.

Mr. LUJAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I think you have described the situation as it is. I do hope we won't go into just a rehashing of the whole problem, the whole historical problem. We certainly need to get to the facts. The 2 hours is ample time.

I might say, Mr. Chairman, that in introducing the legislation, which I have, the main concern that I have, which I will attempt to clear up in any legislation that might come out of this committee is simply that we don't have a wholesale move of people. I realize that's going to be a difficult thing to do, but that is my prime concern.

I hope that with whatever bill we come out with, or a combination of bills, that this point be kept in mind; that we just don't go in and move people who have settled for a long, long time. It is a difficult thing to move people from their homes.

That is the sum of my concern. Other solutions should be considered, other than moving people from their homes.

Mr. MEEDS. Thank you, the gentleman from New Mexico.

The Chairman, who is not here yet, has a statement that I would like to have read in the record by the Counsel.

Mr. SIGLER. Mr. Haley, who said he would be here later, asked me to read this statement of his for the record.

STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES A. HALEY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA

Mr. Chairman, as this hearing opens I want to say just a few words to indicate exactly what the issue is, and to put that issue in its proper perspective.

The issue is very narrow. The issue is whether Congress should take away from the Hopis, over their strenuous objection, land that is owned by them and give the land to the Navajos. I, for one, am opposed to such action, no matter how it may be disguised.

The two tribes have for over 90 years been in a dispute over the ownership of the land. In 1958 Congress enacted a statute to permit the ownership issue to be litigated in a special three-man district court with the right of a direct appeal to the Supreme Court. The issue

was litigated, and the decision in 1962, which was affirmed by the Supreme Court, held that the two tribes have undivided but equal rights in about 1,822,000 acres.

Although the two tribes have equal rights in the land, the Navajos are in actual possession and they have refused to permit the Hopis to use any part of the land. Their action has been accompanied by violence and bloodshed.

All efforts during the last 11 years to negotiate a joint-use agreement have failed because the Navajos refuse to give up any part of their possession, and insist that the Hopis sell their interest in the land. The Hopis are just as adamant that they will not sell.

Last year this committee held extended hearings and concluded. that there was no reasonable basis for believing that further negotiations would be fruitful, and that a partition of the land was the only practical alternative. A bill for that purpose was reported by our committee and passed by the House.

Nothing has happened since then, so far as I know, to warrant any change in the conclusions reached a few months ago.

Three bills are before the subcommittee this morning.

The Steiger bill is substantially the same as the bill that was passed by the House last year.

The Lujan bill, in essence, requires the Hopis to sell their interest in the land to the Navajos. It does this by giving the land to the tribe that occupied it in 1958. The court has already decided that the Navajos occupied it and that the occupancy was by force. The rest of the proposal is, in my opinion, window dressing.

The Meeds bill would also make it possible to have a forced sale of the Hopi interest, but would leave the actual decision up to three men appointed by the chief judge of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, rather than to Congress which is the body that should make the decision.

Any forced sale of the Hopi interest to the Navajo Tribe would, in my opinion, be unfair.

A copy of this committee's report on last year's bill-H.R. 11128, 92d Congress-is attached to this statement of mine, and I ask that pages 5 to 8 be included in the record at this point.

I also recommend that each Member read the explanation on pages

5 to 8.

Mr. Chairman, I hope that this hearing will not be a rehash of last year's hearing, but will be confined to new matter, as far as practical. I also hope that a bill can be reported by the subcommittee promptly. Mr. MEEDS. Without objection, the request of the chairman that he made on page 3 of his statement, is so ordered.

[The material referred to follows:]

REPORT NO. 92-1221-TO ACCOMPANY H.R. 11128 (PAGES 5 TO 8)

PURPOSE

The purpose of H.R. 11128, introduced by Mr. Steiger of Arizona, is to partition land in which the Navajo and Hopi Tribes have an undivided joint and equal interest.

I. The 1882 Hopi Reservation

BACKGROUND

In 1882, an Executive Order was issued setting aside a Reservation of approximately 2,472,095 acres for the Hopi Indians and such other Indians as the Secretary of the Interior may see fit to settle thereon. The purpose of the 1882 Reserva

tion was to protect the Hopis from encroachment by both the Navajos and the non-Indians.

In 1882, the Navajo Reservation was entirely east of the Hopi Reservation, and the two Reservations did not adjoin each other. During the years following 1882, however, the Navajo Reservation was expanded by a series of actions, and today the Navajo Reservation completely surrounds the 1882 Reservation for the Hopis. The Navajo Reservation now contains 12,449,000 acres and the Tribe owns an additional 921,000 acres located outside the Reservation boundaries.

The Navajos were a semi-nomadic people who did not stay within their Reservation boundaries. They were constantly moving into new areas. In 1882, about 300 Navajos resided within the 1882 Reservation established for the Hopis. The number steadily increased, and by 1958 the number was 8,800.

The friction between the Navajos and the Hopis was great. The Hopis claimed that the Navajos had no right to be in the 1882 Reservation at all, and the Navajos claimed that they were there by permission of the Secretary of the Interior. In 1958, Congress enacted a statute authorizing a three-Judge United States District Court to adjudicate these conflicting claims and to determine the property rights of each Tribe.

The Court found as fact that no Secretary of the Interior had ever specifically "settled" any Navajos on the 1882 Reservation, that the Navajos had moved there without any official authorization, but that since 1931 the Secretary of the Interior had acquiesced in their presence and had impliedly exercised his authority to settle them there. The Court held that the Hopis had an exclusive right and interest in about 650.000 acres of the Reservation known for administrative purposes as Grazing District No. 6, and that the Hopi Tribe and the Navajo Tribe had joint, undivided, and equal rights and interests in the remainder of the Reservation, consisting of about 1,822,000 acres.

Notwithstanding the fact that the court determined that the two Tribes have equal rights and interests in the 1,822,000 acres, the Navajos were then and are now in actual possession, and they have refused for the ten years since the court's decision to permit the Hopis to use any part of the joint-use area. Moreover, the Secretary of the Interior has failed to do anything to permit the Hopis to exercise their joint-use rights. He has in fact refused to permit them to do so. The point-use area is badly overgrazed by the Navajos, perhaps to the extent of 400%, and the Secretary has been unable to persuade the Navajos to reduce grazing to the carrying capacity of the land. The Secretary has also been unwilling to cancel any of the Navajo grazing permits and issue new permits to the Hopis.

Because of the severe overgrazing of the joint-use area, the Navajo livestock are constantly trespassing on the Hopi exclusive area, where the forage is better, and the Hopis are impounding those trespassing livestock. Violence and bloodshed have resulted. The Hopis are not only denied their joint-use rights, but their exclusive Hopi area is also threatened.

During the past ten years the two Tribes have attempted to negotiate a jointuse agreement. but the negotiations have failed. The Navajo position was, and still is. that they are in possession and will not relinquish any part of their possession unless the United States provides lieu land to which the Navajo can be moved. The Navajos would prefer that the United States purchase the Hopi interest in the joint-use area and give it to the Navajo Tribe. The Hopi position was, and still is. that they have been pushed back and encircled by the Navajos, that the Navajos have invaded and taken large parts of the 1882 Reservation which was intended to be for the benefit of the Hopis, that the Hopis will give up no more land, and that the Navajos must vacate one-half of the joint-use area in order to give effect to the court decree.

II. The 1934 Navajo Reservation

When the boundaries of the Navajo Reservation were enlarged by the Act of June 14, 1934 (48 Stat. 960), the vacant lands within the Reservation boundaries were withdrawn for the benefit of the Navajos and such other Indians as were already located thereon. Hopi Indians were then living in the villages of Moencopi and Tuba City, which lie west of the 1882 Reservation, and Hopi Indians were living on the land between these villages and the 1882 Reservation. The Hopi Indians have by statute the same type of joint interest in this land that the court determined they have in the joint-use area of the 1882 Reservation.

The problems in the two areas are the same. The Navajo population pressures are compressing the Hopis into smaller and smaller areas, and the two Tribes are

unable to use the land jointly in harmony. There is a need to delineate the lands each Tribe is entitled to use.

Committee conclusion

The Subcommittee on Indian Affairs held extensive hearings on H.R. 11128. Representatives of the Hopi Tribe and the Navajo Tribe presented their views in great detail. The Assistant Secretary for Public Land Management and the Commissioner of Indian Affairs also testified in detail.

The Navajo representatives opposed the bill on the ground that the two Tribes should be allowed to settle their dispute by negotiation. The Hopi representatives urged the enactment of the bill on the ground that negotiations had been attempted for ten years and had failed because the Navajos refused to consider any agreement that allowed the Hopis to exercise their judicially decreed right to an equal use of the land.

The Department of the Interior recommended the enactment of the bill if the alternatives were considered and found to be impractical. The Assistant Secretary testified that he saw no solution other than partition of the land as provided in the bill.

The Committee concluded that the Navajo Tribe had refused to allow the Hopi Tribe to exercise its joint and equal right to use the land, as decreed by the court, and that there was no reasonable basis for believing that the Navajo Tribe would change its position on this basic issue as the result of further negotiation. The Navajo Tribe is in possession, and it has adamantly refused to discuss any plan that called for a relinquishment of its possession. The Committee also concluded that the Hopi Tribe was unwilling to sell its undivided but equal interest in the land, either for money or for other land, and that there is no practical alternative to a partition of the joint-use area as provided in the bill.

The bill provides that the surface estate in approximately half of the joint-use area is added to the Hopi Reservation and the other half is added to the Navajo Reservation. About 775 Navajo families will need to move from the Hopi land, and two Hopi families will need to move from the Navajo land. The bill authorizes the appropriation of $16,000,000 to relocate these families. Joint ownership of the subsurface estate is not changed by the bill.

With respect to the 1934 Reservation, the bill adds to the Hopi Reservation both the surface and subsurface estates in 208,600 acres, and extinguishes all Hopi and other Indian claims to the remainder of the area. The few Paiute families living there will receive allotments to the land they occupy. Mr. MEEDS. Are there any further opening statements? The gentleman from Arizona?

Mr. STEIGER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Just briefly, I would only like to underscore the fact that I think the chairman of the subcommittee has defined the problem. It is indeed. a problem that doubtlessly cannot be resolved to anybody's full satisfaction.

I think the record ought to reflect that the chairman's position, the chairman of the subcommittee's position, that the Federal Government is responsible for the state of this dilemma and the extent of it is not. only entirely valid but cries to be remedied, since the Federal Establishment, both the bureaucracy, the judicial, and the Congress, is the responsible agent; therefore, it would only seem intimately responsible that they find a solution.

I would also like the record to reflect that I have spent a lot of time with this problem, and I would like the record to reflect the sum total of the problem becomes one of mathematics when all else is laid aside. There are in excess of 120,000 Navajos, and there are something in the neighborhood of 6,000 Hopis.

The Navajos have learned the best use of political muscle; and they have used it, if not wisely, they have certainly used it well.

I would just ask that those on the subcommittee who may not have been around for last year's hearings recognize that fact. This is not

to say that there are not inequities on the side of the Navajos. I would point out again that the Federal Government, by ignoring the law and ignoring their own regulation, have made it appear that the Navajo was doing the appropriate thing, because the Federal Government failed to enforce court orders, failed to enforce administrative orders; and therefore, by their absence of activity sanctioned that which has now become impossible to endure any longer.

With that, Mr. Chairman, I will yield.

Mr. MEEDS. The gentleman from North Carolina?

Mr. TAYLOR. No comments.

Mr. MEEDS. The gentleman from Alaska?

Mr. YOUNG. No comments.

Mr. MEEDS. Mr. Runnels?

Mr. RUNNELS. Nothing, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. MEEDS. The gentleman from New Mexico is recognized to ask a question of counsel.

Mr. LUJAN. Yes, Mr. Chairman, before we begin the hearings, I would like to establish something in my mind, and I would like to ask counsel, if we as a legislative body are bound by the court's decision, in which they say that the land, that both tribes are entitled to it on a 50-50 basis, do we have to be bound by that decision, or can we determine in the legislation that equitable use does not necessarily have to be 50-50, and perhaps it could be 120 to 6, by virtue of the population of the two tribes?

Mr. SIGLER. Mr. Lujan, when the jurisdictional act on which the litigation is based was passed, Congress vested the rights of the two tribes in this area. It did that for the purpose of being sure that the court has jurisdiction to litigate the issue, so that the court's decision that the tribes have joint and equal interests is a vested right at the present time.

That does not mean that Congress cannot change those rights if it would choose to do so, but if it does, it must pay; that is the right of the Navajo Tribe, and the right of the Hopi Tribe is a vested property interest. The right is a joint and equal one.

If Congress takes either of those rights, it would be the same as if it took my land. It would have to pay for the right which it takes. Mr. LUJAN. Is the committee at liberty to interpret the word "equal," or must we interpret it as 50-50?

Mr. MEEDS. The Chair is going to rule. That's an issue that will have to be settled by these hearings. Counsel's statement on that will not be binding on this committee, nor will any of the witness' statements be binding on that issue. That is really the issue that this committee is going to have to solve.

The Chair will announce the first witness at this time. We have already taken a half hour, I understand, of the Hopis' time, and please let me allay your fears. The first witness to come before the committee is Mr. Abbott Sekaquaptewa, who is the chairman of the Hopi Negotiating Committee.

Mr. Sekaquaptewa, would you please come forward? Would you like anyone to accompany you, sir?

Mr. SEKAQUAPTEWA. Mr. Boyden, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. MEEDS. For the purpose of the record, you're accompanied by Mr. John Boyden, who is an attorney for the Hopis.