confrontation between the 6,000 Hopi and the approximately 8,500 Navajos in that area, equally poor people that are the ones on whom the entire brunt of this bill would fall.

Parts of the disputed territory are among the most inaccessible portions of the Navajo country. The dispute is in some measure responsible for this. As a result of a freeze on improvements in this area, there has been little construction of roads, schools, hospitals, clinics, commercial facilities, gas lines, or power lines. An undereducated population, far from the job market, with a per capita income of around $600 per annum, compared to $831 for the entire Navajo population and $3,484 for the entire United States, has not even the facilities normal to other parts of the reservation, and must rely to an unusual degree on livestock for a living-this is an area where no range improvement programs are undertaken because of the freeze of the entire disputed territory. The Navajos in the area have thus suffered from the dispute. H.R. 5647 proposes to deal with a problem that results from Federal action and inaction by imposing enormous hardship on Navajos. In 1970, there were about 10,500 Navajos in the disputed territory. The bill requires the relocation of 60 percent of these. One may suspect that a bill that divides the area in half but splits the population 60-40 is awarding the better land to the Hopis.

In addition, the bill establishes a corridor from Moencopi to the Hopi reservation, to be awarded to the Hopis. This requires the relocation of an additional 2,000 Navajos, which, added to the 6,300 to be moved within the disputed territory, provides a 1970 total of about 8,300, or more Navajos than were moved to Fort Sumner in 1864. By 1973, the total is perhaps 9,000 and will grow by 22 to 3 percent per annum thereafter.

Hopi rights in Moencopi are not disputed, but there is no evident. equity in the assignment of a large area west of the Hopi reservation to that tribe. Interestingly, the corridor is deemed necessary because of the reaction the proponents of the bill assume the Navajos will have to relocation-so even more Navajos must be relocated to deal with the effects of the mass relocation within the disputed territory. The bill creates problems that it then attempts to solve. If enacted, it may come to be called the bill for a second Fort Sumner.

U.S. Government experience with planned relocation in other areas has been disastrous. With small populations of a few hundred in Micronesia, it has created demoralization, poverty, dependency on the government, and discontent in every instance known to me. When the government of Northern Rhodesia relocated more than 30,000 members of the Gwembe Tonga Tribe because of the Kariba Dam, eight Tonga were shot by the police when the Tonga resisted relocation.

I see no kind of relocation plan that can result in a satisfactory life for these 8.300 or more Navajos, because no government can plan a successful substitute for the social arrangements that now exist among them. One cannot relocate the young first and leave the old behind, because the Navajos live not in independent elementary families of husband, wife, and immature children, but in extended family clusters. Older people take care of herds. Younger people scratch for a living with part-time or full-time jobs on and off the reservation. The incomes are shared. Neither generation can do without the other.

Family clusters of this kind are aggregated in larger kin-groups that jointly utilize a region for farming, herding, gathering wood, hauling water, and providing water for stock. The families within a kin-group are interdependent for equipment and many emergencies. Although sometimes disputes arise over land and water between such kin-groups, there are marriages between most adjacent groups that reduce the possibility of conflict.

A successful planned move seems to me to be beyond the power of range experts, farm experts, economists, anthropologists, sociologists, and administrators, combined. It involves finding a territory large enough to accommodate this entire group of 8,300 and upward people, having the wisdom to slice up the area into finite pieces each of which contains the right combination of pasture, farm area, wood and water, and assigning it to kin groups. When that is done, these kingroups must work out their mutual adjustments to one another, all at once, and from scratch.

One cannot by planning rebuild what will be destroyed. While all this is going on, housing must be built. Furthermore, the amenities so long lacking in the area, and nowhere mentioned in the bill, must be provided: roads, electrification, gaslines, schools, hospitals, commercial establishments, administrative headquarters the lot.

I cannot see any outcome of the planned relocation but a mess, in which "Murphy's law" operates: anything that can go wrong, will go wrong. Navajos in the disputed territory and outside are partially dependent on welfare. But they are not demoralized, and they try to make a living. I think that the result of this move may be generations of indigence, instead of a population of remarkable people, whom I have come to admire.

Let me explain exactly what I mean. To the typical Navajo livestock owner's family, the herd and the income derived from it are major economic assets. The herd is at once a savings account, a source of income, and a source of food for the family. But it is more than that. It provides the herder with a significant economic role in the family, with an opportunity for valuable work, and with a corresponding feeling of pride, worth, and independence. For that reason, the Navajos are, on the whole, far less demoralized and socially disorganized than many other Indian groups in the country.

The herd may not be the sole source of family income. It may be supplemented by some wage income of a younger family member and some welfare payments. But the herd remains the family's mainstay, both economically and psychologically. It gives the family the stability on which it rests and which enables it to raise a generation of reasonably well-adjusted people who, with the benefit of the security of their home life and with adequate education, may be able to make an adjustment to the complex prevailing culture.

Remove the sheepherder to a place where he cannot manage stock, remove the herd, and you have removed the foundation and security on which the family rested. Demoralization and social disorganization are the inevitable consequences, and the younger people, no longer the beneficiaries of a stable home life, become just another addition to the problems of maladjustment and alienation in our society.

There is a risk that legislators may regard the $16 million allotted by H.R. 5647 as the final cost of relocation. Not only is it insufficient

to purchase an adequate amount of land and pay for the cost of relocation and the construction of new homes, but also it fails to take into account the funds needed for roads, schools, administrative centers, range management and improvement, and so on, while the costs of increased Navajo indigence and social disorganization, which will be borne by the Treasury for decades and decades, are left completely out of account.

Let me now conclude. (1) Navajos have lived in the area in dispute for many generations. While Hopis made some use of the land, Navajos were the only group to reside on it.

(2) The U.S. Government entered the picture long after the Navajos had established themselves on the land by promulgating an ambiguous Executive order in 1882, dividing the area in accordance with actual residence patterns in 1891 and 1936, altering these patterns in 1943 by taking 150,000 acres from the Navajos and giving them to the Hopis, and laying the foundation for a 1962 court order under which another 1,100,000 acres can be taken from the Navajos.

(3) No relocation plan I can imagine will succeed. Relocation will cause economic hardship, severe confiict, social disorganization and probably the creation of a dependent population of relocatees.

(4) If the traditional rights of the Hopis within the disputed area are safeguarded, land to expand their cattle industry can be purchased even though it lies at some distance. After all, this land will not be needed for intensive residential use, but primarily for grazing.

The problem of the Navajo-Hopi dispute must be solved by this committee. I strongly urge you to solve it without resorting to relocation of people, since I believe that that will lead in the first instance to resistance, and subsequently to demoralization, disorganization, and despair. Alternatives to H.R. 5647 are before you. I ask you to adopt a solution in a spirit of generosity toward both tribes, and to consider the needs for economic improvement of two impoverished groups.

Mr. MEEDS. Thank you.

Mr. MACDONALD. The next witness will be Mary Lou White.

STATEMENT OF MRS. MARY LOU WHITE, RESIDENT OF THE 1882 EXECUTIVE ORDER AREA, WHITECONE, ARIZ.

Mrs. WHITE. Mr. Chairman and Members of the Congress, my name is Mary Lou White. I live at Whitecone, Ariz., located on the 1882 Executive order area. I have seven children-two boys and five girls. I have a father, mother, one brother, and four sisters; all have families and other relatives.

I have very little education, but I will try to express the feelings of my people.

Today one goes to various gathering places, such as trading posts or in homes, and people talk about the land dispute problem. They talk about such things as how it would affect us if the Steiger bill went through and wonder if the Hopis would really make use of the land, who would have the most advantage to it, and whether it would be the Hopis or Mr. Steiger.

Nevertheless, we Navajos have one prayer and thought-that we will continue to live on the land we were raised on. We have made improvements on this land, such as homes, cornfields, and have built

corrals for what livestock we have. These improvements that I am speaking of didn't happen overnight. It started with our elders. They planted a root for us with a prayer, saying that someday our children will live on this land and light a fire in these homes. We Navajos believe that a fire glowing within a home is an emblem of love and everlasting life.

The homes we have, livestock we own, cornfields, and other improvements may not seem like much to others, but they are our life. It took a long time to build what we have. For this reason, we have no interest in moving to any other place. We pray that we may continue to live where our elders settled some years back and for our fires to keep burning in our homes and for our children to keep growing on this land. This is our prayer. This land is priceless to us.

Today we have young and old, female and male, that are veterans and some are still serving in the Armed Forces. Some of these veterans have land on this 1882 Executive order area. They have families. Some are handicapped. Some never returned to their loved ones. We respect these people. We feel they have done their part and served our country in our behalf. For this, we respect the word "peace."

Our elders lived at peace with the Hopis at one time. They helped one another with food, firewood, greeted each other as brothers and sisters and went to each others homes on horseback, wagons, or whatever transportation was available. The peaceful way was our elders' way. We pray this will come back to reality.

I pray that this land problem will be solved in such a way that it will be an advantage to both tribes and not to anyone else, and in such a way that no one will be hurt by it.

We were taught by my grandparents to respect the fire burning within the homes, for this is love and the root of life. We learned to respect the land by taking care of what was put there for every day living-livestock and cornfields.

Today we are told we are overgrazing the land, we have ruined it, but if you were to go around to each individual person, you would find there is just enough livestock, sheep or cattle, whichever the case, to provide for their needs. My people have little or no education. These days jobs are hard to find for people with little or no education. The living cost is very high. If you consider all of this, we barely have enough livestock to get by. But we are thankful for what we have and take care of them from sunup to sundown.

What I am saying is that we oppose the Steiger bill.

We pray that we may stay where our present homes are with all of our livestock and continue to make more improvements on the land. On behalf of my people, young and old, speaking from our minds and hearts, I pray this presentation I make will be considered. Thank you.

Mr. MEEDS. Mrs. White, if having very little education means that one could write or read as well as you do, I wish I had less. Mr. MACDONALD. Mr. Glenn George.

STATEMENT OF GLENN C. GEORGE, COUNCILMAN, TUBA CITY

CHAPTER

Mr. GEORGE. Mr. Chairman and Members of the Congress, my name is Glenn C. George. I am 46 years old and am the councilman

from the Tuba City chapter and president of the 18 chapters comprising the Tuba City agency.

My parents moved to the Tuba City area prior to 1934 and that has been my home ever since. I served in the Air Force for 20 years and returned to Tuba City permanently in 1966. My parents live south of Tuba City in the area that Congressman Steiger would give to the Hopis. My sisters also live in this area close to my parents, and the small number of sheep that they have provides food for the entire family group.

In my statement I want to talk most about section 5 of the Steiger bill, the section which would create the so-called Moencopi Corridor and attach it to the Hopi Reservation. Section 5 provides that about 243,400 acres of land in the 1934 Navajo Reservation should be taken from the Navajos and given to the Hopis.

This area has never been a part of the 1882 Executive order area. While the Hopis would like to confuse the matter, the decision in Healing v. Jones and the laws that were passed before it had nothing to do with the 1934 Navajo Reservation.

Almost all of the 243,400 acres of land which Congressman Steiger would cut off from the Navajo Reservation and give to the Hopis as a part of this so-called Moencopi Corridor has been occupied and used continuously and exclusively by Navajos for over 100 years. It is true that at the present time about 900 Hopis live in the village of Moencopi and the area around it, less than 20,000 acres, just south of Tuba City. Hopis have lived there for many years. I personally do not understand why it is necessary to take Moencopi village out of the Navajo Reservation, but I know that some Hopis want that. What I do not understand at all is why this justifies a land grab of 220,000 acres more, on which there are only Navajos.

Unfortunately, every time a new Steiger bill is introduced, the land grab gets bigger. The bill that passed the House of Representatives last year, H.R. 11128, would have given 208,600 acres of land in the 1934 Navajo Reservation to the Hopis. Now, the figures has been increased to 243,000 acres.

What section 5 would do is uproot at least 2,000 Navajos. Harrison Loesch, the former Assistant Secretary of the Interior for Public Land Management, testified at the hearings before the Senate in September of 1972 that the boundary line was designed to follow contour lines on maps. That is what is the problem with the Steiger bill-both in the 1934 Navajo Reservation and the 1882 Executive order area. Boundary lines should be drawn around people, not around mountains.

It is bad enough that the proposed boundary was drawn without regard to where the people are located and have been located for generations, but to give the best lands to the Hopis makes a bad bill even worse. The land which would be given to the Navajos is the land which is not good for raising livestock. Section 5 of the Steiger bill would not only throw 2,000 Navajos off their land, but would also take the best grazing land.

But the Steiger bill is not the only alternative. H.R. 7716, the bill introduced by Representatives Lujan, Conlan, and Runnels several days ago. provides a fair and reasonable alternative to the Steiger bill generally, and to section 5 in particular. Section 401 of the Lujan