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

56–212 PDF 2010

S. HRG. 111–405 

THE CONTINUED IMPORTANCE OF THE VIOLENCE 

AGAINST WOMEN ACT 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

JUNE 10, 2009 

Serial No. J–111–29 

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary 

( 

(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 

RON WYDEN, Oregon 

AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota 

EDWARD E. KAUFMAN, Delaware 

ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania 

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama 

ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah 

CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa 

JON KYL, Arizona 

LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina 

JOHN CORNYN, Texas 

TOM COBURN, Oklahoma 

BRUCE A. COHEN, Chief Counsel and Staff Director 

MATT MINER, Republican Chief Counsel 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

STATEMENTS OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS 

Page 

Coburn, Hon. Tom, a U.S. Senator from the State of Oklahoma, prepared 

statement .............................................................................................................. 81 

Feingold, Hon. Russell D., a U.S. Senator from the State of Wisconsin, prepared statement ................................................................................................... 94 

Klobuchar, Hon. Amy, a U.S. Senator from the State of Minnesota ................... 4 

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

prepared statement .......................................................................................... 100 

Schumer, Hon. Charles E., a U.S. Senator from the State of New York ............ 147 

Sessions, Hon. Jeff, a U.S. Senator from the State of Alabama .......................... 3 

WITNESSES 

Burke, Ann, RN, M.Ed., President and Founder, Lindsay Ann Burke Memorial Fund, Saunderstown, Rhode Island ............................................................ 17 

Campbell, Collene, National Chair, Force 100, San Juan Capistrano, California ..................................................................................................................... 20 

Pierce, Catherine, Acting Director, Office on Violence Against Women, U.S. 

Department of Justice ......................................................................................... 4 

Tronsgard-Scott, Karen, Director, Vermont Network Against Domestic and 

Sexual Violence, Montpelier, Vermont ............................................................... 14 

Union, Gabrielle, Actor and Advocate, Beverly Hills, California ........................ 13 

Wells, Sally Wolfgang, Chief Assistant, Office of the Maricopa County Attorney, Phoenix Arizona ........................................................................................... 22 

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS 

Responses of Ann Burke to questions submitted by Senator Specter ................. 34 

Responses of Collene Campbell to questions submitted by Senator Specter ...... 37 

Responses of Catherine Pierce to questions submitted by Senator Specter ....... 38 

Responses of Karen Tronsgard-Scott to questions submitted by Senator Specter .......................................................................................................................... 43 

Responses of Gabrielle Union to questions submitted by Senator Specter ......... 46 

Responses of Sally Wolfgang Wells to questions submitted by Senator Schumer ........................................................................................................................ 49 

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

American Civil Liberties Union, Caroline Fredrickson, Director and Vania 

Leveille, Legislative Counsel, Washington, Legislative office, Lenora 

Lapidus, Director, and Sandra Park, Staff Attorney, Women’s Rights 

Project, Washington, D.C., statement ................................................................ 52 

Burke, Ann, RN, M.Ed., President and Founder, Lindsay Ann Burke Memorial Fund, Saunderstown, Rhode Island: 

statement .......................................................................................................... 59 

Chapter 490 ...................................................................................................... 62 

Campbell, Collene, National Chair, Force 100, San Juan Capistrano, California, statement .................................................................................................. 64 

Children’s Aids Fund, Washington, D.C., statement ............................................ 69 

Claiborne, Liz, Inc., and Family Violence Prevention Fund, Washington, D.C., 

letter ...................................................................................................................... 70

De La Calle, Michelle, San Jose, California, statement ....................................... 87 

Keitelman, Elina Nicole, Marriage and Family Therapist, statement ................ 95 

Page

IV 

Legal Momentum Advancing Women’s Rights, Irasema Garza, President; 

Leslye Orloff, Vice-President for Government Affairs; Maya Raghu, Senior 

Staff Attorney; Sameera Hafiz, Staff Attorney; Jennifer Grayson, Senior 

Policy Analyst, Washington, D.C., statement .................................................... 102 

National Center for Victims of Crime, Washington, D.C., fact sheet .................. 119 

National Congress of American Indians, Task Force on Violence Against 

Women, Karen Articiker, Co-Chair and Juana Majel, Co-Chair, Washington, D.C., statement ........................................................................................ 120 

National Association of Attorneys General, Washington, D.C., Resolution ........ 129 

National Foundation for Women Legislators, Inc, Washington, D.C., Joint 

Resolution ............................................................................................................. 131 

Pierce, Catherine, Acting Director, Office on Violence Against Women, U.S. 

Department of Justice, statement ...................................................................... 132 

Raver, Deidre, Co-Founder, Women Against Violence, Fishkill, New York, 

statement .............................................................................................................. 145 

Tronsgard-Scott, Karen, Director, Vermont Network Against Domestic and 

Sexual Violence, Montpelier, Vermont, statement ............................................ 148 

Union, Gabrielle, Actor and Advocate, Beverly Hills, California, statement ..... 153 

Wells, Sally Wolfgang, Chief Assistant, Office of the Maricopa County Attorney, Phoenix Arizona, statement ........................................................................ 160 

(1) 

THE CONTINUED IMPORTANCE OF THE 

VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN ACT 

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 10, 2009 

U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:07 a.m., in room 

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

Chairman of the Committee, presiding. 

Present: Senators Leahy, Whitehouse, Klobuchar, Kaufman, and 

Sessions. 

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

SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF VERMONT 

Chairman LEAHY. Good morning. 

Since 1994, the Violence Against Women Act, or VAWA, has been 

the centerpiece of the Federal Government’s commitment to combating domestic violence and other violent crimes against women. 

Its passage and reauthorization were a signal achievement in support of the rights of women in America. I am glad to see Senator 

Kaufman from Delaware because his predecessor, who now has another job in Government, Joe Biden, was, of course, so instrumental in the passing of VAWA. The landmark law filled a void in 

Federal law that had left too many victims of domestic and sexual 

violence without the help they needed. It is interesting that it 

passed with very strong bipartisan support, and I would compliment then-Senator Biden and Senator Hatch, who were Chairman and Ranking Member, respectively, who worked so hard in 

getting this passed. 

I look forward to working with members of the Committee, the 

Obama-Biden administration, and experts in the field to ensure the 

law remains a vital resource for prosecutors, law enforcement agencies, victim service providers, but, most importantly, the women 

and families who are threatened with violence. 

Today we have an extraordinary panel of witnesses. Of course, 

the first one is going to be Catherine Pierce, and I am glad to see 

you here, Ms. Pierce. She is the Acting Director of the Office on Violence Against Women at the Justice Department. Of course, Karen 

Tronsgard-Scott, whom I have known for many years and was just 

talking with, is a leader for ending domestic and sexual violence in 

Vermont. 

I mention Karen because people think of Vermont—like so many 

small, rural, bucolic States, we have a very low crime rate and everything else. But we have domestic violence in every State—every 

2 

State, every situation. Sometimes in more rural areas it is more 

hidden because it is something people do not want to talk about. 

I know that. 

Three witnesses will be sharing their personal stories with the 

Committee. One has gone on to become a successful actor, one has 

helped pass a Rhode Island State law requiring teen dating violence education in public schools, and one has become a passionate 

advocate for victims in California. 

I saw the devastating effects of domestic and sexual violence 

early in my career as a prosecutor, the Vermont State’s Attorney 

for Chittenden County. I know that violence and abuse reach into 

the homes of people from all walks of life every day, regardless of 

gender or race or culture, age, class, sexuality, or economic status. 

Domestic violence is a crime. We should never forget that: Domestic violence is a crime. When I became a prosecutor, people did not 

prosecute it. I changed that. And now everybody knows you have 

to. It does not make any difference whether it is a family member, 

a current or past spouse, a boyfriend or girlfriend, an acquaintance 

or a stranger. It is a crime. It is a crime. It is a crime. 

We have made some remarkable progress in recognizing that domestic violence, sexual assault, stalking, and dating violence are 

crimes. Since the enactment of VAWA, the rates of non-fatal and 

fatal domestic violence have declined, more victims have felt confident to come forward to report these crimes, and States have 

passed more than 600 laws to help this and to fight this kind of 

crime. But we still have millions of women, men, children, and 

families who are traumatized by abuse. We know that one in four 

American women and one in seven men are victims of domestic violence. One in six women and one in 33 men are victims of sexual 

assault, and 1.4 million individuals are stalked each year. So we 

have to keep on with these programs. 

A 2008 census by the National Network to End Domestic Violence found that in just 1 day, more than 60,500 adults and children were served by local domestic violence programs. Almost 9000 

requests went unmet. 

Numbers like these are why I advocated for increased funding in 

the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act for important VAWA 

programs. The STOP—Services, Training, Officers, Prosecutors— 

Formula Grant program is one of these. The inclusion of $175 million for STOP grants in the Recovery Act is going to give resources 

to law enforcement agencies and prosecutors and courts and victim 

advocacy groups to improve victim safety; also, $50 million for the 

Transitional Housing Assistance Grant, something I authored to 

provide safe havens. There is a lot more in this. I want to get on 

to the witnesses, and I will put my full statement in the record. 

But the bill we have before us will make corrections and improvements so that the law which has helped so many can continue to 

serve as a powerful tool to combat violence perpetrated against 

women and families. We were able to pass this through Committee 

in early May. I have trying to get it passed out to the Senate. It 

has bipartisan support. I think every victim of domestic violence in 

this country would tell us how important this is. 

With that, I will yield to another former and distinguished prosecutor, Senator Sessions of Alabama. 

3 

STATEMENT OF HON. JEFF SESSIONS, A U.S. SENATOR FROM 

ALABAMA 

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

Ms. Pierce. We are delighted to have you here. I will not delay with 

any long remarks, and we look forward to hearing your testimony. 

We do spend a considerable sum of money. It has a very important mission. Every dollar of it needs to be wisely and most effectively spent, and I want to discuss that because programs as they 

age sometimes become less vibrant and effective than they were 

when they initially started. So I would like to talk about that. 

I would agree with the Chairman. It has been tremendous 

progress. When I started as United States Attorney in 1981, I 

guess, I sensed that that local police departments, even small police departments, were becoming far more attuned to the dangers 

that occur from ignoring domestic violence. Training programs 

have increased dramatically, and most departments are far more 

sophisticated today than when this program originally passed, and 

that is all to the good. 

So let us talk about what good things have happened and what 

challenges we face and how to make sure that these programs are 

the most productive programs to reduce violence in America. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you very much. 

Senator Kaufman, do you want to say something? 

Senator KAUFMAN. I just wanted to say I can remember in 1990 

when then-Senator Biden, now Vice President Biden, first started 

working on the Violence Against Women Act, and I know what a 

lonely job it was getting started, and it really is incredible. It has 

always been a great example to me of what you can if you really 

put your mind to doing it and you have a just cause, and he just 

picked up people as he went along. 

Clearly, I want to thank the Chairman for picking this up and 

moving with it and carrying it even further and for his introducing 

the Improving Assistance to Domestic and Sexual Violence Victims 

Act. But, you know, a lot of things have happened since the Act 

was passed which are very promising. Reported incidents of rape 

are down by 60 percent, and the number of women killed by an 

abusive husband or boyfriend is down 22 percent. Really striking, 

today more than half of all rape victims are stepping forward to report the crime—acts of rape that often need the protection and encouragement that VAWA’s funding provides. 

But we still have a long way to go, and that is why we are here 

today, and this is what we have to talk about. We cannot afford 

to turn our backs on women and families in need of protection. We 

need to pass the Improving Assistance to Domestic Violence Victims Act and reinvigorate funding for Violence Against Women Act 

programs today. 

I just want to thank you for what you are doing. What you are 

doing is absolutely the most incredibly important thing that I see 

every day in the job that I do, and I want to thank you all. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman LEAHY. Senator Klobuchar. 

4 

STATEMENT OF HON. AMY KLOBUCHAR, A U.S. SENATOR 

FROM THE STATE OF MINNESOTA 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman LEAHY. Again, another former prosecutor. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. That is right. And I know somewhere Paul 

and Sheila Wellstone are looking down on us today. I think you 

know that this was their passion, and some of it came from Paul’s 

fighting for anyone that did not get the best luck in life or was the 

most vulnerable, and Sheila really took this on in an amazing way. 

I still remember her arriving in Washington with her kind of frizzy 

hair and 8 years later, so she was just an amazing advocate for 

this nationally. And part of that advocacy actually came out of the 

work in Minnesota. I was the Hennepin County prosecutor for 8 

years, the head of that office, and our Domestic Abuse Center really was a model for the country, a one-stop shop where there was 

a daycare center, and there was a place for police and prosecutors 

and restraining orders signed and everything, instead of having to 

go through a bureaucratic maze of red tape, which even lawyers 

could not figure out. 

So this is something near and dear to my heart. I am proud of 

the work we have done in Hennepin County and the work that has 

been done nationally since VAWA passed, and I am looking forward to working on the reauthorization. 

Thank you very much. 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you. 

Our first witness, Catherine Pierce, is currently the Acting Director of the Department of Justice’s Office of Violence Against 

Women. Prior to her appointment as Acting Director, Ms. Pierce 

was the Deputy Director of the office in charge of public outreach 

and communications. She was responsible for launching the office’s 

Sexual Assault Services Program and the Culturally and Linguistically Specific Service program. She originally joined the Office of 

Violence Against Women as one of the original staff members when 

the office opened in 1995. She has also worked in an advisory role 

with the State Department on human-trafficking issues, another 

matter of enormous seriousness. 

Prior to her time at the Department, she served as deputy at the 

State Justice Institute, where she oversaw the development of judicial education and training initiatives. She has a bachelor’s from 

the University of Massachusetts at Amherst. 

Please go ahead, Ms. Pierce, and thank you for being here. 

STATEMENT OF CATHERINE PIERCE, ACTING DIRECTOR, OFFICE ON VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF 

JUSTICE 

Ms. PIERCE. Thank you, Chairman Leahy and Ranking Member 

Sessions and members of the Committee, for the opportunity to 

speak with you today. As you said, my name is Catherine Pierce, 

and I am the Acting Director of the Department of Justice’s Office 

on Violence Against Women. I am here today to discuss both the 

remarkable progress made since the Violence Against Women Act 

was enacted almost 15 years ago and the challenges ahead. 

I want to personally thank the Chairman and Committee staff 

for working so closely with the Department on S. 327, the ImprovVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:07 May 10, 2010 Jkt 056212 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\56212.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC
5 

ing Assistance to Domestic and Sexual Violence Victims of 2009. 

This bill contains a number of much needed amendments to improve VAWA’s grant programs. 

Every day, VAWA funding makes a difference in how communities across America assist and protect victims. OVW’s 19 grant 

programs provide funding to States, local governments, tribal governments, and nonprofit organizations to assist communities, encouraging them to develop innovative strategies to respond to violence against women. 

We are grateful to Congress for reauthorizing VAWA in 2005 and 

expanding our ability to respond to all victims of violence against 

women, including victims of sexual assault. 

We are pleased to report that this year, for the first time, OVW 

will make awards under the new Sexual Assault Services Program 

to support essential services provided by rape crisis centers 

throughout the Nation. 

OVW has increased its efforts to respond to the serious crime of 

stalking. In January of this year, the Department released a special report which confirms what the field has long known: Stalking 

is pervasive, women are at higher risk of being stalked, and there 

is a dangerous intersection between stalking and more violent 

crimes. 

As the Nation’s understanding of domestic violence, sexual assault, and stalking has increased, so, too, has our awareness that 

these forms of violence affect all age groups and that violence within relationships often tragically begins during adolescence. 

In addition, with the reauthorization of VAWA 2005, Congress 

directed OVW to take new steps to address the critical problem of 

violence against Indian women. The Department appointed a Deputy Director for Tribal Affairs for OVW, established a Federal Advisory Committee to provide recommendations on a program of research, and instituted annual tribal consultations to learn how the 

Department can improve its response to these crimes. 

While we are rightly proud of our accomplishments, we recognize 

that there is still much to do. Looking forward, the office will focus 

on a number of areas where greater effort is needed. For example, 

over the years we have learned that law enforcement officers, prosecutors, and judges alike work with victim advocates to use their 

distinct roles to create coordinated community responses to violence 

against women. While this approach has been important to our efforts, we recognize that we cannot rely solely on the criminal justice system to end violence against women and that, to be effective, 

local responses must be informed by the voices and experiences of 

survivors, and also diverse representatives of the community. 

While VAWA has made a tremendous difference in the lives of 

many, we recognize that we have also left many women behind, 

particularly women of color. 

In the months and years to come, we will engage in efforts that 

place accountability for the safety of women and girls on the community as a whole. I am constantly inspired by the extraordinary 

commitment of the women and men who have devoted their lives 

to ending violence against women. But our lives have most been 

changed by survivors, women like Gabrielle Union and Ann Burke, 

6 

who have experienced the unthinkable and who have the courage 

to tell their stories to advocate for change. 

I was compelled to commit my life to this work over 15 years ago 

when I read the story of Kristin Lardner. Like one of my own 

daughters, Kristin was an art student with her entire life ahead of 

her. She was dating a man who became abusive. She broke up with 

him after he seriously beat her, and even then tried to help him 

get counseling. His response was to threaten and stalk her. 

Kristin successfully obtained a protection order against him, but 

he did not comply, came to her workplace, and insisted that she 

continue to see him. When she refused, he shot her in the head and 

then returned a few minutes later to shoot her twice more. He 

went back to his own apartment and committed suicide. 

The man who murdered Kristin had a three-page arrest record, 

was convicted of multiple offenses, was the subject of multiple restraining orders, and was on probation for repeatedly assaulting 

and abusing women. At the time of Kristin’s murder, he had violated the terms of his probation in another jurisdiction and should 

well have been in jail. 

I learned about Kristin because her father, George Lardner, a reporter, investigated his own daughter’s death and wrote a series of 

articles which won him the Pulitzer Prize. While this story changed 

my life, and perhaps many others, it did not bring Kristin back. 

Every day, stories about similar homicides, rape, domestic violence, 

and stalking remain in our headline. This is unacceptable. We have 

much, much more to do. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Sessions, and members of the Committee, for your commitment, your ongoing commitment to this issue and your time this morning. I would be very 

happy to answer your questions. 

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

for the record.] 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you, and thank you for mentioning 

George Lardner’s writing on that. I remember being gripped by 

that and wondering—one, it was very important he wrote it, but 

I can only imagine how difficult that must be for a parent to write 

something like that. I have three children of my own and now 

grandchildren. I can only imagine how that must tear one apart. 

We have a serious economic crisis in this country, Ms. Pierce. 

Has that affected, increased or decreased or in any way affected 

the need for the services that we have in VAWA? 

Ms. PIERCE. I think it has, but I think I would like to state sort 

of unequivocally that unemployment is one of many factors that, in 

combination, can lead to an escalation in violence. We know from 

the research that Dr. Jacqueline Campbell has done that there are 

other things that happen in combination with unemployment and 

abusers threaten to kill her or her children, a woman or her children, or to harm them: threats to commit suicide, forced sex, and, 

most importantly, the presence of a gun. So these are additional 

factors that we always need to look for and that unemployment 

alone really is not the cause. 

I think I should also state that we know that shelters help 

women avoid that kind of abuse during situations where their partner or their husband may be unemployed, but also what is helpful 

7 

is when judges know that they should issue a protection order and 

when guns should be removed from the home. 

Chairman LEAHY. We put extra money in the Recovery Act for 

VAWA. Has that money started going out yet? Is it having any effect? 

Ms. PIERCE. I am glad you asked that question. 

Chairman LEAHY. I thought you might be. 

[Laughter.] 

Ms. PIERCE. We have announced 46 formula awards to the States 

totaling more than $120 million. Those awards have been made, 

and this week 29 State coalition awards totaling more than $2.5 

million have been made. 

Also, sometime around the middle of July, we will have made 

awards through our transitional housing program. We received 567 

applications for Recovery Act transitional housing relief, and we 

will be able to really support only about 20 percent of those. So 

there is a tremendous need. 

Similarly, we received 91 applications from tribal governments 

and will only be able to fund about a third of those. 

Chairman LEAHY. You know, times change. I was mentioning to 

others earlier, when I was a prosecutor we did not have any of 

these programs, and we had to kind of make them up as we went 

along and fortunately had a lot of very dedicated people who contributed everything from housing on through. In fact, on occasion, 

my wife and I would provide that. But we have done a lot more 

than decades ago, but are there needs currently unmet for victims 

of domestic violence, sexual assault, dating violence, stalking? Are 

there things that we should be doing? Are there things that we 

could be doing at the Federal Government level? Obviously, the 

State governments have their own programs, but are things that 

we should be doing? 

Ms. PIERCE. I think we really do need to enhance our response 

to sexual assault services, and we will be looking very specifically 

at the need for enhanced sexual assault services in rural America, 

in particular. We are very concerned about custody issues in domestic violence cases, and we will be looking very closely at why 

women are losing custody of their children either to the courts or 

through the States to the child protection system. 

We are also going to be looking very closely at the problem of 

children exposed to violence, and we know that children are safer 

when their mothers are safer, and that that safety is inextricably 

linked. 

The other thing, as I alluded to in my testimony, that is of great 

concern to us is that we begin to focus our efforts on homicide prevention more so than we ever have before, and that we use research to inform our practice and we use practice to inform our research. 

Chairman LEAHY. I do not mean this as an either/or thing, by 

any means, but thank you for mentioning rural areas because, 

again, it is sometimes neglected. You also mentioned tribal issues. 

There has been a concern about the lack of communication between 

U.S. Attorney’s Offices and Indian tribes regarding declinations, 

when a U.S. Attorney decides not to bring charges. 

8 

Can anything be done about that? We do not have that situation 

in my State of Vermont, but I have talked to a number of the Western Senators of both parties who are concerned about it. Is there 

some way that we can get more timely information to tribal officials when they decline prosecutions? 

Ms. PIERCE. Well, our office is responsible for providing direct 

funding to tribal governments and to tribal coalitions. Our mission 

is to make sure that we are providing victim services to Alaska Native villages and to different tribes in Indian country. So I would 

have to say that the mission of our office is not related to the prosecution of those crimes with the U.S. Attorneys. 

Chairman LEAHY. But would you suggest that there is some way 

of getting better—do we need better communication? 

Ms. PIERCE. Well, I was about to say, I mean, there is always 

room for better communication and better coordination within the 

Department and across Federal agencies, and we are very committed to enhancing that in the future as well. 

Chairman LEAHY. I may make a few suggestions to the Attorney 

General and others to make sure that that is done. 

Senator Sessions. 

Senator SESSIONS. Well, thank you. You asked, Mr. Chairman— 

or began our discussion, I think, about what our new challenges 

are and what our studies are showing and how we can get that information out to local law enforcement. I remember our former colleague Fred Thompson used to say that the most valuable thing 

the Department of Justice can do is to do the good research that 

helps individual police departments and prosecutorial offices make 

the right decisions. 

You mentioned some of the studies that you have ongoing. Are 

you satisfied that the VAWA office and the Department of Justice 

programs are identifying in a very practical way the kind of protocols and procedures that would be most effective for a law enforcement agency of a mid-sized city, let us say, a police department, 

that they are getting the kind of guidance that helps them establish the very best protocols for success? 

Ms. PIERCE. Thank you for asking that. I think yes, the answer 

is yes. With the help of some national law enforcement organizations, we have been able to develop what I think are clear protocol 

and practices, and you should be aware that we are also going to 

be updating what we call a manual on promising practices. We will 

be looking at law enforcement. And I think the thing for us to remember is that, you know, since the VAWA was passed, we have 

a whole new generation of police officers and prosecutors who need 

to be educated on those very promising practices and protocol that 

you have mentioned. And we do not need to go back and reinvent 

the wheel. We have done some significant work in that area, and 

what we need to do is to continue to educate. 

Senator SESSIONS. Well you gave the story about Kristin, and 

that is such a powerful story. I guess my question is: Could that 

stalker have been identified earlier? Do we have any kind of identifying characteristics that say this is an abusive person, but this 

was an abusive person who could become homicidal and dangerous? 

The average prosecutor and judge and police department, do they 

9 

know what these are? And are they making the right identifications of the most dangerous people? 

Ms. PIERCE. Again, thank you for raising that. I think we do 

have those indicators. I think we have that knowledge. I mentioned 

some of what those indicators were, and in the case of Kristin 

Lardner, I think a lot of those indicators were present. She did everything right—— 

Senator SESSIONS. What are some—that is right. 

Ms. PIERCE. Well, in her case, I mean, she went to get a protection order. 

Senator SESSIONS. She sought a protective order and got it. 

Ms. PIERCE. But the problem was that, as I understand it, she 

got a protection order in Boston, and he had been arrested in other 

jurisdictions and across States lines, in New York. And so we need, 

obviously, data bases that speak to one another, and it would be 

great if every judge were able to pull up that information while on 

the bench. And that is something that we need to continue to do. 

But in lieu of that, I think that our judicial institutes that we 

support, the Leadership Institute for Chiefs of Police that we support, and the Prosecutors Resource Center that we support, are 

ways of getting that information out. We have the information, and 

we need to get it in the hands of local practitioners. 

Senator SESSIONS. I really think that is true. But just because 

you do a study and issue a report in Washington does not mean 

that a busy prosecutor or a busy judge has the opportunity to study 

it. And I do not know how we—and I assume there are some disputes about what the best protocols are on various type circumstances. But I would assume there are some areas in which 

there is virtual uniformity of agreement that under these circumstances this represents a real danger, and strong action should 

be taken. Would you agree? 

Ms. PIERCE. I entirely agree with you. And, again, I think it is 

our responsibility to reach out—— 

Senator SESSIONS. Have you thought about how to make sure 

that information is more widely spread? Do we have effective 

enough programs to get that information out? 

Ms. PIERCE. I think we do. I think we need to continually reach 

out to prosecutor coordinators and to, you know, national associations that can provide us with lists of prosecutors whom we can go 

to and say, ‘‘Please, we have this training. We are making it available with VAWA funding.’’ And, actually, I think we have been 

quite successful in doing that. But we can always do better, and 

we continue to try to enhance, as you said, those data bases of 

judges, prosecutors, and law enforcement officers in every State. 

I have to say we have created, as a result of those educational 

programs, dedicated units like in Minneapolis and St. Paul and 

other parts of the country. 

Senator SESSIONS. I think that virtually every community has 

more specialized units, Penelope Houses, protective houses for 

women and children who have been abused. 

Ms. PIERCE. Yes. 

Senator SESSIONS. I am real pleased by that, but I just would say 

continue the good research, continue to get the information out so 

it can be utilized, and we will have fewer of these cases like KrisVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:07 May 10, 2010 Jkt 056212 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\56212.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC
10 

tin. It is my personal view that a lot of individuals, unfortunately, 

are very dangerous, and the number of people who would actually 

kill somebody or stalk somebody consistently or sexually assault 

somebody is not that large in this country. If they are properly 

identified, some of them need to be detained and locked up for the 

offenses they commit, and that will perhaps prevent offenses in the 

future. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you very much, Senator Sessions. 

Senator Klobuchar. 

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

Ms. Pierce, I always thought that one of the real beauties of 

VAWA is how it tried to encourage community-based responses and 

getting groups involved. And the way I see this, I will just tell our 

own experience of how this worked. We actually got our hospital 

involved so that we had victim witness advocates accessible to people when things were discovered. They were part of the community 

response. We actually started a post-review process for cases where 

the thought was something might have gone bad, or maybe something did not go back, kind of like they do in surgery after a hospital looks at all their errors to figure out what went wrong. And 

we did it not publicly, but we got all the partners together to figure 

out what went wrong, and sometimes they were little things of, you 

know, some police department not answering a phone call or someone not checking one kind of computer system. And we were able 

to do a better job because we did those reviews. 

Do you want to talk a little bit about that coordinated community response, how you think it could be improved and how it has 

contributed to the value of VAWA? 

Ms. PIERCE. Definitely, and also let me say I did visit your office 

and saw what an extraordinary job you all were doing several 

years ago and continue to do, so I thank you for that. 

As I alluded to in my comments, I think that coordinated community responses will only be strengthened when we begin to turn 

to the communities, particularly the diverse communities, who we 

are charged with responding to. And I think that we have not done 

a good enough job of listening to the voices of survivors. 

But you alluded to something I would think has been an extraordinary and an excellent tool, which is the safety audits that were 

developed by one of our grantees. It is a tool that can be used to 

pull a coordinated community response together by looking at cases 

and figuring out where women fall through the cracks and who 

could have done a better job, without blaming or shaming or pointing the finger. To me, that has been one of the most useful tools 

that we have had. 

The other issue is, I think, for prosecutors, judges, and law enforcement officers to work with advocates in balance and to listen 

to advocates and survivors. I cannot underscore it enough. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Right. One of the things I know was always 

frustrating for some of our prosecutors and the victims was just the 

enforcement of protection orders across jurisdictional boundaries, 

and I know that you have been looking into that. Part of your testimony was about that. Could you talk about what you think we 

could do better with that? 

11 

Ms. PIERCE. Well, I think as I said earlier, if we could begin to 

develop data bases that were more reliable for prosecutors, for 

judges, for law enforcement, I think that would make an enormous 

difference. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Another thing—just thinking of my list of 

things that if my victims were here they would want to ask—was 

just the rape kits, and I believe that the Violence Against Women 

Act prohibits grantee jurisdictions from charging victims of sexual 

assault for the cost of collecting and processing their rape kit. 

There are many jurisdictions, however, where the victim still ends 

up paying the price, either because a State does not compensate 

the victims for the full cost of the kit or because victims are expected to pay the cost themselves and have States reimburse them 

after the fact. 

Should we be taking more steps up front to ensure that no one 

has to pay for the rape kit? 

Ms. PIERCE. Absolutely, unequivocally. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Well, it is a growing—— 

Chairman LEAHY. Good. I would have been upset if you had answered the other way. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. I am not making this up. 

Ms. PIERCE. No. I know. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. It happens all the time, and in our State 

there were proposals to do this. So I know that it happens all the 

time. I think people would be surprised if they knew the facts. 

Last year, it was discovered that Los Angeles County has the 

largest backlog of untested rape kits of any jurisdiction in the country, almost 13,000 untested kits as of last summer. And even if 

L.A. County is the worst offender, it is really a national problem. 

The National Institute of Justice at one point estimated that there 

were approximately 400,000 untested kits nationwide. So as we 

look at this reauthorization, is this something we should be looking 

at as well? 

Ms. PIERCE. Yes, and I think that we need to be looking at ways 

that our office can coordinate more effectively with other parts of 

the Department to make sure that this backlog gets addressed 

across the country. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. All right. Thank you very much. We appreciate your work. 

Ms. PIERCE. Thank you. 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you very much. 

Did you have a follow-up question you wanted to ask? 

Senator SESSIONS. Just one, if I could. What do you think about 

the requirement in 2005 Congress created a funding incentive to 

cause States to test rapists, the perpetrators, for HIV within 48 

hours, I believe, after arrest? Is that being effectively done? Do you 

think that is a good policy that every State should test sexual perpetrators for HIV? 

Ms. PIERCE. Well, we definitely believe that women who have 

been exposed to HIV certainly have the right to request that the 

offender be tested. But as we all know, those of us who have 

worked in the criminal justice system for years, it is not always so 

that the offender is apprehended within 48 hours or so. So what 

12 

we are focused on is being able to provide the victim with the alternative to receive counseling about prophylaxis herself. Our focus is 

on her. And what we have learned is that about 84 percent of State 

and local governments who receive funding through the grant program that you are referring to, the grants to encourage arrest program, are unable to meet that requirement. 

So what we want to do is to—— 

Senator SESSIONS. Why are they unable? 

Ms. PIERCE. It could be any number of reasons, but not the least 

of which is that the offender is not always available within that period of time. 

Senator SESSIONS. Well, that is obvious. They cannot do it if they 

are not arrested. But for those who are arrested, I do not know 

why that would not be just a standard protocol and why we would 

not support that. 

Ms. PIERCE. Well, I think it is about giving the offender—excuse 

me. It is about giving the victim an alternative. We need to have— 

yes, we need to test as we can—— 

Senator SESSIONS. What information do you have that every department should test a rapist for HIV? 

Ms. PIERCE. I do not. 

Senator SESSIONS. Okay. Well, we have got a law that says it. 

You are changing the subject on me. I just do not understand what 

the hesitation—— 

Ms. PIERCE. No, no, no. I am just saying that victims, where that 

offender is not available, we need to give the victim—— 

Senator SESSIONS. Okay. I agree. 

Ms. PIERCE. We need to put our focus on the victim and provide 

an alternative for her. 

Senator SESSIONS. Thank you. 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you. 

Senator Klobuchar, do you have any follow-up? 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. No. Thank you. 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you very much, Ms. Pierce. Thank you 

for being here, and thank you for the emphasis you put on this. 

Ms. PIERCE. Thank you very much. Thank you for all of your 

work. We appreciate it so much. 

Chairman LEAHY. We are in this one together. 

Chairman LEAHY. We will call up the next panel. 

Thank you all for being here. We are going to start with 

Gabrielle Union, an accomplished actress, made frequent appearances on television and in more than 20 films. When she is not acting, she serves as Ambassador for the Susan G. Komen for the 

Cure, an organization supporting breast cancer research. My wife 

and I have been on not the run but the fast walk for the cure. 

[Laughter.] 

Chairman LEAHY. She is an advocate for victims of sexual assault. She is a graduate of UCLA where she received a bachelor’s 

in sociology. 

Ms. Union, please go ahead. 

13 

STATEMENT OF GABRIELLE UNION, ACTOR AND ADVOCATE, 

BEVERLY HILLS, CALIFORNIA 

Ms. UNION. First, I would just like us all to join together and say 

the words ‘‘sexual assault.’’ All together now: ‘‘Sexual Assault.’’ It 

is a little crazy that sometimes if we cannot even say the words, 

we cannot effectively begin to deal with the problem. So a brief 

back story. 

At 19 years old, I got a summertime job, like a lot of us, and 

while I was at work one night, a man came into the store, robbed 

the store, and during the course of the robbery, decided to rape me. 

During the course of the rape, he very calmly put the gun down 

that he had been holding to my head and said, ‘‘Do you mind handing me the gun? ’’ And at that point I did my best Starsky and 

Hutch and I fell on my back, I popped the clip in, and I tried to 

kill him. And I missed, and we began to tussle, and he beat me beyond recognition. 

Luckily enough, I was—and I hate to say this. It really makes 

me sick to have to say that I had the privilege of being raped in 

a wealthy community. The police arrived within minutes. It is a police department that was adequately funded and staffed. They immediately took my statement. They were well trained. We immediately went to the rape crisis center, where they took my rape kit, 

and I was able to start the path from rape victim to rape survivor. 

I cannot say enough about the difference it made that I was 

raped in a wealthy community, with an adequately funded and 

staffed rape crisis center. I immediately began to get the treatment 

that I needed. Within days, my rape kit was tested and analyzed, 

and within a few days after that, my rapist was apprehended, and 

within a few months he took a plea, and I had my justice. It is 

rare. It does not happen. And I just cannot say enough about the 

need for adequately funded and staffed rape crisis centers throughout the United States. I work very closely with law enforcement, 

and what they always say is, ‘‘We do not have the time or the resources to help get a rape victim between victim and survivor. 

Rape victims, they say, make terrible witnesses. Rape survivors are 

amazing and effective to help us get rapists off the street. 

So if you kind of want to bottom-line it, having adequately funded rape crisis centers helps get rapists off the streets. I have to reiterate that rapists do not go away at the end of the day to Rape 

Land where, you know, we like to think they go. They live next 

door to us. They are raping our mothers, our sisters, our daughters, 

our grandparents. They do not magically disappear. We have to 

help law enforcement get them off the streets. We have to be advocates for the victims to help them become survivors and lead 

happy, productive lives. And it starts with adequate funding. 

To tell a brief story, I was in Africa and I was sitting at the bar, 

and there was an image of Paris Hilton and her little dog that 

came on TV. And it got the bar all, you know, riled up, and they 

started telling these jokes. And this man said, you know, ‘‘Silly 

American, you care more about your pets than you do about your 

people. They will spend tons of money to put a man away for abusing a dog, but they do not care if you beat your wife. So if you are 

ever in America, when in doubt, beat your wife and not your dog. 

You will not go to jail.’’ 

14 

And I just want to say we have to make human beings a priority. 

We have to make our women and our children a priority and keeping them safe a priority, and it starts with adequately funding 

these programs with domestic violence programs and sexual assault programs. 

It has become a sad reality that when I go to Third World countries to speak to women and give them, you know, the ‘‘just hang 

in there’’ speech, I found that I have to give the exact same speech 

to women in America. In Third World countries, we do not have an 

expectation of, you know, criminal justice. There is no justice in 

those countries. There is no chance for, you know, therapy and 

handholding. And I am finding that I have to give the same exact 

speech to girls and women in America. We are supposed to be better than that, and we are not. And we have to do better. 

Thank you. 

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

for the record.] 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you. 

Karen Tronsgard-Scott has been the Director of the Vermont 

Network Against Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault since 2007, 

and I would note that my office and I have worked with her a lot 

during that time. Before she came to Vermont, she had worked 

with various victims services groups in Ohio for 15 years. She received her bachelor’s degree from Bowling Green State University, 

her master’s degree from Ohio University. She currently lives in 

Hinesburg, Vermont, where the head of my Vermont office lives. 

The Vermont Network that she leads is a member coalition of the 

National Network to End Domestic Violence, and I would like to 

thank President Sue Else and members of the board and staff who 

worked tirelessly on behalf of everybody here and please, when you 

go back, give my thanks. And I think it would be fair to say give 

ourselves thanks, too. 

Go ahead. 

STATEMENT OF KAREN TRONSGARD-SCOTT, DIRECTOR, 

VERMONT NETWORK AGAINST DOMESTIC AND SEXUAL VIOLENCE, MONTPELIER, VERMONT 

Ms. TRONSGARD-SCOTT. Chairman Leahy, Ranking Member Sessions, and distinguished members of the Committee, thank you for 

the opportunity to discuss the success of the Violence Against 

Women Act, or VAWA, and the importance of reauthorizing it in 

2011. The Vermont Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence 

is a statewide coalition of domestic and sexual violence programs, 

and our 15 member programs are located throughout the State and 

provide lifesaving services to victims and their families. VAWAfunded programs like these are a critical part of our work in 

Vermont and across the country, and I am here today to discuss 

the success of VAWA programs and the need to sustain and 

strengthen VAWA with its upcoming reauthorization in 2011. 

The crime of domestic violence is pervasive and life-threatening. 

In total, one in four women will experience domestic violence in her 

lifetime. One in six women and one in 33 men have experienced an 

attempted or completed rape. Of course, the most heinous of these 

crimes is murder. And in 2005 alone, 1,181 women were murdered 

15 

by an intimate partner in the United States. Even in one of our 

Nation’s safest States, Vermont, there were seven domestic violence-related homicides and an additional three domestic violencerelated suicides in just 1 week in 2007. 

Additionally, the cycle of intergenerational violence is perpetuated as children witness violence. Approximately 15.5 million kids 

are exposed to domestic violence every year. 

In addition to the terrible cost domestic violence and sexual violence have on the lives of individual victims and their families, 

these crimes cost taxpayers and communities. However, in addition 

to saving and rebuilding lives, VAWA actually saved taxpayers 

$14.8 billion in net averted social costs in its first 6 years alone. 

VAWA was not only the right thing to do; it was also fiscally sound 

legislation. 

VAWA has unquestionably improved the national response to domestic and sexual violence. Since VAWA passed in 1994, States 

have passed more than 660 laws to combat domestic violence, sexual assault, and stalking. The rate of non-fatal intimate partner violence against women has decreased by 63 percent. Remarkably, 

the number of individuals killed by an intimate partner has decreased by 24 percent for women and 48 percent for men. 

My written testimony details the impact of VAWA grants, including Transitional Housing grants, Legal Assistance to Victims 

grants, grants to encourage arrest and enforce Protection orders. 

Each of these grant funds has created systems through which 

adults and children can find paths to safer, peace-filled lives. 

But in my 15 years working to end violence against women, I 

have had a firsthand view of the impact of VAWA, and I would like 

to highlight three VAWA programs. 

Through the STOP Grants program, VAWA has helped to educate an entire generation of law enforcement officers, prosecutors, 

and judges about violence against women. STOP Grants help State, 

local, and tribal governments to strengthen effective law enforcement and prosecution strategies, and to develop and strengthen 

victims services in cases involving violent crimes against women. 

And I can personally attest to the results of a study performed by 

the Urban Institute which said STOP Grants have ensured that 

victims are safer, better supported by their communities, and treated more uniformly and sensitively by first response workers. 

VAWA Rural Grants allow jurisdictions to develop and implement programs that address the specific barriers faced by victims 

in rural areas. In Vermont, our statewide Rural Grant program has 

created an innovative, specialized domestic violence unit within the 

Department for Children and Families, which now reviews 100 percent of intake child abuse and neglect cases where domestic violence may be present, ensuring that children and their non-offending parents get the supports they need. 

For the first time, in fiscal year 2008, the Sexual Assault Victims 

Service Program, or SASP, was funded and will begin to meet the 

extreme needs of victims of sexual assault. The continuation and 

expansion of these funds is critical to the creation of services and 

collaborative relationships that will result in safer communities. 

Due to the overwhelming success of VAWA-funded programs, 

more and more victims are coming forward each year. However, 

16 

this rising demand for services, without concurrent increases in 

funding, means that many desperate victims are turned away from 

life-saving services. 

Mr. Chairman, you noted that in just 1 day nearly 9,000 requests 

for services went unmet across the country due to a lack of resources. Services for sexual assault victims are even more scarce 

and underfunded: with only 1,315 rape crisis centers nationwide, 

women, children, and men are on waiting lists to receive treatment 

and therapy after a sexual assault. 

The Violence Against Women Act is working, but the job is not 

done. Although VAWA has done much to create systems that help 

victims and survivors, so much more is needed. We must strengthen VAWA so that it can work for all victims of domestic and sexual 

violence. Whether they live in rural or urban areas, whether they 

are children or elderly victims, whether they speak English or another language, every victim deserves the chance to live a peacefilled life. Congress has a unique opportunity to make a difference 

in the lives of so many by reauthorizing the Violence Against 

Women Act with key and strategic improvements. 

Thank you, Chairman Leahy, Ranking Member Sessions, and the 

distinguished members of the Committee, for all you have done and 

all you will do to help victims of domestic violence and sexual assault. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Tronsgard-Scott appears as a 

submission for the record.] 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you very much. 

Ann Burke is our next witness, and I think, Senator Whitehouse, 

you wanted to say something about Ms. Burke. Of course, having 

been married to a registered nurse for 47 years, I am delighted to 

have you here, although I am sorry for the reason you are here. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just want to 

welcome Ms. Burke here as a fellow Rhode Islander. Rhode Island 

is a small State, and I do not think there is a person in the State 

who was not aware of the tragedy that befell her family and the 

terrible way in which her life changed when Lindsay was murdered 

by an ex-boyfriend at the age of 23. 

We have also been very inspired by the way that Ann, as a 

teacher and a nurse, has taken what for many would be a disabling 

calamity in their life and turned it for as much good as one could 

possibly imagine that could be achieved out of such a tragedy. She 

has fought for, along with her husband, Chris, and obtained passage through the Rhode Island Legislature of the Lindsay Ann 

Burke Act, which requires programs in high school to support 

awareness of teen dating violence and support in the schools for 

those programs. She started the Lindsay Ann Burke Memorial 

Fund to provide support for those efforts, and she has co-founded 

a group called MADE, Moms and Dads for Education, to stop teen 

dating abuse, which is a parent support network for parents across 

the country to support healthy teen dating relationships and cope 

with the tragedies that still take place. 

So she is somebody Rhode Island is very proud of. We have 

shared with her as much as the public can such a deeply private 

tragedy, and we have seen what wonderful success she has drawn 

17 

from that tragedy. So she is an inspiration to many of us, and I 

welcome her here today. 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you. 

Ms. Burke, please go ahead. 

STATEMENT OF ANN BURKE, RN, M.ED., PRESIDENT AND 

FOUNDER, LINDSAY ANN BURKE MEMORIAL FUND, 

SAUNDERSTOWN, RHODE ISLAND 

Ms. BURKE. Chairman Leahy, Ranking Member Sessions, and 

distinguished members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today on the importance of creating awareness on 

the issue of dating abuse and prevention education efforts. I appreciate the opportunity to share my daughter Lindsay’s story and the 

positive legacy that has come from her loss. 

My husband, Chris, is here today and, as Senator Whitehouse 

mentioned, we are members of MADE, Moms and Dads for Education to stop dating abuse, a group that we co-founded along with 

Liz Claiborne. We advocate nationally that all middle and high 

schools teach a dating violence curriculum. 

Today, I would like to tell you about my lovely daughter, Lindsay. She could easily be described as ‘‘the girl next door.’’ She grew 

up on a small street in the suburbs, knowing the neighbors, playing with all the children in the neighborhood. She had plenty of 

friends, took dance lessons, piano lessons, played soccer, tennis, 

and graduated from St. Mary’s Academy and Rhode Island College 

with a degree in elementary and secondary education. Her many 

friends would often describe her as having a sweet and compassionate nature. 

My daughter met her killer by chance at a wedding. In this 2- 

year relationship, her father and I noticed things in Lindsay that 

did not seem quite right, including a change in her personality, but 

we did not know the cause at first. As the police would later describe, it was a classic case of abuse and that every form of abuse— 

verbal, emotional, sexual, and physical—was used. 

Let’s not overlook the strong correlation between stalking and intimate-partner violence—intimate-partner murder, excuse me. 

Until after Lindsay’s death, I did not know that 76 percent of 

women murdered by an intimate partner had been stalked by that 

intimate partner, but only about half of stalking victims recognized 

the crime for what it was. Lindsay was no exception. After Lindsay 

left the boyfriend for the third time and was living with my son 

and his wife, she got calls constantly from him, according to cell 

phone records, more than 20 hours a week worth of calls. She was 

fearful and anxious. Earlier, he had threatened to kill her. 

She had the support of friends and family. Yet, after leaving him 

and trying to start a new life, Lindsay’s life ended almost 4 years 

ago, when she was only 23 years old. The police statements and autopsy showed that she was brutally tortured and murdered by her 

ex-boyfriend. As Rhode Island Attorney General Patrick C. Lynch 

said after the sentencing, ‘‘I am hopeful that Lindsay’s death will 

provide lessons for our teenagers that will prevent others from 

being victimized by dating violence.’’ 

After Lindsay’s murder, I spent many painful months researching this topic. Given the alarming statistics for dating violence, I 

18 

began to wonder: Why don’t we require educators to teach our children about the importance of healthy relationships and prevention 

of dating and domestic violence? 

Over and over I asked myself, ‘‘If Lindsay was properly educated 

about this major health issue in health class, would she still be 

alive today? ’’ I believe she would. I never learned about it while 

pursuing my degrees in nursing, secondary education, or my graduate degree in health education. As a result, in my 24 years of 

being a school nurse and health teacher in a middle school, I never 

addressed it with my students. I have since learned that my lack 

of education on this topic is more the norm in our country rather 

than the exception. As a teacher, I realized we have school policies 

for bullying and sexual harassment, and we teach our students and 

our staff about these issues. I strongly believed that the same needed to be done for dating violence. 

I believe that if my daughter was taught about dating violence 

from middle through high school and if we as parents knew all the 

facts as well and reinforced this information at home, she would 

still be with us. Having known Lindsay, a confident and assertive 

young lady who always spoke her mind, who did not hesitate to 

change friends in high school when some of them started drinking 

alcohol, who did not hesitate to seek help from her guidance counselor when needed, and from the school principal when she thought 

something unfair was occurring, wouldn’t she have been more careful about a safety plan and seeking proper help if she had heard 

about all of this before and had some frame of reference in her 

mind from prior learning? Knowing my daughter, I believe she 

would have been. And now we will never know for sure. 

How many more daughters have to lose their lives at the hands 

of an abusive partner? How many more teens have to suffer in an 

abusive relationship, fearing for their lives, and yet afraid to tell 

anyone? The teen dating violence statistics are alarming. Teen dating violence is a major health problem that leads to other health 

problems: substance abuse, eating disorders, depression, suicide. 

Recent research has found a strong connection between violence 

among young people and poor reproductive health outcomes. A 

study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association found that one in three U.S. high school girls who has been 

abused by a boyfriend has become pregnant. By reducing dating violence, we can reduce unintended teen pregnancies. The psychological effects on its victims are also devastating—devastation I 

know all too well. Dating violence, the same as domestic violence, 

destroys and kills people. How can we ignore this major health 

problem any longer? 

In 2006, my family founded the Lindsay Ann Burke Memorial 

Fund to address dating violence primarily through education. 

Through our workshops, we have trained 224 health teachers from 

89 schools in Rhode Island. We have donated over $40,000 worth 

of curriculum to these schools, and through our workshops for general school staff we have trained well over 1,000 teachers so far. 

More recently, Rhode Island legislators showed foresight and 

took a stand by passing the Lindsay Ann Burke Act with the support of Attorney General Patrick Lynch. Rhode Island now mandates annual dating violence education for students in grades 7 

19 

through 12 through our comprehensive health education curriculum, training in this topic for school staff in middle and high 

schools, a school district policy to address episodes of dating violence at school and at school events, and the law strongly recommends parent training. 

Episodes of dating violence at school in Rhode Island will no 

longer be ignored. Teens, school staff, and parents will now get the 

education on this topic that they rightfully deserve. An interesting 

thing happens when you educate all three groups—teens, school 

staff, and parents—at the same time. Everyone begins to talk openly about this topic, removing the shame and stigma that now exists. This helps teen victims to come forward and seek help; it gives 

teens the knowledge and skills to help each other; and it helps parents to reinforce this information at home with their teens and 

watch for signs of unhealthy relationships. And abusers, once educated, may think twice about their own behavior and seek ways to 

change. 

Since passage of the Lindsay Ann Burke Act in Rhode Island, we 

have gotten support from both the National Association of Attorneys General and the National Foundation for Women Legislators. 

They have partnered with us in our effort to support Lindsay’s law 

and to pass dating violence education in all States. As a result of 

their efforts, several States have passed laws, with bills pending in 

other States. However, I want to point out that some have been 

watered down due to lack of funding for implementation. 

Funding and leadership from the Federal level is needed for comprehensive dating violence education for all teens. The last VAWA 

bill created the STEP program—Supporting Teens through Education and Protection Act—that would support training in schools, 

but it has never received funding. This funding is exactly what 

States and school districts need to implement dating violence education laws. 

And this is more critical in light of a survey released this morning by the Family Violence Prevention Fund and Liz Claiborne that 

says American teens are experiencing alarmingly high levels of 

abuse in their dating relationships. At the same time, the survey 

found parents are out of touch with the level of teen dating violence and abuse among their teens. The large majority of abused 

teens are not informing parents, and even when they do, most stay 

in abusive relationships. This highlights the need to start funding 

for STEP. To do anything less is selling our children short. We 

should not delay. 

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

for the record.] 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you very much. 

Our next witness is Collene Campbell. She is the current National Chair of Force 100 and a sitting member of the National Institute of Corrections Advisory Board. She formerly served as 

mayor of the city of San Juan Capistrano, California. She has endured tragedy several times in her life: the murder of her son, the 

murder of her brother. Her experiences have made her a leading, 

widely respect victims rights advocate nationwide. 

Ms. Campbell, thank you. I know this is not an easy thing, but 

I appreciate your being here. 

20 

STATEMENT OF COLLENE CAMPBELL, NATIONAL CHAIR, 

FORCE 100, SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO, CALIFORNIA 

Ms. CAMPBELL. Thank you. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman 

and Senators. Thank you for the opportunity to allow me to address you today. You are right. It is not easy, but it is worth it if 

it helps. 

The Violence Against Women Act has been a very important addition to help strengthen our Nation’s ability to assist women who 

are victims of terrible sexual acts and physical violence. However, 

that Act standing alone does not provide enough necessary means 

to address the crimes and their victims. Facing reality, our criminal justice system lacks due process and basic common sense. We 

certainly acknowledge resources alone are not sufficient to bring 

true justice, but they help? 

There are huge issues in our justice system that have and will 

continue to affect hundreds and thousands of families just like 

mine. The sad truth is my family members and many others would 

be alive today if our justice system worked like it was intended to, 

like we planned for it to, like it should. But, instead, sadly, in our 

home our only son, brother, and sister-in-law are all dead, all murdered. 

Chairman LEAHY. Take your time. 

Ms. CAMPBELL. To adequately judge its importance for our Nation’s decisionmakers—this makes me so mad because I am such 

a told old broad, and it makes me so mad because when I want to 

be really tough, I am not. And I know my husband is watching, 

and that really ticks me off. 

[Laughter.] 

Chairman LEAHY. Ms. Campbell, let me tell you, you are being 

as effective a witness as I have seen in 35 years. Don’t let it bother 

you a bit. 

Ms. CAMPBELL. God bless you. Thank you, sir. 

But to adequately judge what is going on, it is important for you, 

our national decisionmakers, to try and personally identify with the 

tragedy of the crime and the truth and reality of what victims are 

forced to endure. It really stinks. 

You have taken on the huge responsibility of the most important 

job in our Nation: the safety of our citizens. And it is critical to the 

American people that you fully understand the truth and what is 

going on. 

We must have predictable sentencing and keep dangerous criminals behind bars. It is critical to have rapid access to DNA to save 

lives and save precious time for law enforcement and our crowded 

courts. It is also important to have victims present and heard at 

all proceedings. They know too much to keep them out of the courtroom. 

I realize that it is more than important, and it is impossible in 

just a few moments to bring to you the real world of being a victim 

of crime. It is not a great thing, and by gosh, we have got to stop 

it. 

For a quarter of a century without a break, my family has been 

through living hell. The hell was furnished firsthand by the killers, 

the criminals who should have remained in prison. Then more hell 

was distributed by the justice system. If our justice system had 

21 

worked properly, along with many others, my murdered family 

would be alive today. 

In 1982, our only son, Scott, just disappeared from the face of the 

Earth. We frantically looked for him for 11 months. Two parolees 

had stolen his expensive sports car and decided if both the car and 

our son were missing, they would never get caught. The killers’ 

statement to the undercover agent was, ‘‘We took him for an airplane ride, strangled him, and threw him into the Pacific Ocean 

where the sharks would eat him and he wouldn’t be found.’’ 

Senators, what if the killers had been given three indeterminant 

life sentences and was released in only 4 years? The other killer 

was out on work furlough after killing somebody else. 

You see, both of these criminals had been given another chance. 

They were given their chance. But, Senators, we never have another chance to see our son. But we are still going through the 8 

years of our son’s murderers’ trial where we were excluded from 

the courtroom. 

My only sibling, auto racing legend Mickey Thompson, and his 

wife, Trudy, were also murdered. It took another 19 years to get 

those killers convicted. 

From the very beginning, I was certain who had killed Mickey 

and Trudy, and naturally, there were attempts on my life so they 

would not be brought to justice. However, let me tell you, Senators. 

I am the proud daughter of a wonderful man who was captain and 

chief of detectives in the Alhambra, California, Police Department. 

And at a young age, he taught my brother and me how to have 

courage and always do the right thing. And I am a hell of a good 

shot, by the way. Not too many victims have self-defense training 

and are able to survive a quarter of a century of murderers wanting to take them out because they are trying to bring justice. 

I respectfully ask you to please place yourself in the decision that 

many of us have been forced to endure, and only then will you understand the best steps to take to provide for better safety for our 

citizens. And I thank you for allowing me to sit up here and slobber 

all over myself. And I guess it is because I flew most of the night 

and I am really tired, but I wanted to be here because I never want 

other people to have to endure what some of us have gone through. 

Thank you, Senators. 

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

Chairman LEAHY. Ms. Campbell, I am glad you took that flight. 

I am sorry for what you endured before that. You have four former 

prosecutors sitting on this panel here. 

Ms. CAMPBELL. I know that. Bless you. 

Chairman LEAHY. Senator Sessions, myself, Senator Klobuchar, 

and Senator Whitehouse. The things you have described should 

never happen to any victim. The crimes should not have happened 

in the first place. The delays and everything else after that never 

should have happened. We are trying in every way possible to get 

the resources, the training, the steps Ms. Burke has in her own— 

with the law in Rhode Island. I mean, these are—well, I think of 

the murder cases that I prosecuted, and 75 to 80 percent of them, 

had steps been taken earlier, they would have been avoided. There 

is nothing more tragic than being at a murder scene at 3 o’clock 

22 

in the morning, blue lights flashing, people sobbing, and to have 

the ‘‘if only’’ or the ‘‘what if’’ or the other things. So thank you for 

what you said. You put a human face on what so many of us have 

seen in the past. Thank you. 

Ms. CAMPBELL. Thank you. 

Chairman LEAHY. Sally Wells is the Chief Assistant to the Maricopa County Attorney in Phoenix. She helps to oversee an office of 

more than 350 attorneys, more than 900 support staff, and supervises the operation of the civil and prosecution divisions within the 

office. She has been an attorney in Maricopa County for 23 years. 

She received her bachelor’s degree from the University of Virginia 

and her law degree from Arizona State University. 

Ms. Wells, please go ahead. 

STATEMENT OF SALLY WOLFGANG WELLS, CHIEF ASSISTANT, 

OFFICE OF THE MARICOPA COUNTY ATTORNEY, PHOENIX, 

ARIZONA 

Ms. WELLS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee. Thank you very much for allowing me the opportunity to 

present the views of the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office concerning the continued importance of the Violence Against Women 

Act and more specifically, about the value of mandatory minimum 

sentencing for sexual assault and sexual abuse as well as prompt 

DNA and HIV testing in cases of sexual assault and sexual abuse. 

The Maricopa County Attorney’s Office is located in Phoenix, Arizona, and as you said, it employs more than 350 lawyers, prosecutors who prosecute more than 40,000 felonies a year. As a 23-year 

veteran of the office and as Chief Assistant, I have prosecuted domestic violence cases, sexual abuse cases, and I currently oversee 

the specialized bureaus that focus on prosecuting those crimes. 

Sexual violence causes lasting trauma to victims beyond physical 

injury. In many cases, these crimes go unreported due to the fear 

and trauma associated with sexual violence—fear of retaliation 

from the offender and fear of public scrutiny. In our experience, it 

is not uncommon for a sexual offender who is finally caught to 

admit to other sexual assaults that were never reported. In a 2004 

statewide study in Arizona, it was estimated that only 16 percent 

of all sexual assaults ever came to the attention of law enforcement. 

With respect to the fear of public scrutiny, the value of education 

cannot be underestimated. The dissemination of accurate information about sexual offenders and their victims is essential to change 

public attitudes about these crimes so that victims do not suffer 

embarrassment or humiliation when they report sexual abuse. One 

message that should be clear in any statutory scheme and that 

should be part of any educational effort is that sexual violence is 

one of the most serious of crimes. The punishment associated with 

sexual violence should be commensurate with the damage that it 

inflicts. A mandatory minimum sentence of incarceration does send 

that message. 

With respect to the fear of retaliation, victims suffering the physical and emotional trauma of sexual abuse and assault need to 

know they are safe from the person who hurt them. They need a 

time to heal. For at least some period of time, victims need to know 

23 

that the offender cannot return to inflict more pain or punish them 

for reporting the crime to authorities. A mandatory minimum sentence of incarceration sends that message. 

Arizona’s statutory scheme does send that message. Sexual assault is a class 2 felony, the second highest class felony. A person 

who is convicted of sexual assault in Arizona is not eligible for probation. A person convicted of sexual assault is exposed to a presumptive sentence of 7 years in prison. If mitigating factors exist, 

the sentence may be reduced to a minimum of 5.25 years in prison. 

And if aggravating factors are found, the sentence may be increased to 14 years in prison. In every case, a victim may expect 

the offender to be in prison for at least 5 years, and that 5-year 

window of safety not only encourages reporting and participation in 

court proceedings, it also gives the victim time to heal without fear 

of retaliation. 

In 2005, Arizona moved away from classifying sexual assault of 

a spouse as a lesser crime than sexual assault. As part of that debate, I was asked by the legislature to provide some information 

about the effect such a change might have on reporting. Some of 

our legislators were concerned that the higher penalties associated 

with sexual assault might discourage reporting. In looking at the 

past reported cases, the crime of sexual assault of a spouse was 

often accompanied by more serious offenses, like kidnaping, which 

is a class 2 felony, or aggravated assault, a class 3 felony. The belief that a lower penalty would encourage reporting for sexual assault of a spouse—or, if you want, that a higher penalty would discourage reporting—was not supported by the evidence. 

Another important component in dealing with the crimes of sexual assault and sexual abuse is biological testing. Along with the 

need to know that they are safe from any diseases that offenders 

may have transmitted to them, they need the assurance that they 

are safe from those diseases. There are several arguments for early 

biological testing of suspects. And although I am not a medical expert, prosecutors generally accept that if a victim reports significant exposure during a sexual assault within 72 hours of the assault, doctors can prescribe a 28-day regimen that will help the victim and help prevent the contraction of HIV. The sooner this regimen is begun, the more effective it is. 

The medication to prevent HIV infection is expensive, and it may 

cause serious side effects. Victims who do not know whether the 

attacker had HIV are forced to choose between the risk of HIV infection and the risk of side effects associated with the prophylactic 

treatment. Those side effects could include liver enlargement or 

bone marrow suppression. Information from prompt offender testing would alleviate the uncertainty in making that choice. Information that the offender did not have HIV would allow the victim to 

feel safe and begin to heal. 

In addition to biological testing to ensure the safety of the victim, 

another kind of testing plays a vital role in the investigation and 

prosecution of these crimes. DNA testing of the suspects ensures 

that suspects are identified as early as possible. As I mentioned before, many sexual assaults by the same suspect go unreported. Others are reported but the suspects are unknown. Sexual offenses are 

often repetitive crimes. The ability to link these crimes to specific 

24 

individuals early and to specific geographic areas helps law enforcement to put an end to serial offenses sooner. 

Sexual offenders are often linked to other types of crimes like 

burglary, criminal trespass, or other types of felonies. DNA evidence is important to create an accurate criminal history for suspects. It also eliminates suspects so that law enforcement resources 

are not wasted. 

DNA sampling and testing also brings relief to victims who have 

lived for years—— 

Chairman LEAHY. Ms. Wells, I am sorry to interrupt. We will put 

the rest of your statement in the record. There is going to be a roll 

call vote very soon, and I am trying to make sure that we all have 

a chance for questions. 

Incidentally, when you were talking about the HIV testing, you 

probably noticed Senator Sessions and I whispering to each other. 

This is something we both strongly believe in, not only for being 

able to go on the regimen of medication that you talked about, but 

to be able to avoid it if it is unnecessary and for the peace of mind. 

Lord knows there is enough things that are going through a victim’s mind to begin with, but that is one that might be eliminated. 

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

for the record.] 

Chairman LEAHY. Ms. Union, your story—and I am sure it is 

painful to tell, but if you could talk about the effect, and it should 

be heard. Go into a little bit more about what you said in your 

statement that fortunately you were in a community that could afford to do the right things. How important is that, not just the 

things that might help catch the perpetrator, but I think you are 

referring also to the counseling that goes along with that? Do you 

want to elaborate on that a little bit, please? 

Ms. UNION. Definitely. The main difference in a wealthy community like the one I was raped in is that the system kicks in immediately. The rape crisis center is well staffed, so that means whether it was me or someone who speaks Spanish or Tagalog or Cantonese or Mandarin, there would have been someone there who 

could have translated, which is different if you are in an ethnic enclave community where that rape crisis center might not have a 

translator. Rural communities also suffer from the same sort of 

thing, crimes that happen on Native American reservations, urban 

communities, they do not have the same access to translators, to 

therapists, to counselors. A lot of States do not even offer free HIV 

and STD testing. That was covered. 

As much as I would love to test all the suspects, I am a little 

bit more concerned about the victims. So I would rather prioritize 

that money to offer free testing for HIV and STDs for victims immediately. That is what happened to me, but I was also raped in 

a very wealthy community that could afford to do that. 

It is those kinds of differences that took me from rape victim to 

rape survivor, and I was able to be an active participant in the 

criminal justice system that allowed me to help apprehend the suspect in a timely fashion. It was not within 48 hours, so that would 

not have really helped in my case, but in a timely fashion, it 

helped, you know, get him off the streets. And without the funding 

for rape crisis centers in all communities, you sort of create a parVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:07 May 10, 2010 Jkt 056212 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\56212.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC
25 

allel universe of justice where only, you know, a few, specifically 

who are raped in wealthier communities, are going to get the justice and the treatment. 

So it is great to have somebody behind bars, but if you cannot 

get on your path of recovery and reclaiming your dignity and your 

integrity and getting your mental health issues in check, you have 

been left as a shell of a person. And it is very important to have 

those rape crisis centers, you know, well staffed and well funded 

and properly trained. 

Chairman LEAHY. Let me follow up on that with Ms. TronsgardScott. I live in a town of 1,500 people. It is rural enough, I live on 

a dirt road, and my nearest neighbor is half a mile away. Not unusual in parts of Vermont, not unusual in parts of California. Rural 

California can make rural Vermont look like an urban area. What 

about in those areas? If something happens in a very small town 

in Vermont or a very small town in California, what is available? 

I would assume not what Ms. Union had available to her. 

Ms. TRONSGARD-SCOTT. Well, I would think that is a very accurate description of rural Vermont and probably rural areas 

throughout the country, Chairman Leahy. You know, the reality of 

being a victim of domestic violence or sexual assault in a rural area 

is that help is sometimes miles and miles away. There are certainly 

barriers to finding transportation. Also, in Vermont, our rural communities are small communities, and one of the things we love 

about living in a small community is it is very tightly knit. People 

know each other. They are often related to each other. But this also 

can create a situation where victims feel that they cannot come forward because of the relationships that they have with the people 

living around them. 

I have talked to many victims who have been living in rural communities in both Vermont and in Ohio, where the law enforcement 

person in their town was actually the brother of their perpetrator. 

And so there are real problems for victims living in rural communities because of the nature of the towns and outlying areas where 

they live. 

The other factor, you know, is that in domestic violence in particular, victims are often isolated by their perpetrators in many 

ways. They are isolated socially from their families and their 

friends. They are isolated economically from jobs and access to family assets. But in rural areas, they are isolated geographically. 

They may live in very, very rural circumstances. I have certainly 

had the experience of visiting victims of domestic violence and having driven through creeks to get to the place where I was meeting 

them. 

So rural conditions are incredibly difficult for victims and offer— 

the challenges are huge. 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you. My time is up, but I want to say, 

Ms. Burke, the Lindsay Ann Burke Act, I agree with Senator 

Whitehouse, is a great achievement, the education that is necessary. 

Ms. BURKE. Thank you, Senator. I appreciate that. 

Chairman LEAHY. It would have been very easy for you and your 

husband to just say that is it, we have had a tragedy, we are shutting off the rest of the world. But, instead, you are helping people. 

26 

And, Ms. Campbell, you were married in 1951. I was married in 

1962. It does not seem that long ago anymore. But I also want to 

applaud the bravery of both you and your husband. Again, these 

are all things where it would be so easy to just run away and not 

refer to it anymore. Instead, you have been very helpful to this 

Committee, and that is extremely important. 

Ms. CAMPBELL. Senator, I appreciate your thoughtfulness and 

your kindness. It means a lot. You are very special. You always 

have been. 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you very much. And, Ms. Wells, thank 

you for being here. I am going to turn over the questioning to Senator Sessions, and I am going to turn the gavel over to Senator Klobuchar. 

Senator SESSIONS. Ms. Wells, Ms. Campbell described individuals, murderers, who had previous records that she rightly believes 

should have been in jail and not able to commit these kind of 

crimes again. Let us pursue that a little bit. You are a professional, 

and you have been at this a long time. And I have come to believe 

that mathematics is a factor in all of this, that there are just not 

that many people that sexually assault women. And there are a 

certain numbers of those that are repeat offenders who are exceedingly dangerous. 

Just from a purely public safety point of view, is it important we 

identify those persons early, and that they be incarcerated in order 

to protect the people of this country from this kind of violence? 

Ms. WELLS. Well, Senator, you said it as well as I could say it. 

Yes, that is critical. And there are a lot of studies already that are 

helping us to identify those persons. And as soon as we can identify 

them, then our goal should be to incarcerate them for as long as 

possible, because—— 

Senator SESSIONS. Now, you represent a very sophisticated department. You have been at this a long time. You personally try 

these kind of cases. So I know you are really an expert in it. Do 

you think that there are other department of district attorney offices, young prosecutors, or maybe young police officers, who deal 

with one of these cases and are not aware sufficiently to identify 

a person who may be a highly dangerous offender that needs to be 

given as long a sentence as appropriate under the law? Do you 

think we are missing some people and that is causing additional 

crimes that could have been avoided? 

Ms. WELLS. I do, and I agree with one of my colleagues who said 

there is a new generation of police officers and prosecutors coming 

who have not had the education that I have, and it is important 

to keep the continuity of that education and to keep doing the studies that help us identify those offenders. And, of course, I believe 

that DNA testing is one of the tools we have to identify people 

early. 

Senator SESSIONS. Tell me about the DNA. In a sexual assault 

case, how important is it that DNA be determined and maintained 

for potential future use? How does that work to solve crimes and 

prevent crimes? 

Ms. WELLS. Well, anyone who watched television knows DNA is 

a very useful tool in identifying suspects, and it can be preserved 

for a long time. Arizona recently passed legislation that requires 

27 

DNA evidence to be held for at least 35 years, and that legislation 

was introduced by victim groups because, as we heard today, many 

sexual assaults are not reported or they are reported much later 

than they occurred, and the offenders may not be identified for 

many, many years. But the closure, the ability to find out who the 

culprit was, who the offender was, and to find out maybe that they 

are in prison somewhere else because they have been doing this 

over the course of their offender career, if you want to call it that, 

is very important to victims. 

Senator SESSIONS. Ms. Union, the person that assaulted you sexually assaulted a person later that same day. Is that correct? 

Ms. UNION. No; a couple days later. 

Senator SESSIONS. A couple of days later. So if you did not identify that person, the DNA that was obtained immediately, the investigators would know it is the same rapist. Is that correct? 

Ms. UNION. That is correct. 

Senator SESSIONS. And if they had had a previous arrest for rape 

and you had that on record, you would know exactly who that person was. 

Ms. UNION. That is correct. And as we heard today as well, it is 

important to have data bases so that law enforcement agencies in 

different jurisdictions can identify a single offender who—— 

Senator SESSIONS. What is your opinion, Ms. Wells, on what 

other departments are doing with regard to maintaining DNA 

around the country? Do you have any idea how well other departments are maintaining DNA in these types of sexual assault cases? 

Ms. WELLS. I do think more and more States are passing legislation to make sure DNA is collected early, that it is collected from 

a broader range of suspects, not just suspects who commit sexual 

crimes. There are a number of crimes that seem to be precursors 

or associated with sexual crimes, like burglary, petty theft, other 

kinds of felonies like that. Many States are expanding their DNA 

testing to those offenders as well so that, like I said, if we can identify them early and stop even one sexual assault, it is worth it. 

Senator SESSIONS. I could not agree more. Ms. Campbell, thank 

you for your testimony. Ms. Burke, thank you for your work. I wish 

we had more time to talk about it, but I think you are touching 

on an extremely important societal problem that we face, and I am 

glad that you are showing that leadership. And all of you, thank 

you for speaking up and being effective on these issues. 

We have had—Ms. Campbell, you were part of the movement of 

victims rights, and it has really changed the law enforcement 

mechanism. I think that is one reason murders are down substantially from what they were in the 1980’s when you lost your family 

members. And I do warn, however, that I sense about a movement 

that is beginning to go soft on the lessons we learned, and it simply 

is this: Certain people are dangerous. The fact they attacked one 

person is very indicative that they may attack another one. And we 

do have to maintain tough sentences. I wish it were not so, but we 

have to for certain dangerous offenders. 

Thank you, Madam Chairman, and it is a pleasure to work with 

you. 

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

28 

Senator SESSIONS. I have also enjoyed your great leadership on 

our delegation to Canada with the United States-Canadian interparliamentary. It was a fabulous group, and you did a great job as 

our leader. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Thank you. You did pretty well singing 

with the fiddler, Senator Sessions. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator SESSIONS. I will not reveal more. There were a lot of negotiations with Canada. 

Senator Whitehouse. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thank you, Chairman. 

Ms. Burke, you have done such good work in this area. As we 

look to Rhode Island as a potential national model here, what further feedback would you give us on what elements of the Lindsay 

Ann Burke programs have been best received, have been most effective? What are the lessons learned from what you have done 

that you think Congress should focus on? 

Ms. BURKE. I think the lessons learned have been the need for 

funding. The implementation of the law is working in Rhode Island 

mostly because our organization and the Rhode Island Coalition 

Against Domestic Violence, from even before we had the law 

passed, stepped up to the plate and said that we would be willing 

to provide free training for school staff so that there was no funding attached to the bill when it was passed in Rhode Island. 

However, the drawback in other States is that what we are finding is that many States have good intentions, but they are very 

concerned, especially in these hard economic times, about the cost 

of training school personnel. In fact, I have gotten calls even this 

week from the State of Ohio, from New Mexico, asking, you know, 

how we implemented Lindsay’s law, what were the specifics, and 

what was the cost involved. 

I think for it to be successfully implemented in other States, we 

have to have funding. There is no way of getting around that. I 

also believe very strongly as an educator that we need to pass 

Lindsay’s law maintaining all the components of the law. It would 

be a very severe drawback to educate the students and not have 

the staff educated at the same time. Also, I think that we would 

not want to leave our parents out of that equation either. I think 

that you need to educate all three at the same time. 

I do not think it takes a great deal of funding, not as much as 

perhaps most people would imagine, because once your staff is educated and your health teachers or whatever teachers are designated in other States—not all States require health education, 

but what other teachers are designated in other States to be the 

primary teachers of the students, once you have that training done, 

it only has to be done sporadically for new hires. And that even can 

be incorporated at the college level, in their college education program for student teachers. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. But you at least want enough funding for 

the program to be persistent year to year. 

Ms. BURKE. Persistent, correct. I think initially you will probably 

need a substantial amount of funding, and after that in time, that 

number should drop down so that it could just be maintained. 

29 

I have seen firsthand the success. Two of my own former students have come back to me at different times, one who went on 

to a private high school and one who went on to our public high 

school, and after learning about it at the middle school, they did 

find themselves in those types of situations, due to the nature of 

an abusive relationship, they were not aware at the beginning. In 

one case, the student themselves after a while recognized the warning signs and was able to get herself out. In the other case, it was 

the friends who also had the educational piece in eighth grade who 

recognized the signs, and they worked with their friend to get them 

out. 

I know the education works. There is no doubt in my mind, and 

I think that all students have a right to that education. I think to 

deprive them of that education is simply wrong. We can save lives. 

I was talking to Catherine Pierce last evening. I think it is even 

going to be difficult to measure how many lives we are saving. 

Many people will not come forward and tell us. Long after they 

graduate—they are learning—when we teach this education, we 

are teaching them life skills. It is no different than anything else 

that we teach in health class. We teach them about heart disease 

prevention. The chances of them becoming involved in an abusive 

relationship in high school are far greater than them developing 

heart disease in high school. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Well, thank you for what you have done. 

I recall in 1999, I think it was, when I was Attorney General, my 

Juvenile Justice Task Force did a film in high school and distributed it to all the high schools and all the police departments, but 

that program did not meet the test of persistence, so I will take 

that lesson from you today. 

Ms. BURKE. In fact, I was talking to Reley, and I was trying to 

find that tape to see if we could duplicate it and hand it out to all 

of our schools again. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. One very quick question in my last seconds for Ms. Wells. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. You can take your time, Senator Whitehouse. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thank you, Chairman. 

When it comes to testing suspected perpetrators of sexual assault 

and obtaining DNA samples, what level of suspicion do you recommend be reached before the testing can take place? Do you require full probable cause or more of sort of a clearly articulable 

suspicion, a Terry stop standard? At what point would it be appropriate to require DNA testing in the spectrum of suspicion from we 

have no idea, round up the usual suspects, to we have a victim who 

has identified who their perpetrator was and we know who it is? 

There is a wide band of suspicion. At what point should this kick 

in? 

Ms. WELLS. In our State—and I agree with this—the standard is 

probable cause, and that is the same standard that police use when 

they make an arrest. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. An arrest. 

Ms. WELLS. And we also have a statute that allows DNA testing 

for certain crimes, not every crime, upon arrest or charging by a 

prosecutor, and—— 

30 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. So, again, a probable cause standard. 

Ms. WELLS. Yes, there is at least probable cause that the offender did commit the offense. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. And that is adequate for your purposes? 

Ms. WELLS. I believe that is a fair balance. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Very good. Thank you, Chairman. Thank 

you. This is a wonderful panel of witnesses, I have to say. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. All right. Thank you. 

I just wanted to also give my thanks for the courage, to you, Ms. 

Union, and just the way you told that story. It is so clear you are 

now a survivor in how you told it. And to you, Ms. Burke, for the 

great work you are doing. And, Ms. Campbell, I know your husband was proud of you when he watched you. You know, you just 

showed him. I would not worry about that at all. 

Ms. CAMPBELL. Thank you. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Anyway, thank you for your work. 

I wanted to follow up on a few things that some of the other Senators asked. First, to Ms. Wells, my colleague Senator Sessions was 

asking about DNA, which is, you know, so incredibly important 

right now. One of the things that I have found recently in the last 

10 years—we call it the ‘‘CSI effect′′—is that juries are actually expecting to have DNA. And sometimes you may have a sexual assault that does not have DNA, or you may have a domestic abuse 

case that most likely may not have DNA. And we actually lost a 

case or two, some smaller cases, because the jurors actually said 

later, ‘‘Well, why wasn’t there DNA? ’’ They agreed with the defense 

lawyer on this, and so that is when we got the right to rebuttal, 

actually, and our State was the last one, where the prosecutors had 

the last word, and we got that changed. 

But do you want to comment on that, just evidentiary changes 

that have allowed—I know one of the big issues a few years back 

was allowing us to go forward with domestic abuse cases when the 

victim would not even testify because we had other evidence from 

the scene. And just what you have seen in the development of either laws or evidentiary techniques, technologies to help with those 

cases where you do not have DNA. 

Ms. WELLS. You are absolutely correct. Juries expect some 

kind of forensic evidence, and especially DNA, in cases of sexual 

assault. In fact, that is probably the crime where the CSI effect is 

really—— 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Just to define this, the CSI effect, for everyone, is that juries expect this and, if they do not have it, they may 

think that the person is not guilty. 

Ms. WELLS. That is correct. They think that there is a new 

threshold now. In the old days, we could present a witness who 

would identify the defendant, there was no DNA, and we were able 

to obtain convictions for sexual assault. Now, and in our State, jurors are allowed to ask questions during the trial, we get pages of 

questions: Was DNA done? Why wasn’t it done? And sometimes because DNA is a complex chemical analysis, the questions get very 

detailed, and some jurors ask very, very complex medical questions 

during the trial of a sexual assault case. 

So it is very important, though, not to lose sight of the fact that 

if you do not have DNA, you still have to fall back on all of the 

31 

things we learned when we prosecuted sexual assaults before. 

Interview as many people as possible. It is very useful to taperecord interviews. It is very useful to get other kinds of evidence 

that corroborate what the victim has to say. Even if you do get 

DNA, you should not stop there. You should continue to get all of 

that evidence, because you do not know, maybe the DNA will not 

be admissible later on. But it is still critical to investigate these 

crimes as thoroughly as possible. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Thank you. 

Ms. Tronsgard-Scott, one of the things you talked about was kids 

at the scene and kids living in the home. I remember the statistic 

I always used to use was that a kid growing up in a violent home 

where there was domestic abuse was something like 76 times more 

likely to commit crimes themselves. In fact, we had a picture in our 

office when you came in of a woman with a Band-aid on her nose 

holding a baby, and it said, ‘‘Beat your wife, and it is your son who 

will go to jail.’’ 

Do you want to talk about any advances that have been made? 

I know that there has been more interaction with Child Protection, 

bringing them in so that kids get help when they live in a home, 

and also obviously kids can be witnesses, too, and what has been 

happening with that, and as we look at the VAWA reauthorization, 

if we should be looking at this aspect of it as well. 

Ms. TRONSGARD-SCOTT. Thank you, Senator. Thanks for the opportunity to talk about children living in violent homes. I agree 

with you, kids are at particular risk. The statistic that I use is that 

kids living in violent homes are 300 times more likely to be abused 

themselves, which I think is incredibly distressing. So kids growing 

up in violent homes not only are more likely to commit violent 

crimes as adult, but it is likely that they themselves have been 

abused. And, of course, from my belief system, a child that is witnessing domestic violence is suffering from abuse. 

So there have been great strides made, and I can talk about 

Vermont. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. That is fine. 

Ms. TRONSGARD-SCOTT. In Vermont, I am, of course, very proud 

of Vermont and the work we have done working with our children. 

Our rural grant in Vermont, as I referred to in my testimony, has 

created the opportunity for us to create a unique and innovative relationship with our Children’S Protective Services Division of our 

State government, and what we did was we were able to provide 

intensive training for child abuse investigators in that unit, and so 

now they are experts at working with victims of domestic violence 

and their kids. 

In many cases, victims of domestic violence in the past were almost held accountable for the abuse that their children were suffering at the hands of their abusers. But in Vermont, this innovative program allows investigators to go in and do an investigation, 

and instead of blaming the victim for the abuse that the kids are 

suffering, they work with the victim to be able to provide them 

with the supports that they need to be able to make choices about 

living in a safe, peace-filled home. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. OK, very good. 

32 

Ms. Union, you did such a good job of talking about how—you 

said it so directly, how the fact that you had been raped in an area 

that had the resources, and that very much resonated with me because I have just seen that in smaller counties that do not have 

the resources, they just may not have the expertise sometimes in 

cases, or you have, like you said, a rape crisis center that does not 

have the resources in some areas. 

I brought up earlier with Ms. Pierce that issue of the rape kits, 

and I just wondered for anyone that has knowledge about that, 

that is what we have been hearing, that there have been efforts to 

make victims pay for them or they are paying for them, or they pay 

for them and then they have to be paid back by the State. Any 

comments on that? 

Ms. UNION. Yes, we have been having this discussion for the last 

few years. I live in California, and there is a backlog, and I work 

very closely with UCLA rape crisis centers, and as a rape survivor 

myself, I have—basically when your DNA is collected, your rape kit 

is collected, it is stuck in a brown bag, and it goes in—it sits on 

a counter, and I go to UCLA rape crisis centers, I just see the line 

of brown bags. That is children, women, men—everyone has—you 

become this brown bag. And I know that some brown—— 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. And this is DNA that could connect people 

to a crime. 

Ms. UNION. Oh, yes. Oh, yes. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Identify a perpetrator. 

Ms. UNION. Oh, yes. And you know, after working in this business, everyone who deals with rape and domestic violence, you realize that there is a priority that is placed on certain brown bags, 

and they call them ‘‘sexy victims,’’ and the victims that—generally 

a sexy victim is a white woman, preferably young, preferably formally educated, ideally if they are attractive, even better, cases 

that can get media attention and that are slam-dunks. But if you 

are not a sexy victim, that includes African Americans, Latinos; basically anybody who is not a young white, educated, attractive 

women is not deemed a ‘‘sexy victim,’’ and those cases are the ones 

that make up the bulk of the backlog cases. 

It is so transparent, and when you sit there and you see the row 

of these brown bags, it breaks your heart. Like I said, when I talk 

to rape victims in the United States, I have to give them the same 

spiel because the likelihood of justice that you think you are going 

to get because you watch ‘‘CSI,’’ well, they took my DNA and I was 

sort of revictimized again by having to do the rape kit so soon 

after. You know, my rapist is going to be apprehended, and I am 

going to get justice, and I can get on this path of recovery. And it 

just does not work like that for the majority of people. 

When we start to prioritize certain people, we create a parallel 

universe of justice, and that has to stop. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. All right. To end here, I noticed that, and 

thank you for that point, and as we look at this reauthorization 

and the tools we need in the criminal justice system, I think sometimes laws and funding were set back at a time before we had this 

extent of the technology we have and some of the State laws that 

we have now. And so that is why it is such an opportunity to look 

at what we should be doing differently and doing better. 

33 

But I will point out, to end on a positive note here, Ms. 

Tronsgard-Scott, you said in your testimony that VAWA saved taxpayers $14.8 billion in net averted social costs in the first 6 years 

alone. Do you want to comment about that and where you see those 

savings? 

Ms. TRONSGARD-SCOTT. I want to say that back in 1984, when I 

was a young person living in Cleveland, Ohio, I lived next door to 

a family where the husband was violent, and we had to tell the police officers that there was a burglar outside our house to get them 

to respond. They would not come to that house if we called the police. 

And so that family was left—the victim was left. There were no 

supports. There was no prosecution, there was nothing. That family 

went on, they were a family that was poor, they used the social 

services system, and their lot was fairly hopeless. 

Today, that same family would be embraced with a social services net that would in many ways, especially with the new economic justice work that we are doing in our movement, not only 

help them maintain safety but help them move forward in their 

economic goals. And so for me, it is money well spent. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Thank you. Well, I think part of the successes that we have had with so many challenges ahead, as Ms. 

Union pointed out, but the successes are a tribute to all of you, and 

the way this movement has developed on the grassroots level with 

victims saying I am not going to take it anymore and being willing 

to come forward and speak. So I want to thank you all for that. 

We are looking forward as a Committee to working on this. As 

you can see, it is a bipartisan effort, strongly supported by both 

sides of the aisle. So I just want to thank you and wish you well, 

and your courage is unbelievable, and it is going to make a difference. Thank you very much. 

This hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:55 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 

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

34 


56212.001
35 


56212.002
36 


56212.003
37 


56212.004
38 


56212.005
39 


56212.006
40 


56212.007
41 


56212.008
42 


56212.009
43 


56212.010
44 


56212.011
45 


56212.012
46 


56212.013
47 


56212.014
48 


56212.015
49 


56212.016
50 


56212.017
51 


56212.018
52 


56212.019
53 


56212.020
54 


56212.021
55 


56212.022
56 


56212.023
57 


56212.024
58 


56212.025
59 


56212.026
60 


56212.027
61 


56212.028
62 


56212.029
63 


56212.030
64 


56212.031
65 


56212.032
66 


56212.033
67 


56212.034
68 


56212.035
69 


56212.036
70 


56212.037
71 


56212.038
72 


56212.039
73 


56212.040
74 


56212.041
75 


56212.042
76 


56212.043
77 


56212.044
78 


56212.045
79 


56212.046
80 


56212.047
81 


56212.048
82 


56212.049
83 


56212.050
84 


56212.051
85 


56212.052
86 


56212.053
87 


56212.054
88 


56212.055
89 


56212.056
90 


56212.057
91 


56212.058
92 


56212.059
93 


56212.060
94 


56212.061
95 


56212.062
96 


56212.063
97 


56212.064
98 


56212.065
99 


56212.066
100 


56212.067
101 


56212.068
102 


56212.069
103 


56212.070
104 


56212.071
105 


56212.072
106 


56212.073
107 


56212.074
108 


56212.075
109 


56212.076
110 


56212.077
111 


56212.078
112 


56212.079
113 


56212.080
114 


56212.081
115 


56212.082
116 


56212.083
117 


56212.084
118 


56212.085
119 


56212.086
120 


56212.087
121 


56212.088
122 


56212.089
123 


56212.090
124 


56212.091
125 


56212.092
126 


56212.093
127 


56212.094
128 


56212.095
129 


56212.096
130 


56212.097
131 


56212.098
132 


56212.099
133 


56212.100
134 


56212.101
135 


56212.102
136 


56212.103
137 


56212.104
138 


56212.105
139 


56212.106
140 


56212.107
141 


56212.108
142 


56212.109
143 


56212.110
144 


56212.111
145 


56212.112
146 


56212.113
147 


56212.114
148 


56212.115
149 


56212.116
150 


56212.117
151 


56212.118
152 


56212.119
153 


56212.120
154 


56212.121
155 


56212.122
156 


56212.123
157 


56212.124
158 


56212.125
159 


56212.126
160 


56212.127
161 


56212.128
162 


56212.129
163 


56212.130
164 

Æ 


56212.131