[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 157 (2011), Part 2]
[House]
[Pages 2943-2947]
[From the U.S. 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?

[[Page 2944]]

  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, 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

[[Page 2945]]

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, 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.

[[Page 2946]]

  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.
  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

[[Page 2947]]

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 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.

                          ____________________