[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 96 (Thursday, June 24, 2010)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5409-S5412]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
ISRAEL'S UNDENIABLE RIGHT TO SELF-DEFENSE
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, the terrorist group Hamas, which is
supported by Iran, took control of the Gaza Strip in 2007. When Hamas
did so, Israel put in place a legitimate and justified blockade of Gaza
out of concern for the safety of its citizens. Hamas and its allies
have fired more than 10,000 rockets and mortars from Gaza into Israel
since 2001, killing at least 18 Israelis and wounding dozens of others.
The Israeli defense minister said this week that Israel considers the
Gaza Strip to be essentially an Iranian military base, just 3
kilometers from an Israeli town and 60 kilometers from Tel Aviv,
Israel's second largest city.
The Israeli blockade has been effective in reducing the flow of
weapons into Gaza and the firing of rockets from Gaza into southern
Israel. Were Iran and other supporters of Hamas allowed access to the
ports of Gaza, the people of Israel would be put directly in harm's
way.
On May 27, the Israeli Navy, maintaining the integrity of the
blockade, intercepted the so-called ``Free Gaza'' flotilla and
peacefully boarded five of the six ships. The sixth ship was filled
with extremists whose stated intent was martyrdom. Those extremists
brutally attacked members of the Israeli Navy, who were forced to act
in self-defense and, in some instances, use lethal force. Although
Israel was exercising its right to self-defense, which every nation is
entitled to do, the incident raised an international outcry, just as it
was designed to do.
Some even condemned the actions of the Israeli Navy. The ``Free
Gaza'' flotilla was a disgraceful and premeditated attempt to break the
blockade and provoke a violent confrontation with Israel, hidden under
the cloak of a humanitarian relief effort. This type of despicable
conduct must be condemned, especially by friends and allies of Israel.
Every country has the right to defend itself, and Israel is no
different. The calls from United Nations leaders and others for an
investigation into the actions of Israel have been troubling. In my
view, these calls have served only to question Israel's right to self
defense.
To its credit, Israel has unilaterally established a five-person
panel to conduct an investigation into the flotilla incident, and its
work will be monitored by two foreign observers. Yet U.N. officials are
not satisfied and continue to push for a separate, international probe
into the incident. As such, I believe the U.N. is unfairly singling out
Israel for criticism and using a double-standard.
According to news reports, there may be new flotillas literally
looming on the horizon, preparing to challenge Israel's legitimate sea
blockade of Gaza. Iran's ``Children of Gaza'' flotilla may set sail for
Gaza as soon as this weekend, according to the spokesman for the
Iranian Red Crescent. Iran has directly bolstered Hamas' ability to
strike Israel, and its leaders have repeatedly called for the
destruction of Israel. Now, they may be sending ships. No good can come
from this.
Furthermore, another group in Lebanon has announced its intention to
sail its ships toward the Gaza blockade soon. Hassan Nasrallah, the
leader of the terrorist group Hezbollah, has called on Lebanese
citizens to help break the blockade of Gaza. So, Israel has legitimate
concerns that this flotilla might be used to smuggle weapons into Gaza.
I only hope the Lebanese government will do the right thing and put a
stop to it.
At a time of great instability in the Middle East, these flotillas
serve only as additional destabilizing forces. The Middle East does not
need further violence. Israel has the solemn right to defend itself and
its citizens against these flotillas and any other security threats,
which continue to gather. Israel needs friends more than ever right
now.
Mr. President, I have offered a sense-of-the-Senate resolution which
does a number of things: First, it reaffirms the United States' strong
support of Israel, our friend and steadfast ally. It expresses the
sense of the Senate that Israel's right to self-defense is inherent and
undeniable. It condemns the violent attack and provocation by the
extremists aboard the Mavi Marmara and any future attempts to break
Israel's legal blockade of Gaza. It condemns Hamas for its failure to
recognize Israel's right to exist, and the Government of Iran for its
support of Hamas and its undermining of Israel's security.
This resolution also encourages the Government of Turkey to recognize
that continued strong relations with Israel are of the utmost
importance. The resolution supports our friend and ally, Israel, and it
does so unequivocally. By passing this important resolution, the Senate
will help remind the world that the United States stands with our
ally--Israel.
Mr. President, there are 14 Senators who have cosponsored this
resolution, and at this point I ask unanimous consent that the Foreign
Relations Committee be discharged from further consideration and the
Senate now proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 548.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will report the resolution by title.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
A resolution (S. Res. 548) to express the sense of the
Senate that Israel has an undeniable right to self-defense,
and to condemn the recent destabilizing actions by extremists
aboard the ship Mavi Marmara.
There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the
resolution.
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, several colleagues had some constructive
suggestions about amendments to this measure, and there were two
amendments that we modified the original resolution with. At this
point, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment at the desk be agreed
to, and I urge adoption of the resolution, as amended.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
The amendment (No. 4396) was agreed to, as follows:
On page 7, strike lines 22-24
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the resolution, as
amended?
The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, before the Senate votes on Senate
Resolution 548, I wish to speak briefly in opposition to it.
This resolution speaks to this so-called ``flotilla incident'' that
occurred a few weeks ago near Gaza. I am concerned that this resolution
does not help either the United States or Israel. I support Israel. I
have done so during all my years here in the Senate. But I also believe
that the only way to ensure Israel's long-term security is to have a
genuine peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians. This
resolution does not bring us closer to that peace.
No one questions Israel's right to defend itself. I know that
questions have been raised about the relationship between the
Humanitarian Relief Foundation and Hamas, and I am concerned about
those questions and they need to be answered. But I am also concerned
that Israel's response to the flotilla and the deaths onboard the Mavi
Marmara once again shows to Israel's enemies that they can provoke
Israel into taking actions that undermine international support for
Israel.
Israel was able to board five of the ships with no loss of life, as
my colleague from Texas indicated, and that needs to be acknowledged.
But this incident has distracted the attention of the international
community away from the peace process. It has overshadowed the
kidnapping of Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit, which occurred nearly 4
years ago today--in fact, on June 25, 2006. Hamas should immediately
release Gilad Shalit. Unfortunately, I do not believe this resolution
will help to make that happen.
Nor does this resolution talk about the humanitarian situation in
Gaza. Israel has allowed humanitarian supplies into Gaza, but it is
evident from the conditions in Gaza that those supplies have not been
sufficient. One U.S. charity estimates that 400 trucks of basic food
supplies are needed in Gaza
[[Page S5410]]
every day, but on average only 171 trucks of basic nutritional aid
enter Gaza each week.
Israel has a right to prevent arms from entering Gaza, but I do not
see a reason for the Senate to pass a resolution supporting a policy
that has the effect of restricting humanitarian supplies. Moreover,
Israel itself has decided to change that policy. I am encouraged by
Israel's decision last week to ease the restrictions on the flow of
goods into Gaza. I agree with the White House that this new policy,
once implemented, will significantly improve the conditions for the
Palestinians in Gaza. As Prime Minister Netanyahu told the Knesset:
This new policy is the best one for Israel because it
eliminates Hamas' main propaganda claim and allows us and our
international allies to face our real concerns in the realm
of security.
The resolution the Senate is considering at this point would put the
Senate on record in support of a policy that Israel itself has
determined to change.
One more obvious point is the Senate has not fully debated this
resolution. There have been no hearings on the flotilla incident or any
version of this resolution in either the Senate or in the House. To my
knowledge, the administration has not expressed its views on this
resolution either. I believe with regard to foreign policy matters, the
administration should always be consulted.
Let me close by saying no one should question the U.S. support for
Israel. I do not believe anyone seriously questions that. I say again
that I do not believe this resolution furthers the effort to bring
peace between Israel and the Palestinians, which is the only way to
ensure Israel's long-term security.
For those reasons I would like to be recorded in opposition to
enactment of the resolution.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I reiterate my unanimous consent request
that the amendment at the desk be agreed to and urge adoption of the
resolution as amended.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment has been agreed to. Is there
further debate? If not, the question is on agreeing to the resolution,
as amended.
The resolution (S. Res. 548), as amended, was agreed to.
Mr. CORNYN. I ask unanimous consent the amendment to the preamble be
agreed to, the preamble as amended be agreed to, and the motions to
reconsider be laid upon the table en bloc.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment (No. 4397) was agreed to, as follows:
Strike the 14th clause in the preamble.
The preamble, as amended, was agreed to.
The resolution, with its preamble, reads as follows:
(The resolution will be printed in a future edition of the Record.)
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri is recognized.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, my friend and colleague from North Dakota
has been kind enough to allow me to speak because of some scheduling
concerns, and I ask unanimous consent when I complete my remarks he be
recognized for 15 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BOND. I thank the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri is recognized.
Mr. BOND. I thank the Chair.
(The remarks of Mr. Bond pertaining to the introduction of S. 3538
are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills
and Joint Resolutions.'')
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota is recognized.
Tribal Law and Order Act of 2010
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, on occasion there are some things that
happen in this Chamber that get precious little attention but represent
very good news. Last evening, with virtually no attention, a piece of
legislation was passed by the Senate unanimously, a piece of
legislation, called the Tribal Law and Order Act, affecting Indian
tribes across this country. It was bipartisan. My colleagues and I, as
chairman of the Indian Affairs Committee, working with Republicans and
Democrats, Senator Barrasso, and Senator Jon Kyl especially was helpful
in recent days, and on our side, Senator Tester and Senator Udall and
so many others--have gotten a piece of legislation through the Senate,
which we hope will get through the House and be signed by the
President, dealing with law and order on Indian reservations.
Lewis and Clark spent the winter in North Dakota on their expedition
in 1805. When they came through North Dakota, there were Indian
villages and settlements in North Dakota that had been there a long
time. They were farming on the banks of the Missouri River. That is
true all across the country. When new people exploring our country came
upon Indian tribes, they had been there for a long while. They were the
first Americans, and we displaced them, and we have sad chapters in
American history that are described as ``Trail of Tears,'' the
``Massacre at Wounded Knee,'' and I could go on for a great length of
time.
Native Americans were, in many cases, rounded up, placed on
reservations, and then the Federal Government, for taking their
property away from them, said: We will sign agreements with you. We
will make deals with you. We will have treaties. We will accept a trust
responsibility. We will educate you. We promised that since we have
taken your land away, we will provide for your children's education, we
will provide for your health care, and we will provide for your law
enforcement.
It is what the Federal Government signed to do in treaties and the
Government has systematically avoided the responsibility of meeting
those conditions ever since.
I have talked at length on this floor about Indian health care and
Indian education and Indian housing. In many areas on Indian
reservations, it mirrors what we consider Third World-country
conditions: people living in overcrowded housing, if they have housing
at all; sending kids to schools whose desks are 1 inch apart, with 30
kids to a classroom, in a dilapidated building; people going hungry;
people having very serious health care problems and not able to get
adequate health.
We passed in this Chamber the Indian Health Care Improvement Act as a
part of the health care reform bill. I am enormously proud of having
done that. It is the first time in 17 years this Congress did something
on the Indian Health Care Improvement Act. We worked and worked and
worked. I am proud it is done.
This is another significant piece of work. We have had I believe 14
hearings on this subject in the Indian Affairs Committee. Twenty-two
Senate colleagues cosponsored my legislation, Republicans and
Democrats.
If anyone doubts the need for this legislation, let me demonstrate
just in this week with three headlines, one in Indian Country Today.
``Rape on the Rez'' is the title.
The mother tries to be strong, looking at the photos of her
dead daughter's beaten and bruised face. She tries not to
cry, but eventually the images prove too much. ``That's what
they did to her,'' the mother says.
Marquita Marie Walking Eagle died November 1, 2009, the
victim of a violent sexual assault. The 19-year-old Rosebud
Sioux woman's alleged killer: a 17-year-old classmate from
St. Francis High School in South Dakota.
Just one headline, but, we also have studies. One in 3 American
Indian and Alaska Native women will be raped and sexually assaulted in
her lifetime--1 in 3; not 1 in 10, 1 in 3. Think of that. Think of the
violence on too many of these Indian reservations.
Another headline from this week: ``Addicted On The Rez,'' about drug
abuse and crimes that are infiltrating the reservation. Another
headline this week: ``Indian reservations on both U.S. borders are
becoming drug pipelines,'' conduits for Mexican drug cartels and others
to move drugs into this country and particularly addict young Indian
children on those drugs and have them become carriers. Those are three
articles from this week sitting on top of a mountaintop of other
articles.
In my home state of North Dakota right now, on the Standing Rock
Indian Reservation that actually is on the border of North and South
Dakota--it is an area the size of the State of Connecticut. They had
nine law enforcement officers for 24 hours a day, 7 days a week
coverage. Well, that means
[[Page S5411]]
that very often there would be no more than one law enforcement officer
patrolling an area the size of the State of Connecticut. So a women
being raped, sexually assaulted, a burglary or a robbery in progress, a
violent crime, a gun crime, and a plea and a call, a frantic call,
might mean that 3 or 4 hours later--maybe not until the next day would
someone in a police car show up to investigate that crime. That is what
they have been facing.
On the Standing Rock Indian Reservation, the year before last, the
rate of violent crime wasn't double what most Americans experience; it
wasn't triple; it wasn't quadruple; it was eight times the national
average--eight times the rate of violent crime on the Standing Rock
Reservation. There has been some improvement. In 2009 it was simply
five times worse than what most Americans experience.
The question is, What can we do about those things? One Bureau of
Indian Affairs officer on the Standing Rock Reservation--again, as I
indicated, an area the size of the State of Connecticut, with nine law
enforcement officers--what he said was: ``I felt like I was standing in
the middle of a river trying to hold back a flood.'' He said they were
forced to ``triage'' rape cases. He said: We only took a rape case if
there was a confession; if not, didn't happen. This is not a Third
World country. This is in America on Indian reservations.
Last summer, the Department of Justice issued a report to our
committee. I am quoting now:
Native gangs are now involved in more violent offenses like
sexual assault, gang rapes, home invasions, drive-by
shootings, beatings, and elder abuse on Indian reservations.
This is on the Pine Ridge Reservation, a photograph that was brought
to a hearing I held on increased gang activity on reservations. This is
another photo from the same hearing. These are very serious problems.
We have a war on terror and a war on drugs, and all too often across
this country, Indian reservations are left to their own, told ``you do
it,'' despite the fact that this country promised to provide law
enforcement assistance. This entire system isn't working. It is the
courts, the jails, law enforcement--it doesn't work.
That is why, with 22 colleagues, we introduced this legislation and
now last night, thankfully, have passed it through the Senate. This
does a number of very important things. It forces the BIA to consult
with tribal leaders on joint law enforcement.
It says to the U.S. attorneys--by the way, U.S. attorneys are the
ones who are relied upon to prosecute felonies on Indian reservations,
and all too often it is part of the back room of the U.S. Attorney's
Office: You know what, we don't have time; we are not going to do it.
The declination rate--that means declining to prosecute--the
declination rate for murders is 50 percent, according to Department of
Justice information we received in the committee. The declination rate,
that is, declining to prosecute, for rape and sexual assault is 70
percent. So 70 percent of the time, they don't prosecute because they
are working on something else. It is on an Indian reservation. Hard to
investigate, they say. Well, this legislation will change that.
This legislation will add the necessary tools to enable tribal
governments to better fight crime locally. It will give police improved
access to national criminal databases. Judges on reservations will have
added authority to sentence violent offenders in tribal courts. Can you
imagine that judges in tribal courts, under current law, can sentence
to no more than 1 year for an Indian offender? No more than 1 year.
Rape, murder, armed robbery--1 year. That is absurd.
The fact is, we have put together a bill that finally offers the
tools to strengthen this justice system, that also works to cross-
deputize Indian police in the Federal criminal system so that Indian
reservations and those who patrol on the reservations can work hand-in-
hand with those in the adjacent counties, the county sheriffs, police
chiefs, and others.
This bill will reauthorize and improve existing programs designed to
strengthen the tribal justice systems, prevent alcohol and substance
abuse, which is the No. 1 cause of violence on reservations, and
improve opportunities for youth on the reservations.
I am very pleased and proud that we have been able to get this done.
We have worked long and hard. If this Congress completes its work
having done the Indian Health Care Improvement Act and now the Tribal
Law and Order Act, if in one Congress we will have made that kind of
stride to address the issue of health care and crime and justice on
Indian reservations, we will have done something very significant.
I ask people who think, well, this is just something that is out of
sight, out of mind: Go to an Indian reservation and take a look at the
condition of the housing. Go visit with the kids in school. I have done
that. Go sit around, if you can, with 10 or 12 kids and ask them about
their lives. Where do they get hope and inspiration and belief that
they can be part of something bigger than themselves, that they can get
educated, that they have an opportunity to do whatever they want to do?
Where do they get that? The fact is, we have created circumstances,
abysmal circumstances and broken promises, and it has lasted for a
couple of centuries.
You know, we have been trying now for almost 6 months to get the
Cobell settlement through the Senate. The Cobell settlement is a group
of plaintiffs who are Indians whose property and land and resources
from that land have largely been stolen from them for a couple of
hundred years. The Interior Department has been managing the trust of
these Indians for well over 100, 150 years.
The other day on the floor of the Senate, I showed a picture of a
woman who had six oil wells on her land, and she lived in a little
bungalow and never had anything all of her life. Well, why didn't
someone who had six oil wells on her land have anything? Because the
U.S. Department of the Interior was managing it, and she never got the
money. That has been going on for 150 years. And now there is a court
action that has gone on for 14 years and finally an agreement to settle
the court action, and the judge gave us 30 days in Congress to settle
this after it had been agreed to by the Interior Secretary, by the
plaintiffs. Finally some justice after 100, 150 years, and the judge
has had to extend that deadline now three or four times and we have
still not gotten it done. It is in this underlying bill, the one that
is being objected to by the minority.
The reason I mentioned that is there are so many injustices in this
country to the people who were here first. The first Americans deserve
better. The first Americans deserve to have this government keep its
promise at long, long last. And this is but one: the providing of law
enforcement. How many Americans would like to live in an area where the
rate of violent crime is 5 times, 8 times, or 10 times the national
average? Well, there are a whole lot of young men and women, young boys
and girls, and elders living exactly in those circumstances in this
country. And that violence exists every day.
We need to do something about it.
One final point. I have talked to the BIA at great length. There are
some things happening right now experimentally to try to move some
additional resources into tribal lands to promote greater law and
order. It is true on the Standing Rock Reservation and others as well.
But the Tribal Law and Order Act, which I have reason to believe will
now be passed by the House as well, is a big step forward. We not only
negotiated that in the Senate, but we worked very hard with Members of
the House as we put this legislation together with their ideas as well.
If we do this, we will be able to say this country, at long last, on
this issue at least, kept its promise and began the long effort to make
sure we are meeting our trust responsibilities to those who were the
first Americans.
I thank many of my colleagues who helped us achieve this goal, and
end as I began, by saying there is plenty of reason to be concerned
about the lack of getting things done in this Chamber, but this is a
good piece of legislation. Good news doesn't sell quite as well as bad
news these days in our system. I hope all of us will be able to take
some satisfaction in doing something that represents the public good
for people living in this country who certainly deserve it.
I yield the floor.
Criminal Jurisdiction
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I rise to speak on S. 797, the Tribal Law
and
[[Page S5412]]
Order Act of 2010. I offered the text of this bill to H.R. 725, the
Indian Arts and Crafts Act Amendments, and last night, the Senate
passed this bill as amended by unanimous consent.
As chairman of the Committee on Indian Affairs, I have presided over
14 hearings relating to public safety on our Nation's tribal lands over
the past three years. These hearings revealed a longstanding crisis of
violence in many parts of Indian country. Indian reservations on
average suffer rates of violence more than 2.5 times the national rate.
In my home State of North Dakota, the Standing Rock Sioux Reservation
suffered 8.6 times the national rate of violence in 2008. In early
2008, there were 9 police officers patrolling this 2.3 million acre
Reservation, which meant at times there was no 24-hour police response
service. As a result, victims of violence reported waiting hours and
sometimes days before receiving a response to their distress calls.
With this level of response, crime scenes can become compromised, and
justice is not served to the victims, their families, or the community.
Our hearings found that violence against Indian women has reached
epidemic levels. The Justice Department and the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention report that more than 1 in 3 American Indian and
Alaska Native women will be raped in their lifetime and more than 2 in
5 will be subject to domestic or partner violence.
The broken and divided system of justice in place on Indian lands
that was devised by dozens of Federal laws and Federal court decisions
enacted and handed down over the past 150 years is not well-suited to
address the violence in Indian country. Because of these laws and
decisions, responsibility to investigate and prosecute crime on the
reservation is divided among the Federal, tribal, and in some
locations, state governments.
Based on this authority, these governments should be diligent in
preventing and prosecuting these crimes. Thus, one of the primary
purposes of the bill is to ensure that the United States upholds its
treaty promises and legal obligation to investigate and prosecute
violent crimes on Indian lands. Our Nation made treaty promises, and
enacted laws--specifically the General and Major Crimes Acts--that
provided for Federal criminal jurisdiction over Indian lands. At the
same time, the United States limited tribal government authority to
punish offenders in tribal courts to no more than 1 year for any one
offense.
The Tribal Law and Order Act of 2010 takes steps to hold the United
States to these solemn promises, and will address the restriction on
tribal court penal authority over defendants in tribal court where
certain protections are met.
Mr. KYL. I thank my colleague from North Dakota for his work on this
important bill. We held a field hearing in my State of Arizona on an
early version of this bill. There we heard from tribal leaders about
violence in their communities. In 2009, the Bureau of Indian Affairs
reported that in my home State of Arizona the San Carlos Apache Tribe
endured a violent crime rate that is more than six times the national
average and the White Mountain Apache Tribe suffered a violent crime
rate more than four times the national average. On the southern border,
the Tohono O'odham Nation needs assistance in addressing the onslaught
of Mexican drug and human traffickers that exploit the sprawling
reservation, which is the size of the State of Connecticut.
I would like to address changes made to section 201 of the Tribal Law
and Order Act that concern Public Law No. 83-280, commonly known as
Public Law. 280. This law was enacted on August 15, 1953. Public Law
280 removed the Federal Government's special Indian country law
enforcement jurisdiction over almost all Indian lands in the States of
Alaska, upon statehood, California, Minnesota, Nebraska, Oregon, and
Wisconsin, and permitted these States to exercise criminal jurisdiction
over those lands. The act specifically provides that these states
``shall have jurisdiction over offenses committed by or against Indians
in the areas of Indian country . . . to the same extent that such State
. . . has jurisdiction over offenses committed elsewhere within the
State . . . and the criminal laws of such State . . . shall have the
same force and effect within such Indian country as they have elsewhere
within the State.''
Public Law 280 has been a mixed bag for both tribes and States. The
States that are subject to Public Law 280 possess authority and
responsibility to investigate and prosecute crimes committed on
reservations, but, because of subsequent court decisions that sharply
limited the extent of Public Law 280's grant of civil jurisdiction to
affected states, these states have almost no ability to raise revenue
on Public Law 280 lands. And to the extent that tribal governments
retained concurrent jurisdiction over crimes committed by Indians on
these lands, such authority is currently limited, as my colleague from
North Dakota states, to no more than 1 year for any one offense. Thus,
residents of reservations subject to Public Law 280 have to rely
principally on sometimes underfunded local and state law enforcement
authorities to prosecute reservation crimes.
Section 201 of the Tribal Law and Order Act of 2010 allows the
Federal Government to reassume criminal jurisdiction on Public Law 280
lands when the affected Indian tribe requests the U.S. Attorney General
do so. If the Attorney General concurs, the United States will reassume
jurisdiction to prosecute violations of the General and Major Crimes
Acts, sections 1152 and 1153 of title 18, that occur on the requesting
tribe's reservation.
The bill makes clear that, once the United States reassumes
jurisdiction pursuant to this provision, criminal authority on the
affected reservation will be concurrent among the Federal and State
governments and, ``where applicable,'' tribal governments.
Mr. President, I would like to ask the sponsor of the bill to make
clear that nothing in the Tribal Law and Order Act retracts
jurisdiction from the State governments, and nothing in the act will
grant criminal jurisdiction in Indian country to an Indian tribe that
does not currently have criminal jurisdiction over such land.
Mr. DORGAN. That is correct. The phrase that jurisdiction ``shall be
concurrent among the Federal Government, State governments, and, where
applicable, tribal governments'' is intended to clarify that the
various State governments that are currently subject to Public Law 280
will maintain such criminal authority and responsibility. In addition,
this provision intends to make clear that tribal governments subject to
Public Law 280 maintain concurrent criminal authority over offenses by
Indians in Indian country where the tribe currently has such authority.
Nothing in this provision will change the current lay of criminal
jurisdiction for state or tribal governments. It simply seeks to return
criminal authority and responsibility to investigate and prosecute
major crimes in Indian country to the United States where certain
conditions are met.
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I concur with the interpretation of this
provision expressed by my colleague from North Dakota.
____________________