```

[Senate Report 115-122]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                      Calendar No. 160
115th Congress     }                                    {       Report
                                SENATE
 1st Session       }                                    {      115-122

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

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

                                _______
                                

                 June 28, 2017.--Ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

           Mr. Hoeven, from the Committee on Indian Affairs, 
                        submitted the following

                              R E P O R T

                         [To accompany S. 381]

      [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

    The Committee on Indian Affairs, to which was referred the 
bill (S. 381) to repeal the Act entitled ``An Act to confer 
jurisdiction on the State of Iowa over offenses committed by or 
against Indians on the Sac and Fox Indian Reservation,'' having 
considered the same, reports favorably thereon without 
amendment and recommends that the bill do pass.

                                PURPOSE

    The purpose of S. 381 is to repeal a federal statute which 
had conferred criminal jurisdiction upon the State of Iowa over 
offenses committed by or against Indians on the Sac and Fox 
Indian Reservation.

                               BACKGROUND

    In 1948, Congress granted the State of Iowa jurisdiction 
over criminal misdemeanor and non-major offenses committed by 
or against Indians of the Sac and Fox Tribe of the Mississippi 
in Iowa (Tribe) on the Sac and Fox Reservation.\1\ The 1948 Act 
did not, however, strip the Tribe of jurisdiction, resulting in 
Tribe and the State having concurrent jurisdiction over the 
same types of offenses.\2\ The Tribe has accordingly developed 
a substantial and functional tribal law enforcement and 
criminal justice system with criminal codes, tribal courts, a 
police department, tribal probation officers, and a tribal 
prosecutor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\Act of June 30, 1948, Pub. L. No. 80-846, 62 Stat. 1161. A major 
shift in Federal Indian policy began around that time when these types 
of laws were enacted as well as other statutes formally ending the 
government-to-government relationship between the United States and 
certain Indian tribes. Otherwise known as the ``Termination Era,'' this 
period was shaped by laws and policies geared towards assimilating 
Native Americans into mainstream American society. This Era and 
policies have been disavowed long ago by Congress.
    \2\The Federal government retained jurisdiction over major crimes 
on the Tribe's reservation. See Felix S. Cohen's Handbook of Federal 
Indian Law, Ch. 9 (2012) (providing a general guide to criminal 
jurisdiction in Indian Country). Congress also enacted a more 
comprehensive law in 1953 known as ``Public Law 280.'' See 18 U.S.C. 
Sec.  1162, 28 U.S.C. Sec.  1360, 25 U.S.C. Sec. Sec.  1321-1326. 
Public Law 280 gave states criminal jurisdiction over crimes committed 
by or against Indians on reservation lands in five states: California, 
Minnesota, Nebraska, Oregon, and Wisconsin. Alaska was later added in 
connection with its admission to the union in 1958. See Act of Aug. 8, 
1958, Pub. L. 85-615, 72 Stat. 545.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Although the Tribe has made progress in developing its own 
criminal justice system, the challenges erected by the 1948 Act 
persist. For instance, under the current system of concurrent 
tribal and state jurisdiction, defendants may be subject to 
prosecution in both state and tribal courts for the same 
offense. This system also presents difficulties for victims, 
who may be subpoenaed to testify in both state and tribal 
courts.
    While the State may still exercise jurisdiction on the 
Tribe's reservation under the 1948 Act, the Iowa Legislature 
passed legislation supporting a repeal of the 1948 Act on April 
8, 2016.\3\ However, Congressional action is required to codify 
this repeal.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\Iowa General Assembly, Senate File 2022 (2016).
    \4\The use of procedures for retrocession for Public Law 280, a 
separate federal statute, may be inapplicable for the 1948 Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          LEGISLATIVE HISTORY

    In the 114th Congress, this bill was introduced and 
referred to the Committee on Indian Affairs. The Committee held 
a legislative hearing on S. 3216 on September 14, 2016, at 
which the Tribe and the Department of the Interior provided 
testimony in support. No further action was taken on S. 3216 
prior to the end of the 114th Congress.
    In the 115th Congress, Senator Grassley, along with 
Senators Ernst and Senator Leahy, introduced this bill, S. 381, 
on February 15, 2017. Senator Udall joined as a cosponsor on 
March 27, 2017. On March 28, 2017, the Committee considered S. 
381 at a duly called business meeting. By voice vote, the 
Committee ordered the bill be reported favorably.
    Representative Rod Blum introduced an identical companion 
bill to S. 381 in the House of Representatives on February 15, 
2017. Representatives Steve King, David Loebsack, and David 
Young joined as co-sponsors. This legislation was referred to 
the House Committee on Natural Resources, where it awaits 
further consideration.

                          SUMMARY OF THE BILL

    The bill, S. 381, repeals the Act of June 30, 1948, which 
conferred state jurisdiction over crimes committed by and 
against Indians on the Sac and Fox Indian Reservation.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\See supra note 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The bill is intended to bring clarity and finality to the 
jurisdictional confusion affecting the Sac and Fox Indian 
Reservation. Both the State of Iowa, and the Sac and Fox Tribe 
of the Mississippi in Iowa agree that this legislation is 
necessary to ensure that jurisdictional matters will no longer 
detract from their ultimate goal of preventing crime and 
holding criminals accountable for their actions.

        SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS OF BILL AS ORDERED REPORTED

Section 1--Repeal

    This section repeals the Act entitled ``An Act to confer 
jurisdiction on the State of Iowa over offenses committed by or 
against Indians on the Sac and Fox Indian Reservation,'' 
approved June 30, 1948.

                   COST AND BUDGETARY CONSIDERATIONS

                                                      June 2, 2017.
Hon. John Hoeven,
Chairman, Committee on Indian Affairs,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has 
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for S. 381, a bill to 
repeal the Act entitled ``An Act to confer jurisdiction on the 
State of Iowa over offenses committed by or against Indians on 
the Sac and Fox Indian Reservation.''
    If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be 
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Robert Reese.
            Sincerely,
                                                        Keith Hall.
    Enclosure.

S. 381--To repeal the Act entitled ``An Act to confer jurisdiction on 
        the State of Iowa over offenses committed by or against Indians 
        on the Sac and Fox Indian Reservation''

    S. 381 would repeal a 1948 law that gave the state of Iowa 
jurisdiction over criminal offenses committed by or against 
Indians on the Sac and Fox Indian Reservation; thus criminal 
jurisdiction would revert to either the Sac and Fox Nation or 
the federal government.
    As a result of the repeal, the Sac and Fox Nation would be 
eligible for funding from the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) to 
equip and run its existing tribal court, law enforcement 
operations, and detention facility. The amount of such funding 
would depend on how much assistance the tribe would request 
after enactment. Based on information from BIA reports on the 
funding provided to tribes of a similar size, CBO estimates 
that the tribe would be eligible for up to $7 million a year in 
assistance; that spending would be subject to appropriations. 
However, based on testimony and public statements from BIA and 
the tribe about the amount of assistance the tribe intends to 
apply for, CBO estimates that implementing S. 381 would have no 
significant federal cost over the 2018-2022 period.
    Enacting S. 381 would not affect direct spending or 
revenues; therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures do not apply. CBO 
estimates that enacting the legislation would not increase net 
direct spending or on-budget deficits in any of the four 
consecutive 10-year periods beginning in 2028.
    S. 381 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector 
mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act.
    The CBO staff contact for this estimate is Robert Reese. 
The estimate was approved by H. Samuel Papenfuss, Deputy 
Assistant Director for Budget Analysis.

               REGULATORY AND PAPERWORK IMPACT STATEMENT

    Paragraph 11(b) of rule XXVI of the Standing Rules of the 
Senate requires each report accompanying a bill to evaluate the 
regulatory and paperwork impact that would be incurred in 
carrying out the bill. The Committee believes that S. 381 will 
have minimal impact of regulatory or paperwork requirements.

                        EXECUTIVE COMMUNICATIONS

    The Committee has received no communications from the 
Executive Branch regarding S. 381.

                 CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW (CORDON RULE)

    On January 31, 2017, the Committee on Indian Affairs 
unanimously approved a motion to waive the Cordon rule. Thus, 
in the opinion of the committee, it is necessary to dispense 
with subsection 12 of rule XXVI of the Standing Rules of the 
Senate in order to expedite the business of the Senate.

                                  [all]
```