Attack on tribes' immunity may have to be vetoed
Story-Date: 03:32 a.m. PST Wednesday, September 3, 1997



EDITORIAL

Attack on tribes' immunity may have to be vetoed FEDERAL aid to Indian
tribes is distributed unfairly, but Sen. Slade Gorton's  rewrite of the law
is no solution. And Gorton's attempt to strip tribes of immunity from civil
lawsuits violates treaties and promises.

Without hearings or debate, the Washington Republican slipped two riders
into the $13 billion Interior appropriations bill last month.   Gorton,
chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Interior and Related
Agencies, wants to suspend federal aid to  some tribes based on tribal
income, and end Indian tribes' sovereign status as nations within a nation.

The current aid formula, written in the '30s and amended in the '60s and
'70s, has been distorted by special deals: While some tribes get as much as
$2,000 in support per person, others get less than $100, an Associated
Press analysis showed.

In all, the Bureau of Indian Affairs  provides $681 million to support 554
tribes, representing nearly two million Native Americans. The money funds
tribal governments, paying for social services, law enforcement, land
management, road maintenance and the like.

But Gorton's scheme would penalize well-managed tribes who've raised their
incomes, and is  not supported by even the low-wealth, poorly funded
tribes.

Taking away tribes' sovereign immunity would expose tribal governments to
financially catastrophic lawsuits.  This immunity is similar to the
protection given to federal, state and local government agencies in the
discharge of their normal duties. Individual Native Americans can be sued
in federal court.

These two measures would  ``overturn almost two centuries of
jurisprudence'' said Secretary of the Interior Bruce Babbitt, who said he'd
urge a veto of the bill if these riders remain.

Unfortunately, a veto also would kill $700 million for environmental
purchases, including the Headwaters redwoods in California, and $100
million to keep the National Endowment for the Arts alive. (President
Clinton can use the line-item veto only to cut spending amounts or
special-interest tax breaks, not to blue-pencil policy issues.)

A veto may be necessary. Changes of this magnitude should be discussed and
decided openly, not dictated by one powerful senator.

Sen. Ben Nighthorse Campbell, R-Colorado, the only Native American in the
Senate, vowed that these measures would only be passed over his ``dead
body.''  We agree with Sen. Campbell and wish him a long life.

------------------------------------------------------------