I think what must be emphasized here is the issue of sovereignty. These are sovereign tribes. They do have sovereign rights. They have the right to approach the Federal Government when they negotiate on an equal basis, and yet the thrust of this amendment is to put a limitation on the Secretary from taking lands into the reservation unless there is a binding agreement between the tribes, States, and local governments that would require the tribe to pay State and local taxes on reservation lands; in other words, unless they give up their sovereignty, unless we limit that sovereignty for this purpose. So they are not going into some negotiation on an equal basis when not one but both hands are tied behind their back, as this amendment would do. I think it is very important to keep that in mind.
On the recordJuly 15, 1997
Source
govinfo.govEditor's note · Context
Discussing the implications of an amendment affecting tribal sovereignty during a House debate.
Share
More from Jim Kolbe
Jul 24, 2001
I understand how strongly she feels about this issue. I also feel strongly about the people of the Ukraine and their rights to have a free and an open society. Mr. Chairman, this bill does not signal an abandonment of Ukraine. Let me note…
Jul 17, 2002
reclaiming my time, since I think my time is limited at this point, I would just say that it is in litigation, but it is not exactly the first time that the Congress of the United States has stepped in when there has been litigation to try…
May 3, 2017
If you fold it into the State Department completely, what you are doing is you are subjecting it to the political considerations.





