[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