U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

66–328 PDF 2011

S. HRG. 111–977 

THE INCREASED IMPORTANCE OF THE VIOLENCE 

AGAINST WOMEN ACT IN A TIME OF ECONOMIC CRISIS 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

MAY 5, 2010 

Serial No. J–111–89 

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary 

( 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont, Chairman 

HERB KOHL, Wisconsin 

DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California 

RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin 

CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York 

RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois 

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland 

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island 

AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota 

EDWARD E. KAUFMAN, Delaware 

ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania 

AL FRANKEN, Minnesota 

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama 

ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah 

CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa 

JON KYL, Arizona 

LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina 

JOHN CORNYN, Texas 

TOM COBURN, Oklahoma 

BRUCE A. COHEN, Chief Counsel and Staff Director 

MATTHEW S. MINER, Republican Chief Counsel 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

STATEMENTS OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS 

Page 

Feingold, Hon. Russell D., a U.S. Senator from the State of Wisconsin, prepared statement ................................................................................................... 48 

Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., a U.S. Senator from the State of Vermont .................... 1 

prepared statement .......................................................................................... 61 

WITNESSES 

Carbon, Susan B., Judge, Director, Office on Violence Against Women, U.S. 

Department of Justice, Washington, DC ............................................................ 3 

Gelles, Richard J., Ph.D., Dean, School of Social Policy & Practice, University 

of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania .................................................... 20 

Ulloa, Lolita, Managing Attorney, victim Services division, Hennepin County 

Attorney’s Office, Minneapolis, Minnesota ........................................................ 18 

Watersong, Auburn L., Economic Justice Specialist, Vermont Network 

Against Domestic and Sexual Violence Montpelier, Vermont .......................... 16 

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS 

Responses of Susan B. Carbon to questions submitted by Senator Sessions ..... 29 

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

Carbon, Susan B., Judge, Director, Office on Violence Against Women, U.S. 

Department of Justice, Washington, DC, statement ......................................... 36 

Gelles, Richard J., Ph.D., Dean, School of Social Policy & Practice, University 

of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, statement ................................. 49 

Sargent Shriver National Center on Policy Project, Wendy Pollack, Director 

Women’s Law and Policy Project, Chicago, statement ...................................... 63 

Ulloa, Lolita, Managing Attorney, Victim Services Division, Hennepin County 

Attorney’s Office, Minneapolis, Minnesota, statement ..................................... 66 

Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), Janice Shaw Crouse, Austin, Texas, 

statement .............................................................................................................. 73 

Watersong, Auburn L., Economic Justice Specialist, Vermont Network 

Against Domestic and Sexual Violence Montpelier, Vermont, statement ....... 78 

Women’s Legal Defense and Education Fund, Lisalyn R. Jacobs, Vice President of Government Relations at Legal Momentum, and Maya Raghu, 

Senior Staff Attorney at Legal Momentum, articles ......................................... 101 

(1) 

THE INCREASED IMPORTANCE OF THE VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN ACT IN A TIME OF 

ECONOMIC CRISIS 

WEDNESDAY, MAY 5, 2010 

U.S. SENATE, 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, 

Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:09 a.m., in room 

SD–226, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Patrick J. Leahy, 

Chairman of the Committee, presiding. 

Present: Senators Leahy, Whitehouse, Klobuchar, Franken, Sessions, and Hatch. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. PATRICK J. LEAHY, A U.S. 

SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF VERMONT 

Chairman LEAHY. Now that we have settled all the problems of 

the world, up here are Senator Franken and Senator Klobuchar, 

Senator Sessions, and Senator Hatch. Glad to have you here, and 

we will begin soon, of course, with the Director of the Office on Violence Against Women, Susan Carbon, and I thank you for being 

here. 

We all know that the Violence Against Women Act, or VAWA, 

was a watershed piece of legislation. It was enacted 15 years ago, 

with the support of many of us on this Committee, and it is just 

as crucial now as it was 15 years ago. It has provided critical, 

sometimes life-saving, assistance to countless survivors of domestic 

and dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking. The legislation 

shed light on the national problem of violence against women and 

marked a bipartisan commitment to confront and end domestic and 

sexual violence. Those of us on this Committee who have been 

prosecutors know how important it has been. 

Now, since that time, we have responded with better laws, social 

support, and coordinated community responses. I was proud to 

work on the original VAWA bill. I am pleased with what it has accomplished. Our communities and families are safer today because 

of the law. And as we begin to reconsider the reauthorization of the 

law, it is important to note that, for all we have accomplished, 

there is more to be done. Unfortunately, the problem of domestic 

and sexual violence persists, and in times of economic crises, the 

victims become even more vulnerable. 

The Violence Against Women Act has transformed our criminal 

justice system. It has improved legal and law enforcement response 

to the complex issues of domestic and dating violence. 

2 

It cannot be clearer than it is today as our country copes with 

a troubled economy. The economic pressures of a lost job or home 

or car can add stress to an already abusive relationship. As victims’ 

needs grow, state budget cuts are resulting in fewer available services, including child care, counseling, transitional housing, and so 

on. 

Unfortunately, these services can sometimes mean the difference 

literally between life and death for some victims. I advocated for 

increased funding of VAWA programs in the American Recovery 

and Reinvestment Act. I was pleased that the Recovery Act included $50 million for transitional housing assistance. 

But I think we have to go further. We have to prioritize our response to the high rates of violence experienced by Native American and immigrant women. We have to think of new and better 

ways of doing these things. 

Senator Murray, a long-time supporter of VAWA, has introduced 

a bill I am proud to cosponsor to provide victims with unpaid leave 

for legal and medical appointments, eligibility for unemployment 

insurance, and protection from employment and insurance discrimination. These policies make good sense, and I know in my own 

State, the Vermont Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence 

is at the forefront of these innovative approaches. They have leveraged private resources with Federal, State, and local financial support, and the Vermont Network does a great deal. It helps survivors with a variety of needs from budgeting to credit repair to 

employment counseling, and I could go on and on about the way 

they do help. 

So we are going to hear today from Judge Susan Carbon, the Director of the Office on Violence Against Women. Judge Carbon has 

led efforts to combat domestic violence at the State and national 

level. I look forward to hearing her perspective. 

Judge, after you turn we will hear from Auburn Watersong, an 

Economic Justice Specialist at the Vermont Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence, and we are going to hear from Lolita 

Ulloa of the Victim Services Division at the Hennepin County Attorney’s Office. I have a feeling why she was invited. And then we 

will hear from Richard Gelles, Dean of the School of Social Policy 

& Practice at the University of Pennsylvania. 

I apologize that the pollen in my voice is affecting me. That may 

be an advantage. 

[Laughter.] 

Chairman LEAHY. Senator Sessions, I yield to you. 

Senator SESSIONS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We thank you, 

Judge, for being with us, and it is good that we look at this program. We need to make sure that it is fulfilling its mission, and 

you will be, I know, getting into the challenge of that. I just believe 

from my experience in the Federal Government and working with 

various different agencies that you need periodic re-evaluations and 

new excitement and recommitment to the basic mission. So I hope 

that you can bring that leadership to the effort. 

I think that there is much that we know about violence against 

women, much we know that works in reducing it. There are some 

things we do not know. I believe strongly that the primary function 

of our Federal response should be first to make sure that people 

3 

throughout the States who carry out so much of this work are fully 

informed on the practices that are effective and that they, when 

there are things we do not know, help them find the information 

because they are constructing their own policies and procedures to 

deal with the tragedy of violence against women. Police officers and 

probation officers and others need to be informed on what is the 

best way to handle these situations. A lot of research has been 

done, but we still do not know as much as we would like to know. 

So I hope that you will take the lead in that in making sure that 

we properly inform our people throughout the country as to what 

the best policy should be. 

Thank you, and, Mr. Chairman, I look forward to the hearing. I 

do have some conflicts this morning, and I may not be able to stay 

with you the whole time, but thank you for conducting the hearing. 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you very much. 

Judge Carbon, please go ahead, and, again, thank you for being 

here. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. SUSAN B. CARBON, DIRECTOR, OFFICE ON VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF 

JUSTICE, WASHINGTON, DC. 

Judge CARBON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman LEAHY. And I will also tell Judge Davenport in 

Vermont the nice things you said about her. 

[Laughter.] 

Judge CARBON. Thank you. She is absolutely wonderful. Good 

morning, Chairman Leahy and Senator Sessions and members of 

the Committee. I am privileged and honored to be here this morning, and I thank you for the opportunity to speak with you about 

the vital role that the Violence Against Women Act has played in 

our efforts to end violence against women, and especially to highlight the importance of VAWA programs and policies in times of 

economic stress. 

The resources that are authorized by VAWA have never been 

more important than they are today. As our Nation confronts serious economic challenges, everyone is affected, particularly victims 

of domestic violence who are so often isolated. 

In the best of economic times, a victim worries about finding a 

job and shelter for her children. During an economic downturn, 

these obstacles and problems intensify. Indeed, victims may face 

additional obstacles leaving a dangerous environment. 

Organizations that often constitute the lifeline for victims are 

confronting economic crises of their own, resulting from reduced 

State and private funding. On one day alone in September of 2008, 

over 8,900 requests for services went unmet due to a lack of resources. Just a year later, that number had increased to nearly 

9,300 unmet requests. 

I commend Congress, I commend all of you, for your leadership 

in recognizing these issues and in providing additional funding 

through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, 

which provided OVW with an additional $225 million to assist victims of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and 

stalking. This funding has filled critical gaps in services. 

4 

The Violence Against Women Act has made a real difference in 

people’s lives. Since 1995, over $4 billion have been awarded to 

States, territories, local governments, tribal governments, and nonprofit organizations to develop innovative strategies to respond to 

violence against women. Of particular note, VAWA brings together 

people from diverse backgrounds to improve community and systems responses. 

In my two decades on the bench, I have seen firsthand how we 

can better fulfill our own responsibilities if we work in concert with 

other professions. Effective issuance and enforcement of protection 

orders, for example, are greatly enhanced when advocates, law enforcement, judges, and prosecutors work together to ensure that 

our systems are seamless and, indeed, this in turn translates into 

enhanced safety for victims and their children. 

With VAWA funding, communities are forging effective partnerships among Federal, State, territorial, local, and tribal governments and among civil and criminal justice systems and victim advocates. VAWA-funded services reach hundreds of thousands of victims every year. In the first 6 months of last year, 2009, our OVW 

grantees reported that over 125,000 victims received over one quarter of a million (253,000) services. 

The Violence Against Women Act has been instrumental in 

changing the way our country perceives and addresses violent 

crimes against women. We are in the middle of a Department-wide 

commemoration of the passage of the Violence Against Women Act 

over 15 years ago. The goals of this anniversary campaign are 

three-fold: to raise public awareness, to build and renew coalitions 

among public and private sectors, and to end once and for all stalking, sexual assault, domestic violence, and dating violence for men, 

women, and children all across the country. We view this campaign 

not only as a vehicle to honor the accomplishments of the past 15 

years, but as a platform for continued and expanded call to action. 

Although we can be rightfully proud of our accomplishments, we 

must also recognize that there is much to do. Historically, OVW 

has focused on intervention, and that is to say, providing services 

to victims and holding offenders accountable. VAWA has been successful at focusing on intervention after a violent crime has occurred, and clearly the need for services continues. 

As a judge, however, I have seen all too often the destructive 

cycle of violence play out through generations. If we are ever going 

to break the cycle of violence that plagues communities all across 

the country, then we need to broaden our focus and incorporate 

prevention strategies in all that we do. 

Congress has consistently demonstrated its commitment to assess what is working and to confront emergent challenges. As we 

consider the reauthorization of VAWA, we need to think about 

what steps we can take to prevent violence in the first instance so 

that we can avoid its serious aftermath. 

I cannot stress enough how important it is for Congress to reauthorize VAWA to sustain, strengthen, and enhance our Nation’s efforts to end violence against women. I look forward to working with 

all of you to consider how reauthorization can help us respond to 

the many challenges that lay ahead. 

5 

I want to thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, members of the 

Committee, for your commitment and for your time this morning, 

and I welcome the opportunity to address any questions that you 

might have. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Judge Carbon appears as a submission for the record.] 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you very much. 

Judge, as we reauthorize VAWA, the Violence Against Women 

Act, we have expanded it beyond just being a criminal justice response. As we have learned more about it, we have added some 

things to it. We have added ways to address more broadly the 

needs of victims, to become more comprehensive—I hate to use the 

term ‘‘holistic,’’ but sort of a holistic approach. Has that worked? 

Have we had successes doing that kind of expansion? 

Judge CARBON. Senator Leahy, we have had enormous progress 

and success in meeting needs through much of the work that we 

have done over the past 15 years. I think one of the greatest accomplishments of the Violence Against Women Act in its first instance has been to raise public awareness about the extent and the 

breadth and the complexity of the problem. We have expanded the 

services through what we characterize as a coordinated community 

approach to addressing domestic violence, sexual assault, dating violence, and stalking. And through these efforts to reach out to the 

public by engaging professions and community leaders in working 

together, we are able to address not only the criminal justice system but the civil justice system and expand our reach to understand the importance of providing a breadth of services to victims. 

We know next to achieving safety that victims need economic 

stability so that they may have a range of services provided to 

them. And being able to provide legal assistance, housing, and a 

breadth of other services is critically important. 

We know also that this is an area where our need exceeds our 

ability to provide all of the services, and we are hopeful to work 

with Congress as we look at reauthorization to broaden that scope. 

Chairman LEAHY. Well, we put extra money in the Recovery Act, we put $225 million. I had argued strongly for that. We had a number of other leaders in the Senate who did. Has that had a good 

effect, or should we have done that? 

Judge CARBON. You absolutely should have done it, and we are 

so grateful that you did, and I want to thank all of you for your 

leadership in doing so. The Recovery Act funding, the $225 million, reached victims all 

across the country. We were hearing, and continue to hear, frankly, 

that there still remains great unmet need, and the National Victimization Survey has documented that information for us. But 

through the Recovery Act, we were able to provide further funds 

through our STOP grants to reach out through coalitions across the 

country, to fill jobs, to keep shelter services in place, to keep advocates in place, and be able to service the needs of victims both 

within local communities and in tribal communities as well. This 

has been extremely important. 

Chairman LEAHY. You know, now is the time to look at where 

the needs might be, where there are some things that we should 

be looking at if we are going to be reauthorizing. This has always 

6 

been a bipartisan effort up here in the reauthorization. Are there 

needs currently unmet? I am thinking of not only domestic violence, but dating violence, stalking. Some of these things are—one 

especially on the front page of the papers even today. Do we have 

to make legislative changes or funding changes? What would you— 

if you could just write the legislation—and I realize that it is a long 

way from that—what are some of the things you want to do? 

Judge CARBON. We have lots of things we would like to do, and 

we are going to look forward to working with all of you to develop 

what that will look like. There are lots of priorities that we have 

around the unmet needs of victims, and in particular, as I mentioned in my statement, I think we need to not only provide services for victims, but I would like for us to be able to step back a 

bit to try to prevent violence in its first instance. 

So we have lots of priorities that I would classify first around 

prevention efforts so that we can reach out and stop this cycle of 

violence. Ultimately, in an ideal world, if we could stop violence, we 

would not need to worry about the next steps toward intervention. 

But the intervention services will remain critical, and in particular, 

as we look at housing assistance and economic stability for victims, 

that will be important. But our efforts around prevention I think 

are critically important. 

A second area that we will focus on, because it is a priority for 

the entire Department, are services around sexual assault. We 

have expanded our realm of domestic violence services in particular 

for the past 15 years. We believe that issues around sexual assault 

are also critically important and want to expand that. As you 

know, in the most recent iteration of VAWA, there were expanded 

services for sexual assault, and we would like to continue to expand that realm because the needs are so great. So we will be 

working and hope to work with all of you on expanding those resources. 

Chairman LEAHY. Well, the idea of stopping it before it happens 

is so important. I still see so clearly a victim in the emergency 

room of our hospital in Burlington, Vermont, when I was a prosecutor, at 3 or 4 o’clock in the morning, and the victim telling me 

who did it, and then dying. And when we unraveled everything, the 

warning signs had been there. If there had been any place that 

person could have turned to for help, it never would have happened. 

Senator Sessions. 

Senator SESSIONS. Judge, as a State judge, you have a good perspective, and I guess the reality of these issues as a family judge 

particularly, you have seen it. Do you envision a fundamental alteration in the understanding we have already always had that the 

State and local jurisdictions should be the primary front-line entities who deal with violence against women? 

Judge CARBON. In my experience, Senator Sessions—that you— 

as a State court judge, a family court judge, the resources provided 

by the Violence Against Women Act have enabled us on the ground 

to reach victims and children—— 

Senator SESSIONS. No, I am just asking you fundamentally. Do 

you still envision or do you have a different view about the role of 

the Federal Government as an aider, assister, enabler of State and 

7 

local programs? Or do you view that we would move more to a Federal kind of program? 

Judge CARBON. I would envision that we would retain our current framework. I think it has been very effective. 

Senator SESSIONS. How many jurisdictions throughout our Nation—if you would just hazard an opinion or give me a quick 

view—how many of these jurisdictions throughout our Nation effectively deal with violence against women—that is, have a protocol, 

a program, shelter homes, or trained probation officers, judges who 

understand that all crimes are not the same and have different 

needs and appropriate responses? Do you have an opinion of how 

well our State and local jurisdictions are performing? 

Judge CARBON. My belief is that they are performing very well. 

We have done, the office has done a great outreach to judges, prosecutors, advocates, law enforcement, shelter services all around the 

country. 

Having said that, we have turnover all the time, and there is a 

continuing ongoing need to train and educate people about good 

practice. One of the things the office has done particularly well is 

to promote and promulgate best practices for all of the different 

professions and for the community service providers. That to me is 

a hallmark of our effort and one which we will continue to do. 

Senator SESSIONS. I thank you. That is correct. You may have a 

good program working in a community, and some of the key players go or leave, and you are back to not effective as you would like 

to be. And as the Chairman said, properly intervening can be the 

difference between life and death. There is just no doubt about it. 

But we need to do that wisely. 

Now, there was as proposal a few years ago, in 2008, to consolidate a number of the Violence Against Women Act programs administered by your Department, and a hearing, I think, was held 

in the House on that. The stated purpose was to reduce the time 

grantees spent in applying for grants to eliminate earmarks and 

formulas and allow multiple needs to be addressed based on the 

needs of the jurisdictions. 

I know OJP Director Ms. Laurie Robinson has advocated in the 

past for more consolidation and more streamlining under the theory that you can get more money quicker directly to the people in 

need and actually reduce violence by better systems than would 

otherwise be the case. 

Are you open to those kind of reviews? She said she believed in 

that when she was confirmed. Are you open to those kind of reviews? And will you give it your best ideas how to help that local 

jurisdiction of which you used to be a part know where to apply, 

have simpler applications and a quicker response? 

Judge CARBON. Thank you, Senator Sessions. Having been a 

grantee myself and having been at the other end writing grants 

and administering grants, I can appreciate from the public standpoint how important it is to have a streamlined grant process. So 

I can bring that perspective to the office. 

I can also share with you that we have been looking at whether 

we should and can consolidate different programs because there is 

some duplication, if you will, of purpose areas, but we do not want 

8 

to lose and not be serving everybody whom Congress has intended 

that we serve. 

So we are looking at that very carefully to see if we can streamline and how that might happen, but it is an issue that we are 

looking at. We are certainly—— 

Senator SESSIONS. I think our Members of Congress sometimes 

are quite proud of some proposal or program that they develop, but 

I think if you lead you might find there is real success in some of 

the streamlining and consolidation, and there might be some 

pushback at various places. And I know you want to respect Congress’ view, but I think you should not hesitate as the person on 

the ground handling these issues to tell us what you think would 

make the program better. And I think you might find some things 

are accepted even though maybe you will have objections to others. 

But I hope you will do that, and thank you for your leadership. 

Judge CARBON. Thank you so much, Senator. 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you. We are going to go to Senator Klobuchar, and I am going to put a statement by Senator Feingold in 

the record. We will, of course, leave the record open for the rest of 

the day for any other Senators who want to put in statements. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Feingold appears as a submission for the record.] 

Chairman LEAHY. Senator Klobuchar. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Thank you very much, Chairman Leahy, for 

holding this important hearing. Thank you for being here as well. 

As we know, our economy is starting to rebound from the devastating job losses and the housing crisis that it has experienced 

over the past 2 years, and our States have likewise faced crises, 

budget crises, and we have seen drastic spending cuts across the 

board almost uniformly beginning with social services such as 

funding for domestic violence shelters or social work. 

This is very important for me. I headed up the county attorney’s 

office. In fact, our next panel will feature someone who is a great 

leader nationally, Lolita Ulloa, in this area. And so we have been 

through cycles before, but my concern here is that we do not cut 

back on some of the services that we need the most for our victims 

to put themselves back in the job market and really break the cycle 

not only by prosecuting offenders but by actually making sure that 

they have a chance to succeed. 

And so one of the things, as we talk about this cycle, I noticed 

in your testimony was this idea of the cycle of children exposed to 

violence. And I think I have mentioned this to you before, but the 

idea was that kids that grow up in violent homes are much more 

likely to commit violence themselves. I remember we had a poster 

in our office when you walked in that was a picture of a Mom with 

a Band-Aid on her nose holding a baby, and it said, ‘‘Beat your 

wife, and your kid will go to jail.’’ 

So could you talk about the Attorney General’s initiative and 

what role you think your office can play in reducing violence in the 

future in terms of kids growing up in these homes? 

Judge CARBON. Thank you, Senator. You have touched upon one 

of the most critical areas, in my view, and that is, children exposed 

to violence. And as you have said, it is an enormous problem for 

children being exposed to violence in homes because, as a judge, I 

9 

have seen the experience of children in court, I have seen the experience of battered mothers bringing their children and trying to access services for them. 

We do know and the research shows that if children are exposed 

to domestic violence or other types of violence in their home, they 

will, as you say, grow up and suffer in any number of extraordinary ways. Their own development, their own psychological development can be arrested. Their ability to succeed at school can 

be affected. Their socialization can be affected. Their ability to form 

the important attachments to loving, caring parents can be affected. And so as they grow up, there is a tendency for them as 

well to become future victims of domestic violence or themselves as 

well to become perpetrators even within their own family. So it is 

an issue that we need to address and one of the reasons why the 

Attorney General is so committed to making this one of his signature items as Attorney General. 

We have recently issued a solicitation that is open, I believe now, 

until June 1st to invite jurisdictions to apply to become a demonstration site and also for some other grant opportunities to see 

how we can bring a holistic approach to serving the needs of children, in part to understand better research about how children are 

affected by domestic violence, what most appropriate services we 

can put in place for them, and how we can reach within communities to provide the holistic approach that children will need so 

that we can cut that cycle and stop that from continuing on. 

We will be looking at this and making this a departmentwide initiative for us, and we foresee our office working with other components within the Department to focus on the prevention activities 

around children exposed. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Thank you very much. Another area you 

mentioned was homicide prevention, and I think people sometimes 

are startled by this fact that 45 percent of all female homicide victims in 2007 were killed by a partner. We just saw this recent horrible incident in the college in Virginia. 

I know that when you were a judge, you worked with the New 

Hampshire Domestic Violence Fatality Review Committee—we 

have a similar one in Hennepin County—which reviewed domestic 

violence-related deaths. Is that a model you think that other States 

can follow where you actually do like a hospital would do and look 

back at what went wrong in a surgery and try to identify the problem spots? 

Judge CARBON. Homicide prevention is a critical part of the overall prevention efforts that I foresee us looking at. In my view, having chaired that Committee and worked with other fatality review 

committees across the country, I can tell you that it is a very illuminating way to look at your systems, where gaps might have 

been, and then develop policies and protocols for preventing future 

homicides. It is a great way and a quintessential example of a collaborated, coordinated community response to domestic violence. 

The statistics would show us that between this morning and the 

time that we all go to bed tonight, three more people will die from 

a domestic homicide. It is an extreme problem, and if this approach 

that we know works, we would like to see this expanded. 

10 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. [Presiding.] Well, thank you very much, 

and I will put some questions in the record. I am going to turn this 

over to Senator Hatch about the work that you are doing with the 

full faith and credit and enforcing protection orders across State 

lines, which I know is always a frustrating piece for prosecutors of 

our business. 

Judge CARBON. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Senator Hatch. 

Senator HATCH. Thank you, Senator Klobuchar, and thank you, 

Judge, for being here and for your good work in this area. I remember back when I was Chairman of the Committee and we decided 

to do the Violence Against Women Act, it was not nearly as popular 

as it is today, but it is popular because of people like you, and 

many others, thousands of others across the country who really 

have done what is right with regard to not just women but young 

girls and children as well. 

As you know, it is a comprehensive legislative package designed 

to end violence against women, and I am really pleased to work 

with my colleagues to make sure we get this reauthorized and that 

this Committee continues its support of these legislative remedies. 

Again, let me thank you for appearing before us today. You have 

an important job in my eyes, and I am here to assist you and the 

Department of Justice. 

Although economic crisis does not cause domestic violence, it may 

increase existing violence in the home. Studies have shown that financial strain and unemployment are correlated to an increase in 

continuing domestic violence. Now, I have concerns that the current economic crisis and its effect on domestic violence not only impact every one of my fellow Utahans, but also victims of domestic 

violence across this Nation. The current economic downturn directly impacts victims of domestic violence who are seeking help to 

rebuild their lives. 

Now, is the Department of Justice accumulating data that tracks 

economic factors as a contributing factor to domestic violence? 

Judge CARBON. Thank you, Senator Hatch. We are looking at all 

of the elements that we can through research and through hearing 

from our grantees and from our TA providers about the extent to 

which the unmet needs exist and how we can better frame and provide services to track any trends in the increase, if there is, and 

what we can do about it to provide better services so that we are 

ensuring that we are able to meet those needs. 

Senator HATCH. My home State of Utah is considered by some 

a rural State. Rural areas are especially hard hit by the current 

economic downturn. In some rural communities, rape collection kits 

are not always subsidized. On some occasions, victims have to pay 

for their own rape kit. 

This is also becoming a growing trend in urban communities as 

funds for rape kits and DNA testing begin to dry up. I think we 

are all familiar with the horror stories of rape kits that contain 

good DNA samples sitting unprocessed in police evidence lockers. 

Now, these kits will sometimes sit for years while the perpetrators 

of sexual assaults remain free to target additional women for sexual assault. 

11 

Let me just ask you, how is the Department of Justice ensuring 

that DNA samples and rape kits are being processed and suspects 

are being identified? 

Judge CARBON. Senator Hatch, thank you. This we recognize is 

an enormous problem. We need to understand the breadth and all 

the full component of what the issues are concerning why there is 

such a backlog and what we can do about it. The National Institute 

for Justice, which is a part of the Department of Justice, is going 

to be hosting an educational forum next month to look at the issue 

of the rape kit backlog, why it exists, whether it is from lack of resources for testing, lack of funding, or lack of quality. And we want 

to try to understand the nature and the breadth so that we can 

avoid those problems of people continuing to perpetrate sexual assault on women when the rape kits have not been completed. 

We also know that it is something which will take good research 

and good work, and we are anxious to work with everybody together to see what can be done to address that problem. 

Senator HATCH. A few years back, I was just appalled that some 

of these rape kits that had been collected sat idle for over 20 years, 

and the minute they started going into them, they started finding 

people and stopping some of the things that were going on. So we 

need to do a better job there. 

Judge CARBON. We could not agree more. Thank you. 

Senator HATCH. The need for services for victims of domestic violence is especially acute in rural communities. In certain communities, medical workers are thrust into the situation as the firstline detector of domestic violence. 

What training and resources are available to rural law enforcement and rural health care providers to assist them in detecting 

and reporting domestic violence in these communities? 

Judge CARBON. Thank you, Senator. We actually, through the Violence Against Women Act, have a separate funding stream that is 

dedicated to rural programs to reach out through local communities 

to address the unique nature of rural violence. Even if parts of the 

country which may not be designated as rural jurisdictions, there 

are major rural areas within jurisdictions. So this is a problem that 

is incumbent upon us to address to make sure that we can provide 

necessary resources and training through both the rural grant and 

through our STOP grants, our formula grants, to make sure that 

we can provide training and technical assistance to the grantees so 

they will know how best to reach and make sure that we are, in 

fact, connecting with as many victims as possible. 

Senator HATCH. Well, I want to thank you for the work that you 

are doing. I really appreciate it personally as the father of three 

daughters and what some people think are countless granddaughters and great-granddaughters. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator HATCH. We are very concerned about what you are 

doing. I want to make sure that you have the resources and that 

you have our backing fully, because the work you are doing is really, really very important, as far as I am concerned, and I am sure 

everybody on this Committee. So I want to thank you for the work 

that you are doing. 

Judge CARBON. Thank you very much, Senator. 

12 

Senator HATCH. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I appreciate it. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Thank you. And anyone who has seen Senator Hatch’s holiday card will know that there are, in fact, a lot of 

daughters and granddaughters. 

Senator Franken. 

Senator FRANKEN. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Judge Carbon, thank you also for your work. You cited the numbers from a survey conducted by the National Network to End Domestic Violence. On just 1 day in 2009, over 9,000 requests for 

services made to domestic violence organizations were unmet because of lack of resources. My wife and I went down to Rochester, 

Minnesota, and there was a shelter there for women and their children, victims of domestic violence. It essentially was two houses 

put together. I think they could serve nine women and their children at one time—families. And they had 98-percent capacity or 

something, and women from the Rochester area could use it, but 

if they could not get in there, they had to go somewhere else. And 

sometimes they had to go pretty far away and could not maintain 

their jobs. 

I was wondering what are we doing to address this kind of lack 

of resource and to make sure that women, especially when we talk 

about the economic impact of all of this, that they can stay in their 

community, do their job, you know, keep their jobs, and get these 

kind of services. 

Judge CARBON. Thank you, Senator Franken. You have addressed a couple issues here which are critically important. The 

first is through our working through your reauthorization of VAWA 

in 2005, you looked at part of the economic issue through the transitional housing programs and through a new program for a resource center, a national resource center on workplace responses to 

domestic violence. And through that program, we are working with 

a number of national technical assistance providers to develop a 

system so that there are resources for employers so that they will 

know what good policies and practices are to help employers address victims who may be experiencing domestic violence in their 

homes but then come to work and are trying to ensure they can 

retain their jobs and what employers can do to assist them. 

We know that in a poor economy if victims lost their jobs, regaining employment will be critically important and difficult to do, and 

so we want to provide resources necessary for them to ensure that 

employers understand what their role would be in helping victims 

to retain their positions. 

We are also looking at other areas concerning transitional housing and the services that can be offered through that program. The 

Recovery Act, as I mentioned before, was very helpful in filling 

some of this gap in services, so both housing and security in jobs 

will be critically important. 

Senator FRANKEN. In his testimony in the next panel, Dr. Gelles 

writes, ‘‘It is difficult to determine with precise accuracy where 

monies and resources should be directed in reference to violence 

against women or family violence in general.’’ I was wondering if 

you, Judge Carbon, have any ideas where monies and resources 

could be directed in reference to violence against women and family 

violence. 

13 

Judge CARBON. I think Congress has done an extraordinary job 

of reaching out and providing services to victims in many different 

venues. It is critically important that advocacy services continue to 

be funded, that resources concerning employment security be 

looked at, that housing assistance be provided. One area in particular that I would like to highlight is the need for legal assistance 

for victims. We have a legal assistance funding stream, but we 

know that 70 percent of victims still do not have access to an attorney, even for protection order hearings, let alone the subsequent 

work regarding custody, other economic support which they are in 

dire need of. 

That is one of the most popular, if you will, grant programs 

which we have. Regrettably, we can only fund a third of the applications that come in through our requests for legal assistance. So 

we are looking at ways that we—— 

Senator FRANKEN. That is an area where we could direct more 

resources. 

Judge CARBON. Absolutely. 

Senator FRANKEN. We all know too well that Indian women are 

victimized more than any other population. In fact, according to 

Amnesty International, one in three Indian women has reported 

being raped in her lifetime. When VAWA was reauthorized in 2005, 

money was set aside to help tribal governments address violence 

against Indian women. 

Have you seen results from these programs? Do they need to be 

changed? Do they need to be expanded? 

Judge CARBON. Thank you, Senator. As you pointed out, on the 

VAWA 2005 reauthorization, it created a separate title for addressing domestic violence in Indian country, and so we have been following that guidance and have created a new position within our 

office, the Deputy Director for Tribal Affairs, and we have also 

worked to ensure that tribes all over the country have access to all 

of the funding streams which are available through the Violence 

Against Women Act. 

In the past few years, we have distributed $95 million to tribes 

across the country, and this is, as you have pointed out, the need 

for a departmentwide priority. So we are committed to ensuring 

that we can reach out and provide resources. 

In the President’s budget, there is an increased request for assistance to tribal communities, and that will continue to be a priority area for us because the need is so great. 

Senator FRANKEN. I am very glad to hear that. 

Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Senator Whitehouse. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thank you, Chairman, and welcome, 

Judge. Thank you for being here and thank you for your great 

work. 

This has been such an important office for a long time, the Domestic Violence Unit, and my Attorney General’s office back in 

Rhode Island existed because of VAWA support and funding. And 

I would simply highlight a few of the points that some of my colleagues have already made. The prompt and proper processing of 

evidence is critical, and particularly when municipal budgets are 

stressed, trying to make sure that there is adequate funding for 

14 

DNA testing and so forth is very, very important, and, frankly, I 

think a great cost saver in the long run from all the delays. But 

I would encourage you to work on that, as Senator Hatch suggested, and I am delighted to see in your testimony your emphasis 

and Attorney General Holder’s emphasis on the effect of violence 

on children who are witness to it. I think that can actually be a 

valuable tool in getting through to the abusers and in empowering 

Moms—it usually is—to make the right decision about getting 

away from abuse and protecting their children. 

In that light, I just want to hear your thoughts for a Mom who 

is in the situation of being subjected to domestic violence—the decision to leave home and seek protection is a really wrenching one. 

It is personally very difficult. It is painful. And it, unfortunately, 

is accompanied by enormous logistical hassle and challenges. And 

if people are already stressed just from their work life and the bad 

economy and things like that, that early stage where you may have 

to think about putting your kids in different schools and all the logistics related to that, you have to find your own new place to stay, 

you have to deal with the old bills so you do not lose your credit, 

at the same time you may have to pay new bills. You have to deal 

with lawyers and protective orders, and it all just kind of comes in 

at once, and it can be overwhelming. 

And so I think there is a really important period where women 

in particular need a great deal of support as they work through 

that, all those logistics when they make the decision to seek refuge 

and shelter. And I would encourage you to be as proactive in taking 

the best models of that around the country and deploying them as 

you could. 

Judge CARBON. Thank you very much. We certainly will do that. 

That is critically important, and we are very committed to doing 

that. Thank you. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thank you very much. 

Chairman LEAHY. [Presiding.] I have no further questions, and 

we will keep the record open in case others do. 

Thank you very much, and I would ask—if you want to add 

something here, Judge, feel free. 

Judge CARBON. Let me just thank you all again for your time. 

The issues that you have raised this morning are extraordinarily 

important, and we very much look forward to working with you on 

the next reauthorization. So thank you again for your time this 

morning. It is a pleasure to be here. 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you very much. We will set up for the 

next panel. 

Chairman LEAHY. I think we should probably introduce all the 

witnesses at once. The first one will be Auburn Watersong. She is 

an economic justice specialist of the Vermont Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence. She has worked in the field for almost 

15 years, is very well respected in the State of Vermont. She lives 

in Montpelier, Vermont—not totally coincidentally my birthplace. 

She has worked statewide to develop programming to address the 

long-term economic needs of victims of domestic and sexual abuse. 

She has worked with direct service providers to implement a plan 

for sustained safety that creates opportunities for victims to live 

lives free of violence, to economic stability and support. She reVerDate Nov 24 2008 08:46 May 24, 2011 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\66328.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC
15 

ceived her bachelor’s degree from Earlham College. She is currently 

enrolled at the Episcopal Divinity School in Cambridge, Massachusetts. 

Senator Klobuchar, I would turn to you to introduce our next 

witness. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Very good. Well, thank you. I am proud to 

have Lolita Ulloa here on the panel. Lolita has been a managing 

attorney for the Victim Services Division of the Hennepin County 

Attorney’s Office in the past 9 years. Prior to that, she was the director of the Domestic Abuse Service Center for 7 years, and she 

now sort of does both jobs, and I was proud to have promoted her 

onto my management team, and she remains on the management 

team to this day. 

Originally from Ecuador, Ms. Ulloa grew up in Massachusetts 

and received her law degree from the Suffolk University Law 

School, and she has just become a national leader on these issues 

and certainly taught me everything I know about this topic. So I 

am really honored to have her here, and she cares so much about 

the victims of domestic violence and really passes that on to the entire office and has made a difference not just in our office but 

through the county and through the State. So thank you for that, 

and thank you for being here. 

I think she is also maybe a hockey Mom. Is that right? 

Ms. ULLOA. There are other hockey Moms. 

Chairman LEAHY. Do they play hockey in Minnesota? 

Ms. ULLOA. We do play. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. They play a little hockey. We do have the 

world’s second largest hockey puck in Minnesota. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. The first largest is in Canada. 

Chairman LEAHY. There are so many things going through my 

mind that I am just going to—so far as these are televised, I will 

leave well—— 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. I do not know if Senator Franken maybe 

wanted to say a few words, too. 

Chairman LEAHY. Senator Franken. Another Minnesotan. 

Senator FRANKEN. Well, welcome. And I know that Senator Klobuchar, as the attorney for Hennepin County, worked so closely 

with you and has nothing but the highest praise. And we, of course, 

have met on a number of occasions, and I admire your work. Thank 

you for being here today. 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you very much. 

The other witness will be Dr. Richard Gelles. He is the dean of 

the School of Social Policy & Practice at the University of Pennsylvania. He is also the current director for the Center for Research 

on Youth and Social Policy and co-director of the Field Center for 

Children’s Policy Practice, and Research, widely published on the 

issue of domestic violence. I recall him working with the Congressional leaders in 1997 on the adoption of the Safe Families Act. He 

received his undergraduate degree from Bates College and his master’s from the University of Rochester and his doctorate from my 

neighboring State, the University of New Hampshire. 

So we will begin with Ms. Watersong. Please go ahead. 

16 

STATEMENT OF AUBURN L. WATERSONG, ECONOMIC JUSTICE 

SPECIALIST, VERMONT NETWORK AGAINST DOMESTIC AND 

SEXUAL VIOLENCE, MONTPELIER, VERMONT 

Ms. WATERSONG. Thank you, Senator Leahy. 

Chairman Leahy and distinguished members of the Committee, 

thank you for the opportunity to discuss the tremendous importance of the Violence Against Women Act in these challenging economic times. 

The Vermont Network is a statewide coalition of 15 domestic and 

sexual violence programs providing life-saving services to victims 

and their families. VAWA-funded programs are an essential part of 

our work in Vermont. These programs are all the more critical in 

light of the current economic crisis. I am here today to discuss the 

importance of expanding economic supports in the upcoming VAWA 

reauthorization. 

The survivor stories that I will share with you are true stories 

of victims whose names have been changed out of respect for their 

privacy and safety. 

Domestic and sexual violence can have a tremendous economic 

impact on victims, regardless of the state of the global economy. In 

the current economic crisis, however, the impact is even more dramatic. Although an economic downturn itself does not cause sexual 

or domestic violence, it can exacerbate the factors that contribute 

to violence, and it can reduce victims’ ability to achieve safety and 

healing. 

Almost 50 percent of sexual assault survivors either lose their 

jobs or are forced to quit in the aftermath of the crime. When sexual or domestic violence occurs within a context of economic insecurity, getting help and moving forward with life often competes with 

very real basic life needs, such as putting gas in the car, paying 

bills, or keeping a roof overhead. 

Homelessness in Vermont has increased by 25 percent in the 

past 2 years. The lack of safe, affordable housing across Vermont 

and the Nation exacerbates the challenges faced by so many victims seeking safety. Ninety-two percent of homeless mothers reported physical or sexual abuse during their lifetimes. No victim 

should ever be left to choose between violence and homelessness. 

This is no choice at all. 

We are seeing an unconscionable gap between the desperate need 

of victims and the resources available to the direct service programs that support them. Not only do individual victims and families suffer, but the economy suffers through higher health care 

costs, higher costs to the criminal justice system, and more strain 

on underresourced social service systems. 

Abusers intentionally use tactics to limit and control victims’ access to finances, transportation, housing, and banking. Victims report abusers interfering with their employment and running up 

debt to ruin their credit. 

Victims in Vermont and across the Nation face enormous economic hurdles. Given the rural nature of our State, lack of transportation and geographic isolation also present huge obstacles for 

many survivors, especially for those who may live hours away from 

life-saving services or law enforcement. 

17 

Over the past 16 years, VAWA programs have done much to alleviate the immediate pressures that victims face. Since then, we 

have learned that despite our successes in triage and intervention, 

long-term sustainable safety depends largely upon economic selfsufficiency. 

With the assistance of private funding from the Allstate Foundation in collaboration with the National Network to End Domestic 

Violence, the Vermont Network has developed innovative collaborations in an effort to support victims and survivors in rebuilding 

their lives. This past year, we forged a creative partnership with 

a community credit union, a State agency, and a local community 

action program in order to develop a matched savings program for 

domestic violence survivors. This program promotes habitual 

money management skills development. It provides financial literacy training, credit counseling, and ultimately a 3:1 financial 

match for participants to use toward expenses such as medical 

debt, utility bills, car maintenance and repair, and rent. 

This matched savings program has proved incredibly promising. 

It has allowed the coalition to train our member programs who 

work with survivors on basic financial literacy skills, credit repair 

and reports, and pre-employment supports. According to our most 

recent mid-year report, of the 490 victims served by this grant, at 

least 76 percent have increased their long-term economic security. 

VAWA reauthorization should include this type of programming to 

help ensure that victims move toward economic self-sufficiency. 

Maria was unemployed when she sought safety at a shelter in 

Vermont. Despite her master’s degree, Maria required the skills 

and empowering support of the economic advocates and the knowledge of community financial educators to assist her in reaching her 

economic goals. With help, Maria has developed a detailed business 

plan and established a base of references and formed promising 

business contacts. 

Jane arrived at a Vermont shelter with her five children. Having 

just been beaten by her partner, Jane’s immediate need was safe 

shelter, yet the domestic violence shelter was full. With the assistance of an economic advocate, Jane and her children were able to 

find immediate safety in a motel, but were unable to find affordable housing. Jane returned to her abusive partner, but maintained 

her connection with advocates who helped her with housing applications, credit repair, and budgeting skills. Through those efforts, 

I am happy to report that this past weekend Jane and her five children moved into a safe and affordable apartment, and she is working with advocates to improve her credit score and gain her financial independence. 

These successes are possible through the support of VAWA funding and important financial commitments of partners like the Allstate Foundation and NNEDV. Through these creative collaborations, Vermont has been able to build critical programs and partnerships to help survivors on the road to economic empowerment. 

This model could be replicated nationwide given adequate resources. With this VAWA reauthorization, we have the unique opportunity to further broaden the scope of VAWA programs and protections by providing greater economic supports to victims and survivors. Congress right now has a unique opportunity to help vicVerDate Nov 24 2008 08:46 May 24, 2011 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\66328.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC
18 

tims become lifelong survivors by reauthorizing VAWA with strategic improvements which focus specifically on economic resources. 

In order to eradicate domestic and sexual violence and stalking, 

victims need a full range of economic supports behind them. Their 

safety requires long-term advocacy, accessible financial resources, 

workplace protection, unemployment compensation, supportive education, microenterprise opportunities, alternative savings programs, credit counseling, and knowledgeable community partners. 

Every victim deserves a chance at sustainable lifelong safety. This 

is their chance. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Watersong appears as a submission for the record.] 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you very much. 

Ms. Ulloa, how badly did I mispronounce your name? 

Ms. ULLOA. Senator Leahy, it was actually quite good compared 

to some of the other pronunciations I have had. 

[Laughter.] 

Chairman LEAHY. I have so much respect for Senator Klobuchar 

and Senator Franken, and I love going to Minnesota, and I do not 

want to get the names of any of their constituents wrong, or they 

will not allow me to come out there. 

Ms. ULLOA. We will still let you come out. 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you. Please go ahead. 

STATEMENT OF LOLITA ULLOA, MANAGING ATTORNEY, VICTIM SERVICES DIVISION, HENNEPIN COUNTY ATTORNEY’S 

OFFICE, MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 

Ms. ULLOA. My name is Lolita Ulloa, and as the managing attorney for the Victim Services Division of the county attorney’S office, 

I supervise victim witness services. I also oversee the Domestic 

Abuse Service Center that was mentioned by Senator Klobuchar. 

This is a one-stop center for victims of domestic violence. 

Although our county makes up approximately one-quarter of 

Minnesota’s population, this office helps victims obtain 50 percent 

of all of the restraining orders in our State. 

I want to thank the members of the Judiciary Committee for inviting me here. I especially want to thank Senator Amy Klobuchar 

for her continued unwavering support, her work, and her focus on 

these issues both as a Hennepin County Attorney and now as a 

Senator. 

As County Attorney, Senator Klobuchar always supported victims of domestic violence in her management of DASC, and she 

strengthened the work of the county attorney’s office in the prosecution of domestic violence cases. She clearly understands the 

unique and tragic issues that face victims of domestic abuse. 

DASC was created in 1994 under the current County Attorney 

Mike Freeman. His vision led to a one-stop service center for victims of domestic violence that has now been replicated nationally— 

through the Family Justice Centers—as well as internationally. 

DASC allows victims to access criminal processes, Orders for Protection, advocacy services, plus economic assistance, child protection, and probation staff, along with other services. 

19 

DASC’s goals were very simple: easy access to services, in a safe, 

inviting environment, and holding abusers accountable. Collaboration is key to this success. 

This collaboration is even more important in times of economic 

crisis. We know that one of the main reasons women do not leave 

abusive situations is because they are financially dependent on 

their abuser. This reality is exacerbated during an economic downturn. Suddenly, women who need to leave abusive homes may face 

additional struggles because they have lost their jobs, had to sell 

their cars, or only have health care through their abuser. 

I have been a public service lawyer for 25 years. I have been involved with domestic violence issues for the majority of my legal 

profession. I know how the climate has changed since VAWA was 

enacted. There was finally Federal recognition that crimes of domestic violence and sexual assault and stalking against women 

would not be tolerated any longer. 

There was a shift in how violence against women is addressed in 

criminal justice offices and in the community, and for that I am 

thankful. 

Funding criminal justice offices remains, I believe, a critical 

need, especially when criminal justice offices forge partnerships 

with community agencies and social service programs. One way 

that VAWA has impacted the issue of domestic abuse is by offering 

trainings where States can discuss the varied approaches they use 

in their prosecution, probation, law enforcement, and advocacy 

work. Sharing best practices and protocols have resulted in these 

trainings being models that we have all used in our work. 

One particular area is how we treat women who have been strangled. Trainings have been the most valuable in emphasizing culturally competent services to victims from diverse communities. 

Understanding community-specific hardships, language barriers, 

religious values, and cultural assimilation plays an important role 

in effective intervention. This was a huge step that clearly demonstrates that the creators of VAWA understood the many dynamics of domestic violence. 

VAWA has done so many good things. I want to take this opportunity to focus on the work that is left to be done. I recently spoke 

with Liz Richards, who is the director of programming for our Minnesota Coalition for Battered Women, and we discussed the following issues that impact victims who are trying to leave, particularly during economic downturns. 

In many States—and even in Minnesota, which has been a leader on domestic violence issues always—child support is not always 

addressed in an Order for Protection hearing, and they are not consistent. The absence of financial support while the victim is trying 

to leave her abuser and make plans to care for herself, as you all 

have mentioned, and her children, is dangerous. Funding should be 

made available to district courts to work with community agencies 

in order to provide training and education for lawyers and advocates about the importance of addressing child support issues at 

the same time that Orders for Protection are issued. We must ensure, at least on an emergency basis, that victims have financial 

stability. This is critical. 

20 

Recently, a woman came to DASC to obtain an Order for Protection because the father of her children had pushed, grabbed, and 

kicked her. She had a job and was also starting school, and her 

abuser had been providing child care. There was not a shelter 

opening. The next day the victims indicated that she wanted to 

drop the Order for Protection because she did not have any money 

to pay for child care. The victim had to work to stay in school. The 

abuser had a long criminal record and was not working. He already 

had a child support order. Financial independence, simply put, can 

make the difference in whether a woman stays or leaves. 

Another way that financial dependence can manifest itself in domestic violence cases relates to medical care. We have identified 

some long term issues such as medical complication that can follow 

the victim for the rest of their life. Collaboration is necessary between emergency medical professionals and also those that provide 

follow-up services. Ensuring that victims have access to long-term 

medical care and that different medical providers talk to each other 

is critical. 

Recently, the Minnesota Coalition hosted a ‘‘Camp Sheila’’ for 

battered women—named for Sheila Wellstone. Battered women 

were asked how long their divorces had been going on. Most cases 

were still in progress, even after 7 to 14 years. Usually, there was 

abuse of the Mom and the kids. The abuser used the court system 

repeatedly to manipulate and threaten the victim. The threat of 

losing the custody of their children was ever present. Imagine 

being forced to co-parent with someone who had beaten and terrorized you. Many of these women have no money for legal representation. This is another focus area. 

The huge impact of VAWA will never be fully captured because 

the success is marked by individual victims who have found a way 

out, and those voices may never be heard. The cycle has been broken. They are safe and that is the most important part of their 

lives. It is what we all hope and work toward every day. 

Thank you for the invitation. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Ulloa appears as a submission 

for the record.] 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you very much. 

Dr. Gelles. 

STATEMENT OF RICHARD J. GELLES, PH.D., DEAN, SCHOOL OF 

SOCIAL POLICY & PRACTICE, UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA, PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA 

Mr. GELLES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning, Mr. 

Chairman and members of the Committee. I appreciate the opportunity to testify before you this morning on this important and yet 

complex question of the impact of the current economic downturn 

on violence against women. 

I would add two things to your introduction: one, the caution 

that researchers are by our very nature contrarian; and then the 

second addition I do not have to add now, and that was I spent 25 

years at the University of Rhode Island. 

A year ago, there was a spike in familicides, primarily males who 

killed their female partners and their children. This happened in 

the midst of the economic downturn, and our research team deVerDate Nov 24 2008 08:46 May 24, 2011 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\66328.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC
21 

cided to see whether this was a ‘‘canary in the mine shaft’’ event 

that foreshadowed increases in child maltreatment and domestic 

violence. 

The answer to that question, as I say in my testimony, is elusive 

primarily because Federal data on child maltreatment, homicide, 

and violence toward women lag by 1 to 2 years. So the most recent 

data we have now for child maltreatment and violence toward 

women only cover up to the very beginning of this economic downturn. 

Prior to the economic downturn, the rate of intimate partner violence had dropped 50 percent between 1993 and 2005, almost completely uninterrupted by any economic downturns in 1990–91 and 

2000–01. There has been a more shallow decrease in homicide of 

women at the hands of intimate partners. It is important to point 

out that in the same trend data, a small but significant number of 

male victims have remained flat, so there has been no impact either of the economy or Government programming or community efforts on a small but significant number of male victims. 

The impact of the Violence Against Women Act is likely to have 

played a role in that 50-percent downturn, and many of the statements made by the witnesses this morning speak to the importance 

of providing community services and the importance of changing 

the cultural attitude regarding violence toward women. 

I did not put it in my testimony, but the first time I testified before Congress on violence toward women was 1978, and when we 

got in the elevator, someone who was affiliated with a 

Congressperson but not a Congressperson said—assuming I was 

not in the elevator—‘‘If you cannot beat your wife, who can you 

beat? ’’ One does not hear such a thing in public or in private anymore. 

Chairman LEAHY. I tell you, if I ever heard that from somebody 

on my staff, they would be fired on the spot. 

Mr. GELLES. No one said anything, and the elevator was full. 

Things have changed enormously, and I suspect that that cultural 

attitude plays an enormous role in support for the Violence Against 

Women Act and the decrease. 

However, the Violence Against Women Act is unique as a piece 

of Federal legislation in that it is rather narrowly constructed, located primarily in the Justice Department, with a goal of protecting women through a relatively narrow continuum of care. So 

if it is time to revisit the Violence Against Women Act, I would 

argue strongly from the point of view of the research community 

that the Violence Against Women Act should profit from 16 years 

of research that have gone on since the Act was first enacted and 

to develop a broader, more evidence-driven bill and funding that 

could be even more effective than the funding that has been in the 

initial iterations of the bill for the last 16 years. 

Thank you for the opportunity to speak before you this morning. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Gelles appears as a submission 

for the record.] 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you, and I think there have been a lot 

of changes in attitude since the time of that. But I think we can 

all agree we still have a long way to go. 

22 

I am going to yield to Senator Klobuchar, who has to go to a 

press conference, and then I will yield to Senator Franken, who has 

been here patiently all through this, and then I will wrap up. Senator Klobuchar. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and 

I thank all of you. 

I just wanted to clarify one thing, and first of all, thank you, Dr. 

Gelles, for pointing out this cultural shift. But one thing—either of 

you can answer on the front line, Ms. Watersong or Ms. Ulloa, and 

that is, in his testimony Dr. Gelles discussed the fact that a broader assessment of VAWA is that not only did VAWA ignore services 

and resources for male victims of intimate partner violence, but the 

law is unique in terms of Federal legislation aimed at the problem 

of violence and abuse in families. So just to point out, do you also 

serve male victims of domestic violence or do you turn them away? 

Ms. WATERSONG. Thank you, Senator. In Vermont, we do serve 

male victims as well, and in last year alone, we provided more than 

300 men with supportive program services, and we safe-housed or 

sheltered 16 men in Vermont. So, yes, we do serve—— 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Has that been changing over the years? Do 

you think there has been more male victims? 

Ms. WATERSONG. I cannot say that I have the statistics on that, 

but I know that I have been working in this for 15 years, and since 

the very beginning we have always accepted male victim calls and 

always worked with them, just as we have with women. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. OK. Ms. Ulloa. 

Ms. ULLOA. Thank you, Senator Klobuchar. In our office and in 

our State, I think we do a very good job and are very proactive in 

making sure that victimization of anyone is addressed. And in particular, when there is a male that calls our office, we provide the 

same type of services and full range of services, including advocacy 

services for those individuals. 

I think VAWA has done a great deal of work in ensuring that 

the programs that are recipients of their money make sure that all 

of the services that are provided to women and to the children are 

also provided to male victims. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Thank you. You mentioned in your testimony, Ms. Ulloa, that as we look at this economic issue—and, 

again, I think I liked what Ms. Watersong said about how it is not 

necessarily that an economic downturn creates more domestic violence, but we do not really have those facts right now, but what 

we have, as Dr. Gelles pointed out, we do know it is harder for 

them to get back on their feet because there may not be a job or 

there may not be the resources out there. 

You talked specifically about child support orders. How do you 

think we could do a better job to ensure that women get their child 

support as soon as possible and integrate that into how we focus 

on domestic violence? 

Ms. ULLOA. Thank you, Senator Klobuchar. I think one of the 

things that would be critical is supporting the work that VAWA 

has done previously in trainings in different areas, either the medical or the prosecution. Now I think there is an area where we need 

some improvement and some enhanced services, and that is, training in the child support area, whether it is the district court staff, 

23 

the judges, which we have done a lot of training around with the 

judges, but also advocacy service to ensure that the protocols and 

procedures that are in place now are being viewed when you have 

a domestic violence victim, and that is different, and ensuring that 

that is a priority when we are setting child support orders, because 

that financial stability for that woman can allow her to make different choices and different choices for her children. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. One other thing that you raised—and I 

cared a lot about this when I was in the office of the county attorney—was working on police training. And I know one of the things 

we learned is that sometimes the police did not know what the lawyers want and the lawyers were not clear with the police, and it 

created a lot of issues and we tried to work those out by going 

around to every police department, not just with domestic violence 

but finding out exactly what the issues were. And I think we saw 

some improvement, and you raised this issue about police report 

writing, and you have testified that you have seen the quality of 

these reports improve recently. 

What are some of the problems? How could we address this with 

training as we look at the reauthorization of VAWA? 

Ms. ULLOA. Senator Klobuchar, thank you. I think that we are 

at a place, at least in Minnesota, where we have some very good 

and devoted law enforcement partners, and one of the things that 

we have done with the prosecutor’s office and advocacy groups in 

general is providing some—and strengthen and support our law enforcement partners in ensuring that when they are looking at arriving at the scene of a domestic violence crime, that their documenting that they are—and I mentioned this in my testimony— 

that they ensure that the parties are separated, that we look at the 

medical needs, that the children as witnesses are also a focus of 

their investigation. And I think part of what happens is that we 

have built on what preliminarily started as good police report writing, and now we have another layer, and that is, ensuring that we 

have all the witness testimony, we get all the good investigation, 

we have the capturing of evidence which is critical for the prosecution of the cases. 

In addition to that, it is the response of the police officers themselves to the victims at the scene which has changed, and many 

times for women who are in these situations for a male officer or 

a female officer, a person of authority to tell them that they do not 

deserve to be beaten or treated this way can go—is beyond what 

they expect. And they have mentioned that when the response is 

that way, and I think that is the part that has changed with all 

the VAWA funding and the training. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Thank you very much. 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you. 

Senator Franken. 

Senator FRANKEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to all 

the witnesses. 

One of the things that I am interested in is prevention and sort 

of the cycle of violence. It kind of brings me to divorce proceedings. 

And any of you can speak to this. 

One of the ways that men maintain power over women is repeatedly challenges the terms of divorce, fighting for custody, this sort 

24 

of thing. And I am wondering what the prolonging of all that—I 

heard Judge Carbon talk about cases that have gone on for 12 

years or something—what effect that has on the kids. 

Ms. ULLOA. Thank you, Senator Franken. Well, our experience 

has been that what the Mom is going through is reflected many 

times in what the children are going through. When legal representation in order to advocate for—really the safety of the Mom is the 

safety of the children in legal proceedings. And when there is a 

failure of legal representation—and the abuser many times has 

legal representation—I think the balance of power in the courtroom 

is completely changed. And I think one of the things that women 

typically tell us is that they will concede in many areas in the divorce as long as the custody of the children and the parenting time 

is addressed so that the children are safe. 

So you have unequal bargaining at divorces because you do not 

have legal representation, and such an emotional issue—and not 

only emotional, but there is a fear. We have many women who do 

not want to go to a court proceeding because of the fear of seeing 

their abuser, even though there are sheriff’s deputies there and the 

courtroom is secure. Just the fear alone will stop them. If they had 

a legal advocate, had legal representation to do much of this work 

without appearing in the courtroom, this would facilitate their ability to move forward with the divorce. 

Senator FRANKEN. So that is one place where you could use resources, probably. 

Ms. ULLOA. Absolutely. 

Senator FRANKEN. What is the research on this? What percentage of abusers were abused themselves as kids or witnessed abuse 

of their Mom when they were kids? 

Mr. GELLES. I can answer that, but it has to be answered two 

ways. The answer to that is 100 percent. But that does not tell you 

as much as what percentage of abused children or what percent of 

children who witnessed abuse grow up to be abusers. And the answer to that question is about 30 percent. That does not seem like 

a lot, except that the overall rate of abuse in our country which 

most people cite is about 3 percent, or 1 in 22. So you have a difference between 3 percent and 30 percent, which is an enormously 

big difference. 

The driving force behind it is partially the abuse, partially the 

economy. Individuals grow up and who have their needs met really 

do not carry on that cycle of abuse. And then the third component, 

which actually speaks to your question about divorce, is the individuals who do not repeat the pattern of violence tend to have stable, long-term relationships with a parent or relative or a counselor. So that you need someone in your life who is there for you 

in an unrestricted, non-qualified relationship. 

Going back to your question about divorce, a divorce that goes on 

for 12 years, no matter how much violence is in it, robs the children of that stable caregiving, and there is absolutely—divorce proceedings where there are allegations of abuse and counter-allegations, one of the problems besides resources is that is the epicenter 

of junk science. People are allowed to provide expert testimony 

about whether someone is abused or someone is not abused or the 

fictitious parental alienation syndrome. Much of that should be 

25 

barred from any courtroom and judges should be making decisions 

based on what is truly in the best interests of this child so this 

child does not grow up and be part of the 30 percent and is directed 

to the 70 percent. 

Senator FRANKEN. Thank you. I want to get one last question in. 

I know I am running out of time. Are there prevention models— 

I know there is a thing in Minnesota, Code of Healthy Families, 

where basically pediatricians and obstetrician/gynecologists and social workers identify parents that are at risk while the mother is 

pregnant and start a voluntary system of, first of all, prenatal care, 

but then also once the child is born, house visits and those kind 

of things. And what I have heard is that those programs pay for 

themselves basically in the reduced amount of child abuse. 

Do we have good models of prevention of abuse in the family? 

Mr. GELLES. You are speaking about David Olds’ Nurse-Family 

Partnership model, which Congress funded in the stimulus bill and 

was viewed by the Office of Management and Budget as a cost-neutral program because it saves as much on the back end as it costs 

on the front end. 

Unfortunately—and that is a secondary prevention model. It 

identifies high-risk individuals and intervenes with them. It is not 

a broad-based primary prevention model. 

In David’s research, the unfortunate part of the research was 

that when there is domestic violence in the home, it mitigates the 

effect on the children. So we do not yet have—and I would personally say it is one of the shortcomings of VAWA. VAWA did not in 

its implementation implement a research and demonstration 

project—— 

Senator FRANKEN. I think I am actually talking about a different 

program, one that was adopted in Minnesota. 

Mr. GELLES. It is called Healthy Families. 

Senator FRANKEN. Well, this is by Dakota County. 

Mr. GELLES. It is a version of David’s model, although you use— 

he uses nurse practitioners and Minnesota uses a wider range of 

professionals and paraprofessionals. But it is essentially the same 

model that has been tested since 1976. There is no such secondary 

prevention model tested, evaluated, and effective for domestic violence. 

Ms. ULLOA. Senator Franken, I think that any venue where you 

are bringing inventory services, whether it is medical or criminal 

justice or advocacy groups, is critical to a woman. In Minnesota, 

what we do really well is—for instance, I will give you an example. 

The Hennepin County Medical Center, which is a high-trauma area 

right in downtown Minneapolis, has an advocate and has social 

workers who are trained in the work of domestic violence. So when 

somebody comes into the hospital, either in the emergency room or 

other areas, there is somebody that they can call, and typically 

they call and do the crisis work and then call our office to provide 

an advocate. And many areas and many hospitals have advocates 

onsite, and I think in the medical area where we see high-trauma 

coming in right away, right after the assault, that is critical. 

The advocacy services are always going to be the spoke of the 

wheel to provide the right services to let the woman leave the 

home. So advocacy services in the medical arena is critical. 

26 

Senator FRANKEN. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you very much, Senator Franken. 

You have all given us so much for thought. I think it is easier 

to say we all want to do the right thing. The idea is finding out 

what is the right thing, what works best. 

Let me, Ms. Watersong, direct you more to the idea of rural 

areas, and every State has rural areas, so it is appropriate. But I 

think of the problems you have in your program and the problems 

that law enforcement has. Can you speak to that, especially how 

do survivors in rural areas like Vermont achieve financial independence? What are some of the specialized problems they have? 

Ms. WATERSONG. Thank you, Senator Leahy. When I think about 

the rural challenges for domestic and sexual violence survivors in 

Vermont, I cannot help but think about one particular case, a 

woman that I worked with years ago when I worked as a direct 

services advocate. I will never forget the day that she showed up 

when I was working at a local program, and she had survived a 

horrific all-night physical and sexual assault by her partner. The 

next morning he left her in their home with no phone and no car 

in the back woods of Vermont. Disoriented and in shock, bruised 

and bloodied, she walked barefoot for 8 miles on a hot summer 

road into town to our program seeking respite relief and healing. 

Within 3 weeks, she was in safe and affordable housing and managing newly accessed resources. She succeeded in leaving that desolate isolation and horrendous violence because she was supported 

by a responsive criminal justice system. But she stayed safe because that program was able to provide her with the full breadth 

of economic supports. 

Chairman LEAHY. And another question that sort of begs the answer, but if the program was not there—— 

Ms. WATERSONG. Right, right. What does she face? 

Chairman LEAHY [continuing]. She would not have had—— 

Ms. WATERSONG. Yes, she faces geographic isolation, isolation 

from her community. 

Chairman LEAHY. I also find that in very rural areas, very small 

towns, we also have a problem where people do not even want to 

speak about being a victim of abuse. 

Ms. WATERSONG. Right. 

Chairman LEAHY. You somehow feel you have to keep that hidden. Or am I wrong? 

Ms. WATERSONG. That it is private—well, I think VAWA has 

really helped bring that a long way toward just increasing domestic 

violence awareness and even one of the examples that Mr. Gelles 

shared about the elevator, that cultural change that is happening 

is largely due to all of the great things that VAWA has done up 

until now. And I think even in rural communities we are seeing 

that change. We are seeing folks realize that being just a silent bystander is not the best option anymore. But it is still a challenge 

because they are so far isolated. 

Chairman LEAHY. And there are also still some attitudes that 

have to change. You talked in your written testimony about a victim who had been hospitalized for several days and then had to go 

27 

off to court for a day to testify and got fired because of losing work. 

Is that correct? 

Ms. WATERSONG. Right. And we appreciate what VAWA has done 

to this point to support them. I would encourage looking at VAWA 

as far as workplace protections go for victims because victims such 

as the one I discussed in my testimony really need unemployment 

compensation, they need unpaid sick leave, they need anti-discrimination laws, all of those things to make sure that they can keep 

their job, they can be assured that they will be able to take care 

of their own needs, the needs of their children and families, their 

court needs, all of that and still remain employed. 

Chairman LEAHY. And, Ms. Ulloa, I listened to what you talked 

about, what is available in Hennepin County. I have got to tell you, 

I wish that had been available, those things had been available 

when I was State’s attorney and we were trying to—we actually 

cobbled things together. I remember my wife and I actually paying 

for a motel for somebody to stay to hide out, buying meals for the 

kids and all. There were just no programs. Now they are a lot better, and thank you for mentioning Sheila Wellstone, one of the alltime saints in my estimation. 

Tell me, if you had to put your finger on some of the biggest differences in handling these kind of cases since VAWA passed, what 

are they? 

Ms. ULLOA. Thank you, Senator Leahy. I think one is the response by law enforcement after training. I think also the view 

that judges take on the bench, whether it is in the civil arena or 

the criminal arena on how they view domestic violence, that educational component. I think the value of VAWA has been greatly 

supporting the advocacy work, those programs that pretty much 

have nothing and do everything for victims, recognizing the expertise, the passion, the need that women have to have holistic services in order to get through the criminal process and the civil process. VAWA has done all of that. 

In particular for me, I think one of the most wonderful areas 

that I am incredibly proud—and we have supported VAWA through 

this—is the response to culturally specific programs—— 

Chairman LEAHY. The response to? 

Ms. ULLOA. Culturally specific programs—Not every victim 

stands the same way, and so much of her isolation really depends 

on where she is from, sometimes her language proficiency, her educational proficiency. VAWA has done an exemplary job of recognizing, defining, allowing services to go specifically to those communities, underserved communities, and I think that has been just 

incredible. 

In my personal experience, from my community, which is one of 

those underserved communities, a Latino community, it has saved 

lives. 

Chairman LEAHY. I know in our State we have had refugees from 

other cultures. They come to Vermont, which is kind of an entirely 

different thing. We are a predominantly white, Anglo-Saxon State, 

and suddenly you find entirely different cultures and everything 

else. And we have seen outreach into those communities, and that 

I think we are becoming more—at least the stories I hear around 

the country, we are becoming more aware of that. It is sometimes 

28 

easier in a large culturally diverse community, but I am glad you 

raised that point. 

Doctor, I am glad you raised the points you did. This has been 

helpful. Again, I wish I could wave a magic wand and violence 

against women would end and we could just repeal all these laws 

because they would be unnecessary and you could all go off and do 

other things. Unfortunately, that is not a reality. That is not going 

to be a reality anytime soon. So you have all been very helpful, and 

I thank you very, very much. 

Incidentally, I will keep the record open so after you get your testimony back, if you say, you know, I should have added this or 

added that point, we will make room for you to do it. Again, I 

apologize for the voice. Thank you. 

Ms. WATERSONG. Thank you, Senator. 

Ms. ULLOA. Thank you, Senator. 

Mr. GELLES. Thank you. 

Chairman LEAHY. We stand in recess. 

[Whereupon, at 11:41 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 

[Questions and answers and submissions for the record follow.] 

29 


66328.001
30 


66328.002
31 


66328.003
32 


66328.004
33 


66328.005
34 


66328.006
35 


66328.007
36 


66328.008
37 


66328.009
38 


66328.010
39 


66328.011
40 


66328.012
41 


66328.013
42 


66328.014
43 


66328.015
44 


66328.016
45 


66328.017
46 


66328.018
47 


66328.019
48 


66328.020
49 


66328.022
50 


66328.023
51 


66328.024
52 


66328.025
53 


66328.026
54 


66328.027
55 


66328.028
56 


66328.029
57 


66328.030
58 


66328.031
59 


66328.032
60 


66328.033
61 


66328.034
62 


66328.035
63 


66328.043
64 


66328.044
65 


66328.045
66 


66328.036
67 


66328.037
68 


66328.038
69 


66328.039
70 


66328.040
71 


66328.041
72 


66328.042
73 


66328.046
74 


66328.047
75 


66328.048
76 


66328.049
77 


66328.050
78 


66328.051
79 


66328.052
80 


66328.053
81 


66328.054
82 


66328.055
83 


66328.056
84 


66328.057
85 


66328.058
86 


66328.059
87 


66328.060
88 


66328.061
89 


66328.062
90 


66328.063
91 


66328.064
92 


66328.065
93 


66328.066
94 


66328.067
95 


66328.068
96 


66328.069
97 


66328.070
98 


66328.071
99 


66328.072
100 


66328.073
101 


66328.074
102 


66328.075
103 


66328.076
104 


66328.077
105 


66328.078
106 


66328.079
107 


66328.080
108 


66328.081
109 


66328.082
110 


66328.083
111 


66328.084
112 


66328.085
113 


66328.086
114 


66328.087
115 


66328.088
116 


66328.089
117 


66328.090
118 


66328.091
119 


66328.092
120 


66328.093
121 


66328.094
122 


66328.095
123 


66328.096
124 


66328.097
125 

Æ 


66328.098