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

74–885 PDF 2012

S. HRG. 112–489

S. 1763, S. 872, AND S. 1192

HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS 

UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

ON

S. 1763, STAND AGAINST VIOLENCE AND EMPOWER NATIVE WOMEN 

ACT

S. 872, A BILL TO AMEND THE OMNIBUS INDIAN ADVANCEMENT 

ACT TO MODIFY THE DATE AS OF WHICH CERTAIN TRIBAL LAND 

OF THE LYTTON RANCHERIA OF CALIFORNIA IS CONSIDERED TO 

BE HELD IN TRUST AND TO PROVIDE FOR THE CONDUCT OF 

CERTAIN ACTIVITIES ON THE LAND

S. 1192, ALASKA SAFE FAMILIES AND VILLAGES ACT OF 2011

NOVEMBER 10, 2011

Printed for the use of the Committee on Indian Affairs

(

(II)

COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS 

DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii, Chairman 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming, Vice Chairman 

DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii 

KENT CONRAD, North Dakota 

TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota 

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington 

JON TESTER, Montana 

TOM UDALL, New Mexico 

AL FRANKEN, Minnesota 

JOHN MCCAIN, Arizona 

LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska 

JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota 

MIKE CRAPO, Idaho 

MIKE JOHANNS, Nebraska 

LORETTA A. TUELL, Majority Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

DAVID A. MULLON JR., Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held on November 10, 2011 ...................................................................... 1

Statement of Senator Akaka ................................................................................... 1 

Statement of Senator Franken ............................................................................... 18

Statement of Senator Murkowski ........................................................................... 7

WITNESSES

Andersen, Ralph, President/CEO, Bristol Bay Native Association; Co-Chair, 

Alaska Federation of Natives .............................................................................. 47

Prepared statement with attachment ............................................................. 50

Begich, Hon. Mark, U.S. Senator from Alaska ..................................................... 5

Feinstein, Hon. Dianne, U.S. Senator from California ......................................... 1

Koepplinger, Suzanne, Executive Director, Minnesota Indian Women’s Resource Center ........................................................................................................ 19

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 21

Heffelfinger, Thomas B., Attorney, Best & Flanagan LLP .................................. 22

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 24

Masters, Joe, Commissioner, Alaska Department of Public Safety .................... 54

Prepared statement with attachment ............................................................. 57

Mejia, Hon. Margie, Chairwoman, Lytton Rancheria ........................................... 27

Prepared statement with attachments ........................................................... 30

Morris, Hon. Paul, Mayor, City of San Pablo, California ..................................... 42

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 44

Perrelli, Thomas J., Associate Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice .. 8

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

APPENDIX

Bedard, Irene, Actress/Singer, Alaska, prepared statement ................................ 119

Finley, Hon. Michael, Chairman, Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation, prepared statement ..................................................................................... 108

Giessel, Hon. Cathy, Senator, Alaska State Legislature, letter .......................... 121

Indritz, Tova, Chair, NACDL Native American Justice Committee, prepared 

statement .............................................................................................................. 110

Maulson, Hon. Tom, Tribal President, Lac du Flambeau Tribe, prepared 

statement .............................................................................................................. 110

McLaughlin, Gayle, Mayor, City of Richmond, letter ........................................... 120

Miller, Hon. George, U.S. Representative from California, prepared statement ...................................................................................................................... 77

Morris, Jan W., Member, Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma, prepared statement .. 118

Reid, Larry E., President of the City Council, City of Oakland, letter ............... 122

Tanana Chiefs Conference (TCC), prepared statement ........................................ 115

Titus, Alan J., Lawyer, Robb & Ross, prepared statement .................................. 78

United States Department of the Interior, prepared statement .......................... 107

Walker, Jana L., Senior Attorney, Indian Law Resource Center, prepared 

statement .............................................................................................................. 112

Wiggins, Jr., Hon. Mike, Tribal Chairman, Bad River Band of Lake Superior 

Tribe of Chippewa Indians, prepared statement ............................................... 112

Additional information for the record 

Article, entitled, San Pablo/Indians, Feinstein Strike Deal That Keeps 

Casino From Growing ................................................................................... 123

Resolution No. 2005/181 .................................................................................. 125

(1)

S. 1763, S. 872, AND S. 1192

THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 10, 2011

U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS, Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 3:00 p.m. in room 

628, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Daniel K. Akaka,

Chairman of the Committee, presiding. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DANIEL K. AKAKA,

U.S. SENATOR FROM HAWAII 

The CHAIRMAN. The Committee will come to order. 

Aloha, everyone. Today, the Committee will hold a legislative 

hearing on three bills. Two of these bills are designed to improve 

public safety in Native communities and improve the security of 

Native women and families. 

I am so glad that Senator Feinstein is here, and following her, 

I will complete my opening remarks. Welcome Senator Feinstein to 

the Committee. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Would you like me to proceed? 

The CHAIRMAN. Please proceed. Yes. 

STATEMENT OF HON. DIANNE FEINSTEIN,

U.S. SENATOR FROM CALIFORNIA 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Mr. Chairman, this has to do with a bill that 

I have submitted that has been passed out of this Committee on 

prior occasions, and one has passed the Senate. And it goes back 

a substantial period of time. It has to do with a requirement that 

the Lytton Tribe of San Pablo follow all existing laws and regulations if it seeks to expand its casino. 

Now, why is this bill necessary? The Tribe is currently exempt 

from critical oversight laws, particularly IGRA. The history of how 

this happened is important. The Tribe historically resided in 

Sonoma. 

Until mid-century, the Lytton Rancheria in Alexander Valley was 

their homeland. The Tribe was wrongfully terminated in 1961 and 

it took until 1991 for a court to restore the Tribe to its rightful Federal status, but the decision didn’t grant the Tribe any land and 

it forbade them from engaging in activities prohibited under the 

Sonoma County general use plan. Effectively, the court prohibited 

the Tribe from gaming in Sonoma County, which is a Bay Area 

county, but nonetheless not in the middle of an urban area. 

2

Nearly a decade later in 2000, Congress passed the Omnibus Indian Advancement Act. A provision was air-dropped in the conference bill without consideration by the House or the Senate 

which allowed the Lytton Band to acquire trust land in San Pablo 

where they purchased an existing 70,000 square-foot card room. By 

all accounts, the Tribe deserved to be recognized and to have land 

taken into trust, but the manner in which the land was granted to 

the Tribe was both controversial and unprecedented. 

The bill allowed the land to be taken into trust as if it were acquired before 1988, when in fact it had been acquired after 1988. 

IGRA prohibits Tribes from gaming on newly acquired land, except 

in very limited instances: (1) newly recognized Tribes; (2) Tribes 

who received land as a settlement for a land claim; (3) re-recognized or restored Tribes; (4) Tribes who have undertaken a twopart determination. 

By treating the land as if it were taken into trust before 1988, 

the Tribe was able to avoid a two-part determination process. This 

statutory process, which requires the consent of both the Secretary 

of Interior and the Governor, would normally be required for this 

Tribe if Lytton expanded to a Las Vegas-style Class III gaming facility in San Pablo. 

Now, Mr. Chairman, four years later, a 600,000 square-foot, 

5,000 slot machine Class III Las Vegas-style gaming facility was 

what the Tribe proposed. Now, a casino of this size does not belong 

in San Pablo. When voters in California passed proposition 1(a), 

the law which authorized Indian casinos, they voted to allow gaming facilities on Indian lands. The proposal was sold to voters as 

authorizing casinos on ‘‘remote reservations.’’ And the ballot arguments reflect that as well. 

So later in 2004, I introduced legislation which would have 

stripped the provision that treats the land as if it were acquired 

before 1988. This would have prohibited the Tribe from conducting 

any gaming on their land unless they abided by the same law that 

the other 58 gaming Tribes in California do. The Committee considered the legislation in the 108th and 109th Congress. In the 109th, 

the Committee favorably reported the bill to the full Senate with 

a recommendation that the bill do pass. 

Soon after, I met with the Tribe to see if we could come to some 

agreement. I spoke with Chairwoman Margie Mejia, who I believe 

is here today, and Tribal leadership. I was and I remain sympathetic to their concerns—poverty, healthcare, unemployment. In 

2007, we reached a compromise. The Lytton Tribe would continue 

to operate their Class II gaming facility at Casino San Pablo, but 

if they wanted to expand to Class III gaming, they would abide by 

the two-part determination. 

We put this compromise in legislation and it had the Tribe’s support. That is the legislation being considered here today. The 

Lytton casino would be subject to the same rules and regulations 

as every other Tribe in the State, but these would apply only if the 

Tribe chose to expand. So if the Tribe chose not to expand to Class 

III, the additional rules and regulations did not apply. So they 

were secure at least in Class II. 

The bill did not impact the Tribe’s Federal recognition nor did it 

impact the trust status of their land. At the time, the Chairwoman 

3

was quoted by the San Francisco Chronicle as saying legislation 

would allow the Tribe to ‘‘operate the casino for the long term without the threat of closure.’’ It was viewed as a win-win proposal. 

That is why the Lytton Gaming Oversight Act was favorably reported by this Committee in the 110th Congress, and why it passed 

the Senate by unanimous consent that year and the next. But now, 

the Tribe does not want to continue to uphold our agreement. 

I met with the Tribe’s lawyer yesterday and he told me that the 

situation had changed; that other Indian Tribes, Guidiville and 

Scotts Valley, may open casinos in Contra Costa County. And that 

the Lyttons needed the ability to expand to compete if these other 

casinos are approved. So, you know, one, two, three, four, five casinos, this is how it goes. 

Well, the Guidiville proposal has already been rejected by the 

Department of the Interior, and the Scotts Valley proposal has 

been languishing at the department for years. But I am willing to 

work with the Tribe again. I understand that Chairwoman Mejia 

will testify today that they still have no plans to expand Casino 

San Pablo. I read her statement and I am grateful to hear that. 

If we can find a way to achieve the goal of the Lytton Gaming 

Oversight Act without legislation, I am all for it. Because the bottom line is this: a Las Vegas-style casino does not belong in San 

Pablo. This is a small enclave of 29,000 people surrounded virtually 

on all sides by the City of Richmond. Richmond voters opposed by 

the ballot a new casino proposal last November; 58 percent of the 

electorate voted against the proposed casino at Point Molate, which 

is only seven miles from Casino San Pablo. I have a November 9th 

letter from the Mayor of Richmond, and I would like to put it in 

the record and read two paragraphs. 

‘‘The negative effects of casino gambling remain a real threat 

looming over the Bay Area. As the community is buffeted by crime, 

drugs, and abuse due to the casino and the dismal economy, this 

bill is critical to help stem the tide.’’

‘‘Many citizens remain concerned that gambling at the site will 

be expanded and that the negative effects, including traffic, drunk 

driving, and crime, will proliferate.’’ 

And then she goes into proposition 1(a), and since I have done 

that, I will not bore you with it. 

We have another problem. We have 59 Indian gaming permits in 

California. And inspection in California is conducted by only 157 

gambling control staff. By comparison, there are 433 staff at the 

Nevada Gaming Control Board. The California budget is less than 

25 percent of the Nevada budget for this. 

So what is happening is that California is becoming bigger in 

Class III gaming than even Las Vegas. This is a problem if we 

can’t provide the oversight staff. We know the skimming. We know 

what has been typically surrounding casinos in the history of Las 

Vegas. Candidly, it doesn’t really belong in the metropolitan of the 

San Francisco Bay Area. 

Some San Pablo residents are so concerned they filed suit 

against the Department of the Interior. The Board of Supervisors 

of Contra Costa County passed a resolution four years ago saying 

they do not want Las Vegas-style gaming in the county. 

4

Now, this bill is a product of compromise, an agreement that I 

reached with Chairwoman Mejia. I think it protects the rights of 

the Tribe and it ensures the law is followed. What I say to you in 

conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I am really eager to continue to work 

with this Tribe. I think they are deserving. I think they got an unfair shot on their Native lands, but there is a problem. 

We have a lot of mall space in this economy in cities that are not 

inhabited; that Tribes can do what this Tribe did. They bought an 

existing card room and the concern is that they expand it to Class 

III gaming in the heart of an urban area, right next to freeways 

to bring people in. 

I see, Mr. Chairman, the buses pull up to housing projects in San 

Francisco, particularly on the nights that Social Security checks 

come out. The busses are loaded up with people and take them to 

games where most lose money. We have 59 Casinos already. What 

I am saying to you is, in my judgment, for the well being of my 

State, this is a problem. 

Now, there are a number of Indian gaming compacts that have 

been done. I have tried to get the records of those Indian gaming 

compacts that were negotiated by our Governor, and I believe those 

compacts should be public. We should know what money is promised and to whom it is promised. 

I cannot get those records. We are asking, under a Freedom of 

Information Act, to obtain those records. And there is so much 

money that is being passed on, and I understand cities have needs. 

The California budget is getting cut back. Everybody has wants 

that aren’t filled. But 59 gaming permits in this State really is a 

substantial number. 

So my view is if we can keep this to Class II and enable the 

Tribe to flourish with Class II, I am all for it. And I don’t know 

whether there will be competition or not, but I will work with this 

Tribe. 

And I thank you for your patience. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much for your testimony. And 

thank you. I know you have a busy schedule. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you. I appreciate the courtesy. Thank 

you very much. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you so much for being here. 

I will continue to finish my statement, if it is okay by Senator 

Begich here on our first panel. 

The Committee held an oversight hearing on the issues impacting Native women in July and another on implementation of the 

Tribal Law and Order Act in September. At both of these hearings, 

we heard that domestic violence and sexual assault against Native 

women is still an epidemic, and much work remains to be done to 

effectively address the issue. 

In response, I introduced S. 1763, the Stand Against Violence 

and Empower Native Women Act or SAVE Native Women Act. In 

addition, Senator Begich introduced S. 1192, the Alaska Safe Families and Villages Act in June. This bill would establish a new demonstration project through the Department of Justice aimed at improving local public safety in Alaska Native villages. We are 

pleased to have Senator Begich here to provide testimony about the 

bill. 

5

The other bill we will consider today is the Lytton gaming oversight bill, which was introduced by Senator Feinstein, who has discussed her proposal in her testimony. This bill would amend the 

Tribe’s Restoration Act to ensure that any expansion of gaming or 

the physical structure of their gaming facility would be governed 

by the exemptions in the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. 

So I look forward to hearing from my Senate colleague Senator 

Begich on his bill and from Tribal representatives and other stakeholders. I encourage any other interested parties to submit written 

comments to the Committee. The hearing record will remain open 

for two weeks from today. 

So again, I want to welcome Senator Begich to the Committee 

and say thank you so much for being here to provide us testimony. 

Will you please proceed? 

STATEMENT OF HON. MARK BEGICH,

U.S. SENATOR FROM ALASKA 

Senator BEGICH. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And 

thank you, too. I know the folks in the room here are being patient 

while we have multiple votes to deal with, but thank you very 

much for the opportunity here to present the Alaska Safe Families 

and Villages Act to the Committee. 

The bill, which is broadly supported by the Alaska Native community in my State, provides some of America’s remote communities more tools to deal with their enormous challenges. These 

challenges include some of the highest rates of alcohol abuse, domestic violence, and suicide in the Nation. Life is truly tough in 

many of these villages that can be reached only by river boat, in 

some cases and airplane or snow machines. 

Alaska Native culture is a rich one based on the common values 

of sharing, reverence for the land, and mutual respect for all peoples. But this culture in Alaska’s most remote villages faces enormous pressure for sustainability and good health. That is what this 

bill is about. 

I hear from Alaska’s Tribal leaders every day about the need for 

more resources to address suicide, substance abuse, and domestic 

violence. So, I work with Tribal leaders for a solution that gives 

them more resources that are culturally relevant and address the 

public safety concerns in remote villages. 

I have worked with Ralph Andersen, the CEO and President of 

the Bristol Bay Native Association and Co-Chair of the Alaska Federation of Natives, which you will hear from later in the hearing. 

This bill will give communities the tools they have been asking 

for to bring stability and justice to their homes and villages. The 

stark statistics show Alaska is desperately in need of creative solutions; 95 percent of all crimes in rural Alaska can be attributed to 

alcohol; suicide rates in Alaska villages are six times the national 

average; alcohol-related mortality is 3.5 times higher than the general population; and more than three out of every four American 

Indian-Alaska Native women will be physically assaulted in her 

lifetime. 

The sad reality is that many Alaska Native village perpetrators 

of domestic violence, sexual abuse, and the bootleggers are not always held accountable for their actions, so the cycle of abuse and 

6

violence continues. Many of our remote villages lack adequate law 

enforcement. The nearest State trooper often is a long airplane ride 

away. If the weather is bad, I will tell you, as we have watched 

the news recently in western Alaska, it is really bad at this point. 

It can take days for the law to show up. 

Today, some 80 villages have a single unarmed Village Public 

Safety Officer, which we call VPSOs, on duty all-day-every day. 

The VPSOs, as they are called, do a great job, but they need 

backup. 

Later, you will hear from the Alaska Commissioner of Public 

Safety. I understand the State of Alaska does not support the bill, 

but I know they recognize the unique challenges in the rural communities. 

I believe my bill doesn’t preempt the State. It enhances it. Our 

State troopers do an excellent job, but they are spread too thin. My 

bill allows Tribes to create solutions that work for their communities. I strongly believe in community involvement and the solutions to support local control and innovation. This is consistent 

with the self-determination goals of Tribes, which the Obama Administration, and this Committee has advocated for. It recognizes 

the unique relationship between the U.S. Government and Tribes. 

My bill will give Alaska Tribes the tools to stop domestic violence, alcohol and drug abuse, and suicides in their own communities. It is important to note that this bill will establish a demonstration project. If it is successful, we can talk later about expanding it. 

Although the State of Alaska would maintain the primary role 

and responsibility in criminal matters, the demonstration project 

would allow participating Tribes to set up Tribal courts, establish 

Tribal ordinances, and allow them to impose sanctions such as 

community service on violators. Participants in the demonstration 

projects also would be eligible for village peace officer grants. This 

would help those communities without VPSOs who need them. 

Dealing with the realities of crime in rural Alaska Native villages requires comprehensive and innovative solutions. This includes the ability to act as the resources and tools they need to promote the well being of these communities. It is time for real solutions. And I know the Alaska Safe Families and Village Act of 2011 

can be part of that solution. 

Chairman Akaka, I would like to briefly also address S. 1763, the 

Stand Against Violence and Empower Native Women Act. I am a 

cosponsor of this bill and will support improved Native programs 

under the Violence Against Women Act. Such a law would empower villages to step off the sidelines waiting for the troopers and 

to take action necessary to save one of their own. 

Even if Alaska has no Indian Country per se, being authorized 

to take action will have the twin effect of both intervention and the 

role modeling that such violence will not be tolerated. 

Again, I thank you for allowing me to present this important 

piece of legislation and for the people of Alaska before the Committee on Indian Affairs. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Senator Begich. I know 

you have a busy schedule, but if your schedule allows you, I would 

7

invite you to join us on the dais for the remainder of the testimonies. 

Senator BEGICH. Thank you very much, Senator. If I can spend 

some time with you, I will be happy to join you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

And I am so glad to have Senator Murkowski be here. And I 

would like to ask her for any opening statement you may have. 

STATEMENT OF HON. LISA MURKOWSKI,

U.S. SENATOR FROM ALASKA 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Well, Mr. Chairman, I thank you for having this hearing this afternoon. I want to acknowledge my colleague, Senator Begich, and thank him for his good work on these 

issues. We are privileged this afternoon to have two Alaska witnesses before the Committee here: our Commissioner Joe Masters, 

who will be speaking on the second panel, I believe; and Mr. Ralph 

Andersen, who is a friend and truly a great individual that has 

been representing Alaska Federation of Natives for some time and 

has just recently been reelected as Co-Chair of the Alaska Federation of Natives. We really appreciate his leadership within the 

State on this issue and so many. 

As Senator Begich has noted in his testimony, and I apologize, 

Mark, that I wasn’t here for your whole testimony, coming over 

from the vote, I got waylaid. I know you can understand that. 

But our statistics in Alaska as they related to domestic violence, 

to rape, physical abuse, murder, and these are statistics that I 

think, as an Alaskan, we all find chilling. And they are statistics 

that we deal with, but we know that they are not just statistics. 

These are our friends. They are our neighbors. They are family 

members. 

And our inability to deal with some of the issues that face us is 

really very, very difficult to acknowledge. We are a State that is 

blessed in so many different ways, and yet sometimes the ugly side 

of what happens in our State are facts that are very difficult to 

reckon with. And I think when we realize these rates of violence 

and abuse that we see that are perpetrated against Native women 

and children, it is well past time that we make it a national priority. 

There was an article in our local newspaper, the Anchorage Daily 

News, just on the 5th of November, just the day before yesterday. 

This was from the Director of the University of Alaska Justice Center and the principal investigator for the Alaska Victimization Survey. And she goes on to detail what we face in Alaska and our statistics. 

In 2011, regional surveys were conducted in Anchorage, Fairbanks, Juneau, and Bristol Bay. And in her words, she says these 

results show that violence is an endemic problem throughout our 

State. It is essentially one of every two women have experienced 

intimate partner violence or sexual violence or both. To think that 

the statistics are as they are again compels us all to act. 

As Senator Begich mentioned, the legislation that he has introduced has raised some concerns from the State. I think we will 

hear that addressed today. But I think all of us, as we deal with 

the aspects of violence that we face and the frustration that so 

8

many have that we are limited in our ability to deal with that because we don’t have the law enforcement, the protection that others 

in other parts of the Country would just assume is there, we know 

we have got to deal with these issues. 

And so I would like to work with Senator Begich. We have discussed this with folks in the State how we can be just a little bit 

more creative. Our geography, the dynamics that we face, forces us 

to maybe think outside of the box. And I am going to urge us all 

to do that and more because we cannot leave our villages behind. 

We cannot leave our communities in fear. We cannot leave our 

families carrying the burden of the scourge of devastation and ruin 

that have come to them because of incidents that have been unchecked that we could have resolved. 

So I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for bringing not only Senator 

Begich’s bill forward, but the legislation that we have in front of 

us on the Standing Against Violence and Empower Native Woman 

Act, and I applaud you for your initiative there. 

Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Murkowski. 

At this time, I would like to call Mr. Tom Perrelli to be our second panel witness; Mr. Tom Perrelli, Associate Attorney General at 

the U.S. Department of Justice. 

Welcome, Mr. Perrelli. Please proceed with your testimony. 

STATEMENT OF THOMAS J. PERRELLI, ASSOCIATE ATTORNEY 

GENERAL, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Mr. PERRELLI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Vice Chairman 

Barrasso, and Members of the Committee. Thank you for inviting 

me today on S. 1763, the Stand Against Violence and Empower Native Women Act, also known as the SAVE Act. 

The SAVE Act addresses a critically important issue on which 

the Department of Justice has placed a high priority combating violence against women in Tribal communities. As you know, I testified before this Committee in July when I described the department’s discussions, including formal consultations with Indian nations about how best to protect Native women from the unacceptable levels of violence we are witnesses in Indian Country and 

Alaska Native communities throughout the Country. 

We are pleased today to see the introduction of the SAVE Act, 

and we commend you, Chairman Akaka, as well as the many colleagues who have joined you in cosponsoring this legislation. 

As I think all of the Senators have indicated, violence against 

Native women has reached epidemic rates. Tribal leaders, police officers, and prosecutors tell us of an all-too-familiar pattern of escalating violence that goes unaddressed, with beating after beating, 

each more severe than the last, ultimately leading to death or severe physical injury. 

Something must be done to stop the cycle of violence. And for a 

host of reasons, the current legal structure for prosecuting domestic 

violence in Indian Country is inadequate to prevent or stop this 

pattern of escalating violence. Federal law enforcement resources 

at too far away and stretched thin, and Federal law doesn’t provide 

the tools and the types of graduated sanctions that are common in 

State laws across the Country. 

9

Tribal governments, police, prosecutors, and courts should be in 

a central part of the response to these crimes, but under current 

law throughout the Country they lack the authority to be part of 

that response. Until recently, no matter how violent the offense, 

Tribal courts could only sentence Indian offenders to one year in 

prison. 

Under the Tribal Law and Order Act, the landmark legislation 

enacted last year, in no small part due to the efforts of this Committee, Tribal courts can now sentence Indian offenders for up to 

three years per offense, provided defendants are given proper procedural protection, including legal counsel. 

But Tribal courts have no authority at all to prosecute a non-Indian, even if he lives on the reservation and is married to a Tribal 

member. Tribal police officers who respond to domestic violence 

calls only to discover that the accused is non-Indian and therefore 

outside the Tribe’s criminal jurisdiction often mistakenly believe 

they cannot even make an arrest. Not surprisingly, abusers who 

are not arrested are more likely to repeat and escalate their attacks. Research shows that law enforcement’s failure to arrest and 

prosecute abusers both emboldens attackers and deters victims 

from reporting future incidents. 

In short, the current jurisdictional framework has left many serious acts of domestic and dating violence unprosecuted and 

unpunished. 

The SAVE Act addresses three key areas where legislative reform is critical. Title II in particular incorporates the Department 

of Justice’s proposal and addresses the concerns of Tribal leaders 

and experts repeatedly expressed to us, and fills three major legal 

gaps involving Tribal criminal jurisdiction, Tribal civil jurisdiction, 

and Federal criminal offenses. 

First, the SAVE Act recognizes certain Tribes’ power to exercise 

concurrent criminal jurisdiction over domestic violence cases regardless of whether the defendant is Indian or non-Indian. Fundamentally, this legislation builds on what this Committee did in 

the Tribal Law and Order Act. The philosophy behind the TLOA 

was that Tribal nations with sufficient resources and authority will 

best be able to address violence in their own communities, and has 

offered additional authority to Tribal courts and prosecutors if certain procedural protections were established. 

Second, the SAVE Act confirms the intent of Congress in the Violence Against Women Act of 2000 by clarifying that Tribal courts 

have full civil jurisdiction to issue and enforce protection orders involving any person Indian or non-Indian. 

And third, Federal prosecutors today lack the necessary tools to 

combat domestic violence in Tribal communities. The SAVE Act 

provides a one-year offense for assaulting a person by striking, 

beating or wounding; a five-year offense for assaulting a spouse, intimate partner or dating partner, resulting in substantial bodily injury; and a ten-year offense for assaulting a spouse, intimate partner or dating partner by strangling or suffocating. 

Together, by filling these three holes, the Act will take many 

steps forward in our ability to combat violence in Alaska Native 

and American Indian communities and we really applaud the Committee for moving forward. 

10

With that, Mr. Chairman, I would be happy to answer any questions the Committee may have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Perrelli follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THOMAS J. PERRELLI, ASSOCIATE ATTORNEY GENERAL, 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Chairman Akaka, Vice Chairman Barrasso, and members of the Committee: 

Thank you for inviting me to testify today on Senate Bill 1763, the Stand Against 

Violence and Empower Native Women Act, also known as the SAVE Act. The SAVE 

Act addresses a critically important issue on which the Department of Justice has 

placed a high priority: combating violence against women in Tribal communities. As 

you know, I testified on that issue before this Committee in July, when I described 

the Department’s comprehensive discussions, including formal consultations with 

Indian Tribes, about how best to protect Native women from the unacceptable levels 

of violence we are witnessing in Indian country. We are very pleased today to see 

the introduction of the SAVE Act, and we commend you, Chairman Akaka, as well 

as your many colleagues who have joined you in cosponsoring this historic legislation. 

The Epidemic of Violence Against Native Women 

The problems addressed by the SAVE Act are severe. Violence against Native 

women has reached epidemic rates. One regional survey conducted by University of 

Oklahoma researchers showed that nearly three out of five Native American women 

had been assaulted by their spouses or intimate partners. According to a nationwide 

survey funded by the National Institute of Justice (NIJ), one third of all American 

Indian women will be raped during their lifetimes. And an NIJ-funded analysis of 

death certificates found that, on some reservations, Native women are murdered at 

a rate more than ten times the national average. Tribal leaders, police officers, and 

prosecutors tell us of an all-too-familiar pattern of escalating violence that goes 

unaddressed, with beating after beating, each more severe than the last, ultimately 

leading to death or severe physical injury. 

Something must be done to address this cycle of violence. For a host of reasons, 

the current legal structure for prosecuting domestic violence in Indian country is inadequate to prevent or stop this pattern of escalating violence. Federal law-enforcement resources are often far away and stretched thin. And Federal law does not provide the tools needed to address the types of domestic or dating violence that elsewhere in the United States might lead to convictions and sentences ranging from 

approximately six months to five years—precisely the sorts of prosecutions that can 

respond to the early instances of escalating violence against spouses or intimate 

partners and stop it. 

Tribal governments—police, prosecutors, and courts—should be essential parts of 

the response to these crimes. But under current law, they lack the authority to address many of these crimes. Until recently, no matter how violent the offense, Tribal 

courts could only sentence Indian offenders to one year in prison. Under the Tribal 

Law and Order Act of 2010 (TLOA), landmark legislation enacted last year in no 

small part due to the efforts of this Committee, Tribal courts can now sentence Indian offenders for up to three years per offense, provided defendants are given certain procedural protections, including legal counsel. But Tribal courts have no authority at all to prosecute a non-Indian, even if he lives on the reservation and is 

married to a Tribal member. Tribal police officers who respond to a domestic-violence call, only to discover that the accused is non-Indian and therefore outside the 

Tribe’s criminal jurisdiction, often mistakenly believe they cannot even make an arrest. Not surprisingly, abusers who are not arrested are more likely to repeat, and 

escalate, their attacks. Research shows that law enforcement’s failure to arrest and 

prosecute abusers both emboldens attackers and deters victims from reporting future incidents. 

In short, the jurisdictional framework has left many serious acts of domestic violence and dating violence unprosecuted and unpunished. 

The Department of Justice’s Efforts to Combat This Violence 

The Department of Justice has made, and is continuing to make, strong efforts 

to investigate and prosecute domestic-violence cases in Indian country, including, 

among other things:

• Deploying 28 new Assistant U.S. Attorneys whose sole mission is to prosecute 

crime in Indian country.

11

• Instructing U.S. Attorneys to prioritize the prosecution of crimes against Indian 

women and children.

• Establishing new domestic-violence training programs for law-enforcement officials and prosecutors alike.

• Creating a Violence Against Women Federal/Tribal Prosecution Task Force to 

develop ‘‘best practices’’ for both Federal and Tribal prosecutors.

But we believe that more needs to be done. 

The Views of Tribal Leaders and Experts, and the Department’s Response 

The Department of Justice has consulted extensively with Indian Tribes about 

these issues, including at the Attorney General’s listening conference in 2009, the 

Tribal consultations we held on TLOA implementation in 2010, our annual Tribal 

consultations under the Violence Against Women Act, and a series of Tribal consultations focused on potential legislative reforms in June of this year. These consultations—like the Justice Department’s other work in this area, especially in the 

wake of the TLOA’s enactment last year—have involved close coordination across 

Federal agencies, including the Departments of the Interior and of Health and 

Human Services. 

The consensus that emerged from these Tribal consultations was the need for 

greater Tribal jurisdiction over domestic-violence cases. Specifically, Tribal leaders 

expressed concern that the crime-fighting tools currently available to their prosecutors differ vastly, depending on the race of the domestic-violence perpetrator. If an 

Indian woman is battered by her Indian husband or boyfriend, then the Tribe typically can prosecute him. But absent an express Act of Congress, the Tribe cannot 

prosecute a violently abusive husband or boyfriend if he is non-Indian. And recently, 

one Federal court went so far as to hold that, in some circumstances, a Tribal court 

could not even enter a civil protection order against a non-Indian husband. 

Faced with these criminal and civil jurisdictional limitations, Tribal leaders repeatedly have told the Department that a Tribe’s ability to protect a woman from 

violent crime should not depend on her husband’s or boyfriend’s race, and that it 

is immoral for an Indian woman to be left vulnerable to violence and abuse simply 

because the man she married, the man she lives with, the man who fathered her 

children, is not an Indian. 

The concerns raised by Tribal leaders and experts led the Department to propose 

new Federal legislation on July 21 of this year. The response to the Department’s 

proposal from persons of all backgrounds and experiences, including state, local, and 

Tribal law-enforcement officials, has been overwhelmingly positive. 

The SAVE Act Addresses Three Key Areas that Are Ripe for Legislative

Reform 

The SAVE Act’s Title II incorporates the Department of Justice’s proposal and 

thus addresses precisely the concerns that Tribal leaders and experts have repeatedly expressed to us. Specifically, this title of the Act fills three major legal gaps, 

involving Tribal criminal jurisdiction, Tribal civil jurisdiction, and Federal criminal 

offenses. 

First, the patchwork of Federal, state, and Tribal criminal jurisdiction in Indian 

country has made it difficult for law enforcement and prosecutors to adequately address domestic violence—particularly misdemeanor domestic violence, such as simple assaults and criminal violations of protection orders. The SAVE Act recognizes 

certain Tribes’ power to exercise concurrent criminal jurisdiction over domestic-violence cases, regardless of whether the defendant is Indian or non-Indian. Fundamentally, this legislation builds on what this Committee did in the Tribal Law 

and Order Act. The philosophy behind TLOA was that Tribal nations with sufficient 

resources and authority will be best able to address violence in their own communities; it offered additional authority to Tribal courts and prosecutors if certain procedural protections were established. 

Second, at least one Federal court has opined that Tribes lack civil jurisdiction 

to issue and enforce protection orders against non-Indians who reside on Tribal 

lands. That ruling undermines the ability of Tribal courts to protect victims. Accordingly, the SAVE Act confirms the intent of Congress in enacting the Violence 

Against Women Act of 2000 by clarifying that Tribal courts have full civil jurisdiction to issue and enforce certain protection orders involving any persons, Indian or 

non-Indian. 

Third, Federal prosecutors lack the necessary tools to combat domestic violence 

in Indian country. The SAVE Act provides a one-year offense for assaulting a person 

by striking, beating, or wounding; a five-year offense for assaulting a spouse, intimate partner, or dating partner, resulting in substantial bodily injury; and a tenVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:48 Nov 21, 2012 Jkt 074885 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\DOCS\74885.TXT JACK
12

year offense for assaulting a spouse, intimate partner, or dating partner by strangling or suffocating. 

Title II of the SAVE Act, which is the Act’s core, fills these three holes in the 

law. In addition, Title I of the SAVE Act reforms grant programs aimed to help Native victims, strengthens the Department’s consultation process, and ensures that 

our program of research includes violence against Alaska Native women. And Title 

III amends TLOA to provide a much-needed one-year extension for the Indian Law 

and Order Commission, which Congress created to conduct a comprehensive study 

of law enforcement and criminal justice in Tribal communities. 

Tribal Jurisdiction over Crimes of Domestic Violence 

Section 201 of the SAVE Act recognizes certain Tribes’ concurrent criminal jurisdiction to investigate, prosecute, convict, and sentence both Indians and non-Indians 

who assault Indian spouses, intimate partners, or dating partners, or who violate 

protection orders, in Indian country. Without impinging on any other government’s 

jurisdiction, this bill recognizes that a Tribe has concurrent jurisdiction over a tightly defined set of crimes committed in Indian country: domestic violence, dating violence, and violations of enforceable protection orders. To the extent those crimes can 

be prosecuted today by Federal or State prosecutors, that would not be changed by 

the SAVE Act. 

Similar to TLOA, this additional Tribal authority under the SAVE Act would be 

available only to those Tribes that guarantee sufficient protections for the rights of 

defendants. Tribes exercising this statutorily recognized jurisdiction over crimes of 

domestic violence would be required to protect a robust set of rights, similar to the 

rights protected in State-court criminal prosecutions. This approach thus builds on 

the Indian Civil Rights Act of 1968, as amended in 1986 and 1990, and on TLOA. 

Tribes that choose not to provide these protections would not have this additional 

authority. 

Not surprisingly, expanding Tribal criminal jurisdiction to cover more perpetrators of domestic violence would tax the already scarce resources of most Tribes that 

might wish to exercise this jurisdiction under the SAVE Act. Therefore, the Act authorizes grants to support these Tribes by strengthening their criminal-justice systems, providing indigent criminal defendants with licensed defense counsel at no 

cost to those defendants, ensuring that jurors are properly summoned, selected, and 

instructed, and according crime victims’ rights to victims of domestic violence. 

Tribal Protection Orders 

Section 202 of the SAVE Act addresses Tribal civil jurisdiction. Specifically, it confirms the intent of Congress in enacting the Violence Against Women Act of 2000 

by clarifying that every Tribe has full civil jurisdiction to issue and enforce certain 

protection orders against both Indians and non-Indians. That would effectively reverse a 2008 decision from a Federal district court in Washington State, which held 

that an Indian Tribe lacked authority to enter a protection order for a nonmember 

Indian against a non-Indian residing on non-Indian fee land within the reservation. 

Amendments to the Federal Assault Statute 

Section 203 of the SAVE Act involves Federal criminal offenses rather than Tribal 

prosecution. In general, Federal criminal law has not developed over time in the 

same manner as State criminal laws, which have recognized the need for escalating 

responses to specific acts of domestic and dating violence. By amending the Federal 

Criminal Code to make it more consistent with State laws in this area where the 

Federal Government (and not the State) has jurisdiction, the SAVE Act simply ensures that perpetrators will be subject to similar potential punishments regardless 

of where they commit their crimes. Specifically, the Act amends the Federal Criminal Code to provide a ten-year offense for assaulting a spouse, intimate partner, or 

dating partner by strangling or suffocating; a five-year offense for assaulting a 

spouse, intimate partner, or dating partner resulting in substantial bodily injury; 

and a one-year offense for assaulting a person by striking, beating, or wounding. All 

of these are in line with the types of sentences that would be available in State 

courts across the Nation if the crime occurred outside Indian country. 

Existing Federal law provides a six-month misdemeanor assault or assault-andbattery offense that can be charged against a non-Indian (but not against an Indian) 

who commits an act of domestic violence against an Indian victim. (A similar crime 

committed by an Indian would fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Tribe.) 

A Federal prosecutor typically can charge a felony offense against an Indian or a 

non-Indian defendant only if the victim’s injuries rise to the level of ‘‘serious bodily 

injury,’’ which is significantly more severe than ‘‘substantial bodily injury.’’

So, in cases involving any of these three types of assaults—(1) assault by strangling or suffocating; (2) assault resulting in substantial (but not serious) bodily inVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:48 Nov 21, 2012 Jkt 074885 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\DOCS\74885.TXT JACK
13

jury; and (3) assault by striking, beating, or wounding—Federal prosecutors today 

often find that they cannot seek sentences in excess of six months. And where both 

the defendant and the victim are Indian, Federal courts may lack jurisdiction altogether. 

The SAVE Act increases the maximum sentence from six months to one year for 

an assault by striking, beating, or wounding, committed by a non-Indian against an 

Indian in Indian country. (Similar assaults by Indians, committed in Indian country, 

would remain within the Tribe’s exclusive jurisdiction.) Although the Federal offense would remain a misdemeanor, increasing the maximum sentence to one year 

would reflect the fact that this is a serious offense that often forms the first or second rung on a ladder to more severe acts of domestic violence. 

Assaults resulting in substantial bodily injury sometimes form the next several 

rungs on the ladder of escalating domestic violence, but they too are inadequately 

covered today by the Federal Criminal Code. The SAVE Act fills this gap by amending the Code to provide a five-year offense for assault resulting in substantial bodily 

injury to a spouse, intimate partner, or dating partner. 

And the SAVE Act also amends the Code to provide a ten-year offense for assaulting a spouse, intimate partner, or dating partner by strangling or suffocating. Strangling and suffocating—conduct that is not uncommon in intimate-partner cases—

carry a high risk of death. But the severity of these offenses is frequently overlooked 

because there may be no visible external injuries on the victim. As with assaults 

resulting in substantial bodily injury, Federal prosecutors need the tools to deal 

with these crimes as felonies, with sentences potentially far exceeding the six-month 

maximum that often applies today. 

Finally, section 203(e) of the SAVE Act simplifies the Major Crimes Act (which 

Federal prosecutors use to prosecute Indians for major crimes committed against Indian and non-Indian victims) to cover all felony assaults under section 113 of the 

Federal Criminal Code. That would include the two new felony offenses discussed 

above—assaults resulting in substantial bodily injury to a spouse, intimate partner, 

or dating partner; and assaults upon a spouse, intimate partner, or dating partner 

by strangling or suffocating—as well as assault with intent to commit a felony other 

than murder, which is punishable by a maximum ten-year sentence. Without this 

amendment to the Major Crimes Act, Federal prosecutors could not charge any of 

these three felonies when the perpetrator is an Indian. Under the SAVE Act, assault by striking, beating, or wounding remains a misdemeanor and is not covered 

by the Major Crimes Act. 

Sections 201 and 203 of the SAVE Act work in tandem, enabling Tribal investigators and prosecutors to focus on misdemeanors (including protection-order violations) and low-level felonies, regardless of the perpetrator’s Indian or non-Indian 

status, while Federal investigators and prosecutors focus on the more dangerous 

felonies involving strangling, suffocation, and substantial bodily injury, again regardless of the perpetrator’s Indian or non-Indian status. 

We believe that enacting the SAVE Act will strengthen Tribal jurisdiction over 

crimes of domestic violence, Tribal protection orders, and Federal assault prosecutions. These measures, taken together, have the potential to significantly improve 

the safety of women in Tribal communities and allow Federal and Tribal law-enforcement agencies to hold more perpetrators of domestic violence accountable for 

their crimes. 

I thank the Committee for its long-standing interest in these critically important 

issues, and I especially thank Chairman Akaka for drafting and introducing Senate 

Bill 1763, the Stand Against Violence and Empower Native Women Act.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Perrelli. 

Mr. Perrelli, the SAVE Act clarifies Tribes’ ability to issue and 

enforce protection orders over all offenders. Without this clarification, do you think Native women are at greater risk in their communities? 

Mr. PERRELLI. Mr. Chairman, I believe they are. This is an issue 

that I believe that Congress thought it resolved in 2000. But because of at least one intervening court decision, there is uncertainty here. Protection orders are the basic fundamental aspect of 

years of work by advocates in the domestic violence community to 

ensure protection of women who are threatened by an abuser. 

Without the ability to issue and enforce protection orders and to 

14

get full faith and credit for those protection orders, there is a real 

risk to Native women to be threatened again. 

So as I said, I think Congress thought it had already done this, 

but we believe it is extraordinarily important to clarify it today. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Perrelli. 

The amendments to the Federal assault statute are an important 

part of the SAVE Act. Do you believe these provisions would help 

stop domestic violence at its earlier stages and prevent it from 

reaching its most severe levels? 

Mr. PERRELLI. I do, Mr. Chairman. As I indicated before, the pattern of domestic violence is escalation. And there are any number 

of serious bodily injuries or homicides arising out of domestic violence where we know that there were probably 5, 10, 15 incidents 

prior to that. What the SAVE Act does it creates a set of graduated 

sanctions and a division of labor really between Tribal law enforcement and Tribal courts, and then Federal law enforcement and 

Federal courts. And in many cases, the States are a possible law 

enforcer as well, to ensure that all along that spectrum, there is 

a law enforcer who is present and able to bring the perpetrator to 

justice. So we think it will have a significant impact in improving 

the safety of Native women. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much for your responses. 

Senator Murkowski? 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Perrelli, last time you were before the Committee, I had an 

opportunity to bring up the issue of sex trafficking of Alaska Native young women and what we were seeing. I expressed my concerns about that. Since this intervening time period, can you give 

me any update in terms of what DOJ is looking at in terms of getting a better handle of what is going on with sex trafficking of not 

only Alaska Natives, but all Native women? 

Mr. PERRELLI. One thing, and I think as we talked about a little 

bit last time, particularly in the context of Alaska where some of 

the sex trafficking allegations that we have seen, and as I think 

you know, there was one high-profile case not that long ago involved Native women who come to Anchorage, whether for health 

care or something else, and end up becoming victims of sex trafficking. 

Since I was last here, we gave out our grant funds through our 

coordinated Tribal assistance solicitation, and this was a year 

where after a significant amount of outreach to Alaska Native 

groups and more training, we saw a significant increase in the 

funds that Alaska Natives received, including a lot of funds focused 

on helping victims, and in particular some of the victims’ organizations based in Anchorage, in providing services for domestic violence, dating violence, and others. 

And I think certainly it is our hope that some of those funds will 

go to help provide services for and help us to identify sex trafficking as it occurs. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Well, I appreciate the engagement. I think 

it is going to be important. Do you have a sense in terms of whether or not we are making a dent in the issue? Do we not have sufficient data to this point? What can you tell me? 

15

Mr. PERRELLI. This is an area that is, I think, where an enormous amount of additional research needs to be done. We hear the 

horror stories from a number of regions throughout the Country, 

Alaska being one of them. But this is a trade that is very difficult 

to investigate and get a handle on. And currently, we don’t have 

sufficient research. I think one of the things that Title I of the 

SAVE Act does is it includes research on, as well as grants towards 

addressing sex trafficking as an additional purpose area for our Office of Violence Against Women grants. We think that is tremendously important. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Is that a new area, the grants towards 

women and sex trafficking? 

Mr. PERRELLI. It is an area where we felt it was important. We 

agree that it is important to add specific language. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Okay. Since you are talking about the 

grants that are out there, I have been hearing some good things 

about DOJ’s implementation of the Coordinated Tribal Assistance 

Program and the efforts of the Tribal Justice Advisory Group. 

But I do understand that the Tribal Advisory Group met in Alaska in December of 2009. There wasn’t Tribal consultation at that 

time. So the question today is whether or not the Department of 

Justice is planning on doing any kind of a follow-up visit, whether 

it is to a rural community in the State or a Tribal consultation 

somewhere in the State? And if so, if you have a timeframe for 

that? 

Mr. PERRELLI. Well, I will say since that time in August of 2010, 

we formed the Alaska Native Action Team. And we sent a team of 

officials, including some very senior officials, out to Native villages, 

as well as working in some of the urban areas, and tried to bring 

more training and technical assistance to Alaska. 

We have done in the past regional trainings to assist people in 

applying for our grant programs. We brought training to Alaska 

and we saw the results, a significant increase in applications, as 

well as the quality of applications leading, frankly, to more grant 

funds to Alaska. 

So I don’t think we have a specific, and I can find out, check with 

my folks for more of a specific plan for a consultation in Alaska, 

but we are trying to very significantly increase our engagement because if we look two and three years ago, I think that the numbers 

told us that Alaska Native villages and some of the organizations 

that assist them, were not applying for grants and not receiving 

grants at the rate that one might have expected. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Let me ask one final question, if I may, Mr. 

Chairman. 

You have indicated that certainly on the reservations, the concern that you have with current law, is that Tribes are precluded 

from prosecuting non-Indian offenders in the criminal cases. This 

is the Oliphant ruling. 

So the question to you is whether or not you think an Oliphant

fix, if you will, restoration of Tribal jurisdiction at least to a limited 

case when it comes to domestic violence cases. I am assuming that 

you clearly believe that that will improve the safety of Tribal members. 

16

The question is whether or not this type of a fix would have any 

impact at all on Alaska, where we don’t have Indian Country. How 

would this impact us, if at all? 

Mr. PERRELLI. I think a couple of things. Certainly, it would have 

an impact on the Metlakatla Reserve where there is Indian Country. With respect to the Tribal protection order fix that is in Title 

II of the bill, we think that would be applicable to Tribal courts in 

Alaska Native villages. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. So when you say the Tribal protection 

order, what would allow the Tribal courts to do something? 

Mr. PERRELLI. It would allow the Tribal courts to issue an order 

of protection and enforce an order of protection and get full faith 

and credit to it, something, as I said, we thought should be current 

law, but was left uncertain. 

But as I think both you and Senator Begich indicated, the challenges of Alaska, where court decisions have indicated there is no 

Indian Country other than Metlakatla, do require more creative solutions. And I think we at the Department of Justice would very 

much like to work with both Senators to come up with creative solutions. 

Because it is certainly true that the enhanced Tribal criminal jurisdiction that we are talking about in Title II of the SAVE Act will 

have a much bigger impact elsewhere in the Country than Alaska. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. I appreciate that. 

Have you reviewed the Village Safe Families Act? And do you 

have any opinion as to whether or not it would create Tribal criminal jurisdiction in Alaska or whether it simply confers Tribal seal 

of regulatory authority? 

Mr. PERRELLI. We have just started reviewing that and our staff 

would be happy to come up and talk with you further about that, 

as well as brainstorm about other approaches and ideas. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. I look forward to that. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Senator Murkowski. 

I would like to ask Senator Begich whether you have any questions you would like to ask? 

Senator BEGICH. Mr. Chairman, if I could just follow up. And I 

guess I want to take you up on that offer as we work on our legislation on S. 1192. You know, the idea is to create these opportunities 

for communities to resolve and deal with some of these incredible 

challenges in very remote areas in a State that doesn’t have traditional Indian Country. So I would look as you reviewed if you could 

give us some ideas and innovation. If you think there are some opportunities to tweak the language, I am very open to that. 

You see the goal and I think it is the same goal as you have just 

described in what I would call traditional Indian Country. So I 

thank you for that. 

Second, on the research end, the data end, just to make sure I 

understand you reference there in the bill, is this new resources or 

opportunity for you to do more data collection? Or is it brand new 

in the sense that it has never been done? Help me understand 

what that piece is. 

Mr. PERRELLI. Sure. I think we would say that any emphasis 

that this Committee or others could give, and frankly any funding, 

17

on research related to criminal justice and American Indian-Alaska 

Native communities is money well spent. We recently did a compendium of research on criminal justice in Tribal communities and 

what we found were many more gaps than we knew, gaps that 

were filled. 

And so we have asked for additional funds in the 2012 budget 

to focus on research related to crimes against American Indians 

and Alaska Natives. Title I of the SAVE Act ensures that research 

does focus on violence against Alaska Natives and not just on 

American Indian communities. 

Senator BEGICH. Very good. And then, I guess the last comment 

I will make, and again thank you, and we are going to take you 

up on the offer on that because I think your goal is the same as 

ours: How do you create a better judicial system that is more community-based and reintegrating folks that should be and those that 

shouldn’t be to deal with that as a separate issue. So I am looking 

forward to your help there. 

And I guess one thing, as you think about next year and as you 

are planning your engagements with the Alaska Native community, I would encourage you. Maybe I am looking through you to 

Ralph here, that he probably would invite you or your appropriate 

folks to do a workshop at the Alaska Federation of Native Organizations annual meeting which is held in October and has 4,000-

plus Alaska Natives from all around the State. 

We would encourage you, if you haven’t participated before, but 

this would be a great opportunity, especially if you saw results by 

engaging them. This may be a really great way to engage a lot of 

our community in a very focused area. So I would just offer that 

kind of through you to Ralph, and maybe he will make a note and 

offer an invitation. 

Mr. PERRELLI. Well, thank you, Senator. And I do think it has 

been a point of emphasis for us that even in times where people 

are worried about travel budgets and those things, that if we are 

going to have an impact in Alaska, we have to do more to reach 

out. I think, like I said, in the past year where we increased our 

outreach efforts and saw very significant change in the pattern of 

applications for grant funding really taught us that a little more 

gets you better results. 

Senator BEGICH. We would invite you, and also it is a great way 

to get almost every Alaska Native community in one location at one 

time. Very good. 

Mr. PERRELLI. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator BEGICH. Thank you very much. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Senator Begich, as we 

continue to discuss S. 1192, the Alaska Safe Families and Villages 

Act of 2011. 

I want to thank you, Mr. Perrelli. Thank you so much for your 

responses. You have been very helpful. We look forward to continuing to work with you on this for clarifications and I really appreciate it. 

Mr. PERRELLI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you so much. 

Mr. PERRELLI. Thank you so much. 

18

The CHAIRMAN. I would like to invite the second panel to the witness table. Ms. Margie Mejia is the Chair of the Lytton Rancheria; 

Mr. Paul Morris is Mayor of the City of San Pablo, California; Mr. 

Ralph Andersen is President and CEO of the Bristol Bay Native 

Association; and Mr. Joe Masters is Commissioner at the Department of Public Safety for the State of Alaska. 

I want to welcome everyone here. Before we proceed, I would like 

to ask Senator Franken for any introductions he may have for 

some of the panelists. 

STATEMENT OF HON. AL FRANKEN,

U.S. SENATOR FROM MINNESOTA 

Senator FRANKEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you for 

convening this hearing. I am a proud cosponsor of his bill. The 

SAVE Native Women Act makes important updates to the law to 

ensure that Native American communities have the tools and resources they need to stop acts of violence against Native women. 

It authorizes services for victimized youth and for victims of sex 

trafficking. It provides Native Americans in Indian Country the 

legal authority they need to prosecute acts of violence committed 

in their communities. And it updates the Federal assault statute 

applicable in Indian Country. 

These are common sense and much needed improvements to the 

law. So Chairman Akaka, thank you for your work on this legislation. And thank you for the honor of allowing me to introduce two 

Minnesotans who are here to testify today. Suzanne Koepplinger is 

a leader in the Native American community and in the fight to end 

sexual violence. 

Since 2003, she has served as Executive Director of the Minnesota Indian Women’s Resource Center, which provides invaluable 

services to women and their families. She actively is involved with 

a number of nonprofit organizations, including the Metro Urban Indian Directors Group and the American Indian Community Development Corporation’s Board of Directors. 

Ms. Koepplinger has a wealth of knowledge about issues facing 

Native American women. I have long considered her one of the 

foremost experts in the field, as well as a friend. And we are indeed 

fortunate that she is here to testify today. 

It is also my great privilege to introduce Thomas Heffelfinger, a 

talented attorney who has dedicated much of his legal career to 

public service and issues affecting Native Americans. During the 

Bush Administration, Mr. Heffelfinger served as United States Attorney for the State of Minnesota, so he knows a thing or two about 

prosecuting crimes. He also served as the Chairman of the Justice 

Department’s Native American Issues Subcommittee. In that capacity, he was responsible for developing and implementing a wide 

range of policies related to public safety in Indian Country. 

Since returning to private practice, Mr. Heffelfinger has continued to advise Native American Tribes on public safety issues. 

It is really great to see you both and I look forward to hearing 

your testimony. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Senator Franken. 

19

I would like to begin with the first testimony from Ms. 

Koepplinger. Please proceed with your testimony. 

STATEMENT OF SUZANNE KOEPPLINGER, EXECUTIVE 

DIRECTOR, MINNESOTA INDIAN WOMEN’S RESOURCE CENTER 

Ms. KOEPPLINGER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, Senator 

Franken, Members of the Committee. I am deeply honored to have 

this opportunity to add my voice in support of S. 1763, the Stand 

Against Violence and Empower Native Women Act. 

This bill acknowledges the disproportionate and varied forms of 

violence against American Indian women and it takes steps to 

more effectively prevent, intervene and prosecute these crimes. 

Thank you. 

You are all aware of the disproportionate rates of violence 

against American Indian women and children in this Country. In 

2009, the organization that I have the honor of representing, the 

Minnesota Indian Women’s Resource Center, published Shattered 

Heart: The Commercial Sexual Exploitation of American Indian 

Women and Girls in Minnesota. It was to our knowledge the first 

report to analyze the scope of sex trafficking of American Indians 

in this Country. 

Since that time, we have gathered additional evidence, most recently the research report called Garden of Truth, which was produced by the Minnesota Indian Women’s Sexual Assault Coalition, 

which you were all provided written testimony about, which is a 

very important addition to the knowledge in the field. 

And all of this additional information has deepened our concern 

about the breadth and depth of these egregious human rights violations. We believe that the data represents only the tip of the iceberg and that the true rates of all forms of gender violence in Indian Country are much higher. This belief is based on our own experience in the field, the fact that Native women and girls frequently do not report assaults, and the Department of Justice’s 

own research stating that approximately 70 percent of sexual assaults in Indian Country are not reported. 

One of the programs serving young Native girls who are at high 

risk of sexual violence is our Oshkinigiikwe program—

Oshkinigiikwe is young woman in the Ojibwe language. A recent 

evaluation of this program for 11 to 20 year old Native girls 

showed that 31 percent of the girls coming into the program had 

had injuries as a result of assault and that nearly a quarter of 

them had diagnosed mental illnesses and were homeless at the 

time of intake. None of the girls had reported the assault. 

Disclosure of assault histories, including sexual exploitation and 

sex trafficking typically come after many months in the program 

when the girls have developed a trust relationship with the staff 

and feel comfortable disclosing their experiences. There are routinely multiple traumas by the age of 15 of 16, including childhood 

sexual assault, dating violence, and sexual exploitation and trafficking. 

The recommendations in this bill to strengthen Tribal programs, 

bolster Tribal authority to prosecute all perpetrators, and to include sex trafficking along with other forms of violence against 

women and children is a very important step forward. We cannot 

20

silo the various manifestations of gender-based violence. Incest, 

child sexual assault, domestic violence, sexual abuse, sex trafficking, these are all forms of a systemic exploitation of those who 

have the least power, and that needs to be addressed as a systemic 

matter. 

Often, these abuses are concurrent and cumulative. We also 

know that early exposure to gender-based violence puts young people at heightened risk of adult abuse. 

Investing in the safety of women and children is an investment 

in the well being of our families and communities and it is not only 

the right thing to do, it is fiscally prudent to provide preventive 

and healing services to those in need. The trauma of unreported or 

untreated sexual trauma leads to higher end-use of social services, 

multi-generational abuse, increased rates of homelessness, and 

other costs. 

As a representative of an urban Indian organization that works 

closely with the Tribes, I urge continued collaboration between 

Tribes and urban Indian organizations to address the unique needs 

of this population. In Minnesota, for example, approximately 60 

percent of the Indian population resides in the metro areas, not on 

reservations. Nationally, the data remains the same. 

We believe that a significant amount of sex trafficking occurs in 

the towns and the cities where the market exists and where many 

young people are lured by perpetrators. Building a network of 

urban and Tribal support services is vital to long-term success. 

There are many challenges to identifying and responding to sex 

trafficking victims and collecting data on the scope of sex trafficking is a challenge. And this is due in large part because many 

of the women do not identify as victims. They do not report these 

crimes to authorities. They are more likely to disclose their assault 

to frontline advocates. Frontline advocates in Tribal human service 

and urban organizations are well positioned to identify and respond 

to the needs of victims and will be strong allies in the effort to collect baseline data. 

Service providers can also be crucial partners in the prosecution 

of pimps and traffickers. When victims feel supported, when they 

have access to long-term culturally appropriate supportive housing 

with services, they may be more likely to cooperate with law enforcement in prosecuting. 

Many communities are just now beginning to understand and respond to sex trafficking, and more training, awareness, and capacity building is required. This bill will provide many of those needed 

steps and I urge that this legislation be passed because it will 

greatly improve the safety and security of American Indian women 

and girls and give Tribes the authority to effectively protect, intervene, and prosecute the perpetrators of gender-based violence. 

I thank you all very much and I am happy to answer any questions I can. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Koepplinger follows:]

21

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SUZANNE KOEPPLINGER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MINNESOTA

INDIAN WOMEN’S RESOURCE CENTER

Honorable Chairman Akaka and Members of the Senate Indian Affairs Committee: 

Thank you Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee for the opportunity to 

voice my support for S. 1763, Stand Against Violence and Empower Native Women 

Act. This bill acknowledges the disproportionate and varied forms of violence 

against American Indian women and takes steps to more effectively prevent, intervene, and prosecute these crimes. Thank you. 

You are all aware of the disproportionate rates of violence against American Indian women and girls in this country. In 2009, the Minnesota Indian Women’s Resource Center released Shattered Hearts: the commercial sexual exploitation of 

American Indian women and girls in Minnesota. It was, to our knowledge, the first 

report to analyze the scope of sex trafficking and commercial sexual exploitation of 

American Indians in our country. Since that time we have gathered additional evidence—including the recently released Garden of Truth report by the Minnesota Indian Women’s Sexual Assault Coalition (which you were provided written testimony 

on and which is an invaluable contribution to knowledge in the field) that have 

deepened our concern about the breadth and depth of this egregious human rights 

violation. 

We believe the data represents only the tip of the iceberg, and that the true rates 

of all forms of gender based violence in Indian Country are higher. This belief is 

based upon our own experience in the field, the fact that Native women and girls 

do not often report violence for a variety of reasons, and the United States’ Department of Justice data that estimates that 70 percent of sexual assaults against American Indian women are not reported. One of the programs serving young Native 

girls who are at high risk of sexual violence is our Oskinigiikwe (young woman in 

the Ojibwe language) Program. Recent evaluation of this program for 11–20 year old 

Native girls shows 31 percent of girls had a head injury resulting from assault, 

nearly a quarter of girls had a mental illness diagnosis and were homeless upon intake. None of the girls had reported their assaults to law enforcement. Disclosure 

of assault histories—including sex trafficking—in our program typically comes after 

many months, when a trust relationship is developed with staff. There are routinely 

multiple traumas by the age of 16 including childhood sexual assault, dating violence, and sexual exploitation/trafficking. 

The recommendations in this bill to strengthen VAWA Tribal programs, bolster 

tribal authority to prosecute all perpetrators, and to include sex trafficking along 

with other forms of violence against women and children is a very important step 

forward. We cannot silo the various manifestations of gender violence—incest, child 

sexual abuse, domestic violence, sexual assault, and sex trafficking are all forms of 

systemic exploitation of those who have the least power and all must be addressed 

as such. These are often concurrent or cumulative abuses. Early exposure to gender 

based violence puts young girls at heightened risk of abuse as adults. 

Investing in the safety of women and children is an investment in the well being 

of our families and communities. It is not only the right thing to do, it is the fiscally 

responsible thing to do to provide preventive and healing services to those in need. 

The trauma of unreported or untreated sexual violence leads to higher end user social services, multi-generational abuse, increased rates of homelessness, and other 

costs. 

As a representative of an urban Indian organization that works closely with tribal 

partners, I urge continued collaboration between tribes and urban Indian organizations to address the unique needs of this population. In Minnesota, roughly 40 percent of the state’s American Indian people reside in the seven county Twin Cities 

Metro, with another 20 percent living in cities like Duluth and Bemidji, not on reservations. Nationally the data looks much the same. We believe a significant 

amount of sex trafficking takes place in cities and towns, where the market exists 

and where runaway youth are often lured. Building a network of urban and tribal 

supports and services is key to long term success. 

There are challenges to identifying and serving sex trafficking victims, and to collecting data on the scope of sex trafficking in Indian Country. This is due in part 

to the reluctance of many women to identify as victims of a crime and report exploitation to authorities. They are more likely to disclose and seek help from advocates 

in the field. Front line advocates in tribal human services and urban Indian organizations are well positioned to identify and respond to the needs of victims, and will 

be strong allies in the effort to collect baseline data. Service providers can also be 

crucial partners in the prosecution of pimps and traffickers. When victims feel safe 

and supported through access to culturally based long term housing and support 

22

services, they may be more likely to cooperate with law enforcement in prosecuting 

perpetrators. 

Many communities are just now beginning to understand and respond to sex trafficking, and more training, awareness, and capacity building is required. This bill 

will provide many of those needed steps forward, and I urge you to pass this legislation that will greatly improve the safety and security of American Indian women 

and girls, and give Tribes the authority to effectively protect, intervene and prosecute perpetrators of gender based violence. 

Thank you for this opportunity and I am happy to answer any questions you may 

have.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Ms. Koepplinger. 

As introduced by Senator Franken, Ms. Koepplinger is Executive 

Director of the Minnesota Indian Women’s Resource Center of Minneapolis. 

And now I would like to call on Mr. Thomas Heffelfinger, who 

is currently with Best & Flanagan LLP in Minneapolis as well. 

Will you please proceed? 

STATEMENT OF THOMAS B. HEFFELFINGER, ATTORNEY, BEST 

& FLANAGAN LLP 

Mr. HEFFELFINGER. Thank you, Chairman Akaka and Members 

of the Committee. I appreciate the honor of having the opportunity 

to appear before you again. 

And Senator Franken, thank you very much for your kind introduction. 

I appear today before the Committee to provide comments on 

Title II of the SAFE Native American Women Act. Back in 2004 

as United States Attorney, I had the privilege of participating in 

a consultation with Tribal leaders on issues of public safety. And 

during that consultation, a gentleman named Chairpah Matheson, 

a Council Member from Coeur d’Alene, made the observation: How 

can Tribes have sovereignty when they cannot protect their women 

and children? 

This question has always struck me as going to the heart of the 

issue for all government. Is there any higher priority than protecting our women and children? And one of the reasons that I support Title II of this Act is that it addresses this question. 

As this Committee is well aware and as you have heard already 

today, the problems of violence against women are of epidemic proportions and tragically high. This legislation, by providing Tribes 

with jurisdiction over domestic violence committed by all offenders, 

recognizes Tribal sovereignty and Tribal responsibility. And it also 

removes a huge barrier which currently prevents from effectively 

protecting women in their communities. 

This Committee is well aware of the level of confusion that exists 

in Indian Country over jurisdiction. The whole Tribal Law and 

Order Act addresses that, and I commend this Committee for that. 

In fact, I would throw in a plug. I really support the provision of 

this bill that will add a year to the Tribal Law and Order Act’s 

time they are going to need it because all of these issues of confusion should be addressed through that Committee. 

One of the biggest areas of confusion is that provided by the Oliphant decision, which by its terms deprived Tribes of the jurisdiction over non-Indians. As Amnesty International found so eloquently in their recent well-publicized report, Oliphant has had a 

23

dramatic and detrimental impact upon public safety in Indian 

Country. 

In my remaining time, I would like to focus on specific provisions 

of the Act. I specifically support Section 201 and its providing of 

a limited Oliphant fix. It will provide Tribal courts with jurisdiction over all people. It is important that that provision also provides for concurrent jurisdiction with Federal and States, thereby 

allowing Tribes to utilize all of the resources available to them. 

And as Mr. Perrelli pointed out so well, coordinated with that is 

the clarification that Tribal courts have jurisdiction for protective 

orders. This allows Tribes the authority to do what they can to prevent, as well as react to domestic violence. 

There is one provision which I object to a piece of it, and I am 

not going to object to the other. That is the dismissal provision in 

Section 201. One provision would allow that if a defendant brings 

a motion to dismiss on the grounds that both the defendant and 

the victim are not Natives, that the court can dismiss the charge. 

That is a recognition of a longstanding Supreme Court precedent 

which I don’t believe this bill should be taking on. Therefore, I do 

not support that. 

However, the bill also provides a wonderful thing which I think 

must stay in it, which says that when a defendant brings a motion 

to dismiss, it must be held pretrial. Whether or not both offenders 

are Indian or non-Indian is a matter of jurisdiction. It should be 

resolved pretrial as a matter of law and not during the trial. 

There is also a provision, however, in that dismissal section 

which provides that a case can be dismissed if the prosecution, the 

Tribal prosecutor, cannot establish that there are community ties 

between the defendant and the victim and the Tribe. And this adds 

issues like employment, residence, Tribal membership, and makes 

those elements of a domestic violence prosecution. That should not 

be in the bill. It is hard enough to prosecute these cases without 

adding new elements to them. 

The rights to the defendant section, I applaud the Committee 

and I applaud the bill for complying with the Tribal Law and Order 

Act. There is one provision 204, to Section 3 of the rights, which 

I would ask the Committee to look at very seriously because it is 

confusing. It says that the Tribe must provide, ‘‘all other rights 

whose protection is necessary under the Constitution,’’ and it goes 

on. 

If we are going to require Tribes to establish new rights and provide new procedures, the law ought to provide clear direction. This 

paragraph is not clear. 

Finally, in the limited time available to me, I support the amendment to the Federal assault statute. The adding of strangulation 

and suffocation recognizes laws that are already existent in many 

States, including Minnesota. 

And then finally, there is a provision of the bill which I don’t believe should be in this Act. It is in the amendment to the Federal 

assault statute. It would remove from the assault with a dangerous 

weapon statute the language where there is no ‘‘just cause or excuse.’’ I know this is part of the Department of Justice’s proposal, 

but it has nothing to do with domestic violence. And quite frankly, 

I fear any law that is passed by Congress that removes from its 

24

1 Now codified at U.S.C. § 1153. 2 Bureau of Justice Statistics, United States Department of Justice, American Indians and 

Crime (1999), p. 2. 

language what amounts to a defense. I fear that District Courts 

will interpret Congress as removing self-defense, for example, as a 

available defense in assault cases. 

Thank you very much. I stand for questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Heffelfinger follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THOMAS B. HEFFELFINGER, ATTORNEY, BEST & FLANAGAN

LLP 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, my name is Thomas B. 

Heffelfinger and I am a partner with the Minneapolis law firm of Best & Flanagan 

LLP where, among other things, I represent Tribal communities. From 2001 to 

March 2006, I was the United States Attorney for the District of Minnesota and also 

the Chair of the Department’s Native American Issues Subcommittee (‘‘NAIS’’). In 

that capacity, I had the honor of testifying before this Committee three times, twice 

on issues related to criminal jurisdiction in Indian Country. I also have had the opportunity to testify twice before this Committee as a private citizen. 

I appear before the Committee today to comment upon Title II—Tribal Jurisdiction and Criminal Offenses, of Senate File CEL11875 (the ‘‘Stand Against Violence 

and Empower (‘SAVE’) Native Women Act’’), which addresses the topic of domestic 

violence perpetrated upon Native women. Although my experience as a federal prosecutor, as a criminal defense attorney and as a representative of Tribal governments 

provides the experiential basis for my testimony, I am appearing today as a private 

citizen and not as a representative of either the Department of Justice, a Tribal government or of any of my private clients. 

In March of 2004, while chairing the Native American Issues Subcommittee 

(‘‘NAIS’’), I had the honor of participating in a listening session here in Washington 

that was put together by the National Congress of American Indians (‘‘NCAI’’) on 

the issue of criminal jurisdiction. A gentleman named Chairpah Matheson, who was 

a Tribal council member in Coeur d’Alene, made the following comment: ‘‘How can 

Tribes have sovereignty when they can’t protect their children and their women?’’ 

I will never forget that comment, because it goes to the heart of a governmental 

obligation, whether it is Federal or Tribal or state, to provide public safety. There 

can be no higher responsibility for a government. That is also the responsibility that 

is at the heart of this legislation. 

The difficulties facing Native American Tribes and Alaskan Native villages in protecting women and children living in those communities is well known and well documented. (See Amnesty International USA Report: Maze of Injustice: The failure to 

protect Indigenous women from sexual violence in the USA (2007)). Native American 

women are the most heavily victimized group in the United States, specifically two 

and one-half times more likely to be raped or sexually assaulted than women in the 

United States general population. The sheer volume of violence inflicted upon Native American women is largely attributable to violence by non-Native men. (See

Amnesty International USA Report: Maze of Injustice, p. 4.) 

Tribes are on the front line of protecting women on their reservations just like 

Minneapolis, Phoenix, Denver and other American cities are on the front line of protecting women in those jurisdictions. The difference is that in Minneapolis, Phoenix 

and Denver, the law is not preventing the cities from effectively acting. That is not 

the case in Indian Country, where the law deprives the Tribes jurisdiction over nonIndian offenders. This legislation, by providing Tribes with jurisdiction over domestic violence committed by all offenders removes a huge barrier which currently prevents Tribes from effectively protecting women in their communities. 

Special Domestic Violence Jurisdiction over ‘‘All Persons’’

Since 1885, when Congress passed the Major Crimes Act, 1 United States Attorneys have had primary responsibility for the prosecution of serious violent crime in 

Indian Country. Native Americans are victimized by violent crime at the rate of 

about two and one-half times the national average rate. 2 In some areas of Indian 

Country, that rate may be even higher. The Major Crimes Act gives the United 

States jurisdiction to prosecute offenses such as: assault, murder, manslaughter, 

kidnapping, arson, burglary, robbery and child sexual abuse. However, federal jurisdiction under this statute is limited to the prosecution of Indians only. The Indian 

25

3 18 U.S.C. § 1152. 4Draper v. United States, 164 U.S. 240 (1896); United States v. McBratney, 104 U.S. 621 

(1882). 5 25 U.S.C. § 1301(2) & (4). 6 435 U.S. 191 (1978). 

Country Crimes Act, which is also known as the General Crimes Act, 3 gives the 

United States jurisdiction to prosecute all federal offenses in Indian Country except 

when the suspect and the victim are both Indian, where the suspect has already 

been convicted in Tribal court or in the case of offenses where exclusive jurisdiction 

over an offense has been retained by the Tribe by way of treaty. 

The United States Supreme Court has held that where the suspect and the victim 

are both non-Indian, then the state court has exclusive criminal jurisdiction. 4 Under 

the Indian Civil Rights Act (ICRA), Tribal courts have criminal jurisdiction over 

non-member Indians. 5 In the 1978 decision of Oliphant v. Suquamish Tribe, 6 the 

United States Supreme Court decided that Tribal courts could not exercise criminal 

jurisdiction over non-Indians. Overlaying these legal principles is the question of 

whether or not the offense occurred in Indian Country. 

What all this means is that whenever a crime occurs in Indian Country, in order 

to determine jurisdiction, prosecutors are forced to make a determination concerning 

who has jurisdiction by examining four factors: (1) whether the offense occurred 

within ‘‘Indian Country; (2) whether the suspect is an Indian or a non-Indian; (3) 

whether the victim is an Indian or a non-Indian (or whether the crime is a 

‘‘victimless’’ one); and (4) what the nature of the offense is. Depending on the answer to these questions, an offense may end up being prosecuted in Tribal court, 

federal court, state court or not at all. 

There is much confusion concerning jurisdiction over crimes committed in Indian 

Country. Unlike jurisdiction over most state and federal criminal offenses, in which 

jurisdiction and/or venue is determined by the geographical location of a crime 

scene, the current state of the law requires that determination of criminal jurisdiction in Indian Country be accomplished through a complex analysis of sometimes 

amorphous factors. Police, prosecutors, defense attorneys and judges must deal with 

this jurisdictional maze in all cases. This confusion has made the investigation and 

prosecution of criminal conduct in Indian Country much more difficult. This confusion and difficulty is perhaps most prevalent in domestic violence due to the high 

level of violence perpetrated in Indian County by non-Indian offenders. 

The Oliphant case has had significant impact on the level of violence against 

women in Indian Country. This was accurately reported by Amnesty International 

USA:

[The Oliphant decision] denies victims of sexual violence due process and the 

equal protection of the law. Jurisdictional distinctions based on the race or ethnicity 

of the accused, such as the jurisdictional limitation here, have the effect in many 

cases of depriving victims of access to justice, in violation of international law and 

US constitutional guarantees. (Tribal courts are the most appropriate forums for adjudicating cases that arise on Tribal land, and, as this report finds, state and federal 

authorities often do not prosecute those cases of sexual violence that arise on Tribal 

land and fall within their exclusive jurisdiction.) This situation is of particular concern given the number of reported crimes of sexual violence against American Indian women involving non-Indian men (Amnesty International USA Report: Maze 

of Injustice, p. 30).

I support Section 201 of the SAVE Native Women Act (Act) which establishes 

‘‘special domestic violence criminal jurisdiction over all persons.’’ (New ICRA Sec. 

204(b)(1)) (Emphasis added.) This provision of law provides a limited ‘‘Oliphant fix’’ 

and will empower Tribes who are on the front lines of the efforts to fight domestic 

violence. Under Section 201, the special criminal jurisdiction would apply only to 

Domestic Violence and Dating Violence and to Violations of Protection Orders. Significantly, the proposed legislation emphasizes the fact that Tribal exercise of this 

special jurisdiction is concurrent with the jurisdiction already existing with federal 

and state authorities. This will enhance the resources and commitment Tribes can 

apply to reducing domestic violence. In addition, by clarifying that Tribal protective 

orders can be issued and enforced by Tribal courts against ‘‘any person’’ (Act, Sec. 

202), the Act assures that Tribes now have significant authority both to prevent and 

to respond to domestic violence perpetrated by non-Indian offenders. 

Dismissal of Certain Cases 

Section 201 of the Act (new ICRA Sec. 204(d)) provides for dismissal of certain 

cases where the defendant in a Tribal prosecution makes a pretrial motion to disVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:48 Nov 21, 2012 Jkt 074885 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\DOCS\74885.TXT JACK
26

7Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez, 436 U.S. 49 (1978). 

miss on the grounds that the offense did not involve an Indian, or on the grounds 

that there were insufficient ties to the Indian Tribe. The Act addresses the situation 

where there is a non-Indian defendant and non-Indian victim. Although a strong argument can be made that Tribes should have jurisdiction over all crimes, including 

domestic violence, committed on Tribal lands, clear Supreme Court precedent has 

established that states have exclusive criminal jurisdiction where both the defendant and the victim are non-Indian. Reversing this precedent is not necessary in 

order to achieve the goal of the Act: protecting Native women against domestic violence. 

The Act (new ICRA Sec. 204(d)(2)) addresses an issue that has plagued prosecuting in Indian Country: how to properly address the question of Indian status. 

This is an issue of jurisdiction and is, therefore, a question of law. Such issues 

should properly be raised in pretrial motions before the court and not as matters 

of fact for a jury. The Act properly requires that this question of jurisdiction be 

raised by the defendant pretrial or be held to have been waived by the defendant. 

The Act (new ICRA Sec. 204(d)(3)) also provides that a case can be dismissed 

upon a pretrial motion of the defendant on the grounds that ‘‘the defendant and the 

alleged victim lack sufficient ties to the Indian Tribe.’’ (Emphasis added.) By this 

provision, the legislation adds for the first time residence, employment and Tribal 

membership as elements of the offense, which must be proven by the Tribal prosecutor in order to avoid dismissal. These additional elements undermine the effectiveness of the special domestic violence jurisdiction and the protection which Tribes 

can provide in the face of domestic violence. Police and prosecutors in Phoenix or 

Denver give no consideration to the ties a domestic abuse defendant has to the community. Why should Tribal authorities have to consider this factor? 

Rights of Defendants 

Section 201 of the Act (new ICRA Sec. 204(e)) sets forth that Tribes exercising 

special domestic violence criminal jurisdiction must provide the defendant with 

specified rights. The section provides that when a term of imprisonment of any 

length is to be imposed, all rights described in ICRA Sec. 202(c) should be applied. 

ICRA Sec. 202(c) was recently codified in the Tribal Law and Order Act. The current 

legislation properly coordinates the rights required under the Tribal Law and Order 

Act and the SAVE Native Women Act and provides clear guidance to the Tribes as 

to the procedural rights they must establish and provide to defendants in cases 

under the Act. 

However, the Act (new ICRA Sec. 204(e)(3)) provides that the Tribes must also 

provide ‘‘all other rights whose protection is necessary under the Constitution of the 

United States in order for Congress to recognize and affirm the inherent power of 

the participating Tribe to exercise criminal jurisdiction over the defendant.’’ This 

provision lacks clarity and certainty. If Congress is going to require Tribes to establish certain procedural protections for defendants in these cases, it should do so 

clearly. 

From a practical perspective, the Act itself supports Tribes’ ability to comply with 

it. The grants (new ICRA Sec. 204(g)) will be necessary in order for Tribes to establish the public safety and judicial infrastructure required by the Act. The delayed 

effective date (Act Sec. 204(b)) will allow the Tribes the time to establish that required infrastructure which is not already in place. Finally, the Pilot Project provision (Act Sec. 204(b)(2)) allows those Tribes that already have the judicial infrastructure in place to begin using the special jurisdiction before the effective date of 

the Act. 

Petitions to Stay Detention 

The Act (new ICRA Sec. 204(f)) incorporates the jurisdiction of the courts of the 

United States to address petitions for writ of habeas corpus in matters involving exercise of special domestic violence criminal jurisdiction. By incorporating a right already codified under ICRA and affirmed by the Supreme Court, 7 the legislation has 

incorporated a body of law with which Tribes are already familiar. 

The Act also provides that, in conjunction with a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, the defendant in a special jurisdiction case can petition the court to stay further detention of that defendant by the Tribe. The Act also lays out criteria to be 

applied by the Federal Court in considering a motion for a stay. 

The Act does not, however, specifically address the issue of exhaustion of Tribal 

remedies by the defendant. The case law on habeas corpus relief regarding the ‘‘legality of detention by order of an Indian Tribe’’ (ICRA Sec. 203) is inconsistent as 

it relates to issues of exhaustion of Tribal remedies. The Act should address this 

27

8See U.S. v. Guilbert, 692 F.2d 1340 (11th Cir. 1982), cert. denied 460 U.S. 1016.

by requiring that the defendant be required to exhaust Tribal remedies or to demonstrate the futility of attempting to do so. 

Amendments to Federal Assault Statute 

Section 203 of the Act amends several provisions of Title 18, U.S. Code § 113, the 

most significant of which is to add an offense of assault by strangulation or suffocation. This additional provision of federal law is consistent with similar laws that 

have been enacted at a state level. For example, domestic assault by strangulation 

is a felony in Minnesota. (See Minn. Stat. § 609.2247.) The Minnesota definition of 

‘‘strangulation’’ incorporates suffocation (‘‘impeding normal breathing’’). 

In the definitions of ‘‘strangling’’ and ‘‘suffocating,’’ the proposed legislation not 

only punishes intentional and knowing strangulation and suffocation, but also reckless conduct. Although reckless disregard of the safety of another can form the basis 

for criminal punishment, it is a lower standard of mens rea than intentional and 

knowing conduct. 

Section 205(a)(2) of the Act also proposes to amend Title 18, U.S. Code a 113(a)(3), 

involving assault with a dangerous weapon, by striking the language ‘‘and without 

just cause or excuse.’’ This provision mirrors Sec. 7(a)(2) (Technical Amendments) 

of the July 21, 2011, proposed legislation from the United States Department of Justice. This proposed striking creates the risk that Federal Courts will conclude that 

Congress has determined that certain defenses, such as self-defense, are not available to defendants charged with assault with a dangerous weapon. The Department 

of Justice does not explain in its submission letter why it seeks to strike this language from the statute. However, striking such language from the statute is not 

necessary, as case law is clear that the existence of ‘‘just cause or excuse’’ for an 

assault is an affirmative defense and the government does not have the burden of 

pleading or proving its existence. 8 Moreover, striking this provision for Title 18, 

U.S. Code § 113(a)(3) has nothing to do with addressing the issues of domestic violence upon Native women. Therefore, the provision does not seem to be appropriate 

for the Act or otherwise. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Heffelfinger. 

Now, I would like to have Ms. Mejia. 

Please proceed with your statement. 

STATEMENT OF HON. MARGIE MEJIA, CHAIRWOMAN, LYTTON 

RANCHERIA 

Ms. MEJIA. Good afternoon. I want to thank you for the opportunity to present testimony to the Committee today on a bill that 

would have a significant impact on the citizens of Lytton 

Rancheria. 

My name is Margie Mejia, and I am the Chairperson of Lytton 

Rancheria, and I follow a long line of tradition of leaders who have 

been responsible for the safekeeping of the Tribe and its members. 

I have lived the highs and lows of my Tribe’s status every day 

of my life, from the devastating effects of poverty, alcoholism, drug 

abuse, and having our Tribal status terminated, to the recent economic success we have finally been able to enjoy through our restoration. 

This is not simply one of a broad array of issues I have sought 

to advance. This is the pride, respect, and stability of my Tribe. We 

cannot stand idly by while our status is again under threat. I take 

it very seriously and I am thankful that you do, too. 

While I hold Senator Feinstein in high regard, and I am sure 

that her intentions are honorable, there is much more to the story 

of Lytton Rancheria than this legislation suggests. 

As some of you may know, the Federal Government wrongfully 

terminated the Lytton Rancheria on April 4, 1961 and our ancestral lands were lost. Not long after that, our traditional homelands 

28

were replaced with vineyards. Finally, in 1991, after decades of 

battling the relentless effort to regain our Federal recognition, the 

Federal courts ordered the government to reverse its decision to 

terminate the Tribe and restore our full Tribal status. 

Unfortunately, we had no ancestral lands to return to, leaving us 

landless and with few options. In fact, Sonoma County, where most 

of our ancestral lands are located today, forced a provision in the 

final court stipulation. The provision forbids the Tribe from acquiring and using any land within the county for any purposes not included in the Sonoma County general use plan. Our neighboring 

Tribes have not had to deal with such restrictions. 

While we were thrilled to have our status restored, we continued 

to face a severe challenge in establishing our Tribal economy. 

Therefore, we were heartened to learn that the City of San Pablo 

understood our tragic history and was receptive to the idea of 

working with us to address the effects of termination on our Tribe. 

We began working with the City of San Pablo to develop a municipal services agreement, and it is that agreement which guided the 

mutually beneficial relationship that we continue to have with the 

city today. 

The provisions of S. 872 suggests that our land was restored with 

no local input or community feedback; that we circumvented the requirement in the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. The truth is we 

spent several months meeting with citizens and elected officials to 

develop an agreement that would meet our respective needs and 

objectives. We continue to meet regularly and find ways to address 

each other’s concerns. 

As a result of this agreement, the Tribe filed an application with 

the Department of Interior to have land within San Pablo taken 

into trust status for Lytton for gaming purposes. When it became 

clear the Department of Interior was not going to act on our application, the city and the Tribe together asked Congressman George 

Miller for his assistance with our land-into-trust request in San 

Pablo. 

It should be noted that the land our Tribe acquired was the site 

of an existing gaming facility. It was a card room. At the end of 

the year, an omnibus Indian bill was developed by this Committee 

and the House Natural Resources Committee to address a range of 

outstanding issues for Indian Country. 

Language directing the Secretary to place the land into trust in 

San Pablo for the Lytton Band was included in that bill because 

through no fault of our own, Lytton had lost use of our land in the 

1960s. And because we determined that our best economic development opportunity was to continue gaming at this site, language 

was drafted to ensure that outcome. 

Congressman Miller’s legislation reversed a wrong that left our 

Tribe landless and impoverished for decades. And it put us on a 

level footing with other federally recognized Indian Tribes. I am 

here because this new proposed legislation would take away that 

equal footing status. 

There are currently proposals for a resort-style gaming facility 

within miles of the San Pablo casino. They are advanced by Tribes 

who plan for Class III Las Vegas-style slot machines. In accordance 

with the restored lands provision of IGRA. S. 872 would treat the 

29

Lytton Rancheria differently from our neighboring and similarly 

situated Tribes by limiting the Tribe to Class II bingo-style machines, while forcing us to undertake an additional expensive and 

lengthy process that would put us at an extreme, totally unjust disadvantage. 

Although we have no plans at this time to do so, without the 

ability to qualify for Class III gaming, the Lytton facility could face 

closure, resulting in severe negative impacts for the Tribe and the 

surrounding community. 

We honestly do not understand the purpose behind this legislation. If the bill is based on the unsubstantiated belief that the 

Lytton Rancheria is somehow not complying or has not complied 

with Federal law, nothing could be further from the truth. The 

Lytton Rancheria fully complies with Federal law. We have complied with all the provisions of IGRA in the planning, construction, 

and management of the San Pablo Lytton Casino. 

Our gaming ordinance was approved by the National Indian 

Gaming Commission and is subject to the minimum internal control standards. Our facility is subject to review and audit by the 

NIGC and all of our machines are certified to the NIGC’s strict 

compliance standards. 

These are the exact same standards that all other gaming facilities must meet in order to legally operate, and we have an excellent record. To suggest that we have done anything else is wholly 

disingenuous. Our Tribal members have realized significant benefits from our economic enterprise, including vastly improved housing and educational opportunities for our children, and we have 

been good neighbors to our local non-Indian community. 

S. 872 is not simple, straightforward and reasonable, and it does 

not somehow restore the intent of Congress as was suggested in 

the introductory remarks accompanying the bill. In fact, it does 

just the opposite. The law preventing gaming on lands taken into 

trust after 1988 was not written in order to prevent landless Tribes 

like Lytton from achieving economic independence through gaming. 

It was written to deal with Tribes who already had lands or existing reservations on which they could conduct gaming. 

Lytton Rancheria was only landless because of a wrongful act 

taken by the Federal Government decades before. We are not and 

never have been a Tribe looking to obtain additional land for more 

lucrative gaming. We are a Tribe who Congress realized should 

have had the same status as other Tribes granted lands prior to 

1988 and I am thankful that Congress came to this conclusion. 

Our reality today fully incorporates the intent of Congress in the 

2000 legislation. The termination policies of the Federal Government had tragic consequences for members of Lytton Rancheria. It 

took over three decades to have our Federal status and our rights 

restored. 

The CHAIRMAN. Ms. Mejia, will you please summarize your statement? 

Ms. MEJIA. Yes, Mr. Chairman. 

We have been able to take land into trust and establish economic 

independence. It was an act that righted a wrong that the Federal 

Government committed against our Tribe. I ask you let the act of 

justice stand and oppose the enactment of S. 872. 

30

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Mejia follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. MARGIE MEJIA, CHAIRWOMAN, LYTTON RANCHERIA


1110b1.eps
31


1110b2.eps

recognition, thefedc!aJ courts ordered the'g=entto reverse itsdedsion to \l.ll'minare the 

1.;00 and reslQre our full tribal s'olltU1l. UnforiUlUltcJy, we had rwaneesttallaltds to return to, 

leavil1B us Iandle~s and with few options. In :fact. Sonoma County, where most of our ancestral 

lands arelocaled today, forced a provision in the final court stipulation. The provision fcnbids 

the Tn'bl:: from. ocquiring and using allY lmtd within the county for any putpOw not included In 

the Sonoma County GeneJ:al Use Plan. OlU nelghOOring tribes have not had to deal with such 

=trlctiO!lS. WWle we were tIIrilled to have our status restored,. we cGntinued to face a severe 

cbalkmge in mab!ishlng our tribill:Cooomy, Therefol'c, we were heartened to learn that the City 

of San Pablo u.,duo!ood on: tragic l1i;;!ory·and wasre~eptiV6to the ide? ofwooidng with us 10 

address 1M effects oftcrmination on our Tribe. 

We began by working with the City "fSan Pablo to develop a Munkipal Services Agre!llllMt 

and it is ;hat agrc\'mIeut which hi'lS guided the mmuelty benfficiaI :rdatitmShip that we cQIltinue to 

have v.ith the City roday. The provislons ofS.S72suggest that our land -was rc.~torcd with 110 

local input or community fe.."'dback lllld that we dr<::~ded a requirement in the ImUnn 

Gm:cir>.g ReguliUOry A,::t aGRA). The tnlth is we spent several months meeting with cillzens and 

eltICled officials to dev~op an agreem~lItthat would meet oW' respective needs and objectives. 

We cOlltiJJue to meet wgularly (0 fmd ways to address each other's o;onool1lS. 

As- a result of this agreement, 'lhe Tribe filed an apPlication with the DepMtmetlt of Interior 

(DOl) to have laud within Sm!. Pablo w.en into 1Tu.st status fur Lytton (or gaming purposes.. 

Wlie.:l it became clew: the DOl was Ill'lt goi..'Ig tl) .IIct on our Iq)plication, the City and the Tribe 

together asked Congresmmn George MIllet:fur his JlnistEmce with our land ruro 'tI:Ust t'CCjue.t in 

San Pablo. It sbould benote{j that the land our Tribe acquired was the site ofan oKistlng gaming 

cardroom. 

Atthc ona of the year an ommllus Indian hill wa.~ developed by this Committee and the Hoose 

Natu:tal Resources Committee to address a tange or outstanding issues fur Indian COlllitry. 

LrulglHIl:" directing thc- SCCrellU)' to plaw la..'ld in(o In1&t 10 San Pablo lOt 1lw Lytton Band Wl\S 

imlluded in that bill. Because, through no fiml:t of our own, Lytton hae Nst the 'llSf;l 'Of our Jand in 

the 1960s, und beeau!)r.l we dctc-rmined Wilt our best economic- dcvclopment opportunity was to 
32


1110b3.eps

coniiml(: gllIllIDg lit this 3ite, tho; language i.va.~ dmtled!o cnsure fu»;t O1:icllme. COIlPes:mum 

Miller's legislatiot: rev~ed a wrong thal. kit Out Tribe Iandks~ and irnpowrlshcd fur dc<.:adeslind it put us on level fQQling with other fedimilly rccogWzed Indian trib.:s. I am hmc lod!!y 

because this new proposed legislatiQn would take awar that equal footing statu:;. 

There are cmrentlr proposals fur l'/),'lOrt-style gaming facilities within llnles fl.'om Snn Pablu 

LyttOn Casino; they tInllldvruwed by tribes who pl® fOI"Cllllls III Las VegllS-myJe slot mncl:lines 

inaoool'(\;uwe with the ''restored lru,-d~"ptoyj!lfon ofIGN\. 8.872 W{\uld uemthe Lytton 

Rml.cbeda differently from ()llI" neIghboring and similarly sitwlted tribes by lilniting the tribe 1(1 

CIIl.'l~ n Bingo-style maehines or furcingu~to undertake an additional expensive and lengthy 

proCCSg fuat would put US at an extreme and wholly unjU3t disadVllmage. Although we have 110 

plans at tills time to do so,. withou~ the allillly to qualifY fur Class m gamIng, the Lytton facility 

rould fBce c1osun: resulting in severe negative impacts fur WI! Tribe and the 8IUTOurKling 

cOJ1lJnunity . 

We honestly do :lOt uudtmtand tllI! pmposd behind this legislatim::. If the mills based on tlw 

UIl5Ubstantiated bcllefthat the Lytton Ran4erill b ~omehow not oompl)'ing or bas not !ll)mplled 

with federal law, nothing !ll)uld be further ftom the truth. The Lytton Rancherlafu1ly complie~ 

with Meral law. We have complIed wrJJ all pravisloroofIGRA m the.pl!lrul!ng. construction 

WId lUensgelIllmt of San Pablo Lyttun Casiho. Our g=mg ordinIlnce W$ appro'\ir:C by the 

National IndilW Gaming Commission and IS subject to Minimum Int.emm Control Stlmdards. Our 

fucIllty is subject to review and audit by !he NIGC and all w uut' machilll<s are certified tu th", 

NIOC's strict complkmcestandM"l. 

Those are the exact sarno standru:d~ that all ether gaming facilities must meet in ordm- III legally 

uperale and Vf{l. have an W\:emphtry ,wurd. To sugg~t that WI.! have dom: anything ehe-is wholly 

dlglngemiCu.~. o-;lrtn"bal nwm'.lCI'S Imve te.a,lized sicnHieant lxmclits from our ecnnomie 

entetprilJe including vastly improwd mllsitjB.;md cdueatiom<l opportuni1.il;.~ for our chlidrcl1. 

And we have ~ gond :neighbors to our i¢al oon-bdlnn CUlP-,...,unitj~s. 
33


1110b4.eps

S.872 is not "simple, s!mightfOl"Wl.lfd, IL"ld;rcasonabJe" and it does not somehow «restore !he 

intent of Congress" WI was suggested in introductory remarks uccompanyillg the illt!. In fa~ it 

dooujllSt the opposite. The lawpreverrling gnmiug on roods taken into trust after 1988 was not 

written in order to preVeot landless tribes like Lyttonfrom acb.leving economic independence 

through gaming. It was writtell to deal wi$ trioos who aL.-eady had lands or exirens reservatkms 

011 wlnch they could conduct gaming. Lytt;on Rruwhcria WIIS only landless b~cau:!le of wrongful 

acts taken by the fuderal governmentdeca~es before; we are not I!Ild havenever been a tribe 

looldngto obtain additional land ror:nmrelucrative gaming. W~ U!"I) a moo who Congress 

reco~d shQ'.l.\d have "\he WIlle stll1!ll> aspibes granted land prlllr to 1988 and I mn thankful 

thatCongres5 ClImI:! to this canc1us/oll. Oui reality today fully i.tl.ooJ:Porato:Js the intent OfCOOgtC53 

in thl:!200Q legislatiOll. 

The termination policies Ilfthe federal government had tragit: consequences for the members of 

the Lytton Rauche.ria. It took OVE'l" three decades \0 have our :fudeml status and ow' rights 

restored, but now Ull"OllSh legislation enacted in 2000 Illld a ooopemtive relofkmship with the 

City of 81111 Pablo, we have been able til take l!l:Id into trust end establish ~onQmic 

independence.. It \\'US an act that rishted a .,yrrnlg the federal government commiltlld against our 

tribe. I ask you to let crurt act ofjustke starid and oppose th~ enactmont orS.8n. Thank you. 
34


1110b5.eps 1110b6.eps

I am 'Writing on belmlf of my ~"bej the Lytton ~a, to tbaak the 

Committee ft);;' providing m~with the opporturiity to tcs1fY:at the hl".Jlrltlg he:d on 

November to, 2011, 10 aridtess the'~ cc~necs.ofenacting S. 872, "A 

biU ro anumd tlre OmnibuS lndian Advmlceu:.ent Act to moo1iy~ d.Iik as of 

wJ:kb eerwiu tribal'!ruu1o( Jhe ;LyttonJ{a.nc~a. Q'f C;anf~a !~ oc~:'dered to be 

hel4' inJrust~~_,t{)'l!ro, #l~,c~'ofeeIiaiji1~fryiti~:or.}M 1IL,d," As 

YOl'}m9.\J'. tJli~,l~f~.:s.~ , q;J:ja\l.e1~\'M~::~~~ GI>fu;e'fti~n~.'D';t the 

fiflll..<€:wtslft'QiJ1t¥ of mY: ' mphf'tili:'wr us.to. :xuyKie 

you wllirclciif~Up.io~date in' . i;;rfow4hlrnitreeruellibers 

to make aMI)! L-®r:ned d~-"9ne w1iicli~.in.t:O'OOCI)uat ilw:devastating 

oonseq~s fOr1b'e Lyttiv.) ~.cli~ ani.i-~' C'J!y-o'fS;ID ~~lo Shoold S, 872 

be enacted. 

During the November 10 tll".an,:ng. you'Lryqut"ed as Ie the number of jobs 

wbicl:. W¢Cld be Iost shouidlhc Casino ~ah-Pil.-h1tiGe forced to oJooe. ,Oc.r casJi1i) 

ourrendy ~l?loys, ~1S Ca!Wm;rla ci!i'Zcifls.,all Ofwl~om ~uld lose'ihci=j(\~:i if 9l:J: 

casino were to close. Tr. this tin:t: of ecooOmlC IUlrJW.arnty and rush unemployment, me. Lytton 

Ranehena is /I good neighbor and a trusted ami integral pan of the San Pablo bu!;1ness 

rommunity. Any action which oould disrupt this ;relationship shmlld be avoide~. 

Again, we thIInk you for YOIlJ; com;idetation and the oppcrtunity to provide the 

Committee with inWmlatioD on the potential coruequences of coacting S. &72, We would be 

hflPPY to 1lIlrn'er any further questions fro~ !be Committee and n:ques! that this letter and 

attachment be made put of the official heming record, 

Attnehmcnt 
35


1110b7.eps

Testimony of the Honorable George Miller (D-CA) 

Regarding S, 113 

April 5, 2005 

Mr. ChaL-man and Members of the Committee, thank you 

for the opportunity to t"",tify today. 

And Senator Feinstein, it is good to be with YOll. WIrile 

you and I do not agree OD this particular matter today it is 

always good to work with you on issues that affect the 

State of California. I appreciate what you do for us. .' 

Mr. Chairman~ with yom;- permission I would like to S1ibmit 

my written statement for the record. 

I would" als"o like to recognize several constituents and ·local 

representatives who will testify later today. 

Assemblywoman Lomrle Hancock is a strong advocate for 

her dislrict andI appreciate her being here .. 

And Mayor Sharon Brown and City Manager Brock Amer 

of the CitY of San Pablo are here. They are working very 

hard to" stimulate economic developm~nt in. thm city and I 

appreciate their efforts on behalf afthe resident of San 

Pablo. . 

Today'. hearing concerns the Lytton Band afFOIoo Indians 

and the City of San. Pablo mmy district and their effort to 

work together to meet mutual goals of desperately needed 

economic dev-elopinent. I support their efforts. 
36


1110b8.eps

My involvement with this matter dates back to 1999 and 

2000 when I was apprOached by tt.e City to discuss its 

interest in working withtl;te Lytton Band to help them 

acquire an existing card roOm in. San Pablo forthe purposes 

of renovating it and building a modest sized casino, 

The tribe made a good faith effurt to work through the 

Department of the Interior to win the right to acquire this 

land for the purposes of gaming under the Indian Gaming 

RegulatOIy Act (IGRA) bu(dne to special circumstances 

affecting the tribe, it is my und.erstanding that the tribe was 

told by the Department that they would be turned down, 

After much disOIlSsion. and a detailed review of the 

circ1lIDl!tsnces, I agreed to help the city and ite tribe, .r 

supported their project for several reasons: 

• ite local cmmuuruty, including the police department" 

supported the project; , 

• the City stood to make significant economic 

development gains from the project; 

• the tribe hada clear need and a legitimate right to 

jJllrSlle lands for the purp08<'.s of economic 

development and made a good faith effort to. work 

throngh'the Department of the Interior to do so; 

• I have a long stsnding history of supporting the 

sovereign rights of Indian trib.s, . 

The issue of whether or not American Indians should be 

involved in gaming is not at issue here. There are 

opponents of gambling for many reasons, some personal, 

some moral, some simply competitive. And of course there 

. are many proponents"of gaming. There are card rooms 

throughout the Bay -'>fea, an ext_ive lottery program, and 

the California constitution allows for Indi"Il gaming, 

Personally, I am neither a p;roponent nor opponent of 

gaming per se, 1- am, however~ a strong defender of 

economic development and of Indian sovereignty. 
37


1110b11.eps

As you will hear in greater detaill.ter today from the 

Lytton's tribal chairwoman, Marge Mejia, the Lytton Band 

was wrongfullyienninated in the 1960s. A federal court 

restored its tribal status in1991. The LyttoilS are a poor 

people, many of whom are homeless. The tribe is 

concerned about preserving its tnba) he('itage and providing 

economic mea.ns for its members: 

Th,e City of San Pablo and the Lytton8 have much in 

COmmon. 

San Pablo is one 'of the poorest cities in the Bay Area. A 

small city with little economic activity, it haS a poverty rate 

of 18 percent - twice that of the entire Bay Area and more, 

than twice that of Contra Costa County. Its Unemployment 

rate isbigherthan that of the Bay Are. and the County. 

More than 90 peroent of the city's residents work outside of 

the city, because there are just not enough jobs created 

within the city. : . The key que,stion before the committe. is whether it was 

appropriate for the Congress to have passed section 819 of 

the Onmibus Indian Advancement Act in 2000 on behalfuf 

the Lytton Band. 1 believe that it was ap)J1'Opriate and that, 

the provision sj:J.Ould stand, !is written. 
38


1110b9.eps

As you know, the U ,8. Constitution gives CongreSs plenary 

authority over Indian tribes to I"ss laws for their benefit, 

Congress is fully within its rights to I'ass legislation 

directing the Secretary of Interior to place iands ioto trust 

for a particular tribe and cloes so on a regular basis, 

In the lOS" Congress; at lllas! 10 bills became law that 

placed lands ioto trust for'various reasOns to benefit various 

Inman tribes, This may happen for'any number of rea~ons 

that Congress determines is prudent. It may be as I'art of a 

, settlement agreement of a land claim, or io the iostance of, 

the Pechanga ,Inman Tribe; who are scheduled be testifY 

later, the desire to protect;certain important lands from 

possible desecration, 

Last Congtess, we eventook lands right out of a national 

park and had it placed io trust for one tribe, In the Gila 

River wat~r settlement law we required an "act of Congress 

occur to bring some iands iota trust for that tribe, 

In IIlOSt cases, ioclurung tho ones I mention here, the tribe 

attempts to go through the BIA process, becomes fuistrated 

for one reason or another" and comes to congress'to 'Olead 

its case, In fact, tho hlghl~ touted bill that the Lytton 

provision was in also incljlded 14 other provisions to take 

lands into trust for Indian'tribes, ioclurung one provision 

that held the lan,d be cOnsidered in trust as of 1909~ 

The Lytton. had a sIJOcial circlL'llStance that I believe 

distinguished them from most other tribes io Califortria and 

that necessitated congressional action. 

The 1991 federal court set1;lement that restored Lyttons' 

tribal status and that of nUlllerous other California tribes 

iocluded one unusual provision that pertained only to the 

Lyttons. 
39


1110b10.eps

The court order restoring the Lyttons' tribal status " 

contained. a unique limitatirm that precluded the Secretary 

of !he Interior from taking land in Sonoma County -!he 

Lytton's ancestral lands -- into trust for the benefit of the 

Lytt~n Band for any ,use ~t was inconsistent with the " 

Sonoma County Gen.talPtan. lti effect, the limitation 

denied Lytton any right to lISe its ancestral land for ganring. 

The order however. did not put any restrictions On the 

abilily of Lytton to pursue other lands for gaming or other 

activities. . 

This limitation created a special circumstance when the 

Lytton. appoa1edt.o the Department of Interior fur an 

exception nnder the Indian Gaming Regnlatory Act for 

permission to have l.ands put into trust and to be allowed to 

conduct ganring. 

The ;ands that the tribe sought were not their ancestral 

lauds, nor oonuguoulS with.its ancestral lands. It is my 

1.md"'''Standing that ille Bureau of Indian Affairs denied the 

tribe this exception nnder IGRA. booaus. ofthis land issue. 

And yet, as I explained, the court settlement forbade the 

· tribe from using their ancestral lands. 

The Lyttons are the o;o]y tribe in CalirOmia -- and perhaps 

the only tribe in the United" States -- :tb.at~" as a condition of 

the restoration of its tribal status, was cJqlressly deprived of 

· the opportuniiy to exero:ise'rights under the Indian Gaming 

Regulatory Act on its ancestral land. 

I do not believe that existil)g law anticipated this Unusual 

circumstance and therefore. Congress~ which has the 

authority to' intervene.in these matters, appropriately 

remedied.this ·situation. . 

This is what the Issue boils dawn to. ThrougIi no fimlt of 

its own, the Lytton Tribe was illegally stripped of its status . 

as a federally recognized India;'! tribe and .denied its rights 

for wcades uIrtil it was restored to its proper status by our 

judicial system. Had the ttibe's status neVer been illegally 

terrrrinated, there would have been no question as to the 

· Lytton's ability to operate gaming on lands wifuin its "an~larea. " . 
40


1110b12.eps

I tilought that tile Bureau oHndian Affairs would accept the 

land 1D1der tile IGRA exceptions for restored tribes, but was 

told it would not, I believed that was a mistake, and even 

tilen Assistant Secretary for Indian Mfairs Kevin Gover, 

was quoted at the time about the deniai of Lytton is request 

tilat "it was a close call. A good case could be made that 

we were wrong/~ Gover said. ' 

Every tribe's situation is ditferent md must be evaluated 

individually, ButI believed then, and continue to, believe 

now, tilatit was, the fair md.right thing to .do in this 

particular case to niaJ;:e the ):..ytton Band whole again. 

Not only do I believe that that it was appropriate for 

'C,mgreBs to have acted on the ttibe's behalf, butl wanttQ 

be clear that the manner il1 which, Congress approved tl:j.is , legjslation was entirelyapp,opriate. . . . 

My Provision regarding the Lytton Band was added, along 

with numerous other triballssnes, as an amendment to H.R. 

5528, the Onmibus Indian Advancement Act,'! il1 the full 

HOuse. 

All the provisions added Were done so with the support of 

tile leadership of both the House Resources Committee and 

this Committee as a way to move some legislation that for 

whatever reason had not passed. To make it clear this was 

II compilation of bills, the "omnibus" title was given to the 

bill. This is a most appropriate way to move legislation 

near the end of a Congress that has been bottled up. The 

bill passed tile full· House on Oe!ober 26,~OOO. 

RR. 5528 was referred to the Senate Committee on Indian 

Affairs and passed in the Benate by unanimous' consent on 

December 11, 2000 - forty-five days ~fter its referral to the 

Senate and its being sent:to both respective cloakrooms for 

viev<'ing and Senate notifiqation. 
41


1110b13.eps

Section 819 was identified by the headiog "Land to be 

Taken Into Trust" and, at all times, contained fuc'name of 

the tribe and location of the land. Any Senator who 

questioned or objected to any provision had the opportuoity 

to review the pro;ision and to \\~1hhnld conSent under the 

ooaniInous consent procedl,lI'e. No Senator did so. 

Under the provision, Lytton is subject to all of the 

provisions ofIGRA, inclu4ingthe requirement under 

California law that any compact negotiated between the 

State of California and the:Lytton B""d be ratified by the 

California legislature. 

A compact was signed in Augnst, 2004, by the Governor 

and the Tribal Chair, but it has not yet been ratified by the 

legislature. 

I am on record as oppo~ing.both the size of the first . 

proposed coinpact betweeJ;l the state and the tribe and the 

revised proposed compact; I hope that any :final resolution 

on the compact will adhere to the proposal originally 

presented to me by the tribe and the City. That proposal 

called for a modest casino· within the parameters of what 

already exists at the card ",am, not a mega casino as is nnw 

'4llder consideration. 

It should be n.oted, however, that the Lyttol} Band from the 

very beginning went to unprecedented lengths to consult· 

with the local community and the State of California to . 

forge all agreement with regard to miligatiug potential 

impacts of a new casino and sharing the bc",efits of the 

casino with the communitW. 

But the issue of !be compact details is a separate matter. 

The isgue today is wh';th~ the tribe' has the right to these 

'lands and whether Congress acted appropriately in 

conveying the lands to the tribe. lJ1 both instances, the 

anSwer clearly ;s yes. 
42

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Chairperson Mejia. 

And now I would like to call on Mayor Morris. 

Will you please proceed with your testimony? 

STATEMENT OF HON. PAUL MORRIS, MAYOR, CITY OF SAN 

PABLO, CALIFORNIA 

Mr. MORRIS. Thank you and good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and 

Members of the Committee. Thank you for inviting me here today. 

I certainly appreciate this hearing. 

My name is Paul Morris. I am the Mayor of the City of San 

Pablo. Vice Mayor Cecilia Valdez and I are attending this hearing 

today so we can bring you our unique perspective about the San 

Pablo Lytton Casino. 

If you take anything from my statement today, this is what I 

want you to remember. The Lytton Rancheria is a respected, involved member of the community and has been since day one. 


1110b14.eps
43

Thanks to them, San Pablo residents are enjoying a safe and secure community. I am not an expert on gambling, but I am an expert on the City of San Pablo. 

Claims that casinos bring in high crime are unfounded in my 

city. This may be true for other communities with different dynamics, but you should not create legislation for one specific community, using broad data and vague claims of increased crime that 

have been shown to be inapplicable in San Pablo. 

The Lytton Casino has minimal impact on local traffic and public 

safety. This stands in stark contrast to the belief by critics that any 

urban gaming is detrimental to the public welfare. The Lytton Casino has not increased crime or traffic congestion. Instead, it has 

allowed us to have the resources to significantly reduce crime. As 

of 2010, we have had 20 percent decrease in violent crime and a 

19 percent reduction in property crimes since 2008. 

The Police Department has been able to provide significant increases in personnel, state-of-the-art equipment, and multi-jurisdictional training. None of this could have happened without the additional resources that the casino made possible. Without those resources, the department would have had to cut nearly half of its 

sworn officers and dissolve a number of specialty programs, including gang violence reduction, narcotics task forces, and youth services programs. 9–1–1–response times would increase and public 

safety would be compromised. 

The payments received from the casino also make up nearly twothirds of the city’s general fund. Because of this, the city has been 

able to provide after school programs, a new youth services program, and with an emphasis on intervention and prevention. 

We have also been able to keep a local elementary school open 

for the last three years, despite closure plans by the School District. 

The Lytton Rancheria provides financial support to San Pablo 

residents beyond just city government, including, but not limited to 

almost $250,000 to the San Pablo Senior Center in the past few 

years to provide key services and maintain social programs that 

would disappear without them. 

When Senator Feinstein introduced S. 872, she stated that the 

legislation would implement a reasonable solution to this problem. 

My main point to make today is that there is, in fact, no current 

problem that must be remedied. The problem, as posed by the Senator, is that the government now has little ability to regulate 

Lytton Band’s gaming operation. This could not be further from the 

truth. All activities at the casino are as we speak fully subject to 

regulation by Federal law and we are unaware of any problems 

that Interior or the BIA have had with operations at this location. 

The casino is subject to extensive oversight and regulation by the 

NIGC and also by the city via our municipal services agreement. 

In fact, the Tribe is required to go through the city’s normal planning and environmental review procedures, public notice, and public hearings if it ever wants to expand its operations. So here again, 

there is really no current problem either at the local or Federal 

level that must be addressed. 

On the other hand, our community already suffers much more in 

this horrendous economy. As of the last year, 19.8 percent of San 

44

Pablo residents lived below the poverty line; 19.5 percent were unemployed. Almost all of our working residents work outside the city 

and it is thus essential that we increase, not decrease the number 

of local jobs. 

This legislation seeks to address a nonexistent problem. The 

Lytton Casino has been operating for over eight years with no 

problems, but many benefits. There is no reason to turn the clock 

back and make their lives harder. There are sensible changes that 

this legislation would prevent, such as an addition of a parking 

structure to the existing building. San Pablo and its residents 

would be collateral damage if this bill should pass. 

While deliberating, we ask that this Committee keep that fact in 

mind, and the fact that the economic recession is hitting San Pablo 

harder than most. 

Thank you for your time, Mr. Chairman. I would be happy to answer any questions you have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Morris follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. PAUL MORRIS, MAYOR, CITY OF SAN PABLO, 

CALIFORNIA


1110c1.eps
45


1110c2.eps

task forces and youth services programs, among others. Also, 9U response times 

would dramatically ln~rease, and public safety would definitely be compromised. 

Thefinancial !itlpportfrom lytton Rancheria is critical to ensuring public safety in San 

Pablo. Butthe payments recei'led from the casino also make up nearly 2/3 af the City's 

general fund. Thanks to this agreement, the City has been able to provide after :;chool 

programs and a new Youth ServIces Program with an emphasis on InterventIon and 

preventian. Revenue from the casino has enabled the City to keep a local elemental)' 

school open for the past three years, at a total ccst of $900,000, despite closure plans 

by the school district. 

The financial support that Lytton Rancherie provides to San Pablo extends beyond just 

city government. Lytton Rancheria has donated over $23D,Ooo to the San Pablo Senior 

Center In the past few years to provide key services and maintain social programs that 

would disappear without them. This is on top of thou sands of dollars given away 

annually to /01:81 organizations such as the Boys & Girls Club, food bOlnks, the San Pablo 

Community Foundation, and even the purchasingofbrsnd new Christmas gifts for 

dozens of chlldren In the community. this Is all done with little fanfare because the 

Lytton Rancherla genuinely want!; to bt! a gtlod neighbor and help those people in the 

community who need it most. 

The relationship with the Lytton Rancheria is more than just the financial supportthey 

willingly provide. The City of San Pablo has a role in ttle administration of the casIno. As 

part of the MUnicipal ServicesAgreeml!nt, the City is able to appoint a memberof tha 

Tribal Gaming Commission. Currently, the former Chief of Police serves as a 

commissioner and 15 able to advocate for the City. The agreeml?nt also enSUres the 

opportunltyforthe community to proVide feedback should the Lytton Rancher!a ever 

choos8 to modify Its cUITentgamingfacillty. In fact,. they would have to go through 

exactly the same plannIng and environmental process, complete with public notice and 

public hearIngs, as any other applicant In the City. 

s.-an ties the Lytton Rancheria's hands by prohibiting physical oroperatlonaleKpanslon 

of c'Ien 11::5 Class II operation unless the Tribe undErgoes an entirely different process 

than what the Tribe it is currently subject to fol!ow. Othertribes would be subject to a 

much less rigorous process; I will not go into det;;il on the Triba'stragic history, butthe 

last thing thClY deseNe is forthe federal government to turn the c1(lck back ~nd make 

the!r!lves harder. There are sensIble changes that this legislation would prevent, such as 

construction ofa parking structure. There Is simply no reason to makes things any 

harderforthe Lytton Tribe" which only WlInts to be a good neighbor in the community. 
46


1110c3.eps

Hopefullv I have conveyed the message that the C(lncerns about the Lytton RanChetia 

not complying with fedel1.lllaw and having r\i!gatiVB impacts on the community are 

totany unfounded. I hill/e reviewed Ser.ator fei~tein's comments: from tha 

Congressional Record on May 3, 2011, when the Senator reintroduced 5.872. In her 

comments, the Senator stilted that thIs legislation "would implement a rr<asoffilule 

solution totl'lis problem." The City of San Pab!c:>, speaking for i;;s residents lUld the 

residents ofW!'!!lt Contra Costa County, submits tothlsCDmmlttee that there is, in fact, 

no current problem that must be remedied. 

The ~problem," as posed by the Senator, is thatthll OmnIbus Indian AdvancementAct 

"left the gOW!rnmentwith little abjlityto regulate: the Lytwn Band's gaming operation." 

This could not be further from the truth, as ~II actMties atthe San Pablo lytton Casino 

are indeed, as we ~peak, fuJlysubjectto regulation byfetieral Jaw. To d<».!, we are 

unaware of ANY problsms thatth~ Pepartmsflt oftne InterfOl·orthe Bureau of indian 

Affairs ha'le had with operations at tills Iocatlon. FUrther, as stated -=arillU', the casino Is 

subJect to extensive overslghtand regw"tion bythiil City of San Pablo by lIirtue of our 

comprehensloe Municipal SErvices Agreement, as WE:n as by the National Indian Gaming 

Commlsslon. So, again, there really Is no C!Jfrent problem, eitheratthe local level arat 

the federal lew!, that must be addressed. 

Senator Feinstein's remarks In May ;;lIse cited tiles!) problems: NNa local input. No 

community feedbad, and no consideration for the !lest Interest of the region." In fuct,. 

though, public !\fiarings were held and community feedback was st:lught. Forthe pa~t 

ten years, t~ community has been solidly, 'lI'Id o~erwheJmingl\l, in favor afthe Casino 

and the benefit;:; it has brought not only to the City of San Pablo and I:s residents, hutto 

neighboring areas as weH. And, as stated earlier, Ollr Mu;;!t:lpal Services Agreement 

ens~res the 0pptlltuniWfcr the community to provide faedblld:.should lytton 

Rancherla ever choose to modify its current gaming fucHitYi the c:aslnowould ha~eto go 

through e)(3ctlythe same planning and ertvlrcmmcntill process, complete With public 

notice am! public hearings, as any other applicant b the City. And any class III opeJdtion 

would require consent of both the Governor and the ~te legislature. 

I understand you want to: do what is best by ~of\$idering aU ofthe factors Involved in this 

complex dewkln, but S.s72 and its daims areso speciflt to San Pablothal I CQuid not 

let you maKe your decision w1thout sharingthe factsflr.st-hand abou!:the city's 

re!atic~h1p '1lith Lytton Rancheria. Tha lytton Ranch!!fia has had Ciass II gaming in San 

Pablo fur eight years now. There are wrioo:;; on.going effmts <It tha Department of the 

Interiorfrom other tribes to Io~te in the same <lfe~, but outside cltv boundaries, and 

ultimately obt~ln Cli'!sS III gamine. Thfs bill would prevent the Lytton Ranct\eria from 

oompeting equaJlYWith those other tribes. and Its Clil~s II casino 1n our City would be 

unable to compote, This would be a huge finandal hit to the City of San Pablo and 

would lead to the financial deva51:ation of the entire community, QurcommuhitY 

already suffers much more than most in this horrendous economy. As of last year, 

19.8% of San Pablo resideots lived below the poverty lin!'!, and 19.9% ofOUf res1dents 

are unemployed. Almost aU of our working residetrts work outside the ely, and It is 
47

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Mayor, for your testimony. 

Mr. Andersen, President Andersen, would you please proceed 

with your statement? 

STATEMENT OF RALPH ANDERSEN, PRESIDENT/CEO, BRISTOL 

BAY NATIVE ASSOCIATION; CO–CHAIR, ALASKA FEDERATION 

OF NATIVES 

Mr. ANDERSEN. Good afternoon, Chairman Akaka, Senator Murkowski, and Senator Franken. My name is Ralph Andersen. I am 

the Co-Chair of the Alaska Federation of Natives. I am also the 

President and Chief Executive Officer of the Bristol Bay Native Association based in Dillingham, Alaska. 

I am honored to be here to testify in support of the Alaska Safe 

Families and Villages Act. AFN is the largest statewide organization in Alaska of Alaska Natives, representing 125,000 Natives 

within Alaska and nearly an equal number living outside of Alaska. AFN was formed in 1966 initially to fight for aboriginal land 

claims and for the past 45 years has been at the forefront of efforts 

to advance Alaska Native self-determination. 

It hosts the largest gathering of Alaska Natives, the annual AFN 

convention attended by thousands of Alaska Natives. In October, 

the convention delegates adopted Resolution 1129 in support of the 

Alaska Safe Families and Villages Act. I have appended a copy of 

that resolution to my testimony. 

BBNA is a regional nonprofit Tribal consortium of 31 federally 

recognized Tribes in the Bristol Bay region. Our geographic area of 

southwest Alaska is about the size of the State of Ohio. Our regional population is about 7,000 people, about 70 percent are Alaska Native. 

Both the AFN and the BBNA strongly support the Alaska Safe 

Families and Villages Act. This legislation will allow local Tribal 

courts and law enforcement to address social problems at home in 

the village. Currently, villages rely on the State of Alaska to provide all law enforcement and judicial services, often at centers a 

great distance away from the village. 

The bill will establish a demonstration project by which a small 

number of Tribes would be authorized to enforce local ordinances 

dealing with alcohol and drug abuse, domestic violence, child 

abuse, and neglect. Alaska Tribes already have some jurisdiction in 


1110c4.eps
48

those areas, but most villages have not developed Tribal ordinances 

and procedures. 

The ordinances and the Tribes’ plans for implementing the demonstration project will be subject to the oversight and approval of 

the Department of Justice every step of the way. The bill creates 

no Tribal criminal jurisdiction, but simply confirms civil regulatory 

jurisdiction over alcohol and drug abuse, domestic violence, and 

child abuse and neglect. It does not address major crimes, does not 

authorize Tribes to jail people, and does not diminish in any State 

law enforcement authority, criminal or civil. 

Although the demonstration project starts small, we believe it 

will be such an obvious success that Congress will expand the program and make it permanent in future years. 

Alaska Natives are far better situated to address social problems, 

particularly involving children and youth, at home under Tribal authorities, better than the State. While this is often discussed in 

terms of law enforcement, I believe it is more of a problem of access 

to State courts. 

Alaska State courts are not local in most places. In Bristol Bay, 

for example, we have 28 year-round inhabited communities spread 

over an area the size of the State of Ohio. There are State courts 

in only communities, Dillingham, and Naknek. Alaska has no Justice of the Peace Courts like some States have, and there are no 

municipal courts outside the big cities. 

We have villages in our region that are more than 200 miles 

from the closest State court and there are no roads in between. 

Even a village that has a local village public safety officer, or 

VPSO, or even a local city police department, is still dependent 

upon a prosecutor’s office and the court system in some large community far away. 

I grew up in a small village, Clarks Point, which is across the 

Nushagak Bay from Dillingham. It is only about 15 miles away as 

the eagle flies, but there are no roads connecting them. And if the 

weather is bad, it is simply inaccessible until the weather breaks. 

Clarks Point has about 75 people. Although it has had a VPSO in 

the past, the position is currently vacant and has been difficult to 

fill. There is no chance that a village of 75 people will ever have 

a magistrate, a State magistrate or a State court. It simply 

wouldn’t be cost-effective. 

Clarks Point does have, however, a functional Tribal Council that 

already provides a number of services in the village. Although some 

villages have city governments as well as Tribal councils, most city 

governments do not enforce criminal or civil laws because they 

would have to pay the cost of a prosecuting attorney, provide public 

defenders, and pay for a prosecution in State courts. 

Alaska Tribes already have some authority in these areas of 

child custody and adoption, child neglect, and domestic relations 

based on Tribal membership. But Alaska Tribes do not have landbased jurisdiction and the exact extent of Tribal authority in Alaska has been very unclear. 

We are not advocating for the creation of Indian Country in Alaska. I want to make that very clear. We are advocating and think 

it makes enormous sense to allow Tribes to handle some explicit 

49

and specific types of problems in their villages and to clearly define 

what those types of cases are. 

Alaska Natives have probably the highest rate of suicide in the 

Nation, perhaps the world. We have hugely disproportionate rates 

of sexual assault, domestic violence, alcoholism, and accidental 

death. Many of the sexual assaults and domestic violence go unreported, but the scars can be seen. Most of these problems and scars 

trace back to alcohol abuse. 

For too long, law enforcement in rural Alaska has been underfunded and in many smaller, remote villages virtually nonexistent. 

The Alaska State Court system does not reach out far enough or 

fast enough for many of our remote, isolate villages. For too long, 

villages then have had to travel great distances at great expense 

for court cases. 

For too long, we have seen bootleggers, domestic violence, and 

sexual abuse offenders walking our village streets unabated because State law enforcement is too slow to respond and prosecutions are too difficult. 

This bill is a tool and step in the right direction. It is a break 

from past practices and attitudes. It shows a practical understanding that sheer economics, budgetary, and political constraints 

will always preclude the State of Alaska from providing truly adequate judicial resources in hundreds of tiny geographically remote 

villages. It also recognizes that Tribal governments can fill the gap 

and it adds an element of prevention and early intervention. 

We appreciate Senator Begich and Chairman Akaka and Senator 

Murkowski and this Committee that you are willing to roll up your 

sleeves to help us put into place locally controlled, culturally relevant practices to help reduce serious social problems. You will 

save lives. You will save lives in our most remote and neediest villages in the Country and in Alaska. 

I want to be very clear that we don’t want to create Indian Country in Alaska. At the same time, we don’t want to take over responsibility for criminal courts or jails and law enforcement. We simply 

want to do our share, to do our part, to do what we can to help. 

Complicated jurisdictional issues should really not get in the way 

of providing basic, needed, and common sense solutions in the villages. The longer they go on, the longer our people will suffer, and 

lives will be destroyed or lost. 

The demonstration project as provided in the bill is well designed 

and provides a step-by-step approach. It will work. 

In closing, I want to stress that I have the deepest respect for 

the State government and the current Administration. I have great 

respect for Governor Parnell. He has shown a deep commitment to 

addressing alcohol and drug abuse, domestic violence, and sexual 

assaults in Alaska. 

The CHAIRMAN. President Andersen, will you please summarize 

your statement? 

Mr. ANDERSEN. Yes. I have great respect for the village public 

safety officers and State troopers. The VPSOs have the toughest 

jobs that I can imagine. 

Again, I want to express AFN and BBNA and our sister regional 

Native nonprofit consortiums’ support for this bill. We believe it is 

a very positive step toward empowering local communities and 

50

local residents to take responsibility for problems and for resolving 

them at home. 

Thank you, Chairman Akaka. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Andersen follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF RALPH ANDERSEN, PRESIDENT/CEO, BRISTOL BAY NATIVE

ASSOCIATION; CO-CHAIR, ALASKA FEDERATION OF NATIVES

Good afternoon Chairman Akaka and distinguished members of the Committee. 

My name is Ralph Andersen. I am Co-Chair of the Alaska Federation of Natives 

(AFN) and I am also the President and Chief Executive Office of the Bristol Bay 

Native Association (BBNA), based in Dillingham, Alaska. I am honored to be here 

today to testify in support of the Alaska Safe Families and Villages Act. 

AFN is the largest statewide organization of Alaska Natives, representing 125,000 

Natives within Alaska and nearly an equal number—120,000—living outside Alaska. AFN was formed in 1966, initially to fight for aboriginal land claims, and for 

the past 45 years has been at the forefront of efforts to advance Alaska Native selfdetermination. It hosts the largest gathering of Alaska Natives, the AFN Annual 

Convention attended by thousands of Alaska Natives. In October the convention delegates adopted Resolution 11–29 in support of the Alaska Safe Families and Villages Act. I am appending a copy of that resolution to my testimony. 

BBNA is a regional non-profit tribal consortium of 31 federally recognized tribes 

within the Bristol Bay Region. Our geographic area in southwest Alaska is about 

the size of the State of Ohio. Our regional population is about 7,000 people, about 

70 percent are Alaska Native. BBNA operates a variety of service programs for our 

member tribal villages, including Bureau of Indian Affairs programs that we operate 

under a self-governance compact agreement that has been in effect since 1995. 

Both AFN and BBNA strongly support the Alaska Safe Families and Villages Act 

and, in fact, both organizations have supported this and similar legislative proposals 

to clarify tribal civil jurisdiction in Alaska for many, many years, dating at least 

to the Clinton administration. We are very pleased this bill has been introduced and 

that this hearing is being held. 

Plugging the Gaps 

The basic idea of this legislation is to allow local tribal courts and law enforcement—to address social problems and petty offenses involving tribal members at 

home, in the village, instead of relying on the state government to provide all law 

enforcement and judicial services, often from centers a great distance away from the 

village. 

The bill will establish a demonstration project by which a small number of tribes, 

no more than three per year for three years—nine total—would be authorized to enforce local ordinances dealing with alcohol and drugs for a period of five years. The 

bill is also intended to enhance tribal enforcement of domestic violence and child 

abuse and neglect matters. Alaska tribes already have some jurisdiction in those 

areas but most villages have not developed tribal laws and procedures. The ordinances and the tribe’s plan for implementing the demonstration project would be 

subject to the oversight and approval of the Department of Justice. 

The bill creates no tribal criminal jurisdiction, but simply confirms civil regulatory 

jurisdiction over the subjects listed in the bill—alcohol, drugs, domestic violence and 

child abuse and neglect. It does not address major crimes, it does not authorize 

tribes to jail people, and it does not diminish in any way state law enforcement authority, criminal or civil. It is intended to address what might be called entry-level 

offenses such as underage drinking and drug use, and to keep such problems from 

escalating. It makes far more sense to address low grade offenses immediately, at 

home, rather than waiting until they get so bad a person is caught up in the state 

criminal justice system, jailed, and sent to court dozens or even hundreds of miles 

away from home. 

This is very much a common sense bill to fill gaps in existing services. Although 

the demonstration project starts small, we believe it will be such an obvious success 

Congress will expand the program and make it permanent in future years. 

Alaska Native villages are far better situated to address social problems, particularly involving children and youth, at home under tribal authorities, than is the 

state government. It would benefit everyone, including the state agencies, if some 

problems such as juvenile delinquent behavior could be curtailed and the person 

helped by the local community before the behavior ever escalates or becomes a state 

issue. 

51

While this is often discussed in terms of law enforcement—and there are gaps in 

state law enforcement—I tend to believe it is more a problem of inadequate courts 

and access to courts. The state court system is not the most culturally appropriate 

way for dealing with young Native offenders, nor are state courts ‘‘local’’ in most 

places. In Bristol Bay, which has 28 year-round inhabited communities spread out 

over an area the size of Ohio, there are state courts in only two communities—

Dillingham and Naknek. Alaska has no justice of the peace courts like some states 

have, and there are no municipal courts outside the big cities. We have villages in 

our region that are more than 200 miles from the closest state court, and there are 

no roads in between. 

Even a village that has a local Village Public Safety Officer (VPSO) or even a local 

city police department is still dependent on a prosecutor’s office and court system 

in some larger community miles away. 

I grew up in a Bristol Bay village, Clarks Point, which is across the Nushagak 

Bay from Dillingham. It’s only about 15 miles away as the eagle flies, but there are 

no roads connecting them and if the weather is bad it is simply inaccessible until 

the weather breaks. Clarks Point has about 75 people. Although it has had a VPSO 

position in the past, the position is currently vacant and has been difficult to fill. 

There is no chance that a village of 75 people will ever have a state magistrate court 

or a resident state trooper—it simply would not be cost effective. Clarks Point does, 

however, have a functioning tribal council that already provides a number of services in the village. There is simply no logical reason why the tribe should not be 

able to prosecute and handle minor offenses at home as civil regulatory matters. 

That is all S. 1192 does, on a pilot basis for up to nine villages. 

I will note that although some villages have city governments as well as tribal 

councils, the city governments in the villages do not directly enforce criminal or civil 

regulations because they would have to pay for the expense of a prosecuting attorney, provide public defenders, and otherwise pay for prosecution in the state courts 

in the regional hubs. The city government in Clarks Point has no resources to be 

prosecuting cases in Dillingham. 

Although Alaska tribes already do have some authority in areas such as child custody and adoption, child neglect, and domestic relations based on tribal membership, 

Alaska tribes do not generally have land-based jurisdiction and the exact extent of 

tribal authority in Alaska has been very unclear. We are not advocating for the creation of ‘‘Indian Country’’ jurisdiction in Alaska. I want to make that very clear. We 

are advocating and think it makes enormous sense to explicitly allow tribes to handle some types of problems within their villages and to clearly define what those 

types of cases are, without getting into a complicated analysis based on land status 

and without waiting for decades of litigation to establish the parameters of tribal 

jurisdiction. The cleanest way to do this is by enacting a federal law to clarify a 

few subject matters areas where tribes can assert authority. 

To illustrate the problems tribes run into in addressing social problems through 

tribal courts, one of the larger Bristol Bay villages operated a tribal court that handled juvenile cases for about ten years. The particular village has a city police department, and my understanding is that the tribe had a written agreement with the 

city by which the local city police referred some juvenile cases to the tribal court. 

The agreement was also signed off by the State of Alaska. This agreement and arrangement worked well and the tribe successfully handled a number of cases, each 

of which would otherwise been in the state system and prosecuted 70 miles away 

in Dillingham. Recently, someone in the city government had questions about the 

agreement that were referred to the state Attorney General’s office. The AG’s office 

concluded this diversion of cases was improper and that the state could not honor 

its own prior agreement with the tribe. Understandably the city, which is a subdivision of the state, is now no longer willing to honor the agreement either. 

Sadly, a cooperative effort that was working, that was probably within the normal 

discretion of state law enforcement anyway, and that benefited all parties was 

ended because someone in a state office in Anchorage or Juneau hundreds of miles 

away decided it was a bad thing to work cooperatively with tribes. It has been our 

experience that state opposition to tribes almost always comes from state elected officials and the higher echelons of state government. People who actually do the work 

in the field—state troopers, social workers, judges, prosecutors—are practically always more than willing to work with tribes because they correctly see the tribes as 

a resource. 

The Need 

I do not wish to spend too much time talking about the severity of social problems 

in rural Alaska. We have told our story over and over and the bill itself recites 

many of the statistics. Alaska Natives probably have the highest suicide rate in the 

52

nation and perhaps the world. We have hugely disproportionate rates of sexual assault, domestic violence, alcoholism, and accidental death. Many of the sexual assaults and domestic violence goes unreported, but the scars can be seen. Too many 

of our people are in prison. Too many of our adults find it difficult to get jobs because they have criminal records. Most of these problems trace back to alcohol 

abuse. 

For too long law enforcement in rural Alaska has been underfunded and in many 

small remote villages virtually non-existent. The Alaska Court system does not 

reach out far enough or fast enough for many of our remote, isolated villages. For 

too long, village residents have had to travel great distances at great expense for 

court cases. For too long we have seen bootleggers and domestic violence and sexual 

abuse offenders walking our village streets unabated because state law enforcement 

is slow to respond and prosecutions too difficult. While the lack of courts or law enforcement is not the cause of our high rates of suicide and other social problems, 

it is certainly an obstacle to addressing them. 

The bill is a tool, and a step in the right direction. It is a break with past practices and attitudes and shows a practical understanding that sheer economics, budgetary and political constraints will always preclude the Alaska state government 

from providing truly adequate law enforcement and judicial resources in dozens of 

tiny, geographically remote villages, scattered across an area the size of the State 

of Ohio. It also recognizes that tribal governments can help plug the gap, and it 

adds an element of prevention and early intervention that is lacking in the state 

system. 

We appreciate that Senator Begich, Chairman Akaka, and this Committee, are 

willing to roll up your sleeves to help us put into place locally-controlled, culturallyrelevant practices to help reduce social problems. You will help save lives in some 

of our most remote and neediest villages in the country and in Alaska. I want to 

be very clear that we don’t want to take over responsibility for criminal courts, jails, 

and law enforcement. We simply want to do our share—to do our part—to do what 

we can to help. Complicated jurisdictional disagreements with the state really 

should not get in the way of providing needed, common sense solutions in the villages. The longer they go on, the longer our people will suffer and lives will be destroyed or lost. 

In addition to establishing the demonstration project on tribal law enforcement 

and courts, the bill will open a new temporary federal funding stream in support 

of the project. This includes both training of our tribal courts and administrators 

and some additional funding for law enforcement. The demonstration project as provided in the bill is well designed and provides a step by step process. It will work. 

Closing 

In closing I wish to stress I mean no disrespect for the Alaska state government 

or the current state administration. I have great respect for Governor Parnell. He 

has shown a deep commitment to addressing alcohol and drug abuse, domestic violence and sexual assaults in Alaska. In rural Alaska, in recent years the state has 

expanded the Village Public Safety Officer Program. I have great respect for Village 

Public Safety Officers, and the Alaska State Troopers and the Alaska Court System. 

Our VPSO’s have the most difficult jobs that I can imagine. But there are simply 

inherent constraints such that the state is never going to pay for magistrates and 

state police officers in 200-plus villages. The bulk of the population and the political 

power in Alaska are in the urban areas of Anchorage, Fairbanks and Juneau. Even 

the VPSO program, which is an excellent program specifically designed for villages, 

is hampered by relatively low wages, lack of housing, difficulty in recruitment and 

other limits. 

I have witnessed first-hand the largely unchanged social problems in many villages that have existed since my childhood days. We still hear of family violence, 

bootlegging, and sexual abuse. It seems not a week goes by when we hear of another 

suicide or death. 

There is no single solution to these difficult problems nor are there any easy answers. The right solutions will likely vary from region to region, community to community, and involve more than just one agency and more than one just one program 

or approach. We need and want our tribal governments and tribal law enforcement 

and courts to be part of the equation. We want to be part of the solution. Tribes 

are already there, providing services on the ground. 

The Alaska Safe Families and Villages Act will break new ground by actually recognizing that Alaska tribal governments have a role in and are part of addressing 

the important needs for law enforcement and judicial services in remote areas. For 

this reason the Alaska Federation of Natives, the Bristol Bay Native Association, 

and our sister regional Native non-profit tribal consortiums consider this bill a very 

53

high priority. We believe this bill will be a very positive step toward empowering 

local communities and local residents to take care of problems at home. 

Thank you again Chairman Akaka and members of the Committee for giving me 

this opportunity to testify. 

Attachment


1110d1.eps
54

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. 

Commissioner Masters, please proceed with your testimony. 

STATEMENT OF JOE MASTERS, COMMISSIONER, ALASKA 

DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY 

Mr. MASTERS. Good afternoon. I am Joe Masters and I am the 

Commissioner for the Alaska Department of Public Safety, whose 

mission is public safety in the State of Alaska. 

As a matter of introduction, I am a Yupik Eskimo and I have 

been raised in the Aleutian Islands. I have been a law enforcement 

officer for 29 years and began my career as a village public safety 

officer in the village of Unalakleet. I later became a city police officer and then spent 20 years as an Alaska State trooper and I have 

been the Commissioner for the past three years. 

Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, Senator Begich, 

thank you for this opportunity to comment on behalf of the State 

of Alaska on this Senate bill. 

Assuring that families and villages in Alaska are safe is unquestionably an objective that the State of Alaska shares with the Federal Government and with all Alaska Tribes. I would like to do two 

things in my testimony: first, outline for you the State’s recent efforts to improve law enforcement in rural Alaska Native villages; 

and second, to respectfully suggest to the Committee that the serious issues facing rural Alaska require a different long-term framework than provided in the Act. 


1110d2.eps
55

And I would welcome an opportunity to assist the Committee and 

the bill sponsors to overcome our concerns. 

Alaska’s Governor Sean Parnell has made unprecedented investments in improving rural justice, including establishing a 10-year 

State initiative to end domestic violence and sexual assault. As 

part of that initiative, he made the unprecedented commitment to 

ensure that there is a law enforcement presence in every village. 

To that end, he has increased the hiring of village public safety 

officers and shared the vision of adding 15 of those positions each 

year for 10 years. To give you some idea of the extent of these recent efforts, in 2008 there were 46 VPSOs in rural Alaska villages 

within the program, funded at $5.7 million. Today, there is funding 

for 101 positions, and importantly, the Governor wants to bring 

that number to 116 with program funding that could exceed $19 

million in State fiscal year 2013. This is a 325 percent increase 

from just a few years ago. 

It is not just about VPSOs. There are also more than 100 village 

police officers and Tribal police officers in Alaska communities providing a law enforcement presence in all but 75 Alaska communities. 

Alaska is also seeking partnerships with Department of Interior 

BIA for law enforcement technical assistance and training for these 

VPO’s. We have added State troopers in support positions in rural 

Alaska to increase our presence and response capacity, as well as 

increased training and assistance for all categories of law enforcement officers. 

The efforts are not confined to law enforcement. The Governor’s 

domestic violence initiative funded and completed baseline studies 

of the actual incidents of sexual assault and domestic violence in 

Alaska to assist future policy, fiscal, and programmatic decisions. 

These efforts collectively mark a concerted, serious, and ongoing 

commitment by the State of Alaska to address the precise issues 

of concern stated in S. 1192. The belief that law enforcement efforts 

are broken or that Alaska cannot or will not provide services to 

Alaska Native villages is not accurate. 

I would like to suggest a framework for proceeding that would 

build on and develop already existing Federal-State-Tribal partnerships. The State already has solid partnerships with many Federal 

agencies, and we can build on these partnerships to the benefit of 

Native communities and to the State of Alaska as a whole. 

We have a number of specific suggestions for moving forward. 

Federal dollars directed to assist villages with public safety infrastructure needs and to hire and train officers such as VPSOs and 

VPOs would go a long way to increasing safety in rural Alaska. 

Targeted programmatic Federal assistance for education, prevention, and early intervention programs to address underlying social 

issues such as substance abuse and truancy would also be immensely beneficial. 

There are provisions within this Act that unquestionably promote safety and will enable Tribes to take a more active role in 

their own wellness. However, the Act also contains ambiguous provisions that the State believes may create Indian Country and may 

create Tribal criminal jurisdiction that will be counterproductive to 

those collaborative efforts I just spoke of. 

56

Alaska Attorney General John Burns has specifically commented 

on these issues in a letter that is included with my written testimony. 

Dividing the State into jurisdictional project areas subject to separate rules and separate court systems is not a practical approach 

for the long term. Rather, programs addressing law enforcement 

training, programs for technical and programmatic support to village and Tribal councils, and programs directed to regional and 

community efforts are all areas where the Federal Government can 

truly be part of the solution. And we hope that you will consider 

these specific ideas. 

Although I am not testifying on S. 1763, I do want to let you 

know that we have made specific comments that are pertinent to 

your review and they are also contained within my written testimony. 

In closing, we believe practical, programmatic solutions do exist 

to the intractable issues of violence and crime in our rural communities. And those solutions are preferable to a top-down federally 

imposed jurisdictional solution. 

Moving forward, we appreciate the opportunity to offer input and 

work with the Committee staff and Tribal partners to seek a consensus about how best to proceed in Alaska and are dedicated to 

devoting the staff and resources necessary to make this happen. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Masters follows:]

57

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JOE MASTERS, COMMISSIONER, ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF

PUBLIC SAFETY


1110e1.eps
58


1110e2.eps

Alask~ by addinG lS new positions per year for the next 10 years, so that every village in Alaska 

that went. a law enforcement presence in its community can have it. 

In ~ddition to VPSOs, Village Police Officers (VPOs) and Tribal Police Officers (TPOs) also provide 

paraprofessional polke services in rural Alaska. These three categories differ in the training 

they rscaive and their funding sources. Currently, there are a r:ombined 104 Vpos and TPOs in 

S2 communities. This places a law enforcement presence In all but 7S Alaskan communltles--a 

number that is ever decreasing ilS the VPSO program expands, 

The VPso program represents ~n approach to rural policIng that 15 tailored specifically to 

Alaska. In recognition of the scope of village life and of the range of public safety needs in 

these areas, the program was designed to trJln ~nd employ Indlvldu~ls residing In the village ~s 

first responders to public safety emergencies sw;h as search and re.cue, fire protection, 

emergency med1c~1 <lsslstance, crime prevention, and basic law enforcement. Working as a 

team with the Alaska Slllte Troopers, VPSOs conduct misdemeanor end minor felony 

investigations with and can 5tabili~e most volatile situations and protect crime scenes in more 

serious incidents until Troopers can arrive. 

Under the Parnell administration, the VPSO program exemplifies the real benefits of a true 

partnership between the State. partiCipating native organiz~tions and rU1'il1 communities. The 

Department of Public Safety provides Funding to nonprofit regional native corporations to hire 

and employ VPSOs wlthln theIr regIon, recognizing that these organIzations are aptly aware of 

the specific needs of the areas to be served. Regional nonprofit native corporations employ the 

vPsos, and the Department of PubllcSamty provides tl'illning, eqUIpment, and over sight. Both 

entities work to provide VPSOs with direction suited to the specific needs oflhe communities in 

whIch the VPSOs Ifve and work. AdditIonally, three new State Trooper pOSitIons have been 

added in Bethel, Kotzebue, and Fairbanks to focus specifically on supporting VPsos, and to 

work with VPSOs, native non-profit organizations and village and tribal councils to enhance the 

quality of service and strengthen the collaborative partnership. 

VPSOs are iln effective mechanism for villages to have stron~ local influence and control over 

publIc safety needs, and positions can be filled through local hire reflective of the cultural 

composition of the region. For example, if YOll look at the southwest region of Alaska, the 

Alaska A5soclatlon of Village Coundl Presidents (AVCP) has fliled their posmons refl~ctlvc of 

90% local hire ~nd Alas~a N<Jtivl? hire. Thl?ir highly effective hiring practice, wililiksly result in 

more effective policing In the villages and In a way that is culturally relevant to their 

community. 

VPSOs receive 10 weeks of training and instruction on law enforcement, first aid, and 

firefighting, all of which is provided by the Department of Public Safety at its Training Academy 
59


1110e3.eps

in Sitk<l, AI;;ska. In ,ontr~st, VPOS ~nd TPOs reOllve jlJst two weeks of form~1 tr~inlng. The 

Department is ClJrrently exploring ways to collaborate with criminal justice partners and private 

entities to in~rease the training to vPSOs, ;;s well as provide the same [evel of training to 

qu;;]jfied VPOs and TPOs. In this regard, I have made specific requests to the Dep<lrtment of 

Interior, B[A Office of Justice Services to partner with the state in provIding technical assistance 

and training to villages, tribes, and officers. 

In state Flsca[ Year ZOOB, fundIng for the VPSO program was $S.7M. In State Fiscal Year 2013, 

VPSO progrJm funding could exceed $19M. This is an increase of mare than 325 percent in just 

five years. The State is further invasting in this program by providing funding through the 

Alaska Housing FInance COrporation for VPSO housing in the amount of $lM in both State Fiscal 

Year 2011 and 2012. The Governor will be asking ;or this in State Fiscal Year 2013 as we[1. The 

focus on housing supports a recommendation of the Alaska Rural Justice and law Enforcement 

CommiS5ion to improve and expand housins for public safety officers in rur;;1 Alaska.' 

In Z008, there were 46 VPSOs In rural Alaska. Today there is funding for 101 posItions, with 88 

of those filled in 74 rural communities. And at the recent Alaska Federation of Natives 

Convention, the Governor reaffirmed his commitl7lent to ask for 15 new positions in his State 

fiscal Year 2013 budget request; thIs would bling the number of VPSOs to 116. 

The presence of VPSOs has had a sisnificant impact on improving the quality of life in 

participating '1li1ages. Studies have shawn that: vii lases with a local paraprofessional police 

presence, such as a VPSO, hilve rates of serious injury caused by assault that ilffi 40 percent 

lower than in '1Hlases without a local paraprofessional police pr8senceil sexual aSSilult cases 

orlslnally reported to local paraprofessionals ere 3.5 tImes more likely to be prosecuted;' and 

cases of domestic violence first reported to a VPSO or VPO are 2.4 times more likely to result in 

a conviction.4 My department is also adding trooper positions in rural Alaska. After a decades" 

long absence of a permanent Alaska State Trooper post:, the village of Selawik will house t',\/o 

troopers to gl'le the village a continual trooper presence. This was In response to requests from 

the community and the Northwest Arctic Borou~h to maka villages in that region safer and 

would not have been possible without the cooperative and combined efforts of the State, the 

Borough and the village sovernment. 

, A1a,);a Rural Justice and LGw Eoforceme~t Comml"Ton.12006]. TnTtial RepOJt and Recommendations a/rhe Alas,", 

R~fal Justice ond Law Efl/wcemenr Commi"iwI, lOO6. An,horage, AK: Ala'ka N<Jtlve Justl,e Center. 

, Wood, D. S. and GrueneW<!ld, P. J. (2000). local akohol prohlb~lan. police presence and seriou, Injury Tn I,ol.teo 

AI",);" Native ... lIIilE"'. Addi<(/on, 101: 393--403. 

]Rosay. And~ B. (20 Aue 2010). "O\Ie!V;ew of SC'Uill Assilult In AI"sk,," (PowerPoint slide pr~sent"tion). Slide 

presentation pr .. enled 10 the U.S. Department of justIce RDundrable DiscussIon, Anchorage, AK . 

• Rivera. M"rny; ROSilV. Andre S.; Wood. D.rryl S.; .nd Tcpo" ~.thcrin~. (fall 2009). 'Pfcdkting Legilillesolutions 

in Domeotio Violeno. ~., ..... Alasl<u J~,rice r"<Jf~m 26(3): 1, 11-12. 
60


1110e4.eps

Further efforts of my department, supported throush Governor Parnell's initiative, indude 

staffing a new positIon to Increase trainIng to VPSOs, VPOs, TPOs, and other first responders 

such as behavioral health aides ~nd village health .. ides in recognizing and responding to crimes 

involving domestic violence, sexual assault, and se~ual abuse of minors; the goal being to 

enhance services to victims In rU1111 AI~sk~ and Increase the reporting of these crimes to law 

enforcement. 

Additionally, three new State Trooj}er/lnvestigator positions have been funded to provide vital 

follow-up investieative activities in C<lses involving domestic violence, sexual assault, and sexual 

abuse of minors, with ane afthese positions st<ltloned In Bethel, Alask~. By dedicating troopers 

to concentrate on folloW-Up investigative activities we are increasing the likelihood of 

successful prosecution ~nd holding off'mders accountable. 

With respect to addressing 5ubs\3nce <lbuse, my department supports eight multl-Jurlsdlctlon~1 

teams dedicated to Illegal alcohol and drug enforcemGnt throughout tIm State. We havG solid 

partnerships with federal agencies involved in drug lnvestiglltion ~nd enforcement, inciudin(:: 

the Drug Enforcement I'Idministl11tion (DEA); the Internal Revenue Service (IRS); the Bureau of 

Alcohol, Tob~cco, Fire~rms, and Explosives (BATF); and U.S. Immlgl11tlon and customs 

Enforcement (ICE). Members of Alaska's law enforcement community and other criminal 

justice professionals have long known that the gre~test contributing fuctor to \Oiolent crimes, 

including domestic violence and sexual assault, is drug and alcohol abuse. It is also widell' 

recognized' that many of the accidental deaths that occur in Alaska are related to alcohol use. 

The Western Alaska Alcohol <lnd Narcotics Te~m (WAANT) covers the entire western regIon of 

Alaska IncludIng Kotzebue, Nome, Bethel- Dillingham. and the Aleutian Chain to curb the flow of 

illegal drugs and alcohol into these rural communitias, and often works with the assistanoo of 

residents who want to keep their villages safe. In 2010, the WAAm unit seized over $330,000 

In illeGal alcohol ~nd Just over $lM In Illegal drugs.' 

Because much of the alcohol and drUGS being sold illegally in Alaska are shipped through U.S. 

mail, the U.S. Postal Inspectors Service conducts interdictions with direct support from the 

Alaska State Troopers and the Alask~ National Guard counter Drug Support ProGram. Through 

this proGl11m, alcohol seizures with a street value of over $90,000 and illicit drugs with a street 

value of over $475,000 WGre interdicted in 2010.G 

In 2011. the Alaska State Troopers partnered with the United States Marshals ServiC€ to 

conduct several outreach and crime reduction programs including: Badges to Books, a 

community outreach program where Troopers and Marshals visited tradItional summer fish 

• Ala,kl\ BUf"'au of Alcohol and Drug Enforcement, 2QlIJAnnualIJrug RepOrT: 

'Ibid 
61


1110e5.eps

camps and handed out reading books to children; the Village Crime Reduction and Community 

Oriented Policing Program, which teamed with State Troopers, VPSOs, U.S. Marshals, U.S. 

Postal Inspectors, ,md local law enforcement to travel to villages to enforce sell offender 

registry, Interdict alcohol ,md drugs, and to meet wlth schools, tribal and village councils. 

These examples illustrate some of the federal, state, and tribal partnerships with respect to 

public safety that are already in place and making a positlw difference In rural Alaska. 

Other state a~encies are workin~ collaborative]y with tribes and rural villages as wen. The 

Department of Health and Social Services, in particular, has a number of statewide and re~ional 

programs that work directly with tribal organizations to e~pand and improve the delivery of 

health care services in rural Alaska. For example, the agency's Tribal Health Program provides 

statewide technical assistance to tribal health systems on Medicaid enrollment, billing, and staff 

recruitment and training. In the North Slope Borough and Kotzebue region, DHSS provides 

more than $lAM annually for public health nursing services run by tribal health organizations. 

In DlliJngham, a public health nurse is working with the Bristol Bay Area Health Corporation to 

conduct he~lth screellings of school children, which includes immunizations, sports phvsicals, 

TS testing, and vision and hearing screenin~. And in Homer, public health nurses have worked 

wlth the Seldovia Village Tribe to develop a culturally approprlate screening tool for domestic 

violence. 

The Governor's sexual assault domestic violence Initiative has also funded and completed 

baseline studies, both st~tewide ~nd regional. of the actual incidence of sexual assault and 

domestic violence in Alaska to obtain verified statistiC5, not just anecdotal evidence, on hO\\l 

and where this violence Is occurring. In State FIscal Year 2011, Dr. Andre Rosa,!, through the 

State and the University of AlaSka Anchorage's Justice Center, completed a preliminary 

victimization survey? In State Fiscal 'lear 2012, the survey narrowed its focus to specific 

regional statistics for Anchorage, Fairbanks, Dillinsham, and Juneau. More data collection from 

rural communities Is expected. 

The governor's initiative has also funded pilot project prevention and early intervention 

programs in Dillingham, Kodiak, Sitka, and Bethel. And the initiative continues to fund the 

highly successful Family Wellness Warriors InItiatIve for Alaska NatiVes: $200K for State Fiscol 

yeer 2012 Dillinghem project; and in State Fiscal Year ZOl1, Dillingham received $200K end 

Bethel received $200K. The core cfthls InItiative Is an intensive education and tr~ining program 

that Is culturallv centered, faith based, and consists of both large group meetings and small 

7 http://ju<tic~ .u •• _il I •• ka.cd u !~v,(ind ox_htm! 
62


1110e6.eps

group sessions. It's based on the premise that individuals who have been subjected to trauma 

and abuse themselves have learned coping skills that negatively impact or harm others. 

Participants are challenged to Identify and replace harmful relational styles with methods that 

enhanCE! safe and healthy relationships through 3-5 day !>atherincs that intecrate spiritual and 

cultural renewal with eVidence-based psychology. 

In the pilst two legislative sessions, Alaska passed new laws that toughen penalties for crimes of 

sexual assault and domestl~ violence and address the uses of new te~hnology, like GP5 stillking 

~nd Internet pornography, to commit those crimes. 

Prublems with sexual assault and domestic VIolence in rural Alaska are systl:mk ~nd 

longstandIng. But State law enforccm,mt efforts, through the State's concerted efforts to hire 

and train local officers to serve in rural oommunrties, and through the programs [n the 

Governor's initiative, demonstrate the st~te's commitment to ImprovIng the qualIty of life in 

these communities. I submit to you that Alaska's rural justice system can be improved, and 

there is ajustifiable perception that supports the notion that It has been under-funded. But th~ 

system Is not broken. We are encouraged thilt Congress is evaluating Alaska's law erJforrement 

needs, and suggest that collaborative effurts among the state, the federal guvernment and the 

tribes are required to tackle this problem. 

How can the fedl!'ai govl!rnment help? 

There are slgnlflcant provisions within the Alaska Safe F3milies ~nd Vill<lges Act th"t will 

promote safety and enable local communities to take a more active role in their own wellness. 

However, ambiguous provisions that may create Indian COuntry and criminil[Jurisdlctlon will be 

counterproductive to the collilooratlve efforts already In place. 

For example, rather than creating a new category of law enforcement officer (as the proposal 

does], federal dollars directed to train existing officers, such as VPSOs and VPQs, would go a 

long way to iJicreasing services in rural Alilska. Local law enforcement officers, whether village 

police officers, trib"1 po[l~e officers, or VPSOs, would benefit greatly fmm training and 

assistance in the following areas: organizing their departments and activities to provide 

effective services; writing police reports; documenting crime scenes with cameras and tape 

recorders; carIng for eVIdence once seized; testifying in court; "nd ensuring that discovery is 

made availab[e to criminal defendants ilnd their ilttomeys. Alaska State Troopers have miniacademies in rural Alaska and a full-scale academy in Sitka with established training programs. 

With feder~1 support, those programs could be expanded and rural officers could receive 

culturally relevant training with minimal disruption to their home and family life. 

Social issues1ike substance abuse <lnd truancy are at the root of many law enforcement Issues. 

Because of this, targeted programmatic federal ilssistance to address these underlying issues 
63


1110e7.eps

through prevention and early intervention programs, substance abuse programs, and education 

would be of beneJit. 

The Alaska safe Families and Villages Act assumes tJat the federal government must step In ~nd 

impose jurisdictional solutions. We don't believe that having the federal government divide the 

State Into Jurisdictional project areas for roughly 230 separate tribes is a practical approach for 

the long term. Alaska can point to specific needs For law enforcement training, technical and 

programmatic support to lIillage and tribal councils, and other programs at the regional and 

community levels where the federal government can ttl.lly be part of the solution. We hope 

you will consider those. 

We have previously commented on Alaska-specific jurisdictional issues that are presented by 

the Alaska Safe Families and Villages Act and we are attaching a recent letter from Attorney 

General John Burns to Senator Usa Murkowskl that specifically addresses those concerns. The 

State's chief concerns regarding the proposeclleglslatlon Include: the creation of Jurisdictional 

"project areas~ that appear to ~reate ambiguity as to the status of these ilreas and their 

relationship to Indian country in Alilska; the alparent provision of tribal wurt ~riminal 

jurisdiction both off-reservation and over non-tribal members, in derogation of the U,S, 

Supreme court's decision in Oliphant v_ Suquamish Tribl!s;8 the provision of general tribal civil 

jurisdiction over non-members where consent to il tribal court's Jurisdiction can be Inferred ~ 

the mere fact of a "relationship" with a tribal mernJer, which we belielle is ~n expansion of lilW 

not supported bV the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Plains Camml!rcl! v. tang Family Cottier 

ancl, the provision of full faith and credit rewgnition of trilial oourt orders, when a more 

appropriate and conventional recognition standard would be under the doctrine of comity. 

SAVE Nati"" Women Act 

I would al50 like to comment briefly on the SAVE Native Women At;t. Decreasing violence 

against Alaska Native women is a goal that is part and parcel of Governor Parnell's sexual 

assault and domestic violence Initiative, an InitiatIve that reaches every man, woman, and child 

in the state. Thus, the State fully ~upports effort:; to ~ssure that violence against all women, 

Including Natille women, Is curbed at its root. 

HIstorically, because of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act and the U_S. Supreme Court's 

interpretation of it in Alaska v, Vf'netif','O the jurlscllctional paradigm, especially regardIng tribal 

criminal jurisdiction in Alaska, is unique. Alaska hos only one Teserv.:ltlon, ~nd apart from that 

I Oliphant "_ Suquami:!h Tribe, 435 U.S. 191 (1978) 

, Plain; Commerce BMk v. long F.milv La~d and Cattle, 554 u.s. 411 (2008) 

10 /l1.sf,;;.; v. N"U"" Vill~gc cfvonetle Tribal GD"~rnment.. 522 ~.s. 520 (lSSSI 
64


1110e8.eps

reservation, virtually no Indian wuntry. In a previou5 draft version of section 204 of the SAVE 

Netive Women Act, trib~1 wurt criminal JurIsdiction was e)(pllcltly limited to Indian country and 

therefore did not extend to most or Alaska. Thus, in these comments, Alaska would ordinarily 

leave it to states like New Mexiw with Indian reservations to weigh In on whether this 

legislation, on Its melits, appropriately aids in the protection of Netive women. But as 

Introduced, 5.1763 contains language in section 201 (amending 204(bj(1) and (e)(3)) that may 

create ambiguity as to its applicability in Alaska. We believe the explicit ilmltatlon of tlibal 

crlmln~1 Jurisdiction to Indian country, as defined in 18 USCU.S.C. § 1151, has been made less 

dear by referring to "inherent" tribal criminal jurisdiction in section 201. We elsa believe that 

Section 202(e)'s reference to "Indian land" could be clarified by referrIng Instead to "Indl~n 

country." These ch~nges would leave Intact the overall laudable and important goals of the 

Act, whJle making clear that the Act is not intended to confer criminal jurisdiction outside of 

Indian country in Alaska. 

Again, we look forward to working with the committee and staff to seek programmatic 

solutions that assist rural Alaska. 

In summary, we are grateful for the opportunity to address this committee today on Issues of 

such critical importance. AI"sk,,'s leaders, through the administmtion, my agency, the 

Departmel1t~ of Law, Health and Social Sel"'Jlces, Corrections, ~nd others, ~re working hard to 

bring justice to all of its citizens, rural and urban alike. We are one state, one people. We 

respect and acknowledge the role of the federal government in Alaska's affairs, but ask that 

th~t role include consultation and collaboration with the State. We believe there ilre practical, 

programm~tlc solutions to the Issues of violence and crime In our rural communities, short of 

legislation that imposes a top-down, federal jurisdictional ~olution. We welcome thl! 

opportunity to work with the committee ~nd staff to seek iI c<JnsenSU5 about how best to 

proceed in Alaska. 
65


1110e9.eps

AIt .... hment 

~u&u~ ®W &~~~~~ DEPARTMENT OF LAW 

OFFICE OF THE A:ITORNEY GENERAL 

August 19, 2011 

Semi Pamell, Governor 

If)JIIYES{f''' AfElilJE, ~tmf.1O(J 

P;C/IOMGE, ~_Ql-H03 

I'1{()/iK, (Wl};l5!HI~Q 

FAX, (9Dl)~IJI).SllO 

V"Ul U.s. Mru1tutd£..moll to: Kristen Dalmler@mutkowski,scnate.gov 

.Amy Erickson@nrurkowski.senate,gov 

The Honorable Lisa Murkowski 

709 Hart Senate Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

Re: Alaska Safe Families and Villages Act 

S.ll92 

Dear Senator Murkowski: 

I am writing to)'ilU because of concerns -the Stale ofA1aoska hIlS with thc Alaska 

Safe Families and Villages Act (8. 1192-ASFYA) introduced by Senator Begich. The 

State ofAlaskll slJatCS <he goal ofad~ssing domesticviolcnceand aiC{lhol problems in. 

Alaska. However, Alaska does not ngree with the fI)'lPtonch proposed in S. 1192. 

ASFVA was drafted in pm bytri'ba1 advocates who have goals far beyond addressing 

domestic violence and alcohol problems. Not swprisingly. the legisliltion unnecessarily 

emphasizes issues of sovereignty andIndinn country ratberthnn focusing on addressing 

the difficult drug and alcohol problems ~d by Alaska citizens. The legislation, if 

passed, would effectively divideAlaska into JIllllfiplejurisdictional operating zones. 

Alaska does not believe this solution is prudent in the long 1e[lJl for Alaska, or Alaskan~. 

ASFVA is a eomplexpiece oflegisJationwith widc-nmging problems. A few of 

themore troubling 1l:'lpe<:ts ofllie legislation are as follows: 

(1) Congl'essiODHI Findings Uud til Justify Federal Intervention 

ASFVA starts with a list of what are purportedly Congressional "findings" which 

arc used to justify Congressional intervention inAlaska. The findi:ngs indict State law 

enforcement efforts, and suggest 'that,. as 'It result of the perceived deficiencies, Congress 

must exerojse its "plculUY !ll1thority" in Alaska to establish 11 iCdcraily mandated system 

of concurrent state-tribaljurisiliction. 

It's notentircly clear where these "findings" came from, orwhe!her any study or 

studies were ever done to support them. These findings should not be made lightly. 
66


1110e10.eps

Congressional findings can last for decades, and have the potential to influence federal. 

stl\!(HribalrelatiollS for years to come. For example. '!he Congressional findings in '!he 

Indi!lD. Child Wdfue Act--enactecl in 1978-are still commonl), cited today in court 

decis:iOllS, by federal administrative agencies, and in child custody literature. Even if the 

ASFV A pilot program flmb after the 51ated five yellf dW1Jtion, the findings could be used 

for many)'eaJS tojustify future broad-based ferleral interventions in Alaska. 

Werecognize, of C!lUJSe, IhlltAlaska-panicu1arly rural Alaska-poses 

challenges. That is wh)' the Parnell Administration plans to fund, train and support a 

VPSO for every tlomml1llity that asks for 1hat 11lW enfmcement pre:>ence. There were 46 

filled VPSO position in July 2008. Smile thlm, the Scate of Alaska has added 41 VPSOS 

and intends to add 17 more b)' the end of2011 under rurrent authorized funding. The 

Sill.1e i1so supports tlaining for Village Poliee Offie= (VPOs). These IIlld other ongoing 

efforts demonstrate a long-term State eonunitment 10 address and improve the very issues 

which are the subject Dfproposed :findings. Mcmorislizing thcnegalive fiDdings in law 

whlim so much posffivemomentum is underway is bad policy, and :itwill accomplish 

nothing more than to drive a larger wedge between the federal government and the State 

ofAl_ 

Wbile tribal advoeates may want to encOUIage broad·based federal intervcn1ionin 

Alaska, we believe the more appropriate focus is on existing and future Slate clTortsto 

eare for t.ta(~ citi:re-w. Theroughl)' $IB million budgeted for estublbhlng a 

comprehtmSive "pilotprogrmn" could be putto better use in existing State programs and 

iIritilltives such as VPSO housiDg. 

(2) The "Project .Areas" Could Be Construed as Indian COlintry-, and 

Undermines ANCSA by Geugraphic:aUyDjyjding the State Based on Claims 

ofNativec Use or Ot:Cllpanc:y 

The.statute provides that Tribes and the Office of Justice Programs will establish 

''proj~t areas" within which Tribe.;; will exercise jurisdiction eoncun:ent with the State of 

...AJ.a.ska.. The.pm~BCific, 'geagre-phiIlflH:r-identified ZODes ptuposcd-by-:r 

Tribe and approved by the OJP. The State has no apparent role in the project area 

designation process. 

The federal goveroment has a trust responsfb:ili~ to Tribes, and the act of creating 

a geographic area wi'!hin which Tn'bes exercise conourrentjurisdictioDrnises concerns 

about the creation oflndian oountty. Merely saying that the legislatiunlleither "confirms 

oor denies" (Sec. 4(k) the existence of Indian country only heightens the overall concern. 

Although we do not support the idea of project .zoncs, at a minimum the regislation 

5houJd clearly and unequivocally state tllllt no Indian country is created. 
67


1110e11.eps

AUov.ing Tabes to exercise geographiealty_b&;Sedjuri!!dietiOfl:tUn!! CO\lll.ter to the 

Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act which settled Indian land claims. The project areas 

raioo the specter DC astatc divided intovarlous geogrophlc zones-with diffurentrules 

and laws depending an whlcn wne !I. person wotks IX lives jn. 

ANCSA was intended to e.ndthe ''sort offedeml superrision over Indian affairs 

thathad previously marked federal InWanpolkY." Alaska v. Narive Vi11age ojYenetie, 

522 U.S. 5;20, 523-24 (1998). ANCSA sought to end all claims oC«aboriginal right;. title, 

use or occupancy of land or water areas," or claims based on statutes or treaties_ 43 

U,S.C. ~ 1603(e), ANCSA specifically intended to avoid any "p!ll'lI1llIK:ntn.claily 

defined inb1itutiODS, right, privileges or obligatiollS," or creating a "Ieogfuy wardship 01 

trusteeship." 43 U.S.C. § 1601(b). ASFVA, by cOp,trost, lIlOVC$ the Sllrte of Alaska in 

thcwrong direction. byrevisilmg thcse issues, and it directly and indireclly undconines 

the spirit IIlld intent ofANCSA.. 

Interestingly, ASFVA does not offer any bints about what happens when the 

demonstration project ends_ Does the project area disappCllI' as amattcr oClaw? Whllt 

becomes of me tribal rules and autb.orities'l Difficult question;; about state-tribal relations 

are- simply not addressed. 

(3) Potentilll Creation DfTribal CriminalJnrudiction Outside Indian Country 

As II general matter, no tribal eriminaljurisdiction exists outside Indian country. 

Yet ASFVA does noc clearly limit its SC:opeto ewlljUrisdiction matters. ASFVA does 

notplacc any explicit limitations on the topiC3 of tribal laws or ordimmcl;$ "certified" hy 

tb.e Office ofTribal Justice. (See.4(h)(2).) Perhaps more troubling, ASFVA would 

appearto invitecriminll.\ seutences c.finclU"ceration by Tribes. (See Ste. 40)(3), Sec. 1.) 

ASFV A also recognizes broti!lbment as n penalty. (Sec.4GX4).) Permanent banishment 

is almost certainly "punitive" and therefore II criminal penalty, and Congress may not by 

~egislutive:fiat simply treat punitive measures as being a "civil remedy." Finally, tb.e 

.appr.opriate.!:saJ.iooO!ls!!.0r-e-a.I5o·not-explicit:ly-roslrieted-to-chil·remedics, sdying-only 

that Tn"bes may imposc any sentenec as ''appropriate.'' (Sec.4(j)(.2).) 

ASFVA's overall. intemis simply not clear enough, Iftb.e goal is to allow the 

imposition ofcertaio non-Jlunitive, civil remedies, that goal mus.t be clearly artd 

unequivocolly stated. 
68

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Commissioner Masters. 

I will hold my questions. I will ask Senator Murkowski to make 

a very quick statement, and then I will call on Senator Franken 

for his questions and remarks. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Mr. Chairman, thank you. And I apologize 

particularly to our two Alaska witnesses, Commissioner Masters 

and Mr. Andersen. I have to duck out of the Committee here and 

go over to the Capitol, and I am hoping that I can dash back in 

time to ask my questions. If I am not able to, I will be submitting 

those questions for the record. 

But I first want to thank you not only for making the long haul 

back here, but for your testimony and for your commitment to work 

with us to address the issues that have been discussed here today, 

not only on Senator Begich’s bill, but as we look at the bigger legisVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:48 Nov 21, 2012 Jkt 074885 PO 00000 Frm 00072 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\DOCS\74885.TXT JACK

1110e12.eps
69

lative issue which faces so many in our reservations and up in 

Alaska. 

So Mr. Chairman, I am going to dash and I am hoping that I am 

going to be back in time. 

Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Murkowski. 

Senator Franken? 

Senator FRANKEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Ms. Koepplinger, when this Committee met in July, we heard 

testimony about the cycle of violence in Indian Country. Children 

who were exposed to violence at a young age are more likely than 

their peers to commit acts of violence or suffer from acts of violence 

when they become adults. According to the Shattered Hearts report 

that you cited in your testimony, young Indian sex trafficking victims believe, ‘‘that a cycle of violence has been normalized in their 

communities.’’

The SAVE Native Women Act authorizes services for children 

and for non-abusing parents, and I think this is a good step for 

breaking the cycle of violence in Indian Country. I would imagine 

that you would agree. 

Ms. KOEPPLINGER. Yes. 

Senator FRANKEN. What types of services should these children 

be receiving to keep them off a path toward violence? 

Ms. KOEPPLINGER. Thank you, Senator Franken. I do agree that 

services to our young people and to entire family systems is part 

of the solution. The services are complex and they need to be holistic and they need to be culturally based. 

Housing is a critical need. We have young people on the streets 

of our towns and our cities who have no place to go, who engage 

in what they refer to as survival sex simply to have a place to sleep 

at night or to have food to eat. So housing, safe appropriate shelter 

that is long term, that meets these children where they are and 

can address their multiple needs is absolutely critical. 

Family reunification and preservation when possible is absolutely critical. We want to make sure that when there’s a safe adult 

for a young person to be reunified with, whether that is on the reservation or in the city, that we are able to facilitate that. 

Mental health, chemical help services, parenting services, educational assistance, the list goes on and on. But these kids didn’t 

fall into these dangers in a short amount of time. They typically 

have been accumulating traumas since they were very young, 

which makes them extremely vulnerable to predators. And so we 

have to work entire family systems and we have to work with the 

school system and our law enforcement and public health officials 

and the Tribes to makes sure that we are providing the wraparound services that these young people need. 

Senator FRANKEN. You brought up homelessness. You recently 

wrote a report for the Online Resource Center on Violence Against 

Women in which you point out that sex traffickers target homeless 

Native women and children. And the Minnesota Indian Women Resource Center’s Shattered Hearts report notes that nearly one-third 

of Native women were physically or sexually attacked while they 

were homeless. 

70

I know there is a huge unmet demand for homeless shelters and 

for transitional housing services, and we must do more to meet 

that demand. We also must do more to ensure that victims of domestic and sexual violence do not become homeless in the first 

place. So I am working on a bill that will make it unlawful to evict 

a woman from federally supported housing just because she is a 

victim of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault or stalking. This is a preventive measure that will allow victims to keep 

their homes when they need shelter the most. 

I am so grateful to you, Ms. Koepplinger, for the Minnesota Indian Women’s Resource Center’s endorsement of that bill and I 

would like to thank you personally for the valuable feedback you 

provided on it. I am looking forward to introducing that bill soon. 

Can you talk a little bit more about the relationship between 

homelessness and sexual violence, and explain why stable housing 

is so important to victims? 

Ms. KOEPPLINGER. We see very strong links between sexual assault, being vulnerable to predators, and the lack of stable and secure housing. And we are very happy to support the bill that you 

referenced. We think it is a critical step in keeping women safe. 

We know that many women stay in abusive situations because 

they can’t afford to move out, which puts them a greater risk for 

additional violence. We know that when women are forced to leave 

because the violence is too great or they fear for their children, if 

they are on the streets, if they are couch-hopping, if they are sleeping in shelters, they are again more vulnerable to predators. 

We know that some women who have no other options, if they 

don’t have an education or they have no functional job skills and 

they can’t find a job will turn to the streets because they have children to feed. Perhaps their welfare benefits have run out. And because of the normalization of sexual violence, it in some ways has 

become an option for some people. 

But we absolutely see this every single day with the women that 

we work with at the Indian Women’s Resource Center. If there is 

not a safe place to stay and if there is not a place for the children 

to go to school on a regular basis, it only adds to the risk that they 

are facing every single day. 

Senator FRANKEN. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Chairman, I see I am out of time. I do have a question for 

Mr. Heffelfinger. 

The CHAIRMAN. Please proceed. 

Senator FRANKEN. I can proceed? Thank you. 

Mr. Heffelfinger, thank you for coming. In your written testimony, you say that the SAVE Native Women Act will empower 

Tribes who are on the front lines of the efforts to fight domestic violence.’ I would like to hear a little bit more about that. 

Drawing on your experience as a Federal prosecutor, can you explain why it is so important that Tribal courts be given jurisdiction 

over cases involving non-Indians who commit acts of violence 

against women in Indian Country? 

Mr. HEFFELFINGER. Chairman Akaka, Senator Franken, in addition to having been a Federal line prosecutor, I was also a State 

prosecutor in Minneapolis. And it is based on that experience that 

it is my conclusion domestic violence is among those types of crimiVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:48 Nov 21, 2012 Jkt 074885 PO 00000 Frm 00074 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\DOCS\74885.TXT JACK
71

nal offenses which are most properly handled as close to the community, as close to the act level as you possibly can. 

Compare, say, crimes like drug dealing or bank robbery, these 

are ones in which you can form a regional or a statewide kind of 

strategy. But you have to deal with crimes like domestic violence, 

which are within the family kinds of crimes, child abuse is another 

good example, at the level of the community itself. The community 

is in the best position to respond to those crimes, to prevent those 

crimes. 

What is wonderful about this Act is that it lets the courts and 

the law enforcement and the prosecutor, who are right there in the 

community and have the ability to respond immediately and directly to the violence going on in that community. And that is not 

simply making arrests and initiating prosecutions. It is also the 

ability to give the courts jurisdiction to fashion a sentence that can 

not only punish, but prevent and deter. And that is much better 

if done on Red Lake than it is if done to a Red Laker by a judge 

sitting in St. Paul. 

That is why I believe one of the reasons this bill will be very effective when implemented. 

Senator FRANKEN. I just want to follow up, because part of the 

question I was trying to get it is jurisdiction over non-Indians. And 

this is partly the Oliphant decision. Why is that important? That, 

in other words, on Red Lake, maybe it isn’t a domestic violence situation. Maybe it is a sexual assault. Why, in your opinion, is it important that Red Lake have jurisdiction over a non-Indian perpetrator? 

Mr. HEFFELFINGER. Well, it starts with the statistics, Senator. As 

the Amnesty International report showed, something like 60 percent of domestic violence offenders are non-Indian upon Indian. 

And how can a local law enforcement officer, a local prosecutor, respond to a crime if it makes a difference what the race is? You are 

taking 60 percent of the offenders and basically making them immune. 

In the local community, where you are attempting to respond to 

domestic violence, if you have 60 percent of your offenders that are 

outside the jurisdiction of your local police and your local courts, 

you have 60 percent that are untouchable. 

Senator FRANKEN. I just want to make sure that we are working 

on the same definition of domestic violence because I am talking 

about sexual violence, say, from a non-Indian who may not know 

the victim. 

Mr. HEFFELFINGER. Domestic violence includes, as defined in this 

Act, Senator, both date violence as well as a longer-term relationship. And so domestic violence as laid out in the Act as I would interpret it physical violence, but I would also interpret that as sexual violence in the domestic or dating arena. 

And if Tribal law enforcement, which is in the best position to 

address these crimes, is to be effective, it has to have jurisdiction 

over all the offenders in that community. Otherwise, you have a 

group of offenders who are essentially immune because you are relying on people who are outside of the community and remote from 

the community to provide that support. 

72

Senator FRANKEN. And thus your very, very eloquent statement 

from the gentleman that you quoted at the beginning of your testimony. 

Mr. HEFFELFINGER. Without sovereignty, how can you protect? 

How can you have sovereignty when you can’t protect? 

Senator FRANKEN. How can you have sovereignty when you can’t 

protect your women and children? 

Thank you both for coming. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Senator Franken. 

Let me call on Senator Begich for any questions he may have. 

Senator BEGICH. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

I do have just a couple of questions. And again, thank you for 

allowing me as a non-Member of the Committee to have some opportunity to ask questions and I appreciate that greatly. 

To both members from Alaska, thank you, as Senator Murkowski 

said, it is a far distance to travel and those that are coming, especially from western Alaska, experienced an incredible storm that 

has hit with waves up to 30 feet high and winds up to 100 miles 

an hour and a little bit of snow and a little bit of ice. It is a very 

devastating impact that is occurring right now. And so I thank you 

for being here. 

First, Commissioner, if I can ask you just a couple of questions. 

And I want to take a couple of exceptions, but I want to take you 

up first, as we talked yesterday, on your offer that we figure out 

and resolve some of the State’s issues. I disagree with, as you 

know, as I said yesterday, the Attorney General’s discussion about 

how this has jurisdiction or Indian Country implications, because 

as you have heard from the Co-Chair of AFN and myself, that is 

not the intent. 

But I want to make it clear this is not a top-down approach. You 

stated that in your comments. This only allows the opportunity for 

Tribes to make a decision to develop a demonstration project from 

the community up. So I want to make sure we are on the same 

page here. If it was top-down, we would just dictate and say this 

is the way you are doing it. That is not what we are doing in this 

legislation. It creates another tool in the toolbox. 

And I would beg to differ that the court systems are working. 

With 60-plus percent of offenders repeating their offenses in Alaska 

and a disproportionate amount of Alaska Natives in the judicial 

system, the system is broken. And we can argue what you define 

as broken, but when 60 percent re-offend, it is a system that is not 

working. 

And when I faced this when I was Mayor of Anchorage, we, with 

the young people of our city, we introduced a program that was already in existence, but expanded it which was a simple program 

called Youth Court, designed and developed by youth themselves. 

No adults participated in the judicial process. The impacts, 90 percent of those kids do not re-offend; 89 percent pay their restitution. 

The State has embraced Youth Court all over the State. We had 

one. Now there are multiple. 

The concept of youth Courts are based on Tribal courts, elder 

courts, youth and elder courts. They work. 

So what is the real fundamental problem with allowing a tool to 

Tribes, not dictating to the Tribes, saying here is a tool. Because, 

73

maybe we will disagree, I don’t think 60 percent re-offender rate 

is a system that is working. 

Mr. MASTERS. I guess, Senator, you are asking for a comment. 

I didn’t hear the question. 

Senator BEGICH. The question is what do you object to specifically in the idea of allowing Tribes to——

Mr. MASTERS. Senator, in response to that, first off there are already existing Tribal courts operating in Alaska. There are some 

semblances of community-type court or youth courts operating in 

Alaska as well, as you state. 

There are currently officers that are employed by Tribes acting 

as peace officers in the State of Alaska. And there is a concerted 

effort by the State to put law enforcement in every community. A 

lot of the basic structure provisions are already in place in Alaska 

to be worked with and expanded upon, and that can be collaborative in order to be effective. 

I do agree with the concept that offenses should be dealt with at 

the lowest level possible. I think that Tribal courts that already 

exist in Alaska can be effective in dealing with minor offenses and 

they can be very effective in dealing particularly with truancy and 

other types of issues in communities. 

I think there is a great opportunity for the State of Alaska and 

Tribes to work together through some of the work that you are proposing in this bill. The primary concern the State of Alaska has 

with the bill is, like I stated in my testimony, and that is the potential expansion of criminal jurisdiction and the creation of Indian 

Country or de facto Indian Country. If we can get past that piece 

of the bill, I think this is a great opportunity to work together to 

provide programmatic, fiscal, policy, and pragmatic solutions to the 

issues in rural Alaska. 

Senator BEGICH. Last question, if I can ask very quickly to the 

Co-Chair of AFN. I know, Ralph, this was just a concept, but really 

it was several Tribes that came to us and said we need some tools. 

And how do you see this issue of Indian Country, which I do not 

see this as part of this piece of legislation? 

You said it more than once that it is not part of what your intent 

is. But do you see this as an effective method or tool, what we are 

trying to propose here, as a way to go after some of these issues 

that are not truancy, you are right, truancy and so forth, but we 

have to step it up. Because the real issues are domestic violence, 

sexual assault, the issues of substance abuse at a higher level. 

Tell me why you think the Tribes really want to do this? I mean, 

I think I know, but——

Mr. ANDERSEN. Okay, thank you, Senator. It was the Bristol Bay 

Native Association, the Tanana Chief’s Conference and Kawerak, 

three regional Tribal consortiums, and AFN that got together about 

two years ago, primarily because we had seen domestic violence, 

sexual assault perpetrators, bootleggers walking the streets at 

home. 

People in the village of Gambell on St. Lawrence Island, there 

was a person that was there that was convicted or suspected of 

child abuse. Because the State trooper couldn’t make it out there 

for a week or 10 days, that person was walking the streets. FamiVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:48 Nov 21, 2012 Jkt 074885 PO 00000 Frm 00077 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\DOCS\74885.TXT JACK
74

lies, parents were keeping their children at home. They were afraid 

to live in their own village. 

And that is just one example. We have other examples, too. We 

finally said enough is enough; that we have had enough. We have 

to do something about this. We can’t have our own people, we can’t 

have any person regardless of color, regardless of race, living in 

any of our communities in constant fear; constant fear of being beat 

up; constant fear of being molested or raped. 

Trying to get a person arrested somewhere and getting them 

through the court system is really, really, really difficult; really expensive. Again, we don’t want to take over jails. We don’t want to 

take over criminals. We don’t want to prosecute murders. We don’t 

want to prosecute DUIs and those kinds of things, the criminal 

cases. 

But we believe if we are able to prosecute and use our Tribal 

courts, use our elders, that is who the Tribal courts normally are. 

They are elders in the community, well respected, to tell kids, to 

tell delinquents you have to behave yourself, and sentence them to 

community service so the whole town sees they are set as examples. 

Senator BEGICH. Thank you, Ralph. 

And let me say again, Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to present the bill today. Thank you for both. 

And Commissioner, we will take you up on the opportunity because I think the mission is the same. We have to change the way 

we do the business in rural Alaska. We have to change and create 

an opportunity of some new tools in the tool box to create a system 

that creates justice and ensures that people, no matter where they 

live in Alaska, don’t have to fear living in their own community. 

So I look forward to working with you, Commissioner. 

And again, Ralph, to you and your organization, thank you for 

your last two years of working aggressively on this legislation, and 

I underline aggressively. I look forward to working with you as we 

move this forward. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Senator Begich. It is good 

to have you here with us. Thank you. 

I would like to ask the Chairperson of Lytton Rancheria Mejia, 

can you describe the change in circumstances that led the Tribe to 

withdraw its support for the legislation? 

Ms. MEJIA. Certainly, I would be happy to, Mr. Chairman. 

There was a change in DOI policy for the restored lands exception. When I first started, I met with DOI and they had a different 

position. I mean, it was almost impossible to get a restored lands 

exception allowing you to have the land and do gaming on the land. 

So that is why we sought authorizing legislation so that we could 

have our facility and start generating revenue for the Tribe. In 

2009, we had seen the policy had changed within the Bureau of Indian Affairs on the restored lands exception, and we had conversations with them. In 2009, my team met with Senator Feinstein’s 

staff and said at this point, we don’t think we can continue on with 

the compromise, given this reason. And we laid it all out there. 

So that is why we had to withdraw our willingness to work on 

that particular compromise. 

75

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Mayor? 

Mr. MORRIS. Yes, Mr. Chairman? 

The CHAIRMAN. Mayor Morris, in Congress, we are working to 

find ways to improve job and economic opportunities in this period 

of high unemployment. If this legislation passes, what would the 

economic impact be to your community? 

Mr. MORRIS. Well, the economic impact would be substantial, Mr. 

Chair. When you look over the history of the City of San Pablo, 

back in 1993 and 1994, the city was broke. We were just about to 

close our doors when there was a proposal by the card room, and 

we went out to the citizens to get a vote on what they thought of 

bringing a card room into the City of San Pablo. Almost 70 percent 

of the residents said yes, let’s do it. And had we not, we would have 

either had to dis-incorporate and become part of the county or to 

be annexed by the neighboring City of Richmond. 

So then you fast forward to today where the City of San Pablo 

and the City Council, the city staff, the City Police Department up 

to this year have exercised extreme fiscal responsibility by balancing our budget on good ideas to not spend as other cities do on 

things that we just don’t need. 

So on one hand, we have the threat from this legislation, which 

says that if the Tribe is not allowed, like other casinos, to expand 

their business, then we have almost the, should I say, this is income that would be going away. This is income that would be leaving the community because other Tribes will be allowed to go to 

level III gaming for example, where if the Lytton Tribe is not, then 

it leaves them at a tremendous disadvantage, and then leaves them 

open to this severe competition where business will go away. If 

business goes away, being our single largest business in the City 

of San Pablo, then we can see a lot of our services now disappearing, and programs. 

So the fact that the Tribe and the city worked so closely together 

and always have done, as I said in my testimony, that from day 

one. There is no problem. The problem is being created by the 

threat of this bill. And I think it is too bad that Senator Feinstein 

had to leave, because she is hanging onto an old idea, which goes 

back to her original bill of S. 113 three years ago. 

So the letter that was signed between the Tribe, the city, and 

herself said they can remain the way they are, but I don’t think 

the Tribe is doing anything other than being competitive to stay in 

business, stay competitive. And I think that is the bottom line, Mr. 

Chair. It would have a severe impact on the city, it really would. 

We are trying to attract right now other businesses and other entities in the community. We have done very well this year. There 

are about 600 new jobs happening in San Pablo, from a new Auto 

Zone, a new Walgreen’s, a new barber college, a new 42,000 square 

foot supermarket, Hispanic, which 91 of those employees at that 

supermarket are hired from the City of San Pablo. And then there 

is a new county health clinic being built and there are 200 new jobs 

there just in the construction, and there will be about 200 permanent jobs once it opens. 

So this is because of the ability to financially attract these types 

of businesses into our community, to not be so reliant on one big 

76

entity. But our relations with the Tribe is exemplary, as I mentioned several times. There is no problem. The bill will cause the 

problem. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. 

Mr. MORRIS. I hope I have answered your question. I know it is 

a long answer. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you for your responses. 

I want to tell you that I am impressed with your patience. You 

have been very helpful with your responses. It will help the Committee as we move forward with these bills, and it will, I am sure, 

make a difference in what we do. And hopefully, if it needs to, we 

can try to improve them better than they are. 

But it is good to hear directly from you, and the way I put it is 

that I like to hear from the trenches, and you have been very gracious in providing as much of that kind of information, which will 

help us in our deliberations. 

So I want to again express a warm mahalo, thank you to the witnesses at today’s hearing. I want to thank my Senate colleagues 

and the Administration for providing their views on these bills. 

And I especially want to thank the Tribal representatives and 

other stakeholders who traveled so far to be with us today and 

have been so patient. 

So we will consider your comments very carefully as we consider 

how to move forward with these bills. And I want to wish you well 

with your issues and say that all we are doing here is to try to help 

the indigenous people of our Country. And I thank you so much for 

being part of that. 

Thank you. 

This hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 5:10 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 

(77)

APPENDIX

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. GEORGE MILLER, U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM

CALIFORNIA

Please accept this letter as my testimony for the official record of the hearing that 

you are holding today on S. 872, a bill to ‘‘amend the Omnibus Indian Advancement 

Act to modify the date as of which certain tribal land of the Lytton Rancheria of 

California is considered to be held in trust and to provide for the conduct of certain 

activities on the land.’’

As you know, the House is not in session this week and I am working in my congressional district and thus unable to testify before the Committee in person. Thank 

you very much, however, for the opportunity to comment on this bill. And thank you 

for inviting Mayor Paul Morris of the City of San Pablo, a constituent of mine, accompanied by the city’s Vice-Mayor Cecilia Valdez, also a constituent, to testify. 

Mayor Morris and Vice Mayor Valdez and I work closely together to improve the 

economy for all the residents of San Pablo. 

Let me state at the outset that I strongly oppose S. 872 and believe that there 

is no justification for its passage by your Committee or Congress. S. 872 is unfairly 

prejudicial against a single tribe that has clearly satisfied the federal courts and the 

United States Congress as to its right to conduct gaming in San Pablo, CA, in accordance with federal laws and regulations. 

The history of the Lytton Rancheria is well known to this Committee and I do 

not intend to retell that history today. I have testified before this Committee at 

length in the past concerning similar legislation that would have reversed Congress’ 

original intent by unfairly singling out the Lytton Rancheria for unique restrictions 

and burdens that are unwarranted and unjustified. 

The fact of the matter is that the Lytton Rancheria has the right to conduct gaming in the city of San Pablo, a right that was given to them by the federal courts 

and by Congress. Furthermore, there exists a process to approve or disapprove any 

plans by the Lytton Rancheria to expand or alter its facility or change the Class 

of gaming at its facility. That process requires the tribe to receive the approval of 

the State of California and the Department of the Interior for any plans to expand 

its operations. There is no need nor justification for Congress to apply additional 

restrictions and burdens on the Lytton Rancheria. 

I do not take lightly any question affecting Indian gaming. As a member of House 

Natural Resources Committee for more than three decades, and as its former chairman and ranking member, I am well versed in the laws governing Indian gaming 

as well as the varied concerns about and support for Indian gaming that exist in 

Congress and throughout the country. 

Personally, I am neither a proponent nor opponent of gaming per se. I am, however, a strong defender of Indian sovereignty. And I am also actively engaged in 

helping communities in my district to create jobs and grow economically. 

It is important to note that, having been properly approved by the federal courts 

and Congress, the casino in San Pablo quickly became, and remains today, a very 

important source of revenue and employment to this struggling East Bay community. The positive impacts for the city of San Pablo and its residents that were projected by the city and the Lytton Rancheria when the casino was being proposed 

have been realized. Meanwhile, the negative impacts that opponents of the casino 

warned of, such as increased crime and traffic, have not materialized. 

Mr. Chairman, S. 872 is unjustified and unfair and I strongly oppose its passage. 

Thank you for the opportunity to make my views on this legislation known, once 

again, to the Committee. 

78

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ALAN J. TITUS, LAWYER, ROBB & ROSS


1110f1.eps

Dear Chairman Akaka and Ranking Msmbar Barrasso: 

1 write with written tsstimony for ths r~rd concerning S.872, which would 

am~nd section 819 of the Omnibus Indian Advanrmm,mt Ant to modify the dale as 

of which ce<1:ein tribal :and of the Lytton 1ianllheriOl of California i5 c~sider6d to be 

held in trust and to provide tor the conduct of certain activities on the IlInd. 

At the hearing on November 10, Margie Meji~, Ch~irwom~n of tho Lytton 

Rancheria, made a number of factual statemants concerning the history of the 

Lytton Indians. However, many of those statements are not ooniOiiOtent with the 

dooumentary record. 

it is important that Congress is aware of tile uocumentary racord of the 

histOlY of the lytton RancheriOl as it oonsiders thls bin. Congress did net have an 

oppo."tunity til famiUarl:l;e Itself with that documantary record before passing s3ctlon 

S19 in :,mCO. 

Section 819, which was contaIned in Title VlII of the Act entitled Technical 

Corrections, was not in fact a correction, It directed the Secretary of Interior to 

accept title to certain land in the middle of the San Francisco Bay Area then owned 

bV Sonoma Entertainment Investors, L.P., for the benefit of the Lytton Rancheria 0"( 

Cellfornia, to declare that suoh property was held In trust for the Lytton Indians and 

that SUch land is part of the reseNation of such Rancherla. Sentlor. 819 further 

provided that the !and was dearned to haVE< been held In trust arn:! part ot tha 

Twervat!on of the Rancher!a prior to October 17, 1$88. Section 8,9 was sdded 
79


1110f2.eps

to H.R. 5525 just before the bill passed the HCUl~e, and had not previously been 

part of any se;Jarate hi!! and had !reVe: DtHm heard in Committe",. 

When considering issues of Indian sovereignty among California tribes, it is 

importmt to know that there have nevgr bee:~ IIny treaties between the Federal 

goveTnment and any California Indian trme. Nw were there ony existing treiltl~ 

when the United Stat~s succeeded to thl!l lands under the Treaty of Gued~lupe 

Hildago (Feb. 2,1848,9 Stat. 9221. Further, ne[therthe C<l)ifornia CDnstitution nor 

the Act of Congress admlttlns California Into the Union on September 9, 1850 

reserved any land for Ca!lfnrnia Indians. 9 Stat. 452; See United Sltrtes V. 

Betsman, 34 F. S6, 89 (1988). 

BeloW we provide 1aotual summaries of the history of the Lytton Rancherla In 

italics, followed by identifillatkm of donuJTh'lnts wW.ch perwin to the subjem; matter 

summarized, followed by b\.~let point$: which quote frorn tM document$. Copies of 

the do~uments, or just Elx(;erpts from longer documents, are enclosed. !f thE! 

Committee would llke to V;f,W the longer documents 10 fuff, please let me know, 

and fu;! un-excerpted copk1s wlll bi> prfiVlded, 

pqcum!!!Qts related t9 California Indiao§ in Ganem! 

Califumm nmoherias, like the Lytton RanchBfia, v,rere creat9d ta house rar.df8SS 

indians ne.af non·Indian POPUfatiOffS, where rlw {ndjens Gould S8NF1 as taborers. 

Rancher/8s were not to be lika reservations where Indians wt.>re hSlded onto 

.sepawte oommunitlefi, VII hem>' th~ kt'1d$ purofuloSw her} /uM(1 golf'tl.m"rJ by :.>titte 

/I)W$, stare raws wvuld contirwff to govern them. Nor WEire such (anus cansidl#'fJe/ 

the same 8S usual Indian trust lands. 

1.906 Kalsey Rsport. On June 30,1905, Congress psS'S'sd an act 

autnoriung the Secrehlry ttl hire someone to investigate the 

"existing conditions [.If the California IndIans, and to report to 

Congre!ls. N The Secretary appolnted, C.J. Kelsay, an attorney 

and to"!o Secretary of the Northern Califomia Indian Association. 

In 1906, Kelsey submitted hls report to the Secretary. tin tel!:. 

1ha history of how lhe IndIans had been evloted from the goot! 

lands they historical!y occupied 'Into unproductive bnds, and <I 

state of destitution. Of a total poplAlatlon of 16,500, he finds a 

non-reservation pOpulation of 11,2.00. 
80


1110f3.eps

" "'[Historically, e]ach California village was independent of 

all others. and there seams to have been but little idea of 

tribal organization." p. 2. 

• "'Most of the Indians have now been crowded out of 

anything like good soil and are found in waste pJac-es not 

havinQ' value enough to attract anyone else. It 1$ now a 

matter of difficulty for an evicted Indian to find any place 

of refuge except in other Indian settlements already 

overcrowded." p.9, 

.. "The Indians are for the most part settled in little villages 

called in California rancherias. These little settlements 

contain all the way from 20 souls up to 250, the usual 

size being about 50 .... These (ndian settlements are for 

the most part located upon waste or worthless land as 

near as possible to their ancestral home. These remnants 

of eOich stack ar trIbe or hand occupy today almost 

exactly the same territory their ancestors did a century 

ago. 1t p. 13 

• "'Most of the Northern California Indians being landless, 

the opportunity to work for themselves is wanting, and 

they must of necessity work for others." p. 13. 

• "The landless Indians cannot be placed in status quo 

ante •.•• It seems that We are under the necessity of 

oivilizing the Indian Whether we like the job or not, or 

whether the Indian wants to be civilized or nut ... fYuur 

special agent is inclined to object strongly to anythIng in 

the nature of reservations for these people. The day has 

gona by in California when it is wise to herd the Indians 

away from civilization, or to subject them to the stinting 

influences of reservation life .... Moreover, the expense of 

establishing reservations, and more especially maintaining 

them. would be .enormous. Reservations therefore seem 

out of the question." p. 15 
81


1110f4.eps

June 19, 1912 

Feb 15,1932 

• Ult :;hculd, htlwever, be fl!asible and comparatively 

inexpensive tc give thesa Indians allotments, and there 

would be no expense oonneoted with the allotments after 

they are once made. It would, however, bE! necessary to 

buy a considerablE! amount of the land, !IS there is very 

little land in the public domain left to allot tham .... Your 

special agent is not in favor of giving them farms. They 

would be unable to use farms. Small tracts, not 

exoeeding ten or fifteen aores, if the land is good land, 

will be ampls, and in many places five acres per family, or 

less, will be sufficient. It is not necessary that the 

Indians :;hou!d be made rich. All that Is proposed is that 

they :;hall have footholds with fixity and telnure. This will 

not change their present status as laborers, but will give 

opportunity to teach them some of the common evoryday lessons which they neeld so much. I would therefore 

reloommend thel appropriation of a sufficient sum for the 

purchase of lend in the immediate Iooalities Where the 

Indians !Ive tl,l be allotted or <lssigned to them in smail 

tracts under such rules as the Secretary of the Interior 

may prescribe." p. 15-16. 

Letter from Asst. Commissioner in the Office of Indian Affairs to 

the Supt. of the Round Va!Iey School regarding jurisdiction over 

a bre<llo; in at an Indian school and directing the Euperintendent 

to report thel theft to the "proper State authoritIes for 

prosecutIon." 

• "Inasmuch as the lands occupied by these Indians were 

purchssed from private individuals while same were under 

the JurIsdiction of the State of California, said jurisdiction 

would continue until such a time as the State ceded its 

polh:::e jurisdiction." 

Letter from a.H. Lipps, Supt. Sacramento Indian Agency to O. 

80ggess, Supt., Hoppa Indi!ln Agency. Defines "rencheria" as 

ua tract of land purchased by the United States Govemment for 
82


1110f5.eps

homeless Indians," Letter quotes from an April 13, 1927 letter 

from Washington to former Supervisor Darrington as follows: 

• "The Office has not attempted to set up rules and 

regulations to govern assignmClnts of land to California 

Indians. It was thought best 10 permit superintendents 

having jurisdiction to formulato such rulings as might be 

necessary to meet conditions on each locality." 

• "At present we ere employing the following system. If an 

Indian desires to move upon one of these tracts we have 

him secure e letter Bddreased to the Superintendent from 

the other bonafide resident assignees to the effect that 

they have no objection to him moving on the ranchetla"" 

Upon receipt of this notice he is given permission to 

construct his house on one of the vacant lots." 

T sstimony to Congress on Act to distribute tancheria lands to 

Indians. Hearings Before SubcommIttee on Indian Affairs, 85* 

Congress, 1~ Session. pp. 77-79. BIA testified: 

• "IThasB lands] are distinguishable from the; lands that are 

hard in trust for ail Indian tribe. such as the Klammath 

Tribe or the Menominee Tribe. Those are, strictly 

speaking, trust lands, but these lands that we are 

speaking of here are lands that ara not held in trust for 

any particular group •.• (P]eop!e who are !Mng there now 

also have no legal rights to the land. They can be ousted 

if the Secretary should ever dare do it, so that in terms of 

right~. no one. no IndianSi, ha ... e any rights to stay on that 

Janel', and it is the custom that when an Indian leaves the 

land. he has ceased to have any connection with that 

nmcheria. 

"Judge Shuford, I bring this up. It is a 

contrQvefsiill and technical point. but I dQ it for one 

purpose, and that is to indicate that the !egal title 
83


1110f6.eps

July 22,1958 

to these rancharias is not the same, or in the same 

smtus, as the ordinary trust HIe ror Indian lands." . 

Senate Report No. 1874,85'" Congress, 2d Session, entitled 

Providing for the Dlstribution of till: Lend and Assets of Certein 

Indian Rancherias and Reservations in California, To accompany 

HR 2824. This report concerns distribution to rancheria 

residents of 41 nmcherias which had b!len purchased and 

owned by the governmant to care for Indian dependents to the 

Indians to further self·determlnatlcn, The report states: 

• "'The State I!.'!glstature memorialized Congress in 1951 to 

disp;:mse with an restric"..ions on California lndians {S .• J. 

R!lls. No. 29, eh. 123, California Statutes, May 1B, 

1951), and a represantativ6 of the Governcr's office 

testified in favor of tha termination of the Faderal 

6"uperviliiDn program ali early as 1952. ~ 

• #Tl1e preparation of [membership] rons would be 

impracticable beoause the groups are not well defined. 

Moreover, the lands were for the most Pijrt acquired or 

set aside ty the United States for Indians in California 

generally, rather than ior a specific group of Indians, and 

the consistent practice has been to select by 

administrative action the individual Ind!;Jns who m~y use 

tha land." 

The report makes claar that all 41 rancherias included in !he bUl 

had Bubmitted resolutions raqt.'(istlng that legislation to 

terminate Federal control over their lands be en~r.ted. The 

raport contains information from thE: Bureau of Indian Affairs 

regarding eech fe!1!;heria, and maKes claar that on 27 of the 41 

ram:herias, the indians hlld not organized under the Indian 

ReorganiZation Act. 

March 15, 1960 Letter from the Office of Solicitor, Department of Interior to 

Western Title InsUnlllOEl Company regardIng implementation of 

the Rancheria Act of 1958. The tale company had refused to 
84


1110f7.eps

issue title insurance citing constitutional oonoems with the 

Rancheria Act. The Solioitor responded that although in some 

respl'Icts "the rancherias constitute Indian country, ... they do 

not have all the irldicia of Indian resBrvations. n 

August 1, 1960 The Solicitor of the Department of Interior issued arl opinion [2 

Ops. Sol. DOl 1882) to address issues of title, sc that the title 

oompany would be willing to issue title insurance. 

Jan 14, 19S4 

• "The United States has accepted the fact that it Icng ago 

acquired the lands of the California Indians, extinguishing 

their Indian tille. ~ 

• The Opinion aancludes, "the rancheria properties belong 

to the United States, in law and equity." 

Letter from Acting Asst. Secretary William Sabby to Georga 

Miller, Chairman of House Natural Resources Committee 

regarding SIA's longstanding distinction between historic tribes 

and non-histcric tribes. The letter makes olear that historic 

tribes are considered to have, inherent sovereignty over their 

lands, and non-historio tribes do not. 

• MSince passage of the IRA the Department of the Interior 

(Department) hilS distinguished between the powers 

possessed by en historic tribe and those possessed by a 

oommunlty of adult Indians residing on a reservation, i.e. 

a non-historic tribe. n 

• ~In Implementin~ the reorganization of tribes, the 

Departml;lnt made the distinction between groups which 

were organizad as historic tribes and groups which were 

organIzed as communities of Indians residing on one 

reservation. ~ 

~The distrnctlons were based Oil the differing 

requirements of the IRA, i.e., the reorg,mizaticn of 

existing tribes and the creation of Mnew W tribes, and the 
85


1110f8.eps

unique historical circumstances that existed in some parts 

of the country. For instance, self-governing tribes 

generDlly did not exist in CDlifornia in the same sense as 

they did elsewhere .... Most of the California rancherias 

have unique historical circumstances and were organized 

without regard to tribal affiliation or historical tribal 

status, Generally, these rancherias did not represent 

tribes but were collections or remnants of Indian groups 

for whom the United States bought homesites for 

homeless California Indians under various statutes. They 

were placed on trust land which was purchased for 

landless, homeless California Indians without regard to 

tribal status." 

• "The BIA's view is that an historic tribe has existed since 

time immemorial. Its powers derive from its 

extinguished, inherent sovereignty. Such a tribe has the 

full range of government powers except where it has 

been expressly limited by Congress or is inconsistent with 

the dependent status of tribes." 

• "In contrast, a oommunity of adult Indians is composed 

simply of Indian people who reside together on trust land. 

A community of adult Indians may have only those 

powers which are incidental to its ownership of property 

and to its carrying on of business and those which may 

be delegated to it by the Secretary. In addition, a 

community of adult Indians may have a certain status 

which entitles it to certain privileges and immunities .... 

However, those privileges and immunities are derived as 

necessary incidents of a comprehensive Federal statutory 

scheme to benefit Indians, not from some historical 

inherent ~overejgnty." 

• " ... we believe that most, if not all of the original 

California rancherias listed in the Act of August 18, 

1958 ... would fall within the nonhistoric tribal 

designation. " 
86


1110f9.eps

Documents rel~ted to the Lytton Rancherill 

The federal government bought the land for the Lytton Rancher/a In r 926. During 

the first 11 years, no Indians occupied the site. Rather, the Salvation Army was 

allowed to grow com on the land. 

Aug 24, 1926 Letter from L.A. Darrington, Supt., Sacramento, to 

Commissioner of Indian Affairs in Washington concerning 

proposil! to purchase land from Mr. R. A. Gobbl for $10,000 for 

NDry Creek. and Geyserville Band of indians, Alexander Valley, 

Sonoma County, California." 

Nav 24, 1926 Letter from Congre:;:;man Clarence F. Lea to LA. Darrington, 

Supt. Of Indian Agency in SacramBnto regarding purchase of 

lands at Lytton that he could not improve on the location. 

Jan 29, 1927 letter from LA. Dorrln9ton, Supt .• to Mrs. Belle Leroux, a leader 

of a Woman's Club in Santa Rosa, who want::; to solioit olub 

members to help Indian:; moving into area, about her desire to 

mention to members the planned purchase of land near the 

Lytton 50hool for the "Dry Creek and Geyserville Indians." Mr. 

Dorrington is concerned sbout ~unpleasant rasul1s following too 

muoh publioityw and the f,mt thllt Lytton residents "have been 

so very unreasonabla and inconsistent." It eppears Indiana were 

being moved onto lands in areas settled by non-Indians. 

Maroh 11, 1927 Letter from E. Meritt, Asst. CommissIoner In Washington to L.A. 

Darrington, Supt., Saoromento, approving purchase of the 

Lytton lands "for homeless California Indians. ~ 

March 16, 1927 Deeds recorded, one for 46 acres and one for 5 acres. Land 

purchased from R. Gobbl for $10,000. 

Oe01,1928 Letter from Brigadier W.G. White of The Salvation Army to L.A. 

Dorrington, Supt. of lndiam Affairs in Sacramento, asking to usa 

50 acres at Lytton station to grow corn for feeding their deiry. 

He notes land has been idle. 
87


1110f10.eps

Fill{llly, in 1$37, an Indkm from Northern Mendocino area was allowed to mevc 

onto the laml; {"Hawed by his wITs's brotbw and ti~e bNthsr"s wife. They We{f< not 

from the tribes far which the fi:lnd was purcf/85ad fwd that CBlJ$OO considerable 

acrimony wah the 10callnd18n oommanity, There is nfJ evidence that the two 

families residing on the Lytton Ranched;;. ever exercIsed any government powero 

over the rammfJria, iJnd the government d~lt with them as individU<:!/t., 

Jun17,1937 

Nov 17, 1937 

Nov 19, 1937 

Nov 23, 1937 

Mar 1a, 1938 

Dec 6, 1938 

Letter from Roy Nash, Supt. Saoramilnto Indian Ag~;](.y, to Phil 

Ponzo, Indicating that an Indian desires to mBke use of Lytton 

Rancheris uwhlah has lain idle for so many years" and if a wo:lI 

is put down, it will make an excellent tlomeslta. 

Letter from Roy Nash, Supt., Sacramento, to Commissioner of 

Indian Affairs seeking monies for various sites, Including for 

Lytton $:300 for Bert Steele for material to build a house and 

$50 for domestic wttt .. r. 

letter from Bert StiU:lle to Roy Ni1Sh, Supt. askIng for money for 

a building loan. Also says they nood roadwork and ewell. 

letter from Roy Nash, Supt., to Bort Steele informing him that 

he has requested grant monies of $300 for material ro, a ho:.lsS 

a:ld $50 for domestic water. 

L!mer from Washington DC approving monies for Lytton 

Ranohllria. 

letter from Gays-arvUI!:! Band of Indians from the Dry Creek 

Rancheria to Rov Nash, Supt., regarding lytton Flancheria. 

• ~[We wIsh} to protest egalnst allowing Mr. Bert Steele, 

ar,d ot.iers not members ot the D~ Creek Bank of 

Indians, to live ~Jn the traot of land ns.af the lytton rohco! 

house, whloh was purchased ~evera{ ye~rs ago for the 

Dry Creek Indiana of the Geyserville Band of Indians." 

The j6tler tells how 5:1me Dry Creek II'.dians wanted to move 

onto tI';", land but Mr. Dorrington and then Mr. Lipps told them 
88


1110g1.eps

Dec 14, 1938 

Jan 9, 1939 

to wait until money was available for houses. They further 

point out that Bert Steele had been given land at the Round 

Valley Reservation in Covelo INorthern Mendocino County) and 

had sold it. 

~ "We also believe that he was given a piece of land some 

plaoe else and has had his opportunity and sold his rights 

at Covelo.~ 

The letter then notes that another man John Wesley Myers khas 

ereoted a one-room cabin on the property. We understand 

Myers has a piece of land at Stewarts Point and is a member of 

the Stewarts Point Band of Porno Indians. k Their biggest 

complaint seems to be that Bert Steele has insulted and bullied 

them. 

• ulf Mr. Steele had treated us deaent, we would have had 

no objections for him to live there, as we were not using 

the land, but he told us thllt we were degraded people 

and that we did not know how to handle our own 

affairs .... n 

Memorandum from NE.H.H. n to R.oy Nash 

• uMrs. La Rue [sic] of Geyserville, Sonoma County, called 

long dlstanco ... as she was afraid there would be trouble 

over the Lytton Ranoheria. She had papers, etc, showing 

that it was purllhased for the Dry Creek Band, or the 

Geyserville Band of Indians, and that now Indians from 

Round Valley and stewarts Point had moved on the land. n 

Letter from Mrs. Belle Leroux to Congressman Clarence Lea In 

W~shington about Bert Steele. 

• UYou will no doubt remember when several years ago the 

Dept., et Washington bought a piece of Innd here near the 

litton school house. Now we lire having trouble here 

about it .... Three or four years ago, our people went over 
89


1110g2.eps

Feb 1, 1939 

Feb15,1939 

to Sacrnmento a~king Mr. Lipp for permission to move 

onto their land, and was refused on the grounds that the 

dept., did not Wish them to buHd shaks [sic] there and 

would soon have plans for getting money to build dacent 

hoUSes, TheV have navar haard from that again. This 

winter, a man namad Bert Steel from the Covelo 

reservation who W!lS undesir!lble there, tried to get in !It 

the Stew!lrds Point pl!lee, !lnd then C!lme over here. 

together wIth another man from the stewards Point 

reservation, and took 16 acras apiece of the Litton place, 

built them houses on the mo~t desirable P!lrt~ of the land 

!lnd the~e people hate this man Steel. and positively 

resent his coming here. and feel with those who have 

heard of It that neither one of them have any right on this 

place, there is bitter feeling and serious trouble will result 

if something is not dons about it soon." 

The letter proceeds to discus~ the burning down of a house of a 

local Wappo Indian as if to imply some oonnection to Bert 

Steele. 

• ~Now the cabin belonging to an Indian named Marion 

Mirand<l, of the W<lhpo reservation, down along the river 

toward Healdsburg, burned down while back .... None of 

our two bands, the Geyserville end Drycreek bands, that 

the place was purchased for have had permission to go 

there and build, and not one of them would live near this 

Steel. There is very bad blood between them and always 

has been between those tribes, the one he belongs to and 

thesa. " 

Letter from Roy Nash, Supt., to Stephen Knight to arrangs a 

meeting at GayservillB RancheriB on Fabruary 10 to diecuee their 

obj"ction to the assignment of land on the Lytton Rancheria. 

Letter from Edwerd (eka Bert) Steele to Roy Nash evidences the 

governments dealing with hIm as an indivldua!. 
90


1110g3.eps

Feb 21, 1939 

Mar 2, 1939 

• ~As you promised to survey, and assign a certain piece of 

land to rna on the Lytton ReservatIon, I have as evidence 

of good faith and trust in you, relative to tha promise 

made, gone ahsad and cleared the land of stumps and 

brush. Also I am plowing all of the high land, and in 

addition I am planning to build just as soon as the water 

is m!lde aV!liiabI6. 11 want to fence the swamp land for 

pasture, for ,he horses. Will it be po:;;sible to have the 

boundary lines surveyed as soon as possible?" 

Letter from Stephen KnIght to Roy Nash, Supt. regarding Lytton 

and Bert Steele. The letter discloses Bert Steele's opposition to 

the IRA, how hI! led a fao1ion of the Geyserville Indians who 

resided off the fancheria in opposition to the IRA !!gainst the 

faotion of tribal members who lived on the rencheria and wented 

to approve the IRA. 

• "Bert Steel was one of the most outspoken Indians In 

opposition to the Wheeler-Howard Bill .... "fThe Collett 

Faction in and around Gl:IysBrville is in the m<ljoritv. <lnd 

Bert Steel, more than any-one else, is responsible for 

holding the Indians in line for Collett and in opposition to 

everything sponsored l:!y the Government. This Bttitude 

on the part of Stael and his later chan~1l of mind, 8S they 

see it, to get himself in on the Lytton plane, Is mostly the 

reason for the bitter feeling the Indians have for steel. 

They think he sold them down stream. ~ 

Letter to Roy Nash, Supt., presumably from Mrs. Laroux, to 

inform him of two incidents regarding Fred Steele. Mrs. Leroux 

had hired a Seoretary to transoribe the proceedings at the 

February 10 meeting with the Geyserville Indians. 

• "I received a letter a few days ago that the caples were 

ready, but befcre I could get in town to get them, a 

young Indian came to the Seot., and said he was one of 

our boys and that he wanted very badly to borrow a oopy 

of my notes, and that he then would get the rest of them 
91


1110g4.eps

and deliver them to mt! as he said he passed our place 

every day, and we were friends. 

vMr. Condit wrote a lettar telling me of this. I got it 

yesterday. Thi" Il:Qrningl oalled him, and he said this 

boy would not teU his name. I knew that not one of the 

boys or men In OUf bunah would have done such a thing 

so I sald!t must h\lve b<;!en one ot fred Steel's scns, 

misrepresenting himself ~gain. And he later called and 

said that ------ been---- and that .-~-."- had ---

------for the f~lIQW and that It was fur Steel. 

"So that's the wey he works things. \Nhat use he 

will make of it I do not know. 

"The day of the meeting in Healdsburg, my 

husband and! stopped at the store In the valloy, and as 

W'lOt were going O'.!t a man .blocked 01,;r way, limo asked If 

we knew l1im. Wa did not and he said, ~J am Fr<Jd Steel, 

the man '{CU folks were talking about murdering today, ill 

your meeting. j said of course -------•• ---, , before 

we oould get passed him ilnd out side. 

ul think r know our loca! Indians pretty welt. and 

know them tc be honest; 5t~el is anything but that. 

"Among other things Mr. Steel said I was getting 

mDMV for the things! did, 10r the Indians which! naver 

have at any time, That j can swear. I hav6- :'!ev(J( eV6Il 

been u;lerml II cent, lind have been out quite a great dest, 

my husband and I ter the sake of humanity only."-

March 11, 1939 Letter from Congressmen Clarence F. Lee to Roy Nash 

acknowledgIng receipt of II Nport of the meeting regarding the 

Lytton matter. 

• "I appreciate your attITude in the unfortunata development 

at Lytton. I. too, was utterly unllonsc)ous of the fullt that 

Mr_ Steel wall regarded as an intruder or that he belonged 

to other tribss. ~ 
92


1110g5.eps

Mar 17,1939 Latter from Roy Nash to the CommIssioner in Washington with 

the subject line: "LYTTON AANCHERIA: THE SONOMA 

COUNTY WAR~, 

• "There il> a $Omewhilt tense ~ituatiQn amow.! Sonoma 

County Indians over 11 question of land assignment un 

Lytton Rancheria, with murder threatened against BI:!rt 

Steele and Jo:,n Myers, so I will set out the sItuation in 

full." 

• ~Note that the deed runs to the United States, that the 

purchase was made ufor Landiaslil Indians in Callfornia," 

and that no tribe or band is mentioned in the deed." 

The letter then recounts lise of the land by the Salvation Army 

to grow corn, wh.'ch apparently was approved by the Assist;mt 

Commissioner and Assistant Secretary of the Interior un Dec, 

17,1928, Then it r'SCOunts receipt of a requestfrorn Bl'lrt 

steele to lIve on the Lytton Aancherla. 

• aOn February 10, 1937, I received the following: 

Feb, 9. 1937 

Sacramento Indian Agency: 

Wmlld it:re possible for I, 85rt Ste-ele, as ml' wife 

Is a Sonoma Co. Indfan, to huHd a house on the land near 

Lytton Station, as we were flooded out of e home, It has 

been impossible for us 60 far to tind a home to rent, 

Please let me know as S(lOn as possible," 

• "Inquiry revealed th<'lt the Salvation Army was stm using 

Lytton R8ncheria; that no fndum ever had lived on it; that 

Bart Steele was a 1 f4 blood Indian with a reputation for 

industry, living ir: the town nearest said rSl1cheria; and 

married, as he said, to a Sonoma County Pomo Indian 

woman. I, therefore, wrote him the same day his letter 

arrived, authorizing him to buiid II home I'm the nmoheria, 
93


1110g6.eps

Shortly thereafter I served notice on the Salvation Army 

that their permit to use the piace would be terminated as 

soon as- they removed the crop then growing." 

• "lytton Rancheria 1s an irregular shaped tract, with one 

parcel of 16 acres off by itself in the northeast corner. 

As mu-ch of this corner is low and wet, I told Steele I 

would assign him this 16 acres, out of which he might 

get 10 acres that are cultivable. I further told Steele that 

if he had any relatives or friends who were desirous of 

buitding a home and cultivating land, to send them around 

to see me, because it Was embarrassing for the 

Government to be buying more land for California Indians 

while much already bought was growing weeds or leased 

to white men." 

• "Steele bullt a one-room cabin with his own money in 

1937 end moved in. Out of the last Rehabilltatkm fund I 

then made him a grant of $350 for materials out of which 

he built with his own hands and the help of his sons, the 

house in which he now lives. This was finished in July of 

1938. Our Roads Division shaped up and graveled a road 

to his house. Our Irrigation Division has drilled two wetlsl 

one in the 16 acre tract where steele lives, the other at 

the south end of the property." 

• "SteeJ's brother·in·raw, John Myers, a Stewarts Point, 

Sonoma County, Porno, married to a charming Indran girl 

from Bodega Bay, came to me and was given permission 

to build his home on the SOllth Bnd of the raneheria. I 

promised to essign him 10 acres of land to cultivate. He 

built his home in November, 1938, moved in during the 

first week in December. It is just a small one-room frame 

cabin, buiit entirely with his own money without 

assistance from Government. Po 
94


1110g7.eps

The letter then recounts receipt of the December 6, 1938 letter 

quoted sbove from the Geyserville Band of tndians from the Dry 

Creek Rancheria. This letter then continues. 

• "On recelpt of the above, I did what of course 1 shouldhave done before putting Steele on the landt got out the 

volurrUnous files and familiarized myself with the history. 

The above statement is about correct. In the agitation for 

the purchase of this tract, the GeyservlUe and Dry Creek 

Indians were in everybody's mind; Congressman Lea was 

in on it and will remember." 

.. "'Also it is true that Bert Steel is an outsider. His mother 

was: a ha!f~blood Pit River: his father a half~blood 

Nornelackie. Steele was allotted In Round Vaney, 10 

acres in the valley and 50 acres mountain. The valley 

ailotment was entirely In the bed of Short Creek and 

when Steele sold it for $40 he got more than it was 

worth. The mountain allotment was worthless except as 

part of some large grazing unit. He got fee patents and 

sold both In 1920. His wife Is Pomo and from Sonoma 

County, " 

• "The other fellow I rviyers, does hail orIginally from the 

Stewarts Point Rancheria on the coast, a roost that is 

absolutely worthless," 

• "On the 10th of Februarv, Mr. Fred Baker, land Field 

Agent, and myself met aU the Indians of this district in 

Healdsburg, It was as heated a session as I have 

attended in some time. There had been a lot of loose talk 

about shooting Steelej the children in school were telling 

his children that they would never live to drink the v'Iater 

from the wens we were drllling~ etc, etc. Steele 

countered by getting himself sworn in as a deputy sheriff 

and keeping his riffe handy and his powder dry." 
95


1110g8.eps

Apr 22, 1939 

• ~Now, lagaily, since the land was bought undllrthe 

appropriatlon "Landless indians of California" with no 

tribe or band mentioned in the deed, of course I had the 

right to 1;lettle any landless Indian thereon. There has 

baen no legal error on my part, although I freely admit the 

tactical error. But since Steele rus bullt his house, 

occupied it for a year <'Ind a half, plougheti up his ground 

and planted his crop!>, I cannot lllle the Govemmant 

permitting him to be run off by threats of bodily InjuJY. 

have told both Steele and Mvers just to sit tight. The 

Whole thing is much ado ab:;ut nothing, ~ 

• "For tile land itself Is not worth squabbling aver. We paid 

at least twice what it Is worth. rhe idea cf its being a 

home for 80 IndIans is praposterous, I wouldn't think of 

putting mere than four families on the place." 

• ~The pr<u:;tical question is, What can we do toward 

f!'Jhabilitating thes\:! bomeless !;igoama Coun!Yl~ 

~~JN.bere else? ~ Unfortunately, the Geyserville band 

of the rancherla 'IOted aga:l'\St the Ir.d\~m Reorganization 

Act; so present iUrlds cannot be used for pur~hB81ng 

addiliomlliand for them, There were 50 eligible voters at 

the original election; the vote was 8 for; 17 against. ~ 

lett6!"frQm F. S. Slaugh, Arg. Ext. Agent, and approved by Roy 

Nash, Supt" to Bert Steel 

• "After a conference on land assignment of the Lytton 

Indian Rancharia, it was decided, that becausB of e;dstlng 

condmortl., no more land will be assigned to members of 

your family on the Lytton Rancherla. N 

It appears that Belt SMa/a also constantly {larIJssed John Myers. Steele wanted 

Meyer:; land for hIs daughter and sDn-in-law. Steele sabotaged Meyer:;' kmd, 

putting stakes. down through his grain fie/d. Finally Myers wound up in tile 

hospital. 
96


1110g9.eps

Oct 2, 1939 

Mar 3, 1940 

Apr 3, 1940 

Apr 10, 1940 

Letter from Allen F. Spaoe, Roads SupervIsor to Superintendent 

Sacramento Indian Agency. 

.. ~Mr, J. W, Myers of the Lytton Rancheria caUee at this 

office this morning, He was interasted in fencing his 

assignment at LyttlUl, ~ He sated that Mr. Nash had 

informed him that ten il0) BOres would be SUiveyed off 

for his use. He wanted us to make this survey.~ 

Llltter from Harold J, Brodhead, Farm Agent to Roy Nash. Supt., 

Sacramento Indian Agency, 

• Nt made ccntact With [John Myers and Bert Steele} March 

2"". Mr. Myers Is quIte anxious to sea Ollt and leave the 

lytton Ranoher!"," 

Letter frcm Harold Brodha<ld to Roy Nash, Supt., Saoramento. 

• NGlen Martin is asking fcr information if he oan purchase 

the improvements of Wesloy Myers, who at present is 

living on the Lytton Rsncheria. ~ 

.. "Monday morning Bert Steele of the Lytton ranoheda was 

here askin!)" about tl'Je same property. [Mr. Steels wants 

the proPllrty to go to his son·in-law, Frank Madera, wn:J 

is marrIsd to Rosalir:e Steela,} t Mr. Steele is anxiolls for 

your decision. He wanWd me to ask yOIl, tilat jf yO'.l 

shOUld decide his s(m·in-iaw is not eligible to liVe (In this 

land that you make no mher choies unti! it may be 

reViewed in Washington.JIJllIl w 

Letter from Harold J. Brodlwad to Roy Nash, Supt., Sacramento 

Indian Agency 

• "It never rams, but it pours. Ona time it is 8ert Steale 

asking about Lytton Rancherla. Next, it is \-\lesley 

Meyers. This time it is Meyers. He Is once mere asking 

about permission to sell his improvements and move ..• 
97


1110g10.eps

Sap 1940 

"!Meyars} tol,' me one thing lhat I did not know before, 

that Steele had wId hIm he was us1119 too much land last 

year, and put stak6S dQwn through hiS grain field" .. 

~Meyers complaints Were so many that! see no 

auv"llt"II" 0' aU",[l'l-'liHij '(0 wlit", Ul"'lH "II tu yov. H", 

says he would Iik6 to tall:. to ynu personlll!y .... ~ 

Memo. For file on Lytton. 

• ~Weslev Meyers h<l5 bean In hospital at Santa Rosa but it 

is not known whether he is there now or not. He is a 

brother of Mrs. 8m Steele but it is believed he and Bert 

Steele had some troubla. n 

8m Steele blacks others from abkiln1ng <n>signments lit Lytton Rancher/s. 

Sep-'!,194J Letter from Bert Steele to Harold Brodhead, S<.lDfamento Indian 

Agencv, regaroing request of Mr. and Mrs. E.J. Maysee for 

permission to build a small cabin on the Lytton Rancheria. 

HI object to this permission being granted for saveral 

reasons whioh ! do not care to put in \l\!riting a! this time, 

but whi"h ) will b" gf"d to <mmmllni=m to yo" tlf your 

representative who might be in. this terrttory. ! trust you 

will not feel my objection Is unreasonable and I am .\lure 

wHlnyt after r ha.ve an opportunlty to tell you pef$onal!y 

just why I rnlli;1.'I this obj!Hltion.« 

Bert Steele died in November 15)43. Over tile next few years there were i$SUflS 

lnvolvifl[! s!Jccession to the rond. 

1944 

Mar 30. 1945 

Assignments were iiflllily issu$ld to the two familie!l, th" Steeles 

and the Meyers. 

Letter from toca! BIA SUperintendent to Washington 1hat "Mr. 

Steele is not a mli!fl1ber of aI'l organized group." 
98


1110h1.eps

After repeated request of the (SsidBflts for DwnerslJi'p of tnt! /;J/ld, and to be freed 

fram govem.rnent supervision, the Lytton Fiancneria was dfstributod to the residents 

In 1961, pursuant to the Rlmcheria Act of 1958. No trIbe exfsted; the residcrJts 

had never orgfmized as a tribe, and distrfblltion of the Lytton rant;;herffl rnd not 

terminate anv tribe. 

Nov 3.1952 

Ncv13,1952 

Letter from Do!orl3$: M. Myers and John W. Myers to the Area 

Director of the Califomia Indian Agency In Sacramento, asking 

for title to the land: 

• "I have improved land near Lytton, on the: Lyttcn 

Ranckeria .. .! should like to secure a patent in fee or a 

deed to this proparty. I obtained it as a life assignment 

from ycur agency at the time Mr. Nash was in charge. I 

was assured by Mr. Nash tllat if I made improvements 

that I would receive a patent In fee or a deed. I have 

made many improvements consisting of the building of a 

home; have ftmy fenced and sub-divided pastures for my 

r;attla and have also renewed and rebuilt the water sl.lpply 

SG!rvice. These severnl improvements have C05t me iii 

total of Four Thousand [$4,000.00) Dollars or 

rnore ... ,Ouits recently, wlth the intention of further 

improvements, J invested In 30,000 fect of lumbar, but 

~n im;lined t~ helieve I sh~uJd have a deed or patent in fee 

before proceeding further. ~ 

Letter irom Leonard Hi:!, Area Director, Bureau of lndhm Affairs 

to Mr. and Mrs. John W. Myers in response to letter or 

November 3. 

• "Ths pending withdrawal bill, 8.3005, if enacted, would 

grant such authority, but until Congress Hcts en this 

matter we oan not1ake action"" It is my earnest hOpfl 

that some action will be t.,ken by the ensuing Congress 

so that we may be able to taka care of your situation and 

other problems of similar nature on ether rancheria:;!. ~ 
99


1110h2.eps

Oct 1, 1955 

•.•. _., 1955 

lilUEf from John W. Myers and Dolores Myers to Area Dir&:to;, 

BLlraau of Indian Affairs In Sacramento, 

• ~However, we afe both very much in favor of the plana of 

your office to try to get Congrassional authority to allot 

end deed the jand to th>;l 8ssignees. We {wife, son & n 

have lived on our assignment eighteen years and have 

made many improvements consisting cf the building of a 

home, ell3ctricity installed for horne and watEtr system. I 

have fully fenced and SI.1bdivided pasture9 for our anttle 

and have f9llewed and rebuilt 'the water service and build 

srm'ill bam and carrels. These severellmprovements have 

cost me a total of flva thousand ($5,000.00) dollars or 

more. I also invested In 30,000 feet of lumber with the 

intentions Ilf furthar lmprllvements but held off building 

until! had a possibk! ooanciii' to secure e titl", deed or 

patent in fee for this property before pruc(lBdillg further." 

Lstter from J. N. Lowe, Assistant Area Director, Sac:ramento 

Area OWee to John W. Myers in response to his October 1 

latter. 

• "We hope to obta1n congresslllnaj authority to allot the 

leJ1d of such ranoherlas in California whllse members 

'1ubmlt written requests for su .. h ollotmont:!;. 1 A" you 

know, the Lytton Flancheria has been assigned to two 

familles, namely yours and that of Bert Steel. Ijlt is our 

understanding that Bert StBal's Widow is 8tH! !tvlng; 

therefora, if both you and Mrs. Steel will sign all ollpies of 

the enclosed resolution <lf1d retlJrn to me tho selfaddressed enclosed envelilpe we will include the Lytton 

Ranchl:lria in our request for authority til allot Indian 

lands .... 'If is noted that Daniel Stoal spoke for the Steel 

Family during the hearings in Sacramentll Iln November 

22 and 23, 1 g54, conducted by the State Inttlrlm 

Committee on Calitorni3 !ndian Affairs." 
100


1110h3.eps

Jan 10, 1957 

The Resolution that WilS appare:rtly endowed with the letter 

restates t11m the rBsidents want to obtain titre to the lsnd. It is 

also clear they were not ceeklng Installation of new water 

supply or sewer lines, 

.. " • .,such transfer of tlt!e should be co:1ditionoo IlpOrl the 

completion by the Federal Govemment of an Intemal 

survey nnd subdivision of the assignments of the 

reservation so that each person will receIve an insurable 

title tl) his lot and, furthar, that $llCh transfer of title 

should be conditioned upon the oancellation of any debts 

anrlliens held by the Federal Governmant against the 

Lytton Ranoherla or Reservation, 

-NOW, THEREFORE, be it ra3clved by the assignees of 

the Lytton Reservation that the United Stetes is requested 

to take whatever action is ne.cessary and appropriate, by 

legIslation or otherwise, to complete the surveY$, cancel 

lhe IndBbtcdness rnentiorled above and to issue a fee 

patent to each of the assignees at the Lytton Reservation 

for the share of the reseNation lend nuw assigned to 

such individual," 

Letter to Congressman Hubert B, Soudder from Dolores and 

John Myers, Mary Steele, and Danie! F. Steele (the residents of 

lytton ranoherla) requesting assista:loe to obtain tltle to ~he 

hmd. 

• ~The I.ytton Indian Ranoheria of SonomOl County, 

California, was purohased fOf and assigned to the Myers 

and Steele famili<ls .• ,. 1We have requestm:! the &;reau of 

indian Affair:; on many ocoasions to deed this land to us 

end they have informed us that they do not have the 

authority to do so without an act of Congress. We am 

heartily in favor of the pass<lg!:l of the Rancherrn Bit! that 

has been proposed by the Bureau whioh wI!! allow them 

to deed the Jand to us. '[Will you please do all that you 
101


1110h4.eps

Fab 26, 1957 

Julv 22, 1958 

Aug lS, Hl5S 

May 29,1969 

can to InN!! this bill passed du-rlng the next session of 

C'.Jng;ess. " 

Seoond letter to Congressman Scudder from Dolores MY"flii and 

John Myers repeating request. 

• "In reply to your lettar of January 17, 1957 wittl 

reference to Bill H,R. 2576, we wish to state that we 

wrote you on January 10, 1957 <lnd signed by all 

assigr.ezs of the Lytton P.ancherla, stating 't~at '1.'e, the 

assignees of the LYtton Ran(;heri~, most heartily approve 

of the p<'l5~age of the Rancheri!! Bill H.R. 2576, and wish 

to be included with the Rancherias that are named on Bill 

H.R 2576, which we underotand wi!! enable us to SB{;urs 

a fee title <X deed. for our property. ~ Sir.cB we, my 

husband and I, have expended between six and seven 

thousand dollars in improvements to the property In the 

last eighteBrt yean" we fee! ihat we are entitled to receIve 

a deed for our ShaH) of the propllrty," 

Senate Report No, lE74, cIted ahove, contaIns bi:tckgmllTid data 

submitted by the Bureau of Indian Affairs on each of the Indian 

ranch!uias enumerated in the bill. For Lytton, the report reads: 

• ~The Indians living at Lytton Iklncherla hava no tribal 

organization. ~ 

H.R. 2624 war; passed end becama Public law 85-671. 

SeGtion 3 required instaUatiun Of rehabl!itation of Irrlgat10n or 

dQIT'\flstlc water Sfstems "as Ithe Secretary of Interior] and tha 

Indi~ns affected agree." No provision was made for installation 

of sewerage faeilities. 

A Plan for Distribution of the Assets of the Lvtton Rancherta 

was approved. It did not require the government to make any 

Imprcvements to the water facilities. 
102


1110h5.eps

Sept 13, 1960 

... "The lane \s almost leVill and Is used p.lnclpally fer 

homesites. E~ch honwsft" has be:ron provkled with an 

3ffi1J1t> domestic \MIter wpply from p!'ivate wells and no 

f"clrther impr~vemer'\t for water fa nece!l..~'lIY." 

Office Memorandum from Arjls Land o.PB!'trtibflS & Roads Office: 

to the fila (a9ardin~ Lytton Ranchcris. 

• u ••• instructlons fur completing the works on this rancheri~ 

Includes as Iwm 4 instfl,Jntions for ~howing easements for 

waterlines. 

"DUling the prep<!raticill of t~e rna? for te'"..ordiltlon It was 

oonclloKicrl I1<;!t W show water-line easements b-ecau~ 

omy two famili6!llive on Uils rMcheria ~H1ci tM existmg 

\valls are.:ln parcels to ba deaded to IOllilch. Also. irrigation 

is of little val11a sInce the property will most probably bs 

resiciemtial. It' w~s also concluded that doml1stic water for 

other p~rcols could best be obtained from shallow wells 

to be drmad by the distributees if so dt:!sirart." 

1961 list of original distrlbuteeiS lind map of the r<looheria lands, 

showing 6istribUtioml. BIA S!.lbCividhd tlw Lyt"Jm fulr,eheria in\U 

eight p~rce!s and distr'J:lI.i.-ted the paroois ta the eight. 

distrltll.ltees. 

Aug 10, 1961 ~ Deeds. An eight distrlblltees sold their parcels, 

May 26, 1964 

DfstFlbutfon of tim- /;mm: af Lytton Hat:Dherliil to the distribUtees did not brear:h ZllIY 

duties of the 9O'Ietfimen! /tnder the Reno!wriB Aot. ThBt Act required tlfflt water 

f;u;ilitfes be m:,;faJlcd or l'e!mbHfftlted;;6 tho Secret<lry WId the fndkms "ffeared 

agree, ;md the Film of Disfributicn did not requirs 8TlY itNtallstion or mfJ&bilitamm. 

AU911.1964 Congress passed H,R. 7S33lPublio Law 8841.9; 78 Stat. 3S0) 

to amend the R(oIf'lCheliQ Act. Section Sic} W;:lS <lrnsnded to 

address sanitation f~cilities, which had not been addressed at all 
103


1110h6.eps

Rib 1S, 1911 

in the Act as originlilly rassad. The otio,;!inal language had been 

/lmitsd to watw $UPJ.l/y. 

Memonmdum from Area ~t-w w BUHI_au nf lrulian Afu-lr-l), 

Sacrarne.nm, CA tc Director, OffiG-e cf Trust Responslbillti&s ill 

Cilmrnisskmar t}f Inil!,,'" Affairs office regMtlins termination of 

lytton Rancherls, 

• "The Sacrat'll~ntQ Area Termination Revi~V\I Committee 

maintains th-llt section 3 Irrwrovemerltll w<!rc adequately 

\almpl~ at tho L.ytton Rancherj;!. ihlil IlMoh&ia, 

lherafure, should be c;;msidered as h-Slving bean propeffy 

te.rmlnatmf. '< 

In 1lJ8S" CrovJI Steele, wftr; ~d hevn lIUIrrled to Danief Stem. ana of 8fiid Stem.~ 

.oom:, sougl't to nave propfNty re.:':rorsd tQ trust ~t.m."S and W 1)(wmiJ':fI a new tdhr:d 

gr;ve;".nmflm~ fn 1!iS7, the Lytton IlldfM Community joined a pfitlt/lng lawsuit, 

Sr;otts V8/1fW Sl;md of Porno Indians v. UnIted States. In 1991, thQ United Stotes 

StipV/8ted tv 1:3nt'Y of Judgment to relJlJ(JlIlza the Lytton, 

Sept 22, 19a5 

Aug 25, 29B'( 

l~tt2r from C<llif<.'Jtnja lndhm Legeal ServiOO'5 to William Sabhy, 

Area Directuf, mA, Sacramar-.to, assert!ng d$l~ (If Caro! Stel:lTe 

ta h[\\,-.;! '-LyttOn R;;nonecjaG rest;)-red to 1rum stltt!.lS'" a-oo 101" 

"members -of the- ." i..'/t""ol'l Raw:hf:iriail"to officially mga..,t~e '" 

r:ew tribal gOvertilTlflnt." TIre letrer WIilS l'.ct ofa!m that tilere 

were any wr-;mgfUI <IC/!$ of the govErnment.. 

Second Amended C!~ss Act jon Complaint fflr Deolaratory and 

Injunctive ReIlef and O~maaes filed in the Uni1:sd ~tes District 

Court, Northern Dl~tri<!!t af CalHornia, and ineluded the lytton 

Indian Community o-f lhe lytton Rancheria om;. a plaintiff. The 

oomptalnt alleged br$aclws oJ tha Rancl1ffi'ia At}t and breach af 

tH>.-st. Ttre Ccmplaint did not seei( dama~, btlt that the 

ts:mir"Aition proc1!'1:mmfoM slwukl 06 "f&.<lmdecl. Re~[nG tbs 

lyttrm Hancnari8', t1115- CM1pl.1Jnt a.1eged that the water serv-i<::es 

were inadeqt:flte to t'.WYe the parcels dfstributod. It did not 

identify any agreement of the govemm/:lnt to 'Improve the water 

&),stem or iilny breneh of sm:h an agreemant; 
104


1110h7.eps

.. "Prior to and at the time of dlst:ibution of deeds to 

individual distrlbutees, water services on the Ranclwrla 

were lnadequate w senre thase paIllels. Only tlUil par;:;e!s 

had OO-ielo~c walls; the. oVlef -lliX were wi,hcrrt a water 

-.supp1y.~ 1sS, p.16. lines 24-27. 

Bert Steele had bf.)<;ln given a single as~i9n!'118nt of 16 acres. On 

distribution, this single assignment was divi(lfjd Il1to seven 

parcels. 

Match 2-2, 1991 Stipulation for En1ry of J,ldgrnent !included in full with MargIe 

MeJia's testimony]. Notwithmnding the failure of the LyttOilS 

to allege a breaclJ of the RaJ'll::hEria Act, and despite the failure 

.of the BIA to consider rftCognl!km d ilia Lytton under the then 

-existing regulatory procedures, the government stipulated to 

reoogn-rze thil Lytton, The County 01 Sonom3 h",d inttlfVtlned in 

the proceedings, beoause of concerns that thet Lyttons would 

build a casino on any newly acquired )and~, und the Lytton 

voluntary rellnqul:s;hr.d rights to oondmrt gaming on ~ny restored 

lands in Sonoma County. 

• KS.lb) ~a!lQh!!ria: With re~pec-t to hmd' within the 

eA"tmlor boundaries- oJ th5 former Lytton Rancl1erla. .• the 

!Secreta;y of lntarior's J,-,i~ 19, 18Ei{)) poOcy and 

guidelines lfor placing jam into "trust} woutd preclude the 

Secmtary fram accepting such land in trust for any use 

that Is Inconsistent with the Sonoma County Genera! 

Plan. 

~rcJ AlexSlpdef Valley: With resped to [and within the 

A:exander Vlllley ... the above-refere1i'::fI \}'JidBlines would 

pnmlude the Se!)rerery from aGrn.lpting -"UGh land in trust 

to b", used for gsmblmg purP-Q~, ir>e!!1ding I;u"t ;"lot 

limitsd to high :sta\ces bingo, unl"$S lIuch use js a<fJ'!Grrzed 

onder 'the CO\JOty's GanJilf8J PI!;n. ~ 

The stipulation rai!l('m another issue. It prnvidad that the 

government could recognize the Lytton und",r the IRA. 
105


1110h8.eps

UThe- partitl$ ~<:1911i~e lhat this agr;(Wnl'!lnt cQl1tamplates 

tb~ future r~QfsaJ'~o and fe-j;:ta\ raoognition of ~hH 

lytton indian Cummui'.itv ~ a -tritlaf -errtity ~~~g ~f· 

\j;:;vem,,'ng pO-VWtI> urntsrths -i..lfum R~9~ Act.. 

However, the SUPrl»l'I18 Court has ~dGo I;ll~r th"t th" IRA 

allows for f",d(!ra! ((d~olJnition only of a "tribe that was under 

federal jurisdictkn'l at the time of the statuM'$ enaotmentn in 

1934. Careier; v. $a(il2Ilr, 129 S,Ct, 1059 {20()!,l}. Since no 

one lived on the L.ytton Rancheria in 19341 thO!) QlPup in 1991 

did flat qualify for f"IGO\Inltion under the IRA • 

. 4~mt 1$~ 1991 l ..... 'ter Met frOO1 Callfnmia Dspa!1:m'!>m qf ",usttn~ Tn HoncraNe 

Vaughn n. WSl!;.ar, Jurlge ef the U.s. Oi$trk.t ·Comt, P.':l!aromg 

St.:Qttt VelWy 8M 1)1 P-o;r.o IOll1ans ¥. Umte!,i Stllt~1 regarmng 

the Lyttar. Ranchwf<l. 

• U ••• the Sta~EI notl,l~ that the procetlut!lli!: !I<\t furth in Title 

25 cf the C~rJl). ClI federal Regulations for suoh 

a-t:;knDwled9m~nt were. apparently not followed rn this 

cass, aod 1t.t;I :S~2Ite to cur knowledge WI'!S nM a!fo,'"ded 

th~ oppOl1Utlity to ecmlnent mI re'Jcgnltinl'l:" 

.. "'" M 7. !~ tha int8nt ci the- ~~$l"I'1; ~l'<d tt-..e Dep~ 

vf m~;iot. to" ohmin by {yJreha.'B, -;:;ol'lQef!'lnll!ron or 

rlarivati1m titJe irpm Qr 'Cn :behalf of any lmJ1ao -or Indian 

descendent, ;'.Iny lands which have boon !"-l~tented our of 

too public domain, or otharwise have ht:ltodoaUy been 

subject to Slato1 jur!!ld!otlon regulation, o~ ";Qvereignty, .. , 

consent 0"( tha. $t<l~e legislature will hllV03 ." be obtained 

prior to ptaoorn<lflt £It such !aoo~ i;"l ~ru!:!t. Ulwer Article 1, 

sec-1m S, ;:-jausu 17 fof the U.S. Con:;tltutkmt CougWS:i' 

~ ~~:)( aC4uire legisl.e:tlw 1'(JW>;lt from a Sta!~ 

O"\rel- j.,rnj' C>..~ua1h- cirtaint:ti 'b-i p<%(:tmsa.:;r ira,'1t uf 

to!: propmty CiWnM tlf twm.gh too ~I pGwer of 

eminent do!'rl;:r;in either by ~BI"r.$l'l.r (1f the Legislature 'Of 

that Sta-te or by oe~sation of legislatIve tlutnon'ty by the 
106


1110h9.eps

• 

• 

• 

Statfl follc....-4!'-9 {ll:otaining of tfw t!dlOl Ilt tho. land by the 

~dmaj g~\,"jM.~ [citw ol'1';lrterl]." 

". -Joosdbtll1f1 itt the- Unital' ~ '(JOog.J: tl~ bEt.--.:mw 

-ex~fi-e. if ti1!'.l $rete- ~~ that jU!i$iljcfJQ;;i lelts:; 

-omittedl. ~ 

uJnsofsr fJ5I11~rUlllr the Secretary's poll(!,y Qated July 19, 

1990, nor tM PfPG~dures established by tl1Go propOsed 

settillment proVlda r(lr or cuntBmpla1:1:1 S~at\l. \!Ippfoval or 

cessatitm rtf jurls4l.:;t1on. the State Df CalHQrnln believes 

amI assert~ that ID.'4- proca4~ cae fW.wed and not in 

~n¢a with tt-w; ~,enu of the CO(l£!.t~utk;1l or 

fuw/'-

".,.?tEl! Stat~ In no way 'N<1i>res l:t<=jtllls:clll;!tl(loel rIght to 

test said acqlllsitioll if .said acqui.!litiOf1 tll'I~ designationls 

not in full at.lcord"nG(I with the prevision .;If1hl1 

Consti'tutie:.rt .••• 11'1 Qrcler to Bsssrt this f;HJ.~itlon lind not 

waive saId right:;:, II fetter to the Sec,elIJIY Qf Interior Will 

be ssnt settlrl9 f()rth this position artd '1;Xj:l.!'&$:i;tn9 the 

OOl'.cem at,h:. State-inat t!-,e ?Olia.t(l~ '!Inii w::~res. cf 

t1w Sa=rtarv ~f tn~ oct \fflJrI~a!Jy vioT;D-'the-

'So .. ~.t~i of t.u Stem .. ,,"- -

Judgment W\'I~ entered an tb~ St!p1.,'-Ilttttin, !No oonument 

includoo.] 

Ai,,! t$.Ilm tlult during UIS ~Wtlm.L'Q Qttre Lytton rtltl'*'''1tt:.f. i~ taw rasfdrurts 

~$t1tul;eti a trlb0, am nut supportail by the- hl$wl:h:~ n:l:;ord and nut OOns!stent 

with .. 'W govarnment's cwr: mswr1c<>I. Gnr,clu$lOf',S. Tt<fr tm"Jv.;r "1eln:1 tOOt -fua .rum 

w&s 

~i<. 

~=ffi'\tIW 

the 

~>sfti!1y 

\iC'l-amment 

tam-il~d 

01>3 'alii "that 

ru-sowoo hil$ 

~1.Il!OO 

'm i1nrlof W'-y 

Jt under 

support 

~ 

In 

?..).ocneria 

the ~ 

Act 

befoTe t."SMfetrff'>!;" tile lands !o tr,t> ~il1m~$ of thl> r8l1~'m'1;;: mldl.:ll''j]!, 
107

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

The Department of the Interior (Department) has reviewed S. 872, a bill that 

would modify the date as of which certain tribal land of the Lytton Rancheria of 

California is to be considered held in trust and to provide for the conduct of certain 

activities on the land. The Department opposes S. 872, as currently drafted, at this 

time. 

Public Law 106–568 (Dec. 27, 2000) required the Secretary to acquire certain 

lands in trust in northern California on behalf of the Lytton Rancheria, and deemed 

those lands to ‘‘have been held in trust and part of the reservation of the Rancheria 

prior to October 17, 1988.’’ The Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA) generally prohibits Indian tribes from conducting gaming on lands acquired after October 17, 

1988, subject to several exceptions. 

The Department of the Interior placed the land in question in trust on behalf of 

the Lytton Rancheria on October 9, 2003. 

The Lytton Rancheria (Tribe) lawfully operates a Class II gaming facility on those 

trust lands in northern California. The Tribe does not have a tribal-state gaming 

compact with the State of California; meaning, the Tribe is not able to operate a 

Class III gaming facility on the site. 

S. 872 would amend P.L. 106–568 by deeming the land in question to have been 

acquired in trust on October 9, 2003. The bill would also limit the Tribe’s existing 

Class II gaming activities by providing, ‘‘the Lytton Rancheria of California shall not 

expand the exterior physical measurements of any facility on the Lytton Rancheria 

in use for Class II gaming activities on the date of enactment of this paragraph.’’

The Department’s policy is to support tribes’ inherent governing authority over 

their own lands by protecting their ability to control tribal land use. S. 872 would 

diminish the Lytton Rancheria’s land-use authority by essentially imposing a zoning 

restriction on existing facilities on its trust lands. By modifying the legal date of 

the trust acquisition of the Tribe’s lands, S. 872 would also restrict the ongoing operation of the Tribe’s economic enterprises, which were within the limits of federal 

law at the time they were established. In the Department’s view, Indian tribes 

should be permitted to reasonably rely upon the scope of federal laws governing the 

use of their lands when making decisions regarding land-use. 


1110h10.eps
108

Importantly, Lytton Rancheria cannot develop and operate a Las Vegas-style, 

Class III gaming facility on the lands at issue until the Tribe enters into a valid 

tribal-state gaming compact. 

The Department’s position with respect to S. 872 should not be interpreted to 

mean that the Department would support future legislation that would modify a 

tribe’s trust acquisition of lands in a manner similar to P.L. 106–568. Nevertheless, 

the Department opposes retroactive restrictions on lands that have already been acquired in trust on behalf of Indian tribes and individual Indians in reliance on existing federal laws. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. MICHAEL FINLEY, CHAIRMAN, CONFEDERATED TRIBES

OF THE COLVILLE RESERVATION

On behalf of the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation (‘‘Colville Tribes’’ 

or the ‘‘Tribes’’), I am pleased to provide this statement for the record on S. 1763, 

the Stand Against Violence and Empower Native Women Act, and would like to 

thank the Committee for convening this hearing. 

The Colville Tribes supports S. 1763 as introduced. The provisions providing for 

tribal jurisdiction over certain federal crimes against women is a critical first step 

to restoring inherent tribal jurisdiction over all offenders in Indian country. The 

Colville Tribes applauds the Administration and the Department of Justice for endorsing this concept and its inclusion in Title II of S. 1763. 

When the Committee disseminated the draft bill that was ultimately introduced 

as S. 1763, the Colville Tribes proposed an additional section that would address 

the gap that exists on many Indian reservations for the enforcement of misdemeanor offenses. This proposed new section, the ‘‘Misdemeanor Enforcement Demonstration Project’’ (‘‘Demonstration Project’’), is described in more detail below and 

the text is included at the end of this statement. 

The Colville Tribes has discussed this Demonstration Project proposal with the 

Committee’s majority and minority staff, representatives from the Department of 

the Interior and the Department of Justice, the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Washington, and other Indian tribes. We are hopeful that the Committee 

will include this proposal, or a variation of it, in any manager’s amendment to S. 

1763 if or when the Committee takes action on the bill. The Colville Tribes offers 

this Demonstration Project proposal as an addition to, not a substitute for, the substantive provisions of Title II of S. 1763 as introduced. 

Presently, only state or federal law enforcement officers possess jurisdiction over 

non-Indians in Indian country. Cross-deputization or other agreements with state 

and local governments that delegate authority to enforce state criminal laws to 

tribes mitigate this problem to some extent. State and local governments, however, 

are under no obligation to enter into such agreements with tribes and are often unwilling to do so. Consequently, many Indian reservations lack the ability to provide 

any law enforcement response to crimes committed by non-Indians. 

The Demonstration Project proposal addresses this problem in a unique manner 

by authorizing the Secretary of the Interior (‘‘Secretary’’) to (i) promulgate regulations of general applicability with misdemeanor criminal penalties to apply within 

Indian country and (ii) delegate the authority to Indian tribes to enforce them. Tribal officers would have authority to issue citations but any processing of fines or 

prosecution would be handled by the applicable federal district court, specifically the 

Central Violations Bureau (CVB). The CVB is the entity created by the federal 

courts for processing tickets issued and payments received for misdemeanor federal 

violations. The Demonstration Project is intended to grant tribal officers the authority to take immediate action to intervene in misdemeanor criminal activity and refer 

such violations to federal authorities. 

This concept is modeled on Section 303 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. § 1733), which grants the Secretary similar authority 

to promulgate regulations and delegate enforcement to state and local officers on 

Bureau of Land Management land. 

The proposal is of limited duration and is discretionary on the part of the Secretary. Any regulations issued by the Secretary would be subject to notice and comment rulemaking and neither the Act nor any regulations promulgated under a 

demonstration project would affect, diminish or otherwise preempt the criminal jurisdiction of any state or local government, or affect or diminish P.L. 280. Any regulations promulgated would be concurrent with any state or local law enforcement 

efforts. Finally, any person cited by a tribal officer for violation of regulations would 

be subject to the adjudicatory jurisdiction of the applicable federal district court, not 

tribal courts, and all federal constitutional protections would apply. 

109

The Demonstration Project would provide a mechanism for tribal officers to intervene in criminal conduct in Indian country where they currently lack the authority 

to do so. The Demonstration Project would, therefore, allow for a potentially broader 

range of conduct to be subject to tribal law enforcement intervention than Title II 

does as introduced. The difference is that the substantive offenses are established 

through federal regulations, are misdemeanors, and are subject to federal—not tribal—court adjudication. 

The report to Congress contemplated by the Demonstration Project would provide 

a valuable record to gauge the effectiveness of the projects in evaluating a longer 

term solution to the issues caused by the Oliphant and other federal court decisions. 

The Colville Tribes appreciates the Committee convening this hearing and is grateful of its consideration of these comments. The text of the Tribes’ proposal is set 

forth below. 

llllllllllllllllll

SEC. 206. MISDEMEANOR ENFORCEMENT DEMONSTRATION PROJECT 

Subchapter I of chapter 15 of title 25, is amended by adding at the end the following new section:

’’SEC. 1306. MISDEMEANOR ENFORCEMENT DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS

(A) IN GENERAL.—In each of fiscal years 2012 to 2018, the Secretary may select 

up to five Indian tribes to participate in demonstration projects to carry out enforcement of federal regulations as authorized by this section.

(B) DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS.—For each Indian tribe selected by the Secretary for a demonstration project under this section, the Secretary shall—

(1) in consultation with the selected Indian tribe, issue regulations with respect 

to the management, use, and public safety of and within Indian country, including the property located thereon. Any person who knowingly and willfully violates any such regulation issued pursuant to this section shall be fined not more 

than $1,000 or imprisoned not more than twelve months, or both. Any person 

charged with a violation of such regulation may be tried and sentenced by any 

United States magistrate judge [P.L. 101–650, 1990] designated for that purpose by the court by which he was appointed, in the same manner and subject 

to the same conditions and limitations as provided for in section 3401 of title 

18 of the United States Code; and

(2) at the Indian tribes’ request, negotiate agreements with the selected Indian 

tribes to allow tribal officers to enforce regulations promulgated under this section. Such agreements shall reflect the status of the applicable tribal officers as 

Federal law enforcement officers under [25 U.S.C. § 2804(f)], acting within the 

scope of the duties described in [25 U.S.C. § 2802(c)].

(C) APPLICATION AND SELECTION.—Within 180 days of enactment of this 

Act, and after consultation with Indian tribes, the Secretary shall publish application requirements and selection criteria for demonstration projects authorized under 

this section. In selecting tribal applications, the Secretary shall—

(1) ensure that the Indian tribe has notified the applicable state and local governments where the Indian country subject to the proposed demonstration 

project is located; and

(2) give preference to those applications where the United States attorney for 

the district where the Indian country subject to the proposed demonstration 

project is located consents to the proposed project.

(D) DURATION OF REGULATIONS.—Any regulations promulgated by the Secretary under this Act may remain in effect for up to four years after the expiration 

of the applicable demonstration project.

(E) EFFECT ON OTHER LAWS.—Nothing in this Act or any regulations promulgated under any demonstration project authorized herein shall be construed 

to modify or affect section 1152 of title 18, United States Code or to modify or 

diminish the criminal jurisdiction of any state or local government.

(F) REPORT.—Not later than September 30, 2016, the Secretary shall submit 

to Congress a report that describes, with respect to the reporting period—

(1) a description of each demonstration project approved under this section; and

(2) an assessment of the effectiveness of the demonstration projects. 

110

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. TOM MAULSON, TRIBAL PRESIDENT, LAC DU

FLAMBEAU TRIBE

PREPARED STATEMENT OF TOVA INDRITZ, CHAIR, NACDL NATIVE AMERICAN JUSTICE

COMMITTEE

I am writing on behalf of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers 

to provide our views on the SAVE Native Women Act. While domestic violence is 

a serious issue for Indian tribes, we believe any federal effort to bolster tribal law 

enforcement must be accompanied by measures to increase the quality of justice in 

tribal courts. For the reasons outlined below, we believe the SAVE Native Women 

Act fails to provide the requisite safeguards, including an adequate right to counsel, 

for the proposed fundamental change in tribal court jurisdiction. 

NACDL is the preeminent organization in the United States advancing the mission of the nation’s criminal defense lawyers to ensure justice and due process for 


1110h11.eps
111

persons accused of crime or other misconduct. A professional bar association founded in 1958, NACDL’s more than 10,000 direct members—and 80 state, local and 

international affiliate organizations with a total of 35,000 members—include private 

criminal defense lawyers, public defenders, active-duty U.S. military defense counsel, law professors, and judges committed to preserving fairness within America’s 

criminal justice system. 

Title II of the S. 1763 would (1) provide for the first time since Oliphant v. 

Suquamish Indian Tribe, 435 U.S. 191 (1978), for tribal court jurisdiction over nonIndians, (2) provide that non-Indians have greater rights to due process and representation by counsel than do Indians charged with the same crimes and facing 

the same term of incarceration, (3) shift the burden of proof of an element of a crime 

from the prosecuting sovereign government to the defendant to assert lack of proof, 

contrary to historic American criminal procedures, and (4) increase penalties for 

various federal crimes and create new federal crimes. 

Native Americans are, after all, U.S. citizens. When charged in state or federal 

court, Indians have the same rights to due process and right to counsel as do all 

other persons. When Congress enacted the Indian Civil Rights Act (ICRA) in 1968, 

the trade-off for not requiring appointment of counsel and other indicia of due process in tribal courts was to restrict tribes to maximum penalties of six months’ incarceration and a fine of $500. In 1986, ICRA was amended to provide for penalties 

of up to one year and a fme of $5,000. Then in 2010, the Tribal Law and Order 

Act (TLOA) allowed tribal courts to impose sentences up to 3 years, but only where, 

if the sentence was to be more than one year, there is a right to counsel, a qualified 

judge, and certain other aspects of due process. 

If Indian tribal courts had to adhere to the same constitutional standards and 

guarantees as all federal and state courts, there would be no objection to allowing 

tribal courts to prosecute anyone who comes into their physical jurisdiction, just as 

a resident of Arizona cannot object to the jurisdiction of the state courts of Kansas 

if that resident travels to Kansas. If this proposed bill extended tribal court jurisdiction to non-Indians who have a nexus to the tribe, and those non-Indians and also 

Indians had the same rights in tribal court as they do in state or federal court, 

NACDL would not object. However, this bill would not increase constitutional protections, but would lower them, and therefore we do object to the bill. 

Argersinger v. Hamlin, 407 U.S. 25 (1972), guarantees an indigent defendant the 

right to counsel in any case where that defendant is facing incarceration. This bill 

purports to give the right to counsel to a non-Indian facing imprisonment, while an 

Indian facing the exact same penalty, possibly as a co-defendant in the exact same 

case, does not have that right if the maximum penalty is one year. How can that 

be fair? Instead of going to the least common denominator in terms of rights, Congress ought to raise the level of individual rights so that all persons who face incarceration, including in tribal court, have the right to counsel and full due process. 

Section 204, the definitions section, should define ‘‘licensed defense counsel’’ (as 

used in section 204(g)(2)), to mean a lawyer licensed to practice law in any state 

or the District of Columbia, and section 204(e) should spell out specifically a right 

to ‘‘licensed defense counsel.’’ Some tribes have tribal bar admission requirements 

that do not even include high school graduation, no less completion of law school; 

in these tribes, ‘‘tribal advocates’’ who are akin to paralegals and are not lawyers 

represent defendants. Such non-lawyer members of the tribal bar do not fulfill the 

requirement ofrepresentation by counsel in the sense of Gideon v. Wainright, 372 

U.S. 335 (1963), Argersinger v. Hamlin, supra, nor the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. 

Constitution. 

Section 204( e) should also spell out specifically the full right to counsel, due process, protection from illegal search and seizure, and all other rights that persons facing incarceration in state and federal courts are entitled to receive. 

The burden of proof must always be on the prosecuting government to prove beyond a reasonable doubt every element of a charged offense. Section 204( d)( 4) purports to shift the burden of proof of a reasonable nexus between the non-Indian defendant and the tribe to the defendant by providing that if the defendant does not 

file a pre-trial motion contesting that element, then the issue is waived. That is like 

shifting to a defendant the burden of raising any element of proof in a criminal case 

and is completely inappropriate. Also, the standard of proof should be spelled out 

in section 204(d)(B) as ‘‘beyond a reasonable doubt.’’

The creation of new crimes, in section 203, is unnecessary. If there is a special 

statute for assault by strangling or suffocating, why should there not be a special 

statute for assault by use of a knife, or a firearm, or a rock, or a chair as a weapon? 

The current assault statute, with various levels of harm imposed, is sufficient. In 

section 205, the increase in penalties for various assault statutes and the expansion 

of the 20-year penalty for any assault that is a felony again subjects those charged 

112

1Founded in 1978 by American Indians, the Center assists indigenous peoples in combating 

racism and oppression, realizing their human rights, protecting their lands and environment, 

and achieving sustainable economic development and genuine self-government. The Center 

works throughout the Americas to overcome the devastating problems that threaten Native peoples by advancing the rule of law, by establishing national and international legal standards 

in federal court with Indian Country crimes to much greater penalties than are 

those persons charged in most state courts. This penalty scheme creates a disparity 

that is unwarranted and may ultimately undermine the federal role in maintaining 

the safety and welfare of those who reside in Indian Country. 

Thank you for considering our views. We stand ready to assist the committee and 

its staff in improving this legislation so as to adequately ensure fairness and due 

process in tribal courts. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. MIKE WIGGINS, JR., TRIBAL CHAIRMAN, BAD RIVER

BAND OF LAKE SUPERIOR TRIBE OF CHIPPEWA INDIANS

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JANA L. WALKER, SENIOR ATTORNEY, INDIAN LAW

RESOURCE CENTER

Chairman Akaka and distinguished members of the Committee. The Indian Law 

Resource Center (Center), 1 a non-profit legal organization, respectfully submits this 


1110h12.eps
113

that preserve their human rights and dignity, and by providing legal assistance without charge 

to indigenous peoples fighting to protect their lands and ways of life. One of our overall goals 

is to promote and protect the human rights of indigenous peoples, especially those human rights 

recognized in international law. 2 In 2010, the Tribal Law and Order Act (TLOA), Pub. L. No. 111–211, was enacted, amending 

the Indian Civil Rights Act to allow tribal courts to sentence offenders for up to three years 

imprisonment, a $15,000 fine, or both for any one offense, but only if certain requirements are 

met. Tribal courts also may stack sentences for up to nine years total imprisonment. In order 

for tribes to use enhanced sentencing authority, they must provide a number of specific defendant protections, including: defense counsel for indigent defendants, legal trained and licensed 

judges, detention facilities certified for long term detention, and publicly available tribal codes. 

For the vast majority of tribes, additional resources will be needed to meet these requirements.

testimony to be included in the record of the Committee’s legislative hearing, held 

on November 10, 2011, concerning violence against Native women. The Center 

strongly supports federal law reform that will end the epidemic of violence being 

experienced throughout Indian country and Alaska Native villages every minute of 

every day. Protection of Native women and communities will not be fully realized 

without strengthening the ability of Native nations to effectively police their lands 

and prosecute offenders on their lands. Passage of legislation such as S. 1763, the 

SAVE Native Women Act, would be a first step. 

On November 10, 2011, the Center’s staff once again listened to the sobering testimony of panelists testifying before the Committee about the epidemic of violence 

against Native women. Sadly, these horrific rates of sexual and physical violence 

being committed against Native women in the United States are all too familiar to 

Native communities—1 in 3 Native women will be raped in their lifetime and 6 in 

10 will be physically assaulted. On some reservations, the murder rate for Native 

women is 10 times the national average. Even worse, it is strongly believed that 

the actual incidence of violence against Native women is even higher due to improper and under-reporting. 

At the root of this violence are restrictions on the inherent jurisdiction of federally 

recognized American Indian and Alaska Native tribal governments over their respective territories. Major legal barriers obstructing the ability of tribes to protect 

women living within their jurisdictional authority include:

a. Federal assumption of jurisdiction over certain felony crimes under the Major 

Crimes Act (1885);

b. The stripping of tribal criminal jurisdiction over non-Indians by the United 

States Supreme Court (1978);

c. Imposition of a one-year, per offense, sentencing limitation upon tribal courts 

by Congress through passage of the Indian Civil Rights Act (1968); 2

d. Transfer of criminal jurisdiction from the United States to certain state governments through passage of Public Law 53–280 and other similar legislation 

(1953); and

e. Failure to fulfill treaties signed by the United States with tribes as recognized by the court in Elk v. United States in 2009.

These federal laws and decisions of the United States Supreme Court have created a jurisdictional maze, involving federal, tribal, and state governments and requiring a case-by-case analysis of the location of each crime, race of the perpetrator 

and victim, and the type of crime. This jurisdictional scheme perpetuates violations 

of women’s human rights, because it treats Native women differently from all other 

women and causes confusion over who has the authority to respond to, investigate, 

and prosecute violence against Native women. In no other jurisdiction within the 

United States does a government lack the legal authority to prosecute violent criminal offenses illegal under its own laws. 

Restrictions on the criminal authority of tribes also denies meaningful access to 

justice for Native women who are victims of sexual and domestic violence on tribal 

lands. Appallingly, it is believed that 88 percent of the violence against Native 

women is perpetrated by non-Natives, many of whom are very aware that they may 

commit violence against Native women with impunity. The erosion of tribal criminal 

authority over all persons committing crimes within their jurisdictions, coupled with 

a shameful record of investigation, prosecution, and punishment of these crimes by 

federal and state governments, has directly resulted in the disproportionate rates 

of violence against Native women. 

The truth of the matter is that many violent crimes go unprosecuted in Indian 

country. According to a recent United States Government Accountability Office 

study, from 2005 through 2009, U.S. attorneys failed to prosecute 52 percent of all 

violent criminal cases, 67 percent of sexual abuse cases, and 46 percent of assault 

114

3 United States Government Accountability Office, U.S. Department of Justice Declinations of 

Indian Country Criminal Matters 3 (December 13, 2010). 4Less than a year ago, on December 16, 2010, President Obama announced the United States’ 

support of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Significantly, 

Article 22(2) of the Declaration speaks directly and unequivocally to the United States’ obligation to ensure the safety of Native women: ‘‘States shall take measures, in conjunction with indigenous peoples, to ensure that indigenous women and children enjoy the full protection and 

guarantees against all forms of violence and discrimination.’’ Unacceptably high rates of violence 

against Native women also violate several international human rights treaties. Article 5, Section 

B, of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination 

(ICERD), states that regardless of race, all peoples should be guaranteed their right to ‘‘security 

of person and protection by the State against violence or bodily harm.’’ However, the current 

epidemic of violence against Native women in the United States, perpetuated by systemic inequality and confusion, not only violates this provision of ICERD, but also other provisions of 

ICERD by denying Native women freedom from racial discrimination (Article 2), equal protection under the law (Article 5(a)), and access to effective judicial remedies (Article 6). Additionally, the United States is one of 167 states that have ratified another international treaty, the 

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). Article 3 of the ICCPR explicitly 

states that the civil and political rights guaranteed under the ICCPR apply to both men and 

women. In living lives impacted by daily violence, Native women are thwarted in their ability 

to fulfill many of their civil and political rights guaranteed in the ICCPR. As the preamble of 

the ICCPR asserts, ‘‘in accordance with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the ideal 

of free human beings enjoying civil and political freedom and freedom from fear and want can 

only be achieved if conditions are created whereby everyone may enjoy his civil and political 

rights, as well as his economic, social and cultural rights.’’ (emphasis added). 5 545 U.S. 748 (2005). 

6 Id.

7See, e.g., Martinez v. Martinez, Case No. C08–5503 FDB, Order Denying Defendants’ Motions 

to Dismiss and Granting Plaintiff Declaratory and Injunctive Relief (W.D. Wash. Dec. 16, 2008). 

cases occurring on Indian lands. 3 As these numbers reflect, Native women are routinely denied their right to adequate judicial recourse. This treatment separates Native women from other groups under the law. The United States’ restriction of tribal 

criminal authority combined with its failure to effectively police and prosecute these 

violent crimes violates its obligation to act with due diligence to protect Native 

women from violence and punish perpetrators. 

Enforcement inequalities permit perpetrators to act with impunity on Native nation lands, thereby condoning violence against Native women and denying them the 

right to equal protection under both United States and international law. The rights 

to personal security and freedom from fear are internationally recognized human 

rights. If the United States ignores ongoing systemic problems relating to crimes in 

Indian country, it does so in violation of various international principles and of the 

human rights of Native women under international law. 4 Global attention is now 

being directed to violence against Native women in the United States. In January 

2011, Rashida Manjoo, the UN Special Rapporteur on Violence Against Women, conducted an in-depth investigation of violence against women in the United States, including violence against Native American women. In October 2011, Ms. Manjoo presented her report to the General Assembly of the United Nations in New York City. 

The report cites restrictions placed on tribes’ criminal jurisdictional authority as one 

of the causes of the extremely high rate of violence against Native women. Very recently, on October 25, 2011, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights also 

called attention to this issue in a thematic hearing on this human rights crisis affecting Native women in the United States. 

Often, various federal laws and policies still perpetuate, instead of reduce, violence against Native women. This is quite apparent in United States federal court 

decisions regarding protection orders. In Town of Castle Rock, Colo. v. Gonzales, the 

United States Supreme Court held that the Federal Constitution does not require 

state law enforcement to investigate or enforce alleged violations of domestic violence protection orders. 5 Thus, state law enforcement chooses whether to enforce 

these orders, and may always choose not to. 6 Such decisions by local law enforcement leave Native women vulnerable to ongoing violence by domestic abusers. 

Federal courts have further undermined the safety of Indian women by holding 

that tribal courts do not have jurisdiction to issue domestic violence protection orders requested by a non-member Native woman against her non-Native husband. 7

In Martinez, the federal district court held that the tribal court did not have the 

authority to issue the protection order because the issuance of the order was not 

necessary to protect tribal self-government and the non-Native’s conduct was not a 

menace to the safety and welfare of the Tribe. The Martinez decision fails to recognize the current reality of life within a Native community and the importance of 

tribal courts to maintaining law and order in Native communities. Non-member Indians and non-Indians as well as member Indians live within the territorial boundVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:48 Nov 21, 2012 Jkt 074885 PO 00000 Frm 00118 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\DOCS\74885.TXT JACK
115

aries of most Native communities. The tribal court may be the most responsive institution to meet the needs of the residents of the community (Native communities 

are often located in rural areas, physically distant from state courts and police stations). Orders of protection can be a strong tool to prevent future violence, but they 

are only as strong as their recognition and enforcement. Federal law undermining 

the integrity of civil protection orders is especially harmful to Native women. Because of the restrictions that have been placed on the criminal authority of tribal 

governments, often the only recourse that a Native woman has against an abuser 

is a civil protection order. It is absolutely critical that Native women can trust that 

police will answer their calls for help when their abuser is violating a protection 

order. 

The United States has made some strides in its fight to prevent violence against 

Native women, but unquestionably, much, much more is needed. As members of this 

Committee have recognized, systemic problems continue to perpetuate a cycle of violence against Native women, who have few places to turn to for help. This must 

change. Now is the time to identify solutions that will directly and substantially 

protect the lives and safety of Native women. By providing tribes with the opportunity to exercise life-saving protections for women within their jurisdiction, S. 

1763, the SAVE Native Women Act has the potential to increase both security and 

justice to Native women. We appreciate greatly this Committee’s attention to protecting Native women and strengthening Native nations. At your request, we would 

welcome the opportunity to provide additional information on violence against Native women. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF TANANA CHIEFS CONFERENCE (TCC) 

The Tanana Chiefs Conference (TCC), an Alaska Native nonprofit and consortium 

of 39 federally recognized Indian Tribes located in the interior of Alaska, is submitting the following testimony in full support of the Alaska Safe Families and Villages 

Act, S. 1192. We would like to thank you for holding a hearing on this important 

legislation, and providing us with the opportunity to submit testimony. 

We would like to begin our testimony by thanking Senator Begich for introducing 

this bill, which has the potential of substantially improving the safety of villages 

throughout Alaska, and providing consistent support for the safety and well-being 

of all communities in Alaska, including Alaska Native communities. We would also 

like to thank Senator Murkowski for the leadership role she has taken in women’s 

issues, her attempt to find solutions to domestic violence, and her advocacy on ending the sex-trade practices in Alaska. We appreciate the strong leadership Alaska 

has in the United States Congress and would like to take this opportunity to express our gratitude. 

We are equally thankful to Governor Parnell and his Administration for all of the 

investments that have been made to improve rural justice services throughout the 

State in the past three years. The Governor implemented a 10-year State initiative 

to end domestic violence and sexual assault through prevention and collaboration, 

has taken steps to increase law enforcement presence in rural Alaska by increasing 

the hiring of Village Public Safety Officers (VPSOs), and has increased State funding for the VPSO program. This hard work on the part of Governor Parnell and his 

Administration has had a positive impact on public safety and well-being on Alaska 

Native Villages, and our support of this bill in no way detracts from the importance 

of State jurisdiction over the provision of public safety services throughout Alaska 

and our gratitude towards the many positive steps that have been made. 

However, despite these positive strides, there are many holes in the provision of 

public safety in our most remote villages that exist not because of the shortfall of 

the State, Tribes, or the Federal Government, but because of the very real, and 

quite unique, challenges presented by Alaska’s geography. This bill would establish 

a small-scale demonstration project to weigh the effectiveness of additional civil 

tools in plugging these holes. We provide more direct comments below. 

Statement of need. This bill is constructed around studies completed by such respected institutions as the Institute of Social and Economic Research from the University of Alaska Anchorage and the Alaska Rural Justice and Law Enforcement 

Commission, and would implement some of the most simple, yet direct, responses 

to the causes these studies have found to be at the base of much of the crime that 

is occurring in our remote villages—causes that have been recognized by the State 

of Alaska. These studies have found that the suicide rate in Alaska Native Villages 

is 6 times the national average, and that Alaska Native women suffer the highest 

rate of forcible sexual assault in the United States with an Alaska Native woman 

being assaulted every 18 hours. 

116

These studies have also found that more than 95 percent of all crimes committed 

in rural Alaska—including domestic violence and child abuse—can be attributed to 

alcohol and, as the State itself admits, Alaska Native Villages suffer from disproportionately high rates of alcohol abuse. Unfortunately connected to that disproportionate rate, Alaska Native Villages also suffer from disproportionately high rates 

of suicide and domestic violence. Alcohol-related deaths in Alaska Native Villages 

occur at a rate 3.5 times that of the general national population. In addition to these 

sad numbers, drug and alcohol abuse is estimated to cost the State of Alaska $525 

million per year. 

Currently, in response to these issues, we are faced with two options—either we 

must wait for an Alaska State trooper to arrive and respond to these crimes, or we 

do nothing and the perpetrator gets a free pass. Both options leave members of our 

communities facing unsafe situations, which should be unacceptable to anyone. 

When dealing with incidents of domestic violence or child abuse, it is imperative 

that law enforcement respond immediately to diffuse the situation and take steps 

to ensure the safety of all involved. It is equally imperative that protective orders 

be issued immediately to enforce the safety of the domestic partner or child. 

Despite the increases in VPSOs mentioned above, many rural Alaska Native Villages lack local law enforcement presence. There are currently approximately 71 

VPSOs serving in Alaska, but there are over 200 remote Villages throughout the 

State. The presence of VPSOs is helpful, and the members of the Villages greatly 

appreciate their presence, but the truth is that they are unarmed and sometimes 

face situations that they cannot handle on their own. Even when they are there to 

address incidents of domestic violence or child abuse, they can merely hold the alleged perpetrator until a State trooper arrives to take over. In Villages where there 

are no VPSOs, nothing can be done until a State trooper arrives. Again, this testimony is in no way meant to condemn either the VPSO program or the performance 

of State troopers in these situations. However, the truth of life in Alaska is that 

it contains many remote villages that are separated from law enforcement hubs, 

many without direct road access, and that it often has extreme weather conditions. 

In instances where a State trooper must fly to reach a village, extreme weather will 

delay his or her arrival for days. These same realities face those who need protective 

orders. Providing Indian Tribes in Alaska simple civil tools to address these immediate needs would go far in protecting our communities. 

What this bill would do. This bill would create a limited demonstration project 

that would implement some of the most simple, yet direct, responses to the causes 

at the base of much of the petty crime occurring in Native Alaska Villages and tools 

to address those petty crimes so that we can all, as a team, evaluate the effectiveness of these new tools. These responses are minimal, but have the potential to have 

dramatic and far-reaching positive effects in our communities. 

This bill would establish a demonstration project where a maximum of three 

Tribes in Alaska would be selected in each of three fiscal years (nine Tribes total) 

would be chosen to participate for a five-year period. Each Tribe selected to participate would be required to complete a planning phase to ensure it has the capacity 

to effectively participate, including making sure they have developed proper written 

Tribal laws or ordinances detailing the structure and procedures of the Tribal court. 

Only after completing such a planning phase would the Tribes then begin exercising 

civil jurisdiction over drug, alcohol, or related matters within a specified project 

area, and over people of Indian or Alaska Native descent, or those people who have 

consensual relationships with the participating Tribe or a member of the Tribe. This 

civil jurisdiction would be exercised concurrently with the State of Alaska under 

State law. The civil remedies available to the participating Tribes would be limited 

to such remedies as restorative justice, imposing community service, charging fines, 

commitments for treatment, issuing restraining orders, and emergency detentions. 

Importantly, this bill would not authorize any of the participating Tribes to incarcerate a person unless the Tribe has entered into an intergovernmental agreement 

with the State and the Federal Government. 

We strongly believe that the civil authority for participating Tribes to impose such 

civil remedies will allow these Tribes to not only respond to criminal offenses, but 

to attempt to address the underlying causes of many of these offenses in culturallyappropriate ways that have often proven to be effective. Recently, in Huslia a young 

woman who was a repeat offender for many petty crimes participated in a community circle. The Huslia Tribal Court was asked by the State’s magistrate to suggest 

a sentence for a recent violation. The Tribal Court organized a community circle in 

which fifty community members participated by sharing stories and concerns while 

offering support to the defendant. In addition, the community circle suggested a sentence which aimed to both support the defendant’s sobriety and deter her from future violations. This experience shows the commitment of our Tribal Courts to adVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:48 Nov 21, 2012 Jkt 074885 PO 00000 Frm 00120 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\DOCS\74885.TXT JACK
117

dress problems that are occurring in those communities, and such community involvement has the power to substantially impact individual lives through community healing. 

This bill would also establish an Alaska Village Peace Officer Grants program 

through which the Tribes participating in the demonstration project may apply to 

carry out a contract program to employ Village Peace Officers in Alaska Native Villages. Not only would this increase law enforcement presence in Villages that need 

every additional resource available to them, but the bill would provide that Village 

Peace Officers would be eligible to attend the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) Police 

Officer Training Program—ensuring that these officers would have the highest level 

of training available. We fully support this program, but also suggest that, as an 

alternative, this bill could instead supplement the VPSO program, and authorize the 

VPSOs assigned to the participating Tribes to attend the BIA Police Officer Training Program. 

What this bill would not do. The responses authorized in this bill are minimal, 

with the potential for great impact. This bill would not upset the long-standing 

agreements represented in the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act by creating Indian Country anywhere in the State, including in the Villages that would be participating in the demonstration project—nor do we wish to do so. The bill is clear on 

that, both explicitly and through its operation. The recognition of the concurrent 

civil authority of Tribal governments—entities that are already performing governmental services—to issue protective orders is a far cry from creating a new jurisdictional regime. The construction of geographical ‘‘project areas’’ is necessary to define 

the limits of this concurrent civil authority to the areas where Tribal governments 

already operate. 

This bill would not divide the State into jurisdictional project areas for 230 separate Tribes. The demonstration project will allow for the participation of nine 

Tribes, with nine separate project areas. This is the maximum. In the future, if this 

project proves to be successful in addressing alcohol and drug abuse, domestic violence, child abuse, and other crimes, Tribes would be more than happy to work in 

cooperation with the State to find a way to implement these responses to an increased number of Tribes in a mutually-agreed upon way, and to find ways in which 

these responses can best enhance the State provision of public safety responses 

throughout Alaska. 

The bill would also reaffirm that the State of Alaska has the primary responsibility for the provision of public safety throughout the State, and would not open 

the State up to increased Federal presence or authority. The bill would merely provide Tribes with the options and civil tools to provide the very basics of protection 

when they are needed most and would have the most effect. Likewise, the operation 

of this demonstration project would not limit the eligibility of the State of Alaska 

to any Federal assistance under any other Federal law. The money provided to operate this project, including the new Alaska Village Peace Officer program, would not 

be used against the State when applying for Federal assistance. 

This bill would authorize appropriation of $2.5 million for each fiscal year from 

FY 2012 through FY 2018. Because we want to offer this bill every chance to be 

approved and become law—to see this demonstration project succeed—we suggest 

that the project can be successfully implemented and maintained at a much lower 

amount. With only nine Tribes eligible to participate, we believe that the project 

may be successfully implemented and maintained for $1.5 million per fiscal year. 

We also believe, with such a limited number of Tribes eligible to participate in the 

program, the Village Peace Officer program can be maintained for $3 million per 

fiscal year from FY 2012 through FY 2018—a reduction of $2 million from what is 

currently authorized in the bill. 

Conclusion. In conclusion, we would like to reiterate our full support for this critical bill. We believe that this bill will give all of us the tools and information necessary to evaluate the best way to address domestic violence, alcohol- and drug-related crime and suicide, and child abuse in Alaska Native Villages. These Alaska 

Native Villages embody many of the very real and unique roadblocks to addressing 

such crime in remote villages in Alaska—remoteness, lack of access, geographical 

complications and limitations of infrastructure—that require unique solutions. Success in this program will allow us all to understand how to best provide public safety to all remote villages throughout Alaska. 

The Tanana Chiefs Conference and its member Villages look forward to continuing to work with the State and with our Senators in finding these solutions. 

TCC would like to thank you for taking the time to read our testimony. 

118

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JAN W. MORRIS, MEMBER, CHOCTAW NATION OF

OKLAHOMA

Good day, 

I wish to submit the following testimony for consideration by the Committee regarding S. 1763, the Stand Against Violence and Empower Native Women Act. I 

offer these comments as a Native person (I am an enrolled member of the Choctaw 

Nation of Oklahoma) with a background of over two decades of service in nearly a 

dozen tribal courts as a non-attorney practitioner (including service as either prosecutor or defense counsel), a trial judge, an appellate judge, and court administrator. My experience also includes service over the past ten years as a trainer, instructor and lecturer in tribal justice systems, judicial skills development, court administration, and advocacy skills development. 

While I agree with the concept of expanding tribal criminal jurisdiction to its 

original scope to include the criminal prosecution of a non-Native who commits a 

crime against a Native person in Indian Country, I believe the conditions imposed 

upon tribes to reassume criminal jurisdiction over non-Natives by Section 201 of S. 

1763 far outweigh any potential benefits, for three reasons:

(1) If the purpose is to address domestic violence crimes committed in Indian 

Country by non-Natives against native victims, a more effective remedy was already created by the Tribal Law and Order Act;

(2) The imposition upon tribal justice systems of ‘‘all other rights [of defendants] 

required under the Constitution of the United States’’ will unduly burden the 

vast majority of those systems; and

(3) Rather than strengthening tribal sovereignty, the imposition upon tribal justice systems of ‘‘all other rights [of defendants] required under the Constitution 

of the United States’’ actually diminishes tribal sovereignty by supplanting tribal justice standards with the full panoply of U.S. Constitutional protections.

Regarding my first reason stated above, Section 213 of the Tribal Law and Order 

Act (TLOA) authorizes each United States Attorney to ‘‘appoint Special Assistant 

United States Attorneys . . . to prosecute crimes in Indian Country as necessary 

to improve the administration of justice . . . ’’ Under this authority, tribes can hire 

their own prosecutors who can then be appointed as SAUSAs to initiate and conduct 

federal court prosecutions of non-Native perpetrators who commit domestic violence 

crimes (whether misdemeanors or felonies) against Native victims under either the 

General Crimes Act (18 U.S.C. § 1152) or the Assimilative Crimes Act (18 U.S.C. 

§ 13). By doing so, there is no adverse impact or federal imposition on the sovereignty of the tribes and their justice systems, and the cost to tribes of hiring a 

prosecutor is miniscule in comparison to the expenditure of scarce financial resources that would be needed to revamp a whole criminal justice system to address 

the panoply of constitutional rights imposed by Section 201 of the proposed bill. 

Regarding the second reason stated above, and in addition to the applicable comments in the previous paragraph, the Committee needs to bear in mind that very 

few tribal justice systems are as large and complex as, for example, the Navajo Nation judiciary. Most tribal courts are small. A survey of tribal justice systems by the 

American Indian Law Center in 2000 reported that of all tribal respondents, over 

78 percent had fewer than 1000 cases filed annually. The survey results also revealed that the mean and median number of full-time judges was 1, and the majority of responding tribes put less than $300,000 into their tribal courts annually. The 

specter of the funding necessary to guarantee ‘‘all other rights required under the 

Constitution of the United States,’’ including the employment and training of judges, 

prosecutors and defenders versed in the behemoth that is the body of U.S. Constitutional law could easily cause most tribes to forego this exercise of ‘‘strengthening’’ 

in favor of maintaining the status quo. 

Regarding the third stated reason above, and in addition to the applicable comments in the previous two paragraphs, Congress had the foresight in 1993 to include 

in the language of the Indian Tribal Justice Act (P.L. 103–176, 25 U.S.C. § 3601 et 

seq.):

‘‘Nothing in this Act shall be construed to... encroach upon or diminish in 

any way the inherent sovereign authority of each tribal government to determine the role of the tribal justice system * * * impair the rights of each 

tribal government to determine the nature of its own legal system * * * [or] 

alter in any way any tribal traditional dispute resolution forum . . . ’’

The mandate in Section 201 of S. 1763 that tribal courts must offer defendants 

the full protection of all constitutional rights under the U.S. Constitution conflicts 

with and contradicts the implicit promise of Congress in the Indian Tribal Justice 

119

Act and flies in the face of the concept of strengthening the sovereignty of tribes. 

Congress is saying, in essence, that tribal justice systems are inferior and substandard and incapable of properly administering justice within their own tribal 

communities. This is hardly the position one government should take within the 

context of a government-to-government relationship. 

Considering all of these reasons, it would be no small wonder that any tribe would 

seriously consider becoming a ‘‘participating tribe’’ as defined in S. 1763. Perhaps 

the intentions of Congress in considering the ‘‘expansion’’ of tribal criminal jurisdiction to include non-Native domestic violence perpetrators via S. 1763 are commendable, but from a tribal perspective, many Native people will simply find the proposition misguided, patronizing and insulting. I know I do. 

Kindest regards. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF IRENE BEDARD, ACTRESS/SINGER, ALASKA


1110h13.eps
120


1110a1.eps

OFFICE OF MAYOR GAYLE MCLAUGHLIN 

November 9, 2011 

The Honorable Olanrla FelMlein 

Urlited Siaies Serlale 

Washinglorl, D.C. 20510 

Alln: Joseph JankIewIcz 

RE: S. 872 - A bill 10 amend the Omnibus IndianAdvancemet"lt Act 10 modify Ihe dale as 

ofwhlc:h certaIn lribal land oflhe Lytton Rancherla of California Is deemed to be held 

in Iruslsnd to provide for !he corJduct oreertain activllies on the land. 

Dear Senator Felrlsleln: 

I write to reaffirm my strong support fer YOllr bill, S.872, limiting !he ability of the Lytton 

Indians 10 oxpand Uleir gumbling operation In S~n Pablo and to urge you to exercise all 

efferts 10 obtain final passage of fue bill. We are quickly reachIng a polnl where Iha 

presence of casino !;Iembling in Ihe Eesl Bay could become irrel/Erslble, and it is 

critical now more than ever 10 keep local funds In Ihe commuility, and not to outside 

Investors. 

As you know, the casino would take In hundreds of millions of dollars In revenue from 

local residen~, lal"gely from seniors and Io.v-in~me citizens. The profits, however, 

would not go back Into our community, but would be redirected to gambling itlvesklrs 

In Navada and Inlerests out of the slale. Given the dire financial slluaUon local 

govemmenls faee in Clilifomla, We ccmnot afford to lose local dollars that can support 

our community's basio services. 

The negative eliects of casino gambling remain a threat looming over the Bny hen. P-s tire 

community is buffeted by crime, drugs, and abuse due to the casino and Ihe dismal 

economy, this bill is criticill to help stem the Hde. Many ellizens remaIn concemed that 

gamllllng at the site will be expanded, and tha; the negative effects, including traffic, 

drvnk driving, and crime, will proliferate. 

When voters npprovcd Proposition 1A, they were told that Indiun gnming would be 

limited 10 Indian reservations. In 2000, Ihe Lytton Tribe was givet"l an exemption from 

provisions of IGRA Ihat apply to all olher tribes. That exemption deprives the community of a locnl voioo. YeLl/" bill wotlld thankfully rupeal Ulnlexemption for Class III games, and allow 

our community 10 have a slake In this process. 

I applaud your efrorts 10 pursue lt1ese issues perslstsnUy Ihe lasl felY years. Your 

leadership on Ihis Issue Is extremely appreciated. Please do ali that you elin 10 pass S. 

872 this year. 
121


1110i1.eps

AJ ... ASK..A ST.A'3:'El LJ:lJGIS.r ... ATUREI 

S\oI0".~"'r""r." """""" .. , J,"EO". "', "t> goo",." tI"-

Nowmber7,2011 

BruN,,-'l'ClR. CA'l'HY GI))l8SlIlT, 

flonorab'" S~nator D"nl~1 Akal<a, Chairman 

US Senate Commltle~ on Indian Affillr. 

141 Senate Hart Office BUilding 

Washlrlgloo. DC 20510 

Re: S. 1192 (Alaska Safe FamTlJes~"d VJU.g.~ Act of 2011) 

~r Senator Al\3~!, 

.""", .. ".w •• l",A ... "~ 

A""hc"~o, AI .... 900Dr·.,311 , 

I am writing to und~",oo", the polnts made by my AI •• k. S\ilte Senate coU ..... €ue, s~nator John CoBhH~ 

teiolcd to S. 1191. On No'"'mb .... 4, 2011, Senalcr Coghill oommunicated with ya~ about m.ny .eric~s 

a,peru ofccnc.m wIth S. 1192, and provided sYppcrli,,~ oal. [or tho~ concerns. 

$. 1:192 "";111.mdermine and diiule the authOllt\' of1he State of AI.oka to govem lts.lf .nd provide for 

public ",{ely throu~h out Vl1la~~ Public Safety Officer (VPSO) progrom. 

ATa>J.:a Go>reroor saan r~mell and hTs ",bl!)!'1 have h~en worktng dlllBsntiy 10 ensure II>!! effectTlII!nc:;s of 

me AI~SK~ VPSO program wfllr;h places "meers In our rUTilI communitie •. These welHralned officen; are 

making a slenllkarrt dlff<.lrcnce In protectingturnl citizen •. 

I wo~l~ ~no;.<lU"'BQ you to review the data thatSendor CoghiU provided. 

I urge you to support and cooperate wlth tha Stilte of Alaska regardTIlj; ",,, Village Public S.f.ty OfFIcer, 

(\IPSO) program. GoV<!rnor r.rnel~Attorney Generaliol1n sums and publl~S.fetlrCommlssioner 

Joseph Ma$ters lmdersrand and ar" focused on the ."fety of all the (itiwns of Alaska. 

~ 

Respectfully, 
122


1110i2.eps

arv Of OAKL~ND • 

en"'!' HAU • 1 fRANK M. OGAWA ?lAtA' OAKLAND, CA~!FORNI,\ 94512 

larry .. Reid 

r,dd.nt of tbe Cily ColJndl 

I"'id@ookl"odri.t.com 

November9.2011 

T1w lionorabla Dianne l'oinst<>1n 

United S1atoo Sllllala 

WasIllngmn, D.c. 21)510 At~;1: Devin PJ:lnero.o~ 

Ita: 8 Kll!_ A bl~ to ~me~d the Omnibus Indian Ailvancenlilnt Act to modify the dille D. ,",which <e~arn triball"nd of U,e Lylkm Rancherla 01 California Is doremc~ to b~ h~ld In inJ.! ""d to pro"ide for HIB GOndUttol CRTlaln actlvlties on the land. 

D_ S~nator F~instein; 

) write lD r.otflrm my ~Iro~g s"pp~rtfor your bill, S 872. ijmlting the ability of the Lytton lru:lr.n~ 1<1 

expand their gambIL1g Q~M!ijon in San Pablo 000 \0 "'lie you 10 e~eraloG all offorts to Obtain final 

[l!ISS8g& 01 tha- bll. 

As YO" jqpw, ille "~'""" WOlOO t3ke Ul htlneraa. of mll'm1. <If ""~"'" ill ,~v~nu~ 1=!ocaI 

,","ide""'. fafgal~;mm se"'.<l.~ &'1ti klw-1M:lmG oit!wl~. TIl!)" pn:ilts. how"""l. would not>lC baG" 

Inll: OU' tomm~rity, but would bo ",dlractcd to Hambiin9 in"""let!; in Nevada and inleraat oot of 

the st>ffl. GTvao tha (jrrn ffn~IIr;j,,1 sihJ.,non IDea! gov"mments f~C<lln Oslffomia, we conr.ot eif<lrd 

to lose local dollars that rotI ~urport our "ommunlty'. b""l~ ".rAoc •. 

Th~ n.ga!ive effects of casino gambling are a thre.at to t/1e b>ly Area. This bill Is orlUoal te help 

<;lem the tide Df Grim!!, dru;;., arid abuse due 10 the casino a"d t/1e dismal eoonomy. Many 

dUz.ans are ""nceme~ Ih~t g~mhlln9 at the sfle w11l be ex~andad. and that tha ne~a~ve effect~. 

IllCludlng !raffrc. druJl< driylng, "'n~ crIme, will pro~feralB. 

Wh"" vcl= ~Wroved f'rop;IQiU"" lA, tilayW"'" tofd tlmt In~.~1 gaming would bs Ilmr,* to 

JnJIan resecvalio~. "' 200~, !he ly,!o~ Trot!<> ""'. !livc~ an e~"D>;ll"'n rwm ~ro'i""onG ur 110M lha!al'Pil' ttl all ~i bibe~. Th.! =rnlil"" d~prWe~ th~ ~'tlwm\.lIll!y of a :ooal~. Yoc; bill 

WIlli\:! th~llkMIy '~pe31 fila! sxs.mpf.an fur Class III game., aud "trow o~r co:",!mnlly to ~ave e sI.ke., it,s pr"c.,,, 

I "ppleu~ your efforts to pur.ue these Issues persistently the last lew years. Your leadership nn 

this Issu" I. extremely apprnciated. PI""5e do aJllhal you cSh 10 pass S. 872 this year. 
123


1110i3.eps

SAN PABLO / Indians, Feinstein 

strike deal that keeps casino from 

growing 

Ma~ 10, 20071Zach.ry Colle, Ch",mclc: W.shlngton Bureau 

http://articles,sFgate . com/2007 ~05-10/bay-area 1172 43072 1 pomoIndJa ns-cas! no-sa n-pa blo-Iytton-ba nd 

2007-05-10 04:00:00 PDT WashIngton - The Lytton Band of Porno Indians -

- who stirred an outcry by proposing a megacasino with 5,000 slot machines 

in the East Bay -- have agreed to a deal with Sen. Dianne Feinstein to 

abandon future plans to offer slot machines and build a Las Vegas-size 

facility at Casino San Pablo. 

The agreement would allow the Sonoma County tribe to continue to operate 

its 70,0DD-square-foot casino near Interstate 80 with 1,050 electronic bingo 

machines -- a multimillion-doliar business that has no major competitors in 

the East Bay. 

The tribe pushed for the deal to end Feinstein's threat to shut down the 

casino with leglslation that would have forced the Lytton band to go through 

rigorous federal and state approvals to offer even the Class II gaming now 

played in the casino. The senator agreed to relent, but only if the tribe gave 

up its dreams of Class III slot machines and erecting a 600,OOO-square-foot 

casino. 

"This is d wirl-win," Feinstein, D-Callf" said. "By effectively foreclosing the 

possibility of a major expansion of the Lytton's San Pablo casino, this 

legislation ensures that a major Nevada-style casino will not be built in the 

Bay Area In the near future." 

Tribe officials said they were pleased with the compromise, saying it would 

end the uncertainty over the future of their casino. 

"Although it has been a difficult prOCESS ... Sen. Feinstein's legislation will 

allow us to operate the casino for the long term without the threat of 

closure," said Margie Mejia, chairwoman of the Lytton Band of Porno Indians, 

who's also chief executive officer of the casino. 
124


1110i4.eps

The deal is contained in legislation that Feinstein Introduced late Wednesday. 

The measure would strike language included in the 2000 Omnibus Indian 

Advancement Act by Rep. George Miller, D-Martlnez, which allowed the tribe 

to backdate its purchase of an aging San Pablo card club. The backdating 

effectively let the Lytton band evade federal rules that make it difficult for 

tribes to build casinos on lands acquired after 1988 when Congress passed 

the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. 

Under Feinstein's bill, the tribe could continue to offer Class II electronic 

bingo, but would be barred from using Class III slot machines unless it gets 

state and federal approval -- an all-but-impossible task in the current 

pol1tical climate. The bill also would block the tribe from expanding the 

caslno's physical structure. 
125

Æ


1110i5.eps

THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA 

PASSE.D by the following vote of the Board of Supervisors on this fifth day of April 2005 

AYES: 

NOES; 

ABSENT: 

ABSTAIN: 

Subject, lodinn Gamiog in Contra Costa County 

RESOLUTION NO. 20051181 

WHEREAS, Contra Costa Cuunty is supportive of California Native Americons' right to exercise 

control over their tribal lands ond recognizes and respects the tribal right of sclf·govemane~ to 

provi<J<l forthe welfare of tribal members and to pre.'rerv~ traditional tribal culture and heritnge; 

WIffiREAS, Contra Costa County also hus a legul responsibility to provide for the health, safety, 

environment, infrastructure, and general welfare of ill; residents; 

WIIEREAS, casin()-styJ~ gambling on Indion lands was outhorized by the voters through the 

possage of Proposition IA in March 2000 with the assurance that tribal gaming operation~ wOl.lld be 

limited to existing Indian reservations, none of which were then in I.Irbon oreos; 

WHEREAS, the people of the State ofC~lifornia and of Contra Costa County have expre~ed their 

de~ire to curtail the expansion of casinos atld gambling in the State of Califomin by overwhelmingly 

rejecting in November 2004 two statewide initiatives to expand Nevada ~tyle gambling to non·tribal 

lands and pennit unlimited numbers of slot machines on tribullands; 

WHEREAS, tim federal government, through the Bureau ofIndian Affairs, has the authority to take 

land into trusl for Indinn reservations nnywhere in California and I.Illder certain conditions to 

outhorize Indian gaming and in doing so, has no obligation to ensure mitigation of off·resefVlltion 

impacts of the reservation orcasino; 

WHEREAS, Contra Costa County sl.Ipports the California State Association of Countic~' Policy 

Documents regarding Development on Indian Lands and Compact Negotiations for Indian Gaming, 

including opposition 10 the proctice knovm as ~rcser\'ation shopping" where a tribe seeks to plaee 

land into trust outside ilS aboriginal territory over the objection of the county; 

WIIEREAS, there has beetl no objective determination fIS to whether any of these tribes has a 

significant historic COtltlcction to Contm Costa County; 

WIIEREAS, there is olreody one Tndion casino in the densdy populated urban area of western 

Contra Costa COlmty, with two other tribes seeking to PUI land inlO truSI and operate casinos, all 

within 8 miles ofeoch other; 

WHEREAS, nl.lmerol.ls studies and aeIDal experience of other communities have shown thnt Tribal 

casino opemtiotlS have caused extensive off-reservation impacts, such as incroased traffic con!;:~stion, 

noise, air and waler polll.ltion and water sl.Ipply demands, as well as increased law enforcement and 

public sufety burdens, und additional social Hud health impacts on surrounding communities, costing 

local govcrnments hundreds of millions ofdolla\"S annually; 

THEREFORE, BE IT RESOL YED, that the Contm Costa County Board of Sl.Ipervisors opposes 

the creation or e~pansion of any filrther Indian gamingeasillos within Contra Costa COl.lnty, an urban 

cOl1nty, as ,veil as the establishment of reservations on which there eOl.lld be gaming operations; 

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Contra Costa County Board ofSnpcrvisors authorizes and 

directs its staff to take and support any alld all administrative, legal or legislative actions in 

fl.lrthenmce ofthis position. 

RESOLUTION NO, 2005f181