Report text available as:

  • TXT
  • PDF   (PDF provides a complete and accurate display of this text.) Tip ?
                                                       Calendar No. 582
104th Congress                                                   Report
                                 SENATE

 2d Session                                                     104-363
_______________________________________________________________________


 
 PROVIDING FOR THE SETTLEMENT OF THE NAVAJO-HOPI LAND DISPUTE, AND FOR 
                             OTHER PURPOSES

                                _______
                                

               September 9, 1996.--Ordered to be printed

_______________________________________________________________________


    Mr. McCain, from the Committee on Indian Affairs, submitted the 
                               following

                              R E P O R T

                         [To accompany S. 1973]

    The Committee on Indian Affairs, to which was referred the 
bill (S. 1973) to provide for the settlement of the Navajo-Hopi 
land dispute and for other purposes, having considered the 
same, reports favorably with an amendment in the nature of a 
substitute and recommends that the bill as amended do pass.

 Report on S. 1973, the Navajo-Hopi Land Dispute Settlement Act of 1996

                                purpose

    The purpose of S. 1973 is to ratify the settlement of four 
claims of the Hopi Tribe against the United States and to 
provide the necessary authority for the Hopi Tribe to issue 75 
year lease agreements to Navajo families residing on Hopi 
Partitioned Land. This legislation will ratify the Settlement 
and Accommodation agreements among various parties, including 
the Department of Justice, the Hopi Tribe, the Navajo Nation, 
and the Navajo families residing on the Hopi Partitioned Lands.

                               background

    The Navajo-Hopi Land Dispute Settlement Act of 1974 \1\ was 
enacted in an effort to settle land disputes which have divided 
the Navajo and Hopi Tribes for more than a century. The Act was 
intended to bring about a settlement of all of the rights and 
interests of the two tribes in lands known as the 1882 
Executive Order Reservation and the 1934 Navajo Reservation. 
The origins of this longstanding dispute can be traced to the 
creation of the 1882 Hopi Reservation and the 1934 Navajo 
Reservation. On December 16, 1882, President Chester Arthur 
signed and executive order that set aside approximately 2.5 
million acres of land for the Hopi Tribe and ``such other 
Indians as the Secretary of the Interior may see fit to settle 
thereon.'' In June of 1934, the Congress enacted two laws which 
established the exterior boundaries of the Navajo Reservation 
and set aside the lands within the reservation for the Navajos 
and ``such other Indians as may already be located thereon.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ P.L. 93-531, 25 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 640d et seq.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    At the time of the 1882 Executive Order a small but 
indeterminate number of Navajos resided on portions of the 
reserved lands. Similarly, at the time of the 1934 enactments, 
Hopi and other Indians, including the San Juan Southern 
Paiutes, resided on the lands reserved as part of the Navajo 
reservation. Most of the Hopi residents of the 1934 Reservation 
were located in the village of Moenkopi near Tuba City. 
Throughout the 1890's and to this day, the Hopi and Navajo 
Tribes have disputed the right to title and occupancy of the 
lands in both reservations based on the 1882 Executive Order 
and the 1934 Acts of the Congress.
    In the early 1940's, the Secretary of the Interior 
established twenty-one grazing management districts on the 1882 
Reservation and the 1934 Reservation in an effort to control 
livestock and improve range management and soil conservation. 
Of these grazing districts only District six, located in the 
south-central portion of the 1882 Reservation, was identified 
as an exclusively Hopi district. All of the remaining districts 
were assigned to the Navajo Nation. The establishment of these 
grazing districts significantly intensified the disputes 
between the Navajo and Hopi Tribes, with the Hopi Tribe 
vigorously protesting the establishment of District Six.
    Despite efforts to defuse tensions and promote cooperation 
between the two tribes, the underlying disputes regarding 
jurisdiction over lands in the 1882 Reservation and the 
creation of District Six resulted in legislation which 
authorized suits between the Navajo and Hopi Tribes to quiet 
title to the 1882 Reservation.\2\ The legislation authorized 
the Tribes to file suit in the Federal District Court for 
Arizona `` * * * for the purpose of determining the rights and 
interests of [the Navajo and Hopi Tribes] in and to [the 1882 
Reservation] and quieting title thereto in the tribes * * * 
establishing such claims * * * as may be just and fair in law 
and equity.'' P.L. 85-547 was signed into law on July 22, 1958. 
On August 1, 1958, the Hopi Tribe sued the Navajo Nation Under 
the Authority of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ P.L. 85-547, 72 Stat. 403.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In Healing v. Jones,\3\ the court held that the Hopi Tribe 
had the exclusive right to lands in District Six and that both 
the Navajo and Hopi Tribes had equal rights to the surface and 
subsurface of the rest of the 1882 Reservation. Under this 
ruling, the area of the 1882 Reservation outside of District 
Six became known as the ``Joint Use Area'' (JUA). In the years 
after the Healing v. Jones case, the Hopi Tribe sought to 
obtain joint and equal use of the JUA through administrative 
action and through litigation. some of these cases include 
Hamilton v. Nakai,\4\ where the Hopi Tribe sought a Federal 
court order compelling the Navajo Nation to reduce its 
livestock on the JUA in order to allow Hopi access to the JUA 
and to prevent further injury to the lands due to overgrazing; 
United States v. Kabinto,\5\ where the United States brought 
suit against sixteen Navajos in order to evict them from 
District Six, where they were residing; and Hamilton v. 
MacDonald,\6\ where the Hopi Tribe petitioned the Court for a 
writ of compliance to compel the Navajo Nation to jointly share 
with the Hopi Tribe the surface and subsurface interests of the 
areas of the 1882 Reservation outside of District Six.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ 210 F. Supp. 125 (D. Az. 1962), aff'd 373 U.S. 758 (1963).
    \4\ 453 F.2d. 152 (9th Cir. 1971).
    \5\ 456 F.2d. 1087 (9th Cir. 1972).
    \6\ 503 F.2d. 1138 (9th Cir. 1974).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In testimony before the Committee presented on March 28, 
1996, Assistant U.S. Attorney General Lois J. Schiffer 
described the long and protracted litigation that the 
establishment of the 1882 and 1934 Reservations has engendered:

          ``This controversy has generated more than 35 years 
        of continuous legal battles involving the Tribes and 
        the United States. The following, while not exhaustive, 
        lists litigation spawned by disputes over the 1882 
        Reservation since 1958: Peabody Coal Company v. Navajo 
        Nation, 75 F.3d 457 (9th Cir. 1996); Hopi Tribe v. 
        Navajo Tribe, 46 F.3d 908 (9th Cir. 1995) (BIA's 
        homesite and grazing rental determinations); Attakai v. 
        United States, 21 F.3d 1111 (9th Cir. 1994); Masayesva 
        v. Zah, 816 F. Supp. 1387 (D. Ariz. 1992); Benally v. 
        Hodel, 940 F.2d 1994 (9th Cir. 1991); Manygoats v. 
        Office of Navajo and Hopi Indian Relocation, 735 F. 
        Supp. 949 (D. Ariz. 1990); Bedoni v. Navajo-Hopi 
        Relocation Commission, 878 F.2d 1119 (9th Cir. 1989); 
        Begay v. United States, 865 F.2d 230 (Fed. Cir. 1989); 
        Manybeads v. United States, 730 F. Supp. 1515 (D. Ariz. 
        1989), 9th Cir. No. 90-15003 (appeal pending) (First 
        Amendment suit by Navajo residents of HPL challenging 
        the relocation requirement as unconstitutional); 
        Masayesva v. Zah, No. 58-579 PCT ECH (D. Ariz. 1993), 
        9th Cir. No. 90-15304 (appeal pending) (contempt action 
        for illegal construction by Navajo residents); Secakuku 
        v. Hale, No. 76-934 (D. Ariz. 1993), 9th Cir. Nos. 94-
        17032, 95-15029 (damages to HPL range from overgrazing 
        by Navajo livestock prior to partitioning); Masayesva 
        v. Hale, No. 76-936 PCT ECH (D. Ariz. 1993), 9th Cir. 
        No. 94-17022 (appeal pending) (damages for use of Hopi 
        Tribe's share of the Joint Use Area by Navajo livestock 
        from 1962-1979); Secakuku v. Hale, No. 58-579 (D. Ariz. 
        1993), 9th Cir. Nos. 94-17031, 95-15015, (appeal 
        pending) (owelty for difference in value of the divided 
        Joint Use Area); Hopi Tribe v. Navajo Nation, Nos. 85-
        801 PHX and 87-1966 PHX (D. Ariz.) (ongoing challenges 
        to various annual BIA rental determinations); Hopi 
        Tribe v. United States, Nos. 319-84-L, 320-84-L, 321-
        84-L, 651-89L (Ct. Fed. Cl., pending) (penalties and 
        damages for unpermitted Navajo livestock use of the 
        HPL); Zee v. Watt, Civ. 83-200 PCT EHC (D. Ariz.) 
        (dismissed March 29, 1985); Walker v. Navajo-Hopi 
        Indian Relocation Commission, 728 F.2d 1276 (9th Cir. 
        1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 918 (1984); Hopi v. Watt, 
        719 F.2d 314 (9th Cir. 1983); Sidney v. Zah, 718 F.2d 
        1453 (9th Cir. 1983); Zah v. Clark, Civ. No. 83-1753 BB 
        (D. N.M., filed Nov. 27, 1983); Sekaquaptewa v. 
        MacDonald, 626 F.2d 113 (9th Cir. 1980); Sekaquaptewa 
        v. MacDonald, 619 F.2d 801 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 
        449 U.S. 1010 (1980); Sekaquaptewa v. MacDonald, 591 
        F.2d 1289 (9th Cir. 1979); Sekaquaptewa v. MacDonald, 
        575 F.2d 239 (9th Cir. 1978); Sekaquaptewa v. 
        MacDonald, 544 F.2d 396 (9th Cir. 1976), cert. denied, 
        430 U.S. 931 (1977); Hamilton v. MacDonald, 503 F.2d 
        1138 (9th Cir. 1974); United States v. Kabinto, 456 
        F.2d 1087 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 842 
        (1972); Hamilton v. Nakai, 453 F.2d 152 (9th Cir.), 
        cert. denied, 406 U.S. 945 (1972); Sidney v. Navajo 
        Tribe, Nos. 76-934, 935, 936 PHX EHC (D. Ariz., filed 
        Dec. 15, 1976); Healing v. Jones (II), 210 F. Supp. 125 
        (D. Ariz. 1962), aff'd, 373 U.S. 758 (1963); Healing v. 
        Jones (I), 174 F. Supp. 211 (D. Ariz. 1959), aff'd, 373 
        U.S. 758 (1963).'' \7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\ Statement of the Honorable Lois J. Schiffer, Assistant Attorney 
General, U.S. Department of Justice, March 28, 1996 Hearing of the 
Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, page 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

         the navajo and hopi indian land settlement act of 1974

    As a result of the growing litigation between the Hopi 
Tribe and the Navajo Nation concerning the 1882 Reservation, 
the Congress enacted the Navajo and Hopi Indian Land Settlement 
Act of 1974,\8\ to promote a comprehensive settlement of the 
land dispute between the Navajo and Hopi Tribes regarding the 
1882 Reservation and the 1934 Reservation. The 1974 Act 
provided for the establishment of Navajo and Hopi negotiating 
teams under the auspices of a Federal mediator to negotiate a 
settlement to the 1882 reservation land dispute. The timeframe 
for the mediation process was six months from the date of 
enactment. In the event that the mediation was unsuccessful, 
the Act authorized the court to partition the 1882 Reservation 
pursuant to the mediator's recommendations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\ P.L. 93-531, 25 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 640d.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In addition, the 1974 Act authorized both the Navajo Nation 
and the Hopi Tribe to file suit in the Federal District Court 
for the District of Arizona to quiet title in the 1934 
Reservation. Both tribes were authorized to file suit against 
each other and against the United States for any damages 
arising out of the land dispute. It also provided for the 
establishment of a three member Relocation Commission within 
the Department of the Interior to oversee the relocation of 
members of the Navajo Nation who were residing on lands 
partitioned to the Hopi Tribe and members of the Hopi Tribe who 
were residing on lands partitioned to the Navajo Nation. 
Finally, the Act authorized the purchase of 250,000 acres of 
Bureau of Land Management lands by the Navajo Nation for the 
resettlement of relocated Navajo families.
    The relocation program established in the 1974 Act has 
proven to be an extremely difficult and contentious process. 
The 1974 Act was amended in 1980 and again in 1987 to try to 
resolve problems which arose in its implementation. Last year, 
the Congress enacted Public Law 104-15, which provided for a 
brief two-year extension (through fiscal year 1977) of 
authority to the Office of Navajo and Hopi Indian Relocation. 
The original estimate of the cost of the relocation program was 
roughly $40 million to provide relocation benefits for 6,000 
Navajos estimated to be eligible for relocation. By 1977, when 
the tribal negotiations under the 1974 Act had failed, the 
mediator now estimated that the resulting partition of the 1882 
Reservation would result in the relocation of about 3,495 
Navajos. Since the program was established in 1974, the United 
States has spent more than $330 million to relocate a total of 
more than 11,000 Navajo and Hopi tribal members.

Status of relocation

    As of July of 1996, 4,432 Navajo an Hopi families have 
applied for relocation benefits. Of those, 3,373 have been 
certified eligible and 2,730 have received relocation benefits. 
Approximately 643 eligible families continue to wait for 
relocation benefits. Many of those Navajo families waiting for 
benefits have long ago complied with the law and voluntarily 
left the homes they had on lands partitioned to the Hopi Tribe. 
The pace of the relocation housing program has been such that 
on average, fewer than 200 eligible families are served in any 
fiscal year. For example, thus far in fiscal year 1996, 98 
families have received their relocation benefits. In addition 
to those eligible families awaiting relocation benefits, there 
are estimated to be between 50 and 100 Navajo families residing 
on lands partitioned to the Hopi Tribe who have never applied 
for relocation benefits under the law.

Recent settlement and accommodation agreements

    Since May of 1991, the United States Court of Appeals for 
the Ninth Circuit has ordered ongoing, court-sponsored 
mediation efforts between the Hopi Tribe, the Navajo Nation, 
the Navajo family representatives, and others in an effort to 
resolve certain legal claims pending in the 9th Circuit. On 
December 14, 1995, a Settlement Agreement was signed by the 
Department of Justice and the Hopi Tribe which resolved several 
lawsuits and pending claims between the United States of 
America and the Hopi Tribe. A few weeks later, as part of the 
court-sponsored mediation efforts, an Accommodation Agreement 
was developed with the agreement of the Hopi Tribe, the Navajo 
Nation, the Navajo Family Mediation Team, and the United 
States.

December 14, 1995 Settlement Agreement

    The Settlement Agreement finally settles four claims by the 
Hopi Tribe against the United States. The first claim resolved 
by the agreement (``the rental case'') involves all Hopi damage 
claims against the United States for an alleged failure of the 
Federal government to make timely rental value determinations 
required under 25 U.S.C. 640d-15(a). This case Hopi Tribe v. 
Navajo Tribe, et al., has been pending in the U.S. District 
Court in Phoenix, Arizona. The second claim resolved by the 
agreement (``the damage case'') involves all Hopi damage claims 
against the United States for an alleged Federal liability, 
joint and several with the Navajo Nation, for post-partition 
damage to the Hopi partitioned lands caused by pre-partition 
overgrazing. This case, Secakuku v. Hale, et al., has been 
pending in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth 
Circuit. The third claim resolved by the agreement (``the 
claims cases'') involves all Hopi damage claims against the 
United States for an alleged failure on the part of the Federal 
government to collect livestock trespass penalties, forage 
consumed fees, and property damage fees on behalf of the Hopi 
Tribe. This case, Hopi Tribe v. United States, has been pending 
in the United States Court of Federal Claims. The fourth claim 
resolved by the agreement (``the quiet possession claim'') 
involves all Hopi damage and injunctive claims against the 
United States for an alleged failure of the Federal government 
to give the Hope Tribe quiet possession of Hope lands that are 
used and occupied by Navajo families. The Hopi Tribe has 
withheld from filing any of these claims during the course the 
5-year, court-sponsored mediation efforts.
    In exchange for the Hopi Tribe compromising its rental, 
damage and claims cases against the United States, for 
foregoing its quite possession claim, and for providing an 
accommodation agreement for the Navajo families currently 
residing on Hopi Partitioned Lands, the United States agreed to 
pay the Hopi Tribe $50.2 million under a structured settlement 
schedule which is keyed to the performance of certain 
activities under the Settlement Agreement.
    The Settlement Agreement provides that funds shall be paid 
out in the following manner: (1) The Hopi Tribe will receive 
$2.4 million once the Tribe files a motion to dismiss its 
appeal in the Ninth Circuit in Secakuku v. Hale; (2) the Hopi 
Tribe will receive $22.7 million once legislation extending the 
Tribe's leasing authority to 75 years has been enacted and once 
the Tribe's claims in the Court of Claims for damages due to 
any Federal action which occurred before 1982 are dismissed; 
(3) the Hopi Tribe will receive $10 million once 65% of the 
Navajo families residing on the Hopi reservation have signed 
the Accommodation Agreement or request to be relocated and once 
the Hopi Tribe's claims in the Court of Claims for livestock 
trespass damages against the U.S. from 1983 through 1988 are 
dismissed; (4) the Hopi Tribe will receive $15.1 million once 
75% of the Navajo families residing on the Hopi reservation 
have signed the Accommodation Agreements or request to be 
relocated and once the Hopi Tribe's claims in the Court of 
Federal Claims for livestock trespass damages against the U.S. 
from 1989 through and including 1996 are dismissed. The 
Agreement between the U.S. and the Hopi Tribe expressly 
provides that none of the releases provided in the agreement 
are intended to release the Navajo Nation from any liability it 
might have to the Hopi Tribe.
    The Hopi Tribe may, in its discretion, use these settlement 
funds to purchase land in northern Arizona that is used 
substantially for ranching, agriculture, or other similar rural 
uses, and to the extent feasible, is in contiguous parcels. 
Should the Hopi Tribe choose to acquire such land, the 
agreement contemplates that the Secretary of the Interior will 
agree to accept into trust status under existing legal 
authority no more than 500,000 acres of such land. Even if the 
maximum acreage is brought into trust, the Committee has 
received estimates from the State of Arizona that the annual 
impact on local property tax collections would be de minimis. 
Estimates of the property taxes which will be lost by all 
affected county governments are approximately $14,200 annually 
if the maximum of 500,000 acres of land are taken into trust 
pursuant to the agreement. The settlement funds are to be paid, 
as are most court-related settlements entered into by the 
United States, from the Judgment Fund administered by the U.S. 
Department of Justice and the General Accounting Office to 
satisfy judgments against the United States which are approved 
by the courts.

1996 Accommodation Agreement

    The terms and conditions of an Accommodation Agreement for 
individual Navajo families have been finalized by 
representatives of the Hopi Tribe, the Navajo Nation, the 
Navajo Families Mediation Team, and the United States. These 
parties acknowledge that the Accommodation Agreement was 
reached in large part because of the efforts of the court-
sponsored mediator, David Lombardi, who helped implement the 
directive of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals that the parties 
reach by negotiation and voluntary agreement a final settlement 
of issues raised by the presence of Navajo families on the Hopi 
Partitioned Lands. The Accommodation Agreement is an integral 
part of the obligations incurred by the United States and the 
Hopi Tribe in the underlying Settlement Agreement.
    During the calendar year 1996, the Accommodation Agreement 
obligates the Hopi Tribe to offer a 75-year leasehold interest 
to Navajo families currently residing in their existing 
homesites on Hopi Partitioned Lands. The agreement extends 
certain guarantees to Navajo families entering into these long-
term leases, clarifying procedures by which certain grazing, 
firewood, structural, and religious exercise activities will be 
allowed.
    The Hopi Tribe, like most other Indian tribes, has general 
authority under 25 U.S.C. 415(a) to lease land for a term of 
not to exceed 25 years. The Federal statute grants specific 
exceptions to this 25 year limit to more than three dozen 
tribes, including the Navajo Nation but not the Hopi Tribe. The 
exceptions permit these Tribes to lease their land for terms of 
up to 99 years for public, religious, educational, 
recreational, residential, or business purposes.

      s. 1973, the navajo-hopi land dispute settlement act of 1996

    On July 18, 1996, Chairman McCain introduced S. 1973, to 
ratify the Settlement and Accommodation Agreements between the 
Hopi Tribe, the U.S. Department of Justice, and the Navajo 
families residing on the Hopi Partitioned Lands. Consistent 
with section 7(a) of the Settlement Agreement, the bill as 
introduced authorizes the Hopi Tribe to select certain 
agricultural and range lands in northern Arizona to be brought 
into trust by the Secretary of the Interior. Under the terms of 
the Settlement Agreement, the Hopi Tribe must pay fair market 
value to willing sellers for such lands. Prior to placing any 
land into trust for the benefit of the Hopi Tribe, the 
Secretary is required to ensure that at least 75 percent of the 
eligible Navajo families have entered into accommodation leases 
with the Hopi Tribe or have elected to receive their relocation 
benefits. In addition, the bill requires the Secretary to 
ensure that the Hopi Tribe has consulted with the State of 
Arizona concerning the impacts on the State and local 
governments of placing such land into trust prior to placing 
any land into trust for the Hopi Tribe pursuant to the 
Settlement Agreement.
    Consistent with section 7(b) of the Settlement Agreement, 
the bill authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to acquire 
through condemnation interspersed State lands and place such 
lands into trust for the benefit of the Hopi Tribe. The bill 
requires several conditions to be met prior to placing such 
State lands in trust: (1) the acquisition must not exceed the 
500,000 acre limitation in the Settlement Agreement, (2) the 
State of Arizona must concur with the selection of lands, and 
(3) the Hopi Tribe must pay fair market value of the State 
lands. The bill prohibits the Secretary from acquiring private 
lands through condemnation. Consistent with the terms of the 
Settlement Agreement, the bill also recognizes the right of the 
Hopi Tribe to pursue an action for quiet possession, after 
February 1, 2000, for Hopi Partitioned Lands occupied by 
Navajos who have not entered into an accommodation lease if the 
Federal government fails to discharge its obligations under 
section 9(c) or 9(d) of the Settlement Agreement.
    The bill also authorizes payments in lieu of taxes for 
lands purchased by the Hopi Tribe which are taken into trust by 
the Secretary of the Interior pursuant to the Settlement 
Agreement. In addition, the bill provides the Hopi Tribe the 
authority to enter into 75-year lease agreements with Navajo 
families residing on the Hopi Partitioned Lands. Finally, the 
bill reauthorizes the Navajo-Hopi Relocation Housing Program 
through the year 2000 to carry out its responsibilities under 
the Settlement Agreement.

                          Substitute Amendment

    The Committee Substitute proposes three major changes to S. 
1973 as introduced. First, the Committee Amendment modifies the 
requirement that at least 75 percent of the eligible Navajo 
families residing on the HPL agree to receive relocation 
benefits or sign the accommodation agreement before any land 
can be taken into trust for the Hopi Tribe under the Act by 
increasing the requirement to 85 percent of the eligible 
families. The Committee recognizes that this requirement is 
higher than the percentage agreed to by the parties to the 
Settlement Agreement. The Committee adopted a higher percentage 
in the hope of achieving a greater degree of finality by this 
legislation. The Committee Amendment provides that the 
Secretary may not to place lands in trust for the Hopi Tribe, 
pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, until no more than 15 
percent of the eligible Navajo heads of households (as 
determined by the Settlement Agreement) are remaining on the 
HPL and subject to forced eviction. To the extent that 15 
percent or fewer of the eligible Navajo heads of household are 
on the HPL in trespass for failure to enter into an 
Accommodation Agreement, the conditions set out in Section 5 
are met.
    The second major change amends section 5 by adding a new 
paragraph (3) that would prohibit the Secretary of the Interior 
from placing land, located within or contiguous to a 5-mile 
radius of an incorporated town, into trust for the benefit of 
the Hopi Tribe without specific statutory authority. The 
Committee adopted this language in response to concerns raised 
by the State of Arizona and certain communities in northern 
Arizona regarding the impact of placing lands into trust within 
close proximity to incorporated towns. In responding to 
concerns raised by these potentially impacted communities, the 
Committee Amendment ensures that lands acquired by the Hopi 
Tribe and taken into trust by the Secretary are rural in 
character and are lands that have been used substantially for 
ranching or agriculture. In addition, the Committee Admendment 
requires the Secretary to ensure that the Hopi Tribe has 
consulted with the State of Arizona regarding the lands to be 
placed in trust and the potential impacts on the State and 
local tax rolls. Such consultation shall be conducted 
consistent with the provisions of 25 C.F.R. part 151. The 
Committee recognizes the potential for a significant amount of 
land in northern Arizona to be placed in trust for the Hopi 
Tribe, up to 500,000 acres, and therefore has included language 
in the Amendment that will ensure that the potential impacts 
will be addressed through consultations with the State and 
local communities and through provisions limiting the selection 
of lands to rural and agricultural lands. Under the terms of 
the Settlement Agreement, the Hopi Tribe may use the settlement 
funds for many other purposes such as school construction, 
infrastructure development, or governmental programs rather 
than the acquisition of agriculture lands. However, if the Hopi 
Tribe so elects, they may use the settlement funds to acquire 
agricultural lands in Northern Arizona, subject to the 
conditions of the Act and the Settlement Agreement.
    The Settlement Agreement and section 6 of the Committee 
Amendment authorize the Secretary of the Interior to acquire 
through condemnation interspersed State lands that may be 
located with the exterior boundaries of private lands acquired 
by the Hopi Tribe. In order to acquire such lands the Hopi 
Tribe must seek the concurrence of the State of Arizona and pay 
fair market value to the State for such lands. The Secretary of 
the Interior shall take such State lands into trust for the 
Hopi Tribe. The Committee Amendment prohibits the Secretary 
from acquiring any private lands through condemnation. In 
carrying out the provisions of section 5 and 6 of the Committee 
Amendment, it is clear that the Hopi Tribe will have to work 
cooperatively, in close consultation with State of Arizona, 
regarding the acquisition of lands within northern Arizona and 
the placement of such lands into trust. The Committee 
recognizes that in that part of the State the lands are highly 
checker-boarded with private and State lands interspersed 
throughout and has therefore authorized the Secretary to work 
with the Hopi Tribe and the State to identify lands to be 
placed into trust for the Hopi Tribe. Because these 
acquisitions may involve a substantial amount of State lands, 
there could be a significant impact on the State of Arizona. 
For that reason, the Committee Amendment deletes section 8 of 
the bill as introduced and inserts a new provision that would 
authorize to be appropriated to the Department of Interior 
$250,000 for fiscal year 1998 to be paid to the State of 
Arizona after the initial acquisition of interspersed State 
lands under section 6 of the bill. The Committee based this 
figure on a base amount that could capitalize a fund to 
compensate the State for the loss of interspersed State lands 
and any potential revenues the State may derive from such 
lands.
    Finally, the Committee Amendment reauthorizes the Navajo-
Hopi Relocation Housing Program through the year 2000. This 
reauthorization will allow the Navajo-Hopi Relocation Housing 
Program to meet its obligations under the Settlement Agreement 
in order to provide relocation benefits to Navajo families who 
elect to relocate from the HPL rather than sign the 
Accommodation Agreement. The Settlement Agreement also gives 
Navajo families a three year period to reconsider their 
decision to sign the Accommodation Agreement and still be 
eligible to elect to receive relocation benefits. It is the 
Committee's intent to develop legislation to phase out the 
Office of Navajo-Hopi Relocation and bring the relocation 
process to an orderly and certain conclusion.

                           Domenici Amendment

    The Committee adopted an amendment offered by Senator 
Domenici which would amend section 9 of the Committee 
Substitute. This amendment clarifies that the 75 year lease 
authority provided to the Hopi Tribe under the legislation 
includes the authority to renew these lease agreements for an 
additional term of 75 years. The Committee has long-viewed the 
express limitations on Indian tribal governments entering into 
lease agreements under 25 U.S.C. Sec. 415 as antiquated and 
paternalistic. This limitation serves as an unnecessary barrier 
to tribal self-determination and true self-governance. The 
existence of express renewal authority in subsection 415(c) 
should not be read to imply that Indian tribal governments do 
not have renewal authority under subsection 415(a). The 
Committee has long-recognized the authority of Indian tribal 
governments to renew lease agreements under the authority of 
subsection 415(a). The purpose of the language in the Committee 
Amendment is simply to make clear to the parties that the Hopi 
Tribe possesses the authority to enter into subsequent 75 year 
lease agreements.

                          Other Considerations

    There has been some question raised regarding the 
ratification provisions under section 4 of the bill and whether 
these provisions extend to the Accommodation Agreement. The 
Committee intends that this section effects not only an express 
ratification of the terms and conditions of the Settlement 
Agreement but also includes and express ratification of the 
terms and conditions of the Accommodation Agreement between the 
Hopi Tribe, the Navajo Families, the Department of Justice and 
the Navajo Nation. It is the Committee's view that because the 
Settlement Agreement incorporates the terms of the 
Accommodation Agreement both agreements are in fact ratified by 
the legislation. Further, the approval, ratification, and 
confirmation of the Settlement Agreement is not intended in any 
way to affect the state of existing law concerning offset of 
claims between the Navajo Nation and the Hopi Tribe or other 
issues regarding the effect of the Settlement Agreement on 
lawsuits between the Navajo Nation and the Hopi Tribe. The 
Committee intends that nothing in this Act shall be interpreted 
or deemed to preclude, limit or endorse in any manner, an 
action by the Navajo Nation that seeks in court an offset from 
judgments for payments received by the Hopi Tribe under the 
Settlement Agreement. Further, by ratifying the Settlement 
Agreement, the Committee intends to take no position on issues 
relating to cases pending in the Federal courts between the 
Navajo Nation, the Hopi Tribe, or the United States. The 
Committee believes that such issues are best resolved in the 
Courts and are not part of this legislation.
    The Committee recognizes that an area of particular concern 
to the Navajo families residing on the HPL is the protection of 
certain religious sites within the HPL and the ability to 
continue their traditional religious practices. The 
Accommodation Agreement, which is ratified by this legislation, 
represents a good faith agreement between the Hopi Tribe and 
representatives chosen by the Navajo families residing on the 
HPL to provide for an accommodation of the Navajo families 
residing on the HPL. It reflects the respect that members of 
the Hopi Tribe and the Navajo Nation have for each other and 
the acknowledgment by each party of the sincerity of their 
respective traditional beliefs, the importance of those 
beliefs, and the desire of both parties to preserve their 
respective cultures and ways of life in the future. The United 
States specifically acknowledges the sincerity and importance 
of the religious beliefs of members of both tribes and the 
significance of the Navajo and Hopi religions. In order to 
provide protection for the traditional religious practices of 
the Navajo families, the Accommodation agreement specifically 
provides that a Navajo individual who has signed a 75 year 
lease agreement with the Hopi Tribe shall be entitled to 
continue their traditional land uses and their religious 
practices including the collection of herbs for personal use or 
traditional use, access to religious shrines, the construction 
of temporary structures, and the gathering of dead wood for 
fire. These traditional uses shall be conducted consistent with 
the Hopi Tribe's ordinances and permit systems which apply to 
Hopi Tribal members and to the Navajo families residing on the 
HPL and are designed to protect the land and its resources.
    The Committee remains concerned that the existing fences on 
and around Star Mountain on the HPL interfere with the ability 
of Navajo HPL residents to worship at certain sacred sites and 
shrines. There are several fence lines that run directly 
through certain sacred areas which prevent Navajo individuals 
from worshiping at such sites and have resulted in the 
desecration of one site. The Committee is aware of cooperative 
efforts between the Hopi Tribe, the Navajo Nation, and the 
Navajo residents of the HPL to identify such sacred sites and 
to realign the range management fences so as not to disturb or 
desecrate such sacred sites. The Committee urges the Hopi Tribe 
and the Bureau of Indian Affairs to directly consult with the 
affected Navajo residents to develop a plan to realign the 
fences and redesign the range units in question so as to 
protect the sacred sites around Star Mountain and not to 
interfere with Navajo religious practices. The Committee 
recognizes that such realignment is an important indication of 
good faith which is key to encouraging Navajo families on the 
HPL to sign the Accommodation Agreement.
    Another issue of great importance to Navajo families 
residing on the HPL is the right to bury deceased family 
members on or near the family homesite within the HPL. The 
current Accommodation Agreement does not afford Navajos signing 
the lease agreement the right to bury deceased relatives on the 
HPL. The Committee recognizes that this issue gives rise to 
great passion and it is critical to the continued viability of 
this settlement that the parties reach some resolution to this 
issue. The Committee urges the parties to continue their 
negotiations to develop an appropriate resolution to this 
issue. The Committee recognizes that the establishment of 
family or individual burial plots on the HPL will continue the 
traditional practices of the residents and is a key to 
encouraging Navajo families to sign the Accommodation 
Agreement.
    The Committee recognizes that there remain many issues 
which will require ongoing negotiation and cooperation between 
the Hopi Tribe and the Navajo residents of the HPL. The 
Accommodation Agreement presents a framework for ongoing 
cooperation and consultation between the Hopi Tribe and the 
Navajo HPL residents, wherein the Hopi Tribe has agreed to work 
with the Navajo families to identify and protect existing 
sacred sites, burial sites, and other similar places to either 
the Navajo or Hopi Tribes. The Agreement also provides that in 
implementing the Hopi Tribe's Comprehensive Land Use Plan, the 
Hopi Tribe will consider any maps and other written input 
submitted by the Navajo families. Under the Agreement, both the 
Hopi Tribe and the United States agree to provide notice of 
proposed government fencing and construction projects on the 
HPL and to comply with Section 106 of the National Historic 
Preservation Act. The notice which the Hopi Tribe and the 
United States will provide to the Navajo families, through 
their legal representative, will continue to be the 30 day 
written notice that has been previously provided pursuant to 
the decision in Attakai v. United States, 746 F. Supp. 1395 (D. 
Ariz. 1990).
    In the Accommodation Agreement the parties have also agreed 
to procedures under which disputes between the Navajo residents 
of the HPL and the Hopi Tribe can be resolved. The Agreement 
provides that the Hopi Tribe agrees to meet with the affected 
individuals to discuss the concerns that gave rise to the 
dispute prior to the commencement of any formal proceeding. 
This dispute resolution process includes, at a minimum, 
providing notice of the dispute and an opportunity to be heard 
prior to the initiation of any formal proceeding. Finally, the 
Agreement recognizes that both the Navajo residents and the 
Hopi Tribe are committed to improving relations on the HPL, 
improving communications between the parties, and developing a 
better understanding of their mutual concerns and interests. 
Further, the parties agree to continue their efforts to improve 
communications and understandings through the development of an 
informal alternative dispute resolution process during the one 
year period that eligible Navajo residents will have to sign 
the Accommodation Agreement.

                          Legislative History

    S. 1973 was introduced by Senator McCain on July 18, 1996, 
and was referred to the Committee on Indian Affairs. There was 
a committee hearing on the Settlement Agreement on March 28, 
1996.

            Committee Recommendation and Tabulation of Vote

    In an open business session on July 30, 1996, the Committee 
on Indian Affairs ordered the bill reported with amendments, 
with the recommendation that the Senate pass the bill as 
reported.

                      Section-by-Section Analysis

Section 1--Short title

    This section cites the short title of the Act as the 
``Navajo-Hopi Land Dispute Settlement Act of 1996''.

Section 2--Findings

    This section sets out the findings of the Congress.

Section 3--Definitions

    This section sets out the definitions used in the Act.

Section 4--Ratification of the Settlement Agreement

    This section provides that the United States approves, 
ratifies and confirms the Settlement Agreement between the Hopi 
Tribe and the United States executed on December 14, 1995.

Section 5--Conditions for lands taken into trust

    This section provides that, in accordance with section 7(a) 
of the Settlement Agreement lands which may be taken into trust 
by the Secretary of the Interior for the Hopi Tribe shall be 
located in northern Arizona. It provides that lands selected by 
the Hopi Tribe shall be in contiguous parcels if feasible and 
shall be lands that were substantially used for ranching and 
agriculture. It further provides that the Secretary shall 
ensure that at least 85 percent of the heads of households, as 
determined by the Settlement Agreement, have entered into an 
accommodation agreement with the Hopi Tribe or have chosen to 
receive their relocation benefits, prior to placing land into 
trust for the Hopi Tribe pursuant to this settlement. The 
Secretary must also ensure that the Hopi Tribe has consulted 
with the State of Arizona regarding the lands to be placed in 
trust consistent with 25 C.F.R. part 151. Finally, the section 
prohibits the Secretary of the Interior from placing lands, any 
portion of which is located within or contiguous to a 5 mile 
radius of an incorporated town, into trust for the benefit of 
the Hopi Tribe without specific statutory authority.

Section 6--Acquisition by condemnation of certain interspersed lands

    This section authorizes the Secretary of the Interior, at 
the request of the Hopi Tribe, to take such action as is 
necessary to acquire, through condemnation action, lands owned 
by the State of Arizona that are located within the exterior 
boundaries of lands owned by the Hopi Tribe. It also provides 
that the Secretary shall pay the State of Arizona, using funds 
provided by the Hopi Tribe, fair market value for such lands. 
It further provides that the Secretary may only acquire such 
lands if the State of Arizona concurs with the acquisition, the 
tribe pays for the lands acquired through the condemnation, and 
the Hopi Tribe has not exceeded the 500,000 acre limit in the 
settlement agreement. The section provides that the Secretary 
shall take lands acquired under the section into trust for the 
benefit of the Hopi Tribe in accordance with the Settlement 
Agreement.

Section 7--Action to quiet possession

    This section provides that if the United States fails to 
discharge its obligations under section 9 of the settlement 
agreement, the Hopi Tribe is authorized to bring an action of 
quiet possession against the United States relating to the use 
of the Hopi Partitioned Land by a Navajo family after February 
1, 2000 that has not entered into an accommodation agreement 
with the Hopi Tribe.

Section 8--Payment to the State of Arizona

    This section authorizes to be appropriated $250,000 for 
fiscal year 1998 to be paid to the State of Arizona. The 
Secretary of the Interior shall make payment after the 
acquisition of interspersed state lands authorized under 
section 6 of the bill.

Section 9--75 year leasing authority

    This section amends 25 U.S.C. 415 to provide authority to 
the Hopi Tribe to enter into 75 years leases with Navajo 
Indians residing on the Hopi Partitioned Lands, which can be 
extended at the conclusion of the term of the lease.

Section 10--Reauthorization of the Navajo-Hopi Relocation Housing 
        Program

    This section extends the authorization of appropriations 
for the Navajo-Hopi Relocation Housing Program through the year 
2000.

                   Cost and Budgetary Considerations

    The cost estimate for S. 1973, as calculated by the 
Congressional Budget Office is set forth below:

                                     U.S. Congress,
                               Congressional Budget Office,
                                 Washington, DC, September 6, 1996.
Hon. John McCain,
Chairman, Committee on Indian Affairs,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has 
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for S. 1973, the Navajo-
Hopi Land Dispute Settlement Act of 1996.
    Enacting S. 1973 would affect direct spending. Therefore, 
pay-as-you-go procedures would apply to the bill.
    If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be 
pleased to provide them.
            Sincerely,
                                              James L. Blum
                                   (For June E. O'Neill, Director).

               congressional budget office cost estimate

    1. Bill number: S. 1973.
    2. Bill title: Navajo-Hopi Land Dispute Settlement Act of 
1996.
    3. Bill status: As ordered reported by the Senate Committee 
on Indian Affairs on July 30, 1996.
    4. Bill purpose: S. 1973 would ratify the Settlement 
Agreement executed on December 14, 1995, between the Navajo and 
Hopi Tribes of Arizona and would implement that agreement by 
providing the Hopis with the authority to lease certain lands 
to Navajo Indians for a term of 75 years. The Settlement 
Agreement provides for payments totaling $50.2 million to the 
Hopi Tribe to settle claims against the United States, and 
provides for either the relocation of certain Navajos or 
accommodation agreements with eligible Navajo families. The 
first payment of $2.4 million has already been made. Subsequent 
payments under the settlement are contingent upon the Hopi 
Tribe obtaining authority from the Congress to lease certain 
lands for 75 years, as provided in this bill.
    S. 1973 would identify conditions for the transfer of lands 
into trust for the Hopi Tribe by the Secretary of the Interior. 
It would authorize appropriations for a payment of $250,000 to 
the State of Arizona. Finally, the bill would extend the 
authorization of appropriations for the Navajo-Hopi Relocation 
Housing Program.
    5. Estimated cost to the Federal Government: CBO estimates 
that S. 1973 would increase discretionary spending by about $90 
million over the 1998-2001 period, assuming the appropriation 
of amounts specified in the bill for the Navajo-Hopi Relocation 
Housing Program and the authorized payment to the State of 
Arizona.
    In addition, we estimate that the bill would increase 
direct spending in fiscal year 1997 by granting 75-year leasing 
authority to the Hopi Tribe, thereby triggering payments to the 
tribe totaling $48 million. The $48 million in direct spending 
would most likely be offset by savings of future payments that 
might otherwise be made in the absence of S. 1973, but we 
cannot estimate the amount or timing of such payments.

                                    [By fiscal year, in millions of dollars]                                    
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     1996     1997     1998     1999     2000     2001     2002 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION                                       
                                                                                                                
Spending under current law:                                                                                     
    Authorization level 1........................       12       30  .......  .......  .......  .......  .......
    Estimated outlays............................       15       24       10  .......  .......  .......  .......
Proposed changes:                                                                                               
    Authorization level..........................  .......  .......       30       30       30  .......  .......
    Estimated outlays............................  .......  .......       20       30       30       10  .......
Spending under S. 1973:                                                                                         
    Authorization level 1........................       12       30       30       30       30  .......  .......
    Estimated outlays............................       15       24       30       30       30       10  .......
                                                                                                                
                                           CHANGES IN DIRECT SPENDING                                           
                                                                                                                
Estimated budget authority.......................  .......      (2)  .......  .......  .......  .......  .......
Estimated outlays................................  .......      (2)  .......  .......  .......  .......  .......
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 The 1996 level is the amount appropriated for that year.                                                      
2 The legislation would trigger $48 million in direct spending in fiscal year 1997, but these outlays would     
  probably be offset by savings in subsequent years from savings of payments that would otherwise be made in the
  absence of S. 1973 and the associated settlement. We cannot predict the amount or timing of the payments that 
  would be required if S. 1973 is not enacted.                                                                  

    The costs of this bill fall within budget function 800.
    6. Basis of estimate: For the purpose of this estimate, CBO 
assumes that the legislation will be enacted by the beginning 
of fiscal year 1997.
    Spending Subject to Appropriation.--This estimate assumes 
that the amounts authorized for the Navajo-Hopi Housing 
Relocation Program will be appropriated by the beginning of 
each fiscal year. Estimated outlays are based on the program's 
historical spending rates.
    Upon ratification of the Settlement Agreement, the Office 
of Navajo-Hopi Relocation expects housing relocation costs to 
be lower than the authorized level as some Navajos would choose 
to stay on the Hopi land under an accommodation agreement and 
thus forgo any relocation benefits. However, CBO cannot 
estimate the amount of these potential savings because of 
uncertainty as to how many Navajo families will remain on the 
Hopi land under an accommodation agreement.
    Direct Spending.--Under the Settlement Agreement, payments 
totaling $48 million would occur only after the Congress grants 
75-year leasing authority to the Hopi Tribe. The first payment 
of $23 million would be made when the leasing authority is 
obtained. The second and third payments totaling $25 million 
would occur when certain percentages of Navajos (as specified 
in the Settlement Agreement) have either relocated or entered 
into an accommodation agreement with the Hopis that includes a 
75-year lease term.
    It is possible that the Settlement Agreement would allow 
the United States to avoid potential future costs resulting 
from claims brought against the United States by the Hopi and 
Navajo Tribes. Enacting the legislation would settle claims 
pending against the United States in the Federal Court of 
Claims related to the matters in the Settlement Agreement. (The 
potential liability of the United States under pending claims 
totals about $280 million.) Therefore, the estimated $48 
million in direct spending would probably be offset by savings 
that would result from having these claims dismissed. Though 
CBO cannot predict the outcome of court proceedings or future 
negotiations that might occur if the claims are not dropped, 
any further payments in the absence of enacting S. 1973 are 
likely to occur after fiscal year 1997.
    7. Pay-as-you-go-considerations: Section 252 of the 
Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 sets 
up pay-as-you-go procedures for legislation affecting direct 
spending or receipts through 1998. CBO estimates that enacting 
S. 1973 would affect direct spending as shown in the table 
below.

                                    [By fiscal year, in millions of dollars]                                    
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     1996             1997             1998     
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Change in outlays............................................               0            (\1\)                0 
Change in receipts...........................................                                                   
(2) Not applicable                                                                                              
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\The legislation would trigger $48 million in direct spending in fiscal year 1997, but these outlays would    
  probably be offset by savings in subsequent years from savings of payments that would otherwise be made in the
  absence of S. 1973 and the associated settlement. We cannot predict the amount or timing of the payments the  
  would be required if S. 1973 is not enacted.                                                                  

    8. Estimated impact on State, local, and tribal 
governments: S. 1973 contains no intergovernmental mandates as 
defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 
104-4) and would impose no costs on state, local, or tribal 
governments. Any costs resulting from the Settlement Agreement 
approved and implemented by this bill would be incurred 
voluntarily by the parties to that agreement.
    This bill would authorize the Department of the Interior to 
acquire Arizona state lands through condemnation, but only if 
the tribe pays for the acquired land and the state concurs that 
the acquisition is consistent with its interests. Further, the 
bill would authorize appropriations of $250,000 for fiscal year 
1998 for a payment to Arizona following such an acquisition.
    9. Estimated impact on the private sector: The bill would 
impose no new private-sector mandates as defined in Public Law 
104-4, but it could have some effects on individual Navajo 
families. If the United States fails to fulfill its obligations 
in sections 9(c) and 9(d) of the Settlement Agreement, the Hopi 
Tribe may bring an action to remove a Navajo family that is 
eligible for an accommodation, but fails to enter into an 
accommodation agreement and remains on Hopi Partitioned Lands 
after February 1, 2000.
    10. Previous CBO estimate: None.
    11. Estimate prepared by: Federal cost estimate: Lisa 
Daley; impact on State, local, and tribal governments: Majorie 
Miller; impact on the private sector: Elliot Schwartz.
    12. Estimate approved by: Paul N. Van de Water, Assistant 
Director for Budget Analysis.

                      Regulatory Impact Statement

    Paragraph 11(b) of rule XXVI of the Standing Rules of the 
Senate requires each report accompanying a bill to evaluate the 
regulatory and paperwork impact that would be incurred in 
carrying out the bill. The Committee believes that S. 1973 will 
create minimal regulatory or paperwork impacts.

                        Executive Communications

    The Committee received written testimony from the Honorable 
Lois J. Schiffer, Assistant Attorney General, Environment and 
Natural Resources Division, U.S. Department of Justice for the 
hearing held on March 28, 1996. The written testimony from the 
Department of Justice is as follows:

                     Testimony of Lois J. Schiffer

    Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, my name is Lois 
Schiffer. I am the Assistant Attorney General for the 
Environment and Natural Resources Division of the Department of 
Justice. I am pleased to appear before you on behalf of the 
United States Government to testify about the recently 
concluded Settlement between the United States and the Hopi 
Tribe, and the Accommodation offer by the Hopi Tribe to the 
Navajo families residing on lands partitioned to the Hopi. 
These historic Agreements pave-the-way for a resolution of the 
longstanding dispute over use of the 1882 Reservation lands.
    The terms of the Accommodation Agreement really are the 
heart of the great progress achieved. I commend the tremendous 
achievement of the central parties to the Accommodation 
Agreement negotiations for their patience, tenacity and 
creativity in reaching a resolution. I thank the Committee for 
holding this hearing to receive testimony about these historic 
Agreements and to consider a legislative provision required to 
implement this Settlement, and especially for holding it at 
this early time. The enactment this year, and most preferably 
before this summer, of legislation granting the Hopi Tribe 75-
year leasing authority is necessary to the success of this 
Settlement. We will try to assist in whatever way possible to 
provide information that may be helpful.
    I especially would like to thank the Chairman for his 
sustained efforts to resolve this dispute over many years. 
Without his long and steadfast leadership regarding this 
dispute, the recent achievements would not have been possible. 
I also wish to thank Senator Kyl for his devotion of attention 
to this matter. The Chairman and his staff and Senator Kyl and 
his staff have provided their valuable insights and assistance 
throughout our efforts to achieve a negotiated resolution.
    A settlement of this magnitude has been possible only 
because of the work of many people. I take this opportunity to 
thank just a few others of these. I wish to thank Hopi Tribal 
Chairman Ferrell Secakuku and Navajo Nation President Albert 
Hale for their commitment to a resolution. I also wish to thank 
the members of the Hopi Tribe's and Navajo Nation's negotiating 
teams, the Council members of both Tribes and the attorneys 
representing each of the Tribes in the negotiations. It has 
been a long and difficult road, begun during the last 
administration of each of the three governmental entities 
(Federal, Hopi and Navajo) and continued, unhaltingly, 
throughout the current administrations. I also wish to thank 
Roger Attakai, President of the Dineh Dahyikah Ada Yaltii 
Committee (Voice of Dineh Families), the other Navajo residents 
of the Hopi Partitioned Lands who have dedicated so many hours 
to negotiation of an issue so dear and so difficult to discuss, 
and to their lawyer Lee Brooke Phillips.
    I extend further thanks to Governor Symington and his 
staff, to representatives from the County Board of Supervisors 
for Coconino County, Navajo County and Apache County, to 
officials from the City of Flagstaff and to members of the 
citizen groups--all of whom have made important contributions 
to this Settlement.
    I also wish to thank the two mediators who have worked with 
the parties, the Honorable United States Magistrate Judge Harry 
R. McCue (retired) and David Lombardi, Chief of the Settlement 
Program of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth 
Circuit.
    The Environmental and Natural Resources Division of the 
Justice Department is responsible for litigation involving the 
United States' responsibility for lands held in trust for 
Indian Tribes. For that reason the Environment Division has 
taken the lead role for the Justice Department in these 
negotiations. Attorney General Janet Reno has taken a 
particular interest in the issue and has offered her unflagging 
support and guidance. In addition, we were fortunate to have 
the assistance of other high level officials in the Department, 
including Deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick, Associate 
Attorney General John Schmidt and Assistant Attorney General 
for Policy Development Eleanor Acheson. I also wish to commend 
Deputy Assistant Attorney General Jim Simon, who has overseen 
this matter within the Environment Division, Peter Steenland, 
who initiated these efforts and carried the weight for the 
Division from 1991-1993, and Katherine Hazard, who is currently 
the lead federal negotiator. Many others in the Department have 
made important contributions over the long course of the 
litigation, including Environment Division attorneys Ellen 
Durkee and Steve Carroll.
    The Department of the Interior, as the agency with broad 
responsibility for fulfilling the United States' trust 
responsibility, has served with the Justice Department, 
throughout the mediation, as part of the federal negotiating 
team. I wish to thank those at Interior, and those in the 
Office of Navajo Hopi Indian Relocation, who have provided 
important historical perspective on the dispute, vital 
technical information, and valuable insights--without which 
fruitful negotiations would have been even more difficult.
    The principal credit for making peace, as well as the major 
responsibility for carrying out the Settlement, lies with the 
Hopi Tribe, with the Navajo families who now reside on the Hopi 
Partitioned Lands, and with the Navajo Nation, which has 
assisted the families throughout the mediation. They also are 
the ones who will benefit most from this advancement in their 
ability to live together in harmony.
    My testimony is directed primarily to the terms of the 
Settlement Agreement between the Hopi Tribe and the United 
States, not because this component is more significant than 
others, but because it is the facet of the Settlement most 
directly involving the federal agencies.


                              a. overview


    For more than a century, members of the Hopi Tribe and the 
Navajo Nation have disputed the use of certain lands in 
northern Arizona. At root, the dispute involves competing 
historical, religious and cultural ties to the same lands. In 
some instances, the acrimony has led to threats and conflict, 
leaving members of both tribes, and representatives of the 
Bureau of Indian Affairs charged with enforcing grazing limits 
on the Hopi lands, in fear of further hostilities. Several 
thousand Navajo who formerly lived on lands partitioned to the 
Hopi Tribe in 1979 moved, as required by the 1974 Settlement 
Act. Several hundred members of the Navajo Nation, however, 
have continued to reside at their homesites on the Hopi 
Reservation, strenuously opposing relocation.
    Absent of the recently achieved consensual resolution, the 
Hopi Tribe is deprived of jurisdiction over and use of much of 
its already small, ancestral Reservation lands; and 
approximately 100 to 200 Navajo families, who reside on those 
lands, live under the threat of forced removal from their 
homesites. For approximately twenty-five years, these Navajo 
residents have been without authorization to repair their 
homes, many of which are in desperate need of maintenance and 
weatherization. In seeking to litigate a resolution and to give 
effect to the provisions of the 1974 Settlement Act, the 
resources of both tribes have been drained--diverting scarce 
funds from urgently needed educational, health and economic 
development programs.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ This controversy has generated more than 35 years of continuous 
legal battles involving the Tribes and the United States. The 
following, while not exhaustive, lists litigation spawned by disputes 
over the 1882 Reservation since 1958: Peabody Coal Company v. Navajo 
Nation, 75 F.3d 457 (9th Cir. 1996); Hopi Tribe v. Navajo Tribe, 46 
F.3d 908 (9th Cir. 1995) (BIA's homesite and grazing rental 
determinations); Attakai v. United States, 21 F.3d 1111 (9th Cir. 
1994); Masayesva v. Zah, 816 F.Supp. 1387 (D. Ariz. 1992); Benally v. 
Hodel, 940 F.2d 1194 (9th Cir. 1991); Manygoats v. Office of Navajo and 
Hopi Indian Relocation, 735 F.Supp. 949 (D. Ariz. 1990); Bedoni v. 
Navajo-Hopi Relocation Commission, 878 F.2d 1119 (9th Cir. 1989); Begay 
v. United States, 865 F.2d 230 (Fed. Cir. 1989); Manybeads v. United 
States, 730 F.Supp. 1515 (D. Ariz. 1989), 9th Cir. No. 90-15003 (appeal 
pending) (First Amendment suit by Navajo residents of HPL challenging 
the relocation requirement as unconstitutional); Masayesva v. Zah, No. 
58-579 PCT ECH (D. Ariz. 1993), 9th Cir. No. 90-15304 (appeal pending) 
(contempt action for illegal construction by Navajo residents); 
Secakuku v. Hale, No. 76-934 (D. Ariz. 1993), 9th Cir. Nos. 94-17032, 
95-15029 (damages to HPL range from overgrazing by Navajo livestock 
prior to partitioning); Masayesva v. Hale, No. 76-936 PCT ECH (D. Ariz. 
1993), 9th Cir. No. 94-17022 (appeal pending) (damages for use of Hopi 
Tribe's share of the Joint Use Area by Navajo livestock from 1962-
1979); Secakuku v. Hale, No. 58-579 (D. Ariz. 1993), 9th Cir. Nos. 94-
17031, 95-15015 (appeal pending) (owelty for difference in value of the 
divided Joint Use Area); Hopi Tribe v. Navajo Nation, Nos. 85-801 PHX 
and 87-1966 PHX (D. Ariz.) (ongoing challenges to various annual BIA 
rental determinations); Hopi Tribe v. United States, Nos. 319-84-L, 
320-84-L, 321-84-L, 651-89L (Ct. Fed. Cl., pending) (penalties and 
damages for unpermitted Navajo livestock use of the HPL); Zee v. Watt, 
Civ. 83-200 PCT EHC (D. Ariz.) (dismissed March 29, 1985); Walker v. 
Navajo-Hopi Indian Relocation Commission, 728 F.2d 1276 (9th Cir. 
1984), Cert. denied, 469 U.S. 918 (1984); Hopi v. Watt, 719 F.2d 314 
(9th Cir. 1983); Sidney v. Zah, 718 F.2d 1453 (9th Cir. 1983); Zah v. 
Clark, Civ. No. 83-1753 BB (D.N.M., filed Nov. 27, 1983); Sekaquaptewa 
v. MacDonald, 626 F.2d 113 (9th Cir. 1980); Sekaquaptewa v. MacDonald, 
619 F.2d 801 (9th Cir.), cert denied, 449 U.S. 1010 (1980); 
Sekaquaptewa v. MacDonald, 591 F.2d 1289 (9th Cir. 1979); Sekaquaptewa 
v. MacDonald, 575 F.2d 239 (9th Cir. 1978); Sekaquaptewa v. MacDonald, 
544 F.2d 396 (9th Cir. 1976), cert. denied, 430 U.S. 931 (1977); 
Hamilton v. MacDonald, 503 F.2d 1138 (9th Cir. 1974); United States v. 
Kabinto, 456 F.2d 1087 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 842 (1972); 
Hamilton v. Nakai, 453 F.2d 152 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 406 U.S. 945 
(1972); Sidney v. Navajo Tribe, Nos. 76-934, 935, 936 PHX EHC (D. 
Ariz., filed Dec. 15, 1976); Healing v. Jones (II), 210 F. Supp. 125 
(D. Ariz. 1962), aff'd, 373 U.S. 758 (1963); Healing v. Jones (I), 174 
F.Supp. 211 (D. Ariz. 1959), aff'd, 373 U.S. 758 (1963).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The centerpiece of the negotiations has been an effort to 
resolve the on-the-ground situation for the Navajo families and 
the Hopi Tribe regarding the use and occupation of the Hopi 
Partitioned Lands, to address the Hopi Tribe's sovereignty 
concerns and to accommodate the Navajo families' religious 
claims concerning their need to stay. Now, after four and a 
half years of mediation, the parties have reached agreement on 
the terms of a settlement that would restore jurisdiction to 
the Hopi Tribe and allow the approximately 100 to 200 Navajo 
families to remain on Hopi land. This historic achievement 
takes form in two Agreements: one between the Hopi Tribe and 
the Navajo residents of the Hopi Reservation; the other between 
the Hopi Tribe and the United States.
    Under the first Agreement, called an Accommodation 
Agreement, Navajo residents of the Hopi Partitioned Lands may 
continue to live at their homesites on the Hopi Partitioned 
Lands for 75 years, with the possibility of renewal. What 
currently exists is an agreement on the terms of individual 
Accommodation Agreements may be signed and become effective 
after the Hopi Tribe receives 75-year leasing authority. The 
individual Accommodation Agreements, when signed, will be 
principally an agreement between the Navajo residents of a 
homesite on the Hopi Reservation and the Hopi Tribe, although 
the Navajo Nation also will indicate its support of the 
Agreement and the document will be submitted for approval to 
the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Interior for 
Indian Affairs or her designee.
    The second Agreement is referred to as the Hopi Tribe-
United States Settlement Agreement. Under this Agreement the 
Hopi Tribe promises to offer and abide by the terms of the 
Accommodation Agreement and commits to abandon prosecution of 
four lawsuits against the United States. In exchange for that 
consideration, the United States will pay the Hopi Tribe $50.2 
million and has committed to take up to 500,000 acres of land 
into trust for the Hopi Tribe if certain conditions are met. In 
order to give effect to these Agreements, we seek an expansion 
of the Hopi Tribe's leasing authority so that it may offer the 
Navajo families an accommodation for a 75-year-period.
    Several lawsuits among the Navajo Nation, the Hopi Tribe 
and the United States are not settled by either of these 
Agreements. During the early years of these negotiations, the 
parties strove for a settlement of those suits as part of a 
global settlement. But resolution of those lawsuits, which 
involve strictly money claims among the parties, was not 
forthcoming, The delay presented by inability to reach 
agreement on those issues was jeopardizing progress on the 
central focus of these negotiations. The two Agreements that 
are the focus of this Hearing resolve the central concern that 
was the genesis of the mediation. Other ancillary litigation 
need not impede the progress of these important achievements.
    Before turning to the details of these Agreements, I would 
like to place them in their historical context. This context is 
necessary to appreciate the magnitude of what has been 
accomplished by the parties before you.


b. prior efforts to resolve the dispute over rights to use of the hopi 
                           partitioned lands


    The dispute at issue dates back to 1882 when President 
Arthur, be Executive Order, established a Reservation with the 
Hopi villages at its center. Even at that time, there was 
tension between Navajo and Hopi use of these lands in northern 
Arizona. During the period from 1882 to 1958, twenty-one 
Secretaries of the Interior failed to act on requests from the 
Hopi Tribe to evict Navajo from the 1882 Reservation.
    Since the 1950s, Congress, courts, and mediators have 
struggled to find solutions to the Navajo Nation's and Hopi 
Tribe's competing claims to lands within the 1882 Reservation.
    In 1958, Congress sought a litigated resolution of the land 
dispute by enacting a law authorizing the two Tribes to sue one 
another. Soon thereafter, the Hopi Tribe sued the Navajo Nation 
over ownership of the 1882 Reservation. In that lawsuit, 
commonly known as Healing v. Jones, the district court 
determined that the Navajo and Hopi had joint and undivided 
interests in all but 631,194 acres of the original 2.5 million 
acre 1882 reservation, an area thereafter referred to as the 
``Joint Use Area.'' Healing v. Jones, 210 F. Supp. 125 (D. 
Ariz. 1962), aff'd, 373 U.S. 758 (1963).
    Creation of the Joint Use Area only fostered more 
litigation as the Hopi Tribe repeatedly sought enforcement of 
its rights to the area in the district court. In 1974, Congress 
again addressed the problem with enactment of the ``Settlement 
Act,'' which authorized and directed partitioning of the Joint 
Use Area between the Navajo Nation and Hopi Tribe. Under the 
Settlement Act, the two tribes were required to undertake a 
six-month mediation effort designed to render an agreed upon 
land partition. That mediation failed and, in 1975, the 
partitioning was referred to the district court. The Joint Use 
Area was finally partitioned in 1979, with the court allocating 
approximately 900,000 acres known as the Hopi Partitioned Lands 
to the Hopi Tribe and approximately 900,000 acres known as the 
Navajo Partitioned Lands to the Navajo Nation.
    Under the Settlement Act, members of each tribe are 
required to move from the lands partitioned to the other tribe. 
In drafting the 1974 Settlement Act, the House Committee on 
Interior and Insular Affairs concluded that ``because of the 
Federal Government's repeated failure to resolve the land 
dispute, the major costs of resolution should be properly borne 
by the United States.'' The Senate Report embraced a similar 
conclusion. To that end, Congress created the Navajo and Hopi 
Indian Relocation Commission (now, the Office of Navajo Hopi 
Indian Relocation) to assist in the relocation process which 
was to be completed by July 1986.
    To date, the United States has spent more than $330 million 
to relocate 2,700 households (more than 11,000 tribal members) 
from lands determined in 1979 to belong to the other Tribe. All 
of the few Hopi residing on the lands partitioned to the Navajo 
Nation moved and several thousand Navajo residing on lands 
partitioned to the Hopi Tribe moved in the years following the 
1979 partitioning. By 1985, it was clear, however, that 
voluntary relocation would not lead to the departure of all the 
Navajo residents from lands partitioned to the Hopi Tribe by 
the July 7, 1986 deadline.
    As the Settlement Act's 1986 relocation deadline 
approached, the specter of forced relocation of hundreds of 
Navajo families residing on Hopi Partitioned Lands loomed 
large. At this juncture, President Reagan personally met with 
the Chairmen of the Hopi and Navajo Tribes to urge them to 
negotiate a resolution of their differences, including their 
disagreement over the fate of those Navajo families that had 
not yet relocated. In February 1985, President Reagan took the 
further step of commissioning Secretary of the Interior William 
Clark to explore avenues for a consensual resolution of the 
tribes' disagreements over implementation of the Settlement 
Act. (Secretary Clark, in turn, appointed Robert Morris to the 
task.)
    In August 1985, Interior hosted a Washington meeting with 
the Chairmen of the two tribes to determine the prospects for a 
negotiated solution to the continued residence of Navajo 
families on Hopi Partitioned Lands. Although progress was made, 
and memoranda of understanding were discussed, no agreement was 
achieved. The Morris Report--issued after eight months of on-
the-ground study and federally facilitated negotiations--
concluded with regret that the tribes were not politically able 
to ``embrace negotiation as a means of solving their complex 
differences.''
    That year also marked the failure of a court-sponsored 
mediation effort. In July 1985, federal district court Judge 
Earl Carroll, the presiding judge in much of the litigation 
between the tribes, hosted an informal meeting with the tribes 
and President Reagan's appointed representative to the task. At 
that meeting, Judge Carroll urged the tribes to embrace the 
President's negotiation initiative and candidly set forth his 
view that the lawsuits pending before him would take years to 
conclude, cost millions of dollars, and lead to unsatisfactory 
results for both tribes. Unfortunately, the tribes still were 
unable to reach agreement.
    The following year, three separate Congressional attempts 
at addressing the problem of Navajo families who remained on 
Hopi land were initiated. These legislative initiatives 
included a bill by Congressmen Udall and then Congressman 
McCain aimed at comprehensive settlement (H.R. 4281), a bill by 
Senator Cranston that would have placed an 18 month moratorium 
on further relocations (S. 2545) and a bill by Senator 
DeConcini that would have provided for binding arbitration of a 
land exchange (S. 2651). Each of these bills was strongly 
opposed by one or both of the tribes and was withdrawn or 
abandoned.
    As the foregoing illustrates, the recent consensual 
resolution comes out of a long history of unsuccessful efforts 
to settle this age-old dispute.


                     c. the recent mediation effort


    The mediation process that led to the two Agreements at 
issue here arose out of a lawsuit known as Manybeads v. United 
States. In 1988, the land dispute was again put before the 
federal district court when Navajo residents of the Hopi 
Partitioned Lands filed suit against the United States claiming 
that the 1974 Settlement Act's relocation requirement violates 
their First Amendment right to practice their religion and that 
the Settlement Act, therefore, is unconstitutional and invalid. 
In this lawsuit, Manybeads v. United States, the district court 
ruled against the Navajo families and upheld the validity of 
the 1974 Settlement Act. The Navajo families appealed that 
determination to the United States Court of Appeals for the 
Ninth Circuit. Following briefing and argument on the case, the 
Appeals Court panel, in May 1991, ordered the parties into 
mediation before United States Magistrate Judge Harry McCue. 
Under the mediation order, the United States, the Navajo and 
Hopi Tribes, and the Manybeads plaintiffs were to negotiate for 
90 days. The Court has granted continuing requests by the 
parties for extensions of the mediation process and a stay of 
the Manybeads case and one other related lawsuit.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ The related case, Masayesva v. Zah, No 58-579 PCT ECH (D. Ariz. 
1993), 9th Cir. No. 95-15304 (appeal pending), is an action by the Hopi 
Tribe against the Navajo Nation. The Hopi Tribe sought a contempt fine 
against the Navajo Nation and the removal of certain structures that it 
claimed were erected in violation of a court-ordered construction 
freeze. As part of the mediation process, the structures at issue have 
been disassembled. The district court assessed a fine of approximately 
$800,000 against the Navajo Nation. Consideration of the Navajo 
Nation's appeal of that fine is now stayed before the United States 
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Eighteen months of mediation culminated in an October 1992 
Agreement in Principle. In November of 1992, the Agreement in 
Principle was ratified by the Hopi Tribal Council, the Navajo 
Tribal Council, the Secretaries of the Interior and Agriculture 
and the Associate Attorney General of the United States under 
President Bush's administration. The Agreement in Principle 
contained the first commitment by the Hopi Tribe to permit 
Navajo families residing on Hopi Partitioned Lands to remain 
there, under a 75 year agreement. It also entailed a 
compensation package between the United States and the Hopi 
Tribe that would settle the Hopi Tribe's claims against the 
United States and provide lands that its members could use in 
light of continued occupancy by the Navajo of the Hopi 
Partitioned Lands.
    The Agreement in Principle laid the groundwork for 
important accommodations to and commitments by each of the 
parties. During the last three years, the Navajo families and 
the Hopi Tribe have been meeting to define the final terms of 
an Accommodation Agreement that will be available to the Navajo 
full-time residents of the Hopi Partitioned Lands, as 
identified on a negotiated list called ``List A.'' Those 
meetings concluded in December 1995.
    In addition, over the last three years the United States 
has been working with the Hopi Tribe to try to restructure a 
component of the Settlement that, in 1992, caused serious 
concern to the public. The Departments of Justice and the 
Interior, under the Clinton Administration, have continued 
negotiation in order to carry through on the commitments and 
achievements of the prior Administration, while making 
necessary revisions to address concerns with the negotiated 
framework ratified by that Administration.
    Under the Agreement in Principle, the federal government--
in settlement of several lawsuits against it by the Hopi Tribe 
and in consideration of the Hopi Tribe's commitment to allow 
Navajo families to remain at their homesites on Hopi land--
would have taken 500,000 acres of land into trust for the Hopi 
Tribe. A majority of the acreage involved was state or fee 
lands that would have been acquired for the Hopi Tribe. But 
approximately 200,000 acres of the lands involved were National 
Forest Lands. It was the National Forest lands component of 
that settlement framework that caused the grave public concern.
    In restructuring the compensation, the Department of 
Justice tried to address the public concerns, while still 
adhering to the basic tenets of the 1992 Agreement in Principle 
upon which the Hopi Tribe's offer to the Navajo families was 
premised. In December 1995, the Departments of Justice and of 
the Interior signed an agreement with the Hopi Tribe that 
reflects such a restructuring and does not involve the transfer 
of any National Forest lands.


                         d. the two agreements


    1. The Accommodation Agreement.--The Accommodation 
Agreement developed out of the issues raised by the Navajo 
residents of the Hopi Partitioned Lands in the Manybeads 
lawsuit and out of the countervailing concerns of the Hopi 
Tribe in its suits against the Navajo Nation and the United 
States. A representative of the Justice Department attended 
nearly every session of more than 40 full-day discussions of 
the Navajo families' concerns. We have learned a great deal 
from those discussions and have tried to assist where possible; 
but the true progress from those discussions was (and only 
could have been) made by the central parties to the 
Accommodation Agreement, the Hopi Tribe and the Navajo families 
residing on the Hopi Partitioned Lands. The Navajo Nation's 
efforts in support of mediation, too, have been essential to 
that achievement.
    With regard to the Manybeads lawsuit itself, the United 
States and the Navajo families are discussing a process for 
dismissing the suit that will provide for court recognition of 
the Settlement and final resolution of the legal issues. Those 
technical points, however, are peripheral compared with the 
great achievement represented by the negotiation of an 
Accommodation Agreement that will allow the Navajo families to 
remain on the Hopi Partitioned Lands.
    Very briefly, the individual Accommodation Agreements, 
which will be for a term of 75 years, assure Navajo residents 
who are on List A of: a three-acre homesite, ten acres of 
farmland, increased grazing, and traditional uses, such as herb 
gathering and visits to religious shrines, on areas of HPL 
beyond the bounds of their homesites.
    We now seek the assistance of Congress in giving effect to 
this achievement, in the form of an extension of the Hopi 
Tribe's leasing authority to enable the Hopi Tribe to offer the 
Navajo residents a 75-year Accommodation Agreement. The 
necessary legislation involves a simple technical amendment to 
25 U.S.C. 415(a). Numerous other tribes motivated by economic 
interests and/or concerns for self-determination have received 
99 year leasing authority, without any apparent contest. This 
is reflected in the Code's long list of approximately 35 
Reservations for which the statutory 25-year leasing 
restriction has been amended.
    2. The United States' Agreement with the Hopi Tribe.--From 
the Justice Department's perspective, our focus in negotiating 
the agreement with the Hopi Tribe was to engender circumstances 
under which the Hopi Tribe would allow the Navajo residents to 
remain on the Hopi Partitioned Lands, and so diminish the need 
for forced relocation. The Justice Department also pursued 
settlement in an effort to resolve the United States' potential 
exposure in three existing lawsuits and to stem further 
litigation on related issues.
    Under the Settlement Agreement entered into by the Hopi 
Tribe and the United States Department of Justice and United 
States Department of the Interior on December 14, 1995, the 
Hopi Tribe commits to abandon prosecution of one threatened and 
three existing lawsuits against the United States and promises 
to offer and abide by the terms of the Accommodation Agreement 
it has negotiated with the Navajo families. In exchange for the 
compromise and settlement of these four legal actions, the 
United States has agreed to pay $50.2 million to the Hopi Tribe 
under certain conditions described below. In deciding to settle 
these suits for $50.2 million, we followed the procedures the 
Department's lawyers employ in settling any lawsuit. We 
evaluated the reasonable range of the United States' possible 
exposure and litigation risk in each of the lawsuits. The 
monetary settlement we reached with the Hopi Tribe is based on 
the Justice Department's assessment of the reasonable range of 
values for the multiple lawsuits. Payment of compensation to 
the Hopi Tribe, however, is tied to the percentage of Navajo 
families residing on the HPL who sign up for accommodation 
agreements.
    In addition to resolution of the federal government's 
exposure in the lawsuits, to the extent that Navajo families 
choose to remain on the Hopi Partitioned Lands under an 
Accommodation Agreement, there could be a savings to the 
federal government in relocation benefits. A conservative 
estimate of this savings approximates $100,000 for each family 
that is eligible for benefits and decides to remain, or a 
potential aggregate savings of $5 to $13 million if most 
eligible families remain.
    a. The Lawsuits to be Settled Under the Hopi Tribe-United 
States Settlement Agreement.--The four lawsuits resolved by the 
Settlement Agreement all involve claims by the Hopi Tribe 
concerning the United States' alleged failure to protect the 
Hopi Tribe's rights against use of their lands by members of 
the Navajo Nation. The lawsuits are:
    (1) Hopi Tribe v. United States, Civ. Nos. 319-84L, 320-
84L, 321-84L and 651-89L, which are pending in the United 
States Court of Federal Claims (the ``Court of Federal Claims 
cases''). In these cases, the Hopi Tribe sued the United States 
for breach of its fiduciary duty arising from the United 
States' failure to collect (a) livestock trespass penalties, 
(b) forage consumed fees, and (c) property damage fees from the 
Navajo Nation and/or its members on behalf of the Hopi Tribe 
pursuant to regulations governing trespass on Indian trust 
lands. The Hopi Tribe originally claimed $281 million in 
damages for trespasses from 1973 through 1989.
    For  purposes  of  settlement,  the  Hopi  Tribe  and  the 
United States have parsed these Court of Federal Claims cases 
into three parts by time period. As mentioned, this staggered 
settlement of the Court of Federal Claims cases allows the 
United States and the Hopi Tribe to coordinate the payment and 
resolution of these lawsuits with the achievement of other 
goals of the Settlement--such as accommodation of a majority of 
the Navajo residents of the Hopi Partitioned Lands.
    (2) Secakuku v. Hale et al., Nos. 94-17032, 95-15092, is 
pending in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth 
Circuit (the ``Damages case''). In this case, the Hopi Tribe 
has brought an action against the United States pursuant to 
Section 18 of the Settlement Act, 25 U.S.C. 640d-17(a), 
alleging that the United States is jointly and severally liable 
with the Navajo Nation for any post-partition damage to the 
Hopi Partitioned Lands caused by pre-partition overgrazing. The 
damages amount found by the U.S. District Court is 
approximately $3.4 million.
    (3) Hopi Tribe v. Navajo Tribe, et al., Civ. 85-801 PHX-
EHC, is pending in the United States District Court in Phoenix, 
Arizona. In this case (the ``Rental Case''), the Hopi Tribe 
has, among other claims, alleged failure of the Department of 
the Interior to make the fair rental value determinations 
required by Section 16 of the Settlement Act, 25 U.S.C. 640d-
15(a), on a timely basis. This delay has deprived the Hopi 
Tribe of rental funds for homesite, farming and grazing uses by 
members of the Navajo Nation that, pursuant to the statute, 
would be paid to the Hopi Tribe by the Navajo Nation pursuant 
to the Department of the Interior's determination of the 
appropriate amount.
    (4) Claim by the Hopi Tribe Against the United States for 
Failure to Give the Hopi Tribe Quiet Possession of its Lands.--
As part of the parties' efforts to bring about a consensual 
resolution of the longstanding problems concerning use of the 
Hopi Partitioned Lands, the Hopi Tribe has refrained from its 
stated intention of bringing litigation against the United 
States for the alleged failure of the United States, in the 
past and present, to give the Hopi Tribe quiet possession of 
Hopi Lands that are used and occupied by Navajo families. Such 
potential litigation includes, for example, an injunctive 
action seeking to have all remaining Navajo families removed, 
an action alleging a temporary taking without compensation in 
violation of the Hopi Tribe's Constitutional rights, and an 
action for breach of trust.
    b. The Terms of Hopi Tribe-United States Settlement 
Agreement.--The payments and other consideration from the 
United States and the dismissal of the lawsuits are phased.
    The first phase has already been effected. In January 1996, 
the Hopi Tribe and the United States moved for dismissal of the 
Hopi Tribe's claims against the United States in the Damages 
Case. The United States Government Accounting Office on 
February 14, 1996, certified payment to the Hopi Tribe of $2.4 
million in settlement and compromise of those claims.
    In the second phase, the United States will pay the Hopi 
Tribe $22.7 million in settlement and compromise of a portion 
of the Court of Federal Claims Cases--after the Hopi Tribe 
obtains from Congress 75-year leasing authority--so that it may 
follow through on its offer to the Navajo families of an 
Accommodation Agreement. Under existing law, the Hopi Tribe may 
not lease its lands for longer than 25 years, with one 25-year 
renewal.
    The third phase is triggered if or when sixty-five percent 
(65%) of the Navajo heads of household eligible for an 
Accommodation Agreement have entered into an Accommodation 
Agreement with the Hopi Tribe or have chosen to relocate. At 
such time, and upon dismissal of a second portion of the Court 
of Federal Claims Cases, the United States would pay the Hopi 
Tribe $10 million in settlement and compromise of those claims.
    The fourth phase of the Settlement is triggered if or when 
seventy-five percent (75%) of the eligible Navajo heads of 
household have entered into an Accommodation Agreement or 
chosen to relocate. At such time, and upon dismissal of the 
third and final portion of the Court of Federal Claims Cases, 
the United States would pay the Hopi Tribe $15.1 million in 
settlement and compromise of those claims.
    The Hopi Tribe has repeatedly stated that it would not 
agree to offer an accommodation to the Navajo families in 
exchange for money alone. The continued occupation of the Hopi 
Partitioned Lands by the Navajo families deprives the Hopi 
Tribe of certain uses of its lands. Because the Navajo families 
are widely dispersed throughout the Hopi Partitioned Lands and 
because the Navajo families herd livestock in the areas around 
their homesites, the acreage made effectively unavailable for 
Hopi use is greater than a simple calculation of the homesite 
and farmsite acreage would suggest. The Hopi Tribe's agreement 
to allow Navajo families to remain on the Hopi Partitioned 
Lands is based on the understanding that additional lands would 
be taken into trust for the Hopi Tribe for use by Hopi Tribal 
members. Thus, the Department of the Interior, pursuant to its 
authority under 25 U.S.C. 465, has agreed to take land into 
trust for the Hopi Tribe as part of the fourth phase of the 
Settlement. Such land would be purchased by the Hopi Tribe with 
its own funds.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ The Hopi Tribe may apply some, all, or none of the $50.2 
million settlement with the United States to the purchase of land.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In the fourth phase of Settlement, if, by the end of 1996, 
75% or more of the Navajo heads of household eligible for an 
Accommodation Agreement have entered into an Accommodation 
Agreement or chosen to relocate, the Department of the Interior 
has agreed that it will take into trust for the Hopi Tribe up 
to 500,000 acres of rural fee lands or combined fee and State 
lands in northern Arizona. Such fee lands would need to have 
been acquired by the Hopi Tribe on a willing-seller willing-
buyer basis. No private lands would be condemned as part of 
this Settlement.
    As those familiar with land ownership in northern Arizona 
are well aware, most of the larger tracts of rural lands in 
northern Arizona in the vicinity of the Hopi Reservation are 
checker-boarded fee and State lands. Over the course of the 
negotiations, the State has repeatedly indicated its 
willingness to have the federal government acquire State lands 
at fair market value in order to help achieve a settlement of 
this longstanding dispute. Because of State constitutional and 
statutory restrictions on the sale of State lands, the Hopi 
Tribe could not acquire such lands without the assistance of 
the federal government.
    Thus, in order to facilitate the taking into trust of a 
contiguous parcel of land, to avoid the jurisdictional and 
other complications of having State lands interspersed within 
tribal trust lands, and to facilitate the interests of both the 
Hopi Tribe and the State, the Settlement Agreement provides 
that the United States will acquire for the Hopi Tribe for fair 
market value (with funds provided by the Hopi Tribe) 
interspersed State lands within the exterior boundaries of 
private lands acquired by the Tribe, provided that the State 
concurs that such acquisition is consistent with the State's 
interests. Our commitment to condemn State lands under these 
circumstances is based on the authority provided by 40 U.S.C. 
257, 25 U.S.C. 465, and 25 U.S.C. 451.
    The Settlement Agreement further imposes time requirements 
on the Office of Navajo-Hopi Indian Relocation (``Relocation 
Office'') for completing its responsibilities under the 1974 
Settlement Act with respect to those Navajo families remaining 
on the Hopi Partitioned Lands who are eligible for relocation 
assistance. The Settlement Agreement requires the Relocation 
Office to complete all of the activities with regard to 
voluntary relocation of Navajo families residing on the Hopi 
Partitioned Lands (i.e., counsel the family, help the family 
select a homesite location off Hopi lands, construct or buy a 
house for the family and move the family) who, during 1996, 
affirmatively choose to relocate, rather than choosing to enter 
into an Accommodation Agreement.
    The parties also have agreed on a transitional mechanism 
for Navajo families that enter into Accommodation Agreements 
during 1996. The passage of three years following the 
acceptance of a homesite accommodation waives any and all 
rights a Navajo resident of the Hopi Partitioned Lands has to 
relocation benefits. In other words, the Relocation Office--or 
other entity assigned to assume its responsibilities--would 
provide benefits for the three years following 1996, for any 
Navajo otherwise eligible for the benefits who has entered into 
an Accommodation Agreement, and subsequently decides that 
moving from the Hopi Partitioned Lands is preferable.
    The Settlement Agreement with the Hopi Tribe also addresses 
the circumstance of Navajo residents who do not enter into an 
Accommodation Agreement in 1996. The Settlement Agreement 
requires the Relocation Office to begin, in January 1997, 
implementation of its regulations that will result in the 
provision of housing for Navajo residents who have not entered 
into an Accommodation Agreement and are eligible for relocation 
benefits--but have not affirmatively chosen to relocate. The 
Settlement Agreement further requires that provision of homes 
for such families will be completed by February 1, 2000. Such 
action is already directed by the 1974 Settlement Act and the 
Relocation Office's regulations. The Settlement Agreement 
simply establishes a timeframe.
    Congressional appropriations enactments and court orders 
have forbidden the United States from moving Navajo residents 
of the Hopi Partitioned Lands who are eligible for relocation 
assistance unless a house first has been provided by the 
Relocation Office. Thus, the provision of housing removes an 
existing legal obstacle to moving families who decline to enter 
into an agreement with the Hopi Tribe and refuse to abide by 
the provisions of federal law that require them to move off the 
lands partitioned to the Hopi.
    The parties have spent years negotiating these agreements 
in an effort to provide a tenable alternative to relocation. We 
hope that few will decline to follow either lawful course. But 
there may be some who will so decline. The Settlement Agreement 
is designed to address that eventuality in a manner consistent 
with the provisions of the 1974 Settlement Act, as enacted by 
Congress and interpreted by the courts.


               e. meetings with the public on this issue


    In early 1993, representatives from the Department of the 
Interior and the Department of Justice devoted several months 
to meeting with public officials and citizen groups in Arizona 
that had expressed interest in or concerns about the framework 
of a settlement which, at that time, involved the transfer of 
National Forest lands into trust for the Hopi Tribe. We met 
with representatives of the Governor's Office, the Arizona Land 
Commission, the Arizona Department of Game and Fish, with 
representatives of the City of Flagstaff, the County Board of 
Supervisors for Coconino County, and with members from the 
Arizona Coalition for Public Lands and with members of 
environmental groups in Arizona. Issues that emerged from these 
discussions included concern that: (1) no private land be taken 
by condemnation; (2) the water resources for the City of 
Flagstaff be preserved; (3) the National Forest lands treasured 
by the public for recreational use not be transferred out of 
the public domain; (4) the tax base for the Counties not be 
significantly reduced; and (5) a mechanism be developed for 
addressing game and fish management problems that arise where 
there are changes in management jurisdiction such as at 
boundaries between states or between state and tribal lands. In 
working with the Hopi Tribe to restructure the compensation 
provided in the Settlement, we tried to address these concerns.
    The Settlement Agreement signed with the Hopi Tribe does 
not involve condemnation of any private lands. It does not 
jeopardize the water supply for the City of Flagstaff. It does 
not transfer any National Forest land. It appears that any 
effect on the local tax base will be minimal. Current tax rates 
on rural lands in Coconino, Navajo and Apache Counties are low. 
According to figures provided by the State, at current rates 
the lost property tax revenue from taking approximately 250,000 
acres off the tax rolls (presuming that roughly half the lands 
would be already-tax-immune State lands interspersed with 
private lands) would be between $5,000 and $10,000 annually. In 
addition, any site specific concerns could be raised in public 
comment opportunities that would precede the taking into trust 
of a specific parcel, if the preconditions to Interior's 
commitments are met.
    Similarly, the Settlement Agreement does not provide for 
the immediate transfer of any jurisdiction over game and fish 
management. When and if lands are taken into trust for the Hopi 
Tribe, the specific issues relating to wildlife concerns on a 
particular land parcel can be addressed. As noted, the 
Settlement Agreement provides that any action by the Department 
of the Interior to take land into trust for the Hopi Tribe will 
be subject to all existing applicable laws and regulations, 
including the National Environmental Policy Act and 25 C.F.R. 
Part 151, as amended by 60 Fed. Reg. 32,874 (June 23, 1995) 
(which sets forth public comment procedure for the taking of 
lands into trust for tribes). Thus, once the preconditions are 
met for taking land into trust--i.e., after the 75 percent 
threshold is achieved and if the Hopi Tribe acquires a rural 
parcel of land and, in turn, requests the Department of the 
Interior to take the parcel into trust--then, Interior will be 
able to consider the actual impacts (if any) to localities. For 
example, hunters or wildlife managers might be concerned about 
elk or antelope populations in the region or a school board 
might be concerned about a diminution in the property tax base. 
Their concerns could be considered as part of the public 
comment process that would occur prior to the taking of any 
particular parcel into trust.
    In addition to incorporation the information gathered from 
the meetings in 1993, and from subsequent conversations 
throughout the last three years of negotiations, the United 
States made an effort to further ensure our understanding of 
the public's concerns after we had developed with the Hopi 
Tribe a restructuring of the Settlement. In November or 
December 1995, prior to concluding our agreement with the Hopi 
Tribe, we discussed the general outlines of the proposed 
Settlement with representatives from the State assigned to deal 
with this issue, in order to gain their perspective in the 
hopes of ensuring that the restructure Settlement could enjoy 
the State's and public's support. In those discussions, and in 
discussions we have had with the State, County and City 
officials in December 1995 and early this year, after signing 
of the Settlement Agreement, comments have been generally 
favorable. There has been no strong opposition and many have 
commended our efforts and appreciated the restructuring 
embraced by the recent agreement.


                             f. conclusion


    The Settlement does not provide any of the parties all of 
what they would like. Like many important settlements, it 
represents a compromise for each of the parties, not a perfect 
solution for anyone. Its achievements, however, are momentous. 
In our judgment, this is the best deal that can be achieved. 
The central goal of the negotiations was to reach a consensual 
resolution to the dispute over use of the Hopi Partitioned 
Lands--one that both preserves Hopi jurisdiction and allows 
Navajo families to remain at their homesites. The 75 year term 
of the Accommodation is not for as long a term as the Navajo 
families would like, and it is for longer than many members of 
the Hopi Tribe would have preferred.
    After devoting more than 11,000 hours during the last four 
and a half years to understanding both the broad scale and the 
detailed issues involved in resolution of this problem, the 
Justice Department is satisfied that this is a settlement that 
accomplishes what must be achieved to obtain a meaningful 
resolution of the conflict over use of the Hopi Partitioned 
Lands. By providing an alternative allowing Navajo residents to 
remain under Hopi jurisdiction, it removes the two most dire 
specters--that of the involuntary relocation of hundreds of 
Navajo residents of the Hopi Partitioned Lands and that of a 
forced reduction of the Hopi Tribe's ancestral and already 
diminished reservation lands. We encourage this Committee, and 
the Congress as a whole, to promote the passage of a technical 
amendment to 25 U.S.C. 415. Such an amendment is necessary to 
give effect to this consensual resolution, so that this summer 
Navajo residents can begin to repair their homes, pursuant to 
the terms of the Accommodation Agreement.
    As is true in many difficult negotiations, it is important 
to maintain momentum and progress. This is such an instance. We 
now have a Settlement that is extremely time sensitive. Navajo 
families have until the end of 1996 to enter into an 
Accommodation Agreement; they will need several months to 
accomplish this. Various persons or parties may have issues 
they would like Congress to take up at this time relating to 
the recent Settlement. In our judgment, it is important for 
Congress to act swiftly on this modest legislative proposal to 
grant the Hopi Tribe 75-year leasing authority so that this 
historic agreement will not be jeopardized.
    This negotiation process imposed an enormous time burden on 
all the parties and required untiring patience and 
perseverance. We are deeply appreciative of the hospitality 
extended by members of both tribes during the many, many visits 
we have made to the Hopi Tribe's governmental seat in 
Kykotsmovi, to the Navajo Nation's governmental seat in Window 
Rock and to the homes of residents of the Hopi Partitioned 
Lands. We hope these agreements will foster a brighter and more 
peaceful future for the people of northern Arizona.
    Thank you for the opportunity to present the views of the 
Department of Justice.
                  ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF PETE V. DOMENICI

    For over 100 years since their joint use reservation was 
created by President Chester Arthur, the Navajo and Hopi Tribes 
have been struggling to find the solution to dividing up their 
lands. Agreement between the tribes has not been possible, so 
Congress and the courts have played a major role in trying to 
settle this long-standing dispute.
    Today, with a Hopi Tribe of about 10,000 people and a 
Navajo Nation of about 200,000, the problem persists in its 
last and most difficult stages.
    To date, over $330 million has been spent and over 2,700 
households or 11,000 Navajo and Hopi Indians have been 
relocated. Navajos have moved off Hopi Partitioned Land (HPL) 
and Hopi have moved off Navajo Partitioned Land (NPL).
    Of the 11,000 Indians involved, over 10,000 Navajos have 
moved and some 1,000 Hopi have relocated to their redesignated 
tribal lands. The 160 or so remaining Navajo families have 
refused to move, citing cultural and religious reasons. In 
recognizing their religious, economic, and other ties to the 
land, the Accommodation Agreement among the Navajo Nation, Hopi 
Tribe, the Navajo Families Mediation Team, and the United 
States, is an integral and critical component of any 
settlement. Without the Accommodation Agreement, the Navajos on 
Hopi land would remain out of compliance and the threat of 
pending relocation could easily lead to more bitterness and 
distrust, more litigation, and no resolution of this long-
standing problem.
    Of particular concern to the remaining Navajo families on 
the HPL and the Navajo Nation is the issue of how long the 
families may continue to occupy their homesites. The 
Accommodation Agreement provides for lease agreements between 
the Hopi Tribe and the Navajo families for a period of 75 
years, with the right to apply for extensions at the end of 
that period of time. To reconfirm this agreement, I am pleased 
the committee agreed to accept my amendment to S. 1973 that 
states clearly that the leases between the families and the 
Hopi Tribe may be extended at the conclusion of the term of the 
75-year lease. This language will help alleviate families' 
legitimate fears regarding the period of time they can continue 
their lifestyles on lands they have occupied for over a hundred 
years.
    The second critical issue that remains to be addressed 
concerns the impact upon the Navajo Nation of the Hopi Tribe-
United States Settlement Agreement. This agreement is a 
government-to-government settlement, to which the Navajo Nation 
is not a party, despite the fact that under the terms of the 
Accommodation Agreement the Navajo Nation is expected to pay 
full, fair, annual rent for the terms of the leases between the 
Navajo Families and the Hopi Tribe. Moreover, under the terms 
of the Settlement Agreement in Section 6(f), the Navajo Nation 
will continue to be liable for any claims the Hopi Tribe may 
have against it.
    Section 4 of S. 1973 states that ``The United States 
approves, ratifies, and confirms the Settlement Agreement.'' 
Under the terms of the agreement and if all conditions are met, 
the United States will pay the Hopi Tribe $50.2 million in 
exchange for settlement of four claims by the Hopi Tribe 
against the United States. The Navajo Nation contends certain 
claims for damages that will be released by the Hopi Tribe 
against the United States under the terms of the Settlement 
Agreement overlap with existing claims against the Navajo 
Nation. The Navajo Nation is concerned, therefore, that 
subsequent pursuit of these claims against the Nation will 
result in a double recovery for damages. Since the United 
States represents its position as one of neutrality on any 
claims between the Hopi Tribe and the Navajo Nation, the Navajo 
Nation requests that nothing in S. 1973 prejudice the rights of 
the Navajo Nation to pursue legal claims which they believe 
would prevent double recovery for claims of damage against it.
    I believe it is imperative that S. 1983 contain language 
explicitly stating that the Navajo Nation was not a party to 
the Settlement Agreement, and that the Navajo Nation will not 
be limited in pursuing any legal remedies it deems necessary 
and legitimate. This is only fair. Consequently, it is my 
intention to offer language that will address these specific 
points, and I urge my colleagues to support such clarifying 
provisions.
    The text of the Settlement Agreement between the United 
States and the Hopi Tribe dated December 14, 1995 and the 
Accommodation Agreement which has been approved by the Hopi 
Tribe, the Navajo Nation, representatives of the Navajo 
families, and the United States, is set forth below:

                          Settlement Agreement

    This Settlement Agreement (``Agreement'') is made and 
entered into this 14th day of December, 1995, between the 
United States of America (``United States'') and the Hopi Tribe 
(``Tribe''), acting by and through their designated 
representatives.
    A. WHEREAS, it is in the public benefit for the Tribe, 
Navajos residing on the Hopi Partitioned Lands (``HPL''), and 
the United States to reach a peaceful resolution of a 
disagreement that has caused great acrimony and hardship and 
drained both the Hopi Tribe and the Navajo Nation of resources 
for many decades.
    B. WHEREAS, the Tribe and the United States agree that it 
is in the best interest of the Tribe and the United States that 
a final settlement of certain issues remaining in connection 
with the Navajo--Hopi Settlement Act, Pub. L. 93-531, as 
amended, be reached by negotiation and voluntary agreement 
among the affected parties.
    C. WHEREAS, the Tribe and Navajo families living on the HPL 
have reached by negotiation and voluntary accord an agreement 
on the terms pursuant to which certain Navajo families may 
continue to live on the HPL under a 75-year accommodation 
agreement. These negotiated terms are set forth in the 
documents included here as Attachment A, when read together, 
and are hereinafter referred to as the ``Accommodation Terms.'' 
An accommodation provided to an eligible Navajo family in 
accordance with the Accommodation Terms is referred to 
hereinafter as an ``Accommodation.'' The Navajos eligible for 
an Accommodation are Navajos on List A (a copy of which is 
included here as Attachment B), and, in addition, (i) those 
Navajos domiciled on the HPL who were temporarily away for 
purposes of education, employment, military service or medical 
need at the time List A was prepared in 1992; (ii) those Navajo 
legal residents who resided full-time on the HPL in 1992 who 
are certified by the Office of Navajo Hopi Indian Relocation 
(``ONHIR'') after October 30, 1992, as eligible for relocation 
assistance; and (iii) such other individuals, as agreed to by 
the Navajo and Hopi tribes. (In calculating the percentages 
discussed in Sections 3, 6 and 7 of this Agreement, the head of 
household (as defined in 25 C.F.R. 700.69(b) (1995)) included 
on List A, or his/her successor head of household, is counted 
but other family members are not included in the calculation.)
    D. WHEREAS, the United States and the Tribe wish to 
encourage the circumstances under which the Tribe will allow 
those Navajo families currently residing on the HPL who enter 
into an Accommodation to remain on the HPL. A Navajo family 
that has entered into an Accommodation with the Hopi Tribe is 
referred to herein as an ``Accommodation Signatory.''
    E. WHEREAS, the continued occupation of the HPL by the 
Navajo families deprives the Tribe of certain uses of its land. 
The Tribe's agreement to allow Navajo families to remain on the 
HPL is based on the understanding that additional lands will be 
taken into trust for the Tribe for use by Hopi Tribal members. 
The Tribe and the Secretary of the Department of the Interior 
(``Secretary'') agree that, under the unusual circumstances of 
this long, historical disagreement over the Hopi Lands, the 
taking of additional lands into trust for the Tribe, as 
specified in Section 7, is necessary to bring about a 
resolution of the litigation and the problems that underlie it 
and is consonant with the goals identified in 25 U.S.C. 
Sec. 465 and the corresponding regulations.
    F. WHEREAS, to the extent the Tribe accommodates Navajo 
families who would otherwise have to be relocated from the HPL, 
the United States will save some of the expense of completing 
the relocation program, which has already cost over $330 
million.
    G. WHEREAS, the Tribe currently has three actions pending 
against the United States and, as part of this settlement, is 
foregoing a fourth action against the United States. These are:
    i. Hopi Tribe v. Navajo Tribe, et al., CIV 85-801 PHX-EHC, 
which is pending in the United States District Court in 
Phoenix, Arizona, In this case (``the Rental case''), the Tribe 
has brought an action against the United States, among other 
things, for the alleged failure of the Secretary of the 
Interior (``Secretary'') to make on a timely basis the fair 
rental value determinations required by 25 U.S.C. Sec. 640d-
15(a). On July 5, 1985, the Tribe filed a motion for partial 
summary judgment on this ground against the United States. On 
April 2, 1990, the District Court denied as moot, without 
prejudice, the portion of the motion dealing with the United 
States.
    The Tribe has indicated to the United States its desire 
formally to renew its motion and to seek, either in the 
District Court or in the Court of Federal Claims, damages on a 
claim alleging a breach of the Secretary's duty to issue 
certain rental determinations in a timely manner.
    ii. Secakuku v. Hale, et al., Nos. 94-17032, 95-15029, 
which is pending in the United States Court of Appeals for the 
Ninth Circuit. In this case (''the Damage case''), the Tribe 
has brought an action against the United States pursuant to 25 
U.S.C. Sec. 640d-17(a)(3), alleging, among other things, that 
the United States is jointly and severally liable with the 
Navajo Nation for any post-partition damage to the HPL caused 
by pre-partition overgrazing.
    On January 15, 1993, the United States District Court in 
Phoenix entered judgment for the United States, holding that 
the United States in not liable to the Tribe for any portion of 
the post-partition damage. The Tribe has appealed this issue 
and is awaiting a decision by the Ninth Circuit Court of 
Appeals.
    iii. Hopi Tribe v. United States of America, CIV Nos. 319-
84L, 320-84L, 321-84L, and 651-89L, which are pending in the 
United States Court of Federal Claims. In these cases (referred 
to collectively as ``the Court of Federal Claims cases''), the 
Tribe is suing the United States, inter alia, for breach of its 
fiduciary duty arising from its failure to collect (a) 
livestock trespass penalties (No. 319-84L), (b) forage consumed 
fees (No. 320-84L), and (c) property damage fees on behalf of 
the Tribe (No. 321-84L). All three claims are asserted in No. 
651-89L. In these actions, the United States argued that some 
of the Tribe's claims were barred by the statute of 
limitations. The Tribe concedes that the six-year statute of 
limitations, 25 U.S.C. 2501, governing claims against the 
United States bars the Tribe's claims arising prior to June 22, 
1978.
    For purposes of settlement, the Tribe and the United States 
have parsed the Court of Federal Claims cases into three parts: 
(1) all livestock trespass penalty claims for the period prior 
to and through 1982 and all other non-livestock-trespass-
penalty claims alleged in the Court of Federal Claims cases for 
all periods through and including 1996; (2) all livestock 
trespass penalty claims for the period 1983 through and 
including 1988; and (3) all livestock trespass penalty claims 
for the period 1989 through and including 1996. The Court of 
Federal Claims cases are currently stayed.
    iv. Claim by the Hopi Tribe Against the United States for 
Failure to Give the Tribe Quiet Possession of Its Lands. During 
the course of the Ninth Circuit ordered mediation, which 
commenced in May 1991, and as part of the parties' efforts to 
bring about a consensual resolution of the longstanding 
problems concerning use of the Hopi Lands, the Tribe has 
refrained from bringing litigation against the United States 
for the alleged failure of the United States, in the past and 
currently, to give it quiet possession of Hopi Lands that are 
used and occupied by Navajo families. Such potential litigation 
includes, inter alia, an injunctive action seeking to have the 
Navajo families removed, an action for a temporary taking 
without compensation, and an action for breach of trust. Any 
such potential actions are referred to herein as the ``Quiet 
Possession Claim.''
    H. WHEREAS, the United States has denied that it has any 
liability to the Tribe in the Rental, Damage, or Court of 
Federal Claims cases and denies it has any liability in the 
Quiet Possession Claim.
    I. WHEREAS, the United States and the Tribe wish to improve 
their relationship and to compromise their differences in the 
Rental, Damage and Court of Federal Claims cases and in a Quite 
Possession Claim.
    J. WHEREAS, the Tribe and the United States benefit from 
these voluntary settlements and, to that end, the Tribe, the 
Secretary and the United States Attorney General will fully 
support this settlement.
    K. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby agreed by the Tribe and the 
United States that the Rental, Damage, and Court of Federal 
Claims cases, and the Quiet Possession Claim be settled and 
compromised on the following terms and conditions.


                         terms of the agreement


    1. Compromise and Settlement by the Tribe of Certain Claims 
Against the United States in the Rental Case Regrading Certain 
Fair Rental Value Determinations: The Tribe agrees to refrain 
forever from instituting, maintaining, prosecuting or 
continuing to maintain or prosecute any suit or action against 
the United States based upon any claim, demand, action, cause 
of action, or liability of any nature whatsoever (including any 
claim for damages or compensatory interest for delay in 
issuance of the rental determinations), whether known or 
unknown, which claim, demand, action, cause of action, or 
liability arises from the Secretary's failure, prior to January 
1, 1997, to issue initial final rental determinations on the 
merits for Navajo homesite, farming and grazing use of the HPL 
for the years 1979 through 1995. (This bar to the Tribe's claim 
applies even if the Secretary's initial final rental 
determination on the merits is subsequently set aside or 
remanded by a court which reviews the administrative decision.) 
Claims, if any, concerning a failure by the Secretary (a) after 
January 1, 1997, to have entered initial final rental 
determinations on the merits for the above-described rental 
periods and (b) to enter rental determinations for any rental 
period after 1995, are not covered by this Agreement.
    2. Compromise and Settlement by the Tribe of all Claims 
Against the United States in the Damage Case: The Tribe agrees 
to refrain forever from instituting, maintaining, prosecuting, 
or continuing to maintain or prosecute any suit or action 
against the United States based upon any claim, demand, action, 
cause of action, or liability that was alleged, or could have 
been alleged, in the Damage case. The Tribe and the United 
States agree, pursuant to FRAP 42(b), to file a motion to 
dismiss the Tribe's appeal against the United States in the 
Damage case within one week of the date of the signing of this 
Agreement. If the motion is not granted and the Tribe is 
ultimately awarded at judgment in damages against the United 
States, the Tribe agrees that the obligations of the United 
States in the Damage case will be met by the United States' 
payment of $2,400,000.00 pursuant to Section 6(a) of this 
Agreement. If, prior to a joint filing of the United States' 
and Tribe's motion to dismiss the Tribe's claims against the 
United States, the Ninth Circuit issues a decision or enters 
judgment in the United States' favor, the United States shall 
pay nothing to the Tribe for compromise of the Damage case.
    3. Compromise and Settlement by the Tribe of all Claims 
Against the United States in the Court of Federal Claims Cases: 
(a). The Tribe and the United States agree to file stipulations 
for dismissal with prejudice of all claims in the Court of 
Federal Claims cases, except those identified in Subsections 
3(b) and 3(c). That stipulation shall be made within two weeks 
after the United States Congress enacts and the President signs 
the amendment to 25 U.S.C. Sec. 415(a) or Sec. 635 described in 
Section 5 below. The Tribe further agrees that after so moving 
for dismissal it must and will refrain forever from 
instituting, maintaining, prosecuting, or continuing to 
maintain or prosecute any suit or action against the United 
States based upon any claim, demand, actions, cause of action, 
or liability that was alleged or could have been alleged in any 
pleading in the Court of Federal Claims cases for any year 
prior to and through 1982.
    (b). The Tribe and the United States further agree to file 
stipulations for dismissal with prejudice, pursuant to Rule 41 
of the Court of Federal Claims Rules, of any livestock trespass 
penalty claims for the period 1983 through and including 1988 
after 65 percent of the Navajo heads of household eligible for 
an Accommodation (as defined in paragraph C on pages 1-2 of 
this Agreement) have entered into an Accommodation or have 
chosen to relocate and are eligible for relocation assistance. 
The Tribe further agrees that after so moving for dismissal it 
must and will refrain forever from instituting, maintaining, 
prosecuting, or continuing to maintain or prosecute any suit or 
action against the United States based upon any claim, demand, 
actions, cause of action, or liability that was alleged or 
could have been alleged in any pleading in the Court of Federal 
Claims cases for any year prior to and through 1988.
    (c). The Tribe and the United States further agree to file 
stipulations for dismissal with prejudice, pursuant to Rule 41 
of the Court of Federal Claims Rules, of any livestock trespass 
penalty claims for the period 1989 through and including 1996 
after 75 percent of the Navajo heads of household eligible for 
an Accommodation (as defined in paragraph C on pages 1-2 of 
this Agreement) have entered into an Accommodation or have 
chosen to relocate and are eligible for relocation assistance. 
The Tribe further agrees that after so moving for dismissal it 
must and will refrain forever from instituting, maintaining, 
prosecuting, or continuing to maintain or prosecute any suit or 
action against the United States based upon any claim, demand, 
actions, cause of action, or liability that was alleged or 
could have been alleged in any pleading in the Court of Federal 
Claims cases for any year prior to and through 1996.
    (d). With each dismissal with prejudice of the claims 
described in subsection (a), (b) or (c) above, the Tribe may 
obtain funds from the trust account as provided in Section 6 
below.
    4. Compromise and Settlement of the Quiet Possession Claim 
and Agreement by the Tribe to Provide an Accommodation for 
Certain Navajo Families Pursuant to the Accommodation Terms: 
(a). The Tribe agrees to accommodate Navajo residents of the 
HPL who, pursuant to the Accommodation Terms, are eligible to 
enter into an Accommodation, in the manner and according to the 
terms as set forth in Attachment A.
    (b). The Tribe agrees to refrain forever from instituting, 
maintaining, prosecuting, or continuing to maintain or 
prosecute any suit or action in law or equity against the 
United States based on any claim, demand, cause of action, or 
liability regarding quiet possession of Hopi Partitioned Lands 
which action arises out of: (i) any Navajo use or occupancy 
that occurred prior to the date of the signing of this 
Agreement; and (ii) any use or occupancy of Hopi Partitioned 
Lands that occurs prior to February 1, 2000, by Navajos who are 
eligible for an Accommodation; and (iii) any use or occupancy 
of Hopi Partitioned Lands by Navajo Accommodation Signatories 
in accordance with the Accommodation Terms during the term of 
the Accommodation.
    (c). Contingencies and Remedies.--However, in the event 
that the United States does not provide consideration pursuant 
to the terms of Section 7, the Tribe preserves pursuant to 
Section 7(d) any Quiet Possession Claim it may have under 28 
U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 1491 and 1505 arising out of the use of the 
HPL after January 1, 1997, by any Navajo family who has entered 
into an Accommodation. In the event that the United States does 
not discharge the obligations set forth in Sections 9(c) and 
9(d), the Tribe preserves pursuant to Section 9(e) any Quiet 
Possession Claim it may have arising out of the use of the HPL 
after February 1, 2000, by any Navajo family eligible for an 
Accommodation who does not enter into one.
    5. Agreement by the Tribe to Seek Legislation: The Tribe 
agrees to seek enactment prior to December 31, 1996, by the 
United States Congress, of an amendment to 25 U.S.C. 
Sec. 415(a) or Sec. 635 that would authorize the Tribe to lease 
land to the Navajo families for a term of seventy-five (75) 
years. If such legislation is not enacted, the Tribe shall in 
good faith attempt to negotiate an alternative leasing 
arrangement, and the terms of this Agreement could be amended 
to meet that circumstance.
    6. Agreement by the United States to Pay the Tribe: In 
consideration for the compromise of the Rental, Damage and 
Court of Federal Claims cases and for foregoing a Quiet 
Possession Claim as specified in Section 4(b), and for the Hopi 
Tribe's promise and commitment to provide an accommodation, as 
set forth in the Accommodation Terms, the United States agrees 
to pay in settlement and compromise to the Tribe a sum of 
$50,200,000.00, plus interest, to the extent provided below, in 
the following manner:
    (a). Upon filing in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals of a 
joint motion to dismiss with prejudice the Tribe's appeal of 
the United States' liability in the Damage case as specified in 
Section 2, the United States shall pay the Tribe $2,400,000.00 
in settlement and compromise of those claims.
    (b). After the Tribe has obtained the enactment of 
legislation as described in Section 5 and upon dismissal with 
prejudice of the claims describe in Section 3(a), the United 
States shall pay $22,700,000.00 in settlement and compromise of 
those claims into an interest-bearing trust account in the 
United States Treasury for the benefit of the Tribe. 
Thereafter, and subject to otherwise applicable law, the Tribe 
may obtain from the trust account $22,700,000.00 of the funds 
plus any interest accrued, even if fewer than 65% of the Navajo 
heads of household eligible for an Accommodation have entered 
into an Accommodation or have chosen to relocate and are 
eligible for relocation assistance.
    (c). After sixty-five percent (65%) of the eligible Navajo 
heads of household have entered into an Accommodation or have 
chosen to relocate (and are eligible for relocation assistance) 
and upon dismissal with prejudice of the Tribe's livestock 
trespass penalty claim against the United States for the period 
1983 through and including 1988, the United States shall pay 
$10,000,000 in settlement and compromise of those claims into 
an interest-bearing trust account in the United States Treasury 
for the benefit of the Tribe. Thereafter, and subject to 
otherwise applicable law, the Tribe may obtain from the trust 
account $10,000,000.00 of the funds plus any interest accrued.
    (d). After seventy-five (75%) percent of the eligible 
Navajo heads of household have entered into an Accommodation or 
have chosen to relocate (and are eligible for relocation 
assistance) and upon dismissal with prejudice of the Tribe's 
livestock trespass penalty claims for the period 1989 through 
and including 1996, the United States shall pay $15,100,000.00 
in settlement and compromise of those claims into an interest-
bearing trust account in the United States for the benefit of 
the Tribe. Thereafter, and subject to otherwise applicable law, 
the Tribe may obtain from the trust account $15,100,000.00 of 
the funds plus any interest accrued.
    (e). It is a form of this Agreement that the Tribe fulfill 
its obligations to the Navajo families pursuant to the 
Accommodation Terms, as specified in Section 4(a). If the Tribe 
is not in compliance with the undertakings specified in Section 
4(a), it shall not be entitled to receive distribution of 
compensation under this Agreement, including the funds 
described in subsections (a) through (d) of this Section or the 
federal government's action with respect to lands, described in 
Section 7.
    (f). None of the releases describes in Section 1 through 4 
which are being given to the United States by the Tribe are 
intended to release the Navajo Nation from any liability it 
might have to the Tribe. Nor is any of the consideration 
provided under this Agreement from the United States to the 
Tribe intended to release the Navajo Nation from any liability 
it might have to the Tribe. The United States does not take a 
position on the effect of this Agreement, if any, on 
satisfaction of claims between the Hopi Tribe and the Navajo 
Nation; that issue is one to be resolved between the tribes.
    7. Agreement by the United States to Take Land Into Trust 
for the Tribe and to Acquire State Lands with the State's 
Concurrence: (a). As partial consideration for this settlement, 
the Secretary agrees that, if seventy-five percent (75%) or 
more of the Navajo heads of household eligible for an 
Accommodation either have entered into an Accommodation or have 
chosen to relocate and are eligible for relocation assistance, 
the Department of the Interior will take in trust up to five 
hundred thousand (500,000) acres of land for the benefit of the 
Tribe under the terms set forth in this Section.
    (i). It is contemplated that the Tribe will acquire lands. 
With respect to any specific parcel of land acquired by the 
Tribe, the Secretary, at the request of the Tribe and subject 
to all existing applicable laws and regulations (including the 
National Environmental Policy Act (``NEPA'') and 25 CFR Part 
151, and provided that any environmental problems identified as 
a result of NEPA compliance are mitigated to the satisfaction 
of the Secretary), will take the parcel into trust for the 
Tribe. Although no specific land parcels have been identified 
at the time of this Agreement, it is understood that land the 
Secretary agrees to take into trust is land in northern Arizona 
that is used substantially for ranching, agriculture, or other 
similar rural uses and, to the extent feasible, is in 
contiguous parcels.
    (ii). Although the Secretary may, in his/her absolute 
discretion, take some of this land into trust prior to seventy-
five percent (75%) of the eligible Navajo heads of household 
entering into an Accommodation or choosing to relocate, he/she 
is not committing to take any land into trust unless the 75% 
condition is met. Once the 75% condition is met, however, the 
Secretary shall take land into trust, in accordance with the 
provisions of paragraph (i).
    (b). To the extent that the Tribe acquires private lands 
and would like to acquire the interspersed State of Arizona 
lands, so that both the private and interspersed state lands 
may be taken into trust, and because of the State's legal 
restrictions on the sale and exchange of state lands, the 
United States agrees to acquire for the Tribe (consistent with 
existing law and provided the further terms set forth in this 
subsection are also met) for fair market value the interspersed 
state lands within the exterior boundaries of private lands 
acquired by the Tribe, under the following conditions: (i) 
seventy-five percent (75%) of the eligible Navajo heads of 
household have entered into an Accommodation or have chosen to 
relocate and are eligible for relocation assistance; and (ii) 
the United States has the State's concurrence that such 
acquisition is consistent with the State's interests; and (iii) 
the Tribe, not the United States, will pay the value of any 
state lands so acquired; and (iv) acquisition of the 
interspersed state land is consistent with the purpose of 
obtaining up to 500,000 acres of land in trust for the Tribe. 
Once the United States has acquired state lands pursuant to 
these conditions, the Secretary will take the land into trust 
pursuant to and in accordance with the provisions of subsection 
(a).
    If the State does not concur in the United States' 
acquisition of state lands interspersed with the private lands 
acquired by the Tribe, the Secretary, instead, at the Tribe's 
request, will take into trust for the Tribe other private lands 
(as set forth in subsection (a)), to meet its commitment to 
take up to 500,000 acres into trust.


                       contingencies and remedies


    (c). In the extraordinary event that, by a ruling of the 
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit or the 
United States Supreme Court or other change of legal authority, 
the Secretary is not authorized to take land into trust or to 
acquire state lands at the time he/she is requested to do so by 
the Tribe, the Secretary and the Tribe will seek federal 
legislation to give effect to the Secretary's commitment 
pursuant to this Agreement to take land into trust and to 
acquire state lands.
    (d). The Tribe promises to forego a claim against the 
United States for quiet possession of the Tribe's property 
occupied by Navajo families that enter into an Accommodation 
(as provided in Section 4), except as provided in this 
subsection. Without acknowledging the validity of any such 
claim, the Tribe and the United States agree that the Tribe 
will be released from its commitment to forego the portion of 
the Quiet Possession Claim identified in Section 4(b)(iii) in 
the circumstances and to the extent provided in paragraphs (i) 
and (ii) of this subsection. In any such claim for damages, the 
benefits already received by the Tribe from the United States 
pursuant to this Agreement will be considered in measuring 
damages.
    (i). If, when the Tribe asks the Secretary to take land 
into trust: (A) the Secretary is unauthorized to take the 
subject lands into trust as set forth in subsection (c) of this 
Section; and (B) federal legislation is not enacted within two 
years of submission of a legislative proposal to provide the 
Tribe with the lands in trust described above, the Tribe will 
be released from its commitment to forego an action under 28 
U.S.C. 1491 and 1505 based on use and occupancy by Navajo 
families that enter into an Accommodation, as provided in 
Section 4(b)(iii). This provision rests on the Tribe's 
assertions that it would not have chosen to allow Navajo 
families to remain on the HPL except for the Secretary's 
promise to take 500,000 acres of land into trust and that the 
rent provided by the Navajo Nation does not fully compensate 
the Tribe for its lost use of Hopi Lands occupied by Navajo 
families.
    (ii). If, when the Tribe asks the Secretary to acquire 
interspersed state lands: (A) the State does not concur in the 
sale of state lands interspersed within the exterior boundaries 
of private lands acquired by the Hopi for a period of at least 
5 years after the Tribe's request to acquire specific 
interspersed state lands; and (B) the Tribe has acquired 
significantly less than 500,000 acres of land into trust and 
does not wish to have additional private lands taken into 
trust, the Tribe will be released from its commitment to forego 
an action under 28 U.S.C. 1491 and 1505 based on use and 
occupancy of the HPL by Navajo families who have entered into 
an Accommodation, as provided in Section 4(b)(iii). The measure 
of damages, if any, should consider, inter alia, the 
consideration already received by the Tribe, such as the value 
of lands taken into trust and the value of rent received from 
the Navajo Nation for use of the HPL. This provision rests on 
the Tribe's assertions that (1) it would not have chosen to 
allow Navajo families to remain on the HPL except for the 
Secretary's promise to take 500,000 acres of land into trust, 
(2) that the rent provided by the Navajo Nation does not fully 
compensate the Tribe for its lost use of Hopi Lands occupied by 
Navajo families, and (3) that it may not be practicable for the 
Tribe to acquire or manage 500,000 acres of land in trust if 
interspersed state lands cannot be acquired.
    8. Agreement as to the Precedential Effect of the Ruling in 
the Damage Case: As partial consideration for this Agreement, 
the United States and the Tribe agree that, absent a specific 
request by a court, neither the United States nor the Tribe 
will cite or rely on the United States District Court's ruling 
in the Damage case for principles concerning the trust 
responsibility and liability of the United States in any 
subsequent administrative or legal proceedings between the 
United States and the Tribe involving the Hopi Reservation.
    9. Assistance with Management of Resources and Enforcement: 
(a). The Secretary hereby agrees that, commencing within one 
year of the signing of this Agreement, the HPL will be included 
and considered in Interior's future resource allocations to the 
Tribe. The Secretary also agrees that, as of one year from the 
signing of this Agreement, to the extent enforcement program 
resources provided to tribes by the Department of the Interior 
are linked to reservation acreage and/or population, the 
acreage of the HPL and number of residents at the homesites of 
the Navajo Accommodation Signatories will be included in 
determining future allocations for the Tribe.
    (b). The United States agrees that it will assist the Tribe 
with its management of the lands taken into trust pursuant to 
this Agreement by providing advice on management for those 
lands, subject to the availability of Phoenix Area Office, 
Bureau of Indian Affairs, personnel (or its successor or other 
appropriately situated personnel, if any) to perform this 
function.
    (c). By January 1, 2000, the Office of Navajo Hopi Indian 
Relocation (``ONHIR'') shall have completed all of the 
activities with regard to voluntary relocation of Navajos 
residing on the HPL.
    (d). By February 1, 1997, the ONHIR will begin implementing 
25 C.F.R. 700.137, 700.138 and 700.139 (1992 ed.) on the New 
Lands for all Navajos residing on the HPL who are eligible for 
a replacement home from the ONHIR but who have not made timely 
application for relocation benefits, and have not made timely 
arrangements for an Accommodation on the HPL. These provisions 
shall be fully implemented by February 1, 2000.
    (e). Assurance.--If the United States fails to discharge 
the obligations set forth in subsections (c) or (d), including 
for reason of inadequate congressional appropriations, without 
acknowledging the validity of any such claim the Tribe 
preserves any action regarding quiet possession against the 
United States arising out of the use of the HPL after February 
1, 2000, by any Navajo family eligible for an Accommodation who 
does not enter into an Accommodation.
    (f). The transfer of jurisdiction from the BIA to the Hopi 
Tribe concerning grazing on the Hopi Partitioned Lands will be 
effected through proceedings in Hopi v. Watt, Civ. No. 81-272 
PCT-EHC (D. Ariz.). The BIA does not contemplate that grazing 
permits issued by the BIA when considered in conjunction with 
permits issued by the Tribe to Navajo residents of the HPL will 
exceed the total number of sheep units made available to HPL 
Navajos under the Accommodation Terms.
    10. Enforcement of Settlement Agreement and Costs and 
Attorneys' Fees: The United States and the Tribe hereby agree 
that the provisions of this Settlement Agreement shall be 
enforceable in either the United States Court of Federal Claims 
in Washington, D.C., or in the United States District Court in 
Phoenix, Arizona, as appropriate. Both parties also agree that 
as to the cases settled by this Agreement each party will bear 
its own costs and attorneys' fees for these cases (except as 
otherwise provided in 25 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 640d-7(e), 640d-27).
    11. Settlement Agreement Not Evidence: The parties hereto 
agree that this is a settlement of disputed claims, that the 
execution of this Agreement and the passage of consideration 
hereunder shall not be construed as an admission of liability 
on the part of any party, and that no party shall assert that 
any party has admitted liability to any other, and that such 
liability is expressly denied. This Agreement shall neither be 
used as evidence nor construed in any way whatsoever as an 
admission by the United States or the Tribes as to any issue 
related to liability or damages, but may be used to show, inter 
alia, breach, or settlement or release in the Rental, Damage, 
Court of Federal Claims case or Quiet Possession claims.
    12. Anti-Deficiency Act: Any section requiring the United 
States to provide government services and/or funds is subject 
to the limitations of the Anti-Deficiency Act, 31 U.S.C. 
1341(a)(1).
    13. Authority to Enter Agreement: Each of the signatories 
hereto hereby warrants that he/she is authorized to enter into 
this Agreement on behalf of the party on whose behalf he/she 
has executed the Agreement.
    14. Counterparts: This Agreement can be executed in 
counterpart originals and each copy will have the same force 
and effect as if signed by all parties.
    15. Entire Agreement: This Agreement discharges the 
obligations of the United States and the Tribe to each other in 
the Damage and Court of Federal Claims cases and the parts of 
the Rental case that are being compromised and settled and it 
bars suit by the Tribe against the United States for a Quiet 
Possession Claim, pursuant to the terms of Sections 4, 7 and 9. 
This Agreement supersedes any prior written or oral agreement.
    IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this 
Agreement.

For the United States of America:

    John R. Schmidt, Associate Attorney General, U.S. 
Department of Justice, Washington, DC.

    Lois J. Schiffer, Assistant Attorney General, Environment 
and Natural Resources Division, U.S. Department of Justice, 
Washington, DC.

    Dated: December 14, 1995.

    Katherine W. Hazard, Attorney, Appellate Section, 
Environment and Natural Resources Division, U.S. Department of 
Justice, Washington, DC.

    Dated: December 14, 1995.

    Robert L. Armstrong, Acting Secretary of the Interior, U.S. 
Department of the Interior, Washington, DC.

For The Hopi Indian Tribe:

    Farrell K. Secakuku, Chairman of the Hopi Tribe, 
Xykotsmovi, AR.

    Dated: December 14, 1995.

    Tim Atkeson, Counsel for the Hopi Tribe, Arnold & Porter, 
Denver, CO.

    Dated: December 14, 1995.

                        Accommodation Agreement

    THIS AGREEMENT is made this ____ day of __________, 1996, 
by and between The Hopi Tribe (``the Tribe''), acting by and 
through the Hopi Tribal Council, and ____________ (``the 
Resident(s)'').
    THE TRIBE HEREBY AGREES to accommodate the Resident(s) in 
the manner and according to the terms set forth on this page 
and in the attached Exhibits A through __, consisting of __ 
pages consecutively numbered as 1 through __, all of which are 
incorporated herein and made a part hereof as if again set 
forth in full and all of which shall be read together as a 
single, fully integrated agreement (collectively, ``the 
Accommodation Agreement''). In the event of any inconsistency 
between or among any of the attached Exhibits, the later 
documents shall control the earlier documents.
    THE RESIDENT(S) HEREBY AGREE(S) to abide by the terms of 
the Accommodation Agreement. This Accommodation Agreement is 
the entire agreement between the Resident(s) and the Tribe.
    THE UNITED STATES HEREBY AGREES to support this 
Accommodation Agreement and to perform its duties as set forth 
in the attached Exhibits.
    THE NAVAJO NATION HEREBY AGREES to support this 
Accommodation Agreement.
    IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this 
Accommodation Agreement, which shall become effective as of the 
foregoing date when all four parties have signed.

    THE HOPI TRIBE

    By:
    Its:
    Date signed:

    THE RESIDENT(S)
    Witness by:
    Date signed:

    THE NAVAJO NATION

    By:
    Its:
    Date signed:

    THE UNITED STATES

    (Approved pursuant to 25 U.S.C. Sec. 415)

    By:
    Its:
    Date signed:


                               agreement


    This agreement (``Agreement'') is made this ____ day of 
__________, 199__, by and between the Hopi Tribe, acting by and 
through the Hopi Tribal Council, __________ (HPL Navajo signing 
this Agreement), the Navajo Nation (``Nation''), and the United 
States.
    The purpose of this agreement is to provide for the 
accommodation of elderly and traditional Navajo residents of 
the Hopi Partitioned Lands (``HPL'') who wish to remain there 
and to set forth in terms and conditions of that accommodation. 
It is being offered pursuant to the direction of the United 
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit that the parties 
to the Manybeads and New Construction cases reach by 
negotiation and voluntary agreement a final settlement of 
certain issues relating to the 1974 Navajo-Hopi Land Settlement 
Act and because the Hopi Tribe is desirous of ending the 
dispute among the parties over relocation. This agreement is 
premised upon the request of the HPL Navajos that they allowed 
to stay on the HPL. All of the parties to this Agreement want 
to enter into an era of friendship and believe that the 
accommodation detailed to herein will lead to that goal.
    Who is eligible: The persons eligible to enter into this 
Agreement include all adult eligible Navajos, as defined in 
Section III.A of the October 30, 1992 Agreement in Principle, 
who currently reside on the HPL. In addition, those persons' 
children and descendants who reside on the HPL, as well as the 
spouses of those children and descendants, are eligible to 
enter into this Agreement. The children and descendants become 
eligible upon attaining majority. At that point, if they desire 
to remain on the HPL they must agree to do so under the terms 
and conditions of this Agreement and become a signatory to it. 
In so doing, they will be entitled to all of the protections 
and benefits of the Agreement.
    Pursuant to Section II.I. of the October 30, 1992 Agreement 
in Principle, if the HPL Navajo signing this Agreement desires 
to voluntarily leave the HPL and to transfer his/her rights 
under this Agreement to another eligible person who resides at 
the same location, he/she is free to do so. For purposes of 
determining whether a person resides at the same location, a 
temporary absence from the HPL to attend school, work, illness, 
military service, or the like will not be taken into account. 
The only condition on the transfer is that, if the person to 
whom the rights are to be transferred is not a current 
signatory to the Agreement, the transfer would not become 
effective until the person agreed to abide by and signed the 
Agreement. Should the HPL Navajo signing this Agreement attempt 
to assign, sublet, or transfer in any fashion his/her rights 
under this Agreement to an ineligible person or to an eligible 
person who does not reside at the same location, this Agreement 
will automatically terminate as to that person.
Accommodation
    The accommodation being made available to the HPL Navajo 
signing this agreement consists of four parts. These are (a) 
homesite, (b) farmland, (c) grazing, and (d) use of the HPL. 
Each of these is discussed below.
    A. Homesite: As part of the accommodation, a homesite 
(``homesite'') is being made available to the HPL Navajo 
signing this Agreement and the members of his/her immediate 
family who reside on the HPL to be used as their principal 
residence. It is available for their use and the use of their 
guests. The homesite is comprised of a three-acre area on the 
HPL and is designated more specifically in Attachment A. This 
is the same amount of land that is made available to the Hopi 
tribal members who move to the HPL. The homesite can be 
enlarged, where necessary, to ensure that all family members at 
a particular site are included within it. Such enlargement is 
subject to approval by the Hopi Tribe.
    Within the homesite, the HPL Navajo signing this Agreement 
is fee to repair, restore and enlarge any existing structure. 
He/she is also free to reconstruct any existing structure that 
is destroyed. In addition, he/she is free to construct 
additional structures that are related to his/her residential, 
farming, grazing, or traditional use of the homesite. In order 
to construct additional structures for these uses, the HPL 
Navajo signing this Agreement need only submit an application 
to the Hopi Tribe, which the Hopi Tribe agrees to process and 
grant within seven (7) days. The HPL Navajo signing this 
Agreement is not required to fence off the homesite area, but 
is responsible for protecting his/her property from livestock.
    In addition to being able to repair and construct 
structures, the HPL Navajo signing this Agreement is free to 
continue any use he/she is currently making of the homesite, 
with the one exception that it may not be used for burial of 
human remains. The HPL Navajo signing this Agreement shall also 
be allowed to engage in any additional use subject to the 
following limited exceptions: (1) all uses of the homesite must 
be in compliance with federal, state and Hopi tribal laws and 
ordinances; (2) mining and commercial business activity is not 
allowed; (3) any well must be authorized by the Hopi Tribe 
before it is drilled; (4) the homesite must be kept in a 
healthful and sanitary manner and in good condition; and (5) no 
toxic or hazardous materials may be kept on, or disposed of in, 
the homesite.
    B. Farming: As part of the accommodation, the HPL Navajo 
signing this Agreement and the members of his/her immediate 
family who reside on the HPL are free to use up to ten acres of 
farmland for their personal use. This is the same amount of 
farmland that is available to Hopi tribal members who wish to 
farm on the HPL. To the extent possible, the farmland made 
available to the HPL Navajo signing this Agreement will be 
located at or near that person's homesite. As with the 
homesite, the HPL Navajo signing this Agreement is not required 
to fence this area, but is responsible for protecting it from 
livestock. This farmland is to be used for agricultural 
purposes only. It shall not be used for grazing, corrals, 
mining, residential or other purposes.
    C. Grazing: As part of the accommodation, grazing on the 
HPL is being made available to HPL Navajos who sign Agreements 
and the members of their immediate families who reside on the 
HPL. This grazing is to occur on land outside the homesite and 
farmland and is dependent on the HPL Navajo obtaining a validly 
issued current grazing permit from the Hopi Tribe. Just as with 
Hopi tribal members who have valid grazing permits, the grazing 
of the HPL Navajos will be regulated pursuant to Hopi Ordinance 
43.
    As an initial matter, the Hopi Tribe is making a total of 
2,800 sheep units year long (``SUYL'') available for use by all 
of the HPL Navajos entering into Agreements. Each HPL Navajo is 
entitled to be allocated a portion of the 2,800 SUYL. To the 
extent that an HPL Navajo wishes to use his/her allocated SUYL 
to graze animals other than sheep, he/she can apply to the Hopi 
Tribe for permission to do so. That allocation is to be done by 
the Nation or its designee on or before November 1 of each 
year. Once the allocation is done, the Hopi Tribe will issue an 
annual grazing permit to each allocatee by December 1 of each 
year which will become effective on January 1. To the extent 
possible, the SUYL permitted to an HPL Navajo will be in a 
range unit or portion thereof near that person's homesite.
    To the extent that an HPL Navajo desires to obtain more 
SUYL than he/she has been allocated, he/she is free to apply to 
the Nation for a permit off the HPL or to the Hopi Tribe for 
further SUYL on the HPL. In evaluating a request for additional 
SUYL, the Hopi Tribe will look to the grazing capacity of the 
land, its condition, and any other requests or land use needs. 
In addition, the parties to this Agreement will work 
cooperatively to increase the amount of grazing capacity on the 
HPL.
    D. Use of the HPL: As part of the accommodation, and in 
addition to the homesite, farmland, and grazing discussed 
above, the HPL Navajo signing this Agreement and the members of 
his/her immediate family who reside on the HPL may continue the 
traditional uses they are currently making of the HPL. This 
would include, for instance, the collection of herbs for 
personal or traditional use, access to religious shrines, the 
construction of temporary structures, and the gathering of dead 
wood for fire. The only limits placed on these uses are the 
ones set forth by the Hopi Tribe in its ordinances and permit 
systems, which apply to HPL Navajos and Hopi tribal members 
alike and are designed to protect the land and its resources. 
For instance, persons wishing to construct temporary structures 
may do so after applying to the Hopi Tribe and receiving a 
permit. These permits, which have been regularly granted in the 
past, will require, as they have in the past, that the 
structure be dismantled within a set period of time. Similarly, 
the collection of firewood is subject to Hopi Ordinance 47, 
which requires that the wood not be green and that a permit be 
obtained. HPL Navajos should consult the Hopi Tribe to 
determine if a particular use requires a permit or is otherwise 
regulated.
    In addition to making use of the HPL, the HPL Navajo 
signing this Agreement and the members of his/her immediate 
family who reside on the HPL are entitled, consistent with the 
Hopi Tribe's Constitution and laws, to the same access to 
infrastructure and resources as members of the Hopi Tribe 
residing on the HPL. This would include any future utility 
service provided on the HPL. To the extent that all applicable 
laws and regulations have been complied with, including the 
Hopi Comprehensive Land Use Plan, the HPL Navajo signing this 
Agreement is free to contract with a third party to provide 
utility services or other infrastructure related to any 
allowable use of the homesite, farmland, or grazing privileges.
    E. Terms and Conditions:
    1. Jurisdiction: The HPL Navajo signing this Agreement and 
all other persons (minors and guests) occupying his/her 
homesite are subject to the jurisdiction of the Nation and its 
courts with regard to issues which are entirely Navajo-related, 
which would include probate, domestic relations, child custody 
and adoption, tribal benefits and services. Otherwise, they are 
subject to the civil and criminal jurisdiction of the Hopi 
Tribe and the Hopi Tribal Court while they reside on the HPL.
    Issues regarding the interpretation of this Agreement are 
subject to the Hopi Tribe's jurisdiction and will be resolved 
in the Hopi Tribal Courts. In any case in Hopi Tribal Court 
involving the HPL Navajo signing this Agreement, regardless of 
whether it involves this Agreement, that person shall be 
entitled to the same due process Hopi Tribal members receive 
under Hopi law and shall be treated fairly and equitably.
    The Hopi Tribe's jurisdiction shall extend to all present 
and future laws, regulations, ordinances, guidelines and 
restrictions adopted, enacted, or imposed by the Hopi Tribal 
government. The Hopi Tribe agrees that any changes to the 
Comprehensive Land Use Plan which become effective after the 
date of this Agreement shall not reduce or change to the 
detriment of the HPL Navajo signing this Agreement the terms of 
this Agreement unless the change is agreed to by the Hopi Tribe 
and the person.
    2. Term: In the past, the Hopi Tribe has welcomed people 
from other tribes to its land, if those people were willing to 
abide by the Hopi Tribe's laws. Those people have stayed a long 
time. If the HPL Navajo living on the HPL abide by the Hopi 
Tribe's laws, this Agreement could bring peace and provide a 
way to live together on this land for a long time. With this in 
mind, the provisions of this Agreement shall run from the ____ 
day of __________, 199__, to midnight seventy-five years from 
that date unless the Agreement is terminated earlier for a 
reason described in the section entitled ``Termination and 
Surrender.'' At any time after 204__, __________ is free to 
apply to the Hopi Tribe to extend the term of the Agreement. In 
evaluating whether to extend the Agreement, the Hopi Tribe may 
consider the relationship among the parties, their needs, and 
whether the Agreement has worked. There is nothing to stop the 
Agreement from being extended assuming all parties are desirous 
of doing so.
    3. Compensation: The Hopi Tribe is entitled to compensation 
for its loss of use of part of the HPL. Provision of that 
compensation by the Navajo Nation is a necessary part of this 
Agreement. Unless and until the compensation for this 
accommodation is agreed to separately with the Nation, its 
payment will be guaranteed pursuant to 25 U.S.C. Sec. 640d-
15(a). That compensation is part of the consideration for this 
Agreement. If the Nation fails to make payment when due of the 
agreed to compensation, which failure continues for thirty (30) 
days after demand in writing has been made by the Hopi Tribe 
upon the Nation for payment, this Agreement is terminated 
without recourse effective immediately.
    4. Termination and Surrender: All of the parties to this 
Agreement are committed to making it work. This section deals 
with the possibility that there may be problems and spells out 
the situations in which the Agreement can be terminated as to 
one or more of the signatories to it. Other than (1) the 
failure of the parties to reach an agreement on an extension of 
the term, (2) an attempt to transfer rights under this 
Agreement to an ineligible person or to an eligible person who 
does not reside at the same location, or (3) the failure of the 
Nation to pay the agreed to compensation in a timely manner, 
which are each described above, this Agreement can be 
terminated in only four circumstances. These are listed below. 
In each of those circumstances the affected HPL Navajos will be 
given notice of the proposed termination and an opportunity to 
challenge the validity of the termination in the Hopi Tribal 
Courts. The notice must be in writing and must specify the 
reasons for the termination. It must be sent by certified mail 
to the NPL Navajo signing this Agreement at his/her last known 
mailing address or, if the mailing address is not known, by 
posting the notice in a prominent place at the homesite. The 
termination becomes effective 90 days after the date of 
delivery of the notice unless the HPL Navajo signing this 
Agreement files an action within that 90-day period in the Hopi 
Tribal Courts contesting the termination. In such a case, the 
judge of the Hopi Tribal Court who heard the challenge would 
determine the date on which the termination, if upheld, would 
become effective.
    The four ways in which this Agreement can be terminated 
are: (1) upon the HPL Navajo signing this Agreement no longer 
using the homesite as his principal residence for a continuous 
period of more than two years; (2) upon conviction, and, if it 
occurs, an appeal, of the HPL Navajo signing this Agreement in 
a court of competent jurisdiction for the violation of any 
crime reference in 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1153 (or its counterpart in 
Hopi Ordinance No. 21) or section 3.3.13 of Hopi Ordinance No. 
21 (child molesting); (3) upon three convictions, and, if they 
occur, appeals, within a fifteen-year period of the HPL Navajo 
signing this Agreement in a court of competent jurisdiction for 
the violation of any combination of the following sections of 
Hopi Ordiance No. 21: section 3.3.17 (cutting green timber), 
section 3.3.44 (impersonation of a public officer), section 
3.3.46 (injuring fences), section 3.3.47 (injury to public 
property), section 3.3.52 (maintaining a public nuisance), 
section 3.3.54 (malicious mischief), section 3.3.56 
(misbranding), section 3.3.63 (polluting streams), and section 
3.3.73 (tampering with communications); section 108.C.1.a of 
Hopi Ordinance 43; or the Hopi Woodland and Wildlife 
Ordinances; or (4) upon the HPL Navajo signing this Agreement 
using the homesite or his/her farmland for a commercial 
business or mining activity. No termination shall occur 
subparagraph (1) above unless all HPL Navajos who reside at the 
homesite it up, but the Agreement shall be terminated with 
respect to the HPL. Navajo who no longer principally resides at 
the homesite, and similarly under subparagraphs (2) and (3) a 
conviction or convictions against one HPL Navajo shall 
terminate only that resident's rights under this Agreement.
    This agreement will not be terminate for a violation by the 
HPL Navajo signing this Agreement of Section 3.3.82 (wrecked, 
junked, or unserviceable vehicles) of Hopi Ordinance 21. To 
ensure that this section is complied with, the Nation agrees 
that, if the HPL Navajo signing this Agreement is convicted of 
a violation of this section, it will assist that person in 
removing, and if necessary guarantee the removal of, the 
offending property within thirty (30) days of entry of judgment 
on the conviction.
    The HPL Navajo signing this Agreement will, upon sixty (60) 
days after termination of this Agreement, immediately surrender 
the homesite to the Hopi Tribe and vacate the HPL. The HPL 
Navajo signing this Agreement is entitled to remove all of his/
her property within those sixty (60) days. To the extent that 
it has not been removed prior to the expiration of those sixty 
days, the property will be deemed forfeited and abandoned. The 
HPL Navajo signing this Agreement may surrender this Agreement 
at any time by means of a written instrument verified before a 
notary public or before a judge of the Hopi Tribal Courts. Any 
person residing at the homesite who does not vacate the HPL 
within sixty days after termination of this Agreement is 
subject to eviction which will be effected by the United States 
and the Hopi Tribe.
    5. Relocation Benefits Waived: By signing this Agreement, 
the HPL Navajo signing this Agreement agrees and acknowledges 
that, after three (3) years from the date of this Agreement, 
with the exception of temporary emergency relocation assistance 
(as set forth in 25 C.F.R. Sec. 700.175), any and all rights 
he/she would have to relocation benefits as more fully defined 
in 25 U.S.C. Sec. 640d are waived. If the HPL Navajo signing 
this Agreement decides to exercise his/her relocation benefits 
after signing this Agreement, he/she must vacate the homesite 
as soon as a relocation dwelling is made available or within 
three years from the date of the Agreement, whichever is 
sooner.
                              ----------                              

                                            The Hopi Tribe,
                                 Kykotsmovi, AZ, September 6, 1995.
Lee Phillips, Esq.,
Big Mountain Legal Office,
Flagstaff, AZ.
    Dear Lee: On behalf of the Hopi Tutsqua Team and the Hopi 
Tribal Council, I am writing you in your capacity as legal 
representative for the Navajo families seeking an accommodation 
from the Hopi Tribe. The purpose of this letter is to clarify 
several issues that have been discussed between members of the 
Hopi Tutsqua Team and the Navajo families concerning the 
Accommodation Agreement (``Agreement'') offered by the Hopi 
Tribal Council to the families last year. It is the Hopi 
Tribe's intention that this letter be read in conjunction with 
the Agreement, which is attached hereto, and that the 
clarifications are binding on the Hopi Tribe during the one-
year period from the date of the enactment of the authorizing 
legalization or until October 2, 1996, whichever is earlier, 
and also with respect to any Agreement that is signed.
    1. In the section on eligibility, the Agreement states that 
persons who enter into the Agreement ``will be entitled to all 
of the protection and benefits of the Agreement. To the extent 
that there are additional protections and benefits in the 
October 30, 1992 Agreement in Principle (``AIP), persons who 
enter into the Agreement are entitled to them as well, as long 
as they do not conflict with the provisions of the Agreement.
    2. In the section on use of the homesite, there are several 
issues:
    A. With regard to the three-acre area to be assigned to HPL 
Navajos signing the Agreement, the area will be drawn in such a 
manner so as to include the eligible families residing at the 
homesite and will not be an arbitrary square or rectangle.
    B. Although it is not specifically stated in the Agreement, 
all structures related to residential, farming, grazing or 
Navajo ceremonial use which are currently at the homesite shall 
remain permitted, as set forth in the AIP.
    C. In addition to constructing new permanent structures at 
a homesite, any HPL Navajo signing an Agreement will be allowed 
to construct temporary structures at the homesite as long as 
they are related to the residential, farming, grazing, or 
traditional use of the homesite.
    D. The Agreement states that HPL Navajos signing the 
Agreement will be ``free to continue any use he/she is 
currently making of the homesite.'' As such current uses of the 
HPL by HPL Navajos are not considered to be commercial business 
activities. Thus, to the extent that HPL Navajos are currently 
engaged in grazing, farming, weaving, jewelry making, and the 
like, those uses are protected and are not subject to the 
prohibition of commercial business activities.
    E. The Agreement prohibits the keeping of toxic or 
hazardous materials at the homesite. This prohibition does not 
include keeping fuel that is to be used at the homesite and 
that is stored and used in a safe manner.
    3. In the section on farming use, the Agreement 
contemplates that orchards will be counted as part of the 
allowable farmland acreage.
    4. In the section on grazing use, there are several issues.
    A. With regard to substituting horses and cattle for sheep, 
the Agreement states that an individual can apply to the Hopi 
Tribe for permission to do so. This application should occur 
after the individual's allocation has been made so the 
appropriate mix of animals can be determined. For the purpose 
of substitution, the Hopi Tribe will use a 4-1 ratio for cattle 
and a 5-1 ratio for horses.
    B. To assist the Hopi Tribe in evaluating the grazing 
capacity of the land, the Tribe is planning a grazing study 
with the BIA to be conducted this fall. In addition, the Tribe 
will continue to request that grazing studies be done on a 
periodic basis in the future.
    C. The grazing permits are annual permits which must be 
reallocated and reissued each year to take account of any 
changes in allocation. As such, the permits are not 
transferable between years. To the extent that a permit holder 
becomes unable during a given year to continue using his/her 
permit, the Hopi Tribe will work with the individual and his/
her family to assure continuity of grazing for the remainder of 
that year.
    5. In the use of the HPL section, there are several issues:
    A. To the extent that there is confusion about the purpose 
of permits and fees generally, the Hopi Tribe does not regulate 
religion and does not charge religious fees or require 
religious permits. What the Hopi Tribe regulates, however, is 
activities on its Reservation, such as grazing, hunting, and 
collection of firewood. These regulations are general, apply to 
everyone on the Reservation, Hopi and Navajo, and are not based 
on any religious precepts.
    B. With regard to dismantling permitted temporary 
structures which are located away from the homesite the Hopi 
Tribe will consider requests to leave certain structures to be 
dismantled by nature. Such requests must be made at the time 
the permit is requested, and the permit will contain the 
applicable conditions concerning cleanup and removal.
    C. With regard to the collection of green boughs, access 
will be on the same basis for HPL Navajos as it is for Hopi 
Tribal members. Currently, a permit is required pursuant to 
Ordinance 47. The Tribal Council is reconsidering whether to 
make green boughs accessible for ceremonial use without a 
permit and also what methods should be established for 
collection.
    D. As regards herbs and plants, the Agreement already 
states that the collection of herbs and plants for personal or 
traditional use does not require a permit. The herbs and plants 
may not be collected for sale or commercial use. The Hopi Tribe 
expects this situation to continue for as long as the gathering 
does not create problems in terms of erosion or supply. If such 
a situation arises, limitations may have to be imposed. The 
Hopi Tribe hopes that the families will work with it to ensure 
that this situation is avoided. Assuming that the people 
collecting the herbs and plants give each other common courtesy 
and respect, collection for personal or traditional use will 
continue to be unregulated.
    E. With regard to collection of firewood, a permit is 
required. These permits will be available to HPL Navajos on the 
same basis as they are for Hopi Tribal members. These permits 
will be limited to available resources, which should be 
sufficient if everyone is respectful of each others needs.
    F. With regard to implementing the current Hopi 
Comprehensive Land Use Plan, the Hopi Tribe will consider 
whatever input, including maps, the HPL Navajos signing this 
Agreement are interested in providing.
    G. Pursuant to the AIP, the United States is to provide the 
Manybeads plaintiffs with notice of proposed government fencing 
and construction projects on the HPL and to otherwise comply 
with Section 106 of the NHPA. In addition, the Hopi Tribe will 
provide to you, as the legal representative of the HPL Navajo 
families, copies of any notice it sends to the Navajo Nation 
regarding projects involving federal funds.
    6. With regard to the term of the Agreement, the Hopi Tribe 
does not currently have the authority to lease for more than 
two twenty-five-year periods. The Hopi Tribe intends to obtain 
that authority from the United States Congress. The HPL Navajos 
will have until one year from the date of the enactment of that 
authorizing legislation or until October 2, 1996, whichever is 
earlier, to sign the Agreement.
    7. In terms of a dispute resolution mechanism, the Hopi 
Tribe believes that the current mechanisms it has in place will 
provide the necessary due process and will ensure fair results. 
Moreover, in the interest of better communications and 
understanding, the Hopi Tribe will, prior to beginning any 
formal proceeding to enforce the Agreement or permits issued to 
the HPL Navajos, meet with the affected individuals to discuss 
concerns.
    Please let me know if you have any questions.
            Sincerely,
                                          Ferrell Secakuku,
                                     Chairman, Hopi Tribal Council.
                              ----------                              

                                            The Hopi Tribe,
                                     Kykotsmovi, September 8, 1995.
Albert Hale, President,
Herb Yazzie, Attorney General,
Claudeen Bates Arthur, Chief Legislative Counsel,
The Legislative Branch, The Navajo Nation, Window Rock, AZ.
    Dear President Hale, Attorney General Yazzie, and Chief 
Legislative Counsel Arthur: At the request of David Lombardi 
and yourselves, the Hopi Tribe has reviewed the maps you sent 
us of the two homesites and the customary land use areas and 
has the following comments.
    First, with regard to the homesite maps, as the Hopi 
Tutsqua Team has indicated on several occasions, each three-
acre area will be drawn so as to include the eligible families 
residing at the homesite and will not be an arbitrary square or 
rectangle, such as the areas currently drawn on the maps. The 
Office of Hopi Lands has not visited either of the mapped sites 
for the purpose of determining whether the maps accurately 
depict the location of the various structures at the site. Such 
visits, among other things, would be necessary before a final 
decision on location could be made. Assuming that the map is 
correct, however, it appears that it is possible to design a 
three-acre homesite for the existing structures at both 
locations. We have taken the liberty of making a suggested 
boundary for each site on the maps and are returning those to 
you.
    With regard to the customary use areas, it is worth noting 
that under the Accommodation Agreement the three-acre homesite, 
the farming area, and whatever grazing is allocated and 
permitted to the homesite resident will be for the exclusive 
use of the homesite resident. Thus, the residents at a 
particular site will be able to prevent others from engaging in 
activities on their homesite or their farmland, and will be 
able to graze in their designated area without competition from 
other grazers.
    The Accommodation Agreement allows the homesite residents 
to continue their traditional uses of the HPL, such as, for 
example, the collection of herbs and plants for personal use. 
Similarly, the Accommodation Agreement does not prevent the 
homesite residents from visiting shrines or sacred sites at 
locations on the HPL other than their homesite or farming area. 
These uses of the HPL are not exclusive, however, and are 
subject to Hopi Ordinances. To avoid conflicts, the Hopi Tribe 
has agreed to consider whatever input, including maps such as 
these, the homesite residents care to provide as it implements 
its current Comprehensive Land Use Plan.
    I hope this allays the concerns of the families.
            Sincerely,
                                  Ferrell Secakuku,
                                     Chairman, Hopi Tribal Council.
                              ----------                              

                                             Flagstaff, AZ,
                                                   October 2, 1995.
Re Navajo families response to Hopi Tribes' September 6, 1995 proposal.

Hon. Ferrel H. Secakuku,
Chairman of the Hopi Tribe,
Kykotsmovi, AZ.
    Dear Chairman Secakuku: I am writing as the legal 
representative of the Navajo families living on the HPL. The 
purpose of this letter is to respond to your letters of 
September 6, 1995 and September 8, 1995 which contain the Hopi 
Tribe's offer to accommodate the religious concerns raised by 
my clients and discussed with your Hopi Tutsqua Team during 
several meetings this past summer. The Navajo Families 
Mediation Team has voted to accept the Hopi Tribe's proposed 
accommodation and to go forward at this time and begin the one 
year trial period. The Navajo families agree to do this with 
the understanding that the clarifications to the Accommodation 
Agreement in your letters and in this letter form the basis for 
the parties proceeding with this process.
    It is the intention of the Navajo families that this letter 
be read in conjunction with the proposed Accommodation 
Agreement and your letters and that the clarifications 
contained in all three letters be binding during both the one 
year period that my clients will have to accept and sign the 
Accommodation Agreement and also with respect to any final 
agreement that is signed by the parties.
    There are several specific clarifications which my clients 
ask that I communicate to you and the Hopi Tribe. These 
clarifications are based on the discussions and agreements that 
occurred during our meetings with your Tutsqua Team this past 
summer.
    1. It must be clear that this Agreement is made in good 
faith and in order to provide for the accommodation of 
traditional Navajo families living on the HPL. The Agreement is 
made because the parties do not want to continue to be in 
conflict. Rather, they wish for a relationship that is 
respectful and helpful. The Agreement offers an opportunity to 
bring peace to this troubled land for the benefit of both 
Tribes. This Agreement has been made pursuant to the direction 
of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in 
the Manybeads v. United States of America case, that the 
parties reach by negotiation and voluntary agreement a final 
settlement of certain issues relating to the 1974 Navajo-Hopi 
Land Settlement Act.
    The agreement reflects the respect that members of the Hopi 
Tribe and Navajo Nation have for each other and the 
acknowledgment by each of the sincerity of the traditional 
beliefs of the other, the importance of those beliefs in 
defining each Tribe's way of life, and the desire of both 
peoples to preserve their respective cultures and ways of life 
in the future. It is understood that the United States will 
specifically acknowledge the sincerity and importance of the 
religious beliefs of members of the Hopi Tribe and the Navajo 
Nation and the significance of the Navajo and Hopi religions.
    2. Children and descendants of the eligible adult Navajos 
are also eligible for the accommodation. In addition, final 
decisions regarding eligibility for the accommodation, 
homesites, farming and grazing will be made during the one year 
period and prior to the final acceptance and signing of the 
individual Accommodation Agreements by the Navajo families.
    3. All existing structures which belong to eligible Navajo 
families and are related to residential farming, grazing or 
Navajo ceremonial use shall remain permitted as part of the 
Accommodation Agreement.
    4. The Agreement states that each Navajo family signing the 
Agreement will be ``free to continue any use he/she is 
currently making of the homesite.'' Your letter of September 6, 
1995 further states that ``thus to the extent that HPL Navajos 
are currently engaged in grazing, farming, weaving, jewelry 
making and the like, these areas are protected and are not 
subject to the prohibition of commercial business activities.'' 
We want to clarify that other traditional uses such as non-
commercial child care or the provision of traditional medical 
services shall not be considered commercial uses as well.
    5. The prohibition is keeping toxic or hazardous materials 
on the homesite would not include fuel and other materials 
which are used for general residential purposes and that are 
stored and used in a safe manner.
    6. The Accommodation Agreement provides that my clients who 
accept and sign the Agreement would have the right to use up to 
ten acres of land for farming. The September 6, 1995 letter 
further provides that ``the Agreement comtemplates that 
orchards will be counted as part of the allowable farmland 
acreage.'' We want to clarify that all existing traditional 
Navajo farming including cultivated fruit trees and vines are 
included as part of the farmland acreage.
    7. It is my clients' understanding that grazing shall be 
made available to each eligible families' homesite. With regard 
to the issue of substituting horses and cattle for sheep, we 
want to be clear that to the extent that Navajo families wish 
to use his/her allocated SUYL to graze animals other than 
sheep, that he/she may do so using the conversion factors of 
one goat-to one sheep, four sheep-to one cow, and five sheep-to 
one horse. It is understood that the Navajo families would make 
this request as part of their application so that the 
appropriate mix of animals can be determined.
    8. The first grazing study will be conducted and completed 
prior to the expiration of the one year period so that the 
parties will be aware of the actual current grazing capacity of 
the land. Further that the Hopi Tribe and the United States 
will agree to conduct periodic grazing studies so as to provide 
reasonably current information for use by the parties in the 
development and application of the grazing program. Finally, 
that the parties will all agree to work cooperatively to 
increase the amount of grazing capacity on the HPL.
    9. Concerning the transferability of grazing permits it is 
understood that the grazing permits are annual permits which 
must be reallocated and re-issued each year to take account of 
any changes in allocation. It is also understood that a process 
will be established to assure continuity of grazing by the 
immediate families of permitees who may die or become disabled 
during a particular grazing year by allowing for the transfer 
of the grazing permit from the head of household to their 
eligible family members who continue to live under the terms of 
the Accommodation Agreement.
    10. To the extent that the Hopi Tribe requires hunting 
permits or other similar permits, it must be clear that neither 
the application for the permit nor payment of any related fees 
would be deemed a waiver by the Navajo families or the Navajo 
Nation of any treaty rights which may exist as to the United 
States.
    11. With regard to dismantling permitted temporary 
structures which are located away from the homesite, it must be 
clear that certain structures will be allowed to be dismantled 
by nature such as the ``Yei Bi Ghan'' in the ``Yei Bi Chai'' 
ceremony, the ``Itnashjinii'' in the Fire Dance ceremony, the 
Host Hogan of the ``Enemy Way'' ceremony, structures blessed 
with white corn and partially dismantled or burnt burial 
hogans, and that the permit will indicate this exception.
    12. With regard to the collection of green boughs, your 
letter of September 6, 1995 provides that the Navajo families 
will be given the same right to collect green boughs as is 
given to Hop Tribal members. We understand that a permit is 
currently required pursuant to Ordinance #47, but may not be 
required in the future. It should be clear that because of the 
religious exception involved in the collection of green boughs, 
that a special permit would be provided to the Navajo families 
without fee and on the same basis as it is for Hopi Tribal 
members until the permit issue can be reconsidered by the Hopi 
Tribal Council.
    13. It is our understanding that each homesite will be 
provided a firewood permit, that no fee is required and that 
the permits shall be granted on the same basis as for Hopi 
Tribal members.
    14. Navajo families will be guaranteed the same access to 
infrastructure and other resources as are members of the Hopi 
Tribe on the HPL. Further, that to the extent that all 
applicable laws and regulations have been complied with, the 
Navajo families will be free to contract with third parties to 
provide utility services or other infrastructure, including 
social service, educational and community facilities, related 
to any allowable use of their homesite, farmland or grazing 
privileges.
    15. The Hopi Tribe has agreed to provide notice of proposed 
government fencing and construction projects on the HPL and 
otherwise comply with Section 106 of the NHPA. It is our 
understanding that the notice which the Hopi Tribe will provide 
to the Navajo families, through their legal representative, 
will continue to be the 30 day written notice that has 
previously been provided pursuant to the Attakai v. United 
States decision, 746 F Supp. 1395 (D. Ariz. 1990).
    With regard to the implementation of the Hopi Tribe's 
Comprehensive Land Use Plan, it is our understanding the Hopi 
Tribe will cooperate with the Navajo families in preserving 
access to Navajo sacred places on the HPL. It is also our 
understanding that the Hopi Tribe agrees to work with us to 
identify and protect existing sacred sites, burial sites and 
other similar places significant to either the Hopi or Navajo. 
In addition that the Hopi Tribe will consider any maps and 
other written input submitted by the Navajo families as the 
Hopi Tribe implements its land use plan or engages in future 
construction or demolition that may affect the sacred areas.
    16. The Hopi Tribe has previously agreed in the Agreement 
In Principle that any eligible Navajo would be entitled to 
enter into the Accommodation Agreement with the Hopi Tribe 
``within one year after congressional enactment effectuating 
the Agreement.'' AIP Section III (L). In your letter of 
September 6, 1995 you now state that ``the HPL Navajo will have 
until one year from the date of the enactment of that 
authorizing legislation or until October 2, 1996, whichever is 
earlier to sign the agreement.'' Under these new terms it 
appears that the one year period could end as early as October 
2, 1996. To avoid any confusion among my clients, I request 
that the Hopi Tribe agree that the Navajo families will have 
until one year from the date from the enactment of the 
congressional legislation but no later than December 31, 1996, 
unless otherwise agreed to by the parties.
    This would allow the Navajo Family Representatives and me 
to have from October 2, 1995 to December 31, 1995 to return to 
the HPL communities and to make all of the HPL families aware 
of these final clarifications. The Hopi Tribe could also seek 
the necessary congressional authorization during this period. 
The one year period would then run from January 1, 1996 to 
December 31, 1996. If families wanted to sign an agreement 
prior to December 31, 1995, they would of course be free to do 
so. At the same time, we could work with the Office of Hopi 
Lands to finalize the details of the homesites, farming and 
grazing. Maps/documents will need to be developed and approved 
by the parties which will identify and demonstrate each Navajo 
families' homesite, farming and grazing areas. These maps/
documents will be incorporated with the individual agreements 
that are signed by the parties.
    17. It is our understanding that the United States Congress 
will have to pass legislation authorizing this Agreement and 
that this will occur as soon as possible. In the event Congress 
does not or will not pass such legislation it is our 
understanding that the Agreement as written cannot take effect.
    18. We appreciate your agreement to meet with the affected 
individuals and to discuss the concerns involved in a dispute 
prior to beginning any formal proceeding. We understand this 
agreement to include at a minimum, notice of the dispute and an 
opportunity to be heard prior to initiation of any formal 
proceedings. We also share your commitment to improve 
communications and understandings between the Hopi Tribe and 
the Navajo families. We hope that the details of other methods 
to resolve disputes informally can also be worked out during 
the one year period as previously agreed in Section III, (G)(3) 
of the A.I.P.
    My clients and I hope that this Accommodation Agreement can 
be the first step in ending this long and difficult issue and 
that it signals the beginning of a new and historic 
relationship between members of the Navajo Nation and the Hopi 
Tribe. It is now time for us to go together to the Court and 
seek a formal order recognizing our agreement. We also believe 
it will be necessary to include or incorporate the positions of 
the United States and Navajo Nation in the final settlement 
process since they both have important responsibilities under 
the terms of the Agreement.
            Sincerely,
                                          Lee Brooke Phillips, P.C.
                              ----------                              

                                U.S. Department of Justice,
                                   Washington, DC, October 2, 1995.
David E. Lombardi, Jr.,
Chief Court Mediator, Settlement Program, U.S. Court of Appeals for the 
        Ninth Circuit, San Francisco, CA.
    Dear David: In your letters of August 24, 1995, and 
September 11, 1995, you asked the United States to respond in 
writing by October 2, 1995, to the terms of an accommodation 
agreement. We address, here, the three provisions that pertain 
specifically to the federal government. It is the intention of 
the United States that this letter be read in conjunction with 
the Accommodation Agreement.
    First, this settlement agreement reflects the respect and 
acknowledgment of the United States for the sincerity of the 
traditional beliefs of members of the Hopi Tribe and Navajo 
Nation and the importance of those beliefs in defining each 
Tribe's ways of life, and the desire of both peoples to 
preserve their respective cultures and ways of life in the 
future. The United States specifically acknowledges the 
sincerity and importance of the religious beliefs of members of 
the Hopi Tribe and the Navajo Nation and the significance of 
the Navajo and Hopi religions.
    The second provision concerns the undertaking of a grazing 
inventory by the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA). Regrettably, 
for funding and planning reasons the BIA has not begun a 
grazing inventory yet this season and it is now too late to 
contract the work this year. However, the Department of Justice 
and the Department of the Interior understand the necessity of 
undertaking the work and Interior has made this a high priority 
and intends to commit resources for a study to be completed by 
the end of 1996, subject to the availability of appropriations. 
Because it is necessary to conduct the work while the 
vegetation is in an appropriate seasonal stage, the summer and 
fall of next year is the earliest time at which a study could 
be conducted. Accordingly, the Department of the Interior will 
cooperate in obtaining periodic grazing studies, commencing in 
1996, in order to provide reasonably current information for 
the Hopis' use in acting on applications for grazing permits. 
The BIA probably will not be able to complete the grazing 
inventory by October 2, 1996, but Interior is confident that it 
will be completed by the end of the year.
    The third provision concerns the United States' commitment 
to provide the Manybeads plaintiffs with notice of proposed 
government fencing and construction projects on the Hopi 
Partitioned Lands and to otherwise comply with Section 106 of 
the National Historic Preservation Act. The United States' 
obligations are set forth in the statute and regulations, as 
interpreted in Attakai v. United States, 746 F. Supp. 1395 (D. 
Ariz. 1990). In addition, in the Agreement in Principle the 
United States agrees to provide the Manybeads plaintiffs notice 
of proposed government fencing and construction projects. We 
reaffirm, here, that the United States will provide written 
notice to a representative of the Manybeads plaintiffs. The 
Manybeads plaintiffs' representative to whom the United States 
will provide notice shall be Lee Brooke Phillips, until we are 
notified in writing otherwise.
    We hope these assurances, the action of the Hopi Tribe, and 
the responses of the Navajo families and the Navajo Nation will 
allow the parties now to move forward with entry of a formal 
agreement by the court and implementation.
            Sincerely,
                                               Katherine W. Hazard.
                              ----------                              

                                         The Navajo Nation,
                                  Window Rock, AZ, October 4, 1995.
Hon. Harry R. McCue,
Mediator, U.S. Magistrate Judge (Retired),
San Diego, CA.

David Lombardi,
Chief Circuit Court Mediator, Settlement Program, U.S. Court of Appeals 
        for the Ninth Circuit, San Francisco, CA.
    Dear Judge McCue and Mr. Lombardi: The Navajo Nation hereby 
responds to David Lomardi's Clarified Accommodation Agreement 
of August 24, 1995 and the Hopi proposal to Lee Phillips dated 
September 6, 1995. The negotiators for the Navajo Nation fully 
support the Clarified Accommodation Agreement. To the extent 
the Hopi proposal incorporates clarifications in the 
Accommodation Agreement, the negotiators for the Navajo Nation 
accept the changes reflected in the Hopi letter to Mr. Phillips 
dated September 6, 1995. In addition, the negotiators for the 
Navajo Nation are aware that the family representatives voted 
unanimously on September 26, 1995 to accept the Hopi proposal 
of September 6, 1995 as set forth in the letter from Lee 
Phillips to Ferrell Secakuku dated October 2, 1995. As 
expressed in Navajo Nation Council Resolution CD-107-94, the 
Navajo Nation fully supports the families in their decision.
    The most important issue to the Navajo Nation is 
recognition and protection of Navajo religion and the 
importance of those beliefs and the desire of the Navajo People 
and the Navajo Nation to preserve their culture and traditional 
way of life. As negotiators for the Navajo Nation we are 
charged with the responsibility of negotiating a settlement of 
these difficult issues with ``a special obligation to promote 
and protect the religious rights of the affected Navajo 
families.'' (Resolved Clause #6, CD-107-94) Because of this 
charge from the governing body of the Navajo Nation, the Navajo 
Nation Council, it would be irresponsible for us to take an 
agreement to the Navajo Nation Council for approval which fails 
to acknowledge and protect the traditional religious rights of 
the Navajo families living on the Hopi Partitioned Lands or 
fails to recognize and protect traditional Navajo religion. 
Therefore it is imperative that the language recognizing and 
protecting Navajo religion be included in the final agreement. 
We understand the families have also made this request. While 
there are other specific items not included in the Hopi 
proposal which the families have requested be included in the 
agreement, for the Navajo Nation, the essential issue is the 
acknowledgement and recognition of traditional Navajo religion 
without which the Nation's approval will not be forthcoming. 
With the language recognizing and protecting Navajo religion 
included and the families consent to going forward with the 
process, the Navajo Nation negotiators will present the 
agreement to the Navajo Nation Council for their formal 
approval. We envision entry of a consent decree by the court 
including the Hopi proposal dated September 6, 1995, the Lee 
Phillips letter clarifying and responding to the Hopi proposal, 
this letter and the United States letter from Katherine Hazard 
to David Lombardi of October 2, 1995.
    Be advised that assuming all goes well, the Navajo Nation 
will work to provide whatever technical support and staff 
resources are necessary during the one year trial period to 
successfully implement the agreement. Once an agreement is 
reached, we anticipate initiating discussions with the Hopi 
Tribe and the United States regarding compensation to the Hopi 
Tribe and a phasing out of the Federal Relocation Program. We 
expect that the United States support for this process 
continues to include a commitment of federal funds to assure 
the implementation and thereby the success of the Agreement.
    We want to express our deep appreciation to both of you for 
your time, effort and expertise in bringing these difficult 
matters to the present state.
            Sincerely,
                                   Albert Hale, President.
                                   Claudeen Bates Arthur, Legislative 
                                       Counsel.
                                   Herb Yazzie, Attorney General.
                              ----------                              

                                            The Hopi Tribe,
                                 Kykotsmovi, AZ, November 27, 1995.
Lee Phillips, Esq.,
Big Mountain Legal Office,
Flagstaff, AZ.
    Dear Lee: On behalf of the Hopi Tutsqua Team and the Hopi 
Tribal Council, I am writing you in your capacity as legal 
representative for the Navajo families seeking an accommodation 
from the Hopi Tribe. I am writing in response to your letter of 
October 2, 1995, for three reasons.
    First, the Hopi Tribe is pleased that the Navajo families 
have voted to accept the Hopi Tribe's accommodation and to go 
forward with the one-year period at this time. I encourage you 
to prepare your maps and to meet with the Office of Hopi Lands 
quickly so that we can identify the homesites and farming areas 
and begin to get the individual agreements signed. Please let 
me know if you encounter any difficulties in this so that I can 
facilitate any necessary resolutions.
    Second, in your letter you describe several clarifications. 
All but three of these are points the Hopi Tribe has already 
agreed to. The three issues which had not previously been 
agreed to are addressed here:
    1. Dismantling of permitted temporary structures away from 
the homesite: With regard to permitted temporary structures 
which are located away from the homesite, the Hopi Tribe will 
allow temporary structures which are nonresidential to be 
dismantled by nature if the Navajo family complies with the 
other conditions of the permit. If the permitted temporary 
structure is residential, it will have to be dismantled within 
the time period set in the permit following the ceremony.
    2. Date for signing individual agreements: You request that 
the one-year period for individual families to sign the 
agreements extend beyond October 2, 1996, through December 31, 
1996. That extension is acceptable to the Hopi Tribe.
    3. Congressional legislation: You state that Congress will 
have to pass legislation authorizing the Accommodation 
Agreement. To accomplish this, the Hopi Tribe will be asking 
Congress to amend the law so that it may enter into agreements 
of 75 years. The Hopi Tribe does not believe it is necessary to 
bring other pieces of the Agreement before Congress for 
legislation.
    Finally, you reference in your letter going to court and 
seeking a formal order authorizing the agreement. The Hopi 
Tribe recognizes that the New Construction orders and the 
grazing injunction must be lifted. We would like to discuss 
further with you how best to accomplish this and what the 
appropriate time frame should be. We hope and trust that the 
families will want to join in this process so that we can 
remove two rulings that have created tension between us.
            Sincerely,
                                          Ferrell Secakuku,
                                        Chairman of the Hopi Tribe.
                        Changes in Existing Law

    In compliance with subsection 12 of rule XXVI of the 
Standing Rules of the Senate, the Committee states that the 
enactment of S. 1973 will result in the following changes in 25 
U.S.C. Sec. 415 and 25 U.S.C. Sec. 640d-24(a)(8), with existing 
language which is to be deleted in black brackets and the new 
language to be added in italics:
          * * * * * * *

                         25 U.S.C. Sec. 415(c)

    (c) Leases Involving the Hopi Tribe and the Hopi 
Partitioned Lands Accommodation Agreement.--Leases of land by 
the Hopi Tribe to Navajo Indians on the Hopi Partitioned Lands 
may be for a term of 75 years, and may be extended at the 
conclusion of the term of the lease; and
    (d) For purposes of this section--
          (1) the term ``Hopi Partitioned Lands'' means lands 
        located in the Hopi Partitioned Area, as defined in 
        section 168.1 (g) of title 25, Code of Federal 
        Regulations (as in effect on the date of enactment of 
        this subsection); and
          (2) the term ``Navajo Indians'' means members of the 
        Navajo Tribe.
          * * * * * * *

                      25 U.S.C. Sec. 640d-24(a)(8)

    (8) For the purpose of carrying out the provisions of 
section 640d-14 of this title, there is authorized to be 
appropriated not to exceed $30,000,000 annually for fiscal 
years 1995, [1996, and 1997] 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, and 2000.