United States. Congress. Senate. Committee on Indi.

Navajo-Hopi Relocation Housing Program : hearing before the Committee on Indian Affairs, United States Senate, One Hundred Fourth Congress, first session, on S. 349 ... March 15, 1995, Washington, DC online

. (page 10 of 11)
Online LibraryUnited States. Congress. Senate. Committee on IndiNavajo-Hopi Relocation Housing Program : hearing before the Committee on Indian Affairs, United States Senate, One Hundred Fourth Congress, first session, on S. 349 ... March 15, 1995, Washington, DC → online text (page 10 of 11)
Font size
QR-code for this ebook


Hydrogeology of the Spurlock Ranch Apache County, Arizona CH2M Hill (Larry
D. Agenbroad), August 1985.

Preliminary Reserve Analysis of the De-Na-Zin Coal Resource Area , CH2M
Hill, August 1985.

Hydrogeologic Analysis of the Spurlock Ranch and the Rio Puerco , Larry D.
Agenbroad, September 1985. ~~

Preliminary Siting of Rural Communities on the New Lands , CH2MHin,
September 1985.

Planning for the New Lands — Policy Options and Synopsis of Comments ,
CH2M Hill, October 1985.

Water Quality Investigation, Western Technologies, Inc., October 1985.

Non-Alluvial Water Quantity for Cotimunlty Sites 1, 5, 6; Water Quality
Data and Ground Water Conditions Presentation on New Lands for Navajo
Relocation , Larry D. Agenbroad, October 1985.

Preliminary Range Management Plan for Range Units on the Former Wallace
Ranch , Bureau of Indian Affairs: Branch of the Navajo Partitioned Lands,
October 1985.

Hardrock Farm Co-op [Brochure] , Pro-Ag, Margaret Takaki , June 1986.

Range Management Planning for the New Lands , Donovan H. Lyngholm, June 30,

Home Maintenance Manual , Northern Arizona University: Arizona Center for
Vocational Education, November 1986.

Navajo Nation: Hardrock Chapter Farming Cooperative Development and
Training Publication , Pro-Ag, Margaret Takaki, December 1986.

New Lands: Resource s with Potential Use as Community Facilities , CH2M
Hin, Hay 1^87.

Draft Rural Community Design Report , CH2M Hill, November 5, 1987.

Economic Development Prospectus: Navajo, Chambers. Sanders, Houck, Lupton,
and Wide Ruins , Spectrum Associates, January 1988.

Hopit Tunatya'at — Hopi Comprehensive Development Plan Part I: Summary,
Goals, and Policies, Hopi Tribe, March 1988. Work performed by CH2M Hill.



104



Funded by a grant from the Administration for Native Americans and
task-specific contracts from the Commission.

Hopit Tunatya'at - Hopi Comprehensive Development Plan Part II:
Background Information and Resources Inventory , Hopi Tribe, March 1988.
Work performed by CH2M Hill. Funded by a grant from the Administration for
Native Americans and task-specific contracts from the Commission.

High School Site Identification Within the Rural Community . CH2M Hill,
November 1988.

Navajo County Post-Move Services Program Newsletter , Community Counseling
Centers, Inc., Number 1 Winter 1988, Number 2 Spring 1989, Number 3 Summer
1989, Number 4 Fall 1989, and Number 5 Winter 1989. Funded by the
Commission.

NACA Post-Move Services Newsletter , Native Americans for Community Action,
Number 1 Spring 1989, Number 2 Summer 1989, and Number 3 Fall 1989. Funded
by the Conmission.

Identification of Potentially Suitable Sites for Commercial and Industrial
Developments on the New Lands . CH2M Hill, February. 1990.

The Impact of Navajo-Hpi Land Dispute on Teesto Chapter , NCC, 1979

Economic Implications of Navajo Livestock Reduction , Wood, 1980.

An Environment Created from an Environment Destroyed: Analysis of the 1981
Interviews of Navajos Living on the Hopi Partitioned Lands , Johnson-Conner,
1983.

Federal Resolution of the Navajo-Hopi Land Dispute: An Attack on Cultural
Integrity , Wenokur. 1983.

Final Report: The Effects of Forced Relocation of a Traditional People ,
Joe. 1985.

Preliminary Analysis of Interviews Conducted with Three Family Groups
Living on and Adjacent to Hopi Partitioned Lands , Johson-Conner, 1985.

Study of Navajo Urban Relocatees , Wood, 1985.

Navajo Relocation from the HPL , Wood, 1986.

Navajo-Hopi Relocation: Mental Health Service Policies and Reservation
Wide Economic Development Plan of Action , Campbell, 1986.

The Tragedy of Navajo Relocation , Aberle. 1986 & 1990.

Navajo-Hopi Resettlement Program . GAO. (Briefing Report to the Honorable
Wayne Owens), 1991.

The Navajo-Hopi Land Dispute and Navajo Relocation . Aberle. 1993.



105



Socioeconomic Response Variation of Navajo to Relocation from the HPL .
Tamir, 1993.

Annual Report of the American Anthropological Association on the Navajo-
Hopi Land Dispute . (Sth. 7th and 9th reports only). 1987. 1990. 1993.

Navajo Forced to Relocate . Parlow.

Review and Evaluation of Navajo and Hopi Relocation Counseling Services ,
McKell, 1979.

Sample Survey of Post-Move Adjustment Questionnaire , Hernandez, 1981.

Summarization of the NACA Post-Move Questionnaire Conducted for Coconino
County Relocatees . Hernandez. 1982.

A Culturally Appropriate Approach to Relocation Planning on the Navajo
Reservation . Snaw-Serdar, 1983.

Navajo and Hopi Relocatees Needs Assessment Project, Phase One Final
Report , City of Winslow, 1985.

Digest of Input Received During Meetings with Relocatees Extended Families
CH2M Hill, 1985.

The Social Impact of Compulsory Relocation on Navajo Relocatees , Leonard,

The Navajo-Hopi Land Dispute: Sale of Replacement Homes by Navajo
P.L. 93-531 Relocatees . Shaw-Serdar & Yazzle. 1986.

Relocating the Navajo and Hopi: History and Economic Impact . Billings &
Shaw-Serdar, 1989.

An Analysis of the Navajo and Hopi Indian Relocation Commission 1986
Survey , Fernandez & Shaw-Serdar. 1989.

Composite Report on Replacement Home Sales in Off-Reservation Communities .
Shaw-Serdar, 1990.

Navajo-Hopi Land Dispute: Impact of Forced Relocation on Navajo Families .
Gilbert, 1977.

Expected Impacts of Compulsory Relocation on Navajos with Special Emphasis
on Relocation from the Former Joint Use Area . Scudder, 1979.

Mental Health Effects of Navajo Relocation in the Former Joint Use Area ,
Topper. 1979.

DNA Report on JUA Relocation . Eberhard. 1979.



106



COSTS OF THE RANGE PROGRAM



ATTAChMENT B



Personnel, Benefits, Travel & Training

Vehicles, Maintenance, & Fuel

Fencing

Wells, Water Tanks, & Pipe Projects

Maintenance of Windmills

EARC Contracts

Other Contracts:

BIA Rangelands Survey

BIA Range Improvements

BIA Cattleguards

Corrals

Francis Day, Range Yard

Furnace

Video

Navajo Nation, Wood Inventory

Squeeze Chutes

Solar Pumps

Warehouse Building

TOTAL

Equipment, other than automobiles:
Well Service Vehicle

TOTAL
All Other Purchases



S4. 556.341*
449.516 ^



750.041



1-333.552
558.979



147.???



578.993

1,420,523

92,047

50,824

7,809

3,590

26,236

52,644

12,926

16,187

32.909



$ 42,714
111.332

S 154.046

i 75.877



TOTAL RAN6E COSTS 110.320.375

*Inc1udes solid waste personnel, vehicles and containers.



107

ATTACHMENT
INFRASTRUCTURE ON THE NEW LANDS



Argh^eoiQqy


J 5, §2?, 415


W4t?r:




IHS (Not including funds given to IHS directly




by Congress)


S 496,000


NTUA


86,211


USGS


115,800


Other Contractors


17.700


TOTAL


$ 715.711


BIA


$20,680,000


Paving Contractors


6,798,116


Major Subcontractors


3,385,035


Equipment


436,268


Bureau of Reclamation


426,325


CH2M Hill


465,770


Other Contractors


715.626


TOTAL


$32,907,140


Electricity:




COEC:




Parker Draw & Silversmith


$ 1,042


Antelope Wells


29,556


East Mill


69,962


Flowing Wells


73,008


Rim


90,033


Rural Community


70,907


Silversmith


22,889


Hogan Well


137,200


Hard Scrabble


92,425


Blue Bird


83,715


Parker Draw


16,006


Middle Well


33,810


Antelope Well


25,410


Barth Lake


41,745


North Well


49,335


Industrial Building


21,273


3-Heta1 Building


10,730


Santa Fe Shop


8,055


Miscellaneous


19.815


US West


162,732


4 States Electric


82.133


TOTAL


$ 1,141.511


Communitv Develonment:




CH2M Hill


5 ?,g§5,§5§



108



ATTACHMENT B



(INFRASTRUCTURE ON THE NEW LANDS, Page 2, cont.)

Other :

Sanders Old High School $ 565,574

USGS Little Puerco Radiation Study 2,132,900

BLM Cadastral Survey 3,580,000

New Lands Community Center 1,109,475

Industrial Building 1,899,745

3 Office Buildings 1,244,205

Painted Desert Inn Cleanup 403,521

Navajo Travel Center 350,000

Bus Shelters 7,886

Police Station Equipment 12,496

Rodeo Arena 356,947

Headstart Building 585,770

Juvenile Probation Officer 29,912

Pen Rob Landfill Costs 47,898

Other Contracts 45.192

TOTAL S12. 371.521

TOTAL NEW LANDS INFRASTRUCTURE OBLIGATIONS S55.830.154



109



"ACHMENT B



INFRASTRUCTURE ON THE RESERVATION (Other Than New Lands)

Archaeology :

ONLA $1,292,268

Navajo-Nation-various 1,866,822

BLM Cultural Resource Study 250,000

Various archaeology contractors 33.221



TOTAL



Water



IHS Projects:

FY 83 $ 204,000

South Pinon 920,000

East Hardrock 684,000

Dinnebito 494,000

Low Mountain 1,306,000

Hardrock 485,715

Teesto-2 agreements 319,499

Tuba City-4 agreements 438,045

Red lake 26,244

Shonto 70,000

Cliff Springs 275,000

Spider Mound 1,000,000

A-38 Project 989,000

LeChee 145,000

NA 94-652 Project 1,098,000

Coalmine 164,000

Transfer Station 59,000

Jeddito 176,000

Hardrock 628,700

Low Mountain 250.000

9,732,203

Various Contracts 32.382

TOTAL t9. 764. 585



Rpads:








Tuba City Subdivision






$2,678,301


Electricity (exiudina individual cl


i?nt


infrastructure):




NTUA Projects:








FY 83 Grid Electric






$ 68,320


Toyei






56,590


Lower Greasewood






63,314


Greasewood






21,734


Tolani






43,373


Red lake






5,554


Jeddito






21,007


Forest Lake






5,488


Burnt Corn






16,783


Burnt Corn






69,121


Pinon






118,769



110



ATTACHMENT B



(INFRASTRUCTURE ON THE RESERVATION (Other Than New Lands), Pg 2, cont.)

Jeddito 36,563

Birdsprlngs 79.766

606,383

Tuba City Electricity-Subdivision 170.982

TOTAL S 777.365

Qltier:

Payments to Navajo Tribe:

FY 82 Coalmine Chapter Grant $ 9,000

Travel 19,465

Turquoise Trail Grant 1,032

FY 83 Land Selection 54,325

Pinon Shopping Center 150,000

Hardrock Senior Citizen Center 150,000

Forest Lakes Senior Citizen Center 150,000

White Cone Senior Citizen Center 150,000

Pinon Project Planning Office 45,000

NHA - LeChee 400,011

- Tuba City 160,000

Emergency Assistance Grants 43,491

Mediation Grant 8,000

BIA - HPL Survey 316,217

NACA - Health Clinic 25,000
Comnunity Development:

CH2M Hill Engineering 398,319

David Sloan Architects 13.597

TOTAL S2. 093. 457

TOTAL PAYMENTS EXCLUDING CLIENTS $16.077.718



Ill



AT'ACHMENT B



ONHIR CONTRIBUTION TO NTUA FOR POWER LINES

Chaoter/Communitv Amount of Funds

Whippoorwin $ 2,621.18

Jeddito (Line A) 117,747.15

Lower Greasewood 127,844.00

Tolanl Lake-Phase IV 62,231.00

Whitecone-Phase III 152.203.37

Forest Lake 31.075.00

Red Lake-SE 112,446.96

Jeddito (Toyei-NW) 125,862.96

Whitecone-Phasell 5,488.00

Pinon (Burnt Corn II) 83.977.00

Hardrock-Line A 714.015.00

Low Mountain-Phase V 65,043.85

Whippoorwill (E. & W.) 19.500.00

Shonto-Line F 20,329.76

Whippoorwill (Phase lA) 15.787.94

Whippoorwill (Phase IB) 17.920.28

Pinon (Southwest) 129.620.00

Birdsprings (Phase I) 79.766.00

TOTAL CONTRIBUTION $1,883,479.45

PENDING POWER LINE PROJECTS

Tonalea (Group Move) $ 187.825.57

Tonalea-Coalmine Mesa 850,000.00

Plus proposed business sites and chapter facilities

PROPOSED POWER LINE PROJECTS

Oilkon $ 72,540.21 8.84 18

Tonalea (Cow Springs N.) 378,000.00 - - *

Steamboat 60,000.00 - - *

♦Only ONHIR contributed to the project on behalf of ONHIR clients.



Miles


No. Families


4.21


10


4.67


13


25.00


51


8.00


23


5.86


26*


9.78


24


15.00


15*


15.30


40


20.49


44


10.90


98


8.06


24


4.66


27


9.93


60


1.44


07*


1.00


07*


1.00


07*


45.23


97


15,85


_52


206.39


625


9.38


15*


22.00


150



112



ATTACHMENT C



GAO



United Stmtcs

General Accounting OSlce

Waakln«ton, O.C. 20S48



Bcaoorce*. Coauaomlty, and
Economic Development Dtviaion

B-260985
;^ril 27, 1995



The HonoraJDle Ralph Regula

Chainnan

The Honorable Sidney R. Yates

Ranking Minority Member

Subconmittee on Interior

and Related Agencies
Committee on Appropriations
House o£ Representatives

More than a century ago, a dispute originated between the
Navajo and Hopi tribes over reservation land in
northeastern Arizona. Members o£ both tribes lived in the
disputed area, and conflicts arose over grazing and other
uses of the land. On December 22, 1974, the Congress
enacted the Navajo-Hopi Land Settlement Act (P.L. 93-531)
to resolve the dispute by authorizing the relocation c£
Navajo and Hopi families that were living on land
belonging to the other tribe. The Navajo and Hopi Indian
Relocation Commission (now called the Relocation Office)
was established to plan and inclement a relocation
program. Since fiscal year 1976, the Congress has
appropriated aliDOSt $357 million for the Relocation Office
to certify that program applicants are eligible for
assistance, to acquire land and housing, and to provide
counseling services. Applicants found to be ineligible
for assistance can ask for a review of the decision by the
Relocation Office. If they are dissatisfied with the
Office's ruling, they can seek further review in a U.S.
district court.

To address your Committee's concern about the seemingly
slow pace of relocations, we agreed to determine

— whether the Relocation Office certified more families
for benefits than it relocated in calendar yezu: 1994
and. if so, why and

- how many families remained to be relocated or certified
as of December 31, 1994.



aMO/weMD-95-lS5ti ■■Tnje-Bopl tolocktioa ProgxaM



113



B-260985

In siiinmary, we found that as of December 31, 1994, 4,507
families had applied for relocation assistance, 3,302
families were certified for benefits, and 2,560 families
had been relocated. In calendar year 1994, the Relocatior
Office certified more families for benefits (160) than it
relocated (102). Certifications outnumbered relocations
primarily because previous determinations of ineligibilif..
were reversed and relocation is a slow process. As of
December 31, 1994, 742 families certified for relocation
assistance had not been relocated. Another 660 families
found to be ineligible for assistance could have their
original determination of ineligibility overturned during
review, ma)cing them eligible for assistance. According re
Relocation Office officials, up to 100 additional Nava:io
f£unilies have never applied for assistance but may be
eligible if they request assistance.

BACKGROUND

Although the relocation process is complex, it involves
only two major steps: certification of eligibility for
assistance and relocation. To be certified as eligible 'o\
the Relocation Office's certification officer, an
applicant must meet the program's criteria for being a
resident and the head of a household. To meet the first
criterion, the applicant must have been a legal resident'
of the disputed land on December 22, 1974 (the date of the
Settlement Act) , and must not have moved there within the
previous year. Generally, to meet the second criterion,
the applicant must speak for or be responsible for all
members of the household and must have acted in such
capacity on or before July 7, 1986.^ However, an
applicamt can later become the head of the household
through circumstauices such as a divorce or the death of
the previous head of the household.



^o be a 'legal resident,* an applicant need not have
resided continuously on the land but must have maintained
substantial, recurring contact with an identifiable
homes ite.

^In October 1984, the Congress imposed a July 1985
deadline for the receipt of relocation program
applications; this deadline was subsequently challenged
and, by court order, postponed to July 7, 1986.

2 O&O/tOD-SS-lSSa ■Kvmjo-Bopi Raloemtion Progra:



114

B-260995

ReviewinQ Determinations of Ineliqibirlity

An applicant who is found ineligible for the progr2mi may
ask for a review of the decision within the Relocation
Office by the Office's hearing officer. This review must
be requested within 60 days of the initial determination
of ineligibility. The Office's review process entails an
explanatory conference, a hearing, and an internal review.
At any of these stages, the Office can uphold or reverse a
determination of ineligibility. Also, at any stage of the
review process, an applicant can choose to be represented
by an attorney, who will be provided by the Navajo Nation
or the Hopi Tribe.

An applicant who disagrees with the outcome of the
Relocation Office's review may pursue a further review of
the case in a U.S. district court. The applicant must do
so, however, within 6 years of the Relocation Office's
final decision. According to Relocation Office officials,
court decisions have relaxed some of the Office's previous
procedures for determining eligibility and, in some cases,
have required the Office to reconsider an applicant's
eligibility. For example, a district court recognized
that some applicemts had not received notice that their
eligibility for the program had been denied and,
therefore, they could not file a timely request for
review. Accordingly, by order of the district court, the
Office reconsidered the cases of nearly 800 applicants
whom it had previously found ineligible.

In other cases, when applicants notified the Office that
they intended to request a judicial review of the Office's
determination of ineligibility, these determinations were
again reviewed and then administratively reversed at the
recommendation of the U.S. attorney. The U.S. attorney's
recomnendation was based on counsel's judgment that the
Relocation Office could not legally defend its
determination of ineligibility. For example, the U.S.
attorney said that, in some cases, the Office had no
legally defensible basis for questioning the word of
applicants who had attested to meeting the criteria for
eligibility. In such cases, the U.S. attorney recommended
that the Office reverse its determination of
ineligibility.

Relocating Faunilies

Once an applicant has been certified as eligible for
relocation, the Relocation Office assigns the family a
counselor, who helps the family with the process of

3 OkO/KCXD-fS-lSSB ■■Tsjo-Bopi Kaloeation Prograa



115



B-260985

relocation. First, a counselor discusses with the family
the area in which it wishes to live. For exeunple, some
families may desire to stay on reservation leuid; other
families may wish to move outside the reservation. Once
the family has decided where it wamts to relocate, the
counselor helps it acquire the homesite. For families who
wish to be on the reservation, the land must be leased
from the tribe that owns it. For families who want to
move off the reservation, the homesite must be purchased.
Once this is done, other Office staff help the family
acquire housing (either build a home or purchase an
existing one) ; the house is paid for by the prograun. Ones
the family has moved into its new home, with financial
assistance from the program, a counselor provides advice
and assistauice to help the family adjust to life in the
new conminity.

OVERVIEW OF PROGRAM'S RESULTS

As of December 31, 1994, 4,507 Navajo and Hopi families
had applied for relocation benefits. Of these, 3,302 had
been certified as eligible for assistance, and 2,560 cf
the certified families had been relocated. Another 1,205
applicants were determined to be ineligible for benefits.
Of these, 346 had not requested a review of the
determination and cannot do so now because the deadline
for such a request has passed. The other 859 applicants
requested a review of the determination of ineligibility.
For 199 of these applicants, the request for a review was
rejected, the review was dropped, or the time for further
review has eaqpired. For the remaining 660 applicants, the
original determination of ineligibility could still be
overturned, making them eligible for relocation benefits.
For 302 of these applicants, the review is still ongoing
within the Relocation Office. For the remaining 3 58
applicants, the review has been completed within the
Office but further review in a U.S. district court remains
an option.

NUMBER OP CERTIFICATIONS AMP
RELOCATIONS IN 1994

In 1994, the number of certifications exceeded the number
of relocations for the first time since 1985.
Specifically, the Relocation Office certified 160 families
and relocated 102. In each of the 8 previous years, the
number of relocations exceeded the number of
certifications. Figure 1 shows the pattern of
certifications and relocations from calendar years 1977
through 1994.

4 aU>/BCB>-9S-15SS ■Wkjo-Hepi KalocACioa Prograi



116



B-260985

Figure 1: Certifications and Relocations. 1977-94



!=as-














"^■^"^


M






A




i






■•






/\




A






IW






/ \




/\






m






/ \




/ \






m






/ \




/ \






m






/ \




/ \













/ \




' \






m






/ \


i


\






m




/N.


/ \


/


1


V" V^::>




IM




/ ^


J ^


\J




,0^


«




/.^—


*~^*._—




^


-SS


B^'


^^^^






^


J


imr




m i»>» 1


■• "■ "■


IMi 1«M


,m 1








_


Canha






























4



According to Relocation Office officials, certifications
outnumbered relocations in 1994 primarily because the
Office reviewed and reversed many of its past decisions o£
ineligibility. Of the 160 families certified in 1994, 157
were certified on the basis of such a reversal. Of these
157 reversals, 69 resulted from a review within the
Office; the other 88 resulted from an administrative
reversal recommended by the U.S. attorney. The remaining
three certifications were new, resulting from a change in
circiimstances (e.g., a divorce).

According to program officials, 1994 was not the only year
when many determinations of ineligibility were reversed.
Figure 2 shows the number of certifications resulting from
reviews and administrative reversals during calendar years
1981 through 1994.



-9S-1SSK ■■vsjo-lopi Raioeatloa Pxograa



117



B-260985

Figure 2: Certificati ons Rpsultina From Reviews and
Administrative Reversals. 1981-94



Certifications also outnumbered relocations in 1994
because the relocation process is slow. According to
Relocation Office officials, relocation is often lengthy
and lags behind certification. For example, half of the
families that the Office relocated in 1994 had been
certified between 1981 and 1989. According to Office
staff, the speed with which a family progresses through
the relocation process depends on many factors. For
example, a Navajo family that wishes to be relocated on
the existing Navajo reservation must obtain a homesite
lease; doing so requires the approval of the family
claiming customary use of the land, the tribal chapter,
and the Navajo Nation. Additionally, the scarcity of
remaining available leuid near the Navajo-Hopi border makes
it more and more difficult for a family to obtain a
homesite lezise on the reservation. And finally, because
the program is voluntary, there is no certainty that an
eligible family will complete the relocation process.

NUMBER OP REMAINING RELOCATIONS
AND CERTIFICATIONS

As of December 31, 1994, 742 families certified for
relocation assistance had not completed the relocation
process. In addition, 302 families were seeking a review
of their determination of ineligibility within the

6 akO/ICSD-9S-15SK BaTAJo-aepi Relocation Program



118



B-260985

Relocation Office, and another 358 families whose
determination of ineligibility was not reversed by the
Relocation Office could pursue their request for
relocation assistance through a U.S. district court.
Thus, some of these 660 families could have their original
determination of ineligibility overturned, causing them to
be certified and therefore eligible for relocation
assistance. In addition. Relocation Office officials
estimate that 50 to 100 Navajo families on Hopi lands have
never applied for relocation benefits but may be eligible
if they request assistance.

SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY

We obtained the information in this report from reviews of
documents and clients' records and from interviews with
officials at the Office of Navajo and Hopi Indian
Relocation at Flagstaff, Arizona. We visited the Hopi and
the Navajo reservations, where we met with representatives
of both tribes. We conducted our review between August
1994 and March 1995 in accordance with generally accepted
government auditing standards.

We discussed the contents of this report with the


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 10

Online LibraryUnited States. Congress. Senate. Committee on IndiNavajo-Hopi Relocation Housing Program : hearing before the Committee on Indian Affairs, United States Senate, One Hundred Fourth Congress, first session, on S. 349 ... March 15, 1995, Washington, DC → online text (page 10 of 11)