inaccessible. around 67% of gaza is estimated to be food insecure and unemployment remains high at 43%. the economy is moribund. it has been exacerbated by 40 days of conflict. 1,000 palestinians killed and 6,000 injured. over 80% of those killed are civilians. 251 children. israel faced rocket fire. 59 people have been killed, three civilians and 56 soldiers. dozens injured. up to 440,000 people in the gaza strip are now displaced. almost 24% of the population. over 240,000 hosted in schools while others are seeking refuge

wherever they can. in government buildings, hospital grounds or with families and friends people flee to areas they believe are safe to attack. these areas are becoming hard are to find. gaza 45 clopts long and 614 wide. israeli ministry advised 44% of gaza is a battleground. with the blockade in place, most people are unable to leave gaza even to get urgent medical attention. so they come to united nations facilities for protection when their homes and neighborhoods come under fire. more than 240,000 people. but over 103 u.n. facilities have come under attack. including a school hosting over

3,300 displaced yesterday. nineteen people were killed and over 100 injured. the united nations has lost staff and other humanitarian workers have been killed since the outbreak of hostility. the outlook of gaza today is that no place is safe. mr. president, inspector general and other cnn officials have condemned this and other attacks in the strongest possible terms. the parties to the conflict have an obligation, an absolute obligation to protect civilians from direct or indiscriminate attacks. under international law, united nations operations, personnel, and premises must remain inviable. parties to the conflict should protect humanitarian workers. there can be no justification for failing to do so.

mr. president, the ongoing violence led to widespread destruction of homes, public services and infrastructure throughout the gaza strip. more than 9,000 homes destroyed or damaged according to preliminary reports. more than 130 schools and other educational facilities have also sustained damage. two of the three main u.n. compounds, including the office in gaza, have also been damaged. medical facilities have not been spared. 24 medical facilities have been damaged or destroyed, some hit multiple times. this includes our hospital which was hit on the 21st of july causing significant damage to the top two floors of the hospital and killing four people. on the 29th of july, gaza's main

hospital, which also sheltered thousands of displaced people, was also damaged. in addition to schools, hospital and other civilian infrastructure, gaza's only power plant was struck on tuesday destroying the fuel tank. parts of gaza will remain without any electricity while others will only receive electricity two hours a day. repairs expected to take months to complete under the best of circumstances. the immediate medium and longer term impact on the functioning of water, sanitation and health care facilities as well as food production cannot be overstated. water and sewer systems are also severely damaged. i'm deeply concerned about possible contamination of water systems. hundreds of thousands of people are without access to regular

water and the ongoing violence is preventing urgent repairs. if the current situation persists the number of people without water will significantly increase. mr. president, the united states and our partners on the ground are working to meet increasing humanitarian needs. an ra is delivering water and food to shelters in addition to its regular program. providing food to people in shelters as well as patients and hospital savannah. w.h.o. is facilitating transfer of medical supplies to hospitals including fluid and surgical kits. request from ngo hospital supplies, fuel and other supplies. unicef is delivering pediatric drugs to hospitals and health facilities, providing psychological support for children and families and is working to restore access to

water and sanitation. but the relief effort is stretched. ongoingifying and insecurity is hampering our ability to move around and has made sustained delivery of assistance to people in need difficult. until a long-term cease-fire is agreed, we need more humanitarian forces to enable us to reach those in need. must daily, predictable and adequate in length so humanitarian staff can dispatch relief to those in need, rescue the injured, recover the dead, and allow civilians some reprieve so they can restock and resupply their homes. we urgently need the government of israel, hamas, and other militant groups to comply with international legal obligation including international humanitarian and human rights

law. each party must be held accountable to international standards, not the standards of the other party. we have watched in horror the desperation of children, civilians, as they have come under attack with no safe place to go. under international humanitarian law, the government of israel, hopz and other militant groups must divide between civilian objects and between civilians. they must also avoid harming civilians or civilian objects and protect them from the effects of military operations. as i have said to this council before, and in different circumstances, even war has rules. funding required. united nations families has appealed for additional funds and i asked member states to

respond quickly and generously to these appeals. we cannot provide adequate assistance without an urgent injection of funds. mr. president, we need the violence to stop and the root causes of the conflict to be addressed. the people of gaza want to live in safety, security, and dignity. the people of israel want the same thing. i hope the international community can help them to achieve it. thank you. >> thank you for the briefing. i now give the floor over. >> mr. president, thank you very much and allow me to begin by expressing sincere appreciation for the honor to deliver a

briefing from gaza city today. in this, the second of my visit to gaza during this crisis, i have spent the last two days assessing the situation on the ground, the extent of the human suffering and the state of our operations which continue in many parts of the gaza strip, terrible conditions resulting from the conflict that erupted on the state of july. i would like first and foremost to express gratitude to unra roig a life line to gaza under the outstanding leadership of our director of operations, who are assisting people at the time of their need and doing so at considerable risk and prevailing context. they have lost lives since began and in acknowledging sacrifice i extend heartfelt condolences to

families. let me not forget also to thank the rest of the u.n. family doing so much to address the humanitarian and political dimensions of the situation. since my arrival yesterday i have born witness to the tragic situation that has unfolded and been so graphically seen on tv screens across the globe. i have seen extensive damage done to whole neighborhoods and essential infrastructure. i have in particular this morning seen the catastrophic human cost of this war as pediatric ward in the main hospital in gaza with broken bodies that are the real and unacceptable consequence of an armed conflict waged with excessive and at times disproportionate force in densely populated urban settings. among the many children lying in the rooms and corridors with five months old yousef who barely and not definitively

survived the shelling of the school yesterday. like many of you around the table, i have children of my own. what i saw today, the terrible wounds, devastated me. i refer to young yousef because i have always refused anonymity and death and injury. too often reports from war zones refer to lists of numbers. the palestinian children i saw today are not statistics. behind every debt and injury there is a story and destiny to be respected. yesterday an elementary girls school served as a place for people who received artillery strikes, fired by israeli military. the precise location and coordinates of the school were conveyed on 17 occasions to the israeli military including a notification that the school was sheltering displaced person.

the displaced were instructed by the israeli military to evacuate their homes and seek shelter in premises such as ours. i reiterate my condemnation of this attack in the strongest terms. reiterate also a serious violation of international law and call for accountability including immediate launching of a transparent investigation by israel to share its findings. we are engaged with israel on this matter. speaking today, i have heard the same messages time and time again. if we are not safe in unwra school, we are not safe anywhere. they add the world failed us, failed to protect. it's not something we want to

hear anymore, they commented. i call on all parties to respect the sanctity of u.n. premises and exercise highest precaution in the conduct of military operations that affect civilians in this region. the attack on the shelter came only six days after strike on designated unwra caused fatalities and made the call more urgent. there's another challenge in our operational field which i want to draw attention. on three occasions we have found rockets belonging to army groups in gaza. we immediately alerted all relevant parties to their existence and strongly condemned placement of weapons in our schools. unwra is now working with u.n. partners to improve such violations in a manner that does

not compromise the safety of staff or civilians including unwra beneficiaries. it should also be said these do not justify attacks on unwra facilities. unwra takes robust measures for all its facilities it has access in an effort to prevent misuse by competent and other parties. dear members of the council, allow me to turn to the most difficult challenge facing unwra and gaza today. we are currently hosting over 220,000 internally displaced people. a number grown every day of the conflict at an accelerated place in the last week. four times higher than the peak number of displaced people during the conflibt in 2008.

i'm not referring to tens of thousands that found shelter with families, only to those registered in unwra schools. we are doing everything possible to provide displaced with minimum needs, food, mattresses and blankets but we are now into the fourth week of mass displacement in facilities unequipped to shelter large numbers for such a duration. conditions are increasingly dire in the shelters. there is no water for hygiene, very few showers and latrines are totally inadequate. disease is beginning with skin, scabbys and others. deliveries in schools, shelter infants in these newborn situations. our effort to mitigate is restricted bionic activities.

we are concerned about any possible additional displacement that will drive up the numbers in our shelters. with as many as 2,000500 displaced people residing in schools, an average of 80 people to a classroom, we have exceeded the tolerable numbers we can accommodate. it's with alarm i've received instructions to palestinians to evacuate the area of gaza city and areas in the vicinity. in view of the fact and schelling affecting unwra schools on six occasions, i believe the population is facing a precipice and appeal to the international community to take the steps necessary to address the extreme situation. should further large scale displacement, indeed, occur, the occupying power according to international humanitarian law will have to assume direct responsibility to assist these people.

dear members of the council, the new reality created before our eyes in occupied palestinian territory in israel is not sustainable under any circumstances. the humanitarian and political grows by the day with each death and injury, with the continuing destruction of infrastructure vital to the life of the palestinian people in gaza and with the continuing violation of international law. as i have stated on previous visits to gaza, the rocket firing on israeli cities and endangering israeli civilians is unacceptable. we all aspire to see a middle east in which its people share common interests, a stake in each other's well-being and commitment the secretary-general said to keep justice and security for all in the region. this cannot happen under the conditions of military occupation and those caused by the pitiless conflict now unfolding. it is pastime for immediate and

unconditional zoos fire to be agreed by the parties and called for by the council reinstatement. allow me also to add my voice to those calling for the redress of underlying conditions that fuel this conflict and violence that repeats itself in full view of the world. in other words cease-fire while immediately required to save lives is not enough. it is not conceivable to return to before this conflict. notwithstanding israel a legitimate security concern, illegal blockade of gaza must be lifted. this small territory is home to 1.8 million people who the prospect it will become unlivable in the matter of a few years unless urgent steps are taken by the international community to enable the development of gaza and in the ensure security for all in the reason.

unwra, truthful to its mandate will remain steadfast in its commitment and operations. during the terrible emergency or in the recovery phase when the fighting has ceased. much more is required to ensure lasting peace and stability in the region. i thank you, mr. president. >> thank you for the briefing. i now invite councilmembers to informal discussions and continue meeting on the subject. the meeting is adjourned. >> coming up live remarks from the former prime minister of the palestinian authority. he'll be talking about the situation in gaza and the middle east. the event hosted by atlantic council gets started live at 3:30 p.m. eastern. watch it here on c-span3. the national journal report damage that the central intelligence agency improperly and covertly hacked into

computers used by senate staffers to investigate the spy agency's bush era interrogation practices according to an internal investigation. it follows a scathing 40-minute speech by senate intelligence chair dianne feinstein back in march accused cia of secretly accessing her panels computers used to review documents related to the government's torture, rendition policies deployed during george w. bush presidency. again from a national journal story. we covered senator feinstein's floor remarks and other events related to the cia hacking of senate computers. check our video library for more at c-span.org. in the last 13 years, there have been several alternative theories regarding the 911 terrorist attacks. join us tomorrow when we explore some of those those theories. richard gaga, founder for

architects & engineers for truth will be joining us, discuss his group's position and take your calls starting at 9:15 eastern tomorrow on washington journal live on c-span. owner saturday, more on theories with kurt iken walled, plots to destroy america, he'll talk about that and take your calls saturday 9:15 a.m. eastern, also on washington journal live on c-span. this weekend book tv and american history tv take you on a trip across the country for history and literary life of various locales rediscovered during city tour. point roberts, washington, oyster industry in olympia, history of macon's r&b music, restoration of super saber jet fighter, lab of thomas edison in ft. myers and hear the voices of mormon tabernacle choir in salt

lake city. sunday afternoon at 2:00 on american history tv on c-span3. author sylvia jukes morris the guest. >> she was so pretty, always irresistible to men. even in her old age, i gave her 80th birthday party. richard coen was at the party. they sat together after dinner having coffee. at one point she began to stroke his beard. heavens, he said, i never met an 80-year-old before i wanted to leap into bed w she had a vampish quality, seductive quality her whole life. >> the life and career, sharing about their personal relationship during the final years sundays night at 8:00 eastern and pacific on c-span's

q&a. senate judiciary committee held a hearing yesterday examining the issue of gun violence against women. they heard from law enforcement, courts and academia about pending legislation to add additional protections to the violence against women's act as well as protecting constitutional rights of accused. also hear personal stories of those who experienced domestic and gun violence. sheldon whitehouse is the acting chair of the hearing. it's just over two hours. >> good morning, everyone. the hearing will come to order. i'm delighted to see you here. i welcome witnesses, ranking member from iowa, welcome klobuchar and blumenthal from minnesota and connecticut.

i have one procedural announcement, we evidently have a vote scheduled at 10:45. towards the end of that vote, i plan to -- senator from hawaii, nice to see you. i plan to recess to catch the end of one vote, beginning of next and reconvenevene. that will take about 15 minutes total just so you know. on june 18th, 1999, carmen cruz was watching television with her 8-year-old son travis when her ex-boyfriend, frederick job esc broke into her apartment and calmly walked toward her carrying a pillow. when he was a few feet away from mrs. cruz, mr. escobar pulled a gun from the pillow and pointed it at her. travis watched as his mother

fell from a bullet from his father. she was hospitalized for three weeks and wore a colostomy bag for two years following the shooting. today she's a passionate advocate in rhode island's community. her scar serves as a constant reminder as a survivor she's one of the lucky one. women are 11 times more likely to be killed with guns than women in any other industrialized country. this chart shows the red line stands far beyond any other industrialized country. put another way women in the united states account for 84% of

all female firearm victims in the developed world. of all the women murdered in this country more than half of killed by family members or intimate partners. in fact when a gun is present in a domestic violence situation it increases the risk of homicide for women by 500%. protecting women from gun violence by domestic abusers should not be and has not been a partisan issue. in 1980s congress passed important laws prohibiting possession or purchase of firearms by individuals subject to domestic violence protective orders. these laws part of the violence against women act and amendment authored by late senator lautenberg complimented

prohibitions and passed with broad support. these laws saved lives. in states with rigorous background laws, 38% women shot to death by intimate partners but they are not enough. current law prevents domestic abusers from possessing guns only if they are or were married to the victim, lived with the victor had a child in common with the victim. dating partners who have been convicted of domestic violence offenses are not covered even though the most recent data shows more domestic abuse is committed by dating partners than spouses closing the date partner loophole would save lives plain and simpbl. there are steps we can take as well, universal background checks, helping stage and collect data necessary to ensure those who we already agree should be prohibited under existing law are in actual practice and fact prohibited

when they try to perform firearms. along these lines i'm willing to work with anyone who wants to strengthen the system, nics to ensure it operates as congress intended it took. nobody has been working harder than senators blumenthal and klobuchar to shed light on guns and domestic violence and close loopholes that allow people to threaten injury and kill victims. i want to thank them both at the outset for their commitment and efforts. i would like to change chairman leahy for his leadership in reauthorizing violence against women aclat last year and long-standing role in domestic violence. finally, it bears mentioning this is not a hearing about the second amendment or the right of law abiding americans to own

firearms. nobody on this committee wants to deprive individuals, women or men, from legally owning guns and none of the solutions we're here to discuss involve doing that. what we are here to consider is how gun guns in domestic violence situations threaten american women and how best to ensure that those who should not possess guns do not possess guns. i understand there are a number of domestic violence survivors and advocates here with us today. i would be honored to recognize them right now if they wouldn't mind standing up. [ applause ] >> thank you. i would also like to submit the statements of our chairman, senator patrick leahy, of christie salters martin, bonnie

campbell, laura ponce, katie ray jones, every town for gun safety and the national center for victims of crime into the record. without objection they will be added to the record. thank you all for your support of this effort and your courage. i would like to thank all the witnesses for participating in the hearing and turn the microphone to my distinguished member senator grassley. >> bonnie campbell is a former attorney general of the state of iowa. mr. chairman, we're here to discuss an important subject. thanks to our experts who agreed to be panelists for us. all of us want to see the federal government take appropriate action to assist in fighting domestic violence and especially domestic homicides.

i have met with many victims of domestic violence over the years. i feel compassion for the mental and emotional injuries they have suffered. you particularly feel that when you talk to people that have experienced that. they told me of the fear they confront, and want to take effective action against perpetrators of violence against women. today i'm one of the lead republicans in a group of bipartisan senators who have come together on a bill to address sexual assault on our nation's college campuses. to me, all domestic homicides are a tragedy. it does not matter how the victim died. 45% of the domestic homicides now do not involve guns, a figure considerably higher than in the 1980s. in 1996 i had the pleasure of voting for the lautenberg amendment. those convicted of domestic violence, misdemeanors were prohibited from owning firearms.

so were those against whom permanent restraining orders were entered because of domestic violence. for these prohibitions to be effective, obviously records of the convictions and restraining orders must be entered into the national instant background check system, and the chairman just spoke about his interest in that, for that to be an effective system. so it distresses me that even now all these years later, according to the center of american progress, quote, only 36 states have submitted any domestic violence convictions to the index. of these 21 states have submitted 20 or fewer of those records in an even smaller number of states have even submitted records regarding restraining orders. of these nine states submitted ten or fewer, end of quote.

i note rhode island has submitted exactly zero misdemeanor domestic violence records to nix and exactly zero domestic violence records. for delaware, 0 and 0, hawaii 3-0, illinois 1-0, minnesota 16-2. new york, 0-10. vermont 2-0. these stays are failing to do their job. iowa ranks near the top of the states in this regard. i can confess to you we still have to do a better job in my state. 79% of the records submitted come from three small states. as the report says, quote, if all states submitted records of misdemeanor domestic violence convictions at the average rate of these three states, we can project that there would be two and nine-tenths million records in the nics index in this

category, more than 40 times the number currently submitted, end quote. this means that large number of prohibited persons under the law today can purchase a firearm through legal channels because the background system check fails to identify them as such. our nics system is full of holes with respect to the gun prohibitions, greatly reducing the effectiveness of background checks. last year senator cruz and i offered an amendment to legislation before the senate that would have helped fix the nics system. our amendment would have improved state compliance with nics reporting for mental health records. it received the most bipartisan support of any similar legislation, but it didn't move because it didn't receive the 60 required votes. we should do the same with respect to persons who have been convicted of domestic violence crimes and subject to permanent restraining orders. we should be able to gain bipartisan support to enact legislation of this type.

that's not the approach. there are two bills before the committee on domestic gun violence, one from senator klobuchar expands the definition of prohibited person to include dating violence behind the cohabiting relationships in current law as well as to add convicted stalkers to the list of prohibited persons. another by senator blumenthal also expands that relationship and would make those subject to temporary restraining order entered without notice to the alleged abusers of prohibited persons. a significant problem exists with the completeness of background checks under the law. it is hard to believe that expanding the universe of prohibited persons whose records will not show up when a background check is performed will reduce gun homicides. i fear that false hopes are again being raised. in many states few persons are convicted of misdemeanor stalking.

in maryland, for instance, zero convicted of that crime last year. one in arkansas, five in new mexico, making these offenders prohibited persons will not accomplish very much even if their records make it to the nics which is a questionable assumption. these bills would expand retroactively the definition of prohibitive person. but they will also make actual individuals who allowed to own guns criminals retroactively, not by virtue of their crime, but the passing of the legislation. who is going to spend the time and the personnel to go over every domestic violence conviction record and examine the relationships between the parties to determine whether they fit the definition of these bills? who is going to actually input those records in the nics? suppose someone determines erroneously that a prior conviction was for conduct against a dating partner, what recourse will the individuals have to demonstrate that he is

not a prohibited person? how will guns actually be taken from that prohibited person? how soon would an officer be diverted from another law enforcement activity, removing those guns? the restraining order provisions could pose some problems. in a large percentage of cases, temporary restraining orders issued without notice to a defendant did not lead to permanent orders. yet the constitutional rights of the accused could be taken without due process. that person will not know that he or she is a prohibited person if during the brief period the order is in effect, law enforcement should show up to take away a gun. we should also be very skeptical that the temporary order will be entered into nics in time to stop someone from passing background checks. making existing nics records more complete is far more likely to make the difference in domestic violence home sides,

especially gun homicides than the bills the committee is considering. i understand domestic violence advocates ask the majority to hold a hearing on domestic violence homicides many months ago but were repeatedly put off. for instance, the klobuchar bill was introduced more than a year ago but only as we're about to head out of town with a few legislative days remaining has that hearing taken place responding to the request of advocates, only after a number of days until the election grew short did the committee schedule the hearing. the committee has not held a markup for bills for two weeks now. had the majority been serious about reducing domestic violence we had the time to work together to come up with a bipartisan solution. there was a real opportunity in this congress for bipartisan effort to combat intimate homicides of all kinds.

that opportunity i believe has been squandered. the bill before us, the committee today deal with a problem, keeping currently prohibitive persons from owning firearms. i hope that going forward we will work together to find bipartisan well thought out practical ways to protect women and men from violence of all kinds. thank you, mr. chairman. >> i'm sure we will, senator grassley, and i think this hearing will help advance that cause. because senator klobuchar and senator blumenthal have both shown such leadership in this area and have bills in this area, they have requested make an opening statement. i'll recognize the two of them for opening statements. first senator klobuchar, then we'll proceed with the witnesses. >> thank you very much, chairse whitehouse, senator grassley, senator leahy for holding the hearing and to senator blumenthal for his work in this

area. tragically we've had a number of major shootings that have killed multiple people over the last few years in our country. from newtown to nevada, we've seen there's still more to be done in terms of closing loopholes in our background check system and looking at mental health issues. i would point out some of the issues raised by senator grassley are good ones about the record keeping, some of that would have been helped by the manchin-toomey bill which contained penalties for states and grants to make it easier to enter in this data. in states that do require background checks for private handgun sales, 38% of women are -- fewer women are shot to death by their intimate partners. as a former prosecutor i've seen firsthand how domestic violence and sexual assault can destroy lives and tear apart families. for eight years i ran an office of over 400 people. i was charged with protecting domestic violence victims and for enforcing the gun laws we had on the books, enforcing the laws involving felons in

possession of a gun was one of my major priorities for those eight years. one of the things i learned as a prosecutor is that there's still more work to be done. i was reminded of this over the christmas holidays in 2011 when i went to one of the saddest funerals i've ever attended for officer shawn schneider, a young lake city police officer with three children. his department had received a domestic violence call from a 17-year-old victim. it was someone she dated. officer schneider just doing his job showed up at the door that day. he was wearing a bulletproof vest, but no vest could have protected him when the perpetrator shot him in the head and killed him. at the funeral in that church were his three children. only a week ago the officer had been there with the family at the church nativity play. that day he was in the front in

a coffin and his three little children walked down the aisle of the church. and the one thing i will never forget was the little girl in a blue dress covered with stars. that's what this is about. last year the women of the senate stood together to reauthorize the violence against women act. the bill signed into law included the provision i worked on with former republican senator kay bailey hutchison that strengthens and updates federal anti-stalking laws to address new technology that predators are using to harass their victims. passing that bill was a critical step in protecting women, but there's more to be done. a recent report found that 57% of recent mass shootings involve domestic violence. that's why last july i introduced, along with senator herono the domestic violence and stalking victims protection act. our bill really does two things.

our common sense bill would help protect stalking victims and keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people that talk. -- stalk. it makes sure that stalkers can't get guns. many states are already starting the do this on a bipartisan basis with democratic and republican support, including my own state. one in six women have been stalked during their lifetime. stalking is often the first step in an escalating pattern of criminal behavior that couple natures in physical violence. the department of justice reports that 76% of women who are murdered by intimate partners were first stalked by their partner. second, our bill would make an important change to expand the definition of victims who are covered. right now people who aren't married and haven't either lived together or had a child together are covered under the current -- aren't covered under the current definition of intimate partner. they're vulnerable because their stalkers and abusers are legally able to obtain firearms despite having committed a domestic violence crime or being subject to a permanent restraining order. our bill fixes this problem by

expanding the definition of intimate partners to include dating partners. many states have already done this. we're simply bringing the federal law in line with what many states have already done. i've been proud to stand up with this bill with former representative gabby giffords and her husband, astronaut mark kelly in support of this bill. like gabby and marks, in my home state of minnesota, we value hunting and the outdoors. if it's not duck season or pheasant season in minnesota, it's deer season. when i looked at doing this bill, i always thought of my uncle in his deer stand and would this do anything to hurt him in the deer stand? the answer is clearly no. this bill is about preventing a person with a documented history of domestic violence or stalking or mental illness from having a firearm. that's it. i know senator blumenthal has been working on these issues as well, especially for dating partners and temporary

restraining orders, and i want to thank him for his leadership. one of the things that justice mccaffrey said in his testimony was that our bills, quote, look to strengthen current domestic violence 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. these bills are simple. they're designed to focus on an area where we know we've seen rampant violence. i want to thank all our witnesses for being here, and i hope our colleagues can join us in supporting these bills. one of the reasons, senator grassley, that we waited to do this hearing is i've been trying to get a republican co-sponsor on this bill. i've been very close several times. i know i'm going to get it done. that's the reason we've waited to get it done. thank you senator grassley, senator whitehouse. >> senator blumenthal. >> thank you very, very much,

senator whitehouse for convening this hearing and for yourself spearheading and advocating measures to stop domestic violence. i want to join you in thanking our chairman senator leahy for fermt -- permitting this hearing to go forward. i also want to thank senator klobuchar who has been so stead fast and strong in advancing this cause. i'm proud to be working with her and to be supporting her bill as a co-sponsor, and i think our measures are very much complimentary. i want to thank also the other members of this committee including senator durbin and senator hirono, senator feinstein and the late senator lautenberg for their leadership, really incomparable leadership in this cause and, of course, the many advocates around the country who are championing common sense sensible measures to stop gun violence and

domestic violence. the two together are a toxic deadly combination. women are five times as likely -- more likely to die from domestic violence when there are guns in their household. i especially want to thank the survivors, the loved ones of victims who are here today. i know how much courage and strength it takes for you to be with us. but your presence is so powerful and meaningful, far more eloquent than anything i could say here or anywhere else.

i want to say a particular thanks to a connecticut family who are here, mary and doug jackson. their daughter lori was a victim of domestic violence. but she chose not to accept it. she displayed the courage that her parents taught her, and she decided to break with it. as many of you know that decision takes such enormous bravery and resoluteness. she broke with her husband. she went to live with her parents. she took with her her 18-month-old twins. she left her abusive husband and she decided to begin a new life. lori's act of courage should have liberated her, should have freed her. instead, she became a victim again, and this time fatally.

her estranged husband tracked her down in her mother's house and he used the gun that he was still legally allowed to possess to gun her down and to seriously injury her mother, firine her m bullets at her that almost mary -- almost killed mary jackson. mary and doug jackson are with us today. i'm so deeply grateful to you for doing that. -- for joining us. lori jackson sought successfully a temporary restraining order which should have protected her. the law failed lori jackson. the judge granted that restraining order after determining that her husband posed a clear threat to her safety and the safety of her children.

even after that determination lori's husband was still able to keep the gun that killed her. even if he hadn't possessed that gun, he could have legally purchased a new one. purchased a new one. even at the moment of heightened rage when he learned she had left and was seeking that restraining order, in most states somebody subject to a temporary restraining order can lose access to his house, to his children, to his car. but under federal law he could still keep his guns. somebody might be considered too dangerous to see their son but not too dangerous to buy a handgun. because of that loophole in our law, abuse victims are the least protected by the laws of our

nation at the moment they are in the most danger, at the moment when they are most likely to be physically harmed because of the rage and wrath of their estranged spouse or intimate partner. they are less protected than any other time. i've offered legislation to close this loophole and require a period after the domestic abuser becomes subject to a temporary restraining order. during that period when a judge has found that someone possesses -- someone poses a threat and issues a temporary restraining order, the subject of that order should be barred from purchasing or possessing a gun, and the justice system should be helping the potential victim.

unfortunately and tragically. and unacceptably most victims are still at the mercy of their abuser's rage, despite the kind of courage that lori jackson demonstrated in breaking with an abusive spouse. i've also introduced a measure, the gun homicide prevention act, to make sure that there are incentives and resources and grants available to states so that they will enforce these laws. these states are provided with grants under this legislation that encourages them to get illegal guns out of the hands of dangerous people and away from dangerous situations, and it gives them the resources to do so effectively. enforcement, as i know from my own background as attorney general for the state of connecticut for a couple of decades and as a federal law enforcement officer as a united

states attorney is the key to making a law real in people's lives. right now federal law is a shadow of what it should be in protecting against gun violence and domestic abuse. i want to recognize again the thousands of men and women who have become victims as a result of this gaping, unforgivable loophole in federal law. their strength and courage will inspire me and i hope inspire this body just as lori jackson's parents being here today should give us the resoluteness and the strength to make this law real. i want to thank again them, the advocates who are before us today on this panel and, mr. chairman, thank you very much. >> senator durbin, do i understand you wish to make a

statement as well? >> mr. chairman, i know we want to hear from the panel. i want to especially recognize the attendance of mr. elvin daniel, a resident of illinois that will tell us the sad story of his sister. mr. daniel makes a declaration early in his statement that he is a conservative constitutionalist member of the nra, and he comes to us today still asking for protection for women like his sister and others who might have a chance if we pass the manchin/toomey background check to keep guns out of the hands of convicted felons and people who are mentally unstable as well as the klobuchar and blumenthal legislation to protect women who are the victims of domestic violence and stalking. thank you, mr. daniel, for being here. >> thank you, senator. will the witnesses please stand to be sworn. do you affirm the testimony you will give here today will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help you god?

thank you. i'll introduce the whole panel and then we'll go through their testimony. i will first introduce jacquelyn campbell who is the anna d. wolf chair of the johns hopkins university school of nursing and the national program director of the robert wood johnson foundation nurse faculty scholars program. in 2012 she was recognized by the centers for disease control and prevention as one of 20 national leaders in injury and violence prevention for her work related to domestic violence. dr. campbell is on the board of directors of futures without violence, served on the board of five domestic violence shelters and was a member of the congressionally appointed department of defense task force on domestic violence. she has published more than 225 articles and 7 books and has extensive policy related service nationally and internationally related to women and violence and she has cut a vacation short

to be with us. so we are particularly honored that she is here. joyce lee malcolm will testify after dr. campbell. she is the patrick henry professor of constitutional law and the second amendment at george mason university school of law, holds a ph.d. in history and specializes in constitutional law, legal history and law and war. malcolm is the author of seven books and numerous articles for legal and historical journals and the popular press. her book "to keep and bear arms: the origins of an anglo american right" was cited by the supreme court in the second amendment case of district of columbia very very ses heller. after her, sheriff schmaling. he was elected as sheriff where he established the first ever domestic violence position in the state.

he's served as a law enforcement officer for two decades and revids in mount pleasant. i understand it's his son's 16th birthday today. we are particularly grateful for his participation in this hearing. it's a pleasure to have you with us, sheriff. i know your son must be very proud. next we will hear from justice mccaffrey who was born in belfast, northern island, but has called philadelphia his home since the age of 5. he's made his career in public service, serving his country as a united states marine, his city as a police officer for 20 years, and his state as first a trial and now an appellate judge. justice mccaffrey is the liaison justice for problem solving courts across pennsylvania as well as the liaison justice to the special court judges of pennsylvania. he's been at the forefront in creating veterans courts across pennsylvania. finally, already introduced by his senator, senator durbin, elvin daniel joins us from

illinois where he is a salesman for blackhawkhawk industrial. he is here to share the story of his sister zena killed by her estranged husband just days after she obtained a restraining order against him. unfortunately, zena's story highlights only too well the urgent need for universal background checks. we are very grateful that mr. daniel is here and thank him for coming and for his courage. let me begin now with dr. campbell. we have a terrific panel. lead us off. thank you. >> senators, i am grateful for the opportunity to testify in these very important hearings today. i will present data from my own research on domestic violence homicide of women as well from other important research and national databases on this topic. i testify today as a citizen, as a nurse and with the endorsement of the american academy of nursing. the united states, as has been said, has a higher homicide rate

of women than all other westernized countries and amongst the highest rate in the world. this disparity is particularly pronounced for homicides of women committed by guns, in which the country the rate exceeds by 11 times the average rate in other industrialized countries. much of this fatal violence against women is committed by intimate partners, although neither entirely complete nor without coding errors, the fbi's supplemental homicide reports are the most complete national database of homicide with information on the relationship of the perpetrator to the victim. in the most recent data available from 2011, at least 45% of the murders of women were committed by a current husband or boyfriend or ex-husband. if we only examine the homicides where the perpetrator relationship to the victim was identified, more than half, 54% of the homicides of women are

committed by a husband, boyfriend, or former husband. there were ten times as many women killed by a current husband or boyfriend or ex-husband as by a male stranger in that database. the majority of this violence is perpetrated with firearms. in the violence policy center analysis of those 2011 murders of women, there were 1,707 females murdered by males in single victim, single offender incidents. of those incidents of homicide in which the weapon could be determined, more of those homicides were committed with firearms, 51%, than with any other weapon. women are also killed by partner or ex-partners when they are pregnant. in an important study on maternal mortality in maryland from 1993 to 2008, dr. diana chang and dr. isabel horen

examined medical records of women who died during the pregnancy in the first postpartum year. homicides were the leading cause of death to those pregnant women and immediately postpartum. firearms were the most common method of death, 61.8%. a current or former intimate partner was the perpetrator in more than half of those murders and nearly two-thirds of intimate partner homicide victims in this study were killed with guns. in a national study of pregnancy associated homicide, firearms again accounted for the majority of homicides and the majority of those perpetrators were not married to their victims. research my peers and i have conducted provides further insights into how firearm access and domestic abuse elevate the risk of homicide for american women and explain why existing federal laws restrict certain convicted domestic abusers from

buying or possessing guns. survey research of battered women indicates when a firearm is present, a majority of abusers will use a gun to threaten or injure a victim. in a study by susan sorenson and douglas leavy conducted with over 400 women in domestic violence shelters in california, two-thirds of the abused women who reported a firearm in their home said an intimate partner used a gun against them with 71.4% threatening to shoot or kill her, and 5.1% actually shooting at her. among the most rigorous research available on factors that influence a woman's likelihood of homicide a the national 12 city case controlled study of intimate partner homicide by a husband, boyfriend, ex-husband or ex-boyfriend conducted by myself and my colleagues. in the study we compared a group of abused women who were murdered by their partner or ex-partner to another group of abused women who were not.

controlling for other factors we found that gun access or ownership increased the risk of homicide over and above prior domestic violence by 5.4 times. gun access was the strongest risk factor for an abused woman to be killed by her partner or ex-partner. when the perpetrator committed suicide after killing his partner, it increased the gun -- gun ownership increased the chances of this homicide-suicide by an adjusted odds ratio of 13. neither of those studies found evidence that women frequently used firearms to defend themselves against abuse or that access to a firearm reduces the risk of homicide for the woman victim. in leaving out abusive dating partners, current federal firearm prohibitions ignore the perpetrators of a large and growing share of intimate partner homicides. the u.s. department of justice data shows that the share of domestic violence homicides

committed by dating partners has been rising for three decades and boyfriends now commit more homicides than do spouses. the supplemental homicide reports does not accurately code for ex-boyfriends, and this is a category that is also growing. estimating from our study we find that approximately 300 to 500 female intimate partner homicides each year should be added to the approximately 1,000 already counted in those supplemental homicide reports. bill 1290, the protecting domestic violence and stalking victims act would expand our domestic violence laws to include both former and current dating partners who together represented 48% of those male domestic violence perpetrators in our study and, therefore, is an extremely important way to keep women safe and to save lives. there's also evidence of state laws to strengthen firearm

prohibitions against domestic abusers reduce intimate partner homicides. two separate important studies, one of the 46 of the largest cities in the united states and one of state-level data, found that state statutes restricting those under domestic violence restraining orders from accessing or possessing firearms are associated with reductions in intimate partner homicide driven by a reduction in those committed by firearms. a study also found state laws that prohibit firearm possession by people under domestic violence restraining orders along with entering state domestic violence restraining orders into that federal database reduced intimate partner homicide of women by firearms by 12% to 13% and decreased overall intimate partner homicide by 10%. in conclusion, women who suffer abuse are among the most important for society to protect. congress has an opportunity to do so by strengthening the laws

to keep domestic abusers from getting guns. ample scientific evidence also shows that in doing so you will save lives. i want to end with a quote from a woman that i interviewed who is the mother of one of the women who was killed in our study. and she said, please let her story be told. don't let her death be for nothing. thank you. >> thank you, dr. campbell. dr. malcolm. >> first, i'd like to thank the committee for inviting me. it's a real honor to be present at this important hearing. i think that we can all agree that we have the same goals here, that we want to protect victims of domestic violence and more generally we're interested in public safety. the current laws on the books are not perfect, but they have the great virtue of according with longstanding traditions of american law by protecting the

rights of everyone concerned, rights that the supreme court defines as deeply rooted in the nation's history and tradition, fundamental to our scheme of ordered liberty. with due respect to chairman whitehouse, these bills that are behind this hearing do do violence to the right of the second amendment, fourth amendment rights against unreasonable search and seizure and most importantly i think to due process, providing due process in the normal way. i'd like to first start with some statistics to put this whole debate in context. a fact that is very seldom advertised is that homicides in this country have been down sharply for the last 20 years as well as other violent crime. the last time that the crime rate for serious crime, murder, rape, robbery and assault, was

this low, gasoline was 29 cents a gallon, and the average american working person was earning $5,807. it's hard for us to remember gas at 29 cents a gallon. the rate of family violence which is much more the focus of this hearing has also fallen between 1993 and 2002 and continues to fall. only one in ten violent victimizations involve family violence. most family violence is simple assault. less than one-half of 1% of the victims are killed. the proportion of female homicides during this time period, women who are killed by guns, is also down, while women who have been killed by other means has gone up. the blumenthal and klobuchar bills present various problems

for the right of the individuals to keep and bear arms, for the protection against unreasonable search and seizure and due process. there's this new focus on stalking expanding to non-cohabiting individuals and involving not only serious incidents of actual violence, but bullying, a wide range of other acts under the definition of harassment which can be verbal and very vague and seems to often tend to grow depending on what you regard as harassment. large numbers of people who are likely to be convicted or might be convicted of simply verbally harassing somebody might lose the right to have a firearm. the most concerning thing i think is that these -- the change in the temporary restraining order, the temporary restraining order would mean

that the person who is alleging that they are endangered, they file for this after their mere allegation can send the police to the person that they are citing's home searching for guns or any other weapon that they find without any kind of a hearing. in other words, as the red queen in alice in wonderland said, it's sentence first and verdict afterwards, and that is a true violation of the right of everyone to be heard, and, in fact, in temporary restraining order hearings in the past, half of those who have been cited as being potentially dangerous have been found not guilty, but all of these people would in the future have their weapons taken away from them first, and then we would -- sometime later there would be a hearing at which they would be allowed to produce some kind of evidence to the

contrary. the other aspect that is troubling is making this retroactive so that anyone who was ever convict ed of harassmet or had a temporary restraining order against them would lose their right to be armed indefinitely. many people who have accepted plea bargains on the assumption that they knew what that entailed would find they now no longer have a right to be armed for the rest of their lives. i think the intention is there to do good and protect women, but i think both of these bill have the wrong approach. it's wrong to deprive people of their basic rights. it's wrong to deprive people of the right of due process and the opportunity to present evidence before they are actually, you know, treated as if they were guilty and afterwards things are sorted out. i would like to just conclude

with the majority opinion written by justice scalia in heller where he ends by saying the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table. there are other and better ways that women can be protected without having to violate their rights or the right -- excuse me, the rights of anyone in the process. thank you. >> we now turn to sheriff schmaling. thank you for being here. >> thank you. thank you, mr. chairman, chairman whitehouse, senator grassley and other members of the committee. it's quite an honor to be here before you today. i'm the sheriff in racine county, wisconsin. i've been a law enforcement officer for nearly 20 years. i am a conservative republican and i'm sheer today to ask you to pass two common sense law that is will protect our sisters, our daughters, and our mothers by keeping guns out of the hands of domestic abusers. as the top law enforcement officer in racine county and with over two decades of law enforcement experience, i have

seen firsthand the tragic events firsthand. i want to tell you about one such domestic violence incident. a tragedy that changed my career. back in 2004, terry was violently abused and left for dead by her ex-husband. after three years of a violently abusive marriage, teri had the courage to divorce her husband. she had taken out multiple restraining orders during this time frame. on that horrible day, very cold january day in 2014, he beat her with a baseball bat in the head and as she tried to fight back, he then threatened her with a .38 caliber handgun. you bound and gagged her, filled a garbage can full of snow, pushed her into the garbage can and placed her in an unheated storage locker for 26 hours. my partner and i were the lead investigators on this particular case. and through some great breaks and some great luck and a blessing from above, we were able to rescue teri before she died. as a result of this ordeal, teri

had a miscarriage and she lost all ten of her toes on both feet due to frostbite. teri is one of the most wonderful people i have ever known and has been a tremendous advocate for victims of abuse over a decade since she was nearly killed at gunpoint. we have become very close since then. and my eyes have been wide open to the reality of domestic violence and gun violence as they seem to go hand in hand. i have also been close with elvin daniel sitting here today, and i have been moved by his sister's story. i'm proud to say that in racine county, we were the first in the state to have a full-time domestic violence specialist. we work closely with victims to see how we can best protect them. any cop will tell you domestic violence calls are the most dangerous calls that law enforcement officers will respond to. the last thing that the victim needs and the last thing my deputies need is a dangerous abuser armed with weapons. abusers routinely threaten to shoot my deputies prior to our

arrivals a domestic violence calls. according to the fbi statistics, 150 law enforcement officers have been killed in action while responding to domestic disturbances. i am proud to have worked on a great domestic violence bill in wisconsin earlier this year. it was called the safe act that ensures guns are kept out of the hands of domestic abusers. this bill was passed with bipartisan majority and signed by our republican governor scott walker. this first bill i'm asking you to pass today is protecting domestic violence and stalking victims act 1290. this bill will close a loophole that allows abusive boyfriends to buy and have guns simply because they're not married to their victims. it would block people from stalking convictions from having guns. dangerous boyfriends can be as scary as dangerous husbands. they hit just as hard and they fire their weapons with the same deadly force. in fact, according to the fbi data, more women are killed in american by abusive boyfriends than their abusive spouses.

this past march just a couple hours from racine county, cheryl gillberg was killed by her ex-boyfriend in a domestic dispute. the killer apparently shot cheryl with her own gun. according to the news reports, she had been seeking a restraining order at the time of the killing but cases like cheryl, a restraining order isn't good enough. if you have ever been married -- if you have never been married to your abuser, federal law will likely not stop him from buying or purchasing a gun. the second bill i am asking you to pass today with require criminal background checks for gun buyers who shop with unlicensed sellers. current federal law prohibits many abusers from buying guns but only requires them to pass a background check if they shop with a dealer. this gaping hole in the law simply means that a convicted wife beater can slip through the cracks and get a gun by finding a seller who does not own a gun store. this is exactly what happened in our state. dane county, wisconsin, tyrone

was a doumestic abuse convicted twice. he was legally prohibited from possessing a gun because of a restraining order. instead of shopping a the a gun dealer, he found an ad for a 9 millimeter glock in a local newspaper. he reached out to the seller, they agreed to meet at a hardware store. there was no background check. though the seller did ask this question, and i quote, you're not going to go out and kill someone, are you? tyrone adair used that gun on a horrific murdering spree. he killed both of his children, ages 1 and 2 at the time, and both of their mothers. we see the terror that abusers create when they are armed. we see the impact on their wives, their girlfriends, and their children. we are major proponents of community policing in racine county. we have a community of 200,000 people and if my officers are on the street working closely with these very citizens we are sworn to protect, i want to know our laws are doing everything we can to keep guns out of abusive hands. so i'm here today to speak for victims of abuse and to speak

for my deputies. i have made it a priority to talk to victims. i have seen escalation over the years. yelling, battery, and unfortunately homicide. when an abuser has a gun, victims will tell me, sheriff, it's not a question of if he will use that weapon against me, it's a matter of when. i'm asking you today to stand up against abution by fixing our out of date laws and passing some clear, common sense legislation. thank you for your time. >> thank you, very much, sheriff schmaling. happy birthday to your son. >> thank you. >> we'll go ahead and hear from judge mccaffrey and we may break after that to go get the two votes in. i want to wait till the very end of the vote. we have to catch the end of one vote and the beginning of another, so judge mccaffrey. >> good morning.

>> your microphone, please. >> it says talk. i should have known that. good morning and thank you for the opportunity to address the members of this committee about the pending legislation dealing with the growing epidemic of domestic violence and in particular the klobuchar and blumenthal bills. 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. a clearly laudable goal effectively strengthening such laws would seem to be an even more laudable goal. i spent most of my adult life in law enforcement. those included 20 years as a philadelphia police officer and detective, ten years as a trial jouge, four in the appellate courts and now i'm a justice of the supreme court of pennsylvania. 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 posture.

and operates on a reactive defense force. by that i mean more often than not, senators, 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, getting victimized in our courtrooms and that was the impetus for me to go to law school and become a jurist because i really felt that people needed somebody there that experienced what goes on in our streets. senator, i absolutely agree that we should have boyfriends, dating partners. we have it in pennsylvania, okay? it's important. they can, as the sheriff said, they can shoot, they can beat just like anybody else, but, you know, as dr. malcolm points out, as a jurist, i went from being a cop where it was 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 felt 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 beau -- both as a cop and as that judge. i created the first ever domestic violence court 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. poor prosecutors, and i'm sure

you saw it, senator, they don't want to move forward. they're scared, they're intimidated. they don't have the support network. in philadelphia we're lucky we do. philadelphia is one of the more progressive cities around. but as an example, only 35% of our pfas become permanent because people aren't showing up, they're afraid. of the pfas, 25% include an order barring possession of a firearm. 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. but today, senators, we have the technology to give law enforcement the capabilities. by that what do i mean? right now our probation and parole officers across this country have gps that's available to them so they can

track people under their supervision. let's just say for our discussion purpose right now, and keep in mind domestic violence isn't just about firear firearms. the overall majority of domestic violence cases i saw both 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 have a gun, but yet domestic violence is still out there. people that want to get a gun or want to 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 who is 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 smartphone that somebody is now crossed the threshold whether it's a mile or a block. the same officer in the naked is noti -- neighborhood is notified. the same officer gets there and we prevent the violence. it's about prevention to me because if we don't have prevens, 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 that we don't have bipartisan legislation. who on earth can stand up and say that 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 in a row home 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 a down to court, what do we get? now they hug and kiss, the emotions are down, somebody talks to the victim, and the case disappears. we have a frustrated prosecutor and an even more frustrated court. the point is we need to do things that are going to make things happen. you want to send a message, you put that bracelet on that abuser. you come within a mile of that victim, not only will you be locked up, but it will be strict, swift, and it will be 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 that 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. so that being said, my position is, quite honestly, i think -- 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 and that being said i will just forgo my last two minutes i guess. >> thank you, judge mccaffrey. we i think should 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'll come back into session.

no rush. we can take a moment to get quietly back into our places. thank you for the interruption, and 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. >> good morning. >> thank you, chairman whitehouse, chairman leahy, senator grassley -- >> is your microphone on, mr. daniel? >> and i was reminded to turn it on before i started, too. thank you, chairman whitehouse, chairman leahy, senator grassley, and the members of the judiciary committee for holding

this important hearing. my name is elvin daniel. i'm a republican. i'm an avid hunter, a gun owner, and i enjoy using my guns for target practice with my family and friends. i am a strong supporter of the second amendment and an nra member. i also believe in common sense, sensible gun laws. i am here today to speak for my sister, xena. i speak for xena and my entire family because xena is not here to speak for herself. xena loved life. all she wanted to do was be a good mother to her two

daughters. she loved disney world, rick springfield, and helping other people. as a matter of fact, her last momen moments, she was begging her estranged husband, she said, please, it's a place of peace. leave these people alone. she was -- she was beautiful and full of goodness, and some good will come out of her death. on october 21st, 2012, i received a phone call that no one should receive. i was told that my sister has been shot and kill ed.

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 xena 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. xena was married for 13 years and eventually left her husband because he abused her physically and mentally. he continued to terrorize xena, slashing her tires while she was at work and threatening her physically. xena 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 ratcliffe 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 through an unlicensed dealer to buy his gun. he went on arms list.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 ratcliffe stormed into the spa where xena worked, shot seven people, murdered my sister xena 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 xena 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 xena and for the stories like xena's that happen every day because of the serious gap in our gun laws that continue to put women's lives in danger. i believe that there are two steps the congress could and should take to save women's lives. 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 date to survive rather than celebrate because we know that xena 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 xena's memory by working to reduce the number of women who are killed by preventable and senseless gun violence. you have the power to pass the laws that we need to keep our sisters and mothers and daughters safe, and so i am here today to ask you to remember

xena when you think about taking action on this issue. thank you for your time and the opportunity to let me speak today. i'd 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 will recognize first my friend, the distinguished senator from minnesota, amy klobuchar. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman, and thank you to all the witnesses, and particularly mr. daniel. thank you so much and i wear your sister's bracelet that you gave me today with pride, and she won't be forgotten. >> thank you. >> and i think one of the things

that's most powerful about your testimony is the fact that you are a hunter, a gun owner, a 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 who 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, and i think 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, fill out a form, and in my case in illinois you 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, the friends that are shooting. so to me common sense says that we should have background checks on 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 also are from a state that understands how important hunting is, and you identified yourself as a conservative republican as well, and do you want to talk about how you've been able to reconcile that hunting, incredibly important hunting culture in your state with your support for my bill on the stalking and the 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 of law-abiding citizens who choose to arm themselves. as a sheriff, a constitutional officer, i have sworn to protect the wisconsin constitution as well as the united states constitution, so coming from a family of hunters, myself being one of them, and a gun owner, i understand the importance of preserving our second amendment, but the key words here are law abiding citizens. and as a law enforcement officer, that alert is even

especially heightened because we are the ones on the front lines, the boots on the ground, if you will, responding to these dangerous calls. if you look at the statistics provided by 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 used 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 some 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 of racine county and speaking with my fellow sheriffs of the state, we have seen an uprise naturally in individuals who cohabitate together, boyfriends and girlfriends, as opposed to being married and the domestic violence as i mentioned in my testimony is just as vicious and just as dangerous whether they're married or not. when we look at respect to stalking, in looking at some statistics from 2005 to 2013 the state of wisconsin suffered 29 domestic violence homicides. of those 29, all of them precipitated by a history of stalking behavior. >> very good. and for your law enforcement officers, i think when most people think about law enforcement officers out there doing their jobs, i don't actually think if you ask them what do you think some of the most dangerous calls they get they would probably say robbery,

they would probably maybe think about drunk driving, all those kind of things. i'm not sure she would say a domestic violence call would endanger an officer's life. do you want to will be rate on that and why that's a fact? >> as we mention eed about the i statistics of 150 law enforcement officers losing their lives, it's a well-known fact and all the police academies the way we treat and train our law enforcement officials today undoubtedly domestic violence calls are the most dangerous. we're entering the homes of individuals. we're 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 naturally always present. >> 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 there

are naturally many, many stories but i have been on literally calls where the offender, the abuser has told a 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. they're very, very dangerous calls. >> very good. justice mccaffrey, thank you for being here today, and thank you for your thoughtful words, and i do appreciate that need to enforce the laws we have on the books. in my old job and do everything you can to do that which we valiantly did, but i also appreciate you understanding that the laws have to be as up to date as the people that are breaking them. >> absolutely. >> i think what the sheriff was pointing out which you understand is that there are a lot of these dating partners now that get involved in these basically violence or domestic abuse in the same way that people that were married did. so 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 have 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 had 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 the texts. >> because one of the criticisms

was that this, you know, in modern days now people don't always call, they often text things or send e-mails. one of the criticisms was that's not that scary if they do that by text, but you do see a lot of that in stalking behavior in our modern age. >> absolutely. and it's threatening texts. it's threatening e-mails. >> to make that qualification of what stalking -- >> 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 likely to seek a temporary retraining 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 that temporary restraining orders often are not made permanent because women are afraid to appear for the hearing. is that confirmed -- >> 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 gun, then she could be less afraid of that access to her at the hearing. >> as you may know, in lori jackson's case, there 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, and we just had a case in maryland with a similar kind of an incident. 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 lori jackson's 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 that 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 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 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 with senator gillibrand and then with a group of people i work 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 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 downplay 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 now 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 evil, 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