    [Senate Hearing 112-489]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                            S. Hrg. 112-489

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

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

                                    HEARING

                                   before the

                          COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS
                              UNITED STATES SENATE

                          ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                       ON

          S. 1763, STAND AGAINST VIOLENCE AND EMPOWER NATIVE WOMEN ACT

     S. 872, A BILL TO AMEND THE OMNIBUS INDIAN ADVANCEMENT ACT TO MODIFY
      THE DATE AS OF WHICH CERTAIN TRIBAL LAND OF THE LYTTON RANCHERIA OF
      CALIFORNIA IS CONSIDERED TO BE HELD IN TRUST AND TO PROVIDE FOR THE
                   CONDUCT OF CERTAIN ACTIVITIES ON THE LAND

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

                                   __________

                               NOVEMBER 10, 2011

                                   __________

             Printed for the use of the Committee on Indian Affairs

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                    _____

                      U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

    74-885 PDF                WASHINGTON : 2012
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    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

                          COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS

                       DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii, Chairman
                     JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming, Vice Chairman
    DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii             JOHN McCAIN, Arizona
    KENT CONRAD, North Dakota            LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska
    TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota            JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota
    MARIA CANTWELL, Washington           MIKE CRAPO, Idaho
    JON TESTER, Montana                  MIKE JOHANNS, Nebraska
    TOM UDALL, New Mexico
    AL FRANKEN, Minnesota
          Loretta A. Tuell, Majority Staff Director and Chief Counsel
         David A. Mullon Jr., Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page
    Hearing held on November 10, 2011................................     1
    Statement of Senator Akaka.......................................     1
    Statement of Senator Franken.....................................    18
    Statement of Senator Murkowski...................................     7

                                   Witnesses

    Andersen, Ralph, President/CEO, Bristol Bay Native Association;
      Co-Chair, Alaska Federation of Natives.........................    47
        Prepared statement with attachment...........................    50
    Begich, Hon. Mark, U.S. Senator from Alaska......................     5
    Feinstein, Hon. Dianne, U.S. Senator from California.............     1
    Koepplinger, Suzanne, Executive Director, Minnesota Indian
      Women's Resource Center........................................    19
        Prepared statement...........................................    21
    Heffelfinger, Thomas B., Attorney, Best & Flanagan LLP...........    22
        Prepared statement...........................................    24
    Masters, Joe, Commissioner, Alaska Department of Public Safety...    54
        Prepared statement with attachment...........................    57
    Mejia, Hon. Margie, Chairwoman, Lytton Rancheria.................    27
        Prepared statement with attachments..........................    30
    Morris, Hon. Paul, Mayor, City of San Pablo, California..........    42
        Prepared statement...........................................    44
    Perrelli, Thomas J., Associate Attorney General, U.S. Department
      of Justice.....................................................     8
        Prepared statement...........................................    10

                                    Appendix

    Bedard, Irene, Actress/Singer, Alaska, prepared statement........   119
    Finley, Hon. Michael, Chairman, Confederated Tribes of the
      Colville Reservation, prepared statement.......................   108
    Giessel, Hon. Cathy, Senator, Alaska State Legislature, letter...   121
    Indritz, Tova, Chair, NACDL Native American Justice Committee,
      prepared statement.............................................   110
    Maulson, Hon. Tom, Tribal President, Lac du Flambeau Tribe,
      prepared statement.............................................   110
    McLaughlin, Gayle, Mayor, City of Richmond, letter...............   120
    Miller, Hon. George, U.S. Representative from California,
      prepared statement.............................................    77
    Morris, Jan W., Member, Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma, prepared
      statement......................................................   118
    Reid, Larry E., President of the City Council, City of Oakland,
      letter.........................................................   122
    Tanana Chiefs Conference (TCC), prepared statement...............   115
    Titus, Alan J., Lawyer, Robb & Ross, prepared statement..........    78
    United States Department of the Interior, prepared statement.....   107
    Walker, Jana L., Senior Attorney, Indian Law Resource Center,
      prepared statement.............................................   112
    Wiggins, Jr., Hon. Mike, Tribal Chairman, Bad River Band of Lake
      Superior Tribe of Chippewa Indians, prepared statement.........   112

    Additional information for the record
        Article, entitled, San Pablo/Indians, Feinstein Strike Deal
          That Keeps Casino From Growing.............................   123
        Resolution No. 2005/181......................................   125

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

                                  ----------

                          THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 10, 2011

                                           U.S. Senate,
                                   Committee on Indian Affairs,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 3:00 p.m. in room
    628, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Daniel K. Akaka,
    Chairman of the Committee, presiding.

              OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DANIEL K. AKAKA,
                        U.S. SENATOR FROM HAWAII

        The Chairman. The Committee will come to order.
        Aloha, everyone. Today, the Committee will hold a
    legislative hearing on three bills. Two of these bills are
    designed to improve public safety in Native communities and
    improve the security of Native women and families.
        I am so glad that Senator Feinstein is here, and following
    her, I will complete my opening remarks. Welcome Senator
    Feinstein to the Committee.
        Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        Would you like me to proceed?
        The Chairman. Please proceed. Yes.

                  STATEMENT OF HON. DIANNE FEINSTEIN,
                      U.S. SENATOR FROM CALIFORNIA

        Senator Feinstein. Mr. Chairman, this has to do with a bill
    that I have submitted that has been passed out of this
    Committee on prior occasions, and one has passed the Senate.
    And it goes back a substantial period of time. It has to do
    with a requirement that the Lytton Tribe of San Pablo follow
    all existing laws and regulations if it seeks to expand its
    casino.
        Now, why is this bill necessary? The Tribe is currently
    exempt from critical oversight laws, particularly IGRA. The
    history of how this happened is important. The Tribe
    historically resided in Sonoma.
        Until mid-century, the Lytton Rancheria in Alexander Valley
    was their homeland. The Tribe was wrongfully terminated in 1961
    and it took until 1991 for a court to restore the Tribe to its
    rightful Federal status, but the decision didn't grant the
    Tribe any land and it forbade them from engaging in activities
    prohibited under the Sonoma County general use plan.
    Effectively, the court prohibited the Tribe from gaming in
    Sonoma County, which is a Bay Area county, but nonetheless not
    in the middle of an urban area.
        Nearly a decade later in 2000, Congress passed the Omnibus
    Indian Advancement Act. A provision was air-dropped in the
    conference bill without consideration by the House or the
    Senate which allowed the Lytton Band to acquire trust land in
    San Pablo where they purchased an existing 70,000 square-foot
    card room. By all accounts, the Tribe deserved to be recognized
    and to have land taken into trust, but the manner in which the
    land was granted to the Tribe was both controversial and
    unprecedented.
        The bill allowed the land to be taken into trust as if it
    were acquired before 1988, when in fact it had been acquired
    after 1988. IGRA prohibits Tribes from gaming on newly acquired
    land, except in very limited instances: (1) newly recognized
    Tribes; (2) Tribes who received land as a settlement for a land
    claim; (3) re-recognized or restored Tribes; (4) Tribes who
    have undertaken a two-part determination.
        By treating the land as if it were taken into trust before
    1988, the Tribe was able to avoid a two-part determination
    process. This statutory process, which requires the consent of
    both the Secretary of Interior and the Governor, would normally
    be required for this Tribe if Lytton expanded to a Las Vegas-
    style Class III gaming facility in San Pablo.
        Now, Mr. Chairman, four years later, a 600,000 square-foot,
    5,000 slot machine Class III Las Vegas-style gaming facility
    was what the Tribe proposed. Now, a casino of this size does
    not belong in San Pablo. When voters in California passed
    proposition 1(a), the law which authorized Indian casinos, they
    voted to allow gaming facilities on Indian lands. The proposal
    was sold to voters as authorizing casinos on ``remote
    reservations.'' And the ballot arguments reflect that as well.
        So later in 2004, I introduced legislation which would have
    stripped the provision that treats the land as if it were
    acquired before 1988. This would have prohibited the Tribe from
    conducting any gaming on their land unless they abided by the
    same law that the other 58 gaming Tribes in California do. The
    Committee considered the legislation in the 108th and 109th
    Congress. In the 109th, the Committee favorably reported the
    bill to the full Senate with a recommendation that the bill do
    pass.
        Soon after, I met with the Tribe to see if we could come to
    some agreement. I spoke with Chairwoman Margie Mejia, who I
    believe is here today, and Tribal leadership. I was and I
    remain sympathetic to their concerns--poverty, healthcare,
    unemployment. In 2007, we reached a compromise. The Lytton
    Tribe would continue to operate their Class II gaming facility
    at Casino San Pablo, but if they wanted to expand to Class III
    gaming, they would abide by the two-part determination.
        We put this compromise in legislation and it had the
    Tribe's support. That is the legislation being considered here
    today. The Lytton casino would be subject to the same rules and
    regulations as every other Tribe in the State, but these would
    apply only if the Tribe chose to expand. So if the Tribe chose
    not to expand to Class III, the additional rules and
    regulations did not apply. So they were secure at least in
    Class II.
        The bill did not impact the Tribe's Federal recognition nor
    did it impact the trust status of their land. At the time, the
    Chairwoman was quoted by the San Francisco Chronicle as saying
    legislation would allow the Tribe to ``operate the casino for
    the long term without the threat of closure.'' It was viewed as
    a win-win proposal.
        That is why the Lytton Gaming Oversight Act was favorably
    reported by this Committee in the 110th Congress, and why it
    passed the Senate by unanimous consent that year and the next.
    But now, the Tribe does not want to continue to uphold our
    agreement.
        I met with the Tribe's lawyer yesterday and he told me that
    the situation had changed; that other Indian Tribes, Guidiville
    and Scotts Valley, may open casinos in Contra Costa County. And
    that the Lyttons needed the ability to expand to compete if
    these other casinos are approved. So, you know, one, two,
    three, four, five casinos, this is how it goes.
        Well, the Guidiville proposal has already been rejected by
    the Department of the Interior, and the Scotts Valley proposal
    has been languishing at the department for years. But I am
    willing to work with the Tribe again. I understand that
    Chairwoman Mejia will testify today that they still have no
    plans to expand Casino San Pablo. I read her statement and I am
    grateful to hear that.
        If we can find a way to achieve the goal of the Lytton
    Gaming Oversight Act without legislation, I am all for it.
    Because the bottom line is this: a Las Vegas-style casino does
    not belong in San Pablo. This is a small enclave of 29,000
    people surrounded virtually on all sides by the City of
    Richmond. Richmond voters opposed by the ballot a new casino
    proposal last November; 58 percent of the electorate voted
    against the proposed casino at Point Molate, which is only
    seven miles from Casino San Pablo. I have a November 9th letter
    from the Mayor of Richmond, and I would like to put it in the
    record and read two paragraphs.
        ``The negative effects of casino gambling remain a real
    threat looming over the Bay Area. As the community is buffeted
    by crime, drugs, and abuse due to the casino and the dismal
    economy, this bill is critical to help stem the tide.''
        ``Many citizens remain concerned that gambling at the site
    will be expanded and that the negative effects, including
    traffic, drunk driving, and crime, will proliferate.''
        And then she goes into proposition 1(a), and since I have
    done that, I will not bore you with it.
        We have another problem. We have 59 Indian gaming permits
    in California. And inspection in California is conducted by
    only 157 gambling control staff. By comparison, there are 433
    staff at the Nevada Gaming Control Board. The California budget
    is less than 25 percent of the Nevada budget for this.
        So what is happening is that California is becoming bigger
    in Class III gaming than even Las Vegas. This is a problem if
    we can't provide the oversight staff. We know the skimming. We
    know what has been typically surrounding casinos in the history
    of Las Vegas. Candidly, it doesn't really belong in the
    metropolitan of the San Francisco Bay Area.
        Some San Pablo residents are so concerned they filed suit
    against the Department of the Interior. The Board of
    Supervisors of Contra Costa County passed a resolution four
    years ago saying they do not want Las Vegas-style gaming in the
    county.
        Now, this bill is a product of compromise, an agreement
    that I reached with Chairwoman Mejia. I think it protects the
    rights of the Tribe and it ensures the law is followed. What I
    say to you in conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I am really eager to
    continue to work with this Tribe. I think they are deserving. I
    think they got an unfair shot on their Native lands, but there
    is a problem.
        We have a lot of mall space in this economy in cities that
    are not inhabited; that Tribes can do what this Tribe did. They
    bought an existing card room and the concern is that they
    expand it to Class III gaming in the heart of an urban area,
    right next to freeways to bring people in.
        I see, Mr. Chairman, the buses pull up to housing projects
    in San Francisco, particularly on the nights that Social
    Security checks come out. The busses are loaded up with people
    and take them to games where most lose money. We have 59
    Casinos already. What I am saying to you is, in my judgment,
    for the well being of my State, this is a problem.
        Now, there are a number of Indian gaming compacts that have
    been done. I have tried to get the records of those Indian
    gaming compacts that were negotiated by our Governor, and I
    believe those compacts should be public. We should know what
    money is promised and to whom it is promised.
        I cannot get those records. We are asking, under a Freedom
    of Information Act, to obtain those records. And there is so
    much money that is being passed on, and I understand cities
    have needs. The California budget is getting cut back.
    Everybody has wants that aren't filled. But 59 gaming permits
    in this State really is a substantial number.
        So my view is if we can keep this to Class II and enable
    the Tribe to flourish with Class II, I am all for it. And I
    don't know whether there will be competition or not, but I will
    work with this Tribe.
        And I thank you for your patience. Thank you.
        The Chairman. Thank you very much for your testimony. And
    thank you. I know you have a busy schedule.
        Senator Feinstein. Thank you. I appreciate the courtesy.
    Thank you very much.
        The Chairman. Thank you so much for being here.
        I will continue to finish my statement, if it is okay by
    Senator Begich here on our first panel.
        The Committee held an oversight hearing on the issues
    impacting Native women in July and another on implementation of
    the Tribal Law and Order Act in September. At both of these
    hearings, we heard that domestic violence and sexual assault
    against Native women is still an epidemic, and much work
    remains to be done to effectively address the issue.
        In response, I introduced S. 1763, the Stand Against
    Violence and Empower Native Women Act or SAVE Native Women Act.
    In addition, Senator Begich introduced S. 1192, the Alaska Safe
    Families and Villages Act in June. This bill would establish a
    new demonstration project through the Department of Justice
    aimed at improving local public safety in Alaska Native
    villages. We are pleased to have Senator Begich here to provide
    testimony about the bill.
        The other bill we will consider today is the Lytton gaming
    oversight bill, which was introduced by Senator Feinstein, who
    has discussed her proposal in her testimony. This bill would
    amend the Tribe's Restoration Act to ensure that any expansion
    of gaming or the physical structure of their gaming facility
    would be governed by the exemptions in the Indian Gaming
    Regulatory Act.
        So I look forward to hearing from my Senate colleague
    Senator Begich on his bill and from Tribal representatives and
    other stakeholders. I encourage any other interested parties to
    submit written comments to the Committee. The hearing record
    will remain open for two weeks from today.
        So again, I want to welcome Senator Begich to the Committee
    and say thank you so much for being here to provide us
    testimony. Will you please proceed?

                    STATEMENT OF HON. MARK BEGICH,
                        U.S. SENATOR FROM ALASKA

        Senator Begich. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And
    thank you, too. I know the folks in the room here are being
    patient while we have multiple votes to deal with, but thank
    you very much for the opportunity here to present the Alaska
    Safe Families and Villages Act to the Committee.
        The bill, which is broadly supported by the Alaska Native
    community in my State, provides some of America's remote
    communities more tools to deal with their enormous challenges.
    These challenges include some of the highest rates of alcohol
    abuse, domestic violence, and suicide in the Nation. Life is
    truly tough in many of these villages that can be reached only
    by river boat, in some cases and airplane or snow machines.
        Alaska Native culture is a rich one based on the common
    values of sharing, reverence for the land, and mutual respect
    for all peoples. But this culture in Alaska's most remote
    villages faces enormous pressure for sustainability and good
    health. That is what this bill is about.
        I hear from Alaska's Tribal leaders every day about the
    need for more resources to address suicide, substance abuse,
    and domestic violence. So, I work with Tribal leaders for a
    solution that gives them more resources that are culturally
    relevant and address the public safety concerns in remote
    villages.
        I have worked with Ralph Andersen, the CEO and President of
    the Bristol Bay Native Association and Co-Chair of the Alaska
    Federation of Natives, which you will hear from later in the
    hearing.
        This bill will give communities the tools they have been
    asking for to bring stability and justice to their homes and
    villages. The stark statistics show Alaska is desperately in
    need of creative solutions; 95 percent of all crimes in rural
    Alaska can be attributed to alcohol; suicide rates in Alaska
    villages are six times the national average; alcohol-related
    mortality is 3.5 times higher than the general population; and
    more than three out of every four American Indian-Alaska Native
    women will be physically assaulted in her lifetime.
        The sad reality is that many Alaska Native village
    perpetrators of domestic violence, sexual abuse, and the
    bootleggers are not always held accountable for their actions,
    so the cycle of abuse and violence continues. Many of our
    remote villages lack adequate law enforcement. The nearest
    State trooper often is a long airplane ride away. If the
    weather is bad, I will tell you, as we have watched the news
    recently in western Alaska, it is really bad at this point. It
    can take days for the law to show up.
        Today, some 80 villages have a single unarmed Village
    Public Safety Officer, which we call VPSOs, on duty all-day-
    every day. The VPSOs, as they are called, do a great job, but
    they need backup.
        Later, you will hear from the Alaska Commissioner of Public
    Safety. I understand the State of Alaska does not support the
    bill, but I know they recognize the unique challenges in the
    rural communities.
        I believe my bill doesn't preempt the State. It enhances
    it. Our State troopers do an excellent job, but they are spread
    too thin. My bill allows Tribes to create solutions that work
    for their communities. I strongly believe in community
    involvement and the solutions to support local control and
    innovation. This is consistent with the self-determination
    goals of Tribes, which the Obama Administration, and this
    Committee has advocated for. It recognizes the unique
    relationship between the U.S. Government and Tribes.
        My bill will give Alaska Tribes the tools to stop domestic
    violence, alcohol and drug abuse, and suicides in their own
    communities. It is important to note that this bill will
    establish a demonstration project. If it is successful, we can
    talk later about expanding it.
        Although the State of Alaska would maintain the primary
    role and responsibility in criminal matters, the demonstration
    project would allow participating Tribes to set up Tribal
    courts, establish Tribal ordinances, and allow them to impose
    sanctions such as community service on violators. Participants
    in the demonstration projects also would be eligible for
    village peace officer grants. This would help those communities
    without VPSOs who need them.
        Dealing with the realities of crime in rural Alaska Native
    villages requires comprehensive and innovative solutions. This
    includes the ability to act as the resources and tools they
    need to promote the well being of these communities. It is time
    for real solutions. And I know the Alaska Safe Families and
    Village Act of 2011 can be part of that solution.
        Chairman Akaka, I would like to briefly also address S.
    1763, the Stand Against Violence and Empower Native Women Act.
    I am a cosponsor of this bill and will support improved Native
    programs under the Violence Against Women Act. Such a law would
    empower villages to step off the sidelines waiting for the
    troopers and to take action necessary to save one of their own.
        Even if Alaska has no Indian Country per se, being
    authorized to take action will have the twin effect of both
    intervention and the role modeling that such violence will not
    be tolerated.
        Again, I thank you for allowing me to present this
    important piece of legislation and for the people of Alaska
    before the Committee on Indian Affairs.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman. Thank you very much, Senator Begich. I know
    you have a busy schedule, but if your schedule allows you, I
    would invite you to join us on the dais for the remainder of
    the testimonies.
        Senator Begich. Thank you very much, Senator. If I can
    spend some time with you, I will be happy to join you.
        The Chairman. Thank you.
        And I am so glad to have Senator Murkowski be here. And I
    would like to ask her for any opening statement you may have.

                   STATEMENT OF HON. LISA MURKOWSKI,
                        U.S. SENATOR FROM ALASKA

        Senator Murkowski. Well, Mr. Chairman, I thank you for
    having this hearing this afternoon. I want to acknowledge my
    colleague, Senator Begich, and thank him for his good work on
    these issues. We are privileged this afternoon to have two
    Alaska witnesses before the Committee here: our Commissioner
    Joe Masters, who will be speaking on the second panel, I
    believe; and Mr. Ralph Andersen, who is a friend and truly a
    great individual that has been representing Alaska Federation
    of Natives for some time and has just recently been reelected
    as Co-Chair of the Alaska Federation of Natives. We really
    appreciate his leadership within the State on this issue and so
    many.
        As Senator Begich has noted in his testimony, and I
    apologize, Mark, that I wasn't here for your whole testimony,
    coming over from the vote, I got waylaid. I know you can
    understand that.
        But our statistics in Alaska as they related to domestic
    violence, to rape, physical abuse, murder, and these are
    statistics that I think, as an Alaskan, we all find chilling.
    And they are statistics that we deal with, but we know that
    they are not just statistics. These are our friends. They are
    our neighbors. They are family members.
        And our inability to deal with some of the issues that face
    us is really very, very difficult to acknowledge. We are a
    State that is blessed in so many different ways, and yet
    sometimes the ugly side of what happens in our State are facts
    that are very difficult to reckon with. And I think when we
    realize these rates of violence and abuse that we see that are
    perpetrated against Native women and children, it is well past
    time that we make it a national priority.
        There was an article in our local newspaper, the Anchorage
    Daily News, just on the 5th of November, just the day before
    yesterday. This was from the Director of the University of
    Alaska Justice Center and the principal investigator for the
    Alaska Victimization Survey. And she goes on to detail what we
    face in Alaska and our statistics.
        In 2011, regional surveys were conducted in Anchorage,
    Fairbanks, Juneau, and Bristol Bay. And in her words, she says
    these results show that violence is an endemic problem
    throughout our State. It is essentially one of every two women
    have experienced intimate partner violence or sexual violence
    or both. To think that the statistics are as they are again
    compels us all to act.
        As Senator Begich mentioned, the legislation that he has
    introduced has raised some concerns from the State. I think we
    will hear that addressed today. But I think all of us, as we
    deal with the aspects of violence that we face and the
    frustration that so many have that we are limited in our
    ability to deal with that because we don't have the law
    enforcement, the protection that others in other parts of the
    Country would just assume is there, we know we have got to deal
    with these issues.
        And so I would like to work with Senator Begich. We have
    discussed this with folks in the State how we can be just a
    little bit more creative. Our geography, the dynamics that we
    face, forces us to maybe think outside of the box. And I am
    going to urge us all to do that and more because we cannot
    leave our villages behind. We cannot leave our communities in
    fear. We cannot leave our families carrying the burden of the
    scourge of devastation and ruin that have come to them because
    of incidents that have been unchecked that we could have
    resolved.
        So I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for bringing not only Senator
    Begich's bill forward, but the legislation that we have in
    front of us on the Standing Against Violence and Empower Native
    Woman Act, and I applaud you for your initiative there.
        Thank you.
        The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Murkowski.
        At this time, I would like to call Mr. Tom Perrelli to be
    our second panel witness; Mr. Tom Perrelli, Associate Attorney
    General at the U.S. Department of Justice.
        Welcome, Mr. Perrelli. Please proceed with your testimony.

     STATEMENT OF THOMAS J. PERRELLI, ASSOCIATE ATTORNEY GENERAL,
                       U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

        Mr. Perrelli. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Vice Chairman
    Barrasso, and Members of the Committee. Thank you for inviting
    me today on S. 1763, the Stand Against Violence and Empower
    Native Women Act, also known as the SAVE Act.
        The SAVE Act addresses a critically important issue on
    which the Department of Justice has placed a high priority
    combating violence against women in Tribal communities. As you
    know, I testified before this Committee in July when I
    described the department's discussions, including formal
    consultations with Indian nations about how best to protect
    Native women from the unacceptable levels of violence we are
    witnesses in Indian Country and Alaska Native communities
    throughout the Country.
        We are pleased today to see the introduction of the SAVE
    Act, and we commend you, Chairman Akaka, as well as the many
    colleagues who have joined you in cosponsoring this
    legislation.
        As I think all of the Senators have indicated, violence
    against Native women has reached epidemic rates. Tribal
    leaders, police officers, and prosecutors tell us of an all-
    too-familiar pattern of escalating violence that goes
    unaddressed, with beating after beating, each more severe than
    the last, ultimately leading to death or severe physical
    injury.
        Something must be done to stop the cycle of violence. And
    for a host of reasons, the current legal structure for
    prosecuting domestic violence in Indian Country is inadequate
    to prevent or stop this pattern of escalating violence. Federal
    law enforcement resources at too far away and stretched thin,
    and Federal law doesn't provide the tools and the types of
    graduated sanctions that are common in State laws across the
    Country.
        Tribal governments, police, prosecutors, and courts should
    be in a central part of the response to these crimes, but under
    current law throughout the Country they lack the authority to
    be part of that response. Until recently, no matter how violent
    the offense, Tribal courts could only sentence Indian offenders
    to one year in prison.
        Under the Tribal Law and Order Act, the landmark
    legislation enacted last year, in no small part due to the
    efforts of this Committee, Tribal courts can now sentence
    Indian offenders for up to three years per offense, provided
    defendants are given proper procedural protection, including
    legal counsel.
        But Tribal courts have no authority at all to prosecute a
    non-Indian, even if he lives on the reservation and is married
    to a Tribal member. Tribal police officers who respond to
    domestic violence calls only to discover that the accused is
    non-Indian and therefore outside the Tribe's criminal
    jurisdiction often mistakenly believe they cannot even make an
    arrest. Not surprisingly, abusers who are not arrested are more
    likely to repeat and escalate their attacks. Research shows
    that law enforcement's failure to arrest and prosecute abusers
    both emboldens attackers and deters victims from reporting
    future incidents.
        In short, the current jurisdictional framework has left
    many serious acts of domestic and dating violence unprosecuted
    and unpunished.
        The SAVE Act addresses three key areas where legislative
    reform is critical. Title II in particular incorporates the
    Department of Justice's proposal and addresses the concerns of
    Tribal leaders and experts repeatedly expressed to us, and
    fills three major legal gaps involving Tribal criminal
    jurisdiction, Tribal civil jurisdiction, and Federal criminal
    offenses.
        First, the SAVE Act recognizes certain Tribes' power to
    exercise concurrent criminal jurisdiction over domestic
    violence cases regardless of whether the defendant is Indian or
    non-Indian. Fundamentally, this legislation builds on what this
    Committee did in the Tribal Law and Order Act. The philosophy
    behind the TLOA was that Tribal nations with sufficient
    resources and authority will best be able to address violence
    in their own communities, and has offered additional authority
    to Tribal courts and prosecutors if certain procedural
    protections were established.
        Second, the SAVE Act confirms the intent of Congress in the
    Violence Against Women Act of 2000 by clarifying that Tribal
    courts have full civil jurisdiction to issue and enforce
    protection orders involving any person Indian or non-Indian.
        And third, Federal prosecutors today lack the necessary
    tools to combat domestic violence in Tribal communities. The
    SAVE Act provides a one-year offense for assaulting a person by
    striking, beating or wounding; a five-year offense for
    assaulting a spouse, intimate partner or dating partner,
    resulting in substantial bodily injury; and a ten-year offense
    for assaulting a spouse, intimate partner or dating partner by
    strangling or suffocating.
        Together, by filling these three holes, the Act will take
    many steps forward in our ability to combat violence in Alaska
    Native and American Indian communities and we really applaud
    the Committee for moving forward.
        With that, Mr. Chairman, I would be happy to answer any
    questions the Committee may have.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Perrelli follows:]

     Prepared Statement of Thomas J. Perrelli, Associate Attorney General,
                           U.S. Department of Justice
        Chairman Akaka, Vice Chairman Barrasso, and members of the
    Committee:
        Thank you for inviting me to testify today on Senate Bill 1763, the
    Stand Against Violence and Empower Native Women Act, also known as the
    SAVE Act. The SAVE Act addresses a critically important issue on which
    the Department of Justice has placed a high priority: combating
    violence against women in Tribal communities. As you know, I testified
    on that issue before this Committee in July, when I described the
    Department's comprehensive discussions, including formal consultations
    with Indian Tribes, about how best to protect Native women from the
    unacceptable levels of violence we are witnessing in Indian country. We
    are very pleased today to see the introduction of the SAVE Act, and we
    commend you, Chairman Akaka, as well as your many colleagues who have
    joined you in cosponsoring this historic legislation.
    The Epidemic of Violence Against Native Women
        The problems addressed by the SAVE Act are severe. Violence against
    Native women has reached epidemic rates. One regional survey conducted
    by University of Oklahoma researchers showed that nearly three out of
    five Native American women had been assaulted by their spouses or
    intimate partners. According to a nationwide survey funded by the
    National Institute of Justice (NIJ), one third of all American Indian
    women will be raped during their lifetimes. And an NIJ-funded analysis
    of death certificates found that, on some reservations, Native women
    are murdered at a rate more than ten times the national average. Tribal
    leaders, police officers, and prosecutors tell us of an all-too-
    familiar pattern of escalating violence that goes unaddressed, with
    beating after beating, each more severe than the last, ultimately
    leading to death or severe physical injury.
        Something must be done to address this cycle of violence. For a
    host of reasons, the current legal structure for prosecuting domestic
    violence in Indian country is inadequate to prevent or stop this
    pattern of escalating violence. Federal law-enforcement resources are
    often far away and stretched thin. And Federal law does not provide the
    tools needed to address the types of domestic or dating violence that
    elsewhere in the United States might lead to convictions and sentences
    ranging from approximately six months to five years--precisely the
    sorts of prosecutions that can respond to the early instances of
    escalating violence against spouses or intimate partners and stop it.
        Tribal governments--police, prosecutors, and courts--should be
    essential parts of the response to these crimes. But under current law,
    they lack the authority to address many of these crimes. Until
    recently, no matter how violent the offense, Tribal courts could only
    sentence Indian offenders to one year in prison. Under the Tribal Law
    and Order Act of 2010 (TLOA), landmark legislation enacted last year in
    no small part due to the efforts of this Committee, Tribal courts can
    now sentence Indian offenders for up to three years per offense,
    provided defendants are given certain procedural protections, including
    legal counsel. But Tribal courts have no authority at all to prosecute
    a non-Indian, even if he lives on the reservation and is married to a
    Tribal member. Tribal police officers who respond to a domestic-
    violence call, only to discover that the accused is non-Indian and
    therefore outside the Tribe's criminal jurisdiction, often mistakenly
    believe they cannot even make an arrest. Not surprisingly, abusers who
    are not arrested are more likely to repeat, and escalate, their
    attacks. Research shows that law enforcement's failure to arrest and
    prosecute abusers both emboldens attackers and deters victims from
    reporting future incidents.
        In short, the jurisdictional framework has left many serious acts
    of domestic violence and dating violence unprosecuted and unpunished.
    The Department of Justice's Efforts to Combat This Violence
        The Department of Justice has made, and is continuing to make,
    strong efforts to investigate and prosecute domestic-violence cases in
    Indian country, including, among other things:

       Deploying 28 new Assistant U.S. Attorneys whose sole mission
            is to prosecute crime in Indian country.

       Instructing U.S. Attorneys to prioritize the prosecution of
            crimes against Indian women and children.

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

       Creating a Violence Against Women Federal/Tribal Prosecution
            Task Force to develop ``best practices'' for both Federal and
            Tribal prosecutors.

        But we believe that more needs to be done.
    The Views of Tribal Leaders and Experts, and the Department's Response
        The Department of Justice has consulted extensively with Indian
    Tribes about these issues, including at the Attorney General's
    listening conference in 2009, the Tribal consultations we held on TLOA
    implementation in 2010, our annual Tribal consultations under the
    Violence Against Women Act, and a series of Tribal consultations
    focused on potential legislative reforms in June of this year. These
    consultations--like the Justice Department's other work in this area,
    especially in the wake of the TLOA's enactment last year--have involved
    close coordination across Federal agencies, including the Departments
    of the Interior and of Health and Human Services.
        The consensus that emerged from these Tribal consultations was the
    need for greater Tribal jurisdiction over domestic-violence cases.
    Specifically, Tribal leaders expressed concern that the crime-fighting
    tools currently available to their prosecutors differ vastly, depending
    on the race of the domestic-violence perpetrator. If an Indian woman is
    battered by her Indian husband or boyfriend, then the Tribe typically
    can prosecute him. But absent an express Act of Congress, the Tribe
    cannot prosecute a violently abusive husband or boyfriend if he is non-
    Indian. And recently, one Federal court went so far as to hold that, in
    some circumstances, a Tribal court could not even enter a civil
    protection order against a non-Indian husband.
        Faced with these criminal and civil jurisdictional limitations,
    Tribal leaders repeatedly have told the Department that a Tribe's
    ability to protect a woman from violent crime should not depend on her
    husband's or boyfriend's race, and that it is immoral for an Indian
    woman to be left vulnerable to violence and abuse simply because the
    man she married, the man she lives with, the man who fathered her
    children, is not an Indian.
        The concerns raised by Tribal leaders and experts led the
    Department to propose new Federal legislation on July 21 of this year.
    The response to the Department's proposal from persons of all
    backgrounds and experiences, including state, local, and Tribal law-
    enforcement officials, has been overwhelmingly positive.
    The SAVE Act Addresses Three Key Areas that Are Ripe for Legislative
            Reform
        The SAVE Act's Title II incorporates the Department of Justice's
    proposal and thus addresses precisely the concerns that Tribal leaders
    and experts have repeatedly expressed to us. Specifically, this title
    of the Act fills three major legal gaps, involving Tribal criminal
    jurisdiction, Tribal civil jurisdiction, and Federal criminal offenses.
        First, the patchwork of Federal, state, and Tribal criminal
    jurisdiction in Indian country has made it difficult for law
    enforcement and prosecutors to adequately address domestic violence--
    particularly misdemeanor domestic violence, such as simple assaults and
    criminal violations of protection orders. The SAVE Act recognizes
    certain Tribes' power to exercise concurrent criminal jurisdiction over
    domestic-violence cases, regardless of whether the defendant is Indian
    or non-Indian. Fundamentally, this legislation builds on what this
    Committee did in the Tribal Law and Order Act. The philosophy behind
    TLOA was that Tribal nations with sufficient resources and authority
    will be best able to address violence in their own communities; it
    offered additional authority to Tribal courts and prosecutors if
    certain procedural protections were established.
        Second, at least one Federal court has opined that Tribes lack
    civil jurisdiction to issue and enforce protection orders against non-
    Indians who reside on Tribal lands. That ruling undermines the ability
    of Tribal courts to protect victims. Accordingly, the SAVE Act confirms
    the intent of Congress in enacting the Violence Against Women Act of
    2000 by clarifying that Tribal courts have full civil jurisdiction to
    issue and enforce certain protection orders involving any persons,
    Indian or non-Indian.
        Third, Federal prosecutors lack the necessary tools to combat
    domestic violence in Indian country. The SAVE Act provides a one-year
    offense for assaulting a person by striking, beating, or wounding; a
    five-year offense for assaulting a spouse, intimate partner, or dating
    partner, resulting in substantial bodily injury; and a ten-year offense
    for assaulting a spouse, intimate partner, or dating partner by
    strangling or suffocating.
        Title II of the SAVE Act, which is the Act's core, fills these
    three holes in the law. In addition, Title I of the SAVE Act reforms
    grant programs aimed to help Native victims, strengthens the
    Department's consultation process, and ensures that our program of
    research includes violence against Alaska Native women. And Title III
    amends TLOA to provide a much-needed one-year extension for the Indian
    Law and Order Commission, which Congress created to conduct a
    comprehensive study of law enforcement and criminal justice in Tribal
    communities.
    Tribal Jurisdiction over Crimes of Domestic Violence
        Section 201 of the SAVE Act recognizes certain Tribes' concurrent
    criminal jurisdiction to investigate, prosecute, convict, and sentence
    both Indians and non-Indians who assault Indian spouses, intimate
    partners, or dating partners, or who violate protection orders, in
    Indian country. Without impinging on any other government's
    jurisdiction, this bill recognizes that a Tribe has concurrent
    jurisdiction over a tightly defined set of crimes committed in Indian
    country: domestic violence, dating violence, and violations of
    enforceable protection orders. To the extent those crimes can be
    prosecuted today by Federal or State prosecutors, that would not be
    changed by the SAVE Act.
        Similar to TLOA, this additional Tribal authority under the SAVE
    Act would be available only to those Tribes that guarantee sufficient
    protections for the rights of defendants. Tribes exercising this
    statutorily recognized jurisdiction over crimes of domestic violence
    would be required to protect a robust set of rights, similar to the
    rights protected in State-court criminal prosecutions. This approach
    thus builds on the Indian Civil Rights Act of 1968, as amended in 1986
    and 1990, and on TLOA. Tribes that choose not to provide these
    protections would not have this additional authority.
        Not surprisingly, expanding Tribal criminal jurisdiction to cover
    more perpetrators of domestic violence would tax the already scarce
    resources of most Tribes that might wish to exercise this jurisdiction
    under the SAVE Act. Therefore, the Act authorizes grants to support
    these Tribes by strengthening their criminal-justice systems, providing
    indigent criminal defendants with licensed defense counsel at no cost
    to those defendants, ensuring that jurors are properly summoned,
    selected, and instructed, and according crime victims' rights to
    victims of domestic violence.
    Tribal Protection Orders
        Section 202 of the SAVE Act addresses Tribal civil jurisdiction.
    Specifically, it confirms the intent of Congress in enacting the
    Violence Against Women Act of 2000 by clarifying that every Tribe has
    full civil jurisdiction to issue and enforce certain protection orders
    against both Indians and non-Indians. That would effectively reverse a
    2008 decision from a Federal district court in Washington State, which
    held that an Indian Tribe lacked authority to enter a protection order
    for a nonmember Indian against a non-Indian residing on non-Indian fee
    land within the reservation.
    Amendments to the Federal Assault Statute
        Section 203 of the SAVE Act involves Federal criminal offenses
    rather than Tribal prosecution. In general, Federal criminal law has
    not developed over time in the same manner as State criminal laws,
    which have recognized the need for escalating responses to specific
    acts of domestic and dating violence. By amending the Federal Criminal
    Code to make it more consistent with State laws in this area where the
    Federal Government (and not the State) has jurisdiction, the SAVE Act
    simply ensures that perpetrators will be subject to similar potential
    punishments regardless of where they commit their crimes. Specifically,
    the Act amends the Federal Criminal Code to provide a ten-year offense
    for assaulting a spouse, intimate partner, or dating partner by
    strangling or suffocating; a five-year offense for assaulting a spouse,
    intimate partner, or dating partner resulting in substantial bodily
    injury; and a one-year offense for assaulting a person by striking,
    beating, or wounding. All of these are in line with the types of
    sentences that would be available in State courts across the Nation if
    the crime occurred outside Indian country.
        Existing Federal law provides a six-month misdemeanor assault or
    assault-and-battery offense that can be charged against a non-Indian
    (but not against an Indian) who commits an act of domestic violence
    against an Indian victim. (A similar crime committed by an Indian would
    fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Tribe.) A Federal
    prosecutor typically can charge a felony offense against an Indian or a
    non-Indian defendant only if the victim's injuries rise to the level of
    ``serious bodily injury,'' which is significantly more severe than
    ``substantial bodily injury.''
        So, in cases involving any of these three types of assaults--(1)
    assault by strangling or suffocating; (2) assault resulting in
    substantial (but not serious) bodily injury; and (3) assault by
    striking, beating, or wounding--Federal prosecutors today often find
    that they cannot seek sentences in excess of six months. And where both
    the defendant and the victim are Indian, Federal courts may lack
    jurisdiction altogether.
        The SAVE Act increases the maximum sentence from six months to one
    year for an assault by striking, beating, or wounding, committed by a
    non-Indian against an Indian in Indian country. (Similar assaults by
    Indians, committed in Indian country, would remain within the Tribe's
    exclusive jurisdiction.) Although the Federal offense would remain a
    misdemeanor, increasing the maximum sentence to one year would reflect
    the fact that this is a serious offense that often forms the first or
    second rung on a ladder to more severe acts of domestic violence.
        Assaults resulting in substantial bodily injury sometimes form the
    next several rungs on the ladder of escalating domestic violence, but
    they too are inadequately covered today by the Federal Criminal Code.
    The SAVE Act fills this gap by amending the Code to provide a five-year
    offense for assault resulting in substantial bodily injury to a spouse,
    intimate partner, or dating partner.
        And the SAVE Act also amends the Code to provide a ten-year offense
    for assaulting a spouse, intimate partner, or dating partner by
    strangling or suffocating. Strangling and suffocating--conduct that is
    not uncommon in intimate-partner cases--carry a high risk of death. But
    the severity of these offenses is frequently overlooked because there
    may be no visible external injuries on the victim. As with assaults
    resulting in substantial bodily injury, Federal prosecutors need the
    tools to deal with these crimes as felonies, with sentences potentially
    far exceeding the six-month maximum that often applies today.
        Finally, section 203(e) of the SAVE Act simplifies the Major Crimes
    Act (which Federal prosecutors use to prosecute Indians for major
    crimes committed against Indian and non-Indian victims) to cover all
    felony assaults under section 113 of the Federal Criminal Code. That
    would include the two new felony offenses discussed above--assaults
    resulting in substantial bodily injury to a spouse, intimate partner,
    or dating partner; and assaults upon a spouse, intimate partner, or
    dating partner by strangling or suffocating--as well as assault with
    intent to commit a felony other than murder, which is punishable by a
    maximum ten-year sentence. Without this amendment to the Major Crimes
    Act, Federal prosecutors could not charge any of these three felonies
    when the perpetrator is an Indian. Under the SAVE Act, assault by
    striking, beating, or wounding remains a misdemeanor and is not covered
    by the Major Crimes Act.
        Sections 201 and 203 of the SAVE Act work in tandem, enabling
    Tribal investigators and prosecutors to focus on misdemeanors
    (including protection-order violations) and low-level felonies,
    regardless of the perpetrator's Indian or non-Indian status, while
    Federal investigators and prosecutors focus on the more dangerous
    felonies involving strangling, suffocation, and substantial bodily
    injury, again regardless of the perpetrator's Indian or non-Indian
    status.
        We believe that enacting the SAVE Act will strengthen Tribal
    jurisdiction over crimes of domestic violence, Tribal protection
    orders, and Federal assault prosecutions. These measures, taken
    together, have the potential to significantly improve the safety of
    women in Tribal communities and allow Federal and Tribal law-
    enforcement agencies to hold more perpetrators of domestic violence
    accountable for their crimes.
        I thank the Committee for its long-standing interest in these
    critically important issues, and I especially thank Chairman Akaka for
    drafting and introducing Senate Bill 1763, the Stand Against Violence
    and Empower Native Women Act.

        The Chairman. Thank you very much, Mr. Perrelli.
        Mr. Perrelli, the SAVE Act clarifies Tribes' ability to
    issue and enforce protection orders over all offenders. Without
    this clarification, do you think Native women are at greater
    risk in their communities?
        Mr. Perrelli. Mr. Chairman, I believe they are. This is an
    issue that I believe that Congress thought it resolved in 2000.
    But because of at least one intervening court decision, there
    is uncertainty here. Protection orders are the basic
    fundamental aspect of years of work by advocates in the
    domestic violence community to ensure protection of women who
    are threatened by an abuser. Without the ability to issue and
    enforce protection orders and to get full faith and credit for
    those protection orders, there is a real risk to Native women
    to be threatened again.
        So as I said, I think Congress thought it had already done
    this, but we believe it is extraordinarily important to clarify
    it today.
        The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Perrelli.
        The amendments to the Federal assault statute are an
    important part of the SAVE Act. Do you believe these provisions
    would help stop domestic violence at its earlier stages and
    prevent it from reaching its most severe levels?
        Mr. Perrelli. I do, Mr. Chairman. As I indicated before,
    the pattern of domestic violence is escalation. And there are
    any number of serious bodily injuries or homicides arising out
    of domestic violence where we know that there were probably 5,
    10, 15 incidents prior to that. What the SAVE Act does it
    creates a set of graduated sanctions and a division of labor
    really between Tribal law enforcement and Tribal courts, and
    then Federal law enforcement and Federal courts. And in many
    cases, the States are a possible law enforcer as well, to
    ensure that all along that spectrum, there is a law enforcer
    who is present and able to bring the perpetrator to justice. So
    we think it will have a significant impact in improving the
    safety of Native women.
        The Chairman. Thank you very much for your responses.
        Senator Murkowski?
        Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Perrelli, last time you were before the Committee, I
    had an opportunity to bring up the issue of sex trafficking of
    Alaska Native young women and what we were seeing. I expressed
    my concerns about that. Since this intervening time period, can
    you give me any update in terms of what DOJ is looking at in
    terms of getting a better handle of what is going on with sex
    trafficking of not only Alaska Natives, but all Native women?
        Mr. Perrelli. One thing, and I think as we talked about a
    little bit last time, particularly in the context of Alaska
    where some of the sex trafficking allegations that we have
    seen, and as I think you know, there was one high-profile case
    not that long ago involved Native women who come to Anchorage,
    whether for health care or something else, and end up becoming
    victims of sex trafficking.
        Since I was last here, we gave out our grant funds through
    our coordinated Tribal assistance solicitation, and this was a
    year where after a significant amount of outreach to Alaska
    Native groups and more training, we saw a significant increase
    in the funds that Alaska Natives received, including a lot of
    funds focused on helping victims, and in particular some of the
    victims' organizations based in Anchorage, in providing
    services for domestic violence, dating violence, and others.
        And I think certainly it is our hope that some of those
    funds will go to help provide services for and help us to
    identify sex trafficking as it occurs.
        Senator Murkowski. Well, I appreciate the engagement. I
    think it is going to be important. Do you have a sense in terms
    of whether or not we are making a dent in the issue? Do we not
    have sufficient data to this point? What can you tell me?
        Mr. Perrelli. This is an area that is, I think, where an
    enormous amount of additional research needs to be done. We
    hear the horror stories from a number of regions throughout the
    Country, Alaska being one of them. But this is a trade that is
    very difficult to investigate and get a handle on. And
    currently, we don't have sufficient research. I think one of
    the things that Title I of the SAVE Act does is it includes
    research on, as well as grants towards addressing sex
    trafficking as an additional purpose area for our Office of
    Violence Against Women grants. We think that is tremendously
    important.
        Senator Murkowski. Is that a new area, the grants towards
    women and sex trafficking?
        Mr. Perrelli. It is an area where we felt it was important.
    We agree that it is important to add specific language.
        Senator Murkowski. Okay. Since you are talking about the
    grants that are out there, I have been hearing some good things
    about DOJ's implementation of the Coordinated Tribal Assistance
    Program and the efforts of the Tribal Justice Advisory Group.
        But I do understand that the Tribal Advisory Group met in
    Alaska in December of 2009. There wasn't Tribal consultation at
    that time. So the question today is whether or not the
    Department of Justice is planning on doing any kind of a
    follow-up visit, whether it is to a rural community in the
    State or a Tribal consultation somewhere in the State? And if
    so, if you have a timeframe for that?
        Mr. Perrelli. Well, I will say since that time in August of
    2010, we formed the Alaska Native Action Team. And we sent a
    team of officials, including some very senior officials, out to
    Native villages, as well as working in some of the urban areas,
    and tried to bring more training and technical assistance to
    Alaska.
        We have done in the past regional trainings to assist
    people in applying for our grant programs. We brought training
    to Alaska and we saw the results, a significant increase in
    applications, as well as the quality of applications leading,
    frankly, to more grant funds to Alaska.
        So I don't think we have a specific, and I can find out,
    check with my folks for more of a specific plan for a
    consultation in Alaska, but we are trying to very significantly
    increase our engagement because if we look two and three years
    ago, I think that the numbers told us that Alaska Native
    villages and some of the organizations that assist them, were
    not applying for grants and not receiving grants at the rate
    that one might have expected.
        Senator Murkowski. Let me ask one final question, if I may,
    Mr. Chairman.
        You have indicated that certainly on the reservations, the
    concern that you have with current law, is that Tribes are
    precluded from prosecuting non-Indian offenders in the criminal
    cases. This is the Oliphant ruling.
        So the question to you is whether or not you think an
    Oliphant fix, if you will, restoration of Tribal jurisdiction
    at least to a limited case when it comes to domestic violence
    cases. I am assuming that you clearly believe that that will
    improve the safety of Tribal members.
        The question is whether or not this type of a fix would
    have any impact at all on Alaska, where we don't have Indian
    Country. How would this impact us, if at all?
        Mr. Perrelli. I think a couple of things. Certainly, it
    would have an impact on the Metlakatla Reserve where there is
    Indian Country. With respect to the Tribal protection order fix
    that is in Title II of the bill, we think that would be
    applicable to Tribal courts in Alaska Native villages.
        Senator Murkowski. So when you say the Tribal protection
    order, what would allow the Tribal courts to do something?
        Mr. Perrelli. It would allow the Tribal courts to issue an
    order of protection and enforce an order of protection and get
    full faith and credit to it, something, as I said, we thought
    should be current law, but was left uncertain.
        But as I think both you and Senator Begich indicated, the
    challenges of Alaska, where court decisions have indicated
    there is no Indian Country other than Metlakatla, do require
    more creative solutions. And I think we at the Department of
    Justice would very much like to work with both Senators to come
    up with creative solutions.
        Because it is certainly true that the enhanced Tribal
    criminal jurisdiction that we are talking about in Title II of
    the SAVE Act will have a much bigger impact elsewhere in the
    Country than Alaska.
        Senator Murkowski. I appreciate that.
        Have you reviewed the Village Safe Families Act? And do you
    have any opinion as to whether or not it would create Tribal
    criminal jurisdiction in Alaska or whether it simply confers
    Tribal seal of regulatory authority?
        Mr. Perrelli. We have just started reviewing that and our
    staff would be happy to come up and talk with you further about
    that, as well as brainstorm about other approaches and ideas.
        Senator Murkowski. I look forward to that. Thank you.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman. Thank you very much, Senator Murkowski.
        I would like to ask Senator Begich whether you have any
    questions you would like to ask?
        Senator Begich. Mr. Chairman, if I could just follow up.
    And I guess I want to take you up on that offer as we work on
    our legislation on S. 1192. You know, the idea is to create
    these opportunities for communities to resolve and deal with
    some of these incredible challenges in very remote areas in a
    State that doesn't have traditional Indian Country. So I would
    look as you reviewed if you could give us some ideas and
    innovation. If you think there are some opportunities to tweak
    the language, I am very open to that.
        You see the goal and I think it is the same goal as you
    have just described in what I would call traditional Indian
    Country. So I thank you for that.
        Second, on the research end, the data end, just to make
    sure I understand you reference there in the bill, is this new
    resources or opportunity for you to do more data collection? Or
    is it brand new in the sense that it has never been done? Help
    me understand what that piece is.
        Mr. Perrelli. Sure. I think we would say that any emphasis
    that this Committee or others could give, and frankly any
    funding, on research related to criminal justice and American
    Indian-Alaska Native communities is money well spent. We
    recently did a compendium of research on criminal justice in
    Tribal communities and what we found were many more gaps than
    we knew, gaps that were filled.
        And so we have asked for additional funds in the 2012
    budget to focus on research related to crimes against American
    Indians and Alaska Natives. Title I of the SAVE Act ensures
    that research does focus on violence against Alaska Natives and
    not just on American Indian communities.
        Senator Begich. Very good. And then, I guess the last
    comment I will make, and again thank you, and we are going to
    take you up on the offer on that because I think your goal is
    the same as ours: How do you create a better judicial system
    that is more community-based and reintegrating folks that
    should be and those that shouldn't be to deal with that as a
    separate issue. So I am looking forward to your help there.
        And I guess one thing, as you think about next year and as
    you are planning your engagements with the Alaska Native
    community, I would encourage you. Maybe I am looking through
    you to Ralph here, that he probably would invite you or your
    appropriate folks to do a workshop at the Alaska Federation of
    Native Organizations annual meeting which is held in October
    and has 4,000-plus Alaska Natives from all around the State.
        We would encourage you, if you haven't participated before,
    but this would be a great opportunity, especially if you saw
    results by engaging them. This may be a really great way to
    engage a lot of our community in a very focused area. So I
    would just offer that kind of through you to Ralph, and maybe
    he will make a note and offer an invitation.
        Mr. Perrelli. Well, thank you, Senator. And I do think it
    has been a point of emphasis for us that even in times where
    people are worried about travel budgets and those things, that
    if we are going to have an impact in Alaska, we have to do more
    to reach out. I think, like I said, in the past year where we
    increased our outreach efforts and saw very significant change
    in the pattern of applications for grant funding really taught
    us that a little more gets you better results.
        Senator Begich. We would invite you, and also it is a great
    way to get almost every Alaska Native community in one location
    at one time. Very good.
        Mr. Perrelli. Thank you, Senator.
        Senator Begich. Thank you very much.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman. Thank you very much, Senator Begich, as we
    continue to discuss S. 1192, the Alaska Safe Families and
    Villages Act of 2011.
        I want to thank you, Mr. Perrelli. Thank you so much for
    your responses. You have been very helpful. We look forward to
    continuing to work with you on this for clarifications and I
    really appreciate it.
        Mr. Perrelli. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman. Thank you so much.
        Mr. Perrelli. Thank you so much.
        The Chairman. I would like to invite the second panel to
    the witness table. Ms. Margie Mejia is the Chair of the Lytton
    Rancheria; Mr. Paul Morris is Mayor of the City of San Pablo,
    California; Mr. Ralph Andersen is President and CEO of the
    Bristol Bay Native Association; and Mr. Joe Masters is
    Commissioner at the Department of Public Safety for the State
    of Alaska.
        I want to welcome everyone here. Before we proceed, I would
    like to ask Senator Franken for any introductions he may have
    for some of the panelists.

                     STATEMENT OF HON. AL FRANKEN,
                      U.S. SENATOR FROM MINNESOTA

        Senator Franken. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you for
    convening this hearing. I am a proud cosponsor of his bill. The
    SAVE Native Women Act makes important updates to the law to
    ensure that Native American communities have the tools and
    resources they need to stop acts of violence against Native
    women. It authorizes services for victimized youth and for
    victims of sex trafficking. It provides Native Americans in
    Indian Country the legal authority they need to prosecute acts
    of violence committed in their communities. And it updates the
    Federal assault statute applicable in Indian Country.
        These are common sense and much needed improvements to the
    law. So Chairman Akaka, thank you for your work on this
    legislation. And thank you for the honor of allowing me to
    introduce two Minnesotans who are here to testify today.
    Suzanne Koepplinger is a leader in the Native American
    community and in the fight to end sexual violence.
        Since 2003, she has served as Executive Director of the
    Minnesota Indian Women's Resource Center, which provides
    invaluable services to women and their families. She actively
    is involved with a number of nonprofit organizations, including
    the Metro Urban Indian Directors Group and the American Indian
    Community Development Corporation's Board of Directors.
        Ms. Koepplinger has a wealth of knowledge about issues
    facing Native American women. I have long considered her one of
    the foremost experts in the field, as well as a friend. And we
    are indeed fortunate that she is here to testify today.
        It is also my great privilege to introduce Thomas
    Heffelfinger, a talented attorney who has dedicated much of his
    legal career to public service and issues affecting Native
    Americans. During the Bush Administration, Mr. Heffelfinger
    served as United States Attorney for the State of Minnesota, so
    he knows a thing or two about prosecuting crimes. He also
    served as the Chairman of the Justice Department's Native
    American Issues Subcommittee. In that capacity, he was
    responsible for developing and implementing a wide range of
    policies related to public safety in Indian Country.
        Since returning to private practice, Mr. Heffelfinger has
    continued to advise Native American Tribes on public safety
    issues.
        It is really great to see you both and I look forward to
    hearing your testimony.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman. Thank you very much, Senator Franken.
        I would like to begin with the first testimony from Ms.
    Koepplinger. Please proceed with your testimony.

    STATEMENT OF SUZANNE KOEPPLINGER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MINNESOTA
                     INDIAN WOMEN'S RESOURCE CENTER

        Ms. Koepplinger. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, Senator
    Franken, Members of the Committee. I am deeply honored to have
    this opportunity to add my voice in support of S. 1763, the
    Stand Against Violence and Empower Native Women Act.
        This bill acknowledges the disproportionate and varied
    forms of violence against American Indian women and it takes
    steps to more effectively prevent, intervene and prosecute
    these crimes. Thank you.
        You are all aware of the disproportionate rates of violence
    against American Indian women and children in this Country. In
    2009, the organization that I have the honor of representing,
    the Minnesota Indian Women's Resource Center, published
    Shattered Heart: The Commercial Sexual Exploitation of American
    Indian Women and Girls in Minnesota. It was to our knowledge
    the first report to analyze the scope of sex trafficking of
    American Indians in this Country.
        Since that time, we have gathered additional evidence, most
    recently the research report called Garden of Truth, which was
    produced by the Minnesota Indian Women's Sexual Assault
    Coalition, which you were all provided written testimony about,
    which is a very important addition to the knowledge in the
    field.
        And all of this additional information has deepened our
    concern about the breadth and depth of these egregious human
    rights violations. We believe that the data represents only the
    tip of the iceberg and that the true rates of all forms of
    gender violence in Indian Country are much higher. This belief
    is based on our own experience in the field, the fact that
    Native women and girls frequently do not report assaults, and
    the Department of Justice's own research stating that
    approximately 70 percent of sexual assaults in Indian Country
    are not reported.
        One of the programs serving young Native girls who are at
    high risk of sexual violence is our Oshkinigiikwe program--
    Oshkinigiikwe is young woman in the Ojibwe language. A recent
    evaluation of this program for 11 to 20 year old Native girls
    showed that 31 percent of the girls coming into the program had
    had injuries as a result of assault and that nearly a quarter
    of them had diagnosed mental illnesses and were homeless at the
    time of intake. None of the girls had reported the assault.
        Disclosure of assault histories, including sexual
    exploitation and sex trafficking typically come after many
    months in the program when the girls have developed a trust
    relationship with the staff and feel comfortable disclosing
    their experiences. There are routinely multiple traumas by the
    age of 15 of 16, including childhood sexual assault, dating
    violence, and sexual exploitation and trafficking.
        The recommendations in this bill to strengthen Tribal
    programs, bolster Tribal authority to prosecute all
    perpetrators, and to include sex trafficking along with other
    forms of violence against women and children is a very
    important step forward. We cannot silo the various
    manifestations of gender-based violence. Incest, child sexual
    assault, domestic violence, sexual abuse, sex trafficking,
    these are all forms of a systemic exploitation of those who
    have the least power, and that needs to be addressed as a
    systemic matter.
        Often, these abuses are concurrent and cumulative. We also
    know that early exposure to gender-based violence puts young
    people at heightened risk of adult abuse.
        Investing in the safety of women and children is an
    investment in the well being of our families and communities
    and it is not only the right thing to do, it is fiscally
    prudent to provide preventive and healing services to those in
    need. The trauma of unreported or untreated sexual trauma leads
    to higher end-use of social services, multi-generational abuse,
    increased rates of homelessness, and other costs.
        As a representative of an urban Indian organization that
    works closely with the Tribes, I urge continued collaboration
    between Tribes and urban Indian organizations to address the
    unique needs of this population. In Minnesota, for example,
    approximately 60 percent of the Indian population resides in
    the metro areas, not on reservations. Nationally, the data
    remains the same.
        We believe that a significant amount of sex trafficking
    occurs in the towns and the cities where the market exists and
    where many young people are lured by perpetrators. Building a
    network of urban and Tribal support services is vital to long-
    term success.
        There are many challenges to identifying and responding to
    sex trafficking victims and collecting data on the scope of sex
    trafficking is a challenge. And this is due in large part
    because many of the women do not identify as victims. They do
    not report these crimes to authorities. They are more likely to
    disclose their assault to frontline advocates. Frontline
    advocates in Tribal human service and urban organizations are
    well positioned to identify and respond to the needs of victims
    and will be strong allies in the effort to collect baseline
    data.
        Service providers can also be crucial partners in the
    prosecution of pimps and traffickers. When victims feel
    supported, when they have access to long-term culturally
    appropriate supportive housing with services, they may be more
    likely to cooperate with law enforcement in prosecuting.
        Many communities are just now beginning to understand and
    respond to sex trafficking, and more training, awareness, and
    capacity building is required. This bill will provide many of
    those needed steps and I urge that this legislation be passed
    because it will greatly improve the safety and security of
    American Indian women and girls and give Tribes the authority
    to effectively protect, intervene, and prosecute the
    perpetrators of gender-based violence.
        I thank you all very much and I am happy to answer any
    questions I can.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Koepplinger follows:]
        Prepared Statement of Suzanne Koepplinger, Executive Director,
                    Minnesota Indian Women's Resource Center
        Honorable Chairman Akaka and Members of the Senate Indian Affairs
    Committee:
        Thank you Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee for the
    opportunity to voice my support for S. 1763, Stand Against Violence and
    Empower Native Women Act. This bill acknowledges the disproportionate
    and varied forms of violence against American Indian women and takes
    steps to more effectively prevent, intervene, and prosecute these
    crimes. Thank you.
        You are all aware of the disproportionate rates of violence against
    American Indian women and girls in this country. In 2009, the Minnesota
    Indian Women's Resource Center released Shattered Hearts: the
    commercial sexual exploitation of American Indian women and girls in
    Minnesota. It was, to our knowledge, the first report to analyze the
    scope of sex trafficking and commercial sexual exploitation of American
    Indians in our country. Since that time we have gathered additional
    evidence--including the recently released Garden of Truth report by the
    Minnesota Indian Women's Sexual Assault Coalition (which you were
    provided written testimony on and which is an invaluable contribution
    to knowledge in the field) that have deepened our concern about the
    breadth and depth of this egregious human rights violation.
        We believe the data represents only the tip of the iceberg, and
    that the true rates of all forms of gender based violence in Indian
    Country are higher. This belief is based upon our own experience in the
    field, the fact that Native women and girls do not often report
    violence for a variety of reasons, and the United States' Department of
    Justice data that estimates that 70 percent of sexual assaults against
    American Indian women are not reported. One of the programs serving
    young Native girls who are at high risk of sexual violence is our
    Oskinigiikwe (young woman in the Ojibwe language) Program. Recent
    evaluation of this program for 11-20 year old Native girls shows 31
    percent of girls had a head injury resulting from assault, nearly a
    quarter of girls had a mental illness diagnosis and were homeless upon
    intake. None of the girls had reported their assaults to law
    enforcement. Disclosure of assault histories--including sex
    trafficking--in our program typically comes after many months, when a
    trust relationship is developed with staff. There are routinely
    multiple traumas by the age of 16 including childhood sexual assault,
    dating violence, and sexual exploitation/trafficking.
        The recommendations in this bill to strengthen VAWA Tribal
    programs, bolster tribal authority to prosecute all perpetrators, and
    to include sex trafficking along with other forms of violence against
    women and children is a very important step forward. We cannot silo the
    various manifestations of gender violence--incest, child sexual abuse,
    domestic violence, sexual assault, and sex trafficking are all forms of
    systemic exploitation of those who have the least power and all must be
    addressed as such. These are often concurrent or cumulative abuses.
    Early exposure to gender based violence puts young girls at heightened
    risk of abuse as adults.
        Investing in the safety of women and children is an investment in
    the well being of our families and communities. It is not only the
    right thing to do, it is the fiscally responsible thing to do to
    provide preventive and healing services to those in need. The trauma of
    unreported or untreated sexual violence leads to higher end user social
    services, multi-generational abuse, increased rates of homelessness,
    and other costs.
        As a representative of an urban Indian organization that works
    closely with tribal partners, I urge continued collaboration between
    tribes and urban Indian organizations to address the unique needs of
    this population. In Minnesota, roughly 40 percent of the state's
    American Indian people reside in the seven county Twin Cities Metro,
    with another 20 percent living in cities like Duluth and Bemidji, not
    on reservations. Nationally the data looks much the same. We believe a
    significant amount of sex trafficking takes place in cities and towns,
    where the market exists and where runaway youth are often lured.
    Building a network of urban and tribal supports and services is key to
    long term success.
        There are challenges to identifying and serving sex trafficking
    victims, and to collecting data on the scope of sex trafficking in
    Indian Country. This is due in part to the reluctance of many women to
    identify as victims of a crime and report exploitation to authorities.
    They are more likely to disclose and seek help from advocates in the
    field. Front line advocates in tribal human services and urban Indian
    organizations are well positioned to identify and respond to the needs
    of victims, and will be strong allies in the effort to collect baseline
    data. Service providers can also be crucial partners in the prosecution
    of pimps and traffickers. When victims feel safe and supported through
    access to culturally based long term housing and support services, they
    may be more likely to cooperate with law enforcement in prosecuting
    perpetrators.
        Many communities are just now beginning to understand and respond
    to sex trafficking, and more training, awareness, and capacity building
    is required. This bill will provide many of those needed steps forward,
    and I urge you to pass this legislation that will greatly improve the
    safety and security of American Indian women and girls, and give Tribes
    the authority to effectively protect, intervene and prosecute
    perpetrators of gender based violence.
        Thank you for this opportunity and I am happy to answer any
    questions you may have.

        The Chairman. Thank you very much, Ms. Koepplinger.
        As introduced by Senator Franken, Ms. Koepplinger is
    Executive Director of the Minnesota Indian Women's Resource
    Center of Minneapolis.
        And now I would like to call on Mr. Thomas Heffelfinger,
    who is currently with Best & Flanagan LLP in Minneapolis as
    well.
        Will you please proceed?

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

        Mr. Heffelfinger. Thank you, Chairman Akaka and Members of
    the Committee. I appreciate the honor of having the opportunity
    to appear before you again.
        And Senator Franken, thank you very much for your kind
    introduction.
        I appear today before the Committee to provide comments on
    Title II of the SAFE Native American Women Act. Back in 2004 as
    United States Attorney, I had the privilege of participating in
    a consultation with Tribal leaders on issues of public safety.
    And during that consultation, a gentleman named Chairpah
    Matheson, a Council Member from Coeur d'Alene, made the
    observation: How can Tribes have sovereignty when they cannot
    protect their women and children?
        This question has always struck me as going to the heart of
    the issue for all government. Is there any higher priority than
    protecting our women and children? And one of the reasons that
    I support Title II of this Act is that it addresses this
    question.
        As this Committee is well aware and as you have heard
    already today, the problems of violence against women are of
    epidemic proportions and tragically high. This legislation, by
    providing Tribes with jurisdiction over domestic violence
    committed by all offenders, recognizes Tribal sovereignty and
    Tribal responsibility. And it also removes a huge barrier which
    currently prevents from effectively protecting women in their
    communities.
        This Committee is well aware of the level of confusion that
    exists in Indian Country over jurisdiction. The whole Tribal
    Law and Order Act addresses that, and I commend this Committee
    for that. In fact, I would throw in a plug. I really support
    the provision of this bill that will add a year to the Tribal
    Law and Order Act's time they are going to need it because all
    of these issues of confusion should be addressed through that
    Committee.
        One of the biggest areas of confusion is that provided by
    the Oliphant decision, which by its terms deprived Tribes of
    the jurisdiction over non-Indians. As Amnesty International
    found so eloquently in their recent well-publicized report,
    Oliphant has had a dramatic and detrimental impact upon public
    safety in Indian Country.
        In my remaining time, I would like to focus on specific
    provisions of the Act. I specifically support Section 201 and
    its providing of a limited Oliphant fix. It will provide Tribal
    courts with jurisdiction over all people. It is important that
    that provision also provides for concurrent jurisdiction with
    Federal and States, thereby allowing Tribes to utilize all of
    the resources available to them.
        And as Mr. Perrelli pointed out so well, coordinated with
    that is the clarification that Tribal courts have jurisdiction
    for protective orders. This allows Tribes the authority to do
    what they can to prevent, as well as react to domestic
    violence.
        There is one provision which I object to a piece of it, and
    I am not going to object to the other. That is the dismissal
    provision in Section 201. One provision would allow that if a
    defendant brings a motion to dismiss on the grounds that both
    the defendant and the victim are not Natives, that the court
    can dismiss the charge. That is a recognition of a longstanding
    Supreme Court precedent which I don't believe this bill should
    be taking on. Therefore, I do not support that.
        However, the bill also provides a wonderful thing which I
    think must stay in it, which says that when a defendant brings
    a motion to dismiss, it must be held pretrial. Whether or not
    both offenders are Indian or non-Indian is a matter of
    jurisdiction. It should be resolved pretrial as a matter of law
    and not during the trial.
        There is also a provision, however, in that dismissal
    section which provides that a case can be dismissed if the
    prosecution, the Tribal prosecutor, cannot establish that there
    are community ties between the defendant and the victim and the
    Tribe. And this adds issues like employment, residence, Tribal
    membership, and makes those elements of a domestic violence
    prosecution. That should not be in the bill. It is hard enough
    to prosecute these cases without adding new elements to them.
        The rights to the defendant section, I applaud the
    Committee and I applaud the bill for complying with the Tribal
    Law and Order Act. There is one provision 204, to Section 3 of
    the rights, which I would ask the Committee to look at very
    seriously because it is confusing. It says that the Tribe must
    provide, ``all other rights whose protection is necessary under
    the Constitution,'' and it goes on.
        If we are going to require Tribes to establish new rights
    and provide new procedures, the law ought to provide clear
    direction. This paragraph is not clear.
        Finally, in the limited time available to me, I support the
    amendment to the Federal assault statute. The adding of
    strangulation and suffocation recognizes laws that are already
    existent in many States, including Minnesota.
        And then finally, there is a provision of the bill which I
    don't believe should be in this Act. It is in the amendment to
    the Federal assault statute. It would remove from the assault
    with a dangerous weapon statute the language where there is no
    ``just cause or excuse.'' I know this is part of the Department
    of Justice's proposal, but it has nothing to do with domestic
    violence. And quite frankly, I fear any law that is passed by
    Congress that removes from its language what amounts to a
    defense. I fear that District Courts will interpret Congress as
    removing self-defense, for example, as a available defense in
    assault cases.
        Thank you very much. I stand for questions.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Heffelfinger follows:]

    Prepared Statement of Thomas B. Heffelfinger, Attorney, Best & Flanagan
                                      LLP
        Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, my name is Thomas B.
    Heffelfinger and I am a partner with the Minneapolis law firm of Best &
    Flanagan LLP where, among other things, I represent Tribal communities.
    From 2001 to March 2006, I was the United States Attorney for the
    District of Minnesota and also the Chair of the Department's Native
    American Issues Subcommittee (``NAIS''). In that capacity, I had the
    honor of testifying before this Committee three times, twice on issues
    related to criminal jurisdiction in Indian Country. I also have had the
    opportunity to testify twice before this Committee as a private
    citizen.
        I appear before the Committee today to comment upon Title II--
    Tribal Jurisdiction and Criminal Offenses, of Senate File CEL11875 (the
    ``Stand Against Violence and Empower (`SAVE') Native Women Act''),
    which addresses the topic of domestic violence perpetrated upon Native
    women. Although my experience as a federal prosecutor, as a criminal
    defense attorney and as a representative of Tribal governments provides
    the experiential basis for my testimony, I am appearing today as a
    private citizen and not as a representative of either the Department of
    Justice, a Tribal government or of any of my private clients.
        In March of 2004, while chairing the Native American Issues
    Subcommittee (``NAIS''), I had the honor of participating in a
    listening session here in Washington that was put together by the
    National Congress of American Indians (``NCAI'') on the issue of
    criminal jurisdiction. A gentleman named Chairpah Matheson, who was a
    Tribal council member in Coeur d'Alene, made the following comment:
    ``How can Tribes have sovereignty when they can't protect their
    children and their women?'' I will never forget that comment, because
    it goes to the heart of a governmental obligation, whether it is
    Federal or Tribal or state, to provide public safety. There can be no
    higher responsibility for a government. That is also the responsibility
    that is at the heart of this legislation.
        The difficulties facing Native American Tribes and Alaskan Native
    villages in protecting women and children living in those communities
    is well known and well documented. (See Amnesty International USA
    Report: Maze of Injustice: The failure to protect Indigenous women from
    sexual violence in the USA (2007)). Native American women are the most
    heavily victimized group in the United States, specifically two and
    one-half times more likely to be raped or sexually assaulted than women
    in the United States general population. The sheer volume of violence
    inflicted upon Native American women is largely attributable to
    violence by non-Native men. (See Amnesty International USA Report: Maze
    of Injustice, p. 4.)
        Tribes are on the front line of protecting women on their
    reservations just like Minneapolis, Phoenix, Denver and other American
    cities are on the front line of protecting women in those
    jurisdictions. The difference is that in Minneapolis, Phoenix and
    Denver, the law is not preventing the cities from effectively acting.
    That is not the case in Indian Country, where the law deprives the
    Tribes jurisdiction over non-Indian offenders. This legislation, by
    providing Tribes with jurisdiction over domestic violence committed by
    all offenders removes a huge barrier which currently prevents Tribes
    from effectively protecting women in their communities.
    Special Domestic Violence Jurisdiction over ``All Persons''
        Since 1885, when Congress passed the Major Crimes Act, \1\ United
    States Attorneys have had primary responsibility for the prosecution of
    serious violent crime in Indian Country. Native Americans are
    victimized by violent crime at the rate of about two and one-half times
    the national average rate. \2\ In some areas of Indian Country, that
    rate may be even higher. The Major Crimes Act gives the United States
    jurisdiction to prosecute offenses such as: assault, murder,
    manslaughter, kidnapping, arson, burglary, robbery and child sexual
    abuse. However, federal jurisdiction under this statute is limited to
    the prosecution of Indians only. The Indian Country Crimes Act, which
    is also known as the General Crimes Act, \3\ gives the United States
    jurisdiction to prosecute all federal offenses in Indian Country except
    when the suspect and the victim are both Indian, where the suspect has
    already been convicted in Tribal court or in the case of offenses where
    exclusive jurisdiction over an offense has been retained by the Tribe
    by way of treaty.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ Now codified at U.S.C.  1153.
        \2\ Bureau of Justice Statistics, United States Department of
    Justice, American Indians and Crime (1999), p. 2.
        \3\ 18 U.S.C.  1152.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The United States Supreme Court has held that where the suspect and
    the victim are both non-Indian, then the state court has exclusive
    criminal jurisdiction. \4\ Under the Indian Civil Rights Act (ICRA),
    Tribal courts have criminal jurisdiction over non-member Indians. \5\
    In the 1978 decision of Oliphant v. Suquamish Tribe, \6\ the United
    States Supreme Court decided that Tribal courts could not exercise
    criminal jurisdiction over non-Indians. Overlaying these legal
    principles is the question of whether or not the offense occurred in
    Indian Country.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \4\ Draper v. United States, 164 U.S. 240 (1896); United States v.
    McBratney, 104 U.S. 621 (1882).
        \5\ 25 U.S.C.  1301(2) & (4).
        \6\ 435 U.S. 191 (1978).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        What all this means is that whenever a crime occurs in Indian
    Country, in order to determine jurisdiction, prosecutors are forced to
    make a determination concerning who has jurisdiction by examining four
    factors: (1) whether the offense occurred within ``Indian Country; (2)
    whether the suspect is an Indian or a non-Indian; (3) whether the
    victim is an Indian or a non-Indian (or whether the crime is a
    ``victimless'' one); and (4) what the nature of the offense is.
    Depending on the answer to these questions, an offense may end up being
    prosecuted in Tribal court, federal court, state court or not at all.
        There is much confusion concerning jurisdiction over crimes
    committed in Indian Country. Unlike jurisdiction over most state and
    federal criminal offenses, in which jurisdiction and/or venue is
    determined by the geographical location of a crime scene, the current
    state of the law requires that determination of criminal jurisdiction
    in Indian Country be accomplished through a complex analysis of
    sometimes amorphous factors. Police, prosecutors, defense attorneys and
    judges must deal with this jurisdictional maze in all cases. This
    confusion has made the investigation and prosecution of criminal
    conduct in Indian Country much more difficult. This confusion and
    difficulty is perhaps most prevalent in domestic violence due to the
    high level of violence perpetrated in Indian County by non-Indian
    offenders.
        The Oliphant case has had significant impact on the level of
    violence against women in Indian Country. This was accurately reported
    by Amnesty International USA:

        [The Oliphant decision] denies victims of sexual violence due
    process and the equal protection of the law. Jurisdictional
    distinctions based on the race or ethnicity of the accused, such as the
    jurisdictional limitation here, have the effect in many cases of
    depriving victims of access to justice, in violation of international
    law and US constitutional guarantees. (Tribal courts are the most
    appropriate forums for adjudicating cases that arise on Tribal land,
    and, as this report finds, state and federal authorities often do not
    prosecute those cases of sexual violence that arise on Tribal land and
    fall within their exclusive jurisdiction.) This situation is of
    particular concern given the number of reported crimes of sexual
    violence against American Indian women involving non-Indian men
    (Amnesty International USA Report: Maze of Injustice, p. 30).

        I support Section 201 of the SAVE Native Women Act (Act) which
    establishes ``special domestic violence criminal jurisdiction over all
    persons.'' (New ICRA Sec. 204(b)(1)) (Emphasis added.) This provision
    of law provides a limited ``Oliphant fix'' and will empower Tribes who
    are on the front lines of the efforts to fight domestic violence. Under
    Section 201, the special criminal jurisdiction would apply only to
    Domestic Violence and Dating Violence and to Violations of Protection
    Orders. Significantly, the proposed legislation emphasizes the fact
    that Tribal exercise of this special jurisdiction is concurrent with
    the jurisdiction already existing with federal and state authorities.
    This will enhance the resources and commitment Tribes can apply to
    reducing domestic violence. In addition, by clarifying that Tribal
    protective orders can be issued and enforced by Tribal courts against
    ``any person'' (Act, Sec. 202), the Act assures that Tribes now have
    significant authority both to prevent and to respond to domestic
    violence perpetrated by non-Indian offenders.
    Dismissal of Certain Cases
        Section 201 of the Act (new ICRA Sec. 204(d)) provides for
    dismissal of certain cases where the defendant in a Tribal prosecution
    makes a pretrial motion to dismiss on the grounds that the offense did
    not involve an Indian, or on the grounds that there were insufficient
    ties to the Indian Tribe. The Act addresses the situation where there
    is a non-Indian defendant and non-Indian victim. Although a strong
    argument can be made that Tribes should have jurisdiction over all
    crimes, including domestic violence, committed on Tribal lands, clear
    Supreme Court precedent has established that states have exclusive
    criminal jurisdiction where both the defendant and the victim are non-
    Indian. Reversing this precedent is not necessary in order to achieve
    the goal of the Act: protecting Native women against domestic violence.
        The Act (new ICRA Sec. 204(d)(2)) addresses an issue that has
    plagued prosecuting in Indian Country: how to properly address the
    question of Indian status. This is an issue of jurisdiction and is,
    therefore, a question of law. Such issues should properly be raised in
    pretrial motions before the court and not as matters of fact for a
    jury. The Act properly requires that this question of jurisdiction be
    raised by the defendant pretrial or be held to have been waived by the
    defendant.
        The Act (new ICRA Sec. 204(d)(3)) also provides that a case can be
    dismissed upon a pretrial motion of the defendant on the grounds that
    ``the defendant and the alleged victim lack sufficient ties to the
    Indian Tribe.'' (Emphasis added.) By this provision, the legislation
    adds for the first time residence, employment and Tribal membership as
    elements of the offense, which must be proven by the Tribal prosecutor
    in order to avoid dismissal. These additional elements undermine the
    effectiveness of the special domestic violence jurisdiction and the
    protection which Tribes can provide in the face of domestic violence.
    Police and prosecutors in Phoenix or Denver give no consideration to
    the ties a domestic abuse defendant has to the community. Why should
    Tribal authorities have to consider this factor?
    Rights of Defendants
        Section 201 of the Act (new ICRA Sec. 204(e)) sets forth that
    Tribes exercising special domestic violence criminal jurisdiction must
    provide the defendant with specified rights. The section provides that
    when a term of imprisonment of any length is to be imposed, all rights
    described in ICRA Sec. 202(c) should be applied. ICRA Sec. 202(c) was
    recently codified in the Tribal Law and Order Act. The current
    legislation properly coordinates the rights required under the Tribal
    Law and Order Act and the SAVE Native Women Act and provides clear
    guidance to the Tribes as to the procedural rights they must establish
    and provide to defendants in cases under the Act.
        However, the Act (new ICRA Sec. 204(e)(3)) provides that the Tribes
    must also provide ``all other rights whose protection is necessary
    under the Constitution of the United States in order for Congress to
    recognize and affirm the inherent power of the participating Tribe to
    exercise criminal jurisdiction over the defendant.'' This provision
    lacks clarity and certainty. If Congress is going to require Tribes to
    establish certain procedural protections for defendants in these cases,
    it should do so clearly.
        From a practical perspective, the Act itself supports Tribes'
    ability to comply with it. The grants (new ICRA Sec. 204(g)) will be
    necessary in order for Tribes to establish the public safety and
    judicial infrastructure required by the Act. The delayed effective date
    (Act Sec. 204(b)) will allow the Tribes the time to establish that
    required infrastructure which is not already in place. Finally, the
    Pilot Project provision (Act Sec. 204(b)(2)) allows those Tribes that
    already have the judicial infrastructure in place to begin using the
    special jurisdiction before the effective date of the Act.
    Petitions to Stay Detention
        The Act (new ICRA Sec. 204(f)) incorporates the jurisdiction of the
    courts of the United States to address petitions for writ of habeas
    corpus in matters involving exercise of special domestic violence
    criminal jurisdiction. By incorporating a right already codified under
    ICRA and affirmed by the Supreme Court, \7\ the legislation has
    incorporated a body of law with which Tribes are already familiar.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \7\ Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez, 436 U.S. 49 (1978).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The Act also provides that, in conjunction with a petition for a
    writ of habeas corpus, the defendant in a special jurisdiction case can
    petition the court to stay further detention of that defendant by the
    Tribe. The Act also lays out criteria to be applied by the Federal
    Court in considering a motion for a stay.
        The Act does not, however, specifically address the issue of
    exhaustion of Tribal remedies by the defendant. The case law on habeas
    corpus relief regarding the ``legality of detention by order of an
    Indian Tribe'' (ICRA Sec. 203) is inconsistent as it relates to issues
    of exhaustion of Tribal remedies. The Act should address this by
    requiring that the defendant be required to exhaust Tribal remedies or
    to demonstrate the futility of attempting to do so.
    Amendments to Federal Assault Statute
        Section 203 of the Act amends several provisions of Title 18, U.S.
    Code  113, the most significant of which is to add an offense of
    assault by strangulation or suffocation. This additional provision of
    federal law is consistent with similar laws that have been enacted at a
    state level. For example, domestic assault by strangulation is a felony
    in Minnesota. (See Minn. Stat.  609.2247.) The Minnesota definition of
    ``strangulation'' incorporates suffocation (``impeding normal
    breathing'').
        In the definitions of ``strangling'' and ``suffocating,'' the
    proposed legislation not only punishes intentional and knowing
    strangulation and suffocation, but also reckless conduct. Although
    reckless disregard of the safety of another can form the basis for
    criminal punishment, it is a lower standard of mens rea than
    intentional and knowing conduct.
        Section 205(a)(2) of the Act also proposes to amend Title 18, U.S.
    Code  113(a)(3), involving assault with a dangerous weapon, by
    striking the language ``and without just cause or excuse.'' This
    provision mirrors Sec. 7(a)(2) (Technical Amendments) of the July 21,
    2011, proposed legislation from the United States Department of
    Justice. This proposed striking creates the risk that Federal Courts
    will conclude that Congress has determined that certain defenses, such
    as self-defense, are not available to defendants charged with assault
    with a dangerous weapon. The Department of Justice does not explain in
    its submission letter why it seeks to strike this language from the
    statute. However, striking such language from the statute is not
    necessary, as case law is clear that the existence of ``just cause or
    excuse'' for an assault is an affirmative defense and the government
    does not have the burden of pleading or proving its existence. \8\
    Moreover, striking this provision for Title 18, U.S. Code  113(a)(3)
    has nothing to do with addressing the issues of domestic violence upon
    Native women. Therefore, the provision does not seem to be appropriate
    for the Act or otherwise.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \8\ See U.S. v. Guilbert, 692 F.2d 1340 (11th Cir. 1982), cert.
    denied 460 U.S. 1016.

        The Chairman. Thank you very much, Mr. Heffelfinger.
        Now, I would like to have Ms. Mejia.
        Please proceed with your statement.

      STATEMENT OF HON. MARGIE MEJIA, CHAIRWOMAN, LYTTON RANCHERIA

        Ms. Mejia. Good afternoon. I want to thank you for the
    opportunity to present testimony to the Committee today on a
    bill that would have a significant impact on the citizens of
    Lytton Rancheria.
        My name is Margie Mejia, and I am the Chairperson of Lytton
    Rancheria, and I follow a long line of tradition of leaders who
    have been responsible for the safekeeping of the Tribe and its
    members.
        I have lived the highs and lows of my Tribe's status every
    day of my life, from the devastating effects of poverty,
    alcoholism, drug abuse, and having our Tribal status
    terminated, to the recent economic success we have finally been
    able to enjoy through our restoration.
        This is not simply one of a broad array of issues I have
    sought to advance. This is the pride, respect, and stability of
    my Tribe. We cannot stand idly by while our status is again
    under threat. I take it very seriously and I am thankful that
    you do, too.
        While I hold Senator Feinstein in high regard, and I am
    sure that her intentions are honorable, there is much more to
    the story of Lytton Rancheria than this legislation suggests.
        As some of you may know, the Federal Government wrongfully
    terminated the Lytton Rancheria on April 4, 1961 and our
    ancestral lands were lost. Not long after that, our traditional
    homelands were replaced with vineyards. Finally, in 1991, after
    decades of battling the relentless effort to regain our Federal
    recognition, the Federal courts ordered the government to
    reverse its decision to terminate the Tribe and restore our
    full Tribal status.
        Unfortunately, we had no ancestral lands to return to,
    leaving us landless and with few options. In fact, Sonoma
    County, where most of our ancestral lands are located today,
    forced a provision in the final court stipulation. The
    provision forbids the Tribe from acquiring and using any land
    within the county for any purposes not included in the Sonoma
    County general use plan. Our neighboring Tribes have not had to
    deal with such restrictions.
        While we were thrilled to have our status restored, we
    continued to face a severe challenge in establishing our Tribal
    economy. Therefore, we were heartened to learn that the City of
    San Pablo understood our tragic history and was receptive to
    the idea of working with us to address the effects of
    termination on our Tribe. We began working with the City of San
    Pablo to develop a municipal services agreement, and it is that
    agreement which guided the mutually beneficial relationship
    that we continue to have with the city today.
        The provisions of S. 872 suggests that our land was
    restored with no local input or community feedback; that we
    circumvented the requirement in the Indian Gaming Regulatory
    Act. The truth is we spent several months meeting with citizens
    and elected officials to develop an agreement that would meet
    our respective needs and objectives. We continue to meet
    regularly and find ways to address each other's concerns.
        As a result of this agreement, the Tribe filed an
    application with the Department of Interior to have land within
    San Pablo taken into trust status for Lytton for gaming
    purposes. When it became clear the Department of Interior was
    not going to act on our application, the city and the Tribe
    together asked Congressman George Miller for his assistance
    with our land-into-trust request in San Pablo.
        It should be noted that the land our Tribe acquired was the
    site of an existing gaming facility. It was a card room. At the
    end of the year, an omnibus Indian bill was developed by this
    Committee and the House Natural Resources Committee to address
    a range of outstanding issues for Indian Country.
        Language directing the Secretary to place the land into
    trust in San Pablo for the Lytton Band was included in that
    bill because through no fault of our own, Lytton had lost use
    of our land in the 1960s. And because we determined that our
    best economic development opportunity was to continue gaming at
    this site, language was drafted to ensure that outcome.
        Congressman Miller's legislation reversed a wrong that left
    our Tribe landless and impoverished for decades. And it put us
    on a level footing with other federally recognized Indian
    Tribes. I am here because this new proposed legislation would
    take away that equal footing status.
        There are currently proposals for a resort-style gaming
    facility within miles of the San Pablo casino. They are
    advanced by Tribes who plan for Class III Las Vegas-style slot
    machines. In accordance with the restored lands provision of
    IGRA. S. 872 would treat the Lytton Rancheria differently from
    our neighboring and similarly situated Tribes by limiting the
    Tribe to Class II bingo-style machines, while forcing us to
    undertake an additional expensive and lengthy process that
    would put us at an extreme, totally unjust disadvantage.
        Although we have no plans at this time to do so, without
    the ability to qualify for Class III gaming, the Lytton
    facility could face closure, resulting in severe negative
    impacts for the Tribe and the surrounding community.
        We honestly do not understand the purpose behind this
    legislation. If the bill is based on the unsubstantiated belief
    that the Lytton Rancheria is somehow not complying or has not
    complied with Federal law, nothing could be further from the
    truth. The Lytton Rancheria fully complies with Federal law. We
    have complied with all the provisions of IGRA in the planning,
    construction, and management of the San Pablo Lytton Casino.
        Our gaming ordinance was approved by the National Indian
    Gaming Commission and is subject to the minimum internal
    control standards. Our facility is subject to review and audit
    by the NIGC and all of our machines are certified to the NIGC's
    strict compliance standards.
        These are the exact same standards that all other gaming
    facilities must meet in order to legally operate, and we have
    an excellent record. To suggest that we have done anything else
    is wholly disingenuous. Our Tribal members have realized
    significant benefits from our economic enterprise, including
    vastly improved housing and educational opportunities for our
    children, and we have been good neighbors to our local non-
    Indian community.
        S. 872 is not simple, straightforward and reasonable, and
    it does not somehow restore the intent of Congress as was
    suggested in the introductory remarks accompanying the bill. In
    fact, it does just the opposite. The law preventing gaming on
    lands taken into trust after 1988 was not written in order to
    prevent landless Tribes like Lytton from achieving economic
    independence through gaming. It was written to deal with Tribes
    who already had lands or existing reservations on which they
    could conduct gaming.
        Lytton Rancheria was only landless because of a wrongful
    act taken by the Federal Government decades before. We are not
    and never have been a Tribe looking to obtain additional land
    for more lucrative gaming. We are a Tribe who Congress realized
    should have had the same status as other Tribes granted lands
    prior to 1988 and I am thankful that Congress came to this
    conclusion.
        Our reality today fully incorporates the intent of Congress
    in the 2000 legislation. The termination policies of the
    Federal Government had tragic consequences for members of
    Lytton Rancheria. It took over three decades to have our
    Federal status and our rights restored.
        The Chairman. Ms. Mejia, will you please summarize your
    statement?
        Ms. Mejia. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
        We have been able to take land into trust and establish
    economic independence. It was an act that righted a wrong that
    the Federal Government committed against our Tribe. I ask you
    let the act of justice stand and oppose the enactment of S.
    872.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Mejia follows:]

     Prepared Statement of Hon. Margie Mejia, Chairwoman, Lytton Rancheria

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        The Chairman. Thank you very much, Chairperson Mejia.
        And now I would like to call on Mayor Morris.
        Will you please proceed with your testimony?

       STATEMENT OF HON. PAUL MORRIS, MAYOR, CITY OF SAN PABLO,
                               CALIFORNIA

        Mr. Morris. Thank you and good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and
    Members of the Committee. Thank you for inviting me here today.
    I certainly appreciate this hearing.
        My name is Paul Morris. I am the Mayor of the City of San
    Pablo. Vice Mayor Cecilia Valdez and I are attending this
    hearing today so we can bring you our unique perspective about
    the San Pablo Lytton Casino.
        If you take anything from my statement today, this is what
    I want you to remember. The Lytton Rancheria is a respected,
    involved member of the community and has been since day one.
    Thanks to them, San Pablo residents are enjoying a safe and
    secure community. I am not an expert on gambling, but I am an
    expert on the City of San Pablo.
        Claims that casinos bring in high crime are unfounded in my
    city. This may be true for other communities with different
    dynamics, but you should not create legislation for one
    specific community, using broad data and vague claims of
    increased crime that have been shown to be inapplicable in San
    Pablo.
        The Lytton Casino has minimal impact on local traffic and
    public safety. This stands in stark contrast to the belief by
    critics that any urban gaming is detrimental to the public
    welfare. The Lytton Casino has not increased crime or traffic
    congestion. Instead, it has allowed us to have the resources to
    significantly reduce crime. As of 2010, we have had 20 percent
    decrease in violent crime and a 19 percent reduction in
    property crimes since 2008.
        The Police Department has been able to provide significant
    increases in personnel, state-of-the-art equipment, and multi-
    jurisdictional training. None of this could have happened
    without the additional resources that the casino made possible.
    Without those resources, the department would have had to cut
    nearly half of its sworn officers and dissolve a number of
    specialty programs, including gang violence reduction,
    narcotics task forces, and youth services programs. 9-1-1-
    response times would increase and public safety would be
    compromised.
        The payments received from the casino also make up nearly
    two-thirds of the city's general fund. Because of this, the
    city has been able to provide after school programs, a new
    youth services program, and with an emphasis on intervention
    and prevention.
        We have also been able to keep a local elementary school
    open for the last three years, despite closure plans by the
    School District.
        The Lytton Rancheria provides financial support to San
    Pablo residents beyond just city government, including, but not
    limited to almost $250,000 to the San Pablo Senior Center in
    the past few years to provide key services and maintain social
    programs that would disappear without them.
        When Senator Feinstein introduced S. 872, she stated that
    the legislation would implement a reasonable solution to this
    problem. My main point to make today is that there is, in fact,
    no current problem that must be remedied. The problem, as posed
    by the Senator, is that the government now has little ability
    to regulate Lytton Band's gaming operation. This could not be
    further from the truth. All activities at the casino are as we
    speak fully subject to regulation by Federal law and we are
    unaware of any problems that Interior or the BIA have had with
    operations at this location.
        The casino is subject to extensive oversight and regulation
    by the NIGC and also by the city via our municipal services
    agreement. In fact, the Tribe is required to go through the
    city's normal planning and environmental review procedures,
    public notice, and public hearings if it ever wants to expand
    its operations. So here again, there is really no current
    problem either at the local or Federal level that must be
    addressed.
        On the other hand, our community already suffers much more
    in this horrendous economy. As of the last year, 19.8 percent
    of San Pablo residents lived below the poverty line; 19.5
    percent were unemployed. Almost all of our working residents
    work outside the city and it is thus essential that we
    increase, not decrease the number of local jobs.
        This legislation seeks to address a nonexistent problem.
    The Lytton Casino has been operating for over eight years with
    no problems, but many benefits. There is no reason to turn the
    clock back and make their lives harder. There are sensible
    changes that this legislation would prevent, such as an
    addition of a parking structure to the existing building. San
    Pablo and its residents would be collateral damage if this bill
    should pass.
        While deliberating, we ask that this Committee keep that
    fact in mind, and the fact that the economic recession is
    hitting San Pablo harder than most.
        Thank you for your time, Mr. Chairman. I would be happy to
    answer any questions you have.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Morris follows:]

       Prepared Statement of Hon. Paul Morris, Mayor, City of San Pablo,
                                   California

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        The Chairman. Thank you very much, Mr. Mayor, for your
    testimony.
        Mr. Andersen, President Andersen, would you please proceed
    with your statement?

    STATEMENT OF RALPH ANDERSEN, PRESIDENT/CEO, BRISTOL BAY NATIVE
          ASSOCIATION; CO-CHAIR, ALASKA FEDERATION OF NATIVES

        Mr. Andersen. Good afternoon, Chairman Akaka, Senator
    Murkowski, and Senator Franken. My name is Ralph Andersen. I am
    the Co-Chair of the Alaska Federation of Natives. I am also the
    President and Chief Executive Officer of the Bristol Bay Native
    Association based in Dillingham, Alaska.
        I am honored to be here to testify in support of the Alaska
    Safe Families and Villages Act. AFN is the largest statewide
    organization in Alaska of Alaska Natives, representing 125,000
    Natives within Alaska and nearly an equal number living outside
    of Alaska. AFN was formed in 1966 initially to fight for
    aboriginal land claims and for the past 45 years has been at
    the forefront of efforts to advance Alaska Native self-
    determination.
        It hosts the largest gathering of Alaska Natives, the
    annual AFN convention attended by thousands of Alaska Natives.
    In October, the convention delegates adopted Resolution 1129 in
    support of the Alaska Safe Families and Villages Act. I have
    appended a copy of that resolution to my testimony.
        BBNA is a regional nonprofit Tribal consortium of 31
    federally recognized Tribes in the Bristol Bay region. Our
    geographic area of southwest Alaska is about the size of the
    State of Ohio. Our regional population is about 7,000 people,
    about 70 percent are Alaska Native.
        Both the AFN and the BBNA strongly support the Alaska Safe
    Families and Villages Act. This legislation will allow local
    Tribal courts and law enforcement to address social problems at
    home in the village. Currently, villages rely on the State of
    Alaska to provide all law enforcement and judicial services,
    often at centers a great distance away from the village.
        The bill will establish a demonstration project by which a
    small number of Tribes would be authorized to enforce local
    ordinances dealing with alcohol and drug abuse, domestic
    violence, child abuse, and neglect. Alaska Tribes already have
    some jurisdiction in those areas, but most villages have not
    developed Tribal ordinances and procedures.
        The ordinances and the Tribes' plans for implementing the
    demonstration project will be subject to the oversight and
    approval of the Department of Justice every step of the way.
    The bill creates no Tribal criminal jurisdiction, but simply
    confirms civil regulatory jurisdiction over alcohol and drug
    abuse, domestic violence, and child abuse and neglect. It does
    not address major crimes, does not authorize Tribes to jail
    people, and does not diminish in any State law enforcement
    authority, criminal or civil.
        Although the demonstration project starts small, we believe
    it will be such an obvious success that Congress will expand
    the program and make it permanent in future years.
        Alaska Natives are far better situated to address social
    problems, particularly involving children and youth, at home
    under Tribal authorities, better than the State. While this is
    often discussed in terms of law enforcement, I believe it is
    more of a problem of access to State courts.
        Alaska State courts are not local in most places. In
    Bristol Bay, for example, we have 28 year-round inhabited
    communities spread over an area the size of the State of Ohio.
    There are State courts in only communities, Dillingham, and
    Naknek. Alaska has no Justice of the Peace Courts like some
    States have, and there are no municipal courts outside the big
    cities.
        We have villages in our region that are more than 200 miles
    from the closest State court and there are no roads in between.
    Even a village that has a local village public safety officer,
    or VPSO, or even a local city police department, is still
    dependent upon a prosecutor's office and the court system in
    some large community far away.
        I grew up in a small village, Clarks Point, which is across
    the Nushagak Bay from Dillingham. It is only about 15 miles
    away as the eagle flies, but there are no roads connecting
    them. And if the weather is bad, it is simply inaccessible
    until the weather breaks. Clarks Point has about 75 people.
    Although it has had a VPSO in the past, the position is
    currently vacant and has been difficult to fill. There is no
    chance that a village of 75 people will ever have a magistrate,
    a State magistrate or a State court. It simply wouldn't be
    cost-effective.
        Clarks Point does have, however, a functional Tribal
    Council that already provides a number of services in the
    village. Although some villages have city governments as well
    as Tribal councils, most city governments do not enforce
    criminal or civil laws because they would have to pay the cost
    of a prosecuting attorney, provide public defenders, and pay
    for a prosecution in State courts.
        Alaska Tribes already have some authority in these areas of
    child custody and adoption, child neglect, and domestic
    relations based on Tribal membership. But Alaska Tribes do not
    have land-based jurisdiction and the exact extent of Tribal
    authority in Alaska has been very unclear.
        We are not advocating for the creation of Indian Country in
    Alaska. I want to make that very clear. We are advocating and
    think it makes enormous sense to allow Tribes to handle some
    explicit and specific types of problems in their villages and
    to clearly define what those types of cases are.
        Alaska Natives have probably the highest rate of suicide in
    the Nation, perhaps the world. We have hugely disproportionate
    rates of sexual assault, domestic violence, alcoholism, and
    accidental death. Many of the sexual assaults and domestic
    violence go unreported, but the scars can be seen. Most of
    these problems and scars trace back to alcohol abuse.
        For too long, law enforcement in rural Alaska has been
    under-funded and in many smaller, remote villages virtually
    nonexistent. The Alaska State Court system does not reach out
    far enough or fast enough for many of our remote, isolate
    villages. For too long, villages then have had to travel great
    distances at great expense for court cases.
        For too long, we have seen bootleggers, domestic violence,
    and sexual abuse offenders walking our village streets unabated
    because State law enforcement is too slow to respond and
    prosecutions are too difficult.
        This bill is a tool and step in the right direction. It is
    a break from past practices and attitudes. It shows a practical
    understanding that sheer economics, budgetary, and political
    constraints will always preclude the State of Alaska from
    providing truly adequate judicial resources in hundreds of tiny
    geographically remote villages. It also recognizes that Tribal
    governments can fill the gap and it adds an element of
    prevention and early intervention.
        We appreciate Senator Begich and Chairman Akaka and Senator
    Murkowski and this Committee that you are willing to roll up
    your sleeves to help us put into place locally controlled,
    culturally relevant practices to help reduce serious social
    problems. You will save lives. You will save lives in our most
    remote and neediest villages in the Country and in Alaska.
        I want to be very clear that we don't want to create Indian
    Country in Alaska. At the same time, we don't want to take over
    responsibility for criminal courts or jails and law
    enforcement. We simply want to do our share, to do our part, to
    do what we can to help.
        Complicated jurisdictional issues should really not get in
    the way of providing basic, needed, and common sense solutions
    in the villages. The longer they go on, the longer our people
    will suffer, and lives will be destroyed or lost.
        The demonstration project as provided in the bill is well
    designed and provides a step-by-step approach. It will work.
        In closing, I want to stress that I have the deepest
    respect for the State government and the current
    Administration. I have great respect for Governor Parnell. He
    has shown a deep commitment to addressing alcohol and drug
    abuse, domestic violence, and sexual assaults in Alaska.
        The Chairman. President Andersen, will you please summarize
    your statement?
        Mr. Andersen. Yes. I have great respect for the village
    public safety officers and State troopers. The VPSOs have the
    toughest jobs that I can imagine.
        Again, I want to express AFN and BBNA and our sister
    regional Native nonprofit consortiums' support for this bill.
    We believe it is a very positive step toward empowering local
    communities and local residents to take responsibility for
    problems and for resolving them at home.
        Thank you, Chairman Akaka.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Andersen follows:]

    Prepared Statement of Ralph Andersen, President/CEO, Bristol Bay Native
              Association; Co-Chair, Alaska Federation of Natives
        Good afternoon Chairman Akaka and distinguished members of the
    Committee. My name is Ralph Andersen. I am Co-Chair of the Alaska
    Federation of Natives (AFN) and I am also the President and Chief
    Executive Office of the Bristol Bay Native Association (BBNA), based in
    Dillingham, Alaska. I am honored to be here today to testify in support
    of the Alaska Safe Families and Villages Act.
        AFN is the largest statewide organization of Alaska Natives,
    representing 125,000 Natives within Alaska and nearly an equal number--
    120,000--living outside Alaska. AFN was formed in 1966, initially to
    fight for aboriginal land claims, and for the past 45 years has been at
    the forefront of efforts to advance Alaska Native self-determination.
    It hosts the largest gathering of Alaska Natives, the AFN Annual
    Convention attended by thousands of Alaska Natives. In October the
    convention delegates adopted Resolution 11-29 in support of the Alaska
    Safe Families and Villages Act. I am appending a copy of that
    resolution to my testimony.
        BBNA is a regional non-profit tribal consortium of 31 federally
    recognized tribes within the Bristol Bay Region. Our geographic area in
    southwest Alaska is about the size of the State of Ohio. Our regional
    population is about 7,000 people, about 70 percent are Alaska Native.
    BBNA operates a variety of service programs for our member tribal
    villages, including Bureau of Indian Affairs programs that we operate
    under a self-governance compact agreement that has been in effect since
    1995.
        Both AFN and BBNA strongly support the Alaska Safe Families and
    Villages Act and, in fact, both organizations have supported this and
    similar legislative proposals to clarify tribal civil jurisdiction in
    Alaska for many, many years, dating at least to the Clinton
    administration. We are very pleased this bill has been introduced and
    that this hearing is being held.
    Plugging the Gaps
        The basic idea of this legislation is to allow local tribal courts
    and law enforcement--to address social problems and petty offenses
    involving tribal members at home, in the village, instead of relying on
    the state government to provide all law enforcement and judicial
    services, often from centers a great distance away from the village.
        The bill will establish a demonstration project by which a small
    number of tribes, no more than three per year for three years--nine
    total--would be authorized to enforce local ordinances dealing with
    alcohol and drugs for a period of five years. The bill is also intended
    to enhance tribal enforcement of domestic violence and child abuse and
    neglect matters. Alaska tribes already have some jurisdiction in those
    areas but most villages have not developed tribal laws and procedures.
    The ordinances and the tribe's plan for implementing the demonstration
    project would be subject to the oversight and approval of the
    Department of Justice.
        The bill creates no tribal criminal jurisdiction, but simply
    confirms civil regulatory jurisdiction over the subjects listed in the
    bill--alcohol, drugs, domestic violence and child abuse and neglect. It
    does not address major crimes, it does not authorize tribes to jail
    people, and it does not diminish in any way state law enforcement
    authority, criminal or civil. It is intended to address what might be
    called entry-level offenses such as underage drinking and drug use, and
    to keep such problems from escalating. It makes far more sense to
    address low grade offenses immediately, at home, rather than waiting
    until they get so bad a person is caught up in the state criminal
    justice system, jailed, and sent to court dozens or even hundreds of
    miles away from home.
        This is very much a common sense bill to fill gaps in existing
    services. Although the demonstration project starts small, we believe
    it will be such an obvious success Congress will expand the program and
    make it permanent in future years.
        Alaska Native villages are far better situated to address social
    problems, particularly involving children and youth, at home under
    tribal authorities, than is the state government. It would benefit
    everyone, including the state agencies, if some problems such as
    juvenile delinquent behavior could be curtailed and the person helped
    by the local community before the behavior ever escalates or becomes a
    state issue.
        While this is often discussed in terms of law enforcement--and
    there are gaps in state law enforcement--I tend to believe it is more a
    problem of inadequate courts and access to courts. The state court
    system is not the most culturally appropriate way for dealing with
    young Native offenders, nor are state courts ``local'' in most places.
    In Bristol Bay, which has 28 year-round inhabited communities spread
    out over an area the size of Ohio, there are state courts in only two
    communities--Dillingham and Naknek. Alaska has no justice of the peace
    courts like some states have, and there are no municipal courts outside
    the big cities. We have villages in our region that are more than 200
    miles from the closest state court, and there are no roads in between.
        Even a village that has a local Village Public Safety Officer
    (VPSO) or even a local city police department is still dependent on a
    prosecutor's office and court system in some larger community miles
    away.
        I grew up in a Bristol Bay village, Clarks Point, which is across
    the Nushagak Bay from Dillingham. It's only about 15 miles away as the
    eagle flies, but there are no roads connecting them and if the weather
    is bad it is simply inaccessible until the weather breaks. Clarks Point
    has about 75 people. Although it has had a VPSO position in the past,
    the position is currently vacant and has been difficult to fill. There
    is no chance that a village of 75 people will ever have a state
    magistrate court or a resident state trooper--it simply would not be
    cost effective. Clarks Point does, however, have a functioning tribal
    council that already provides a number of services in the village.
    There is simply no logical reason why the tribe should not be able to
    prosecute and handle minor offenses at home as civil regulatory
    matters. That is all S. 1192 does, on a pilot basis for up to nine
    villages.
        I will note that although some villages have city governments as
    well as tribal councils, the city governments in the villages do not
    directly enforce criminal or civil regulations because they would have
    to pay for the expense of a prosecuting attorney, provide public
    defenders, and otherwise pay for prosecution in the state courts in the
    regional hubs. The city government in Clarks Point has no resources to
    be prosecuting cases in Dillingham.
        Although Alaska tribes already do have some authority in areas such
    as child custody and adoption, child neglect, and domestic relations
    based on tribal membership, Alaska tribes do not generally have land-
    based jurisdiction and the exact extent of tribal authority in Alaska
    has been very unclear. We are not advocating for the creation of
    ``Indian Country'' jurisdiction in Alaska. I want to make that very
    clear. We are advocating and think it makes enormous sense to
    explicitly allow tribes to handle some types of problems within their
    villages and to clearly define what those types of cases are, without
    getting into a complicated analysis based on land status and without
    waiting for decades of litigation to establish the parameters of tribal
    jurisdiction. The cleanest way to do this is by enacting a federal law
    to clarify a few subject matters areas where tribes can assert
    authority.
        To illustrate the problems tribes run into in addressing social
    problems through tribal courts, one of the larger Bristol Bay villages
    operated a tribal court that handled juvenile cases for about ten
    years. The particular village has a city police department, and my
    understanding is that the tribe had a written agreement with the city
    by which the local city police referred some juvenile cases to the
    tribal court. The agreement was also signed off by the State of Alaska.
    This agreement and arrangement worked well and the tribe successfully
    handled a number of cases, each of which would otherwise been in the
    state system and prosecuted 70 miles away in Dillingham. Recently,
    someone in the city government had questions about the agreement that
    were referred to the state Attorney General's office. The AG's office
    concluded this diversion of cases was improper and that the state could
    not honor its own prior agreement with the tribe. Understandably the
    city, which is a subdivision of the state, is now no longer willing to
    honor the agreement either.
        Sadly, a cooperative effort that was working, that was probably
    within the normal discretion of state law enforcement anyway, and that
    benefited all parties was ended because someone in a state office in
    Anchorage or Juneau hundreds of miles away decided it was a bad thing
    to work cooperatively with tribes. It has been our experience that
    state opposition to tribes almost always comes from state elected
    officials and the higher echelons of state government. People who
    actually do the work in the field--state troopers, social workers,
    judges, prosecutors--are practically always more than willing to work
    with tribes because they correctly see the tribes as a resource.
    The Need
        I do not wish to spend too much time talking about the severity of
    social problems in rural Alaska. We have told our story over and over
    and the bill itself recites many of the statistics. Alaska Natives
    probably have the highest suicide rate in the nation and perhaps the
    world. We have hugely disproportionate rates of sexual assault,
    domestic violence, alcoholism, and accidental death. Many of the sexual
    assaults and domestic violence goes unreported, but the scars can be
    seen. Too many of our people are in prison. Too many of our adults find
    it difficult to get jobs because they have criminal records. Most of
    these problems trace back to alcohol abuse.
        For too long law enforcement in rural Alaska has been underfunded
    and in many small remote villages virtually non-existent. The Alaska
    Court system does not reach out far enough or fast enough for many of
    our remote, isolated villages. For too long, village residents have had
    to travel great distances at great expense for court cases. For too
    long we have seen bootleggers and domestic violence and sexual abuse
    offenders walking our village streets unabated because state law
    enforcement is slow to respond and prosecutions too difficult. While
    the lack of courts or law enforcement is not the cause of our high
    rates of suicide and other social problems, it is certainly an obstacle
    to addressing them.
        The bill is a tool, and a step in the right direction. It is a
    break with past practices and attitudes and shows a practical
    understanding that sheer economics, budgetary and political constraints
    will always preclude the Alaska state government from providing truly
    adequate law enforcement and judicial resources in dozens of tiny,
    geographically remote villages, scattered across an area the size of
    the State of Ohio. It also recognizes that tribal governments can help
    plug the gap, and it adds an element of prevention and early
    intervention that is lacking in the state system.
        We appreciate that Senator Begich, Chairman Akaka, and this
    Committee, are willing to roll up your sleeves to help us put into
    place locally-controlled, culturally-relevant practices to help reduce
    social problems. You will help save lives in some of our most remote
    and neediest villages in the country and in Alaska. I want to be very
    clear that we don't want to take over responsibility for criminal
    courts, jails, and law enforcement. We simply want to do our share--to
    do our part--to do what we can to help. Complicated jurisdictional
    disagreements with the state really should not get in the way of
    providing needed, common sense solutions in the villages. The longer
    they go on, the longer our people will suffer and lives will be
    destroyed or lost.
        In addition to establishing the demonstration project on tribal law
    enforcement and courts, the bill will open a new temporary federal
    funding stream in support of the project. This includes both training
    of our tribal courts and administrators and some additional funding for
    law enforcement. The demonstration project as provided in the bill is
    well designed and provides a step by step process. It will work.
    Closing
        In closing I wish to stress I mean no disrespect for the Alaska
    state government or the current state administration. I have great
    respect for Governor Parnell. He has shown a deep commitment to
    addressing alcohol and drug abuse, domestic violence and sexual
    assaults in Alaska. In rural Alaska, in recent years the state has
    expanded the Village Public Safety Officer Program. I have great
    respect for Village Public Safety Officers, and the Alaska State
    Troopers and the Alaska Court System. Our VPSO's have the most
    difficult jobs that I can imagine. But there are simply inherent
    constraints such that the state is never going to pay for magistrates
    and state police officers in 200-plus villages. The bulk of the
    population and the political power in Alaska are in the urban areas of
    Anchorage, Fairbanks and Juneau. Even the VPSO program, which is an
    excellent program specifically designed for villages, is hampered by
    relatively low wages, lack of housing, difficulty in recruitment and
    other limits.
        I have witnessed first-hand the largely unchanged social problems
    in many villages that have existed since my childhood days. We still
    hear of family violence, bootlegging, and sexual abuse. It seems not a
    week goes by when we hear of another suicide or death.
        There is no single solution to these difficult problems nor are
    there any easy answers. The right solutions will likely vary from
    region to region, community to community, and involve more than just
    one agency and more than one just one program or approach. We need and
    want our tribal governments and tribal law enforcement and courts to be
    part of the equation. We want to be part of the solution. Tribes are
    already there, providing services on the ground.
        The Alaska Safe Families and Villages Act will break new ground by
    actually recognizing that Alaska tribal governments have a role in and
    are part of addressing the important needs for law enforcement and
    judicial services in remote areas. For this reason the Alaska
    Federation of Natives, the Bristol Bay Native Association, and our
    sister regional Native non-profit tribal consortiums consider this bill
    a very high priority. We believe this bill will be a very positive step
    toward empowering local communities and local residents to take care of
    problems at home.
        Thank you again Chairman Akaka and members of the Committee for
    giving me this opportunity to testify.
        Attachment

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        The Chairman. Thank you very much.
        Commissioner Masters, please proceed with your testimony.

     STATEMENT OF JOE MASTERS, COMMISSIONER, ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF
                             PUBLIC SAFETY

        Mr. Masters. Good afternoon. I am Joe Masters and I am the
    Commissioner for the Alaska Department of Public Safety, whose
    mission is public safety in the State of Alaska.
        As a matter of introduction, I am a Yupik Eskimo and I have
    been raised in the Aleutian Islands. I have been a law
    enforcement officer for 29 years and began my career as a
    village public safety officer in the village of Unalakleet. I
    later became a city police officer and then spent 20 years as
    an Alaska State trooper and I have been the Commissioner for
    the past three years.
        Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, Senator Begich,
    thank you for this opportunity to comment on behalf of the
    State of Alaska on this Senate bill.
        Assuring that families and villages in Alaska are safe is
    unquestionably an objective that the State of Alaska shares
    with the Federal Government and with all Alaska Tribes. I would
    like to do two things in my testimony: first, outline for you
    the State's recent efforts to improve law enforcement in rural
    Alaska Native villages; and second, to respectfully suggest to
    the Committee that the serious issues facing rural Alaska
    require a different long-term framework than provided in the
    Act.
        And I would welcome an opportunity to assist the Committee
    and the bill sponsors to overcome our concerns.
        Alaska's Governor Sean Parnell has made unprecedented
    investments in improving rural justice, including establishing
    a 10-year State initiative to end domestic violence and sexual
    assault. As part of that initiative, he made the unprecedented
    commitment to ensure that there is a law enforcement presence
    in every village.
        To that end, he has increased the hiring of village public
    safety officers and shared the vision of adding 15 of those
    positions each year for 10 years. To give you some idea of the
    extent of these recent efforts, in 2008 there were 46 VPSOs in
    rural Alaska villages within the program, funded at $5.7
    million. Today, there is funding for 101 positions, and
    importantly, the Governor wants to bring that number to 116
    with program funding that could exceed $19 million in State
    fiscal year 2013. This is a 325 percent increase from just a
    few years ago.
        It is not just about VPSOs. There are also more than 100
    village police officers and Tribal police officers in Alaska
    communities providing a law enforcement presence in all but 75
    Alaska communities.
        Alaska is also seeking partnerships with Department of
    Interior BIA for law enforcement technical assistance and
    training for these VPO's. We have added State troopers in
    support positions in rural Alaska to increase our presence and
    response capacity, as well as increased training and assistance
    for all categories of law enforcement officers.
        The efforts are not confined to law enforcement. The
    Governor's domestic violence initiative funded and completed
    baseline studies of the actual incidents of sexual assault and
    domestic violence in Alaska to assist future policy, fiscal,
    and programmatic decisions.
        These efforts collectively mark a concerted, serious, and
    ongoing commitment by the State of Alaska to address the
    precise issues of concern stated in S. 1192. The belief that
    law enforcement efforts are broken or that Alaska cannot or
    will not provide services to Alaska Native villages is not
    accurate.
        I would like to suggest a framework for proceeding that
    would build on and develop already existing Federal-State-
    Tribal partnerships. The State already has solid partnerships
    with many Federal agencies, and we can build on these
    partnerships to the benefit of Native communities and to the
    State of Alaska as a whole.
        We have a number of specific suggestions for moving
    forward. Federal dollars directed to assist villages with
    public safety infrastructure needs and to hire and train
    officers such as VPSOs and VPOs would go a long way to
    increasing safety in rural Alaska. Targeted programmatic
    Federal assistance for education, prevention, and early
    intervention programs to address underlying social issues such
    as substance abuse and truancy would also be immensely
    beneficial.
        There are provisions within this Act that unquestionably
    promote safety and will enable Tribes to take a more active
    role in their own wellness. However, the Act also contains
    ambiguous provisions that the State believes may create Indian
    Country and may create Tribal criminal jurisdiction that will
    be counterproductive to those collaborative efforts I just
    spoke of.
        Alaska Attorney General John Burns has specifically
    commented on these issues in a letter that is included with my
    written testimony.
        Dividing the State into jurisdictional project areas
    subject to separate rules and separate court systems is not a
    practical approach for the long term. Rather, programs
    addressing law enforcement training, programs for technical and
    programmatic support to village and Tribal councils, and
    programs directed to regional and community efforts are all
    areas where the Federal Government can truly be part of the
    solution. And we hope that you will consider these specific
    ideas.
        Although I am not testifying on S. 1763, I do want to let
    you know that we have made specific comments that are pertinent
    to your review and they are also contained within my written
    testimony.
        In closing, we believe practical, programmatic solutions do
    exist to the intractable issues of violence and crime in our
    rural communities. And those solutions are preferable to a top-
    down federally imposed jurisdictional solution.
        Moving forward, we appreciate the opportunity to offer
    input and work with the Committee staff and Tribal partners to
    seek a consensus about how best to proceed in Alaska and are
    dedicated to devoting the staff and resources necessary to make
    this happen.
        Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Masters follows:]

     Prepared Statement of Joe Masters, Commissioner, Alaska Department of
                                 Public Safety

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        The Chairman. Thank you very much, Commissioner Masters.
        I will hold my questions. I will ask Senator Murkowski to
    make a very quick statement, and then I will call on Senator
    Franken for his questions and remarks.
        Senator Murkowski. Mr. Chairman, thank you. And I apologize
    particularly to our two Alaska witnesses, Commissioner Masters
    and Mr. Andersen. I have to duck out of the Committee here and
    go over to the Capitol, and I am hoping that I can dash back in
    time to ask my questions. If I am not able to, I will be
    submitting those questions for the record.
        But I first want to thank you not only for making the long
    haul back here, but for your testimony and for your commitment
    to work with us to address the issues that have been discussed
    here today, not only on Senator Begich's bill, but as we look
    at the bigger legislative issue which faces so many in our
    reservations and up in Alaska.
        So Mr. Chairman, I am going to dash and I am hoping that I
    am going to be back in time.
        Thank you.
        The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Murkowski.
        Senator Franken?
        Senator Franken. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Ms. Koepplinger, when this Committee met in July, we heard
    testimony about the cycle of violence in Indian Country.
    Children who were exposed to violence at a young age are more
    likely than their peers to commit acts of violence or suffer
    from acts of violence when they become adults. According to the
    Shattered Hearts report that you cited in your testimony, young
    Indian sex trafficking victims believe, ``that a cycle of
    violence has been normalized in their communities.''
        The SAVE Native Women Act authorizes services for children
    and for non-abusing parents, and I think this is a good step
    for breaking the cycle of violence in Indian Country. I would
    imagine that you would agree.
        Ms. Koepplinger. Yes.
        Senator Franken. What types of services should these
    children be receiving to keep them off a path toward violence?
        Ms. Koepplinger. Thank you, Senator Franken. I do agree
    that services to our young people and to entire family systems
    is part of the solution. The services are complex and they need
    to be holistic and they need to be culturally based.
        Housing is a critical need. We have young people on the
    streets of our towns and our cities who have no place to go,
    who engage in what they refer to as survival sex simply to have
    a place to sleep at night or to have food to eat. So housing,
    safe appropriate shelter that is long term, that meets these
    children where they are and can address their multiple needs is
    absolutely critical.
        Family reunification and preservation when possible is
    absolutely critical. We want to make sure that when there's a
    safe adult for a young person to be reunified with, whether
    that is on the reservation or in the city, that we are able to
    facilitate that.
        Mental health, chemical help services, parenting services,
    educational assistance, the list goes on and on. But these kids
    didn't fall into these dangers in a short amount of time. They
    typically have been accumulating traumas since they were very
    young, which makes them extremely vulnerable to predators. And
    so we have to work entire family systems and we have to work
    with the school system and our law enforcement and public
    health officials and the Tribes to makes sure that we are
    providing the wrap-around services that these young people
    need.
        Senator Franken. You brought up homelessness. You recently
    wrote a report for the Online Resource Center on Violence
    Against Women in which you point out that sex traffickers
    target homeless Native women and children. And the Minnesota
    Indian Women Resource Center's Shattered Hearts report notes
    that nearly one-third of Native women were physically or
    sexually attacked while they were homeless.
        I know there is a huge unmet demand for homeless shelters
    and for transitional housing services, and we must do more to
    meet that demand. We also must do more to ensure that victims
    of domestic and sexual violence do not become homeless in the
    first place. So I am working on a bill that will make it
    unlawful to evict a woman from federally supported housing just
    because she is a victim of domestic violence, dating violence,
    sexual assault or stalking. This is a preventive measure that
    will allow victims to keep their homes when they need shelter
    the most.
        I am so grateful to you, Ms. Koepplinger, for the Minnesota
    Indian Women's Resource Center's endorsement of that bill and I
    would like to thank you personally for the valuable feedback
    you provided on it. I am looking forward to introducing that
    bill soon.
        Can you talk a little bit more about the relationship
    between homelessness and sexual violence, and explain why
    stable housing is so important to victims?
        Ms. Koepplinger. We see very strong links between sexual
    assault, being vulnerable to predators, and the lack of stable
    and secure housing. And we are very happy to support the bill
    that you referenced. We think it is a critical step in keeping
    women safe.
        We know that many women stay in abusive situations because
    they can't afford to move out, which puts them a greater risk
    for additional violence. We know that when women are forced to
    leave because the violence is too great or they fear for their
    children, if they are on the streets, if they are couch-
    hopping, if they are sleeping in shelters, they are again more
    vulnerable to predators.
        We know that some women who have no other options, if they
    don't have an education or they have no functional job skills
    and they can't find a job will turn to the streets because they
    have children to feed. Perhaps their welfare benefits have run
    out. And because of the normalization of sexual violence, it in
    some ways has become an option for some people.
        But we absolutely see this every single day with the women
    that we work with at the Indian Women's Resource Center. If
    there is not a safe place to stay and if there is not a place
    for the children to go to school on a regular basis, it only
    adds to the risk that they are facing every single day.
        Senator Franken. Thank you very much.
        Mr. Chairman, I see I am out of time. I do have a question
    for Mr. Heffelfinger.
        The Chairman. Please proceed.
        Senator Franken. I can proceed? Thank you.
        Mr. Heffelfinger, thank you for coming. In your written
    testimony, you say that the SAVE Native Women Act will empower
    Tribes who are on the front lines of the efforts to fight
    domestic violence.' I would like to hear a little bit more
    about that.
        Drawing on your experience as a Federal prosecutor, can you
    explain why it is so important that Tribal courts be given
    jurisdiction over cases involving non-Indians who commit acts
    of violence against women in Indian Country?
        Mr. Heffelfinger. Chairman Akaka, Senator Franken, in
    addition to having been a Federal line prosecutor, I was also a
    State prosecutor in Minneapolis. And it is based on that
    experience that it is my conclusion domestic violence is among
    those types of criminal offenses which are most properly
    handled as close to the community, as close to the act level as
    you possibly can.
        Compare, say, crimes like drug dealing or bank robbery,
    these are ones in which you can form a regional or a statewide
    kind of strategy. But you have to deal with crimes like
    domestic violence, which are within the family kinds of crimes,
    child abuse is another good example, at the level of the
    community itself. The community is in the best position to
    respond to those crimes, to prevent those crimes.
        What is wonderful about this Act is that it lets the courts
    and the law enforcement and the prosecutor, who are right there
    in the community and have the ability to respond immediately
    and directly to the violence going on in that community. And
    that is not simply making arrests and initiating prosecutions.
    It is also the ability to give the courts jurisdiction to
    fashion a sentence that can not only punish, but prevent and
    deter. And that is much better if done on Red Lake than it is
    if done to a Red Laker by a judge sitting in St. Paul.
        That is why I believe one of the reasons this bill will be
    very effective when implemented.
        Senator Franken. I just want to follow up, because part of
    the question I was trying to get it is jurisdiction over non-
    Indians. And this is partly the Oliphant decision. Why is that
    important? That, in other words, on Red Lake, maybe it isn't a
    domestic violence situation. Maybe it is a sexual assault. Why,
    in your opinion, is it important that Red Lake have
    jurisdiction over a non-Indian perpetrator?
        Mr. Heffelfinger. Well, it starts with the statistics,
    Senator. As the Amnesty International report showed, something
    like 60 percent of domestic violence offenders are non-Indian
    upon Indian. And how can a local law enforcement officer, a
    local prosecutor, respond to a crime if it makes a difference
    what the race is? You are taking 60 percent of the offenders
    and basically making them immune.
        In the local community, where you are attempting to respond
    to domestic violence, if you have 60 percent of your offenders
    that are outside the jurisdiction of your local police and your
    local courts, you have 60 percent that are untouchable.
        Senator Franken. I just want to make sure that we are
    working on the same definition of domestic violence because I
    am talking about sexual violence, say, from a non-Indian who
    may not know the victim.
        Mr. Heffelfinger. Domestic violence includes, as defined in
    this Act, Senator, both date violence as well as a longer-term
    relationship. And so domestic violence as laid out in the Act
    as I would interpret it physical violence, but I would also
    interpret that as sexual violence in the domestic or dating
    arena.
        And if Tribal law enforcement, which is in the best
    position to address these crimes, is to be effective, it has to
    have jurisdiction over all the offenders in that community.
    Otherwise, you have a group of offenders who are essentially
    immune because you are relying on people who are outside of the
    community and remote from the community to provide that
    support.
        Senator Franken. And thus your very, very eloquent
    statement from the gentleman that you quoted at the beginning
    of your testimony.
        Mr. Heffelfinger. Without sovereignty, how can you protect?
    How can you have sovereignty when you can't protect?
        Senator Franken. How can you have sovereignty when you
    can't protect your women and children?
        Thank you both for coming.
        The Chairman. Thank you very much, Senator Franken.
        Let me call on Senator Begich for any questions he may
    have.
        Senator Begich. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        I do have just a couple of questions. And again, thank you
    for allowing me as a non-Member of the Committee to have some
    opportunity to ask questions and I appreciate that greatly.
        To both members from Alaska, thank you, as Senator
    Murkowski said, it is a far distance to travel and those that
    are coming, especially from western Alaska, experienced an
    incredible storm that has hit with waves up to 30 feet high and
    winds up to 100 miles an hour and a little bit of snow and a
    little bit of ice. It is a very devastating impact that is
    occurring right now. And so I thank you for being here.
        First, Commissioner, if I can ask you just a couple of
    questions. And I want to take a couple of exceptions, but I
    want to take you up first, as we talked yesterday, on your
    offer that we figure out and resolve some of the State's
    issues. I disagree with, as you know, as I said yesterday, the
    Attorney General's discussion about how this has jurisdiction
    or Indian Country implications, because as you have heard from
    the Co-Chair of AFN and myself, that is not the intent.
        But I want to make it clear this is not a top-down
    approach. You stated that in your comments. This only allows
    the opportunity for Tribes to make a decision to develop a
    demonstration project from the community up. So I want to make
    sure we are on the same page here. If it was top-down, we would
    just dictate and say this is the way you are doing it. That is
    not what we are doing in this legislation. It creates another
    tool in the toolbox.
        And I would beg to differ that the court systems are
    working. With 60-plus percent of offenders repeating their
    offenses in Alaska and a disproportionate amount of Alaska
    Natives in the judicial system, the system is broken. And we
    can argue what you define as broken, but when 60 percent re-
    offend, it is a system that is not working.
        And when I faced this when I was Mayor of Anchorage, we,
    with the young people of our city, we introduced a program that
    was already in existence, but expanded it which was a simple
    program called Youth Court, designed and developed by youth
    themselves. No adults participated in the judicial process. The
    impacts, 90 percent of those kids do not re-offend; 89 percent
    pay their restitution. The State has embraced Youth Court all
    over the State. We had one. Now there are multiple.
        The concept of youth Courts are based on Tribal courts,
    elder courts, youth and elder courts. They work.
        So what is the real fundamental problem with allowing a
    tool to Tribes, not dictating to the Tribes, saying here is a
    tool. Because, maybe we will disagree, I don't think 60 percent
    re-offender rate is a system that is working.
        Mr. Masters. I guess, Senator, you are asking for a
    comment. I didn't hear the question.
        Senator Begich. The question is what do you object to
    specifically in the idea of allowing Tribes to----
        Mr. Masters. Senator, in response to that, first off there
    are already existing Tribal courts operating in Alaska. There
    are some semblances of community-type court or youth courts
    operating in Alaska as well, as you state.
        There are currently officers that are employed by Tribes
    acting as peace officers in the State of Alaska. And there is a
    concerted effort by the State to put law enforcement in every
    community. A lot of the basic structure provisions are already
    in place in Alaska to be worked with and expanded upon, and
    that can be collaborative in order to be effective.
        I do agree with the concept that offenses should be dealt
    with at the lowest level possible. I think that Tribal courts
    that already exist in Alaska can be effective in dealing with
    minor offenses and they can be very effective in dealing
    particularly with truancy and other types of issues in
    communities.
        I think there is a great opportunity for the State of
    Alaska and Tribes to work together through some of the work
    that you are proposing in this bill. The primary concern the
    State of Alaska has with the bill is, like I stated in my
    testimony, and that is the potential expansion of criminal
    jurisdiction and the creation of Indian Country or de facto
    Indian Country. If we can get past that piece of the bill, I
    think this is a great opportunity to work together to provide
    programmatic, fiscal, policy, and pragmatic solutions to the
    issues in rural Alaska.
        Senator Begich. Last question, if I can ask very quickly to
    the Co-Chair of AFN. I know, Ralph, this was just a concept,
    but really it was several Tribes that came to us and said we
    need some tools. And how do you see this issue of Indian
    Country, which I do not see this as part of this piece of
    legislation?
        You said it more than once that it is not part of what your
    intent is. But do you see this as an effective method or tool,
    what we are trying to propose here, as a way to go after some
    of these issues that are not truancy, you are right, truancy
    and so forth, but we have to step it up. Because the real
    issues are domestic violence, sexual assault, the issues of
    substance abuse at a higher level.
        Tell me why you think the Tribes really want to do this? I
    mean, I think I know, but----
        Mr. Andersen. Okay, thank you, Senator. It was the Bristol
    Bay Native Association, the Tanana Chief's Conference and
    Kawerak, three regional Tribal consortiums, and AFN that got
    together about two years ago, primarily because we had seen
    domestic violence, sexual assault perpetrators, bootleggers
    walking the streets at home.
        People in the village of Gambell on St. Lawrence Island,
    there was a person that was there that was convicted or
    suspected of child abuse. Because the State trooper couldn't
    make it out there for a week or 10 days, that person was
    walking the streets. Families, parents were keeping their
    children at home. They were afraid to live in their own
    village.
        And that is just one example. We have other examples, too.
    We finally said enough is enough; that we have had enough. We
    have to do something about this. We can't have our own people,
    we can't have any person regardless of color, regardless of
    race, living in any of our communities in constant fear;
    constant fear of being beat up; constant fear of being molested
    or raped.
        Trying to get a person arrested somewhere and getting them
    through the court system is really, really, really difficult;
    really expensive. Again, we don't want to take over jails. We
    don't want to take over criminals. We don't want to prosecute
    murders. We don't want to prosecute DUIs and those kinds of
    things, the criminal cases.
        But we believe if we are able to prosecute and use our
    Tribal courts, use our elders, that is who the Tribal courts
    normally are. They are elders in the community, well respected,
    to tell kids, to tell delinquents you have to behave yourself,
    and sentence them to community service so the whole town sees
    they are set as examples.
        Senator Begich. Thank you, Ralph.
        And let me say again, Mr. Chairman, thank you for the
    opportunity to present the bill today. Thank you for both.
        And Commissioner, we will take you up on the opportunity
    because I think the mission is the same. We have to change the
    way we do the business in rural Alaska. We have to change and
    create an opportunity of some new tools in the tool box to
    create a system that creates justice and ensures that people,
    no matter where they live in Alaska, don't have to fear living
    in their own community. So I look forward to working with you,
    Commissioner.
        And again, Ralph, to you and your organization, thank you
    for your last two years of working aggressively on this
    legislation, and I underline aggressively. I look forward to
    working with you as we move this forward.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman. Thank you very much, Senator Begich. It is
    good to have you here with us. Thank you.
        I would like to ask the Chairperson of Lytton Rancheria
    Mejia, can you describe the change in circumstances that led
    the Tribe to withdraw its support for the legislation?
        Ms. Mejia. Certainly, I would be happy to, Mr. Chairman.
        There was a change in DOI policy for the restored lands
    exception. When I first started, I met with DOI and they had a
    different position. I mean, it was almost impossible to get a
    restored lands exception allowing you to have the land and do
    gaming on the land.
        So that is why we sought authorizing legislation so that we
    could have our facility and start generating revenue for the
    Tribe. In 2009, we had seen the policy had changed within the
    Bureau of Indian Affairs on the restored lands exception, and
    we had conversations with them. In 2009, my team met with
    Senator Feinstein's staff and said at this point, we don't
    think we can continue on with the compromise, given this
    reason. And we laid it all out there.
        So that is why we had to withdraw our willingness to work
    on that particular compromise.
        The Chairman. Thank you very much.
        Mr. Mayor?
        Mr. Morris. Yes, Mr. Chairman?
        The Chairman. Mayor Morris, in Congress, we are working to
    find ways to improve job and economic opportunities in this
    period of high unemployment. If this legislation passes, what
    would the economic impact be to your community?
        Mr. Morris. Well, the economic impact would be substantial,
    Mr. Chair. When you look over the history of the City of San
    Pablo, back in 1993 and 1994, the city was broke. We were just
    about to close our doors when there was a proposal by the card
    room, and we went out to the citizens to get a vote on what
    they thought of bringing a card room into the City of San
    Pablo. Almost 70 percent of the residents said yes, let's do
    it. And had we not, we would have either had to dis-incorporate
    and become part of the county or to be annexed by the
    neighboring City of Richmond.
        So then you fast forward to today where the City of San
    Pablo and the City Council, the city staff, the City Police
    Department up to this year have exercised extreme fiscal
    responsibility by balancing our budget on good ideas to not
    spend as other cities do on things that we just don't need.
        So on one hand, we have the threat from this legislation,
    which says that if the Tribe is not allowed, like other
    casinos, to expand their business, then we have almost the,
    should I say, this is income that would be going away. This is
    income that would be leaving the community because other Tribes
    will be allowed to go to level III gaming for example, where if
    the Lytton Tribe is not, then it leaves them at a tremendous
    disadvantage, and then leaves them open to this severe
    competition where business will go away. If business goes away,
    being our single largest business in the City of San Pablo,
    then we can see a lot of our services now disappearing, and
    programs.
        So the fact that the Tribe and the city worked so closely
    together and always have done, as I said in my testimony, that
    from day one. There is no problem. The problem is being created
    by the threat of this bill. And I think it is too bad that
    Senator Feinstein had to leave, because she is hanging onto an
    old idea, which goes back to her original bill of S. 113 three
    years ago.
        So the letter that was signed between the Tribe, the city,
    and herself said they can remain the way they are, but I don't
    think the Tribe is doing anything other than being competitive
    to stay in business, stay competitive. And I think that is the
    bottom line, Mr. Chair. It would have a severe impact on the
    city, it really would.
        We are trying to attract right now other businesses and
    other entities in the community. We have done very well this
    year. There are about 600 new jobs happening in San Pablo, from
    a new Auto Zone, a new Walgreen's, a new barber college, a new
    42,000 square foot supermarket, Hispanic, which 91 of those
    employees at that supermarket are hired from the City of San
    Pablo. And then there is a new county health clinic being built
    and there are 200 new jobs there just in the construction, and
    there will be about 200 permanent jobs once it opens.
        So this is because of the ability to financially attract
    these types of businesses into our community, to not be so
    reliant on one big entity. But our relations with the Tribe is
    exemplary, as I mentioned several times. There is no problem.
    The bill will cause the problem.
        The Chairman. Thank you very much.
        Mr. Morris. I hope I have answered your question. I know it
    is a long answer.
        The Chairman. Thank you for your responses.
        I want to tell you that I am impressed with your patience.
    You have been very helpful with your responses. It will help
    the Committee as we move forward with these bills, and it will,
    I am sure, make a difference in what we do. And hopefully, if
    it needs to, we can try to improve them better than they are.
        But it is good to hear directly from you, and the way I put
    it is that I like to hear from the trenches, and you have been
    very gracious in providing as much of that kind of information,
    which will help us in our deliberations.
        So I want to again express a warm mahalo, thank you to the
    witnesses at today's hearing. I want to thank my Senate
    colleagues and the Administration for providing their views on
    these bills. And I especially want to thank the Tribal
    representatives and other stakeholders who traveled so far to
    be with us today and have been so patient.
        So we will consider your comments very carefully as we
    consider how to move forward with these bills. And I want to
    wish you well with your issues and say that all we are doing
    here is to try to help the indigenous people of our Country.
    And I thank you so much for being part of that.
        Thank you.
        This hearing is adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 5:10 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
                                A P P E N D I X

      Prepared Statement of Hon. George Miller, U.S. Representative from
                                   California
        Please accept this letter as my testimony for the official record
    of the hearing that you are holding today on S. 872, a bill to ``amend
    the Omnibus Indian Advancement Act to modify the date as of which
    certain tribal land of the Lytton Rancheria of California is considered
    to be held in trust and to provide for the conduct of certain
    activities on the land.''
        As you know, the House is not in session this week and I am working
    in my congressional district and thus unable to testify before the
    Committee in person. Thank you very much, however, for the opportunity
    to comment on this bill. And thank you for inviting Mayor Paul Morris
    of the City of San Pablo, a constituent of mine, accompanied by the
    city's Vice-Mayor Cecilia Valdez, also a constituent, to testify. Mayor
    Morris and Vice Mayor Valdez and I work closely together to improve the
    economy for all the residents of San Pablo.
        Let me state at the outset that I strongly oppose S. 872 and
    believe that there is no justification for its passage by your
    Committee or Congress. S. 872 is unfairly prejudicial against a single
    tribe that has clearly satisfied the federal courts and the United
    States Congress as to its right to conduct gaming in San Pablo, CA, in
    accordance with federal laws and regulations.
        The history of the Lytton Rancheria is well known to this Committee
    and I do not intend to retell that history today. I have testified
    before this Committee at length in the past concerning similar
    legislation that would have reversed Congress' original intent by
    unfairly singling out the Lytton Rancheria for unique restrictions and
    burdens that are unwarranted and unjustified.
        The fact of the matter is that the Lytton Rancheria has the right
    to conduct gaming in the city of San Pablo, a right that was given to
    them by the federal courts and by Congress. Furthermore, there exists a
    process to approve or disapprove any plans by the Lytton Rancheria to
    expand or alter its facility or change the Class of gaming at its
    facility. That process requires the tribe to receive the approval of
    the State of California and the Department of the Interior for any
    plans to expand its operations. There is no need nor justification for
    Congress to apply additional restrictions and burdens on the Lytton
    Rancheria.
        I do not take lightly any question affecting Indian gaming. As a
    member of House Natural Resources Committee for more than three
    decades, and as its former chairman and ranking member, I am well
    versed in the laws governing Indian gaming as well as the varied
    concerns about and support for Indian gaming that exist in Congress and
    throughout the country.
        Personally, I am neither a proponent nor opponent of gaming per se.
    I am, however, a strong defender of Indian sovereignty. And I am also
    actively engaged in helping communities in my district to create jobs
    and grow economically.
        It is important to note that, having been properly approved by the
    federal courts and Congress, the casino in San Pablo quickly became,
    and remains today, a very important source of revenue and employment to
    this struggling East Bay community. The positive impacts for the city
    of San Pablo and its residents that were projected by the city and the
    Lytton Rancheria when the casino was being proposed have been realized.
    Meanwhile, the negative impacts that opponents of the casino warned of,
    such as increased crime and traffic, have not materialized.
        Mr. Chairman, S. 872 is unjustified and unfair and I strongly
    oppose its passage.
        Thank you for the opportunity to make my views on this legislation
    known, once again, to the Committee.
                                     ______

            Prepared Statement of Alan J. Titus, Lawyer, Robb & Ross

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                     ______

       Prepared Statement of the United States Department of the Interior
        The Department of the Interior (Department) has reviewed S. 872, a
    bill that would modify the date as of which certain tribal land of the
    Lytton Rancheria of California is to be considered held in trust and to
    provide for the conduct of certain activities on the land. The
    Department opposes S. 872, as currently drafted, at this time.
        Public Law 106-568 (Dec. 27, 2000) required the Secretary to
    acquire certain lands in trust in northern California on behalf of the
    Lytton Rancheria, and deemed those lands to ``have been held in trust
    and part of the reservation of the Rancheria prior to October 17,
    1988.'' The Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA) generally prohibits
    Indian tribes from conducting gaming on lands acquired after October
    17, 1988, subject to several exceptions.
        The Department of the Interior placed the land in question in trust
    on behalf of the Lytton Rancheria on October 9, 2003.
        The Lytton Rancheria (Tribe) lawfully operates a Class II gaming
    facility on those trust lands in northern California. The Tribe does
    not have a tribal-state gaming compact with the State of California;
    meaning, the Tribe is not able to operate a Class III gaming facility
    on the site.
        S. 872 would amend P.L. 106-568 by deeming the land in question to
    have been acquired in trust on October 9, 2003. The bill would also
    limit the Tribe's existing Class II gaming activities by providing,
    ``the Lytton Rancheria of California shall not expand the exterior
    physical measurements of any facility on the Lytton Rancheria in use
    for Class II gaming activities on the date of enactment of this
    paragraph.''
        The Department's policy is to support tribes' inherent governing
    authority over their own lands by protecting their ability to control
    tribal land use. S. 872 would diminish the Lytton Rancheria's land-use
    authority by essentially imposing a zoning restriction on existing
    facilities on its trust lands. By modifying the legal date of the trust
    acquisition of the Tribe's lands, S. 872 would also restrict the
    ongoing operation of the Tribe's economic enterprises, which were
    within the limits of federal law at the time they were established. In
    the Department's view, Indian tribes should be permitted to reasonably
    rely upon the scope of federal laws governing the use of their lands
    when making decisions regarding land-use.
        Importantly, Lytton Rancheria cannot develop and operate a Las
    Vegas-style, Class III gaming facility on the lands at issue until the
    Tribe enters into a valid tribal-state gaming compact.
        The Department's position with respect to S. 872 should not be
    interpreted to mean that the Department would support future
    legislation that would modify a tribe's trust acquisition of lands in a
    manner similar to P.L. 106-568. Nevertheless, the Department opposes
    retroactive restrictions on lands that have already been acquired in
    trust on behalf of Indian tribes and individual Indians in reliance on
    existing federal laws.
                                     ______

       Prepared Statement of Hon. Michael Finley, Chairman, Confederated
                       Tribes of the Colville Reservation
        On behalf of the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation
    (``Colville Tribes'' or the ``Tribes''), I am pleased to provide this
    statement for the record on S. 1763, the Stand Against Violence and
    Empower Native Women Act, and would like to thank the Committee for
    convening this hearing.
        The Colville Tribes supports S. 1763 as introduced. The provisions
    providing for tribal jurisdiction over certain federal crimes against
    women is a critical first step to restoring inherent tribal
    jurisdiction over all offenders in Indian country. The Colville Tribes
    applauds the Administration and the Department of Justice for endorsing
    this concept and its inclusion in Title II of S. 1763.
        When the Committee disseminated the draft bill that was ultimately
    introduced as S. 1763, the Colville Tribes proposed an additional
    section that would address the gap that exists on many Indian
    reservations for the enforcement of misdemeanor offenses. This proposed
    new section, the ``Misdemeanor Enforcement Demonstration Project''
    (``Demonstration Project''), is described in more detail below and the
    text is included at the end of this statement.
        The Colville Tribes has discussed this Demonstration Project
    proposal with the Committee's majority and minority staff,
    representatives from the Department of the Interior and the Department
    of Justice, the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Washington,
    and other Indian tribes. We are hopeful that the Committee will include
    this proposal, or a variation of it, in any manager's amendment to S.
    1763 if or when the Committee takes action on the bill. The Colville
    Tribes offers this Demonstration Project proposal as an addition to,
    not a substitute for, the substantive provisions of Title II of S. 1763
    as introduced.
        Presently, only state or federal law enforcement officers possess
    jurisdiction over non-Indians in Indian country. Cross-deputization or
    other agreements with state and local governments that delegate
    authority to enforce state criminal laws to tribes mitigate this
    problem to some extent. State and local governments, however, are under
    no obligation to enter into such agreements with tribes and are often
    unwilling to do so. Consequently, many Indian reservations lack the
    ability to provide any law enforcement response to crimes committed by
    non-Indians.
        The Demonstration Project proposal addresses this problem in a
    unique manner by authorizing the Secretary of the Interior
    (``Secretary'') to (i) promulgate regulations of general applicability
    with misdemeanor criminal penalties to apply within Indian country and
    (ii) delegate the authority to Indian tribes to enforce them. Tribal
    officers would have authority to issue citations but any processing of
    fines or prosecution would be handled by the applicable federal
    district court, specifically the Central Violations Bureau (CVB). The
    CVB is the entity created by the federal courts for processing tickets
    issued and payments received for misdemeanor federal violations. The
    Demonstration Project is intended to grant tribal officers the
    authority to take immediate action to intervene in misdemeanor criminal
    activity and refer such violations to federal authorities.
        This concept is modeled on Section 303 of the Federal Land Policy
    and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C.  1733), which grants the
    Secretary similar authority to promulgate regulations and delegate
    enforcement to state and local officers on Bureau of Land Management
    land.
        The proposal is of limited duration and is discretionary on the
    part of the Secretary. Any regulations issued by the Secretary would be
    subject to notice and comment rulemaking and neither the Act nor any
    regulations promulgated under a demonstration project would affect,
    diminish or otherwise preempt the criminal jurisdiction of any state or
    local government, or affect or diminish P.L. 280. Any regulations
    promulgated would be concurrent with any state or local law enforcement
    efforts. Finally, any person cited by a tribal officer for violation of
    regulations would be subject to the adjudicatory jurisdiction of the
    applicable federal district court, not tribal courts, and all federal
    constitutional protections would apply.
        The Demonstration Project would provide a mechanism for tribal
    officers to intervene in criminal conduct in Indian country where they
    currently lack the authority to do so. The Demonstration Project would,
    therefore, allow for a potentially broader range of conduct to be
    subject to tribal law enforcement intervention than Title II does as
    introduced. The difference is that the substantive offenses are
    established through federal regulations, are misdemeanors, and are
    subject to federal--not tribal--court adjudication.
        The report to Congress contemplated by the Demonstration Project
    would provide a valuable record to gauge the effectiveness of the
    projects in evaluating a longer term solution to the issues caused by
    the Oliphant and other federal court decisions. The Colville Tribes
    appreciates the Committee convening this hearing and is grateful of its
    consideration of these comments. The text of the Tribes' proposal is
    set forth below.
        __________________

        SEC. 206. MISDEMEANOR ENFORCEMENT DEMONSTRATION PROJECT
        Subchapter I of chapter 15 of title 25, is amended by adding at the
    end the following new section:

        ''SEC. 1306. MISDEMEANOR ENFORCEMENT DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS

        (A) IN GENERAL.--In each of fiscal years 2012 to 2018, the
    Secretary may select up to five Indian tribes to participate in
    demonstration projects to carry out enforcement of federal regulations
    as authorized by this section.

        (B) DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS.--For each Indian tribe selected by the
    Secretary for a demonstration project under this section, the Secretary
    shall--

            (1) in consultation with the selected Indian tribe, issue
            regulations with respect to the management, use, and public
            safety of and within Indian country, including the property
            located thereon. Any person who knowingly and willfully
            violates any such regulation issued pursuant to this section
            shall be fined not more than $1,000 or imprisoned not more than
            twelve months, or both. Any person charged with a violation of
            such regulation may be tried and sentenced by any United States
            magistrate judge [P.L. 101-650, 1990] designated for that
            purpose by the court by which he was appointed, in the same
            manner and subject to the same conditions and limitations as
            provided for in section 3401 of title 18 of the United States
            Code; and

            (2) at the Indian tribes' request, negotiate agreements with
            the selected Indian tribes to allow tribal officers to enforce
            regulations promulgated under this section. Such agreements
            shall reflect the status of the applicable tribal officers as
            Federal law enforcement officers under [25 U.S.C.  2804(f)],
            acting within the scope of the duties described in [25 U.S.C.
            2802(c)].

        (C) APPLICATION AND SELECTION.--Within 180 days of enactment of
    this Act, and after consultation with Indian tribes, the Secretary
    shall publish application requirements and selection criteria for
    demonstration projects authorized under this section. In selecting
    tribal applications, the Secretary shall--

            (1) ensure that the Indian tribe has notified the applicable
            state and local governments where the Indian country subject to
            the proposed demonstration project is located; and

            (2) give preference to those applications where the United
            States attorney for the district where the Indian country
            subject to the proposed demonstration project is located
            consents to the proposed project.

        (D) DURATION OF REGULATIONS.--Any regulations promulgated by the
    Secretary under this Act may remain in effect for up to four years
    after the expiration of the applicable demonstration project.

            (E) EFFECT ON OTHER LAWS.--Nothing in this Act or any
            regulations promulgated under any demonstration project
            authorized herein shall be construed to modify or affect
            section 1152 of title 18, United States Code or to modify or
            diminish the criminal jurisdiction of any state or local
            government.

            (F) REPORT.--Not later than September 30, 2016, the Secretary
            shall submit to Congress a report that describes, with respect
            to the reporting period--

            (1) a description of each demonstration project approved under
            this section; and

            (2) an assessment of the effectiveness of the demonstration
            projects.
                                     ______

       Prepared Statement of Hon. Tom Maulson, Tribal President, Lac du
                                 Flambeau Tribe

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                     ______

       Prepared Statement of Tova Indritz, Chair, NACDL Native American
                               Justice Committee
        I am writing on behalf of the National Association of Criminal
    Defense Lawyers to provide our views on the SAVE Native Women Act.
    While domestic violence is a serious issue for Indian tribes, we
    believe any federal effort to bolster tribal law enforcement must be
    accompanied by measures to increase the quality of justice in tribal
    courts. For the reasons outlined below, we believe the SAVE Native
    Women Act fails to provide the requisite safeguards, including an
    adequate right to counsel, for the proposed fundamental change in
    tribal court jurisdiction.
        NACDL is the preeminent organization in the United States advancing
    the mission of the nation's criminal defense lawyers to ensure justice
    and due process for persons accused of crime or other misconduct. A
    professional bar association founded in 1958, NACDL's more than 10,000
    direct members--and 80 state, local and international affiliate
    organizations with a total of 35,000 members--include private criminal
    defense lawyers, public defenders, active-duty U.S. military defense
    counsel, law professors, and judges committed to preserving fairness
    within America's criminal justice system.
        Title II of the S. 1763 would (1) provide for the first time since
    Oliphant v. Suquamish Indian Tribe, 435 U.S. 191 (1978), for tribal
    court jurisdiction over non-Indians, (2) provide that non-Indians have
    greater rights to due process and representation by counsel than do
    Indians charged with the same crimes and facing the same term of
    incarceration, (3) shift the burden of proof of an element of a crime
    from the prosecuting sovereign government to the defendant to assert
    lack of proof, contrary to historic American criminal procedures, and
    (4) increase penalties for various federal crimes and create new
    federal crimes.
        Native Americans are, after all, U.S. citizens. When charged in
    state or federal court, Indians have the same rights to due process and
    right to counsel as do all other persons. When Congress enacted the
    Indian Civil Rights Act (ICRA) in 1968, the trade-off for not requiring
    appointment of counsel and other indicia of due process in tribal
    courts was to restrict tribes to maximum penalties of six months'
    incarceration and a fine of $500. In 1986, ICRA was amended to provide
    for penalties of up to one year and a fme of $5,000. Then in 2010, the
    Tribal Law and Order Act (TLOA) allowed tribal courts to impose
    sentences up to 3 years, but only where, if the sentence was to be more
    than one year, there is a right to counsel, a qualified judge, and
    certain other aspects of due process.
        If Indian tribal courts had to adhere to the same constitutional
    standards and guarantees as all federal and state courts, there would
    be no objection to allowing tribal courts to prosecute anyone who comes
    into their physical jurisdiction, just as a resident of Arizona cannot
    object to the jurisdiction of the state courts of Kansas if that
    resident travels to Kansas. If this proposed bill extended tribal court
    jurisdiction to non-Indians who have a nexus to the tribe, and those
    non-Indians and also Indians had the same rights in tribal court as
    they do in state or federal court, NACDL would not object. However,
    this bill would not increase constitutional protections, but would
    lower them, and therefore we do object to the bill.
        Argersinger v. Hamlin, 407 U.S. 25 (1972), guarantees an indigent
    defendant the right to counsel in any case where that defendant is
    facing incarceration. This bill purports to give the right to counsel
    to a non-Indian facing imprisonment, while an Indian facing the exact
    same penalty, possibly as a co-defendant in the exact same case, does
    not have that right if the maximum penalty is one year. How can that be
    fair? Instead of going to the least common denominator in terms of
    rights, Congress ought to raise the level of individual rights so that
    all persons who face incarceration, including in tribal court, have the
    right to counsel and full due process.
        Section 204, the definitions section, should define ``licensed
    defense counsel'' (as used in section 204(g)(2)), to mean a lawyer
    licensed to practice law in any state or the District of Columbia, and
    section 204(e) should spell out specifically a right to ``licensed
    defense counsel.'' Some tribes have tribal bar admission requirements
    that do not even include high school graduation, no less completion of
    law school; in these tribes, ``tribal advocates'' who are akin to
    paralegals and are not lawyers represent defendants. Such non-lawyer
    members of the tribal bar do not fulfill the requirement
    ofrepresentation by counsel in the sense of Gideon v. Wainright, 372
    U.S. 335 (1963), Argersinger v. Hamlin, supra, nor the Sixth Amendment
    to the U.S. Constitution.
        Section 204( e) should also spell out specifically the full right
    to counsel, due process, protection from illegal search and seizure,
    and all other rights that persons facing incarceration in state and
    federal courts are entitled to receive.
        The burden of proof must always be on the prosecuting government to
    prove beyond a reasonable doubt every element of a charged offense.
    Section 204( d)( 4) purports to shift the burden of proof of a
    reasonable nexus between the non-Indian defendant and the tribe to the
    defendant by providing that if the defendant does not file a pre-trial
    motion contesting that element, then the issue is waived. That is like
    shifting to a defendant the burden of raising any element of proof in a
    criminal case and is completely inappropriate. Also, the standard of
    proof should be spelled out in section 204(d)(B) as ``beyond a
    reasonable doubt.''
        The creation of new crimes, in section 203, is unnecessary. If
    there is a special statute for assault by strangling or suffocating,
    why should there not be a special statute for assault by use of a
    knife, or a firearm, or a rock, or a chair as a weapon? The current
    assault statute, with various levels of harm imposed, is sufficient. In
    section 205, the increase in penalties for various assault statutes and
    the expansion of the 20-year penalty for any assault that is a felony
    again subjects those charged in federal court with Indian Country
    crimes to much greater penalties than are those persons charged in most
    state courts. This penalty scheme creates a disparity that is
    unwarranted and may ultimately undermine the federal role in
    maintaining the safety and welfare of those who reside in Indian
    Country.
        Thank you for considering our views. We stand ready to assist the
    committee and its staff in improving this legislation so as to
    adequately ensure fairness and due process in tribal courts.
                                     ______

      Prepared Statement of Hon. Mike Wiggins, Jr., Tribal Chairman, Bad
             River Band of Lake Superior Tribe of Chippewa Indians

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                     ______

       Prepared Statement of Jana L. Walker, Senior Attorney, Indian Law
                                Resource Center
        Chairman Akaka and distinguished members of the Committee. The
    Indian Law Resource Center (Center), \1\ a non-profit legal
    organization, respectfully submits this testimony to be included in the
    record of the Committee's legislative hearing, held on November 10,
    2011, concerning violence against Native women. The Center strongly
    supports federal law reform that will end the epidemic of violence
    being experienced throughout Indian country and Alaska Native villages
    every minute of every day. Protection of Native women and communities
    will not be fully realized without strengthening the ability of Native
    nations to effectively police their lands and prosecute offenders on
    their lands. Passage of legislation such as S. 1763, the SAVE Native
    Women Act, would be a first step.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ Founded in 1978 by American Indians, the Center assists
    indigenous peoples in combating racism and oppression, realizing their
    human rights, protecting their lands and environment, and achieving
    sustainable economic development and genuine self-government. The
    Center works throughout the Americas to overcome the devastating
    problems that threaten Native peoples by advancing the rule of law, by
    establishing national and international legal standards that preserve
    their human rights and dignity, and by providing legal assistance
    without charge to indigenous peoples fighting to protect their lands
    and ways of life. One of our overall goals is to promote and protect
    the human rights of indigenous peoples, especially those human rights
    recognized in international law.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        On November 10, 2011, the Center's staff once again listened to the
    sobering testimony of panelists testifying before the Committee about
    the epidemic of violence against Native women. Sadly, these horrific
    rates of sexual and physical violence being committed against Native
    women in the United States are all too familiar to Native communities--
    1 in 3 Native women will be raped in their lifetime and 6 in 10 will be
    physically assaulted. On some reservations, the murder rate for Native
    women is 10 times the national average. Even worse, it is strongly
    believed that the actual incidence of violence against Native women is
    even higher due to improper and under-reporting.
        At the root of this violence are restrictions on the inherent
    jurisdiction of federally recognized American Indian and Alaska Native
    tribal governments over their respective territories. Major legal
    barriers obstructing the ability of tribes to protect women living
    within their jurisdictional authority include:

            a. Federal assumption of jurisdiction over certain felony
            crimes under the Major Crimes Act (1885);

            b. The stripping of tribal criminal jurisdiction over non-
            Indians by the United States Supreme Court (1978);

            c. Imposition of a one-year, per offense, sentencing limitation
            upon tribal courts by Congress through passage of the Indian
            Civil Rights Act (1968); \2\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ In 2010, the Tribal Law and Order Act (TLOA), Pub. L. No. 111-
    211, was enacted, amending the Indian Civil Rights Act to allow tribal
    courts to sentence offenders for up to three years imprisonment, a
    $15,000 fine, or both for any one offense, but only if certain
    requirements are met. Tribal courts also may stack sentences for up to
    nine years total imprisonment. In order for tribes to use enhanced
    sentencing authority, they must provide a number of specific defendant
    protections, including: defense counsel for indigent defendants, legal
    trained and licensed judges, detention facilities certified for long
    term detention, and publicly available tribal codes. For the vast
    majority of tribes, additional resources will be needed to meet these
    requirements.

            d. Transfer of criminal jurisdiction from the United States to
            certain state governments through passage of Public Law 53-280
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
            and other similar legislation (1953); and

            e. Failure to fulfill treaties signed by the United States with
            tribes as recognized by the court in Elk v. United States in
            2009.

        These federal laws and decisions of the United States Supreme Court
    have created a jurisdictional maze, involving federal, tribal, and
    state governments and requiring a case-by-case analysis of the location
    of each crime, race of the perpetrator and victim, and the type of
    crime. This jurisdictional scheme perpetuates violations of women's
    human rights, because it treats Native women differently from all other
    women and causes confusion over who has the authority to respond to,
    investigate, and prosecute violence against Native women. In no other
    jurisdiction within the United States does a government lack the legal
    authority to prosecute violent criminal offenses illegal under its own
    laws.
        Restrictions on the criminal authority of tribes also denies
    meaningful access to justice for Native women who are victims of sexual
    and domestic violence on tribal lands. Appallingly, it is believed that
    88 percent of the violence against Native women is perpetrated by non-
    Natives, many of whom are very aware that they may commit violence
    against Native women with impunity. The erosion of tribal criminal
    authority over all persons committing crimes within their
    jurisdictions, coupled with a shameful record of investigation,
    prosecution, and punishment of these crimes by federal and state
    governments, has directly resulted in the disproportionate rates of
    violence against Native women.
        The truth of the matter is that many violent crimes go unprosecuted
    in Indian country. According to a recent United States Government
    Accountability Office study, from 2005 through 2009, U.S. attorneys
    failed to prosecute 52 percent of all violent criminal cases, 67
    percent of sexual abuse cases, and 46 percent of assault cases
    occurring on Indian lands. \3\ As these numbers reflect, Native women
    are routinely denied their right to adequate judicial recourse. This
    treatment separates Native women from other groups under the law. The
    United States' restriction of tribal criminal authority combined with
    its failure to effectively police and prosecute these violent crimes
    violates its obligation to act with due diligence to protect Native
    women from violence and punish perpetrators.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \3\ United States Government Accountability Office, U.S. Department
    of Justice Declinations of Indian Country Criminal Matters 3 (December
    13, 2010).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Enforcement inequalities permit perpetrators to act with impunity
    on Native nation lands, thereby condoning violence against Native women
    and denying them the right to equal protection under both United States
    and international law. The rights to personal security and freedom from
    fear are internationally recognized human rights. If the United States
    ignores ongoing systemic problems relating to crimes in Indian country,
    it does so in violation of various international principles and of the
    human rights of Native women under international law. \4\ Global
    attention is now being directed to violence against Native women in the
    United States. In January 2011, Rashida Manjoo, the UN Special
    Rapporteur on Violence Against Women, conducted an in-depth
    investigation of violence against women in the United States, including
    violence against Native American women. In October 2011, Ms. Manjoo
    presented her report to the General Assembly of the United Nations in
    New York City. The report cites restrictions placed on tribes' criminal
    jurisdictional authority as one of the causes of the extremely high
    rate of violence against Native women. Very recently, on October 25,
    2011, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights also called
    attention to this issue in a thematic hearing on this human rights
    crisis affecting Native women in the United States.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \4\ Less than a year ago, on December 16, 2010, President Obama
    announced the United States' support of the United Nations Declaration
    on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Significantly, Article 22(2) of
    the Declaration speaks directly and unequivocally to the United States'
    obligation to ensure the safety of Native women: ``States shall take
    measures, in conjunction with indigenous peoples, to ensure that
    indigenous women and children enjoy the full protection and guarantees
    against all forms of violence and discrimination.'' Unacceptably high
    rates of violence against Native women also violate several
    international human rights treaties. Article 5, Section B, of the
    International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial
    Discrimination (ICERD), states that regardless of race, all peoples
    should be guaranteed their right to ``security of person and protection
    by the State against violence or bodily harm.'' However, the current
    epidemic of violence against Native women in the United States,
    perpetuated by systemic inequality and confusion, not only violates
    this provision of ICERD, but also other provisions of ICERD by denying
    Native women freedom from racial discrimination (Article 2), equal
    protection under the law (Article 5(a)), and access to effective
    judicial remedies (Article 6). Additionally, the United States is one
    of 167 states that have ratified another international treaty, the
    International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). Article 3
    of the ICCPR explicitly states that the civil and political rights
    guaranteed under the ICCPR apply to both men and women. In living lives
    impacted by daily violence, Native women are thwarted in their ability
    to fulfill many of their civil and political rights guaranteed in the
    ICCPR. As the preamble of the ICCPR asserts, ``in accordance with the
    Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the ideal of free human beings
    enjoying civil and political freedom and freedom from fear and want can
    only be achieved if conditions are created whereby everyone may enjoy
    his civil and political rights, as well as his economic, social and
    cultural rights.'' (emphasis added).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Often, various federal laws and policies still perpetuate, instead
    of reduce, violence against Native women. This is quite apparent in
    United States federal court decisions regarding protection orders. In
    Town of Castle Rock, Colo. v. Gonzales, the United States Supreme Court
    held that the Federal Constitution does not require state law
    enforcement to investigate or enforce alleged violations of domestic
    violence protection orders. \5\ Thus, state law enforcement chooses
    whether to enforce these orders, and may always choose not to. \6\ Such
    decisions by local law enforcement leave Native women vulnerable to
    ongoing violence by domestic abusers.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \5\ 545 U.S. 748 (2005).
        \6\ Id.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Federal courts have further undermined the safety of Indian women
    by holding that tribal courts do not have jurisdiction to issue
    domestic violence protection orders requested by a non-member Native
    woman against her non-Native husband. \7\ In Martinez, the federal
    district court held that the tribal court did not have the authority to
    issue the protection order because the issuance of the order was not
    necessary to protect tribal self-government and the non-Native's
    conduct was not a menace to the safety and welfare of the Tribe. The
    Martinez decision fails to recognize the current reality of life within
    a Native community and the importance of tribal courts to maintaining
    law and order in Native communities. Non-member Indians and non-Indians
    as well as member Indians live within the territorial boundaries of
    most Native communities. The tribal court may be the most responsive
    institution to meet the needs of the residents of the community (Native
    communities are often located in rural areas, physically distant from
    state courts and police stations). Orders of protection can be a strong
    tool to prevent future violence, but they are only as strong as their
    recognition and enforcement. Federal law undermining the integrity of
    civil protection orders is especially harmful to Native women. Because
    of the restrictions that have been placed on the criminal authority of
    tribal governments, often the only recourse that a Native woman has
    against an abuser is a civil protection order. It is absolutely
    critical that Native women can trust that police will answer their
    calls for help when their abuser is violating a protection order.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \7\ See, e.g., Martinez v. Martinez, Case No. C08-5503 FDB, Order
    Denying Defendants' Motions to Dismiss and Granting Plaintiff
    Declaratory and Injunctive Relief (W.D. Wash. Dec. 16, 2008).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The United States has made some strides in its fight to prevent
    violence against Native women, but unquestionably, much, much more is
    needed. As members of this Committee have recognized, systemic problems
    continue to perpetuate a cycle of violence against Native women, who
    have few places to turn to for help. This must change. Now is the time
    to identify solutions that will directly and substantially protect the
    lives and safety of Native women. By providing tribes with the
    opportunity to exercise life-saving protections for women within their
    jurisdiction, S. 1763, the SAVE Native Women Act has the potential to
    increase both security and justice to Native women. We appreciate
    greatly this Committee's attention to protecting Native women and
    strengthening Native nations. At your request, we would welcome the
    opportunity to provide additional information on violence against
    Native women.
                                     ______

              Prepared Statement of Tanana Chiefs Conference (TCC)
        The Tanana Chiefs Conference (TCC), an Alaska Native nonprofit and
    consortium of 39 federally recognized Indian Tribes located in the
    interior of Alaska, is submitting the following testimony in full
    support of the Alaska Safe Families and Villages Act, S. 1192. We would
    like to thank you for holding a hearing on this important legislation,
    and providing us with the opportunity to submit testimony.
        We would like to begin our testimony by thanking Senator Begich for
    introducing this bill, which has the potential of substantially
    improving the safety of villages throughout Alaska, and providing
    consistent support for the safety and well-being of all communities in
    Alaska, including Alaska Native communities. We would also like to
    thank Senator Murkowski for the leadership role she has taken in
    women's issues, her attempt to find solutions to domestic violence, and
    her advocacy on ending the sex-trade practices in Alaska. We appreciate
    the strong leadership Alaska has in the United States Congress and
    would like to take this opportunity to express our gratitude.
        We are equally thankful to Governor Parnell and his Administration
    for all of the investments that have been made to improve rural justice
    services throughout the State in the past three years. The Governor
    implemented a 10-year State initiative to end domestic violence and
    sexual assault through prevention and collaboration, has taken steps to
    increase law enforcement presence in rural Alaska by increasing the
    hiring of Village Public Safety Officers (VPSOs), and has increased
    State funding for the VPSO program. This hard work on the part of
    Governor Parnell and his Administration has had a positive impact on
    public safety and well-being on Alaska Native Villages, and our support
    of this bill in no way detracts from the importance of State
    jurisdiction over the provision of public safety services throughout
    Alaska and our gratitude towards the many positive steps that have been
    made.
        However, despite these positive strides, there are many holes in
    the provision of public safety in our most remote villages that exist
    not because of the shortfall of the State, Tribes, or the Federal
    Government, but because of the very real, and quite unique, challenges
    presented by Alaska's geography. This bill would establish a small-
    scale demonstration project to weigh the effectiveness of additional
    civil tools in plugging these holes. We provide more direct comments
    below.
        Statement of need. This bill is constructed around studies
    completed by such respected institutions as the Institute of Social and
    Economic Research from the University of Alaska Anchorage and the
    Alaska Rural Justice and Law Enforcement Commission, and would
    implement some of the most simple, yet direct, responses to the causes
    these studies have found to be at the base of much of the crime that is
    occurring in our remote villages--causes that have been recognized by
    the State of Alaska. These studies have found that the suicide rate in
    Alaska Native Villages is 6 times the national average, and that Alaska
    Native women suffer the highest rate of forcible sexual assault in the
    United States with an Alaska Native woman being assaulted every 18
    hours.
        These studies have also found that more than 95 percent of all
    crimes committed in rural Alaska--including domestic violence and child
    abuse--can be attributed to alcohol and, as the State itself admits,
    Alaska Native Villages suffer from disproportionately high rates of
    alcohol abuse. Unfortunately connected to that disproportionate rate,
    Alaska Native Villages also suffer from disproportionately high rates
    of suicide and domestic violence. Alcohol-related deaths in Alaska
    Native Villages occur at a rate 3.5 times that of the general national
    population. In addition to these sad numbers, drug and alcohol abuse is
    estimated to cost the State of Alaska $525 million per year.
        Currently, in response to these issues, we are faced with two
    options--either we must wait for an Alaska State trooper to arrive and
    respond to these crimes, or we do nothing and the perpetrator gets a
    free pass. Both options leave members of our communities facing unsafe
    situations, which should be unacceptable to anyone. When dealing with
    incidents of domestic violence or child abuse, it is imperative that
    law enforcement respond immediately to diffuse the situation and take
    steps to ensure the safety of all involved. It is equally imperative
    that protective orders be issued immediately to enforce the safety of
    the domestic partner or child.
        Despite the increases in VPSOs mentioned above, many rural Alaska
    Native Villages lack local law enforcement presence. There are
    currently approximately 71 VPSOs serving in Alaska, but there are over
    200 remote Villages throughout the State. The presence of VPSOs is
    helpful, and the members of the Villages greatly appreciate their
    presence, but the truth is that they are unarmed and sometimes face
    situations that they cannot handle on their own. Even when they are
    there to address incidents of domestic violence or child abuse, they
    can merely hold the alleged perpetrator until a State trooper arrives
    to take over. In Villages where there are no VPSOs, nothing can be done
    until a State trooper arrives. Again, this testimony is in no way meant
    to condemn either the VPSO program or the performance of State troopers
    in these situations. However, the truth of life in Alaska is that it
    contains many remote villages that are separated from law enforcement
    hubs, many without direct road access, and that it often has extreme
    weather conditions. In instances where a State trooper must fly to
    reach a village, extreme weather will delay his or her arrival for
    days. These same realities face those who need protective orders.
    Providing Indian Tribes in Alaska simple civil tools to address these
    immediate needs would go far in protecting our communities.
        What this bill would do. This bill would create a limited
    demonstration project that would implement some of the most simple, yet
    direct, responses to the causes at the base of much of the petty crime
    occurring in Native Alaska Villages and tools to address those petty
    crimes so that we can all, as a team, evaluate the effectiveness of
    these new tools. These responses are minimal, but have the potential to
    have dramatic and far-reaching positive effects in our communities.
        This bill would establish a demonstration project where a maximum
    of three Tribes in Alaska would be selected in each of three fiscal
    years (nine Tribes total) would be chosen to participate for a five-
    year period. Each Tribe selected to participate would be required to
    complete a planning phase to ensure it has the capacity to effectively
    participate, including making sure they have developed proper written
    Tribal laws or ordinances detailing the structure and procedures of the
    Tribal court. Only after completing such a planning phase would the
    Tribes then begin exercising civil jurisdiction over drug, alcohol, or
    related matters within a specified project area, and over people of
    Indian or Alaska Native descent, or those people who have consensual
    relationships with the participating Tribe or a member of the Tribe.
    This civil jurisdiction would be exercised concurrently with the State
    of Alaska under State law. The civil remedies available to the
    participating Tribes would be limited to such remedies as restorative
    justice, imposing community service, charging fines, commitments for
    treatment, issuing restraining orders, and emergency detentions.
    Importantly, this bill would not authorize any of the participating
    Tribes to incarcerate a person unless the Tribe has entered into an
    intergovernmental agreement with the State and the Federal Government.
        We strongly believe that the civil authority for participating
    Tribes to impose such civil remedies will allow these Tribes to not
    only respond to criminal offenses, but to attempt to address the
    underlying causes of many of these offenses in culturally-appropriate
    ways that have often proven to be effective. Recently, in Huslia a
    young woman who was a repeat offender for many petty crimes
    participated in a community circle. The Huslia Tribal Court was asked
    by the State's magistrate to suggest a sentence for a recent violation.
    The Tribal Court organized a community circle in which fifty community
    members participated by sharing stories and concerns while offering
    support to the defendant. In addition, the community circle suggested a
    sentence which aimed to both support the defendant's sobriety and deter
    her from future violations. This experience shows the commitment of our
    Tribal Courts to address problems that are occurring in those
    communities, and such community involvement has the power to
    substantially impact individual lives through community healing.
        This bill would also establish an Alaska Village Peace Officer
    Grants program through which the Tribes participating in the
    demonstration project may apply to carry out a contract program to
    employ Village Peace Officers in Alaska Native Villages. Not only would
    this increase law enforcement presence in Villages that need every
    additional resource available to them, but the bill would provide that
    Village Peace Officers would be eligible to attend the Bureau of Indian
    Affairs (BIA) Police Officer Training Program--ensuring that these
    officers would have the highest level of training available. We fully
    support this program, but also suggest that, as an alternative, this
    bill could instead supplement the VPSO program, and authorize the VPSOs
    assigned to the participating Tribes to attend the BIA Police Officer
    Training Program.
        What this bill would not do. The responses authorized in this bill
    are minimal, with the potential for great impact. This bill would not
    upset the long-standing agreements represented in the Alaska Native
    Claims Settlement Act by creating Indian Country anywhere in the State,
    including in the Villages that would be participating in the
    demonstration project--nor do we wish to do so. The bill is clear on
    that, both explicitly and through its operation. The recognition of the
    concurrent civil authority of Tribal governments--entities that are
    already performing governmental services--to issue protective orders is
    a far cry from creating a new jurisdictional regime. The construction
    of geographical ``project areas'' is necessary to define the limits of
    this concurrent civil authority to the areas where Tribal governments
    already operate.
        This bill would not divide the State into jurisdictional project
    areas for 230 separate Tribes. The demonstration project will allow for
    the participation of nine Tribes, with nine separate project areas.
    This is the maximum. In the future, if this project proves to be
    successful in addressing alcohol and drug abuse, domestic violence,
    child abuse, and other crimes, Tribes would be more than happy to work
    in cooperation with the State to find a way to implement these
    responses to an increased number of Tribes in a mutually-agreed upon
    way, and to find ways in which these responses can best enhance the
    State provision of public safety responses throughout Alaska.
        The bill would also reaffirm that the State of Alaska has the
    primary responsibility for the provision of public safety throughout
    the State, and would not open the State up to increased Federal
    presence or authority. The bill would merely provide Tribes with the
    options and civil tools to provide the very basics of protection when
    they are needed most and would have the most effect. Likewise, the
    operation of this demonstration project would not limit the eligibility
    of the State of Alaska to any Federal assistance under any other
    Federal law. The money provided to operate this project, including the
    new Alaska Village Peace Officer program, would not be used against the
    State when applying for Federal assistance.
        This bill would authorize appropriation of $2.5 million for each
    fiscal year from FY 2012 through FY 2018. Because we want to offer this
    bill every chance to be approved and become law--to see this
    demonstration project succeed--we suggest that the project can be
    successfully implemented and maintained at a much lower amount. With
    only nine Tribes eligible to participate, we believe that the project
    may be successfully implemented and maintained for $1.5 million per
    fiscal year. We also believe, with such a limited number of Tribes
    eligible to participate in the program, the Village Peace Officer
    program can be maintained for $3 million per fiscal year from FY 2012
    through FY 2018--a reduction of $2 million from what is currently
    authorized in the bill.
        Conclusion. In conclusion, we would like to reiterate our full
    support for this critical bill. We believe that this bill will give all
    of us the tools and information necessary to evaluate the best way to
    address domestic violence, alcohol- and drug-related crime and suicide,
    and child abuse in Alaska Native Villages. These Alaska Native Villages
    embody many of the very real and unique roadblocks to addressing such
    crime in remote villages in Alaska--remoteness, lack of access,
    geographical complications and limitations of infrastructure--that
    require unique solutions. Success in this program will allow us all to
    understand how to best provide public safety to all remote villages
    throughout Alaska.
        The Tanana Chiefs Conference and its member Villages look forward
    to continuing to work with the State and with our Senators in finding
    these solutions. TCC would like to thank you for taking the time to
    read our testimony.
                                     ______

    Prepared Statement of Jan W. Morris, Member, Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma
        Good day,
        I wish to submit the following testimony for consideration by the
    Committee regarding S. 1763, the Stand Against Violence and Empower
    Native Women Act. I offer these comments as a Native person (I am an
    enrolled member of the Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma) with a background of
    over two decades of service in nearly a dozen tribal courts as a non-
    attorney practitioner (including service as either prosecutor or
    defense counsel), a trial judge, an appellate judge, and court
    administrator. My experience also includes service over the past ten
    years as a trainer, instructor and lecturer in tribal justice systems,
    judicial skills development, court administration, and advocacy skills
    development.
        While I agree with the concept of expanding tribal criminal
    jurisdiction to its original scope to include the criminal prosecution
    of a non-Native who commits a crime against a Native person in Indian
    Country, I believe the conditions imposed upon tribes to reassume
    criminal jurisdiction over non-Natives by Section 201 of S. 1763 far
    outweigh any potential benefits, for three reasons:

            (1) If the purpose is to address domestic violence crimes
            committed in Indian Country by non-Natives against native
            victims, a more effective remedy was already created by the
            Tribal Law and Order Act;

            (2) The imposition upon tribal justice systems of ``all other
            rights [of defendants] required under the Constitution of the
            United States'' will unduly burden the vast majority of those
            systems; and

            (3) Rather than strengthening tribal sovereignty, the
            imposition upon tribal justice systems of ``all other rights
            [of defendants] required under the Constitution of the United
            States'' actually diminishes tribal sovereignty by supplanting
            tribal justice standards with the full panoply of U.S.
            Constitutional protections.

        Regarding my first reason stated above, Section 213 of the Tribal
    Law and Order Act (TLOA) authorizes each United States Attorney to
    ``appoint Special Assistant United States Attorneys . . . to prosecute
    crimes in Indian Country as necessary to improve the administration of
    justice . . . '' Under this authority, tribes can hire their own
    prosecutors who can then be appointed as SAUSAs to initiate and conduct
    federal court prosecutions of non-Native perpetrators who commit
    domestic violence crimes (whether misdemeanors or felonies) against
    Native victims under either the General Crimes Act (18 U.S.C.  1152)
    or the Assimilative Crimes Act (18 U.S.C.  13). By doing so, there is
    no adverse impact or federal imposition on the sovereignty of the
    tribes and their justice systems, and the cost to tribes of hiring a
    prosecutor is miniscule in comparison to the expenditure of scarce
    financial resources that would be needed to revamp a whole criminal
    justice system to address the panoply of constitutional rights imposed
    by Section 201 of the proposed bill.
        Regarding the second reason stated above, and in addition to the
    applicable comments in the previous paragraph, the Committee needs to
    bear in mind that very few tribal justice systems are as large and
    complex as, for example, the Navajo Nation judiciary. Most tribal
    courts are small. A survey of tribal justice systems by the American
    Indian Law Center in 2000 reported that of all tribal respondents, over
    78 percent had fewer than 1000 cases filed annually. The survey results
    also revealed that the mean and median number of full-time judges was
    1, and the majority of responding tribes put less than $300,000 into
    their tribal courts annually. The specter of the funding necessary to
    guarantee ``all other rights required under the Constitution of the
    United States,'' including the employment and training of judges,
    prosecutors and defenders versed in the behemoth that is the body of
    U.S. Constitutional law could easily cause most tribes to forego this
    exercise of ``strengthening'' in favor of maintaining the status quo.
        Regarding the third stated reason above, and in addition to the
    applicable comments in the previous two paragraphs, Congress had the
    foresight in 1993 to include in the language of the Indian Tribal
    Justice Act (P.L. 103-176, 25 U.S.C.  3601 et seq.):

            ``Nothing in this Act shall be construed to . . . encroach upon
            or diminish in any way the inherent sovereign authority of each
            tribal government to determine the role of the tribal justice
            system *  *  *  impair the rights of each tribal government to
            determine the nature of its own legal system *  *  *  [or]
            alter in any way any tribal traditional dispute resolution
            forum . . . ''

        The mandate in Section 201 of S. 1763 that tribal courts must offer
    defendants the full protection of all constitutional rights under the
    U.S. Constitution conflicts with and contradicts the implicit promise
    of Congress in the Indian Tribal Justice Act and flies in the face of
    the concept of strengthening the sovereignty of tribes. Congress is
    saying, in essence, that tribal justice systems are inferior and
    substandard and incapable of properly administering justice within
    their own tribal communities. This is hardly the position one
    government should take within the context of a government-to-government
    relationship.
        Considering all of these reasons, it would be no small wonder that
    any tribe would seriously consider becoming a ``participating tribe''
    as defined in S. 1763. Perhaps the intentions of Congress in
    considering the ``expansion'' of tribal criminal jurisdiction to
    include non-Native domestic violence perpetrators via S. 1763 are
    commendable, but from a tribal perspective, many Native people will
    simply find the proposition misguided, patronizing and insulting. I
    know I do.
        Kindest regards.
                                     ______

           Prepared Statement of Irene Bedard, Actress/Singer, Alaska

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]