Report text available as:

  • TXT
  • PDF   (PDF provides a complete and accurate display of this text.) Tip ?
 						    Calendar No. 732

115th Congress}                                            { Report
                                 SENATE
  2d Session  }                                            { 115-433

======================================================================
 
   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

                                _______
                                

               December 13, 2018.--Ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

           Mr. Hoeven, from the Committee on Indian Affairs, 
                        submitted the following

                              R E P O R T

                         [To accompany S. 1953]

      [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

    The Committee on Indian Affairs, to which was referred the 
bill (S. 1953) 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 with an amendment in the nature of a 
substitue and recommends that the bill, as amended, do pass.

                                PURPOSE

    The Tribal Law and Order Act Reauthorization and Amendments 
Act of 2018, S. 1953, builds on the improvements to criminal 
justice systems serving Indian communities that were enacted in 
the Tribal Law and Order Act of 2010 (TLOA). It is also 
intended 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 
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 
2022. The bill, S. 1953, contains other provisions to improve 
justice within Indian Country.

                          NEED FOR LEGISLATION

    Based on testimony received at the Committee on Indian 
Affairs' hearings, roundtables, and meetings, since passage of 
the TLOA, some crime rates have diminished, but the overall 
levels 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, overcrowded jail conditions, and recidivism and 
address justice for Indian youth.

                               BACKGROUND

    The TLOA was introduced on April 2, 2009 in the 111th 
Congress. It was incorporated into the bill, 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.
    The 2010 law, passed in response to the public safety 
crisis in Indian communities, 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 among Federal and state agencies 
and to better manage public safety concerns in Indian Country.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\See also S. Rep. No. 111-93, at 1 and 4 (2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The intent of the TLOA was aimed at reducing violent crime, 
drug trafficking, and rates of drug and alcohol addition, 
combating sexual and domestic violence against American Indian 
and Alaska Native women, and standardizing interagency 
information sharing among Federal, state, and tribal 
stakeholders. It also encouraged the hiring, training, and 
support of more law enforcement officers, whether tribal or 
Federal, to assist in preventing and addressing unacceptably 
high rates of crimes in Indian communities.
    Since the enactment of TLOA, the Committee has held three 
hearings and one roundtable on the implementation of the 
TLOA.\2\ While some reductions in crimes have occurred, the 
levels still remain high as reflected in the following chart 
(based on information from the Department of Justice Bureau of 
Statistics).\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \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.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                   2017, 152
                    Type of Offense                       2010, 143 Tribes   2013, 158 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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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.

    The TLOA required the following key reports:
           Tribal Court Sentencing Guidelines and 
        Process, which the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) 
        completed in 2011;
           Long Term Plan to Build and Enhance Tribal 
        Justice Systems, which the Department of Justice (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;
           The Indian Health Service capability to 
        collect and secure domestic and sexual assault 
        evidence, which was completed by the U.S. Government 
        Accountability Office (GAO) 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.1953. Specifically, the DOJ Office of the 
Inspector General (DOJ-OIG) and the GAO have published four 
additional reports related to public safety in Indian Country 
since the TLOA's enactment:
           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;
           Native American Youth: Involvement in 
        Justice Systems and Information on Grants to Help 
        Address Juvenile Delinquency Highlights, completed by 
        the GAO in 2018;
           Human Trafficking: Action Needed to Identify 
        the Number of Native American Victims Receiving 
        Federally-Funded Services, completed by the GAO in 
        2017; and
           Human Trafficking: Information on Cases in 
        Indian Country or that Involved Native Americans, 
        completed by the GAO in 2017.

Tribal Law and Order Act: Long Term Plan to Build and Enhance Tribal 
        Justice Systems report

    The intent for the Tribal Law and Order Act: Long Term Plan 
to Build and Enhance Tribal Justice Systems report was to 
obtain information on alternatives to incarceration for jails 
and other public safety buildings. The major focus was to 
critically assess and improve tribal public safety 
infrastructure and institutional methods to develop 
alternatives to incarceration.
    From this report, both the DOJ and the BIA have 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. These types of 
alternatives would allow offenders to remain close to their 
Native communities and focus on treating the root causes of 
criminal behavior with an emphasis on rehabilitation rather 
than retribution. As a result, Indian tribes may now use the 
DOJ funding for electronic alcohol/offender monitoring devices 
and related equipment as an alternative to incarceration. The 
DOJ has also provided training and capacity building for tribes 
to implement and develop these intervention efforts.\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. 1953 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, one such approach 
is based on 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, the efforts need to be 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 investigations and prosecutions 
that were terminated or declined in Indian Country. The reports 
should outline the following information: types of crimes 
alleged, status of accused as Indian or non-Indian, status of 
victim as Indian or non-Indian, and the reason for deciding 
against referring the investigation for prosecution by the FBI 
or the reason for deciding to decline or terminate the 
prosecution.
    In CY2014, the FBI closed 2,064 Indian Country cases--an 
increase of 7 cases from CY2013.\8\ The most common reason 
noted 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 DOJ, including the Executive 
Office of U.S. Attorneys, should provide further clarification 
and detail 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 in order 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 
Department 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 report. As a result, the total 
numbers in the report would 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tribal Law and Order Act report on enhanced tribal-court sentencing 
        authority

    Section 234(B) of the TLOA required 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) required 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 exercised 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

    In this pilot program, Indian prisoners sentenced by tribal 
courts for violent offenses may be accepted by and housed 
within the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) 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. According to the BOP, all 
six offenders were accepted and transferred 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 an assessment of the services available to those 
prisoners and the effectiveness of those services is needed as 
part of any program extension.

Annual U.S. Department of Justice: Tribal Crime Data Collection 
        Activities Report

    Section 251(g) of the TLOA required the Bureau of Justice 
Services (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 has advanced as more tribal law enforcement agencies 
have participated 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 2016-2018 report indicated a 1.2 percent 
increase between the midyear 2015 and 2016 total number of 
inmates held in Indian Country jails.\20\ The number of jails 
or detention centers being utilized in Indian Country has 
increased from 68 facilities in 2004 to 80 in 2016.\21\ 
According to the 2016-2018 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--1.4% of total inmate 
jail populations and 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 have 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. 1953, 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 report to 
the Committee on Indian Affairs of the Senate and the Committee 
on Natural Resources of the House of Representatives on certain 
capabilities of the Indian Health Service (IHS). Congress 
directed the GAO to conduct a study of IHS's capabilities 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 in cases of 
sexual assault and domestic violence from patients 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 
is now reportedly making progress to improve their capacity for 
these services by completing 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 how 
many staffers within the agency have the appropriate training 
or certification to conduct those 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, 
continued work on appropriate and adequate responses to these 
types of crimes is still needed within these communities. Data 
from DOJ shows that ``[a]t midyear 2016, domestic violence 
(14%) and aggravated or simple assault (10%) accounted for 
nearly a quarter of all inmates'' held in Indian Country 
jails.\27\ In addition, ``[i]nmates held for rape or sexual 
assault (1%) and other violent (5%) offenses accounted for an 
additional 6 [percent] of the jail population.''\28\ While 
these statistics do not include the inmates in Federal 
detention, this information indicates that these types of 
crimes continue to occur in Indian communities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \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

    Section 243 of the TLOA required the Attorney General to 
provide a report to Congress describing the extent and 
effectiveness of the Community Oriented Policing Services 
(COPS) grants in Indian communities. The COPS grants in Indian 
Country focus primarily on activities for combating drugs, for 
substance abuse and mental health-related programs, and for 
increasing the capacity of the tribal justice system overall. 
The report provided data on the grant programs that assist 
Indian tribes through program activities, training, and 
technical assistance.
    From 1994 to 2009, COPS grants were awarded to over 2,000 
tribal grant recipients consisting of Indian tribes and tribal 
organizations and totaled more than $400 million. In FY2010, 
the last year data is available in the report, $48.6 million in 
grants were awarded to 141 entities. However, the majority of 
FY2010 funds were used for non-officer related expenditures 
since only 23 officers were funded through COPS.
    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.1953, 
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 Commission was required 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 Commission was required 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.
    Most disturbing about this report is 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. The Commission 
reported 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. Generally, there is no requirement that an 
incarcerated Indian child's tribe be contacted 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\ however, 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, communication with and training 
by the Department 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    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 
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. 1953 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 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 race 
of the Native youth in a consistent manner.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \37\The GAO reports that 2016 was the most recently available 
complete year data was available for their review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Most notably, while much of the tribal data was incomplete, 
the GAO found that the number of Native youth in the Federal, 
state, and local systems declined from 2010 through 2016 for 
all phases of the juvenile justice process (i.e., arrest, 
adjudication, and confinement).\38\ The data limitations did 
not allow the GAO to conclude why these declines occurred. 
However, the GAO consulted with various tribal and Federal 
experts to ascertain possible reasons for such declines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    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 the youth. 
However, from 2013 to 2016, the Office of Juvenile Justice and 
Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) had apparently not been 
enforcing that requirement,\40\ so it is unclear 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 the S. 1953 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. The 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 largest numbers of Native youth involvement.
    The GAO 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, which becomes more troubling as they enter 
the Federal system.
    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 against the person, including 
sex offenses, than other youth. Consequently, the terms of 
confinement were more onerous for Native youth than other 
youth. The DOJ officials indicated that these higher rates were 
due to the Federal jurisdiction in Indian lands and for major 
crimes.
    The GAO also reviewed Federal grant resources and 
cooperative agreement resources related to the risk or 
protective factors for youth for FY2015 to FY2017 from the DOI, 
DOJ, and the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS). 
The GAO found that 122 grants could be used by Indian tribes to 
address juvenile delinquency, 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 $1.2 billion was available from these grants. 
However, only $207.7 million was awarded to Indian tribes and 
tribal organizations ($106.5 million from the DHHS and $101.2 
million from the DOJ).\41\ Most of these funds were from the 27 
tribal specific grants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \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 Departments to 
apply for certain juvenile justice grants. Making this 
challenge even more difficult is the ever-increasing 
requirement to demonstrate evidence-based approaches for 
Federal grant applications.
    Indian tribes have sought to employ more restorative 
justice approaches which are based in tradition or culture. 
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. 1953, 
takes action to address this challenge. Title II of the Tribal 
Law and Order Reauthorization and Amendments Act of 2017 
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, if any, methods 
to reduce bureaucratic demands on Indian tribes exist in these 
programs. One method that has fostered administrative 
efficiencies and reduced costs is the integration approach 
modeled by the ``477 program.''\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 2017 also seeks to build upon this more efficient approach 
for public safety-related programs. This bill would require the 
Secretaries of the Interior, DHHS, 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\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) (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:
           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 GAO-17-325 report 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.\46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \46\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.\47\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \47\Id at 17.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In comparison to the United States as a whole during that 
same time frame, data showed over 6,100 Federal human 
trafficking investigations and approximately 1,000 Federal 
human trafficking prosecutions.\48\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    During the FY2014-FY2016 period, the DOJ, DHHS, and the 
Department of Homeland Security administered at least fifty 
grant programs to address human trafficking in Indian Country 
or of Native Americans.\49\ These programs allow funding to be 
used for:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \49\Id. at 21.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Collaboration and partnerships;
           Data, research, and evaluation;
           Provision of services directly to victims;
           Public awareness; and
           Training or technical assistance.\50\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \50\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 22 (2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The GAO found that ``the number of Native American human 
trafficking victims who received services through these 
programs is unknown because agencies generally did not require 
grantees to report the Native American status of victims 
served.''\51\ 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 is not useful in determining how many 
Native American victims are served by these programs.\52\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \51\Id. at 24.
    \52\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    ``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.''\53\ Additionally, knowledge regarding a victim's 
status as a Native American ``can be helpful to ensure 
culturally appropriate practices are made available.''\54\ 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.''\55\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \53\Id. at 27.
    \54\Id. at 28.
    \55\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In its March 30, 2017, report on 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.''\56\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \56\Id. at 29.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    This GAO report issued on July 24, 2017, addresses:
           ``[T]the 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.''\57\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \57\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.
    Reasons given by the LEAs for why human trafficking is 
going unreported, regardless of ethnicity, include: victim fear 
of retaliation, victim trauma, embarrassment, feelings of 
shame, distrust of law enforcement, and drug addiction. The 
LEAs 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.\58\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \58\U.S. Gov't Accountability Office, GAO-17-624, Human 
Trafficking: Information on Cases in Indian Country or That Involved 
Native Americans 13 (2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The GAO report found that officers may not recognize human 
trafficking is occurring, particularly when it may occur with 
other crimes, such as drug trafficking. 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 GAO report from July 24, 2017 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.\59\ The GAO report notes that 
there are Federally-developed training programs to aid service 
providers who work with Native American human trafficking 
victims. Improvements in the effectiveness in these programs 
are in order to improve cost efficiencies and better use of 
resources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \59\Id. at 20.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

              THE TRIBAL LAW AND ORDER REAUTHORIZATION ACT

    To continue the public safety improvements facilitated by 
the TLOA, the bill aims to reauthorize the provisions within 
TLOA from FY2018 to FY2022 and to secure improvements related 
to interagency coordination and information sharing, among 
other things.

Principles

    The bill, S. 1953, 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.''\60\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \60\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)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    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.'''\61\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \61\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 2014, according to the DOJ, the expected average length 
of stay in an Indian Country jail was about six days. However, 
these jails are primarily designed for short term stays and 
many do not provide treatment services. 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 indicates that ``Native American youth are more 
likely to face conviction in adult court, especially for drug-
related crimes.''\62\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \62\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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Clearly, reducing recidivism would require significant 
efforts in addressing drug and alcohol abuse. To that end, S. 
1953 is intended to require more efforts, coordination, and 
participation from the DHHS agencies in addressing such 
substance abuse and recidivism.\63\ If successful, preventing 
recidivism in a Native community can reduce a host of costs 
(financial and otherwise) as well as Federal and tribal 
transportation costs. Cost reduction is only one benefit of 
reducing recidivism.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \63\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 certain grant funding to be used 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.\64\ 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.''\65\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \64\Juvenile Justice in Indian Country: Challenges and Promising 
Strategies, Hearing Before the S.Comm. on Ind. Affairs, 114th Cong. 
(2015).
    \65\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 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.\66\ The 
unacceptably disproportionate rate of incarceration of Indian 
youth is compounded by this disturbing finding. These 
particular children are exposed to trauma after trauma, 
seemingly without appropriate intervention or services.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \66\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 bill, S. 2920, provided for extensive enhancements 
to the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974 
and other laws which affect Indian juveniles. These provisions 
were based upon tribal recommendations which had been proposed 
in 2008 when the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention 
Act of 1974 was being considered for reauthorization.
    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. This concept is carried forward in S. 1953.
    During the 114th and 115th Congresses, Senate and the House 
of Representatives considered several proposals to reauthorize 
the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974. 
While a few tribal recommendations were modified and included 
in these bills, a majority of the proposals were not.
    In response to the discussions regarding the tribal 
proposals in the context of the Juvenile Justice and 
Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974 reauthorization, the current 
bill, S. 1953, 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 between the 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 require more robust consultation by 
the OJJDP Administrator. Moreover, the bill would also require 
the OJJDP Administrator include in her report to Congress the 
recommendations from the Coordinating Council on Juvenile 
Justice and Delinquency Prevention (Council) regarding 
improving service delivery to Indian communities.
    The TLOA required that an Indian representative be 
appointed to the Council. In 2016, that representative, the 
Honorable William A. Thorne, a member of the Federated Indians 
of Graton Rancheria, distinguished jurist, and expert on Indian 
children's issues, was appointed by the Chairman of the 
Committee on Indian Affairs, in consultation with the Vice 
Chairman of the Committee on Indian Affairs of the Senate, and 
the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Natural Resources of the 
House of Representatives. It stands to reason that the 
recommendations from the Council be included in the report.

                          LEGISLATIVE HISTORY

    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 and Senator Daines 
joined as a co-sponsor on October 30, 2017.
    On October 25, 2017, the Committee held a legislative 
hearing on the bill at which officials from the DOI and DOJ 
testified. No objections to the bill were raised by the 
witnesses.
    On February 14, 2018, the Committee held a duly called 
business meeting at which S. 1953 was considered. 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 remaining amendments were withdrawn by their respective 
sponsors. The Committee favorably ordered the bill reported, as 
amended, by voice vote.
    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. One substitute amendment was 
offered by then-Chairman Barrasso to address the 
recommendations from the DOI and DOJ, the Federal Defenders 
Organization, tribal organizations, and Indian tribes. The 
substitute amendment was adopted by a voice vote.
    An additional amendment was offered by Senator McCain 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. This amendment was 
also adopted by a voice vote. The Committee then ordered the 
bill, as amended, to be reported favorably to the Senate by a 
voice vote. No further action was taken.

                               AMENDMENTS

    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 
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,\67\ which allows 
        for streamlining budgets and reporting requirements and 
        a single audit, and on what processes the Departments 
        should consult with Indian tribes;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \67\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 of 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 2018.''

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. 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 FY2022.

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 to take individuals into protective custody. These BIA law 
enforcement officers will 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--Persons involuntarily committed

    This section makes persons ordered involuntarily committed 
by an Indian tribe eligible to receive treatment, on the same 
basis as other state residents, at hospitals, clinics, or other 
outpatient mental health treatment facilities in the same state 
as the tribe issuing the commitment order. States accepting 
Medicaid funding shall develop procedures to accept these 
individuals and give full faith and credit to tribal orders of 
commitment. Not later than one year after enactment, states, 
Indian tribes, and, where relevant, BIA law enforcement shall 
enter into MOAs to carry out this section. This section also 
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.

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 certification from the BIA and the Indian tribe has 
the required policies and procedures. 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, not later than eighteen months 
after enactment, the Attorney General and the Secretaries of 
the Interior and the 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. Not less than one year after 
enactment of this Act, a joint report is required to be 
submitted to Congress on the findings under this section.
    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 BIA, IHS, 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 FY2018 to 
FY2022.

Section 112--Public defenders

    Similarly to the tribal liaison and Special Assistant U.S. 
Attorney provisions for U.S. Attorneys' Offices established in 
the Tribal Law and Order Act of 2010, this section requires 
that at least one Assistant Federal Public Defender serve as a 
tribal coordinator for Federal Public Defender Offices located 
in a district that includes Indian Country. It provides a Sense 
of Congress that the tribal coordinator to consult with tribal 
justice officials from each affected Indian tribe.
    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--Trespass on Indian lands

    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

    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 FY2018 to FY2022.

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 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 certain grants awarded under 22 U.S.C. 7105 
that the Secretary of DHHS and the Attorney General, in 
consultation with the Secretary of Labor, submit to Congress a 
report that lists the total number of entities that directly 
serve or are Indian tribal governments or tribal organizations 
and 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 requires the Directors of the OVW and OVC, and 
the OJJDP Administrator require each grantee report on the 
number of human trafficking victims, as appropriate, served 
with grant funding, and, in the aggregate, whether the victims 
were members of an Indian tribe. This section provides that 
nothing in this section shall require an individual victim to 
report on any personally identifiable information and a 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 II--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 FY2018 to FY2022.

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.
    This section requires the OJJDP Administrator to include in 
the annual report information regarding whether the offenses 
occurred in Indian Country, the tribal membership or 
affiliation of the juvenile, a description of the types of 
funding provided to Indian tribes, and recommendations from 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 FY2022.

                   COST AND BUDGETARY CONSIDERATIONS

                                     U.S. Congress,
                               Congressional Budget Office,
                                     Washington, DC, June 20, 2018.
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. 1953, the Tribal Law 
and Order Reauthorization and Amendments Act of 2018.
    If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be 
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Robert Reese.
            Sincerely,
                                                Keith Hall,
                                                          Director.
    Enclosure.

S. 1953--Tribal Law and Order Act Reauthorization and Amendments Act of 
        2018

    Summary: S. 1953 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.
    CBO estimates that implementing S. 1953 would cost $810 
million over the 2019-2023 period, assuming appropriation of 
the authorized and necessary amounts.
    Enacting the bill could affect direct spending and 
revenues; therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures apply. However, 
CBO estimates that any such effects would be insignificant.
    CBO estimates that enacting S. 1953 would not increase net 
direct spending or on-budget deficits in any of the four 
consecutive 10-year periods beginning in 2029.
    S. 1953 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector 
mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA). 
However, the bill would provide benefits to Indian tribes, and 
any costs to tribal governments would result from those tribes' 
compliance with conditions of assistance.
    Estimated cost to the Federal government: The estimated 
budgetary effect of S. 1953 is shown in the following table. 
The costs of the legislation fall within budget functions 450 
(community and regional development) and 750 (administration of 
justice).

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             By fiscal year, in millions of dollars--
                                                ----------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                          2019-
                                                   2018     2019     2020     2021     2022     2023      2023
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  INCREASES IN SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION
 
 Indian Law Enforcement, Courts, and Detention
 Facilities:
     Authorization Level.......................      150      152      150      150      150        0       602
     Estimated Outlays.........................        0       66      103      124      138       85       516
 Prevention of Alcohol and Drug Abuse and
 Juvenile Delinquency:
     Authorization Level.......................       58       58       58       58       58        0       232
     Estimated Outlays.........................        0       23       38       47       53       35       196
 Other Programs:
     Estimated Authorization Level.............        0       28       28       28       29        4       117
     Estimated Outlays.........................        0       12       18       22       25       21        98
     Total Costs:
         Estimated Authorization Level.........      208      238      236      236      237        4       951
         Estimated Outlays.....................        0      101      159      193      216      141       810
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The bill would authorize appropriations totaling $201 million in 2018. CBO does not estimate any outlays for
  those authorizations because appropriations for 2018 have already been enacted. The Congress provided $370
  million for similar purposes in 2018.

    Basis of estimate: For this estimate, CBO assumes that S. 
1953 will be enacted near the end of 2018 and that the 
authorized and necessary amounts will be appropriated for each 
year beginning in 2019. Estimated outlays are based on 
historical spending patterns for similar programs.
    S. 1953 would specifically authorize the appropriation of 
about $800 million over the 2018-2022 period for BIA and DOJ to 
carry out the bill's provisions. Of that amount $0.2 billion 
would be for 2018. CBO does not estimate any outlays for those 
authorizations because appropriations for 2018 have already 
been enacted. 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 $117 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. 1953 
that would authorize funding for Indian law enforcement, 
courts, and detention facilities would cost $516 million over 
the 2019-2023 period.
    For each year through 2022, 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 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 $1.5 million to be 
appropriated in 2019 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. 1953 
that concern programs to reduce alcohol and drug abuse and 
juvenile delinquency on tribal lands would cost $196 million 
over the 2019-2023 period.
    For each year through 2022, 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

    Section 101 would authorize the appropriation of such sums 
as are necessary for BIA to provide training for Indian law 
enforcement and judicial personnel on matters relating to 
substance abuse and illegal narcotics. In 2017, about $22 
million was allocated for all Indian police and judicial 
training by BIA. Using information from BIA about the 
components of that training, CBO estimates about $2 million of 
that sum was used for training concerning substance abuse and 
illegal narcotics. Continuing such training at the current 
level and accounting for anticipated inflation would require 
appropriations totaling $10 million over the 2019-2022 period 
that would lead to spending of the same amount over that 
period, CBO estimates.
    Sections 106 and 108 would require BIA, DOJ, and the 
Department of Health and Human Services to consult with Indian 
tribes on the effectiveness of tribal law enforcement. Using 
information from BIA about the level of effort expected for 
that activity, CBO estimates those requirements would cost $2 
million in 2019 and $1 million in 2020.
    Section 111 would authorize the appropriation of such sums 
as are necessary through 2022 for two DOJ grant programs to 
improve tribal courts and to provide technical and legal 
assistance to tribes. In 2017, about $19 million was provided 
for such programs. CBO estimates that continuing those programs 
through 2022 would require appropriations totaling $84 million 
that would lead to spending of $64 million over the 2019-2022 
period.
    Section 112 would require offices of federal public 
defenders in judicial districts that 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 costs for 
travel, technology, and training. CBO estimates that 
implementing section 112 would cost about $4 million annually, 
or $20 million over the 2019-2023 period.
    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 such a person's 
normal domicile. 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. Based on our 
understanding of the law and the bill, 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.
    The uncertainty around CBO's estimate of section 103 arises 
from differences between IHS and CBO over what the bill 
requires. IHS has expressed the belief 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 
thus would require additional clinic hours and medical 
personnel. Although CBO considers BIA's interpretation of the 
statute to be more consistent with the statutory language, 
should IHS's interpretation ultimately prove correct, the 
provision would 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. 1953 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. Because 
those prosecuted and convicted under S. 1953 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: CBO 
estimates that enacting S. 1953 would not increase net direct 
spending or on-budget deficits in any of the four consecutive 
10-year periods beginning in 2029.
    Mandates: S. 1953 contains no intergovernmental or private-
sector mandates as defined in UMRA.
    However the bill would provide several benefits to Indian 
tribes: The bill 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; Robert Reese, Department of the 
Interior; Janani Shankaran, Judiciary; Robert Stewart, Indian 
Health Service. Mandates: Rachel Austin.
    Estimate reviewed by: Kim P. Cawley, Chief, Natural and 
Physical Resources Cost Estimates Unit; Susan Willie, Chief, 
Mandates Unit; H. Samuel Papenfuss, Deputy Assistant Director 
for Budget Analysis.

                        EXECUTIVE COMMUNICATIONS

    The Committee has received no communications from the 
Executive Branch regarding S. 1953.

               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. 1953 will 
have a minimal impact on regulatory or paperwork requirements.

                 CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW (CORDON RULE)

    In accordance with Committee rules, compliance with 
subsection 12 of rule XXVI of the Standing Rules of the Senate 
is waived. In the opinion of the Committee, it is necessary to 
dispense with this rule to expedite the business of the Senate.

                                  [all]