Indian Arts and Crafts Amendments Act of 2010

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. RAHALL. On January 19, 2010, the House passed H.R. 725 under suspension of the rules. This bill, introduced by our colleague from Arizona, Mr. Ed Pastor, would improve prosecution of unlawful misrepresentation and counterfeiting of American Indian jewelry, pottery, baskets, rugs, and other items under the Indian Arts and Crafts Act of 1990.

H.R. 725 would authorize any Federal law enforcement officer to conduct an investigation of an offense involving the sale of any good that is misrepresented as an Indian-produced good or product that occurs within the United States.

On June 23, 2010, the Senate passed H.R. 725 by unanimous consent without changes to the House-passed text. However, the Senate did add the language of the Tribal Law and Order Act of 2010 introduced by Senator Dorgan. The House counterpart is H.R. 1924, sponsored by our colleague and valued member of the Natural Resources Committee, Representative Herseth Sandlin.

In addition, the Senate included provisions from H.R. 1333, which was introduced by Mr. Grijalva. H.R. 1333 passed the House by voice vote on September 30, 2009, and would permit tribal governments to use display fireworks for ceremonial and other purposes.

Despite the Federal responsibilities to protect Indian communities, the violent crime rate on reservations is 2 1/2 times the national average. Amnesty International estimates that more than one in three Native women will be raped in their lifetimes. The Tribal Law and Order Act addresses these critical tribal public safety and justice issues by establishing accountability measures for Federal agencies responsible for investigating and prosecuting reservation crime and by providing tribes with additional tools to combat crime locally.

Among other vital improvements to existing law, the Tribal Law and Order Act would, one, require the Department of Justice to maintain data on criminal declinations and share evidence with tribal justice officials when a case is declined; number two, authorize tribes to increase sentencing authority for up to 3 years in certain situations; number three, provide tribal police with greater access to criminal history databases such as the National Crime Information Center; and, four, mandate that Indian Health Service and Bureau of Indian Affairs officials provide documents and testimony in prosecutions before tribal courts.

In short, the Tribal Law and Order bill would address the profound public safety needs and provide the additional law enforcement and criminal justice resources sorely needed on Indian reservations across the country.

I want to commend our colleague, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Pastor), for his hard work and dedication to this legislation. I also thank Ms. Herseth Sandlin for her efforts for championing the tribal law and order portion of the bill. Both Members are addressing long-standing problems in Indian Country, and I ask my colleagues to support its passage.

I reserve the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. RAHALL. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I respond to him that he is correct.

Public Law 280 has been a mixed bag for both the tribes and the States. The States that are subject to Public Law 280 possess authority and responsibility to investigate and prosecute crimes committed on reservations, but, because of subsequent court decisions that sharply limited the extent of Public Law 280's grant of civil jurisdiction to affect the States, these States have almost no ability to raise revenue on Public Law 280 lands.

And to the extent that tribal governments retained concurrent jurisdiction over crimes committed by Indians on these lands, such authority is currently limited to no more than 1 year for any one offense. As such, residents of reservations subject to Public Law 280 have to rely principally on sometimes underfunded State and local law enforcement authorities to prosecute reservation crimes.

The phrase in section 201 that jurisdiction ``shall be concurrent among the Federal Government, State government and, where applicable, tribal governments'' is intended to clarify that the various State governments that are currently subject to Public Law 280 will maintain such criminal authority and responsibility.

In addition, this provision intends to make clear that tribal governments subject to Public Law 280 maintain concurrent criminal authority over offenses by Indians in Indian country where the tribe currently has such authority.

Nothing in this provision will change the current law of criminal jurisdiction for State or tribal government. It simply seeks to return criminal authority and responsibility to investigate and prosecute major crimes in Indian country to the United States where certain conditions are met.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source