Mr. REESER. We have a detailed breakdown that we can give the committee.

Senator MELCHER. Is that based on what you suppose would be requested of the Secretary?

Mr. REESER. That is on the basis of all the tribes being taken back. They are the outside figures.

Senator MELCHER. How many tribes are we talking about?

Mr. REESER. There are 132 reservations.

Senator MELCHER. In what States are they?

Mr. REESER. California, Florida, Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, Oregon, Washington, Wisconsin, Kansas, New York, Maine, North Carolina, and Oklahoma, but not Alaska.

Senator MELCHER. Has there been no discussion with the States except for Washington? You mentioned Washington and California. I understand the State of Washington is split on this. The Governor says OK, and the attorney general says no way. California, you tell me, says no.

Mr. REESER. I believe that is correct.

Senator MELCHER. Are those the only two States you are aware of that responded to give us insight into their attitude?"

Mr. REESER. Yes, sir.

Mr. MELCHER. You say there are 132 reservations in about 10 States. Is that right?

Mr. REESER. Yes, sir.

Senator MELCHER. It would cost about $8 million a year. How much would a reservation get? What is 132 divided into $8 million?

Mr. LAVIS. Mr. Chairman, bear in mind that this is our cost, that is, the Department's cost.

Senator MELCHER. How much would the Justice Department put out?

Mr. LAVIS. In our statement we defer to them. We do not have figures for them.

Senator MELCHER. Let us just use BIA costs; 132 into $8 million does not seem to be very much money.

Mr. REESER. What this estimate has done is that it has broken the reservations down into categories by size. A reservation with a population of 750 to 1,500 people, for example, would have an estimated budget of $182,000.

Senator MELCHER. It would be an average of $60,000 each, per year, for 132 reservations. Apparently you have taken inflationary factors into account as well if you say $8 million thereafter, or are you talking about 1979 dollars?

Mr. REESER. No, sir; these estimates were done a few years ago. Senator MELCHER. As to the criteria that you have outlined and said would be necessary, either by amendment to the section or by regulation of the Secretary, what does an adequate law and order code mean? I assume that has already been established by the Department.

Mr. LAVIS. Mr. Chairman, may I have Gene Suarez, chief of our law enforcement agency, join us at the table? I believe he could best answer that question.

Senator MELCHER. Surely.

Mr. SUAREZ. Sir, I will have to give you a couple of measures. An adequate law enforcement system would consist of the ability of the tribe or the Bureau to provide so many police per 1,000 population, plus automobiles, resources, equipment, and training. Then there must be an adequate judicial code, a court system, and any other resources that are needed.

In 1974 and 1975, Senator, the Bureau conducted a task force analvsis. What we did was to go all over the United States. We made a fairly adequate survey of all the law enforcement programs we had at the time. From the analysis, we developed a building block formula that, in terms of dollars and cents, is not applicable today, but in working with a number of tribes we established that if they had so many people, so many offenses, they needed so many enforcement people.

Senator MELCHER. Did you say 8 police officers per 1,000 population?

Mr. SUAREZ. No, sir. I would have to look at the figures.
Senator MELCHER. What is it then?

Mr. SUAREZ. What we have currently is about 1.4 per 1,000. The rural statistics that the FBI has are about 2.5 per 1,000. We are understaffed currently in Indian country.

I am talking about all law enforcement, Senator. It has nothing to do with rights protection, fisheries, or anything else. This is just law enforcement officers.

Senator MELCHER. I assumed that. In other words, it is about 2 per 1,000.

Mr. SUAREZ. Yes, sir. This does not include detention officers, or jailers, or radio dispatchers. This is only sworn officers. When you start adding to make a 24-hour-a-day service, you are really talking about, in an 8-hour shift and two men per car, eight officers, probably a radio dispatcher equaling nine officers in any 24-hour police department. That is a small department.

You should have at least two cars per 24-hour shift.

Senator MELCHER. When you say 1.4 per 1,000, which I have to make 2 per 1,000 because you cannot divide a person, you mean 2 per 1,000 at any given time. Is that correct?

Mr. SUAREZ. That is correct.

Senator MELCHER. That becomes about 8 per 1,000.

Mr. SUAREZ. Yes, sir. You have to have an around-the-clock service.

Senator MELCHER. Using what you and Mr. Lavis have just told us-a reservation of about 750 to 1,500 people-that would be about $163,000. Would that provide the automobiles and the police officers? Mr. SUAREZ. Yes, sir.

I would like to add two things. These figures were compiled about 3 years ago when we were paying $3,500 per car. Now we are up to $6,500. Average salaries were about $4,000 less than they are now.

I would say conservatively that developing a police department for 750 to 1,500 people you would add another 20 percent just to take care of inflation, the cost of gasoline, and all the other increases that have arisen in the last 4 years. The $182,000 would not be adequate today, sir.

Senator MELCHER. I understand.

There are two other things here. I do not believe the States have given us any input. At least, I cannot find any so far in our hearings on this except for two letters from the State of Washington and whatever we can get about the State of California from previous testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee.

It seems to me that before the Department would know its position they would want to inquire of the attitudes of the States involved. You have a separate problem that involves a State, particularly when an Indian reservation is inhabited by a majority of nonIndians. Sometimes that majority is quite heavy. I do not know whether the tribe, in that instance, would want to assume jurisdiction or not. However, the State would definitely have something to say in an instance like that with respect to the non-Indian population. It might be quite different than what the Indians desire.

Mr. SUAREZ. Senator, if I may, I would like to say something concerning my short experience in the area of retrocession since the passage of the 1968 Civil Rights Act. We have found that most local units of government are very responsive.

Indian communities do not get adequate law enforcement from local sheriffs' offices for a great number of reasons. A situation in Oklahoma is one that we have just discovered. It may be because of tax bases or just a resistance to go into Indian country. Indian communities are fairly well isolated.

It is my feeling that most States would really like to retrocede jurisdiction over Indian country as such, but we are really talking about retroceding jurisdiction over Indian people as well. They would have their own courts and would have access to services from their own people.

I think the courts have already said who would have jurisdiction over non-Indians in the community. I was stationed in Browning, Mont. for many years with the Blackfeet. Although at that time this was in the early 1960's-we did have a great number of nonIndians who lived within Browning, we did have a fairly good division of labor, and it was brought about by the system of deputization. I carried Glacier County commissions and the sheriff's office carried our commissions, so in effect, we had a good working relationship. That is when we had a community within the reservation.

In other areas, Senator, we have found that the sheriff's office, for whatever reason, does not go out in Indian country. The Indian communities sort of stand by themselves, and there may be a number of non-Indians living there. Nevertheless, for all intents and purposes, the Indian communities do not get the services that they should have. Senator MELCHER. The Blackfeet Reservation is not involved with this.

Mr. SUAREZ. No, sir. I am giving an example of a system.

Senator MELCHER. The only reservation that is involved with this in my State is Flathead, and the Salish Kootenai, as far as I know, have no intention of asking for retrocession for a pretty obvious reason. On any given day there is a tremendous percentage of people on the reservation who are non-Indian. Why would they want to assume jurisdiction? It would cost them for all the tourists flocking in on Highway 93.

Mr. SUAREZ. Flathead has always had a concurrent jurisdiction, not exclusive.

Senator MELCHER. Yes; that is true. They seem to be satisfied. My concern is this. It is, first of all, a concern for proper procedure. Do these States really know what is involved in this section of this bill? I do not think they do. I cannot find anyone to tell me that they do. You have listed 132 reservations in about 10 States and we have not heard from those 10 States. For instance, what is Iowa's position? We are sort of passing legislation in the dark.

Mr. Lavis, you testified that you have heard complaints from tribes. We are interested in that. We want to know which tribes. I think your statement was: "We have long heard tribes' complaints objecting to Public Law 280 who want to retrocede." What tribes are involved?

Mr. LAVIS. Mr. Suarez?

Mr. SUAREZ. Senator, if we have not in fact received a letter saying that there are problems, we have had a great number of expressions from tribes, some of which are really not in Public Law 280 States. We found, for instance, that the Seminole tribe in Florida has been making a concerted effort to develop their own jurisdiction.

We found that a number of tribes in Washington State, where you have split jurisdiction-the State has so many offenses and we have so many offenses are having problems.

We have spoken to some of the people on the Sac and Fox Reservations in Iowa. They would like their own law enforcement program. We consistently get expressions from the communities on the White Earth and other reservations in Minnesota, where there is a dissatisfaction with present arrangements and State jurisdiction, even though there are many non-Indians living in some of this Indian country.

You are right in that we may not have clear expressions from the States themselves, but we have, and have had, a great number of instances wherein residents of a community are sort of living in limbo. On the non-Indian side, the State may or may not come on the reservation because they think that there is jurisdiction, and on the other side, the Indian community feels that the local sheriff is not coming in because it is Indian country.

Somewhere along the line there has to be a distinction. All these lines have to be clearly defined, even in those Public Law 280 States, Senator.

Senator MELCHER. You mention the Seminole in Florida, the White Earth in Minnesota, and the Sac and Fox in Iowa.

Mr. SUAREZ. We have also heard of a number of issues in Washington State. I cannot tell you exactly which reservations. There are a number of small reservations that I am quite sure have had problems. Senator MELCHER. Whatever lists you have and whatever specific complaints you have we would appreciate having because our list is not very complete.

Mr. SUAREZ. Yes, Senator.

Senator MELCHER. The Quinaults testified yesterday and we may have other testimony developed that would impact on the various tribes in the State of Washington.

We are unaware-and we could be misinformed-that the Senate Judiciary Committee has any material to go on other than testimony offered by tribes in the State of Washington. If that is an incomplete input from the tribes we would like to have that material too. We are struggling on this because we do not believe that there has been any widespread testimony by the tribes themselves on this point except from the State of Washington.

You are envisioning 132 reservations which might ask for retrocession in these Public Law 280 States. If that is going to be the case, we would also like to have any input you have from the States involved.

Mr. SUAREZ. We will make an effort to get that to you.

[The information appears on p. 135.]

Senator MELCHER. I must remind you that this bill may be on the floor of the Senate rather soon, so we do not have a great deal of time.

Thank you all very much.

Mr. LAVIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The prepared statements, with enclosures, and letter received subsequent to hearing follow. Oral testimony resumes on p. 137.]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF RICK LAVIS, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR INDIAN AFFAIRS, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Mr. Chairman: This responds to your request for our views on S. 1181, the "Tribal-State Compact Act of 1979".

We recommend enactment of S. 1181 if it is amended as suggested herein and in the enclosed additional amendments.

S. 1181 would authorize the States and Indian tribes to enter into agreements and compacts respecting jurisdiction and governmental operations in Indian country. It is similar to two bills in the 95th Congress-S. 2502 (S. Rept. No. 95-1178) as passed by the Senate and H.R. 11489 as approved by the House Indian Affairs and Public Lands Subcommittee.

Title I of S. 1181 would authorize jurisdictional agreements and compacts, for periods of up to five years, between States and Indian tribes. It would also permit the Secretary of the Interior to provide financial assistance for the implementation of such agreements and compacts. Title II of the bill would direct the Secretary to encourage the establishment of joint tribal-State organizations to confer on jurisdictional questions existing between the parties. Title III of the bill would grant Federal district courts jurisdiction over civil actions brought by the parties to enforce agreements and compacts authorized by the bill.

The United States Supreme Court has consistently held that State jurisdiction over tribal members or infringement on the self-governing power of a tribe is permissible only with the consent of the Congress. A tribe may not unilaterally grant a State any jurisdiction over tribal members. See Kennerly v. Montana District Court, 400 U.S. 423 (1971).

The bar to State jurisdiction on Indian reservations has, however, been modifled by the Court where essential tribal relations are not involved and the rights of Indians are not jeopardized thereby. Thus, suits by Indians against non-Indians have been permitted in State courts and those courts have been permitted to try non-Indians who commit crimes against each other on a reservation. If, however, the crime is committed by or against an Indian, tribal jurisdiction or jurisdiction expressly conferred on another court by the Congress has remained exclusive. Absent governing acts of Congress, the question has been whether State action infringes on the right of reservation Indians to make their own laws and be ruled by them. Williams v. Lee, 358 U.S. 217 (1959). In Williams, the Court held that a non-Indian operator of a store on an Indian reservation could not sue in State court to collect for goods sold to an Indian at that store.

It has been held that States may not, absent Congressional consent, tax Indian reservation lands or Indian income, earned solely on the reservation. McClanahan