[House Report 115-279]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
115th Congress } { Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
1st Session } { 115-279
======================================================================
TO REPEAL THE ACT ENTITLED ``AN ACT TO CONFER JURISDICTION ON THE STATE
OF IOWA OVER OFFENSES COMMITTED BY OR AGAINST INDIANS ON THE SAC AND
FOX INDIAN RESERVATION''
_______
August 29, 2017.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union and ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. Bishop of Utah, from the Committee on Natural Resources, submitted
the following
R E P O R T
[To accompany H.R. 1074]
[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]
The Committee on Natural Resources, to whom was referred
the bill (H.R. 1074) to repeal the Act entitled ``An Act to
confer jurisdiction on the State of Iowa over offenses
committed by or against Indians on the Sac and Fox Indian
Reservation'', having considered the same, report favorably
thereon without amendment and recommend that the bill do pass.
Purpose of the Bill
The purpose of H.R. 1074 is to repeal the Act entitled ``An
Act to confer jurisdiction on the State of Iowa over offenses
committed by or against Indians on the Sac and Fox Indian
Reservation''.
Background and Need for Legislation
The Sac and Fox Tribe of the Mississippi of Iowa live on
what is known as the Meskwaki Settlement in Tama County, Iowa,
which houses more than 1,300 enrolled members.\1\ The tribe
purchased 84 acres of original reservation lands in Iowa in
1857, but the land was not placed into trust until 1896.
Pursuant to an Act of Congress (62 Stat. 1161, chapter 759),
all crimes on the Tribe's land, regardless of the Indian status
of the offender or victim, fall under the jurisdiction of the
State of Iowa. H.R. 1074 would rescind this Act and thereby put
crimes committed by or against Indians on the Tribe's lands
under federal or tribal jurisdiction in a manner similar to the
jurisdictional arrangement in most (but not all) Indian
communities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Meskwaki Official Site; http://www.meskwaki.org.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Criminal jurisdiction in Indian Country
Determining who may exercise jurisdiction over crime in
tribal communities is extremely complex. The first
consideration in determining jurisdiction over a crime is
whether it was committed in Indian Country. ``Indian Country,''
which is defined in 18 U.S.C. 1151, means all lands and rights-
of-way (regardless of who owns them) within the limits of an
Indian reservation. The government has interpreted the term to
include off-reservation lands held in trust for tribes.
In general, crimes committed by or against Indians in
Indian Country are under the jurisdiction of the United States,
pursuant to one or more federal statutes.\2\ Crimes committed
in Indian Country in which the offender and victim are non-
Indian are under state jurisdiction. Crimes committed by
Indians in Indian Country may be subject to the jurisdiction of
a tribe (depending on the kind of crime) or the United States.
Crimes committed by non-Indians against Indians are under
federal but not tribal jurisdiction.\3\ One exception to this
rule is found in Title IX of the Violence Against Women
Reauthorization Act of 2013 (VAWA, Public Law 113-4). In VAWA,
Congress recognized the ``inherent power'' of tribes to
exercise criminal jurisdiction over non-Indians who commit
certain domestic violence crimes against Indian spouses, dating
partners, or those with whom the offender has a certain
relationship. The constitutionality of these provisions has not
yet been tested before the Supreme Court.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\The General Crimes Act (18 U.S.C. 1152) endows the federal
government with jurisdiction to prosecute certain federal crimes
committed by non-Indians against Indians in Indian country. These
crimes include assault, domestic violence, illegal gun possession,
stalking, murder or manslaughter (including attempts), aggravated
sexual abuse, sexual abuse, sexual abuse of a minor or ward, and
abusive sexual contact. The Assimilative Crimes Act (18 U.S.C. 13)
authorizes the federal government to try non-Indians in federal court
for violation of applicable state law.
\3\In Oliphant v. Suquamish Indian tribe, 435 U.S. 191 (1978), the
Supreme Court held that tribes lack inherent authority over non-
Indians.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The scope and nature of tribal criminal jurisdiction is
unique. Because they are not deemed to be parties to the U.S.
Constitution, tribes are not required to adhere to the
requirements contained in the Bill of Rights guaranteeing
certain rights to defendants. Moreover, federal courts have
opined that an individual can be prosecuted separately by a
tribe and by the federal government for the same crime without
violating the Constitution's proscription against double
jeopardy, as long as the tribe is exercising an ``inherent''
power and not one delegated by the federal government.
While Congress enacted the Indian Civil Rights Act (25
U.S.C. 1301 et seq.) to require tribes to guarantee to
defendants basic protections resembling those in the Bill of
Rights, individuals in a tribe's jurisdiction generally do not
have to seek review of their tribal conviction, or sentence in
federal or state court except in narrow circumstances. For
example, a defendant always has a right to file a habeas corpus
petition with a federal court, which may determine whether the
person is unlawfully detained because the individual is not
Indian or the crime of which an individual is accused did not
occur in the Indian Country of the tribe.\4\ Tribal sentencing
powers are limited,\5\ many tribes lack financial resources to
operate fully functioning justice systems, and tribes are not
required by federal law to maintain separation between the
political and judicial branches of their governments. For more
information, an Indian Country Criminal Jurisdiction Chart is
available on the U.S. Department of Justice website.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\See Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez, 436 U.S. 49 (1978).
\5\``[The Tribal Law and Order Act] . . . restored limited felony
sentencing authority to tribes that meet certain conditions.
Specifically, TLOA allows tribes to impose sentences of up to three
years' imprisonment and/or a $15,000 fine per offense for a combined
maximum sentence of nine years per criminal proceeding. 25 U.S.C.
1302(b).'' https://www.justice.gov/tribal/file/796981/download.
\6\https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/usao-wdok/legacy/
2014/03/25/
Indian%20Country%20Criminal%20Jurisdiction%20ChartColor2010.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jurisdiction over crimes in the Sac and Fox Community
In 1948, Congress granted jurisdiction over all crimes
committed by or against Indians on the Sac and Fox Reservation
to the State of Iowa. At that time, there was no mechanism in
the federal government concerning criminal jurisdiction on the
Tribe's land, and up until that point the Tribe had largely
policed itself.
Congress's transfer of criminal jurisdiction in the Sac and
Fox tribal community to the State of Iowa was enacted not long
before similar arrangements were made for reservations in other
states. In 1953, Congress passed a law commonly called Public
Law 280,\7\ transferring criminal jurisdiction over all crime
(regardless of the Indian status of offender and victim) in
Indian Country of six states from the federal government to
those states.\8\ In 2010, with the passage of the Tribal Law
and Order Act (Public Law 111-211), tribes residing in these
``mandatory'' Public Law 280 states could request the U.S.
Department of Justice to re-assume federal criminal
jurisdiction over that tribe in Indian Country, though states
would exercise concurrent jurisdiction, and tribes would
exercise concurrent jurisdiction where applicable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\Public Law 83-280, August 15, 1953, 18 U.S.C. 1162, 28 U.S.C.
1360, and 25 U.S.C. 1321-1326.
\8\California, Minnesota, Nebraska, Oregon, Wisconsin, and Alaska.
Since 1953, other states have assumed some jurisdiction over crimes
committed by tribal members on tribal lands.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee Action
H.R. 1074 was introduced on February 15, 2017, by
Congressman Rod Blum (R-IA). The bill was referred to the
Committee on Natural Resources, and within the Committee to the
Subcommittee on Indian, Insular and Alaska Native Affairs. On
June 7, 2017, the Subcommittee held a hearing on the bill. On
July 25, 2017, the Natural Resources Committee met to consider
the bill. The Subcommittee was discharged by unanimous consent.
No amendments were offered, and the bill was ordered favorably
reported to the House of Representatives by unanimous consent
on July 26, 2017.
Committee Oversight Findings and Recommendations
Regarding clause 2(b)(1) of rule X and clause 3(c)(1) of
rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the
Committee on Natural Resources' oversight findings and
recommendations are reflected in the body of this report.
Compliance With House Rule XIII and Congressional Budget Act
1. Cost of Legislation and the Congressional Budget Act.
With respect to the requirements of clause 3(c)(2) and (3) of
rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives and
sections 308(a) and 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of
1974, the Committee has received the following estimate for the
bill from the Director of the Congressional Budget Office:
U.S. Congress,
Congressional Budget Office,
Washington, DC, August 4, 2017.
Hon. Rob Bishop,
Chairman, Committee on Natural Resources,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 1074, a bill to
repeal the Act entitled ``An Act to confer jurisdiction on the
State of Iowa over offenses committed by or against Indians on
the Sac and Fox Indian Reservation.''
If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Robert Reese.
Sincerely,
Keith Hall.
Enclosure.
H.R. 1074--A bill to repeal the Act entitled ``An Act to confer
jurisdiction on the State of Iowa over offenses committed by or
against Indians on the Sac and Fox Indian Reservation''
H.R. 1074 would repeal a 1948 law that gave the state of
Iowa jurisdiction over criminal offenses committed by or
against Indians on the Sac and Fox Indian Reservation; thus
criminal jurisdiction would revert to either the Sac and Fox
Nation or the federal government.
As a result of the repeal, the Sac and Fox Nation would be
eligible for funding from the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) to
equip and run its existing tribal court, law enforcement
operations, and detention facility. The amount of such funding
would depend on how much assistance the tribe would request
after enactment. Based on information from BIA reports on the
funding provided to tribes of a similar size, CBO estimates
that the tribe would be eligible for up to $7 million a year in
assistance; that spending would be subject to the availability
of appropriated funds. However, based on testimony and public
statements from BIA and the tribe about the amount of
assistance the tribe intends to apply for, CBO estimates that
implementing H.R. 1074 would have no significant federal cost
over the 2018-2022 period.
Enacting H.R. 1074 would not affect direct spending or
revenues; therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures do not apply. CBO
estimates that enacting the legislation would not increase net
direct spending or on-budget deficits in any of the four
consecutive 10-year periods beginning in 2028.
H.R. 1074 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector
mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act.
On June 2, 2017, CBO transmitted a cost estimate for S.
381, as ordered reported by the Senate Committee on Indian
Affairs on March 29, 2017. S. 381 is similar to H.R. 1074 and
CBO's estimates of their budgetary effects are the same.
The CBO staff contact for this estimate is Robert Reese.
The estimate was approved by H. Samuel Papenfuss, Deputy
Assistant Director for Budget Analysis.
2. General Performance Goals and Objectives. As required by
clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII, the general performance goal or
objective of this bill is to repeal the Act entitled ``An Act
to confer jurisdiction on the State of Iowa over offenses
committed by or against Indians on the Sac and Fox Indian
Reservation''.
Earmark Statement
This bill does not contain any Congressional earmarks,
limited tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits as defined
under clause 9(e), 9(f), and 9(g) of rule XXI of the Rules of
the House of Representatives.
Compliance With Public Law 104-4
This bill contains no unfunded mandates.
Compliance With H. Res. 5
Directed Rule Making. This bill does not contain any
directed rule makings.
Duplication of Existing Programs. This bill does not
establish or reauthorize a program of the federal government
known to be duplicative of another program. Such program was
not included in any report from the Government Accountability
Office to Congress pursuant to section 21 of Public Law 111-139
or identified in the most recent Catalog of Federal Domestic
Assistance published pursuant to the Federal Program
Information Act (Public Law 95-220, as amended by Public Law
98-169) as relating to other programs.
Preemption of State, Local or Tribal Law
This bill is not intended to preempt any State, local or
tribal law.
Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported
In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of
the House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by
the bill, as reported, are shown as follows (existing law
proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets and
existing law in which no change is proposed is shown in roman):
ACT OF JUNE 30, 1948
(Public Law Chapter 759)
AN ACT to confer jurisdiction on the State of Iowa over offenses
committed by or against Indians on the Sac and Fox Indian Reservation
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled, [That
jurisdiction is hereby conferred on the State of Iowa over
offenses committed by or against Indians on the Sac and Fox
Indian Reservation in that State to the same extent as its
courts have jurisdiction generally over offenses committed
within said State outside of any Indian reservation: Provided,
however, That nothing herein contained shall deprive the courts
of the United States of jurisdiction over offenses defined by
the laws of the United States committed by or against Indians
on Indian reservations.]
[all]