Navajo Times, 3/01/00
Sen. John McCain addresses Dineh HPL concerns, issues
By WENDY R. YOUNG
Navajo Times Correspondent
TUCSON, March 10, 2000
As Senator McCain traveled the country on his campaign for
presidency,
people in various cities who have heard about the Navajo relocation
problem
raised the issue.
In Tucson last month, Dineh HPL residents held a press
conference calling on McCain for support and accountability. In
correspondence with the Navajo Times this week, Senator McCain
addressed
some long-time concerns of Dineh HPL residents.
Since Congress passed the Relocation Act in 1974,
Dineh HPL
residents and the Navajo Nation have repeatedly approached Congress
to
repeal it. McCain stands by the original partition and subsequent
laws.
It is widely recognized that repeal of the 1974
Act will not
lead to a resolution of the disputes. Prior to the 1974 Act, each
tribe had
an equal right to use and occupy the 1882 Reservation outside
of District
Six. After many years of negotiation and mediation, no agreement
was reached
to allow for equal use and occupancy. That was the reason for
the partition
of the 1882 Reservation in the 1974 Act which Senator Goldwater
and
Representative Udall sponsored.
Repeal would lead to a return to the failed
policy of joint use
and lead to more conflict
The Congress has approved the
transfer of
hundreds of thousands of acres of federal lands to both tribes
and has
appropriated hundreds of millions of dollars for replacement housing.
Any
effort to repeal the settlement legislation would cause many in
Congress to
insist on the return of the federal lands and raise questions
about whether
the replacement homes should be paid for by the tribes. In the
case of the
Navajo Nation, more than 3,000 homes will have been provided and
about
250,000 acres of lands have already been transferred to the tribe.
This long-standing land dispute had to reach
some resolution,
as recognized by most of the Navajo and Hopi people. I do not
believe a
repeal of the 1974 or 1996 laws will improve the resolution of
the disputes,
only more heartbreak and legal confusion. Senator Goldwater and
Representative Udall sought the same resolution through enactment
of the
1974 Act that I did when I worked on legislation which became
the 1996 Act.
Any U.S. citizen can ask Congress or the courts
to evaluate the
law. The courts have consistently upheld the settlement acts.
The Congress
will continue to review the implementation of these laws, including
the
provision of relocation benefits and the Accommodation Agreement.
In December, Navajo Nation President Kelsey Begaye
informed
Dineh HPL residents that although relocation is wrong, repeal
at this point
is very unlikely. Attorneys for the Manybeads lawsuit, now before
the 9th
Circuit Court of Appeals, have taken the position that the 1974
and 1996
laws are unconstitutional because they violate the religious freedom
of the
Dineh HPL residents by allowing for forced eviction.
McCain emphasizes, It is my understanding that
individuals who
still oppose the settlement of the land disputes are calling for
a repeal of
the 1974 and 1996 Acts. In my view, this would not be the wise
course of
action. Repeal would condemn the members of both tribes and their
children
to re-live these disputes indefinitely.
From the Manybeads hearings of February 1997, the
federal judge
was to determine the fairness of the Accommodation Agreement,
the negotiated
settlement to the suit which McCain had already introduced and
passed
through Congress into Public Law 104-301 in October 1996. The
four-volume
court transcript is filled chiefly by court testimony from Dineh
HPL
residents who were in opposition to the lease with the Hopi Tribe.
The AA
was withdrawn as the Manybeads settlement before the judge issued
a decision
on its fairness. Now the lawsuit continues from its pre-negotiations
appeal
status and the AA is enforced as federal law.
Copyright 1999-2000 The Navajo Times