69–006 

1Meskwaki Official Site; http://www.meskwaki.org. 

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 

2 

2The 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. 4See Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez, 436 U.S. 49 (1978). 

similar to the jurisdictional arrangement in most (but not all) Indian communities. 

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. 

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 

3 

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. 6https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/usao-wdok/legacy/2014/03/25/ 

Indian%20Country%20Criminal%20Jurisdiction%20ChartColor2010.pdf. 7Public 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. 

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

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. 

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. 

4 

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. 

5 

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, øThat jurisdiction 

is hereby conferred on the State of Iowa over offenses committed 

by or against Indians on the Sac and Fox Indian Reservation in 

6 

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.¿ 

Æ