[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 29 (Tuesday, March 1, 2011)]
[House]
[Pages H1448-H1452]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
GUN VIOLENCE
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of
January 5, 2011, the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. McCarthy) is
recognized for 30 minutes.
General Leave
Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent
that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and
extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the subject of
my Special Order.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from New York?
There was no objection.
Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. I want to talk tonight a little bit about,
number one, why I even came to Congress and why I'm up here tonight
talking about gun violence. I just want to give you a little history.
On December 7, 1993, a deranged man named Colin Ferguson got on the
Long Island Railroad train and changed my life and that of many others
forever. As the train pulled into Merillon Avenue in Garden City, he
took out a handgun and opened fire on those passengers in the train. He
killed six people, including my husband. He injured 19, including my
son, who was shot in the head at close range. Thankfully, my son did
survive. And while it has been a difficult struggle for him, he has a
rich life now with a wife and two children. I consider them my
miracles. And I'm very grateful that he did survive.
What I did after that incident was become an advocate for reducing
gun violence in this country, to see if I could help others not have to
go through the same pain that my family and the other families of the
Long Island Railroad massacre went through. As often happens when you
become an advocate for a cause, any cause, that led me to work with
elected officials and the government to try to change policies that I
thought were hurting the American people.
And also as often happens when I discovered that there was only so
much you could do outside the government, I ran for office myself. I
was never a very political person, but I believed so strongly in this
cause that people saw and gave me the chance to be their Congresswoman.
The Members of this body embraced me also. That was in 1996. Even
though I work hard on other issues like the economy and education, I'm
still fighting that this struggle to reduce gun violence is the same
battle I had back in 1993 and on.
So let's go fast forward now. From 1993 to January 8 of 2011, on that
fateful day in Arizona, six lives were stolen from us, and 13 of our
fellow Americans were injured, including one of our own,
[[Page H1449]]
Congresswoman Gabby Giffords. Certainly it hit home for all of us, and
it sends a chill down all of our spines. I know I'll never forget that
day. The shootings had eerie similarities to our own incident in 1993.
Six people were killed and over a dozen injured. Like my son, Gabby was
shot in the head at close range. Like my son, she's looking like she's
making a wonderful recovery. And we're all rooting for her.
There are a couple more similarities that bear mentioning. In both
the shootings, the gunmen used high-capacity magazines that allowed
them to maximize their carnage; and in both shootings, the gunman was
tackled by unarmed witnesses while they stopped the shooting when he
was trying to reload.
I ran for office and entered government to make a difference. I came
to Congress to make our lives safer. I have a legislative proposal that
I think should reduce the casualties in that supermarket parking lot on
January 8.
H.R. 308 is a bill to ban high-capacity magazines like the ones used
in Arizona and on the Long Island Railroad. These are devices designed
to hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition and feed them into a gun. The
State law in my State, New York, have already banned magazines holding
more than 10 bullets, and that was also the Federal law between 1994
and 2004. So we know that there's precedent for this law on a State and
a Federal level. There is no question about its constitutionality.
Unfortunately, most States, like Arizona, don't have limit on high-
capacity magazines. This is what allowed the shooter to just walk into
a common store and buy the weapon he did right off the shelf. This is a
reasonable, commonsense bill that makes accommodations for public
safety and gun owners' rights. This includes exemptions for our law
enforcements and our military as well for testing purposes or for
security guards looking after nuclear facilities.
As I noted, often shooters are tackled and stopped when they run out
of bullets in a magazine and stop to reload. That was the case for my
family in 1993, and that was the case of Arizona. Maybe if the shooter
in Arizona had fewer bullets in the magazine, we wouldn't have had the
carnage that we saw. Fewer people would have died. Fewer people would
have been injured. We would be looking at one less funeral or a few
less life-changing injuries.
Immediately after the shooting in Arizona, there was a lot of talk
just about by everyone about putting partisanship and politics aside
and working together for the common good. I see this bill as an
opportunity to do that. This is not a partisan bill. There is no
Democrat or Republican way to become a victim of gun violence. And
there is no Democratic or Republican way to reduce it. In the absence
of a perfect, nonviolent society, we must make laws to protect the
public.
This is a very simple bill, a bill about our public health and our
safety. We also have a moral imperative to protect innocent and law-
abiding Americans from the threat of dangerous weapons in the wrong
hands. In America, we believe in life, liberty and the pursuit of
happiness. To me, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness include
being able to go grocery shopping on a Saturday or attend a public
event on a Saturday afternoon without being gunned down.
This bill does not take away anyone's right to own a gun. Let me make
that very, very clear. This bill does nothing to take away anyone's
right to own a gun. I believe in this Second Amendment, and I support
law-abiding hunters and sportsmen. But common sense dictates there is
no need for the kinds of devices that this bill is addressing other
than for killing as many people as possible in the shortest possible
time.
Almost 100,000 people a year are shot in this country, suicides,
homicides, accidental deaths and on and on. That's over 260 people a
day. Every single one of those people have families and friends. Think
of how many millions of Americans are affected by gun violence every
single year. I want to remind us all that we can help lower these awful
statistics. We can help save lives, and we can help prevent lives from
being shattered.
Now, this bill is getting more and more support every single day. We
have over 90 cosponsors in the House and 10 in the Senate. And every
day there's another newspaper editorial or a columnist supporting this
bill. There are a lot of coalitions, organizations, and leaders out
there working to support this bill to reduce gun violence in our
country--the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence; the Violence
Policy Center; the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence; New Yorkers Against
Gun Violence; New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg; the United States
Conference of Mayors; Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter; Richard Aborn,
who was a former president of Brady; Mothers Against Guns; Faiths
United to Prevent Gun Violence; States United to Prevent Gun Violence;
and many, many more.
Even pro-gun conservatives like Vice President Dick Cheney say that
it would be reasonable to discuss reinstating the restriction that was
in the assault weapons bill and to do away with the large magazines.
{time} 1940
We are also hearing word that President Obama will publicly address
the issue of gun violence soon. We don't know whether he will talk
about this bill or other measures that I also support, like
strengthening our background check system, or closing the gun show
loophole, which allows you to buy guns at gun shows without a
background check.
But the good news is that people across the country are uniting in an
effort to do something to reduce gun violence. I think one of the most
important things I can do while I'm here with you is to ask for your
help and ask the American people for their help.
We all saw recently from the world events the kind of change that you
can make happen when you have the power of the people behind you. And
certainly we have done this before. We have come together as a Nation,
Democrat and Republican, to pass sensible gun laws in order to save
lives and reduce injuries. If you are not a cosponsor on this
legislation yet, please become one. If you are still not sure if you
want to support this legislation or not, please feel free to talk to me
or anyone on staff. Go on my Web site and read the bill. Basically,
this is a very narrow bill.
Finally, no matter what we do, whether you support this bill or not,
please let's look at ourselves in the mirror and ask ourselves: After
the shooting in Arizona, will we sit by helplessly and do absolutely
nothing or will we do everything we can to save lives and protect
innocent people for the future?
I want to thank you again for listening to me tonight, and I want to
say that even if we can save one life, one life, with all of our
efforts, than to me it has been well worth it.
My good friend and colleague from New Jersey, Bill Pascrell, who has
been outspoken on this issue for many, many years, I appreciate him
being with me tonight.
Mr. PASCRELL. I appreciate the gentlelady for yielding. Madam
Speaker, it is good to see you in the seat this evening.
I support the Second Amendment. I was lucky enough to come into this
Congress with my friend from New York, Carolyn McCarthy. She has been a
champion for the issue against gun violence.
I am proud to be here tonight supporting her legislation, H.R. 308,
the Large Capacity Ammunition Feeding Device Act. The McCarthy bill
will reinstate the ban on large capacity ammunition feeding devices
that existed for quite some time, from 1994 to 2004, as the gentlelady
from Long Island has said.
As has already been stated, this bill bans the sale or transfer of
high capacity magazines, those holding more than 10 rounds, by non-law
enforcement civilians. I state that right now, Madam Speaker, to make
it very, very clear, this is an issue close to my heart because I came
to this Congress in January 1997 pledging my support to defend law
enforcement officials throughout the United States of America.
Many times those who illegally have these guns or have illegal guns,
many times they are better armed than our police forces. Just think
about it? When we raise our hands, if we are fortunate enough to be
elected or reelected, we swear to uphold the Constitution of the United
States and life,
[[Page H1450]]
liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, as you heard the gentlewoman
just mention. Part of that pledge, or a reflection of that pledge, is
how we treat our law enforcement officials besides just patting them on
the back. So we want to not only have a law enforcement person, a
police officer out there who is well equipped, who is well trained, but
is in a better position to defend us than those who seek to destroy
property or limb.
It does not make sense. The failure of Congress in recent years to
shoulder the ultimate responsibility of safeguarding our communities
from gun violence is inexcusable. This is not rhetoric. This is common
sense. These magazines, which contain so many bullets that can kill so
many people, have no place in our towns, have no place in our cities.
The tragedy in Arizona was a gut-wrenching reminder of what can
happen when these weapons are legally available. We are not suggesting
taking guns away from anyone who legally possesses them, and I can't
emphasize that enough. And I know those who are very close to the gun
community are very suspect of anything that will lead to a graduated
taking of guns away from the people. That has never been the intent of
the gentlelady from Long Island, and certainly that is not my intent
whatsoever. And that is not simply an assuaging of the argument; that
is the fact. This is not about guns. This is about reason. This is
about sanity. This is about peace of mind.
That tragedy will always remain in our minds. Our sister is hurting,
and we pray for her recovery. The perpetrator of that heinous crime
fired 32 bullets in only 16 seconds. He killed 6 people and injured
13. That did not happen that long ago, and yet, it is out of the
country's culture mind. It is not there. It is not discussed. It is
almost as if it didn't happen.
Some people have said that it is not the gun but the person who
commits the act of violence. While that may be the case, the shooter
was taken down while reloading his weapon after those 32 bullets. If
there had been fewer bullets in the magazine, he may have been thwarted
earlier, saving other lives.
So we are talking about this magazine that we want to take out of
anyone's hands. We are talking about potential. We are talking about
possibilities. We are talking about risk, and giving more of a chance
to protect ourselves. And for a police officer, if a police officer was
there, could have been in the crowd, should have been--all valued
lives. And those are not the only numbers that are chilling.
Nearly 100,000 people are killed by guns every year. Over 260 people
will be killed today by a gun. This results in $100 billion annually in
medical, security, and criminal justice costs. There is a reason that
local enforcement and the U.S. Conference of Mayors supports this
legislation: Because the ban worked when it was in effect for those 10
years. If it didn't work, we wouldn't be here tonight. Records show
that while the Federal assault weapons ban was in effect, the number of
high capacity magazines collected by police fell dramatically.
This is a return to the same standard we have in many States,
including my home State of New Jersey, and the law of the land from
1994 to 2004. There is no question that it is constitutional. This is
not a Republican or a Democratic issue. Let's not make it that. This is
not about taking all guns away from law-abiding citizens. It has
nothing to do with that, either. This is about saving lives. And right
now we pray for our own buddy, our own sister, who was just here not
too long ago. Where is she? I didn't see her the last few days. She's
healing. We thank God she is in the position to heal.
We can do something about this reckless nonsense without violating
the Constitution of the United States of America which we have all
pledged to adhere to.
I yield back to the gentlelady from Long Island, and I thank you,
Madam Speaker.
Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. And I thank my good friend.
You know, a lot of times there is a lot of propaganda out there that
gun owners don't want to go anywhere with this, but the support for
this bill and gun restrictions in general, from organizations and
members of the media, are also reflected in public polls.
The Mayors Against Illegal Guns showed that almost 60 percent of all
Americans and even 49 percent of gun owners support this bill.
A public policy poll found that 55 percent of the people in Arizona,
a State where gun rights are dearly cherished, support more
restrictions on guns.
A USA Today poll found that a majority of Americans do support
stricter gun controls.
Here is one of the issues that we face all of the time: That the
American people support what we are trying to do, but we are not
hearing their voices. And I think that is something that the American
people can do to make a difference.
I also want to note that Arizona and the Long Island Railroad are not
the only recent incidents in which high capacity magazines were used.
In Manchester, Connecticut, at a beer distributor, on August 3, 2010, a
shooter with a large magazine killed eight and wounded two.
Fort Hood, we all remember that day: November 5, 2009. The shooter
killed 13 and wounded 34.
{time} 1950
Northern Illinois University on February 14, 2008: The shooter killed
five and wounded 21.
Virginia Tech, right here in our neighborhood, on April 16: The
shooter killed 32 and wounded 17.
We can go on and on and on, all the way back to Columbine High
School, where the shooter killed 13--13 students and teachers--and
wounded 23.
Going back to California, a shooter killed eight and wounded six. At
Luby's Cafeteria in Texas, the shooter killed 23 and wounded 20.
These were all done by large capacity clips.
My colleague, Congressman Pascrell, talked about health care. My son
was shot 17 years ago. His medical bills within a couple of years were
over $1 million, but there is the pain that he still has to go through
every single day, which our friend Gabby is going to have to go through
just to be able to do normal day things: tie your shoes, get dressed.
My colleague mentioned $100 billion a year in health care costs.
We know that we can't save every life. I know that. I spent over 30
years as a nurse. I couldn't save every life, but we sure did our best
to do everything that we possibly could to make a difference. That's
why I stand here tonight and talk about why I feel so passionately
about this. Unless you're a victim, unless you're a family member or a
friend who has lost a loved one or someone who was injured, it's very
hard to describe the pain that goes on for many, many, many years. For
those who survive, there is not only the mental trauma that they go
through; there is also the physical trauma that they go through, which
some will carry for the rest of their lives.
Again, I say there are supporters, and I want to read off a few.
They're mainly from newspapers across the country. Here in Congress,
everybody talks about red States and blue States. Yet these are States
that have people in them. We can disagree, certainly, on where we're
going on certain issues, but there are newspapers around the country
and editorial boards, which usually would not support any kind of gun
legislation, that say it's time, that it's time to have a debate on how
we reduce gun violence in this country.
The New York Times reads: As lawmakers in Washington engage this week
in moments of silence and tributes to Representative Giffords and the
other casualties, they should realize that they have the power--we have
the power--to reduce the number of these sorts of horrors and the pain
and suffering.
The Daily News noted that the shooter in Arizona squeezed the trigger
again, again, again, and again--over 32 times--and that's just the half
of it--as blood flowed and as people screamed and dropped to the
ground.
Where I live on Long Island, we have gun violence. It's a suburban
area, but unfortunately so many guns and large magazine clips are
coming into our communities, and they're bringing with them death and
pain. I know gun control of any sort is a tough sell in Congress these
days, but commonsense restrictions should be enacted as such large
capacity clips play such an obvious role in turning angry outbreaks of
violence into massacres.
[[Page H1451]]
The Washington Post reads: Lawmakers should also endorse the sensible
legislation introduced by myself to outlaw the sales of high-capacity
ammunition clips that enabled Mr. Loughner to shoot some 30 bullets in
a matter of seconds. A drug abuse history or not, no one, in my
opinion, should be able to have the possession of a weapon that could
so easily and senselessly be used to slaughter so many of our citizens,
our neighbors, in such a short period of time.
The Seattle Times, The Denver Post, The Salt Lake Tribune, the
Charlotte Observer, the Louisville, Kentucky Courier-Journal, and The
Tennessean are all basically saying it's time to look at reducing the
violence that is in our cities, our communities, our towns. One of the
ways we can do that is by getting rid of the large capacity clips.
The Arizona Daily Star noted that no one outside of law enforcement
and the military needs to fire 30-plus rounds without interruption.
Hunters do not. Neither do target shooters or those who carry guns for
self-defense.
Let me remind people that a gun that anyone uses that has a clip will
still have 10 bullets and one in the chamber. That's 11 bullets that
someone can use for self-defense. There is no question that fewer
people would have been killed and injured on January 8 if the shooter
had possessed a magazine with a capacity of just 10 rounds.
Gail Collins said Congress should have an actual debate about
Representative McCarthy's bill to reduce gun violence.
Even traditional, conservative, pro-gun advocate Nick Kristof talks
about the contrast of guns with automobiles. He turned it upside down
to argue that, in reality--and this is true--for a long time,
motor vehicles were dangerous, but slowly, slowly we made them quite
safe. The trade-off is that we have modestly curbed individual freedom,
but we can save tens of thousands of lives every year. That's a model
for how we should approach guns and a public health concern.
I talked about individual leaders who support H.R. 308. It is a long
list, and many people have stood up: Mayor Bloomberg from New York
City, my great city; Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter, another member
of Mayors Against Illegal Guns, also expressed support; I had mentioned
Vice President Dick Cheney, of all people, who said it would be
appropriate to reinstate a ban on high-capacity magazines like we had
before.
Other public officials and individuals around the country also
support this bill: The New York Police Department said that a
legislative solution to eliminating extended magazines would be best;
the President of the Alabama Sheriffs' Association is a supporter; the
Minneapolis police chief is a supporter; the Palm Beach County
commissioner; the Montana Secretary of State; President Bob Brown, an
NRA member and hunter who owns 18 guns, supports my legislation; the
nurse who treated Ronald Reagan after he was shot supports this; the
fiancee and family of Gabe Zimmerman, one of our own staffers who was
killed in Arizona, support this bill.
You mentioned our police officers, Bill. If anybody would be
interested, we've had more police officers killed since January of this
year until now than we've had in the last number of years. We say that
we are there for our police officers. You were a mayor, and I know you
stood by your police officers. I know that police officers around the
country know when they're facing these large capacity clips and they're
outgunned, as they were when we passed the assault weapons bill.
So, Bill, I know you are where I am, and I thank you for the support
that you have given me, because we did come in together, but it's
people like yourself who are willing to speak out.
Mr. PASCRELL. Will the gentlelady yield?
Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. Please.
Mr. PASCRELL. Madam Speaker, I would like you to take back to your
side--and I'll take back to my side--that I know this has been a great
leverage issue for the Republican Party. It has been a third rail for
the Democratic Party. We were told basically, in so many words, to stay
away from it. Look, let's lay our cards on the table.
I think that this is something we can agree to come together on
common ground and be a little bit more reasonable about our approach.
I thank you, Congresswoman McCarthy, for leading the way, as usual.
You know I will always be there in support of what I think is very
important legislation for the sanity of our country.
Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. And I thank you again.
I just want to remind the American people who might be listening
tonight, I need your help. I can do the battles here. It's so easy to
email your Member of Congress or your Senator to say it's time to get
rid of the large magazines, because there is no place in America
anymore that is safe. This can happen anytime, any place. So I thank
you for listening to me tonight, and I thank my friend for standing
here with me and talking about it.
I will say, in closing, it's 17 years since the incident happened to
my family. There is not a day that goes by that I don't remember what
happened, and that's why I continue to fight for this issue. I don't
want another family to go through the pain. I don't want to see another
person die. I don't want to see someone injured for the rest of their
life, and to fight those battles.
Ms. ESHOO. Madam Speaker, in the wake of the horrible tragedy in
Arizona, Members of Congress were united in condemning the violence. We
expressed our prayers and hopes for the recovery of our colleague,
Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, and the others injured in the attack,
and we praised the heroic actions of ordinary Americans on that day.
But for our words to have meaning, Madam Speaker, we also must act.
I'm proud to join Representative Carolyn McCarthy in introducing the
Large Capacity Ammunition Feeding Device Act, to eliminate access to
clips that enable the kind of shooting spree that took place in
Arizona. No one can say that the ability to shoot more than ten times--
without pausing to reload--makes our cities or our citizens any safer.
The Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 addressed this issue, but perversely,
by allowing it to expire in 2004, we lost critical ground.
The importance of the ban was tangible in each of our communities.
When I first came to Congress, East Palo Alto, a city in my district,
bore the awful distinction of being the ``Murder Capital of the
Country.'' Today, the crime rate has subsided. The ability to take
these murderous assault weapons off the street played a major role in
that turnaround, and we should not turn back the clock.
Madam Speaker, we all honor our Constitution and the Second
Amendment. I, however, see no connection between the primitive muskets
our Founding Fathers contemplated and the sophisticated, deadly weapons
that plague our streets today. The United States continues to have the
most per-capita gun deaths of any developed nation. This is not a
symbol of our freedom. It's a capacity to kill, and this must not
eclipse our capacity to care. I urge my colleagues to join me in
supporting this sensible gun legislation which we are grateful to
Representative McCarthy for authoring to better protect our
communities.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam Speaker, I rise to join the vast majority of
Americans, on both sides of the gun debate, who want a safe and
sensible gun policy for their families and for the United States of
America.
In the aftermath of the recent tragedy in Tucson, one eminently
reasonable place to start--one place where gun rights advocates and gun
control advocates should be able to find common ground--is the Large
Capacity Ammunition Feeding Device Act (H.R. 308), introduced by my
colleague Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY).
H.R. 308 is not about gun control. Instead, it's about commonsense
ammunition control. The Large Capacity Ammunition Feeding Device Act
sets aside all of the historically contentious debate around gun
ownership and instead asks every American a very simple question: Is it
really necessary for non-law enforcement civilians to have access to
high capacity, 33-round magazines like the one Jared Lee Loughner used
to shoot our colleague Gabby Giffords and his other victims in Tucson?
I would submit that it is not. And I would further submit that the
overwhelming majority of Americans and law abiding gun owners would
agree that it is not. Consistent with that commonsense conclusion, the
Large Capacity Ammunition Feeding Device Act would simply ban the sale
or transfer of high-capacity magazines holding more than ten rounds.
Law enforcement records show that the number of high capacity magazines
retrieved by police at crime scenes dropped significantly the last time
this kind of restriction was in effect, and common sense tells you that
smaller magazines with less bullets will lead to less fatalities and
injuries during these kinds of horrific attacks.
Madam Speaker, this is not a partisan issue. This is an American
issue. The Large
[[Page H1452]]
Capacity Ammunition Feeding Device Act is a commonsense step all of us
can and should take to eliminate the senseless threat posed by these
high capacity magazines while protecting the legitimate rights of law-
abiding gun owners.
I thank Congresswoman McCarthy for her leadership on this issue.
Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of
my time.
____________________