[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 85 (Wednesday, June 29, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: June 29, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                         CRIME BILL CONFERENCE

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, yesterday, I held a press conference 
with Representatives Torricelli, Schroeder, DeLauro, and Maloney from 
the House. Our focus was on the conference committee dealing with the 
crime bill. What we spoke to was the stonewalling, I am proud to say, 
not by Senate conferees but by some House conferees, on some family 
antiviolence provisions which we believe are critically important.
  Mr. President, I speak on the floor today to convey the following 
message to some of my colleagues in the House on this committee. It is 
so crystal clear that it is time for the Congress to take domestic 
violence in our Nation seriously, to understand that domestic violence 
is a crime, and to understand that it must be treated as such.
  Mr. President, in November, the Senate approved, with the support of 
both Senator Biden and Senator Hatch, an amendment I introduced called 
the Domestic Violence Firearm Prevention Act. I wish to describe it for 
those who are listening.
  It would, first of all, prohibit anyone who has been convicted for 
abusing a spouse or a child from owning or possessing a gun. It is very 
interesting, Mr. President, the National Rifle Association--and I am 
not on the floor, by the way, to attack the NRA at all--has said over 
and over again look for us for support in making sure that guns are not 
in the hands of people who have committed crimes.
  That is really what this amendment says.
  It would prohibit anyone who has a restraining order issued against 
them for owning or possessing a gun. Finally, it would prohibit anyone 
from selling or giving a gun to someone they knew had been convicted of 
abusing a spouse or a child.
  Mr. President, I have said it once. I have said it twice. I have said 
it 10 times. All too often the only difference between a battered woman 
and a dead woman is the presence of a gun. Let me repeat that. All too 
often the only difference between a battered woman and a dead woman is 
the presence of a gun. We are trying to get the guns out of the hands 
of those people who have been convicted of an act of violence within 
their families. It is a most reasonable amendment.
  This amendment was severely weakened on the House side. Statistics, 
Mr. President: every 12 seconds in the United States of America--FBI 
statistics--a woman is battered; every 12 seconds. Over 4,000 women are 
killed each year at the hands of their abusers. Please remember, Mr. 
President, this is the most underreported crime in America. An 
estimated 150,000 incidents of domestic violence involve a weapon. The 
New England Journal of Medicine in a recent article pointed out that 
with the history of battering, if there is a gun in the house or in the 
home, that woman is five times more likely to be murdered.
  The problem is this: We have some conferees on the House side who are 
saying, yes, if somebody has been convicted of a felony, then of course 
we would take a gun out of their hands. That is the law of the land. 
But domestic violence is a misdemeanor quite often. They are right. So 
if I or you or someone, God forbid, beat up our neighbor's wife, it 
would be a felony. If we beat up our own wife, it is a misdemeanor.
  What happens in State after State after State, Mr. President, is that 
the charges that are brought against abusers are essentially limited 
and brought down to fifth-degree assault or misdemeanor charges. Even 
in those States which say domestic violence is indeed a felony, 
sometimes the standards are so strict, permanent physical impairment 
has to happen as a result of it, or there had to be a use of a weapon, 
or there have to be broken bones --what I am saying is the fact is we 
do not treat domestic violence seriously. We do not treat this violence 
against a spouse or a child as a felony. All too often we treat it as a 
misdemeanor, and therefore the perpetrators are able to continue to own 
a gun. Then what happens all too often, and it is tragic and it is 
unnecessary, is that a woman is no longer battered, she is dead.
  We are just simply saying that under Federal law we have a list of 
circumstances where we say you cannot own a gun or a firearm if you 
have committed a felony, and we should include domestic violence within 
this category.
  Mr. President, it is amazing to me that this stonewalling is taking 
place on the part of the House conferees. There is such a disconnect to 
the position that some of them are taking and what people in the 
country are saying. I did not argue that this particular amendment is a 
be-all or end-all. But I am telling you one more time, it clearly is an 
important step in making the home a little bit safer place. It clearly 
is reasonable. It clearly speaks to some of the violence that is taking 
place, not just in our streets but in our homes. To me it is absolutely 
outrageous.
  I give Senator Biden--and I know we are going to have Senator Hatch 
with us because he is supporting this--great credit. But we have to 
have this provision passed as a part of this crime bill.
  Mr. President, if we pass the Violence Against Women Act provisions 
that Senator Biden has done such a great job for years and years in 
speaking about as a part of the crime bill, and we pass some of the 
other family violence provisions, whether it be safe visitation 
centers, whether it be getting the guns out of the hands of those 
people who have committed an act of violence against a spouse or child, 
we will be sending a very, very powerful and positive message to women 
in this country. This is the message. This violence is not your fault. 
There will be support for you in your community, and perpetrators will 
be held accountable.
  I hope that the stonewalling ends, and I hope this provision is not 
dropped late at night. I know that we have support from Senate 
conferees. Hopefully we will have support from the House conferees. I 
am convinced that, if the House conferees hear from the public in this 
country about this amendment--and I know there is overwhelming support 
for it--it will be passed. But that is probably the only way it is 
going to happen, and that is why I speak on the floor today.
  I yield the remainder of my time.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                         PRIVILEGE OF THE FLOOR

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Marc 
Cummings, who is interning with me, be able to be on the floor today 
with me.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________