[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 32 (Tuesday, March 21, 2000)]
[House]
[Page H1126]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




               GUN VIOLENCE UNDERCUTTING AMERICAN VALUES

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Morella). Under the Speaker's announced 
policy of January 19, 1999, the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) 
is recognized during morning hour debates for 5 minutes.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Speaker, I appreciate my colleague discussing 
the issue of gun violence, but I could not disagree with his assessment 
more.
  A livable community is one where people are safe, healthy, and 
economically secure. Gun violence undercuts each of those elements. We 
are not safe today in the epidemic of gun violence, whether it is in 
Mount Morris Township, Michigan; Littleton, Colorado; or Springfield, 
Oregon. Gun violence is a leading cause of death and injury, 12 per day 
for children alone. And our families are not economically secure. Gun 
injuries, injuries, cost almost $20,000 per incident to treat, and the 
cost of a gun-related death is approximately one-third of a million 
dollars.
  In the face of overwhelming evidence about gun violence, the gun 
apologists continue to argue that guns somehow make us safer, and 
simple common sense gun legislation is unnecessary. By their logic, we 
could get rid of metal detectors in airports. Yes, a few guns might get 
through, but almost certainly well-armed passengers would gun down the 
terrorists.
  A little article in today's Post notes that for the second time in a 
week, a passenger was arrested on a plane for assaulting a pilot. Would 
we be better off if that passenger had been armed so that there would 
have been a gun battle instead of a fist fight?
  The NRA argues that the people who want to reduce gun violence have 
blood on their hands, that they want a certain level of violence. I was 
with the President of the United States as he visited the victims and 
the families in my State in Springfield, Oregon; and I know that such 
an assertion is as untrue as it is sick and twisted.
  Tragically, it is consistent with the NRA's approach and that of 
their apologists. They oppose even the most simple common sense 
approaches. If they had their way, the Brady Bill would not have passed 
and 400,000 felons and mentally ill people would have had guns 
outright, instead of eliminating that opportunity for them. Does anyone 
think that that would have made us safer?
  We do not have to be stalemated by this argument. There are simple 
common sense approaches. We can require safe storage of guns. Maybe it 
would not have made a difference for that little 6-year-old boy and the 
girl he shot in terms of that home, but maybe the gun would not have 
been stolen in the first place if it had been in a lockbox.
  We can lead by example by making sure that smart gun technology is 
available for law enforcement officials. One in six law enforcement 
officials who are killed with a gun are killed with their own service 
revolver or that of one of their partners. If the Federal Government 
and State governments would announce that next year we will not 
purchase guns that are not personalized, that cannot be wrestled away, 
we could move that technology forward by leaps and bounds.
  We can make guns safer to reduce accidental death and injury. Why in 
the name of all that is holy do we sell guns in this country that do 
not tell you whether or not there is a bullet in the chamber, when we 
have mandated child-proof bottles for aspirin and cigarette lighters? 
Why do we have more consumer protections for toy guns than real guns? 
Sadly, it is the apologists for the gun lobby who have had their way.
  We can also keep guns out of the hands of violent felons; not just 
violent felons, but violent misdemeanants as well. A study at the 
University of California-Davis has demonstrated that those who are 
convicted of misdemeanor crimes are 7.5 times more likely to be charged 
with new crimes than those with no criminal records. The vast majority 
of people who own guns, as well as normal citizens who do not, support 
prohibitions like this.
  Finally, we can take a step here in Congress today. We can end the 
gridlock. The Republican leadership should, must, let us move forward. 
The conferees on the juvenile violence bill have not met since August, 
hung up over these gun violence provisions. They ought to meet. They 
ought to meet today and allow us to vote on these simple, common sense 
provisions.
  Finally, people at home today have an opportunity and responsibility 
themselves to reduce gun violence. Parents should not only demand that 
Congress act, but they should make sure that if they have a gun in a 
home, that it is stored safely, and if a child of theirs is going to go 
next door to play at a neighbor's house, they ought to find out if 
there is a gun in that house and demand that it be stored safely before 
their child plays there.
  There is no excuse for continuing to tolerate the highest rate of gun 
violence in the developed world in our country.

                          ____________________