69–010 

Calendar No. 967 

110TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! SENATE 2d Session 110–462 

A BILL TO REPEAL SECTION 10(f) OF PUBLIC LAW 93–531, 

COMMONLY KNOWN AS THE ‘‘BENNETT FREEZE’’ 

SEPTEMBER 15, 2008.—Ordered to be printed 

Mr. DORGAN, from the Committee on Indian Affairs, 

submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

[To accompany S. 531] 

The Committee on Indian Affairs, to which was referred the bill 

(S. 531), to repeal section 10(f) of Public Law 93–531, commonly 

known as the ‘‘Bennett Freeze,’’ having considered the same, reports favorably thereon without amendment and recommends that 

the bill do pass. 

PURPOSE

The purpose of S. 531 is to repeal section 10(f), commonly known 

as the ‘‘Bennett Freeze,’’ of Public Law 93–531, the Navajo-Hopi 

Land Settlement Act of 1974. Public Law 93–531 was originally enacted to settle rights and interests between the Navajo Nation and 

the Hopi Tribe regarding disputed land between the two tribes. 

Section 10(f) was added to Public Law 93–531 in 1980 (see, Public 

Law 96–305) to prohibit any development on the lands that are in 

dispute between the Navajo Nation and Hopi Tribe. S. 531 will revoke the restriction on development, commonly known as the ‘‘Bennett Freeze.’’ 

BACKGROUND AND HISTORY

Public Law 93–531, the Navajo-Hopi Land Settlement Act of 

1974, was enacted to settle disputes over lands that have existed 

between the Navajo Nation and the Hopi Indian tribe for over a 

century. The disputes arose from an Executive Order signed in 

1882 that set aside approximately 2.5 million acres of land in 

northern Arizona for the Hopi Tribe and ‘‘such other Indians as the 

Secretary [of the Interior] may see fit to settle thereon,’’ and a 1934 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
2 

Act of Congress setting aside lands for the Navajo Nation. Since 

the Executive Order in 1882, members of the Hopi Tribe and Navajo Nation have disputed the right to occupy certain lands set aside 

by the 1882 Executive Order. In order to resolve these disputes, 

Congress passed the Navajo-Hopi Land Settlement Act in 1974 

(Public Law 93–531), which authorized litigation between the two 

tribes to determine each tribe’s respective rights to the lands in 

question. 

In 1962, in the case of Healing v. Jones, the Federal District 

Court ruled that both the Hopi Tribe and the Navajo Nation had 

joint rights to use the lands in dispute. The Court held that the Department of the Interior had settled Navajos on lands of the 1882 

Hopi Reservation through implication, indirection and neglect. 

Thus, the Court found that both tribes had rights to certain lands 

within the 1882 Hopi Reservation. The lands comprising this area 

became known as the ‘‘joint use area.’’

Joint use of the land, however, failed between the two tribes. The 

relations between the tribes became so tense over the access to sacred religious sites and development on the lands that the Commissioner of the Bureau of Indian Affairs at this time, Robert Bennett, 

implemented a freeze on any development on the disputed land in 

1966. This was termed the ‘‘Bennett Freeze’’ after Commissioner 

Robert Bennett. The freeze forbade any development on the lands 

at issue in litigation, including the building of houses, improvement 

to property, public work projects, power and water lines, publican 

agency improvements, and associated rights of way. 

In 1974, Congress passed the Navajo-Hopi Land Settlement Act. 

This law established a three member Navajo-Hopi Indian Relocation Commission to manage the relocation of members of the Navajo Nation who were living on the lands set aside for the Hopi 

Tribe and members of the Hopi Tribe who were living on lands set 

aside for the Navajo Nation. The 1974 law contemplated that the 

relocation activities would be fulfilled by 1986, and the cost of providing relocation benefits to approximately 6,000 Navajos eligible 

for relocation was estimated to be about $40 million. However, the 

total cost has exceeded $500 million. 

In 1980, Congress amended the 1974 Navajo-Hopi Land Settlement Act to codify the Bennett Freeze. The goal of the amendment 

was to not allow any development on the disputed lands with the 

consent of both tribes. However, the result has been that the Native Americans living in the Bennett Freeze region reside in conditions that have not changed since 1966, and need to be improved. 

Only three percent of the families affected by the Bennett Freeze 

have electricity, and only ten percent have running water. 

In 2005, the Navajo and Hopi tribes entered into an intergovernmental agreement that resolved all outstanding issues regarding 

the land in dispute. The intergovernmental agreement clarifies the 

boundaries of the Navajo and Hopi reservations in Arizona and 

guarantees access to protected religious sites of both tribes. The 

agreement also puts an end to the ban on development on the disputed lands. The agreement was approved by the Secretary of the 

Interior in November 2006. Therefore, there is no additional need 

for the Bennett Freeze. Both the Navajo and Hopi tribes support 

this legislation to repeal section 10(f) of Public Law 93–531, the 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
3 

Bennett Freeze. Further, the Department of the Interior supports 

this bill. 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY

S. 531 was introduced in the Senate by Senator John McCain (R–

Ariz.) on February 8, 2007. At a business meeting of the Committee, held on June 19, 2008, the Committee on Indian Affairs ordered S. 531 to be reported favorably without an amendment. 

SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS

Section 1 is the only section of S. 531. Section 1 repeals section 

10(f) of Public Law 93–531 (25 U.S.C. 640d–9(f)). 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee on Indian Affairs held an open business meeting 

to consider S. 531, and other matters, on June 19, 2008. During the 

business meeting, the Committee voted, by a voice vote of a 

quorum present, to report S. 531 favorably to the full Senate, without amendment. 

COST AND BUDGETARY CONSIDERATIONS

The cost estimate for S. 531 as calculated by the Congressional 

Budget Office is set forth below: 

S. 531—A bill to repeal section 10(f) of Public Law 93–531, commonly known as the ‘‘Bennett Freeze’’ 

S. 531 would repeal a provision of law, known as the Bennett 

Freeze, that imposed a ban on construction on certain lands occupied by the Navajo Nation and the Hopi Tribe in Arizona. CBO estimates that implementing S. 531 would have no significant impact 

on the federal budget. Enacting S. 531 would not affect direct 

spending or revenues. 

S. 531 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates 

as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and would impose no costs on state, local, or tribal governments. 

In 1966, the Commissioner of the Bureau of Indian Affairs placed 

a construction ban on certain lands in northern Arizona due to a 

longstanding ownership dispute between the Navajo Nation and 

the Hopi Tribe. The freeze, which prohibited any additional housing development and restricted repairs on existing dwellings, was 

codified into law in 1980 and limited construction until litigation 

between the tribes was resolved. In 2006, the Secretary of the Interior and the tribes signed an agreement resolving the land dispute. 

Enacting S. 531 would be the final requirement to repeal the Bennett Freeze. 

The tribes would likely seek funding from the Bureau of Indian 

Affairs and Department of Housing and Urban Development for 

housing construction; those resources are subject to the availability 

of appropriated funds, and S. 531 would not authorize funding for 

those activities. Therefore, CBO estimates that implementing the 

bill, by itself, would have no significant impact on the federal budget. 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
4 

The CBO staff contact for this estimate is Leigh Angres. The estimate was approved by Theresa Gullo, Deputy Assistant Director 

for Budget Analysis. 

REGULATORY IMPACT STATEMENT

In compliance with paragraph 11(b) of rule XXVI of the Standing 

Rules of the Senate requires that each report accompanying a bill 

evaluate the regulatory paperwork impact that would be incurred 

in carrying out the bill. The Committee believes that S. 531 will 

have a minimal, if any, impact on regulatory or paperwork requirements. 

EXECUTIVE COMMUNICATIONS

The only executive communication received by the Committee 

from the Executive Branch was oral and written testimony provided by Mr. Jerry Gidner, Director for the Bureau of Indian Affairs at the Department of the Interior to the Committee on Indian 

Affairs on May 15, 2008. In his testimony Mr. Gidner testified that 

the Department supports S. 531 and noted that on November 3, 

2006, Secretary of the Interior, Dirk Kempthorne, Navajo Nation 

President Joe Shirley, Jr. and Hopi Vice Chairman Todd 

Honyaoma signed a historic Navajo-Hopi Intergovernmental Compact, resolving a 40-year-old conflict over tribal land in northeastern Arizona. Mr. Gidner’s full testimony is available in the 

Committee records for the hearing. 

CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW

In compliance with subsection 12 of rule XXVI of the Standing 

Rules of the Senate, changes in existing law made by S. 531, as reported, are shown as follows: existing law proposed to be omitted 

is enclosed in black brackets, new matter is printed in italic, existing law in which no change is proposed is shown in roman. Enactment of S. 531 would make the following changes to existing law: 

Public Law 93–531 

AN ACT Relating to the conflicting rights of the Navajo and Hopi tribes of Arizona. 

* * * * * * * 

(e) TRIBAL JURISDICTION OVER PARTITIONED LANDS.—

(1) Lands partitioned pursuant to this subchapter, whether 

or not the partition order is subject to appeal, shall be subject 

to the jurisdiction of the tribe to whom partitioned and the 

laws of such tribe shall apply to such partitioned lands under 

the following schedule: 

(A) Effective ninety days after July 8, 1980, all conservation practices, including grazing control and range restoration activities, shall be coordinated and executed with the 

concurrence of the tribe to whom the particular lands in 

question have been partitioned, and all such grazing and 

range restoration matters on the Navajo Reservation lands 

shall be administered by the Bureau of Indian Affairs Navajo Area Office and on the Hopi Reservation lands by the 

Bureau of Indian Affairs Phoenix Area Office, under applicable laws and regulations. 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
5 

(B) Notwithstanding any provision of law to the contrary, each tribe shall have such jurisdiction and authority 

over any lands partitioned to it and all persons located 

thereon, not in conflict with the laws and regulations referred to in paragraph (A) above, to the same extent as is 

applicable to those other portions of its reservation, Such 

jurisdiction and authority over partitioned lands shall become effective April 18, 1981. 

The provisions of this subsection shall be subject to the responsibility of the Secretary to protect the rights and property of life tenants and persons awaiting relocation as provided in subsections (c) 

and (d) of this section. 

ø(f) DEVELOPMENT OF LANDS IN LITIGATION, EXCEPTION.—

ø(1) Any development of lands in litigation pursuant to section 640d–7 of this title and further defined as ‘‘that portion 

of the Navajo Reservation lying west of the Executive Order 

Reservation of 1882 and bounded on the north and south by 

westerly extensions, to the reservation line, of the northern 

and southern boundaries of said Executive Order Reservation,’’

shall be carried out only upon the written consent of each tribe 

except for the limited areas around the village of Moenkopi 

and around Tuba City. Each such area has been heretofore 

designated by the Secretary. ‘‘Development’’ as used herein 

shall mean any new construction or improvement to the property and further includes public work projects, power and 

water lines, public agency improvements, and associated 

rights-of-way. 

ø(2) Each Indian tribe which receives a written request for 

the consent of the Indian tribe to a particular improvement, 

construction, or other development on the lands to which paragraph (1) applies shall respond in writing to such request by 

no later than the date that is 30 days after the date on which 

the Indian tribe receives the request. If the Indian tribe refuses to consent to the improvement, construction, or other development, the response shall include the reasons why consent 

is being refused. 

ø(3)(A) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to any improvement, 

construction, or other development if—

ø(i) such improvement, construction, or development 

does not involve new housing construction, and 

ø(ii) after the Navajo tribe or Hopi Tribe has refused to 

consent to such improvement, construction, or development 

(or after the close of the 30-day period described in paragraph (2), if the Indian tribe does not respond within such 

period in writing to a written request for such consent), 

the Secretary of the Interior determines that such improvement, construction, or development is necessary for 

the health or safety of the Navajo Tribe, the Hopi Tribe, 

or any individual who is a member of either tribe. 

ø(B) If a written request for a determination described in 

subparagraph (A)(ii) is submitted to the Secretary of the Interior after the Navajo Tribe or Hopi Tribe has refused to consent to any improvement, construction, or development (or 

after the close of the 30-day period described in paragraph (2), 

if the Indian tribe does not respond within such period in writVerDate Aug 31 2005 07:19 Sep 16, 2008 Jkt 069010 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR462.XXX SR462

rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
6 

ing to a written request for such consent), the Secretary shall, 

by no later than the date that is 45 days after the date on 

which such request is submitted to the Secretary, determine 

whether such improvement, construction, or development is 

necessary for the health or safety of the Navajo Tribe, the Hopi 

Tribe, or any individual who is a member of either Tribe. 

ø(C) Any development that is undertaken pursuant to this 

section shall be without prejudice to the rights of the parties 

in the civil action pending before the United States District 

Court for the District of Arizona commenced pursuant to section 640d–7 of this title, as amended.¿ 

* * * * * * * 

Æ 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING