U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

36-020 PDF 2007

THE NEEDS AND CHALLENGES 

OF TRIBAL LAW ENFORCEMENT 

ON INDIAN RESERVATIONS

OVERSIGHT FIELD HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

Friday, June 1, 2007, in Lower Brule, South Dakota

Serial No. 110-28

Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/index.html 

or 

Committee address: http://resourcescommittee.house.gov 

(II)

COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES 

NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia, Chairman 

DON YOUNG, Alaska, Ranking Republican Member

Dale E. Kildee, Michigan 

Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, American Samoa 

Neil Abercrombie, Hawaii 

Solomon P. Ortiz, Texas 

Frank Pallone, Jr., New Jersey 

Donna M. Christensen, Virgin Islands 

Grace F. Napolitano, California 

Rush D. Holt, New Jersey 

Rau ́l M. Grijalva, Arizona 

Madeleine Z. Bordallo, Guam 

Jim Costa, California 

Dan Boren, Oklahoma 

John P. Sarbanes, Maryland 

George Miller, California 

Edward J. Markey, Massachusetts 

Peter A. DeFazio, Oregon 

Maurice D. Hinchey, New York 

Patrick J. Kennedy, Rhode Island 

Ron Kind, Wisconsin 

Lois Capps, California 

Jay Inslee, Washington 

Mark Udall, Colorado 

Joe Baca, California 

Hilda L. Solis, California 

Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, South Dakota 

Heath Shuler, North Carolina 

Jim Saxton, New Jersey 

Elton Gallegly, California 

John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee 

Wayne T. Gilchrest, Maryland 

Ken Calvert, California 

Chris Cannon, Utah 

Thomas G. Tancredo, Colorado 

Jeff Flake, Arizona 

Stevan Pearce, New Mexico 

Henry E. Brown, Jr., South Carolina 

Luis G. Fortun ̃ o, Puerto Rico 

Cathy McMorris Rodgers, Washington 

Bobby Jindal, Louisiana 

Louie Gohmert, Texas 

Tom Cole, Oklahoma 

Rob Bishop, Utah 

Bill Shuster, Pennsylvania 

Dean Heller, Nevada 

Bill Sali, Idaho 

Doug Lamborn, Colorado 

Vacancy

James H. Zoia, Chief of Staff 

Jeffrey P. Petrich, Chief Counsel 

Lloyd Jones, Republican Staff Director 

Lisa Pittman, Republican Chief Counsel 

(III)

CONTENTS 

Page

Hearing held on Friday, June 1, 2007 ................................................................... 1

Statement of Members: 

Herseth Sandlin, Hon. Stephanie, a Representative in Congress from 

the State of South Dakota ............................................................................ 1

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 3

Statement of Witnesses: 

Bordeaux, Rodney M., President, Rosebud Sioux Tribe, Rosebud, South 

Dakota ............................................................................................................ 39

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 42

Brings Plenty, Joseph, Sr., Chairman, Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, Eagle 

Butte, South Dakota ..................................................................................... 48

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 53

Cournoyer, Robert W., Chairman, Yankton Sioux Tribe, Marty, South 

Dakota ............................................................................................................ 106

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 108

Estes, Ben, Special Agent with the Rosebud Sioux Tribe attached to 

the Northern Plains Drug Task Force ........................................................ 68

Fire Thunder, Cecelia, Coordinator, Cangleska, Inc., Kyle, South Dakota, 

Oral statement of .......................................................................................... 94

Fool Bear, Archie, Chairman, Judicial Committee, Standing Rock Sioux 

Tribe, Fort Yates, North Dakota ................................................................. 109

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 112

Gaikowski, Gary, Chief of Police, Law Enforcement Department, Sisseton 

Wahpeton Oyate, Agency Village, South Dakota ....................................... 58

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 61

Jandreau, Michael B., Chairman, Lower Brule Sioux Tribe, Lower Brule, 

South Dakota ................................................................................................. 9

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 10

Little Shield, Georgia, Director, Pretty Bird Woman House, Standing 

Rock Reservation, McLaughlin, South Dakota ........................................... 89

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 90

Pollack, Carol, Researcher, Amnesty International U.S.A., New York, 

New York ....................................................................................................... 79

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 80

Ragsdale, W. Patrick, Director, Bureau of Indian Affairs, U.S. 

Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C. ........................................... 5

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 6

Steele, John Yellowbird, President, Oglala Sioux Tribe, Pine Ridge, South 

Dakota ............................................................................................................ 30

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 33

‘‘Treaty Tribes Located in the State of South Dakota,’’ Congressional 

Record, dated September 30, 2002 ....................................................... 118

Thompson, Lester, Jr., Chairman, Crow Creek Sioux Tribe, Ft. 

Thompson, South Dakota ............................................................................. 12

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 13

Twiss, James, Chief of Police, Oglala Sioux Tribe, Pine Ridge, South 

Dakota ............................................................................................................ 37

Additional materials supplied: 

Artichoker, Karen, Director, Cangleska, Inc., Kyle, South Dakota, 

Statement submitted for the record ............................................................ 96

Hill, Brenda, Native Co-Chair, South Dakota Coalition Against Domestic 

Violence And Sexual Assault, Pierre, South Dakota, Statement 

submitted for the record ............................................................................... 92

Selvage, Michael I., Sr., Tribal Chairman, Sisseton Wahpeton Oyate, 

Agency Village, South Dakota, Statement submitted for the record ........ 64

(1)

OVERSIGHT FIELD HEARING ON ‘‘THE NEEDS 

AND CHALLENGES OF TRIBAL LAW 

ENFORCEMENT ON INDIAN RESERVATIONS’’

Friday, June 1, 2007

U.S. House of Representatives 

Committee on Natural Resources 

Lower Brule, South Dakota 

The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 12:15 p.m., at the Lower 

Brule Tribal Headquarters, 187 Oyate Circle, Lower Brule, South 

Dakota, Hon. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin presiding. 

Members Present: Representative Herseth Sandlin. 

Staff Present: Cynthia L. Freeman, Clerk, Office of Indian Affairs; Janet Erickson, Counsel; Chris Fluhr, Staff Director; and Phil 

Asmus, Legislative Assistant to Ms. Herseth Sandlin. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. STEPHANIE HERSETH SANDLIN, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF 

SOUTH DAKOTA 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. The House Natural Resources Committee 

field hearing will now come to order. 

Good afternoon to all of you. I’m very pleased to be here today 

to convene this field hearing which follows a string of Natural Resources Committee oversight hearings in Washington, D.C., but has 

the important distinction of being the Committee’s first Native 

American focused field hearing in the 110th Congress. 

Though he isn’t here today, I would like to extend a word of 

thanks to Chairman Nick Rahall for his leadership in this Congress and his willingness to support this. 

I also want to extend my appreciation to Ranking Member Don 

Young of Alaska, who has a long record of service to his state, to 

Alaska Natives, and to all Native Americans. 

Additional thanks are certainly due to the Natural Resources 

Committee staff who worked with my office to schedule, organize, 

and prepare for this hearing. And I want to introduce them, Janet 

Erickson, Cynthia Freeman, Chris Fluhr, and certainly to the 

Lower Brule Sioux Tribe and all of those who worked with us and 

have graciously offered to host this hearing in the beautiful tribal 

headquarters. 

I want to thank each of our witnesses who have taken the time 

to travel here today and who have such important leadership roles 

within their communities and within the administration. 

2

I want to acknowledge and thank Tonya Peterson from Senator 

Johnson’s office as well as Jeannie Faber from Senator Thune’s office and both of our senators for their interest and their dedication 

to these issues as well. 

The focus of today’s hearing is law enforcement in Indian Country and this oversight opportunity is long overdue. I’ve been repeatedly alarmed by reports from tribal leaders across South Dakota 

both during meetings in Washington and through my own travels 

back in the state. 

Last summer, almost one year ago, I toured the jail facilities 

both here in Lower Brule and across the river in Fort Thompson 

on the Crow Creek Indian Reservation. At that time neither tribe 

was left with a working detention facility and I’m deeply troubled 

by the fact that the same situation remains in effect today. 

I look forward to the testimony from our first panel which will 

include testimony from the two tribes so badly affected by this situation as well as from the Bureau of Indian Affairs. 

Beyond the acute gap in detention services on Lower Brule and 

Crow Creek, many tribes in South Dakota and across the country 

are being forced to make due with dilapidated justice facilities literally crumbling around them. The 2004 Interior Inspector General 

report aptly entitled Neither Safe Nor Secure speaks to this broader crisis. 

I expect that the tribal leaders on both our first and second panels will have much to say about their respective situations with respect to both the facilities and other issues like staffing shortages, 

funding shortfalls, and the methamphetamine epidemic. I look forward to their testimony on those problems and, more importantly, 

I look forward to the solutions that they will suggest. 

Certainly the easiest remedy to many of the law enforcement 

shortages and troubles in Indian Country can only be fixed with 

greater financial resources. I am greatly encouraged by early signs 

from the House Interior Appropriations Committee which marked 

out the first draft of the Fiscal Year 2008 funding bill for the Bureau of Indian Affairs last week. That bill must still proceed 

through the full committee but already includes an increase for law 

enforcement services beyond what the President requested which 

itself was an increase over FY ’07 levels. Now, I have no allusions 

that these increases will address all of the unmet needs that are 

well identified, but this progress is certainly welcome. 

In spite of the importance of adequate funding, Congress can and 

must do more than simply appropriate funds when it comes to law 

enforcement in Indian Country. Congress also has an important 

and fundamental oversight role to play ensuring that the Bureau 

of Indian Affairs is delivering the services it is obligated to provide 

transparently, efficiently, and according to the sovereign wishes of 

the tribes it serves. 

These responsibilities are particularly important when considering the scope of the problems faced by Indian communities but 

also because of the special government-to-government relationship 

and obligations created by the history of treaties and the U.S. Constitution itself. 

Earlier this year a researcher from Harvard University, in testimony before the Interior Appropriations subcommittee, shared the 

3

contents of a soon to be published book that examines the economic 

status of Indian Country. There were many encouraging facts. In 

particular, that the last few decades of tribal sovereignty and selfdetermination have been key proponents of economic development 

to counteract the poverty that continues to grip so many reservation communities. 

A Federal policy that supports tribal sovereignty has led to measurable economic gains because it has allowed local tribal leadership 

to flourish rather than, as it has in other times, working to preempt it. While this trend is certainly encouraging as it speaks to 

both the vast potential of Indian Country economy as well as the 

importance of tribal self-determination, its news was delivered with 

one important caveat, a troubling increase in crime threatens to 

halt this progress. 

Native American families, like every other family in the United 

States, deserve to raise their children in a safe environment supported by robust law enforcement services with adequate resources 

and facilities. As resources are allocated from Washington and as 

decisions are being made that affect the services provided to tribes, 

they have a fundamental right to meaningful consultation and the 

free flow of information. 

It is toward these goals that I hope today’s testimony and the accompanying oversight jurisdiction of the House Natural Resources 

Committee brings us closer. 

With all of this in mind, I’m pleased to begin today’s testimony 

by going to our first panel of witnesses. First we’ll hear from Mr. 

Pat Ragsdale, Director of the Bureau of Indian Affairs in Washington, D.C. I appreciate his willingness to travel here today and 

look forward to his testimony. 

Following Mr. Ragsdale’s comments we’ll hear from two distinguished and passionate tribal leaders who will certainly have much 

to say about the state of law enforcement services for the tribal 

members and communities they represent. I’ve greatly appreciated 

both Chairman Jandreau’s and Chairman Thompson’s strong leadership and advocacy on behalf of their tribes and look forward to 

hearing from them as well. 

So let’s begin with the first testimony today on the first panel, 

Mr. Ragsdale, please. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Herseth Sandlin follows:]

Statement of The Honorable Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, a Representative 

in Congress from the State of South Dakota 

Good afternoon. I am very pleased to be here today to convene this field hearing 

which follows a string of Natural Resources Committee oversight hearings in Washington, DC but has the important distinction of being the Committee’s first Native 

American focused field hearing in the 110th Congress. Though he is not here today, 

I would like to thank Chairman Nick Rahall for his leadership in this Congress and 

his willingness to support this hearing and Ranking Member Don Young for his 

many years of leadership on behalf of Native Americans and Alaska Natives. 

Additional thanks are certainly due to the Natural Resources Committee staff, 

and in particular Janet Erickson and Cynthia Freeman from Chairman Rahall’s office and Chris Fluhr from Ranking Member Young’s. From my own staff, I would 

like to thank Laura McNaughton, Phil Assmus Maeve King, and Lesley Kandaras 

who all helped to organize and shape this event. Thanks should also be directed towards the Lower Brule Sioux tribe who graciously offered to host this hearing in 

their beautiful Tribal Headquarters. I would like to thank all of the witnesses who 

have taken the time travel here today and who play important leadership roles 

4

within their own communities. Finally, I would like to recognize Tonya Peterson 

who is here today in our audience representing Senator Tim Johnson and Jeannie 

Faber who is here on behalf of Senator John Thune. 

The focus of today’s hearing is law enforcement in Indian Country and this oversight opportunity is long overdue. I have been repeatedly alarmed by reports from 

tribal leaders across South Dakota both during meetings in Washington and 

through my own travels back in the state. Last summer—almost one year ago—I 

toured the jail facilities both here on Lower Brule and across the River at Fort 

Thompson in Crow Creek. At that time, neither tribe was left with a working detention facility and I am deeply troubled by the fact that the same situation remains 

in effect today. I look forward to the testimony from our first panel which will include testimony from the two tribes so badly affected by this situation as well the 

Bureau of Indian Affairs. 

Beyond the acute gap in detention services on Lower Brule and Crow Creek, 

many tribes in South Dakota and across the Country are being forced to make due 

with dilapidated justice facilities literally crumbling around them. The 2004 Interior 

Inspector General report, aptly entitled ‘‘Neither Safe Nor Secure’’ speaks to this 

broader crisis. I expect that the tribal leaders on both our first and second panels 

will have much to say about their tribe’s respective situations with respect to facilities and other issues like staffing shortages, funding shortfalls, and the methamphetamine epidemic. I look forward to their testimony on those problems and, 

more importantly, I look forward to the solutions they will suggest. 

Certainly, the easiest remedy to many of the law enforcement shortages that trouble Indian Country can only be fixed with greater financial resources. I am greatly 

encouraged by early signs from the House Interior Appropriations Committee which 

marked out the first draft of the Fiscal Year 2008 funding bill for the Bureau of 

Indian Affairs last week. That bill must still proceed through the full committee but 

already includes an increase for law enforcement services beyond what the President requested which itself was an increase over the FY07 level. I have no illusions 

that these increases will address all of the unmet needs that are well identified, but 

this progress is certainly welcome. 

In spite of the importance of adequate funding, Congress can and should do more 

than simply appropriate funds when it comes to law enforcement in Indian Country. 

Congress also has an important and fundamental oversight role to play—ensuring 

that the Bureau of Indian Affairs is delivering the services it is obligated to provide 

transparently, efficiently, and according to the sovereign wishes of the tribes it 

serves. These responsibilities are particularly important when considering the scope 

of the problems faced by Indian communities, but also because of the special government to government relationship and obligations created by a history of treaties and 

the U.S. Constitution itself. 

Earlier this year, a researcher from Harvard University, in testimony before the 

Interior Appropriations Subcommittee shared the contents of a soon to be published 

book that examines the economic status of Indian Country. There were many encouraging facts—in particular, that the last few decades of tribal sovereignty and 

self determination have been key proponents of economic development to counteract 

the poverty that continues to grip so many reservation communities. A federal policy 

that supports tribal sovereignty had led to measurable economic gains because it 

has allowed local tribal leadership to flourish rather than, as it has in other times, 

working to preempt it. While this trend is certainly encouraging—as it speaks to 

both the vast potential of Indian Country economies as well as the importance of 

tribal self-determination, its news was delivered with one important caveat: a troubling increase in crime threatens to halt this progress. 

Native American families—like every other family in the United States—deserve 

to raise their children in a safe environment supported by robust law enforcement 

services with adequate resources and facilities. As resources are allocated from 

Washington and as decisions are being made that affect the services provided to 

tribes, they have a fundamental right to meaningful consultation and the free flow 

of information. It is toward these goals that I hope today’s testimony and the accompanying oversight jurisdiction of the Natural Resources Committee brings us closer. 

With all of this in mind, I am pleased to begin today’s testimony by proceeding 

to our first panel of witnesses. 

First, we will hear from Mr. Pat Ragsdale, Director of the Bureau of Indian Affairs in Washington DC. I appreciate his willingness to travel here today and look 

forward to his testimony. 

Following Mr. Ragsdale’s comments, we will hear from two distinguished and passionate tribal leaders who will certainly have much to say about the state of law 

enforcement services for the tribal members and communities they represent. I have 

greatly appreciated both Chairman Jandreau’s and Chairman Thompson’s strong 

5

leadership and advocacy on behalf of their tribes and look forward to hearing from 

them as well. 

STATEMENT OF MR. W. PATRICK RAGSDALE, DIRECTOR,

BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS 

Mr. RAGSDALE. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

If I may, my full statement has been provided to the Committee 

for the record and if it’s OK with you, I will just highlight my 

statement and try to summarize it as briefly as I can to allow time 

for questioning. 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. OK. Thank you. 

Mr. RAGSDALE. Thank you. 

There are an abundance of needs and challenges concerning tribal and Federal policing in our communities. The BIA sponsors and 

supports 191 law enforcement programs in the lower 48 states. The 

BIA operates 42 of these law enforcement agencies by itself and the 

tribes operate the other 149. $217 million was provided in FY 2007 for law enforcement deten- tion and courts and in Fiscal Year 2008, $234 million is proposed 

in the President’s budget, and as I understand it, the House has 

already marked it up and we asked for the proposed increases that 

soon we’ll have a chance to reconcile. 

Crime rates are deceptively high as detailed in my full statement. The report by Amnesty International supports the increase 

we’re seeing in too many communities as it relates to domestic violence and child abuse of women and children. We believe this has 

been exacerbated by the epidemic of drug use and in particular 

meth, the distribution and use. 

Secretary of Interior Kempthorne is leading an initiative to address tribal and community concerns over violence and crime in 

Indian Country. This is a good start to address the concerns which 

we believe Congress will support. 

Our detailed testimony provides the Committee with our Gap 

Analysis of what is and what should be regarding resources to address the problems in Indian Country. We are working with other 

Federal agencies such as the Department of Justice, U.S. Attorneys, the FBI, and other related agencies within the Department 

of Justice to effect better cooperative working relationships. The 

Indian Health Service and Samson of HHS are also key partners 

in this effort. 

There are complex jurisdictional issues related to Indian reservation policing which we are trying to address with cooperative policing. We can’t overemphasize effective cooperation between and 

among the Federal, tribal, and state communities. Criminals do not 

recognize artificial boundaries made by man. 

Madam Chair, we appreciate the Committee’s support and pledge 

to continue to work with tribal leaders and our other Federal partners to improve public safety. 

And last, just in closing, let me just say I was reading a report 

that my deputy, Chris Chaney, provided me. In 1883 the Congress 

had authorized over 1100 police officers in Indian Country, which 

is more than the totals that we have now. Of course, they were 

only paid $5 a month and $15 for the supervisors, but that’s where 

we are. 

6

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Ragsdale follows:]

Statement of W. Patrick Ragsdale, Director,

Bureau of Indian Affairs, U.S. Department of the Interior 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, I am pleased to provide a statement on behalf of the Department of the Interior regarding the needs and challenges of tribal law enforcement on Indian Reservations. With me today are Christopher Chaney, Deputy Director, Office of Justice Services (OJS) for the Bureau of 

Indian Affairs (BIA), and Elmer Four Dance, Special Agent in Charge for our District 1 Office located in Aberdeen, South Dakota. We thank you for inviting us to 

provide testimony on an issue that significantly impacts the welfare of our American 

Indian and Alaska Native communities. 

The BIA has a service population of about 1.6 million American Indians and Alaska Natives who belong to 562 federally recognized tribes. The BIA supports 191 law 

enforcement programs with 42 BIA-operated programs and 149 tribally-operated 

programs. Approximately 78 percent of the total BIA OJS programs are outsourced 

to Tribes. 

OJS provides a wide range of law enforcement services to Indian country, including police services, criminal investigation, detention facilities, tribal courts, and officer training by the Indian Police Academy. 

Indian Country law enforcement provides services to a population that is predominantly under the age of 25, experiences high unemployment rates, and lacks municipal infrastructure. Indian lands range from remote wilderness to urban settings. 

The close proximity of a number of reservations to the international borders of Mexico and Canada make these locations the perfect targets for drug trafficking and 

other smuggling operations. Recent reports and news articles outline the extreme 

shortcomings of the criminal justice systems in Indian Country. Crime rates on most 

reservations are unacceptably high. 

Earlier this year, Secretary Kempthorne echoed the concern he heard from tribal 

leaders about the serious increase in violent crimes on their homelands, when he 

announced his Safe Indian Communities Initiative, which will increase law enforcement services where they are most needed in Indian country. The Initiative is part 

of the President’s FY 2008 budget request. It includes a $16 million increase in 

funding to strengthen law enforcement capabilities on tribal lands by providing $5 

million to hire additional law enforcement officers; $5 million to increase staff at 

Indian detention facilities; and $6 million to provide specialized drug enforcement 

training for officers and public awareness campaigns about the dangers of methamphetamine use. The Initiative will bring the total funding for BIA law enforcement to $233.8 million. 

The BIA coordinates with the Department of Justice (DOJ) in many areas: coordination regarding funding for Law Enforcement police staffing, consultation regarding construction of detention facilities, and day-to-day coordination with the FBI 

and United States Attorneys offices. The BIA is working in collaboration with DOJ 

on implementing the Amber Alert program in Indian Country and on developing effective means of sharing criminal justice information. In addition, the BIA is working with private industry to explore ways to bring new technology to Indian Country 

law enforcement. 

For many of our Indian citizens who live on or near Indian reservations, life has 

become much more violent. In the past year, we conducted an analysis that included 

the service populations of each tribe that had a law enforcement program (including 

BIA direct service programs and tribal programs that were at least partially funded 

by the BIA through either a Public Law 93-638 contract or a ‘‘self-governance’’ compact) to determine appropriate High Crime and High Priority fund distributions. 

The distribution is based upon the comparison of individual tribal violent crime 

rates with the national crime rate. In addition, we looked at the number of officers 

that serve each reservation as compared to the national average and compared that 

figure for each tribe. This analysis helped us to pinpoint the law enforcement programs with the greatest need. 

Further, we contracted to have a Gap Analysis conducted, which was completed 

in 2006. The Gap Analysis measured current organizational functions and practices 

against a standard or benchmark, such as industry best practices, and examined organizational strategic goals. This analysis relied on quantitative and qualitative factors to help focus management’s attention on the ‘‘gap’’ between ‘‘what is’’ and ‘‘what 

should be’’. This, in turn, required management to ask ‘‘How do we get there?’’

Part of what the Gap Analysis found was the need to hire additional law enforcement officers in Indian Country. The Safe Indian Communities Initiative would proVerDate 0ct 09 2002 12:44 Dec 20, 2007 Jkt 098700 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 L:\DOCS\36020.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
7

vide for the hiring of 51 new law enforcement officers and 91 new corrections officers for Indian country. This is a positive step in our efforts to get needed public 

safety resources to our tribal communities. 

As of the second quarter of FY 2007, 48 percent of BIA funded law enforcement 

agencies were staffed to the national average of 2.6 officers per 100,000 inhabitants 

in non-metropolitan communities. Of the agencies that are at the national average 

of staffing, 5 percent are BIA operated law enforcement agencies and 43 percent are 

tribally operated agencies under Public Law 93-638 contracts or Self-Governance 

compacts. On many reservations there is no 24-hour police coverage. Police officers 

often patrol alone and respond alone to both misdemeanor and felony calls. Our police officers are placed in great danger because back up is sometimes miles and 

hours away, if available at all. 

Today, there are 191 tribal/BIA law enforcement programs supported through 

Congressional appropriations to the BIA. One hundred eight tribes have Public Law 

93-638 contracts (57%), 41 have self-governance compacts (21%), and 42 tribes have 

BIA police (22%). Additionally, many tribes supplement BIA funding with funding 

from the tribal treasury, grants from DOJ or other sources. Under Public Law 83-

280 and similar legislation, the remaining tribes rely on state and local law enforcement for major crimes. In addition, there are three legal avenues for prosecuting 

felonies involving Indians on Indian lands: the Federal criminal justice system; Public Law 83-280; and other authorized state and local criminal justice systems. 

Various statutes and provisions of case law make jurisdictional determinations extremely difficult. The BIA encourages cross-commissioning so that federal, tribal, 

and state authorities can make arrests for each jurisdiction. For instance, BIA offers 

qualified tribal and state officers federal Special Law Enforcement Commissions so 

they can enforce federal law. This closes loopholes and allows police to focus on investigating the crime instead of sorting out jurisdictional details, which can be done 

later with the assistance of legal counsel. 

Another part of the problem is the state of equipment such as vehicles, weapons, 

and radio communications equipment. Higher quality and better maintained equipment would help police officers in their response to crime in Indian country. 

Since FY 2001, we have requested and Congress has appropriated funds to implement the conversion from existing telecommunications equipment to the 

narrowband radio system to address the National Telecommunications and Information spectrum efficiency mandate. The mandate required that all Federal agencies 

convert to narrowband land mobile radio operations. Outdated radios and insufficient radio coverage place officers at risk and have led to a loss of lives in Indian 

country due to the inability of officers to radio for assistance. Reliable land mobile 

radio communication systems are vital in supporting program functions and improving public safety within Indian country. Land mobile radio is one of the most critical 

infrastructure components for tribal community safety and is the basis for wireless 

communication affecting public safety, education, public works, wildfire, and tribal 

communities. 

Tribes also face a mounting drug problem. Tribal leaders describe a methamphetamine crisis that has the potential to destroy an entire generation if action isn’t 

taken. Some tribal leaders refer to the prevalence of the use and access to the drug 

as the second smallpox epidemic and rank it as the number one public safety problem on their reservations. On many reservations organized crime and drug cartels 

are producing and distributing the drug and are contributing to increased criminal 

activity in those communities. 

During a hearing on methamphetamine (meth) in Indian Country last April, before the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, one tribal chairwoman stated that an 

estimated 25 percent of the babies born on her reservation were addicted to methamphetamine. We are committed to helping Indian Country remove this scourge 

from its midst. 

In April 2006, the OJS published the results of the National Methamphetamine 

Initiative Survey. The survey consisted of 20 questions and was responded to by 96 

agencies. Seventy-four percent of all respondents indicated that methamphetamine 

poses the greatest drug threat to the communities they serve. This is followed by 

marijuana at 11 percent; Crack cocaine and powder cocaine followed at 6 percent. 

Five percent of responding agencies indicated powder cocaine as their primary drug 

problem. Heroin and pharmaceutical drugs rounded out the responses with 3 percent and 1 percent respectively. 

In response to the meth crisis, the BIA currently has eight certified drug enforcement officers to cover all of Indian country. The Safe Indian Communities Initiative 

will help combat the highly visible drug problem by enabling the development and 

provision of specialized drug enforcement training for BIA and tribal officers. As a 

result of the Initiative, more officers on patrol will have the essential knowledge and 

8

tools to break up drug trafficking, disrupt the activities and organization of crime 

groups, and seize controlled substances. This will lead to positive outcomes such as 

increased drug seizures and a substantial reduction in drug trafficking. Additionally, Initiative funding will allow the program to develop a meth public awareness 

campaign to educate Indian country on the dangers of the drug and how to combat 

those dangers. By certifying officers and educating the public about the dangers of 

meth, the BIA is taking proactive measures against meth and other drugs in Indian 

country to provide for safe and healthy Indian communities. 

As for detention centers, there are 82 detention facilities in Indian Country, some 

holding (one to two cells) facilities located on 57 reservations. Of the 82 detention 

facilities, 27 are used to detain juveniles. Twenty jails are operated by the BIA and 

62 by individual tribes. Most of these facilities were built in the 1960s and 1970s. 

Many of these facilities were designed to hold only 10-30 adult inmates. 

In September 2004, the Department’s Office of the Inspector General (OIG) published a report, titled ‘‘Neither Safe Nor Secure: an Assessment of Indian Detention 

Facilities,’’ that highlighted the problems with Indian Country Detention facilities. 

The OIG found that serious safety, security, and maintenance deficiencies exist at 

the majority of BIA and tribal detention centers, and pose a hazard to inmates, 

staff, and the public. Out of this report came 25 recommendations. As a result, a 

corrective action plan was developed to satisfy those recommendations and, to date, 

we have addressed 16 of the 25 recommendations; the remaining 9 require additional resources to be fully resolved. 

One of the primary recommendations the OIG made was with regard to staffing 

shortages. Determining appropriate staffing levels for the detention facilities requires careful analysis of facility needs. To correct this safety deficiency, Corrections 

Division staff has calculated the ‘‘Standard Space Staffing Requirement’’ for each facility throughout Indian country. This study was careful to differentiate the size and 

layout of the facility according to a standard consistent with the standards of the 

National Institute of Corrections and the Bureau of Prisons. 

As I mentioned above, the Safe Indian Communities Initiative includes $5 million 

in additional funding to staff, operate, and maintain BIA and tribal detention facilities for FY 2008. This will aid BIA in continuing to implement the recommendations 

of the 2004 report by the Department’s OIG. These funds will provide for the hiring 

of 91 additional corrections officers in Indian country. 

The detention center funding will be distributed to detention centers based on the 

results of the application of the staffing model. The additional funding will enable 

BIA to increase the percent of detention centers staffed to minimal safety standards, 

thereby helping to reduce the types of serious incidents identified in the IG report. 

The 2008 budget continues to aggressively confront construction and repair issues 

at detention centers by requesting $8.1 million for four major Facilities Improvement and Repair projects and several smaller projects designed to help bring Indian 

detention centers up to national standards. 

Some tribal leaders have approached us about regional and multi-tribal use facilities. We recognize that ‘‘regionalization’’ will likely not work everywhere due to the 

size and remoteness of many reservations. However, we support the idea and are 

working with some tribes in regions where these facilities will benefit a number of 

communities located on or near Indian lands. 

BIA also operates the Indian Police Academy, which provides basic police training 

(16 weeks) and a variety of other police, jail and radio dispatch courses for tribal 

and BIA law enforcement and corrections officers. The Academy is co-located with 

the Department of Homeland Security’s Federal Law Enforcement Training Center 

(FLETC) at Artesia, New Mexico. Academy staff provide basic police, criminal investigation, and detention coursework. In addition, the Academy offers numerous advanced training courses such as child abuse investigation procedures, community 

policing, drug investigation, use of force, firearms instruction, archeological resource 

protection, police management and supervision, crime scene processing, detention, 

and dispatcher training. 

Our training partnership has proven to be very cost effective because we share 

trainers and facilities. BIA and tribal criminal investigators receive specialized advanced training at the main FLETC facility in Glynco, Georgia. Select BIA and tribal law enforcement managers also participate in the FBI’s National Academy in 

Quantico, Virginia. Many tribal communities choose to use respective state Peace 

Officers Standards and Training courses to supplement training of their police. 

Mr. Chairman, we want to thank you for holding this hearing on such an important subject for Indian Country. We will continue to work closely with you and your 

staff, tribal leaders, and our Federal partners to improve the safety of our people 

who reside on Indian lands. 

We will be happy to answer any questions you may have. 

9

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. Thank you, and I appreciate your testimony and again appreciate your presence here at the hearing 

today. 

I’d now like to ask The Honorable Chairman Michael Jandreau 

for his testimony. 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE MICHAEL B. JANDREAU, 

CHAIRMAN, LOWER BRULE SIOUX TRIBE, LOWER BRULE, 

SOUTH DAKOTA 

Mr. JANDREAU. Thank you. 

I, too, have a written testimony that I would ask to be a part of 

the record. 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. Without objection. 

Mr. JANDREAU. First of all, let me communicate to you my deep 

appreciation for you having this hearing here today. I think it’s—

it’s one of the most historic moments in the history of our tribe and 

I appreciate that. 

The other day I—I was listening to a group of people talk and 

one of the statements I heard is, you know, it’s impossible to weigh 

the facts if the scale is full of your own opinions, and so taking that 

very much into consideration, I will try to talk from the point of 

indicating the facts as they exist here for us today. 

Ten years ago, while being housed in a condemned jail, it was 

this decision of this Council to create the situation that we have 

with the new facility. We built the courthouse and police station 

and a detention facility. You know, $13 million have been placed into the construction of 

that facility. Five and a half million dollars of that came directly 

from the tribe. The rest was grants that we received from the Department of Justice, always under the insurance that we were 

going to be able to have this fully staffed and functional upon completion. Of course, you know that’s not so. 

Seven years ago we met with the people from Interior’s law enforcement and indicated to them our complete staffing needs. We 

received every assurance that that was going to happen and, of 

course, that has not happened. 

Last year in June we met with the folks from law enforcement 

and we were told at that time that we had a budgetary amount 

that was available to us to continue our process. What we did find 

was that $1.2 million in April had been taken and assigned to 

other reservations, i.e., Turtle Mountain, Spirit Lake, and Standing 

Rock. We asked to be informed who was consulted in that process 

and who signed off on the reprogramming of that money. We were 

never given that information. 

Those are two year dollars and so we go forward already hampered in our capacity. Our people who are trained for our detention 

positions are sent to other reservations because of the lack of 

trained personnel at those particular sites. We know that for a fact. 

What we are asking for, more than anything else, is to be treated 

fairly and straightforwardly. We ask that the dollars that are appropriated for our agency be restored and allow us to begin operation of our facility. We have some good people. 

You know, there’s part of the good book that says, you know, our 

battle is not against questions but against principalities and powVerDate 0ct 09 2002 12:44 Dec 20, 2007 Jkt 098700 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 L:\DOCS\36020.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
10

1 Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2004 http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/aic02.pdf 

ers in high places. We believe that to be the truth. Our fight is not 

with the human beings who are making these decisions but the 

process that is allowing what is occurring here to happen. We ask 

that the Committee would look very deeply into this process. 

Last, we have before the Committee a potential bill prepared for 

dollars in a settlement. If those dollars were forthcoming, our ability to handle these things ourselves would become real and we ask 

that that happens. We are not here to beg anyone. We are here because we have a problem. We are here because we need to be a 

part of solving that problem. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Jandreau follows:]

Statement of Michael B. Jandreau, Chairman, Lower Brule Sioux Tribe 

WELCOME AND INTRODUCTION 

On behalf of our Tribe, allow me to welcome the Committee on Natural Resources 

to Lower Brule. We greatly appreciate your visiting the Reservation for this hearing 

in an attempt to improve the quality of life for our Members and all Indian people. 

I have been Chairman for 28 years and served on the Council for seven years before 

being elected Chairman. 

The Lower Brule Sioux Tribe a constituent band of the Great Sioux Nation with 

a proud history. We were a signatory of the Fort Laramie Treaty of 1851 and the 

Fort Sully Treaty of 1865. 

TRIBAL LAW ENFORCEMENT 

Law enforcement at Lower Brule has been a great concern for our Tribe. People 

must feel safe in their environment if they are to enjoy their surroundings and their 

family. In many areas of the country, law enforcement is taken for granted. We do 

not think about law enforcement except when it is lacking. In fact, law enforcement 

is fundamental in order to develop human potential, to raise our families, to work 

and enjoy our private time. 

The life experiences of those living in Indian country have been more violent, vulnerable and insecure than those living in the rest of America. According to a 2004 

Department of Justice report, American Indians experienced violent crime at a rate 

twice the national average—by far the highest experienced by any racial group. 1

Moreover, this increased exposure to violence affects every member of the community. When measured in their respective demographic, all Indians—male, female 

and of every age group—are victims of violent crime at greater rates than the national average. Most disturbing is the experience of Indian youth who experience violence at rates ‘‘significantly greater’’ than their counterparts in the rest of the nation. We hope not to raise a generation that knows violence as a fact of life and 

brutality as a means of resolving conflict. To prevent this, the Indian community 

needs improved law enforcement. 

So we do not lose sight of what the broad and often used term ‘‘law enforcement’’ 

means, let us look at the array of services it covers: policing, detention, criminal investigation, tribal adjudication and officer training. These are the institutions of justice that a community takes for granted once they are in place—the bricks of the 

foundation upon which a trusting society is built—and without them in place, the 

transactions of everyday living break down. 

The Director of the Bureau of Indian Affairs, Patrick Ragsdale, acknowledged the 

deficiency in Indian law enforcement before the Senate Indian Affairs Committee 

last month. He noted in his testimony that ‘‘[o]n many reservations there is no 24 

hour police coverage,’’ and ‘‘often officers patrol alone’’—which is a danger to the officer and inadequate to serving the law enforcement purpose. In addition, less than 

half of Indian Affairs funded law enforcement agencies in non-metropolitan communities were funded to the national average. Not only do the safety needs at Lower 

Brule require greater law enforcement efforts, but also fairness requires that they 

at least be funded in equal measure to the rest of the country. 

At the moment, there is a major gap in law enforcement in Central South Dakota. 

We are not talking about an abstract policy; we have a lack of facilities. Our jail 

has been closed for approximately five years. The BIA has closed the Crow Creek 

jail. So, neither of us have a jail at this time. Prisoners must be transported a great 

11

distance to be lodged in a Tribal jail. This has a significant impact on law enforcement. If police must travel a great distance to a jail, it takes many hours and they 

are not here on the Reservation providing protection to the community. 

The BIA was to have the jail opened and certified by October of 2006. The date 

was then moved to April 1, 2007. Today, however, the jail is still not opened even 

though we are paying utilities and other expenses. It costs Lower Brule approximately $1,600 per day, every day that the jail remains open, and neither Crow 

Creek nor Lower Brule has a facility that is convenient and available. As I said, 

there is a major gap in Central South Dakota and the BIA needs to do everything 

possible to close that gap. 

LOWER BURLE AND CROW CREEK COMPENSATION ACT 

Representative Herseth Sandlin, as you know, Law Enforcement is just one of the 

many infrastructure needs we are trying to improve at Lower Brule to strengthen 

our economy and the quality of life for all enrolled members of the Tribe. 

Therefore, I would be remiss not to mention the great importance of your bill, 

H.R. 155, the Lower Brule and Crow Creek Compensation Act. This legislation is, 

of course, pending before the Committee on Natural Resources. I would like to include my Senate testimony in this hearing record, with your permission, and add 

a few points. 

This legislation passed the Senate on three occasions in the 108th Congress and 

was again reported by the Senate Indian Affairs Committee in the 109th Congress. 

After the bill was reported in the 109th Congress there was a GAO report that resulted in two changes in the legislation and then the Senate Indian Affairs Committee again reported the bill: 

• First, the amount of compensation was reduced. The GAO discovered an error 

in the compensation calculation and we therefore adjusted the legislation. 

• Secondly, a new Section 5 was added to the bill to make it clear this legislation 

would be final compensation for damages caused by construction of the Big 

Bend Dam and Fort Randall Dam. Under the terms of the bill, if enacted, our 

Tribe is giving up any further claim growing out of the construction of the 

dams. 

With these changes, we believe that the legislation is ready to move forward in 

both the House and the Senate. 

We do appreciate that while the transfer of funds from the Treasury to the Lower 

Brule Trust Fund is an intra-federal government transfer there is a cost associated 

with the additional interest we would receive on the larger trust fund. In considering the this legislation and the ‘‘pay-go’’ rules, I would hope the Congress looks 

at this legislation in a larger context that is fair to Indian people. Allow me to explain. 

1. The dams were built using our land. Our Reservation was flooded twice as a 

result of the Pick Sloan project and the construction of the Big Bend and Fort 

Randall dams. As a result of these dams, we lost our best bottomlands, and 

over 70% of our population had to be relocated, not once but twice. 

2. The water that flows in the Missouri River is ours in that we have the legal 

right to use as much as we need for the Tribe under the Winters doctrine, Winters v. United States, 207 U.S. 564 (1908) 

3. The dams are producing electricity to benefit America and the American economy. 

4. The revenue from the sale of electricity produced by the dams on the Missouri 

River exceeds $200 million per year. 

5. The Tribes are receiving none of this revenue even though it is our land and 

our water that is being used to produce the electricity. 

6. Adding insult to injury, the Tribes must pay for the electricity we use at Lower 

Brule. The Tribes of South Dakota paid over $2 million for electricity in 2005, 

and rates continue to increase. 

In short, while the American economy is benefiting from the dams built with our 

land and our water, the Tribal economy is suffering as a result. In my opinion, the 

Congress should consider these facts as they consider how to fairly apply ‘‘pay go’’ 

rules to H.R. 155. There is something very, very wrong with our bill being held up 

when the United States is profiting from our land and water. I urge you to bring 

these facts to the attention of the Committee and ask for consideration of the legislation. 

Thank you very much for coming to Lower Brule. I would be pleased to answer 

any questions that you may have. 

12

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. Thank you very much, Chairman 

Jandreau. 

I now would ask Chairman Lester Thompson, The Honorable 

Chairman Thompson, representing the Crow Creek Sioux Tribe, for 

his testimony. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. LESTER THOMPSON, JR., 

CHAIRMAN, CROW CREEK SIOUX TRIBE, FORT THOMPSON, 

SOUTH DAKOTA 

Mr. THOMPSON. I, too, have submitted documentation, written 

testimony, and would like that to go on record. 

I thank you for this opportunity to testify on behalf of my people 

pertaining to the problems we face in law enforcement services on 

the Crow Creek Reservation. 

As you can see in my written testimony, I questioned the integrity of the Bureau of Indian Affairs Office of Justice Services. Crow 

Creek Sioux Reservation is plagued by minute to extreme crimes 

which vary from disorderly conduct to illegal drug trafficking to domestic assaults, some rapes and unsolved murders. This all stems 

from inadequate services provided by Office of Justice Services. 

Justice Services has done a tremendous job revictimizing victims 

on a continual basis and this is either due from lack of officers and 

lack of detention centers on our reservation. This is further—is 

really emphasized by the closure of our detention center and a lack 

of officers. I’ll make that a point. 

Do you realize that the entire Crow Creek Reservation consisting 

of three district communities which is populated by over 2500 is 

being patrolled by two Bureau of Indian Affairs officers? We encompass a radius, from boundary to boundary, north and south of 70 

miles, east and west of 30 miles. 

I served as an officer for Crow Creek for three years and I know 

what it’s like to be a lone officer covering three districts, the tremendous task. The people don’t receive the services that they require. 

Justice Services has unjustifiably and untimely closure of our detention center located in Fort Thompson further hampers proper 

law enforcement by our court systems. By not having a detention 

center, it renders our courts helpless to carry out their duties. 

I have read the Department of Interior’s 2004 report, Neither 

Safe Nor Secure, an assessment of Indian detention facilities. In 

this report the Office of Justice Services is continuously ridiculed 

for their improper misuse and mismanagement of Federal funds. 

I ask: Has the Federal Government turned a blind eye to this 

problem? Obvious you haven’t because you’re sitting here. My next 

question is: Are there going to be any repercussions for this? 

This report also emphasizes consultation with tribes which the 

distinguished Chairman Jandreau had pointed out. When the detention center in Fort Thompson was closed, there was no consultation with the Crow Creek Sioux Tribe or the Lower Brule Sioux 

Tribe which was utilizing the facilities at the time. Justice Services 

continuously ignores consultation with Native tribes. 

This is in direct violation of our treaty rights and violates article 

one, section eight, clause three of the United States Constitution 

which solidifies our government-to-government relationship. By 

13

closing the detention center and by not providing enough officers, 

the Office of Justice Services has failed the responsibilities as defined in U.S.C. Title 25, Subsection 2802. 

I ask you, as a member of the Committee of Natural Resources, 

as Native Americans living in Indian communities, are we not entitled to live in safe and secure environments as are the rest of the 

United States? 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Thompson follows:]

Statement of Lester Thompson, Chairman, Crow Creek Sioux Tribe 

My name is Lester Thompson Jr., Chairman of the Great Nation of the Crow 

Creek Sioux Tribe. I and the current tribal council have been voted into office to 

make decisions for the best interest of the Hunkpati Dakota Oyate (Crow Creek 

Sioux Tribe). 

I would like clarification from the Bureau of Indian Affairs, Office of Justice Services, pertaining to their federal trust responsibility to the tribes of this nation. Is 

it not their legal duty as a fiduciary means that the federal government must act 

in the best interest of the Indian nations? Does it also impose a legal duty to provide 

public safety for these domestic dependant nations, as defined in B.I.A. O.J.S. training manual ‘‘Criminal Jurisdiction in Indian Country’’. 

These words that I have just written are nothing more than letters on a piece of 

paper and mean nothing to Bureau of Indian Affairs Office of Justice Services. 

These words are hallow to me based on the fact that actions speak louder than 

words. I have written numerous letters to Bureau of Indian Affairs, Director Pat 

Ragsdale, Deputy Director Christopher Chaney, District I Special Agent in Charge, 

Elmer Four Dance, District I Supervisory Correctional Specialist Greta Baker and 

Crow Creek Chief of Police, Scott Shields, voicing our concerns of the lack of law 

enforcement services provided to the Great Nation of the Crow Creek Sioux Tribe. 

The Bureau of Indian Affairs, Office of Justice Services, has continually provided 

the Great Nation of the Crow Creek Sioux Tribe with beat around the bush tactics. 

The problems created by the lack of and/or none existence of law enforcement on 

the Crow Creek Reservation are numerous. The rate of criminal activity is on the 

rise. Drug trafficking, domestic assaults, driving under the influence, harboring fugitives, aggravated assaults, etc., go unchecked and contribute to social breakdown 

of basic society. 

In short Bureau of Indian Affairs, Office of Justice Services has failed the enrolled 

members of the Great Nation of the Crow Creek Sioux Tribe. 

Office of Justice Services has failed for years by not providing enough officers to 

adequately canvass the three districts with the necessary aggressive patrol to curtail unlawful activities on the Crow Creek Reservation. Office of Justice Services 

has continued to jeopardize the safety and welfare of the public by closing the detention center located in Fort Thompson on January 18, 2006. 

Many reasons have been given to the closure of this facility with no real justification. 

The Indian Law Reform Act stated B.I.A. O.J.S. is to provide law enforcement 

services, which includes the prevention, detection, and investigation of an offense, 

and the detention or confinement of an offender. Additional responsibilities include 

the protection of life and property. How is any of this possible when O.J.S. cannot 

sustain its focus on problems long enough to resolve them? 

Also the detention and confinement of offenders has rendered the tribal courts ineffective. When crimes against society are prosecuted and the offences require jail 

time, offenders are turned back onto the streets on probationary terms. With no detention it makes court rulings hallow threats thus creating a revolving door at the 

court house. Repeated offences have become the norm, further adding to the detriment of society. 

Every excuse in the book has been given to why law enforcement services are so 

poor on Indian reservations. One excuse has always been the lack of funding allocated by the United States Government. Funds that are allocated for services are 

insufficient. 

The dollar amount provided has not kept pace with inflation, creating a collapsing 

house of cards. Why hasn’t more funding been made available? 

According to Department of the Interior Office of Inspector General’s report dated 

September 2004 ‘‘An Assessment of Indian Detention Facilities’’ from an accounting 

standpoint B.I.A. O.J.S. does not use sound business practices for planning, accounting for and monitoring of funds nor is anyone held accountable for the proper manVerDate 0ct 09 2002 12:44 Dec 20, 2007 Jkt 098700 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 L:\DOCS\36020.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
14

agement of funds. Fraud can be perpetrated with impunity and waste can continue 

undiscovered because nobody at B.I.A. is paying attention. Is this why funding has 

been with held due to the lack of proper management and inability to track funding? 

Can the lack of funding to provide services be attributed to the fact that there 

are more high paying administration positions created under the new lines of authority? Has this venture really been cost effective? There is an old saying on the 

reservation about too many chiefs and not enough Indians! Need I say more? 

It is my observation that this is contrary to the designated appropriation specified 

by Congress. 

Has the federal government turned a blind eye to the problems that plague the 

indigenous people of this nation? 

Efforts have been made by the Crow Creek Sioux Tribe to remedy our bleak situation by proposing 638 contracting law enforcement services here on our reservation. 

These efforts have been met with resistance by District One’s lack of communication and also lack of assistance in good faith. The B.I.A. O.J.S. has the mentality 

of do as I say and not as I do and constantly reminding us of what we can’t do and 

not telling us what we can do. This mentality has caused confusion and hampered 

the positive progression of our tribe. 

Indian people living in Indian Country, are they no less than other citizens of the 

United States? Don’t we deserve to live in safe communities too? 

Either provide us with the contracting of law enforcement services or provide us 

with adequate law enforcement!!!!!!!!! 

[NOTE: Additional information submitted for the record has been retained in the 

Committee’s official files.] 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. Thank you very much, Chairman Thompson, for your testimony. 

As I indicated at the beginning of the hearing in my opening remarks, I was here about a year ago specifically to address some of 

these issues. 

I was driving from the western part of the state. I stopped first, 

had a wonderful one-on-one meeting with Chairman Jandreau, had 

a tour of the new detention facility across the highway, in which 

we came across some officials within the BIA who were doing a site 

visit for purposes of trying to move the process forward of getting 

a certificate of occupation issued and, again, some of the issues 

that Chairman Jandreau raised with me at that time caused me 

great concern about what both the Lower Brule Sioux Tribe as well 

as the Crow Creek Sioux Tribe were facing as it related to detention facilities and adequate number of law enforcement officers. 

After meeting with Chairman Jandreau, I drove across the river, 

had lunch and had a meeting with Chairman Thompson and other 

members of the tribal council. They were not aware that Ms. 

Baker, who I believe is here today, was over doing a visit of the 

Lower Brule Sioux Tribe detention facility and were not aware, I 

don’t think, that she was going to be over at the jail facility that 

had been closed in Crow Creek. 

So we decided to change the agenda of our meeting slightly and 

take the meeting over there where we had a chance to—I had a 

chance to witness the tension and the frustration of leaders for the 

Crow Creek Sioux Tribe as it related to the number of law enforcement officers, the situation with that jail facility, with Mr. 

Fourdance, who is here, and with Ms. Baker, and it illuminated for 

me even further the frustration as it related to responsiveness and 

consultation. 

And I think Chairman Jandreau very eloquently, as usual, described our interest here today is getting to the heart of the problem with the process. I want to believe that every individual who 

15

is involved and has a stake in the security of every community in 

Indian Country, every community in South Dakota, every community across the country, will help us today to get to the heart of 

some of the problems with the process. 

We know the resources are always going to be a challenge and 

we’ve made some progress, not only from the Administration’s proposed budget, but from the House and Interior Appropriations Subcommittee dealing with the Senate action, hopefully viewing favorably the need for increases to address these needs as well, particularly when you’ve put into the context historically for us the number of officers that were employed, albeit at 1883 wages, and what’s 

happening in rural America today and where reservation communities are among the most rural in the country. 

So I do want to thank you for your testimony, Mr. Ragsdale, and 

for traveling out to Lower Brule for two days of hearings, for the 

work that you’ve undertaken in different capacities with the Bureau of Indian Affairs and working with our chairmen and presidents here in South Dakota. I think we can all agree that the absence of a jail facility for either Lower Brule or Crow Creek is an 

unacceptable situation. 

Just in this time of high gas prices, what we are spending to 

transport detainees either to Chamberlain or to Cheyenne River or 

to Standing Rock alone is a waste of resources. 

And I know that the BIA indicated last year that the Lower 

Brule facility would be operational by April 1st. I understand and 

maybe could have a point of clarification from either of you, Mr. 

Ragsdale or Chairman Jandreau: Was a certificate of occupation 

issued in February for the detention facility? 

Mr. JANDREAU. No. I believe it was in March. 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. In March? 

Mr. JANDREAU. Yes. 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. OK. So if the plan was to have the facility operational by April 1st, I was hoping, Mr. Ragsdale, you could 

elaborate as to why the Bureau failed to meet that target. 

Mr. RAGSDALE. Well, I would probably need to do that in detail, 

because I do not know all the details, Madam Chair, but my understanding is that we should be able to open and be operating within 

the next couple of months at least as a transitional facility. We 

have had problems, as you know, in resources in terms of hiring 

people on a timely basis and meeting all the security and background checks that we have to do for staffing our law enforcement 

services. 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. With all due respect, that was the response I got a year ago. The 1.2—you said the problem with some 

of the resources, the $1.2 million that was reprogrammed last June 

that was assigned to other reservations, has that been the problem, 

the reprogramming of those funds to deal with the resources necessary for the Lower Brule facility? 

Mr. RAGSDALE. Do you want to address it, please? 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. Mr. Chris Chaney, I’d invite you to provide a response. 

Mr. CHANEY. Thank you. I’m not familiar with the 1.2 million 

issue. 

16

As Chairman Jandreau indicated, there was funding that was 

appropriated for the purpose of opening up the Lower Brule detention facility. Part of the problem is even though we’ve been given 

appropriations to get this facility open, part of the problem has 

been filling positions. 

There are 40 positions that we need to fill at that facility and because of various problems, we’ve only been able to get 17 of those 

positions filled. All 40 positions have been advertised. We have had 

applicants for all 40 positions and we have had selections made for 

all 40 positions but a whopping 23 of those people either turned the 

jobs down later or declined for some purpose or had to be removed 

because they were inappropriate because they had a problem with 

their background check or something like that. So we’ve only been 

able to fill 17 of the 40 positions. 

One of the issues that Chairman Thompson talked about was the 

closure of the Crow Creek facility. If you read the Inspector General’s report, Neither Safe Nor Secure, which I know you have, one 

of the things it talks about is safely staffing facilities and one of 

the complaints of the Inspector General specifically was inadequate 

staffing. 

The Crow Creek Sioux facility, when we closed it, was being run 

by two employees. It was an unsafe facility. The facility condition 

was not up to par and neither was the staffing. It was not safe for 

the inmates, it was not safe for the employees, it was not safe for 

the public, and we’re having similar problems now at Lower Brule 

getting positions filled. 

Now, we have a plan in place——

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. If I might——

Mr. CHANEY. Yes. 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN.—just because I want to get to some other 

questions I have specific to the facility for Crow Creek and I want 

to give Chairman Jandreau an opportunity to respond, because if 

you start presenting information that deals with both of them together, then it’s a little bit more difficult, I think, for our chairmen 

to respond precisely and it also gives me the concern that by always trying to address them together that way, that consolidation 

is being forced upon these two tribes without adequate consultation 

and citing staffing issues as the reason for that. 

So given that it was an emergency situation when Crow Creek 

was closed in January of last year, were there any emergency steps 

taken by the Bureau in anticipation of opening a new facility in 

Lower Brule but also in dealing with the safety considerations of 

Crow Creek, to deal with that situation? Are there emergency steps 

that were taken, that should have been taken in anticipation of the 

fact that just because Lower Brule had agreed, based on the condition of its older facility, to have their detainees housed in Crow 

Creek, it shouldn’t have ever been assumed that once Crow Creek 

closed, that there would be a similar agreement to house detainees 

in the new facility in Lower Brule for the Crow Creek Tribe. And 

I feel that there was an assumption being made there, again, part 

of this process of tribes to consolidate. 

I just want to lay that out and let you respond, either Mr. 

Ragsdale or Mr. Chaney, about the emergency steps that were 

17

taken or could have been taken and then I want to give Chairman 

Jandreau an opportunity to respond. 

Mr. CHANEY. Yes. As you know by reading the report and as you 

know by listening to what the Chairman told you both on and off 

the record, we are dealing with a situation where we don’t have resources to do everything we like to do. 

When the Crow Creek Sioux jail was closed, what we had was 

an understaffed, unsafe facility at Crow Creek and no facility at 

Lower Brule because the Lower Brule facility was still in the process of being completed with the construction getting opened. 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. There’s a chair. 

Mr. CHANEY. Thank you. 

So we have one facility that is not properly staffed and is inadequate for public safety and another facility that is not open. The 

emergency response, if you will, was to close the unsafe facility to 

protect the public, protect our inmates, protect our employees, and 

then to, frankly, transport prisoners to other locations. And that 

was expensive and it was burdensome but when you have no detention facility available, you make do and that’s what we had to do. 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. Thank you. 

Mr. Chairman, if you don’t mind, just a follow-up question before 

I turn it over to you. 

Did you meet with Chairman Jandreau to visit with him about 

this issue of resources and not having enough resources to do everything that you wanted to do? Did you visit with Chairman 

Thompson or his predecessor? What was the consultation? I just 

don’t think we can use insufficient resources as justification for 

avoiding the consultation requirement, so perhaps you could clarify 

what types of meetings took place as the staffing shortages became 

so acute that the decision was made to close the facility. 

Mr. CHANEY. I can’t tell you——

Mr. RAGSDALE. Well, I can address it. 

First I’d like to say I have the greatest respect for Chairman 

Mike Jandreau as I do for all tribal leaders and we have had numerous meetings with Chairman Jandreau and other tribal leaders 

concerning the detention facilities throughout the country. So, I 

don’t think it’s a matter of lack of discussion with them. I think 

it’s a matter of not liking the message that we have to deliver with 

regards to resources and our ability to get things done. 

I will assure the Committee that I’m a former police officer, 

former tribal police chief for seven years, and I was often unhappy 

with my Federal counterparts, but the fact of the matter is that 

we’ve had to close over four or five facilities and we’ll probably 

close a number of others in the next few years because most of our 

facilities were built in the 1970’s and they’re crumbling under our 

feet. So, this is part of the overall picture. 

Let me also just say one thing about the 1.2. I’m not sure that 

it’s 1.2, but Chairman Jandreau and I have talked about this before. It is true that we used the money that was initially allocated 

for services here because of—it was not obligated, because we needed it somewhere else. That’s just the condition that we’re in. I’m 

not aware of any constraint on the Federal Administration to do 

that to me presently so that’s what we have all over this country. 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. Chairman Jandreau. 

18

Mr. JANDREAU. I guess I would—I guess I would like to clarify. 

I was—in June of last year, we were told by Mr. Chaney and Mr. 

Rivera that there was $1.75 million allocated for Lower Brule detention facility. Those dollars—those dollars were not made available. 

In November of last year, after a meeting was held in Washington, D.C.—well, it was actually in Arlington, Virginia, on the 

Bureau of Budget, on which I’m a member on the committee, I was 

provided a governmental budgetary allocation document. 

The document told us that by June of ’06, there was approxi- mately $465,000 available to Lower Brule for our detention facility. 

The same document presented that the dollars were allocated—

$700,000 was allocated to Standing Rock, $300,000 was allocated 

to Turtle Mountain, and $200,000 was allocated to Spirit Lake. 

Now, the document speaks for itself. I did not provide that in my 

testimony, but if it’s a requirement, I will. And this comes from the 

Bureau of Indian Affairs, its own budgetary process. 

I asked at that time of Gill Rivera when that money was going 

to be returned. He said it was not going to be returned. He said 

that year is already over. I said, ‘‘Well, wait a minute, these are 

two year budgeting cycles.’’ So that year’s appropriation plus ’07’s 

appropriation were both to be available for this detention facility. 

In order for those dollars to be reprogrammed, it takes the signature, according to my understanding of the process, of an appropriations chairman or vice chairman to do so. I asked: Who signed 

off on that? I asked the same question of Senator Dorgan in Minneapolis and I still have not received from anyone that—where 

we’re at there, nor have I received from anyone a budgetary document telling us what’s available for our facilities funding program 

seven. 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. Well, Chairman Jandreau, if you could 

provide us that document that you received——

Mr. JANDREAU. Yes. 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN.—in early 2006 so that we have that for 

our——

Mr. JANDREAU. It was actually in November of 2006. I received 

that from Gill Rivera and I questioned him in regard to the content. Maybe he thought I couldn’t read it. I don’t know. 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. I would appreciate it if you could provide 

the Committee with a copy of that budgetary document and then, 

Mr. Ragsdale, when I posed the first question, if you could provide, 

as a written submission, some of the detail that addresses precisely 

this issue of the reprogramming of the funds. 

And the budgetary process here is what we’re trying to get at 

and I know that there have been sufficient resources at the Federal 

level for a long time, but you know that’s—it’s incumbent, in my 

opinion, on the Administration and the executive agencies to come 

forward with responsible requests that address the needs and certainly a priority of those needs, so it leads me to, I guess, the question I want to pursue here a little bit further, and that’s the issue 

of an intention with regard to these two facilities. 

Mr. Ragsdale, does the BIA intend to consolidate detention facilities available to both Lower Brule and Crow Creek Tribes into a 

single facility? 

19

Mr. RAGSDALE. To my knowledge, we do not. 

I have talked about that with—we have talked to tribal leaders 

about that. I know that both tribes are adamantly opposed to doing 

that. We have not proposed to consolidate those against their wishes. If we do so, we will do that forthright and bring them into our 

bargaining. 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. OK. So if that’s not the intention, let’s—

let’s talk about the Crow Creek facility, then, for just a moment. 

Setting aside for a minute the staffing issues that you’ve described, how much is it going to cost? Has there been an analysis 

done of how much it’s going to cost to repair and reopen the Crow 

Creek Sioux Tribal facility? 

Mr. CHANEY. No, not at this time. 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. Does that reflect an indication to never 

reopen this facility? 

Mr. CHANEY. No. We just have a lot of competing demands. 

There’s about 81 detection facilities across the United States and 

this particular one, there was an analysis done and it was found 

to be unsafe. We can still do an analysis to decide whether it’s cost 

effective to reopen it. 

What we’re finding, though, is a number of our facilities, it costs 

more to fix then to build a new one. And I don’t know if that’s the 

case on Crow Creek or not but that would be something that we 

can look into. 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. So what is the process in your office, Mr. 

Chaney, once a detention facility is closed because of structural 

issues? Is there, in the process, a requirement to do a subsequent 

analysis for the costs of repair and reopening that facility and if—

whether or not there is, have you submitted a budget request from 

your agency to the Secretary that’s forwarded to OMB, the Office 

of Management Budget with the President, for an increase in 

FTE’s to conduct these analyses given the competing demands that 

we have on facilities across the country? 

Mr. CHANEY. Those types of analyses are not done by the BIA Office of Justice Services. It’s done by a part of the Indian Affairs 

called the Office of Facilities Management Construction and I don’t 

employ those people or have control over them. 

Mr. RAGSDALE. The short answer would be that we do not—we 

have not, to the best of my knowledge, proposed any increases to 

construction of either educational facilities or detention facilities in 

the next coming fiscal year. 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. Because of resource issues? 

Mr. RAGSDALE. Yes, because of budget constraints. 

I would say that there will be a report available in the near future, a very detailed report on the state of our detention facilities 

nationwide. 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. As a follow-up to the Inspector General’s 

report from 2004? 

Mr. RAGSDALE. Well, I don’t know if we did it specifically as a 

follow-up, but it was a report that was much needed so some of the 

analysis that you referred to would be in that particular report. 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. I know that there are a number of statutory requirements that require the BIA—well, that protect BIA 

schools from closure or consolidation without consultation with the 

20

affected tribes and similarly there are provisions that require the 

IHS to analyze and report the consequences of service reduction in 

any one of its facilities. Are there any similar consultation or reporting requirements affecting the Bureau’s detention facilities? 

Mr. RAGSDALE. I’m not aware of any special requirements such 

as those for educational facilities. But, the fact of the matter is that 

the facilities that we’ve shut down were unsafe to put human people in those facilities and that’s why they’re closed down. So I don’t 

know that even if we had a statutory constraint, other than just 

reporting and justifying it, that it would make any difference. I feel 

confident that the facilities that we have closed needed to be closed 

and probably should have been closed sooner. 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. Chairman Thompson, would you like to 

comment on your perspective in what we’re pursuing here as it relates to the Crow Creek facility in particular? 

Mr. THOMPSON. Yes, I would. 

I’ve got a question here. As you’re sitting here talking about appropriations of funds, what has become of the funding that has 

been appropriated for Crow Creek all these past years to operate 

our facility and if it’s still there and appropriated for Crow Creek, 

how is it being applied to our facilities? Couldn’t this be applied to 

the maintenance and construction of this place that’s being closed 

for what you’re saying? 

Also, you bring up staffing issues and a letter that you had written to me and your response to me was it was a major staffing 

issue. The staffing issue at the time that you are saying that you 

made this decision back in November of the previous year, we were 

fully staffed as a detention office and if we did lose them officers 

at that time Lower Brule had detention—correction officers sitting 

idle. Why weren’t they utilized to keep our facility operating? 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. Chairman Thompson, I’m going to take 

your questions for the record and I’m going to allow Mr. Ragsdale, 

if he would like to, now, to respond to any of those questions or 

if Mr. Chaney would like to. I think that in addition to the questions you just raised as well as some of what we’re going to try to 

get to the bottom of as far as the reprogramming of funds that 

Chairman Jandreau mentioned, do deserve responses and answers 

and I think that the Natural Resources Committee needs to also 

work closely with our counterparts in the Interior Appropriations 

Subcommittee to compile this information and to demand the answers that you’re looking for in terms of the complexity of either 

reprogramming dollars for the operations of the new facility or how 

the dollars have been used, ones for operation of Crow Creek’s facility once it was closed. 

Mr. Ragsdale or Mr. Chaney, would you care to respond? Again, 

these get into very specific issues but—and Chairman Thompson, 

if you want to clarify, a point of clarification for any of the questions you just posed? 

Mr. THOMPSON. I would like to ask one more question here. 

Now, to me, it’s apparent that—and while your OIG reports here 

that there is not adequate management throughout the Bureau of 

Indian Affairs office and Justice Services, underneath your guys’ 

new lines of authority, we’ll call them, because you separated the 

detention, you’re going to separate, it sounds like, the dispatch 

21

now. Are you staffing this with qualified individuals and properly 

training them? And if so, these dollar amounts that you’re earmarking for their salaries are at an outrageously higher rate. 

You pay most of your administration staff more than the FBI 

agents that patrol our area receive, higher than what officers in 

the biggest municipalities in the State of South Dakota receive. 

Now, if funding is such a big issue, why are these salaries so outrageous? Why don’t you cut some of them salaries and reapply it 

back where it’s truly needed in the services that’s supposed to be 

provided to the people? 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. Again, we’re going to take all these questions through the record and would ask for, you know, written submissions in response and we’ll ask for, in more specific detail, other 

particular documents, other questions that I’ll have to put in the 

record. 

But, Mr. Ragsdale, I’ll give you an opportunity to respond. 

Mr. RAGSDALE. Well, I would say, first of all, that with regards 

to the 2004 OIG report that Mr. Chaney and I have been on duty 

for approximately the last two years and we had a significant 

progress of which we would welcome the review and inspection by 

the Committee staff with regard to follow-up to the OIG report. I’m 

very comfortable with that. 

There are resource issues that inhibit our ability to respond to 

all of the 25 or 26 some-odd recommendations that the OIG made 

but we would welcome the Committee’s review of that. 

With regards to our staffing, we pay pursuant to OPM classification rates and I would disagree respectfully with the Chairman’s 

view that our administrative personnel get paid more than FBI 

agents or anybody else in the Federal justice system. 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. Does the report that you mentioned to 

me, Mr. Ragsdale, that will be coming out shortly, will that include 

a description of the progress that you feel in your tenure has been 

made in the last couple of years? Not, again, as a follow-up or directly in response to the 2004 OIG report, but will that report include for the Committee and the Committee staff’s review a summary or more lengthy description of the progress and steps that 

you’ve undertaken. 

Mr. CHANEY. The report that Mr. Ragsdale is referring to is a national analysis of our corrections programs nationwide and the specific emphasis of looking at where we are today and where we need 

to be in the future. 

The short answer to your question is the responses to the Inspector General’s recommendations, we can get that to you separately 

and it will be less confusing. It’s not part of the analysis of the facility conditions. 

What we can show you is out of the 25 OIG recommendations, 

BIA has complied with 16 of them. In fact, all 16 of them, including 

the management issues that Chairman Thompson referred to, have 

been addressed. The problem is the remaining nine are recommendations that would require additional appropriations from 

Congress to be able to do, things like make sure you have adequate 

staffing levels, make sure your facility conditions are up to par, 

and so forth. 

And the other question you had was? 

22

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. Well——

Mr. CHANEY. Oh, the other report. 

The other report is looking at facility conditions. 

Of the 81 or so detention facilities across the United States, 

we’ve hired an independent contractor. They’ve gone out—I think 

they’ve been to 38 or more of the 81 facilities. They’re making analyses as to what the strengths and weaknesses of each facility are 

and have looked at reservations in various parts of the United 

States. 

And the idea is is that we’re at a crossroads, if you will. Up until 

the time of the Inspector General’s report and about the same time, 

there was a DOJ grant program that helped fund about 20 jails in 

Indian Country, including the one across the street at Lower Brule, 

and BIA has not been appropriated any money to build jails for ten 

or 15 years and all the new jails that have come on line in the last 

ten or 15 years have been either totally financed by tribal dollars 

or they have been financed through DOJ and tribal dollars such as 

the Lower Brule facility. 

Now, that program is winding down and our understanding is is 

that the remaining funds that they have are being used to finish 

some of the projects that have not been completed yet. So we’re are 

a crossroads where DOJ is not building any new jails so the question is: Where do we go now? 

And Mr. Ragsdale testified earlier a lot of the facilities, the vast 

majority of the facilities that we have today were built in the ’60’s, 

the ’70’s, even the ’50’s, and a lot of these facilities, frankly, are beyond their life span. A lot of them. 

And so these facilities, when we build them and they’re being 

used for 20, 30, 40 years or more, what we want to do is try to create a national strategy that looks at our detention program for 

Indian Country for the next five, ten, 20, 40 years, where do we 

want to be and how is that going to be accomplished. 

And the report has not been issued yet. We’ve already had consultation with tribes from across the United States. The first meeting was held, I believe, in February in Albuquerque and we invited 

tribes to come in and see a preliminary version of the report, which 

was revealed to us also, and we talked about that to get some preliminary ideas of where we want to go in the future. 

When that report comes out, then we’ll be in a position to start 

making some very big policy decisions about the future of this program. 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. Did the draft report lay out a strategy already and such that it was going to be a consultation with the 

tribes after the draft, the national strategy, or is it more just the 

goals and objectives in light of budgetary constraints and an issue 

of consultation to get ideas from tribes as to, you know, what they 

think the national strategy should be. 

Mr. CHANEY. What the report does is it lays out options so that 

tribes and BIA can discuss what makes sense. 

No, there’s not any prejudgment about what the results should 

be but there are options that are laid out for the BIA and the tribes 

to consider. And there may be different options that make sense in 

one part of the country and different options that make sense in 

another part of the country as we have different demographic situVerDate 0ct 09 2002 12:44 Dec 20, 2007 Jkt 098700 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 L:\DOCS\36020.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
23

ations that apply to different reservations. One size doesn’t always 

fit all for Indian Country and we’re aware of that. 

Mr. RAGSDALE. Let me add to that: We’re hopeful that this will 

be similar to the Gap Analysis that we talked about in the testimony. The report which we had done provided us with some options on how we get to where we need to be in terms of resources 

and how much it will cost. 

Let’s say the cost to provide adequate—I’m just saying let’s say 

the cost is a billion dollars. The Bureau’s total budget is about $2.2 

billion. So what kind of strategies do we need to have in order to 

provide facilities. Are there any other alternatives that we can use 

to lessen or minimize the amount of appropriations we would need. 

What kind of priority settings are the tribal leaders going to have 

to make in terms of providing detention facilities over education 

and the line. 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. Chairman Jandreau, did you participate 

or have you had discussions with any other tribal leaders who participated in the Albuquerque meeting earlier this year on this draft 

report? 

Mr. JANDREAU. No, I haven’t. I haven’t had an opportunity to discuss that with them, but there are a couple of things that I guess 

I would like to go back on, if I may. 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. Please. 

Mr. JANDREAU. Number one, this process of lack of personnel 

that was mentioned here, that there’s only 17 personnel that have 

been cleared so far, has been affected by the length of time that 

it takes now in Albuquerque and I think everyone can admit that. 

They do backgrounds and all of those activities. 

But one of the things that is so crucial, and it must be done with 

all of the tribes, is there’s got to be the ability to sit down and adequately consult on these processes. We are not being able to be afforded that. That yes, we do have officers from the regional office 

that drop in periodically to visit with us, but as far as them containing any real budgetary information, those conversations do not 

contain that. 

As far as detention personnel, we have been fortunate to have 

Mike Yellow come down pretty consistently but again, he does not 

have always up-to-date budgetary information nor the ideas that 

we can really consult about. 

It seems that all of the budgetary process is very bottlenecked at 

the central office level and that process has really got to stop in 

order for us as tribes to effectively move forward. 

One other problem that we really have is we are being given bits 

and pieces of information that lead us on to believe that activity 

is really going to occur and they do not possess the ability at the 

office in Albuquerque—or in Standing Rock to give us that information. 

They hired an individual down here in charge of activities. He 

worked for nearly six months, was unable to process any of the 

work necessary to move the occupation of the facility forward. He 

consequently has, since then, left his position. There is a new individual in that position who is a tribal member who has moved this 

process forward markedly. 

24

We do not want to be the entire oversight of the Bureau function, 

we want that function to work, but there’s got to be a process 

where consultation is real so that we can indicate our frustrations 

and hopefully garner some kind of reactionary movement on the 

part of the Federal system. This can’t continue. We are spinning 

our wheels. We are—and those are just real frustrations. 

When I spoke to Senator Dorgan about this, he indicated to me 

that I was being impatient. Well, I think I’ve been pretty patient, 

you know. I’ve waited for lots of things to happen a long, long time. 

And if it appears that I am impatient today, it’s because we need 

to be communicating. We need to have the truth told to us. We’re 

big guys. I mean, we can hear a no now and then and there ain’t 

no dollars. I mean, those are things that we can understand. 

Thank you. 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. Well, thank you, Chairman Jandreau. 

Thank you for bringing up the issue of the staffing issues because 

I wanted to come back and specifically ask you and Chairman 

Thompson to address that issue and the fact that we have this very 

slow process coming out of New Mexico. 

Mr. Ragsdale, I have to tell you that this is probably the most 

far-reaching and consistent concern and complaint and source of legitimate impatience that I take, my office takes, day to day in all 

of the different offices located in Albuquerque, and it shouldn’t be 

necessary for tribal leaders to have to ultimately call their Member 

of Congress’ office just to try to get a call back or an answer to 

something out of folks in Albuquerque. That’s not fair. It’s not 

transparent. It reflects, I think, the breakdown in the process that 

Chairman Jandreau has described. 

I would respectfully request that you work with us to address 

some of perhaps the most recurring incidents to increase that level 

of responsiveness that then can help shed some light on what we 

can do for the transparency of the budget process to ensure that 

consultation is far more meaningful than I think it has been in the 

last number of years in light of the problems that we are continuing to have. 

So in light of—and I think I saw both of you nod when Chairman 

Jandreau said that I think we can agree that part of the staffing 

issue has been slowed down by the checks of what has to go on 

down in Albuquerque, New Mexico. 

So you had also indicated at the outset, Mr. Ragsdale, that your 

hope was that the facility of the Lower Brule Sioux Tribe could be 

operational within the next couple of months. Are you in a position 

today to provide sort of a time specific so that we can work with 

you, as we work with Chairman Jandreau and we work with this 

new individual in this position that he described that’s been able 

to move this process along, to ensure that at some point this summer that facility is operational? 

Mr. RAGSDALE. I wanted to say two things. I will concede that 

our consultation process with Chairman Mike Jandreau could be 

better and we will pledge to see if we can effect a better process 

with the leadership of the Great Plains so that they are fully informed as to where we are, what problems we face, and where we 

are with regard to the funding. Mr. Chaney and I will do that. 

I’ll let Chris talk to you about the schedule. 

25

Mr. CHANEY. The plan that we have with the Lower Brule detention facility opening is that we anticipate that within a month we 

should be able to have it open as a 72-hour holding facility, basically able to take prisoners that are arrested and awaiting their 

court date, their arraignment and so forth, and be able to have 

enough staff to be able to do that. 

Three months after that, the plan is to have one of the wings 

open for sentenced inmates. That would be the adult male wing. 

Three to six months after that we believe that we’ll have enough 

staff on board to open up the adult female wing, and then once we 

have the final hiring for the juvenile detention staff, we should be 

able to get the juvenile center opened up. 

One of the things you’ll be interested to know is that many of 

the correctional officers that have been hired to work at the Lower 

Brule facility are actually completing their training today at a special training event that we’re having in Pierre, South Dakota, 

today. It started earlier in the week and it’s finishing today. 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. Well, I appreciate that timetable and I 

appreciate the constraints that we’re faced with here but that takes 

us into next year. 

And let me ask about this special training in Pierre just so I 

have a point of clarification here. Did these officers, however, first 

go through their weeks of training down in New Mexico and then 

there has been a specific follow-up of additional training in Pierre? 

Hi, Ms. Baker. Welcome. 

Ms. BAKER. Thank you. 

The training that is being conducted this week is specific to direct supervision, which is the type of facility that the Lower Brule 

facility is. It’s not a linear style jail where you’re locked individually in cells. It’s an open environment such as this where the inmates are classified as—although they have assigned sleeping 

areas, they are allowed in a pretty much open day area and the 

officer is pretty much right in there with them during the entire 

shift, so it’s called direct supervision. So that’s very specific training. 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. And is that in conjunction with or in addition to training that was received in New Mexico for these officers? 

Ms. BAKER. No. This is specialized training for that type of facility. It’s in addition to the IPA certification that they’re required to 

have. 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. And are there age limitations in place for 

those who can apply for and receive these positions? 

Ms. BAKER. They must be 21 and they must not exceed 37 years 

of age. 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. Before I follow up, Ms. Baker, I need you 

to identify yourself just for purposes of the record. Many of us 

know who you are. 

Ms. BAKER. My name is Greta Baker. I’m the supervisor for the 

district one division, which is the Great Plains and Midwest region. 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. Of all of the positions open for the new 

detention facility, does that 37—did you say 37 years of age limitation—does that apply to all of those positions? 

Ms. BAKER. Yes. 

26

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. And in light of the acute staffing shortages that we’re facing, has there been any discussion, within your 

office or within the agency more broadly, about waiving those restrictions? 

Ms. BAKER. Yes, there has. 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. And what has been the result of those 

discussions? 

Ms. BAKER. That it cannot be done because of the law enforcement retirement. 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. Could you elaborate on what you mean, 

the law enforcement retirement? 

Mr. RAGSDALE. Well, I have not been involved in these discussions directly, but the law enforcement retirement program, that’s 

the reason for the age limitations, but let me just modify a little 

bit of what Greta said. 

If they are new hires, they cannot be over the age of 37, but if 

they are reassigned or are currently working in the Federal system, they could be reassigned, but there are limitations from the 

retirement requirements for law enforcement so that you cannot 

hire somebody over the age of 37 as a new hire. 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. I’m still trying to understand the law enforcement retirement issue. This isn’t another budget issue, is it? 

Mr. RAGSDALE. No, it’s not. 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. Well, in our second panel, we have law 

enforcement and I know you have served as well, Mr. Ragsdale, but 

whether I pursue that in the next panel or we pursue it within the 

Committee independently at this hearing, I just think we’ve got to 

have a measure of flexibility and common sense when we’re dealing 

with acute staffing shortages, and if that’s the justification primarily for closing of the Crow Creek Sioux Tribe facility, lack of 

getting operational on the Lower Brule Sioux Tribe facility, and we 

are sitting here hindered by the fact that there can be no new hires 

if someone who lives in Lower Brule or Fort Thompson is 38 or 42 

and is well qualified and is—their application is deemed ineligible 

because of the lack of flexibility, then we need to address this need. 

Chairman Thompson, I see that you might want to give comment 

on this point. 

Mr. THOMPSON. Yes, I’d like to ask a question of Ms. Baker here. 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. Chairman Thompson, just so I can clarify: I appreciate you raising those questions. Again, they’re going 

to have to be taken for the record. 

Mr. THOMPSON. That’s fine. 

For the record, I would like the question addressed. 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. OK. 

Mr. THOMPSON. You were talking about training for your correctional officers. There’s an area that needs to be addressed now, 

whether Crow Creek or Lower Brule ever gets their detention centers open. 

Right now on our reservation and on Lower Brule’s reservation, 

the law enforcement officers transport detainees to these outside 

correctional facilities taking them away from their coverage area. 

Now, a year ago, you—at a meeting with you in Fort Thompson, 

you had made statements to myself and my council with the representative present at that time that correctional officers were 

27

going to be trained how to handle in transport detainees so that 

it would alleviate the stress and the pressure put onto our officers 

to cover both these duties, and that’s been a year ago with no 

progress. Now, can you bring us around and up-to-date where that 

stands at this point? 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. Again, that question will be taken for the 

record. I will give you the opportunity—some of the questions presented, because of the unique circumstances facing the Crow Creek 

Sioux Tribe, its facility, its law enforcement needs, you know, are 

very specific. I know that you have been posed with similar questions before and we want to give you an opportunity to be able to 

provide, through written testimony, the specificity in the response 

relative to the specificity of the question, but I do want to give you 

an opportunity here at the hearing if you’d like to take the opportunity now to address, either in more general terms or in more detail, a response to Chairman Thompson’s concern and question. 

Ms. BAKER. I’ll just respond in general that we do—we have developed the training for—with the—in conjunction with the Indian 

Police Academy for armed escort training. 

We have had three academies. The first one was kind of a test 

academy we ran all of BIA through. I think there was 12 to each 

class. We’ve had two since then. I believe the last graduating class 

was 80 percent tribal employees. And it is an ongoing process. 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. Let me pursue a few other questions and 

I know that we’re going to get to the second panel here momentarily. 

On the issue of training that Chairman Thompson has brought 

up, his experience is unique. Although there are broader trends 

here that we need to address, because each facility, each tribe is 

going to have experiences that are unique, but at the same time, 

it’s the broader trends that the Committee is pursuing here and 

each of us who has the honor of representing a sovereign tribe obviously is going to work with each tribal leader to address and get 

responses to the specific questions based on unique experiences, 

but the training issues, you know—and this gets to the flexibility 

for addressing the shortage of staff issues that have been cited and 

wanting to get to the heart of that. Because I think there are ways 

to alleviate that problem to the degree it seems to be the primary 

problem that the BIA has identified specifically to the Lower Brule 

Sioux Tribe. 

And I don’t want to miss an opportunity, now that we have increased resources, again, although not sufficient to meet all of the 

needs, these increased resources for Indian Country coming from 

the Administration’s proposed budget and what the House Subcommittee has already done. 

But the Bureau of Prisons has opportunities through distance 

learning, computer based training. We have this new facility in 

Pierre where you’ve already identified some officers have received 

some more specified training. We have young men and women in 

different reservation communities who may very well be interested 

in pursuing a career in law enforcement and yet if they do that, 

to become qualified as a BIA officer, I believe they have to go down 

to New Mexico to receive that training. 

Is that correct, Mr. Ragsdale? 

28

Mr. RAGSDALE. Yes, ma’am, that’s correct. 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. And have you pursued either working 

with tribes in South Dakota as well as state officials in charge of 

the overall operation of the center and any other tribes in any 

other states a degree of flexibility where the training could be provided more locally, where young people could travel back on the 

weekends to be with their families rather than being in New Mexico for eight weeks? 

Mr. RAGSDALE. We have had discussions about that but I must 

tell you that I may be a little bit biased because I am a graduate 

of the Indian Police Academy and I have also been through the 

criminal investigation school at Glynco, Georgia, who provide some 

of the best training for law enforcement that there is in the world. 

And so it is a requirement for their Federal certification that the 

majority of our officers go through the police academy and the 

criminal investigation course at Glynco, Georgia. 

Now, having said that, we use state agencies all the time to supplement our ongoing training and if we do hire someone from the 

outside that’s been a deputy sheriff or a city police officer, there is 

a process that we can waive the long-term training for short-term 

training so that they can get their Federal certification. 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. I appreciate your response and I might 

be a little bit biased myself because of the quality of the training 

that I know goes on at the center in Pierre and while I appreciate 

that the quality of the training that’s provided in New Mexico or 

in Georgia and that in working with the states, there’s supplemental training where there’s agreements or memorandums of understanding with the tribes, again, we’re dealing with an issue of 

crisis proportion in getting people trained to staff these facilities. 

I would hope that we could agree upon the need for the flexibility 

to perhaps provide the core training closer to home and the supplemental training, then, when these young people become officers, 

more comfortable, you know, and looking for other opportunities 

within that career to receive supplemental training further away 

from home. And so I would like to continue to pursue that with 

you. 

I have to assume that there are tribes in other parts of the country that would feel similarly that are located further away from 

Georgia or New Mexico. And again, that’s the Great Plains tribes 

in particular that I’ve heard this concern expressed repeatedly, and 

again, the issue of acute shortages and crisis that is occurring in 

Indian Country and the need for some flexibility as it relates to the 

training required to get the credentials to fill these positions. 

I am going to submit other questions for the record that deal 

with the budget process issues, some of the issues that Chairman 

Thompson and Chairman Jandreau have brought up regarding the 

shifting around of resources, when unfilled positions go unfilled, 

and what the backlog is, and again, some questions I have so that 

we don’t undercut these opportunities that we may have with the 

increased resources that will be becoming available. 

And then if you could get back with me in writing on the Bureau 

of Prisons computer based training as well as the distance learning 

offered in terms of supplemental training that officers could receive. 

29

And finally, I am going to state for the record again, Mr. Chaney, 

appreciating your candor about the time lines for the Lower Brule 

Sioux Tribe facility as well as, Mr. Ragsdale, your comment that 

there has been no proposal to consolidate the detention facilities for 

Crow Creek Sioux Tribe and Lower Brule Sioux Tribe, that it 

would take us another year to have the Lower Brule Sioux Tribe 

detention facility for which, as Chairman Jandreau mentioned, five 

and a half million dollars of tribal funds went into that project in 

part based on assurances that Chairman Jandreau and others were 

getting that this process would move forward in a more timely way, 

a year’s unacceptable to me. 

So I am, I guess, putting you on notice in the spirit of cooperation here that we work together to try to move that date up substantially and wanting to be in a position of working with the 

Chairman and Ranking Member and others on different committees of jurisdiction to identify the process and the financial means 

of doing so. 

Thank you very much, each of you, for your testimony and for 

your insights. As those who have joined us today, many of you 

being in the field of law enforcement, tribal leaders, recognizing the 

complexity and breadth of these problems, today’s hearing is dramatically important, but again, the continued conversations, gathering of information that we’ll be pursuing in the weeks ahead 

will—it is my hope will lead to the kind of progress that I think 

we all want to see for the safety of the communities, especially for 

the children in our communities and the parents and elders that 

want only the safest and most secure for the future of every community and the Federal Government’s obligation to explore the different options as it relates to the funding and resources, but a better process, more transparent, timely, responsive process that 

meets the needs and priorities articulated and identified by tribal 

leaders across the country. 

So thank you very much for your testimony and I would invite 

our second panel to the witness table. We’re going to be taking a 

short break after the second panel, before the third, and when we 

do break—and I’ll repeat this after we finish the second panel—

when we break, we’re going to have press availability and we’re 

going to be using Chairman Jandreau’s office so the witnesses from 

the first panel and the second, as well as the third, may want to 

join us at that time. 

So as our witnesses for the second panel are taking their place 

at the witness table, let me thank, again, the first panel for their 

expertise. 

We’re going to focus on a narrower aspect of law enforcement for 

our second panel. I’m sorry, I’m going to the third panel. Let me 

get to the second one. 

There are a number of other tribal leaders joining us on the second panel. We have President John Yellowbird Steele, who is here 

with the Oglala Sioux Tribe, The Honorable Rodney Bordeaux, 

President of the Rosebud Sioux Tribe. Welcome. We’re going to 

switch your nameplates around, actually, President Bordeaux. And 

then Gary Gaikowski. Yes, very good. Thank you. Sisseton 

Wahpeton Oyate Chief of Police. And is Chairman Joe Brings Plenty here? 

30

Mr. BORDEAUX. Yes, he is. 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. OK. He’ll be joining us here momentarily. 

We’ll give him a moment. 

But again, as I mentioned, we have mostly on our second panel 

tribal chairmen and presidents. We’ve also been able to include 

Chief of Police Gary Gaikowski, all with extensive experience dealing with the challenges of providing law enforcement in their respective communities and I appreciate their leadership as I’ve consulted with them to address some of the concerns that I expect 

them to raise. 

That was a long first panel so I know people are taking a quick 

break, but in the spirit of moving things along, we’ll have—I know 

that Chairman Brings Plenty will be joining us momentarily, but 

why don’t we go ahead and get started with President John 

Yellowbird Steele’s testimony today. 

Welcome. Thank you for being here, and we look forward to hearing from you and the experiences of the Oglala Sioux Tribe. Again, 

as the witnesses from the first panel pointed out, I know you and 

everyone else on this panel has submitted a written statement for 

the record which will be made part of the record in its entirety and 

so we recognize you to summarize and address some of the highlights of your testimony for the Subcommittee and for the full Committee today. Thank you, John. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. JOHN YELLOWBIRD STEELE, 

PRESIDENT, OGLALA SIOUX TRIBE, PINE RIDGE, SOUTH 

DAKOTA 

Mr. STEELE. Thank you. 

Congresswoman, we thank you very much for holding this hearing here in Lower Brule, and for the record, I’d also like to say that 

down in Pine Ridge, we’re more than two times the State of Rhode 

Island in size and our law enforcement, we need to do 24/7 in this 

very large area and we have about 50,000 residents at Pine Ridge. 

Congresswoman, before I begin my testimony, I’d like to recognize the Chairman of the Winnebago Sioux Tribe—Winnebago 

Sioux Chairman—Winnebago Tribe down in Nebraska, Chairman 

Pilcher, and Chairman Cournoyer from the Yankton Sioux Tribe. 

And if possible, Congresswoman, if we have some time, could they 

give some oral testimony also? That would be my request for those 

two reservations. They are a part of us also. 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. Yes, certainly. And I do appreciate you 

introducing our chairmen here today and we made every opportunity, we were—had some limitations both in terms of time and 

the size of each panel, working with the Committee in organizing 

this and wanting to make it as comprehensive and inclusive as possible. And I would certainly agree they are part of the broader 

issue we’re trying to get at here today and I would invite both of 

the Chairmen, perhaps at the conclusion of our third panel, as a 

separate part of the hearing today to provide oral statements for 

the record so that we can stay on track with the written testimony 

that’s been submitted, get to our third panel after a short break, 

and I’d invite both of them up to share their insights with the Committee. 

31

Would that—is everyone amenable to that? Very good. Thank 

you for introducing them. 

Mr. STEELE. Thank you. 

I’d also like to recognize our former president of the Oglala Sioux 

Tribe Cecelia Fire Thunder and former president of the Oglala 

Sioux Tribe Mr. Paul Iron Cloud. He’s, to me, a traditional chief 

back in, I think, 1980 some by Porcupine and he’s got about 5,000 

people in his jurisdiction. 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. Thank you. Thank you for introducing 

them both. I’ve appreciated my working relationship with both of 

them in the different leadership capacities that they—different 

hats that they wear at different times and certainly appreciate 

your leadership over the years and look forward to your testimony. 

Mr. STEELE. Yes. 

My testimony, Congresswoman, I would like to keep brief and 

more of an overview and then reserve a little of my time for my 

chief of police, Mr. James Twiss here, to give some numbers and 

conditions of facilities and different services that we do have. 

First, Congresswoman, I would like to address the fact that in 

South Dakota, the South Dakota State Supreme Court says that 

the facts are different in South Dakota. So there is a United States 

Supreme Court case called Hicks versus Nevada that says that 

state police can go onto reservations to serve due process and to do 

their work. 

We had a Fall River County sheriff chase one of our tribal members onto the reservation by the casino there putting some charges 

against him. This went up through the state court and ended up 

at the South Dakota State Supreme Court and they said the facts 

are different in South Dakota. Hicks versus Nevada does not apply 

in South Dakota. State police cannot go onto trust lands in South 

Dakota. So this gives tribes complete jurisdiction without any kind 

of help or assistance from the outside. 

And we have just passed, also, a law on Pine Ridge on the registration of sex offenders as required by Federal law. If this was 

not done by July, the state would come in and do the registration 

of the sex offenders, but on Pine Ridge, we do not want the state 

to come in or to do anything, if possible. We need the Federal Government to craft their legislation so that we remain sovereign and 

in control completely of our jurisdiction. 

So this task of registering the sex offenders falls upon Public 

Safety again, but on Pine Ridge we’re getting cut by 40 percent 

come October 1st. We are prohibited from going to the Department 

of Justice of the U.S. Government now and we’re going to lose all 

of the funds for officers, for our vehicles, for other services come 

October 1st. 

The BIA has cut us more than anyone else. Although you, Congresswoman, put an increase to the Bureau, we are losing our historic monies, not getting any part of the increases the way the Bureau of Indian Affairs is coming up with their formula. 

We are very proud of you, Congresswoman, for questioning them 

and for making it public to other legislators and the Administration. What I heard were excuses and you, Congresswoman, asked 

them about it several times, budget constraints, budget constraints, 

these excuses. They never advocate for us, Congresswoman. 

32

But the facts are different here and we have more jurisdictional 

control, more duties, jurisdictional duties that are not recognized. 

I would like to bring up one more thing before I have my Chief 

of Police come up and give us some numbers here, Congresswoman, 

and very respectfully I would like to say: We have a relationship 

with the U.S. Government and this is in the treaty. This treaty, in 

a proclamation I put in my written testimony and I also give to 

you, the last paragraph there that Senator Johnson did in the proclamation tells of the different kinds of treaties and this established 

relationship with the U.S. Government and we are the one treaty 

that was done as with a foreign nation. 

There was recognized by the U.S. Congress back then a legal obligation for these treaty rights, and public safety and the police 

protection of the people is one of those treaty rights. 

Congress used to appropriate monies based upon a head count by 

the Bureau of Indian Affairs superintendent every year to meet 

these legal treaty obligations. In 1921 the Snyder Act was passed 

authorizing appropriations for Indian Health Service and BIA. Now 

the BIA puts the budget in. The BIA does not recognize or act according to a legal treaty obligation. 

Congresswoman, we are of an area that is quite impoverished. 

This means people who see on TV the rest of—the way the rest of 

America lives. How long are we to live this way? The BIA is cutting 

what they call the Tribal Priority Allocation systems, the monies, 

historic monies we get. Where do they cut? They cut HIPAA. They 

cut THREP out. They cut Federal assistance out. They are hurting 

the poorest among the poor. 

Again, we thank you for questioning them. How long are we to 

live with this and put up with these budget constraints? 

We were very thankful that Senator Johnson recognized our 

treaty and put that proclamation out and we’re living—we’re trying 

to live according to it and educate people according to it. We have 

kept our end of that treaty. The U.S. Government took the whole 

half of South Dakota, one-fourth of North Dakota, Montana, Wyoming, down to the Platte in Nebraska, as long as the grass grows 

and the rivers flow. 

We have not formed our own Army or militia. We have not made 

a relationship with any other country in the world. But impoverishment, Congresswoman, pushes people to do strange things. And we 

are, across the State of South Dakota, quite impoverished. 

We would request, Congresswoman, that you make possibly—

what do they call that? Earmark for law enforcement. Our people 

need to feel safe in their homes, in their communities, and make 

it recurring to the BIA so that they can’t mess with it and give it 

to some self-governance tribe. 

And I cited the Bureau a few years back, Congresswoman, because they tell their own people, ‘‘You’d better be good or we’re 

going to send you to Pine Ridge.’’ I don’t need that kind of thinking 

in the Bureau, that attitude. 

So Congresswoman, respectfully, the more impoverished, the 

more you’re pushed to other ways of getting things done. I thank 

you for this hearing. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Steele follows:]

33

Statement of John Steele, President, Oglala Sioux Tribe,

Pine Ridge, South Dakota 

Good Morning Mr. Chairman: 

My name is John Steele and I am the President of the Oglala Sioux Tribe. Thank 

you for this opportunity to appear and thank you for scheduling this field hearing. 

Mr. Chairman, law enforcement and public safety are some of the most basic and 

yet some of the most critical components of tribal life and tribal sovereignty. All 

Americans have the right to feel safe. I and a number of our tribal men were in 

the military and we fought for that right! This basic human need is so strong that 

our ancestors actually negotiated specific treaty provisions to insure it. Now, unfortunately, those same treaty provisions, which were and are supposed to insure us 

federal public safety assistance, have become nothing more than another broken 

promise. 

Today, the Oglala Sioux Tribe is facing the loss of almost 50% of our tribal police 

officers in FY 2008. This is coming at a time when we are also facing a frightening 

and devastating increase in the number of methamphetamine sales, violent crimes, 

gang incidents and domestic violence cases. And, at a time when the BIA is actually 

proposing an increase, although a totally inadequate one, in law enforcement dollars 

for other Tribes across the nation. 

The problems that I am about to describe are a direct result of the Interior Department’s failures, and I would be less than truthful if I did not tell you that I 

am very angry about what has happened, and more than a bit desperate for your 

help. Here is our story. 

A few years ago, when tribal law enforcement programs were still a part of the 

BIA’s Tribal Program Allocation (TPA) budget, our TPA allocation for Oglala faced 

a serious cut. This was due in large part to cuts that the Administration had initiated in programs that were primarily being used by a handful of tribes like ours, 

which had large land bases and large populations. Unfortunately, because our reservation is almost twice the size of the State of Rhode Island, and has no state police presence at all, since we are by treaty and by law under tribal and federal jurisdiction, our law enforcement needs are very high. In fact, even the BIA agreed that 

the 119 plus officers that it was funding at that time were grossly insufficient. 

When discussion began on how to address that budget crisis, the BIA’s law enforcement staff advised us that while they were powerless to help us because of 

their funding limitations, they did have a solution to our dilemma. That solution 

went as follows: Instead of providing us with the funding that we really needed, the 

BIA recommended that we apply for police officer funding from the newly created 

Circle and COPS programs at the Department of Justice, and they agreed to help 

us acquire those DOJ dollars. Their reasoning was that by funding some of our BIA 

funded officers with DOJ dollars, we would temporarily take some of the burden off 

of our very limited TPA budget. This would allow the Tribe to use more of its limited TPA dollars to fund some of the critically needed social services that we were 

losing, and allow the BIA time to figure out how to get the money that we needed 

to address our new funding crisis. At their urging, we did as they suggested and 

applied for COPS and Circle grants. While this helped for awhile, it has now left 

us in a new and even more desperate situation. 

Under the approach I am describing, the BIA agreed that the COPS dollars would 

fund many of our officers’ salaries and fringe, and the BIA dollars would fund their 

equipment, gas and other costs. Everyone was in agreement, and when the DOJ 

asked us to provide them with a statement of how these officers were going to be 

funded when our 5 year COPS program eligibility ran out (this is a statutory limitation), we told the DOJ what the BIA had told us, which was that the BIA would 

be picking up these salaries at the end of the DOJ grants. 

Then, right in the middle of our 5 year COPS grants, the BIA funding was short 

again, and this time these same BIA’s law enforcement people encouraged us to 

apply to DOJ for funding to replace our police vehicles on a one time basis. Because 

we had a desperate need for these new cars, since our average police car books in 

excess of 80,000 miles per year, and because we had no other options, we did as 

they recommended. 

Then three things happened. First, as you can imagine, the BIA did nothing to 

help to add BIA money to our law enforcement budget. Second, the BIA and the 

Congress eliminated weatherization and one or two more programs that our Tribe 

was directing a sizable percentage of its TPA dollars into. When these programs 

went away, the TPA dollars attached to them disappeared as well. This resulted in 

another severe cut in the Tribe’s overall TPA budget, leaving us with no money to 

move back into law enforcement as the COPS money decreased. Third, the BIA decided to take all tribal law enforcement and detention monies out of TPA, and create 

34

a new law enforcement/detention line item using as a base budget just the actual 

amount of law enforcement dollars that the BIA was providing to each tribe at the 

time and ignoring our COPS contribution. 

The end result of all of this is that we ended up today with a BIA law enforcement budget which funds less than half of the officers than it did when we first 

started talking with the BIA about our funding shortage, and the Tribe has ended 

up with a TPA budget which is, on a per capita basis, one of the lowest in the nation. Our law enforcement program is now so broke that most of our officers lack 

the basic equipment they need to do their jobs. For example, most of our police cars 

aren’t even equipped with flares, fire extinguishers, emergency kits or even cones 

to block traffic when an accident occurs, and many of our officers have not received 

all of the training federal policy requires because we do not have the funding to 

send them. We also have no BIA budgeted funding whatsoever for vehicle rentals 

or replacements in 2008. Thus, we went from having an inadequate 119 officers before this started, to the 67 that we have now, and if nothing is done, we will be 

down to well below 40 in 2008. 

Today, we have 40 BIA funded officers and 27 DOJ funded people to cover an area 

twice the size of Rhode Island, 24 hours per day, 7 days per week. Our DOJ officers 

will go away in 2008 because we are legally prohibited from applying for or receiving further COPS funding, and if we need to use some of the funding that the BIA 

currently provides to replace our police cars, each car will cost us one of those 40 

BIA funded positions. At best, this will leave us in 2008, with approximately 25% 

of the police force that we had in the late 1990’s and 50% of the already depleted 

force that we have today. 

While we understand that the federal budget is tight, we cannot believe that this 

problem should prohibit this Committee from addressing bureaucratic negligence of 

this magnitude. The BIA has already said that on-reservation law enforcement, public safety and methamphetamine eradication are some of the President’s primary 

concerns. We agree with these priorities and all we are asking them to do is to live 

up to the very principals that they themselves are expounding. 

Mr. Chairman, our response time is already over an hour for emergency calls like 

assaults and robberies in progress and our officers are already working without 

backup. This creates very serious situations for both the victim and the officer, especially when you factor in unpaved and virtually impassable roads. Thus, the bottom 

line is that we need help now. 

This unfortunately, is not the only problem that the BIA has left to us. We currently have two tribal jails which have been condemned for a number of years. If 

you look at the photos that we have provided, you will see a coffee can and a rubber 

wrap being used to keep two piece of pipe held together, exposed wiring next to 

flooded floors, walls so dilapidated that we actually had a prisoner punch his way 

out of jail, leaky roofs, cracked walls and other major problems. What you will not 

see is the fact that both of these jails lost heat altogether during some cold periods 

this winter, and that a number of our officers had to be pulled off of patrol altogether just to move prisoners out of this dangerous situation. One set of prisoners 

had to be moved from the Pine Ridge Detention facility to the Kyle Facility, which 

is the distance of 56 miles one way. That trip took roughly one hour to complete. 

This also placed an additional burden on the vehicle cost line item in our budget 

which is strained to begin with. The bottom line, however, is that the list of life 

threatening problems for both officers and detainees at these facilities, and the list 

of constitutional violations that they present is too long to cover in this short testimony. 

We also have a 911 center, the only one that serves most of our reservation, which 

is so deteriorated that it has snakes and mice coming through the roof, doors and 

walls and damaging thousands of dollars of government funded equipment. It also 

has a foundation which is literally falling off a cliff. Our law enforcement staff 

works in an administration building which is full of airborne asbestos, has a leaky 

roof, cracked walls and a wiring system that is not capable of handling our computers electronic equipment and our Tribal Court building is as bad if not worse. 

How can we possibly serve our people adequately under these conditions? 

Our detention program also has a major staffing problem. In fact, we are so severely under-funded that we are often forced to leave one officer to oversee 30 or 

40 male and female prisoners, many of whom are under the influence of alcohol or 

drugs. Our Director of Detention tells of one instance where a female corrections 

officer was forced to go into the drunk tank to break up a fight and she was attacked by a prisoner. This prisoner had her held down by the neck and the only 

thing that saved her was that fact that one of her extended family members happened to be being detained in that same cell at that same time. That female guard 

was the only person on duty at the time, and her only method of communicating 

35

with the single staff person at the juvenile facility next door was a whistle which 

she could not blow, because she could not breathe. 

Our tribal court building is also condemned and in similar un-repairable condition. Vital tribal court records are being destroyed by mold and water damage, computers are often damaged by faulty wiring, asbestos is coming through cracked walls 

and ceilings and space is a very serious problem. Records from 1934 remain in jeopardy and much needed electronic records retention equipment is simply not available. How can you monitor someone through the court system under these conditions? It violates even the most basic constitutional standards. 

Mr. Chairman, all of these buildings are well beyond repair and the costs of even 

the most basic repairs far exceed the cost of new construction. I have attached a 

more detailed physical description of these building along with pictures for your review. 

We realize that in order to be effective our tribal law enforcement, courts, incarceration services, domestic abuse and other social programs, and Indian Health 

detox programs all have to work together. For this reason, we have been developing 

a new concept for an Oglala Sioux Tribe Department of Justice. If our Courts are 

not adequately staffed and equipped, then they are not going to be able to deal effectively with the people our police department arrests. If our jails are not safe, and 

if our diversion programs, like alcohol and drug detox and domestic violence counseling are not available, then our Judges cannot do their jobs effectively. And, if our 

people do not receive the detox and counseling services that they require, then they 

are going to be re-arrested. It’s just that simple. Public Safety has to be a package 

deal. 

Unfortunately, one of our draw backs has been that we have no place to house 

this new Department. As I noted above, our law enforcement and courts programs 

are currently being housed in overcrowded, dilapidated buildings, where we cannot 

even store the basic legal records that we need to keep, or run the types of computers that we require in order to properly manage criminal and civil information. 

We have taken this space need to the BIA and all they tell us is that they have 

no money. We also have no detox services on our reservation, and our social service 

programs are so stressed that they cannot properly manage all of the cases that 

they receive. All of this combines to leave our community wide open to the negative 

influences of drug pushers and gangs and that is a very scary thought. 

Today, our reservation is at a cross roads. We can either address these problems 

now, or deal with far larger problems in the future. It’s just that simple. Our people 

deserve better and I would like to thank you for holding this hearing to begin to 

highlight what is really going on. 

[NOTE: Attachments have been retained in the Committee’s official files.] 

Oglala Sioux Parks and Recreation Authority

The Needs and Challenges of Tribal Natural Resources Law Enforcement

Fiscal Year 2007

Introduction: 

It has been said that what defines a people is their land base and their cultural 

ties to that land base. For the Oglala Sioux Tribe, the on-going protection of its 

homeland, its sacred sites, its natural resources and its historic properties is of the 

utmost importance. This is exactly what the Oglala Sioux Parks and Recreation Authority does. It protects the Tribe’s cultural and natural resources on the Pine Ridge 

Indian Reservation and in so doing, it insures compliance with tribal and federal 

laws including those designed to insure Homeland Security. This is an aspect of law 

enforcement that is generally forgotten in the Committee’s oversight hearings, but 

that does not make it any less important. 

The Oglala Sioux Parks and Recreation Authority is a tribally chartered entity 

that is nearing its 33rd anniversary. The organization provides law enforcement on 

the Tribe’s cultural and recreational lands, and insures the protection of its cultural, 

interpretational, anthropological, and pale-ontological sites, as well as the protection 

of the Tribe’s environment and natural resources. It also provides general tribal and 

federal law enforcement services on those sites. The OSPRA has a P.L. 93-638 contract with the Bureau of Indian Affairs to provide fish and wildlife enforcement 

services on our Reservation. As is the case with all 638 contracts, there is not now, 

and from the beginning never was, adequate funding to provide these important 

services. 

Over the past 32 years, the Rangers have seen an increase in the number of violations of tribal and federal natural resource law. They have also seen a new rash 

36

of cloudy jurisdiction problems. Property violations are on the rise, and the number 

of hunting requests on tribal land is increasing every year. This has put a real 

strain on the program, because the Rangers are not only responsible for the dissemination of all hunting licenses, they are also responsible for the enforcement of all 

hunting laws. Hunting is a year round activity on our Reservation and the Rangers 

are seeing an increase in the number of people participating every year. With all 

of these increased duties and enforcement responsibilities, the program’s expenses 

continue to increase, yet the Rangers have not seen an increase in their 638 budget 

that reflects the increased costs associated with providing these most important 

public services. 

The OSPRA has a total of five Enforcement Rangers in their 638 budget. All 

Rangers are certified through the Indian Police Academy and the program has a 

92.5% successful completion rate. These five officers are to provide Home Land Security and enforcement services for the entire residential and visitor population. 

This can be defined as a service population of 50,000+ individuals. The Rangers patrol the entire Reservation, including many miles off road, always without backup. 

When it is said that they provide patrol services for the entire 3.1 million acres this 

is a fact. Most of the Rangers’ work is off road in the most remote locations on our 

Reservation, and this requires extensive investigation and community policing strategies. 

The Rangers are not afforded the luxury of simply charging a person with a violation and taking the violator to jail, the Ranger has to deal first hand with the issue 

on the spot. This requires extensive investigation work on site and extensive interaction with the general public. In providing Home Land Security to the members 

and visitors to the Reservation, the Rangers often find themselves dealing with nonIndians. This means that the Rangers have to know more than tribal Law, they also 

need to know Federal law, especially when dealing with jurisdictional issues. The 

Rangers also have to have a working knowledge of land ownership and land management to ensure proper enforcement on properties which are owned by a variety 

of different entities and individuals. To enforce natural resource ordinances, the 

Rangers also have to know who possesses what permits and for what specific locations. 

The Rangers are also the only entity on the reservation that provide complete 

search and rescue services. The goal of its search and rescue unit is to provide 

search and rescue as opposed to recovery. Their importance and success is evidenced 

when you consider the number of lives that have been saved versus the number of 

bodies recovered. 

Our Rangers are also responsible for providing interpretation services for the 

many visitors to the South Unit and the Wounded Knee Memorial—two of our most 

important properties. This makes them responsible for the enforcement of our business license and public intoxication codes on these properties and on the other lands 

that they patrol. 

Anthropological violations occur on a daily basis, especially in the South Unit of 

our Reservation. The Rangers have many items of evidence that need to be kept on 

their person in order to insure a successful prosecution. To insure the protection of 

our most sacred items, the Rangers are also burdened with the duty to locate and 

inventory tribal natural resources and cultural items, especially fossils. 

With a total of five Rangers this is an impossible task. The Oglala Sioux Tribe 

has entered a project agreement with the National Park Service. Part of the agreement consists of developing a general management plan for the South Unit. All indications are that this will become a tribal park. If this happens the OSPRA will be 

the sole law enforcement on these 133,000 acres, which house an abundance of our 

natural resources and receive a variety of visitors. 

As with all law enforcement across Indian Country, the Rangers are severely 

under funded. Our lack of adequate resources leaves few dollars for proper equipment, no money for cost of living allowances, a significantly under funded line item 

for vehicle operation costs and the bottom line is that the dollar amounts awarded 

through the Ranger’s 638 contract do not properly reflect the ever changing budget 

needs of this important program. The current amount of funding only leads to law 

enforcement failure in this area. 

The Oglala Sioux Parks and Recreation Authority is proposing a three-year plan 

that will meet the ever growing challenges: 

• Adequate dollars to not only hire, but retain the best personnel. 

• Adequate dollars for proper equipment, maintenance and repair and a reasonable operating budget for the program. 

Towards this end, the Oglala Sioux Parks and Recreation has developed a three 

funding request. The overall increase dollar amount being asked for in the first year 

is $1,028,760. This is an increase of $784,436 over its current funding level. This 

37

number reflects the dramatic difference between meeting the basic needs of the program and failing to do so, which is what the current budget is designed to do. 

To meet its most basic needs, the Oglala Sioux Parks and Recreation Authority 

needs a total of 20 full-time Rangers and an overall contract which reflects the ever 

growing demands that are placed on its program. The people of the Pine Ridge Reservation need these Rangers in order to support the Tribe’s Homeland Security Programs and to insure the enforcement of theirs laws on these most important properties. The people of the Pine Ridge Reservation respectfully ask the Congress to 

understand that their Tribe, and its lands and historic resources need the same support that the Congress provides to the Officers employed by the U.S. Parks Service, 

the Bureau of Land Management, the Forest Service and the other federal programs 

which police its federal lands. Our people, our visitors and our property are no less 

important. 

Mr. STEELE. I would like the Chief of Police to come up and give 

you some numbers, please. 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. Yes, please. And, Chief, if you could identify yourself for the record prior to giving us the statistics. 

STATEMENT OF MR. JAMES TWISS, CHIEF OF POLICE, OGLALA 

SIOUX TRIBE, PINE RIDGE, SOUTH DAKOTA 

Mr. TWISS. Thank you, Madam. 

Good afternoon. My name is James Twiss, Chief of Police of the 

Oglala Sioux Tribe of Pine Ridge, South Dakota. 

Madam Chair, to help you better understand my testimony 

today, let me give you some background information on our tribe. 

Pine Ridge is one of the largest and poorest reservations in the 

United States. Our average income is about $7,000 and unemployment is about 50 percent. We have on the reservation a population 

of 50,000 people and our reservation is double the size of Rhode Island. 

We are a treaty tribe whose reservation is in a non-280 state. 

This means we have no state police patrolling our reservation and 

jurisdiction is strictly tribal and Federal. We operate the only 911 

center on our reservation and that center receives about 180,000 

calls for service per year. We also operate three adult detention 

centers and one juvenile detention facility. We’re averaging about 

27,000 arrests a year. 

I’m here today because we are the only tribe in Indian Country 

who is scheduled to lose in excess of one-third of our already understaffed police department because of bureaucratic screw-ups. Here 

is what happened. 

When money got tight, the Oglala’s Tribal Priority Allocation in 

the 1990’s, the BIA encouraged us to start funding a sizable number of our law enforcement officers using DOJ funds. 

According to what we were told, this was supposed to have been 

a temporary fix to an extremely underfunded tribal budget. Eventually under this scenario we ended up with 50 percent of our law 

enforcement officers being funded with short-term DOJ grants. 

Every year we would ask the BIA to start picking up on those 

DOJ positions and every year we were told that they were working 

on it for the next fiscal year. Now we find ourselves at the end of 

the eligibility for those DOJ funds and neither we nor the BIA 

know what to do about it. 

The people I am talking about are not new hires, Madam Chair. 

These are officers we have had with us for ten years. As I’ve said, 

38

no other tribe in the U.S. is facing this large of a cut in their police 

force. But BIA openly admits that we need more officers and probably a minimum of 30 more but they don’t have a mechanism to 

pick up the cost of these 28 officers. We are therefore coming here to ask you to add or earmark $1.3 

million to our base budget just to maintain our existing police 

force. Our police are already stretched to the limit. We have 69 officers on the reservation to answer 180,000 calls for service each 

year. We have many of those officers traveling over 350 miles per 

eight-hour shift. We don’t know what we’re going to do if we lose 

these 28 officers but I can almost guarantee you that we will not 

be able to respond to all the domestic violence and child abuse calls 

that we receive every day. 

Imagine, Madam Chair, if you were car jacked in Pine Ridge. 

Right now it would take us about an hour to get to you and another hour to transport you to the hospital if you were lucky. This 

is what our people face every time they need police assistance. And 

don’t have accidents in Pine Ridge, because we don’t have any 

emergency equipment in our vehicles such as fire extinguishers, 

shovels, chains, cones, cameras. Also, there’s no triple A within a 

hundred miles. 

The simple bottom line is to just stay in the already underfunded position that we are in, we need $1.3 million added to our base 

budget. And I cannot say it any more simpler than that. 

Unfortunately, this is not our only problem. Two of our tribal 

jails, one at Pine Ridge and the other at Kyle, and also our office 

building are so dilapidated that they’re beyond repair. I brought 

you some photographs on a DVD to help you understand what I 

mean. 

But let me give you some examples. This past winter, Pine Ridge 

and Kyle jail both lost heat at the same time. And this was not an 

unusual occurrence because unfortunately the furnaces at both 

jails go out on an all too regular basis. 

We also have holding rooms and cells with standing water and 

leaking water on the floor and exposed electrical wiring on the 

walls. This is a very dangerous situation given that we house intoxicated persons in these rooms. We have bad roofs, bad walls, 

and electrical and plumbing systems that are beyond repair. 

As you will see from our photographs, you also have raw sewage 

backups, windows and cut glass, and intercoms and emergency 

lighting that doesn’t work at all. To make matters worse, we are 

exceeding occupancy, maximum occupancy by one hundred percent. 

Madam Chair, the BIA has spent sizable amounts of money just 

to keep these buildings open and as they have said earlier, it’s 

going to cost more to repair then to rebuild. If any other government was housing prisoners under these unconstitutional conditions, it would be front page news in the New York Times. 

We need both Pine Ridge and Kyle jails replaced now and the 

BIA’s own figures suggest the cost is 11 to $12 million each. Because we are sensitive to your budget constraints and limitations 

and because our tribal courts and tribal law enforcement headquarters are in such deplorable shape with airborne asbestos in 

every room, we came up with the idea of asking for funding for a 

single justice building that would house our tribal courts, our 

39

criminal and civil records storage and evidence lockers, our law enforcement functions, and one of our tribal jails. 

While this building would be more costly upfront, savings on 

water, sewer, and other utility hookups and parking make it far 

cheaper than asking for three new buildings. We estimate the cost 

of this facility to be somewhere around $20 million. 

Adding to these problems is the fact that we lack the manpower 

to staff our detention facilities. Today it is not unusual to have just 

one correctional officer working alone in the jail when the jail occupancy is 50 to 60 people. In fact, during powwow season we have 

had over 200 people or more in one tribal jail facility. This is a very 

dangerous situation for the residents and the officers who perform 

these tasks. 

We have had a female detention officer in the not too recent past 

who went into the drunk tank to break up a fight. One of the males 

involved in the altercation attacked the female detention officer 

and was close to killing her. The only thing that saved her was one 

of the inmates in the drunk tank was a family member who came 

to her rescue. 

Madam Chair, to get the appropriate number of correctional offi- cers we need, we’ll need another $703,000 to add 22 correction officers for our department. 

Madam Chair, we need your help and we don’t know who else 

to turn to. Our situation, which has been bad for some time now, 

is rapidly becoming desperate. 

If you have questions, I’ll be happy to answer them, but I ask 

last that you come to Pine Ridge and see for yourself what we’re 

up against. 

And also I’d like to add that, in regards to the earlier panel when 

they talked about the meeting in Albuquerque, we were never invited to this meeting and Mr. William Mehojah of BIA facilities has 

never answered any of our correspondence that we have sent him. 

Thank you. 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. Thank you. I appreciate you being here 

and your additional testimony in addition to President Steele’s. I’ll 

have some comments and then questions but we’ll move to President Bordeaux for now, but if you’d remain for the rest of this 

panel. OK. 

Mr. TWISS. Yes. 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. President Bordeaux, welcome. Thank you 

for being here. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. RODNEY BORDEAUX, PRESIDENT, 

ROSEBUD SIOUX TRIBE, ROSEBUD, SOUTH DAKOTA 

Mr. BORDEAUX. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

My name is Rodney Bordeaux. I’m the President of the Rosebud 

Sioux Tribe. On behalf of the members of the Rosebud Sioux Tribe 

I want to thank you for the invitation to testify before you and I 

also want to congratulate you on your recent wedding. 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. Thank you. 

Mr. BORDEAUX. As you know, the Rosebud Indian Reservation is 

located in south central South Dakota and has 20 communities that 

encompasses a four county area. Our former reservation included 

trust acreage of 3.2 million acres and it is home to approximately 

40

19,000 of approximately 26,000 members of the tribe. Our 3.2 million land base has dwindled down to about 882,000—890,000 acres 

of trust land. 

As you know, many of our tribe suffer from high rates of unemployment, low life expectancies, high rates of diabetes, heart disease. Recently we had a rash of suicides and that’s an ongoing 

problem. Low secondary and post-secondary graduation rates. As 

you already know, the Rosebud Sioux Tribe has an alarming increase in illegal activities. 

For example, methamphetamine use is on the rise. Through our 

participation in Safe Trails—Northern Plains Safe Trails Task 

Force, we have had 51 indictments between September of ’05 and 

May 7th of this—April 7th of this year, and we do have an officer, 

if you want to learn more about the problems that we have with 

the methamphetamine problems, he is here and available for some 

comments. 

Gang violence is on the rise. Since last August of last year, our 

GRTF task force, our gang reduction task force has identified 863 

gang members so far ages 12 to 41, and that’s just in Todd County 

itself. So that’s ongoing. They’re out into the communities. It’s really scary. 

Crime has increased steadily between 18 and 23 percent over the 

last four years. We are underfunded to adequately provide law enforcement functions for public safety. We are short by 60 police officers. 

The officer-to-resident ratio at Rosebud is 0.9 per 1,000 residents, 

whereas the minimum officer-to-resident ratio in the United States 

is in the range of 3.9 to 6.6 officers per 1,000 residents. When comparing the Rosebud ratio of 0.9 for every 1,000 to the 6.6 ratio in 

the United States, we are short of police officers by over 700 percent. 

The Rosebud Sioux Tribe currently has 19 police officers to cover 

a land base of 890,870 acres spread out over a full county area. 

With an average of three eight-hour shifts, we only have an average of six hours on duty—six officers on duty per shift to cover over 

22,000 people, tribal members as well as non-tribal members who 

call the 911 dispatch center. 

The adult jail—basically we need a new jail on the Rosebud. We 

don’t have adequate space for the service population. The jail itself, 

it has consistent water leaks. The HVAC system fails every summer. There is no space for rehabilitation for the inmates such as 

a library for GED or other higher education services to try to reduce the recidivism rate. 

In addition to the 1.7 million which the Rosebud Sioux Tribe’s 

Police Department receives in Federal funding, BIA funding, we 

would need an additional 60 uniformed police officers at a cost of 

$5.1 million. This would require a 400 percent increase in the funding just to provide for adequate law enforcement. 

Our juvenile detention center recently opened. We need a licensed clinical psychologist because of a higher rate of suicides, the 

recent rash of them. We included to—we modified our budget to include this position but the Indian—the Bureau of Indian Affairs believes that the Indian Health Service has that responsibility but 

they are underfunded also. They only have a $400,000 budget that 

41

covers most of the reservation and we’re losing two licensed psychologists on the Rosebud Reservation, mainly because one is retiring and we have another lady leaving the area. 

So with that, we put a mod in for one and we have identified a 

tribal member who is studying to be a licensed psychologist. Not 

only will she provide services to the children in the JDC, she could 

also assist in the outlying areas with the—our suicide problem so 

I would recommend your support in having the BIA approve that 

position. Right now we’re waiting on word on that from the Bureau 

and so far we haven’t heard anything about it. I met with Mr. 

Ragsdale and Mr. Chaney on this also but we still haven’t heard 

anything. 

In addition to the problems I’ve just mentioned, there is other 

concerns. First, the Federal Bureau of Investigation has continued 

to receive increased funding over the years for investigating crimes 

in Indian Country. While the work that the FBI does in Indian 

Country is certainly needed, we need just as many funding increases at the tribal level. The Rosebud law enforcement services 

program has far too many crimes to investigate than the FBI can 

and is unable to investigate. 

I ask that the Committee look into the possibility of providing at 

least the same percentage in the increase of funding that the FBI 

gets to our law enforcement. 

Second, the Rosebud Sioux Tribe, due to the new jail facility that 

we need, has expressed the possibility of providing more jail services from the South Dakota—the U.S. Marshal Services in South 

Dakota. Because what we’re having right now is the off reservation, the border towns like Winner, for example, they have a county 

jail system there, and they have a brand new one and basically 

they’re just housing our prisoners there, Rosebud prisoners, and 

we’d like to get that back. 

However, we did put out feelers to the U.S. Marshal Services. We 

were told that there was no funding available and we feel that we 

can provide a better service for our tribal members. A lot of our 

tribal members have to—their families have to travel to Winner or 

up to Selby, North Dakota. Again, these border towns are getting 

the—reaping the benefits of our Federal prisoners so we believe we 

can provide that service. 

We just want you to try to help out the U.S. Marshal Service and 

the Office of Federal Detention Trustee to lift that moratorium on 

funding new jails. Because we know the Bureau doesn’t have the 

money so we’re looking for other sources of funding to meet our 

needs, in addition to the inadequate money from the BIA, the law 

enforcement personnel, vehicles, and equipment, incarceration, so 

at a minimum we’re going to need 400,000, 400 percent increase 

in our funding. 

We get three-year grants from the Department of Justice COPS 

program but they’re not enough to provide for the continuity of 

public safety for all our residents, Indian and non-Indian alike. 

These grants usually run out in three years and create yet another 

public safety crisis. 

I’d ask this Committee to please increase funding for the BIA at 

least 400 percent. I think that will address all of Indian Country. 

Not only can we not raise taxes on our land base because it’s all 

42

Federally funded, our casino funding is pretty well tapped out. We 

have other services, suicide rates, elderly needs, and we do not 

have the resources. 

I guess the main thing I want to point out to you in terms of decreasing our rates is to—for increased economic development on the 

reservations. The more jobs we provide, the better opportunity we 

have to address some of those needs. 

We’ve met with students and tribal council. We’ve met with Todd 

County High School, St. Francis Indian School, the two major 

schools on our reservation. And they’re pretty bright. They’re basically asking for more after school activities, boys and girls clubs, 

things like that, increases in funding for the schools and more jobs 

for their parents. 

We’ve had students say directly to us that we need—our parents 

need jobs. So we see the need and we can meet our need on Rosebud if we had the funding. We could create more opportunities, create jobs for our people. We just need some more private sector 

funding, which we’re also getting. 

We appreciate the Sicangu Wni Wahpeton Tribe for their assistance in trying to get a new grocery store. We’re that close to getting it done. We have a new electronics facility going up in Mission. 

We just need a hand, you know, just a little assistance, and we can 

solve our problems. 

But the main thing is the BIA needs to increase the base funding 

so that we can get to a level so down the road, 20 years, that type 

of activity has proved to be fruitful, we can see less need for—we 

can see a decrease in crime. 

And we really need to attack these gangs. We’re having a—I can 

give you a lot of names of different gangs that come into our country, but we’re attacking them directly by going directly to the communities and that’s a major problem, there is outside infiltration. 

So if we could get more money for law enforcement and increase 

our gang resistance education program, we can meet these challenges. 

I want to thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate this opportunity. I’ll stand by for questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Bordeaux follows:]

Statement of Rodney M. Bordeaux, President, Rosebud Sioux Tribe, 

Rosebud Indian Reservation, Rosebud, South Dakota 

Good afternoon Madam Chair Herseth-Sandlin and members of the Committee. 

My name is Rodney Bordeaux and I am the President of the Rosebud Sioux Tribe. 

On behalf of the members of the Rosebud Sioux Tribe, I would like to thank all of 

you for the invitation to testify before you here today on the needs and challenges 

of tribal law enforcement on Indian Reservations. 

The Rosebud Indian Reservation is located in south-central South Dakota and has 

twenty communities that encompass a four-county area. It is home to approximately 

19,000 of the approximately 26,000 members of the Rosebud Sioux Tribe. I am glad 

to see the focus of this hearing today is going to be on Law Enforcement issues that 

are of critical concern to not only the Rosebud Sioux Tribe, but also to many other 

tribes throughout the State of South Dakota, and the rest of the United States. 

Many of our tribes are located in very rural and isolated parts of this region. Many 

of our tribes suffer from high rates of unemployment, low life-expectancies, high 

rates of diabetes, heart disease, suicides, low secondary and post-secondary graduation rates, along many other categories. 

As many may already know, at Rosebud there is an alarming increase in illegal 

activity. For example—

• Methamphetamine use in on the rise. 

43

• Gang violence is on the rise. • Crime has increased steadily between 18-23% over the last four years. • The Rosebud Police Department receives approximately 22,000 calls for emergency services each year. • We are under-funded to adequately provide law enforcement functions for public 

safety. We are short by 60 police officers. • The officer-to-resident ratio at Rosebud is 0.9 per 1,000 residents, whereas, the 

minimum officer-to-resident ratio in the United States is in the range of 3.9 to 

6.6 officers per 1,000 residents. When comparing the Rosebud ratio of 0.9 per 

1,000 residents to 6.6 officers per 1,000 residents in the United States, we are 

short of police officers by over 700% • The Rosebud Sioux Tribe currently has 19 police officers to cover a land base 

of 890,870 acres, where each officer has to cover over 48,566 acres of land. With 

an average of three 8-hour shifts, we only have an average of 6 officers on duty 

per each shift to cover over 22,000 people, tribal members, as well as non-tribal 

members, who call our 911 dispatch center. • The Adult Jail at Rosebud does not have adequate space for the service population. The Jail itself has consistent water leaks. The Air Conditioning system 

fails every summer. There is no space for rehabilitation services for inmates 

such as a library for GED, or, higher education services to help keep inmates 

from coming back to jail. • In addition to the $1.7 million the Rosebud Sioux Tribe’s Police Department receives in federal funding, we would need an additional 60 uniformed police officers at a cost of $5.1 million, for an annual base funding amount of $6.8 million. 

This would require a 400% increase in funding just to provide adequate law enforcement services to all citizens within Todd County, and all tribal communities within Mellette, Tripp, & Gregory Counties. 

Madam Chair and members of the Committee, in addition to the problems I’ve 

just mentioned, there are also other concerns that we have at Rosebud. They are 

as follows. 

First, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) has continued to receive increased funding over the years for investigating crimes in Indian Country. While the 

work that the FBI does in Indian Country is certainly needed, we need just as many 

funding increases at the tribal level. The Rosebud Law Enforcement Services (LES) 

program has far more many crimes to investigate than the FBI can, or, is unable 

to investigate at Rosebud. I ask that this Committee look into the possibility of providing at least the same percentage increase of funding to tribal LES programs 

when the FBI receives increases from Congress. 

Second, the Rosebud Sioux Tribe has expressed the possibility of providing more 

jail space for tribal members from South Dakota incarcerated within the U.S. Marshals Service (USMS). We were told by USMS that in 2004 the Office of the Federal 

Detention Trustee (OFDT) imposed a moratorium on the acquisition of new jail 

space for the USMS. We were told by USMS that this was due to spiraling costs 

and a shortfall in funding provided by Congress in 2004. We explored this possibility 

of housing our own federal prisoners closer to Rosebud so that we could provide for 

more effective rehabilitation services to reduce the recidivism rate of federal prisoners who are members of the Rosebud Sioux Tribe, or, from other tribes for that 

matter. Various county-controlled jails have contracts with USMS to hold tribal 

prisoners. Why can’t we do this? I ask that this Committee sincerely look at the possibility of providing more funding to OFDT and explore with Rosebud the ways in 

which we can look to reduce recidivism of federally-held tribal prisoners and helping 

them to become productive members of society. I believe that this approach will provide a huge cost savings to the federal government in the long run by keeping tribal 

members from going back to federal prison for multiple offenses. 

Madam Chair and members of the Committee, the direct answer to these problems is more adequate funding within the Bureau of Indian Affairs from Congress 

for law enforcement personnel, vehicles and equipment, and incarceration facilities, 

so that we can cover the vast amounts of area that require us to provide adequate 

public safety. At a minimum, the funding from Congress has to at least be increased 

by 400% Three-year grants from the Department of Justice are not enough to provide a continuity of public safety for all residents, Indian and non-Indian, within 

the Rosebud Indian Reservation. These grants eventually run out and create yet another public safety crisis. I ask that this Committee increase the base funding for 

the BIA LES tribal recipients by 400% to ensure continuity in services for effective 

public safety. 

We cannot raise taxes on our land-base because it’s all federally-held land that 

cannot be taxed. Therefore, we cannot raise the funding necessary to adequately 

fund our law enforcement program and our court system like other cities and counVerDate 0ct 09 2002 12:44 Dec 20, 2007 Jkt 098700 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 L:\DOCS\36020.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
44

ties can. We do not have the necessary economic activity sufficient enough to raise 

tax-revenue to fund our government services such as law enforcement. Yet, we are 

expected to provide law enforcement in one the fastest growing population areas 

within South Dakota. We are in a real crisis here—we need your help from Congress in order to alleviate these ongoing problems. 

I thank you Madam Chair Herseth-Sandlin and members of the Committee for 

your time today to address this important issue on behalf of the residents of the 

Rosebud Indian Reservation. I’ll stand by for any questions that you may have. 


36020.002.eps
45


36020.003.eps
46


36020.004.eps
47


36020.005.eps
48

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. Well, thank you very much, President 

Bordeaux. I appreciate your suggestions and your insights based on 

the experience of those who live in the communities on the Rosebud 

Sioux Tribe Reservation. 

I now would like to recognize Chairman Joe Brings Plenty from 

the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe. Welcome. Thank you for being 

here on this panel and we look forward to your testimony. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. JOSEPH BRINGS PLENTY, SR., 

CHAIRMAN, CHEYENNE RIVER SIOUX TRIBE, EAGLE BUTTE, 

SOUTH DAKOTA. 

Mr. BRINGS PLENTY. Thank you. 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. Chairman Brings Plenty, I’m going to 

recognize you for five minutes but you might want to pull that 

microphone a little bit closer to you. 

I have your written statement and so if you want to summarize 

that for us at this time, I would appreciate it. 

Mr. BRINGS PLENTY. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

I apologize for my late arrival. 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. No. 

Mr. BRINGS PLENTY. I was under the understanding I was on the 

third panel. 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. That is true. For those that are here, we 

did a slight adjustment to the panels and so we appreciate you accommodating that and we meant no disrespectful by starting but 

we knew you were on your way and close so we appreciate you 

being here. Thank you. 


36020.006.eps
49

Mr. BRINGS PLENTY. Thank you. 

First of all, I’d like to address in my Native tongue. 

[speaking in Native tongue.] 

Mr. BRINGS PLENTY. Madam Chair and staff members, Mr. 

Asmus, Ms. Freeman, Ms. Erickson, I’m pleased to appear before 

you to testify. 

As a former police officer of nine years and social worker of four 

and a half years I have firsthand experience with the problems 

that our law enforcement and criminal justice systems face. 

My name is Joseph Brings Plenty. I am the Chairman of the 

Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe. I wanted to introduce you to our Chief 

of Police, Festus Fischer, who has worked in BIA and tribal law enforcement in Indian Country for 17 years, Supervisory Detective 

Larry LeBeau also, who has worked in law enforcement for 20 

years, and also Steven Brings Plenty, a criminal investigator who 

has been with our department for 18 years. That is some of the longevity that we provide for our law enforcement that actually these 

individuals have provided for us in all their years of service. They 

and their fellow officers represent the best of what we have to offer 

for our future. 

In my written statement I have provided the Committee with 

background on the Cheyenne River, what an extensive state we 

have. We have an average of three officers per shift covering 19 

communities. 15,000 people in an area the size of the State of 

Connecticut. That amounts to 5,000 people per officer and 450 

miles of road to cover in eight hours. 

We only have one location, Eagle Butte. There are no substations. The one way distance from headquarters to the 18 outlying communities ranges anywhere from seven miles to 70 miles. 

In 2006 the department responded to 11,488 calls for service and 

made 11,791 arrests. Most of these arrests were made by single police officers in a remote area. These arrests were made in these remote areas with no backup for several miles and, of course, with 

the miles, the minutes add up. 

Although we have been fortunate to have not had any of our officers killed in the line of duty in recent years, we have had officers 

attacked. For instance, Officer Arpan, who had served with the 

force, he had responded to a call over in—a community over in 

Dupree, a simple removal of an intoxicated individual, and when 

he arrived on the scene, he had been assaulted. This request for 

removal was requested by a kunsi, a grandma, an elder woman. 

And when he went to remove the individual, he was assaulted 

and stabbed seven times. But of course the individual that Mr. 

Arpan, he had detained, the incarcerated individual, as Mr. Arpan 

had a lot of loss of blood, I had time to sit down with him and go 

over some of the circumstances. We had no debriefing provided for 

him. He in three prior meetings had requested full body armor. Of 

course, you know, with the budget, we didn’t have that to offer to 

him. And in time, the person that was—Mr. Arpan, and with the 

dedication that he had to law enforcement, he walked away from 

law enforcement with that on his mind. Of course, like I said again, 

no debriefing of the whole process as far as what should have been 

provided. 

50

I want to talk with you today about two areas of concern. The 

first is problems with the current administration of law enforcement by the BIA and second, the continued underfunding of the 

program and the impact it has on our criminal justice service. 

Problems with administration of law enforcement services by the 

BIA will be—we will be funded. We also need oversight and make 

sure funds appropriated are used wisely. The BIA law enforcement 

received an increase in funding from Congress two years ago. Our 

tribe has never received one cent of that funding. They cite underfunding of BIA to operate law enforcement. If Congress does not 

specify that funds will be distributed based on need and will not 

include funding to 638 contracts, our department will never see any 

of these funds. 

The BIA’s decision to split out law enforcement services from 

under the central direction of the Great Plains Regional Director 

into their own divisions has created many new problems for our already underfunded law enforcement department. In my written 

testimony I provided the Committee with details on how the management was split up. Suffice it to say the scattering of lines of authority across the United States has created a huge financial expense and even worse, a confused chain of command. This doesn’t 

work. 

Out of the new BIA Office of Justice Services we have had too 

many unfavorable experiences. When we have search and rescue 

missions or the need for the use of a canine and canine officers to 

assist drug investigators, which the BIA has, we cannot get access. 

The BIA has continually stated the liability for allowing this cooperation with a 638 contract tribe is too high. This was never an 

issue before. 

Under the old system, we—when we have a large event like an 

annual rodeo or powwow, we had officers come from other reservations. Both BIA and 638 contract operated organizations come and 

assist and we did the same for them. Under the new administration BIA officers are not permitted to assist. Again the BIA cites 

liability. This hurts all law enforcement in the Dakotas. 

Another serious problem is that the BIA Office of Justice Services has demanded that the tribe split law enforcement into a separate 638 contract from our master 638 contract. The tribe has refused BIA help. They withheld our funds for three months because 

we refused to sign. Our master contract includes all justice services 

and other programs. 

The tribe has cost savings in one area of the master contract. It 

can use those savings in another area of the master contract. If we 

split law enforcement into a separate contract, we can no longer 

use those savings in law enforcement. Law enforcement basically 

survives because of this. 

The split out and creation of a new administration hampers coordination of the criminal justice system. The courts are managed 

by the Great Plains Regional Director. Law enforcement is now 

managed by an entirely different administration not answerable to 

one central person except the Assistant Secretary of Indian Affairs. 

So with management scattered from cities to four or five different 

chains of command, our chief of police now has four bosses instead 

of one, that being the superintendent. This was done without any 

51

consultation with tribes at a huge cost to law enforcement funding. 

Now we hear that the BIA is trying to move courts into this new 

administration but again, no tribe has ever been consulted. 

The Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe has been administering law enforcement before the BIA ever provided funding for law enforcement. We have never in our history had BIA run law enforcement 

services. We know what we need, but the BIA is now making decisions without consultation with this or any other tribe. And these 

decisions are eroding our funding and our ability to run an effective 

law enforcement program and the funds Congress does appropriate 

are spent on top heavy administration. 

Instead of paying a superintendent at the agency, a regional director in Aberdeen, and a Washington, D.C., director with support 

staff, they are paying five bosses in four locations with support 

staff. 

Although our Fiscal Year 2007 budget was to have been funded 

the same as in Fiscal Year 2006, the BIA held back ten percent of 

our funding with no explanation, hurting our department even 

more. 

Problems created by underfunding. If I may, I want to explain 

to you some of the problems created by underfunding. 

Our current base funding received from the BIA does not allow 

the tribe to compensate any of the law enforcement employees with 

a salary comparable to those at an entry level position of the same 

type in the Federal BIA services. This results in a high employee 

turnover rate as well as employee burnout, reduced productivity, 

and increased liability. 

Our former Chief of Police passed away last month at 49 years 

old. He had served in law enforcement at Cheyenne River, Standing Rock, and Yankton for over 27 years. There was no pension, no 

retirement. He left behind a wife and child. There’s nothing for 

them. Yet we can fund a top heavy administration with two GS13 and one GS-14 positions at the District I Aberdeen Operations 

Division alone at a cost of salary and 25 percent on top for availability pay and full retirement and benefits, a total estimated cost 

of 425,000. 

In the history of the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe’s law enforcement program, no employee has ever been able to retire from service. They resign and depend upon their Social Security check as retirement. This tribe has had to make a horrible decision, either cut 

salaries to increase the number of police officers or fund at the 

same level as BIA officers with full benefits, and have only five officers and one criminal investigator. Our dedicated law enforcement 

staff have lived with this decision for our entire history. 

We have on staff right now officers who have served for 17 years 

with no retirement, no salary increases other than inflation, and 

still working at salary levels before an entry level BIA law enforcement position, yet they are dedicated to protecting their families 

and people and so they stay here. This must change and will only 

be possible if you increase the base program funds to tribes. 

The detention facility on Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe is serving 

as a regional facility housing adult and juvenile offenders for the 

BIA from reservations in South Dakota, North Dakota, Minnesota, 

and Nebraska. This introduces new violent offenders to our commuVerDate 0ct 09 2002 12:44 Dec 20, 2007 Jkt 098700 PO 00000 Frm 00055 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 L:\DOCS\36020.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
52

nity and presents a serious risk to our population and our detention staff. It also ensures we don’t have the space for our own offenders, but we have to find funding somewhere. The BIA just authorized about $1 million to upgrade our facility. 

This one in Crow Creek is told over here there is no money. If this 

doesn’t prove OGS intends to regionalize detention, I don’t know 

what will. 

The criminal court hears over 3,000 cases a year with one judge 

and one prosecutor. The juvenile court hears over 1,000 delinquent 

petitions a year with one judge and one prosecutor. Justice delayed 

is justice not served. The average time between arrest and trial is 

six months. The lack of funding ensures there is no justice and no 

safety for communities. 

Our law enforcement program simply does not fund uniforms, 

body armor, in the case of Mr. Arpan, and basic police equipment. 

We can’t afford it. 

GSA leases our vehicles and our cars that we don’t have the 

funds to purchase and then retires fleets of vehicles. One time 

grants don’t work. Especially with our roads that we work on. 

An increase in the base funding for our CRST LED from $2,664,688 to $5,659,572 was proposed in the 2007 Congressional 

testimony that was submitted by the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe. 

We need a doubling of our budget to meet our law enforcement 

needs. 

In closing, I am proud of the dedication shown by our law enforcement officers who continue to provide the best services possible to our people and the Lakota people on other reservations in 

the Dakotas with limited or no resources. They deserve our gratitude as do our people who continue to suffer without adequate protection. They both deserve so much more. 

As the Chairman of the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe I urge you 

to help us address these concerns with the entire criminal justice 

system through funding and oversight of use of funding. 

Madam Chair, this concludes my prepared statement but I also 

have something else to add on behalf of law enforcement, our law 

enforcement personnel, is that the fact is is that we—seven of the 

11 poorest counties are in the Dakotas and these are our homes. 

Poverty thrives on our lands and with poverty comes so many other 

issues with addicts, violence, criminal activities rise in our population. 

I leave you with this thought: When I was working in patrol I 

come across a poem and something that really stuck with me in 

that poem was that it had—it talked about—it was talking in regards to a soldier’s life and it was in comparison to a soldier’s feet 

and heart, the many miles marched and paths crossed and in time 

that soldier’s feet hardened and in the same sense a soldier’s heart 

also adjusted to the same effects of exposure of the many lives lost 

where the soldier’s heart also hardened. 

An officer, in the same sense that refers to a person’s feet hardened from the many trails walked, the paths crossed, and the officer’s heart doesn’t harden because we are home. We are fighting 

with unseen forces of addiction and violence. I wish we could incarcerate addiction and violence, but we can’t do that. 

[speaking Native tongue.] 

53

These officers come from our homes and they are protectors and 

providers to protect and serve and with that, our officers are unsung heroes and they’re—at times they’re nurses and counselors, 

they’re all these things in the world that isn’t provided, but they’re 

that first line of defense against what we’re fighting against and, 

you know, I just would like to end with if we can recognize those 

individuals for what they do and thank you. I appreciate you allowing me to come here and speak to you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Brings Plenty follows:]

Statement of Joseph Brings Plenty, Chairman,

Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe 

Chairman Rahall and Members of the Committee: 

I am pleased to appear before you today to talk about many issues of concern regarding our criminal justice system and public safety. As a former Police Officer for 

9 years and Social worker for 4 1/2 years, I have first hand experience with the 

problems our law enforcement and criminal justice systems face. I wanted to introduce to you our Chief of Police, Festus Fischer, who has worked in BIA and Tribal 

law enforcement in Indian Country for 17 years, Supervisory Detective Larry 

LeBeau who has been with the BIA Law Enforcement and the Tribal Department 

for a total of 20 years, and Stephen Brings Plenty, a Criminal Investigator who has 

been with our Department for 18 years. They and their fellow officers represent the 

best of what we have to offer for our future. 

I. Introduction 

The Cheyenne River Sioux Indian Reservation includes about 2.8 million acres 

and a population of around 15,000 people. Over forty percent of our population is 

under 21 years old, so we are growing very fast. There are approximately 4,500 

miles of roadways throughout our reservation, and nineteen communities served by 

our Law Enforcement Department in an area the size of Connecticut. The unemployment rate is 78 per cent and 96 per cent of working families live below the poverty level. 

The Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe Law Enforcement Department is headquartered 

in Eagle Butte, South Dakota. There are no substations in any of the outlying communities.. The one-way distance from headquarters to each of the outlying communities ranges anywhere from seven miles to 70 miles. Dewey and Ziebach Counties 

are wholly located within the reservation’s exterior boundaries. On a busy night, it 

is not uncommon for an officer to log 600 miles on the vehicle in one shift. 

The Department is a full-service law enforcement program providing police, criminal investigations, dispatch and adult and juvenile detention services. The CRST 

LED also manages a social detoxification unit and provides supervision to court 

service officers, hospital security officers and foot patrol officers. 

The Tribe employs 22 full-time sworn enforcement officers, including 3 supervisors, 3 criminal investigators, and 10 police officers funded under a Public Law 

93-638 contract with the BIA. The Tribe also employs 1 school resource officer and 

2 highway safety officers funded with grant funds. To compare, in 2000, under the 

COPS program, we had 36 officers, which was not enough to cover. That allows one 

police officer for every 1,500 people and 1 officer covering 450 miles of road. That 

is an average of 3 officers covering the entire Reservation at any given time—3 officers for 15,000 people—5,000 people a piece at all times. 

II. Statement of Need 

In 2006, the Department responded to 11,488 calls for service resulting in 11,791 

arrests. Most of these arrests were made by a single police officer in a remote area 

of the reservation with back-up several miles and minutes away. Although we’ve 

been fortunate to have not had any of our police officers killed in the line of duty 

in recent years, poor program funding requires us to continue a path of high liability. We have had officers attacked, with no backup, which has resulted in injuries. 

We also have a need for three school resource officers in Eagle Butte schools and 

two officers in Takini and LaPlante schools. Our schools were listed in the BIE report as having some of the highest levels of assaults in schools—the resource officers 

stop this. Compounding our problems is the overwhelming increase in drug activity 

with Methamphetamines increasing the number of violent offenses at Cheyenne 

River. 

54

I want to talk with you today about two areas of concern: First, problems with 

the current administration of law enforcement by the BIA. And second, the impact 

of continued under funding on our criminal justice system. 

III. Problems with Administration of Law Enforcement Services by the BIA. 

While funding must increase to address many of the problems, there are administrative and oversight issues as well, which I want to discuss with you. The BIA Law 

Enforcement received an increase in funding from Congress two years ago. This 

Tribe, despite promises that funds would be shared, never received one cent of that 

funding. One problem is that when BIA Law Enforcement receives one time appropriations from Congress, they rarely provide any of those funds to 638 contract 

Tribes including Cheyenne River due to the under funding of BIA operated Law Enforcement. If Congress does not specify that funds will be distributed based on need 

and will not include funding to 638 contract Tribes, our Department will never see 

any of the funds Congress appropriates. 

You should be aware that the BIA’s decision to split out Law Enforcement Services from under the central direction of the Great Plains Regional Director into their 

own division has created many new problems for our already underfunded law enforcement department. Under the old system the Agency Superintendent was over 

the Department and reported to the Great Plains Regional Director who reported 

to the Washington DC Office. Now, there are four divisions of law enforcement each 

reporting to different bosses and the Agency Superintendent has no authority over 

law enforcement. The Regional Director only has authority over tribal courts, prosecutors and public defenders. 

The most recent ‘‘line of authority’’ split leaves us with the Operations side of law 

enforcement covering criminal investigations, police and dispatch and Corrections 

covering detention/corrections programs. Operations management reports to the District I Office in Aberdeen and then on to Albuquerque and Washington D.C. Corrections management reports to an office on the Standing Rock Reservation and then 

Albuquerque and Washington D.C. The splitting of Operations and corrections into 

two lines of authority in two locations does not allow the Tribe to do business at 

one location under one chain of command. 

The same thing has been done with training. The Indian Police Academy which 

is located in Artesia, New Mexico, is the only location for our detention staff to receive the required basic detention officer certification training. Our 638 contract Police Officers can receive Basic Police certification training at the South Dakota Police Academy, but BIA officers must go to the Indian Police Academy for their basic 

Police Officer certification training. Although the South Dakota State Police training 

program is approved b y the BIA for meeting the basic training needs for ‘‘638 contracted Police Officers, it is not recognized as a basic Police Officer certification 

course for BIA police officers. This basic training requirement discourages our 

‘‘State’’ certified Police Officers from applying to join the BIA service because they 

have to repeat the police training in Artesia. 

The Professional Standards Division (PSD) is another arm of the BIA Office of 

Justice Services, responsible for providing program reviews and internal investigations. There was previously a ‘‘field’’ office of the PSD located in Rapid City, South 

Dakota which staffed 3 agents to conduct internal investigations and reviews for all 

Tribes of the Northern United States in Rapid City. This office has been eliminated 

with all resources being moved to Albuquerque, New Mexico, and the scope of their 

internal investigations being limited, for the most part, to officer involved shootings. 

With the many necessary resources scattered throughout various locations a huge 

financial expense has been created for us to simply do business. This doesn’t work. 

Under the newly organized BIA Office of Justice Services we have had all too 

many unfavorable experiences. For example, when we have search and rescue missions or the need for the use of a canine and canine officers to assist drug investigators, which the BIA has, we cannot get access. The BIA has continually stated the 

liability for allowing this cooperation with a 638 contract Tribe is too high. This was 

never an issue before. Second, under the old system, when we have a large event 

like our annual rodeo and pow-wow, we had officers from other Reservations—both 

BIA and 638 contract operated come and assist. And we did the same for them. 

Under the new administration BIA Officers are not permitted to assist—again the 

BIA cites liability. This hampers our ability to have safety during large events, and 

hurts all other tribal law enforcement in the Dakotas. 

Another serious problem is that the BIA Office of Justice Services has demanded 

that the Tribe split law enforcement into a separate 638 contract from our other 

Master 638 contract. The Tribe has refused. For very good reason. The BIA withheld 

our funding for three months because we refused. Our Master contract includes all 

justice services and other programs. It includes courts, Prosecutor, public defender 

55

and probation. All these are so drastically underfunded that funding doesn’t even 

cover their salaries and fringe benefits let alone supplies. Under federal law, if the 

Tribe has cost savings in one area of its Master Contract, it can use those savings 

in another area of the Master contract. So, when there are savings, the Tribe dedicates funds to Law Enforcement and criminal justice system programs. If we split 

law enforcement into a separate contract, we cannot use savings for law enforcement, further eroding our budget. 

This split out and creation of a new administration hampers coordination of a 

criminal justice system—courts are managed by Great Plains Regional Director. 

Law Enforcement is managed by an entirely different administration not answerable to one central person except the Assistant Secretary of Indian Affairs. This was 

done without any consultation with Tribes at a huge cost to law enforcement funding. Now, we hear the BIA is trying to move courts into this new administration. 

But again, no Tribe has ever been consulted. 

The Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe has been administering law enforcement since 

before the BIA ever provided funding for law enforcement. We have never in our 

history had BIA run law enforcement services. We know what we need. But the BIA 

is now making decisions without any consultation with this or any other Tribe. And 

these decisions are eroding our funding and our ability to run an effective law enforcement program. And the funds Congress does appropriate are spent on top 

heavy administration. 

Instead of paying a Superintendent at the Agency, a Regional Director in Aberdeen and a Washington DC Director with support staff, you are paying for six 

bosses in four locations, with support staff. For example, in Aberdeen Operations 

Division alone there is one GS-14 position and two GS-13 positions making their 

salary plus 25% on call pay—and they are management—not on the street enforcement. That costs the BIA approximately $300,000.00 a year plus full fringe benefits 

and pension. 

Although our current law enforcement budget for Fiscal Year 2007 was to have 

been funded the same as in Fiscal Year 2006, a holdback in excess of 10% imposed 

by the Bureau of Indian Affairs has further hindered our ability to provide the necessary services to our people. This holdback has been done without any justification 

provided to the Department or the Tribe. 

While the new Administration continues to fund more management positions, 

they have issued an unfunded mandate to our Department to separate the duties 

of dispatch and detention. The CRST had to establish an entire dispatch division, 

and create 5 additional positions with no additional base funding. The original creation of the dual duty detention and dispatch post was done at the request of the 

BIA Office of Law Enforcement Services when the CRST opened the Walter Miner 

Law Enforcement Center in 1993. These once separate positions were combined to 

staff a required post in the new detention center. Now, they are once again separate 

divisions, but no funding is provided. As with dispatch, this detention post must be 

staffed around the clock making it a mandatory post. 

IV. Problems created by underfunding. 

If I may, I want to explain to you some of the problems created by underfunding. 

Our current base funding received from the BIA does not allow the Tribe to compensate any of the law enforcement employees with a salary comparable to those 

at an entry level position of the same type in the federal BIA service. This results 

in a high employee turnover rate, as well as employee burn-out, reduced productivity and increased liability. The Tribe does not provide any pension benefits to its 

officers or retirement due to lack of funding, further eroding our retention of good, 

experienced officers. Our former Chief of Police passed away last month at 49 years 

old. He had served in law enforcement at Cheyenne River, Standing Rock and 

Yankton for over twenty-seven years. There was no pension and no retirement. He 

left behind a wife and children. There is nothing for them. While this goes on, BIA 

can fund a top heavy administration with two GS-13 and one GS-14 positions at the 

District I Aberdeen Operations Division alone at a cost of salary and 25 percent on 

top for availability pay and full retirement at a total estimated cost of $425,000.00. 

When they retire or pass away, their families will receive that pension. In the history of the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe’s law enforcement program no employee has 

ever been able to retire from service. They resign and depend upon their social security check as ‘‘retirement’’. This Tribe has had to make a horrible decision—either 

cut salaries to increase the number of police officers or fund at the same level as 

BIA Officers with full benefits, and only have 5 police officers and one criminal investigator. 

Our dedicated law enforcement staff have lived with this decision for our entire 

history. We have on staff right now officers who have served for over 17 years with 

56

no retirement, no salary increases other than inflation, and still working at salary 

levels below an entry level BIA law enforcement position. Yet they are dedicated to 

protecting their families and people and so they stay here. This must change and 

will only be possible with increased base program funds. 

The Tribe and the Department are doing everything they can to fund law enforcement. The Tribe has absorbed $1.5 million in costs unfunded for Law Enforcement 

and hundreds of thousands of dollars in costs to run the rest of the justice system. 

The Criminal Court hears over 3,000 cases a year with one judge and one prosecutor. The juvenile court hears over 1000 delinquency petitions a year with one 

judge and one prosecutor. Justice delayed is justice not served. The average time 

between arrest and trial is six months. And in the meantime law enforcement rearrests re-offenders awaiting trial many times. This lack of funding ensures there 

is no justice and no safety for our communities. 

The Department detention division is trying to generate funds other ways. We 

contracted bed-space with other BIA and federal agencies. We house pre-sentenced 

Federal offenders, and house BIA adult and juvenile offenders from locations where 

facilities are either inadequate or non-existent. The detention facility on the Cheyenne River Sioux Reservation is serving as a regional facility housing adult and juvenile offenders for the BIA from reservations in South Dakota, North Dakota, Minnesota and Nebraska. This introduces new violent offenders to our community and 

presents serious risks to our population and our Detention Staff. It also ensures we 

don’t have the space for our own offenders, but we have to find funding somewhere. 

The Tribal General fund and contracts has not, and cannot, be relied upon for recurring expenses. An increase in base funding for the CRST LED from 

$2,664,688.00 to $5,659,572.00 was proposed in the 2007 Congressional Testimony 

that was submitted by the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe. This increase in base funding will allow us to operate our law enforcement program with a realistic budget 

and a more effective approach. 

Our law enforcement program simply does not have the level of funding necessary 

to provide for uniforms, body armor, and basic police equipment. With the exception 

of a mix of badges and outdated/unsafe handguns, staff routinely purchases their 

uniforms and essential equipment. Additional funding to secure modern equipment, 

would enhance the safety of our officers and citizens. 

Approximately 90 percent of our fleet of vehicles is leased from GSA, which results in extremely high monthly billings. This is due to the high number of miles 

traveled—over 40,000 miles a year, billing us for damage for adding patrol car 

equipment, the high GSA cost of new tires and other maintenance required more 

often from our rugged roads, the need for SUVs for our rugger roads and climate, 

and other associated with the lease. Funding to secure and equip a fleet of Tribal 

police vehicles would allow our law enforcement program to reduce yearly vehicle 

expenses and direct a smaller portion of operational funding toward yearly vehicle 

related expenses. But this is of no use if there is no recurring funding for replacement of worn vehicles. One time grants don’t work. 

In an attempt to combat the use, sales, possession, manufacturing and trafficking 

of illegal drugs on our reservation, the CRST Law Enforcement Department has 

been an active participant in the Northern Plains Drug Task. Our involvement with 

the task force is limited due to funding. Funds from our budget must be re-directed 

to staff one drug task force agent who works endless hours locally and on other area 

reservations as a member of the drug task force. All illegal drug activity on our reservation is handled by this agent who must prioritize each case and work only the 

most serious cases. The salary and overtime required of the drug agent consumes 

of the salary for two police officers, which negatively impacts our limited number 

of police officers. The rise in illegal drug activity on our reservation has us backed 

in a corner. 

The two county sheriffs and one city Police Departments rely upon us for investigation of serious cases, for detention, and for assistance. They do not have the capability to handle public safety the way our Department does. The answer is to support Tribal Law Enforcement to carry the ball and to allow this system of cooperation with local law enforcement to continue as it has over our entire history—not 

to change the roles of our departments. As you are probably aware, the United 

States Civil Rights Commission issued its report several years ago finding discrimination in law enforcement and voting rights in South Dakota. This makes it even 

more important for you to support tribal law enforcement community based policing. 

We have done community based policing from the beginning—before this term became popular in the COPS program. But underfunding threatens our ability to focus 

on prevention and education and threatens the safety of our communities and officers. 

57

To make matters worse, the Congress passed a provision in the Adam Walsh legislation mandating that Tribes fully implement the sex offender registry, which includes taking and storing DNA samples and many other requirements or the Tribes 

jurisdiction will be turned over to the State, along with jurisdiction to enforce the 

requirements criminally. While the coordination of national sex offender registry is 

very important, these mandates were placed upon the Tribe with no funding to implement the new requirements. The State has no criminal jurisdiction on the Reservation over Indian people. At Cheyenne River, we have had a sex offender registry 

for ten years. Yet no one tried to consult with the Tribes. Not Congress, and not 

the Department of Justice. Department of Justice just issued over 60 pages of guidelines implementing this new law. No Tribe was consulted about these guidelines. 

And some of the guidelines are simply culturally offensive, like requiring the registration of a person’s traditional name. This is just one of many of the examples 

of where by failing to consult with Tribes, federal agencies make assumptions about 

tribal systems including law enforcement that are unfounded and thereby make our 

jobs more difficult in providing safety and security to our people. To require that 

we take DNA samples and fund their collection and storage and fingerprints when 

we don’t even have an electronic fingerprint database is an unfunded mandate. We 

don’t have the revenue to support these continual unfunded mandates. 

In closing, I am proud of the dedication shown by our law enforcement officers 

who continue to provide the best services possible to our people and the Lakota people on other Reservations in the Dakotas with limited or no resources. They deserve 

our gratitude. As do our people who continue to suffer without adequate protection. 

They both deserve so much more. As Chairman of the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, 

I urge your support to help us address these concerns with the entire criminal justice system through funding and oversight funding use to ensure the funds appropriated are used most effectively. 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared statement. I would be pleased to answer any questions you or other Members of the Committee may have.

I. Law Enforcement Summary 

Staffing: 10 police officers, 3 supervisors, 3 criminal investigators, 2 NAHATSA 

Traffic Safety Grant Officers, 1 School Resource Grant Officer in Eagle Butte 

School, 25 Detention Officers (includes 22 officers and 3 supervisors) 

Coverage Area: 2.8 million acres, 4,500 road miles, nineteen communities. Area 

is the size of Connecticut and includes all of Dewey and Ziebach Counties, and a 

population of 15,000 people 

Facilities: Adult Detention Center and separate Juvenile Detention Center in 

Eagle Butte, South Dakota 

Officers on Duty Schedule: Weekdays: 2 Officers total Weekends: 3 Officers total 

Total Arrests in 2006: 11, 791

Total Calls for Service in 2006: 11,488

II. Tribal Criminal and Juvenile Courts 

Staffing: 1 Criminal Court Judge and 2 clerks, 1 Adult Probation Officer, 1 Juvenile Court Judge and 2 clerks, 1 Juvenile Probation Officer 

Coverage Area: 2.8 million acres, 4,500 road miles, nineteen communities. Area 

is the size of Connecticut and includes all of Dewey and Ziebach Counties, and a 

population of 15,000 people 

Facilities: 1 shared court room 

Criminal Court Caseload: FY 2006 

# of Cases Filed: 3,350

# of Judgments: 1,757

# Hearings Scheduled: 6,434


36020.001.eps
58

Juvenile Court Caseload: FY 2006 

# of Cases Filed: 1,856

# of Judgments: 723

# hearings Scheduled: 2,210

Probation Caseload 2006: Adult: 122 clients 

Juvenile: 348 clients 

III. Prosecutor’s Office 

Staffing: 1 Prosecutor, 2 non-lawyer Asst. Prosecutors, 1 Office Manager 

Coverage Area: 2.8 million acres, 4,500 road miles, nineteen communities. Area 

is the size of Connecticut and includes all of Dewey and Ziebach Counties, and a 

population of 15,000 people 

Caseload: 11,488 Police Reports resulting in 3,000 criminal complaints, 1, 247 juvenile delinquency petitions and 200 involuntary commitment petitions 

Average Time between Arrest and Trial: 6 months 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. Well, thank you, Chairman Brings Plenty, for the testimony, like President Bordeaux and President Steele, 

raising so many issues that we will be exploring further and, as 

they did, recognizing the law enforcement officers from the community that you represent, some of whom I’ve had a chance to meet 

in the past and work with. But again, I appreciate the eloquence 

and importance of your words. And again, we’ll explore a number 

of issues that you have raised in a moment as I have some questions to explore and some further testimony, but before we do that, 

this panel also includes Chief of Police for the Sisseton Wahpeton 

Oyate. 

I’m glad that some of your counterparts from other tribes have 

been able to join us. And thank you for being here and speaking 

on behalf of the Sisseton Wahpeton Oyate, but I thank other leaders in law enforcement that are here with us today and some who 

weren’t able to join us, but thank you very much, Mr. Gaikowski, 

for being here. We welcome your testimony. 

STATEMENT OF GARY GAIKOWSKI, CHIEF OF POLICE, 

SISSETON WAHPETON OYATE, AGENCY VILLAGE, SOUTH 

DAKOTA 

Chief GAIKOWSKI. Good afternoon, Congresswoman. Chairman 

Michael Selvage can’t be here today. I have two statements, his 

and my testimony to read. 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. Both will be made available in their entirety for the record, and I appreciate the Chairman’s leadership 

and thoughts on the issue. 

If you might start with your testimony and then if you could 

summarize the Chairman’s testimony for us so we can move on to 

some of the questions, but again, please assure him and please be 

assured yourself that both of the statements that you have there 

will be made part of the record in their entirety. 

Chief GAIKOWSKI. Yes. 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. Thank you. 

Chief GAIKOWSKI. Honorable Chairman Nick Rahall, II, and 

members of the Committee, I would like to give insight to the 

Committee in regards to the current conditions that law enforcement faces on the Lake Traverse Reservation. 

The Sisseton Wahpeton Law Enforcement is a PL 93-638 program operating on a budget of $608,000. With that we employ eight 

officers, five dispatchers, three detention officers, and one adminisVerDate 0ct 09 2002 12:44 Dec 20, 2007 Jkt 098700 PO 00000 Frm 00062 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 L:\DOCS\36020.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
59

trative assistant. This leaves a very small fraction for operating 

costs. The Sisseton Wahpeton Oyate supplements our budget with 

three police officers, one detention officer, and operating costs. We 

have two more police officers funded by grants. 

The FBI and one BIA investigator handle all major crimes committed on the reservation. Tribal law enforcement handles all misdemeanors but are the first to respond to all crimes, Federal, state, 

and tribal. 

We protect and serve an area of over 1,096 square miles and over 

108,921 acres. Our on reservation population is estimated at 10,436 

non-Indians and over 6,000 tribal members. 

Our detention facility was built in 1974 and has long lived its 

use. It is a 22-bed adult facility. The current condition of our facility suffers from deterioration and overcrowding by inmates and 

staff. Repeated attempts to address these situations is hindered 

due to the lack of funding. These attempts can only be considered 

as Band-Aids to the problem. 

We can only hold juveniles for up to six hours; longer if we have 

a court order. Our juveniles are usually transported to Fargo, 

North Dakota, which is 90 miles away, if they are to be held 

longer. The cost for this is $120 per day per inmate, which we are 

incurring. The BIA shut us down for holding juveniles and yet we 

do not receive any funds from them to send them out. 

Our mentally ill inmates must be transported approximately 250 

miles to Yankton, South Dakota. I can only give my employees 

comp time for transporting prisoners and for going above and beyond their duty. This is leave they’re not able to utilize due to 

being short staffed. 

Our officers patrol an average of 250 miles per shift on tar and 

gravel roads. This leaves our maintenance budget for our vehicles 

for wear and tear usually in the red. Our department leases seven 

GSA vehicles, five patrol cars and two SUV’s. We also have two 

SUV’s owned by the tribe with over 150,000 miles on them. These 

vehicles nickel and dime us. My concern with these vehicles is that 

one of these days one of them might break down on a serious call 

when someone’s life is at stake. 

Our dispatch usually receives 2,700 calls per month along with 

arrest and radio traffic from the officers. We average over 65,000 

incidences per year. 

All of our officers are on call status 24/7. Backup is a half hour 

to an hour depending on where and the severity of the situation. 

We try to have two officers on per shift. 

In a most recent incident, Patrol Officer Johnson responded to a 

call to remove an intoxicated adult from their grandmother’s home. 

The subject began to resist. Officer Johnson attempted to restrain 

the individual. The individual became violent and injured Officer 

Johnson. Officer Johnson received several injuries. Backup was not 

available due to the distance of responding to another call 25 miles 

away. The only way Officer Johnson was able to prevent the individual from further harming him was to bite him. When backup 

was finally able to respond, the individual had gotten away. 

Due to his injuries, Officer Johnson was out of work for two 

months and has recently returned to work only to perform light duties. If the FBI needs to respond, they have to come out of Sioux 

60

Falls. My officer has to arrest, take statements, pictures, gather 

evidence, and secure the crime area until relieved. Other officers 

are called on duty to assist. 

We have a high recidivism rate. We are addressing this issue 

with our Community Justice and Rehabilitation Detention Project. 

If this project does not go through, our inmates will continue to fall 

through the cracks in the justice system without being given the 

opportunity to rehabilitate. 

One of our goals is to continue to be tough on our DUI and traffic 

laws. This is our only defense to keep alcohol from coming onto the 

reservation. We feel if we can keep the alcohol out, we can prevent 

the assaults, the rapes, the domestic abuse, child neglect, underage 

drinking that occur in our community. 

There are three areas of concern that I would like to express as 

the Chief of Police. 

Funding. Without funding, we would not be able to perform the 

functions required of law enforcement. As it is, the lack of funding 

does not meet the rising crime rate on our reservation. The most 

underfunded needs are the high meth rate and the juvenile crime. 

Detention. Due to our deteriorating conditions at our current detention center, we are unable to provide the adequate rehabilitation for our inmates to become productive citizens. 

Youth. I consider this issue the top priority of our unmet needs. 

Most of our violent crimes are committed by our youth. Our most 

recent example of this is when four of our tribal member youth assaulted a 13-year-old boy so badly he was unrecognizable due to 

the trauma of being kicked and beaten in the head. Today this 13-

year-old is still hospitalized in a coma with no brain activity. This 

incident didn’t only affect the families involved. It affected the community overall. Due to the possibility of it being gang oriented, police officers were posted at the local schools to prevent any further 

violent outbreaks. 

This has become a theme that is occurring on the Lake Traverse 

Reservation. Some of our elders live in fear of their grandchildren. 

This was expressed to me during one of their elderly board meetings. More and more in our court we see cases of parents who are 

requesting relinquishment of their children because they do not 

have the capabilities to handle them. These are children who are 

in and out of court, the child protection program, treatment, and 

continue to drain the resources of the Lake Traverse Reservation. 

These children have proven they are examples of learned behavior 

by their parents. It is apparent that this is a dysfunctional 

generational cycle. Our new Community Justice Rehabilitation 

Center master plan is set up to address these issues with the youth 

and adults in our system. 

It is imperative that we get the proper funding that is direly 

needed to address these issues. Continuation of the situations without proper funding can only result in a social and cultural breakdown of our society. 

[The prepared statement of Chief Gaikowski follows:]

61

Statement of Gary Gaikowski, Chief of Police,

Law Enforcement Department, Sisseton-Wahpeton Oyate 

Honorable Chairman Nick J. Rahall II and members of the committee, I would 

like to give insight to the committee in regards to the current conditions of the Law 

Enforcement faces on the Lake Traverse Reservation. 

The Sisseton-Wahpeton Law Enforcement is a PL 93-638 Program operating on 

a budget of $608,839. Employed are eight officers, five dispatchers, three detention 

officers and one administrative assistant. This leaves a very small fraction for operating cost. The Sisseton Wahpeton Oyate supplements our budget with three police 

officers, one detention officer and operating cost. We have two more police officers 

funded by grants. 

The FBI and one BIA investigator handle all major crimes committed on the reservation. Tribal Law Enforcement handle all misdemeanors but are the first to respond to all crimes, federal, state and tribal. 

We protect and serve an area of over 1,096 square miles and over 108,921 acres. 

Our on reservation population is estimated at 10436 non-Indians and over 6,000 

tribal members. 

Our detention facility was built in 1974 and has long lived its use. It is a 22 bed 

adult facility. The current condition of our facility suffers from deterioration and 

overcrowding by inmates and staff. Repeated attempts to address these situations 

are hindered due to the lack of funding. These attempts can only be considered as 

band-aids to the problem. 

We can only hold juveniles for up to six hours, longer if we have a court order. 

Our juveniles are usually transported to Fargo, North Dakota which is 90 miles 

away if they are to be held longer. The cost for this is $120.00 per day per inmate, 

which we are incurring. The BIA shuts us down for holding juveniles and yet do 

not want to fund us to pay to send them out. Our mentally ill inmates must be 

transported approximately 250 miles to Yankton, SD. I can only give my employees 

comp time for transporting prisoners and for going above and beyond their duty, 

leave they are not able to utilize due to being short staffed. 

Our officers patrol an average of 250 miles per shift on tar and gravel roads. This 

leaves our maintenance budget for our vehicles for wear and tear and is usually in 

the red. Our department leases seven GSA vehicles, five patrol cars and two SUV’s. 

We also have two SUV’s owned by the tribe with over 150,000 miles on them. These 

two vehicles nickel and dime us, my concern with these vehicles is that one day one 

of them might break down on a serious call when someone’s life is at stake. 

Our dispatch usually receives 2,700 calls per month along with arrest and radio 

traffic from the officers. We average over 65,000 incidences per year. 

All of my officers are on call status 24/7. Back up is 1/2 hour to an hour depending 

on where and the severity of the situation. We try to have two officers on per shift. 

In a most recent incident, patrol officer Johnson responded to a call to remove intoxicated adult from their grandmothers residence. The subject begin to resist, Officer Johnson attempted to restrain individual. Individual became violent and injured 

Officer Johnson. Officer Johnson received several injuries. Back up was not available due to the distance of responding to another call 25 miles away. The only way 

Officer Johnson was able to prevent the individual from further harm was to bite 

him. When back up was finally able to respond the individual had gotten away. 

Due to his injuries Officer Johnson was out of work for two months and has just 

recently returned to work only to perform light duties. 

If the FBI needs to respond they have to come out of Sioux Falls, 150 miles away. 

My officer has to arrest, take statements, pictures, gather evidence and secure the 

crime area until relieved. Officers are called on duty to assist. 

We have a high recidivism rate. We are addressing this issue with our Community Justice and Rehabilitation Detention Center Project. If this project does not go 

through, our inmates will continue to fall through the cracks of the justice system 

without being given the opportunity to rehabilitate. 

One of our goals is to continue to be tough on DUI and traffic laws. This is our 

only defense to keep alcohol from coming onto the reservation. We feel if we can 

keep the alcohol out we can prevent the assaults, rapes, domestic abuse, child neglect, underage drinking that occur in our communities. 

There are three areas of concern that I would like to express as the Chief of Police 

1. Funding, without funding we would not be able to perform the functions required of Law Enforcement. As it is, the lack of funding does not meet the rising crime rate on our reservation. The most under funded needs are the high 

meth rate and juvenile crime. 

62

2. Detention, due to our deteriorating conditions at our current detention center 

we are unable to provide the adequate rehabilitation needed to become productive citizens. 

3.. Youth, I consider this issue the top priority of unmet needs. Most of our violent crimes are committed by our youth. Our most recent example of this is 

when four of our tribal youth assaulted a 13 year old boy so badly he was unrecognizable due to the trauma of being kicked and beaten in the head. Today 

this 13-year-old is still hospitalized in a coma with no brain activity. This incident did not only affect the families involved, it affected the community overall. Due to the possibility of it being gang oriented. Police officers were posted 

at the local schools to prevent any further violent outbreaks. 

This has become a common theme that is occurring on the Lake Traverse Reservation. Some of our elders live in fear of their grandchildren. This was expressed 

to me during one of their elderly board meetings. More and more in court we see 

cases of parents who are requesting relinquishment of their children because they 

do not have the capabilities to handle them. These are children who are in and out 

of court, the child protection program, treatment and continue to drain the resources 

of the Lake Traverse Reservation. These children have proven they are examples 

of learned behavior by their parents. It is apparent that this is a dysfunctional 

generational cycle. Our new Community Justice Rehabilitation Center Master plan 

is set up to address these issues with the youth and adults in our system. 

It is imperative that we get the proper funding that is direly needed to address 

these issues. Continuation of the situations without proper funding can only result 

in a social and cultural breakdown of our society. 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. Thank you very much, and yes, I know 

that you have a statement from the Chairman as well. 

Chief GAIKOWSKI. Yes. 

‘‘Honorable Chairman Nick Rahall the Second and members of 

the Committee: 

‘‘On behalf of the Tribal Council of the Sisseton Wahpeton Oyate, 

we thank the Committee on Natural Resources for taking the time 

to hold this oversight field hearing concerning the needs and challenges of tribal law enforcement on Indian reservations today. Your 

decision and action of holding this field hearing demonstrates your 

genuine concern regarding our pressing needs as it regards the protection of tribal members and property in Indian Country and we 

are highly appreciative of this consideration which has been extended to the Federally recognized tribal governments herein assembled. 

‘‘The tribal government of the Sisseton Wahpeton Oyate, including its law enforcement agency, has been in continuous existence 

and operation since the time of Congressional approval of our 

Sisseton Wahpeton Treaty of February 19, 1867. Article 10 of this 

treaty provides the basis for establishment and Federal recognition 

of our tribal law enforcement agency wherein it was mutually 

agreed that the Sisseton Wahpeton chiefs and head men are authorized to organize a force sufficient to carry out laws and all 

rules and regulations for the government of said Indians as may 

be prescribed by the United States Interior Department. 

‘‘For 140 years the Treaty Council and tribal councils of the 

Sisseton Wahpeton Oyate have maintained and supported its tribal 

law enforcement agency on the Lake Traverse Reservation throughout its seven district communities and have faithfully enforced the 

laws of the Sisseton Wahpeton Oyate as well as all applicable Federal laws for Indian Country. Generations of tribal families from 

our communities have committed themselves to tribal law enforcement throughout this period of 140 years of continuous service 

whether Federal funding support was available or not. 

63

‘‘it is from this historical context that our testimony today derives and is submitted for your consideration. The tribal government of the Sisseton Wahpeton Oyate assures the Committee that 

its obligations to law enforcement are taken very seriously as such 

responsibilities pertain to our constitutional mandate to promote 

the health and well-being of our tribal membership which now consist of over 12,000 tribal members of whom 6,000 members reside 

in our seven district communities on the Lake Traverse Reservation. Our tribal and Federal jurisdiction extends to those designated areas of Indian Country in five counties in northeast South 

Dakota as well as two counties in southeast North Dakota. 

‘‘Our Sisseton Wahpeton needs and challenges in law enforcement consist of two principal areas of concern: 

‘‘First, the diminishing level of Federal funding support for our 

law enforcement agency; second, our current need to construct a 

new Community Justice and Rehabilitation Center for both adult 

and juvenile offenders on the Lake Traverse Reservation consistent 

with the tribal council approved master plan for this rehabilitation 

campus. 

‘‘Regarding the diminishment of Federal funding and support for 

our tribal law enforcement agency, the tribal government of the 

Sisseton Wahpeton Oyate contracts under authorities of PL 93-638 

for law enforcement services from the Bureau of Indian Affairs. 

This has been in effect since passage of the Act. Previously the 

tribal government contracted for law enforcement services utilizing 

the authorities of the Buy Indian Act. 

‘‘The struggles of the tribal government in obtaining a sufficient 

level of funding for its law enforcement agency are extensive and 

for the past five years the tribal government has matched Federal 

funding from its own limited non-Federal funds so that law enforcement can be accomplished more effectively. Currently the tribal council of the Sisseton Wahpeton Oyate provides approximately 

35 percent of needed funding from its non-Federal revenues, consisting of 350,000 to $400,000 from tribal funds annually for the 

basic operation of our law enforcement agency. Without this contribution of tribal funds, our law enforcement agency would not be 

able to sustain itself nor meet the requirements of effective law enforcement in the local seven tribal communities on the reservation. 

‘‘In particular, our law enforcement agency finds itself highly 

challenged with regard to intervening upon the growing incidence 

of methamphetamine abuse and addiction which are increasing 

within our tribal communities on the reservation. In particular, the 

introduction of these illegal substances from the outside has served 

to increase the number of offenses and violent behavior of offenders 

with particular reference to juvenile offenders within the jurisdiction. Our resources in manpower and investigative technology are 

limited regarding an effective interdiction. Our financial resources 

are limited to combat this invasive intrusion of one of the most serious disorders which is afflicting our communities at the present 

time. While our tribal government has emphasized preventative 

measures in our schools and local college, such efforts, however admirable in itself, yet require Federal assistance to intervene upon 

those who violate our tribal and Federal laws by engaging in the 

traffic of illegal drugs on our reservation. On behalf of our children 

64

and youth, we urge you to consider Federal appropriations to assist 

us in this time of crisis and need. 

‘‘In 1974 our tribal council applied for and obtained Federal funding from the U.S. Department of Justice to construct a minimum 

security adult detention center. At the time the problems and offenses of our people were minimal and the existent facility provided 

a minimum required need as regards judicial services and intervention services for adult offenders. Since that time, however, the 

numbers of adult and juvenile offenders have increased significantly and our current detention facility fails to meet not only facility code requirements, but also fails to provide sufficient space for 

adult offenders and has no space available for the growing number 

of juvenile offenders. 

‘‘Beginning in the year 2004 and continuing at the present time, 

our tribal government embarked on the arduous task of developing 

and establishing what has become known as the Sisseton 

Wahpeton Oyate Community Justice and Rehabilitation Master 

Plan. This initiative was funded and sponsored by our tribal council utilizing primarily non-Federal tribal funds and such funding 

enabled our tribal government to retain professional criminal justice personnel who assessed our criminal justice needs and requirements so as to develop and establish our own tribal specific master 

plan for addressing our own community justice and rehabilitation 

needs. 

‘‘Essentially this master plan plainly asserts our own tribal responsibility to intervene upon both adult and juvenile offenders in 

the local community so as to treat and rehabilitate the greatest 

number of these offenders in a therapeutic and culturally significant manner. While the amount of funds required to construct the 

proposed adult and juvenile detention and rehabilitation center 

clearly is beyond our financial resources, as a tribal government we 

are asking for Federal funding consideration to assist us in the construction of these rehabilitation facilities so as to implement an aggressive program of treatment and rehabilitation of our offenders 

in the local community. The consideration of the Committee with 

regard to this proposal would be greatly appreciated. 

‘‘Respectfully submitted by Michael I. Selvage, Senior, Tribal 

Chairman of Sisseton Wahpeton Oyate Tribal Council.’’

[The prepared statement of Mr. Selvage follows:]

Statement submitted for the record by Michael I. Selvage, Sr., Tribal 

Chairman, Sisseton Wahpeton Oyate Tribal Council, Agency Village, 

South Dakota 

Honorable Chairman Nick J. Rahall II and members of the Committee: 

On behalf of the Tribal Council of the Sisseton Wahpeton Oyate, we thank the 

Committee on Natural Resources for taking the time to hold this oversight field 

hearing concerning the needs and challenges of Tribal Law Enforcement on Indian 

Reservations today. Your decision and action of holding this field hearing demonstrates your genuine concern regarding our pressing needs as regards the protection of tribal members and property in Indian Country, and we are highly appreciative of this consideration, which has been extended to the federally recognized 

tribal governments herein assembled. 

The tribal government of the Sisseton Wahpeton Oyate including its Law Enforcement Agency has been in continuous existence and operation since the time of Congressional approval of our Sisseton Wahpeton Treaty of February 19th, 1867, (15 

Stats., 505). Article 10 of this Treaty provides the basis for establishment and federal recognition of our Tribal Law Enforcement Agency, wherein it was mutually 

65

agreed that, ‘‘The (Sisseton Wahpeton) Chiefs and Head men—are authorized—to 

organize a force sufficient to carry out—laws, and all rules and regulations for the 

government of said Indians, as may be prescribed by the (United States) Interior 

Department’’. 

For 140 years, the Treaty Council and tribal councils of the Sisseton Wahpeton 

Oyate have maintained and supported its tribal law enforcement agency on the 

Lake Traverse Reservation throughout its seven district communities, and have 

faithfully enforced the laws of the Sisseton Wahpeton Oyate as well as all applicable 

federal laws for Indian Country. Generations of tribal families from our communities have committed themselves to Tribal Law Enforcement throughout this period 

of 140 years of continuous service, whether federal funding support was available 

or not. 

It is from this historical context that our testimony today derives and is submitted 

for your consideration. The tribal government of the Sisseton Wahpeton Oyate 

assures the Committee that its obligations to law enforcement are taken very seriously, as such responsibilities pertain to our Constitutional mandate to promote the 

health and well being of our tribal membership which now consist of over 12,000 

tribal members, of whom 6,000 members reside in our seven district communities 

on the Lake Traverse Reservation. Our tribal and federal jurisdiction extends to 

those designated areas of Indian Country in five counties in north east South Dakota as well as two counties in south east North Dakota. 

Our Sisseton Wahpeton needs and challenges in law enforcement consist of two 

principal areas of concern: 

First, the diminishing level of federal funding support for our law enforcement 

agency; 

Second, our current need to construct a new Community Justice and Rehabilitation Center for both adult and juvenile offenders on the Lake Traverse Reservation, 

consistent with the tribal council approved Master Plan for this rehabilitation campus. 

Regarding the diminishment of federal funding and support for our tribal law enforcement agency, the tribal government of the Sisseton Wahpeton Oyate contracts 

under authorities of PL 93-638 for law enforcement services from the Bureau of 

Indian Affairs, this has been in effect since passage of the Act. Previously, the tribal 

government contracted for law enforcement services, utilizing the authorities of the 

Buy Indian Act. 

The struggles of the tribal government in obtaining a sufficient level of funding 

for its law enforcement agency are extensive, and for the past five years, the tribal 

government has matched federal funding from its own limited non-federal funds so 

that law enforcement can be accomplished more effectively. Currently, the tribal 

council of the Sisseton Wahpeton Oyate provides approximately 35% of needed funding from its non-federal revenues, consisting of $350,000 to $400,000 from tribal 

funds annually for the basic operation of our law enforcement agency. Without this 

contribution of tribal funds, our law enforcement agency would not be able to sustain itself nor meet the requirements of effective law enforcement in the local seven 

tribal communities on the reservation. 

In particular, our law enforcement agency finds itself highly challenged with regard to intervening upon the growing incidence of methamphetamine abuse and addiction, which are increasing within our tribal communities on the reservation. In 

particular, the introduction of these illegal substances from the outside has served 

to increase the number of offenses and violent behavior of offenders, with particular 

reference to juvenile offenders within the jurisdiction. Our resources in manpower 

and investigative technology are limited regarding an effective interdiction. Our financial resources are limited to combat this invasive intrusion of one of the most 

serious disorders, which is afflicting our communities at the present time. While our 

tribal government has emphasized preventative measures in our schools and local 

college, such efforts however admirable in itself yet require federal assistance to intervene upon those who violate our tribal and federal laws by engaging in the traffic 

of illegal drugs on our reservation. On behalf of our children and youth, we urge 

you to consider federal appropriations to assist us in this time of crisis and need. 

In 1974, our tribal council applied for and obtained federal funding from the U.S. 

Department of Justice to construct a minimum-security adult detention center. At 

the time, the problems and offenses of our people were minimal, and the existent 

facility provided a minimum required need as regards judicial services and intervention services for adult offenders. Since that time, however, the numbers of adult and 

juvenile offenders have increased significantly, and our current detention facility 

fails to meet not only facility code requirements, but also fails to provide sufficient 

space for adult offenders, and has no space available for the growing number of juvenile offenders. 

66

Beginning in the year 2004 and continuing at the present time, our tribal government embarked on the arduous task of developing and establishing what has become known as the ‘‘Sisseton-Wahpeton Oyate Community Justice and Rehabilitation Master Plan.’’ This initiative was funded and sponsored by our tribal council, 

utilizing primarily non-federal tribal funds, and such funding enabled our tribal government to retain professional criminal justice personnel who assessed our criminal 

justice needs and requirements, so as to develop and establish our own tribal specific master plan for addressing our own community justice and rehabilitation 

needs. 

Essentially this master plan plainly asserts our own tribal responsibility to intervene upon both adult and juvenile offenders in the local community, so as to treat 

and rehabilitate the greatest number of these offenders in a therapeutic and culturally significant manner. While the amount of funds required to construct the proposed adult and juvenile detention and rehabilitation center clearly is beyond our 

financial resources, as a tribal government, we are asking for federal funding consideration to assist us in the construction of these rehabilitation facilities, so as to 

implement an aggressive program of treatment and rehabilitation of our offenders 

in the local community. The consideration of the Committee with regard to this proposal would be greatly appreciated. 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. We thank you and Chairman Selvage. 

I would like to start some questions with where President Steele 

started out on the COPS program and the situation that the Oglala 

Sioux Tribe and I believe the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe find 

themselves in today, and perhaps other tribes, having utilized this 

program to supplement law enforcement services, but I would 

like—President Steele mentioned, Chairman Brings Plenty, that 

this was encouraged by the BIA a number of years ago to access 

Department of Justice programs like the COPS program, encouraged perhaps with the idea that this would be short term, kind of 

a short-term transition phase until the BIA was able to secure additional resources or make some changes to provide increased resources for the longer term law enforcement needs for different 

tribes. 

Do you know: Was the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, at the time 

that that happened, you know, in terms of conversations you’ve had 

with your predecessors or members of the tribal council, was this 

encouraged in a similar way by the BIA, do you know, to utilize 

the COPS program? I know you’ve got some folks here with law enforcement that are—there’s the longevity that they bring to the 

table. Perhaps you might want them to respond as well. Do you recall the context in which the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe started 

meeting law enforcement needs increasingly through COPS grants? 

Mr. BRINGS PLENTY. If I can request our tribal lawyer. 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. Yes. And, Ms. Kidder, if you could identify yourself for the record. 

Ms. KIDDER. Yes. Rebecca Kidder, tribal counsel for the Cheyenne River. 

With respect to the chief of police and two detectives, I wrote 

over $4 million of COPS grants for Cheyenne River in my tenure 

there and it was encouraged. At one time we had 36 officers. We’re 

down to ten. The problem was even if you could get the cash match 

waived that they required, you had to have a retention plan and 

you could not use BIA based program funding for that. 

We also purchased a fleet of vehicles with COPS. That fleet of 

vehicles that was purchased with an $800,000 COPS resource 

grant, there was never any money to maintain it available. That 

67

fleet is sitting in our lot right now unused because there’s no 

money to maintain them. 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. There might be another mike on. If you 

could just turn that one off. If you can just turn that one off, it will 

reduce that feedback. There you go. 

Ms. KIDDER. I would just add that there was no money to maintain the fleet and then now that we need a replacement fleet, 

there’s no COPS money available to do that, so it was not a workable program. 

I would say the other problem is when they gave us COPS grants 

there was no money for tribal courts, so we had 36 officers, our arrests went way up, and the tribal court still had one judge and one 

prosecutor and so the time between arrest and trial got even 

longer. Now we have tribal court grants that are small but we have 

no cops. So it’s a system. You have to fund the system or it doesn’t 

work. 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. Well, let me make an observation here 

based on this experience. It reminds me of what we know has happened between the BIA and IHS, two resource strapped agencies 

that at times seem to try to manage their limited resources by 

shifting costs and not providing services to an eligible individual 

because they know there’s another place where they can access 

funds. 

I’m interested in pursuing this further with the BIA in terms of 

the initial encouragement, perhaps, with anticipation because of 

the success of the COPS program, that that would continue to be 

funded at reasonable levels, which it was not because of cuts and 

changes in priorities over the last few years. 

So, you know, we’ve had a confluence of factors that have now 

resulted in this crisis and you should know, President Steele, that 

Chairman Norm Dicks of Washington did talk with me specifically 

about the testimony that was provided to his subcommittee as it 

relates to the crisis that you face in law enforcement for the Oglala 

Sioux Tribe and I will be working with him as the subcommittee 

process, now that we’ve had the initial mark-up, goes to full committee and then gets conferenced to identify specific needs of specific tribes, but certainly the situation being as dire with the 40 

percent cut as well as the various substantial percentage cuts that 

other tribes in South Dakota, throughout the Great Plains are facing. 

If I maybe can—let’s talk about the Great Plains region, if we 

could. I understand that there are a number of tribal law enforcement agencies, again, I think all of those represented here, that 

have banded together to form a law enforcement working group. If 

any of you could comment or if you have folks that are with us here 

today that could comment on what the group has been able to accomplish and what kind of participation you’ve seen. If any of you 

would care to comment. President Steele? 

Mr. STEELE. If I may, Congresswoman. I knew it and I spaced 

it out at the time, but Mr. Archie Fool Bear from the Standing 

Rock Sioux tribal council is here also and if possible, maybe five 

minutes later on he would like to also give some testimony from 

the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe. It wasn’t on the agenda. At your 

will, Congresswoman. I know you’re busy. 

68

But I would like to say, Congresswoman, that my Chief of Police 

here, Mr. Twiss, passed me a little note that the BIA did give us 

$475,000 in reprogrammed monies for law enforcement last year. 

I’d like to thank them for that, but that is, to us, a Band-Aid. 

And your question on the working group, yes, we are working on 

legislation for you, Congresswoman, to possibly present and we will 

get to the other tribes with this legislation, but this is a possible 

solution overall in law enforcement with not only our cops, but the 

courts and the prosecutors also, and so this is something we’ll be 

coming at you into the future. If you want a copy of this very rough 

draft of it now, we’ll get you a copy, but we’re working on legislation for yourself and the senators to consider and we’ll get this 

working group with the other tribes to get them copies also and get 

their input. 

We want this to be a whole joint effort in South Dakota and possibly even North Dakota. 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. So the tribes that are currently participating in the working group doesn’t include all of the Great Plains 

tribal chairmen yet? 

Mr. STEELE. We’ll be getting around to the tribes, yes. 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. OK. I know it’s in its very early stages. 

Mr. STEELE. It’s in its early stages, but we want them to participate with us in the completion of it, the drafting of it. It’s in very 

rough draft form right now. 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. Did either President Bordeaux or Chairman Brings Plenty want to comment on it? 

Mr. BORDEAUX. Well, yeah. I guess we need to have the unity 

amongst our agencies but I think we need to really concentrate on 

the funding issue at hand right now. 

But I would like to, if I could, address an issue about that methamphetamine and the drug problems. I don’t know if you want to 

do it now. 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. Please do. That was my next question 

and I know that you have an officer here. 

Mr. BORDEAUX. Yes. I have Officer Estes here. Mr. Estes has 

been involved in the Safe Trails Task Force and he can give you 

the magnitude of the problem here facing the reservations if you 

could give him some time. 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. Welcome, Mr. Estes. If you could identify 

yourself for the record before presenting your statement. 

STATEMENT OF BEN ESTES, SPECIAL AGENT WITH THE 

ROSEBUD SIOUX TRIBE ATTACHED TO THE NORTHERN 

PLAINS DRUG TASK FORCE 

Mr. ESTES. My name is Ben Estes. I’m a special agent with the 

Northern Plains Drug—well, I’m a special agent with the Rosebud 

Sioux Tribe attached to the Northern Plains Drug Task Force. 

I’ve been working with the task force for six years. Prior to working with Rosebud, back in September of 2005 I was—my area was 

Lower Brule, Fort Thompson. 

Since working with Rosebud down there with the chief of police, 

the captain of police, the highway safety program, the criminal investigation division, along with various other entities, what we 

found out—what we found out there in the investigations in RoseVerDate 0ct 09 2002 12:44 Dec 20, 2007 Jkt 098700 PO 00000 Frm 00072 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 L:\DOCS\36020.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
69

bud is it not only affects Rosebud, but it affects all of the other 

tribes. 

When we do our investigation, it usually leads to other reservations and it also leads to Rapid City, Sioux Falls, California, Washington. Almost every state in the union. Texas, Mexico. We could 

trace these drugs back to these areas. We can even trace them back 

to Hawaii. 

Through our investigation we have found that there are various 

crime cartels that bring this stuff in. They infiltrate the reservations by marrying into families or going out with individuals on the 

reservation that are enrolled members and it’s becoming a national 

epidemic, not only nationally, but on each reservation. 

When I first started doing this, I didn’t think—I was on patrol 

here in Lower Brule. I didn’t think it was that big of a problem 

until I started working with the drug task force. 

Prior to coming up here today, I was in Rosebud. They had asked 

me to do—to tell you real quick how many arrests we have made, 

Federal arrests. And I didn’t realize it was that many. There was 

51 for meth and then there was ten for marijuana. 

Now, from talking to the captain, the chief of police, Chief Red 

Crow and some of the other officers that are on patrol, our meth 

arrests are going down, but that doesn’t mean that there’s not 

meth on the reservation. They went underground. I’m finding out 

that a lot of the meth is also coming up this way. They’re no longer 

selling it down there but they’re selling it on other reservations, 

Lower Brule, Fort Thompson, Winnebago, Wagner or Lake Andes, 

the Yankton Sioux Tribe, Eagle Butte, Standing Rock, Sisseton, 

you name it. Montana tribes. Wyoming tribes. 

The problem we have now is we don’t—I am full-time down there 

and we’re understaffed investigating drug crimes. Many times 

we’re on call all day and night and I go, you know, but each reservation does have a meth problem and we need more funding to 

combat this meth problem. 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. Mr. Estes, if I might ask, the gang activity that President Bordeaux described, have you found in your investigations both on the Rosebud as well as the cross—where the 

investigations lead you, not only Federal reservations but in different parts of the country and further south in New Mexico, are 

the youth gang activities directly related to the methamphetamine 

issue or even indirectly? Can you elaborate a little bit on whether 

or not there is that connection? 

Mr. ESTES. I don’t—I work with the gang unit, but I don’t work 

directly with them. There is two people down there, Special Agent 

Walters and Special Agent Martel that work the gang unit. They 

also work part-time with me when I need help. 

I know that they just did—they just went to Grand Jury and indicted two people for their involvement in the MS13 gang, so they 

are coming up this way and they are actively recruiting. A lot of 

the other gangs, they do get involved. I know—well, there’s some 

investigation that’s going on right now involving youth gangs that 

are involved in selling methamphetamine, cocaine. It seems like cocaine is back on the rise again. 

But we are working on current investigations right now involving 

youth gangs bringing that stuff in and selling it for these individVerDate 0ct 09 2002 12:44 Dec 20, 2007 Jkt 098700 PO 00000 Frm 00073 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 L:\DOCS\36020.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
70

uals that come off—that are from off the reservation are bringing 

that stuff on the reservation. So yeah, there is an increase with 

gang activity getting involved in the drug market. Because it is a 

lucrative market. 

And also I’d like to say that there is a lot of weapons, firearms 

that are involved in these transactions, people exchanging firearms 

for meth, cocaine, marijuana, so... 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. Well, thank you for being here and for 

talking about your experiences and the importance of the task force 

and the coordination and the seriousness. It has taken us far 

longer than it ever should have to get the Administration and the 

Department of Justice to recognize the seriousness of the methamphetamine problem, especially in rural parts of the country, and 

the additional burden that that is putting on law enforcement in 

more remote communities and certainly the fact that we know that 

Indian Country has been used as a transport site—I mean in terms 

of exploiting the lack of law enforcement presence as it’s been articulated throughout here today because of the Federal funding 

problems associated with what we’ve encountered over the last few 

years. 

Chief Gaikowski, would you like to comment on the methamphetamine or illegal drug trafficking issue more broadly? 

Chief GAIKOWSKI. Yes. I’d just like to comment: We’re applying for one of the meth grants right now, it’s a $450,000 grant for our 

meth coalition we have set up in Sisseton, and I guess my comment 

is: Who are putting out these grants? Because you see the need for 

more officers, more drug officers, but we can’t apply for an officer 

under this grant. And for a prosecutor they could or for a civilian. 

But I guess that’s just one of the questions, the people that are 

putting out these grants, is there any other input they can get from 

what’s really going on out in Indian Country? 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. Thank you for the comment and bringing 

that to my attention. 

The grants that have been made available, I believe have been 

mostly through the Department of Justice as they’ve—the Office of 

Drug Control Policy is charged to respond to this epidemic and 

meth in particular. And so I’m sure that in trying to maintain various boundaries as they have established grant programs and the 

new grant program, whenever, again, we’re dealing with limited resources, I always attempt to kind of define eligibility in a way that 

narrows the use of funds. 

So we’ll pursue that because, you know, certainly the importance 

of the coordination to combat meth can’t be overstated as it relates 

to not only the law enforcement side but obviously the treatment 

side and the tribe grants that we’re trying to make available to develop the most effective treatment programs and raise the level of 

awareness of all those in the community, in the schools, to assist 

law enforcement in these efforts. 

So thank you for the comment. That’s something that we will 

look at as we, perhaps, are looking to authorize new programs, but 

certainly in funding these grants and how they’re allocated by the 

agency that we might look at, you know, again, the flexibility of the 

use of the funds, especially if those are made available to tribes 

that are applying for those grants. 

71

Yes? 

Chief GAIKOWSKI. I guess also, that one of the things we’re finding out and it is becoming a problem up there, a big problem, especially being so close to Minneapolis, Sioux Falls, the interstate coming right through there, but our true numbers aren’t really being, 

I guess, told. We still have all the other programs we need to work 

with and it does hinder with IHS, you know, trying to get stats 

from them, trying to get, you know, who’s on—if they can just keep 

track of, you know, the drugs or what, but it seems like there’s a 

blockade there also to finding—so we can find the true number of, 

you know, what’s going on in our community right now. 

It’s tough for law enforcement because we are a tight knit community. We all know each other and no one wants to be a rat out 

there and—but, you know, it’s in our community’s heart and I just 

hope that, you know, future funding for better understanding of 

what we need will come out of this. 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. Thank you. 

Chairman, did you have additional comments on this issue? 

Mr. BRINGS PLENTY. Yes. Actually, I wanted to respond to just 

about every one of them, of the subjects that we were talking about 

here. 

First off, the meth issue, I have some information to add on 

there. In ’02, 2002, the—that’s when, from my—from where I’m 

standing, working as an officer out in the field, I saw, you know, 

the addiction of meth go into overdrive. The rate of violent offenses 

was on the rise and officers being assaulted and attacked. 

I myself went into a home to make a simple arrest and I was 

jumped by the whole family and having to fight your way out of 

there. A person that is on that sort of drug is very strong. A scary 

situation. 

And with situations like that, our lives could be lost, whether it 

be an officer or persons in the community. And what the drug 

agent that was here before speaking, there was a study—not really 

a study, actually. There was an issue over in Moon River regarding 

some meth usage. Some of the Mexican gangs had come in and, you 

know, infiltrated the tribes the same way, married into family 

members, family members that were actually, you know, tied in politically with tribal leaders and, you know, making it very hard for 

the investigation to be carried out. It took some years. I want to 

say probably six years before they really, you know, broke down 

that ring. 

But actually that idea of history, too, was given—it was a business plan that was laid out by these individuals and thought out 

and they went and carried it out because they saw what was going 

on over in White Clay. And, you know, they saw that the Native 

Americans there had, you know, addictions of alcohol and if they 

can just go ahead and switch that over to this drug called meth, 

then they might make a lot of money. And they were right, because 

within a year, you know, their rates, percentages of violent crime—

because when you’re on that sort of drug, and believe me, through 

going out in the community and dealing with people firsthand that 

were on it and also being on the social service side of it, too, you 

know, people that were trying to get off it, and they would—there 

72

was nothing to hide. They would tell you everything and what they 

would do for that, their drug. 

Because the thing is is that it’s broader than just law enforcement now. When we talk about this struggle, we open the door for 

everything. Because we have housing. We have health, human 

services. I mean, because when they make these labs, they totally 

destroy these homes. Nobody can live there. People get sick. I 

mean, it’s just—it’s so broad that it just kicks the door open for everything and everyone’s affected through families, through schools, 

through everything. It’s a very large issue and, you know, up on 

the Hill they, you know, of course appropriate monies out to law 

enforcement but the sense is when you take a step back and take 

a look at law enforcement’s money that are coming down are being 

funded to or appropriated for these departments to battle that 

there drug on the front line, I think the amount was maybe, I want 

to say, six million, maybe five million. I’m not too sure. Don’t quote 

me on that. 

The thing is how many treatment facilities do we have that address this here addiction in South Dakota? And it’s just—it’s broader than just, you know, on the front lines because these officers put 

their lives on the line daily, go out and arrest these individuals and 

take them to jail. The next day, the next couple days, they’re out 

again because we don’t have nothing to—you know, as far as, you 

know, we’ve heard before, as far as the backlog of the court system 

that we have there at Cheyenne River. We can’t honestly say that 

we’re going to be able to battle these issues and carry them out because of the lack of funding and the lack of bodies and the lack of 

personnel. 

When I worked law enforcement, we had 22 people on patrol. 

Now there’s, you know, probably about ten. Scary. And we were 

way behind back then. 

But moving away from that, I guess I kind of jotted down a couple of notes here talking about the COPS grant program, and 

they’re great—first of all, the COPS program is a great concept, 

community oriented, police and people living out in the communities, being a part of the community, police presence, you know, 

lower crimes, the whole idea is great, but funding is at issue. 

When we were over in the Great Plains, there was also quite a 

few of the other chairmen there that were asking questions. Mr. 

Jandreau was also present but there was a justification that was 

given on why there’s not an increase on—from the Bureau side of 

it regarding law enforcement, because we can go ahead and put in 

for COPS grants, which isn’t true. We can’t. 

And also with—you know, talking about the work group, one 

thing is that the BIA chief of police, they should also be allowed 

to be part of the work group. They’re not. We need information 

from all—from all areas. And I know that some of the tribal policies and procedures vary differently from, you know, some of the 

Bureau procedures, but not really. 

And also with—I’m sorry, but there’s—also during the Great 

Plains meeting, and Mr. Chaney was up here speaking and, you 

know, I get along with—well, they’re not here. They’re over there. 

I get along with the individuals very well and stuff, but, you know, 

the thing is is that they had talked about consultation in AlbuVerDate 0ct 09 2002 12:44 Dec 20, 2007 Jkt 098700 PO 00000 Frm 00076 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 L:\DOCS\36020.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
73

querque, New Mexico, in February. When we was in the meeting 

in the Great Plains and that was in January, we never was ever 

informed of a meeting in Albuquerque, so consultation didn’t occur 

with us. 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. I appreciate your additional comments on 

each of those issues that we’ve explored and particularly as it relates to the working group and consultation, and I want to assure 

you we’re going to be exploring each of these issues further. The 

follow-up from the hearing, as we gather more information, will be 

very important and we’ll be relying on our ongoing dialogue to assure progress. 

I think that you had comments on behalf of President Steele. 

Correct? 

Mr. TWISS. Yes, ma’am. Thank you. 

It was just in regards to some of the issues that are coming up 

now in regards to meth. 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. Can you make sure your microphone is 

on. 

Mr. TWISS. In regards to some of the issues we have on the reservation that are currently being talked about in regards to meth, 

right now we have officers doing investigations on eight reported 

labs on Pine Ridge Reservation but due to a shortage of manpower, 

that we’re having a hard time investigating these. Some of these 

are the mobile labs, trailers or in the vehicle. 

So from the time—the officers don’t have time to go out actively 

and spend hours looking for these things because they’re also responsible for an area of a couple thousand people trying to answer 

calls at the same time, so it’s real hard to try and address the meth 

issue. 

But we do have—some of the stuff that’s reported—and I haven’t 

seen it yet, but we know it’s coming because it’s getting closer, is 

the pop rocks and the strawberry quick and it’s designed to make 

it more appealing for the kids and so that’s on its way. 

In regards to gangs, we are in the process of looking at the gangs 

on Pine Ridge and some of the information we’ve put together was 

out of a population of roughly 50,000 people on the Pine Ridge Reservation, we have an estimated 13,000 gang members. These are 

ages anywhere from seven to 40 years old. 

We also have—I heard talk of some of the different gangs coming 

from different parts of the area. We have some of the Latin Kings 

trying to get a foothold on Pine Ridge right now and right now we 

also—when we talk about the gangs coming into the reservation, 

we have one tribal member who was born and raised on the reservation who come into the gangs here. He’s currently in California 

awaiting trial on a double homicide. 

Then on the COPS, some of the things that we have issues with 

is the COPS grant was supposed to be a supplement for the tribal—for the tribal programs. It never worked out that way. You 

know, as I said in my testimony, it was—it was meant—it was 

meant for us to get more officers on the street but it was a—it was 

a crutch for the Bureau and we never received any help back on 

that. 

They talked about the waivers. A lot of times they didn’t—we 

didn’t get waivers. A lot of times the waivers weren’t granted and 

74

if they were granted, they were granted with great reluctance. The 

COPS program was developed to put more cops on the street. The 

COPS grants themselves provided bodies. The departments, even if 

it created more officers for departments, that department had to 

get more uniforms, equipment, vehicles, everything else for that officer. 

So in actuality it kind of strangled us even more because instead 

of going forward with the COPS grant, we ended up spending more 

of our contract dollars buying equipment and trying to get these 

people situated. We’re looking, you know, an average cost—we just 

put this together. The average cost for equipping one officer was 

$6500. So if you get—I heard something like 30 officers, 15 officers. 

That’s a lot of money for a small department. 

We have—we have a—on Pine Ridge we have a task force that’s 

put together of some officers and they’re not specifically going after 

one issue, they have different issues, so—and one of their main 

issues right now is the meth. So that’s something we’ve done on 

our own. 

I’ll finish out and go over this. Thank you. 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. Yes, President Bordeaux. 

Mr. BORDEAUX. Yes. Another comment with regard to funding. 

Earlier I mentioned the Federal Bureau of Investigation getting 

an increase in funding and we tracked that and they didn’t—none 

of it ever hit our reservation in terms of money available to our law 

enforcement services. And there was no strings attached type, 

whatever the BIA gets. 

We have to be creative in terms of getting other funding. If you 

could somehow put a word into the FBI Department of Justice that 

they allow some of that money to come down, because they’re using 

our statistics to get increases and we don’t get any of that. 

And in addition, on the Rosebud, for two years now—and I’m 

glad they’re finally allowing some funding for meth addiction. So 

we have our alcohol treatment center. We just opened a youth component of that on the alcohol side, but now we want to open a component for methamphetamine addiction on both the adult and juvenile side. So we’ve been trying to get some funding and I think 

we’re going to be stopping down next week at your office and see 

where we’re at with that. 

But that’s something that we need, the addiction, and when you 

said about a 15 percent cure rate already, maybe even lower, but 

it’s an issue that we have to address also as we proceed. 

Thank you. 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. Thank you. And can you make sure that 

other microphone is turned off? They were getting a little feedback. 

Is it off? 

Just a couple of observations and comments before we end this 

panel and we’re going to take a small break before we get to the 

third panel. 

Chairman, did you have another comment to make? OK. 

Mr. BRINGS PLENTY. First of all, this is probably about the longest long-winded panel you’ve had today so... 

Getting back to the meth issue, we had a drug, actually, officer, 

agent, in our organization that was working on the area there, but 

he had been—and his family were basically threatened so they left. 

75

But we used two police officer position salaries to fund for an agent 

at home because the thing is is that we’re not allowed, getting back 

to the BIA, as far as not allowing the canine officer to come onto 

our reservation because of it being a liability. 

But the thing is, also, is that we’ve talked about some of the 

grants and Chief Twiss had talked of—and the question was 

about—he brought up a good question, too, was who makes these 

grants and who, you know, lays out that scope of work? Sometimes 

you take a look at the grants and, you know, of course it sounds 

great because it’s laid out in front of you, you can do this, you can 

do that. 

From one instance, I guess is the Indian highway safety which 

is funded by DOT. The scope of work was provided by the Bureau. 

Now, the thing is is that coming in, people aren’t going to realize 

that that officer that’s looking at their grant is only funded when 

he’s out on the road, when he or she is out on the road. There’s 

no funding that’s included in there for the in office work, paperwork. Of course, that needs to be done. If you’re going to go out 

and arrest somebody, you have to also justify that down on paper. 

Another is the training that is also required for it and some of 

the traveling back and forth going down to Albuquerque, but that’s 

not included in there also. And that’s just, you know, kind of adding onto it. The chief here is a cop who does these grants. 

Also, before I end, too, Archie Fool Bear from Standing Rock, he’s 

a councilman also, former chief of police, and I would like for him—

ask for him to be—request for him to have the floor. Maybe after 

the break. It’s at your discretion, Madam Chair. 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. Thank you, Chairman. 

And let me just make a few comments before we do have to take 

the break and then still have time for our third and very important 

panel. 

We made every attempt to accommodate as many witnesses as 

we could today and I do want to make sure that we have time to 

hear from Chairman Cournoyer and Mr. Fool Bear. 

We’re also going to be doing additional outreach. I want everyone 

to be assured of that. We do face some constraints when we’re setting up any field hearing with the number of panels and witnesses 

that we can accommodate. So there was no disrespect intended to 

those who we weren’t able to include officially in kind of the official 

roster for the field hearing, but I do anticipate that we should have 

time, after the third panel, so that we can hear from—and I just 

want to verify during the break with Committee staff in terms of 

the protocols that we operate under, that we can accommodate 

other witnesses, either as part of the official record or certainly to 

yield them the floor to be able to hear from Chairman Cournoyer 

and Mr. Fool Bear and the level of expertise and insight that they 

are able to offer today. 

But there is already ongoing planning by my staff and working 

with both the Washington office and our South Dakota office for 

additional outreach, not only on law enforcement issues, but a 

whole host of other issues for which the oversight of the 110th Congress is undertaking will be so relevant and important to our efforts. 

76

So let me just offer a couple of concluding thoughts before we 

take our break and then invite the third panel. 

The testimony that’s been provided today is essential to breaking 

down barriers that have existed over many years but including 

some that have developed even recently as a result of, in my opinion, of a lack of oversight. Chairman Rahall has indicated the seriousness about oversight with the Natural Resources Committee, in 

my opinion, again, did not as aggressively undertake in the past. 

I think that Ranking Member Young’s leadership, not only in the 

past as former chairman of the Natural Resources Committee, but 

in representing Alaskan Native tribes and the work that he has 

done in this area will be very important in their partnership and 

the seriousness with which we take these issues, the full committee. 

So I appreciate the testimony that’s been offered by all of our 

tribal leaders, not only our elected chairmen and presidents, but 

the chiefs of police and other law enforcement officers that are here 

that have presented testimony. 

I want to thank Mr. Ragsdale and Mr. Chaney and those that 

work with them for being here and for staying. Because oftentimes 

when we have hearings in Washington, everyone’s schedule is 

pulled in so many different directions that we’re not able to have 

Administration witnesses stay with us throughout the course of the 

entire hearing. So I want to thank them, because our work going 

forward together, both in terms of my representation of tribes here 

today, but also the working relationship that Congress maintains 

with the Executive Branch, we want to pursue this spirit of cooperation so that people have the tools and feel empowered to have 

the process in place that’s more responsive in addition to the funding increases that have clearly been identified as among the most 

important. 

But as we increase that funding as the Administration has done 

in its proposal for FY ’08, as the House Interior Subcommittee has 

done already, that hopefully the full Committee will follow suit, we 

have to create the conditions for accountability in how that money 

is spent. 

And the comments that were made earlier by a number of you 

about the top heavy issue of management and how that money and 

those resources get down to local communities, whether it’s in law 

enforcement, whether it’s education, and the problem that we had 

or continue to have with education line officers and ensuring that 

the accountability and the resources get to where it’s needed most. 

So as we create those conditions of accountability and pursue additional and aggressive oversight, it will continue to be important 

as all of you have to do in working with tribal councils, in preparing your budgets to present to the administration at the tribal 

level and justifying the spending that you’re requesting, it is a matter of priorities. And while the Administration in the budget proposed this year has proposed the increase in law enforcement, as 

President Steele noted at the outset, we’ve seen cuts elsewhere, in 

education programs for Native American youth, in burial assistance programs for among the poorest people in the country. 

It’s heart breaking, some of the testimony we’ve heard today, but 

other issues that we’ve heard about are inexcusable, inexcusable to 

77

Congress as it relates to our oversight responsibility, inexcusable 

for the Administration in terms of funding priorities that Congress 

has to act on as well. 

And so whether it’s the BIA’s formula for funding law enforcement activities, certainly the statistics that have been shared today 

as it relates to the number of law enforcement officers we have out 

in our communities in Indian Country versus what we have in 

other communities across the country will be very important in 

making the case. Just as we made our case, again, in seeing increases but not nearly enough to meet the need as it relates to IHS 

funding, when we pointed out the amount of money spent per Federal prisoner on health care versus the amount of money spent per 

Native American as it relates to treaty obligations, and the same 

is true in the crisis situation we face today in law enforcement 

which has been highlighted by the very effective testimony as it relates to methamphetamine abuse in particular and at a time when 

we’ve seen that problem exacerbate and when we’ve seen the exploitation of families and communities in Indian Country by outsiders coming in, increasing and recruiting for gang activity, exploiting the remote nature of Indian Country and all of rural America to engage in this type of drug trafficking and the targeting of 

youth, again, highlights the importance of Congressional action 

working with the Administration to combat the proliferation of 

methamphetamine and other illegal drugs. 

But this is going to require a holistic approach, a holistic approach not only in terms of how we work together, but the holistic 

approach of recognizing that it’s not law enforcement, further development of resources for our court system, the treatment programs, it’s the safety and health of our elders and our children and 

those that are wanting to make a difference in their communities. 

The testimony about—sorry to get a little emotional, but the sacred relationship between grandchildren, between elders and their 

grandchildren, and how that’s been disrupted by the increase in 

crime and the methamphetamine abuse, we have to get at the 

heart of that, just as we have to get at the heart of domestic violence, which is what we’ll be hearing about in the final panel today 

in response, in part, but only in part, to the Amnesty International 

report. Because we’ve known even before they released this report, 

the travesty, what the statistics have been historically in the disproportionate rate of domestic violence in Indian Country against 

women and young children. 

Let me now conclude by thanking you all once again and announcing that we will be moving to the third panel after a short 

break that I think will last maybe about 15 minutes. 

And I’ll have some additional people to thank but I know that 

some people may have to leave and so let me thank now Clarence 

Skye with the United Sioux Tribes and those that may be traveling 

with him for providing the flags for today’s hearing. 

Chairman Pilcher with the Winnebago Tribe unfortunately had 

to leave but we will follow up with him to see if there are other 

comments he would like to provide in response to some of the testimony that was offered here already. 

78

And Patty Gourneau, I know she was here. She’s been in and 

out. She’s been assisting us with Chairman Jandreau for setting up 

the hearing here today. 

I want to thank my staff. I’m going to do all of this again at the 

end of the third panel. Again, I know some people may have to 

leave after this panel. Phil Asmus with my legislative team, Laura 

McNaughton, and Lesley Kandaras and Maiva King—Maiva King 

is my state director and Lesley and Laura work with her out of 

both the Rapid City and Sioux Falls Office and the Aberdeen Office—for their work in preparation for today’s hearing. 

Our student Ambassadors who were at lunch earlier and who 

had joined us at the outset of the hearing. They may be out and 

around and assisting people in a different part of tribal headquarters here, but I also want to thank—as you know, I serve on 

the Veterans Affairs Committee as well and I’ve worked with so 

many of you to address the needs of Native American veterans. As 

a number of you did already, I want to thank the (Lakota), those 

law enforcements officers who are here who protect us closer to 

home in addition to the (Lakota) that protect us in serving further 

away, but thank you for being here and for what you do. And we’re 

going to do all that we can to ease the burden that you have faced 

over the last couple of years. So thank you. 

We’ll take a short break and return in about 15 minutes. 

[Break taken.] 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. I appreciate everyone’s patience here for 

accommodating their schedules for the length of the important testimony we’re taking here today but I am very pleased that we have 

a panel of witnesses before us now that is going to focus our attention to a narrower aspect of law enforcement, and that is violence 

against Native American women. 

As I mentioned before the break, this panel is in part a response 

to a report from Amnesty International entitled ‘‘Maze of Injustice: 

The failure to protect Indigenous women from sexual violence in 

the USA.’’

I’m pleased to inform you that Carol Pollack is able to join us 

from Amnesty International to testify about the contents of the report and I greatly appreciate the added focus that the report has 

brought to this issue, but again, as I mentioned before the break, 

I think it’s very important to note that the report is supported by 

a wealth of statistics that have been around far longer than the report itself. It’s also been shaped by decades of work by dedicated 

advocates on behalf of victims of domestic violence, victims of 

abuse, some of whom we’re fortunate to hear from today. 

So I want to thank Cecelia Fire Thunder for being here testifying 

on behalf of the work that she is undertaking, along with Karen 

Artichoker, with the Oglala Sioux Tribe, and I want to thank Georgia Little Shield for being here today as well. 

In addition to our distinguished panel, I want to acknowledge individuals who deserve to be commended for their work in addressing violence against women. In particular, I’d like to single out Lisa 

Thompson. Where is Lisa? There she is. Lisa works with Wiconi 

Wawokiya. 

Last summer I had the opportunity to visit her at the shelter 

just a few miles away in Fort Thompson, the Crow Creek Sioux 

79

Tribe, and I was impressed to learn more about the services that 

she and others provide there and want to thank Lisa and Wiconi 

Wawokiya for their work. 

My experience and understanding of this issue expanded dramatically about a decade ago when I was working for the Federal 

District Court here in South Dakota, the sexual division, and the 

importance of the partnership of our advocates on behalf of victims 

of domestic violence with our victims assistance individuals within 

the Federal Court, within the Federal Attorney’s Office, working 

closely with them. 

So again, thank you, and with that, we’ll go ahead and start the 

testimony. 

Ms. Pollack, if you could begin, please. 

STATEMENT OF MS. CAROL POLLACK, RESEARCHER,

AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL, NEW YORK, NEW YORK 

Ms. POLLACK. Thank you very much, Madam Chairwoman, for 

inviting Amnesty International to testify on an issue that significantly impacts the human rights of American Indian and Alaska 

Native women. I would like to submit my full testimony for the 

record. 

Amnesty is a worldwide human rights movement with more than 

2.2 million members. Our mission is to conduct research and to 

take action to prevent grave abuse of human rights. 

I will focus my remarks on the findings of Amnesty’s recent report. Amnesty launched an investigation after learning that the 

DOJ’s own statistics, not new statistics, as you mentioned, indicate 

that Native American and Alaskan Native women are more than 

two and a half times more likely than other women in the U.S. to 

be raped; that more than one in three Native women will be raped 

during their lifetime; and that 86 percent of these crimes are committed by non-Native men. 

On April 24, 2007, Amnesty released the findings after a twoyear investigation. We interviewed survivors of rape, service providers, and Federal, state, and tribal law enforcement across the 

United States. We conducted detailed research in three locations 

with distinct jurisdictional challenges: The states of Oklahoma and 

Alaska and the Standing Rock Reservation in North and South Dakota. 

Many survivors courageously came forward to share their stories. 

For example, one Native American woman living on the Standing 

Rock Reservation told Amnesty that in 2005, her partner raped her 

and beat her so severely she had to be hospitalized. A warrant was 

issued after he failed to appear in court but he was not arrested. 

One morning she woke to find him standing by her couch looking 

at her. 

The perspectives of survivors as well as the Native women at the 

forefront of efforts to protect Indigenous women must inform all actions taken to end sexual violence. The safety of Native women as 

to this group of sovereign tribes rests on the capacities there to address sexual violence and implement VAWA and in particular the 

Tribal Title, Title IX. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify on this important 

human rights topic. 

80

[The prepared statement of Ms. Pollack follows:]

Statement of Carol Pollack, Researcher for

Amnesty International U.S.A. 

Introduction 

Madame Chairwoman and members of the Committee, thank you for inviting Amnesty International to testify on an issue that significantly impacts the human 

rights of American Indian and Alaska Native women. I would like to submit my full 

statement for the record. I will focus my remarks on the findings of Amnesty International’s recent report ‘‘Maze of Injustice: The failure to protect Indigenous women 

from sexual violence in the USA’’. 

Amnesty International is a worldwide human rights movement with more than 

2.2 million members and supporters in more than 150 countries and territories. Amnesty International’s vision is for every person to enjoy all of the human rights enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other international 

human rights standards. Amnesty International’s mission is to conduct research and 

take action to prevent and end grave abuses of all human rights. Amnesty International is independent of any government, political ideology, economic interest or 

religion. The organization is funded by individual members; no funds are sought or 

accepted from governments for investigating and campaigning against human rights 

abuses. 

‘‘Maze of Injustice’’ Report 

On April 24, 2007, Amnesty International released the findings of over 2 years 

of investigation into the problem of sexual violence against Native American and 

Alaska Native Women. The report is part of a worldwide campaign to Stop Violence 

against Women launched by Amnesty International in March 2004. Since then AI 

has published reports on aspects of violence against women in 40 countries. 

Amnesty International launched an investigation after learning that U.S. Department of Justice’s own statistics indicate that Native American and Alaska Native 

women are more than 2.5 times more likely than other women in the U.S. to be 

raped. According to Department of Justice statistics, more than 1 in 3 Native American and Alaska Native women will be raped at some point during their lives and 

86% of perpetrators of these crimes are non-Native men. 

Amnesty International’s report examines some of the reasons why Indigenous 

women in the U.S. are at such risk of sexual violence and why survivors are so frequently denied justice. The report is based on research carried out during 2005 and 

2006 in consultation with Native American and Alaska Native individuals. In the 

course of this research, Amnesty International’s interviewed survivors of sexual violence and their families, activists, support workers, service providers, and health 

workers. Amnesty International also interviewed officials across the US, including 

tribal, state and federal law enforcement officials and prosecutors, as well as tribal 

judges. Amnesty International also met representatives from the federal agencies 

which share responsibility with tribal authorities for addressing or responding to 

crimes in Indian Country. 

Amnesty International conducted detailed research in three locations with different policing and judicial arrangements: the State of Oklahoma, the State of Alaska, and the Standing Rock Reservation in North and South Dakota. While this report presents a national overview of sexual violence against Indigenous women, it 

primarily presents our specific findings in these key areas of research. 

Each location was selected for its specific jurisdictional characteristics. Oklahoma 

is composed for the most part of parcels of tribal lands intersected by state land 

where tribal, state or federal authorities may have jurisdiction. In Alaska, federal 

authorities have transferred their jurisdiction to state authorities so that only tribal 

and state authorities have jurisdiction. The Standing Rock Reservation illustrates 

the challenges involved in policing a vast, rural reservation where tribal and federal 

authorities have jurisdiction. 

The Standing Rock Reservation (also known as the Standing Rock Lakota/Dakota 

Reservation) straddles the border of North and South Dakota and covers an area 

of 2.3 million acres (approximately 9,312km2). Some 9,000 people live on the Reservation, about 60 per cent of whom are Native American. The Standing Rock Tribal 

Council is the tribal government and the Standing Rock Police Department (SRPD) 

is operated by the BIA. The Standing Rock Tribe has a tribal court, which hears 

civil and criminal complaints. 

Amnesty International is indebted to all the survivors of sexual violence who courageously came forward to share their stories and to those who provided support 

to survivors before and after they spoke with Amnesty International and to the NaVerDate 0ct 09 2002 12:44 Dec 20, 2007 Jkt 098700 PO 00000 Frm 00084 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 L:\DOCS\36020.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
81

tive American and Alaska Native organizations, experts and individuals who provided advice and guidance on research methodology and on the report itself. Amnesty International hopes that ‘‘Maze of Injustice’’ can contribute to and support the 

work of the many Native American and Alaska Native women’s organizations and 

activists who have been at the forefront of efforts to protect and serve women. 

This report attempts to represent the stories of survivors of sexual violence; their 

perspectives must inform all actions taken to end violence against Indigenous 

women. The report presents and references their statements. For example: 

One Native American woman living on the Standing Rock Reservation told 

Amnesty International that in September 2005 her partner raped her and 

beat her so severely that she had to be hospitalized. He was released on bond 

and an arrest warrant was issued after he failed to appear in court. However, SRPD officers did not arrest him. One morning she woke up to find 

him standing by her couch looking at her. Interview (name withheld), February 2006

High Levels of Sexual Violence 

Amnesty International’s research confirmed what Native American and Alaska 

Native advocates have long known: that sexual violence against women from Indian 

nations is at epidemic proportions and that Indian women face considerable barriers 

to accessing justice. Native American and Alaska Native women may never get a 

police response, may never have access to a sexual assault forensic examination 

and, even if they do, they may never see their case prosecuted. As a result of barriers including a complex jurisdictional maze and a chronic lack of resources for law 

enforcement and health services, perpetrators are not being brought to justice. 

Amnesty International’s interviews suggest that available statistics on sexual violence greatly underestimate the severity of the problem and fail to paint a comprehensive picture of the abuses. No statistics exist specifically on sexual violence 

in Indian Country; more data is urgently needed to establish the prevalence against 

Indigenous women. 

One support worker in Oklahoma told AI that only three of her 77 active cases 

of sexual and domestic violence involving Native American women were reported to 

the police. A medical professional responsible for post-mortem examinations of victims of rape and murder in Alaska told AI that Alaska Native women comprised 

almost 80 percent of confirmed cases in the state since 1991. 

According to FBI figures, in 2005 South Dakota had the fourth highest rate of 

‘‘forcible rapes’’ of women of any U.S. state. Interviews with survivors of sexual violence, activists and support workers on the Standing Rock Reservation indicate that 

rates of sexual violence are extremely high. Many women interviewed by Amnesty 

International on the Standing Rock Reservation could not think of a single Native 

American woman within their community who had not been subjected to sexual violence, and many survivors reportedly experienced sexual violence several times in 

their lives by different perpetrators. There were also several reports of gang rapes 

and Amnesty International was told of five rapes which took place over one week 

in September 2005. 

High levels of sexual violence on the Standing Rock Reservation take place in a 

context of high rates of poverty and crime. South Dakota has the highest poverty 

rate for Native American women in the USA with 45.3 per cent living in poverty. 

Crime rates on the Reservation often exceed those of its surrounding areas. 

Amnesty International documented many incidents of sexual violence against 

American Indian and Alaska Native women however the great majority of stories 

remain untold. Violence against women is characteristically underreported due to 

fear of retaliation and a lack of confidence that reports will be taken seriously. Historical relations between Indigenous women and government agencies also affect the 

level of reporting of sexual violence. 

There are more than 550 federally recognized American Indian and Alaska Native 

tribes in the United States. Federally recognized Indian tribes are sovereign under 

U.S. law, with jurisdiction over their citizens and land and maintaining government-to-government relationships with each other and with the U.S. government. 

The unique legal relationship of the United States to Indian tribes creates a federal 

trust responsibility to assist tribal governments in safeguarding the lives of Indian 

women. 

The welfare and safety of American Indian and Alaska Native women, as citizens 

of sovereign tribal nations, are directly linked to the authority and capacity of their 

nations to address sexual violence. However, the federal government has steadily 

eroded tribal government authority and chronically underfunded those law enforcement agencies and service providers that should protect Indigenous women from 

sexual violence. 

82

Issues of Jurisdiction 

Amnesty International received numerous reports that complicated jurisdictional 

issues can significantly delay the process of investigating and prosecuting crimes of 

sexual violence. The federal government has created a complex maze of tribal, state 

and federal law that has the effect of denying justice to victims of sexual violence 

and allowing perpetrators to evade prosecution. 

Three main factors determine where jurisdictional authority lies: whether the victim is a member of a federally recognized Indian tribe or not; whether the accused 

is a member of a federally recognized Indian tribe or not; and whether the alleged 

offence took place on tribal land or not. The answers to these questions are often 

not self-evident. However, this information determines whether tribal, state or federal authorities have jurisdiction to investigate and prosecute the crime. Jurisdiction of these different authorities often overlaps, resulting in confusion and uncertainty. 

Tribal and federal authorities have concurrent jurisdiction on all Standing Rock 

Reservation lands over crimes where the suspected perpetrator is American Indian. 

In instances in which the suspected perpetrator is non-Indian, federal officials have 

exclusive jurisdiction. Neither North nor South Dakota state police have jurisdiction 

over sexual violence against Native American women on the Standing Rock Reservation. State police do however have jurisdiction over crimes of sexual violence committed on tribal land in instances where the victim and the perpetrator are both 

non-Indian. The jurisdictional challenges differ in Alaska and in Oklahoma. 

As recorded by Andrea Smith, University of Michigan, Assistant Professor of Native Studies Jodi Rave, ‘‘South Dakota Tribal-City Police Department a National 

Model for Handling Domestic Abuse,’’ The Missoulian, September 24, 2006: ‘‘[N]onNative perpetrators often seek out a reservation place because they know they can 

inflict violence without much happening to them.’’

Amnesty International is concerned that jurisdictional issues not only cause confusion and uncertainty for survivors of sexual violence, but also result in uneven 

and inconsistent access to justice and accountability. This leaves victims without 

legal protection or redress and allows impunity for the perpetrators, especially nonIndian offenders who commit crimes on tribal land. 

According to a state prosecutor in South Dakota, the confusing and complicated 

jurisdiction over crime on and around reservations in South Dakota, means that 

some crimes just ‘‘fall through the cracks.’’ Amnesty International also received reports that perpetrators seek to evade law enforcement by fleeing to another jurisdiction. 

Flights by criminal occur in both directions—away from and to tribal land. 

Walworth County Sheriff Duane Mohr stated the problem with this as follows in 

the Rapid City Journal, 21 December 2005: ‘‘It’s only about a mile from town to the 

bridge. Once they cross the bridge [to the Standing Rock Reservation], there’s not 

much we can do...We’ve had people actually stop after they’ve crossed and laugh at 

us. We couldn’t do anything.’’

Some tribal, state and federal law enforcement agencies address the jurisdictional 

complexities by entering into cooperation agreements. These may take the form of 

cross-deputization agreements, which allow law enforcement officials to respond to 

crimes that would otherwise be outside their jurisdiction. A second form of agreement addresses extradition in situations in which a perpetrator seeks to escape 

prosecution by fleeing to another jurisdiction. Across the US, experiences of such 

inter-agency cooperation agreements vary greatly. Where they are entered into on 

the basis of mutual respect, cooperation agreements can have the potential to 

smooth jurisdictional uncertainties and allow improved access to justice for victims 

of sexual violence. 

In Standing Rock, the SRPD and some state agencies have explored cooperation 

through cross-deputization agreements that empower SRPD officers to arrest and 

detain individuals for crimes committed on state land and enable state police officers to arrest individuals for crimes committed by Native Americans on tribal land. 

Problems of Policing 

Amnesty International found that police response to sexual violence against 

American Indian and Alaska Native women at all levels is inadequate. Although jurisdictional issues present some of the biggest problems in law enforcement response, other factors also have a significant impact including lack of resources and 

lack of communication with survivors. 

Lack of Resources: Delays and failure to respond 

Law enforcement in Indian Country and Alaska Native villages is chronically underfunded. The U.S. Departments of Justice and Interior have both confirmed that 

83

there is inadequate law enforcement in Indian Country and identified underfunding 

as a central cause. According to the U.S. Department of Justice, tribes only have 

between 55 and 75 percent of the law enforcement resources available to comparable 

non-Native rural communities. AI also found that a very small number of officers 

usually cover large territories and face difficult decisions about how to prioritize 

their initial responses. 

The Standing Rock Police Department in February 2006 consisted of six or seven 

patrol officers to patrol 2.3 million acres of land, with only two officers usually on 

duty during the day. Amnesty International documented lengthy delays in responding to reports of sexual violence against Indigenous women. Women on the reservation who report sexual violence often have to wait for hours or even days before receiving a response from the police department, if they receive a response at all. 

It feels as though the reservation has become lawless’ Roundtable interview, 

Standing Rock Reservation (name withheld) February 22, 2006

Sometimes suspects are not arrested for weeks or months after an arrest warrant 

has been issued. Amnesty International was told that on the Standing Rock Reservation there are on average 600-700 outstanding tribal court warrants for arrest 

of individuals charged with criminal offences. Failure to apprehend suspects in cases 

of sexual violence can put survivors at risk, especially where the alleged perpetrator 

is an acquaintance or intimate partner and there is a threat of retaliation. 

The Standing Rock Police Department was selected, together with the law enforcement departments of 24 additional tribal nations, to receive an annual base increase in federal funding of law enforcement services. The SRPD began receiving 

an additional US$250,000 per year starting in 2006. However, according to the 

Chief of Police the funds will be needed primarily to fill vacancies in the existing 

police force, rather than increasing the number of law enforcement officers on the 

reservation. 

Amnesty International found that FBI involvement in investigations of reports of 

sexual violence against Indigenous women is rare and even in those cases that are 

pursued by the FBI, there can be lengthy delays before investigations start. 

Amnesty International’s research also revealed a worrying lack of communication 

by all levels of law enforcement with survivors. In a number of cases, survivors were 

not informed about the status of investigations, the results of sexual assault forensic 

examinations, the arrest or failure to arrest the suspect, or the status of the case 

before tribal, federal or state courts. 

The mother of a survivor of sexual violence from the Standing Rock Reservation told Amnesty International how she returned home in September 2005 

to find her 16-year-old daughter lying half-naked and unconscious on the 

floor. She took her daughter to the hospital in Mobridge, South Dakota, 

where a sexual assault forensic examination was performed. She described 

how the suspected perpetrator, fled to Rapid City, South Dakota, which is 

outside the jurisdiction of the SRPD. He returned to the Reservation in early 

2006 and was held by police for 10 days, although both mother and daughter only discovered this when they rang the SRPD to ask about the status 

of the case. They found out that the suspect was to go before a tribal court, 

but the mother told Amnesty International that to get this information, she 

had to go to Fort Yates and ask them in person. She told Amnesty International that she hoped that the case would be referred to the federal authorities because this would mean a lengthier sentence for the perpetrator. 

She said that, months after the attack, a Federal Bureau of Investigation 

(FBI) officer and a BIA Special Investigator arrived unannounced. As the 

daughter was not home at the time, the mother told them where to find her. 

However, she never heard from them again. Federal prosecutors did eventually pick up the case and in December 2006 the perpetrator entered into a 

plea bargain and was awaiting sentencing at the time this report was written. Interview with mother of survivor (name withheld) 

Training 

Amnesty International is concerned that federal, state and tribal training programs for law enforcement officials may not include adequate or sufficiently indepth components on responding to rape and other forms of sexual violence, on 

issues surrounding jurisdiction and on knowledge of cultural norms and practices. 

As a result officers often do not respond effectively and are not equipped with the 

necessary skills to deal with crimes of sexual violence. 

Amnesty International received reports that small law enforcement agencies with 

few resources have considerable difficulty freeing up officers to attend training 

courses. An officer in the SRPD reported that training on interviewing survivors of 

sexual violence is not available unless it is hosted or paid for by another organizaVerDate 0ct 09 2002 12:44 Dec 20, 2007 Jkt 098700 PO 00000 Frm 00087 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 L:\DOCS\36020.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
84

tion. He noted that, given the limited number of officers on the force, the SRPD cannot provide them all with training opportunities. 

Inadequate Forensic Examinations and Related Health Services 

An important part of any police investigation of sexual violence involves the collection of forensic evidence. Such evidence can be crucial for a successful prosecution. The evidence is gathered through a sexual violence forensic examination, sometimes using tools known as a ‘‘rape kit’’. The examination is performed by a health 

professional and involves the collection of physical evidence from a victim of sexual 

violence and an examination of any injuries that may have been sustained. Samples 

collected in the evidence kit include vaginal, anal and oral swabs, finger-nail clippings, clothing and hair. All victims of sexual violence should be offered a forensic 

examination, regardless of whether or not they have decided to report the case to 

the police. In its National Protocol for Sexual Assault Medical Forensic Examinations, the U.S. Department of Justice recommends that victims should be allowed 

to undergo the examination whether or not they formally report the crime. 

Law enforcement officials 

As the first to respond to reports of a crime, law enforcement officials should ensure that women can get to a hospital or clinic where their injuries can be assessed 

and the forensic examination can be done. This is particularly important where 

women have to travel long distances to access a medical facility and may not have 

any way of getting there themselves, including in Standing Rock. Once a sexual assault forensic examination has been completed, law enforcement authorities are responsible for storing the evidence gathered and having it processed and analyzed 

by laboratories. 

In some cases, law enforcement have mishandled evidence from forensic examinations from health care providers, including through improper storage and loss or destruction of evidence before forensic analysis had been carried out. 

Amnesty International found that the provision of sexual assault forensic examinations and related health services to American Indian and Alaska Native women 

varies considerably from place to place. Survivors of sexual violence are not guaranteed access to adequate and timely sexual assault forensic examinations—critical 

evidence in a prosecution. Often this is the result of the U.S. government’s severe 

under-funding of the Indian Health Service (IHS), the principal provider of health 

services for American Indian and Alaska Native peoples. 

Health Service Providers 

It is essential that health service facilities have the staff, resources and expertise 

to ensure the accurate, sensitive and confidential collection of evidence in cases of 

sexual violence and for the secure storage of this evidence until it is handed over 

to law enforcement officials. 

The IHS facilities suffer from under-staffing, a high turnover, and a lack of personnel trained to provide emergency services to survivors of sexual violence. Amnesty International found that the IHS has not prioritized the implementation of 

programs involving sexual assault nurse examiners (SANEs)—registered nurses 

with advanced education and clinical preparation in forensic examination of victims 

of sexual violence ‘‘throughout its facilities. Although there are no figures on how 

many IHS hospitals have SANE programs, officials indicated to AI that fewer than 

10 had implemented such programs. Moreover, according to a study performed by 

the Native American Women’s Health Education Resource Center, 44 per cent of 

IHS facilities lack personnel trained to provide emergency services in the event of 

sexual violence. 

Reports to Amnesty International indicate that many IHS facilities lack clear protocols for treating victims of sexual violence and do not consistently provide survivors with a forensic sexual assault examination. IHS officials told Amnesty International that the agency had posted detailed protocols online. However, these protocols are not mandatory and a 2005 survey of facilities by the Native American Women’s Health Education Resource Center found that 30 per cent of responding facilities did not have a protocol in place for emergency services in cases of sexual violence. Of the facilities nationwide that reported having a protocol, 56 per cent indicated that the protocol was posted and accessible to staff members. 

Amnesty International is also concerned that survivors have sometimes been required to bear the cost of an examination or of travelling long distances to health 

facilities. Women who have been raped on the Standing Rock Reservation may need 

to travel for over an hour to get to the IHS hospital in Fort Yates. Once there, they 

may discover that there is no one on staff who is able to conduct a sexual assault 

forensic examination. In 2006 the hospital employed one woman doctor who undertook most of the examinations. According to a Fort Yates IHS health professional, 

85

‘‘most male doctors don’t feel trained and don’t want to go to court. So they will send 

rape cases to Bismarck for examination there.’’ According to the practitioner, only 

one third of the women referred from Fort Yates on Standing Rock to the medical 

facility 80 miles away in Bismarck actually receive an examination. Some women 

do not make the journey to Bismarck and those that do may face lengthy delays 

and leave without an examination. 

Although IHS services are free, if an American Indian woman has to go to a nonIHS hospital for an examination, she may be charged by that facility. The IHS has 

a reimbursement policy, but it is complex and survivors may not be aware of it. In 

some cases the IHS has reportedly failed or refused to pay for forensic examinations 

at outside facilities. This can be a significant obstacle. Survivors of sexual violence 

in the southern portion of the Standing Rock Reservation are much closer to 

Mobridge Regional Hospital than Fort Yates, but because the former is not part of 

the IHS it may require payment. For women dealing with the trauma of very recent 

sexual violence, concerns about being required to travel further or to pay can be a 

serious disincentive to undergoing a forensic examination. 

Barriers to Prosecution 

A Native American woman in 2003 accepted a ride home from two white 

men who raped and beat her, then threw her off of a bridge. She sustained 

serious injuries, but survived. The case went to trial in a state court but the 

jurors were unable to agree on whether the suspects were guilty. A juror who 

was asked why replied: ‘‘She was just another drunk Indian.’’ The case was 

retried and resulted in a 60-year sentence for the primary perpetrator, who 

had reportedly previously raped at least four other women, and a 10-year 

sentence for the second perpetrator. 

Despite the high levels of sexual violence, Amnesty International found that prosecutions for crimes of sexual violence against Indigenous women are rare in federal, 

state and tribal courts, resulting in impunity for perpetrators. The lack of comprehensive and centralized data collection by tribal, state and federal agencies renders it impossible to obtain accurate information about prosecution rates. However, 

survivors of sexual abuse, activists, support workers and officials reported that prosecutions for sexual assault are rare in federal, state and tribal courts. 

Tribal courts are the most appropriate for adjudicating cases that arise on tribal 

land. However, the U.S. federal government has interfered with the ability of tribal 

justice systems to respond to crimes of sexual violence by underfunding tribal justice 

systems, prohibiting tribal courts from prosecuting non-Indian or non-Alaska Native 

suspects and limiting tribal court custodial sentencing to only one year per offense. 

Given the inadequate rate of federal and state prosecutions of sexual assault 

cases, some tribal courts prosecute sexual assault cases despite this sentencing limitation to hold offenders accountable. Some tribal prosecuting authorities charge suspected perpetrators with multiple offenses, which provides the possibility of imposing consecutive sentences; others work with criminal sanctions other than imprisonment, including restitution, community service and probation. 

At the federal level, crimes on the Standing Rock Reservation may be prosecuted 

by U.S. Attorneys located in Aberdeen or Bismarck. However, Amnesty International’s research suggests that there is a failure at the federal level to pursue 

cases of sexual violence against Indigenous women. Prosecutors have broad discretion in deciding which cases to prosecute, and decisions not to prosecute are rarely 

reviewed. 

From 1 October 2002 to 30 September 2003, federal prosecutors declined to prosecute 60.3 per cent of the sexual violence cases filed in the United States. Only 27 

of the 475 cases they declined were prosecuted in other courts. Because data on sexual violence specifically from Indian Country is not compiled, this statistic includes 

all cases involving Indigenous and non-Native victims. However, these numbers provide some indication of the extent to which these crimes go unpunished. Significantly, between 2000 and 2003, the BIA was consistently among the investigating 

agencies with the highest percentage of cases declined by federal prosecutors. It is 

not possible to establish how many of these cases submitted by the BIA involved 

sexual violence. The U.S. Justice Department does not publish statistics on the extent to which it prosecutes crimes of rape against Indian women so it is impossible 

to know the true extent to which it is failing to prosecute these serious crimes. 

One of the research challenges faced by Amnesty International was in relation to 

gathering data related to federal prosecution rates of crimes of sexual violence that 

take place in Indian Country. Amnesty International sent questionnaires to the 93 

individual U.S. Attorneys, who prosecute crimes within Indian Country at the federal level, seeking information on prosecution rates for crimes of sexual violence 

committed against Indigenous women. Amnesty International was informed by the 

86

Executive Office of U.S. Attorneys that individual U.S. attorneys would not be permitted to participate in the survey. The Executive Office of U.S. Attorneys told Amnesty International that data collected is not broken down into specific offense categories, such as sexual assault crimes. The Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys did 

provide Amnesty International with a list of some of the cases of sexual violence 

arising in Indian Country that had been prosecuted in recent years. Of the 84 cases 

provided, only 20 involved adult women. The remaining cases mostly involved children. In the cases listed, prosecutions for sexual violence against adult Native 

American women took place in only eight of the 93 districts. Given the lack of comprehensive data, Amnesty International was unable to establish the extent to which 

crimes of sexual violence against Indigenous women are prosecuted by federal authorities. 

At the state level, sexual violence crimes carried out in areas bordering the Standing Rock Reservation may be prosecuted by state’s attorneys in neighboring counties 

in North or South Dakota. Many Native Americans from Standing Rock indicated 

that cases in general involving Native American victims and non-Native perpetrators are not prosecuted vigorously by state courts in North and South Dakota. A 

District Attorney in a bordering county told Amnesty International that, in South 

Dakota, insufficient funds can affect the number of cases prosecuted. It would also 

appear that state attorneys receive little or no training on prosecuting sexual violence and on cultural competency. 

Indigenous survivors of sexual violence also face prejudice and discrimination at 

all stages and levels of federal and state investigation and prosecution. Amnesty 

International is concerned that this can influence decisions about whether to prosecute cases, how prosecutors present survivors during trials, how juries are selected 

and how they formulate their decisions. 

Amnesty International received a number of reports that prosecutors at all levels 

fail to provide information consistently to victims of sexual violence about the 

progress of their cases. Survivors are frequently not informed of whether their cases 

will proceed to trial. 

Inadequate Resources for Indigenous Support Initiatives 

Programs run by Native American and Alaska Native women are vital in ensuring the protection and long-term support of Indigenous women who have experienced sexual violence. However, lack of funding is a widespread problem. Programs 

run by Indigenous women often operate with a mix of federal, state, and tribal 

funds, as well as private donations. However such funding in often limited. 

In 2005, the non-governmental organization South Dakota Coalition against Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault contributed to the founding of Pretty Bird 

Woman House, a domestic violence program on the Standing Rock Reservation. The 

program, which is named after Ivy Archambault (Pretty Bird Woman), a Standing 

Rock woman who was raped and murdered in 2001, operates a shelter in a temporary location and does not yet have funding for direct services for its clients, but 

helps women to access services off the Reservation. Given the rates of violence 

against women on the Standing Rock Reservation, it is imperative that the Reservation have its own permanent shelter. 

For women in or near the southern part of the Reservation, there are two shelters 

available: the Sacred Heart Shelter on the Cheyenne River Reservation, or Bridges 

Against Domestic Violence (BADV), which is located in Mobridge, South Dakota and 

where up to 85 per cent of women using the shelters are Native American, mainly 

coming from the Standing Rock Reservation. In March 2005, BADV held a conference entitled ‘‘Decide to End Sexual Violence.’’ There were reports that following 

the conference women on the Reservation showed increased confidence in reporting. 

Amnesty International believes that public outreach and education such as that undertaken by BADV is an important element in creating an environment in which 

survivors feel able to report sexual violence. 

The federal government should provide funds immediately for the Standing Rock 

Tribe to support its shelter for survivors of sexual violence on the reservation. The 

government should ensure that there is additional funding to support the increased 

capacity of shelters throughout North and South Dakota that provide services to 

Indian women. 

An important achievement in the provision of culturally appropriate support services to Native American and Alaska Native women has been the formation of 16 

tribal coalitions working against domestic and sexual violence across the US. The 

specific activities of the coalitions vary, but often include the provision of training 

to tribal governments, law enforcement officials, prosecutors, health professionals, 

support workers and activists. At national level, organizations such as Sacred Circle 

87

and Clan Star provide national leadership and policy guidance for Native women’s 

organizations and shelters. 

International Law 

Sexual violence against women is not only a criminal or social issue; it is a human 

rights abuse. While the perpetrator is ultimately responsible for his crime, authorities also bear a legal responsibility to ensure protection of the rights and well-being 

of American Indian and Alaska Native peoples. They are responsible as well if they 

fail to prevent, investigate and address the crime appropriately. 

The United States has ratified many of the key international human rights treaties that guarantee Indigenous women’s protection against such abuses, including 

the right not to be tortured or ill-treated; the right to liberty and security of the 

person; and the right to the highest attainable standard of physical and mental 

health. All women have the right to be safe and free from violence. 

International law is clear: governments are obliged not only to ensure that their 

own officials comply with human rights standards, but also to adopt effective measures to guard against acts by private individuals that result in human rights 

abuses. This duty—often termed ‘‘due diligence’’—means that states must take reasonable steps to prevent human rights violations and, when they occur, use the 

means at their disposal to carry out effective investigations, identify and bring to 

justice those responsible, and ensure that the victim receives adequate reparation. 

Amnesty International’s research shows that the United States is currently failing 

to act with due diligence to prevent, investigate and punish sexual violence against 

Native American and Alaska Native women. The erosion of tribal governmental authority and resources to protect Indigenous women from crimes of sexual violence 

is inconsistent with international standards on the rights of Indigenous peoples. 

The UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, adopted by the UN 

Human Rights Council in June 2006, elaborates minimum standards for the recognition and protection of the rights of Indigenous peoples in diverse contexts 

around the world. Provisions of the Declaration include that Indigenous peoples 

have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine 

their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development (Article 3); that States shall take measures, in conjunction with indigenous 

peoples, to ensure that indigenous women...enjoy the full protection and guarantees 

against all forms of violence and discrimination. (Article 22(2)); and the right of Indigenous peoples ‘‘to promote, develop and maintain their institutional structures 

and their distinctive customs, spirituality, traditions, procedures, practices and, 

where they exist, juridical systems or customs, in accordance with international 

human rights standards’’ (Article 34). 

Key Recommendations 

Provide Additional Resources for Standing Rock Initiatives 

• The federal government should provide funds immediately for the Standing 

Rock Tribe to support its shelter for survivors of sexual violence on the Reservation. 

• The federal government should ensure that there is additional funding to support the increased capacity of shelters throughout North and South Dakota that 

provide services to Indian women. 

• The federal government should allocate long term and sustained funds to the 

Standing Rock Police Department, including funds to increase staffing. 

• Law enforcement response to women who are survivors of sexual violence must 

be improved urgently (see below). 

Develop comprehensive plans of action to stop violence against Indigenous women 

• Federal and state governments should consult and co-operate with Indigenous 

nations and Indigenous women to institute plans of action to stop violence 

against Indigenous women. 

• Federal, state and tribal authorities should, in consultation with Indigenous 

peoples, collect and publish detailed and comprehensive data on rape and other 

sexual violence that shows the Indigenous or other status of victims and perpetrators and the localities where such offences take place, the number of cases 

referred for prosecution, the number declined by prosecutors and the reasons 

why. 

Ensure Appropriate, Effective Policing 

• Federal authorities must take urgent steps to make available adequate resources to police forces in Indian and Alaska Native villages. Particular attention should be paid to improving coverage in rural areas with poor transport 

and communications infrastructure. 

88

• Law enforcement agencies should recognize in policy and practice that all police 

officers have the authority to take action in response to reports of sexual violence, including rape, within their jurisdiction and to apprehend the alleged perpetrators in order to transfer them to the appropriate authorities for investigation and prosecution. In particular, where sexual violence in committed in 

Indian Country and in Alaska Native villages, tribal law enforcement officials 

must be recognized as having authority to apprehend both Native and non-Native suspects. 

• In order to fulfill their responsibilities effectively, all police forces should work 

closely with Indigenous women’s organizations to develop and implement appropriate investigation protocols for dealing with cases of sexual violence. 

Ensure Access to Sexual Assault Forensic Examinations 

• Law enforcement agencies and health service providers should ensure that all 

Indigenous women survivors of sexual violence have access to adequate and 

timely sexual assault forensic examinations without charge to the survivor and 

at a facility within a reasonable distance. 

• The federal government should permanently increase funding for the Indian 

Health Service to improve and further develop facilities and services, and increase permanent staffing in both urban and rural areas in order ensure adequate levels of medical attention. 

• The Indian Health Service and other health service providers should develop 

standardized policies and protocols, which are made publicly available and posted within health facilities in view of the public, on responding to reports of sexual violence. 

• The Indian Health Service and other health service providers should prioritize 

the creation of sexual assault nurse examiner programs and explore other ways 

of addressing the shortage and retention of qualified Sexual Assault Nurse Examiners. 

Ensure that prosecution and judicial practices deliver justice 

• Prosecutors should vigorously prosecute cases of sexual violence against Indigenous women and should be sufficiently resourced to ensure that the cases are 

treated with the appropriate priority and processes without undue delay. Any 

decision not to proceed with a case, together with the rationale for the decision, 

should be promptly communicated to the survivor of sexual violence and any 

other prosecutor with jurisdiction. 

• U.S. Congress should recognize that tribal authorities have jurisdiction over all 

offenders who commit crimes on tribal land, regardless of their Indigenous or 

other identity and the authority to impose sentences commensurate with the 

crime that are consistent with international human rights standards. 

• Federal authorities should make available the necessary funding and resources 

to tribal governments to develop and maintain tribal courts and legal systems 

which comply with international human rights standards. 

Ensure Availability of Support Services for Survivors 

• All governments should support and ensure adequate funding for support services, including shelters, for American Indian and Alaska Native survivors of 

sexual violence.• Urge the U.S. Congress to Provide Adequate Funding 

Amnesty International is currently asking Congress to undertake the following 

important steps: 

• Fully fund and implement the Violence Against Women Act—and in particular 

Tribal Title (Title IX), the first-ever effort within VAWA to fight violence 

against Native American and Alaska Native women. This includes a national 

baseline study on sexual violence against Native women, a study on the incidence of injury from sexual violence against Native women and a Tribal Registry to track sex offenders and orders of protection. 

• Increase funding for the Indian Health Service (IHS) and IHS contract facilities. 

Such monies should be used to increase the number of Sexual Assault Nurse 

Examiners so that survivors may receive timely forensic medical examinations, 

at no charge, following sexual assault. Furthermore, the IHS should ensure that 

appropriate protocols are in place for the treatment of survivors of sexual violence. 

We respectfully refer you to ‘‘Maze of Injustice: The failure to protect Indigenous 

women from sexual violence in the USA’’ for more detailed information and recommendations. Thank you for the opportunity to testify on this important human 

rights topic. 

89

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. Thank you very much, again, for being 

here and for your report and your testimony. We’ll look forward to 

posing some questions. 

Ms. Little Shield, you’re now recognized. We’ll hear your testimony. 

STATEMENT OF MS. GEORGIA LITTLE SHIELD, DIRECTOR, 

PRETTY BIRD WOMAN HOUSE, McLAUGHLIN, SOUTH DAKOTA 

Ms. LITTLE SHIELD. Thank you, Madam Chair. First of all, I 

want to go on record that I wish you would listen to Standing Rock 

officials that are standing here today because they have a major 

part of the lack that they deal with every day at tribal council 

so——

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. If I might just interrupt at this point. I 

need to make clear for the record that this is a different hearing 

than like some of the meetings that I’ve had that were open, we’re 

able to hear from anyone who would like to participate. 

Again, we’re going to make time available at the end of this 

panel and I would appreciate everyone’s understanding that we did 

our very best to accommodate everyone and that we will be listening, not just at today’s hearing, but in the outreach that we do and 

the meetings that we have both here and at home and out in 

Washington and appreciate your desire for us to accommodate 

other elected officials that are here. 

Ms. LITTLE SHIELD. OK. I’ll start, and thank you. 

My name is Georgia Little Shield. I am the director for the Pretty Bird Woman House Shelter which is located on the Standing 

Rock Reservation. I would like to say thank you for letting me be 

here. 

(Reading from statement.) 

If you read my report, you will see some of the situations. These 

stories are true and there are more of them that could be mentioned. If I mentioned all the stories we had, we’d be here for 

hours. 

And you can—when Amnesty came, we talked to 61 women in 

one week that were sexually assaulted. When a Lakota woman 

runs 18 miles to town for help and feels safe in a jail that is—that 

is a city jail, you know there’s something wrong. The city police 

have no jurisdiction over Native women or men so their hands are 

tied. When you hear a city police officer say, ‘‘Georgia, I just could 

not do anything,’’ it’s hard. 

We have to think of the children that is also affected. Them as 

they see what happens in the home and no one comes to help them, 

where do they turn? Please, if we get anything from this at all 

today, please think of the children that this is affecting. 

I want to share: We have become a lawless nation and now the 

people are taking the laws into their own hands. When this occurs, 

we have more rapes, more domestic violence, more inviting violence 

or gang violence. 

Thank you. 

There’s one more thing. Sorry. 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. Yes. 

Ms. LITTLE SHIELD. I’d like to leave you with this: Glynnis Okla, 

Leslie Iron Road, Candy Bullhead, Gloria Reeds, Lakota Madison, 

90

Candy Rough Surface, Diane Dog Skin, Leona Big Shield, Ivy 

Arshambeau, Debbie Dog Eagle, Camilla Brown, Cheryl Tail Feather. Then there’s Vicki Eagle Man and Lanelle Falles from Lower 

Brule. These women lost their lives to violence. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Little Shield follows:]

Statement of Georgia Little Shield, Director,

Pretty Bird Woman House, Standing Rock Reservation 

My name is Georgia Little Shield. I am the Director for the Pretty Bird Woman 

House Shelter, which is located on the Standing Rock Reservation. I have been employed at the shelter since November of 2004, opening the office of the shelter in 

January of 2005. 

We have had many challenges with police officers since that time. I would like 

to share a few stories of what has occurred on our reservation. The second month 

that I worked, I received a call from a women living 18 miles out of McLaughlin 

SD. She was severely beaten and did not want to go to the hospital, but did want 

to make a complaint. We called the Police Department that morning and were told 

that when an officer becomes available he would be headed to our residence. We 

waited two (2) hours, when the officer didn’t show, I called again and was told there 

was another traffic accident and when he was free he would be on his way. I stayed 

with the woman, talking to her and assuring her that the officers would be there 

at any time. We waited another two (2) hours, called again and the dispatch stated 

that there was only one officer on and that he would get to us when he is free. At 

6:00 PM the women said it was useless to wait because they would not come. This 

women ended up not wanting to make a complaint, was very scared, but told me 

to go home and leave her since there would be nothing done any way. I called that 

woman the next morning and asked her if the police ever came to see her and she 

stated ‘‘No’’. 

Now do you think that she will call again if this happened to her again? This is 

what happens when you supply only one officer to a shift that has to cover 2.3 million acres. 

I have since set up trainings for the police officers through South Dakota Coalition Against Domestic Violence And Sexual Assault. I talked to the Chief of Police, 

Lieutenant White, and he stated he would have officers at these training but no BIA 

officers attended. When I called back to see why officers were not there, I was told 

that due to a shortage of officers, they were not able to send any. Thus, because 

there is a dire shortage of officers on Standing Rock Reservation they are not receiving the proper training regarding domestic violence and sexual assault. 

Another domestic violence call I received one night came from the City Police located in McLaughlin, SD. The officer stated there was a woman in his Police Department that he thought I could help. After talking to the young woman, I assured 

her that I could get her to a shelter where she could feel safe. 

When I reached the Police Department, the Officer on duty said he just was not 

able to pick the guy up as he did not have jurisdiction because he was Native American (does this mean the officer quoted the law wrong or he meant that it occurred 

on tribal land?) and so was the woman. The officer had called the police in FT. 

Yates, so they were aware of the situation. She had signed a complaint and the officer did take pictures. 

I asked the officer what this man was driving and was told he was driving a gray 

and black Suburban. When I came down Main Street, I saw a gray and black suburban driving around. This man chased this woman 18 miles to town, her car into 

the ditch several times. But no BIA Police Officer ever showed up. This man could 

have killed her and no one would have ever known she was out there in the ditch. 

I took her to a shelter off the reservation so she could feel safe. She left her car 

at the police station and got in with me and the officer escorted us out of town and 

that poor woman lay on the floor because she was so scared until we were 60 miles 

out of town. I picked her up the next day to get her car and we talked to the City 

Police who told us the BIA still had not stopped to get the complaint she filed. 

It is important to note that when I first got the call from the City Police Officer, 

he stated he had a woman who wanted to be put in jail for the night, but he thought 

I could help her more. When any woman thinks the safest place for her is in jail, 

something has to be wrong!! For a Native woman to feel the need to seek safety 

outside her homeland is equally unacceptable. 

One year ago I attended a meeting at the Bridges Against Domestic Violence 

Shelter in Mobridge and asked how we could help them with a situation involving 

5 rapes occurring in one weekend. One woman had been brought in by a passerVerDate 0ct 09 2002 12:44 Dec 20, 2007 Jkt 098700 PO 00000 Frm 00094 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 L:\DOCS\36020.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
91

by from the Standing Rock Reservation and she was taken to the Mobridge City Police Station. The Chief of Police called Standing Rock and they came, however, the 

officer conducting the interview took 5 hours to get there and had an attitude with 

the Chief of Police in Mobridge. Chief Niles stated to us that he knew nothing was 

going to be done about it, because of statements the BIA officer made to him. Jurisdiction was on the Standing Rock Reservation so that is who had to pursue it. 

(Shouldn’t this have been turned over to the FBI?) 

This is a classic example of why woman don’t report rapes—insensitive and ineffective responses. 

Another similar incident to the one above involves Advocate from Bridges Against 

Domestic Violence contacting the Ft. Yates Police Department for two days and repeatedly being told someone would be there to take statements. No one ever did 

show up. Do you think this woman got justice? Another time a woman was severely 

beaten and taken to IHS who notified the Police Department in FT. Yates. The advocate at BADV made many calls in regard to this case and did not receive any follow up for 4 weeks. The person who assaulted her was not arrest. What about her? 

Did she get justice? The issue is not just about numbers of officers. It must be about 

prioritizing safety and accountability through out the entire response. 

Another situation that exemplifies the issues women face occurred a month ago. 

We had helped a young woman who’s batterer’s level of violence was well-known 

throughout the community. The next day early in the morning I received a call from 

an advocate who stated that the phone was not working at the shelter—the phone 

company said the phone line out side had been cut. This is especially dangerous in 

a rural area. We called the police as soon as we had service and waited. Then two 

hours later we called again and stated we needed to make a complaint for the 

record. We waited no officer came to this date!! When the Women’s Shelter is not 

a priority then there is something wrong. 

As of May 25, 2007, I was informed that we are down to 4 police officers on the 

Standing Rock Reservation. Because of the lack of officers and under-sourcing 

throughout the criminal justice system and community-based advocacy programs, 

every day is a dangerous day for women living on the Standing Rock Reservation. 

We need to look at the lack of Advocates to provide safety and support to the 

women who call for help, in addition to basic resources such as transportation and 

housing. Until a few months ago, there were only two of advocates for the entire 

Standing Reservation and surrounding area. Now there are three. More are needed 

as is general operating and emergency funds. 

There is a need for Advocates to work on the northern half of Standing Rock Reservation. It is our hope that we can have an Outreach Office in or near Fort Yates 

in the future. We need Advocates available to transport and accompany women to 

Court Hearings, to assist women through the process of obtaining Protection Orders 

and other legal advocacy. We need Advocates to accompany women to medical facilities for examinations and ongoing treatment after an attack, to work through social 

service/TANF, mental health needs etc. We need Advocates to respond to the crisis 

line 24/7. We need Advocates to work with the children who have witnessed violence, provide ongoing support to women who have been battered and raped, to provide emergency monies, clothing, food, and housing. We need Advocates to provide 

community and agency education, leadership in a coordinated community response 

and to create the social change necessary to end violence against women. 

The South Dakota Coalition Against Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault, and 

Sacred Circle, National Resource Center to End Violence Against Native Women 

provide training and technical assistance. The problem is finding the funding to be 

able to provide the kind of services and resources needed. 

Currently, as advocates for Pretty Bird Woman’s House we do our best to cover 

all of Standing Rock and offer the services needed or help to search out resources 

for the women. We work 24/7 because of our commitment to saving the lives of the 

women and their children in our community. We do the best we can to do whatever, 

wherever when we are need. We need the resources and support as great as our 

commitment. 

One other recommendation that I would like to state is a great need is to make 

sure to match the Police force to the Land Base as there is a extreme amount of 

land 2.3 acres through out Standing Rock Nation. 

But also keep in mind to match the population to the people to the police officers. 

When advocates are in the field I fear for there safety as there are no police services 

to help serve protection orders or to make complaints or just to feel safe. 

Finally I would like to say these stories are just the tip of the iceberg. I have so 

many stories it would fill so many pages. The women of Native Lands are depending 

on you for changes. 

92

In the past 13 years that I have worked in the field of domestic violence I have 

witnessed many, many situations that you could not imagine seeing in your life 

time. I have worked here on the Standing Rock Reservation for three (3) years but 

have worked on the Cheyenne River Reservation for 10 years; the same situations 

were faced on that reservation as are being faced here on the Standing Rock Reservation. When I did work on Cheyenne River we had many advocates. Three (3) 

from the Family Violence grant four (4) from the Rural Domestic and Sexual Violence and Child victimization grant. Since President Bush has been president we 

have had one budget cut after another and have since lost all seven advocates in 

Cheyenne River. What I am trying to state is that the shortage of police is just not 

on Standing Rock. The difference is that BIA police Standing Rock and Tribal Officers police Cheyenne River. We are all suffering from the lack of police on both reservations. 

We have become a Lawless Nation and people have starting to make there own 

laws. With this attitude we will have more deaths and people taking the situations 

in to there own hands. The people have started using violence to fight violence. 

With a heavy heart I bring these things to the hearing with hopes that there is 

something down to fix the situation. Please think of the Women and Children when 

you talk of these issues. 

[A statement submitted for the record by Georgia Little Shield on 

behalf of Brenda Hill follows:]

Statement of Brenda Hill, Native Co-Chair, South Dakota Coalition Against 

Domestic Violence And Sexual Assault, Pierre, South Dakota 

As the Native Co-Chair, I would like to take this opportunity to thank the Committee on behalf of the South Dakota Coalition Against Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault (SDCADVSA) for considering the voice of our membership in the matters at hand. 

For your information, the SDCADVSA was incorporated in September of 1978 to 

eliminate violence against women in the State of South Dakota and tribal nations 

within the borders of the State. The SDCADVSA is an alliance of like-minded organizations that share this common purpose and mission. Our membership of 21 organizations includes programs from all tribal nations within South Dakota. 

In brief, our global agenda includes provision of support, comprehensive resources, 

training and technical assistance to member programs who are responsible for providing direct advocacy and resources to individual women who are battered/raped 

within their own communities. SDCADVSA works pro-actively as a collective for social change to end violence against women by promoting a societal understanding 

of the root causes of and solutions to domestic and sexual violence in a cultural and 

historical context, promoting public acknowledgment of and responsibility for ending 

violence against women and their children. This work includes confronting all forms 

of violence/ oppression, i.e., sexism, racism, classism, heterosexism etc. and promoting respectful, non-violent relationships, families and communities. 

The horrendous reality of violence against native women has been documented by 

the U.S. Department of Justice, OJP, Bureau of Justice Statistics in American 

Indians and Crime, 1992-96 Report and Violent Victimization and Race, 1993-98 Report. The highlights, if you will, include: 

• Native women are raped at a rate more than double that of rapes reported by 

all races on an annual average. 

• The rate of Native American women is nearly 50% higher than that reported 

by black males aged 12 and over. 

• American Indian women were victimized by an intimate at rates higher than 

those for all other females (whites at 8.1 per 1,000;Indians at 23.2 per 1,000) 

• At least 70% of violence experienced by Native Americans are committed by 

persons not of the same race 

Further, ‘‘A Quiet Crisis,’’ produced by the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights states 

that within Indian Country there is the equivalent of three law enforcement officers 

on duty 24/7 covering a geographic area the size of the State of Delaware. This report documents the abject poverty and severe under-funding of all resources within 

Indian Country. Poverty alone is a public safety issue that greatly intensifies the 

ability of native women to find and maintain safety from their batterers and rapists. 

For example, in South Dakota, at any one time, over 50% of women in any shelter 

are Native. Considering Indians represent less than 10% of the state population, 

this statistic alone is startling. It is directly tied to poverty and lack of housing. On 

the Pine Ridge Reservation alone 4,000 housing units are needed. Every shelter 

93

within the state will attest that insufficient numbers of shelter beds means routinely women who are battered and their children are sleeping on couches, floors, 

put in motels and at times, stay in advocate’s homes. 

This brief snap shot indicates the need for a comprehensive strategy that not only 

reactively respond to violence against Native women, but pro-actively ends the violence. While the Violence Against Women Act brought much needed legislation, 

funding and attention to the battering and rape of women, levels of violence against 

Native women have not significantly dropped and there is an estimated 30-40 

shelters within all of the 550 plus tribal nations. Many tribes have one advocate 

for their entire nation. It is not unusual for an advocate to have a ‘‘slashed’’ title 

such as child protection worker/advocate. A clear and dangerous conflict of interest. 

How can we develop fully funded and trained tribal police forces and criminal justice systems without losing the leadership and expertise of advocates? After all, it 

is the decades of hard work and sacrifice by advocates who were primarily women 

who had been battered that brought about advocacy programs, shelters, the Violence 

Against Women Act and the like. It is the advocate who’s sole role is to provide biased support for minutes or lifetimes to women who are victimized, resources and 

to ensure that issues of safety and accountability remain priorities amongst the 

many systems that impact the lives of women who are battered, but that are also 

responsible for many other things. 

While developing coordinated community responses in Indian Country, can we ensure culturally-based, woman-centered responses that support tribal sovereignty and 

women’s sovereignty thereby creating the social change that will end violence 

against women and their children? 

It is the experience of the SDCADVSA that any effective strategy must include 

a multi-level, coordinated, community and culturally-based approach. There is an 

obvious need for funding of shelters, basic operating costs, emergency food, clothing, 

rent and utility deposits, medical facilities able to respond to victims of rape, more 

and better equipped and trained law enforcement, jails and tribal court systems. 

Streamlining and simplification of grant reporting requirements, technical assistance in grant management based on an intimate understanding of both the dynamics of battering, the challenges posed by poverty and geography, and tribal governmental processes would go a long way to support a consistent, effective response. 

The SDCADVSA has historically advocated for grassroots, community-based programs governed by those they serve, i.e., women who are battered/raped. The ideal 

in Indian Country is to model advocacy/shelter programs in philosophy and operation, after traditional women’s societies. This type of women’s society would do 

more than open the door to women who are battered and their children, and providing emergency resources and momentary safety. Native women’s societies’ are 

autonomous, their expertise respected and actively supported. Their ‘‘agenda’’ includes reclaiming the societal status of women as sacred. This agenda is about social 

change and ending many forms of violence. 

The need is for the federal government to actively support the development of 

community-based programs within Indian Country as opposed to programs run by 

tribal governments. There are a number of effective non-profit, native shelters in 

South Dakota that are chartered by, and/or are the tribally designated advocacy program. This model supports the reclamation of traditional non-violent life ways and 

help undo belief systems that cause Native women to be targeted more than any 

other group of women in the United States. The Federal government does not run 

shelter and advocacy programs any where within the nation. 

The development of culturally- and community-based programs will take time in 

addition to funding and technical support. Expectations must stay in line with the 

reality of the overwhelming challenges and barriers faced by Indian Country, and 

the capacity of Native women to gather the safety and support necessary for them 

to step into leadership positions in the face of poverty and such high levels of violence. 

This letter is written based on the assumption that specific issues involving law 

enforcement, tribal jurisdiction over non-natives on tribal land and full faith and 

credit will be illuminated by other testimony. The SDCADVSA fully supports the 

full funding of tribal law enforcement and criminal justice systems, mandatory 

training on violence against native women and cultural competency training provided by native advocacy organizations and/or allies, i.e., SDCADVSA and membership and Sacred Circle, National Resource Center to End Violence Against Native 

Women (Rapid City, SD). The SDCADVSA also advocates for the enforcement of full 

faith and credit provisions application to tribal orders, the return of jurisdiction over 

non-natives on tribal lands and the inclusion of native advocates in all decisionmaking that impacts the lives of Native women. 

94

SDCADVSA recognizes that to end violence against Native women requires reclaiming the status of women as sacred. Honoring the sovereignty of Native women 

is implicit in this transformation. Tribal sovereignty and Native women’s sovereignty go hand in hand, and so the SDCADVSA supports initiatives that not only 

respect sovereignty, but confronts societal racism and sexism that results in the unnatural levels of violence targeting Native women. 

The SDCADVSA remains available to provide whatever technical assistance, consultation, training and support needed in our shared efforts to end violence against 

Native women and their children. Please contact us should you have questions or 

would like to access our resources. 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. Ms. Little Shield, thank you for your very 

compelling statement. Thank you for being here. 

I’d now like to recognize Ms. Cecelia Fire Thunder and her testimony. 

STATEMENT OF MS. CECELIA FIRE THUNDER,

CANGLESKA, INC., KYLE, SOUTH DAKOTA 

Ms. FIRE THUNDER. Thank you very much. 

[Speaking Lakota.] 

I greet you with a warm handshake with good feelings from my 

heart for the recorder. 

I’d like to thank the Committee for holding the meeting, to 

Madam Chair. I want to thank Chairman Jandreau for helping out 

with this meeting as well today, and I wanted to recognize and 

have all the women in this room stand up for being on the front 

line of domestic violence. Please stand. 

In this room there are women who have spent over 30 years collectively and individually on nine tribes in the State of South Dakota with or without resources to address violence against women. 

Today we are providing you written testimony in an attempt—

and I will attempt to encapsulate some of the highlights that we’ve 

included in our testimony. I’ve also included for you, Congresswoman Herseth, a little book that we put out that just came off the 

printer, so I printed it off my printer, and in this I would be remiss 

if I didn’t address the VAWA issue, and tribe governments and 

tribes are asking for a change in that VAWA language as you probably already know. 

There are many, many things that we want to talk about today 

but I’m going to talk to you a little bit about some recommendations because you’re going to read the reports. 

I want to thank the tribal leaders for addressing some of the 

issues. As I sat here and listened, I started to write notes. Some 

of us who have been working in the front line for many, many 

years—and I also want to acknowledge the Great Plains Tribal 

Chairman Association and the Aberdeen Tribal Chairman Association as well who in 2002 passed resolutions to hold field hearings 

on sexual assault in Indian Country. The National Council of 

American Indians added their resolution to hold hearings on sexual 

assault in Indian Country and nothing happened. So we’re glad 

we’re here today. 

Number one, we are requesting your Committee to organize a 

task force to review the existing law enforcement training curriculum used at Artesia. When you have only 35 percent completion of law enforcement officers, then there’s something wrong with 

the curriculum. 

95

In talking to law enforcement officers across Indian Country, especially in the Northern Plains, we feel that that curriculum is 

flawed. It’s based on western thinking. We feel a curriculum that’s 

based on the top ten crimes committed in Indian Country with rape 

at the very top would be appropriate, so we’re asking you to review 

the curriculum and make it more meaningful to tribal communities. 

We also want to—and the tribal chairman asked me to reiterate 

the establishment of a law enforcement training center in Bismarck 

at United Tribes that allows closer travel for our law enforcement 

officers in training. 

And the third thing is that we have to professionalize the ground 

officers; in other words, you know, we need to—our police officers 

have the toughest job on the Indian reservation so we need to pay 

them more money. We need to pay them well. We need to provide 

adequate equipment. We need to provide them fringe benefits. We 

need to provide them adequate leave time so they can take work 

off to recuperate from working in the tribal community and so on 

and so forth. 

The training is very crucial. And we feel, in Indian Country, as 

front line workers, that the training is not adequate to meet the 

needs of the people because the kinds of crimes that are committed 

sometimes are overlooked. 

The other thing is policies need to be changed. For example, rape 

is part of the Seven Major Crimes Act. We would like some discussion on changing that. You know, one of the things that really 

hurts us is that our police officers are first responders to a rape 

and then the FBI has to come in and take it over and many times 

the FBI doesn’t come in until the perpetrator walks away. 

Therein lies another request. We’re asking the Natural Resources 

Committee to convene a consultation with the FBI. In talking to 

the tribal leaders in the last hour, I asked them: Has there ever 

been a consultation with the FBI? Never. Consultation with the 

FBI is crucial when rape is part of the Major Crimes Act and the 

FBI has some responsibility, so we’re asking for that. 

The other thing we’re asking for is—and I’m respectfully asking 

and I appreciate the time here, but if we’re going to truly address 

the attendant effects of rape in Indian Country, we need a separate 

hearing. We would like a separate hearing for all the witnesses to 

talk about sexual assault in Indian Country and then we can look 

at the bigger picture and through that hearing you’re going to get 

more information on what the next steps are going to be. 

Finally, Madam Chair, as we move—you know, we’ve been BandAiding law enforcement in Indian Country as far as I can remember. And what law enforcement needs is major surgery. It needs an 

infusion of new dollars. The BIA gets bashed all the time, but their 

hands are tied. Tribal leaders have a responsibility to take a different direction to find new dollars for law enforcement and therein 

lies my request. We are willing to work on a new bill, a brand-new 

bill to put the kind of money that we need in Indian Country for 

law enforcement; however, in order to submit such a bill, we need 

data. 

96

1 National Task Force to End Sexual and Domestic Violence Against Women; National Congress of American Indians Task Force to End Violence Against Native Women; U.S. Department 

Of Justice Global Advisory Committee; U.S. Department Of Justice Working Group on Federal 

Tribal Sexual Assault Response; Full Faith and Credit Project; Federal Law Enforcement Training Center Curriculum Working Group; American Probation and Parole Association Model Protocol Working Group; International Forensic Nurse Examiner’s DNA Curriculum Development 

Working Group. 

Madam Chair, can your Committee direct the BIA to work with 

our team to get into their archives so we can get the data that we 

need so we can introduce the bill that we want to introduce? 

In conclusion, I’d like to say that another gentleman, he had to 

leave, and he asked that there be more discussion in the State of 

South Dakota amongst all tribal law enforcement to start talking 

to each other. Because one tribe is not talking to the other tribe. 

You have protection orders. You’ve got a number of things. And if 

tribal law enforcement are not talking to each other or there’s not 

a central repository for protection orders and perpetrators, sexual 

perpetrators and whatever, you’re not going to know what’s going 

on, and with the inclusion of gangs. So tribal officers need to be 

talking to each other to know what’s going on. 

Finally, there are a number of unsolved homicides in Indian 

Country. On Pine Ridge, there are unsolved homicides. We need to 

bring closure to some of those homicides. It’s because of the high 

turnover, because of lack of training, there are families out there 

who will never know what happened to their young ones so we 

want to encourage collectively to find more resources to professionalize law enforcement, to provide more adequate training, and 

finally, to bring respect to law enforcement officers. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Karen Artichoker follows:]

Statement of Karen Artichoker, Sacred Circle Director,

Cangleska, Inc. Management Team Director 

I. Sacred Circle, National Resource Center to End Violence Against Native 

Women, provides training, consultation and technical assistance to 

Indian Nations, tribal organizations, law enforcement agencies, prosecutors and courts to address the safety needs of Native women who are 

battered, raped and stalked. 

For over a decade Sacred Circle has advocated for the safety of American Indian 

and Alaska Native Women, providing training, consultation and technical assistance 

on responding to crimes of violence against Native women, particularly domestic violence, sexual assault and stalking. Sacred Circle submits this testimony to provide 

written documentation to the U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Natural 

Resources of ‘‘The Needs and Challenges of Tribal Law Enforcement on Indian Reservations.’’

Over the past ten years we have learned many things about the state of peril confronting Native women. From the oldest to the youngest, Native women are 

disrespected and treated in the most humiliating fashion, living and dying without 

justice or the knowledge that their grand daughters will live free of the violence 

they experienced. This violence destroys the quality of life of Native women and 

threatens the safety and stability of their families, community and Indian tribes. 

Our national work gives us an overview of some of the successes and problem 

areas in addressing violence against American Indian and Alaska Native women 

throughout the United States. Sacred Circle is a member of numerous Federal 

Inter-governmental Committees and various National Task Forces established to address violence against women. 1 On a tribal level, Cangleska, Inc., the mother agency of Sacred Circle, provides advocacy to approximately 3,000 women and children 

each year and approximately 2,400 men who are on domestic violence probation as 

ordered by the Oglala Sioux Tribe’s Courts. 

97

2Patricia Tjaden & Nancy Thoennes, U.S. Dep’t. of Justice, Full Report on the Prevalence, 

Incidence, and Consequences of Violence Against Women (2000). 3Lawrence A. Greenfeld & Steven K. Smith, U.S. Dep’t. of Justice, American Indians and 

Crime (1999). 4Stalking and Domestic Violence, May 2001 Report to Congress, U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Office 

of Justice Programs, NCJ 186157. 5 Id. at 3. 

6See A Quiet Crisis: Federal Funding and Unmet Needs in Indian Country, U.S. Comm. On 

Civ. Rights, available at http://www.usccr.gov/pubs/na0703/na0204.pdf. 

The comments provided focus on ‘‘The Needs and Challenges of Tribal Law Enforcement on Indian Reservations’’ in the context of addressing violence against 

Indian women and implementation of the Violence Against Women Act of 2005. 

In particular, Section 903 of VAWA 2005, recognizes the importance of government-to-government consultation. Section 903 directs the Attorney General and the 

Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services to use the consultation as an opportunity to solicit recommendations from tribal governments on 

three topics: • Administering grant funds appropriated for tribal governments and programs 

created to benefit tribal governments by the original VAWA and subsequent legislation; • Enhancing the safety of Indian women from domestic violence, dating violence, 

sexual assault, and stalking; and • Strengthening the Federal response to crimes of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking. 

II. Enhancing the safety of Indian women from domestic violence, dating 

violence, sexual assault, and stalking. The safety of Indian women is dependent upon the response of Indian Nations and the Federal government to crimes of domestic violence, sexual assault, dating violence and 

stalking. Consultation between the Department of Justice and Indian 

Nations is essential to the development of respectful effective coordination and management of violent crimes against Native women. 

The unique legal relationship between the United States and Indian Tribes creates a federal responsibility in safeguarding the lives of Native women. Native 

women are battered, raped and stalked at far greater rates than any other group 

of women in the United States. The Department of Justice estimates that: • more than1 of 3, 34.1%, American Indian and Alaska Native women will be 

raped in her lifetime and 3 of 4 will be physically assaulted 2; • about 9 in 10 American Indian victims of rape or sexual assault were estimated 

to have assailants who were white or black 3; and • 17 % of American Indian women, at least twice that of other populations, are 

stalked each year. 4

These statistics reflect the horrific levels of violence committed on a daily basis 

against Native women. While compounded by many social factors research links this 

level of violence to the vulnerabilities of Native women as a population. The lack 

of jurisdiction of Indian nations over non-Indian perpetrators and the sentencing 

limitation placed upon Indian tribes by Congress enhances the vulnerability of Native women and the ability of predators to target Native women as a population. 

This jurisdictional void furthers the public perception that Native women do not 

have the same protections that non-Indian women are entitled to receive. The Department of Justice estimation that 75% of sexual assaults committed against Native women are by perpetrators of a different race 5 is indicative that perpetrators 

of such violence are aware of this jurisdictional void. 

Section 903, provides the opportunity for consistent consultation on a governmentto-government basis between the Department of Justice and Indian Nations. The 

staggering statistics of violence against Native women requires that the highest levels of government act in coordination to address the escalating crisis in the lives 

of Native women. The prevalence and severity of violence would be treated as an 

emergency if committed against any other population of women. Given the crisis in 

the lives of Native women and the lack of adequate resources 6 more must be done 

at every level from funding through the Office on Violence Against Women, handling 

of cases by the FBI and United States Attorneys, and release of perpetrators by the 

Bureau of Prisons to improve efforts to create a more responsive criminal justice 

system. Federal agencies must work on a government-to-government basis with 

Indian Nations to prosecute such crimes. This cannot be achieved without formal 

consultation with Indian tribal governments. 

The following recommendations are offered to maximize the opportunity provided 

by Section 903: 

98

7 7 l.j.d. Wallace, A.D. Calhoun, K.E. Powell, J. O’Neill, & S.P. James, Homicide and Suicide 

Among Native Americans, 1979-1992, Violence Surveillance Summary Series, No. 2, Atlanta, 

GA; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Injury Prevention and 

Control, 1996. 

• set the date for the annual consultation no later than nine months prior 

• provide the opportunity for all tribal governments to participate in the preparatory call 

• issue the agenda no less than two months prior to the consultation to allow for 

advance preparation of participants and if at all possible to provide questions 

to the Department on issues of concern to be addressed during the Consultation. 

III. Research is necessary to understand the prevalence, unique particularities and estimated cost of crimes of domestic violence, sexual assault, 

dating violence and stalking occurring against Indian women. 

The Department of Justice has issued several reports on violence against women 

mandated by the Acts of 1994 and 2000. Within these reports, crimes of violence 

against American Indian and Alaska Native women are given limited attention. Previous research mandated under VAWA did not require in depth research on violence 

against Indian women. Section 904 will create for the first time in United States 

history the mandate to research crimes of domestic violence, sexual assault, dating 

violence, stalking and murder of American Indian women. The unique circumstances created by the jurisdictional void, rural isolation, conflict between 

Indian tribes and states, and other social factors require such research. It is important to note that violence against Indian women occurs on a continuum of violence 

from simple assault to murder. Department of Justice research indicates that the 

vast majority of Indian women victimized by such crimes knew their assailant. Unfortunately this continuum in many cases has resulted in the deaths of women. 

Murder is the third cause of death for America Indian women. 7 In addition, an increased number of American Indian women reported missing raises the concern that 

these reports should be investigated as homicide cases until the woman is located. 

A national baseline study reviewing the crimes of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, stalking, and murder committed against Indian women is essential to analyzing and creating safety in the lives of Native women. Of critical importance is the establishment of a task force, as provided by Sec. 903(A), of representatives from national domestic violence and sexual assault tribal organizations 

that have decades of experience in assisting Native women. In addition, Indian Nations are essential as the governments providing the emergency response to such 

crimes, the daily assistance to Native women, and monitoring of offenders. Indian 

tribes after tens of thousands of years remain sovereign nations having the authority and responsibility to protect the safety of women and stability of their citizenry. 

The presence of these representatives will provide the expertise necessary to implementing such a study. 

The following recommendations are offered to maximize the opportunity provided 

by Section 904: 

• immediately establish, as provided by Section 904(a)(3), the tribal task force to 

develop and guide implementation of the study 

• recognize that American Indian and Alaska Native experience multiple incidents of violence over a lifetime and addressing such violence requires an array 

of services beyond crisis intervention 

• recognize that the federal, and within PL 53—280 jurisdiction state, justice 

agencies failure to adequately respond is demonstrated in the distinction between hospital emergency trauma centers and cases reported, charged and ultimately number of conviction within respective jurisdictions 

• recognize that to increase the response of tribal law enforcement to crimes of 

domestic violence and sexual assault of Indian women on Indian reservations 

requires understanding the past and current failure to respond to such crimes. 

IV. The Deputy Director for Tribal Affairs within the Office on Violence 

Against Women will increase the ability of the Department of Justice 

to effectively coordinate on a governmental basis with Indian Nations 

and improve the response of tribal law enforcement agencies to crimes 

of domestic violence and sexual assault. 

The unique governmental relationship between Indian tribes as the United States 

is long established by the Constitution, Supreme Court cases, Acts of Congress and 

Executives Orders of the President. Congress recognized this unique governmental 

relationship within the Violence Against Women Act by statutorily including Indian 

tribes within various provisions and defining Indian Tribes as eligible applicants for 

99

8 18 U.S.C. § 1152 and 1153 (2004). 

9 25 U.S.C. § § 1301-1303 (2000). 

certain programs under the Act from the Violence Against Women Office within the 

Department of Justice. The administration of Federal programs to tribal governments must comply with this legal context. The development of policies and grant 

program guidelines according to state-based models is not only inappropriate, but 

also, ineffective in the creation of an enhanced response to domestic violence, sexual 

assault and stalking. Recognizing this complex legal relationship is a necessary component in the proper administration of tribal set-aside funds. It is also essential in 

the development of model codes, protocols, public education awareness materials, research, and training. 

One example of this unique governmental relationship is concurrent jurisdiction 

over violent crimes committed against Native women such as sexual assault. The 

U.S. Department of Justice has general jurisdiction over felony crimes 8 by or 

against Indians, including homicide, rape and aggravated assault. These crimes require a coordinated Tribal-Federal response because of the sentencing limitation 

placed upon tribal courts of ‘‘imposing no more than one year per offense or $5,000. 

fine. 9 This sentencing limitation is inappropriate and unless prosecuted by a U.S. 

Attorney the defendant is not held accountable for the violent crime. In addressing 

sexual assault of Native women this legal context must be understood and all requirements placed upon Indian tribes should also be placed upon the counterparts 

handling such cases within the Department. Similarly, the primary healthcare agency handling rape trauma emergency is the Indian Health Services of the Department of Health and Human Services. This agency does not have a formal protocol 

for sexual assault. 

Increasing the response of tribal law enforcement to domestic violence and sexual 

assault requires understanding the complexity of the jurisdictional maze created by 

Federal Indian Law, the appropriate protocol for implementing government-to-government programmatic and administrative matters, and the management of funds 

set aside for Indian Nations. The newly statutorily created Deputy Director for Tribal Affairs must be involved with any initiatives to address and enhance the response 

of tribal law enforcement to domestic violence and sexual assault. The authority, responsibilities and expertise of the Deputy Director will be essential to the success 

of tribal law enforcement initiatives to increase their response to such crimes. 

V. Conclusion. 

In 1994, Congress enacted the Violence Against Women Act recognizing the extent 

and severity of violence against women. Over the last eleven years the Act has significantly increased the ability of Indian Nations, tribal law enforcement agencies, 

and advocacy organization to assist Native women and hold perpetrators of domestic 

violence, sexual assault, and stalking accountable for their crimes. VAWA 2005, specifically Title IX, represents a historic turning point in United States history in the 

recognition by the United States of its unique legal responsibility to assist Indian 

tribes in safeguarding the lives of Indian women. Addressing the needs and challenges of tribal law enforcement on Indian reservations in adequately respond to 

crimes of violence against Indian women under VAWA 2005 requires the full involvement of such agencies in the coordinated governmental implementation of the 

Act. The advances made under VAWA 2005 will further the progress made toward 

a time when the honored status of Native women is restored and all women will 

live free of violence. 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. Well, thank you, Ms. Fire Thunder, for 

your testimony, the insight you bring, and to the suggestions, the 

recommendations you’ve made for the Committee to pursue. 

Let me start with where you started, Cecelia, and that’s the 

training issue, because that was going to be one of my first questions. A little bit different angle in terms of how you’ve presented 

it, and I think you’ve presented it in a very important context as 

it relates to a task force to review the existing training curriculum, 

because my first question was going to be: In your experience, set 

aside the shortage of officers for a moment, because we know that 

we have to get at that problem with increased resources, but with 

the officers that you have worked with—because I’ve seen this in 

100

non-reservation communities when I was working for a law firm in 

Aberdeen. There were—this was back in the early ’90s. The issue 

of the sensitivity of law enforcement—of officers to a domestic violence situation and to a victim of sexual assault and the importance of the training that’s provided. 

So with the current curriculum specific to domestic violence and 

sexual assault that’s offered down in the program in Artesia, is 

there, within that eight-week course, specific training for law enforcement officers in responding to domestic violence? 

Ms. FIRE THUNDER. Very little. We had this discussion at breakfast this morning and they just touch on it. 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. Turn your mike on. 

Ms. FIRE THUNDER. We had discussion at breakfast this morning 

and it’s very minimum and it’s not comprehensive. And so as this 

discussion goes further, it seems logical to provide training for the 

kinds of crimes that are committed in Indian Country versus teaching them a western model of policing and that’s why we’d like to 

have some dialogue or they have dialogue about changing how they 

provide training for law enforcement to respond to crimes that are 

committed in Indian Country. It is very minimal training. 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. Ms. Little Shield, did you have anything 

else you wanted to add there? In terms of the officers that you’ve 

worked with, maybe even beyond what your familiarity with the 

actual component of that training, you know, what you’ve seen in 

terms of ultimately maybe the officers’ desire to have more of that 

specific area of training. 

Ms. LITTLE SHIELD. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Yes. In regards to that, we noticed very little in Artesia training 

about domestic violence so we try to provide that. 

The South Dakota Coalition Against Domestic Violence has done 

many trainings, and we set them up in Cheyenne River this last 

couple of years. I’ve tried—I’ve set them up at Prairie Nights in 

North Dakota. Had assurances from the chief of police he would 

send the officers and no one showed up. Contacting him the next 

day, asking why this was happening, he stated there was a shortage of police officers and he couldn’t send anybody. 

Now, we’ve had also set up through the South Dakota Coalition 

Against Domestic Violence police training in Mobridge and also 

sent them fliers and called them several times offering them to go 

there. It was just, you know, across the river for a couple of hours 

and they didn’t show up there either. 

So the Standing Rock Police Department has not attended any 

of those domestic violence trainings where I’ve helped Sacred Heart 

Center and South Dakota Coalition put on trainings in Cheyenne 

River and we had 50 officers attend. But we had to go to council 

to get them mandated to go. OK? 

But we can’t do that with these officers in Standing Rock because 

they’re BIA. They don’t have to listen to the tribe. 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. That’s a very important distinction that 

you’ve made in terms of how you’ve been able to work as an advocate to make the training available and how the different participation rates are dictated by what factors are there. 

And, Cecelia, did you have something else to add? 

101

Ms. FIRE THUNDER. Yes. On the second part of your question, 

Artesia does not do the training, however, Sacred Circle, which is 

a national resource training, because part of our training is to train 

law enforcement officers on responding to domestic violence. 

And sometimes we have to bring them to the training and so 

we’ve been able to train a lot of tribal police officers on responding 

to domestic violence but it’s not in the large numbers, they’re in 

the small numbers, and we have to work really hard to get them 

to come. 

First of all, you have limited police officers out there and if one’s 

gone, it makes a difference. So I know in Pine Ridge, we’ve done 

a pretty good job of training most of our police officers on domestic 

violence. Again, that’s a commitment from our community. So... 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. The importance of the local involvement 

in terms of responding to the particular needs of a community. 

Ms. Pollack, the report and the investigation that you undertook, 

in the previous two panels, the second one in particular, we heard 

some very important testimony with regard to methamphetamine 

manufacture and trafficking, other illegal drug trafficking, increase 

in gang activity. Did you find a correlation in terms of the substantial percentage of the violence that’s committed against Native 

American women by non-Native American men to be associated to 

a large degree with the infiltration of outsiders involved in drug 

trafficking? 

Ms. POLLACK. We did not hear that, very many cases that were 

directly—that directly involved methamphetamines, but one thing 

that we did hear rather consistently was that methamphetamines 

are a very good example of how non-Native individuals see Indian 

Country as an opportunity to commit a crime and get away with 

it and that frequently they will—they will specifically locate methamphetamine plants in Indian Country because they think there’s 

less of a chance that they’re going to get caught. 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. I took note of that in your verbal testimony when you made reference to, again, exploiting of the factor 

of inadequate resources and not giving all of the tools available to 

our law enforcement officers and the re-enforcements that they 

clearly need to ensure the safety of individuals, the safety of 

women especially who are victims at the hands of this violence, so 

I appreciate you elaborating a bit there. 

I want to turn my attention—well, before I do, one other question, Ms. Pollack. At the end of the report there are several recommendations for future action and I’m wondering what steps, if 

any, either have been or plan to be taken by Amnesty International 

or Violence Against Native Women advocates to implement some of 

those recommendations. 

Ms. POLLOCK. Amnesty International is currently working with 

Native American and Alaska Native partners to call for the full 

funding for violence in order to bring into a system all of the provisions for increased safety of women that are contained in that and 

the increased tribal set-asides that are contained in that. 

We are also in the process of putting together an advisory committee of Native American and Alaska Native experts at the national level as well as the three geographic areas focused on in the 

report and working together with that committee, Amnesty will be 

102

developing further campaigns regarding law enforcement, health, 

prosecutions. 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. And along the lines of health, several of 

the recommendations in the report reference the Indian Health 

Service. As you know, the Natural Resource Committee has moved 

on the Indian Health Care Improvement Act so it’s in the midst of 

being reauthorized by Congress. There are other actions that still 

need to take place and opportunities for amendment. 

Have there been any attempts, that you’re aware of, to include 

provisions related to violence against women in the Indian Health 

Care Improvement Act? 

Ms. POLLACK. I’m sorry, efforts on the part of? 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. Advocates for Native American women 

and the health care needs associated with being victims of domestic 

violence. 

Ms. POLLACK. I know that there is a lot of work being done by 

one organization that is here in South Dakota called the Native 

Americans Health Education and Resource Center, which has done 

a lot of research and has a lot of expertise on the issue of how the 

IHS addresses sexual violence against women. The organization is 

specifically calling for the creation of protocols, standardized protocols throughout IHS facilities that will address how women are 

treated from the moment they walk in the door. 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. Thank you for mentioning that because 

that was a wonderful segue for the questions that I have for both 

Georgia and Cecelia, and that is your experience, now, if we can 

focus on the women who have been victims and the importance of 

the treatment that they are getting, their medical needs at IHS facilities, and the importance of these protocols. 

And, you know, I know that for most Native American women, 

IHS is the primary health care provider, and so in practice, what 

is the range of services available for women who have been victims 

of sexual assault, domestic violence? What has been your experience as advocates for them as it relates to the procedures for treating them, as it relates to the type of medical attention they receive, 

and do you have any recommendations, perhaps through your work 

with the research center that Ms. Pollack referred to or any recommendations you would make to this Committee as it relates to 

our focus on IHS perhaps in the Indian Health Care Improvement 

Act? 

Ms. Little Shield? 

Ms. LITTLE SHIELD. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Addressing that is—IHS in McLaughlin, South Dakota, will not 

do the rape kits. They are then taken to Fort Yates, South Dakota, 

to the IHS, and they will not do the rape kits. They are then 

shipped to Bismarck, North Dakota, through ambulance and then 

done the rape kits up there. 

My recommendation is to get IHS funding and protocols as 

they’re now working on, for all that to happen at our IHS so we 

have that ability to keep them there where there’s advocacy. Because we don’t know, until they come back and come into our office 

maybe a month or two later and say, ‘‘Oh, a few months back, this 

happened to me,’’ and I’m going, ‘‘Oh, we didn’t even know.’’ Because Bismarck advocates don’t communicate with us. And they’re 

103

the ones that go to court, see, and sometimes they’re not seen by 

advocates in Bismarck so then they’re left up there alone. 

So one of the recommendations is IHS participate in a same 

nurse situation where they can do those rape kits right there or 

have somebody—the reason they don’t do them is because there is 

such a fall through of employees, doctors, and when it comes, then, 

time to testify, they’re gone, so they don’t want to subject themselves to the testimony when it comes to the case. 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. Because of the turnover? 

Ms. LITTLE SHIELD. Yes. 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. So the rationale that you’ve heard from 

IHS officials, I suppose indirectly it’s a resource one, because that 

contributes to the high rate of turnover among physicians, primary 

health care physicians in the IHS system, but it’s not that they 

don’t want to do—it’s not that they don’t have the funding to do 

the rape kit, they don’t have the physicians to do it, either at 

McLaughlin or Fort Yates, but because of the turnover, there’s a 

concern that if a case is prosecuted, that the doctor won’t be in the 

area to testify about the procedure and about the results. 

Ms. LITTLE SHIELD. Yes, that’s part of it. 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. Ms. Fire Thunder. 

Ms. FIRE THUNDER. Thank you. Let’s not forget that not all 

Indian women are raped by non-Indians. In many tribal communities, Indian men do rape Indian women in large numbers. The 

problem is we don’t have the data. It’s one of the most under-reported crimes on the Indian reservation. 

Many Indian women are at high risk. When you have a large 

number of alcohol use and abuse and drug use and abuse, you are 

vulnerable and you are going to be victimized. 

One of the important things that we also want to let you know 

is that a hundred percent—and I say a hundred percent—of Indian 

women who are battered or beaten by their partner will be raped 

because it comes with the territory. And so it’s another issue that 

very few women and women who are battered talk about. 

We have many cases—this is where we have been there to pick 

up the pieces. They will tell us they’ve been raped; however, because that’s their partner, that’s her husband, that’s her boyfriend, 

the perception is that that’s part of the relationship. So we have 

a lot of education that we have to do in our communities. 

In terms of the testimony of the providers is that we need to take 

a look at the existing laws in South Dakota. It was a couple of 

years ago when the court would not accept testimony from anybody 

but an M.D. Today, it’s my understanding we have nurse practitioners who do administer the rape kit. 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. Just for a point of clarification: Is this 

the Federal District Court or Tribal Court? 

Ms. FIRE THUNDER. Or even state court. 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. OK. 

Ms. FIRE THUNDER. Federal Court, there was a time—now, it 

might have changed, because Terry French, who is our nurse practitioner, does provide testimony. 

So about ten years ago we were talking about changing the policy 

and the laws of the State of South Dakota so that a nurse practitioner or a P.A.—and one of the things is that with your support 

104

and help, we could change the rules again where an R.N. can administer the rape kit in an emergency room and that it could be 

admissible in a court of law. 

So these are some policy changes that we have to look at and 

who’s most available in the tribal community to administer the 

rape kit. It doesn’t have to be an M.D. Whoever’s there in that 

emergency room. Nine times out of ten our emergency room doctors 

are on call. They’re not always there. But an R.N. will be there. 

So maybe one of the recommendations is take a look at the law and 

see how we can change it and who’s there in the emergency room 

and legally if they would accept it in court. 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. I have a few other questions that deal 

with some of the other recommendations and the reauthorization 

of VAWA, Title IX requirements for the Attorney General reports. 

I may submit those for the record in the essence of time as we do 

have a couple of other individuals that we want to hear from. 

But Ms. Fire Thunder, your recommendation that this issue deserves a separate hearing is well heard and I know that the other 

advocates here in the room for victims of domestic violence, all 

three of you have raised important experiences on the ground that 

can help us further explore the issues and policy changes, the importance of funding, the relationship of this issue to the broader 

issue that we explored in the first two panels of the law enforcement needs more generally, but more specifically here the training, 

how you’ve addressed that issue locally working with your officers, 

working with tribal council, so I appreciate your insight and your 

willingness to share compelling and I know difficult testimony 

based on the lives that you’ve seen affected by this very serious 

issue. 

So again, thank you for your testimony. I hope you’ll be open in 

the event that we have additional questions that we’d like to submit to you in writing and look forward to the follow-up, again, on 

the recommendations that you all have made here. 

Ms. FIRE THUNDER. Can I just say something? 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. Yes, please. 

Ms. FIRE THUNDER. You asked about treatment. I didn’t respond 

to that, Madam Chair. 

We’ve been talking about the legal response to sexual assault. 

We’ve been talking about the medical response to sexual assault. 

We have yet to talk about—and this is what the next hearing 

should address—treatment models. 

In my work across Indian Country I asked the question: What 

is—what kind of a treatment model exists within the psychological 

community for women who have been raped? And most psychologists and therapists, they look at me and say there’s none. So my 

challenge to Ph.D.’s was why don’t we sit down and create a model, 

a treatment model for women who have been raped or sexually assaulted? That’s still there. 

Now, Madam Chair, we can talk all day long about the legal and 

medical, but we have hundreds of Indian women out there who 

could be 80 years old, who could be 60 years old, who could be ten 

years old, who have been raped. And I know grandmas who have 

been raped and never talked about it. But we have a lot of healing 

to do. 

105

So with that, I thank you for letting us share these things with 

you. 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. Thank you. And I’m glad you mentioned 

the treatment issue, because I have had a chance to look at some 

of our IHS facilities and it was in McLaughlin and talked with 

them about a whole host of issues, and this relates not only to the 

adequacy of law enforcement officers, but the adequacy of the treatment, the psychological treatment that you’ve just described. 

I know that the one counselor at McLaughlin at the time that I 

visited was getting ready to transition back to the area office and 

when you have the high incidence of domestic violence, the high incidence of teenage suicide, we have to address this issue. 

And then in—I will be pursuing with Mr. Ragsdale the issue that 

came up in the second panel on approving a position for the juvenile detention center in terms of a psychiatrist on site. And again, 

we have this holistic approach to see if we can find the flexibility 

needed, in addition to the resources for those types of positions. 

But I want to maybe just conclude with: I had mentioned at the 

outset my experience with the Federal District Court in 1998 and 

1999 out of Pierre. And working with all of the folks within the 

system, whether they were the victims’ advocates, whether it was 

the U.S. Attorneys, the defense attorneys, the FBI, tribal law enforcement, those that I saw on a regular basis in our trial proceedings, and at the time that I was sort of getting that perspective 

on the rates of violence and seeing the victims testify, seeing the 

perpetrators tried, my brother was working at Abbott House in 

Mitchell and as you both well know in terms of the younger women 

who have been victims of sexual assault and the needs that they 

have, and I think that is a wonderful program, but sharing from 

our experiences, you know, working on the judicial side and Todd, 

you know, my older brother working with these young women 

whose lives were so dramatically affected and needed to find the 

right treatment model for all victims and women of different ages 

and the type of healing that is so necessary. 

And so I share that with you to let you know of the personal and 

family experience in terms of the importance of this issue and the 

individuals whose lives that we’ve been affected by and our desire 

to work with you based on your expertise and the advocacy that 

you’ve undertaken along with your counterparts and colleagues 

that are here today. 

And so thank you again and we’ll look forward to continuing our 

work on the Committee and, of course, through our office that’s 

here directly in South Dakota through my office. 

Thank you. 

Ms. FIRE THUNDER. One explanation. 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. Yes. 

Ms. FIRE THUNDER. I just whispered to her, Congresswoman, in 

the State of South Dakota, all nine tribes have advocates. You don’t 

have to remake the wheel. Just find us the resources and we’ll take 

on the work of sexual assault. 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. Well said. 

And I know that the group of individuals I had the honor of 

meeting who have been most recently recognized, but in terms of 

106

what they offer victims from the Oglala Sioux Tribe, well deserved 

recognition, but thank you for pointing that out as well. 

I’d now like to invite Chairman Robert Cournoyer from the 

Yankton Sioux Tribe, Council Member Fool Bear, yes, and were 

there any other individuals? I don’t think there were any other individuals brought to my attention who were seeking to offer statements and testimony. 

I appreciate your patience and your being here, again, operating 

within a structure a little bit more rigid than we might be used to 

at some of the other meetings that we’ve had. But through the 

Committee structure meeting, needing to formalize the agenda, but 

certainly wanting to be open to hearing in this setting, in addition 

to the other settings that will be presented on a more informal 

basis with our direct outreach with the Yankton Sioux Tribe, the 

Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, of course, the Flandreau Santee, who 

we have worked with on a number of other issues. 

So Chairman Cournoyer, thank you. You’re recognized to provide 

testimony to the Committee. 

STATEMENT OF ROBERT W. COURNOYER, CHAIRMAN,

YANKTON SIOUX TRIBE, MARTY, SOUTH DAKOTA 

Mr. COURNOYER. Good afternoon. I know that it’s been a long 

afternoon and a lot of the chairmen have stated the needs in 

Indian Country, so I thank you for allowing me the time, Ms. 

Herseth. And, you know, I’m going to just be brief. 

You know, we all know the problems in Indian Country. We 

didn’t come here today to bash the BIA for what they can or cannot 

do, but, you know, basically it boils down to funding, a funding 

issue. 

You know, a lot of them talked about treaty issues. You know, 

it’s supposed to be a treaty obligation. All of these things aren’t 

being met in Indian Country and, you know, we never get enough 

money to succeed. It’s just enough money to fail. They say, ‘‘Well, 

we tried it out on the Indians.’’ And they said it didn’t work because we never get enough money to succeed. 

And with law enforcement, I’m a former law—I was involved in 

law enforcement many, many years ago and I wouldn’t want to be 

a law enforcement officer today because of the conditions and all 

the things that are happening out there. But, you know, I’ve seen 

a lot of the major crimes. I’ve witnessed murders, rapes. You name 

it, I’ve seen it all. Automobile accidents and, you know, 90 percent 

of the calls back then were related to alcoholism. This was in the 

late ’70s and early ’80s when I was a police officer, but today it’s 

exacerbated by other drugs, meth, cocaine. You name it, it’s there. 

And a lot of these people are focusing on the reservations. 

They’re coming and they’re selling their goods there because they 

see the Indians as an easy mark and that they can easily get 

hooked on this. And, you know, it’s an epidemic in Indian Country 

now, the methamphetamine use, and it isn’t getting any better. 

There’s a lot of things for prevention but there’s nothing for 

treatment of methamphetamines and we’ve got to work toward getting funding to make those things happen. 

107

There’s a lot of things that were discussed here today that we all 

need to work on and it all takes a little money. It takes resources 

and that resource is money. 

Because we all know that Indian Country is severely underfunded like Indian health. They’re only meeting about 15 percent 

of their need. You can go on with education, you name it, all those 

needs are severely underfunded. And basically one way that the 

Native Americans can benefit is through education, becoming economically self-sufficient. There is nothing in the way of 

entrepreneurialship. There is nothing in the way of economic development or job creation. That helps you get up out of the gutter. 

And because of our depressed economic socialism on the reservations—and that just didn’t happen overnight. It was created by 

them putting us on reservations and consistently giving and giving 

and giving until a lot of our people, they no longer can take care 

of themselves because everything is a gimme. They’ve been—and 

we’ve got to get out of that phase. 

Until we find ways of doing that through education and all these 

other things and economic development and creation of 

entrepreneurialship, the people can pull themselves up. But for us 

to get there, we need to be—there needs to be some investment on 

the reservations. When things start to become positive, then everybody else becomes positive. But, you know, we need to just focus 

on it. 

And law enforcement is a big issue now because there’s just so 

much happening in law enforcement and we could say, well, we 

could point over here at the Bureau, well, their hands are tied, too, 

like someone said earlier. 

But we’ve got to all work together to solve this. And like I said, 

I’m not going to be very long. I just wanted to—and I handed in 

some testimony on our concerns but I just say that somehow we 

have to pull together and I think that we need to have more consultation with the tribes so that we can address these issues with 

the Bureau and with the Justice Department. You know, I think 

one of the biggest mistakes—or I don’t know, maybe it may not be 

a mistake to them, but to us it is—is that when BIA law enforcement no longer—when they pulled themselves and they divested 

themselves from the BIA superintendents and those lines of authority, because now you have to go off to a district commander 

and the tribes’ needs are never ever heard. They might listen to us, 

but they say, ‘‘Oh, well, we don’t have to listen to them because 

we’ve divested ourselves from them. We’re way over here. We don’t 

have to listen to any of their needs and we’ll just serve our own 

selves.’’

You know, and there’s a lot of upset leaders in Indian Country 

because of the law enforcement situation and not enough law enforcement officers to go around. We need several officers on our reservation to meet our needs. I don’t even know if we’re meeting 50 

percent of that need. 

So a lot of our officers, by spending so much time out there, they 

get burnt out. I know I did when I served. You get burned out after 

putting in so much time. Sometimes, you don’t know, you can put 

in 60, 70 hours a week. That’s a long, long time. 

108

And if you’ve seen something happen to a young child that got 

killed, I mean, that really hurts you deep down inside. I know I 

faced those myself personally. Suicides. You name it, I seen it all. 

And you’ve got to have a strong constitution if you’re going to be 

in law enforcement. You’ve got to be able to take all that stuff that 

comes at you on a daily basis and sometimes, you know, that officer gets broken down, too, and he needs someone that he can go 

talk to. 

So there’s a lot that we have to take into consideration when it 

comes to law enforcement. And I’m not here to bash anybody. I just 

want to work in the spirit of cooperation so that we can solve this 

all together. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Cournoyer follows:]

YANKTON SIOUX TRIBE

Box 248

Marty, SD 57361

(605) 384-3804 / 384-3641

FAX (605) 384-5687

TESTIMONY FOR YANKTON SIOUX TRIBE 

The Yankton Sioux Tribe and all other tribes in the Dakotas face overwhelming 

problems stemming from our poverty and socioeconomic conditions. It is a runaway 

elephant that we are being asked to kill with a 

B B gun. We are severely under funded and too scattered to effectively deal with 

burglary, theft, drugs and alcohol-related crimes that are an epidemic on our reservations. We need more help from the Department of the Interior and BIA, not the 

U.S. Department of Justice. We don’t need federal police, we just need the Bureau, 

which understands the most about the trust relationship, to step in and support the 

Tribes while we learn to assume and operate our own law enforcement. 

The Yankton Sioux Tribe has long believed in the principles of law contained in 

the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act. It seems that the BIA 

doesn’t. We have had great difficulty in obtaining funds already allocated for SelfDetermination contracts. The BIA drags its feet on supporting and funding tribal 

law enforcement, as it is required to do by the law, perhaps in the hope that we 

will fail and retrocede back to the BIA. Or perhaps the federal government wants 

to show that we are a failure to justify the U.S. Department of Justice stepping in 

to take over our law enforcement and just make us the lowest rung of federal law 

enforcement. We oppose this. We can and will run our own law enforcement if we 

obtain legally required assistance and support.

Robert W.Cournoyer 

Chairman 

Yankton Sioux Tribe 

Date: June 1, 2007

May 31,2007

Honorable Stephanie Herseth-Sandlin 

United States Congress 

District of South Dakota

Written Testimony of Yankton Sioux 

John W. Sully, Sr. 

Treasurer 

Yankton Sioux Tribe 

Box 248

Marty, South Dakota 57361

1-605-384-3641

Honorable Herseth-Sandlin:

109

In regards to our Law Enforcement Contract with the Office of Law Enforcement 

Services. The Yankton Sioux Tribe has a 638 Contract with (5) five positions since 

2003,2004,2005,2006,and currently 2007. Theoretically, the process for 638 is: The 

Tribe identifies the program(s) it wishes to contract thru Tribal Resolution(s). 2. Positions, Budgets, Equipment are formalized thru data collected by the Contractor. 

This information is packaged and sent to either the Bureau of Indian Affairs or 

Indian Health Hospital, H.U.D, or other Federal or State Agency that provides a 

service to the Tribe. These Agencies, under the 638 Law, have to respond to the 

Tribal Request within a certain period of time. Whether to approve or disapprove 

of the Tribes Request to Contract. Once the Federal or State Agency agree’s to the 

conditions for a Tribe to Contract. There is an Award Letter, issued to the Tribe, 

stating, that said Contract is hereby Awarded to Tribe. In this Award Letter the 

budgeted amount of the contract is also identified and supplied to the Tribe. Off of 

this Award Letter, the Tribal Contracting Officer develops the direct costs budget, 

and a Indirect Costs based on what the tribes Indirect cost rates are. 

The above process for 638 contracting of a program by a tribe has never been followed. This is the first time that I, as a Treasurer and past Contract Specialist for 

the Yankton Sioux Tribe have ever witnessed such a blatant disregard for the contents of the 638 Law. The Yankton Sioux Tribe has Never received a (Award Letter) 

never from the Agency that we are contracting these five positions from. Even if we 

only filled three positions within this program, the program we contracted, was 5 

positions. The money that was unspent therefore should revert back to tribe to be 

allowed to be carried over to thefollowing fiscal year. This also has never happened, 

we were never allowed to apply our indirect cost rate to this contract like all of our 

other 638 contracts. We were not allowed a 25 percent administrative fee, or a startup costs. For the last five years we have been shorted out on this contract. We have 

contacted our Attorney and have exhausted all our Administrative process and trying to come to a logical resolve to this matter. The Aberdeen area office has only 

given us the run around, blaming everyone else for the problem. This has been 

going on too long and this has impacted our finances where we will also request 

for damages done to our creditability, example; the L.E.S. currently owes us 

$67,000.00 in Payroll. We have to go to a bank to borrow this money to cover the 

costs for meeting Payroll and making sure our people are properly protected. 

We are currently going to be filing under the Contracts Disputes Act, and hopefully we will get what is legally entitled to our Tribe. I’m sorry this has to come 

to this, but we have tried many years now to come to some type of conclusion to 

this matter with nothing really be taken care. Only a lot of lip service. In closing 

the Yankton Sioux Tribe wishes to take this time and thank you Mrs. HersethSandlin for coming out to Indian Country and listening to our problems.

Sincerely,

Robert Cournoyer, Chairman Yankton Sioux Tribe 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. Thank you, Chairman Cournoyer, for 

your testimony. 

I have a couple of questions for you after we hear from Mr. Fool 

Bear, but thank you for highlighting a few other additional issues, 

and again, the issue of economic development and job creation that 

can help alleviate some of the problems associated with higher 

crime rates. And again, safe communities are as important as housing when it comes to attracting and sustaining economic development. You pointed that out very eloquently and I appreciate it. 

Mr. Fool Bear, thank you for being here, for your patience, and 

for your testimony. 

STATEMENT OF ARCHIE FOOL BEAR, COUNCILMAN, 

STANDING ROCK SIOUX TRIBE, FORT YATES, NORTH DAKOTA 

Mr. FOOL BEAR. Thank you, Congresswoman Herseth. How do 

you say your last name? Sandlin? You get married and it just 

changes the whole thing. 

[Laughter.] 

110

Mr. FOOL BEAR. I want to thank you for holding this hearing, 

first off. I want to thank the tribal leaders that were before us. 

You know, I came down today with four of our committee members from our judicial committee. Sitting in the back row here is 

Frank Jamison and Jerry Lee Hagard is around here somewhere, 

Scott Gates and Joe White, who are members of the Standing Rock 

Sioux Tribal Council. 

We have many concerns, you know, and we’ve tried to address 

these issues and we’ve gone to Washington, D.C., already once and 

we left a package of information with you and I do have some testimony here that’s written. I don’t have written testimony from our 

Chairman. 

What I’d like to do is accommodate with you, if you don’t mind, 

with some oral testimony. 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. OK. 

Mr. FOOL BEAR. First off, you know, Standing Rock is unique. 

It’s located in two different jurisdictions as far as state and Federal 

jurisdictions are concerned, the State of North Dakota and the 

State of South Dakota. We are 2.3 million acres. We have 15,000 

members in our tribe. We have 12 different communities. Eight of 

those are Indian communities. 

Of those Indian communities, we had two police officers assigned 

to one community on the North Dakota side and one community on 

the South Dakota side. Now just the other day, talking with the 

chief of police, we had a resignation of one of our officers that used 

to live on the South Dakota side so now we’re going to be short 

there. 

I’m finding that for our size of reservation and for our needs, 

what we’ve got on the road in Standing Rock right now is six uniformed police officers for the entire reservation. We have one detail 

officer that was brought in. I don’t know how long his stay is going 

to be. 

I found out that we have two police officers that were selected 

but they’re not going to be on the street for anywhere from three 

to four months and that depends on the Indian Police Academy. 

I found out that Mr. Hawk, who was scheduled to go in August 

for the Indian Police Academy, that that class was canceled. So if 

the class is canceled, you’re not going to get them certified. And I 

believe we’ve talked with Mr. Ragsdale and other Congressional 

people to see if we can try to accept the state’s training for both 

North and South Dakota and still include in there a two-week 

course on dealing with jurisdictional issues of Indian Country. 

I know North Dakota’s academy is—or excuse me, the police 

academy is six weeks. The North Dakota academy, from my calls 

yesterday, it’s 12 weeks. The South Dakota academy is ten weeks. 

So we can shorten that time down if we can get that done. 

Standing Rock, last year we answered 44,000 calls for service. In 

the Bismarck Tribune, Chief Deb Martin made a news release that 

they had 30,000 calls for service in the city of Bismarck. So in comparison on our reservation, law enforcement is really catching the 

end drop of it all when it comes to funding. 

We’re not funded adequately, and as a former chief of police on 

Standing Rock, when you don’t have the proper funds to run a department that size, you don’t have the manpower to respond or do 

111

prevention or intervention, the whole system starts to lose faith in 

the whole judicial process. 

And I sympathize with Amnesty International’s report and I 

would like to have more involvement in looking into that, into that 

report, because I’ve had people, since that report has come out, 

come to our committee making reports to us about how things have 

occurred and nothing’s been done here, how law enforcement is not 

clearing certain cases, failing to respond. 

I have a report that I will forward to your office, Congresswoman, of a 16-year-old that we were informed was stabbed 72 

times and is still living through that and the perpetrators are still 

walking the street. 

We’ve taken our concerns to the BIA. I met with Mr. Peter, Mr. 

Chaney, Mr. Ragsdale, and talked about our concerns and issues, 

and with the cooperative effort as stated by my fellow partner, Mr. 

Cournoyer here, the hopes are that we can do that, we as a tribe 

with the Government. 

But when we come down to discrepancies when it comes to failing to follow through on crimes and major crime violations, the people again lose faith in the system. When you have a call for a police 

officer and you have a rape to be reported and nobody shows up, 

I am being told by a lady that the reason why nothing—or she reported it. Nothing got done. She waited a whole day. The police officer finally showed up and her statement was that she was too embarrassed to talk about it. You know, I don’t know why she was 

embarrassed, but she said that she thought that nobody cared. Nobody cared to come to her issue. 

Amnesty International’s report also reflects of an individual that 

was raped, beaten, and this individual tried to commit suicide looking for attention. We have an issue with that because we’re told 

that this victim died and we don’t know if there was ever any prosecution of the individuals involved in this. So that is going to be 

forwarded to the proper authorities. 

We feel that, as I stated, when there’s a breakdown such as this, 

it has a domino effect on the whole system in law enforcement as 

far as intervention. When it loses confidence in our whole judicial 

system, nobody’s going to come forward. Nobody’s going to tell anything. Nobody’s going to talk about crimes, but yet it’s going to continue to happen. 

And I’ve got to thank Amnesty International for bringing more 

things out in that report than we will probably hear about because 

they’ve established a confidence in people. 

Madam Congresswoman, we also want to reiterate that under 

H.R. 4472, the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act that 

was passed in ’06, again, it’s another mandate without legislation 

again and we’re asking in my letter format to you that we pass the 

resolution with the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, that we’re going to 

go ahead and pursue that, but we don’t have the resources again. 

With the way we’re looking at things, the way I see things, 

Madam Chair, is that it was brought up earlier was a draft resolution or draft legislation to go over finding a better way to fix this 

law enforcement issue, and I would be willing to state that Standing Rock would volunteer to be a part of that. 

112

With that, Madam Chair, we were looking at 32 police officers 

for our reservation and a $2.5 million request and we don’t know 

where that’s going to go, we don’t know where the Adam Walsh 

legislation and requirements are going to go, but we also would like 

to state that we do not have a treatment facility when it comes 

down to the meth issue. 

Just recently we had 32 people that were arrested on Standing 

Rock. That was a cooperative effort with Safe Trails Task Force, I 

believe it’s called, and with the State of South Dakota and I believe 

the Federal authorities. 

I would go further, but you had a long day and I’ll stop right 

there. I want to thank you for the time. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Fool Bear follows:]


36020.007.eps
113

[NOTE: Additional information submitted for the record by 

Chairman Fool Bear has been retained in the Committee’s official 

files.] 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. Of course. And I’ll pose a few questions 

so if there are a couple of other areas you want to explore. 

You had mentioned, in terms of the 32 officers, for the request, 

may I ask each of you, because we pursued earlier with the other 

tribal chairmen on the second panel the situation with the COPS 

grants, for Standing Rock and for the Yankton Sioux Tribe, what’s 

your situation there? Did you apply for COPS grant funding? Did 

you have officers that have since left because of the lack of resources for retaining those officers? Could you elaborate a little bit 

on your experience with the COPS program and the situation faced 

today? 

Mr. COURNOYER. We didn’t get any COPS funding for this past 

year here, but in the past we’ve had the COPS program and it is 

very effective because it fills in that stop gap of being able to have 

enough officers. But, you know, that’s only a temporary fix. 

You know, I know that some of the other cities that are reservation border towns, they also got COPS grant programs, too, and, 

you know, it helps strengthen the number of officers that are out 

there, but by far they’re just like everyone else stated today, there 

isn’t enough officers out there on the beat. 

And, you know, as we teach at the academy, that visibility is a 

deterrent, so if you have cops out there on the beat and they at 

least see them patrolling, that it does stop a lot of things. But, I 

know that there was a problem with funding of the COPS grant 

and they did get some funding for that, but—you know, it’s sorely 

needed but I think that if we could work with the mandates of fulVerDate 0ct 09 2002 12:44 Dec 20, 2007 Jkt 098700 PO 00000 Frm 00117 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 L:\DOCS\36020.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY

36020.008.eps
114

filling our own needs on each of our reservations from the BIA 

through the funding mechanism, that that probably would work. 

I think we would have enough officers then, but, right now we’re 

only meeting half of our need and we could use another—I think 

we’ve got two BIA officers and four tribal police officers. We’re supposed to have five. So we need another plus we also need a criminal investigator. 

There’s just so many crimes that are falling through the cracks 

with not having an investigator and, you know, people are walking 

around free like all of the other speakers said, that we got people 

walking around that they’ve committed crimes and they’ve committed some horrible crimes, but with not having the manpower to 

deal with it, these people walk. 

You know, and our juvenile issues aren’t being addressed either. 

Some of us reservations, we don’t have any holding facilities for our 

youth so a lot of times they walk or they’re put in a temporary facility if they’ve done something bad enough to be held, but for the 

most part, they’re released to their parents and they just go back 

and continue to do what they were doing. You know, they spend 

very minimal time incarcerated because most of our jails, you can’t 

hold adults and juveniles together. 

So on our reservation, we’re building a juvenile detention facility and it’s going to cost us about $7 million but we got half of it from 

the Justice Department. The other half we’re funding ourselves. 

You know, we were looking for money to build a treatment center 

for alcoholism. We did it ourselves. So I think sometimes the tribes, 

we struggle, but we sometimes find the resources to take care of 

ourselves but, you know, when there’s—when you’re supposed to 

have that fiduciary trust responsibility from the Government and 

they’re not doing it, sometimes you have to take it in your own 

hands and just do it yourself. 

Mr. FOOL BEAR. Madam Chair. 

Yeah, I mean, Standing Rock, we did have a COPS grant. The 

COPS grant did run out and we did end up letting some police officers go and we haven’t got that grant renewed as far as I know. 

As stated by Mr. Cournoyer, we as a tribe put some money toward that area but I think what the big holdup there is called a 

memorandum of agreement or understanding with the Bureau of 

Indian Affairs when it comes down to trying to get police officers 

hired with our tribal monies. 

May I read this letter? 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. Yes. 

Mr. FOOL BEAR. The letter is directed to you, The Honorable 

Stephanie Herseth Sandlin. I’ll say that right yet. I’m used to just 

Herseth. 

This references law enforcement issues on the Standing Rock 

Indian Reservation. 

‘‘To The Honorable Representative Herseth Sandlin: 

‘‘This letter is written to you in my capacity as Chairman of the 

Standing Rock Sioux Tribe’s Judicial Committee, my capacity as a 

Councilman at Large for the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, as a member of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, and a life-long resident of 

the Standing Rock Indian Reservation. I am greatly concerned at 

the dearth of resources allocated to the Bureau of Indian Affairs 

115

law enforcement services at Standing Rock. Currently we have five 

patrol officers to take care of an area about the size of the State 

of Connecticut. This is intolerable. 

‘‘As you are doubtless aware, we have a burgeoning drug problem 

afflicting people of all ages throughout the reservation. In my view, 

the worst of these illicit narcotics is Methamphetamine due to the 

organic injury it causes to the brains of its users. Meth is also increasing the amount of violent crime on the reservation. I urge you 

to assist the tribe by helping us find additional resources to use in 

our tribal war on drug use. 

‘‘To complicate matters for the tribe, we have been unable to 

build our juvenile detention center given the diminution of the construction funds in the years that have passed since we planned the 

project. Currently we have to send youth to Eagle Butte, South Dakota, for incarceration. It is wonderful that we get assistance from 

our relatives at the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe. I just wish we get 

the requisite assistance for a detention center and law enforcement 

for our relatives from Congress. Geez, I read that all wrong. I just 

wish we could get the requisite assistance for detention and law enforcement from our relatives and friends in Congress. 

‘‘I have met with Chris Chaney, Director of the Office of Law Enforcement Services for the Bureau of Indian Affairs, and requested 

32 full-time positions for the Standing Rock law enforcement program. In addition, on behalf of the Judicial Committee and the 

tribe, I requested an internal affairs investigation into complaints 

that the Committee and I have received from tribal members and 

other reservation residents concerning the incredibly poor law enforcement services provided by the BIA. As former chief of police 

for the Standing Rock Indian Reservation, I know firsthand the 

frustration of running a police department without adequate financial and other resources. 

‘‘Currently the Judicial Committee has recommended to the tribal council that the tribe elect, under Section 127, to meet the requirements of H.R. 4472, the Adam Walsh Child Protection and 

Safety Act of 2006, as a jurisdiction subject to its provisions in 

order to protect and further the sovereignty of the Standing Rock 

Sioux Tribe. The requirements of this Act are numerous and the 

Standing Rock Sioux and numerous other Federally recognized 

tribes lack the resources to register sex offenders residing on the 

reservation according to the Adam Walsh Act. Please assist us with 

legislation mandating that the Bureau of Indian Affairs meet its 

responsibility to us in implementing the requirement of the Act. 

‘‘Representative Herseth Sandlin, on behalf of the tribe, I thank 

you for your leadership and ongoing advocacy for the Standing 

Rock Sioux Tribe and our numerous relatives among the other Federally recognized tribes. In the event that you require additional information, please contact me at your convenience.’’

This is in a packet that has been submitted. If there’s no other 

questions, I’d like to thank you for your time. 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. One quick question for you. We heard 

from the third panel in terms of Ms. Fire Thunder’s recommendations that we look at and work with our counterparts at the state 

level as it relates to state law and evidentiary requirements with 

116

regard to the treatment of women who have suffered sexual assault 

or domestic violence. 

Since Standing Rock’s position is unique in that you—the geographic location is in both states, do you have anything that you 

might want to add in terms of whether or not you found that North 

Dakota state law differs from South Dakota state law in any significant respect as it relates to the prosecution of sexual assault 

cases in state court? 

I know that’s a very specific question. You can take it for the 

record and maybe visit. And I know that—I don’t know that I 

asked that specifically—I didn’t of Ms. Little Shield and she might 

have been the one I should have posed the question to. 

But you had mentioned in terms of the unique situation, because 

you are on both sides of the border between North and South Dakota there, or if there was anything in your tenure as chief of police that you noticed in terms of the coordination with state law enforcement in North Dakota or South Dakota where there was a better system and we could sort of learn from each other as it relates 

to those efforts in coordination with BIA law enforcement, state 

law enforcement, and Federal and tribal law enforcement with the 

joint task force, especially in the area of drug trafficking. 

Mr. FOOL BEAR. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

My experience in the past in dealing with violence against 

women and as far as state prosecutions, the State’s Attorney in 

Sioux County didn’t have any problems prosecuting as far as taking their cases, dealing with their jurisdiction. Anything that was 

an act of violence that was handled within the boundaries of the 

reservation that dealt with tribal members ended up in the Federal 

system, so the Federal District Court would take care of that. 

The U.S. Attorney in North Dakota at the time used to take a 

strong stance against violence. I don’t know what the policies are 

nowadays. I don’t know who’s running the show and whether or 

not our attorney generals can get a vote of confidence back. But if 

it were to happen, I don’t know what their policies are on the 

North Dakota side anymore. 

On the South Dakota side, in years past we had a lady that was 

viciously assaulted and we took our pictures to the Assistant U.S. 

Attorney and the medical statements and the Assistant U.S. Attorney at that time didn’t want to prosecute. He called it a domestic 

situation. And it was hard to believe, but we had to present it. And 

it never even got a Grand Jury presentation. It was just a denial. 

So North Dakota, to some extent, takes it more seriously as far 

as in the past. I don’t know what their current policies are right 

now. 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. Well, that’s actually a very helpful statement you just made, too, because I know I posed it in terms of the 

different states you’re working with, but in terms of the Federal 

Government positions, you know, the different approach of the U.S. 

Attorneys that are in place at any one period of time and the level 

of priority that they’re placing on working with their AUSA’s to 

prosecute different crimes with Federal jurisdiction, so I appreciate 

that clarification as well. 

Thank you, again, both of you, in terms of what you’ve both highlighted that we maybe touched on briefly or not at all in previous 

117

testimony as it relates to alcohol and drug related crime. Especially 

the spike in aggressive violent crimes with those who are addicted 

to methamphetamine and the importance of treatment programs, 

whether it’s for those who are addicted to drugs, women who have 

been victims of sexual assault, but we also know that we’ve got an 

issue of recidivism and the issue of rehabilitating perpetrators who, 

if they received adequate treatment, would not commit the crimes 

of violence that they’ve committed. But when those illnesses remain untreated, the recidivism rate, of course, is going to remain 

high if we’re not addressing that treatment issue as well and community based treatment to be close to families in a support network. 

And, of course, the comments that were made with regard to 

when individuals in a community’s faith diminishes in the entire 

judicial system when your first responders, your law enforcement 

officers, don’t have the resources for prevention and intervention 

and that’s a point well taken that highlights, again, the overarching theme of today’s field hearing. And so I thank you both 

again for your testimony, for accommodating the strictures we 

faced earlier today as we started out with the kind of formal agenda for the field hearing, but again, I appreciate your input and 

your leadership and we look forward to following up with all of our 

witnesses on each of the panels, all of the leaders, and certainly 

our Administration officials who are here today in support of your 

efforts, so thank you. 

And with that, the field hearing for the House Natural Resources 

Committee will almost adjourn. But let me also point out that the 

record will remain open for additional questions for two weeks, so 

in addition to some of what we talked about in terms of taking 

questions for the record, additional questions we may have, we’ll 

get those to you, but anything in addition that you would like to 

supplement to the record today, again, the record will remain open 

for two weeks. 

So with that, the field hearing for the House Natural Resources 

Committee stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 5:30 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]

[Additional material submitted for the record follows:]

[‘‘Treaty Tribes Located in the State of South Dakota,’’ 

Congressional Record, dated September 30, 2002, submitted for the 

record by John Yellowbird Steele, President, Oglala Sioux Tribe, 

Pine Ridge, South Dakota, follows:]

118


36020.009.eps
119

Æ


36020.010.eps