[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 134 (Wednesday, September 25, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11226-S11227]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




               WIFE AND CHILD ABUSERS CAN STILL OWN GUNS

  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, on September 12, the U.S. Senate, by a 
vote of 97 to 2, approved an amendment that I sponsored to ban wife 
beaters and child abusers from having guns. Last night, I learned 
something about this place that shocks me, and I am here now for 14 
years. I learned that even a mandate, voted on 97 to 2, can be 
dispensed with by a wink of the eye and a nod of the head, with the 
Rifle Association looking over Members' shoulders. I was told last 
night that, behind closed doors, the Republican leadership has decided 
to entirely gut this legislation and say that someone who beats his 
wife and beats his child ought to be able to own a gun. In other words, 
the gun is more valuable than the life that may be in jeopardy.
  According to the information I received, the continuing resolution 
now will contain language that seems to have been drafted directly by 
the National Rifle Association. This new language would allow child 
abusers to have guns. It also lets off the hook all wife beaters who 
are convicted in a bench trial, that is, as opposed to a jury trial, 
just a judge sitting there. And it contains special notification 
requirements that will allow many wife beaters to hold on to their 
guns, and that will say to these wife beaters: For you, unlike for 
everyone else in our society, ignorance of the law is an appropriate 
excuse.

  Mr. President, perhaps it is obvious, but I am absolutely outraged by 
this proposal, and I hope Americans across our Nation will be outraged, 
particularly those who have a sister, a mother, a daughter, those who 
care about what happens with women in our society. It represents a 
complete cave-in to the most radical fringe of the gun lobby. It will 
jeopardize the lives of thousands of battered women and children around 
our Nation.
  I am especially outraged because the language approved by the Senate 
had won such broad, bipartisan support. Among those who approved this 
legislation were Senator Craig, Senator Lott, the distinguished 
majority leader, and Senator Hutchison from Texas. They all agreed to 
this. That is why my amendment passed this body by a vote of 97 to 2.
  Unfortunately, the gun lobby is now intruding in the legislative 
process and emasculating this legislation. The NRA language, apparently 
being placed in the CR, would completely gut the protections in our 
amendment. It would put guns directly in the hands of people who have 
beaten their wives or abused their kids. The end result, without any 
question, would be more shootings, more injuries, and more death.
  Mr. President, this new language has several flaws, and I want to 
take a moment to explain them. First of all, this amendment would 
completely exempt child abusers from the ban on firearm possession. OK, 
you can beat your kid, you can still have your gun. Is that the kind of 
society that we want? I don't think so.
  As I have explained, my proposal, as approved by the Senate, applies 
both to those who abuse their spouses and those who abuse their 
children. The new language in the Republican bill stands for the 
proposition that child abusers may continue to possess their guns.
  Mr. President, that is absurd, it is outrageous, infuriating, and it 
is an insult to women in our society. It is an insult to men who think 
positively about the females in their lives. If someone assaults his 
own child and is convicted for it, that abuser, in my legislation, has 
sacrificed any claim to a gun. That is the way I think it ought to be, 
and 97 Senators agreed with me. That was the second vote, by the way, 
on my legislation. One time it was unanimous, by a voice vote, with not 
one objection. More importantly, the child needs protection, and he or 
she deserves it.
  If we can't protect the most vulnerable among us, our abused 
children, what does that say about us? What does it say about this 
cowardly Congress? What does it say about the power the National Rifle 
Association has over our entire society?
  Mr. President, excluding child abusers from this ban would be reason 
enough to defeat this amendment. But there is more. This amendment 
would also allow many wife beaters to continue to possess firearms. The 
amendment would entirely exempt from the ban anyone who has been 
convicted in a trial that was heard solely by a judge. Only convictions 
from a jury trial would be subject to this watered-down ban.
  Mr. President, I can tell you that many wife abusers in my State of 
New Jersey are convicted in a bench trial. They are brought before the 
judge and he renders a verdict. These convictions are entirely valid. 
They can send someone to jail or declare it a misdemeanor. There is no 
basis for excluding those charged and convicted by a judge--excluding 
them from the prohibition.

  Mr. President, States vary considerably with respect to the types of 
crimes for which a jury trial is required. In some States, jury trials 
are used in most domestic violence cases. But in others, judges handle 
many of these cases.
  So the effect of this amendment would be to exclude from the ban a 
large number of wife beaters, who happen to beat their wives in a State 
that has a bench trial rather than a jury trial. These wife beaters may 
have been just as violent as those in other States, where other abusers 
would be tried by a jury. But under this new language, these wife 
beaters would have a special exemption. They would be off the hook. 
``Aha, you didn't try me by a jury, so I want my gun while I beat my 
wife.'' Meanwhile, the wives and kids will remain unprotected from gun 
violence and, for some, that will mean, very simply, they are going to 
die. The difference often between the beating and a murder is the 
presence of a gun. Mr. President, it is wrong.
  It is time to establish a very clear rule. If you are convicted of 
beating your wife or your child, you lose your gun. If you are 
convicted of abusing your child, you lose your gun, no ifs, ands, or 
buts.
  Mr. President, another problematic provision in the new CR language--
the continuing resolution is going to determine how we finance most of 
Government, and I want everybody to understand that, starting with the 
fiscal year, October 1. That is how we are going to finance Government. 
In that is this language that gives special exemption to wife beaters. 
The new language says to wife beaters: We are going to create a special 
exemption for you if you have been convicted by a judge.

[[Page S11227]]

  In general, as most Americans know, ignorance of the law is no 
excuse. But, here, there is another out for the wife beater. For some 
reason or other, under this amendment, wife beaters would not be 
subjected to this rule. This amendment says that a wife beater must 
explicitly be given notice of the firearm ban at the time he is charged 
or notified of the complaint. Otherwise, if the notice is not given at 
the time of complaint or charging, the wife beater will be entirely 
free to have the gun. In other words, ``Aha, I wasn't told that if I 
beat my wife, I might lose my gun, so therefore, it is my gun and my 
wife, and if I want to beat her, I will beat her.'' That is what they 
are saying.
  Now, Mr. President, I am all for telling wife beaters they can't have 
a gun at any time. That is the best way, and it ought to be. It should 
not be a prerequisite for a ban. After all, it is not a prerequisite 
for anyone also. Felons are prohibited from having guns, regardless of 
whether they have ever been officially given notice. For them, 
ignorance of the law is no excuse. But under this amendment, it would 
be an excuse for a wife beater.
  In fact, this amendment is constructed so poorly, that it would even 
allow wife beaters to get guns if they did get notice, if the notice 
wasn't at the time of the complaint or charging. In other words, if 
someone is only given notice about the ban when they're convicted, they 
could still possess guns.
  Another effect of this language, Mr. President, is that it would 
completely exempt from the ban anyone who beat their wife, and was 
convicted, before the CR gets enacted, if they want to make it easy for 
these wife beaters to escape. This means that huge numbers of battered 
wives and abused children will remain vulnerable to firearm violence.
  Mr. President, the bottom line is that the provision apparently to be 
included in the CR is not serious legislation even though Speaker 
Gingrich said on a Sunday show that was witnessed by millions of 
Americans when he said he would accept this proposition, this 
legislation that I put forward. He promised he would do it. But once 
the NRA got hold of him and pulled on his coat a little bit he said, 
``Well, OK. Maybe we will just water it down a little bit.'' The same 
thing happened on the floor of this body.
  It's little more than a sham. It claims to establish a gun ban for 
those committing domestic violence. But it's been drafted cleverly by 
the gun lobby. And, not surprisingly, it's got loopholes large enough 
to drive a truck of wife beaters through.
  Mr. President, the problems with this amendment go on and on. And 
that's because this is not a serious amendment. It's a sham. It is a 
dodge. It is a shame.
  It's a desperate attempt to let wife beaters and child abusers keep 
their guns. And nobody should be fooled into believing otherwise.
  Mr. President, I know the NRA has a lot of power around here. We see 
it exhibited all the time--raw power. I do not know how many members 
they have. It is estimated, as I understand it, at 3 million but they 
have 260 million other Americans in the grip of their hands. But isn't 
there some point at which we draw the line? Isn't their some point at 
which we draw the line? Isn't their some point where we say enough is 
enough? Isn't their some point where they want to protect their own 
wives, or their own children? Isn't there some point when we can stand 
behind a 97 to 2 amendment approved in the U.S. Senate and say, ``Yes, 
we meant it?'' Or did we say in some cases we meant it until we got 
into the darkness of a closed room and then we made our deal, and in 
the light before the public? Oh, no. We are good guys. We do not want 
those wife beaters to have guns, those child abusers to have guns. But 
in the secret of a dark room they said ``Yes. The guy ought to have a 
gun. What the heck. He only beat his wife.'' If he beat the wife next 
door he would be in jail for 5 years; or, if he abused the child next 
door he would be in jail 5 years, or maybe in some States they want 
child abusers to be in jail for life. But if it is your own kid, if it 
is your own wife, it is like that is chattel property, you know. Just 
do as you please.
  Mr. President, I hope my colleagues will keep something in mind when 
they think about this provision. This is nothing short of a matter of 
life and death.
  Somewhere out there, there are thousands of battered wives and abused 
children. Thousands of innocent Americans who are virtually helpless 
against their abusers.
  Mr. President, every year, there are about 2 million reported cases 
of domestic violence. Very few of them get prosecuted because they are 
convinced or frightened by the abuser that it would be tough. He wants 
to be forgiven. In approximately 100,000 of these cases a gun is 
involved--some put this figure at 150,000. In other words, an argument 
ensues, a gun is held, aimed and pointed to the head of the woman, and 
he says, ``If you do not do this I am going to blow your head off.'' 
And the child witnessing that carries that trauma for life.
  There is no question that the presence of a gun dramatically 
increases the likelihood that domestic violence will escalate into 
murder. According to one study, for example, in households with a 
history of battering, the presence of a gun increases the likelihood 
that a woman will be killed threefold.
  As Senator Wellstone put it so beautifully and succinctly on the 
floor one day, all too often, the difference between a battered woman 
and a dead woman is the presence of a gun.
  Mr. President, it is not an exaggeration to say that for many women 
and children, we have their lives in our hands.
  We can save their lives by enacting the Senate proposal, and keeping 
guns away from their abusers. Or we can cave in gutlessly to the NRA. 
And they will die. And they will be buried in their communities. But 
some of the grief has to extend to this place.
  Mr. President, my message is simple. Wife beaters should not have 
guns, and child abusers should not have guns. And I urge my colleagues 
to stand up for the victims of domestic violence, to reject this sham 
legislation, and to enact meaningful law to keep guns away from wife 
beaters and child abusers.
  And if the NRA and their supporters insist on pushing a sham ban, I 
want to put everyone on notice that I intend to fight this every step 
of the way with all the tools at my disposal.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. THURMOND addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.

                          ____________________