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

53–988 PDF 2010

S. HRG. 111–214 

EXAMINING S. 797, THE TRIBAL LAW AND ORDER 

ACT OF 2009 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

JUNE 25, 2009 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Indian Affairs 

( 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS 

BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota, Chairman 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming, Vice Chairman 

DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii 

KENT CONRAD, North Dakota 

DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii 

TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota 

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington 

JON TESTER, Montana 

TOM UDALL, New Mexico 

lllll, lllll 

JOHN MCCAIN, Arizona 

LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska 

TOM COBURN, M.D., Oklahoma 

MIKE CRAPO, Idaho 

MIKE JOHANNS, Nebraska 

ALLISON C. BINNEY, Majority Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

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

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held on June 25, 2009 ............................................................................... 1 

Statement of Senator Barrasso ............................................................................... 23 

Statement of Senator Crapo ................................................................................... 3 

Statement of Senator Dorgan ................................................................................. 1 

Statement of Senator Murkowski ........................................................................... 28 

Statement of Senator Tester ................................................................................... 3 

Statement of Senator Udall .................................................................................... 30 

WITNESSES

Brandenburg, Hon. Anthony J., Chief Judge, Intertribal Court of Southern 

California .............................................................................................................. 49 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 51 

Coby, Alonzo, Chairman, Fort Hall Business Council, Shoshone-Bannock 

Tribes .................................................................................................................... 32 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 34 

Echo Hawk, Larry, Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs, U.S. Department 

of the Interior; accompanied by W. Patrick Ragsdale, Deputy Director, 

Office of Justice Services ..................................................................................... 14 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 16 

Eid, Troy A., Partner, Greenberg Traurig, LLP .................................................... 37 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 39 

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

Justice ................................................................................................................... 5 

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

Quasula, Theodore R., President, Quasula Consulting ........................................ 53 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 56 

APPENDIX

Artichoker, Karen, and Majel, Juana, Co-Chairs, National Congress of American Indians Task Force on Violence Against Women, prepared statement ... 95 

Adams, Bruce, Chairman, San Juan County (Utah) Commission, prepared 

statement .............................................................................................................. 86 

Elliott, William V., Detective, Warm Springs Tribal Police Department 

(WSTPD), prepared statement ............................................................................ 81 

Ingram-Marshall, Jolanda E., Attorney; Executive Director of Niwhongwh 

xw E:na:wh Stop The Violence Coalition, Inc., prepared statement ................ 100 

Puyallup Tribe of Indians, prepared statement .................................................... 102 

Response to written questions submitted to: 

Troy A. Eid ........................................................................................................ 116 

Hon. Thomas J. Perrelli ................................................................................... 106 

Rhodes, William R., Governor, Gila River Indian Community, prepared statement ...................................................................................................................... 91 

S. 797 support letters, submitted by: 

Marieanne Canales, Member, Qualla Women’s Justice Alliance ................. 124 

Lisalyn Jacobs, Chairperson, National Task Force to End Sexual and 

Domestic Violence ......................................................................................... 130 

A. Jane McEwen, Executive Director, New York State Coalition Against 

Sexual Assault (NYSCASA) ......................................................................... 123 

Tina Olson, Co-Director, Mending the Sacred Hoop ..................................... 129 

Germaine Omish-Guachena, Executive Director, Strong Hearted Native 

Women’s Coalition, Inc. ................................................................................ 125 

Thomas M. Susman, Director, Governmental Affairs Office, American 

Bar Association.......................................................................................... 126, 127 

Page

IV 

Smith, Chad, Principal Chief, Cherokee Nation, prepared statement ................ 87 

Soler, Esta, President/Founder, Family Violence Prevention Fund, prepared 

statement .............................................................................................................. 89 

Weich, Ronald, Assistant Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice, letter, dated June 23, 2009, to Hon. Byron L. Dorgan .......................................... 69 

Written questions submitted to Hon. Larry Echo Hawk ...................................... 120 

(1) 

EXAMINING S. 797, THE TRIBAL LAW AND 

ORDER ACT OF 2009 

THURSDAY, JUNE 25, 2009 

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

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:15 p.m. in room 

628, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Byron L. Dorgan, 

Chairman of the Committee, presiding. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BYRON L. DORGAN, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM NORTH DAKOTA 

The CHAIRMAN. I am going to call the hearing to order. 

This is a hearing of the Senate Indian Affairs Committee. The 

Committee meets today to receive views on S. 797, the Tribal Law 

and Order Act of 2009. Along with 17 of my colleagues, I introduced this legislation April 2 of this year, but the bill has really 

been developed over the past several years. The Committee cosponsors include Vice Chairman Barrasso, Senators Tester, Udall, 

Johnson, Cantwell, Crapo, and Murkowski. Other cosponsors are 

Senators Begich, Boxer, Bingaman, Baucus, Kyl, Lieberman, 

Merkley, Stabenow, Widen, and we expect others to join as well. 

This bill originates from listening sessions that we have held all 

across the Country, dozens of meetings and listening sessions with 

tribal leaders, judges, police officers, city mayors, sheriffs, other interested parties on and off and adjacent to Indian reservations. 

In the 110th Congress, this Committee held eight hearings on a 

variety of public safety and justice topics. These meetings and 

hearings revealed what many in Indian Country have known for a 

long, long while, and that is while many Americans take for granted the safety that they experience every day, there are many living 

on Indian reservations that cannot take that for granted. 

Indian Country is suffering, we believe, an epidemic of sexual 

and domestic violence against women. We have had a good number 

of reports of that and studies that have been released. More than 

one in three Native American women will be raped or sexually assaulted during their lifetime. Two in five will suffer domestic violence. 

And for a number of reasons, victims of sexual violence on Indian 

reservations are often unable to bring their attackers to justice. In 

North Dakota, to cite an example, we have 11 police officers on one 

of our reservations patrolling 2.3 million acres on the Standing 

Rock Indian Reservation. Mr. Ragsdale knows that well. We have 

2 

been together at the Standing Rock Reservation where I held a 

hearing and where I will hold another hearing next week. 

Because of the lack of adequate law enforcement in that area, a 

cry for help, a call saying a crime is being committed or has just 

been committed, could very well result in the law enforcement officer showing up an hour, perhaps 12 hours, perhaps a day later in 

response to an enormous cry for help as a result of a violent crime. 

That is just not acceptable and has to be changed. 

One BIA officer on the Standing Rock Reservation quit his job 

and said about his 10 years on the job as a Federal police officer, 

‘‘I felt like I was standing in the middle of a river trying to hold 

back a flood.’’ He went on to say that his unit was forced to triage 

rape cases, taking only those in which a confession was present. 

More than a century ago, the Congress enacted something called 

the Major Crimes Act, which took authority away from tribes and 

placed a legal obligation on the part of the United States to provide 

public safety. And the fact is, we are just not meeting that obligation. I have a chart that will show, for example, declination rates 

for reservation violent crime between 2004 and 2007. I have met 

with the Justice Department and others, U.S. Attorneys, and there 

are always reasons that declination rates are where they are. Each 

case, I understand, is unique and different and separate. So I understand all that. 

Yet, to see a chart that shows a rate of 72 percent declining to 

prosecute child sex crimes raises very serious questions; aggravated assaults, 58 percent declination; murder/manslaughter, 50 

percent declination. 

A U.S. Attorney summed up the problem with this current system. He said, ‘‘The performance of my office will be compared to 

other U.S. Attorneys. My gun cases have to compete with other 

U.S. Attorneys. My white collar crime cases have to compete with 

other U.S. Attorneys. One criteria that is never on the list in my 

office is Indian Country cases.’’ 

Our bill takes steps to try to ensure that Indian Country crimes 

get placed on a priority list. The bill adds a measure of accountability at the Federal level. At the same time, the local tribal justice system is hampered, as most of us know. Federal laws place 

strict limits on tribal police arrest authority, and tribal courts can 

incarcerate offenders for no more than one year for any single offense. 

We heard from tribal court judges and prosecutors who try rape 

and homicide cases that were declined in Federal court, and who 

are limited to administer one year in jail as a penalty for serious 

and violent sexual crimes. Subjecting a murderer or a rapist to one 

year in prison does not in any way provide justice to the victims 

or to the community. 

So let me just summarize by saying the Tribal Law and Order 

Act of 2009 takes initial steps to address this concern. It is not a 

perfect piece of legislation, but it is a result of John Harte, the Policy Director for the Committee, and Allison Binney and others, 

going all around the Country, and that includes myself and Members of this Committee going around the Country and consulting 

and visiting and meeting with all of the interested parties to try 

3 

to determine how can we fix this; what can we put together that 

addresses this crisis. 

And with that in mind, we introduced legislation with 17 Senators, 18 including myself, that is bipartisan and I think very 

strong. 

I want to thank the witnesses who have agreed to come today to 

give us the benefit of their thoughts. I am encouraged by the presence of the Justice Department’s Associate Attorney General and 

Assistant Secretary Echo Hawk, who has great experience in this 

area as well. And I want to thank all of the witnesses for being 

here. 

Let me call on my colleagues for a brief statement. 

Senator Tester? 

STATEMENT OF HON. JON TESTER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM MONTANA 

Senator TESTER. I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to 

thank the witnesses for being here today. You are the experts. We 

look forward to hearing your perspective on the issue of safety. 

I also want to thank Chairman Dorgan for his leadership in this 

in putting forth this bill that I think is a good step in the right direction. 

For those of us that don’t have to worry about our safety, sometimes we take it for granted. But if you take a look, and I know 

the Chairman talked about the number of hearings that we have 

had over the last couple of years that dealt with safety issues in 

Indian Country. There have been many. There have been many articles written about it. 

But if you think about if you are living in a situation where safety isn’t assured and it is not respected, and the impacts it can have 

on quality of life, the impacts it can have on the family structure, 

the impacts it can have on unemployment, it is no surprise that 

when you look at Indian Country and see families that are broken 

apart, when you see issues of quality of life that are less than what 

we should be striving for, you see unemployment in Montana, 70 

percent, 80 percent, sometimes higher. 

We need to address it and we need to address it in a way that 

makes sense for Indian Country. In the long run, it will help everybody and in the short run it is going to help Indian Country, and 

they need some help. 

So we appreciate the folks testifying today and I look forward to 

the questions. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Tester, thank you very much. 

Senator Crapo? 

STATEMENT OF HON. MIKE CRAPO, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM IDAHO 

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

I also appreciate your hard work on this issue and look forward 

to working with you on this important legislation. 

I note that today is, if I am correct, Larry Echo Hawk’s first appearance before this Committee since his confirmation. And Mr. 

4 

Secretary, I congratulate you and look forward to continuing to 

work with you on important issues of this nature. 

I also want to recognize one of our witnesses who will be on the 

second panel, Mr. Chairman, our Chairman Alonzo Coby of the 

Fort Hall Business Council which represents the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes of Idaho. Chairman Coby and his fellow Council Members, many of whom are here today, have shown great leadership 

in the creation of a new Tribal Justice Center in Fort Hall and we 

look forward to the center’s opening in coming months as it will 

provide great benefits to the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes and other 

tribes and to the surrounding communities. 

I also recognize Chairman Coby’s leadership in advocating for the 

legislation that we are here evaluating today, the Tribal Law and 

Order Act, and I am proud, as you indicated, Mr. Chairman, to be 

a cosponsor of this important legislation, as are a number of our 

colleagues on this Committee. 

Unfortunately, I will not be able to stay here for the full hearing 

as I am scheduled to attend a ceremony on the House side in just 

a few minutes to present the congressional award of a gold medal 

to 15 young Idaho students. So Mr. Chairman, if I slip out it is not 

for lack of support or interest in the issue that we have here. 

Nevertheless, I want to indicate that I look forward to reviewing 

all of the testimony that we receive today and to help expeditiously 

move this legislation forward. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Crapo, thank you very much. 

I want to mention the Committee has received a number of statements on the Tribal Law and Order bill from a number of domestic 

and sexual violence prevention organizations. Many of those advocates, Amnesty International included—and that is one of whose 

reports I referred to in my opening statement—many of them are 

in the audience today and I want to welcome them to the hearing 

and thank them for their extraordinary work and let them know 

that your statements will be printed in their entirety in the hearing record. 

And I say to others who are interested in this subject that we 

will keep the record open for two weeks, and if you have submissions that you wish to include in the Committee record, we will certainly do that. 

And I want to mention as well that we have an Appropriations 

Committee markup at three o’clock. Senator Barrasso, the Vice 

Chair of our Committee, will be here at three o’clock while I have 

to go to the Interior Appropriations Committee downstairs briefly, 

and Senator Udall and some others will be here as well. 

Mr. Perrelli, thank you very much for being here, the Honorable 

Tom Perrelli, Associate Attorney General of the United States. I 

read about you in The Washington Post recently and, you know, almost swallowed my Grape Nuts whole there from that box of 

breakfast cereal. I was so pleased with what I read. You indicated 

that you and I believe also David Ogden, the new Deputy down at 

the Department of Justice, are taking a real interest in this issue 

of Indian tribal justice, and that is a healthy and a very refreshing 

thing for myself and Senator Tester and Members of this Committee to see. 

5 

So we thank you for your being here and for your willingness to 

be here along with Assistant Secretary Echo Hawk and Mr. 

Ragsdale, who heads the appropriate area over in the BIA. 

Mr. Perrelli, we will call on you. The statements of all of the witnesses will be included in their entirety in the permanent record, 

and we will ask that the witnesses summarize. 

Welcome, Mr. Perrelli. 

STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS J. PERRELLI, ASSOCIATE 

ATTORNEY GENERAL, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

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

I do appreciate the opportunity to speak to the Committee on the 

Tribal Law and Order Act of 2009, which we believe is comprehensive and important legislation that will improve the delivery of 

criminal justice services in Indian Country. 

I know our views letter on this is long and there are some provisions that we believe are problematic, but I don’t want those comments and constructive concerns to diminish how important we 

think this legislation is. We very much look forward to working 

with you and this Committee on this issue, as well as other issues 

relevant to Indian Country, in the coming years, because I think 

we can all agree there is a great deal that needs to be done. 

Following up on your comments, I do want to express a little bit 

about the new leadership of the Department and their commitment 

to Indian Country. One of Attorney General Holder’s first acts 

when he came on was to convene a summit of State, local and tribal law enforcement to find out what we were doing well, what we 

were doing poorly, and what we needed to learn. 

Coming out of that and recommendations from within the Department, we announced a series of sessions in Indian Country, as 

well as leading up to a Tribal Nations Listening Conference in the 

fall, which really hasn’t occurred since 1994, with the Justice Department trying to bring representatives of all of the tribes together. Our goal is not simply to listen, but to have action items 

and plans in mind when we get to that session. The sessions in the 

interim will hopefully help us with that. 

I think our commitment to Indian Country derives in many respects from the Attorney General’s, the Deputy Attorney General’s 

and my previous experience in the Department. The Deputy Attorney General, in fact, co-chaired the Indian Country Law Enforcement Initiative, and I know there has been a lot of discussion in 

prior hearings before this Committee about that. I succeeded him 

as the leader from the Department of Justice in that effort. I know 

that this Committee has heard testimony in the past from U.S. Attorneys who were discouraged for or penalized for appropriately enforcing the law in Indian Country. That will not happen under this 

Attorney General. 

In the leadership there is a tremendous understanding and commitment to the importance of law enforcement in Indian Country, 

and we recognize that we are only going to succeed if everyone in 

the Federal family, as well as with our tribal partners and State 

and local governments, works together. 

My written testimony lays out information about a variety of provisions that we support, that we suggest modifications to, or to 

6 

which we object. I do want to talk a little bit about what is going 

on at the Department now. In addition to our intention to go 

through a process leading up to the Tribal Nations Listening Conference, we are actively seeking to get Recovery Act funds that are 

urgently needed out to Indian Country, particularly $225 million 

that were made available for correctional facilities through the Recovery Act. 

We are also working to get the Community-Oriented Policing 

services monies out, which are applicable to all communities, but 

which I know are desparately needed in tribal communities. And 

as you referenced, our Office of Violence Against Women is also 

working to get money out to Indian Country to address the longstanding problem of domestic violence in Indian Country. 

But we acknowledge that more needs to be done, and we are undertaking a comprehensive review of what we are doing in Indian 

Country with an eye towards what would be appropriate to propose 

to the President in the 2011 budget. 

With respect to the chart, I know that the issue of declinations 

has been a significant one for the Committee. As the Department 

has stated previously and stated again, we don’t think that the declination rate provides a useful measure of the Department’s commitment to law enforcement in Indian Country. We also think that 

in many circumstances, but not all, there is good coordination between Federal law enforcement and tribal law enforcement. 

But if nothing else, those statistics and the focus of this Committee on this demonstrate that there is a real perception problem, 

and that the Department needs to do more to communicate what 

we are doing, and what we are not doing, with our tribal partners. 

We need to communicate that when there is an opportunity to 

prosecute in whatever system—State, Federal or tribal—we take 

advantage of doing that. 

We also need to look at our data, the data that is the source of 

that chart and that we have often said we don’t think demonstrates 

anything. We need to figure out how we can get more useful data, 

which I know you have asked us for repeatedly. We are now focused on trying to see if there is more that we can do to provide 

an accurate pictures, whatever that might turn out to be. 

I can’t make any promises today. I have met with a number of 

people on this and I have been told how difficult it is, but it is 

something we are working on now. 

I appreciate the opportunity to provide this opening statement 

and I look forward to answering your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Perrelli follows:] 

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

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Chairman Dorgan, Vice-Chair Barrasso and members of the Committee: 

I appreciate this opportunity to appear before the Committee on behalf of the Department of Justice to offer the Department’s perspective on law enforcement issues 

affecting Indian Country. In particular, I’m grateful for the chance to convey the Department’s position on S.797, the Tribal Law and Order Act of 2009. This comprehensive legislation would significantly improve the delivery and administration 

of criminal justice services in Indian Country, but it also contains several provisions 

to which the Department objects and which we believe must be modified. The Department’s position on this legislation is contained in a letter conveyed to the ComVerDate Nov 24 2008 09:33 Apr 07, 2010 Jkt 053988 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\DOCS\53988.TXT JACK PsN: JACKF
7 

mittee in advance of today’s hearing. I will reiterate today some, but not all, of the 

expressions of support and concern contained in that letter. 

Before addressing specific parts of the legislation, however, I want to express the 

Department’s unequivocal commitment to the mission of fostering public safety in 

Indian Country. As this Committee knows well, law enforcement in Indian Country 

is a shared responsibility. Whether a crime will be investigated and prosecuted by 

the Federal Government, a state government, or the tribe itself depends upon the 

nature of the crime, where the crime is committed, against whom, and whether the 

perpetrator is Indian or non-Indian. This jurisdictional patchwork can lead to inconsistent results, and often times frustration by those who perceive the Department’s 

commitment to enforcing criminal law in Indian Country as itself being inconsistent. 

I want to assure you today from Attorney General Holder, Deputy Attorney General 

Ogden, and myself that such perceptions are wrong. Just last week, the Department 

announced that the Attorney General would convene a Tribal Nations Listening 

Conference later this year, at which we can consult with tribal leaders on how to 

address the growing public safety crisis in Indian Country and other important 

issues affecting tribal communities. Both the Deputy Attorney General and I plan 

to participate personally in smaller planning sessions, at which we will seek tribal 

representatives’ input in setting the agenda for that Conference. Tribal communities 

have long-time supporters and friends in the Department’s leadership. 

Our commitment to seeking justice for Indian Country communities and victims 

of crime is reflected in the myriad resources we devote to investigating Indian Country crime within the FBI, ATF, and DEA. Everyday, often in concert with their tribal police counterparts, federal agents operating in Indian country are pursuing cases 

involving violent crime, illegal drugs, and incidents of sexual assault and domestic 

violence. Everyday, in one or more of the 37 U.S. Attorney’s Offices that have Indian 

Country within their boundaries, federal prosecutors are taking the results of those 

investigations and obtaining convictions that remove dangerous predators from Indian communities. In fact, in a typical year, approximately 25 percent of all violent 

crime cases opened by U.S. Attorneys nationally occur in Indian Country. Everyday, 

victim specialists employed by the Department and the tribes are working with Indian victims of crime, helping them rebuild their lives. 

I would like to offer a few relevant facts that demonstrate the depth of the Department’s ongoing efforts to investigate and prosecute cases arising in Indian country. The FBI is the main federal law enforcement authority in Indian Country. Even 

with the heightened demands placed upon the FBI by its primary role in the fight 

against terrorism, Indian Country law enforcement remains a key priority for the 

FBI. The FBI’s Safe Trails Task Force initiative—which focuses entirely on Indian 

Country crime—has grown steadily since its inception in 1994. There are now 17 

Safe Trails Task Forces operating in Indian Country, and the FBI stands ready to 

expand that number as necessary. 

The FBI’s Indian Country Special Crimes Unit routinely works with the Bureau 

of Indian Affairs (BIA)—Indian Police Academy in Artesia, New Mexico, to sponsor 

and promote core training for investigators. Each fiscal year, the FBI provides more 

than 20 training conferences for local, tribal, and federal investigators regarding 

gang assessment, crime scene processing, child abuse investigations, forensic interviewing of children, homicide investigations, interviewing and interrogation, officer 

safety and survival, crisis negotiation, and Indian gaming. Furthermore, the FBI’s 

Office for Victim Assistance dedicates 31 Victim Specialists to Indian country, representing approximately one-third of the entire FBI Victim Specialist workforce. 

Also, the FBI recently deployed the Law Enforcement National Data Exchange 

(N–DEx) system with participation from tribal governments. N-DEx is a criminal 

justice information sharing system that will provide nationwide connectivity to disparate local, state, tribal, and federal systems for the exchange of criminal justice 

information. The N–DEx system provides law enforcement agencies with a powerful 

new investigative tool to search, link, analyze and share criminal justice information 

on a national basis to a degree never before possible. This information covers the 

criminal justice life-cycle and includes incident/case reports, incarceration data, and 

parole/probation data. Participating criminal justice agencies contributecopies of 

data from their record management systems to the N–DEx system. Agencies continue to ‘‘own’’ and are responsible for the data they submit, including updating the 

information on a regular basis. Utilizing a secure link via the internet through the 

Law Enforcement Online service, participating agencies access the system without 

continuing costs beyond the reasonable start-up cost associated with data conversion 

and connectivity. 

The Law Enforcement N–DEx has been endorsed and is supported by the International Association of Chiefs of Police, the National Sheriffs Association, the Major 

City Chiefs Association, and the Major County Sheriffs Association. The Oneida NaVerDate Nov 24 2008 09:33 Apr 07, 2010 Jkt 053988 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\DOCS\53988.TXT JACK PsN: JACKF
8 

tion Police Department (PD) is the first tribal law enforcement agency to participate 

in the N–DEx project. Currently,the Oneida Nation PD contributes data by manually entering incident information in the N–DEx system. The N–DEx Program Office 

is developing relationships with other tribal agencies to submit data to the N–DEx 

system. Toward that end, the office has met with various tribal law enforcement 

agencies, including those of the Paiute, Mashantucket Pequot, Mohegan, Eastern 

Band of Cherokee, and Navajo Tribes. 

My colleagues at the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) 

have also been committed to reducing violence in Indian Country. ATF has assisted 

tribal governments in combating firearms and gang violence through the Project 

Safe Neighborhoods (PSN) initiative. Project Safe Neighborhoods is a nationwide 

program aimed at reducing gun and gang crime in America by networking existing 

local programs that target gun and gang crime and providing these programs with 

additional tools necessary to be successful. This funding is being used to hire new 

federal and state prosecutors, support investigators, provide training, distribute gun 

lock safety kits, deter juvenile gun crime, and develop and promote community outreach efforts as well as to support other gun and gang violence reduction strategies 

In early 2009, EOUSA and ATF launched a Project Safe Neighborhoods Indian 

Country Pilot Project in the Eastern Navajo Nation Dlo’ayazhi community located 

in western New Mexico. The Navajo Nation PSN Pilot Project will allow the community, in partnership with the New Mexico U.S. Attorney’s Office, ATF, BIA and FBI, 

to develop critical interdiction and prevention programs that will specifically address the problems experienced in that community. 

In addition, ATF has entered into Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs) with 

several tribes in order to increase cooperation with local tribal law enforcement and 

address the problem of gun violence in tribal areas. ATF also works closely with 

tribes in providing training and instruction on firearms and gang related issues. 

This training includes information on domestic violence and its impact on firearms 

possession. 

Furthermore, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) proactively investigates significant national and international Drug Trafficking Organizations operating in, and within proximity to Indian Country. For example, in December of 

2008, DEA concluded an investigation on the Tohono O’cdham Indian Reservation 

which resulted in thirty-six arrests, seizure of more than six tons of marijuana, eleven pounds of methamphetamine, one kilogram of cocaine, $491,000 in U.S. currency, 

and thirteen weapons. The DEA brings a number of investigative techniques to its 

Indian country operations, including the use of Title-III wire intercepts. 

While I have detailed the extensive investigative and prosecutorial work that the 

Department is doing in Indian Country, that is not intended to suggest that there 

is not more to be done or that the problems facing tribal communities are not enormous. We must do more, and the only way we will be successful is if we work in 

true partnership with tribal communities and the states. 

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (Recovery Act) is one way in which 

we are doing so. As the Committee is aware, through the Recovery Act, the Office 

of Justice Programs (OJP) will provide $225 million for correctional facilities on tribal lands. These new facilities not only provide needed infrastructure for the criminal 

justice system on tribal lands, but provide additional benefits by offering employment opportunities, and by helping inmates’ ties with family and other community 

members, which may have a rehabilitative effect, and may not be possible when the 

facilities are further away. OJP is also using Recovery Act funds to improve the 

quality of tribal crime data gathering and information sharing. In addition, OJP has 

encouraged tribes to apply for other Recovery Act funding to support tribal law enforcement agencies and court systems. 

Together with the U.S. Marshals Service, which assists tribes in locating and apprehending sex offenders who fail to comply with their sex offender registration requirements, and serves as the lead agency responsible for investigating violations 

of 18 U.S.C. § 2250 and related offenses, OJP is also helping Tribes implement the 

Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act. OJP provides, free of charge, access 

to the Tribe and Territory Sex Offender Registry System, which includes software 

that will allow tribes to meet all of the requirements for a public sex offender registry. OJP also worked with tribal lawyers to develop a Model Tribal Sex Offender 

Registration Code, which offers tribes sample language to help tribes comply with 

the key provisions of the Adam Walsh Act. 

OJP’s Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) awarded grants to more than 100 tribal 

project grantees for drug courts, tribal courts assistance and court enhancements, 

gang resistance programs, alcohol and substance abuse programs, Safe Neighborhoods Initiative, justice assistance grants, tribal correctional facilities planning and 

9 

renovation grants. Additionally, BJA provided $2.8 million for targeted training and 

technical assistance grants to support tribal projects, for more than $26.7 million. 

OJP’s Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) provides 

training and technical assistance through the Tribal Youth Program, the Tribal Juvenile Accountability Discretionary Grant Program, the Amber Alert Program and 

a National Tribal Youth Training and Technical Assistance Program. In addition, 

in FY 2009, OJJDP released a solicitation for the Tribal Juvenile Detention and Reentry Green Demonstration Program. This program furthers the Department’s mission by enhancing opportunities for federally recognized tribes to provide comprehensive and quality programs for tribal youth who reside within or are being released from a tribal juvenile detention center. For the first time OJJDP is sponsoring an initiative that encourages funding recipients to partner with institutions 

and organizations to incorporate green technologies and environmentally sustainable activities as part of their educational, training, and reentry activities for youth 

participants. As part of this effort, OJJDP has also released a FY 2009 solicitation 

for Training and Technical Assistance for Tribal Juvenile Detention and Reentry 

Green Program. This program will provide training and technical assistance to help 

federally-recognized tribes reduce delinquency and recidivism among tribal juvenile 

detainees and will assist tribes as they develop partnerships with organizations to 

incorporate green technologies and environmentally sustainable activities into their 

reentry programs. 

OJP’s Office for Victims of Crime awarded 47 tribal project grants to help develop 

and sustain crime victim assistance programs in American Indian and Alaskan Native communities. These resources are used to provide direct services to victims of 

crimes such as child abuse, homicide, elder abuse, driving while intoxicated, and 

gang violence. Additionally, the Office for Victims of Crime provided approximately 

$1.3 million for targeted training and technical assistance grants to support tribal 

projects, totaling over $6.4 million. 

Finally, OJP’s Bureau of Justice Statistics awarded 3 grants with over $200,000 

for assistance in improving the quality, access, and ability of tribes to share criminal 

records. It also helped enable tribes to identify individuals for criminal justice and 

non-criminal justice programs. In addition, the Bureau of Justice Statistics provided 

over $300,000 for targeted training and technical assistance grants to support tribal 

projects, totaling more than $550,000 

The Department acknowledges that more needs to be done. More resources, more 

research, and more training will help. Some jurisdictional provisions should be reexamined, and perhaps modified to allow greater law enforcement options in Indian 

country. The Tribal Law and Order Act of 2009 takes meaningful steps towards enhancing public safety for Native Americans and we look forward to working with 

the Committee to improve this legislation and help achieve that goal. With those 

thoughts in mind, I would like to address several specific provisions of the bill. 

Section 101(c) would allow the Secretary of Interior to authorize BIA law enforcement officers to make arrests without a warrant for offenses committed in Indian 

Country if ‘‘the offense is a Federal crime and [the officer] has reasonable grounds 

to believe that the person to be arrested has committed, or is committing, the 

crime.’’ Currently, BIA officers without a warrant are not authorized to arrest persons for Indian Country offenses that are not committed in their presence, unless 

the offense is a felony, or among certain misdemeanors involving domestic violence, 

dating violence, stalking, or the violation of a protective order. The Department 

would support increasing the categories of misdemeanors for which a warrantless 

arrest may be authorized by BIA officers when the offense is committed outside 

their presence. In particular, we support expanding BIA’s warrantless arrest authority for misdemeanor controlled substances offenses, in violation of Title 21, U.S. 

Code, Chapter 13; misdemeanor firearms offenses, in violation of Title 18, U.S. 

Code, Chapter 44; misdemeanor assaults, in violation of Title 18, U.S. Code, Chapter 7; and misdemeanor liquor trafficking offenses, in violation of Title 18 U.S. Code, 

Chapter 59. We do not support expanding BIA’s warrantless arrest authority to encompass all ‘‘Federal crimes’’ committed in Indian Country, but outside the officer’s 

presence. For minor offenses not involving a measureable risk to public safety, the 

Department believes an arrest warrant should be obtained. 

The Department also recommends that the standard for a warrantless arrest contained in 25 U.S.C. § 2803(3) be modified to more closely track U.S. Supreme Court 

precedent. Currently, the statute requires that an officer possess ‘‘reasonable 

grounds’’ to believe that the person to be arrested committed the offense. We suggest that the officer should be required to possess ‘‘probable cause’’ to believe that 

the person to be arrested committed the offense. See Atwater v. City of Lago Vista, 

532 U.S. 318 (2001). 

10 

Section 102 requires that, when a federal law enforcement agency or a U.S. Attorney decides not to pursue an investigation or prosecution of an alleged violation of 

federal law committed in Indian Country, the agency and/or the U.S. Attorney provide its ‘‘evidence,’’ and ‘‘related reports’’ to ‘‘appropriate tribal justice officials.’’ For 

U.S. Attorneys, the obligation must be complied with ‘‘sufficiently in advance of the 

tribal statute of limitations.’’ The apparent intent is to allow tribal authorities to 

pursue the case in tribal court, should they choose to do so. It appears that the section is also intended to address the perception that U.S. Attorneys decline Indian 

country cases that should be prosecuted. 

The Department is both mindful of and attentive to the fact that certain cases 

may be more appropriately pursued in tribal court; or in some cases in both federal 

and tribal court. To that end, federal authorities routinely coordinate and cooperate 

with tribal authorities to ensure that, subject to applicable rules and regulations, 

any other jurisdiction with prosecution authority has the information and evidence 

it needs to pursue its case. The Department therefore believes that section 102 is 

designed to fix a problem—a perceived lack of federal, state, and tribal law enforcement coordination—that is atypical. 

However, to the extent there are instances in which coordination is lacking, this 

is not a problem that will be cured through legislative mandates. Only through the 

development of improved information sharing and strengthened intergovernmental 

relationships will we successfully address this issue. Likewise, we believe that the 

perception that U.S. Attorneys decline meritorious criminal cases is in general a 

misperception. Again, only by building improved lines of communication between 

federal and tribal law enforcement, as well as tribal communities, will these 

misperceptions be addressed. 

The Department is committed to improving communication between federal and 

tribal law enforcement and, more generally, is actively focused on criminal justice 

in Indian country. In the coming months we will work closely and collaboratively 

with tribal law enforcement to improve the exchange of information. While Section 

102 is intended to address declination issues, the Department believes that the best 

solutions will come through discussions and communication between the parties. We 

are concerned that any solution that does not involve meaningful collaboration between the parties will, in the final analysis, not really address the issue. The leadership of the Department would like the opportunity to work through this issue with 

tribal leadership before we endorse legislation. To that end, we oppose section 102 

at this time. 

Conversely, the Department is fully supportive of section 103(a), which will clarify 

that the categories of persons who can be appointed by the Attorney General to 

serve as Special Assistant U.S. Attorneys (SAUSAs) include tribal prosecutors. The 

Department has relied upon the assistance of SAUSAs employed by other federal 

agencies and state and local governments for decades in meeting its obligation to 

enforce federal criminal law. Clarifying that the pool should include tribal prosecutors is warranted. We know that many tribal prosecutors possess enough talent and 

experience to be valuable additions to the resources we can draw upon to prosecute 

Indian country crime. We also agree that before exercising this authority the Department should consult with tribal justice officials. While the Attorney General 

must retain the ultimate authority to decide who will represent the United States 

in court, it is inconceivable to me that a tribal prosecutor would be appointed as 

a SAUSA without the consent of the tribe with which he or she is otherwise employed. 

Section 103(b) addresses the use of tribal liaisons by U.S. Attorney’s Offices with 

responsibility for Indian Country. This section would codify the duties and responsibilities of tribal liaisons, but it does so in a manner that fails to acknowledge or 

accommodate the diversity of tribes, issues, and resources that exist across the districts that work in Indian Country. 

As the Committee knows, tribal liaisons are Assistant United States Attorneys 

(AUSAs) who, in addition to prosecuting cases, are also responsible for coordinating 

Indian Country relations within a district. The Department fully recognizes the importance of tribal liaisons and currently has 44 tribal liaisons in districts with some 

Indian Country within their jurisdictions. Tribal liaisons have been effectively serving U.S. Attorney’s Offices since we began designating them 1995. 

The key to successfully using tribal liaisons, however, is to recognize that one size 

does not fit all. While each tribal liaison may be an expert in Indian Country issues, 

those issues can vary greatly from tribe to tribe, and from district to district. Some 

districts may deal with only one tribe; others will be responsible for many. Some 

tribes have fewer than 200 members; others will have more than 100,000. Some districts contain vast amounts of Indian Country, others have relatively little. In some 

districts Indian gaming is prolific; in others it may be insignificant. Some districts 

11 

have a multitude of AUSAs with substantial Indian Country experience; others may 

have few, or just one. These multiple layers of diversity make nationwide codification of the duties of tribal liaisons counterproductive, by reducing the discretion that 

each U.S. Attorney’s Office must have to best serve the Indian community(s) in their 

districts. It is important to note that while the Tribal Liaisons are collectively the 

most experienced prosecutors of crimes in Indian Country, they are not the only 

AUSAs doing these prosecutions. The sheer volume of cases from Indian Country 

requires these prosecutions in most USAOs to be distributed among numerous 

AUSAs. 

The Department believes that each individual district is in the best position to 

evaluate the challenges presented by Indian Country crime within the district, the 

backgrounds, talents, and experiences of its AUSAs, and how the latter should best 

be employed to meet the former. It is essential that U.S. Attorneys maintain this 

discretion in tailoring the role and scope of the tribal liaison program in their districts, and the Department is therefore opposed to section 103(b). However, we do 

agree with the sentiment expressed in section 103(c) that the performance of tribal 

liaisons should be evaluated fairly on the full scope of their assigned duties, including those duties that are not case-related. We also support section 103(d), which encourages U.S. Attorneys to rely upon SAUSAs to provide enhanced attention to 

minor crimes occurring in Indian Country. The Department notes, however, that focusing these efforts in districts where ‘‘declination rates’’ exceed the national average is not a viable measuring stick. As we have conveyed to the Committee in the 

past, reliable statistics about ‘‘declination rates’’ in the federal system are unknown 

and realistically unknowable. The decision-making process that can result in an Indian Country case not being accepted for federal prosecution is too complex and individualized to produce meaningful comparative statistics. 

Section 104 of the Tribal Law and Order Act of 2009 is focused on reorganizing 

the Department’s approach to managing its Indian Country responsibilities in 

Washington. Section 104(a) would direct the Attorney General to establish the Office 

of Tribal Justice (OTJ) as a ‘‘permanent division’’ within the Department, with specific assigned responsibilities. Section 104(b) would create the Office of Indian Country Crime within the Criminal Division of the Department. 

OTJ, which has been recognized in statute (25 U.S.C. 3653(6)), has functioned for 

some time with staff detailed to it by other components of the Department. We understand Section 104(a) as an effort to give prominence to OTJ by making it a separate component of the Department. The Department strongly supports Section 

104(a) with some modification. First, OTJ should remain an ‘‘office’’ within the Department, not a ‘‘division.’’ Divisions within the Department are generally large litigating components. Instead, OTJ—like the Office of Legal Counsel or the Office of 

Legal Policy—should remain an ‘‘Office.’’ 

Second, because OTJ exists in statute, the Department recommends that Section 

104(a) direct that the Attorney General establish OTJ as a separate component. 

That would have the effect of placing it on the Department’s organizational chart 

and giving it greater prominence. This may be accomplished by amending the directive in proposed Subsection 106(a) (the provision to be inserted into the Indian and 

Tribal Justice Technical and Legal Assistance Act of 2000) to read: ‘‘the Attorney 

General shall establish the Office of Tribal Justice as a component within the Department.’’ 

Third, the Department recommends striking Subsection 106(b) (of the provision 

to be inserted) which addresses personnel and funding. The Department will continue the current personnel and funding arrangements until appropriations are provided. 

Finally, the duties identified in Subsection 106(c) (of the provision to be inserted) 

reflect what are currently OTJ’s core functions. Accordingly, the Department recommends that the heading of this Subsection be changed from ‘‘Additional Duties’’ 

to ‘‘Duties of the Office of Tribal Justice.’’ In addition, the opening paragraph of proposed Subsection 104(c) should be replaced with ‘‘The Office of Tribal Justice shall— 

’’ 

With the above modifications, the Department actively supports Section 104(a). 

OTJ has been effectively serving Indian Country for many years. OTJ was established to provide a single point of contact within the Department of Justice for meeting the broad and complex Department responsibilities related to Indian tribes. The 

Office facilitates coordination between Departmental components working on Indian 

issues, and provides a constant channel of communication for Indian tribal governments with the Department. The Department agrees that it is time to recognize 

OTJ as a critical and permanent entity within DOJ. 

We oppose, however, the creation of an Office of Indian Country Crime in the 

Criminal Division at the Department of Justice. Transferring resources would not 

12 

make a measureable contribution to addressing the very real problems that the 

Committee is trying to deal with by this legislation. Those problems occur on the 

ground, in the districts containing Indian Country, and that, we believe, is where 

the focus of effort should be. 

Instead, creating an Office of Indian Country Crime in Washington could have the 

practical effect of weakening the Department’s efforts to combat violent crime in Indian Country, not strengthening them. Foremost, creation of an Office of Indian 

Country Crime in the Criminal Division would take valued criminal justice resources away from the field, where they are needed most. Currently, a large majority of the Department’s most experienced Indian Country professionals serve in Indian Country, where their expertise has the greatest impact. Bringing some number 

of those persons to DOJ headquarters will produce an experience gap in the field. 

Existing structures in the Department are more than sufficient to address Indian 

Country issues. In the fall of 2008, EOUSA created a permanent Attorney Advisor 

position titled Native American Issues Coordinator. The Coordinator was placed 

within EOUSA’s Legal Initiatives Staff and serves as a principal legal advisor on 

all matters pertaining to Native American issues, among other law enforcement program areas; provides management support to the United States Attorneys’ Offices 

(USAOs); and coordinates and facilitates the resolution of important legal issues. In 

addition, the Attorney General’s Advisory Committee (AGAC), Native American 

Issues Subcommittee (NAIS), is a powerful voice for the U.S. Attorneys’ community 

on all matters having to do with Indian Country, especially Indian Country crime. 

The NAIS is the longest-tenured subcommittee of the AGAC, and one of its most 

active. It consists of U.S. Attorneys whose districts include significant amounts of 

Indian Country, and it regularly holds meetings in Indian Country. The NAIS has 

historically dealt with the most pressing issues facing Indian Country, and often 

produces well thought out policy recommendations based upon what works in the 

field. 

We support Title II of the Tribal Law and Order Act of 2009, but would like to 

work with the Committee to ensure that section 201 accomplishes its intended purpose. We understand that section 201 is intended to streamline the process by which 

tribes with land located in Public Law 280 states may retrocede concurrent criminal 

jurisdiction to the Federal Government. We support the concept, but are concerned 

with two aspects of section 201 as drafted. 

We are concerned that section 201 may inadvertently and automatically retrocede 

criminal jurisdiction to the United States in all P.L. 280 states upon enactment. We 

believe that was not the drafter’s intent, and minor changes to the wording will remove any ambiguity. We are also concerned, however, that section 201 requires that 

tribes consult with the Attorney General before effecting a retrocession, but does not 

expressly require the Attorney General’s consent. To ensure an orderly and methodical transition, the Attorney General must be allowed to determine the circumstances under which concurrent jurisdiction will be accepted. This is particularly important because federal criminal law cannot be enforced adequately without 

dedicating resources to that effort. 

Investigators, prosecutors, staff, and judicial resources are all necessary to the enforcement of federal criminal law. The Attorney General should be allowed to ensure 

that sufficient assets are available before having new enforcement responsibilities 

thrust upon the Department. 

Section 202 authorizes monetary incentives for enhanced cooperation between 

state, local and tribal governments to improve law enforcement effectiveness and reduce crime, both in Indian Country and in nearby communities. The Department 

is fully supportive of this initiative, and believes it holds great promise. 

Title III of the Tribal Law and Order Act of 2009 is directed at increasing a tribe’s 

ability to respond to Indian Country crime. The Department supports those provisions of Title III that are directed at improving the quality, resources, training, and 

competence of tribal law enforcement professionals. 

Section 303 seeks to grant qualified tribal police officers access to national criminal databases. The FBI’s Criminal Justice Information Services Division (CJIS) has 

long recognized tribal law enforcement agencies as qualified criminal justice agencies and has consequently assigned Originating Agency Identifier (ORI) numbers to 

tribal law enforcement agencies upon request. The ORI enables access to the National Crime Information Center (NCIC), which includes the ability to both view 

data and input data. 

The Department supports efforts to increase tribal access to NCIC, and believes 

such efforts are critical for public safety. The Department, however, requests the following modification to Section 303(b) to insure that the provision is not interpreted 

to impose an affirmative, mandatory duty on the Attorney General to provide each 

tribe seeking to access the NCIC with the technical resources the tribe would need 

13 

to do so: that Section 303(b)(1) be revised with the language used in Section 303(a), 

to read, ‘‘The Attorney General shall ensure that tribal law enforcement officials 

that meet applicable Federal or State requirements be permitted access to national 

crime information databases.’’ Section 304 increases the authority of tribal courts 

to sentence offenders to up to three years in prison (the current limit is one year), 

and authorizes tribal courts to direct that defendants convicted in tribal court serve 

their sentences in federal prisons. These provisions are significant changes to the 

status quo. 

The Department further notes that increasing the maximum tribal court prison 

sentence to three years may invite greater scrutiny if those convictions are challenged in federal court, unless indigent defendants are provided with counsel. As 

drafted, section 304 would prohibit tribes from denying defendants the assistance 

of counsel, but does not provide for such assistance if the defendant is unable to 

afford counsel. 

Moreover, the Department opposes section 304(a) to the extent it would permit 

tribal courts to direct that offenders convicted by tribal courts serve their sentences 

in federal prisons. The Bureau of Prisons (BOP) is responsible for the incarceration 

of inmates who have been sentenced to imprisonment for federal crimes. Based on 

continuing federal law enforcement efforts and limited resources for construction of 

new institutions, federal prisons continue to be overcrowded. System-wide, BOP is 

operating at 37 percent above its capacity, and it does not expect crowding to decrease substantially in the next few years. Crowding is especially significant at 

high-security institutions (operating at 49 percent above capacity) and medium security institutions (operating at 48 percent above capacity), where the majority of violent offenders are confined. 

Moreover, based on the location of BOP institutions and Federal inmate population pressures, confining tribal offenders in BOP facilities would frequently mean 

that such offenders would be confined at least several hundred miles, if not more 

than a thousand miles from their communities. For purposes of maintaining family 

ties, and to effect an optimal reentry back into the community after release, the Department believes that the incarceration of tribal court offenders is best handled by 

tribal detention centers or correctional facilities. The Department understands that 

the quantity and quality of existing tribal detention and correctional facilities are 

inadequate. Even so, the answer is to improve those facilities, not send tribal offenders to BOP facilities that are experiencing such significant crowding. As previously 

noted, the Recovery Act provided $225 million for the construction and renovation 

of tribal correction and detention facilities. Grant applications for that money have 

already been received by the Office of Justice Programs and award decisions should 

be forthcoming. The Department believes that this money will go a long way towards rectifying existing shortfalls in tribal facilities. 

The Department is generally supportive of Titles IV, V and VI of the legislation, 

which focus on monetary and non-monetary assistance to tribal law enforcement 

agencies, improving the manner in which Indian Country crime is reported and 

tracked, and prisoner release and reentry issues. The Department has mostly technical concerns about these provisions, which are identified in our Junel, 2009 letter. However, the obligations imposed upon the BOP by section 601 with respect to 

sex-offender registration are both impractical and inconsistent with SORNA, the law 

that imposes registration obligations for offenders. Because we believe that the existing system works well, and will work well with offenders being released to tribal 

communities, section 601 should be amended to be consistent with SORNA. 

Section 603 provides that the Director of Indian Health Services and the Director 

of the BIA’s Office of Justice Services must approve or disapprove, in writing, any 

request or subpoena of their employees to provide testimony in a deposition, trial, 

or other similar proceeding regarding the performance of their duties. This provision, which fails to distinguish between requests or subpoenas for testimony in federal court, or in cases where the United States is a party, is too broad. It would 

treat these employees differently than their counterparts in other federal agencies, 

is likely to conflict with existing agency regulations, and could hamper the federal 

prosecution of sexual assault cases arising in Indian Country. We recommend that 

this provision be limited to subpoenas or requests for employee testimony arising 

in or from cases pending in tribal courts. Additionally, we note that HHS has concerns about this provision and we understand will be communicating those separately. 

Conclusion 

Chairman Dorgan, Vice Chair Barrasso, this concludes my statement. While the 

Department has a variety of significant concerns with the legislation that is pending 

before this Committee, we share the Committee’s ultimate goal of increasing public 

14 

safety in Indian Country. We look forward to working with the Committee in order 

to address our concerns and achieve that goal. 

I will be happy to attempt to answer any questions you may have. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Perrelli, thank you very much. And please 

thank Attorney General Holder for us as well. 

Secretary Larry Echo Hawk, as I indicated when we moved your 

nomination to this Committee, I think your background serves you 

well in addressing some of these issues, especially this issue of tribal justice. We are pleased you are here, and pleased Mr. Ragsdale 

is here. And why don’t you proceed? 

STATEMENT OF LARRY ECHO HAWK, ASSISTANT SECRETARY 

FOR INDIAN AFFAIRS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR; 

ACCOMPANIED BY W. PATRICK RAGSDALE, DEPUTY 

DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF JUSTICE SERVICES 

Mr. ECHO HAWK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Committee 

members. 

Mr. Chairman, when you in your opening remarks talked about 

a person standing in a river facing floodwaters, that resonated with 

me. I have been on the job less than a month as Assistant Secretary, and I had an expectation that there would be a lot of critical business coming my way, but I think I underestimated the 

force of those issues. 

Nevertheless, I greatly appreciate the opportunity to participate 

in things that really make a difference in the lives of people living 

in Indian Country. At my confirmation hearing, I recall that I was 

asked to identify my top priorities, and I spoke of education and 

jobs, but also placed special emphasis on public safety in Indian 

Country. 

And besides me stating that was a high priority, on my first day 

on the job I was called into Secretary Salazar’s office and he proceeded to outline his goals and vision of what he would like to accomplish, along with President Obama in making a difference for 

people living in Indian Country. Right at the top of the agenda was 

criminal law enforcement. 

So I applaud the sponsors of the Tribal Law and Order Act. S. 

797 it is a good bill and I strongly support it. I am quite aware, 

as Mr. Chairman pointed out, that numerous hearings have been 

held. A lengthy bill has been crafted, so this effort is underway, 

and I would simply say that I am glad to join the fight against the 

crime and violence that is occurring within Indian Country. 

In particular, my highest priority would be safeguarding vulnerable victims, women and children. I have an extensive background 

in the area of criminal law enforcement. I started out being a defense lawyer in Federal court, taking court appointments to represent indigent Indian people charged with major crimes. 

I served as the tribal attorney for Idaho’s largest tribe for nine 

years. I had the experience of serving as the state prosecuting attorney in Idaho’s fourth largest county, and a part of my jurisdiction included reservation communities. For the last 14 years, I 

have taught criminal law, criminal procedure and Federal Indian 

law. I have been involved in training tribal judges, prosecutors and 

defenders. 

15 

And so I welcome this opportunity to be a contributor in this important matter. I want to emphasize that in this breadth of experience that I have had, I learned some things. One of the things I 

learned in this process was the importance of intergovernmental 

partnerships. That applies in a lot of issue areas, but it is particularly critical for what we talk about today because this is very complex law, jurisdictional law, with various parties that have responsibilities. In order for us to succeed, it requires communication, cooperation and collaboration. 

And in that statement, I wanted to particularly voice my commitment to tribal consultation. These are the people that are the major 

interest holders. They had promises given by the United States of 

America that their lands, their communities that they maintain 

today would be their permanent homelands, and those communities 

need to be protected. Tribes need to be empowered to expand their 

criminal law enforcement authority and to be given the resources 

to be able to meet that responsibility. 

So I simply emphasize that when the Federal Government of the 

United States made the decision to become involved in criminal law 

enforcement back in 1885, that with that authority came the responsibility. And it is a very important responsibility and one that 

calls for collaboration that will assure the safety of these communities. 

I welcome the opportunity to participate in marshaling the resources of the Federal Government to partner with tribes to make 

a difference in the lives of people. 

Thank you, Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Echo Hawk follows:] 

16 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF LARRY ECHO HAWK, ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR INDIAN

AFFAIRS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR


625a1.eps
17 


625a2.eps
18 


625a3.eps
19 


625a4.eps
20 

The CHAIRMAN. Secretary Echo Hawk, thank you very much for 

your testimony. We would like to inquire of you and Mr. Perrelli. 

Mr. Perrelli, we will hear from a witness in the second panel, 

former U.S. Attorney from Colorado, Mr. Eid, a U.S. Attorney 

whose work I have watched over the last couple of years and admired greatly, working on these justice issues. And Mr. Eid will 

testify on the issue of declination, how maintaining the data we are 

talking about should really be part of the job. 

Last year, we heard from Mr. Tom Heffelfinger, the former U.S. 

Attorney for Minnesota. He is someone who testified that he had 

a bad report from the Department of Justice because they felt he 

was spending too much time on Indian issues. He testified that he 

felt that keeping data on declinations and reports would be a common part of doing business. 

I still am not quite sure why you would not fully support the provision we have in this legislation on declination. 

Mr. PERRELLI. Well, I think, Senator, and I think this is actually 

echoed by Mr. Eid’s testimony, the key question is, ‘‘what does the 

declination rate indicate about the commitment of Federal law enforcement to prosecution of crime in Indian Country? ’’ There are 

many different reasons for a declination to occur, including a crime 

may not have been committed, another prosecutor may have prosecuted the case, or difficulties with the evidence. 

So I think what we have been concerned about principally is that 

we don’t believe that it measures what it is often thought to measure. 

That being said, I read the last two hearings before this Committee, and I very much understand the frustration and the concern about keeping statistics as part of what we should be doing 

at the Justice Department. And if we have statistics that we don’t 


625a5.eps
21 

think are meaningful, maybe we should come forward with something we think is better. 

We are engaged in trying to figure out if there are better ways 

to keep track of information that will hopefully provide a better 

picture of what the Department is doing in Indian Country. I think 

we want to work through that process over the next several 

months, and I think we would prefer not to have a statutory mandate on that point at this time. 

The CHAIRMAN. Let me ask you about the issue of transferring 

prisoners from tribes, convicted in tribal courts, to the nearest Bureau of Prisons facility. I understand you have some concerns about 

that. You indicate that the Bureau of Prisons is for federally convicted prisoners. They are overcrowded now and the facilities are 

far from reservations. 

But when we talk about violent criminals, rapists, murderers 

and so on, the most violent offenders that fall through the cracks 

in this system of justice on reservations, the Bureau of Indian Affairs has testified on several occasions that tribal jails simply aren’t 

equipped to handle these kinds of serious offenders. Your response? 

It seems to me that we have a requirement to do one or the 

other. That is, we have a trust responsibility for meeting these obligations. We either need to fund the detention facilities that can 

handle them, or make available the Federal facilities, the Bureau 

of Prisons facilities. 

Mr. PERRELLI. A couple of points on that Senator, and I think the 

Department of Justice’s preference is to fund the tribal facilities. I 

will explain why. 

With respect to the most violent offenders who are federally prosecuted in Federal court, those offenders will end up in a Federal 

prison. So what I think we are talking about is those individuals 

who are prosecuted in tribal court and there is tribal court jurisdiction and the tribal court actually metes out the sentence. 

It has been our view, and I think echoing maybe something that 

Senator Tester said before, that we need to address this in a way 

that makes sense for Indian Country. It has been our view that 

building capacity, building those detention facilities in Indian 

Country, is a better way to do it, because you will have the opportunity not only, in most circumstances, to be closer to home, but 

also to come up with the types of programs that will really recognize and reflect the unique nature of different tribal communities. 

The CHAIRMAN. Secretary Echo Hawk, I want to use the Standing Rock Indian Reservation as a microcosm of the set of issues 

here. I mentioned before, I think this Indian reservation in North 

and South Dakota is something close, perhaps, to the State of Connecticut in size, and they have 11 full-time law enforcement officers. And it is the case that if you are way out in the remote area 

of the reservation and there is a violent crime occurring and you 

find a telephone line and you call, it may very well be the case that 

it is six hours before somebody gets to you, if they get to you that 

day. 

So Mr. Ragsdale put together a plan called Dakota Peacemaker, 

North and South Dakota, on the reservation. Move in I think 15 

or so law enforcement officers, 25, but they are now gone, and what 

I want to ask you about is that was helpful to do. It dramatically 

22 

reduced crime on that reservation which was, by the way, five 

times the rate of crime nationally. So not double or triple or quadruple the rate of violent crime nationally, but five times, a very bad 

situation for public safety. 

So those folks came in. I appreciate that, but now they are gone. 

And so the question is, what next? We can pass our tribal bill here 

today or this month or this year, but what about on the ground, 

the resources necessary? How do we find those resources? And how 

do you make sure that you have them apportioned? 

Mr. ECHO HAWK. Well, first of all, Mr. Chairman, let me just say 

that I think the highest priority for extending resources is those 

communities that have the most serious crime problems, and I 

think that is what led to the Operation Peacekeeper. And if necessary, you know, we need to do similar things in other critical 

areas, but in the long term it seems reasonable that what we need 

to do is to make sure that all communities are protected, and that 

requires one of the most important components will be law enforcement officers on the ground, ready, available, 24/7 to be able to 

meet their responsibilities. 

And one of the things that I have been confronted with in my 

first month on the job is the reality that even though there may 

be money available, we still cannot recruit the people that will 

meet the standards to serve as law enforcement officers or detention officers. And this is something that we are giving immediate 

attention to to see if we can be creative and innovative to make 

sure that we are able to hire police officers and detention officers. 

Of course, it is always a resource issue. We are talking about dollars that need to be appropriated to give this kind of support. But 

we are on task to try to do something about this. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Ragsdale? 

Mr. RAGSDALE. Well, I would agree with my Assistant Secretary. 

With respect to Standing Rock, we increased the full-time authorized policing officers at Standing Rock by 12. We have bolstered 

their standing police department, but unfortunately we are not up 

to the 25 or 27 authorized positions. We have been successful in 

hiring several. When several of our selected persons came out to 

the reservation and reviewed family housing and facilities and so 

forth, they declined after they had actually been approved. 

So in addition to what the Assistant Secretary is talking about, 

we are trying to bolster our recruiting. We have hired a professional contractor to help us recruit and prepare people for the regimens of the academy life. They go to the Indian Police Academy or 

a State academy. 

We are looking at housing. We have some modest funding proposals that, depending on what our appropriations are in the future, will bolster housing selectively for police and public safety 

personnel. We are also trying to see whether or not we can streamline the process for bringing somebody on board as a Federal employee, which is relatively cumbersome, plus getting the security 

clearances done. 

The CHAIRMAN. But isn’t it really—my colleagues need to ask 

questions and I will call on Senator Barrasso next—isn’t it really 

the case that we are chasing our tails here? I mean, you have a 

police academy in New Mexico. I think you take 150 people a year, 

23 

roughly; 75 wash out. You actually graduate about half of the class. 

And we are desperately short. And it is not so much what your intentions are. It is what you accomplish or what we accomplish in 

terms of on the ground on the Standing Rock Reservation. I just 

use that as a metaphor for all reservations. 

If you are there this afternoon and someone is committing a violent crime today, the fact that we are trying hard is pretty irrelevant in terms of your ability to go find a law enforcement officer 

to come and help you. 

And so, we have 11 people to do 24/7 on an Indian reservation 

the size of Connecticut, that is totally inappropriate. And you 

know, the fact is it hasn’t changed and it is not going to change 

until we just decide that we are not going to observe about it or 

make excuses for it. One way or another, this Country either meets 

its obligation or it doesn’t. And the fact is, now it is not. And we 

don’t have a plan. 

You know, it is your plate, of course, I mean that is the role you 

signed up for, but we don’t have a plan at this point at the BIA 

or Justice to do what we should do to put those folks on the beat 

to provide public safety. 

And I will just mention one additional thing for the record. We 

have approved 57 additional FBI agents in the last decade, 57 additional FBI agents designated for Indian Country to deal with criminal justice issues in Indian Country. But in the time when we have 

designated 57 new agents, there are only 14 new FBI agents on the 

beat in Indian Country. What happened to the other 43? 

Mr. Perrelli, would you, along with Eric Holder and the head of 

the FBI give us a detailed description of where the other FBI 

agents are? There are 43 of them that we designated for Indian 

tribal justice and they are not there. And I will put this in formal 

writing to you. But again, let me just say your statements recently 

have been very welcome with this Committee because you say you 

are going to pay a lot of attention to this because you care a lot 

about it. You didn’t do that in response to me. I read it in the 

newspaper, so I thought that is welcome news for all of us. 

I appreciate all of you being here today. 

Let me call on Vice Chairman Barrasso. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN BARRASSO, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM WYOMING 

Senator BARRASSO. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

I very much appreciate the line of your questioning and the 

thoughts here, and I agree, it is time for us to take action. For far 

too long, violent crime and drug distribution and severe understaffing have plagued Indian Country. The tribes in my home State 

in Wyoming, the Eastern Shoshone and the Northern Arapaho face 

these exact same problems that you have been talking about, Mr. 

Chairman. 

According to the BIA’s 2008 crime report, the Wind River Reservation in Wyoming had a crime rate that was three and a half 

times the national average. The same report indicates that an additional 22 law enforcement officers are needed to meet the community’s needs. It is the same thing you talked about in your commuVerDate Nov 24 2008 09:33 Apr 07, 2010 Jkt 053988 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\DOCS\53988.TXT JACK PsN: JACKF
24 

nity, and I am sure it is the same thing that others are going to 

talk about on this panel. 

Just last month, I met with the Joint Tribal Business Council of 

these two tribes. Chairman Posey of the Eastern Shoshone Tribe 

identified BIA law enforcement staffing levels as their number one 

concern, their top concern. He told me the staffing shortage is taking a toll on the existing police offices who are currently working 

on the reservation. 

I have highlighted this understaffing problem time and again in 

the hearings before this Committee. And while all of us have received assurances from both the Secretary and the Assistant Secretary that they would look into these problems, I have yet to see 

an increase in the staffing levels on the Wind River Reservation in 

Wyoming. 

So at a hearing earlier this year, Secretary Salazar testified that 

he planned to address several key problems relating to law enforcement in Indian Country, including violent crime rates and staffing 

for detention facilities. So here we are again. 

We all know that you can’t have public safety in a community 

that lacks a sufficient law enforcement presence. In previous hearings, I pointed out that law enforcement personnel shortages is a 

chronic problem. This is not something that is new. I have asked 

the Secretary to look into this and I am asking you as well. Yet, 

there are still law enforcement shortages and vacancies on the reservation. Senator Dorgan’s staff came with me to Wyoming. My 

own staff was there, the staff of the Indian Affairs Committee, both 

sides of the aisle represented. We all saw the same thing. 

So my question to you is: What can you do today to address the 

law enforcement personnel shortages on the Wind River Indian 

Reservation? 

Mr. ECHO HAWK. Senator Barrasso, as I already testified, you 

know, my first day on the job this was the subject that Secretary 

Salazar raised with me in very strong terms and gave me my 

marching orders. Since then, we have had meetings addressing 

criminal law enforcement and staffing has been, you know, at the 

top of that agenda. 

I talked in my opening statement about the importance of collaboration with the Justice Department and that is in the works. 

Attorney General Holder and Secretary Salazar have spoken. We 

look forward to something very concrete occurring in the near future that will bring Justice and Interior together to cooperate, communicate, and collaborate to address these issues. 

And certainly the message is clear here today that staffing of police officers and detention officers is a high priority. 

Senator BARRASSO. I want to commend the Chairman. He and I 

are going to work together in a bipartisan way. I think every time 

you visit with us, we are going to ask about this, and we are going 

to continue to expect positive efforts to accomplish these goals. 

Another issue I wanted to ask about was enhanced sentencing 

authority. The Wind River Reservation is by no means alone in 

having high rates of violent crime. One thing that the introduced 

bill would do would be to raise the minimum sentencing authority 

of tribes that is currently at one year to three years. 

25 

Last year, the Department expressed constitutional concerns 

about this aspect of the bill. Would you please both elaborate on 

those constitutional concerns and how Indian tribes might be able 

to overcome them? 

Mr. PERRELLI. I am happy to speak first on that. I think our 

focus has been ensuring that if such a bill is enacted, the appropriate measures are in place to ensure that there is adequate due 

process. A concern we certainly have is that if there are insufficient 

funds for defense counsel, if there are procedures in place that 

wouldn’t satisfy the Due Process Clause, there will be collateral 

challenges of tribal court convictions in Federal court. 

So I think we have moved a little bit and want to focus on what 

we need to do in terms of building tribal capacity, tribal court capacity and tribal justice system capacity so that this kind of extension will be possible. 

Senator BARRASSO. Mr. Echo Hawk, anything you want to add? 

Mr. ECHO HAWK. Yes, thank you, Senator Barrasso. I feel very 

strongly, as I said in my opening comments, that we need to further empower tribal governments to address these criminal law enforcement problems. And part of that is increasing their authorities. I strongly support this provision. And yes, there are legitimate 

due process concerns. 

Criminal defendants who cannot afford legal representation 

under constitutional law interpretation are entitled to court-appointed lawyers. And I support that provision that says that you 

cannot prosecute to imprison someone for three years if they have 

not had legal assistance. I think that is important and necessary. 

I believe that if tribes want to enforce this kind of heavier penalty, the courts are going to require that competent, well-trained 

judges. In this instance, you know, it is saying in the bill, as I recall, lawyer-trained judges must be available to hear the case. And 

I think that meets the due process concerns. 

In addition, I believe there are tribal courts that do not have 

presently well-developed appellate systems. I believe that the 

courts are going to require that that be the case. That has to be 

addressed to make sure that a person that is charged and convicted 

of one of these crimes where they are going to face possible threeyear imprisonment has these due process protections. 

The Indian Civil Rights Act has a very express remedy, and that 

is Federal court review. So if tribes are deficient in this regard, 

there will be Federal court examination. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you very much, Mr. Echo Hawk. 

Thank you, Mr. Perrelli. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Tester? 

Senator TESTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Perrelli, the Chairman put up a chart of declination rates 

and you had addressed that in your comments. What is the U.S. 

Attorneys’ declination rate outside of Indian Country? And I am 

not talking about as it applies to Native Americans, as it applies 

to folks other than natives. 

Mr. PERRELLI. I actually don’t have that number. I would imagine it would be different because of the differences in jurisdiction, 

26 

but it might be interesting to look at a jurisdiction with more on 

violent crime than many of the Federal districts have. 

Senator TESTER. It occurs to me, and I appreciate your comments 

about your commitment to the problem, but one of the things you 

said in your statement was that the declination rate does not adequately reflect the Department’s commitment; that there is a perception problem. 

I think it is more than perception. It is reality. And this is just 

a little newspaper that the University of Montana put out with half 

a dozen stories on six of the seven reservations, story after story 

about how crimes are committed and there was no action brought 

and how the families pushed and pushed and pushed and pushed, 

no actions being brought. And these vary from murders to repeated 

beatings, the list goes on and on. 

And so it brings me to the question, is punishment viewed by the 

Department as a deterrent to crime? 

Mr. PERRELLI. Yes, it is. 

Senator TESTER. So if the crimes go unpunished, how can we 

ever get a handle on this? 

Mr. PERRELLI. In terms of talking about a perception problem, I 

did not mean to suggest that there is not a tremendous amount of 

unaddressed crime in Indian Country. The perception that I was focused on was the perception that U.S. Attorneys are refusing to 

work in Indian Country or choosing to let cases go that they think 

they can make in court, simply because they haven’t been told to 

focus on it or there aren’t sufficient resources. 

And I know there has been testimony in this committee before 

that U.S. Attorneys have not been given the right incentives in this 

regard. To the extent that that perception is out there, that needs 

to be changed and we intend to change it. 

Senator TESTER. Good. The Chairman referenced the gentleman 

from Minnesota, I believe, Heffelfinger, that actually was relieved 

because he spent too much time in Indian Country. I mean, that 

is not going to be happening. 

Mr. PERRELLI. No. 

Senator TESTER. The issue of, and this is for you, Larry, the 

issue of law enforcement being on the top of the Department of the 

Interior’s, Secretary Salazar’s and President Obama’s, right at the 

top of the list, if not at the top, right at the top, is good to hear. 

Both the Chairman and the Ranking Member talked about law enforcement, cops on the beat. 

Is there anything else that you are seeing that you can do in the 

near term that can have an impact, there is no need to bring up 

the cops on the beat. It has been brought up and beaten up on, and 

for good reason. But the question is, are there other things out 

there we can do? 

Mr. ECHO HAWK. Mr. Chairman? 

Senator TESTER. To curb the crime rate. 

Mr. ECHO HAWK. Mr. Chairman and Senator Tester, I was just 

very pleased when I read this Senate bill, 797. As I went through 

provision by provision, this covers a very wide array of what I believe needs to be accomplished in Indian Country. I felt just gratified that the hard work has been done. Hearings have been held. 

This bill has been put together. As I said, I am welcoming the opVerDate Nov 24 2008 09:33 Apr 07, 2010 Jkt 053988 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\DOCS\53988.TXT JACK PsN: JACKF
27 

portunity to join the fight. I want to commend the sponsors for the 

breadth of this bill. 

We talk about having more police officers, but there are numerous sections within this bill that I think are addressing some of the 

very critical needs across the board. 

Senator TESTER. I agree. I have the same hearing I have got to 

go to, so I don’t mean to cut you off. The bill is a good bill. 

Is there anything you can do outside this bill right now to attack 

the crime problem in Indian Country? 

Mr. ECHO HAWK. That is a pretty big question. I am sure I will 

think of more things other than I am able to do right now, Senator 

Tester, but I have already emphasized the importance of collaboration with Justice Department, and I think that that is critical because both departments, Interior and Justice, have significant responsibilities. But it seems to me like sometimes there is failure to 

communicate. I have seen that already. We need to bridge that 

gap. 

Senator TESTER. And you are probably right. And I will tell you 

that your answer to me isn’t the important answer. What you do 

is what is important. If you are driving back and you said, if we 

did this, it is going to decrease the crime rate, do it. That is even 

better than answering my question. So that is okay. 

I have one other question for Mr. Perrelli, then I have to go. You 

talked about correctional facilities in your testimony. I don’t know 

if you are familiar or not with the Fort Belknap Tribe. There are 

a lot of tribes in the U.S., so if you are not, it is okay. 

Mr. PERRELLI. I am generally aware, and I know your staff 

raised it with my staff. 

Senator TESTER. Oh, good. That is good. 

Mr. PERRELLI. Not that I have an answer for you today. 

Senator TESTER. Well, then we will ask the question anyway. 

They have an application in for stimulus dollars. You said there is 

about $225 million, which is good news, that is going out. It is to 

fix a long overdue dilapidated jail and we will facilitate a visit if 

you want to bear that out. 

Long story short, their application came in eight minutes late. It 

may have been their fault. It may have been your fault. It may 

have been my fault. But who cares? It was eight minutes late and 

they got denied and they are not in the mix. 

All I ask is this: Just put them in the mix. If they are not up 

to snuff, that is fine. And I know deadlines are deadlines and they 

need to be lived up to, but I think this was a problem with technology more than it was a problem with them or you. I honestly 

do believe that. They are in a very remote area, and we are talking 

remote. 

So if you could just take a look at it, consider it, that is all I ask. 

Mr. PERRELLI. Senator, I will look at it, and we will find out 

what happened in more detail and get back to your staff and the 

tribe as well. 

Senator TESTER. I appreciate that. 

I would just say before I buzz out is that I fly back every weekend, and my staff member gave me this article about Northern 

Cheyenne, Crow, Blackfeet, Rocky Boy. They are not glamorous 

stories. They are not stories that were written to what I would say 

28 

make the truth any bigger than it is. They just reported on the stories. 

If any one of these things would have happened in my home 

town, which is only 25 miles from Rocky Boy Indian Reservation, 

the people would have been going wild. And it is just not acceptable. It is not acceptable to have different treatment. It is just not. 

And so anything you can do to fix that, we would certainly appreciate it. Thank you much for your testimony. 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Tester, thank you very much. 

On the first floor of this building at 3 o’clock we yesterday had 

scheduled the full Interior Appropriations Committee markup, and 

Senator Tester and I are both members of that Appropriations Subcommittee. 

And that funds your agency, Mr. Echo Hawk, and your law enforcement and tribal colleges. 

And so the two of us have to go down to the first floor to be at 

the start of this Appropriations markup on the funding side. Senator Barrasso has agreed to begin chairing the hearing, and I am 

going to try to come back assuming the Appropriations Subcommittee gets done, Appropriations the full Committee, rather I 

should say. 

And let me now call on Senator Murkowski for questions. 

Senator Barrasso, thank you. 

STATEMENT OF HON. LISA MURKOWSKI, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM ALASKA 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I want to acknowledge you before you leave, Mr. Chairman. It 

was a pleasure to work with you on this legislation last Congress, 

and I am pleased to see your leadership again on it. I, too, am 

going to be going down to the Appropriations meeting, so my questions to you will be relatively brief. 

It is just so frustrating from a jurisdictional perspective when 

somebody is in danger, when a family member can not get help. 

You call 911, and you expect somebody to be there. As Senator 

Tester mentioned, things happen in Indian Country that I hesitate 

to say we allow. Things happen there that would not happen in 

other parts of the Country, and that is not right. It is wrong and 

we must work to correct it. I think that this legislation does take 

a step forward in that respect. 

Our situation in Alaska is quite complicated and quite difficult 

because of our geography, our remoteness and the isolation. When 

you have villages that are not connected by roads; and the only 

way in is to fly in; or if it is during the summer, to take a river 

boat in, and you are a victim of domestic violence, there is no 

where to go. There is no way out. It is a $400, $500 plane ticket. 

Your abuser is not only known to you, but to the whole community. The VPSO, the village safety officer that may be there to provide for your safety is not armed; has got good training, but the 

likelihood of them being a relative to either you or to the person 

that has violated you is extremely high. 

It is just very, very difficult. We struggle with the reality of our 

statistics, but I think we need to remind ourselves that these are 

not just statistics. Behind every number there is a person. There 

29 

is a family, and we have an obligation to figure out how we can 

do better by them. 

I was up in the State this past weekend in our largest city, Anchorage, which is actually also our largest native village in the 

sense that there are more Alaska Natives in the Anchorage area 

than any other part of the State. Our women’s crisis shelters are 

at or above maximum capacity. We have a 52-bed unit and we have 

90 individuals in it, and we are maxed out. We are looking at how 

you respond. 

Our reality is that there has been such an in-migration from the 

villages into the cities, some for services, some for education, some 

for healthcare, but some because of the fact that there is little to 

no law enforcement out there and people need a way out. It is a 

very difficult situation for us. 

I wanted to make the point here. When we talk about putting 

more cops on the beat, more law enforcement, I think one of the 

things that we have had conversations about in the past is that it 

is one thing to get people trained and signed up. It is another thing 

to retain them. And on some of our reservations, if you don’t have 

the housing, or it is just so remote, it is difficult to keep the people 

there. We certainly see that in Alaska. 

So as we look to how we address the need, we can’t just look at 

the statistics and say, okay, we need to hire. We need to train X 

number of people in law enforcement. We have to figure out beyond 

that how we deal with the retention issues. It is not just about the 

recruitment. 

One of the questions that Senator Tester asked was what more 

can you do. I have posed this question to individuals who have 

been back visiting Washington, D.C. the past month or so that are 

involved in domestic violence programs and the like in the State 

of Alaska. 

And what we keep coming back with is so long as people in the 

communities, so long as those in the village turn a blind eye to the 

domestic violence, to the sexual assault, and say, well, that is what 

happens here. Again, kind of a level of acceptance that you might 

see in certain areas, but you would never accept anywhere else. 

We must within our own communities say no, it is not ever acceptable, never acceptable, and stop trying to protect those that are 

abusive, those that really destroy individuals and families. 

The question that I will put to you is as I have had individuals 

in the State of Alaska looking at this legislation and have asked 

for their comments, there are two things that have come up. As you 

know, in Alaska we do not have Indian Country as it is defined in 

the Lower 48. And we are using various terms to describe Indian 

Country within the bill. It caused some jurisdictional issues. And 

I would just ask for your assistance as we look to make sure that 

there is a consistency with the language. 

And then the second point that I would like to leave you with, 

there is some consideration being given now to perhaps, well, going 

beyond outlining, but putting together a demonstration project that 

would be administered by DOJ’s Office of Tribal Justice. It would 

provide that you have to have an existing tribal court, a tribal code 

that includes courts notice, due process requirements. The tribes 

30 

would share concurrent jurisdiction, then, with the State over alcohol, drug and domestic violence. 

Now, we are still in the formulation stage of all this, and I don’t 

know if you have had an opportunity, Mr. Perrelli, to take a look 

at the possibility, or had any discussions, but I wanted to make 

sure that at a minimum you were aware that these conversations 

were happening and we would certainly like to include you in that. 

Mr. PERRELLI. I think we would be very interested in participating. I did have a conversation with Heather Kendall Miller, 

with whom I have been friends for about 20 years now, and I think 

it is an interesting idea. I think it is very consistent with some of 

the other provisions of this bill that are seeking to expand the ability of tribal courts to deal with the significant problems that individual communities are facing. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Okay. Well, we would look forward to working with you on that as we advance it, if we should make that determination, but I appreciate it. 

And I appreciate the work and the commitment from all of you. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you. 

Senator BARRASSO. [Presiding] Thank you, Senator Murkowski. 

Now, Senator Udall, and at the end of your questioning, you will 

assume the gavel to run the meeting. Thank you. 

STATEMENT OF HON. TOM UDALL, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW MEXICO 

Senator UDALL. Thank you, Senator Barrasso, very much. 

I just have one question for this first panel, and I think we then 

need to move on to the next panel. 

American Indian youth between the ages of 10 and 24 have the 

highest suicide rate of any racial group in the Nation. Suicide is 

linked to many factors directly related to crime, including alcohol 

and substance abuse, gang activity, isolation and child abuse. 

The incidence of Native American youth suicide has continued to 

reach epidemic levels 10 times the national average. In certain 

tribal communities, especially in the Great Plains, and in fact we 

had a hearing earlier this year where Senator Harry Reid, our 

leader, came and talked about a suicide in his family, in fact his 

father, and it was a very moving occasion, I think, for a lot of us 

here, talking about how it was important to talk about this and 

bring it out in the open. 

This bill would reauthorize two programs that would help build 

more youth shelters and establish youth activity programs. But my 

belief is more needs to be done within the justice system. The Federal court system is not equipped to deal with juveniles and tribal 

systems are sorely underfunded. 

Do you, Mr. Echo Hawk or Mr. Perrelli, have any recommendations for improving the justice system for Native American juveniles? 

Mr. PERRELLI. I am happy to talk briefly, and let Mr. Echo Hawk 

follow. 

I do think, and I think this is highlighted in your question, that 

there needs to be really a comprehensive approach. That leaving it 

to the Federal courts or in many cases tribal courts to deal with 

31 

the set of issues when someone commits a violent act is not a particularly effective way to deal with the set of issues. 

And I think what we need to do is draw in a broader range of 

partners, and look at prevention strategies, reentry strategies for 

those who may have been incarcerated in a facility or others, but 

also other resources that the Federal Government may be able to 

provide through SAMHSA and other entities because I think it is 

only by working in collaboration can we address the full range of 

problems. 

Senator UDALL. Right. 

Mr. ECHO HAWK. Senator Udall, problems beget problems. And 

I think you are well aware of the situation. If you have dysfunction 

in a home, that jeopardizes children that may be raised in that environment, and they deserve a healthy start. 

So outside of the criminal law enforcement system, there has got 

to be a social system that is prepared to assist parents and children to create safe environments. I certainly commend and welcome the provisions in this bill that address the issues of youth, 

but I am sure that more can be done. 

Mr. Ragsdale I had a follow-up comment. 

Senator UDALL. Oh, sure, Mr. Ragsdale, please go ahead. 

Mr. RAGSDALE. I am very sensitive to this issue. I think I heard 

at one hearing where it was reported that in some of our Indian 

communities that the suicide rate reached more than 25 times the 

national average. Last summer when I was at Standing Rock, we 

had a young lady that hung herself in the closet on a Saturday 

night when we were on duty. 

But my sense of being on the streets of some of these communities where lawlessness has been too prevalent is that with respect to young people, they are starving for adult attention. When 

some of our young officers go down on the streets of some of these 

communities and hit their siren, kids swarm them because they are 

not looking for so much from a law enforcement guy who is passing 

out stickers and DARE badges and things of that nature. I mean, 

they are starving for human attention. 

And that is part of the concept of community policing which just 

really means bringing the community together and all the providers, and in particular the community to work out these problems. No matter how many officers that we hire, and we have too 

few, we are not going to work ourselves out of this problem until 

we get the communities organized. 

I am not talking about necessarily the Bureau of Indian Affairs. 

I am talking about a collective effort to work on this issue and give 

these young people hope in our society. 

Senator UDALL. Well, I am glad that all of you agree that we 

need a broad-gauged approach to tackle this in all the areas, and 

as Mr. Echo Hawk has said, dealing with families and getting them 

involved. So I want to thank you all for those answers. 

At this point, unless, Senator Barrasso, you have anything else, 

I would excuse this first panel. I would thank Associate Attorney 

General Perrelli and thank Assistant Secretary Larry Echo Hawk. 

Larry, it is great to see you in the saddle and have you here today, 

and know that you are going to be working on these issues. And 

also excuse you, Mr. Ragsdale. 

32 

And we would call forward the second panel at this point. 

I thank you all for testimony. 

Mr. PERRELLI. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator UDALL. [Presiding] Thank you all for being here today. 

We are very much looking forward to your testimony. 

Why don’t we just start with Chairman Coby and we will just 

work down the aisle. We will have about five minutes for each of 

you, and then I am sure there will be a round of questions here. 

Please, go ahead. 

STATEMENT OF ALONZO COBY, CHAIRMAN, FORT HALL 

BUSINESS COUNCIL, SHOSHONE–BANNOCK TRIBES 

Mr. COBY. Good afternoon, Mr. Udall. I am Alonzo Coby. I am 

the Chairman of the Shoshone Bannock Tribes located in Southeastern Idaho. 

First of all, with me today I have the Vice Chairman Nathan 

Small; Sergeant-at-Arms LeeJuan Tyler; Arnold Appenay which is 

the Law and Order Commissioner; and past Council Member 

Marlon Fellows our Project Coordinator; and Will Edmo, the past 

prosecutor and police officer for our tribe. 

Senator UDALL. Thank you, all of you, for being here. 

Mr. Chairman? 

Mr. COBY. I am honored to be here today to speak on behalf of 

the Shoshone Bannock Tribe in support of S. 797 and to discuss 

our law enforcement needs and challenges. 

First, I just want to commend Senator Dorgan for his efforts, and 

all the Committee members that are working on this very important bill for Indian Country. And also thank Allison Binney and 

John Harte for taking a stop in Indian Country because it is very 

important for us as Indian people, and all the other tribal leaders 

that are in attendance today. I think we all have common issues 

on each reservation. 

The bill acknowledges the United States’ trust obligations for 

public safety. Also the bill recognizes that tribal justice systems are 

best at handling law and order in their own communities. We face 

many law enforcement challenges. Crimes committed on reservations often go unprosecuted. 

For example, a tribal grandmother, mother and her infant child 

were brutally murdered on our reservation. Three generations were 

wiped out. Federal prosecutors struck a plea deal and declined to 

prosecute for the infant’s death and did not explain their decision 

to us, and the victims were Marlon Fellows, who is in the audience 

with us today. 

On another occasion, an individual eligible for adult prosecution 

raped a young child on the reservation. The Feds refused to prosecute because the State was handling the case in the juvenile State 

court under Public Law 280. 

More recently, Federal prosecutors did not discuss with the 

tribes the decision not to prosecute suspects who killed a man on 

the Fort Hall Indian Reservation. This gives the impression that it 

is okay to kill Indian people on reservations. 

Our police officers are well qualified, but they can’t address all 

the needs on the reservation due to limited manpower. Often, our 

33 

police have only two officers at any given time covering a half million acres on our reservation. 

Provisions in the bill of particular note that we would support include: increased coordination between the Federal Government and 

tribes; greater prosecutions of reservation crimes and accountability for decisions not to prosecute; designation of SAMHSA as 

the lead on tribal substance abuse programs; targeting resources 

for drug enforcement; tribal youth; domestic violence; and cross 

deputization for tribal court sentencing; and expansion of jail construction programs 

Construction of law enforcement facilities is our top priority on 

the Shoshone Bannock Tribe’s Indian reservation. Our current facilities are old and not equipped, with some of our buildings being 

over 100 years old. Our detention facility has been condemned for 

the past three decades. The conditions are terrible. For example, 

we have a continual problem where only one shower and two toilets 

work and the entire facility reeks with raw sewage. 

Because of this dire situation, the Shoshone Bannock Tribe borrowed $15.9 million and put $4 million of our own money into the 

project, for a total of around $20 million to build the justice center. 

For many years, we sought funding from the Federal Government, 

but were unsuccessful. It will house the Police Department, Fish 

and Game, courts, adult and juvenile detention facilities. The center will be complete this January. 

We need immediate Federal assistance to provide for the startup operation and maintenance costs. We would like to thank Senator Crapo and the rest of the Idaho delegation for their assistance 

on this project. 

The center will allow detainees to remain in the facility for rehabilitation and educational services connected to our culture. The 

center will have bed space for detainees from the other reservations. The tribe seeks the BIA to designate the center as the regional detention facility. 

While some of our problems will be addressed by S. 797, many 

of our problems stem from Public Law 280. Public Law 280 is an 

old law passed in 1953 when the Federal policy was to terminate 

tribes. This law allowed States to take without tribal consent jurisdiction over Indian affairs. Under Public Law 280, Idaho passed a 

law assuming concurrent jurisdiction over seven areas: juvenile delinquency, school attendance, neglected or abused children, mental 

illness, public assistance, and domestic relations and traffic jurisdiction on State roads. 

The State has utterly failed to provide assistance in all areas 

that it has jurisdiction on the reservation except in the areas of 

traffic jurisdiction because it is a revenue generator. 

Because of Public Law 280, we face many challenges. We are 

struggling to address the juvenile delinquency, even with concurrent Federal and State jurisdiction. The BIA has pointed to the 

State for responsibility for juvenile delinquency, while the State 

disregards the role. As a result, the needs for our people have gone 

unaddressed. 

As you can see, these issues create many challenges for us due 

to these problems. We seek retrocession for jurisdiction from the 

State and would appreciate assistance on this issue. 

34 

Thanks for allowing me to testify today. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Coby follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ALONZO COBY, CHAIRMAN, FORT HALL BUSINESS COUNCIL, SHOSHONE-BANNOCK TRIBES

Good afternoon Chairman Dorgan, Vice-Chairman Barrasso, Senator Crapo, and 

other Members of the Committee. My name is Alonzo Coby and I am the Chairman 

of the Fort Hall Business Council, which is the governing body of the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes located on the Fort Hall Indian Reservation in southeast Idaho. I am 

honored to be here today to provide our views on S. 797 and to discuss the law enforcement needs of the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes. 

The Shoshone-Bannock Tribes are a federally recognized Indian tribe organized 

under the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934. The Shoshone and Bannock people are 

comprised of several related bands whose aboriginal territories include land in what 

are now the states of Idaho, Wyoming, Utah, Nevada, Colorado, Oregon, and parts 

of Montana and California. In 1867, President Andrew Johnson by Executive Order 

designated the Fort Hall Indian Reservation for various Shoshone and Bannock 

bands that occupied the area since time immemorial. On July 3, 1868, the Shoshone 

and Bannock Tribes concluded the Second Treaty of Fort Bridger, which was ratified 

by the United States Senate on February 24, 1869. Article 4 of the Fort Bridger 

treaty reserved the Reservation as a ‘‘permanent home’’ to the signatory tribes. Although the Fort Bridger Treaty called for the Reservation to be approximately 1.8 

million acres, various ‘‘surveying errors’’ in 1873 reduced its actual size to approximately 1.2 million acres. 

One of the United States’ purposes in setting aside the Fort Hall Indian Reservation was to protect the Tribes’ rights and to preserve for them a home where their 

tribal relations might be enjoyed under shelter of authority of the United States. 

Subsequent cession agreements with the United States reduced the Fort Hall Indian 

Reservation to the present day size of 544,000 acres. Of the 544,000 acres, 97 percent of the land is Tribal land or held by the United States for the benefit of the 

Tribes or its individual members. The Tribes’ territory is the largest Reservation in 

Idaho and forms a large cohesive geographic area that supports a population of over 

6000 people and provides an irreplaceable homeland for economic activity and cultural practices based on strong religious traditions premised on the sacredness of 

land. Our current Tribal membership is approximately 5,300 members. 

The Fort Hall Reservation is blessed with an extensive biodiversity including 

rangelands, croplands, forests, streams, three major rivers (the Snake, Blackfoot, 

and Portneuf), reservoirs, springs, and wetland areas, an abundance of medicinal 

and edible plants, wildlife (elk, deer, moose, bison, big horn sheep, etc.), various species of fish, birds, and other animal life. The Reservation lands are mountainous 

and semi-desert, and overlay the Snake River aquifer, a large groundwater resource. 

The culture and continued existence of the Shoshone and Bannock peoples depend 

on these resources. 

As you know, the United States government and its agencies have an important 

trust relationship with Indian tribes. The Shoshone-Bannock Tribes look to the Federal Government to fulfill this trust responsibility in areas of law enforcement, environmental protection, health, education, trust reform, land management, protection 

of treaty rights, and other areas of common concern to Indian County. 

The issue I speak about today is law enforcement in Indian Country, and specifically within the boundaries of the Fort Hall Reservation. First, I would like to commend Senator Dorgan on his efforts to address law enforcement in Indian Country 

in a meaningful and effective way. Senator Dorgan and members of this Committee 

have held several hearings on this issue, and we commend the Committee Chairman 

and co-sponsors of the Tribal Law and Order Act of 2009 for their efforts to address 

the law enforcement needs in Indian Country. We particularly appreciate that Senator Crapo, our Senator from Idaho, recently became a co-sponsor of the Tribal Law 

and Order Act as well as all his other efforts on our behalf. He has been a good 

friend to the Tribes. 

S. 797 contains acknowledgements that the United States has a trust obligation 

to provide for the public safety of tribal communities and that tribal justice systems 

are the most appropriate institutions for handling law and order in tribal communities. The present status of Indian Country law enforcement has resulted in unsafe 

communities, victimization of Reservation families, promoted drug trafficking, and 

has deterred economic development. 

The Fort Hall Reservation faces many law enforcement challenges common within 

Indian County. Tribal communities suffer from misdemeanor and felony crimes comVerDate Nov 24 2008 09:33 Apr 07, 2010 Jkt 053988 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\DOCS\53988.TXT JACK PsN: JACKF
35 

1See United States v. Abel Hidalgo, Cr. No. 02–043–E–BLW (Idaho Federal District Court) 

mitted on the Reservation that often go unprosecuted because of the lack of federal 

resources or the jurisdictional limits placed on our Tribal Courts. In many cases, 

the lack of prosecution by federal and state authorities remains unexplained to Tribal leaders and the crime victims. For example, when a Shoshone-Bannock Tribal 

member mother and her infant child were brutally murdered on our Reservation, 

federal prosecutors struck a plea deal and declined to prosecute the defendant for 

the infant’s death without first consulting the Tribes or explaining their decision to 

our Tribal leaders. 1 On another occasion, where an individual eligible for adult 

prosecution raped a young child on the Reservation, the Federal Government refused to prosecute the case because the State was handling the case in juvenile 

State court under Public Law 280. And, more recently, federal prosecutors did not 

consult the Tribes or explain their decision not to prosecute suspects who killed a 

man on the Reservation by inflicting blunt force trauma to his head at a party. The 

unexplained failure to prosecute serious felonies on the Reservation gives the Tribal 

membership the impression that it is okay to commit serious crimes against Indian 

people on the Reservation. 

While our Fort Hall Tribal police officers are well-qualified and properly trained 

to respond to all crime on the Reservation, Tribal police are presently limited in 

their ability to arrest all persons who violate applicable Tribal and federal laws and 

more officers are needed to address the law enforcement needs on our large Reservation. Many times our tribal police only have two officers available at any given 

time to cover half a million acres of Reservation territory. 

Effective law enforcement on our Reservation requires greater federal support for 

training, equipment, and access to the investigation and crime database tools available to federal and state law enforcement officers. Greater coordination and cooperation is needed between federal officials and Tribal law enforcement personnel. Local 

federal prosecutors need additional resources to fill jurisdictional gaps and to more 

fully prosecute Reservation crime that falls within federal jurisdictional statutes. 

The provisions of S. 797, known as the Tribal Law and Order Act of 2009, address 

many of the law enforcement problems we experience on our Reservation. The bill 

provides for increased consultation and coordination between the Federal Government and tribes. It facilitates greater prosecution of Reservation crimes and provides for accountability for decisions not to prosecute crimes in Indian Country. The 

bill also establishes federal offices and funding sources specifically committed to 

Tribal law enforcement purposes. We are pleased that the bill specifically targets 

resources towards drug enforcement, tribal youth, and violence against women. 

Further, we support section 401 of the bill which directs the Substance Abuse and 

Mental Health Administration to take the lead role in interagency coordination on 

tribal substance abuse programs and in setting up the Office of Indian Alcohol and 

Substance Abuse. In the past, it has been difficult to access assistance from the various federal agencies to address the behavioral and mental health problems in our 

community, which often lead to alcohol and drug abuse and criminal activity, given 

the stove pipe and bureaucratic nature of agencies that administer federal alcohol 

and substance abuse programs. With SAMSHA designated as the lead agency on 

these issues, there will be clarity for tribes seeking this type of assistance and within the Federal Government in terms of the role that each agency plays on these 

issues. 

Importantly, the proposed bill recognizes the qualifications of Tribal law enforcement personnel to obtain the training and certification to act as federal law enforcement agents within the Reservation boundaries. And, the bill provides for increased 

tribal court sentences of up to 3 years for serious crimes committed within Indian 

Country. 

The Tribal Law and Order Act also prioritizes and increases funding for the construction of tribal detention centers under the DOJ Tribal Jails Program and would 

provide authorization for grants for the construction of juvenile detention and treatment centers and halfway houses under the Indian Alcohol and Substance Abuse 

Act. The current buildings used for the Fort Hall Tribal police station, jail, and Tribal Court are extremely old, nearly uninhabitable, out of code, and grossly insufficient for tribal law enforcement needs. Our present detention facility should be condemned. For example, on a recent tour of the Tribal jail there was only one shower 

and two toilets in working order and the entire facility reeked of raw sewage. The 

detention space is totally inadequate for the number of inmates ordered to serve detention, and it cannot be used for current needs and certainly not the increased sentences provided for by the proposed law and order bill. The inadequate detention 

facility poses health and safety risks that cannot continue in our Reservation community. The general lack of tribal justice buildings creates a backlog of hearings, 

36 

2The United States Congress subsequently passed Public Law 90–284 in 1968, requiring that 

the states desiring to assume jurisdiction after 1968 could do so only with the consent of the 

tribe affected. Pub. L. No. 90–284, §§ 401, 402, 82 Stat. 78, 79 (1968) (codified in relevant part 

at 25 U.S.C. §§ 1321, 1322 (1997)). Since that date, no tribe has consented to significant state 

jurisdiction over their reservations. In contrast, a number of states surrounding Idaho have 

‘‘retroceded’’ or given back to the Federal Government and tribes the jurisdiction taken pursuant 

to Public Law 280. 3The seven areas of concurrent jurisdiction assumed by the State of Idaho pursuant to Public 

Law 280 include: compulsory school attendance; juvenile delinquency; dependent, neglected or 

abused children; mental illness; public assistance; domestic relations; and vehicle operation on 

county or state-maintained roads. Idaho Code §§ 67–5101 to 67–5103. 

inefficient case processing, and leaves Reservation residents without places to conduct hearings, mediations, and family consultations. 

Because of our Tribes’ dire need for an adequate law enforcement building, the 

Shoshone-Bannock Tribes independently undertook the financing and construction 

of a Tribal Justice Center. The Tribes previously sought funding from the BIA and 

other federal agencies for many years without success for this project. The Tribes 

borrowed over 19 million dollars to construct the Justice Center that will house the 

Tribal police department, Tribal Courts, Fish & Game, and separate adult and juvenile detention facilities. While we are happy to report that the Justice Center is expected to be completed in December of this year, we are in need of immediate federal assistance for start up costs and annual operational costs for the Justice Center. This funding should come in the form of enhanced 638 contracts for adult and 

juvenile corrections, law enforcement, and tribal courts as well as a new 638 contract for operations and maintenance for the Justice Center. We extend our gratitude to Senator Crapo and the other members of the Idaho congressional delegation, 

Senator Risch and Representatives Mike Simpson and Walt Minnick, for recently 

sending a letter to Secretary Salazar asking him to assist the Tribes in immediately 

securing annual operational and maintenance costs for the Justice Center from the 

Federal Government. 

The Justice Center now under construction will allow adult and juvenile inmates 

to remain in a local community facility that will accommodate educational and rehabilitation services connected to our Indian culture and traditions. I note that the 

Shoshone-Bannock Justice Center will have bed space for the BIA to utilize to detain inmates from other reservations, and the Tribes are willing to have the BIA 

designate the Justice Center as one of the regional detention facilities identified in 

the proposed Tribal Law and Order Act. 

While our Reservation’s law enforcement problems will be addressed in part by 

the Tribal Law and Order Act, they are also the unfortunate product of the State 

of Idaho’s assumption of partial jurisdiction over our Reservation affairs through 

Public Law 280. Public Law 280 in an antiquated law passed in 1953 during a time 

period when the policy of the United States was to terminate Indian tribes. This 

law allowed States to take, without tribal consent, jurisdiction over Indian affairs 

that should always have remained matters of Tribal self-government and the federal 

trust responsibility and jurisdiction. 2 Pursuant to Public Law 280, Idaho passed a 

law assuming concurrent jurisdiction over seven areas of jurisdiction in Idaho including juvenile delinquency, domestic relations, and traffic jurisdiction on state and 

county maintained roads. 3

Because of Public Law 280, Shoshone-Bannock Tribal members and Indian residents continue to face the assertion of State court jurisdiction over Reservation traffic offenses and domestic relations and receive unequal treatment in sentencing due 

the present system of confusing jurisdictional rules that apply to our Reservation. 

The Fort Hall Reservation also currently struggles to address juvenile delinquency 

through a Tribal system that lacks adequate support from the Federal Government 

or the State of Idaho. The State of Idaho has neglected its responsibility for juvenile 

matters within its assumed jurisdiction under Public Law 280. Further, the Federal 

Government, through the BIA, in the past has been reluctant to provide assistance 

to the Tribes for detention and rehabilitation of juveniles and has articulated the 

rationale that the State of Idaho should be providing this assistance under Public 

Law 280 and Idaho state laws pertaining to juvenile delinquency. Even though the 

jurisdiction set forth under Public Law 280 and Idaho state laws allows for concurrent jurisdiction over juvenile delinquency, the BIA has pointed to the State of 

Idaho as the entity responsible for juvenile delinquency matters while the State of 

Idaho utterly disregards these responsibilities. Due to the confusion created by Public Law 280 and Idaho state laws and lack of will at the state and federal levels, 

the needs of the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes and its troubled youth have gone 

unaddressed for far too long. 

37 

For example, the Ft. Hall Indian Reservation is located within the counties of 

Bannock and Bingham, but both counties have refused to lend assistance with Native American juvenile runaways unless they commit crimes off the Reservation. Six 

months ago, a 16-year old Native American girl known to be a drug user ran away 

from home, and Tribal police contacted the Bingham County prosecutor to ask if the 

county would assist in finding her. The county prosecutor, Scott Andrew, stated 

that, unless she committed a crime off the Reservation, they would not get involved 

in trying to locate her. Bannock County also has the same policy. Further, Bannock 

County policy is to only house Native American juveniles in its jail at $150 a night 

if there is room in the jail. 

As you can see, issues such as these create many challenges for the ShoshoneBannock Tribes in ensuring for public safety on our Reservation and for the safety 

of our people due to the failure of the federal and state governments to meet their 

responsibilities to assist us. Consistent with the principle of tribal sovereignty and 

self-determination, the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes seek to obtain retrocession of the 

jurisdiction taken by the State of Idaho without the Tribes’ consent. We would appreciate assistance from this Committee on our retrocession efforts given that it directly impacts our ability to provide basic services designed to meet the health, safety, and well-being of our people. With the construction and proper funding of the 

Justice Center, the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes are willing and qualified to fully assume responsibility over Reservation affairs while working together with the Federal Government as our trustee. 

In sum, I am happy to express support for the proposed Tribal Law and Order 

Act of 2009 and the significant measures contained therein to address the serious 

law enforcement problems facing the Fort Hall Reservation and Indian Country in 

general. Thank you for this opportunity to participate in this hearing on this critically important subject. 

Senator UDALL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good to have you 

here. 

Please go ahead, Mr. Eid. 

STATEMENT OF TROY A. EID, PARTNER, GREENBERG 

TRAURIG, LLP 

Mr. EID. Thank you very much. My name is Troy Eid. I am the 

former U.S. Attorney from Colorado. It is good to see you again, 

Mr. Chairman. I think I last saw you at Chelle’s Restaurant in 

Gallup. It is gone, but we are still here, so it is great to see you. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. EID. Very briefly, I am a former prosecutor. I am a current 

practitioner. I practice in this area at Greenberg Traurig in Denver. I represent the Ute Mountain Ute Tribe as Special Counsel, 

and I am a Professor at the University of Colorado School of Law. 

I teach criminal and civil jurisdiction in Indian Country. 

This is a great bill. I strongly support it. Mr. Chairman and 

Committee Members, don’t give up on this. And I want to especially talk briefly in my time about section 102, which is the provision that deals with case declinations. 

Now, I know that there are colleagues here, former colleagues, 

members who are in the Justice Department today who feel differently than I do about this bill. And I respectfully disagree with 

them, and I appreciate all their service. 

The bottom line is that we have got to get on with this declination reporting, Mr. Chairman. We have an obligation to be accountable to the American people and the native tribes that we serve 

should expect of us, as the temporary stewards of the Federal trust 

responsibility, that we will tell them what we are doing. 

When I was appointed, just by example, I met with the tribal 

council of the Southern Ute Indian Tribe. I met with the council 

and they said, we would like you to take a look at the declinations 

38 

your office did before you got here, Mr. Eid. And I did. And guess 

what? I found two cases right out of the blocks. We declined them 

because the Federal system ‘‘is not very good at handling juveniles.’’ Well, guess what? Where else do native people go when the 

Major Crimes Act has required them since 1885 to go to the Federal system? 

So we took those cases up again. We got convictions out of both 

of them. They were both declined with no explanation to the tribes. 

That is not right, and after 1885, we should have figured out a way 

to get it correct. 

And so we have to start reporting. Frankly, with all due respect, 

this Committee ought to expect better, and you ought to require of 

any Administration, including the past one and the current one, 

that they report this information to Native people. They have to depend on us as local prosecutors. U.S. Attorneys have a different 

role in Indian Country and we need to be locally accountable, like 

a D.A. would be locally accountable. And that is the point and that 

is the difference. 

Now, it is true that it is not an all-inclusive metric. It is not a 

perfect measure. It never measures, in a case that is declined, the 

cases you never got because the law enforcement gap in terms of 

resources is so bad. The tribe I represent now, Ute Mountain Ute, 

on a good day has a total of five BIA officers. They do a wonderful 

job by the way, but they patrol an area that is bigger than Rhode 

Island. Our response times, on average, can be as much as an hour 

and a half at night. That is from when they get the call to the time 

they get out to where they need to go. 

So we need to have some local accountability, Mr. Chairman, and 

section 102 is the way to do it. If there is a separation of powers 

issue, and with all due respect I have never bought it and I don’t 

buy it now, but if there is, then the Department today should start 

figuring out a way to do case declinations, and they ought to start 

doing this reporting. Figure out what to measure and start measuring it, and quit making excuses. Since the year 1885 is a long 

time to be making excuses, and I think we can do a lot better than 

that. 

I also want to talk very briefly about section 301, Special Law 

Enforcement Commissions. Your State, Mr. Chairman, a great 

State, but, when last I checked, out of the 22 tribes and pueblos, 

there were only three agreements to do Federal deputation for 

three tribes in the entire State of New Mexico. 

I worked with the Director of the Justice Department at Southern Ute, Janelle Doughty, and she just said enough is enough. She 

said we need to work with people in the BIA, figure out how to do 

onsite deputation training. And through our office, the Colorado 

U.S. Attorney’s office, the U.S. Attorney’s offices in South Dakota 

and New Mexico, the National Congress of American Indians and 

the Justice Department National Advocacy Center, we had a partnership. We trained 400 officers in less than two years, and many 

of them were federally deputized, representing 35 tribes from 17 

States. 

We can do a lot better, and that part of the bill will create the 

expectation that the Departments of Interior and Justice will finally partner on deputation. Deputation simply means give the offiVerDate Nov 24 2008 09:33 Apr 07, 2010 Jkt 053988 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\DOCS\53988.TXT JACK PsN: JACKF
39 

cer in the field the Federal tool kit so they can also arrest non-Indians. They can arrest Indians if the Major Crimes Act so provides. 

That is all it is for, and it needs to be respected and used. 

When the Supreme Court took away the tribes’ jurisdiction over 

non-Indians in 1978 in Oliphant, Justice Rehnquist essentially 

said, ‘‘Don’t worry. We will rely on Federal deputation. That will 

solve the problem.’’ Well, you know, three tribes out of 22 in New 

Mexico, we can do better than that, and the same condition exists 

around Indian Country. Emphatically, it is nobody’s fault, but we 

can and we should do better. 

And so I strongly endorse this bill. I hope that this Committee 

will act. I greatly appreciate your time, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate 

Chairman Dorgan. He has been a true leader in this, and all the 

supporters of this bill. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Eid follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF TROY A. EID, PARTNER, GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP 

Mr. Chairman, Committee members, thank you for the opportunity to testify in 

support of S. 797, the Tribal Law & Order Act. My name is Troy Eid and I live 

in Golden, Colorado. I recently returned to private life after serving as the United 

States Attorney for District of Colorado. I’ve worked in and around Indian country 

for more than two decades. This includes public service as an aide to former U.S. 

Representative Jim Kolbe of Arizona, a cabinet secretary to former Governor Bill 

Owens in my home state of Colorado, and most recently as Colorado’s U.S. Attorney. 

Currently I’m a shareholder in the Denver office of Greenberg Traurig LLP, where 

I co-chair our American Indian Law Practice Group. The firm’s tribal clients include 

the Ute Mountain Ute Tribe of Colorado, which I represent as Special Counsel, and 

the Seminole Tribe of Florida. We also advise organizations and individuals doing 

business with Indian nations, operating on tribal lands, and investing in Native 

American-owned assets. 

Besides practicing law, I teach as an Adjunct Professor in the American Indian 

Law Program at the University of Colorado School of Law in Boulder. I’m also active 

in the Navajo Nation Bar Association and serve on its Training Committee. This includes teaching Continuing Legal Education classes for tribal judges, attorneys and 

advocates, along with the semi-annual bar review course for candidates seeking admission to practice law before the Navajo Supreme Court and district courts. Additionally, I’m a consultant to Fox Valley Technical College of Appleton, Wisconsin. 

Fox Valley is a contractor to the U.S. Department of Justice and develops law enforcement training curriculum and programs for nearly 200 federally recognized Indian tribes and nations. My own work for Fox Valley focuses on the implementation 

by tribal justice departments of the National Sex Offender Notification and Registration Act or SORNA, which as you know is Congressionally mandated by the 

Adam Walsh Act of 2006. 

S. 797 and the Challenges it Addresses 

I’m very encouraged by this bill and strongly support it. S. 797, the Tribal Law 

& Order Act of 2009, is a necessary first step toward strengthening criminal justice 

for people living and working on Indian lands. After brief introductory remarks, my 

testimony will discuss how this legislation can address three of the most significant 

challenges to making Indian country safer: 

1. Overly complicated jurisdictional rules that undermine criminal investigations, preventing far too many prosecutions from going forward and, in the 

memorable phrase of an April 2007 report by Amnesty International, can create 

a ‘‘maze of injustice.’’ 

2. A chronic resource deficit in which Indian tribes have access on average to 

less than one-half of the law enforcement resources available to comparable offreservation communities, and which extends to the entire criminal justice system. 

3. A lack of respect for tribal sovereignty and how it can reinforce the fundamental American value of localism—the expectation that governmental deciVerDate Nov 24 2008 09:33 Apr 07, 2010 Jkt 053988 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\DOCS\53988.TXT JACK PsN: JACKF
40 

sions, including those involving public safety, are best made closer to citizens 

by officials who are directly accountable to them. 

My testimony will explore how specific provisions of S. 797 can help address each 

of these challenges in order to make Indian country safer. This legislation is vitally 

important and long overdue. Yet it is still just a first step on a much longer journey 

that has never been and will never be easy. So I will conclude my remarks today 

by raising some additional ideas that this Committee might consider in its quest to 

make equal access to justice a reality for all Americans, including First Americans. 

Before I begin, Mr. Chairman, let it be said that you are a true champion in honoring the Federal Government’s trust responsibility to Indian tribes and nations 

through enhanced public safety. Your sustained commitment to meaningful reform, 

and that of your co-sponsors and supporters—Democrat and Republican alike—is refreshing to many of us serving in the field. Your continued leadership is also essential to reversing the circle of violence and despair that prevails on far too many Indian reservations. It is also my observation that this Committee is very well-served 

by its professional staff. 

In terms of fulfilling Congress’ federal trust obligations, this Committee has repeatedly recognized that there is no more urgent priority than strengthening criminal justice for people living and working on Indian lands. Much has been accomplished to make Indian Country safer, under both Republican and Democratic Administrations, since President Richard M. Nixon formally adopted Tribal Self-Determination as national policy. Yet far too much of the federal criminal justice system 

that is supposed to serve Indian Country—designed as it was to keep Native people 

isolated on reservations, with the real political power elsewhere—remains stubbornly frozen in the Termination Era. 

The need to make Indian country safer has also been a priority for President 

Obama, who declared during the last fall’s campaign: 

The most fundamental function of all governments is to ensure the safety of 

their citizens and maintain law and order. The Federal Government has a legal 

trust responsibility to aid tribal nations in furthering self-government in recognition of tribes’ inherent sovereignty. Unfortunately, the government has 

failed to live up to its obligation to help tribes maintain order. 

There are plenty of statistics to illustrate the President’s point, but it is perhaps 

more meaningful for me as a former United States Attorney to relate it in human 

terms. We’re talking, after all, about a federal criminal justice system in which one 

of the most basic legal questions of all—jurisdiction—depends on determining the 

ethnicity of the perpetrator as well as the victim, along with the intricacies of land 

status. This breathtaking inconsistency—using the ethnicity of an American citizen 

to decide which laws apply and who investigates and prosecutes a crime—gives rise 

to the so-called ‘‘jurisdictional maze,’’ a web of confusing and sometimes contradictory rules that attempt to determine who does what in Indian country. 

Navigating the Jurisdictional Maze 

The breathtaking jurisdictional complexity of federal Indian law—with both the 

adjudicative forum and applicable laws depending on the type of crime, status of the 

land where the offense occurred, and identity of the victim and the suspect—seriously impedes the effective administration of justice. There is also a perverse irony 

in the fact that people living in some of the poorest and most geographically isolated 

parts of our country must confront some of the most complicated legal rules anywhere during the ordinary course of their lives. 

Since 1885, United States Attorneys and tribal governments have had the primary responsibility for prosecuting violent crimes in Indian country. Yet even this 

basic division of labor has its arcane exceptions. For instance, crimes involving only 

non-Indians in Indian country are ordinarily subject to exclusive state jurisdiction. 

However, in states where Public Law 280 applies, state governments may or may 

not exercise criminal jurisdiction over Indians and non-Indians alike depending on 

the specific reservation and criminal offense at issue. Federal court decisions often 

add still another layer of complexity. For instance, in the 2001 case of Nevada v. 

Hicks, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled against tribal court jurisdiction over tribal 

court claims against state game officers who exceeded the scope a state-issued, tribal court-approved search warrant. Despite its narrow holding, widespread 

misperceptions about Hicks and its importance have seriously undermined the 

often-delicate cooperative policing arrangements forged among local, state and tribal 

law enforcement officers. 

In some investigations, it can be difficult or even impossible to determine at the 

crime scene whether the victim, the suspect, or both is an ‘‘Indian’’ or a ‘‘non-Indian’’ 

41 

for purposes of deciding which jurisdiction—federal and/or tribal, or state—has responsibility and which criminal laws apply. In those crucial first hours of an investigation, this can raise a fundamental question—which agency is really in charge? 

This is the antithesis of effective government. 

By way of illustration, Colorado’s U.S. Attorney’s Office recently prosecuted a case 

on the Southern Ute Indian Reservation where two victims of a vehicular homicide 

were hit by a non-Indian drunk driver and tragically burned to death in their vehicle. The victims were an elderly woman, an enrolled member of the tribe, and her 

eight-year-old granddaughter. The child was not an enrolled member of the tribe, 

but had a sufficient degree of Indian blood to be considered an ‘‘Indian’’ for federal 

jurisdictional purposes so long as the community in which she lived also considered 

her to be an ‘‘Indian.’’ 

As our federal prosecution proceeded, defense counsel countered that despite having Native blood, the child victim was still not considered to be an Indian within 

the particular reservation where the crime occurred. It turned out that the little girl 

had received Indian Health Service benefits on the Southern Ute Reservation and 

was visiting her grandparents there at the time, but legally resided with her mother 

off-reservation. Literally dozens of people, ultimately including the tribal council, got 

involved to decide whether the child was really an ‘‘Indian’’ or not. There was considerable disagreement. After several months of jurisdictional gymnastics, the case 

involving the child’s death was referred to the local District Attorney as a matter 

of exclusive state jurisdiction. Meanwhile, the U.S. Attorney’s Office prosecuted the 

non-Indian driver of the vehicle for the death of the little girl’s grandmother. The 

Southern Ute Tribe, incidentally, had no criminal jurisdiction whatsoever to vindicate its interest in the death of its own tribal member by a non-Indian defendant. 

This was because of the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1978 ruling in Oliphant v. 

Suquamish Indian Tribe, which held that absent express authorization from Congress, Indian tribes lack criminal jurisdiction over non-Indians. 

As prosecutors we actually got a break in that case, in a way, because the defendant—a non-Indian drunk driver—happened to be operating his vehicle in a Colorado 

state right-of-way at the time of the accident. The reservation in question, the 

Southern Ute Indian Reservation, has its very own federal jurisdictional statute, 

Public Law 290, limited solely to that reservation, which clarifies when state jurisdiction applies within highway rights-of-way. This made it easy for two of the firstresponders, a Colorado state trooper and a LaPlata County Sheriff’s deputy, to make 

a valid state arrest. In other so-called ‘‘checkerboard’’ Indian reservations such as 

the Eastern Agency of the Navajo Nation, where Indian trust and allotted land parcels alternate with private fee lands and various other landholdings, highway 

rights-of-way are typically exclusive federal jurisdiction pursuant to the Indian 

country statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1151. This means that a Navajo Nation tribal police officer responding to a similar accident on the Eastern Agency ordinarily could not arrest a non-Indian defendant without being trained and federally deputized by the 

Bureau of Indian Affairs. 

S. 797 addresses the jurisdictional maze in at least two ways. First, Section 305 

of the bill creates an Indian Law and Order Commission (‘‘the Commission’’). This 

nine-member Commission is charged with undertaking a comprehensive study of 

law enforcement and criminal justice in Indian communities and reporting back to 

Congress within two years of the date of the bill’s enactment. This includes an analysis of jurisdiction over offenses committed in Indian country and how the current 

rules affect criminal investigations and prosecutions. The Commission is expressly 

charged in Section 305(e)(1) with making recommendations to Congress for ‘‘simplifying jurisdiction in Indian country[.]’’ 

Such an approach is welcome news. Second, another part of the bill, Section 301, 

takes direct aim at the maze of injustice by helping ensure that more tribal, state 

and local law enforcement officers are commissioned as federal officers—that is, federally deputized—to fight Indian country crime. There is already reason to believe 

that encouraging U.S. Attorney’s Offices and the Bureau of Indian Affairs to provide 

expanded federal deputation training and commissioning, in full partnership with 

the Indian nations they serve, can increase law enforcement cooperation, strengthen 

prosecution, and save lives. 

I say this from direct personal experience as a United States Attorney. Between 

February 2007 and December 2008, the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Colorado partnered 

with the Southern Ute Indian Tribe’s Justice Department and its visionary director, 

Janelle Doughty. Together with our respective offices and the Bureau of Indian Affairs’ Indian Police Academy, we developed a model curriculum and training program to teach and test tribal, state and local law enforcement officers on-site in 

Southwestern Colorado. Our goal was for these officers to be federally commissioned 

by the Bureau of Indian Affairs to enforce federal laws in Indian Country, thereby 

42 

strengthening ‘‘boots-on-the-ground’’ law enforcement and fostering inter-jurisdictional collaboration. The curriculum focused on Indian Country jurisdiction, the federal judicial process, investigative techniques, officer criminal and civil liability, and 

other challenges routinely encountered by tribal, state and local law enforcement officers. 

The genesis of this unique partnership between a U.S. Attorney’s Office and an 

Indian tribal justice department is worth noting because it attests to how Section 

301 can reasonably be expected to help law enforcement officers navigate the jurisdictional maze and increase cooperation among different agencies. Ms. Doughty, 

who testified before this Committee last September on a previous version of this bill, 

is the first tribal member—and first woman—ever to direct the Southern Ute Indian 

Tribe’s 100-employee Department of Justice & Regulatory, which includes the tribal 

police, wildlife rangers, corrections, and division of gaming. Her challenge to me as 

a new U.S. Attorney in 2006 was to find a way for the Federal Government to conduct on-site law enforcement training and testing on the Southern Ute Indian Reservation and invite neighboring non-Indian agencies to participate in this effort. 

Qualified law enforcement officers who completed this training and passed the 

standard test administered by the BIA Indian Police Academy could then receive 

their Special Law Enforcement Commissions or ‘‘SLEC’’ cards from the BIA to enforce federal laws on the reservation. 

Ms. Doughty, a law enforcement officer with a master’s degree in social work, had 

previously been the Crime Victims’ Advocate for the Southern Ute Tribe. She knew 

that without valid SLECs cards, tribal law enforcement officers could not legally arrest non-Indian defendants who committed crimes against Native American victims 

there. In far too many instances, domestic violence laws on the reservation were 

under-enforced to the point that many victims failed to report crimes. Precious few 

Southern Ute law enforcement officers were federally commissioned by the BIA and 

therefore could not investigate crimes allegedly committed by non-Indians, to whom 

exclusive federal jurisdiction applies under the Indian Country Crimes Act, 18 

U.S.C. § 1152. 

Working together with our respective offices, Ms. Doughty and I gained the support of veteran Indian country prosecutor Christopher Chaney, who at the time directed the Bureau of Indian Affairs’ Office of Justice Services. Chris proposed 

partnering with the BIA and its Indian Police Academy to develop our training as 

an on-site ‘‘pilot’’ program. We began in February 2007 by successfully training and 

federally deputizing the first group of 40 tribal, state and local law enforcement officers on the Southern Ute Indian Reservation in Ignacio, Colorado. 

Word of our efforts quickly spread. What started as a local partnership in Colorado eventually led to the nationally recognized ‘‘Criminal Justice in Indian Country’’ pilot training program, a combined effort that included: 

• Bureau of Indian Affairs/Indian Police Academy. 

• National Congress of American Indians. 

• Deputy District Attorney Bernadine Martin of the McKinley County-New Mexico District Attorney’s Office. 

• U.S. Department of Justice/National Advocacy Center. 

• The U.S. Attorney’s Office in Colorado, New Mexico and South Dakota. 

In less than two years, what began as a pilot training program limited to the 

Southern Ute Indian Reservation and surrounding communities had grown into 14 

separate training sessions across the country, attended by more than 400 law enforcement officers and tribal leaders representing 35 Indian tribes and 17 states. 

Many of the officers who graduated from the program have since been federally deputized. 

In Colorado, the Criminal Justice in Indian Country program has already 

strengthened inter-agency cooperation and federal criminal prosecutions, including 

domestic violence cases. Last fall, Ms. Doughty testified before this Committee about 

how the program had succeeded. As an example, she described how a Southern Ute 

tribal officer had responded to a crime scene in a domestic-violence case on the reservation. The officer, Chris Naranjo, had received on-site training to renew his 

SLEC card, which otherwise would have expired long before he could have left his 

job to attend a week-long refresher course a full days’ drive away at the Indian Police Academy in Artesia, New Mexico. ‘‘Because he was federally deputized,’’ Doughty told the Committee, ‘‘Chris could arrest the non-Indian suspect who had allegedly 

victimized one of our Tribal members in that case, which is now being prosecuted 

by the U.S. Attorney’s Office.’’ A conviction has since been obtained in that case. 

S. 797 has the potential to build on such successes and increase SLEC training 

exponentially. Section 301(b) of the bill directs the Secretary of the Interior to deVerDate Nov 24 2008 09:33 Apr 07, 2010 Jkt 053988 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\DOCS\53988.TXT JACK PsN: JACKF
43 

velop a plan within 180 days of the bill’s enactment ‘‘to enhance the certification 

and provision of special law enforcement commissions to tribal law enforcement officials.’’ This expressly includes regional SLEC training sessions such as those we developed in Colorado and later conducted in other states. As this plan takes shape, 

there would be minimal additional cost to enabling U.S. Attorney’s Offices to offer 

such training in partnership with BIA and with the approval and support of the affected Indian tribes. This training should not be limited to tribal officials, but should 

include neighboring border communities for effective interagency collaboration, 

back-up and emergency response. In this way, law enforcement officers on and near 

reservations can have the tools to help navigate the jurisdictional maze. 

Closing the ‘‘Resource Gap’’ 

The maze of injustice is not the only nemesis facing criminal justice professionals 

in Indian country. The chronic lack of federal resources has become a way of life 

on far too many reservations. S. 797 addresses this problem in several important 

ways. Let me briefly discuss just two. 

1. Measuring the Resource Deficit 

First, Section 101 includes detailed reporting requirements to track federal criminal justice expenditures and programs provided to Indian country every fiscal year. 

These annual reporting obligations extend across the system to include law enforcement, corrections and judicial human and financial resources. Section 101 is a critical tool to help address the resource deficit that has plagued much of Indian country for decades. On average, Indian country has roughly half as many police officers 

per capita as similarly situated rural communities. This was the case in 1997, according to a report that year by the Clinton Justice Department, and in 2006, when 

the BIA commissioned its own analysis by a private consultant. While economic 

times are tight, it is essential that Congress work with the Obama Administration 

work to close this gap in a systematic and sustained way. 

Section 101 can and should be used as part of an internal process to estimate 

what it would actually take for Congress to erase the resource gap entirely, in all 

major categories, by a reasonable date certain, and then budget accordingly. The resource deficit is all too familiar across much of Indian country. This includes the 

Ute Mountain Ute Reservation in Southwestern Colorado, which borders the Southern Ute Indian Reservation I spoke of earlier. The name of the Ute Mountain Ute 

Tribe comes from a local landmark called Sleeping Ute Mountain, which resembles 

a giant warrior lying on his back. It is said that one day this warrior will arise and 

defend the remnant of his people. For the time being, members of the Ute Mountain 

Ute Tribe, unlike their neighbors at Southern Ute, must rely exclusively on the Bureau of Indian Affairs Office of Justice Services for their law enforcement, corrections and judicial services. 

The people of the Ute Mountain Ute nation live in an area of remarkable natural 

beauty that is home to the world-famous Ute Mountain Tribal Park. For those who 

have visited nearby Mesa Verde National Park, the Ute Mountain Tribal Park and 

its extensive ancestral Pueblo ruins are among the most spectacular places in the 

American West. In terms of criminal justice services, however, the Ute Mountain 

Ute people deserve far better than what the Federal Government provides them. On 

any given day or night, there are just one or two BIA law enforcement officers on 

duty to patrol the entire reservation, which extends into three states and is bigger 

than Rhode Island. The life-and-death mission performed by these and other BIA 

law enforcement officers, and the many sacrifices by their families, deserves our 

gratitude and respect. The entire BIA Police Department for Ute Mountain usually 

consists of just five officers who often work 12-hour shifts for days at a time. Nationally, the average police response time in the United States is about six minutes. On 

Ute Mountain Ute, response times of an hour or more are the norm. 

The same resource deficit extends to the entire criminal justice system. As I testify here today, the BIA has failed to provide a public defender on the Ute Mountain 

Ute Reservation for more than two years. This means that virtually all criminal defendants appearing before the Court of Indian Offenses lack any legal representation, and cases are routinely dismissed, resulting in an almost total lack of misdemeanor law enforcement. Earlier this decade, the BIA detention center on the reservation also shut down entirely for several months due to lack of federal funds. 

Other key positions, including the BIA tribal prosecutor, have been unfilled during 

much of this same time. Section 101 can help Congress to quantify and address this 

continuing mockery of the federal trust obligation. 

2. Reporting Case Declinations by U.S. Attorneys 

S. 797 addresses another symptom of the larger criminal justice resources deficit: 

Case declinations by federal prosecutors. The term ‘‘declination’’ in this context 

44 

means a decision by a United States Attorney’s Office not to seek criminal charges 

after being presented with the confidential findings of a law enforcement investigation of a suspected federal offense arising in Indian country. Section 102 of the bill 

establishes mandatory reporting requirements for all U.S. Attorneys when cases are 

declined in such instances. What is now Section 102 has been criticized in previous 

versions of this legislation by several former and current U.S. Attorneys for whom 

I have great respect, and by the Justice Department in the previous Administration 

in which I served. I respectfully disagree with these former colleagues and strongly 

encourage this Committee to support Section 102. At the same time, it is vitally important for this Committee to explain to the American why declination reports have 

useful but limited value so that the entire matter is kept in proper perspective. 

I support Section 102 as a way to bring greater accountability to U.S. Attorney’s 

Offices, and to individual U.S. Attorneys themselves as Presidential appointees serving as temporary stewards of the federal trust responsibility. Declination reports 

that respect individual privacy and the legal confidentiality of investigative information, as the language of Section 102 clearly envisions, would be extremely valuable 

in helping U.S. Attorneys set Indian country enforcement priorities and make the 

case for additional resources in specific areas. These reports would also assist the 

Justice Department in its supervisory role of monitoring case trends and aligning 

national prosecution priorities based on more complete criminal justice information 

than currently exists today. 

Rather than fear such enhanced accountability, U.S. Attorney’s Offices should embrace it as an opportunity to ease suspicions among some critics that Indian country 

cases are somehow treated less seriously than other federal criminal prosecutions. 

Such rumors are unfounded. In my experience, the vast majority of Assistant U.S. 

Attorneys serving Indian country are committed to achieving equal justice for all 

Americans, including First Americans living and working on Native lands. Tracking 

case declinations and developing other ways to measure the performance of the 

criminal justice system can assist AUSAs and their offices by helping educate the 

public as to what prosecutors in the field really face. 

As I discussed earlier, the pervasive lack of available federal law enforcement officers is only a symptom of the relative lack of criminal justice resources in Indian 

country as compared with off-reservation communities. As Colorado’s U.S. Attorney, 

I faced this problem frequently, especially in cases arising on the Ute Mountain Ute 

Reservation. The on-the-ground reality was sometimes ludicrous, as when I joined 

a police ride-along where the BIA officer had to leave the patrol vehicle motor running for his entire shift because it wouldn’t start if he shut off the engine. The officer’s innovative approach worked well until the vehicle ran out of gas. 

More often, the situation was grim or even tragic. I especially remember one night 

at Ute Mountain where BIA police dispatch received a report of an apparent homicide. By the time a patrol officer arrived, a crowd had converged at the crime scene. 

As often happens, the lone BIA officer simply could not establish a perimeter by 

himself. The mob broke into the apparent victim’s home, some people literally climbing through the windows. The crime scene was hopelessly contaminated. It bears 

mentioning that the resident agent from the Federal Bureau of Investigation was 

400 miles away in Denver at the time—preparing to testify before the nearest Article III federal judge—in another Indian country case. This cold case remains an ‘‘unexplained death,’’ and it is doubtful that sufficient legally admissible evidence will 

ever be collected to solve the crime. 

I mention this in context of declinations and what they can and cannot measure. 

According to the official U.S. Attorney’s Manual, United States Attorneys may only 

bring a criminal prosecution if there is a reasonable probability of obtaining a conviction at trial. Such was not the case here, where the crime scene was compromised—again as so often happens—in the critical hours immediately after the 

crime. Reporting declinations is important to reinforcing the accountability of individual U.S. Attorneys and the vitally important offices with which they are temporarily entrusted. Unlike elected local prosecutors, U.S. Attorneys obtain their positions by political appointment—Presidential nomination, with the advice and consent of the Senate—are not directly accountable to voters. 

This lack of institutional accountability is magnified when U.S. Attorneys essentially function as local officials in the prosecution of major crimes. When I was 

teaching tribal law enforcement officers, I used to start my classes by asking how 

many had voted for me as their United States Attorney. The confused looks and occasional display of hands from the audience spoke volumes about the lack of direct 

institutional accountability between me as a politically appointed chief federal criminal prosecutor, acting in effect as a local district attorney, and my ‘‘constituency’’ 

hundreds of miles from Denver. 

45 

This lack of local accountability means it is vital for Congress to enact meaningful 

performance measures for Indian country investigations and prosecutions. This 

leads to Section 102 and mandatory case-declination reporting. By definition, declinations can never tell the full story. Investigative information is highly sensitive 

and must be protected by law in order to safeguard Constitutional rights. An obvious example is grand jury information, the unauthorized release of which is appropriately punishable by criminal sanction, including imprisonment. It can be unreasonable, unethical and illegal for a federal prosecutor to attempt to explain why he 

or she declined to prosecute someone. 

Focusing on case declinations in and of themselves, without putting them into the 

larger context of the criminal justice system, can be of limited value for another reason. As I discussed earlier, the jurisdictional maze can wreck havoc in Indian country investigations. Not knowing which agency is supposed to what in a given set 

of circumstances means that too many crimes fall through the cracks. And much of 

Indian country suffers from scarce resources at every step in the process, including 

law enforcement, prosecution, indigent defense, courts and corrections. A weak link 

in any part of this chain can undermine the integrity of the entire system, to the 

point where victims simply fail to report crimes in the first place. This tracks with 

the findings of scholarly researchers, such as professor Barbara Perry of the University of Ontario, who recently estimated that no more than 5 to 10 percent of victims 

of all domestic violence in Indian country report their abuse to the relevant authorities. 

In sum, declinations are an under-inclusive metric that can never measure crimes 

that go unreported or investigations that fail to take place or are compromised. Yet 

that does not mean declination reports are somehow unimportant, especially in reinforcing the local accountability of U.S. Attorneys and their offices. During testimony 

on previous versions of this bill, it was suggested that mandatory case-declination 

reports might raise concerns with the Constitutional separation of powers by intruding on prosecutorial discretion and therefore Executive Branch authority. There can 

be legitimate debate on that issue. But even if a legal impasse does arise over this 

portion of the bill, I see no barrier to the U.S. Department of Justice simply adopting Section 102 as an internal policy statement and operating accordingly. 

Respect for Tribal Sovereignty 

Let me briefly address one final aspect of S. 797: Section 304, which deals with 

tribal court sentencing authority. Among other things, this section amends the Indian Civil Rights Act of 1968 to give tribal courts the sentencing option to impose 

terms of incarceration for up to three years, a fine of up to $15,000, or both for conviction of a single tribal offense. This compares with a maximum penalty of one year 

imprisonment, a $5,000 fine, or both under current law. Consistent with the Supreme Court’s Oliphant decision, tribal courts could not impose these increased penalties on non-Indians. With respect to Indians, Section 304 would only permit tribal 

courts to impose these enhanced penalties if they guarantee the defendants’ due 

process of law. The bill further requires that the presiding judge and defendants’ 

defense attorney be ‘‘licensed to practice law in any jurisdiction in the United 

States.’’ 

This language attempts to strike a balance between respect for criminal defendants’ federal Constitutional rights and the sovereignty of tribal courts to enforce 

their own laws. However, it is reasonable to expect that should the provision pass, 

the ball would be hit into federal court. Increasing the maximum sentence of imprisonment that tribal courts could impose would almost certainly be interpreted by federal judges to expand tribal court jurisdiction over Indians beyond misdemeanor 

sentences to include felonies. Additionally, Section 304 purports to permit tribal 

courts to ‘‘stack’’ offenses to increase aggregate penalties for multiple offenses. There 

is a significant legal question, in my judgment, as to whether the U.S. Supreme 

Court would uphold tribal criminal jurisdiction over felonies in cases involving nonmember Indians and perhaps all Indians. Rather than test these legal waters and 

obtain an adverse interpretation of federal Constitutional law that could not be 

amended later by statute, the Committee should consider amending Section 304 to 

retain the current one-year cap under the Indian Civil Rights Act—thus continuing 

to limit tribal courts to misdemeanor sentencing authority only—but increase the 

maximum fines. 

Another issue concerns the representation of criminal defendants and the judges 

who preside over their cases. I read the text of Section 304(b)((1)(C)(2)(A) as enabling tribal court judges who are tribally-licensed but not necessarily attorneys to 

impose the enhanced penalties permitted by the bill. In contrast, no Indian tribe 

may deny a criminal defendant the assistance of a defense attorney, as opposed to 

46 

lay advocate, but that the attorney need not be state-licensed so long as he or she 

is admitted to practice in tribal court. 

What the bill is really trying to do here is not just ensure that criminal defendants receive due process of law, but also specify how much process is actually due. 

Here again, it seems likely that the federal courts will ultimately confront the issue 

of tribal judges’ and defense attorneys’ professional qualifications if this portion of 

Section 304 passes. For those of us practicing in tribal court and our clients, the 

point is critically important on several levels. For one thing, not all tribal bar admission processes and licensing requirements are alike. On the Navajo Nation, for 

example, just one of 20 tribal court judges is a state-licensed attorney. One Navajo 

District Court judge is an attorney but not state-licensed. The rest of the bench consists entirely of non-lawyers who were admitted to practice before the Navajo Nation Supreme Court after passing the required eight-hour examination administered 

by the Navajo Nation Bar Association (‘‘NNBA’’). 

As a member of the Training Committee of the NNBA, I can attest that the Navajo bar examination is rigorous. While lawyers and lay advocates may both take the 

test, the bar passage rate for non-attorneys is comparatively low. The admission and 

continuing legal education requirements closely track state attorney licensing requirements in some respects and differ in others. And the integrity and professionalism of the Navajo Nation judiciary is admired throughout Indian country. Yet 

it is also true that the approach taken at Navajo bears little resemblance to some 

other tribal court admission requirements with which I am familiar, in which a nonattorney need only fill out a form and pay a fee. Section 304 should be amended 

to reflect such realities. One way might be to set minimum qualifications for tribal 

admission requirements for those tribal courts that decide to adopt the heightened 

sentencing provisions. 

Despite these concerns, Section 304 properly seeks to reinforce the critical importance of tribal courts in misdemeanor enforcement. This section could be further 

strengthened in two ways. First, I suggest adding language encouraging support for 

tribal sentencing based on the traditional and customary law of each Indian community. Second, the expanded sentencing authority in Section 304, no matter what 

form it eventually takes, ought to be extended to the BIA Courts of Indian Offenses, 

which serve as the primary source of misdemeanor adjudication on ‘‘BIA-only’’ reservations such as Ute Mountain Ute. This section, like the rest of the bill, will also 

require reasonable funding. In recent years, the BIA court and detention center at 

Ute Mountain have functioned only sporadically. Besides preventing misdemeanor 

enforcement, violent crimes sometimes go unpunished under federal law because potential witnesses cannot be detained locally while investigations are completed and 

federal charges filed. Such systemic neglect must not continue. 

S. 797 has many other worthwhile provisions. Time does not permit a comprehensive analysis, but I welcome the Committee’s questions either at this hearing or 

later in writing. 

Looking Forward 

The Tribal Law & Order Act merits the strong support of the Congress and the 

Obama Administration. Looking forward, several related issues are also worthy of 

continued attention by this Committee, either as additions to S. 797 or in the days 

ahead. 

1. U.S. Attorney Qualifications 

While the Senate Judiciary Committee handles the confirmation process for 

United States Attorneys and federal judges, the perspective of the Committee on Indian Affairs on such appointments is absolutely critical, as is the role of Indian 

tribes and nations in informing that process. Perhaps a personal story helps illustrate this point. 

As Colorado’s U.S. Attorney, I vowed to make Indian country a top priority. I had 

worked extensively in Indian Country and vowed to act like a local District Attorney 

when dealing with the two Indian nations headquartered in Colorado. This meant 

meeting every month with both tribal councils and working daily with tribal justice 

department leaders. I asked the Governor of our state to appoint me to the Colorado 

Commission of Indian Affairs and participated actively in that body. The U.S. Attorney’s Office partnered with the Southern Ute Indian Tribe as discussed above and 

became actively involved in teaching tribal law enforcement officers and their state 

and local counterparts, negotiating inter-governmental agreements for mutual assistance and emergency response, and cutting through bureaucratic red tape. Our 

office secured funding from the Justice Department for an additional Assistant U.S. 

Attorney position to increase Indian Country prosecutions, as well as a second Victim Witness Coordinator position to support our cases. I traveled to Albuquerque, 

47 

Washington, DC and elsewhere to seek more BIA law enforcement resources. Each 

quarter, I invited a senior law enforcement leader to join me in visiting the two Indian nations headquartered in Colorado. Supervisory Agents-in-Charge from the 

Federal Bureau of Investigation, Drug Enforcement Administration, U.S. Marshal’s 

Service, Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms, Bureau of Land Management, the 

Internal Revenue Service, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and other federal 

agencies all participated in these site visits and briefings. 

Yet the fact remains that my Indian country agenda as a United States Attorney 

was largely self-imposed. I could just as easily have taken a limited interest in the 

topic and perhaps not experienced any adverse repercussions. This became perfectly 

clear to me during my nomination and confirmation process to become Colorado’s 

U.S. Attorney. Not once was I questioned by anyone in Washington as to how I 

would prioritize Indian Country law enforcement and prosecution. I then asked to 

meet with members of the two tribal councils after my nomination but prior to my 

Senate confirmation. The response from officials in both the Executive and Legislative branches of government was that it would be inappropriate for me to meet with 

Indian tribal leaders prior to taking the oath of office. 

To me this is exactly backwards. The Constitutional separation of powers properly 

places the confirmation process with the Senate. However, as part of the government-to-government consultation process required by executive order, each President should consult directly with the affected tribal governments before nominating 

any U.S. Attorney. The same process should apply to all potential nominees for 

other Presidential appointments requiring Senate confirmation, including candidates for the federal bench. Once a candidate is nominated, both the Justice Department and the Senate should actively encourage tribal leaders to meet and question the nominees who aspire to become their next chief federal prosecutor or judge. 

The U.S. Constitution recognizes three sovereigns: The Federal Government, states 

and Indian tribes. Tribal governments should be guaranteed a full and fair opportunity to meet face-to-face with would-be U.S. Attorneys and federal judges before 

they are confirmed by the Senate and take the oath of office, and regularly thereafter. 

2. Expanding Federal Judicial Access 

A second vitally important issue concerns expanded federal judicial access on and 

near Indian reservations. On December 13, 2005, a federal criminal trial was held 

on the Navajo Nation. This little-noticed trial, convened in Shiprock, New Mexico 

and involving tribal members, apparently marked the first time a U.S. District 

Court had heard a case on the country’s largest Indian reservation. The Navajo Nation covers an area nearly the size of West Virginia—a state, incidentally, with nine 

separate federal courthouses for the convenience of its citizens. 

The lack of federal judicial access for Native people living on Indian lands is one 

of the great civil rights issues of our time. As discussed earlier, American citizens 

rightly value localism—having government officials who are accountable and accessible to them, and who live and work in their communities. It would be unthinkable 

off-reservation for a crime victim to travel hundreds of miles just to participate in 

a criminal case. Yet this is commonplace in Indian Country, as is the lack of jury 

pools with meaningful Native American representation. As Janelle Doughty of the 

Southern Ute Tribe testified to the Senate last fall: 

It is totally unacceptable that the nearest U.S. District Court Judge in Colorado 

is 350 miles away from the Southern Ute Indian Reservation, and even farther 

from our sister tribe to the west, the Ute Mountain Ute Reservation. We have 

been pushing for a federal courthouse and judgeship in our area. Trying cases 

that meet the elements of the Major Crimes Act 350 miles from the jurisdiction 

in which they occur stands as a road block to justice and must be resolved. Federal juries in Colorado rarely include a single American Indian, yet they decide 

purely local crimes. And we have never had a federal grand jury in Western 

Colorado in my lifetime. 

The federal judiciary is a separate branch of government responsible for administering its own affairs. Yet Presidents and the Congress influence judicial policy 

through authorizing legislation and appropriations for judges and judicial resources. 

It is time to recognize and start reversing this injustice. 

3. Thinking Beyond Oliphant 

A final topic concerns tribal criminal jurisdiction over non-Indians and the limits 

of federal deputation. As an Oliphant jurisdictional work-around, Special Law Enforcement Commission (‘‘SLEC’’) agreements are not nearly as practical or plentiful 

as one might conclude from reading about them in federal court decisions. Effective 

48 

law enforcement over non-Indians who commit crimes in Indian Country varies 

widely depending on the reservation, and in practice sometimes does not exist. In 

New Mexico, for example, just three of 22 Indian tribes and pueblos currently have 

SLEC agreements with the BIA that permit federal deputation. One of those is the 

country’s largest Indian reservation, the Navajo Nation, which has entered into 

some state cross-deputation arrangements but which still lacks an SLEC agreement 

with the BIA even though Oliphant was decided more than 30 years ago. 

This, in turn, has prompted a searching review by several commentators into 

whether Oliphant itself should be modified or repealed. There are deeply held and 

often passionate views on both sides. Certainly a Congressional repeal of Oliphant 

would give non-Indians a far greater stake in the future of Indian country than 

would otherwise exist during our lifetimes. The possibility that a non-Indian might 

someday face criminal proceedings in tribal court, unlikely though it might be for 

most Americans, would nonetheless be real. Over time, that potential exposure of 

non-Indians to tribal courts and police departments, and federal and tribal policymakers’ concern about such matters, will time will create an invaluable off-reservation constituency to support tribes in improving their criminal justice systems. But 

we must also be realistic about the scope, magnitude, and difficulty of what we are 

talking about. To me, ending Oliphant means extending tribal court jurisdiction to 

all citizens in a way that fully protects their rights under the U.S. Constitution. 

In my view, any serious discussion of what a post-Oliphant world might look like 

starts with a simple premise: The depth and consistency with which tribal courts 

protect criminal defendants’ civil rights must be on a par with that of defendants 

in state court criminal proceedings. Otherwise, federal habeas corpus relief from 

tribal court decisions alleged to have violated federal constitutional rights might not 

realistically be a sufficient remedy. Defendants would presumably expect to be retried de novo in U.S. District Court on tribal criminal code violations—essentially 

imposing a costly and frustrating exhaustion requirement for all concerned and, 

from the tribes’ perspective, a serious infringement on tribal courts’ sovereignty, 

with federal judges applying tribal law. 

A better approach would be to ensure that the tribal courts themselves—based on 

their own assessment of their sovereign interests—meet federal Constitutional requirements in terms of due process and providing a full and fair forum by an independent, neutral arbiter. Several tribal court systems, such as the Navajo Nation 

Supreme Court and District Courts, are already meeting that threshold standard in 

some respects but not all, such as judicial independence. This is promising given 

that these court systems were not designed, and are not currently configured, to adjudicate criminal matters involving non-Indian defendants. Others could probably 

make the transition in time, provided the tribe’s leadership decided it was priority. 

Still other tribal courts are not ready and may not be for the foreseeable future, 

whatever their intentions. 

All this suggests that tribes might be given the freedom to opt-in to a post-Oliphant world on a case-by-case basis. Those tribal courts wishing to exercise criminal 

jurisdiction over non-Indian defendants could be supported in doing so starting on 

a certain date, provided they agree voluntarily to integrate federal constitutional 

substantive and procedural protections into their justice systems. This would mean, 

as in state courts, that the definition of what constitutes a permissible search and 

seizure under tribal case law, say, would be separate and distinct from its federal 

counterpart, provided again that all federal constitutional requirements were met 

as a ‘‘floor’’ on permissible rights. The Indian Civil Rights Act would necessarily 

need to be modified in several critical respects, such as providing under tribal law 

(unlike ICRA) that indigent criminal defendants are entitled to legal representation. 

Another concern—one raised by the Oliphant Court—involves jury pools. At the 

time the case was decided, the court for the Suquamish Tribe did not allow nonIndians to participate in juries. That situation has changed dramatically for some 

tribal courts, which now require a ‘‘fair cross-section of the community’’ standard for 

jury selection and service. 

Still another matter that might arise should Oliphant be repealed is the sovereign 

immunity of government officials in the civil context. The combined effect of Section 

1303 of the Indian Civil Rights Act and the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1978 decision in 

Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez is to limit federal review of tribal court decisions 

to habeas corpus. This expansive definition of tribal sovereign immunity is greater 

than that afforded to the states, where defendants have the alternative remedy 

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to challenge alleged misconduct by state and local police and 

other governmental officials. In conjunction with repealing Oliphant, Santa Clara 

Pueblo might be modified to provide a waiver of qualified sovereign immunity in 

such cases, again to ensure greater governmental accountability and protection of 

defendants’ civil liberties. 

49 

Conclusion 

Whatever reforms this Committee ultimately chooses to pursue, the dialogue is 

timely and extraordinarily important given the disproportionately high violent crime 

rates in Indian Country and the need for expanded law enforcement. A greater emphasis on reinforcing tribal sovereignty and self-determination in tribal criminal justice policy is the same approach that has so dramatically improved the delivery of 

many other essential governmental services on Indian reservations in recent years. 

That approach holds enormous promise for making Indian Country safer for all, provided there is no compromise on the rights of the accused in federal criminal proceedings. The status quo—and the lingering public-safety gap between Indian Country and similarly situated rural communities—was never acceptable, and the time 

to end it is now. 

Thank you. 

Senator UDALL. Thank you very much for your testimony. 

Judge Brandenburg, please go ahead. 

STATEMENT OF HON. ANTHONY J. BRANDENBURG, CHIEF 

JUDGE, INTERTRIBAL COURT OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA 

Mr. BRANDENBURG. Please thank the other Members of the Committee for allowing me to be here today. 

As you said, my name is Anthony Brandenburg. I am the Chief 

Judge of the Intertribal Court of Southern California. Now, the 

Intertribal Court of Southern California is a consortium of tribes. 

It is a court system where it works as a circuit court on that concept, whereby the judge travels from one reservation to the other, 

presiding over assigned cases. The rules are based essentially on 

tribal laws, ordinances, customs and historical precedent. 

The Intertribal Court provides the tribes with a judge, a court 

administrator, court clerks, bailiffs and case management system. 

Court hearings are held at the respective tribal facilities as an exercise of that tribe’s civil regulatory jurisdiction. 

Prior to my appointment as Chief Judge of the Intertribal Court, 

I spent approximately 17 years on the State bench in San Diego, 

California, with both the Municipal and Superior Courts. Because 

I had worked so many years pro bono in Indian Country, somehow 

I got the reputation of being the Indian judge. 

I think you heard the many complaints about Public Law 280 

and how it has injured and affected negatively the sovereignty of 

our tribes. Well, let me tell you about the practical effects of a guy 

in the trenches, first-hand at the State and tribal level what is 

going on. 

Until recently, there were absolutely very few, in some cases no 

tribal courts in Southern California to speak of. Yet, in San Diego 

County alone, there are 17 federally recognized tribes. If you add 

in our neighboring tribes in the local counties—Riverside, San 

Bernardino and Imperial—you can add another 17 tribes just 

about. 

Basically, when I was on the State court, whenever an Indian 

case came along, I got the call. If you were to ask 20 of our judges 

about Public Law 280, 19 would tell you they essentially knew very 

little or nothing about it at the State level. In fact, I recall one of 

our presiding judges telling me when an Indian case came up, now 

it’s a Federal case. It goes to Federal court. Forget about it. 

Actually, he was serious. The trouble is, you can’t blame the 

judges because in reality they are simply not schooled on the issues 

of Public Law 280 at the State level. During my entire career on 

50 

the bench, I was never offered a case, or a program I should say, 

on Indian law, nor did I ever hear of one on Public Law 280. 

Allow me to offer you a sobering fact that I am sure you are 

aware of. The highest crime rate in the United States is not in the 

inner city. It is not Black. It is not White. It is Indian-on-Indian 

crime. And addressing Public Law 280 and the law enforcement 

gap that it was supposed to close some 50-odd years ago, it has 

only made it worse. The very often confusing jurisdictional issues, 

coupled with a pervasive distrust of local law enforcement and 

State courts, has left our Indian Country a virtual legal no-man’s 

land. 

For example, Public Law 280 does not allow local or State law 

enforcement to enforce tribal law, nor can county ordinances be enforced on tribal courts. In short, what this means very often is that 

local law enforcement simply refuses to come on to the Indian reservations. 

Public Law 280 has been a failure. As I stated earlier, as a judge 

and as an individual who has worked and lived in Indian Country, 

we need help. The first job of government is to provide public safety. That is what Indian Country needs. Our tribes have to exercise 

their jurisdiction and provide law and order to the individuals, and 

fundamentally that is a significant legal power that tribal governments must do and can do, but they need this type of legislation 

to do that. 

Providing safe, healthy communities where our elders, our children, are safe; where families are able to work and thrive, and 

where people can provide for themselves in the community, all in 

a manner that is consistent with and reinforced by tribal values 

and cultures, is the most significant power as sovereigns a tribe 

can exercise. 

I have to skip over some things here. Providing the resources for 

tribal custodial facilities would be a first in California. This would 

allow for the development of culturally appropriate facilities that 

can have a direct and lasting impact on rehabilitation and the reduction of recidivism in our communities. 

The Intertribal Court as a consortium is in the unique position 

to benefit from all this because it allows the pooling of resources, 

which is particularly relevant to our tribes because so many of 

them share not only a common heritage, but common goals. 

The people of Native America, the people of our native communities, want to feel safe and secure in their homes and their properties and on their ancestral homelands. They want nothing more 

than any other person in any other neighborhood in any other part 

of this Country, and they should get nothing less. With the help 

of this legislation, we can do good things. In addressing the crossdeputization and cooperation and mutual aid agreements, we have 

come a long way. 

In conclusion, I am very encouraged by what this Committee is 

trying to do. I am totally supportive, as are our tribes. Let me add 

one caveat, however. The true goals and intent of S. 797 will only 

be realized if the Federal Government makes a long-term commitment to provide the resources, and equally as important, the influence to encourage all of law enforcement jurisdictions, be it tribal, 

Federal, State or local, to join in the effort. 

51 

The time is now for everybody to step up to the plate. This is an 

opportunity and we can’t let it pass by. Tribes need your support 

and appreciate your suggestions and support and encouragement in 

improving their relationships with the Federal, State and local 

agencies to protect our women, children and elders, and most of all 

to provide native people with equal access to justice. 

This legislation goes a long way in closing the gap I spoke of, and 

I respectfully pray that you encourage Congress to support it. It deserves your support. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Udall. 

[The prepared statement of Judge Brandenburg follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. ANTHONY J. BRANDENBURG, CHIEF JUDGE, INTERTRIBAL COURT OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA

Chairman Dorgan, Vice Chairman Barrasso, honorable Members of the Senate 

Committee on Indian Affairs, thank you for this opportunity to appear before you 

this afternoon to provide testimony on matters of such great importance. My name 

is Anthony Brandenburg, and I have the privilege and honor of serving as the Chief 

Judge of the Intertribal Court of Southern California. 

The Intertribal Court of Southern California (the ‘‘Intertribal Court’’) is an intertribal court system, which works on a ‘‘circuit court’’ format whereby a judge travels 

from one Reservation to the next presiding over assigned cases. Rulings are based 

on tribal laws, ordinances, customs and historical precedent. The Intertribal Court 

provides a judge to each tribe, court administration, court clerks, bailiffs, and case 

management. Court hearings are held at the respective tribes’ reservations, as an 

exercise of that tribe’s civil jurisdiction. 

Prior to my appointment as Chief Judge of the Intertribal Court, I served almost 

17 years on the Superior and Municipal Court Bench in San Diego County, California. Because I had worked so many years on a pro bono basis in Indian Country, 

I had gotten the reputation as the ‘‘Indian Judge.’’ 

I think you have heard many complaints from tribes about P.L. 280 and how it 

has injured their sovereignty. Let me tell you about the practical effects that I have 

witnessed as a state judge and tribal judge. 

Until very recently, there were no tribal courts to speak of in all of Southern California. Yet in San Diego County alone there are 17 federally recognized tribes. Add 

in our neighboring Southern California counties of San Bernardino, Riverside and 

Imperial, and we have almost another 17 tribes. 

So when a case regarding Indians or Indian Reservations came along I usually 

got a call. If one were to ask twenty local judges about P.L. 280 nineteen would not 

know nothing or very little about it. ‘‘It’s a federal issue,’’ I was once told by one 

of my presiding judges. ‘‘It belongs in federal court,’’ he went on to say, and he honestly believed so. In fact, you can’t blame the judges, the reality is they simply have 

not been schooled on the issues. During my entire tenure on that bench, not once 

did I hear of nor was I offered a program on Indian Law. Consequently, I knew of 

no judges who were familiar with P.L. 280. 

Allow me to offer this sobering fact. The highest crime rate in the United States 

per capita does not occur in our inner cities nor is it black or white. It is Indian 

on Indian crime. 

In addressing P.L. 280, and the law enforcement gap it was supposed to close 

some 50 years ago, I can only say things have gotten worse. The very often confusing jurisdictional issues, coupled with a pervasive distrust of local law enforcement and state courts has left our Indian Country a virtual legal no man’s land. 

For example, P.L. 280 does not allow local or state law enforcement to enforce tribal 

laws, nor can county or municipal laws or ordinances be enforced on tribal land. In 

short, this means that local and state law enforcement is frequently reluctant to 

even come on the reservations. 

I think we can all agree that P.L. 280 has been an abject failure. But today we 

can do something about this! As I stated earlier, as a judge and individual who has 

lived and worked in Indian Country, I believe the topic of this hearing is a matter 

of great importance to Indian Country. The first job of any government is public 

safety. For our tribes, exercising their jurisdiction to provide law and order is a fundamentally significant legal power that tribal government must do and can provide. 

Providing safe, healthy communities where our elders and children are safe, where 

families are able to work and thrive, where people can provide for themselves and 

52 

the community, all in a manner that is consistent with and reinforced by the traditional values and culture of our tribes, is the most significant power the tribes, as 

sovereigns, can exercise. 

While P.L. 280 did not remove tribal criminal jurisdiction over Indians, the practical effect of removing federal jurisdiction was the elimination of federal resources, 

and the states have not filled the gap. Without those resources, it was all but impossible for tribes to develop and maintain effective justice systems. What our tribes 

have done in response has been to decriminalize activities to fit within a civil jurisdictional scheme. The result has been that tribes in P.L. 280 states like California 

have not developed the type of justices systems needed to exercise criminal justice. 

Our tribes have no criminal codes to speak of, tribal court staff are not trained in 

criminal matters, and tribes have no custodial facilities. 

Among the goals of S. 797, is a fundamental effort to not only do away with the 

various misconceptions of P.L.280, but to educate and train at the tribal, local and 

state level our judges and staffs, while at the same time bringing the Federal Government back into the equation. The result, if effective, being that tribes will be empowered in their efforts to reestablish and maintain law and order on our reservations. It also serves in allowing the tribes and tribal courts to re-enforce their laws 

by including cultural and traditional values in their judicial decision-making processes. In my view as a judge, S. 797 will help us to accomplish these necessary goals 

by: (1) repealing of the P.L. 280 provisions removing federal jurisdiction; (2) Authorizing and encouraging cross-deputization, mutual aid, and other cross-jurisdictional 

agreements through the cooperative assistance grants; (3) giving expanded sentencing authority for tribes; and (4) providing resources for tribal custodial facilities. 

I cannot emphasize enough the positive benefits that would be achieved by expanding tribal sentencing authority, and allowing tribes to provide realistic, culturally 

appropriate sentencing which would actually deter behavior. And providing resources for tribal custodial facilities would be a first for California. This would allow 

for development of culturally appropriate facilities that can have a direct and lasting impact on rehabilitation and the reduction of recidivism in our communities. 

The Intertribal Court, as a consortium of tribes, is uniquely positioned to benefit 

from this legislation. It allows for the pooling of resources, which is particularly relevant to our tribes since many of them share not only a common heritage, but common goals. 

The people of our Native Communities want to feel safe and secure in their properties and on their ancestral homelands. They want nothing more than any other 

person in any neighborhood in any other part of this country, and they should accept nothing less. With the help of this legislation we can continue our work on winning the trust and confidence of our people in a tribal judicial system, as well as 

our state and federal systems. But we can not do this alone any more than local, 

state or federal agencies have succeeded in doing this on their own. 

In addressing cross-deputization, cooperation and mutual aid agreements this bill 

suggests that these agreements are critical to the success of our efforts, and I wholeheartedly agree. I know this from first hand daily experiences. I am in the trenches. 

If any efforts are to succeed you must first have the trust and respect of the members of your tribal community. This can only happen with a fair and effective law 

enforcement system. 

Recently I had the privilege of meeting with the California Joint State/Federal Judicial Council. Members of this group include the Chief Justice of the California Supreme Court, the Senior Judges of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. In essence, I 

can tell you they agree that we must work together in our efforts as we approach 

issues of law in Indian Country. 

In conclusion, I am very encouraged by your efforts as reflected thus far in S. 797. 

This legislation can help create a seamless state, federal and tribal law enforcement 

procedure to the mutual benefit of all. Let me add this as a caveat though: the true 

goals and intent of S. 797 will only be realized if the Federal Government has a 

long term commitment to provide the resources and, as important, the influence to 

encourage all the law enforcement jurisdictions—tribal, federal, state and local—to 

join in this effort. 

The time is now once and for all for everyone to step up to the plate. Whether 

it is expanding the tribal courts’ sentencing authority or the building of tribal custodial facilities, we have not only have an opportunity here, but an obligation to act. 

Tribes need your support in their efforts at improving their relationships with state 

and federal agencies in helping them protect our children, woman and elders, and 

most of all in providing our Native Peoples with an equal access to justice. 

This legislation goes a long way in closing the gap and, respectfully, I pray that 

Congress gives it the support it deserves. 

53 

Thank you, Chairman and Members of the Committee. I stand ready to answer 

any questions you may have. 

Senator UDALL. Thank you very much, Judge Brandenburg, for 

your testimony. 

President Quasula? 

STATEMENT OF THEODORE R. QUASULA, PRESIDENT, 

QUASULA CONSULTING 

Mr. QUASULA. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman. 

I deeply appreciate this opportunity to offer my thoughts and remarks regarding the Law and Order Act of 2009. By way of introduction, I am Ted Quasula, an enrolled member of the Hualapai 

Tribe in Arizona. The reservation consists of nearly one million 

acres and a tribal enrollment of about 2,500. The Hualapai Tribe 

is also the home of the Skywalk, a glass-bottom walkway over the 

west end of the Grand Canyon. 

I have spent most of my entire adulthood in law enforcement, beginning as a patrol officer in the city of Flagstaff. After a couple 

of years, I moved on to the Bureau of Indian Affairs as a criminal 

investigator, and eventually worked up the ranks, becoming Director for the last 10 years of my 26-year career in the BIA. 

After retiring from Federal service in 2001, I started a consulting 

business to work with Indian criminal justice systems. However, I 

still had the itch to be active in law enforcement so I became Chief 

of Police for the Las Vegas Paiute Tribe in Las Vegas, Nevada for 

the next five years. It is a small tribe, but its location in downtown 

Las Vegas kept things pretty lively, as you can imagine. 

I have tracked the formation of Senate Bill 797 since Chairman 

Dorgan sent a letter to tribal leaders with a concept paper back in 

November, 2007. I commend this Committee and its staff for the 

listening sessions, meetings and previous hearings on what could 

be the most comprehensive and complete legislation ever to modernize Indian Country criminal justice systems. There is obviously 

considerable thought and effort that went into the formation of the 

bill. 

On June 12, 2008, Senator Dorgan, Senator Thune, Senator 

Johnson, and Senator Tester signed a letter seeking comments on 

the proposed legislation. In the letter, the Senators concluded that 

‘‘Many tribal communities are in the midst of a public safety crisis.’’ 

After reading and re-reading the Tribal Law and Order Act of 

2009, I thought to myself this is deja vu all over again. In 1997, 

Attorney General Janet Reno and Secretary of the Interior Bruce 

Babbitt were directed by President Clinton to come up with a plan 

to improve law enforcement in Indian Country. There were meetings and listening conferences with tribal leaders and many others 

involved in the Indian Country criminal justice systems. 

The beginning of that report, which is named The Report of the 

Executive Committee for Indian Country Law Enforcement Improvements of October 1997, starts out ‘‘There is a public safety crisis in Indian Country.’’ The findings of 1997 and the findings in S. 

797 are nearly identical. The only change is that the crisis has 

worsened, if that is possible, as a result of the surge or scourge of 

methamphetamine use on Indian reservations. There was a public 

54 

safety crisis before 1997. There was a public crisis in 1997. And 

there is a public safety crisis today. 

In the BIA, we all knew what needed to be done, but funding 

was so inadequate that the aforementioned public safety crisis continued to grow right before our eyes. In a nutshell, there were not 

enough cops and the jails were antiquated and overcrowded. 

If it were not for the many tribes that utilize their own funding 

resources for criminal justice systems in Indian Country, the problems would certainly be worse than what they are today. S. 797 

proposes sincere and greatly needed changes in Indian Country law 

enforcement. I provided specific comments which are submitted in 

my written testimony. I offer you my views based on my professional and personal experience. 

There must be accountable policing. In 2001, the Hualapai Tribe 

asked that I start a Police Department for the tribe. The BIA had 

the same problem then as it does today. It could not attract and 

hire police officers. There was always a shortage of officers and 

criminal activity was increasing. The tribe thought it could do better, so it contracted with the BIA to operate the Police Department. 

The BIA funding was limited, but the tribe was desperate for 

adequate and sufficient law enforcement protection. Today, the 

tribe supplements the Federal Government funding and provides 

for 50 percent of the Police Department’s operating budget. The 

tribe understood that attracting and retaining officers would not be 

cheap. The tribe pays its officers a little more than the surrounding 

communities and counties. 

The Hualapai Police today participate in the State of Arizona 

public safety retirement system, the same as any city, county and 

State law enforcement in Arizona. Arizona is the only State that 

I know of that has passed legislation authorizing tribes, tribal police and firefighters to participate in the State’s public safety retirement system. This allows officers from other departments to 

transfer to the Hualapai Police Department without losing their retirement. 

Hualapai Police are required to complete the Arizona State peace 

officer standards, Arizona POST, background checks, and training 

requirements. When tribal officers graduate from Arizona POST 

basic training, they are authorized to enforce State law. I advocate 

State training in that it gives the tribal officers the opportunity to 

train side by side with State, county and local law enforcement officers. We find that sheriffs and chiefs of police realize that tribal police are required to meet the same standards as their officers. 

Hualapai Police are also required to complete the BIA certification course and hold BIA special law enforcement commissions. 

Now, we all know that criminals have no respect for reservation 

boundaries. The Hualapai Tribe has established interagency governmental agreements with the Arizona Department of Public Safety, Mohave County and Yavapai County for mutual aid and assistance. The IGAs did not happen overnight. It took open communication, a lot of give and take with State and county officials. But in 

the end, everybody fully agreed that there is a great need to coordinate and work together in the interest of public safety for all. 

The Hualapai Police was located in a renovated residence which 

is wholly inadequate, not to mention unsafe. Like many other resVerDate Nov 24 2008 09:33 Apr 07, 2010 Jkt 053988 PO 00000 Frm 00058 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\DOCS\53988.TXT JACK PsN: JACKF
55 

ervations of comparable size and enrollment, a criminal justice center is necessary to house the courts, the police and detention. 

There also must be competent court systems. The Hualapai Tribe 

operates its tribal court through a contract with the BIA. The tribe 

supplements the BIA contract with its own funds. In fact, it covers 

62 percent of the operating costs. Judges and prosecutors are not 

required to be licensed attorneys. The law and order code is five 

years old and needs some updates. And the court, too, is located 

in a renovated community center that is 35 years old and was 

never designed to be a courtroom. 

The adult detention facility in Peach Springs is operated by the 

BIA. The BIA has chronically been unable to fill its correctional officer positions primarily because of the lack of housing in the community and the lengthy recruitment process, which often exceeds 

a year. The fact that the BIA only posts its vacancies on a Federal 

website prevents many people on reservations from accessing the 

vacancy information. 

The low pay in comparison with surrounding county jails is another obstacle. As of two weeks ago, the BIA had four correctional 

staff to staff a 45-bed facility which is always filled to capacity. 

Tribal police yesterday had 197 arrest warrants that are not 

processed because there is simply no place to book or house prisoners. Because of staff shortages and unsecure outdoor recreation 

yards, prisoners are not allowed to go outdoors to exercise or to 

even see the sunlight. They are confined to cells or day rooms 24 

hours a day. 

In September, 2005, through February, 2007, the BIA closed the 

jail on a one-day notice. It was a monumental disaster. If there was 

jail space available, tribal police could house prisoners in Flagstaff, 

Arizona, 115 miles away. If no space was available, officers were 

forced to take prisoners to Gallup, which is 300 miles away one 

way. BIA had a contract with those facilities. 

Because the jail closure created so many problems for tribal officers and the community in general, we truly believed it would 

never happen again. However, earlier this month BIA detention officials contacted the tribe and said it was closing or suspending the 

operation of the jail again. 

You know, S. 797 increases sentencing from one year to three 

years. For us, it doesn’t really matter. Unless there is a detention 

facility available, increased time makes little sense, although we 

fully agree with it. 

We have a new juvenile detention facility. The tribe is operating 

it under contract, and quite frankly, we are off to a great start, although it, too, is already underfunded. Out of necessity because the 

BIA could not open the facility, the tribe took over via contract and 

we are operating it and I think we are off to a great start. 

In closing, I want to say that tribal governments have equal responsibility to ensure public safety in Indian Country. I have said 

repeatedly that if tribes expect Washington, D.C. to fix all the social ills on the reservation, they will be waiting forever. Tribal governments must ensure that all local service providers, including 

those in the criminal justice system, collaborate to ensure that 

maximum effective services are provided. 

56 

Too many times the police are blamed. Police cannot arrest their 

way out of community problems. Finger-pointing, placing blame is 

a waste of time. I say Washington can provide the tools, but it is 

the tribes that must do the work. 

You know, section two in the Tribal Law and Order Act lists a 

number of findings that we have heard over and over and over. 

Commitment is the next finding that we need. 

Honorable Members of the Committee, again thank you and your 

staff for the outstanding work in introducing S. 797. We all agree 

that there is a public safety crisis that affects the lives of our citizens living and working on the Indian reservations. Let us get the 

legislation passed and signed into law because there is a lot of 

work to do to make all of Indian Country safe and secure. 

Let’s not let the next generation of tribal criminal justice practitioners read about another fruitless effort. I commend you for striving to enact effective comprehensive legislation which finally addresses all the needs for public safety in Indian Country. 

Thank you very much. 

Before I quit, I would like to introduce the Chairman of the 

Hualapai Tribe, Mr. Wilfred Whatoname. 

Senator UDALL. Thank you for being here, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Quasula follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THEODORE R. QUASULA, PRESIDENT, QUASULA

CONSULTING

Good afternoon Chairman Dorgan, Vice Chairman Barrasso and Members of the 

Committee. I deeply appreciate this opportunity to offer my thoughts and remarks 

regarding S. 797, the Tribal Law and Order Act of 2009. By way of introduction, 

I am Ted Quasula, an enrolled member of the Hualapai Tribe in Arizona. The reservation consists of nearly 1 million acres, and the tribal enrollment is about 2,500. 

The Hualapai Tribe is also home of the Skywalk, a glass bottomed walk way over 

the west end of the Grand Canyon. 

I have spent most all my entire adulthood in law enforcement, beginning as a patrol officer in the City of Flagstaff, Arizona. After a couple of years I moved on to 

the Bureau of Indian Affairs as a criminal investigator and eventually moved up 

the ranks, becoming director for the last 10 years of my 26 year career in the BIA. 

After retirement from federal service in 2001, I started a consulting business to 

work with Indian criminal justice systems. However, I still had the itch to be in active law enforcement so I became chief of police for the Las Vegas Paiute Tribe for 

the next five years. It is a small tribe, but its location in downtown Las Vegas kept 

things pretty lively as you can imagine. 

I have tracked the formation of S. 797 since Chairman Dorgan sent a letter to 

tribal leaders with a concept paper back in November 2007. I commend this Committee and its staff for the listening sessions, meetings and previous hearings on 

what could be the most comprehensive and complete legislation ever to modernize 

Indian Country criminal justice systems. There was considerable thought and effort 

that went into the formation of the bill. On June 12, 2008, Senator Dorgan, Senator 

Thune, Senator Johnson and Senator Tester signed a letter seeking comments on 

the proposed legislation. In that letter the Senators concluded that ‘‘many tribal 

communities are in the midst of a public safety crisis.’’ 

After reading and re-reading the Tribal Law and Order Act of 2009, I thought to 

myself, ‘‘This is de ́ja` vu all over again.’’ In 1997 Attorney General Janet Reno and 

Secretary of the Interior Bruce Babbitt were directed by President Clinton to come 

up with a plan to improve law enforcement in Indian Country. There were meetings 

and listening conferences with tribal leaders and many others who were involved 

with criminal justice systems. The beginning of that report, named Report of the Executive Committee for Indian Country Law Enforcement Improvements of October 31, 

1997, starts out with, ‘‘There is a public safety crisis in Indian Country.’’ The findings in 1997 and the findings in S. 797 are nearly identical. The only change is that 

the crisis has worsened, if that is possible, as a result of the surge of methamphetVerDate Nov 24 2008 09:33 Apr 07, 2010 Jkt 053988 PO 00000 Frm 00060 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\DOCS\53988.TXT JACK PsN: JACKF
57 

amine use on reservations. There was a public safety crisis before 1997, there was 

a public safety crisis in 1997, and there is a public safety crisis today. 

In the BIA we all knew what needed to be done but funding was so inadequate 

the aforementioned public safety crisis continued to grow right before our eyes. In 

a nutshell, there were not enough cops, and jails were antiquated and over-crowded. 

If it were not for the many tribes that utilize their own funding resources for criminal justice systems, the problems would certainly be worse than what they are. I 

must note that the BIA was created for the purpose of effecting treaties and obligations stemming from the unique trust responsibility established by the United 

States Constitution and centuries old United States Supreme Court cases. 

And now for specifics. S. 797 proposes sincere, greatly needed changes in Indian 

Country law enforcement. I offer you my views, based upon my professional and personal experience. 

Police 

There must be accountable policing. 

In 2001 the Hualapai Tribe asked that I start a tribal police department for the 

tribe. The BIA had the same problem then as it does today—it could not attract and 

hire police officers. There was always a shortage of officers and criminal activity 

was increasing. The tribe thought it could do better so it contracted with the BIA 

to operate the police department. The BIA funding was limited but the tribe was 

desperate for adequate law enforcement protection. Today the tribe supplements the 

Federal Government funding and provides for 50 percent of the police department 

operating costs. Law enforcement is expensive. Hualapai law enforcement officers 

are required to meet professional standards for hiring and training. Officers undergo 

an intense background check including a polygraph examination. 

The tribe understood that attracting and retaining officers would not be cheap. 

The tribe pays its officers a little more than the surrounding counties and communities. Hualapai police participate in the State of Arizona Public Safety Retirement 

System, the same as city, county and state law enforcement officers. Arizona is the 

only state that I know of that passed legislation authorizing tribal police and firefighters to participate in the state public safety retirement program. This allows officers from other departments to transfer to the Hualapai Tribal Police Department 

without losing their retirement. Hualapai tribal police officers are required to complete the State of Arizona Peace Officers Standards and Training (AZPOST) background checks and training requirements. When officers graduate from AZPOST 

basic training they are authorized to enforce state laws. I advocate state training 

in that it gives tribal officers the opportunity to train side-by-side with state, county 

and local law enforcement officers. Sheriffs and chiefs of police realize that tribal 

police are required to meet the same standards as their officers. Hualapai tribal police are also required to complete the BIA certification course and all hold BIA Special Law Enforcement Commissions. The problem is that the BIA does not regularly 

offer the required course and takes up to a year to get officers BIA trained and certified. All Hualapai law enforcement officers must also complete annual in-service 

training of no less than 40 hours. 

Criminals have no respect for reservation boundaries. The Hualapai Tribe has established Interagency Governmental Agreements with the State of Arizona Department of Public Safety, Mohave County and Yavapai County for mutual aid and assistance. The IGAs did not happen overnight. It took open communication and some 

give and take with state and county officials but in the end everyone involved agree 

that there is a need to coordinate and work together in the interest of public safety 

for all. The fact that tribal police were state trained and certified may very well 

have been the deciding factor. 

The Hualapai police department is located in a renovated residence which is wholly inadequate not to mention unsafe. Like many other reservations of comparable 

size and enrollment a criminal justice center is necessary to house the courts, police 

and detention programs. 

Las Vegas Paiute tribal police officers are Nevada POST certified and hold BIA 

Special Law Enforcement Commissions. The Las Vegas Paiute Tribe has an Intergovernmental Agreement with Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department and 

Clark County. The location of the tribe’s headquarters in downtown Las Vegas created numerous situations involving fresh pursuit onto tribal lands. Like the 

Hualapai Tribe, the Las Vegas tribe supplements the Federal Government funding. 

The tribe contributes 90 percent percent of the police and dispatch operating costs. 

The tribe contributes 100 percent of contract detention costs with the City of North 

Las Vegas. There is no BIA jail in southern Nevada. 

58 

Courts 

There must be a competent court system. 

The Hualapai Tribe operates its tribal court through a contract with the BIA. The 

tribe supplements the BIA court contract with its own funds. The tribe’s portion covers 62 percent of the operating costs. The judges and prosecutors are not required 

to be licensed attorneys. The law and order code is five years old and needs some 

updates and revisions. The court is located in a renovated building that is 35years 

old and shares the building with the tribe’s mental health program. The BIA jail 

is 100 yards from the courtroom so prisoners are marched to attend court. 

Adult Detention 

There must be adequate detention. 

The adult jail in Peach Springs is operated by the BIA. The BIA has chronically 

been unable to fill its correctional officer positions primarily because of the lack of 

housing in the community and the lengthy recruitment period that often exceeds 12 

months. The fact that BIA only posts its vacancies on www.usajobs.gov prevents 

many people on reservations from accessing the vacancy information. The low pay 

in comparison with surrounding county jails is another obstacle. As of two weeks 

ago, the BIA had four correctional staff to staff a 45-bed facility which is always 

filled to capacity. Tribal police have 197 arrest warrants that are not processed because there is simply no place to book or house prisoners. Because of staff shortages 

and unsecure outdoor recreation yards, prisoners are not allowed to go outdoors to 

exercise or to even see sunlight. They are confined to cells or dayrooms 24 hours 

per day. One prisoner from the Pascua Yaqui Tribe is serving a sentence to 2014. 

In September 2005 through February 2007, the BIA closed the jail on a one-day 

notice. It created a monumental disaster. If there was jail space available tribal police could house a prisoner in Flagstaff, Arizona, 115 miles away. If no space was 

available tribal police were forced to take prisoners to Gallup, New Mexico, 300 

miles away. The BIA had contracts with these county jails. 

Because it created so many problems for tribal police and the community in general we truly believed this cannot happen again. However, earlier this month BIA 

detention officials notified the tribe it was closing the jail again because it could not 

hire staff. 

Last week the Hualapai Tribe sent a letter to the Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs asking for meaningful consultation between the BIA and tribe hopefully to 

work out a practical solution. 

S. 797 increases sentencing from one year to three years. Unless there are detention facilities available increased time makes little sense. 

Juvenile Detention and Rehabilitation Center 

There must be a comprehensive juvenile delinquency program. 

The Juvenile Detention and Rehabilitation Center, located on the Hualapai Reservation is proving to be a great success after 10 years of planning and efforts to 

secure funding for construction and operations. The Center was opened on May 15, 

2009 and now provides a safe, secure detention and rehabilitation option on the reservation. Prior to this time, youth were transported hundreds of miles to contract 

facilities in nearby states. 

The Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Assistance, provided $4.65 million 

for the design and construction of this facility. $3.5 million was initially awarded 

and another $1.15 million was provided to complete the project as it now stands. 

Importantly, the Hualapai Tribal Council provided an additional amount of nearly 

$1million of cash in addition to all of their in-kind contributions of land, staffing 

and support services. In addition, BJA provided technical assistance for over five 

years through the Native American and Alaskan Technical Assistance Project. 

The BIA entered into a P.L. 93–638 contract with the Tribe in July 2008 which 

enabled the Tribe to manage and operate this program. In addition to annual operating funds which amount to nearly $1.9 million in FY 2009, funds were also provided for start-up expenditures to furnish offices and housing units. Although there 

is currently funding for partial operations, the BIA has yet to make requests of Congress for complete funding for the actual operating expenditures. When the facility 

is fully staffed and operational, the costs are calculated to be $2.5 million per year, 

some $600,000 short of the current funding level. In addition, the BIA will not pay 

for any treatment and/or educational programming in the juvenile center. As we all 

recognize, it is not practical to house youth for lengthy periods of time without affording them access to education and treatment programs to address the issues that 

resulted in their delinquent behavior. 

All components in criminal justice systems must work effectively and cohesively. 

At Hualapai we have a good tribal police department, a tribal juvenile detention and 

59 

rehabilitation facility that promises to be a success and a competent court system; 

however, the downfall is adult detention services. The tribe is interested in contracting with the BIA for the operation of the adult jail program but it is extremely 

underfunded. The tribe is not about to take over another ill funded federal program 

and be forced to use its scarce funding resources for adequate operation and service. 

Tribal governments have equal responsibility to ensure public safety in Indian 

Country. I have said repeatedly that if tribes expect Washington DC to fix all the 

social ills on reservations they will be waiting forever. Tribal governments must ensure that all local service providers, including those in the criminal justice system, 

collaborate to ensure maximum effective services. Too many times the police are 

blamed. Police cannot arrest the way out of community problems. Finger pointing 

and placing blame is a waste of time. Washington can provide the tools but it’s the 

tribes that must do the work. 

I have some specific remarks about S. 797 as follows: 

• Federal Accountability and Coordination—I have a problem with creating an office in the BIA where one person is in charge of police and courts. This goes 

back to pre-1975 when the BIA had such an office called Judicial, Prevention 

and Enforcement Services. It did not work effectively, especially when a person 

with strictly a ‘‘police’’ mentality is placed in charge. Courts and juvenile services always came in second. Even the BIA then decided it was better to separate 

enforcement and detention from the courts. Ideally they should be separate and 

distinct offices at equal levels. Many tribes have amended their constitutions to 

separate the two arms of government. 

• DOJ COPS grants are a giant welcome back especially for overtime, equipment 

and training. The main issue with the hiring grants is that many times tribal 

governments do not have a steady income base to ensure they can pick up these 

costs when the hiring grant funds expire. Instead additional funds should be 

made available to the BIA on a permanent basis. 

• NCIC access for tribal police is a standard practice at some tribal police agencies. The Las Vegas Paiute police dispatch center has access to NCIC information. It is an important and life-saving tool for law enforcement. The tribe was 

required to meet certain security standards and the Nevada Department of Public Safety conducts periodic training, inspections and audits. This requirement 

cannot be disregarded because it ensures professionalism, security and trust. 

• I have an issue with housing tribal misdemeanor convicts in Bureau of Prisons 

detention facilities. From my experience, BOP houses felons. Moreover, the 

nearest BOP facility from Peach Springs in over 225 miles away. In any case, 

tribal court offenders must be incarcerated somewhere whether it is in a county, 

city, federal or tribal jail. Of equal importance is for tribes to have the ability 

to house these offenders in close proximity to their families and potential employment options upon release. 

• Year after year tribes request additional funds from the BIA. They are told 

there is no money available yet it is widely known that BIA law enforcement 

continues to carry over unspent funds at the end of the fiscal year. There is simply no transparency or accounting on how BIA law enforcement spends appropriations. Legislation requiring annual accounting reports from the BIA may resolve this problem. 

• A funding formula for the distribution of funds is fine except that the pot of 

money must be sufficient in the first place. Back when law enforcement was a 

part of the Tribal Priority Allocation process many tribes prioritized law enforcement funding. Other tribes did not. It is unfair to take money from the 

tribes who prioritized law enforcement to offset those that did not. 

• A uniform database for crime data collection and information sharing is absolutely necessary; however, in the past some tribes objected to publicizing their 

crime information saying it had negative impact especially when they were 

dealing with economic development. 

• If it takes legislation to get all U.S. Attorneys to appoint Assistant U.S. Attorney liaisons this may assist in promoting continuity of prosecutions in Indian 

Country. Federal prosecutors serve an important function in building trust by 

serving tribal communities, much like a local district attorney. We all recognize 

that violent crimes cannot be addressed except by them. 

• The Indian Law and Order Commission should be a low priority. It seems to 

me that if the Administration and Congress agree there is a crisis in Indian 

Country there is no need to study it some more. 

60 

• Do all federal law enforcement agencies have foundations to subsidize their operations or are they sufficiently funded with federal funds? Or will Indian Country Law Enforcement be alone in taking gifts and donations to fund their law 

enforcement programs? There cannot be a double standard. 

• The Office of Indian Country Crime is necessary for ensuring uniformity with 

prosecuting federal crimes. Currently it varies from district to district. Many 

times there will be prosecution in one case then declination of a similar case— 

sometimes from the same reservation. Some districts have thresholds on the 

dollar amounts stolen or amount of drugs involved. For felony crimes by or 

against Indian people, the United States has exclusive jurisdiction. 

• Reauthorizing past legislation is fine but I have learned that sometimes there 

is a huge disconnect between authorization and appropriation. Unfunded authorization means failure for promising ideas. 

• If the Federal Government is going to build jails, it must ensure adequate funding for safe and effective operations. There must be a well coordinated effort between DOJ and DOI. Too many jails are left empty or in partial use because 

of insufficient funding. 

• There is a lot of responsibility in the Tribal Law and Order Act of 2009 that 

falls on the BIA. I can honestly say the Act requirements are doomed for failure 

if additional resources are not made available to the BIA to carry out its responsibilities under the Act. 

I have had the opportunity to work with Indian Tribes all over the Country. I 

have met with numerous tribal leaders and tribal chiefs of police throughout the 

years. I have read accounts of criminal justice on Indian lands going back to the 

1930’s. I have attended numerous meetings and conferences regarding public safety 

in Indian Country. I have provided testimony to the Congress about the dire needs 

in Indian Country. I have met with Federal and state officials in an effort to better 

law enforcement in Indian Country. My point is that it all comes down to lack of, 

or shortages of resources. Section 2 in the Tribal Law and Order Act of 2009 lists 

a number of findings that we have all heard over and over. Commitment is the next 

finding that we need. 

Honorable Members of this Committee, again thank you and your staff for the 

outstanding work in introducing S. 797. We all agree there is a public safety crisis 

that affects the lives of our citizens living and working on Indian reservations. Let 

us get the legislation passed and signed into law because there is a lot of work to 

do to make all of Indian Country safe and secure. Let’s not let the next generation 

of tribal criminal justice practitioners read about another fruitless effort. During the 

last century, scholar and solicitor Felix Cohen observed that Indian people have 

been the canary in the coal mine for Congressional ideas. I commend you for striving to enact effective, comprehensive legislation which finally addresses this public 

safety crisis in Indian Country. 

Senator UDALL. Well, let me thank the whole panel here for your 

statements and for your passion. I think you make a very strong 

case for dramatic action, a strong case for reform. And so I want 

to probe a little bit with you on some of the parts of this Act to 

see if we have it right. 

President Quasula, you were a strong proponent of removing BIA 

police from the BIA superintendent system. The new line of authority has worked well in some districts. However, some tribes point 

to the change in authority as one of the main reasons for increased 

crime in the region. 

Tribal leaders have stated that their calls to special agents in 

charge go unanswered for days. Tribal members report making distress calls that go unanswered. The BIA police force is the local police. They are the only show in town to provide protection, yet our 

staff have heard stories about BIA police officers refusing to enforce tribal laws, claiming that they are only responsible for Federal crimes. 

61 

Short of mandating a return to the old system, what can be done 

to provide greater accountability on the part of the BIA police to 

tribal communities? 

Mr. QUASULA. Certainly, I can’t speak for the Bureau of Indian 

Affairs, but professionally, personally, I think police ought to be in 

charge of police, and that was the whole purpose of the line authority under the Indian Law Enforcement Reform Act of 1990. 

If it is not working, I would think that folks are not being held 

accountable. I would think from what we have heard and read with 

this whole reason for this hearing is it is the lack of resources. But 

if officers are refusing to respond to calls, they wouldn’t work 

under my watch. 

Senator UDALL. You would take strong action to make sure that 

they would be eliminated from the system? 

Mr. QUASULA. I think you have to. 

Senator UDALL. Yes, yes. Now, one of the issues here has to do 

with the national crime databases, and we all know that tribal police have one of the toughest jobs in the Nation. As you stated, they 

are forced to patrol vast reservations alone without backup. In addition, the Committee has heard that tribal police often do not have 

access to national criminal databases. This means that when they 

make a routine traffic stop, they have no information on whether 

the suspect is driving a stolen car, has prior weapons convictions, 

or poses some other danger. 

In working with tribal police throughout the Nation, what is the 

barrier to accessing this critical information? Are you satisfied that 

our proposal would remove that barrier? 

Mr. QUASULA. I think the legislation as written, you know, is 

going to work fine. I think the problem that I have experienced is 

the resources aren’t there. Now, there are a number of the tribes 

that have access. The two tribes that I have just mentioned that 

I work for, Las Vegas Paiute and Hualapai, both have access. 

Nobody is going to come do it for you. You have to do it. You 

have to set it up. You have to make the communication with those 

in charge, but it can be done. The big difficulty is the lack of resources. It costs money to do those, and the two tribes that I am 

involved with, thank goodness, put the money on the table to make 

it happen. But it can happen, it has happened. 

And I think that the reason I took a little bit more of my time 

than I should have is that I want to explain that it can work if you 

put your mind to it and get the right people and hold people accountable. It can work. And I think every tribe should strive for 

that and most likely have that capability whether—and again, I 

don’t want to beat it to death, but if you wait for somebody else 

to come do it for you, it is not going to happen. 

Senator UDALL. Yes, yes. Thank you. 

Judge Brandenburg, this Committee is well aware of the broken 

jail systems that exist in Indian Country. The few tribal jails that 

exist are neither safe nor secure for corrections officers or inmates. 

While incarceration may be necessary punishment for violent offenders, it is simply not an option that is available to all tribal 

judges. 

62 

What effective alternatives to incarceration have you employed? 

Have these alternatives been successful in reducing recidivism and 

rehabilitating offenders? 

Mr. BRANDENBURG. Well, first of all, you have to remember we 

have no criminal codes. We have no personnel that are trained in 

Southern California at least as to criminal matters. So we are completely lacking. 

What we have had to do is to decriminalize certain things and 

make them fall within the civil regulatory scheme so that if we 

have a particular gaming tribe, the result is if you are convicted 

of this particular offense, we call them civil infractions, we will 

take your money. And that is as far as we can go. 

Our problem has been with non-Indians. We have civil regulatory 

jurisdiction in California over non-Indians. Our problem is working 

with the State to use the State’s collection remedies to get the 

money from these people. Other than that, we have one tribe that 

is working on a regional detention facility, and hopefully with this 

particular legislation we will be able to develop our criminal codes 

and to build that region detention facilities. 

Again, it goes back to us being a consortium of tribes and pooling 

our resources. That is where we can most benefit from this particular legislation. 

Senator UDALL. Judge, the Department of Justice raises some 

concern with the proposal to enhance tribal court sentencing authority. They claim that it may invite greater scrutiny from Federal 

courts. Do you see any constitutional concerns with this proposal? 

Should it be amended? 

Mr. BRANDENBURG. I think if you have adequate codes, and I 

think if the due process requirements are met and your judges and 

staff are properly trained—and again, that comes through this legislation—I really don’t see any key issues. 

There is always the habeas thing that Federal courts will hold 

onto, but other than that I don’t see any major issues that will flow 

out of this if it is implemented properly. 

Senator UDALL. Thank you. And thank you very much for your 

statement in your testimony where you said the first job of government is to provide public safety. I mean, that is really the issue 

that we are here about today, and that really resonates with me, 

and I am sure resonates with everybody here in this room. 

Mr. BRANDENBURG. And if I might add briefly, sir, with your approval. 

Senator UDALL. Please. 

Mr. BRANDENBURG. There is no greater compliment to the sovereignty or autonomy of any tribe than an independent tribal justice system. This legislation is going to help. 

Thank you, sir. 

Senator UDALL. Thank you. 

Mr. Eid, we have heard from some tribal leaders and from some 

former U.S. Attorneys that Federal prosecutors are strapped, just 

like everybody else in the tribal justice system. Some prosecutors 

hold caseloads of more than 100 active cases. To account for these 

caseloads, the bill encourages the Justice Department to deputize 

or appoint Indian law experts to serve as Special Assistant U.S. AtVerDate Nov 24 2008 09:33 Apr 07, 2010 Jkt 053988 PO 00000 Frm 00066 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\DOCS\53988.TXT JACK PsN: JACKF
63 

torneys to prosecute minor reservation crimes when they fall 

through the cracks in the system. 

What resources are needed for both tribes and U.S. Attorneys’ 

Offices to make this proposal work on the ground and in these native communities? 

Mr. EID. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think it is a good proposal, 

but I also want to talk about the downside. What this does, of 

course, is it authorizes U.S. Attorneys to designate tribal prosecutors as Special Assistant U.S. Attorneys. We call them SAUSAs in 

our lingo. And that means that they have the same kinds of powers 

that an Assistant U.S. Attorney would have. 

That is great. I did one of those arrangements with one of our 

tribes, the Southern Ute, and it was good because the tribal prosecutor and our office were able to act transparently. And by the 

way, we shared all declination information of every kind with our 

tribes. We didn’t hold anything back. I still don’t understand why 

that would ever be done. As long as you protect confidentiality and 

grand jury secrecy, there is no reason to hold it back. 

But having said that this is a good provision, I think the tribes 

have expressed concern, at least in my district they did, about the 

Federal Government yet again nickel and diming on the trust responsibility. If you have the right level of Assistant U.S. Attorneys, 

why do the tribes have to cough up yet more resources to do something the Feds should be doing in the first place? And so that is 

the downside of this. 

I happen to support declination reporting because I think it will 

be a powerful vehicle to help Assistant U.S. Attorneys in the field, 

particularly tribal liaisons who are struggling because they don’t 

have the same level of resources as they really need to get their 

job done, in many instances. And I think as a friend of the prosecutor, we need to embrace this opportunity for transparency and 

not try to run away from it. 

Senator UDALL. And you emphasized that in your testimony and 

in your statement here today on case declination. Can you describe 

a little bit in detail how you see that working? I mean, do you report on a three-month basis, a yearly basis, and then who gets the 

information? And then what are the feedback loops that make it 

work? 

Mr. EID. Well, Mr. Chairman, I would just say that the bill in 

section 102 protects everything in terms of its confidentiality. And 

that is critical. And so we will remove that red herring from the 

debate because everyone wants to protect law enforcement privacy 

and secrecy. 

With that in mind, the declination system ought to report across 

the whole justice system. That is to say, when a matter comes in 

to the tribal police or the BIA and so on, you log it there. When 

it comes in to the FBI, you log it there, just like is currently done, 

by the way, for terrorism cases. I used to be on the Advisory Board 

for National Security and Antiterrorism. 

We do this in our offices. We are always logging things that come 

in. And we agree on a set of uniform measures that we use. If an 

agency, for example the FBI, decides that there is not a sufficient 

basis to continue an investigation, guess what? In most cases, they 

64 

give us a letter. The IRS does it if they decide not to go after somebody. And so that never becomes a ‘‘declination.’’ 

When it gets to the point where an agency is ready with a case 

and then the U.S. Attorney looks at it and says, there is not a sufficient quantum of admissible evidence here, then we have a legal, 

ethical and frankly moral duty not to prosecute that case. 

So all of that ought to be tracked. You don’t have to disclose any 

confidentiality to be able to say when you look at those charts that 

we ought to be doing more in some of these areas. And it was often 

said on the Ute Mountain Ute Reservation, which I now represent, 

it was often said among tribal members, they would tell me when 

I was U.S. Attorney and they tell me now, do you just have to kill 

somebody or rape some woman in order to get the Federal Government’s attention? 

That is not a criticism of anyone in the system. It is simply to 

say that too many cases are falling through the cracks. We had a 

case, Mr. Chairman, as a typical case to illustrate this point. We 

had a situation one night where we had an apparent homicide, and 

the one FBI agent assigned to our region was up in Denver, 400 

miles away testifying in front of a judge. So he was not around. He 

is a great agent, by the way, but he was not there. 

There was no one to secure that crime scene but one BIA officer, 

because typically we have only two on duty and they work 12-hour 

shifts a lot of the time. Try working back to back 12-hour law enforcement shifts. And by the time the one officer tried to establish 

a perimeter, he couldn’t do so and the crime scene was compromised. 

That is a great example of a case that is not a declination, but 

that needs to be reported and factored into the system so that people understand at the community level that something will be done 

in the future to avoid that. So we should not fear this. We should 

get together and do what we do in terrorism cases, what we do in 

other kinds of cases, even as mundane as tax fraud, and simply decide which agency is going to report; what is sufficient for evidence; 

and make a determination. If it is not, if they refer it to the U.S. 

Attorney’s Office, they will look at it. And if you say decline it, then 

decline it, and stand up, damn it all, for what you are supposed to 

do. 

Senator UDALL. Yes, yes. 

Mr. EID. Forgive my language, Mr. Chairman. It is a Western 

thing. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator UDALL. It is a Western thing, right? Okay. Thank you. 

Chairman Coby, and this is really a question for you and Judge 

Brandenburg. The Department of Justice raises some concern with 

the proposal to enhance tribal court sentencing authority. They 

claim that it may invite greater scrutiny from Federal courts, this 

question. 

Do you see any constitutional concerns with this proposal? Or 

should it be amended? 

Mr. COBY. No, we support that amendment. 

Senator UDALL. Great. 

Judge Brandenburg? 

65 

Mr. BRANDENBURG. Do I see any conflict? Providing your judges 

are adequately trained, your staff is adequately trained. And this 

legislation provides for that. I say in terms of additional scrutiny, 

bring it on because you have to start at the tribal level first. I always used to say, and I still say this, as far as the appellate courts 

go, I am a very appealing guy. But let’s make some decisions and 

let’s move on. And if the appellate courts want to take it under, it 

can only help us because they will close the gaps for us. 

I know that is a different approach, but for too long Indian Country, the people in Indian Country have just sat back and taken a 

passive view. Someone tells them they can’t do it, they just step 

away. 

Well, my approach is I am not stepping away. I am stepping up. 

And that is what we are asking the Federal Government to do. 

Let’s step up. Let’s get this done. If there are issues to resolve, as 

we move through the process, the legal issues, the due process 

issues, we will resolve them. But let’s not back off of this because 

we are concerned. Let’s move forward. 

Senator UDALL. Thank you. 

Now, I have proceeded through a series of questions here to all 

of you. Just to close out here, if there are any of you that would 

like to comment on what has been said by others, or clarify, I 

would be happy to take some brief comments at this point. 

Please. 

Mr. QUASULA. Well, thank you for the opportunity, first. You 

know, we all agree that folks out in Indian Country deserve and 

expect public safety for all. In my many years in Indian Country 

law enforcement, the problem is there isn’t enough money. It is as 

simple as that. I don’t know how more simple I could explain it. 

Senator UDALL. The resources aren’t there. 

Mr. QUASULA. The resources are not there. And there is just no 

sense in revisiting this every 10 years or so and talk about the 

same things. 

Senator UDALL. Right. 

Mr. QUASULA. And the bill closes a lot of the gaps, but the resources are necessary. Otherwise, it is not going to work. Simple 

as that. 

Senator UDALL. Yes, yes. 

Well, and I am very happy that Assistant Secretary Echo Hawk 

stayed here, and Mr. Ragsdale stayed here, sitting behind you to 

hear all of this. I am going to expect that this Administration will 

step forward and let us know the resources they need, so that the 

Congress can then step up and provide them. Because as several 

of you have said and reiterated and driven home the point with 

curse words and everything else, public safety is the most important thing in these communities. And we need to give the people 

there on the ground the resources in order to get the job done. 

Any other? 

Mr. BRANDENBURG. Yes, a comment was made by the Senator 

from Alaska with regards to somehow implying that reservations 

sometimes people, when some of these crimes are committed, the 

tribal members turn a blind eye, or it just goes away through the 

whole process of the tribal members. 

66 

One of the fundamental things that we have to deal with here 

is that you have to develop—law enforcement, the courts, whoever 

works in Indian Country—has to develop a basic trust one on one 

with the people. You have to remember that there is an inherent 

distrust of not only the court system, particularly the State court 

system, but law enforcement, with tribal members. They just don’t 

trust them. And it is because of all the things we have been talking 

about here today. 

Just for a moment think of every atrocity that has ever been 

committed in Indian Country, whether it is the taking of land, 

whether it is genocide, whether it is the taking of children, whether 

it is the taking of natural resources—every wrong that has ever 

been committed in Indian Country has been somehow approved by 

the Congress, by the courts, or by law enforcement. 

How can I trust those people? That is the issue, building trust. 

Once you build that level of trust, people will come forward. Our 

people don’t to turn a blind eye to rape. They don’t want to turn 

a blind eye to murder. But who are you going to trust? That is the 

issue. That is a key fundamental issue we have to deal with in Indian Country. 

And hopefully, this legislation will allow us the funds or the avenue to approach that and deal directly with it, building trust. 

Senator UDALL. Excellent, excellent point. 

Please? 

Mr. EID. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to acknowledge a distinguished guest who is here today. That is the Chair of the Navajo 

Nation’s Judiciary Committee of the Navajo Nation Council, Kee 

Allen Begay. Mr. Begay I hope will stand up. 

Well, he got on a plane. He was here before, and I wanted to use 

that to illustrate the point that out on Navajo where I am barred 

and I practice in the tribal courts, we have 20 wonderful judges out 

there. We have one of those judges, the Chief Justice, who is admitted to a State bar. We have another judge, Judge Perry, who is a 

lawyer, but is not admitted to a State bar. The rest of these wonderful judges are not lawyers, but they do a fantastic job. And we 

need to make sure, as this bill attempts to do, to respect their role. 

And I have to say I practice law all over the United States. I 

have had only positive experiences and positive treatment in tribal 

court. And I appreciate the respect that this Committee has shown 

through this bill to tribal justice system. It is long overdue. Thank 

you. 

Senator UDALL. Thank you. 

Chairman Coby, do you want to have the last word here? 

Mr. COBY. Yes, I will have the last word. 

I just want to thank Mr. Echo Hawk and Mr. Ragsdale for staying here to hear the testimony. I believe each tribal leader that is 

in the room today shares the same interest. It is the public safety 

of our respective reservations. 

And also I would like to thank the other testifiers that testified 

today for speaking up on behalf of Indian Country. And again, if 

you would share with Senator Dorgan I really appreciate him and 

the Committee for this very, very important bill for Indian Country. 

67 

And also the young man and young lady behind you for their 

hard work and dedication, too. 

Senator UDALL. The staff are absolutely incredible on this Committee. 

Mr. COBY. I just want to comment on the Public Law 280 issue. 

I think if the States aren’t going to uphold their issues with respective tribes, I think we better get those things retroceded, especially 

for our tribe, especially our juvenile delinquency issues. There are 

a lot of issues on Indian reservation, and they are our future. They 

may be getting into trouble now, but our younger generation is our 

future leaders and so hopefully we can get those things straightened out. 

And thank you. 

Senator UDALL. Thank you very much, Chairman Coby. And 

please realize that Chairman Dorgan is very, very committed and 

interested in this issue and wants to move this along in an expeditious way. 

We have just started a roll call vote on the Senate Floor, a 15- 

minute vote. So I am going to wrap up at this point. 

I once again, like you did, Chairman Coby, thank Assistant Secretary Echo Hawk and Mr. Ragsdale for being here. I think it 

shows their commitment to this issue and getting to the bottom of 

what is happening. 

I want to thank all of the witnesses that have testified today. 

The Committee will submit follow-up written questions to witnesses and the record will remain open for two weeks. 

And this hearing is adjourned. 

Thank you. 

[Whereupon, at 4:13 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 

(69) 

A P P E N D I X 


625b1.eps
70 


625b2.eps
71 


625b3.eps
72 


625b4.eps
73 


625b5.eps
74 


625b6.eps
75 


625b7.eps
76 


625b8.eps
77 


625b9.eps
78 


625b10.eps
79 


625b11.eps
80 


625b12.eps
81 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF WILLIAM V. ELLIOTT, DETECTIVE, WARM SPRINGS TRIBAL

POLICE DEPARTMENT (WSTPD) 

Dear Senators, 

My name is William V. Elliott, and I am currently a Detective with the Warm 

Springs Tribal Police Department (WSTPD). Prior to becoming a detective for 

WSTPD, I was a Special Agent with the United States Department of the Interior 

(DOI). I initially served in the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), finishing up my last 

10 years with the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). Even though I am an enrolled member of the Kiowa Tribe of Oklahoma, I was raised in a relatively affluent 

off reservation environment. 

Both my personal and professional life experiences has given me an unique vision 

of tribal law enforcement, viewing it from both the inside out, and the outside in. 

In the testimony for this bill there is a lot of talk about Tribal self determination, 

yet all of the answers seem to be placed on more involvement by the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), United States Department of Justice (DOJ), Federal Bureau of 

Investigations (FBI), and state agencies. This layering of bureaucracy already has 

a detrimental effect at the field level for Tribal Police Departments (TPD). 

Even though I strongly agree with the need for the United States Attorney’s Office to have additional resources and incentives to prosecute major violations in Indian Country, federal enforcement agencies should be there to support The Tribal 

Police, similar to what occurs with non-Tribal departments off the reservation. The 

current situation depends too much on personalities, and sometimes federal response being used as a way to dictate policy and procedure to the Tribal Departments. In addition, TPDs are often held victim by state agencies, as the current federal grant (COPS and other Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA)) and other funding 

support mechanisms are often funneled through the state. 


625b13.eps
82 

A couple of examples are the BJA funded Regional Information Sharing System 

(RISS), and the Presidents Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) High 

Intensity Drug Trafficking Area (HIDTA) programs. Incorporated in the RISS founding charter, and part of it’s justification for federal funding, is the promotion of law 

enforcement information and intelligence exchange nationally between all federal, 

state, local, and TRIBAL police agencies. Yet, one the biggest participant in this system, the Western States Information Network (WSIN), refuses to let Tribal agencies 

participate. Thus the TPDs in California, Oregon, Washington, and Alaska are not 

allowed to connect into this federally funded national information network. 

The ONDCP HIDTA system is designed to provide funding for counterdrug programs throughout the country that have verifiable problems with drug related 

criminal enterprises. The HIDTA funding is controlled by each state through a 

board representing State, County, Local, and Federal enforcement interests in that 

state. Yet, even though the Tribes have demonstrated a growing drug problem in 

most of these states, occupy land areas bigger than most counties, and have an actual federal nexus for federal assistance, there is no Tribal Police representation on 

these boards. In addition, ONDCP allocated funding for ‘‘Indian Country’’ drug problems is routinely given to state or local enforcement agencies to ‘‘help’’ the tribes, 

rather simply funding the affected Tribal Police agency. 

Recently the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) ruled that tribes do not 

have access to their national Domestic Cannabis Eradication Program (DCEP). The 

DCEP program provides funding to all state, county, and local departments, but because the Tribes are not considered proper ‘‘Peace Officers’’ under the eyes of some 

states, they are excluded. This causes a problem in an era of growing concerns related to the intrusion on Tribal lands by Mexican Drug Trafficking Organizations 

(DTO). As a result of that finding, Indian Country such as the Colville Indian Reservation, which is larger than the State of Rhode Island, has no outside funding 

support for marijuana detection overflight missions, or access to the DCEP program 

for the same overtime and equipment funding as their off reservation peers. 

The Tribal law enforcement agencies, at least in the Pacific Northwest, have 

grown to a level of professionalism that is equal to, or surpasses their off reservation counter-parts as they normally attend both state and federal law enforcement 

academies. Yet, the tribal officers are automatically thought of as inferior. The 

United States Attorney’s Office puts in criteria that all cases need to be vetted 

through the FBI on the assumption the Tribal Detective is going to make some critical mistake. I have worked in State, Federal, and Tribal enforcement environments. 

Yet, when I worked in the State and Federal environments the prosecutors’ office 

just assumed I was competent until proven otherwise, it is only in the Tribal environment that this dynamic reversed. 

Most tribal departments are simply looking for some mutual respect, and to have 

access to all of the other tools, and support services as their state and federal 

counter-parts. 

I am truly impressed at the scope and detail of this legislation, and applaud the 

fact that Congress is addressing the root causes for the problems with law enforcement in Indian Country, instead of the old band-aid here, and band-aid there approach. 

This legislation will solve a number of issues which have been brewing for sometime in the Pacific Northwest, and quite frankly were nearing a critical state. By 

creating solutions to tribal jurisdictional and funding issues, there will be an easing 

of tension between tribal, state, and county law enforcement entities. 

The tribes in this region are committed to both an inter-agency and inter-tribal 

approach of meeting our enforcement needs and attacking the problems of drugs, 

gangs, and violent crime in Indian Country and neighboring communities. People 

on both sides of this issue need to move past old stereo types, and trust the professionalism which has grown over the last several years in tribal police departments 

and rural county law enforcement agencies. If the criminals can put aside personal 

differences for ‘‘business,’’ then we should be able to do the same. 

The tasks which have been set out in this legislation is massive, and I hope that 

Congress will authorize the Secretary of the Interior and the various committees to 

bring aboard consultants who have extensive Indian Country experience to help 

move the process forward quickly. 

For what is worth, here are some of my observations and recommendations concerning this Indian Law Enforcement Reform Act Bill. 

Section 102. Definitions 

Problem Statement: 

In subsection (c)—Inclusion of Case Files, the wording ‘‘may’’ gives the contributing agency the prerogative of either doing it or not. This is sometimes necessary 

83 

in that federal case files can be extensive, and contain information which is not relevant in supporting a specific tribal prosecution. 

Possible Solution: 

—Instead of case file, you may want to use the wording such as ‘‘agencies shall 

submit a report outlining all pertinent evidence which will support tribal prosecutions.’’ This requires an agency to provide needed information, yet allows the contributing agency to protect internal case file sensitivity, and come up with an alternate format which can meet tribal prosecutorial needs. 

Section 401. Assumption By State of Criminal Jurisdiction 

Problem Statement: 

One of the most pressing problems in Indian Country either under federal or state 

jurisdiction is the ability of the tribal or BIA police agencies to respond to instances 

of criminal conduct of non-Indian subjects. This portion of the bill more than adequately addresses the need to provide for a prosecutorial forum for felony events in 

Indian Country, but does not address the more common occurrences of misdemeanor 

violations. 

Over the last several years tribes have opened up their reservations through the 

introduction of casinos, opening up of campgrounds and hotels, and the development 

of cultural tourism. This has caused a dramatic increase in the number of misdemeanor, or lower level felony type events (simple assault, drunk driving, disorderly conduct, etc.) which occur that the tribes or Federal Government can not 

adequately address within current jurisdiction. This burden then fails on Sheriff’s 

Departments which are already stretched thin. 

Possible Solution(s): 

—The most practical solution would be the implementation of a system which is 

already operational and proven successful in managing visitor conduct on Department of Interior Lands, such as the National Parks, Bureau of Reclamation, and the 

Bureau of Land Management. This is done through the use of Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) which the Secretary of the Interior has the authority to promulgate. 

CFR regulations provide law enforcement with another option other than making 

an arrest, or raising an incident to felony status to resolve the issue. Most CFR violations are resolved through the issuance of a Central Violations Bureau (CVB) citation, and the United States Attorney’s Offices have bail schedules, and established 

CVB courts already in place. This option would not necessitate the creation of a separate mechanism to handle non-Indian violators, and would not result in a dramatic 

rise in case load for the affected U.S. Attorney’s Office(s). 

This option would also provide the non-Indian violator with the ability to have 

the matter resolved in federal court. On the other hand, the use of CVB violation 

would insure that violators did not elude their responsibility for handling this matter, as a CVB citation is enforceable anywhere in the United States. 

This process could be accomplished through adding verbiage to 25 CFR 11.102 or 

11.104, or including it in this section, stating something to the effect; ‘‘The Secretary 

of the Interior, acting in consultation with the Office of Indian Country Crime, can 

promulgate regulations in 25 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) as to illegal conduct of non-Indian persons visiting or residing on Tribal Trust property. These regulations will be in conformity with already existing CFRs which govern conduct on 

Public Lands under the jurisdiction of the Department of the Interior.’’ The Secretary will also have the authority to delegate the authority to enforce these CFR 

violations to any tribal, or at the request of the affected tribe, federal, state, or local 

law enforcement official who meet the training and certification criteria that shall 

be established by the Office of the Secretary. 

—The only other option would be to replace 18 USC 1153(b) with something to 

the effect ‘‘Any felony or misdemeanor offense committed in Indian Country that is 

not defined by federal laws under the jurisdiction of the United States, that offense 

will be subject to the provisions of 18 USC 13 (Laws of States adopted for areas 

within Federal jurisdiction).’’ 

Section 202. Incentives for State, Tribal, and Local Law Enforcement Cooperation 

Problem Statement: 

The Tribes may ask if county and state law enforcement agencies are going to be 

required to include the tribe in their grant process if they feel there is tribal impact 

(This is just an ethical concern and not a practical one). However, as this section 

is kind of ambiguous, there may be concerns by the tribes that they will have to 

consult, or get the approval of the states on all federal law enforcement grants available to the tribes. 

84 

Possible Solution: 

—You may want to consider some verbiage that this joint committee is only for 

funding or grants allocated under this provision and not generally extended to all 

federal grant processes available to Tribal Police Departments. 

Section 5. Special Law Enforcement Commissions 

Problem Statement: 

There are emergency situations when tribes need to mutually support one another, or there is a need to interface with the state and county law enforcement 

agencies and provide a mechanism for them to have authority to come onto the reservation, and for the tribal officers to travel off the reservation. These situations 

usually appear when you have fast breaking narcotics or violent crime investigations, civil unrest, national security such as border interdiction, or natural disaster 

scenarios. 

At this time it is easier to get emergency U.S. Marshal Deputations, than to try 

and process the layers of paperwork, background investigations, and training 

(months) required by the Bureau of Indian Affairs. By the time you get a special 

deputation with the BIA, the situation is already out of control, the case has been 

lost, or there is just no need as the fire has burned everything to the ground. 

The tribes also have the need to summon help from state and local agencies during life threatening situations such as shots fired calls, bomb threats, or hostage situations. However, local officers are exposed to civil liability and injury on the job 

coverage problems when working outside their jurisdiction. 

Possible Solution(s): 

—The Secretary, through the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) Regional Directors, 

should be authorized to apply for emergency group deputations that will be valid 

for less than one year, or early if the situation(s) resolves itself in that time period, 

and specific to the situation for which it was issued. These emergency group deputations should adopt the same guidelines and policies as are in effect with the United 

States Marshal’s Service. Section (c) would remain in effect for these deputations. 

—There also needs to be a provision which allows the tribal police to request local 

assistance in life threatening, or dire emergencies, and provide protection to the officers who respond. Some possible working would be ‘‘In life threatening emergencies, 

or situations of dire circumstance, tribal law enforcement officials can request assistance from state or local law enforcement resources. The local officers who respond to the reservation, while acting under the direction of the tribe will be considered federal officers, and provided all of the rights and protections in this status 

for the limited duration of the requested assistance.’’ 

Section 301. Tribal Police Officers 

Problem Statement: 

In this section there is reference to ‘‘National Peace Offices Standards of Training.’’ There is no such standard, only models identified as National Standards, and 

I didn’t see in the draft bill where the Secretary is authorized to set any standard 

that is so named. 

Possible Solution: 

—Each state has its own POST (Peace Officer Standards and Training), which 

most tribal officers attend and adhere, and a more feasible statement might be 

‘‘meets the standards set by the laws of the state within which the tribal lands are 

located, and/or in compliance with the standards established through the Federal 

Law Enforcement Training Center’’. Adequate authority exists under this act to disallow state academy training if it does not meet BIA standards. 

Section 302. Drug Enforcement in Indian Country 

Problem Statement: 

The most pressing issue for tribes is the ability to access, and enter criminal intelligence information into two (2) primary counterdrug support systems which they 

are currently restricted from accessing. The first is the Bureau of Justice Assistance 

(BJA) funded program called the Regional Information Sharing System (RISS). This 

system interlinks all law enforcement units in the United States, and is critical to 

the tribes linking to the rest of this country’s law enforcement matrix. 

The second problem is tribes being denied access, and direct intelligence and analytical support from the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area (HIDTA) program. This federally funded program is 

supposed to provide for funding, and assistance to all law enforcement agencies operating in their areas. However, since the states act as the fiduciary for the funding, 

85 

those states that have determined tribal police officers are not ‘‘peace officers’’ by 

their definitions, have then excluded the tribes from these resources. 

Additionally, the tribes currently lack the ability to make direct requests of Department of the Defense, and other military agencies involved in the counterdrug 

support mission for such things as equipment, training, and aviation support. 

Possible Solution(s): 

—Change section (d)(1) to read ‘‘to directly access and/or enter information into 

Federal criminal information databases and/or criminal intelligence databases which 

are fully or partially federally funded and designed to support regional law enforcement efforts.’’ 

—Include a section that mandates that federally recognized tribal law enforcement agencies will be allowed all access and services from the High Intensity Drug 

Trafficking Area (HIDTA) program as provided to other state and local law enforcement agencies of the State in which the tribe is located. 

—Include a section that ‘‘allows federally recognized tribal law enforcement agencies the same access to Department of the Defense (DOD), and other federal agencies tasked with supporting counterdrug, and Homeland Security missions as provided to other Department of the Interior law enforcement units.’’ 

Section 303. Access to National Criminal Information Databases 

Problem Statement: 

Section 303, ‘‘Access to National Criminal Information Databases’’, will not necessarily guarantee tribal access to RISS databases in those places where they are 

currently being denied access. The section cited, 28 USC 534, specifically refers to 

FBI information, which means it refers to criminal history information in the Interstate Identification Index (III), and not to the information available through the 

RISS projects. 

Possible Solution: 

—I suggest that the section numbering be changed so that (b) is entitled ‘‘Authorized law enforcement agency’’. The remaining wording in that section becomes subsection (1). I would suggest adding a subsection (2) that reads as follows: 

(2) Eligible tribal justice officials of a federally recognized Indian tribe exercising criminal authority over Indian country shall be deemed an authorized 

law enforcement agency for the purpose of being granted access to any federally 

funded information sharing system designed and used for the sharing of information between federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies. 

Section 304. Tribal Court Sentencing Authority 

Problem Statement: 

This section is very well done, and the only other need I can see from the tribes 

would be the ability to execute tribal arrest warrant off reservation, and allow state 

and local law enforcement agencies to detain persons found to have tribal warrants 

until the tribe can accept custody. In some instances tribal police officers are taunted by Indian offenders who have warrants, but who simple skip back and forth 

across reservations boundaries to avoid apprehension. 

If it is the intent of this legislation to allow tribal courts the ability to hand down 

harsher jail sentences, than there will be a greater likelihood of flight, and the need 

for the tribes to issue warrants that are recognized outside of the reservation boundary. 

There is a reciprocal problem in the presence of persons having outstanding state 

and local arrest warrants on the reservation. The tribal police, on reservations 

under full federal jurisdiction, lack the authority to arrest and extradite, and the 

state agency can not pursue onto the reservation. 

Possible Solution: 

This legislation would need to amend Title 18 USC 3182 by adding federally recognized Tribe along with State, and Territory. 

This amendment would satisfy both the needs of the tribe and those of the state. 

General 

In two separate places, the Indian Law Enforcement Reform Act is cited for 

amendment by adding a ‘‘Section 11.’’ Those two amendments are on page 9, and 

page 38, of the draft. The two amendments are numbered the same. If this is a 

drafting error, then if passed in its current form, it will complicate codification into 

the United States Code. If it is an error, than one of them needs to be amended 

to be called ‘‘Section 12’’ or some similar fix. 

86 

I appreciate the opportunity to enter my opinions into the formal record. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF BRUCE ADAMS, CHAIRMAN, SAN JUAN COUNTY (UTAH) 

COMMISSION

Introduction 

On behalf of the San Juan County Commission, I want to thank Chairman Dorgan, Vice-Chairman Barrasso, and all the Members of this Committee for allowing 

us to submit our testimony for the record. As a county government that shares geographic jurisdiction with tribal governments and Indian people, San Juan County, 

Utah is very concerned about Indian Country policy. 

San Juan County itself encompasses 7,821square miles, of which more than 

1,155,000 acres is the Utah portion of the Navajo Reservation. Our county population is 15,055, with the majority of our residents, or 53.6 percent, being American 

Indians. In addition to Navajo, our county also includes the White Mesa Ute community, a federal trust reservation that is a satellite of the Ute Mountain Ute Reservation in Colorado, and the landless, yet federally recognized, San Juan Southern 

Pauite Tribe. 

We hope that our testimony on S. 797, the Tribal Law and Order Act, can provide 

you with a local government’s perspective about the impact the current state of law 

enforcement in Indian Country has on county residents who reside on federal trust 

reservation land. Law enforcement in Indian Country effects us all. Hopefully, our 

perspective will help your Congressional colleagues appreciate that tribal law and 

order, or the lack thereof, effects them too, no matter where there congressional district is located. 

Federal Neglect Permits Crime and Prevents Punishment in Indian Country 

San Juan County supports S. 797 because its call for federal coordination and accountability, and enhancement of tribal justice systems, and can help reverse the 

trend of unpunished crime in Indian Country. 

As elected county officials, we hear from our Indian constituents when a felony 

occurs on their reservation. Typically, after the local tribal police have completed 

their investigation, it takes several days for the FBI to arrive and begin their investigation. Months later, the U.S. Attorney usually opts not to prosecute because the 

evidence is old, the trail is cold, and it costs too much to transport suspects to federal court. 

In his testimony before this committee, Associate Attorney General Thomas J. 

Perrelli stated that, ‘‘in a typical year, approximately 25 percent of cases opened by 

U.S. Attorneys occur in Indian Country.’’ On its face, this statement sounds like the 

U.S. attorney is committed to seeking justice in those 25 percent of cases. We beg 

to differ. 

On behalf of tribal constituents everywhere, we urge this Committee to request 

that Mr. Perrelli answer this follow-up question, in writing, for the congressional 

record: Of the 25 percent of cases opened by U.S. Attorneys that occur in Indian 

Country, how many do the U.S. Attorneys actually prosecute? 

We hope that this committee will insist that the U.S. Department of Justice (hereafter, USDOJ) provide more then just lip service to law enforcement in Indian 

Country. From our perspective, that is all USDOJ has done thus far. You need look 

no further for evidence of their indifference than to the staggering rate of crime victimization among Native Americans across the country. 

The 2003 U.S. Commission on Civil Rights report—A Quiet Crisis: Federal Funding and Unmet Needs in Indian Country—found that American Indians are crime 

victims at a rate more than twice that of all other U.S. residents. Indian women 

are victimized at a rate that is 50 percent higher than the next highest group, African American males. Indian Country crime is twice as likely to be violent than in 

the rest of the U.S. 

Unbelievably, these extraordinary rates of crime victimization have not moved 

this Administration, nor any Administration before it, to use every opportunity 

available to invest federal resources into Indian Country. Just last year, your Committee colleague, Senator Tim Johnson, asked then President-Elect Obama to fully 

fund Indian Country programs enacted as part of the President’s Emergency Plan 

for AIDS Relief reauthorization bill, which passed Congress earlier. Senator Johnson’s amendment to that bill authorizes $750 million for public safety and criminal 

justice programs in Indian Country, but President Obama did not include such funding in his budget this year. 

87 

The Federal Government’s persistent neglect of law enforcement in Indian Country has given Mexican drug cartels carte blanche to operate on reservations 

throughout the nation, to use them as distribution points to congressional districts 

everywhere, but most especially the midwest and Northeast. Drug smugglers now 

use secondary routes, both tribal and county roads, throughout Indian Country for 

trafficking. According to the Arizona Criminal Justice Commission, 40 percent of all 

drugs entering the United States from Mexico travel along Interstate 40, through 

the Navajo Nation, for disbursement across the country, yet in 2007, the Bureau of 

Indian Affairs had less than 10 certified drug investigators to cover all 55.7 million 

acres of Indian Country. 

Public Safety Must Become More Important than Public Relations 

A good faith commitment to law enforcement in Native American communities is 

long overdue. We all need the Federal Government to become more interested in 

keeping Indian Country safe from crime and injustice. Unfortunately, in San Juan 

County, Utah, it seems that USDOJ and the U.S. Department of Interior are less 

interested in prosecuting crimes against Indian people than using Native American 

culture as a pretext for high priced, high profile, public relations events. 

On the morning of June 10, 2009, over 240 federal law enforcement officers descended upon San Juan County, Utah to serve warrants on 10 people and make arrests in a two-year undercover operation by the Bureau of Land Management and 

the Federal Bureau of Investigation to apprehend individuals who allegedly traffic 

Anazasi artifacts found throughout our remote county in southeast Utah. During 

that same two year period, violent crime and international drug dealing proliferated 

on the Navajo Nation because USDOJ and the U.S. Department of Interior are 

doing nothing to stop it. The public safety of the Navajo people did not seem to warrant any federal law enforcement officers, much less 240. 

The same federal officials who cannot seem to ever find the resources to prevent 

and prosecute crimes in Indian Country had no problem finding the funds to descend upon Salt Lake City for a June 10 press conference, in which Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs Larry Echo Hawk boldly claimed that, ‘‘Today’s action 

should give American Indians and Alaska Natives assurance that the Obama Administration is serious about preserving and protecting their cultural property.’’ 

From our perspective, the only assurance the federal agencies’ actions have provided thus far is that they care more about protecting artifacts of the dead than 

the safety of the living. This Administration, and this Congress, owe Native Americans more than talking points and press conferences. S. 797 is needed to require 

USDOJ and Interior to invest in the creation of modern law enforcement to keep 

Indian Country safe, rather than allowing federal agencies the discretion to lavish 

resources on high profile, headline-grabbing cases, that do not even involve living 

Indians. 

Conclusion 

San Juan County remains committed to working for the betterment of all of our 

people, and we thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony about S. 797 and 

the impact the lack of federal resources has on our tribal constituents. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHAD SMITH, PRINCIPAL CHIEF, CHEROKEE NATION

Mr. Chairman, Mr. Vice Chairman, and members of the Committee, I am pleased 

to provide a statement on behalf of the Cherokee Nation regarding Law Enforcement in Indian Country. Sharon Wright, Director, Cherokee Nation Marshal Service 

(CNMS) has provided information and support in the development of this statement. 

We thank you for accepting the Cherokee Nation’s statements for the record on 

these important issues that impact the welfare of our citizens, our communities and 

other American Indians in Northeast Oklahoma. 

The Cherokee Nation has 286,323 citizens. Within the fourteen county jurisdictional boundaries there is a population of 268,761 with 109,095 being Cherokee citizens. The CNMS is responsible for providing law enforcement services on approximately 105,922 acres of Indian Country checker-boarded throughout 7,000 square 

miles of northeast Oklahoma. The Cherokees also support law enforcement in the 

local jurisdictions through cross-deputations which provides a more seamless law 

enforcement service and public protection for our citizens residing off Indian Country. The Cherokee Nation has 49 cross-deputation agreements. 

Our officers are trained through the federal Indian Police Academy and the state 

Council of Law Enforcement Education and Training, and undergo 40 hours of continuing education each year. CNMS operates a department of 33 sworn officers and 

12 security personnel to provide a full range of law enforcement services: public 

88 

safety, protection of property, prevention, criminal investigations and narcotic investigations. The tribal justice system has an Attorney General’s office and a two tiered 

court system with a district court and a supreme court. The funding sources used 

to promote justice and law enforcement in the Cherokee Nation are tribal finances, 

Department of Justice (DOJ), Department of Interior (Self-governance) and Housing 

and Urban Development (IHP–NAHASDA) allocations. 

The Cherokee Nation fully supports efforts to increase the capabilities of law enforcement in Indian Country. The Tribal Law and Order Act of 2009 is a promising 

start to combating the problems the Cherokee Nation faces in protecting our citizens 

and communities. Re-authorizing and funding the Indian Alcohol and Substance 

Abuse Act, Indian Tribal Justice, tribal jails, and tribal youth programs is essential 

to improving law enforcement and we are pleased that these are included in the proposed legislation. However, we believe these authorizations should be made permanent, or at the very least, not allowed to lapse as they have in the past. 

Requiring federal law enforcement officials and U.S. Attorney’s Offices to submit 

reports stating their reasons for declining to investigate or prosecute offenders is 

also an essential provision to combating criminal violence in Indian territories. This 

condition will hold federal offices more accountable for declination rates in Indian 

Country, and also allow tribal attorneys to pursue action in tribal courts when appropriate. 

Explicit authorization allowing a U.S. Attorney to appoint tribal attorneys as Special Assistant U.S. Attorneys is a provision currently allowed by statue though it 

has rarely been utilized. Utilizing tribal attorneys in this manner would help greatly 

in alleviating the declination problem on the federal level. Unless there is a greater 

effort to actively involve more tribal attorneys in prosecuting crime in Indian Country, declination rates will not improve. 

Amending ICRA to allow tribes greater sentencing authority will help the Cherokee Nation better protect its citizens from Indian offenders. By also funding the 

creation of new jails and allowing convicted offenders to be housed in Bureau of 

Prisons facilities, this bill will help alleviate the costs of longer incarcerations. The 

Cherokee Nation is proud to say that we already provide legal assistance to all 

criminal defendants in tribal court, as this bill would require such for cases involving jail sentences over one year. 

While increased sentencing authority over Indians will help combat crime in Indian Country, crime committed by non-Indians must also be addressed. A Bureau 

of Justice Services report indicated that 70 percent of domestic violence and sexual 

assaults against Native American women is committed by non-Indians whom tribes 

have no authority over. In addition to appointing tribal attorneys as Special Assistant U.S. Attorneys, Congress should state that tribes have the inherent authority 

to prosecute all criminals in Indian Country, regardless of their race. If Congress 

is unwilling to let non-Indians be tried in tribal court, then it should be allowed for 

tribal attorneys to bring charges against non-Indians directly in the federal courts. 

By increasing funding to many needed programs and initiatives, the proposed legislation will go far in addressing the problems the Cherokee Nation and all tribes 

face. While all improvements to tribal law enforcement agencies are greatly appreciated, until tribes have the authority to combat all crime in Indian Country, and 

not just those crimes committed by Indians, no amount of money will fully fix the 

problems we are facing. 

Mr. Chairman, we want to thank you for holding this hearing on such an important issue for Indian Country. We hope our testimony will assist you and your colleagues in making decisions to improve the safety of our people who reside on Indian lands. Because of the many cross-deputation agreements that CNMS has entered into, any improvements to our tribal law enforcement capabilities also improves law enforcement for all of Northeastern Oklahoma. 

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

89 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ESTA SOLER, PRESIDENT/FOUNDER, FAMILY VIOLENCE

PREVENTION FUND


625c1.eps
90 


625c2.eps
91 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF WILLIAM R. RHODES, GOVERNOR, GILA RIVER INDIAN

COMMUNITY


625c3.eps 625d1.eps
92 


625d2.eps
93 


625d3.eps
94 


625d4.eps
95 

JOINT PREPARED STATEMENT OF KAREN ARTICHOKER AND JUANA MAJEL, CO-CHAIRS, 

NATIONAL CONGRESS OF AMERICAN INDIANS TASK FORCE ON VIOLENCE AGAINST

WOMEN

The National Congress of American Indians (NCAI) Task Force on Violence 

Against Women was formed in 2003 and represents a national movement of tribal 

organizations dedicated to the mission of enhancing the safety of American Indian 


625d5.eps 625d6.eps
96 

and Alaska Native women. The NCAI Task Force works collaboratively with the National Task Force to End Sexual and Domestic Violence and other national organizations addressing implementation of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA). The 

NCAI Task Force supports the various testimony submitted by these organizations 

and will focus on issues specific to American Indian tribes and women. The following recommendations have been made to the United States Department of Justice and the Obama administration. 

The USDOJ estimates that 1 of 3 Indian women will be raped, that 6 of 10 will 

be physically assaulted and that Indian women are stalked at more than double the 

rate of any other population of women in the United States. This violence threatens 

the lives of Native women and the future of American Indian Tribes and Alaska Native Villages. Ending this historic pattern of violence requires that the institutional 

barriers that deny access to justice and related services for Native women are eliminated. No area of need is more pressing or compelling than the plight of American 

Indian women fleeing physical and sexual violence. 

Congress, led by the tremendous efforts of Vice President Joseph Biden, set forth 

essential steps to address the systemic barriers denying access to justice in such 

cases through the enactment of the Safety for Indian Women Title contained within 

the VAWA of 2005. Dedicated tribal leaders, advocates and justice personnel are 

prepared to implement these amendments to federal code and programs established 

under this Title. Unfortunately since passage of this landmark legislation in 2005, 

implementation of key provisions has been stymied and federal departments 

charged with the responsibility of implementation have minimized the need for immediate action. The demonstrated lack of will on the part of federal departments 

is not only demoralizing, but life threatening to the women the statute was intended 

to protect. 

A systemic change is needed to prevent violence in the lives of Native women. A 

complex set of social factors including federal/tribal jurisdictional issues, inadequate 

tribal resources and justice personnel, and poverty have resulted in the current level 

of danger that exist in the lives of American Indian women as a population. Perpetrators of domestic and sexual violence commit such violence because of the belief 

that no social consequences exist for their violent behavior. This perception stems 

from the reality that crimes of domestic and sexual violence are rarely prosecuted, 

and if prosecution occurs any sentence is so minimal that it is inconsequential to 

the life of the perpetrator. As one mother stated after the violent murder of her 

daughter, ‘‘The system is broken. It did not protect my daughter during her life and 

I fear it will fail her daughters, my grand daughters in their lives.’’ 

Federal Indian law, including treaties, supreme court cases, and federal code, 

places a unique legal responsibility upon the United States to assist Indian tribes 

in creating safe and stable communities and for the safety of Indian women. We 

have identified critical issues and recommendations to assist with the prevention 

and prosecution of violence against Indian women. We respectfully request that the 

Judiciary Committee request a report of activities to implement the amendments to 

federal code under the VAWA and also a plan of action from the Department of Justice for implementation of these provisions. We recommend that such implementation plans provide for collaboration with Indian tribes and increased coordination 

between federal agencies charged with the handling of domestic and sexual violence 

cases. Given the urgent need to address the current epidemic level of violence committed 

against Native women we respectfully request that the Committee call for a joint 

hearing with the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs on the issue of violence 

against Native women. Reauthorization of VAWA is essential to the lives of American Indian and Alaska Native women. The outstanding concerns regarding implementation of VAWA and our recommendations are organized into the following 

three categories: 

I. Failed or inadequate implementation of amendments to federal code enacted 

under the Violence Against Women Act of 2005; 

II. Systemic barriers to the safety of Indian women that require immediate action by federal departments; and, 

III. Issues addressing the epidemic levels of sexual violence committed against 

Indian women. 

I. Implementation of the Safety of Indian Women Contained in the Violence 

Against Women Act of 2005 

The provisions contained in the Safety for Indian Women Title require action by 

the Departments of Health and Human Services, Justice, and Interior. Since passage of VAWA, these departments have failed to fully implement critical provisions 

97 

of the Safety for Indian Women Title. The following is a section-by-section analysis 

of the most urgent issues—all of which need immediate action. 

a) Annual Consultation: Section 903 directs the Attorney General and Secretary 

of Health and Human Services to each conduct annual consultations with Indian 

tribal governments concerning the federal administration of tribal funds and programs established under the Violence Against Women Acts of 1994 and 2000. It requires the Attorney General, during such consultations, to solicit recommendations 

from Indian tribes concerning: (1) the administration of tribal funds and programs; 

(2) the enhancement of the safety of Indian women, including the protection from 

domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking; and (3) the 

strengthening of federal response to such violent crimes. 

The successful implementation of VAWA within tribal communities requires consultation and coordination between the respective federal departments and Indian 

tribes. Annual consultations were held in 2006, 2007, and 2008. Unfortunately, the 

USDOJ has not fulfilled the requirement of this statute. Specifically; the Attorney 

General has not attended, has failed to require attendance of USDOJ leadership, 

and, has delegated this requirement to the Office on Violence Against Women. 

USDOJ leadership includes key players such as the Attorneys General from districts 

containing significant numbers of Indian tribes, Attorney General’s Native American 

Issues Sub-Committee, Federal Bureau of Investigation, and others. The USDOJ 

has not responded to the majority of concerns and recommendations made during 

the 2006, 2007 and 2008 consultations; and, in 2007 and 2008 the USDOJ scheduled 

consultations/meetings with Indian tribes that created a conflict with the attendance of some tribal leaders of the VAWA consultation. 

We do commend specific components of the Department, the Office on Violence 

Against Women and the National Institute of Justice, for recognizing the importance 

of the annual consultation and their on-going commitment to the successful implementation of this section of VAWA. 

Recommendation: The Attorney General immediately begin coordination with Indian tribes to schedule and establish the agenda for the 2009 consultation. 

b) Access to Federal Databases: Section 905(a) amends the federal code to require 

the Attorney General to permit Indian law enforcement agencies, in cases of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking, to enter information into, 

and obtain information from, federal criminal information databases. For decades 

Indian tribes have been denied access to life-saving information contained in the national sex offender and order of protection registries. Indian women enter and leave 

tribal jurisdictions continuously and a woman’s life may depend on her order of protection being given full faith and credit by another jurisdiction. Currently, many 

tribal orders of protection and information regarding convicted sex offenders are not 

listed on the national registries. 

While the majority of Indian tribes lack access those having concurrent criminal 

jurisdiction with states (under Public 53–280 or similar federal law) experience additional barriers in that some states do not recognize tribal law enforcement authority. Submission of life-saving information from these tribal jurisdictions is blocked 

and endangers the lives of tribal women, law enforcement officers and members of 

tribal communities. 

The federal amendment to permit Indian law enforcement agencies access to enter 

and obtain information from the federal crime data systems was a tremendous step 

forward in creating safety for Indian women. Unfortunately, this lifesaving amendment to federal law has not changed in reality. Tribal law enforcement still cannot 

access the national system without permission of the state in which the tribe is located. Many state governments refuse Indian tribes access to their state system. As 

a result, tribal law enforcement officers cannot access criminal information on suspects which places the lives of officers and women at risk. In addition, some state 

governments, in conflict with federal law, do not allow tribal court orders of protection to be entered into their state registry. The amendment to the federal code was 

intended to remedy the barrier of Indian tribes accessing critical criminal justice information required to manage crime and protect women. The ability for Indian 

tribes to access the national registry would enable tribes to protect their communities from transient habitual perpetrators that prey on Indian women. 

Recommendation: The Attorney General direct the National Criminal Information 

Center to coordinate with all federally recognized Indian tribes to implement Section 905(a). 

c) Domestic Assault by an Habitual Offender. Section 909 amends the federal 

criminal code to impose enhanced criminal penalties upon repeat offenders who: (1) 

commit a domestic assault within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction 

of the United States or Indian country; and (2) has a final conviction on at least 

98 

two separate prior occasions in federal, state, or tribal court for offenses that would 

be, if subject to federal jurisdiction, an assault, sexual abuse, or a serious violent 

felony against a spouse or intimate partner, or a domestic violence offense. 

Domestic violence is a pattern of violence that escalates over time in severity and 

frequency. To prevent future violence and end the pattern, perpetrators must be 

held accountable immediately. Due to the combined factors of the sentencing limitation placed on Indian tribes, not more than one year per offense, and the lack of 

prosecution of misdemeanor domestic violence cases by the United States Attorneys 

General and states sharing concurrent jurisdiction with Indian tribes, this section 

was enacted to permit federal prosecution of misdemeanor domestic violence crimes. 

Unfortunately, since passage of the statute in 2005 it has been used only twice. 

Recommendation: The Attorney General mandate training on this statute for appropriate personnel handling cases of domestic and sexual violence and provide a 

report during the 2009 annual consultation of the number of cases prosecuted under 

Section 909. 

II. Outstanding Issues Not Addressed by the Violence Against Women Act 

The issues outlined below are not new and they were raised during the 2006, 2007 

and 2008 consultation between the USDOJ and tribal leadership. These and other 

issues and recommendations are proposed in the Tribal Law and Order Act of 2009 

(S. 797) authored by Senator Bryon Dorgan, Chairman of the Senate Committee on 

Indian Affairs. We provide the following issues and recommendations to inform the 

Committee of on-going gaps in the response of the criminal justice systems to domestic and sexual violence committed against American Indian women. 

1) Declination Reports: USDOJ personnel, law enforcement and US Attorneys, 

should be required to submit declination reports to tribal justice officials to coordinate the prosecution of crimes on the reservation, and in Indian Country. The 

USDOJ should be required to maintain records of such declination and make them 

available to Congress on an annual basis. Often times when a woman reports a sexual assault, months or years may pass without her being informed of the status of 

the case. Women often fear retaliation by the perpetrator for reporting sexual assault or domestic violence. The failure to notify the victim that the U.S. Attorney 

has declined to prosecute the case creates barriers to the safety of women. The 

woman, unaware that the US Attorney declined the case, may not take the appropriate steps to protect herself from future violence. In addition, tribal justice personnel, also uninformed of the status of the case, may not take appropriate steps 

to charge the perpetrator in tribal court. Given the public myth that sexual assault 

and domestic violence cases are not serious crimes, transparency in the statistical 

reporting of prosecutorial and declination rates for such crimes should be mandated. 

For all the same reasons noted above states that share concurrent jurisdiction with 

Indian tribes should also be mandated to report the same information to Congress. 

Recommendation: The Attorney General request United States Attorneys General 

and states to issue declination reports to tribal justice officials and victims of domestic and sexual violence. Further, during the annual consultation the Attorney General should provide an annual report of declinations and prosecution rates for cases 

of domestic and sexual assault cases committed against Indian women. 

2) State Accountability: Tribes within Public Law 53–280 or similar jurisdictions 

should be able to call on the United States to maintain federal concurrent jurisdiction and assist tribal governments in the prosecution of major crimes where the 

states have the authority. 

In 1953, during the termination era, Congress enacted laws that transferred federal criminal justice authority to particular state governments. The Department of 

Interior, as a policy interpretation, denied access to Indian tribes located within 

those states to federal funds to develop their respective tribal justice systems. Unfortunately, the state governments generally do not adequately respond to crimes 

of sexual assault and domestic violence within tribal communities. On a daily basis 

perpetrators of crimes of sexual and domestic violence are not held accountable for 

their crimes due to such jurisdictional barriers. 

As a result, when a woman is raped within an Indian tribe located within such 

states sharing concurrent criminal jurisdiction, no tribal criminal justice agency 

may be available to assist her or hold the rapist accountable. This gaping hole in 

the federal/state/tribal justice systems often results in an injustice in the lives of 

women and permits perpetrators to continue committing horrific violence against 

the same or a different woman. 

Recommendation: The Attorney General work in coordination with Indian tribes 

to address the unique jurisdictional barriers created by federal law and increase the 

accountability of state governments to coordinate with Indian tribes to enhance the 

99 

safety of Indian women living within tribal jurisdiction; in particular an increased 

awareness of the authority of federally recognized Indian tribes to maintain tribal 

law enforcement agencies and tribal courts to issue orders of protection. 

3) Sentencing Authority of Tribal Courts: It is essential that the sentencing authority of tribal courts be increased beyond the current one year for any single offense. Between 2004 and 2007, the United States declined to prosecute 62 percent 

of Indian country criminal cases referred to federal prosecutors, including 75 percent 

of child and adult sex crimes. One the greatest barriers to the safety of Indian 

women is that in cases declined by the United States a perpetrator of rape, if prosecuted by the Indian tribe, only can receive a maximum of one year per offense. In 

every other jurisdiction in the United States rape is considered a felony offense with 

an average sentence of four years. It is also essential that federal law be enacted 

permitting Indian tribes to request the transfer of prisoners to the nearest appropriate federal facility at the expense of the United States. This would allow tribal 

courts to appropriately sentence perpetrators without the restraint of not having a 

facility or the budget to contract for bed space for prisoners convicted of domestic 

and sexual violence. 

Recommendation: The Attorney General coordinate and support the efforts of Indian tribes to address the current inadequate sentencing authority of tribal courts 

in cases of sexual assault, domestic violence, dating violence and stalking. 

4) Prisoner Release and Reentry: The USDOJ should be mandated to notify tribal 

justice officials when a sex offender is released from federal custody into Indian 

country. Every state and territory is required to provide notification when a sex offender is released and enters a community. Currently many Indian women receive 

no notification of the release of their convicted rapist from federal prison. This realization comes only at the moment when they see the offender in their grocery store, 

on their front porches, or when picking up their children at the school gate. It is 

a horrifying and frightening realization. The USDOJ should also be required to register sex offenders with the appropriate law enforcement agency including tribal 

registries. 

Recommendation: The Attorney General direct the Bureau of Prisons to notify 

tribal justice officials and victims of sexual assault, domestic violence, dating violence and stalking of the release of such an offender. 

5) Mandate of Specialized Training in Domestic and Sexual Violence for Federal 

Prosecutors and Law Enforcement Personnel: The Office on Violence Against Women 

has for the last thirteen years asserted the importance of specialized training for 

criminal justice personnel; yet, it has not applied this same standard to federal prosecutors and law enforcement personnel. Law enforcement personnel within departments such as the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Bureau of Indian Affairs 

should be mandated to attend a minimum number of hours of training to enhance 

their expertise and skills in the handling of such investigations. Federal prosecutors 

should also be mandated to receive specialized training to enhance the prosecution 

of crimes of domestic and sexual violence. Lastly, resources and training should be 

provided to Indian law enforcement agencies 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. 

Recommendation: The Attorney General direct the appropriate departments to implement training in the handling and prosecution of sexual assault, domestic violence, dating violence and stalking cases committed against Indian women. 

6) Complex Federal Jurisdictional Barriers Preventing the Safety of Native 

Women. The current rates of sexual and domestic violence have been linked to jurisdictional gaps that allow perpetrators to face little or most often no criminal consequence for their crimes. Federal law, United States Supreme Court cases, Executive Orders, and Treaties with Indian Nations comprise what is known as Federal 

Indian law that has resulted in a body of complex jurisdictional laws that often operate as barriers to safety. 

One example of the concrete impact of current federal law upon the lives of Native 

women is the unique and difficult issues in Oklahoma Indian Country plaguing the 

37 federally-recognized tribal governments in the state. Federal Indian policies of 

the past forced American Indians into Indian Territory prior to Oklahoma statehood. Under pressure from expansion of non-Indians into the west, the Federal Government opened up Indian Reservations for white settlement through passage of 

several allotment acts around the time of Oklahoma statehood. Oklahoma tribes 

today are left with a checker-boarded pattern of Indian lands commingled with nonIndian lands. Tribal courts have no criminal jurisdiction over non-Indians, and acVerDate Nov 24 2008 09:33 Apr 07, 2010 Jkt 053988 PO 00000 Frm 00103 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\DOCS\53988.TXT JACK PsN: JACKF
100 

cording to recent studies, the vast majority of offenders in Native-victim domestic 

violence cases are non-Indian. State courts do not have jurisdiction to prosecute nonIndians for crimes committed against Indians in Indian Country. Only the federal 

court system has jurisdiction to prosecute these perpetrators who commit crimes of 

domestic violence against Indian women on Indian land. Most often cited as a lack 

of resources, the United States Attorneys Offices in Oklahoma frequently decline to 

prosecute these offenses. 

Recommendation: It is of critical importance that the respective federal agencies 

coordinate with Indian Nations as governments to address these jurisdictional gaps 

and increase the safety of Native women. 

III. Need to Address the Epidemic Level of Sexual Assault 

Sexual violence committed against Native women is more than double that of any 

other population of women and the resources to respond to such violence are far 

less. On the Pine Ridge Reservation of the Oglala Sioux Tribe, the number of rapes 

for just one weekend can average 44 cases. At present, reporting has virtually 

stopped, reflecting the lack of federal response and prosecution. Further, in Alaska, 

sexual assault is rampant and the current criminal justice system is unresponsive, 

thus failing Native women and Alaska Native Villages. Anchorage is ranked No. 1 

in the nation per capita on the sexual assault of Alaska Native women. In the rural 

Alaska Native Villages advocates for women report that 100 percent of the women 

at some point in time have been a victim of sexual violence. 

The systemic response of the federal departments to sexual violence against Indian women is a failure and immediate corrective action is necessary. The tribal/ 

federal and tribal/state response must be enhanced from the immediate response to 

the crime by first responders, including law enforcement and healthcare personnel, 

to post sentencing probation and reintegration of sexual offenders into tribal communities. No other crime better illuminates the disparate treatment between Native 

and non-Native women victimized by violence. In particular, the responses and 

availability of the Indian Healthcare Services providers to victims of sexual assault 

must be improved. The provision of the forensic sexual assault medical exams is insufficient and the refusal of personnel to testify in such cases due to understaffing 

is unacceptable. Further, the lack of rape crisis services and post-crisis services only 

increases the risk to Native women. The need for services does not end with the 

rape examination but only just begin. Current services for women victimized by rape 

are minimal or non-existent. The starting point for such reforms is the enhancement 

of community-based services available within tribal communities to assist Indian 

women and the authority of Indian tribes to hold perpetrators accountable. 

Recommendations: The respective federal departments coordinate to address the 

above concerns with Indian tribes. The Secretary direct Indian Health Service personnel to develop, in coordination with Indian tribes, a protocol for sexual assault 

medical forensic examinations and cooperate in the prosecution of sexual assault 

cases by agreeing to testify in such cases. 

IV. Summary 

We deeply appreciate and thank the Members of the Senate Judiciary Committee 

for supporting the Violence Against Women Act and our testimony. The recommendations above complement the other recommendations submitted by national 

advocacy organizations for the safety of women. We respectfully urge you to consider 

these recommendations with attention and care. The complex set of legal and social 

issues that mire efforts to address violence against Native women are of the utmost 

importance and indicate the need for a reauthorized and strengthened Violence 

Against Women Act. Together we can reverse the current pattern of violence and 

the institutionalized barriers discussed that prevent safety in the lives of Indian 

women. Change has come to America and we cannot go back; we must continue our 

journey until the day that Native women are held sacred once again and live free 

from violence within their homes and communities. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JOLANDA E. INGRAM-MARSHALL, ATTORNEY; EXECUTIVE

DIRECTOR OF NIWHONGWH XW E:NA:WH STOP THE VIOLENCE COALITION, INC. 

Dear Honorable Senate Committee Members & Chairman Dorgan: My 17 year old 

daughter moved to the Salish-Kootenai (Flathead) Indian Reservation in northwestern Montana to attend college at the Salish-Kootenai College in January, 2009. 

She was a victim of a hate crime on the Salish-Kootenai (Flathead) Indian Reservation in March, 2009. A non-Indian man, who she did not know, threw a full commodity soup can over a fence and struck her on the head. She received a concussion 

101 

and missed three days of school and had to have a CT scan. The Salish-Kootenai 

Tribal Police could not arrest the man because he was non-Indian. The Lake County 

Sheriff’s Department refused to arrest him. A police report was sent to the Lake 

County District Attorney’s Office and nothing was ever done. There were three witnesses and the victim present that evening. Each provided statements. The non-Indian suspect told the authorities that he did not mean to strike my daughter on the 

head and that it was an accident. The Lake County authorities decided to take the 

word of the non-Indian over my daughter and the three other witnesses. 

I want to ask each and every one of you listening to this testimony whether you 

would want your daughter to attend an Indian college on an Indian reservation 

where nothing would happen to the perpetrator of a crime against her. I have to 

ask myself this question each and every day now that my daughter and I have been 

personally affected by the senseless and lawless state of affairs on Indian reservations in this great country. 

Unfortunately, my story continues. In May, 2009, my daughter was in her dormitory room at the Salish-Kootenai College when she was attacked and raped by 

an acquaintance, who was attending college and residing on campus as well. This 

time her attacker was an Indian male. The crime rose to the level of a felony, so 

the Lake County Sheriff’s Department arrested him. The next day the suspect was 

released from jail. My daughter and I received a phone call, during the second week 

of June, from a Lake County Sheriff’s Detective who informed us that the suspect 

would not be prosecuted because there was not sufficient evidence. He stated that 

there were other witnesses who stated that my daughter had been observed earlier 

that evening hugging the suspect and having a beer with him. 

This situation presents a very sad state of affairs in this country on the issue of 

violence against women. God forbid a woman ever have a beer with someone or hug 

him, otherwise she is consenting to the act of rape! 

I am asking that the United States Congress recognize the danger facing Native 

women and act to strengthen the response to such crimes. More particularly in PL 

280 states, Tribes have no control over whether the local county district attorney 

prosecutes a case. I believe that if a study were to be conducted, that the declination 

rates of cases coming from PL 280 Indian Tribes is at a very high rate. Native 

women living under concurrent state jurisdiction are at high risk because perpetrators have learned over many decades that county sheriffs and prosecutors will not 

believe or protect Native women. 

Proposed amendments to federal law contained in the Tribal Law and Order Act 

are critical to the safety of Native women. In particular Title II State Accountability 

that provides Indian tribes the option of requesting that federal concurrent jurisdiction be restored over such crimes as rape. If the county sheriffs refuse to hold perpetrators accountable for their violent crimes the United States must. Currently the 

failure of state governments to hold serial rapist accountable for their acts sends 

a green light that such conduct holds no legal consequence. 

Further, Indian Tribes as governments must be given the authority and resources 

needed to fully develop their justice systems to protect women and be comparable 

to the American justice systems. The average sentence for rape is four years in all 

jurisdictions of the United States except that of an Indian tribe. I strongly support 

the proposed amendment to increase the sentencing authority of tribal courts from 

one year to three years. Sentencing a rapist to one year is dangerous to the woman 

that survives this heinous crime but also an insult to all Native women. 

Lastly, I respectfully ask that the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs co-sponsor 

a hearing with the Senate Judiciary Committee to review the complicated issues 

preventing safety in the lives of Native women. The current epidemic of violence in 

the lives of American Indian and Alaska Native women requires immediate action 

by Congress. 

My daughter is not safe, and neither is anyone’s daughter in Indian country! 

Please act now. 

Thank you very much. 

102 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE PUYALLUP TRIBE OF INDIANS


625e1.eps
103 


625e2.eps
104 


625e3.eps
105 


625e4.eps
106 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. BYRON L. DORGAN TO

HON. THOMAS J. PERRELLI


625f1.eps
107 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. JOHN BARRASSO TO

HON. THOMAS J. PERRELLI


625f2.eps
108 


625f3.eps
109 


625f4.eps
110 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. TOM UDALL TO

HON. THOMAS J. PERRELLI


625f5.eps
111 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. MARIA CANTWELL TO

HON. THOMAS J. PERRELLI


625f6.eps
112 


625f7.eps
113 


625f8.eps
114 

ADDITIONAL WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED TO HON. THOMAS J. PERRELLI


625f9.eps
115 


625f10.eps
116 

* The report, entitled Improving Law Enforcement Services for the Crow Nation and Big Horn 

County, attached to Mr. Eid’s responses has been retained in Committee files. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. TOM UDALL TO

TROY A. EID * 


625g1.eps
117 


625g2.eps
118 


625g3.eps
119 


625g4.eps 625g5.eps
120 

* Response to written questions was not available at the time this hearing went to press. 

WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED TO

HON. LARRY ECHO HAWK * 


625i1.eps
121 


625i2.eps
122 


625i3.eps
123 


625h1.eps
124 


625h2.eps
125 


625h3.eps
126 


625h4.eps 625h5.eps
127 


625h6.eps
128 


625h7.eps
129 


625h8.eps
130 


625h9.eps
131 

Æ 


625h10.eps