>> good morning. >> your microphone, please. >> it says talk. i should have known that. thank you for the opportunity to address your members of the committee to talk about the growing epidemic of domestic violence and the two bills before you. the above bills look to strengthen current federal investigation laws to bring them more in line with the current laws that many states have, dealing with crimes of violence toward women and same-sex partners. clearly laudible goal, strengthening such laws would seem to be an even more laudible goal. i spent most of my adult life in law enforcement. those included 20 years as a fellow police officer, ten years as a trial judge, four in the appealate courts. i've dealt with domestic violence at literally every level of our system. sadly, born of experience, i can say our law enforcement community finds itself as a reactive not a proactive process

tur a -- posture. in other words, our law enforcement community show up after the fact. i was one of those. i would show up after the fact. i saw the blood. i went to court. and so much of the time i saw crime in the streets and people getting victimized in the streets of our cities, being victimized in our courtrooms. that was one of the -- the im t impotus for me to go to law school. senator, i absolutely agree that we should have boyfriends, dating partners -- we have it in pennsylvania, okay? it's important. as the sheriff said, they can shoot. they can beat like anybody else. as dr. malcolm points out as a jurist, i went from being a cop where i cared about the victims to a jurist where i cared about the accused.

we have to keep focused on the fact that we have two parties here. we have the accused and we have the accuser, the victim. and my goal was always to have a level playing field. you know, one of the things that i always thought was so needed, so necessary, so wanting was law enforcement's ability to be there before the abuser got to the victim. when i was a cop in my day, we didn't have that opportunity. it wasn't there. but let me tell you something. we can enact all the laws we want. the bad guys on the streets. and i'm out there where the rubber meets the road, both as a cop, as i said, and as that judge. i created the first-ever domestic violence program in pennsylvania because i saw it to be so important. the frustration was as follows. victims are terrified. senators, when they get to court, often times they have memory loss. prosecutors -- and i'm shoor ur

saw it, senator, they don't want to move forward. they're scared. they're intimidated. they don't have a support network. in philadelphia, luckily, we do. it's one of the more progressive cities around. just as an example only 35% of our preliminary pfa's become permanent. 35%. why? people aren't showing up. they're afraid. of the pfa's, actually the temporary ones, 25% include an order barring possession of a firing arm. only 25%. what's going on here? well, again, the frustration comes in that we have to protect our victims. how do we do that? once upon a time, unless you had a crystal ball, you couldn't. today, senators, we have the technology to give law enforcement the capabilities. what do i mean by that? right now our probation of officers across this country have gps that's available to them so they can track people

under their supervision. let's say for our discussion purpose right now -- keep in mind domestic violence isn't just about firearms. the overall majority of domestic violence cases i saw on the street and in the courts were done with fists, with knives, with blunt objects. i like to think of it as a real major epidemic in this country. we have legislation out there that curtails more and more people's ability to carry a gun. people that want to get a gun or stab you, they're going to do it. they're going to make it happen, despite whatever laws you put on the books. to me, what i think is important is being proactive. and by that, i mean right now through technology, we can give our officers gps assisted support. so the actual patrol officer in the neighborhood, moments away from the victim can know if a stalker, whose now wearing a gps device on their ankle, on their wrist, is now approaching within

a certain proximity of the victim. it comes up on the victim's smart phone that now somebody has crossed the threshold, whether it's a mile or a block. same officer in the neighborhood is notified. the officer then responds. the officer gets there and then we prevent the violence. it's about prevention, to me. because if we don't have prevention, once again, what are we going to do, show up after the fact? pick up the pieces? transport the body to the morgue? that's not what we want. personally, i can't believe we don't have bipartisan legislation. who on earth can stand up and say but they're really not opposed to domestic violence? every one of us has a mother, some wives, some daughters, some granddaughters. none of us want to see anything like this happening out there, anything. but we need to step up to the plate. you know, legislation is great. and this is a beautiful place here. it really is. first time here. but at the end of the day -- tonight, somewhere in north

philly, some woman is going to be battered, okay? and that same woman has probably been battered for years and she looks at her three, four, five children and she can't escape. she can't escape. and if we take it down to court, what do we get? now they hug and kiss. emotions are down. somebody talks to the victim. we have a frustrated prosecutor and even more frustrated court. my point is we need to do thing that is will really make things happen. you want to send a message out there? you put that bracelet on that abuser. you come within a mile that have victim and not only will you be locked up but it will be strict, swift and really, really bad for you. you want to talk about deterrence, it can happen. so, you know, again, my point to you all is there are ways we can address domestic violence well beyond violence dealing with guns. some of our states with some of the strictest gun laws, we still have a growing epidemic in domestic violence.

that being said, my position is, quite honestly, i think that -- i really strongly support the concept of bringing in the partners, the boyfriends. it is important for law enforcement. our state has it. i can't speak for others, obviously. that being said, i'll forego my last two minutes, i guess. >> thank you, judge mccaffery. we should probably take a run for the vote. and so if mr. daniel you would be patient with us, we will be recessed for probably 10 to 15 minutes to get over to the floor and back. as soon as i am back, we will come back into session.

we'll have more thon hearing from women and gun violence when it resumes. members of the judiciary committee heading over for votes on several nominations but also on whether to move forward on a jobs bill. that is, in fact, what they're voting on right now. you can see that senate vote on our companion network, c-span 2. we'll return to live coverage of this hearing in 10 to 15 minutes. the house is also in today. debate and vote on a house proposal to sue president obama. seat house live on c-span. as this break continues, we'll show you remarks now from the chief deputy whip, congressman diana digeck who joined us this morning to discuss the congressional agenda. >> congresswoman, we want to pick up on the topic we were

discussing on the previous segment at the u.s./mexico border. republican leaders released their own border bill yesterday. it was far below the funding level that senate democrats were looking at, that the president was looking at, has a few policy provision changes as well. i want to get your reaction to that bill. >> the president's proposal was for emergency funding for dealing with these children, many of whom are refugees coming across the border. that's money we needed to house them, to get them through the legal system, to figure out their status and then either to get the price with family members here or send them home. so to come up with so much of a lower amount of money seems to me that what the house leadership is doing is just kicking the can down the road a little bit more because we're going to have this same crisis later in the fall. we need that money to help deal with the situation. >> and what do you think is going to happen this week on the border issue?

does any legislation get moved this week? >> we need to move legislation. i think the democrats are going to be very reluctant to support something that is so much lower than the president's proposal and also has the poison pill policy provisions in it. we would have been willing to support something lower than the president's proposal if it really made a difference and helped us deal with this situation. but i'm not sure how this is really going to be able to have us help in this situation. >> and another bill and subject that is being talked about this week, possible movement is the highway trust fund, efforts to continue to fund that. headline from the hill newspaper sends the highway back to the house tuesday with overwhelming changes putting it up in the air with only three days left to act before the august recess. what do you think happens here

with the highway trust fund? >> this is a bill we've got to pass before we leave. the last thing we need as this economy is starting to recover is to have congress not pass the legislation and to have highway projects around the country actually start to stop work. that would be really devastating for our economy. i think it's must-pass legislation. the legislative process is working. the house sent the senate a bill. senate sent it back. we need to figure out what to do now. the senate does fund the highway trust fund through the end of the year. that's a good thing. it gives congress enough time to come up with a complete reauthorization. i've got to say, again, i feel like we're kicking the can down the road a little bit again. we're not really tackling these big problems and fixing them in a way that will benefit the american public. >> you think having this fix last through december would be better so you can address a

longer term fix then or give yourself more time like the house bill does and address it mid next year? >> i think we should address it as soon as possible. i think we need a permanent solution. >> here is a chart from the department of transportation on the highway trust fund. that chart showing cash balances in the highway trust fund getting down to zero is the projection by august 29th. what does that mean for colorado if it gets there? >> that's what i'm saying. we have highway projects across the country. we have a lot of them in colorado. in my state, the snow will start to fly in september. and so we have to complete a lot of these highway projects before it snows and these roads get shut down, some of them. so it's really important that we do that before we leave and, to be honest, i don't think we should leave until we get it done. >> and recent release from your office on this notes that half

of the colorado department transportation's $1.1 billion in annual budget comes from the highway funding. congresswoman diane digett is with us for the next 40 minutes or so, taking your questions and comments as we talk about the end of activities before congress. amy from texas on our line for independents. good morning. >> caller: good morning. >> go ahead, amy. >> caller: i wanted to say about the children on the border, the people that are getting together to help these children or to put them in foster care should be ashamed. the foster care system that we have now is so broken. most of the trafficked kids come from the foster system. where were they before when the children here were being put into horrible homes and horrible places? do they not matter as much as

the immigrant children? >> amy, i care about all children. i'm the mother of two myself. and many of these kids who are coming up from central america are refugees. many of them have actual family member whose live here in the united states. some of them are not. it's a multi-pronged solution. first of all we need to get them into a stable situation as we figure out their legal status. then we need to get them lawyers and figure out what their legal status is. i've heard horror stories, 14-year-old girls who have been given to the cartels for prostitution. then the third thing we need to do is find them placement with their families here, if they're determined to be refugees or if

they have families here. if not, send them back to the country where they came from. the other solution -- and i think this is an important one, is continuing efforts in working with both mexico and the central american countries to make sure these kids don't come here in the first place because it's a long and very, very treacherous road. and many children have died. if you think about a mom, about that journey they're taking, it's heartbreaking. to work with mexico on enforcement and their southern border and to work with these other countries to -- so they can let their citizens know that they should not be send tharg children unaccompanied to the united states. >> ricardo is on the line for democrats. good morning. >> caller: good morning. how are you doing? >> good, ricardo. >> caller: i'm frustrated and mad to hear how these republicans and people calling up, talking about the bills that

we hold up. can you tell the number of filibusters that republicans have done versus the bills that are holding up -- can you please explain that? >> i'm in the house, not in the senate. we don't have the filibuster senate in the house. i will tell you that in the house, of course, under the leadership of speaker boehner and the republicans, we've had the least productive congress ever. in the house. this week, of course, we're getting ready to leave. in october they've scheduled another five-week recess because of the election. we need to be doing other

things, pass the appropriations bills, look at education. there's a lot that we could be doing and some days i feel like we're treading water. you're right it's been an unproductive congress. >> one of the things you're doing before you leave for recess, there's a hearing scheduled for tomorrow in the oversight sub committee where you're a ranking member there on the affordable care act. what do you expect to learn during that hearing? >> well, we've had a whole series of hearings on the affordable care act in that committee. i'm not sure if it's going to add anything new. i'm hoping next year, after we've had a year of the affordable care act, that the oversight subcommittee will actually start looking at some of the data that's coming out to see some of how many people have been enrolled, to see where it's

working, where it's not working. i think rather than voting to repeal obamacare 53 times we should be looking at the bill to see how we can fix it and making sure it's more accessible for americans. >> when you say you're not sure what new will come up, are you saying the oversight efforts in the committee have not been productive so far? >> on the oversight subcommittee, hearings on the affordable care act for the most part they've been gotcha type of attempts to show that it's not working or whatever. and i'm not expecting a lot of new information to come out. >> that hearing scheduled for 9:00 am tomorrow morning. on the phones, gene is waiting in sterling, michigan, on our line for independence. good morning, jean. >> caller: good morning. i just want to make a statement

before so it's not really the householding up stuff. national security crisis, it's not just about the children. this is about the open borders that we've got anything and everything crossing without. >> everybody knows have no chance of passing.

there have been very few bipartisan pieces of legislation that have passed the house that could actually be taken up in the senate. and so just because a bill passes doesn't mean it becomes law. that's what i'm saying. i don't think it's worth people playing the blame game except for the fact that if you want a bill to pass and really become law, you should work in a bipartisan way. i'm working right now and i'm happy to talk about it. i'm working on a bill with chairman fred upton, chairman of the energy commerce committee. >> republican? >> actually a republican from michigan. it's called 21st century cures. it's going to be a very big attempt to restructure our health care system.

to get it to the patient as fast as we can. we've been under taking all summer and last spring, too. there are some things happening in a bipartisan way. i think there should be a lot more. with respect to question you asked about the border, i think you're right. which is why i support comprehensive immigration reform which will both give regular order to the 11 million people who are here who are not on a documented status but also will give strong border enforcement. i think both of those things are important. that's why i was very disappointed that speaker boehner decided not to bring up the comprehensive immigration bill that the senate passed on a bipartisan basis. and so that is something that i think could really help.

central america throughout the spring and summer and many of them were escape iing cartel violence, servitude or worse, but many of them are coming because their parents sent them here. >> if you're just joining us, we're talking to congresswoman digett from colorado. in her ninth term in the house of representatives here to -- before heading home for a five-week recess at the end of this week. let's go to sal on the line for republicans. sal, good morning. >> caller: good morning, yeah. on the highway bill, i don't

mind doing construction on the highways but these construction companies are taking too long to complete a simple project. we have a construction project going through here which is separately funded and one thing i protest about is them putting lights up everywhere they're upgrading the roads. but the lights down everywhere. it's urban sprawl. >> i would say if you have an objection to the way they're building the highway, call your local person's office or call your highway department and ask them. i'm sure there are some highway engineers that said that would be a safety factor, but i really can't speak to the issues around local highway construction.

>> on twitter, milan burke writes in his comment, another hearing on the aca. he asks, more meetings. more hearings, more money. no results. fire the people in charge, he says. the republicans. let's go to armand, waiting in lakeland, florida, for independents. good morning. >> caller: good morning, c-span. good morning to you. i just wanted to put the kids aside. this country can take care of all the kids that come to the border. if the border was secure, we would be able to see who are kids and who are adults coming through the border. with the border secure, what it comes down to, i would love to talk to the gentleman that just got off of c-span and ask him, when he decided the verified program wouldn't work. e-verified program would work. the problem is that all small businesses are too big to fail now because they've got the cheap labor. cheap labor is what -- and it's

democrats and republicans, because if you listen to everybody, everybody wants comprehensive immigration. they want all the illegals here now to stay in the country and get themselves status. that's all small businesses of too big to fail. >> i'll let you jump in. >> let me jump in and say that comprehensive immigration reform would really include, in my view, a number of issues, securing the border, which is important, but it would also then, for people who have been here for a long time, they would get in the back of the line of people waiting to become citizens. they would pay a penalty and they would be able to go on a path to citizenship. but then also what it would do is it would set up a visa program so that agricultural workers or, in my state of colorado, ski workers and other temporary workers could get

visas to work here. so they wouldn't have to come here illegally. i was telling representative pierce, as he was leaving, that in colorado, i've been approached by many, many farmers who have said to me, we really need to have comprehensive immigration reform because we need to be able to get workers to work in our fields and we don't have enough u.s. citizens who want to do that work. well, rather than bringing them in illegally, we should bring those workers in. we should give them temporary work visas and let them do that. same thing with the businesses. the ski areas in colorado have been calling me and saying we really need comprehensive immigration reform. in fact, in my state, one of the biggest proponents of the comprehensive bill has been the business community. >> ken is waiting on our line for independents. >> caller: hey, good morning.

i just changed my question after listening to her last response. if you grant temporary work visas for everybody that's already here, you don't know who's here. would you be willing to agree with president obama if he does grant temporary work visas for the 11 million plus and you don't know who these folks are? thank you. >> that's not -- i'm not advocating that we give temporary work visas to everybody here. what i'm advocating is that we pass comprehensive immigration reform, which has a whole variety of ways. what that would do is help identify the 11 million people who are here who right now many of them are under the radar screen because they're afraid they'll be arrested and deported. if we had the comprehensive bill, part of that bill, they could come forward, get in line to again the back of the line,

or pay a penalty. and it's not a tenable position to have 11 million people here who are in the shadows of our society. >> did that clear up the congresswoman's position or did you have a follow-up? >> caller: because the president supposedly is going to grant the temporary visa, worker visa over the summer. and i'm just wondering what the democrats are going to say about it if he does grant these temporary visas for the 11 million plus. you still don't know who these folks are. >> i haven't seen that proposal. >> martin in trenton, new jersey, on the line for democrats. good morning. are you with us? >> caller: yes. >> go ahead. you're on with congresswoman digett. >> caller: i am a democrat and i think a lot of these immigrants coming here really take america for granted.

because on our book they are not supposed to be here, illegal. a lot of them are coming here, i think, because -- to get the benefits for -- i think america -- a lot of the jobs that you say americans won't do, i just think we won't do it for the pay that the immigrants will do it for. >> we're a country of immigrants. i'm the granddaughter of immigrants from russia and ireland. and i think that most of the people who have come to this country have come from immigrants. and so we have to figure out how to allow new people to come in. it makes our economy robust and makes us who we are, the united states of america. at the same time, i don't think we can have a situation where we have a whole bunch of people here working -- >> and, um, let me now turn to mr. daniel with our appreciation

and our apologies for the interruption. please proceed with your testimony. >> thank you, sir. good morning. >> is your microphone on, mr. daniel? >> and i was reminded to turn it on before i started, too. thank you, chairman, chairman white house, leahy, grassley and members of the judiciary committee for holding this important hearing. my name is elvin daniel. i'm a republican, i'm an avid hunter, gun owner and i enjoy using my guns for target practice with my family and friends. i'm a strong advocate of the nra

and gun owner. i also believe in sensible gun laws. i empty here today to speak for my sister, zina. to speak for zina and my entire family because she's not here to speak for herself. zina loved life. all she wanted to do is be a good mother to her two daughters. she loved disney world, rick springfield and helping other people. matter of fact, her last moments, she was begging her estranged husband, please, leave this place, these people alone.

she was beautiful, full of goodness. and some goodwi will come out o her death. >> on october 21st, 2012, i received a phone call nobody should receive. i was told my sister had been shot and killed. by her estranged husband. we later learned that he had bought the gun through armslist.com, an irresponsible internet site that does not require background checks. it has been nearly two years since zina was murdered and it is heartbreaking to know that our weak gun laws continue to

allow dangerous abusers to buy guns without a background check. zina was married for 13 years and eventually left her husband because he abused her, physically and mentally. he continued to terrorize zina, slashing her tires while she was at work, and threatening her physically. zina went to court and obtained a protective order. she told the judge, your honor, i don't want to die. i just don't want to die. under federal law, this protective order prohibited radcliff from buying a gun. if he had tried to buy a gun from a licensed dealer, he would have been denied. he knew that. so he chose to go fthrough an

unlicensed dealer to buy his gun. he went on armslist.com and posted an ad saying "serious buyer looking to buy a gun asap." within hours, he found an unlicensed seller and they met at a mcdonald's parking lot and exchanged $500 cash for the gun that he used the next morning. this was all after the protective order was issued against him and entered in the system. the next day, radcliff stormed into the spa where zina worked, shot seven people, murdered my sister, zina and three of her

co-workers, injuring four others before he took his own life. i'm convinced that he deliberately bought the gun from an unlicensed dealer because he knew he couldn't pass a background check. had there been a background check done, chances are my sister, zina, would still be here with us. now i'm helping to care for my two nieces, who lost their mother and who will have to grow up without her. i look at my parents and especially my father, who lost his baby daughter. i'm here today for zina and for the stories like zina's that happen every day because of this serious gap in our gun laws that continue to put women's lives in danger.

i believe that there are two steps that congress could and should take to save a woman's life. require background checks for all gun sales and keep guns out of the hands of abusive dating partners and stalkers. i'm grateful for the opportunity to share my sister's story with you today. she was a loving mom, a terrific sister for nearly two years now, my family has lived a nightmare. every happy family milestone is now covered with sadness. mother's day is now a day survived rather than celebrate. because we know zina isn't here to watch over her girls. she won't be here to take pictures of her youngest daughter, dressed up for prom, or congratulate her daughters on their wedding day and dance with

them. those moments will be happy and sad at the same time. i'm committed to honor zina's memory by working to reduce the number of women who are killed by preventable and senseless gun -- you have the power to pass the laws that we need for our sisters, mothers and daughters safe. so i am here today to ask you to remember zina when you think about taking action on this issue. thank you for your time and the opportunity to let me speak today. i would be happy to answer any questions. thank you. >> thank you, mr. daniel. you have very well and very powerfully represented your sister today in this hearing room. as the chairman, i'm going to be

here until the end, so i will reserve my questions and allow my colleagues to proceed ahead of me and i'll recognize first my friend, the distinguished senator from minnesota, amy klobuchar. >> thank you to all the witnesses, particularly mr. daniel. thank you very much. i wear your sister's bracelet that you gave me today with pride and she won't be forgotten. the fact that you are a hunter, gun owner, member of the nra. and could you talk a little bit about how you reconcile that, which i think has been a real issue for some of our colleagues in trying to understand how we can reconcile those of us that support hunting with the fact that we're simply looking at some common sense rules here? for instance, making sure that we include dating partners, when

we look at the domestic violence rules, making sure we have good background checks in place and looking at making sure that people are convicted of stalking are also included in these prohibitions. do you want to talk about how you reconcile that in your mind? >> you know, it's totally different. i mean, doing a background check has nothing to do with infringing on my second amendment. me as a gun owner, i want to make sure that i keep the guns out of the hands of the wrong people. i don't want criminals or abusers to get their hands on guns. every gun owner should feel the same way as i do. i go through background checks every time i buy a gun. and, actually, i feel that everybody should go through a background check, without a doubt. it takes five minutes to fill

out a form. and, in my case in illinois, wait three days and usually i get the gun and i don't get to shoot it for two, three weeks until i gather my family or whoever, friends that are shooting. so, to me, common sense says that we should have background checks of all gun sales. >> thank you very much. sheriff, thank you for your testimony from my neighboring state of wisconsin. my mom was born in wisconsin. and i think you are also from a state that understands how important hunting is and you identified yourself as a conservative republican as well. you want to talk about how you have been able to reconcile that hunting, incredibly important hunting culture in your state with your support for my bill on the stalking and extending the domestic prohibitions to dating partners?

>> absolutely. thank you, senator. it is true, i am a conservative republican. and i have said this rather openly in my community. i have nothing to fear and we should have nothing to fear with law-abiding citizens who choose to arm themselves. i've been sworn to protect the united states constitution as well as the wisconsin state constitution. i understand the importance of preserving our second amendment. the key words here are law-abiding citizens. as a law enforcement officer that alert is especially heightened. we are the ones on the front line, boots on the ground, if you will, responding to these dangerous calls. if you look at the statistics of the fbi, 150 law enforcement officers have lost their lives responding to these types of calls. >> exactly. do you want to talk a little bit about what you've seen with just as law enforcement and the cases that you use as an example of the woman being bound and put

into a freezing garage in the snow and who clearly would have died without your intervention and your good detective work? could you talk a little bit about how this sort of dating arrangements and the stalking and those kinds of things have evolved in your time as law enforcement? i'm particularly looking at how stalking works. i think people think if you're just sending a bunch of e-mails, that's not scary to people. and also how over time it's not just married people. there are people that date that can also be victims. >> thank you. i certainly can answer that. what i have seen, at least in our community, racine county, and speaking with my fellow sheriffs of the state, we've seen an uprise, naturally, in individuals who co-habitate together. the violence is just as vicious and just as dangerous whether they're married or not. looking at respective stalking,

statistics from 2005 to 2013, 29 domestic violence homicides in the state of wisconsin. of those 29 all of them precip dated by history of stalking behavior. >> very good. and for your law enforcement officers, i think when most people think about law enforcement officers tlo s out doing their jobs, i don't think if you ask someone, what are some of the most dangerous calls they get? they would probably say robbery, drunk driving, i'm not sure they would say a domestic violence call would endanger an officer's life. do you want to elaborate on that and why that's a fact? >> absolutely. as we mentioned about the fbi statistics of 150 law enforcement officers losing their lives, it is a well-known fact and all the police academies, the way we treat and train our law enforcement officials today undoubtedly domestic violence, domestic disturbance calls are the most

dangerous. we're entering the homes of individuals. we are intervening in their conversations, hearing intimate details. tensions, emotions run high during those situations and often times when a gun is involved it turns to be deadly consequences or violence is always naturally presence. >> it's like my story of officer schneider and just showing up, as your officers do every day. when the department gets called, they can't question it. they just show up at the door. >> it's unfortunate. and naturally there are many, many stories. i have been on literally calls where the offender, the abuser has told dispatcher that he will shoot law enforcement as they arrive at these calls. we just had one two weeks ago where the offender indicated he planned to shoot every law enforcement officer that arrived at his home. so they are very dangerous calls. >> very good. justice mccaffrey, thank you for being here today and for your thoughtful words. i do appreciate that need to

enforcement laws we have on the books. in my old job and do everything you can to do that, which wev valiantally did. i also appreciate that you recognize that the laws need to be as up-to-date as those who are break them. dating partners now get involved in these -- basically in violence or domestic abuse in the same way as people who are married did. i appreciate your willingness to look at that piece of our bill. >> absolutely. >> thank you very much. and dr. campbell, just wanted to talk a little bit about the link. you've done a lot of research here, and the link between the stalking and the violence against women. could you talk about that and what your research has shown? >> yes. in our national case control study that compared women who have been killed with other abused women in those same cities, we found that the vast

majority of the women who were killed had been stalked beforehand. even when there was no prior physical violence, the majority had been stalked. so we found that of the ones that were abused and then there was a murder afterwards, it was 87% of them were stalked. and the ones that were not abused, it was 58%. so, clearly stalking was part of those pictures, as was the gun ownership. and that combination of domestic violence, stalking and guns is extremely dangerous. and as you say, people think that stalking means, you know, harassing kinds of texting. and that's only. and when stalking laws are violated, it's when someone has been texted 40 times a day and

with threatening texts. and clearly unwanted texts. and most often the stalking, though, especially with the homicidal cases, was actually following her, was doing things like slashing tires that was mentioned in one of the cases, destroying property, was not just the verbal harassment, not just the e-mails and texts. >> uh-huh. because one of the criticisms was that this -- in modern days now, people don't always call. they often times text things or are sent e-mails. so one of the criticisms is that's not that scary if they do that by text. you do see that in our modern age. >> absolutely sbchlt it's threatening texts, threatening e-mails. >> to make that qualification. >> absolutely, for stalking. threatening and unwanted texts and e-mails and continual. >> okay. i think my time is up.

i may come back in a second round, but thank you very much. >> senator blumenthal? >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, again, for holding this hearing. and thank you to all of our expert panel. i want to mention that i am very pleased to be working with my partner from connecticut, senator chris murphy, who has been a real leader in this area, and i know he joins me in thanking the jackson family for being here today. let me ask dr. campbell, based on your research, do women take the decision lightly to seek a temporary restraining order? >> absolutely not. and neither do judges in granting them. i talk with many judges and women very carefully consider their options and many women go for temporary protective orders and do not get them.

judges are very careful in listening to what evidence is available around the temporary restraining orders. so, they are neither sought nor granted lightly. >> and i believe judge mccaffrey testified temporary restraining orders often are not made permanent because women are afraid to appear for the hearing. >> absolutely. that's what we find. and often times they're afraid because they've been threatened with a weapon or threatened with a gun. that's the most scary thing for women in terms of, you know, reinforcing that fear and making it that they are less able to actually seek that long-term protective order. we also find that women are afraid that that -- the hearing that goes with the long-term protective order, that's a time that he will know where she is.

and that can be an increased danger unless we take some protective actions around that. and if she knew that he wasn't allowed to have a a gun, the n could be less afraid at the hearing. >> as you may know, in lori jackson's case, it was a temporary restraining order, which was going to be made permanent literally the day after she was gunned down by her estranged husband. if that restraining order had resulted in those guns being taken from her estranged husband, i believe that she might well be alive today. >> i agree with you. we just had a case in maryland with a similar kind of an incident. so -- and fortunately now in maryland, we just passed a bill where we can deny possession of guns to persons who have been --

had a temporary restraining order against them. but it's not true in all states. and so it is an issue for many women. >> in her case, her estranged husband actually traveled to another state where guns might have been obtained. wouldn't it make sense to have a uniform national rule that takes guns away from men or women who are under temporary as well as permanent restraining orders? >> i believe so. >> and sheriff, let me ask you based on your expertise whether you agree that a uniform national standard would make sense. i know you're a local law enforcement official, but wouldn't your job be made more effective if there were such a standard? >> absolutely. i think we need to look at why victims seek these protection orders. they do so because they have a reasonable fear for their safety. they're not taken lightly.

i think i've heard that term. i can only speak for my community, but the victims i have spoke to seek these very important pieces of paper, these documents, these protective orders because they fear for their safety. irrespective if they live in racine county or danbury, connecticut, that fear is real. >> can you tell me again, dr. campbell or any of the other folks who are on the panel, whether the danger to a potential victim increases after she or he indicates she's leaving, she wants a divorce, the relationship is over. does the danger increase? is it higher then? >> yes, it definitely is, according to our study and other research. it definitely increases the risk of a homicide, especially in the immediate three months and full first year after she leaves an

abusive relationship. so it does heighten the danger, which says to us that that's a time period when we need to be particularly vigilant as communities, that we need to in order to prevent those homicides. and the onus of responsibility should not be on her. we need to bring the full bear of the law and implement those laws around the country. >> this panel has been extraordinarily valuable in reinforcing and evidencing, providing objective facts and research and support of what we know from our experience and from the tragic stories that are before us in this audience. lori jackson's family among them. i want to thank all of you for being here today. it has given us impetus and momentum in this effort to solve this problem, which we will do.

thank you very much. thank you, mr. chairman. >> i turn now to our distinguished ranking member, senator grassley. >> mr. chairman, before the clock starts, i'd like to apologi apologize to particularly mr. daniel for missing his testimony and say sorry for the loss that you talked about. also, to apologize to everybody here because this is an apology i've done for the third time in the last half hour. first to a news conference and then to a group of people i work very closely with on foster care. this is kind of a rude way to treat all you folks that come here when we have to have two votes and two intervening things. i appreciate hopefully your understanding of that. my first question is going to be to professor malcolm. a kentucky law took effect this month that allows people who

receive an emergency protective order and pass a background check to obtain a provisional concealed carry permit in one day. i view this as a law that enables victims to protect themselves even when the police are not around and when their abuser's information would not show up in a background check. so my question, professor malcolm, do you support the ability of people who obtain emergency protective orders to quickly obtain a provisional concealed carry permit? >> yes, i do. i think that's the perfect way to really help women who feel endangered. we've heard a lot of stories today about people who had temporary restraining orders or permanent restraining orders, and nonetheless were harmed by the person who was to be restrained. you mentioned a list of states that haven't submitted their records for this background check that so many people are depending on. so it makes it much easier for someone who shouldn't get a gun

to get it. i think the ultimate protection has to be the individual. no police department can protect everyone all the time. to the allow women to have a firearm just as a deterrent or for ultimately to absolutely protect herself, i think, is essential. i think it's a great idea. >> justice mccaffery, you've been a police officer and trial judge who issued many temporary restraining orders. sometimes you ordered that the person subject to other orders surrender -- the person subject to the order to surrender his gun. sometimes you did not so order. based on your experiences, what practical problems do you think would arise if the bills before the committee addressing domestic violence and guns were to be enacted into law? >> well, senator, first off, let me say that we have these types of laws on the books in our state. so much of it comes down to

enforcement. and let me just give you an idea. dr. campbell pointed out how sometimes it could be somewhat tough for a victim to get a pfa. understand something, and this is something i hope that our former prosecutor, the senator, understands. the jurist is there to make sure that it's a level playing field. the jurist must make sure that whatever the allegations are, they're factual, they're for real, they're not made up, and they're not gaming the system. we have federal orders that constrain the number of prisoners we can put in our county jails. we have state laws now coming down with, again, additional prohibitions. where are we going to put these people? what we keep hearing is we have to down play or downgrade, i should say, some of the laws so that we don't put people in state custody because why? our second largest budget item in pennsylvania is our prisons. my point is, the more laws we have, the more people we're

going to convict, the more people are going to be sent to jail. where are we going to put them? we keep getting told that we don't have the space. one of the reasons why i started so many diversion programs in pennsylvania was to intervene early on. divert them out of the system, keep them out of the jails, and give them the type of treatment they need so as to cut down on the need to put people in jail. understand something, senator. one of the things we have to worry about on a bench are people that game the system. and what do i mean by that? right how it in philadelphia county you have approximately 10,000 to 12,000 custody cases waiting to be adjudicated. that means if you file today, your custody case may not be up until april of 2015. think about that. now, some of the people who know how to game the system will pick up the phone and call 911 and they basically say, i'm being abused. i'm being beaten or i'm being threatened by a firearm. what happens?

those cases are immediately jumped right to the beginning of the list. it's the judge -- the job of the judge to make sure that these people are not gaming that system. because otherwise, we have an accused who really isn't doing what they're being accused of. and that's the role of the jurist. >> this will have to be my last question. i appreciate your testimony today, quote, to require criminal background checks and checks by unlicensed dealers, end of quote, as well as block dating violence abusers and stalkers who own guns. i note, however, that only last year in an interview with "the journal times," you said, quote, i'm opposed to any regulation that would require a farmer in waterford, for example, to somehow conduct and/or pay for a background check on a neighboring farmer to whom he wanted to sell a firearm. continuing quote, rather than

trying to strip away our constitutional rights, i believe lawmakers need to define private sales and retail sales, more regulation will increase straw purchases. if a criminal is bent on doing evil, he or she will simply find a weapon on the streets or solicit a third party to make the weapon purchase, end of quote. in the same interview, you opposed as ineffective limiting magazines in capacities of ten bullets or more. and in an accompanying -- and i completely agree with you, sheriff, when you said that in that interview, quote, we must not allow the actions of a few cowards who are bent on evil to promote any laws that infringe upon constitutional liberties of responsible and law-abiding citizens. so my question is, so why do you now say that you're in favor of the universal background checks and believe that they would stop criminals from obtaining guns?

>> well, very simply put, and you said it best, as i have. law-abiding citizens. law-abiding citizens. i've always said, and i've said this before this committee, that i have nothing to fear of law-abiding citizens who wish to arm themselves. i preserve the constitution, especially the second amendment. we have individuals who are bent on individual, bent on breaking the laws, bent on abusing women, they should be prevented from purchasing firearms. >> okay. thank you very much. thanks to all of you. >> thank you very much. let me ask dr. campbell first, as senator grassley just indicated, if somebody is bent on murder, there are all sorts of weapons that can be used to kill another human being. why is it that guns in

particular create the added risk of violence that you have chronicled in your work? >> well, first one thing, the destruction of a gunshot to the human body is far greater than any of those other weapons. yes, you can kill with other weapons, but it takes far more stab wounds, more carefully placed, et cetera. >> so they're much more lethal. >> much more lethal. and secondly, i have examined thousands of homicide records in the police department, and many of those cases it's clear that there may have been a domestic violence incident. maybe someone would have gotten hurt, but no one would have died if there wasn't a gun accessible, way too handy, already there. oftentimes not a gun that anybody went out and bought the

day before. although, that does happen too. but a gun that's been in that home, that the perpetrator of domestic violence has owned for years and it was easy to get at, it was all too available in a moment of extreme anger, and therefore someone died where they wouldn't have otherwise. so those are the two things that i see. >> sheriff, you talked about the environment of tension and high emotion in a domestic violence scene. if it is dangerous even to a trained, armed law enforcement officer, what does that say about that environment for the victim? >> naturally, i think we talked about the sheer violence of domestic violence calls. the numbers are real. the law enforcement officers that are murdered each year responding to these types of

calls, they're inherently dangerous. and you're correct. we are armed and trained to handle situations, but we're knowingly stepping into situations where a firearm is present, the increasing likelihood of someone losing their lives. >> and how would you respond that arming the victim would make this a safer situation for either the victim or your officers? >> suggesting that the victim should arm themselves? >> yeah. >> well, you know, i shared with you a story a couple hours where a victim's gun was removed from her by the abuser, and she was murdered with her own weapon. my experience -- let me give you a little bit of history on racine county. my jailhouses about 876 prisoners. each year we book in 10,000 citizens on average. 10,000. of those 10,000, about 10% to 12% are domestic violence

related arrests. every one of those arrests leave behind victims. typically women, typically children. every one of those calls we speak to those victims naturally. we get their statements. i was a detective for ten years. i have interviewed countless victims of domestic violence. never once have i heard a victim tell me that, where's the nearest gun shop, let me arm myself because i need to do this. they look towards the system. they look to law enforcement to do our job and to keep them safe. >> dr. malcolm, you're a professor of constitutional law, are you not? >> yes. >> let me ask you two questions of constitutional law. the first is, does making sure that people who are lawfully required to have background checks actually get a background check offend any constitutional principle that you can define?

>> no. but i think what the questions on background checks can be very intrusive. >> i'm just asking to the extent that they're lawful as they are, then having it be enforced, that's no constitutional problem there. >> right. >> second question is, where existing domestic violence laws otherwise restrict gun possession by a stalker or an abuser, does the difference between a cohabiting victim and a noncohabiting victim raise any constitutional issues? >> no. >> okay. >> can i add something? >> well, my time is up. so let me turn to senator durbin. >> mr. daniel, i'm sorry i wasn't here to hear your testimony, but i've read it carefully, and i thank you again for being here to tell the tragic story of your sister.

and from what i've gleaned from your testimony, the key element here was that her former husband had access to a gun over the internet where he was not subject to any kind of background check. had he been sunbject to one, he might have been caught and stopped from purchasing the weapon. >> had he gone to a federal licensed dealer, he would have definitely been denied access because his record was entered already as an abuser. >> you probably said this for the record, but it bears repeating if you have not. as a person who owns guns, a member of the nra, as you said, conservative by nature, are you worried, offended, or have any concerns over a requirement in the law that would close the gun show loophole and would, in fact, require that we inquire of all purchasers whether they are,

in fact, prohibited from purchase because of a conviction, of a felony, or because of a state of mental instability? >> none whatsoever, senator. i believe most of gun owners would agree with me that there should be a background check done on all gun sales regardless. >> mr. daniel, i'm from down state illinois. owning guns is part of growing up and part of most families, and they would agree with you. >> most of my friends are hunters, nra members, and we often speak of this. and i haven't had a person yet say, no, why do you want to do this? it just -- to me, it's common sense that as a gun owner, i certainly do not want guns to fall into the hand of criminals or abusers. because it makes the rest of us look bad. >> professor malcolm, do you

believe victims of domestic abuse are safer if their abusers are permitted to carry guns while they're the subject of temporary restraining orders? you have to turn your my ro phone on. >> sorry. i think to know that person actually is an abuser, he's entitled -- i'm assuming it's a he -- he's entitled to have a hearing first before his gun or any other weapon is taken away. >> doesn't the issuance of a temporary restraining order suggest in most cases a hearing? >> it does, but not in these bills. they get -- they are able to accuse the person, their guns or weapons are taken away, then they have the hearing. >> but in these bills, we're talking about convicted stalkers, convicted domestic violence perpetrators, and those who are subject in the blumenthal bill to a temporary restraining order. in each of those cases, aren't we talking about a court hearing before that determination? >> we have been in the past.

i think that this law would change it so that the -- in order to protect the woman, there is this opportunity to make the allegation that guns get taken away then they have the hearing. >> there's no question that there can be ex parte hearings because in some instances, the person who's subject to the order won't appear. that's a reality. i've been through that many years ago when i practiced law. so are we in a situation now where a woman terrorized by a boyfriend or former spouse is at his mercy as long as he refuses to come to court by your analysis? >> no, i think once you agree to hold the hearing, if he doesn't show up, then that at least you've given him the opportunity to be heard. i think that provides a fair chance for the evidence to come out on both sides. that's a concern. >> once the temporary restraining order is issued to protect the woman, we're using a woman, to protect the woman from the stalker, the abuser, the

person who's perpetrating domestic violence, once that's issued, do you still quarrel with the notion that we should at that point take the gun away from that person? >> no, i think that once there's been, you know, a fair hearing and evidence has been presented, then if this person does seem to be really posing a threat, i think that's fair. >> i'd like to ask dr. campbell what you think about this argument of the course of hearings and such while we're dealing with perhaps a woman who has been terrorized or has evidence of abuse to present to the court. >> in order to obtain a temporary order of protection or an emergency order they're sometimes called in some states, there is a hearing. a judge has to issue that temporary order. the permanent or long-term orders are -- there's a fuller

hearing, and that's when perpetrators have the opportunity to appear. >> i've been through this. anyone who's had a domestic practice has gotten the phone call. you know, i'm scared of this guy, i'm -- it doesn't happen often, thank goodness. it wasn't in my practice. but it does happen. the first instinct of a lawyer, the first instinct of most persons, protect the person who's being threatened. argue it out in court later on. but first, protect the person who's being threatened, the children who are being threatened. i think that's the premise of this whole discussion. >> right. and a judge does have to issue that. a judge, like we've heard here, who is concerned with a level playing field in issuing that order. so wants to hear evidence before that temporary order is issued. >> mr. chairman, i want to thank you for this hearing. and senator klobuchar for

sponsoring this important bill, which i certainly support in its entirety. it is sad to comment in this day and age that this is one of the few hearings on the subject and that it's been over a year since we have seriously debated this matter on the floor of the united states senate. while gun violence perpetrated by criminals, facilitated by straw purchasers, sadly, the result of a system which doesn't protect victims like mothers, women, and children continues. thank you for calling our attention to it today. i hope it'll inspire us to do something. >> well, you, senator durbin, have been a leading advocate in the senate in this area for a very long time. your home state of illinois was extraordinarily ably represented on the panel by mr. daniel. so illinois shines today in this hearing. i'll turn now to senator klobuchar. we're going to have a second round of questioning, and then

we have to break up before 1:00. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. dr. malcolm, i know you wanted to follow up on something senator whitehouse was focusing on as time ran off. i wanted to get at this issue. maybe this is what it's about. i'm supportive and a cosponsor of senator blumenthal's bill. let's put that aside for right now and talk about permanent restraining orders that are in the law, the federal law right now. if you get a permanent restraining order and can't get a gun, do you support that? >> yes, i do. >> okay. great. and if you would extend that to dating partners -- see, this is what i want to get a this issue that justice mccaffery and the sheriff did here. a big part of my bill was extending that definition of people who get the restraining orders or get a conviction to be victims who are dating partners. do you support that piece? >> i think after there's a full

hearing so that all the evidence comes out. >> there's a full hearing when you get a permanent restraining order. >> then i think that's fair. i don't think it should be retroactive to everybody who's ever been convicted in the past or accepted a guilty plea. i think after a full hearing, then that's reasonable. >> the other thing i was thinking about, and i think the numbers you gave on the reduction of crime rates -- and i wanted to get dr. campbell's view of that. i know that some of the work we've done here with violence against women and the work that justice mccaffery has done when he was in law enforcement and doing more -- we have a domestic violence court in minnesota. certainly the sheriff talked about what they've been doing in wisconsin under his leadership. it's made a difference, and we have seen some reduction in those rates. i wonders if, dr. campbell, you would comment on that, and comment particularly on domestic violence and what we're still seeing, however, in terms of the

numbers. >> we are extremely pleased, and i think we should all be very proud that the domestic violence homicides have gone down. but clearly from the data, they have gone down in part, in great part, because of the gun restrictions that were put on known domestic violence offenders and that has been upheld by the supreme court. that's clear that's where those reductions have come from. yes, we need to do more to reduce the domestic violence homicides by other means, to be proactive, to be preventive. but we can continue to reduce the domestic violence homicides with guns if we continue to expand those -- the legislation that allows us to restrict -- >> to me, this looks at just refining the law as we see when

things change. you have a lot of people that still get involved in domestic violence. i also -- when i hear these, because i know as a former prosecutor, you'd also want to get out there with, hey, we reduced crime, so great, we've done this and this. in fact, when you're a victim of crime, as mr. daniel knows, those stats don't mean anything to you. when it's your sister who was killed or when it's your child who was killed. so the way i look at this is it's a way to build on some of the work that's been done in the domestic violence field and to understand that we see a changing situation with the population and laws can't be stacked. we have to be sophisticated as the people that breaking them. that's what this is really about. i just wondered if you could maybe share a comment on that. >> when you look at -- first of all, let me ask you, what is your question with respect -- >> the question is about how the situations have changed with dating partners, the need to

update. then i think secondly, in part because of the internet, which has some great things but also has more and more stalking and there's more and more ways for people to track people down. whereas, maybe in the past they could just kind of hide and get a new address or phone number. why we would need to have a bill like this pass. >> certainly. i can tell you from what i've seen, and i've testified about this earlier, that we're seeing more dating partner situations as opposed to spouses involved in domestic violence cases. and we've heard the stats that more women are killed by their abusive boyfriends than their abusive spouses -- or abusive husbands, rather. that said, and we talk about stalking and how that relates. i've shared the stats we've had here in wisconsin from 2005 to '13, 29 domestic violence homicides. all of those were precipitated by a stalking behavior. that stalking behavior -- technology is great. i'll be the first one to admit it. i'm glued to that smartphone

these days. >> i appreciate you haven't done it while i was talking. pretty good. >> so yes, we're glued to these devices today. they can be used to facilitate criminal behavior as well. we see more and more of that. i just don't know how we would go about regulating that sort of behavior when it comes to technology. >> what i was meaning is the stalking, the reason we have the stalking bill until there is we've seen -- i think there was some recent estimate of, what, 12,000 convicted stalkers in 20 states right now who could get a gun. so we have seen -- because of this new technology, there's just new ways to find people who wish they maybe couldn't find. >> it certainly has made it' easier. >> thank you very much. >> senator blumenthal. >> thank you very much. let me ask justice mccaffery. you said earlier judges have to provide a level playing field

when an abuse victim requests a tro, temporary restraining order. do you believe that judges do provide that level playing field, or do they hand out tros casually and willy nilly? >> one, all jurists i'm aware of, senator, take this very seriously, especially when it comes to victims. we in philadelphia and for that matter in pennsylvania have been on the leading edge, the cutting edge of protecting women that have gone through these types of traumatizing events. again, as i said earlier, to us it's far, far more than just handguns, long guns. to us, it's all domestic violence. and yes, judges do take it seriously. we have a police department now with direct i -- directive 90 that makes sure our police officers fill out a specific form and follow up on all

domestic abuse allegations. the bottom line is, it is one of our most -- other than child abuse, special victims abuse, it's one of our most important criminal investigations. so, yes, the answer -- the short answer is they take it very seriously. >> dr. malcolm, do you dispute that? >> whether they take it seriously or not? no, i don't -- >> well, they take it seriously and they require a showing of facts indicating dangerousness and threat. >> i think -- i'm sure that's what they do now. it's just that you need two people. you need the person who's being accused to be able to present their facts. and not just, you know, one person who comes in and is frightened or pretending to be frightened or whatever or just trying to get to the head of the list as we heard earlier. >> you've heard the testimony

about -- when you say pretending to be frightened -- >> well, using that -- >> how much courage it takes and how much strength and resoluteness it takes for a woman to even seek a temporary restraining order, not to mention -- >> i think that's true, but we -- >> divulge very private and sometimes very embarrassing facts to complete strangers. >> but we also heard from the judge that there are people who game the system. i mean, i know it must take a tremendous amount of courage, and that's why i think women should be able to protect themselves. they can't really even with a restraining order depend on the police to protect them. there was an important case in the district of columbia, 1981, with three roommates, women roommates -- >> why would a woman game the system to protect herself from a dire and dangerous physical threat? >> well, we heard from the judge

just this morning that there were all of these long lists of custody cases, and if she says that she's worried about an abuser, it gets her to the top of the list. that's something i wouldn't have known had he not made that comment from his experience. >> aren't there proceedings without the other side where presented in many other circumstances where equally important decisions are made such as searching houses, surveilling telephones, putting liens on property, both civil and -- >> i think if that's the case, we don't need to add another one to it. i don't think that people's homes should be searched for weapons on the mere allegation of some other person who they have had no opportunity to -- >> we're not talking about a search of weapons -- >> and it's dangerous for the police to go in there without this person having notice this has happened. so i think, you know, it doesn't

provide the opportunity for evidence from both parties. and i think that's necessary. i realize it's very difficult for women, frightening to make allegations, and many never do because they're so frightened. but i think all that being said, from the evidence that i've seen, half of the accused persons, after the hearing, are found not to be guilty. and they need an opportunity to be heard. >> there is an opportunity to be heard, correct? >> there is right now, yes. >> and if there's a temporary restraining order and if the proposal i've made became law, there would be an opportunity to be heard within two weeks. >> within two weeks. so immediately, the guns get taken away or any other -- and

only two weeks or three weeks later. to me, you're guilty until you prove yourself innocent now. your property gets taken away immediately. your home gets invaded. police are sent with all the danger that implies, especially if this person has no notion this is even happening. later on, he gets a chance to say something. i don't find that due process. >> so you are opposed to any kind of temporary restraining order? >> i'm not if there's a hearing at the time for the temporary restraining order. only if the hearing is two weeks, three weeks, some other time later. >> what if the assailant, the abuser is unavailable? >> well, if you provide the opportunity for that person to come to the hearing, you notify that person that there's this hearing and they don't show up, then that's their fault. but at least you're providing the opportunity for the judge to hear both sides. >> how much time would you give

that person? >> i don't know. i mean, that's -- >> these are practical realities of trying to protect people, dr. malcolm. >> i'll tell you a practical reality too. the police cannot be everywhere all the time. >> when an abuser represents a threat and a judge has to protect a person, man or woman, from an assailant who has a gun and has indicated that he wants to harm her -- >> you are not -- >> -- then i don't know whether you've ever been in that responsibility or been in a law enforcement responsibility, but these are more than theoretical or abstract ideas. they are practical, threatening realities. >> they are, but you don't know for sure that what the story is unless both people, as our constitution demands, have an opportunity to be heard. that's called due process of law. a person has an opportunity before something is done against him and not two weeks, three weeks, several months later.

>> i would just -- >> just to be clear, you don't think that the police should be allowed to execute a lawful search warrant for a firearm? >> i think that they can be allowed to, but they need to have -- for a temporary restraining order, there ought to be a hearing before that happens. >> for a search warrant, there's not a hearing. so if your rule applies to a temporary restraining order, the same rule would apply to a search warrant which means to, quote, i think what you said earlier, police should not be allowed to go into someone's house looking for a firearm, which is exactly what they do when they execute a search warrant. you really don't think that should be done? >> but they have to have evidence. they can't just willy nilly go into someone's house. and the police when they often go in, more and more violence takes place. >> you think there's a higher evidentiary standard for a search warrant than a temporary

restraining order? >> i think that for a temporary restraining order under these conditions where you have one person coming in and making allegations that you need to have the other person heard before their property is taken away. >> isn't that what happens in a search warrant too? a complain tant comes into the police, makes an allegation, the police take that before a judge. if the evidence is credible, they execute the search warrant. that happens every day in law enforcement. are you really suggesting that police shouldn't be authorized to do that? >> i'm not suggesting that the police should not be authorized after getting a search warrant. >> but just not for getting a temporary restraining order. >> a temporary restraining order to protect somebody where only that one person has been heard by the judge. >> that's exactly the circumstance in a search warrant. so if that's your logic, it also must apply to search warrants. that puts you in the position of saying that search warrants shouldn't be executed by the police. i really don't any that makes a lot of sense. >> i don't think it makes a lot

of sense to invade someone's house and take their property without their having had a chance to be heard about it. >> which is precisely what a search warrant does. so obviously you don't think search warrants are appropriate. if that's your position, then that's your position. everybody's entitled to have a position. >> i think that the way the law now works -- you're changing the way the law now works in these cases. the way the law now works, there is an opportunity for people to be heard. and you've asked me, what if they don't show up? that's their problem. but at least there's an opportunity to be heard before they are sort of put under a temporary restraining order. i think that's the issue here. i also -- if i can just make one other comment. i also think that with temporary restraining orders, with permanent restraining orders, all these issues, the potential victim has to depend on the police being able to be there in

time. i think that's a real concern. and this case that i was going to mention, warren versus district of columbia, where there were women who were abused and called the police and the police never came. they sued the police. the judge said, it's a fundamental principle of american law, government, and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services such as police protection to any individual citizen. so i think in that case, since there isn't -- people can't really depend on the police, and the police can't be everywhere, they need to be able to be armed to protect themselves. >> any last words with respect to that? >> yes, i agree. we cannot be everywhere as law enforcement. i'm sure the judge could comment on that in his days of boots on the ground policing. we certainly can't be everywhere. but we do count on our citizens to call us, and we do encourage them to exercise good due diligence. i certainly don't -- i certainly would never tell someone they

shouldn't arm themselves if they're a law-abiding citizen and exercise their second amendment. there's nothing wrong with that. the issue we have is those who shouldn't have weapons, those who are convicted domestic violence abusers, those who are stalkers, those who represent a public safety threat to not only the victims but to law enforcement. that's what this is about. it is common sense legislation. >> perfect words to close on. i will express my -- >> if i may just add one quick note. >> sure. >> i will supplement it for the record. but the notion that action by the government in law enforcement requires both sides to be heard before there can be a wiretap or a surveillance or a search warrant, search and seizure, put aside domestic violence, would not only undercut but cripple the protection of innocent citizens as the chairman well knows from his experience in the

intelligence area. surveillance is done when one side unrepresented, perhaps not only weeks, months, and for longer periods of time when there is sufficient threat. and our constitutional system depends on a balance of the threats to individual safety or our national security as against those constitutional rights that may be temporarily infringed upon. >> as attorney general, i actually had to go in and get some of those warrants myself. that's one of the restrictions the rhode island law puts on that exercise of power that the attorney general shall appear in person before the presiding judge of the superior court. so we're well familiar with that. we three prosecutors. so the hear willing remain open for an additional week. if anybody wishes to add -- i should say, the record of the hearing will remain open for an additional week. >> anybody wanting to remain --

>> but i have to say how very, very grateful i am to senator klobuchar and to senator blumenthal for their leadership in this area. how extraordinarily grateful i am to the witnesses for being here, particularly for those who brought personal stories that have had such dramatic effect in their lives. and to those of you in the audience, thank you for your advocacy and for those of you who have suffered losses in this area, we are with you. we will not forget. and we appreciate very much what you are doing. the hearing is adjourned.

and finishing up this senate judiciary hearing looking at gun violence and women, if you missed any of it, by the way, we'll have it for you again in our program schedule, or you can watch it any time on our website at c-span.org. u.s. policy towards north korea is the topic of a house foreign affairs subcommittee coming up later today. witnesses will include two state department representatives. you can watch that live at 2:00 p.m. eastern here on c-span3. as we look at the u.s. capitol here, both the house and senate are in session today. the senate just in the last hour or so advanced a supplemental spending bill including money for border protection. the vote was 63-33. you can watch the senate live on c-span2. the house working today on several issues, including the republican lawsuit against president obama. you can see that live on c-span. and we would like your opinion. should the lawsuit against president obama be a priority for the u.s. house?

log on to our facebook page. you can leave your thoughts and we will try to get some of those on the air throughout the day. sunday on book tv's in depth, former republican congressman from texas and presidential candidate ron paul. he's written more than a dozen books on politics and history with his latest "the school revolution" on america's education system. join the conversation as he takes your calls, e-mails, and tweets live for three hours sunday, august 3rd, at noon eastern. and tune in next month for author, historian, and activist mary francis berry. in october, a supreme court expert discussions court sessions past and present. michael corda is our guest in november. in december, american intersurprise institute president and noted musician arthur brooks. in depth on c-span2's book tv, television for serious readers. with live coverage of the u.s. house on c-span and the

senate on c-span2, here on c-span3, we complement that kovrm by showing you the most relevant public hearings. on weekends, c-span3 is the home to american history tv with programs that tell our nation's story, including six unique series. the civil war's 150th anniversa anniversary, visiting battlefields and key events. american artifacts, touring museums and historic sites to discover what artifacts reveal about america's past. history bookshelf with the best-known american history writers. the presidency, looking at the policies and legacies of our nation's commanders in chief. lectures in history with top college professors delving into america's past. and our new series reel america featuring archival government and educational films from the 1930s through the '70s. c-span3, created by the cable tv industry and funded by your local cable or satellite provider. watch us in hd, like us on facebook, and follow us on twitter. in a 19-14 party line vote, the house oversight and

government reform committee approved a resolution rejecting the white house immunity claim for david simus. he's the director of the white house office of political outreach. he was scheduled once again to testify before the committee on the office's operations friday, but he didn't show up. he was subpoenaed to testify earlier this month as well but was a no-show then. in a letter congress, the white house council said he's immune from congressional compulsion to testify on matters relating to his official duties and will not appe appear. congressman darrell issa chairs the committee. this is just under 90 minutes. committee will come to order. we're here to continue a hearing that began july 16th, 2014, called "white house office of

political affairs is supporting candidates and campaign fundraising and appropriate use of a government office." the purpose of the hearing is to gather facts about the white house office of political and strategic outreach. i'd like to note for the record mr. david simas, director of the office of political strategy and outreach and assistant to the president is, in fact, not present at the hearing today. mr. simas was invited to testify to give committee members and the american people an opportunity to hear from the head of an office that has, under several previous administrations, misused government resources for political purposes. despite being under subpoena, mr. simas failed to appear at

the hearing on july 16. i gave him a second chance to appear today to fulfill his obligation under a lawful subpoena. at this point i'd like to put on the record the cooperation of the white house on this matter. the white house has informed my staff for the first time this morning at 7:30 a.m. that mr. simas would not be present at today's hearing. we continue to work with the white house staff on proposed ways to resolve this, however, today's failure to appear is noted for the record and is not excused. mr. cummings, do you have any remarks? >> mr. chairman, a brief statement. just one question. i just wanted to highlight the letter, the last correspondence that we put in the record for the members. i want to draw your attention to it, and it's very brief, only three or four sentences. this is dated july 24, 2014. i received your letter of

today's date a little after 7:00 p.m. this evening -- that was yesterday -- my staff has reached out to yours to discuss these issues in good faith. i trust they will report back to us on the progress. it would help if you were to withdraw the subpoena to mr. simas as we discussed whether we can reach an appropriate accommodation. sincerely, w. mcneil wilson, counsel to the president. the inquiry of this is very brief, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, before we proceed any further, i just want to confirm what we talked about already. we understand that we are doing -- what we're doing this morning so our members will be clear, we resume this hearing this morning even though we knew mr. simas was not going, and we won't have ms. lerner's testimony.

my understanding is we continue on to the business meeting in spite of mr. simas not appearing. i have a statement i would like to give, and i'm happy to wait until the business meeting is given. >> if you would like to give it now, you may. >> no, i'll wait. thank you. >> mr. cummings, just in brief response, as you know, we have an inherent obligation of oversight. the question before us today is a very straightforward question. are we doing oversight? is it our right and our obligation to do oversight? i believe it is. there is a long precedent that when this committee asks for someone appropriately and they are not made available and we believe, the chair believes, we need that person, and in the case of an office of only four people, the head is not a big

ask to be the most appropriate that we expect that person to come. the record will show that we have negotiated and attempted alternatives, including discussions about possible transcribed interviews and other non-public ways to get the same information. however, the subpoena is, in my opinion, inappropriate to lift because ultimately lifting the subpoena implies and would mean that he may not come. it is the considered opinion of this committee chair that we have an absolute right and obligation to investigate not any wrongdoing, no predicate or claim of wrongdoing, however, this is an office that has a past. that past, under both republicans and democrats, have been questioned, and there's been an odd situation of saying

it was wrong but keeping it for three years. shutting it down and reconstituting it smaller. as you and i spoke, and if you don't mind something we said in private, the question that came from the briefing which i was appreciative that the white house did give us, was that this office controls only the president and first lady, and it does not control members of the cabinet. as the earlier proceeding made clear, we have an obligation to look at all government officials whether covered by the hatch act or not and find out whether or not they are doing political activity with government money and government time unless explicitly exempted. it is the considered opinion at this time of the committee and ms. lerner, the counsel, that the four people whose purpose it is to schedule the president and the first lady who are exempt from the hatch act is, in fact,

potentially a necessary office. because this office was closed by this president as wrong, and if you will, unnecessary operated for three years without finding out if those four individuals are necessary and how their use of our taxpayer dollars are being used is a question. and when we reconvene in probably a second hearing after mr. simas appears at the first hearing will be to ask the second question. if the office only controls the president and the first lady and there are hundreds of potential cabinet, subcabinet officers who then are controlled to go to places where they meet and participate over political activities or are scheduled to be in districts of senators at times when it might be beneficial for their campaign. so literally fundraising or less

literally supportive of candidates' reelection, who is scheduling and how are they scheduling? this was intended to be a short -- and i hope it still will be -- oversight of a relatively small but controversial office of oversight even without a predicate of wrongdoing. i do want to make sure the committee understands on both sides of the aisle that we were going to ask the question of the president and first lady and we believe we will get satisfactory answers. we must then move on to the cabinet, and as you know, under this president, not uniquely -- it happens with past presidents -- we've had two cabinet officers who did, in fact, commit hatch act violations. that tells us that we have a control responsibility with a

predicate, an inherent predicate, for making sure that the organizational systems for cabinet officers and the like is covered. i claim no predicate for the office of the president. i claim oversight. and i believe you would support me in that principle. i think we do have a predicate in the case of the cabinet, but we have no ongoing wrongdoing accusation about the cabinet, we simply have a history under presidents of both parties that this has been an area of concern and past violations. so this has been communicated back and forth with the white house. they understand this is not alleging a scandal at any level. but, in fact, doing the oversight that we are pledged to do and that cannot be done by the executive branch can only be done by our branch. so i look forward to our remarks when we open for the business meeting. i take it very serious that we are going to likely find that the committee believes mr. simas has a responsibility to be here,

and once again we are going to insist that he respond in the subpoena either in its original form or if we can reach a mutually agreeable accommodation, that accommodation. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i thank you for what you just said, and what you said is accurate as to what our discussions have been. i want to make that very clear. with regard to -- so that the public and the committee can be clear, so there are no -- and i realize that you're not saying that there needs to be, but you're saying that, if i understand it, to your knowledge, mr. simas has done nothing wrong and his office has done nothing wrong? >> we're accusing neither the president or this four-person office of any wrongdoing. there is a past history that you and i are both aware of that

caused an opinion that needed to be closed and the closing of the office. so inherently, when an office is closed one might say in scandal, and it's a multi-presidential scandal, and then reopened, it is probably inherently the most important oversight we could do and say, in the past this didn't work properly, how do we know it will work properly going forward? i believe the american people have an obligation or we have an obligation to make sure we spend money well and that the american people have a comfort level. but again, you're exactly right, mr. cummings. i allege no ongoing wrongdoing, but it's more appropriate when you have a history like this to look at it than the average four-person office in the white house. >> there were two cabinet members that you mentioned, and, of course, we would agree that those hatch act offenses took

place long before this incident -- before the opening of this office. >> that's correct. although i believe one of them likely took place before the closing of this previous office. and as you and i talked about in the white house briefing, they told us they are not controlling through this office the activities of members of cabinet, which actually raises the concern that i think you and i are going to have to mutually work on is if not this office, then who do we look to to make sure that these inherent calls from a party office, currently the democratic party but it could become the republican party at some day in the future, who allows those? who coordinates them? who spends a government dime when that call comes in, scheduling or talking about why the secretary of blank should go support the congressmen of what?

>> so as i hear you, bringing in mr. simas in one respect is sort of trying to create a prevention, do something to prevent something that could possibly happen in the future based upon what happened under previous administration? is that what you're trying to say? >> not only that, but i think if -- in a sense, and i hope we all look to this as we look at this office and others, if congress looks at support and says we see nothing wrong with system, and the system is faithfully executed and something bad happens, then it's not a scandal, it's a need for further reform. and i'll give a current example.

we voted -- we broadly voted in 2008 for a law on immigration that now is at the center of some problems. and we as a government are looking to fix something, but it isn't a scandal that people are taking advantage of 2008 law. the american people, i think, currently understand the immigration question. it is simply something we looked at, we voted for and now we see that. if we look into these various activities and we see nothing wrong in the system as explained to us and in what we're told is happening, then, in fact, in a sense we add to the ease with which the administration and future administrations can feel this is an appropriate way to operate. it's one of the reasons that we've been communicating with carolyn lerner, it's one of the reasons that we want her input, because in the past, they issued a scathing report finding that under both president bush and in an ongoing sense through 2011,

the administrations of those two presidents were using an office that was inherently flawed. and that's what we're making sure we look at before this goes much longer. >> thank you. just one or two more questions. mr. chairman, you know, when i read the letter that you wrote yesterday, i think it was, there were two new issues that came up with regard to the president going on trips, official trips, and then doing some campaigning, if i remember correctly. and i had not seen those allegations before. the reason why i raise this is because -- >> and mr. cummings, if you could yield, it's not an allegation. it's an observation. all presidents do both, and this

office's coordination is a very simple question of it, so i appreciate that. >> and i guess what i'm concerned about is -- two things. one, it seems as if -- i just wonder when the questions end. in other words, this was a question that was presented yesterday, and mr. simas -- i'm sorry, mr. eagleson's response was, well, we'll continue to work with you. and it seems like -- i'm just wondering whether there is a constant movement of the goalposts and the public needs to know that our staffs met with the white house for 75 minutes and they answered just about every question. and then some other questions

came up, and i know that things like that happen. but i guess at some point, where does it end? but more significantly, you understand the concern of the white house? and it's not just this white house. there will be future folks who occupy the white house who will be of the republican party, and we may be up in heaven somewhere. but -- somebody laughed, but anyway. >> what you're implying is this isn't heaven? >> i guess my concern is, the white house's concern -- and the republicans, too -- certain advisers, that they have this freedom to -- >> i want to bring this to a close and we'll bring up the next part. >> the gentleman's point is a good one, and i want to make sure we come to an understanding. oversight is ongoing. and we are not looking to ask

about on a trip what did the president say or the communication. we understand the nature of that advice. and we're not asking why did you decide in consultation with the president to have the president do x and y? the organizational questions, which included one in the letter, are how do you decide? what is the system? and how do we know, again, that dollars paid to federal employees, even though they're supporting community efforts, that they're absolutely necessary and the best positive use of the president's time and money and the people's time and money simply because we have a unique situation with the president that we don't want him going down to the democratic national committee for briefings. we don't want the first lady out and about or having to go back and forth to the residence. these are accommodations unique in that we're using taxpayer dollars in support of campaigns but only because of the unique security considerations for the

president. so for that reason, the process is, in fact, important. but we're not moving the goalposts, to be honest. we have a lot of questions. i don't know that all have been asked. and i'm absolutely positive that if we go through this process, many of your members will have additional questions, and we would want to make sure that all relevant questions, all questions related to the american people's taxpayer dollars and the necessity of this are answered. so i look forward to eventually having that dialogue for all involved. this meeting, this committee stands in recess. >> it's estimated that welcome

it's estimate thad -- estimated that we will come back at 10:15, folks. 10:15.

the committee on oversight and government reform will come to order. the committee meets today to consider a resolution to reject the claim that david simas, director of outreach and assistant to the president and federal government employee is immune from being compelled to testify on matters relating to his official duties. >> the resolution of government reform. >> without objection the resolution will be considered as read and eopen for amendment an time. the text that been placed in each of your folders. i would now recognize the ranking member for his opening statement. >> thank you very much, mr.

chairman, and good morning. let me say at the outset that i strongly oppose the other certifications of absolute immunity. i disagree with them in the harriet meyers case and today. one key difference in this case the committee has identified no evidence, no evidence that he was a senior adviser to the united states or anyone else in his office engaged in inappropriate activity or conduct that violates the hatch act. as a result, i strongly open this resolution. i'd like to ask unanimous consent to enter into the record a letterwe