Archive | Violence Against Indian Women RSS feed for this archive

Bureau of Indian Affairs Clarification of House VAWA Report

United States Department of the Interior
BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS
Washington, DC 20240
IN REPLY REFER TO: MAY 1 7 2012

The Honorable Lamar Smith
Chairman, House Judiciary Committee
United States House of Representatives
Washington D.C. 20510

Dear Chairman Smith:

I understand H.R. 4970, the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2012, as passed by the United States House of Representatives on May 16, 2012, does not include provisions strongly supported by the Department of the Interior, including a provision that would authorize Indian tribes to prosecute non-Indians who perpetrate crimes of domestic violence against Native women in Indian Country. While the Administration has already voiced its opposition to the exclusion of these provisions, I write to set the record straight on statements in House Report No. 112-480, May 15, 2012, which accompanies H.R. 4970, regarding the rate of domestic violence perpetrated by non-Indians on Indian women.

Without any citation or footnote, the Report asserts that:

[i]t is the BIA’s opinion that non-native domestic violence offenders represent a very small percentage of domestic violence-reported crimes in Indian Country.

This is not true.

As the Director, Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), I oversee the BIA’s Office of Justice Services, which has primary responsibility for investigating crimes that occur in Indian Country. Accordingly, I write simply to clarify that contrary to House Report No. 112-480, it is not the opinion of the BIA that non-Indian domestic violence offenders represent a very small percentage of domestic violence crimes in Indian Country.

To the contrary, the BIA recognizes that over half of all Indian married women have non-Indian husbands and that Indian women experience some of the highest domestic-violence victimization rates in the country. There can be no doubt that there is a very real problem of non-Indian on Indian domestic violence in Indian Country today.

Nonetheless, and regardless of any arguments over the verifiability of statistics in any studies or reports, we should not lose sight of the simple fact that there is no acceptable rate of domestic violence by non-Indian men on Indian women. To argue otherwise is an assault on our national conscience.

Sincerely,

 

Acting Director, Bureau of Indian Affairs

cc: Ranking Member John Conyers, Jr.
Chairman Patrick J. Leahy
Ranking Member Charles Grassley

PDF of Original Letter

Leave a Comment

Native Girls Are Being Exploited and Destroyed at an Alarming Rate

By Mary Annette Pember May 16, 2012, Indian Country Today

Mary G. was born from the boats. Her children were born from the boats too, all fathered through her liaisons with male customers. She has never known anything else. Like generations of Native girls and women before her, Mary and her family are inextricably tied to prostitution in the great port city of Duluth, Minnesota. Long before the term sex trafficking entered the public lexicon and began appearing in headlines, Native women like Mary and her mother Ruthie were lured into prostitution. Largely driven by poverty and homelessness as well as an underlying racism that sanctioned the sexual degradation of Native women, generations of them have sold themselves to survive.

For years the citizens of Duluth, as in so many other cities, looked the other way at the disreputable exchanges between prostitutes and seamen. They were discounted as part of the cities rough-and-tumble harbor culture and reputation. And prostitution, the world’s oldest profession, was seen as a benign vice, a victimless crime, an example of “boys being boys.”

Like most Native women around the Great Lakes, I have heard the shameful term boat whore whispered since I was a child. We all knew about women who disappeared to “work the boats” and more important, we knew it was not a topic for discussion. Perhaps internalizing the inexplicable collective shame of being Native women in white America, we cringed when hearing about boat whores, fearful that their experience and reputation might somehow infect us, too. The story of the boat whore has been like a queer kind of natural disaster that visits destruction on the powerless yet holds them responsible.

Until now.

Advocates such as Melissa Farley, founder of Prostitution Research & Education, maintain that prostitution and the sex industry create a demand for women that is being fulfilled by sex traffickers. According to Farley, there is little difference between sex trafficking and prostitution. Prostitution is typically depicted as an activity of choice while sex trafficking involves force and coercion for the participation of innocent girls in the sex trade.

Farley believes that the attempt to separate the two is illogical, creating a false distinction between innocent victims of trafficking from those who choose prostitution. Farley points out that no such line exists, since most prostitutes enter that life between the ages of 12 and 14, far too young to make such a momentous decision. Prostitution and trafficking are expressions of sexual violence. The vast majority of individuals being bought and sold for sex must answer to a pimp figure who not only benefits from their sexual exploitation, but also dictates every aspect of their lives, says Beatriz Menanteau, a staff attorney with the Women’s Human Rights Program in Minnesota.

Further debunking the notion that prostitution is always a matter of choice, the Coalition Against Trafficking in Women reports that 92 percent of women engaged in prostitution said they wanted to leave prostitution but couldn’t because they lack such things as a home, job training, health care, counseling and treatment for drug and alcohol addiction.

Mary’s campaign against sex trafficking began when a pimp lured her daughter “H” into prostitution at age 14. H is now 19. “She was 14 when the first pimp got hold of her. She’s with another one now. He posts her picture online to get johns,” Mary says.

When H began coming home with expensive clothing and a cell phone, Mary suspected that she was being prostituted. Nothing she said, however, could break the hold H’s pimp, J.D., had on her.

H tells Mary that J.D., 38, loves her. Mary notes, however, that he beats H. and throws her out when her bouts with mental illness erupt. J.D. promised to marry H but threw her out again after stealing the $50,000 per-capita money she received from her tribe at the age of 18.

Despite all that, H insists that she loves J.D. and tells Mary, “Mom, that’s just the way it is with pimps and hos.”

Mary has sought out activists and police in an effort to help H, and to call more attention to sex trafficking. Putting her shame aside, Mary speaks out publicly about her family’s experiences. “All for the love of H,” she says.

“J.D. threatened to kill me if I talked,” Mary says. “He said he knew how to get rid of people by putting them in a vat of acid.”

Mary is walking through her fear because the stakes in this fight are high. She is a mother bent on saving her daughter who—for Mary—is still the little girl who couldn’t sleep without her hands entwined in Mary’s long black hair.

Mary is not alone. Increasingly, advocates and law enforcement are spreading the word that the world’s oldest profession is anything but benign; it is a form of sexual violence that disproportionately targets the poor and girls and women of color. Breaking Free, a St. Paul, Minnesota-based organization that provides services to victims of sex trafficking and prostitution claims that more than two-thirds of those working in prostitution in Minneapolis are women of color. This information is based on data regarding their clients they serve. Nationally, available information from sources such as Donna Hughes, professor of Women’s Studies at the University of Rhode Island in her fact sheet, Race and Prostitution in the United States, suggest that women and girls from racial minorities are disproportionately represented in the sex trade. She notes that in 2002, 55 percent of girls under 18 who were arrested for prostitution were African American. She also says that only 39 percent of women arrested for prostitution in 2001 in New York City were white.

Farley and other advocates are working to reframe the public discussion surrounding prostitution and sex trafficking by changing the language and clearly identifying prostitution as a form of sexual violence. “Prostitution is a systemic issue rooted in oppression, abuse, exploitation and, often, racism,” she says.

Indeed, in their report, Shattered Hearts: The Commercial Sexual Exploitation of American Indian Women and Girls in Minnesota, the Minnesota Indian Women’s Resource Center reports that nearly all of their clients who have worked as prostitutes had been sexually abused in their homes as children. Studies such as The Commercial Sexual Exploitation of Children in the U.S., Canada, and Mexico by the Center for the Study of Youth Policy at the University of Pennsylvania School of Social Work, indicate that physical and sexual abuse at home are among the primary risk-factors for youth entry into the sex trade. Therefore, Native women and girls—who suffer the highest rates of sexual assault of any ethnicity in the country—are especially vulnerable to traffickers.

According to the Shattered Hearts report, homelessness is the most immediate reason that Native girls enter the world of sex trafficking and prostitution. Typically, Native girls run away from abusive homes, end up homeless and become easy targets for pimps who offer food and shelter in exchange for sex.

The sex trafficking of Native girls and women is a story 500 years in the making, says Sarah Deer of the Muscogee (Creek) Nation. She is a professor of law at William Mitchell College of Law in St. Paul and has done extensive legal work and research about violence against Native women. Deer is also a member of Amnesty International USA’s Native American and Alaska Native Advisory Council and has testified before the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs.

Leave a Comment

House Passes VAWA with Weakened Tribal Provisions; NCAI Voices Serious Concerns Regarding HR 4970

NCAI Calls for House and Senate to Restore Bi-Partisan Tribal Provisions of S.1925

Washington, DC (May 16, 2012) – Today, the U.S. House of Representatives voted and passed a version of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) reauthorization – HR 4970 – without any of the key tribal jurisdictional provisions intact. The National Congress of American Indians (NCAI) has serious concerns about the alternative provisions contained in the House bill and is calling on the House and Senate to restore the bipartisan and constitutionally sound tribal provisions in the Senate version of the bill, S.1925, that create local solutions to the epidemic of domestic violence experienced by Native women.

“Native women aren’t safer as a result of the passage of HR 4970. In fact, the tribal provisions included in this bill create additional hurdles for Indian women seeking protection from violence on tribal lands, and that is unacceptable,” said Juana Majel-Dixon, 1st Vice President of the National Congress of American Indians (NCAI) and co-chair of the NCAI Task Force on Violence Against Women. “Indian Country supports the bipartisan Senate VAWA bill, which contains constitutionally sound tribal provisions that provide local solutions that will deliver long-overdue justice to Native women and safety to tribal communities.”

Passed by a vote of 222-205, the tribal provisions included in HR 4970 would be a step backward in contrast to the bipartisan Senate VAWA bill, supported by NCAI and tribes across the country. Over the past few days, H.R. 4970 has been amended to include provisions that have the potential to cause great confusion surrounding tribes’ authority to issue civil protection orders and that could further endanger Native victims.

HR 4970 would “federalize” the issuance and enforcement of protection orders for Native victims, authorizing Indian victims of domestic violence or Indian tribes on behalf of Indian victims to seek protection orders from U.S. district courts against suspects of abuse. This approach fails to address the crux of the problem – a lack of local authority to handle misdemeanor level domestic and dating violence when the perpetrator is non-Indian. The legislation passed by the House is drafted in a way that undermines the safety and autonomy of victims.

On the other hand, S.1925 contains key tribal provisions that would empower the governmental authorities closest to the alleged criminal activity-tribal police and courts-to intervene early in acts of domestic violence committed by non-Indians within the tribe’s territory, before the violence escalates to the point of serious assault or homicide. These provisions are limited in scope, do not infringe on existing federal or state court jurisdiction, and defendants who stand trial before a tribal court would have the full panoply of constitutional rights.

Leave a Comment

GOP anti-domestic violence bill advances, over Dem objections

By Pete Kasperowicz, The Hill – 05/16/12 01:20 PM ET

The House on Wednesday voted to move ahead with a bill to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), after Democrats tried blocking it by raising a point of order.

Democrats oppose the House bill, which omits language prohibiting discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people under the law, does not go as far as a Senate bill to protect Native Americans, and makes it harder for illegal immigrant victims of domestic abuse to stay in the United States.

In early Wednesday afternoon debate, Democrats bristled at the GOP bill, H.R. 4970, because Republicans are not allowing any amendment votes. In a bid to stall the bill, Democrats raised a point of order against the rule for the bill, arguing that the bill contains unacceptable unfunded mandates.

But Rep. Gwen Moore (D-Wis.) acknowledged that the real reason for the point of order was to allow Democrats more time to argue against it, given that there will be no amendment debate.

“This bill has always been a bipartisan effort, and I would argue that on an issue like this, it is incredibly important to have a well-rounded discussion,” she said. “Why not allow us to have a healthy debate?”

As part of her argument, Moore called on 10 Democratic women to register their opposition to the bill, which they did in brief statements on the House floor.

Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-N.C.) dismissed the point of order by saying the Congressional Budget Office has determined that there are no significant unfunded mandates in the bill, and rejected Democratic attempts to paint Republicans as uncaring about violence against women.

“It really pains me to see my colleagues across the aisle make the kind of accusations that they make about Republicans being unconcerned about the issue of violence against women,” Foxx said. “How could they possibly accuse us of not being concerned about that issue?”

Foxx also noted that the Republican bill calls for more accountability on how federal money is spent under the VAWA program, which she said shows Republicans are looking to maximize results under the program.

“In fact, I would say that we are more concerned with violence for women, because we want to see those women served better, and we want to see the money spent better,” she said.

After this debate, the House voted 239-183 in favor of considering the rule for the bill — three Democrats voted with Republicans. As a result, the House was expected to debate the rule and approve it sometime after 2 p.m.

The same rule governing debate on the VAWA legislation also sets debate rules for the National Defense Authorization Act for 2013, H.R. 4310. Passage of the rule will set up an hour of debate on the NDAA later on Wednesday, but consideration of amendments will be covered by another rule.

Leave a Comment

NCAI Action Alert: Tell House of Representatives to Vote No on H.R. 4970 and Yes on Amendment to Include the SAVE Act Provisions

On Wednesday, May 16th, the House of Representatives is scheduled to vote on final passage of H.R. 4970, a bill to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), introduced by Rep. Sandy Adams (R-FL).

H.R. 4970 excludes all of the key tribal jurisdiction provisions contained in H.R. 4154, the bipartisan Stand Against Violence & Empower Native Women Act (SAVE Act), and the bipartisan Senate VAWA bill, S.1925. These tribal provisions are essential to the safety of Native women, and tribes should not support any VAWA bill that leaves them out!

In addition to stripping the tribal jurisdiction provisions, H.R. 4970 includes damaging provisions that have the potential to cause great confusion surrounding tribes’ authority to issue civil protection orders and that could further endanger Native victims. Over the past few days, H.R. 4970 has been amended to include a provision in Section 1006 that would authorize Indian victims of domestic violence or Indian tribes on behalf of Indian victims to seek protection orders from U.S. district courts against suspects of domestic violence. If a federal court grants an order of protection, violation of that order will constitute a federal crime.

PLEASE CALL YOUR REPRESENTATIVE IMMEDIATELY AND TELL THEM TO VOTE NO ON H.R. 4970! Tell them Section 1006 is dangerous for Native victims because:

  • It Fails to Address the Problem. Neither the Adams Manager’s Amendment nor the underlying bill, HR 4970, empower the governmental authorities closest to the alleged criminal activity-tribal police and courts-to address incidences of domestic violence within the tribe’s territory. Instead, tribal residents would be forced to rely on federal courts-often located hundreds of miles from the reservation and scene of the crime-to protect victims. The manager’s amendment would place the primary burden on federal law enforcement (or state law enforcement in PL280 states) to protect Native women, even though these federal/state authorities often have no stake in or ties to the relevant tribal communities.
  • It Places the Burden on the Indian Victim. Reservation victims are often not in the position to hire legal counsel or travel hundreds of miles to the federal court to petition for the protection order.
  • It Could Further Endanger the Indian Victim. By giving a tribe the authority to petition in federal court for a protection order on behalf of an Indian victim, this bill strays from VAWA’s traditional victim-centered approach and threatens the autonomy and safety of the victim. If a tribe were to seek such a protection order against the will of the victim, this could cause the abuser to retaliate and it would undoubtedly place the victim in greater danger. Furthermore, if the victim is in hiding or afraid of the respondent, forcing her to disclose her residential address when seeking the protection order, as Section 1006 would do, may put her in further jeopardy.
  • It Will Cause Confusion Over Tribal Protection Orders. Indian victims already can, and do, seek civil protection orders in tribal and state courts regardless of the race of the perpetrator. Current federal law already acknowledges that all courts must provide full faith and credit to tribal court orders of protection. If H.R. 4970 is passed with this language, it may have the effect of making the status quo worse if a federal court reads it as implying a tribe doesn’t have the power to issue its own protection orders with regard to tribal member victims residing in Indian country. This unintended confusion over the status of tribal protection orders could be hugely dangerous to Native victims.
  • Federal Courts Are Not Equipped to Issue Reservation-based Orders of Protection. Federal courts have little expertise or experience in the realm of family law-domestic disputes are typically within the purview of tribal and state governments-the governments closest to the community impacted. As such, it is impractical to have federal courts delve into these types of cases when they arise on tribal lands rather than having tribal courts-the best-equipped and most appropriate authorities to issue domestic violence orders of protection on reservation-handle them. A solution that requires tribal victims to travel to far-away federal courts to seek a protection order that may or may not be enforced by federal authorities is no solution at all.

We must tell our legislators that we oppose H.R. 4970 and want to see a bipartisan bill that helps Native victims and includes the provisions contained in the SAVE Act. Time is of the essence, we must take action BY TOMORROW, May 16th!

ACTION: Call/Write/Tweet your Representative and tell them:

We strongly oppose H.R. 4970 and urge you to VOTE NO. We support a bill that contains the critical tribal jurisdiction provisions in the SAVE Act, like H.R. 4271 and H.R. 4982.”

Click here for the House of Representatives Member Directory.

Click here for a copy of NCAI’s letter in opposition to H.R. 4970.

NCAI Staff Contact: Katy Jackman, Staff Attorney- kjackman@ncai.org

——————————————————————————–
Founded in 1944, the National Congress of American Indians is the oldest, largest and most representative American Indian and Alaska Native organization in the country. NCAI advocates on behalf of tribal governments, promoting strong tribal-federal government-to-government policies, and promoting a better understanding among the general public regarding American Indian and Alaska Native governments, people and rights.

Leave a Comment

Native American women seek protections from abuse

By SUZANNE GAMBOA | Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) — Diane Millich’s ex-husband was never arrested for any of the more than 100 times he slapped, kicked or punched her before showing up at her Colorado workplace and firing a 9 mm pistol, wounding the co-worker who pushed her out of the way.

When he was finally arrested in New Mexico weeks after the shooting, he was treated as a first-time offender.

Why? Because while Millich is Native American, her ex-husband is not and all the domestic violence took place on the Southern Ute reservation.

Under a 1978 Supreme Court decision, non-Indians cannot be prosecuted by tribal courts for crimes committed on tribal land. Last July, the Justice Department recommended that Congress give tribes local authority to prosecute non-Indians in misdemeanor domestic and dating violence cases. The pending renewal of the Violence Against Women Act seemed a good chance to do that.

But the act has become entangled in election-year politics, with each party adding language on other issues that infuriates the other. Although the version the Senate passed 68-31 would follow the Justice Department recommendations and give tribes the power to prosecute non-Indians in tribal courts, the House so far has not. The House could change its mind and add the provisions as soon as this week when it is expected to consider the bill.

Millich said a change in the law certainly would have helped her deal with the abuse in her marriage, which began with slapping and pushing when she was a 24-year-old newlywed. After a year, Millich filed for divorce and sought a protective order, which her ex-husband mocked because he knew it would not be enforced.

“American Indian women do not have the same protections as non-Indian women. Federal law … has a large gaping hole in it for abusers who are non-Indian,” Millich, 49, said in a briefing for Capitol Hill staffers last week.

She said tribal and county authorities routinely refused to arrest her ex-husband, whom she did not identify by name. Once, she said, he called the county sheriff himself “to show me that no one could stop him,” and indeed, two deputies came to their home and confirmed that they did not have jurisdiction to arrest him.

“I felt like I was walking on eggshells and knew inside that something terrible was going to happen … After I fled he broke into the house, breaking windows, furniture and dishes. He cut the knuckles of his hands during the violence and smeared his blood over the walls, floor and my bedroom sheets,” Millich said.

The day after destroying her home, Millich’s ex-husband showed up at her Bureau of Land Management workplace with a gun. Although officials responded, he escaped and was at large for two weeks while she hid in a women’s shelter, fearful he might find her, she said. Her ex-husband ultimately was offered, and took, a plea deal on an aggravated traffic offense.

“In the end, he was right in that he was above the law,” she said.

Statistics on domestic and dating violence involving Native Americans and non-Indians are vague both because of varying ways tribes collect the information and because much of the violence is unreported. There is hope to improve collection of data.

A recent Census report found about 77 percent of people living on Native American and Alaska Native areas are non-Indian. About half of Native American women are married to non-Indians, according to the Justice Department.

Lisa Boothe, a spokeswoman for Rep. Sandy Adams, R-Fla., herself a victim of domestic violence who wrote the House version of the Violence Against Women Act that excludes the tribal provisions, said laws already exist to deal with non-Indian domestic violence against native peoples that takes place on tribal land.

Although the federal government has authority to prosecute domestic violence involving non-Indians, the cases often are not priorities, said John Harte, who has been lobbying in support of the provisions on behalf of Native American tribes. He said that in 2007, the Salt River Pima, Ariz., tribal police responded to more than 400 acts of domestic violence, many involving nontribe members. That same year U.S. attorneys prosecuted only 21 misdemeanor crimes on Indian lands across the country, Harte said.

Another law gave some states all federal prosecution powers held by the federal government over non-Indians. The law originated in the 1950s as the country was enacting “termination policies” to assimilate tribes into the broader society and do away with reservations and tribes themselves, according to the Justice Department.

Though some local officials have good working relationships with tribes, the isolation of tribal lands and the lack of resources — states don’t collect taxes within Indian Country — usually mean misdemeanor domestic and dating violence take a back seat. Often domestic and dating violence steadily worsens if the abuser is goes unpunished until the victim is seriously wounded or killed.

“Is it working on the ground? The answer is no,” said Terri Henry, a tribal council representative for Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians in Charlotte, N.C.

The legislation also grants defendants the right to counsel if they can’t afford an attorney, an impartial jury that includes non-Indians and a right to appeal. Non-Indian defendants would have the same rights in tribal courts as they have in state courts, according to the Justice Department.

Leave a Comment

NCAI VAWA Update: House Judiciary Committee Passes VAWA Bill Without Key Tribal Provisions

May 9, 2012 -Yesterday, the House Judiciary Committee marked up and passed the Adams (R-FL) version of the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act (VAWA), H.R. 4970.  Tribal advocates-as well as women’s advocates across the nation-worked very hard over the past few weeks to defeat this partisan bill that excludes key protections for Native women and rolls back protections for other vulnerable populations.  But, in a near party-line 17-15 vote (Representative Ted Poe (R-TX) crossed the aisle and voted against the bill’s passage), H.R. 4970 passed out of the House Judiciary Committee. The bill is expected to come to the House floor for consideration by the full House of Representatives as early as next week.

In yesterday’s committee markup, a substitute amendment offered by Ranking Member John Conyers (D-MI) that closely mirrors the bipartisan Senate-passed bill was not even allowed to be considered or debated. Numerous amendments were offered by committee members that aimed to improve the Adams bill, but these amendments were consistently defeated by the House committee majority.  Representative Issa (R-CA) made a powerful statement in support of tribal sovereignty and offered an amendment that would have restored the critical tribal criminal jurisdictional provisions in Section 904 of the bipartisan Senate bill, but he was forced to withdraw his amendment when members of his own party threatened to rule it out of order because it was not “germane.”

Despite the disappointing results of yesterday’s committee markup, we still have a real chance at getting the key Title IX tribal amendments included in H.R. 4970 through a floor amendment.  Please contact your U.S. Representatives right away and urge them to support a floor amendment to H.R. 4970 that would restore the critical protections for Native women contained in the bipartisan Senate bill. 

Click here for a sample letter to send to your Representative.

Click here for talking points on the tribal provisions that need to be included in H.R. 4970.

And don’t forget to call Representative Issa (R-CA) at 202-225-3906 and thank him for standing up for the protection of Native women and tribal sovereignty in yesterday’s House Judiciary Committee markup hearing. 

Founded in 1944, the National Congress of American Indians is the oldest, largest and most representative American Indian and Alaska Native organization in the country. NCAI advocates on behalf of tribal governments, promoting strong tribal-federal government-to-government policies, and promoting a better understanding among the general public regarding American Indian and Alaska Native governments, people and rights.

Leave a Comment

NCAI Action Alert: Violence Against Women Act – Tell Representatives to Oppose H.R. 4970 Unless Key Tribal Provisions are Included!

May 7, 2012

Violence Against Women Act- Tell Representatives to Oppose H.R. 4970 Unless Key Tribal Provisions are Included! 

The House Judiciary Committee will be marking up H.R. 4970, the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act (VAWA) on Tuesday, May 8th.  This bill does not contain any of the key tribal jurisdictional provisions for which we fought so hard in the Senate version.  Now is the time for tribes to contact their Representatives in Congress and let them know that you strongly oppose H.R. 4970 unless the tribal provisions are included! 

ACTION: CALL OR WRITE YOUR REPRESENTATIVE (www.house.gov) & TELL THEM:

We oppose H.R. 4970 because it doesn’t include protections for all victims-specifically, Native victims. We support a bill that protects Native victims by giving tribes more local control to deal with misdemeanor domestic and dating violence in Indian country. We urge you to oppose H.R. 4970 UNLESS the critical tribal provisions are added.

WE NEED TO FLOOD THE REPRESENTATIVES OFFICES WITH CALLS, EMAILS, AND LETTERS.  In addition, we especially need letters to the members of  the House Judiciary Committee (see list below).  Here is a sample letter for your reference.

Republicans

Democrats


Founded in 1944, the National Congress of American Indians is the oldest, largest and most representative American Indian and Alaska Native organization in the country. NCAI advocates on behalf of tribal governments, promoting strong tribal-federal government-to-government policies, and promoting a better understanding among the general public regarding American Indian and Alaska Native governments, people and rights.

Comments Off

NCAI VAWA Action Alert: Don’t Let the House Ignore VAWA’s Tribal Provisions!

(April 30, 2012) Our Native women need you to act right now and ensure VAWA’s tribal provisions aren’t completely left behind by the U.S. House Representatives.

Last week we all celebrated the 68-31 vote by both Republican and Democratic Senators, passing VAWA with the tribal provisions intact. Amongst other things, these provisions would restore concurrent tribal jurisdiction over non-Indians who commit dating and domestic violence in Indian Country.

However, actions by members of the House last week threaten to leave the tribal provisions out of legislation moving forward. Legislation on VAWA could move as early as the beginning of next week.

Protect the Tribal Provisions: Pick up the Phone – Send an Email Now!

This week members returned to their home districts to talk with constituents. It’s up to you to make your voice heard with members of the U.S. House of Representatives and tell them not to leave protections for tribal women behind.

Pick up the phone, write an email, or visit them in person and tell them:

“I urge you to oppose H.R. 4970, the Adams/Cantor VAWA bill, UNLESS the key tribal jurisdictional provisions in Title IX are added!”

Use this sample letter to send House members and important message and attach this one-pager on the tribal provisions to your letter or share it with Representatives when you meet with them.

There is already bipartisan support for the House version of the Stand Against Violence and Empower Native Women Act (SAVE Native Women Act), H.R. 4154.  Current co-sponsors of that bill include:

  • Tom Cole (R-OK),
  • Raul Grijalva (D-AZ)
  • Jay Inslee (D-WA)
  • Dale Kildee (D-MI)
  • Betty McCollum (D-MN)
  • Gwen Moore (D-WI)
  • Michael Simpson (R-ID)
  • Mike Thompson (D-CA)
  • Peter Welch (D-VT)

We need your help to ensure the same type of bipartisan support for inclusion of H.R.4154′s key provisions in the larger VAWA bill!

Background on H.R. 4970

Late last week, about 12 Republican Congresswomen and 3 Republican leaders in the House introduced H.R. 4970, a watered down version of the Senate VAWA bill that contains NONE of the critical tribal jurisdictional provisions.

H.R.4970 is scheduled to be marked up by the House Judiciary Committee on May 8th and it could hit the House floor for a vote as early as that week or the next.

An amendment to include the tribal provisions will likely be offered when H.R. 4970 comes to the House floor for a vote, but passing such an amendment would require 218 votes-and quite a bit of Republican support.   This is definitely doable, but we need your help to garner support for these critical provisions!

Contact your Representatives now and urge inclusion of the  key tribal provisions in H.R. 4970! 


Watch a video of NCAI’s Jackie Pata talking with MSNBC host Melissa Harris-Perry this past weekend about VAWA and the critical need for the tribal provisions.


Founded in 1944, the National Congress of American Indians is the oldest, largest and most representative American Indian and Alaska Native organization in the country. NCAI advocates on behalf of tribal governments, promoting strong tribal-federal government-to-government policies, and promoting a better understanding among the general public regarding American Indian and Alaska Native governments, people and rights.

Comments Off

NCAI ACTION ALERT: Contact Your Senators – VAWA Hits the Senate Floor!

(April 25, 2012) S. 1925, the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act, will be taken up by the Senate today.  Tune in NOW to hear VAWA on the Senate floor!  Monday, Senator Hutchison (R-TX) introduced an alternative VAWA bill, S.2338, which would strip the key tribal jurisdiction provisions and replace them with a proposal that undermines current law and, arguably, would exacerbate the problem.  The Hutchison alternative is expected to fail on a party-line vote, but other Senators will likely offer amendments that would harm the tribal provisions or strip them altogether.  We cannot let harmful amendments pass!

Now is the time to call your Senators and urge them to oppose the Hutchison alternative and other possible harmful amendments from passing.  We have to ensure that S.1925 passes immediately with the key tribal provisions-that will enhance tribal sovereignty and protect Native victims-intact! Senator Udall (D-NM) has worked with his colleagues in the Senate to circulate a ‘Dear Colleague’ letter in support of the tribal provisions of S.1925.  Please make sure that your Senators have signed on to Senator Udall’s ‘Dear Colleague’ letter.

Call your Senators immediately and tell them:

I am a constituent and need my Senator to vote for S. 1925.  S. 1925 is the real VAWA and has protections and services for ALL victims-including Native victims.  A vote for any other bill or for an amendment to strip the tribal provisions is a vote AGAINST VAWA.” Please sign on to Senator Udall’s ‘Dear Colleague’ letter in support of S.1925′s tribal provisions right away to ensure that these life-saving changes remain in the bill.”

Feel free to share talking points on the Grassley/Hutchison language with your senators.

To demonstrate their support for S.1925, U.S. Senators Patty Murray, Barbara Boxer, and Amy Klobuchar will join with Deborah Parker, Vice Chairwoman of the Tulalip Tribes today for a press conference on VAWA.  The press conference-which will highlight the importance of VAWA-will take place today at 11:45a.m. EDT in the U.S. Capitol Building, S-116, the corridor outside of the Foreign Relations Room.  The press conference will not be webcast live, but to obtain a copy of the web video, you may contact Eli Zupnick in Senator Murray’s office at eli_zupnick@murray.senate.gov.

Founded in 1944, the National Congress of American Indians is the oldest, largest and most representative American Indian and Alaska Native organization in the country. NCAI advocates on behalf of tribal governments, promoting strong tribal-federal government-to-government policies, and promoting a better understanding among the general public regarding American Indian and Alaska Native governments, people and rights.

National Congress of American Indians | Embassy of Tribal Nations | 1516 P Street NW | Washington | DC | 20005

Comments Off
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 40 other followers