John Conyers: “I am a strong supporter of tribal sovereignty but rise in reluctant opposition to this amendment because it has not been…”

“I am a strong supporter of tribal sovereignty but rise in reluctant opposition to this amendment because it has not been subject to full debate in committee or the House. I would like to articulate the importance of tribal sovereignty. Because Indian tribes are sovereign governments, the U.S. Government has long read the Commerce Clause and the 11th Amendment as upholding the sovereign immunity of tribes. Congress's intent in preserving sovereignty has been recognized even recently; in 1991, in Oklahoma Tax Common v. Potawatomi Tribe, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the long- standing existence and importance of tribal sovereignty: In light of this Court's reaffirmation, in a number of cases, of its longstanding doctrine of tribal sovereign immunity, and Congress' consistent reiteration of its approval of the doctrine in order to promote Indian self- government, self-sufficiency, and economic development, the Court is not disposed to modify or abandon the doctrine [of sovereign immunity]. Tribal sovereignty is and should remain one of the fundamental principles of the United States, and we should not define its parameters in a ten minute debate. The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth). The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes appeared to have it.”