89–010 

Calendar No. 77 

116TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! SENATE 1st Session 116–37 

AMENDING THE TRIBAL LAW AND ORDER ACT OF 2010 AND THE INDIAN 

LAW ENFORCEMENT REFORM ACT TO PROVIDE FOR ADVANCEMENTS IN 

PUBLIC SAFETY SERVICES TO INDIAN COMMUNITIES, AND FOR OTHER 

PURPOSES 

MAY 6, 2019.—Ordered to be printed 

Mr. HOEVEN, from the Committee on Indian Affairs, 

submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

[To accompany S. 210] 

[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office] 

The Committee on Indian Affairs, to which was referred the bill 

(S. 210) to amend the Tribal Law and Order Act of 2010 and the 

Indian Law Enforcement Reform Act to provide for advancements 

in public safety services to Indian communities, and for other purposes, having considered the same, reports favorably thereon without amendment and recommends that the bill do pass. 

PURPOSE

The Tribal Law and Order Act Reauthorization and Amendments 

Act of 2019, S. 210, builds on the improvements to criminal justice 

systems serving Indian communities that were enacted in the Tribal Law and Order Act of 2010 (TLOA). The sponsors of the bill intend it to provide additional tools for law enforcement officials to 

reduce crime, overcrowded jail conditions, and recidivism as well as 

address justice for Indian youth. It also seeks to clarify the responsibilities of Federal, state, tribal, and local governments with respect to crimes committed in Indian Country. The bill extends the 

authorization of various programs in the Tribal Law and Order Act 

of 2010 until 2024 and contains other provisions to improve justice 

within Indian Country. 

NEED FOR LEGISLATION

Testimony received at the Committee on Indian Affairs’ hearings, 

roundtables, and meetings indicates that the rates of murder, rape, 

and burglary in Indian country have diminished since the passage 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with REPORTS
2 

1See also S. Rep. No. 111–93, at 1 and 4 (2009). 2Tribal 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. 

(2011). The Indian Law and Order Commission Report: A Roadmap for Making Native America 

Safer, Hearing Before the S. Comm. on Indian Affairs, 113th Cong. (2014). Tribal Law and 

Order Act (TLOA)—5 Years Later: How Have the Justice Systems in Indian Country Improved? 

Hearing Before the S. Comm. on Indian Affairs, 114th Cong. (2015). The Tribal Law and Order 

Act 5 Years Later: Next Steps to Improving Justice Systems in Indian Communities. Roundtable 

Before the S. Comm. on Indian Affairs, 114th Cong. (2016). 3Tribal Crime Data Collection Activities, 2012. Bureau of Justice Statistics, Department of 

Justice (2012), at 5. Tribal Crime Data Collection Activities, 2015. Bureau of Justice Statistics, 

Department of Justice (2015), at 8 and 12. The number of tribal law enforcement agencies reporting to the Uniform Crime Reporting Program in 2010 was 143 and in 2013, the figure rose 

to 158. Steven Perry, Tribal Crime Data Collection Activities, 2015. Bureau of Justice Statistics, 

Department of Justice (2015), at 1. Reporting is entirely voluntary for tribal and BIA agencies 

so that key information from the non-reporting tribes would not be reflected and, thus, the crime 

rates may be understated. 

of the TLOA but that the overall levels of violent crime have increased while the levels of property crime have fluctuated. Additionally, the overall levels of crime still remain high on several Indian reservations. Continued enhancements for public safety are 

necessary to provide additional tools for law enforcement officials 

to reduce crime and recidivism, tackle overcrowded jail conditions, 

and address justice for Indian youth. 

BACKGROUND

The TLOA was introduced on April 2, 2009, in the 111th Congress. It was incorporated into H.R. 725, the Indian Arts and 

Crafts Act Amendments (which had passed the House of Representatives on January 19, 2010, and was pending in the Senate). On 

June 23, 2010, H.R. 725 was amended with the text of the TLOA 

and passed by the Senate. The amended bill, H.R. 725, was passed 

by the House of Representatives on July 21, 2010, and became Public Law No. 111–211 on July 29, 2010. 

Passed in response to the public safety crisis in Indian communities, the 2010 law reflected the efforts of Congress and Indian 

tribes to develop a comprehensive approach to improving the efficiency and effectiveness of criminal justice systems in Indian Country.1 Its purpose was to increase the capacity of tribal governments 

and their law enforcement agencies to better coordinate with Federal and state agencies and to better manage public safety concerns 

within Indian Country. 

The Senators who drafted the law intended the TLOA to reduce 

violent crime, drug trafficking, and rates of drug and alcohol addiction, combat sexual and domestic violence against American Indian 

and Alaska Native women; and, standardize interagency information sharing among Federal, state, and tribal stakeholders. It also 

encouraged the hiring, training, and support of more tribal and 

Federal law enforcement officers to assist in preventing and addressing unacceptably high rates of crimes in Indian communities. 

Since the enactment of the TLOA, the Committee has held three 

hearings and one roundtable on the implementation of the law.2

While some reductions in crime rates have occurred, the information from the Department of Justice’s (DOJ’s) Bureau of Statistics 

indicates that levels still remain high.3 The following chart contains a summary of the information provided by the Bureau. 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with REPORTS
3 

4 United States Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation. (September 2018). 

Crime in the United States, 2017. Table 11. Retrieved November 30, 2018, from https:// 

ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2017/crime-in-the-u.s.-2017/topic-pages/about-cius. 5The U.S. Attorneys’ Offices data for CY 2011 indicate that just under 37 percent (1,041) 

of all Indian Country submissions for prosecution (2,840) were declined by the U.S. Attorneys’ 

Offices. U.S. Department of Justice Indian Country Investigations and Prosecutions, 2011–2012. 

Department of Justice (2012), at 5. The data for CY 2013 show that 34% (853) of all Indian 

Country submissions for prosecution (2,542) were declined for prosecution. According to the Federal Bureau of Investigation reports, all the cases that had been denied for prosecution were 

denied because no evidence could be found regarding foul play. U.S. Department of Justice Indian Country Investigations and Prosecutions, 2013. Department of Justice (2013) at 7. 

Type of Offense 2010, 

143 Tribes 

2013, 

158 Tribes 

2017, 

152 Tribes 4

Murder/Manslaughter .................................................................................. 133 79 74 

Rape ............................................................................................................ 852 812 556 

Robbery ....................................................................................................... 280 309 273 

Aggravated Assault ..................................................................................... 4,267 4,200 6,667 

Total Violent Crimes: 5 ....................................................................... 5,532 5,400 7,570 

Burglary ....................................................................................................... 4,990 5,461 2,803 

Larceny-theft ............................................................................................... 10,495 14,643 11,295 

Motor Vehicle theft ..................................................................................... 2,228 2,816 2,176 

Arson ........................................................................................................... 818 801 275 

Total Property Crime .......................................................................... 18,531 23,721 16,549 

The TLOA required the following key reports: • Tribal Court Sentencing Guidelines and Process, which the 

Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) completed in 2011; • Long Term Plan to Build and Enhance Tribal Justice Systems, which the DOJ and the Department of the Interior (DOI) 

completed in August, 2011; • Tribal Prisoner Pilot Program Progress, which the DOJ 

completed in 2014; • Annual Crime Statistics Report by the Bureau of Justice 

Statistics (BJS); • Annual Report on the BIA Office of Justice Services spending and unmet needs; • Annual Indian Country Investigations and Prosecutions 

reported by the United States Attorney General; • A study of the Indian Health Service’s capability to collect 

and secure domestic and sexual assault evidence, which the 

U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) completed in 

2012; • Community Oriented Policing Services Grants Report, 

which DOJ published in December, 2010; and • A Roadmap for Making Native America Safer, published 

by the TLOA-established Indian Law and Order Commission in 

2013. 

Other reports regarding public safety in Indian Country have 

provided additional information for consideration in the development of S. 210. Specifically, the DOJ Office of the Inspector General (DOJ–OIG), and the GAO, published four additional reports 

related to public safety in Indian Country since the TLOA’s enactment. These key supplementary reports include: 

• Review of the Department’s Tribal Law Enforcement Efforts Pursuant to the Tribal Law and Order Act of 2010, completed by the DOJ–OIG in 2017; 

• Human Trafficking: Action Needed to Identify the Number 

of Native American Victims Receiving Federally-Funded Services, completed by the GAO in 2017; 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with REPORTS
4 

6 An LSI–R identifies problem areas in an offender’s life and predicts his or her risk of recidivism. Evidence-based practices to reduce recidivism stress the importance of assessing the individual on risk, needs, and responsivity of the offender to rehabilitation practices, as a result the 

LSI–R for Tribal justice systems was a basic step to enhance tribal justice systems. Crime and 

Justice Institute, Implementing Evidence-Based Practice in Community Corrections: The Principles of Effective Intervention. Boston, MA: Crime and Justice Institute and U.S. Department 

of Justice (2004). 7https://www.bja.gov/Publications/TLOA–TJP–Webinar-Summary.pdf, 2 (last reviewed December, 2016). 

• Human Trafficking: Information on Cases in Indian Country or that Involved Native Americans, completed by the GAO 

in 2017; and • Native American Youth: Involvement in Justice Systems 

and Information on Grants to Help Address Juvenile Delinquency Highlights, completed by the GAO in 2018. 

2011 Long Term Plan to Build and Enhance Tribal Justice Systems 

report 

The Long Term Plan to Build and Enhance Tribal Justice Systems report intended to obtain information on alternatives to incarceration for jails and other public safety buildings, critically assess 

tribal public safety infrastructure, and review institutional methods to develop alternatives to incarceration. 

After publication of this report, both the DOJ and the BIA engaged in additional actions or studies regarding incarceration and 

alternatives. For example, the Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) 

completed a study of strategies to validate an offender risk assessment tool called Level of Service Inventory-Revised (LSI–R) for use 

in tribal justice systems.6

Tribal leaders have encouraged establishing culturally sensitive 

alternatives to incarceration that would allow offenders to remain 

close to their Native communities, focus on treating the root causes 

of criminal behavior, and emphasize rehabilitation rather than retribution. The DOJ now provides resources, training, and capacity 

building for tribes to implement and develop these intervention efforts (e.g., alcohol/offender monitoring devices and related equipment) as incarceration alternatives.7

The Committee recognized in the TLOA, and in S. 210, that 

these alternatives must be combined with active prevention efforts 

to begin addressing the crime rates in Indian communities. To that 

end, the bill encourages various approaches to reduce recidivism. 

For example, S. 210 combines early crime prevention efforts 

through school and summer programs for Native youth and datadriven research on key trends in tribal jail populations. While 

these types of programs hold promise, all efforts included in the 

TLOA and S. 210 will need to be further assessed for long-term 

benefits and efficacy. 

Annual U.S. Department of Justice: Indian Country investigations 

and prosecutions 

Section 212(B) of the TLOA requires the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the Attorney General to submit an annual report to Congress on terminated or declined investigations and prosecutions in Indian Country. The reports should outline the following information: the types of crimes alleged, the status of accused as Indian or non-Indian, the status of victim as Indian or 

non-Indian and, the reasons for deciding against referring the inVerDate Sep 11 2014 04:02 May 12, 2019 Jkt 089010 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR037.XXX SR037

lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with REPORTS
5 

8 U.S. Department of Justice Indian Country Investigations and Prosecutions, 2013. Department of Justice (2013) at 11. 9These problems stem from a number of challenges, some of which are outlined in the 2014 

report. U.S. Department of Justice Indian Country Investigations and Prosecutions, 2014. Department of Justice (2014) at 36–37. 10 U.S. Department of Justice Indian Country Investigations and Prosecutions, 2017. Department of Justice (2017) at 3. 11 Id. at 10. 12 Id. at 3. 13 Id. CY 2017—37%, CY 2016—34%, CY 2015—39%, CY 2014—34%, CY 2013—34%, CY 

2012—31%, CY 2011—38%. 14 Id. at 4. 15 Id. at 20. 16 Id. at 11. 17 Id. at 2. 

vestigation for prosecution, declining to prosecute, or terminating a 

prosecution. 

In CY2014, the FBI closed 2,064 Indian Country cases—an increase of 7 cases from CY2013.8 The most common reason for case 

closure was that the investigation concluded no Federal crime had 

occurred. Most notably, the report also highlighted the difficulties 

in prosecuting sex crimes in Indian Country.9

In CY2017, the FBI reported a 12.5 percent increase in total 

closed investigations over CY2016 statistics.10 Of the 2,210 FBI Indian Country investigations closed in CY2017, the FBI closed 68 

percent for Federal, state, or tribal prosecution.11 However, the 

U.S. Attorney Office’s (USAO) declination rate of 37 percent for Indian Country matters remained relatively steady with all previous 

years reported.12 Since 2011, the rates have ranged between a low 

of 31 percent to a high of 39 percent.13 According to the 2017 report, ‘‘[t]he most common reason for declination by USAOs was insufficient evidence.’’ 14

The Committee remains concerned about the lack of progress 

made by USAOs to address declinations, particularly when USAOs 

link many declinations to causes of insufficient evidence for a prosecution. Additionally, the Committee seeks further clarification and 

detail from the DOJ and the Executive Office of U.S. Attorneys regarding the causes of these underlying limitations for prosecution. 

For example, if the Federal response to the crime scene is delayed 

for so long that the crime scene and evidence becomes contaminated or destroyed, then improvements are necessary to prevent 

similar future problems. The Committee, however, is encouraged 

that ‘‘[t]he Department is committed to continuing to improve these 

communications’’ 15 between the DOJ and tribes to improve law enforcement and case coordination. 

It is further notable that the FBI does not solicit or integrate information from the Bureau of Indian Affairs or tribal governments 

for this annual report. As a result, the total numbers in the report 

do not include many of the misdemeanor crimes still occurring in 

Indian Country 16 and impacting recidivism, which remains high in 

Indian communities.17 The DOJ should engage with the Indian 

tribes regarding how to best capture, evaluate, and report this information to provide a better understanding and comprehensive 

view of public safety trends in Indian Country. 

Report on enhanced tribal-court sentencing authority 

Section 234(b) of the TLOA requires the Attorney General and 

the Secretary of the Interior, no later than four years after the enVerDate Sep 11 2014 04:02 May 12, 2019 Jkt 089010 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR037.XXX SR037

lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with REPORTS
6 

18Tribal Law and Order Act Report on Enhanced Tribal-Court Sentencing Authority, Department of Justice, at 6. 19 Christian Folsom-Smith, Enhanced Sentencing in Tribal Courts, The National Tribal Justice 

Center, (2015) at 8. 20Tribal Crime Data Collection Activities, 2016–2018, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Department of Justice (2018) at 4. 21Tribal Crime Data Collection Activities, 2016–2018, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Department of Justice (2018) at 4. 22 Id. at 5. 

actment of the TLOA, to submit a report to Congress on the effectiveness of enhanced tribal court sentencing authority in curtailing 

violence and improving the administration of justice on Indian 

lands. In addition, Section 234(b) requires the report to include further guidance on the enhanced authority at the levels provided by 

TLOA.18

As of January 2015, only nine tribes have opted to exercise the 

enhanced sentencing provisions of TLOA.19 However, several others were in the process of gaining enhanced sentencing authority. 

Tribal Prisoner Pilot Program progress report 

Section 234(c) of the TLOA creates the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) 

Tribal Prisoner Pilot Program. In this pilot program, the BOP may 

accept and house Indian prisoners sentenced by tribal courts for 

violent offenses within the Bureau’s facilities. From November, 

2010, to November, 2014, the BOP received requests for six tribal 

inmates from three Indian nations to participate in the prisoner 

pilot program under TLOA. BOP accepted all six offenders and 

transferred them to appropriate Federal facilities. 

The information in the report indicated that an extension of this 

program would continue to assist in reducing overcrowding within 

tribal jails. However, the Committee believes that any program extension should require an assessment of the services available to 

those prisoners and the effectiveness of those services is necessary 

as part of any program extension. 

Annual U.S. Department of Justice: Tribal crime data collection activities report 

Section 251(g) of the TLOA requires the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) to annually report on data collected relating to crimes in 

Indian Country and to support tribal participation in national 

records and information systems as described in the TLOA. The 

ability to access and comprehend data of tribal crimes continues to 

advance as more tribal law enforcement agencies participate in the 

FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting Program—increasing from only 12 

tribes in 2008 to a high of 158 in 2014, although the numbers decreased slightly to 152 in 2017. 

The 2015 report indicated a 3.3 percent decrease in total inmates 

in Indian Country jails from 2012 to 2013 midyear totals, while the 

2016 to 2018 report indicated a 1.2 percent increase in total number of inmates held in Indian Country jails between the midyear 

2015 and 2016.20 The number of jails or detention centers being 

utilized in Indian Country increased from 68 facilities in 2004 to 

80 in 2016.21 According to the 2016 to 2018 report, ‘‘[t]he occupied 

bed space on the most crowded day in June declined from 118 [percent] in 2000 to 83 [percent] in 2016.’’ 22

At midyear 2014, state and local jails housed 10,400 American 

Indian and Alaska Native inmates, who accounted for 1.4 percent 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with REPORTS
7 

23Tribal Crime Data Collection Activities, 2015, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Department of 

Justice (2015) at 1. 24The Department of Justice established the tribal access to criminal databases on a pilot 

basis. See http://www.justice.gov/tribal/tribal-access-program-tap (last reviewed December 1, 

2015). The Department Budget Request for FY2016 had proposed changes to the Working Capital Fund in its Justice Management Division to allow Indian tribes to reimburse the fund for 

expenses related to law enforcement databases. 25 U.S. Gov’t Accountability Office, GAO–12–29, Indian Health Service: Continued Efforts 

Needed to Help Strengthen Response to Sexual Assaults and Domestic Violence 2 (2011). 26 Id. at 47. 

of total inmate jail populations. Most American Indian and Alaska 

Native inmates were located in the western states.23

To improve future DOJ tribal crime reporting accuracy, the BIA 

and the DOJ provided training to and improved the data collection 

and sharing systems for tribal justice officials.24 Preliminary information from Indian tribes and the Federal agencies indicate that 

these improved systems appear to hold promising benefits for public safety. The bill, S. 210, provides for further improvement of 

these data collection and sharing systems. 

Indian Health Service: Continued efforts needed to help strengthen 

response to sexual assaults and domestic violence report 

Section 266(b) of the TLOA required, no later than one year after 

enactment of the Act, the Comptroller General to report to the 

Committee on Indian Affairs of the Senate and the Committee on 

Natural Resources of the House of Representatives on the capabilities of the Indian Health Service (IHS) to collect and perform sexual assault and domestic violence post-exams and collections for 

criminal prosecution in remote Indian reservations and Alaska Native villages. 

The report concluded that the ability of IHS hospitals to collect 

and preserve medical forensic evidence from patients in cases of 

sexual assault and domestic violence varies from hospital to hospital. Of the 45 hospitals in the IHS network, 26 reported they are 

able to perform medical forensic exams on site for victims of sexual 

assault, while the remaining 19 hospitals choose to refer sexual assault victims to other facilities.25

Before March 2011, the IHS did not have an agency wide standardized plan on how to conduct these services. The agency has reportedly made progress to improve their capacity for these services 

by instituting a network wide standard. According to the IHS, systemic issues such as funding for appropriate training and equipment, distances to rural communities on reservations, staff burnout, and high turnover are challenges to the long-term viability of 

this type of care in many hospitals. 

In addition, the GAO report highlighted the inability of IHS to 

keep records on the frequency of forensic exams and the number 

of staffers who have the appropriate training or certification to conduct such exams. The GAO further found that ‘‘the March 2011 

sexual assault policy does not address how its hospitals should respond in cases of discrete domestic violence without a sexual component or in cases of child sexual abuse.’’ 26

Though the GAO concluded its work on this report in 2012, data 

from DOJ show that domestic violence, sexual assault, and aggravated or simple assault continue to account for a large portion of 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with REPORTS
8 

27Tribal Crime Data Collection Activities, 2016–2018, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Department of Justice (2018) at 5. 28 Id. 

incarcerations in Indian country.27 28 This trend indicates that 

these communities still need resources for continued work on appropriate and adequate responses to these types of crimes. 

Community Oriented Policing Services Grants 

Administered by the DOJ, Community Oriented Policing Services 

(COPS) grants in Indian Country focus primarily on activities for 

combating drugs, substance abuse and mental health-related programs, and increasing the capacity of the tribal justice system overall. Section 243(3) of the TLOA required the Attorney General to 

provide a report to Congress describing the extent and effectiveness 

of the COPS grants in Indian communities. The report provided 

data on the grant programs that assist Indian tribes through program activities, training, and technical assistance. From 1994 to 2009, DOJ awarded more than $400 million in 

COPS grants to over 2,000 tribal grant recipients consisting of Indian tribes. In FY2010, the last year data is available in the report, 

DOJ awarded $48.6 million in grants to 141 entities. However, 

with only 23 officer positions funded through FY2010 COPS grants, 

it appears these tribal grantees used the majority of COPS funds 

for non-officer related expenditures. 

The purposes of the grants continue to serve much needed areas 

of public safety such as combatting drug abuse. Better data systems, developed in part by the provisions relating to data collection 

and sharing system improvements in S. 210, would be useful in 

evaluating the effectiveness of these grants. 

Indian Law and Order Commission 

The TLOA authorized the creation of the Indian Law and Order 

Commission. The Commission began its work in late summer 2011 

and issued its final report entitled A Roadmap for Making Native 

America Safer on November 12, 2013. 

The TLOA required the Commission to examine: • Jurisdiction; • Tribal and Federal incarceration systems; • Tribal and Federal juvenile justice systems; • The impact of the Indian Civil Rights Act of 1968; and • Other subjects relevant to achieving the purposes of the 

TLOA. 

The Act further required the Commission to develop recommendations on necessary modifications and improvements to 

justice systems at the Federal, state, and tribal levels to: 

• Simplify jurisdiction in Indian Country; 

• Improve juvenile justice services and programs; 

• Adjust tribal penal authority, including detention alternatives; 

• Enhance the use of Federal magistrates in Indian Country; 

• Change the tribal and Federal detention systems; and 

• Address other issues that would reduce crime in Indian 

Country. 

The Commission’s findings that Native American youth are overrepresented in both Federal and state juvenile justice systems and 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with REPORTS
9 

29Office of the Inspector General, Department of Justice, Review of the Department’s Tribal 

Law Enforcement Efforts Pursuant to the Tribal Law and Order Act of 2010. (2017) at i. 30 Id. 31 Id. at 13. 32 Id. 33 Id. at 18. 34 Id. at 29 and 32. 35Office of the Inspector General, Department of Justice, Review of the Department’s Tribal 

Law Enforcement Efforts Pursuant to the Tribal Law and Order Act of 2010. (2017) at i. 

receive harsher sentences than other youth in these systems is especially alarming given that the Federal system offers no special 

juvenile division (i.e., no special juvenile court judges, probation 

system, and no juvenile detention, diversion, or rehabilitation facilities) and, generally, that there is no requirement that juvenile 

justice systems contact an incarcerated Indian child’s tribe for services or any other reason. 

To address the juvenile justice-specific findings in the report, the 

Commission issued four primary recommendations. These recommendations include: 

• Tribes be allowed to opt-out of the Federal juvenile justice 

system or have a right to consent before the U.S. Attorney files 

charges against an Indian child; 

• The funding structures for Native youth be reorganized 

into a block grant rather than individual grant programs; 

• Federal and state systems maintain proper records of tribal youth in their custody and a single Federal agency coordinate data, needs, and make recommendations for Native youth; 

and 

• Federal, state, and tribal governments improve cooperation 

on the care and services for the Native youth in the juvenile 

justice systems. 

DOJ–OIG Review of the Department’s Tribal Law Enforcement Efforts Pursuant to the Tribal Law and Order Act of 2010 report 

In December 2017, the DOJ–OIG issued its Review of the Department’s Tribal Law Enforcement Efforts Pursuant to the Tribal Law 

and Order Act of 2010. The DOJ–OIG ‘‘conducted this review to assess the steps the Department and its components have taken to 

implement these TLOA requirements.’’ 29 The review concluded 

that the Department ‘‘ha[d] taken some steps to carry out TLOA’s 

mandates’’ 30, but it still fell short in many areas of responsibility, 

assistance, oversight, and coordination. 

Of particular note, the OIG found that ‘‘there is no Departmentlevel entity that oversees component activities or coordinates these 

efforts to fulfill TLOA mandates.’’ 31 Without such oversight, ‘‘the 

Department cannot ensure that it is prioritizing its Indian 

[C]ountry responsibilities or meeting these important requirements.’’ 32

In addition, the OIG found that ‘‘funding and resources for Indian [C]ountry prosecutions have decreased since TLOA’s implementation.’’ 33 Moreover, the Department’s communication with 

and training for Indian tribes was not consistent or sufficient as 

TLOA contemplated.34 The DOJ–OIG further found that ‘‘crime 

data in Indian [C]ountry remains unreliable and incomplete, limiting the Department’s ability to engage in performance based management of its efforts to implement its TLOA responsibilities.’’ 35


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with REPORTS
10 

36 U.S. Department of Justice Indian Country Investigations and Prosecutions, 2017. Department of Justice (2017) at 4. 37The GAO reports that 2016 was the most recently available complete year data was available for their review. 38 U.S. Gov’t Accountability Office, GAO–18–591, Native American Youth: Involvement in Justice Systems and Information on Grants to Help Address Juvenile Delinquency Highlights 

(2018). 39 U.S. Gov’t Accountability Office, GAO–18–591, Native American Youth: Involvement in Justice Systems and Information on Grants to Help Address Juvenile Delinquency 30 (2018). 

While the 2017 DOJ Indian Country Investigations and Prosecutions report indicates that ‘‘[i]t is the Department’s position that 

prioritization of initiatives in Indian [C]ountry, including the effort 

to build capacity in Tribal courts, will eventually lead to enhanced 

public safety for Native Americans,’’ 36 the DOJ–OIG findings suggest implementation of this position is inconsistent. As such, the 

Committee recognizes the Department’s position but remains concerned about the DOJ–OIG’s findings. 

Accordingly, the Committee amended S. 210 to address the 

issues identified by the DOJ–OIG. Most notably, the legislation 

would require the Attorney General, acting through the Deputy Attorney General, to coordinate and provide oversight for all DOJ responsibilities for public safety in Indian communities. The Committee believes elevated coordination efforts at the DOJ are necessary to facilitate better responses to crime and improve public 

safety in Indian communities. 

GAO reports on Native American youth 

Senators Hoeven and Barrasso requested that the GAO examine 

data regarding Native American youth in Federal, state, and tribal 

justice systems as well as the Federal resources available to Indian 

tribes to help address juvenile delinquency. The GAO issued its report on September 5, 2018. This report is the first comprehensive 

review of the status of Native youth in these systems. It lays the 

groundwork for a subsequent GAO study currently underway that 

will examine the effectiveness of the Federal programs available to 

help Indian tribes address juvenile delinquency. 

To complete the 2018 report, the GAO examined Federal, state, 

local, and tribal arrest, adjudication, and confinement data from 

2010 through 2016.37 The GAO noted that there is no centralized 

source of information regarding youth in these justice systems. 

Moreover, these systems do not track the Native-status, including 

tribal membership or membership eligibility, of youth in a consistent manner. 

While much of the tribal data was incomplete, the GAO found 

that the number of Native youth in the Federal, state, and local 

systems declined from 2010 through 2016 for all phases of the juvenile justice process (i.e., arrest, adjudication, and confinement).38

The data limitations did not allow the GAO to conclude why these 

declines occurred. 

However, the GAO consulted with various tribal and Federal experts to ascertain possible reasons for such declines. These experts 

suggested that the movement toward restorative, instead of punitive, justice could be a possible reason for such declines. In fact, according to the report, ‘‘a number of states have worked out civil diversion agreements with local tribes which provide opportunities 

for the tribe to practice restorative justice with delinquent youth 

instead of confining them.’’ 39 In addition, the perspectives offered 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with REPORTS
11 

40https://chronicleofsocialchange.org/youth-services-insider/ojjdp-racial-disparities-pass-mightcontinue/28488 (last reviewed September 24, 2018). 41 U.S. Gov’t Accountability Office, GAO–18–591, Native American Youth: Involvement in Justice Systems and Information on Grants to Help Address Juvenile Delinquency 57 (2018). 

by the experts the GAO interviewed suggested that the declines 

could result from the lack of consistent tracking or reporting of the 

tribal status of the youth. 

Pursuant to the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act, states must identify and assess racial disparities in their justice 

systems, which would require them to, at a minimum, inquire regarding the racial identity of youth entering their systems. However, from 2013 to 2016, the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) did not enforce that requirement.40 As 

a result, the GAO was ultimately unable to determine to what degree inconsistent tracking attributed to such decline. 

Title II of S. 210 would help address this inconsistent tracking. 

The bill requires the Secretary of the Interior, the Attorney General, and the OJJDP Administrator to coordinate to develop a 

means for collecting data on offenses committed by Indian youth, 

including information regarding the tribal affiliation or membership. 

Despite the inconsistent tracking, the GAO found that Native 

youth were more involved in the state or local systems than the 

Federal system. There were 105,487 arrests, and these courts received about 86,400 delinquency cases from 2010 to 2014. Native 

youth involvement was most prevalent in 10 states for arrests from 

2010 to 2016: Alaska, Arizona, Minnesota, Montana, New Mexico, 

North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Washington, and Wisconsin. Of these states, Arizona and South Dakota had the highest 

numbers of Native youth involvement. The GAO also noted that 

several risk factors made the Native youth more susceptible to 

being involved in these justice systems. These risk factors include 

substance abuse and high rates of poverty. 

Native youth were involved in the Federal system at rates higher 

than other youth. Moreover, the involvement of these youth was for 

more serious crimes such as sex offenses, than other youth. Consequently, the terms of confinement were more onerous for Native 

youth. The DOJ officials interviewed by the GAO indicated that the 

nature of Federal jurisdiction in Indian lands and for major crimes 

contributed to this sentencing disparity. 

The GAO also reviewed Federal grant resources and cooperative 

agreement resources at the DOI, DOJ, and the Department of 

Health and Human Services (HHS) related to the risk or protective 

factors for youth involvement in the juvenile justice system for 

FY2015 to FY2017. The GAO found that Indian tribes are eligible 

for 122 grants to address juvenile delinquency, including 73 from 

the DOJ and 49 from the HHS. 

The GAO found that a significant amount of juvenile justice 

money did not ultimately go to Indian tribes. The GAO calculated 

that the federal government made $1.2 billion available from these 

grants over the two year period reviewed, but only awarded $207.7 

million to Indian tribes and tribal organizations ($106.5 million 

from the DHHS and $101.2 million from the DOJ).41 Additionally, 

the GAO found that Tribes received most of these funds from 27 

tribal specific grants at these Departments, suggesting Tribes were 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with REPORTS
12 

42 Indian Employment, Training and Related Services Demonstration Act of 1992, Pub. L. No. 

102–477, 106 Stat. 2302 (1992). 43Justice for Native Youth: The GAO Report on ‘‘Native American Youth Involvement in Justice Systems and Information on Grants to Help Address Juvenile Delinquency,’’ Hearing Before 

the S. Comm. on Indian Affairs, 115th Cong. (2018). 

unsuccessful competing with states and other entities for larger 

grant programs. 

To determine the challenges in applying for the Federal funds or 

common weaknesses in unsuccessful applications, the GAO sought 

the perspectives of Indian tribes, tribal organizations, and the DOJ. 

Most of these officials indicated that the lack of a grant writer left 

the Indian tribes without the ability to apply for and receive these 

grant funds. The Indian tribes indicated that access to Departmental program officials for questions or technical assistance was 

helpful in improving grant applications. Another noteworthy challenge Indian tribes faced in accessing these additional funds was 

the lack of data and limited ability to collect data required by the 

Departments to apply for certain juvenile justice grants. 

Making this challenge even more difficult is the spread of requirements to propose evidence-based approaches for Federal grant 

applications. Indian tribes have sought to employ more restorative 

justice approaches based on traditional and cultural practices, 

which often lack evidence-based reviews of their effectiveness. 

However, Indian tribes also encounter difficulty when attempting 

to use or advance these approaches or initiatives as part of their 

application due to the limited availability of existing research on 

their effectiveness. 

The bill, S. 210, takes action to address this challenge. Title II 

of the Tribal Law and Order Reauthorization and Amendments Act 

of 2019 requires the Secretary of the Interior, the Attorney General, and the OJJDP Administrator to consult with Indian tribes 

‘‘regarding the means by which traditional or cultural tribal programs may serve or be developed as promising or evidence-based 

programs.’’ 

It is unclear from the report the extent to which recommended 

methods to reduce bureaucratic demands on Indian tribes exist in 

these programs. One method that fostered administrative efficiencies and reduced costs is the integration approach modeled by 

the ‘‘477 program’’ with Federal workforce development programs 

for Tribes.42 This program combines several related programs and 

streamlines the application, budget, and reporting processes, thereby saving Indian tribes the cost and time to prepare individual applications, budgets, and reports for each program. 

The Tribal Law and Order Reauthorization and Amendments Act 

of 2019 seeks to build upon this more efficient approach for public 

safety-related programs. This bill would require the Secretaries of 

the Interior, HHS, and the Attorney General to consult with Indian 

tribes to determine the feasibility of integrating public safety and 

behavioral health related programs to improve services for Indians, 

including juveniles. 

On September 26, 2018, the Committee held an oversight hearing on this GAO Report.43 Of particular note, the DOI Principal 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs testified in support 

of notice to Indian tribes when a tribal member juvenile comes in 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with REPORTS
13 

44 Id. (statement of John Tahsuda, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, U.S. Department of 

the Interior). 45 Id. (statement of Hon. Abby Abinanti, Chief Judge, Yurok Tribal Court, Yurok Tribe of the 

Yurok Reservation). 46 U.S. Gov’t Accountability Office, GAO–17–325, Human Trafficking: Action Needed to Identify the Number of Native American Victims Receiving Federally-Funded Services (2017).; U.S. 

Gov’t Accountability Office, GAO–17–624, Human Trafficking: Information on Cases in Indian 

Country or that Involved Native Americans (2017). 47 U.S. Gov’t Accountability Office, GAO Rep. No. 17–325, Human Trafficking: Action Needed 

to Identify the Number of Native American Victims Receiving Federally-Funded Services 2–3 

(2017). 48 Id at 17. 49 Id. 50 Id. at 21. 51 Id. at 22. 

contact with another jurisdiction’s juvenile justice system.44 Likewise, Judge Abinanti, Chief Justice of the Yurok Tribal Court, further testified in support of promoting education and tribal culture 

as key components of building resiliency in tribal youth and preventing recidivism.45

GAO Reports on Human Trafficking on Native Americans in the 

United States 

In 2017, the GAO issued two reports related to the human trafficking of Native Americans in the United States 46: 

• Human Trafficking: Action Needed to Identify the Number 

of Native American Victims Receiving Federally-Funded Services, GAO–17–325 (March 30, 2017); and 

• Human Trafficking: Information on Cases in Indian Country or that Involved Native Americans, GAO–17–624 (July 24, 

2017). 

The first report, GAO–17–325 studied: 

• The extent to which Federal agencies collect and maintain 

data on investigations and prosecutions of human trafficking in 

Indian Country or of Native Americans regardless of location; 

• Whether Federal grant programs are available to help address human trafficking in Indian Country or of Native Americans regardless of location; and 

• The number of Native American victims who have received 

assistance through such grant programs.47

According to the report, for FY2013 to FY2016, the GAO found 

evidence of 14 Federal investigations and two Federal prosecutions 

of human trafficking offenses in Indian Country.48 In comparison 

to the United States as a whole during that same period, data 

showed over 6,100 Federal human trafficking investigations and 

approximately 1,000 Federal human trafficking prosecutions.49 The 

GAO report stated that the data for Indian Country does not represent the total number of human trafficking cases in Indian Country because the crime is likely underreported. 

During the FY2014–FY2016 period, the DOJ, HHS, and the Department of Homeland Security administered at least fifty grant 

programs to address human trafficking in Indian Country or of Native Americans.50 These programs allow funding to be used for: 

• Collaboration and partnerships; 

• Data, research, and evaluation; 

• Provision of services directly to victims; 

• Public awareness; and 

• Training or technical assistance.51


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with REPORTS
14 

52 Id. at 24. 53 Id. 54 Id. at 27. 55 Id. at 28. 56 Id. 57 Id. at 29. 58 U.S. Gov’t Accountability Office, GAO–17–624, Human Trafficking: Information on Cases in 

Indian Country or That Involved Native Americans 1 (2017). 59 Id. at 13 (2017). 

The GAO found that ‘‘the number of Native American human 

trafficking victims who received services through these programs is 

unknown because agencies generally did not require grantees to report the Native American status of victims served.’’ 52 Additionally, 

even when reporting requirements are present, the numbers tend 

to be aggregate crime statistics that do not identify the specific 

crime against the victim. As such, the grantee data are not useful 

in determining how many Native American victims are served by 

these programs.53

The report noted, ‘‘According to the 2013–2017 Federal Strategic 

Action Plan on Services for Victims of Human Trafficking in the 

United States, expanding human trafficking data collection and research efforts for vulnerable populations, which include Native 

Americans, is an area for improvement for the [F]ederal government.’’ 54 Additionally, the Report noted the fact that knowledge regarding a victim’s status as a Native American ‘‘can be helpful to 

ensure culturally appropriate practices are made available.’’ 55 As 

the GAO report states, ‘‘the absence of data collection by granting 

agencies regarding the Native American status of human trafficking victims served hinders their ability to determine whether 

their victim assistance goals are being met.’’ 56

As it relates to funding and services, the GAO made recommendations for executive action. The GAO believes the Directors 

of the Office on Violence Against Women (OVW) and the Office for 

Victims of Crime (OVC), and the OJJDP Administrator within the 

DOJ should ‘‘require grantees to report the number of human trafficking victims served using grant funding, and as appropriate, the 

Native American status of those victims.’’ 57 Collecting demographic 

information while protecting victim privacy is a useful approach to 

learn the extent and effect of human trafficking in Indian Country 

and of Native Americans. 

The second GAO report, GAO–17–624, addressed the following: • ‘‘[T]he extent to which tribal and major city Law Enforcement Agencies (LEAs) have encountered human trafficking in 

Indian Country or of Native Americans; • ‘‘Factors affecting the ability of LEAs to identify and investigate this specific human trafficking; and • ‘‘Availability of services to Native American victims of 

human trafficking.’’ 58

The GAO surveyed all known 203 tribal LEAs, 68 major city 

LEAs, and 315 victim service providers for this report. 

Reasons given by the LEAs for why human trafficking goes unreported, regardless of ethnicity, include: victim fear of retaliation, 

victim trauma, embarrassment, feelings of shame, distrust of law 

enforcement, and drug addiction. The LEAs further stated they believe Native American victims are more reluctant to report being 

trafficked due to the factors previously listed above as well as the 

families of the victims discouraging cooperation.59


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with REPORTS
15 

60 Id. at 20. 61The Complex Maze of the Juvenile Justice System in Wisconsin and Its Impact on Youth 

of Color. Kids Forward. 1 (2018) (Holman, B., & Ziedenberg, J. (2011). The dangers of detention: 

The impact of incarcerating youth in detention and other secure facilities. Justice Policy Institute. Retrieved (by report authors) from http://www.justicepolicy.org/images/upload/06- 

11_rep_dangersofdetention_jj.pdf). 62The Complex Maze of the Juvenile Justice System in Wisconsin and Its Impact on Youth 

of Color. Kids Forward. 1 (2018) (quoting Development Services Group, Inc. (2010). Correctional 

facilities. Literature Review: A product of the Model Programs Guide. Washington, D.C.: Office 

of Juvenile Justice Delinquency Prevention. Retrieved (by report authors) from https:// 

www.ojjdp.gov/mpg/litreviews/Correctional_Facilities.pdf). 63 Id. at 5 (2017). Easy access to juvenile populations: 1990–2016. Office of Juvenile Justice 

and Delinquency Prevention. Retrieved (by report authors) from https://www.ojjdp. gov/ojstatbb/ 

ezapop/asp/profile_selection.asp). 

In the process of completing its report, the GAO found that some 

Indian tribes have enacted tribal statutes to address human trafficking or related criminal acts that could form the foundation of 

a human trafficking crime, including prostitution, child sex abuse, 

or sexual assault. 

The second human trafficking GAO report notes that the most 

frequently identified barriers to providing services to Native American victims of human trafficking were inadequate funding or resources, lack of personnel, lack of emergency shelter, and lack of 

legal aid resources.60 The GAO report notes that there are Federally-developed training programs to aid service providers who work 

with Native American human trafficking victims, but improvements in the effectiveness in these programs are in order to improve cost efficiencies and better use of resources. 

THE TRIBAL LAW AND ORDER REAUTHORIZATION ACT

To continue the public safety improvements facilitated by the 

TLOA, S. 210 aims to reauthorize the provisions within TLOA from 

FY2020 to FY2024, and to secure improvements related to interagency coordination and information sharing, among other things. 

Principles 

The bill, S. 210, is built upon the fundamental principles of reducing recidivism and improving justice for Indian youth, among 

others. For example, one report indicated that ‘‘[y]outh contact with 

the justice system matters because it can have profound negative 

impacts on a youth’s mental and physical well-being, as well as 

negatively impact their current and future education and employment.’’ 61 This report further highlighted that ‘‘research on juvenile 

corrections has found that confinement can negatively affect youth 

in custody and ‘lead to further involvement in the juvenile and 

adult criminal justice systems rather than interrupting the offending cycle or facilitating rehabilitation.’ ’’ 62

In nearly every Committee hearing on public safety-related matters, the Committee received testimony that drug and alcohol 

abuse were contributing factors in most nearly every crime committed in Indian communities. Moreover, according to one report, 

the OJJDP data indicate that ‘‘Native American youth are more 

likely to face conviction in adult court, especially for drug-related 

crimes.’’ 63 Clearly, reducing recidivism would require significant efforts in addressing drug and alcohol abuse. 

To that end, S. 210 is intended to require more efforts, coordination, and participation from the HHS agencies in addressing such 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with REPORTS
16 

64This requirement is consistent with the recommendations that were highlighted in testimony before the Committee during the hearing on juvenile justice. See Juvenile Justice in Indian Country: Challenges and Promising Strategies, Hearing Before the S. Comm. on Ind. Affairs, 114th Cong. (2015). 65Juvenile Justice in Indian Country: Challenges and Promising Strategies, Hearing Before 

the S. Comm. on Ind. Affairs, 114th Cong. (2015). 66Justice for Native Youth: The GAO Report on ‘‘Native American Youth Involvement in Justice Systems and Information on Grants to Help Address Juvenile Delinquency,’’ Hearing Before 

the S. Comm. on Indian Affairs, 115th Cong. (2018). 67See Attorney General’s Advisory Committee on American Indian/Alaska Native Children 

Exposed to Violence: Ending Violence So Children Can Thrive, Department of Justice (2014); 

See also Addie Rolnick, Untangling the Web: Juvenile Justice in Indian Country (2016). 19 

N.Y.U. J. Legis. & Pub. Pol’y 49, (2016), http://ssrn.com/abstract=2779767. 

substance abuse and recidivism.64 If successful, preventing recidivism in a Native community can reduce a host of costs (financial 

and otherwise) and increase public safety in Indian country. 

Improving justice for Indian youth 

The TLOA contained important requirements to improve justice 

for Indian youth such as the development of a long-term plan for 

the construction, renovation, and operation of Indian juvenile detention and treatment centers as well as the use of alternatives to 

detention for juvenile offenders. It also authorized Federal agencies 

to use certain grant funding for Indian youth judicial-related services, including public defenders, appointed defense counsel, guardians ad litem, and court-appointed advocates for juveniles. 

On July 15, 2015, the Committee held a hearing on Juvenile Justice in Indian Country: Challenges and Promising Strategies.65 Additionally, on September 26, 2018, the Committee held a hearing 

on Justice for Native Youth: The GAO Report on ‘‘Native American 

Youth Involvement in Justice Systems and Information on Grants 

to Help Address Juvenile Delinquency.’’ 66 These hearings highlighted several recommendations for improving justice for Indian 

youth, such as increasing Federal and tribal resources available to 

address recidivism rates for Indian youth. 

The Indian Law and Order Commission report and the Attorney 

General’s Advisory Committee on American Indian/Alaska Native 

Children Exposed to Violence report both found that Indian children are exposed to higher rates of violence than other children.67

This disturbing finding compounds the unacceptably disproportionate rate of incarceration of Indian youth. These data underscore that Native children are more likely to be exposed to trauma 

after trauma, seemingly without appropriate intervention or services. 

Building upon the requirements in TLOA and the recommendations of the two reports and hearings, the predecessor bills, S. 1953 

(115th Congress) and S. 2920 (116th Congress), provided for extensive enhancements to the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974 and other laws which affect Indian juveniles. The 

authors of these provisions based them upon tribal recommendations, which Tribes had proposed in 2008 when Congress was working to reauthorize the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention 

Act of 1974. 

For example, S. 2920 would have amended the Juvenile Justice 

and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974 to include an Indian representative on state advisory groups which address juvenile justice 

policy. The predecessor bill also required in state plans for funding 

that notice be provided to Indian tribes when one of their tribal 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with REPORTS
17 

member juveniles comes in contact with the juvenile justice system 

of the state or local unit of government. These concepts were carried forward in S. 1953, and again in S. 210. 

During the 114th and 115th Congresses, the Senate and the 

House of Representatives considered several proposals to reauthorize the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974. 

While each Chamber included a few modified tribal recommendations included in its respective bills, these reauthorizations left a 

majority of the tribal proposals out. 

In response to the discussions regarding the tribal proposals in 

the context of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act 

of 1974 reauthorization during the 115th Congress, the sponsors of 

S. 1953 amended the bill. The amendments, which are reflected in 

the current bill, S. 210, eliminated the requirements for state plans 

to implement certain actions and, instead, set forth amendments to 

the Indian Law Enforcement Reform Act. These amendments are a 

more flexible approach to improving justice for Native youth by requiring coordination among agencies to consult with Indian tribes 

and find a means to develop or incorporate many of the tribal recommendations into juvenile justice systems. 

This bill would also requires a more robust consultation by the 

OJJDP Administrator. In addition, the OJJDP Administrator must 

include the recommendations from the Coordinating Council on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (Council) regarding improving service delivery to Indian communities in the Office’s annual report to Congress as the TLOA required that an Indian representative be appointed to the Council. 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY

On January 24, 2019, Senator Hoeven introduced S. 210, the 

Tribal Law and Order Reauthorization and Amendments Act of 

2019. The Senate referred the bill to the Committee on Indian Affairs. On January 29, 2019, the Committee considered S. 210 at a 

duly called business meeting. By voice vote, the Committee ordered 

the bill, without amendment, favorably reported to the Senate. 

Senator McSally joined as a co-sponsor on February 4, 2019. Senator Barrasso joined as a co-sponsor on February 5, 2019. Senator 

Cramer joined as a co-sponsor on March 14, 2019. 

115th Congress. Senator Hoeven, along with Senators Barrasso 

and McCain, introduced S. 1953, Tribal Law and Order Reauthorization and Amendments Act of 2016 on October 5, 2017. Senator 

Murkowski joined as a co-sponsor on October 25, 2017. On October 

25, 2017, the Committee held a legislative hearing on the bill at 

which officials from the DOI and DOJ testified. The witnesses 

raised no objections to the bill. Senator Daines joined as a co-sponsor on October 30, 2017. 

On February 14, 2018, the Committee held a duly called business 

meeting to consider S. 1953. Committee members filed five amendments to the bill. Chairman Hoeven offered a substitute amendment, Senator Udall offered one amendment, and Senators Smith 

and Daines offered one amendment. The respective sponsors of the 

remaining amendments withdrew them at the business meeting. 

The Committee favorably ordered the bill reported, as amended, by 

voice vote. 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with REPORTS
18 

The Senate took no further action on the bill, and no member introduced a companion bill in the House of Representatives. 

114th Congress. During the 114th Congress, the Committee held 

an oversight hearing on the TLOA on December 2, 2015, and a 

roundtable on the TLOA on February 25, 2016. On May 11, 2016, 

then-Chairman Barrasso, along with Senator McCain, introduced 

S. 2920, the Tribal Law and Order Reauthorization and Amendments Act of 2016. 

The Committee held a legislative hearing on S. 2920 on May 18, 

2016, at which the Director of the BIA, Mr. Michael S. Black, testified in support of the bill with recommendations for modifying the 

bill. The Director of the Office of Tribal Justice, Mr. Tracy Toulou, 

testified on behalf of the DOJ in support of the goals of the bill, 

and recommended some changes throughout the bill. 

On June 22, 2016, the Committee held a duly called business 

meeting to consider S. 2920. Chairman Barrasso offered one substitute amendment to address the recommendations from the DOI 

and DOJ, the Federal Defenders Organization, tribal organizations, 

and Indian tribes. The Committee adopted the substitute amendment by a voice vote. Senator McCain offered an additional amendment to add an assessment of unmet staffing needs for health care, 

behavioral health, and tele-health needs at tribal jails to the BIA 

annual unmet needs and spending report. The Committee also 

adopted this amendment by a voice vote. The Committee then ordered the bill, as amended, reported favorably to the Senate by a 

voice vote. 

The Senate took no further action on the bill, and no member introduced a companion bill in the House of Representatives. 

AMENDMENTS

The current bill, S. 210, largely reflects the amendments made 

to the predecessor bills. The current bill includes a new provision 

regarding a demonstration program regarding personnel background investigations for applicants for law enforcement positions 

in the Bureau of Indian Affairs in Section 101(c) of the bill. In addition, the provisions regarding public defense counsel in Indian 

Country were modified to require collaboration and consultation 

with Indian tribes in Section 112. 

During the 115th Congress, The Committee considered three 

amendments to S. 1953, at the duly called business meeting held 

on February 14, 2018. Senator Hoeven filed a substitute amendment, ROM18075. Senators Daines and Smith filed one amendment, AEG18091. Senator Udall offered one amendment, 

AEG18086. 

ROM18075. Chairman Hoeven developed the substitute amendment after discussions with the DOJ and the DOI, and tribal leaders and justice officials. The key provisions are as follows: 

(1) The amendment would strike the provisions requiring the 

withholding of funding from the BIA and the DOJ due to the failure to submit required annual reports in a timely manner (e.g., 

BIA’s unmet needs and spending reports and the DOJ’s prosecutions and declinations reports). In lieu thereof, for the DOJ, the Attorney General, through the Deputy Attorney General, is required 

to oversee and ensure additional accountability for efforts for a 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with REPORTS
19 

68See Indian Employment, Training and Related Services Demonstration Act of 1992, Pub. L. 

No. 102–477, 106 Stat. 2302 (1992). 

comprehensive approach to public safety in Indian communities including timely submission of reports. 

(2) For background checks for tribal law enforcement hires, the 

BIA is required to complete them within sixty days after the receipt of a complete background check application. An extension of 

no more than thirty days may be authorized upon written request 

by the BIA to the Indian tribe. In current law, the BIA had to complete the check within sixty days of receiving the request, even if 

the applications were incomplete. Current law allows for extensions, but there is no deadline. 

(3) The amendment would provide for more flexible time frames 

for consultation and resulting actions since three Federal Departments will need to coordinate and engage with Indian tribes. 

(4) The amendment would provide for more clarity and technical 

corrections as recommended by the DOJ for the following: 

• Designating which programs should be evaluated for a 

‘‘477-like’’ program,68 which allows for streamlining budgets 

and reporting requirements and a single audit, and on what 

processes the Departments should consult with Indian tribes; 

• Revising ‘‘tribal liaison’’ titles for the Federal Public Defenders Officer to ‘‘tribal coordinator’’; and 

• Making the provision of certain information consistent 

with Federal law to ensure victim privacy and consistency with 

Constitutional, practical, or confidentiality limits. 

(5) The amendment would extend the BOP programs to hold tribally-sentenced individuals for violent crimes in Federal facilities for 

up to 9 years, which correlates with the sentencing caps authorized 

in the TLOA. This program may be extended for a prisoner whose 

underlying tribal sentence has not expired. 

(6) For Native youth, the amendment would: 

• Include HHS as an additional department, along with DOI 

and DOJ, that must coordinate and develop solutions on juvenile justice issues for Native youth; 

• Clarify the types of data that must be collected regarding 

Native juveniles (e.g., the offenses, whether the youth was in 

pre-adjudication detention, removed from a home, or placed in 

secure confinement, the extent of compliance for state notice to 

Indian tribes for removal from homes for status offenses as required by Federal law); 

• In consultation and coordination with Indian tribes, include in the research and evaluation requirements conducted 

by the Interior Secretary, Attorney General, and OJJDP Administrator, the structure and needs of tribal juvenile justice 

systems, the characteristics and outcomes for youth in those 

systems, and recommendations for improvement of those systems; and 

• Set a time frame for implementing and reporting on improvements, processes, and other activities reviewed and developed to improve justice for Native youth not later than three 

years after enactment of the bill as well as recommendations, 

if any, for ensuring such implementation. 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with REPORTS
20 

(7) As recommended by the DOI, the amendment would authorize the BIA law enforcement officers to take an individual into protective custody and transport the individual to an appropriate mental health facility under limited circumstances, as determined by a 

tribal court of competent jurisdiction, and to be covered by Federal 

Tort Claim Act liability. Standards for education, experience, and 

other relevant qualifications are required for these officers. This 

amendment authorizes $1.5 million to implement this section. 

(8) As recommended by the DOI, the amendment clarifies that 

law enforcement officers employed by Indian tribes that have contracted or compacted under the Indian Self-Determination and 

Education Assistance Act may enforce Federal law, upon completion of training, passage of background investigations, receipt of 

specific certifications from the BIA—provided the sponsoring Indian tribe has policies and procedures that meet or exceed the 

BIA’s for the program, service, function, or activity. Under this section of the amendment, these officers will be deemed Federal law 

enforcement officers and receive Federal Tort Claim Act coverage. 

The Interior Secretary shall develop procedures for credentialing 

these officers. 

AEG18091. This amendment would authorize the Attorney General to transfer funding from the OVW previously authorized and 

appropriated for certain violence against women prevention and 

tracking activities to the TAP. The TAP allows participating Indian 

tribes to access certain crime databases to help fulfill their law enforcement responsibilities. 

AEG18086. This amendment improves certain reporting requirements within the bill in three ways. 

It would require the Attorney General to consult every five years, 

beginning one year after enactment of S. 1953, with Indian tribes 

regarding improvements to the annual prosecutions and investigations declination reports. 

For the victim trafficking reports, this amendment would also 

prohibit mandating a victim to provide personally identifiable information and a service provider from denying services to a victim for 

not disclosing such information. 

For research and evaluation requirements for the juvenile justice 

report required under the bill, the amendment would require the 

following additional items to be examined and appear in the report: 

educational opportunities and attainment of Indian juveniles, potential links to recidivism, and delayed educational opportunities 

while incarcerated. 

SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS OF BILL AS ORDERED REPORTED

Section 1. Short title 

The short title is the ‘‘Tribal Law and Order Act Reauthorization 

and Amendments Act of 2019.’’ 

Section 2. Findings 

This section contains several findings including that: 

• The Tribal Law and Order Act of 2010 was enacted to address accountability and enhance law enforcement responses in 

Indian community; 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with REPORTS
21 

• Drug and alcohol abuse is a key contributing factor to violence and crime in Indian Country and substance abuse prevention and treatment would help reduce recidivism rates in 

Indian Country; and 

• Crimes rates on some reservations have risen and jails 

continue to operate in overcrowded conditions. 

Title I—Tribal Law and Order 

Section 101. Bureau of Indian Affairs law enforcement 

This section adds additional requirements for the annual Bureau 

of Indian Affairs unmet needs and spending report and background 

check processes, including a demonstration program for personnel 

background investigations for applicants for law enforcement positions in the BIA. This section also authorizes the Secretary to establish applicable rental rates for quarters and facilities for employees of the BIA Office of Justice Services. This section also extends the Indian Alcohol and Substance Abuse Prevention and 

Treatment Act of 1986 and public safety grants through FY2024. 

Section 102. Amendment to add EOD authority 

This section authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to authorize 

BIA law enforcement officers to execute emergency civil orders of 

detention to take an individual into protective custody for emergency mental health purposes and transport the individual to the 

nearest mental health facility when requested by a tribal court or 

an employee authorized by state or tribal law. These BIA law enforcement officers shall be covered by the Federal Tort Claims Act. 

The BIA and Indian Police Academy shall establish appropriate 

standards to carry out this section. Not later than 180 days, the 

BIA shall enter agreements with state and tribal mental health officials that outline processes to carry out this section, where BIA 

provides the primary law enforcement for an Indian tribe. This section authorizes $1.5 million for the BIA to implement this section. 

Section 103. Detention services 

This section requires the IHS to be responsible for medical care 

and treatment of detained Indians at BIA or tribal detention centers, without regard to the individual’s domicile. The BIA and IHS 

are required to enter a Memorandum of Agreement to implement 

this section. 

Section 104. Tribal law enforcement officers 

This section states that law enforcement officers employed by Indian tribes that have compacted or contracted under the Indian 

Self Determination and Education Assistance Act shall have authority to enforce Federal law within the area under tribal jurisdiction if they have completed the required training, passed an adjudicated background investigation, received BIA certification, and 

the Indian tribe has adopted the required policies and procedures 

that meet or exceed the same or similar policies of OJS. These officers shall be deemed Federal law enforcement officers for enforcing 

Indian Country crime statutes, consideration as an eligible officer 

under 5 USC, ch. 81, subchapter III, and Federal Tort Claim Act 

coverage. The Secretary of the Interior shall develop procedures for 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with REPORTS
22 

credentialing these officers. These tribal officers attending state or 

equivalent training programs shall be required to attend the Indian 

Police Academy bridge program. 

Section 105. Oversight, coordination, and accountability 

This section would require the Attorney General, acting through 

the Deputy Attorney General, to coordinate and provide oversight 

for all DOJ responsibilities for public safety in Indian communities. 

Section 106. Integration and coordination of programs 

This subsection requires, no later than eighteen months after enactment, the Attorney General and the Secretaries of the Interior 

and DHHS to consult with Indian tribes regarding the feasibility 

of integrating and consolidating Federal law enforcement, public 

safety, substance abuse, and mental health programs designed to 

support tribal communities, similarly to the integrated job-training 

and related programs under Public Law No. 102–477. These agencies are required to identify applicable programs. A required joint 

report is to be submitted to Congress on the findings under this 

section no less than one year after enactment of this Act. 

This section requires improving interagency cooperation, by requiring the Attorney General to evaluate and report to respective 

Congressional committees on DOJ programs regarding current requirements encouraging intergovernmental cooperation, the benefits and barriers to intergovernmental cooperation, and recommendations for incentivizing such cooperation between state, 

local, and tribal governments. This section also requires the Attorney General, and the Secretaries of Interior and DHHS to enter a 

Memorandum of Agreement to cooperate, confer, transfer funds 

and information on matters relating to detention of inmates and reducing recidivism and a separate Memorandum of Agreement to 

develop, share, and implement effective strategies to improve reentry of Indian inmates into Indian communities. They are further 

required to submit a report to Congress not later than four years 

after enactment of this Act regarding implementation of these 

Memoranda of Agreement under this section. 

Section 107. Data sharing with Indian tribes 

This section requires the Attorney General to establish a Tribal 

Access Program to enhance the ability of tribal governments to access, enter, and obtain information from Federal criminal databases. It further requires the Attorney General, to the extent permitted by law, to share a report with an Indian tribe that is created from the analysis of information submitted by the Indian tribe 

to the Federal criminal information database. It also authorizes the 

Attorney General to use unobligated funds or certain other remaining funding balances for the Tribal Access Program. 

The Attorney General is also required to ensure technical assistance and training is provided to Indian law enforcement so they 

can access the national crime databases. This provision transfers 

the responsibility from the BIA to the DOJ. The FBI is required 

to coordinate with the BIA to ensure Indian tribes have the appropriate credentials (an ORI identification number) to be able to 

input their data into the national crime databases. 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with REPORTS
23 

This section also directs the Attorney General to consult with Indian tribes regarding the required Annual Declination Reports to 

improve data collection, the information reporting process, and information sharing. 

Section 108. Judicial administration in Indian country 

This section directs the Director of the BOP to maintain the pilot 

program established by the Tribal Law and Order Act of 2010 allowing certain tribally-convicted persons to serve their time in Federal prisons. The pilot program would be extended for up to nine 

years after the date of enactment of this Act and may be extended 

for a prisoner whose underlying tribal sentence has not expired, 

but no extension shall exceed the maximum sentence time under 

the Tribal Law and Order Act of 2010. This section also requires consultation with Indian tribes by the 

BOP, BIA, IHS, OJJDP, and the Substance Abuse and Mental 

Health Services Administration regarding Indian juvenile justice 

and incarceration. 

Section 109. Federal notice 

This section authorizes the appropriate United States Attorney’s 

Office to give notice of the conviction, and other pertinent information, of an enrolled member of a Federally-recognized Indian tribe 

convicted in the respective Federal District court to the Indian 

tribe (or appropriate tribal justice official) of the tribal member. 

Section 110. Detention facilities 

This section amends 25 U.S.C. 2802 and 3613 to allow an Indian 

tribe with an Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance 

Act contract or compact to use its available detention funding to 

provide for alternatives to detention as agreed upon with the Secretary of Interior, acting through the BIA Office of Justice Services. 

This section also reauthorizes funds for the Secretary of the Interior and the Attorney General to construct and staff juvenile detention centers and for the Attorney General to carry out programs for 

incarceration on Indian lands. 

Section 111. Reauthorization for tribal courts training 

This section reauthorizes funds for Indian tribal justice technical 

and legal assistance training, technical assistance, and civil and 

criminal legal assistance grants from FY2020 to FY2024. 

Section 112. Public defenders 

This section requires, less than one year after enactment that the 

Director of the United States Courts shall collaborate and consult 

with Indian tribes to develop working relationships and communication with tribal leaders and their communities while providing 

technical assistance and training. It provides a Sense of Congress 

that the Director of the Administrative Office of the United States 

Courts and the Attorney General should work together to ensure 

districts that contain Indian Country have sufficient resources for 

adequate criminal defense representation for Indian Country defendants. 

The tribal coordinator will communicate with tribal leaders and 

tribal communities and provide technical assistance and trainings 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with REPORTS
24 

regarding criminal defense techniques and strategies, forensics, 

and reentry programs. The Sense of Congress is that, in evaluating 

the performance of tribal coordinators and as part of the funding 

formula, the Administrative Office of the United States Courts 

should take into consideration the multiple duties of the tribal coordinators. The Sense of Congress is also that the Director of Administrative Office of the United States Courts and the Attorney 

General ensures that Indian Country has sufficient resources for 

adequate representation. 

Section 113. Offenses in Indian country: trespass on Indian land 

This section establishes a new Federal offense for violating an 

exclusion order issued by a tribal court. 

Section 114. Resources for public safety in Indian country; drug 

trafficking prevention 

This section maintains the Shadow Wolves drug trafficking prevention program within the Bureau of Immigration and Customs 

Enforcement and authorizes the Commissioner of U.S. Customs 

and Border Protection to transfer funds to the Director of the BIA 

for road maintenance and repair under the Director’s jurisdiction. 

This section also reauthorizes funds for international illegal narcotics trafficking eradication on certain Indian reservations from 

FY2020 to FY2024. 

Section 115. Substance abuse prevention tribal action plans 

This section amends the Indian Alcohol and Substance Abuse 

and Prevention and Treatment Act of 1986 to add the Secretary of 

the Department of Agriculture and the Secretary of the Department of Housing and Urban Development to the current inter-departmental agencies that are required to enter the Memorandum 

of Agreement for substance abuse prevention and reauthorizes 

funds for the tribal action plans and training. 

Section 116. Office of Justice Services spending report 

This section includes an assessment of unmet staffing needs for 

health care, behavioral health, and tele-health needs at tribal jails 

to be added to the needs report for tribal and BIA justice agencies 

that is submitted to appropriate committees of Congress at each 

fiscal year. 

Section 117. Trafficking victims protection 

This section amends the Trafficking Victims Protection Act to require that the Secretary of DHHS and the Attorney General, in 

consultation with the Secretary of Labor submit to Congress a report of certain grants awarded under 22 U.S.C. 7105 that lists the 

total number of entities that directly serve tribal communities or 

are Indian tribal governments or tribal organizations. The report 

must also include the total number of health care providers that 

participated in training supported by the pilot program under 22 

U.S.C. 7105 who are IHS employees. 

Section 118. Reporting on Indian victims of trafficking 

This section instructs the Directors of the OVW, the OVC, and 

the OJJDP Administrator to require each grantee to report on the 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with REPORTS
25 

number of human trafficking victims served with grant funding, 

and whether the victims were members of an Indian tribe. This 

section provides that nothing in this section shall require an individual victim to report any personally identifiable information and 

the grantee shall not deny services to a victim for declining to provide such information. This section also requires the Attorney General to report annually to Congress on the data collected. 

TITLE III—JUSTICE FOR INDIAN YOUTH

Section 201. Federal jurisdiction over Indian juveniles 

This section amends 18 U.S.C. 5032 to allow the Attorney General to defer to tribal jurisdiction over an Indian juvenile before 

proceeding with the matter in Federal court. It is similar to the deferral to state courts in current law. 

Section 202. Reauthorization of tribal youth programs 

This section reauthorizes funds for summer youth programs for 

Bureau of Indian Education and tribal schools, emergency shelters 

for Indian youth from FY2020 to FY2024. 

Section 203. Justice for Indian youth 

This section amends the Indian Law Enforcement Reform Act. It 

directs the Secretaries of Interior and DHHS, Attorney General, 

and the OJJDP Administrator to: 

• Coordinate to assist Indian tribes in addressing juvenile 

offenses through technical assistance, research, and information sharing on effective programs and practices; 

• Consult with Indian tribes bi-annually on strengthening 

the government-to-government relationship, improving juvenile 

delinquency programs, improving services, improving coordination among Federal agencies to reduce juvenile offenses, delinquency, and recidivism, developing cultural programs as promising or evidence-based programs, and other matters for Indian 

youth; 

• Facilitate the incorporation of tribal cultural practices into 

juvenile justice systems; 

• Conduct certain research and evaluation related to Indian 

juveniles; and 

• Develop a means for collecting data, a process for informing Indian tribes when one of their juvenile members comes 

into contact with a state or local juvenile justice system, and 

partnerships with Bureau of Indian Education schools. 

This section requires the Attorney General and the OJJDP Administrator to issue a tribal consultation policy not later than one 

year after enactment of this Act. In addition, not later than three 

years after enactment of this Act, the OJJDP Administrator shall 

submit a report on the consultation and recommendations for implementing this section as well as the recommendations of the 

Council related to Indian youth. Not later than three years after 

enactment of this Act, the OJJDP Administrator shall implement 

the processes, improvements, and other activities under this section. 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with REPORTS
26 

Section 204. Coordinating council on juvenile justice and delinquency prevention 

This section adds the Director of the IHS and the Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs to the Council. 

Section 205. Grants for delinquency prevention programs 

This section reauthorizes grants to support and enhance tribal 

juvenile delinquency prevention services and the ability of Indian 

tribes to respond to and care for juvenile offenders through 

FY2024. 

COST AND BUDGETARY CONSIDERATIONS

The cost estimate for S. 210, as calculated by the Congressional 

Budget Office, is set forth below: 

U.S. CONGRESS, 

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE, 

Washington, DC, March 20, 2019. 

Hon. JOHN HOEVEN, 

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. 210, the Tribal Law and 

Order Reauthorization and Amendments Act of 2019. 

If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be pleased 

to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Jon Sperl. 

Sincerely, 

KEITH HALL, 

Director. 

Enclosure. 

Bill summary: S. 210 would amend the Tribal Law and Order 

Act of 2010 and the Indian Law Enforcement Reform Act. It would 

establish or reauthorize various programs and offices within the 

Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), the Department of Justice (DOJ), 

and the Judiciary concerning public safety in Indian communities. 

Estimated Federal cost: The estimated budgetary effect of S. 210 

is shown in Table 1. The costs of the legislation fall within budget 

functions 450 (community and regional development) and 750 (administration of justice). 

TABLE 1.—ESTIMATED INCREASES IN SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION UNDER S. 210 

By fiscal year, millions of dollars— 

2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2019– 

2024 

Indian Law Enforcement, Courts, and Detention Facilities: 

Authorization ......................................... 0 152 150 150 150 150 752 

Estimated Outlays ................................ 0 66 104 124 138 150 582 

Prevention of Alcohol and Drug Abuse and 

Juvenile Delinquency: 

Authorization ......................................... 0 58 58 58 58 58 290 

Estimated Outlays ................................ 0 23 38 47 53 58 219 

Other Programs: 

Estimated Authorization ....................... 40 28 29 28 29 29 143 

Estimated Outlays ................................ 0 12 19 22 25 28 106 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with REPORTS
27 

TABLE 1.—ESTIMATED INCREASES IN SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION UNDER S. 210— 

Continued 

By fiscal year, millions of dollars— 

2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2019– 

2024 

Total Changes: 

Estimated Authorization .............. 0 238 237 236 237 237 1,185 

Estimated Outlays ....................... 0 101 161 193 216 236 907 

Basis of estimate: For this estimate, CBO assumes that S. 210 

will be enacted late in fiscal year 2019 and that the necessary 

amounts will be appropriated for each fiscal year starting in 2020. 

Estimated outlays are based on historical spending patterns for 

similar programs. S. 210 would specifically authorize the appropriation of about $1 

billion over the 2020–2024 period for BIA and DOJ to carry out the 

bill’s provisions. The Congress provided $370 million for similar 

purposes in 2018. 

In addition, using information from BIA, DOJ, and the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts (AOUSC), CBO estimates that appropriations totaling $143 million over the five-year period also 

would be necessary to implement additional provisions of the bill. 

Indian law enforcement, courts, and detention facilities: CBO estimates that implementing the provisions of S. 210 that would authorize funding for Indian law enforcement, courts, and detention 

facilities would cost $582 million over the 2020–2024 period and an 

additional $170 million after 2024. 

For each year through 2024, the bill would authorize the following annual appropriations: 

• $58 million for BIA to aid tribal justice systems; 

• $40 million for DOJ to make grants to Indian tribes to 

hire, train, and equip law enforcement officers; 

• $35 million for DOJ grants to Indian tribes for the construction and maintenance of detention facilities and tribal justice centers; and 

• $17 million to construct, renovate, and staff juvenile detention centers on Indian lands. 

The bill also would authorize the appropriation of $1.5 million in 

2020 for BIA to establish standards for and train BIA law enforcement officials in the process of taking people into protective custody 

for mental health reasons. 

Prevention of alcohol and drug abuse and juvenile delinquency: 

CBO estimates that implementing the provisions of S. 210 that 

concern programs to reduce alcohol and drug abuse and juvenile 

delinquency on tribal lands would cost $219 million over the 2020– 

2024 period and an additional $71 million after 2024. 

For each year through 2024, the bill would authorize the following annual appropriations: 

• $25 million for DOJ to make grants for local and tribal delinquency prevention programs; 

• $17 million for BIA to construct, renovate, and staff emergency shelters for Indian youth who abuse alcohol or illegal 

substances; 

• $7 million for BIA to make grants to Indian tribes to create curricula aimed at preventing alcohol and drug abuse; 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with REPORTS
28 

• $5 million for BIA to implement summer youth programs 

to prevent substance abuse; and • $4 million for BIA to combat illegal narcotics trafficking on 

tribal land. 

Other programs: The bill would authorize the appropriation of 

whatever amounts are necessary for the following programs. In addition, S. 210 would require the agencies to implement the provisions detailed below. CBO used information from the different 

agencies about the cost of similar activities, or the amount of recent appropriations, to estimate the costs of those provisions. 

Grants for tribal courts training: S. 210 would reauthorize two 

DOJ programs that provide grants to improve tribal courts and to 

provide technical and legal assistance to tribes. In 2018, about $19 

million was allocated for those programs. CBO estimates that continuing those programs through 2024 would cost $69 million over 

the 2020–2024 period. 

Training related to substance abuse and illegal narcotics: S. 210 

would reauthorize a program that provides training to tribal law 

enforcement about substance abuse and illegal narcotics. In 2018, 

about $22 million was allocated for all Indian police and judicial 

training by BIA. CBO estimates that about $2 million of that 

amount was used for training about substance abuse and illegal 

narcotics. Assuming that level of training continues, CBO estimates that implementing this provision would cost $10 million over 

the 2020–2024 period. 

Public Defenders: The bill would require offices of federal public 

defenders whose districts include tribal lands to appoint one assistant federal public defender to serve as a tribal liaison and to ensure that each district has adequate representation for tribal members. Using information from the AOUSC, CBO estimates this provision would require about 20 additional full-time employees and 

additional funding for travel, technology, and training. CBO estimates that implementing the provision would cost $20 million over 

the 2020–2024 period. 

Reports, Consultation, and Pilot Program: The bill would require 

agencies to report on various activities, consult with Indian tribes, 

and run a pilot program on background checks for applicants to 

law enforcement positions within BIA. In total, CBO estimates, implementing these provisions would cost $7 million over the 2020– 

2024 period. 

Uncertainty: Section 103 would require the Indian Health Service (IHS) to be responsible for the medical care and treatment of 

all Indians detained or incarcerated in a BIA or tribal detention or 

correctional center, without regard to where a person resides. According to BIA, IHS routinely provides a variety of medical services 

to incarcerated Indians. Confusion occasionally arises regarding 

whether a local IHS clinic is required to treat someone from outside the local tribal area, which can result in delays in providing 

care to a small number of individuals. CBO has concluded that this 

provision is intended to remove the confusion over IHS’s responsibility to care for nonlocal inmates and would not require additional 

care to be provided. On that basis, CBO estimates that the provision would have no significant cost. 

However, IHS believes that the provision could be interpreted to 

require it to provide significantly more care to inmates of BIA deVerDate Sep 11 2014 04:02 May 12, 2019 Jkt 089010 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR037.XXX SR037

lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with REPORTS
29 

tention centers than it does currently, and could require additional 

clinic hours and medical personnel. In that scenario, the provision 

could have higher costs than CBO estimates. 

Pay-As-You-Go considerations: The Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act 

of 2010 establishes budget-reporting and enforcement procedures 

for legislation affecting direct spending and revenues. S. 210 would 

make it a federal crime to violate an order from a tribal court that 

excludes a person from tribal land because of certain previous 

criminal convictions or civil adjudications. Because those prosecuted and convicted under S. 210 could be subject to criminal 

fines, the federal government might collect additional amounts if 

the legislation is enacted. Criminal fines are recorded as revenues, 

deposited in the Crime Victims Fund, and later spent without further appropriation action. CBO expects that any additional revenues and subsequent direct spending would not be significant in 

any year because the legislation would probably affect only a small 

number of cases. 

Increase in long-term direct spending and deficits: None. 

Mandates: S. 210 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector 

mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. 

However, the bill would provide several benefits to Indian tribes. 

S. 210 would authorize programs and grants to address tribal public safety, offender incarceration, alcohol and substance abuse, and 

treatment and prevention of juvenile delinquency. It would create 

tribal liaisons in offices of federal public defenders, and those liaisons would coordinate the cases of defendants who are accused of 

federal crimes on Indian land. The bill would direct DOJ to share 

information from criminal databases with Indian tribes, and it 

would require the Office of the U.S. Attorney to notify tribes when 

an enrolled member is convicted in a district court. The bill also 

would benefit tribes by extending a pilot program to allow offenders convicted in tribal courts to be held in Bureau of Prisons facilities. Any costs to tribal governments would result from complying 

with conditions of federal assistance. 

Estimate prepared by Federal Costs: Mark Grabowicz (Department of Justice); Jon Sperl (Department of the Interior, Judiciary); 

Robert Stewart (Indian Health Service). Mandates: Rachel Austin. 

Estimate reviewed by: Kim Cawley, Chief, Natural and Physical 

Resources Cost Estimates Unit; Chad Chirico, Chief, Low-Income 

Health Programs and Prescription Drugs Cost Estimates Unit; H. 

Samuel Papenfuss, Deputy Assistant Director for Budget Analysis. 

EXECUTIVE COMMUNICATIONS

The Committee has received no communications from the Executive Branch regarding S. 210. 

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. 210 will have a minimal impact on regulatory or paperwork requirements. 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with REPORTS
30 

CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW (CORDON RULE)

On February 6, 2019, the Committee on Indian Affairs unanimously approved a motion by Chairman Hoeven to waive the Cordon rule. In the opinion of the Committee, it is necessary to dispense with subsection 12 of rule XXVI of the Standing Rules of the 

Senate to expedite the business of the Senate. 

Æ 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with REPORTS