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

53–945 PDF 2010

TRIBAL LAW AND ORDER ACT OF 2009 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME, TERRORISM, 

AND HOMELAND SECURITY 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

ON

H.R. 1924 

DECEMBER 10, 2009 

Serial No. 111–134 

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://judiciary.house.gov 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

JOHN CONYERS, JR., Michigan, Chairman 

HOWARD L. BERMAN, California 

RICK BOUCHER, Virginia 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

ROBERT C. ‘‘BOBBY’’ SCOTT, Virginia 

MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

MAXINE WATERS, California 

WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts 

ROBERT WEXLER, Florida 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

HENRY C. ‘‘HANK’’ JOHNSON, JR., 

Georgia 

PEDRO PIERLUISI, Puerto Rico 

MIKE QUIGLEY, Illinois 

JUDY CHU, California 

LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois 

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin 

CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas 

ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York 

ADAM B. SCHIFF, California 

LINDA T. SA ́ NCHEZ, California 

DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida 

DANIEL MAFFEI, New York 

LAMAR SMITH, Texas 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., 

Wisconsin 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

ELTON GALLEGLY, California 

BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia 

DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California 

DARRELL E. ISSA, California 

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia 

STEVE KING, Iowa 

TRENT FRANKS, Arizona 

LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas 

JIM JORDAN, Ohio 

TED POE, Texas 

JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah 

TOM ROONEY, Florida 

GREGG HARPER, Mississippi 

PERRY APELBAUM, Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

SEAN MCLAUGHLIN, Minority Chief of Staff and General Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME, TERRORISM, AND HOMELAND SECURITY

ROBERT C. ‘‘BOBBY’’ SCOTT, Virginia, Chairman 

PEDRO PIERLUISI, Puerto Rico 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

MAXINE WATERS, California 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York 

DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida 

MIKE QUIGLEY, Illinois 

LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas 

TED POE, Texas 

BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia 

DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California 

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia 

TOM ROONEY, Florida 

BOBBY VASSAR, Chief Counsel 

CAROLINE LYNCH, Minority Counsel 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

DECEMBER 10, 2009 

Page 

TEXT OF THE BILL 

H.R. 1924, the ‘‘Tribal Law and Order Act of 2009’’ ............................................. 3 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

The Honorable Robert C. ‘‘Bobby’’ Scott, a Representative in Congress from 

the State of Virginia, and Chairman, Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, 

and Homeland Security ....................................................................................... 1 

The Honorable Daniel E. Lungren, a Representative in Congress from the 

State of California, and Member, Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and 

Homeland Security ............................................................................................... 29 

WITNESSES 

The Honorable Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, a Representative in Congress 

from the State of South Dakota 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 31 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 34 

The Honorable Thomas J. Perrelli, Associate Attorney General, United States 

Department of Justice, Washington, DC 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 38 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 40 

Mr. Marcus Levings, Great Plains Area Vice-President, National Congress 

of American Indians, New Town, ND 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 66 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 68 

Ms. Tova Indritz, Chair, National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, 

Native American Justice Committee, Albuquerque, NM 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 75 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 78 

Mr. Scott Burns, Executive Director, National District Attorneys Association, 

Alexandria, VA 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 120 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 123 

Ms. Barbara L. Creel, Assistant Professor of Law, Southwest Indian Law 

Clinic, University of New Mexico School of Law, Albuquerque, NM 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 127 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 129 

LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING 

Material submitted by the Honorable Tom Rooney, a Representative in Congress from the State of Florida, and Member, Subcommittee on Crime, 

Terrorism, and Homeland Security .................................................................... 61 

APPENDIX 

Material Submitted for the Hearing Record .......................................................... 139 

Page

IV 

OFFICIAL HEARING RECORD 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD BUT NOT REPRINTED

Submission entitled Maze of Injustice, The failure to protect indigenous women from 

sexual violence in the USA, Amnesty International. This document is available at 

the Subcommittee and can also be accessed at: 

http://www.amnestyusa.org/women/maze/report.pdf 

(1) 

TRIBAL LAW AND ORDER ACT OF 2009 

THURSDAY, DECEMBER 10, 2009 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME, TERRORISM,

AND HOMELAND SECURITY

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, 

Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:02 a.m., in 

room 2237, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable Robert 

C. ‘‘Bobby’’ Scott (Chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding. 

Present: Representatives Scott, Quigley, Gohmert, Goodlatte, 

Lungren, and Rooney. 

Staff present: (Majority) Karen Wilkinson, (Fellow) Federal Public Defender Office Detailee; Veronica Eligan, Professional Staff 

Member; Sam Sokol, Counsel; Elliott Mincberg, Counsel; (Minority) 

Caroline Lynch, Counsel; and Kimani Little, Counsel. 

Mr. SCOTT. Subcommittee will now come to order. I am pleased 

to welcome you today to the hearing before the Subcommittee on 

Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security on H.R. 1924, the ‘‘Tribal Law and Order Act of 2009,’’ sponsored by the gentlelady from 

South Dakota, Ms. Herseth Sandlin. 

The general issue before us today is how to best prosecute crime 

in Indian country. I don’t believe there is any dispute that violent 

crime in Indian country is unacceptable. Violent crime on reservations is unfortunately two, three, or four times that of the national 

average. 

Amnesty International tells us that one in three American Indian and Alaskan Native women will be raped in their lifetime. 

This is a rate two and a half times the national average. 

The risk of being murdered is twice as high for an American Indian living on a reservation as for the average American living off 

a reservation. Amphetamine has made its way to the reservations 

and, as in other areas, is destroying lives and communities. 

In spite of these excessive high crime rates, law enforcement in 

Indian country remains underfunded, undertrained, and understaffed. Prosecution of crime in Indian country is also below the national average. 

The Department of Justice reported earlier this year that the 

number of cases declined for prosecution on Indian country by the 

Federal Government, referred to as the declination rate, was 52.2 

percent for fiscal year 2007 and 47 percent for fiscal year 2008. The 

rate for crimes reported off of Indian country is at 20.7 percent for 

fiscal 2007 and 15.6 percent for fiscal 2008. While these figures are 

2 

not directly comparable and do not tell the entire story, there indicate that there is a serious problem with crime control in Indian 

country and we need to make sure that the problems are addressed. 

In addition to inadequate resources in which to investigate and 

prosecute serious crimes in Indian country there is also a dearth 

of evidence-based prevention and intervention tools, which we now 

know are effective in reducing crime before it occurs. And so it is 

important that we consider evidence-based crime prevention, intervention, substance abuse treatment, and reentry programs. 

And great Indian country is vast, covering 56 million acres. In 

remote, scarcely populated areas such as these where responding 

to a crime may take hours of travel even under the best of circumstances, crime prevention is especially important. 

The unique status of Indian tribes as an independent sovereigns 

together with the trust and responsibility of the United States to 

tribes, however, presents issues not normally faced by law enforcement. These issues affect core decisions, such as who is responsible 

for investigating and prosecuting a crime. 

On Indian land a different law enforcement agency—tribal, 

State, and/or Federal—will have sole, primary, or shared responsibility for investigating a crime depending on tribal membership of 

the suspect and victim, the location of the crime, and the type of 

crime. By the time these jurisdictional questions are answered critical evidence may be lost forever. 

Similarly, those who prosecute a case—tribal, State, or Federal 

Government—also depends on whether the suspect and victim are 

members of a tribe, whether the crime occurred on Indian country, 

and the type of crime. In most reservations serious felony crimes 

in Indian country that involve suspects and victims who are tribal 

members will be prosecuted in Federal courts under the Major 

Crimes Act. 

In six States, however, known as Public Law 280 states, the 

State is responsible for prosecuting these crimes. Public Law 280 

states are California, Alaska, Minnesota, Nebraska, Oregon, and 

Wisconsin. 

H.R. 1924 expands Federal jurisdiction in Public Law 280 states 

so that tribal, State, and Federal Governments will now share concurrent jurisdiction over the same major crimes in Indian country. 

Other than this change, the bill does not alter existing jurisdiction 

over Indian country crime. 

The bill also increases tribal sentencing authority from 1 year 

per offense to 3 years of incarceration for each offense. The intent 

of this provision is to increase tribal authority to prosecute and incarcerate more serious criminals, but it also raises significant concerns for the individual rights of tribal members because the Federal Constitution does not apply to tribal prosecutions. And this is 

true even though the tribal defendant is also a U.S. citizen. 

One such concern is that there is no guarantee to right to counsel in tribal court. Some tribes may voluntarily offer legal representation to interested defendants, but others do not. Those that provide representation may appoint lawyers while other tribes merely 

appoint advocates who are neither lawyers nor legally trained. 

3 

The bill expands concurrent jurisdiction in PL 280 states and 

also fails to prioritize these possible investigations and prosecutions. So the question remains as to who should investigate and 

prosecute the case. 

Should the Federal Government defer to the State governments 

and only intervene when the State asks for assistance or fails to 

prosecute, as in the hate crimes bill? Should tribal governments 

also have a say in who investigates the case and whether the case 

is prosecuted in State or Federal court? 

This increased concurrent jurisdiction coupled with no guidance 

would seem to have the potential to create more confusion, resulting in fewer, not more, prosecutions. So I look forward to hearing 

from our witnesses about this issue. 

I raise these concerns with the hope that our witnesses can help 

us draft a bill that will reduce the unacceptably high crime rate 

that currently plagues many Indian reservations while respecting 

the individual rights of tribal defendants. Tribal Law and Order 

Act of 2009 is a comprehensive bill that incorporates a number of 

different approaches to prosecuting crime. As with all crime bills, 

we need to examine the existing problems of reservation crime to 

ensure to the best that we can that the bill’s provisions address 

those specific problems and avoid unintended consequences. 

So I look forward to hearing from our witnesses on these issues. 

And finally, I understand that the Senate Committee on Indian 

Affairs has proposed amendments to the Senate companion bill to 

H.R. 1924 that seek to address some of the concerns that have been 

raised with this bill. So we intend to look closely at these amendments. 

[The text of the bill, H.R. 1924, follows:] 

I 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1924 

To amend the Indian Law Enforcement Reform Act, the Indian Tribal Justice Act, 

the Indian Tribal Justice Technical and Legal Assistance Act of 2000, and the 

Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 to improve the prosecution 

of, and response to, crimes in Indian country, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 2, 2009 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN (for herself, Mr. KILDEE, and Mr. GRIJALVA) introduced the 

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committees on Natural Resources, Energy and Commerce, and Education and Labor, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in 

each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the 

committee concerned 

A BILL 

To amend the Indian Law Enforcement Reform Act, the Indian Tribal Justice Act, 

the Indian Tribal Justice Technical and Legal Assistance Act of 2000, and the 

4 

Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 to improve the prosecution 

of, and response to, crimes in Indian country, and for other purposes. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States 

of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS. 

(a) SHORT TITLE.—This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Tribal Law and Order Act of 

2009’’. 

(b) TABLE OF CONTENTS.—The table of contents of this Act is as follows: 

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents. 

Sec. 2. Findings; purposes. 

Sec. 3. Definitions. 

Sec. 4. Severability clause. 

TITLE I—FEDERAL ACCOUNTABILITY AND COORDINATION 

Sec. 101. Office of Justice Services responsibilities. 

Sec. 102. Declination reports. 

Sec. 103. Prosecution of crimes in Indian country. 

Sec. 104. Administration. 

TITLE II—STATE ACCOUNTABILITY AND COORDINATION 

Sec. 201. State criminal jurisdiction and resources. 

Sec. 202. Incentives for State, tribal, and local law enforcement cooperation. 

TITLE III—EMPOWERING TRIBAL LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES AND 

TRIBAL GOVERNMENTS 

Sec. 301. Tribal police officers. 

Sec. 302. Drug enforcement in Indian country. 

Sec. 303. Access to national criminal information databases. 

Sec. 304. Tribal court sentencing authority. 

Sec. 305. Indian Law and Order Commission. 

TITLE IV—TRIBAL JUSTICE SYSTEMS 

Sec. 401. Indian alcohol and substance abuse. 

Sec. 402. Indian tribal justice; technical and legal assistance. 

Sec. 403. Tribal resources grant program. 

Sec. 404. Tribal jails program. 

Sec. 405. Tribal probation office liaison program. 

Sec. 406. Tribal youth program. 

TITLE V—INDIAN COUNTRY CRIME DATA COLLECTION AND INFORMATION 

SHARING 

Sec. 501. Tracking of crimes committed in Indian country. 

Sec. 502. Grants to improve tribal data collection systems. 

Sec. 503. Criminal history record improvement program. 

TITLE VI—DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AND SEXUAL ASSAULT PROSECUTION 

AND PREVENTION 

Sec. 601. Prisoner release and reentry. 

Sec. 602. Domestic and sexual violent offense training. 

Sec. 603. Testimony by Federal employees in cases of rape and sexual assault. 

Sec. 604. Coordination of Federal agencies. 

Sec. 605. Sexual assault protocol. 

SEC. 2. FINDINGS; PURPOSES. 

(a) FINDINGS.—Congress finds that— 

(1) the United States has distinct legal, treaty, and trust obligations to provide for the public safety of tribal communities; 

(2) several States have been delegated or have accepted responsibility to 

provide for the public safety of tribal communities within the borders of the 

States; 

(3) Congress and the President have acknowledged that— 

5 

(A) tribal law enforcement officers are often the first responders to 

crimes on Indian reservations; and 

(B) tribal justice systems are ultimately the most appropriate institutions for maintaining law and order in tribal communities; 

(4) less than 3,000 tribal and Federal law enforcement officers patrol more 

than 56,000,000 acres of Indian country, which reflects less than 1⁄2 of the law 

enforcement presence in comparable rural communities nationwide; 

(5) on many Indian reservations, law enforcement officers respond to distress or emergency calls without backup and travel to remote locations without 

adequate radio communication or access to national crime information database 

systems; 

(6) the majority of tribal detention facilities were constructed decades before 

the date of enactment of this Act and must be or will soon need to be replaced, 

creating a multibillion-dollar backlog in facility needs; 

(7) a number of Indian country offenders face no consequences for minor 

crimes, and many such offenders are released due to severe overcrowding in existing detention facilities; 

(8) tribal courts— 

(A) are the primary arbiters of criminal and civil justice for actions 

arising in Indian country; but 

(B) have been historically underfunded; 

(9) tribal courts have no criminal jurisdiction over non-Indian persons, and 

the sentencing authority of tribal courts is limited to sentences of not more than 

1 year of imprisonment for Indian offenders, forcing tribal communities to rely 

solely on the Federal Government and certain State governments for the prosecution of— 

(A) misdemeanors committed by non-Indian persons; and 

(B) all felony crimes in Indian country; 

(10) a significant percentage of cases referred to Federal agencies for prosecution of crimes allegedly occurring in tribal communities are declined to be 

prosecuted; 

(11) the complicated jurisdictional scheme that exists in Indian country— 

(A) has a significant negative impact on the ability to provide public 

safety to Indian communities; and 

(B) has been increasingly exploited by criminals; 

(12) the violent crime rate in Indian country is— 

(A) nearly twice the national average; and 

(B) more than 20 times the national average on some Indian reservations; 

(13)(A) domestic and sexual violence against Indian and Alaska Native 

women has reached epidemic proportions; 

(B) 34 percent of Indian and Alaska Native women will be raped in their 

lifetimes; and 

(C) 39 percent of Indian and Alaska Native women will be subject to domestic violence; 

(14) the lack of police presence and resources in Indian country has resulted 

in significant delays in responding to victims’ calls for assistance, which adversely affects the collection of evidence needed to prosecute crimes, particularly 

crimes of domestic and sexual violence; 

(15) alcohol and drug abuse plays a role in more than 80 percent of crimes 

committed in tribal communities; 

(16) the rate of methamphetamine addiction in tribal communities is 3 

times the national average; 

(17) the Department of Justice has reported that drug organizations have 

increasingly targeted Indian country to produce and distribute methamphetamine, citing the limited law enforcement presence and jurisdictional confusion 

as reasons for the increased activity; 

(18) tribal communities face significant increases in instances of domestic 

violence, burglary, assault, and child abuse as a direct result of increased methamphetamine use on Indian reservations; 

(19)(A) criminal jurisdiction in Indian country is complex, and responsibility 

for Indian country law enforcement is shared among Federal, tribal, and State 

authorities; and 

(B) that complexity requires a high degree of commitment and cooperation 

from Federal and State officials that can be difficult to establish; 

(20) agreements for cooperation among certified tribal and State law enforcement officers have proven to improve law enforcement in tribal communities; 

6 

(21) consistent communication among tribal, Federal, and State law enforcement agencies has proven to increase public safety and justice in tribal and 

nearby communities; and 

(22) crime data is a fundamental tool of law enforcement, but for decades 

the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Department of Justice have not been able 

to coordinate or consistently report crime and prosecution rates in tribal communities. 

(b) PURPOSES.—The purposes of this Act are— 

(1) to clarify the responsibilities of Federal, State, tribal, and local governments with respect to crimes committed in tribal communities; 

(2) to increase coordination and communication among Federal, State, tribal, and local law enforcement agencies; 

(3) to empower tribal governments with the authority, resources, and information necessary to safely and effectively provide for the safety of the public 

in tribal communities; 

(4) to reduce the prevalence of violent crime in tribal communities and to 

combat violence against Indian and Alaska Native women; 

(5) to address and prevent drug trafficking and reduce rates of alcohol and 

drug addiction in Indian country; and 

(6) to increase and standardize the collection of criminal data and the sharing of criminal history information among Federal, State, and tribal officials responsible for responding to and investigating crimes in tribal communities. 

SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—In this Act: 

(1) INDIAN COMMUNITY.—The term ‘‘Indian community’’ means a community 

of a federally recognized Indian tribe. 

(2) INDIAN COUNTRY.—The term ‘‘Indian country’’ has the meaning given 

the term in section 1151 of title 18, United States Code. 

(3) INDIAN TRIBE.—The term ‘‘Indian tribe’’ has the meaning given the term 

in section 102 of the Federally Recognized Indian Tribe List Act of 1994 (25 

U.S.C. 479a). 

(4) SECRETARY.—The term ‘‘Secretary’’ means the Secretary of the Interior. 

(5) TRIBAL GOVERNMENT.—The term ‘‘tribal government’’ means the governing body of an Indian tribe. 

(b) INDIAN LAW ENFORCEMENT REFORM ACT.—Section 2 of the Indian Law Enforcement Reform Act (25 U.S.C. 2801) is amended by adding at the end the following: 

‘‘(10) TRIBAL JUSTICE OFFICIAL.—The term ‘tribal justice official’ means— 

‘‘(A) a tribal prosecutor; 

‘‘(B) a tribal law enforcement officer; or 

‘‘(C) any other person responsible for investigating or prosecuting an alleged criminal offense in tribal court.’’. 

SEC. 4. SEVERABILITY CLAUSE. 

If any provision of this Act, an amendment made this Act, or the application 

of such provision or amendment to any person or circumstance is held to be unconstitutional, the remainder of this Act, the amendments made by this Act, and the 

application of the provisions of such to any person or circumstances shall not be affected thereby. 

TITLE I—FEDERAL ACCOUNTABILITY AND 

COORDINATION 

SEC. 101. OFFICE OF JUSTICE SERVICES RESPONSIBILITIES. 

(a) DEFINITIONS.—Section 2 of the Indian Law Enforcement Reform Act (25 

U.S.C. 2801) is amended— 

(1) by striking paragraph (8); 

(2) by redesignating paragraphs (1) through (7) as paragraphs (2) through 

(8), respectively; 

(3) by redesignating paragraph (9) as paragraph (1) and moving the paragraphs so as to appear in numerical order; and 

(4) in paragraph (1) (as redesignated by paragraph (3)), by striking ‘‘Division of Law Enforcement Services’’ and inserting ‘‘Office of Justice Services’’. 

(b) ADDITIONAL RESPONSIBILITIES OF OFFICE.—Section 3 of the Indian Law Enforcement Reform Act (25 U.S.C. 2802) is amended— 

7 

(1) in subsection (b), by striking ‘‘(b) There is hereby established within the 

Bureau a Division of Law Enforcement Services which’’ and inserting the following: 

‘‘(b) OFFICE OF JUSTICE SERVICES.—There is established in the Bureau an office, 

to be known as the ‘Office of Justice Services’, that’’; 

(2) in subsection (c)— 

(A) in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by striking ‘‘Division of Law 

Enforcement Services’’ and inserting ‘‘Office of Justice Services’’; 

(B) in paragraph (2), by inserting ‘‘and, with the consent of the Indian 

tribe, tribal criminal laws, including testifying in tribal court’’ before the 

semicolon at the end; 

(C) in paragraph (8), by striking ‘‘and’’ at the end; 

(D) in paragraph (9), by striking the period at the end and inserting 

a semicolon; and 

(E) by adding at the end the following: 

‘‘(10) the development and provision of dispatch and emergency and E–911 

services; 

‘‘(11) communicating with tribal leaders, tribal community and victims’ advocates, tribal justice officials, and residents of Indian land on a regular basis 

regarding public safety and justice concerns facing tribal communities; 

‘‘(12) conducting meaningful and timely consultation with tribal leaders and 

tribal justice officials in the development of regulatory policies and other actions 

that affect public safety and justice in Indian country; 

‘‘(13) providing technical assistance and training to tribal law enforcement 

officials to gain access and input authority to utilize the National Criminal Information Center and other national crime information databases pursuant to 

section 534 of title 28, United States Code; 

‘‘(14) in coordination with the Attorney General pursuant to subsection (g) 

of section 302 of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 

U.S.C. 3732), collecting, analyzing, and reporting data regarding Indian country 

crimes on an annual basis; 

‘‘(15) submitting to the Committee on Indian Affairs of the Senate and the 

Committee on Natural Resources of the House of Representatives, for each fiscal year, a detailed spending report regarding tribal public safety and justice 

programs that includes— 

‘‘(A)(i) the number of full-time employees of the Bureau and tribal government who serve as— 

‘‘(I) criminal investigators; 

‘‘(II) uniform police; 

‘‘(III) police and emergency dispatchers; 

‘‘(IV) detention officers; 

‘‘(V) executive personnel, including special agents in charge, and directors and deputies of various offices in the Office of Justice Services; 

or 

‘‘(VI) tribal court judges, prosecutors, public defenders, or related 

staff; and 

‘‘(ii) the amount of appropriations obligated for each category described 

in clause (i) for each fiscal year; 

‘‘(B) a list of amounts dedicated to law enforcement and corrections, vehicles, related transportation costs, equipment, inmate transportation costs, 

inmate transfer costs, replacement, improvement, and repair of facilities, 

personnel transfers, detailees and costs related to their details, emergency 

events, public safety and justice communications and technology costs, and 

tribal court personnel, facilities, and related program costs; 

‘‘(C) a list of the unmet staffing needs of law enforcement, corrections, 

and court personnel at tribal and Bureau of Indian Affairs justice agencies, 

the replacement and repair needs of tribal and Bureau corrections facilities, 

needs for tribal police and court facilities, and public safety and emergency 

communications and technology needs; and 

‘‘(D) the formula, priority list or other methodology used to determine 

the method of disbursement of funds for the public safety and justice programs administered by the Office of Justice Services; 

‘‘(16) submitting to the Committee on Indian Affairs of the Senate and the 

Committee on Natural Resources of the House of Representatives, for each fiscal year, a report summarizing the technical assistance, training, and other support provided to tribal law enforcement and corrections agencies that operate 

relevant programs pursuant to self-determination contracts or self-governance 

compacts with the Bureau of Indian Affairs; and 

8 

‘‘(17) promulgating regulations to carry out this Act, and routinely reviewing and updating, as necessary, the regulations contained in subchapter B of 

title 25, Code of Federal Regulations (or successor regulations).’’; 

(3) in subsection (d)— 

(A) in paragraph (1), by striking ‘‘Division of Law Enforcement Services’’ and inserting ‘‘Office of Justice Services’’; 

(B) in paragraph (3)— 

(i) by striking ‘‘regulations which shall establish’’ and inserting 

‘‘regulations, which shall— 

‘‘(A) establish’’; 

(ii) by striking ‘‘reservation.’’ and inserting ‘‘reservation; but’’; and 

(iii) by adding at the end the following: 

‘‘(B) support the enforcement of tribal laws and investigation of offenses 

against tribal criminal laws.’’; and 

(C) in paragraph (4)(i), in the first sentence, by striking ‘‘Division’’ and 

inserting ‘‘Office of Justice Services’’; 

(4) in subsection (e), by striking ‘‘Division of Law Enforcement Services’’ 

each place it appears and inserting ‘‘Office of Justice Services’’; and 

(5) by adding at the end the following: 

‘‘(f) LONG-TERM PLAN FOR TRIBAL DETENTION PROGRAMS.—Not later than 1 year 

after the date of enactment of this subsection, the Secretary, acting through the Bureau, in coordination with the Department of Justice and in consultation with tribal 

leaders, tribal law enforcement officers, and tribal corrections officials, shall submit 

to Congress a long-term plan to address incarceration in Indian country, including 

a description of— 

‘‘(1) proposed activities for the construction of detention facilities (including 

regional facilities) on Indian land; 

‘‘(2) proposed activities for the construction of additional Federal detention 

facilities on Indian land; 

‘‘(3) proposed activities for contracting with State and local detention centers, upon approval of affected tribal governments; 

‘‘(4) proposed activities for alternatives to incarceration, developed in cooperation with tribal court systems; and 

‘‘(5) other such alternatives to incarceration as the Secretary, in coordination with the Bureau and in consultation with tribal representatives, determines to be necessary. 

‘‘(g) LAW ENFORCEMENT PERSONNEL OF BUREAU AND INDIAN TRIBES.— 

‘‘(1) REPORT.—Not later than 60 days after the date of enactment of this 

subsection, the Secretary shall submit to the Committee on Indian Affairs of the 

Senate and the Committee on Natural Resources of the House of Representatives a report regarding vacancies in law enforcement personnel of Bureau and 

Indian tribes. 

‘‘(2) LONG-TERM PLAN.—Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment 

of this subsection, the Secretary shall submit to the Committee on Indian Affairs of the Senate and the Committee on Natural Resources of the House of 

Representatives a long-term plan to address law enforcement personnel needs 

in Indian country.’’. 

(c) LAW ENFORCEMENT AUTHORITY.—Section 4 of the Indian Law Enforcement 

Reform Act (25 U.S.C. 2803) is amended— 

(1) in paragraph (2)(A), by striking ‘‘), or’’ and inserting ‘‘or offenses committed on Federal property processed by the Central Violations Bureau); or’’; 

and 

(2) in paragraph (3), by striking subparagraphs (A) through (C) and inserting the following: 

‘‘(A) the offense is committed in the presence of the employee; or 

‘‘(B) the offense is a Federal crime and the employee has reasonable 

grounds to believe that the person to be arrested has committed, or is committing, the crime;’’. 

SEC. 102. DECLINATION REPORTS. 

Section 10 of the Indian Law Enforcement Reform Act (25 U.S.C. 2809) is 

amended by striking subsections (a) through (d) and inserting the following: 

‘‘(a) REPORTS.— 

‘‘(1) LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIALS.—Subject to subsection (d), if a law enforcement officer or employee of any Federal department or agency declines to 

initiate an investigation of an alleged violation of Federal law in Indian country, 

or terminates such an investigation without referral for prosecution, the officer 

or employee shall— 

9 

‘‘(A) submit to the appropriate tribal justice officials evidence, including 

related reports, relevant to the case that would advance prosecution of the 

case in a tribal court; and 

‘‘(B) submit to the Office of Indian Country Crime relevant information 

regarding all declinations of alleged violations of Federal law in Indian 

country, including— 

‘‘(i) the type of crime alleged; 

‘‘(ii) the status of the accused as an Indian or non-Indian; 

‘‘(iii) the status of the victim as an Indian; and 

‘‘(iv) the reason for declining to initiate, open, or terminate the investigation. 

‘‘(2) UNITED STATES ATTORNEYS.—Subject to subsection (d), if a United 

States Attorney declines to prosecute, or acts to terminate prosecution of, an alleged violation of Federal law in Indian country, the United States Attorney 

shall— 

‘‘(A) submit to the appropriate tribal justice official, sufficiently in advance of the tribal statute of limitations, evidence relevant to the case to 

permit the tribal prosecutor to pursue the case in tribal court; and 

‘‘(B) submit to the Office of Indian Country Crime and the appropriate 

tribal justice official relevant information regarding all declinations of alleged violations of Federal law in Indian country, including— 

‘‘(i) the type of crime alleged; 

‘‘(ii) the status of the accused as an Indian or non-Indian; 

‘‘(iii) the status of the victim as an Indian; and 

‘‘(iv) the reason for the determination to decline or terminate the 

prosecution. 

‘‘(b) MAINTENANCE OF RECORDS.— 

‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—The Director of the Office of Indian Country Crime shall 

establish and maintain a compilation of information received under paragraph 

(1) or (2) of subsection (a) relating to declinations. 

‘‘(2) AVAILABILITY TO CONGRESS.—Each compilation under paragraph (1) 

shall be made available to Congress on an annual basis. 

‘‘(c) INCLUSION OF CASE FILES.—A report submitted to the appropriate tribal 

justice officials under paragraph (1) or (2) of subsection (a) may include the case file, 

including evidence collected and statements taken that could support an investigation or prosecution by the appropriate tribal justice officials. 

‘‘(d) EFFECT OF SECTION.— 

‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—Nothing in this section requires any Federal agency or 

official to transfer or disclose any confidential or privileged communication, information, or source to an official of any Indian tribe. 

‘‘(2) FEDERAL RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE.—Rule 6 of the Federal Rules 

of Criminal Procedure shall apply to this section. 

‘‘(3) REGULATIONS.—Each Federal agency required to submit a report pursuant to this section shall adopt, by regulation, standards for the protection of 

confidential or privileged communications, information, and sources under paragraph (1).’’. 

SEC. 103. PROSECUTION OF CRIMES IN INDIAN COUNTRY. 

(a) APPOINTMENT OF SPECIAL PROSECUTORS.—Section 543 of title 28, United 

States Code, is amended— 

(1) in subsection (a), by inserting before the period at the end the following: 

‘‘, including the appointment of qualified tribal prosecutors and other qualified 

attorneys to assist in prosecuting Federal offenses committed in Indian country’’; and 

(2) by adding at the end the following: 

‘‘(c) SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING CONSULTATION.—It is the sense of Congress that, in appointing attorneys under this section to serve as special prosecutors 

in Indian country, the Attorney General should consult with tribal justice officials 

of each Indian tribe that would be affected by the appointment.’’. 

(b) TRIBAL LIAISONS.—The Indian Law Enforcement Reform Act (25 U.S.C. 2801 

et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following: 

‘‘SEC. 11. ASSISTANT UNITED STATES ATTORNEY TRIBAL LIAISONS. 

‘‘(a) APPOINTMENT.—Each United States Attorney the district of which includes 

Indian country shall appoint not less than 1 assistant United States Attorney to 

serve as a tribal liaison for the district. 

‘‘(b) DUTIES.—A tribal liaison shall be responsible for the following activities in 

the district of the tribal liaison: 

10 

‘‘(1) Coordinating the prosecution of Federal crimes that occur in Indian 

country. 

‘‘(2) Developing multidisciplinary teams to combat child abuse and domestic 

and sexual violence offenses against Indians. 

‘‘(3) Consulting and coordinating with tribal justice officials and victims’ advocates to address any backlog in the prosecution of major crimes in Indian 

country in the district. 

‘‘(4) Developing working relationships and maintaining communication with 

tribal leaders, tribal community and victims’ advocates, and tribal justice officials to gather information from, and share appropriate information with, tribal 

justice officials. 

‘‘(5) Coordinating with tribal prosecutors in cases in which a tribal government has concurrent jurisdiction over an alleged crime, in advance of the expiration of any applicable statute of limitation. 

‘‘(6) Providing technical assistance and training regarding evidence gathering techniques to tribal justice officials and other individuals and entities that 

are instrumental to responding to Indian country crimes. 

‘‘(7) Conducting training sessions and seminars to certify special law enforcement commissions to tribal justice officials and other individuals and entities responsible for responding to Indian country crimes. 

‘‘(8) Coordinating with the Office of Indian Country Crime, as necessary. 

‘‘(9) Conducting such other activities to address and prevent violent crime 

in Indian country as the applicable United States Attorney determines to be appropriate. 

‘‘(c) SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING EVALUATIONS OF TRIBAL LIAISONS.— 

‘‘(1) FINDINGS.—Congress finds that— 

‘‘(A) many tribal communities rely solely on United States Attorneys offices to prosecute felony and misdemeanor crimes occurring on Indian land; 

and 

‘‘(B) tribal liaisons have dual obligations of— 

‘‘(i) coordinating prosecutions of Indian country crime; and 

‘‘(ii) developing relationships with tribal communities and serving 

as a link between tribal communities and the Federal justice process. 

‘‘(2) SENSE OF CONGRESS.—It is the sense of Congress that the Attorney 

General should— 

‘‘(A) take all appropriate actions to encourage the aggressive prosecution of all crimes committed in Indian country; and 

‘‘(B) when appropriate, take into consideration the dual responsibilities 

of tribal liaisons described in paragraph (1)(B) in evaluating the performance of the tribal liaisons. 

‘‘(d) ENHANCED PROSECUTION OF MINOR CRIMES.— 

‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—Each United States Attorney serving a district that includes Indian country is authorized and encouraged— 

‘‘(A) to appoint Special Assistant United States Attorneys pursuant to 

section 543(a) of title 28, United States Code, to prosecute crimes in Indian 

country as necessary to improve the administration of justice, and particularly when— 

‘‘(i) the crime rate exceeds the national average crime rate; or 

‘‘(ii) the rate at which criminal offenses are declined to be prosecuted exceeds the national average declination rate; 

‘‘(B) to coordinate with applicable United States magistrate and district 

courts— 

‘‘(i) to ensure the provision of docket time for prosecutions of Indian 

country crimes; and 

‘‘(ii) to hold trials and other proceedings in Indian country, as appropriate; 

‘‘(C) to provide to appointed Special Assistant United States Attorneys 

appropriate training, supervision, and staff support; and 

‘‘(D) if an agreement is entered into with a Federal court pursuant to 

paragraph (2), to provide technical and other assistance to tribal governments and tribal court systems to ensure the success of the program under 

this subsection. 

‘‘(2) SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING CONSULTATION.—It is the sense of Congress that, in appointing Special Assistant United States Attorneys under this 

subsection, a United States Attorney should consult with tribal justice officials 

of each Indian tribe that would be affected by the appointment.’’. 

11 

SEC. 104. ADMINISTRATION. 

(a) OFFICE OF TRIBAL JUSTICE.— (1) DEFINITIONS.—Section 4 of the Indian Tribal Justice Technical and 

Legal Assistance Act of 2000 (25 U.S.C. 3653) is amended— 

(A) by redesignating paragraphs (2) through (7) as paragraphs (3) 

through (8), respectively; and 

(B) by inserting after paragraph (1) the following: 

‘‘(2) DIRECTOR.—The term ‘Director’ means the Director of the Office of 

Tribal Justice.’’. 

(2) STATUS.—Title I of the Indian Tribal Justice Technical and Legal Assistance Act of 2000 is amended— 

(A) by redesignating section 106 (25 U.S.C. 3666) as section 107; and 

(B) by inserting after section 105 (25 U.S.C. 3665) the following: 

‘‘SEC. 106. OFFICE OF TRIBAL JUSTICE. 

‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of the 

Tribal Law and Order Act of 2009, the Attorney General shall modify the status of 

the Office of Tribal Justice as the Attorney General determines to be necessary to 

establish the Office of Tribal Justice as a permanent division of the Department. 

‘‘(b) PERSONNEL AND FUNDING.—The Attorney General shall provide to the Office of Tribal Justice such personnel and funds as are necessary to establish the Office of Tribal Justice as a division of the Department under subsection (a). 

‘‘(c) ADDITIONAL DUTIES.—In addition to the duties of the Office of Tribal Justice 

in effect on the day before the date of enactment of the Tribal Law and Order Act 

of 2009, the Office of Tribal Justice shall— 

‘‘(1) serve as the program and legal policy advisor to the Attorney General 

with respect to the treaty and trust relationship between the United States and 

Indian tribes; 

‘‘(2) serve as the point of contact for federally recognized tribal governments 

and tribal organizations with respect to questions and comments regarding policies and programs of the Department and issues relating to public safety and 

justice in Indian country; and 

‘‘(3) coordinate with other bureaus, agencies, offices, and divisions within 

the Department of Justice to ensure that each component has an accountable 

process to ensure meaningful and timely consultation with tribal leaders in the 

development of regulatory policies and other actions that affect— 

‘‘(A) the trust responsibility of the United States to Indian tribes; 

‘‘(B) any tribal treaty provision; 

‘‘(C) the status of Indian tribes as a sovereign governments; or 

‘‘(D) any other tribal interest.’’. 

(b) OFFICE OF INDIAN COUNTRY CRIME.—The Indian Law Enforcement Reform 

Act (25 U.S.C. 2801 et seq.) (as amended by section 103(b)) is amended by adding 

at the end the following: 

‘‘SEC. 12. OFFICE OF INDIAN COUNTRY CRIME. 

‘‘(a) ESTABLISHMENT.—There is established in the criminal division of the Department of Justice an office, to be known as the ‘Office of Indian Country Crime’. 

‘‘(b) DUTIES.—The Office of Indian Country Crime shall— 

‘‘(1) develop, enforce, and administer the application of Federal criminal 

laws applicable in Indian country; 

‘‘(2) coordinate with the United States Attorneys that have authority to 

prosecute crimes in Indian country; 

‘‘(3) coordinate prosecutions of crimes of national significance in Indian 

country, as determined by the Attorney General; 

‘‘(4) develop and implement criminal enforcement policies for United States 

Attorneys and investigators of Federal crimes regarding cases arising in Indian 

country; and 

‘‘(5) submit to the Committee on Indian Affairs of the Senate and the Committee on Natural Resources of the House of Representatives annual reports describing the prosecution and declination rates of cases involving alleged crimes 

in Indian country referred to United States Attorneys. 

‘‘(c) DEPUTY ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL.— ‘‘(1) APPOINTMENT.—The Attorney General shall appoint a Deputy Assistant 

Attorney General for Indian Country Crime. 

‘‘(2) DUTIES.—The Deputy Assistant Attorney General for Indian Country 

Crime shall— 

‘‘(A) serve as the head of the Office of Indian Country Crime; 

‘‘(B) serve as a point of contact to United State Attorneys serving districts including Indian country, tribal liaisons, tribal governments, and 

12 

other Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies regarding issues 

affecting the prosecution of crime in Indian country; and 

‘‘(C) carry out such other duties as the Attorney General may prescribe.’’. 

TITLE II—STATE ACCOUNTABILITY AND 

COORDINATION 

SEC. 201. STATE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION AND RESOURCES. 

(a) CONCURRENT AUTHORITY OF UNITED STATES.—Section 401(a) of Public Law 

90–284 (25 U.S.C. 1321(a)) is amended— 

(1) by striking the section designation and heading and all that follows 

through ‘‘The consent of the United States’’ and inserting the following: 

‘‘SEC. 401. ASSUMPTION BY STATE OF CRIMINAL JURISDICTION. 

‘‘(a) CONSENT OF UNITED STATES.— 

‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—The consent of the United States’’; and 

(2) by adding at the end the following: 

‘‘(2) CONCURRENT JURISDICTION.—At the request of an Indian tribe, and 

after consultation with the Attorney General, the United States shall maintain 

concurrent jurisdiction to prosecute violations of sections 1152 and 1153 of title 

18, United States Code, within the Indian country of the Indian tribe.’’. 

(b) APPLICABLE LAW.—Section 1162 of title 18, United States Code, is amended 

by striking subsection (c) and inserting the following: 

‘‘(c) APPLICABLE LAW.—At the request of an Indian tribe, and after consultation 

with the Attorney General— 

‘‘(1) sections 1152 and 1153 of this title shall remain in effect in the areas 

of the Indian country of the Indian tribe; and 

‘‘(2) jurisdiction over those areas shall be concurrent among the Federal 

Government and State and tribal governments.’’. 

SEC. 202. INCENTIVES FOR STATE, TRIBAL, AND LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT COOPERATION. 

(a) ESTABLISHMENT OF COOPERATIVE ASSISTANCE PROGRAM.—The Attorney General may provide grants, technical assistance, and other assistance to State, tribal, 

and local governments that enter into cooperative agreements, including agreements 

relating to mutual aid, hot pursuit of suspects, and cross-deputization for the purposes of— 

(1) improving law enforcement effectiveness; and 

(2) reducing crime in Indian country and nearby communities. 

(b) PROGRAM PLANS.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—To be eligible to receive assistance under this section, a 

group composed of not less than 1 of each of a tribal government and a State 

or local government shall jointly develop and submit to the Attorney General 

a plan for a program to achieve the purpose described in subsection (a). 

(2) PLAN REQUIREMENTS.—A joint program plan under paragraph (1) shall 

include a description of— 

(A) the proposed cooperative tribal and State or local law enforcement 

program for which funding is sought, including information on the population and each geographic area to be served by the program; 

(B) the need of the proposed program for funding under this section, 

the amount of funding requested, and the proposed use of funds, subject to 

the requirements listed in subsection (c); 

(C) the unit of government that will administer any assistance received 

under this section, and the method by which the assistance will be distributed; 

(D) the types of law enforcement services to be performed on each applicable Indian reservation and the individuals and entities that will perform those services; 

(E) the individual or group of individuals who will exercise daily supervision and control over law enforcement officers participating in the program; 

(F) the method by which local and tribal government input with respect 

to the planning and implementation of the program will be ensured; 

(G) the policies of the program regarding mutual aid, hot pursuit of 

suspects, deputization, training, and insurance of applicable law enforcement officers; 

13 

(H) the recordkeeping procedures and types of data to be collected pursuant to the program; and 

(I) other information that the Attorney General determines to be relevant. 

(c) PERMISSIBLE USES OF FUNDS.—An eligible entity that receives a grant under 

this section may use the grant, in accordance with the program plan described in 

subsection (b)— 

(1) to hire and train new career tribal, State, or local law enforcement officers, or to make overtime payments for current law enforcement officers, that 

are or will be dedicated to— 

(A) policing tribal land and nearby lands; and 

(B) investigating alleged crimes on those lands; 

(2) procure equipment, technology, or support systems to be used to investigate crimes and share information between tribal, State, and local law enforcement agencies; or 

(3) for any other uses that the Attorney General determines will meet the 

purposes described in subsection (a). 

(d) FACTORS FOR CONSIDERATION.—In determining whether to approve a joint 

program plan submitted under subsection (b) and, on approval, the amount of assistance to provide to the program, the Attorney General shall take into consideration the following factors: 

(1) The size and population of each Indian reservation and nearby community proposed to be served by the program. 

(2) The complexity of the law enforcement problems proposed to be addressed by the program. 

(3) The range of services proposed to be provided by the program. 

(4) The proposed improvements the program will make regarding law enforcement cooperation beyond existing levels of cooperation. 

(5) The crime rates of the tribal and nearby communities. 

(6) The available resources of each entity applying for a grant under this 

section for dedication to public safety in the respective jurisdictions of the entities. 

(e) ANNUAL REPORTS.—To be eligible to renew or extend a grant under this section, a group described in subsection (b)(1) shall submit to the Attorney General, 

together with the joint program plan under subsection (b), a report describing the 

law enforcement activities carried out pursuant to the program during the preceding 

fiscal year, including the success of the activities, including any increase in arrests 

or prosecutions. 

(f) REPORTS BY ATTORNEY GENERAL.—Not later than January 15 of each applicable fiscal year, the Attorney General shall submit to the Committee on Indian Affairs of the Senate and the Committee on Natural Resources of the House of Representatives a report describing the law enforcement programs carried out using assistance provided under this section during the preceding fiscal year, including the 

success of the programs. 

(g) TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE.—On receipt of a request from a group composed of 

not less than 1 tribal government and 1 State or local government, the Attorney 

General shall provide technical assistance to the group to develop successful cooperative relationships that effectively combat crime in Indian country and nearby communities. 

(h) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as are necessary to carry out this section for each of fiscal years 

2010 through 2014. 

TITLE III—EMPOWERING TRIBAL LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES AND TRIBAL GOVERNMENTS 

SEC. 301. TRIBAL POLICE OFFICERS. 

(a) FLEXIBILITY IN TRAINING LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS SERVING INDIAN

COUNTRY.—Section 3(e) of the Indian Law Enforcement Reform Act (25 U.S.C. 

2802(e)) (as amended by section 101(b)(4)) is amended— 

(1) in paragraph (1)— 

(A) by striking ‘‘(e)(1) The Secretary’’ and inserting the following: 

‘‘(e) STANDARDS OF EDUCATION AND EXPERIENCE AND CLASSIFICATION OF POSITIONS.— 

14 

‘‘(1) STANDARDS OF EDUCATION AND EXPERIENCE.— ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary’’; and 

(B) by adding at the end the following: 

‘‘(B) TRAINING.—The training standards established under subparagraph (A) shall permit law enforcement personnel of the Office of Justice 

Services or an Indian tribe to obtain training at a State or tribal police 

academy, a local or tribal community college, or another training academy 

that meets the relevant Peace Officer Standards and Training.’’; 

(2) in paragraph (3), by striking ‘‘Agencies’’ and inserting ‘‘agencies’’; and 

(3) by adding at the end the following: 

‘‘(4) BACKGROUND CHECKS FOR OFFICERS.—The Office of Justice Services 

shall develop standards and deadlines for the provision of background checks 

for tribal law enforcement and corrections officials that ensure that a response 

to a request by an Indian tribe for such a background check shall be provided 

by not later than 60 days after the date of receipt of the request, unless an adequate reason for failure to respond by that date is provided to the Indian tribe.’’. 

(b) SPECIAL LAW ENFORCEMENT COMMISSIONS.—Section 5(a) of the Indian Law 

Enforcement Reform Act (25 U.S.C. 2804(a)) is amended— 

(1) by striking ‘‘(a) The Secretary may enter into an agreement’’ and inserting the following: 

‘‘(a) AGREEMENTS.— ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of 

the Tribal Law and Order Act of 2009, the Secretary shall establish procedures 

to enter into memoranda of agreement’’; 

(2) in the second sentence, by striking ‘‘The Secretary’’ and inserting the following: 

‘‘(2) CERTAIN ACTIVITIES.—The Secretary’’; and 

(3) by adding at the end the following: 

‘‘(3) PROGRAM ENHANCEMENT.— ‘‘(A) TRAINING SESSIONS IN INDIAN COUNTRY.— ‘‘(i) IN GENERAL.—The procedures described in paragraph (1) shall 

include the development of a plan to enhance the certification and provision of special law enforcement commissions to tribal law enforcement officials, and, subject to subsection (d), State and local law enforcement officials, pursuant to this section. 

‘‘(ii) INCLUSIONS.—The plan under clause (i) shall include the 

hosting of regional training sessions in Indian country, not less frequently than biannually, to educate and certify candidates for the special law enforcement commissions. 

‘‘(B) MEMORANDA OF AGREEMENT.— ‘‘(i) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of the Tribal Law and Order Act of 2009, the Secretary, in consultation with Indian tribes and tribal law enforcement agencies, shall 

develop minimum requirements to be included in special law enforcement commission agreements pursuant to this section. 

‘‘(ii) AGREEMENT.—Not later than 60 days after the date on which 

the Secretary determines that all applicable requirements under clause 

(i) are met, the Secretary shall offer to enter into a special law enforcement commission agreement with the applicable Indian tribe.’’. 

(c) INDIAN LAW ENFORCEMENT FOUNDATION.—The Indian Self-Determination 

and Education Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 450 et seq.) is amended by adding at the 

end the following: 

‘‘TITLE VII—INDIAN LAW ENFORCEMENT 

FOUNDATION 

‘‘SEC. 701. INDIAN LAW ENFORCEMENT FOUNDATION. 

‘‘(a) ESTABLISHMENT.—As soon as practicable after the date of enactment of this 

title, the Secretary shall establish, under the laws of the District of Columbia and 

in accordance with this title, a foundation, to be known as the ‘Indian Law Enforcement Foundation’ (referred to in this section as the ‘Foundation’). 

‘‘(b) DUTIES.—The Foundation shall— 

‘‘(1) encourage, accept, and administer, in accordance with the terms of each 

donation, private gifts of real and personal property, and any income from or 

interest in such gifts, for the benefit of, or in support of, public safety and justice services in American Indian and Alaska Native communities; and 

15 

‘‘(2) assist the Office of Justice Services of the Bureau of Indian Affairs and 

Indian tribal governments in funding and conducting activities and providing 

education to advance and support the provision of public safety and justice services in American Indian and Alaska Native communities.’’. 

(d) ACCEPTANCE AND ASSISTANCE.—Section 5 of the Indian Law Enforcement 

Reform Act (25 U.S.C. 2804) is amended by adding at the end the following: 

‘‘(g) ACCEPTANCE OF ASSISTANCE.—The Bureau may accept reimbursement, resources, assistance, or funding from— 

‘‘(1) a Federal, tribal, State, or other government agency; or 

‘‘(2) the Indian Law Enforcement Foundation established under section 

701(a) of the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act.’’. 

SEC. 302. DRUG ENFORCEMENT IN INDIAN COUNTRY. 

(a) EDUCATION AND RESEARCH PROGRAMS.—Section 502 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 872) is amended in subsections (a)(1) and (c), by inserting 

‘‘ tribal,’’ after ‘‘State,’’ each place it appears. 

(b) PUBLIC-PRIVATE EDUCATION PROGRAM.—Section 503 of the Comprehensive 

Methamphetamine Control Act of 1996 (21 U.S.C. 872a) is amended— 

(1) in subsection (a), by inserting ‘‘tribal,’’ after ‘‘State,’’; and 

(2) in subsection (b)(2), by inserting ‘‘, tribal,’’ after ‘‘State’’. 

(c) COOPERATIVE ARRANGEMENTS.—Section 503 of the Controlled Substances Act 

(21 U.S.C. 873) is amended— 

(1) in subsection (a)— 

(A) by inserting ‘‘tribal,’’ after ‘‘State,’’ each place it appears; and 

(B) in paragraphs (6) and (7), by inserting ‘‘, tribal,’’ after ‘‘State’’ each 

place it appears; and 

(2) in subsection (d)(1), by inserting ‘‘, tribal,’’ after ‘‘State’’. 

(d) POWERS OF ENFORCEMENT PERSONNEL.—Section 508(a) of the Controlled 

Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 878(a)) is amended in the matter preceding paragraph 

(1) by inserting ‘‘, tribal,’’ after ‘‘State’’. 

SEC. 303. ACCESS TO NATIONAL CRIMINAL INFORMATION DATABASES. 

(a) ACCESS TO NATIONAL CRIMINAL INFORMATION DATABASES.—Section 534 of 

title 28, United States Code, is amended— 

(1) in subsection (a)(4), by inserting ‘‘Indian tribes,’’ after ‘‘the States,’’; 

(2) by striking subsection (d) and inserting the following: 

‘‘(d) INDIAN LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES.—The Attorney General shall permit 

tribal and Bureau of Indian Affairs law enforcement agencies— 

‘‘(1) to directly access and enter information into Federal criminal information databases; and 

‘‘(2) to directly obtain information from the databases.’’; 

(3) by redesignating the second subsection (e) as subsection (f); and 

(4) in paragraph (2) of subsection (f) (as redesignated by paragraph (3)), in 

the matter preceding subparagraph (A), by inserting ‘‘, tribal,’’ after ‘‘Federal’’. 

(b) REQUIREMENT.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—The Attorney General shall ensure that tribal law enforcement officials that meet applicable Federal or State requirements have access to national crime information databases. 

(2) SANCTIONS.—For purpose of sanctions for noncompliance with requirements of, or misuse of, national crime information databases and information 

obtained from those databases, a tribal law enforcement agency or official shall 

be treated as Federal law enforcement agency or official. 

(3) NCIC.—Each tribal justice official serving an Indian tribe with criminal 

jurisdiction over Indian country shall be considered to be an authorized law enforcement official for purposes of access to the National Crime Information Center of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. 

SEC. 304. TRIBAL COURT SENTENCING AUTHORITY. 

(a) CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS.—Section 202 of Public Law 90–284 (25 U.S.C. 

1302) is amended— 

(1) in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by striking ‘‘No Indian tribe’’ and 

inserting the following: 

‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—No Indian tribe’’; 

(2) in paragraph (7) of subsection (a) (as designated by paragraph (1)), by 

striking ‘‘and a fine’’ and inserting ‘‘or a fine’’; and 

(3) by adding at the end the following: 

‘‘(b) TRIBAL COURTS AND PRISONERS.— 

‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding paragraph (7) of subsection (a) and in 

addition to the limitations described in the other paragraphs of that subsection, 

16 

no Indian tribe, in exercising any power of self-government involving a criminal 

trial that subjects a defendant to more than 1 year imprisonment for any single 

offense, may— 

‘‘(A) deny any person in such a criminal proceeding the assistance of 

a defense attorney licensed to practice law in any jurisdiction in the United 

States; 

‘‘(B) require excessive bail, impose an excessive fine, inflict a cruel or 

unusual punishment, or impose for conviction of a single offense any penalty or punishment greater than imprisonment for a term of 3 years or a 

fine of $15,000, or both; or 

‘‘(C) deny any person in such a criminal proceeding the due process of 

law. 

‘‘(2) AUTHORITY.—An Indian tribe exercising authority pursuant to this subsection shall— 

‘‘(A) require that each judge presiding over an applicable criminal case 

is licensed to practice law in any jurisdiction in the United States; and 

‘‘(B) make publicly available the criminal laws (including regulations 

and interpretive documents) of the Indian tribe. 

‘‘(3) SENTENCES.—A tribal court acting pursuant to paragraph (1) may require a convicted offender— 

‘‘(A) to serve the sentence— 

‘‘(i) in a tribal correctional center that has been approved by the 

Bureau of Indian Affairs for long-term incarceration, in accordance 

with guidelines developed by the Bureau of Indian Affairs, in consultation with Indian tribes; 

‘‘(ii) in the nearest appropriate Federal facility, at the expense of 

the United States pursuant to a memorandum of agreement with Bureau of Prisons in accordance with paragraph (4); 

‘‘(iii) in a State or local government-approved detention or correctional center pursuant to an agreement between the Indian tribe and 

the State or local government; or 

‘‘(iv) subject to paragraph (1), in an alternative rehabilitation center of an Indian tribe; or 

‘‘(B) to serve another alternative form of punishment, as determined by 

the tribal court judge pursuant to tribal law. 

‘‘(4) MEMORANDA OF AGREEMENT.—A memorandum of agreement between 

an Indian tribe and the Bureau of Prisons under paragraph (2)(A)(ii)— 

‘‘(A) shall acknowledge that the United States will incur all costs involved, including the costs of transfer, housing, medical care, rehabilitation, 

and reentry of transferred prisoners; 

‘‘(B) shall limit the transfer of prisoners to prisoners convicted in tribal 

court of violent crimes, crimes involving sexual abuse, and serious drug offenses, as determined by the Bureau of Prisons, in consultation with tribal 

governments, by regulation; 

‘‘(C) shall not affect the jurisdiction, power of self-government, or any 

other authority of an Indian tribe over the territory or members of the Indian tribe; 

‘‘(D) shall contain such other requirements as the Bureau of Prisons, 

in consultation with the Bureau of Indian Affairs and tribal governments, 

may determine, by regulation; and 

‘‘(E) shall be executed and carried out not later than 180 days after the 

date on which the applicable Indian tribe first contacts the Bureau of Prisons to accept a transfer of a tribal court offender pursuant to this subsection. 

‘‘(c) EFFECT OF SECTION.—Nothing in this section affects the obligation of the 

United States, or any State government that has been delegated authority by the 

United States, to investigate and prosecute any criminal violation in Indian country.’’. 

(b) GRANTS AND CONTRACTS.—Section 1007(b) of the Economic Opportunity Act 

of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2996f(b)) is amended by striking paragraph (2) and inserting the 

following: 

‘‘(2) to provide legal assistance with respect to any criminal proceeding, except to provide assistance to a person charged with an offense in an Indian tribal court;’’. 

SEC. 305. INDIAN LAW AND ORDER COMMISSION. 

(a) ESTABLISHMENT.—There is established a commission to be known as the Indian Law and Order Commission (referred to in this section as the ‘‘Commission’’). 

17 

(b) MEMBERSHIP.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—The Commission shall be composed of 9 members, of 

whom— 

(A) 3 shall be appointed by the President, in consultation with— 

(i) the Attorney General; and 

(ii) the Secretary of the Interior; 

(B) 2 shall be appointed by the majority leader of the Senate, in consultation with the Chairperson of the Committee on Indian Affairs of the 

Senate; 

(C) 1 shall be appointed by the minority leader of the Senate, in consultation with the Vice Chairperson of the Committee on Indian Affairs of 

the Senate; 

(D) 2 shall be appointed by the Speaker of the House of Representatives, in consultation with the Chairperson of the Committee on Natural 

Resources of the House of Representatives; and 

(E) 1 shall be appointed by the minority leader of the House of Representatives, in consultation with the Ranking Member of the Committee 

on Natural Resources of the House of Representatives. 

(2) REQUIREMENTS FOR ELIGIBILITY.—Each member of the Commission shall 

have significant experience and expertise in— 

(A) the Indian country criminal justice system; and 

(B) matters to be studied by the Commission. 

(3) CONSULTATION REQUIRED.—The President, the Speaker and minority 

leader of the House of Representatives, and the majority leader and minority 

leader of the Senate shall consult before the appointment of members of the 

Commission under paragraph (1) to achieve, to the maximum extent practicable, fair and equitable representation of various points of view with respect 

to the matters to be studied by the Commission. 

(4) TERM.—Each member shall be appointed for the life of the Commission. 

(5) TIME FOR INITIAL APPOINTMENTS.—The appointment of the members of 

the Commission shall be made not later than 60 days after the date of enactment of this Act. 

(6) VACANCIES.—A vacancy in the Commission shall be filled— 

(A) in the same manner in which the original appointment was made; 

and 

(B) not later than 60 days after the date on which the vacancy occurred. 

(c) OPERATION.— 

(1) CHAIRPERSON.—Not later than 15 days after the date on which all members of the Commission have been appointed, the Commission shall select 1 

member to serve as Chairperson of the Commission. 

(2) MEETINGS.— 

(A) IN GENERAL.—The Commission shall meet at the call of the Chairperson. 

(B) INITIAL MEETING.—The initial meeting shall take place not later 

than 30 days after the date described in paragraph (1). 

(3) QUORUM.—A majority of the members of the Commission shall constitute a quorum, but a lesser number of members may hold hearings. 

(4) RULES.—The Commission may establish, by majority vote, any rules for 

the conduct of Commission business, in accordance with this Act and other applicable law. 

(d) COMPREHENSIVE STUDY OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM RELATING TO INDIAN

COUNTRY.—The Commission shall conduct a comprehensive study of law enforcement and criminal justice in tribal communities, including— 

(1) jurisdiction over crimes committed in Indian country and the impact of 

that jurisdiction on— 

(A) the investigation and prosecution of Indian country crimes; and 

(B) residents of Indian land; 

(2) the tribal jail and Federal prisons systems and the effect of those systems with respect to— 

(A) reducing Indian country crime; and 

(B) rehabilitation of offenders; 

(3)(A) tribal juvenile justice systems and the Federal juvenile justice system 

as relating to Indian country; and 

(B) the effect of those systems and related programs in preventing juvenile 

crime, rehabilitating Indian youth in custody, and reducing recidivism among 

Indian youth; 

18 

(4) the impact of the Indian Civil Rights Act of 1968 (25 U.S.C. 1301 et 

seq.) on— 

(A) the authority of Indian tribes; and 

(B) the rights of defendants subject to tribal government authority; and 

(5) studies of such other subjects as the Commission determines relevant 

to achieve the purposes of the Tribal Law and Order Act of 2009. 

(e) RECOMMENDATIONS.—Taking into consideration the results of the study 

under paragraph (1), the Commission shall develop recommendations on necessary 

modifications and improvements to justice systems at the tribal, Federal, and State 

levels, including consideration of— 

(1) simplifying jurisdiction in Indian country; 

(2) improving services and programs— 

(A) to prevent juvenile crime on Indian land; 

(B) to rehabilitate Indian youth in custody; and 

(C) to reduce recidivism among Indian youth; 

(3) enhancing the penal authority of tribal courts and exploring alternatives 

to incarceration; 

(4) the establishment of satellite United States magistrate or district courts 

in Indian country; 

(5) changes to the tribal jails and Federal prison systems; and 

(6) other issues that, as determined by the Commission, would reduce violent crime in Indian country. 

(f) REPORT.—Not later than 2 years after the date of enactment of this Act, the 

Commission shall submit to the President and Congress a report that contains— 

(1) a detailed statement of the findings and conclusions of the Commission; 

and 

(2) the recommendations of the Commission for such legislative and administrative actions as the Commission considers to be appropriate. 

(g) POWERS.— (1) HEARINGS.— (A) IN GENERAL.—The Commission may hold such hearings, meet and 

act at such times and places, take such testimony, and receive such evidence as the Commission considers to be advisable to carry out the duties 

of the Commission under this section. 

(B) PUBLIC REQUIREMENT.—The hearings of the Commission under this 

paragraph shall be open to the public. 

(2) WITNESS EXPENSES.— (A) IN GENERAL.—A witness requested to appear before the Commission 

shall be paid the same fees as are paid to witnesses under section 1821 of 

title 28, United States Code. 

(B) PER DIEM AND MILEAGE.—The per diem and mileage allowance for 

a witness shall be paid from funds made available to the Commission. 

(3) INFORMATION FROM FEDERAL, TRIBAL, AND STATE AGENCIES.— 

(A) IN GENERAL.—The Commission may secure directly from a Federal 

agency such information as the Commission considers to be necessary to 

carry out this section. 

(B) TRIBAL AND STATE AGENCIES.—The Commission may request the 

head of any tribal or State agency to provide to the Commission such information as the Commission considers to be necessary to carry out this section. 

(4) POSTAL SERVICES.—The Commission may use the United States mails 

in the same manner and under the same conditions as other agencies of the 

Federal Government. 

(5) GIFTS.—The Commission may accept, use, and dispose of gifts or donations of services or property. 

(h) COMMISSION PERSONNEL MATTERS.— 

(1) TRAVEL EXPENSES.—A member of the Commission shall be allowed travel expenses, including per diem in lieu of subsistence, at rates authorized for 

an employee of an agency under subchapter I of chapter 57 of title 5, United 

States Code, while away from the home or regular place of business of the member in the performance of the duties of the Commission. 

(2) DETAIL OF FEDERAL EMPLOYEES.—On the affirmative vote of 2⁄3 of the 

members of the Commission and the approval of the appropriate Federal agency 

head, an employee of the Federal Government may be detailed to the Commission without reimbursement, and such detail shall be without interruption or 

loss of civil service status, benefits, or privileges. 

(3) PROCUREMENT OF TEMPORARY AND INTERMITTENT SERVICES.—On request 

of the Commission, the Attorney General and Secretary shall provide to the 

19 

Commission reasonable and appropriate office space, supplies, and administrative assistance. 

(i) CONTRACTS FOR RESEARCH.— 

(1) RESEARCHERS AND EXPERTS.— 

(A) IN GENERAL.—On an affirmative vote of 2⁄3 of the members of the 

Commission, the Commission may select nongovernmental researchers and 

experts to assist the Commission in carrying out the duties of the Commission under this section. 

(B) NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF JUSTICE.—The National Institute of Justice 

may enter into a contract with the researchers and experts selected by the 

Commission under subparagraph (A) to provide funding in exchange for the 

services of the researchers and experts. 

(2) OTHER ORGANIZATIONS.—Nothing in this subsection limits the ability of 

the Commission to enter into contracts with any other entity or organization to 

carry out research necessary to carry out the duties of the Commission under 

this section. 

(j) TRIBAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE.— 

(1) ESTABLISHMENT.—The Commission shall establish a committee, to be 

known as the ‘‘Tribal Advisory Committee’’. 

(2) MEMBERSHIP.— 

(A) COMPOSITION.—The Tribal Advisory Committee shall consist of 2 

representatives of Indian tribes from each region of the Bureau of Indian 

Affairs. 

(B) QUALIFICATIONS.—Each member of the Tribal Advisory Committee 

shall have experience relating to— 

(i) justice systems; 

(ii) crime prevention; or 

(iii) victim services. 

(3) DUTIES.—The Tribal Advisory Committee shall— 

(A) serve as an advisory body to the Commission; and 

(B) provide to the Commission advice and recommendations, submit 

materials, documents, testimony, and such other information as the Commission determines to be necessary to carry out the duties of the Commission under this section. 

(k) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as are necessary to carry out this section, to remain available 

until expended. 

(l) TERMINATION OF COMMISSION.—The Commission shall terminate 90 days 

after the date on which the Commission submits the report of the Commission 

under subsection (c)(3). 

(m) NONAPPLICABILITY OF FACA.—The Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 

U.S.C. App.) shall not apply to the Commission. 

TITLE IV—TRIBAL JUSTICE SYSTEMS 

SEC. 401. INDIAN ALCOHOL AND SUBSTANCE ABUSE. 

(a) CORRECTION OF REFERENCES.— 

(1) INTER-DEPARTMENTAL MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT.—Section 4205 of 

the Indian Alcohol and Substance Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act of 1986 

(25 U.S.C. 2411) is amended— 

(A) in subsection (a)— 

(i) in the matter preceding paragraph (1)— 

(I) by striking ‘‘the date of enactment of this subtitle’’ and inserting ‘‘the date of enactment of the Tribal Law and Order Act of 

2009’’; and 

(II) by inserting ‘‘, the Attorney General,’’ after ‘‘Secretary of 

the Interior’’; 

(ii) in paragraph (2)(A), by inserting ‘‘, Bureau of Justice Assistance, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration,’’ 

after ‘‘Bureau of Indian Affairs,’’; 

(iii) in paragraph (4), by inserting ‘‘, Department of Justice, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration,’’ after ‘‘Bureau of Indian Affairs’’; 

(iv) in paragraph (5), by inserting ‘‘, Department of Justice, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration,’’ after ‘‘Bureau of Indian Affairs’’; 

20 

(v) in paragraph (7), by inserting ‘‘, the Attorney General,’’ after 

‘‘Secretary of the Interior’’; 

(B) in subsection (c), by inserting ‘‘, the Attorney General,’’ after ‘‘Secretary of the Interior’’; and 

(C) in subsection (d), by striking ‘‘the date of enactment of this subtitle’’ 

and inserting ‘‘the date of enactment of the Tribal Law and Order Act of 

2009’’. 

(2) TRIBAL ACTION PLANS.—Section 4206 of the Indian Alcohol and Substance Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act of 1986 (25 U.S.C. 2412) is amended— 

(A) in subsection (b), in the first sentence, by inserting ‘‘, the Bureau 

of Justice Assistance, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration,’’ before ‘‘and the Indian Health Service service unit’’; 

(B) in subsection (c)(1)(A)(i), by inserting ‘‘, the Bureau of Justice Assistance, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration,’’ 

before ‘‘and the Indian Health Service service unit’’; 

(C) in subsection (d)(2), by striking ‘‘fiscal year 1993 and such sums as 

are necessary for each of the fiscal years 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 

1999, and 2000’’ and inserting ‘‘the period of fiscal years 2010 through 

2014’’; 

(D) in subsection (e), in the first sentence, by inserting ‘‘, the Attorney 

General,’’ after ‘‘the Secretary of the Interior’’; and 

(E) in subsection (f)(3), by striking ‘‘fiscal year 1993 and such sums as 

are necessary for each of the fiscal years 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 

1999, and 2000’’ and inserting ‘‘the period of fiscal years 2010 through 

2014’’. 

(3) DEPARTMENTAL RESPONSIBILITY.—Section 4207 of the Indian Alcohol and 

Substance Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act of 1986 (25 U.S.C. 2413) is 

amended— 

(A) in subsection (a), by inserting ‘‘, the Attorney General’’ after ‘‘Bureau of Indian Affairs’’; 

(B) in subsection (b)— 

(i) by striking paragraph (1) and inserting the following: 

‘‘(1) ESTABLISHMENT.— 

‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—To improve coordination among the Federal agencies 

and departments carrying out this subtitle, there is established within the 

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration an office, to 

be known as the ‘Office of Indian Alcohol and Substance Abuse’ (referred 

to in this section as the ‘Office’). 

‘‘(B) DIRECTOR.—The director of the Office shall be appointed by the Director of the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration— 

‘‘(i) on a permanent basis; and 

‘‘(ii) at a grade of not less than GS–15 of the General Schedule.’’; 

(ii) in paragraph (2)— 

(I) by striking ‘‘(2) In addition’’ and inserting the following: 

‘‘(2) RESPONSIBILITIES OF OFFICE.—In addition’’; 

(II) by striking subparagraph (A) and inserting the following: 

‘‘(A) coordinating with other agencies to monitor the performance and 

compliance of the relevant Federal programs in achieving the goals and 

purposes of this subtitle and the Memorandum of Agreement entered into 

under section 4205;’’; 

(III) in subparagraph (B)— 

(aa) by striking ‘‘within the Bureau of Indian Affairs’’; and 

(bb) by striking the period at the end and inserting ‘‘; and’’; and 

(IV) by adding at the end the following: 

‘‘(C) not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of the Tribal Law 

and Order Act of 2009, developing, in coordination and consultation with 

tribal governments, a framework for interagency and tribal coordination 

that— 

‘‘(i) establish the goals and other desired outcomes of this Act; 

‘‘(ii) prioritizes outcomes that are aligned with the purposes of affected agencies; 

‘‘(iii) provides guidelines for resource and information sharing; 

‘‘(iv) provides technical assistance to the affected agencies to establish effective and permanent interagency communication and coordination; and 

21 

‘‘(v) determines whether collaboration is feasible, cost-effective, and 

within agency capability.’’; and 

(iii) by striking paragraph (3) and inserting the following: 

‘‘(3) APPOINTMENT OF EMPLOYEES.—The Director of the Substance Abuse 

and Mental Health Services Administration shall appoint such employees to 

work in the Office, and shall provide such funding, services, and equipment, as 

may be necessary to enable the Office to carry out the responsibilities under 

this subsection.’’; and 

(C) in subsection (c)— 

(i) by striking ‘‘of Alcohol and Substance Abuse’’ each place it appears; 

(ii) in paragraph (1), in the second sentence, by striking ‘‘The Assistant Secretary of the Interior for Indian Affairs’’ and inserting ‘‘The 

Director of the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration’’; and 

(iii) in paragraph (3)— 

(I) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A), by striking 

‘‘Youth’’ and inserting ‘‘youth’’; and 

(II) by striking ‘‘programs of the Bureau of Indian Affairs’’ and 

inserting ‘‘the applicable Federal programs’’. 

(4) REVIEW OF PROGRAMS.—Section 4208a(a) of the Indian Alcohol and Substance Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act of 1986 (25 U.S.C. 2414a(a)) is 

amended in the matter preceding paragraph (1) by inserting ‘‘, the Attorney 

General,’’ after ‘‘the Secretary of the Interior’’. 

(5) FEDERAL FACILITIES, PROPERTY, AND EQUIPMENT.—Section 4209 of the 

Indian Alcohol and Substance Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act of 1986 (25 

U.S.C. 2415) is amended— 

(A) in subsection (a), by inserting ‘‘, the Attorney General,’’ after ‘‘the 

Secretary of the Interior’’; 

(B) in subsection (b)— 

(i) in the first sentence, by inserting ‘‘, the Attorney General,’’ after 

‘‘the Secretary of the Interior’’; 

(ii) in the second sentence, by inserting ‘‘, nor the Attorney General,’’ after ‘‘the Secretary of the Interior’’; and 

(iii) in the third sentence, by inserting ‘‘, the Department of Justice,’’ after ‘‘the Department of the Interior’’; and 

(C) in subsection (c)(1), by inserting ‘‘, the Attorney General,’’ after ‘‘the 

Secretary of the Interior’’. 

(6) NEWSLETTER.—Section 4210 of the Indian Alcohol and Substance Abuse 

Prevention and Treatment Act of 1986 (25 U.S.C. 2416) is amended— 

(A) in subsection (a), in the first sentence, by inserting ‘‘, the Attorney 

General,’’ after ‘‘the Secretary of the Interior’’; and 

(B) in subsection (b), by striking ‘‘fiscal year 1993 and such sums as 

may be necessary for each of the fiscal years 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 

1999, and 2000’’ and inserting ‘‘the period of fiscal years 2010 through 

2014’’. 

(7) REVIEW.—Section 4211(a) of the Indian Alcohol and Substance Abuse 

Prevention and Treatment Act of 1986 (25 U.S.C. 2431(a)) is amended in the 

matter preceding paragraph (1) by inserting ‘‘, the Attorney General,’’ after ‘‘the 

Secretary of the Interior’’. 

(b) INDIAN EDUCATION PROGRAMS.—Section 4212 of the Indian Alcohol and Substance Abuse Prevention Act of 1986 (25 U.S.C. 2432) is amended by striking subsection (a) and inserting the following: 

‘‘(a) SUMMER YOUTH PROGRAMS.— 

‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—The head of the Indian Alcohol and Substance Abuse 

Program, in coordination with the Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs, shall 

develop and implement programs in tribal schools and schools funded by the 

Bureau of Indian Education (subject to the approval of the local school board 

or contract school board) to determine the effectiveness of summer youth programs in advancing the purposes and goals of this Act. 

‘‘(2) COSTS.—The head of the Indian Alcohol and Substance Abuse Program 

and the Assistant Secretary shall defray all costs associated with the actual operation and support of the summer youth programs in a school from funds appropriated to carry out this subsection. 

‘‘(3) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out the programs under this subsection such sums as are necessary for each of fiscal years 2010 through 2014.’’. 

22 

(c) EMERGENCY SHELTERS.—Section 4213(e) of the Indian Alcohol and Substance 

Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act of 1986 (25 U.S.C. 2433(e)) is amended— 

(1) in paragraph (1), by striking ‘‘as may be necessary’’ and all that follows 

through the end of the paragraph and inserting ‘‘as are necessary for each of 

fiscal years 2010 through 2014.’’; (2) in paragraph (2), by striking ‘‘$7,000,000’’ and all that follows through the end of the paragraph and inserting ‘‘$10,000,000 for each of fiscal years 

2010 through 2014.’’; and 

(3) by indenting paragraphs (4) and (5) appropriately. 

(d) REVIEW OF PROGRAMS.—Section 4215(a) of the Indian Alcohol and Substance 

Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act of 1986 (25 U.S.C. 2441(a)) is amended by inserting ‘‘, the Attorney General,’’ after ‘‘the Secretary of the Interior’’. 

(e) ILLEGAL NARCOTICS TRAFFICKING; SOURCE ERADICATION.—Section 4216 of 

the Indian Alcohol and Substance Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act of 1986 (25 

U.S.C. 2442) is amended— 

(1) in subsection (a)— 

(A) in paragraph (1)— 

(i) in subparagraph (A), by striking the comma at the end and inserting a semicolon; 

(ii) in subparagraph (B), by striking ‘‘, and’’ at the end and inserting a semicolon; 

(iii) in subparagraph (C), by striking the period at the end and inserting ‘‘; and’’; and 

(iv) by adding at the end the following: 

‘‘(D) the Blackfeet Nation of Montana for the investigation and control 

of illegal narcotics traffic on the Blackfeet Indian Reservation along the border with Canada.’’; 

(B) in paragraph (2), by striking ‘‘United States Custom Service’’ and 

inserting ‘‘United States Customs and Border Protection’’; and 

(C) by striking paragraph (3) and inserting the following: 

‘‘(3) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this subsection such sums as are necessary for each of fiscal 

years 2010 through 2014.’’; and 

(2) in subsection (b)(2), by striking ‘‘as may be necessary’’ and all that follows through the end of the paragraph and inserting ‘‘as are necessary for each 

of fiscal years 2010 through 2014.’’. 

(f) LAW ENFORCEMENT AND JUDICIAL TRAINING.—Section 4218 of the Indian Alcohol and Substance Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act of 1986 (25 U.S.C. 2451) 

is amended— 

(1) by striking subsection (a) and inserting the following: 

‘‘(a) TRAINING PROGRAMS.— 

‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary of the Interior, in coordination with the 

Attorney General, the Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration, 

and the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, shall ensure, through 

the establishment of a new training program or by supplementing existing 

training programs, that all Bureau of Indian Affairs and tribal law enforcement 

and judicial personnel have access to training regarding— 

‘‘(A) the investigation and prosecution of offenses relating to illegal narcotics; and 

‘‘(B) alcohol and substance abuse prevention and treatment. 

‘‘(2) YOUTH-RELATED TRAINING.—Any training provided to Bureau of Indian 

Affairs or tribal law enforcement or judicial personnel under paragraph (1) shall 

include training in issues relating to youth alcohol and substance abuse prevention and treatment.’’; and 

(2) in subsection (b), by striking ‘‘as may be necessary’’ and all that follows 

through the end of the subsection and inserting ‘‘as are necessary for each of 

fiscal years 2010 through 2014.’’. 

(g) JUVENILE DETENTION CENTERS.—Section 4220 of the Indian Alcohol and 

Substance Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act of 1986 (25 U.S.C. 2453) is amended— 

(1) in subsection (a)— 

(A) by striking ‘‘The Secretary’’ the first place it appears and inserting 

the following: 

‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary’’; 

(B) in the second sentence, by striking ‘‘The Secretary shall’’ and inserting the following: 

‘‘(2) CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION.—The Secretary shall’’; and 

(C) by adding at the end the following: 

23 

‘‘(3) DEVELOPMENT OF PLAN.— ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment 

of this paragraph, the Secretary, the Director of the Substance Abuse and 

Mental Health Services Administration, the Director of the Indian Health 

Service, and the Attorney General, in consultation with tribal leaders and 

tribal justice officials, shall develop a long-term plan for the construction, 

renovation, and operation of Indian juvenile detention and treatment centers and alternatives to detention for juvenile offenders. 

‘‘(B) COORDINATION.—The plan under subparagraph (A) shall require 

the Bureau of Indian Education and the Indian Health Service to coordinate with tribal and Bureau of Indian Affairs juvenile detention centers to 

provide services to those centers.’’; and 

(2) in subsection (b)— 

(A) by striking ‘‘such sums as may be necessary for each of the fiscal 

years 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, and 2000’’ each place it appears 

and inserting ‘‘such sums as are necessary for each of fiscal years 2010 

through 2014’’; and 

(B) by indenting paragraph (2) appropriately. 

SEC. 402. INDIAN TRIBAL JUSTICE; TECHNICAL AND LEGAL ASSISTANCE. 

(a) INDIAN TRIBAL JUSTICE.— (1) BASE SUPPORT FUNDING.—Section 103(b) of the Indian Tribal Justice Act 

(25 U.S.C. 3613(b)) is amended by striking paragraph (2) and inserting the following: 

‘‘(2) the employment of tribal court personnel, including tribal court judges, 

prosecutors, public defenders, guardians ad litem, and court-appointed special 

advocates for children and juveniles;’’. 

(2) TRIBAL JUSTICE SYSTEMS.—Section 201 of the Indian Tribal Justice Act 

(25 U.S.C. 3621) is amended— 

(A) in subsection (a)— 

(i) by striking ‘‘the provisions of sections 101 and 102 of this Act’’ 

and inserting ‘‘sections 101 and 102’’; and 

(ii) by striking ‘‘the fiscal years 2000 through 2007’’ and inserting 

‘‘fiscal years 2010 through 2014’’; 

(B) in subsection (b)— 

(i) by striking ‘‘the provisions of section 103 of this Act’’ and inserting ‘‘section 103’’; and 

(ii) by striking ‘‘the fiscal years 2000 through 2007’’ and inserting 

‘‘fiscal years 2010 through 2014’’; 

(C) in subsection (c), by striking ‘‘the fiscal years 2000 through 2007’’ 

and inserting ‘‘fiscal years 2010 through 2014’’; and 

(D) in subsection (d), by striking ‘‘the fiscal years 2000 through 2007’’ 

and inserting ‘‘fiscal years 2010 through 2014’’. 

(b) TECHNICAL AND LEGAL ASSISTANCE.— (1) TRIBAL CIVIL LEGAL ASSISTANCE GRANTS.—Section 102 of the Indian 

Tribal Justice Technical and Legal Assistance Act of 2000 (25 U.S.C. 3662) is 

amended by inserting ‘‘(including guardians ad litem and court-appointed special advocates for children and juveniles)’’ after ‘‘civil legal assistance’’. 

(2) TRIBAL CRIMINAL LEGAL ASSISTANCE GRANTS.—Section 103 of the Indian 

Tribal Justice Technical and Legal Assistance Act of 2000 (25 U.S.C. 3663) is 

amended by striking ‘‘criminal legal assistance to members of Indian tribes and 

tribal justice systems’’ and inserting ‘‘criminal legal assistance services to all defendants subject to tribal court jurisdiction and judicial services for tribal 

courts’’. 

(3) FUNDING.—The Indian Tribal Justice Technical and Legal Assistance 

Act of 2000 is amended— 

(A) in section 106 (25 U.S.C. 3666), by striking ‘‘2000 through 2004’’ 

and inserting ‘‘2010 through 2014’’; and 

(B) in section 201(d) (25 U.S.C. 3681(d)), by striking ‘‘2000 through 

2004’’ and inserting ‘‘2010 through 2014’’. 

SEC. 403. TRIBAL RESOURCES GRANT PROGRAM. 

Section 1701 of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 

U.S.C. 3796dd) is amended— 

(1) in subsection (b)— 

(A) in each of paragraphs (1) through (4) and (6) through (17), by inserting ‘‘to’’ after the paragraph designation; 

(B) in paragraph (1), by striking ‘‘State and’’ and inserting ‘‘State, tribal, or’’; 

24 

(C) in paragraphs (9) and (10), by inserting ‘‘, tribal,’’ after ‘‘State’’ each 

place it appears; 

(D) in paragraph (15)— 

(i) by striking ‘‘a State in’’ and inserting ‘‘a State or Indian tribe 

in’’; 

(ii) by striking ‘‘the State which’’ and inserting ‘‘the State or tribal 

community that’’; and 

(iii) by striking ‘‘a State or’’ and inserting ‘‘a State, tribal, or’’; 

(E) in paragraph (16), by striking ‘‘and’’ at the end 

(F) in paragraph (17), by striking the period at the end and inserting 

‘‘; and’’; 

(G) by redesignating paragraphs (6) through (17) as paragraphs (5) 

through (16), respectively; and 

(H) by adding at the end the following: 

‘‘(17) to permit tribal governments receiving direct law enforcement services 

from the Bureau of Indian Affairs to access the program under this section on 

behalf of the Bureau for use in accordance with paragraphs (1) through (16).’’. 

(2) in subsection (i), by striking ‘‘The authority’’ and inserting ‘‘Except as 

provided in subsection (j), the authority’’; and 

(3) by adding at the end the following: 

‘‘(j) GRANTS TO INDIAN TRIBES.— 

‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding subsection (i) and section 1703, and in 

acknowledgment of the Federal nexus and distinct Federal responsibility to address and prevent crime in Indian country, the Attorney General shall provide 

grants under this section to Indian tribal governments, for fiscal year 2010 and 

any fiscal year thereafter, for such period as the Attorney General determines 

to be appropriate to assist the Indian tribal governments in carrying out the 

purposes described in subsection (b). 

‘‘(2) PRIORITY OF FUNDING.—In providing grants to Indian tribal governments under this subsection, the Attorney General shall take into consideration 

reservation crime rates and tribal law enforcement staffing needs of each Indian 

tribal government. 

‘‘(3) FEDERAL SHARE.—Because of the Federal nature and responsibility for 

providing public safety on Indian land, the Federal share of the cost of any activity carried out using a grant under this subsection shall be 100 percent. 

‘‘(4) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as are necessary to carry out this subsection for each of fiscal 

years 2010 through 2014. 

‘‘(k) REPORT.—Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this subsection, the Attorney General shall submit to Congress a report describing the extent and effectiveness of the Community Oriented Policing (COPS) initiative as applied in Indian country, including particular references to— 

‘‘(1) the problem of intermittent funding; 

‘‘(2) the integration of COPS personnel with existing law enforcement authorities; and 

‘‘(3) an explanation of how the practice of community policing and the broken windows theory can most effectively be applied in remote tribal locations.’’. 

SEC. 404. TRIBAL JAILS PROGRAM. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—Section 20109 of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (42 U.S.C. 13709) is amended by striking subsection (a) and inserting the following: 

‘‘(a) RESERVATION OF FUNDS.—Notwithstanding any other provision of this part, 

of amounts made available to the Attorney General to carry out programs relating 

to offender incarceration, the Attorney General shall reserve $35,000,000 for each 

of fiscal years 2010 through 2014 to carry out this section.’’. 

(b) REGIONAL DETENTION CENTERS.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—Section 20109 of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (42 U.S.C. 13709) is amended by striking subsection (b) 

and inserting the following: 

‘‘(b) GRANTS TO INDIAN TRIBES.— 

‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—From the amounts reserved under subsection (a), the Attorney General shall provide grants— 

‘‘(A) to Indian tribes for purposes of— 

‘‘(i) construction and maintenance of jails on Indian land for the incarceration of offenders subject to tribal jurisdiction; 

‘‘(ii) entering into contracts with private entities to increase the efficiency of the construction of tribal jails; and 

25 

‘‘(iii) developing and implementing alternatives to incarceration in 

tribal jails; 

‘‘(B) to Indian tribes for the construction of tribal justice centers that 

combine tribal police, courts, and corrections services to address violations 

of tribal civil and criminal laws; 

‘‘(C) to consortia of Indian tribes for purposes of constructing and operating regional detention centers on Indian land for long-term incarceration 

of offenders subject to tribal jurisdiction, as the applicable consortium determines to be appropriate. 

‘‘(2) PRIORITY OF FUNDING.—in providing grants under this subsection, the 

Attorney General shall take into consideration applicable— 

‘‘(A) reservation crime rates; 

‘‘(B) annual tribal court convictions; and 

‘‘(C) bed space needs. 

‘‘(3) FEDERAL SHARE.—Because of the Federal nature and responsibility for 

providing public safety on Indian land, the Federal share of the cost of any activity carried out using a grant under this subsection shall be 100 percent.’’. 

(2) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—Section 20109(c) of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (42 U.S.C. 13709(c)) is amended by inserting ‘‘or consortium of Indian tribes, as applicable,’’ after ‘‘Indian tribe’’. 

(3) LONG-TERM PLAN.—Section 20109 of the Violent Crime Control and Law 

Enforcement Act of 1994 (42 U.S.C. 13709) is amended by adding at the end 

the following: 

‘‘(d) LONG-TERM PLAN.—Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of 

this subsection, the Attorney General, in coordination with the Bureau of Indian Affairs and in consultation with tribal leaders, tribal law enforcement officers, and 

tribal corrections officials, shall submit to Congress a long-term plan to address incarceration in Indian country, including a description of— 

‘‘(1) proposed activities for construction of detention facilities (including regional facilities) on Indian land; 

‘‘(2) proposed activities for construction of additional Federal detention facilities on Indian land; 

‘‘(3) proposed activities for contracting with State and local detention centers, with tribal government approval; 

‘‘(4) proposed alternatives to incarceration, developed in cooperation with 

tribal court systems; and 

‘‘(5) such other alternatives as the Attorney General, in coordination with 

the Bureau of Indian Affairs and in consultation with Indian tribes, determines 

to be necessary.’’. 

SEC. 405. TRIBAL PROBATION OFFICE LIAISON PROGRAM. 

Title II of the Indian Tribal Justice Technical and Legal Assistance Act of 2000 

(25 U.S.C. 3681 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following: 

‘‘SEC. 203. ASSISTANT PAROLE AND PROBATION OFFICERS. 

‘‘To the maximum extent practicable, the Director of the Administrative Office 

of the United States Courts, in coordination with the Office of Tribal Justice and 

the Director of the Office of Justice Services, shall— 

‘‘(1) appoint individuals residing in Indian country to serve as assistant parole or probation officers for purposes of monitoring and providing service to 

Federal prisoners residing in Indian country; and 

‘‘(2) provide substance abuse, mental health, and other related treatment 

services to offenders residing on Indian land.’’. 

SEC. 406. TRIBAL YOUTH PROGRAM. 

(a) INCENTIVE GRANTS FOR LOCAL DELINQUENCY PREVENTION PROGRAMS.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—Section 504 of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5783) is amended— 

(A) in subsection (a), by inserting ‘‘, or to Indian tribes under subsection 

(d)’’ after ‘‘subsection (b)’’; and 

(B) by adding at the end the following: 

‘‘(d) GRANTS FOR TRIBAL DELINQUENCY PREVENTION AND RESPONSE PROGRAMS.— 

‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—The Administrator shall make grants under this section, 

on a competitive basis, to eligible Indian tribes or consortia of Indian tribes, as 

described in paragraph (2)— 

‘‘(A) to support and enhance— 

‘‘(i) tribal juvenile delinquency prevention services; and 

26 

‘‘(ii) the ability of Indian tribes to respond to, and care for, juvenile 

offenders; and 

‘‘(B) to encourage accountability of Indian tribal governments with respect to preventing juvenile delinquency and responding to, and caring for, 

juvenile offenders. 

‘‘(2) ELIGIBLE INDIAN TRIBES.—To be eligible to receive a grant under this 

subsection, an Indian tribe or consortium of Indian tribes shall submit to the 

Administrator an application in such form and containing such information as 

the Administrator may require. 

‘‘(3) PRIORITY OF FUNDING.—In providing grants under this subsection, the 

Administrator shall take into consideration, with respect to the reservation communities to be served— 

‘‘(A) juvenile crime rates; 

‘‘(B) dropout rates; and 

‘‘(C) percentage of at-risk youth.’’. 

(2) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—Section 505 of the Juvenile Justice 

and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5784) is amended by striking ‘‘fiscal years 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, and 2008’’ and inserting ‘‘each of fiscal 

years 2010 through 2014’’. 

(b) COORDINATING COUNCIL ON JUVENILE JUSTICE AND DELINQUENCY PREVENTION.—Section 206(a)(2) of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 

1974 (42 U.S.C. 5616(a)(2)) is amended— 

(1) in subparagraph (A), by striking ‘‘Nine’’ and inserting ‘‘Ten’’; and 

(2) in subparagraph (B), by adding at the end the following: 

‘‘(iv) One member shall be appointed by the Chairman of the Committee on Indian Affairs of the Senate, in consultation with the Vice 

Chairman of that Committee.’’. 

TITLE V—INDIAN COUNTRY CRIME DATA 

COLLECTION AND INFORMATION SHARING 

SEC. 501. TRACKING OF CRIMES COMMITTED IN INDIAN COUNTRY. 

(a) GANG VIOLENCE.—Section 1107 of the Violence Against Women and Department of Justice Reauthorization Act of 2005 (28 U.S.C. 534 note; Public Law 109– 

162) is amended— 

(1) in subsection (a)— 

(A) by redesignating paragraphs (8) through (12) as paragraphs (9) 

through (13), respectively; 

(B) by inserting after paragraph (7) the following: 

‘‘(8) the Office of Justice Services of the Bureau of Indian Affairs;’’; 

(C) in paragraph (9) (as redesignated by subparagraph (A)), by striking 

‘‘State’’ and inserting ‘‘tribal, State,’’; and 

(D) in paragraphs (10) through (12) (as redesignated by subparagraph 

(A)), by inserting ‘‘tribal,’’ before ‘‘State,’’ each place it appears; and 

(2) in subsection (b), by inserting ‘‘tribal,’’ before ‘‘State,’’ each place it appears. 

(b) BUREAU OF JUSTICE STATISTICS.—Section 302 of the Omnibus Crime Control 

and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3732) is amended— 

(1) in subsection (c)— 

(A) in paragraph (1), by inserting ‘‘, Indian tribes,’’ after ‘‘contracts 

with’’; 

(B) in each of paragraphs (3) through (6), by inserting ‘‘tribal,’’ after 

‘‘State,’’ each place it appears; 

(C) in paragraph (7), by inserting ‘‘and in Indian country’’ after 

‘‘States’’; 

(D) in paragraph (9), by striking ‘‘Federal and State Governments’’ and 

inserting ‘‘Federal Government and State and tribal governments’’; 

(E) in each of paragraphs (10) and (11), by inserting ‘‘, tribal,’’ after 

‘‘State’’ each place it appears; 

(F) in paragraph (13), by inserting ‘‘, Indian tribes,’’ after ‘‘States’’; 

(G) in paragraph (17)— 

(i) by striking ‘‘State and local’’ and inserting ‘‘State, tribal, and 

local’’; and 

(ii) by striking ‘‘State, and local’’ and inserting ‘‘State, tribal, and 

local’’; 

27 

(H) in paragraph (18), by striking ‘‘State and local’’ and inserting 

‘‘State, tribal, and local’’; 

(I) in paragraph (19), by inserting ‘‘and tribal’’ after ‘‘State’’ each place 

it appears; 

(J) in paragraph (20), by inserting ‘‘, tribal,’’ after ‘‘State’’; and 

(K) in paragraph (22), by inserting ‘‘, tribal,’’ after ‘‘Federal’’; 

(2) in subsection (d)— 

(A) by redesignating paragraphs (1) through (6) as subparagraphs (A) 

through (F), respectively, and indenting the subparagraphs appropriately; 

(B) by striking ‘‘To insure’’ and inserting the following: 

‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—To ensure’’; and 

(C) by adding at the end the following: 

‘‘(2) CONSULTATION WITH INDIAN TRIBES.—The Director, acting jointly with 

the Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs (acting through the Director of the 

Office of Law Enforcement Services) and the Director of the Federal Bureau of 

Investigation, shall work with Indian tribes and tribal law enforcement agencies 

to establish and implement such tribal data collection systems as the Director 

determines to be necessary to achieve the purposes of this section.’’; 

(3) in subsection (e), by striking ‘‘subsection (d)(3)’’ and inserting ‘‘subsection (d)(1)(C)’’; 

(4) in subsection (f)— 

(A) in the subsection heading, by inserting ‘‘, Tribal,’’ after ‘‘State’’; and 

(B) by inserting ‘‘, tribal,’’ after ‘‘State’’; and 

(5) by adding at the end the following: 

‘‘(g) REPORT TO CONGRESS ON CRIMES IN INDIAN COUNTRY.—Not later than 1 

year after the date of enactment of this subsection, and annually thereafter, the Director shall submit to Congress a report describing the data collected and analyzed 

under this section relating to crimes in Indian country.’’. 

SEC. 502. GRANTS TO IMPROVE TRIBAL DATA COLLECTION SYSTEMS. 

Section 3 of the Indian Law Enforcement Reform Act (25 U.S.C. 2802) is 

amended by adding at the end the following: 

‘‘(f) GRANTS TO IMPROVE TRIBAL DATA COLLECTION SYSTEMS.— ‘‘(1) GRANT PROGRAM.—The Secretary, acting through the Director of the Office of Justice Services of the Bureau and in coordination with the Attorney 

General, shall establish a program under which the Secretary shall provide 

grants to Indian tribes for activities to ensure uniformity in the collection and 

analysis of data relating to crime in Indian country. 

‘‘(2) REGULATIONS.—The Secretary, acting through the Director of the Office 

of Justice Services of the Bureau, in consultation with tribal governments and 

tribal justice officials, shall promulgate such regulations as are necessary to 

carry out the grant program under this subsection.’’. 

SEC. 503. CRIMINAL HISTORY RECORD IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM. 

Section 1301(a) of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 

U.S.C. 3796h(a)) is amended by inserting ‘‘, tribal,’’ after ‘‘State’’. 

TITLE VI—DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AND SEXUAL 

ASSAULT PROSECUTION AND PREVENTION 

SEC. 601. PRISONER RELEASE AND REENTRY. 

Section 4042 of title 18, United States Code, is amended— 

(1) in subsection (a)(4), by inserting ‘‘, tribal,’’ after ‘‘State’’; 

(2) in subsection (b)(1), in the first sentence, by striking ‘‘officer of the State 

and of the local jurisdiction’’ and inserting ‘‘officers of each State, tribal, and 

local jurisdiction’’; and 

(3) in subsection (c)— 

(A) in paragraph (1)— 

(i) in subparagraph (A), by striking ‘‘officer of the State and of the 

local jurisdiction’’ and inserting ‘‘officers of each State, tribal, and local 

jurisdiction’’; and 

(ii) in subparagraph (B), by inserting ‘‘, tribal,’’ after ‘‘State’’ each 

place it appears; and 

(B) in paragraph (2)— 

(i) by striking ‘‘(2) Notice’’ and inserting the following: 

‘‘(2) REQUIREMENTS.— 

‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—A notice’’; 

28 

(ii) in the second sentence, by striking ‘‘For a person who is released’’ and inserting the following: 

‘‘(B) RELEASED PERSONS.—For a person who is released’’; 

(iii) in the third sentence, by striking ‘‘For a person who is sentenced’’ and inserting the following: 

‘‘(C) PERSONS ON PROBATION.—For a person who is sentenced’’; 

(iv) in the fourth sentence, by striking ‘‘Notice concerning’’ and inserting the following: 

‘‘(D) RELEASED PERSONS REQUIRED TO REGISTER.— 

‘‘(i) IN GENERAL.—A notice concerning’’; and 

(v) in subparagraph (D) (as designated by clause (iv)), by adding at 

the end the following: 

‘‘(ii) PERSONS RESIDING IN INDIAN COUNTRY.—For a person described in paragraph (3) the expected place of residence of whom is potentially located in Indian country, the Director of the Bureau of Prisons or the Director of the Administrative Office of the United States 

Courts, as appropriate, shall— 

‘‘(I) make all reasonable and necessary efforts to determine 

whether the residence of the person is located in Indian country; 

and 

‘‘(II) ensure that the person is registered with the law enforcement office of each appropriate jurisdiction before release from 

Federal custody.’’. 

SEC. 602. DOMESTIC AND SEXUAL VIOLENT OFFENSE TRAINING. 

Section 3(c)(9) of the Indian Law Enforcement Reform Act (25 U.S.C. 2802(c)(9)) 

(as amended by section 101(a)(2)) is amended by inserting before the semicolon at 

the end the following: ‘‘, including training to properly interview victims of domestic 

and sexual violence and to collect, preserve, and present evidence to Federal and 

tribal prosecutors to increase the conviction rate for domestic and sexual violence 

offenses for purposes of addressing and preventing domestic and sexual violent offenses’’. 

SEC. 603. TESTIMONY BY FEDERAL EMPLOYEES IN CASES OF RAPE AND SEXUAL ASSAULT. 

The Indian Law Enforcement Reform Act (25 U.S.C. 2801 et seq.) is amended 

by adding at the end the following: 

‘‘SEC. 11. TESTIMONY BY FEDERAL EMPLOYEES IN CASES OF RAPE AND SEXUAL ASSAULT. 

‘‘(a) APPROVAL OF EMPLOYEE TESTIMONY.—The Director of the Office of Justice 

Services or the Director of the Indian Health Service, as appropriate (referred to in 

this section as the ‘Director concerned’), shall approve or disapprove, in writing, any 

request or subpoena for a law enforcement officer, sexual assault nurse examiner, 

or other employee under the supervision of the Director concerned to provide testimony in a deposition, trial, or other similar proceeding regarding information obtained in carrying out the official duties of the employee. 

‘‘(b) REQUIREMENT.—The Director concerned shall approve a request or subpoena under subsection (a) if the request or subpoena does not violate the policy of 

the Department of the Interior to maintain strict impartiality with respect to private causes of action. 

‘‘(c) TREATMENT.—If the Director concerned fails to approve or disapprove a request or subpoena by the date that is 30 days after the date of receipt of the request 

or subpoena, the request or subpoena shall be considered to be approved for purposes of this section.’’. 

SEC. 604. COORDINATION OF FEDERAL AGENCIES. 

The Indian Law Enforcement Reform Act (25 U.S.C. 2801 et seq.) (as amended 

by section 603) is amended by adding at the end the following: 

‘‘SEC. 12. COORDINATION OF FEDERAL AGENCIES. 

‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary, in coordination with the Attorney General, 

Federal and tribal law enforcement agencies, the Indian Health Service, and domestic violence or sexual assault victim organizations, shall develop appropriate victim 

services and victim advocate training programs— 

‘‘(1) to improve domestic violence or sexual abuse responses; 

‘‘(2) to improve forensic examinations and collection; 

‘‘(3) to identify problems or obstacles in the prosecution of domestic violence 

or sexual abuse; and 

‘‘(4) to meet other needs or carry out other activities required to prevent, 

treat, and improve prosecutions of domestic violence and sexual abuse. 

29 

‘‘(b) REPORT.—Not later than 2 years after the date of enactment of this section, 

the Secretary shall submit to the Committee on Indian Affairs of the Senate and 

the Committee on Natural Resources of the House of Representatives a report that 

describes, with respect to the matters described in subsection (a), the improvements 

made and needed, problems or obstacles identified, and costs necessary to address 

the problems or obstacles, and any other recommendations that the Secretary determines to be appropriate.’’. 

SEC. 605. SEXUAL ASSAULT PROTOCOL. 

Title VIII of the Indian Health Care Improvement Act is amended by inserting 

after section 802 (25 U.S.C. 1672) the following: 

‘‘SEC. 803. POLICIES AND PROTOCOL. 

‘‘The Director of Service, in coordination with the Director of the Office on Violence Against Women of the Department of Justice, in consultation with Indian 

Tribes and Tribal Organizations, and in conference with Urban Indian Organizations, shall develop standardized sexual assault policies and protocol for the facilities of the Service, based on similar protocol that has been established by the Department of Justice.’’. 

Æ 

Mr. SCOTT. It is now my pleasure to recognize the acting Ranking Member of the Subcommittee, gentleman from California, Mr. 

Lungren. 

Mr. LUNGREN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I am sitting 

here in the stead of Mr. Gohmert, who will be here shortly. Unfortunately I am a Member of the Task Force on Impeachment and 

we are considering the impeachment of a Federal judge from Louisiana, and we have another hearing that I must attend a little bit 

later. 

But I thank you for having this hearing examining H.R. 1924, 

the ‘‘Tribal Law and Order Act of 2009.’’ As I recall, this, I believe, 

is the first hearing the Subcommittee has held on the issue of 

criminal law enforcement in Indian country in some time. I don’t 

recall a hearing this year or last year. 

And so I am very pleased that we are doing this. It is a matter 

this Subcommittee needs to spend time on as the rising crime rate 

and apparent inadequate law enforcement on Indian reservations 

have been a serious concern for many years. 

As the former attorney general of California and a Member 

whose district contains Indian country I have some familiarity with 

tribal issues. There are 564 federally-recognized tribes in the 

United States comprised of 1.9 million American Indians and Alaska Natives, with tribal lands covering about 56 million acres in the 

continental United States. 

But Indian country is disparate country. What I mean by that is 

there are very many differences. In California we have—I believe 

it is now over 110 maybe approaching 120 different recognized 

tribes and bands, most of which live on small parcels of land— 

rancherias—very different than what you find in some other States 

that have large expanses. 

We are a PL 280 State, as the gentleman suggested, with general 

criminal supervision law enforcement by State law. And there may 

be gaps there but I think that that is not a bad model and I am 

very interested in how this—the changes intended in this law 

might impact our State. 

30 

Concurrent jurisdiction sometimes is an additional protection. I 

would not want to see it, though, advanced in a certain way that 

would interfere with prompt and timely investigation and prosecution of crimes by local jurisdiction under State law, as is currently 

the case, if there is no problem there. 

As you stated, the jurisdiction over criminal matters in Indian 

country is a responsibility shared by tribal, State, and Federal law 

enforcement officials in a very complex manner. In fact, the reservation that is in one of my counties crosses over State lines. 

A good part of the land is in Nevada; some of the land is in California. I believe more of the members of that tribe actually live in 

Nevada than in California. 

I have worked in the past on how we deal with cross-jurisdictional matters and how we try and work with the tribal law enforcement in conjunction with local law enforcement. It is not an 

easy question and I believe it is important for us to have these 

kinds of hearings to understand what is done. 

Sometimes you have peculiar circumstances. I recall at one point 

in time in California when the Federal Government was not enforcing the laws dealing with gambling, and the interesting thing was 

that local law enforcement could go in and do general prosecution 

on Indian lands but they could not do anything with respect to illegal gambling on the Indian lands. 

And so you had the anomalous situation where a local sheriff 

would go in if there were an act of violence at a gambling establishment on the lands but could do nothing about illegal gambling that 

was going on there. I mean, those things have been sorted out better, but it just shows you the confusion that can arise when you 

have concurrent jurisdiction. And in some cases the result was an 

inability or a failure to enforce laws at all. 

And so this is a very interesting, very important thing for us to 

talk about. And one of the things that we need to do is to make 

sure our colleagues when we deal with this issue understand the 

unique status that tribes have. They hold a unique status of a dependent, domestic, sovereign nation within the United States. Nobody else has that. 

As a result, many Members don’t understand why we have these 

kinds of conflicts of law and why our examination is necessary. So 

I thank the Chairman for bringing us to this point and I am very 

interested in looking at the material. And I promise that while I 

might have to leave for a good portion of this for the impeachment 

proceedings I will examine this information and follow this, and 

hopefully work with you and others so that we can come to completion on this. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. 

Our first panel consists of the sponsor of H.R. 1924, the 

gentlelady from South Dakota, Ms. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin. She 

is the at-large Member from South Dakota and is serving her 

fourth term. 

She serves on the Committees on Agriculture, Veterans’ Affairs, 

and Natural Resources, and chairs the Veterans’ Affairs Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity. She also serves on the Select 

Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming. 

Ms. Herseth Sandlin, it is good to see you. You know the drill. 

31 

TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE STEPHANIE HERSETH 

SANDLIN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE 

STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. Thank you very much, Chairman Scott, 

for holding today’s hearing and for your interest in the Tribal Law 

and Order Act and for allowing me to testify in support of this legislation. 

I want to thank Mr. Lungren for his comments and his understanding and perspective as it relates to the impact of law enforcement across the country and the different tribes that we represent. 

As South Dakota’s lone Member of the U.S. House of Representatives, I have the privilege of representing nine sovereign Sioux 

tribes. The Tribal Law and Order Act is a bipartisan and bicameral 

initiative to improve coordination among tribal, State, and Federal 

law enforcement agencies and increase accountability standards. 

Senator Byron Dorgan, who is Chairman of the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, has introduced nearly identical legislation 

in the Senate that has been approved by the Committee, and President Obama announced at the Tribal Nations Conference held in 

Washington, D.C., here last month that, ‘‘I support the Tribal Law 

and Order Act and look forward to Congress passing it so I can 

sign it into law.’’ 

I would especially like to thank the U.S. Department of Justice 

and Attorney General Holder for the priority the Department has 

given to tribal justice issues. The department held a tribal nations 

listening session on public safety and law enforcement in Minneapolis in October on other places across the country, which, together with the Tribal Nations Summit in Washington, DC, and 

DOJ’s ongoing efforts to work with Congress to fashion the very 

best tribal law and order bill, that demonstrates the President and 

his Administration’s commitment to working with tribes on law enforcement priorities that we share in common. 

I am very glad to see that Associate Attorney General Tom 

Perrelli is here today to testify, and I thank him for all of the initiative and attention that he himself has given and devoted to 

these issues throughout his career, including speaking at the listening session in Minneapolis and the Tribal Nations Summit. I am 

particularly pleased at his candor that the Federal Government 

must do better and that he is experienced working with large, landbased tribes, like the Oglala Sioux tribes in South Dakota. 

As you know, the Federal Government has a unique relationship 

with the 562 federally-recognized American Indian and Alaska Native tribes. This government-to-government relationship is established by our founders in the U.S. Constitution, recognized by hundreds of treaties, and reaffirmed through executive orders, judicial 

decisions, and congressional action. Fundamentally, this relationship establishes the responsibilities to be carried out by one sovereign to the other. 

Native American family, like all families in our country, deserve 

a basic sense of safety and security in their community. Law enforcement is one of the Federal Government’s trust obligations to 

federally-recognized tribes. Yet, as the tribes across the country 

know all too well, on many counts we are failing to meet that obligation and have done so for too many years. 

32 

For instance, as the Chairman noted in his opening remarks, 

Amnesty International has reported that American Indian and 

Alaska Native women are more than two and a half times more 

likely to be raped or sexually assaulted than women in the United 

States in general. Yet, the majority of those crimes go unpunished. 

Moreover, fewer than 3,000 law enforcement officers patrol more 

than 56 million acres of Indian country. That reflects less than one 

half of the law enforcement presence in comparable rural communities. 

The situation is particularly challenging—I think Mr. Lungren 

noted—for large, land-based reservations in South Dakota and elsewhere. The kinds of problems that arise include the case of a young 

woman living on the Pine Ridge reservation who had received a restraining order for an ex-boyfriend who had battered her. One 

night she was home alone and woke up as he attempted to break 

into her home with a crow bar. 

She immediately called the police, but due to a lack of landlines 

for telephones and spotty cell phone coverage the call was cut off 

three times before she could report the situation to the dispatcher. 

The nearest officer was over 40 miles away. 

Even though the police officer who took the call started driving 

to her home at 80 miles an hour on roads that the quality of 

which—well, if you traveled those roads you would understand why 

traveling over 60 miles an hour is a hazard and the high incidence 

of traffic accidents that we have and deaths that result. But even 

with his efforts, by the time he arrived the woman was severely 

bloodied and beaten and the perpetrator had escaped. 

In addition to the situations faced by victims of violent crime 

these officers frequently have no backup. And again, just to put the 

expansive nature of this territory into perspective, just the Cheyenne River Sioux tribe that I represent their reservation is comparable to the size of the State of Connecticut. 

The Tribal Law and Order Act would improve law enforcement 

efforts in Indian country by clarifying the responsibilities of Federal, State, tribal, and local governments with respect to crimes 

committed on tribal—in tribal communities. It would increase coordination and communication among Federal, State, tribal, and 

local law enforcement agencies. 

It would empower tribal governments with the authority, resources, and information necessary to effectively provide for the 

public safety in tribal communities, reduce the prevalence of violent crime in tribal communities, and combat violence against Indian and Alaska Native women. 

It would target youth prevention by authorizing funding for summer education programs and at-risk youth treatment centers, address and prevent drug trafficking and reduce rates of alcohol and 

drug addiction in Indian country, and increase and standardize the 

collection of criminal data and the sharing of criminal history information among State, Federal, and tribal officials responsible for responding to and investigating crimes in tribal communities. 

One example of an improvement the bill would make is the provision for special law enforcement commissions. Currently only 

Federal agents, such as the FBI, can make arrests for rapes on reservations in cases in which the perpetrator is non-Indian. In many 

33 

cases those FBI officers can be hundreds of miles from a reservation. 

A provision in this bill would expand a training program to give 

special law enforcement commissions to tribal law enforcement officers. With this special commission a tribal law enforcement officer 

can be federally deputized to arrest any person on tribal land who 

commits a Federal crime such as rape, murder, or drug trafficking. 

The bill also streamlines the process for IHS officials to testify 

in criminal cases, such as rape or sexual assault cases, before a 

tribal court. In order for an IHS official or BIA officer to answer 

a subpoena to testify in court approval must be given by someone 

in Washington, D.C. 

The result is that some tribal court criminal cases are dropped 

because the person who conducted the rape examination or the officer who answered the distress call doesn’t show up in tribal court. 

That would be changed so that if approval isn’t given within 30 

days the request to testify will be considered approved. 

By expanding training programs to grant tribal law enforcement 

officers authority to arrest all suspects of crime on tribal land and 

making it easier for IHS experts to testify in court we can slow the 

flood of crimes that go unpunished. 

While there will be no simple or quick fix, this comprehensive 

legislation is a step in the right direction. By passing this legislation we will make important strides in improving law enforcement 

in Indian country during this Congress. 

I thank you again, Chairman Scott, for this opportunity to testify 

on behalf of the Tribal Law and Order Act of 2009 and for helping 

to advance this important bill on behalf of the tribal communities 

across Indian country that are in desperate need of improved law 

enforcement. 

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

34 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE STEPHANIE HERSETH SANDLIN


SHS-1.eps
35 


SHS-2.eps
36 


SHS-3.eps
37 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you very much. Thank you. 

Are there any questions? 

Thank you. And we will be proceeding with the next panel. 

Thank you for your sponsorship of this, Ms. Herseth Sandlin. 

And we will next call our next witness. The next panel consists 

of the Associate Attorney General in the United States Department 

of Justice, Tom Perrelli. 


SHS-4.eps
38 

As the third ranking official in the department he oversees what 

is traditionally described as the Department’s civil litigations component. He also receives much of the Department’s work supporting State, local, and tribal law enforcement efforts. He graduated from Harvard Law School magna cum laude and is serving 

his sixth tour in the Department of Justice. 

Mr. Perrelli? 

TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE THOMAS J. PERRELLI, ASSOCIATE ATTORNEY GENERAL, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT 

OF JUSTICE, WASHINGTON, DC 

Mr. PERRELLI. Good morning, Chairman Scott, Acting Ranking 

Member Lungren, and Members of the Subcommittee. Thank you 

for having me here today to testify about the Tribal Law and Order 

Act of 2009. 

It is an important area and I would like to thank Representative 

Herseth Sandlin for her leadership in this area. 

And I also want to thank the Committee for taking on this issue. 

By any standard we have an enormous public safety problem in 

Indian country. As those who have worked in Indian country know 

and as Congressman Lungren said, enforcing the law is complicated, due to jurisdictional complexities, lack of resources, and 

the basic challenge—in many locations—that comes from distance. 

And the challenges of enforcing the law in California are different 

from those in South Dakota, and different again from those in 

Alaska. 

But I want to make something clear: We need to make Indian 

country safer, and I think we can do so. The problems today are 

severe. 

American Indians and Alaska Natives suffer from violent crime 

at far greater rates than other Americans. Some tribes have experienced crime rates of two, three, four, even ten times the national 

average. 

Violence against native women and children is a particular problem, with some counties facing murder rates of native women well 

over 10 times the national average. Reservation and clinic research 

show that there are high rates of intimate partner violence, and 

those levels of violence have continued for years. 

The leadership of the Justice Department is absolutely committed to doing better. The Federal Government has a trust responsibility to Native Americans, and the reality is that in many 

Indian communities, the Federal Government has the primary law 

enforcement role. But in that role we are also partners with tribal 

prosecutors, law enforcement, courts, victim services providers, and 

with State and local authorities. 

All of us need to work together more effectively to improve the 

lives of Native Americans and make those communities safer. The 

Tribal Law and Order bill is key to this effort because it focuses 

on a number of critical areas, including building tribal capacity to 

play an increasing role in public safety, encouraging partnership 

and communication among tribal, State, and Federal actors, addressing the violence against native women that has devastated 

many communities, and reauthorizing important programs that address public safety and improve the lives of tribal youth. 

39 

Now as I have said, the Department of Justice, at its highest levels, is committed to this effort. As part of that the Attorney General convened a listening session, as Congresswoman Herseth 

Sandlin explained, to discuss public safety and law enforcement. 

Leaders of all the federally-recognized tribes were invited. 

And what we heard there is simply unacceptable. We were told 

by a veteran South Dakota prosecutor that in one neighborhood, 

nearly every other house had been a crime scene in the last 10 

years. We heard from American Indian women about reservations 

in which women who had not been sexually assaulted were the exception. 

We heard from tribal law enforcement officials who were so 

strapped on a reservation the size of Delaware that they can have 

only two officers on duty at any given time, putting those officers 

hours away from likely crime scenes. And we have heard from a 

tribal judge about the frustration of learning that a domestic violence perpetrator who had been given no jail time had more than 

20 prior arrests for domestic violence, but the judge simply was not 

able to access a database that would have told him that. 

These issues are real priorities for the Department of Justice. 

Both the Deputy Attorney General and I have extensive personal 

experience in Indian country, having been involved in efforts to improve public safety there over the years. I personally consider the 

efforts of the CIRCLE Project, which was a project that attempted 

to bring comprehensive approaches to problems in Indian country 

with as many partners as possible in Northern Cheyenne, Oglala 

Sioux, and Zuni Pueblo areas, to be one of the most fulfilling aspects of my career. 

With a new focus, we at the Justice Department are hard at 

work to develop sustainable, effective, and efficient strategies, and 

I would by happy to talk about the things that we are already 

doing. We believe the Tribal Law and Order Act would make important changes, and we strongly support S. 797, the Senate 

version of this legislation, which is sponsored by Senator Dorgan, 

and we look forward with this Subcommittee to further develop 

H.R. 1924. I urge the Subcommittee to do all that it can to move 

the measure forward so that it can be signed into law as soon as 

possible. 

Thank you very much, and I look forward to questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Perrelli follows:] 

40 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE THOMAS J. PERRELLI


TJP-1.eps
41 


TJP-2.eps
42 


TJP-3.eps
43 


TJP-4.eps
44 


TJP-5.eps
45 


TJP-6.eps
46 


TJP-7.eps
47 


TJP-8.eps
48 


TJP-9.eps
49 


TJP-10.eps
50 


TJP-11.eps
51 


TJP-12.eps
52 


TJP-13.eps
53 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. 

And I now recognize myself for 5 minutes of questions. 

You indicated your support of the Senate bill. Do you not support 

the House bill? 


TJP-14.eps
54 

Mr. PERRELLI. I think we have been working with the Senate to 

make improvements on the bill. There are a number of areas where 

I think we have been able to do that. 

That includes areas such as ensuring a right to counsel. That includes trying to create the right set of incentives in the area of declination reports and reporting on decision-making by the Federal 

Government. And those are just a couple of the areas. 

So we think that S. 797 is—represents the next stage of development and we look forward to working with this Committee. 

Mr. SCOTT. What is the status of 797? 

Mr. PERRELLI. It is my understanding that they are looking at 

a manager’s amendment to that, but I don’t think I have seen a 

copy of that. 

Mr. SCOTT. In Committee? 

Mr. PERRELLI. I think it is out of Committee, but—it is out of 

Committee—— 

Mr. SCOTT. But the changes have been made in Committee? 

Mr. PERRELLI. Correct. 

Mr. SCOTT. Okay. 

Are there challenges in the prosecution involving evidence—the 

arrest process, and evidence, and chain of custody of evidence—are 

there challenges in prosecution in that area? 

Mr. PERRELLI. There are significant challenges in Indian country. 

Some of them are presented by sheer distance—the amount of time 

it takes to get to a crime scene when evidence may have spoiled. 

And there is simply the challenge of the lack of resources, whether insufficient number of police officers or insufficient resources for 

forensics. So those are serious challenges and they certainly affect 

the ability to prosecute cases in Indian country. 

Mr. SCOTT. What about number of prosecutors and indigent defense—attorneys for defendants? 

Mr. PERRELLI. I think both of those—there are challenges in both 

of those areas. While some tribes do provide counsel to criminal defendants, we certainly think that particularly if the Congress enacts the Tribal Law and Order Act and increases potential sentences to 3 years that it will be important to ensure counsel to indigent defendants. 

On the prosecution side I think we are actively engaged in trying 

to determine what additional resources need to be put put in Indian country. A major initiative for the Department is to move law 

enforcement and prosecutorial resources closer to the reservations 

where they are needed so that some of the problems of distance we 

could cut down. 

Mr. SCOTT. In tribal trials are there trials by jury? 

Mr. PERRELLI. Not every trial is trial by jury, but there are trials 

by jury in many tribal courts. And the juries—different tribes have 

different practices and procedures but some have all Native American jurors, others have a mix of native and non-native jurors. 

Mr. SCOTT. And who are the judges and what are their qualifications? 

Mr. PERRELLI. They are tribal court judges. They are selected, 

again, in different ways by different communities. 

My experience over the last decade is that there has been an 

enormous improvement in the quality of tribal court judges. We 

55 

spent the last several months working with a number of them on 

developing the right approach for the Justice Department to take 

in Indian country. 

Mr. SCOTT. A judge is legally—to have formal legal training? 

Mr. PERRELLI. Many are, but some are not. 

Mr. SCOTT. What about services after conviction—services like 

drug courts, alcohol safety courts? Are those available in tribal 

courts and are they available in Federal courts? 

Mr. PERRELLI. In many tribal communities there are wellness 

courts or drug courts that have been, I think, proven very effective, 

and we have seen some terrific, promising practices. And I know 

that when I meet with tribal leaders, those who don’t have such 

courts very much want to develop them in their jurisdiction. 

Mr. SCOTT. Have you proposed a budget for prevention law enforcement, criminal defense and prosecution? Have you presented 

a budget to solve some of these problems? 

Mr. PERRELLI. We are engaged in the 2011 budget process and 

are very focused on these issues. And I agree with, I think, the 

premise of your question, which is we need to look at this comprehensively. 

It can’t just be about putting police officers on the street and 

prosecutors. One has to fund the indigent defense; one also has to 

fund prevention and reentry strategies. Without putting all of those 

pieces together, we won’t do the best job possible. 

Mr. SCOTT. And are you developing a budget? 

Mr. PERRELLI. We are engaged in the 2011 budget process, where 

we are looking at what additional resources are needed in Indian 

country across the entire spectrum. 

Mr. SCOTT. And will that budget include costs of incarceration? 

Mr. PERRELLI. Well, certainly we will factor that in. In this year, under the Recovery Act, there is $225 million dedicated to the construction of tribal prisons. 

One of the things that the Tribal Law and Order Act would do 

and that we think is important is allow those funds to be used in 

a broader way. Currently it really only allows the construction of 

traditional prisons. Tribal communities have come to us and said, 

‘‘We would like to use them for broader purposes, whether it is justice centers, rehabilitation, other purposes.’’ So that, we think, is 

an important aspect of this act. 

Mr. SCOTT. And we can count on the budget on being a comprehensive response to this problem? 

Mr. PERRELLI. I can’t guarantee what OMB will do but I can 

guarantee that we are looking at this problem in a comprehensive—— 

Mr. SCOTT. You are asking. 

Mr. PERRELLI. We are asking. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. 

Gentleman from California? 

Mr. LUNGREN. Obviously responses by representatives of Administrations do not change with their understanding of the power of 

OMB. 

Mr. Perrelli, I would like to ask you this, both what the position 

of the Administration is, and as you understand this bill how would 

it affect the PL 280 States and would it be a situation of concurrent 

56 

jurisdiction or would this remove jurisdiction of general criminal 

enforcement by State law enforcement in PL 280 States? 

Mr. PERRELLI. My understanding is that upon a request of a particular tribe and in the House version of the bill, consultation with 

the Attorney General, I know that on the Senate version of the bill 

it requires the consent of the Attorney General, which we support, 

and I can explain why—that it would move from mandatory PL 280 

to a concurrent jurisdiction, and there are a number of concurrent 

PL280 jurisdictions across the country. 

Mr. LUNGREN. So it would not remove, as you understand it, jurisdiction with State authorities? 

Mr. PERRELLI. That is my understanding of the current version 

of the bill. 

Mr. LUNGREN. Because if it did I would have to oppose it because 

I would be afraid we would be losing the very thing the purpose 

of this bill is to achieve, which is to ensure those who are part of 

Indian country the same right to protection from crime, including 

violent crime, that every other American has the right to not only 

deserve but to expect. 

Let me ask you this: Under current law, with respect to criminal 

violations on tribal land, what is the appellate process? 

Mr. PERRELLI. Under current law if the case is taken into the 

Federal system it follows the normal Federal appeal structure. Depending on the type of jurisdiction in place, whether it is PL 280 

or something else may well go into the State system and go 

through the State process. If the tribal prosecutor takes the case 

and pursues it in tribal court there is the limit of the 1-year sentence and then there are whatever appellate options may be available through that tribal court system. 

There are a number of courts that have intertribal appellate 

courts so that there will be several tribes together that will have 

an appellate system. That is not at all uncommon—some in California, the Pacific Northwest, as well as the Southwest. But not 

every tribe has an appellate system currently. 

Mr. LUNGREN. And under this legislation, if granted, jurisdiction 

in a particular—well, in tribal areas, would the Federal law enforcement have the ability to make the decision as to whether they 

would take a case or would that have to be with the acquiescence 

of the tribe or tribal court? How would that work? 

Mr. PERRELLI. I think it would work similar to how it does in the 

many concurrent jurisdiction States now, where the Federal law 

enforcement makes the decision. They have the ultimate authority 

whether they want to pursue Federal charges. There is no question 

that we work in close partnership with tribal authorities as well as 

State and local authorities in making decisions. 

And I would say that I think it is extraordinarily important for 

all of those entities to work together to address public safety, because it may well be that while pursuing one case on the State 

level is a better idea, pursuing another case at the Federal level 

may be a better idea. That is really the theme behind what are 

called our Safe Trail Task Forces. There are 18 of them that the 

FBI manages that are focused on Indian country, and they bring 

together tribal, State, local, and Federal law enforcement to work 

together on cases that may ultimately be pursued in different 

57 

ways. But certainly this does not give up any of the discretion of 

Federal law enforcement to pursue cases federally. 

Mr. LUNGREN. Now, a number of cases were mentioned by the 

author of the bill, and I think you made reference to it too, with 

respect to the unbelievably high level of sexual assaults that apparently do not go prosecuted. Is this because of a failure of resources? 

Is this a failure of tribal law? Is this a failure of Federal prosecutors? Is it a uniquely serious problem in PL 280 States? 

I am trying to get a sense of what the—if the facts are—and I 

believe them to be true—but if the facts are as vivid and as offensive as they appear to be, how can this continue? Why has it continued? 

Mr. PERRELLI. I would first of all say it is not a problem specific 

to PL 280 States, although I would certainly note that Alaska presents perhaps the biggest challenges. There certainly are challenges, I think, on several levels. First, there is obviously the need 

to dedicate sufficient resources. I think the challenges of distance 

in many areas make it difficult to gather evidence and to be able 

to pursue crime appropriately. 

I do think that we in the Federal Government, working with 

State, local, and tribal partners need to develop some new strategies. One of the things we have seen in child sexual assault cases 

is the use of child advocacy centers and multidisciplinary teams 

bringing everyone together has been extremely effective, in both 

protecting children as well as in bringing perpetrators to justice. 

I think we are looking right now at a similar model in the domestic violence and sexual assault area, where we would bring everyone together, because I think there is no question that anybody 

can look at the statistics and say we are not doing as good a job 

as we need to. 

Mr. SCOTT. Gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Quigley? 

Mr. QUIGLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Sorry about that. 

I guess as a former criminal defense attorney I witnessed the 

problems that sometimes could take place just between the State 

and the Federal deciding who was going to go forward in a criminal 

investigation or charges. This is only compounded in this kind of 

situation. 

Could you address some of those issues of jurisdiction and how 

it could complicate life for a defendant, but also, as is addressed 

elsewhere, the issues that could come out in a disparity in sentencing as a result of this, given the limits the tribes face and so 

forth? 

Mr. PERRELLI. Certainly. First, on the complexity: The situation 

that would arise if a tribe were to seek retrocession and if it actually occurred, is not dissimilar from what you see in, you know, 

maybe a dozen States today, which is concurrent jurisdiction, 

where there really are tribal, State, and Federal law enforcement 

who all could have potential involvement in the matter. 

And it is absolutely incumbent on them to work together and to 

ensure that a defendant’s rights are not violated. But it is correct 

that as separate sovereigns they each have their own authority to 

potentially prosecute. 

I don’t think we have seen a huge number of situations where 

there have been multiple prosecutions in an effort, but it certainly 

58 

does occur, just as it occurs at the State and Federal level. So I 

think the cornerstone of this bill, and I think going forward, is the 

need to work together to prosecute crime in a smart way and not 

prosecute the same crime over and over again. 

Mr. QUIGLEY. But is it detailed in the legislation or are you suggesting that a defendant needs to hope that these entities work together? 

Mr. PERRELLI. I think there is a great deal in the legislation that 

tries to facilitate that kind of cooperation and coordination, but I 

think that the defendant is in no different position than defendants 

in Connecticut, Idaho, Florida, Massachusetts, and other States 

that have the exact same situation currently. But it would be putting the defendant in a situation no different than the situation 

currently in California and other states that are mandatory PL 

280. 

Let me get to the disparate sentencing which you asked—this is 

an area of real concern to us. The study was done in 2003 identifying disparate sentencing, I think. You know, roughly 25 percent 

of the violent crime prosecuted in the Federal system is actually Indian country crime, and so that as violent crime sentences increase 

it has a disproportionate effect on Native American defendants. 

This has been an issue that we have been concerned about, and 

the Department is engaged in a broad review of sentencing policy 

now. I think it will require a longer and deeper examination of sentencing policy related to Native Americans, and this is something 

on which certainly tribal leaders who have been concerned about 

this issue have sought our engagement, both at the Department of 

Justice in terms of thinking about charging decisions, but also in 

trying to engage the Sentencing Commission. 

Mr. QUIGLEY. Is there anything else we can do within this legislation to try to address that, or—— 

Mr. PERRELLI. Perhaps slightly off the topic, but I think getting 

in the same direction, certainly one of the things that we have supported as an amendment to the Senate in the bill and would support here is ensuring a right to counsel whenever a tribal court 

seeks to impose a sentence of more than 1 year. So that is something that we are very supportive of and think would be helpful. 

Mr. QUIGLEY. Thank you. 

Mr. SCOTT. Gentleman from Florida, Mr. Rooney? 

Mr. ROONEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And I come from the 16th district of Florida. We have the Brighton Seminole Indian Reservation in my district, and so these issues 

are of utmost importance to me and I think a lot of the people in 

central Florida and south Florida. 

So with that, I want to thank you for your testimony. I just have 

a few brief questions and appreciate your response. 

Can you provide for me examples of statutes requiring the reporting of all declinations by either Federal law enforcement or 

Federal prosecutors to either an office within the Department or 

another jurisdiction for prosecution, and is the referral of cases to 

States for prosecution governed by the statute? 

Mr. PERRELLI. I think in terms of reporting on declinations, the 

one bill that I can think of is the Emmett Till bill, the cold case 

bill. So that does have a reporting requirement. 

59 

What we have supported is a requirement that we cooperate and 

coordinate with tribal partners, rather than a mandatory requirement of providing specific evidence or specific information, because 

I think our view is that you want to make sure that a prosecutor 

has the discretion in a particular case to say, ‘‘No, I don’t want to 

hand over this evidence because it might be relevant to another investigation,’’ or, ‘‘I don’t want to provide this evidence because of 

privacy or other issues.’’ 

But the one bill that I can think of that has that kind of reporting requirement is the Emmett Till bill. 

Mr. ROONEY. Okay. Is the referral of cases to States for prosecution governed by a statute? 

Mr. PERRELLI. It is not governed by a statute that I can think 

of. We are authorized to cooperate with them, but I don’t think 

there is a specific statute that lays out what prosecutors have to 

do. 

Mr. ROONEY. Okay. Thank you. 

Does the Department support the provision in Section 101(c) of 

the bill, which appears to grant warrantless arrest authority to 

tribal authorities for all Federal crimes? 

Mr. PERRELLI. Our view is that we think that section would best 

allow warrantless arrests only upon probable cause, which would 

be a change, as well as really for felonies or certain misdemeanors 

where there is a threat to public safety. But for misdemeanors 

where there is no threat to public safety, we have generally been 

of the view that there is not a need to authorize a warrantless arrest. 

Mr. ROONEY. Section 201 addresses the issue of retrocession of 

criminal jurisdiction to the United States. Does the Department 

have any objections or concerns to how Section 201 is currently 

drafted? 

Mr. PERRELLI. We have taken the view—and this has been 

adopted in the Senate—that retrocession shouldn’t occur unless the 

Attorney General is not just consulted but actually concurs. I think 

we want to ensure that jurisdiction isn’t retroceded in Federal law 

enforcement authority absent a determination by the Attorney 

General that the resources are available and the Federal Government is prepared to take on those additional efforts. 

Mr. ROONEY. Okay. Does the Department support Section 304 of 

the bill, which would allow a tribal court to direct the incarceration 

of those convicted by tribal court in a Bureau of Prisons facility? 

Mr. PERRELLI. We have had concerns about doing that wholesale 

across the board. I think our view is that the best medium-and 

long-term approach here is construction of appropriate facilities, including alternatives to incarceration, in tribal communities or on a 

regional basis for a number of tribes. 

But we have been willing to take on a pilot project that involves 

placing up to 100 prisoners into the Bureau of Prisons system, recognizing that there are capacity constraints in tribal facilities and 

believing that, at least in the short term, this may relieve some of 

those problems in the hope that we will be able to build capacity 

in tribal facilities over time. 

Mr. ROONEY. Okay. 

60 

If I might take the liberty—and this might not be an appropriate 

question for you—but as somebody who has sort of watched the 

reservation in our district change over the years, specifically with 

the introduction of a very large hotel-casino, and reading the background of the—your testimony here today and the issue—and it 

deals with a lot of things that deal with funding, obviously, manpower and unemployment and things like that—has that phenomenon had any effect in the bigger picture? And again, if you 

don’t know the answer to this that is—I completely understand. I 

am just curious as—what has that—what impact, if any, has that 

had on what we are talking about here today? 

Mr. PERRELLI. Sure. I think you do see larger differences among 

tribal communities, whether it is economic development, housing, 

health care, and criminal justice systems. Certainly there are certain advantages that gaming tribes have that live near larger communities and are able to earn significant revenue. 

They certainly have advantages that others do not, and so you 

see that. I particularly focus on some of the tribes in the reservations in the Great Plains particularly, where Congresswoman 

Herseth Sandlin’s jurisdiction is, where they may have casinos but 

they don’t have the same kind of revenue, and there are obviously 

less funds available to spend on justice systems and other things. 

So I think you do see some tremendous development of justice systems, health care, and other things in some communities, and other 

communities that are still struggling. 

Mr. ROONEY. Thank you, sir. 

And, Mr. Chairman, just—I would like to submit a letter from 

our Ranking Member into the record, if I could. 

Mr. SCOTT. Without objection, so ordered. 

[The information referred to follows:] 

61 


K1-1.eps
62 


K1-2.eps
63 


K1-3.eps
64 

Mr. ROONEY. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. PERRELLI. Thank you. 

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Perrelli, you—in response to the gentleman from 

Illinois you indicated you support a right to counsel if they are getting more than 1 year. You do not support a right to counsel under 

a year? 

Mr. PERRELLI. We support for more than 1 year; we have not 

taken a position on less than a year. But I think we have been foVerDate Aug 31 2005 15:33 Dec 10, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00068 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\CRIME\121009\53945.000 HJUD1 PsN: DOUGA

K1-4.eps
65 

cused on the situation, similar to the situation in the Federal system, where you have got potential felony time of more than a year. 

Mr. SCOTT. It was my understanding if you are looking at any 

time you have a right to counsel. 

Mr. PERRELLI. With respect to—— 

Mr. SCOTT. Is that not right? 

Mr. PERRELLI. Well, in Indian country it is not—it has not been 

correct—— 

Mr. SCOTT. But in Federal court if you are looking at any time 

you have a right to counsel. 

Mr. PERRELLI. I guess my recollection was if it was less than 6 

months that—— 

Mr. SCOTT. Well, if you could get back to us on that, and also 

what does counsel mean? 

Mr. PERRELLI. We think a counsel have to mean effective representation. And so we have been supportive of amendments that 

make clear that there is a requirement of effective representation 

and that—effective representation by someone who is a member of 

a bar of a jurisdiction in the United States. 

Mr. SCOTT. A lawyer? 

Mr. PERRELLI. Well, someone who is barred. I know that there 

are some tribal communities where they do authorize to practice 

non-lawyers in certain circumstances. 

Mr. SCOTT. Okay, so when you say right to counsel you were 

talking about a lawyer and not an advocate? 

Mr. PERRELLI. We are talking about—what we have said is effective representation, and that is some—— 

Mr. SCOTT. Is that an issue we need to look at as the bill goes 

forward? 

Mr. PERRELLI. We certainly think that the current version of the 

House bill needs to be amended to ensure counsel to—counsel who 

is authorized to practice law in a jurisdiction in the United States 

and that that representation should be effective. 

Mr. SCOTT. Okay. 

Other questions, Mr. Rooney, Mr. Quigley? 

Thank you very much, Mr. Perrelli. 

If our next witnesses will come forward—next panel of witnesses? 

As they come forward I will begin my introductions. We have 

four witnesses coming forward. 

The first panelist is Marcus Levings, who serves as the Great 

Plains area vice president of the National Congress of American Indians. He also serves as a Tribal Business Council chairman of the 

Three Affiliated Tribes in western North Dakota. Graduated from 

Dickinson State University with a Bachelor’s degree in business 

administration and finance and holds a Master’s degree from the 

University of Maryland. 

Our next witness is Tova Indritz. She is the chair of the Native 

American Justice Committee of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. 

For 13 years she headed the Federal Public Defender Office in 

New Mexico. She has been in private practice since 1995, where 

she represents defendants in Federal, State, and Indian tribal 

courts. She graduated from Yale Law School. 

66 

Next panelist will be Scott Burns, who is the executive director 

for the National District Attorneys Association. Between 2000 and 

February 2009 he was deputy drug czar with the executive office 

of the president, Office of National Drug Control Policy. In that position he was chair of several White House intergovernmental committees, including the Native American Initiative. He graduated 

from California Western School of Law. 

And our final panelist is Barbara Creel. She is a member of the 

Pueblo Jemez and a law professor at the University of New Mexico 

School of Law, where she teaches in the Southwest Indian Law 

Clinic. She also teaches a course designed—she designed called 

Criminal Law in Indian country. 

Prior to teaching she served as the tribal liaison to the United 

States Army Corps of Engineers and as assistant Federal public defender in Portland, Oregon. She is a graduate of University of New 

Mexico School of Law. 

We begin with Chairman Levings. 

Mr. LEVINGS. Morning. 

Mr. SCOTT. Just before you start, there is a timing device that 

will help you keep within the 5 minutes that you have been allotted. It will start green and when there is 1 minute left the device 

will turn to yellow, and red when your 5 minutes have expired. 

Chairman Levings? 

TESTIMONY OF MARCUS LEVINGS, GREAT PLAINS AREA VICEPRESIDENT, NATIONAL CONGRESS OF AMERICAN INDIANS, 

NEW TOWN, ND 

Mr. LEVINGS. Morning. My name is Marcus Dominick Levings. 

My Hidatsa name is Upapagish, White-Headed Eagle. I am the 

chairman of the Three Affiliated Tribes of Mandan, Hidatsa, and 

Arikara of the Fort Berthold Reservation. It is an honor to be here 

in front of you and—very important issue. 

Honorable Chairman and distinguished Members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today. We would 

also like to thank Congressman Herseth Sandlin for her efforts to 

move the Tribal Law and Order Act forward. 

We have a public safety crisis on Indian reservations across the 

country and we urge Congress to move swiftly to pass the legislation in 2009. On some reservations violent crime is more than 20 

times the national average. One in three Native American women 

will be raped in their lifetimes. 

Many reservations are viewed as places with weak law enforcement and that perception breeds crime and violence. As President 

Obama said in his speech to tribal leaders last month, these facts 

are an assault on our national conscience that we can no longer ignore. 

For 21⁄2 years NCAI has worked with the Senate Committee on 

Indian Affairs and the Senate Judiciary Committee. The legislation 

has been well-vetted and we have achieved a strong bipartisan consensus. 

We ask that the Judiciary Committee allow the Senate bill to 

move to the House floor to be considered under suspension. Our 

goal is to make 2010 a safer year for American Indian communities. 

67 

I would like to mention only two areas that are addressed by the 

bill: Federal accountability and empowerment of tribal law enforcement. Under the Major Crimes Act the Federal Government has 

the role—sole authority for felonies committed on Indian reservations. Despite the Federal responsibility, crime rates have been 

doubling and tripling in Indian country while crime rates have 

been falling throughout the rest of the United States. 

Something is seriously wrong with the Federal law enforcement 

response. Funding for U.S. attorneys’ offices has nearly doubled 

since 1998, yet the number of Federal prosecutions of Indian country crimes has fallen 26 percent since 2003. 

These concerns are not confined to any one Administration. In 

November 2007 the Denver Post reported that over the past 10 

years U.S. attorneys have declined to prosecute nearly two-thirds 

of felony Indian country cases nationally. 

The reforms in the Tribal Law and Order Court would ensure 

that Indian country crime is subject to consistent and focused attention. In particular, Section 102 would require the Department 

to compile data on declinations of Indian country cases and submit 

annual reports to Congress. 

Tribal leaders and Members of Congress have sought this data 

for decades. This will provide an important tool for measuring responsiveness and guiding law enforcement policy in the future. 

Empowering tribal law enforcement is also critical. Criminal jurisdiction in Indian country is divided among Federal, tribal, and 

State governments. Tribal law enforcement officers are usually the 

first responders to crime scenes on Indian land but their limited 

authority often prevents them from arresting the perpetrators. 

Section 301 would go a long way toward eliminating barriers to 

law enforcement in Indian country. Special law enforcement commissions have long been available to tribal police, but the BIA has 

withheld the training and granting of commissions for bureaucratic 

reasons. 

This section expands the special law enforcement commissions 

program and clarifies the standards required of tribal officers. Section 301 also addresses a severe problem that tribes face in recruiting and training police officers. 

Another significant concern for tribal governments is their inability to impose appropriate sentences. When U.S. attorneys and 

States attorneys in PL 280 jurisdictions decline to prosecute felonies in Indian country that responsibility falls to the tribes despite 

their limited sentencing power. 

The reality on the ground is that tribal courts are often responsible for prosecuting felony crimes. There is a large gap between 

the maximum sentencing authority of tribes and the average sentence for the least serious felonies that are prosecuted by the Federal Government. Section 304 would help remedy this problem by 

increasing tribal sentencing authority to a term of 3 years in prison 

and ensures protection of civil rights by requiring the tribe to provide indigent defense counsel. 

NCAI supports a swift passage of the Tribal Law and Order Act 

to address the critical shortcomings in Federal support for tribal 

criminal justice. NCAI urges the Committee to acknowledge the urgency of the public safety situation on Indian lands and advance 

68 

the bill as quickly as possible. Native communities cannot afford 

another year of the status quo. 

I would like to thank the Committee for inviting us to testify 

today. Ajugidaj. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Levings follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MARCUS LEVINGS


ML-1.eps
69 


ML-2.eps
70 


ML-3.eps
71 


ML-4.eps
72 


ML-5.eps
73 


ML-6.eps
74 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. 

Ms. Indritz? 


ML-7.eps
75 

TESTIMONY OF TOVA INDRITZ, CHAIR, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CRIMINAL DEFENSE LAWYERS, NATIVE AMERICAN 

JUSTICE COMMITTEE, ALBUQUERQUE, NM 

Ms. INDRITZ. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Gohmert, Members of the Committee, Tova Indritz on behalf of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, and my testimony here today is also endorsed by the New Mexico Criminal Defense Lawyers Association 

and the National Association of Federal Defenders. 

Most Americans would be completely shocked to know that their 

fellow American citizens are not entitled to the appointment of 

counsel when they are looking at going to prison for any length of 

time. And it is our position that Native Americans charged in tribal 

court who can be sentenced to any time in prison should have the 

right to counsel, and if they can’t afford it, the right to appointed 

counsel. And we would also ask that this Committee include in the 

bill some funding for that, because in this bill there is $35 million 

per year of funding for tribal jails and not one penny for the provision of defense counsel. 

Now, I believe that most Americans do understand that all societies, including tribes, have a right to law, and the rule of law, and 

social order, but that still has to be balanced, as it is in the Federal 

and State systems, with respect for the rights of individuals. And 

here we are 46 years after Gideon v. Wainwright and 37 years after 

Argersinger v. Hamlin, which, Mr. Scott, you had asked the gentleman from Department of Justice if people are not entitled to 

counsel in misdemeanor cases, and the answer is under Argersinger 

the Supreme Court says when someone is facing any period of incarceration they have a right to counsel. 

But as we know, that doesn’t apply in tribal court, which now is 

restricted to a year. And so we would ask Congress to authorize 

funds for some kinds of public defender systems. 

I can tell you, I live in New Mexico and all 19 pueblos in New 

Mexico do not have any kind of public defender system. One of the 

two Apache tribes does and the Navajo tribe has a public defender 

that represents well less than 10 percent of the people who go to 

court with a staff of only two professional lawyers and four paralegals. 

So while we respect and recognize the importance of tribal sovereignty and the rights of tribes to follow traditional methods of 

dispute resolution, our position is this: If a tribe utilizes its court 

system for restorative justice and restitution and making parties 

whole then maybe lawyers aren’t required, but once a person faces 

any time in prison or jail—any loss of liberty—then they, as U.S. 

citizens, should have the same rights as other U.S. citizens to counsel, to appointed counsel if they are too poor to afford counsel. 

And we believe that tribes can provide that and provide due 

process and there should be funding to do that. So we would ask 

the court to—this Committee to amend the law to guarantee right 

to counsel for any time in jail and that to be provided at the expense of the tribe, as is in the Senate version, and then to provide 

funding. 

It should be effective assistance of counsel, but it should also be 

real lawyers, and that is people who have graduated from law 

school and are a member of the bar of any State or the District of 

76 

Columbia. I know that some tribal bars allow people to be a member of the bar who have not graduated from law school and maybe 

not even graduated from high school. 

And so we oppose increasing tribal sentences to 3 years absent 

full right to counsel, right to appointed counsel and funding, and 

full due process. And I would point out that some tribes currently 

stack sentences, so someone gets 1 year plus 1 year plus 1 year for 

a series of misdemeanors. You would have to be a kind of unimaginative prosecutor not to see how one event could be more than one 

count, and that is done without counsel. I attached one court opinion that says that to my testimony and cited some others. 

So we also think that the limitation of 1 year should be—or 3 

years—should be per course of conduct rather than per count, as 

some tribes currently interpret. And we also think that there 

should be real due process. 

And I want to just give some examples of my own experience 

with problems in some tribal courts. I have seen charges that are 

not supported by any tribal ordinance or statute. I have seen a proposed jury where all the juror—people who are eligible to be on the 

jury—are all men—in that case my client was a woman—because 

in that tribe that was their system. I have seen a lack of access 

to actually a statute that the client was charged with—moreover a 

lack of procedure. I would call the counsel on the other side and 

say, ‘‘So if we have a jury trial does the jury have to be unanimous?’’ And the other lawyer would say, ‘‘Well, good question. Let 

me figure it out and call you back.’’ 

So things happen—go along. No rules of evidence, no appeal because the tribe chose not to participate in any kind of appellate 

process, situations where the judge was not a lawyer, situations 

where the judge had a real conflict of interest. In one case I did 

in a tribal court the judge who was first appointed was the person 

who had fired my client for the same conduct that the client was 

then charged with. Or in another case there was a family relationship between the victim and the judge. 

But the worst—there was a case I did in a tribal court where 

after I won, the tribe retaliated against a witness—not my client, 

but a witness who was a relative of my client. That witness had 

been the former head of the tribe and the tribe was mad that he 

had come and testified for the defendant, and so they banished 

him, which meant he lost his job, he lost his place to live and his 

community connections. He was a full-blood member of the community. 

And I don’t know what that did to that witness, but in the future 

anybody else who is called to be a defense witness at trial has to 

think three times and say, ‘‘Do I want to risk my home, my livelihood, my job, my family and community connections and all I hold 

dear just because someone is asking me to be a witness?’’ because 

of this retaliation that happened in this particular case that I was 

a defense lawyer in. 

So I would just say, we also oppose having tribes send prisoners 

at no cost to the Federal Bureau of Prisons. Tribes would have to 

pay for treatment and counseling options but they could send people away for free to the Bureau of Prisons, which is ill-equipped. 

And in my written testimony, which is much more extensive, I list 

77 

some of the problems with this Bureau of Prisons approach having 

to do with good time, and habeas, and all kinds of other things, not 

to mention that the BOP is very overcrowded. 

So we would also ask for some guidance so that people are not 

prosecuted three times by the Federal, State, and tribal governments. 

And I just want to make one last comment in closing, and that 

is about jury pools in the Federal court system. The Federal courts, 

by their own statistics, admit that Native Americans are underrepresented in Federal jury pools. 

And if we are thinking of having more jurisdiction or trials on 

Indian land there has to be a way to require Federal courts to use 

supplemental source lists, such as driver’s license lists, so that the 

number of Native Americans in the jury pools are proportionate in 

percentage to the Native Americans in the over-18 population— 

over age 18 population—so that Native Americans are not so 

underrepresented in Federal jury pools as is the case now. 

I have other concerns and I have addressed them in my fairly extensive written testimony. And I really appreciate the opportunity 

for the defense bar to come forward and talk about individual 

rights with respect to this bill affecting Native Americans. Thank 

you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Indritz follows:] 

78 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF TOVA INDRITZ


TIA-1.eps
79 


TIA-2.eps
80 


TIA-3.eps
81 


TIA-4.eps
82 


TIA-5.eps
83 


TIA-6.eps
84 


TIA-7.eps
85 


TIA-8.eps
86 


TIA-9.eps
87 


TIA-10.eps
88 


TIA-11.eps
89 


TIA-12.eps
90 


TIA-13.eps
91 


TIA-14.eps
92 


TIA-15.eps
93 

ATTACHMENT 


TIB-1.eps
94 


TIB-2.eps
95 


TIB-3.eps
96 


TIB-4.eps
97 


TIB-5.eps
98 


TIB-6.eps
99 


TIB-7.eps
100 


TIB-8.eps
101 


TIB-9.eps
102 


TIB-10.eps
103 


TIB-11.eps
104 


TIB-12.eps
105 


TIB-13.eps
106 


TIB-14.eps
107 


TIB-15.eps
108 


TIB-16.eps
109 


TIB-17.eps
110 


TIB-18.eps
111 


TIB-19.eps
112 


TIB-20.eps
113 


TIB-21.eps
114 


TIB-22.eps
115 


TIB-23.eps
116 


TIB-24.eps
117 


TIB-25.eps
118 


TIB-26.eps
119 


TIB-27.eps
120 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. 

Mr. Burns? 

TESTIMONY OF SCOTT BURNS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NATIONAL DISTRICT ATTORNEYS ASSOCIATION, ALEXANDRIA, 

VA 

Mr. BURNS. Chairman Scott, Ranking Member Gohmert, and 

Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for inviting me to testify 

today on behalf of America’s National District Attorneys Association. We represent and are the voice of some 39,000 prosecutors 


TIB-28.eps
121 

across the country and responsible for prosecuting 95 percent—95 

percent—of all criminal cases in this country. 

As a State and local attorney in a small town in the Southwest 

for 16 years I became familiar with the unique challenges that face 

Indian country that you, Chairman Scott, and Congressman Lungren articulately set forth in your—forward in your opening remark. I also had the honor and privilege to serve initially as the 

deputy director for State and local affairs in the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy—the drug czar’s office—and 

because acutely aware early that there was something missing 

from the title. And I would like to say that it was me, but it was 

a lot of pressure from the National Congress of American Indians 

and others—and it sounds small but it wasn’t—that we changed 

the office to Office of State, Local, and Tribal Affairs and began to 

try and look at, in a comprehensive way, some of the issues that 

we were facing in Indian country, and it was staggering. 

Traveling to the Akwesasne Mohawk Reservation in upstate New 

York, to Crow, to Wind River, to Net Lake, to—and Salt River, to 

Navajo, and Hopi, and Yakima, and across the country, the jurisdictional problems that, again, were addressed in the opening remarks became clear. It also became clear that the lack of training 

and the lack of penal resources and facilities was staggering. It 

also became clear that the lack of coordination between Federal, 

State, and local, and tribal, on the issue that I was then addressing, the drug issue, was almost depressing. 

We got some initial money to try and bring to Indian country 

something that had worked in non-Indian country—the HIDTA 

program, High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area. First went to five 

test areas and asked them—went to Indian country and said, 

‘‘Would you be willing to look at this? Would you be willing to 

waive sovereignty if we could leverage all of the assets that each 

bring from their individual agencies and entities and governments?’’ and all five of them did. And the money was so small— 

$500,000 for five different tribes—it is hard to say whether that 

worked or not. But what did work was, in my mind, a sense of commitment and the willingness to try and work together. 

I was going to talk about the staggering numbers, Chairman 

Scott, that you talked about. I won’t repeat it, but the domestic violence, the sexual assaults, the crime, methamphetamine, gangs 

now in Indian country is obvious and is evident. 

NDAA applauds Congresswoman Herseth Sandlin for introducing 

H.R. 1924, the 11Tribal Law and Order Act of 2009’’ and for each 

of you for appreciating the importance of this bill. As you know, 

during recent years all of the criminal justice system, especially on 

a State and local, have been pinched by States’ budgets that are 

diminishing. 

One of the things that we at the National District Attorneys Association have prided ourselves in over the years is providing the 

best training in the country for prosecutors—for State and local 

prosecutors that do 95 percent of the criminal cases at the National 

Advocacy Center in South Carolina. And while the United States 

attorneys need it and their cases are so important, their funding 

at the NAC has gone to about $15 million. The funding for State 

and local prosecutors from the authorized amount of $4.5 million, 

122 

to less than $2 million, to—in fiscal year 2010 I think it is $1.175 

million, which extremely hampers our ability to give State and 

local prosecutors appropriate training. 

I guess to wrap up, and prior to, again, thanking you for your 

insight into these complicated issues, I tell you that I can speak for 

39,000 prosecutors in saying that we stand ready to assist, to help, 

that we get it, that we appreciate the issues are complicated. But 

good women and men who call themselves prosecutors look forward 

to your leadership and we stand ready to assist. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Burns follows:] 

123 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SCOTT BURNS


Burns-1.eps
124 


Burns-2.eps
125 


Burns-3.eps
126 


Burns-4.eps
127 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. 

Ms. Creel? 

TESTIMONY OF BARBARA L. CREEL, ASSISTANT PROFESSOR 

OF LAW, SOUTHWEST INDIAN LAW CLINIC, UNIVERSITY OF 

NEW MEXICO SCHOOL OF LAW, ALBUQUERQUE, NM 

Ms. CREEL. Good morning. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member 

Gohmert, distinguished Members of the Committee, my name is 

Barbara Creel. I am a member of the federally-recognized tribe 

Pueblo of Jemez, Walatowa, in New Mexico, one of 22 federally-recognized tribes in New Mexico and one of the 19 pueblos. 

I am a former Federal public defender, but I come to you today 

not as a person speaking on behalf of my employer or my tribe, but 

as someone who has seen crime and punishment on the ground in 

Indian country and doesn’t look at this from an academic point of 

view but as someone who is a part of a community and families 

who have been devastated by both crime and punishment. 

I commend the Committee for addressing the issue and Congress 

for all of the efforts in trying to make Indian country safer for Native Americans. It is part of the Federal trust responsibility, as we 

know. 

I cannot agree with the framing of the issue, though, as one of 

simply addressing the Indian problem by locking up more Indians, 

especially without the right to counsel. I am happy to hear Mr. 

Perrelli say that this must be addressed comprehensively and must 

include drug court, treatment program for substance abuse, and reentry programs. 

And there are effective drug treatment and reentry programs 

today on the ground run by the tribes under their tribal sovereign 

rights that are culturally sensitive and, again, effective. The 

Muscogee Creek Nation has a drug treatment now currently and 

a reentry program that reduces the ordinary rate for recidivism 

from 68 percent to about 29 percent and it is culturally sensitive. 

The bill should be—the act should be amended to address an Indian defendant’s right to counsel in tribal court. They should be afforded the right to counsel even if they are going to be imprisoned 

for just 1 day. 

I understand that the Committee and Congress is sensitive to 

tribal sovereignty and the sovereign right to determine the kind of 

justice system that is present for policing and enforcing laws on 

the—in tribes and pueblos. However, I don’t know of any tribe that 

made a sovereign decision to no right to counsel. 

I know that tribes have a particular idea about what—maybe 

that they want to counsel, as in no attorneys, but once they have 

decided that—to set up a Western-style court system usually the 

decision not to have a public defender office is based solely on 

funds. The severe lack of resources and the fact that tribes are 

dealing with many issues all at the same time—poverty, unemployment, education, health issues—the funds that they have to address these issues, which all funnel into crime, are severely limited 

and they are severely fractionated. 

There is piecemeal—was mentioned the Indian Health Service, 

Department of Education, as well as the Department of Justice all 

have separate tribal offices which aren’t always coordinated with 

128 

each other. I think the act itself, in coordinating those different 

programs that are piecemeal together is really important for investigation purposes, but also for treatment purposes. 

Fundamental fairness and due process requires parity in tribal 

court justice systems, so once the tribe has decided to enact their 

sovereign right to create a tribal court that has a law-trained prosecutor I believe that the right to counsel for those Indian defendants who are facing any imprisonment is imperative. And I believe 

that the United States government, who has held that the right to 

counsel is a human right and is a bedrock principle for fundamental fairness in courts, should apply to native people as U.S. 

citizens. 

I say this because many times Indian defendants are facing prosecution both in their tribal court and in Federal court. Because of 

the Major Crimes Act they—tribal jurisdiction has been preempted 

and displaced. 

Tribes don’t know whether a case is going to go Federal or not, 

so the fact that they may not have a public defender system in 

place severely impacts the individual’s civil rights if that case then 

does become a successive prosecution. Also, there are instances 

where there is an overlapping investigation between the Federal 

and the tribal case and prosecution, and there are some egregious 

lapses in protecting the individual Indian’s rights when he does not 

have defense counsel from the moment he is being investigated. 

And those, then, can impact his ability to create a fair defense in 

Federal court where he is entitled to the right to counsel. 

Thank you very much for the opportunity to comment on the act 

and provide testimony, and I look forward to any questions that 

you may have. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Creel follows:] 

129 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF BARBARA L. CREEL

BARBARA L. CREEL

ASSISTANT PROFESSOR OF LAW

UNIVERSITY OF NEW MEXICO SCHOOL OF LAW


Creel-2.eps
130 


Creel-3.eps
131 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you very much. 

Ms. Creel, you indicated a number of things that needed to be 

done. Who should pay for the court-appointed attorneys and the 

training for judges, prosecutors, and other things associated with 

the tribal courts? 

Ms. CREEL. I think tribes have chosen to have tribal courts and 

prosecutors through funds allocated by Congress, so the bill should 

include funding for the indigent defense counsel as well. If there 


Creel-4.eps
132 

is any funds that are going to the tribe it should be part of the 

trust responsibility to ensure that tribes are fully funded to make 

the sovereign decisions that they would like to with regard to what 

kind of justice system they want, and that should include the right 

to counsel. 

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Burns, what should the qualifications be for 

judges, prosecutors, and defense attorneys in tribal courts? 

Mr. BURNS. Well, on behalf of State and local prosecutors I have 

to preface any response that we always have great respect and deference for sovereign nations and the decisions that they make within that nation. But I think prosecutors want law-trained judges; 

prosecutors want law-trained and competent defense counsel; and 

prosecutors want a system where you don’t call on the phone the 

night before and say, ‘‘Hey, do we need a unanimous jury or not?’’ 

And we support a good system. 

Mr. SCOTT. What about rules of evidence? 

Mr. BURNS. Same thing. I mean, if somebody’s liberty is at stake, 

if we are going to lock people up in the United States, it should 

not be, ‘‘Hey, what do you think?’’ It should be based upon—— 

Mr. SCOTT. Should the Federal rules be totally effective in tribal 

courts? 

Mr. BURNS. Again, I think it depends on the system that is in 

place and the individual portion of Indian country, as we have 

talked about. It is so complicated, from PL 280 to non-, to those 

that have concurrent and exclusive—it would depend upon that 

particular are, in my opinion. 

Mr. SCOTT. Ms. Indritz, you mentioned jury pools. What is used 

for the jury pools today in tribal courts and in Federal courts in 

tribal areas? 

Ms. INDRITZ. Let me start by answering your question with respect to Federal courts—— 

Mr. SCOTT. Is your mic on? I am sorry. 

Ms. INDRITZ. I don’t know. 

Mr. SCOTT. Okay. 

Ms. INDRITZ. Hello? 

Mr. SCOTT. Okay. 

Ms. INDRITZ. So in Federal court, under Federal law the Federal 

court is required to make a jury plan that would be approved by 

the circuit and they are required to use the voter list. Then they 

may choose to use supplemental source lists, and the supplemental 

source lists usually are a driver’s license list, but they can be other 

things, like tax rolls or whatever. 

In the State of—in the Federal courts in New Mexico I can tell 

you that the courts have confronted this issue and chosen, because 

they want what they see as a more sophisticated jury pool, to only 

use the voter list, whereas in State court in New Mexico we use 

the driver’s license—the voter list supplemented by the driver’s list 

supplemented by the tax rolls. The State does the computer work 

of combining those, eliminating the people under 18, and eliminating the duplicates. 

So the Federal court could get that list for free—I mean, they 

have to get the voter list from the State anyway—but they choose 

not to. And as a result, the underrepresented groups are Hispanics, 

Native Americans, young people in the 18 to 30 age range, men, 

133 

and rural people, but particularly Native Americans and Hispanics 

are underrepresented compared to their percentage of the population. 

So about a third of the Federal court districts have chosen to use 

supplemental source lists and other have not. And I know that this 

is also true for Arizona as well—Native Americans are just underrepresented in the jury pool. 

With respect to tribal courts, right now there are no Federal regulations about that and tribes can make their own choices about 

how they constitute jury pools, or if they have juries or not. So 

there is no requirements with respect to tribal courts that I am 

aware of. 

Mr. SCOTT. You mentioned people were ostracized for testimony. 

Ms. INDRITZ. I mentioned an instance I am personally aware of, 

your—— 

Mr. SCOTT. What is the difference between that and what goes 

on in Federal court? 

Ms. INDRITZ. If that had happened in Federal court I would have 

immediately gone back to court and—— 

Mr. SCOTT. You are aware of the campaigns against ‘‘snitching’’? 

Ms. INDRITZ. I am aware that I would have gone back to a Federal judge immediately and gotten this resolved, but there was no 

way for me to do anything about it in tribal court. And my concern 

is not only for that individual who got banished, which was a very 

sad situation—there was sort of a small tribe that had kind of two 

factions, and one faction was mad at the other faction, but it was 

clearly retaliation for coming in and testifying and there was no 

question about—this witness had clearly told the truth. That 

wasn’t the issue. It was that he had testified, as they saw it, 

against the tribe. But my concern is also for future people who 

are—— 

Mr. SCOTT. Does that problem—has that problem been unique to 

tribal courts? Because you have people who are ostracized for 

‘‘snitching’’ and are discouraged in any number of ways from testifying—— 

Ms. INDRITZ. There is a remedy in Federal court, and there is a 

remedy in State court, and there is no remedy in tribal court. 

Mr. SCOTT. Okay. 

Chairman Levings, can you say what about what you would— 

what is available in tribal areas in terms of crime prevention activities and whether or not more is needed in that area? 

Mr. LEVINGS. Well, the Three Affiliated Tribes, the Mandan, 

Hidatsa, and Arikara, we work with all of the counties—the sheriffs and the State highway patrol and our policing. 

We have a unique circumstance up in North Dakota: The western North Dakota, as you know, is very much thriving on oil and 

gas development. We are going gangbusters 24/7 oil and gas development and the Williston Bakken Formation. Our problem, Mr. 

Chairman, is that we have a shortage of FBI agents. We have one 

agent for half of the State of North Dakota, and right now we are 

working with the associate—— 

Mr. SCOTT. Does the tribe have law enforcement officials? 

Mr. LEVINGS. We entered a 638 contract with the Bureau of Indian Affairs for law enforcement on December 7, 2007. It has made 

134 

a tremendous se improvement. So we are unique, as I say, as we 

are going through this issue today. 

We have technical assistance that is working out the best it has 

ever been. Maybe it was the key 10 years ago; we wish we would 

have did it then because now we have got the attention of the 

Washington, D.C. office. Pat Ragsdale just moved on, I know, to 

Fort Snelling, Minnesota, but before that 638 contract our law enforcement was poor, next to none. 

There was one evening our COPS FAST grant officer—she had 

the whole reservation—1 million acres on her own behalf, and she 

was trying to police six segment sets separated by Lake Sakakawea 

that inundated Elbowoods, North Dakota, which was our homeland—90 percent of our people live there. Now we are 2, 3 hours 

apart segment to segment. 

Our hub is New Town. They flooded Elbowoods so they come up 

with this new town sign and it said this is where the new town is 

going to be located, and that is where we are at today. And then 

Four Bears is where our tribal complex is at, and that is where our 

tribal chambers is and our council quarters. 

So we are distance—just to get around the reservation, I think, 

would probably take you 41⁄2 hours to make a round trip. That is 

how far it is apart. 

So when we contracted in December 7, 2007 we made a unique 

circumstance work, and District 1 Commander Alma Fordance, I 

have got to commend him. The technical assistance he has given 

us since that contract—I guess going on maybe nine, 10 months 

now—has been second to none. And his coordination and collaboration with the tribe on a criminal investigation made it a better 

working relationship. 

So our tribe is experiencing different attention. I feel for the rest 

of Indian country, but it just takes time and you need to work 

through those things. 

We still have crime though, Mr. Chairman. It is ironic I sit here 

in front of you; less than 3 weeks ago my daughter was sexually 

assaulted on November 19 and she was in the hospital for 15 days. 

And she is home now and she has got a colostomy bag, and she is 

going to be home for 3 months recovering. 

And it is heart-to-heart for me because the perpetrator got away 

the first time. But this time the FBI agents and the DOJ attorneys 

are doing it by the book and our thoughts and our mindsets is that 

if the chairman’s daughter isn’t safe on Fort Berthold who is? 

So this is the time for me to be here to tell you how important 

it is. These perpetrators and these breaking of Federal crimes on 

Indian reservations is not discriminatory because this is the second 

time for me. My daughter was put in this circumstance in May of 

2008 and it never got to any type of prosecution. 

In October 2001 my wife was in a drive-by shooting at the high 

school. That never did go to any type of prosecution. And we know 

who the individual is; the camera caught the incident on live feed 

because as a school board former president of New Town School 

Public District One—I was the president, and we put in cameras 

outdoors and indoors. And they had the car, they had it speeding 

away, they retrieved a bullet out of the door—it was a nine millimeter bullet. 

135 

So these things happen. And that time I was the Four Bears Segment Council representative. Now I am the chairman of the tribes. 

So this is paramount to me. Perpetrators need to be tried, and 

we need to have a coordinated effort and it needs to be funded to 

the point where we have enough agents to cover the western North 

Dakota to maybe three instead of one. 

So this is really important to me. I know there is a lot of pros 

and cons to a lot of the issues, and we are the tribe that is the most 

friendly as far as we know. 

Mandan, Hidatsa, and Arikara, we are the tribe that saved 

Lewis and Clark when they were coming through in 77 below windchill factors back in the day they were coming out toward exploration. And we saved them, got them fattened, got them ready for 

the trek back out to Portland, and they moved right along. 

But we have not changed. So our tribe is made up of a lot of 

members, not just from the Three Affiliated Tribes—the Mandan, 

Hidatsa, and Arikara, but from other tribes. 

I just told you about the Williston Bakken Formation. There is 

more license plates of employees from other States than there is 

from our own. So we have 4 percent unemployment, so we have different circumstances, yes. But we still have Federal crimes that 

need to be prosecuted, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Rooney? 

Mr. ROONEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Levings, that was a very heartfelt testimony, and my sympathies go out to you and your family. One of the things that is 

sort of striking me with the testimony Ms. Creel mentioned before 

about how we would fund criminal defense attorneys—do you believe that the tribes are in a position to pay for counsel for indigent 

defendants? And I guess where I am going with this, if Ms. Creel’s 

wish was granted is it a matter of custom that we are faced up 

against here or is it a matter of funding? 

In other words, the way the court system works is it—are the obstacles merely a matter of funding or are they a matter of that is 

just the way that it is done and those things have to be overcome 

too when you talk about the drive-by shooting and nothing ever 

happened? Was that a matter of just people purposely, you know, 

turning a blind eye, or because the resources weren’t there? Are 

there more obstacles than just money here, I guess is the question. 

Mr. LEVINGS. I believe when we had first initial meeting as the 

board president at that time, and as being a council member I had 

dual roles, I met with the chief of police for the city, I met with 

the chief of police for the Bureau of Indian Affairs, and I thought 

I was in the best circumstance but it just didn’t happen. Maybe it 

was a shortage of agents. I am not sure. 

There were actually confessions, you know, there was different 

things going on. But the tribe—we have a committee as well. The 

Mandan, Hidatsa, and Arikara, we have a judicial committee. 

The judicial committee hears everything. They hear the plaintiff’s, the defendant’s sides, and we actually kind of give an opportunity for our members to vent. They come in and, of course, the 

defendants are all, you know, in their own mindset not guilty, and 

then the court is doing things that they have to and the police deVerDate Aug 31 2005 15:33 Dec 10, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00139 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\CRIME\121009\53945.000 HJUD1 PsN: DOUGA
136 

partment is doing things they have to to incarcerate. But we hear 

everyone. 

So we hear a lot of the issues. One of the main ones was they 

wanted a public defender, so our tribe has been funding one for 

several fiscal years now. There was a grant or two they applied for; 

sometimes they are fortunate to get a few thousands of dollars, 

maybe a grant $25,000. 

But in the end the council have made it a paramount issue to 

have a public defender. So we fund it out of our general funds from 

our casino revenue, our lease income, or any other of our other 

means that we generate out of our profits, in this case oil and gas 

probably. But we keep that as a law-trained public defender. 

Our judge is elected. He is elected just as we are as council members, and then we appoint him for 2 years term, and he has got 

to make his performance, or in the even years, as this year coming 

up 2010, he has got to run for reelection. So it is a kind of a fair 

process today in Fort Berthold. 

The problem we have is we are getting probably more work than 

there is so we have few and far between people applying for these 

jobs because there is work to be had. So we do the best we can with 

the limited applications. 

Mr. ROONEY. Does anybody else want to weigh in on that question? 

Ms. CREEL. Thank you, Mr. Rooney. 

When Chairman Levings was talking about 638 contracting for 

law enforcement, that is Public Law 638, which allows the tribes 

to apply to the Federal Government for funding and then contract 

and determine how to use those funds in a on-the-ground, culturally sensitive way. So funding a public defender system is no 

different than any of the other services that flow through the Federal trust responsibility through the Bureau of Indian Affairs and 

on down. 

Traditional justice systems would not be affected by the right to 

counsel. The right to counsel obviously implies a tribal court system in which you have a law-trained judge and a prosecutor. That 

would—and the chance of imprisonment or incarceration. That 

would trigger, then, the right to counsel. 

If tribes are choosing a traditional form of justice—in my home 

there are no advocates or attorneys allowed in the court system at 

all. There is a traditional and then a contemporary. 

If the contemporary court is going to imprison someone, though, 

there should be a right to counsel, which would be separate form 

the traditional court which is held in traditional language and only 

those members who speak the language and are subject to our tribal spiritual leaders attend. So that wouldn’t be impacted at all. 

Ms. INDRITZ. Mr. Rooney, the vast majority of Native American 

defendants who appear in tribal courts are indigent and are unable 

to afford counsel. There are some Federal funds now that could be 

used for public defenders but the problem is they are not earmarked solely for public defenders. 

And so many tribes have so many needs in their court system, 

whether it is for computers, or judges, or whatever, that there are 

funds that the Department of Justice has sometimes awarded if the 

tribe wants to use—to ask for public defenders—that is not preVerDate Aug 31 2005 15:33 Dec 10, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00140 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\CRIME\121009\53945.000 HJUD1 PsN: DOUGA
137 

cluded—but there are no funds earmarked now solely for public defenders. And so we would ask that there be that, that there be 

funds which are available to tribes for public defense. 

And it could work something like the Criminal Justice Act, 

where there are a variety of ways of providing that, whether it is 

a public defender office such as Chairman Levings spoke of, or appointing counsel on an individual basis paid on an hourly rate, or 

a private legal aid organization that also takes on these kind of 

cases. So there are different ways to do it but there is no earmarked funding just for this public defender function. 

Mr. ROONEY. Mr. Chairman, I see my time is expired. If I could 

take the liberty of just one more—just a follow up to that with a 

simple yes or no. 

So H.R. 1924—does it or does it not have the requirement for the 

tribe—for counsel for these defendants? 

No. 

Ms. INDRITZ. No. 

Mr. ROONEY. Okay. 

Ms. INDRITZ. The Senate version has better language on that. 

Neither bill has funding. 

Mr. ROONEY. Okay. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. 

And I would like to thank all of our witnesses for their testimony 

today. Without objection written testimony submitted by Amnesty 

International USA and the Judicial Conference of the United 

States will be placed in the record. 

Members will have—may have additional questions for the witnesses, and if so we will forward those questions to you and ask 

that the answers be available as promptly as possible so that the 

answers will be part of the record. 

Each witness’s written statement will be entered into the record 

in its entirety. Without objection the hearing record will remain 

open for 1 week for submission of additional materials. 

And there is one other piece of business we would like to do at 

this time, and that is to congratulate our counsel, Karen Wilkinson, 

who has been with us for almost 2 years. She is on leave from the 

public defender’s office in Arizona and will—unfortunately they 

need her back. 

We want to thank you for almost 2 years of excellent contribution to the Committee work. 

[Applause.] 

Without objection the Subcommittee stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:39 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

(139) 

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD


B-1.eps
140 

f 


B-2.eps
141 


A1-1.eps
142 


A1-2.eps
143 


A1-3.eps
144 


A1-4.eps
145 


A1-5.eps
146 


A1-6.eps
147 


A2-1.eps
148 


A2-2.eps
149 


A2-3.eps
150 


A2-4.eps
151 


A2-5.eps
152 


A2-6.eps
153 


A2-7.eps
154 


A2-8.eps
155 


A2-9.eps
156 


A2-10.eps
157 


A2-11.eps
158 


A2-12.eps
159 


A2-13.eps
160 


A2-14.eps
161 

f 


A2-15.eps
162 


E-1.eps
163 


E-2.eps
164 


E-3.eps
165 


E-4.eps
166 


E-5.eps
167 


E-6.eps
168 

f 


E-7.eps
169 


C-1.eps
170 


C-2.eps
171 


C-3.eps
172 


C-4.eps
173 


C-5.eps
174 


C-6.eps
175 


C-7.eps
176 


C-8.eps
177 


C-9.eps
178 


C-10.eps
179 


C-11.eps
180 


C-12.eps
181 


C-13.eps
182 


C-14.eps
183 


C-15.eps
184 


C-16.eps
185 


C-17.eps
186 


C-18.eps
187 


C-19.eps
188 


C-20.eps
189 


C-21.eps
190 


C-22.eps
191 


C-23.eps
192 


C-24.eps
193 


C-25.eps
194 


C-26.eps
195 


C-27.eps
196 

f 


C-28.eps
197 


D-1.eps
198 


D-2.eps
199 


D-3.eps
200 

f 


D-4.eps
201 


F-1.eps
202 


F-2.eps
203 


F-3.eps
204 


F-4.eps
205 


F-5.eps
206 


F-6.eps
207 


F-7.eps
208 


F-8.eps
209 


F-9.eps
210 


F-10.eps
211 


F-11.eps
212 


F-12.eps
213 


F-13.eps
214 


F-14.eps
215 


F-15.eps
216 


F-16.eps
217 


F-17.eps
218 

f 


F-18.eps
219 


G-1.eps
220 


G-2.eps
221 


G-3.eps
222 


G-4.eps
223 


G-5.eps
224 


G-6.eps
225 


G-7.eps
226 


G-8.eps
227 


G-9.eps
228 


H-1.eps
229 


H-2.eps
230 


H-3.eps
231 


H-4.eps
232 


H-5.eps
233 


H-6.eps
234 


H-7.eps
235 


H-8.eps
236 


I-1.eps
237 


I-2.eps
238 


I-3.eps
239 


J-1.eps
240 


J-2.eps
241 


J-3.eps
242 


J-4.eps
243 


J-5.eps
244 


J-6.eps
245 


J-7.eps
246 


J-8.eps
247 


J-9.eps
248 

Æ 


J-10.eps