```

[Senate Report 116-37]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                       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 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\See also S. Rep. No. 111-93, at 1 and 4 (2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\Tribal 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).
    \3\Tribal 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.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     2010, 143       2013, 158       2017, 152
                         Type of Offense                              Tribes          Tribes         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:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \ 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.
    \ 5\The 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
           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;
           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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\https://www.bja.gov/Publications/TLOA-TJP-Webinar-Summary.pdf, 2 
(last reviewed December, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    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 data-driven 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 investigation 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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\U.S. Department of Justice Indian Country Investigations and 
Prosecutions, 2013. Department of Justice (2013) at 11.
    \9\These 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \15\Id. at 20.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \16\Id. at 11.
    \17\Id. at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 enactment 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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \18\Tribal Law and Order Act Report on Enhanced Tribal-Court 
Sentencing Authority, Department of Justice, at 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \19\Christian Folsom-Smith, Enhanced Sentencing in Tribal Courts, 
The National Tribal Justice Center, (2015) at 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \20\Tribal Crime Data Collection Activities, 2016-2018, Bureau of 
Justice Statistics, Department of Justice (2018) at 4.
    \21\Tribal Crime Data Collection Activities, 2016-2018, Bureau of 
Justice Statistics, Department of Justice (2018) at 4.
    \22\Id. at 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    At midyear 2014, state and local jails housed 10,400 
American Indian and Alaska Native inmates, who accounted for 
1.4 percent of total inmate jail populations. Most American 
Indian and Alaska Native inmates were located in the western 
states.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \23\Tribal Crime Data Collection Activities, 2015, Bureau of 
Justice Statistics, Department of Justice (2015) at 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \24\The 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \26\Id. at 47.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    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 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \27\Tribal Crime Data Collection Activities, 2016-2018, Bureau of 
Justice Statistics, Department of Justice (2018) at 5.
    \28\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \29\Office 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Of particular note, the OIG found that ``there is no 
Department-level 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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \31\Id. at 13.
    \32\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \33\Id. at 18.
    \34\Id. at 29 and 32.
    \35\Office 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \36\U.S. Department of Justice Indian Country Investigations and 
Prosecutions, 2017. Department of Justice (2017) at 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \37\The GAO reports that 2016 was the most recently available 
complete year data was available for their review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    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 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \40\https://chronicleofsocialchange.org/youth-services-insider/
ojjdp-racial-disparities-pass-might-continue/28488 (last reviewed 
September 24, 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    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 unsuccessful 
competing with states and other entities for larger grant 
programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \42\Indian Employment, Training and Related Services Demonstration 
Act of 1992, Pub. L. No. 102-477, 106 Stat. 2302 (1992).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    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 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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \43\Justice 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).
    \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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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\:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
           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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \48\Id at 17.
    \49\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    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:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \50\Id. at 21.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Collaboration and partnerships;
           Data, research, and evaluation;
           Provision of services directly to victims;
           Public awareness; and
           Training or technical assistance.\51\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \51\Id. at 22.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \52\Id. at 24.
    \53\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \54\Id. at 27.
    \55\Id. at 28.
    \56\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \57\Id. at 29.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \59\Id. at 13 (2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \60\Id. at 20.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

              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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \61\The 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).
    \62\The 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    To that end, S. 210 is intended to require more efforts, 
coordination, and participation from the HHS agencies in 
addressing such 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \64\This 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \65\Juvenile Justice in Indian Country: Challenges and Promising 
Strategies, Hearing Before the S. Comm. on Ind. Affairs, 114th Cong. 
(2015).
    \66\Justice 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \67\See 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    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 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.
    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 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;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \68\See Indian Employment, Training and Related Services 
Demonstration Act of 1992, Pub. L. No. 102-477, 106 Stat. 2302 (1992).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
           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.
    (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;
           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 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.
    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 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 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.

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
    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;
           $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 detention 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.

                 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.

                                  [all]
```