Ask the Scholar

{
    "localId": "1669330",
    "label": "1976/05/29 S2129 The Indian Crimes Act of 1976",
    "core": "doc",
    "dtoType": "document",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/1669330"
}

{
    "id": "1669330",
    "sourceUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/1669330",
    "contentType": "document",
    "title": "1976/05/29 S2129 The Indian Crimes Act of 1976",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/1669330",
    "collections": [
        "White House Records Office: Legislation Case Files",
        "Legislation Case Files"
    ],
    "subjects": [
        "Crime",
        "Legislation"
    ],
    "iiifBase": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/opastorage/live/30/6693/1669330/content/library/document/0055/1669330.pdf",
    "thumbnailUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/opastorage/live/30/6693/1669330/content/library/document/0055/1669330.pdf",
    "largeImageUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/opastorage/live/30/6693/1669330/content/library/document/0055/1669330.pdf",
    "imageCount": 1,
    "hasImages": true,
    "source": "import",
    "hasTranscription": false
}

{
    "url": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/1669330",
    "naId": 1669330,
    "coverageEndDate": {
        "logicalDate": "1976-05-31",
        "month": 5,
        "year": 1976
    },
    "coverageStartDate": {
        "logicalDate": "1976-05-01",
        "month": 5,
        "year": 1976
    },
    "levelOfDescription": "fileUnit",
    "recordType": "description",
    "ocrSource": "nara-archive"
}

{
    "seq": 1,
    "pageIndex": 0,
    "type": "document",
    "url": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/opastorage/live/30/6693/1669330/content/library/document/0055/1669330.pdf",
    "mediaId": "21e9fe4a2f167dea",
    "ocrText": "The original documents are located in Box 45, folder \"5/29/76 S2129 The Indian Crimes\nAct of 1976\" of the White House Records Office: Legislation Case Files at the Gerald R.\nFord Presidential Library.\nCopyright Notice\nThe copyright law of the United States (Title 17, United States Code) governs the making of\nphotocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted material. Gerald R. Ford donated to the United\nStates of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.\nWorks prepared by U.S. Government employees as part of their official duties are in the public\ndomain. The copyrights to materials written by other individuals or organizations are presumed to\nremain with them. If you think any of the information displayed in the PDF is subject to a valid\ncopyright claim, please contact the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.\nExact duplicates within this folder were not digitized.\nDigitized from Box 45 of the White House Records Office Legislation Case Files at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library\n&5/29/76\nACTION\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\n9/61 62 MATA\nLast Day: June 4\nWASHINGTON\nMay 28, 1976\nPosted\nMEMORANDUM FOR\nTHE PRESIDENT\nFROM:\nJIM CANNOM\n6/1/76\nSUBJECT:\nS. 2129 - The Indian Crimes Act\nof 1976\nTo Crechives\n6/1/76\nAttached for your consideration is S. 2129, sponsored by\nSenators Fannin, Domenici and Hruska. The enrolled bill\nwould make clarifying amendments to the Indian Major\nCrimes Act to insure equal treatment for Indian defendants\naccused of committing certain assaultive-type crimes\nupon other Indians within Indian country.\nA discussion of the enrolled bill is provided in OMB's\nbill report at Tab A.\nOMB, Max Friedersdorf, Counsel's Office (Lazarus), Ted\nMarrs and I recommend approval of the enrolled bill.\nRECOMMENDATION\nThat you sign S. 2129 at Tab B.\nLIBRARY GERALD B. FORD\nis OF THE INTERIOR\nUnited States Department of the Interior\nOFFICE OF THE SECRETARY\nMarch\n1849\nWASHINGTON, D.C. 20240\n3.\nMAY 2 6 1976\nDear Mr. Lynn:\nThis responds to your request for our views on the enrolled bill\nS. 2129, \"To provide for the definition and punishment of certain\ncrimes in accordance with the Federal laws in force within the\nspecial maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States\nwhen said crimes are committed by an Indian in order to insure\nequal treatment for Indian and non-Indian offenders.\"\nWe strongly recommend that the bill be approved by the President\nin order to cure a serious defect which now exists with regard\nto the prosecution of certain criminal offenses in Indian country.\nS. 2129 is similar to H.R. 7592, a bill proposed by the Department\nof Justice on which we issued a favorable report February 12, 1976.\nS. 2129 would restore the ability, lost as a consequence of the\nrecent court decisions, of the Federal Government to prosecute\ncertain serious offenses by Indians under 18 U.S.C. 81153. S. 2129\nwould delete the requirement that Federal courts look to State law\nfor the definition and/or punishment of certain enumerated crimes\nwhen the accused is an Indian. Since Federal jurisdiction regard-\ning these enumerated crimes is dependent upon whether the accused\nis an Indian or a non-Indian, this would eliminate the possibility\nof a disparity in the definition and/or punishment of an offense\nunder 18 U.S.C. 81153. S. 2129 would also add a new paragraph\nto 18 U.S.C. 1153 providing for automatic referral to State law\nif Congress should add an offense to the section not otherwise\nfound among the Federal enclave laws.\nS. 2129 differs from H.R. 7592 in that it would add kidnapping\nto the major crimes enumerated in 18 U.S.C. 1153, while H.R. 7592\nwould not. In addition, S. 2129 refers to \"assault with intent\nto commit murder,\" while H.R. 7592 refers to \"assault with intent\nto kill.\" In its report on S. 2129 (Rep. No. 93-620), the Senate\nCommittee on the Judiciary explains this amendment as conforming\nto the assault provision in 18 U.S.C. 113, the section of the\nUnited States Code that contains the definition and punishment\nof criminal offenses committed within the territorial and maritime\njurisdiction of the United States.\nREVOLUTION\nAMERICAN\nBICENTENNIAL\n1776-1976\nThe Major Crimes Act (18 U.S.C. 1153) provides that thirteen enumer-\nated offenses committed by Indians within Indian country (as defined\nby 18 U.S.C. 1151) shall be subject to the laws and penalties\napplicable within the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States.\nThe Act was amended in 1966, however, to provide that certain of\nthose enumerated offenses-namely burglary, assault with a dangerous\nweapon, assault resulting in serious bodily harm, and incest-would\nbe defined and punished in accordance with the laws of the State\nin which such offenses were committed. The Major Crimes Act applies\nexclusively to Indians, whether the victim be Indian or non-Indian.\nA non-Indian committing enumerated offenses against an Indian in\nIndian country would be subject to the provisions of 18 U.S.C.\n81152 which extends Federal criminal jurisdiction over such non-\nIndians and which provides that punishment be defined by Federal\nlaw. A non-Indian committing an enumerated offense against another\nnon-Indian in Indian country would be tried and punished in accord-\nance with the State law of that jurisdiction. State definition\nand punishment for the enumerated offenses often differ from Federal\nlaw and, in many cases, State law prescribes a more severe punishment\nthan the Federal law applicable within Indian country.\nBecause of the disparities in penalties given to Indians and non-\nIndians, as a result of the application of either State or Federal\nlaw under the statute both the Eighth and Ninth Circuits recently\ndeclared portions of the Major Crimes Act (specifically those\nregarding aggravated assault) to be unconstitutional, (United States\nV. Cleveland, (9th Cir., 1974); United States V. Seth Henry Big Crow,\n(8th Cir., 1975)). As a result, the Federal Government has been\nunable to prosecute in either of these two jurisdictions Indians\nwho commit assault resulting in serious bodily harm. Tribal courts\nare restricted to jurisdiction over misdemeanors by the Indian\nCivil Rights Act of 1968; and, except where a State has been granted\ncriminal jurisdiction by Public Law 83-280 or other Acts of Congress,\nStates do not ordinarily possess jurisdiction over offenses committed\nby Indians in Indian country. The problem is serious and leaves\nIndian communities unprotected against the enumerated offenses\nunder Federal or any law, except in the sense that a person might\nbe prosecuted for a lesser included offense. It is urgent that\nthe laws which were held to be invalid be replaced soon. For this\nreason we support enactment of S. 2129 into law.\nSincerely yours,\nMoris Thompson\nCommissioner of Indian Affairs\nHonorable James T. Lynn\nDirector, Office of\nFORD\nManagement and Budget\nWashington, D.C. 20503\nCERALD\n2\nLIBRARY\nASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL\nLEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS\nDepartment of Justice\nWashington, D.C. 20530\nMay 26, 1976\nHonorable James T. Lynn\nDirector, Office of\nManagement and Budget\nWashington, D.C. 20503\nDear Mr. Lynn:\nIn compliance with your request, I have examined a facsimile\nof the enrolled bill, S. 2129, the \"Indian Crimes Act of 1976.\"\nThis bill is substantially based upon an Administration\nproposal prepared by this Department and previously submitted to\nCongress. The bill amends the Major Crimes Act, applicable to\ncertain felonies committed by Indians in Indian country, so as\nto eliminate disparities in treatment as between Indians prosecuted\nunder that Act and non-Indians prosecuted under a companion statute\nwho commit offenses in Indian country; these disparities have\nresulted in federal appellate court rulings precluding, on the ground\nof invidious discrimination, the application of the Major Crimes Act\nto Indian defendants with respect to certain serious assaultive\ncrimes in some areas, thereby according such defendants an effective\nimmunity from prosecution for their criminal acts. In addition to\nrestoring the ability to prosecute such offenses in an evenhanded\nmanner, the bill makes a variety of other minor improvements to the\nstatute.\nAccordingly, the Department of Justice recommends Executive\napproval of this bill.\nSincerely,\nUichael lle\nMichael M. Uhlmann\nOF THE\nTHE\nPRESIDENT\nEXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT\nOFFICE\nUNITED\nOFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET\nSECUTIVE\nSTATES\nWASHINGTON, D.C. 20503\nMAY 27 1976\nMEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT\nSubject: Enrolled Bill S. 2129 - The Indian\nCrimes Act of 1976\nSponsors - Sen. Fannin (R) Arizona, Sen.\nDomenici (R) New Mexico and Sen. Hruska\n(R) Nebraska\nLast Day for Action\nJune 4, 1976 - Friday\nPurpose\nTo make clarifying amendments to the Indian Major\nCrimes Act to insure equal treatment for Indian\ndefendants accused of committing certain assaultive-\ntype crimes upon other Indians within Indian\ncountry.\nAgency Recommendations\nOffice of Management and Budget\nApproval\nDepartment of the Interior\nApproval\nDepartment of Justice\nApproval\nDiscussion\nThe enrolled bill, S. 2129, based upon an Administra-\ntion proposal prepared by the Department of Justice,\namends the Indian Major Crimes Act, applicable to\ncertain felonies committed by Indians in Indian\ncountry.\nS. 2129 eliminates inequities in treatment as\nbetween Indians prosecuted under the Major Crimes\nAct and non-Indians prosecuted under a companion\nstatute who commit offenses in Indian country.\nBecause of these present disparities in treatment,\nrecent Federal court rulings have held that the\n2\napplication of the Major Crimes Act to Indian\ndefendants with respect to certain assaultive-type\ncrimes is unconstitutional, thus according such\ndefendants effective immunity from prosecution for\ntheir criminal acts.\nS. 2129 eliminates the requirement that State\nlaw be applied in certain enumerated felonies\nand instead subjects Indians to the same laws\nand penalties as all other persons committing\nthese offenses, within the jurisdiction of the\nUnited States. In addition, while remedying the\nconstitutional and definitional problems in\nexisting law, the enrolled bill makes a number of\nother technical changes in the law as well as\nadding kidnapping to the list of major offenses\nunder the Indian Major Crimes Act.\nJames Assistant m. Director Trey for\nLegislative Reference\nEnclosure\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nACTION MEMORANDUM\nWASHINGTON\nLOG NO.:\nDate:\nTime:\nMay 28\n900am\nFOR ACTION:\nDick Parsons\nthe\ncc (for information):\nJack Marsh\nTTed Marrs oh\nJim Cavanaugh\nMMx Friedersdorf\nEd Schmults\nKen Lazarus\nFROM THE STAFF SECRETARY\nDUE: Date:\nMay 28\nTime:\n500pm\nSUBJECT:\nS. 2129 - The Indian Crimes Act of 1976\nACTION REQUESTED:\nFor Necessary Action\nFor Your Recommendations\nPrepare Agenda and Brief\nDraft Reply\nFor Your Comments\nDraft Remarks\nREMARKS:\nPlease return to Judy Jbhnston, Ground Floor West Wing\nPLEASE ATTACH THIS COPY TO MATERIAL SUBMITTED.\nFORD a BRARY\nIf you have any questions or if you anticipate a\ndelay in submitting the required material, please\nK. R. COLE, JR.\ntelephone the Staff Secretary immediately.\nFor the President\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nACTION MEMORANDUM\nWASHINGTON\nLOG NO.:\nDate:\nTime:\nMay 28\n900am\nFOR ACTION: Dick Parsons\nCC (for information):\nJack Marsh\nTed Marrs\nJim Cavanaugh\nMax Friedersdorf\nKen Lazarus\nThe\nEd Schmults\nFROM THE STAFF SECRETARY\nDUE: Date: May 28\nTime:\n500pm\nSUBJECT:\nS. . 2129 - The Indian Crimes Act of 1976\nACTION REQUESTED:\nFor Necessary Action\nFor Your Recommendations\nPrepare Agenda and Brief\nDraft Reply\nX For Your Comments\nDraft Remarks\nREMARKS:\nPlease return to Judy Johnston, Ground Floor West Wing\nApproval\nPLEASE ATTACH THIS COPY TO MATERIAL SUBMITTED.\nIf you have any questions or if you anticipate a\ndelay in submitting the required material, please\ntelephone the Staff Secretary immediately.\nJames M. Cannon\nFor the President\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nACTION MEMORANDUM\nWASHINGTON\nLOG NO.:\nDate:\nTime:\nMay 28\n900am\nFOR ACTION: Dick Parsons\nCC (for information):\nJack Marsh\nTed Marrs\nJim Cavanaugh\nMax Friedersdorf\nEd Schmults\nKen Lazarus\nFROM THE STAFF SECRETARY\nDUE: Date: May 28\nTime:\n500pm\nSUBJECT:\nS. . 2129 - The Indian Crimes Act of 1976\nACTION REQUESTED:\nFor Necessary Action\nFor Your Recommendations\nPrepare Agenda and Brief\nDraft Reply\nX For Your Comments\nDraft Remarks\nREMARKS:\nApproval. ROB\nPlease return to Judy Johnston, Ground Floor West Wing\nPLEASE ATTACH THIS COPY TO MATERIAL SUBMITTED.\nIf you have any questions or if you anticipate a\ndelay in submitting the required material, please\ntelephone the Staff Secretary immediately.\nJames M. Cannon\nFor the President\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nACTION MEMORANDUM\nWASHINGTON\nLOG NO.:\nDate:\nTime:\nMay 28\n900am\nFOR ACTION: Dick Parsons\nCC (for information):\nJack Marsh\nTed Marrs\nJim Cavanaugh\nMax Friedersdorf\nEd Schmults\nKen Lazarus\nFROM THE STAFF SECRETARY\nDUE: Date: May 28\nTime:\n500pm\nSUBJECT:\nS. * 2129 - The Indian Crimes Act of 1976\nACTION REQUESTED:\nFor Necessary Action\nFor Your Recommendations\nPrepare Agenda and Brief\nDraft Reply\nX For Your Comments\nDraft Remarks\nREMARKS:\nPlease return to Judy Johnston, Ground Floor West Wing\nNo objection - -- Ken Lazarus 5/28/76\nPLEASE ATTACH THIS COPY TO MATERIAL SUBMITTED.\nIf you have any questions or if you anticipate a\ndelay in submitting the required material, please\ntelephone the Staff Secretary immediately.\nJames M. Cannon\nFor the\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nACTION MEMORANDUM\nWASHINGTON\nLOG NO.:\nDate:\nTime:\nMay 28\n900am\nFOR ACTION: Dick Parsons\nCC (for information):\nJack Marsh\nTed Marrs\nJim Cavanaugh\nMax Friedersdorf\nEd Schmults\nKen Lazarus\nFROM THE STAFF SECRETARY\nDUE: Date: May 28\nTime:\n500pm\nSUBJECT:\nS. # 2129 - The Indian Crimes Act of 1976\nACTION REQUESTED:\nFor Necessary Action\nFor Your Recommendations\nPrepare Agenda and Brief\nDraft Reply\nX For Your Comments\nDraft Remarks\nREMARKS:\nPlease return to Judy Johnston, Ground Floor West Wing\napproved for Ted T ed more by Bobbu kilbing\nPLEASE ATTACH THIS COPY TO MATERIAL SUBMITTED.\nIf you have any questions or if you anticipate a\ndelay in submitting the required material, please\ntelephone the Staff Secretary immediately.\nJames M. Cannon\nFor the Precident\nEXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT\nOFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET\nStates\nWASHINGTON, D.C. 20503\n5-27-76.m.\nit\nMAY 27 1976\nMEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT\nSubject: Enrolled Bill S. 2129 - The Indian\nCrimes Act of 1976\nSponsors - Sen. Fannin (R) Arizona, Sen.\nDomenici (R) New Mexico and Sen. Hruska\n(R) Nebraska\nLast Day for Action\nJune 4, 1976 - Friday\nPurpose\nTo make clarifying amendments to the Indian Major\nCrimes Act to insure equal treatment for Indian\ndefendants accused of committing certain assaultive-\ntype crimes upon other Indians within Indian\ncountry.\nAgency Recommendations\nOffice of Management and Budget\nApproval\nDepartment of the Interior\nApproval\nDepartment of Justice\nApproval\nDiscussion\nThe enrolled bill, S. 2129, based upon an Administra-\ntion proposal prepared by the Department of Justice,\namends the Indian Major Crimes Act, applicable to\ncertain felonies committed by Indians in Indian\ncountry.\nS. 2129 eliminates inequities in treatment as\nbetween Indians prosecuted under the Major Crimes\nAct and non-Indians prosecuted under a companion\nstatute who commit offenses in Indian country.\nBecause of these present disparities in treatment,\nrecent Federal court rulings have held that the\nAttached document was not scanned because it is duplicated elsewhere in the document\nCalendar No. 594\n94TH CONGRESS\nSENATE\nREPORT\n2d Session\nNo. 94-620\nTHE INDIAN CRIMES ACT OF 1975\nFEBRUARY 2, 1976.-ordered to be printed\nMr. McClellan, from the Committee on the Judiciary,\nsubmitted the following\nREPORT\n[To accompany S. 2129]\nThe Committee on the Judiciary, to which was referred the bill\n(S. 2129) to provide for the definition and punishment of certain\ncrimes in accordance with the Federal laws in force within the special\nmaritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States when said\ncrimes are committed by an Indian in order to insure equal treatment\nfor Indian and non-Indian offenders, having considered the same,\nreports favorably thereon with amendments and recommends that the\nbill as amended pass.\nAMENDMENTS\n(1) On page 1, insert between lines 2 and 3 the following: \"That\nthis Act may be cited as the 'Indian Crimes Act of 1975'.\"\n(2) On page 1, line 3, strike the words \"That section\" and insert in\nlieu thereof the words \"SEC. 1. Section\".\n(3) On page 2, line 1, following the word \"manslaughter,\" insert\nthe word \"kidnaping,\".\n(4) On page 2, line 4, strike the word \"kill\" and insert the words\n\"commit murder\" in lieu thereof.\nPURPOSE OF THE BILL AS AMENDED\nThe courts have held that the Indian Major Crimes Act (18 U.S.C.\n1153), which designates major crimes triable in Federal courts when\ncommitted by an Indian in Indian country, is unconstitutional as\napplied where the definition or punishment of the offense is more\nonerous than that applied to non-Indian defendants charged with the\nsame crime under 18 U.S.C. 1152.\n57-010\n2\n3\nof the United States Code to clarify the applicable law and to insure\nS. 2129, as amended, would make amendments to present title 18\n1153 invalid as applied to Indian defendants where the State law's\ndefinition or punishment of the offenses (assault with a dangerous\nequal treatment for Indian defendants accused of committing certain The\nweapon and assault resulting in serious bodily injury) was more\namended bill also incorporates the provisions of S. 1263, introduced the\nassaultive type crimes upon other Indians within Indian country.\nonerous than that which would have applied to a non-Indian charged\nwith the same crime under 18 U.S.C. 1152.2\nby Senator Abourezk on March 20, 1975, to add \"kidnaping\" to\nSTATEMENT\nMajor Crimes Act.\nHISTORY OF THE LEGISLATION\nThe result of these decisions and of the present statutory system\nis to create a void within which certain extremely serious offenses\n18 U.S.C. 1153 extends Federal jurisdiction to thirteen major crimes\nby Indians cannot be federally prosecuted, notwithstanding the clear\ncommitted on Indian reservations by Indians. The original enactment\nintention of the Congress in enacting 18 U.S.C. 1153. This is a situa-\nwas passed in 1885 to remedy the loophole contained in 18 U.S.C. 1152,\ntion that both Indians and non-Indians who reside on Indian reserva-\nwhich exempted \"offenses committed by one Indian against the criminal person\ntios feel must be remedied, for the absence of any effective means to\nor property of another Indian\" from the general rule that the exclusive\nfederally prosecute such offenders imperils the security and tran-\nlaws of the United States applicable in any place within the\nquility of reservation life.\njurisdiction of the United States, except the District of Columbia, limited\nAs observed by Senator Fannin upon the introduction of S. 2129\napply within Indian country. The original enactment was\nThe magnitude of the Indian crime problem on Federal\nto seven offenses.\nlands should not be understated. Recent crime statistics at-\nThe principal problems which the bill is intended to rectify stem\ntest to the fact that we do have a serious problem which\nmainly from amendments made to the statute in 1966 and 1968.\nmerits immediate attention.\nto commit rape were added; the amendment further provided that the\nIn 1966, the offenses of carnal knowledge and assault with intent\nThe major crime rate is about 50 percent higher on Indian\nreservations than it is in rural America as a whole. The vio-\nassault with intent to commit rape be defined in accordance with\nlent crime rate on Indian reservations is eight times the\nlaws of the State in which the offense was committed; and the same\nrural rate while the property crime rate is about half the\namendment required assault with a dangerous weapon and incest to in\nrural rate. The murder rate among Indians is 3 times that in\nbe defined and punished in accordance with the laws of the State\nrural areas, while the assault rate is nearly 10 times as high.\nwhich the offense occurred.\nThe number of section 1153 cases involving Indian crimes\nThe 1968 amendment added the offense of assault resulting in serious\nhas risen dramatically.\nbodily injury and provided that it too be defined and punished in A\nDuring the fiscal year 1973, the number of defendants\naccordance with the laws of the State in which it was committed.\nagainst whom court actions-indictments, information re-\nsimilar provision looking to State law for the definition of the crime\nmoval, transfer, remand, appeal or superseding indict-\nof exists from an earlier time.\nments-were begun under section 1153 totaled 404, 88 of\nThe rape difficulty with the current statutes lies in the fact that, as to\nwhich were within the Arizona district. By contrast, dur-\nof the offenses-e.g., rape and the various forms of assault-\nsome there exist Federal statutes (18 U.S.C. 113 and 2031) applicable within\ning fiscal year 1974, the number of defendants against\nwhom court actions were initiated under section 1153 was\nthe special maritime and territorial jurisdiction, that provide for\n520 of which 110 were in my home State. As of December 1,\ntheir definition and punishment. Thus, by operation of 18 U.S.C. 1152,\n1974, there were throughout the country 587 criminal de-\nwhich renders those statutes applicable to offenses committed by non-\nfendants who were subject to court actions pending under\nIndians against Indians,¹ a non-Indian committing an assault or rape be\nsection 1153. Of this total, 120 defendants were Indians on\nan Indian victim may be tried under a different standard and\nlands within Arizona. From the start of fiscal year 1975\nsubjected upon to a different penalty from that applicable to an Indian the\nuntil December 1, 1974, court actions were initiated under\noffender committing an identical crime, depending upon whether\nsection 1153 against 240 criminal defendants in Western\nunder 18 U.S.C. 1153) differs from the Federal statute applicable\nState law defining and punishing the offense (which is incorporated\ndistricts, including 57 defendants in my home State. At the\nclose of fiscal year 1974, 212 defendants had court actions\nthrough 18 U.S.C. 1152.\npending under section 1153, including 29 in Arizona. It is\nthe potential for invidious discrimination and have held 18 U.S.C.\nRecently, Federal courts have recognized that this procedure has\nobvious that major crime on reservations, as evidenced by\nthe volume of Federal litigation against Indian defendants,\n1 on its face 18 U.S.C. 1152 applies to crimes committed by an in Indian this regard that\nis a serious problem. The situation is especially bad in Ari-\nhave a non-Indian U.S.C. 1153, the latter statute must be utilized as the prospective U.S.C. 1152 to non-Indian\nAlthough victim, the courts have held that, in view of the overlap vehicle in these\n2 See, e.g., United States V. Oleveland, 503 F.2d 1067 (9th Cir. 1974) ; United States\nwith 18 as to the crimes there numerated, thus limiting 18 modified on rehearing,\nV. Analla, 490 F.2d 1204 (10th Cir.), vacated and remanded on other grounds, 419 U.S.\ncircumstances, offenses. See Henry V. United States, 432 F.2d 114 (9th Cir. 1970),\n813 (1974).\n434 F.2d 1283, cert. denied, 400 U.S. 1011 (1971).\na Congressional Record, pp. S 12692-S 12693, July 16, 1975 (daily ed.).\nS.R. 620\nS.R. 620\n4\n5\nzona which in each instance has been second only to South\nDakota in the total number of criminal actions during the\non this difference in holding that the offense of assault with intent to\ncrimes are not the same. A district court in Arizona recently relied\npast 2 years.\nOne of the effects of my bill would be to remove a serious\nlegal obstacle to Federal efforts to control major crimes by\nview of the fact that 18 U.S.C. 113(a) did not define and punish the\nkill in 18 U.S. 1153 was void for lack of a prescribed punishment, in\nIndians on Federal lands. This bill would provide greater\ntical, the reported bill obviates this apparent defect.\noffense.⁵ By rendering the offenses in 18 U.S.C. 1153 and 113 (a) iden-\nuniformity in the definition and punishment of major crimes\ninvolving Indians. The due process and equal protection prob-\nIn addition to the offenses of aggravated assault, a similar constitu-\nlems that have often hindered or even prevented prosecution\ntional problem is potentially present within the provisions of 18 U.S.C.\nof criminal offenders would be effectively removed. Thus the\ntask of the United States attorney and other officials responsi-\nMajor Crimes Act refers to State law for definition of these offenses,\n1153 for rape and assault with intent to commit rape. At present the\nble for criminal law enforcement on Indian reservations\nyet allows the Indian to be imprisoned at the discretion of the court.\nwould be made easier.\n18 U.S.C. 2031 (rape) provide the Federal law applicable to non-\nHowever, 18 U.S.C. 113 (a) (assault with intent to commit rape) and\nThe most important result of this legislation, and the prin-\ncipal reason for its introduction, would be the beneficial effect\nit would have on the Indians themselves. This bill, if passed,\nreferences to State law be deleted, and that these offenses be defined\nIndian victims. Here again, the policy of equal treatment requires that\nIndians who commit these crimes against other persons, including\nwould help to restore security and tranquility to reservation\nlife. By increasing the possibility for effective prosecution of\nthese conclusions.\nand punished according to Federal law. The reported bill implements\ncriminals, serious and violent crimes on Indian lands would\nbe significantly reduced.\nThe reported bill would also add \"kidnaping\" to 18 U.S.C. 1153.\nTo remedy the constitutional infirmities in the present statutes the\namended S. 2129 would, in effect, revert the Major Crimes Act to its\nJames Abourezk on March 20, 1975. Kidnapping is considered one of\nThis incorporates the provisions of S. 1263, introduced by Senator\npre-1966 form by amending 18 U.S.C. 1153 to insure equal treatment\ntion of the United States, kidnapping is punishable by up to life im-\nwhen committed within the special maritime and territorial jurisdic-\nthe most heinous offenses against the person. Under 18 U.S.C. 1201,\nfor Indian defendants accused of committing aggravated assaults\nupon other Indians within the Indian country. This involves deleting\nthe language in 18 U.S.C. 1153 that currently requires looking to State\nprisonment. Thus, by virtue of 18 U.S.C. 1152, a non-Indian who kid-\nlaw for the definition and punishment of the offenses of assault with\na dangerous weapon, assault with intent to kill, and assault resulting\nnon-Indian therein, is subject to Federal prosecution and punishment\nnaps an Indian on an Indian reservation or an Indian who kidnaps a\nin serious bodily injury. With this language deletion those offenses\nwould be subject to the provisions in the first paragraph of 18 U.S.C.\nanother Indian, however, would not be federally punishable and would\nunder 18 U.S.C. 1201. An Indian who commits the same offense against\n1153, establishing the general principle that an Indian who commits\nbe subject to prosecution, if at all, only by a tribal court which can\nany of the thirteen offenses enumerated therein \"shall be subject to the\nimpose no more than six months' imprisonment. The disparity, which\nsame laws and penalties as all other persons committing any of the\nsignificantly discriminates against Indian victims, will be eliminated\nabove offenses, within the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States.\"\nby the inclusion of kidnaping as a major crime under 18 U.S.C. 1153.\nTo effectuate the purpose of the bill it is also necessary to amend 18\nThe reported bill also adds a new paragraph to 18 U.S.C. 1153 to\nU.S.C. 113 (defining assaults within the special maritime and terri-\nprovide for automatic referral to State law if Congress should add an\ntorial jurisdiction) SO as to define and punish the offense of assault\noffense to the section not otherwise found among the Federal enclave\nresulting in serious bodily injury. Since 18 U.S.C. 113 presently con-\nlaws. Non-Indians who commit the same crimes are also prosecuted in\ntains no comparable offense, an alternative solution would have been\nsuch instances by reference to State law through the Assimilative\nCrimes Act, 18 U.S.C. 13.6\nto eliminate this offense from 18 U.S.C. 1153. This procedure was\nconsidered unwarranted since an assault that does in fact cause serious\nFinally, the reported bill includes language requiring current con-\nbodily harm deserves to be classed as a major felony. The Committee\nformity with State law where State law is incorporated to define and\nintends to preserve the basic congressional intent in this regard, as\npunish certain enumerated offenses in section 1153 other than those\nreflected in the 1968 amendment that added this offense to the Major\ndefined and punished according to Federal law. Some courts have held\nCrimes Act.\nthat 18 U.S.C. 1153 incorporates State law only as it existed as of the\nAs a further refinement to 18 U.S.C. 1153, the Committee has\namended the bill SO that the offense of \"assault with intent to kill\"\nSection 1153 is at variance with the congressional policy as enacted in\nlast re-enactment of the Major Crimes Act.⁷ This interpretation of\nwill be \"assault with intent to commit murder\". 18 U.S.C. 113 (a) cur-\nrently proscribes an \"assault with intent to commit murder\". While\n238 4 See. A.2d e.g., United States V. Barnaby, 51 Fed. 20, 22 (D. Mont. 1892) ; Jenkins V. State\n5 United 922, 925 (Ct. Spec. App. Md. 1968) 40 C.J.S., 938.\nthe substantive difference between these two descriptions of the offense\nUnited e States States V. Barnaby, V. Altaha, supra unpublished note 4, opinion, Feb. p. 10, 1971, No. CR-70-412. See also\nmay not be great, there is legal authority to the effect that the two\n(1971). 7 See, e.g., United States V. Burland, 441, F.2d (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 942\nSee United States V. Gomez, 250 F. Supp. 535 (D.N.M. 1966).\nS.R. 620\nS.R. 620\n6\n7\n18 U.S.C. 13, which mandates incorporation of State law as it existed\nassault with a dangerous weapon, assault resulting in serious bodily\nat the time of the alleged offense. The reported bill will have the effect\ninjury, arson, burglary, robbery, and larceny within the Indian coun-\nof conforming 18 U.S.C. 1153 to this salutary policy of current con-\ntry, shall be subject to the same laws and penalties as all other persons\nformity regarding the assimilation of State law.\ncommitting any of the above offenses, within the exclusive jurisdic-\ntion of the United States.\nCHANGES IN EXISTING LAW\nAs used in this section, the offenses of burglary and incest shall be\nIn compliance with subsection (4) of rule XXIX of the Standing\ndefined and punished in accordance with the laws of the State in\nRules of the Senate, changes in existing law made by the bill, as re-\nwhich such offense was committed as are in force at the time of such\nported, are shown as follows (existing law proposed to be omitted\noffense.\nis enclosed in black brackets, new matter is printed in italic and exist-\nIn addition to the offenses of burglary and incest, any other of the\ning law in which no change is proposed is shown in roman) :\nabove offenses which are not defined and punished by Federal law in\nforce within the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States shall be\nUNITED STATES CODE\ndefined and punished in accordance with the laws of the State in which\nsuch offense was committed as are in force at the time of such offense.\nTITLE 18-CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE\n*\n§ 113. Assaults within maritime and territorial jurisdiction\nWhoever, within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction\nof the United States, is guilty of an assault shall be punished as\nfollows:\n*\n*\n(f) Assault resulting in serious bodily injury, by fine of not more\nthan $10,000 or imprisonment for not more than ten years, or both.\n*\n§ 1153. Offenses committed within Indian country\n[Any Indian who commits against the person or property of an-\nother Indian or other person any of the following offenses, namely,\nmurder, manslaughter, rape, carnal knowledge of any female, not his\nwife, who has not attained the age of sixteen years, assault with intent\nto commit rape, incest, assault with intent to kill, assault with a dan-\ngerous weapon, assault resulting in serious bodily injury, arson,\nburglary, robbery, and larceny within the Indian country, shall be\nsubject to the same laws and penalties as all other persons committing\nany of the above offenses, within the exclusive jurisdiction of the\nUnited States.\n[As used in this section, the offenses of rape and assault with intent\nto commit rape shall be defined in accordance with the laws of the State\nin which the offense was committed, and any Indian who commits the\noffenses of rape or assault with intent to commit rape upon any female\nIndian within the Indian country shall be imprisoned at the discre-\ntion of the court.\n[As used in this section, the offenses of burglary, assault with a\ndangerous weapon, assault resulting in serious bodily injury, and\nincest shall be defined and punished in accordance with the laws of the\nState in which such offense was committed.]\nAny Indian who commits against the person or property of another\nIndian or other person any of the following offenses, namely, murder,\nmanslaughter, kidnapping, rape, carnal knowledge of any female,\nnot his wife, who has not attained the age of sixteen years, assault with\nintent to commit rape, incest, assault with intent to commit murder,\nS.R. 620\nS.R. 620\n94TH CONGRESS\nHOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES\nREPORT\n2d Session\nNo. 94-1038\nINDIAN CRIMES ACT OF 1976\nAPRIL 13, 1976.-Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of\nthe Union and ordered to be printed\nMr. HUNGATE, from the Committee on the Judiciary,\nsubmitted the following\nREPORT\n[To accompany S. 2129]\nThe Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred the bill\n(S. 2129) to provide for the definition and punishment of certain\ncrimes in accordance with the Federal laws in force within the special\nmaritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States, when said\ncrimes are committed by an Indian, in order to insure equal treatment\nfor Indian and non-Indian offenders, having considered the same,\nreport favorably thereon with an amendment and recommend that\nthe bill as amended do pass.\nThe amendment is as follows:\nPage 3, immediately after line 3, insert the following\nSEC. 4. Section 3242, title 18, United States Code, is amended to read\nas follows:\n\"§ 3242. Indians committing certain offenses; acts on reservations\n\"All Indians committing any offense listed in and punishable under\nthe first paragraph of section 1153 (relating to offenses committed\nwithin Indian country) of this title shall be tried in the same courts\nand in the same manner as are all other persons committing such of-\nfense within the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States.\"\nPURPOSE\nThe purpose of this bill is to insure equal treatment for Indian and\nnon-Indian offenders who commit certain offenses in Indian country.\nBACKGROUND\nTwo basic statutes affecting criminal jurisdiction in Indian country\nare sections 1152 and 1153 of title 18, United States Code. Section 1152\nprovides in part:\nExcept as otherwise expressly provided by law, the general\nlaws of the United States as to the punishment of offenses\n57-006\n2\n3\ncommitted in any place within the sole and exclusive jurisdic-\ntiorari at 9 n. 3, United States V. Antelope et al. (U.S. Supreme Court\ntion of the United States, except the District of Columbia,\nNo. 75-661, Oct. Term, 1975)\nshall extend to the Indian country.1\nIndian against non-Indian crimes occurring in Indian country.-\nThere is Federal jurisdiction over such offenses. Two commentators\nSection 1152 then goes on to state that it does not extend to (1) \"of-\nassert that Federal jurisdiction is based on 18 U.S.C. § 1152. T. Voll-\nfenses committed by one Indian against the person or property of\nmann, \"Criminal Jurisdiction in Indian Country: Tribal Sovereignty\nanother Indian\"; (2) offenses committed by an Indian where the local\nand Defendants' Rights in Conflict,\" 22 Kansas L. Rev. 387, 391\nlaw of the tribe has punished the offender; and (3) \"any case where,\n(1974) ; L. Davis, \"Criminal Jurisdiction Over Indian Country in\nby treaty stipulations, the exclusive jurisdiction over such offenses is\nArizona,\" 1 Arizona L. Rev. 62, 71 (1959). However, it would seem\nor may be secured to the Indian tribes\".\nthat jurisdiction is based on 18 U.S.C. § 1153 when the offense is one\nSection 1153 provides in part that:\nof the 13 enumerated offenses. Section 1153 asserts jurisdiction when\nAny Indian who commits [any of 13 enumerated offenses]\nan Indian commits an enumerated offense \"against the person or prop-\nagainst the person or property of another Indian or other\nerty of another Indian or other person\n(emphasis added).\nperson\nshall be subject to the same laws and penalties\nIndian against Indian crimes occurring in Indian country.-Sec-\nas all other persons committing any of the above offenses\ntion 1153 provides for Federal jurisdiction over the 13 enumerated\nwithin the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States.\noffenses. Jurisdiction over other offenses rests with the tribe. See T.\nVollmann, \"Criminal Jurisdiction in Indian Country Tribal Sover-\nIt also provides, however, that four of the thirteen enumerated of-\neignty and Defendants' Rights in Conflict,\" 22 Kansas L. Rev. 387,\nfenses-namely, burglary, assault with a dangerous weapon, assault\n390 (1974).\nresulting in serious bodily injury, and incest-\"shall be defined and\nExceptions.-The above pattern is subject to two overriding excep-\npunished in accordance with the laws of the State in which such of-\ntions. First, some Federal laws have ceded to certain States complete\nfense was committed.\" Two other of the 13 enumerated offenses—\nor concurrent criminal jurisdiction over certain Indian country. For\nrape and assault with intent to commit rape-are also defined in\nexample, 18 U.S.C. § 1162 lists Indian country in 6 States in which\naccordance with State law, but the penalty provided is imprison-\nthe respective States have sole jurisdiction over \"offenses committed\nment \"at the discretion of the court.\" The definitions of, and punish-\nby or against Indians\n(The six States are Alaska, California,\nment for, the remaining 7 enumerated offenses are set forth in title 18\nMinnesota, Nebraska, Oregon, and Wisconsin.) New York has juris-\nof the United States Code.\ndiction over crimes committed on Indian reservations in that State.\nA determination of whether the State or the Federal government has\n25 U.S.C. $ 232. Another example is 18 U.S.C. § 3243, which gives\njurisdiction to prosecute in a given instance and whether State or\nKansas concurrent jurisdiction over crimes \"committed by or against\nFederal substantive law applies, depends upon a number of variables-\nIndians\" and occurring on Indian reservations in that State.\nthe offender's race, the victim's race, and the State within which the\nThe second overriding exception is for crimes that are peculiarly\nIndian country is located. There are four possible situations. First,\nFederal. Thus, there is Federal jurisdiction when the offense is one\ncrimes in Indian country where a non-Indian is the offender and an\nsuch as assaulting a Federal officer (18 U.S.C. §§ 111 and 1114) or\nIndian is the victim. Second, crimes in Indian country where non-\ndefrauding the United States. See, e.g., Walks on Top V. United States,\nIndians are both the offender and the victim. Third, crimes in Indian\n372 F. 2d 422 (9th Cir. 1967), cert. den. 389 U.S. 879; Head V. Hunter,\ncountry where an Indian is the offender and a non-Indian is the vic-\n141 F. 2d 449 (10th Cir. 1944).\ntim. Fourth, crimes in Indian country where Indians are both the\nThe Problem.-The problem to which this legislation is addressed\noffender and the victim.\nresults from the incorporation into 18 U.S.C. § 1153 of State definitions\nNon-Indian against Indian crimes occurring in Indian country.-\nfor 6 of the 13 enumerated offenses. If an Indian commits one of these\nSection 1152 provides for Federal jurisdiction.\n6 offenses against another Indian, then State substantive criminal law\nNon-Indian against non-Indian crimes occurring in Indian coun-\napplies. For most offenses, the penalties of the State law also apply,\ntry.-Although the clear language of section 1152 seems to provide\nbut for rape of an Indian woman and assault with intent to commit\nfor Federal jurisdiction, the States have jurisdiction. New York ex rel.\nrape upon an Indian woman, a convicted defendant \"shall be im-\nRay V. Martin, 326 U.S. 496 (1946) ; Draper V. United States, 164\nprisoned at the discretion of the court.\"\nU.S. 240 (1896) ; United States V. McBratney, 104 U.S. 621 (1881).\nThe Martin, Draper and McBratney decisions do not appear to be\n2 The Antelope case involves the constitutionality of leaving to State jurisdiction non-\nconstitutionally-based and would not seem to preclude the exercise of\nIndian against non-Indian crimes that take place in Indian country. In Antelope, the\nNinth Circuit reversed the first degree murder conviction of defendant Indians, who had\nFederal jurisdiction. Accord, United States' Petition for Writ of Cer-\nbeen tried under Federal law. Had they been non-Indians, they would have been tried under\nState law. The Ninth Circuit noted that the law of the State involved (Idaho) is stricter\nin its requirements of proof than is Federal law. It concluded that the sole basis for the\n1 \"Indian country\" is defined in 18 U.S.C. $ 1151 to mean: (1) all land within the\ndisparate treatment of Indians and non-Indians was race and that Indians were put at a\nlimits of any Indian reservation under the jurisdiction of the United States government\nserious disadvantage that could not be justified.\n(2) all dependent Indian communities within the borders of the United States; and (3)\nBecause of the pendency of this litigation, the legislation does not address this issue.\nall Indian allotments, the Indian titles to which have not been extinguished, including\n3 Accord, Note, \"Red, White, and Gray: Equal Protection and the American Indian,\" 21\nrights-of-way.\nStanford L. Rev. 1236, 1241 (1969).\nH.R. 1038\nH.R. 1038\n4\n5\nIf, on the other hand, a non-Indian commits one of these 6 offenses\nThe Committee also agrees with the Attorney General that \"a similar\nagainst an Indian, Federal substantive criminal law and penalties\nconstitutional problem is potentially present within the provisions of\napply. The results can be that, in identical circumstances, an Indian\nSection 1153 for rape and assault with intent to commit rape. 8 As\nis treated more severely than a non-Indian.\nthe Commissioner of Indian Affairs has pointed out\nFor example, defendant Indian is charged under 18 U.S.C. § 1153\nthe Federal Government is now unable to prosecute Indians\nwith assault with a deadly weapon in Arizona Indian country. Pur-\nwho commit assault resulting in serious bodily harm in Indian\nsuant to $ 1153, defendant Indian will be tried under the provisions of\ncountry in either of these two jurisdictions [Eighth and\nArizona law. A non-Indian defendant who commits the same offense\nNinth Circuits], which encompass a major portion of Indian\nis charged under 18 U.S.C. § 1152 and will be tried under the provi-\ncountry under Federal criminal jurisdiction. The problem\nsions of 18 U.S.C. § 113 (\"assaults within maritime and territorial\nis acute and leaves Indian communities without the protec-\njurisdiction\").\ntion not only of Federal law but of any law except in the\nThe penalty under Arizona law for the first offense is imprison-\nsense that a person might be prosecuted for a lesser included\nment for not less than 5 years. The maximum penalty under Federal\noffense.\nlaw is a $1,000 fine and imprisonment for not more than 5 years. Thus,\nif an Indian and a non-Indian commit the same offense, the Indian\nSECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS OF THE LEGISLATION\nfaces the possibility of longer imprisonment.\nTwo Circuit Courts of Appeals-the Eighth and Ninth-have held\nSECTION 1\nthat this denies Indians due process of law as guaranteed by the Fifth\nAmendment.5 United States V. Big Crow, 523 F.2d 955 (8th Cir. 1975)\nSection 1 of the bill provides that the short title of the legislation\nUnited States V. Cleveland, 503 F.2d 1067 (9th Cir. 1974). The Tenth\nshall be the \"Indian Crimes Act of 1976.'\nCircuit has sustained the statute against a challenge that it sets up an\nunconstitutional racial classification. United States V. Analla, 490 F.2d\nSECTION 2\n1204 (10th Cir. 1974), vacated and remanded on other grounds, 419\nU.S. 813 (1974).⁶\nSection 2 of the bill makes several changes in section 1153 of title 18,\nThe Committee agrees with the Attorney General that the effect of\nUnited States Code.\nthe Big Crow and Cleveland decisions by the Eighth and Ninth\nFirst, to correct the constitutional defect found by the Eighth and\nCircuits\nNinth Circuits, it provides that the crimes of rape, assault with intent\nto commit rape, assault with a dangerous weapon and assault resulting\nhas been to invalidate the authority presently available to the\nin serious bodily injury shall be defined and punished in accordance\ngovernment under Section 1153 to prosecute Indians who\nwith Federal law. Thus, an Indian and a non-Indian who commit any\ncommit either the crime of assault with a dangerous weapon\nof these four offenses in Indian country will be held to the same\nor assault resulting in serious bodily injury on Indian\nstandard.10\nreservations in states such as Arizona, where the local law is\nThe bill also expands the list of enumerated offenses to include kid-\nmore severe than Federal law applicable within the Indian\nnaping. Under present law, a non-Indian who kidnaps an Indian in\nCountry.\"\nIndian country would be prosecuted under § 1152. That section\nincorporates the definition and penalty of the Federal kidnaping\nIt may also work the other way-an Indian may be treated more leniently. In Gray V.\nUnited States, 394 F. 2d 96 (9th Cir. 1968), defendant Indians challenged that part of 18\nstatute (18 U.S.C. § 1201), which imposes a punishment of up to life\nU.S.C. § 1153 prescribing imprisonment \"at the discretion of the court\" for rape of an\nIndian woman. The Ninth Circuit rejected the challenge, in part because \"Appellants here\nimprisonment.\nseek to challenge as unconstitutional this statute, enacted by Congress, which is of bene-\nHowever, an Indian who kidnaps someone in Indian country would\nfit to them.\" Gray V. United States, 394 F. 2d 96, 98 (9th Cir. 1968).\nThe Gray decision is sharply criticized in Note. \"Red. White, and Gray: Equal Protection\nbe subject to prosecution only in a tribal court. Tribal courts can im-\nand the American Indian,\" 21 Stanford L. Rev. 1236 (1969).\npose a maximum penalty of 6 months imprisonment and a $500 fine.¹¹\n5 Analytically, the Indians are denied the equal protection of the laws, but the\nFifth Amendment contains no equal protection clause. However, the Supreme Court has\nAdding kidnaping to the list of enumerated offenses in § 1153 elimi-\nheld that a denial of equal protection may be \"so unjustifiable as to be violative of due\nprocess.\" Bolling V. Sharpe, 347 U.S. 497, 499 (1954).\nnates this disparity.\n6 The Senate Report cites Analla for the proposition that Federal courts \"have held 18\nU.S.C. 1153 invalid as applied to Indian defendants where the State law's definition or\n8 Id.\npunishment of the offenses was more onerous than that which would have applied to\n9 Letter from Commissioner of Indian Affairs Morris Thompson to Judiciary Committee\na non-Indian charged with the same crime under 18 U.S.C. 1152.\" Senate Report 94-620,\nChairman Peter W. Rodino, Jr., February 12, 1976.\nat 2-3.\n10 Two offenses-incest and burglary-are left to be defined and punished by State law.\nThe Senate Report's citation appears to be in error. Analla sustained the constitutional-\nThis will not give rise to the constitutional problem found by the Eighth and Ninth Cir-\nity of § 1153 in the face of an equal protection-due process attack. See United States V.\ncuits with respect to assault with a dangerous weapon and assault resulting in serious\nAnalla, 490 F. 2d 1204. 1208 (10th Cir. 1974). vacated and remanded on other grounds,\nbodily injury. This is S0 because a non-Indian who commits the offenses of burglary or\n419 U.S. 813 (1974). In SO doing. Analla overruled, sub silentio, an earlier decision of a\nincest would also be tried using State law definitions and penalties. Since neither burglary\ndistrict court within the Tenth Circuit. which had held \"The portion of section 1153\nnor incest is a Federally-defined crime, the Assimilative Crimes Act (18 U.S.C. § 13)\nwhich relegates the definition and punishment of assault with a dangerous weapon to state\nprovides that State law definitions and punishments are applied by the Federal courts.\nlaw places defendant at a serious disadvantage solely because he is an Indian. This racial\nThe bill also provides that the State law to be used to define and punish the act is that\nclassification is not reasonably related to any proper governmental objective and is there-\nwhich was in effect at the time the act was committed. rather than the State law pro-\nfore arbitrary and invidious in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amend-\nvisions in effect at the time of the last reenactment of 8 1153.\nment.\" United States V. Boone. 347 F. Supp. 1031. 1035 (D. N. Mex. 1972).\n11 25 U.S.C. § 1302(7).\n7 Letter from Attorney General Edward H. Levi to Speaker Carl Albert, May 20, 1975.\nH.R. 1038\nH.R. 1038\n6\n7\nSection 2 also makes a conforming change in the title of one of the\nCHANGES IN EXISTING LAW MADE BY THE BILL, AS REPORTED\nenumerated offenses in § 1153. Present § 1153 refers to \"assault with\nintent to kill.\" The actual title of the offense defined in 18 U.S.C. § 113\nIn compliance with clause 3 of rule XIII of the Rules of the House\n(a) is \"assault with intent to commit murder,\" SO the bill changes the\nof Representatives, changes in existing law made by the bill, as re-\ntitle of the enumerated offense in § 1153 to conform to the title in 18\nported, are shown as follows (existing law proposed to be omitted is\nU.S.C. § 113 (a).\nenclosed in black brackets, new matter is printed in italic, existing law\nSECTION 3\nin which no change is proposed is shown in roman) :\nSection 3 of the bill amends 18 U.S.C. § 113 by adding a new sub-\nTITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE\nsection defining and prescribing punishment for the offense of assault\nresulting in serious bodily injury. This is necessary because § 113,\n*\nwhich defines Federal assault offenses, does not presently contain this\n§ 113. Assaults within maritime and territorial jurisdiction.\noffense. Since this offense is one of the enumerated offenses in § 1153\nWhoever, within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of\nthat is to be defined and punished in accordance with Federal law,\nthe United States, is guilty of an assault shall be punished as follows:\nthis amendment to § 113 is necessary to give substance to the inclusion\n(a) Assault with intent to commit murder or rape, by imprisonment\nof this offense in § 1153.\nfor not more than twenty years.\nSECTION 4\n(b) Assault with intent to commit any felony except murder or\nSection 4 amends the venue statute SO that venue is provided for all\nrape, by fine of not more than $3,000 or imprisonment for not more\noffenses punishable under section 1153.\nthan ten years, or both.\n(c) Assault with a dangerous weapon, with intent to do bodily harm,\nOVERSIGHT\nand without just cause or excuse, by fine of not more than $1,000 or\nimprisonment for not more than five years, or both.\nThe committee makes no oversight findings.\n(d) Assault by striking, beating, or wounding, by fine of not more\nthan $500 or imprisonment for not more than six months, or both.\nCOST\n(e) Simple assault, by fine of not more than $300 or imprisonment\nfor not more than three months, or both.\nPursuant to clause 7, rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Repre-\n(f) Assault resulting in serious bodily injury, by fine of not more\nsentatives, the committee estimates that no new cost to the United\nthan $10,000 or imprisonment for not more than ten years, or both.\nStates is entailed by S. 2129.\n*\n*\n*\n*\n*\n§ 1153. Offenses committed within Indian country\nNEW BUDGET AUTHORITY\nAny Indian who commits against the person or property of another\n2129 creates no new budget authority.\nIndian or other person any of the following offenses, namely, murder,\nmanslaughter, kidnaping, rape, carnal knowledge of any female, not\nSTATEMENT OF THE BUDGET COMMITTEE\nhis wife, who has not attained the age of sixteen years, assault with\nintent to commit rape, incest, assault with intent to [kill] commit\nNo statement on this legislation has been received from the House\nmurder, assault with a dangerous weapon, assault resulting in serious\nCommittee on the Budget.\nbodily injury, arson, burglary, robbery, and larceny within the Indian\ncountry, shall be subject to the same laws and penalties as all other\nSTATEMENT OF THE COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS\npersons committing any of the above offenses, within the exclusive\njurisdiction of the United States.\nNo statement on this legislation has been received from the House\nAs used in this section, the offenses [of rape and assault with intent\nCommittee on Government Operations.\nto commit rape burglary and incest shall be defined and punished\nin accordance with the laws of the State in which [the] such offense\nINFLATION IMPACT STATEMENT\nwas committed [and any Indian who commits the offenses of rape or\nThis legislation will have no foreseeable inflationary impact on\nassault with intent to commit rape upon any female Indian within the\nIndian country shall be imprisoned at the discretion of the court. as\nprices or costs in the operation of the national economy.\nare in force at the time of such off ense.\nCOMMITTEE VOTE\n[As used in this section. the offenses of burglary, assault with a\ndangerous weapon, assault resulting in serious bodily injury, and incest\nS. 2129 was reported out of Committee on Tuesday, April 6, 1976,\nshall be defined and punished in accordance with the laws of the State\nby voice vote. Twenty-four Members of the Committee were present.\nin which such offense was committed.]\nH.R. 1038\nH.R. 1038\n8\nIn addition to the offenses of burglary and incest, any other of the\nabove offenses which are not defined and punished by Federal law in\nforce within the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States shall be\ndefined and punished in accordance with the laws of the State in which\nsuch offense was committed as are in force at the time of such offense.\n*\n*\n*\n*\n*\n*\n§ 3242. Indians committing certain offenses; acts on reservations[.]\nAll Indians committing any [of the following offenses; namely,\nmurder, manslaughter, rape, carnal knowledge of any female, not his\nwife, who has not attained the age of sixteen years, assault with intent\nto commit rape, incest, assault with intent to kill, assault with a dan-\ngerous weapon, arson, burglary, robbery, and larceny on and within\nthe Indian country shall be tried in the same courts, and in the same\nmanner, as are all other persons committing any of the above crimes]\noffense listed in and punishable under the first paragraph of section\n1153 (relating to offenses committed within Indian country) of this\ntitle shall be tried in the same courts, and in the same manner as are\nall other persons committing such offense within the exclusive jurisdic-\ntion of the United States.\nH.R. 1038\nS. 2129\nMinety-fourth Congress of the United States of America\nAT THE SECOND SESSION\nBegun and held at the City of Washington on Monday, the nineteenth day of January,\none thousand nine hundred and seventy-six\nAn Art\nTo provide for the definition and punishment of certain crimes in accordance\nwith the Federal laws in force within the special maritime and territorial\njurisdiction of the United States when said crimes are committed by an Indian\nin order to insure equal treatment for Indian and non-Indian offenders.\nBe it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the\nUnited States of America in Congress assembled, That this Act may\nbe cited as the \"Indian Crimes Act of 1976\".\nSEC. 2. Section 1153, title 18, United States Code, is amended to\nread as follows:\n\"§ 1153. Offenses committed within Indian country\n\"Any Indian who commits against the person or property of\nanother Indian or other person any of the following offenses, namely,\nmurder, manslaughter, kidnaping, rape, carnal knowledge of any\nfemale, not his wife, who has not attained the age of sixteen years,\nassault with intent to commit rape, incest, assault with intent to com-\nmit murder, assault with a dangerous weapon, assault resulting in\nserious bodily injury, arson, burglary, robbery, and larceny within\nthe Indian country, shall be subject to the same laws and penalties\nas all other persons committing any of the above offenses, within the\nexclusive jurisdiction of the United States.\n\"As used in this section, the offenses of burglary and incest shall\nbe defined and punished in accordance with the laws of the State in\nwhich such offense was committed as are in force at the time of such\noffense.\n\"In addition to the offenses of burglary and incest, any other of the\nabove offenses which are not defined and punished by Federal law in\nforce within the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States shall be\ndefined and punished in accordance with the laws of the State in\nwhich such offense was committed as are in force at the time of such\noffense.\".\nSEC. 3. Section 113 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by\nadding at the end thereof the following new subsection:\n\"(f) Assault resulting in serious bodily injury, by fine of not more\nthan $10,000 or imprisonment for not more than ten years, or both.\"\nS. 2129-2\nSEC. 4. Section 3242, title 18, United States Code, is amended to\nread as follows:\n\"§ 3242. Indians committing certain offenses; acts on reservations\n\"All Indians committing any offense listed in the first paragraph\nof and punishable under section 1153 (relating to offenses committed\nwithin Indian country) of this title shall be tried in the same courts\nand in the same manner as are all other persons committing such\noffense within the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States.\".\nSpeaker of the House of Representatives.\nVice President of the United States and\nPresident of the Senate.\nMay 24, 1976\nDear Mr. Director:\nThe following bills were received at the White\nHouse on May 24th:\nS. 2129\n8. 2498\n8. 3399\n)\nPlease let the President have reports and\nrecommendations as to the approval of these\nbills as soon as possible.\nSincerely,\nRobert D. Linder\nChief Executive Clerk\nThe Honorable James T. Lynn\nDirector\nOffice of Management and Budget\nWashington, D.C."
}