[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.

                          ____________________