The Violence Against Women Act is not an austerity measure. It should be. Especially when it comes to tribal authority.

The Violence Against Women Act was originally enacted in 1994. Its history is a bipartisan measure designed to give law enforcement more tools to reduce domestic violence, sexual assault, and stalking.

As Washington Sen. Patty Murray wrote last month: "In fact, until now, this bill has been among the most broadly supported measures considered in both the House and Senate and has only become more so over time.  The original VAWA passed in 1994 with strong bipartisan support in both the House and Senate.  Support for the legislation’s renewal in 2000 was more lopsided, with a 95-0 vote in the Senate, and a 371-1 vote in the House.  And an even stronger consensus emerged in 2005, with unanimous approval in the Senate, and a 415-4 vote in the House."

Tribes were left out of the 1994 law. However the reauthorization included tribal systems because it’s such a logical solution.

The 112th Congress -- the lousiest legislative body in U.S. history -- rejected that idea. Now the process has to start over in the new Congress both in the House and in the Senate.

The primary reason the bill died in the House was that Majority Leader Eric Cantor, R-Virginia, opposed giving tribes jurisdiction over non-Indians.

The problem is that the federal government rarely prosecutes domestic violence crimes (even with the existing authority).

As Salon reported last month:

“We have serial rapists on the reservation — that are non-Indian — because they know they can get away with it,” said Charon Asetoyer, executive director of the Native American Women’s Health Education Resource Center in Lake Andes, S.D. “Many of these cases just get dropped. Nothing happens. And they know they’re free to hurt again.

Asetoyer was talking about the loophole that prevents tribal authorities, who have jurisdiction over crimes committed on Indian territory by Indians, from having any authority over non-Indian male abusers. That’s despite the fact that non-Indian men account for an estimated 80 percent of rapes of Indian women, and that the astronomical rate of abuse of Indian women is well documented by the federal government."

As Tulalip Vice Chairman Deborah Parker said to The Everett Herald last year: Without the tribal jurisdiction portion of the law, "we don't have anything."

So all this starts again in the new, the 113th Congress.

Now let's look at the Violence Against Women Act through the lens of austerity.

Tribal governments are significantly more efficient than the federal government when it comes to delivering services, especially public health and law and order.

The goal of the Republican Party, at least publicly, is to shrink the size of the federal government and reduce the cost of government.

The Violence Against Women Act would do that. Yet in this case Leader Cantor is arguing for an expensive expansion of the federal government. Federal jurisdiction means that the entire law enforcement apparatus from investigation to prosecution would be handled by highly-paid FBI agents,  federal prosecutors and federal judges. The courts would be held in cities sometimes far from reservation communities.  The cost structure for tribal justice systems, on the other hand, is less even when measured against state or county courts.

As I have written before, states and tribes (and in this case, the federal government) have fare more to gain from cooperation that confrontation. The Violence Against Women Act is an ideal example.

Mark Trahant is a writer, speaker and Twitter poet. He lives in Fort Hall, Idaho, and is a member of The Shoshone-Bannock Tribes. Join the discussion about austerity. A new Facebook page has been set up at:https://www.facebook.com/IndianCountryAusterity