S. HRG. 112–132 

THE VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMAN ACT: BUILDING 

ON 17 YEARS OF ACCOMPLISHMENTS 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

JULY 13, 2011 

Serial No. J–112–33 

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary 

( 

THE VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMAN ACT: BUILDING ON 17 YEARS OF 

ACCOMPLISHMENTS 

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

70–894 PDF 2011

S. HRG. 112–132 

THE VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMAN ACT: BUILDING 

ON 17 YEARS OF ACCOMPLISHMENTS 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

JULY 13, 2011 

Serial No. J–112–33 

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 

CHUCK SCHUMER, New York 

DICK DURBIN, Illinois 

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island 

AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota 

AL FRANKEN, Minnesota 

CHRISTOPHER A. COONS, Delaware 

RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut 

CHUCK GRASSLEY, Iowa 

ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah 

JON KYL, Arizona 

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama 

LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina 

JOHN CORNYN, Texas 

MICHAEL S. LEE, Utah 

TOM COBURN, Oklahoma 

BRUCE A. COHEN, Chief Counsel and Staff Director 

KOLAN DAVIS, Republican Chief Counsel and Staff Director 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

STATEMENTS OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS 

Page 

Coons, Hon. Christopher A., a U.S. Senator from the State of Delaware, 

prepared statement .............................................................................................. 88 

Grassley, Hon. Chuck, a U.S. Senator from the State of Iowa ............................ 2 

prepared statement .......................................................................................... 89 

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

prepared statement .......................................................................................... 124 

WITNESSES 

Larence, Eileen R., Director, Homeland Security and Justice, U.S. Government Accountability Office, Washington, DC .................................................... 14 

McGraw, Phillip C., Los Angels, California ........................................................... 4 

Poner, Julie, Indianapolis, Indiana ........................................................................ 12 

Shaw, Michael, Co-Director, Domestic Violence & Sexual Assault Services, 

Waypoint Services for Women, Children, and Families, Cedar Rapids, Iowa 7 

Van Buren, Jane A., Executive Director, Women Helping Battered Women 

Inc., Burlington, Vermont .................................................................................... 10 

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS 

Responses of Eileen R. Larence to questions submitted by Senator Coburn ..... 35 

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

AACLU, Laura W. Murphy, Director, Washington Legislative Office; Vania 

Leveille, Senior Legislative Counsel and Joanne Lin, Legislative Counsel, 

Washington, DC, statement ................................................................................ 47 

Brannon, David S., Representative, Voice of American Immigration Fraud 

Victims, Washington, DC .................................................................................... 58 

Campbell, Matt, Henrietta, New York, letter ....................................................... 87 

Cutler, Michael W., (Retired) Senior Special Agent, INS, statement .................. 92 

Fibish, Earl, Citrus Heights, California, July 20, 2011, letter ............................ 102 

Futures Without Violence, formerly Family Violence Prevention Fund, Esta 

Soler, Founder and President, Washington, DC, statement ............................. 103 

Glassman, Donald, New York, New York, statement ........................................... 107 

Kinsey, Gary W., statement .................................................................................... 109 

Larence, Eileen R., Director, Homeland Security and Justice, U.S. Government Accountability Office, Washington, DC .................................................... 111 

Legal Momentum, Elizabeth Grayer, President; Lisalyn Jacobs, Vice-President; Leslye Orloff, Vice-President, Washington, DC, joint statement ........... 126 

Just Detention International, Washington, DC, statement ................................. 134 

Maxwell, Michael J., statement .............................................................................. 143 

McGraw, Phillip C., Los Angels, California, statement ........................................ 178 

National Congress of American Indians (NCAI), Washington, DC, statement .. 187 

National Law Center on Homelessness & Poverty (NCL), Washington, DC, 

statement .............................................................................................................. 205 

National Network to End Domestic Violence, Sue Else, President, Washington, DC, statement .......................................................................................... 209 

National Network to End Violence Against Immigrant Women, Leslye E., 

Orloff, Washington, DC, statement .................................................................... 218 

National Organization for Women, Terry O’Neill, President, Washington, DC . 228 

Poner, Julie, Indianapolis, Indiana, statements ................................................... 234 

Page

IV 

Sampson, John N., CSI Consulting & Investigations LLC, Strasburg, Colorado, July 6, 2011, letter and statement ............................................................ 239 

Shaw, Michael, Co-Director, Domestic Violence & Sexual Assault Services, 

Waypoint Services for Women, Children, and Families, Cedar Rapids, Iowa, 

statement .............................................................................................................. 259 

Slania, Alex J., statement ....................................................................................... 263 

Spivack, Natasha, Washington, DC, statement .................................................... 265 

Spyera Software, http://spyera.com/is-your-wife-cheating.html, cell phones 

stalking appliations .............................................................................................. 270 

Starling, Carl, Jr., Prince George’s County, Maryland, statement ..................... 282 

Stoddard, Teri, Program Director, Stop Abusive and Violent Environment, 

Rockville, MD, memo ........................................................................................... 289 

Shull, Mark Kenneth, LTC USA (retired), statement .......................................... 290 

Thomas, Davie R., Program Administrator Domestic Violence Education, Division of Public Safety Leadership, Johns Hopkins University, statement ....... 292 

Thompson, Michael, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, on Behalf of Teri Stoddard, S.A.V.E, statement ..................................................................................... 297 

Van Buren, Jane A., Executive Director, Women Helping Battered Women 

Inc., Burlington, Vermont, statement ................................................................ 300 

Voice of American Immigration Fraud Victims, stories of Female Victims, 

letters .................................................................................................................... 306

Women’s Refugee Commission, New York, New York, statement ....................... 330 

(1) 

THE VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMAN ACT: BUILDING ON 17 YEARS OF ACCOMPLISHMENTS 

WEDNESDAY, JULY 13, 2011 

U.S. SENATE, 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, 

Washington, D.C. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:04 a.m., in room 

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

Chairman of the Committee, presiding. 

Present: Senators Leahy, Whitehouse, Klobuchar, Franken, 

Blumenthal, and Grassley. 

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

SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF VERMONT 

Chairman LEAHY. Good morning, everyone. Today the Committee 

will consider once again the importance of the Violence Against 

Women Act. Since 1994 it has been the centerpiece of the Federal 

Government’s commitment to combating domestic violence, sexual 

assault, and other violent crimes against women. 

We worked in a bipartisan way to pass the Violence Against 

Women Act and its two subsequent reauthorizations. This law 

filled a void that had left too many victims of domestic and sexual 

violence without a way to ensure safety and justice and without the 

help they needed. And I was proud to work with then-Senator 

Biden and Senator Hatch to achieve this progress. I look forward 

to building on this legacy. 

I saw the devastating effects of domestic and sexual violence 

early in my career as State’s Attorney in Vermont for Chittenden 

County. I saw the violence and abuse reach the homes of people 

from all walks of life, and as we know, in all parts of the country 

every day, it does not make any difference the gender, the race, the 

culture, the age, the class, or the sexuality. 

The Violence Against Women Act has helped to transform our 

criminal justice system. It has improved the response to the complex issues of domestic and dating violence, sexual assault, and 

stalking. It has provided legal remedies, social support, and coordinated community responses. With time, it has evolved to better address the needs of underserved populations and to include critical 

new programs focusing on prevention. Since the enactment of the 

Violence Against Women Act, the rate of domestic violence has declined, more victims have felt confident to come forward to report 

these crimes and to seek help, and States have come forward to 

enact complementary laws to combat these crimes. 

2 

But despite this progress, our country still has a long way to go. 

Millions of women, men, children, and families continue to be traumatized by abuse. We know that one in four American women and 

one in seven men are the victims of domestic violence. One in 6 

women and one in 33 men are victims of sexual assault, and 1.4 

million individuals are stalked each year. 

Now, as we look toward reauthorization of the Violence Against 

Women Act, we have to continue to ensure that the law evolves to 

fill unmet needs. We have to increase access to support services, 

especially in rural communities, something that, coming from one 

of the most rural States in this country, I have focused on. We also 

have to worry about it among older Americans. We have to look at 

our response to the high rates of violence experienced by Native 

American and immigrant women. 

Programs to assist victims of domestic and sexual violence and 

to prevent these crimes are particularly important during difficult 

economic times. The economic pressures of a lost job or a home or 

a car can add a great deal of stress to already abusive relationships. The loss of these resources can make it harder for victims 

to escape a violent situation. And as victims’ needs are growing, 

State budget cuts are resulting in fewer available services, including fewer emergency shelters, less transitional housing, less counseling, and less child care. A 2010 survey found that in just 1 day 

more than 70,000 adults and children were served by local domestic violence programs. At the same time more than 9,500 requests 

for services went unmet due to a lack of resources. 

So I think the numbers illustrate the need to maintain and 

strengthen VAWA, the Violence Against Women Act. Its programs 

are very vital, including the STOP Formula Grant program, which 

provides resources to law enforcement agencies, prosecutors, the 

courts, and victim advocacy groups, and the Transitional Housing 

Assistance Grants. You know, in the midst of a mortgage and housing crisis, transitional housing is especially important because 

long-term housing options are becoming increasingly scarce. 

We are going to welcome a distinguished panel of witnesses from 

around the country who can share important perspectives and personal experience. Of course, I know Dr. Van Buren, who is well 

known in Vermont for her work helping women to escape domestic 

violence through the organization Women Helping Battered 

Women. But we have a number of witnesses who will speak to this 

issue. As I said, it has not been a partisan issue. We have reached 

across party lines to do it, just as I found we did when I was a 

prosecutor. 

With that, I will yield to Senator Grassley. 

STATEMENT OF HON. CHUCK GRASSLEY, A U.S. SENATOR 

FROM THE STATE OF IOWA 

Senator GRASSLEY. I thank you very much for holding today’s 

hearing. There is nothing you said about the need for the law that 

I would disagree with. I am going to raise some questions about administering the law and some things that we ought to look at that 

ought to be very carefully reviewed before we reauthorize it. But, 

obviously, I want the law to be reauthorized. These are the same 

questions I would raise when we reauthorize any legislation, parVerDate Nov 24 2008 12:42 Nov 28, 2011 Jkt 070894 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\70894.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC
3 

ticularly in these very difficult fiscal times that we are having now 

with the budget. 

This law that we are reviewing today is an important law that 

has helped a countless number of victims across the country break 

the cycle of domestic violence and make an environment for people 

to move to very productive lives. 

The law created vital programs to support efforts to help victims 

of domestic violence, sexual assault, and stalking. As an original 

cosponsor of the Senate version of the reauthorization, I remain 

deeply committed to ensuring Federal resources are provided to 

programs to prevent and end sexual assault and domestic violence. 

There is, however, an unfortunate reality, and that is the budget 

situation that I have talked about. We did not face this in 2000 or 

2005 when I also worked for the reauthorization. During these economic times we simply cannot continue to allocate resources without verifying the resources are being used as efficiently as possible. 

What this means is that as we in this Committee look to reauthorize the program, we need to take a hard look at every single 

taxpayer dollar being spent. We need to determine how those dollars are being used and if the stated purpose of the program is 

being met. 

Back in 2001, Senator Sessions and I requested Government Accountability Office review of the grant programs under this bill. 

That review found that this act’s files often lacked the documentation necessary to ensure that the required monitoring activities occurred. GAO found that ‘‘a substantial number of grant files did 

not contain progress and financial reports sufficient to cover the 

entire grant period.’’ These are significant problems, and it appears 

that they continue to exist. 

A review of individual grantee audits that were conducted in 

1998 through the year 2010 by the Justice Department Inspector 

General indicates that the problems with the law’s grantees’ administration recordkeeping may actually be getting worse. During 

this time-frame the Inspector General conducted a review of 22 individual grantees that received funding from the program. Of those 

22 grantees, 21 were found to have some violation of grant requirements. 

In 2010, one grantee was found by the Inspector General to have 

questionable costs for 93 percent of the nearly $900,000 that they 

received in the grant. Another audit, this one from 2009, found 

that nearly $500,000 of a $680,000 grant was questioned because 

of inadequate support of expenditures. Another audit in 2005 questioned $1.2 million out of a $1.79 million grant. 

So the list goes on. Simply put, in today’s economic environment 

we cannot tolerate this level of malfeasance in the Federal grant 

programs. 

So how do we fix the program? To start with, we need a legitimate, rigorous evaluation of the program, particularly the grantees, 

to ensure that these sorts of grantees are prohibited from getting 

funds. It also means requiring annual audits and evaluations. Unfortunately, as our witness from GAO will point out today, it is difficult to evaluate grantee performances because the data that is 

provided to the Justice Department is often difficult to evaluate. 

GAO notes that while the agencies are making progress to address 

4 

the gaps in data, these important issues need to be addressed by 

Congress. 

Another issue that must be addressed during the reauthorization 

is immigration marriage fraud. Specifically, I am concerned about 

the reports that some of the procedures employed by Citizenship 

and Immigration Services actually help facilitate immigration marriage fraud, and some of it is further enhanced by provisions under 

this law. I am glad that we have a witness that is going to go into 

this. 

As a past cosponsor of this legislation and its reauthorizations, 

I am saddened to hear about these examples of how a law that was 

designed to help victims may be used to continue to abuse victims 

of domestic violence. These are important issues that I will bring 

up during the reauthorization. We must do everything in our power 

to help victims of abuse and domestic violence, and that is why this 

bill must be reauthorized. However, we are well past the time 

where we can continue to reauthorize programs without giving 

them scrutiny, particularly in these fiscal times. 

Thank you, and I have a longer statement I want to put in the 

record. 

Chairman LEAHY. And all the statements of all the Senators will 

be placed in the record as though read. 

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

Chairman LEAHY. It is somewhat of a cliche to say our first witness needs no introduction, but Dr. Philip McGraw is the host of 

the syndicated daytime television show ‘‘Dr. Phil.’’ On the show he 

has raised awareness of a wide range of social issues ranging from 

bullying and drugs to domestic violence and child abuse. I know my 

friend Senator Grassley has appeared on the show on adoption 

issues. 

Senator GRASSLEY. Let me tell you, Senator Landrieu and I appreciated being on there because we work in the area of foster care, 

and his program probably got us more attention than two Senators 

could have got the attention of. Thank you, Dr. Phil. 

Mr. MCGRAW. You are welcome. 

Chairman LEAHY. In 2003, he created the Dr. Phil Foundation. 

It is a charity that funds projects that benefit disadvantaged children and families. Dr. McGraw has supported and volunteered for 

a number of other charitable efforts and causes, volunteering in 

New Orleans immediately after Katrina and in Haiti. Having been 

down there and seeing the devastating results of that earthquake, 

I appreciate that—both places. He received his undergraduate degree, master’s degree, and doctorate in clinical philosophy from the 

University of North Texas. 

Dr. McGraw, it is good to have you here. Please go ahead, sir. 

STATEMENT OF PHILIP C. MCGRAW, PH.D., LOS ANGELES, 

CALIFORNIA 

Mr. MCGRAW. Thank you. Chairman Leahy, Ranking Member 

Grassley, and esteemed members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, good morning. Thank you for inviting me to testify before 

you today about the Violence Against Women Act. This is an act 

that saves lives, and it saves children from the trauma of being exVerDate Nov 24 2008 12:42 Nov 28, 2011 Jkt 070894 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\70894.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC
5 

posed to the violence that goes on in homes, and I am very pleased 

to say that the decline in reported acts of violence against women 

make it clear that this Act is working. So much has been accomplished. We now have coordinated efforts addressing domestic and 

sexual violence. 

But it is the evolution of this Act that will keep it relevant; it 

is the evolution of this Act that will keep it effective. And as we 

are painfully aware, there are 2 million women a year that are victimized, meaning that as we sit here today, in the first hour of this 

hearing, if you do the math, 228 women are being victimized. They 

are being beaten, terrorized, and intimidated as we sit here in the 

first hour, all behind closed doors, all undoubtedly feeling very 

alone. And three of those women will be murdered today. So I am 

here today to join in being a voice for those who are disempowered 

and cannot find that voice yet deserve to live in peace. 

Now, these numbers are alarming, but the reality, Senators, is 

worse, because this is one of the most underreported crimes in 

America. Tragically, untold numbers of victims never go to the police, they never go to hospitals, and many of them, because they 

are riddled with fear or shame, do not even tell members of their 

own families. So there is so much work to be done to open the dialog about this. 

And, sadly, victims are getting younger and younger. Domestic 

violence is now the most common cause of injury to women ages 

15 to 44. That is right-–15. In fact, among teenage girls who are 

killed, nearly one-third are killed by a boyfriend or a former boyfriend. Now, the question is: Who is going to step forward to do 

something about this? And that is why I am such a fan of this Act. 

In too many situations, violence against women, young and old, 

is almost treated as an ‘‘acceptable crime,’’ and the ripple effects 

through our society are like a tsunami. Intimate violence is a wicked problem; it is many-sided. There are so many elements to it that 

it is difficult to wrap our heads around it, and it involves both victims and treatment, and it is less than perfect, frankly. 

Here is something that really concerns me, Senators. More than 

10 million children will witness their mothers, aunts, or sisters 

being threatened, intimidated, or beaten by intimate partners and 

family. And, predictably, these children do not do well in these 

toxic situations. They are often traumatized; they have a range of 

interpersonal problems. They have a higher incidence of emotional 

and behavioral problems, mental illness, alcohol and drug abuse, 

and poor academic achievement. Some become abusers themselves, 

and all of this puts a huge strain on currently underfunded and 

overly stretched resources. Victims are at risk for repeated and 

varied violence. It is a phenomenon called ‘‘polyvictimization.’’ So 

this is a ripple effect that starts with the act of intimate violence, 

and then it spreads to other family members. 

Now, I long ago resolved to never speak unless I felt I could add 

something to the silence. Last year, at the ‘‘Dr. Phil’’ show, we 

knew the time had come—to not just add to the silence, but to end 

it by placing the issue of domestic violence squarely in the center 

of our daily platform and thrust it into the national dialog. We did 

so by launching the End the Silence on Domestic Violence campaign, and we partnered with the National Network to End DomesVerDate Nov 24 2008 12:42 Nov 28, 2011 Jkt 070894 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\70894.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC
6 

tic Violence, and this is a passionate and proactive organization. 

And we partnered with our viewers to become ‘‘Silence Breakers’’ 

committed to bring about change. 

We brought in experts from every walk of life, and in an unprecedented programming move, we committed and will continue to commit countless hours of programming to educate millions of women 

about the resources that are available. And we brought real people 

on the show, not statistics. 

For example, Audrey Hanne—this is a woman—and I show this 

because I want people to know these are real folks. She told us that 

she silently suffered through years of emotional abuse from her 

husband. She says that finally when she tried to leave, her husband, turned violent. In a single crippling instant, beating her in 

the head, stabbing her, and then doused her with gasoline and setting her on fire, altering her face and her life forever. Now, he is 

currently charged with attempted murder and is incarcerated 

awaiting trial. 

Sandra Tarris says she experienced excessive abuse over the 

course of 4 years that included black eyes, broken fingers, choking, 

and countless death threats. And she says two of these happened 

when she was 6 months pregnant. Her injuries were so bad that 

it cost her her left eye and a cracked skull. She tried to get away, 

but he tracked her down and held her hostage. It resulted in a felony assault plea agreement, and because of the abuse she has endured to her left eye and damage to her optic nerve, she will probably go blind in the other very soon. So fearful that he would find 

her again, she has moved 17 times, always looking for a place 

where she will feel safe. 

This precious 3-year-old child was murdered by an abusive father 

in a custody fight. When he could no longer find a way to control 

his ex-wife, he took the life of the child, leaving a helpless mother. 

Again, these are not statistics. These are our neighbors. They are 

lost in the dark, hoping someone will come for them and lead them 

to safety. 

As Chairman Leahy said earlier, in today’s economic times the 

needs are increasing, but the resources are drying up. A 2010 census by NNEDV found in a day, 70,600 adults and children were 

served by local domestic violence programs, but 9,500 weren’t. And 

I worry about those 9,500, Senators, because it is during the time 

that they try to get away from their abuser that they are most at 

risk of being seriously injured or murdered. 

Now, bottom line, we need more legislation like this, providing 

critical programs and support. We need better coordinated efforts 

among the courts. And, above all, we need to cut through the red 

tape when a woman is in crisis because red tape means red blood 

is spilled at home. We cannot have them bogged down. 

We have to focus on the power of prevention through schools and 

at home. We have to create curriculums to teach the kids that it 

is never OK to put your hands on each other in anger and violence. 

And as husbands and fathers, we have to model this. 

On a final personal note, this issue deeply hits home for me because I recently became a grandfather, and I am going to brag and 

show my granddaughter here—Avery Elizabeth. I came home one 

day after taping a show on domestic violence, and she crawled up 

7 

in my lap, and I said right then, ‘‘This is the first little girl that 

has been in our family. I want her to grow up in an environment 

where it is safe.’’ I want her to grow up like all young girls should 

be able to do, knowing that they can have the peaceful existence 

in their own homes. And to do that, we have to have this Act. We 

have to have the Violence Against Women Act. 

I pledge to you today that our campaign to End the Silence on 

Domestic Violence is just beginning. We want to make ourselves 

available to advocate for these victims, to partner with you guys in 

any and every way that we can. 

We are honored to stand with you; we are ready and willing to 

do whatever it takes to contribute to a safer and more promising 

future for the women all across America. Our children and grandchildren deserve nothing less. 

I thank you for inviting me to speak here today, and I thank you 

for shepherding and overseeing the Violence Against Women Act 

because it is very, very important legislation. Thank you. 

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

for the record.] 

Chairman LEAHY. Well, thank you, Dr. McGraw, and before the 

hearing began, you and I had a chance to discuss, among other 

things, our grandchildren, and I think we both agreed that is the 

best part of life. 

Our next witness is from Iowa, so I would like to ask Senator 

Grassley to introduce him, and I thank him for being here. 

Senator GRASSLEY. Thank you for that privilege, Mr. Chairman. 

Michael Shaw is co-director of Domestic Violence & Sexual Assault Services at Waypoint Services for Women, Children & Families in Cedar Rapids, Iowa. He is a certified sexual assault and domestic violence counselor and an experienced trainer on a variety 

of sexual assault and domestic violence issues. Mr. Shaw is on the 

Board of Directors of the National Center for Domestic and Sexual 

Violence and the Iowa Coalition Against Sexual Assault. He received his bachelor’s and master’s degrees in social work from the 

University of Iowa. 

Welcome, Mr. Shaw. 

STATEMENT OF MICHAEL SHAW, CO-DIRECTOR, DOMESTIC VIOLENCE & SEXUAL ASSAULT SERVICES, WAYPOINT SERVICES FOR WOMEN, CHILDREN, AND FAMILIES, CEDAR RAPIDS, IOWA 

Mr. SHAW. Thank you very much, Senator Grassley. Thank you 

for inviting me to speak to you today. My name is Michael Shaw. 

I am the co-director of Waypoint’s Domestic Violence & Sexual Assault Program in the great State of Iowa, Cedar Rapids, Iowa. I 

have worked as an advocate or a volunteer supporting survivors of 

sexual violence since 1993. Before the passage of the Violence 

Against Women Act in 1994, there were gaping holes in our country’s response to sexual violence. Reports such as ‘‘Rape in America: A Report to the Nation’’ in 1992 and ‘‘The Response to Rape: 

Detours on the Road to Equal Justice’’ in 1993, showed our governmental systems had essentially left survivors of rape to fend for 

themselves. VAWA, cosponsored by then-Senator Joe Biden and 

Senator Orrin Hatch, began to remedy these issues by strengthVerDate Nov 24 2008 12:42 Nov 28, 2011 Jkt 070894 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\70894.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC
8 

ening systems of victim support and criminal accountability. I will 

briefly talk about the impact of VAWA for sexual assault survivors 

and reflect on what VAWA means to me personally. 

VAWA saves lives. The first time I answered a rape crisis line 

in 1999, the caller said ‘‘I am going to kill myself.’’ That was a 

scary first call, but I had excellent training to help me support her. 

I listened for close to an hour as she talked about wanting the pain 

of her rape to go away. 

For more than 17 years, VAWA has supported the training of 

thousands of victim advocates, police officers, and medical professionals on the best ways to support rape survivors. 

VAWA provides supportive services to help victims of sexual assault and their children stay safe and rebuild their lives. 

Last year, we received a call on our crisis line from a mother— 

I will call her Janet—who had just found out her daughters had 

been sexually abused. What I will share about this story will sound 

like a life falling apart, but if you listen carefully, you will hear 

how she is laying the foundation to rebuild her life and the lives 

of her children. 

On the first call, Janet did not know what to do. Her 9-year-old 

daughter had just told her that a man they trusted was touching 

her private area. The advocate listened and responded with compassion. 

A couple of days later, Janet called back and said her 14-yearold daughter had just confirmed that the same person had sexually 

abused her. Once again an advocate listened and offered support. 

A couple days later, Janet called back and disclosed that she had 

been a victim of sexual abuse. I took that call. Not only was she 

devastated by what her children were telling her, but now she was 

dealing with the trauma she had experienced. Janet had never told 

anyone about her own abuse. 

While this may seem like a life falling apart, please note that 

Janet kept calling back. She had someone to talk to when she 

needed it most. We offered Janet a sounding board so that she 

could then give her children calm, reliable, non-judgmental support, which experience and research has shown is essential to healing for children, and we supported Janet as she talked about her 

own trauma. The VAWA-supported services helped a woman lay 

the foundation to heal from her own child sexual abuse and helped 

her support her children to do the same. 

VAWA saves money. In its first 6 years alone, VAWA saved taxpayers at least $14 billion in net averted social cost. These social 

costs include medical and mental health care needs, missed hours 

of work, increased substance abuse, and difficulty achieving educational goals. 

Rape is the most costly of all crimes to its victims, with total estimated costs at $127 billion a year. 

Skilled advocates provide victims with emotional support and 

help them figure out their next steps. The VAWA-supported services are an investment in the lives of sexual assault victims. 

Each subsequent reauthorization of VAWA has improved the 

scope of comprehensive services for victims. VAWA 2000 strengthened community protections for immigrant victims of sexual asVerDate Nov 24 2008 12:42 Nov 28, 2011 Jkt 070894 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\70894.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC
9 

sault by funding training to improve law enforcement’s response to 

immigrant victims. 

VAWA 2005 included the first Federal funding stream to support 

sexual assault survivors regardless of their involvement with other 

systems with the Sexual Assault Services Program. Rape Crisis 

Programs across the State of Iowa have used these dollars to improve and enhance services to sexual abuse survivors. 

Finally, the Violence Against Women Act is more than just a law 

to me. VAWA is part of a collection of resources that indicates our 

country is progressing toward a goal of a society free of sexual violence. Believing that a violence-free world is possible is part of 

what sustains me as an advocate. 

Frequently, when I tell people what I do, they respond ‘‘Wow, 

that must be depressing work,’’ or they try to avoid eye contact because nobody really wants to talk about rape. Some days it is hard, 

but listening to survivors keeps me going. Long ago I made a commitment to listen to survivors as long as there were survivors needing support. Survivors’ voices inform my administrative work and 

my prevention efforts. Victims’ voices inform every decision I make 

as a co-director and, most importantly, they remind me to feel the 

work, to care about the work. They remind me that I am part of 

a movement. 

In 2000, I heard Cassandra Thomas, then-Vice President at the 

Houston Area Women’s Center, speak. She eloquently and passionately expressed what I was feeling as an advocate and the father 

of three children. She challenged us by saying: 

‘‘Some of you all are doing field work. I joined a movement, and 

the canvases look real different depending on whether you are 

movement people or field people.’’ 

‘‘So now, will your canvas be a movement canvas—a canvas 

about social change, a canvas about destroying patriarchy that has 

set up a system of sexual violence? Or are you just going to do 

counseling groups? What is your canvas going to look like? Now do 

not get me wrong. I want more money for counselors. I want to 

have some groups. But I am not just doing social service. If that 

is what you are doing, let me just tell you something, your canvas 

is going to look way different, because I am about making sure my 

5-year-old child never sits in a group, that my 5-year-old child 

never goes to a hospital for a rape kit. That is what I am about, 

and social service will not do that for me. I need movement, folks. 

A field just lays there.’’ 

Senators, I believe you, I, and VAWA are part of a movement, 

and we must do everything in our power to support survivors, hold 

perpetrators accountable, and move inexorably toward a world that 

is free of sexual violence for our children and their children. I 

strongly encourage you to continue building on the accomplishments of the last 17 years by swiftly reauthorizing an improved 

VAWA. 

Thank you. 

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

for the record.] 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you very much. 

We are in a few minutes going to have a couple roll call votes 

on the floor, but Senator Grassley and I have talked about it. We 

10 

are going to try to keep the hearing going, so if you suddenly see 

people jump up and leave, it is not because of something you said. 

It is because as you will see on the clock up on the wall behind 

you, when first one light goes on, that will mean a vote. When five 

white lights go on, that means drag yourself over there in a hurry. 

Our next witness is from Vermont. Dr. Jane Van Buren is an old 

friend, and she is the executive director of Women Helping Battered Women in Burlington, Vermont. That is a nonprofit organization that provides services to victims and survivors of domestic violence and abuse. In a 1-year period between July of 2009 and July 

of 2010, Women Helping Battered Women provided help and services to more than 4,400 women and their children. In our small 

State, that is a great deal. Prior to joining Women Helping Battered Women, Dr. Van Buren was the founding director of the 

Vermont Alliance of Nonprofit Organizations. She is an adjunct 

professor at the University of Vermont, Johnson State College, and 

my own alma mater, St. Michael’s College. She received her master’s degree in public administration from Northeastern University 

and her doctorate in management from Case Western Reserve University. 

We are delighted to have you leave the cool hills of Vermont to 

come down to the somewhat less cool atmosphere of Washington. 

Go ahead, please. 

STATEMENT OF JANE A. VAN BUREN, PH.D., EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, WOMEN HELPING BATTERED WOMEN, INC., BURLINGTON, VERMONT 

Ms. VAN BUREN. Good morning. Thank you, Senator Leahy, Senator Grassley, and other distinguished members of the Committee. 

Thank you for the opportunity to talk about the importance of 

VAWA, in particular how my organization, Women Helping Battered Women, has used crucial VAWA funds to serve victims of domestic violence and their children successfully in the State of 

Vermont. 

Women Helping Battered Women was founded in 1974 to provide 

emergency shelter to women fleeing abuse. From 1974 to 1994 our 

advocacy consisted of sheltering women and children, responding to 

hotline calls, and helping women secure relief from abuse orders. 

There was no money for paid staff, but volunteers kept the shelter 

doors open and answered the hotline calls. We were a valuable resource in the community, but our services did not go far enough. 

Victims with no money, no credit, no employment history, and no 

confidence in their ability to be self-sufficient or to keep their children safe, fed, and housed all too often ended up returning to their 

batterer. They lacked the resources to do anything else. Their 

choice too often came down to a life of violence or a life on the 

streets. 

What VAWA has allowed us to do is provide women, men, and 

children with programming that is comprehensive and sustainable 

and which ultimately leads victims to independence and freedom 

from violence. This landmark legislation filled a void in Federal 

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

without the help they needed to restore their lives. 

11 

Over the past 17 years, Women Helping Battered Women has 

built a strong response to domestic violence in Chittenden County, 

Vermont. This includes support and counseling for children exposed 

to and affected by violence, transitional and emergency housing, 

legal advocacy and collaboration with law enforcement, employment and job readiness training, credit counseling and repair, crisis 

intervention, safety planning, and extensive public education and 

training. 

I would like to tell you my own stories, one about Betsy and one 

about Rachel, two women that we have served. 

Betsy has advanced multiple sclerosis and has been living on a 

limited income since she lost her ability to work. She called our 

hotline in crisis because her partner was threatening her life and 

controlling her finances. He used her credit cards without her 

knowledge, and the high payments were too much, forcing her to 

miss some payments and then forcing her to be financially dependent on her abuser for basic needs such as housing and food. 

When Women Helping Battered Women first spoke with Betsy, 

we discussed her options for leaving her current situation and regaining her independence. Our shelter was full, so we accessed 

Vermont’s Emergency Assistance Fund and housed Betsy in a local 

motel. Betsy was eligible for 28 days in a motel, during which time 

she was required by the State to conduct a housing and job search. 

This was a challenge given Betsy’s financial and physical limitations, coupled with the high rental costs and low vacancy in 

Chittenden County. In addition, many landlords—most, in fact—require credit checks, security deposits, and first month’s rent. The 

total amount due up front would be close to $1,500, an impossible 

amount for Betsy. 

Luckily, Betsy was eligible for rental assistance from Women 

Helping Battered Women as part of our VAWA Transitional Housing Program. We helped Betsy find an accessible apartment and 

met with the landlord to clarify the details of her damaged credit 

score. Today Betsy is living in her new apartment and working 

closely with our THP staff to reduce her debt and repair her credit. 

Betsy has been independent and free from violence for the past 9 

months. 

My second story is about Rachel, who fled her batterer and came 

to our emergency shelter in Vermont from another State. When she 

arrived, her behavior was erratic because her husband had been 

keeping her from taking her medication for bipolar disorder. Without her medication, Rachel suffered prolonged depression and had 

stopped taking care of herself and her child, and eventually the 

State removed the child from her home. This chain of events 

spurred Rachel to flee, vowing to regain custody of her daughter. 

In order for her to regain custody, Rachel needed to stabilize her 

mental health and her housing. Fortunately, a two-bedroom apartment had recently opened up at Sophie’s Place, which is our 11- 

unit transitional housing apartment complex. There, Rachel was 

able to work with Sophie’s Place staff to improve her resume and 

interview skills, work with our STOP-funded legal advocates on her 

child custody case, and maintain stable mental health. After 5 

months, Rachel secured an excellent job at the local university and 

12 

was able to regain custody of her daughter. Today they are living 

safely and happily at Sophie’s Place. 

Stable housing makes it much easier for survivors of domestic 

abuse to successfully access our empowerment-based, economic justice advocacy services that are the hallmark of Women Helping 

Battered Women’s work. Our service users have access to economic 

literacy training, credit counseling and repair, debt management, 

advanced housing advocacy including homeownership counseling, 

and employment and training opportunities. Survivors in transitional housing have the opportunity to develop individualized plans 

to help them maintain their housing or move from homelessness 

into permanent housing. 

VAWA funds make all of this possible, and by maintaining the 

funding for transitional housing services and coordinated community response services through STOP, Congress has the unique opportunity to help victims regain strength and confidence and reduce their reliance on public programs by enabling the move to permanent housing and lifelong financial independence. 

Thank you very much. 

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

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you very much, Dr. Van Buren. 

Our next witness is Julie Poner. Did I pronounce that correctly? 

Thank you. She is the mother of twins, currently living in Indianapolis, Indiana. She will speak about her own difficult ordeal, but 

she has worked to help combat international child abduction to prevent the misuse of current provisions of the law for green card 

fraud. 

Ms. Poner, please go ahead. 

STATEMENT OF JULIE PONER, INDIANAPOLIS, INDIANA 

Ms. PONER. Thank you, Senator Leahy. Thank you, Senator 

Grassley. 

In 1994 I married a man from the Czech Republic. We were married in Prague, and our children—twins, a boy and a girl—were 

born there. We moved 12 times in the 3 short years we were together between three countries and two continents with our young 

children in tow. Our moves were always explained to me as necessary for business, when in reality we were living life on the run, 

managing to stay one step ahead of the authorities. Sometimes we 

lived with furnishings and sometimes without. My children and I 

were often left alone for extended periods of time without the basic 

necessities such as food, a vehicle, and money. 

In 1995 following a sudden and unexpected move to the U.S., we 

eventually settled in Massachusetts and filed for my husband’s permanent residency status. Within days of receiving notice of our impending interview with INS, my husband reached around me for 

the coffee pot one morning and announced that we would be getting a divorce now. He instructed me to file for the divorce and continue to sponsor him for his green card. After filing for the divorce, 

my husband became abusive toward our children and threatened to 

take them back to the Czech Republic if I did not sponsor him for 

his green card. 

13 

As part of our divorce proceeding, our family court judge ordered 

me to attend my husband’s immigration interview. While at the 

interview I was told by INS agents that I could face Federal prosecution for marriage fraud if I continued to sponsor my husband. 

They explained that he met no legal requirement to be in the country except through our marriage. I was strongly encouraged to 

withdraw my petition. I did, with the understanding that I was 

complying with our Federal Government and with Federal law. 

Facing deportation for marriage fraud, a charge leveled by the 

Federal Government, my husband, a former professional hockey 

player, at 6 feet, 2 inches tall and over 200 pounds, self-petitioned 

as a battered and abused spouse. It was at this point that all communication I’d had with the two INS trial attorneys stopped, because once an immigrant files under this special circumstance they 

are protected by our Federal Government. Immigration officials are 

prohibited from entering into a discussion with the American 

named in the claim. 

As a result, my children and I suffered unimaginable consequences. The family court judge failed to heed the testimony of 

a child abuse investigator for the DA’s office. In order to protect my 

children from further abuse and the continued threat of abduction, 

I left the State. I was subsequently arrested by two FBI agents and 

a sheriff, fingerprinted, photographed, strip-searched, deloused, 

jailed, and held on a $500,000 bond. I was extradited back to the 

State of Massachusetts in handcuffs and shackles by two Massachusetts State troopers. My children were placed in foster care and 

for a 3-month period we were poked and prodded by various courtappointed experts to no finding before my children were returned 

to me. 

During this time, in a case unrelated to ours, my ex-husband 

served a year on probation for assault and battery. After 2 additional years he agreed to allow us to legally leave the State of Massachusetts. He’d wiped me out. I had nothing more for him to take. 

My children and I were left with no home, no car, no money, no 

furnishings, no insurance of any kind, and with hundreds of thousands of dollars of his debt. 

Today I have sole custody of my children. Over the years I have 

talked with countless men and women who have similar stories to 

tell, American citizens who have lost access to their children, their 

homes, their jobs, and in some cases their freedom because of false 

allegations of abuse. Currently there are no safeguards in place to 

prevent fraud or to prevent an immigrant from fabricating tales of 

spousal abuse. Through unfounded claims, immigrant spouses can 

bypass the 2-year marriage requirement enacted by the Immigration Marriage Fraud Amendments of 1986 that were actually established to prevent marriage fraud. No one from a local USCIS 

Service Center investigates or conducts a face-to-face interview 

with the immigrant. The only evidence considered is what is submitted by the self-petitioning immigrant, and the entire process is 

handled via paperwork in the Vermont Service Center. Because of 

confidentiality clauses and concerns for victims’ safety from their 

alleged abuser, claims of battery and abuse go unchallenged. In 

cases of domestic violence, the immigrant is presumed to be the 

victim. It is also presumed that no one would ever lie about being 

14 

a victim and that an immigrant has nothing to gain by lying about 

domestic violence. The evidentiary standards of proof of abuse have 

been relaxed to further protect the alleged victim. For instance, if 

the American citizen spouse discovers infidelity or other fraudulent 

behavior on the part of the immigrant, and as a result withdraws 

his/her support for the joint petition, this can be considered emotional abuse. 

We respectfully ask that you please consider amending VAWA 

and the Immigration and Nationality Act, requiring a local USCIS 

agent to conduct a proper and thorough investigation into these 

types of cases which would include access to interview both spouses 

in the process. 

Thank you. 

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

for the record.] 

[Applause.] 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you very much. 

Incidentally, everybody here is a guest of the Senate, and whether it is somebody who is agreeing or disagreeing with any of our 

positions here, there will be no demonstrations of any sort. That is 

the rule that we always follow here. And I appreciate the guests 

who are here. I want this to be something where everybody who 

is here is able to observe the hearing. We are also simulcasting 

this, as I understand, on our website. 

Our next witness is Eileen Larence. She is the Director of Homeland Security and Justice Issues at the U.S. Government Accountability Office. She manages the huge influx of Congressional requests regarding law enforcement and the Department of Justice. 

Ms. Larence holds a master’s degree in public administration. 

I appreciate you being here. Thank you very much. 

STATEMENT OF EILEEN R. LARENCE, DIRECTOR, HOMELAND 

SECURITY AND JUSTICE, U.S. GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE, WASHINGTON, DC 

Ms. LARENCE. Thank you. Chairman Leahy and Committee members, I am pleased to be here today to participate in your hearing 

on accomplishments achieved under the Violence Against Women 

Act. 

As the other witnesses have also pointed out, Federal grant 

funds provided under the Act have meant that many victims of 

crimes such as domestic violence and sexual assault receive critical 

care and support, such as counseling, legal, and housing help. Making sure that scarce Federal dollars are doing all they can to provide these services is important, especially in these austere times. 

In the 2006 updates to VAWA, Congress gave GAO a task: help 

the Congress obtain data to determine just how big a problem the 

Federal Government is trying to address and where the Congress 

may need to target funds to fill gaps and what mix of investments 

to make. 

Specifically, the Congress asked GAO to determine how prevalent is domestic violence, sexual assault, dating violence, and stalking among women, men, youth, and children, and what federally 

sponsored services are these groups of victims receiving for these 

crimes. 

15 

In summary, GAO found that comprehensive data did not exist 

and could not be reconstructed to answer all of these questions. We 

found that data did not exist on how prevalent these crimes are nationwide among the four victim groups for several reasons: 

First, little national research existed on some crimes such as 

stalking. 

Second, it is too costly to design a new single research effort or 

survey to collect all of this data. 

Third, existing research or surveys cover portions of these 

crimes, such as domestic violence, or certain segments of the population, such as adults over 18. But because the scope of these efforts varied in this way and they used different definitions of these 

crimes and victim groups, we could not combine results to develop 

a nationwide picture. Therefore, we determined that some important information gaps exist such as on the prevalence of youth dating violence and stalking. We recognize that perfect data may 

never be available, since victims may be reluctant to report these 

crimes, or affordable. However, stakeholders recognize that prevalence data helps to make informed policy and research decisions. 

Thus, we recommend that the Departments of Health and Human 

Services and Justice identify possible ways to fill gaps, either by 

revising existing research or surveys or designing new ones if agencies could fund them. 

We also recommended that agencies develop common definitions 

where possible. In response, agencies have several new initiatives 

that will help to fill some but not all of these gaps. Agencies also 

have either developed or are updating some common definitions 

and using them in various research and survey efforts, although 

their use is not uniformly required. 

We also found that looking across 11 grant programs providing 

services to victims, comprehensive data showing the services 

women, men, youth, and children receive by type of service did not 

exist. Such data can help to identify gaps and inform investment 

decisions. Agencies are collecting extensive data on the activities 

that grants fund, such as the numbers of individuals served, and 

for some programs data on victims’ demographics to help account 

for program accomplishments. But agencies cannot distinguish the 

kinds of services men, women, youth, and children are receiving for 

all grant programs due to several reasons. 

First, the statutes governing the grant programs do not require 

that data be collected this way. 

Second, the statutes created grant programs for different purposes so that the data collected differ. 

Agencies also expressed concerns that obtaining such data could 

inadvertently identify a victim, jeopardizing the person’s safety. In 

addition, we found that the data recipients provide might not be 

uniform or consistent. For example, some recipients said they determined the victims race by visually observing the victim while 

others had the victim provide these data. However, both agencies 

say they have taken a number of steps to address the quality of 

data reported and have seen significant improvements. 

Furthermore, agencies did not think some recipients would have 

the resources or access to technology and that some recipients who 

obtained funds from many different sources would be unduly burVerDate Nov 24 2008 12:42 Nov 28, 2011 Jkt 070894 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\70894.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC
16 

dened if reporting is too prescriptive. Finally, Federal agencies 

stated that they would face costs changing their own data collection 

systems. Because of these concerns and potential cost, we did not 

recommend that Federal departments change existing recipient reporting. However, our findings may offer some observations moving 

forward. 

Congress may want to work with agencies as they approach reauthorization and changing existing or creating new programs to 

determine: First, what do agencies already know about the impact 

of VAWA and what grant funds have accomplished? What other 

critical questions will Congress and agencies want to know, for example, 3 or 5 years out? And, therefore, what data will they need 

to collect now? 

Agencies already spend a lot of money collecting a lot of data. 

Are they using it as best they can to help determine if the Government is making the right mix and level of investments, what difference these investments are making over time, and how to shape 

the future mix of investments? 

Finally, what will it cost to collect new data to help answer these 

questions? And is the cost worth the benefits? This is especially important because we recognize that the tradeoff decision to spend 

less money on services and more on collecting data to assess results 

can be difficult, but also critical to addressing these somber crimes. 

Mr. Chairman, that concludes my statement, and I would be 

happy to answer any questions. 

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

for the record.] 

Chairman LEAHY. Well, thank you very much. 

I would just make a couple points here on Ms. Poner’s testimony. 

I can only imagine what a nightmare that must have been that you 

went through, and I have asked my staff t meet with you again 

after this hearing and get more details. We obviously need professionals who are trained to identify victims and make sure they are 

treated properly, and I know of the work the Vermont Service Center and the specialized VAWA unit there does, but if there is fraud 

in the system, we want to get rid of that because it harms bona 

fide applicants. And that is why I support as much transparency 

as we can, and I do want to follow up with you because we also 

handle immigration matters here in this Committee, and I want 

those to work the way they should and not to the detriment of people like yourself or your children. 

Dr. Van Buren, you have gone over a number of things, talking 

about what we have done in the past. We know there are probably 

unmet needs today. If you were to point out one of the most significant unmet needs today, what would that be? 

Ms. VAN BUREN. I would have to say it is housing, lack of affordable housing. There is just a low census of available housing in 

Chittenden County, and so, as I said in my testimony, it is really 

often if you cannot find housing you go back to your batterer, and 

that is not the situation we want to see. 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you for that, and I would note for those 

who are not familiar, Chittenden County is the greater Burlington 

area where we have nearly a quarter of our State’s population in 

that one county. There are 13 other counties besides that, and 

17 

housing is very tight and very expensive there by Vermont standards. 

Mr. Shaw, what needs are currently unmet for the victims of sexual assault? 

Mr. SHAW. What we are addressing recently is the reduction in 

funding and resources available for us to support victims of violence. In 2010, a survey of the rape crisis centers found that 72 

percent of the rape crisis centers experienced funding losses in the 

past year. Of those centers that experienced funding losses, 73 percent of the lost funds were State funds, 76 lost local funds, and 46 

percent lost Federal funds. That type of funding reduction reduces 

our ability to be able to answer the crisis line, to be able to provide 

the best support to victims when they are needing our support. 

Chairman LEAHY. And, Dr. McGraw, you talked before about 

your—actually a season-long program on domestic violence, and 

one of the things I have been impressed with, when you help survivors on your show, you partner with a number of local and national organizations and programs addressing domestic violence. 

You have had experience with a lot of that, and these victims come 

from all over the country. What kind of role do these organizations 

play in helping victims escape violence? 

Mr. MCGRAW. Well, Senator, they are absolutely critical at both 

the national and the local level. In an unprecedented way, we have 

just spent countless hours of programming about this because we 

wanted to raise awareness. We wanted to teach women what violence is—sometimes they do not know when something has crossed 

the line—and then we want to point them to resources. And if we 

do not have organizations like NNEDV and the domestic violence 

hotline and then the local emergency shelters—look, this is a grassroots thing, and if a woman is in crisis and she does not have a 

safe place to go, then she is in the greatest jeopardy that she will 

ever be in her life. 

So it is these organizations that they’re in the trenches with 

these women and with these children. We can point them to the 

resources, but as you say, they are from all over the country. We 

cannot go home with them all. But these organizations do. They 

meet them in the middle of the night. They talk to them at 2 and 

3 o’clock in the morning, and they keep them safe and secure from 

their abuser. 

We’ve also had a real dialog with some of the organizations that 

do the research that informs this kind of legislation—NIMH, NSF. 

We need to increase funding to them so they can tell us what this 

legislation needs to deal with. As I said, this is what we call a 

wicked problem. It is more than just prevention. You have to have 

education, you have to have prevention, you have to have remediation. These women have anxiety, depression, PTSD, all sorts of 

things in the aftermath, as do the kids. So these organizations are 

the ones that really step up, and let me tell you, NNEDV, these 

guys are champions in this realm, and they do terrific, terrific 

work. 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you. I am going to go and vote. Senator 

Franken, were you going to go vote? And, Senator Whitehouse, 

have you voted? 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. I have voted. 

18 

Chairman LEAHY. Then I am going to turn it over to Senator 

Whitehouse, and then I know Senator Grassley is on his—actually, 

I will turn it over to Senator Grassley first because he is back, and 

then go to you, Senator Whitehouse. Thanks, Chuck. 

Senator GRASSLEY. I know this just confirms for all of you how 

chaotic Congress is. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator GRASSLEY [presiding.] Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

I am going to start, first of all, by thanking everybody for coming, and I have already highlighted my relationship with Dr. Phil, 

and thank you for coming and bringing attention to this issue, as 

you have so many other issues. 

I am going to start with Ms. Larence. Your written testimony 

concludes, ‘‘As Congress considers moving forward on this bill, it 

should consider important issues such as obtaining data necessary 

to determine the prevalence of domestic violence and sexual assault.’’ However, your testimony also notes that this data is lacking 

because grant recipients often do not have data collection systems 

to collect and maintain the information. 

As we consider reauthorizing the legislation, what types of reforms should we be considering for the Department of Justice and 

Health and Human Services Department to ensure that grant recipients are collecting and reporting accurate data? 

Ms. LARENCE. Thank you. Senator Grassley, we looked at two 

issues in our review. One was looking at how do we know how big 

the problem is. We fund a lot of research and surveys to try to obtain data on the prevalence of these crimes, especially by group— 

men, women, youth, and children. Do the agencies have an opportunity to use that data that they have collected to establish a baseline and track over time how these trends in crime are changing 

to help educate the Congress about the mix of services they might 

want to provide? 

The second area we looked at is—do we have data on the types 

of services we are providing across these groups? And we found 

that trying to get that data is challenging to a number of the recipients. But we do collect a lot of data right now from the recipients, data on the number of services provided, the number of services they were not able to provide, the number of people that we 

hire, the number of training that we provide. But it is hard to put 

that data into context. What does all of that mean? Do we have 

some goal or target of change or progress that we are trying to 

make? Do we have indicators that we are tracking over time, again, 

to help us determine where best we should make these investments? And are we making them in areas that have demonstrated 

effectiveness? 

Senator GRASSLEY. And so the latter point is what you say we 

need more information on? Is that right? Is it quantifiable? 

Ms. LARENCE. I think we need to be careful and take into consideration the challenges that some recipients will have in providing 

this data, but I think we can look for opportunities. Can we get 

data in more detail to be able to make these investment decisions? 

But, also, do we have opportunities to use the data we already colVerDate Nov 24 2008 12:42 Nov 28, 2011 Jkt 070894 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\70894.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC
19 

lect in better ways to help us judge what return we are getting on 

our investments in these programs? 

Senator GRASSLEY. Your testimony also outlines how there are 

11 various authorizing statutes for grant programs that address domestic violence, and among other things that each of these different statutes requires different information. In any reauthorization, should Congress consider streamlining these data requirements to provide uniformity? And if so, what would be the benefits 

of similar data requirements? 

Ms. LARENCE. We did talk to the departments who recognized 

that across the different statutory provisions there are differences 

in the requirements that Congress has imposed. Some have been 

very specific and prescriptive, and others have been fairly general. 

So I do think that efforts to try to reconcile the data requirements 

and evaluation requirements across the programs would help the 

agencies to be able to collect more consistent information that 

would allow us to leverage that, add it together, and get a better 

picture nationwide of what is happening. 

Senator GRASSLEY. Ms. Poner, I thank you for coming and telling 

your story. It is very eye-opening, particularly as to how the bestof-intentioned laws can be abused. While I know you are not an expert on the topic of immigration, I understand that you have spoken with other individuals who have had similar experiences where 

this law was used fraudulently as a tool to manipulate access to 

green cards. 

Two questions for you: Do you believe that Congress should include provisions strengthening the law to ensure that it is not 

abused simply to obtain U.S. citizenship or maybe even being here 

legally? And if you agree with that, what reforms would you suggest? 

Ms. PONER. Yes, I do agree, and what we are simply suggesting 

is that a local USCIS agent be allowed to participate in the process 

with the Vermont Service Center in identifying who the true victim 

is in the process. That is all we are asking. 

Senator GRASSLEY. Okay. And what else would you like to share 

with us about how you were impacted by the law? What do you 

think is most important for us to know about this law being 

abused? 

Ms. PONER. Well, beyond what I shared with you personally, I 

can only tell you that I have spoken with countless men and 

women who have similar stories, but more importantly, the common experience with immigration officials and the process once an 

immigrant is able to file under VAWA, under that special circumstance, and at that point the American is eliminated from the 

process. And so in that way our stories are all the same. 

Senator GRASSLEY. Okay. Thank you. 

Senator Whitehouse. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thank you, Senator Grassley. 

The first question I would like to ask has to do with the nexus 

between the experience of domestic violence and the state of our 

present economy. I am from Rhode Island, and from our shelters 

and victim support groups in Rhode Island, I am hearing anecdotal 

evidence that as economic stresses have increased on families, the 

caseload for women’s shelters and for domestic violence groups has 

20 

spiked upwards at the same time that Government funding support 

for these organizations has been pinched by the very same economic downturn. I do not know if you have more information than 

just the anecdotal reports that I am hearing from Rhode Island, 

but I would like to hear your thoughts on that question, and then 

I will go on to another topic. 

Mr. MCGRAW. Well, Senator, I would like to speak to that, if I 

could, because in the work we do on the show, we work with 

NNEDV, which is a national organization, and we have affiliates 

in every market in the country, and so we hear from every one of 

them. And there is a trickle-down effect here. As there is stress 

economically, financially, then there is anxiety and conflict and 

blame, and so that trickles down into distress within a marriage, 

which oftentimes turns violent. And we have had reports from various communities that since the economic downturn, their spikes 

have been as much as 400 percent up in terms of the calls that 

they are getting, the requests that they’re reaching out for and the 

help that they are reaching out for. 

The problem is if they do not have that help, then they either 

stay with the abuser or they go to a hotel where they are easy to 

find, and that is the separation assault. That is when people get 

killed. That is when they get seriously hurt. 

So there is a definite trickle-down effect from the economic pressure to the marital stress that deteriorates into mental, emotional, 

and physical abuse, and it is not anecdotal. It is epidemic, and we 

deal with it every single day. 

We drive our program content by what we get from our viewers, 

and the letters that we are getting number in the thousands and 

thousands and thousands of people that are caught up in this. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Do other witnesses agree with Dr. Phil’s 

observation? 

Ms. VAN BUREN. If I could add, I agree completely, but what I 

would add is that at Women Helping Battered Women, we have 

seen an increase of people wanting emergency shelter, a 39-percent 

increase over the last 3 years. But what is significant from our 

point of view is not that that has increased, although that is significant, but that the depth of their need is much greater. We are 

spending a lot more time with each individual woman or individual 

victim. It is not just finding them emergency shelter. It is helping 

them with credit repair; it is helping them find a job; it is helping 

them gain back their self-sufficiency and their independence. That 

has become increasingly challenging over the past few years. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. So greater incidence and depth of need. 

Ms. VAN BUREN. Much greater depth of need, yes. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Okay. The other topic that I wanted to address is children who witness domestic violence. I have two questions about that. One, are you aware of particular best practices 

that you would highlight in terms of dealing with the problem of 

children who witness domestic violence? And the second related 

question is that I was the Attorney General in Rhode Island, we 

had a domestic violence unit. I was the U.S. Attorney. I have some 

history with this, and I had the experience that on, you know, fairly regular occasions we came across victims who had put up with 

a great deal of victimization well after they knew that something 

21 

was seriously wrong, and they were willing to take it on themselves because their feeling was that it was protecting their children, that it was for the sake of the family, that they did not want 

to be the ones who broke up the family unit. And that suggested 

to me a lack of communication with the victims about the effects 

that what the children were witnessing was really doing to them 

and it really was not in a child’s interest to be kept in a household 

in which domestic violence is the way that the parents do business. 

So if you could comment on children who witness in those two 

veins, both with respect to best practices and what kind of communications opportunity that provides to empower women to make a 

prompt decision to get away from the domestic violence and not be 

trapped in it by their mistaken sense that it is actually for the good 

of their children to put up with it. 

Mr. SHAW. If you do not mind, I would like to speak to the first 

question, Senator, in terms of best practices and addressing child 

witnesses of domestic violence, and sexual violence as well. What 

we have identified as best practices is supporting moms in re-establishing their relationships with their children, because a significant 

part of the battering and the abusive behavior is undermining 

mom’s relationships with the children. The children are—their relationships are being undermined, but also the children are being 

trained that this is a part of how families interact, moms and dads 

interact with each other. So supporting what we found as best 

practices, supporting moms and re-establishing their authority and 

their relationships with their children as the mom, as the important authority figure, somebody that cares for them. That is something that we have talked about a lot and actually developed some 

programming around that in our agency. 

Mr. MCGRAW. If I could add to that, Senator, I have had many 

child and adult tell me, ‘‘Dr. Phil, I would rather be from a broken 

home than live in one.’’ And I think what they are saying is exactly 

what has been said, that, look, children have needs, and all children have needs—needs for acceptance, needs for predictability, 

needs for security. When they go into a divorce situation, they go 

into a fragmented family, they have the same needs. They just become very exaggerated. They look for somebody that can run the 

business of the family. We are still going to get up in the morning, 

we are still going to get dressed. I am expected to do my homework, I am expected to do this. They are looking for somebody to 

run the business of the family. And we hear so often when these 

situations are happening, ‘‘Well, they should take those children 

away and put them in foster care.’’ Well, as Senator Grassley 

knows—along with him I am very involved in the foster care system—this is a broken system. And to take a child from a biological 

parent and put it into foster care is a last-ditch effort of what we 

should do. 

So we need to support these mothers and these fathers, and to 

do that we have got to get trained resources to the courts. I mean, 

you know from your role as Attorney General, we have a breakdown right now between family court and criminal court. You have 

abuse alleged in family court. This is a crime. This should be in 

the criminal court. They should at least talk to each other back and 

forth. 

22 

I spent a year of post-doctoral training to become a forensic psychologist. We need people to determine where the allegations are 

true, because every woman that says she is abused and battered 

is not. It is just simply not the case. And so sometimes they use 

it as a lever to get what they want. We need skilled evaluators that 

can determine where this child can get their needs met the best in 

terms of security, safety, predictability, and continuing in their life. 

And we need to be fiduciaries for the children—not political but fiduciaries for them. What is in their best interest? And most often 

it is staying with a biological parent. And in this situation it is 

often the wife, the mother. 

Ms. VAN BUREN. Can I just add one quick thing about public 

schools? I think we also need to increase the amount of resources 

going into public schools to work with children to help them—you 

know, support groups in schools, identify those problems really 

early on, and school is one of the best places to do that. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thank you, Senator Grassley. I went well 

over my time, but since it was just the two of us, I figured that 

was all right. 

Senator GRASSLEY. It is Okay. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. I appreciate your indulgence. 

Senator GRASSLEY. I think I will take advantage before I go to 

cast the second vote to ask my second round of questions. I am 

going to direct this first question to Dr. Phil and to Ms. Larence. 

In 2002, following a request from Senator Sessions and myself, 

the Government Accountability Office testified before our Committee here that grant files for discretionary grants awarded to the 

Justice Department often lacked documentation. The agency added 

that grant files did not consistently document monitoring activities. 

They did not contain progress and financial reports sufficient to 

cover the grant, that neither the Justice Department nor the GAO 

could determine the level of monitoring performed by grant managers. So there is a lack of accountability, and I gave you that figure about how the Inspector General revealed problems in 21 out 

of 22 grants. 

Another audit we had in 2010 found $200,000 of improper expenditures. This money was spent on improper expenditures, et 

cetera. 

Now, Dr. Phil, I know that you are not up on all these figures, 

and if I am asking you a question you do not feel confident to answer, you do not have to answer it. But I think everyone here 

would agree that domestic violence and sexual assault victims deserve the vital services that this law helps provide. This is why I 

cosponsored the last reauthorization in 2005 and going forward. So 

I would hope you would agree that given any current budget crisis 

that the Federal Government has, or even without a budget crisis, 

shouldn’t we ensure that taxpayer dollars do not go to grant recipients who have been found to have violated the program’s requirements? 

Mr. MCGRAW. Well, we need to be careful that we are not pennywise and pound-foolish on a couple of different levels. One is obviously we want this money to get to the street. We want it where 

the impact is on the recipient, the victim that needs the help, and 

23 

not caught up in bureaucracy, overhead, and red tape. That is 

where it is so frustrating. So that is very important. 

But I think we also need to make sure that we understand that 

if we do not deal with this, if this Act is not reauthorized and properly monitored, the ripple effect is huge, Senator. When we talk 

about 2 million women that are victimized in this way and 10 million children that are impacted by it, those children are put back 

into the system very soon. All of a sudden they are at high risk for 

drugs and alcohol; they are at high risk for sub-performance academically; they are at high risk for mental illness. And right now, 

as I say, this is highly underreported, but it is still costing $5.6 billion just in terms of the victims. And if you roll out the 10 million 

kids that are impacted and what resources they are going to have 

to have moving forward, we need this Act. Clearly, it has to be administered properly, but we need this Act, because if this is allowed 

to go on, it is going to break the system going forward in terms of 

the fallout to the children that we have to administer to afterwards. You know, we want to help them anyway, but we certainly 

cannot afford to not protect them now. It would be penny-wise and 

pound-foolish. 

Senator GRASSLEY. If my question implied that I think that this 

Act should not be reauthorized, I hope you did not read the question that way. 

Mr. MCGRAW. No, I did not. In fact, I know you have already 

said that you intend to, with questions, support its reauthorization, 

and I know that. 

Senator GRASSLEY. Okay. Ms. Larence, would you agree that as 

Congress considers reauthorization we need to take a strong look 

at rooting out waste and abuse in the grant program in order to 

ensure taxpayer dollars are going to the intended purposes and 

providing those services that Dr. Phil says are so very important? 

Ms. LARENCE. Yes, of course, Senator Grassley. GAO has not 

done a more current review of OVW’s grant management process 

since that earlier work, but we do know that in November of 2010 

the Department of Justice Inspector General continued to identify 

DOJ’s grant management among its top ten challenges managing 

the Department, and they continue to cite problems with the Office 

of Violence Against Women in terms of effectively closing out 

grants, spending money after the grants are closed out, and freeing 

up obligations that are available on expired grants. And so all of 

these things go to using the monies that the Congress has appropriated most effectively and efficiently to address these issues. 

Senator GRASSLEY. And, Ms. Larence, you also heard me say that 

21 out of 22 grant recipients in a study found that there was not 

enough justification of expenses. Wouldn’t you agree that any recipient under this law and any grantee has a duty to ensure that 

all expenses are allowed under the program? 

Ms. LARENCE. Yes, we do. In our prior work during 2006 and 

2007, we visited 20 individual grantees and did work with them. 

In some cases, as Dr. Phil mentioned, you know, their tradeoff decisions they think they are making is, ‘‘Do we spend money on filling 

out the forms and collecting the data versus spending money on 

important services? ’’ So sometimes that is a tradeoff decision that 

they are making. But, again, we agree with you that it is important 

24 

to make sure that we are using the money most effectively and efficiently and legally. 

Senator GRASSLEY. Would you make recommendations along the 

lines that grantees found to have violated grant program requirements should be excluded from participation in favor of those who 

followed the rules? 

Ms. LARENCE. That is probably beyond the scope of work that we 

have done, Senator. 

Senator GRASSLEY. Okay. Mr. Shaw, thank you again for coming 

all the way from Iowa. It is always good to have people from our 

great State here. I just want to clarify a point that you make in 

your written testimony. 

In your written testimony, you state that, ‘‘In its first 6 years 

alone, [the Act] saved taxpayers at least $14 billion in net averted 

social cost.’’ What is the basis of your statement that $14 billion 

were saved? Is that contained in any report or some other source 

that you could direct us to? And if so, I would be interested in reading that report so we can determine if other savings can be 

achieved. 

Mr. SHAW. Yes, it is based on a study that was done a few years 

ago. I have the information, and I can get that information to you 

in terms of that. 

Senator GRASSLEY. Okay. Would you give it to my staff afterwards? Because I have to go vote. 

Mr. SHAW. Yes. 

Senator GRASSLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman LEAHY. [presiding.] Thank you very much, and I have 

voted and Senator Franken has voted, and I yield to him. 

Senator FRANKEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for calling this 

very important hearing, and thank you to all the witnesses. 

I have a question, Mr. Shaw. According to the Justice Department, in 2006 there were more than 26,000 victims of GPS stalking. That is in 2006, and this is by cell phones and mobile devices. 

And, of course, there are millions more Americans that have mobile 

devices now, like iPhones and Droids. Many stalkers—and we did 

a hearing on this in my Subcommittee that I am Chair of on Privacy and Technology. Many of these stalkers use what are known 

as ‘‘stalking apps’’ to track their victims, and these apps are specifically designed for stalking and are freely available to purchase online. And once they are installed on a victim’s phone—and it is not 

hard, especially if it is a boyfriend or a husband who has access 

to the victim’s phone. Once they are installed, a stalker can know 

his victim’s location down to a few yards at any time. 

The website of one of these stalking apps—here is a printout of 

the website—actually says, ‘‘Track every text, every call, every 

move they make using our easy cell phone spy software.’’ 

Mr. Chairman—which I guess is now me. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator FRANKEN. Without objection—— 

[Laughter.] 

Senator FRANKEN.—I would like to add the printouts of this and 

three similar apps to the record. So ordered. 

[Laughter.] 

25 

[The information referred to appears as a submission for the 

record.] 

Senator FRANKEN. Mr. Shaw, I have a bill that I introduced with 

Senator Blumenthal called ‘‘The Location Privacy Protection Act’’ 

that would criminalize the worst of these apps. Do you think we 

need to do better protecting women from these stalking apps? 

Mr. SHAW. Absolutely. I know it is difficult in this day and age 

to keep up with technology. It gets far ahead of us. And it is important for us to figure out ways to catch up. There are critical resources that are necessary for us to keep up with that technology 

that is moving ahead. That is in a lot of ways being couched as, 

you know, take care of your kids or make sure your kids are not 

doing—— 

Senator FRANKEN. And there is a legitimate use for tracking your 

kids. 

Mr. SHAW. Right. 

Senator FRANKEN. There are legitimate—— 

Mr. SHAW. Keep up with the kids. But what we also know is that 

perpetrators of violence, batterers, sex offenders, use those same 

tools to victimize women and the people that they are abusing. So 

it is critical and crucial that we provide resources to law enforcement to be able to respond. And it is critical that we provide the 

information to study what is going on, to really look at what is 

going on with our technology and—— 

Senator FRANKEN. And that we—I am proposing a law, a piece 

of legislation that would prosecute apps that knowingly sell things 

that are used in this manner and that would give—would signal 

somebody that they are being followed. 

Mr. SHAW. Actually, that is an important part, to get to the distributors as well, because oftentimes we look at the back end of it, 

somebody that uses it, we hold them accountable for it, but also 

using our resources to get to the distributors to say it is not OK 

for you to be distributing this material and producing it this way. 

Senator FRANKEN. Absolutely. 

Ms. Van Buren, several months ago I visited an emergency shelter in southern Minnesota, and the community had space for 

nine—it had nine units for women and their kids. And from what 

the folks that ran the shelter said, it was always full, and that the 

distinction here between an emergency shelter and a transitional 

shelter was a little blurred. These women were using it to get away 

from their abuser and get their kids away from the abuser. 

Can you talk about the distinction between emergency and transitional housing and why both are important? 

Ms. VAN BUREN. Certainly. In our experience, at Women Helping 

Battered Women, emergency shelter is available for women for a 

3-week period of time, and it is during that period of time that we 

helped them find their next step. And in our case it could be one 

of our transitional shelter apartments. We operate scattered-site 

apartments in the community as well as we manage a complex, an 

apartment building. And that moves women into a whole different 

funding stream when they move into our transitional housing. And 

women can come into Sophie’s Place and stay for up to 2 years and 

really have much more intensive services, you know, everything 

from counseling to credit to employment to, you know, starting 

26 

their own business. All sorts of different opportunities for them are 

available over that 2-year period of time. 

So that is the difference, that transitional housing really is a 

transition from crisis to permanent housing, and our emergency 

shelter is crisis housing. It is a place for them to flee in the middle 

of the night. It is where they can land safely. It is where they can 

get crisis support for their children and for themselves before they 

move into a more stable situation. 

Senator FRANKEN. But if there is no place to transition to—— 

Ms. VAN BUREN. Well, that is the rub. 

Senator FRANKEN. Yes. And I know I am out of time. We are 

going to have a second round, Mr. Chairman? 

Chairman LEAHY. We are. 

Senator FRANKEN. Okay. Thank you. I would love to do that. 

Thank you. 

Chairman LEAHY. Senator Blumenthal. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

First of all, thank you all for being here and for giving us the 

very substantial, varied insights that you bring to this subject. And 

I strongly support, as you do, reauthorization and strengthening of 

the Violence Against Women Act, and as Attorney General of the 

State of Connecticut, I took a strong stand—in fact, started an organization called ‘‘Men Against Domestic Violence,’’ which sought 

to enlist leaders of the community and business and law enforcement and news broadcasting and many other areas in providing 

models and leadership in this area, which focuses on my question. 

Beyond the legal issues—and maybe I can begin with you, Dr. 

Phil—how do we better enlist men in this battle? How do we make 

them models for young people so that we break the cycle? As you 

know, more than 70 percent of all men who commit domestic violence see it or experience it in their own lives. How do we break 

that cycle? 

Mr. MCGRAW. You know, I think we have to go at it two ways. 

I am working with some other professionals right now to put a program into the schools where we get to these young men before they 

get into relationship situations where the emotions run high 

enough that it pulls for an abuse breakdown. We have to get into 

the schools and teach these young men that it is never OK to put 

your hands on a woman in anger. No reason, no way, no how do 

you ever do that. But we have to go beyond just telling them what 

not to do. We have to teach them how to problem solve. We have 

to teach them how to communicate. 

My experience has been that people turn to violence when they 

run out of socially acceptable ways to express themselves. We have 

to teach them where the boundaries are. We have to teach the 

young girls what constitutes the early-warning signs of an abusive 

relationship. What they think is just ‘‘Oh, they love me so much’’ 

can, in fact, be control, domination, turn into stalking, all sorts of 

things that are gateway behaviors to the physical violence. So we 

have to get into the schools and not just have a dialog on the first 

day or some assembly speech. It has to be a dialog that is ongoing. 

And as far as once they are in the adult role, we have to teach 

the men where the boundaries are, because the most powerful role 

model in any child’s life is the same-sex parent, and if you have 

27 

got a father that is verbally, mentally, emotionally, or physically 

abusive, that behavior will be mimicked, as you say. To do that, we 

have to teach these men, but there is no forum for that, which is 

why, you know, we use the ‘‘Dr. Phil’’ show to do that, but we do 

not have a lot of men watching during the day. So we are talking 

to the women, not to the men. And it is difficult to find a forum 

where you get an audience with them to teach them alternative 

ways to do it. Telling them not to do it is not enough. You have 

to say, ‘‘Here is what to do instead.’’ And to do that we have got 

to have an audience, and to have an audience we have got to have 

a forum, and that is difficult. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Right. Yes? 

Mr. SHAW. I would also like to add to that. Talking about going 

directly into the schools or talking to schools and doing that kind 

of programming, the direct work with young men in particular, it 

is just as important to talk about and do programming around the 

culture of those students. So as well as talking to the students and 

talking to young people about what is going on in their lives and 

providing them with support and tools, it is talking to the community around them, whether it is talking to the teachers providing 

them with information, talking to community leaders, redefining 

what it means to be a man in a culture or redefining what positive 

and healthy relationships are in a culture so that when young men 

are making choices, they are not making choices in isolation. They 

are not thinking, ‘‘Well, he says it is OK to do this, so that means 

it is OK for me to do this,’’ or, ‘‘I am assuming that it is OK because nobody is saying that I am doing something wrong.’’ Changing the culture around them so that they believe that the teacher, 

the police officer, the people in their community are going to provide them with social sanctions for doing things to hurt people in 

their lives. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Well, I think changing the culture is critical, but you do need—as Dr. Phil said, you need a forum. You need 

a megaphone. But even more than words is the power of an example, a model, you know, a sports figure who can talk about experience that will grip young people, and it is young people that have 

to be a major part of the audience here. So I look forward to working on many of these issues. My time, unfortunately, has expired, 

but I look forward to a second round of questioning if that is possible. 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you very much. 

Senator Klobuchar. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Thank you, Chairman, for holding this 

hearing on such an important topic. I think some of you know that 

in my prior life I was a prosecutor for 8 years, and we had an 

award-winning domestic violence service center at Hennepin County, a one-stop place where people could go with their kids and get 

restraining orders, and the shelters were represented there, and it 

continues to be one of the best in the country. And that is one of 

the reasons, after seeing these victims, why I am so interested in 

making sure that we reauthorize the VAWA bill and that we do it 

in a good way and we are smart about any changes that we make. 

I had a question first about cyber stalking. I have introduced a 

bill with Kay Bailey Hutchison to get at sort of that next level of 

28 

stalking, to update the law that we have, and I guess my first 

question is if any of you have worked on this stalking issue and 

if you have seen a greater use of the Internet in either some of the 

stalking cases or violence cases. Anyone? 

Mr. SHAW. Well, we have not had the resources to study it to 

really get good data on it, but we have seen anecdotal evidence 

that the technology is being used to continue to perpetrate crimes 

on victims of violence and continue to stalk them. 

Actually, as the manager of a shelter, a few years ago I was 

struck by the fact that online there was—while we were trying the 

best we could to keep our shelter as a confidential shelter that nobody knew where it was, online the address, the location, the GPS 

tracking systems could look down, if you just put the word ‘‘shelter’’ 

on the Internet in a Google search and looked on the map, you can 

end up looking directly into a shelter, looking at the addresses 

there. Even though it is not listed, that information is out there for 

people to access while using devices and technology to do that all 

the time. 

Mr. MCGRAW. One of the biggest frustrations about this, Senator, 

we have had I cannot tell you how many letters and stories that 

we have dealt with in our End the Silence on Domestic Violence 

campaign where part of the abuse was that the texting and the emails—texting her at work 300, 400 times during the day; when 

she goes to the store, following her, stalking her. But the problem 

that we are running into is when you go to the authorities with it, 

they do not really know what to do with it. You know, they will 

say they have a cyber crimes division, but the truth is they do not 

really know what to do with it. Like, ‘‘What do we do? ’’ So, ‘‘Turn 

your phone off, lady’’ is what they say, and so they are very frustrated that there is no real accountability for the person. And, you 

know, we see it in—we have an anti-bullying campaign. You know, 

the bullying used to take place on the playground. Now it follows 

the child home, and it is the same way in this situation. It can follow the woman to work or to her mother’s house or wherever, 

where it is too difficult to unplug from it. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Right. The other piece about this I think is 

just that you have laws that were so outdated, and that is why we 

are trying to update them, because it is very hard to make some 

of the cases on the cyber piece of it. And I would think also trying 

to use technology to our advantage so that they can, you know, cut 

off access to those numbers and those e-mails to certain people will 

be a piece of this as well. 

One of the things I wanted to ask you, Dr. Van Buren, was: I 

know in your testimony that a 2010 study showed that more than 

70,000 people were served by domestic violence programs in just 

one day, but, tragically, 9,500 requests for services went unmet. 

What happens in these circumstances, do you think, when they do 

not get any services, their needs are unmet? 

Ms. VAN BUREN. First, we have to make sure you realize that is 

not just in Vermont. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. I do. 

Ms. VAN BUREN. Okay. That would be a lot of people for 

Vermont. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. I know. I have been there. 

29 

[Laughter.] 

Ms. VAN BUREN. What happens is that they do not—there are 

not alternatives. There are no options. What happens when someone calls us in crisis or even on the hotline and not necessarily in 

crisis is that we are able to offer them options. We are able to either bring them into our shelter, put them in a safe motel room, 

you know, provide them with services in the courts. And so if we 

are not able to serve them or if any of the other shelters or domestic and sexual violence organizations in the State of Vermont cannot serve them, they do not have any options. They stay with their 

batterer, they live on the streets. We have women who are living 

in their cars because there is no place else to go with their kids. 

Frequently homeless shelters will not accept victims of domestic violence who are in crisis. 

So it is a tragic situation that is difficult, you know, because they 

really have limited options. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Thank you. 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you very much. 

Senator Franken. 

Senator FRANKEN. Thank you again. 

Dr. Van Buren, my last question was about going to a town in 

Minnesota, a city really, one emergency shelter, which also served 

kind of as a transition, full, nine units. And kids are there. And 

I want to kind of speak to the experience of the kids, and I want 

to, Dr. Phil—and, by the way, feel free to call me ‘‘Senator Al.’’ 

[Laughter.] 

Senator FRANKEN. I want to thank you for the End Silence on 

Domestic Violence campaign that you are doing. It’s a great service. 

Can both of you speak to what happens when a woman and her 

kids cannot be housed when a woman needs to work, needs to have 

someplace to live? What is the effect on the child if they have to 

move back in with the abuser? What does that do in the long run? 

And anyone can speak to that, actually. 

Ms. VAN BUREN. Well, I will start, but I will let you talk about 

the whole psychological piece. 

Mr. MCGRAW. Okay. 

Ms. VAN BUREN. More than 50 percent of the people who come 

into our services have children with them, women have children, 

so we have a very large children’s program that works with these 

kids in play groups, therapeutic play groups, both in our transitional housing center as well as in our shelter. We also continue 

to work with children after they have left our services, so it’s an 

ongoing therapeutic play group for these kids. 

I think any child who is in a situation where they are faced with 

homelessness, they are living in fear, they themselves are being either victims of abuse or witnessing abuse, you know, that is what 

we are working with right there at that point. You know, we are 

working with them when they are in crisis. And without that, I 

think we can defer to Dr. Phil’s comments about the damage that 

that inflicts on them, which we will see on and on and on as they 

grow older. 

Mr. MCGRAW. You know, the problem is really stark when you 

think about it. If you really put yourself in a woman’s position, 

with children, and she is getting beaten and abused in the home, 

30 

so she goes out, if you have nowhere to go, what you do is you go 

back home. You go back to the abuser. You take your child, you put 

them back in harm’s way, you put yourself in harm’s way. And, you 

know, as I said, there is this phenomenon of separation assault. It 

is in those first 2, 3 weeks after you get away from the abuser, because abuse is about control and it is about dominance. And when 

you leave, there is a real frustration effect. And that is why you 

get so much more violence at that point. That is the critical time 

where, if these beds are not available, if these shelters are not 

available, that women and her children’s very lives are in danger, 

to the point that we often have to say to women, ‘‘You simply cannot leave right now,’’ because your first goal is to stay alive. And 

if you leave, you put your life in jeopardy if you do not have a safe, 

secure place to go, and by ‘‘secure,’’ where they simply cannot find 

you. And going to your mom’s house or your sister’s house is the 

first place they are going to look. 

We have to have funding for these emergency shelters and transitional housing until they can get in a situation where they stand 

on their own and can get geographically safe. It is life and death. 

Senator FRANKEN. Because in the long term, these kids, when 

they—the choice, if we do not fund the shelters, if we do not fund 

the transition, these kids going back in the situation are witnessing 

this or are subject to it. And doesn’t that continue the cycle of 

abuse generationally? 

Mr. MCGRAW. When a child is exposed to this, Senator, it 

changes who they are. We write on the slate of who these children 

are every day, and this is not something like they scrape their 

knee, it will heal up in a while. This changes who they are. It 

causes them to define their relationships in this way. It causes 

them to fear intimacy. It causes them to blame themselves. Children have a unique ability to find a way that whatever is going 

wrong, it is their fault. They will figure a way to say, ‘‘If I did not 

need money for school pictures, if I did not make so much noise, 

if I did not fight with my sister, this would not be happening.’’ 

They blame themselves for that, and it erodes their personality, it 

erodes their mental health and their mental fitness. 

So the impact on these children is long, long reaching. As I said, 

they are at risk for drugs, they are at risk for alcohol, depression, 

anxiety, and post-traumatic stress disorder, to just name a few. 

And those are long-term chronic problems, and, by the way, they 

cost a lot of money to treat across a lifetime. 

Senator FRANKEN. My time is up, but that is a point I would like 

to make for everyone. The cost/benefit analysis—— 

Mr. MCGRAW. It is huge. 

Senator FRANKEN. Huge. If you just make sure that there are 

transitional shelters, there are shelters and transitional housing, 

the cost/benefits of that are enormous. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you very much. 

Senator Blumenthal. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Thank you. You know, I could not agree 

more with Senator Franken, and we have seen it in the State of 

Connecticut with the shelters that we have. 

31 

One point that maybe we have not emphasized enough in this 

conversation this morning is the courage and fortitude that it takes 

for many women to leave an abusive situation. As incredible as it 

may seem, having been involved in some of these cases, having 

talked to some of the women, having visited shelters, particularly 

Interval House in the State of Connecticut, our largest shelter, 

knowing of women who come with all of their possessions literally 

in a garbage bag and one or more children with them, even after 

years of abuse, it takes such an effort of courage and bravery to 

break a household. 

So I wonder if perhaps you can comment a little bit on what kind 

of support we can provide in those shelters for women who take 

this great act of courage. 

Ms. VAN BUREN. VAWA has done a tremendous amount to support what is going on in women’s lives. Not only are we supporting 

them now as they go through the criminal system, the court system, which, you know, is long and complicated—and we have advocates who work with them every day to help them wind their way 

through that process while they are with us in shelter or transitional housing. VAWA can continue to support support groups that 

we run for women who are victims. They can get together and talk 

and, you know, have a trained facilitator help them with this, acknowledging their courage, helping them find the strength to continue. VAWA continues to support our ability to advocate for their 

children, to advocate for them with landlords, with employers, and 

the support that we have been able to offer since VAWA happened 

has been night and day from before and after. 

You know, as in my testimony, I think we were receiving $50,000 

in Federal money prior to VAWA. There just was no Federal support for the work that we were doing. And now with this Act it 

really does support the tremendous amount of services that these 

women require: economic justice services, housing, legal, children, 

all of those. So as you said earlier, it needs to be strengthened, and 

it needs to be passed again. 

Mr. MCGRAW. Senator, if I could add, because I do not think the 

record would be complete without saying this, the help starts before the woman actually leaves, because there is a right way and 

a wrong way to leave an abusive relationship. And the wrong way 

is to confront the abuser. The wrong way is to just run out the 

front door. The right way to do this is very thoughtfully, with some 

planning, having an option of where to go. Planning ahead of time 

so you have an extra set of car keys, you have a little bit of money, 

however tight it may be, to get the documents for your children, 

birth certificates and, you know, things of that nature that you are 

going to need in order to function. And women do not think about 

this when they are in crisis. Nobody would—man, woman, otherwise. 

What VAWA has allowed to happen is to have resources for information to let women plan to do this in a way that they minimize 

the very real danger of that separation period. But there is a right 

way and a wrong way to leave, and by educating them we save 

their lives because they do it right instead of putting themselves 

in harm’s way. 

32 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. So that counseling and support really has 

to begin before they go to a—— 

Mr. MCGRAW. Most definitely. 

Ms. VAN BUREN. And it happens most frequently—for us, anyway, it happens when they call our hotline. That is the gateway to 

all of our services and when we—— 

Mr. MCGRAW. Without the funding, there is not the hotline. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Well, again, I look forward to working 

with you all. I apologize that I have been in and out because of the 

votes and other commitments, but I really appreciate your being 

here today, and thank you to the Chairman for having this very, 

very important hearing. Thank you. 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you. I am thinking we have three 

former prosecutors sitting here at the dais now, and that is one of 

the things that has kept us here. 

I want to ask Dr. Van Buren—and I do not mean this as a totally 

parochial thing because every Senator has parts of their State that 

are rural. What are some of the most specific and unique needs in 

a rural setting under VAWA? 

Ms. VAN BUREN. I think the most unique thing about rural living 

is the isolation. Many of our small towns in Vermont and in other 

rural parts of the country are miles away from anybody else. 

Women are isolated. What is happening is virtually invisible to the 

outside. You know, women can be abused and not allowed to leave. 

It is harder to get away with that in a more urban setting. So I 

would say, you know, rural needs, transportation is much more difficult, again, the isolation, having to travel long ways just to get 

services. Those are unique to a rural setting. 

Chairman LEAHY. My wife and I do a lot of work with our National Guard and Guard families, and what we find, too, is some 

of our returning soldiers who may have physical or mental harm 

from the war, and in these rural towns, there is also a feeling, well, 

we do not talk about this. And I think that is something that has 

to be acknowledged. 

I do not have further questions, but I think Senator Klobuchar 

does, and I will yield to her. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. I just have one. Maybe I am just trying to 

interest you, Dr. Phil, on this issue, but there has been a newfound emphasis, which I think is appropriate, by former Secretary 

Gates on sexual assault issues in the military, which I think is, 

when you think about domestic abuse back a few decades ago, or 

child abuse before that, is something that no one has been dealing 

with. And now as these things come out in the open, I think it is 

better for everyone and lives are saved. But in this case, there is 

this particular issue that the sexual assault records in the military 

are destroyed, in some branches of the service after one years, in 

some branches after 5 years. And there are some unique rules 

there. Some people come and report it and ask that it be private. 

Some people do not ask that it be private. That aside, the records 

can be kept, and we now have—I am leading a bill with Senators 

Collins, Murkowski, and McCaskill, and I have gotten all 17 

women Senators on the bill, Democrats and Republicans. And there 

was just a defense markup recently that, unfortunately, still put a 

limit of 5 years. And we had a victim come forward in Minnesota 

33 

who, because the marines kept the records for 5 years, when this 

guy got out and raped two kids in California, they were able to locate her so she could come and testify because it was a similar situation, although her prosecution was not pursued because it was 

more of a date rape case. 

And so I feel very strongly that the records do not have to go 

public, but records should be preserved, and I just see no reason 

why they would be destroying these records when everyone involved in these situations knows that you often see similar behaviors. And we are in no way saying that the vast majority of those 

in the military are engaging in this conduct. Of course they are not. 

But it hurts the entire military when people are hiding this conduct and we are not allowed to later prosecute people and use evidence to prosecute people. 

So I just wondered if any of you knew about this situation and 

if you had any comments on it. 

Mr. MCGRAW. Well, I did not know about it, but I do know that 

the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior, and the recidivism rate for sexual offenders is disturbingly high. So to fail to 

make that information available is shocking to me, that that would 

not be available to know that someone—because that person, unfortunately, is at much higher risk to repeat offend. So I cannot imagine that they are dumping that information. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. That is what is happening. Anyone else? 

Mr. MCGRAW. You do have my interest. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Thank you. 

Mr. SHAW. What VAWA has done over the last several years is 

improve our coordinated response in the community in general for 

law enforcement, medical providers, and advocates to respond to 

sexual abuse survivors. I think it is important, just as important 

to improve that coordinated response within the military. What 

VAWA can do is provide the resources to have sexual assault nurse 

examiners providing services in the military, having providers or 

resources that allows the military to start coordinating that get to 

those legal and judicial consequences of not keeping information for 

more than 5 years, so that if there was more of a coordinated response, which VAWA can support, it is more likely that those types 

of issues would be addressed. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Very good. Anyone else? 

Ms. VAN BUREN. I really do not know very much about this except that in Chittenden County, in the Guard—and maybe Senator 

Leahy knows more about this, but the Guard have funded a coordinator position who is working with us pretty closely on issues of 

returning vets and military families. And I think the more that we 

can continue, as Michael said, with STOP funds, providing that coordinated community response and bringing the military into that 

and really, you know, talking about exactly what you brought up 

so that we all know that information and can start working actively on the local level to address that. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. I think this would be more information for 

prosecutions if they, you know, subpoena the records, they are able 

to get the records to support one. But the issue you are talking 

about I firmly believe is very important. Minnesota started the Beyond the Yellow Ribbon Program for the National Guard, and it is 

34 

now going across the country, where they bring in the troops and 

their families every 3 months to talk about any issues, and it has 

been an amazing change in the way people are willing to talk about 

marital issues and talk about their problems getting a job, problems getting health care, or other things. And I think it is really 

important because you cannot just plop someone back after serving 

in a very difficult situation day to day and then expect them to be 

calling the pizza place to order a pizza or their bank account and 

everyone is going to be just totally normal. So that is the idea 

there, and certainly it goes into domestic abuse issues. But I appreciate that as well. 

But this is purely about trying to get evidence if someone goes 

out and commits a crime, and it turns out they have a record, but 

you cannot find out what it is. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman LEAHY. Well, thank you. Dr. McGraw, Mr. Shaw, Dr. 

Van Buren, Ms. Poner, and Ms. Larence, thank you all very, very 

much. This has been a worthwhile hearing. You will get transcripts 

of what you said. If you find something in there that you think you 

should have added, feel free. We will keep it open for that. This is 

not a ‘‘gotcha’’ hearing. We want to know what is best to do. 

Thank you all very much. 

[Whereupon, at 11:57 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 

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

35 


70894.001
36 


70894.002
37 


70894.003
38 


70894.004
39 


70894.005
40 


70894.006
41 


70894.007
42 


70894.008
43 


70894.009
44 


70894.010
45 


70894.011
46 


70894.012
47 


70894.013
48 


70894.014
49 


70894.015
50 


70894.016
51 


70894.017
52 


70894.018
53 


70894.019
54 


70894.020
55 


70894.021
56 


70894.022
57 


70894.023
58 


70894.024
59 


70894.025
60 


70894.026
61 


70894.027
62 


70894.028
63 


70894.029
64 


70894.030
65 


70894.031
66 


70894.032
67 


70894.033
68 


70894.034
69 


70894.035
70 


70894.036
71 


70894.037
72 


70894.038
73 


70894.039
74 


70894.040
75 


70894.041
76 


70894.042
77 


70894.043
78 


70894.044
79 


70894.045
80 


70894.046
81 


70894.047
82 


70894.048
83 


70894.049
84 


70894.050
85 


70894.051
86 


70894.052
87 


70894.053
88 


70894.054
89 


70894.055
90 


70894.056
91 


70894.057
92 


70894.058
93 


70894.059
94 


70894.060
95 


70894.061
96 


70894.062
97 


70894.063
98 


70894.064
99 


70894.065
100 


70894.066
101 


70894.067
102 


70894.068
103 


70894.069
104 


70894.070
105 


70894.071
106 


70894.072
107 


70894.073
108 


70894.074
109 


70894.075
110 


70894.076
111 


70894.077
112 


70894.078
113 


70894.079
114 


70894.080
115 


70894.081
116 


70894.082
117 


70894.083
118 


70894.084
119 


70894.085
120 


70894.086
121 


70894.087
122 


70894.088
123 


70894.089
124 


70894.090
125 


70894.091
126 


70894.092
127 


70894.093
128 


70894.094
129 


70894.095
130 


70894.096
131 


70894.097
132 


70894.098
133 


70894.099
134 


70894.100
135 


70894.101
136 


70894.102
137 


70894.103
138 


70894.104
139 


70894.105
140 


70894.106
141 


70894.107
142 


70894.108
143 


70894.109
144 


70894.110
145 


70894.111
146 


70894.112
147 


70894.113
148 


70894.114
149 


70894.115
150 


70894.116
151 


70894.117
152 


70894.118
153 


70894.119
154 


70894.120
155 


70894.121
156 


70894.122
157 


70894.123
158 


70894.124
159 


70894.125
160 


70894.126
161 


70894.127
162 


70894.128
163 


70894.129
164 


70894.130
165 


70894.131
166 


70894.132
167 


70894.133
168 


70894.134
169 


70894.135
170 


70894.136
171 


70894.137
172 


70894.138
173 


70894.139
174 


70894.140
175 


70894.141
176 


70894.142
177 


70894.143
178 


70894.144
179 


70894.145
180 


70894.146
181 


70894.147
182 


70894.148
183 


70894.149
184 


70894.150
185 


70894.151
186 


70894.152
187 


70894.153
188 


70894.154
189 


70894.155
190 


70894.156
191 


70894.157
192 


70894.158
193 


70894.159
194 


70894.160
195 


70894.161
196 


70894.162
197 


70894.163
198 


70894.164
199 


70894.165
200 


70894.166
201 


70894.167
202 


70894.168
203 


70894.169
204 


70894.170
205 


70894.171
206 


70894.172
207 


70894.173
208 


70894.174
209 


70894.175
210 


70894.176
211 


70894.177
212 


70894.178
213 


70894.179
214 


70894.180
215 


70894.181
216 


70894.182
217 


70894.183
218 


70894.190
219 


70894.191
220 


70894.192
221 


70894.193
222 


70894.194
223 


70894.195
224 


70894.196
225 


70894.197
226 


70894.198
227 


70894.199
228 


70894.184
229 


70894.185
230 


70894.186
231 


70894.187
232 


70894.188
233 


70894.189
234 


70894.200
235 


70894.201
236 


70894.202
237 


70894.203
238 


70894.204
239 


70894.205
240 


70894.206
241 


70894.207
242 


70894.208
243 


70894.209
244 


70894.210
245 


70894.211
246 


70894.212
247 


70894.213
248 


70894.214
249 


70894.215
250 


70894.216
251 


70894.217
252 


70894.218
253 


70894.219
254 


70894.220
255 


70894.221
256 


70894.222
257 


70894.223
258 


70894.224
259 


70894.225
260 


70894.226
261 


70894.227
262 


70894.228
263 


70894.229
264 


70894.230
265 


70894.231
266 


70894.232
267 


70894.233
268 


70894.234
269 


70894.235
270 


70894.236
271 


70894.237
272 


70894.238
273 


70894.239
274 


70894.240
275 


70894.241
276 


70894.242
277 


70894.243
278 


70894.244
279 


70894.245
280 


70894.246
281 


70894.247
282 


70894.248
283 


70894.249
284 


70894.250
285 


70894.251
286 


70894.252
287 


70894.253
288 


70894.254
289 


70894.255
290 


70894.256
291 


70894.257
292 


70894.258
293 


70894.259
294 


70894.260
295 


70894.261
296 


70894.262
297 


70894.263
298 


70894.264
299 


70894.265
300 


70894.266
301 


70894.267
302 


70894.268
303 


70894.269
304 


70894.270
305 


70894.271
306 


70894.272
307 


70894.273
308 


70894.274
309 


70894.275
310 


70894.276
311 


70894.277
312 


70894.278
313 


70894.279
314 


70894.280
315 


70894.281
316 


70894.282
317 


70894.283
318 


70894.284
319 


70894.285
320 


70894.286
321 


70894.287
322 


70894.288
323 


70894.289
324 


70894.290
325 


70894.291
326 


70894.292
327 


70894.293
328 


70894.294
329 


70894.295
330 


70894.296
331 


70894.297
332 


70894.298
333 

Æ 


70894.299