[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 125 (Thursday, September 12, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10379-S10382]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
GUNS AND DOMESTIC ABUSE
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise to speak in favor of the
Lautenberg amendment to the Treasury-postal appropriations bill, taking
guns away from individuals convicted of domestic violence. I am a
cosponsor of his original bill, and want to congratulate Senator
Lautenberg on offering this important legislation in the form of an
amendment today.
Just getting the gun out of the home would make the difference in so
many of these horrible stories we hear about domestic violence, in the
news, or from people on the street. I don't know how many people on the
floor of the Senate have heard the cries of a family in crisis; I don't
know if you have ever had to dial 911 out of worry for a neighbor. But,
I have.
If this amendment makes a difference for one victim of domestic
violence, it will have done its job.
One woman I know told me the story of her abusive ex-husband. He was
physically abusive, and had been convicted of misdemeanors. What is
more, he knew he was prone to violence against his family, and did not
trust himself. He purposely separated the gun and the bullets at two
different ends of their house, so he would not be able to shoot her in
the heat of the moment.
But the measures he took were not quite enough, when he came home one
night, drunk, and yelling that the house wasn't clean enough for him.
Because he was able to find the bullets, find the gun, load it, and
point it at his wife. That she is alive today is a miracle.
This man was not the sort of law-abiding citizen we so frequently
hear about from the NRA. He had a record. He did not even trust
himself. This man should not have had a gun.
If he did not have a gun, the man in the story may have used some
other weapon. But we know from the research that nearly 65 percent of
all murder victims known to have been killed by intimates were shot to
death. We have seen that firearms-associated family and intimate
assaults are 12 times more likely to be fatal than those not associated
with firearms. A California study showed when a domestic violence
incident is fatal, 68 percent of the time the homicide was done with a
firearm.
Again, the gun is the key ingredient most likely to turn a domestic
violence incident into a homicide. But the people this amendment would
take guns away from--these people have already broken the law, and in a
very relevant way. In the face of the reality of domestic violence and
the role guns play in homicides in such situations, the Senate cannot
allow convicted abusers to have guns.
Unfortunately, this amendment will not make life better for many
women who are abused, even when guns are present in the home. We know
that most domestic violence is not even reported, and of the cases that
are reported, many do not lead to a conviction. This is a problem
associated with the horrible effects of victimization, and has a
different set of solutions.
But, for thousands of women and men in this country, this amendment
would mean immediate results. To get the gun out of the home will mean
the difference between life and death. I urge the Senate to pass the
Lautenberg amendment.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Lautenberg
[[Page S10380]]
amendment, because I believe it offer women a vital protection against
those who might do them harm.
Every year, an estimated 2 million women are victimized by domestic
violence.
Of these 2 million, nearly 6,000 die.
And 70 percent of the time, the perpetrators of the deadly violence
use a gun.
Mr. President, we already prohibit convicted felons from possessing a
firearm. But is an unfortunate fact that many domestic violence
offenders are never convicted of a felony. Outdated or ineffective laws
often treat domestic violence as a lesser offense.
Sometimes, victims are reluctant to cooperate for fear of more
violence.
And sometimes victims just don't want to pull themselves through the
ordeal of a trial.
And finally, plea bargains often result in misdemeanor convictions
for what are really felony crimes.
As a result, Mr. President, many perpetrators of severe and recurring
domestic violence are still permitted to posses a gun. Mr. President,
these people are like ticking time bombs. It is only a matter of time
before the violence get out of hand, and the gun results in tragedy.
Something must be done to close this dangerous loophole.
This amendment looks to the type of crime, rather than the
classification of the conviction. Anyone convicted of a domestic
violence offense would be prohibited from possessing a firearm. Fewer
abusers will have guns, and fewer of the abused will wake up each
morning wondering whether they will live through the day. I thank the
Senator from New Jersey for his efforts, and I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question occurs an amendment No. 5241. The
yeas and nays have been ordered.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Oregon [Mr. Hatfield]
is necessarily absent.
I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from
Oregon [Mr. Hatfield] would vote ``yea.''
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Smith). Are there any other Senators in
the Chamber who desire to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 97, nays 2, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 289 Leg.]
YEAS--97
Abraham
Akaka
Ashcroft
Baucus
Bennett
Biden
Bond
Boxer
Bradley
Breaux
Brown
Bryan
Bumpers
Burns
Byrd
Campbell
Chafee
Coats
Cochran
Cohen
Conrad
Coverdell
Craig
D'Amato
Daschle
DeWine
Dodd
Domenici
Dorgan
Exon
Faircloth
Feingold
Feinstein
Ford
Frahm
Frist
Glenn
Gorton
Graham
Gramm
Grams
Grassley
Gregg
Harkin
Hatch
Helms
Hollings
Hutchison
Inhofe
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnston
Kassebaum
Kempthorne
Kennedy
Kerrey
Kerry
Kohl
Kyl
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McCain
McConnell
Mikulski
Moseley-Braun
Moynihan
Murkowski
Murray
Nickles
Nunn
Pell
Pressler
Pryor
Reid
Robb
Rockefeller
Roth
Santorum
Sarbanes
Shelby
Simon
Simpson
Smith
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Warner
Wellstone
Wyden
NAYS--2
Bingaman
Heflin
NOT VOTING--1
Hatfield
The amendment (No. 5241) was agreed to.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. SHELBY. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
Mr. LOTT. Senator Daschle and I have continued to confer, and a
number of Senators have started asking about the plans for the night. I
am looking at the list of amendments here. We still have a good number,
somewhere between 25 and 30 first-degree amendments, but only 2 or 3 of
them are relevant to this underlying bill.
Our intent is to keep working. The managers have been working, trying
to get things agreed to. We have a couple of pending amendments we are
trying to get to an understanding on how to vote on them. We are acting
in good faith.
As I look at this list, so many of these amendments, really, should
not be offered. We should go ahead and get this work done. We are in
agreement now, the leadership on both sides of the aisle, that we are
going to get it done tonight. We are going to keep working and dealing
with these amendments. We are going to keep voting until we get this
bill completed. Then we will be able to advise Members when we get it
done tonight, we will have debate tomorrow but no votes.
We are now coming close to getting an understanding on what we can do
on Monday, with votes early Tuesday morning. Members can do what needs
to be done, fulfill commitments and religious holidays, but to get that
done we must finish this bill tonight.
So, please, we should not offer these amendments that are not
serious. We should the job done. Our intent is to keep going tonight.
We are honoring my colleague, Sonny Montgomery, after 30 years of
service in Congress. I will be there for 3 minutes to introduce him.
Other than that, I would love to be here the rest of the night.
I yield the floor.
Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I echo what the majority leader said.
There are many evenings where we arrive here at 2 or 3 o'clock in the
morning, and then we start to do the sorts of things that we could have
done at 5 o'clock in the evening.
We know what needs to be done. We have put out contacts to offices.
There are many amendments that we are prepared to accept, but we need
Members to come to the floor and offer the amendments up or notify us
if they are willing to take the amendments down. Otherwise we will be
here until 2, 3, or 4 o'clock in the morning. We could wrap this thing
up quickly.
The substantive disagreements, at least on the bill itself, have all
been taken care of. We have some disagreements on some amendments we
are working on right now that we think we can work out, as well as
getting a managers' amendment to wrap this up.
I hope those who would like to get out of here at a relatively nice
hour tonight, or those who desire not to have votes tomorrow, will get
down here as quickly as they can. Both Senator Shelby and I are willing
to work with Members to see whatever reasonable differences there are
and we will work them out.
Amendments Nos. 5313 and 5314, En Bloc
Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I have several managers' amendments. I
send two amendments to the desk which have been cleared on each side. I
ask unanimous consent these amendments be considered and approved en
bloc and that any statements be placed at the appropriate place in the
Record.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will report.
The bill clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Alabama [Mr. Shelby] proposes amendments
en bloc numbered 5313 and 5314.
The amendments are as follows:
amendment no. 5313
(Purpose: To provide funding for the review of trade issues)
On page 19, line 2, before the period add the following new
provision: ``:Provided further, That of the funds
appropriated $2,500,000 may be made available for the review
of trade issues authorized by Public Law 103-182''.
____
amendment no. 5314
Insert at the appropriate place: ``Provided further, That
from funds made available for Basic Repairs and Alterations,
$2,000,000 may be transferred to the Policy and Operations
appropriation''.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendments.
The amendments (Nos. 5313 and 5314) were agreed to.
Mr. KERREY. I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. SHELBY. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. SHELBY. The clerk will call the roll.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
[[Page S10381]]
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. DASCHLE. 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. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to lay aside the
pending amendments so that I may call up an amendment at this time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendment No. 5234
(Purpose: To remove inequities between congressional and contract
employees regarding access to health insurance)
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask
for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The bill clerk read as follows:
The Senator from South Dakota [Mr. Daschle], for himself,
Mr. Dorgan, and Mr. Simon, proposes an amendment numbered
5234.
Mr. DASCHLE. 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 appropriate place in the bill, insert the following:
TITLE____--HEALTH INSURANCE EQUITY FOR CONGRESSIONAL AND CONTRACT
EMPLOYEES
SEC. 01. SHORT TITLE OF TITLE.
This title may be cited as the ``Congressional Contractor
Health Insurance Equity Act''.
SEC. 02. DEFINITIONS.
For purposes of this title:
(1) Contract.--The term ``contract'' means any contract for
items or services or any lease of Government property
(including any subcontract of such contract or any sublease
of such lease)--
(A) the consideration with respect to which is greater than
$75,000 per year,
``(B) with respect to a contract for services, requires at
least 1000 hours of services, and
(B) entered into between any entity or instrumentality of
the legislative branch of the Federal Government and any
individual or entity employing at least 15 full-time
employees.
(2) Employee.--The term ``employee'' has the meaning given
such term under section 3(6) of the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act of 1974 (29 U.S.C. 1002(6)).
(3) Entity of the legislative branch.--The term ``entity of
the legislative branch'' includes the following:
(A) The House of Representatives.
(B) The Senate.
(C) The Capitol Guide Service.
(D) The Capitol Police.
(E) The Congressional Budget Office.
(F) The Office of the Architect of the Capitol.
(G) The Office of the Attending Physician.
(H) The Office of Compliance.
(4) Group health plan.--The term ``group health plan''
means any plan or arrangement which provides, or pays the
cost of, health benefits that are actuarially equivalent to
the benefits provided under the standard option service
benefit plan offered under chapter 89 of title 5, United
States Code.
(5) Instrumentality of the legislative branch.--The term
``instrumentality of the legislative branch'' means the
following:
(A) The General Accounting Office.
(B) The Government Printing Office.
(C) The Library of Congress.
SEC. 03. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS CONCERNING CONTRACTS COVERED
UNDER THIS ACT.
(a) In General.--Any contract made or entered into by any
entity or instrumentality of the legislative branch of the
Federal Government shall contain provisions that require
that--
(1) all persons employed by the contractor in the
performance of the contract or at the location of the
leasehold be offered health insurance coverage under a
group health plan; and
(2) with respect to the premiums for such plan with respect
to each employee--
(A) the contractor pay a percentage equal to the average
Government contribution required under section 8906 of title
5, United States Code, for health insurance coverage provided
under chapter 89 of such title; and
(B) the employee pay the remainder of such premiums.
(b) Option to Purchase.--
(1) In general.--Notwithstanding section 8914 of title 5,
United States Code, a contractor to which subsection (a)
applies that does not offer health insurance coverage under a
group health plan to its employees on the date on which the
contract is to take effect, may obtain any health benefits
plan offered under chapter 89 of title 5, United States Code,
for all persons employed by the contractor in the performance
of the contract or at the location of the leasehold. Any
contractor that exercises the option to purchase such
coverage shall make any Government contributions required for
such coverage under section 8906 of title 5, United States
Code, with the employee paying the contribution required for
such coverage for Federal employees.
(2) Calculation of amount of premiums.--Subject to
paragraph (3)(B), the Director of the Office of Personnel
Management shall calculate the amount of premiums for health
benefits plans made available to contractor employees under
paragraph (1) separately from Federal employees and
annuitants enrolled in such plans.
(3) Review by office of personnel management.--
(A) Annual review.--The Director of the Office of Personnel
Management shall review at the end of each calendar year
whether the nonapplication of paragraph (2) would result in
higher adverse selection, risk segmentation in, or a
substantial increase in premiums for such health benefits
plans. Such review shall include a study by the Director of
the health care utilization and risks of contractor
employees. The Director shall submit a report to the
President, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, and
the President pro tempore of the Senate which shall contain
the results of such review.
(B) Nonapplication of paragraph (2).--Beginning in the
calendar year following a certification by the Director of
the Office of Personnel Management under subparagraph (A)
that the nonapplication of paragraph (2) will not result in
higher adverse selection, risk segmentation in, or a
substantial increase in premiums for such health benefits
plans, paragraph (2) shall not apply.
(4) Requirement of opm.--The Director of the Office of
Personnel Management shall take such actions as are
appropriate to enable a contractor described in paragraph (1)
to obtain the health insurance described in such paragraph.
(c) Administrative Functions.--
(1) In general.--The office within the entity or
instrumentality of the legislative branch of the Federal
Government which administers the health benefits plans for
Federal employees of such entity or instrumentality shall
perform such tasks with respect to plan coverage purchased
under subsection (b) by contractors with contracts with such
entity or instrumentality.
(2) Waiver authority.--Waiver of the requirements of this
title may be made by such office upon application.
SEC. 04. EFFECTIVE DATE.
(a) In General.--This title shall apply with respect to
contracts executed, modified, or renewed on or after January
1, 1997.
(b) Termination.--
(1) In general.--This title shall not apply on and after
October 1, 2001.
(2) Transition rule.--In the case of any contract under
which, pursuant to this title, health insurance coverage is
provided for calendar year 2001, the contractor and the
employees shall, notwithstanding section 03(a)(2), pay 1\1/
3\ of the otherwise required monthly premium for such
coverage in monthly installments during the period beginning
on January 1, 2001, and ending before October 1, 2001.
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, every Member of Congress and every
permanent Federal worker has access to comprehensive health insurance.
This is true from the Senate cleaning crew, to the staff director of a
committee, to Members of Congress and their families. We get insurance
the way most working Americans do--through our employer, with a shared
contribution between employer and employee. Our coverage is secure,
comprehensive, and affordable.
This is not true, however, for employees of firms contracting with
Congress. Many of these individuals, who work side by side with Federal
workers, have no such guarantee. In fact, about 1,900 employees of
companies that contract with the Congress have no insurance. Current
efforts to privatize services previously performed by Federal
Government workers exacerbate this situation. Who are these
contractors? They include House restaurant and mailroom staff,
electronics technicians, day care providers, accountants, data
processors, and construction and maintenance workers.
They work hard, pay taxes, and play by the rules; yet, they don't
have the same kind of health security that we take for granted. I know
such people here in the Congress. One in particular is a person whom I
go to every so often to have my hair cut. She has worked in the House
Beauty Shop for 14 years. For 12 of those 14 years, she was a Federal
Government employee and had health insurance. When the House privatized
the House haircut facilities in 1995, this particular individual lost
her insurance. She purchased a private health plan, but had to drop it
3 months ago because she could not afford the $187 per month premium.
She asked the company who runs the shop--a large firm in San Francisco
that operates hundreds of shops--if they would pay 50 percent of the
premium. Her employer, so far, has refused, and she is now without
coverage.
[[Page S10382]]
She recently had a serious case of food poisoning but, because of her
lack of coverage, could not afford to go to the doctor for treatment.
This kind of situation cannot and should not be tolerated. As we
devise new ways to extend health coverage to the uninsured, it just
doesn't seem fair to me that we in Congress could allow these
contractors, working side-by-side with Federal Government employees who
we call upon every day to do the work of the Congress, to go without
any coverage at all.
How can we enjoy subsidized comprehensive insurance while people who
fix our computers, maintain our buildings, or cut our hair have no
coverage at all? It seems to me that, in fairness, we just can't do
that.
That is why I have introduced this amendment, which would require
firms that contract with Congress--and only Congress--to offer health
insurance to their employees. This requirement would apply to firms
that employ 15 or more workers and that have Federal contracts worth at
least $75,000. These contractors could buy a private health plan or
could select a plan from the Federal Employee Health Benefits Program
that currently is available to all permanent Federal employees. In
either case, they would be required to contribute to their employees'
premiums, just as the Federal Government contributes to its workers'
coverage. This would ensure that everyone working full time for
Congress has access at least to the comprehensive coverage that is now
available to congressional employees.
This kind of action is certainly not without precedent. Several years
ago, concern over high turnover among Senate day care employees led the
Senate to give these contract workers the Federal health benefits
coverage that we now enjoy. And Congress has a long-established history
of taking action to guarantee fair working conditions for its contract
workers. For 65 years, Davis-Bacon and other similar measures have
guaranteed competitive wages to Federal contract workers. This bill
complements these efforts.
The introduction of this amendment is not just a humanitarian
gesture. It is, frankly, a very practical one. Health costs for
uninsured workers who become ill are simply shifted onto others;
shifted onto public programs like Medicaid, or shifted onto doctors and
hospitals in the form of charity care.
In addition, the uninsured forgo preventive care and later need
expensive emergency room treatment. We should not tolerate this kind of
inefficient cost shifting. We should be setting an example for the rest
of the Government, and certainly the private sector.
Some may say this measure will reduce cost savings from
privatization. I believe Congress should contract out services
performed more efficiently by the private sector. But, certainly,
Congress should not save money by denying workers a basic benefit that
is guaranteed to all other Federal workers. We want services that are
leaner, but not meaner.
Outsourcing may be the wave of the future and, frankly, I generally
support this trend. But we need to make sure that those workers caught
in the transition have basic benefits to which other Federal workers
are entitled.
For many years now, Members of Congress have spoken on the floor
about the need to extend coverage to the uninsured. We all recognize
there can be no financial security without health security. Let us
simply put our money where our mouth is. Let us show our country that
what is good for Members of Congress and their employees is also good
for the contractors who work with us.
My hope is that my colleagues will join me in support of this
amendment.
I yield the floor.
Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, my view is that this is a reasonable
amendment. I understand there is no budget cost.
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, if the distinguished Senator from
Nebraska will yield, there is no budget cost to this. It is completely
paid for. There is a negligible cost that is completely offset. So
there is no increase in the deficit that is the result of this
amendment.
The Senator is correct.
Mr. KERREY. I certainly support the amendment.
We are waiting for Senator Stevens' view on this amendment. Both he
and the chairman are right now at a defense appropriations conference
committee. They should be back momentarily. Once they are back, we
should be able to wrap this up and get a vote.
Mr. DASCHLE. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. KERREY. 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. KERREY. Mr. President, I urge Senators who would like to get out
of here tomorrow to get to the floor and offer their amendments. There
are no more than seven or eight amendments on either side. We have
worked this down to a relatively small amount, and now all we are doing
is waiting.
There are a number of Senators who would like to have rollcall votes.
It takes time to have rollcall votes. We have been working as
diligently as we can. I want nobody to be surprised when it comes to 2
or 3 o'clock in the morning around here, if we wait until 7, 8, 9
o'clock before somebody comes down and offers amendments.
This is an age-old problem, and we are heading to a very predictable
point here. We have done about all we can from the floor. Now we have
to have Members come down and offer their amendments.
Mr. SHELBY. As the Senator from Nebraska said, we made a lot of
progress. We are getting down to what we hope is the beginning of the
end tonight. If people who have some amendments pending come over here
and try to work with us, we might work some of them out. If we cannot
work them out, maybe they can offer them and keep the process moving.
It is 10 minutes to 6 now. We could be out of here in a couple of
hours, maybe less, if people would cooperate. I know the Senator from
Nebraska has been pushing it all day, and so have I. This is our third
day on this bill.
I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. EXON. 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. EXON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to
proceed for not to exceed 10 minutes as in morning business. And if we
need to, I will be glad to yield the floor back.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________