House Resources Committee Hearing — June 21, 2006 — S1003

Chairman: To call up our second panel, Mr. Ivan Sidney, Mr. Joe Shirley, Mr. Raymond Maxx, and if I could have you stand and raise your right hand as is customary on the resources committee. We swear in all our witnesses. [Swears them in.] Thank you. Let the record show they all answered in the affirmative. Welcome to the committee. As I’m sure you it was earlier pointed out your entire written testimony will be included in the record; if you could maintain your oral testimony to five minutes, we’d greatly appreciate it. Mr. Sydney, we’re going to begin with you.

Chairman Sidney: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Members of the committee, thank you for having me represent the Hopi people in this very important hearing. I was a chairman from 1981 through ’89, and dealt with much of these very difficult issues during my eight years as chairman of the tribe. 16 years later I’m back here as chairman again, and having to come before on this very difficult, hard issue, saying that the Hopi tribe has previously supported S 1003 and recommended some of its recommendations to our state senator, McCain, and understand that most of those have been incorporated in that particular revisions.

As I come before you, I feel that the closure of relocation is coming close to a chapter in our tribe’s long and difficult struggle to protect its reservation. This closure will finally bring full jurisdictional control over our jurisdiction over our lands. The Hopi tribe as you see in this screen the aboriginal lands is much larger. The aboriginal title and use of this lands been the only thing that has been proven in federal courts through the long history since it was authorized back 30 or 32 years ago. I also want to say that since ’58 of the authorization and ’74 giving the courts jurisdiction to move forward on this uh critical land uh issue understand that in 1994 there was a Accommodation Agreement by the Hopi tribe also representing and allowing the difficulties of relocation for some of those people that voluntarily want to take out an agreement to reside on those lands. These are representative of the Hopi tribe trying to help in matters but yet still looking for our future to protect our ancestral lands.

Our understanding is S 1003 has two, basically two principle objectives to finally complete the work of relocation authorized by 1974 act and to terminate the Relocation Office. Much of the historical longevity of this have been the misunderstandings, the non-cooperation, the humane difficulties of this issue. I believe that the Hopi tribe again have represented its cooperation trying to be a relative, a Native American relative to our brothers and sisters to assure that the relocation is accomplished in a humanely, in a humane way. To see us um continue to go forward is bringing back long, hard issues and I here to share with the committee that I will do everything I can to assist not only in the closure but ensure the rights of both Hopi and Navajo people affected will be protected.

I assure you also that we have um objectives and priorities of both tribes today that is far more important and this part of the chapter needs to be closed. Uh whether this Office moves to the BIA, uh with that move I doubt if there’ll be sufficient money because BIA’s trying to serve us today with never the funding it should have to serve our purpose. But we are in a position as Hopi and Navajo to use our resources, our natural resources to care for us. But these kinds of issues bring back hard issues that we need to put behind us.

And members, chairman, members of the committee, again it’s an honor for me to be back here my first testimony in 6 months in office, and having to deal with this in the past and sitting next to a brother of mine, the president of Navajo Nation. I am a back here a cancer survivor. I live day-to-day. I intend to see the closure of this issue. Thank you.

Chairman: Thank you. Uh Mr. Shirley.

President Shirley: Thank you, Chairman Pombo. …Congressman Rick Renzi, Congressman Kildee, committee members, my name is Joe Shirley, Jr. I’m president of the Navajo Nation. I want to express my appreciation for the opportunity to testify before this committee on behalf of the Navajo people, concerning the Navajo-Hopi Land Settlement Amendments of 2005, or S 1003. Being that I only have five minutes I wanna try to make it as short as I can. I’m not asking the committee as some would suggest to undo what has gone before. I’m asking you to stop, I’m asking you to stop another travesty in the long history of federal Native American policy from taking place. S 1003 represents such a travesty. The immediate closure of the Office of Navajo Hopi Indian Relocation or ONHIR, and the shut down of the relocation program would leave the job unfinished. Some say the relocation program has gone on too long and costs too much. I agree. But the Navajo Nation never wanted the program to begin at all. Should the Navajos be punished because the federal government adopted a policy without understanding the issues involved? Is it the Navajo’s fault that there were more than ten times the number of Navajos to relocate than the government expected? Is it the fault of the Navajo relocatees that a promise of a new house and a new life has cost so much? I say that it is not. Yet S 1003 ignores the needs of thousands of Navajos who have had their lives disrupted. S1003 would exacerbate the impacts of the act by arbitrarily shutting down ONHIR in September 2008, and transfer all remaining responsibilities to the BIA. This shut down would not take into account the needs of the people. The outstanding claims and appeals of those individuals who have been denied benefits or the mitigation responsibilities contained within the original act. S 1003 cuts off the funding that would be necessary to help people receive job training or to rebuild shattered communities. In short, Mr. Chairman, I’m asking this committee to take the time to understand what relocation has wrought, and instead of allowing the federal government to commit another grave error, to create a humane plan, resolution, to the plight of these Americans.

I urge the committee to reject S 1003 and its unintentional disregard for the lives of the Navajo relocatees, and instead adopt a rational, reasonable policy that would curb (?) the relocation program after the completion of a study and the development of a mitigation and closure plan. The Navajo Nation does not want the relocation program to go on indefinitely. In fact the Navajo Nation would like nothing more than to be able to stand on its own as a sovereign nation without the intrusion of the federal government, to stand side-by-side with you rather than have policy dictated to us.

Is a study really unreasonable after years of misery? A study that would simply evaluate what has happened. What needs to occur to make the people as whole as is reasonably possible, how to implement a mitigation plan, and how to shut down the programs so that the Navajo, the Hopi and the federal government can put this painful period behind us.

What would this study look like? The Navajo Nations suggests that an independent, unbiased, nonfederal consultant selected by ONHIR with input from both the Navajo and Hopi conduct a year-long study to determine whether the purposes of the act have been achieved, and to recommend mitigation activities to redress the negative consequences of the act. The study should be an even-handed, unbiased examination at the effects of relocation and the subsequent needs of both the Navajo Nation and the Hopi tribe. ONHIR, in consultation with the Navajo Nation and the Hopi tribe, will then develop a mitigation and closure plan based on the study to address the impacts of relocation. Both the Navajo Nation and the Hopi tribe should be allowed to contract these mitigation efforts. When the mitigation efforts are completed, the relocation program shall close and the responsibilities, responsibilities the federal government on this matter will end.

A question that often arises is why do we need a study. The answer is simple. The Navajo Nation does not wish to see the federal government expend anymore time or money than is necessary to live up to its obligations. A study would let the facts on the ground dictate the policy that would guide the federal government, the Navajo Nation, and the Hopi tribe. Instead of the federal government dictating policy, the funding for the study could be provided from ONHIR’s appropriated funds, and should be capped at one million dollars. The study would also allow us to determine how much more money the program needs and how long it will take to address the outstanding issues. It is impossible to answer these questions without data. I would like to be able to sit before you today and say that the program is almost complete. I cannot say that nor can anyone else. The only answer that can be provided at this time is that the greatest cost of relocation program, housing, is almost complete. Therefore, any further activities will cost substantially less.

I once again urge the committee to reject S 1003, and to move forward with legislation that is everything that S 1003 is not – rational, reasonable and humane. I look forward to answering your questions. Thank you.

Chairman: Thank you. Mr. Max.

Mr. Maxx: Thank you, Chairman Pombo, and honorable Congressman Renzi, and members of the committee. It’s an honor to testify before the prestigious committee. Um, um. The uh, I just wanted to um point out some issues with the people that are immediately impacted, and the ones that have dealt with the, with the land disputes. The people that were relocated from the HPL and the District 6 were mostly very traditional Navajos. And most of them, the majority did not have, you know, formal education, and they didn’t speak English.

And when I was small, and my family was in District 6 that was set aside exclusively for the Hopis, and our family and relatives had to move. There was no benefits at the time so we abided by the laws and whatever policies they had then. We moved into an area in the Joint Use Area. We didn’t know the area would be relocated again. Eventually the policy, the act came about, and we had to relocate in the early 80s. And uh, during that time I remember, when I was uh, you know, when I was small, the elders in the Navajos and Hopis, they were really close. Now they traded a lot. You know, my uncle had a truck, and he always took firewood to the Hopi friends that he traded, you know, for corn, melons, and squash, and same thing with mutton. When they butchered they always traded. That’s what I knew, you know, when I was growing up. And sometimes when I hear about, you know, the relocation, how people reacted to it, a lot of the traditional Hopis, they opposed the relocation. So when these activities took place, you know, created a lot of friction Families moved in different directions, and we lost Hopi friends. So that type of activity really hurt everybody all the way around. And when we relocated to Tuba City, we didn’t realize there was a Bennett Freeze going on over there, too, where you couldn’t repair or construct or add to the house unless there was approval from several entities. So, it was really frustrating and heartbreaking to see people lose their livelihood. The traditionals, they live off the land, livestock, farming, and that made them proud even though they didn’t have an education. So they left all that behind, and moved to a new environment. And they were expected to continue what they had with the new house, and they couldn’t. So that’s where a lot of those social ills that took place, the alcoholism, the suicides, the domestic violence.

All we’re asking is a study to be done to end this relocation in a humane way. Congress and entities up here, they commission and initiate studies for different reasons whether they initiate the causes because of federal action or not. They do that. And out of these studies, plans and policies are created to address the issues. So we’re asking for that. We’re pleading with the committee to consider those and the bill 1003 does not address the intended purpose. It just wants to stop abruptly this law that we have opposed, but since we’re in it this far, yeah, let’s do it right and end it in a humane way.

Thank you, for my remarks, and listening to me, and if there’s questions I’ll be ready. Thanks.

Chairman: Thank you.