Leading Appropriators Urge Biden to Support Increased Gun Research
Current Law Has "Chilling Effect" on Current DataCompilation, Analysis
WASHINGTON, DC—Leading Democratic members of the HouseAppropriations Committee today wrote to Vice President Biden, urging him toinclude a proposal promoting increased research on firearms by the Health andHuman Services Department. Since 1997, the Center for Disease Control andPrevention (CDC) has been under a chilling restriction that effectively keepsit from conducting any research or analysis related to gun violence.
"Current law has a chilling effect on the CDC Center forInjury Prevention and Control which compiles and analyzes data in order to helpprotect people from deaths and injuries both accidental and intentional," saidLabor-Health and Human Services-Education Subcommittee Ranking Member RosaDeLauro (D-CT), Full Appropriations Committee Ranking Member Nita Lowey (D-NY)and Representatives Barbara Lee (D-CA) and Betty McCollum (D-MN) in a jointstatement. "The Center, which examines issues such as motor vehicleaccidents, prescription drug overdoses and child abuse that leads toinitiatives aimed at preventing related deaths and injuries effectively cannotdo similar work when it comes to gun-related violence because of thisprohibition. As a result, U.S. scientists cannot answer the most basicquestions about how to prevent firearm injuries."
The congressman responsible for inserting the language,former Representative Jay Dickey (R-AR), has even repudiated the provision, ina recent WashingtonPost op-ed authored with the former head of the CDC's Center for InjuryPrevention and Control.
The full letter to Vice President Biden is as follows:
January11, 2013
The Honorable Joseph R. Biden
Vice President of the UnitedStates
1600 Pennsylvania Ave. NW
Washington, DC 20501
Dear Vice President Biden:
Thank you foryour leadership in seeking to address the senseless tragedies this nationexperiences as a result of gun violence. We write to draw your attentionto annual appropriations language that effectively prevents the Department ofHealth and Human Services (HHS) from conducting research or statisticalanalysis related to gun violence.
As you may know, language was firstenacted in Fiscal Year 1997 appropriations law preventing the Centers forDisease Control and Prevention (CDC) from using funds "in whole or in part, toadvocate or promote gun control." The restriction has been included inthe appropriations bills continuously since that time, broadening to cover thewhole of HHS in Fiscal Year 2012.
Although the law does not legallyprohibit data collection on gun violence, it has a chilling effect on the CDCCenter for Injury Prevention and Control which compiles and analyzes data inorder to help protect people from deaths and injuries both accidental andintentional. The Center, which examines issues such as motor vehicleaccidents, prescription drug overdoses and child abuse that leads toinitiatives aimed at preventing related deaths and injuries effectively cannotdo similar work when it comes to gun-related violence because of this prohibition. As a result, U.S. scientists cannot answer the most basic questions about howto prevent firearm injuries.
This point was recognized in anopinion piece published on July 27, 2012 in the Washington Postfollowing the tragic shooting at a theater in Aurora, CO by the sponsor of theoriginal restriction on CDC, former Representative Jay Dickey (R-AR), and theDirector of the Center for Injury Prevention and Control at the time, MarkRosenberg. In the piece, they note that prior to the restriction, CDCconducted "high-quality, peer-reviewed research into the underlying causes ofgun violence." Yet, as a consequence of the appropriations language,"U.S. scientists cannot answer the most basic question: What works to preventfirearm injuries? We don't know whether having more citizens' carry guns woulddecrease or increase firearm deaths; or whether firearm registration andlicensing would make inner-city residents safer or expose them to greater harm.We don't know whether a ban on assault weapons or large-capacity magazines, orlimiting access to ammunition, would have saved lives in Aurora or would makeit riskier for people to go to a movie. And we don't know how to effectivelyrestrict access to firearms by those with serious mental illness."
We conduct evidence-based researchinto car crashes, drowning, poisoning, child abuse, and all other causes ofaccidents and injuries. We should be doing the same kind of research inorder to determine how best to prevent firearm injuries and save lives. Accordingly,we strongly urge you to include a proposal recommending the end of thisappropriations restriction and enhanced research on gun-related violence aspart of your Task Force's upcoming recommendations.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Rosa DeLauro
Nita Lowey
Barbara Lee
Betty McCollum