[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 111 (Thursday, July 25, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8831-S8832]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




       INTERSTATE STALKING PUNISHMENT AND PREVENTION ACT OF 1996

  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, as a result of having passed a piece 
of legislation, a bill tonight, that includes an antistalking measure 
and a domestic violence measure, I would like to take just a few 
minutes to comment on it.
  Mr. President, my amendment, the domestic violence amendment, 
establishes a policy of zero tolerance when it comes to guns and 
domestic violence. The amendment would prohibit any person convicted of 
domestic violence from possessing a firearm. In simple words, the 
amendment says that wife beaters and child abusers should not have 
guns.
  Mr. President, I want to explain for a moment why this amendment is 
needed. Under current Federal law it is illegal for persons convicted 
of felonies to possess firearms. Yet many people who engage in serious 
spousal or child abuse ultimately are not charged with or convicted 
with felonies. At the end of the day, due to outdated thinking, or 
perhaps after a plea bargain, they are--at most--convicted of a 
misdemeanor.
  In fact, Mr. President, most of those who commit family violence are 
never even prosecuted. When they are, one-third of the cases that would 
be considered felonies if committed by strangers are, instead, filed as 
misdemeanors. The fact is, in many places today, domestic violence is 
not taken as seriously as other forms of criminal behavior. Often, acts 
of serious spouse abuse are not even considered felonies.

  In just the past few years, some judges have demonstrated outrageous 
callousness and disregard for women's lives. Right up the road from 
here, Baltimore County, just 2 years ago, a State circuit court judge 
was hearing a case involving a man who shot his wife and killed her. As 
he handed down a sentence that was primarily served on weekends for a 
short period of time, the judge said that the worst part of his job is 
``sentencing noncriminals as criminals.'' Can you imagine, as if 
shooting one's wife in the head was not criminal behavior.
  Or the case of a man who tracked down his wife and shot her five 
times, killing her. The judge in that case gave the man a minimal 
sentence, to be served on weekends. In explaining why he was being so 
lenient, the judge said that the victim had provoked her husband by not 
telling him that she was leaving their abusive marriage.

[[Page S8832]]

  These, Mr. President, are just two examples of the way our criminal 
justice system often refuses to treat domestic violence as a serious 
crime. Yet the scope of the problem is enormous. Each year, using a 
very conservative estimate, 1,500 women die because of domestic abuse 
involving a gun. Many believe that the number is closer to several 
thousand. Neither of these numbers include children.
  Mr. President, when women are killed in domestic disputes, the 
murderers are holding a gun about 65 percent of the time. It is not 
just beatings and other types of punishment. Put another way, two-
thirds of domestic violence murders involve firearms. Many of these 
murders would never have happened but for the presence of a gun.
  The New England Journal of Medicine reports that in households with a 
history of battering, a gun in the home increases the likelihood that a 
woman would be murdered by three times--threefold. In other words, when 
you combine wife beaters and guns, the result is death.
  Mr. President, I focused thus far mainly on wifebeaters, but domestic 
violence also involves children. In at least one-half of wife-abusing 
families, the children are battered as well. Mr. President, 2,000 
American children are killed each year from abuse inflicted by a parent 
or a caretaker. Yet, as I said before, many of these abusers and 
batterers are prosecuted only for misdemeanors, and under Federal law 
they are still free to possess firearms. This amendment closes this 
dangerous loophole and keeps guns away from violent individuals who 
threaten their own families, people who show they cannot control 
themselves and are prone to fits of violent rage, directed, 
unbelievably enough, against their own loved ones. The amendment says 
abuse your child and lose your gun. Beat your wife, and lose your gun. 
Assault your ex-wife, lose your gun, no ifs, ands or buts.
  It is a tough policy, Mr. President. But when it comes to domestic 
violence, we have to get tough. There is no margin of error when it 
comes to domestic abuse and guns. A firearm in the hand of an abuser 
all too often means death.
  If this bill had been law, maybe, just maybe, a person named Marilyn 
Garland of Barberton, OH, would be alive today. Her husband had 
previously been convicted of domestic violence offenses for physically 
abusing her. But even though he had shown himself to be violent and 
prone to wifebeating, no law prevented him from owning a gun. 
Eventually, as it often does, the cycle of violence spun out of control 
and Marilyn's husband used the gun to kill her. He then disposed of her 
body. It was a horrible, brutal act that was committed. It did not have 
to happen.
  By their nature, acts of domestic violence are especially dangerous 
and require special attention. These crimes involve people who have a 
history together and perhaps share a home or a child. These are not 
violent acts between strangers, and they don't arise from a chance 
meeting. Even after a separation, the individuals involved, often by 
necessity, have a continuing relationship of some sort, either custody 
of children or common property ownership.
  This amendment is based on legislation that I introduced earlier this 
year which has been endorsed by over 30 prominent national 
organizations, including the National Coalition Against Domestic 
Violence, the National Network to End Domestic Violence, the Family 
Violence Prevention Fund, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the 
YWCA of the U.S.A., just to name a few.
  The people who commit these crimes often have a history of violent or 
threatening behavior. Yet, frequently, they are permitted to possess 
firearms with no legal restrictions. The statistics and the data are 
clear. Domestic violence, no matter how it is labeled, leads to more 
domestic violence. Guns in the hands of convicted wifebeaters leads to 
murder.
  I made a change from the introduced version to respond to a 
suggestion from some of my colleagues. Like my original bill, which 
covered persons indicted for domestic violence offenses, this amendment 
applies only to those who have actually been convicted of domestic 
violence. This amendment would save the lives of many innocent 
Americans, but it would also send a message about our Nation's 
commitment to ending domestic violence and about our determination to 
protect millions of women and children who suffer from this abuse.
  To put it directly, Mr. President, there are over 2 million cases of 
household violence reported each and every year, and 150,000 of those 
show a gun present, a firearm present, during a violent rage or an 
argument. We ought not to expose those people who are abused by a 
spouse or a father to further violence by enabling them to have a gun, 
with the permission of our country.
  So the amendment, which passed earlier, simply stands for the 
proposition that wifebeaters and child abusers should not have guns. I 
think the overwhelming majority of Americans would agree. I look 
forward to a prompt passage by the House and the signature of the 
President making this law.
  Mr. President, the following Members were original cosponsors of the 
bill I introduced, S. 1632: Senators Feinstein, Bradley, Murray, 
Kennedy, Kerry, Kohl, Akaka, Inouye, and Simon.
  I thank the Chair and I thank the staff who worked so late this 
evening to accommodate me.
  I yield the floor.

                          ____________________