[Senate Report 112-265]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


                                                       Calendar No. 579
112th Congress                                                   Report
                                 SENATE
 2d Session                                                     112-265

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



 
          STAND AGAINST VIOLENCE AND EMPOWER NATIVE WOMEN ACT

                                _______
                                

               December 27, 2012.--Ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

           Mr. Akaka, from the Committee on Indian Affairs, 
                        submitted the following

                              R E P O R T

                         [To accompany S. 1763]

    The Committee on Indian Affairs, to which was referred the 
bill (S. 1763) to decrease the incidence of violent crimes 
against Indian women, to strengthen the capacity of Indian 
tribes to exercise the sovereign authority of Indian tribes to 
respond to violent crimes committed against Indian women, and 
to ensure that perpetrators of violent crimes committed against 
Indian women are held accountable for that criminal behavior, 
and for other purposes, having considered the same, reports 
favorably with an amendment in the nature of a substitute and 
recommends that the bill, as amended, do pass.

                                PURPOSE

    S. 1763 would decrease the incidence of violent crimes 
against Indian women, strengthen the capacity of Indian tribes 
to exercise the sovereign authority of Indian tribes to respond 
to violent crimes committed against Indian women, and ensure 
that perpetrators of violent crimes committed against Indian 
women are held accountable for that criminal behavior, and for 
other purposes. The legislation would recognize inherent tribal 
jurisdiction over domestic violence against Indian women to 
include acts committed by non-Indian offenders. The legislation 
also would seek to improve victim protection and information 
gathering on sex trafficking.

                         BACKGROUND AND HISTORY

    The Stand Against Violence and Empower Native Women (SAVE) 
Act, S. 1763, attempts to combat domestic violence on 
reservations by increasing awareness of domestic violence and 
sexual assault against Indian women,\1\ by enhancing the 
response to violence against Indian women at the Federal, 
State, and Tribal levels, by identifying and providing 
technical assistance to coalition membership and Tribal 
communities to enhance access to essential services to Indian 
women victimized by domestic and sexual violence, including sex 
trafficking, and by assisting Indian tribes in developing and 
promoting legislation and policies that enhance best practices 
for responding to violent crimes against Indian women, 
including the crimes of domestic violence, dating violence, 
sexual assault, sex trafficking, and stalking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\Currently, there are 566 federally recognized American Indian 
and Alaska Native tribes in the United States. While no single term is 
universally accepted by all indigenous peoples in the United States, 
the terms American Indian, Alaska Native, Indigenous, and Native or 
Native American, are used somewhat interchangeably. The use of one term 
over the other in this report is not meant to minimize, exclude, 
generalize the individuals involved, or endorse one term over the 
other.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Indian women are not adequately protected under current law: a brief 
        overview of the Violence Against Women Act

    In 1994, Congress enacted the Violence Against Women Act 
(VAWA).\2\ It was founded on the basic premise that every woman 
deserves to be safe from violence. This groundbreaking 
legislation was the result of many years of dedication by 
women's advocates and the incredible leadership of then-Senator 
Joseph Biden. VAWA created the first Federal legislation 
acknowledging domestic violence and sexual assault as crimes, 
and provided Federal resources to encourage community-
coordinated responses to combating violence.\3\ VAWA was 
reauthorized in 2000 and improved the foundation established in 
1994 by creating a much-needed legal assistance program for 
victims and by expanding the definition of crime to include 
dating violence and stalking. Its subsequent reauthorization in 
2005 created new programs to meet the emerging needs of 
communities working to prevent violence. VAWA's reauthorization 
in 2005, for the first time, contained a specific provision 
designed to improve safety and justice for American Indian and 
Alaska Native women.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\VAWA was first passed in 1994 as Title IV, Sec. Sec. 40001-40703 
of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act (Pub. L. 103-
322,108 Stat. 1796).
    \3\Deidre Bannon, VAWA at the Crossroads, The Crime Report, Jan. 
31, 2012 (quoting Statement of Susan Carbon, Director of the Department 
of Justice's Office on Violence Against Women) (``When VAWA was 
originally passed in 1994, it was seen as a landmark piece of 
legislation--people tended to look at these crimes and blame the victim 
for causing the violence. We needed to have a comprehensive national 
approach to address these crimes--and that's an ongoing need we still 
have.'').
    \4\Title IX (commonly referred to as the Tribal Title), 18 U.S.C. 
Sec. 2265.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Since the passage of VAWA, annual incidents of domestic 
violence have dropped by more than 60 percent.\5\ While 
tremendous progress has been made, violence is still a 
significant problem facing women, men, families, and 
communities. On average, three women die every day as a result 
of domestic violence.\6\ One in five women has been sexually 
assaulted at some time in their lives.\7\ Stalking affects one 
in six women.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\Lynn Rosenthal & Kimberly Teehee, Strengthening the Violence 
Against Women Act, The White House (Apr. 25, 2012).
    \6\Id.
    \7\Id.
    \8\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    VAWA creates and supports comprehensive, effective, and 
cost saving responses to the crimes of domestic violence, 
dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking. The VAWA 
programs, administered by the Departments of Justice and Health 
and Human Services, have dramatically changed and improved 
Federal, Tribal, State, and local responses to these crimes. 
More victims are coming forward and receiving lifesaving 
services to help them move from crisis to stability, and the 
criminal justice system has improved its ability to keep 
victims safe and hold perpetrators accountable.

          Since VAWA'S passage in 1994, no other law has done 
        more to stop domestic and sexual violence in our 
        communities. The resources and training provided by 
        VAWA have changed attitudes toward these reprehensible 
        crimes, improved the response of law enforcement and 
        the justice system, and provided essential services for 
        victims struggling to rebuild their lives. It is a law 
        that has saved countless lives, and it is an example of 
        what we can accomplish when we work together.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \9\157 Cong. Rec. S8071 (daily ed. Nov. 30, 2011) (statement of 
Sen. Patrick Leahy, for himself and Sen. Mike Crapo).

    VAWA has also helped improve the response to violence 
against Native women by funding critical research and 
establishing a Tribal registry to track sex offenders and 
orders of protection. While such VAWA programs have encouraged 
systemic changes to meet the needs of Native victims and help 
save countless lives, VAWA expired in 2011 and more work still 
needs to be done.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \10\In his report, United Nations Special Rapporteur James Anaya 
says Congress should make legislation protecting Native women an 
``immediate priority'' and he recommends the United States immediately 
address violence against women through legislation. His report points 
to the fact that Native women suffer at horrendous rates of domestic 
and sexual violence compared to the rest of the country. James Anaya, 
United Nations, Report of the Special Rapporteur on the Rights of 
Indigenous Peoples 10-11, 21-22 (Aug. 30, 2012) (A/HRC/21/47/Add.1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. The need for additional legislation: the Stand Against Violence and 
        Empower Native Women Act

    Across the nation, homicides and other violent crimes have 
been on the decline.\11\ States have reformed their laws to 
take violence against women more seriously by passing more than 
660 laws to combat domestic violence, sexual assault and 
stalking. All States have passed laws making stalking a crime 
and strengthened laws addressing date rape and spousal 
rape.\12\ As a result of efforts such as these, the rate of 
intimate partner violence declined 67 percent.\13\ The number 
of individuals killed by an intimate partner has decreased by 
35 percent for women\14\ and the rate of non-fatal intimate 
partner violence against women has decreased 53 percent.\15\ 
Since VAWA was first enacted in 1994, reporting of domestic 
violence has increased by as much as 51 percent.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \11\See Crime in the United States 2011, Violent Crime, FBI (Nov. 
6, 2012) (``When considering 5- and 10-year trends, the 2011 estimated 
violent crime total was 15.4 percent below the 2007 level and 15.5 
percent below the 2002 level.'').
    \12\See also Factsheet: The Violence Against Women Act, The White 
House (Nov. 5, 2012, 12:56 PM).
    \13\Id. (between 1993 to 2010).
    \14\Id. (between 1993 to 2007).
    \15\Monica McLaughlin, National Network to End Domestic Violence 
(NNEDV), Reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act 1 (citing 
National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), U.S. Department of Justice, 
Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics) (noting that 
the decrease is based on data collected between 1993 and 2008).
    \16\Native women are more unlikely to personally report their 
victimization to the police. See Ronet Bachman, et al., Violence 
Against American Indian and Alaska Native Women and the Criminal 
Justice Response: What Is Known 5 & 39, Table 10 (Aug. 2008) (noting 
that while 49 percent of Native women victimization is reported to the 
police, only 17 percent is reported directly by the victim, ``[A]t 
worst, less than one in four [intimate partner violent crimes] are ever 
reported.'') (citations omitted). See also Stewart Wakeling, Miriam 
Jorgensen, Susan Michaelson & Manley Begay, Policing on American Indian 
Reservations, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, 
National Institute of Justice 13 (July 2001) (noting that the 
underreporting, between reservation citizens and their police agencies 
and between these tribal police agencies and such Federal agencies as 
the FBI and the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), on reservations may 
contribute to the poor crime data in Indian country).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    While the national crime rate has been on the decline in 
the last decade, Native Americans experience violent crimes at 
a rate much higher than the general population.\17\ This trend 
carries over to violent crimes against Native American women 
and is particularly troubling for Native American women who 
live on reservations within the United States. Native American 
women experience domestic and dating violence at a rate that is 
more than twice the rate of non-Indian women.\18\ This is the 
highest rate of victimization from violent crime of any group 
in the United States.\19\ Forty-six percent, nearly half of all 
Native American women have experienced rape, physical violence, 
and/or stalking by an intimate partner in their lifetime.\20\ 
These statistics are staggering.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \17\Stewart Wakeling, Miriam Jorgensen, Susan Michaelson & Manley 
Begay, Policing on American Indian Reservations, U.S. Department of 
Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice 13 
(July 2001). Steven W. Perry, American Indians And Crime, A BJS 
Statistical Profile, 1992-2002, U.S. Department Of Justice, Bureau Of 
Justice Statistics at iv (2004). ``The BJS statistics do have some 
limitations. They are based primarily on nationwide victimization 
surveys, administered through interviews of individuals at a nationally 
representative number of households. These data fail to distinguish 
between Indian reservations and other rural and urban settings. The BJS 
victimization data encompasses the more than 60 percent of all Indians 
who live outside reservations, including large urban Indian populations 
in places such as Los Angeles and Minneapolis.'' Carole Goldberg & 
Kevin Washburn, Lies, Damn Lies, and Crime Statistics, Turtle Talk 
(July 31, 2008). However, because rape is still an underreported crime, 
the data collected from crime victims should not be ignored. ``If 
Indian women do not believe that their reports will be investigated, 
they are much less likely to report.'' Id. (responding to a South 
Dakota study questioning BJS statistics regarding the race of the 
defendants).
    \18\Hearing on S. 1763, S. 872, & S. 1192 Before the S. Comm. on 
Indian Affairs, 112th Cong. 24 (Nov. 10, 2011) (statement of Thomas B. 
Heffelfinger, Attorney, Best & Flanagan LLP) (citing Amnesty 
International, Maze of Injustice: The failure to protect Indigenous 
women from sexual violence in the USA 4 (2007)).
    \19\Id. (noting that ``[t]he sheer volume of violence inflicted 
upon Native American women is largely attributable to violence by non-
Native men'').
    \20\Bea Hanson, Protecting Native American and Alaska Native Women 
from Violence: November is Native American Heritage Month, OVW Blog, 
The United States Department of Justice (Nov. 29, 2012) (citing 
statistics from the National Center For Injury Prevention and Control 
of the Centers For Disease Control and Prevention, The National 
Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey: 2010 Summary Report 3, 39 
(Nov. 2011)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    These epidemic rates\21\ mean that one in three Native 
American women will be raped in her lifetime.\22\ Three out of 
five Native American women will be physically assaulted.\23\ 
Native American women are more than twice as likely to be 
stalked as other women.\24\ On some Indian reservations, the 
murder rate for Native American women is 10 times the national 
average and accounts for the third leading cause of death for 
Native American women.\25\ Sexual assault remains the most 
underreported violent crime in the country with recent 
statistics indicating that 70-80 percent of sexual assaults in 
Indian country are not reported.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \21\Native Women: Protecting, Shielding, and Safeguarding Our 
Sisters, Mothers, and Daughters, Hearing Before the S. Comm. on Indian 
Affairs, 112th Cong. 7 (July 14, 2011) (statement of Thomas J. 
Perrelli, Associate Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice). 
Hearing on S. 1763, S. 872, & S. 1192 Before the S. Comm. on Indian 
Affairs, 112th Cong. 7 (Nov. 10, 2011) (statement of Sen. Lisa 
Murkowski) (``[W]hen we realize these rates of violence and abuse that 
we see that are perpetuated against Native women and children, it is 
well past time that we make it a national priority.'').
    \22\Native Women: Protecting, Shielding, and Safeguarding Our 
Sisters, Mothers, and Daughters, Hearing Before the S. Comm. on Indian 
Affairs, 112th Cong. 7 (July 14, 2011) (statement of Thomas J. 
Perrelli, Associate Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice). 
``Advocates state that these statistics provide a very low estimate and 
that rates of sexual assault against American Indian women are actually 
much higher.'' Serving Ethnic and Racial Communities: American Indian 
Victims, Put the Focus on Victims, SART Toolkit, Office of Justice 
Programs (last visited Dec. 10, 2012). These numbers are based on an 
old definition of rape and that the number of rapes may actually be 
much higher. The Obama administration announced on January 6, 2012 that 
the federal government would be changing the definition of rape to 
include other forms of bodily intrusion.
    \23\Native Women: Protecting, Shielding, and Safeguarding Our 
Sisters, Mothers, and Daughters, Hearing Before the S. Comm. on Indian 
Affairs, 112th Cong. 7 (July 14, 2011) (statement of Thomas J. 
Perrelli, Associate Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice).
    \24\Patricia Tjaden & Nancy Thoennes, U.S. Department of Justice, 
Full Report of the Prevalence, Incidence, and Consequences of Violence 
Against Women 22 (2000) (noting that seventeen percent of Native women 
are stalked each year, twice that of other populations).
    \25\Native Women: Protecting, Shielding, and Safeguarding Our 
Sisters, Mothers, and Daughters, Hearing Before the S. Comm. on Indian 
Affairs, 112th Cong. 7 (July 14, 2011) (statement of Thomas J. 
Perrelli, Associate Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice). See 
also Ronet Bachman, et al., Violence Against American Indian and Alaska 
Native Women and the Criminal Justice Response: What Is Known 37 (Aug. 
2008) (noting that American Indian and Alaska Native women are over 2 
times as likely to face an armed offender compared to other women).
    \26\Press Release, The United States Department of Justice, Acting 
Associate Attorney General Tony West Speaks at the Press Conference 
Regarding Sexual Assault Response Team Initiative (June 6, 2012) 
(noting that one of the major contributing factors to underreporting is 
a lack of faith in criminal justice system).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Rape and sexual assault in the general population are 
usually intra-racial.\27\ Of course, rape and sexual assault 
may also be inter-racial. Under Federal law, Tribal authorities 
do not have jurisdiction over cases in which the defendant is 
non-Indian. In many states, State authorities do not have 
jurisdiction on Tribal lands. Therefore, rape and domestic 
violence cases are deferred to Federal authorities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \27\Ronet Bachman, et al., Violence Against American Indian and 
Alaska Native Women and the Criminal Justice Response: What is Known 38 
(Aug. 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Supreme Court decided Oliphant v. Suquamish in 1978 and 
ruled that tribes do not possess the authority to fully 
prosecute these kinds of violent crimes that occur within their 
territories.\28\ Since Oliphant, and unlike all other local 
communities, Indian nations and Alaska Native villages are 
legally prohibited from prosecuting non-Indians. The Oliphant 
decision created a jurisdictional gap that has had grave 
consequences for Indian women. When the perpetrator is non-
Indian, Indian women are frequently left without any criminal 
recourse.\29\ According to one Tribal official, ``This leaves 
Indian nations, which have sovereignty over their territories 
and people, as the only governments in America without 
jurisdiction and the local control needed to combat such 
violence in their communities.''\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \28\435 U.S. 191, 195 (1978). Hearing on S. 1763, S. 872, & S. 1192 
Before the S. Comm. on Indian Affairs, 112th Cong. 22-23 (Nov. 10, 
2011) (statement of Thomas B. Heffelfinger, Attorney, Best & Flanagan 
LLP) (noting that because the Oliphant decision deprived tribes of the 
jurisdiction over non-Indians, this ``has had a dramatic and 
detrimental impact upon public safety in Indian country'').
    \29\See Hearing on Native Women: Protecting, Shielding, and 
Safeguarding Our Sisters, Mothers, and Daughters, Before the S. Comm. 
on Indian Affairs, 112th Cong. 98 (July 14, 2011) (Appendix, prepared 
statement of the National Congress of American Indians (NCAI) Task 
Force on Violence Against Women) (calling on Congress to restore 
optional, concurrent tribal criminal jurisdiction over non-Indian 
perpetrators of domestic violence, sexual assault, and related crimes 
that are committed within the exterior boundaries of the reservation).
    \30\Terri Henry, Co-Chair, NCAI Task Force on Violence Against 
Women, Councilwoman, Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians, and Board member 
for the Indian Law Resource Center, Violence Against Native Women 
Gaining Global Attention, Indian Law Resource Center (last visited Nov. 
3, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Since Oliphant, the United States Attorney's office has 
been the principal prosecutor of criminal cases for violation 
of Federal laws in Indian country. Domestic violence and sexual 
abuse against Native women fall within this realm. 
Unfortunately, the need to investigate and prosecute these 
crimes, often on many different reservations (or Tribal lands), 
creates a burden on Federal authorities who are often located 
far from any reservations and stretched too thin to be 
effective. Federal law also does not provide the tools and the 
types of graduated sanctions that are found in State laws 
across the country. This lack of capacity results in many cases 
of domestic violence on reservations being delayed or untried. 
Already, United States Attorneys decline to prosecute 60-70 
percent of all Indian country matters referred to them.\31\ 
Assault and sexual abuse charges were the leading types of 
charges in Indian country, comprising 55 percent of all matters 
referred to U.S. attorneys.\32\ Federal prosecutors declined to 
prosecute 67 percent of crimes sexual abuse and more than 46 
percent of assault matters in Indian country.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \31\Final Report, National Advisory Committee on Violence Against 
Women 22 (June 2012) (``[A]pproximately 60-70 percent of crimes by non-
Indians are not prosecuted because of declination by U.S. 
Attorneys.''); see Tribal Law and Order Act One Year Later: Have We 
Improved Public Safety and Justice Throughout Indian Country? Hearing 
Before the S. Comm. on Indian Affairs, 112th Cong. 2 (Sept. 22, 2011) 
(statement of Sen. Tester).
    \32\U.S. Government Accountability Office, GAO-11-167R, U.S. 
Department of Justice Declinations of Indian Country Criminal Matters 3 
(2010).
    \33\Id. at 3, 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    These declinations leave an entire group of offenders who 
are essentially immune from the law because tribes must rely on 
Federal prosecutors, people who are outside of the community 
and remote from the community, to provide the support they need 
to protect their citizens.\34\ The absence of an adequate legal 
framework to address this problem has undercut law enforcement 
efforts to stop countless acts of violence against Native women 
and has left victims unable or unwilling to seek help.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \34\See Hearing on S. 1763, S. 872, & S. 1192 Before the S. Comm. 
on Indian Affairs, 112th Cong. 70-71 (Nov. 10, 2011) (statement of 
Thomas B. Heffelfinger, Attorney, Best & Flanagan LLP).
    \35\See id. at 8 (statement of Thomas J. Perrelli, Associate 
Attorney General, U.S. Dep't of Justice).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Tribal law enforcement is not in a position to fully 
address these crimes because tribes do not have jurisdiction 
over all offenders in their communities. ``Tribal governments, 
police, and 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.''\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \36\Id. at 8-9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    A tribe's ability to protect its citizens from violence 
should not depend on the race of the assailant. The SAVE Act 
would restore jurisdiction to tribes so they can prosecute 
crimes of violence against women committed by non-Indians 
within their territories.\37\ The restoration of inherent 
Tribal authority to investigate, prosecute, convict, and 
sentence perpetrators of violence against women would allow 
tribes to protect victims of violence and address these 
pervasive crimes against Native American women.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \37\``Even when Indian nations exercise criminal jurisdiction, the 
Indian Civil Rights Act (ICRA) generally limits the sentencing 
authority of tribal courts to no more than a year of imprisonment, no 
matter how heinous the offense. In 2010, the Tribal Law and Order Act 
(TLOA) was enacted to improve criminal justice on Indian lands, 
including amendments to ICRA that allow tribal courts to extend 
sentences, but only if tribes meet certain requirements. Indian nations 
now face substantial setbacks in implementing TLOA after some $90 
million was cut from FY 2012 funding for tribal justice programs and 
crime fighting efforts in Native communities.'' Jana Walker, Senior 
Staff Attorney and Director of the Indian Law Resource Center's Safe 
Women, Strong Nations Project, Using the Declaration to End Violence 
Against Native Women, Indian Law Resource Center (Feb. 1, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    ``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.''\38\ Criminals tend to 
see Indian reservations and Alaska Native villages as places 
they have free reign, where they can hide behind the current 
ineffectiveness of the judicial system.\39\ Without the 
authority to prosecute crimes of violence against women, a 
cycle of violence is perpetuated that allows, and even 
encourages, criminals to act with impunity in Tribal 
communities and denies Native women equality under the law by 
treating them differently than other women in the United 
States.\40\ The SAVE Act will help Tribal communities break 
this cycle.\41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \38\Hearing on S. 1763, S. 872, & S. 1192 Before the S. Comm. on 
Indian Affairs, 112th Cong. 20 (Nov. 10, 2011) (statement of Suzanne 
Koepplinger, Executive Director, Minnesota Indian Women's Resource 
Center).
    \39\Statement of Juana Majel-Dixon, Vice President of the National 
Congress of American Indians and Co-Chair of the NCAI Task Force on 
Violence Against Women. Violence Against Native Women Gaining Global 
Attention; Congress Encouraged to Act, Indian Country Today (Oct. 11, 
2012) (``Congress can act now and NCAI is calling on members of the 
House and Senate to not let this crisis continue for one more day.'').
    \40\Jana Walker, Senior Staff Attorney and Director of the Indian 
Law Resource Center's Safe Women, Strong Nations Project, Using the 
Declaration to End Violence Against Native Women, Indian Law Resource 
Center (Feb. 1, 2012).
    \41\Letter from Troy A. Eid, Chairman, Indian Law and Order 
Commission and Former United States Attorney for the District of 
Colorado & Thomas B. Heffelfinger, Former United States Attorney for 
the District of Minnesota, to the Senate (Mar. 13, 2012).

          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 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.\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \42\Hearing on S. 1763, S. 872, & S. 1192 Before the S. Comm. on 
Indian Affairs, 112th Cong. 18 (Nov. 10, 2011) (statement of Sen. Al 
Franken) (noting that the Act also authorizes services for victimized 
youth and for victims of sex trafficking).

    The SAVE Act addresses these three key areas where 
legislative reform is critical: Tribal criminal jurisdiction, 
Tribal civil jurisdiction, and Federal criminal offenses.
    The SAVE Act closes the jurisdiction gap by restoring 
tribes inherent authority to hold offenders accountable for 
their crimes against Native women, regardless of the 
perpetrator's race. ``Together, by filling these three holes, 
the [SAVE] Act will take many steps forward in our ability to 
combat violence in Alaska Native and American Indian 
communities.''\43\ The SAVE Act builds on current law to 
improve the effectiveness and efficiency of Tribal justice 
systems and will provide additional tools to Tribal and Federal 
prosecutors to address domestic violence in Indian country.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \43\Id. at 9 (statement of Thomas J. Perrelli, Associate Attorney 
General, U.S. Dep't of Justice).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. The SAVE Act closes jurisdictional gaps to better address crimes 
        against Native women

    Although Federal laws such as VAWA, Trafficking Victims 
Protection Act (TVPA),\44\ and the Tribal Law and Order Act 
(TLOA)\45\ address crime in Indian country, these laws leave 
unaddressed the lack of Tribal authority to prosecute non-
Indians committing violent crimes on the reservation. This 
jurisdictional void means that some crimes committed by non-
Indians in Indian country can still go unpunished.\46\ ``The 
lack of tribal jurisdiction over non-Indian offenders on Indian 
lands may be the key reason for the creation and perpetuation 
of disproportionate violence against American Indian and Alaska 
Native women.''\47\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \44\Pub. L. 106-386, 114 Stat. 1464 (2000) (codified as 22 U.S.C. 
Sec. Sec. 7101-7112). Confronted with the unique nature of human 
trafficking in the United States, Congress promulgated the Trafficking 
Victims Protection Act (TVPA) of 2000. TVPA criminalizes human 
trafficking and is the first comprehensive federal law to address 
trafficking in persons. The TVPA does not only provide legal tools for 
prosecution of traffickers and those who aid traffickers, it also 
provides valuable protection for victims of trafficking. The law 
provides a three-pronged approach that includes prevention, protection, 
and prosecution. The TVPA was reauthorized through the Trafficking 
Victims Protection Reauthorization Act (TVPRA) of 2003, 2005, and 2008.
    \45\Pub. L. No. 111-211, 124 Stat. 2258 (2010) (codified as amended 
in various sections of 25 U.S.C.). In July 2010, the President signed 
the Tribal Law and Order Act, which helps to address crime in tribal 
communities and places a strong emphasis on decreasing violence against 
American Indian and Alaska Native women.
    \46\Hearing on S. 1763, S. 872, & S. 1192 Before the S. Comm. on 
Indian Affairs, 112th Cong. 9 (Nov. 10, 2011) (statement of Thomas J. 
Perrelli, Associate Attorney General, U.S. Dep't of Justice) (``[T]he 
current jurisdictional framework has left many serious acts of domestic 
and dating violence unprosecuted and unpunished.'').
    \47\Hearing on Tribal Law and Order One Year Later: Have We 
Improved Public Safety and Justice Throughout Indian Country, Hearing 
Before the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, 112th Cong. 63 (Sept. 
22, 2011) (statement of Jacqueline Johnson-Pata, Executive Director, 
National Congress of the American Indian (NCAI)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In 1978, the Supreme Court ruled that Indian tribes do not 
have criminal jurisdiction over non-Indians who commit crimes 
on Indian lands.\48\ As such, Indian women--most of whom 
describe the offender as non-Indian\49\--often have no criminal 
recourse against non-Indian offenders.\50\ This leaves a sense 
of lawlessness on Indian reservations and a perpetuation of 
victimization of Native women, a perception which is at odds 
with the purposes of VA WA that have guided our nation since 
its enactment over fifteen years ago.\51\ The SAVE Act, ``by 
providing Tribes with jurisdiction over domestic violence 
committed by all offenders, recognizes Tribal sovereignty and 
Tribal responsibility.''\52\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \48\Oliphant v. Suquamish Indian Tribe, 435 U.S. 191, 195 (1978).
    \49\See Steven W. Perry, American Indians and Crime, A BJS 
Statistical Profile, 1992-2002, U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of 
Justice Statistics 9 (2004) (noting that nearly 4 in 5 American Indian 
victims of rape/sexual assault described the offender as white).
    \50\See Hearing on Tribal Law and Order One Year Later: Have We 
Improved Public Safety and Justice Throughout Indian Country, Hearing 
Before the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, 112th Cong. 63 (Sept. 
22, 2011) (statement of Jacqueline Johnson-Pata, Executive Director, 
National Congress of the American Indian (NCAI)).
    \51\Hearing on Tribal Law and Order One Year Later: Have We 
Improved Public Safety and Justice Throughout Indian Country, Hearing 
Before the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, 112th Cong. (Sept. 22, 
2011) (statement of Jacqueline Johnson-Pata, Executive Director, 
National Congress of the American Indian (NCAI)) (citations omitted).
    \52\Hearing on S. 1763, S. 872, & S. 1192 Before the S. Comm. on 
Indian Affairs, 112th Cong. 22 (Nov. 10, 2011) (statement of Thomas B. 
Heffelfinger, Attorney, Best & Flanagan LLP).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
            a. The SAVE Act recognizes the inherent authority of tribes 
                    to prosecute any person who commits domestic 
                    violence 
                    or dating violence against a Tribal member in 
                    Indian country
    The current legal framework for criminal jurisdiction in 
Indian country is complicated and often produces an inadequate 
and delayed response to Indian women victims, further 
undermining their safety.\53\ ``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.''\54\ In the 112th Congress, 
the Committee has received testimony from 17 witnesses during 
three hearings on how necessary it is for tribes to exercise 
concurrent criminal jurisdiction over domestic-violence cases, 
regardless of whether the defendant is Indian or non-
Indian.\55\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \53\See, e.g., Hearing on S. 1763, S. 872, & S. 1192 Before the S. 
Comm. on Indian Affairs, 112th Cong. 9 (Nov. 10, 2011) (statement of 
Thomas J. Perrelli, Associate Attorney General, U.S. Dep't of Justice). 
See also Ronet Bachman, et al., Violence Against American Indian and 
Alaska Native Women and the Criminal Justice Response: What Is Known 8-
9 (Aug. 2008) (noting that cross-deputization agreements with state 
police authorities can serve to alleviate the jurisdictional confusion, 
but that the complicated jurisdictional issues still produce many 
unique barriers for Indian women seeking help from a criminal justice 
authority on tribal lands).
    \54\Native Women: Protecting, Shielding, and Safeguarding Our 
Sisters, Mothers, and Daughters, Hearing Before the S. Comm. on Indian 
Affairs, 112th Cong. 19 (July 14, 2011) (attachment to prepared 
statement of Thomas J. Perrelli, Associate Attorney General, U.S. 
Department of Justice, entitled Questions and Answers on Proposed 
Federal Legislation to Help Tribal Communities Combat Violence Against 
Native Women). See also Hearing on Native Women: Protecting, Shielding, 
and Safeguarding Our Sisters, Mothers, and Daughters, Before the S. 
Comm. on Indian Affairs, 112th Cong. 82-83 (July 14, 2011) (prepared 
statement of the Cherokee Nation) (noting that the ``confusion as to 
whether local, state, federal, or tribal law enforcement agencies 
possess criminal jurisdiction'' often results in ``acts of violence 
against women often fall[ing] through the cracks and are never 
prosecuted'').
    \55\Native Women: Protecting, Shielding, and Safeguarding Our 
Sisters, Mothers, and Daughters, Hearing Before the S. Comm. on Indian 
Affairs, 112th Cong. 8 (July 14, 2011) (statement of Thomas J. 
Perrelli, Associate Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice) 
(noting that such legislation would build on the intent of the Tribal 
Law and Order Act).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Under current law, Tribal governments--police, prosecutors, 
and courts--lack the authority to address many of these 
crimes.\56\ The SAVE Act builds on the Tribal Law and Order Act 
(TLOA) by recognizing 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. TLOA supports the idea of 
tribes addressing violence in their own communities and it 
offers additional authority to Tribal courts and prosecutors if 
certain procedural protections are established.\57\ 
``[D]omestic 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.''\58\ Local Tribal 
officers and justice systems are more capable and more 
accountable to victims of violence and their communities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \56\Native Women: Protecting, Shielding, and Safeguarding Our 
Sisters, Mothers, and Daughters, Oversight Hearing Before the S. Comm. 
on Indian Affairs, 112th Cong. 11 (July 14, 2011) (letter from Ronald 
Welch, Assistant Attorney General, included as an attachment to 
prepared statement of Thomas J. Perrelli, Associate Attorney General, 
U.S. Department of Justice).
    \57\Native Women: Protecting, Shielding, and Safeguarding Our 
Sisters, Mothers, and Daughters, Oversight Hearing Before the S. Comm. 
on Indian Affairs, 112th Cong. 8 (July 14, 2011) (statement of Thomas 
J. Perrelli, Associate Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice).
    \58\Hearing on S. 1763, S. 872, & S. 1192 Before the S. Comm. on 
Indian Affairs, 112th Cong. 70-71 (Nov. 10, 2011) (statement of Thomas 
B. Heffelfinger, Attorney, Best & Flanagan LLP) (``What is wonderful 
about [the SAVE Native Women] 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.'').

          [T]he current legal structure for prosecuting 
        domestic violence in Indian country is not well-suited 
        to combating this pattern of escalating violence. 
        Federal resources, which are often the only ones that 
        can investigate and prosecute these crimes, are often 
        far away and stretched thin. 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.\59\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \59\Native Women: Protecting, Shielding, and Safeguarding Our 
Sisters, Mothers, and Daughters, Oversight Hearing Before the S. Comm. 
on Indian Affairs, 112th Cong. 7 (July 14, 2011) (statement of Thomas 
J. Perrelli, Associate Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice).

    Neither the Federal Government nor any State would lose any 
criminal jurisdiction as a result of restoration of criminal 
jurisdiction for Tribal lands.\60\ Without impinging on any 
other government's jurisdiction, the SAVE Act 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.\61\ 
To the extent those crimes can be prosecuted today by Federal 
or State prosecutors, that jurisdictional scheme 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 the defendants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \60\Sen. Harry Reid, Majority Leader, The Violence Against Women 
Reauthorization Act (S. 1925), United States Senator for Nevada Harry 
Reid (last visited Dec. 12, 2012) (noting that the expanded 
jurisdiction ``was designed with the Department of Justice over several 
years of consultation'').
    \61\See SAVE Native Women Act, S. 1763, 112th Cong. 
Sec. Sec. 201(a)-201(d) (2011). The SAVE Act would allow tribes to 
exercise concurrent criminal jurisdiction over all persons committing 
acts of domestic violence on Indian reservations because of tribes' 
inherent power of self-government. SAVE Native Women Act, S. 1763, 
112th Cong. Sec. Sec. 201(b)(1) (2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    For example, if a Native woman is a victim of violence 
committed on a reservation by a non-Indian with whom she does 
not have a relationship, the tribe will not have jurisdiction 
to prosecute that crime. Additionally, the SAVE Act allows non-
Indian defendants to have their case dismissed if the defendant 
files a pretrial motion to dismiss and the tribe does not prove 
that the victim is Indian.\62\ Tribes exercising this 
statutorily recognized jurisdiction over crimes of domestic 
violence would be required to protect a robust set of rights, 
similar to those protected in State court criminal 
prosecutions. Tribes that choose not to provide these 
protections would not have this additional authority.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \62\See SAVE Native Women Act, S. 1763, 112th Cong. 
Sec. Sec. 201(a)-201(d) (2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Because restoring Tribal criminal jurisdiction over all 
perpetrators of domestic violence would tax the already scarce 
resources\63\ of most tribes that might wish to exercise this 
jurisdiction under the SAVE Act, the Act also authorizes grants 
to support participating 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \63\Tribal Law and Order Act One Year Later: Have We Improved 
Public Safety and Justice throughout Indian Country? Oversight Hearing 
Before the S. Comm. on Indian Affairs, 112th Cong. 1 (Sept. 22, 2011) 
(statement of Sen. Daniel K. Akaka, Chairman, S. Comm. on Indian 
Affairs) (``Native justice systems are also extremely underfunded and 
lack adequate data, training and coordination with State and Federal 
agencies to deal with the problem.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    It is important that the United States consider 
recommendations from experts with the United Nations and the 
Organization of American States as it begins to take action. A 
report to the U.N. General Assembly in 2011 concluded that the 
United States should ``consider restoring, in consultation with 
Native American tribes, Tribal authority to enforce Tribal law 
over all perpetrators, both native and non-native, who commit 
acts of sexual and domestic violence within their 
jurisdiction.''\64\ The global reach and international human 
rights law is a strong push on Congress to act and remove the 
legal barriers in the United States that affect Native women. 
According to one advocate, ``Native women must not continue to 
suffer disproportionately higher rates of rape, sexual assault, 
and murder, and lower rates of enforcement, prosecution, and 
punishment just because they are Indian and live on an Indian 
reservation or in an Alaska Native village.''\65\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \64\Rashida Manjoo, U.N. Special Rapporteur on Violence Against 
Women, United Nations Human Rights Council, Report of the Special 
Rapporteur on violence against Women, its causes and consequences 30 
(June 6, 2011).
    \65\Jana Walker, Senior Staff Attorney and Director of the Indian 
Law Resource Center's Safe Women, Strong Nations Project, Using the 
Declaration to End Violence Against Native Women, Indian Law Resource 
Center (Feb. 1, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
            b. The SAVE Act clarifies that Tribal courts have full 
                    civil jurisdiction to issue and enforce protection 
                    orders against Indians and non-Indians alike
    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.\66\ 
``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.''\67\ To help tribes better protect victims, Tribal 
courts should have full civil jurisdiction to issue and enforce 
certain protection orders involving any persons, Indian or non-
Indian.\68\ Because Native communities are often located in 
rural areas, physically distant from State courts and police 
stations, Tribal courts are often in the best position to best 
meet the needs of the residents of the community. ``Orders of 
protection can be a strong tool to prevent future violence, but 
they are only as strong as their recognition and 
enforcement.''\69\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \66\This would effectively reverse a 2008 decision from a Federal 
district court in Washington, 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. 
Martinez v. Martinez, No. C08-5503 FBD, 2008 WL 5262793 (D. Wash. Dec. 
16, 2008).
    \67\Hearing on S. 1763, S. 872, & S. 1192 Before the S. Comm. on 
Indian Affairs, 112th Cong. 13-14 (Nov. 10, 2011) (statement of Thomas 
J. Perrelli, Associate Attorney General, U.S. Dep't of Justice).
    \68\Native Women: Protecting, Shielding, and Safeguarding Our 
Sisters, Mothers, and Daughters, Oversight Hearing Before the S. Comm. 
on Indian Affairs, 112th Cong. 8 (July 14, 2011) (attachment to 
prepared statement of Thomas J. Perrelli, Associate Attorney General, 
U.S. Department of Justice). Tribal Law and Order Act One Year Later: 
Have We Improved Public Safety and Justice Throughout Indian Country? 
Oversight Hearing Before the S. Comm. on Indian Affairs, 112th Cong. 47 
(Sept. 22, 2011) (statement of Troy A. Eid, Chair, Indian Law and Order 
Commission) (noting that the Commission had received testimony 
indicating that state court judges do not always enforce a restraining 
order issued by a tribal court and the lack of protection that occurs 
without full faith and credit). ``Domestic violence perpetrators don't 
care where the victim is. They are going to hunt that victim down. So 
we have to try to protect that person.'' Id.
    \69\Native Women: Protecting, Shielding, and Safeguarding Our 
Sisters, Mothers, and Daughters, Oversight Hearing Before the S. Comm. 
on Indian Affairs, 112th Cong. 96 (July 14, 2011) (appendix, prepared 
statement of Jana L. Walker, Senior Attorney, Indian Law Resource 
Center).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
            c. The SAVE Act amends Federal law to enable Federal 
                    prosecutors to more effectively combat three types 
                    of assault that are frequently committed against 
                    Native women in Indian country: assault by 
                    strangling or suffocating, assault resulting in 
                    substantial bodily injury; and assault by striking, 
                    beating, or wounding
    The SAVE Act involves Federal criminal offenses rather than 
Tribal prosecutions. 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. To assist Federal prosecutors in combating 
domestic violence in Indian country, the SAVE 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.\70\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \70\Hearing on S. 1763, S. 872, & S. 1192 Before the S. Comm. on 
Indian Affairs, 112th Cong. 12-13 (Nov. 10, 2011) (statement of Thomas 
J. Perrelli, Associate Attorney General, U.S. Dep't of Justice) 
(``Existing Federal law provides a six-month misdemeanor assault or 
assault-and-battery offense that can be charged 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.' . . . 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 simplifies the Major Crimes Act\71\ to cover 
all felony assaults under section 113 of the Federal Criminal 
Code. This includes 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. The SAVE Act would 
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.''\72\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \71\18 U.S.C. Sec. 1153. Federal prosecutors use the Major Crimes 
Act to prosecute Indians for virtually all violent crimes committed on 
tribal lands against Indian and non-Indian victims.
    \72\Hearing on S. 1763, S. 872, & S. 1192 before the S. Comm. on 
Indian Affairs, 112th Cong. 13-14 (Nov. 10, 2011) (statement of Thomas 
J. Perrelli, Associate Attorney General, U.S. Dep't of Justice) (noting 
that these amendments to the Federal assault statute will stop domestic 
violence at its earlier states and prevent it from reaching its most 
severe levels).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. The SAVE Act addresses the growing problem of the sex trafficking of 
        Indian women

    ``Historical trauma and multi-generational grief and loss, 
compounded by high rates of poverty and sexual violence make 
American Indians extremely vulnerable to sexual 
predators.''\73\ Sex trafficking is defined in the Trafficking 
Victims Protection Act as the ``recruitment, harboring, 
transportation, provision, or obtaining of a person for the 
purpose of a commercial sex act.''\74\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \73\Native Women: Protecting, Shielding, and Safeguarding Our 
Sisters, Mothers, and Daughters, Oversight Hearing Before the S. Comm. 
on Indian Affairs, 112th Cong. 123 (July 14, 2011) (appendix, prepared 
statement of Suzanne Koepplinger, Executive Director, Minnesota Indian 
Women's Resource Center). See also Hearing on S. 1763, S. 872, & S. 
1192 Before the S. Comm. on Indian Affairs, 112th Cong. (Nov. 10, 2011) 
(statement of Sen. Al Franken, noting that sex traffickers tend to 
target homeless Native women and children).
    \74\22 U.S.C. Sec. 7102(9). Some States, such as Minnesota, have 
trafficking laws that do not require traffickers to use ``force, fraud 
or coercion.'' See Minnesota Indian Women's Resource Center, Shattered 
Hearts 21 (Aug. 2009) (``Minnesota law recognizes that a person can 
never consent to being sexually exploited and considers individuals who 
have been prostituted by others as trafficking victims. Federal law 
requires an assessment of the level of `consent' of the prostituted 
person in determining whether the crime of trafficking has occurred.'') 
(citations omitted).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Trafficking is a growing problem in Indian country, but the 
depth of the sexual exploitation of American Indian women is 
only now beginning to be uncovered.\75\ ``[T]his is due in 
large part because many of the women do not identify as 
victims. They do not report these crimes to authorities.''\76\ 
The SAVE Act would improve data gathering programs to better 
understand and respond to the sex trafficking of Native 
American women. Trafficking is a crime that is ``very difficult 
to investigate and get a handle on''\77\ and ``[t]here are many 
challenges to identifying and responding to [the] sex 
trafficking'' of Native women.\78\ The scope of the problem 
needs to be better understood in order to offer more effective 
services.\79\ ``We know . . . very clearly that this issue 
[trafficking of Native women] exists and we know it has a 
terrible effect on communities where this occurs. . . . [A] big 
part of [addressing trafficking] is education. It is training 
for both law enforcement, as well as the community.''\80\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \75\Melissa Farley, et al., Garden of Truth: The Prostitution and 
Trafficking of Native Women in Minnesota 56 (Oct. 27, 2011) (noting 
that it is important that organizations that provide services to Native 
women educate their staff members to recognize, empathize, and support 
victims of trafficking). ``In the U.S., very little research has been 
published on the sex trafficking or commercial sexual exploitation of 
Native women and youth. What exists is specific to two states, 
Minnesota and Alaska. A number of publications have addressed 
trafficking and prostitution of Native women and youth in Canada, but 
in both countries, most of these describe small local studies, are 
produced by organizations serving victims, or are press releases and 
interviews citing law enforcement personnel. To date, no U.S.-based 
research has been published in peer-reviewed journals.'' Alexandra 
(Sandi) Pierce & Suzanne Koepplinger, New Language, Old Problem: Sex 
Trafficking of American Indian Women and Children, National Online 
Resource Center on Violence Against Women 3 (Oct. 2011).
    \76\Hearing on S. 1763, S. 872, & S. 1192 Before the S. Comm. on 
Indian Affairs, 112th Cong. 20 (Nov. 10, 2011) (statement of Suzanne 
Koepplinger, Executive Director, Minnesota Indian Women's Resource 
Center) (noting that victims of trafficking are much more likely to 
disclose their assault to frontline advocates).
    \77\Id. at 15 (statement of Thomas J. Perrelli, Associate Attorney 
General, U.S. Dep't of Justice).
    \78\Id. at 20 (Nov. 10, 2011) (statement of Suzanne Koepplinger, 
Executive Director, Minnesota Indian Women's Resource Center) 
(``[C]ollecting 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.'').
    \79\``[The arrest and prosecution of victims is counter-productive 
and exacerbates the problems.'' Melissa Farley, et al., Garden of 
Truth: The Prostitution and Trafficking of Native Women in Minnesota 56 
(Oct. 27, 2011).
    \80\Tribal Law and Order One Year Later: Have We Improved Public 
Safety and Justice Throughout Indian Country, Oversight Hearing Before 
the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, 112th Cong. 31-32 (Sept. 22, 
2011) (statement of Brendan Johnson, U.S. Attorney, District of South 
Dakota, U.S. Department of Justice) (emphasizing the importance of 
training Federal law enforcement in Indian country because, what might 
look like a prostitution case at first could be a much larger human 
trafficking operation).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Forty states have already passed State laws criminalizing 
sex trafficking. However, these State laws vary in criteria for 
establishing victimization.\81\ Trafficking cases that arise 
from within the United States, as compared to international 
trafficking, also tend to be more difficult to prosecute and 
provide challenges to helping the victims. There is currently 
no dedicated Federal funding for services to aid or protect 
domestically-trafficked U.S.-born adults. The SAVE Act includes 
research for, as well as grants towards understanding and 
addressing sex trafficking. Because domestically-trafficked 
U.S.-born adult victims are offered fewer protections than 
international victims while the case is being heard, adult 
domestic victims often refuse to testify, fearing potentially 
lethal retribution by the trafficker.\82\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \81\Alexandra (Sandi) Pierce & Suzanne Koepplinger, New Language, 
Old Problem: Sex Trafficking of American Indian Women and Children, 
National Online Resource Center on Violence Against Women 3 (Oct. 2011) 
(noting that Arizona ``requires adult victims to prove the trafficker 
used force, fraud, or coercion'' while Minnesota ``does not require 
victims of any age to prove the means by which they were induced''). 
``In. . . federal law, sexually trafficked minors are automatically 
considered to be victims, but trafficked adults are required to prove 
that the trafficker used force, fraud, or coercion to become eligible 
for victim services.'' Id. at 5.
    \82\Id. at 6 (noting that although ``a handful of programs, such as 
Breaking Free and PRIDE in Minneapolis, offer shelter, transitional 
housing, and support services to domestically trafficked adults, none 
receive federal trafficking dollars for these services.'') (citations 
omitted).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Ending human trafficking should not be a political issue, 
but a human responsibility.\83\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \83\United States Department of State, Trafficking in Persons 
Report 3 (June 2011) (quoting Ambassador Richard Holbrooke).

          Investing in the safety of women and children is an 
        investment in the wellbeing of our families and 
        communities. It is not only the right thing to do, it 
        is fiscally prudent thing to provide preventive and 
        healing services to those in need. The trauma of 
        unreported or untreated sexual violence leads to higher 
        end-use of social services, multi-generational abuse, 
        increased rates of homelessness, and other costs.\84\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \84\Hearing on S. 1763, S. 872 & S. 1192 Before the S. Comm. on 
Indian Affairs, 112th Cong. 20 (Nov. 10, 2011) (statement of Suzanne 
Koepplinger, Executive Director, Minnesota Indian Women's Resource 
Center).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          NEED FOR LEGISLATION

    Some question the ability of Congress to restore the 
inherent criminal authority of Indian tribes over all 
individuals who commit crimes of domestic and dating violence, 
regardless of their status as Indian or non-Indian. Congress 
has exercised, and the United States Supreme Court has 
affirmed, broad plenary authority over Indian affairs for more 
than two centuries. In the recent past, Congress restored the 
inherent criminal jurisdiction of Indian tribes over non-member 
Indians. The Supreme Court upheld the law. Provisions to 
restore Tribal government authority over on-reservation acts of 
domestic and dating violence by non-Natives with ties to the 
reservation are well within Congress' constitutional authority 
over Indian affairs.
    Prior to contact with European nations, Indian tribes were 
separate sovereigns possessing full authority to investigate 
and prosecute crimes committed by all who entered their lands. 
These nations and the United States, upon its formation, 
acknowledged the full realm of Tribal government criminal 
jurisdiction in Indian treaties. The United States added 
acknowledgement of Tribal self-governing authority through 
several references to Indian tribes in the Constitution. 
Through these acknowledgements, Congress has exercised, and the 
Supreme Court has affirmed as constitutional, broad plenary 
authority over Indian affairs.
    Specifically regarding criminal justice on Indian lands, 
the Court in U.S. v. Kagama found that Congress had the 
constitutional authority to enact the Major Crimes Act of 1885, 
which restricted Tribal authority over crimes committed by 
Indians on the reservation.\85\ The Court found that due to 
Congress' ``course of dealing with [Indian tribes], and the 
treaties in which it has been promised, there arises the duty 
of protection, and with it the power.''\86\ For nearly 130 
years since Kagama, based on this authority, Congress has 
enacted hundreds of laws impacting Indian affairs, including 
laws taking Tribal homelands, authorizing the boarding of 
Indian children against parental consent, suppressing of the 
practice of Native religions and prohibition on speaking Tribal 
language, and much more. No Federal court has questioned or 
struck down these laws.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \85\118 U.S. 375 (1886).
    \86\Id at 384.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In the 1978 Oliphant v. Suquamish Indian Tribe case, the 
Court held that Congress ``implicitly divested'' Tribal 
authority over non-Indians.\87\ The Court reasoned that various 
Federal laws enacted over the past 150 years ``demonstrated an 
intent to reserve jurisdiction over non-Indians to the Federal 
courts.''\88\ An additional part of the rationale was that non-
Indians could not participate in jury pools or Tribal politics. 
The Oliphant Court acknowledged that the ``prevalence'' of non-
Indian crime on Indian reservations, but noted that ``these are 
considerations for Congress to weigh. . . .''\89\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \87\435 U.S. 191 (1978).
    \88\Id. at 204.
    \89\Id. at 212.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In 1990, the Court in Duro v. Reina, similarly held that 
Congress implicitly restricted Tribal criminal authority over 
non-member Indians.\90\ Non-members Indians also cannot vote in 
Tribal elections or otherwise participate in Tribal politics. 
Congress legislatively reversed Duro, relaxing the restriction 
by amending the Indian Civil Rights Act (ICRA) to ``recognize 
and affirm'' the inherent Tribal government criminal authority 
over ``all Indians.''\91\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \90\495 U.S. 676 (1990).
    \91\25 U.S.C. Sec. 1301(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In 2004, the Supreme Court in United States v. Lara, upheld 
the ICRA amendment acknowledging Tribal inherent criminal 
authority over all Indians.\92\ The central question raised in 
Lara was whether Congress has the constitutional power to 
recognize Indian tribes' ``inherent'' under the Constitution 
rested on six considerations, all of which apply to the 
proposed VAWA Tribal jurisdiction provision: (1) ``the 
Constitution grants Congress broad general powers to legislate 
in respect to Indian tribes''; (2) ``Congress, with this 
Court's approval, has interpreted the Constitution's `plenary' 
grants of power as authorizing it to enact legislation that 
both restricts and, in turn, relaxes those restrictions on 
tribal sovereign authority''; (3) ``Congress' statutory goal--
to modify the degree of autonomy enjoyed by a dependent 
sovereign that is not a State--is not an unusual legislative 
objective''; (4) there is ``no explicit language in the 
Constitution suggesting a limitation on Congress' institutional 
authority to relax restrictions on tribal sovereignty 
previously imposed by the political branches''; (5) ``the 
change at issue here is a limited one, . . . [largely 
concerning] a tribe's authority to control events that occur 
upon the tribe's own land''; and (6) the Court's ``conclusion 
that Congress has the power to relax the restrictions imposed 
by the political branches on the tribes' inherent prosecutorial 
authority is consistent with [the Supreme Court's] earlier 
cases.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \92\541 U.S. 193 (2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    While the ICRA provision at issue in Lara was broad 
criminal authority over all types of crimes committed by any 
non-member Indian who acts on Indian lands, the proposed VAWA 
Tribal provision is limited to misdemeanor crimes of domestic 
and dating violence committed on a reservation by a non-Indian 
who either lives or works on the reservation and who has a pre-
existing relationship with the victim. In addition, the 
proposal requires that Tribal courts provide the suspect of 
abuse with a full list of protections that mirror protections 
offered defendants before State courts. These protections were 
not required in the ICRA amendment at issue in Duro.
    Opponents of restoring inherent Tribal authority have 
proposed a delegation of Federal criminal authority to Indian 
tribes over non-Native crimes of domestic and dating violence. 
Delegating Federal criminal authority to Tribal governments 
will raise more constitutional questions that it could possibly 
answer. Indian tribes and Tribal officials are neither 
appointed by the President nor subject to his removal 
authority. Tribal prosecutors (unlike United States Attorneys) 
are not controlled (hired and fired) by the President. Such a 
system, at minimum, would be required in order for a delegation 
to be found constitutional.
    Justice Thomas, in his concurrence in response to Justice 
Souter's dissent, laid out the argument against Federal 
delegations of criminal authority to Indian tribes.

          The power to bring federal prosecutions, which is 
        part of the putative delegated power, is manifestly and 
        quintessentially executive power. Congress cannot 
        transfer federal executive power to individuals who are 
        beyond ``meaningful Presidential control.'' And this 
        means that, at a minimum, the President must have some 
        measure of ``the power to appoint and remove'' those 
        exercising that power.\93\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \93\Id. at 216-17 (Thomas, J., concurring in the judgment) (citing 
Morrison v. Olson, 487 U.S. 654, 691 (1988)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
          It does not appear that the President has any control 
        over tribal officials, let alone a substantial measure 
        of the appointment and removal power. Thus, at least 
        until we are prepared to recognize absolutely 
        independent agencies entirely outside of the Executive 
        Branch with the power to bind the Executive Branch (for 
        a tribal prosecution would then bar a subsequent 
        federal prosecution), the tribes cannot be analogized 
        to administrative agencies, as the dissent suggests. 
        That is, reading the ``Duro fix'' as a delegation of 
        federal power (without also divining some adequate 
        method of Presidential control) would create grave 
        constitutional difficulties. Accordingly, the Court has 
        only two options: Either the ``Duro fix'' changed the 
        result in Duro or it did nothing at all.\94\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \94\Id at 216 (Thomas, J., concurring in the judgment).

    ``[Justice Thomas] cogently explained that any delegation 
of that sort would be constitutionally suspect in any event, 
for it would transfer a core executive function--the 
prosecution of crime--to an entity not simply beyond the 
President's appointment and removal authority, but entirely 
outside the executive branch.''\95\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \95\Philip P. Frickey, (Native) American Exceptionalism in Federal 
Public Law, 119 Harvard L. Rev. 431, 471 n. 223 (2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Just as important, a Federal delegation would prove 
unworkable on-the-ground and would do little to address the 
epidemic of violence faced by many Tribal communities. It would 
place significant additional burdens on Tribal governments, 
courts, and police--as opposed to exercising the restored 
authority listed in the Issa bill\96\ even with the added 
requirements and protections that they must provide to suspects 
of abuse. In addition, a delegation of Federal authority--if it 
can ever be found constitutional--must come with an entirely 
new Federal bureaucracy and regulatory regime to oversee local 
Tribal law enforcement, prosecutors, public defenders, judges, 
and other justice officials, all of which must be funded by 
Congress.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \96\H.R. 6625.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Congress has much broader plenary authority to legislate 
over Indian affairs than it does delegating criminal 
enforcement powers that are reserved for the Federal 
Government. Recognizing and affirming a tribe's inherent power 
to exercise criminal jurisdiction over certain nonmembers is 
exactly what Congress did in the ``Duro fix,'' which the 
Supreme Court upheld in United States v. Lara.

                          LEGISLATIVE HISTORY

    In developing S. 1763, the Committee worked to continue the 
tradition of strong bipartisan support for the Violence Against 
Women Act (VAWA). S. 1763 includes a Department of Justice 
proposal submitted to Congress on July 21, 2011 in anticipation 
of the reauthorization of the VAWA. That proposal was the 
product of extensive of previous work developing the Tribal Law 
and Order Act, which became law in 2010.
    The Committee held a hearing on the proposal on July 14, 
2011. Three critical priorities emerged from the July hearing: 
(1) To reauthorize and improve the Native programs under VAWA; 
(2) To strengthen Tribal governments so that they have the 
authority to address these crimes; and (3) To examine the 
increasing problem of sex trafficking of Native women. These 
priorities were then incorporated into draft legislation which 
was widely circulated in August, 2011, and posted on the 
Committee's website.
    In response to the feedback the Committee received, Senator 
Akaka modified the draft bill and introduced the Stand Against 
Violence and Empower Native Women (SAVE Native Women) Act on 
October 31, 2011, along with Senators Baucus, Begich, Bingaman, 
Franken, Inouye, Johnson, Murray, Tester, and Udall. Senators 
Conrad, Crapo, Murkowski, Reid, and Sanders were later added as 
co-sponsors. The Committee held a hearing on November 10, 2011 
to further review and evaluate the legislation. The Committee 
reported S. 1763 on December 8, 2011 by voice vote with 
bipartisan support. The Committee ordered the bill be reported 
with an amendment in the nature of a substitute favorably.
    The Committee on Indian Affairs worked closely with the 
Committee on the Judiciary. The Committee on the Judiciary 
accepted the provisions in S. 1763 and the bill was 
incorporated into S. 1925, the Violence Against Women 
Reauthorization Act of 2012. S. 1925, also known as the 
``Leahy-Crapo bill,'' was introduced on November 30, 2011 by 
Senator Leahy and has 60 cosponsors. Judiciary reported S. 1925 
with an amendment in the nature of a substitute on February 7, 
2012. Judiciary filed a written report with minority views, 
Report No. 112-153, on March 12, 2012. On April 26, 2012, S. 
1925 passed the Senate with an amendment by Yea-Nay recorded 
vote of 68-31.
    A companion bill, H.R. 4154, was introduced by Congressman 
Boren on March 7, 2012 in the House of Representatives. The 
bill was referred to the House Subcommittee on Indian and 
Alaska Native Affairs and the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, 
and Homeland Security.

         SUMMARY OF THE AMENDMENT IN THE NATURE OF A SUBSTITUTE

    Senator Akaka offered a substitute amendment and the 
amendment was accepted by the Committee on December 8, 2011.
    This amendment:
    Amends the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 
1968 to include sex trafficking as a target of the grants to 
Indian Tribal governments to combat violent crime against 
Indian women. Allows those grants to be used to: (1) address 
the needs of youth who are victims of, or exposed to, domestic 
violence, dating violence, sexual assault, sex trafficking, or 
stalking; and (2) develop and promote best practices for 
responding to domestic violence, dating violence, sexual 
assault, sex trafficking, and stalking.
    Allows Tribal coalition grants to be used to develop and 
promote legislation and policies that enhance best practices 
for responding to violent crimes against Indian women. Requires 
the Attorney General to award such grants annually to: (1) each 
Tribal coalition that meets certain criteria under the Violence 
Against Women Act of 1994 (VAWA), is recognized by the Office 
on Violence Against Women, and serves Indian tribes; and (2) 
organizations that propose to incorporate and operate a Tribal 
coalition in areas where Indian tribes are located but no 
Tribal coalition exists.
    Amends the Violence Against Women and Department of Justice 
Reauthorization Act of 2005 to: (1) include the Secretary of 
the Interior, in addition to the Secretary of Health and Human 
Services (HHS) and the Attorney General, as a participant in 
consultations with Indian tribes regarding the administration 
of Tribal funds and programs, enhancement of Indian women's 
safety, and Federal response to violent crimes against Indian 
women; and (2) require the National Institute of Justice to 
include women in Alaska Native Villages and sex trafficking in 
its study of violence against Indian women. Reauthorizes 
appropriations for the study for FY2012-FY2013.
    Amends VAWA to define or revise definitions of ``native 
village,'' ``sex trafficking,'' and ``tribal coalition.''
    Restores Indian tribes criminal jurisdiction over domestic 
violence, dating violence, and violations of protective orders 
that occur on their lands. Provides that a participating tribe 
shall exercise special domestic violence criminal jurisdiction 
concurrently, not exclusively. Authorizes the Attorney General 
to award grants to assist Indian tribes in exercising such 
jurisdiction, providing indigent defendants with free legal 
counsel, and securing the rights of victims of such crimes. 
Authorizes appropriations for such grant program and to provide 
participating Indian tribes with training, technical 
assistance, data collection, and an evaluation of their 
criminal justice systems.
    Gives Indian courts civil jurisdiction to issue and enforce 
protection orders.
    Amends the Federal criminal code to increase the maximum 
Federal penalties for assault convictions. Subjects individuals 
who: (1) commit an assault resulting in substantial bodily 
injury to a spouse, intimate partner, or a dating partner to a 
fine or imprisonment for up to five years, or both; and (2) 
assault a spouse, intimate partner, or dating partner by 
strangling, suffocating, or attempting to strangle or 
suffocate, by a fine or imprisonment up to 10 years, or both. 
Makes Federal felony assault penalties applicable to Indians.
    Makes Indian tribes' criminal jurisdiction over domestic 
violence, dating violence, and violations of protection orders 
that occur on their lands effective two years after this Act's 
enactment. Gives Indian tribes the opportunity to participate 
in a pilot project that allows them to exercise that 
jurisdiction sooner.
    Amends the Federal criminal code to subject individuals 
convicted under Tribal law of repeat domestic violence or 
stalking offenses to maximum Federal penalty provisions for 
repeat offenders.
    Makes violations of civil protection orders issued by a 
Tribal court or other judicial tribunal of an Indian tribe a 
federal crime.
    Amends the Indian Law Enforcement Reform Act to require a 
report to Congress within 90 days of enactment, and each fiscal 
year thereafter, to provide details on implementation of the 
high priority performance goal pilot program carried out by the 
Secretary of the Interior to reduce violent crime in Indian 
communities.
    Amends the Indian Law Enforcement Reform Act to extend the 
Indian Law and Order Commission's reporting deadline by one 
year.
    Amends the Indian Civil Rights Act of 1968 to (1) authorize 
a discretionary four-year pilot project whereby the Secretary 
of the Interior shall promulgate regulations for misdemeanor 
crimes with penalties (of no more than a $1000 fine, one year 
imprisonment, or both) that apply to Indian country, and select 
up to five tribes for each of fiscal years 2012 to 2018 for 
participation; (2) require publication of requirements and 
selection criteria for the project within 180 days of enactment 
for the Secretary, after consulting with tribes; (3) cross-
deputize Tribal officers to issue citations into the applicable 
Federal district court--the Central Violations Bureau. 
Enforcement of the regulations would be concurrent with any 
State or local law enforcement efforts; and (4) require a 
report to Congress within five years, assessing and evaluating 
the effectiveness of the project.
    Senator Murkowski also offered an amendment. The amendment 
clarifies that nothing in section 202 (Tribal Protection 
Orders) would limit, alter, expand, or diminish the civil or 
criminal jurisdiction of the State of Alaska, any subdivision 
of the State of Alaska, or any Indian tribe in the State of 
Alaska. This amendment was also accepted by the Committee on 
December 8, 2011.

          SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS OF THE BILL, AS AMENDED

                            Title I--Grants


Sec. 101. Grants to Indian Tribal governments

    This section amends the Violence Against Women Act to add 
the following as authorized grant activities: (1) services to 
sex trafficking victims; (2) services to address the needs of 
victimized youth and support services for nonabusing parents or 
the child's caretaker; and (3) drafting and conducting outreach 
on Tribal codes and best practices for responding to violent 
crimes and other crimes (including stalking and dating 
violence) against Indian women.

Sec. 102. Tribal Coalition Grants

    For grants to Tribal coalitions, this section: (1) adds 
drafting and conducting outreach on Tribal codes and best 
practices for responding to violent crimes and other crimes 
(including stalking and dating violence) against Indian women 
as authorized grant activities; (2) limits grants to 
coalitions, not individuals, as eligible grantees; and (3) 
authorizes grants, cooperative agreements, and contracts for 
technical assistance and training to Tribal coalitions and 
Tribal organizations whose primary purpose is serving Tribal 
coalitions.

Sec. 103. Consultation

    This section amends VAWA to: (1) require the participation 
of the Secretary of the Interior in consultations. (Previously 
only the Secretary of HHS and Attorney General were required); 
(2) require notice of consultation at least 120 days prior; and 
(3) include preventing the sex trafficking of Native American 
women as a consultation topic for the Attorney General.

Sec. 104. Analysis and research on violence against women

    This section amends VAWA to: (1) add women in Alaska Native 
Villages and Native Hawaiian women to the required scope of the 
national baseline study of violence against Indian women; (2) 
add ``sex trafficking'' to the scope of the national baseline 
study; and (3) reauthorize appropriations of $1 million for the 
study for fiscal years 2012 and 2013.

Sec. 105. Definitions

    This section amends VAWA to: (1) add an area or community 
associated with a ``federally recognized Indian tribe'' to the 
definition of a ``rural area'' and ``rural community'' so that 
tribes may be eligible for the DOJ Office of Violence Against 
Women's Rural Grant Program; (2) include a definition of ``sex 
trafficking'' to the VAWA consistent with the definition under 
Federal criminal statutes; (3) clarify and streamline the 
definition of ``Tribal coalition'' for purposes of DOJ grants; 
and (4) add nonprofit, nongovernmental ``Native Hawaiian 
organizations'' to the definition of ``Tribal coalition.''

          Title II--Tribal Jurisdiction and Criminal Offenses


Sec. 201. Tribal jurisdiction over crimes of domestic violence

    This section amends the Indian Civil Rights Act of 1968 to: 
(1) recognize any participating tribes' concurrent criminal 
jurisdiction to investigate, prosecute, convict, and sentence 
persons (including non-Indians) who assault Indian spouses, 
intimate, partners, or dating partners, or who violate 
protection orders, in Indian Country; (2) require a 
participating tribe exercising ``special domestic violence 
criminal jurisdiction,'' to provide certain additional 
constitutional rights to any defendant prosecuted under this 
section; and (3) authorize grants to Indian tribes to assist in 
exercising special domestic violence jurisdiction, including, 
among other purposes, providing indigent defense counsel, and 
authorize such sums as are necessary to carry out this section.

Sec. 202. Tribal protection orders

    This section amends 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2265 to: (1) clarify 
provisions in prior amendments to the VAWA, enacted in 2000, 
that Indian tribes have full civil jurisdiction to issue and 
enforce certain protection orders involving any persons, Indian 
or non-Indian, in matters arising in the Indian country of the 
tribe ``or otherwise in the authority of the tribe.'' (At least 
one Federal district court has interpreted the language in 
current law to be ambiguous regarding jurisdiction of an Indian 
tribe to enter a protection order for a nonmember Indian 
against a non-Indian residing on non-Indian fee land within the 
reservation. This amendment would clarify that tribes have full 
civil jurisdiction over these matters.); and (2) clarify that 
nothing in this section limits, alters, expands, or diminishes 
the civil or criminal jurisdiction of the State of Alaska or 
any subdivision of the State of Alaska, or any Indian tribe in 
the State of Alaska.

Sec. 203. Amendments to the Federal assault statute

    Amends the Federal assault statute (18 U.S.C. Sec. 113) to: 
(1) establish a new crime with a penalty of imprisonment up to 
10-years for assaulting a spouse, intimate partner, or dating 
partner by strangling or suffocating, or attempting to strangle 
or suffocate; (2) provide a 5-year offense for assaulting a 
spouse, intimate partner, or dating partner resulting in 
substantial bodily injury, adding the type of victim; (3) 
provide a 1-year offense for assaulting a person by striking, 
beating, or wounding, increased from six months.
    This section also amends the Indian Major Crimes Act (18 
U.S.C. Sec. 1153(a)) to: (1) include any felony assault under 
18 U.S.C. Sec. 113, as amended by Section 203 and 205 of this 
proposed legislation, to the list of major crimes over which 
the Federal Government has exclusive jurisdiction, if committed 
by an Indian in Indian country.
    These changes will enable Federal prosecutors to more 
effectively combat three types of assault frequently committed 
against women in Indian country and to appropriately address 
the gradual escalation of seriousness often associated with 
domestic violence offenses.

Sec. 204. Effective dates; pilot project

    This section provides that the concurrent Tribal 
jurisdiction over crimes of domestic violence shall take effect 
two years after the enactment of this proposed legislation. 
This section establishes a new pilot project for tribes wishing 
to exercise concurrent jurisdiction over crimes of domestic 
violence on an accelerated basis. Tribes wishing to participate 
would apply to the Attorney General, who would coordinate with 
Department of Interior, and consult with affected Indian 
tribes.

Sec. 205. Assaults; repeat offenders

    This section amends the Federal assault statute (18 U.S.C. 
Sec. 113(a)) to provide a term of imprisonment of up to 20 
years, a fine, or both, for assault with intent to commit a 
felony of aggravated sexual abuse; and it removes the self-
defense of ``just cause or excuse'' from the crime of assault 
with a deadly weapon with intent to commit bodily harm.
    This section also amends 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2265A(b)(1)(B) to 
recognize within the Federal system, Tribal convictions for 
domestic violence or stalking offenses for purposes of repeat 
offender sentencing.

Sec. 206. Violations of Tribal civil protection orders

    This section amends the Indian Major Crimes Act (18 U.S.C. 
Sec. 1153) to: (1) provide a punishable Federal offense for a 
violation of a Tribal civil protection order, if the order 
meets the procedural due process requirements contained in 
Section 2265 of Title 18 in order to be afforded full faith and 
credit under that section; (2) provide a maximum 1-year 
sentence, a fine of up to $1,000, or both, for first 
violations; (3) provide a maximum 3-year sentence, a fine of up 
to $5,000, or both, for subsequent violations; and (4) require 
that the Tribal order include a statement that violation of the 
order may result in criminal prosecution and penalty under 
Federal law.

Sec. 207. High priority performance goal pilot program reporting

    This section amends the Indian Law Enforcement Reform Act 
(25 U.S.C. Sec. 2802(c)) to require a report to Congress within 
90 days of enactment, and each fiscal year thereafter, 
providing details on implementation of the high priority 
performance goal pilot program carried out by the Secretary of 
the Interior to reduce violent crime in Indian communities.

               Title III--Indian Law and Order Commission


Sec. 301. Indian Law and Order Commission

    This section extends the Indian Law and Order Commission 
reporting deadline from two years to three years.

     Title IV--Safety Enhancement Study and Demonstration Projects


Sec. 401. Safety enhancement study and demonstration projects

    This section amends the Indian Civil Rights Act of 1968 to 
(1) authorize a discretionary four-year pilot project whereby 
the Secretary of the Interior shall promulgate regulations for 
misdemeanor crimes with penalties (of no more than a $1000 
fine, one year imprisonment, or both) that apply to Indian 
country, and select up to five tribes for each of fiscal years 
2012 to 2018 for participation; (2) require publication of 
requirements and selection criteria for the project within 180 
days of enactment for the Secretary, after consulting with 
tribes; (3) cross-deputize Tribal officers to issue citations 
into the applicable Federal district court--the Central 
Violations Bureau. Enforcement of the regulations would be 
concurrent with any State or local law enforcement efforts; and 
(4) require a report to Congress within five years, assessing 
and evaluating the effectiveness of the Project.

            COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION AND TABULATION OF VOTE

    In an open business meeting on December 8, 2011, the 
Committee on Indian Affairs, by voice vote, adopted S. 1763 
with an amendment in the nature of a substitute and ordered the 
bill reported to the Senate, with the recommendation that the 
Senate do pass S. 1763 as reported.

                   COST AND BUDGETARY CONSIDERATIONS

    The following cost estimate, as provided by the 
Congressional Budget Office, dated May 10, 2012, was prepared 
for S. 1763:

                                                      May 10, 2012.
Hon. Daniel K. Akaka,
Chairman, Committee on Indian Affairs,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has 
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for S. 1763, the Stand 
Against Violence and Empower Native Women Act.
    If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be 
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Martin von 
Gnechten.
            Sincerely,
                                              Douglas W. Elmendorf.
    Enclosure.

S. 1763--Stand Against Violence and Empower Native Women Act

    Summary: S. 1763 would amend various laws and programs 
related to violence against Native American women. The 
legislation would expand grants to tribal governments and 
tribal coalitions for programs to strengthen criminal justice 
and law enforcement capabilities related to violence against 
women. Additionally, S. 1763 would expand penalties for certain 
violent crimes.
    Based on information from the Department of Justice and the 
Department of the Interior, CBO estimates that implementing S. 
1763 would cost $192 million over the 2012-2017 period, subject 
to appropriation of the necessary funds.
    Enacting S. 1763 also would affect direct spending and 
revenues because those prosecuted and convicted under the bill 
could be subject to criminal fines; therefore, pay-as-you-go 
procedures apply. Criminal fines are recorded as revenues, 
deposited in the Crime Victims Fund, and later spent. CBO 
expects that any additional revenues and direct spending would 
not be significant because of the small number of cases likely 
affected.
    S. 1763 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector 
mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) 
and would impose no costs on state, local, or tribal 
governments.
    Estimated cost to the Federal Government: The estimated 
budgetary impact of S. 1763 is shown in the following table. 
The costs of this legislation fall within budget function 450 
(community and regional development).

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             By fiscal year, in millions of dollars--
                                                ----------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   2012     2013     2014     2015     2016     2017   2012-2017
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  CHANGES IN SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION

Estimated Authorization Level..................       39       40       39       40       40       41       239
Estimated Outlays..............................        6       28       39       39       40       40       192
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Basis of estimate: For this estimate, CBO assumes that S. 
1763 will be enacted in 2012, that the necessary funds will be 
provided for each year, and that spending will follow 
historical patterns for similar programs.

Spending subject to appropriation

    S. 1763 would authorize $1 million for each of fiscal years 
2012 and 2013 for a baseline study of violence against Native 
American women to be completed within three years of enactment. 
The legislation also would authorize whatever sums are 
necessary for grants to tribal governments or their designees 
to improve law enforcement, the court system, and detention 
facilities. In 2012, about $38 million was appropriated for 
similar grants to tribal governments.
    Assuming that spending for grants under S. 1763 would be in 
line with existing grant programs, that they would supplement 
rather than supplant those grants, and that appropriations 
would be provided as necessary each year, CBO estimates that 
implementing the bill would cost $192 million over the 2012-
2017 period.

Direct spending and revenues

    S. 1763 would establish new federal crimes, broaden the 
coverage of existing crimes related to violence against women 
in tribal areas, and expand existing penalties. Enacting the 
bill could increase collections of criminal fines (which are 
recorded in the budget as revenues) for violations of the 
bill's provisions. CBO estimates that any additional 
collections would not be significant because of the relatively 
small number of additional cases likely to be affected. 
Criminal fines are recorded as revenues, deposited in the Crime 
Victims Fund, and subsequently spent without further 
appropriation.
    Intergovernmental and private-sector impact: S. 1763 
contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as 
defined in UMRA and would impose no costs on state, local, or 
tribal governments.
    Previous CBO estimate: On March 29, 2012, CBO transmitted a 
cost estimate for S. 1925, the Violence Against Women 
Reauthorization Act of 2011, as ordered reported by the Senate 
Committee on the Judiciary on February 7, 2012. Title IX of S. 
1925 contains provisions very similar to those in S. 1763, and 
the cost estimates reflect the difference in the authorized 
levels of funding.
    Estimate prepared by: Federal Costs: Martin von Gnechten; 
Impact on State, Local, and Tribal Governments: Melissa 
Merrell; Impact on the Private Sector: Marin Randall.
    Estimate approved by: Theresa Gullo, Deputy Assistant 
Director for Budget Analysis.

               REGULATORY AND PAPERWORK IMPACT STATEMENT

    Paragraph 11(b) of rule XXVI of the Standing Rules of the 
Senate requires each report accompanying a bill to evaluate the 
regulatory and paperwork impact that would be incurred in 
carrying out the bill. The Committee believes that S. 1763 will 
have a minimal impact on regulatory or paperwork requirements.

                        EXECUTIVE COMMUNICATIONS

    The Committee received the following letters from the 
Department of Justice in support of S. 1763:


                        CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW

    In the opinion of the committee, it is necessary to 
dispense with the requirements of paragraph 12 of rule XXVI of 
the Standing Rules of the Senate to expedite the business of 
the Senate.

                                  
