[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 40 (Friday, March 26, 2004)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3211-S3212]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



  (At the request of Mr. Daschle, the following statement was ordered 
to be printed in the Record.)

                 MURRAY AMENDMENT ON DOMESTIC VIOLENCE

 Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, let me begin my remarks this 
afternoon by thanking my friend and colleague, the Senator from 
Washington, for her leadership in this very important area. Because of 
her work, and the work of a man whose leadership we all miss dearly, 
Senator Paul Wellstone, victims of domestic violence have access to 
programs designed to protect them from what many would agree is the 
worst type of violence there is. Currently, the Federal Government 
provides a little under $500 million in domestic violence prevention 
and treatment programs. The amendment offered by Senator Murray 
proposes to take our commitment to put an end to domestic abuse to the 
next level by filling in the gaps left by current law and programs.
  As you well know, the goal of the underlying bill offered by my 
friend and colleague, Senator DeWine, is a simple, but important one, 
to prevent murder. What it says is that the murder of woman and her 
unborn, viable child is morally wrong and should be illegal. There is 
no disagreement on that point. The majority of yesterday's debate has 
been how best to draft a Federal law narrowly tailored to accomplish 
that goal. What this amendment attempts to remind us is that there are 
two ways to prevent the murder of a woman who is pregnant. One, you can 
put in place laws that recognize the loss of life of the mother and the 
viable fetus and impose the stiffest of penalties on those found guilty 
of committing such a murder. But equally important, you can put in 
place protections and programs that prevent this type of murder before 
it takes place.
  The sponsors and supporters of this underlying bill claim that their 
objective is to protect the life of a woman and her unborn child, but 
their actions indicate otherwise. A few Members have come to the floor 
to raise legitimate concerns about some of the provisions of this bill, 
but for the most part, the arguments offered by my Republican 
colleagues are nothing more than excuses. I would like to take a moment 
to address a few of these so-called reasons to not support this 
amendment and offer a rebuttal.
  The first reason given by groups, such as the U.S. Chamber of 
Commerce and the National Right to Life, for their opposition to this 
amendment is that the underlying bill is ``clearly an inappropriate 
vehicle for this amendment as the issues are completely unrelated.'' If 
I understand this position correctly, it appears that the opponents of 
the amendment believe that domestic violence is unrelated to murder of 
pregnant women. This position is misguided at best. Let me tell you 
what the facts are:
  In the United States, a woman is more likely to be assaulted, 
injured, raped, or killed by an intimate partner than any other type of 
assailant.
  Every day, 4 women are murdered by boyfriends or husbands.
  This year alone, 240,000 pregnant women were physically abused by 
their intimate partners.
  Sixty percent of all battered women are beaten while they are 
pregnant.
  Women are most likely to be killed while attempting to leave their 
abuser. In fact, women who attempt to escape are at a 75 percent higher 
risk of being murdered than their peers. The No. 1 reason women leave 
abusers is to protect their children, born and unborn.
  Homicide is the leading cause of death for pregnant women and 
evidence suggests that a significant portion of all female homicide 
victims are killed by their intimate partners
  Let me read for you a quote from an ABC News article dated April 25, 
2003:

       ``Most pregnant women are killed by people they know, like 
     husbands or boyfriends,'' said Pat Brown, a criminal profiler 
     and CEO of the Sexual Homicide Exchange . . . ``Sometimes it 
     depends on how far along the woman is in the pregnancy . . . 
     If it's a serial killer, they normally go after women who may 
     be three months pregnant and are not showing very much . . . 
     With husbands and boyfriends, the women tend to be eight 
     months pregnant . . . they can see the woman and the unborn 
     child as something in the way, keeps them from living the 
     lifestyle they want.''

  In fact, one of the stories told by my colleague from Kansas was of 
Tracy Marciniak, whose unborn child was murdered by his abusive father 
a week before he was due to be born. The Senator from Kansas was right, 
it would be unfair for anyone to say that there was no murder victim in 
that case. But it is equally unfair for him and others on the other 
side of the aisle to claim that there was not a victim of domestic 
violence in that case.
  Another argument that has been made is that this amendment cannot be 
passed because if it did it would kill this bill. That is simply not 
true. With the Murray amendment attached, there is nothing to prevent 
the House of Representatives from taking up and passing the amended 
version as soon as tomorrow. If they did, the bill could be signed by 
the President sometime next week and could become law within a week. 
The reason that is ``not possible'' is not a matter of Senate procedure 
or rules. It is not possible because the House Republicans' mode of 
leadership is ``our way or the highway.'' It is not possible because 
they refuse to fund programs that help stop a murder before it happens. 
It is not possible because they are more interested in making a 
political point than making a difference.
  Finally, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have claimed 
that they cannot support this because it calls for additional 
resources, and being in a deficit, we cannot afford to bring additional 
resources to bear on this issue. Senator Murray's amendment calls for 
an additional $400 million over 5 years to help fill in the gaps left 
by current domestic violence programs. With less than $100 million a 
year, we can make a difference in the lives of the 4 million who have 
been or will be abused by an intimate partner this year alone, save the 
fact that domestic violence results in a net loss of $18.4 billion a 
year for business owners and taxpayers.
  Here is what the truth is. When something is a priority for this 
administration, we have the resources, and when it is not, we are 
broke. The recently passed budget included $27 billion in tax cuts for 
people whose income is over $1 million a year. How is it we can find 
money for this and then claim the deficit as an excuse for opposing an 
amendment that uses less than one-tenth of 1 percent of that funding to 
save lives? President Bush claims that the purpose of this bill is to 
protect women, but at the same time his budget cuts funding for 
violence against women programs by $10 million, rape prevention funding 
by $29 million, and freezes funding for the domestic violence hot line 
and domestic

[[Page S3212]]

abuse shelters. I think that is out of line with what the American 
people thinks, and it is certainly out of line with what I think.
  As I said earlier, if my colleagues have legitimate reasons to oppose 
this amendment, we are happy to listen. In fact, we are willing to do 
what is necessary to get past any partisan difference and to move this 
issue forward. Unfortunately, our colleagues are not. I think you have 
to ask yourselves, then, what is this debate really all about?

                          ____________________