Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., chairman of the committee, was not pleased at the administration's change in position. He said the amendment was "consistent" with the law's original intent.After the hearing, a McCain aide said the amendment was mum when it came to whether it could be retroactively applied to Kennewick Man, adding that the committee had received differing opinions from lawyers.
Asked whether a compromise was possible, McCain told reporters, "You can't forget that the desecration of Indian remains was a common and obscene practice for centuries. This (Kennewick Man) is kind of a unique situation. But for us to do anything that would undermine our ability to finally prevent that kind of disgraceful practice is something we want to prevent."
Well, John, you've got the right tools of vocabulary here. "Common", "Indian", "unique". It's a start. Put them all together logically, and you've got this figured out. These unique remains do not share the properties held in common by the Indian remains covered by NAGPRA.
The word "obscene" can also be usefully applied to other, more modern, political practices.
*Interior has - surprisingly, considering its former actions - come out against the amendment. This return to reason is, naturally, being spun as yet another government betrayal of American Indians. It is no such thing.
(More Kennewick/NAGPRA.)