```

[House Report 115-279]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

115th Congress   }                                     {        Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 1st Session     }                                     {       115-279

======================================================================

 
TO REPEAL THE ACT ENTITLED ``AN ACT TO CONFER JURISDICTION ON THE STATE 
 OF IOWA OVER OFFENSES COMMITTED BY OR AGAINST INDIANS ON THE SAC AND 
                        FOX INDIAN RESERVATION''

                                _______
                                

August 29, 2017.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 
              State of the Union and ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

Mr. Bishop of Utah, from the Committee on Natural Resources, submitted 
                             the following

                              R E P O R T

                        [To accompany H.R. 1074]

      [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

    The Committee on Natural Resources, to whom was referred 
the bill (H.R. 1074) to repeal the Act entitled ``An Act to 
confer jurisdiction on the State of Iowa over offenses 
committed by or against Indians on the Sac and Fox Indian 
Reservation'', having considered the same, report favorably 
thereon without amendment and recommend that the bill do pass.

                          Purpose of the Bill

    The purpose of H.R. 1074 is to repeal the Act entitled ``An 
Act to confer jurisdiction on the State of Iowa over offenses 
committed by or against Indians on the Sac and Fox Indian 
Reservation''.

                  Background and Need for Legislation

    The Sac and Fox Tribe of the Mississippi of Iowa live on 
what is known as the Meskwaki Settlement in Tama County, Iowa, 
which houses more than 1,300 enrolled members.\1\ The tribe 
purchased 84 acres of original reservation lands in Iowa in 
1857, but the land was not placed into trust until 1896. 
Pursuant to an Act of Congress (62 Stat. 1161, chapter 759), 
all crimes on the Tribe's land, regardless of the Indian status 
of the offender or victim, fall under the jurisdiction of the 
State of Iowa. H.R. 1074 would rescind this Act and thereby put 
crimes committed by or against Indians on the Tribe's lands 
under federal or tribal jurisdiction in a manner similar to the 
jurisdictional arrangement in most (but not all) Indian 
communities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\Meskwaki Official Site; http://www.meskwaki.org.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Criminal jurisdiction in Indian Country

    Determining who may exercise jurisdiction over crime in 
tribal communities is extremely complex. The first 
consideration in determining jurisdiction over a crime is 
whether it was committed in Indian Country. ``Indian Country,'' 
which is defined in 18 U.S.C. 1151, means all lands and rights-
of-way (regardless of who owns them) within the limits of an 
Indian reservation. The government has interpreted the term to 
include off-reservation lands held in trust for tribes.
    In general, crimes committed by or against Indians in 
Indian Country are under the jurisdiction of the United States, 
pursuant to one or more federal statutes.\2\ Crimes committed 
in Indian Country in which the offender and victim are non-
Indian are under state jurisdiction. Crimes committed by 
Indians in Indian Country may be subject to the jurisdiction of 
a tribe (depending on the kind of crime) or the United States. 
Crimes committed by non-Indians against Indians are under 
federal but not tribal jurisdiction.\3\ One exception to this 
rule is found in Title IX of the Violence Against Women 
Reauthorization Act of 2013 (VAWA, Public Law 113-4). In VAWA, 
Congress recognized the ``inherent power'' of tribes to 
exercise criminal jurisdiction over non-Indians who commit 
certain domestic violence crimes against Indian spouses, dating 
partners, or those with whom the offender has a certain 
relationship. The constitutionality of these provisions has not 
yet been tested before the Supreme Court.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\The General Crimes Act (18 U.S.C. 1152) endows the federal 
government with jurisdiction to prosecute certain federal crimes 
committed by non-Indians against Indians in Indian country. These 
crimes include assault, domestic violence, illegal gun possession, 
stalking, murder or manslaughter (including attempts), aggravated 
sexual abuse, sexual abuse, sexual abuse of a minor or ward, and 
abusive sexual contact. The Assimilative Crimes Act (18 U.S.C. 13) 
authorizes the federal government to try non-Indians in federal court 
for violation of applicable state law.
    \3\In Oliphant v. Suquamish Indian tribe, 435 U.S. 191 (1978), the 
Supreme Court held that tribes lack inherent authority over non-
Indians.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The scope and nature of tribal criminal jurisdiction is 
unique. Because they are not deemed to be parties to the U.S. 
Constitution, tribes are not required to adhere to the 
requirements contained in the Bill of Rights guaranteeing 
certain rights to defendants. Moreover, federal courts have 
opined that an individual can be prosecuted separately by a 
tribe and by the federal government for the same crime without 
violating the Constitution's proscription against double 
jeopardy, as long as the tribe is exercising an ``inherent'' 
power and not one delegated by the federal government.
    While Congress enacted the Indian Civil Rights Act (25 
U.S.C. 1301 et seq.) to require tribes to guarantee to 
defendants basic protections resembling those in the Bill of 
Rights, individuals in a tribe's jurisdiction generally do not 
have to seek review of their tribal conviction, or sentence in 
federal or state court except in narrow circumstances. For 
example, a defendant always has a right to file a habeas corpus 
petition with a federal court, which may determine whether the 
person is unlawfully detained because the individual is not 
Indian or the crime of which an individual is accused did not 
occur in the Indian Country of the tribe.\4\ Tribal sentencing 
powers are limited,\5\ many tribes lack financial resources to 
operate fully functioning justice systems, and tribes are not 
required by federal law to maintain separation between the 
political and judicial branches of their governments. For more 
information, an Indian Country Criminal Jurisdiction Chart is 
available on the U.S. Department of Justice website.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\See Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez, 436 U.S. 49 (1978).
    \5\``[The Tribal Law and Order Act] . . . restored limited felony 
sentencing authority to tribes that meet certain conditions. 
Specifically, TLOA allows tribes to impose sentences of up to three 
years' imprisonment and/or a $15,000 fine per offense for a combined 
maximum sentence of nine years per criminal proceeding. 25 U.S.C. 
1302(b).'' https://www.justice.gov/tribal/file/796981/download.
    \6\https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/usao-wdok/legacy/
2014/03/25/
Indian%20Country%20Criminal%20Jurisdiction%20ChartColor2010.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jurisdiction over crimes in the Sac and Fox Community

    In 1948, Congress granted jurisdiction over all crimes 
committed by or against Indians on the Sac and Fox Reservation 
to the State of Iowa. At that time, there was no mechanism in 
the federal government concerning criminal jurisdiction on the 
Tribe's land, and up until that point the Tribe had largely 
policed itself.
    Congress's transfer of criminal jurisdiction in the Sac and 
Fox tribal community to the State of Iowa was enacted not long 
before similar arrangements were made for reservations in other 
states. In 1953, Congress passed a law commonly called Public 
Law 280,\7\ transferring criminal jurisdiction over all crime 
(regardless of the Indian status of offender and victim) in 
Indian Country of six states from the federal government to 
those states.\8\ In 2010, with the passage of the Tribal Law 
and Order Act (Public Law 111-211), tribes residing in these 
``mandatory'' Public Law 280 states could request the U.S. 
Department of Justice to re-assume federal criminal 
jurisdiction over that tribe in Indian Country, though states 
would exercise concurrent jurisdiction, and tribes would 
exercise concurrent jurisdiction where applicable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\Public Law 83-280, August 15, 1953, 18 U.S.C. 1162, 28 U.S.C. 
1360, and 25 U.S.C. 1321-1326.
    \8\California, Minnesota, Nebraska, Oregon, Wisconsin, and Alaska. 
Since 1953, other states have assumed some jurisdiction over crimes 
committed by tribal members on tribal lands.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                            Committee Action

    H.R. 1074 was introduced on February 15, 2017, by 
Congressman Rod Blum (R-IA). The bill was referred to the 
Committee on Natural Resources, and within the Committee to the 
Subcommittee on Indian, Insular and Alaska Native Affairs. On 
June 7, 2017, the Subcommittee held a hearing on the bill. On 
July 25, 2017, the Natural Resources Committee met to consider 
the bill. The Subcommittee was discharged by unanimous consent. 
No amendments were offered, and the bill was ordered favorably 
reported to the House of Representatives by unanimous consent 
on July 26, 2017.

            Committee Oversight Findings and Recommendations

    Regarding clause 2(b)(1) of rule X and clause 3(c)(1) of 
rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the 
Committee on Natural Resources' oversight findings and 
recommendations are reflected in the body of this report.

      Compliance With House Rule XIII and Congressional Budget Act

    1. Cost of Legislation and the Congressional Budget Act. 
With respect to the requirements of clause 3(c)(2) and (3) of 
rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives and 
sections 308(a) and 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 
1974, the Committee has received the following estimate for the 
bill from the Director of the Congressional Budget Office:

                                     U.S. Congress,
                               Congressional Budget Office,
                                    Washington, DC, August 4, 2017.
Hon. Rob Bishop,
Chairman, Committee on Natural Resources,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has 
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 1074, a bill to 
repeal the Act entitled ``An Act to confer jurisdiction on the 
State of Iowa over offenses committed by or against Indians on 
the Sac and Fox Indian Reservation.''
    If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be 
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Robert Reese.
            Sincerely,
                                                        Keith Hall.
    Enclosure.

H.R. 1074--A bill to repeal the Act entitled ``An Act to confer 
        jurisdiction on the State of Iowa over offenses committed by or 
        against Indians on the Sac and Fox Indian Reservation''

    H.R. 1074 would repeal a 1948 law that gave the state of 
Iowa jurisdiction over criminal offenses committed by or 
against Indians on the Sac and Fox Indian Reservation; thus 
criminal jurisdiction would revert to either the Sac and Fox 
Nation or the federal government.
    As a result of the repeal, the Sac and Fox Nation would be 
eligible for funding from the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) to 
equip and run its existing tribal court, law enforcement 
operations, and detention facility. The amount of such funding 
would depend on how much assistance the tribe would request 
after enactment. Based on information from BIA reports on the 
funding provided to tribes of a similar size, CBO estimates 
that the tribe would be eligible for up to $7 million a year in 
assistance; that spending would be subject to the availability 
of appropriated funds. However, based on testimony and public 
statements from BIA and the tribe about the amount of 
assistance the tribe intends to apply for, CBO estimates that 
implementing H.R. 1074 would have no significant federal cost 
over the 2018-2022 period.
    Enacting H.R. 1074 would not affect direct spending or 
revenues; therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures do not apply. CBO 
estimates that enacting the legislation would not increase net 
direct spending or on-budget deficits in any of the four 
consecutive 10-year periods beginning in 2028.
    H.R. 1074 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector 
mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act.
    On June 2, 2017, CBO transmitted a cost estimate for S. 
381, as ordered reported by the Senate Committee on Indian 
Affairs on March 29, 2017. S. 381 is similar to H.R. 1074 and 
CBO's estimates of their budgetary effects are the same.
    The CBO staff contact for this estimate is Robert Reese. 
The estimate was approved by H. Samuel Papenfuss, Deputy 
Assistant Director for Budget Analysis.
    2. General Performance Goals and Objectives. As required by 
clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII, the general performance goal or 
objective of this bill is to repeal the Act entitled ``An Act 
to confer jurisdiction on the State of Iowa over offenses 
committed by or against Indians on the Sac and Fox Indian 
Reservation''.

                           Earmark Statement

    This bill does not contain any Congressional earmarks, 
limited tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits as defined 
under clause 9(e), 9(f), and 9(g) of rule XXI of the Rules of 
the House of Representatives.

                    Compliance With Public Law 104-4

    This bill contains no unfunded mandates.

                       Compliance With H. Res. 5

    Directed Rule Making. This bill does not contain any 
directed rule makings.
    Duplication of Existing Programs. This bill does not 
establish or reauthorize a program of the federal government 
known to be duplicative of another program. Such program was 
not included in any report from the Government Accountability 
Office to Congress pursuant to section 21 of Public Law 111-139 
or identified in the most recent Catalog of Federal Domestic 
Assistance published pursuant to the Federal Program 
Information Act (Public Law 95-220, as amended by Public Law 
98-169) as relating to other programs.

                Preemption of State, Local or Tribal Law

    This bill is not intended to preempt any State, local or 
tribal law.

         Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported

  In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of 
the House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by 
the bill, as reported, are shown as follows (existing law 
proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets and 
existing law in which no change is proposed is shown in roman):

                          ACT OF JUNE 30, 1948

                        (Public Law Chapter 759)

   AN ACT to confer jurisdiction on the State of Iowa over offenses 
 committed by or against Indians on the Sac and Fox Indian Reservation

   Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
the United States of America in Congress assembled, [That 
jurisdiction is hereby conferred on the State of Iowa over 
offenses committed by or against Indians on the Sac and Fox 
Indian Reservation in that State to the same extent as its 
courts have jurisdiction generally over offenses committed 
within said State outside of any Indian reservation: Provided, 
however, That nothing herein contained shall deprive the courts 
of the United States of jurisdiction over offenses defined by 
the laws of the United States committed by or against Indians 
on Indian reservations.]

                                  [all]
```