[Senate Hearing 111-405]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 111-405
THE CONTINUED IMPORTANCE OF THE VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN ACT
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
JUNE 10, 2009
__________
Serial No. J-111-29
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
56-212 WASHINGTON : 2009
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC
area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC
20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont, Chairman
HERB KOHL, Wisconsin JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama
DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah
RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa
CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York JON KYL, Arizona
RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina
BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland JOHN CORNYN, Texas
SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island TOM COBURN, Oklahoma
RON WYDEN, Oregon
AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota
EDWARD E. KAUFMAN, Delaware
ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania
Bruce A. Cohen, Chief Counsel and Staff Director
Matt Miner, Republican Chief Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
STATEMENTS OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS
Page
Coburn, Hon. Tom, a U.S. Senator from the State of Oklahoma,
prepared statement............................................. 81
Feingold, Hon. Russell D., a U.S. Senator from the State of
Wisconsin, prepared statement.................................. 94
Klobuchar, Hon. Amy, a U.S. Senator from the State of Minnesota.. 4
Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., a U.S. Senator from the State of Vermont. 1
prepared statement........................................... 100
Schumer, Hon. Charles E., a U.S. Senator from the State of New
York........................................................... 147
Sessions, Hon. Jeff, a U.S. Senator from the State of Alabama.... 3
WITNESSES
Burke, Ann, RN, M.Ed., President and Founder, Lindsay Ann Burke
Memorial Fund, Saunderstown, Rhode Island...................... 17
Campbell, Collene, National Chair, Force 100, San Juan
Capistrano, California......................................... 20
Pierce, Catherine, Acting Director, Office on Violence Against
Women, U.S. Department of Justice.............................. 4
Tronsgard-Scott, Karen, Director, Vermont Network Against
Domestic and Sexual Violence, Montpelier, Vermont.............. 14
Union, Gabrielle, Actor and Advocate, Beverly Hills, California.. 13
Wells, Sally Wolfgang, Chief Assistant, Office of the Maricopa
County Attorney, Phoenix Arizona............................... 22
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
Responses of Ann Burke to questions submitted by Senator Specter. 34
Responses of Collene Campbell to questions submitted by Senator
Specter........................................................ 37
Responses of Catherine Pierce to questions submitted by Senator
Specter........................................................ 38
Responses of Karen Tronsgard-Scott to questions submitted by
Senator Specter................................................ 43
Responses of Gabrielle Union to questions submitted by Senator
Specter........................................................ 46
Responses of Sally Wolfgang Wells to questions submitted by
Senator Schumer................................................ 49
SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD
American Civil Liberties Union, Caroline Fredrickson, Director
and Vania Leveille, Legislative Counsel, Washington,
Legislative office, Lenora Lapidus, Director, and Sandra Park,
Staff Attorney, Women's Rights Project, Washington, D.C.,
statement...................................................... 52
Burke, Ann, RN, M.Ed., President and Founder, Lindsay Ann Burke
Memorial Fund, Saunderstown, Rhode Island:
statement.................................................... 59
Chapter 490.................................................. 62
Campbell, Collene, National Chair, Force 100, San Juan
Capistrano, California, statement.............................. 64
Children's Aids Fund, Washington, D.C., statement................ 69
Claiborne, Liz, Inc., and Family Violence Prevention Fund,
Washington, D.C., letter....................................... 70
De La Calle, Michelle, San Jose, California, statement........... 87
Keitelman, Elina Nicole, Marriage and Family Therapist, statement 95
Legal Momentum Advancing Women's Rights, Irasema Garza,
President; Leslye Orloff, Vice-President for Government
Affairs; Maya Raghu, Senior Staff Attorney; Sameera Hafiz,
Staff Attorney; Jennifer Grayson, Senior Policy Analyst,
Washington, D.C., statement.................................... 102
National Center for Victims of Crime, Washington, D.C., fact
sheet.......................................................... 119
National Congress of American Indians, Task Force on Violence
Against Women, Karen Articiker, Co-Chair and Juana Majel, Co-
Chair, Washington, D.C., statement............................. 120
National Association of Attorneys General, Washington, D.C.,
Resolution..................................................... 129
National Foundation for Women Legislators, Inc, Washington, D.C.,
Joint Resolution............................................... 131
Pierce, Catherine, Acting Director, Office on Violence Against
Women, U.S. Department of Justice, statement................... 132
Raver, Deidre, Co-Founder, Women Against Violence, Fishkill, New
York, statement................................................ 145
Tronsgard-Scott, Karen, Director, Vermont Network Against
Domestic and Sexual Violence, Montpelier, Vermont, statement... 148
Union, Gabrielle, Actor and Advocate, Beverly Hills, California,
statement...................................................... 153
Wells, Sally Wolfgang, Chief Assistant, Office of the Maricopa
County Attorney, Phoenix Arizona, statement.................... 160
THE CONTINUED IMPORTANCE OF THE VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN ACT
----------
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 10, 2009
U.S. Senate,
Committee on the Judiciary,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:07 a.m., in
room SD-226, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Patrick J.
Leahy, Chairman of the Committee, presiding.
Present: Senators Leahy, Whitehouse, Klobuchar, Kaufman,
and Sessions.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. PATRICK J. LEAHY, A U.S. SENATOR FROM
THE STATE OF VERMONT
Chairman Leahy. Good morning.
Since 1994, the Violence Against Women Act, or VAWA, has
been the centerpiece of the Federal Government's commitment to
combating domestic violence and other violent crimes against
women. Its passage and reauthorization were a signal
achievement in support of the rights of women in America. I am
glad to see Senator Kaufman from Delaware because his
predecessor, who now has another job in Government, Joe Biden,
was, of course, so instrumental in the passing of VAWA. The
landmark law filled a void in Federal law that had left too
many victims of domestic and sexual violence without the help
they needed. It is interesting that it passed with very strong
bipartisan support, and I would compliment then-Senator Biden
and Senator Hatch, who were Chairman and Ranking Member,
respectively, who worked so hard in getting this passed.
I look forward to working with members of the Committee,
the Obama-Biden administration, and experts in the field to
ensure the law remains a vital resource for prosecutors, law
enforcement agencies, victim service providers, but, most
importantly, the women and families who are threatened with
violence.
Today we have an extraordinary panel of witnesses. Of
course, the first one is going to be Catherine Pierce, and I am
glad to see you here, Ms. Pierce. She is the Acting Director of
the Office on Violence Against Women at the Justice Department.
Of course, Karen Tronsgard-Scott, whom I have known for many
years and was just talking with, is a leader for ending
domestic and sexual violence in Vermont.
I mention Karen because people think of Vermont--like so
many small, rural, bucolic States, we have a very low crime
rate and everything else. But we have domestic violence in
every State--every State, every situation. Sometimes in more
rural areas it is more hidden because it is something people do
not want to talk about. I know that.
Three witnesses will be sharing their personal stories with
the Committee. One has gone on to become a successful actor,
one has helped pass a Rhode Island State law requiring teen
dating violence education in public schools, and one has become
a passionate advocate for victims in California.
I saw the devastating effects of domestic and sexual
violence early in my career as a prosecutor, the Vermont
State's Attorney for Chittenden County. I know that violence
and abuse reach into the homes of people from all walks of life
every day, regardless of gender or race or culture, age, class,
sexuality, or economic status. Domestic violence is a crime. We
should never forget that: Domestic violence is a crime. When I
became a prosecutor, people did not prosecute it. I changed
that. And now everybody knows you have to. It does not make any
difference whether it is a family member, a current or past
spouse, a boyfriend or girlfriend, an acquaintance or a
stranger. It is a crime. It is a crime. It is a crime.
We have made some remarkable progress in recognizing that
domestic violence, sexual assault, stalking, and dating
violence are crimes. Since the enactment of VAWA, the rates of
non-fatal and fatal domestic violence have declined, more
victims have felt confident to come forward to report these
crimes, and States have passed more than 600 laws to help this
and to fight this kind of crime. But we still have millions of
women, men, children, and families who are traumatized by
abuse. We know that one in four American women and one in seven
men are victims of domestic violence. One in six women and one
in 33 men are victims of sexual assault, and 1.4 million
individuals are stalked each year. So we have to keep on with
these programs.
A 2008 census by the National Network to End Domestic
Violence found that in just 1 day, more than 60,500 adults and
children were served by local domestic violence programs.
Almost 9000 requests went unmet.
Numbers like these are why I advocated for increased
funding in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act for
important VAWA programs. The STOP--Services, Training,
Officers, Prosecutors--Formula Grant program is one of these.
The inclusion of $175 million for STOP grants in the Recovery
Act is going to give resources to law enforcement agencies and
prosecutors and courts and victim advocacy groups to improve
victim safety; also, $50 million for the Transitional Housing
Assistance Grant, something I authored to provide safe havens.
There is a lot more in this. I want to get on to the witnesses,
and I will put my full statement in the record. But the bill we
have before us will make corrections and improvements so that
the law which has helped so many can continue to serve as a
powerful tool to combat violence perpetrated against women and
families. We were able to pass this through Committee in early
May. I have trying to get it passed out to the Senate. It has
bipartisan support. I think every victim of domestic violence
in this country would tell us how important this is.
With that, I will yield to another former and distinguished
prosecutor, Senator Sessions of Alabama.
STATEMENT OF HON. JEFF SESSIONS, A U.S. SENATOR FROM ALABAMA
Senator Sessions. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you,
Ms. Pierce. We are delighted to have you here. I will not delay
with any long remarks, and we look forward to hearing your
testimony.
We do spend a considerable sum of money. It has a very
important mission. Every dollar of it needs to be wisely and
most effectively spent, and I want to discuss that because
programs as they age sometimes become less vibrant and
effective than they were when they initially started. So I
would like to talk about that.
I would agree with the Chairman. It has been tremendous
progress. When I started as United States Attorney in 1981, I
guess, I sensed that that local police departments, even small
police departments, were becoming far more attuned to the
dangers that occur from ignoring domestic violence. Training
programs have increased dramatically, and most departments are
far more sophisticated today than when this program originally
passed, and that is all to the good.
So let us talk about what good things have happened and
what challenges we face and how to make sure that these
programs are the most productive programs to reduce violence in
America.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Leahy. Thank you very much.
Senator Kaufman, do you want to say something?
Senator Kaufman. I just wanted to say I can remember in
1990 when then-Senator Biden, now Vice President Biden, first
started working on the Violence Against Women Act, and I know
what a lonely job it was getting started, and it really is
incredible. It has always been a great example to me of what
you can if you really put your mind to doing it and you have a
just cause, and he just picked up people as he went along.
Clearly, I want to thank the Chairman for picking this up
and moving with it and carrying it even further and for his
introducing the Improving Assistance to Domestic and Sexual
Violence Victims Act. But, you know, a lot of things have
happened since the Act was passed which are very promising.
Reported incidents of rape are down by 60 percent, and the
number of women killed by an abusive husband or boyfriend is
down 22 percent. Really striking, today more than half of all
rape victims are stepping forward to report the crime--acts of
rape that often need the protection and encouragement that
VAWA's funding provides.
But we still have a long way to go, and that is why we are
here today, and this is what we have to talk about. We cannot
afford to turn our backs on women and families in need of
protection. We need to pass the Improving Assistance to
Domestic Violence Victims Act and reinvigorate funding for
Violence Against Women Act programs today.
I just want to thank you for what you are doing. What you
are doing is absolutely the most incredibly important thing
that I see every day in the job that I do, and I want to thank
you all.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Leahy. Senator Klobuchar.
STATEMENT OF HON. AMY KLOBUCHAR, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE
OF MINNESOTA
Senator Klobuchar. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Leahy. Again, another former prosecutor.
Senator Klobuchar. That is right. And I know somewhere Paul
and Sheila Wellstone are looking down on us today. I think you
know that this was their passion, and some of it came from
Paul's fighting for anyone that did not get the best luck in
life or was the most vulnerable, and Sheila really took this on
in an amazing way. I still remember her arriving in Washington
with her kind of frizzy hair and 8 years later, so she was just
an amazing advocate for this nationally. And part of that
advocacy actually came out of the work in Minnesota. I was the
Hennepin County prosecutor for 8 years, the head of that
office, and our Domestic Abuse Center really was a model for
the country, a one-stop shop where there was a daycare center,
and there was a place for police and prosecutors and
restraining orders signed and everything, instead of having to
go through a bureaucratic maze of red tape, which even lawyers
could not figure out.
So this is something near and dear to my heart. I am proud
of the work we have done in Hennepin County and the work that
has been done nationally since VAWA passed, and I am looking
forward to working on the reauthorization.
Thank you very much.
Chairman Leahy. Thank you.
Our first witness, Catherine Pierce, is currently the
Acting Director of the Department of Justice's Office of
Violence Against Women. Prior to her appointment as Acting
Director, Ms. Pierce was the Deputy Director of the office in
charge of public outreach and communications. She was
responsible for launching the office's Sexual Assault Services
Program and the Culturally and Linguistically Specific Service
program. She originally joined the Office of Violence Against
Women as one of the original staff members when the office
opened in 1995. She has also worked in an advisory role with
the State Department on human-trafficking issues, another
matter of enormous seriousness.
Prior to her time at the Department, she served as deputy
at the State Justice Institute, where she oversaw the
development of judicial education and training initiatives. She
has a bachelor's from the University of Massachusetts at
Amherst.
Please go ahead, Ms. Pierce, and thank you for being here.
STATEMENT OF CATHERINE PIERCE, ACTING DIRECTOR, OFFICE ON
VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Ms. Pierce. Thank you, Chairman Leahy and Ranking Member
Sessions and members of the Committee, for the opportunity to
speak with you today. As you said, my name is Catherine Pierce,
and I am the Acting Director of the Department of Justice's
Office on Violence Against Women. I am here today to discuss
both the remarkable progress made since the Violence Against
Women Act was enacted almost 15 years ago and the challenges
ahead.
I want to personally thank the Chairman and Committee staff
for working so closely with the Department on S. 327, the
Improving Assistance to Domestic and Sexual Violence Victims of
2009. This bill contains a number of much needed amendments to
improve VAWA's grant programs.
Every day, VAWA funding makes a difference in how
communities across America assist and protect victims. OVW's 19
grant programs provide funding to States, local governments,
tribal governments, and nonprofit organizations to assist
communities, encouraging them to develop innovative strategies
to respond to violence against women.
We are grateful to Congress for reauthorizing VAWA in 2005
and expanding our ability to respond to all victims of violence
against women, including victims of sexual assault.
We are pleased to report that this year, for the first
time, OVW will make awards under the new Sexual Assault
Services Program to support essential services provided by rape
crisis centers throughout the Nation.
OVW has increased its efforts to respond to the serious
crime of stalking. In January of this year, the Department
released a special report which confirms what the field has
long known: Stalking is pervasive, women are at higher risk of
being stalked, and there is a dangerous intersection between
stalking and more violent crimes.
As the Nation's understanding of domestic violence, sexual
assault, and stalking has increased, so, too, has our awareness
that these forms of violence affect all age groups and that
violence within relationships often tragically begins during
adolescence.
In addition, with the reauthorization of VAWA 2005,
Congress directed OVW to take new steps to address the critical
problem of violence against Indian women. The Department
appointed a Deputy Director for Tribal Affairs for OVW,
established a Federal Advisory Committee to provide
recommendations on a program of research, and instituted annual
tribal consultations to learn how the Department can improve
its response to these crimes.
While we are rightly proud of our accomplishments, we
recognize that there is still much to do. Looking forward, the
office will focus on a number of areas where greater effort is
needed. For example, over the years we have learned that law
enforcement officers, prosecutors, and judges alike work with
victim advocates to use their distinct roles to create
coordinated community responses to violence against women.
While this approach has been important to our efforts, we
recognize that we cannot rely solely on the criminal justice
system to end violence against women and that, to be effective,
local responses must be informed by the voices and experiences
of survivors, and also diverse representatives of the
community. While VAWA has made a tremendous difference in the
lives of many, we recognize that we have also left many women
behind, particularly women of color.
In the months and years to come, we will engage in efforts
that place accountability for the safety of women and girls on
the community as a whole. I am constantly inspired by the
extraordinary commitment of the women and men who have devoted
their lives to ending violence against women. But our lives
have most been changed by survivors, women like Gabrielle Union
and Ann Burke, who have experienced the unthinkable and who
have the courage to tell their stories to advocate for change.
I was compelled to commit my life to this work over 15
years ago when I read the story of Kristin Lardner. Like one of
my own daughters, Kristin was an art student with her entire
life ahead of her. She was dating a man who became abusive. She
broke up with him after he seriously beat her, and even then
tried to help him get counseling. His response was to threaten
and stalk her.
Kristin successfully obtained a protection order against
him, but he did not comply, came to her workplace, and insisted
that she continue to see him. When she refused, he shot her in
the head and then returned a few minutes later to shoot her
twice more. He went back to his own apartment and committed
suicide.
The man who murdered Kristin had a three-page arrest
record, was convicted of multiple offenses, was the subject of
multiple restraining orders, and was on probation for
repeatedly assaulting and abusing women. At the time of
Kristin's murder, he had violated the terms of his probation in
another jurisdiction and should well have been in jail.
I learned about Kristin because her father, George Lardner,
a reporter, investigated his own daughter's death and wrote a
series of articles which won him the Pulitzer Prize. While this
story changed my life, and perhaps many others, it did not
bring Kristin back. Every day, stories about similar homicides,
rape, domestic violence, and stalking remain in our headline.
This is unacceptable. We have much, much more to do.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Sessions, and
members of the Committee, for your commitment, your ongoing
commitment to this issue and your time this morning. I would be
very happy to answer your questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Pierce appears as a
submission for the record.]
Chairman Leahy. Thank you, and thank you for mentioning
George Lardner's writing on that. I remember being gripped by
that and wondering--one, it was very important he wrote it, but
I can only imagine how difficult that must be for a parent to
write something like that. I have three children of my own and
now grandchildren. I can only imagine how that must tear one
apart.
We have a serious economic crisis in this country, Ms.
Pierce. Has that affected, increased or decreased or in any way
affected the need for the services that we have in VAWA?
Ms. Pierce. I think it has, but I think I would like to
state sort of unequivocally that unemployment is one of many
factors that, in combination, can lead to an escalation in
violence. We know from the research that Dr. Jacqueline
Campbell has done that there are other things that happen in
combination with unemployment and abusers threaten to kill her
or her children, a woman or her children, or to harm them:
threats to commit suicide, forced sex, and, most importantly,
the presence of a gun. So these are additional factors that we
always need to look for and that unemployment alone really is
not the cause.
I think I should also state that we know that shelters help
women avoid that kind of abuse during situations where their
partner or their husband may be unemployed, but also what is
helpful is when judges know that they should issue a protection
order and when guns should be removed from the home.
Chairman Leahy. We put extra money in the Recovery Act for
VAWA. Has that money started going out yet? Is it having any
effect?
Ms. Pierce. I am glad you asked that question.
Chairman Leahy. I thought you might be.
[Laughter.]
Ms. Pierce. We have announced 46 formula awards to the
States totaling more than $120 million. Those awards have been
made, and this week 29 State coalition awards totaling more
than $2.5 million have been made.
Also, sometime around the middle of July, we will have made
awards through our transitional housing program. We received
567 applications for Recovery Act transitional housing relief,
and we will be able to really support only about 20 percent of
those. So there is a tremendous need.
Similarly, we received 91 applications from tribal
governments and will only be able to fund about a third of
those.
Chairman Leahy. You know, times change. I was mentioning to
others earlier, when I was a prosecutor we did not have any of
these programs, and we had to kind of make them up as we went
along and fortunately had a lot of very dedicated people who
contributed everything from housing on through. In fact, on
occasion, my wife and I would provide that. But we have done a
lot more than decades ago, but are there needs currently unmet
for victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, dating
violence, stalking? Are there things that we should be doing?
Are there things that we could be doing at the Federal
Government level? Obviously, the State governments have their
own programs, but are things that we should be doing?
Ms. Pierce. I think we really do need to enhance our
response to sexual assault services, and we will be looking
very specifically at the need for enhanced sexual assault
services in rural America, in particular. We are very concerned
about custody issues in domestic violence cases, and we will be
looking very closely at why women are losing custody of their
children either to the courts or through the States to the
child protection system.
We are also going to be looking very closely at the problem
of children exposed to violence, and we know that children are
safer when their mothers are safer, and that that safety is
inextricably linked.
The other thing, as I alluded to in my testimony, that is
of great concern to us is that we begin to focus our efforts on
homicide prevention more so than we ever have before, and that
we use research to inform our practice and we use practice to
inform our research.
Chairman Leahy. I do not mean this as an either/or thing,
by any means, but thank you for mentioning rural areas because,
again, it is sometimes neglected. You also mentioned tribal
issues. There has been a concern about the lack of
communication between U.S. Attorney's Offices and Indian tribes
regarding declinations, when a U.S. Attorney decides not to
bring charges.
Can anything be done about that? We do not have that
situation in my State of Vermont, but I have talked to a number
of the Western Senators of both parties who are concerned about
it. Is there some way that we can get more timely information
to tribal officials when they decline prosecutions?
Ms. Pierce. Well, our office is responsible for providing
direct funding to tribal governments and to tribal coalitions.
Our mission is to make sure that we are providing victim
services to Alaska Native villages and to different tribes in
Indian country. So I would have to say that the mission of our
office is not related to the prosecution of those crimes with
the U.S. Attorneys.
Chairman Leahy. But would you suggest that there is some
way of getting better--do we need better communication?
Ms. Pierce. Well, I was about to say, I mean, there is
always room for better communication and better coordination
within the Department and across Federal agencies, and we are
very committed to enhancing that in the future as well.
Chairman Leahy. I may make a few suggestions to the
Attorney General and others to make sure that that is done.
Senator Sessions.
Senator Sessions. Well, thank you. You asked, Mr.
Chairman--or began our discussion, I think, about what our new
challenges are and what our studies are showing and how we can
get that information out to local law enforcement. I remember
our former colleague Fred Thompson used to say that the most
valuable thing the Department of Justice can do is to do the
good research that helps individual police departments and
prosecutorial offices make the right decisions.
You mentioned some of the studies that you have ongoing.
Are you satisfied that the VAWA office and the Department of
Justice programs are identifying in a very practical way the
kind of protocols and procedures that would be most effective
for a law enforcement agency of a mid-sized city, let us say, a
police department, that they are getting the kind of guidance
that helps them establish the very best protocols for success?
Ms. Pierce. Thank you for asking that. I think yes, the
answer is yes. With the help of some national law enforcement
organizations, we have been able to develop what I think are
clear protocol and practices, and you should be aware that we
are also going to be updating what we call a manual on
promising practices. We will be looking at law enforcement. And
I think the thing for us to remember is that, you know, since
the VAWA was passed, we have a whole new generation of police
officers and prosecutors who need to be educated on those very
promising practices and protocol that you have mentioned. And
we do not need to go back and reinvent the wheel. We have done
some significant work in that area, and what we need to do is
to continue to educate.
Senator Sessions. Well you gave the story about Kristin,
and that is such a powerful story. I guess my question is:
Could that stalker have been identified earlier? Do we have any
kind of identifying characteristics that say this is an abusive
person, but this was an abusive person who could become
homicidal and dangerous? The average prosecutor and judge and
police department, do they know what these are? And are they
making the right identifications of the most dangerous people?
Ms. Pierce. Again, thank you for raising that. I think we
do have those indicators. I think we have that knowledge. I
mentioned some of what those indicators were, and in the case
of Kristin Lardner, I think a lot of those indicators were
present. She did everything right----
Senator Sessions. What are some--that is right.
Ms. Pierce. Well, in her case, I mean, she went to get a
protection order.
Senator Sessions. She sought a protective order and got it.
Ms. Pierce. But the problem was that, as I understand it,
she got a protection order in Boston, and he had been arrested
in other jurisdictions and across States lines, in New York.
And so we need, obviously, data bases that speak to one
another, and it would be great if every judge were able to pull
up that information while on the bench. And that is something
that we need to continue to do.
But in lieu of that, I think that our judicial institutes
that we support, the Leadership Institute for Chiefs of Police
that we support, and the Prosecutors Resource Center that we
support, are ways of getting that information out. We have the
information, and we need to get it in the hands of local
practitioners.
Senator Sessions. I really think that is true. But just
because you do a study and issue a report in Washington does
not mean that a busy prosecutor or a busy judge has the
opportunity to study it. And I do not know how we--and I assume
there are some disputes about what the best protocols are on
various type circumstances. But I would assume there are some
areas in which there is virtual uniformity of agreement that
under these circumstances this represents a real danger, and
strong action should be taken. Would you agree?
Ms. Pierce. I entirely agree with you. And, again, I think
it is our responsibility to reach out----
Senator Sessions. Have you thought about how to make sure
that information is more widely spread? Do we have effective
enough programs to get that information out?
Ms. Pierce. I think we do. I think we need to continually
reach out to prosecutor coordinators and to, you know, national
associations that can provide us with lists of prosecutors whom
we can go to and say, ``Please, we have this training. We are
making it available with VAWA funding.'' And, actually, I think
we have been quite successful in doing that. But we can always
do better, and we continue to try to enhance, as you said,
those data bases of judges, prosecutors, and law enforcement
officers in every State.
I have to say we have created, as a result of those
educational programs, dedicated units like in Minneapolis and
St. Paul and other parts of the country.
Senator Sessions. I think that virtually every community
has more specialized units, Penelope Houses, protective houses
for women and children who have been abused.
Ms. Pierce. Yes.
Senator Sessions. I am real pleased by that, but I just
would say continue the good research, continue to get the
information out so it can be utilized, and we will have fewer
of these cases like Kristin. It is my personal view that a lot
of individuals, unfortunately, are very dangerous, and the
number of people who would actually kill somebody or stalk
somebody consistently or sexually assault somebody is not that
large in this country. If they are properly identified, some of
them need to be detained and locked up for the offenses they
commit, and that will perhaps prevent offenses in the future.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Leahy. Thank you very much, Senator Sessions.
Senator Klobuchar.
Senator Klobuchar. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Pierce, I always thought that one of the real beauties
of VAWA is how it tried to encourage community-based responses
and getting groups involved. And the way I see this, I will
just tell our own experience of how this worked. We actually
got our hospital involved so that we had victim witness
advocates accessible to people when things were discovered.
They were part of the community response. We actually started a
post-review process for cases where the thought was something
might have gone bad, or maybe something did not go back, kind
of like they do in surgery after a hospital looks at all their
errors to figure out what went wrong. And we did it not
publicly, but we got all the partners together to figure out
what went wrong, and sometimes they were little things of, you
know, some police department not answering a phone call or
someone not checking one kind of computer system. And we were
able to do a better job because we did those reviews.
Do you want to talk a little bit about that coordinated
community response, how you think it could be improved and how
it has contributed to the value of VAWA?
Ms. Pierce. Definitely, and also let me say I did visit
your office and saw what an extraordinary job you all were
doing several years ago and continue to do, so I thank you for
that.
As I alluded to in my comments, I think that coordinated
community responses will only be strengthened when we begin to
turn to the communities, particularly the diverse communities,
who we are charged with responding to. And I think that we have
not done a good enough job of listening to the voices of
survivors.
But you alluded to something I would think has been an
extraordinary and an excellent tool, which is the safety audits
that were developed by one of our grantees. It is a tool that
can be used to pull a coordinated community response together
by looking at cases and figuring out where women fall through
the cracks and who could have done a better job, without
blaming or shaming or pointing the finger. To me, that has been
one of the most useful tools that we have had.
The other issue is, I think, for prosecutors, judges, and
law enforcement officers to work with advocates in balance and
to listen to advocates and survivors. I cannot underscore it
enough.
Senator Klobuchar. Right. One of the things I know was
always frustrating for some of our prosecutors and the victims
was just the enforcement of protection orders across
jurisdictional boundaries, and I know that you have been
looking into that. Part of your testimony was about that. Could
you talk about what you think we could do better with that?
Ms. Pierce. Well, I think as I said earlier, if we could
begin to develop data bases that were more reliable for
prosecutors, for judges, for law enforcement, I think that
would make an enormous difference.
Senator Klobuchar. Another thing--just thinking of my list
of things that if my victims were here they would want to ask--
was just the rape kits, and I believe that the Violence Against
Women Act prohibits grantee jurisdictions from charging victims
of sexual assault for the cost of collecting and processing
their rape kit. There are many jurisdictions, however, where
the victim still ends up paying the price, either because a
State does not compensate the victims for the full cost of the
kit or because victims are expected to pay the cost themselves
and have States reimburse them after the fact.
Should we be taking more steps up front to ensure that no
one has to pay for the rape kit?
Ms. Pierce. Absolutely, unequivocally.
Senator Klobuchar. Well, it is a growing----
Chairman Leahy. Good. I would have been upset if you had
answered the other way.
[Laughter.]
Senator Klobuchar. I am not making this up.
Ms. Pierce. No. I know.
Senator Klobuchar. It happens all the time, and in our
State there were proposals to do this. So I know that it
happens all the time. I think people would be surprised if they
knew the facts.
Last year, it was discovered that Los Angeles County has
the largest backlog of untested rape kits of any jurisdiction
in the country, almost 13,000 untested kits as of last summer.
And even if L.A. County is the worst offender, it is really a
national problem. The National Institute of Justice at one
point estimated that there were approximately 400,000 untested
kits nationwide. So as we look at this reauthorization, is this
something we should be looking at as well?
Ms. Pierce. Yes, and I think that we need to be looking at
ways that our office can coordinate more effectively with other
parts of the Department to make sure that this backlog gets
addressed across the country.
Senator Klobuchar. All right. Thank you very much. We
appreciate your work.
Ms. Pierce. Thank you.
Chairman Leahy. Thank you very much.
Did you have a follow-up question you wanted to ask?
Senator Sessions. Just one, if I could. What do you think
about the requirement in 2005 Congress created a funding
incentive to cause States to test rapists, the perpetrators,
for HIV within 48 hours, I believe, after arrest? Is that being
effectively done? Do you think that is a good policy that every
State should test sexual perpetrators for HIV?
Ms. Pierce. Well, we definitely believe that women who have
been exposed to HIV certainly have the right to request that
the offender be tested. But as we all know, those of us who
have worked in the criminal justice system for years, it is not
always so that the offender is apprehended within 48 hours or
so. So what we are focused on is being able to provide the
victim with the alternative to receive counseling about
prophylaxis herself. Our focus is on her. And what we have
learned is that about 84 percent of State and local governments
who receive funding through the grant program that you are
referring to, the grants to encourage arrest program, are
unable to meet that requirement.
So what we want to do is to----
Senator Sessions. Why are they unable?
Ms. Pierce. It could be any number of reasons, but not the
least of which is that the offender is not always available
within that period of time.
Senator Sessions. Well, that is obvious. They cannot do it
if they are not arrested. But for those who are arrested, I do
not know why that would not be just a standard protocol and why
we would not support that.
Ms. Pierce. Well, I think it is about giving the offender--
excuse me. It is about giving the victim an alternative. We
need to have--yes, we need to test as we can----
Senator Sessions. What information do you have that every
department should test a rapist for HIV?
Ms. Pierce. I do not.
Senator Sessions. Okay. Well, we have got a law that says
it. You are changing the subject on me. I just do not
understand what the hesitation----
Ms. Pierce. No, no, no. I am just saying that victims,
where that offender is not available, we need to give the
victim----
Senator Sessions. Okay. I agree.
Ms. Pierce. We need to put our focus on the victim and
provide an alternative for her.
Senator Sessions. Thank you.
Chairman Leahy. Thank you.
Senator Klobuchar, do you have any follow-up?
Senator Klobuchar. No. Thank you.
Chairman Leahy. Thank you very much, Ms. Pierce. Thank you
for being here, and thank you for the emphasis you put on this.
Ms. Pierce. Thank you very much. Thank you for all of your
work. We appreciate it so much.
Chairman Leahy. We are in this one together.
Chairman Leahy. We will call up the next panel.
Thank you all for being here. We are going to start with
Gabrielle Union, an accomplished actress, made frequent
appearances on television and in more than 20 films. When she
is not acting, she serves as Ambassador for the Susan G. Komen
for the Cure, an organization supporting breast cancer
research. My wife and I have been on not the run but the fast
walk for the cure.
[Laughter.]
Chairman Leahy. She is an advocate for victims of sexual
assault. She is a graduate of UCLA where she received a
bachelor's in sociology.
Ms. Union, please go ahead.
STATEMENT OF GABRIELLE UNION, ACTOR AND ADVOCATE, BEVERLY
HILLS, CALIFORNIA
Ms. Union. First, I would just like us all to join together
and say the words ``sexual assault.'' All together now:
``Sexual Assault.'' It is a little crazy that sometimes if we
cannot even say the words, we cannot effectively begin to deal
with the problem. So a brief back story.
At 19 years old, I got a summertime job, like a lot of us,
and while I was at work one night, a man came into the store,
robbed the store, and during the course of the robbery, decided
to rape me. During the course of the rape, he very calmly put
the gun down that he had been holding to my head and said, ``Do
you mind handing me the gun? '' And at that point I did my best
Starsky and Hutch and I fell on my back, I popped the clip in,
and I tried to kill him. And I missed, and we began to tussle,
and he beat me beyond recognition.
Luckily enough, I was--and I hate to say this. It really
makes me sick to have to say that I had the privilege of being
raped in a wealthy community. The police arrived within
minutes. It is a police department that was adequately funded
and staffed. They immediately took my statement. They were well
trained. We immediately went to the rape crisis center, where
they took my rape kit, and I was able to start the path from
rape victim to rape survivor.
I cannot say enough about the difference it made that I was
raped in a wealthy community, with an adequately funded and
staffed rape crisis center. I immediately began to get the
treatment that I needed. Within days, my rape kit was tested
and analyzed, and within a few days after that, my rapist was
apprehended, and within a few months he took a plea, and I had
my justice. It is rare. It does not happen. And I just cannot
say enough about the need for adequately funded and staffed
rape crisis centers throughout the United States. I work very
closely with law enforcement, and what they always say is, ``We
do not have the time or the resources to help get a rape victim
between victim and survivor. Rape victims, they say, make
terrible witnesses. Rape survivors are amazing and effective to
help us get rapists off the street.
So if you kind of want to bottom-line it, having adequately
funded rape crisis centers helps get rapists off the streets. I
have to reiterate that rapists do not go away at the end of the
day to Rape Land where, you know, we like to think they go.
They live next door to us. They are raping our mothers, our
sisters, our daughters, our grandparents. They do not magically
disappear. We have to help law enforcement get them off the
streets. We have to be advocates for the victims to help them
become survivors and lead happy, productive lives. And it
starts with adequate funding.
To tell a brief story, I was in Africa and I was sitting at
the bar, and there was an image of Paris Hilton and her little
dog that came on TV. And it got the bar all, you know, riled
up, and they started telling these jokes. And this man said,
you know, ``Silly American, you care more about your pets than
you do about your people. They will spend tons of money to put
a man away for abusing a dog, but they do not care if you beat
your wife. So if you are ever in America, when in doubt, beat
your wife and not your dog. You will not go to jail.''
And I just want to say we have to make human beings a
priority. We have to make our women and our children a priority
and keeping them safe a priority, and it starts with adequately
funding these programs with domestic violence programs and
sexual assault programs.
It has become a sad reality that when I go to Third World
countries to speak to women and give them, you know, the ``just
hang in there'' speech, I found that I have to give the exact
same speech to women in America. In Third World countries, we
do not have an expectation of, you know, criminal justice.
There is no justice in those countries. There is no chance for,
you know, therapy and handholding. And I am finding that I have
to give the same exact speech to girls and women in America. We
are supposed to be better than that, and we are not. And we
have to do better.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Union appears as a
submission for the record.]
Chairman Leahy. Thank you.
Karen Tronsgard-Scott has been the Director of the Vermont
Network Against Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault since
2007, and I would note that my office and I have worked with
her a lot during that time. Before she came to Vermont, she had
worked with various victims services groups in Ohio for 15
years. She received her bachelor's degree from Bowling Green
State University, her master's degree from Ohio University. She
currently lives in Hinesburg, Vermont, where the head of my
Vermont office lives. The Vermont Network that she leads is a
member coalition of the National Network to End Domestic
Violence, and I would like to thank President Sue Else and
members of the board and staff who worked tirelessly on behalf
of everybody here and please, when you go back, give my thanks.
And I think it would be fair to say give ourselves thanks, too.
Go ahead.
STATEMENT OF KAREN TRONSGARD-SCOTT, DIRECTOR, VERMONT NETWORK
AGAINST DOMESTIC AND SEXUAL VIOLENCE, MONTPELIER, VERMONT
Ms. Tronsgard-Scott. Chairman Leahy, Ranking Member
Sessions, and distinguished members of the Committee, thank you
for the opportunity to discuss the success of the Violence
Against Women Act, or VAWA, and the importance of reauthorizing
it in 2011. The Vermont Network Against Domestic and Sexual
Violence is a statewide coalition of domestic and sexual
violence programs, and our 15 member programs are located
throughout the State and provide lifesaving services to victims
and their families. VAWA-funded programs like these are a
critical part of our work in Vermont and across the country,
and I am here today to discuss the success of VAWA programs and
the need to sustain and strengthen VAWA with its upcoming
reauthorization in 2011.
The crime of domestic violence is pervasive and life-
threatening. In total, one in four women will experience
domestic violence in her lifetime. One in six women and one in
33 men have experienced an attempted or completed rape. Of
course, the most heinous of these crimes is murder. And in 2005
alone, 1,181 women were murdered by an intimate partner in the
United States. Even in one of our Nation's safest States,
Vermont, there were seven domestic violence-related homicides
and an additional three domestic violence-related suicides in
just 1 week in 2007.
Additionally, the cycle of intergenerational violence is
perpetuated as children witness violence. Approximately 15.5
million kids are exposed to domestic violence every year.
In addition to the terrible cost domestic violence and
sexual violence have on the lives of individual victims and
their families, these crimes cost taxpayers and communities.
However, in addition to saving and rebuilding lives, VAWA
actually saved taxpayers $14.8 billion in net averted social
costs in its first 6 years alone. VAWA was not only the right
thing to do; it was also fiscally sound legislation.
VAWA has unquestionably improved the national response to
domestic and sexual violence. Since VAWA passed in 1994, States
have passed more than 660 laws to combat domestic violence,
sexual assault, and stalking. The rate of non-fatal intimate
partner violence against women has decreased by 63 percent.
Remarkably, the number of individuals killed by an intimate
partner has decreased by 24 percent for women and 48 percent
for men.
My written testimony details the impact of VAWA grants,
including Transitional Housing grants, Legal Assistance to
Victims grants, grants to encourage arrest and enforce
Protection orders. Each of these grant funds has created
systems through which adults and children can find paths to
safer, peace-filled lives.
But in my 15 years working to end violence against women, I
have had a firsthand view of the impact of VAWA, and I would
like to highlight three VAWA programs.
Through the STOP Grants program, VAWA has helped to educate
an entire generation of law enforcement officers, prosecutors,
and judges about violence against women. STOP Grants help
State, local, and tribal governments to strengthen effective
law enforcement and prosecution strategies, and to develop and
strengthen victims services in cases involving violent crimes
against women. And I can personally attest to the results of a
study performed by the Urban Institute which said STOP Grants
have ensured that victims are safer, better supported by their
communities, and treated more uniformly and sensitively by
first response workers.
VAWA Rural Grants allow jurisdictions to develop and
implement programs that address the specific barriers faced by
victims in rural areas. In Vermont, our statewide Rural Grant
program has created an innovative, specialized domestic
violence unit within the Department for Children and Families,
which now reviews 100 percent of intake child abuse and neglect
cases where domestic violence may be present, ensuring that
children and their non-offending parents get the supports they
need.
For the first time, in fiscal year 2008, the Sexual Assault
Victims Service Program, or SASP, was funded and will begin to
meet the extreme needs of victims of sexual assault. The
continuation and expansion of these funds is critical to the
creation of services and collaborative relationships that will
result in safer communities.
Due to the overwhelming success of VAWA-funded programs,
more and more victims are coming forward each year. However,
this rising demand for services, without concurrent increases
in funding, means that many desperate victims are turned away
from life-saving services.
Mr. Chairman, you noted that in just 1 day nearly 9,000
requests for services went unmet across the country due to a
lack of resources. Services for sexual assault victims are even
more scarce and underfunded: with only 1,315 rape crisis
centers nationwide, women, children, and men are on waiting
lists to receive treatment and therapy after a sexual assault.
The Violence Against Women Act is working, but the job is
not done. Although VAWA has done much to create systems that
help victims and survivors, so much more is needed. We must
strengthen VAWA so that it can work for all victims of domestic
and sexual violence. Whether they live in rural or urban areas,
whether they are children or elderly victims, whether they
speak English or another language, every victim deserves the
chance to live a peace-filled life. Congress has a unique
opportunity to make a difference in the lives of so many by
reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act with key and
strategic improvements.
Thank you, Chairman Leahy, Ranking Member Sessions, and the
distinguished members of the Committee, for all you have done
and all you will do to help victims of domestic violence and
sexual assault.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Tronsgard-Scott appears as a
submission for the record.]
Chairman Leahy. Thank you very much.
Ann Burke is our next witness, and I think, Senator
Whitehouse, you wanted to say something about Ms. Burke. Of
course, having been married to a registered nurse for 47 years,
I am delighted to have you here, although I am sorry for the
reason you are here.
Senator Whitehouse. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just want to
welcome Ms. Burke here as a fellow Rhode Islander. Rhode Island
is a small State, and I do not think there is a person in the
State who was not aware of the tragedy that befell her family
and the terrible way in which her life changed when Lindsay was
murdered by an ex-boyfriend at the age of 23.
We have also been very inspired by the way that Ann, as a
teacher and a nurse, has taken what for many would be a
disabling calamity in their life and turned it for as much good
as one could possibly imagine that could be achieved out of
such a tragedy. She has fought for, along with her husband,
Chris, and obtained passage through the Rhode Island
Legislature of the Lindsay Ann Burke Act, which requires
programs in high school to support awareness of teen dating
violence and support in the schools for those programs. She
started the Lindsay Ann Burke Memorial Fund to provide support
for those efforts, and she has co-founded a group called MADE,
Moms and Dads for Education, to stop teen dating abuse, which
is a parent support network for parents across the country to
support healthy teen dating relationships and cope with the
tragedies that still take place.
So she is somebody Rhode Island is very proud of. We have
shared with her as much as the public can such a deeply private
tragedy, and we have seen what wonderful success she has drawn
from that tragedy. So she is an inspiration to many of us, and
I welcome her here today.
Chairman Leahy. Thank you.
Ms. Burke, please go ahead.
STATEMENT OF ANN BURKE, RN, M.ED., PRESIDENT AND FOUNDER,
LINDSAY ANN BURKE MEMORIAL FUND, SAUNDERSTOWN, RHODE ISLAND
Ms. Burke. Chairman Leahy, Ranking Member Sessions, and
distinguished members of the Committee, thank you for the
opportunity to testify today on the importance of creating
awareness on the issue of dating abuse and prevention education
efforts. I appreciate the opportunity to share my daughter
Lindsay's story and the positive legacy that has come from her
loss.
My husband, Chris, is here today and, as Senator Whitehouse
mentioned, we are members of MADE, Moms and Dads for Education
to stop dating abuse, a group that we co-founded along with Liz
Claiborne. We advocate nationally that all middle and high
schools teach a dating violence curriculum.
Today, I would like to tell you about my lovely daughter,
Lindsay. She could easily be described as ``the girl next
door.'' She grew up on a small street in the suburbs, knowing
the neighbors, playing with all the children in the
neighborhood. She had plenty of friends, took dance lessons,
piano lessons, played soccer, tennis, and graduated from St.
Mary's Academy and Rhode Island College with a degree in
elementary and secondary education. Her many friends would
often describe her as having a sweet and compassionate nature.
My daughter met her killer by chance at a wedding. In this
2-year relationship, her father and I noticed things in Lindsay
that did not seem quite right, including a change in her
personality, but we did not know the cause at first. As the
police would later describe, it was a classic case of abuse and
that every form of abuse--verbal, emotional, sexual, and
physical--was used.
Let's not overlook the strong correlation between stalking
and intimate-partner violence--intimate-partner murder, excuse
me. Until after Lindsay's death, I did not know that 76 percent
of women murdered by an intimate partner had been stalked by
that intimate partner, but only about half of stalking victims
recognized the crime for what it was. Lindsay was no exception.
After Lindsay left the boyfriend for the third time and was
living with my son and his wife, she got calls constantly from
him, according to cell phone records, more than 20 hours a week
worth of calls. She was fearful and anxious. Earlier, he had
threatened to kill her.
She had the support of friends and family. Yet, after
leaving him and trying to start a new life, Lindsay's life
ended almost 4 years ago, when she was only 23 years old. The
police statements and autopsy showed that she was brutally
tortured and murdered by her ex-boyfriend. As Rhode Island
Attorney General Patrick C. Lynch said after the sentencing,
``I am hopeful that Lindsay's death will provide lessons for
our teenagers that will prevent others from being victimized by
dating violence.''
After Lindsay's murder, I spent many painful months
researching this topic. Given the alarming statistics for
dating violence, I began to wonder: Why don't we require
educators to teach our children about the importance of healthy
relationships and prevention of dating and domestic violence?
Over and over I asked myself, ``If Lindsay was properly
educated about this major health issue in health class, would
she still be alive today? '' I believe she would. I never
learned about it while pursuing my degrees in nursing,
secondary education, or my graduate degree in health education.
As a result, in my 24 years of being a school nurse and health
teacher in a middle school, I never addressed it with my
students. I have since learned that my lack of education on
this topic is more the norm in our country rather than the
exception. As a teacher, I realized we have school policies for
bullying and sexual harassment, and we teach our students and
our staff about these issues. I strongly believed that the same
needed to be done for dating violence.
I believe that if my daughter was taught about dating
violence from middle through high school and if we as parents
knew all the facts as well and reinforced this information at
home, she would still be with us. Having known Lindsay, a
confident and assertive young lady who always spoke her mind,
who did not hesitate to change friends in high school when some
of them started drinking alcohol, who did not hesitate to seek
help from her guidance counselor when needed, and from the
school principal when she thought something unfair was
occurring, wouldn't she have been more careful about a safety
plan and seeking proper help if she had heard about all of this
before and had some frame of reference in her mind from prior
learning? Knowing my daughter, I believe she would have been.
And now we will never know for sure.
How many more daughters have to lose their lives at the
hands of an abusive partner? How many more teens have to suffer
in an abusive relationship, fearing for their lives, and yet
afraid to tell anyone? The teen dating violence statistics are
alarming. Teen dating violence is a major health problem that
leads to other health problems: substance abuse, eating
disorders, depression, suicide. Recent research has found a
strong connection between violence among young people and poor
reproductive health outcomes. A study published in the Journal
of the American Medical Association found that one in three
U.S. high school girls who has been abused by a boyfriend has
become pregnant. By reducing dating violence, we can reduce
unintended teen pregnancies. The psychological effects on its
victims are also devastating--devastation I know all too well.
Dating violence, the same as domestic violence, destroys and
kills people. How can we ignore this major health problem any
longer?
In 2006, my family founded the Lindsay Ann Burke Memorial
Fund to address dating violence primarily through education.
Through our workshops, we have trained 224 health teachers from
89 schools in Rhode Island. We have donated over $40,000 worth
of curriculum to these schools, and through our workshops for
general school staff we have trained well over 1,000 teachers
so far.
More recently, Rhode Island legislators showed foresight
and took a stand by passing the Lindsay Ann Burke Act with the
support of Attorney General Patrick Lynch. Rhode Island now
mandates annual dating violence education for students in
grades 7 through 12 through our comprehensive health education
curriculum, training in this topic for school staff in middle
and high schools, a school district policy to address episodes
of dating violence at school and at school events, and the law
strongly recommends parent training.
Episodes of dating violence at school in Rhode Island will
no longer be ignored. Teens, school staff, and parents will now
get the education on this topic that they rightfully deserve.
An interesting thing happens when you educate all three
groups--teens, school staff, and parents--at the same time.
Everyone begins to talk openly about this topic, removing the
shame and stigma that now exists. This helps teen victims to
come forward and seek help; it gives teens the knowledge and
skills to help each other; and it helps parents to reinforce
this information at home with their teens and watch for signs
of unhealthy relationships. And abusers, once educated, may
think twice about their own behavior and seek ways to change.
Since passage of the Lindsay Ann Burke Act in Rhode Island,
we have gotten support from both the National Association of
Attorneys General and the National Foundation for Women
Legislators. They have partnered with us in our effort to
support Lindsay's law and to pass dating violence education in
all States. As a result of their efforts, several States have
passed laws, with bills pending in other States. However, I
want to point out that some have been watered down due to lack
of funding for implementation.
Funding and leadership from the Federal level is needed for
comprehensive dating violence education for all teens. The last
VAWA bill created the STEP program--Supporting Teens through
Education and Protection Act--that would support training in
schools, but it has never received funding. This funding is
exactly what States and school districts need to implement
dating violence education laws.
And this is more critical in light of a survey released
this morning by the Family Violence Prevention Fund and Liz
Claiborne that says American teens are experiencing alarmingly
high levels of abuse in their dating relationships. At the same
time, the survey found parents are out of touch with the level
of teen dating violence and abuse among their teens. The large
majority of abused teens are not informing parents, and even
when they do, most stay in abusive relationships. This
highlights the need to start funding for STEP. To do anything
less is selling our children short. We should not delay.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Burke appears as a
submission for the record.]
Chairman Leahy. Thank you very much.
Our next witness is Collene Campbell. She is the current
National Chair of Force 100 and a sitting member of the
National Institute of Corrections Advisory Board. She formerly
served as mayor of the city of San Juan Capistrano, California.
She has endured tragedy several times in her life: the murder
of her son, the murder of her brother. Her experiences have
made her a leading, widely respect victims rights advocate
nationwide.
Ms. Campbell, thank you. I know this is not an easy thing,
but I appreciate your being here.
STATEMENT OF COLLENE CAMPBELL, NATIONAL CHAIR, FORCE 100, SAN
JUAN CAPISTRANO, CALIFORNIA
Ms. Campbell. Thank you. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman
and Senators. Thank you for the opportunity to allow me to
address you today. You are right. It is not easy, but it is
worth it if it helps.
The Violence Against Women Act has been a very important
addition to help strengthen our Nation's ability to assist
women who are victims of terrible sexual acts and physical
violence. However, that Act standing alone does not provide
enough necessary means to address the crimes and their victims.
Facing reality, our criminal justice system lacks due process
and basic common sense. We certainly acknowledge resources
alone are not sufficient to bring true justice, but they help?
There are huge issues in our justice system that have and
will continue to affect hundreds and thousands of families just
like mine. The sad truth is my family members and many others
would be alive today if our justice system worked like it was
intended to, like we planned for it to, like it should. But,
instead, sadly, in our home our only son, brother, and sister-
in-law are all dead, all murdered.
Chairman Leahy. Take your time.
Ms. Campbell. To adequately judge its importance for our
Nation's decisionmakers--this makes me so mad because I am such
a told old broad, and it makes me so mad because when I want to
be really tough, I am not. And I know my husband is watching,
and that really ticks me off.
[Laughter.]
Chairman Leahy. Ms. Campbell, let me tell you, you are
being as effective a witness as I have seen in 35 years. Don't
let it bother you a bit.
Ms. Campbell. God bless you. Thank you, sir.
But to adequately judge what is going on, it is important
for you, our national decisionmakers, to try and personally
identify with the tragedy of the crime and the truth and
reality of what victims are forced to endure. It really stinks.
You have taken on the huge responsibility of the most
important job in our Nation: the safety of our citizens. And it
is critical to the American people that you fully understand
the truth and what is going on.
We must have predictable sentencing and keep dangerous
criminals behind bars. It is critical to have rapid access to
DNA to save lives and save precious time for law enforcement
and our crowded courts. It is also important to have victims
present and heard at all proceedings. They know too much to
keep them out of the courtroom.
I realize that it is more than important, and it is
impossible in just a few moments to bring to you the real world
of being a victim of crime. It is not a great thing, and by
gosh, we have got to stop it.
For a quarter of a century without a break, my family has
been through living hell. The hell was furnished firsthand by
the killers, the criminals who should have remained in prison.
Then more hell was distributed by the justice system. If our
justice system had worked properly, along with many others, my
murdered family would be alive today.
In 1982, our only son, Scott, just disappeared from the
face of the Earth. We frantically looked for him for 11 months.
Two parolees had stolen his expensive sports car and decided if
both the car and our son were missing, they would never get
caught. The killers' statement to the undercover agent was,
``We took him for an airplane ride, strangled him, and threw
him into the Pacific Ocean where the sharks would eat him and
he wouldn't be found.''
Senators, what if the killers had been given three
indeterminant life sentences and was released in only 4 years?
The other killer was out on work furlough after killing
somebody else.
You see, both of these criminals had been given another
chance. They were given their chance. But, Senators, we never
have another chance to see our son. But we are still going
through the 8 years of our son's murderers' trial where we were
excluded from the courtroom.
My only sibling, auto racing legend Mickey Thompson, and
his wife, Trudy, were also murdered. It took another 19 years
to get those killers convicted.
From the very beginning, I was certain who had killed
Mickey and Trudy, and naturally, there were attempts on my life
so they would not be brought to justice. However, let me tell
you, Senators. I am the proud daughter of a wonderful man who
was captain and chief of detectives in the Alhambra,
California, Police Department. And at a young age, he taught my
brother and me how to have courage and always do the right
thing. And I am a hell of a good shot, by the way. Not too many
victims have self-defense training and are able to survive a
quarter of a century of murderers wanting to take them out
because they are trying to bring justice.
I respectfully ask you to please place yourself in the
decision that many of us have been forced to endure, and only
then will you understand the best steps to take to provide for
better safety for our citizens. And I thank you for allowing me
to sit up here and slobber all over myself. And I guess it is
because I flew most of the night and I am really tired, but I
wanted to be here because I never want other people to have to
endure what some of us have gone through.
Thank you, Senators.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Campbell appears as a
submission for the record.]
Chairman Leahy. Ms. Campbell, I am glad you took that
flight. I am sorry for what you endured before that. You have
four former prosecutors sitting on this panel here.
Ms. Campbell. I know that. Bless you.
Chairman Leahy. Senator Sessions, myself, Senator
Klobuchar, and Senator Whitehouse. The things you have
described should never happen to any victim. The crimes should
not have happened in the first place. The delays and everything
else after that never should have happened. We are trying in
every way possible to get the resources, the training, the
steps Ms. Burke has in her own--with the law in Rhode Island. I
mean, these are--well, I think of the murder cases that I
prosecuted, and 75 to 80 percent of them, had steps been taken
earlier, they would have been avoided. There is nothing more
tragic than being at a murder scene at 3 o'clock in the
morning, blue lights flashing, people sobbing, and to have the
``if only'' or the ``what if'' or the other things. So thank
you for what you said. You put a human face on what so many of
us have seen in the past. Thank you.
Ms. Campbell. Thank you.
Chairman Leahy. Sally Wells is the Chief Assistant to the
Maricopa County Attorney in Phoenix. She helps to oversee an
office of more than 350 attorneys, more than 900 support staff,
and supervises the operation of the civil and prosecution
divisions within the office. She has been an attorney in
Maricopa County for 23 years. She received her bachelor's
degree from the University of Virginia and her law degree from
Arizona State University.
Ms. Wells, please go ahead.
STATEMENT OF SALLY WOLFGANG WELLS, CHIEF ASSISTANT, OFFICE OF
THE MARICOPA COUNTY ATTORNEY, PHOENIX, ARIZONA
Ms. Wells. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the
Committee. Thank you very much for allowing me the opportunity
to present the views of the Maricopa County Attorney's Office
concerning the continued importance of the Violence Against
Women Act and more specifically, about the value of mandatory
minimum sentencing for sexual assault and sexual abuse as well
as prompt DNA and HIV testing in cases of sexual assault and
sexual abuse.
The Maricopa County Attorney's Office is located in
Phoenix, Arizona, and as you said, it employs more than 350
lawyers, prosecutors who prosecute more than 40,000 felonies a
year. As a 23-year veteran of the office and as Chief
Assistant, I have prosecuted domestic violence cases, sexual
abuse cases, and I currently oversee the specialized bureaus
that focus on prosecuting those crimes.
Sexual violence causes lasting trauma to victims beyond
physical injury. In many cases, these crimes go unreported due
to the fear and trauma associated with sexual violence--fear of
retaliation from the offender and fear of public scrutiny. In
our experience, it is not uncommon for a sexual offender who is
finally caught to admit to other sexual assaults that were
never reported. In a 2004 statewide study in Arizona, it was
estimated that only 16 percent of all sexual assaults ever came
to the attention of law enforcement.
With respect to the fear of public scrutiny, the value of
education cannot be underestimated. The dissemination of
accurate information about sexual offenders and their victims
is essential to change public attitudes about these crimes so
that victims do not suffer embarrassment or humiliation when
they report sexual abuse. One message that should be clear in
any statutory scheme and that should be part of any educational
effort is that sexual violence is one of the most serious of
crimes. The punishment associated with sexual violence should
be commensurate with the damage that it inflicts. A mandatory
minimum sentence of incarceration does send that message.
With respect to the fear of retaliation, victims suffering
the physical and emotional trauma of sexual abuse and assault
need to know they are safe from the person who hurt them. They
need a time to heal. For at least some period of time, victims
need to know that the offender cannot return to inflict more
pain or punish them for reporting the crime to authorities. A
mandatory minimum sentence of incarceration sends that message.
Arizona's statutory scheme does send that message. Sexual
assault is a class 2 felony, the second highest class felony. A
person who is convicted of sexual assault in Arizona is not
eligible for probation. A person convicted of sexual assault is
exposed to a presumptive sentence of 7 years in prison. If
mitigating factors exist, the sentence may be reduced to a
minimum of 5.25 years in prison. And if aggravating factors are
found, the sentence may be increased to 14 years in prison. In
every case, a victim may expect the offender to be in prison
for at least 5 years, and that 5-year window of safety not only
encourages reporting and participation in court proceedings, it
also gives the victim time to heal without fear of retaliation.
In 2005, Arizona moved away from classifying sexual assault
of a spouse as a lesser crime than sexual assault. As part of
that debate, I was asked by the legislature to provide some
information about the effect such a change might have on
reporting. Some of our legislators were concerned that the
higher penalties associated with sexual assault might
discourage reporting. In looking at the past reported cases,
the crime of sexual assault of a spouse was often accompanied
by more serious offenses, like kidnaping, which is a class 2
felony, or aggravated assault, a class 3 felony. The belief
that a lower penalty would encourage reporting for sexual
assault of a spouse--or, if you want, that a higher penalty
would discourage reporting--was not supported by the evidence.
Another important component in dealing with the crimes of
sexual assault and sexual abuse is biological testing. Along
with the need to know that they are safe from any diseases that
offenders may have transmitted to them, they need the assurance
that they are safe from those diseases. There are several
arguments for early biological testing of suspects. And
although I am not a medical expert, prosecutors generally
accept that if a victim reports significant exposure during a
sexual assault within 72 hours of the assault, doctors can
prescribe a 28-day regimen that will help the victim and help
prevent the contraction of HIV. The sooner this regimen is
begun, the more effective it is.
The medication to prevent HIV infection is expensive, and
it may cause serious side effects. Victims who do not know
whether the attacker had HIV are forced to choose between the
risk of HIV infection and the risk of side effects associated
with the prophylactic treatment. Those side effects could
include liver enlargement or bone marrow suppression.
Information from prompt offender testing would alleviate the
uncertainty in making that choice. Information that the
offender did not have HIV would allow the victim to feel safe
and begin to heal.
In addition to biological testing to ensure the safety of
the victim, another kind of testing plays a vital role in the
investigation and prosecution of these crimes. DNA testing of
the suspects ensures that suspects are identified as early as
possible. As I mentioned before, many sexual assaults by the
same suspect go unreported. Others are reported but the
suspects are unknown. Sexual offenses are often repetitive
crimes. The ability to link these crimes to specific
individuals early and to specific geographic areas helps law
enforcement to put an end to serial offenses sooner.
Sexual offenders are often linked to other types of crimes
like burglary, criminal trespass, or other types of felonies.
DNA evidence is important to create an accurate criminal
history for suspects. It also eliminates suspects so that law
enforcement resources are not wasted.
DNA sampling and testing also brings relief to victims who
have lived for years----
Chairman Leahy. Ms. Wells, I am sorry to interrupt. We will
put the rest of your statement in the record. There is going to
be a roll call vote very soon, and I am trying to make sure
that we all have a chance for questions.
Incidentally, when you were talking about the HIV testing,
you probably noticed Senator Sessions and I whispering to each
other. This is something we both strongly believe in, not only
for being able to go on the regimen of medication that you
talked about, but to be able to avoid it if it is unnecessary
and for the peace of mind. Lord knows there is enough things
that are going through a victim's mind to begin with, but that
is one that might be eliminated.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Wells appears as a
submission for the record.]
Chairman Leahy. Ms. Union, your story--and I am sure it is
painful to tell, but if you could talk about the effect, and it
should be heard. Go into a little bit more about what you said
in your statement that fortunately you were in a community that
could afford to do the right things. How important is that, not
just the things that might help catch the perpetrator, but I
think you are referring also to the counseling that goes along
with that? Do you want to elaborate on that a little bit,
please?
Ms. Union. Definitely. The main difference in a wealthy
community like the one I was raped in is that the system kicks
in immediately. The rape crisis center is well staffed, so that
means whether it was me or someone who speaks Spanish or
Tagalog or Cantonese or Mandarin, there would have been someone
there who could have translated, which is different if you are
in an ethnic enclave community where that rape crisis center
might not have a translator. Rural communities also suffer from
the same sort of thing, crimes that happen on Native American
reservations, urban communities, they do not have the same
access to translators, to therapists, to counselors. A lot of
States do not even offer free HIV and STD testing. That was
covered.
As much as I would love to test all the suspects, I am a
little bit more concerned about the victims. So I would rather
prioritize that money to offer free testing for HIV and STDs
for victims immediately. That is what happened to me, but I was
also raped in a very wealthy community that could afford to do
that.
It is those kinds of differences that took me from rape
victim to rape survivor, and I was able to be an active
participant in the criminal justice system that allowed me to
help apprehend the suspect in a timely fashion. It was not
within 48 hours, so that would not have really helped in my
case, but in a timely fashion, it helped, you know, get him off
the streets. And without the funding for rape crisis centers in
all communities, you sort of create a parallel universe of
justice where only, you know, a few, specifically who are raped
in wealthier communities, are going to get the justice and the
treatment.
So it is great to have somebody behind bars, but if you
cannot get on your path of recovery and reclaiming your dignity
and your integrity and getting your mental health issues in
check, you have been left as a shell of a person. And it is
very important to have those rape crisis centers, you know,
well staffed and well funded and properly trained.
Chairman Leahy. Let me follow up on that with Ms.
Tronsgard-Scott. I live in a town of 1,500 people. It is rural
enough, I live on a dirt road, and my nearest neighbor is half
a mile away. Not unusual in parts of Vermont, not unusual in
parts of California. Rural California can make rural Vermont
look like an urban area. What about in those areas? If
something happens in a very small town in Vermont or a very
small town in California, what is available? I would assume not
what Ms. Union had available to her.
Ms. Tronsgard-Scott. Well, I would think that is a very
accurate description of rural Vermont and probably rural areas
throughout the country, Chairman Leahy. You know, the reality
of being a victim of domestic violence or sexual assault in a
rural area is that help is sometimes miles and miles away.
There are certainly barriers to finding transportation. Also,
in Vermont, our rural communities are small communities, and
one of the things we love about living in a small community is
it is very tightly knit. People know each other. They are often
related to each other. But this also can create a situation
where victims feel that they cannot come forward because of the
relationships that they have with the people living around
them.
I have talked to many victims who have been living in rural
communities in both Vermont and in Ohio, where the law
enforcement person in their town was actually the brother of
their perpetrator. And so there are real problems for victims
living in rural communities because of the nature of the towns
and outlying areas where they live.
The other factor, you know, is that in domestic violence in
particular, victims are often isolated by their perpetrators in
many ways. They are isolated socially from their families and
their friends. They are isolated economically from jobs and
access to family assets. But in rural areas, they are isolated
geographically. They may live in very, very rural
circumstances. I have certainly had the experience of visiting
victims of domestic violence and having driven through creeks
to get to the place where I was meeting them.
So rural conditions are incredibly difficult for victims
and offer--the challenges are huge.
Chairman Leahy. Thank you. My time is up, but I want to
say, Ms. Burke, the Lindsay Ann Burke Act, I agree with Senator
Whitehouse, is a great achievement, the education that is
necessary.
Ms. Burke. Thank you, Senator. I appreciate that.
Chairman Leahy. It would have been very easy for you and
your husband to just say that is it, we have had a tragedy, we
are shutting off the rest of the world. But, instead, you are
helping people.
And, Ms. Campbell, you were married in 1951. I was married
in 1962. It does not seem that long ago anymore. But I also
want to applaud the bravery of both you and your husband.
Again, these are all things where it would be so easy to just
run away and not refer to it anymore. Instead, you have been
very helpful to this Committee, and that is extremely
important.
Ms. Campbell. Senator, I appreciate your thoughtfulness and
your kindness. It means a lot. You are very special. You always
have been.
Chairman Leahy. Thank you very much. And, Ms. Wells, thank
you for being here. I am going to turn over the questioning to
Senator Sessions, and I am going to turn the gavel over to
Senator Klobuchar.
Senator Sessions. Ms. Wells, Ms. Campbell described
individuals, murderers, who had previous records that she
rightly believes should have been in jail and not able to
commit these kind of crimes again. Let us pursue that a little
bit. You are a professional, and you have been at this a long
time. And I have come to believe that mathematics is a factor
in all of this, that there are just not that many people that
sexually assault women. And there are a certain numbers of
those that are repeat offenders who are exceedingly dangerous.
Just from a purely public safety point of view, is it
important we identify those persons early, and that they be
incarcerated in order to protect the people of this country
from this kind of violence?
Ms. Wells. Well, Senator, you said it as well as I could
say it. Yes, that is critical. And there are a lot of studies
already that are helping us to identify those persons. And as
soon as we can identify them, then our goal should be to
incarcerate them for as long as possible, because----
Senator Sessions. Now, you represent a very sophisticated
department. You have been at this a long time. You personally
try these kind of cases. So I know you are really an expert in
it. Do you think that there are other department of district
attorney offices, young prosecutors, or maybe young police
officers, who deal with one of these cases and are not aware
sufficiently to identify a person who may be a highly dangerous
offender that needs to be given as long a sentence as
appropriate under the law? Do you think we are missing some
people and that is causing additional crimes that could have
been avoided?
Ms. Wells. I do, and I agree with one of my colleagues who
said there is a new generation of police officers and
prosecutors coming who have not had the education that I have,
and it is important to keep the continuity of that education
and to keep doing the studies that help us identify those
offenders. And, of course, I believe that DNA testing is one of
the tools we have to identify people early.
Senator Sessions. Tell me about the DNA. In a sexual
assault case, how important is it that DNA be determined and
maintained for potential future use? How does that work to
solve crimes and prevent crimes?
Ms. Wells. Well, anyone who watched television knows DNA is
a very useful tool in identifying suspects, and it can be
preserved for a long time. Arizona recently passed legislation
that requires DNA evidence to be held for at least 35 years,
and that legislation was introduced by victim groups because,
as we heard today, many sexual assaults are not reported or
they are reported much later than they occurred, and the
offenders may not be identified for many, many years. But the
closure, the ability to find out who the culprit was, who the
offender was, and to find out maybe that they are in prison
somewhere else because they have been doing this over the
course of their offender career, if you want to call it that,
is very important to victims.
Senator Sessions. Ms. Union, the person that assaulted you
sexually assaulted a person later that same day. Is that
correct?
Ms. Union. No; a couple days later.
Senator Sessions. A couple of days later. So if you did not
identify that person, the DNA that was obtained immediately,
the investigators would know it is the same rapist. Is that
correct?
Ms. Union. That is correct.
Senator Sessions. And if they had had a previous arrest for
rape and you had that on record, you would know exactly who
that person was.
Ms. Union. That is correct. And as we heard today as well,
it is important to have data bases so that law enforcement
agencies in different jurisdictions can identify a single
offender who----
Senator Sessions. What is your opinion, Ms. Wells, on what
other departments are doing with regard to maintaining DNA
around the country? Do you have any idea how well other
departments are maintaining DNA in these types of sexual
assault cases?
Ms. Wells. I do think more and more States are passing
legislation to make sure DNA is collected early, that it is
collected from a broader range of suspects, not just suspects
who commit sexual crimes. There are a number of crimes that
seem to be precursors or associated with sexual crimes, like
burglary, petty theft, other kinds of felonies like that. Many
States are expanding their DNA testing to those offenders as
well so that, like I said, if we can identify them early and
stop even one sexual assault, it is worth it.
Senator Sessions. I could not agree more. Ms. Campbell,
thank you for your testimony. Ms. Burke, thank you for your
work. I wish we had more time to talk about it, but I think you
are touching on an extremely important societal problem that we
face, and I am glad that you are showing that leadership. And
all of you, thank you for speaking up and being effective on
these issues.
We have had--Ms. Campbell, you were part of the movement of
victims rights, and it has really changed the law enforcement
mechanism. I think that is one reason murders are down
substantially from what they were in the 1980's when you lost
your family members. And I do warn, however, that I sense about
a movement that is beginning to go soft on the lessons we
learned, and it simply is this: Certain people are dangerous.
The fact they attacked one person is very indicative that they
may attack another one. And we do have to maintain tough
sentences. I wish it were not so, but we have to for certain
dangerous offenders.
Thank you, Madam Chairman, and it is a pleasure to work
with you.
Senator Klobuchar. [Presiding.] Well, thank you very much.
Senator Sessions. I have also enjoyed your great leadership
on our delegation to Canada with the United States-Canadian
interparliamentary. It was a fabulous group, and you did a
great job as our leader.
Senator Klobuchar. Thank you. You did pretty well singing
with the fiddler, Senator Sessions.
[Laughter.]
Senator Sessions. I will not reveal more. There were a lot
of negotiations with Canada.
Senator Whitehouse.
Senator Whitehouse. Thank you, Chairman.
Ms. Burke, you have done such good work in this area. As we
look to Rhode Island as a potential national model here, what
further feedback would you give us on what elements of the
Lindsay Ann Burke programs have been best received, have been
most effective? What are the lessons learned from what you have
done that you think Congress should focus on?
Ms. Burke. I think the lessons learned have been the need
for funding. The implementation of the law is working in Rhode
Island mostly because our organization and the Rhode Island
Coalition Against Domestic Violence, from even before we had
the law passed, stepped up to the plate and said that we would
be willing to provide free training for school staff so that
there was no funding attached to the bill when it was passed in
Rhode Island.
However, the drawback in other States is that what we are
finding is that many States have good intentions, but they are
very concerned, especially in these hard economic times, about
the cost of training school personnel. In fact, I have gotten
calls even this week from the State of Ohio, from New Mexico,
asking, you know, how we implemented Lindsay's law, what were
the specifics, and what was the cost involved.
I think for it to be successfully implemented in other
States, we have to have funding. There is no way of getting
around that. I also believe very strongly as an educator that
we need to pass Lindsay's law maintaining all the components of
the law. It would be a very severe drawback to educate the
students and not have the staff educated at the same time.
Also, I think that we would not want to leave our parents out
of that equation either. I think that you need to educate all
three at the same time.
I do not think it takes a great deal of funding, not as
much as perhaps most people would imagine, because once your
staff is educated and your health teachers or whatever teachers
are designated in other States--not all States require health
education, but what other teachers are designated in other
States to be the primary teachers of the students, once you
have that training done, it only has to be done sporadically
for new hires. And that even can be incorporated at the college
level, in their college education program for student teachers.
Senator Whitehouse. But you at least want enough funding
for the program to be persistent year to year.
Ms. Burke. Persistent, correct. I think initially you will
probably need a substantial amount of funding, and after that
in time, that number should drop down so that it could just be
maintained.
I have seen firsthand the success. Two of my own former
students have come back to me at different times, one who went
on to a private high school and one who went on to our public
high school, and after learning about it at the middle school,
they did find themselves in those types of situations, due to
the nature of an abusive relationship, they were not aware at
the beginning. In one case, the student themselves after a
while recognized the warning signs and was able to get herself
out. In the other case, it was the friends who also had the
educational piece in eighth grade who recognized the signs, and
they worked with their friend to get them out.
I know the education works. There is no doubt in my mind,
and I think that all students have a right to that education. I
think to deprive them of that education is simply wrong. We can
save lives. I was talking to Catherine Pierce last evening. I
think it is even going to be difficult to measure how many
lives we are saving. Many people will not come forward and tell
us. Long after they graduate--they are learning--when we teach
this education, we are teaching them life skills. It is no
different than anything else that we teach in health class. We
teach them about heart disease prevention. The chances of them
becoming involved in an abusive relationship in high school are
far greater than them developing heart disease in high school.
Senator Whitehouse. Well, thank you for what you have done.
I recall in 1999, I think it was, when I was Attorney General,
my Juvenile Justice Task Force did a film in high school and
distributed it to all the high schools and all the police
departments, but that program did not meet the test of
persistence, so I will take that lesson from you today.
Ms. Burke. In fact, I was talking to Reley, and I was
trying to find that tape to see if we could duplicate it and
hand it out to all of our schools again.
Senator Whitehouse. One very quick question in my last
seconds for Ms. Wells.
Senator Klobuchar. You can take your time, Senator
Whitehouse.
Senator Whitehouse. Thank you, Chairman.
When it comes to testing suspected perpetrators of sexual
assault and obtaining DNA samples, what level of suspicion do
you recommend be reached before the testing can take place? Do
you require full probable cause or more of sort of a clearly
articulable suspicion, a Terry stop standard? At what point
would it be appropriate to require DNA testing in the spectrum
of suspicion from we have no idea, round up the usual suspects,
to we have a victim who has identified who their perpetrator
was and we know who it is? There is a wide band of suspicion.
At what point should this kick in?
Ms. Wells. In our State--and I agree with this--the
standard is probable cause, and that is the same standard that
police use when they make an arrest.
Senator Whitehouse. An arrest.
Ms. Wells. And we also have a statute that allows DNA
testing for certain crimes, not every crime, upon arrest or
charging by a prosecutor, and----
Senator Whitehouse. So, again, a probable cause standard.
Ms. Wells. Yes, there is at least probable cause that the
offender did commit the offense.
Senator Whitehouse. And that is adequate for your purposes?
Ms. Wells. I believe that is a fair balance.
Senator Whitehouse. Very good. Thank you, Chairman. Thank
you. This is a wonderful panel of witnesses, I have to say.
Senator Klobuchar. All right. Thank you.
I just wanted to also give my thanks for the courage, to
you, Ms. Union, and just the way you told that story. It is so
clear you are now a survivor in how you told it. And to you,
Ms. Burke, for the great work you are doing. And, Ms. Campbell,
I know your husband was proud of you when he watched you. You
know, you just showed him. I would not worry about that at all.
Ms. Campbell. Thank you.
Senator Klobuchar. Anyway, thank you for your work.
I wanted to follow up on a few things that some of the
other Senators asked. First, to Ms. Wells, my colleague Senator
Sessions was asking about DNA, which is, you know, so
incredibly important right now. One of the things that I have
found recently in the last 10 years--we call it the ``CSI
effect"--is that juries are actually expecting to have DNA. And
sometimes you may have a sexual assault that does not have DNA,
or you may have a domestic abuse case that most likely may not
have DNA. And we actually lost a case or two, some smaller
cases, because the jurors actually said later, ``Well, why
wasn't there DNA? '' They agreed with the defense lawyer on
this, and so that is when we got the right to rebuttal,
actually, and our State was the last one, where the prosecutors
had the last word, and we got that changed.
But do you want to comment on that, just evidentiary
changes that have allowed--I know one of the big issues a few
years back was allowing us to go forward with domestic abuse
cases when the victim would not even testify because we had
other evidence from the scene. And just what you have seen in
the development of either laws or evidentiary techniques,
technologies to help with those cases where you do not have
DNA.
Ms. Wells. You are absolutely correct. Juries expect some
kind of forensic evidence, and especially DNA, in cases of
sexual
assault. In fact, that is probably the crime where the CSI
effect is really----
Senator Klobuchar. Just to define this, the CSI effect, for
everyone, is that juries expect this and, if they do not have
it, they may think that the person is not guilty.
Ms. Wells. That is correct. They think that there is a new
threshold now. In the old days, we could present a witness who
would identify the defendant, there was no DNA, and we were
able to obtain convictions for sexual assault. Now, and in our
State, jurors are allowed to ask questions during the trial, we
get pages of questions: Was DNA done? Why wasn't it done? And
sometimes because DNA is a complex chemical analysis, the
questions get very detailed, and some jurors ask very, very
complex medical questions during the trial of a sexual assault
case.
So it is very important, though, not to lose sight of the
fact that if you do not have DNA, you still have to fall back
on all of the things we learned when we prosecuted sexual
assaults before. Interview as many people as possible. It is
very useful to tape-record interviews. It is very useful to get
other kinds of evidence that corroborate what the victim has to
say. Even if you do get DNA, you should not stop there. You
should continue to get all of that evidence, because you do not
know, maybe the DNA will not be admissible later on. But it is
still critical to investigate these crimes as thoroughly as
possible.
Senator Klobuchar. Thank you.
Ms. Tronsgard-Scott, one of the things you talked about was
kids at the scene and kids living in the home. I remember the
statistic I always used to use was that a kid growing up in a
violent home where there was domestic abuse was something like
76 times more likely to commit crimes themselves. In fact, we
had a picture in our office when you came in of a woman with a
Band-aid on her nose holding a baby, and it said, ``Beat your
wife, and it is your son who will go to jail.''
Do you want to talk about any advances that have been made?
I know that there has been more interaction with Child
Protection, bringing them in so that kids get help when they
live in a home, and also obviously kids can be witnesses, too,
and what has been happening with that, and as we look at the
VAWA reauthorization, if we should be looking at this aspect of
it as well.
Ms. Tronsgard-Scott. Thank you, Senator. Thanks for the
opportunity to talk about children living in violent homes. I
agree with you, kids are at particular risk. The statistic that
I use is that kids living in violent homes are 300 times more
likely to be abused themselves, which I think is incredibly
distressing. So kids growing up in violent homes not only are
more likely to commit violent crimes as adult, but it is likely
that they themselves have been abused. And, of course, from my
belief system, a child that is witnessing domestic violence is
suffering from abuse.
So there have been great strides made, and I can talk about
Vermont.
Senator Klobuchar. That is fine.
Ms. Tronsgard-Scott. In Vermont, I am, of course, very
proud of Vermont and the work we have done working with our
children. Our rural grant in Vermont, as I referred to in my
testimony, has created the opportunity for us to create a
unique and innovative relationship with our Children'S
Protective Services Division of our State government, and what
we did was we were able to provide intensive training for child
abuse investigators in that unit, and so now they are experts
at working with victims of domestic violence and their kids.
In many cases, victims of domestic violence in the past
were almost held accountable for the abuse that their children
were suffering at the hands of their abusers. But in Vermont,
this innovative program allows investigators to go in and do an
investigation, and instead of blaming the victim for the abuse
that the kids are suffering, they work with the victim to be
able to provide them with the supports that they need to be
able to make choices about living in a safe, peace-filled home.
Senator Klobuchar. OK, very good.
Ms. Union, you did such a good job of talking about how--
you said it so directly, how the fact that you had been raped
in an area that had the resources, and that very much resonated
with me because I have just seen that in smaller counties that
do not have the resources, they just may not have the expertise
sometimes in cases, or you have, like you said, a rape crisis
center that does not have the resources in some areas.
I brought up earlier with Ms. Pierce that issue of the rape
kits, and I just wondered for anyone that has knowledge about
that, that is what we have been hearing, that there have been
efforts to make victims pay for them or they are paying for
them, or they pay for them and then they have to be paid back
by the State. Any comments on that?
Ms. Union. Yes, we have been having this discussion for the
last few years. I live in California, and there is a backlog,
and I work very closely with UCLA rape crisis centers, and as a
rape survivor myself, I have--basically when your DNA is
collected, your rape kit is collected, it is stuck in a brown
bag, and it goes in--it sits on a counter, and I go to UCLA
rape crisis centers, I just see the line of brown bags. That is
children, women, men--everyone has--you become this brown bag.
And I know that some brown----
Senator Klobuchar. And this is DNA that could connect
people to a crime.
Ms. Union. Oh, yes. Oh, yes.
Senator Klobuchar. Identify a perpetrator.
Ms. Union. Oh, yes. And you know, after working in this
business, everyone who deals with rape and domestic violence,
you realize that there is a priority that is placed on certain
brown bags, and they call them ``sexy victims,'' and the
victims that--generally a sexy victim is a white woman,
preferably young, preferably formally educated, ideally if they
are attractive, even better, cases that can get media attention
and that are slam-dunks. But if you are not a sexy victim, that
includes African Americans, Latinos; basically anybody who is
not a young white, educated, attractive women is not deemed a
``sexy victim,'' and those cases are the ones that make up the
bulk of the backlog cases.
It is so transparent, and when you sit there and you see
the row of these brown bags, it breaks your heart. Like I said,
when I talk to rape victims in the United States, I have to
give them the same spiel because the likelihood of justice that
you think you are going to get because you watch ``CSI,'' well,
they took my DNA and I was sort of revictimized again by having
to do the rape kit so soon after. You know, my rapist is going
to be apprehended, and I am going to get justice, and I can get
on this path of recovery. And it just does not work like that
for the majority of people.
When we start to prioritize certain people, we create a
parallel universe of justice, and that has to stop.
Senator Klobuchar. All right. To end here, I noticed that,
and thank you for that point, and as we look at this
reauthorization and the tools we need in the criminal justice
system, I think sometimes laws and funding were set back at a
time before we had this extent of the technology we have and
some of the State laws that we have now. And so that is why it
is such an opportunity to look at what we should be doing
differently and doing better.
But I will point out, to end on a positive note here, Ms.
Tronsgard-Scott, you said in your testimony that VAWA saved
taxpayers $14.8 billion in net averted social costs in the
first 6 years alone. Do you want to comment about that and
where you see those savings?
Ms. Tronsgard-Scott. I want to say that back in 1984, when
I was a young person living in Cleveland, Ohio, I lived next
door to a family where the husband was violent, and we had to
tell the police officers that there was a burglar outside our
house to get them to respond. They would not come to that house
if we called the police.
And so that family was left--the victim was left. There
were no supports. There was no prosecution, there was nothing.
That family went on, they were a family that was poor, they
used the social services system, and their lot was fairly
hopeless.
Today, that same family would be embraced with a social
services net that would in many ways, especially with the new
economic justice work that we are doing in our movement, not
only help them maintain safety but help them move forward in
their economic goals. And so for me, it is money well spent.
Senator Klobuchar. Thank you. Well, I think part of the
successes that we have had with so many challenges ahead, as
Ms. Union pointed out, but the successes are a tribute to all
of you, and the way this movement has developed on the
grassroots level with victims saying I am not going to take it
anymore and being willing to come forward and speak. So I want
to thank you all for that.
We are looking forward as a Committee to working on this.
As you can see, it is a bipartisan effort, strongly supported
by both sides of the aisle. So I just want to thank you and
wish you well, and your courage is unbelievable, and it is
going to make a difference. Thank you very much.
This hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:55 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
[Questions and answers and submission for the record
follow.]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56212.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56212.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56212.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56212.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56212.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56212.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56212.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56212.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56212.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56212.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56212.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56212.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56212.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56212.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56212.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56212.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56212.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56212.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56212.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56212.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56212.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56212.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56212.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56212.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56212.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56212.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56212.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56212.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56212.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56212.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56212.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56212.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56212.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56212.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56212.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56212.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56212.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56212.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56212.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56212.040
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56212.041
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56212.042
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56212.043
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56212.044
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56212.045
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56212.046
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56212.047
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56212.048
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56212.049
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56212.050
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56212.051
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56212.052
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56212.053
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56212.054
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56212.055
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56212.056
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56212.057
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56212.058
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56212.059
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56212.060
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56212.061
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56212.062
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56212.063
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56212.064
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56212.065
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56212.066
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56212.067
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56212.068
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56212.069
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56212.070
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56212.071
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56212.072
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56212.073
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56212.074
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56212.075
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56212.076
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56212.077
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56212.078
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56212.079
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56212.080
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56212.081
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56212.082
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56212.083
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56212.084
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56212.085
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56212.086
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56212.087
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56212.088
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56212.089
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56212.090
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56212.091
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56212.092
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56212.093
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56212.094
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56212.095
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56212.096
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56212.097
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56212.098
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56212.099
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56212.100
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56212.101
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56212.102
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56212.103
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56212.104
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56212.105
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56212.106
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56212.107
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56212.108
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56212.109
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56212.110
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56212.111
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56212.112
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56212.113
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56212.114
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56212.115
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56212.116
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56212.117
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56212.118
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56212.119
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56212.120
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56212.121
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56212.122
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56212.123
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56212.124
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56212.125
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56212.126
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56212.127
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56212.128
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56212.129
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56212.130
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56212.131