House
Resources Committee Hearing — June 21, 2006 —
S1003
Panel
1 Question and Answer
Chairman:
Uh thank you very much, Mr. Tessler. The Chair would
note a point of personal privilege, please extend to
Chris my personal best wishes. We worked with him on
several fronts not only concerning this office, but
his days as mayor of Flagstaff when the old 6 Congressional
District was my area of concern, and please pass along
our personal regards. The Chair would also note that
the witnesses followed the piece advice that is somewhat
elusive for members of Congress that being that brevity
is the soul of wit, so we thank you for succinct summarizations
today, and now we’ll move directly to the questions.
First, to
Mr. Ragsdale. Mr. Ragsdale, in your formal testimony,
you made mention that providing housing for relocated
families is a potential problem with the current programs
and authorities within the BIA. What other sorts of
challenges do you anticipate and should the Relocation
Office be closed in the next few years, and various
responsibilities are in fact transferred to your office?
Mr.
Ragsdale:
Well, I think our testimony reflects that our basic
concern, that if the Department of Interior is required
to carry out the relocation functions envisioned in
the 1974 act and as it’s been amended that we
are not prepared to do that. We do not have the resources
to provide for the type of housing assistance that was
contemplated by this legislation. Our total housing
program within the Bureau of Indian Affairs is less
than 19…17 million dollars, and it’s basically
an improvement housing assistance project.
Chairman:
Mr. Ragsdale, what do you consider to be the responsibilities
of the BIA should the Bennett Freeze language be repealed
as seen in past congressional legislation.
Mr.
Ragsdale:
Our responsibilities … I’m optimistic about
that. My understanding is that the Navajo and Hopi tribes
are hopefully very close to a resolution of that issue,
but uh that would allow us to resume our normal functions
assisting the tribes to develop their properties.
Chairman:
Uh, Mr. Tessler, Mr. Ragsdale’s testimony points
to concerns relating to pending appeals to relocation
decisions. Can you give us a sense or how many appeals
remain in the backlog and how long do these appeals
typically take to be resolved?
Mr.
Tessler:
Right now we have requests for appeals. These are internal
administrative appeals to determine eligibility of individual
applicants. There are 200 requests for appeals, which
were timely filed. We believe that ultimately there
will be about 50 or 60 hearings on those requests, and
the timetable calls for them to be resolved by the end
of July next year. We’ve already started that
process and are moving toward it expeditiously.
Chairman:
Mr. Tessler, generally speaking, can you describe for
what purposes relocation assistance monies are spent,
and to date how much money has been allocated in relocation
assistance?
Mr.
Tessler:
I believe, I don’t have…I’m not sure
of the exact number, I believe 500 million dollars as
Congressman Renzi has said is right in the ballpark.
Generally, those monies are spent … well, we have
four categories, staff and administration, relocation
housing money, the discretionary fund which allows us
to do various types of infrastructure or economic development
projects, and then development of the new lands, which
is an area of 300,000 acres that were provided in 1980
after the original act was passed for relocation purposes.
Chairman:
Mr. Tessler, are applications for relocation assistance
still being accepted, and if so, how many more of these
applications do you anticipate?
Mr.
Tessler:
We are not accepting them anymore. We stopped accepting
them in 1986 and then through a variety of decisions
and negotiations with Navajo Hopi legal services of
the Navajo tribe we determined that fairness required
that we open up applications to people living on the
Hopi Partitioned Lands. This was also in conjunction
with the Settlement agreement, the Accommodation Agreement,
between the Navajo tribe and the Hopis, and the residents
that allowed 75-year leases. This was completed in 1977,
and, at that time, we finished taking applications from
all the people we knew were actually living on the Hopi
Partitioned Lands. Since then we determined it would
be the fairest thing to do to examine applications from
other people who claim to be residents of the land but
whose applications weren’t considered earlier.
We have received all those applications. We have made
a decision on all of them to either certify them eligible,
or deny them eligibility, the vast majority of them,
more than 200, have been denied eligibility and those
are the ones that are in the hearing process right now.
Chairman:
Thank you, sir. Thanks to both witnesses. Let me turn
to the ranking member, my friend from Michigan.
Rep.
Kildee:
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. How would the BIA
uh role change if the relocation program were, the responsibilities
of that program, were transferred to your department,
how would you deal with the pending uh responsibilities?
Mr.
Ragsdale:
Well, if you’re talking about the land management
responsibilities, we’re already working with the
Office of Navajo Hopi Relocation to affect a transition
in an orderly fashion, to carry out our basic range
management leasing responsibilities, the normal people
services that we provide either directly or through
the tribes, through 638 contracts. With respect to engaging
in residual relocation activities, if there are any
left over, we would have to completely gear up to do
that, Congressman.
Rep.
Kildee:
Do you foresee, either one of you, see any disruptive
element coming from the termination of this relocation
program and its transfer for its responsibilities to
the BIA, do you see any disruptions that might ensue
from that?
Mr.
Ragsdale:
Mr. Congressman, I don’t know that there would
be any disruption provided we work together and we have
a very good relationship with Relocation Office. I was
up there last summer, and I have been out on the new
lands, and they’re running a model, a range project
there on the new lands, but I think it would be contrary
to the intent of the Congress, Congressman, I was around
in the 70s when the legislation was enacted, was sponsored
by Congressman Udall, and it was… there were a
number of bills that were introduced to either directly
involve the Department of Interior or create a new office
to handle the relocation effort. And to me, for us to
go back, and best that with the Secretary would be contrary
to the legislative history and the intent of Congress
in the first instance. And because we have fiduciary
responsibilities to both the Navajo and Hopi tribes,
it puts the Department of Interior, and specifically
the Bureau of Indian Affairs if we were vested with
that function, in a very difficult position with regards
to relocation.
Rep.
Kildee:
Uh Mr. Tessler, do you believe that uh September 20th
eh 2008 would provide ample time to complete the relocation
process before handing it over to Interior.
Mr.
Tessler:
We do, Mr. Chairman, as we testified in the Senate and
have been planning for that date for some time, perhaps
even before the introduction of the Senate bill. I don’t
see disruption as you asked Mr. Ragsdale. We hope to
have all the relocations done by that date. If there
are some few remaining, there is part of the legislation
allows the transfer of employees or part of perhaps
our office, to Interior, if I understand it right, and
we could…those relocations could be completed
uh at that time. We do not want, and understand that
nobody wants us to give a house-building job to the
Department of Interior that we’ve been doing for
all these years, and we don’t intend to do that.
Rep.
Kildee:
Thank you…(unintelligible - sounds like Mr. Chairman).
Just as an aside here uh, Mr. Ragsdale, I’ve been
driving Buicks all my life, and uh the best-designed
Buicks were designed by a gentleman who was general
manager at Buick by the name of Mr. Ragsdale so you
might have some commonality (?).
Mr.
Ragsdale:
(Laughing) Well, thank you, I wish I could claim the
heritage. I’m not sure we’re related.
Chairman:
…heritage and commonality of family trees, but
maybe a percentage of the designs.
Mr.
Ragsdale:
If he was…is Cherokee he might be one of my distant
relatives.
Chairman:
I thank the ranking member, and I’m honored to
yield to my colleague from Arizona.
Rep.
Renzi:
I’m not known for my humor so I’m gonna
go ahead and cut to the chase. The largest land mass
and poverty in America…The largest land mass and
poverty in America is the Navajo Hopi First District
of Arizona. The most deplorable conditions within that
is the area of the Bennett Freeze. Not real funny. Not
real humorous. If BIA was given the responsibility of
having not just to move people into houses but to have
to bring back that area, the roads and the schools and
the health care clinics and the hospitals, the electrification
projects, the energy, the clean up of the polluted water,
some of the largest pollution and tainted water uranium
in the country exist up in that corner of the world.
I don’t think BIA given the limited amount of
money that you get, given the length of projects that
it takes, you can put a school on BIA’s list and
take 15 years to get to the top. It’s a fact.
I don’t think BIA right now, and you work hard,
Mr. Ragsdale, and I appreciate you coming to my office,
and I appreciate going out and visiting Hopi Navajo
land, and I’ve been impressed by you since you
came on board, but given the constraints of what you
have to work with, there’s no way you can pull
and lift and help those people. NO WAY! Not a chance,
which tells me that’s going to be left then for
the congressman who represents the Hopis and the congressman
to the Navajos, Republicans or Democrats, to have to
fight for earmarks and special projects, give your vote
here to leadership, get a little money here, and that
little drop that you get won’t be enough. So,
me, this congressman, won’t be able to do it.
Republican or Democrat, it doesn’t matter. Can’t
get it done, which tells me if we’re really gonna
to fix the project, if we’re really gonna to fix
it, we’ve got to have a separate program dedicated
to roads and schools and hospitals and leprication (?),
and water, and pulling the deplorable conditions. If
we’re gonna to have a special office, if we’re
gonna to have a special program we’re gonna get
it done, why not take the office of relocation and continue
it? Let me just start with that little question, Mr.
Ragsdale. Why not continue, why not build on what we
have rather than cutting it off (unintelligible)?
Mr.
Ragsdale:
Well, that question hasn’t been posed to us in
exactly that way so I’m not going to answer you
specifically. What I will tell you is that I am very
well aware of the resources that we have available to
tend to the many things that we are supposed to tend
to, and you and I have had discussions about that. With
respect to the Bennett Freeze area, I don’t know
that we would have all the resources to make up for
the 40 to 50 years of not being able to do anything
but it would be a good start and I’m very optimistic
that the tribes are going to come together, the two
tribes are going to come together, so that the Bennett
Freeze can be … (interrupted)
Rep.
Renzi:
What would be a good start? What would be a good start?
Mr.
Ragsdale:
Well, the Freeze needs to be lifted, first of all, and
we cannot do that unless the two tribes agree to the
terms of that, and I think that uh my understanding
is that we’re very close but that would make it
immediately available for us to be able to develop those
properties, to provide roads money, to provide some
infrastructure money with the resources that we have.
Rep.
Renzi:
So you’re saying that within the resources you
have that you could then go to work on that huge …
Mr.
Ragsdale:
We would have to stretch the resources that we have,
Mr. Congressman, to do that but it would be a start.
Right now we’re prohibited from doing anything.
Rep.
Renzi:
Ya…In my opinion you don’t have enough resources
to be able to handle what you have on the, on your plate.
Mr.
Ragsdale:
I’m not going to disagree with you.
Rep.
Renzi:
Thank you. Mr. Tessler, do you have any thoughts on
that?
Mr.
Tessler:
Uh much like Mr. Ragsdale’s, the redevelopment
of that whole area which has been frozen since 1966
is a monumental task. I believe Senator DeConcini held
hearings on that issue late 80s, early 90s and the Navajo
Nation submitted a very comprehensive report you know,
at that time – school, roads, power, health facilities
– and I think the number that sticks in my mind,
if I remember correctly, was 250 million dollars back
then [Renzi says “back then” at the same
time] and where it would come from now, I don’t
know. It’s certainly not in the Office’s
budget. It has been suggested by the Navajo Nation that
the Office could be helpful with them in terms of building
housing for them should the area be unfrozen.
Rep.
Renzi:
Not really some kind of a thing that you could handle
with just a little couple earmarks in there, huh?
Mr.
Tessler:
No
Rep.
Renzi:
No. Thank you. I’ll look forward to talking to
the other witnesses.
Chairman:
I thank my colleague from Arizona, and as one who preceded
him in dealing with the Bennett Freeze, I will reaffirm
there is little levity in the entire situation there,
the bureaucratic fiat now 40 years ago that led to the
consequences there. The gentleman from American Samoa.
Rep.
Faleomavaega (American Samoa):
Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I, for the record, I want to
associate myself with the gentleman from Arizona, Mr.
Renzi, who has done, in my humble opinion, an outstanding
job in representing our Native American community who
resides in his district. And I have basically the same
questions that Congressman Renzi had raised earlier.
I’d like to ask Mr. Ragsdale, I note that one
of the preambles of the proposed bill legislation that
was passed by the Senate specifically states, “The
relocation process has been plagued with controversy
and delay. Congress has had to amend the act several
times to authorize the expansion of the recent relocation
activity and to provide additional appropriations for
the implementation of relocation activities.”
Now I wanted to ask Mr. Ragsdale does administration
agree to this basic proposed legislation to simply transfer
this whole activity to the Bureau of Indian Affairs?
Mr.
Ragsdale:
No, we do not.
Rep.
Faleomavaega:
Do you prefer to have the way it is currently structured?
Mr.
Ragsdale:
Well, I’m hopeful, I’m hopeful that uh,
and the relocation commission has indicated that they
are hopeful that they will have the relocation process
completed by the expiration date in the bill. If it
is not, then the Department of Interior would have serious
concerns about assuming the responsibility.
Rep.
Faleomavaega:
If I read my history correctly, and correct me if I’m
wrong on this, Mr. Ragsdale, since the legislation some
time around 1974, it was projected at the Office that
everything would have been completed by ‘86, around
there, ‘88, and now we’re at 2006. And it
seems that this is major surgery as I was going through
the provisions of this proposed bill, basically by transferring
the BIA, I suspect that one of the real concerns as
mentioned by Mr. Renzi, is the BIA capable of carrying
on this responsibility if this office is to be terminated.
Mr.
Ragsdale:
It would depend on what work is left to be done. If
it was just some very routine, administrative functions,
I think that we could do that, but there was uh…
if the process was not complete, if there were appeals
still pending, and there was work yet to be done, construction
work yet to be done, then we would have to advise you
of what resources the department … would need
to do that.
Rep.
Faleomavaega:
So here we have legislation with absolute good intentions
on the part of the Congress, and I’m sure that
even the representative as leaders of the Navajo and
Hopi tribes in trying to settle this controversy that’s
been there for hundreds of years, and now it’s
over 30 years, and correct me if I’m wrong, it
seems that we’re in a quagmire right now. And
this is the bottom line really on our part that we haven’t
provided the necessary funding for proper implementation
of this program since we started in ’74?
Mr.
Ragsdale:
I’ll have to defer to the Relocation Commission
to respond to that.
Mr.
Tessler:
For me to say that half a million dollars isn’t
enough would be silly.
Rep.
Faleomavaega:
Half a billion you mean?
Mr.
Tessler:
Half a billion, I’m sorry, yes, and I’m
not saying that. We have, while the program has taken
longer than anyone expected, there are less than 100
Navajo families remaining to be relocated. There are
some pending appeals that will add to that. Some of
the 100 that are remaining are already in the process,
have a house under construction or are in the process
of contracting for a house, so the vast, vast majority
of the relocations have been completed. We hope that
the ones that are under appeal will be finalized by
the end of the summer, 2007, and that they’ll
be under contract and have houses built by the time
we turn things over. So we’ve had enough money
to do most everything we wanted to do and been instructed
to do all these years.
Rep.
Faleomavaega:
This 500 million dollars, where do you suppose the vast
amount of monies has gone into, personnel, administrative
costs or the appeals or…?
Mr.
Tessler:
The vast amount has gone into housing for relocates.
We provided housing I want to say 4300 some families.
In addition, in 1980, when they added 400,000 acres
to the … gave to the Navajo Nation for relocation
purposes, we, the agency, developed roughly 300,000
of those acres from what was raw lanch rand, lanch,
ranch land in Arizona, and put in power, water, schools,
electricity, housing units. An awful lot of money went
there. The vast majority went for housing and those
kind of services.
Rep.
Faleomavaega:
My time is up, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
Chairman:
Thank you, Mr. Faleomavaega. Let me turn to the gentleman
from Puerto Rico.
Rep.
Fortuno (Puerto Rico):
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, uh Mr. Tessler, uh if you could
uh help us in understanding better the process perhaps
of relocation, we would perhaps be better prepared to
help you in having the resources to, to complete the
process. Could you go over the process? Let’s
say there’s going to be a relocation. You mentioned
that there are some families are in the process perhaps
contracting out a home whatever. Could you go over the
different steps that are taken?
Mr.
Tessler:
Sure. Starting in 1977 we began accepting applications
from Navajos and Hopis who were affected by relocation.
So the first step is to take an application. The next
step is to determine if that person is eligible for
benefits cuz not everybody there met our eligibility
requirements. If they were determined eligible for benefits
then they’d go along one track. If they were denied
eligibility for benefits they’d go along an appeals
track, which allowed them an administrative in-house
hearing and appeal, and then an appeal to the United
States District Court. That process, you know, could
take took from a year to you know they have six years
after denial of eligibility to go to District Court.
Rep.
Fortuno:
On the administrative side…up to six years on
the administrative side.
Mr.
Tessler:
After the administrative [“oh” said by Fortuno]
administrative remedy is exhausted within the agency
then they can go to District Court.
Rep.
Fortuno:
OK
Tessler:
They have after the final denial they have six years
to file their action in District Court to file their
action in District Court so denied people get a hearing.
The people who are certified eligible, after they’re
determined eligible, they’re uh linked up with
one of our Navajo oh Hopi at the time in-house specialists
who are fluent in the language to assist them in determining
where they want to move. They can move anywhere in the
country, on reservation, off reservation, um, determine
their income, look into their problems, try to solve
them as best we could and facilitate the acquisition
of a house, which could mean buying an existing house
in say one of the border towns around the reservation
or building a new house around the reservation, off
the reservation for building a new house on the reservation
itself, the Hopi or the Navajo which in turn puts us
into the process of getting a land lease from either
of the tribes where the house is to be built, and then
the actual construction of the house which this our
agency oversees uh from beginning to end with inspections
to ensure quality much like a city inspector would do
on a house uh and then once the house is built, follow-up
afterwards to make sure the house is what we say it
was, sometimes to provide repairs, uh and also to follow-up
after relocation to a limited aspect with social uh,
I don’t want to say social counseling but follow-up
to see if there’s assistance we can provide if
there are problems afterwards.
Rep.
Fortuno:
Are these specialists and agency officials located on
site or are they flying out of Washington. How does
that work? On site?
Mr.
Tessler:
Oh, no, no, no. Our office is in Flagstaff, Arizona.
Rep.
Fortuno:
Oh so you are there.
Mr.
Tessler:
Which is not quite on site but it’s an hour’s
drive from the Hopi reservation and parts of the Navajo
reservation. We have also had offices on the Hopi reservation
and the Navajo reservation, field offices at various
times, and in the new lands area that we developed near
Holbrook and Sanders, Arizona, we have a full staff
there, uh and a whole essentially a whole community
that we built.
Rep.
Fortuno:
OK. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for
having this hearing. We’ll be looking toward Mr.
Renzi for leadership on this issue. Thank you.
Chairman:
I thank the gentleman from Puerto Rico, and now I turn
to my Arizona colleague, Mr. Grivjalva.
Rep.
Grivjalva:
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And let me echo the
comments uh my colleagues in appreciation for Mr. Renzi
beginning the process of dealing with this very important
issue. We have the Senate version that has already passed
and uh I think it’s incumbent upon our committee
and uh the House of Representatives to deal with the
question as well. And I don’t think we’re
talking today about any specific legislation. I know
there are some draft concepts that Mr. Renzi has put
together but as we go through this process my only points
would be that we really don’t need to mirror what
the Senate did. There are differences that we understand
are significant, should deal with them, and that the
context of the legislation be fair and equitable to
the tribes involved in this question, and that there
be a level of equality in both how we legislative this
and for the long term. And I particularly appreciate
the idea of a study and that that everybody is playing
with the same set of information, the same timelines,
and uh I look forward to the additional testimony and
yield back my time, Mr. Chairman.
Rep.
Renzi:
Mr. Chairman.
Chairman:
Mr. Renzi.
Rep.
Renzi:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I wanna thank my colleague
from Arizona uh for his, for his insight. One of the
big differences between the draft that we’re working
on and the Senate version is the Senate calls for a
report and calls for the Office to be completely shut
down. What I’m asking is, Mr. Ragsdale, Mr. Tessler,
what if we did a study that looked at where we are right
now and where we need to go, looked at the infrastructure,
looked at the architecture that’s in place, the
bureaucratic architecture already in place, and see
if we can use some of that to get where we need to go.
Why shut down an office or why knowing that we’re
just going to have to recreate something in the future
particularly if it’s going to be an offline special
kinda budget idea. Any thoughts on doing a study verse
a report with the idea of where we need to go in the
future may need to include the current or some portions
of the current architecture?
Mr.
Ragsdale:
Speaking for the Bureau of Indian Affairs, what I think
the first step would be for us to do a thorough review
of the Relocation Office’s effort and, and back
to one of your comments about having resources, I want
to commend the Relocation Commission’s Office
on the 300,000 acres of new lands located at Sanders.
I’ve been to that community. I know some of the
personnel, Navajo people that work there personally
I’ve worked with them before, and they have developed
a model community, and more importantly they developed
a model grazing management system that will take resources
to endure and carry forward. One of the caveats to my
testimony is that uh even with respect to range management
activity, we are going to need the financial resources
to maintain those improvements that that have been carried
on by the Relocation Commission.
Rep.
Renzi:
Mr. Tessler, currently the Office of Relocation is a
line item each year. You guys are funded in the base
(?). Is that right?
Mr.
Tessler:
Yes.
Rep.
Renzi:
OK. My point is that if we already have a conduit that
exists that funds an office that is in charge of at
least doing some rehabilitation in the Bennett Freeze
area, and it’s already in the base, does that
give us an avenue then to continue that architecture
into the future?
Mr.
Tessler:
While it isn’t part of the Senate bill…
Rep.
Renzi:
I realize that. I’m talking about…
Mr.
Tessler:
…nor any bill that that, you know, I’ve
seen the proposed legislation, and the answer would
be, yes, yes, it does give an avenue.
Rep.
Renzi:
Wouldn’t it be smart I think to relocate your
office since you’re in the relocation business
up on to Tuba City into the Navajo, into the Hopi Navajo
area so that you could actually be in there, and see
it and feel it and experience it yourself.
Mr.
Tessler:
Um, well we have had offices up there. Uh whether moving
it from Flagstaff where it’s been for…
Rep.
Renzi: Well,
right now it’s gonna be shut down.
Mr.
Tessler:
Correct.
Rep.
Renzi:
Mr. Chairman, thank you for that extra time.
Chairman:
(Pombo’s here now). Thank you. There any further
questions of these witnesses? Well, I want to thank
you for uh your testimony. I apologize for being late
coming in but if there are further questions, they will
be submitted to you in writing if you can answer them
in writing, it would be appreciated. Thank you.
|