<+>=<+>KOLA Newslist<+>=<+>
 

[article provided by LH. Thanks!]

http://archives.seattletimes.com/cgi-bin/texis/web/vortex/display?storyID=38b00fa46b&query=native+american

Copyright © 1999 The Seattle Times Company
Opinion/Editorials : Sunday, February 20, 2000

The Great Casino Hope: Gambling wealth falls unevenly on Indian nations

by Jim Barnett
Newhouse News Service

If anything is a sure bet in Indian country these days, it's
the lure of gambling. Tribal casinos closed out another
banner year in 1999, raking in nearly $10 billion in
revenues - more than the total spent on tribes by a dozen
federal agencies. Casino money is helping some tribes build
hope on reservations once condemned to despair. Oregon's
Grande Ronde tribe, for example, recently issued $2,800
dividends to members after paying for improvements to
housing and social services.

Most of the nation's 554 tribes, however, have no casinos
and little hope of ever cashing in. Yet they are
experiencing an unpleasant side effect of casino wealth: As
gaming revenues have grown, so have political risks on
Capitol Hill.

As the Clinton administration plans to lobby for increased
spending on tribes, tribal leaders fear they will face a
no-win proposition: Additional federal money may come with
conditions that undermine their governments' hard-won status
as sovereigns.

"It's an attempt to punish based on a perception of
success," said Wayne Shammel, a lawyer for the Cow Creek
Band, which operates a casino in southern Oregon.

"You could hardly call us wealthy," Shammel said. "But
before the advent of gaming, you certainly could call us
destitute. Now, we're just in a position where we feel like
maybe we've got a chance."

At issue are competing notions of federal responsibility to
tribes and their 1.2 million members. It is an intense, if
largely unnoticed, debate that starts each year with money -
or lack of it - and escalates into questions of tribes'
rights as sovereign nations.

Some members of Congress view tribal funding much like
welfare: Once tribes can support themselves through casinos
or other business ventures, they should give up federal
money. A leading advocate of this view is Sen. Slade Gorton,
R-Wash.

"The proper way is that subsidies like this ought to be
based largely on need," said Gorton, a senior member of the
powerful Appropriations Committee, which oversees federal
spending on tribes.

Tribes see their basic federal support from the Bureau of
Indian Affairs more like Social Security. They believe it is
an entitlement, promised by treaties and other acts of
Congress in return for lands and resources handed over to
the federal government.

"They say, `You owe us; look what you took away from us,'"
said Sen. Ben Nighthorse Campbell, R-Colo., chairman of the
Indian Affairs Committee. They lost a hell of a lot more
than they're getting, I'll tell you that."

The cornerstone of federal support for tribes is the BIA's
$1.7 billion budget, much of which goes directly to tribes.
In all, the federal government spends $7.8 billion a year on
tribes, with departments from agriculture to veterans
affairs pitching in.

But tribal governments don't get enough money from Indian
Affairs to perform basic services, according to a recent
bureau report. The report found that tribal governments meet
only a fraction of needs in education, human services,
community development and other areas.

The federal government should start bridging those gaps,
particularly in light of mounting budget surpluses, the
bureau's top officer said.

"What I cannot do is make programs that are inadequately
funded succeed," said Kevin Gover, an American Indian and
assistant secretary of the Department of the Interior, under
which the Bureau of Indian Affairs operates. "In the end, a
lot of these conditions can only be relieved through the
expenditure of real money."
 

Helping the poor

Tribes and their political rivals do agree on one thing: The
system of federal support for tribes needs to be fixed to
help the poorest. But fixing it raises a difficult and
politically explosive question: how do the agencies fairly
and accurately measure the tribes' needs?

Under the current system, no such determination is made. The
bureau's annual payments to each tribe depend on the amount
paid the year before. But those direct payments are based on
decades-old political deals rather than the tribes'
modern-day needs.

Gorton wants to require tribes to submit their business
ledgers for federal review. Federal payments then would be
based on each tribe's relative ability to help itself. It's
the best and fairest way to allocate scarce federal
resources, he said.

But tribal leaders and advocates argue that such a review
amounts to a "means test" and would offend tribes' rights as
sovereign nations. States with lotteries don't have to meet
financial criteria to get federal assistance, they say, so
why should tribes?

Further, tribes see means testing as the top of a slippery
slope. Once Congress knows exactly how much money is made at
American Indian casinos, it's only a matter of time before
that source of wealth is taken away, just as lands were
taken away in the 19th century, they say.

Gover, who surveyed tribal leaders, said that even the
poorest tribes object to a reallocation of bureau funds.
"The sentiment I heard was that if you take from the rich
tribes, someday you set the precedent to allow you to take
it from us," he said.
 

Taking from the rich

Tribes' casino wealth was made possible by the 1988 Indian
Gaming Regulatory Act, which allowed gambling on reservation
land. A recent count found that 200 tribes had gaming
compacts with 26 states, although some casinos operate
without state approval.

The goal of the act was to promote economic development,
liberating tribes from dependence on federal money. In
addition, casino wealth has given tribes means to sharpen
their political skills.

Evidence of tribes' political ascendancy can be found across
the country. Tribes are spending casino profits to challenge
local governments in court, lobby legislatures, and
influence state and federal campaigns.

If some members of Congress want to put limits on
sovereignty, tribal leaders said, it is because they fear
tribes' newly found clout.

"That has to be one of their concerns, that finally tribes
have the resources to seek justice under the laws of this
country," said Don Sampson, executive director of the
Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission in Portland,
Ore.

Back on Capitol Hill, the perennial tribal funding debate
ended in November with a modest boost in the budget of
Indian Affairs. Gorton included some new money for tribes,
including $160,000 for the Snoqualmie Tribe to set up a new
administration.

Also tucked into the Indian Affairs budget was a
three-sentence budget rider that gives the bureau authority
to shift 10 percent of funds from wealthy tribes to poor
ones. The rider, in effect, gives Gover power to perform the
means testing that tribes oppose.

The origin of the rider is disputed, although Gorton's staff
and bureau officials agree it is a watered-down version of a
Gorton proposal offered in 1998. In any case, Gover said,
the rider will not threaten sovereignty because he does not
plan to use its authority.
 

Battle of the budget

But the legislation could be a preview to this year's budget
debate.

In February, the Clinton administration will send Congress
its budget proposal for the 2001 fiscal year. In it, Gover
said, will be a request for a major increase in the Indian
Affairs budget, although he would not reveal the amount.

Gorton does not plan to push for reform of tribal funding
this year unless Gover asks for it, said Cynthia Bergman, a
Gorton aide. While some poor tribes privately approved of
Gorton's previous effort, she said, many reacted negatively.

Nevertheless, tribes fear that a backlash is coming, said
Campbell, the Indian Affairs chairman. Although the 20
largest American Indian casinos account for half of all
revenues, tribes everywhere could be perceived as
undeserving of unconditional federal assistance.

"No question about it," Campbell said, "Indians are scared
to death."

Rather than fight the perception that all tribes are getting
rich, Gover said he would seek more money for programs aimed
at poor American Indians. For example, Gover said he wants
to expand an $18 million housing-improvement fund that gets
$200 million in requests for help.

"I don't consider that means testing," Gover said. "I
consider that targeted investing to needy Indians, and I
think that's good policy."

---
Copyright 2000, Newhouse News Service
Jim Barnett is a staff writer with The Oregonian of
Portland, Ore.
 

<+>=<+>
Information Pages: http://users.skynet.be/kola/index.htm
Online Petition: http://kola-hq.hypermart.net
Greeting Cards: http://users.skynet.be/kola/cards.htm
<+>=<+>
if you want to be removed from the KOLA
Email Newslist, just send us a message with
"unsub" in the subject or text body
<+>=<+>