[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 125 (Thursday, September 12, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10377-S10379]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
TREASURY, POSTAL SERVICE, AND GENERAL APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1997
The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey is recognized.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. I thank the Chair. I ask unanimous consent that the
pending Kassebaum amendment be set aside.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendment No. 5241 to Excepted Committee Amendment on Page 16 Line 16,
Through Page 17 Line 2
(Purpose: To prohibit persons convicted of a crime involving domestic
violence from owning or possessing firearms)
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and
ask for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from New Jersey [Mr. Lautenberg] proposes an
amendment numbered 5241 to excepted committee amendment on
Page 16, line 16 through page 17, line 2.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading
of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
At the end of the Committee amendment insert the following:
SEC. ____. GUN BAN FOR INDIVIDUALS COMMITTING DOMESTIC
VIOLENCE.
(a) Definitions.--Section 921(a) of title 18, United States
Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new
paragraph:
``(33) The term `crime involving domestic violence' means a
felony or misdemeanor crime of violence, regardless of
length, term, or manner of punishment, committed by a current
or former spouse, parent, or guardian of the victim, by a
person with whom the victim shares a child in common, by a
person who is cohabiting with or has cohabited with the
victim as a spouse, parent, or guardian, or by a person
similarly situated to a spouse, parent, or guardian of the
victim under the domestic or family violence laws of the
jurisdiction in which such felony or misdemeanor was
committed.''.
(b) Unlawful Acts.--Section 922 of title 18, United States
Code, is amended--
(1) in subsection (d)--
(A) by striking ``or'' at the end of paragraph (7);
(B) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (8) and
inserting ``; or''; and
(C) by inserting after paragraph (8) the following new
paragraph:
``(9) has been convicted in any court of any crime
involving domestic violence, if the individual has been
represented by counsel or knowingly and intelligently waived
the right to counsel.'';
(2) in subsection (g)--
(A) by striking ``or'' at the end of paragraph (7);
(B) in paragraph (8), by striking the comma and inserting
``; or''; and
(C) by inserting after paragraph (8) the following new
paragraph:
``(9) has been convicted in any court of any crime
involving domestic violence, if the individual has been
represented by counsel or knowingly and intelligently waived
the right to counsel,''; and
(3) in subsection (s)(3)(B)(i), by inserting before the
semicolon the following: ``and has not been convicted in any
court of any crime involving domestic violence, if the
individual has been represented by counsel or knowingly and
intelligently waived the right to counsel''.
(c) Rules and Regulations.--Section 926(a) of title 18,
United States Code, is amended--
(1) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (2);
(2) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (3) and
inserting ``; and''; and
(3) by inserting after paragraph (3) the following new
paragraph:
``(4) regulations providing for the effective receipt and
secure storage of firearms relinquished by or seized from
persons described in subsection (d)(9) or (g)(9) of section
922.''.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is not a sufficient second.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I will proceed as planned. We will
wait for the manager to be represented here.
This amendment, very simply, would establish 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 the simplest words, the amendment says that a
spouse abuser, wife beater, or child abuser should not have a gun.
Mr. President, the amendment probably sounds familiar. In fact, the
Senate adopted this exact proposal as an amendment to the antistalking
bill in late July. Unfortunately, when it got to the House of
Representatives they, despite a commitment of support, let it be known
that they will not let this ``no guns for domestic abuser'' amendment
survive. They will not act on the antistalking bill, and there is no
indication that they intended to do so at any time soon. Since the
stalking bill may not become law, we, therefore, need to pursue another
vehicle that has a realistic chance of being enacted, and this is one
of the few such vehicles remaining.
Mr. President, this amendment ought not to be controversial. As I
said, it passed unanimously before as an amendment to the stalking
bill. That happened only after Senators, like Senator Lott, Senator
Daschle, Senator Craig, Senator Hutchison, and I, got together and
reached an agreement on changes to my original proposal. The compromise
that we reached was acceptable to all involved, even if none of us was
entirely happy. That is the way it usually has to be with any
compromise.
So, again, this amendment is identical to that proposal and should
not be controversial. I would also note that since the Senate approved
this proposal in July, both President Clinton and former Senator Bob
Dole have endorsed the concept of keeping guns from those convicted of
domestic violence. As a matter of fact, the spokesman for Senator Dole
said, ``Bob Dole believes that all guns, not just handguns, should be
kept out of the hands of domestic abusers.''
Mr. President, I couldn't put it better myself. Our colleague,
Senator Hutchison, has also praised this proposal. This is what she had
to say when the agreement was reached, and the amendment was passed
along with the stalking bill. She said: ``Because of Senator
Lautenberg's amendment, we are also going to be able to keep people who
batter their wives or people with whom they live from having handguns.
So I think this is going to be a great bill that will give women and
children of this country some protection that they do not now have, and
I am very pleased to be supportive of this compromise.''
Clearly, Mr. President, this amendment has strong bipartisan support.
So I am hopeful that it will again win easy approval. But I want to
take a few minutes to explain why it is so important.
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 of
felonies. At the end of the day, due to outdated laws or thinking,
perhaps after a plea bargain, they are, at most, convicted of a
misdemeanor. In fact, most of those who commit family violence are
never even prosecuted. But when they are, one-
[[Page S10378]]
third of the cases that would be considered felonies, if committed by
strangers, are instead filed as misdemeanors. The fact is that in many
places domestic violence is not taken as seriously as other forms of
brutal behavior. Often acts of serious spouse abuse are not even
considered felonies.
In over 30 States, even today, beating your wife or your child is a
misdemeanor. In just the past few years, some judges have demonstrated
outrageous callousness and disregard for women's lives. Right up the
road in Baltimore County, just 2 years ago a State circuit court judge
was hearing a case involving a man who shot his wife in the head and
killed her. As he handed down the light sentence, with time to be
served weekends only, and not a very long time at that, the judge
said that the worst part of his job is, and I quote, ``Sentencing
noncriminals as criminals,'' as if shooting your wife in the head was
not criminal behavior.
Or take the case of a man who tracked down his wife, shot her five
times in the face and killed 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 the victim provoked her husband by not
telling him that she was leaving their abusive marriage.
These are just two examples of the way that our criminal justice
system often treats domestic violence--not as a serious crime. Yet, the
scope of the problem is enormous. Every year there are 2 million cases
of domestic violence reported. Many of those cases are never finally
resolved because the plaintiff withdraws the complaint, or it is
dismissed casually. When women are killed in domestic disputes,
however, the murderers are holding a gun about 65 percent of the time.
Put another way: Two-thirds of domestic violence murders involve
firearms. In 150,000 cases of abuse, spousal abuse, a gun is present.
That means that perhaps it is put to a woman's head or put to her face
in front of a child, or children, and even though the trigger is not
pulled, the trauma is enormous. There is no reason for someone who
beats their wives or abuses their children to own a gun. When you
combine wife beaters and guns, the end result is more death.
This amendment would close this dangerous loophole and keep guns away
from violent individuals who threaten their own families, people who
have shown that 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 wife, lose your gun; beat your child,
lose your gun; assault your ex-wife, lose your gun; no ifs, ands, or
buts. It may sound like a tough policy, but when it comes to domestic
violence it is time to get tough. There is no margin of error when it
comes to domestic abuse and guns. A firearm in the hands of an abuser
all too often means death. 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 do not arise from a chance meeting. Even after a split, the
individuals involved, often by necessity, have a continuing
relationship of some sort. The people who commit these crimes often
have a history of violence or threatening behavior, and, 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, and guns in the
hands of convicted wife beaters leads to death.
Mr. President, this legislation has been endorsed by over 30
prominent national organizations, including, by way of example, 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 United States.
The 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 the millions
of women and children who suffer from this abuse.
Again, I do not expect this to be a controversial amendment since it
has already passed this body unanimously.
Once again, I will ask for the yeas and nays, but it is essential
that we have someone from the majority side in the Chamber. Otherwise,
it is deemed unfair. But I think it is unfair not to have someone from
the majority side in the Chamber unless this is a subject that does not
matter, killing your wife, if you want to beat her up first.
This is an important piece of legislation. It was a very
disappointing experience we had when it went over to the House after
being unanimously passed in this body and then casually dropped. But we
want to have everybody have a chance to vote on this, and once again,
Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
Mr. KERREY. 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. 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.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I come to the floor to speak on behalf
of this amendment proposed by my colleague and good friend, Senator
Lautenberg from New Jersey, and I want to start out in a very direct
way and say that from my experiences and the experiences of my wife,
Sheila, working in this area of domestic violence, I have learned that,
all too often, the only difference between a battered woman and a dead
woman is the presence of a gun.
That is what this amendment is all about. The facts, unfortunately,
speak for themselves. If you work in the area of domestic abuse or if
you just pick up the newspaper in your own State, you will read stories
about violence, abuse, and murders within families and among intimates
happening all the time, and, colleagues, you will realize that in all
too many cases the only difference between a battered woman and a dead
woman is the presence of a gun. That is what this amendment that my
colleague has introduced speaks to.
In the historic Violence Against Women Act that was enacted into law
as a part of the 1994 crime bill, thanks to the tireless efforts of
Senator Biden and Senator Hatch, there was a provision which was
accepted--eventually and after much negotiation--that I offered in the
Senate and Representative Torricelli, and Representative Schroeder
sponsored in the House. This provision prohibits anyone who has a
restraining order issued against them from owning or possessing a gun,
and it also prohibits anyone from selling or giving a gun to someone
they know has a restraining order against them for having abused their
spouse or their child.
This was a severely modified and much weaker version of what was
originally known as the Domestic Violence Firearm Prevention Act, a
bill that I introduced. Senator Lautenberg now takes the next logical
step with this very important piece of legislation, which would
prohibit the possession of a firearm by someone who has been convicted
of an act of domestic violence.
I imagine my colleague, Senator Lautenberg, went through all the
statistics. Let me just simply state, again, that: Four women a day are
killed at the hands of their batterer; every 15 seconds a woman is
battered in our country. The leading single cause of injury among women
in America today is violence in the home. It is just unconscionable.
The good news--and it really is, I think, good news--is that no
longer in our country, no longer in our States, and no longer in our
communities are we saying that this violence in the home is not our
business, no longer do we just turn our gaze away from it without doing
anything about it. I think we have finally realized that this violence
in homes, all too often directed at women and their children, is
[[Page S10379]]
really everybody's business. If we do not stop the violence in the
homes, it is going to continue to spill out into the streets and into
our communities.
The problem which Senator Lautenberg speaks to with this amendment,
of which I am so proud to be an original cosponsor, is as follows: In
all too many cases, unfortunately, if you beat up or batter your
neighbor's wife, it is a felony. If you beat up or batter, brutalize
your own wife or your own child, it is a misdemeanor.
If the offense is a misdemeanor, then under the current law there is
a huge loophole. We do not let people who have been convicted of a
felony purchase that firearm. What the Senator from New Jersey is
trying to do is plug this loophole and prohibit someone convicted of
domestic abuse, whether felony or misdemeanor, of purchasing a firearm.
For example, in my State of Minnesota, an act of domestic violence is
not characterized as a felony unless there is permanent physical
impairment, the use of a weapon, or broken bones.
I just want to simply say one more time to colleagues, because I can
rattle off all the statistics, this is no small issue in our country.
We are talking about significant violence. For any Senator who says
that we do not want to prohibit any law-abiding citizen from purchasing
a gun, I respond that we are not talking about law-abiding citizens. We
are talking about citizens who have been convicted of an act of
violence against a spouse or child and we are saying in those cases,
the law should prohibit that person from purchasing gun, from owning a
gun. Once again, the reason we support this law is because we know that
in all too many cases, the only difference between a battered woman and
a dead woman is the presence of a gun.
Mr. President, for a period of time I was coming to the floor to
announce the domestic violence hotline number which was set up under a
provision of the Violence Against Women Act. Since its opening on
February 21, 1996, the hotline has received over 30,000 calls for help
from residents in 50 States and the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico,
and the Virgin Islands. Let me announce that one more time. The hotline
has received since February 21, 30,000 calls for help from 50 States,
the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. I
want to announce the number one more time. The number is 1-800-799-
SAFE.
We in the U.S. Senate, by adopting this amendment, will be saying
three things. We will be saying we will not tolerate this violence; we
will not ignore this violence; and we will no longer say that it is
someone else's responsibility. All of us have a chance to make a
difference.
My fellow Senators, someone's safety depends on your vote. My fellow
Senators, someone's safety depends on your vote. That is usually the
safety of a woman and a child. There is no more important vote than the
one that is coming up on this amendment.
I yield the floor.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Minnesota
for his eloquent reminder about what it is we are considering here. The
statistics, the data do not have to be reiterated. It is very clear.
The underlying problem is, in this country of ours, that domestic
violence, no matter how severe the beating, is often dismissed as a
squabble.
I have heard reports of judges saying, ``Oh, he didn't really mean
it. He didn't intend to hurt you. Can't you go home and settle it
between you?'' And very often, of the cases reported, there is so much
trauma attached to the recipient of the abuse that she--typically it is
a she--is afraid to pursue the case any further because, along with the
continuing relationships, inevitably are the threats of further
disassociation, which, in many cases, could mean the end of income,
support, mean the end of some reassurance that there is a roof over
their heads. So they sell their souls. They quit when, if they knew
that the State cared more about it, they would continue to pursue it.
The other thing is, they are afraid that the guy, the fellow who
first treated them to a fist in the face, may come home with a gun and
take their lives.
One can only imagine what kind of rage exists within a man who would
beat up a woman, and often in front of the children they have. It is an
outrageous condition that exists. And this country has not yet taken it
seriously enough.
We hope this amendment will send a loud and clear message that you
are not going to get away with this kind of thing, because we are going
to take away your gun. We are going to take away that extra chance that
the woman might be killed.
You heard it from my friend and colleague, Senator Wellstone, the
Senator from Minnesota: Four women a day will lose their lives. I can
tell you this, from the research that we have done, that is a very
conservative estimate. The data are not good in that situation.
With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor. We are ready to vote. I
urge the adoption of the amendment.
____________________