Hearing analysis assignment i have provided a an OK model as an example if you have any question please ask thank you

Running head: ANALYSIS OF LEGISLATIVE HEARING 0

Analysis of the United States Senate Committee on Indian Affairs Legislative Hearing to Receive Testimony on Senate Bills 1870, 1953, and 1942

Student Name

University of North Dakota

March 21, 2018

Analysis of the United States Senate Committee on Indian Affairs Legislative Hearing to Receive Testimony on Senate Bills 1870, 1953, and 1942

During the Legislative Hearing to Receive Testimony on S. 1870 “Securing Urgent Resources Vital to Indian Victim Empowerment (SURVIVE) Act,” S. 1953 “Reauthorization of the Tribal Law and Order Act (TLOA) of 2010,” and S. 1942 “Savanna’s Act,” committee members and witnesses addressed issues regarding public safety on Native American reservations. Topics included the high rate of violent crimes committed against Native women, the state of correctional facilities on reservations, the lack of law enforcement personnel, as well as the lack of adequate funding, resources, and services for victims of crimes and juvenile offenders . This hearing displayed a strong bipartisan attempt to address massive public safety and humanitarian concerns in Indian Country. Despite their varied backgrounds, all of the committee members and witnesses seemed to have the same goal, which was to improve public safety in Indian Country by increasing funding, improving infrastructure, and growing the law enforcement presence on reservations through meaningful policy change. Specifically, this analysis will focus on the goals of the committee members, the affiliations of the witnesses and their testimonies, and the communal efforts of both the committee members and the witnesses to promote legislation that will improve public safety on reservations .

The Committee Members and Witnesses

In his opening statements, Senator John Hoeven summarized the bills to be covered at the hearing and offered his support for each bill. Senators Heidi Heitkamp, Tom Udall, Al Franken, Steve Daines, and Lisa Murkowski all provided opening statements as well, while Senator James Lankford offered an introduction for the first witness. The first two bills discussed, the SURVIVE Act and the reauthorization of TLOA, were put forth by Senator John Hoeven and co-sponsored by several other committee members, while Savanna’s Act was put forth by Senator Heidi Heitkamp and co-sponsored by several other committee members.

The witnesses included Trent Shores, U.S. Attorney of the Northern District of Oklahoma, Bryan Rice, Director of the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), Dave Flute, Chairman for the Sisseton-Wahpeton Oyate of the Lake Traverse Reservation, Joel Boyd, Business Councilman for the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation, and Carmen O’Leary, Director of the Native Women’s Society of the Great Plains. Each witness offered testimony specific to their backgrounds and concerns. The testimonies began with those in governmental positions, including Trent Shores and Bryan Rice, followed by those with local or community-based positions, including Dave Flute, Joel Boyd, and Carmen O’Leary.

The Effectiveness of the Witness Testimony

Joel Boyd’s testimony was particularly powerful. He gave examples and statistics that were staggering, including that there are only 2.3 police officers per 1000 residents on his home reservation in Washington. He points out that the lack of law enforcement personnel and the rural nature of the reservation have caused emergency response times to be as long as two hours . He also discussed the lack of functional correctional facilities and treatment/prevention programs on his reservation. Boyd’s passionate discussion of the effect these shortcomings have had on juvenile offenders and addicts was moving. He seemed to be in tears at when he discussed his experience with children who developed drug addictions or became involved in other criminal activity. The authenticity of his message set him apart from the rest of the witnesses .

Out of all the testimony given, Bryan Rice’s was by far the least effective. Unlike the rest of the witnesses, he gave no anecdotes or specific examples to evoke any kind of emotion from his audience. His testimony focused primarily on the staffing needs of the BIA and the ways in which the BIA believes the reauthorization of TLOA will reduce recidivism among offenders and addicts. While Rice made great points about TLOA and the role of the BIA, his testimony lacked the passion, specificity, and authenticity that the other testimonies had.

Critical Analysis of the Hearing

It was surprising to see such a high level of bipartisanship among the committee members. Each committee member, regardless of their political party, decried the public safety crisis happening in Indian Country and advocated for the passing of the three bills before the committee. The committee members were all very gracious toward one another, offering gratitude and support toward each other for bringing forth the bills and co-sponsoring them. While the committee members were respectful toward all of the witnesses as well, they were harsher on Trent Shores and Bryan Rice, of the DOJ and BIA respectively. This may be because these two individuals represent governmental bodies that have obligations to the American people; whereas, the other witnesses represent populations and organizations that are impacted by the DOJ and BIA and would be directly affected by the three bills .

The concerns and statistics brought up by the witnesses were shocking and displayed that there are significant necessitating factors that call for the implementation of each of the three bills. The process of allowing witnesses to provide heartfelt and moving testimony before a governmental committee ensures that invested citizens and knowledgeable professionals have the opportunity to make their voices heard in an impactful way. It was beneficial to see how citizens can make their voices heard before some of the most powerful politicians in the country. The bipartisan nature of the Indian Affairs Committee creates hope that public safety on reservations can improve through policy change that has been guided by professionals and experts with experience and connections with Native cultures.

References

United States Senate Committee on Indian Affairs. (2017). Legislative Hearing to Receive Testimony on S. 1870, S. 1953, and S. 1942. Retrieved from https://www.indian.senate.gov/