The National Congress of American Indians (NCAI) opposes the House proposed VAWA legislation filed today. As a member of the National Task Force to End Sexual and Domestic Violence Against Women (NTF) we stand with our partners and do not accept the language that’s been offered.

This legislation lacks necessary protections for victims of violence and rolls back current law and disregards significant bipartisan efforts in the Senate on the tribal provisions.

“The inclusion of the tribal provisions in a House VAWA is long overdue and let’s be clear, the new House language is not even close to the Senate bill which passed with bipartisan support last week 78-22. And actually, in some areas the House language rolls back existing laws that protect Native women,” said Jacqueline Pata, Executive Director of NCAI. “NCAI supports efforts to move the House legislation closer to the inclusive, bipartisan Senate-passed bill.”

NCAI’s initial review of the proposed language exposes significant areas where the proposed House VAWA tribal provisions represent a major step backward.

For example, under the proposed Section 204 (e), a tribal court could only issue a protection order against a non-Indian if they successfully navigated the Attorney General certification process under the proposed 204 (b), and then only if the non-Indian defendant met the requirements for the ‘special domestic violence jurisdiction.’ In other words, the defendant would need to have established significant ties to the reservation, such as by living or working on the reservation.

Prior to this proposal, the 2000 VAWA Reauthorization made it clear that every tribe had full civil jurisdiction to issue and enforce civil protection orders against all persons, Indian and non-Indian. This roll back of current law is extremely troubling since, as far as a tribe’s authority prior to passage of this VAWA bill, it is the only protection a tribal government can provide to its women victims of domestic violence against all perpetrators of domestic violence, stalking or harassment.

Also, in reference to other significant changes from the strong bipartisan Senate-passed S. 47, the newly proposed House legislation provides non-Indian defendants with numerous options to evade justice in tribal courts, such as a limitation on tribal court sentencing authority (any crime prosecuted under this proposed legislation would be limited to a year sentencing), a process for interlocutory appeal and direct review of the final verdict, as well as an added provision subjecting “every person” involved in carrying out this special jurisdiction to a civil action for deprivation of rights (there is an immunity included for tribal officials which is akin to the public officials immunity under 42 U.S.C. 1983). This last example was included, despite the fact that tribal officials are already subject to Federal Tort Claims Act jurisdiction.

These added provisions will do much to interfere with tribal justice systems, and will do little for Native victims of violence. In short, the House proposed VAWA legislation filed today seems to go the distance in considering the rights and privileges of domestic abusers that would be subject to a tribal court’s ‘special domestic violence jurisdiction,’ but does not provide Native victims of violence the necessary protections they need for swift and fair justice in Indian country.