[Senate Hearing 117-158]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


                                                      S. Hrg. 117-158

                 RESTORING JUSTICE: ADDRESSING VIOLENCE IN 
                  NATIVE COMMUNITIES THROUGH VAWA TITLE 
                  IX SPECIAL JURISDICTION

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

                                HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

                      COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS
                          UNITED STATES SENATE

                    ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION

                               __________

                            DECEMBER 8, 2021

                               __________

         Printed for the use of the Committee on Indian Affairs
         
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT

                               __________

                    U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE                    
46-826 PDF                 WASHINGTON : 2022                     
          
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------   
   


                      COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS

                     BRIAN SCHATZ, Hawaii, Chairman
                 LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska, Vice Chairman
MARIA CANTWELL, Washington           JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota
JON TESTER, Montana                  JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma
CATHERINE CORTEZ MASTO, Nevada       STEVE DAINES, Montana
TINA SMITH, Minnesota                MIKE ROUNDS, South Dakota
BEN RAY LUJAN, New Mexico            JERRY MORAN, Kansas
       Jennifer Romero, Majority Staff Director and Chief Counsel
        K. Williams, Minority Staff Director and General Counsel
                            
                            C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page
Hearing held on December 8, 2021.................................     1
Statement of Senator Cantwell....................................    57
Statement of Senator Cortez Masto................................    52
Statement of Senator Daines......................................    62
Statement of Senator Hoeven......................................    59
Statement of Senator Lujan.......................................     5
Statement of Senator Moran.......................................    65
Statement of Senator Murkowski...................................     2
Statement of Senator Rounds......................................    64
Statement of Senator Schatz......................................     1
Statement of Senator Smith.......................................    54
Statement of Senator Tester......................................     4

                               Witnesses

Chavarria, Hon. J. Michael, Governor, Santa Clara Pueblo.........    17
    Prepared statement...........................................    18
Demmert, Michelle, Director, Law and Policy Center, Alaska Native 
  Women's Resource Center........................................    39
    Prepared statement...........................................    41
Fourstar, Hon. Stacie, Chief Judge, Fort Peck Assiniboine and 
  Sioux Tribes...................................................    28
    Prepared statement...........................................    29
Garriott, Wizipan Little Elk, Principal Deputy Assistant 
  Secretary, Indian Affairs, U.S. Department of the Interior.....    13
    Prepared statement...........................................    14
Randall, Allison L., Principal Deputy Director, Office on 
  Violence Against Women U.S. Department of Justice..............     6
    Prepared statement...........................................     7
Reese, Elizabeth A., Professor, Stanford Law School..............    32
    Prepared statement...........................................    33
Sharp, Hon. Fawn, President, National Congress of American 
  Indians........................................................    21
    Prepared statement...........................................    23

                                Appendix

Letters submitted for the record 


Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe, prepared statement..................    69
Sullivan, Hon. Jeromy, Chairman, Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe, 
  prepared statement.............................................    76
United South and Eastern Tribes Sovereignty Protection Fund, 
  prepared statement.............................................    71

 
 RESTORING JUSTICE: ADDRESSING VIOLENCE IN NATIVE COMMUNITIES THROUGH 
                   VAWA TITLE IX SPECIAL JURISDICTION

                              ----------                              


                      WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 8, 2021


                                       U.S. Senate,
                               Committee on Indian Affairs,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:30 p.m. in room 
628, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Brian Schatz, 
Chairman of the Committee, presiding.

            OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BRIAN SCHATZ, 
                    U.S. SENATOR FROM HAWAII

    The Chairman. Good afternoon. This hearing will come to 
order.
    The Senate Committee on Indian Affairs was established for 
the primary purpose of representing the legislative and 
oversight priorities of Native Americans. The Committee is the 
first stop in the Senate toward achieving these priorities and 
broadly fulfilling the United States' trust and treaty 
obligations.
    The Congress is capable of forgetting these obligations. 
Our trust and treaty obligations are not just abstract 
promises; they are enshrined in the United States Constitution, 
the constitutional mandate that committee members carry with 
them as they go about their work in the Senate.
    When it comes to the Violence Against Women Act, Congress 
does not have the luxury of forgetting this mandate. That is 
because every member of this Committee knows that public safety 
in Native communities is a problem. We have heard from tribal 
leaders, we have heard from law enforcement, and we have heard 
from the families of Native victims.
    Their message is consistent: doing nothing is not an 
option. We have heard that message loud and clear in 2013, with 
the last VAWA reauthorization.
    Almost a decade ago, this Committee came together on a 
bipartisan basis and voted to restore tribal criminal 
jurisdiction over non-Indians who commit domestic violence in 
Indian Country. That vote, one of the first that I took as a 
new member of the Senate and of this Committee, was Congress' 
first real step toward restoring justice for Native 
communities. Because before VAWA in 2013, when tribal law 
enforcement was called to the scene of a rime in Indian 
Country, the officer had to figure out the nature of the crime, 
the status of the land where the crime occurred, whether the 
victim was an Indian, and whether the offender was an Indian.
    That meant tribal law enforcement officers, often the first 
responders on a crime scene, had to complete a complicated 
mental checklist before deciding whether to arrest or detain a 
suspect. It is no wonder tribes had their hands tied when it 
came to maintaining public safety on their own lands.
    The criminals exploited this jurisdictional maze, preying 
on Native women and children and putting tribal communities in 
harm's way. But under VAWA 2013, tribes that opt to exercise 
special domestic violence criminal jurisdiction can cut through 
the legal red tape to enforce protection orders and prosecute 
domestic violence crimes, all while safeguarding defendants' 
due process and constitutional rights.
    For nearly a decade, tribes have made at least 396 arrests 
for VAWA-related crimes, and at least 133 subsequent 
convictions using special tribal jurisdiction. Despite the 
concerns of some, prior to the law passing, there had been zero 
valid habeas corpus petitions filed and zero, zero claims of 
due process violation.
    So what we will hear today is a story of success. Each of 
our witnesses will underscore the importance of special 
jurisdiction for Indian Country. They will also lay out ways 
that Congress can help tribes and Native communities build on 
this success in the next VAWA reauthorization, closing 
jurisdictional gaps, creating parity, providing resources, and 
making sure that Native Americans are not invisible in public 
safety data. These are just a few of the commonsense bipartisan 
solutions that our Committee can and should work to advance.
    That is one of the many reasons I am thankful for my 
partnership with Vice Chair Murkowski. She has been an 
extraordinary leader for Native people across the Country, in 
Indian Country, of course in Alaska, on behalf of Native 
Hawaiians, and especially in this case, on behalf of people who 
are victims of domestic violence. We will continue to work 
together to make sure Indian Country priorities are included in 
the Senate's coming Violence Against Women Act reauthorization.
    Finally, before I turn to Vice Chair Murkowski, I would 
like to extend a special welcome and thanks to our witnesses 
for joining us today. I look forward to your testimony and our 
discussion.
    Vice Chair Murkowski.

               STATEMENT OF HON. LISA MURKOWSKI, 
                    U.S. SENATOR FROM ALASKA

    Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Indeed, it is a genuine thank you. I want to thank you and 
your team for the very cooperative work that has gone into not 
only where we are in holding this very, very important hearing, 
but in the work that we have done in preparing this draft 
legislation that has been publicly now released. It has been a 
little bit of a long process. I think we would all like to move 
more quickly, but I think we also want to do good work. That is 
what this Committee is committed to doing.
    So the focus today on what more we can be doing to ensure 
levels of protection for those who are subjected to violence in 
our Native communities, what more we can be doing for Native 
women around the Country, this is a key priority for us. But 
how we knit this into the broader VAWA picture proposal is also 
very important.
    You have outlined, Mr. Chairman, that sometimes these 
issues of tribal jurisdiction are confusing, they are esoteric. 
But I want to emphasize that the impacts on the ground in 
Native communities, particularly in places like very rural 
Alaska, they are very real, they are very tragic.
    In 2019, we had the Attorney General come out to a small 
Native village. He looked around, he talked to the people, he 
left and he declared a law enforcement emergency. It was based 
on the fact that Alaska has the highest per capita crime rate 
in the Country. We face a unique jurisdictional landscape. But 
jurisdictional complexity should not deny safety or justice. 
That is what we have seen happening.
    In 2013, Congress passed the Violence Against Women Act. In 
Title IX of VAWA 2013, as it is commonly called, Congress 
enacted what has been described as a partial Oliphant fix by 
recognizing the inherent authority of tribes to prosecute and 
punish certain domestic violence crimes committed by non-
Indians against Indian women.
    At that time, this Act was described as unprecedented. Some 
members of Congress and the news media pushed a narrative that 
tribal governments somehow would not be fair, they wouldn't 
safeguard the rights of non-Indian defendants, something that 
we all knew was far from the truth.
    Mr. Chairman, as you have pointed out, eight years later 
the parade of horrible that so many had predicted did not 
happen. I am proud to report, as you have, and we are going to 
hear from our witnesses, despite all the horror stories, non-
Indian defendants experienced a tribal justice system that 
treats them fairly and perhaps in some ways with more attention 
than the State or the Federal system.
    That is why I believe we have a moral imperative here in 
Congress that we take action to further restore and improve the 
implementation of this special tribal criminal law jurisdiction 
over non-Indians who commit violent crimes in our Native 
communities. I firmly believe that by empowering tribal courts 
in this way, we can help combat this major public safety issue 
that affects Native people and Native children.
    We know the statistics on this Committee, we say them a 
lot, but they bear repeating. American Indians and Alaska 
Natives are the victims of rape, sexual assault and domestic 
violence in numbers far out of proportion to the level that 
these crimes are committed outside of Native communities. Most 
often, these crimes are committed by non-Indian men.
    In Alaska, the rates of violence experienced by Alaska 
Natives are horrific. There is no other word than horrific. 
According to a report prepared by the Indian Law and Order 
Commission, Alaska Native women are over-represented by nearly 
250 percent among women domestic violence victims in our 
Country.
    Most Native communities in rural Alaska have no local law 
enforcement physically present. One out of three Native 
communities, one out of three, has no local law enforcement 
that is physically there. Think about what that means if you 
are a victim of violence in your home, if your children have 
been targeted, and there is no presence for law enforcement.
    Currently, Alaska tribes, many of the tribes don't have the 
tools that they need to address this violence in their tribal 
communities. Only one Alaska tribe could potentially implement 
the special jurisdiction. This is wrong, and we have recognized 
that, and we have to make it right. We need to do it in a way 
that recognizes the unique jurisdictional situation that we 
have in Alaska.
    We are a PL-280 State, Alaska is. The Alaska Native Claims 
Settlement Act, ANCSA, is going to be celebrating its 50th 
anniversary just this next week. It created a new and different 
approach to tribal land tenure from the lower 48 reservation 
system. I know it still comes as a surprise to some, but we 
have half the tribes in the entire Country, but we only have 
one Indian reservation in our State.
    After the U.S. Supreme Court decision in the Venetie case 
in which the court held that ANSCA lands are not Indian 
Country, it became the State's duty, largely alone, to provide 
for public safety and justice for Alaska Natives. So we are in 
a situation that just isn't tenable right now.
    But I am happy to report that we have an Alaska solution to 
this complex jurisdictional situation in our State, and we are 
calling it the Alaska Public Safety Empowerment Pilot Project. 
We are rolling it out as a part of the discussion draft text 
title for folks to see, give us your feedback on it. It builds 
on previous legislation that you have seen from me. It is the 
product of years, years of work, with tribal advocates and 
smart lawyers. We are going to be able to hear from Michelle 
Demmert as part of this panel. She has been a great help.
    This pilot project will empower a limited number of Alaska 
tribes to exercise special criminal jurisdiction over certain 
crimes that occur in villages in Alaska. These tribes will have 
to meet certain criteria, including have a tribal justice 
system that can adequately safeguard the rights of defendants. 
I am absolutely confident, absolutely confident, that Alaska 
tribes are up to this task.
    Overall, I think we have a unique opportunity here, working 
in a cooperative and bipartisan way to make a positive 
difference in the safety of our Native communities for Native 
women and children across our Country. I hope, I hope, Mr. 
Chairman, that we seize it.
    Again, I want to thank the witnesses for participating 
today, especially Michelle Demmert, of the Alaska Native 
Women's Resource Center.
    Mr. Chairman, thank you for helping in such a strong and 
constructive way to get us here today. Thank you.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Vice Chair Murkowski.
    Senator Tester would like to introduce one of the witnesses 
for us.

                 STATEMENT OF HON. JON TESTER, 
                   U.S. SENATOR FROM MONTANA

    Senator Tester. I have a real brief opening statement. 
First of all, I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Ranking 
Member Murkowski, for all of the good work that you have done 
on this Committee, particularly on this issue. There are seven 
people on the witness list today, two of them in person and 
welcome, and five of them virtually. So there is a wealth of 
information we can get.
    I would also like to welcome the Montanans we have in the 
house today. I appreciate you folks being here.
    It is very important to have this hearing. The Violence 
Against Women Act saves lives, plain and simple. The 
reauthorization of VAWA is long overdue. Without the 
reauthorization, the lifesaving resources that it offers are 
put to risk.
    Tribal sovereignty needs to be in the forefront of these 
discussions around VAWA reauthorization, and rightfully so. 
Because when it comes to making decisions about Indian Country, 
tribes need to be the ones driving the bus.
    This being said, it is my pleasure to introduce Chief Judge 
Stacie FourStar today, someone who knows about what it takes to 
make these critical decisions. She is a member of the Fort Peck 
Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes. She specializes in Indian law. 
While working in her home community, she has served as 
prosecutor, as associate judge, and now holds the office of 
Chief Judge of the Fort Peck Tribes.
    She has been a key player in implementing VAWA for the 
tribes since it was accepted into a pilot program back in 2015. 
She knows what she is talking about, and I look forward to 
hearing from Chief FourStar and the other six witnesses here 
today.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Tester.
    Senator Lujan, for an opening statement.

               STATEMENT OF HON. BEN RAY LUJAN, 
                  U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW MEXICO

    Senator Lujan. Thank you, Chair Schatz, and Vice Chair 
Murkowski, for holding this hearing to examine the tribal title 
of the Violence Against Women Act Reauthorization. Thank you to 
our witnesses for joining us today.
    I would like to welcome Elizabeth Reese, Yunpovi, of Nambe 
Pueblo, and also introduce Governor Michael Chavarria, Santa 
Clara Pueblo.
    Santa Clara Pueblo is the first and only pueblo or tribe in 
New Mexico to exercise special domestic violence criminal 
jurisdiction under the Violence Against Women Act. As governor 
from 2006 and 2008, and 2014 to 2021, Governor Chavarria 
oversaw the implementation of the criminal jurisdiction, 
creating a new tribal code in 2020 to meet Federal standards 
under VAWA, directing Federal grant funding to train judges and 
defense counsel and law enforcement personnel for this purpose.
    It is my pleasure and honor to have you here today, 
Governor. I look forward to highlighting the pueblo's 
leadership in exercising this jurisdiction and how the Native 
Youth and Tribal Officer Protection Act I introduced today will 
fill in many of the gaps left in place by the 2013 VAWA.
    Thank you, Chair, and I yield back.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Lujan.
    I will now turn to our witnesses. We have seven: Allison 
Randall, Principal Deputy Director, Office on Violence Against 
Women, in the U.S. Department of Justice; Wizipan Little Elk 
Garriott, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, Indian Affairs, 
of the U.S. Department of the Interior; J. Michael Chavarria, 
Governor, Santa Clara Pueblo, Espanola, New Mexico; Fawn Sharp, 
President, National Congress of American Indians; Stacie 
FourStar, Chief Judge, Fort Peck Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes, 
Poplar, Montana; Elizabeth Reese, Assistant Professor of Law, 
Stanford University; Michelle Demmert, Director, Law and Policy 
Center, Alaska Native Women's Resource Center, Fairbanks, 
Alaska.
    I want to remind our witnesses that your full written 
testimony will be made part of the official hearing record. 
Please confine your remarks to five minutes exactly or less if 
you can.
    Principal Deputy Director Randall, the Committee's rules, 
specifically (b), requires that if a Federal witness misses the 
Committee's 48-hour deadline for submission of testimony, the 
witness must state on the record why the testimony was late. 
Please be prepared to start your testimony with an explanation 
of why you were unable to comply with the Committee's rule.
    Now we will recognize the witnesses, starting with 
Principal Deputy Director Randall.

       STATEMENT OF ALLISON L. RANDALL, PRINCIPAL DEPUTY 
        DIRECTOR, OFFICE ON VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN U.S. 
                     DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

    Ms. Randall. Thank you so much, Chairman Schatz, Vice 
Chairman Murkowski, and esteemed members of the Committee.
    My apologies, and please excuse the delayed submission of 
testimony, due to the lengthy inter-agency clearance process 
and the department's comprehensive review.
    I am honored to be here to discuss implementation of 
special domestic violence criminal jurisdiction, how it has 
made a real difference in addressing violence against Native 
women, and how working together, we can continue to make 
progress in addressing these devastating crimes.
    Prior to the Violence Against Women Act reauthorization of 
2013, or VAWA 2013, even violent crimes committed by a non-
Indian husband against his Indian wife in the presence of their 
Indian children, in their home on the Indian reservation, could 
not be prosecuted by the tribe. This lack of jurisdiction left 
many severe acts of domestic and dating violence unprosecuted 
and unpunished.
    At the same time, Native American women continued to suffer 
unacceptably high rates of violence. More than half of American 
Indian and Alaska Native women have experienced physical 
violence by an intimate partner in their lifetimes.
    Congress acted to bridge this critical enforcement gap when 
VAWA was reauthorized in 2013, by recognizing tribes' inherent 
power to exercise special domestic violence criminal 
jurisdiction, or SDVCJ, over certain defendants, regardless of 
their Indian or non-Indian status, who commit acts of domestic 
violence, dating violence, or who violate certain protection 
orders in Indian Country. Congress also required that 
participating tribes provide protections for defendants' rights 
and civil liberties.
    In the years since 2013 has passed, 28 tribes have reported 
that they have implemented SDVCJ. VAWA 2013 has empowered these 
tribes to hold accountable long-time abusers who previously had 
evaded justice. The experience of the implementing tribes has 
demonstrated that tribal authorities can and do protect the 
rights of non-Indian defendants.
    Seven years' experience has also shown that there are gaps 
in SDVCJ that undermine tribal efforts to protect victims and 
hold offenders accountable. The National Congress of American 
Indians' 2018 report on SDVCJ documents cases that could not be 
brought and charges that could not be filed due to these gaps.
    The Department of Justice officials have heard from tribal 
leaders year after year at our annual Violence Against Indian 
Women consultation that tribes cannot prosecute co-occurring 
crimes, such as child abuse, assault on tribal officials, as 
well as sexual assault committed by non-Natives. The stories 
are heartbreaking.
    That is the Department of Justice urges Congress to 
recognize tribal jurisdiction that will allow tribes to hold 
accountable non-Indian perpetrators of the crimes of sexual 
violence, sex trafficking, domestic violence against child 
victims, stalking, elder abuse, and assault against law 
enforcement officers when offenders commit such crimes on 
tribal territory.
    I would also like to address the fact that tribes in Alaska 
face additional challenges in protecting victims and responding 
to offenders, the vast distances, remote locations, and an 
inability to exercise SDVCJ under the current legal framework. 
Given the high rates of violence experienced by Native women in 
Alaska, we are committed to working with the tribes and 
Congress to address these challenges and empower tribes in 
Alaska to confront the violence in their communities.
    The Department continues to listen to tribes and support 
their exercise of SDVCJ. We have heard from tribal leaders that 
they need access to funds to support the day-to-day costs of 
SDVCJ. So today I am pleased to announce OVW is issuing 11 
awards to implementing tribes to defray these costs. To further 
our commitment to finding solutions that work for Alaska Native 
tribes, I am also pleased to announce today that the 
Department's annual consultation will be held in Alaska next 
year.
    In closing, SDVCJ has been a success. But many survivors 
have been left behind, and perpetrators not held fully 
accountable because of its limitations. Congress must act.
    I appreciate the time and attention of this Committee, and 
look forward to answering your questions, and working with you 
on this crucial issue.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Randall follows:]

 Prepared Statement of Allison L. Randall, Principal Deputy Director, 
      Office on Violence Against Women U.S. Department of Justice
Introduction
    Thank you, Chairman Schatz, Vice Chairman Murkowski, and members of 
the Committee for the opportunity to speak to you today. I am pleased 
to be here to discuss implementation of Special Domestic Violence 
Criminal Jurisdiction from 2013-2021, including successes achieved and 
lessons learned.
    In the spring of 1994, I ran away from home and drove halfway 
across the country to a small town just outside Cherokee, North 
Carolina, where the Native American women who worked and were fellow 
residents at a domestic violence shelter saved my life. They embraced 
me, taught me, and encouraged me to give back to other survivors, 
sparking my lifelong dedication to reducing domestic and sexual 
violence. It is thanks to those Cherokee women that I sit before you 
today.
    The U.S. Department of Justice's Office on Violence Against Women 
(OVW) assumes the day-to-day work of implementing VAWA, including 
supporting the exercise of Special Domestic Violence Criminal 
Jurisdiction by federally recognized tribes. The office leads the 
federal government's efforts to reduce violence against women and 
administer justice for and strengthen services to victims of domestic 
violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking. VAWA and 
subsequent legislation authorize four programs that are specifically 
designed for tribal communities: the Tribal Governments Program, the 
Tribal Sexual Assault Services Program, the Tribal Domestic Violence 
and Sexual Assault Coalitions Program, and the Grants to Tribal 
Governments to Exercise Special Domestic Violence Criminal Jurisdiction 
Program (Tribal Jurisdiction Program). In fiscal year (FY) 2021, OVW 
awarded over $43 million under these tribal-specific grant programs. 
OVW also manages a Violence Against Women Tribal Special Assistant U.S. 
Attorney (SAUSA) special initiative, which funds tribal prosecutors who 
can bring cases in both tribal and federal court. The President's FY 
2022 budget request includes an increase of over $46 million for OVW's 
tribal-specific grant programs, including $3 million for OVW's Violence 
Against Women Tribal SAUSA initiative.
    OVW is proud to have a Deputy Director for Tribal Affairs, 
established by the 2005 reauthorization of the Violence Against Women 
Act to oversee administration of OVW's tribal funding, coordinate 
development of federal policy on violence against American Indian and 
Alaska Native women, and provide advice and technical assistance to 
Department officials. This position is currently held by Sherriann C. 
Moore, Rosebud Sicangu' Lakota, who, since 2017, also has led OVW's 
work hosting the Department's annual VAWA-mandated consultation with 
tribal leaders.
Domestic Violence and the Enforcement Gap in Indian Country
    Criminal jurisdiction in Indian country generally is shared among 
the federal, state, and tribal governments, according to a matrix that 
takes into account the nature of the crime, whether the crime has 
victims or is victimless, whether the defendant is Indian or non-
Indian, whether the victim is Indian or non-Indian, and sometimes other 
factors as well. In 1978, in Oliphant v. Suquamish Indian Tribe, the 
U.S. Supreme Court held that, absent express Congressional 
authorization, tribes lack jurisdiction over crimes committed by non-
Indians. \1\ The practical effect of this decision was that, prior to 
the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2013 (VAWA 2013), 
even violent crimes committed by a non-Indian husband against his 
Indian wife, in the presence of their Indian children, in their home on 
the Indian reservation, could not be prosecuted by the tribe. Instead, 
these crimes fell under the criminal jurisdiction of the United States 
or, in some circumstances, of the state.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ 435 U.S. 191 (1978).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
VAWA 2013 and Special Domestic Violence Criminal Jurisdiction
    As a result of this jurisdictional framework, as well as other 
factors, Native American women have suffered some of the highest rates 
of violence at the hands of intimate partners in the United States. A 
National Institute of Justice analysis of 2010 survey data collected by 
the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that more than 
half (55.5 percent) of American Indian and Alaska Native women have 
experienced physical violence by an intimate partner in their 
lifetimes. As this study notes, among these victims, 90 percent have 
experienced such violence by a non-Indian intimate partner at least 
once in their lifetimes. Over their lifetimes, American Indian and 
Alaska Native women are about five times as likely as non-Hispanic 
White-only female victims to have experienced physical violence at the 
hands of an intimate partner who is of a different race. \2\ The same 
analysis likewise found high rates of sexual violence against Native 
American women, concluding that more than 1 in 2 American Indian and 
Alaska Native women (56.1 percent) have experienced sexual violence in 
their lifetimes. American Indian and Alaska Native women are three 
times as likely as non-Hispanic White women to have experienced sexual 
violence by a perpetrator who is of a different race. \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ Andre B. Rosay, U.S. Dept. of Justice, Nat'l Inst. of Justice, 
Violence Against American Indian and Alaska Native Women and Men: 2010 
Findings from the National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey 
(May 2016) 21, 26, https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/249736.pdf.
    \3\ Id. at 13, 18.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In VAWA 2013 (codified at 25 U.S.C. 1304), Congress recognized and 
affirmed tribes' inherent power to exercise ``special domestic violence 
criminal jurisdiction,'' or SDVCJ, over certain defendants, regardless 
of their Indian or non-Indian status, who commit acts of domestic 
violence or dating violence or violate certain protection orders in 
Indian country. For the first time in decades, tribes therefore could 
prosecute non-Indian perpetrators of domestic violence and dating 
violence.
    In broadening the set of persons who could potentially be 
prosecuted by tribes for these specific crimes, Congress required that 
participating tribes provide protections for a criminal defendant's 
rights and civil liberties that would be as robust in tribal court as 
they would be if the defendant were prosecuted in any state court. 
Specifically, in any case in which a term of imprisonment of any length 
may be imposed, the defendant is afforded all applicable rights under 
the Indian Civil Rights Act of 1968, all rights applicable to 
defendants charged with felony offenses under the Tribal Law and Order 
Act of 2010 (TLOA), and also the right to trial by an impartial jury 
chosen from a jury pool that reflects a fair cross-section of the 
community, including both Indians and non-Indians. The TLOA rights 
include providing each indigent defendant, at no cost to the defendant, 
the right to the assistance of a defense attorney licensed to practice 
law.
    In addition, to give tribes time to prepare to meet the 
requirements of the statute, Section 1304 generally did not take effect 
until March 7, 2015, two years after VAWA 2013 was signed into law. In 
the interim, VAWA 2013 established a voluntary Pilot Project 
authorizing tribes to commence exercising SDVCJ on an accelerated 
basis, but only if the tribe could establish to the Attorney General's 
satisfaction that it had adequate safeguards in place to protect 
defendants' rights. Once the two-year Pilot Project concluded, other 
tribes were authorized to exercise SDVCJ without seeking the Attorney 
General's approval.
The Pilot Project for Tribal Jurisdiction over Crimes of Domestic 
        Violence
    After enactment, the Department moved quickly to implement the 
Pilot Project and thereby lay the groundwork for other tribes that 
would choose to implement SDVCJ. On February 6, 2014, the Department of 
Justice announced that the Pascua Yaqui Tribe of Arizona, the Tulalip 
Tribes of Washington, and the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla 
Indian Reservation in Oregon were selected for the Pilot Project. On 
March 6, 2015, the Department announced the designation of two 
additional pilot tribes, the Sisseton Wahpeton Oyate of the Lake 
Traverse Reservation in South Dakota and the Assiniboine and Sioux 
Tribes of the Fort Peck Indian Reservation in Montana.
    The three original Pilot Project tribes achieved notable success 
implementing SDVCJ during the Pilot Project period from February 2014 
through March 2015. Tribes worked closely with their local United 
States Attorneys' Offices to identify which cases were best prosecuted 
by the tribes and which were more suitable for federal prosecution, 
with the common goal of holding offenders accountable and keeping 
tribal communities safe. In this first year of implementation, the 
three pilot tribes had a total of 27 SDVCJ cases involving 23 separate 
offenders. Of the 27 cases, 11 were ultimately dismissed for 
jurisdictional or investigative reasons, 10 resulted in guilty pleas, 5 
were referred for federal prosecution, and 1 offender was acquitted 
after a jury trial in tribal court. \4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ Press Release, U.S. Dept. of Justice, Director Tracy Toulou of 
the Office of Tribal Justice Testifies Before the Senate Committee on 
Indian Affairs Oversight Hearing on Draft Legislation to Protect Native 
Children and Promote Public Safety in Indian Country, (May 18. 2016), 
https://www.justice.gov/opa/speech/director-tracy-toulouoffice-tribal-
justice-testifies-senate-committee-indian-affairs-0.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Intertribal Technical-Assistance Working Group on SDVCJ
    In June 2013, the Department established the Intertribal Technical-
Assistance Working Group on Special Domestic Violence Criminal 
Jurisdiction (ITWG) so that tribes can exchange views, information, and 
advice about how they can best exercise SDVCJ, combat domestic 
violence, recognize victim's rights and safety needs, and fully protect 
defendants' rights. Since then, over 50 tribes have voluntarily joined 
the ITWG where tribes share their experiences implementing or preparing 
to implement SDVCJ, attend in-person meetings, and participate in 
numerous webinars on subjects such as jury pools and juror selection, 
defendants' rights, victims' rights, and prosecution skills. Through 
the ITWG, the Pilot Project tribes and other earlier implementing 
tribes have not only discussed challenges and successes with other 
tribes but also shared best practices, including their revised tribal 
codes, court rules, court forms, jury instructions, and other tools 
they have developed to implement SDVCJ. The Department continues to 
support the ITWG with training and technical assistance, including 
grant awards by OVW to the National Congress of American Indians (NCAI) 
to support the ITWG's ongoing work.
Ongoing Tribal Implementation of VAWA 2013
    To date, 28 tribes have reported to NCAI that they have implemented 
SDVCJ. \5\ Based on updates provided at an October 2021 meeting of the 
ITWG (which does not include data from all tribes that exercise SDVCJ), 
tribes reported the following aggregate statistics regarding their 
implementation of SDVCJ:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\ Since the end of the pilot period, tribes are not required to 
notify the Department if they begin exercising SDVCJ, but NCAI, which 
receives funding from the Department to provide technical assistance to 
tribes implementing or planning to implement SDVCJ, tracks 
developments.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 396 arrests (cases, not charges)

 227 defendants

 133 convictions (both guilty pleas and convictions following a 
        bench or jury trial)

 1 habeas petition (dismissed for lack of jurisdiction)

    In March 2018, NCAI published VAWA 2013's Special Domestic Violence 
Criminal Jurisdiction (SDVCJ) Five-Year Report, \6\ which summarizes 
how tribes implemented SDVCJ in the five years following VAWA 2013's 
enactment and analyzes its impact on tribal communities. The five-year 
report documented the implementing tribes' commitment to upholding the 
rights of non-Indian defendants. According to the NCAI statistics, of 
the 143 arrests for SDVCJ-related crimes, 52 percent resulted in 
convictions, while 18 percent of the cases resulted in acquittals or 
dismissals. Of the cases that were filed, 21 percent were dismissed or 
resulted in acquittals. As noted by NCAI, the rate of dismissals 
indicates that tribes do not proceed with prosecutions where they lack 
jurisdiction or sufficient evidence. Moreover, as of March 2018, of the 
six SDVCJ trials that had occurred-five jury trials and one bench 
trial-five ended in acquittal. The NCAI report quoted a former Attorney 
General of the Pascua Yaqui Tribe describing the tribe's first SDVCJ 
jury trial:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\ The report is available at https://www.ncai.org/resources/ncai-
publications/SDVCJ_5_Year_Report.pdf.

        Although we would have preferred a guilty verdict, this first 
        full jury trial . . . proved our system works. A non-Indian was 
        arrested and held by Pascua Yaqui law enforcement, he was 
        represented by two attorneys, and a majority Yaqui jury, after 
        hearing evidence presented by a tribal prosecutor, in front of 
        an Indian judge, determined that the Tribe did not have 
        jurisdiction in a fairly serious [domestic violence assault] 
        case. \7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\ In that case, while there was no question that the assault had 
occurred, the jury was not convinced that the relationship between the 
victim and the non-Indian defendant met the requirements for qualifying 
as ``domestic violence'' or ``dating violence,'' as is necessary to 
trigger tribal jurisdiction under VAWA 2013.

    The very fact that SDVCJ trials have resulted in acquittals 
suggests that, contrary to the fears of some opponents of SDVCJ, non-
Indian offenders receive fair trials in tribal court. Similarly, the 
fact that only one SDVCJ defendant has filed a habeas petition 
challenging his tribal conviction is a testament to the tribes' ability 
to safeguard the rights of defendants. VAWA 2013 was designed to ensure 
that non-Indian offenders subject to tribal criminal jurisdiction could 
challenge the legality of their treatment in federal court. The statute 
requires that defendants are affirmatively notified of their right to 
petition for habeas review in federal court, and of their right to 
request that tribal detention be stayed during that review. 
Nonetheless, after six years of implementation by dozens of tribes 
involving hundreds of defendants, only one defendant has filed a habeas 
case.
    Critically, statistics from implementing tribes indicate that many 
SDVCJ defendants have long histories with the police, underscoring how 
VAWA 2013 has empowered tribes to finally be able to hold accountable 
long-time abusers. NCAI's report found that, with 18 implementing 
tribes reporting, 85 SDVCJ defendants accounted for 378 prior contacts 
with tribal police before SDVCJ implementation--when the tribes were 
unable to hold non-Indian abusers accountable. For example, the Tulalip 
Tribes reported that their 17 SDVCJ defendants had a total of 171 
contacts with tribal police in the years prior to SDVCJ implementation 
and their ultimate arrests. Similarly, the report found that 73 
defendants arrested and convicted under SDVCJ had prior convictions or 
outstanding warrants, including documented histories of violent 
behavior.
Identified Gaps in SDVCJ
    The NCAI's report also identified several areas where VAWA 2013 
could be strengthened to improve public safety. The report noted that 
the omission of jurisdiction over other common forms of violence 
against women (e.g., stalking, sexual assault, or sex trafficking) was 
a continual source of frustration for implementing tribes, which were 
often unable to prosecute crimes that co-occur with domestic violence. 
Similarly, the report highlighted that the narrow scope of criminal 
conduct that can be charged under SDVCJ has created safety concerns for 
tribal law enforcement, as the tribes lacked the ability to prosecute a 
defendant who assaults responding law enforcement officers or courtroom 
personnel.
    Tribal leaders have repeatedly echoed these same concerns to the 
Department at our annual Violence Against Women Government-to-
Government Tribal Consultation. Most of the tribes that testified about 
SDVCJ between the years 2016 and 2020 advocated to expand SDVCJ to 
include non-Indian perpetrators of sexual assault, sex trafficking, 
crimes against children and law enforcement officers, and property 
crimes, among other crimes.
    One common theme from tribal leaders has been that domestic 
violence incidents often involve attendant crimes that should be 
prosecuted concurrently-including child abuse. For example, in 2016, a 
Board of Trustees Member of the Confederated Tribes of Umatilla Indian 
Reservation testified that ``[c]hildren were present in all [SDVCJ] 
cases prosecuted at Umatilla with the exception of restraining order 
violation cases. All suspects had prior domestic violence incidents on 
their records. In the charges filed under the limited jurisdiction of 
VAWA 2013, there was probable cause for other attendant crimes. 
Domestic violence can also be directed at third parties, such as 
children, family members, boyfriends/girlfriends, or other persons that 
the primary victims have relationships with''-yet tribes cannot 
prosecute these crimes. Similarly, the Tribal Chairman of the Pascua 
Yaqui Tribe explained that ``[m]any tribal communities contain multi-
generational households with extended family members commonly sharing 
residences and childrearing duties. A restrictive definition does not 
allow for the prosecution of acts of domestic violence occurring 
against other, more distantly related children in the home. This gap in 
jurisdiction results in children from the extended family of the 
parties in the romantic relationship being exposed to the harms of 
domestic violence without the perpetrator being held accountable.''
    Of equal importance, many tribes have advocated for an expansion of 
SDVCJ to include non-Indian defendants who commit sexual assaults where 
there is no intimate partner relationship, including those who are 
strangers and do not maintain ``substantial ties'' to the tribe. In one 
instance, the Vice Chairman of the Nez Perce Tribe described how ``A 
woman was taken off our reservation by two non-Native perpetrators and 
raped repeatedly over several days. Even if we had SDVCJ at that time, 
the tribe would not have been able to prosecute the offenders since 
they had no relationship to the victim because SDVCJ only applies to 
intimate partners.'' And the 2018 testimony of a Tribal Council Member 
of the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians highlighted that gaps 
in tribal authority to prosecute sexual assaults committed by non-
Indians have allowed some crimes to go unanswered: ``In the last year, 
our tribe has had two instances of non-Native juveniles sexually 
assaulting their Native step-siblings. The tribe has no jurisdiction, 
so we requested the U.S. attorney to prosecute.'' The Department 
acknowledges the difficulty in prosecuting juveniles in federal court, 
especially if the defendants are very young, and it follows that tribes 
would want jurisdiction to address these crimes within their 
communities.
    Finally, tribes have noted that VAWA left a gap by failing to 
recognize tribal criminal jurisdiction over crimes committed by SDVCJ 
defendants during and after their arrests by tribal authorities. For 
example, the Lieutenant Governor of the Gila River Indian River 
Community testified: ``Our Department of Corrections is concerned about 
whether our tribal courts have the ability to bring additional criminal 
charges against a VAWA inmate who is already imprisoned. For example, 
if a VAWA inmate assaults staff or another inmate, will tribal courts 
have jurisdiction over that incident?''
    The Department and tribes also have identified another shortcoming 
with VAWA 2013's recognition of tribal criminal jurisdiction: it did 
not expressly apply to tribes in Maine. Any new legislation should 
clarify that tribes in Maine may exercise this same jurisdiction so 
that a provision in the Maine Indian Claims Settlement Act does not 
continue to restrict tribes in that state from implementing SDVCJ.
Empowering Alaska Native Villages to Exercise SDVCJ
    Tribes in Alaska face additional challenges in ensuring a strong 
criminal justice response to violence against women crimes due to vast 
distances, remote locations, and the limited amount of Indian country 
in Alaska, a requirement for the exercise of SDVCJ under VAWA 2013. At 
the Department's 2021 Violence Against Women Government-to-Government 
Tribal Consultation, Vivian Korthuis, Chief Executive Officer for the 
Association of Village Council Presidents and a member of the Emmonak 
Tribe, testified from Bethel, AK about some of these challenges:

        We are located on the Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta in western Alaska 
        and this is what I like to call extreme rural America. Our 
        region is about the size of the State of Washington, and there 
        are no roads connecting our 48 villages to each other or the 
        rest of the state. The only way into our region is to either 
        fly or [travel by] barge in the summertime. Transportation 
        within our region is by small plane or boat in the summertime 
        and snow machine on snow machine trails or the ice road in the 
        wintertime.

        The rates of domestic violence in the south in our Tribal 
        communities are 10 times higher than the rest of the United 
        States. This is unacceptable. Last week at our executive board 
        meeting, one of our board members, who is the council president 
        of her Tribe, told me that she called the police to report a 
        crime. Her village has no local law enforcement. Calls for help 
        can be answered [by] one of the few state trooper posts in our 
        region, hundreds of miles away. This time, her call for help 
        was answered in Fairbanks, 453 miles away from her village. 
        They took down her complaint and she never heard from them 
        again.

    According to the 2013 report of the Indian Law and Order Commission 
(ILOC), Alaska Native women are overrepresented in the domestic 
violence victim population by 250 percent. \8\ In the state of Alaska, 
Alaska Native females comprise 7.5 percent of the population \9\ but 
the ILOC found that Alaska Native women are 47 percent of reported rape 
victims in the state. The ILOC also stated that ``the rate of sexual 
violence victimization among Alaska Native women was at least seven 
times the non-Native rate.'' \10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\ The Indian Law and Order Commission. A Road Map for Making 
Native America Safer: Report to the President & Congress of the United 
States. (November 2013) Available at: https://www.aisc.ucla.edu/iloc/
report/files/A_Roadmap_For_Making_Native_America_Safer-Full.pdf.
    \9\ July 1, 2019 estimate from the American Community Survey 
conducted by the U.S. Census Bureau, Population Estimates Program. 
Available at: https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/AK/
RHI325219#RHI325219.
    \10\ Supra note 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    When Congress recognized SDVCJ in VAWA 2013, it limited 
participating tribes to those that exercise jurisdiction over Indian 
country, which is defined as land within the limits of an Indian 
reservation, dependent Indian communities, and Indian allotments. \11\ 
Although there are 229 federally recognized tribes in Alaska, when 
Congress passed the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) in 
1971, it revoked the reservation status of lands set aside for all 
tribes in Alaska except the Annette Island Reservation of the 
Metlakatla Indian Community. \12\ Then in Alaska v. Native Village of 
Venetie Tribal Government, 522 U.S. 520 (1998), the Supreme Court held 
that lands reacquired by the Native Village of Venetie through the 
ANCSA process did not fit within the definition of ``dependent Indian 
community'' under the Indian country statute. See 18 U.S.C. 1151(b). As 
a result, while there are still lands that would qualify as Indian 
country in Alaska, those lands are limited by ANSCA and the Venetie 
decision. As a consequence, tribes in Alaska have not been able to 
realize the benefits of SDVCJ in holding offenders accountable and 
keeping victims safe. This is despite the fact that American Indian and 
Alaskan Native (AIAN) women in Alaska endure staggering rates of 
violence, often in the most remote and sparsely populated regions of 
the country. By some estimates, almost 58 percent of AIAN women in 
Alaska experience interpersonal violence, sexual violence, or both 
during their lifetime. \13\ The extreme climate and geography of Alaska 
coupled with a scarcity of resources means that AIAN victims in Alaska 
are in unimaginable danger. Creating a pilot project to extend SDVCJ to 
select Alaskan tribes could empower tribes in Alaska to confront the 
tremendous violence against women in their communities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \11\ 18 U.S.C.  1151.
    \12\ For example, land was taken into trust for some tribes in 
Alaska pursuant to the Indian Reorganization Act and those lands remain 
in trust status and are therefore Indian country and there are 
allotments in Alaska that may qualify as Indian country as well.
    \13\ Johnson, I. (2021). 2020 Statewide Alaska Victimization Survey 
Final Report. Justice Center, University of Alaska, Anchorage. 
Available at: https://scholarworks.alaska.edu/bitstream/handle/11122/
12259/2021-10%20AVS%202020%20Final%20Report.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Support for Special Domestic Violence Criminal Jurisdiction for Tribes 
        under VAWA
    As emphasized in the President's recent Executive Order on 
Improving Public Safety and Criminal Justice of Native Americans and 
Addressing the Crisis of Missing or Murdered Indigenous People, the 
Department is committed to helping tribes implement SDVCJ and stands 
ready to support tribes if Congress recognizes tribal criminal 
jurisdiction over non-Indian offenders who commit other crimes against 
Indian victims in tribal communities. Such legislation will allow 
participating tribes to hold accountable non-Indian perpetrators of 
sexual violence, sex trafficking, domestic violence against child 
victims, stalking, elder abuse, and assault against law enforcement 
officers when they commit such crimes on tribal territory.
    To support tribes' implementation of this jurisdiction, the 
President's FY 2022 Budget would increase the funding level for OVW's 
Tribal Jurisdiction Program from $4 million to $5.5 million. This 
increased funding will help tribes defray the costs of implementation, 
including those associated with law enforcement, prosecution, court and 
probation systems, corrections and rehabilitation, victim services, 
indigent defense, and empaneling juries.
Conclusion
    SDVCJ has been a success, but many survivors have been left behind 
by its limitations. I urge Congress to build upon tribes' effective 
implementation of SDVCJ under VAWA and recognize tribal criminal 
jurisdiction over additional crimes in order to expand access to 
justice for Native victims and improve public safety in Native 
communities. I appreciate the time and attention of this Committee and 
look forward to answering your questions and working with you on this 
crucial issue.

    The Chairman. Thank you very much.
    Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary Garriott, please 
proceed.

  STATEMENT OF WIZIPAN LITTLE ELK GARRIOTT, PRINCIPAL DEPUTY 
           ASSISTANT SECRETARY, INDIAN AFFAIRS, U.S. 
                   DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

    Mr. Garriott. Hello, good afternoon, Chairman Schatz, Vice 
Chairman Murkowski. In my language I say, [phrase in Native 
tongue], I greet with you a good heart.
    My name is Wizipan Little Elk Garriott. I serve as the 
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs at the 
U.S. Department of the Interior. Thank you for the opportunity 
to present the Department's testimony supporting increased 
efforts to address violence in Indian Country through 
implementation of the Tribal Special Domestic Violence Criminal 
Jurisdiction Provisions in the Violence Against Women Act.
    This is an issue that is close to my heart. Many of my 
relatives have experienced hurt and trauma including abuse as a 
child, domestic abuse, and even human trafficking at the hands 
of both Indian and non-Indian perpetrators. Sadly, living in 
fear is all too often the reality for many in Indian Country.
    As members of this Committee are aware, American Indians 
and Alaska Natives are more than two times as likely to 
experience violent crimes and at least two times more likely to 
experience rape or sexual assault and crimes than all other 
ethnicities. Violence does not happen in a vacuum. This is why 
the Biden-Harris Administration and the Department support the 
expansion of tribal criminal jurisdiction beyond crimes of 
domestic violence as provided for in H.R. 1620, the Violence 
Against Women Act reauthorization.
    In line with this commitment, the Department is working to 
reduce rates of domestic violence and violence against American 
Indian and Alaska Native people, collaborate with tribes and 
law enforcement agencies to equip tribes with the resources to 
respond to violence at the community level, implement models of 
tribal restorative justice, provide violence prevention 
services to diminish cycles of violence, and directly assist 
tribes with solving active and unsolved missing persons and 
homicide cases.
    Also working through the Bureau of Indian Affairs Office of 
Justice Services to implement the Missing and Murdered 
Indigenous Peoples Unit, and to fulfill the requirements of the 
Savanna's Act, the Not Invisible Act, and the President's 
Executive Order on Addressing the Crisis of Missing or Murdered 
Indigenous People.
    Assisting the tribes with implementation of VAWA 2013 is 
another critical part of the Department's commitment to 
addressing this epidemic. To date, 28 tribal governments 
maintain domestic violence jurisdiction over non-Indians, and 
many more tribal governments are in varying stages of planning 
and implementation. The BIA OJS provides support to those 
tribes currently implementing VAWA as well as those with 
prospects for implementation.
    Despite the successes of VAWA 2013, jurisdictional gaps 
persist across Indian Country. Many domestic violence cases 
involve children who are present in the home during alleged 
incidents. According to the Pascua Yaqui Tribe, from 2014 to 
2017, 32 children, all under the age of 11, were exposed to 
violence, were victims, or reported the crime while it was in 
progress. Pascua Yaqui's numbers are not unique. They 
demonstrate the need for tribal criminal jurisdiction to be 
expanded to include crimes against children.
    The time has come to honor tribal sovereignty and expand 
tribal criminal jurisdiction. H.R. 1620 provides for the 
expansion of tribal criminal jurisdiction beyond crimes of 
domestic violence to include crimes of dating violence, 
obstruction of justice, sexual violence, sex trafficking, 
stalking, and assault of law enforcement or correctional 
officers. Importantly, this legislation expands tribal criminal 
jurisdiction to crimes against children.
    Since time immemorial, Native nations have maintained 
effective justice systems. Today, tribal governments of course 
continue to prove they are best suited. This is why the 
Department is pleased to support expansion of criminal 
jurisdiction to tribes in Maine and in Alaska. Due to the 
remote nature and limited resources of many Alaska Native 
villages, providing for public safety and law enforcement serv 
ices remains a big challenge. Many villages lack enforcement, 
and in many cases must wait days for law enforcement response 
to an incident. The Department understands and appreciates the 
unique jurisdictional and resource challenges faced by Alaska 
Native tribes.
    The Administration and the Department are firmly committed 
to working with tribal governments and this Committee to 
meaningfully improve public safety and justice for all tribes.
    Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. I would be 
happy to answer any questions the Committee may have.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Garriott follows:]

  Prepared Statement of Wizipan Little Elk Garriott, Principal Deputy 
  Assistant Secretary, Indian Affairs, U.S. Department of the Interior
    Hello and good afternoon Chairman Schatz, Vice Chairman Murkowski, 
and members of the Committee. My name is Wizipan Garriott, and I serve 
as Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs at the U.S. 
Department of the Interior (Department). Thank you for the opportunity 
to present the Department's testimony at this important oversight 
hearing regarding the implementation of the Tribal special domestic 
violence criminal jurisdiction (SDVCJ) provisions in the Violence 
Against Women Act of 2013 (VAWA 2013).
    As members of this Committee are aware, American Indians and Alaska 
Natives are two and a half times more likely to experience violent 
crimes and at least two times more likely to experience rape or sexual 
assault crimes in comparison to all other ethnicities, according to the 
U.S. Department of Justice Bureau of Justice Statistics. The Biden-
Harris Administration is prioritizing our work to address the crisis of 
Missing and Murdered Indigenous Peoples and reduce the high rates of 
violence in Indian country.
    In line with this commitment, the Department is working to (1) 
reduce rates of domestic violence and violence against American Indian 
and Alaska Native people across Indian country; (2) collaborate with 
Tribes and all law enforcement agencies to ensure that Tribes are 
equipped with resources to respond to violence at the community level; 
(3) implement models of tribal restorative justice that utilize tribal 
knowledge and traditions through the Tiwahe Initiative; (4) provide 
violence prevention services to interrupt long standing cycles of 
violence; (5) directly assist Tribes with solving active and unsolved 
missing persons and homicide cases through the Bureau of Indian Affairs 
Office of Justice Services (BIA-OJS) Missing and Murdered Unit; and (6) 
to fulfil the requirements of Savanna's Act, the Not Invisible Act of 
2019, and the President's Executive Order 14053 on Improving Public 
Safety and Criminal Justice for Native Americans and Addressing the 
Crisis of Missing or Murdered Indigenous People, with the goal of 
improving federal collaboration on law enforcement and justice 
protocols in Indian country and improving tribal data collection and 
access to federal criminal databases.
    Assisting Tribes with implementation of the special domestic 
violence criminal jurisdiction provisions in VAWA 2013 is another 
critical part of the Department's commitment to addressing the epidemic 
of violence in Indian country. The special domestic violence criminal 
jurisdiction provisions affirmed the inherent sovereign authority of 
Tribal governments to exercise criminal jurisdiction over certain non-
Indians who violate protection orders or commit domestic or dating 
violence against Indians in Indian country. This limited restoration of 
inherent Tribal criminal jurisdiction over non-Indians on Tribal lands 
has allowed Tribal governments to significantly increase safety 
throughout Indian country and effectively find justice for victims.
    To date, 28 Tribal governments maintain SDVCJ over non-Indians, and 
many more Tribal governments are in varying stages of planning to 
implement SDVCJ. BIA-OJS provides support to those Tribes currently 
implementing SDVCJ as well as those with prospects for implementation 
by providing funding for training and Tribal court positions focused on 
implementing SDVCJ. Since 2019, BIA-OJS has funded VAWA specific 
trainings for: Navajo Nation, Colorado River Indian Tribes, Pueblo of 
Santa Ana, Pauma Band of Mission Indians, Bay Mills Indian Community, 
Choctaw Nation, Passamaquoddy Nation, and five Tribes in Alaska, with a 
total of 3,370 participants taking part in the trainings. Since 2019, 
BIA-OJS has also funded 115 essential Tribal court positions focused on 
VAWA implementation including judges, prosecutors, probation officers, 
public defenders, special domestic violence clerks, victim specialists 
and batterer intervention specialists. Tribal courts have shown their 
ability to provide due process, effectively implement SDVCJ to hold 
offenders accountable, and protect tribal communities.
    Of the 28 Tribal governments implementing VAWA 2013, the Pascua 
Yaqui Tribe was one of the first to exercise SDVCJ over non-Indians. 
The Pascua Yaqui Tribe has conducted 101 investigations of domestic 
violence perpetrated by 64 non-Indian defendants, resulting in 37 
convictions. Similarly, the Confederated Tribes of Umatilla Indian 
Reservation, also a VAWA Pilot Tribe, has prosecuted 16 non-Indian 
defendants for domestic violence or protection order violations since 
implementing SDVCJ. Additionally, following the Supreme Court's 
decision in McGirt v. Oklahoma, 140 S. Ct. 2452 (2020), the Choctaw 
Nation of Oklahoma increased its SDVCJ cases from 5 to 54 cases in one 
year. The number of domestic violence cases investigated and prosecuted 
are significant across Indian country, and they highlight that these 
crimes were generally not prosecuted before the implementation of 
SDVCJ.
    Despite the successes of SDVCJ, jurisdictional gaps continue to 
persist across Indian country. Domestic violence does not take place in 
isolation, and many SDVCJ cases involve children who were present in 
the house during the alleged incidents. For example, according to the 
Pascua Yaqui Tribe, a total of 32 children, all under the age of 
eleven, were exposed to violence, were victims, or reported the crime 
while it was in progress. Additionally, Muscogee Creek Nation reports 
that in FY 21 there were 47 incidents where children were present 
during the alleged abuse. These numbers reported by the Pascua Yaqui 
Tribe and the Muscogee Creek Nation are not unique in Indian country, 
and they demonstrate the critical need for Tribal criminal jurisdiction 
to be expanded to include crimes against children, or crimes relating 
to child welfare in domestic violence situations.
    The time has come to honor tribal sovereignty and expand tribal 
jurisdiction to crimes outside of domestic violence to further empower 
tribal justice systems to find justice for victims. The Department 
supports the expansion of Tribal criminal jurisdiction as provided for 
in H.R. 1620, the Violence Against Women Act Reauthorization Act of 
2021. H.R. 1620 provides for the expansion of Tribal criminal 
jurisdiction beyond crimes of domestic violence, to include crimes of 
dating violence, obstruction of justice, sexual violence, sex 
trafficking, stalking, and assault of a law enforcement or corrections 
officer. Importantly, H.R. 1620 expands tribal criminal jurisdiction to 
crimes against children. SDVCJ has been critical to increasing public 
safety and justice across Indian country. Expanding Tribal criminal 
jurisdiction beyond domestic violence crimes will be a significant step 
toward ending the crisis of Missing and Murdered Indigenous Peoples. 
Tribal governments and courts have shown many times over that they are 
the ones best suited to effectively administer justice in Indian 
country, and the Department is committed to supporting Tribal efforts 
to ensure the safety of all American Indian and Alaska Native people.
    To that end, the Department specifically supports the expansion of 
Tribal criminal jurisdiction to Tribes in Maine and Alaska. The Maine 
Indian Claims Settlement Act has been interpreted to restrict Tribes in 
Maine from exercising SDVCJ under VAWA 2013. H.R. 1620 clarifies that 
Tribes in Maine may exercise criminal jurisdiction.
    Additionally, under VAWA 2013, to exercise SDVCJ a Tribe must have 
lands that meet the definition of ``Indian country'', including 
reservations, dependent Indian communities, and Indian allotments. See 
25 U.S.C  1304 (a); 18 U.S.C.  1151. In Alaska v. Native Village of 
Venetie, 522 U.S. 520 (1998), the Supreme Court held that most Tribal 
lands in Alaska are not considered ``Indian country'' for jurisdiction 
purposes, and as a result presently almost all Tribes in Alaska cannot 
exercise SDVCJ.
    H.R. 1620 provides for the creation of a pilot project to allow up 
to five Tribes in Alaska to implement special Tribal criminal 
jurisdiction, and defines ``Indian country'' to include ``(1) Alaska 
Native-owned Townsites, Allotments, and former reservation lands 
acquired in fee by Alaska Native Village Corporations pursuant to the 
Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (43 U.S.C. 33), and other lands 
transferred in fee to Native villages; and (2) all lands within any 
Alaska Native village with a population that is at least 75 percent 
Alaska Native'' for purposes of the pilot project.
    Alaska Native people suffer high rates of violence and due to the 
remote nature of many villages and limited resources, providing for 
public safety, law enforcement and justice services is a significant 
challenge. The Department supports the creation of a pilot project to 
permit Alaska Native Tribes to exercise special Tribal criminal 
jurisdiction to keep these communities safe.
    H.R. 1620 responds to the demonstrated need for increased public 
safety in Alaska Native Villages to address high rates of domestic 
violence and related crimes, and to longstanding calls from Alaska 
Native Tribes for greater authority and local control to address the 
same. Of particular note, Section 106 of the bill specifically provides 
civil jurisdiction authority for Alaska Native Tribal courts to issue 
and enforce protection orders. The Department understands and 
appreciates the unique jurisdictional and resources challenges faced by 
Alaska Native Tribes and we stand ready to assist Alaska Native Tribes 
with implementing expanded jurisdictional authority that is tailored to 
the needs of Alaska Native Tribes.
    This Administration is firmly committed to working with Tribal 
governments to meaningfully improve public safety and justice for all 
Tribes. Thank you for the opportunity to provide the Department's views 
on the implementation of VAWA's Tribal criminal jurisdiction 
provisions. We look forward to continuing to work with the Committee to 
support the ability of Tribal governments to keep their people safe and 
find justice for victims.

    The Chairman. Thank you very much, Mr. Garriott.
    Next, we have Governor Chavarria from the Santa Clara 
Pueblo.

 STATEMENT OF HON. J. MICHAEL CHAVARRIA, GOVERNOR, SANTA CLARA 
                             PUEBLO

    Mr. Chavarria. [Greeting in Native tongue.] Good afternoon, 
and honor and respect, Chairman. In my Tewa language, I am 
asking permission to speak, sir.
    The Chairman. You have our permission. We are honored to 
grant it.
    Mr. Chavarria. Thank you, Chairman. Thank you, Member 
Murkowski and members of the Committee for inviting me to 
testify addressing violence in Native American communities.
    My name is Michael Chavarria. I serve as the Governor for 
Santa Clara Pueblo. I testify today on behalf of the Pueblo 
Santa Clara to share our experience in the hope that it will 
assist you and your staff in broadening the current protection 
provided in VAWA Title IX special jurisdiction. The current 
protections go far; however, they do not go far enough.
    Specifically, law enforcement officers need to be protected 
when they respond to domestic violence calls. Currently, law 
enforcement officers are not included in VAWA Title IX special 
jurisdiction. Whenever law enforcement is called into extremely 
dangerous domestic violence situations, the Pueblo cannot 
protect our own officers when that perpetrator is a non-Native.
    Specifically, children need to be protected as well from 
domestic violence. Currently, the protections of VAWA Title IX 
special jurisdiction only apply to past or present incident 
partner relationships. However, children are commonly victims 
of domestic violence.
    Here is a real example of the need for protection for law 
enforcement. On February 11th, 2013, a Santa Clara tribal 
police officer responded to a domestic violence disturbance. 
The tribal member and a non-Native were living together in an 
intimate partner relationship within the Pueblo. Notified that 
a tribal member may be in danger, the tribal police went to the 
residence. While checking on that tribal member, a drunken non-
Native individual assaulted the officer. The non-Native 
perpetrator was not prosecuted by the State or the Federal 
Government.
    The Pueblo did its best to avoid the problem from happening 
again. The non-Native was excluded from entering the Pueblo. 
However, the Pueblo looked for a better solution. So in March 
of 2013, VAWA Title IX special jurisdiction was signed into 
law. Santa Clara Pueblo immediately saw VAWA as an opportunity 
to protect our community, our people. We signed up to exercise 
special domestic violence criminal jurisdiction over non-Native 
domestic violence perpetrators. With Federal funding, we began 
to meet the Federal standard to exercise this jurisdiction.
    So in the summer of 2020, we were finally approved by both 
the Department of Interior and the Department of Justice to 
exercise that jurisdiction. Currently, we are the only tribe in 
New Mexico exercising this special jurisdiction. So it is 
critical that the definition of domestic violence victims in 
VAWA Title IX special jurisdiction should be expanded to 
include law enforcement officers and children.
    Today in the real world, our police officers are still not 
sufficiently protected when they respond to these potentially 
dangerous domestic violence calls. Our children are not 
protected, either. The special jurisdiction definitions require 
the intimate relationship. But if that provision of VAWA is 
broadened to protect law enforcement and children, we can then 
provide justice to our entire community.
    So broadening the definition will protect our people. Thank 
you, Chairman, for VAWA, and for continuing the Federal funding 
which is very critical. I also submit my written testimony for 
the record, and I will stand for questions.
    Thank you, Chairman, members of the Committee.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Chavarria follows:]

Prepared Statement of Hon. J. Michael Chavarria, Governor, Santa Clara 
                                 Pueblo
    Introduction. Thank you Chairman Schatz, Ranking Member Murkowski, 
and Members of the Committee for holding this important oversight 
hearing on Addressing Violence in Native Communities through VAWA Title 
IX Special Jurisdiction. My name is J. Michael Chavarria and I am the 
Governor of the Pueblo of Santa Clara, also serving in the capacity of 
the Chairman for the Eight Northern Indian Pueblos Council and on the 
All Pueblo Council of Governors (APCG), which is comprised of the 
leaders of the nineteen Pueblos of New Mexico and Ysleta del Sur Pueblo 
in Texas. Together and individually, our communities are dedicated to 
improving the safety and welfare of our tribal citizens. I testify 
today in my capacity as the Santa Clara Governor.
I. Background on the Violence Against Women Act and Indian Country
    Native women, men, and children living in Pueblo and Indian Country 
face almost daily challenges to their physical safety and mental well-
being. The threats begin in the womb in the form of restricted access 
to maternal healthcare services, safe housing, and inadequate nutrition 
for fetal development, and continue into adolescence and adulthood in 
high rates of physical, emotional, and sexual violence, human 
trafficking, substance/mental abuse and suicide. When coupled with the 
jurisdictional issues that further complicate the delivery of limited 
public safety and victim services on tribal lands, particularly in 
regards to the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), it becomes clear that 
additional resources and targeted political actions are urgently needed 
to protect our tribal citizens.
    In the United States, the Federal Government has exclusive 
jurisdiction over cases of murder, sexual abuse, kidnapping, serious 
bodily assault, and certain other crimes committed in Indian Country 
pursuant to the Major Crimes Act, 18 U.S.C.  1153. VAWA authorized 
tribal courts to exercise criminal jurisdiction over non-Native 
offenders who commit domestic or dating violence against Native victims 
on tribal lands-crimes that have been historically under-prosecuted in 
the United States. VAWA's Special Domestic Violence Criminal 
Jurisdiction is critical to ensuring that dangerous jurisdictional gaps 
are closed by allowing tribal law enforcement to exercise jurisdiction 
over non-indigenous offenders who commit certain crimes on tribal 
lands. VAWA has enabled tribal nations to further justice in such cases 
by removing cumbersome jurisdictional barriers from tribal courts. This 
special jurisdiction also honors our tribal sovereignty by helping us 
to build our internal justice capacities.
    VAWA authorization expired in February 2019. It is the position of 
our Pueblo that any reauthorization should include expanded tribal 
jurisdiction over crimes against children, law enforcement personnel, 
or sexual assault crimes committed by strangers to provide increased 
safety and access to justice services for Native victims of crime. A 
strong, dependable local law enforcement is critical for victims of 
crime to feel like they have support and an opportunity to attain 
justice. A permanent reauthorization of VAWA is vital to continuing 
these efforts.
II. Permanently Reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act with 
        Expanded Tribal Jurisdiction over Non-Indian Offenders to 
        Protect 
        Native Youth and Tribal Officers
    VAWA has directly contributed to the increased safety and access to 
justice services for victims of crime in Indian Country. The Act 
authorized tribal courts to exercise criminal jurisdiction over non-
Indian offenders who committed domestic or dating violence against 
Indian victims on tribal lands--crimes that have been historically 
under-prosecuted in Indian Country. These protections apply to equally 
to Native women and men. According to the National Congress of American 
Indians' ``Special Domestic Violence Criminal Jurisdiction Five-Year 
Report,'' approximately 43 percent of Native men and 55 percent of 
Native women experience physical abuse from an intimate partner in 
their lifetime. \1\ VAWA has enabled tribal nations to further justice 
in such cases by removing cumbersome jurisdictional barriers from 
tribal courts. Unfortunately, VAWA reauthorization lapsed almost three 
years ago and still has not been renewed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ National Congress of American Indians, Special Domestic 
Violence Criminal Jurisdiction Five-Year Report at 1 (March 20, 2018), 
available at http://www.ncai.org/resources/ncai-publications/
SDVCJ_5_Year_Report.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    VAWA marked an historic step forward for tribal nations in 
protecting Indian victims from non-Indian offenders in cases of 
domestic violence on tribal lands. Tragically, the existing law does 
not cover crimes against children, law enforcement personnel, or sexual 
assault crimes committed by strangers. As a result, some of the most 
vulnerable members of our communities and those who serve to protect 
them are unable to enforce their rights in tribal courts. Intimate 
partner violence is a scourge that VAWA has helped to address but much 
remains to be done to protect our people. The next reauthorization of 
the Act should be permanent and include expanded tribal jurisdiction 
over these crimes to provide increased safety and access to justice 
services for victims of crime, specifically by closing existing 
loopholes in the law to protect our Native youth and tribal law 
enforcement personnel.
III. Pueblo of Santa Clara's Experience with Exercising VAWA Special 
        Domestic Violence Criminal Jurisdiction (SDVCJ)
    The Pueblo of Santa Clara has long fought to protect our members 
through the exercise of criminal jurisdiction on our lands. It has been 
a process of over seven years for our Pueblo to progress from planning, 
to meeting federal standards, to implementation of SDVCJ. To illuminate 
our work in this area, I would like to share the following history with 
the Committee.
    On February 11, 2013, while living within the household of a Santa 
Clara Pueblo member, a non-Indian individual allegedly assaulted his 
live-in partner and then assaulted the Tribal Police officer who 
responded to the domestic violence emergency call. Neither the State of 
New Mexico nor federal law enforcement authorities prosecuted the 
domestic violence case against the Tribal Police officer. Incidents of 
domestic violence are among the most volatile situations that a tribal 
police officer can respond to. The inability of our tribal justice 
systems to prosecute crimes against officers is a matter of grave 
public safety concern.
    In March 2013, shortly after the above domestic violence incident, 
President Barack Obama signed the Violence Against Women Act 
Reauthorization Act of 2013. Our Tribal Council viewed Title IX of the 
law on ``Safety for Indian Women'' as a means to accomplish the goals 
of protecting the community from domestic violence with its affirmation 
of the Pueblo's inherent power to exercise criminal jurisdiction over 
all persons. Through a series of resolutions, Tribal Council approved 
full implementation of VAWA on Pueblo lands as soon as federal funding 
could be secured. We raised our strong desire to exercise SDVCJ with 
the President, our New Mexico congressional delegation, and federal 
agencies involved in public safety in Indian Country, such as the 
Departments of Interior and Justice. Ultimately, our Pueblo joined the 
VAWA Pilot Project, a Department of Justice funded program to help 
interested tribal nations implement SDVCJ.
    In November 2013, our Tribal Council adopted Resolution No. 2013-60 
allowing for emergency exclusions of non-members with due process to 
reduce crime on Pueblo lands, including incidences of domestic 
violence. Our Pueblo also had to adopt certain measures and take 
concrete actions to meet federal standards for implementation of VAWA. 
These were administratively burdensome and, in many instances, costly 
to undertake. Yet, for our Pueblo the time and financial expenditures 
were challenges that we necessarily took on to advance our public 
safety.
    One example of the costs of meeting federal implementation 
standards is in facilities. The infrastructure for justice services 
must satisfy certain requirements as part of demonstrating the adequacy 
of our tribal justice systems to carry out VAWA responsibilities. We 
applied for and were awarded $1,998,406 (2016-IP-BX-0013) through the 
Department of Justice's Office of Tribal Justice and the Bureau of 
Justice Administration for the renovation and expansion of our 
courthouse. Facilities standards we had to meet included: a secure, 
healthy facility with closed files; a detention room for alleged 
offenders; expanded public seating; a community education room; a jury 
box; jury deliberation room; modern recording devices; fire and safety 
upgrades; and disability accessibility.
    Within the courthouse, we are required to maintain federal services 
standards. Through the Office on Violence Against Women (OVW) we were 
awarded $239,074 in funding (2016-SD-AX-K001) to meet applicable 
requirements. We used the funds, in part, to draft our SDVCJ Domestic 
Violence Code, which was approved by the Departments of Justice and the 
Interior on July 9, 2020. The funds could also be used to meet federal 
standards for VAWA training and hiring of contract prosecutors and 
defense attorneys; travel for covered purposes; training of courthouse 
staff; juror fees; juror education; and education sessions for the 
public.
    It took us approximately seven years from the initial planning to 
full implementation of the federal standards to exercise SDVCJ on our 
lands. However, that being said, our Pueblo has not met all of its 
goals nor spent its budget as it relates to domestic violence 
prevention and prosecution under VAWA. This is due in substantial part 
to the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic. Our Pueblo entered a 20-month 
lockdown, which has had the side effect of greatly reducing crime 
within our exterior boundaries. Only members or those with a license to 
live on Pueblo lands are being allowed into the community at this time.
    On July 30, 2020, a Tribal Police officer responded to a domestic 
violence disturbance within the Pueblo. The case involved a 19 month 
old child in the care of the grandmother and mother. The grandmother 
alleged that the mother had assaulted and strangled her over a dispute 
regarding the care of the child. It was eventually verified by the 
officer that the mother of the child was Indian. It was also confirmed 
that, if the mother had been non-Indian, the child would not have been 
protected by SDVCJ as the child would not qualify as being in an 
intimate relationship as defined by VAWA Title IX Special Jurisdiction. 
The definition of domestic violence victims in VAWA Title IX Special 
Jurisdiction must be expanded to close this dangerous gap and cover our 
children.
    The National Congress of American Indians reported in its March 7, 
2019, testimony to the House Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on 
Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security that:

        The tribes implementing SDVCJ report that children have been 
        involved as victims or witnesses in SDVCJ cases nearly 60 
        percent of the time. These children have been assaulted or have 
        faced physical intimidation and threats, are living in fear, 
        and are at risk for developing school-related problems, medical 
        illnesses, post-traumatic stress disorder, and other 
        impairments. However, federal law currently limits SDVCJ to 
        crimes committed only against intimate partners or persons 
        covered by a qualifying protection order. The common scenario 
        reported by tribes is that they are only able to charge a non-
        Indian batterer for violence against the mother, and can do 
        nothing about violence against the children. Instead, tribes 
        are only able to refer these cases to state or federal 
        authorities, who may or may not pursue them.

    This is unacceptable and must be addressed by an expansion of VAWA 
Title IX Special Jurisdiction pursuant to broadened definitions that 
account for children in domestic violence situations.
    We have used the time during the pandemic to assess successes and 
gaps in VAWA SDVCJ implementation, as well as review our operational 
costs and plan for the future. A need that clearly emerged is for 
additional federal support for our Pueblo in exercising SDVCJ. 
Specifically in covering the costs of appellate proceedings, 
incarceration, and medical care. We applied for additional funds to 
advance these activities under the OVW FY 2022 Support for Tribes 
Exercising SDVCJ Initiative in November 2021. Even with our success at 
implementing SDVCJ much more work remains to be done.
IV. Additional Federal Support Needed for Tribal Governments to 
        Exercise Special Domestic Violence Criminal Jurisdiction
    We believe that all tribal nations should have the opportunity to 
enhance the safety of their tribal members by exercising the SDVCJ 
authorized under VAWA. Too many tribal nations, however, lack the 
resources, infrastructure, personnel, and training to carry out these 
activities on their own. Additional federal funding and resources are 
urgently needed particularly as the desire to participate in VAWA's 
SDVCJ and related support services is strong and only growing.
    Additional federal funds are also needed to supplement the budget 
for the OVW tribal program with the area of greatest unmet need. 
Effectively addressing the public safety crisis in Indian Country 
requires a holistic approach. We must address tribal court jurisdiction 
over non-Indian offenders and the lack of economic opportunities that 
contribute to social despair and interpersonal violence. We must 
address the lack of a quality and structurally sound educational 
infrastructure in many tribal communities and the high rates of 
substance abuse among Native youth. We must address under-resourcing of 
tribal law enforcement entities and the rise in major crimes across 
Indian Country. Each of these issues influences the others and shapes 
the public safety landscape of a tribal community. We, therefore, 
recommend that additional federal resources be allocated to areas of 
greatest need to advance the interests of Indian Country.
    Our tribal citizens need to be safe in their home communities, and 
our tribal governments are the best situated to provide the necessary 
services. Accessing the necessary resources, however, continues to 
present challenges. Many tribal nations are daunted by the application 
process and the perquisites needed to qualify for the program. Others 
are uncertain about how to engage in the infrastructure building 
process to carry out their VAWA responsibilities. As a result, the OVW 
has encountered the distressing situation in which there is a 
documented need for assistance, readily available federal funds, but 
low applicant participation.
    Relatedly, on an administrative note, we recommend that the OVW 
streamline the application process so that it is more responsive to the 
internal capabilities of each tribal nation. Reduced and/or more 
flexible application requirements would help lighten the administrative 
burden on all tribal nations while also making the program more 
accessible to smaller and financially restricted tribal governments. 
This should be accompanied by a reissuance of solicitation the OVW 
solicitation to exercise this jurisdiction would enable more tribal 
nations to receive support for these critical services. To the extent 
permitted by law, the reissuance of the solicitation should include 
targeted education and outreach to geographic regions that have thus 
far been unrepresented in the application process.
V. Create a Line Item for the Establishment of New Tribal Justice 
        Departments
    The Pueblo of Santa Clara has a robust tribal justice department 
and Tribal Court system. We have invested significant tribal funds in 
the establishment and continued development of our tribal justice 
services. We are also grateful for the federal funds that have enabled 
us to expand in recent years in relation to VAWA, as described herein. 
With the additional resources made possible by these federal dollars, 
we have been able to enrich the exercise of our statutory and sovereign 
jurisdiction over non-Indians who commit crimes of domestic violence 
against Indians on our land.
    Many tribal nations, however, do not have tribal justice 
departments and lack the resources to establish programs on their own. 
While a plethora of federal resources exist to assist tribal nations 
that have established law enforcement agencies or a tribal court, very 
few-if any-federal funds are available to facilitate the start-up 
process. This is particularly true in the Department of Justice where 
existing tribal justice services are a prerequisite to qualify for both 
strategic planning and competitive grants. Having experienced the 
benefits of operating our own tribal justice department and tribal 
court system, we stand with other tribal nations who wish to exercise 
this fundamental aspect of tribal sovereignty but lack the immediate 
resources to accomplish their goals. We, thus, recommend as an 
ancillary factor to the successful expansion and implementation of VAWA 
Title IX that a line item within the Department of Justice to create a 
special program to assist tribal nations in the establishment and 
development of new tribal courts and justice services, including law 
enforcement departments be advanced in the FY 2022 budget and going 
forward.
    Conclusion. Thank you for the opportunity to testify on VAWA Title 
IX Special Jurisdiction and its role in addressing violence in tribal 
communities. Title IX Special Jurisdiction is a vital authority to 
exercising tribal sovereignty and restoring justice on tribal lands in 
cases of domestic violence. Yet, over the years of its initial 
implementation hard lessons are being learned that this Congress is now 
tasked with remedying. Top among these is the fact that gaps in VAWA 
jurisdiction continue to leave our tribal police officers and children 
exposed. Title IX Special Jurisdiction must be broadened to close these 
points of exposure and strengthen public safety in Indian Country-the 
welfare of our most vulnerable members and communities depends on it. 
On behalf of the Pueblo of Santa Clara, kuunda and thank you.

    The Chairman. Thank you, Governor.
    Next, we have Fawn Sharp, President of the National 
Congress of American Indians.

 STATEMENT OF HON. FAWN SHARP, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL CONGRESS OF 
                        AMERICAN INDIANS

    Ms. Sharp. [Greeting in Native tongue.] Chairman Schatz, 
Vice Chairman Murkowski and members of the Senate Committee on 
Indian Affairs, on behalf of the National Congress of American 
Indians, I would like to thank you for holding this hearing on 
the success of the 2013 Violence Against Women Act, and the 
critical need to reauthorization VAWA with strong tribal 
provisions.
    My name is Fawn Sharp, Vice President of the Quinault 
Indian Nation and President of NCAI. We welcome the opportunity 
to work with the Committee to pass bipartisan legislation that 
continues to build on VAWA's success and includes four 
priorities for VAWA reauthorization.
    Number one, amend 25 U.S.C. Section 1304 to fill the 
current jurisdictional gaps. Number two, ensure and reaffirm 
that all 574 tribal nations can exercise criminal jurisdiction 
through VAWA. Number three, reauthorize VAWA's tribal grant 
programs and create a reimbursement program for exercising 
tribal nations. And fourth and finally, create a permanent 
authorization for the U.S. Department of Justice's tribal 
access to the National Crime Information program.
    These four priorities build off of the 2013 VAWA 
reauthorization and further acknowledge the inherent tribal 
sovereignty and tribal jurisdiction to protect the safety and 
security of Indian Country. In the eight years since Congress 
reauthorized VAWA, we have seen tribal nations combat domestic 
violence against Indian women, while protecting non-Indian 
rights in an impartial tribal forum. By exercising their 
inherent sovereignty and jurisdiction, many tribal nations have 
increased safety and justice for victims who had previously 
seen little of either.
    Currently, 28 tribal nations are exercising VAWA's special 
domestic violence criminal jurisdiction, and in eight years, 
these nations have made 396 arrests, prosecuted 227 defendants, 
leading to 133 convictions. In 2016, the Department of Justice 
stated that these programs have allowed tribal nations to 
respond to long-time abusers who previously had evaded justice.
    It has also revealed places where the Federal 
administrative policies, practices, resources and tools needed 
to be strengthened to enhance justice for victims of sexual 
violence, children, elders and law enforcement. Tribal nations 
report that children have been involved as victims or witnesses 
in nearly 60 percent of these cases. These children have been 
assaulted or have faced physical intimidation and threats, are 
living in fear and are at risk for developing school-related 
problems, medical illness, post-traumatic stress disorder, and 
other impairments.
    However, Federal law currently limits these cases to crimes 
against intimate partners, or persons covered by a qualifying 
protection order. This common scenario reported by tribal 
nations is that they are only able to charge a non-Indian for 
violence against the mother, and can do absolutely nothing 
about violence committed against the children.
    Similarly, tribal nations lack jurisdiction to charge a 
non-Indian offender for crimes that may occur within the 
context of the criminal justice process itself, such as 
resisting arrest, assaulting an office, witness tampering or 
obstructing justice. Tribal nations are also unable to 
prosecute crimes of sexual assault, trafficking, and stalking.
    In addition to the gaps, not all 574 tribal nations were 
included in VAWA 2013. Tribal nations in Alaska and Maine must 
be expressly included in this next reauthorization to protect 
their citizens and communities.
    Before I conclude my testimony, I want to share a case from 
the Sioux Ste Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians that illustrates 
how tribal jurisdictional gaps have real consequences. In the 
case, a non-Indian man in a relationship with an Indian woman 
moved in with her and her 16-year-old daughter on the 
reservation. The man began making unwanted sexual advances 
toward the 16-year-old daughter and groped her. The tribal 
nation charged him with domestic abuse against the mother and 
attempted to tie the daughter's sexual assault to the mother's 
case. The tribal court had no choice but to dismiss the charges 
for lack of criminal jurisdiction.
    Soon after, he kidnapped a 14-year-old Indian child, took 
her off the reservation and repeatedly raped her. This horrific 
crime could have been prevented if the tribal nation had the 
ability to exercise criminal jurisdiction in the first place.
    Removing the gaps in tribal jurisdiction and ensuring all 
574 tribal nations can exercise jurisdiction, and providing the 
resources and tools for implementation together can 
dramatically change the environment in Indian Country by 
empowering tribal sovereignty and safety.
    Please join us in sending this message that domestic 
violence, sexual assault, child abuse, elder abuse, stalking 
and trafficking will not be tolerated on our tribal lands. We 
look forward to working with each of you to pass a bipartisan 
VAWA bill that includes strong tribal provisions.
    [Phrase in Native tongue].
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Sharp follows:]

Prepared Statement of Hon. Fawn Sharp, President, National Congress of 
                            American Indians
    Chairman Schatz, Vice Chairman Murkowski, and members of the Senate 
Committee on Indian Affairs, on behalf of the National Congress of 
American Indians (NCAI), I am pleased to present testimony to the 
Committee on the success of the 2013 Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) 
and the critical need to reauthorize VAWA with strong tribal provisions 
now. NCAI is the oldest and largest national organization representing 
American Indian and Alaska Native tribal governments in the United 
States. NCAI is steadfastly dedicated to protecting the rights of 
Tribal Nations to achieve self-determination and self-sufficiency, and 
to the safety and security of all persons who reside within or visit 
Indian Country.
    In 2000, NCAI's member Tribal Nations adopted resolution STP-00-
081, establishing the NCAI Task Force on Violence Against Native Women. 
Since that time, the Task Force has worked to identify needed policy 
reforms at the tribal and federal levels. NCAI has been actively 
involved in the development of the tribal provisions of VAWA in the 
past reauthorizations of the bill. Each time VAWA has been 
reauthorized, it has included important provisions aimed at improving 
safety and justice for Indian women. We welcome the opportunity to work 
with the Committee to pass bipartisan legislation that continues to 
build on VAWA's success and promise. At this time, we would like to 
share four priorities for the upcoming bipartisan VAWA reauthorization:

        1. Include amendments to 25 U.S.C.  1304 that will fill 
        jurisdictional gaps and ensure that the tribal criminal 
        jurisdiction provision included in VAWA 2013 fully achieves its 
        purpose;

        2. Ensure and reaffirm that all 574 Tribal Nations can exercise 
        criminal jurisdiction through VAWA;

        3. Reauthorize VAWA's tribal grant programs and create a 
        reimbursement program for exercising Tribal Nations; and

        4. Create a permanent authorization for U.S. Department of 
        Justice's Tribal Access to National Crime Information Program.

Building on Success and Filling Jurisdictional Gaps
    Eight years ago, when Congress passed VAWA 2013, it included a 
provision, known as Special Domestic Violence Criminal Jurisdiction 
(SDVCJ), that reaffirmed the inherent sovereign authority of Indian 
Tribal Governments to exercise criminal jurisdiction over certain non-
Indians who violate qualifying protection orders or commit domestic or 
dating violence against Indian victims on tribal lands. \1\ Since 
passage of VAWA 2013, NCAI has been providing technical assistance to 
the Tribal Nations that are implementing the law. We have included as 
an attachment to this testimony a detailed report that analyzes the 
impacts of VAWA 2013's landmark tribal jurisdiction provision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ 25 U.S.C.  1304.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    This examination of Tribal Nations' exercise of SDVCJ shows that 
VAWA is working as Congress intended. The law has enhanced the ability 
of Tribal Nations to combat domestic violence against Indian women, 
while at the same time protecting non-Indians' rights in impartial, 
tribal forums. \2\ By exercising SDVCJ, many Tribal Nations have 
increased safety and justice for victims who had previously seen little 
of either. Currently there are 28 Tribal Nations exercising SDVCJ 
throughout the United States. Since 2013, Tribal Nations have made 396 
arrests and prosecuted 227 defendants, which has led to 133 
convictions. As the Department of Justice (DOJ) testified before the 
Senate Committee on Indian Affairs in 2016, SDVCJ has allowed Tribal 
Nations to ``respond to long-time abusers who previously had evaded 
justice'' \3\ and has given hope to victims and communities that safety 
can be restored.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ See Angela R. Riley, Crime and Governance in Indian Country, 63 
UCLA L. REV. 1564, 1572 (2016) (``[I]mplementation has been a success 
in several respects. Tribes have provided defendants with the requisite 
procedural protections, and the preliminary data reveal that the laws 
are improving the safety and security of reservation residents.'').
    \3\ Tracy Toulou, ``Director Tracy Toulou of the Office of Tribal 
Justice Testifies Before the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs 
Oversight Hearing on Draft Legislation to Protect Native Children and 
Promote Public Safety in Indian Country,'' (May 18. 2016), https://
www.justice.gov/opa/speech/director-tracy-toulou-office-tribal-justice-
testifiessenate-committee-indian-affairs-0.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The implementation of SDVCJ has had additional positive outcomes. 
For many Tribal Nations, it has led to much-needed community 
conversations about domestic violence. For others it has provided an 
impetus to comprehensively update tribal criminal codes. Implementation 
of SDVCJ has also resulted in increased collaboration among Tribal 
Nations and between the local, state, federal, and tribal governments. 
It has also revealed, however, places where federal administrative 
policies and practices needed to be strengthened to enhance justice, 
and it has shown where the jurisdictional framework continues to leave 
victims-including victims of sexual violence, children, elders, and law 
enforcement--vulnerable.
    The Tribal Nations implementing SDVCJ report that children have 
been involved as victims or witnesses in SDVCJ cases nearly 60 percent 
of the time. These children have been assaulted or have faced physical 
intimidation and threats, are living in fear, and are at risk for 
developing schoolrelated problems, medical illnesses, post-traumatic 
stress disorder, and other impairments. \4\ However, federal law 
currently limits SDVCJ to crimes committed only against intimate 
partners or persons covered by a qualifying protection order. The 
common scenario reported by Tribal Nations is that they are only able 
to charge a non-Indian batterer for violence against the mother, and 
can do nothing about violence against the children. Instead, Tribal 
Nations are only able to refer these cases to state or federal 
authorities, who may not pursue them.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ See U.S. Department of Justice, ATTORNEY GENERAL'S ADVISORY 
COMMITTEE ON AMERICAN INDIAN AND ALASKA NATIVE CHILDREN EXPOSED TO 
VIOLENCE, REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON AMERICAN INDIAN AND 
ALASKA NATIVE CHILDREN EXPOSED TO VIOLENCE: ENDING VIOLENCE SO CHILDREN 
CAN THRIVE (Nov. 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    This frustration is further compounded by the prevalence and 
severity of this problem. According to DOJ, American Indian and Alaska 
Native children suffer exposure to violence at rates higher than any 
other race in the United States. \5\ This violence has immediate and 
long-term effects, including: increased rates of altered neurological 
development; poor physical and mental health; poor school performance; 
substance abuse; and overrepresentation in the juvenile justice system. 
Children who experience abuse and neglect are at higher risk for 
depression, suicidal thoughts, and suicide attempts. Indian youth have 
the highest rate of suicide among all ethnic groups in the U.S., and 
suicide is the second-leading cause of death (after accidental injury) 
for Indian youth aged 15-24. \6\ Due to exposure to violence, Indian 
children experience post-traumatic stress disorder at a rate of 22%-the 
same levels as Iraq and Afghanistan war veterans and triple the rate of 
the rest of the population. \7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\ Id.
    \6\ SAMHSA, National Survey on Drug Use and Health, 2003.
    \7\ AG Advisory Committee, supra, note 12, at 38.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Title IX in H.R. 1620--the Violence Against Women Act 
Reauthorization Act of 2021 reaffirms tribal jurisdiction over certain 
non-Indians who commit crimes against Indian children in Indian 
Country. NCAI supports the strong tribal provisions in the House-passed 
bill.
    H.R. 1620 Title IX would also address another significant gap in 
VAWA 2013. Since SDVCJ is limited to domestic violence, dating 
violence, and protection order violations, Tribal Nations lack 
jurisdiction to charge a non-Indian offender for crimes that may occur 
within the context of the criminal justice process. These crimes might 
include resisting arrest, assaulting an officer, witness tampering, 
juror intimidation, or obstruction of justice. Several Tribal Nations 
have reported assaults on their officers or bailiffs committed by non-
Indian SDVCJ defendants that they are unable to prosecute. Domestic 
violence cases are both the most common and the most dangerous calls 
that law enforcement responds to creating an obvious public safety 
concern. Tribal Nations are also not able to prosecute attendant 
crimes. In the course of investigations, tribal law enforcement 
officers often discover evidence of drug crimes or property crimes, but 
these cannot be included in the prosecution.
    Tribal Nations are also unable to prosecute crimes of sexual 
assault, trafficking, and stalking. A 2016 study from the National 
Institute for Justice (NIJ), found that approximately 56 percent of 
Indian women experience sexual violence within their lifetime, with 1 
in 7 experiencing it in the past year. \8\ Nearly 1 in 2 report being 
stalked. \9\ Contrary to the general population where rape, sexual 
assault, and intimate partner violence are usually intra-racial, Indian 
women are more likely to be raped or assaulted by someone of a 
different race. 96 percent of Indian women and 89 percent of male 
victims in the NIJ study reported being victimized by a non-Indian. 
\10\ Indian victims of sexual violence are three times as likely to 
have experienced sexual violence by an interracial perpetrator as non- 
Hispanic White victims. \11\ Similarly, Indian stalking victims are 
nearly 4 times as likely to be stalked by someone of a different race, 
with 89 percent of female stalking victims and 90 percent of male 
stalking victims reporting inter-racial victimization. \12\ The higher 
rate of inter-racial violence would not necessarily be significant if 
it were not for the jurisdictional complexities unique to Indian 
Country and the limitations imposed by federal law on tribal authority 
to hold non-Indians accountable for crimes they commit on tribal lands.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\ Andre B. Rosay, Nat'l Inst. of Justice, Violence Against 
American Indian and Alaska Native Women and Men: 2010Findings from the 
National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey, U.S. Dep't of 
Justice 11 (2016), available athttps://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/
249736.pdf.
    \9\ See Id., at 59
    \10\ Id., at 18.
    \11\ Id., at 29.
    \12\ Id., at 32.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    A recent example from the Sault Sainte Marie Tribe of Chippewa 
Indians, located in Michigan, illustrates how these gaps in the law 
have real consequences for Indian victims. A non-Indian man in an 
intimate relationship with a tribal citizen moved in with her and her 
16 year-old daughter. After the man began making unwanted sexual 
advances on the girl, sending inappropriate text messages, and on one 
occasion groping the daughter. The Tribal Nation charged the defendant 
with domestic abuse and attempted to tie the sexual assault against the 
daughter to a pattern of abuse against the mother. The tribal court 
dismissed the charges for lack of jurisdiction and the defendant left 
the victim's home. Four months later, he was arrested by city police 
for kidnapping and repeatedly raping a 14 year-old tribal citizen. This 
kidnapping and rape of a child could have been prevented if the Tribal 
Nation had the ability to exercise jurisdiction in the first case.
    H.R. 1620 Title IX also include sexual assault, stalking, and 
trafficking crimes committed by non-Indians. NCAI strongly urges the 
inclusion of this language in the bipartisan Senate VAWA bill.
    NCAI adopted resolutions SPO-16-037 and ECWS-19-005, calling for 
full reaffirmation of tribal authority to address crime on tribal lands 
and for Congress to reauthorize VAWA with key tribal provisions 
(attached). As this Congress moves forward with reauthorization of 
VAWA, NCAI urges this Committee to include language in Title IX that 
would help ensure that the life-saving provisions of VAWA 2013 are more 
broadly available to protect victims of violence in tribal communities. 
NCAI calls on all members of this Committee to co-sponsor a bipartisan 
Senate VAWA bill. The Indian women, children, and elders in your states 
and across the U.S. cannot wait any longer for justice.
Ensuring all 574 Tribal Nations Have the Ability to Exercise Criminal 
        Jurisdiction Under VAWA
    VAWA's 2013 reauthorization did not cover all 574 Tribal Nations 
and left out Tribal Nations located in the state of Maine and the state 
of Alaska. This must be rectified in VAWA's next reauthorization. In 
the case of Maine, VAWA 2013 failed to expressly mention Tribal Nations 
located in the state. Maine has claimed that due to the Maine Indian 
Claims Settlement Act, the failure to expressly include Maine in VAWA 
2013 prevents Tribal Nations in Maine from exercising SDVCJ. Tribal 
Nations located in Maine and tribal domestic violence coalitions have 
worked to educate state policymakers on VAWA and the need to reaffirm 
tribal jurisdiction over non-Indian perpetrators. In 2019 the Maine 
legislature passed a bill to reaffirm some domestic violence criminal 
jurisdiction over non-Indians for two of the four Tribal Nations 
located in Maine. Title IX in H.R. 1620 fixes this problem by expressly 
including all Tribal Nations located in Maine and would reaffirm their 
inherent jurisdiction over crimes covered in 2013 VAWA and future VAWA 
reauthorizations.
    In the case of Alaska, due to the way SDVCJ is constructed, tribal 
jurisdiction only extends to ``Indian country.'' ``Indian country'' is 
a legal term meaning that the land that is held in trust by the federal 
government for the Indian Tribal Government and is where Tribal Nations 
can exercise SDVCJ. Under the Supreme Court's 1998 decision in Venetie 
only 1 of the 229 Tribal Nations located in Alaska have land considered 
to be ``Indian country'' under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act. 
\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \13\ See Alaska v. Native Vill. of Venetie Tribal Gov't, 522 U.S. 
520.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    While there is tremendous diversity among all Tribal Nations, it is 
worth noting that many of the 229 Tribal Nations in Alaska experience 
extreme conditions that differ significantly from Tribal Nations 
outside Alaska. Most of the Alaska Native villages are located in 
remote areas that are often inaccessible by road and have no local law 
enforcement presence. The Tribal Law and Order Commission found that 
``Alaska Department of Public Safety (ADPS) officers have primary 
responsibility for law enforcement in rural Alaska, but ADPS provides 
for only 1.0-1.4 field officers per million acres.'' \14\ Without a 
strong law enforcement presence, crime regularly occurs with impunity. 
Victims live in small, close-knit communities where access to basic 
criminal justice services are non-existent and health care is often 
provided remotely through telemedicine technology. Providing 
comprehensive services and justice to victims in these circumstances 
presents unique challenges. In many of these communities, tribal 
citizens receive services in informal ways. Domestic violence victims, 
for example, may be offered shelter in a home that is a known ``safe 
house'' in the village or they and their children must be flown out of 
the village for their own safety. As this Committee moves forward with 
VAWA reauthorization, we encourage you to work closely with tribal 
leaders from Alaska Native Villages to include provisions that will 
address the needs of Alaska Native victims.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \14\ A Roadmap for Making Native America Safer: Report to the 
President and Congress of the United States (November 2013), available 
at http://www.aisc.ucla.edu/iloc/report/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    NCAI, along with Tribal Nations in Maine and Alaska, have called on 
Congress to reaffirm their jurisdiction over non-Indians so they can 
offer Indian victims the same protections that are currently afforded 
to victims located in the 48 other states.
VAWA's Tribal Grant Programs and the Need to Establish a 
        Reimbursement Program
    In addition to the challenges created by jurisdictional 
complexities and limits on tribal authority, the safety of Indian women 
continues to be undermined by a lack of resources for victim services 
and tribal criminal justice systems. In previous reauthorizations of 
VAWA, Congress has created several new grant programs for Indian Tribes 
including the Grants to Tribal Governments Program, the Tribal Sexual 
Assault Services Program, the Tribal Coalitions Program, and the Tribal 
Jurisdiction Program. These programs have made a significant difference 
in tribal communities and should be reauthorized, however, these 
programs are simply not sufficient alone to meet the substantial needs 
in Indian Country.
    In addition to reauthorizing the current VAWA grants, the Committee 
should include a tribal reimbursement program for SDVCJ implementing 
Tribal Nations. When Tribal Nations apply for the current Tribal 
Jurisdiction Program, they are unable to predict several factors 
related to SDVCJ implementation, for example how many crimes will occur 
over the next grant period or medical cost of non-Indians in tribal 
custody. Tribal and Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) detention facilities 
general rely on the Indian Health Service (IHS) to provide health care 
to inmates. This is not usually an option for non-Indian defendants 
since they are generally ineligible for care at IHS. Neither the BIA 
nor the IHS receive appropriated funds for non-Indian correctional 
health care purposes. Although the federal government provides health 
care in Bureau of Prisons (BOP) and Immigration and Customs Enforcement 
(ICE) detention facilities using Public Health Service Commissioned 
Corps Officers, none of these personnel work in BIA jails. Questions 
remain about who has the obligation to cover these costs and where 
health services will be provided. For Tribal Nations that have their 
own corrections facilities, or contract directly with county facilities 
to arrange for detention, detention-related healthcare costs are a 
significant challenge.
    One of the non-Indian SDVCJ defendants at Eastern Band of Cherokee 
Indians, for example, required extensive medical care while in tribal 
custody, which ended up costing the Tribal Nation more than $60,000. 
These types of costs are simply prohibitive for many Tribal Nations, 
and several have reported that the uncertainty about health care for 
non-Indian inmates is why the Tribal Nations are not proceeding with 
implementation SDVCJ.
    The Office on Violence Against Women allows a limited amount of 
inmate health care costs to be included in their grant program to 
support SDVCJ implementation, but few implementing Tribal Nations have 
received these grants and as mentioned earlier these costs are hard to 
predict. Therefore, Congress must include a reimbursement program for 
Tribal Nations in the next reauthorization of VAWA, to cover the wide 
ranging and unpredictable costs and provide a path forward for more 
Tribal Nations to protect their communities.
    While we understand that it is likely outside the scope of what 
will be addressed in a VAWA reauthorization bill, Congress must amend 
the Victims of Crime Act (VOCA) and ensure that Tribal Nations have a 
permanent set aside from the Crime Victims Fund (CVF), which would 
provide much-needed funding to provide services and compensation to 
victims of violence in tribal communities. The tribal needs for VOCA 
funding is discussed in greater detail in testimony that NCAI submitted 
in conjunction with an oversight hearing held by the Senate Committee 
on Indian Affairs in 2015 on ``Addressing the Need for Victim Services 
in Indian Country'' (attached). In 2018 appropriators included a tribal 
set aside out of the CVF, which they have continued doing for the last 
four years. This funding has been incredibly helpful to victims and 
survivors across in Indian Country; however, the funding relies on 
appropriators including the set aside on an annual basis. Tribal 
Nations were happy to see the Senate pass a VOCA funding fix 100 to 0 
this year and it is now the time for Congress to pass the next VOCA fix 
to establish a permanent tribal set aside in the bill.
DOJ's TAP Program
    VAWA 2005 and the Tribal Law & Order Act of 2010 both included 
provisions directing the Attorney General to permit Indian Tribes to 
enter information into and obtain information from federal criminal 
information databases. This has been a long-standing issue that Tribal 
Nations have raised for years. In response to these concerns, in 2015 
DOJ announced the Tribal Access Program for National Crime Information 
(TAP), which provides eligible Tribal Nations with access to the 
Criminal Justice Information Services systems. There are now 108 Tribal 
Nations participating in TAP, which will greatly facilitate their 
ability to enter protection orders and criminal history into the 
federal databases.
    Because DOJ is using existing funding for the TAP program, 
eligibility is currently limited to Tribal Nations with a sex offender 
registry or with a full-time tribal law enforcement agency. There are 
many Tribal Nations, particularly in Public Law-280 jurisdictions like 
California and Alaska, however, who do not meet these criteria but who 
do have tribal courts that issue protection orders. For these 
protection orders to be effective and protect victims, the issuing 
Tribal Nation needs to be able to enter them into the protection order 
file of the National Crime Information Center. A dedicated funding 
stream should be created for expanding the TAP program and making it 
available to all interested Tribal Nations who meet the requirement. 
All Tribal Nations should have the ability to access federal databases 
not only for the purpose of obtaining criminal history information for 
criminal or civil law purposes, but also for entering protection orders 
and other relevant information, including National Instant Criminal 
Background Check System disqualifying events, into the databases. NCAI 
support the TAP language included in Title IX of H.R. 1620 and urges 
the Senate to include the language in the bipartisan Senate VAWA bill.
Conclusion
    Public safety has been the leading concern of tribal leaders 
throughout the country for several years. NCAI strongly encourages 
Congress to take action on all of the fronts that we have identified 
above. Taken together-removing the gaps in tribal jurisdiction, 
ensuring all 574 Tribal Nations can exercise criminal jurisdiction 
under VAWA to protect everyone in tribal communities, ensuring there 
are resources available for VAWA implementation and victim services, 
and expanding tribal access to federal criminal databases-we can 
dramatically change the environment for criminal activity on Indian 
reservations. Our goal and our mission is to send the message that 
domestic violence, sexual assault, child abuse, elder abuse, stalking, 
and trafficking will not be tolerated on tribal lands. This effort will 
bring great benefits to tribal communities and our neighbors in public 
safety, but also in health, productivity, economic development, and the 
well-being of our people. We thank you in advance, and look forward to 
working with each of you to pass a bipartisan VAWA bill that includes 
all of strong and necessary tribal provisions above.

        Attachments have been retained in the Committee files.

    The Chairman. Thank you very much.
    Chief Judge FourStar, please proceed.

   STATEMENT OF HON. STACIE FOURSTAR, CHIEF JUDGE, FORT PECK 
                  ASSINIBOINE AND SIOUX TRIBES

    Ms. FourStar. [Greeting in Native tongue.] Good day, my 
relatives. My name is Stacie FourStar. I am the Chief Judge of 
the Fort Peck Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes. Thank you, 
Chairman, Vice Chairman and Committee members, for holding this 
hearing today.
    I am providing testimony on behalf of the reauthorization 
of VAWA. Fort Peck has implemented since March of 2015. 
Initially, we were one of five pilot tribes.
    Prior to 2013, we had consistently had reports of domestic 
violence of non-Indians on Indians being under-prosecuted or 
not prosecuted at all. The crime is a domestic violence, it is 
a Federal misdemeanor. And the Federal Government did not have 
the time to prosecute those crimes, because of major crimes 
that had been occurring on the Fort Peck Indian Reservation.
    So since we have implemented VAWA, we have had many 
successes. We have had a couple challenges. But I want to 
highlight some of those successes through my testimony.
    I will give you a little bit of stats and data. We have had 
45 VAWA cases under special jurisdiction since 2015, with a 
total of 37 defendants. We have re-offenders and defendants 
with multiple charges. The criminal charges are partner family 
member assault and violations of criminal protection orders.
    The Fort Peck Tribes have conducted two jury trials that 
consisted of Indian and non-Indian jurors. We have had two 
acquittals from those two jury trials. We have had nine guilty 
pleas on the record and defendants have actually opted into 
diversionary programs that have been offered through the 
restorative justice measures that the Fort Peck Tribes have 
implemented.
    Although we cannot prosecute crimes against children when 
they are involved with the domestic situation between a non-
Indian and Indian, we do keep the stats on that as well. So of 
those 45 cases, we have had 21 cases that involved children 
that we were unable to prosecute, but we could offer services 
to those families. We have also had 19 cases that reported drug 
and/or alcohol use that was involved with the primary offenses. 
We have had reports of law enforcement that have been engaged 
with the non-Indian defendant and unable to prosecute those 
crimes as well.
    Some of the specific successes that we have had at Fort 
Peck, they have been funded through grant programs through the 
Federal Government. We have a SAUSA, a Special Assistant U.S. 
Attorney, who is primarily here to prosecute the domestic 
violence crimes, along with coordinating between the tribes and 
the U.S. Attorney's office. We also have a public defender's 
office with an attorney on staff who is able to be appointed as 
counsel for the defendant, not only for non-Indians but for 
Indians as well. That was a change that we made along with our 
implementation.
    We also have grant programs that have funded DV data 
collection, software programs for case management. We have an 
offender accountability program. We have civil legal advocate 
services for victims and their families. And we have had an 
overwhelming response to the jury pools. We have a jury pool 
system that has been put in place along with the county 
representatives. We have had great communication; we have had 
willingness of participation. So the jury trials do represent a 
fair cross-section of our communities on the Fort Peck Indian 
Reservation.
    Fort Peck Tribal Court maintains a website; it is FPTC.org. 
I would like you all to take the opportunity to look at that, 
to look at the tribal laws, to see what we have available open 
to the public at no cost.
    The tribal-State relationships that we have built and 
maintain along with VAWA have only begun to open up more 
opportunities for both jurisdictions, tribal and State. The 
Fort Peck Tribes have had a successful cross-deputization law 
enforcement agreement in place since 1999. This agreement is 
with the county sheriff's department, Montana Highway Patrol, 
and the City of Wolf Point, along with the Fort Peck Tribal law 
enforcement officers. This agreement has allowed us to enforce 
each other's laws and to provide aid to one another. The 
agreement has also assisted with the smooth transition of the 
special jurisdiction on the Fort Peck Indian Reservation.
    Montana has established the first Native American Domestic 
Violence Fatality Review Team. I would also ask that those of 
you, please take a look at that and see the statistics that are 
overwhelming in Montana alone.
    In closing, I understand that authorizing tribes' special 
jurisdiction over non-Indians is only one portion of the VAWA 
reauthorization. But it is a vital instrument to public safety 
and to effectively addressing domestic violence in Indian 
Country. Now is the time to move forward collectively.
    Thank you. [Phrase in Native tongue].
    [The prepared statement of Ms. FourStar follows:]

  Prepared Statement of Hon. Stacie Fourstar, Chief Judge, Fort Peck 
                      Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes
    I would like to thank the Chairman, Vice Chairman and committee 
members for holding this hearing. I am Stacie FourStar, a tribal member 
of the Assiniboine & Sioux Tribes of the Fort Peck Indian Reservation 
in Montana, and I serve as the Chief Judge for the Fort Peck Tribes. 
Today I am providing testimony on behalf of the Fort Peck Tribes in 
support of the reauthorization of VAWA. The Fort Peck Tribes have been 
exercising special domestic violence criminal jurisdiction (SDVCJ) 
since 2015. Initially, we were one of five Indian tribes to attain full 
pilot project status under VAWA 2013.
    The testimony will focus on:

 The historical context of domestic violence issues on the Fort 
        Peck Indian Reservation prior to VAWA 2013 and the 
        jurisdictional maze

 The successes and challenges of SDVCJ on the Fort Peck Indian 
        Reservation

 Restorative justice measures and programs that have been 
        implemented to enhance SDVCJ

 Tribal-state relationships and the Fort Peck Tribes Cross 
        Deputization Agreement

The Historical Context
    Fort Peck Indian Reservation spans over four counties in northeast 
Montana. With over 2 million acres of land base, the reservation 
closely borders Canada and North Dakota. There are over 14,000 enrolled 
tribal members with half of them residing on the reservation. The total 
population of people living within the exterior boundaries of the 
reservation is 14,000, comprised of one-half Indian and one-half non-
Indian persons.
    Prior to VAWA 2013, Fort Peck Tribes had no authority to prosecute 
crimes committed by non-Indian persons. A non-Indian spouse could abuse 
their Indian spouse and there was no criminal consequence. The Tribe 
had no jurisdiction to prosecute the non-Indian and the State cannot 
prosecute the non-Indian because the victim is Indian. There were 
instances of non-Indians being arrested and charged by the State for a 
crime of disorderly conduct just to get the abuser away from the victim 
and allow the abuser time to cool off while the victim sought 
protective services. Only the federal government had jurisdiction to 
prosecute a crime of domestic violence between a non-Indian and Indian 
on the reservation. The charge of DV is a federal misdemeanor, meaning 
it was of low to no priority with the U.S. Attorney's Office.
    Since 2015, the Fort Peck Tribes have worked with stakeholders 
locally and nationally to develop a comprehensive approach to domestic 
violence and specifically to the special domestic violence criminal 
jurisdiction over non-Indians. The Fort Peck Tribes provide an attorney 
for defendants through our Public Defender's office and have on staff a 
law trained judge to sit on all VAWA cases. The Fort Peck Tribes have a 
jury pool that consists of Indian and non-Indian jurors that represent 
a fair cross section of our communities.
    The implementation of SDVCJ under VAWA 2013 has allowed the Fort 
Peck Tribes to create a domestic violence orientated restorative 
justice model that has improved local relationships, as well as the 
Tribe's relationship with state and federal entities.
Successes and Challenges of SDVCJ
    The Fort Peck Tribes have prosecuted 45 VAWA cases under SDVCJ 
since March 2015, with a total of 37 defendants. We have repeat 
offenders and defendants with multiple charges. The criminal charges 
under SDVCJ are partner family member assault (PFMA) and violations of 
protection orders. The Fort Peck Tribes have conducted two jury trials 
that resulted in two acquittals. We have nine guilty pleas on the 
record and defendants who have opted into diversionary programs or 
deferred prosecution.
    Although we cannot prosecute crimes against non-Indians when 
children are involved with the domestic violence cases, we do track the 
data based on law enforcement reporting. Of the 45 VAWA cases 
prosecuted, there were 21 cases involving children that could not be 
prosecuted. There were also 19 cases that reported drugs and/or alcohol 
involved with the primary offenses. Since the Fort Peck Tribes have 
implemented SDVCJ under VAWA 2013, we have had no federal referrals and 
no federal declinations to prosecute non-Indians for domestic violence 
crimes committed on the reservation.
    Successes of VAWA implementation with the Fort Peck Tribes are 
highlighted through our restorative justice initiatives. Under our 
Justice for Families grant, we provide services to defendants through 
an offender accountability program and we provide legal services to 
victims at no cost. The Fort Peck tribal court developed a domestic 
violence docket in order to give priority in court scheduling to all DV 
cases.
    Fort Peck Tribes have a Special Assistant U.S. Attorney (SAUSA) 
assigned to VAWA criminal cases and coordinates as a liaison between 
the Tribes and the U.S. Attorney's Office. Effectively eliminating the 
need for federal prosecution of non-Indian perpetrator DV crimes, 
allowing the USAO to focus on major crimes on the Fort Peck Indian 
Reservation. A grant was also obtained to purchase case management 
software for the prosecutor's office and collect data for DV matters. 
An employee was hired to develop and execute training for law 
enforcement and create a plan of coordinated community response to 
domestic violence.
    Another success is the ability of the Fort Peck Tribes to provide 
effective assistance of counsel to all domestic violence defendants at 
no cost to the defendant. We have a Public Defender office with an 
attorney who is appointed to represent all non-Indian SDVCJ defendants, 
and they can also represent Indian DV defendants.
    The Fort Peck Tribes developed a jury pool system with the 
assistance of the local county government to ensure that we have a fair 
representation of our community members, Indian and non-Indian, to 
serve as jurors for VAWA trials. We have had great participation from 
the non-Indian residents of the reservation who have willingly answered 
juror questionnaires and have appeared for jury duty.
    Fort Peck Tribes participate in the Tribal Access Program (TAP) 
which gives us the ability to share information with other 
jurisdictions and provide assistance to them in a timely manner. The 
Fort Peck Tribal Court maintains a website www.fptc.org that houses the 
Comprehensive Code of Justice (CCOJ) that includes all tribal laws of 
the Fort Peck Tribes. It is open to the public and contains a wealth of 
information.
    Challenges the Fort Peck Tribes have encountered are medical costs 
of incarcerated non-Indians. Fort Peck Tribes maintain a tribal jail 
through a 638 contract with the Bureau of Indian Affairs. Our first 
VAWA defendant accumulated over $60,000 in medical expenses due to his 
pre-existing health conditions. The Tribe covered the costs but have 
continued to explore other options to assist with medical care of non-
Indian defendants. We also utilize alternatives to incarceration, such 
as house arrest or release with conditions.
Restorative Justice Measures
    Fort Peck Tribes are active in pursuing restorative justice 
measures by implementing programs to assist with offender 
rehabilitation and victim advocacy services. Since 2015, the Fort Peck 
Tribal Court has applied for and received federal funding of 
approximately 2.5 million toward specific domestic violence initiatives 
to include prosecution under SDVCJ, data collection of DV crimes, case 
management software, training for law enforcement, coordinated 
community response to DV, offender accountability, victim legal 
services and the creation of a domestic violence docket. Most of our 
restorative justice implementations are highlighted under the successes 
of SDVCJ.
    The Fort Peck Tribes work toward rehabilitation of families and 
partner relationships to enable individuals to have the tools to break 
the cycle of domestic violence.
Tribal-State Relationships
    Since 1999, the Fort Peck Tribes have had a successful cross 
deputization agreement between the Tribes' law enforcement, the county 
Sheriff's department, the Montana Highway Patrol and the city of Wolf 
Point. The agreement has allowed a smooth transition with SDVCJ and 
empowered tribal and state jurisdictions to enforce each other laws and 
provide aid to one another.
    Montana established the nation's first Native American Domestic 
Violence fatality review team (NADVFRT). The team began reviewing cases 
in 2014. As I member of the team, I see and hear first-hand the 
devastating and lifetime affects domestic violence has on the family 
and communities. Fort Peck alone has had five homicides (2007-2016) 
reviewed by the Montana DV fatality review commission and the NADVFRT.
    The fatality review commission seeks to reduce homicides caused by 
family violence and identify gaps in protecting domestic violence 
victims. The commission released a report in 2017, showing that Native 
Americans remain victims of intimate partner homicide at a 
disproportionate rate in Montana. Natives are approximately 7 percent 
of the state's population, but make up 16 percent of intimate partner 
homicides and 15 percent of intimate partner victims.
    In closing, I understand that authorizing Tribes special 
jurisdiction over non-Indians is only one portion of the VAWA 
reauthorization but it is a vital instrument to public safety and to 
effectively addressing domestic violence in Indian Country. Now is the 
time to move forward collectively. Thank you for your time and 
attention.

    The Chairman. Thank you, Judge FourStar.
    Professor Reese, please proceed with your testimony.

STATEMENT OF ELIZABETH A. REESE, PROFESSOR, STANFORD LAW SCHOOL

    Ms. Reese. Kunda wo ha, thank you, to the Chairman and 
Members of the Committee for inviting me to testify today. Navi 
towa hahweh Yunpovi. Navi Americana hahweh Elizabeth Reese. Nah 
Nambe Owingeh we ang oh mu.
    My name is Elizabeth Reese, Yunpovi, and I am from the 
Pueblo of Nambe. I hold degrees in political science and 
political theory from Yale and from the University of Cambridge 
and a law degree from Harvard. I am now a law professor at 
Stanford, where I teach and write about trial law, Federal 
Indian law, constitutional law, and civil rights law.
    But I was asked to testify here today not only because of 
my academic expertise but because of my professional 
experience. Before becoming an academic, I was an attorney at 
the National Congress of American Indians, where I worked 
closely with the first tribes who were implementing expanded 
criminal jurisdiction under VAWA 2013.
    I talked on a regular basis with the tribal prosecutors, 
judges, and defense counsel. I explained the intricacies of 
this law, its requirements, its limitations, more times than I 
can count. I tracked data from the implementing tribes and 
listened first-hand to the harrowing stories about what it was 
like to be on the front lines of those prosecutions. Then I 
took all of that and I wrote it up into the five-year report 
published in 2018 that has been cited so many times today 
already.
    In my written testimony I discuss at length many of the key 
takeaways from that report, including the need to increase 
VAWA's funding as well as its scope to other crimes against 
women. But in my remarks today, however, I will focus on why it 
makes particular sense to expand VAWA to adjacent criminal 
conduct and respond to some concerns about the constitutional 
rights of non-Indians in tribal courts.
    To begin, currently tribes cannot charge defendants with 
any of the crimes that happen alongside the domestic violent 
event that they are actually prosecuting, such as violence 
against children, drug possession, assault on law enforcement, 
or just a simple DUI that happens while fleeing the scene.
    Expansion to adjacent crimes would create a more equitable 
system for prosecutors and defense counsel to navigate. That is 
because the vast majority of criminal cases in the United 
States are resolved not at trial, but by plea-bargaining. One 
of the most common tools that prosecutors and defense counsel 
have when negotiating a plea is that there are often multiple 
charges of criminal conduct. Taking a serious or minor offense 
off the table allows the two sides to arrive at a result that 
they can both live with.
    Without the full power to charge an offender with all of 
the crimes that they are suspected of committing, both sides 
are stuck with just that one offense, domestic violence, a 
charge which is notoriously difficult to prosecute in court, 
because it relies on the cooperation of often highly 
traumatized and reticent witnesses.
    Violent crime is messy. Granting tribes the power to 
prosecute just one kind of crime simply doesn't reflect the 
reality of how crime happens or the tools that people in the 
criminal justice system need to do their jobs.
    Now, despite the truly unacceptable levels of violence 
against Native women, change has been slow, in part due to 
concern about the rights of non-Indians in tribal courts. To 
that, I have two responses. The first is to clarify the law on 
this matter since these concerns are rooted in several 
fundamental misunderstandings of the law.
    To begin, although the Constitution itself does not apply 
to tribal governments, the Indian Civil Rights Act particularly 
as amended by the Tribal Law and Order Act and VAWA 2013 
extends all of the relevant constitutional protections in a 
criminal court proceeding to non-Indian defendants. Congress 
created these protections and provided the powerful remedy of 
habeas corpus. As such, non-Indian defendants in tribal court 
already enjoy the same protection from unlawful detentions as 
they would in any other American court.
    That leads me to my second response to those who may be 
worried about the fairness or adequacy of the justice system 
that tribes are running. That is a simple reminder that tribal 
governments are American governments, too, and that as such, 
they are no less worthy of our trust, respect and dignity. Like 
any other government in this Country, tribes are just a group 
of your fellow American citizens, simply trying their best to 
do what is best for the people that they are responsible for. 
They are not perfect.
    But we ought to shy away from the continued unbefitting 
distrust of tribal governments as somehow more inherently 
suspect or less capable of dispensing equal justice. They, must 
like you, are trying in good faith to make and enforce laws 
that help people thrive and protect them from harm. It is high 
time that we trusted them to do that.
    I look forward to questions from the Committee.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Reese follows:]

   Prepared Statement of Elizabeth A. Reese, Professor, Stanford Law 
                                 School
    Kunda wo ha, (thank you), to the Chairman and Members of the 
Committee for inviting me to testify today. Navi towa hahweh Yunpovi. 
Navi Americana hahweh Elizabeth Reese. Nah Nambe Owingeh we ang oh mu. 
My name is Elizabeth Reese, Yunpovi, and I am from the Pueblo of Nambe. 
I hold degrees in political science and political theory from Yale and 
the University of Cambridge and a law degree from Harvard. I am an 
Assistant Professor of Law at Stanford Law School, where I teach and 
write about American Indian tribal law, federal Indian law, federal 
constitutional law, and civil rights law.
    I was asked to testify here today not only because of my academic 
expertise but because of my professional experience. Before becoming an 
academic, I worked as an attorney at the National Congress of American 
Indians (NCAI), where I was the primary attorney responsible for 
coordinating NCAI's work providing technical assistance to the tribal 
governments across the country that were working to implement the 
Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2013's (VAWA 2013) 
expanded criminal jurisdiction over domestic violence cases involving 
non-Indians.
    I am here today to tell you what I know about the successes of what 
has come to be known as VAWA 2013's Special Domestic Violence Criminal 
Jurisdiction (SDVCJ), the need to do more, and to offer my expert 
opinion on the legal questions that cloud and complicate this picture.
I. VAWA 2013 SDVCJ's Successes
    In my role at NCAI, I worked closely with the first tribes who were 
implementing expanded criminal jurisdiction under VAWA 2013. While I 
worked particularly closely with the handful of tribes who were 
receiving the DOJ grant funding that had been appropriated along with 
VAWA 2013 for implementation, it was also my job to support the rest of 
the tribes throughout the country who were taking on the task of these 
prosecutions entirely at their own expense. I talked on a regular basis 
with tribal prosecutors, judges, and defense counsel from across the 
country from tribes that were at every stage of the implementation 
process. I helped advise tribes as they rewrote their legal codes to 
comply with this statute. I explained the intricacies of this law, its 
requirements, and its limitations more times than I can count. I 
tracked data from the implementing tribes and listened firsthand to the 
harrowing stories about what it was like to be on the front lines of 
these prosecutions. And then, on the five-year anniversary of VAWA 
2013, I wrote it all up into a comprehensive report documenting the 
one-year pilot project, and the first three years after the statue took 
nation-wide effect. \1\ In that report, I worked with colleagues and 
collaborating organizations to agree on a set of detailed substantive 
findings that broadly supported the effectiveness of the law at 
achieving its key goal-allowing tribes to prosecute domestic violence 
offenders. When I wrote that report in March of 2018, NCAI was only 
aware of 18 tribes exercising expanded criminal jurisdiction, and there 
had been 143 arrests of 128 defendants which led to 74 convictions. As 
of September 2021, that number has increased to 28 tribes who have made 
at least 396 arrests of 227 defendants, leading to 133 convictions. \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ NAT'L CONG. OF AM. INDIANS, VAWA 2013'S SPECIAL DOMESTIC 
VIOLENCE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION FIVE-YEAR REPORT (2018) [hereinafter 
VAWA 2013 REPORT].
    \2\ Email from Esther Labrado, Legal Manager and Policy Lead--Legal 
& Governance, National Congress of American Indians, to author (Dec. 6, 
2021, 11:33 AM) (on file with author).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Not only were the tribes able to do all of this work to bring 
justice to their communities, but they were able to do so while 
carefully safeguarding the rights of non-Indian defendants. As I heard 
about time and again, many tribes provide far beyond the floor of what 
is required of them. In many instances, non-Indian defendants in tribal 
courts experience a justice system that has far more time for them, and 
that treats them and their families with more individualized services 
and, frankly, care, than they are used to receiving in the state or 
federal system. For example, tribes in the initial few years sent 51 
percent of the non-Indian defendants to batterer intervention or 
another rehabilitation program. \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ VAWA 2013 REPORT at 20.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    A particular case from the Alabama Coushatta Tribe of Texas sticks 
out to me. When I spoke with the tribal prosecutor, she described the 
non-Indian defendant in that case--not as an outsider--but as a 
community member, and the mother of five tribal children. She spoke 
about how hard she tried to keep the woman's case in tribal court. In 
tribal court, she would be able to work out a plea deal that addressed 
her underlying drug problem and provided her with mental health 
counseling. This plan kept her clean and out of jail, building toward 
reuniting her with her children. If the same defendant was prosecuted 
in state court, not only would that kind of care be resource or time 
prohibitive, but she would have likely received a longer sentence due 
to her criminal history with drug possession. \4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ Id. at 21.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Moreover, the law had the perhaps unintended effect of creating an 
impetus for positive reforms, creative legal innovations with benefits 
beyond the borders of Indian Country, \5\ collaboration, and 
communication across tribal governments as well as other sovereigns. 
\6\ However, the report also carefully documented the many ways in 
which VAWA 2013 did not go far enough and the frustrations that tribal 
governments had with the current limitations in the law.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\ Id. at 61-70 (describing tribal courts' different 
implementation and code choices as ``laboratories of justice''); see 
Elizabeth Reese, The Other American Law, 73 STAN. L. REV. 55, 588-594 
(2021) (explaining how the decision to interpret VAWA 2013's 
requirement that tribal jury pools represent a fair cross section of 
their communities, including non-Indians, as allowing for tribal 
flexibility to use lists of non-Indian community members such as 
spouses, employees, and lessees rather than simply non-Indian residents 
as an innovative idea with applications to other geographic areas 
throughout the United States that struggle with diversifying their jury 
pools).
    \6\ VAWA 2013 REPORT at 32-37 (discussing tribal law reforms--
particularly in the realm of victims' rights and safety--as well as the 
increased collaboration between tribes and stronger relationships built 
with state and federal partners).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. The Need To Do More To Protect Native Women
    Since VAWA 2013 was passed, the National Institute of Justice 
issued a 2016 report showing that the problem was even worse than we 
thought. The rates of domestic and sexual violence against American 
Indian and Alaska Native women are staggering. More than 4 in 5 
American Indian and Alaska Native women--84.3 percent--have experienced 
intimate partner violence, sexual violence, or stalking in their 
lifetimes. And the vast majority of them experience violence at the 
hands of a non-Native perpetrator, including 96 percent of victims of 
sexual violence and 89 percent of stalking victims. American Indian and 
Alaska Native women are 5 times more likely to experience violence by 
an interracial partner as non-Hispanic white women, and 1.7 times more 
likely than white women to have experienced violence in the past year. 
\7\ VAWA 2013 and the financial supports provided therein was only the 
beginning of what is needed to address this problem.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\ NAT'L INST. OF JUST., VIOLENCE AGAINST AMERICAN INDIAN AND 
ALASKA NATIVE WOMEN AND MEN: 2010 FINDINGS FROM THE NATIONAL INTIMATE 
PARTNER AND SEXUAL VIOLENCE SURVEY (May 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. Increase Funding to Support Tribal Governments
    The number one reason that more tribal governments are not 
prosecuting under VAWA 2013 is because they cannot afford it. Criminal 
justice systems are very expensive. And tribal governments throughout 
this country are struggling financially without anything close to 
adequate support from the federal government. \8\ I would be happy to 
return to this committee another time to provide testimony on the 
historical roots, demographic realities, and legal complexities \9\ 
that all compound to create the untenable status quo of how tribal 
governments are funded--it is indeed an unsustainable reality that 
ought to trouble us all. However, for now, all I will say is that for 
many tribal communities, it is not that they lack the will or ability, 
it is that the cost of reworking or ramping up the scale of their 
criminal justice systems is daunting. In order to prosecute under VAWA 
2013, many tribes must rework their codes, hire additional prosecutors, 
defense attorneys, and judges, contract for incarceration and inmate 
healthcare, and make countless other changes to comply with law. \10\ 
Take a look at the cost to a state or the federal government for each 
arrest, prosecution, police officer, judge, jail, healthcare costs for 
detainees, transportation, and everything in between all the way down 
to keeping the lights on. It is just as expensive for tribes to grow 
their justice systems and take on this work as any other government. We 
ought to be thinking about budgetary support on those terms.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\ See U.S. COMM'N ON CIVIL RIGHTS, A QUIET CRISIS: FEDERAL 
FUNDING SHORTFALL AND UNMET NEEDS IN INDIAN COUNTRY (July 2003).
    \9\ Tribes are unable to effectively collect funds the primary way 
that most governments are able to, through taxes, thanks to a series of 
legal decisions and policy choices. They are unable to collect property 
taxes since reservation lands are held in trust by the federal 
government. Tribes are able to use sales and excise taxes to a limited 
degree, though their efforts to impose such taxes over non-Indians are 
often challenged through litigation, Atkinson v. Shirley, 532 U.S. 645 
(2001), or de-facto limited by the imposition of concurrent state 
taxation, Cotton Petroleum Corp. v. New Mexico, 490 U.S. 163 (1989); 
Tulalip Tribes v. Washington, 349 F. Supp. 3d 1046 (W.D. Wash. 2018). 
The urgent need for tribal economic development responds to this need 
for alternative funds. See Matthew L.M. Fletcher, In Pursuit of Tribal 
Economic Development as a Substitute for Reservation Tax Revenue, 80 
N.D. L. REV. 759, 771-74 (2004).
    \10\ VAWA 2013 REPORT at 29-30.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Therefore, not only is it my recommendation that this committee 
consider proposing legislation that reaffirms the grant funding to 
support tribes who are seeking to implement SDVCJ, but I suggest 
increasing it. And what they need is not another competitive grant 
program for discrete and limited projects, but additional, steady 
streams of funding that more tribes can use to do things like hire 
additional staff, expand infrastructure, and generally keep the lights 
on.
B. Expand the Scope of Tribal Jurisdiction Over Non-Indians Under VAWA
1. It Is Senseless and Dangerous to Keep Tribes from Prosecuting the 
        Many Similar Crimes Against Native Women
    I also suggest expanding the number of offenses available under the 
statute. Having the power to prosecute such a limited set of offenses 
and limited kind of offenders forces a senseless and frustrating 
powerlessness upon tribal governments. While prosecuting domestic and 
dating violence cases, tribes consistently come across other kinds of 
similar, but not covered crimes, or crimes that happen alongside their 
VAWA SDVCJ cases. \11\ Tribes have the knowledge, will, and capacity to 
do something about these crimes, and lack only the permission. This 
powerlessness can have tragic and preventable consequences.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \11\ Id. at 22 (discussing a workplace sexual assault case that 
Pascua Yaqui was unable to charge although the assailant had sufficient 
ties to the community because it was not within the context of a prior 
romantic relationship).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    As it was told to me by the victim advocates and court officials at 
Sault Ste. Marie Tribe, a non-Indian man who was dating a tribal member 
made unwanted sexual advances on her 16- year-old daughter. He sent 
inappropriate text messages and stood outside their house. On one 
occasion he groped the daughter and told her not to tell anyone. When 
mother and daughter came forward asking for help, the tribe tried to 
charge the defendant with domestic abuse- attempting to characterize 
the sexual assault against the daughter as part of a pattern of abusing 
her mother. But, the tribal court, mindful of limits of the law, 
dismissed the charges for lack of jurisdiction since the girl was not 
in a domestic or dating relationship with the defendant. Four months 
later, he was arrested by county police for kidnapping and repeatedly 
raping another 14-year-old tribal member at an off-reservation hotel. 
\12\ This rape was preventable. The tribe knew that this individual was 
a danger to the community--particularly to young girls--and had victims 
willing to come forward. The only thing stopping them from protecting 
their community was they lacked the precise permission of the United 
States Congress. Federal law has not yet said that it is ok for the 
local police, prospectors, and judges to do anything about these crimes 
being done to their own people-that happen right in front of them. So 
they have to sit back and do nothing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \12\ Id. at 24-25.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. It Is Ineffective, Inefficient, and Problematic to Prevent Tribes 
        from Charging and Negotiating Plea Bargains That Include 
        Adjacent Criminal Conduct
    At the very least, Congress ought to expand tribal criminal 
jurisdiction to include similar crimes that go to the heart of the 
violence against women that this law is intended to address, such as 
sexual assault, stalking, and sex trafficking, and the kinds of crimes 
that are the most common adjacent offenses. These offenses often occur 
along with the domestic violence or dating violence crimes that tribes 
already have jurisdiction over. Across the initial few years of VAWA 
2013 cases documented in my report, for example, 58 percent of 
incidents involved children, \13\ and 51 percent of incidents involved 
drugs or alcohol. \14\ But currently, tribes cannot charge defendants 
with many of these co-occurring offenses, including violence against 
children, drug possession, or assault on law enforcement. \15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \13\ Id. at 24.
    \14\ Id. at 26.
    \15\ Id. at 23.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    An expansion to adjacent crimes would create a more equitable 
system for prosecutors and defense counsel to navigate. The vast 
majority of criminal cases in the United States are resolved, not at 
trial, but by plea bargaining. One of the most common tools that 
prosecutors and defense counsel have when negotiating a plea is that 
there are often multiple charges of criminal conduct brought. Taking 
one or another more serious or minor offense off the table allows the 
two sides to arrive at a result they can both live with. Without the 
full power to charge an offender with all of the crimes they are 
suspected of committing, both sides are stuck with just the one charge: 
domestic violence, a charge which is notoriously difficult to prove in 
court and which relies on the cooperation of often highly traumatized 
and reticent witnesses. Crimes such as a DUI when fleeing the scene of 
a domestic assault or an assault on the arresting police officer are 
often easier, simpler, and less difficult options for prosecutors to 
work with, particularly because they are less traumatizing for domestic 
violence victims. \16\ Violent crime rarely unfolds in a neat fashion 
such that only one crime fits the set of events and everyone is on the 
same page about the alleged offender's guilt and the appropriate 
punishment. Granting tribes the power to prosecute only one kind of 
crime simply doesn't reflect the reality of how crime happens or the 
tools people in the criminal justice system use to do their jobs. As 
one attorney from a prosecuting tribe described it to me, forcing 
attorneys to work within such a limited legal framework is akin to 
requiring them to do their jobs ``with one hand tied behind their 
back.'' \17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \16\ Id. at 26-27 (describing instances of such adjacent crimes 
going unprosecuted and the difficulties it creates for tribal 
prosecutors).
    \17\ Id. at 22.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In truth, Congress should simply restore full concurrent 
jurisdiction over non-Indian defendants for tribal governments, keeping 
in mind that the 1-to-3-year sentencing limitations put in place by the 
Tribal Law and Order Act already do a tremendous amount of work to 
limit what tribes can do when it comes to the most serious offenses. 
\18\ That would be clearer and eminently more workable. And it would be 
safer and far more effective because it would be informed by the 
realities of how criminal cases are investigated and prosecuted. Think 
of the officers who show up on the scene to answer an 9-1-1 call, when 
the facts of what happened aren't yet clear. Having the authority to 
conduct an open-ended investigation helps those officers to do their 
jobs. But that's not what happens in Indian Country. Instead, the 
officer's authority or what court needs to issue a warrant can turn on 
things like Indian status or even a couple's relationship status. As 
Justice Kavanaugh--quoting a group of U.S. Attorneys describing this 
system last summer--said at a Supreme Court oral argument recently, the 
jurisdictional system in Indian Country is an ``indefensible morass of 
complex, conflicting, and illogical commands layered in over decades 
via congressional policies and court decisions and without the consent 
of tribal nations.'' \19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \18\ 25 U.S.C.  1302(a)(7), (b).
    \19\ Transcript of Oral Argument at 56, Cooley v. United States, 
593 U.S. __ (2021) (Kavanaugh, J.) (No. 19-1414) (quoting Brief for 
Former United States Attorneys as Amici Curiae Supporting Petitioner at 
8-9).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. The Legal Foundation for Tribal Criminal Jurisdiction Over Non-
        Indians and the Processes and Rights That Protect Non-Indian 
        Defendants
    Despite this ``morass,'' and the truly unacceptable levels of 
violence against Native women, change has been slow. When the prospect 
of expanding tribal criminal jurisdiction as a potential solution for 
this untenable status quo has been raised in the past, I know that 
there has been concern for the rights of non-Indians being tried in 
tribal courts, or the underlying constitutional validity of 
congressional action. I have encountered reticence about tribal courts 
prosecuting non-Indians, because of concern that they would not have 
the protections of the federal Constitution in tribal courts. To that, 
I have two responses. The first is to clarify the law on this matter 
since these concerns are rooted in several fundamental 
misunderstandings of the law. The second is a simple reminder that 
tribal governments are American governments too, and as such they are 
no less worthy of our trust, respect, and dignity.
A. No Further Protections or Oversight is Necessary: VAWA 2013 Already 
        Ensures That Non-Indian Defendants in Tribal Courts are 
        Protected by Constitutionally Equivalent Rights
    To begin with, the Indian Civil Rights Act (ICRA), particularly as 
amended by the Tribal Law and Order Act (TLOA) and VAWA 2013, extends 
all of the relevant constitutional protections in a criminal court 
proceeding to non-Indian defendants. \20\ The Supreme Court recently 
described the provisions contained in ICRA as ``require[ing] tribes to 
ensure `due process of law,'. . . accord[ing] defendants specific 
procedural safeguards resembling those contained in the Bill of Rights 
and the Fourteenth Amendment.'' \21\ These protections include the 
basic right to due process of law; \22\ freedom from illegal or 
warrantless search or seizure; \23\ a prohibition on double jeopardy; 
\24\ a right against self-incrimination; \25\ the right to a speedy 
trial and to confront witnesses; \26\ the right to a jury trial; \27\ 
the right to indigent defense; \28\ the right to effective assistance 
of counsel; \29\ the prohibition on bills of attainders; \30\ and the 
right not to be subjected to cruel or unusual punishment, excessive 
fines, or excessive bail. \31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \20\ 25 U.S.C.   1302-1304.
    \21\ U.S. v. Bryant, 579 U.S. 140, 156-57 (2016). The Court went on 
to conclude that: ``Proceedings in compliance with ICRA, Congress 
determined, and we agree, sufficiently ensure the reliability of 
tribalcourt convictions.'' Id. at 157.
    \22\ 25 U.S.C.  1302(a)(8).
    \23\ 25 U.S.C.  1302(a)(2).
    \24\ 25 U.S.C.  1302(a)(3).
    \25\ 25 U.S.C.  1302(a)(4).
    \26\ 25 U.S.C.  1302(a)(6).
    \27\ 25 U.S.C.   1302(a)(10), 1304(d)(3).
    \28\ 25 U.S.C.  1302(c)(2).
    \29\ 25 U.S.C.  1302(c)(1).
    \30\ 25 U.S.C.  1302(a)(9).
    \31\ 25 U.S.C.  1302(a)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Congress has created these protections and provided the remedy of 
habeas corpus. \32\ Tribes are also legally required to notify all 
their detainees of their right to file a habeas petition to contest 
their detention as a violation of their rights. \33\ Just like the 
equivalent guarantees in the Constitution, these protections exist on 
the books, ready to spring into action when they are transgressed and 
then invoked by an aggrieved citizen. Nothing else beyond the legal 
promise of the right and the provision of a remedy is needed to ensure 
that tribes are adequately providing the rights that they are required 
to under the law. Indeed, no more than we do to make sure that the 
county courts in Illinois are complying with the federal constitutional 
rights they are required to afford their defendants. Both systems 
already work the same way. The writ of habeas corpus is available in 
both instances, \34\ and so defendants are able to contest any 
violation of their equivalent constitutional rights protections that 
result in unlawful detention, just as they would a contest a similar 
violation of their constitutional rights in state court. \35\ We can 
trust that tribal court systems take just as seriously their duty to 
interpret and provide adequate rights protections to defendants, \36\ 
when they are raised immediately or in the course of a direct appeal. 
And we can certainly trust that people don't want to stay in prison, 
particularly when their rights have been violated. If there were 
rampant rights violations in tribal courts, we can rest assured that we 
would know about it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \32\ 25 U.S.C.  1303
    \33\ 25 U.S.C.  1304(e)
    \34\ 25 U.S.C.  1303 (extending the writ of habeas corpus to any 
person to test the legality of detention ordered by an Indian tribe); 
U.S. Const. art. I,  9, cl. 2; 28 U.S.C.  2254(a).
    \35\ 28 U.S.C.  2254(a).
    \36\ Mark D. Rosen, Multiple Authoritative Interpreters of Quasi-
Constitutional Federal Law: Of Tribal Courts and the Indian Civil 
Rights Act, 69 FORDHAM L. REV. 479, 522 (2000) (``Additional evidence 
demonstrates that tribal courts take their task of construing ICRA 
seriously. This evidence is the attentiveness tribal courts give to 
federal court precedents when construing ICRA's sister terms in the 
Bill of Rights, as well as the tendency of tribal courts to depart from 
federal interpretations only after articulating good reasons to do so. 
Indeed, analysis of the case law reveals that tribal courts have 
assimilated many Anglo constitutional values even though they have 
given the provisions varying applications.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Tribal Governments Deserve to Be Trusted to Do Their Part Alongside 
        Other American Governments to Protect Native Women
    My second response to those who may be worried about the fairness 
or adequacy of the justice systems that tribes are running, is to share 
what I came to realize while working so closely with tribal governments 
throughout this country. It is at once so obvious and yet unfortunately 
still so profound that it has become a large part of my academic career 
to extend this insight to every corner of American law: Indian Tribes 
are simply governments, just like any other in this country. They are 
composed--not of ``outsiders''--but entirely of your fellow American 
citizens. Like any other government, they are trying their best to do 
what is best for the people they are responsible for. They are trying 
to make laws and programs that help people thrive and protect them from 
harm. They are not perfect. They are simply a group of American 
citizens doing their best to shape laws and build systems that they and 
their families will have to live by and be brought to justice under 
when they cause harm. And it is high time we trusted them to do that.
    When equivalent rights protections are already readily available 
under existing federal law, requiring any additional federal agency 
oversight of tribal governance, or earlier federal court intervention 
beyond what we require of states is a waste of federal and tribal 
resources. When a state is accused of violating a criminal defendant's 
Constitutional rights, defendants are required to raise the issue first 
in state court to give them the first opportunity to address and 
rectify it. \37\ To subject tribal governments to any more supervision 
or scrutiny than we do the other governments in this country is nothing 
more than a paternalistic impulse rooted in colonially tinged distrust 
of tribal governments as somehow more suspect or less capable of 
dispensing equal justice. \38\ The ``jurisdictional maze'' of Indian 
Country and lack of adequate protections for public safety already 
makes Indian people feel like ``second-class citizens.'' \39\ We should 
be weary of any programmatic change which would likewise communicate 
that their governments are second-class governments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \37\ 28 U.S.C.  2254(b) (describing the state court exhaustion 
requirement in habeas corpus petitions for violations of constitutional 
rights).
    \38\ Moreover, evidence suggests such concerns are completely 
unwarranted. In a study of tribal court civil cases involving non-
Indian defendants, Professor Bethany Berger found that tribal courts 
were nonetheless even-handed and fair. Bethany Berger, Justice and the 
Outsider: Jurisdiction Over Nonmembers in Tribal Legal Systems, 37 
ARIZ. ST. L.J. 1047 (2005); see also Rosen, supra note 36.
    \39\ INDIAN L. & ORDER COMM'N, A ROADMAP FOR MAKING NATIVE AMERICA 
SAFER: REPORT TO THE PRESIDENT & CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES v, viii-
ix (Nov. 2013) (describing the ``jurisdictional maze'' in Indian 
Country that makes Indian people ``second-class citizens'' when it 
comes to protection from crime, particularly because the local police & 
law enforcement most closely connected to Indian Country are helpless 
to prosecute a great deal of the crimes that they encounter).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Congress Has the Power to Restore Tribal Criminal Jurisdiction Over 
        Non-Indians
    Finally, there is the question of Congress' power to authorize 
broader exercise of tribal criminal jurisdiction. It is settled law 
that tribal sovereignty, including the power to prosecute all persons 
who commit crimes within their territories, is inherent. \40\ It is 
built into the government of the tribe, with permanent and deep roots 
in their very existence as a government in their own right, as pre-
colonial self-governing peoples. However, it is also settled law, that 
Congress-as a matter of both constitutional power and colonial 
necessity--has plenary power over the scope of that sovereignty. \41\ 
Just as with state sovereignty, Congress cannot create or destroy 
tribal sovereignty, but federal power can limit its exercise. \42\ But 
Congress can, just as easily--and without complicating the source of 
that underlying authority--remove the barrier placed on that power. 
Congress did just that in VAWA 2013, and in the ``Duro Fix,'' \43\ 
which restored tribal power to prosecute non-member Indians. When the 
Supreme Court examined Congress' decision to allow tribes to exercise 
more of their original inherent authority to prosecute crimes committed 
on their territory, it described that action as simply Congress 
``removing restrictions imposed on the tribes' inherent sovereignty,'' 
\44\ and it upheld Congress' power to do so under the Constitution. 
\45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \40\ United States v. Wheeler, 435 U.S. 313, 322-23 (1978).
    \41\ Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock, 187 U.S. 553, 565 (1903); United 
States v. Kagama, 118 U.S. 375, 380 (1886).
    \42\ Although there are, of course, many ways--including provisions 
of the Constitution itself--which limit the exercise of state 
sovereignty, federal law also recognizes that Congress' power to limit 
the scope of state courts' jurisdiction. In Tafflin v. Levitt, the 
Supreme Court held that though state courts otherwise have ``inherent 
authority, and are presumptively competent, to adjudicate claims,'' 
they can ``by an explicit statutory directive, by unmistakable 
implication from legislative history, or by a clear incompatibility 
between state-court jurisdiction and federal interests'' be ``divested 
of jurisdiction to hear [certain claims.]'' 493 U.S. 455, 458, 460 
(1990) (quoting Gulf Offshore Co. v. Mobil Oil Corp., 453 U.S. 473, 478 
(1981)).
    \43\ 25 U.S.C.  1301(2).
    \44\ United States v. Lara, 541 U.S. 193, 207 (2004).
    \45\ Lara, 541 U.S. at 210.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Then, as here, Congress has not only the power to do something but 
the responsibility.
    Forty-three years ago, when the Supreme Court decided Oliphant v. 
Suquamish--the case that removed tribal criminal jurisdiction over non-
Indians--the opinion's final paragraph acknowledged three important 
things. First, that the concerns about tribal courts that motivated 
parts of their decision might not even be well founded, particularly 
after the passage of ICRA. Second, that their decision might have 
drastic consequences for the ``prevalence of crime'' on reservations. 
And finally, that it would be up to Congress to fix the mess they made, 
if that indeed happened. \46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \46\ ``We recognize that some Indian tribal court systems have 
become increasingly sophisticated and resemble in many respects their 
state counterparts. We also acknowledge that with the passage of the 
Indian Civil Rights Act of 1968, which extends certain basic procedural 
rights to anyone tried in Indian tribal court, many of the dangers that 
might have accompanied the exercise by tribal courts of criminal 
jurisdiction over non-Indians only a few decades ago have disappeared. 
Finally, we are not unaware of the prevalence of non-Indian crime on 
today's reservations which the tribes forcefully argue requires the 
ability to try non-Indians. But these are considerations for Congress 
to weigh in deciding whether Indian tribes should finally be authorized 
to try non-Indians.'' Oliphant v. Suquamish Indian Tribe, 435 U.S. 191, 
211-12 (1978).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    And here we are, still largely sitting in this mess 43 years later, 
after decades of Native women paying the highest price for the Supreme 
Court's decision and Congress' inaction. It is time to get out of the 
way and let tribal governments do as much as they can in the fight to 
protect Native women. Our reasons for keeping them out of it are rooted 
in fear, distrust, and assumptions about their capacity to soundly 
administer the law that all ought to be long since in our past.

    The Chairman. Thank you very much, Professor Reese.
    Last, we have Michelle Demmert, Director of the Law and 
Policy Center, Alaska Native Women's Resource Center, in 
Fairbanks, Alaska. Please proceed.

STATEMENT OF MICHELLE DEMMERT, DIRECTOR, LAW AND POLICY CENTER, 
                ALASKA NATIVE WOMEN'S RESOURCE 
                             CENTER

    Ms. Demmert. Good afternoon. My name is Michelle Demmert. I 
am an enrolled citizen and the former chief justice of Central 
Council Tlingit and Haida Indian Tribes of Alaska Supreme 
Court, and serve as the law and policy director for the Alaska 
Native Women's Resource Center.
    The rates of violence experienced by Alaska Natives are 
shocking. Alaska ranks as one of the most dangerous places in 
the Nation for women
    This is especially true for Alaska Native women. While 
Alaska Natives comprise approximately 90 percent of the State's 
population, the Alaska Criminal Justice Commission reports that 
46 percent of reported felony level sex offenses involve Alaska 
Natives. Given the many barriers to reporting, we see this as 
an underestimate.
    Available data suggests that among other Indian tribes, 
Alaska Native women suffer the highest rates of domestic and 
sexual violence in the Country. Alaska has the highest number 
of missing indigenous persons, too.
    As of August 2021, 40 percent of the missing Alaska Native 
and American Indian people in NamUs were from Alaska. These 
missing women are the devastating manifestations of centuries 
of oppression and broken systems that have failed to protect 
Native women and children from birth to death for generations.
    The combined impact of P.L. 280, the Supreme Court's 
Venetie decision, and the timing of historical events in Alaska 
leave us Natives dependent on the State for public safety and 
justice. My written testimony discusses the legal framework in 
Alaska. Today, I will focus on what this legal framework means 
for Alaska Natives.
    It can be difficult to understand a place in America where 
you cannot call 911 for a quick response within minutes. Such 
is the case in Alaska. We do not have a centralized 911 system, 
and the State criminal justice and victim services are located 
in a handful of urban areas, making them more theoretical than 
real in rural Alaska.
    Many villages lack law enforcement. We might have to leave 
a message and wait hours and days and sometimes weeks for a 
necessary response. Sometimes a response is nothing more than a 
phone call saying that it doesn't rise to the level for an 
investigation. Because we lack the necessary resources and the 
infrastructure to manage these issues on our own, our children, 
our children are often our first responders, and our tribal 
leaders and advocates act as law enforcement and preserve crime 
scenes.
    I would like to share two examples. In a homicide case, it 
took 11 hours for law enforcement to appear. The 13-year-old 
victim's body laid outside across the street from the family's 
home. Sometimes these crime scenes are like this for days on 
end. We have lost our loved ones and are powerless to do 
anything more than sit vigil, protecting a crime scene until 
law enforcement arrives.
    In a 2018 case, in a small, remote interior village, a 
victim waited 17 days to get out of the village to safety. 
During this time, the victim was treated at the clinic, called 
Alaska State troopers located in a hub community one hour away 
by plane. The weather was unflyable for three weeks. In 
addition, she could not get to a regional medical clinic for 
further treatment, and law enforcement could not get into the 
community for an investigative report.
    The circumstances described are repeated throughout remote 
Alaska. They will continue until our local governments have the 
authority and resources they need to address public safety.
    As you have heard, many tribes outside Alaska have 
successfully exercised jurisdiction over non-Indians who abuse 
Native women since the passage of VAWA in 2013. Indian tribes 
in Alaska were effectively excluded from that legislation 
because of the use of the term Indian Country, which Alaska 
tribes lack.
    We have called on Congress to remove the legal barriers 
denying Alaska Native victims of violence access to justice 
from their own tribal governments. We are encouraged by current 
efforts to do so. We support the creation of the pilot project 
in Alaska.
    Specifically, we recommend the creation, with Department of 
Justice support, of an Alaska-specific inter-tribal Special 
Domestic Violence Court Jurisdiction working group, a planning 
phase with robust technical assistance for code drafting, 
training, and court capacity building, and sufficient financial 
support for costs related to both planning and implementation.
    We strongly support proposed amendments to VAWA 2013 
related to improvements for Special Domestic Violence Court 
Jurisdiction. Thank you, thank you for releasing the discussion 
draft today. It represents an important step forward, and we 
appreciate the bipartisan work of the Chairman and Vice 
Chairman Murkowski to reform the outdated Federal laws that 
prevent tribal nations, including those in Alaska, from 
protecting our communities.
    In the Tlingit language, we have no words or descriptions 
for violence within a family home. Restoring and enhancing 
local tribal governmental capacity to respond to violence 
against women provides greater local control, safety, 
accountability and transparency. As a result, we will have 
safer communities, and a pathway for long-lasting justice.
    I look forward to providing additional feedback to the 
Committee on the discussion draft.
    Gunalcheesh. Haw'aa. Thank you.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Demmert follows:]

   Prepared Statement of Michelle Demmert, Director, Law and Policy 
             Center, Alaska Native Women's Resource Center
    My name is Michelle Demmert, and I am an enrolled citizen and the 
former Chief Justice of Central Council Tlingit and Haida Indian Tribes 
of Alaska's Supreme Court (Tlingit & Haida) and serve as the Law and 
Policy Director for the Alaska Native Women's Resource Center (AKNWRC).
    The Alaska Native Women's Resource Center is a nonprofit 
organization dedicated to ending violence against women in partnership 
with Alaska's 229 tribes and allied organizations.
    My nation, Tlingit & Haida, is a federally recognized tribal 
government with over 33,000 citizens worldwide, and has an active, 
government-to-government relationship with the United States. The Tribe 
serves 18 villages and communities spread over 43,000 square miles 
within Southeast Alaska. More than 7,000 tribal citizens reside in 
Juneau, with several thousand more located in Anchorage. Beyond that, a 
significant number of tribal citizens reside in Washington State (more 
than 6,000), and smaller numbers stretch into Oregon and the rest of 
the world. Tlingit & Haida tribal citizens are among the largest, most 
isolated, and most geographically dispersed tribal populations 
nationwide. In Southeast Alaska, where the Tribe provides the majority 
of its services, most communities have no roads in or out and must rely 
on planes and boats for both day-to-day needs and emergencies. The 
majority of Alaska's 229 tribes are similarly isolated.
    The AKNWRC is a member of the National Congress of American 
Indians' Task Force on Violence Against Women. Since its establishment 
in 2003, the NCAI Task Force, which I cochaired from 2017-2020, has 
assisted Indian tribes in advocating for national legislative and 
policy reforms to strengthen tribal government authority and access 
increased resources to safeguard the lives of American Indian and 
Alaska Native women.
    Thank you for inviting me to testify on behalf of the AKNWRC on the 
essential role of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) in supporting 
Alaska Native victims of domestic and sexual violence and strengthening 
the response of Indian tribes in Alaska to these crimes in villages 
across Alaska.
    The challenges confronting Alaska Indian tribes in creating safe 
villages for our citizens, specifically women, are distinct from any 
other sovereign in the United States-Indian tribes, States, 
Territories, or the federal government. In this testimony, I will 
provide a brief explanation of how systemic barriers within the state 
of Alaska undermine safety for Alaska Natives and exacerbate an already 
dire situation for many Alaska Native women. I will also discuss how 
the tribal provisions in VAWA 2013 have left Alaska Natives further 
behind. Finally, I will address how the Violence Against Women 
Reauthorization Act, H.R. 1620 and recommended reforms included in the 
Alaska Tribal Public Safety Empowerment Act introduced last session, S. 
2616, present a path forward that begin to address the unique 
challenges in Alaska and will ultimately bring greater safety to Alaska 
Native women.
Systemic Legal Barriers Confronting Alaska Indian Tribes
    The 2013 Indian Law and Order Commission (ILOC) issued the Report, 
``A Roadmap for Making Native America Safer'' and devoted a chapter to 
the unique issues in Alaska. \1\ The Report found that the absence of 
an effective justice system has disproportionately harmed Alaska Native 
women who are continually targeted for all forms of violence.

    \1\ A Roadmap for Making Native America Safer: Report to the 
President and Congress of the United States (November 2013), available 
at http://www.aisc.ucla.edu/iloc/report/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    An instructive statement contained in the ILOC report concludes:

        ''The strongly centralized law enforcement and justice systems 
        of the State of Alaska . . . do not serve local and Native 
        communities adequately, if at all. The Commission believes that 
        devolving authority to Alaska Native communities is essential 
        for addressing local crime. Their governments are best 
        positioned to effectively arrest, prosecute, and punish, and 
        they should have the authority to do so-or to work out 
        voluntary agreements with each other, and with local 
        governments and the State on mutually beneficial terms.''

        --Indian Law and Order Commission Report, 2013

    We are encouraged that Congress is considering legislation that 
recognizes that restoring safety for Alaska Native women requires 
empowering Alaska Native tribal governments. This is consistent with 
recommendations that have been made for decades to remove barriers in 
federal law that limit the authority of tribal justice systems to 
address violence in tribal communities. Unfortunately, Congressional 
efforts over the last 10 years to empower tribal governments--including 
VAWA 2013 and the Tribal Law & Order Act of 2010--have left Alaska 
tribes behind. Alaska tribes are treated differently under U.S. law 
largely because of the timing of Alaska statehood and the unique 
structure of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act.
    The Alaska Territory was purchased by the United States from Russia 
in 1867. Three short years later, Congress prohibited the President 
from ``treating'' with tribal governments. \2\ As a result, there are 
no treaties with tribes in Alaska. Instead, between 1891-1936 reserves 
in Alaska were established by Executive Order, or in the case of the 
Annette Islands reserve, by act of Congress.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ 25 U.S.C.  71. During this time, it is notable that the Civil 
War had just ended, and the country was in the process of the 
``Reconstruction Era,'' a time which the United States was 
reintegrating into the Union the states that had seceded and 
determining the legal status of African Americans. Alaska Territory was 
a far-off world not part of this focus.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Alaska was a territory for almost a century before becoming a state 
during a time known as the Termination Era of federal Indian policy 
(mid-1940s to mid-1960s). \3\ The Termination Era was a period of 
policymaking focused on ending federal obligations to Indian tribes 
with the ultimate aim of dissolving tribal governance structures and 
lands and fully assimilating Native people into the dominant culture. 
The policy has been widely repudiated, but many of today's challenges 
are the direct result of Termination Era actions that have never been 
undone. Public Law 83-280 (1953) (PL 280) was enacted during the 
Termination Era and transferred to certain states federal criminal 
jurisdiction over Indians living on tribal lands. Before PL 280 was 
enacted, the federal and tribal governments shared jurisdiction, 
exclusive of the states, over almost all civil and criminal matters 
involving Indians on tribal lands. A month after Alaska became a state 
in 1958, \4\ the provisions of PL 280 were extended to Alaska as a 
``mandatory'' state.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ 68 Stat. 795; Pub. L. 85-615,  1, Aug. 8, 1958.
    \4\ Public Law 85-508 (July 7, 1958).The statehood act was signed 
into law by the President on July 7, 1958. On January 3, 1959, the 
President signed the official proclamation admitting Alaska as the 49th 
state.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    At the time of statehood, Alaska had several ``Executive Order'' 
Reservations and Native townsites, which were set aside for the benefit 
and use of ``Indians'' or ``Eskimos.'' The Alaska Natives were active 
in advancing their rights and engaged in governance with the Alaska 
Native Brotherhood (1912) and the Alaska Native Sisterhood (1915). 
Through their efforts, the first civil rights act in the country was 
adopted while Alaska was still a Territory. \5\ In the 1960s, land 
rights became a primary issue in Alaska. With the discovery of oil, the 
federal government wanted to end any question of land status for 
Natives and gain access to the rich oil reserves.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\ House Bill 14, the Antidiscrimination Act of 1945.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) \6\ came at the 
tail end of the Termination Era. ANCSA created a new and novel approach 
to tribal land tenure. Rather than recognize sovereign tribal lands, 
ANCSA created for-profit corporations and transferred tribal lands in 
fee to these entities to manage more than 40 million acres of land. 
ANCSA divided the state into 12 regional corporations and over 200 
village corporations that would identify with their regional 
corporation. Many of these villages had corresponding tribal village 
governments but, with the passage of ANCSA, no meaningful or recognized 
land base. After ANCSA, the only remaining Alaska reservation is the 
Annette Island Reserve in Southeast Alaska. \7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\ 43 U.S.C. 1601 et. seq. (1971).
    \7\ 18 U.S.C.  1162 (Except as otherwise provided in sections 1154 
and 1156 of this title,; 28 U.S.C.  1360.Pursuant to ANCSA, two Native 
corporations were established for the Neets'aii Gwich'in, one in 
Venetie, and one in Arctic Village. In 1973, those corporations elected 
to make use of a provision in ANCSA allowing Native corporations to 
take title to former reservation lands set aside for Indians prior to 
1971, in return for forgoing the statute's monetary payments and 
transfers of non-reservation land. See  1618(b). The United States 
conveyed fee simple title to the land constituting the former Venetie 
Reservation to the two corporations as tenants in common; thereafter, 
the corporations transferred title to the land to the Native Village of 
Venetie Tribal Government (the Tribe). However, the analysis of their 
land status is beyond the scope of this discussion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Following the enactment of ANCSA, several decades of confusion 
about the status and territorial authority of Alaska tribal governments 
ensued. Ultimately, the tribal status of Alaska Natives was confirmed, 
but the jurisdiction of the tribes was severely limited by Alaska v. 
Native Village of Venetie Tribal Government, 522 U.S. 520 (1998), a 
case in which the U.S. Supreme Court held that the lands transferred by 
ANCSA do not meet the definition of ``Indian country'' under federal 
law. As a practical matter, this decision has meant that with the 
exception of the Annette Island Reservation, there is virtually no 
recognized ``Indian country'' in Alaska. \8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\ The Venetie decision did not address whether other lands in 
Alaska, including Indian allotments and Native townsites, are ``Indian 
country.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    As a term in federal law, ``Indian country'' defines a confined 
area of territorial jurisdiction tied to a tribe. The term ``Indian 
country'' means:

        ''(a) all land within the limits of any Indian reservation 
        under the jurisdiction of the United States government, 
        notwithstanding the issuance of any patent, and including 
        rights-of-way running through the reservation, (b) all 
        dependent Indian communities within the borders of the United 
        States whether within the original or subsequently acquired 
        territory thereof, and whether within or without the limits of 
        a state, and (c) all Indian allotments, the Indian titles to 
        which have not been extinguished, including rights-of- way 
        running through the same.'' \9\

    \9\ 18 U.S.C.  1151.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Most federal programs and statutes reference eligibility of 
``Indian country'' for certain programs. While federal programs have 
expanded their definitions for Alaska Native tribes to take advantage 
of most programs as ``dependent Indian communities,'' the lack of true 
legally defined ``Indian country'' and corresponding defined 
jurisdiction, continues to create a dangerous situation in Alaska and 
for tribal governments to protect their women and children.
    In addition, without lands recognized as ``Indian country,'' Alaska 
tribes have very little ability to tax or engage in economic 
development opportunities that may be available to tribes outside 
Alaska. Alaska tribes have also been deprived of consistent and 
predictable tribal court federal appropriations. As a result, Alaska 
tribes lack the revenue typically available to other tribal governments 
to fund and sustain essential government infrastructure and services 
such as a court or police force. All Alaska tribes are in a similar 
position and must find innovative ways to raise government revenue and 
to leverage other resources to sustain their tribal courts, public 
safety, and victim services. Because of this resource dilemma, 
available grants for developing and sustaining programs are a matter of 
life or death for Alaska Native women and tribes.
    The combined impact of PL 280 and the Venetie decision leave Alaska 
Natives dependent on the state of Alaska for public safety and justice. 
Alaska tribal communities are at the mercy of the state to provide 
justice services. Unfortunately, state services are centered in a 
handful of Alaskan urban areas, making them more theoretical than real 
in rural Alaska. The Indian Law and Order Commission found that 
``Alaska Department of Public Safety (ADPS) officers have primary 
responsibility for law enforcement in rural Alaska, but ADPS provides 
for only 1.0-1.4 field officers per million acres.'' \10\ Without a 
meaningful law enforcement presence, crime regularly occurs with 
impunity. In addition, the maze of jurisdictional issues, the remote 
nature of many tribal communities, and other systemic barriers in 
Alaska create extremely dangerous conditions for Alaska Native women 
across the entire state, and especially those living in our small, 
remote resource-poor communities. Without the extension of state 
services and resources to address the disparities in rural tribal 
communities, the State of Alaska has failed Alaska Native women, 
children, and families.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \10\ A Roadmap for Making Native America Safer: Report to the 
President and Congress of the United States (November 2013), available 
at http://www.aisc.ucla.edu/iloc/report/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    It is nearly impossible to convey this situation and the traumatic 
hardships constantly faced by Alaska Native women and families to 
people, lawmakers, and leaders who have not visited rural Alaska. They 
cannot envision a place in America where you cannot call 911 and have a 
response within minutes. But in Alaska, we do not have a centralized 
911 system--if we need services, we have to determine who to call--do 
we need emergency medical help or law enforcement services? We often do 
not have a police presence in the Village and rely on state troopers 
stationed many air miles away. We might have to leave a message and 
wait hours, days, and sadly weeks for a necessary response. Sometimes 
the response is nothing more than a phone call saying that it doesn't 
rise to the level warranting an investigation. The message we receive 
repeatedly is that the state justice system devalues us as Native 
women. In a highly publicized case, Justin Scott Schneider, an 
Anchorage man, violently attacked a Native woman. Schneider was charged 
with kidnapping, strangling the victim until she became unconscious 
then masturbating on her. This man pled guilty and yet served no jail 
time. \11\ Why would we trust such a system to help us?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \11\ https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/21/us/alaska-assault-man-no-
sentence/index.html While this crime occurred in an urban area, this 
sentence shows how access to justice fails our tribal people.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Again, the current crisis and spectrum of violence committed 
against Alaska Native women is a result of systemic barriers created 
through historic laws and policies of federal Indian law. Alaska Indian 
tribes lack and desperately need access to both tribal and state 
justice services. Many tribes have no advocacy services, law 
enforcement, no 911, no state official they could conceive of raising a 
complaint to, given the separation of geography, language, and culture. 
The jurisdictional barriers in Alaska create extremely dangerous 
conditions for our small, remote communities. The dire and life-
threatening circumstance can be overcome through legislative reforms 
and adequate funding of Indian tribes in Alaska to respond to violence 
against women. We have beautiful communities, cultures and people that 
deserve the resources that all other communities have available.
The Spectrum of Violence Against Alaska Native Women
    The rates of violence experienced by Alaska Natives are horrific. 
Alaska often ranks as the most dangerous place in the nation for women. 
\12\ This is particularly true for Alaska Native women. \13\ The ILOC 
found that Alaska Native women are overrepresented and have the highest 
rates of victimization for any population of women by 250 percent. 
While Alaska Natives comprise approximately 19 percent of the state 
population, according to a 2017 report from the Alaska Criminal Justice 
Commission, 46 percent of reported felony level sex offenses involved 
Alaska Natives. \14\ Among other Indian Tribes, Alaska Native women 
suffer the highest rates of domestic and sexual violence in the 
country. \15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \12\ See, e.g., ``Missing or murdered? In America's deadliest 
state, one family is still searching for answers,'' USA Today, June 25, 
2019, available at https://www.usatoday.com/in-depth/news/nation/2019/
06/25/deadliest-statewomen-alaska-rape-and-murder-too-common-domestic-
violence-rape-murder-me-too-men/1500893001/.
    \13\ ``Alaska Native Women Suffer the Highest Sexual Assault Rates 
in the Country,'' The Crime Report, Feb. 2, 2021, available at https://
thecrimereport.org/2021/02/05/alaska-native-women-suffer-highest-
sexual-assault-rates-in-thecountry/
    \14\ Alaska Criminal Justice Commission, ``Sex Offenses: A Report 
to the Alaska State Legislature,'' April 5, 2019, pg. 10.
    \15\ A Roadmap for Making Native America Safer: Report to the 
President and Congress of the United States at 41 (November 2013), 
available at http://www.aisc.ucla.edu/iloc/report/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The outrage and anguish of the Native families who have lost loved 
ones to violence--whose mothers, daughters, sisters, and aunties have 
disappeared or been murdered--has recently propelled a conversation 
about missing and murdered indigenous women to the national level. But 
these deaths, these missing women, are the devastating manifestation of 
centuries of oppression and broken systems that have failed to protect 
Native women and children from birth to death for generations. Alaska 
has the highest number of missing Indigenous persons. As of August 
2021, out of the 743 missing Alaska Native and American Indian people 
in the National Missing and Unidentified Persons System (NamUs), 292 of 
those were from Alaska. \16\ Alaska is considered one of the most 
violent states, with Anchorage as one of the most violent cities. \17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \16\  https://namus.nij.ojp.gov/sites/g/files/xyckuh336/files/
media/document/namus-stats-ai_an-report-august-2021.pdf
    \17\ When Men Murder Women 4 (Violence Policy Center 2019).Missing 
and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls 12. The Seattle-based Urban 
Indian Health Institute reports that Alaska is among the top ten states 
with the highest number of missing and murdered AI/AN.(Seattle Urban 
Indian Health Institute 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Domestic violence and sexual assault survivors in Alaska Native 
villages are often left without any means to seek help and justice for 
the crimes against them because many villages lack advocacy services 
and law enforcement. When law enforcement finally arrives, sometimes 
the evidence is stale, or the chain of custody can no longer meet 
applicable legal standards, and the case cannot be prosecuted. In 
addition, tribal victims of domestic violence may need to leave their 
home village to seek safety for themselves and their children.
    We have 229 federally recognized tribes and nearly 40 percent lack 
full time law enforcement, so when a crime occurs, we have to wait 
hours, sometimes days and in extreme weather situations, weeks. We also 
lack the necessary authority and infrastructure to manage these issues 
on our own. As a result, with the challenges of travel during extreme 
weather, our children are often our first responders, and our tribal 
leaders and advocates act as law enforcement and preserve crime scenes. 
In many communities, women self-organize to provide informal safe 
houses for women in danger from domestic violence. When state law 
enforcement does appear, there is such distrust of them, and the 
investigations are often done poorly by these state officials and can 
take years to see a result, if ever. Some examples:

 In a homicide case, it took 11 hours for law enforcement to 
        appear. The body of the 13-year-old victim laid outside across 
        the street from the family home. Sometimes these crime scenes 
        are like this for days on end. We have lost our loved ones and 
        are powerless to do anything more than protect a crime scene 
        until law enforcement arrives.

 Another example is a rape that occurred more than 5 years ago. 
        The rape kit was finally tested, and a perpetrator was found. 
        This is extraordinary- the vast majority of rape victims have 
        no access to a forensic exam- and could be seen as a success 
        story. But the delays in testing the rape kit meant that the 
        small community lived in fear for years knowing that there was 
        a rapist among them. Now that a perpetrator was charged, more 
        than five years later, the victim/survivor who had worked to 
        move on and rebuild her life is now asked to endure the trial 
        that she had thought would never happen.

 In a 2018 case in a small remote interior village, a victim 
        waited 17 days to get out of the village to safety. During this 
        time, the victim was treated at the clinic and called law 
        enforcement (Alaska State Troopers) located in a hub community 
        one hour away by plane. The weather was unflyable for 3 weeks 
        and the victim could not get a charter plane to pick her up so 
        she could go to a neighboring village to visit relatives. In 
        addition, she could not get to a regional medical clinic for 
        further treatment, and law enforcement could not get into the 
        community for an investigative report. There was no safe home 
        or safe housing available and so she waited, afraid that her 
        partner would find out that she was trying to leave. Whether a 
        tribe has advocacy services or public safety personnel makes a 
        difference if victims have support and someone to call for 
        help.

 For more than 6 hours the Village of Kake was in lockdown mode 
        because of an active shooter incident until law enforcement 
        arrived and took the person into custody.

 A 14-year-old girl was raped by a young man in a village 
        without law enforcement. Everyone in the girl's family (and 
        village), especially the child, was scared and had to wait 
        several months for the troopers to make an arrest. In the 
        meantime, the alleged rapist lived two doors down from her 
        home. Eventually, there was an arrest, but it was unknown if 
        there was ever a prosecution.

    None of these communities had law enforcement within their 
communities.
    Studies such as the National Institute of Justice, Research Report 
on the Violence Against American Indian and Native Women and Men, 
document the dire safety circumstances confronting Native victims of 
domestic and sexual violence. Nationally, 38 percent of Native victims 
are unable to receive necessary services compared to 15 percent of non-
Hispanic white female victims. \18\ Given the remote location of many 
Alaska Native communities, this disparity is certainly even more 
pronounced in Alaska. The young woman described above waited in fear 
for more than two weeks to get to safety. The circumstances described 
above are repeated in variation ad nauseam throughout remote Alaska. 
These are the daily harms perpetuated by the exclusion of tribes in 
Alaska from exercising special domestic violence criminal jurisdiction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \18\ Rosay, Andre B., ``Violence Against American Indian and Alaska 
Native Women and Men,'' NIJ Journal 277 (2016): 38-45, available at 
http://nij.gov/journals/277/Pages/violence-against-american-indians-
alaska-natives.aspx.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Exclusion of Indian Tribes in Alaska from Exercising Special 
        Domestic Violence Criminal Jurisdiction
    Many tribes, since the passage of VAWA 2013, have successfully 
exercised jurisdiction over non-Indians who abuse Native women. 
Unfortunately, when VAWA was reauthorized in 2013, Indian tribes in 
Alaska were effectively excluded and denied the life-saving benefits of 
exercising Special Domestic Violence Criminal Jurisdiction (SDVCJ). We 
have called on Congress to remove the legal barriers denying Alaska 
Native victims of violence access to justice from their own tribal 
governments, and we are encouraged by current efforts to do so.
    I had the privilege of working with many of the tribes exercising 
SDVCJ as part of the Intertribal Working Group on Special Domestic 
Violence Criminal Jurisdiction established by the U.S. Department of 
Justice. These tribes have held serial offenders accountable and have 
brought justice and safety to hundreds of victims and their families. 
They have done so while upholding the due process rights of all 
defendants in tribal courts. Unfortunately, the same access to safety 
and justice is denied to Alaska Native victims of domestic violence 
because section 904 of VAWA 2013 limits the restored exercise of the 
special domestic violence criminal jurisdiction to tribes to certain 
crimes committed in ``Indian country.''
    Yet, while the federal law continues to tie the hands of Alaska 
tribal governments, the State does not have the resources to provide 
the level of justice needed in tribal communities. And ultimately, the 
State is not the local, tribal authority. From a 2016 NIJ report, we 
learned that American Indian and Alaska Native women are 3 times more 
likely to experience sexual violence by an interracial perpetrator than 
non-Hispanic White-only females. \19\ Alaska Indian tribes need to be 
able to exercise special domestic violence criminal jurisdiction to 
address these staggering statistics by providing protection for the 
lives of their women, children, and families.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \19\ Id. at 18.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed Amendments of H.R. 1620 and the Alaska Safety Empowerment Act
    We are pleased to see and support the proposed tribal amendments 
for Alaska Indian tribes included in the House, Violence Against Women 
Reauthorization Act, H.R. 1620, and the previously introduced Alaska 
Tribal Public Safety Empowerment Act and urge the Senate to introduce a 
companion or similar bill to reauthorize VAWA.
    H.R. 1620 begins to address the jurisdictional challenges and dire 
circumstances facing Alaska Native women. It recognizes a tribe's 
territorial jurisdiction equivalent to the corresponding village 
corporation's land base and traditional territory. Alaska's own 
Representative Don Young voted in favor of H.R. 1620's expanded 
jurisdictional definition of the pilot project to include ``all lands 
within any Alaska Native village with a population that is at least 75 
percent Alaska Native.'' In addition, removing the requirement of 
``Indian country'' to enforce a protection order would assist Alaska 
Tribal villages and strengthen their efforts to enforce protection 
order violations without confusion.
    We understand that the jurisdictional situation in Alaska is 
complex, and we support the creation of a Pilot Project in Alaska so 
that more than just 1 of the 229 federally recognized tribes can 
exercise Special Criminal Jurisdiction (SCJ). The pilot project could 
be conducted similarly to the implementation of SDVCJ after the passage 
of VAWA 2013. We recommend:

        1) the creation, with DOJ support, of an Alaska specific 
        Intertribal SDVCJ Working Group;

        2) a planning phase with robust technical assistance to assist 
        with code drafting, training, and court capacity building; and

        3) appropriate financial support for costs related to both 
        planning and implementation.

    Until the unique legal framework in Alaska is addressed, Alaska 
Tribes, except Metlakatla, are largely left without inclusion in this 
important legislation that recognizes the inherent authority of a tribe 
to prosecute violent crimes against women. Authority alone, however, 
will not solve the problem. While federal funding for tribal justice 
systems nationally has never been close to what is needed to provide a 
base level of services, it has been virtually non-existent in Alaska. 
Alaska Native villages need resources to develop their criminal justice 
infrastructure.
Limitations of VAWA 2013 Special Domestic Violence Criminal 
        Jurisdiction
    I would also like to address the need for amendments to VAWA 2013's 
SDVCJ provisions more generally. Despite the successes of special 
domestic violence criminal jurisdiction, there are gaps in the law. 
Under VAWA 2013, tribal prosecutors are unable to charge defendants for 
crimes related to abuse or endangerment of a child; for sexual assault, 
stalking or trafficking committed by a stranger or acquaintance; or for 
crimes that a defendant might commit within the criminal justice system 
like assault of an officer, resisting arrest, obstruction of justice, 
or perjury.
    The tribes prosecuting non-Indians report that children are 
involved in their cases as victims and witnesses over 60 percent of the 
time. These children deserve justice. A 2016 study from the National 
Institute for Justice (NIJ), found that approximately 56 percent of 
Native women experience sexual violence within their lifetime, with 1 
in 7 experiencing it in the past year. \20\ Nearly 1 in 2 report being 
stalked. \21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \20\ Andre B. Rosay, Nat'l Inst. of Justice, Violence Against 
American Indian and Alaska Native Women and Men: 2010 Findings from the 
National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey, U.S. Dep't of 
Justice 11 (2016), available at https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/
249736.pdf.
    \21\ Id., at 29.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Unlike the general population where rape, sexual assault, and 
intimate partner violence are usually intra-racial, Native women are 
more likely to be raped or assaulted by someone of a different race. 
NIJ found that 96 percent of Native women and 89 percent of male 
victims reported being victimized by a non-Indian. \22\ Native victims 
of sexual violence are three times as likely to have experienced sexual 
violence by an interracial perpetrator as non-Hispanic White victims. 
\23\ Similarly, Native stalking victims are nearly 4 times as likely to 
be stalked by someone of a different race, with 89 percent of female 
stalking victims and 90 percent of male stalking victims reporting 
inter-racial victimization. \24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \22\ Id., at 18.
    \23\ Id., at 29.
    \24\ Id., at 32.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Provisions contained in H.R. 1620 would amend 25 U.S.C. 1304 to 
include sexual assault, stalking, and trafficking crimes committed in 
Indian Country. It would untie the hands of tribal governments and 
allow them to extend the same protections to victims of sexual violence 
and stalking as are available to domestic violence victims. All victims 
of sexual violence, child abuse, stalking, trafficking, and assaults 
against law enforcement officers deserve the same protections that 
Congress afforded to domestic violence victims in VAWA 2013, including 
victims in Alaska Native villages.
    The United States has a federal Indian trust responsibility to the 
first people of the United States. In several cases discussing the 
trust responsibility, the Supreme Court has used language suggesting 
that it entails legal duties, moral obligations, and the fulfillment of 
understandings and expectations that have arisen over the entire course 
of the relationship between the United States and the federally 
recognized tribes. Indian tribes in Alaska have a desperate need for 
the reforms included in H.R. 1620 to address the continued legacy of 
the spectrum of violence committed against Alaska Native women since 
the U.S. asserted authority over our Nations.
    We strongly support the amendments to VAWA 2013 that recognize:

 Native children and law enforcement personnel involved in 
        domestic violence incidents on tribal lands are equally in need 
        of the protections that were extended to adult domestic 
        violence victims in VAWA 2013;

 the need to close another loophole in the SDVCJ provision of 
        VAWA 2013 to ensure that Tribes have authority to prosecute 
        sexual assault, sex trafficking, and stalking crimes; and

 most significantly to Alaska Native women and victims of 
        domestic violence the importance of filling the gaps in 
        jurisdiction that continue to leave Native women and children 
        in Alaska without adequate protection on tribal lands.

Tribal Access Program
    HR 1620 included a permanent authorization for the DOJ's Tribal 
Access Program (TAP). TAP has provided law enforcement and tribes with 
direct access to more effectively serve and protect their nation's 
citizens by ensuring the exchange of critical data across the Criminal 
Justice Information Services (CJIS) systems and other national crime 
information systems. While the program has grown tremendously during 
the few years of its existence, there are still challenges for Alaska 
tribes who often lack the necessary infrastructure to meet CJIS's 
requirements. In addition, we need a legislative fix that addresses the 
concerns of CJIS about tribal access to federal databases for Tribal 
governmental purposes. Currently, access may be authorized through 
federal statutes providing some access for certain situations to tribes 
and then deferring to state law to define and provide access. Tribes 
should be able to utilize the databases as any other governmental 
agency. I will first address the needs of Alaska tribes and then go 
into the amendments needed for all tribes.
    First, Alaska tribes should be able to participate in TAP through 
an Intertribal structure if that is what they choose. For example, two 
or more participating Tribes should be authorized to participate 
jointly in the TAP program. \25\ For many tribes, pooling resources or 
establishing intertribal court systems is an effective and efficient 
way to meet the needs of their communities. Any Tribes that want to 
join the pilot program and TAP as an inter-tribal consortium should be 
able to do so freely by meeting the general requirements and entering 
an MOU. The currently authorizing structure of TAP precludes most 
Intertribal groups, especially if the designated agency is a non-
profit, that would organize together in Alaska. CJIS, the Federal 
Bureau of Investigations, and National Crime Information Center should 
be challenged to find a solution that works for the needs of Alaska 
Native communities and be solution oriented rather than just protecting 
an archaic system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \25\ A Tribal organization (as defined in section 4 of the Indian 
Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 5304)) 
should be able to be the designated agency for the purposes of TAP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In addition, American Indian and Alaska Tribes should be able to 
legislate access to TAP databases to address the needs of their 
governments just as the federal and state governments do. We need to 
amend federal law to authorize the sharing of this information with 
tribal governments for any legitimate purpose. Federal laws allow 
tribes to investigate people who will work with children, but it does 
not allow access for people who work with our elders or vulnerable 
adults. Similarly, most tribes require elected officials, and key 
personnel to obtain background checks. A state can legislate to 
authorize this access; in contrast a tribe does not have direct access 
and often has to use channelers or use Lexis/Nexus. Many states are 
legislating around data entry and collection of MMIW issues. A tribe 
that wanted to do the same would be unable to fully implement their 
laws, because no general federal statute gives tribes this level of 
access and determination. An amendment is needed to 28 USC 534, which 
is an appropriations statute from the `90s that has been codified and 
provides the means for states to legislate the purposes for which 
background checks can be done. A simple fix is to amend 28 USC 534 by 
adding ``tribal'' after state and other database statutes that include 
``state'' but leave out tribes. Also, the TAP program needs permanent 
funding to ensure it is not discontinued.
    We strongly support the amendments to VAWA 2013 that provide for:

 access of all tribes to the TAP;

 creation of a dedicated permanent funding stream for expanding 
        the TAP program;

 tribal access to federal databases not only to obtain criminal 
        history information for criminal or civil law purposes, but 
        also for entering protection orders, missing person reports, 
        and other relevant information into the database, such as NICS 
        disqualifying events;

 allow tribes to legislate to authorize direct access to 
        databases for any legitimate purpose, such as data entry and 
        collection of MMIW related issues by amending 28 USC 534 to add 
        ``tribal'';

 creation of tribal technical assistance programs and regional 
        training for tribal judges and law enforcement to access, use, 
        input information into the NCIC and other national databases;

 creation of a multidisciplinary task force with significant 
        tribal participation (not less than 70 percent); to identify 
        the outstanding barriers tribes face in acquiring full access 
        to federal criminal history; and

 requiring the federal agencies responsible for these database 
        systems to develop options for all tribes and their designated 
        agency regardless of whether they have law enforcement or 
        participate in the Adam Walsh Act.

Bureau of Prisons Pilot Project
    The Bureau of Prisons (BOP) pilot project \26\ should be expanded 
and made permanent. The Tribal Law and Order Act provided for the use 
of the federal prisons to house inmates convicted of certain crimes 
with longer sentences imposed. However, by the time tribes were able to 
exercise the TLOA measures, the BOP pilot project was nearly over. In 
addition, it was limited to violent crimes and sentences greater than 
one year and one day. With the passage and implementation of VAWA 2013, 
the ITWG Tribes have raised issues and challenges around detaining 
SDVCJ defendants in tribal or BIA facilities using self-governance 
funds and providing health care for non-Indian defendants. Expanding 
the BOP pilot program to cover SDVCJ defendants, in addition to the 
other felony level crimes previously covered, would significantly help 
tribes in keeping their communities safe.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \26\ 25 U.S.C. 1302 (2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conclusion
    Since the enactment of VAWA in 1995, each reauthorization of VAWA, 
has resulted in significant victories in support of the tribal 
authority and secured resources needed for increasing the safety of 
Native women across the United States. The AKNWRC strongly supports 
reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act and H.R. 1620, which 
passed the House on March 17, 2021. Indian tribes have consistently 
called for the amendments and important lifesaving enhancements 
contained in H.R. 1620. We urge the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs 
to support the introduction of a companion or similar bill in the 
Senate.
    There is a unique opportunity to recognize these issues and make 
corrections to the laws. In Lingit Yoo X'at ngi, the Tlingit Language, 
as with other language groups in Alaska, we had no words or description 
for violence within a family home. We had traditional forms of justice 
that kept our community in check and women valued as the life-giver of 
the family. We had community justice, which we are now returning to. 
Restoring and enhancing local, tribal governmental capacity to respond 
to violence against women provides greater local control, safety, 
accountability, and transparency. As a result, we will have safer 
communities and a pathway for long-lasting justice. We believe it is 
critical that we work together to change laws, policies, and that the 
federal government creates additional funding opportunities to address 
and eradicate the disproportionate violence against our women.
    We encourage you to continue these reforms to restore the safety of 
Native women and all victims of domestic and sexual violence and their 
right to live in peace within their villages. Our tribal governments 
are the frontline, and we need the federal government to uphold its 
responsibilities to assist us in safeguarding the lives of Native 
people by respecting our inherent authority while also adequately 
funding its trust and treaty responsibilities.
    Gunalcheesh! Haw'aa! Thank You!

        Attachments have been retained in the Committee files.

    The Chairman. I have been in politics for more than 20 
years now. I have been to a lot of hearings. This was maybe the 
most impressive panel that I have ever heard. So I want to 
thank each of the individual testifiers for their clarity, for 
their advocacy, and for helping us to build the legislative 
record.
    Mr. Garriott, can you talk about cross-deputization? By the 
way, I am going to ask a lot of questions, so I would like 
everybody to be as brief as possible. Talk about cross-
deputization, why it works and why it seems to be increasing as 
a practiced.
    Mr. Garriott. Thank you, Chairman. Cross-deputization, as 
many know, there is a maze that is incredibly difficult to 
understand and even more incredibly difficult to implement for 
law enforcement around jurisdiction. On one side of the line, 
depending on the victim, depending on the jurisdiction, 
depending on the perpetrator, it might be tribal jurisdiction. 
On another side of the line, it might be State jurisdiction.
    Cross-deputization allows tribes and State law enforcement 
to be deputized in another jurisdiction so that they can 
eliminate those jurisdictional gaps. It is a practice that is 
gaining more and more increased use by tribes. I think that is 
an incredible testament to the effectiveness and the solutions 
that it can offer.
    The Chairman. Thank you very much.
    Ms. Randall, we know there have been zero valid habeas 
corpus petitions filed, and zero due process claims since 2013. 
Tell me, has special jurisdiction been a success?
    Ms. Randall. Absolutely, Senator. It has been a success for 
those individuals who have finally gotten the justice that they 
need, as well as for the communities that can interrupt 
perpetrators who may have been acting with impunity.
    Significantly, it has been a success in protecting 
defendants' rights as well. As you noted, with no valid habeas 
cases, as well as the rates of acquittals and dismissals show 
how careful tribes have been with implementation. That is why 
this Committee must expand recognition to other crimes.
    The Chairman. Thank you. And a follow-up on this issue, 
Professor Reese. Just for the record, is special criminal 
jurisdiction constitutional?
    Ms. Reese. Thank you. Absolutely.
    When I am asked that question, I think about it on two 
levels. First, whether or not Congress sort of has the power to 
do this, and the answer to that question is absolutely, 
Congress has the power to do that, especially since the Supreme 
Court decision in United States v. Lara affirmed that tribal 
sovereignty is inherent, and that Congress has the ability to 
reaffirm the existence of inherent sovereignty by passing 
legislation which reauthorizes tribes to exercise a power, even 
if they previously were not authorizing based on a Supreme 
Court decision. In this case, and also in Lara, Oliphant. So 
absolutely, you have the power to do this.
    As similarly discussed in Lara, the only other question 
would be if it implicates any other constitutional rights 
concerns. But we have known for several hundred years now that 
the Constitution does not apply to tribal governments in the 
same way. So that is also not an issue.
    But going above and beyond that, Congress has also created 
equivalent constitutional rights protections through this 
statute. So those sorts of underlying concerns are also 
protected, and incorporated into this law, even though that 
constitutional question itself isn't really implicated.
    The Chairman. At the risk of being redundant, I want to ask 
you to really make this point as clear as possible to anyone 
who is watching this hearing what the Indian Civil Rights Act 
does for defendants and for the justice system in Indian 
Country. Because you mentioned it in your testimony, you are 
referring to it now.
    But I think it is a really key point as it relates to due 
process, as a matter of principle and as a matter of law. I 
would like you to flesh it out just a little bit.
    Ms. Reese. Absolutely. It guarantees a long list of 
equivalent protections that are guaranteed to the rest of the 
citizens of the United States in courts of law. So I will go 
ahead and list out these protections that the Indian Civil 
Rights Act, the Tribal Law and Order Act and VAWA 2013 sort of 
when combined guarantee to non-Indian defendants.
    That includes the protection to the basic right to due 
process of law, the freedom from an illegal or warrantless 
search or seizure, the prohibition against double jeopardy, the 
right against self-incrimination, the right to a speedy trial 
and confront witnesses, the right to a jury trial, the right to 
indigent defense, the right to effective assistance of counsel, 
the prohibition on bills of attainder, the right to not be 
subject to cruel or unusual punishment, excessive fines or 
fees.
    This is the entire gamut of the things that the 
Constitution does to protect the rights of defendants when they 
are being prosecuted for a crime. That is the full list of the 
things that were written up into this statute to protect non-
Indian defendants in this court system. Any time that one of 
those things, if it were to happen, result in an unlawful 
detention or incarceration of someone, they are protected by 
the writ of habeas corpus.
    The Chairman. Thank you very much.
    My final question before an additional round, Mr. Garriott, 
we have heard about the high cost of implementation. I am 
wondering what the Department is doing to assist tribes in 
implementation. All of this is great as authorizing language. 
But it does seem to me, it doesn't seem to me, it is obvious to 
me, that it is a resource question, too. It is a how do you 
cover the jurisdictions that are so vast. I am thinking about 
Alaska in particular, but really in Indian Country everywhere 
you have this problem of staffing, of having a person on the 
ground.
    How do you help? How can you help?
    Mr. Garriott. Mr. Chairman, thank you for the question. As 
you have touched on, resources is an issue and a challenge that 
we hear all the time from our tribal partners and those that we 
work with on the ground.
    Thus far, since 2019, we have funded 115 tribal court 
positions, which includes tribal judges, prosecutors and other 
court personnel across the Country to help tribes have some of 
the resources they need on the implementation side.
    I would also point to our Fiscal Year 2022 budget request, 
which is a total of $507 million, which represents an increase 
of $58 million over Fiscal Year 2021. A big part of this budget 
request puts boots on the ground and it will begin assisting 
tribes to better provide law enforcement for their communities 
and better protect their citizens.
    The Chairman. Thank you very much.
    Senator Cortez Masto?

           STATEMENT OF HON. CATHERINE CORTEZ MASTO, 
                    U.S. SENATOR FROM NEVADA

    Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and to the 
Ranking Member, I cannot thank you enough for having this 
conversation today on such an important issue.
    It is so clear that the Violence Against Woman Act needs to 
be passed and a Special Domestic Violence Criminal Jurisdiction 
is essential to protecting our Native communities. I strongly 
believe that Congress must not only reauthorize VAWA, but 
strengthen it to ensure that tribes can effectively prosecute 
crimes against women, children, and law enforcement in Indian 
Country. So I am going to focus my questions around that.
    But I want to follow up on what Chairman Schatz started 
with. Let me ask this question. President Sharp, how many more 
tribes do you think would be interested in implementing special 
criminal jurisdiction if they have the resources and support 
that they need to do so? I am curious if you have an answer for 
that.
    Ms. Sharp. Yes, I would say out of the 574 tribal nations, 
the remaining, which is hundreds of tribal nations, would be 
interested, if we had the resources.
    Senator Cortez Masto. Right. And my understanding is there 
is only, is it 28 now that have the ability?
    Ms. Sharp. Yes.
    Senator Cortez Masto. Okay, so we need more, we need to do 
more.
    Let me ask you this. You heard what Principal Deputy 
Assistant Secretary Garriott said. Do you think, based on the 
resources that he says are available, that that is enough? What 
more should we be considering in Congress to provide the 
resources that are necessary to give more of our tribal nations 
across the Country the opportunity to protect their own?
    Ms. Sharp. Yes. In just listening to his response, clearly, 
we don't have even close to the scale of resources necessary to 
implement the spirit and intent of what Congress is trying to 
accomplish here. One can only look to the U.S. Commission on 
Civil Rights, a report called Broken Promises that was 
delivered to Congress almost three years now. They detailed not 
one Federal agency is living up to its trust responsibility. We 
are woefully and chronically underfunded across every sector 
including our criminal justice system.
    So we definitely have a large-scale need in Indian Country 
to implement VAWA.
    Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you.
    Ms. Demmert, in your testimony you mentioned that children 
have been involved as victims or witnesses in Special Domestic 
Violence Criminal Jurisdiction cases nearly 60 percent of the 
time. To me, that is just unacceptable that children are 
falling through the cracks of laws meant to combat violence in 
Indian Country.
    When it comes to the safety and the health of our Native 
children, how important is it for Congress to expand the 
current special tribal jurisdiction to cover more crimes? Can 
you talk a little bit about what crimes that are not covered 
that in essence are where children are victims that we should 
be looking to protect their interests?
    Ms. Demmert. Thank you for the question, Senator Cortez 
Masto.
    I don't believe I said that about children, I said our 
children are first responders. Fortunately, I did work for a 
tribe that implemented domestic violence jurisdiction back in 
2013 as one of the first three tribes.
    In that, our children, in our first year, I think we had 11 
cases, and in 9 of those cases children were victims of 
violence. In one case, we had a child who was trying to get, as 
a first responder, trying to get the father off of her mother 
and the child was tossed aside and had to, I believe probably 
called for the police.
    That is just an example. All of these cases frequently 
involved children being present and being participants of the 
violence that is committed against the mother.
    In another case, we had a case where the mother was held 
hostage for a few days, and a knife was being thrown at her. He 
made her, the mother held a child in her arms while he threw 
knives at her. Fortunately, that case ended up being picked up 
by the U.S. Attorneys Office. So the child did see justice.
    But in so many other cases, there is not justice. In 
Alaska, in particular, I just want to bring it back to that, 
our children are the first responders, have to call for help, 
and we don't have law enforcement. Often, we have volunteer 
medics.
    So the parade of horribles are horrible. But we have 
beautiful communities that we want to protect and safeguard. So 
gunalcheesh for the question. I hope I answered it.
    Senator Cortez Masto. You did. Thank you.
    Let me talk a little bit, and you touched on this as well. 
I know from my time as attorney general that domestic violence 
calls are some of the most dangerous calls that police officers 
can respond to as well. Director Randall, your testimony 
discusses the very real safety concerns that tribal law 
enforcement officers have when they are responding to these 
kinds of calls.
    Right now, what happens if a tribal officer is responding 
to a domestic violence call, and the non-Indian suspect attacks 
the officer?
    Ms. Randall. Without jurisdiction, the Federal Government 
must respond. This can really empower perpetrators to commit 
acts of violence, knowing that a Federal response could be 
hours away. In the case of Alaska, responses could be days 
away.
    As you note, these are dangerous calls for law enforcement 
officers. This is a crucial part of VAWA to include.
    Senator Cortez Masto. To include coverage of protection?
    Ms. Randall. To include coverage of protection, absolutely.
    Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you.
    Secretary Garriott, your testimony mentions that expanding 
tribal criminal jurisdiction beyond domestic violence crimes 
would be a significant step toward ending the crisis of missing 
and murdered indigenous women and children. Can you talk a 
little bit about this? How will reauthorizing and strengthening 
VAWA help ensure we are using all available tools that we need 
to keep Native women and children safe?
    Mr. Garriott. Thank you for the question. This is an issue 
that is of particular concern and is very important to the 
Secretary and to the Department.
    Expanding criminal jurisdiction to cover a wide variety of 
crimes, as we have heard, is incredibly important, not only for 
children and for law enforcement, but also expanding the crimes 
to include not just coverage of protection orders and domestic 
violence, but sex trafficking and others, dating violence and 
other crimes as well.
    As we know, there is no one simple kind of crime. We need 
to have full coverage to ensure that our tribes, our law 
enforcement officers, children, have full protection.
    Senator Cortez Masto. [Presiding.] Thank you. And thank 
you, again, this is an incredible panel. I so appreciate your 
advocacy on such an important issue that needs to pass 
Congress.
    Standing in for the Chair, I am going to call on Senator 
Smith who is next. She is joining us virtually.

                 STATEMENT OF HON. TINA SMITH, 
                  U.S. SENATOR FROM MINNESOTA

    Senator Smith. Yes, that is right. Thank you, Chair Cortez 
Masto. Thanks to all of you. I am just so grateful for this 
important panel.
    I want to start by thanking Chair Schatz and Vice Chair 
Murkowski for your work on this bipartisan agreement to 
reauthorize the tribal provisions of the Violence Against Women 
Act.
    I also want to thank you, them, for including my Justice 
for Native Survivors of Sexual Violence Act, which would expand 
tribal criminal jurisdiction to include crimes of dating and 
sexual violence, sex trafficking, stalking, and obstruction of 
justice by non-Native offenders on tribal lands. The many 
conversations I have had with folks in Minnesota have convinced 
me that this measure is really essential to addressing the 
crisis, really the epidemic of violence against Native women.
    I would like to focus my questions on that. I will start 
with you, President Sharp. It is so good to see you again, even 
virtually.
    We of course both know that more than four in five Native 
women experience violence in their lifetimes. Many of them are 
victimized by non-Native offenders. This ongoing crisis of 
missing and murdered indigenous women and people across the 
Country is so, so severe.
    I believe that my Justice for Native Survivors of Sexual 
Violence Act, which is included in this bipartisan agreement, 
would help to address this. Could I ask you to speak to that? 
Could you talk to how that expanded tribal jurisdiction would 
help tribes to address the crisis of missing and murdered 
indigenous women?
    I want to say, since I have been running today, forgive me 
if I am asking a question that is repetitive of others' 
questions. But I really want to have a chance to visit with you 
about this.
    Ms. Sharp. Yes, absolutely. First of all, I want to thank 
you for your leadership and your ability to see from our 
perspective the real threat that all of these issues that you 
are seeking to address mean to us. It is quite remarkable to 
have someone with your level of advocacy around such critical 
issues.
    So yes, this would definitely go a long way to help. The 
way in which it would help the missing and murdered indigenous 
women's crisis, I think is important for everyone to 
understand, our women and our girls are being targeted by 
perpetrators. They know there is a weakness. They know there is 
a void, a jurisdictional void.
    So those girls who are targeted for trafficking, those 
women who not only have dating relationships but absolute 
strangers that come onto tribal lands, as well as law 
enforcement who seek to protect them, these provisions would 
ensure that those gaps in our missing and murdered indigenous 
women's crisis would be met, that we would be able to fill 
those gaps and ensure that we have justice in these critical 
areas. Because we are being targeted.
    So thank you for your leadership and recognizing that and 
trying to help solve that with us. [Phrase in Native tongue].
    Senator Smith. Thank you. I think people don't realize the 
extent to which Native women live in a justice-free zone, where 
they are targeted. It is no accident; it is a feature of our 
system that Native women are targeted in this way. It is our 
obligation, our moral obligation to address that. I appreciate 
your comments.
    Governor Chavarria, it is good to see you. As a New Mexico-
born Senator, I am so happy to see the visual behind you as 
well. Greetings to you, and everybody at Santa Clara.
    I was wondering if you could talk about how the expanded 
jurisdiction your tribe implemented has helped you to address 
the crisis of missing and murdered indigenous people. Could you 
comment on how the expanded jurisdiction in this bipartisan 
agreement would help to further address this challenge?
    Mr. Chavarria. Thank you, Chairman, members of the 
Committee, Senator, I appreciate that question.
    What is very important is that have to we recognize the 
VAWA reauthorization, when it expired, we did a permanent 
authorization as was mentioned by the witnesses here to expand 
that tribal jurisdiction over the crimes against our children. 
Here in Santa Clara, we currently have multiple generations 
living in one household, that includes grandpa and grandma.
    And also law enforcement personnel, sexual assault crimes 
committed by strangers [indiscernible] safety, that access to 
the justice services for victims of crime is very essential.
    So it is important that all the discussions happening today 
will help fulfill the life safety and welfare of our entire 
community within our pueblo community. Without that, it makes 
it challenging. So you have that opportunity right now to help 
us within our judicial system, our law enforcement but also as 
our tribal government to implement this for the life safety and 
welfare of our entire community, Senator.
    Senator Smith. Thank you very much. I want to just say how 
grateful I am for Senator Ben Ray Lujan's leadership on this 
issue as well. I don't know if Senator Lujan has had an 
opportunity to ask his questions yet. But I want to nod to his 
leadership. We are so grateful for him.
    Madam Chair, I will yield back if you have others in line. 
I have one other question if you don't.
    Senator Murkowski. [Presiding.] I think we have a full 
slate, Senator Smith. Thank you for your interest in this. We 
appreciate it.
    Senator Smith. Thank you.
    Senator Murkowski. Thank you.
    I am going to jump in here if I may, as I am next in line. 
This is directed to you, Michelle. Thank you again for your 
ongoing leadership, not only over the years but over the 
decades as you are working to protect vulnerable Native women 
throughout the State of Alaska.
    We have heard continuously here about the gaps that need to 
be addressed. I think there is no better area to look at the 
chasm that exists when it comes to the inability to protect, 
currently protect people in so many of our Native villages.
    You have some unique experience within the DOJ intertribal 
working group for the lower 48 tribes. So you have had an 
opportunity to observe, down in the lower 48, and then 
extrapolate how we can make things better in Alaska. Resources, 
obviously, are important. Funding is important for training. 
Funding is important on so many levels.
    What more can we be doing specifically in enhancing our 
efforts? Is it supporting the intertribal participation in the 
pilots to accommodate economies of scale? Is it building across 
jurisdictional collaboration? I am kind of second guessing that 
it might be all of the above. But if you can speak to what more 
we can be doing specifically to address these gaps there in 
Alaska.
    Ms. Demmert. [Phrase in Native tongue], Chair Murkowski. We 
so appreciate your leadership in this bill as well as other 
important bills such as the Boarding School Bill.
    As to your question, thank you so much for it. It is all of 
the above. Think about it. Since statehood over 60 years ago, 
P.L. 280 has been in effect, meaning the State has had 
jurisdiction. What has happened, we as indigenous women have 
been horrifically unsafe. We have some of the worst DV rates, 
the worst murder rates, the highest missing Native rates. Our 
victims are too often left without any justice, or it is 
delayed and that revictimizes us.
    I am a survivor of childhood sexual assault from someone 
that was abused in boarding schools. The State has had 62 years 
to show their competencies. Give us time and similar resources; 
don't tie our hands. We have beautiful communities, beautiful 
traditions and deserve better.
    We are State and Federal citizens, in addition to our 
tribal citizenship. Principal Deputy Director Randall explained 
in her testimony how successful the ITWG is. The tribes can 
exchange views, information, and advice about how they can best 
exercise Special Domestic Violence Court Jurisdiction, combat 
domestic violence, attend meetings, webinars, share ideas, 
materials, challenges, and best practices.
    In ITWG, I participated as a point of contact for one of 
the first three tribes. It was a wealth of information. 
Virginia Davis at NCAI and others like her were amazing. The 
support they provided in the dialogue that we exchanged was 
simply one of a kind and should be replicated whenever 
possible.
    Gunalcheesh, Senator Murkowski. You are just so 
appreciated.
    Senator Murkowski. As you are, gunalcheesh.
    Let me direct my next question to our Principal Deputy 
Assistant Secretary Garriott. It was good to see the BIA 
disbursing about $30 million to tribes in P.L. 280 States, even 
though BIA doesn't execute the 638 contracts and the compacts 
for public safety and justice.
    What I am hoping to learn is how we can navigate some of 
these roadblocks to public safety and access that we have in 
Alaska, recognizing that we are a P.L. 280 State. Is there some 
kind of an internal policy out there that doesn't allow BIA to 
receive public safety and justice funding in States like Alaska 
that are P.L. 280? I am trying to figure out this funding piece 
of it. Because in addition to serving on the authorizing, I am 
also on the appropriating side of this. So help me out.
    Mr. Garriott. Absolutely, and thank you, Vice Chairman.
    As somebody who has been to Alaska several times, I 
understand a lot of the unique challenges. It is good to see my 
home State Senator. I thought I knew rural, coming from South 
Dakota, but it is a different ball game up in Alaska.
    As you noted, resources are a challenge. One thing that I 
would point to is that there is a line item within our budget 
that is specifically reserved for funding P.L. 280 court 
systems. In 2019, that was funded at $13 million, and in 2021, 
it was funded at $15 million.
    In addition to that, we continue to provide training and 
technical assistance to assist Native villages in standing up 
their own court systems. Right now, about 130 of the 229 
villages have court systems. We are looking to continue our 
work to help those villages stand up their court systems.
    Senator Murkowski. I will have further questions, Mr. 
Chairman. Thank you.
    The Chairman. [Presiding.] Senator Cantwell.

               STATEMENT OF HON. MARIA CANTWELL, 
                  U.S. SENATOR FROM WASHINGTON

    Senator Cantwell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I definitely 
want to thank you and Senator Murkowski both for holding this 
important hearing.
    Washington State has one of the highest numbers of murdered 
and missing indigenous women. I definitely always applaud the 
Seattle Indian Health Board for their work on this, and my 
colleagues who are here today, who have fought so hard on 
getting legislation implemented.
    I think we are here because we still see the crisis, and we 
still see that we are, I think, the issue is short of 
resources. I think that what we are saying is we have 
identified this problem; we want to do something about it. We 
have put some resources on the table, but I think we are now 
finding that the resources are not enough.
    So I would like to hear from Ms. Randall, definitely want 
you to come to Washington State, if you will, and meet with our 
various law enforcement communities. I would like to hear from 
you and NCAI President Fawn Sharp about what is the real crisis 
at hand. Is it resources? Is it the tribal court system? What 
is it that we need at this moment to further accelerate helping 
to protect women in Indian Country?
    Ms. Randall. Thank you, Senator. I would be honored to 
visit and sit with folks. The Department of Justice sees the 
need for really broad response to MMIP. After the Tribal 
Nations summit, our Deputy Attorney General set up a steering 
committee across DOJ that will include both grant-making and 
prosecution. We need that holistic response.
    It is also important that when we are talking about tribal 
problems that we are meeting them with tribal solutions. So 
consulting with the tribes has got to be a really key part of 
making important and strategic decisions going forward.
    We are coordinating, of course, with the Not Invisible Act 
Commission and bringing, I think, significant resources to 
bear. The Department has requested additional funding in the 
President's budget. We look forward to our work together to 
identify strategic specific resources.
    Senator Cantwell. President Sharp?
    Ms. Sharp. Yes, good to see you virtually, Senator. Thank 
you for the question.
    I think you raise an important connection. When you 
consider missing and murdered indigenous women and the boarding 
school crisis that we are seeing, as well as these issues of 
violence against our women and girls, it is all related. It is 
generation after generation of tribal nations not only not 
securing the resources that the United States should uphold 
pursuant to treaties and its trust responsibility, but our own 
inability to raise revenues through systems of taxation.
    As we are entering sort of a post-COVID time of redefining 
our economies, and trying to restore our economies, it is 
critically important that Congress consider not only supporting 
and honoring our treaty and trust responsibility, but the 
economic agenda that tribal nations see for providing the 
resources that we should be doing as an attribute of our 
inherent sovereignty. We have all kinds of recommendations 
related to tax policy, economic policy, international trade 
related to green and renewable energy.
    Indian Country is a target-rich environment to unlock an 
economy. But we just need the support of Congress. Thank you.
    Senator Cantwell. Thank you. I assume you are referring to 
the issues of prosecution on tribal reservations. But there is 
nothing that is holding us back from larger prosecutions of 
these crimes involving, that aren't actually occurring on the 
reservation land. Is that correct?
    Ms. Sharp. That is absolutely correct, yes.
    Senator Cantwell. Ms. Randall, do you have a comment about 
that?
    Ms. Randall. I can't comment on any ongoing prosecutions. I 
know that my colleagues at the Executive Office of the U.S. 
Attorneys have been investing significant resources into these 
cases.
    Senator Cantwell. I haven't drilled down on every detail, 
but I am pretty sure the reason why the Seattle Indian Health 
Board did this study and analysis is because, and we have one 
of the highest rates of missing and murdered indigenous women, 
is that it is right there in Puget Sound. And they just happen 
to be, a very large percentage of them, Alaska Natives.
    So this is a population that doesn't live on tribal land, 
and yet they have become victims of these horrific crimes. So I 
would love for you to come to Seattle. Maybe Senator Murkowski 
and I will join you and we will do something to bring focus to 
this.
    But separate, we definitely get the separate issue, because 
have all been involved with VAWA and the more empowering of DOJ 
working with Indian Country on tribal courts and that process, 
to make sure that Federal law is enforced on Indian Country 
land. We get that.
    But for us, this is a multi-pronged issue, and again, 
obviously impacting non-Native American women as well. Being on 
a corridor like I-5 helps accelerate some of these problems.
    So we would love to figure out ways to take the next step 
here and the enforcement of this law.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Cantwell.
    Senator Hoeven?

                STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN HOEVEN, 
                 U.S. SENATOR FROM NORTH DAKOTA

    Senator Hoeven. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Deputy Director Randall, in your experience, how have the 
provisions included in the 2013 reauthorization of VAWA been 
beneficial for tribes?
    Ms. Randall. Yes, Senator, they have been beneficial by 
allowing tribes to often hold repeat offenders accountable. 
Tulalip has an example where the perpetrator had had 19 prior 
contacts with tribal police before SDVCJ was passed. So this 
helped solve, this helps keep the whole community safe in 
addition to finding justice for those survivors.
    Senator Hoeven. Under the 2013 VAWA, what is covered under 
the SDVCJ? What does that include?
    Ms. Randall. Domestic violence, dating violence, and 
certain protection orders.
    Senator Hoeven. Are there areas of criminal jurisdiction 
that you believe should be expanded for tribes, and if so, why?
    Ms. Randall. Yes, Senator. As we have heard so compellingly 
today, crimes that occur often in conjunction with domestic 
violence, such as crimes against children, are crucial to be 
able to prosecute. Also sexual assault, sex trafficking, 
assault of law enforcement.
    Senator Hoeven. Thank you.
    Assistant Secretary Little Elk Garriott, I understand there 
are currently 28 tribes that have implemented VAWA Special 
Domestic Violence Criminal Jurisdiction, SDVCJ. In your 
experience, what considerations does a tribe undertake when 
determining whether to elect this jurisdiction?
    Mr. Garriott. Thank you. When a tribe decides to assert 
this jurisdiction, there are a number of provisions and actions 
that it has to take from its standpoint, including making sure 
that its law-and-order code is in place, and that it meets 
those requirements. And that also, it has access to the 
resources that it needs.
    Our part at Indian Affairs really focuses around technical 
assistance and training to assist those tribes in standing up 
their court system so that they can implement those provisions.
    Senator Hoeven. Why aren't there more tribes that have 
adopted this jurisdiction?
    Mr. Garriott. Anecdotally, we can say that it is a large 
undertaking, and that again, ensuring that when a tribe makes 
this decision that they have the resources, also the political 
will. And again, ensuring that they are feeling comfortable 
from a tribal government perspective to stand this up, that 
their court is fully staffed and has adequate resources that it 
needs.
    Senator Hoeven. So is it primarily resources? Do you expect 
more tribe to do it?
    Mr. Garriott. Resources is definitely a challenge. We have 
continued to provide training and there has been a tremendous 
response. We have provided training to over 3,300 participants. 
There are a number of tribes that are contemplating this. I 
don't have the exact number. But I think as we have heard some 
of the other witnesses eloquently discuss, there is a definite 
and strong desire for tribes to begin going down this road and 
asserting their inherent jurisdiction.
    Senator Hoeven. For Governor Chavarria, as a tribe that has 
implemented Special Domestic Violence Criminal Jurisdiction, 
could you talk about your tribe's experiences with the 
implementation?
    Mr. Chavarria. Thank you, Chairman, and members of the 
Committee. At Santa Clara Pueblo, we opted in because for 
generations we recognized the damage done by domestic violence. 
It was very critical to understand, Chairman, Senator, that it 
makes our tribal court into a Federal court system. So because 
of those reasons, it took Santa Clara a number of years to 
implement VAWA, because we had to adopted similar measures to 
take concrete actions to meet the Federal standard for 
implementation of VAWA.
    These were all administrative, burdensome, and costly to 
undertake. As one example, we had to implement standards for 
updating our facilities. Unfortunately, Senator, we had a 
mobile home and it was mouse infested. So we h ad to reach out 
to the Department of Justice Office of Tribal Justice and 
Bureau of Justice Administration for some funds to renovate and 
expand our courthouse.
    The facility standard that we had to meet in order to 
implement VAWA was we had to have a secure, healthy facility 
with [indiscernible], a detention room for alleged offenders, 
expand our public seating, our community education room, our 
jury [indiscernible] and jury deliberation room, modern 
recording devices, fire and safety upgrades, and disability 
accessibility.
    So those are the reasons why those take time and are 
challenging for tribes to implement this. Because the issue is 
to include Federal funding. Without Federal funding, it is very 
important, because we had to use funding to hire legally 
trained prosecutors, defense attorneys.
    Again, build these facilities, so that we are meeting the 
Federal requirement of turning our tribal courthouse into a 
Federal courthouse, into the very important initiative to 
protect the life saving welfare of our entire community, 
Senator.
    Senator Hoeven. Thank you, Governor. That is a very 
striking background you have there. I just wanted to compliment 
you on it.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Senator Lujan.
    Senator Lujan. And Senator Hoeven, we will invite you to 
New Mexico, sir. We will take you there personally. With your 
permission, Governor, we will do that. I look forward to 
getting you out to New Mexico, sir.
    I was proud to introduce the Native Youth and Tribal 
Officer Protection Act to provide more support and authority 
under Special Domestic Violence Criminal Jurisdiction over non-
Indians in domestic violence situations involving children and 
tribal law enforcement. The bill will help pueblos and tribes 
like Santa Clara make their communities safer and reduce 
violence against their most vulnerable members.
    Governor Chavarria, yes or no, is it true that the pueblos 
still cannot prosecute crimes against children and tribal law 
enforcement officers when non-Indians commit domestic violence?
    Mr. Chavarria. Yes, Chairman, and members of the Committee.
    Senator Lujan. And Governor Chavarria, yes or no, is it 
true that neither the State nor Federal law enforcement 
authorities prosecuted a domestic violence case on the pueblo 
when a non-Indian assaulted a responding tribal officer?
    Mr. Chavarria. Yes, Chairman, and members of the Committee.
    Senator Lujan. Chief Judge FourStar, yes or no, does the 
Fort Peck Assiniboine and Sioux Tribe have domestic violence 
cases come before tribal courts that they could not prosecute 
because of the limited VAWA jurisdiction over children and 
tribal officers?
    Ms. FourStar. Yes, that is true.
    Senator Lujan. And Governor Chavarria, yes or no, would you 
agree that legislation is needed to expand special criminal 
jurisdictions for tribal courts to be able to prosecute non-
Indians that commit domestic violence crimes on tribal lands 
against children and tribal law enforcement?
    Mr. Chavarria. Yes, Chairman, and members of the Committee.
    Senator Lujan. Governor Chavarria, yes or no, did your 
pueblo need to seek additional Federal funding outside the VAWA 
grant program to meet Federal standards to implement special 
criminal jurisdiction?
    Mr. Chavarria. Yes, Chairman, and members of the Committee.
    Senator Lujan. And Professor Reese, would you agree that 
additional Federal funding is critical for tribal public safety 
generally, and particularly for tribes that opt to exercise 
VAWA special criminal jurisdiction?
    Ms. Reese. Absolutely.
    Senator Lujan. And Ms. Randall, yes or no, in tribal 
consultation, have tribes cited the need to amend VAWA to 
increase funding to exercise Special Domestic Violence Criminal 
Jurisdiction, and help more tribes participate in the program?
    Ms. Randall. Yes, they have, Senator.
    Senator Lujan. President Sharp, the 2018 NCAI report on 
Five Years of Special Domestic Violence Criminal Jurisdiction 
notes that implementation of the law revealed serious 
limitations in the law. President Sharp, yes or no, does the 
report note that current statute prevents tribes from 
prosecuting crimes against children and law enforcement?
    Ms. Sharp. Yes.
    Senator Lujan. And President Sharp, yes or no, do you 
believe expanding tribes' ability to prosecute crimes against 
children and tribal law enforcement is a needed expansion of 
the 2013 VAWA law?
    Ms. Sharp. Yes.
    Senator Lujan. Governor Chavarria, I wanted to give you a 
minute or so just to explain some of the additional challenges 
that you have faced that you hope that additional VAWA 
legislation or reauthorization should be able to cover.
    Mr. Chavarria. Chairman, members of the Committee, yes, and 
for a long time, Senator, we recognized the damage of domestic 
violence. Without Federal aid and protection for funding to 
build up our internal capacity to protect our law enforcement 
officers, grandma, grandpa, entire households, including 
myself. As a tribal governor, I also respond to these calls, 
because it impacts our entire community.
    So it is very critical, Chairman and members of the 
Committee, that we expand the current VAWA to include all the 
officers, tribal officials, children, grandpa and grandma, to 
include our tribal court system to have that jurisdiction to 
prosecute these non-Native offenders within our tribal court 
system.
    We cannot have a lawless community. That hurts all of us. 
So this is very critical, Senator, that we continue to help you 
look at, to include the Indian Civil Rights Act and the 
Domestic Violence Section, again mandate the requirements that 
are costly. With the support of Federal funding, Senator, our 
pueblo is undertaking the training of victim advocates, law 
enforcement, prosecutors, public defenders. With that said, 
Senator, members of the Committee, this is all Federal funding 
that is critical that we can meet these challenges to implement 
this to the full standard.
    Senator Lujan. Thank you, Governor Chavarria, and thank 
you, Chair. I yield back.
    The Chairman. Thank you. Senator Daines?

                STATEMENT OF HON. STEVE DAINES, 
                   U.S. SENATOR FROM MONTANA

    Senator Daines. Chairman Schatz, thank you, Vice Chair 
Murkowski, for holding this very important hearing on the 
Violence Against Women Act as it relates to the tribal 
provisions. It is a topic of great importance for so many 
Montanans, including myself.
    Thank you, Chief Judge FourStar, for joining us from 
Poplar, Montana. We have a couple of great Montanans here 
today, from Fort Belknap, I see Terry Brockie back there, and I 
think it is Tuffy Helgeson back there, if I can see him behind 
his cowboy hat. Welcome. Good to have you here.
    I will tell you, before I make the rest of my comments and 
ask my questions, I am proud to sit here as a supporter of the 
VAWA reauthorization of 2013. I remember having women from 
Indian Country coming into my office and sitting down and 
telling me their story. It was very persuasive and helpful in 
coming to my own decision to vote in favor of the VAWA 
reauthorization of 2013.
    I think VAWA has been a critical piece of legislation in 
combatting the missing and murdered indigenous women crisis. In 
fact, I am encouraged by the bipartisan work that is being done 
in the Committee and the current direction of the negotiations. 
It has been hung up a few times, and I think we have to get 
these tribal provisions right, and I think we are headed in the 
right direction.
    That said, I will tell you it is disheartening to see some 
partisan politics going on with the underlying bill, to push an 
unconstitutional version that was passed by the House. 
Democrats by extension are holding up any hope at a bipartisan 
deal with the underlying bill by pushing it and pushing an 
unconstitutional version that was passed by the House. The 
reason is because there are provisions there that will attempt 
to strip Montanans of their second amendment rights. The larger 
package that passed the U.S. House in March contains language 
that would stifle Montanans right to keep and bear arms.
    The current conversation circulating around VAWA includes 
President Biden's unconstitutional gun control agenda 
surrounding the so-called boyfriend loophole. As H.R. 1620 
shows, the apparent cost of closing this new loophole is to, 
number one, enact retroactive lifetime gun bans for misdemeanor 
offenses, two, create Federal ex parte gun bans, and three, 
fund and train police agencies to seize guns from these new 
retroactively prohibited gun owners.
    Should a misdemeanor stand as the line crossed for an 
individual to lose a constitutional right? That is an important 
question. Should Americans be deprived of a constitutional 
right without first facing their accuser in a court of law? 
This current language would essentially create red flag gun 
confiscation orders in States that have never passed on by 
adding an ex parte gun ban to restraining order laws, meaning 
an individual could lose their right to bear arms without even 
knowing it.
    On top of that, this bill subsidizes the prosecution 
misdemeanor gun bans, and enforcement of these newly co-opted 
gun confiscation laws. We don't need more infringements on the 
right to keep and bear arms. We need to restore it. There was a 
recent Wall Street Journal article just from September about 50 
percent of new gun buyers are women. Historically it has been 
about 10 to 20 percent for decades, until the last two years, 
50 percent approximately of all new U.S. gun buyers are women. 
There is a reason for that. They want to be able to protect 
themselves.
    Women do not need more gun control. Gun rights are women's 
rights. Yet my colleagues are using an important piece of 
legislation I believe is a Trojan horse for gun control 
legislation that otherwise would never, ever be passed. It is 
imperative that we as a legislative body put some of these pet 
projects aside. Let's remove this language from VAWA and get 
back to the bipartisan nature of the conversation and 
negotiations, and let's get VAWA reauthorized again.
    Chief Judge FourStar, what are some of the biggest 
challenges combatting violence against women in Indian Country?
    Ms. FourStar. The challenges that we have experienced at 
Fort Peck is [no audio].
    Senator Daines. Judge, we have lost your sound.
    Ms. FourStar. Can you hear me okay now?
    Senator Daines. Yes, we can hear you fine. Thank you.
    Ms. FourStar. Some of the challenges that we have 
experienced at Fort Peck is incarceration, incarceration that 
may be justice to some but not all. So Fort Peck has looked at 
other alternatives. We do have our own jail. It is a 638 
program. It is a tribal jail, but it is facilitated for long 
term incarceration.
    But with VAWA, it isn't so much incarceration that seems to 
be at the forefront of what our victims are telling us as they 
are coming in. It is restorative justice, it is rehabilitation. 
Because they all remain members of the community, and they have 
families. They want the family unit to remain together.
    So that is why we have focused on more of the alternatives 
to sentencing. But the challenge that we did have at the very 
beginning was medical costs for those that were incarcerated. 
It wasn't the issue of incarcerating or providing for them. It 
was just the medical costs that came with pre-existing health 
conditions prior to them being in our custody.
    But as some of the other members have mentioned, funding is 
always an issue. But I have to say at Fort Peck funding wasn't 
the issue for us, because we had already started with the 
Tribal Law and Order Act in becoming compliant with that. So we 
already had a lot of those effective assistance of counsel, 
attorney prosecutor, we had a lot of those in place.
    So it was just a matter of how fast we could move with it. 
Thank you, Senator.
    Senator Daines. Chief Judge FourStar, thank you. Thank you 
for your service there at Poplar, and also for your continued 
progress in the 638 transition. Thank you, Chairman Schatz.
    The Chairman. Senator Rounds.

                STATEMENT OF HON. MIKE ROUNDS, 
                 U.S. SENATOR FROM SOUTH DAKOTA

    Senator Rounds. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    First, I want to thank all of you for being with us here 
today. I would like to especially thank our distinguished 
witness from the great State of South Dakota, Principal Deputy 
Assistant Secretary Little Elk. It is good to see you, and I am 
very pleased to see you here with us today. I look forward to 
hearing about your experiences and your insight into how VAWA 
has impacted our tribes and Native communities in South Dakota 
and elsewhere as well, as you have been here and learned.
    My first question, though, is for Chief Judge FourStar. I 
understand some reauthorization efforts for the Violence 
Against Women Act have discussed the value of expanding tribal 
jurisdiction over non-members for additional crimes. In your 
experience presiding over cases in your tribal court system, 
would expanded jurisdiction help or hinder your tribe's 
capacity to handle an increased caseload?
    Ms. FourStar. Definitely help. To expand it to include 
children, law enforcement, we have even talked about drugs and 
alcohol. To be able to provide the services that are needed for 
the offenders, the victims and all of those that are affected 
by the crimes.
    With the expansion, it wouldn't put any undue hardships on 
the Fort Peck Tribes. It is just going to elevate what we can 
do for our communities. Because at the present time, although 
we can provide services, we can't necessarily provide the 
defendant with the offender accountability that they may need 
in regard to what has been occurring with the children.
    With the law enforcement, I just want to say really quick 
that with our cross-deputization agreement, it has been 
successful, it has been in effect since 1999. We have offered 
the SLEC, the Special Law Enforcement Commission, the criminal 
justice force, so that those that are cross deputized who 
enforce tribal law with this commission, they are able to fall 
under the umbrella of a Federal prosecution if needed, if they 
are to be assaulted.
    That is one of the gap-fillers that we have attempted to 
use at Fort Peck, because we cannot prosecute those crimes when 
law enforcement is involved with a non-Indian offender. Thank 
you, Senator.
    Senator Rounds. Thank you.
    Assistant Secretary Little Elk, you have been in this new 
role now for a few months. I would like to get your perspective 
on common barriers the Department sees with regard to the 
tribe's ability to implement Special Domestic Violence Criminal 
Jurisdiction. As I understand it, in South Dakota, only the 
Sisseton Wahpeton Oyate and the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe have 
taken the steps to implement this special jurisdiction.
    I know you touched on it a little bit earlier, but I am 
just curious, with regard to our local tribes, why haven't 
other tribes in our home State implemented this expanded 
jurisdiction? What do you see as options that might make it 
more available to them?
    Mr. Garriott. Without taking the risk of speaking on behalf 
of our tribes in South Dakota, I can only speak from limited 
experience. But overall, from a national perspective, I think 
that one of the things that we consistently hear from tribes 
through various tribal consultations, including the tribal 
budget advisory committee and other forums in which we get to 
engage and hear directly from tribal leaders, is the resource 
challenges.
    This is one of the reasons why in our Fiscal Year 2022 
budget request we have asked for an additional $58 million for 
justice services for a total of $507 million overall. The bulk 
of that, those resources, of that request, really goes toward 
increased staffing for law enforcement services on the ground, 
with an additional $5 million for tribal courts and tribal 
court O&M areas.
    Again, anecdotally, I think that many tribes are moving or 
looking to make sure that their law enforcement services, that 
their detention centers and that their court systems are 
adequately staffed, and fully functional before taking on 
additional, before asserting additional sovereignty and 
jurisdiction to take on the provisions in VAWA.
    Senator Rounds. Thank you, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Senator Moran.

                STATEMENT OF HON. JERRY MORAN, 
                    U.S. SENATOR FROM KANSAS

    Senator Moran. Chairman Schatz, thank you. Thank you and 
Ranking Member Murkowski for holding this oversight hearing. I 
supported VAWA in 2013 and I look forward to building on the 
tribal provisions that were contained in it. I thank our 
witnesses for being here today.
    I am the ranking member of the Commerce Justice Science 
Appropriations Subcommittee. The importance in this arena is 
the Department of Justice. I would like to direct my questions 
in regard to some of the appropriation issues.
    Senator Cortez Masto asked one of the issues I was 
interested in. The nearest FBI field office to a field in 
Kansas is not quite 90 minutes away. I appreciate your question 
and I appreciate the information received from the answers.
    But distance is always a problem for us in Kansas. Our 
tribal lands are not located close to any cities. So it is a 
significant challenge.
    This is a question I would direct to any and all. Let me 
start with Ms. Randall. I will ask you this question first. You 
mentioned the President's request for increasing funding at the 
Office of Violence Against Women's tribal-specific grant 
programs by $46 million. What gaps have you identified that 
that additional funding would fill?
    Ms. Randall. Thank you, Senator. One really targeted piece 
of funding would be for tribal special U.S. attorneys. That 
prosecutorial role is a gap that we would like to fill. We 
would provide more funding for tribal governments overall. That 
is to implement everything from victim services to supporting 
tribal law enforcement.
    I think also very important is tribal jurisdiction. We do 
have a specific program to help tribes implement, tribes who 
haven't started yet to implement that jurisdiction, to do so.
    Senator Moran. Ms. Randall, you mentioned also in your 
written testimony that the Fiscal Year 2022 CJS bill includes 
new funding for tribal special assistant U.S. attorneys. You 
mentioned that is something still on the want list. But perhaps 
you can discuss with me a little more about the importance of 
this program.
    Ms. Randall. Absolutely. Tribal special U.S. attorneys are 
cross designated to be able to bring cases with a tribal 
expertise in the Federal court, working incredibly closely as 
members of the U.S. attorney team. We have seen in many States 
that this allows the Federal Government, through this program, 
to bring significantly more prosecutions than we might be able 
to otherwise, and to have the expertise of the tribal 
prosecutor who has been cross designated.
    Senator Moran. I assume that tribal law and Federal law and 
State law regarding tribes is a significant specialty, not that 
every attorney would know. I certainly would know that those 
who have experience either as tribal members or strong 
association with tribes would have a better understanding of 
cultural and other issues that would be of significant 
importance.
    Does the U.S. attorney in this circumstance, does a U.S. 
attorney select those individuals that work for the U.S. 
attorney?
    Ms. Randall. You are exceeding my specialized area of 
expertise, Senator. We would love to take that back and make 
sure that we have all the right details for you.
    Senator Moran. Okay. I would be glad to hear more.
    I would point out that Senator Schatz and Senator Murkowski 
are members, as you would know, of the subcommittee that 
appropriates that we are talking about. I look forward to 
working with them as we continue our efforts first to get this 
fiscal year completed and as we look forward to next year.
    Thank you for your answer.
    Ms. Randall. Thank you.
    The Chairman. Senator Moran, full disclosure, the Vice 
Chair and I were just praising you behind your back.
    [Laughter.]
    Senator Moran. I am surprised at your willingness to admit 
that.
    [Laughter.]
    The Chairman. Vice Chair Murkowski.
    Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. To our 
colleague who is so adeptly spearheading CJS, thank you. We 
will work on these initiatives.
    I wanted to ask just one final question to Professor Reese. 
But first, Ms. Randall, I want to acknowledge the announcement 
you have made saying we are going to have this consultation, 
the annual consultation in Alaska. We look forward to welcoming 
you and being part of those. Thank you for that.
    Ms. Randall, we have all cited your report. Thank you for 
dealing with some of the concerns that so many had expressed 
following VAWA 2013. Despite the statistics, despite the 
report, there is still that doubt. You used the word distrust. 
I think there is still some concern. I certainly hear it in 
Alaska when we talk about the prospects for the pilot that we 
have outlined in our draft legislation.
    I really appreciate that you have succinctly stated that, 
look, first what we have to do is clarify the law because 
concerns are rooted in, you say, several fundamental 
misunderstandings of that law. I think that is correct. The 
second is a simple reminder that tribal governments are 
American governments, too, worthy of our trust and dignity.
    Your final statement is worth repeating. For those who 
would suggest that we shouldn't be moving forward with this 
special jurisdiction, Professor Reese states, ``Our reasons for 
keeping them out of it are rooted in fear, distrust, and 
assumptions about their capacity to soundly administer the law 
that all ought to be long since in our past.'' I certainly 
agree with them. But I know we are still dealing with some of 
these ghosts of the past.
    So I would ask, and it is directed to you, Professor Reese, 
but I would also be willing to hear from our Administration 
witnesses as well, as to what else is it that we have to do to 
gain the trust, to assure that there is a level of capacity 
that can be met? Certainly with our proposal in the Alaska 
project, there is an effort where the attorney general works 
with the tribes to determine those that will be able to provide 
systems that fully protect defendants' rights under Federal 
law. There are protections that we feel we have incorporated, 
but still we meet this resistance.
    Is it just fear of the unknown, even though these have been 
in place for eight years? What more do we need to do? Because I 
have some convincing with some colleagues who are not sure that 
this is going to be too experimental, that this justice will be 
too experimental.
    My response right now is, in many cases there is no 
justice. That is the experiment that is happening, is no 
justice. So I am willing to engage in some pilot projects that 
maybe push things out a little bit more beyond people's comfort 
zone. Because right now, right now, people, women, are 
vulnerable. They are being destroyed because we don't have 
these protections. So we have to do something different.
    Help me out with how we get beyond the distrust of this. I 
will turn to you, Professor, first.
    Ms. Reese. Absolutely. Thank you for the question and for 
the kind remarks about my testimony.
    I would say that you could do several things, one of which 
is to take them to Indian Country, take them to Judge Stacie's 
courtroom and show off the amazing room that she is doing to 
provide justice for the people of her community. Because I 
think really seeing Indian Country in action, and justice in 
action, does so much more to generate that kind of trust than 
all of the possible rights protections and laws that we could 
write up, when really if what we are talking about is just 
skepticism that is more deeply rooted, as you have said. So I 
would suggest that, if possible.
    But I would also, as you also said, right now there is no 
justice. So of course, certainly trying something is necessary.
    But also to remind folks not to hold tribal governments to 
an unfair and unrealistically high standard of perfection 
before we let them try out justice over fellow American 
citizens. I think if we expect them to be something that is in 
effect like perfect, infallible, always delivering perfect 
rights, that is not fair. That is not the way court systems in 
the United States work. What happens in State courts as well is 
that there are laws on the books that ensure that citizens are 
protected when they mess up. That is how laws and protections 
work. It is to make sure that citizens are protected because 
courts aren't perfect.
    So I think the same thing is in place in Indian Country. We 
have these laws to protect and recognize that courts won't be 
perfect all the time. They are run by people. But they are 
necessary for justice.
    Senator Murkowski. And we have in fact in place the Federal 
protections that are already afforded in law. It is not as if 
there is no due process that is at play here.
    Mr. Chairman, thank you so much for this hearing, and for 
all of the witnesses. To your point, I think it has been 
extraordinarily testimony that the Committee has received. I 
look forward to working with all of my colleagues as we work to 
advance this restoration of justice through VAWA. Thank you.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Vice Chair Murkowski. I want to 
thank the staff, I want to thank the advocates, I want to thank 
the leaders in Indian Country, our testifiers, the 
Administration, everybody who is moving forward with this 
legislation. We are on our way.
    If there are no more questions for our witnesses, witnesses 
may also submit follow-up written questions for the record. The 
hearing record will be open for two weeks.
    I want to thank all of the witnesses for their time and 
their testimony.
    This hearing is adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 4:34 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]

                            A P P E N D I X

         Prepared Statement of the Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe
    Chairman Schatz, Vice Chairman Murkowski, and members of the Senate 
Committee on Indian Affairs, my name is Jeromy Sullivan and as the 
Chairman of the Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe (Tribe) I am pleased to 
offer testimony on the 2013 Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) and the 
urgent need to reauthorize VAWA with stronger provisions for Tribal 
Nations. The Tribe also supports and endorses the testimony provided by 
the National Congress of American Indians (NCAI), including the four 
priorities NCAI identified for the upcoming bipartisan VAWA 
reauthorization:

        1. Include amendments to the Special Domestic Violence Criminal 
        Jurisdiction (SDVCJ), 25 U.S.C.  1304, that will fill 
        jurisdictional gaps and ensure that the provision fully 
        achieves its purpose.

        2. Ensure and reaffirm that all 574 Tribal Nations can exercise 
        criminal jurisdiction through VAWA.

        3. Reauthorize VA W A's Tribal grant programs and create a 
        reimbursement program for Tribal Nations exercising SDVCJ.

        4. Create a permanent authorization for the U.S. Department of 
        Justice's (DOJ) Tribal Access Program for National Crime 
        Information (TAP).

Background
    The Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe is a sovereign Tribal Nation 
comprised of over 1,342 citizens located on the northern tip of the 
Kitsap Peninsula in Northwest Washington State. The 1855 Point No Point 
Treaty reserved hunting, fishing, and gathering rights for our Tribe, 
and the United States agreed to respect our Tribal sovereignty and to 
protect and provide for the well-being of our people. The United 
States, therefore, has both treaty and trust obligations to protect our 
lands and resources and provide for the health and well-being of our 
citizens, obligations that are even more solemn when discussing the 
safety of our Tribal women and girls.
Filling Jurisdictional Gaps
    As the NCAI noted in its testimony, the SDVCJ included in VAWA 2013 
reaffirmed the inherent sovereign authority of Tribal Nations to 
exercise criminal jurisdiction over non-Indian offenders who commit 
certain domestic violence crimes against Indian people on Tribal lands. 
This change in federal law has made real differences in Indian Country, 
including tangential benefits such as increased collaboration among 
Tribal Nations and between local, state, federal, and Tribal 
governments. With SDVCJ, no longer can many abusers come onto Tribal 
lands and evade justice.
    However, the intervening years since 2013 have revealed 
jurisdictional gaps in the law. Currently, federal law restricts SDVCJ 
to extend only to non-Indians who commit crimes against intimate 
partners or persons covered by a qualifying protection order. In an 
all-too-frequent scenario, this means that Tribal Nations can prosecute 
an individual for violence against a mother, but can do nothing about 
the associated violence against her children. In over half.--nearly 60 
percent--of SDVCJ cases, children are victims or witnesses. Under 
current federal law, Tribal Nations are not able to offer those 
children protection or justice by prosecuting the offender. This only 
compounds the already-severe rates of exposure to violence among Native 
children, who experience post-traumatic stress disorder at a rate 
comparable to war veterans and triple the rate of the rest of the 
population.
    Our children are not the only ones left without justice under VAWA 
2013. Under the current law, Tribal Nations are unable to pursue crimes 
such as sexual assault, trafficking, and stalking--nor are we able to 
protect Tribal police officers and the very integrity of our criminal 
justice systems. Unlike other populations, Native people are much more 
likely to experience interracial (as opposed to intra-racial) sexual 
violence, which puts heightened emphasis on the need for Tribal Nations 
to have the ability to prosecute non-Indian offenders. Many of the 
crimes Native people face--over half ofNative women experience sexual 
violence in their lifetimes, while nearly half report being stalked-do 
not fit neatly into a SDVCJ category, leaving Tribal Nations powerless 
to hold anyone accountable.
    Even for those crimes that do fall within the current scope of 
SDVCJ, Tribal Nations are unable to prosecute non-Indians for crimes 
incident to the criminal justice process, such as assaulting a Tribal 
police officer or witness tampering. This erodes the integrity of 
Tribal justice systems and our ability to secure a fair and robust 
process for our citizens.
    We join the NCAI in strongly urging the inclusion of provisions 
addressing these jurisdictional gaps in the bipartisan Senate VAWA 
bill.
Ensuring and Reaffirming all 574 Tribal Nations' Ability to Exercise 
        SDVCJ
    An unfortunate consequence of VAWA 2013 has stemmed from the 
interpretation of its language to exclude certain Tribal Nations and 
geographic regions. As the NCAI discussed in its testimony, Tribal 
Nations in Maine and Alaska have been unable to exercise SDVCJ due to 
this issue.
    We join the NCAI in calling on Congress to reaffirm all Tribal 
Nations' ability to exercise SDVCJ over non-Indian offenders so that 
Tribal Nations in Maine and Alaska can offer victims the same 
protections already afforded to victims in the other 48 states.
Reimbursing Tribal Nations for Exercising SDVCJ
    In addition to the aforementioned challenges, a continuing lack of 
resources for Tribal criminal justice systems and victim services 
undermines the ability to protect Tribal citizens. Tribal Nations face 
unique issues in raising governmental resources because--unlike other 
forms of government--we lack a traditional tax base. The grant programs 
created in previous reauthorizations of VAWA have helped, but are still 
insufficient to meet the substantial needs in Indian Country.
    Cost is a major factor deterring Tribal Nations from implementing 
SDVJC out of concern for unpredictable costs, such as health care for 
non-Indian inmates in Tribal custody that Tribal programs are unable to 
provide due to their non-Indian status. A reimbursement fund would help 
fulfill the United States' trust and treaty obligations by helping more 
Tribal Nations assume criminal jurisdiction over non-Indians in order 
to improve the safety of our communities and our ability to protect our 
most vulnerable citizens.
    Along with the NCAI, we support the creation of a fund that would 
reimburse Tribal Nations for expenses incurred in exercising and 
implementing SDVJC. We also endorse the NCAI's proposal to amend the 
Victims of Crime Act (VOCA) to ensure that Tribal Nations have a 
permanent set-aside from the Crime Victims Fund (CVF), which would 
provide much-needed services and compensation to victims of violence in 
Tribal communities.
Ensuring All Tribal Nations' Permanent Access to National Crime 
        Information
    In 2015, DOJ announced the Tribal Access Program for National Crime 
Information (TAP), which provides eligible Tribal Nations with the 
ability to enter and obtain information from federal criminal 
information databases. There are now 108 Tribal Nations participating 
in TAP, and with this access Tribal Nations can enter protection orders 
and criminal history into federal databases.
    However, more should be done to ensure that all Tribal Nations are 
able to access the databases. Current law restricts access to Tribal 
Nations with a sex offender registry or with a fulltime Tribal law 
enforcement agency, but many Tribal Nations--especially those in Public 
Law 280 jurisdictions like California and Alaska--do not meet these 
criteria but nevertheless operate Tribal courts that issue protection 
orders. The orders cannot be expected to effectively protect victims if 
they do not appear in the appropriate federal criminal database.
    Funding is one limitation to expanding TAP access. We join the NCAI 
in calling for the creation of a dedicated funding stream for expanding 
the TAP program and making it available to all interested Tribal 
Nations to access both for obtaining and for entering information.
Conclusion
    We all want safe communities. Our mission in endorsing the NCAI's 
testimony is to make sure Tribal sovereignty is recognized and Tribal 
governments have the tools we need to ensure safe communities and 
protect our vulnerable citizens. The Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe thanks 
the Committee for the work it is doing for Indian Country on these 
important issues.
                                 ______
                                 
 Prepared Statement of the United South and Eastern Tribes Sovereignty 
                            Protection Fund
    On behalf of the United South and Eastern Tribes Sovereignty 
Protection Fund (USET SPF), we are pleased to provide the Senate 
Committee on Indian Affairs (SCIA) with the following testimony for the 
record of the SCIA Oversight Hearing, ``Restoring Justice: Addressing 
Violence in Native Communities through VAWA Title IX Special 
Jurisdiction.'' Given the urgency around reauthorizing the Violence 
Against Women Act (VAWA) with provisions that close critical gaps in 
Tribal Special Domestic Violence Criminal Jurisdiction (SDVCJ), we 
appreciate the convening of this hearing and the recently released 
bipartisan discussion draft of Title IX provisions. USET SPF joins SCIA 
Leadership in calling for the immediate Senate passage of a bill that 
contains these vital features, ensuring that the United States fulfills 
more of its trust and treaty obligations to Tribal Nations by better 
recognizing our inherent sovereignty.
    USET SPF is a non-profit, inter-tribal organization advocating on 
behalf of thirty-three (33) federally recognized Tribal Nations from 
the Northeastern Woodlands to the Everglades and across the Gulf of 
Mexico. \1\ USET SPF is dedicated to promoting, protecting, and 
advancing the inherent sovereign rights and authorities of Tribal 
Nations and in assisting its membership in dealing effectively with 
public policy issues.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ USET SPF member Tribal Nations include: Alabama-Coushatta Tribe 
of Texas (TX), Aroostook Band of Micmac Indians (ME), Catawba Indian 
Nation (SC), Cayuga Nation (NY), Chickahominy Indian Tribe (VA), 
Chickahominy Indian Tribe-Eastern Division (VA), Chitimacha Tribe of 
Louisiana (LA), Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana (LA), Eastern Band of 
Cherokee Indians (NC), Houlton Band of Maliseet Indians (ME), Jena Band 
of Choctaw Indians (LA), Mashantucket Pequot Indian Tribe (CT), Mashpee 
Wampanoag Tribe (MA), Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida (FL), 
Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians (MS), Mohegan Tribe of Indians of 
Connecticut (CT), Monacan Indian Nation (VA), Nansemond Indian Nation 
(VA), Narragansett Indian Tribe (RI), Oneida Indian Nation (NY), 
Pamunkey Indian Tribe (VA), Passamaquoddy Tribe at Indian Township 
(ME), Passamaquoddy Tribe at Pleasant Point (ME), Penobscot Indian 
Nation (ME), Poarch Band of Creek Indians (AL), Rappahannock Tribe 
(VA), Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe (NY), Seminole Tribe of Florida (FL), 
Seneca Nation of Indians (NY), Shinnecock Indian Nation (NY), Tunica-
Biloxi Tribe of Louisiana (LA), Upper Mattaponi Indian Tribe (VA) and 
the Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head (Aquinnah) (MA).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    For far too long, the United States has neglected its public safety 
obligations to Tribal Nations--both by failing to recognize and promote 
our inherent sovereign authorities, as well as failing to devote 
adequate resources to law enforcement and judicial infrastructure. This 
has created a crisis in Indian Country, as our people go missing and 
are murdered, and are denied the opportunity for safe and healthy 
communities enjoyed by other Americans. Now, with the reauthorization 
of VAWA years overdue, Tribal Nations face critical gaps in the 
exercise of SDVCJ, to the detriment of our people and public safety. 
While we ultimately seek the restoration of full criminal jurisdiction 
over our lands, Title IX represents important advancements toward a 
future in which our children, women, elders, and all Native people can 
live in healthy, vibrant communities without fear of violence knowing 
that justice will be served.
High Rate of Crime in Indian Country is Directly Attributable to U.S. 
        Policy
    As you are well aware, Indian Country currently faces some of the 
highest rates of crime, with Tribal citizens 2.5 times more likely to 
become victims of violent crime and Native women, in particular, 
subject to higher rates of domestic violence and abuse. Many of the 
perpetrators of these crimes are non-Native people. The reasons behind 
the increased crime in Indian Country are complicated, but the United 
States holds much of the responsibility and that is at the root of 
today's challenges.
Historical Trauma Caused by United States Policies and Actions
    Increased crime in Indian Country flows, first and foremost, from 
the shameful policies of the United States. The United States spent 
centuries working to eradicate Tribal Nations and cultures, and its 
policies of termination and assimilation have caused ongoing trauma for 
Native people. As a result of these policies, the federal government 
prohibited exercise of our cultural practices, kidnapped our children, 
and took actions to limit the exercise of our inherent sovereign rights 
and authorities. Dehumanization of Native people over time is a tool to 
justify harms done to us--including colonizing our land. It 
marginalizes us in a way that makes us invisible within our own lands. 
And the larger society is desensitized to us, turning a blind eye to 
its role in continued injustices to our people and our governments.
Failure of United States to Recognize Tribal Nations' Sovereign 
        Criminal 
        Jurisdiction
    A primary reason for increased crime in Indian Country is the gap 
in jurisdiction stemming from the United States' failure to recognize 
our inherent criminal jurisdiction, allowing those who seek to do harm 
to hide in the darkness away from justice. When Tribal Nations are 
barred from prosecuting offenders and the federal government fails in 
the execution of its obligations, criminals are free to offend 
repeatedly. This gap is the United States' own doing.
    Tribal Nations are political, sovereign entities whose status stems 
from the inherent sovereignty we have as self-governing peoples, pre-
dating the founding of the Republic. A critical aspect of our inherent 
sovereignty is jurisdiction over our land and people, including 
inherent jurisdiction over crimes. Early Supreme Court decisions 
recognized this broad jurisdictional authority. See, e.g., United 
States v. Wheeler, 435 U.S. 313 (1978); Ex parte Crow Dog, 109 U.S. 556 
(1883). And Tribal Nations exercised jurisdiction over everyone who set 
foot on our lands, in parity with other units of government.
    But the United States has slowly chipped away at Tribal Nations' 
jurisdiction. At first, it found ways to put restrictions on the 
exercise of our inherent rights and authorities. And eventually, as its 
power grew, the United States shifted from acknowledging Tribal 
Nations' inherent rights and authorities to treating these rights and 
authorizes as grants from the United States. With this shift in 
mindset, recognition of our inherent sovereignty diminished, including 
our jurisdictional authorities.
    For example, in the 1978 decision of Oliphant v. Suquamish Indian 
Tribe, the Supreme Court struck what may be the biggest and most 
harmful blow to Tribal Nations' criminal jurisdiction. In that case, it 
held Tribal Nations lacked criminal jurisdiction over non-Native 
people, even for crimes committed within Indian Country. 435 U.S. 191 
(1978). It based this harmful decision on the faulty reasoning that-
while Supreme Court precedent recognizes that Tribal Nations possess 
aspects of our inherent sovereignty unless expressly divested--in the 
case of criminal jurisdiction over non-Native people the exercise of 
such inherent sovereignty was simply impractical for the United States. 
It said that, while Tribal Nations' jurisdiction flows from our 
inherent sovereignty, continued existence of criminal jurisdiction over 
non-Native people would be ``inconsistent'' with Tribal Nations' 
status, where our inherent sovereignty is now ``constrained so as not 
to conflict with the interests of [the United States'] overriding 
sovereignty.'' Id. at 208-10. Not only is this decision immoral and 
harmful, it is also illogical, as other units of government, such as 
states, exercise criminal jurisdiction over non-citizens present in 
their boundaries as a matter of routine. It is this very exercise of 
jurisdiction that keeps everyone safe--something that is clearly in the 
United States' best interests. Following Oliphant, Tribal Nations were 
barred from exercising criminal jurisdiction over non-Native peoples' 
crimes on our own land and against our own people--an authority held by 
virtually every other unit of government in this country.
    Congress, in the Indian Civil Rights Act, also acted to restrict 
Tribal Nations' criminal jurisdiction. Under the Indian Civil Rights 
Act, regardless of the crime, Tribal Nations were prohibited from 
imposing more than one year of incarceration and a $5,000 fine for an 
offense. 25 U.S.C.  1302(a)(7)(B). After this statute was enacted, 
Tribal Nations were not able to exercise criminal jurisdiction even 
over our own people in excess of the relatively low penalty amounts. 
Some have even argued the Major Crimes Act bars Tribal Nations' 
jurisdiction over serious crimes committed by our own people.
    The United States justifies its failure to recognize Tribal 
Nations' inherent sovereign power with legal fictions that satisfy its 
own interests. The federal government has continually moved to deny our 
authority, as it sought to build systems to reflect its assumed 
supremacy. It does not have this authority, and there are very real and 
practical consequences of the United States' wrongful taking of Tribal 
Nations' criminal jurisdiction; including leaving a vacuum that allows 
crime to grow unabated and the very need for the legislation this body 
is considering.
    These failures on behalf of the United States must be addressed in 
order to resolve the issue of crime in Indian Country and enable Tribal 
Nations to exercise our inherent authority as governments to care for 
our people. The benefits of safe, healthy, and prosperous Tribal 
communities stretch far beyond Indian Country. By recognizing Tribal 
Nations' inherent criminal jurisdiction over our land, the United 
States would facilitate our ability to function side-by-side with other 
sovereign entities in the fight to keep all Americans safe.
Chronically Unmet Trust and Treaty Obligations
    The federal government's trust and treaty obligations are the 
result of the millions of acres of land and extensive resources ceded 
to the U.S.--oftentimes by force--in exchange for which it is legally 
and morally obligated to provide benefits and services in perpetuity, 
including those related to public safety in Indian Country. At no point 
has the government fully delivered upon these obligations. This is 
especially true in the law enforcement context, where the United States 
has failed to fully recognize our inherent sovereignty and at the same 
time, has not invested in the infrastructure necessary to fulfill this 
obligation.
    The federal government has long failed to allocate the resources 
necessary to fill the void left by its refusal to recognize Tribal 
Nations' criminal jurisdiction over our land. Each time a crime takes 
place, the legal jurisprudence created by the United States requires a 
time consuming and complicated analysis necessary to determine who has 
jurisdiction. This determination requires an analysis of the 
perpetrator, the victim, the land on which the crime took place, the 
type of crime, and whether any statute applies that shifts the 
jurisdictional analysis, such as a restrictive settlement act. This 
murkiness leads to lost time--which can be deadly when a Native person 
is in danger. And even when it is clear that the federal government has 
jurisdiction over a particular crime and the Tribal Nation does not, 
prosecutors often decline to prosecute, citing lack of resources or 
evidence. This, in combination with a lack of Tribal Nation access to 
crime information, leaves known perpetrators walking free in Indian 
Country, now armed with the knowledge that they are impervious to the 
law.
    Additionally, the chronic underfunding of Tribal public safety 
programs leaves many Tribal Nations without the personnel and other 
infrastructure necessary to combat crime in Indian Country. For 
example, Indian Country's police staffing does not meet the national 
police coverage standards. In FY 2020, Indian Country only had 1.9 
officers per 1,000 residents compared to an average of 3.5 officers per 
1,000 residents nationwide. Again, cooperation across governmental 
entities, including with Tribal Nations, can help resolve police 
staffing issues.
    The federal government is not upholding its trust responsibility 
and obligations to provide the funding necessary for Tribal Nations to 
exercise enhanced sentencing and expanded criminal jurisdiction under 
the Tribal Law and Order Act (TLOA) and the Tribal Nation provisions of 
the 2013 reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA). For 
Tribal Nations to fully exercise these authorities, Congress mandated 
that we must first put into place certain procedural protections for 
defendants. At the same time, following centuries of termination and 
assimilationist policy, the federal government has consistently, and 
chronically underfunded line items and accounts dedicated to rebuild 
and support judicial infrastructure in Indian Country. It is incumbent 
upon the federal government to ensure Tribal Nations have funding and 
other resources to comply with these procedural requirements.
7Restrictive Settlement Acts
    Some Tribal Nations, including some USET SPF member Tribal Nations, 
are living under restrictive settlement acts that further limit the 
ability to exercise criminal jurisdiction over our lands. These 
restrictive settlement acts flow from difficult circumstances in which 
states demanded unfair restrictions on Tribal Nations' rights in order 
for the Tribal Nations to have recognized rights to their lands or 
federal recognition. When Congress enacted these demands by the states 
into law, it allowed for diminishment of certain sovereign authorities 
exercised by other Tribal Nations across the United States.
    Some restrictive settlement acts purport to limit Tribal Nations' 
jurisdiction over their land or to give states jurisdiction over Tribal 
Nations' land, which is itself a problem. But, to make matters worse, 
there have been situations where a state has wrongly argued the 
existence of the restrictive settlement act prohibits application of 
later-enacted federal statutes that would restore to Tribal Nations 
aspects of our jurisdictional authority. In fact, some USET SPF member 
Tribal Nations report being threatened with lawsuits should they 
attempt to implement TLOA's enhanced sentencing provisions. Congress is 
often unaware of these arguments when enacting new legislation. USET 
SPF asserts that Congress did not intend these land claim settlements 
to forever prevent a handful of Tribal Nations from taking advantage of 
beneficial laws meant to improve the health, general welfare, and 
safety of Tribal citizens. We would like to further explore short- and 
long-term solutions to this problem with the Committee.
Past Congressional Actions to Recognize Tribal Nations' Sovereign 
        Jurisdiction
    Congress can and has--at the urging of Indian Country-taken steps 
to remove the restrictions the United States placed on Tribal Nations' 
exercise of our inherent sovereign criminal jurisdiction. Through these 
actions, Congress has moved to legally recognize our inherent 
authorities even after the United States acted to stomp them out. For 
example, although the Supreme Court initially ruled Tribal Nations lack 
criminal jurisdiction over Native people who are not their own 
citizens, Duro v. Reina, 495 U.S. 676 (1990), Congress swiftly restored 
that inherent jurisdiction, 25 U.S.C.  1301(2), and the Supreme Court 
recognized its restoration, United States v. Lara, 541 U.S. 193 (2004).
    In 2010, Congress enacted TLOA to amend the Indian Civil Rights 
Act. See 25 U.S.C.  1302. It increased the penalties a Tribal Nation 
may impose in cases where we have jurisdiction--allowing incarceration 
sentences of up to three years and a $15,000 fine per offense, with up 
to nine years of incarceration per criminal proceeding. 25 U.S.C.  
1302(a)(7)(C)-(D), (b). But TLOA requires Tribal Nations to provide 
certain procedural rights to defendants in order to exercise this 
enhanced sentencing. 25 U.S.C.  1302(c).
    In 2013, Congress included Tribal provisions when it reauthorized 
VAWA. See 25 U.S.C.  1304. Through VAWA, Congress restored the 
exercise of criminal jurisdiction (called special domestic violence 
criminal jurisdiction (SDVCJ)) over non-Native people in limited 
circumstances related to domestic and dating violence. 25 U.S.C.  
1304(b)(1). VAWA allows participating Tribal Nations to exercise SDVCJ 
over Indian Country crimes that: are dating or domestic violence 
(defined to require a certain type of relationship) or in furtherance 
of certain protection orders, 25 U.S.C.  1304(a)(1), (2), (5); when 
the victim or perpetrator is Native, 25 U.S.C.  1304(b)(4)(a); and 
when the perpetrator has certain ties to the Tribal Nation, 25 U.S.C.  
1304(b)(4)(B). Like TLOA, VAWA requires Tribal Nations to provide 
certain procedural rights to defendants to exercise SDVCJ, including 
the right to a trial. 25 U.S.C.  1304(d).
    The Tribal Nations that have been able to exercise jurisdiction 
under VAWA report success in bringing perpetrators to justice and 
keeping our people safe. As the Department of Justice (DOJ) testified 
before this Committee in 2016, VAWA has allowed Tribal Nations to 
``respond to long-time abusers who previously had evaded justice.'' 
During the Oversight Hearing, SCIA Leadership also underscored that 
since the enactment of SDVCJ, there have been zero legitimate habeas 
petitions and zero claims related to non-Native defendants being 
deprived of due process as Tribal Nations exercise SDVCJ.
VAWA Must Be Updated to Address Gaps in SDVCJ and Ensure all Tribal 
        Nations are Included
    Although they are steps in the right direction, these existing laws 
do not do enough to provide for the exercise Tribal Nations' criminal 
jurisdiction, which rightfully belongs to us as a function of our 
inherent sovereignty. And they do not do enough to protect Native 
people from the violence that lives in the void left by limitations 
placed on Tribal Nations' exercise of criminal jurisdiction. Indeed, as 
Tribal Nations have implemented SDVCJ in the years following the 2013 
VAWA Reauthorization, Tribal Nations have been unable to prosecute co-
occurring crimes or those that do not fall within the strict definition 
of ``domestic violence.'' In addition, SDVCJ and other features of the 
2013 VAWA are not currently accessible by all federally recognized 
Tribal Nations. We support and appreciate the direction taken by the 
draft Title IX legislation, as it seeks to more fully deliver upon 
trust and treaty obligations, and look forward to working with SCIA to 
further refine its language.
Sexual Violence, Stalking, and Human Trafficking
    The VAWA Title IX draft would extend Tribal Nations' restored 
jurisdiction over non-Native people, as authorized under VAWA, to 
include crimes related to sexual violence, stalking, and human 
trafficking. In this way, it would recognize Tribal Nations' inherent 
sovereign authority to exercise criminal jurisdiction over our lands to 
address a critical gap in the SDVCJ under VAWA.
    According to a 2016 study by the National Institute for Justice, 
approximately 56 percent of Native women experience sexual violence in 
their lifetime, with one in seven experiencing that violence within the 
past year. Almost one in two Native women report being stalked. And the 
vast majority of these perpetrators are non-Native, preventing Tribal 
Nations from exercising criminal jurisdiction over them outside VAWA. 
However, VAWA as currently enacted does not extend to these crimes, 
which Tribal Nations, DOJ, and others involved in implementation of 
VAWA's SDVCJ have reported as an oversight in the drafting of the law. 
One such area is its application to sexual violence outside of a 
domestic relationship. Title IX would extend VAWA's SDVCJ to include 
sex trafficking, sexual violence, and stalking. It would also add 
crimes of related conduct, defined to include violations of a Tribal 
Nation's criminal law occurring in connection with the exercise of VAWA 
SDVCJ.
Crimes Against Children and Tribal Law Enforcement
    Title IX would address another serious gap in the SDVCJ VAWA 
provision by ensuring that it includes crimes against children and law 
enforcement officers--again, in recognition of our inherent sovereign 
rights and authorities. Currently, VAWA's SDVCJ does not extend to 
children involved in cases where a Tribal Nation is otherwise 
exercising VAWA's SDVCJ. Tribal Nations implementing VAWA report that 
children have been involved as victims or witnesses in nearly 60 
percent of the instances in which they exercised VAWA's SDVCJ, VAWA 
does not protect them.
    Yet another oversight in the drafting of VAWA is its 
inapplicability to police officers involved in cases where a Tribal 
Nation is otherwise exercising VAWA's SDVCJ. Implementing Tribal 
Nations have reported assaults on officers and other personnel involved 
in the criminal justice system. Domestic violence cases are the most 
common and most dangerous calls to which law enforcement respond, and 
VAWA does not give Tribal Nations the tools to protect officers when 
they carry out VAWA's SDVCJ. The Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians, for 
example, reported that a perpetrator during arrest under VAWA's SDVCJ 
threatened to kill officers and carry out a mass shooting and later 
struck a jailer--none of which was actionable under VAWA's SDVCJ. To 
remedy this problem, the Title IX draft would amend VAWA to extend 
jurisdiction to crimes committed against a Tribal Nation's officer or 
employee in the course of carrying out VAWA's SDVCJ for covered crimes 
that violate Tribal Nation law in Indian Country where the Tribal 
Nation has jurisdiction. Additionally, the draft language would ensure 
crimes beyond actual assault are actionable under VAWA. It would do so 
by clarifying that attempts at and threats of physical force that 
violate a Tribal Nations' laws are covered.
Confirm Application of SDVCJ to All Tribal Nations
    As described above, a number of USET SPF member Tribal Nations, 
both those with jurisdictions adjacent to the state of Maine and those 
who live adjacent to other states within our region, are forced to 
govern under restrictive settlement acts (RSAs), which challenge their 
ability to exercise SDVCJ. We urge SCIA to more fully examine this 
issue and work to ensure that Title IX applies to all federally 
recognized Tribal Nations, including all those USET SPF member Tribal 
Nations subject to RSAs.
Tribal Reimbursement Program
    USET SPF also supports the establishment of a reimbursement program 
for Tribal Nations exercising SDVCJ as an additional step toward 
honoring trust and treaty obligations. The federal government is 
obligated to assist us in rebuilding our governmental infrastructure, 
including judicial and other infrastructure related to the exercise of 
SDVCJ. Tribal Nations should not be forced to absorb the unpredictable 
and sometimes excessively high costs associated with SDVCJ, including 
the medical costs of incarcerated non-Natives. The creation of the 
reimbursement program will provide certainty for those Tribal Nations 
currently exercising SDVCJ, as well as for those who are interested in 
exercising this authority, but for whom unanticipated costs may be a 
prohibitive factor.
Access to Criminal Databases and Information
    We also agree that Title IX should address lack of access to 
federal criminal databases, as well as generally increase the sharing 
of federal crime information with Tribal Nations. The draft of Title IX 
would ensure all Tribal Nations can access the Tribal Access Program 
(TAP) which facilitates access to the National Crime Information Center 
database for law enforcement. Through VAWA, Tribal Nations were 
authorized to access the National Crime Information Center database, 
but DOJ did not facilitate this access until launching the TAP pilot 
project in 2015. TAP allows Tribal criminal justice agencies to 
strengthen public safety, solve crimes, conduct background checks, and 
offer greater protection for law enforcement by ensuring the exchange 
of critical data across the Criminal Justice Information Services 
(CJIS) systems.
    Many Tribal Nations remain on the waitlist to access TAP. The Title 
IX would require DOJ to ensure that all Tribal law enforcement 
officials have access to the National Crime Information Center. It 
would also codify TAP and authorize additional funding for the program, 
which we continue to support. We appreciate that the Senate version of 
Title IX contains $6 million authorization-double that of the House.
Conclusion
    The public safety crisis facing Tribal Nations and our people is 
directly attributable, at least in part, to U.S. policies of 
colonialism, termination, and assimilation, as well as the chronic 
failure to deliver upon the trust responsibility and obligations. These 
policies stole our homelands, tried to steal our cultures, and limited 
our ability to exercise our inherent sovereign rights and authorities. 
The United States, including all branches of government must act to 
provide parity to Tribal Nations in the exercise of our inherent 
sovereign rights and authorities. Our people cannot remain invisible 
and forgotten, as Tribal Nations work to navigate the jurisdictional 
maze that has grown up around Indian Country while the United States 
turns a blind eye.
    USET SPF continues to support the provisions of the Title IX draft 
and believes it represents a major step in the right direction toward 
the United States recognizing Tribal Nations' inherent sovereign rights 
and authorities. This legislation better recognizes Tribal Nations' 
inherent sovereign right to exercise criminal jurisdiction over our 
land, and it provides additional resources the United States owes to 
keep our people safe.
    As sovereign governments, Tribal Nations have a duty to protect our 
citizens, and provide for safe and productive communities. This cannot 
truly be accomplished without the full restoration of criminal 
jurisdiction to our governments through a fix to the Supreme Court 
decision in Oliphant. While we call upon the Senate to take up and pass 
a VAWA reauthorization containing the features found in the Title IX 
draft language, we strongly urge this Committee to consider how it 
might take action to fully recognize Tribal criminal jurisdiction over 
all persons and activities in our homelands for all Tribal Nations. 
Only then will we have the ability to truly protect our people. We 
thank you for holding an important hearing and look forward to further 
opportunities to discuss improved public safety in Indian Country.
                                 ______
                                 
   Prepared Statement of Hon. Jeromy Sullivan, Chairman, Port Gamble 
                            S'Klallam Tribe
    Dear Chairman Schatz and Vice-Chairwoman Murkowski: As Tribal 
Chairman of the Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe (Tribe), I am writing to 
support and provide comments on the bipartisan Violence Against Women 
Act (VAWA) Title IX--SAFETY FOR INDIAN WOMEN discussion draft released 
on December 8, 2021. The Tribe also supports the comments offered by 
the National Congress of American Indians (NCAI) and incorporates them 
by reference into our own. Tribal communities continue to suffer from 
the highest crime victimization rates in the country, and the 
bipartisan Title IX discussion draft includes desperately needed 
reforms. Our Tribe is dedicated to improving the safety and welfare of 
our Tribal citizens, and it is in that spirit we offer the following 
comments.
Background
    The Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe is a sovereign Tribal Nation 
comprised of over 1,342 citizens located on the northern tip of the 
Kitsap Peninsula in Northwest Washington State. The 1855 Point No Point 
Treaty reserved hunting, fishing, and gathering rights for our Tribe, 
and the United States agreed to respect our Tribal sovereignty and to 
protect and provide for the wellbeing of our people. The United States, 
therefore, has both treaty and trust obligations to protect our lands 
and resources and provide for the health and well-being of our 
citizens, obligations that are even more solemn when discussing the 
safety of our Tribal women and girls.
    Nearly two-thirds of our citizens live on our Reservation. Native 
women, men, girls, and boys living in our community face many 
challenges to their physical safety and mental well-being. The threats 
are in the form of restricted access to rural maternal healthcare 
services, adequate housing, and food security, and continue into 
adolescence and adulthood in the form of high rates of physical, 
emotional, and sexual violence, substance abuse, and unmet mental and 
behavioral health needs. When coupled with the jurisdictional 
limitations that further complicate the delivery of limited public 
safety and victim services on our Reservation, it becomes clear that 
additional resources and targeted political actions are urgently needed 
to protect our citizens.
    Being a self-governance Tribe has fundamentally shaped how we 
address public health and safety matters impacting our community, 
including how we implement VAWA. We maximize the use of federal funds, 
tailor programs to meet local needs, and take advantage of our own 
extensive on-Reservation network to provide services, but more needs to 
be done. Many of the crimes targeted by VAWA are committed by non-
Indians, and we need to amend federal law to improve access to justice 
and safety for victims in our communities. Below, we highlight 
provisions from the discussion draft and some recommended changes that 
we think are vital and must be included in the final bipartisan VAWA 
reauthorization bill.
1. Expanding Tribal Jurisdiction over Non-Indian Offenders via 
        ``Special Tribal Criminal Jurisdiction''
    VAWA 2013's expansion of Tribal Nations' criminal jurisdiction over 
certain non-Indian domestic violence offenders has had significant 
impacts in Indian Country, strengthening Tribal Nations' ability to 
protect our people. However, substantial jurisdictional gaps impede the 
law's effectiveness. Because VAWA 2013's Special Domestic Violence 
Criminal Jurisdiction (SDVCJ) covers only non-Indians who commit crimes 
against intimate partners or persons covered by a qualifying protection 
order, Tribal Nations have been unable to protect the children who are 
often associated with such crimes (either as witnesses or victims 
themselves) and the law enforcement officials who respond to them. 
Additionally, SDVCJ's narrow scope has left victims of human 
trafficking, stalking, and sexual violence outside the context of an 
intimate relationship without recourse.
    A 2016 report by the National Institute of Justice found that over 
80 percent of American Indians and Alaska Natives will be a victim of 
intimate partner violence, sexual violence, or stalking in their 
lifetime. The study also found that 90 percent of these victims were 
victimized by a non-Indian perpetrator. Our children are particularly 
impacted by this violence and are 50 percent more likely to experience 
child abuse and sexual abuse than white children. The Tribal Nations 
implementing VAWA 2013 report that children have been involved as 
victims or witnesses in their cases nearly 60 percent of the time. It 
is particularly important that the final bipartisan VAWA bill 
recognizes that children are equally in need of the protections that 
were extended to adult domestic violence victims in VAWA 2013.
    The bipartisan Title IX discussion draft resolves these issues by 
expanding SDVCJ to ``Special Tribal Criminal Jurisdiction'' with 
additional covered crimes, including assault of Tribal justice 
personnel, child violence, obstruction of justice, sexual violence, sex 
trafficking, and stalking. We strongly support the inclusion of these 
provisions in the final Senate bill.
    Recommended changes: We ask that the Title IX discussion draft be 
amended to include crimes against elders, which was a category of 
restored jurisdiction included in the House bill, H.R. 1620, but not 
the bipartisan Senate Committee on Indian Affairs discussion draft. Our 
elders are an integral part of our Tribal communities. They carry our 
cultures and traditions, and we must ensure that they are not left 
behind in this reauthorization of VAWA.
    Additionally, we strongly recommend amending the draft language on 
page 10 to remove the requirement that assaults on Tribal justice 
personnel must be tied to a ``covered crime.'' That language may 
require a Tribal Nation to first prove the underlying covered crime 
before being able to prosecute the assault, which does not fully fix 
the public safety concern of police officers or detention personnel. We 
ask that the language fully cover all assaults of tribal justice 
personnel and not mention anything related to a ``covered crime.''
2. Reaffirming All Tribal Nations' Ability to Exercise Expanded 
        Criminal Jurisdiction
    Another unfortunate result of VAWA 2013 has been the inability of 
certain Tribal Nations--specifically those in Maine and Alaska--to 
exercise expanded criminal jurisdiction. The bipartisan Title IX 
discussion draft resolves this by expressly including Tribal Nations in 
Maine and creating a pilot program to address the unique needs in 
Alaska, where Alaska Native women are overrepresented among domestic 
violence victims by 250 percent and make up 47 percent of reported rape 
victims in the state, yet 1 in 3 rural Alaskan communities have no law 
enforcement presence. We strongly support the inclusion of these 
provisions in the final Senate bill and the inclusion of all Tribal 
Nations in VAWA.
3. Reimbursement for Costs Associated with Exercising Expanded Criminal 
        Jurisdiction
    Despite the expansion of Tribal criminal jurisdiction in VAWA 2013, 
the cost of implementation has been an impediment for many Tribal 
Nations. The bipartisan Title IX discussion draft resolves this by 
creating a funding stream with dedicated appropriations the Attorney 
General may use to reimburse Tribal Nations for costs associated with 
implementation, including expanding Tribal court and law enforcement 
capacity and providing health care for inmates. We strongly support the 
inclusion of these provisions in the final Senate bill.
    Recommended change: We ask that that reimbursement program language 
be expanded to include reimbursements for trial and appellate courts 
(including facilities maintenance, renovation, and rehabilitation). 
Additionally, the time for the Attorney General to develop regulations 
for the program should be shortened from within one year to within six 
months after the effective date to ensure that this important program 
is implemented quickly to address the urgent need in Indian Country.
4. Strengthening the Tribal Access Program for National Crime 
        Information (TAP)
    The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) announced the TAP program in 
2015, which allows Tribal Nations to both access information from 
federal criminal databases and to enter information, such as protection 
orders and criminal history, into those databases as well. Over 108 
Tribal Nations participate in the program now, and it is critical to 
ensuring that Tribal protection orders and other judgments are 
enforceable. However, a lack of funding has been an impediment to many 
Tribal Nations' participation in the program, along with certain 
restrictions precluding Tribal Nations without a sex offender registry 
or a full-time law enforcement agency from participating.
    The bipartisan Title IX discussion draft resolves these issues by 
creating funding streams with dedicated appropriations for Tribal 
Nations to participate in the TAP program, removing restrictions from 
participation, and ensuring that Tribal law enforcement officials have 
the ability to enter information as well as obtain it from national 
criminal databases. Relatedly, it also allows Tribal Nations to utilize 
the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) to house defendants serving sentences of 
more than one year. We strongly support the inclusion of these 
provisions in the final Senate bill.
Conclusion
    We fully support the purpose of Title IX, which is to strengthen 
Tribal sovereignty and reaffirm Tribal jurisdiction over non-Indian 
perpetrators. We also support providing additional resources to address 
violence against all Native women.
    Thank you for the opportunity to submit written comments on the 
bipartisan Title IX discussion draft. We urge all members of the Senate 
Committee on Indian Affairs to support the discussion draft's 
provisions and to co-sponsor a full bipartisan Senate bill that 
incorporates recommended changes. Our mission in providing these 
comments and endorsing NCAI's comments is to ensure that Tribal 
sovereignty is recognized and Tribal governments have the tools we need 
to protect our citizens and communities. On behalf of the Port Gamble 
S'Klallam Tribe, I thank you for the work you have done for the Tribe 
and for Indian Country.
                                 ______
                                 
                            Tribal Law and Policy Institute
                                                  December 21, 2021

Dear Senator Schatz, Senator Murkowski, and all members of the Senate 
Committee on Indian Affairs:
    The Tribal Law and Policy Institute (TLPI) is a 100 percent Native 
American operated non-profit corporation organized to design and 
deliver education, research, training, and technical assistance 
programs which promote the enhancement of justice in Indian country and 
the health, well-being, and culture of Native peoples. We believe that 
tribes and individual Native people suffer from ongoing unjust policies 
and practices that have worked to prevent fully empowering tribes as 
sovereigns and Native people as self-reliant citizens. Therefore, we 
seek to empower tribal communities to build upon inherent strengths as 
sovereign nations and protect their ancestral homelands, tribal 
members, and tribal jurisdiction.
    As such, it is our privilege to submit this letter in support of 
the bipartisan Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) Title IX--SAFETY FOR 
INDIAN WOMEN discussion draft released on December 8, 2021, which 
includes important provisions that will improve safety and justice in 
tribal communities. Tribal communities continue to suffer from the 
highest crime victimization rates in the country, and the reforms 
included in the bipartisan Title IX discussion draft are desperately 
needed today.
    A 2016 report by the National Institute of Justice found that over 
80 percent of American Indians and Alaska Natives will be a victim of 
intimate partner violence, sexual violence, or stalking in their 
lifetime. The study also found that 90 percent of these victims were 
victimized by a non-Indian perpetrator. Sadly, Indian children are 
particularly impacted by this violence and are 50 percent more likely 
to experience child abuse and sexual abuse than white children. The 
complicated jurisdictional framework at play in Indian country and 
Alaska continues to undermine safety for American Indian and Alaska 
Native victims of violence.
    Tribal Nations have been exercising jurisdiction over non-Indian 
domestic violence offenders under VAWA 2013 for over 8 years. 
Exercising Tribal Nations have held serial offenders accountable and 
have brought justice and safety to hundreds of victims and their 
families while upholding the due process rights of all defendants in 
tribal courts. Despite these successes, perpetrators still find gaps in 
the law. Victims of sexual violence, child abuse, stalking, 
trafficking, elder abuse, and assaults against law enforcement officers 
deserve the same protections that Congress affords to domestic violence 
victims on tribal lands in VAWA 2013.
    It is particularly important that the final bipartisan VAWA bill 
recognizes that Indian children are equally in need of the protections 
that were extended to adult domestic violence victims in VAWA 2013. The 
Tribal Nations implementing VAWA 2013 report that children have been 
involved as victims or witnesses in their cases nearly 60 percent of 
the time. However, federal law failed to restore tribal jurisdiction to 
prosecute these crimes. The Title IX discussion draft language would 
restore this category of jurisdiction and allow tribes to protect 
Indian children in their tribal justice systems.
    We ask that the Title IX discussion draft be amended to include 
crimes against elders, which was a category of restored jurisdiction 
included in the House bill, H.R. 1620, but not the bipartisan Senate 
Committee on Indian Affairs discussion draft. Indian elders are an 
integral part of tribal communities to whom we owe respect and care. 
Indian elders carry their cultures and traditions, and we must ensure 
that they are not left behind in this reauthorization of VAWA.
    We also appreciate that the Title IX discussion draft recognizes 
that VAWA 2013 inadvertently left tribal police officers and detention 
personnel at risk. Domestic violence cases are both the most common and 
the most dangerous calls that law enforcement receives. Several Tribal 
Nations have reported assaults on their officers or bailiffs committed 
by non-Indian defendants, but as of now, Tribal Nations remain unable 
to prosecute these crimes, as assaults on law enforcement was not a 
restored category of jurisdiction in VAWA 2013. This creates an obvious 
public safety concern. In order to ensure that the Title IX discussion 
draft fully rectifies this issue, we strongly recommend amending the 
draft language on page ten to remove the requirement that the assault 
must be tied to a ``covered crime.'' Requiring that the assault of the 
tribal justice personnel be tied to a ``covered crime'' may require the 
Tribal Nation to first prove the underlying covered crime before they 
could prosecute for the assault, which does not fully fix the public 
safety concern of police officers or detention personnel. This creates 
significant confusion that likely would have to be worked out in the 
courts. We ask that the language fully cover all assaults of tribal 
justice personnel and not mention anything related to a ``covered 
crime.''
    Section 904 provides a local solution for the local problem of 
criminal victimization in Indian country. We are pleased to see that 
the bipartisan Title IX discussion draft continues to build on VAWA's 
promise and includes key priorities that have been identified by Tribal 
Nations to further enhance safety for victims in tribal communities.
    The Title IX discussion draft clarifies that Tribal Nations in 
Maine are included in the law and creates a pilot project to address 
the unique needs in Alaska. We fully support the inclusion of all 
Tribal Nations in VAWA. Alaska Native women are over-represented among 
domestic violence victims in Alaska by 250 percent and make up 47 
percent of reported rape victims in the state, yet 1 in 3 rural Alaskan 
communities have no law enforcement presence. The Title IX discussion 
draft includes a pilot project that will enable a limited number of 
Tribal Nations in Alaska to exercise special tribal criminal 
jurisdiction over certain crimes that occur in Alaska villages.
    In addition to the lifesaving provisions outlined above, the 
bipartisan Title IX discussion draft creates a reimbursement program 
under which the Attorney General may reimburse Tribal Nations for 
expenses incurred in exercising special tribal criminal jurisdiction. 
We would ask that that reimbursement program language be expanded to 
include reimbursements for trial and appellate courts (including 
facilities maintenance, renovation, and rehabilitation.) Additionally, 
the time for the Attorney General to develop regulations for the 
program should be shortened from within one year to within six months 
after the effective date to ensure that this important program is 
implemented quickly to address the urgent need in Indian Country.
    The Title XI discussion draft also allows Tribal Nations to utilize 
the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) to house defendants serving sentences of 
more than one year and increases Tribal Nations' access to the National 
Crime Information Database. Both of these additions to VAWA will go a 
long way towards ensuring Tribal Nations are able to implement this 
restored jurisdiction fully and most effectively.
    We fully support the purpose of Title IX, which is to strengthen 
tribal sovereignty and reaffirm tribal jurisdiction over non-Indian 
perpetrators. We also support providing additional resources to address 
violence against all Native women. However, the new language in the 
Section 901 Findings and Purposes, which adds Native Hawaiians, urban 
Indians communities, Native Americans, and Native American communities, 
jeopardizes the long-term enforcement of the law and detracts from the 
key purpose of Title IX. For those reasons we strongly recommend that 
all Native Hawaiian, urban Indian communities, Native American, and 
Native American communities language be removed from Section 901. The 
language in Section 901 should solely focus on American Indians, Alaska 
Natives, and Indian tribes in order to protect tribal sovereignty, 
which is consistent with the purpose of the Title IX.
    We urge all members of the Senate Committee on Indian affairs to 
support the provisions included in the bipartisan Title IX discussion 
draft and to become a co-sponsor of the full bipartisan Senate VAWA 
bill that incorporates all of the discussion draft provisions and our 
recommended changes.

        Sincerely,
                          Jerry Gardner, Executive Director
                                 ______
                                 
                              Pascua Yaqui Tribe of Arizona
                                                  December 21, 2021
Dear Senator Schatz, Senator Murkowski, and all members of the Senate 
Committee on Indian Affairs:

    I write on behalf of the Pascua Yaqui Tribe of Arizona to support 
the bipartisan Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) Title IX--SAFETY FOR 
INDIAN WOMEN discussion draft released on December 8, 2021, which 
includes important provisions that will improve safety and justice in 
tribal communities. Tribal communities continue to suffer from the 
highest crime victimization rates in the country, and the reforms 
included in the bipartisan Title IX discussion draft are desperately 
needed today.
    A 2016 report by the National Institute of Justice found that over 
80 percent of American Indians and Alaska Natives will be a victim of 
intimate partner violence, sexual violence, or stalking in their 
lifetime. The study also found that 90 percent of these victims were 
victimized by a nonIndian perpetrator. Sadly, Indian children are 
particularly impacted by this violence and are 50 percent more likely 
to experience child abuse and sexual abuse than white children. The 
complicated jurisdictional framework at play in Indian country and 
Alaska continues to undermine safety for American Indian and Alaska 
Native victims of violence.
    Tribal Nations have been exercisingjurisdiction over non-Indian 
domestic violence offenders under VAWA 2013 for over 8 years. The 
Pascua Yaqui Tribe is one of the first three pilot tribes to implement 
VAWA's Special Domestic Violence Criminal Jurisdiction (SDVCJ). 
Exercising Tribal Nations have held serial offenders accountable and 
have brought justice and safety to hundreds of victims and their 
families while upholding the due process rights of all defendants in 
tribal courts. Despite these successes, as outlined below, perpetrators 
still find gaps in the law. Victims of sexual violence, child abuse, 
stalking, trafficking, elder abuse, and assaults against law 
enforcement officers deserve the same protections that Congress affords 
to domestic violence victims on tribal lands in VAWA 2013.
    It is particularly important that the final bipartisan VAWA bill 
recognizes that Indian children are equally in need of the protections 
that were extended to adult domestic violence victims in VAWA 2013. The 
Tribal Nations implementing VAWA 2013 report that children have been 
involved as victims or witnesses in their cases nearly 60 percent of 
the time. However, federal law failed to restore tribal jurisdiction to 
prosecute these crimes. The Title IX discussion draft language would 
restore this category of jurisdiction and allow us to protect our 
Indian children in our tribal justice systems.
    We ask that the Title IX discussion draft be amended to include 
crimes against elders, which was a category of restored jurisdiction 
included in the House bill, H.R. 1620, but not the bipartisan Senate 
Committee on Indian Affairs discussion draft. Indian elders are an 
integral part of our tribal communities to whom we owe respect and 
care. Indian elders carry our cultures and traditions, and we must 
ensure that they are not left behind in this reauthorization of VAWA.
    We also appreciate that the Title IX discussion draft recognizes 
that VAWA 2013 inadvertently left our tribal police officers and 
detention personnel at risk. Domestic violence cases are both the most 
common and the most dangerous calls that law enforcement receives. 
Several Tribal Nations have reported assaults on their officers or 
bailiffs committed by non-Indian defendants, but as of now, Tribal 
Nations remain unable to prosecute these crimes as assaults on law 
enforcement was not a restored category of jurisdiction in VAWA 2013. 
This creates an obvious public safety concern. In order to ensure that 
the Title IX discussion draft fully rectifies this issue, we strongly 
recommend amending the limiting draft language on page ten related to 
``covered crime,'' and instead include language that fully covers all 
assaults of tribal justice personnel and not mention anything related 
to a ``covered crime.''
    Section 904 provides a local solution for the local problem of 
criminal victimization in Indian country. We are pleased to see that 
the bipartisan Title IX discussion draft continues to build on VAWA's 
promise and includes key priorities that have been identified by Tribal 
Nations to further enhance safety for victims in tribal communities.
    The Title IX discussion draft clarifies that Tribal Nations in 
Maine are included in the law and creates a pilot project to address 
the unique needs in Alaska. We fully support the inclusion of all 
Tribal Nations in VAWA. Alaska Native women are over-represented among 
domestic violence victims in Alaska by 250 percent and make up 47 
percent of reported rape victims in the state, yet 1 in 3 rural Alaskan 
communities have no law enforcement presence. The Title IX discussion 
draft includes a pilot project that will enable a limited number of 
Tribal Nations in Alaska to exercise special tribal criminal 
jurisdiction over certain crimes that occur in Alaska villages.
    In addition to the lifesaving provisions outlined above, the 
bipartisan Title IX discussion draft creates a reimbursement program 
under which the Attorney General may reimburse Tribal Nations for 
expenses incurred in exercising special tribal criminal jurisdiction. 
We would ask that that reimbursement program language be expanded to 
include reimbursements for trial and appellate courts (including 
facilities maintenance, renovation, and rehabilitation.) Additionally, 
the time for the Attorney General to develop regulations for the 
program should be shortened from within one year to within six months 
after the effective date to ensure that this important program is 
implemented quickly to address the urgent need in Indian Country.
    These are urgent needs because the first responsibility of any 
government, tribal or otherwise, is the safety and protection of its 
people. Protecting victims of violent crime, domestic violence, and 
sexual assault is about justice and safety, and it is also about 
fairness, equity, and dignity. Violent behavior against intimate 
partners or vulnerable family members by tribal citizens or non-Indians 
and missing and murdered family members are matters that can no longer 
tolerated. It is time to intensify our shared efforts to prevent and 
combat domestic violence, particularly against American Indian and 
Alaska Native women and ensure that all cases of domestic violence are 
investigated, perpetrators prosecuted, and victims provided with 
appropriate remedies. We must guarantee the right, in law and practice, 
to access to justice. Jurisdictions lacking proper resources, 
coordination, communication, and accountability is the primary reason 
for victims being neglected, criminals escaping punishment, and for the 
human rights crisis of Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women, and Girls 
(MMIWG).
    Congress should continue to work with the Biden Administration to 
reauthorize and amend VAWA to fully restore tribal inherent criminal 
and civil jurisdiction, through a full ``Oliphant-Fix,'' and should 
support and reaffirm tribal civil and criminal jurisdiction over all 
wrongdoers, for all federally recognized Indian tribes that wish to 
exercise such jurisdiction. Recently, the Supreme Court in US. v. 
Cooley, re-affirmed the constitutional authority of Congress to restore 
the Tribal jurisdiction that Oliphant previously erased, concluding 
that ``[i]n all cases, tribal authority remains subject to the plenary 
authority of Congress.'' \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ United States v. Cooley, 141 S. Ct. 1638 (2021); See also, 
McGirt v. Oklahoma, 140 S. Ct. 2452 (2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Currently, SDVCJ under VAWA 2013 is limited to only crimes of 
domestic violence, dating violence, or violations of an order of 
protection committed in Indian Country, where the defendant is a spouse 
or intimate partner of a tribal member. VAWA does not permit tribal 
prosecutions unless the defendant has ``sufficient ties to the Indian 
tribe,'' meaning he/she must either reside in the Indian country of the 
prosecuting tribe, be employed in the Indian country of the prosecuting 
tribe or be the spouse or intimate partner of a member of the 
prosecuting tribe. The proposed VAWA Reauthorization will certainly 
help address some of the gaps to cover children and other ancillary 
crimes a VAWA defendant may commit. However, now that tribes are 
required to guarantee all aspects of due process that states do, there 
is no longer any reason why additional restoration of inherent criminal 
and civil jurisdiction of tribal courts should be delayed. Full 
restoration would help ensure fairness, safeguard tribal communities, 
and help clear up long standing jurisdictional problems.
    In 1978, the Supreme Court upheld a decision in Oliphant v. 
Suquamish Tribe (1978) that effectively removed tribal authority to 
prosecute non-Indian criminal offenders. \2\ This Supreme Court 
decision has had a wide range of negative impacts on tribal 
communities, especially concerning community safety and health. 
According to Oliphant, the task of prosecuting non-Indians for crimes 
committed within reservations belonged to the state or federal 
government. However, the state and federal governments lack the time 
and resources to properly prosecute crimes. Problems tied to 
jurisdiction since Oliphant led to an inadequate legal response to 
crimes, allowing violence against women and judicial and health 
inequities to fester uncontrolled in Indian Country for decades. Tribes 
were unable to fully address crimes committed by non-Indians, in 
particular domestic violence, and inaction by the state and federal 
governments have left victims of crime without justice. \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ Oliphant v. Suquamish Indian Tribe, 435 U.S. 191 (1978).
    \3\ Prior to the 2013 reauthorization of VAWA, the federal 
government declined to prosecute 75 percent of violent crimes reported 
in Indian Country--67 percent of intimate partner violence (IPV) crimes 
were crimes of sexual violence (Amnesty International, 2010). This lack 
of justice and health equity led to underreporting from American Indian 
women. Additionally, women who did decide to report were left in a 
vulnerable state because of the lack of repercussions for crimes 
related to IPV. Three distinct, yet interrelated, issues arose from 
Oliphant led to the inequities described, including lack of federal 
action to address violence by non-Indians on reservations, another is 
impunity or lack of deterrence for abusers, and the third is lack of 
protection, remedy, and justice for victims. The Oliphant v. Suquamish 
decision created a gaping hole in jurisdiction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On March 7, 2013, President Obama signed into law the Violence 
Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2013. \4\ Title IX of VAWA 2013, 
entitled ``Safety for Indian Women,'' contains section 904 (Tribal 
Jurisdiction over Crimes of Domestic Violence) and section 908 (Pilot 
Project). \5\ It included the SDVCJ provision that provides tribes with 
limited jurisdiction over nonIndian perpetrators of crimes of domestic 
violence, dating violence, and violations of protection orders. The 
purpose of the law was to decrease domestic violence in Indian Country, 
strengthen the capacity of Indian tribes to exercise their inherent and 
restored sovereign power to administer justice and control crime, and 
to ensure that perpetrators of domestic violence are held accountable 
for their criminal behavior. \6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ Public Law 113--4, 127 Stat. 54 (2013); see Remarks on Signing 
the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2013, 2013 Daily 
Comp. Pres. Docs. 139 (Mar. 7, 2013).
    \5\ Section 908(b)(l) provided that tribes generally cannot 
exercise Special Domestic Violence Criminal Jurisdiction (SDVCJ) until 
at least two years after the date ofVAWA 2013's enactment-that is, on 
or after March 7, 2015. However, section 908(b)(2) established a 
``Pilot Project'' that authorized the Attorney General, in the exercise 
of his discretion, to grant a tribe's request to be designated as a 
``participating tribe'' on an accelerated basis and to commence 
exercising SDVCJ on a date (prior to March 7, 2015) set by the Attorney 
General, after coordinating with the Secretary of the Interior, 
consulting with participating tribes, and concluding that the tribe's 
criminal justice system has adequate safeguards in place to protect 
defendants' rights under the Indian Civil Rights Act of 1968, as 
amended by VAWA 2013. Under VAWA SDVCJ authority a tribe must protect 
the rights of defendants under the Indian Civil Rights Act of 1968, 
including the right to due process, which requires including a fair 
cross-section of the community injury pools which does not 
systematically exclude non-Indians. Further, the due process rights 
also require informing defendants detained by a tribal court of their 
right to file federal habeas corpus petitions.
    \6\ See S. Rep. No. 112-153, at 8-11, 32 (2012); see also S. 1763, 
112th Cong., at 1-2 (as reported by the S. Comm. on Indian Affairs, 
Dec. 27, 2012) (title listing bill's purposes); H.R. 757, 113th Cong., 
at 1 (2013) (same).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Three initial tribes, including the Pascua Yaqui Tribe (PYT) in 
Arizona, were selected and certified by the Department of Justice to 
pilot the implementation of VAWA 2013's SDVCJ. \7\ The passing of VAWA 
2013 was a success that is celebrated to this day and implementation of 
VAWA 2013, coupled with the tools of the ``Tribal Law & Order Act of 
2010'' (TLOA), is having a positive impact in Indian Country. Recent 
VAWA and TLOA restored authority provided measured tools that foster 
longstanding policies of tribal self-determination and tribal self-
governance. It is wholly consistent with the federal government's trust 
responsibility and the policy pendulum swing towards autonomy, economic 
self-sufficiency, and the protection and preservation of Native 
American land and culture.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\ Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation; Pascua 
Yaqui Tribe; and The Tulalip Tribe. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/
pkg/FR-2014-02-12/pdf/2014-03023.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    As one of the first tribes to implement VAWA SDVCJ, the PYT has 
conducted 101 investigations of domestic violence perpetrated by 64 
non-Indian defendants (57 male, 7 female). There have been 80 cases 
charged in the Pascua Yaqui Tribal Court, resulting in 37 convictions. 
\8\ Intrinsic case-related data has been collected and reported but 
data on the health impacts experienced by victims, their families, and 
the community have not been collected. Our experience tells us that 
with VAWA, we have a long-term solution that is tied directly to tribal 
historic authority of protecting our people. Tribes know best about 
what policies and enforcement strategies work in tribal communities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\ In part, as a result of the legal analysis of ``domestic 
violence'' in the United State Supreme Court decision in US. v. 
Castleman, a total of 32 cases were dismissed and 21 were declined for 
evidentiary reasons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The domestic violence cases investigated and prosecuted by the 
Pascua Yaqui Tribe are significant, because they highlight crimes that 
were never prosecuted before the implementation of VAWA 2013's SDVCJ. 
They are not intra-racial crimes; they are crimes committed by non-
Native perpetrators and the cases provide evidence of a serious 
jurisdictional gap that still exists in Arizona and across Indian 
Country. The Tribe is excited and committed to collaborating with its 
state and federal partners to ensure the public safety of its community 
through restored jurisdiction. SDVCJ is a positive step forward to 
ensuring the safety of community and is necessary to ensure that there 
are no safe havens for criminals.
    We have learned that the tribal provisions of VAWA 2013, provide a 
mechanism for Tribes to afford the victims of domestic violence the 
maximum protection that the law currently provides. The safety of 
victims of domestic violence and drug and alcohol related crimes became 
easier to address through the increased intervention of Tribal law 
enforcement, Tribal Special Assistant U.S. Attorneys (SAUSA), and 
support from federal investigative partners and U.S. Attorney Tribal 
Liaisons. Systemic disparate treatment and inherent structural bias for 
Indian Country victims and communities has begun to be adjusted and is 
now fairer and more just within Indian communities.
    We have also learned that the rightful starting place to reverse 
historical jurisdictional problems and injustices in Indian Country is 
strong tribal court systems. Although the historical and legal 
responsibility to prosecute major crimes has fallen to the federal 
government since 1885, prior to that time, Indian tribes largely 
maintained their own traditional criminal and civil mechanisms in 
Indian Country. Tribes are in the best position to close jurisdictional 
gaps and remove safe havens for lawbreakers. Criminal investigations 
occur at the local level. Local government is the best government to 
prosecute cases to protect Indian Country's mothers, fathers, 
daughters, sons, sisters, brothers, aunts, uncles and grandparents.
    Additionally, VAWA Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) funded training, 
hosted by implementing Tribes have informed State, Tribal, and Federal 
courts, helping to increase regional cooperation and coordination among 
jurisdictions. \9\ Intimate partner violence is a crossjurisdictional 
matter, the prosecution of non-Indian domestic violence offenders by 
Tribal courts requires the sharing of offender criminal history 
information, orders of protection, gun prohibitions pursuant to the 
Brady Act, \10\ warrants, and information about offenders being 
monitored on pretrial release or who have been convicted and are 
serving a term of tribal probation in the surrounding counties or 
municipalities. The sharing of crime information is being enhanced by 
the implementation of the Department of Justice, Tribal Access Program 
(TAP) by VAWA SDVCJ Implementing Tribes. \11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \9\ 25 U.S.C. 3612(c)( 4)(2000). The Tribal Justice Support 
Division of the Office of Justice Services, Bureau of Indian Affairs, 
is statutorily mandated to support and provide opportunities for 
coordination and corporation between Tribal and State Judiciary 
systems.
    \10\ The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993 (Brady Act) 
requires the use of the National Instant Criminal Background Check 
System (NICS) by federally licensed firearms dealers to determine 
whether a prospective firearm transfer to individuals applying to 
receive or possess firearms would violate state or federal law. The 
NICS is a computerized system designed to immediately make such a 
determination by conducting a search of available records. A NICS check 
searches by name and descriptive data for matching records in three 
databases, the NCIC which contains information on wanted persons and 
protection orders, the Interstate Identification Index (III) which 
contains criminal history records, and the NICS Indices which contains 
the names of prohibited persons as defined in the Brady Act. The NICS 
Indices contains information that may not be available in the NCIC or 
the III of persons prohibited from receiving firearms under federal or 
state law. The NCIC's Protection Order File (POF) was established in 
accordance with the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), and in support 
of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act which permits 
information from the NCIC databases, including protection orders, to be 
disseminated to civil and criminal courts for use in domestic violence 
and stalking cases. The VAWA also authorizes state and federal criminal 
justice agencies to enter information into the POF for the purpose of 
protecting persons from domestic violence and stalking. Additionally, 
the VAWA amended the Gun Control Act of 1968, making it unlawful for 
any person who is subject to a qualifying protection order to ship, 
transport, possess, or receive any firearm.
    \11\ Available at https://www.justice.gov/tribal/tribal-access-
program-tap, last visited December 21, 2021. Due to structural 
obstacles, most Tribes are still unable to upload or share data on 
MMIWG, Missing Persons, Violent offenders, Orders of Protection, or 
Domestic Violence court orders/convictions. Tribes need registration/
data systems, policies, technical infrastructure, training, procedures, 
and necessary laws or codes to facilitate prosecutions, investigations, 
reporting, and submissions to NCIC/NSOR for aggregate data collection 
and/or publishing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The training provides an overview of the Violence Against Women Act 
(VAWA), to help with successful implementation and address violent 
crime generally, promote working relationships with state and federal 
partners, and provides guidance on issues related to victims of crime 
and the enforcement of orders of protection. Information sharing 
between tribal judicial systems and state judicial systems is 
imperative for the proper function of courts operating in a cross-
jurisdictional environment. In Arizona, where tribal jurisdiction is 
often challenging, TribalState Court collaboration has shown to be a 
promising strategy utilized to reduce jurisdictional conflict, build 
relationships, and provide cross-jurisdictional education and 
resources.
Pascua Yaqui VAWA Implementation
    On March 7, 2013, VAWA 2013 was signed into law by President Obama. 
On June 26, 2013, the U.S. Attorney for the District of Arizona, John 
Leonardo, visited the Pascua Yaqui Tribe and toured the tribal court 
facility. The Tribe expressed an interest in the implementation of 
Special Domestic Violence Criminal Jurisdiction. On July 09, 2013, the 
Tribal Chairman submitted a letter to the Department of Justice's, Mr. 
Tracy Toulou, as a preliminary expression of interest in exercising 
SDVCJ and asked to be designated as a participating Tribe. On July 15, 
2013, the Pascua Yaqui Tribe was one of approximately 27 federally 
recognized Indian tribes that timely sent ``preliminary expressions of 
interest'' in participating in the Pilot Project. By doing so, tribes 
expressed an interest in participating in both Phase One and Phase Two 
of the Pilot Project.
    The Department of Justice launched the Intertribal Technical-
Assistance Working Group on Special Domestic Violence Criminal 
Jurisdiction (ITWG), as part of Phase One of the Pilot Project. The 
ITWG is a voluntary working group of designated tribal representatives 
who exchange views, information, and advice, peer-to-peer, about how 
tribes may best exercise SDVCJ, combat domestic violence, recognize 
victims' rights and safety needs, and safeguard defendants' rights. 
Since the launch tribal representatives continue to participate in a 
series of teleconferences, participated as panelists, and participated 
in ITWG in-person meetings.
    On December 30, 2013, the Tribe submitted an extensive application 
to the DOJ to be designated a Pilot Tribe and to start exercising SDVCJ 
(Phase II). \12\ On February 6, 2014, the Tribe received official 
notice that the Tribe was designated a participating Pilot Tribe 
authorized to exercise SDVCJ. \13\ The Pascua Yaqui Tribe SDVCJ Pilot 
status story was picked up and released locally, statewide, and 
nationally, via press release by the White House. \14\ On February 12, 
2014, VAWA Pilot information was posted for notice in the Federal 
Register by the Department of Justice. \15\ Official Tribal notice was 
sent out via global e-mail to all tribal government and casino 
enterprise employees, as well as being posted on the official Pascua 
Yaqui Tribal Internet site on February 6th, 2014. On February 10th, 
2014, the Arizona Daily Star ran a front-page story that circulated to 
238,000 readers in Southern Arizona, including the City of Tucson. The 
story was also posted on their online news site. The online AZSTARNET 
has a reach of 1 million independent views per month and has 
approximately 12 million page views per month. \16\ The Pascua Yaqui 
press release was shared online through a leading Internet Indian 
Country legal news blog called ``Turtle Talk,'' it was posted on 
February 7, 2014. \17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \12\ Available at https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/
tribal/legacy/2014/02/06/appl-guestionnaire-pascuayagui.pdf. Last 
visited December 21, 2021.
    \13\ Available at http://www.justice.gov/tribal/docs/letter-to-
pascua-yagui.pdf. Last visited December 21, 2021.
    \14\ Available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2014/02/06/moving-
forward-protect-native-american-women-justicedepartment-announces-vawa-
2013-, last visited December 21, 2021, Department of Justice (Attorney 
General)  http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2014/February/14-ag-126.html, 
the U.S. Attorney for the District of Arizona, http://www.justice.gov/
usao/az/pressreleases/2014/PR02062014Vawa.html
    \15\ Fed. Reg. Volume 79, Number 29 (Wednesday, February 12, 
2014)][Notices][Pages 8487-8488] Federal Register Online via the 
Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov] [FR Doc No: 2014-03023] http:/
/regulations.justia.com/regulations/fedreg/2014/02/l2/2014-03023.html 
See also 78 Fed. Reg. 71645 (Nov. 29, 2013)
    \16\ Available at http://azstarnet.com/news/local/pascua-yagui-
gain-added-power-to-prosecute-some-non-indians/aiticle34l7ac6ec683-
50d4-9a55-cc386524c468.html. Last visited December 21, 2021.
    \17\ Available at http://turtletalk.wordpress.com/2014/02/07/
pascua-yagui-press-release-re-vawa-pilot-program-selection/. Last 
visited December 21, 2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On February 20, 2014, the Pascua Yaqui Tribe was one of three 
Tribes to begin exerc1smg Special Domestic Violence Criminal 
Jurisdiction over non-Indian perpetrators of domestic violence. \18\ On 
July 2, 2014, for the first time since 1978 when the U.S. Supreme Court 
stripped tribal governments of their criminal authority over non-
Indians, the Pascua Yaqui Tribe obtained the first conviction of a non-
Indian, a twenty-six-year-old Hispanic male, for the crime of domestic 
violence assault committed on the Pascua Yaqui Reservation. On May 9, 
2017, the Pascua Yaqui Tribe's Tribal Court was the location of the 
first jury trial conviction of a non-Indian defendant under VAWA. Frank 
Jaimez was the first non-Indian defendant to be convicted by a jury in 
tribal court for a tribal charge of domestic violence. This was the 
first non-Indian defendant jury trial conviction in a tribal court in 
40 years due to VAWA 2013's SDVCJ. The 19-year-old Hispanic male was 
convicted of committing an act of domestic violence against his wife, 
an enrolled Yaqui tribal member.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \18\ The Pascua Yaqui Tribe has a modem, professional and highly 
functional criminal justice system with the following services 
available: Tribal Courts, Appellate Courts, pre-trial services, 
probation, prosecution and a public defender's office, as well as 
police, detention and victim services. The system is very responsive to 
public safety needs as well as affording offenders all the protections 
of due process. The Tribal Court has one Chief Judge and two associate 
judges. The Appellate Court has one Chief Justice. The Prosecutor's 
Office has one Chief Prosecutor, four Deputy Prosecutors, and four lay 
Advocates. The Public Defender's Office is composed of one Chief Public 
Defender, three attorneys, and one lay advocate. In addition, the Tribe 
contracts with outside attorneys as needed for conflict counsel. The 
Probation Department has one Chief Probation Officer and three 
probation officers. The Probation caseload monitors both adult 
probationers and juvenile probationers. Despite the existing tribal 
justice infrastructure, there is broad community support for developing 
a more collaborative, problem-solving approach and more alternatives to 
incarceration. In 1978, the Tribe was originally subject to Arizona 
State jurisdiction under 25 U.S.C.  1300f(c) and PL280. In 1985, the 
State of Arizona retroceded criminal & civil jurisdiction. Between 1985 
and 1988, the Department of Interior operated the Pascua Yaqui tribal 
court system through a ``Court of Indian Offenses,'' a ``CFR'' Court 
operated by the Bureau of Indian Affairs, (B.I.A.). In 1988, the Tribe 
took over the Tribal Court from the B.I.A. through a 638 contract. In 
1991, the Tribe hired three Tribal police officers who served alongside 
the B.I.A. officers. In 1998, The Tribe signed a 638 agreement with the 
B.I.A. to direct its own law enforcement services. In 1997, the Tribe 
started the Pascua Yaqui Victim Services program. Currently, the Tribe 
employs nineteen uniformed patrol officers who are certified by Arizona 
P.O.S.T as State certified officers and most are federal Special Law 
Enforcement Commissioned (SLEC) certified officers. Three of the 
officers are Criminal Investigators. The Tribe also employs a number of 
victim advocates. The Tribe is also served by the Federal Bureau of 
Investigation (F.B.I.) (Phoenix Division), for assistance with major 
criminal investigations. In 1993, the Tribe entered into a User 
Agreement with the Arizona Department of Public Safety (DPS) for 
limited NCIC and ACJIS criminal information access. In 2005, the Tribe 
entered into an Intergovernmental Agreement with Pima County to 
participate in the Pima County Regional Special Weapons and Tactics 
(SWAT) Team program for police SWAT services. In 2006, the Tribe 
approved an Intergovernmental Agreement with Arizona DPS for crime 
laboratory services for the purpose of examining and processing 
evidence collected during criminal investigations. In 2009, the Tribe 
entered into an Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) with the Pima County 
Sheriffs Department for participation in the Spillman Records 
Management System and Computer Aided Dispatch System in order to 
enhance their limited access to ACJIS, NCIC, ALETS, NLETS, and MVD 
databases. In 2010, the Tribe entered into an IGA with Pima County to 
take part in the Pima County Wireless Integrated Network (PCWIN). PCWIN 
provides improved public emergency services and regionally coordinated 
mutual aid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Since implementation, the Pascua Yaqui Tribe has investigated over 
100 cases and formally charged over 80 cases involving non-Indian males 
and non-Indian females, mostly from the State of Arizona, who were 
involved in dozens of reported domestic violence crimes. It is 
important to note that prior to VAWA 2013, these are cases that were 
historically being ignored or declined by federal authorities.
    The Pascua Yaqui Tribe has had significant success holding non-
tribal Domestic Violent offenders accountable for offenses committed on 
the reservation. The 100+ investigations have been perpetrated by 64 
defendants, and of these defendants, there have been at least 34 
instances of them committing subsequent offenses after their first 
arrest. At least one of these repeat offenders had been previously 
prosecuted federally. The cases include violent injuries such as hair 
dragging, strangulation, bruising, closed fist strikes to the face, and 
throwing fire. The violent actions of non-Indian and violent major 
crime offenders are not traditional, they are not cultural, and they 
are not the norm for the community. Tribes know best about what 
policies and enforcement strategies work in tribal communities, and so 
giving tribes greater jurisdiction allows them to continue their duty 
of protecting their people and community.
    One continued frustration about the current legislation that the 
newly proposed language aims to address is the Tribe's inability to 
charge non-Indians for acts of domestic violence where the victim is a 
child or elder (grandparent). Given the Pascua Yaqui tribe's 
multigenerational household demographics, this is a large and 
significant gap in the law for this tribe and certainly many others. 
There have been approximately 32 children present during the acts of 
domestic violence at Pascua Yaqui. These children range in age from 
infant to 11 years old. Some of them have been witnesses to domestic 
violence, the reporting party of the domestic violence act(s), and 
victims themselves. This gap in jurisdiction prevents the Tribe from 
protecting the most vulnerable and impressionable of their people, 
children, and take the necessary steps to stop the cycle of trauma.
    Other typical situations of domestic violence give rise to 
circumstances which would otherwise be chargeable crimes, had the 
perpetrator been tribal or if the crime occurred off the reservation 
and the State handled the prosecution. Increasing jurisdiction for 
tribes could serve to correct injustices, such as:

 A non-tribal offender was arrested for domestic violence, but 
        there was a secondary victim present, i.e., the sister of the 
        original victim. The Tribe was unable to issue any charges 
        relating to the victimization of the sister due to lack of 
        jurisdiction.

 The Tribe also lacked jurisdiction in a case where the 
        Defendant, who was on probation for a VAWA-related offense, 
        violated the terms and conditions of his probation specifically 
        prohibiting his possession and/or use of narcotic drugs. There 
        were no allegations that the Defendant committed any new 
        domestic violence related offenses against a tribal member. The 
        case was ultimately declined as the Defendant's possession/use 
        of narcotic drugs did not fall within in the limited scope of 
        SDVCJ jurisdiction, even as a probation violation.

 In another case, during the pendency of a VAWA investigation, 
        the victim had a new boyfriend who is a tribal officer, and the 
        Defendant made threats against him. However, the Tribe could 
        not charge the threats against the new boyfriend, even though 
        he is a Tribal officer, due to lack of jurisdiction.

 In other cases, in which there was probable cause for DY-
        disorderly conduct offense, but not physical violence, the 
        Tribe could not prosecute, as this presented a Castleman issue.

    Thus, all these cases could not be charged. This does not mean 
there is no domestic violence occurring in the home, but that the Tribe 
is limited in its response to the domestic violence and other violence 
as a result of the limited legislation and this public safety problem 
requires a legislative fix.
    The Pascua Yaqui Tribe's criminal justice system is proving to be 
on par with any other jurisdictions. The Tribe has held 3 jury trials, 
with a mixed pool of jurors. The trials resulted in both a conviction 
and acquittals, thus demonstrating that the Tribe has the ability to 
safeguard due process rights for Defendants. The Tribe is committed to 
collaborating with its state and federal partners to keep the safety of 
its community and expand jurisdiction. While VAWA-SDVCJ was a positive 
step forward to ensure that there are no safe havens for criminals, 
additional jurisdiction is needed and the proposed language in Title IX 
is a necessary positive step. The Pascua Yaqui Tribe has demonstrated 
that the Tribe can successfully arrest, investigate, detain, sentence, 
and hold a fair trial for any accused. There is no reason to continue 
to limit Indian Country or the Pascua Yaqui Tribe's ability to protect 
the people in their communities from non-Indian offenders. We look 
forward to being able to enhance our public safety response with the 
jurisdiction expansions in the proposed Title IX legislation.
    We fully support the purpose of Title IX, which is to strengthen 
tribal sovereignty and reaffirm tribal jurisdiction over non-Indian 
perpetrators. We also support providing additional resources to address 
violence against all Native women.
    We urge all members qf the Senate Committee on Indian affairs to 
support the provisions included in the bipartisan Title IX discussion 
draft and to become a co-sponsor of the full bipartisan Senate VAWA 
bill that incorporates all of the discussion draft provisions and our 
recommended changes.

        Sincerely,
                                  Peter Yucupicio, Chairman
                                 ______
                                 
               Sac and Fox Tribe of the Mississippi in Iowa
Dear Chair Schatz and Vice-Chair Murkowski:

    I write on behalf of the Sac and Fox Tribe of the Mississippi in 
Iowa to support the bipartisan Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) Title 
IX--SAFETY FOR INDIAN WOMEN discussion draft which includes important 
provisions that will improve safety and justice in tribal communities. 
As a Tribe implementing VAWA 2013 Tribal jurisdiction, I can attest 
that these proposed changes in the law are impo11ant to making tribal 
communities safer.
    As the Conunittee has well-documented, Tribal communities continue 
to suffer from the highest crime victimization rates in the country, 
and the reforms included in the bipartisan Title IX discussion draft 
are desperately needed today. A 20 I 6 report by the National Institute 
of Justice fow1d that over 80 percent of American Indians and Alaska 
Natives will be a victim of intimate partner violence, sexual violence, 
or stalking in their lifetime. The study also found that 90 percent of 
these victims were victimized by a non-Indian perpetrator. Sadly, 
Indian children are particularly impacted by this violence and are 50 
percent more likely to experience child abuse and sexual abuse than 
white children. The complicated jurisdictional framework at play in 
Indian country and Alaska continues to undermine safety for American 
Indian and Alaska Native victims of violence. Thus, clarifying that a 
Tribe's expanded jurisdiction includes these crimes is vital.
    We are also so appreciative that your draft legislation recognizes 
that Indian children are equally in need of the same protections that 
were extended to adult domestic violence victims in VAWA 2013. The 
Tribal Nations implementing VAWA 2013 report that children have been 
involved as victims or witnesses in their cases nearly 60 percent of 
the time. We ask that the Title IX discussion draft include the 
provision from the House bill, H.R. 1620, to include crimes against 
elders. Elders are an integral part of our tribal communities to whom 
we owe respect and care. We are also hopeful that the measure will 
include the VAWA Reauthorization with Key provisions that recognize 
Tribes' inherent jurisdiction over all crimes against law enforcement, 
detention, and court personnel--not only those that are deemed 
``covered crimes''.
    We also suppo11 the new grant program to reimburse Tribal Nations 
for expenses incurred in exercising special tribal criminal 
jurisdiction and the extension of the Bureau of Prisons program first 
authorized in the Tribal Law Order Act. Finally, we support the 
expanded tribal access to the National Crime Information Database. This 
is important to addressing the plague of missing and murdered 
indigenous women in America.
    Please let me know if there is anything I can do, as the Chairman 
of the Sac and Fox Tribe of the Mississippi in Iowa, to suppo11 your 
efforts. Again, we appreciate your leadership in drafting this 
important measure and look forward to working with you in the New Year.

        Sincerely,
                                   Vern Jefferson, Chairman
                                 ______
                                 
                          Northern Arapaho Business Council
                                                  December 22, 2021
Dear Senator Schatz, Senator Murkowski, and all members of the Senate 
Committee on Indian Affairs: I write on behalf of the Northern Arapaho 
Tribe to support the bipartisan Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) Title 
IX--SAFETY FOR INDIAN WOMEN discussion draft released on December 8, 
2021, which includes important provisions that will improve safety and 
justice in tribal communities. Tribal communities continue to suffer 
from the highest crime victimization rates in the country, and the 
reforms included in the bipartisan Title IX discussion draft are 
desperately needed today.
    A 2016 report by the National Institute of Justice found that over 
80 percent of American Indians and Alaska Natives will be a victim of 
intimate partner violence, sexual violence, or stalking in their 
lifetime. The study also found that 90 percent of these victims were 
victimized by a non-Indian perpetrator. Sadly, Indian children are 
particularly impacted by this violence and are 50 percent more likely 
to experience child abuse and sexual abuse than white children. The 
complicated jurisdictional framework at play in Indian country and 
Alaska continues to undermine safety for American Indian and Alaska 
Native victims of violence.
    Tribal Nations have been exercising jurisdiction over non-Indian 
domestic violence offenders under VAWA 2013 for over 8 years. 
Exercising Tribal Nations have held serial offenders accountable and 
have brought justice and safety to hundreds of victims and their 
families while upholding the due process rights of all defendants in 
tribal courts. Despite these successes, perpetrators still find gaps in 
the law. Victims of sexual violence, child abuse, stalking, 
trafficking, elder abuse, and assaults against law enforcement officers 
deserve the same protections that Congress affords to domestic violence 
victims on tribal lands in VAWA 2013.
    It is particularly important that the final bipartisan VAWA bill 
recognizes that Indian children are equally in need of the protections 
that were extended to adult domestic violence victims in VAWA 2013. The 
Tribal Nations implementing VAWA 2013 report that children have been 
involved as victims or witnesses in their cases nearly 60 percent of 
the time. However, federal law failed to restore tribal jurisdiction to 
prosecute these crimes. The Title IX discussion draft 2 language would 
restore this category of jurisdiction and allow us to protect our 
Indian children in our tribal justice systems.
    We ask that the Title IX discussion draft be amended to include 
crimes against elders, which was a category of restored jurisdiction 
included in the House bill, H.R. 1620, but not the bipartisan Senate 
Committee on Indian Affairs discussion draft. Indian elders are an 
integral part of our tribal communities to whom we owe respect and 
care. Indian elders carry our cultures and traditions, and we must 
ensure that they are not left behind in this reauthorization of VAWA.
    We also appreciate that the Title IX discussion draft recognizes 
that VAWA 2013 inadvertently left our tribal police officers and 
detention personnel at risk. Domestic violence cases are both the most 
common and the most dangerous calls that law enforcement receives. 
Several Tribal Nations have reported assaults on their officers or 
bailiffs committed by non-Indian defendants, but as of now, Tribal 
Nations remain unable to prosecute these crimes as assaults on law 
enforcement was not a restored category of jurisdiction in VAWA 2013. 
This creates an obvious public safety concern. In order to ensure that 
the Title IX discussion draft fully rectifies this issue, we strongly 
recommend amending the draft language on page ten to remove the 
requirement that the assault must be tied to a ``covered crime.'' 
Requiring that the assault of the tribal justice personnel be tied to a 
``covered crime'' may require the Tribal Nation to first prove the 
underlying covered crime before they could prosecute for the assault, 
which does not fully fix the public safety concern of police officers 
or detention personnel. This creates significant confusion that likely 
would have to be worked out in the courts. We ask that the language 
fully cover all assaults of tribal justice personnel and not mention 
anything related to a ``covered crime.''
    Section 904 provides a local solution for the local problem of 
criminal victimization in Indian country. We are pleased to see that 
the bipartisan Title IX discussion draft continues to build on VAWA's 
promise and includes key priorities that have been identified by Tribal 
Nations to further enhance safety for victims in tribal communities.
    The Title IX discussion draft clarifies that Tribal Nations in 
Maine are included in the law and creates a pilot project to address 
the unique needs in Alaska. We fully support the inclusion of all 
Tribal Nations in VAWA. Alaska Native women are over-represented among 
domestic violence victims in Alaska by 250 percent and make up 47 
percent of reported rape victims in the state, yet 1 in 3 rural Alaskan 
communities have no law enforcement presence. The Title IX discussion 
draft includes a pilot project that will enable a limited number of 
Tribal Nations in Alaska to exercise special tribal criminal 
jurisdiction over certain crimes that occur in Alaska villages.
    In addition to the lifesaving provisions outlined above, the 
bipartisan Title IX discussion draft creates a reimbursement program 
under which the Attorney General may reimburse Tribal Nations for 
expenses incurred in exercising special tribal criminal jurisdiction. 
We would ask that that reimbursement program language be expanded to 
include reimbursements for trial and appellate courts (including 
facilities maintenance, renovation, and rehabilitation.) Additionally, 
the time for the Attorney General to develop regulations for the 
program should be shortened from within one year to within six months 
after the effective date to ensure that this important program is 
implemented quickly to address the urgent need in Indian Country. The 
Title XI discussion draft also allows Tribal Nations to utilize the 
Bureau of Prisons (BOP) to house defendants serving sentences of more 
than one year and increases Tribal Nations' access to the National 
Crime Information Database. Both of these additions to VAWA will go a 
long way towards ensuring Tribal Nations are able to implement this 
restored jurisdiction fully and most effectively.
    We fully support the purpose of Title IX, which is to strengthen 
tribal sovereignty and reaffirm tribal jurisdiction over non-Indian 
perpetrators. We also support providing additional resources to address 
violence against all Native women. However, the new language in the 
Section 901 Findings and Purposes, which adds Native Hawaiians, urban 
Indians communities, Native Americans, and Native American communities, 
jeopardizes the long-term enforcement of the law and detracts from the 
key purpose of Title IX. For those reasons we strongly recommend that 
all Native Hawaiian, urban Indian communities, Native American, and 
Native American communities language be removed from Section 901. The 
language in Section 901 should solely focus on American Indians, Alaska 
Natives, and Indian tribes in order to protect tribal sovereignty, 
which is consistent with the purpose of the Title IX.
    We urge all members of the Senate Committee on Indian affairs to 
support the provisions included in the bipartisan Title IX discussion 
draft and to become a co-sponsor of the full bipartisan Senate VAWA 
bill that incorporates all of the discussion draft provisions and our 
recommended changes.

        Sincerely,
                                   Jordan Dresser, Chairman
                                 ______
                                 
     Sacramento Native American Health Center, Inc. (SNAHC)
                                                  December 22, 2021
Dear Chairman Schatz and Vice Chairman Murkowski:

    Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on the Violence 
Against Women Act (VAWA) reauthorization discussion draft. On behalf of 
Sacramento Native American Health Center, Inc. (SNAHC) in Sacramento, 
California, we hereby submit our written comments and recommendations 
in response to the tribal title draft \1\ and larger bill. SNAHC is a 
non-profit 501 (c)(3) Federally Qualified Health Center located in 
Downtown Sacramento. SNAHC is community-owned and operated; a Board of 
Directors governs the center. SNAHC is committed to enhancing the 
quality of life by providing a culturally competent, holistic, and 
patient-centered continuum of care. SNAHC's dedicated team of highly 
trained clinicians offer a wide range of services, including adult 
medicine, pediatrics, behavioral health, laboratory, dental care, 
substance abuse services, wellness programs, nutrition, herbalism, and 
diabetes care.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Discussion draft of Title IX of VAWA: https://
www.indian.senate.gov/sites/default/files/KEN21B05.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comments
    Urban Indian Organizations (UIOs) like ours provide much more than 
just health services to American Indians and Alaska Natives including 
but not limited to the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for 
Women, Infants, and Children (WIC), housing services, social services, 
community advocacy, and other resources to victims of domestic 
violence. Many UIOs conduct home visits and are at the front-line to 
identify domestic violence and other risk factors for Missing and 
Murdered Indigenous People (MMIP). Urban Indian inclusion in VAWA is 
important to strengthen these critical services provided at UIOs for 
American Indians/Alaska Natives (AI/ANs), and the National Council of 
Urban Indian Health (NCUIH) has advocated for urban Indians to be added 
in the Senate draft bill. This is a huge accomplishment given that the 
House bill on VAWA (H.R. 1620) excluded UIOs and urban Indian 
communities.
    During the White House Tribal Nations Summit last month, President 
Biden signed an Executive Order (E.O.) \2\ on addressing the crisis of 
MMIP with UIO inclusion. The E.O. specifically mentions the Department 
of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the Secretary of the Interior 
conferring with UIOs on developing a comprehensive plan to support 
initiatives related to MMIP. NCUIH and UIOs support urban confer among 
federal agencies on policies that impact urban AI/ANs and have been 
working on an urban confer bill \3\ that recently passed the House 
(406-17) with overwhelming support. The E.O also highlights the need 
for improved data surrounding this crisis as it relates to urban Indian 
communities. NCUIH has, and continues to, advocate for gathering more 
data on AI/AN communities and Missing and Murdered Indigenous People. 
On July 2, 2021, NCUIH submitted comments to the Department of Justice 
on Savannah's Act requesting UIOs and urban Indians to be incorporated 
into improving data relevancy, access, and resources. We look forward 
to participating in that effort and we hope that VAWA will help us 
combat this epidemic in Indian country.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ Executive Order on Improving Public Safety and Criminal Justice 
for Native Americans and Addressing the Crisis of Missing or Murdered 
Indigenous People: https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/
presidential-actions/2021/11/15/executive-order-on-improving-public-
safety-and-criminal-justice-for-native-americans-and-addressing-the-
crisis-of-missing-or-murdered-indigenous-people/
    \3\ Urban Indian Health Confer Act: https://www.congress.gov/117/
meeting/house/114098/documents/BILLS-1175221ih.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    SNAHC would like to express appreciation for the inclusion of urban 
Indians in 11 locations of the Senate draft bill. We respectfully ask 
you retain the following provisions in the final Senate bill:

 Bill Amendment: SEC. 101. Stop Grants

        --Part T of title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe 
        Streets Act of 1968 (34 U.S.C. 10441 et seq.) is amended--

          --(25) paying any fees charged by any governmental authority 
        for furnishing a victim or the child of a victim with any of 
        the following documents:

 ``(B) An identification card issued to the individual by a 
        State or Tribe, that shows that the individual is a resident of 
        the State or a member of the Tribe.''; and

        --(B) in Subsection (d)--

          --i) in paragraph (1)-

          --II) in subparagraph (D), by inserting ``, urban Indian 
        communities, and Native Hawaiian communities'' after 
        ``assisting Indian tribes''; (ii) in paragraph (2)-

          --I) in subparagraph (A)(iii), by inserting ``, urban Indian 
        communities, and Native Hawaiian communities'' after ``provide 
        services to Indian tribes''; and

          --II) in subparagraph (B), by inserting ``, urban Indian 
        communities, and Native Hawaiian communities'' after ``in areas 
        where Indian tribes'';

 Bill Amendment: SEC. 105. Outreach and Services to Underserved 
        Population Grants.

        --Section 120 of the Violence Against Women and Department of 
        Justice Reauthorization Act of 2005 (34 U.S.C. 20123) is 
        amended--

          --(2) in subsection (b)(3), by inserting ``urban Indian, 
        Native Hawaiian,'' before ``or local organization'';

 Bill Amendment: SEC. 108. Enhancing Culturally Specific 
        Services for Victims of Domestic Violence, Dating Violence, 
        Sexual Assault, and Stalking

        --Section 121 of the Violence Against Women and Department of 
        Justice Reauthorization Act of 2005 (34 U.S.C. 20124) is 
        amended-

          --``(4) DISTRIBUTION.--Of the total amount available for 
        grants under this section, not less than 40 percent of such 
        funds shall be allocated for programs or projects that 
        meaningfully address non-intimate partner relationship sexual 
        assault.'';

 (3) in subsection (c)--

        --(A) in paragraph (1), by striking ``and'' at the end;

        --(B) in paragraph (2), by striking the period at the end and 
        inserting ``; and''; and

        --(C) by adding at the end the following:

          --``(3) tribal nonprofit organizations, Native Hawaiian 
        organizations, and urban Indian organizations.'';

 Bill Amendment: SEC. 110. Pilot Program on Restorative 
        Practices.

        --a) IN GENERAL.--The Violence Against Women Act of 1994 (title 
        IV of Public Law 103-322), as amended by section 205, is 
        further amended by adding at the end the following:

          --``Subtitle R-Restorative Practices

          --``SEC. 41801. PILOT PROGRAM ON RESTORATIVE PRACTICES.

 ``(a) DEFINITIONS.--In this section:

        --``(2) ELIGIBLE ENTITY.--The term `eligible entity' means-

          --A) a State;

          --B) a unit of local government;

          --C) a tribal government;

          --D) a tribal organization;

          --E) a victim service provider;

          --F) an institution of higher education (as defined in 
        section 101(a) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 
        1001(a)); and

          --G) a private or public nonprofit organization, including

          --(i) a tribal nonprofit organization; and

          --ii) a faith-based nonprofit organization.

 Bill Amendment: SEC. 302. Creating Hope through Outreach, 
        Options, Services, and Education (CHOOSE) for Children and 
        Youth

        --Section 41201 of the Violence Against Women Act of 1994 (34 
        U.S.C. 12451) is amended--

          --2) in subsection (c)--

 (A) in paragraph (1)(A)--

        --(ii) by inserting ``Native Hawaiian organization, urban 
        Indian organization,''

    before ``or population-specific community-based organization''; and

 Bill Amendment: SEC. 506. Expanding Access to Unified Care.

        --(f) Authorization of Appropriations.--

          --2) Set-Aside.--Of the amount appropriated under this 
        subsection for a fiscal year, the Secretary shall reserve 15 
        percent of such amount for purposes of making grants to 
        entities that are affiliated with Indian Tribes or Tribal 
        organizations (as defined in section 4 of the Indian Self-
        Determination and Education Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 5304)), 
        or Urban Indian organizations (as defined in section 4 of the 
        Indian Health Care Improvement Act (25 U.S.C.1603)). Amounts 
        reserved may be used to support referrals and the delivery of 
        emergency first aid, culturally competent support, and forensic 
        evidence collection training.

 Bill Amendment: SEC. 507. Expanding Access to Forensics for 
        Victims of Interpersonal Violence

        --(a) Definitions.--In this section:
        --(9) URBAN INDIAN ORGANIZATION.--The term ``Urban Indian 
        organization'' has the meaning given such term in section 4 of 
        the Indian Health Care Improvement Act (25 U.S.C. 1603).

 (b) Demonstration Grants for Comprehensive Forensic 
        Training.--

        --(6) Authorization of Appropriations.--

        --(B) Set-Aside.--Of the amount appropriated under this 
        paragraph for a fiscal year, the Secretary shall reserve 10 
        percent for purposes of making grants to support training and 
        curricula that addresses the unique needs of Indian Tribes, 
        Tribal organizations, Urban Indian organizations, and Native 
        Hawaiian organizations. Amounts so reserved may be used to 
        support training, referrals, and the delivery of emergency 
        first aid, culturally competent support, and forensic evidence 
        collection training.

 Bill Amendment: SEC. 901. Findings and Purposes

        --(b) Purposes.--The purposes of this subtitle are-

          --3) to empower Tribal governments and Native American 
        communities, including urban Indian communities and Native 
        Hawaiian communities, with the resources and information 
        necessary to effectively respond to cases of domestic violence, 
        dating violence, stalking, sex trafficking, sexual violence, 
        and missing and murdered Native Americans; and

          --4) to increase the collection of data related to missing 
        and murdered Native Americans and the sharing of information 
        among Federal, State, Tribal, and local officials responsible 
        for responding to and investigating crimes impacting Indian 
        Tribes and Native American communities, including urban Indian 
        communities and Native Hawaiian communities, especially crimes 
        relating to cases of missing and murdered Native Americans.

Closing
    In closing, SNAHC would like to thank the members of the Senate 
Committee on Indian Affairs for including urban AI/ANs in this 
important piece of legislation. We urge Congress to continue its 
support of all AI/ANs by retaining these provisions in the final VAWA 
reauthorization.

        Sincerely,
                                       Britta Guerrero, CEO
                                 ______
                                 
              Alliance of Tribal Coalitions to End Violence
                                                  December 22, 2021
Dear Senator Schatz, Senator Murkowski, and all members of the Senate 
Committee on Indian Affairs:

    I write to you today on behalf of the Alliance of Tribal Coalitions 
to End Violence (ATCEV) to provide comments as solicited at the Senate 
Committee on Indian Affairs hearing on December 8, 2021, to the 
bipartisan Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) Title IX--SAFETY FOR 
INDIAN WOMEN discussion draft. Tribal communities continue to suffer 
the highest crime victimization rates in the country, and the reforms 
included in the bipartisan Title IX discussion draft are desperately 
needed, and urgently so.
    As you are likely aware, American Indian and Alaska Native women 
continue to suffer the highest rates of victimization in the country. A 
2016 report by the National Institute of Justice found that over 80 
percent of American Indians and Alaska Natives will be a victim of 
intimate partner violence, sexual violence, or stalking in their 
lifetime. The study also found that 90 percent of these victims were 
victimized by a non-Indian perpetrator. Our Indian children are 
particularly impacted. Research shows that American Indian and Alaska 
Native children are 50 percent more likely to experience child abuse 
and sexual abuse than white children. The complicated jurisdictional 
framework at play in Indian country and Alaska continues to undermine 
safety for American Indian and Alaska Native victims of violence and 
creates a significant barrier to justice.
Section 901. Findings & Purposes
    The purpose of Title IX is to strengthen tribal sovereignty and 
reaffirm tribal jurisdiction over non-Indian perpetrators. ATCEV 
supports additional resourcing to address violence against all Native 
women. However, the new language in the Section 901. Findings and 
Purposes addressing Native Hawaiians, urban Indians communities, Native 
Americans, and Native American communities, jeopardizes the long-term 
enforcement of the law and detracts from the key purpose of Title IX. 
The language in Section 901 should solely focus on American Indians, 
Alaska Natives, and Indian tribes to protect tribal sovereignty, 
consistent with the purpose of the Title IX. ATCEV would recommend that 
all Native Hawaiian, urban Indian communities, Native American, and 
Native American communities language be removed from Section 901.
Section 902. Tribal Access Program and Section 903. Bureau of Prisons
    ATCEV supports the Title XI discussion draft provision to allow 
Tribal Nations to utilize the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) to house 
defendants serving sentences of more than one year, and the provision 
to increase Tribal Nations' access to the National Crime Information 
Database. These additions are responsive to the testimony of tribal 
leaders provided at the Government-to-Government Consultations and will 
likely increase the safety of Indian women.
Section 904. Tribal Jurisdiction Over Covered Crimes
    VAWA 2013 provided some semblance of justice for American Indian 
victims restoring the inherent sovereign rights of Tribal Nations to 
exercise special domestic violence criminal jurisdiction over non-
Indian offenders. However, victims of sexual violence, child abuse, 
stalking, trafficking, elder abuse, and assaults against law 
enforcement officers deserve the same protections that Congress 
afforded to domestic violence victims on tribal lands in VAWA 2013. 
ATCEV applauds the expansion of the crimes in which Tribal Nations can 
hold non-Indian perpetrators accountable in the discussion draft but 
would propose the final Senate Title IX provisions also include the 
crimes against elders. The elder crimes were included in the House 
bill, H.R. 1620, but is not included in the discussion draft presented 
at the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs December 8, 2021. Indian 
elders are an integral part of our tribal communities to whom we owe 
respect and care. Indian elders carry our cultures and traditions, and 
we must ensure that they are not left out of a VAWA reauthorization, 
similar to how sexual assault victims and child victims of domestic 
violence were left out of VAWA 2013.
    ATCEV would also suggest that in order to ensure that the Title IX 
discussion draft fully protects our law enforcement and correctional 
personnel, the removal of the requirement that these assaults be tied 
to a ``covered crime.'' Requiring that the assault of the tribal 
justice personnel be tied to a ``covered crime'' may require a Tribal 
Nation to first prove the underlying covered crime before prosecution 
for the assault, which does not fully address the public safety concern 
of police officers or detention personnel as expressed as a need by the 
exercising Tribes.
    ATCEV acknowledges and supports the language in the Title IX 
discussion draft that clarifies Tribal Nations in Maine are included in 
the law.
    With regard to reimbursement program addressed in the bipartisan 
Title IX discussion draft under which the Attorney General may 
reimburse Tribal Nations for expenses incurred in exercising special 
tribal criminal jurisdiction, the ATCEV would like to relay what we 
have hear from the field, requesting that the program be expanded to 
include reimbursements for trial and appellate courts (including 
facilities maintenance, renovation, and rehabilitation), and that the 
time to develop regulations for the program be shortened from within 
one year to within six months to ensure expedient access of the program 
to Tribes.
Subtitle B--Alaska Tribal Public Safety Empowerment
    ATCEV fully supports creates a pilot project to address the unique 
needs in Alaska. For years, Tribal leaders, tribal coalition directors, 
advocates, victim survivors and their families in Alaska have shared 
stories and have beg for recognition of and solutions to the atrocities 
they experience in Alaska with regards to domestic violence and sexual 
assault. Alaska Native women are over-represented among domestic 
violence victims in Alaska by 250 percent and make up 47 percent of 
reported rape victims in the state, yet 1 in 3 rural Alaskan 
communities have no law enforcement presence. The Title IX discussion 
draft includes a pilot project that will enable a limited number of 
Tribal Nations in Alaska to exercise special tribal criminal 
jurisdiction over certain crimes that occur in Alaska villages. We are 
excited about this improvement and attention provided our Alaska Native 
relatives.
    Thank you for your work to improve the Violence Against Women 
Act.Please feel free to call upon me should I or the tribal coalition 
leaders be able to provide you with information on the crimes of 
domestic and sexual violence in Indian Country and Alaska.

        Respectfully,
                         DAWN R. STOVER, Executive Director
                                 ______
                                 
                                      Tohono O'odham Nation
                                                  December 22, 2021
Dear Chairman Schatz, Vice Chair Murkowski, and honorable members of 
the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs:

    On behalf of the Tohono O'odham Nation (the Nation), I write to 
express the Nation's support of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) 
Title IX--Safety for Indian Women discussion draft (Title IX discussion 
draft) recently released by the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs 
(``the Committee''). The Title IX discussion draft includes important 
provisions that will improve safety and justice in tribal communities. 
Tribal communities continue to suffer from the highest crime 
victimization rates in the country, and the reforms included in the 
Title IX discussion draft are desperately needed today.
    In a 2016 report prepared for the National Institute of Justice, 
the Report analyzed findings from a 2010 National Intimate Partner and 
Sexual Violence Survey that over 80 percent of American Indians and 
Alaska Native women and men have experienced violence in their 
lifetime. \1\ The report also highlighted that 97 percent of these 
victims were victimized by a non-Indian perpetrator. \2\ Sadly, Indian 
children are particularly impacted by this violence and are 50 percent 
more likely to experience child abuse and sexual abuse than white 
children. The complicated jurisdictional framework at play in Indian 
country and Alaska continues to undermine safety for American Indian 
and Alaska Native victims of violence.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Andre B. Rosay, Violence Against American Indian and Alaska 
Native Women and Men, a report prepared for the National Institute of 
Justice, Department of Justice, at 2 (May 2016), available at https://
www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/nij/249736.pdf.
    \2\ Id. at 46, Figure 6.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Tribal Nations have been exercising jurisdiction over non-Indian 
domestic violence offenders under the VAWA enacted in 2013 (VAWA 2013) 
for over 8 years. Tribes currently exercising the special domestic 
violence criminal jurisdiction under VAWA 2013 have held serial 
offenders accountable and have brought justice and safety to hundreds 
of victims and their families while upholding the due process rights of 
all defendants in tribal courts. Despite these successes, perpetrators 
still find gaps in the law. Victims of sexual violence, child abuse, 
stalking, trafficking, elder abuse, and assaults against law 
enforcement officers all deserve the same protections that Congress 
affords to domestic violence victims on tribal lands in VAWA 2013.
    It is particularly important that any version of the VAWA bill 
recognizes that Native American children are equally in need of the 
protections that were extended to adult domestic violence victims in 
VAWA 2013. The Tribal Nations implementing VAWA 2013 report that 
children have been involved as victims or witnesses in their cases 
nearly 60 percent of the time. However, federal law failed to restore 
tribal jurisdiction to prosecute these crimes. The Title IX discussion 
draft language would restore this category of jurisdiction and allow 
Tribal Nations to protect our children in our tribal justice systems.
    The Nation respectfully asks that the Title IX discussion draft be 
amended to include crimes against elders, which was a category of 
restored jurisdiction included in the House bill, H.R. 1620, but not in 
the Committee's Title IX discussion draft. Elders are an integral part 
of our community to whom we owe respect and care. Elders carry our 
cultures and traditions, and we must ensure that they are not left 
behind in this reauthorization of VAWA.
    The Title IX discussion draft recognizes that VAWA 2013 
inadvertently left our tribal police officers and detention personnel 
at risk. Domestic violence cases are both the most common and the most 
dangerous calls that law enforcement receives. Several Tribal Nations 
have reported assaults on their officers or bailiffs committed by non-
Indian defendants, but as of now, Tribal Nations remain unable to 
prosecute these crimes as assaults on law enforcement were not a 
category of jurisdiction restored in VAWA 2013. This creates an obvious 
public safety concern. To ensure that the Title IX discussion draft 
fully rectifies this issue, we strongly recommend amending the draft 
language on page ten to remove the requirement that the assault must be 
tied to a ``covered crime.'' Requiring that the assault of the tribal 
justice personnel be tied to a ``covered crime'' may require Tribal 
Nations to first prove the underlying covered crime before they can 
prosecute for the assault, which does not fully address the public 
safety concerns relating to police officers or detention personnel. 
This would also create significant confusion that likely would have to 
be resolved in the courts. We ask that the language fully cover all 
assaults of tribal justice personnel and not include any requirement 
that the assault be related to a ``covered crime.''
    Section 904 provides a local solution for the local problem of 
criminal victimization in Indian country. The Nation appreciates that 
the Title IX discussion draft continues to build on VAWA's promise and 
includes key priorities to further enhance safety for victims in tribal 
communities.
    The Title IX discussion draft clarifies that Tribal Nations in 
Maine are included in the law and creates a pilot project to address 
the unique needs in Alaska. We fully support the inclusion of all 
Tribal Nations in VAWA. Alaska Native women are over-represented among 
domestic violence victims in Alaska by 250 percent and make up 47 
percent of reported rape victims in the state, yet 1 in 3 rural Alaskan 
communities have no law enforcement presence. The Title IX discussion 
draft includes a pilot project that will enable a limited number of 
Tribal Nations in Alaska to exercise special tribal criminal 
jurisdiction over certain crimes that occur in Alaska villages.
    The Title IX discussion draft creates a reimbursement program under 
which the Attorney General may reimburse tribes for expenses incurred 
in exercising special tribal criminal jurisdiction. The Nation believes 
that it would be appropriate to expand that reimbursement program 
language to include reimbursements for trial and appellate courts 
(including facilities maintenance, renovation, and rehabilitation). 
Additionally, the time for the Attorney General to develop regulations 
for the program should be reduced from within one year to within six 
months after the effective date, to ensure that this important program 
is implemented quickly to address the urgent need in Indian Country.
    The Title XI discussion draft also allows tribes to use the Bureau 
of Prisons (BOP) to house defendants serving sentences of more than one 
year and increases tribes' access to the National Crime Information 
Database. Both of these additions to VAWA will go a long way towards 
ensuring that the Nation is able to implement this restored 
jurisdiction fully and most effectively.
    The Nation fully supports the purpose of Title IX, which is to 
strengthen tribal sovereignty and reaffirm tribal jurisdiction over 
non-Indian perpetrators. We also support providing additional resources 
to address violence against all Native women. However, the language 
added to Section 901, Findings and Purposes, which adds Native 
Hawaiians, urban Indians communities, Native Americans, and Native 
American communities, jeopardizes the long-term enforcement of the law 
and detracts from the key purpose of Title IX. For those reasons we 
recommend that language pertaining to Native Hawaiian, urban Indian 
communities, Native Americans, and Native American communities be 
removed from Section 901. The language in Section 901 should solely 
focus on American Indians, Alaska Natives, and Indian tribes in order 
to use consistent terminology and protect tribal sovereignty, which is 
consistent with the purpose of the Title IX.
    The Nation supports the provisions included in the bipartisan Title 
IX discussion draft and respectfully requests that members of the 
Committee become co-sponsors of a full bipartisan Senate VAWA bill that 
incorporates the Title IX discussion draft provisions and the suggested 
changes outlined above.
    Thank you for your time and consideration.

        Sincerely,
                                  Ned Norris, Jr., Chairman
                                 ______
                                 
                     Affiliated Tribes of Northwest Indians
                                                  December 21, 2021
Dear Senator Schatz, Senator Murkowski, and all members of the Senate 
Committee on Indian Affairs:

    I write on behalf of the Affiliated Tribes of Northwest Indians to 
support the bipartisan Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) Title IX--
SAFETY FOR INDIAN WOMEN discussion draft released on December 8, 2021, 
which includes important provisions that will improve safety and 
justice in tribal communities. Tribal communities continue to suffer 
from the highest crime victimization rates in the country, and the 
reforms included in the bipartisan Title IX discussion draft are 
desperately needed today.
    A 2016 report by the National Institute of Justice found that over 
80 percent of American Indians and Alaska Natives will be a victim of 
intimate partner violence, sexual violence, or stalking in their 
lifetime. The study also found that 90 percent of these victims were 
victimized by a non-Indian perpetrator. Sadly, Indian children are 
particularly impacted by this violence and are 50 percent more likely 
to experience child abuse and sexual abuse than white children. The 
complicated jurisdictional framework at play in Indian country and 
Alaska continues to undermine safety for American Indian and Alaska 
Native victims of violence.
    Tribal Nations have been exercising jurisdiction over non-Indian 
domestic violence offenders under VAWA 2013 for over 8 years. 
Exercising Tribal Nations have held serial offenders accountable and 
have brought justice and safety to hundreds of victims and their 
families while upholding the due process rights of all defendants in 
tribal courts. Despite these successes, perpetrators still find gaps in 
the law. Victims of sexual violence, child abuse, stalking, 
trafficking, elder abuse, and assaults against law enforcement officers 
deserve the same protections that Congress affords to domestic violence 
victims on tribal lands in VAWA 2013.
    It is particularly important that the final bipartisan VAWA bill 
recognizes that Indian children are equally in need of the protections 
that were extended to adult domestic violence victims in VAWA 2013. The 
Tribal Nations implementing VAWA 2013 report that children have been 
involved as victims or witnesses in their cases nearly 60 percent of 
the time. However, federal law failed to restore tribal jurisdiction to 
prosecute these crimes. The Title IX discussion draft 2 language would 
restore this category of jurisdiction and allow us to protect our 
Indian children in our tribal justice systems.
    We ask that the Title IX discussion draft be amended to include 
crimes against elders, which was a category of restored jurisdiction 
included in the House bill, H.R. 1620, but not the bipartisan Senate 
Committee on Indian Affairs discussion draft. Indian elders are an 
integral part of our tribal communities to whom we owe respect and 
care. Indian elders carry our cultures and traditions, and we must 
ensure that they are not left behind in this reauthorization of VAWA.
    We also appreciate that the Title IX discussion draft recognizes 
that VAWA 2013 inadvertently left our tribal police officers and 
detention personnel at risk. Domestic violence cases are both the most 
common and the most dangerous calls that law enforcement receives. 
Several Tribal Nations have reported assaults on their officers or 
bailiffs committed by non-Indian defendants, but as of now, Tribal 
Nations remain unable to prosecute these crimes as assaults on law 
enforcement was not a restored category of jurisdiction in VAWA 2013. 
This creates an obvious public safety concern. In order to ensure that 
the Title IX discussion draft fully rectifies this issue, we strongly 
recommend amending the draft language on page ten to remove the 
requirement that the assault must be tied to a ``covered crime.'' 
Requiring that the assault of the tribal justice personnel be tied to a 
``covered crime'' may require the Tribal Nation to first prove the 
underlying covered crime before they could prosecute for the assault, 
which does not fully fix the public safety concern of police officers 
or detention personnel. This creates significant confusion that likely 
would have to be worked out in the courts. We ask that the language 
fully cover all assaults of tribal justice personnel and not mention 
anything related to a ``covered crime.''
    Section 904 provides a local solution for the local problem of 
criminal victimization in Indian country. We are pleased to see that 
the bipartisan Title IX discussion draft continues to build on VAWA's 
promise and includes key priorities that have been identified by Tribal 
Nations to further enhance safety for victims in tribal communities.
    The Title IX discussion draft clarifies that Tribal Nations in 
Maine are included in the law and creates a pilot project to address 
the unique needs in Alaska. We fully support the inclusion of all 
Tribal Nations in VAWA. Alaska Native women are over-represented among 
domestic violence victims in Alaska by 250 percent and make up 47 
percent of reported rape victims in the state, yet 1 in 3 rural Alaskan 
communities have no law enforcement presence. The Title IX discussion 
draft includes a pilot project that will enable a limited number of 
Tribal Nations in Alaska to exercise special tribal criminal 
jurisdiction over certain crimes that occur in Alaska villages.
    In addition to the lifesaving provisions outlined above, the 
bipartisan Title IX discussion draft creates a reimbursement program 
under which the Attorney General may reimburse Tribal Nations for 
expenses incurred in exercising special tribal criminal jurisdiction. 
We would ask that that reimbursement program language be expanded to 
include reimbursements for trial and appellate courts (including 
facilities maintenance, renovation, and rehabilitation.) Additionally, 
the time for the Attorney General to develop regulations for the 
program should be shortened from within one year to within six months 
after the effective date to ensure that this important program is 
implemented quickly to address the urgent need in Indian Country.
    The Title XI discussion draft also allows Tribal Nations to utilize 
the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) to house defendants serving sentences of 
more than one year and increases Tribal Nations' access to the National 
Crime Information Database. Both of these additions to VAWA will go a 
long way towards ensuring Tribal Nations are able to implement this 
restored jurisdiction fully and most effectively.
    We fully support the purpose of Title IX, which is to strengthen 
tribal sovereignty and reaffirm tribal jurisdiction over non-Indian 
perpetrators. We also support providing additional resources to address 
violence against all Native women. However, the new language in the 
Section 901 Findings and Purposes, which adds Native Hawaiians, urban 
Indians communities, Native Americans, and Native American communities, 
jeopardizes the long-term enforcement of the law and detracts from the 
key purpose of Title IX. For those reasons we strongly recommend that 
all Native Hawaiian, urban Indian communities, Native American, and 
Native American communities language be removed from Section 901. The 
language in Section 901 should solely focus on American Indians, Alaska 
Natives, and Indian tribes in order to protect tribal sovereignty, 
which is consistent with the purpose of the Title IX.
    We urge all members of the Senate Committee on Indian affairs to 
support the provisions included in the bipartisan Title IX discussion 
draft and to become a co-sponsor of the full bipartisan Senate VAWA 
bill that incorporates all of the discussion draft provisions and our 
recommended changes.

        Respectfully,
                                 Leonard Forsman, President
                                 ______
                                 
             DENVER INDIAN HEALTH AND FAMILY SERVICES, INC.
                                                  December 22, 2021
Dear Chairman Schatz and Vice Chairman Murkowski:

    Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on the Violence 
Against Women Act (VAWA) reauthorization discussion draft. On behalf of 
On behalf of Denver Indian Health and Family Services, Inc. (DIHFS) in 
Denver, Colorado, we hereby submit our written comments and 
recommendations in response to the tribal title draft \1\ and larger 
bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Discussion draft of Title IX of VAWA: https://
www.indian.senate.gov/sites/default/files/KEN21B05.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comments
    Urban Indian Organizations (UIOs) like ours provide much more than 
just health services to American Indians and Alaska Natives including 
but not limited to the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for 
Women, Infants, and Children (WIC), housing services, social services, 
community advocacy, and other resources to victims of domestic 
violence. Many UIOs conduct home visits and are at the front-line to 
identify domestic violence and other risk factors for Missing and 
Murdered Indigenous People (MMIP). Urban Indian inclusion in VAWA is 
important to strengthen these critical services provided at UIOs for 
American Indians/Alaska Natives (AI/ANs), and the National Council of 
Urban Indian Health (NCUIH) has advocated for urban Indians to be added 
in the Senate draft bill. This is a huge accomplishment given that the 
House bill on VAWA (H.R. 1620) excluded UIOs and urban Indian 
communities.
    During the White House Tribal Nations Summit last month, President 
Biden signed an Executive Order (E.O.) \2\ on addressing the crisis of 
MMIP with UIO inclusion. The E.O. specifically mentions the Department 
of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the Secretary of the Interior 
conferring with UIOs on developing a comprehensive plan to support 
initiatives related to MMIP. NCUIH and UIOs support urban confer among 
federal agencies on policies that impact urban AI/ANs and have been 
working on an urban confer bill \3\ that recently passed the House 
(406-17) with overwhelming support. The E.O also highlights the need 
for improved data surrounding this crisis as it relates to urban Indian 
communities. NCUIH has, and continues to, advocate for gathering more 
data on AI/AN communities and Missing and Murdered Indigenous People. 
On July 2, 2021, NCUIH submitted comments to the Department of Justice 
on Savannah's Act requesting UIOs and urban Indians to be incorporated 
into improving data relevancy, access, and resources. We look forward 
to participating in that effort and we hope that VAWA will help us 
combat this epidemic in Indian country.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ Executive Order on Improving Public Safety and Criminal Justice 
for Native Americans and Addressing the Crisis of Missing or Murdered 
Indigenous People: https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/
presidential-actions/2021/11/15/executive-order-on-improving-public-
safety-and-criminal-justice-for-native-americans-and-addressing-the-
crisis-of-missing-or-murdered-indigenous-people/
    \3\ Urban Indian Health Confer Act: https://www.congress.gov/117/
meeting/house/114098/documents/BILLS-1175221ih.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    DIHFS would like to express appreciation for the inclusion of urban 
Indians in 11 locations of the Senate draft bill. We respectfully ask 
you retain the following provisions in the final Senate bill:

 Bill Amendment: SEC. 101. Stop Grants

        --Part T of title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe 
        Streets Act of 1968 (34 U.S.C. 10441 et seq.) is amended--

          --(25) paying any fees charged by any governmental authority 
        for furnishing a victim or the child of a victim with any of 
        the following documents:

 ``(B) An identification card issued to the individual by a 
        State or Tribe, that shows that the individual is a resident of 
        the State or a member of the Tribe.''; and

        --(B) in Subsection (d)--

          --i) in paragraph (1)-

          --II) in subparagraph (D), by inserting ``, urban Indian 
        communities, and Native Hawaiian communities'' after 
        ``assisting Indian tribes''; (ii) in paragraph (2)-

          --I) in subparagraph (A)(iii), by inserting ``, urban Indian 
        communities, and Native Hawaiian communities'' after ``provide 
        services to Indian tribes''; and

          --II) in subparagraph (B), by inserting ``, urban Indian 
        communities, and Native Hawaiian communities'' after ``in areas 
        where Indian tribes'';

 Bill Amendment: SEC. 105. Outreach and Services to Underserved 
        Population Grants.

        --Section 120 of the Violence Against Women and Department of 
        Justice Reauthorization Act of 2005 (34 U.S.C. 20123) is 
        amended--

          --(2) in subsection (b)(3), by inserting ``urban Indian, 
        Native Hawaiian,'' before ``or local organization'';

 Bill Amendment: SEC. 108. Enhancing Culturally Specific 
        Services for Victims of Domestic Violence, Dating Violence, 
        Sexual Assault, and Stalking

        --Section 121 of the Violence Against Women and Department of 
        Justice Reauthorization Act of 2005 (34 U.S.C. 20124) is 
        amended-

          --``(4) DISTRIBUTION.--Of the total amount available for 
        grants under this section, not less than 40 percent of such 
        funds shall be allocated for programs or projects that 
        meaningfully address non-intimate partner relationship sexual 
        assault.'';

 (3) in subsection (c)--

        --(A) in paragraph (1), by striking ``and'' at the end;

        --(B) in paragraph (2), by striking the period at the end and 
        inserting ``; and''; and

        --(C) by adding at the end the following:

          --``(3) tribal nonprofit organizations, Native Hawaiian 
        organizations, and urban Indian organizations.'';

 Bill Amendment: SEC. 110. Pilot Program on Restorative 
        Practices.

        --a) IN GENERAL.--The Violence Against Women Act of 1994 (title 
        IV of Public Law 103-322), as amended by section 205, is 
        further amended by adding at the end the following:

          --``Subtitle R-Restorative Practices

          --``SEC. 41801. PILOT PROGRAM ON RESTORATIVE PRACTICES.

 ``(a) DEFINITIONS.--In this section:

        --``(2) ELIGIBLE ENTITY.--The term `eligible entity' means-

          --A) a State;

          --B) a unit of local government;

          --C) a tribal government;

          --D) a tribal organization;

          --E) a victim service provider;

          --F) an institution of higher education (as defined in 
        section 101(a) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 
        1001(a)); and

          --G) a private or public nonprofit organization, including

          --(i) a tribal nonprofit organization; and

          --ii) a faith-based nonprofit organization.

 Bill Amendment: SEC. 302. Creating Hope through Outreach, 
        Options, Services, and Education (CHOOSE) for Children and 
        Youth

        --Section 41201 of the Violence Against Women Act of 1994 (34 
        U.S.C. 12451) is amended--

          --2) in subsection (c)--

 (A) in paragraph (1)(A)--

        --(ii) by inserting ``Native Hawaiian organization, urban 
        Indian organization,''

    before ``or population-specific community-based organization''; and

 Bill Amendment: SEC. 506. Expanding Access to Unified Care.

        --(f) Authorization of Appropriations.--

          --2) Set-Aside.--Of the amount appropriated under this 
        subsection for a fiscal year, the Secretary shall reserve 15 
        percent of such amount for purposes of making grants to 
        entities that are affiliated with Indian Tribes or Tribal 
        organizations (as defined in section 4 of the Indian Self-
        Determination and Education Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 5304)), 
        or Urban Indian organizations (as defined in section 4 of the 
        Indian Health Care Improvement Act (25 U.S.C.1603)). Amounts 
        reserved may be used to support referrals and the delivery of 
        emergency first aid, culturally competent support, and forensic 
        evidence collection training.

 Bill Amendment: SEC. 507. Expanding Access to Forensics for 
        Victims of Interpersonal Violence

        --(a) Definitions.--In this section:
        --(9) URBAN INDIAN ORGANIZATION.--The term ``Urban Indian 
        organization'' has the meaning given such term in section 4 of 
        the Indian Health Care Improvement Act (25 U.S.C. 1603).

 (b) Demonstration Grants for Comprehensive Forensic 
        Training.--

        --(6) Authorization of Appropriations.--

        --(B) Set-Aside.--Of the amount appropriated under this 
        paragraph for a fiscal year, the Secretary shall reserve 10 
        percent for purposes of making grants to support training and 
        curricula that addresses the unique needs of Indian Tribes, 
        Tribal organizations, Urban Indian organizations, and Native 
        Hawaiian organizations. Amounts so reserved may be used to 
        support training, referrals, and the delivery of emergency 
        first aid, culturally competent support, and forensic evidence 
        collection training.

 Bill Amendment: SEC. 901. Findings and Purposes

        --(b) Purposes.--The purposes of this subtitle are-

          --3) to empower Tribal governments and Native American 
        communities, including urban Indian communities and Native 
        Hawaiian communities, with the resources and information 
        necessary to effectively respond to cases of domestic violence, 
        dating violence, stalking, sex trafficking, sexual violence, 
        and missing and murdered Native Americans; and

          --4) to increase the collection of data related to missing 
        and murdered Native Americans and the sharing of information 
        among Federal, State, Tribal, and local officials responsible 
        for responding to and investigating crimes impacting Indian 
        Tribes and Native American communities, including urban Indian 
        communities and Native Hawaiian communities, especially crimes 
        relating to cases of missing and murdered Native Americans.

Closing
    In closing, DIHFS would like to thank the members of the Senate 
Committee on Indian Affairs for including urban AI/ANs in this 
important piece of legislation. We urge Congress to continue its 
support of all AI/ANs by retaining these provisions in the final VAWA 
reauthorization.

        Sincerely,
                        Adrianne Maddux, Executive Director
                                 ______
                                 
                                   Tanana Chiefs Conference
                                                  December 21, 2021
Introduction and Background on TCC
    Chairman Schatz, Vice Chairman Murkowski and Members of the Senate 
Committee on Indian Affairs, thank you for the opportunity to provide 
testimony for the record of the Committee's December 8, 2021 Oversight 
Hearing on ``Restoring Justice: Addressing Violence in Native 
Communities through VAWA Title IX Special Jurisdiction .'' My name is 
Brian Ridley, I am a member of the Native Village of Eagle, and I have 
the honor of serving as president of the Tanana Chiefs Conference 
(TCC).
    TCC is a non-profit intertribal consortium of 42 communities, 
including 37 federally recognized tribes, located across Alaska's vast 
interior. Headquartered in Fairbanks, Alaska, TCC serves approximately 
18,000 tribal members over an area of about 235,000 square miles, which 
is nearly the size of Texas. TCC is charged with advancing tribal self-
determination and enhancing regional Native unity with the goal to meet 
the health and social service needs of tribes and tribal members 
throughout the region. TCC is also home to the Tribal Protective 
Services program that serves all victims of crime from/residing in the 
TCC region.
VAWA/Alaska Challenges
    The Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) is a pillar of the federal 
government's response to domestic violence, sexual assault, dating 
violence, and stalking. TCC has been actively engaged in the VAWA 
reauthorization discussions to ensure that Congress understands the 
unique challenges that our tribes face. Alaska Native women are 
overrepresented in the domestic violence victim population by 250 
percent. This unacceptable statistic is due, in part, to the remote 
nature of many of Alaska's tribal communities, as well as complex 
jurisdictional challenges and the lack of funding for public safety 
programs in the villages.
    Congress has worked to strengthen VAWA through each reauthorization 
to take into account our increased understanding of gender-based 
violence and the lack of access to justice that our rural and 
Indigenous populations face. The last VAWA reauthorization in 2013 
contained a provision authorizing the Special Domestic Violence 
Criminal Jurisdiction (SDVCJ) for Indian tribes. However, the SDVCJ did 
not apply to Indian tribes in Alaska, as the provision was limited to 
certain crimes committed in ``Indian country.''
    Relying primarily on the State of Alaska to provide public safety 
and justice services has not worked well for Alaska Natives. The tribal 
communities within the TCC region need the same access to law 
enforcement and the authority to protect tribal members, especially 
those living in remote villages. TCC is pleased that Congress and this 
Committee are working diligently on VAWA reauthorizations that would 
address the critical needs of Alaska Native communities.
H.R. 1620, VAWA Reauthorization Act of 2021
    H. R.1620, the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2021, 
is based on extensive outreach to survivors, direct service providers, 
and other stakeholders. This bipartisan, House-passed bill maintains 
protections for all victims, makes vital investments in sexual assault 
prevention and services, and ensures sexual predators who prey on 
Native women can be held accountable. It also invests in culturally 
specific organizations, protects victims of domestic violence from 
intimate partner homicide, provides alternatives to the legal system 
for survivors who want them, and increases victims' access to safe 
housing and economic stability.
    TCC strongly supports the language in H.R. 1620 that aims to end 
impunity for non-Native perpetrators of sexual assault, child abuse co-
occurring with domestic violence, stalking, sex trafficking, and 
assaults on tribal law enforcement officers on tribal lands. TCC also 
supports the bill's establishment of a pilot project to allow up to 
five Indian tribes in Alaska to implement special tribal criminal 
jurisdiction and, for that specific purpose, to redefine Indian country 
to include certain lands in Alaska.
SCIA Discussion Draft of the VAWA Tribal Title
    TCC commends Chairman Schatz and Vice Chairman Murkowski for 
releasing their Discussion Draft of the VAWA Tribal Title. TCC supports 
Subtitle B-Alaska Tribal Public Safety Empowerment, which aims to 
empower Alaskan Tribal Governments to effectively respond to cases of 
domestic violence, dating violence, stalking, sex trafficking, sexual 
violence, and missing and murdered Alaska Natives. TCC applauds the 
draft's establishment of a pilot program under which the Attorney 
General shall designate not more than 5 Indian tribes per calendar year 
as participating tribes to exercise the special tribal criminal 
jurisdiction over all persons present in the village of the Indian 
tribe. TCC believes that the pilot program will help to make our 
villages safer, but jurisdiction alone is not enough unless it comes 
with the means to implement it. The federal government has never 
adequately funded law enforcement and court activities for tribes in 
Alaska. Congress must work to provide more funding so that tribes have 
the law enforcement personnel they need to keep their communities safe 
and the courts that are necessary to maintain justice.
TCC Requests/Conclusion
    In closing, the Tanana Chiefs Conference urges the Senate Committee 
on Indian Affairs to continue working to incorporate the Draft Tribal 
Title into the Senate's VAWA reauthorization bill. Further, TCC urges 
the Senate to introduce a bipartisan VAWA reauthorization that builds 
on the House-passed bill and meets the identified needs of survivors 
and communities. The dangers are far too great for Congress to delay 
the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act.

        Sincerely,
                                    Brian Ridley, President
                                 ______
                                 
                                              Oneida Nation
                                                  December 22, 2021
Dear Senator Schatz, Senator Murkowski, and all members of the Senate 
Committee on Indian Affairs:

    On behalf of the Oneida Nation, please accept this letter to 
support the bipartisan Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) Title IX--
SAFETY FOR INDIAN WOMEN discussion draft released on December 8, 2021, 
which includes important provisions that will improve safety and 
justice in tribal communities. Tribal communities continue to suffer 
from the highest crime victimization rates in the country, and the 
reforms included in the bipartisan Title IX discussion draft are 
desperately needed today.
    A 2016 report by the National Institute of Justice found that over 
80 percent of American Indians and Alaska Natives will be a victim of 
intimate partner violence, sexual violence, or stalking in their 
lifetime. The study also found that 90 percent of these victims were 
victimized by a non-Indian perpetrator. Sadly, Indian children are 
particularly impacted by this violence and are 50 percent more likely 
to experience child abuse and sexual abuse than white children. The 
complicated jurisdictional framework at play in Indian country and 
Alaska continues to undermine safety for American Indian and Alaska 
Native victims of violence.
    Tribal Nations have been exercising jurisdiction over non-Indian 
domestic violence offenders under VAWA 2013 for over 8 years. Tribal 
Nations exercising jurisdiction have held serial offenders accountable 
and brought justice and safety to hundreds of victims and their 
families, while upholding the due process rights of all defendants in 
tribal courts. Despite these successes, perpetrators still find gaps in 
the law. Victims of sexual violence, child abuse, stalking, 
trafficking, elder abuse, and assaults against law enforcement officers 
deserve the same protections that Congress affords to domestic violence 
victims on tribal lands that are contained in VAWA 2013.
    It is particularly important that the final bipartisan VAWA bill 
recognizes that Indian children are equally in need of the protections 
that were extended to adult domestic violence victims in VAWA 2013. The 
Tribal Nations implementing VAWA 2013 report that children have been 
involved as victims or witnesses in their cases nearly 60 percent of 
the time. However, federal law failed to restore tribal jurisdiction to 
prosecute these crimes. The Title IX discussion draft language would 
restore this category of jurisdiction and allow us to protect our 
Indian children in our tribal justice systems.
    We ask that the Title IX discussion draft be amended to include 
crimes against elders, which was a category of restored jurisdiction 
included in the House bill, H.R. 1620, but contained in the bipartisan 
Senate Committee on Indian Affairs discussion draft. Indian elders are 
an integral part of our tribal communities to whom we owe respect and 
care, as our elders carry our cultures and traditions. We must ensure 
that they are not left behind in this reauthorization of VAWA.
    We also appreciate that the Title IX discussion draft recognizes 
that VAWA 2013 inadvertently left our tribal police officers and 
detention personnel at risk. Domestic violence cases are both the most 
common and the most dangerous calls that law enforcement receives. 
Several Tribal Nations have reported assaults on their officers or 
bailiffs committed by non-Indian defendants, and Tribal Nations remain 
unable to prosecute these crimes, as assaults on law enforcement 
personnel was not a restored category of jurisdiction in VAWA 2013. 
This creates a significant public safety concern. To ensure that the 
Title IX discussion draft fully rectifies this issue, we strongly 
recommend amending the draft language on page ten to remove the 
requirement that the assault must be tied to a ``covered crime.'' 
Requiring that the assault of the tribal justice personnel be tied to a 
``covered crime'' may require the Tribal Nation to first prove the 
underlying covered crime before they could prosecute for the assault, 
which does not fully fix the public safety concern of police officers 
or detention personnel. This creates significant confusion that likely 
would have to be worked out in the courts. We ask that the language 
fully cover all assaults of tribal justice personnel and not mention 
anything related to a ``covered crime.''
    Section 904 provides a local solution for the local problem of 
criminal victimization in Indian country. We are pleased to see that 
the bipartisan Title IX discussion draft continues to build on VAWA's 
promise and includes key priorities that have been identified by Tribal 
Nations to further enhance safety for victims in tribal communities.
    The Title IX discussion draft clarifies that Tribal Nations in 
Maine are included in the law and creates a pilot project to address 
the unique needs in Alaska. We fully support the inclusion of all 
Tribal Nations in VAWA. Alaska Native women are over-represented among 
domestic violence victims in Alaska by 250 percent and make up 47 
percent of reported rape victims in the state, yet 1 in 3 rural Alaskan 
communities have no law enforcement presence. The Title IX discussion 
draft includes a pilot project that will enable a limited number of 
Tribal Nations in Alaska to exercise special tribal criminal 
jurisdiction over certain crimes that occur in Alaska villages.
    In addition to the lifesaving provisions outlined above, the 
bipartisan Title IX discussion draft creates a reimbursement program 
under which the Attorney General may reimburse Tribal Nations for 
expenses incurred in exercising special tribal criminal jurisdiction. 
We would ask that that reimbursement program language be expanded to 
include reimbursements for trial and appellate courts (including 
facilities maintenance, renovation, and rehabilitation). Furthermore, 
we request that jury costs be included in the reimbursement program 
language. Tribes must provide the defendant with a jury that reflects a 
fair cross section of the community that does not systematically 
exclude any distinctive group in the community, including non-Indians. 
This means that Tribal and non-Tribal members will need to serve as 
jurors. Unless Tribe's draft legislation addressing the issue, Tribal 
Courts may be limited in their ability to ensure individuals comply 
with the summons for jury duty. Therefore, Tribes may need to pay 
jurors for their time to increase compliance and in order to ensure 
that the defendant's rights are upheld. These costs should be eligible 
for reimbursement. Additionally, the time for the Attorney General to 
develop regulations for the program should be shortened from within one 
year to within six months after the effective date to ensure that this 
important program is implemented quickly to address the urgent need in 
Indian Country.
    The Title XI discussion draft also allows Tribal Nations to utilize 
the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) to house defendants serving sentences of 
more than one year and increases Tribal Nations' access to the National 
Crime Information Database. Both of these additions to VAWA will go a 
long way towards ensuring Tribal Nations are able to implement this 
restored jurisdiction fully and most effectively. However, some BOPs 
are located hours away from Tribal Courts; we request that costs 
associated with using local jails to house individuals be reimbursed 
when BOP facilities are not located near the Tribal Courts.
    We fully support the intent of Title IX, which is to strengthen 
tribal sovereignty and reaffirm tribal jurisdiction over non-Indian 
perpetrators. We also support providing additional resources to address 
violence against all Native women. However, the new language in the 
Section 901 Findings and Purposes, which adds Native Hawaiians, urban 
Indians communities, Native Americans, and Native American communities, 
jeopardizes the long-term enforcement of the law and detracts from the 
key purpose of Title IX. For those reasons we strongly recommend that 
all Native Hawaiian, urban Indian communities, Native American, and 
Native American communities language be removed from Section 901. The 
language in Section 901 should solely focus on American Indians, Alaska 
Natives, and Indian tribes in order to protect tribal sovereignty, 
which is consistent with the purpose of the Title IX.
    We urge the Senate Committee on Indian affairs to support the 
provisions included in the bipartisan Title IX discussion draft and to 
co-sponsor the full bipartisan Senate VAWA bill that incorporates all 
of the discussion draft provisions and our recommended changes.

        With a Good Mind, a Good Heart & Strong Fire,
                                Tehassi tasi Hill, Chairman
                                 ______
                                 
                                      Native Peoples Action
                                                  December 22, 2021
Dear Senator Schatz, Senator Murkowski, and all members of the Senate 
Committee on Indian Affairs:

    I write on behalf of Native Peoples Action in support of the 
bipartisan Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) Title IX--SAFETY FOR 
INDIAN WOMEN discussion draft released on December 8, 2021, which 
includes important provisions that will improve safety and justice in 
tribal communities who continue to suffer from the highest rates of 
crime victimization in the country. The reforms included in the 
bipartisan Title IX discussion draft are desperately needed.
    Native Peoples Action is a statewide Indigenous non-profit 
organization in Alaska that strives to give voice to our ancestral 
imperative to uplift our peoples and our traditional ways of life by 
taking a stand, working together and mobilizing action. We do this 
through ensuring Alaska Natives are heard in all levels of policy 
making, by building stronger unity among Indigenous communities to 
collectively advocate for the wellness of our peoples and our ways of 
life, and by transforming social systems.
    Alaska Natives and American Indians face disproportionate levels of 
crime rates. A 2016 report by the National Institute of Justice found 
that over 80 percent of American Indians and Alaska Natives will be a 
victim of intimate partner violence, sexual violence, or stalking in 
their lifetime. The study also found that 90 percent of these victims 
were victimized by a non-Indigenous perpetrator. Sadly, Indigenous 
children are particularly impacted by this violence and are 50 percent 
more likely to experience child abuse and sexual abuse than white 
children. The complicated jurisdictional framework in Indian country 
and Alaska continues to undermine safety for American Indian and Alaska 
Native victims of violence.
    American Indians and Alaska Natives are 2.5 times as likely to 
experience violent crimes and at least two times more likely to 
experience rape or sexual assault crimes compared to all other races. 
According to the Tribal Law and Order Act Commision Report, Alaska 
Native women are over-represented in the domestic violence victim 
population by 250 percent; they comprise 19 percent of Alaska's 
population, but are 47 percent of reported rape victims in the State. 
And among other Indian Tribes, Alaska Native women suffer the highest 
rates of domestic and sexual violence in the country.
    Tribes have been exercising jurisdiction over non-Indigenous 
domestic violence offenders under VAWA 2013 for over 8 years. 
Exercising Tribes have held serial offenders accountable and have 
brought justice and safety to hundreds of victims and their families 
while upholding the due process rights of all defendants in tribal 
courts. Despite these successes, perpetrators still find gaps in the 
law. Victims of sexual violence, child abuse, stalking, trafficking, 
Elder abuse, and assaults against law enforcement officers deserve the 
same protections that Congress affords to domestic violence victims on 
tribal lands in VAWA 2013.
    It is particularly important that the final bipartisan VAWA bill 
recognizes that Indigenous children are equally in need of the 
protections that were extended to adult domestic violence victims in 
VAWA 2013. Federal law has failed to restore Tribal jurisdiction to 
prosecute these crimes. The Title IX discussion draft language would 
restore this category of jurisdiction and allow us to protect our 
Indigenous children in our tribal justice systems.
    We ask that the Title IX discussion draft be amended to include 
crimes against Elders, which was a category of restored jurisdiction 
included in the House Bill, H.R. 1620, but not the bipartisan Senate 
Committee on Indian Affairs discussion draft. Indigenous Elders are an 
integral part of our Tribal communities to whom we owe deep respect and 
care. Indigenous Elders carry our cultures and traditions, and we must 
ensure that they are not left behind in this reauthorization of VAWA.
    We also appreciate that the Title IX discussion draft recognizes 
that VAWA 2013 inadvertently left our tribal police officers and 
detention personnel at risk. There have been reported assaults on 
tribal officers during domestic violence calls that are committed by 
non-Indian defendants, but as of now, tribal communities remain unable 
to prosecute these crimes as assaults on law enforcement was not a 
restored category of jurisdiction in VAWA 2013. This creates an obvious 
public safety concern. In order to ensure that the Title IX discussion 
draft fully rectifies this issue, we recommend amending the draft 
language on page ten to remove the requirement that the assault must be 
tied to a ``covered crime.'' Requiring that the assault of the tribal 
justice personnel be tied to a ``covered crime'' may require the Tribes 
to first prove the underlying covered crime before they could prosecute 
for the assault, which does not fully fix the public safety concern of 
police officers or detention personnel. This creates significant 
confusion that likely would have to be worked out in the courts. We ask 
that the language fully cover all assaults of tribal justice personnel 
and not mention anything related to a ``covered crime.''
    Section 904 provides a local solution for the local problem of 
criminal victimization in Tribal communities. We are pleased to see 
that the bipartisan Title IX discussion draft continues to build on 
VAWA's promise and includes key priorities that have been identified by 
Tribes to further enhance safety for victims in tribal communities.
    The Title IX discussion draft clarifies that Tribal Nations in 
Maine are included in the law and creates a pilot project to address 
the unique needs in Alaska. We fully support the inclusion of all 
Tribes in VAWA. Alaska Native women are over-represented among domestic 
violence victims in Alaska by 250 percent and make up 47 percent of 
reported rape victims in the state, yet 1 in 3 rural Alaskan 
communities have no law enforcement presence. The Title IX discussion 
draft includes a pilot project that will enable a limited number of 
Tribes in Alaska to exercise special tribal criminal jurisdiction over 
certain crimes that occur in Alaska villages.
    In addition to the lifesaving provisions outlined above, the 
bipartisan Title IX discussion draft creates a reimbursement program 
under which the Attorney General may reimburse Tribes for expenses 
incurred in exercising special tribal criminal jurisdiction. We would 
ask that the reimbursement program language be expanded to include 
reimbursements for trial and appellate courts (including facilities 
maintenance, renovation, and rehabilitation.) Additionally, the time 
for the Attorney General to develop regulations for the program should 
be shortened from within one year to within six months after the 
effective date to ensure that this important program is implemented 
quickly to address the urgent need in Tribal communities.
    We urge all members of the Senate Committee on Indian affairs to 
support the provisions included in the bipartisan Title IX discussion 
draft and to become a co-sponsor of the full bipartisan Senate VAWA 
bill that incorporates the discussion draft provisions and our 
recommended changes.

        Gunalcheesh/Haw'aa/Quyana/Mahsi'Choo/Baasee'/Maasee'/Dogedinh/
        Thank you,
                         Kendra Kloster, Executive Director
                                 ______
                                 
              THE ASSOCIATION OF VILLAGE COUNCIL PRESIDENTS
                                                  December 21, 2021
Dear Chairman Schatz and Vice-Chairman Murkowski,

    The Association of Village Council Presidents fully supports the 
December 8, 2021 Discussion Draft of Title IX to the Violence Against 
Women Act, and respectfully requests the prompt introduction and 
passage of Title IX, especially subtitle B--Alaska Tribal Public Safety 
Empowerment.
    The Association of Village Council Presidents (AVCP) is the largest 
tribal consortium in the Nation with 56 federally recognized tribes as 
members. We are located in the Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta in Western Alaska, 
which includes 48 villages along the Yukon River, Kuskokwim River, and 
Bering Sea Coast spanning an area approximately the size of the State 
of New York. AVCP provides community development, education, social 
services, and advocacy for our member tribes and communities. This 
includes advocating for our region's top priority, public safety.
    In 2019, U.S. Attorney General Barr declared a law enforcement 
emergency in rural Alaska. The majority of villages in our Region have 
no full-time law enforcement and many have no law enforcement presence 
at all. In rural Alaska, rates of domestic violence and physical 
assault are 10 times higher than in the rest of the United States. 
Despite the dire need for public safety, and often being the primary 
governmental entity in the village, Alaska Tribes are not recognized as 
having criminal jurisdiction over the individuals in our communities.
    This is why Tribes and Tribal Organizations across Alaska, 
including here in the Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta, support the proposed 
Alaska Tribal Public Safety Empowerment subtitle (see the enclosed 
resolution recently passed at our annual convention). Recognizing that 
Alaska Tribes have inherent civil and criminal jurisdiction over all 
Indians present within our village boundaries is a major step toward 
ending the current public safety crisis. The pilot project for a 
limited number of Alaska Tribes to exercise special criminal 
jurisdiction over certain crimes that occur within their villages is 
another step in the right direction. The Alaska Tribal Public Safety 
Empowerment is essential to protecting our women and children and 
making our communities safer.
    In closing, thank you for your support and dedication in working 
for Indian Country, including Alaska Tribes. We look forward to seeing 
the Discussion Draft of Title IX, including the Alaska Tribal Public 
Safety Empowerment, introduced very soon. Our tribes are not asking for 
anything less or anything more than any other community in Alaska or 
the United States.

        Quyana,
                                       Vivian Korthuis, CEO

    Attachment: Resolution 21-09-01

TITLE: A Resolution in Support of the Alaska Tribal Public Safety 
        Empowerment Act
    WHEREAS The Association of Village Council Presidents (AVCP) is the 
recognized tribal organization and non-profit Alaska Native regional 
corporation for its fifty-six member indigenous Native villages within 
Western Alaska and supports the endeavors of its member villages; and
    WHEREAS AVCP fully supports its member villages in all aspects of 
their self-determination, health, and well-being; and
    WHEREAS There is a public safety crisis in rural Alaska--

 59 percent of adult women in Alaska have experienced intimate 
        partner violence, sexual violence, or both;

 Reported rape in Alaska is 2.5 times the national average;

 Alaska Natives comprise just 19 percent of the state 
        population, but 47 percent of reported rape victims;

 In rural Alaska's tribal communities (and for Alaska Native 
        women living in urban areas) women reported rates of domestic 
        violence up to 10 times higher than in the rest of the United 
        States and physical assault victimization rates up to 12 times 
        higher;

 More than 95 percent of all crimes committed in rural Alaska 
        can be attributed to alcohol; and

    WHEREAS Tribes in rural Alaska have little to no public safety 
resources to keep their tribal communities safe; and
    WHEREAS Tribes rely on a patchwork of state law enforcement and 
tribal law enforcement, which leaves gaps in service and instability 
for tribal governments and tribal public safety employees; and
    WHEREAS The interpretation of certain legislation regarding Indian 
Country in Alaska has cast the status of Alaska tribes' criminal 
jurisdiction into doubt; and
    WHEREAS At the 2016 AVCP Annual Convention, the AVCP Region tribes 
declared public safety as the region's number one priority; and
    WHEREAS On June 28, 2019, Attorney General Barr declared a law 
enforcement emergency in rural Alaska; and
    WHEREAS On October 17, 2019, U.S. Senator Murkowski (R-AK) 
introduced S. 2616, the Alaska Tribal Public Safety Empowerment Act 
(``the Act'') legislation; and
    WHEREAS The Act recognizes that, regardless of land title, Indian 
tribes in Alaska have inherent civil and criminal jurisdiction over all 
Alaska Natives present in their villages; and
    WHEREAS The Act recognizes that Indian tribes in Alaska have full 
civil jurisdiction within their villages to issue and enforce 
protection orders involving any individual; and
    WHEREAS The Act also creates a pilot program in Alaska in which the 
Attorney General will select up to five tribes or inter-tribal 
organizations each year to exercise general civil jurisdiction over all 
persons within the village, plus criminal jurisdiction over all persons 
for certain enumerated crimes; and
    WHEREAS Alaska tribes have waited long enough for the devastating 
impacts of a lack of public safety in their communities to be 
addressed; and
    WHEREAS Alaska tribes are asking for no more or no less than any 
other community in the State of Alaska or in the United States.
    NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED That the Association of Village 
Council Presidents Full Board of Directors calls for the reintroduction 
and passage of the Alaska Tribal Public Safety Empowerment Act.
    NOW THEREFORE BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED That, to this end, the members 
of the Alaska Congressional Delegation co-sponsor this legislation.
    ADOPTED by the Members of the Association of Village Council 
Presidents during the Association's fifty-seventh annual convention 
held this 22nd day of September with a duly constituted quorum of 
delegates present.
                                 ______
                                 
                           Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians
                                                  December 22, 2021
    As Principal Chief of the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians 
(``EBCI'' and/or ``Eastern Band''), I write to provide our comments on 
the Discussion Draft for Title IX of the Violence Against Women Act 
(VAWA), as posted online on the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs' 
website on December 8, 2021.
    Tha EBCI is a Tribal Nation based in the mountains of Western North 
Carolina. We are the Cherokee descendents who avoided forced removal 
along the Trail of Tears, or who returned from the Indian Territory 
after the march. About 15,000 people live on the Qualla Boundary, the 
traditional name for the Eastern Band Cherokee Reservation, including 
about 8,500 Eastern Band Cherokee citizens. Nearly all the land within 
the exterior boundary of the Qualla Boundary is held in trust by the 
United States for the Eastern Band.
    On June 15, 2015, the Eastern Band implemented VAWA  904's Special 
Domestic Violence Criminal Jurisdiction (SDVCJ). The Eastern Band has 
its own court system, consisting of a trial court and an appellate 
court (Supreme Court), and it own Office of Tribal Prosecutor (OTP). In 
FY21, there were 2,119 criminal cases (including 30 juvenile cases) 
filed in the Cherokee Court. These criminal cases constituted 71 
percent or approximately two-thirds of all matters filed in the 
Cherokee Court durin FY21. Approximately 1,497 criminal cases were 
heard and disposed of in FY21. In addition, the EBCI has an in-house 
Legal Assistance Office (LAO) that represents Tribal citizen plaintiffs 
on civil domestic violence matters. In FY21, the LAO assisted with 90 
matters referred by the DV program; 72 of these were requests for 
domestic violence protective orders under EBCI law. . The Eastern Band 
has also implemented the Tribal Law and Order Act (TLOA), including 
enhanced sentencing. \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ See 25 U.S.C.  1302 (b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Overall, the Discussion Draft constitutes a bi-partisan achievement 
that, if passed into law, will go a long way towards addressing the 
epidemic of violence our Native women and children continue to suffer. 
The Committee has done a commendable job drafting the Discussion Draft. 
We have very few critiques or criticisms to offer. The EBCI applauds 
the Members of the Committee, as well as their staff, for the 
incredible work on this excellent Discussion Draft. Most notably, the 
Discussion Draft builds upon the jurisdictional restoration provisions 
of VAWA 2013 and expands the scope of restored tribal criminal 
jurisdiction over non-Indian criminal conduct into much needed areas, 
including assault on tribal justice personnel, child violence, 
trafficking, sexual assault, obstruction of justice and more. While 
Tribal Nations, including the EBCI, continue to advocate for a full 
restoration of tribal criminal jurisdiction as a permanent fix to the 
Supreme Court's 1978 decision in Oliphant v. Suquamish Indian Tribe, 
any expanded recognition of the inherent jurisdiction of Tribal Nations 
to protect their citizens on tribal lands constitutes an important 
advancement in Indian country.
I. Scope of Covered Conduct
A. Definition of Domestic Violence
    The EBCI considers the definition of ``domestic violence'' in Title 
IX to be effective in that it refers to ``any violation of the criminal 
law of the Indian tribe that has jurisdiction over the Indian country 
where the violation occurs.'' \2\ It is crucial that Title IX's 
definition of ``domestic violence'' be first and foremost centered on 
the implementing tribe's own definition of ``domestic violence'' under 
the tribe's own criminal law to ensure that the federal statutory 
definition of ``domestic violence'' does not function as a 
jurisdictional barrier. The EBCI applauds this definition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ Compare 25 U.S.C.   1304(a)(2) with definition found in 
Discussion Draft   904(3)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    We want to point out , however, that while the definition of 
``domestic violence'' in the Discussion Draft is an improvement over 
the existing definition, we advocate that the definition address 
``reckless'' conduct as proposed in H.R. 1620. H.R. 1620 includes the 
following language in its definition of ``domestic violence'': ``when 
an offender recklessly engages in conduct that creates a substantial 
risk of death or serious bodily injury to the victim''. \3\ The 
addition of ``recklessly'' in the definition will reach more criminal 
conduct than the Discussion Draft's definition and would be a welcome 
inclusion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ Violence Against Women Act Reauthorization Act of 2021, H.R. 
1620, 117th Cong.   903(4)(A) (2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    We also suggest that Discussion Draft's definition of ``domestic 
violence'' would be improved by including a reference to violence 
committed against an elder. H.R. 1620 includes violence committed 
against an elder ``as such term is defined by Tribal law'' in the 
definition of domestic violence--a provision which the Discussion Draft 
omits entirely. \4\ The EBCI fully supports the inclusion of elder 
abuse in the final version of Title IX because, as it currently stands 
under VAWA 2013, there is no restoration of tribal criminal 
jurisdiction over elder abuse unless that abuse takes place in the 
context of a dating or intimate partner relationship. According to the 
World Health Organization, rates of elder abuse are highest in nursing 
homes and long-term care facilities where abuse is often committed by 
staff members, and elder abuse has continued to increase worldwide 
during the COVID-19 pandemic. \5\ It is important that the final 
version of Title IX remains sufficiently deferential to tribal law to 
allow for tribal prosecution of elder abuse so that tribal communities 
may combat the high rates of violence against tribal elders. Very 
often, violence against our elders is committed by a non-dating or 
intimate partner. The EBCI is of the opinion that elder abuse should be 
expressly addressed within the definition of ``domestic violence.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ Id.
    \5\ World Health Organization, ``Elder Abuse'' (October 4, 2021), 
https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/elder-abuse
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    We note that S. 2843 defines ``domestic violence'' in a way which 
is even more deferential to tribal law than the Discussion Draft's 
definition. S. 2843 also includes ``the use, threatened use, or 
attempted use of violence'' proscribed by the Tribe as well as violence 
committed by ``a person against an adult or child victim who is 
protected from the acts of that person under the domestic or family 
violence laws of the Indian tribe that has jurisdiction over the Indian 
country where the violation occurs.'' \6\ By including provisions that 
specifically state that a tribe may prosecute those who commit any 
violent act against an adult or child victim who would be protected 
from the same under tribal law, S. 2843 is more deferential to tribal 
law in defining which crimes committed against children will fall 
within the statutory defined category of restored tribal criminal 
jurisdiction. The EBCI supports the inclusion of a definition of 
``domestic violence'' that gives tribal law maximum deference and 
greatest reach, to ensure that the federal definition of ``domestic 
violence'' does not arbitrarily limit the kinds of domestic violence 
cases that an implementing Tribe may prosecute.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\ Violence Against Women Act Reauthorization Act of 2019, S. 
2843, 116th Cong.   903(2)(C) (2019-2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Assault of Tribal Justice Personnel
    VAWA 2013 does not address assault of a tribal law enforcement or 
correctional officer. The EBCI commends the Committee for including 
special provisions in the Discussion Draft to address assault of tribal 
justice personnel. Importantly, the Draft's definition of tribal 
justice personnel as ``an individual authorized to act for, or on 
behalf of, that Indian tribe'' \7\ is broad enough to encompass both 
Indian and non-Indian tribal law officers, as many tribes have non-
Indian justice personnel who serve their tribal communities and should 
be protected from violence. Answering a domestic violence call can be 
one of the most dangerous calls a tribal law officer undertakes. At the 
Eastern Band, we have experienced numerous tragedies where our law 
officers are assaulted by a non-Indian perpetrator who is engaged in 
committing a crime of domestic violence. Although the Eastern Band-
since implementing SDVCJ in 2015-has been able to prosecute a domestic 
violence crime committed against a Native victim, we have been unable 
to prosecute the crime committed when the perpetrator assaults our law 
enforcement personnel. This seriously undermines public safety in our 
community.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\ Discussion Draft   904(3)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    However, there is a potential issue with the Discussion Draft's 
provision that provides protection for tribal justice personnel only 
for certain situations specific to the scope of their duties. In 
particular, the Discussion Draft provides protection under the law for 
tribal justice personnel ``preventing, detecting, investigating, making 
arrests relating to, making apprehensions for, or prosecuting a covered 
crime.'' \8\ The use of ``covered crime'' could be problematic in 
situations where a non-covered crime (such as arson) is being committed 
by a non-Indian. In the Discussion Draft, if and when tribal justice 
personnel arrive, and if there is an assault against a tribal law 
officer, the Eastern Band would not be able to prosecute the assault 
committed against our law officer. In this scenario, if the non-Indian 
was not committing or was not in the process of committing a ``covered 
crime'', the language in the Draft Discussion may lead to confusion in 
tribal court as to whether or not jurisdiction has been established 
over the offending non-Indian. The EBCI urges the Committee to clarify 
this provision to avoid a situation where a non-Indian offender 
assaults tribal justice personnel and yet, cannot be held accountable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\ Id. (emphasis added).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Child Violence, Obstruction of Justice, Sex Trafficking, Sexual 
        Violence, and Stalking
    The Discussion Draft significantly improves existing law by 
expanding covered crimes to include child violence, obstruction of 
justice, sex trafficking, sexual violence, and stalking. \9\ This 
expansion is vital to ensuring the full scope of sexual and domestic 
violence against Native women and children can be punished while tribes 
await a full restoration of criminal jurisdiction over non-Indians.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \9\ Discussion Draft   904.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Tribal Access Program
    The Committee's version of Title IX does an excellent job of 
expanding and funding tribal access to the national crime information 
databases. \10\ It is vital that both the Bureau of Indian Affairs and 
tribal law enforcement have access to, and the ability to use and move 
information into, the National Crime Information Center and other 
national databases, as the Discussion Draft provides. \11\ Importantly, 
the Discussion Draft version does not require that a tribal justice 
official have criminal jurisdiction over Indian country to be an 
authorized law enforcement official for purposes of National Crime 
Information Center access as such a requirement could significantly 
impede the speedy retrieval of information for ongoing Indian country 
investigations. The EBCI applauds the Committee's work to codify the 
Tribal Access Program in a sustainable way.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \10\ Id. at   902.
    \11\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. Grant Reimbursement Program
    The Discussion Draft expands the scope of grants to tribal 
governments currently covered in 25 U.S.C.   1304(f)-(h). \12\ 
Existing law provides only for ``grants'' as opposed to reimbursements. 
This is a crucial distinction because under the existing framework, 
tribes receive grant awards to fund their justice systems in an upfront 
sum to provide funding for law enforcement, prosecution, trial and 
appellate courts, probation systems, detention and correctional 
facilities, alternative rehabilitation centers, culturally appropriate 
services, and criminal codes and rules of procedure. \13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \12\ Id. at   904.
    \13\ 25 U.S.C.   1304(f)-(h).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The problem with requiring tribes to implement VAWA's restored 
tribal criminal jurisdiction using upfront grant awards alone is that 
there are often situations in which unexpected costs, such as inmate 
healthcare costs, can arise during the course of implementation. An 
unexpected inmate surgery can drastically affect the entire budgeting 
plan for a fiscal year for a tribe and makes implementing VAWA's 
restored jurisdiction prohibitive for many smaller tribes. The EBCI has 
encountered this very issue with the existing grant program. We welcome 
a reimbursement program for eligible expenses including healthcare 
costs for persons charged.
    Additionally, the EBCI supports the Discussion Draft's requirements 
for timeliness and a necessary $25,000,000 in funding each fiscal year 
through 2026, which significantly expands the availability of awards 
and reimbursements for tribes. The Discussion Draft stipulates that a 
decision on reimbursement or rejection of reimbursement will be reached 
no later than 90 days after DOJ receives a qualified request from a 
tribal government and that tribes will be notified no later than 30 
days after they have gone past the maximum allowable reimbursement set 
by the Department that the maximum has been reached. \14\ This 
timeliness provision will ensure federal accountability in reimbursing 
tribes for their expenses and provides tribes with a reasonable 
expectation of when the funds will arrive. This is very important to 
our ability to successfully implement VAWA Title IX.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \14\ Discussion Draft   904(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
IV. Bureau of Prisons Tribal Prisoner Program
    The Discussion Draft provides for a Bureau of Prisons Tribal 
Prisoner Program, which is similar to provisions previously included in 
the Tribal Law and Order Act (TLOA). \15\ A Bureau of Prisons Tribal 
Program is critical to provide tribes with the ability to house 
offenders in federal prisons when they are convicted in tribal court. 
The EBCI previously used this provision in TLOA. TLOA has expired and 
has yet to be re-authorized, so we are very thankful to see this 
program codified now in VAWA. It is key that this be a full program, as 
opposed to a pilot program, to avoid termination or expiration of the 
program. The EBCI commends the Committee for including these provisions 
and supports tribal efforts to participate in the Bureau of Prisons 
Tribal Prisoner Program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \15\ Discussion Draft   903.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
V. Alaska Pilot Project Grant
    The EBCI is very thankful to see that the Discussion Draft contains 
provisions in Subtitle B (   911-913) to improve Alaska tribal public 
safety through the establishment of a Pilot Program for Special Tribal 
Criminal Jurisdiction for Indian Tribes occupying Villages in Alaska. 
\16\ The Alaska Pilot Program is desperately needed in VAWA 2021. As 
the Discussion Draft notes, Alaska Native women are disproportionately 
represented in the domestic violence victim population--by 250 
percent--and suffer the highest rates of domestic and sexual violence 
compared to the populations of other Indian tribes. EBCI wholeheartedly 
supports the Alaska Pilot Program and defers to any comments that 
tribes in Alaska may have to offer regarding the program provisions, as 
well as any comments or feedback received by the Alaska Native Women's 
Resource Center.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \16\ Discussion Draft    911-913.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
VI. Inclusion of Tribes in Maine
    The EBCI was dismayed to learn that tribes in Maine were left out 
of VAWA 2013's SDVCJ, and the EBCI is thankful to see that VAWA's 
restored tribal criminal jurisdiction has been extended to tribes in 
Maine in this Discussion Draft. \17\ The EBCI believes strongly that 
none of us are safe until all of us are safe, and there is no reason 
for any federally recognized tribe to remain restricted in its ability 
to exercise this restored jurisdiction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \17\ Discussion Draft   904.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
VII. Conclusion
    In drafting a final version of Title IX, the Committee should 
consider Congress's reasons for enacting VAWA Title IX in the first 
instance-recognizing and affirming ``the powers of self-government . . 
. includ[ing] the inherent power'' of tribes. \18\ The EBCI applauds 
the work the Committee has done in its Draft to ensure that all 
federally recognized tribes will be able to implement VAWA's restored 
criminal jurisdiction, including tribes located in Alaska. Though there 
are still minor changes to be made, the EBCI is confident that the 
Committee's final version of Title IX will meaningfully update existing 
law and empower tribes to seek justice in their communities. This 
Discussion Draft, if it becomes law, will allow tribes to better 
protect their citizens living within their borders and, ultimately, 
will go a long ways towards addressing the epidemic of violence our 
Tribal Nations and citizens face.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \18\ 25 U.S.C.   1304(b)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Thank you to the leadership of both Chairman Schatz and Vice 
Chairman Murkowski, and the work of your excellent staffs, for their 
vision and leadership in making such an excellent Discussion Draft 
possible. This is truly a historic moment.

        Sgi,
                             Richard Sneed, Principal Chief
                                 ______
                                 
    Fort Peck Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes' Red Bird Woman 
                                                     Center
                                                  December 22, 2021
Dear Senator Schatz, Senator Murkowski, and all members of the Senate 
Committee on Indian Affairs:

    I write on behalf of the Fort Peck Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes' 
Red Bird Woman Center to support the bipartisan Violence Against Women 
Act (VAWA) Title IX--SAFETY FOR INDIAN WOMEN discussion draft released 
on December 8, 2021, which includes important provisions that will 
improve safety and justice in tribal communities. Tribal communities 
continue to suffer from the highest crime victimization rates in the 
country, and the reforms included in the bipartisan Title IX discussion 
draft are desperately needed today.
    A 2016 report by the National Institute of Justice found that over 
80 percent of American Indians and Alaska Natives will be a victim of 
intimate partner violence, sexual violence, or stalking in their 
lifetime. The study also found that 90 percent of these victims were 
victimized by a non-Indian perpetrator. Sadly, Indian children are 
particularly impacted by this violence and are 50 percent more likely 
to experience child abuse and sexual abuse than white children. The 
complicated jurisdictional framework at play in Indian country and 
Alaska continues to undermine safety for American Indian and Alaska 
Native victims of violence.
    Tribal Nations have been exercising jurisdiction over non-Indian 
domestic violence offenders under VAWA 2013 for over 8 years. 
Exercising Tribal Nations have held serial offenders accountable and 
have brought justice and safety to hundreds of victims and their 
families while upholding the due process rights of all defendants in 
tribal courts. Despite these successes, perpetrators still find gaps in 
the law. Victims of sexual violence, child abuse, stalking, 
trafficking, elder abuse, and assaults against law enforcement officers 
deserve the same protections that Congress affords to domestic violence 
victims on tribal lands in VAWA 2013.
    It is particularly important that the final bipartisan VAWA bill 
recognizes that Indian children are equally in need of the protections 
that were extended to adult domestic violence victims in VAWA 2013. The 
Tribal Nations implementing VAWA 2013 report that children have been 
involved as victims or witnesses in their cases nearly 60 percent of 
the time. However, federal law failed to restore tribal jurisdiction to 
prosecute these crimes. The Title IX discussion draft language would 
restore this category of jurisdiction and allow us to protect our 
Indian children in our tribal justice systems.
    We ask that the Title IX discussion draft be amended to include 
crimes against elders, which was a category of restored jurisdiction 
included in the House bill, H.R. 1620, but not the bipartisan Senate 
Committee on Indian Affairs discussion draft. Indian elders are an 
integral part of our tribal communities to whom we owe respect and 
care. Indian elders carry our cultures and traditions, and we must 
ensure that they are not left behind in this reauthorization of VAWA.
    We also appreciate that the Title IX discussion draft recognizes 
that VAWA 2013 inadvertently left our tribal police officers and 
detention personnel at risk. Domestic violence cases are both the most 
common and the most dangerous calls that law enforcement receives. 
Several Tribal Nations have reported assaults on their officers or 
bailiffs committed by non-Indian defendants, but as of now, Tribal 
Nations remain unable to prosecute these crimes as assaults on law 
enforcement was not a restored category of jurisdiction in VAWA 2013. 
This creates an obvious public safety concern. In order to ensure that 
the Title IX discussion draft fully rectifies this issue, we strongly 
recommend amending the draft language on page ten to remove the 
requirement that the assault must be tied to a ``covered crime.'' 
Requiring that the assault of the tribal justice personnel be tied to a 
``covered crime'' may require the Tribal Nation to first prove the 
underlying covered crime before they could prosecute for the assault, 
which does not fully fix the public safety concern of police officers 
or detention personnel. This creates significant confusion that likely 
would have to be worked out in the courts. We ask that the language 
fully cover all assaults of tribal justice personnel and not mention 
anything related to a ``covered crime.''
    Section 904 provides a local solution for the local problem of 
criminal victimization in Indian country. We are pleased to see that 
the bipartisan Title IX discussion draft continues to build on VAWA's 
promise and includes key priorities that have been identified by Tribal 
Nations to further enhance safety for victims in tribal communities.
    The Title IX discussion draft clarifies that Tribal Nations in 
Maine are included in the law and creates a pilot project to address 
the unique needs in Alaska. We fully support the inclusion of all 
Tribal Nations in VAWA. Alaska Native women are over-represented among 
domestic violence victims in Alaska by 250 percent and make up 47 
percent of reported rape victims in the state, yet 1 in 3 rural Alaskan 
communities have no law enforcement presence. The Title IX discussion 
draft includes a pilot project that will enable a limited number of 
Tribal Nations in Alaska to exercise special tribal criminal 
jurisdiction over certain crimes that occur in Alaska villages.
    In addition to the lifesaving provisions outlined above, the 
bipartisan Title IX discussion draft creates a reimbursement program 
under which the Attorney General may reimburse Tribal Nations for 
expenses incurred in exercising special tribal criminal jurisdiction. 
We would ask that that reimbursement program language be expanded to 
include reimbursements for trial and appellate courts (including 
facilities maintenance, renovation, and rehabilitation.) Additionally, 
the time for the Attorney General to develop regulations for the 
program should be shortened from within one year to within six months 
after the effective date to ensure that this important program is 
implemented quickly to address the urgent need in Indian Country.
    The Title XI discussion draft also allows Tribal Nations to utilize 
the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) to house defendants serving sentences of 
more than one year and increases Tribal Nations' access to the National 
Crime Information Database. Both of these additions to VAWA will go a 
long way towards ensuring Tribal Nations are able to implement this 
restored jurisdiction fully and most effectively.
    We fully support the purpose of Title IX, which is to strengthen 
tribal sovereignty and reaffirm tribal jurisdiction over non-Indian 
perpetrators. We also support providing additional resources to address 
violence against all Native women. However, the new language in the 
Section 901 Findings and Purposes, which adds Native Hawaiians, urban 
Indians communities, Native Americans, and Native American communities, 
jeopardizes the long-term enforcement of the law and detracts from the 
key purpose of Title IX. For those reasons we strongly recommend that 
all Native Hawaiian, urban Indian communities, Native American, and 
Native American communities language be removed from Section 901. The 
language in Section 901 should solely focus on American Indians, Alaska 
Natives, and Indian tribes in order to protect tribal sovereignty, 
which is consistent with the purpose of the Title IX.
    We urge all members of the Senate Committee on Indian affairs to 
support the provisions included in the bipartisan Title IX discussion 
draft and to become a co-sponsor of the full bipartisan Senate VAWA 
bill that incorporates all of the discussion draft provisions and our 
recommended changes.

        Sincerely,
                             Susan Parker, Program Director
                                 ______
                                 
                Indian Health Care Resource Center of Tulsa
                                                  December 21, 2021
Dear Chairman Schatz and Vice Chairman Murkowski:

    Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on the Violence 
Against Women Act (VAWA) reauthorization discussion draft. On behalf of 
Indian Health Care Resource Center in Tulsa, Oklahoma, we hereby submit 
our written comments and recommendations in response to the tribal 
title draft1 and larger bill.
    Indian Health Care Resource Center provides cutting edge care for 
almost 12,000 Native Americans annually. The wide array of integrated 
services operates through a multidisciplinary, patient-centered, 
medical home model of care. The one-stop shop houses the following 
services: (1) Primary Care for all ages; (2) Internal Medicine; (3) 
Pediatrics including well child; (4) Obstetrics; (5) Public Health 
including a new COVID-19 and Immunization Clinic; (6) Optometry; (7) 
Dentistry; (8) Pharmacy; (9) Laboratory; (10) Radiology including x-
ray, mammography, and ultra sound; (11) Behavioral Health; (12) 
Substance Abuse Prevention and Treatment; (13) Systems of Care Wrap 
Around Services; 14) Social service connection through medical social 
workers; (15) Domestic violence prevention and intervention; (16) 
Health Education and Wellness including diabetes management, 
dietitians, and exercise; (17) Transportation, and (18) Programs for 
Youth including suicide and drug abuse prevention and cultural 
activities.

Comments
    Urban Indian Organizations (UIOs) like ours provide much more than 
just health services to American Indians and Alaska Natives including 
but not limited to the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for 
Women, Infants, and Children (WIC), housing services, social services, 
community advocacy, and other resources to victims of domestic 
violence. Many UIOs conduct home visits and are at the front-line to 
identify domestic violence and other risk factors for Missing and 
Murdered Indigenous People (MMIP). Urban Indian inclusion in VAWA is 
important to strengthen these critical services provided at UIOs for 
American Indians/Alaska Natives (AI/ANs), and the National Council of 
Urban Indian Health (NCUIH) has advocated for urban Indians to be added 
in the Senate draft bill. This is a huge accomplishment given that the 
House bill on VAWA (H.R. 1620) excluded UIOs and urban Indian 
communities.
    During the White House Tribal Nations Summit last month, President 
Biden signed an Executive Order (E.O.) \2\ on addressing the crisis of 
MMIP with UIO inclusion. The E.O. specifically mentions the Department 
of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the Secretary of the Interior 
conferring with UIOs on developing a comprehensive plan to support 
initiatives related to MMIP. NCUIH and UIOs support urban confer among 
federal agencies on policies that impact urban AI/ANs and have been 
working on an urban confer bill \3\ that recently passed the House 
(406-17) with overwhelming support. The E.O also highlights the need 
for improved data surrounding this crisis as it relates to urban Indian 
communities. NCUIH has, and continues to, advocate for gathering more 
data on AI/AN communities and Missing and Murdered Indigenous People. 
On July 2, 2021, NCUIH submitted comments to the Department of Justice 
on Savannah's Act requesting UIOs and urban Indians to be incorporated 
into improving data relevancy, access, and resources. We look forward 
to participating in that effort and we hope that VAWA will help us 
combat this epidemic in Indian country.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ Executive Order on Improving Public Safety and Criminal Justice 
for Native Americans and Addressing the Crisis of Missing or Murdered 
Indigenous People: https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/
presidential-actions/2021/11/15/executive-order-on-improving-public-
safety-and-criminal-justice-for-native-americans-and-addressing-the-
crisis-of-missing-or-murdered-indigenous-people/
    \3\ Urban Indian Health Confer Act: https://www.congress.gov/117/
meeting/house/114098/documents/BILLS-1175221ih.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    SNAHC would like to express appreciation for the inclusion of urban 
Indians in 11 locations of the Senate draft bill. We respectfully ask 
you retain the following provisions in the final Senate bill:

 Bill Amendment: SEC. 101. Stop Grants

        --Part T of title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe 
        Streets Act of 1968 (34 U.S.C. 10441 et seq.) is amended--

          --(25) paying any fees charged by any governmental authority 
        for furnishing a victim or the child of a victim with any of 
        the following documents:

 ``(B) An identification card issued to the individual by a 
        State or Tribe, that shows that the individual is a resident of 
        the State or a member of the Tribe.''; and

        --(B) in Subsection (d)--

          --i) in paragraph (1)-

          --II) in subparagraph (D), by inserting ``, urban Indian 
        communities, and Native Hawaiian communities'' after 
        ``assisting Indian tribes''; (ii) in paragraph (2)-

          --I) in subparagraph (A)(iii), by inserting ``, urban Indian 
        communities, and Native Hawaiian communities'' after ``provide 
        services to Indian tribes''; and

          --II) in subparagraph (B), by inserting ``, urban Indian 
        communities, and Native Hawaiian communities'' after ``in areas 
        where Indian tribes'';

 Bill Amendment: SEC. 105. Outreach and Services to Underserved 
        Population Grants.

        --Section 120 of the Violence Against Women and Department of 
        Justice Reauthorization Act of 2005 (34 U.S.C. 20123) is 
        amended--

          --(2) in subsection (b)(3), by inserting ``urban Indian, 
        Native Hawaiian,'' before ``or local organization'';

 Bill Amendment: SEC. 108. Enhancing Culturally Specific 
        Services for Victims of Domestic Violence, Dating Violence, 
        Sexual Assault, and Stalking

        --Section 121 of the Violence Against Women and Department of 
        Justice Reauthorization Act of 2005 (34 U.S.C. 20124) is 
        amended-

          --``(4) DISTRIBUTION.--Of the total amount available for 
        grants under this section, not less than 40 percent of such 
        funds shall be allocated for programs or projects that 
        meaningfully address non-intimate partner relationship sexual 
        assault.'';

 (3) in subsection (c)--

        --(A) in paragraph (1), by striking ``and'' at the end;

        --(B) in paragraph (2), by striking the period at the end and 
        inserting ``; and''; and

        --(C) by adding at the end the following:

          --``(3) tribal nonprofit organizations, Native Hawaiian 
        organizations, and urban Indian organizations.'';

 Bill Amendment: SEC. 110. Pilot Program on Restorative 
        Practices.

        --a) IN GENERAL.--The Violence Against Women Act of 1994 (title 
        IV of Public Law 103-322), as amended by section 205, is 
        further amended by adding at the end the following:

          --``Subtitle R-Restorative Practices

          --``SEC. 41801. PILOT PROGRAM ON RESTORATIVE PRACTICES.

 ``(a) DEFINITIONS.--In this section:

        --``(2) ELIGIBLE ENTITY.--The term `eligible entity' means-

          --A) a State;

          --B) a unit of local government;

          --C) a tribal government;

          --D) a tribal organization;

          --E) a victim service provider;

          --F) an institution of higher education (as defined in 
        section 101(a) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 
        1001(a)); and

          --G) a private or public nonprofit organization, including

          --(i) a tribal nonprofit organization; and

          --ii) a faith-based nonprofit organization.

 Bill Amendment: SEC. 302. Creating Hope through Outreach, 
        Options, Services, and Education (CHOOSE) for Children and 
        Youth

        --Section 41201 of the Violence Against Women Act of 1994 (34 
        U.S.C. 12451) is amended--

          --2) in subsection (c)--

 (A) in paragraph (1)(A)--

        --(ii) by inserting ``Native Hawaiian organization, urban 
        Indian organization,''

    before ``or population-specific community-based organization''; and

 Bill Amendment: SEC. 506. Expanding Access to Unified Care.

        --(f) Authorization of Appropriations.--

          --2) Set-Aside.--Of the amount appropriated under this 
        subsection for a fiscal year, the Secretary shall reserve 15 
        percent of such amount for purposes of making grants to 
        entities that are affiliated with Indian Tribes or Tribal 
        organizations (as defined in section 4 of the Indian Self-
        Determination and Education Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 5304)), 
        or Urban Indian organizations (as defined in section 4 of the 
        Indian Health Care Improvement Act (25 U.S.C.1603)). Amounts 
        reserved may be used to support referrals and the delivery of 
        emergency first aid, culturally competent support, and forensic 
        evidence collection training.

 Bill Amendment: SEC. 507. Expanding Access to Forensics for 
        Victims of Interpersonal Violence

        --(a) Definitions.--In this section:
        --(9) URBAN INDIAN ORGANIZATION.--The term ``Urban Indian 
        organization'' has the meaning given such term in section 4 of 
        the Indian Health Care Improvement Act (25 U.S.C. 1603).

 (b) Demonstration Grants for Comprehensive Forensic 
        Training.--

        --(6) Authorization of Appropriations.--

        --(B) Set-Aside.--Of the amount appropriated under this 
        paragraph for a fiscal year, the Secretary shall reserve 10 
        percent for purposes of making grants to support training and 
        curricula that addresses the unique needs of Indian Tribes, 
        Tribal organizations, Urban Indian organizations, and Native 
        Hawaiian organizations. Amounts so reserved may be used to 
        support training, referrals, and the delivery of emergency 
        first aid, culturally competent support, and forensic evidence 
        collection training.

 Bill Amendment: SEC. 901. Findings and Purposes

        --(b) Purposes.--The purposes of this subtitle are-

          --3) to empower Tribal governments and Native American 
        communities, including urban Indian communities and Native 
        Hawaiian communities, with the resources and information 
        necessary to effectively respond to cases of domestic violence, 
        dating violence, stalking, sex trafficking, sexual violence, 
        and missing and murdered Native Americans; and

          --4) to increase the collection of data related to missing 
        and murdered Native Americans and the sharing of information 
        among Federal, State, Tribal, and local officials responsible 
        for responding to and investigating crimes impacting Indian 
        Tribes and Native American communities, including urban Indian 
        communities and Native Hawaiian communities, especially crimes 
        relating to cases of missing and murdered Native Americans.

Closing
    In closing, Indian Heath Care Resource Center would like to thank 
the members of the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs for including 
urban AI/ANs in this important piece of legislation. We urge Congress 
to continue its support of all AI/ANs by retaining these provisions in 
the final VAWA reauthorization.

        Sincerely,
                                     Carmelita Skeeter, CEO
                                 ______
                                 
                                              Tulalip Tribe
                                                  December 21, 2021
Chairman Schatz and Vice-chair Murkowski and the members of the Senate 
Committee on Indian Affairs,

    I am a tribal judge for the Tulalip Tribes and a citizen of the 
Chickasaw Nation. I am writing to you as a private citizen and not on 
the behalf of the Tulalip Tribes or my own tribe, and not in my 
official capacity as a judge. My views and opinions are my own and not 
the official views and opinions of any other entity or organization and 
offered for the purpose of bettering the law, as requested by the 
Inter-Tribal Working Group.
    As a tribal judge, I regularly exercise jurisdiction over a range 
of crimes that occur on the reservation, including felony enhanced 
sentence crimes under TLOA and special domestic violence crimes under 
VAWA. The Tulalip Tribal Court was one of the original VAWA SDVCJ Pilot 
Courts. Our Court has been exercising VAWA jurisdiction for some time 
now.
    I wanted to discuss briefly our experience here. At Tulalip, we 
give due process protections of equal or greater degree than the 
Federal government does. We are a respected Court locally. In addition 
to my other dockets, I preside over the adult criminal wellness docket, 
a type of drug court. Our criminal wellness program is a mentor Court 
for the National Association of Drug Court Professionals (NADCP), 
meaning other courts observe our dockets and we offer them mentorship 
on how to implement their own programs. We do this not only for other 
tribal courts, but for state courts as well, and we have received 
excellent feedback about our operations from these courts, including 
the state courts who have observed, and from our NADCP evaluations. We 
have something to contribute and something to teach, and we are happy 
to do so to create a better system for all of us.
    We provide superior due process protections to everyone, not just 
our VAWA clients. VAWA clients are treated like everyone else in our 
Court; that is to say with dignity and respect. They appear on our 
docket somewhat regularly, and yet Federal habeas petitions against our 
VAWA jurisdiction have been virtually non-existent since we started 
exercising special domestic violence jurisdiction as a Pilot Court. I 
believe this is because VAWA clients would typically rather be 
prosecuted here than in the State. That is for a variety of reasons, 
including that we offer more services than the State. For instance, we 
have an over-dose mapping program which in addition to gathering data 
on local overdose deaths, is an outreach program which provides 
clothing and toiletries to transient criminal defendants, and which 
connects individuals with various other services and housing. They have 
even been known to drive people to treatment on the other end of the 
State when I order someone into treatment. We offer probation talking 
circles, we conduct native crafting events in the courthouse, we have a 
recovery house called The Healing Lodge, and have recently built a 
tiny-home village for the homeless on the reservation. Recently, 
Tulalip has begun providing hotel vouchers to the homeless during cold 
weather. A typical person is much better off being prosecuted here than 
elsewhere.
    Of course I am always pleased to see the Senate make attempts to 
correct the Federal government's historical errors in interfering with 
our inherent jurisdiction and natural rights as a native people, 
therefore I am happy to see the Senate's current VAWA reauthorization 
attempt, which goes further than I would have predicted the Federal 
government would go. (Then I again, we natives have learned not to 
expect much from the Federal government, other than broken promises.)
    Reauthorization and expansion of VAWA is certainly needed, and the 
current proposed Senate bill is a major step in the right direction.
    However, there are a few items in the bill that should be 
corrected:

        1. Assault on justice personal--This section says tribes can 
        only have jurisdiction over justice personnel in the context of 
        their duties enforcing ``covered crimes.'' This is confusing 
        and pointless. The bill should simply say that assaulting 
        justice personnel generally is a covered crime. I cannot think 
        of a single reason the Senate should want a situation where a 
        person can be prosecuted for assaulting a police officer 
        investigating a sexual assault, but not embezzlement or some 
        other non-covered crime. If a person is on the reservation 
        assaults a reservation police officer, judge, prosecutor, etc. 
        it is perfectly reasonable to expect to be prosecuted in a 
        reservation court.

        2. There is no reimbursement for tribal courts listed in the 
        section on reimbursement. Virtually everyone else involved in 
        the justice system including treatment providers can be 
        reimbursed under the proposed reauthorization, but courts have 
        been strangely left out, even though we bare much of the cost. 
        I have to assume that was inadvertent, and I hope the Senate 
        corrects it.

        3. Covered crimes should be broader. For instance, child 
        violence is covered but not child neglect or child 
        endangerment. I'm not sure why we should have jurisdiction over 
        someone who hits a child but not over someone who starves a 
        child. In addition, the covered crimes should also include 
        elder abuse and vulnerable adult abuse, among other crimes that 
        are especially egregious to native people. My people say our 
        children, elders, and vulnerable adults are living treasures. I 
        cannot fathom leaving our elders and vulnerable adults out of 
        the bills.

    Regarding that last point, after the Senate finishes reauthorizing 
and expanding VAWA, I hope Congress does not consider their work 
accomplished regarding our tribal sovereignty and inherent 
jurisdiction.
    This bill is a band aid on a much larger problem. Every few years, 
Congress puts another band aid on the problem, grows our jurisdiction a 
little, and then forgets we exist. I am not going to look a gift horse 
in the mouth, and I will say thank you for whatever our tribes can get.
    Yet, the problem still persists. The problem is the fact that the 
Federal government thinks it has any say over our jurisdiction to begin 
with. We are separate sovereigns, with inherent plenary authority over 
our reservations. No one can take that away from us. Not Congress. Not 
the Supreme Court. My people, the Chickasaws, call ourselves 
unconquered and unconquerable. Yet you pass legislation telling us 
whether we have jurisdiction over our domain.
    President George Washington gave my people certain assurances 
himself. He wrote a letter to our great minko (king) Piaminko, who the 
President called ``the Mountain Leader, Head Warrior, and First 
Minister'', in which he reassured his ``brothers'' the Chickasaws that 
the United States would uphold its treaties with the Chickasaws. The 
word ``brothers'' was not lost on the Chickasaws. Before the 
revolution, the Chickasaws referred to King George as our ``father'' as 
a sign of respect to his status as king of his people. George 
Washington knew this when he allied with us, and by calling us 
``brothers'' he was signaling equality between us and the United 
States. Washington told us in his letter that the U.S. was not 
interested in our lands and ``if any bad people tell you otherwise they 
deceive you, and are our enemies, and the enemies of the United 
States.'' He asked us to ``hold fast the Chain of Friendship, and do 
not believe any evil Reports against the justice and integrity of the 
United States.'' Proclamation by the President, August 26, 1790, and 
the President to the Chickasaw Nation, December 30, 1790, in The 
Territorial Papers of the United States, ed. Clarence Edwin Carter, 28 
vols. (Washington, D.C.: GPO 1934) 4:34, 41.
    We were always to be equals. The future that Washington described 
was not one where Congress dictated to us how to conduct ourselves on 
our own land. Do you not trust us? You mete out a little bit of 
jurisdiction now and then, when you want to remind us to hold our hands 
out to you for more. Why not give us back the rest of our criminal 
jurisdiction?
    If you can trust us tribal judges with sexual assaults and domestic 
violence, then why can't you trust us with shoplifts and drug 
possession cases? Are we tribal judges competent to sentence people for 
rapes, but incompetent to sentence them for unlawful camping or 
littering?
    To reference Harry Browne, the Federal government breaks our legs, 
then gives us a crutch and says Tribes would not be able to walk 
without the Federal government. We should not have to beg for our 
jurisdiction back. The Federal government should have never interfered 
with our jurisdiction to begin with.
    6Oliphant v. Suquamish took our criminal jurisdiction over ``non-
Indians'' away in 1978. Not 1778 or 1878. 1978. Let that sink in. 
Arguably one of the most racist court decisions in the history of this 
country is a relatively modern decision. The entire premise of the 
decision is tribal judges cannot be trusted with criminal jurisdiction 
over all people who choose to commit crimes within the boundaries of 
the reservation. They can only be trusted with jurisdiction over 
natives. Why? Because the race of the person in front of us in court 
matters? When else does it matter? Imagine if the Federal government 
told the State of Washington they could only exercise criminal 
jurisdiction over people of certain ethnicities. How would that go 
over?
    Before VAWA, the position of the Federal government was clear. The 
Federal government effectively said natives who operate tribal courts 
are incompetent to give people due process. The Federal government 
prohibited us from exercising authority over ``non-Indians,'' because 
apparently we should only be allowed to be incompetent to other 
natives.
    Then Congress eventually passed VAWA. You let us prove we are in 
fact competent after all (and always were.) Only now that we have 
proved that, instead of giving us back our jurisdiction over all people 
who commit crimes on our reservations, you still hold most of it back. 
Why? So that you can give us a little more in a few years when you want 
to remind us who to vote for?
    The Republicans on the committee should listen closely to this. The 
Democrats will always get native votes if the Democrats get to keep 
bringing up VAWA reauthorization every few years. They give us a little 
bit, then throw a party. Then they do it all over again a couple years 
later. Just give us all our jurisdiction back now and be done with it. 
Natives will notice and remember.
    The reasoning behind the decision to hold back most of our 
jurisdiction is incoherent. I guarantee not a single Senator could 
offer a reasonable argument why tribal judges should be allowed to 
exercise full jurisdiction over sexual assault but not shoplifting, or 
full jurisdiction over child violence but not unreasonable noise.
    The Senate should not be haggling over whether to make covered 
crimes narrow or slightly less narrow. The Senate should be debating 
whether to give us all of our criminal jurisdiction back. If you really 
cared about Indian country like you all claim to, then this would have 
already been fixed.
    We will take what little victories we can get. That is, after all, 
how we have survived to this point. But we should not have to 
constantly beg for what we have a right to. It is a travesty that the 
Supreme Court has never overturned Oliphant v. Suquamish. Perhaps they 
will someday. Yet, it is an even bigger travesty that the immediate 
reaction of Congress to Oliphant did not involve legislation to fix it, 
and still never has. The Congress of the United States is not helpless 
to do anything about this.
    Congress can give us our jurisdiction back any time. Congress 
simply chooses not to. And every year that passes by is another year 
you choose not to. And now 43 years have passed, and you are just now 
letting us have jurisdiction over people that beat native kids.
    How much time has to pass before you decide to fix the real 
problem. Address the issues with this reauthorization and pass it. 
Sure. Of course you should. The perfect should not be the enemy of the 
good. And then next year get to work giving us back the rest of our 
jurisdiction. You want to right the wrongs? That is what you were 
elected to do. Right them. Right the whole wrong.

        Thanks for your time.
                              Joshua Heath, Associate Judge
                                 ______
                                 
                               Butte Native Wellness Center
                                                  December 20, 2021
Dear Chairman Schatz and Vice Chairman Murkowski:

    Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on the Violence 
Against Women Act (VAWA) reauthorization discussion draft. On behalf of 
Butte Native Wellness Center in Butte, MT, we hereby submit our written 
comments and recommendations in response to the tribal title draft1 and 
larger bill. The Butte Native Wellness Center provides health, mental 
health, substance abuse and wellness services to more than twelve 
different tribes. Services are provided within a traditional framework 
and are designed to accentuate the American Indian/Alaska Native 
traditions.

Comments
    Urban Indian Organizations (UIOs) like ours provide much more than 
just health services to American Indians and Alaska Natives including 
but not limited to the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for 
Women, Infants, and Children (WIC), housing services, social services, 
community advocacy, and other resources to victims of domestic 
violence. Many UIOs conduct home visits and are at the front-line to 
identify domestic violence and other risk factors for Missing and 
Murdered Indigenous People (MMIP). Urban Indian inclusion in VAWA is 
important to strengthen these critical services provided at UIOs for 
American Indians/Alaska Natives (AI/ANs), and the National Council of 
Urban Indian Health (NCUIH) has advocated for urban Indians to be added 
in the Senate draft bill. This is a huge accomplishment given that the 
House bill on VAWA (H.R. 1620) excluded UIOs and urban Indian 
communities.
    During the White House Tribal Nations Summit last month, President 
Biden signed an Executive Order (E.O.) \2\ on addressing the crisis of 
MMIP with UIO inclusion. The E.O. specifically mentions the Department 
of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the Secretary of the Interior 
conferring with UIOs on developing a comprehensive plan to support 
initiatives related to MMIP. NCUIH and UIOs support urban confer among 
federal agencies on policies that impact urban AI/ANs and have been 
working on an urban confer bill \3\ that recently passed the House 
(406-17) with overwhelming support. The E.O also highlights the need 
for improved data surrounding this crisis as it relates to urban Indian 
communities. NCUIH has, and continues to, advocate for gathering more 
data on AI/AN communities and Missing and Murdered Indigenous People. 
On July 2, 2021, NCUIH submitted comments to the Department of Justice 
on Savannah's Act requesting UIOs and urban Indians to be incorporated 
into improving data relevancy, access, and resources. We look forward 
to participating in that effort and we hope that VAWA will help us 
combat this epidemic in Indian country.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ Executive Order on Improving Public Safety and Criminal Justice 
for Native Americans and Addressing the Crisis of Missing or Murdered 
Indigenous People: https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/
presidential-actions/2021/11/15/executive-order-on-improving-public-
safety-and-criminal-justice-for-native-americans-and-addressing-the-
crisis-of-missing-or-murdered-indigenous-people/
    \3\ Urban Indian Health Confer Act: https://www.congress.gov/117/
meeting/house/114098/documents/BILLS-1175221ih.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    SNAHC would like to express appreciation for the inclusion of urban 
Indians in 11 locations of the Senate draft bill. We respectfully ask 
you retain the following provisions in the final Senate bill:

 Bill Amendment: SEC. 101. Stop Grants

        --Part T of title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe 
        Streets Act of 1968 (34 U.S.C. 10441 et seq.) is amended--

          --(25) paying any fees charged by any governmental authority 
        for furnishing a victim or the child of a victim with any of 
        the following documents:

 ``(B) An identification card issued to the individual by a 
        State or Tribe, that shows that the individual is a resident of 
        the State or a member of the Tribe.''; and

        --(B) in Subsection (d)--

          --i) in paragraph (1)-

          --II) in subparagraph (D), by inserting ``, urban Indian 
        communities, and Native Hawaiian communities'' after 
        ``assisting Indian tribes''; (ii) in paragraph (2)-

          --I) in subparagraph (A)(iii), by inserting ``, urban Indian 
        communities, and Native Hawaiian communities'' after ``provide 
        services to Indian tribes''; and

          --II) in subparagraph (B), by inserting ``, urban Indian 
        communities, and Native Hawaiian communities'' after ``in areas 
        where Indian tribes'';

 Bill Amendment: SEC. 105. Outreach and Services to Underserved 
        Population Grants.

        --Section 120 of the Violence Against Women and Department of 
        Justice Reauthorization Act of 2005 (34 U.S.C. 20123) is 
        amended--

          --(2) in subsection (b)(3), by inserting ``urban Indian, 
        Native Hawaiian,'' before ``or local organization'';

 Bill Amendment: SEC. 108. Enhancing Culturally Specific 
        Services for Victims of Domestic Violence, Dating Violence, 
        Sexual Assault, and Stalking

        --Section 121 of the Violence Against Women and Department of 
        Justice Reauthorization Act of 2005 (34 U.S.C. 20124) is 
        amended-

          --``(4) DISTRIBUTION.--Of the total amount available for 
        grants under this section, not less than 40 percent of such 
        funds shall be allocated for programs or projects that 
        meaningfully address non-intimate partner relationship sexual 
        assault.'';

 (3) in subsection (c)--

        --(A) in paragraph (1), by striking ``and'' at the end;

        --(B) in paragraph (2), by striking the period at the end and 
        inserting ``; and''; and

        --(C) by adding at the end the following:

          --``(3) tribal nonprofit organizations, Native Hawaiian 
        organizations, and urban Indian organizations.'';

 Bill Amendment: SEC. 110. Pilot Program on Restorative 
        Practices.

        --a) IN GENERAL.--The Violence Against Women Act of 1994 (title 
        IV of Public Law 103-322), as amended by section 205, is 
        further amended by adding at the end the following:

          --``Subtitle R-Restorative Practices

          --``SEC. 41801. PILOT PROGRAM ON RESTORATIVE PRACTICES.

 ``(a) DEFINITIONS.--In this section:

        --``(2) ELIGIBLE ENTITY.--The term `eligible entity' means-

          --A) a State;

          --B) a unit of local government;

          --C) a tribal government;

          --D) a tribal organization;

          --E) a victim service provider;

          --F) an institution of higher education (as defined in 
        section 101(a) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 
        1001(a)); and

          --G) a private or public nonprofit organization, including

          --(i) a tribal nonprofit organization; and

          --ii) a faith-based nonprofit organization.

 Bill Amendment: SEC. 302. Creating Hope through Outreach, 
        Options, Services, and Education (CHOOSE) for Children and 
        Youth

        --Section 41201 of the Violence Against Women Act of 1994 (34 
        U.S.C. 12451) is amended--

          --2) in subsection (c)--

 (A) in paragraph (1)(A)--

        --(ii) by inserting ``Native Hawaiian organization, urban 
        Indian organization,''

    before ``or population-specific community-based organization''; and

 Bill Amendment: SEC. 506. Expanding Access to Unified Care.

        --(f) Authorization of Appropriations.--

          --2) Set-Aside.--Of the amount appropriated under this 
        subsection for a fiscal year, the Secretary shall reserve 15 
        percent of such amount for purposes of making grants to 
        entities that are affiliated with Indian Tribes or Tribal 
        organizations (as defined in section 4 of the Indian Self-
        Determination and Education Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 5304)), 
        or Urban Indian organizations (as defined in section 4 of the 
        Indian Health Care Improvement Act (25 U.S.C.1603)). Amounts 
        reserved may be used to support referrals and the delivery of 
        emergency first aid, culturally competent support, and forensic 
        evidence collection training.

 Bill Amendment: SEC. 507. Expanding Access to Forensics for 
        Victims of Interpersonal Violence

        --(a) Definitions.--In this section:
        --(9) URBAN INDIAN ORGANIZATION.--The term ``Urban Indian 
        organization'' has the meaning given such term in section 4 of 
        the Indian Health Care Improvement Act (25 U.S.C. 1603).

 (b) Demonstration Grants for Comprehensive Forensic 
        Training.--

        --(6) Authorization of Appropriations.--

        --(B) Set-Aside.--Of the amount appropriated under this 
        paragraph for a fiscal year, the Secretary shall reserve 10 
        percent for purposes of making grants to support training and 
        curricula that addresses the unique needs of Indian Tribes, 
        Tribal organizations, Urban Indian organizations, and Native 
        Hawaiian organizations. Amounts so reserved may be used to 
        support training, referrals, and the delivery of emergency 
        first aid, culturally competent support, and forensic evidence 
        collection training.

 Bill Amendment: SEC. 901. Findings and Purposes

        --(b) Purposes.--The purposes of this subtitle are-

          --3) to empower Tribal governments and Native American 
        communities, including urban Indian communities and Native 
        Hawaiian communities, with the resources and information 
        necessary to effectively respond to cases of domestic violence, 
        dating violence, stalking, sex trafficking, sexual violence, 
        and missing and murdered Native Americans; and

          --4) to increase the collection of data related to missing 
        and murdered Native Americans and the sharing of information 
        among Federal, State, Tribal, and local officials responsible 
        for responding to and investigating crimes impacting Indian 
        Tribes and Native American communities, including urban Indian 
        communities and Native Hawaiian communities, especially crimes 
        relating to cases of missing and murdered Native Americans.

Closing
    In closing, Butte Native Wellness Center would like to thank the 
members of the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs for including urban 
AI/ANs in this important piece of legislation. We urge Congress to 
continue its support of all AI/ANs by retaining these provisions in the 
final VAWA reauthorization.
        Sincerely,
                         Shannon Parker, Executive Director
                                 ______
                                 
                                             Tulalip Tribes
                                                  December 20, 2021
Dear Senator Schatz, Senator Murkowski, and all members of the Senate 
Committee on Indian Affairs:

    On behalf of the Tulalip Tribes, we write to support the bipartisan 
Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) Title IX--SAFETY FOR INDIAN WOMEN 
discussion draft released December 8, 2021, which includes important 
provisions that will improve safety and justice in tribal communities. 
We will provide a brief overview of the Tulalip Tribes, its Special 
Domestic Violence Criminal Jurisdiction (SDVCJ) Program, the gaps in 
the 2013 we are experiencing, and offer ideas on how to improve your 
discussion draft.
Background on the Tulalip Tribes
    The Tulalip community is located on a 22,000-acre Reservation 
bordering on the east to Interstate 5 corridor, 35 miles north of 
Seattle. This area has recently experienced rapid population growth and 
development. Tulalip has approximately 5,000 enrolled members, but most 
Reservation residents are non-Indian due to the history of allotments. 
Today, the Tribes or Tribal members hold approximately 60 percent of 
the Reservation lands with the balance being in non-Indian ownership. 
The large number of non-Indian residents on the Tulalip Indian 
Reservation, the geographic location of the reservation, and the 
economic activity on the reservation generated by the Tulalip Tribes 
has contributed to an increased number of crimes committed against 
members of the Tulalip Tribes, including missing tribal members and 
human trafficking.
Special Domestic Violence Criminal Jurisdiction
    The Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2013 (VAWA 2013) 
recognized tribal jurisdiction over certain non-Indians who commit 
domestic violence crimes against Indians. The Tulalip Tribes and its 
Tribal Court was one of the first three pilot project courts to 
exercise Special Domestic Violence Criminal Jurisdiction (SDVCJ) over 
non-Indians who commit domestic violence related crimes against Indians 
under VAWA 2013 (25 USC 1304). As a pilot project tribe, compliance 
with 2013 VAWA provisions was critical as we moved forward with SDVCJ 
implementation. The Tulalip Tribes already had a number of 2013 VAWA 
key requirements in place but we still took substantial efforts to 
ensure compliance set forth in the law through the creation of a SDVCJ 
advisory council who spent significant resources in updating codes, 
court rules, policies, personnel and administrative capacity within the 
tribal court, prosecutor office, and DV program, to support a 
successful program. Tulalip also spent significant resources in program 
development to ensure it had the appropriate staff to run a successful 
Special Domestic Violence Criminal Jurisdiction (SDVCJ) program.
    The Tulalip SDVCJ program has been a huge success. Since February 
20, 2014, through December 31, 2019, we have had 36 defendants of age 
range 18-54. 16 Caucasian, 6 African Americans, 7 Hispanic, 1 Middle 
Eastern, 1 non-enrolled Canadian Indian, 2 non-enrolled Native 
American, 3 mixed races. Out of 47 cases, there have been 16 case 
convictions, 1 case acquittal, there are 12 cases pending, 12 cases 
dismissed, 4 deferrals, 2 cases not filed.
    Unfortunately, the exercise of SDVCJ has exposed numerous 
jurisdictional gaps in the 2013 law that allow non-Indians to evade 
prosecution for other crimes committed. These crimes range from child 
abuse and assault, sexual assault, rape, sex trafficking, kidnapping, 
and drug related crimes. Domestic Violence crimes against native women 
do not take place in a vacuum and these crimes are going unpunished.
    At Tulalip, the most glaring jurisdictional gap has been the 
inability to prosecute crimes against children. Children are often in 
the home and are the first responders to DV incidents, either coming to 
the aid of their mother or being used as a physical pawn during an 
incident. Indian children are often victims of crime and these crimes 
are rarely, if ever, prosecuted by the State or U.S. Attorney. The non-
Indian is not prosecuted for these crimes because under the 2013 tribal 
provisions we do not have jurisdiction to prosecute these crimes. The 
tribes who have been exercising jurisdiction over non-Indians pursuant 
to VAWA 2013 report that children are involved in their cases nearly 60 
percent of the time as witnesses or victims. \1\ Indeed, well over half 
of the cases prosecuted under Tulalip's SDVCJ program involved crimes 
against children, and only one of these cases was prosecuted by the 
federal government as mentioned above. The remainder of the cases at 
Tulalip were not prosecuted. This is a grave injustice. Indian children 
deserve the same protections afforded to non-Indian children and under 
the current legal system Indian children do not receive those same 
protections.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ NCAI, ``VAWA 2013's Special Domestic Violence Criminal 
Jurisdiction Five-Year Report,'' p. 28,(2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Under the Tulalip SDVCJ program, during 19 of the incidents, a 
child or children were present, and 8 children were victims of crime. 
Of the crimes in which children were victims of crime, only 1 case was 
prosecuted because underlying crime transferred to federal court. The 
State of Washington has not taken action on other crimes in which 
children were victims.
    For these reasons, we are optimistic to see that the final 
bipartisan VAWA bill recognizes that Indian children are equally in 
need of the protections that were extended to adult domestic violence 
victims in VAWA 2013. Its is critical that jurisdiction is restored 
that allows us to protect our Indian children in our tribal justice 
systems.
    We ask that the Title IX discussion draft be amended to include 
crimes against elders, which was a category of restored jurisdiction 
included in the House bill, H.R. 1620, but not the bipartisan Senate 
Committee on Indian Affairs discussion draft. Indian elders are an 
integral part of our tribal communities to whom we owe respect and 
care. Indian elders carry our cultures and traditions, and we must 
ensure that they are not left behind in this reauthorization of VAWA.
    We also appreciate that the Title IX discussion draft recognizes 
that VAWA 2013 inadvertently left our tribal police officers and 
detention personnel at risk. Domestic violence cases are both the most 
common and the most dangerous calls that law enforcement receives. 
Several Tribal Nations have reported assaults on their officers or 
bailiffs committed by non-Indian defendants, but as of now, Tribal 
Nations remain unable to prosecute these crimes as assaults on law 
enforcement was not a restored category of jurisdiction in VAWA 2013. 
This creates an obvious public safety concern. In order to ensure that 
the Title IX discussion draft fully rectifies this issue, we strongly 
recommend amending the draft language on page ten to remove the 
requirement that the assault must be tied to a ``covered crime.'' 
Requiring that the assault of the tribal justice personnel be tied to a 
``covered crime'' may require the Tribal Nation to first prove the 
underlying covered crime before they could prosecute for the assault, 
which does not fully fix the public safety concern of police officers 
or detention personnel. This creates significant confusion that likely 
would have to be worked out in the courts. We ask that the language 
fully cover all assaults of tribal justice personnel and not mention 
anything related to a ``covered crime.'' Section 904 provides a local 
solution for the local problem of criminal victimization in Indian 
country. We are pleased to see that the bipartisan Title IX discussion 
draft continues to build on VAWA's promise and includes key priorities 
that have been identified by Tribal Nations to further enhance safety 
for victims in tribal communities.
    Additionally, we support the purpose of Title IX, which is to 
strengthen tribal sovereignty and reaffirm tribal jurisdiction over 
non-Indian perpetrators. We also support providing additional resources 
to address violence against all Native women. However, the new language 
in the Section 901 Findings and Purposes, which adds Native Hawaiians, 
urban Indians communities, Native Americans, and Native American 
communities, jeopardizes the long-term enforcement of the law and 
detracts from the key purpose of Title IX. For those reasons we 
strongly recommend that all Native Hawaiian, urban Indian communities, 
Native American, and Native American communities language be removed 
from Section 901. The language in Section 901 should solely focus on 
American Indians, Alaska Natives, and Indian tribes in order to protect 
tribal sovereignty, which is consistent with the purpose of the Title 
IX.
    We urge all members of the Senate Committee on Indian affairs to 
support the provisions included in the bipartisan Title IX discussion 
draft and to become a co-sponsor of the full bipartisan Senate VAWA 
bill that incorporates all of the discussion draft provisions and our 
recommended changes.

        Thank you,
                                     Teri Gobin, Chairwoman
                                 ______
                                 
      Tangirnaq Native Village, Woody Island Tribal Council
                                                  December 21, 2021
Dear Chairman Schatz and Vice-Chairman Murkowski:

    The Tangirnaq Native Village urges prompt introduction and passage 
of the December 8, 2021 Discussion Draft of Title IX to the Violence 
Against Women Act (VAWA), and specifically swift passage of subtitle 
B--Alaska Tribal Public Safety Empowerment.
    Alaska's public safety crisis and the disproportionate impact upon 
Alaska Native people, particularly Alaska Native women and children, is 
well-documented and known to each of you. I will not repeat the 
horrifying statistics and data here.
    The Tangirnaq Native Village joins countless Alaska tribes and 
tribal organizations in urging Congressional action to address Alaska's 
public safety crisis. Clarifying tribal jurisdiction over Indian people 
in Alaska Native villages, and opening a pilot project to explore 
tribal jurisdiction over domestic violence-related crimes committed by 
non-Indians against Indian victims, is absolutely essential to 
achieving public safety in Alaska Native villages; to protecting Indian 
women and children from violence; and to holding offenders accountable.
    Numerous federal reports document the current public safety crisis 
that has long plagued Alaska Native communities. Alaska Tribes are best 
suited to address this crisis, but only if Congress provides the 
essential tools that will empower the tribes to do so. The Committee's 
Discussion Draft provides these necessary tools.
    Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Discussion Draft. 
And thank you for your efforts to secure the tools of justice and 
safety, to empower Alaska Tribes to reduce violence in our own 
communities and to promote justice, self-governance, and safety.

        Quyanaa (thank you),
                                   Alex Cleghorn, President
                                 ______
                                 
                             Rincon Band of Luiseno Indians
                                                  December 21, 2021
Dear Senator Schatz, Senator Murkowski, and all members of the Senate 
Committee on Indian Affairs:

    I write on behalf of the Rincon Band of Luiseno Indians to support 
the bipartisan Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) Title IX--SAFETY FOR 
INDIAN WOMEN discussion draft released on December 8, 2021, which 
includes important provisions that will improve safety and justice in 
tribal communities. Tribal communities continue to suffer from the 
highest crime victimization rates in the country, and the reforms 
included in the bipartisan Title IX discussion draft are desperately 
needed today.
    A 2016 report by the National Institute of Justice found that over 
80 percent of American Indians and Alaska Natives will be a victim of 
intimate partner violence, sexual violence, or stalking in their 
lifetime. The study also found that 90 percent of these victims were 
victimized by a non-Indian perpetrator. Sadly, Indian children are 
particularly impacted by this violence and are 50 percent more likely 
to experience child abuse and sexual abuse than white children. The 
complicated jurisdictional framework at play in Indian country and 
Alaska continues to undermine safety for American Indian and Alaska 
Native victims of violence.
    Tribal Nations have been exercising jurisdiction over non-Indian 
domestic violence offenders under VAWA 2013 for over 8 years. 
Exercising Tribal Nations have held serial offenders accountable and 
have brought justice and safety to hundreds of victims and their 
families while upholding the due process rights of all defendants in 
tribal courts. Despite these successes, perpetrators still find gaps in 
the law. Victims of sexual violence, child abuse, stalking, 
trafficking, elder abuse, and assaults against law enforcement officers 
deserve the same protections that Congress affords to domestic violence 
victims on tribal lands in VAWA 2013.
    It is particularly important that the final bipartisan VAWA bill 
recognizes that Indian children are equally in need of the protections 
that were extended to adult domestic violence victims in VAWA 2013. The 
Tribal Nations implementing VAWA 2013 report that children have been 
involved as victims or witnesses in their cases nearly 60 percent of 
the time. However, federal law failed to restore tribal jurisdiction to 
prosecute these crimes. The Title IX discussion draft language would 
restore this category of jurisdiction and allow us to protect our 
Indian children in our tribal justice systems.
    We ask that the Title IX discussion draft be amended to include 
crimes against elders, which was a category of restored jurisdiction 
included in the House bill, H.R. 1620, but not the bipartisan Senate 
Committee on Indian Affairs discussion draft. Indian elders are an 
integral part of our tribal communities to whom we owe respect and 
care. Indian elders carry our cultures and traditions, and we must 
ensure that they are not left behind in this reauthorization of VAWA.
    We also appreciate that the Title IX discussion draft recognizes 
that VAWA 2013 inadvertently left our tribal police officers and 
detention personnel at risk. Domestic violence cases are both the most 
common and the most dangerous calls that law enforcement receives. 
Several Tribal Nations have reported assaults on their officers or 
bailiffs committed by non-Indian defendants, but as of now, Tribal 
Nations remain unable to prosecute these crimes as assaults on law 
enforcement was not a restored category of jurisdiction in VAWA 2013. 
This creates an obvious public safety concern. In order to ensure that 
the Title IX discussion draft fully rectifies this issue, we strongly 
recommend amending the draft language on page ten to remove the 
requirement that the assault must be tied to a ``covered crime.'' 
Requiring that the assault of the tribal justice personnel be tied to a 
``covered crime'' may require the Tribal Nation to first prove the 
underlying covered crime before they could prosecute for the assault, 
which does not fully fix the public safety concern of police officers 
or detention personnel. This creates significant confusion that likely 
would have to be worked out in the courts. We ask that the language 
fully cover all assaults of tribal justice personnel and not mention 
anything related to a ``covered crime.''
    Section 904 provides a local solution for the local problem of 
criminal victimization in Indian country. We are pleased to see that 
the bipartisan Title IX discussion draft continues to build on VAWA's 
promise and includes key priorities that have been identified by Tribal 
Nations to further enhance safety for victims in tribal communities.
    The Title IX discussion draft clarifies that Tribal Nations in 
Maine are included in the law and creates a pilot project to address 
the unique needs in Alaska. We fully support the inclusion of all 
Tribal Nations in VAWA. Alaska Native women are over-represented among 
domestic violence victims in Alaska by 250 percent and make up 47 
percent of reported rape victims in the state, yet 1 in 3 rural Alaskan 
communities have no law enforcement presence. The Title IX discussion 
draft includes a pilot project that will enable a limited number of 
Tribal Nations in Alaska to exercise special tribal criminal 
jurisdiction over certain crimes that occur in Alaska villages.
    In addition to the lifesaving provisions outlined above, the 
bipartisan Title IX discussion draft creates a reimbursement program 
under which the Attorney General may reimburse Tribal Nations for 
expenses incurred in exercising special tribal criminal jurisdiction. 
We would ask that that reimbursement program language be expanded to 
include reimbursements for trial and appellate courts (including 
facilities maintenance, renovation, and rehabilitation.) Additionally, 
the time for the Attorney General to develop regulations for the 
program should be shortened from within one year to within six months 
after the effective date to ensure that this important program is 
implemented quickly to address the urgent need in Indian Country.
    The Title XI discussion draft also allows Tribal Nations to utilize 
the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) to house defendants serving sentences of 
more than one year and increases Tribal Nations' access to the National 
Crime Information Database. Both of these additions to VAWA will go a 
long way towards ensuring Tribal Nations are able to implement this 
restored jurisdiction fully and most effectively.
    We fully support the purpose of Title IX, which is to strengthen 
tribal sovereignty and reaffirm tribal jurisdiction over non-Indian 
perpetrators. We also support providing additional resources to address 
violence against all Native women. However, the new language in the 
Section 901 Findings and Purposes, which adds Native Hawaiians, urban 
Indians communities, Native Americans, and Native American 
communities,jeopardizes the long-term enforcement of the law and 
detracts from the key purpose of Title IX. For those reasons we 
strongly recommend that all Native Hawaiian, urban Indian communities, 
Native American, and Native American communities language be removed 
from Section 901. The language in Section 901 should solely focus on 
American Indians, Alaska Natives, and Indian tribes in order to protect 
tribal sovereignty, which is consistent with the purpose of the Title 
IX.
    We urge all members of the Senate Committee on Indian affairs to 
support the provisions included in the bipartisan Title IX discussion 
draft and to become a co-sponsor of the full bipartisan Senate VAWA 
bill that incorporates all of the discussion draft provisions and our 
recommended changes.

        Sincerely,
                               Bo Mazzetti, Tribal Chairman
                                 ______
                                 
                 Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians
                                                  December 21, 2021
Dear Chair Schatz and Vice-Chair Murkowski:

    I write on behalf of the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians 
to support the bipartisan Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) Title IX--
SAFETY FOR INDIAN WOMEN discussion draft which includes important 
provisions that will improve safety and justice in tribal communities. 
As a Tribe implementing VAWA 2013 Tribal jurisdiction, I can attest 
that these proposed changes in the law are important to making tribal 
communities safer.
    As the Committee has well-documented, Tribal communities continue 
to suffer from the highest crime victimization rates in the country, 
and the reforms included in the bipartisan Title IX discussion draft 
are desperately needed today. A 2016 report by the National Institute 
of Justice found that over 80 percent of American Indians and Alaska 
Natives will be a victim of intimate partner violence, sexual violence, 
or stalking in their lifetime. The study also found that 90 percent of 
these victims were victimized by a non-Indian perpetrator. Sadly, 
Indian children are particularly impacted by this violence and are 50 
percent more likely to experience child abuse and sexual abuse than 
white children. The complicated jurisdictional framework at play in 
Indian country and Alaska continues to undermine safety for American 
Indian and Alaska Native victims of violence. Thus, clarifying that a 
Tribe's expanded jurisdiction includes these crimes is vital.
    We are also so appreciative that your draft legislation recognizes 
that Indian children are equally in need of the protections that were 
extended to adult domestic violence victims in VAWA 2013. The Tribal 
Nations implementing VAWA 2013 report that children have been involved 
as victims or witnesses in their cases nearly 60 percent of the time. 
We ask that the Title IX discussion draft include the provision from 
the House bill, H.R. 1620, to include crimes against elders. Indian 
elders are an integral part of our tribal communities to whom we owe 
respect and care. We are also hopeful that the measure will include the 
House bill's provision that recognizes Tribes' inherent jurisdiction 
over all crimes against law enforcement, detention, and court personnel 
not only those that deemed ``covered crimes''.
    We also support the new grant program to reimburse Tribal Nations 
for expenses incurred in exercising special tribal criminal 
jurisdiction and the extension of the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) program 
first authorized in the Tribal Law Order Act. Finally, we support the 
expanded tribal access to the National Crime Information Database. This 
is important to addressing the plague that is missing and murdered 
indigenous women in America.
    Please let me know if there is anything you need me to do I support 
of your efforts from my role as Chairperson of my Tribe or from 
leadership roles I serve through the United Tribes of Michigan, Midwest 
Alliance of Sovereign Tribes, or the National Congress of American 
Indians.
    Again, we appreciate your leadership in drafting this important 
measure and look forward to working with you in the New Year.

        Respectfully,
                              Aaron A. Payment, Chairperson
                                 ______
                                 
                                  Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe
                                                  December 22, 2021
Dear Senator Schatz, Senator Murkowski, and all members of the Senate 
Committee on Indian Affairs:

    I write on behalf of the Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe to support the 
bipartisan Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) Title IX--SAFETY FOR 
INDIAN WOMEN discussion draft released on December 8, 2021, which 
includes important provisions that will improve safety and justice in 
tribal communities.
    Tribal communities continue to suffer from the highest crime 
victimization rates in the country, and the reforms included in the 
bipartisan Title IX discussion draft are desperately needed today. A 
2016 report by the National Institute of Justice found that over 80 
percent of American Indians and Alaska Natives will be a victim of 
intimate partner violence, sexual violence, or stalking in their 
lifetime. The study found that 90 percent of these victims were 
victimized by a non-Indian perpetrator. Sadly, Indian children are 
particularly impacted by this violence and are 50 percent more likely 
to experience child abuse and sexual abuse than white children. The 
complicated jurisdictional framework at play in Indian country and 
Alaska continues to undermine safety for American Indian and Alaska 
Native victims of violence.
    Tribal Nations have been exercising jurisdiction over non-Indian 
domestic violence offenders under VAWA 2013 for over 8 years including 
our Tribe. Exercising Tribal Nations have held serial offenders 
accountable and have brought justice and safety to hundreds of victims 
and their families while upholding the due process rights of all 
defendants in tribal courts. Despite these successes, perpetrators 
still find gaps in the law. Victims of sexual violence, child abuse, 
stalking, trafficking, elder abuse, and assaults against law 
enforcement officers deserve the same protections that Congress affords 
to domestic violence victims on tribal lands in VAWA 2013. It is 
particularly important that the final bipartisan VAWA bill recognizes 
that Indian children are equally in need of the protections that were 
extended to adult domestic violence victims in VAWA 2013. The Tribal 
Nations implementing VAWA 2013 report that children have been involved 
as victims or witnesses in their cases nearly 60 percent of the time. 
However, federal law failed to restore tribal jurisdiction to prosecute 
these crimes.
    The Title IX discussion draft 2 language would restore this 
category of jurisdiction and allow us to protect our Indian children in 
our tribal justice systems. We ask that the Title IX discussion draft 
be amended to include crimes against elders, which was a category of 
restored jurisdiction included in the House bill, H.R. 1620, but not 
the bipartisan Senate Committee on Indian Affairs discussion draft.
    Indian elders are an integral part of our tribal communities to 
whom we owe respect and care. Indian elders carry our cultures and 
traditions, and we must ensure that they are not left behind in this 
reauthorization of VAWA. We appreciate that the Title IX discussion 
draft recognizes that VAWA 2013 inadvertently left our tribal police 
officers and detention personnel at risk. Domestic violence cases are 
both the most common and the most dangerous calls that law enforcement 
receives. Several Tribal Nations have reported assaults on their 
officers or bailiffs committed by non-Indian defendants, but as of now, 
Tribal Nations remain unable to prosecute these crimes as assaults on 
law enforcement was not a restored category of jurisdiction in VAWA 
2013.
    This situation creates an obvious public safety concern. To ensure 
that the Title IX discussion draft fully rectifies this issue, we 
strongly recommend amending the draft language on page ten to remove 
the requirement that the assault must be tied to a ``covered crime.'' 
Requiring that the assault of the tribal justice personnel be tied to a 
``covered crime'' may require the Tribal Nation to first prove the 
underlying covered crime before they could prosecute for the assault, 
which does not fully fix the public safety concern of police officers 
or detention personnel. This conflict creates significant confusion 
that likely would have to be worked out in the courts. All Tribes ask 
that the language fully cover all assaults of tribal justice personnel 
and not mention anything related to a ``covered crime.''
    Section 904 provides a local solution for the local problem of 
criminal victimization in Indian country. We are pleased to see that 
the bipartisan Title IX discussion draft continues to build on VAWA's 
promise and includes key priorities that have been identified by Tribal 
Nations to further enhance safety for victims in tribal communities. 
The Title IX discussion draft clarifies that Tribal Nations in Maine 
are included in the law and creates a pilot project to address the 
unique needs in Alaska. Our Tribe fully supports the inclusion of all 
Tribal Nations in VAWA. Alaska Native women are over-represented among 
domestic violence victims in Alaska by 250 percent and make up 47 
percent of reported rape victims in the state, yet 1 in 3 rural Alaskan 
communities have no law enforcement presence.
    The Title IX discussion draft includes a pilot project that will 
enable a limited number of Tribal Nations in Alaska to exercise special 
tribal criminal jurisdiction over certain crimes that occur in Alaska 
villages. In addition to the lifesaving provisions outlined above, the 
bipartisan Title IX discussion draft creates a reimbursement program 
under which the Attorney General may reimburse Tribal Nations for 
expenses incurred in exercising special tribal criminal jurisdiction. 
We would ask that that reimbursement program language be expanded to 
include reimbursements for trial and appellate courts (including 
facilities maintenance, renovation, and rehabilitation.)
    Additionally, the time for the Attorney General to develop 
regulations for the program should be shortened from within one year to 
within six months after the effective date to ensure that this 
important program is implemented quickly to address the urgent need in 
Indian Country.
    The Title XI discussion draft allows Tribal Nations to utilize the 
Bureau of Prisons (BOP) to house defendants serving sentences of more 
than one year and increases Tribal Nations' access to the National 
Crime Information Database. Both additions to VAWA will go a long way 
towards ensuring Tribal Nations are able to implement this restored 
jurisdiction fully and most effectively.
    Our Tribe fully supports the purpose of Title IX, which is to 
strengthen tribal sovereignty and reaffirm tribal jurisdiction over 
non-Indian perpetrators. We support providing additional resources to 
address violence against all Native women.
    However, the new language in the Section 901 Findings and Purposes, 
which adds Native Hawaiians, urban Indians communities, Native 
Americans, and Native American communities, jeopardizes the long-term 
Tribal enforcement authority of the law and detracts from the key 
purpose of Title IX. For those reasons we urge that all Native 
Hawaiian, urban Indian communities, Native American, and Native 
American communities' language be removed from Section 901. The 
language in Section 901 should solely focus on American Indians, Alaska 
Natives, and Indian tribes' governmental authority to protect tribal 
sovereignty and jurisdiction, which is consistent with the purpose of 
the Title IX.
    We urge the SCIA leadership and all members of the Senate Committee 
on Indian Affairs to support the provisions included in the bipartisan 
Title IX discussion draft and to become a co-sponsor of the full 
bipartisan Senate VAWA bill that incorporates all the discussion draft 
provisions and our recommended changes.

        Sincerely,
                          W. Ron Allen, Tribal Chairman/CEO
                                 ______
                                 
                               Alaska Native Justice Center
    Thank you to the Chairman and Members of the Committee for holding 
an Oversight Hearing and releasing a discussion draft of Title IX that 
strengthens the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) to further recognize 
and empower tribal governments--particularly in Alaska--to protect 
Native people.
    My name is Alex Cleghorn. I was born in Anchorage and grew up in 
Fairbanks. Reflective of Alaska's unique history, I am a tribal citizen 
of Tangirnaq Native Village and a shareholder of regional and village 
Alaska Native Corporations. I have been an attorney for nearly twenty 
years and my work has focused on representing tribes and tribal 
organizations regarding self-determination and community health and 
safety. I am licensed in California, Alaska and the courts of the 
Central Council of Tlingit and Haida Indian Tribes of Alaska.
    The Alaska Native Justice Center (ANJC) is an Alaska Native tribal 
organization that serves as the primary provider of justice and victim 
\1\ services for Alaska Native and American Indian (AN/AI) people in 
Anchorage, Alaska. ANJC also partners with Alaska tribes to strengthen 
self-determination and sovereignty to serve tribal citizens. ANJC has 
been designated its tribal authority through Cook Inlet Region Inc., 
organized through the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act and 
recognized under Section 4(b) of the Indian Self-Determination and 
Education Assistance Act (PL 93-638, 25 U.S.C. 450b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Not everyone who has been affected by criminal activity wishes 
to be referred to as a victim. Some might prefer the term ``survivor,'' 
for example. For the sake of clarity, however, these comments use the 
term ``victim.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    ANJC was originally founded to address the lack of attention Native 
women victims experienced in the Alaska justice system and the 
disproportionate imprisonment of Alaska Native men. Today, our mission 
continues to be Justice for Alaska Native people. The sobering fact and 
unacceptable truth of the matter is that violence in Alaska, and 
particularly violence against Alaska Native women, is at an epidemic 
level. Even more concerning is that this epidemic--this crisis--is well 
known, thoroughly documented and has clearly identified solutions.
    ANJC writes in support of the testimony offered during the 
Oversight Hearing. We further offer our support of the Discussion Draft 
of Title IX--Safety for Indian Women and urge the Committee to adopt 
the Discussion Draft, which has already been delayed too long. We also 
take the opportunity to clearly lay out some of the complicated issues 
related to funding, especially as it relates to the State of Alaska and 
other P.L. 280 states.
I. Well Documented Public Safety Crisis In Alaska
    Title IX includes findings that illustrate some the scope of the 
public safety crises in Alaska. It is also important to recognize that 
80 percent of Alaska Native women will experience violence in their 
lifetimes \2\ and 55.6 percent of Alaska's sexual assault victims are 
Alaska Native people. \3\ Additionally, we know that an overwhelming 
number of sex offense cases reported in Alaska are not prosecuted. In 
fact, the Alaska Department of Public Safety reports that in 2018-2019, 
621 sex offense cases were referred to the Department of Law for 
prosecution. Of those 621 cases, only 322 were actually accepted for 
prosecution. \4\ This means that barely 50 percent of reported sex 
offenses were accepted for prosecution. This is unacceptable. Alaska 
Native women deserve better.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ Andre Rosay, ``Violence Against Alaska Native and American 
Indian Women and Men'' https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/249736.pdf.
    \3\ https://dps.alaska.gov/getmedia/dec8c6c2-1db7-45fb-9401-
637932594882/Felony-Level-Sex-Offenses-2018
    \4\ http://www.ajc.state.ak.us/acjc/docs/ar/2020.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    While horrifying, even these stark numbers do not fully capture the 
real picture for two reasons. First, the numbers recorded represent 
those cases actually reported and do not reflect unreported offenses. 
Second, the numbers do not consider the impact that these offenses have 
on families, siblings, children, parents, and spouses, who are also 
``victims'' and directly harmed by such offenses.
    ANJC can reliably point to 40 years of reports and data collection 
regarding public safety in Alaska that offer recommendations on how to 
address the crisis. Years of written and oral testimony also serve to 
provide a critical foundation for understanding the magnitude of the 
crisis of violence against Native women and what can be done. Many 
aspects of this crisis are well-documented. However, justice remains 
inaccessible for Native women who are victims of violence.
    Years of written and oral testimony point to a complicated maze of 
injustice in Alaska. The familiar culprits are the jurisdictional 
complexities stemming in part from Alaska's lack of reservations and 
Alaska's status as a mandatory P.L. 280 state. Our unique status 
contributes to a systematic lack of federal resources for Alaska tribal 
public safety and tribal justice systems. Title IX provides the 
Congressional action that is necessary to address this crisis. The time 
is now.
II. Correcting Alaska's Unfair Exclusion From Special Domestic Violence 
        Criminal Jurisdiction (SDVCJ)
    The 2013 Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) reauthorization afforded 
tribes SDVCJ on Indian lands for crimes of domestic violence, dating 
violence, and protection order violations. However, the SDVCJ language 
in VAWA categorically excluded 228 of Alaska's 229 federally recognized 
tribes, leaving only one tribe eligible to exercise SDVCJ. This lack of 
tribal jurisdiction over non-Indian offenders in Alaska continues to 
allow the perpetuation of disproportionate violence against Alaska 
Native women.
    Numerous federally established commissions have recommended the 
removal of the barriers that currently inhibit the ability of Alaska 
tribes to exercise criminal jurisdiction and utilize criminal remedies 
when confronting the highest rates of violent crime in the country. We 
are heartened by this Congressional effort within Title IX that is 
designed to remove these barriers, including:

  affirming the inherent criminal jurisdiction of Alaska 
        tribes;

  supporting the development, enhancement, and sustainability 
        of Alaska tribal courts including full faith and credit for 
        Alaska tribal court orders;

  enabling recognition of Alaska Native communities for public 
        safety purposes.

    Title IX builds upon years of efforts to affirm Alaska tribes' 
jurisdiction over people committing certain violent crimes. Most 
recently this included the VAWA Reauthorization Act of 2021 (H.R. 1620) 
and the Alaska Tribal Public Safety Empowerment Act, S. 2616 
(introduced in the 116th Congress, 2019-2020). The Committee received 
expert testimony about the successes of VAWA 2013 SDVCJ. Alaska Tribes 
should no longer be shut out of this opportunity and the Discussion 
Draft makes this necessary change.
III. Funding
    Funding and access to funding should be as simple and flexible as 
possible in order to assure effective dissemination and use of these 
important resources. For many years, Alaska Tribes have shared the 
challenges presented by competitive grant processes. The challenges 
that accompany competitive grant processes are well documented. Chief 
among them are concerns that sustained funding is never guaranteed, and 
that funding losses or requirements to implement new approaches can 
make it difficult to guarantee continuity in services and to allow 
programs to reach their full potential. In Tribal communities, it can 
take years for programs to mature and demonstrate positive impacts, 
especially programs focused on prevention. The Committee should be well 
aware that the vast majority of Alaska Tribes do not receive BIA Public 
Safety and Justice funding, and therefore nearly all funding is through 
competitive grants from the Department of Justice.
    Alaska Tribes should be provided dedicated, annual noncompetitive 
base funding to develop and sustain tribal court systems, assist in the 
provision of public safety and related services, and assist with 
intergovernmental agreements. Recent BIA studies have quantified the 
appropriation necessary to bring tribal justice systems in P.L. 280 
states up to par with non-P.L. 280 states. \5\ We commend the BIA for 
this work and urge that Congressional appropriations are adequate to 
address the public safety crisis. The appropriation should be explicit 
that the funds must be allocated for law enforcement, public safety and 
courts. Also, we suggest that there is an explicit prohibition that the 
money cannot be allocated or diverted to Tribes in non-P.L. 280 states 
and include language that provides that the funds will be allocated to 
tribes in P.L. 280 states through the Tribes' existing 638 contract or 
by the Tribe requesting a 638 contract for Public Safety and Justice 
including law enforcement and courts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\ See 160 Cong. Rec. H976405 (Dec. 11, 2014) (Explanatory 
Statement).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    At the oversight hearing the BIA representative confirmed that the 
BIA does not have a policy of not executing 638 contracts and compacts 
for Public Safety and Justice (PSJ) funding to tribes in P.L. 280 
states. However, the BIA has not yet done so. Therefore, appropriations 
should direct the BIA to revisit its practice of not executing 638 
contracts and compacts for PSJ funding to tribes in P.L. 280 states 
(except for Self-Governance tribes).
    Because tribes in P.L. 280 states do not receive PSJ funding there 
is no ``base (reoccurring annual) funding level'' or 638 contracts or 
compacts in which to allocate a PSJ set aside--as occurred in the 
American Rescue Plan Act. The BIA's recognition of this issue and final 
disbursement plan for ARPA funding through the Social Services line 
ensured that Alaska Tribes could address tribal safety needs that fall 
outside of a formal law enforcement program. However, this is a 
longstanding issue that can (and should) be addressed when 
appropriations for PSJ are made in Alaska and other P.L. 280 states.
    This approach will allow sustained funding so that programs do not 
end with the end of a grant. Many programs take years to make an impact 
in their targeted communities and the competitive grant cycle diverts 
time, effort and resources from addressing the crisis to seeking 
funding and complying with unnecessary and burdensome grant management 
requirements. Funds should be as flexible as possible to address 
endemic issues that will save lives. \6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\ See ``Citizens hide from active shooters as Alaska fails to 
deliver on 2019 promise of village troopers,'' Anchorage Daily News, 
December 13, 2021, available at https://www.adn.com/alaska-news/rural-
alaska/2021/12/13/citizens-hide-from-active-shooters-as-alaska-fails-
to-deliver-on-2019-promise-of-village-troopers/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The primary way to increase the effectiveness of the funding 
distributed to Tribes is by easing the restrictions on the funding so 
that Tribes can flexibly use the funds in the most effective way at the 
local level. Tribes and Tribal Organizations know best how to address 
this crisis, and funding restrictions inhibit Tribes' capacity to 
deploy much needed funds.
    Alaska Tribes need to be able to build and maintain public safety, 
law enforcement, and Tribal justice infrastructure. Competitive grants 
will always be a stop gap measure for Alaska Tribes when it comes to 
Alaska's public safety crisis. There are successful models such as the 
Tiwahe demonstration projects that could serve as an additional 
framework for using contracting or compacting to address the need for 
victim services, public safety, and law enforcement in Alaska. Alaska 
Tribes, and all tribal governments, deserve to be trusted to do their 
part alongside other American governments to protect Native women. 
Title IX does just that.
    Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Discussion Draft. 
Your efforts to remove the barriers that impede Alaska Tribe's efforts 
to provide safety and justice are appreciated.
            Alex Cleghorn, Senior Legal and Policy Director
                                 ______
                                 
                      National Congress of American Indians
                                                  December 21, 2021
Dear Senator Schatz, Senator Murkowski, and all members of the Senate 
Committee on Indian Affairs:

    I write on behalf of the National Congress of American Indians to 
support the bipartisan Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) Title IX--
SAFETY FOR INDIAN WOMEN discussion draft released on December 8, 2021, 
which includes important provisions that will improve safety and 
justice in tribal communities. Tribal communities continue to suffer 
from the highest crime victimization rates in the country, and the 
reforms included in the bipartisan Title IX discussion draft are 
desperately needed today.
    A 2016 report by the National Institute of Justice found that over 
80 percent of American Indians and Alaska Natives will be a victim of 
intimate partner violence, sexual violence, or stalking in their 
lifetime. The study also found that 90 percent of these victims were 
victimized by a non-Indian perpetrator. Sadly, Indian children are 
particularly impacted by this violence and are 50 percent more likely 
to experience child abuse and sexual abuse than white children. The 
complicated jurisdictional framework at play in Indian country and 
Alaska continues to undermine safety for American Indian and Alaska 
Native victims of violence.
    Tribal Nations have been exercising jurisdiction over non-Indian 
domestic violence offenders under VAWA 2013 for over 8 years. 
Exercising Tribal Nations have held serial offenders accountable and 
have brought justice and safety to hundreds of victims and their 
families while upholding the due process rights of all defendants in 
tribal courts. Despite these successes, perpetrators still find gaps in 
the law. Victims of sexual violence, child abuse, stalking, 
trafficking, elder abuse, and assaults against law enforcement officers 
deserve the same protections that Congress affords to domestic violence 
victims on tribal lands in VAWA 2013.
    It is particularly important that the final bipartisan VAWA bill 
recognizes that Indian children are equally in need of the protections 
that were extended to adult domestic violence victims in VAWA 2013. The 
Tribal Nations implementing VAWA 2013 report that children have been 
involved as victims or witnesses in their cases nearly 60 percent of 
the time. However, federal law failed to restore tribal jurisdiction to 
prosecute these crimes. The Title IX discussion draft language would 
restore this category of jurisdiction and allow us to protect our 
Indian children in our tribal justice systems.
    We ask that the Title IX discussion draft be amended to include 
crimes against elders, which was a category of restored jurisdiction 
included in the House bill, H.R. 1620, but not the bipartisan Senate 
Committee on Indian Affairs discussion draft. Indian elders are an 
integral part of our tribal communities to whom we owe respect and 
care. Indian elders carry our cultures and traditions, and we must 
ensure that they are not left behind in this reauthorization of VAWA.
    We also appreciate that the Title IX discussion draft recognizes 
that VAWA 2013 inadvertently left our tribal police officers and 
detention personnel at risk. Domestic violence cases are both the most 
common and the most dangerous calls that law enforcement receives. 
Several Tribal Nations have reported assaults on their officers or 
bailiffs committed by non-Indian defendants, but as of now, Tribal 
Nations remain unable to prosecute these crimes as assaults on law 
enforcement was not a restored category of jurisdiction in VAWA 2013. 
This creates an obvious public safety concern. In order to ensure that 
the Title IX discussion draft fully rectifies this issue, we strongly 
recommend amending the draft language on page ten to remove the 
requirement that the assault must be tied to a ``covered crime.'' 
Requiring that the assault of the tribal justice personnel be tied to a 
``covered crime'' may require the Tribal Nation to first prove the 
underlying covered crime before they could prosecute for the assault, 
which does not fully fix the public safety concern of police officers 
or detention personnel. This creates significant confusion that likely 
would have to be worked out in the courts. We ask that the language 
fully cover all assaults of tribal justice personnel and not mention 
anything related to a ``covered crime.''
    Section 904 provides a local solution for the local problem of 
criminal victimization in Indian country. We are pleased to see that 
the bipartisan Title IX discussion draft continues to build on VAWA's 
promise and includes key priorities that have been identified by Tribal 
Nations to further enhance safety for victims in tribal communities.
    The Title IX discussion draft clarifies that Tribal Nations in 
Maine are included in the law and creates a pilot project to address 
the unique needs in Alaska. We fully support the inclusion of all 
Tribal Nations in VAWA. Alaska Native women are over-represented among 
domestic violence victims in Alaska by 250 percent and make up 47 
percent of reported rape victims in the state, yet 1 in 3 rural Alaskan 
communities have no law enforcement presence. The Title IX discussion 
draft includes a pilot project that will enable a limited number of 
Tribal Nations in Alaska to exercise special tribal criminal 
jurisdiction over certain crimes that occur in Alaska villages.
    In addition to the lifesaving provisions outlined above, the 
bipartisan Title IX discussion draft creates a reimbursement program 
under which the Attorney General may reimburse Tribal Nations for 
expenses incurred in exercising special tribal criminal jurisdiction. 
We would ask that that reimbursement program language be expanded to 
include reimbursements for trial and appellate courts (including 
facilities maintenance, renovation, and rehabilitation.) Additionally, 
the time for the Attorney General to develop regulations for the 
program should be shortened from within one year to within six months 
after the effective date to ensure that this important program is 
implemented quickly to address the urgent need in Indian Country.
    The Title XI discussion draft also allows Tribal Nations to utilize 
the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) to house defendants serving sentences of 
more than one year and increases Tribal Nations' access to the National 
Crime Information Database. Both of these additions to VAWA will go a 
long way towards ensuring Tribal Nations are able to implement this 
restored jurisdiction fully and most effectively.
    We fully support the purpose of Title IX, which is to strengthen 
tribal sovereignty and reaffirm tribal jurisdiction over non-Indian 
perpetrators. We also support providing additional resources to address 
violence against all Native women. However, the new language in the 
Section 901 Findings and Purposes, which adds Native Hawaiians, urban 
Indians communities, Native Americans, and Native American communities, 
jeopardizes the long term enforcement of the law and detracts from the 
key purpose of Title IX. For those reasons we strongly recommend that 
all Native Hawaiian, urban Indian communities, Native American, and 
Native American communities language be removed from Section 901. The 
language in Section 901 should soley focus on American Indians, Alaska 
Natives, and Indian tribes in order to protect tribal sovereignty, 
which is consistent with the purpose of the Title IX. We urge all 
members of the Senate Committee on Indian affairs to support the 
provisions included in the bipartisan Title IX discussion draft and to 
become a co-sponsor of the full bipartisan Senate VAWA bill that 
incorporates all of the discussion draft provisions and our recommended 
changes.

        Sincerely,
                                      Fawn Sharp, President
                                 ______
                                 
           SONOSKY, CHAMBERS, SACHSE, MILLER & MONKMAN, LLP
                                                  December 21, 2021
Dear Chairman Schatz and Vice-Chairman Murkowski:

    I write on behalf of the Tanana Chiefs Conference to urge prompt 
introduction and passage of the December 8, 2021 Discussion Draft of 
Title IX to the Violence Against Women Act, and to specifically urge 
swift passage of subtitle B--Alaska Tribal Public Safety Empowerment.
    Nothing speaks more powerfully to the need for this legislation 
than the dozens of attached tribal leader letters written from every 
corner of Alaska over the past several years. Cementing tribal 
jurisdiction over Indian people in Alaska Native villages, and opening 
a pilot project to explore tribal jurisdiction over domestic violence-
related crimes committed by non-Indians against Indian victims, is 
absolutely essential to achieving law and order in Alaska Native 
villages; to protecting Indian women and children from violence; and to 
holding offenders accountable. History shows the current tragic law 
enforcement vacuum that has long plagued Alaska Native communities. 
Alaska tribes can fill that vacuum, but only if Congress provides the 
essential tools that will empower the tribes to do so. The Committee's 
Discussion Draft provides those vital tools.
    Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Discussion Draft. 
And thank you for the light of hope that TCC's 15-year quest will at 
long last be achieved: to empower Alaska tribes to reduce violence in 
their own communities and to promote local accountability, self-
governance, and law and order.

        Respectfully,
                                            Lloyd B. Miller

    Enclosures

    The following letter was submitted for the record by the:

        Alakanuk Native Village
        Association of Village Council Presidents (AVCP)
        Chevak Native Village
        Chuathbaluk Native Village
        Chuloonawick Native Village
        Eek Native Village
        Emmonak Native Village
        Goodnews Bay Native Village
        Hamilton Native Village
        Kipnuk Native Village
        Kwinhagak Native Village
        Nunapitchuk Native Village
        Nunam Iqua Native Village
        Napaskiak Native Village
        Napakiak Native Village
        National Council of Urban Indian Health (NCUIH)
        Nikolai Native Village
        Nulato Native Village
        Nunakauyak Traditional Council
        Pitkas Point Native Village
        Iqurmiut Traditional Council
        Tununak Native Village
        Tuntutuliak Native Village

Dear Senator Murkowski:

    We write to express our deep appreciation and gratitude for your 
introduction of the Alaska Tribal Public Safety and Empowerment Act, S. 
2616. We also want to express our appreciation for the hard work your 
staff put into helping craft this important legislation.
    S. 2616 legislation recognizes the heartbreaking tragedy that 
Alaska Native people face every day because of the violent crimes that 
occur in our villages that are left unpunished and the perpetrators are 
left to run free. We do not want to talk about this problem any longer. 
We do not want to cry about this problem any longer. We do not want to 
mourn any more victims. We want the tools to combat this problem.
    S. 2616 recognizes the foundational role tribal governments must 
play in finding solutions to this public safety crisis. S. 2616 gives 
Alaska tribes a critical tool by acknowledging the inherent authority 
and sacred duty our tribal governments possess to keep our communities 
safe. The solutions to the current public safety crisis is to be found 
in partnerships with state and federal law enforcement agencies, and S. 
2616 recognizes that tribal governments must be foundational partners 
in crafting these solutions.
    In short, we know that crime is best addressed by the government 
closest to the crime, and in an Alaska Native Village that is the 
tribal government. We look forward to working with you, Senator 
Sullivan and Congressman Young to secure final passage of this 
important legislation to combat the crisis plaguing our communities.
                                 ______
                                 
              PANEL DISCUSSION ON SOCIAL PROTECTION SYSTEMS
                                                     MARCH 12, 2019

    63rd UNITED NATIONS COMISSION ON THE STATUS OF WOMEN (UNCSW)

    Canadian Mission to the United Nations

    Introduction. Thank you for the opportunity to participate in the 
U.N.'s Panel Discussion on Social Protection Systems featuring 
indigenous perspectives. My name is J. Michael Chavarria and I am the 
Governor of the Pueblo of Santa Clara, also serving in the capacity of 
the Chairman for the Eight Northern Indian Pueblos Council and Vice-
Chairman for the All Pueblo Council of Governors (APCG), which is 
comprised of the leaders of the nineteen Pueblos of New Mexico and 
Ysleta del Sur Pueblo in Texas. Together and individually, our 
communities are dedicated to improving the safety and welfare of our 
tribal citizens.
    The Federal Trust Responsibility to Pueblos, Tribal Nations and 
Indigenous Communities Must be Upheld. The United States has a trust 
responsibility to protect the interests of indigenous peoples within 
its borders. This trust responsibility is rooted in the political 
government-to-government relationship that exists between the federal 
government and tribal nations. The inherent sovereignty of tribal 
nations to govern their internal affairs and community members is 
recognized in the U.S. Constitution, Supreme Court precedent, federal 
statutes, and treaties. Any meaningful investment in social protection 
systems that are intended to advance and protect the interests of 
indigenous peoples must reflect these founding principles.
    Indigenous Peoples and Communities Face Untold Threats to Their 
Physical Safety and Welfare. The threats begin in the womb in the form 
of restricted access to maternal healthcare services, safe housing, and 
inadequate nutrition for fetal development, and continue into 
adolescence and adulthood in high rates of physical, emotional, and 
sexual violence, human trafficking, substance/mental abuse, and 
suicide. When coupled with the jurisdictional issues that further 
complicate the delivery of limited public safety and victim services in 
Indian Country, it becomes clear that additional resources and targeted 
political actions are urgently needed to protect indigenous peoples in 
America.

    Question 1--- What works to address the social protection needs of 
indigenous women and girls, including early childhood education, 
maternal health, access to capital and job/skills training, access to 
justice/legal services, and income assistance? Please provide examples 
of programs and interventions that have been effective in your regions 
and communities in protecting and empowering indigenous women and 
girls.

    Social Protections Must be Rooted in Traditional Values to be 
Effective. I come from the Pueblo of Santa Clara, one of 19 Pueblos in 
the State of New Mexico. For Pueblo women and girls, the practice of 
our native traditions, customs, religion and, most importantly, our 
languages, is essential to their overall well-being. These customs, 
beliefs, and means of expression convey an individual's association to 
and within the community and, thus, are pivotal to growing up in Pueblo 
society. For example, women are taught of their traditional roles in 
our communities as they give life, provide nourishment, and keep the 
household together. Further, being respectful of your body and other 
people is taught at a young age. However, the challenges contemporary 
Pueblo People face in living both in our Native world and the Western 
world have eroded this respect. There are individuals in our community 
who have problems with alcohol and drugs who are not bad people, but 
who forget the lessons rooted in their heritage and cause harm on to 
others. The breakdown of traditional patterns contributes to gender 
abuse and other violent crimes. Our Pueblo ways are not the ways of 
violence against women. Embedding this message at the heart of all 
social protection programs is vital to our peoples' wellbeing.
    Peacekeepers Domestic Violence Program--Protects Individuals and 
Strengthens the Community. The Santa Clara Tribal Police Department 
operates the Peacekeepers Domestic Violence Program, administered with 
the support of the Eight Northern Pueblos Council Inc. The Program 
seeks to raise domestic violence awareness and advocates for systemic 
changes in the criminal justice system and in the mindset of 
perpetrators of violence. Domestic violence victims receive assistance 
in completing orders of protection, locating emergency shelter, and 
accessing vital resources such as support groups and referrals for 
counseling, medical services, and financial services. Victim Advocates 
are also provided to help individuals navigate the legal justice 
system. Like many traditional programs, Peacekeepers does not look at 
domestic violence issues in isolation. It also runs a Batterer's 
Intervention Program built on the philosophy that individuals must take 
responsibility for their actions. It teaches historical Native 
perspectives on domestic violence and encourages participants to 
examine their belief systems and adopt non-violence behaviors. Thus, 
the Peacekeepers Program helps protect indigenous people in harmful 
situations and prevent future instances of abuse by addressing root 
causes.
    Tribal Leadership and Community Groups. One of the most effective 
means of encouraging mutual respect for indigenous women, men, girls, 
and boys is by continual community engagement. Our Pueblo leaders 
engage directly with youth--speaking to them directly from the heart on 
their inherent value, Pueblo identity and unlimited potential to be 
accomplished members of society. These efforts are also advanced by our 
strong community groups. The Tewa Women United, for example, started in 
1989 as a support group for indigenous women united in heart, mind, and 
spirit. It is now a non-profit organization that encourages people to 
be politically engaged to advance positive change with a goal of ending 
all forms of violence against indigenous women and girls. The Coalition 
to Stop Violence Against Native Women is also a force for good, 
providing support, education and advocacy on behalf of Native women and 
children.
    Indian Head Start--A Multigenerational Approach to Indigenous 
Resiliency and Achievement. Indian Head Start has been a vital part of 
Head Start since its inception in 1965, and it is currently the most 
important and successful federal program focused on the needs of Native 
youth and families in early childhood education. Currently, Indian Head 
Start and Early Head Start serves 22,379 children in more than 200 
separate programs across 26 states. Our programs are unique in that 
they tend to be located in rural communities that are often affected by 
hardships such as poverty, high rates of crime, limited or non-existent 
transportation networks, and limited financial and qualified personnel 
resources. Indian Head Start strives to address these challenges 
through a focus on the whole individual--including education, health, 
language, and culture--as well as on the whole family and the whole 
community, creating a vibrant and safe learning environment for our 
Native children.
    Indian Head Start is founded on a three-generational approach 
provides an array of services tailored to meet the needs of children, 
parents, and (increasingly) grandparents. For example, programs may 
offer family nutrition or literacy workshops for parents and guardians. 
For Indian Head Start, this model is especially important given the 
critical role the program fills in addressing the unique needs of 
Native children, parents, and communities. Indian Head Start empowers 
Native women by providing parents with access to job assistance 
trainings, healthcare services, and a reliable source of safe and 
nurturing early childhood education. Native girls and boys are 
empowered with self-esteem, high quality educational services, and 
nutritional meals to support their healthy development.
    Further, through the integration of culturally and linguistically 
appropriate classroom practices, Indian Head Start empowers Native 
communities to take the lead in preserving, revitalizing, and 
reclaiming their heritage. This is achieved most commonly through the 
integration of elders into the classroom. Elders are teachers and role 
models in their communities who impart tradition, knowledge, culture, 
and lessons--all of which have been proven to be key contributors to 
Native student resiliency and success in later life. Further, for many 
communities, elders represent the last stronghold of tribal languages 
and traditions that were very nearly lost during the boarding school 
and termination eras of federal Indian policy.

    Question 2--What actions would strengthen social protection systems 
and prevention mechanisms in order for indigenous women and girls to 
live free from violence? What are the barriers or challenges in setting 
up and maintaining social protection systems in indigenous communities 
and what are examples of tools and approaches that have been most 
effective in overcoming these barriers and challenges?

    Integrating Traditional and Western Systems would Strengthen Social 
Protections for All Indigenous People. Western society tends to 
compartmentalize community services: social issues are addressed 
separate from healthcare, which is approached apart from economic 
development, which is segregated from education matters, and so on. In 
contrast, indigenous societies tend to approach aspects of life and 
community through a holistic lens that integrates social services, 
physical welfare, spirituality, and education into a unified system. We 
must make concerted effort to understand at how these Western and 
indigenous systems overlap and react to each other in order to identify 
and close gaps in social protection services. Entire systems must be 
understood and changed, not just individual programs, to truly protect 
all indigenous people.
    Reauthorization of an Expanded Violence Against Women Act is 
Urgently Needed to Build Internal Tribal Capacities. In the United 
States, the Federal Government has exclusive jurisdiction over cases of 
murder, sexual abuse, kidnapping, serious bodily assault, and certain 
other crimes committed in Indian Country pursuant to the Major Crimes 
Act, 18 U.S.C.  1153. The Violence Against Women Act authorized tribal 
courts to exercise criminal jurisdiction over non-Native offenders who 
commit domestic or dating violence against Native victims on tribal 
lands--crimes that have been historically under-prosecuted in the 
United States. VAWA's Special Domestic Violence Criminal Jurisdiction 
is critical to ensuring that dangerous jurisdictional gaps are closed 
by allowing tribal law enforcement to exercise jurisdiction over non-
indigenous offenders who commit certain crimes on tribal lands. VAWA 
has enabled tribal nations to further justice in such cases by removing 
cumbersome jurisdictional barriers from tribal courts. This special 
jurisdiction also honors our tribal sovereignty by helping us to build 
our internal justice capacities. To date, tribal nations exercising 
their criminal jurisdiction under the Act have reported 143 arrests of 
128 non-Native offenders that have led to 74 convictions, 5 acquittals, 
and 24 pending cases (as of March 20, 2018). \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ National Congress of American Indians, Special Domestic 
Violence Criminal Jurisdiction Five-Year Report at 1 (March 20, 2018), 
available at http://www.ncai.org/resources/ncai-publications/SDVCJ--5--
Year--Report.pdf. 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    VAWA authorization expired in February 2019. Any reauthorization 
should include expanded tribal jurisdiction over crimes against 
children, law enforcement personnel, or sexual assault crimes committed 
by strangers to provide increased safety and access to justice services 
for Native victims of crime. A strong, dependable local law enforcement 
is critical for victims of crime to feel like they have support and an 
opportunity to attain justice. A permanent reauthorization of VAWA is 
vital to continuing these efforts. We recommend that any government 
wishing to protect its indigenous women and girls study VAWA and its 
implementation.
    Empowering Women and Youth to Overcome Historical and Contemporary 
Trauma. To effectively engage with indigenous communities in America, 
one must also engage with a dark, long and painful history of trauma 
and loss. Understanding all that we have persevered as indigenous 
people since first contact helps us to prepare, mentally and 
spiritually, for the seemingly never-ending struggles of the future. 
One approach to addressing the impacts of historical and contemporary 
trauma is through empowerment initiatives. These initiatives aim to 
reconnect individuals with the expression of their indigenous 
identities as well as beneficial social services to provide 
participants with the tools they need for long-term success.
    Building internal and external strength enables indigenous women to 
stand up for their rights and self-worth, no matter the barriers or 
challenges. Financial management seminars, self-defense courses, 
educational scholarships, affordable childcare, and accessible crisis 
shelters and transitional housing are the bricks with which women build 
their own paths in life. We recommend that governments conduct research 
into the job market and average working hours of women and mothers. The 
information can then be used to better ensure that empowerment 
initiatives take place during times that are accessible to the women 
they are intended to serve. This could mean holding sessions at 
different times of the day (such as early in the morning, right after 
school, or before red-eye shifts begin), as well as at multiple 
locations so that transportation concerns do not become a barrier. At 
Santa Clara Pueblo, for example, many members are employed with shift 
work. Providing services outside of the 8am-5pm schedule--such as 
during nights and weekends--has enabled us to serve a much broader 
segment of our population. International organizations, national 
governments, and local entities can provide the necessary funding, 
expertise, and resources to make these types of services available to 
all.
    Empowered women empower others, creating a ripple effect of 
positive change in ways that cannot be predicted. For instance, the 
recent election of Deb Haaland, a Laguna Pueblo member, and Sharice 
Davids, a Ho-Chunk Nation member, to the United States House of 
Representatives showed indigenous women and girls that they can--and 
should--be leaders at the top levels of government. We are seeing ever 
increasing levels of political activism among our indigenous women and 
youth who are proud of their heritage, engage in traditional 
ceremonies, and know how to navigate the complex dual systems of their 
indigenous and American citizenship.
    Coordination of Services is Key to Leveraging Available Resources. 
Lack of coordination among governmental entities leads to gaps in 
social protections and causes confusion, pain, and cynicism for victims 
of crime as well as law enforcement personnel. Too often we have 
invested significant resources in working with a federal or state 
agency on an initiative, only to discover that another agency already 
has a similar program in place. The lack of intra- and inter-
governmental communication and coordination harms the welfare of our 
people. Several indigenous communities in New Mexico, for example, have 
implemented a coordinated community response in which their tribal 
courts, law enforcement, social services, and youth programs work 
together to enhance services and provide a holistic response to 
incidences of violence.
    Data Collection and Dissemination on Missing and Murdered 
Indigenous Women. The United States has had knowledge of the 
existential threats facing indigenous women and girls for decades. Our 
women and girls experience incidences of violence and abuse at rates 
that far exceed the national average. In 2016 alone, over 5,700 cases 
of missing indigenous women were reported to the National Crime 
Information Center. The actual figure is likely much higher due to the 
confluence of under-reporting of crimes in Indian Country and the lack 
of official data on the issue. This epidemic must be addressed. 
However, we cannot effectively respond to the crisis without access to 
accurate data and timely reports in national crime information 
databases. Standardized reporting protocols and inter-jurisdictional 
guidance on responding to cases of missing and murdered indigenous 
women is also key. This should be done in coordination with tribal 
nations and law enforcement entities.
    An example of a best practice in strengthening access to crime-
related data is the U.S. Department of Justice Tribal Access Program 
(TAP). TAP provides tribal nations with access to essential law 
enforcement data--such as fingerprint and identity verification 
databases, investigative reports, and criminal records--that allow 
tribal justice departments to better serve and protect their 
communities. Yet only a handful of the 573 federally recognized tribes 
are active participants. Interest in the program remains high and is 
steadily increasing as tribal nations become aware of the beneficial 
training and technology being offered. Expanded access to TAP and other 
TAP-like resources translates into enhanced social protection systems 
and prevention mechanisms to better safeguard our indigenous people.

    Question 3--How can governments and/or civil society organizations 
better support the development and maintenance of new and/or existing 
social protection systems? Please recommend best practices. How can 
they better create an emphatic dialogue with indigenous women and girls 
in order to understand their worldview and traditional values and to 
protect their human rights, foster their economic, political, social 
and cultural empowerment being factors to support social protection 
systems and indigenous women's adherence to them?

    Community Engagement Must be at the Heart of Change. Santa Clara 
Pueblo has been successful in its public safety endeavors by being 
intentional in engaging with diverse stakeholders in the community. 
While this type of in-depth engagement may take a longer amount of time 
to complete, the outcome is exponentially beneficial. Community members 
feel engaged in and represented by their government as they create a 
shared vision for the Pueblo. That feeling of ownership in initiatives 
helps sustain projects and policies through difficult times. For 
example, in 2011, the Pueblo experienced a series of devastating 
wildfires that ravaged our traditional lands and changed the livelihood 
of the entire community. We started a program known as the KhapoKidz 
Initiative to re-center our youth and ground them in healthy practices. 
The Initiative did this by focusing on four pillars: (1) community 
involvement; (2) holistic health practices; (3) reduced juvenile and 
young adult crime; and (4) facilitate mentorship, leadership, and 
educational opportunities. We are all vested in the same future--one 
that is safer and healthier for our indigenous girls and boys.
    Any meaningful effort to eliminate violence gender-based violence 
must, at its heart, support culturally responsive outreach and 
practices. Tribal nations have demonstrated time and again that where 
programs are implemented with culturally responsive practices, positive 
outcomes for individuals and the community follow. We have seen this in 
the reduced recidivism rates for indigenous offenders placed in 
facilities with culturally based rehabilitation services, in improved 
academic outcomes for children exposed to culturally inclusive 
curricula, as well as in the reduced prevalence of end-stage renal 
disease under the Special Diabetes Program for Indians, among many 
other examples. The U.S. federal government must ensure that, to the 
maximum extent possible, all training and technical assistance, grant 
opportunities, and other resources intended to reduce violence in 
Indian Country support culturally responsive practices.
    Supporting Tribal Leadership is a Fundamental Best Practice in 
Maintaining Adequate Social Protection Systems. To put it simply, 
tribal leaders must be allowed to lead. Positive action from our 
leaders translates into the better protection of our most vulnerable 
community members. Societal, political, and sometimes even economic 
pressures to look the other way in cases of gender-based crimes 
degrades the integrity of leaders and destroys the trust of victims 
crying out for help. Distrust in leadership and law enforcement 
destabilizes the foundation of community, leaving all exposed to the 
dangers in the fault lines. At Santa Clara Pueblo, tribal leaders do 
not interfere in criminal prosecution and justice matters. They trust 
the procedures, laws, and personnel of the Pueblo to carry out a just 
process. The clear separation of these areas helps to maintain the 
community's trust in their elected officials and governmental system.
    Jurisdictional Clarity is Key to Effective Law Enforcement. 
Ambiguity as to which government is responsible for law enforcement 
creates significant problems when a criminal incident arises. It can 
contribute to the mishandling of evidence, inflict further trauma on a 
victim, and thwart justice. Federal, state, and tribal governments must 
work together through intergovernmental agreements and cross-
deputization agreements, among other measures, to ensure that there are 
no jurisdictional gaps or misunderstandings. These types of agreements 
are entered into following meaningful discussions between appropriate 
leaders of each governmental entity. They also provide an opportunity 
for leaders to identify other areas that contribute to the lack of 
public safety in Indian Country--such as inadequate data and the 
connection between incidences of gender-based violence and nearby land 
development projects, such as fracking and pipelines. Tribal 
governments and law enforcement agencies are invaluable resources given 
the limited to non-existent national data on gender-based violence in 
Indian Country. Yet, too often, the lines of communication between 
federal, state, and tribal nations go unused and great harm is caused 
by the silence. Candid conversations between these entities on 
jurisdiction and other issues must take place regularly to promote 
public safety in Indian Country.
    Enforcement of Gender-Based and Domestic Violence Laws. As 
discussed in detail above, VAWA has played an invaluable role in 
furthering justice in Indian Country by empowering tribal nations to 
prosecute non-indigenous people who commit certain crimes on tribal 
lands. This law and others that are intended to protect women, girls, 
and those who suffer from incidents of domestic violence must be 
enforced to effect real change. Enforcement involves educating judges, 
prosecutors, public defenders, law enforcement personnel, and 
administrative staff in the justice system of not only the black letter 
provisions of the law, but of the socio-economic and other underlying 
factors that contribute to gender-based and domestic violence cases. 
Enforcement must be approached holistically and without compromise.
    It is important to remember that many tribal nations do not have 
tribal justice departments and lack the resources to establish programs 
on their own. While a plethora of federal resources exist to assist 
tribal nations that have established law enforcement agencies or a 
tribal court, very few--if any--federal funds are available to 
facilitate the start-up process. Having experienced the benefits of 
operating our own tribal justice department and tribal court system, we 
stand with other tribal nations who wish to exercise this fundamental 
aspect of tribal sovereignty but lack the immediate resources to 
accomplish their goals. The federal government could better support the 
development of new tribal courts and justice services, including law 
enforcement departments, by creating a special program within the 
Department of Justice that targets this issue.
    We thank you for the opportunity to participate in this important 
United Nations discussion. At the core of social protection for us as 
Pueblo People is respectfully remembering who we are and where we are 
from. Having this foundation in our Native identity and the sacredness 
of the Power of Prayer is essential to sustaining a community that is 
safe for all our members. Kuunda.
                                 ______
                                 
                                       Yupiit of Andreafski
                                                  November 12, 2019
Dear Senator Murkowski:

    I write on behalf of the Yupiit of Andreafski, a federally 
recognized tribe located in St. Mary's, Alaska, to express our deep 
appreciation and gratitude for your introduction of the Alaska Tribal 
Public Safety and Empowerment Act, S. 2616. We also want to express our 
appreciation for the hard work your staff put into helping craft this 
important legislation.
    S. 2616 legislation recognizes the heartbreaking tragedy that 
Alaska Native people face every day because of the violent crimes that 
occur in our villages that are left unpunished and the perpetrators are 
left to run free. We do not want to talk about this problem any longer. 
We do not want to cry about this problem any longer. We do not want to 
mourn any more victims. We want the tools to combat this problem.
    S. 2616 recognizes the foundational role tribal governments must 
play in finding solutions to this public safety crisis. S. 2616 gives 
Alaska tribes a critical tool by acknowledging the inherent authority 
and sacred duty our tribal governments possess to keep our communities 
safe. The solutions to the current public safety crisis is to be found 
in partnerships with state and federal law enforcement agencies, and S. 
2616 recognizes that tribal governments must be foundational partners 
in crafting these solutions.
    In short, we know that crime is best addressed by the government 
closest to the crime, and in an Alaska Native village that is the 
tribal government. We look forward to working with you, Senator 
Sullivan and Congressman Young to secure final passage of this 
important legislation to combat the crisis plaguing our communities.

        Sincerely,
                       George Beans, Sr., Council President
                                 ______
                                 
                                      Yakutat Tlingit Tribe
                                                  November 11, 2019
Dear Senator Murkowski:

    I write on behalf of the Native Village of Yakutat/Yakutat Tlingit 
Tribe to express our deep appreciation and gratitude for your 
introduction of the Alaska Tribal Public Safety and Empowennent Act, S. 
2616. We also want to express our appreciation for the hard work your 
staff put into helping craft this important legislation.
    S. 2616 legislation recognizes the heartbreaking tragedy that 
Alaska Native people face every day because of the violent crimes that 
occur in our villages that are left unpunished and the perpetrators are 
left to run free. We do not want to talk about this problem any longer. 
We do not want to cry about this problem any longer. We do not want to 
mourn any more victims. We want the tools to combat this problem.
    S. 2616 recognizes the foundational role tribal governments must 
play in finding solutions to this public safety crisis. S.2616 gives 
Alaska tribes a critical tool by acknowledging the inherent authority 
and sacred duty our tribal governments possess to keep our communities 
safe. The solutions to the current public safety crisis is to be found 
in partnerships with state and federal law enforcement agencies, and S. 
2616 recognizes that tribal governments must be foundational partners 
in crafting these solutions.
    In short, we know that crime is best addressed by the government 
closest to the crime, and in an Alaska Native village that is the 
tribal government. We look forward to working with you, Senator 
Sullivan and Congressman Young to secure final passage of this 
important legislation to combat the crisis plaguing our communities.

        Thank you,
                   Nathaniel J. Moulton, Executive Director
                                 ______
                                 
                                   Native Village of Kotlik
                                                   November 6, 2019
Dear Senator Murkowski:

    I write on behalf of the Native Village of Kotlik to express our 
deep appreciation and gratitude for your introduction of the Alaska 
Tribal Public Safety and Empowennent Act, S. 2616. We also want to 
express our appreciation for the hard work your staff put into helping 
craft this important legislation.
    S. 2616 legislation recognizes the heartbreaking tragedy that 
Alaska Native people face every day because of the violent crimes that 
occur in our villages that are left unpunished and the perpetrators are 
left to run free. We do not want to talk about this problem any longer. 
We do not want to cry about this problem any longer. We do not want to 
mourn any more victims. We want the tools to combat this problem.
    S. 2616 recognizes the foundational role tribal governments must 
play in finding solutions to this public safety crisis. S.2616 gives 
Alaska tribes a critical tool by acknowledging the inherent authority 
and sacred duty our tribal governments possess to keep our communities 
safe. The solutions to the current public safety crisis is to be found 
in partnerships with state and federal law enforcement agencies, and S. 
2616 recognizes that tribal governments must be foundational partners 
in crafting these solutions. In short, we know that crime is best 
addressed by the government closest to the crime, and in an Alaska 
Native village that is the tribal government. We look forward to 
working with you, Senator Sullivan and Congressman Young to secure 
final passage of this important legislation to combat the crisis 
plaguing our communities.

        Sincerely,
                          Michael Hunt Sr., Tribal Chairman
                                 ______
                                 
                                  Native Village of Kalskag
                                                   November 7, 2019
Dear Senator Murkowski:

    I write on behalf of the Native Village of Kalskag to express our 
deep appreciation and gratitude for your introduction of the Alaska 
Tribal Public Safety and Empowennent Act, S. 2616. We also want to 
express our appreciation for the hard work your staff put into helping 
craft this important legislation.
    S. 2616 legislation recognizes the heartbreaking tragedy that 
Alaska Native people face every day because of the violent crimes that 
occur in our villages that are left unpunished and the perpetrators are 
left to run free. We do not want to talk about this problem any longer. 
We do not want to cry about this problem any longer. We do not want to 
mourn any more victims. We want the tools to combat this problem.
    S. 2616 recognizes the foundational role tribal governments must 
play in finding solutions to this public safety crisis. S.2616 gives 
Alaska tribes a critical tool by acknowledging the inherent authority 
and sacred duty our tribal governments possess to keep our communities 
safe. The solutions to the current public safety crisis is to be found 
in partnerships with state and federal law enforcement agencies, and S. 
2616 recognizes that tribal governments must be foundational partners 
in crafting these solutions. In short, we know that crime is best 
addressed by the government closest to the crime, and in an Alaska 
Native village that is the tribal government. We look forward to 
working with you, Senator Sullivan and Congressman Young to secure 
final passage of this important legislation to combat the crisis 
plaguing our communities.

        Sincerely,
             Julia F. Dorris, Traditional Council President
                                 ______
                                 
                                Native Village of Chefornak
                                                  November 12, 2019
Dear Senator Murkowski:

    I write on behalf of the Native Village of Chefornak to express our 
deep appreciation and gratitude for your introduction of the Alaska 
Tribal Public Safety and Empowennent Act, S. 2616. We also want to 
express our appreciation for the hard work your staff put into helping 
craft this important legislation.
    S. 2616 legislation recognizes the heartbreaking tragedy that 
Alaska Native people face every day because of the violent crimes that 
occur in our villages that are left unpunished and the perpetrators are 
left to run free. We do not want to talk about this problem any longer. 
We do not want to cry about this problem any longer. We do not want to 
mourn any more victims. We want the tools to combat this problem.
    S. 2616 recognizes the foundational role tribal governments must 
play in finding solutions to this public safety crisis. S.2616 gives 
Alaska tribes a critical tool by acknowledging the inherent authority 
and sacred duty our tribal governments possess to keep our communities 
safe. The solutions to the current public safety crisis is to be found 
in partnerships with state and federal law enforcement agencies, and S. 
2616 recognizes that tribal governments must be foundational partners 
in crafting these solutions. In short, we know that crime is best 
addressed by the government closest to the crime, and in an Alaska 
Native village that is the tribal government. We look forward to 
working with you, Senator Sullivan and Congressman Young to secure 
final passage of this important legislation to combat the crisis 
plaguing our communities.

        Sincerely,
                                Native Village of Chefornak
                                 ______
                                 
                      Native Village of Bill Moore's Slough
                                                  November 15, 2019
Dear Senator Murkowski:

    I write on behalf of the Native Village of Bill Moore's Slough to 
express our deep appreciation and gratitude for your introduction of 
the Alaska Tribal Public Safety and Empowennent Act, S. 2616. We also 
want to express our appreciation for the hard work your staff put into 
helping craft this important legislation.
    S. 2616 legislation recognizes the heartbreaking tragedy that 
Alaska Native people face every day because of the violent crimes that 
occur in our villages that are left unpunished and the perpetrators are 
left to run free. We do not want to talk about this problem any longer. 
We do not want to cry about this problem any longer. We do not want to 
mourn any more victims. We want the tools to combat this problem.
    S. 2616 recognizes the foundational role tribal governments must 
play in finding solutions to this public safety crisis. S.2616 gives 
Alaska tribes a critical tool by acknowledging the inherent authority 
and sacred duty our tribal governments possess to keep our communities 
safe. The solutions to the current public safety crisis is to be found 
in partnerships with state and federal law enforcement agencies, and S. 
2616 recognizes that tribal governments must be foundational partners 
in crafting these solutions. In short, we know that crime is best 
addressed by the government closest to the crime, and in an Alaska 
Native village that is the tribal government. We look forward to 
working with you, Senator Sullivan and Congressman Young to secure 
final passage of this important legislation to combat the crisis 
plaguing our communities.

        Sincerely,
                      Native Village of Bill Moore's Slough
                                 ______
                                 
SCIA Testimony of Hon. Victor Joseph, Chief, Tanana Chiefs 
                                                 Conference
                                                      June 19, 2019
    The Tanana Chiefs Conference (TCC) is an intertribal consortium of 
37 federally-recognized Indian tribes and 4 additional Alaska Native 
communities located across the Interior region of Alaska. Our region 
stretches from the Brooks Range on the north, to the Alaska Range on 
the south, from the Canadian border on the east to almost Norton Sound 
on the west. Our area covers some 235,000 square miles--150,400,000 
acres--half again as large as California and almost as large as Texas. 
With no roads to most of our communities, travel is by boat in the 
summer, snow machine in the winter, and otherwise by small plane when 
weather permits.
    Our villages live a highly successful subsistence way of life, and 
our languages, cultures and lifeways are intact. But historical events 
outside of our control have made life particularly difficult. First, 
the federal government turned over its own law enforcement functions to 
the State through Public Law 280, saddling the State with a law 
enforcement burden it had insufficient resources to carry out. Then 
when Congress settled our land claims in 1971, the Alaska Native Claims 
Settlement Act created new corporations to hold and invest most village 
lands. As part of ANCSA, the core of our communities were designated 
for current or future state-chartered municipal governments--
governments which in many villages were never formed. As a result, most 
of the ``Indian country'' of our villages was eliminated (as the 
Supreme Court would later hold in the Venetie case), severely 
curtailing the ability of the villages to govern their own affairs.
    With these changes in legal status and governing authority, along 
with other pressures, our village governments have suffered and our 
communities entered a period of increasing dysfunction and danger, 
especially for women. Today, the statistics in Alaska are stunning:

  Alaska domestic violence rates are 10 times the national 
        average, and sexual assaults against Alaska Native women are 12 
        times the national average. Many offenders are non-Native.

  Alaska Native women are over-represented by 250 percent among 
        domestic violence victims. Although Alaska Natives comprise 
        just 19 percent of the state population, Native women 
        constitute 47 percent of all reported rape victims. Every 18 
        hours an Alaska Native woman is sexually assaulted.

  One out of every 4 Alaska Native youth suffers post-traumatic 
        stress (PTSD) due to childhood exposure to violence-the same 
        rate as Afghanistan War veterans.

  State-based law enforcement is virtually nonexistent in most 
        Alaska Native villages. State troopers are only present in hub 
        cities. VPSOs are only present in 40 out of 229 villages.

  The suicide rate in village Alaska is 6 times the national 
        rate, the alcohol-related mortality rate is 3.5 times the 
        national rate, and 95 percent of rural crimes in Alaska are 
        alcohol related.

  Although some laws and law reform proposals are tied to 
        ``Indian Country,'' tribal territorial jurisdiction vanished 
        almost entirely with the enactment of the 1971 Alaska Native 
        Claims Settlement Act. Most crimes do not occur on the few 
        remaining lands that constitute ``Indian country'' under 
        federal law (allotments, townsite lots, trust lands). While 
        some law reform measures are also keyed to lands owned by 
        Alaska Native Corporations (ANCs), almost no one lives on ANC 
        lands.

    In short, today there is a law enforcement crisis in our 
communities of epic proportions. But under current law, there is no 
effective means to combat it and the tribal governments who are closest 
to the problem have virtually no tools whatsoever to address the issue 
themselves.
    It is with these observations that TCC has examined the several 
bills now pending before this Committee. While all four bills are very 
well-intentioned and all mention Alaska Natives, there is little in 
these bills that is actually workable as a means for improving local 
tribal law enforcement in our communities, and for protecting our most 
vulnerable tribal members.
    For instance, S. 227 (Savannah's Act) notes in section 2(a)(7) that 
``the complicated jurisdictional scheme that exists in Indian country'' 
`` has a significant negative impact on the ability to provide public 
safety to Indian communities;'' is ``exploited by criminals;'' and 
demands ``a high degree of commitment and cooperation among Tribal 
Federal, and State law enforcement officials.'' It also recites the 
importance of ``empower[ing] tribal governments'' ``to effectively 
respond to cases of missing and murdered Indians.''
    Yet the bill's operative provisions are then tied to the very 
jurisdictional hooks regarding ``Indian lands'' that have proven to be 
so problematic for Alaska Tribes. For instance, Section 3(4) defines 
Indian lands to include ``Indian country'' under 18 U.S.C. 1151, even 
though for most practical purposes there isn't any Indian country in 
Alaska outside of a few isolated tracts of trust and restricted fee 
lands, and hardly any people actually live on those lands. Section 
3(4)(B) also mentions Alaska Native corporation (ANC) lands, but again 
virtually no people live on ANCSA lands. This makes the bill's 
limitations to ``Indian land'' extremely problematic in Alaska. Alaska 
Native villages are left out.
    Later, section 5 of S. 227 builds on the federal government's 
existing jurisdiction over ``Indian country'' crimes, but that 
jurisdiction is again of little help in village Alaska, both because of 
the small amount of Indian country in Alaska villages and because 
Public Law 280 transferred the federal government's jurisdiction over 
those areas to the State. Here, too, Alaska villages are left out.
    S. 288 is similarly problematic for Tribes in Alaska because 
sections 2(2) and 2(4)(C) focus on enhancing tribal criminal 
jurisdiction in ``Indian country,'' thereby excluding Alaska Native 
villages.
    S. 290 in section 3(2)(G) seeks to expand tribal jurisdiction but 
defines the term ``covered conduct'' to mean certain conduct that 
``violates the criminal law of the Indian tribe that has jurisdiction 
over the Indian country where the conduct occurs,'' again making these 
measures largely ineffective in Alaska. Ultimately, with these 
limitations it is difficult to see how the Report addressed in Section 
5(b)(1) will help Alaska tribes, despite the critically important need 
to focus on the ``effectiveness'' of ``Federal programs . . . intended 
to build the capacity of criminal justice systems of Indian tribes to 
investigate and prosecute offenses relating to dating violence, 
domestic violence, child violence, and related conduct.''
    S. 982 carries some of the same problems as the other bills, 
including S. 227, such as by limiting ``Indian lands'' to Indian 
country (including reservation and trust) lands or ANC-owned lands 
(sec. 3(4)). The bill softens this limitation by frequently focusing 
its provisions to speak of crimes ``within Indian lands and of 
Indians,'' but this hardly overcomes the core problem that just as with 
the other bills, S. 982 bill fails to focus on the extreme law 
enforcement problems confronting Alaska Native villages.
    As Congressman Young correctly noted earlier this year, the current 
situation confronting Alaska Native villages, combined with the unique 
history of congressional treatment of these areas, demands an Alaska 
solution to a unique Alaska problem. Either the term ``Indian country'' 
needs to be redefined to include all lands within each Alaska Native 
village, or Congress needs to simply declare that tribes shall have 
criminal and civil jurisdiction in and around their villages without 
regard to the term ``Indian country.'' Alaska Tribes cannot enforce the 
rule of law in their communities and provide for civil society 
according to tribal customs, traditions and laws without a fresh 
declaration from Congress clearly declaring their authority to do so.
    Alaska tribal authority should be declared to be broad and plenary 
with respect to tribal members. In the case of non-Natives present in 
the villages, it should at a minimum cover sexual violence, child 
violence, alcohol, and related crimes, including the crimes identified 
in S. 288. This should be done, not on a limited or pilot basis, but on 
a broad basis to protect all women and children in all Alaska Native 
villages. The time to wait while more women are raped or murdered is 
over. While greater federal assistance is also critically needed, first 
and foremost our tribes must be empowered to protect their own. They 
are the front line, the first responders, and as a matter of basic 
self-governance they must be returned the tools they need to protect 
their communities.

        Thank you.
                                 ______
                                 
                                 Native Village of Kasigluk
                                                  November 13, 2019
Dear Senator Murkowski:

    I write on behalf of the [Native Village of Kasigluk] to express 
our deep appreciation and gratitude for your introduction of the Alaska 
Tribal Public Safety and Empowerment Act, S. 2616. We also want to 
express our appreciation for the hard work your staff put into helping 
craft this important legislation.
    S. 2616 legislation recognizes the heartbreaking tragedy that 
Alaska Native people face every day because of the violent crimes that 
occur in our villages that are left unpunished and the perpetrators are 
left to run free. We do not want to talk about this problem any longer. 
We do not want to cry about this problem any longer. We do not want to 
mourn any more victims. We want the tools to combat this problem.
    S. 2616 recognizes the foundational role tribal governments must 
play in finding solutions to this public safety crisis. S. 2616 gives 
Alaska tribes a critical tool by acknowledging the inherent authority 
and sacred duty our tribal governments possess to keep our communities 
safe. The solutions to the current public safety crisis is to be found 
in partnerships with state and federal law enforcement agencies, and S. 
2616 recognizes that tribal governments must be foundational partners 
in crafting these solutions.
    In short, we know that crime is best addressed by the government 
closest to the crime, and in an Alaska Native village that is the 
tribal government. We look forward to working with you, Senator 
Sullivan and Congressman Young to secure final passage of this 
important legislation to combat the crisis plaguing our communities.

        Sincerely,
                                   Natalia Brink, President
                                 ______
                                 
                                                       June 5, 2020
Dear Senator Murkowski,

    Last November our organizations and dozens of the Tribes we 
represent wrote to you to convey their strong support for swift 
enactment of S. 2616, the Alaska Tribal Public Safety and Empowerment 
Act, which you introduced in October. That bill followed our meeting in 
July where you committed to give this matter your very highest 
priority.
    While much has happened since S. 2616 was introduced, those 
developments--most importantly the new coronavirus--have only made 
public safety issues in village Alaska more urgent. Today, the burden 
to protect our communities from the virus falls squarely on the 
shoulders of our elected tribal leaders. But so long as clarifying 
legislation remains stalled, their actual authority to take protective 
action is uncertain. To be clear, the coronavirus is an existential 
threat to our villages. It is therefore imperative that our Tribes have 
the necessary tools to adequately protect every resident from getting 
infected, Native and non-Native alike. This is not hyperbole: the 
consequence of inadequate protection is already decimating the Navajo 
Nation.
    We respectfully but urgently request your support for prompt 
enactment of S. 2616 as part of the Senate's next coronavirus 
legislation, with appropriate language added to clarify tribal 
authority to protect all village residents from infectious diseases 
like the coronavirus.

        Respectfully,

        Vivian Korthius, President, ASSOCIATION OF VILLAGE COUNCIL 
        PRESIDENTS

        Victor Joseph, Chief, TANANA CHIEFS CONFERENCE

        Ralph Anderson, President, BRISTOL BAY NATIVE ASSOCIATION

        Richard Peterson, President, CENTRAL COUNCIL TLINGIT AND HAIDA

        Melanie Bahnke, President, KAWERAK, INC
                                 ______
                                 
                                                      April 8, 2021
Dear Senator Murkowski, Senator Sullivan & Congressman Young,
    Last June we wrote to draw attention to the critical importance of 
securing enactment of the Alaska Tribal Public Safety and Empowerment 
Act that Senator Murkowski introduced in October 2019. We now write 
with renewed urgency to request that the Alaska Delegation reintroduce 
this proposed Act as soon as possible so that it can move through the 
legislative process in this session of Congress.
    The Alaska Tribal Public Safety and Empowerment Act is the product 
of a decade of work by Senator Murkowski, key congressional staff 
working in consultation with Alaska tribal representatives and 
advocates, key individuals like Walt Monegan (former Alaska State 
Public Safety Commissioner), and key experts brought together in 2019 
by the National Congress of American Indians. As a result, the Alaska 
Tribal Public Safety and Empowerment Act has been widely vetted and it 
is widely supported. It also enjoyed support from the Justice 
Department under former Attorney General Barr, and there is every 
reason to expect it will be supported by Attorney General Garland. But 
most importantly, it has received a veritable flood of support from 
local Alaska tribal leadership.
    The grave conditions which compelled introduction of the bill 
haven't gotten any better--as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic they 
have gotten worse. Domestic violence, rape, child abuse, and alcohol 
and drug abuse continue unabated in our villages. At the same time, the 
COVID epidemic has heightened the need for enhanced tribal authority to 
take aggressive action, including local quarantine measures, when 
public emergencies arise.
    Congressman Young put it well last year. When he championed his 
amendments to the Violence Against Women Act, Congressman Young urged 
Congress to embrace an Alaska solution to an Alaska problem resulting 
from Alaska's unique history. And that is what the Alaska Tribal Public 
Safety and Empowerment Act would do.
    We respectfully but urgently renew our call for prompt introduction 
of the Alaska Tribal Public Safety and Empowerment Act in the House and 
Senate so that this Act can finally become law in 2021.

        With respect and gratitude for your service,

        Vivian Korthius, President, ASSOCIATION OF VILLAGE COUNCIL 
        PRESIDENTS

        PJ Simon, Chief, TANANA CHIEFS CONFERENCE

        Ralph Anderson, President, BRISTOL BAY NATIVE ASSOCIATION

        Richard Peterson, President, CENTRAL COUNCIL TLINGIT AND HAIDA

        Melanie Bahnke, President, KAWERAK, INC

        Julie Kitka, President, ALASKA FEDERATION OF NATIVES

        Gloria O'Neill, President, ALASKA NATIVE JUSTICE CENTER

                                  [all]