<DOC>
[106th Congress House Hearings]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access]
[DOCID: f:65463.wais]
WHAT IS HUD'S ROLE IN LITIGATION AGAINST GUN MANUFACTURERS?
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIMINAL JUSTICE,
DRUG POLICY, AND HUMAN RESOURCES
of the
COMMITTEE ON
GOVERNMENT REFORM
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
AUGUST 4, 1999
__________
Serial No. 106-128
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Government Reform
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/congress/house
http://www.house.gov/reform
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
65-463 CC WASHINGTON : 2000
COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM
DAN BURTON, Indiana, Chairman
BENJAMIN A. GILMAN, New York HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
CONSTANCE A. MORELLA, Maryland TOM LANTOS, California
CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut ROBERT E. WISE, Jr., West Virginia
ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida MAJOR R. OWENS, New York
JOHN M. McHUGH, New York EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York
STEPHEN HORN, California PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania
JOHN L. MICA, Florida PATSY T. MINK, Hawaii
THOMAS M. DAVIS, Virginia CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York
DAVID M. McINTOSH, Indiana ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, Washington,
MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana DC
JOE SCARBOROUGH, Florida CHAKA FATTAH, Pennsylvania
STEVEN C. LaTOURETTE, Ohio ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland
MARSHALL ``MARK'' SANFORD, South DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio
Carolina ROD R. BLAGOJEVICH, Illinois
BOB BARR, Georgia DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois
DAN MILLER, Florida JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts
ASA HUTCHINSON, Arkansas JIM TURNER, Texas
LEE TERRY, Nebraska THOMAS H. ALLEN, Maine
JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois HAROLD E. FORD, Jr., Tennessee
GREG WALDEN, Oregon JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois
DOUG OSE, California ------
PAUL RYAN, Wisconsin BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont
HELEN CHENOWETH, Idaho (Independent)
DAVID VITTER, Louisiana
Kevin Binger, Staff Director
Daniel R. Moll, Deputy Staff Director
David A. Kass, Deputy Counsel and Parliamentarian
Carla J. Martin, Chief Clerk
Phil Schiliro, Minority Staff Director
------
Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy, and Human Resources
JOHN L. MICA, Florida, Chairman
BOB BARR, Georgia PATSY T. MINK, Hawaii
BENJAMIN A. GILMAN, New York EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York
CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland
ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio
MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana ROD R. BLAGOJEVICH, Illinois
STEVEN C. LaTOURETTE, Ohio JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts
ASA HUTCHINSON, Arkansas JIM TURNER, Texas
DOUG OSE, California
Ex Officio
DAN BURTON, Indiana HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
Sharon Pinkerton, Staff Director and Chief Counsel
Mason Alinger, Professional Staff Member
Cherri Branson, Minority Counsel
Micheal Yeager, Minority Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on August 4, 1999................................... 1
Statement of:
Bunch, Hezekiah, chief of police, city of Baltimore Housing
Authority; James Chambers, executive director, Sporting
Arms and Ammunition, Manufacturers' Institute, Inc.; Jeff
Reh, general counsel, Beretta Corp.; Donald Zilkah,
chairman of the board, Colt's Manufacturing; and Paul
Jannuzo, general counsel, Glock, Inc....................... 45
Laster, Gail, general counsel, Department of Housing and
Urban Development, accompanied by Kevin Simpson, deputy
general counsel, Office of Deputy General Counsel for
Programs and Regulations; and Gloria Cousar, Deputy
Assistant Secretary, Office of Public and Assisted Housing
Delivery................................................... 10
Letters, statements, et cetera, submitted for the record by:
Bunch, Hezekiah, chief of police, city of Baltimore Housing
Authority, prepared statement of........................... 77
Chambers, James, executive director, Sporting Arms and
Ammunition, Manufacturers' Institute, Inc., prepared
statement of............................................... 54
Jannuzo, Paul, general counsel, Glock, Inc, prepared
statement of............................................... 70
Laster, Gail, general counsel, Department of Housing and
Urban Development, prepared statement of................... 13
Mica, Hon. John L., a Representative in Congress from the
State of Florida, prepared statement of.................... 4
Reh, Jeff, general counsel, Beretta Corp., prepared statement
of......................................................... 61
Towns, Hon. Edolphus, a Representative in Congress from the
State of New York, prepared statement of................... 89
Zilkah, Donald, chairman of the board, Colt's Manufacturing,
prepared statement of...................................... 49
WHAT IS HUD'S ROLE IN LITIGATION AGAINST GUN MANUFACTURERS?
----------
WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 4, 1999
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy, and
Human Resources,
Committee on Government Reform,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m., in
room 2203, Rayburn House Office Building, John L. Mica
(Chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Representatives Barr, Mink, Hutchinson, Tierney,
and Schakowsky.
Also present: Representatives Waxman and Cummings.
Staff present: Sharon Pinkerton, staff director; Mason
Alinger, professional staff member; Phil Schiliro, minority
staff director; Cherri Branson and Michael Yeager, minority
counsels; and Ellen Rayner, minority chief clerk.
Mr. Mica. Good morning. I would like to call this meeting
of the Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy, and Human
Resources to order. Today's hearing is entitled, ``What is
HUD's Role in Litigation Against Gun Manufacturers?''
I would like to start in our regular order, which is to
present an opening statement. Then, I will yield to other
Members for opening statements. Today, we have two panels we
will hear from. Today our subcommittee will address an issue
that has been publically reported in the press recently, which
involves the Department of Housing and Urban Development.
HUD is one of the departments over which our subcommittee
has oversight responsibility. This is the first HUD hearing
that we have called this year. Our subcommittee plans to
examine a number of HUD programs and topics relating to HUD
that are very important to our Nation and that are of great
interest to this subcommittee and its members.
Unfortunately, until this past week, repeated requests for
information records from that agency had been ignored. Although
some of our HUD investigation hearings have been delayed as a
result of that, it is my hope that our important oversight work
can now proceed. I am pleased also that we have received a
pledge from the Secretary to cooperate in our investigation and
oversight efforts.
Accordingly, I look forward in the near future to having
additional hearings on HUD issues that impact our cities, our
States, and our Nation. As members of the subcommittee and
others know from previous hearings, I am very interested in
what we, as a Nation, and what we, as a Federal Government in
particular, are doing to help rid our communities of the
scourge of drugs and crime.
The role and actions of HUD in this regard are of special
importance. I continue to hear that residents of our public
housing are the hardest hit by violent crime and drug
trafficking. These dual evils continue to destroy the quality
of life for many of those who live in our urban communities,
and especially the poor, the elderly, and the infirm who must
rely on public housing.
We can, and we must, take decisive steps to combat these
evils and to protect families and their loved ones. Today, we
will hear about a proposal that, according to some major news
articles, has been considered or is under consideration by HUD.
The proposal is for HUD to either join or assist in litigation
against lawful manufacturers of firearms.
These manufacturers are the same companies that produce
weapons used by our law enforcement officials, and are used
legally every day by citizens across the Nation, sometimes and
often for their own protection. In getting to the root of the
problem of crime and violence in our public housing, tracing
the problem and looking at the idea for tracing the blame and
liability back to gun manufacturers raises a number of
questions.
I am very interested in learning why the makers of firearms
are seen by HUD as a possible cause of violence in our cities
and housing areas. If this litigation is pursued, what would
the cost be? Would this action help cure the problem of crime
and violence in our housing projects?
Quite frankly, I am baffled by the ideas that makers of
guns are seen by anyone as being somehow legally responsible
for those who acquire the weapons and misuse them. If we
extended this question, are automobile manufacturers also
legally responsible for those who misuse their cars? Are drug
manufacturers liable for those who misuse legal drugs?
Are computer manufacturers liable for those who use
computers for illegal purposes? The list of potential
defendants who become liable for producing legal products could
be endless. With knife stabbings accounting for a substantial
death count in our public housing projects, will HUD expand
product liabilities to manufacturers of Swiss Army Knives and
Oneida silver?
Again, the imagination can run wild, if you pursue that
logic. While I will listen very closely to the testimony, I
cannot imagine while HUD, an agency of the Federal Government,
would expend its time, its talents, and our tax dollars on
considering such a strange approach to some very real and
critical safety issues. I asked our staff, and we have not had
time to complete a thorough report, but we have looked at some
of the many reports that have been done just in the last 10
years relating to the problems in public housing.
We have not been able to identify a single report that
identified gun manufacturers as the source of the problem,
although there is a litany of additional sources and problems
identified. The enforcement of our laws, and the protection of
residents of public housing, deserves a reasoned and effective
response.
Prevention efforts are essential and require support and
coordination at all levels, including National, State, and
community levels. As we recently have learned, Federal
officials are not doing nearly enough to enforce existing laws
regarding the purchase of firearms to dangerous criminals, and
those who are ineligible to purchase them.
I think that targeting our attention and law enforcement
resources to criminals who threaten residents in public housing
communities could be much more effective than wasting time and
money on misguided legislation. This administration and many of
its leaders have championed, what I will call, a blame-and-sue
philosophy at every turn.
One week we should sue HMOs. The next week we blame mothers
and grandmothers. Today, I am sure we will hear a variety of
views on this issue. When all is said and done, we are
obligated to do what is legally sound and most effective.
Joining or encouraging litigation against the lawful
manufacture of firearms has never been recommended by any of
the countless studies that have been conducted by numerous
public and private organizations to remedy the problems of
crime and violence at public housing projects.
I look forward to the testimony of our witnesses and hope
that common sense and reasonable approaches, rather than ill-
conceived and knee-jerk responses ultimately prevail. Our
citizens, and especially those who have been victims of a
broken Welfare system, Federal policies that bread
illegitimacy, destroyed the traditional family structure,
dismantled our Nation's Anti-Drug Programs, and provided
irresponsible actions as a new basis for our children to judge
their leaders by, they need our help.
They deserve real and effective solutions. Those solutions
should not be sought through the misuse of our judicial
process, especially by our Federal Government. So, those are my
opening comments. I am pleased now to be joined by both our
ranking member of the subcommittee, the distinguished lady from
Hawaii, Mrs. Mink, and also our distinguished ranking member of
the full committee, Mr. Waxman, in whatever order you prefer.
[The prepared statement of Hon. John L. Mica follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5463.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5463.002
Mrs. Mink. I will yield to Mr. Waxman and then take my 5
minutes.
Mr. Mica. Well, we will yield to both. Go ahead.
Mr. Waxman, you are recognized.
Mr. Waxman. Thank you very much.
We are here today because the Wall Street Journal reported
that HUD may be involved in a possible lawsuit by Public
Housing Authorities against gun manufacturers. That article
appeared last Wednesday. Immediately thereafter, this
subcommittee demanded that HUD lawyers appear today to explain
such an outrage.
With equal speed, this subcommittee asked the
representatives of several gun manufacturers to appear to
explain why such HUD action is improper. I do not have a view
on whether HUD or Public Housing Authorities would have a
strong case against gun manufacturers on various legal
theories. I am interested in hearing about those theories but,
more importantly, some court will decide that issue.
That is why we have lawyers and courts. They are better-
suited than this subcommittee to decide whether such claims
have legal merit. I do have a view on whether HUD can get
involved, as a plaintiff or otherwise, in litigation against
gun manufacturers. It absolutely can. One of HUD's core
missions is to help Public Housing Authorities across the
country reduce housing problems.
In HUD's enabling statute, Congress declared that the
agency's purpose is, among other things, ``to encourage the
solution of problems of housing, urban development, and mass
transportation through State, County, Town, Village, or other
local and private action.''
Another statute, the Housing Act of 1937, similarly
provides that ``Our Nation should promote the goal of providing
decent and affordable housing for all citizens through the
efforts and encouragement of Federal, State, and Local
Governments, and by the independent and collective actions of
private citizens, organizations, and the private sector.''
I think it is undisputed, or at least it should be, that
gun violence is a problem afflicting public housing and stands
in the way of HUD's goal of providing decent housing for all of
our citizens. From 1994 to 1997, there were more than 500
murders each year at the 100 largest housing authorities. Many
of those murders are attributable to gun violence.
In New York City alone, 454 murders were committed in
public housing from 1994 to 1997. In Washington, during that
same period, there was one murder for every 61 homes over a 3-
year period. Those of us here in Washington, and I am sure
elsewhere around the country, will recall the shooting of Helen
Forest-El. She was a grandmother who, on June 21st, was shot to
death as she tried to move neighborhood children to safety in a
public housing complex.
That is a problem. HUD should think creatively and act
aggressively to address it. It seems peculiar to me that this
committee, with all of the responsibility that we have, would
jump on this issue so quickly and take this issue and elevate
it into one where we are in effect, as you will notice from the
chairman's statement, condemning HUD's actions before anything
has happened.
The chairman said the administration is all ready to blame
and pass the responsibility onto others. Well, I would say it
sounds like Republican leaders are willing to defend their
friends, even though we find that some of their friends and
contributors produce products that kill.
That was the attitude of the Republican leadership in the
House, when it came to tobacco and tobacco companies that make
a product that, when used as intended, kills. No legislation
was even brought up in the House of Representatives to deal
with the tobacco companies. Not surprisingly enough, tobacco
was the No. 1 contributor to the Republican House political
efforts.
Another friend of the Republican leadership seems to be gun
manufacturers. This hearing seems to be not on how to deal with
the problem of gun violence in public housing. It seems to be
on how to make sure that nobody goes after the friends of the
Republican leadership in the House, the gun manufacturers. Now,
whether they can be held responsible under one legal theory or
another is something that the courts will decide. Can HUD think
about it? You bet they can think about it. Can they talk to
others about it? They certainly have the freedom of speech
rights to do that.
If the administration wants to pursue a policy that the
Republican leaders disagree with, well that is their right. I
will hear what the policy has been at HUD. To be in a furry
over the fact that they may be thinking about an idea that some
people here do not like is certainly a strange notion.
I welcome our witnesses today. I look forward to hearing
their testimony. It seems to me any way we can have fewer guns
around would mean fewer people dying from guns, even though the
people who misuse these guns are the ones responsible. I think
the manufacturers have to be held responsible as well, if there
is a legal theory to do it.
Mr. Mica. I thank the ranking member of the full committee
for coming to the subcommittee hearing this morning and also
expressing, very candidly, his viewpoint.
Now, we will hear from Mr. Barr, who is the vice chairman
of this subcommittee. Mr. Barr, you are recognized.
Mr. Barr. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you for calling this hearing today. Far too often
Congress allows problems to fester, and allows administration
officials to do what they want, despite making bad policy
decisions or possibly operating illegally, until it is too late
to really do anything about it. So, I appreciate the Chair
calling this hearing today to address a burgeoning problem
before it gets out of hand.
The fact of the matter is that this has nothing to do with
free speech. If we were to take the ranking member's logic that
any Government official could do whatever they want as long as
they talk about it, because then it becomes a free speech
issue. Before our HUD guests take too much solace in the
comments of the ranking member, I want to assure you all that
there are still Members of Congress who do care about the law.
We do care about separation of powers. We do look for legal
authority before any Government official or any Government
agency can begin operating. The fact of the matter is that a
Federal agency can engage in discussions that are
inappropriate. They can look forward to involving themselves in
matters which are not within the purview of the Federal
Government. When that happens, that is indeed a matter that
Congress ought to look into.
It is within our jurisdiction. It obviously is within the
jurisdiction of this committee. Despite how individual Members
may feel about tobacco, and look for a tobacco- related
solution to every problem in our society, that does not
necessary make it legal. It does not make it proper. It does
not make that solution fit within the bounds of our Federalist
system of Government.
There are Members, and sometimes it seems only Members on
one side of the aisle, that care about such matters, but we do
here. No matter how one may feel about the second amendment,
one may dislike the second amendment. You all may dislike the
second amendment. The fact of the matter is that it is there.
Simply because there are guns in our society, as there are guns
in every society on the face of the Earth, does not mean that
every Federal agency can subsume, for itself, the jurisdiction
to do something about it.
There are appropriate ways to address the problems of
violence in our society. There are appropriate ways to address
the matter and the problem of misuse of guns in our society,
and then there are ways that are not appropriate. Indeed, it is
the mandate of HUD to involve itself in housing matters in our
communities. That is a statutory matter that is long
recognized.
That does not mean HUD, or any other Federal agency, can
simply go out and assist in filing lawsuits against the lawful
manufacturers of products. It would be very interesting. I
would be very interested to hear HUD witnesses explain why it
is the manufacturers of firearms that are responsible for the
violence in public housing communities or in any other
community.
We certainly want to work with HUD to solve these problems,
but it has to be done in a rational way. It has to be done in a
legal way. It has to be done in a way that is consistent with
Constitutional principles of governing. It also has to be done
in a way that is consistent with principles of jurisprudence.
Those principles of jurisprudence and common sense tell a
number of us here in the Congress, not the ranking member
apparently, but a number of us here in Congress, that you do
not hold the manufacturer of a lawful product liable for the
misuse, the criminal misuse, of that product.
To search for simplistic solutions, like going after the
manufacturer of a firearm because there are problems of
violence in our public housing communities, is just ridiculous.
So, I will be very interested, Mr. Chairman, to hear the
rationale for HUD involving itself in these matters. I will be
very interested to hear our witnesses hopefully tell us that
they are not involved in this, that HUD is not involved in
this, that HUD has no intention of becoming involved in this.
Therefore, if there is a restriction placed in HUD funding
to prevent them from utilizing any funds for becoming involved
in this, they would certainly have no problem with that because
they are not involved in this matter.
So, I appreciate, Mr. Chairman, your calling this hearing
today. Hopefully, we can nip this problem in the bud and have
the witnesses today tell us that the reports from the Wall
Street Journal, and other newspapers, are indeed incorrect as
media reports frequently are. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Mica. I thank our vice chairman for his comments,
candid comments, this morning. I am now pleased to recognize
our ranking member of our subcommittee, Mrs. Mink, the gentle
lady from Hawaii.
Mrs. Mink. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I am pleased to be here, but not so pleased we are here
under these circumstances. I see no justification for calling a
hearing based upon a newspaper article. I was only notified, I
believe it was Thursday last week, that this hearing was
contemplated. I had a very short time to inquire as to the
basis of this hearing, and only yesterday was able to confer
with HUD officials.
I have come to the conclusion that there is ample
justification for the Department to respond to their
constituency. That is their mission. That is their statutory
obligation, when it comes to their attention that certain
elements of their constituency, which is the housing
authorities and those who control housing activities in the
cities and counties, are rising to this issue.
It would be absolutely a dereliction of their
responsibility if they were blind to the circumstances that
they are faced with. I believe that getting involved in
providing technical assistance, helping these cities and
counties to determine whether there is justification and merit
in their legal activities is perfectly within the realm of
their Federal responsibilities. I am shocked to find that there
could be any conclusion to the contrary. I am told that there
are 23 legal actions against gun manufacturers across the
country. This is not something which the Department generated.
It is generated because the prime responsibility of the
authorities in public housing is to make these housings safe
and secure for their tenants.
If the safety and security of their tenants is somehow
fractured because of the presence of guns in that community,
then it is their obligation, just as fire control and any of
the other threats upon the safety of the tenants is their
responsibility. It is their job to look into it.
When they found that there were 23 other cities,
communities, and authorities already engaged in litigation
against the gun manufacturers, it was absolutely correct that
they inquire and find out exactly what was going on, and what
kind of technical assistance needed to be provided.
So, I am somewhat chagrined that we are here meddling in
the executive responsibility, which Congress has given the
Department, to make sure that their constituents are safe and
secure in the places that we have provided them. Frankly, if a
gun manufacturer is advertising or allows advertising to go
into the market that they have a fingerprint-proof gun, there
is certainly something wrong with the manufacturer. For years
they have known about providing safety locks so that children
would not be injured by playing around with guns. There are
certainly meritorious arguments for an inquiry as to what the
gun manufacturers should be doing in order to make their so-
called second amendment commodity free and safe in this Nation.
So, I commend the Department for the participation that was
revealed in the Wall Street Journal article. I hope that this
hearing today does not in any way intimidate them from pursuing
this responsibility. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Mica. I thank the gentle lady for her opening
statement. I am pleased to recognize the gentleman from
Massachusetts, Mr. Tierney.
Mr. Tierney. I have no opening statement.
Mr. Mica. Thank you. There being no further opening
statements at this time, we will go right to our first panel.
On our first panel, I would like to welcome Ms. Gail Laster.
Ms. Laster is the General Counsel of the Department of Housing
and Urban Development.
Ms. Laster is accompanied by Mr. Kevin Simpson, Deputy
General Counsel, Office of Deputy General Counsel for Programs
and Regulations; and also Ms. Gloria Cousar, Deputy Assistant
Secretary of the Office of Public and Assisted Housing Delivery
of the Department.
So, I would like to welcome our first panel. Just let me
set the ground rules if I may. This is an investigations and
oversight subcommittee of Congress. I will swear you in, then
we will proceed and give each of you an opportunity for a
statement. We will withhold all questions until afterwards.
If you would please stand and be sworn. Raise your right
hands please. Do, you solemnly swear or affirm that the
testimony you are about to give before this subcommittee of
Congress is the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
[Witnesses sworn.]
Mr. Mica. Thank you. The witnesses answered in the
affirmative. Again, let me also say that if you have any
lengthy statement, anything that exceeds our 5-minute oral
limitation, we would be glad, by unanimous consent request, to
submit that documentation or additional statement into the
record in its entirety. So, just request that.
With those comments, again, let me welcome Gail Laster,
General Counsel of HUD. Welcome, and you are recognized.
STATEMENT OF GAIL LASTER, GENERAL COUNSEL, DEPARTMENT OF
HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, ACCOMPANIED BY KEVIN SIMPSON,
DEPUTY GENERAL COUNSEL, OFFICE OF DEPUTY GENERAL COUNSEL FOR
PROGRAMS AND REGULATIONS; AND GLORIA COUSAR, DEPUTY ASSISTANT
SECRETARY, OFFICE OF PUBLIC AND ASSISTED HOUSING DELIVERY
Ms. Laster. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Good morning Ranking Member Mink, Congressman Barr,
Congressman Waxman, and Congressman Tierney. I am pleased to
have this opportunity to address you today about the problems
created by gun violence in our Nation's public housing. As you
are aware, in 1937, Congress mandated that the Federal
Government provide decent and safe housing to the Nation's
neediest citizens.
That mandate has never been changed by Congress. It is a
mandate that the Department takes very seriously. Moreover,
each year Congress appropriates billions of dollars to fund
over a million units of public housing, and expects that HUD
will do everything in its power to ensure that those funds are
spent effectively and in a way that fulfills its congressional
mandate.
Unfortunately, much has changed in the last 60 years since
public housing was first created, including the cost and
consequences of gun violence in America's poorest communities,
especially in public housing. Today, I am saddened to report
that the congressional mandate for safe public housing is being
frustrated by an epidemic of gun violence. It is because of
this crisis of gun violence in public housing that many housing
authorities are considering litigation to minimize the cost of
this problem.
It will come as no surprise to this committee, or to any
American who watches the local nightly news, that every year
there are thousands of incidents of gun violence in and around
public housing projects. Last year, for example, in just the
hundred largest Public Housing Authorities, there were more
than 500 murders, many involving guns.
Innocent residents, especially children and the elderly,
often live in constant fear of being caught in deadly cross-
fires between people who have far too ready access to firearms
of all types. Their stories are deeply troubling. Five-year-old
Taquan Mikell was hit by a stray bullet while walking home from
dinner with his mother in Durham, NC.
Grade school principal Patrick Daly was caught in crossfire
and shot to death in Brooklyn, NY while looking for a missing
pupil. Four-year-old Javina Holmes, a resident of Frederick
Douglas Dwellings, was killed when her 8-year-old brother found
a loaded shotgun inside their apartment and began shooting.
Here in Washington, DC, Helen Foster-El, a 55-year-old
grandmother, was gunned down by two stray bullets as she tried
to usher neighborhood children to safety. Sadly, there are
hundreds more. While the cost of gun violence in human lives is
obviously the most disturbing, the costs to the Federal
Government and taxpayers is also striking.
A significant amount of the billions in public housing
operational funds appropriated each year must be used by
housing authorities to address serious security problems. In
Chicago, for example, nearly 40 percent of its recent funding,
$44 million, is spent annually on security costs attributed
directly or indirectly to gun violence.
Last year, HUD awarded over $200 million worth of drug
elimination grants to local housing authorities to help them
combat drugs and crime in their projects. In many cases, that
money has helped to fund additional police officers, security
cameras, and innovative enforcement measures related to gun
violence.
We are proud of our efforts to combat crime, but mindful
that all of these funds could otherwise be spent not on
preventing and dealing with the enormous cost of gun violence,
but instead on providing badly needed housing and economic
development for our poorest communities.
At a time when a record 5.3 million American families are
facing an affordable housing crisis, we; Congress, the
executive branch, local governments, housing authorities, and
citizens must be prepared to consider any reasonable avenue for
controlling the human and economic cost of gun violence. Given
these costs, it would not be right for the Nation's housing
authorities to refuse to examine every option in their efforts
to protect residents.
Now, recently, certain practices of the gun industry have
come under scrutiny for the possible role they play in
exacerbating the problems of guns and gun violence. Over this
past year, municipalities and counties, who know all too well
the human and financial cost imposed by gun violence, gun
deaths, and accidental injuries began filing lawsuits against
the gun industry.
Many people in the public housing community are interested
in the possibility of filing similar suits. This search for
solutions has lead to discussions, including a broad coalition
of local housing authorities, their representative
organizations, and legal experts about the viability of such an
action. Discussions with housing authorities have indicated
that there is a broad interest in taking some type of action to
cut the cost of gun violence.
HUD, however, and I repeat, HUD, does not plan to bring any
action, on its own, against the gun industry. I want to make
clear to this committee that there is nothing fundamentally
unusual about these discussions. HUD has traditionally worked
closely with housing authorities, including consultations with
law firms representing housing authorities on a wide variety of
issues. Our actions in exploring the possibility of these
lawsuits is entirely consistent with our statutory mission.
Congress has long recognized that HUD is not just about bricks
and mortar, but about our communities.
For HUD and housing authorities to turn their backs on any
potential solution to the gun violence crisis in public housing
would not only forgo our Constitutionally mandated obligation
to provide decent and safe housing, but would be reneging on
our responsibility as public servants to ensure that taxpayer
funds are used in the most effective manner possible.
I see the red light is on. I would like to finish.
Mr. Mica. Go right ahead.
Ms. Laster. But I do appreciate the opportunity to have
Gloria Cousar here and Kevin Simpson to answer your questions.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Laster follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5463.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5463.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5463.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5463.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5463.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5463.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5463.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5463.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5463.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5463.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5463.013
Mr. Mica. Did either of the other individuals have an
opening statement?
Ms. Laster. No. They do not. No; just me.
Mr. Mica. Did you have anything else you wanted to add?
Ms. Laster. No, sir.
Mr. Mica. Without the others having an opening statement.
Ms. Laster. And I would just submit my full statement for
the record.
Mr. Mica. Without objection, your entire statement will be
made a part of the record. Let me just ask, if I may, a few
questions that will lead right off here. When this action or
interest in this particular area of pursuit started, were there
requests of HUD from housing authorities for HUD to get
involved and possibly a suit for going after gun manufacturers?
Ms. Laster. I do not know that I would characterize the
request such as that, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Mica. Would you have any communication, correspondence,
written correspondence, a request, or a formal request from any
housing authority to pursue gun manufacturers?
Ms. Laster. I have no knowledge, Mr. Chairman, about any
formal or written request.
Mr. Mica. Would it be possible for you to provide this
subcommittee with a review of your files and see if there are
any requests? We would like to have a copy of those requests
from, again, any agency. Again, have there been any requests
from any organizations outside to pursue this matter?
Ms. Laster. I do not know, Congressman.
Mr. Mica. Also, if you would provide this subcommittee with
any communications. I am just trying to see how this began.
What was the genesis.
Ms. Laster. But If I could respond.
Mr. Mica. Is it your Department or at the Secretary's
request that this is considered?
Ms. Laster. It was the Department's and, also as we have
said, it was in response to inquiries. If I could respond to
your initial question.
Mr. Mica. OK, well maybe you could elaborate. I am trying
to get some picture as to how this began. What was the genesis;
if there is a cry from housing authorities for this and you
have a record; if that was initiated by the Secretary or some
outside organization?
Ms. Laster. No, and I understand your question. What I had
concerns about was the nature of your question in terms of
written and formal. Indeed, there have been discussions and
inquiries. As a general matter, and I believe Ms. Cousar can
elaborate about this as well, we are in frequent contact with
our Public Housing Authorities.
We have frequently talked about the issue of crime and
violence in the Public Housing Authorities and the issue of gun
violence. We have different forums. We have seminars and we
talk about that.
Mr. Mica. Was there a specific housing authority that came
forward with the idea to go after gun manufacturers?
Ms. Laster. Not one that I could identify now.
Mr. Mica. Did you have one, Ms. Cousar?
Ms. Cousar. I do not have one, but I do have frequent
concerns expressed about the issue of gun violence and crime
related to the availability of guns by public housing residents
and public housing staff, including executive directors.
Mr. Mica. May I ask, if I can, Ms. Laster, have you
discussed this pursuit with the Department of Justice?
Ms. Laster. Well, it depends on what you mean ``this
pursuit.'' I am not trying to be vague.
Mr. Mica. The idea. I just wondered if the DOJ would be an
agency you would expect that would go into this area? I
wondered if this is something that is just within the
Department or it is being discussed with, again, it would be my
assumption that DOJ would look at something like this?
Ms. Laster. As you know, Mr. Chairman, HUD has no authority
on its own to bring litigation. The Department of Justice would
have to make a decision to bring litigation. In the past,
several months ago, we had general discussions with DOJ when
the first cases came out in New Orleans and Chicago, what have
you, about those cases.
However, we have not discussed with DOJ what was, in fact,
reported in the Wall Street Journal, which is PHAs, Public
Housing Authorities, themselves, bringing these cases. I
repeat, HUD has no plans to bring a case and DOJ, as I
understand it, has no plans to bring a case.
Mr. Mica. Have there been any memos or communication
between HUD and DOJ on this matter?
Ms. Laster. On the matter of the PHAs bringing lawsuits?
Mr. Mica. Yes.
Ms. Laster. No.
Mr. Mica. In any way? Could you also check and see if you
have any communication between the agency? What I am trying to
do is see how the policy might be developed, or how folks
generated this idea, and if there is an administration policy
developing in this regard. Have any funds been spent so far in
pursuit of possibly either assisting others with going after
gun manufacturers, or the Department, or DOJ to your knowledge?
Anyone expended any funds other than this?
Ms. Laster. Again, I would most respectfully disagree with
the characterization of ``going after gun manufacturers.'' What
we have had are discussions, general discussions, to explain
and to understand the lawsuits that are out there; to
understand if the Public Housing Authority has a role to play
in that.
There has been no determination whatsoever that indeed
there will be litigation or that a suit will be filed. We have,
in fact, had conversations with Public Housing Authorities. We
have, in fact, had conversations with law firms. As far as my
knowledge, I am aware of travel funds being spent to meet with
the law firms.
Mr. Mica. The only final question, if I may, is do you know
if we have any study or report, that you can point your fingers
to that mentions or indicates that we should go after, as a
solution to some of the problems of crime and violence in our
public housing projects, litigation against gun manufacturers
or hold them liable?
As I have said, the hearing has been called rather quickly,
as Mr. Waxman pointed out, but we could not find anything. Can
you cite anything or provide us with any specific studies or
reports?
Mr. Simpson. I am not aware of any particular report that
key in on Public Housing Authorities, the problems they
confront with gun violence, and which resulted in a
recommendation saying that a suit against the gun industry
should be the answer. Our discussions have focused on the
theories that are being advanced by the cities to the larger
issue of gun violence. I am not sure if we do have a report.
Mr. Mica. If you do have something, I wish you would
provide it, or come across something, to this subcommittee.
Now, we have about 5 or 6 minutes. We have time for one
full round. Is that acceptable or would you like to come back?
Mrs. Mink. Come back, come back.
Mr. Mica. Whatever you would like to do; Mr. Waxman.
Mr. Waxman. Well.
Mrs. Mink. Come back.
Mr. Mica. OK. We do have a vote. So, I wanted to try to be
as clear as possible on time. So, what we will do is recess
until about 5 minutes after this vote concludes. We are looking
at about 20 or 25 minutes. You might get a chance to get coffee
or a cold drink.
Thank you. We will stand in recess.
[Recess.]
Mr. Mica. I would like to call this subcommittee back to
order. I had concluded the first questions. I would like to
yield now to the minority, Mrs. Mink, our ranking member.
Mrs. Mink. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The chairman of the subcommittee was pursuing his questions
to find out how HUD was involved in advising these various
housing agencies. It probably has some bearing on the activity.
Although, I do not really see the relevance.
Just as these hearings today were called because of a
newspaper article, I am sure that the Department reads the
newspapers and found out that in New Orleans there was a
lawsuit already filed over which the Department had no
involvement. Is that a correct statement?
Ms. Laster. Yes, Ranking Member Mink. That would be
correct.
Mrs. Mink. Did you have any prior contact with what I
understand to be the first lawsuit filed, which is in New
Orleans? Is that a correct statement?
Ms. Laster. I am sorry, contact with whom?
Mrs. Mink. The people in New Orleans that filed the first
lawsuit against gun manufacturers.
Ms. Laster. To my knowledge, there was no contact between
HUD and the people who filed the first lawsuit.
Mrs. Mink. So, how did you find out about this lawsuit that
the New Orleans Housing Authority filed?
Ms. Laster. You are correct in your assertion that we read
it in the newspaper.
Mrs. Mink. Read it in the newspaper like everybody else.
Then there were a series of other lawsuits, as I
understand, that have occurred. Then following that activity,
which was generated independent of HUD, you decided that it was
your responsibility to look into these avenues of assistance,
and that is how the genesis of HUD's involvement took place. Is
that a correct synopsis of your situation?
Ms. Laster. Yes, that would be correct. That is my
understanding of what occurred here.
Mrs. Mink. Was there ever a call by the Department to all
of the housing agencies to come together in any sort of a forum
or meeting to discuss this matter, specifically this matter,
and no other matter?
Ms. Laster. No, not to my knowledge.
Mrs. Mink. So that if you did discuss this matter with
other authorities, it was in conjunction with your other
responsibilities. Is that a correct statement?
Ms. Laster. Yes.
Mrs. Mink. So, no specific effort with the sole, solitary
purpose of discussing the propriety of a class action suit by
housing authorities against gun manufacturers was ever tabled
by your agency?
Ms. Laster. I believe though, that most recently, there may
have been calls and discussions with Public Housing Authorities
in which the main topic of conversation was the potential for
litigation.
Mrs. Mink. Was this in a meeting called by HUD at some
site?
Ms. Laster. No.
Mrs. Mink. You were talking about telephone calls?
Ms. Laster. Telephone calls.
Mrs. Mink. The telephone calls would have been made in
response to an inquiry that someone else was making, or was it
a telephone call that generated from your office because of an
assumed responsibility?
Ms. Laster. I think both cases would be correct, sometimes
an inquiry and sometimes an inquiry initiated by the
Department.
Mrs. Mink. So, as general counsel for HUD, could you
elaborate on the legal definition of the mission of the
Department and how these discussions with other housing
agencies fall within the mandate and mission of your
Department?
Ms. Laster. I would be happy to. Thank you.
Many of them have already been addressed. Congressman
Waxman, first of all, cited our enabling statute which is 42
U.S.C. 3531 which states, as the Congressman indicated, that
the purpose of HUD is to encourage the solution of problems of
housing and urban development through State, counties, village,
or other local and private action.
I also believe there has been reference to the Housing Act
of 1937, which has two relevant parts here. The first is that
HUD is to assist States and political subdivisions of States to
remedy the unsafe housing conditions and the acute shortage of
decent and safe dwellings for low income families. Another
relevant section is that our Nation should promote the goal of
providing decent and affordable housing for all citizens
through the efforts and encouragement of Federal, State, and
local governments, and by the independent and collective
actions of private citizens, organizations, and the private
sector.
One other thing that has not been cited here is, in fact,
our governing statute for the Public Housing Authorities. Under
this statute, HUD requires that Public Housing Authorities seek
HUD approval before initiating litigation with HUD funds. That
would be chapter 5, and section 3 of our litigation manual. So,
those are basically the statutory provisions that we think
enable us to, in fact, provide the technical assistance to the
Public Housing Authorities and that enable us to answer their
questions.
We have a full range of, as you say, as you have pointed
out, issues that are in the public eye, and to be able to, in
fact, reach for possible actions to address the different
issues regarding safety, as well as affordable housing.
Mrs. Mink. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Mica. Thank you. I would now like to recognize Mr.
Barr.
Mr. Barr. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Laster, you said earlier in a response I think to a
question by the chairman that HUD had expended travel funds.
Ms. Laster. Yes, sir.
Mr. Barr. For what purpose were those travel funds
expended?
Ms. Laster. I also think I said, in response to the
chairman's question, that travel funds were to meet with a law
firm.
Mr. Barr. What law firm, where, and when did that meeting
take place?
Ms. Laster. I believe it took place last week. The law firm
was Cravath, Swain, and Moore. It was in New York City.
Mr. Barr. Who was that with, in particular, which lawyer or
lawyers, or other personnel from the firm?
Ms. Laster. I was not at the meeting, sir. So, I do not
know. I believe Thomas Barr was there from the firm.
Mr. Barr. Who was there from HUD?
Ms. Laster. Douglas Kantor, Special Counsel in the Office
of General Counsel and Max Stier who is the Deputy General
Counsel.
Mr. Barr. Are you familiar with the Anti-Deficiency Act, 31
U.S.C. 1342?
Ms. Laster. I am familiar with it, but I do not have it in
front of me, sir.
Mr. Barr. Do you see any problem with the Federal
Government meeting with outside lawyers, not paid for by the
Government, for which there is no line item authorization or
appropriation authority?
Ms. Laster. I do not see a problem in this instance, sir,
because in fact we were not meeting to obtain legal services
for the Department or any benefit to the Department. We were
simply consulting.
Mr. Barr. What was the purpose of the meeting?
Ms. Laster. Simply to consult about various legal issues.
Mr. Barr. Why is it necessary for HUD lawyers to consult
with outside lawyers? I presume also that you believe that you
do have the authority then to engage in the discussions that
were the subject matter of the meeting.
Ms. Laster. Yes, sir. We do that often, to discuss with
outside lawyers, trade associations, a variety of private
entities, some private and some public, about issues that
effect the Department. We believe this is one such instance.
Mr. Barr. Were minutes kept of that meeting?
Ms. Laster. Not to my knowledge, but I could certainly
check.
Mr. Barr. I would appreciate that.
One thing that we have learned up here, particularly in
recent months, is to look at statements that the government
makes very, very carefully. One of the statements in your
written testimony, which you read is ``HUD does not, however,
plan to bring its own action against the gun industry.'' Would
you expand upon that? Does that mean that HUD will not bring
any action against the gun industry or any component thereof?
Ms. Laster. That is correct.
Mr. Barr. Does that mean also that HUD does not intend to
become involved as a party or as an amicus in any such lawsuit
against the gun industry or any component thereof?
Ms. Laster. As a party, that might be out of our control,
sir. I guess to the extent that you are talking about a
plaintiff.
Mr. Barr. Well, let us talk about a plaintiff first.
Ms. Laster. Sir, I would not be able to answer that as no.
Also, in terms of an amicus, I would not be able to answer
that.
Mr. Barr. I am not sure I understand. Am I correct in
stating that HUD does not intend to, and will not become a
party-plaintiff in any lawsuit against the gun industry or any
component thereof? Can you give us that assurance?
Ms. Laster. Just a second.
[Pause.]
Mr. Laster. Again, I would say that we do not know of any
existing plans. We have no intentions at this time. I do not
know that I can find the same way, the Department, as I did
with my other statements, but no. We have no intentions at this
time to be a third party in any lawsuit that is filed.
Mr. Barr. But that could change tomorrow. I mean, simply
saying that you have no intention at this time means that at
11:25 a.m., on August 4th, the Department has no intention, but
that could change in the future is what you are telling us?
Ms. Laster. Yes. I am also saying that, to my knowledge, we
have no intention, in terms of the conversations we might have
had with law firms, in terms of the conversations I have had
with folks, that it is not our intention to be a third party in
any lawsuit.
Mr. Barr. I know you understand very, very clearly as all
government lawyers do, the essential nature of our government;
one of limited powers and specified powers. Therefore, any
Federal agency, whether it is the Department of Justice, the
FBI, or HUD, before it can engage in a lawful act, there has to
be a statutory authority that provides a basis for that.
What is the specific statutory authority, not general
language about the policy of HUD to help with public housing,
the specific statutory authority that would allow HUD to become
involved in any way, shape, or form, other than being made a
defendant, I know you have no control over that, in any lawsuit
against the gun industry, the firearms industry, or a
manufacture of a firearm for the purposes contemplated by the
lawsuits that are the subject matter here today? What specific
authority is there for HUD to do that?
Ms. Laster. Well, other than what I have already cited,
Congressman, I would have nothing else.
Mr. Barr. All you have cited were just the general
preferatory language which is not the same thing as specific
statutory authority to engage in a lawsuit. So, you are unable
to cite any specific authority?
Ms. Laster. No; nothing other than the general enabling
statutes that I cited, as well as the litigation handbook which
would govern the litigation done by Public Housing Authorities
and our role in that.
Mr. Barr. That is not a statute.
Ms. Laster. No, sir.
Mr. Barr. Mr. Chairman, will we have time for a second
round?
Mr. Mica. Yes. We can go as long as patience, kidneys, and
everything else.
Mr. Barr. OK, thank you.
Mr. Mica. I am pleased to recognize now the ranking member
of the full committee, Mr. Waxman.
Mr. Waxman. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
So, just to clarify everything here, you are not planning
to bring a lawsuit at the present time anyway?
Ms. Laster. That is correct.
Mr. Waxman. You have had from HUD, some officials have
discussed with Public Housing Authorities that they might bring
a lawsuit?
Ms. Laster. Yes, sir.
Mr. Waxman. Your view is that such activity is perfectly
proper and within the scope of HUD's authority. Is that
correct?
Ms. Laster. Yes, sir.
Mr. Waxman. You have testified that HUD has carefully
tracked the 23 lawsuits that have been filed by cities and
counties against gun manufacturers, as well as the suit filed
by the NAACP. Is that correct?
Ms. Laster. Yes.
Mr. Waxman. HUD officials have discussed the possibility
that Public Housing Authorities may bring similar lawsuits
against gun manufacturers?
Ms. Laster. That is correct.
Mr. Waxman. Now, some of my colleagues may not be happy
that HUD is looking at litigation as a way of addressing gun
violence in public housing. Protecting the safety of people who
live in public housing is a part of your core function. Is it
not?
Ms. Laster. Yes, sir.
Mr. Waxman. I am looking at the statute that created HUD,
the Department of Housing and Urban Development Act. In section
2, Congress finds that one of HUD's purposes is ``to encourage
the solution of problems of housing, urban development, and
mass transportation through State, County, Town, Village, or
other local, and private actions.'' Is it fair to say that gun
violence in public housing is one of the problems contemplated
by this statute?
Ms. Laster. Yes.
Mr. Waxman. In attempting to develop solutions to the
problems of gun violence, it is perfectly appropriate for HUD
to provide assistance or information in connection with
possible gun litigation. Is that HUD's position?
Ms. Laster. Yes, it is.
Mr. Waxman. That is because such an effort is consistent
with HUD's core mission to solve problems affecting public
housing. Is that correct?
Ms. Laster. Yes.
Mr. Waxman. Now, given the focus of this hearing today, you
would think that dozens of HUD officials have been spending
time thinking about litigation against gun manufacturers and
HUD has spent millions of dollars on the matter, but that is
not the case; is it?
Ms. Laster. Not to my knowledge.
Mr. Waxman. Roughly speaking, how many HUD officials have
worked on this matter in any substantive way?
Ms. Laster. I would say, speaking for the Office of General
Counsel, perhaps half a dozen senior attorneys; the Office of
the PIH, maybe a handful; maybe a handful in different offices
in the Department.
Mr. Waxman. This is not all that these individuals have
done?
Ms. Laster. No, sir.
Mr. Waxman. They have just taken some time to talk to
people about this issue?
Ms. Laster. Right. It has been over a period of several
months. I believe the New Orleans case was back in the fall.
Mr. Waxman. Can you quantify the dollars that have been
spent on the HUD activities in this regard?
Ms. Laster. Outside of staff time, it would just be the New
York trip, which I elaborated for Congressman Barr.
Mr. Waxman. So, it strikes me that probably this committee
is spending more money on this issue than HUD might have spent?
Ms. Laster. I will let you say that.
Mr. Waxman. I do not know if we can quantify it. It could
well be the case. In the past, what kind of coordinated effort
has HUD made with housing authorities to address the problems
of guns and violence in public housing projects?
Ms. Cousar. Well, if I might contribute. Our office is
involved principally through the programs that we administer,
the Drug Elimination Program which supplies supplemental law
enforcement, security assistance, and physical security
strategies. We have come together in conferences on crime
prevention, gang abatements, and youth violence.
In all of these forums, we seek to provide technical
assistance. We seek to provide an avenue in which these issues
and these concerns can be discussed and bring experts together
who are working at the local level and in the communities to
address these problems.
So, this happens during the course of the year. We also
have a one-strike policy that we have been administering to try
to effectively screen out of public housing potential violent
offenders, criminals. So, there is a range of activities that
we are undertaking in the course of the normal administration
of public housing.
Mr. Waxman. My understanding is the Public Housing
Authorities spent, on an average, about 33 percent of their
annual budgets on security-related expenses, such as guards,
closed circuit cameras, and physical barriers. If these Public
Housing Authorities could use these resources to rehabilitate
existing units or create new units, how would the lives of
public housing tenants be affected?
Ms. Cousar. That is a very interesting point because it is
the same point that is made to me by housing authority
directors in any number of communities that are faced with high
incidents of violent crime. I will give you the illustration of
the District of Columbia, if I may.
Mr. Waxman. Well, rather than to do that, it is clear there
is a lot of money at stake. It is also clear my time is up. I
am not going to be here for the second round. I just want to
make this observation. HUD is being criticized for doing
something that I think is within its core authority to do.
There is certainly no expressed prohibition.
It reminds of a time, around 10 years ago, where there was
an expressed prohibition against the administration going out
and giving support to the Contras in Nicaragua. We had a man by
the name of Ollie North go out and ignore the expressed
prohibition against his activities, where he tried to
circumvent the law.
We did not hear some of the woes and cries from some of the
people when the expressed prohibition with Congress was being
violated as we do now. It seems to me you are acting perfectly
lawfully and properly in trying to deal with this problem.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Mica. Thank you.
Mrs. Mink. Mr. Chairman, I have a unanimous consent request
to insert at this point the statement by our colleague, Dennis
Kucinich.
Mr. Mica. Without objection, it will be made a part of the
record.
Mrs. Mink. Mr. Chairman, I would like to take this
opportunity to welcome our colleague, Janice Schakowsky as a
new member of our subcommittee.
Mr. Mica. Yes, I just noticed. She is most welcome. She is
from Chicago.
Ms. Schakowsky. Right.
Mr. Mica. Well, welcome. Put your tray table in an upright
position. Make sure your seatbelt is fastened and hang on. With
that, I would like to recognize Mr. Tierney.
Mr. Tierney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I have to start just by saying I am shocked
at how quickly the majority party responds on behalf of the gun
industry at the slightest hint that somebody may be looking
into ways to hold them responsible for some of the activities
that we see.
I think that it is shameful that Congress has not been able
to take any action with respect to gun violence, particularly
among young people, yet the minute there is a hint that some
economic interest may be even questioned, within a matter of
days, I think the Wall Street Journal article ran on July 28th.
We had notices of a scheduled hearing on July 30th. Here it
is on August 4th and we are all sitting around talking about
why HUD is doing something that, I would suspect, they would be
derelict in their duties if they were not doing.
Let me just ask the witnesses, I think, an obvious
question. Gun violence, I would assume, is a threat to the
investment that we are making in our public housing?
Ms. Laster. Yes. We would agree with that.
Mr. Tierney. My records indicate that in the 100 largest
housing authorities, there were more than 500 murders each year
from 1994 to 1997. In fact, in 1995, there were 627 murders in
the various housing authorities. Does that sound consistent
with your records?
Ms. Laster. Yes, and we mentioned it in our opening
statement.
Mr. Tierney. We have 3,400 public housing authorities that
receive Federal funds?
Ms. Laster. Yes.
Mr. Tierney. I would assume that it is our responsibility,
as well as HUD's, to see that that money is used wisely and not
wasted?
Ms. Laster. Certainly.
Mr. Tierney. Now, I have Department of Housing and Urban
Development records here that show that HUD is provided
approximately $2.5 billion each year in public housing
comprehensive grants.
Ms. Laster. Yes.
Mr. Tierney. Now, some of that money has to be diverted
toward security measures?
Ms. Laster. Yes.
Mr. Tierney. Chicago, I understand, alone, spent
$43,777,157 of its 1997 comprehensive grant, or 38 percent of
that funding, on security.
Ms. Laster. Right.
Mr. Tierney. In 1998, HUD spent $243,736,400 on the Public
Housing Drug Elimination Program, with about 46 percent of
those funds going to security, law enforcement, investigators,
and tenant patrols. Does that sound accurate?
Ms. Laster. Yes, sir.
Mr. Tierney. So, would you agree with me that somewhere in
the broad authority of the Housing Department is some
obligation to see that if there were a way to reasonably and
legitimately decrease those expenditures so the money could be
used elsewhere to better people's welfare and housing
conditions, that would be your duty to investigate that?
Ms. Laster. Yes.
Mr. Tierney. In fact, I suspect that is exactly what HUD
was doing as it started these conversations with the various
housing authorities and legal people.
Ms. Laster. Right. That was the purpose.
Mr. Tierney. Now, the fact that Congress chooses not to
act, the fact that the majority chooses to tuck this issue way
back somewhere ought not, in my estimation, to impede the
agencies for whom there is responsibility to act. I, for one,
am glad to see that you are moving in that direction. Is there
anything that you have seen, in the authorizing language for
HUD, that would prohibit you from taking on the responsibility
of making these inquiries?
Ms. Laster. No. We have seen nothing that would prohibit us
from entering in this course of conduct.
Mr. Tierney. In fact, if you wanted to be totally
responsible and pursue it, did you see anything that would
prohibit you from actually spending money toward making those
inquiries?
Ms. Laster. No.
Mr. Tierney. Have you had any resistance from any of the
housing authorities asking that you not help them out by
looking into ways to address this severe financial burden of
violence and security?
Ms. Laster. No. I do not know if I would characterize it as
``resistance.'' The situation is that they are coming to us. We
are having conversations. We have not made any formal
proposals. We have not suggested anything. We have not done
anything to resist, frankly. We have just had general
discussions.
Mr. Tierney. Now, do you have any idea of how many people
in the housing authority properties are teenagers or children?
Ms. Cousar. There are approximately two and a half to three
children per household in public housing. We have about 1.3
million households in public housing.
Mr. Tierney. I would suspect the gun violence has
proportionately, at least, affected these children?
Ms. Cousar. Most certainly. We have, for example, in the
District of Columbia, for the city as a whole in 1997, there
were 463 murders; 225 of those murders were in public housing.
Over 70 percent of them involved handguns. A significant
portion of those were connected with youth gang violence.
Mr. Tierney. So, it is just not surprising that Katherine
Christoffer who is a children's advocate who writes for
Children's Environments says, ``The firearm injury epidemic,
due largely to handgun injuries, is 10 times larger than the
polio epidemic of the first half of this century.''
I find it surprising that Congress would in any way try to
suggest that HUD ought not try to do something about this. The
fact of the matter is that in 1996, 2,866 children were
murdered with guns. I think that would, I hope that would,
resonate.
Let me stop my questioning because I think that the point
is obvious that I am a little bit embarrassed with Congress,
the majority, that they would have you here, as I think, brow-
beating you to back-off of a responsibility that I think you
are rightfully moving forward on.
There is a quote from one of the former senior vice
presidents of Smith and Wesson, Robert Haas. He said, ``The
Company and the industry as a whole are fully aware of the
extent of the criminal misuse of handguns. The Company and the
industry are also aware that the black market in handguns is
not simply the result of stolen handguns, but is due to the
seepage of handguns into the illicit market for multiple
thousands of unsupervised Federal handgun licensees.''
I think it is about time that we did something about it. I
commend the Department for not sitting by and waiting for
somebody else to act. I hope that you go forward with this and
not be intimidated by today's proceedings. Thank you.
Mr. Mica. I would now like to recognize Ms. Schakowsky.
Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for the
welcome. Thank you, Mrs. Mink, for welcoming me to this
committee. My seatbelt is fastened. Perhaps I can contribute to
the turbulence today as well. I come from a district that over
July 4th weekend was devastated by gun violence. People
peacefully coming home from a synagog were shot at.
A man walking with his children, who happened to be
African-American, was shot and killed by a hater. Someone said
this not just about hate. This is what happens when hate has a
gun. I come from a district that has a good deal of public
housing, particularly senior citizen housing.
I come from the city of Chicago where we, in 1997, spent 38
percent of our comprehensive grant funding, almost $44 million,
on security. I come from a city that has sued the gun
manufacturers. Mayor Daley has been a leading force in that. We
are pretty proud of that and hope that those suits are
successful. So, quite frankly, when I saw the article when it
appeared, my reaction was right-on. I am really glad that this
is happening.
I am a bit mystified why the tone of this would be to
suggest that something improper is going on, particularly when
I look actually at the language that provides that the
Secretary shall provide technical assistance and information,
including a clearing house service, to aid States, counties,
towns, villages, or other local governments in developing
solutions to community and metropolitan problems.
In Chicago, and throughout my district, no question, this
is a community-wide problem. What I would like to know, and
maybe you covered this in your opening statement. I am sorry
that I missed it. Were we not spending the 38 percent of this
money that came to us on security, what kinds of things would
those funds be available to do?
Ms. Cousar. They would be available to rehabilitate and
revitalize distressed public housing properties in the city of
Chicago. To do renovations, to do repairs, to do maintenance,
to turn around vacancies. That is the intention and the purpose
of the Comprehensive Grant Program. To provide improvement in
the management and operation of the public housing.
Ms. Schakowsky. So, we have had trouble with elevators that
do not work in public housing. So, that would be one of the
ways that the funds could be used?
Ms. Cousar. Most certainly.
Mr. Simpson. If I could amplify on that response. HUD
recently issued a study detailing the fact that there are still
5.3 million Americans that are in need of affordable housing.
So, we are not only talking about the needs for the existing
public housing residents, but additional people out there who
could benefit from federally subsidized housing.
The needs are acute. If these demands were not being made
on the present funds that we are expending for security, it
would be available to expand the housing that we are offering.
Ms. Schakowsky. Well, that comment certainly strikes home
with me, given the VA-HUD appropriation that was just announced
that severely cuts into some funds that would be available for
public housing. It breaks all of our hearts in Chicago, but it
is absolutely necessary, because we have had story-after-story
of pretty dramatic shootings of children on their way to school
from public housing that have been shot. In our view, nothing
could be more important than exploring every kind of avenue. I
really do not even have any questions to ask because for me, my
district, and my town this is kind of a no-brainer. We
certainly agree that we should be doing what we can to address
this crisis, particularly as it affects residents of public
housing.
So, I really do not have anything else to ask. If there is
anything that I and my Office can do to be helpful in making
those buildings more secure in my district and beyond, I am
certainly happy to do that.
Mr. Mica. I thank the gentle lady.
We will do a quick second round of additional questions. I
have a couple, if I may. Thank you. I was interested in some of
the statistics that have been cited, particularly since we
brought up the District of Columbia. I think you said there
were 463 murders?
Ms. Cousar. For the city as a whole in 1997.
Mr. Mica. How many in public housing?
Ms. Cousar. It was 225.
Mr. Mica. It was 225; almost half of them. I thought the
district had some of the tightest gun control policies in the
Nation. Is that not true?
Ms. Laster. That is correct. I used to be a Public Defender
here.
Mr. Mica. Could you tell me about enforcement? Is there a
tough enforcement policy at public housing? I mean, this is
criminal to have that percentage of murders. It is
unconscionable. Is there some prosecution? Certainly, if we
have Federal responsibility, if we do not have it in the
district, where do we have it? We have numerous Federal laws.
Are we going after these folks?
Ms. Laster. Again, if I could.
Mr. Mica. It is illegal to possess a gun in the district.
Ms. Laster. It is.
Mr. Mica. Whether you are in public housing or somewhere
else.
Ms. Laster. Right. As you said, Mr. Chairman, that some of
the strongest possession laws in the country are right here.
Mr. Mica. Are right here.
Ms. Laster. The issue, if I might.
Mr. Mica. Do you have an active prosecution program to go
after folks that have guns in housing projects?
Ms. Laster. Well, sir, we would not prosecute. Again, that
is a criminal matter.
Mr. Mica. Do we have any kind of a program?
Ms. Laster. Certainly, Public Housing Authorities have
their own duties.
Mr. Mica. That is a disgrace. That is a national disgrace.
Then somebody told me that 70 percent are by handguns. What the
hell are we doing with the other 30 percent? We do not care if
you are stabbed, or strangled to death, or beaten through
spouse abuse to when you have no life left in you? Do we have a
program for that, that we are considering?
Ms. Cousar. If I may.
Mr. Mica. Go right ahead.
Ms. Cousar. The District of Columbia Housing Authorities
are working in concert with the Metropolitan Police Department
in attempting to stem the tide of gun- related violence and
crime involving drugs and domestic violence that has plagued
the city.
Mr. Mica. The Department has a program that we spent $1.3
billion on drug elimination. If anything ties murder into death
in the district or public housing, it is drugs. In my district
that we held hearings of this subcommittee, 70 percent of the
people in prison, or deaths, are drug-related, it has got to be
that high or higher in our public housing projects. Do we have
a program that is getting to the root of these problems, which
is drugs?
Ms. Cousar. Yes, sir.
Mr. Mica. Are we spending in excess of $1.3 billion? Is
that correct?
Ms. Cousar. $1.3 billion does not come to the district.
Mr. Mica. No, but nationally.
Ms. Cousar. Nationally.
Mr. Mica. How much comes to the district?
Ms. Cousar. I can get that for you. I did not get the
specific amount, but what I wanted to point out there are
efforts to arrest persons who have illegal possession of
firearms. That is what those charts show over there, everywhere
you see a black icon.
Mr. Mica. Why is it not working?
Ms. Laster. Well, the availability. It is just simply the
availability and proliferation of handguns.
Mr. Mica. Well, how can it not work here and you take the
largest metropolitan area of the United States, New York City,
where Mr. Giuliani is mayor? When he came into office, they
were right in the range of 2,000 murders, probably the same
percent of them, 70 percent by guns, in a city with a
population of maybe 10 million to 12 million. There were 600
murders last year and there are 463 in the District of
Columbia. Almost half of those are in public housing. What is
wrong?
Mr. Simpson. Congressman, if I could try to address your
concerns. HUD does spend a great deal of money, energy, and
programmatic resources in trying to address the problem.
Mr. Mica. And it sounds like it is not very effectively
expended.
Mr. Simpson. But all of those efforts cannot eliminate the
problem of gun violence. We cannot rest on only one approach.
Mr. Mica. So, what should we do, pass more gun laws in the
District of Columbia?
Mr. Simpson. I think that is a decision for Congress to
make.
Mr. Mica. What about zero-tolerance? What about zero-
tolerance?
Mr. Simpson. For drugs, guns, I am sorry?
Mr. Mica. For violence, for crime, gun possession.
Mr. Simpson. We certainly have.
Mr. Mica. Talk prosecution.
Mr. Simpson. We have allowed housing authorities to
implement policies that embody a one-strike-and-you-are-out
concept.
Mr. Mica. I think this is a national disgrace. I think it
is a scam to go after manufacturers in this fashion when we
have spent billions of dollars in the district. I saw pictures
of the district housing on television, which was bankrupt when
we took over the majority in Congress. I would not have put my
dog in public housing in the city. It was a disgrace. Rat-
infested and forcing people, who are poor, elderly, and infirm
to live in those kinds of conditions.
Then come up here and tell me that you are going to New
York on a hunt and not paying attention to problems. The
district has been cited time and time again. I did not want to
get into this. Even their General Accounting Office has
numerous long-standing deficiencies and calls your programs
high-risk for operation. To me, it is a disgrace. I have no
further questions. Mrs. Mink.
Mrs. Mink. Mr. Chairman, I want you to know that your light
was not on.
Mr. Mica. I must confess, I told them not to put the light
on.
Mrs. Mink. I only make that comment because the moment I
took my mic, the light went on.
Mr. Mica. My personal light was on.
Mrs. Mink. That was obvious. I think all of us are very
deeply concerned about the crime rates in the District of
Columbia. Frankly, I am very, very pleased that they are tough
on gun possession and all of those things. I am very disturbed,
nonetheless, that the murder rate in the district continues
unabated it seems.
Now, with respect to the gun violence in the housing units
over which you have some knowledge, has there been any
indication, since the enactment of the gun laws in the
district, of any lowering of violence in the public housing
units?
Ms. Cousar. We have seen some decline in the level of
murders and in the level of gun-related crime. What the
officials at the housing authority tell me is that the security
and the police feel like they are swimming up-stream because of
just the mass availability of firearms and weapons. They make
the arrests. The arrests have increased. You can see the
arrests all over the community and throughout public housing.
That is what our resources support.
Mrs. Mink. How many arrests are there in the district that
you are aware of involving public housing units for possession
of guns?
Ms. Cousar. In 1997, which are the most current figures
that we have, 1,090 arrests alone for possession of firearms.
Mrs. Mink. That was in 1997. Do you have any figures for
1998?
Ms. Cousar. The 1998 figures are not complete yet.
Mrs. Mink. So, do you have any criticism against the police
department, prosecutors, and so forth in their enforcement of
the gun laws in the district? Have you had discussions with the
district officials with respect to your concerns about violence
in the public housing units in the district?
Ms. Cousar. Within the district's public housing, I have
had discussions with the staff who are at the front lines. They
lament that we need to do more. We need to do more to stem the
tide of the availability of guns that come across the borders
of the district from places like Virginia and Maryland. They
find their way into the communities and into the hands of
people who really should not have guns.
No one is licensed to carry a gun in the District of
Columbia, yet the guns are getting in. They are getting in from
outside of the district. Now, the police do what they can
inside the district to arrest. Our jails are full. There are
frequent arrests made. Again, that is not enough and our
resources can only go so far.
Mr. Simpson. If I could followup. Ms. Cousar raises an
important point. This same theme has emerged in many of the
suits brought by the cities and counties in identifying
suburban outlying areas, gun dealers located in those areas,
being responsible for an inordinately large number of gun
traffic that could not possibly be satisfied by a legal demand
in and around those areas.
Tracing reveals that those guns disproportionately are
ending up being used in the urban areas; despite the existence
of local gun control laws, and being used in crimes. Over 50
percent of the guns used in crimes are distributed by 1 percent
of the distributors.
Some of those distributors really can be charged with
constructive knowledge of the extent to which their supplying
of these distributors is contributing to criminal activities.
Those kinds of theories are being explored by the local housing
authorities. It is a significant problem. I think it deserves
their attention.
Mrs. Mink. So, even if the district has tough gun
possession law, if the guns are permitted to come in from
Maryland and Virginia, the district is a hapless victim of the
inability of these other communities to do anything about their
gun distribution problems. Is that the tenor of your statement?
Mr. Simpson. That is absolutely correct. I think it is that
phenomenon of the relative impotence of isolated localities.
Chicago, itself, also has strict gun laws and similarly has
filed a suit with this exact same theme. That is what the
cities and counties are looking at, in terms of possible
responsibility for at least some gun manufacturers and their
distribution practices.
Those practices could be changed without any significant
incursion on second amendment rights or what have you to the
significant benefit, in terms of administering the flow of guns
to people who are likely to use them in criminal activities.
That is, I think, all that is at issue with respect to many of
the suits that have been brought.
Mrs. Mink. Going back to the initial question which
prompted these hearings, and that is the responsibility, or
authority, or lack thereof of the Department of reviewing these
matters having to do with gun violence in public housing units
all across the country.
It would seem to me that if I were a tenant in a public
housing unit, and I realized there was this rampant threat upon
my life and the life of my family members because of guns in
the possession of persons around, near, or in the public
housing unit, that I would hold the Department, HUD Department,
or the housing agency responsible if anything happened to my
family.
That sense of holding the Department responsible would also
give me the right to sue the Department as a defendant. So, if
the Department understood the vehemence with which I am sure
many of the tenants feel that their safety is being
jeopardized, it would be derelict on the part of the Department
not to do everything that it could to assure the safety of the
tenants in these units, including collaborating, joining
forces, giving advice and assistance to those cities, counties,
and housing authorities that are moving forward on their own
initiatives to do something about it.
In the defense of the Department to assure that it cannot
be charged with negligence or dereliction of duty with respect
to the safety of their tenants. It would seem to me that it is
incumbent upon the Department to collaborate, and join forces,
and provide whatever assistance that they could.
So, I think that the chairman's recognition of the severity
of the problems that exist here in the district and our
colleague in Chicago requires the Department. So, I think the
inquiry underscores the promptness and legitimacy of the
Department's action in this sense. So, I thank the chairman for
his inquiry. Thank you.
Mr. Mica. Thank you. Mr. Barr.
Mr. Barr. Thank you. There have been some very intriguing
legal theories discussed today. There have been some very
passionate expositions of public policy. I would hope though,
Ms. Laster, that you would recognize and agree with me that
whatever policies HUD engages in, no matter what people might
feel in their heart, or just feel is the right thing to do, or
it makes us feel good, or despite whatever legal theory one
concocts, as was just done to engage in lawsuits, has to be
built on something more than sand.
Does it not have to be based, that is any action that HUD
might undertake as a Federal agency, have to be based on
authority, legal authority to do so?
Ms. Laster. Yes. But I would argue that it can be both
general or specific.
Mr. Barr. Well, apparently you think HUD can do anything
literally. This is an astounding legal theory, although it is
consistent, I grant you, with virtually everything we see from
this administration. Apparently, some Members in Congress have
this same view. That so long as there is no expressed
prohibition on a Federal agency doing anything at all, it is
legal. It is OK to do so. That is a preposterous legal theory.
I am not amazed that the folks on the other side subscribe to
it because it justifies involving the Government in everything
they want to get it involved in.
Mrs. Mink. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. Barr. No.
Mrs. Mink. That is simply not my point of view.
Mr. Barr. I did not attribute it to you. I attributed it to
other strange legal theories. The problem here is that if you
say that a Federal agency can do anything it wants, so long as
there is no expressed prohibition, then you are saying a
Federal agency can do anything it wants to do.
That amazes me that you apparently, on the one hand, Ms.
Laster, recognize and responded to my earlier question that
yes, there has to be legal authority. Then you keep turning
simply to the general language of a statute that says that the
Department of Housing and Urban Development will engage in
housing activities, and that includes providing a safe
environment.
Ms. Laster. Well, sir, it really has not been the
Department's position that we can do anything.
Mr. Barr. Well, that is obvious because there are a lot of
things you have not been doing.
Ms. Laster. Right. But I think we are talking about the
safety issues.
Mr. Barr. Well, let us talk about safety issues. You
apparently because that simply because HUD is charged generally
with providing a safe environment, that it can sue gun
manufacturers?
Ms. Laster. No. That was not our statement.
Mr. Barr. Then what is the authority under which the
Department would engage in discussions with outside lawyers
involving lawsuits against manufacturers of firearms?
Ms. Laster. Well, to be clear, it is not that HUD would sue
gun manufacturers. We have been engaging in discussions about
Public Housing Authorities.
Mr. Barr. You have not ruled that out?
Ms. Laster. I am sorry. I thought I did in answering all of
your questions.
Mr. Barr. No. You said, HUD has no intention, at this time,
of becoming a plaintiff in any lawsuit against the gun industry
or any component thereof.
Ms. Laster. Well then, I did not speak clearly. I did mean
to make clear that HUD, the HUD that I work for, this
administration that I am working for, has no plans to sue the
gun manufacturing industry. Now, what I could not give you
assurances on are the issues of third party and also the issue
of an amicus brief, which indeed is not necessarily suing, but
it would be coming in on the side of somebody who has already
sued. However, I do want to be clear that HUD, itself, has no
plans to sue gun manufacturers. However, the theories we have
been talking about, and if you would like to talk about that
further, include Public Housing Authorities.
Mr. Barr. No. I think Mr. Simpson has viewed them very
well. He has made his position very clear with regard to the
issue. Let us talk about safety though. There are problems of
alcohol abuse in Federal-subsidized housing projects; are there
not?
Ms. Laster. Yes, sir.
Mr. Barr. Have you engaged in any discussions with outside
attorneys to bring lawsuits or possible lawsuits against the
alcoholic beverages industry?
Ms. Laster. Not to my knowledge.
Mr. Barr. There are automobile accidents on housing
projects. Is not that correct?
Ms. Laster. That is correct.
Mr. Barr. Why have you not engaged therefore, under the
same legal theory that you think provides the justification for
you to engage in outside discussions with lawyers involving
possible suits against the gun industry, why have you not
similarly engaged, pursuant to this very broad theory that you
say you have authority to do anything that would protect people
in public housing, why have you not similarly engaged in
discussions with the automobile lawyers to sue automobile
manufacturers?
Ms. Laster. Because the facts of the circumstances are
different. We believe that in the case of the gun
manufacturers, there has been a credible argument about perhaps
the negligence of certain gun manufacturers.
Mr. Barr. That is very revealing. There lies your view on
this. I think that what you are indicating is you have a policy
view that it is legitimate to do this. Do you think it is
legitimate to hold gun manufacturers responsible or the illegal
use of their lawful product?
Ms. Laster. The Department is looking at these lawsuits and
examining the lawsuits.
Mr. Barr. You cannot derive the legal authority from simply
that the Department looks at it. The legal authority has to be
there in the first place.
Ms. Laster. Well, sir, no lawsuits have been instituted.
So, to say the Department has this policy when there are no
lawsuits that have been filed, is incorrect. HUD has no
intention of filing a lawsuit, and we did not make a policy
determination.
Mr. Barr. But there still has to be legal justification,
not just to bring a lawsuit, but to engage in certain
activities. That is what I keep trying to get back to. There
are press reports that the Department has already asked
several, not just one, this silk stocking firm in New York, but
several outside law firms to consider drafting legal action.
That is the Wall Street Journal. Is that statement
categorically incorrect?
Ms. Laster. Yes.
Mr. Barr. OK. So, it is a lie that the Department has had
several outside law firms to consider drafting legal action?
Ms. Laster. I would not use the term ``lie.'' That is not
my term. I would say that we have not asked any law firm to
``draft a complaint.'' We have certainly talked to law firms.
Mr. Barr. That is not what it says. It says, ``consider
drafting legal action.''
Ms. Laster. Well, that term is imprecise. So, to the extent
that, that term means drafting a complaint to initiate a
lawsuit, we have not done that.
Mr. Barr. There we get back to the parsing that the
President so loves to do.
Ms. Laster. OK.
Mr. Tierney. Are you accusing the Wall Street Journal of
parsing?
Mr. Barr. The Wall Street Journal goes on to say that,
``HUD Secretary Andrew Cuomo privately has expressed interest
in finding a way to get involved in the anti-gun litigation.''
Has the Secretary been involved in any discussions, either on
the phone or in person with any outside lawyers or groups to
involve HUD in these lawsuits?
Ms. Laster. Not to my knowledge.
Mr. Barr. You discussed this very briefly earlier, that
there had been this one trip to the firm in New York.
Ms. Laster. Yes, sir.
Mr. Barr. Have there been telephone discussions with
outside law firms or lawyers?
Ms. Laster. Yes, sir.
Mr. Barr. Have there been any meetings at any HUD offices
where the HUD people did not have to travel to the law firm,
but the lawyers came to HUD?
Ms. Laster. Yes, sir.
Mr. Barr. Do you have a list of those? Can you provide us
the details on those meetings?
Ms. Laster. I can provide you that list, sir.
Mr. Barr. When they took place, who they were with?
Ms. Laster. Yes.
Mr. Barr. And the substance of the discussions?
Mr. Mica. If we could begin to conclude.
Mr. Barr. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Mica. Thank you. Mr. Tierney, did you have anything?
Mr. Tierney. First of all, I want to say that I am just
shocked, absolutely shocked, to find out that a newspaper might
have gotten something wrong or not entirely accurate. It seems
the newspapers generate hearings like this from time-to-time. I
am still shocked that my earlier statements are that we end up
having a hearing days after a story runs.
It appears that we are doing discovery, to use the legal
term, for the gun industry here to find out all that we can for
them to benefit whatever defenses they may want to put up. I
would suspect, Ms. Laster, that what the Department is doing is
trying to determine whether or not there is a valid legal
theory under which anyone might proceed.
Ms. Laster. That is correct.
Mr. Tierney. You are not going on proposing legal theories.
You are questioning counsel to find out whether or not there is
some theory.
Ms. Laster. Right, and getting their opinion.
Mr. Tierney. I understand the chairman's peak at all of the
circumstances in the district, but the fact of the matter is
the district has undertaken, on the local level, to ban
possession of handguns; correct?
Ms. Laster. That is correct.
Mr. Tierney. Therein lies the problem. It is not lack of
enforcement with 1,090 possession arrests in 1997. Certainly, I
think you would be a little stretched to say that they are not
doing anything. What the problem seems to be is exactly the
theory you might inquire.
Are the gun manufacturers at all responsible for the fact
that they allow guns to go into an area where the local
community has undertaken to ban possession, allow these people
to come in from Virginia or wherever else, to get a gun and
bring it back?
That seems to be what we are talking about here, why there
may be a need to look at this in a broader perspective. That
may be one of the theories, as I read earlier. There are people
that are former vice presidents of some of these gun
manufacturers that say the companies and the industries are
aware of the black market of handguns.
They know that it is simply not the result of stolen
handguns, but due to seepage of handguns into the illicit
market for multiple thousands of unsupervised Federal handguns
licensees. I would suspect that some people could make the
claim that they are also aware that people leave D.C. or other
cities where they have tried to ban handgun possession, travel
elsewhere and get guns very easily, and bring them back into an
area. That is, in fact, what these theories are talking about.
I am somewhat chagrined that Congress would undertake to try
and impede the third branch of this Government, the courts,
from having some say in what is legal or not legal, if people
want to proceed on some legal theories.
We are three branches of government. When Congress fails to
act, as we have so desperately failed around here to do
anything on this issue, that we see that people want their
rights protected. We would probably turn to the courts to see
if there was not some remedy from time-to-time. Alcohol, I
assume, is not banned. Possession of alcohol is not illegal in
D.C. Is that correct?
Ms. Laster. That is correct.
Mr. Tierney. And probably why you are not running around
seeing if lawyers came up with theories as to what you are
going to do about that. I suspect automobiles have not been
outlawed lately in D.C. Clearly, possession of guns has been
illegal. Yet, there seems to be such easily accessible guns
nearby, or just over the border, or whatever. That is the
problem and that is why you are seeking some remedy.
Those that would want to stop the use of handguns, or
lawsuits against handguns for their misuse or whatever, what is
their misuse, when you shoot and you miss? I mean, basically
these are weapons that are designed to shoot and hit something.
I think that we ought to act as a Congress here. The fact that
we are here today trying to stop HUD from acting as a clearing
house for local housing authorities that are facing this severe
problem, to find some way if Congress will not get up and act,
that maybe they would look to see if there was some remedy
elsewhere. That seems, to me, fairly reasonable.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Mica. Thank you. Ms. Schakowsky.
Ms. Schakowsky. Again, I am really confused by this
hearing. Maybe it is because it is my first on this
subcommittee. Talking about the problems in D.C., yet I recall
a proposal from the Republican side of the aisle that would
have actually reversed some of the gun safety laws in the
district and made guns more available, as if that might be some
kind of solution to something.
I wanted to quote from the gun maker IntraTech who
advertised one of its weapons as ``an assault-type pistol''
that ``has excellent resistence to fingerprints.'' In
discussing the add, IntraTech sales director says, ``Hey, it is
talked about. It is read about. The media write about it. That
generates more sales for me. It might sound cold and cruel, but
I am sales oriented.''
When you have an industry that says that it has excellent
resistence to fingerprints, I do not think they are talking
about just making this weapon dirty in some way. They are
talking about how to evade criminal prosecution and advertising
that. I think that when we are looking for strategies, not just
a single strategy, but strategies on how to make housing safer,
that exploring all of them makes a lot of sense to me.
Banning handguns is one way. We have talked about how hard
it is when they are available elsewhere. Then another strategy
may be to have security guards. Another strategy is to look at
how can we stop the proliferation of weapons. This seems, to
me, to be searching for a solution, looking for a problem or
something. I do not understand what the problem is here again.
So, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Mica. I thank the gentle lady.
I would like to thank our first panel, Ms. Laster, Mr.
Simpson, and Ms. Cousar, for their participation today.
Obviously, we have some very serious problems in our public
housing, both in violence and crime. Obviously, we have some
disagreement about the solutions.
We look forward to working with you, the Secretary, other
officials at HUD, and members of this panel in helping to
resolve some of those problems and make some meaningful
changes. So, I will let you all be dismissed at this time. I
will ask our second panel to come forward. Thank you.
[Pause.]
Mr. Mica. The second panel consists of the police chief of
the city of Baltimore Housing Authority, Mr. Hezekiah Bunch. We
also have Mr. James Chambers, executive director of the
Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturers' Institute. We lost
one person in the second round, one witness in the second
round.
Mr. Jeff Reh, general counsel of the Beretta Corp.; Mr.
Donald Zilkah, chairman of the board of Colt's Manufacturing;
and Mr. Pal Jannuzo, general counsel of Glock, Inc. I would
like to welcome our witnesses on this second panel.
Again, we are an investigations and oversight subcommittee
of Congress. Maybe you heard my directive that we do swear in
our witnesses for the purpose of testimony. We do try to limit
your opening statement to 5 minutes and then we will have a
round of questions.
If you could please stand and be sworn. Would you raise
your right hand please? Do you solemnly swear or affirm that
the testimony you are about to give before this subcommittee of
Congress is the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
[Witnesses sworn.]
Mr. Mica. The witnesses answered in the affirmative. Again,
if you have any lengthy statements, or additional information
you may like to have made a part of the record, we would be
glad to do that upon request. I am going to recognize first Mr.
Donald Zilkah, who is chairman of the board of Colt
Manufacturing. I understand he has to leave. We apologize for
the delay. You are recognized.
STATEMENTS OF HEZEKIAH BUNCH, CHIEF OF POLICE, CITY OF
BALTIMORE HOUSING AUTHORITY; JAMES CHAMBERS, EXECUTIVE
DIRECTOR, SPORTING ARMS AND AMMUNITION, MANUFACTURERS'
INSTITUTE, INC.; JEFF REH, GENERAL COUNSEL, BERETTA CORP.;
DONALD ZILKAH, CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD, COLT'S MANUFACTURING; AND
PAUL JANNUZO, GENERAL COUNSEL, GLOCK, INC.
Mr. Zilkah. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I apologize that I have to leave. Thank you, Mr. Chairman,
and members of the subcommittee for inviting me here to speak.
I want to begin by expressing my sympathies and regrets to
those who have been victims or have suffered as a result of
crime and, particularly, those perpetrated by the use of
handguns. These are truly unfortunate situations that Colt
deplores, along with the rest of the industry.
With respect to today's testimony, I am grateful for the
opportunity to discuss with you the devastating effect these
lawsuits are having on legitimate business owners and, in
particular, on my company, Colt. While I certainly appreciate
the politics involved in the firearms debate, and the
importance of protecting the second amendment, today I want to
stress to you the business aspects of what these lawsuits will
do to our country.
This so-called municipal firearm litigation threatens a
legitimate business, important to the national defense, and by
targeting Colt, an industry leader in safety, it may well-
undermine the very safety purposes the litigation purports to
serve. At its core, the purpose of the backers of this
legislation, is to make unlawful that which Congress has
determined is lawful, the sale of firearms.
As we all know, if used responsibly, firearms serve
legitimate and important purposes, including the national
defense, law enforcement, self-defense, and sporting and
collector uses. Congress has weighed the benefits and risks of
firearms, and has considered the issue of personal choice and
responsibility, and properly has determined not to outlaw
firearms, but to regulate their sale, possession, and use.
In sharp contrast to the long and considered judgment of
Congress, the backers of the municipal firearms litigation now
attempt to turn to the courts to have them declare unlawful
that which Congress has determined should be lawful, and to
prevent law abiding citizens from obtaining our product. Their
method is to put us out of business.
Despite the lack of merit in these lawsuits, they may
succeed even before any of us have the opportunity to obtain
vindication in a courtroom. The legal fees that we are
incurring and expect to incur will be astronomical. Conducting
everyday business operations has become very difficult. We are
faced with dilemmas that I do not believe the plaintiffs
understand or appreciate.
In particular, I am sure they have not considered the
effect these suits may well have on our country's military, and
the ability of a company to conduct the very safety research
and development they claim we are not doing. Colt's
Manufacturing is one of the oldest manufacturers in the world.
We have been a company long known for our ingenuity and skill.
In fact, one of the first key customers to our company was
the U.S. Armed Forces. While our company was founded with the
issuance of the U.S. patent in 1836 to Samuel Colt for the Colt
Revolver, sales of the product did not take off immediately. As
a result, Sam Colt tuned his attention to selling the U.S.
Government in 1842 on his ideas for waterproof ammunition,
underwater mines for harbor defense and, in association with
the inventor Samuel F.B. Morris, the telegraph.
When the Mexican War began in 1846, Captain Samuel H.
Walker of the U.S. Army traveled east, looked up Sam Colt and
collaborated on the design of a new more powerful revolver.
Within a week, the U.S. Ordinance Department ordered 1,000 of
the newly designed revolver, which Sam Colt called the Walker.
He turned to Eli Whitney, Jr., the son of the famous
inventor of the cotton gin, who had a factory in Connecticut,
where the order was completed and shipped by mid-1847. By 1856,
the company was producing 150 weapons a day, and the product's
reputation for exceptional quality, workmanship, safety, and
design had spread around the world.
In fact, the Governor of the State of Connecticut awarded
the honorary title of Colonel to Sam Colt. Our company's
relationship with the U.S. Armed Forces remains today one of
the focal points of our business. We are the sole supplier of
the M-16 rifle and M-4 carb into the U.S. military, as well as
many of our allies.
In fact, we continue to work with the military to develop
new products to protect our Armed Forces and bring them to the
highest technology available. Despite the fierce competition
and frequent awards to the lowest bidder, we have not and will
not let the quality of our product waiver. Our products have
always been of the highest quality, and will continue to be so.
We believe, in fact, that we remain a major U.S. military
supplier, because of our ability to provide the highest quality
at a reasonable cost. One of the reasons we are able to do so,
is because of the efficiencies we achieved as the result of our
commercial business.
In fact, the Army conducted a study in 1994, and has
produced several documents thereafter, which recommend
maintaining Colt as the sole supplier to the military because
of our commercial business.
In other words, it is less expensive for the U.S.
Government to maintain a commercial business supplier than it
is to maintain a supplier who supplies only the military.
Maintaining a company for pure industrial-based reasons means
that the Government has to keep a line warm. In most cases,
this means 2,000 rifles a month.
Colt is able to fluctuate its production from commercial to
military. Thus, saving the government significant amounts of
money. In short, the municipal firearms litigation puts the
viability of Colt at risk and, by doing so, jeopardizes
national defense.
The effects of this assault will not only have a negative
effect on our ability to keep our line warm for the military,
but if it forces us out of business, it also will leave the
military without an experienced base to turn to during a time
of crisis.
It would be more than 5 years, and significant government
investment, to return any of today's weapons to their current
level of operational ability. Another aspect of our business
that is jeopardized by the municipal firearms litigation is the
development of a personalized handgun.
Since I purchased the company in 1994, Colt has placed
great emphasis on the development of high-tech safety options,
including the so-called smart gun. As many of you know, the
numerous press accounts of our projects. We began working on
this program several years ago. In 1988, we received a grant
for $500,000 from the National Institute of Justice. Colt has
also invested a significant amount of our own funds into this
program. The $500,000 the government has awarded us is clearly
not enough for an investment to move this program to a
commercially viable product.
In fact, the Army is currently developing a new firearm
with electronics on board. Despite their significant delays and
cost overruns, the project received over $30 million for
research and development this year. Nevertheless, our company
is committed to its development. Unfortunately, the very
municipalities that are suing us because they believe we are
not interested in safety, are the ones who may prevent us from
completing this project.
The heavy financial burden of the municipal firearms
litigation clearly will continue to impede our progress and
possibly jeopardize its very existence. Mr. Chairman, the issue
of these lawsuits is one of paramount interest and concern to
our company.
When I purchased the company in 1994, I was always proud to
say that I have been able to keep the history of Sam Colt
alive. I fear, however, that this history may be coming to an
end. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Zilkah follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5463.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5463.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5463.016
Mr. Mica. Thank you for your testimony.
I would now like to recognize Mr. James Chambers, executive
director of the Sporting Arms Ammunition Manufactures'
Institute, Inc.
Mr. Chambers. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee,
on behalf of the Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturers'
Institute, I want to begin by thanking you for inviting me here
to present the firearm industry perspective on the issue of
possible Federal lawsuits against gun manufacturers.
I believe, as do many legal experts, and leaders in other
industries, that a government lawsuit, such as the one being
contemplated by Secretary Cuomo, sets a dangerous precedent
that will serve to undermine and erode the power of Congress,
while opening up all sectors of the U.S. economy to a
debilitating free-for-all of class action lawsuits.
First, let me briefly explain the background of my
organization. SAAMI is an association of the Nation's leading
manufacturers of sporting firearms, ammunition, and components.
We were founded in 1926, at the urging of President Calvin
Coolidge and Congress. SAAMI is the primary organization that
represents the sporting arms and ammunition manufacturers
before the United States.
Our mandate is to work as a critical link between the
firearms industry and the government to develop, test, and
adopt technical standards for firearms and ammunition, while
taking a leading role in the safe and responsible use of a
firearm. I want to emphasize that our organization has spent
millions of dollars on firearm safety. We are seeing a very
disturbing trend in this country.
Trial lawyers have created alliances with State, local, and
now administration government officials, and are attempting to
use lawsuits or the threat of lawsuits to dictate increased
regulation of the gun industry not sanctioned by Congress. I
think this is best summed up by a statement former Secretary of
Labor, Robert Reich, recently wrote in USA Today. ``The era of
big Government might be over, but the era of regulation through
litigation has just begun.''
Mr. Chairman, this scares me. At this moment, we have trial
lawyers running around the country trying to convince State
attorneys general, city mayors, and housing authorities to jump
on the lawsuit bandwagon. Their sales pitch is an irresistible
mix of free money and public attention. They say, let us
represent you. We sue for millions. We divvy up any settlement,
and you use your new money for roads and schools before the
next election.
Sir, by intoxicating government officials with visions of a
cash pipeline pumping out millions of dollars for their use,
without having to raise a single tax, the trial lawyers have
convinced 24 cities to join in this legal feeding frenzy. Gun
manufacturers, like the car, film, chemical, or thousands of
other legitimate industries make up the U.S. economy and
produce a legal product.
Firearms are enjoyed by tens of millions of people who use
them safely and responsibly. Blaming gun manufacturers for the
illegal use of their product is ludicrous. Should we blame a
car maker when a drunk driver kills a person? Is, for example,
Kodak responsible for the illegal use of its film in the vile
world of child pornography?
Perhaps we should hold chemical manufacturers responsible
for the production of illicit drugs. I think not, but trial
lawyers do and law abiding companies could be facing an
avalanche of lawsuits if common sense is not restored to our
legal process. What we are seeing now is an attempt by the
trial lawyers and anti-gun organizations to usurp the political
process.
After having been defeated time-after-time in their
continuing efforts to impose more strict gun control measures
within Congress, they have found that using the leverage of a
lawsuit and the implied threat of draining a company of
millions of dollars in legal fees can advance their agenda much
faster and with greater success than through the political
process where such issues should be decided.
This is a form of legal extortion. Trial lawyers and anti-
gun groups are betting that they stand a better chance of
convincing a 12-person jury, who are responsible to no one, of
their version of the restrictions that gun manufacturers and
owners should endure. Suddenly, we are finding ourselves
confronted with the fact that 12-person juries can supplant the
535 elected Members of our Congress.
I believe this represents a clear violation of our
collective civil rights. The courts, as the trial lawyers and
some organizations have found, is a perfect mechanism to take
the policy issue of guns in our society out of the political
sphere and into a setting where they can force settlements on
companies that can affect the entire country.
The Wall Street Journal article reporting HUD's exploration
of a lawsuit against the gun industry raises serious questions.
First, what basis is there for filing a lawsuit against a legal
product?
Second, considerable damage can be done to the firearms
industry if HUD decides to coerce or encourage some or all of
its 3,400 housing authorities that receive Federal funds to
file a similar case.
Third, HUD is apparently using outside counsel involved in
gun suits to find a nexus for HUD to file a claim.
Mr. Mica. If you could begin to conclude, sir. We have a
vote called and we are trying to limit this to 5 minutes. Thank
you.
Mr. Chambers. Well, what we can do to solve this is fall in
with Senator Mitch McConnell who has introduced the Litigation
Fairness Act 1269. I believe a companion bill will be
introduced in the House later on. It is a simple bill that will
force the government to adhere to the same rules that
individual citizens adhere to. I have in my hand here a letter
from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce that I would like to be
entered into the record.
Mr. Mica. Without objection; so ordered.
Mr. Chambers. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Chambers and the information
referred to follow:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5463.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5463.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5463.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5463.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5463.021
Mr. Mica. Thank you for your testimony.
We have time for one additional witness before we vote.
There is a vote called. Mr. Jeff Reh, you are recognized, sir.
You are general counsel of Beretta Corp.
Mr. Reh. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I had a longer version of this statement which is more
thorough that I would like to have entered into the record.
Mr. Mica. Without objection; so ordered. It will be made a
part of the record.
Mr. Reh. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee,
thank you for allowing Beretta U.S.A. to make a few comments to
you today. Beretta U.S.A. is the manufacturer of the standard,
service sidearm for the U.S. Armed Forces. We also supply
sidearms to over 2,000 law enforcement organizations of the
United States and Canada.
We are also proud to provide high quality, safe, and
reliable firearms to private citizens for self-defense and for
sporting use. News reports indicate that HUD is considering
joining 24 cities in filing lawsuits. I guess that we will find
out in the near future whether in fact they are actually going
to assist in that effort.
To the uninformed, such a suit may sound reasonable. What
these suits ignore though, is the fact that firearms are
overwhelmingly used in the United States to save lives.
Firearms are used defensively from 2.3 to 3 million times per
year. In 15.6 percent of these cases, the person using the
firearm defensively stated that they, ``almost certainly''
saved their life by doing so. This translates into hundreds of
thousands of lives saved per year.
It also translates into the fact that for every life
tragically lost by firearm misuse, up to 10 lives may be
thankfully saved. These suits ignore the fact that the
distribution of firearms by manufacturers is one of the most
heavily regulated activities in this country. At Beretta U.S.A,
we have extensive BATF audits of our records and practices for
weeks on end every year by BATF audit teams.
We are allowed by law to only sell to companies or
individuals who have, themselves, been audited and approved in
advance by BATF.
These suits ignore the widespread and long-standing efforts
voluntarily undertaken by the firearm industry to ensure that
its products are safely made, and responsibly kept, and
maintained.
For decades, industry members have shipped safe use and
storage instructions with the firearms they sell. We tell
parents, if you have a child and you have a gun, unload the
gun, lock it, and store the ammunition in a separate location.
Holding a manufacturer liable for a parent's decision to ignore
this basic safety rule would be as fair as holding Seagram's
responsible for a parent's decision to give a bottle of Vodka
to his 10-year-old son.
Gun locks are cheap, effective, and easy to obtain by
consumers. They have been for decades. Notwithstanding this,
almost all gun companies provide locks with their products.
Some, like Beretta U.S.A., provide free locks for any past or
present customer who wants one. You do not see the automobile
industry giving free infant car seats to its consumers.
As a consequence of these industry efforts, accidental
deaths involving firearms have declined over 40 percent in the
last 15 years. The number of accidental deaths involving
firearms is at its lowest level since 1903. This is during a
period in which the number of guns in circulation have
increased four-fold.
The firearm industry has acted for the cause of safety, not
because it has been forced to, but because it wants to do so.
The things I have told you about are things that occurred long
before a single city filed a lawsuit.
We also do more. We take active steps to keep guns out of
criminal hands. You may hear about dealers who sell guns
illegally.
We believe they should be prosecuted. What you do not hear
about is that the firearm industry is one of the chief sources
of information to the law enforcement community about criminal
attempts to obtain guns. Dealers work with police on a daily
basis on these issues. Multiple sales are reported immediately
to BATF.
Firearm manufacturers help the police by tracing guns found
at crime scenes. We work directly with police in crime
investigations.
Some have suggested that manufacturers should investigate
dealers themselves, but when a firearm manufacturer gets a
trace request from BATF, what is the one thing it knows? It
knows that the police are already on the job.
Our amateur attempts to investigate a dealer could get an
undercover officer killed, or even one of our employees killed.
In all of this discussion, we also need to bear in mind an
important point. We make firearms to save people's lives. A
firearm is perhaps unique in that its ability to save a
person's life depends upon its lethality.
Without a firearm, a woman may not be able to stop a rapist
or a murderer. Without a firearm, a shop owner may not be able
to stop a gang from robbing his store and killing him and his
family.
Poll-after-poll indicates that the American public
overwhelmingly opposes the lawsuits filed against the industry.
Why is that? Because the public knows that a criminal act is
the fact of the criminal.
Negligence in storing a gun is the fault of the owner.
These lawsuits against the industry will have a cost.
Litigation costs will drive prices up. This means that Federal,
State, and local law enforcement departments may not be able to
upgrade their weapons. The poor in the United States are most
often the victims of crime. They will be unable to buy firearms
in the future for self-defense.
These suits talk about safety, but they ask for money. If
these suits drive companies out of the industry, who will
supply sidearms to the Army and the Marine Corps? If the DEA
could no longer buy new handguns, it may have the Secretary of
HUD to thank for that problem. Who will supply firearms for the
personal protection of the American people?
The American people may still have a second amendment when
this is all over, but without the means by which that amendment
is exercised, it becomes an empty promise of self-determination
and self-defense. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Reh follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5463.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5463.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5463.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5463.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5463.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5463.027
Mr. Mica. Thank you for your testimony.
What we are going to do is recess now until 5 minutes after
the vote. Then we will come back and Chief Bunch will be
introduced by Mr. Cummings. He will be the first up and then
you will be the last witness.
So, we will stand in recess until about 5 minutes after the
vote. Thank you.
[Recess.]
Mr. Mica. Mr. Cummings is not back. So, we will go to Mr.
Jannuzo. If we can recognize him, and then we will get to the
Chief last. I wanted to give Mr. Cummings an opportunity to
introduce him. So, let us hear from Mr. Jannuzo who is the
general counsel of Glock, Inc. You are recognized, sir.
Mr. Jannuzo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the
subcommittee for this opportunity to testify here today on this
important issue, not only important to the firearms industry,
the Constitutional guarantees to the second amendment, the
firearms-owning public, but also to the future of Americans.
Glock is the largest supplier of law enforcement firearms
in the country. We proudly supply service weapons to the
Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Drug Enforcement Agency,
U.S. Customs, soon to be the Capitol Police, New York City
Police Department, Washington Metro, Boston, Philadelphia,
Baltimore, Savannah, and Miami, just to go up and down the East
Coast.
We also supply approximately 57 percent of all State and
local agencies that have transitioned to semi-automatic pistols
as their service weapons. Our industry has an enviable record
in regard to safety. In the last 20 years, accidental firearm
deaths among children have been reduced by 50 percent. What is
truly amazing about this, or truly telling about this, is that
this has been done without government interference or programs
and solely done by the private sector.
It is a tribute to the virtues of teaching self-reliance
and individual responsibility, quintessential American ideals,
and done by groups like the NRA, the Boy Scouts, and 4-H Clubs.
However, rather than being lauded for their children's safety
programs, they have been accused of increasing or promoting gun
deaths. Eddie Eagle, the theme character in NRA's award-
winning safety program has been called Joe Camel with feathers.
This unfair and unjustifiable comparison to tobacco is a
reoccurring mantra of the anti-gun forces. Apparently, they
believe the public has been sold on suing tobacco. So, everyone
else is fair game. I would suggest to the committee that we
seriously neglect the safety and welfare of our children by
keeping this sort of valuable safety information out of our
schools' curricular. It would seem that those who are in charge
of the schools' curricula have decided that this sort of
familiarity will not breed the contempt that they desire to
instill in our children for firearms.
Apparently, they have decided that a few more children's
lives are worth the inflammatory press and headlines they can
garner to push their cause. I am not saying everyone should
have a firearm. I am not saying there are not certain people
that certainly should not have firearms.
This is a decision that we, as citizens in a free country,
have to make for ourselves. We are certain, however, that if 51
percent of American households have a firearm in them, then our
children are more likely than not to be in a household with
firearms. If we have not taught them what to do at our schools
and in our homes, then we are putting them at-risk.
We teach our children to look both ways before they cross
the streets. We teach them not to drink the chemicals under the
sink, not to put their fingers in electrical sockets and most
recently for some reason, how to use condoms, but for some
reason or another, we have not taught them how to be safe
around firearms.
The other element of the proposed or contemplated suit by
HUD would apparently be the criminal use of firearms. We know
this because we have the experience of 24 other cities and
counties to draw upon now. Despite the fact that we have seen
violent crime dropping all over the country, despite the fact
that we have the experience of cities such as Boston and
Richmond to draw from, big city mayors and their tobacco
lawyers are still intent on absolving criminals of their deeds
and finding a scapegoat.
Boston and Richmond have instituted phenomenally successful
crime prevention programs; crime prevention programs
specifically addressed to crimes committed with firearms.
However, even though Boston has reduced its gang-related
violence with firearms to nearly non-existent levels in the
fist year and a half of the program, I have read in the Journal
this morning that they have been reduced by 60 percent over the
3 years of the program, Boston too has decided to sue our
industry.
In light of the fact that accident rates with firearms have
been reduced dramatically, and despite the fact that practical
experience with cities such as Boston and Richmond have taught
us that the most efficient and effective way of reducing
violence with firearms is the vigorous enforcement of existing
laws, coupled with the unwavering prosecution of those who
violate them.
Cities, counties, and now a department of our Federal
Government is contemplating suing us. In light of all of the
empirical evidence against such folly, one has to ask: why?
Luckily, it is a question that is easily answered. All you have
to do is review the press statements and clippings that have
been reported about the mayors who have filed suit. You can
find the insight that you need into Secretary Cuomo's
motivation.
It is simply that they are dissatisfied with the
legislature and are trying to end-run it. Mayor after mayor
have said that they have filed these suits because of the
legislature's failure to act. What they do not say, however, is
even more interesting. These suits, and the one threatened by
HUD, are the result of the mayors and other government
executives' failure to act.
The majority of the cities that have filed suit against the
industry have abysmal records on crime. These suits are an
abdication of their streets to criminals. Now, the abdication
of the housing authorities' 3,400 properties is being
contemplated. Since they have not been able to control crime,
they are allowing society's miscreants to dictate their
actions.
Since we do not want to arrest and certainly do not want to
incarcerate them, we want to instead absolve them of their
actions and look for a scapegoat. After all, it is probably not
their fault. We, as a society, have failed them somehow. Once
you couple this need for a scapegoat with the greed that has
been promulgated by a feeding at the tobacco trough, it is no
longer much of a mystery as to why these suits are being filed.
Mr. Tierney. Mr. Chairman, an inquiry. As riveting as this
is, I noticed that the light is on.
Mr. Mica. Yes. If you could begin to conclude. We are
trying to limit our testimony to 5 minutes.
Mr. Jannuzo. Simply, Mr. Chairman, I would say that these
suits, besides being without legal precedent in the United
States, are going to become the poster child to the law of
unintended consequences. When firearms cost $300 more, or
whatever it may be, as the result of this litigation and the
litigation costs, cities such as New York, who have a
approximately 36,000 police officers, are going to incur a bill
at some $11 million more than it would have been had this
litigation not taken place.
I, as a taxpayer, object. I am certain other people will
also. I would urge this committee to act and stop this folly
before it goes any further.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Jannuzo follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5463.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5463.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5463.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5463.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5463.032
Mr. Mica. Thank you for your testimony.
I am pleased at this time to yield for the purpose of an
introduction of our next witness. I recognize the distinguished
gentleman from Maryland, Mr. Cummings.
Mr. Cummings. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
It is my pleasure and my honor to introduce Chief Hezekiah
Bunch. Chief Bunch retired from the Baltimore City Police Force
after 22 years of service. He joined the Housing Authority
Police in 1993. He has been the head of the Authority Police
for 6 years. I might add that from 1996 to 1998, there were 494
shootings in Baltimore's public housing projects.
Let's note that it is the home to 50,000 tenants, our
housing projects, and over one-half of those folks are
children. So, it gives me great pleasure to introduce him
because he sees it from a front line situation. He sees where
these guns end up. He sees the pain that is brought upon
communities and families. He goes to the funerals. So, it is a
pleasure to have him.
Mr. Mica. Thank you. You are recognized, sir.
Mr. Bunch. Thank you, Mr. Cummings. Thank you, Mr. Chairman
and other subcommittee members for inviting me here today.
During my private and professional life, I have watched a
drastic change in the vehicle used to commit violent acts in
our society. This change has taken place from the use of hands,
to sticks and stones, to knives, and now to the use of
firearms.
Gun violence in and around public housing projects in
Baltimore is a great concern of the citizens of public housing,
law enforcement, the Housing Authority of Baltimore City, and
local officials. Between 1996 and 1998, as Mr. Cummings began
to talk about, the Baltimore City Police Department reported
the following gun-related violent crimes in and around public
housing in Baltimore.
The first one that Mr. Cummings noted was 494 shootings.
The next area was murders, which was 91 murders that occurred
in or around public housing. Rapes where firearms were used. It
was 25. Robberies in and around Baltimore's public housing were
958 for the same period. Aggravated assaults were 775.
The two most recent acts of gun violence took place in the
month of July 1999. The first act took place on July 17, 1999,
when a man was riding bike through one of our developments and
was shot during a robbery attempt. On July 26, 1999, a 17-year-
old boy was shot and killed in a parking lot in another one of
our developments.
As you can see, gun violence in and around public housing
in Baltimore is frightening. I have spoken to other chiefs of
police around the country. I have found that gun violence is
just as frightening or worse. Even with the success of programs
such as One Strike, Safe Home, HIDTA, FBI Safe Streets, ATF
Achilies, Drug Five, DEA Violent Trafficking Task Force, DEA
Felony Project, Violent Crimes Task Forces (Handgun Enforcement
Teams), Community Policing and other law enforcement activities
designed to reduce gun violence, there are still too many
people in and around public housing being killed, injured, and
intimidated by firearms.
My experience as a law enforcement officer has afforded me
the opportunity to travel and network with other law
enforcement officials from around the country. As a result, I
believe that the mere number of firearms that have been
produced, are currently being produced, and will be produced in
the future has already or has the potential to saturate each
and every community in this country.
With the enormous availability of firearms, the potential
for more and more citizens in and around public housing to
become victims of gun violence increases with each firearm that
is produced. What is HUD's role in litigation against gun
manufacturers? I see HUD's role in litigation against gun
manufacturers as being two-fold: that of a landlord and that of
a government entity.
HUD's primary responsibility, as the largest landlord in
this country, is to first protect the lives of its tenants,
employees, and any person or persons who may be on its
properties. If HUD does not do the things within its power to
accomplish this as a landlord, then HUD is not only open to
litigation itself, but also must continue to absorb the loss of
man hours due to gun violence against its employees.
HUD's role as a government entity is one of the protector
of all of those persons who it gives the opportunity to live in
its housing. HUD must also be allowed to be a responsible
entity of government who, when it has identified a threat to
the lives of those persons it is entrusted to protect, be
allowed by all means at its disposal to take action that will
save the lives of the citizens of this country. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Bunch follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5463.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5463.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5463.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5463.036
Mr. Mica. Thank you for your testimony.
I feel like I am almost an honorary citizen of Baltimore
having served with Mr. Cummings. He was our ranking member on
the former panel and does a great job representing Baltimore
and certainly telling us about some of the problems and his
efforts to resolve some of the problems. Welcome, sir.
I have a couple of quick questions. First of all, I guess
Mr. Chambers, this action or an action against gun
manufacturers, whether it is by the government or others, is
obviously going to curtail manufacturing of weapons or drive up
the cost as the result in the United States. What would you
predict would happen? Will we see more foreign imports? Exactly
what are the consequences, if folks pursue this? Obviously,
some are pursuing this.
Mr. Chambers. I think you will see a gross reduction in the
number of firearm manufacturers. They will be forced into
bankruptcy. They will be forced out of business. Their demise
is inevitable. Most of the firearm manufacturers are small.
Many of them are family owned. They are privately held. They
cannot survive the massive number of lawsuits that we are
facing in this country.
Mr. Mica. What about international production of firearms?
Would that increase?
Mr. Chambers. A possibility, sir.
Mr. Mica. A possibility. Well, I am just concerned that,
for example, with AK-47s and some of the other firearms we have
seen, Chinese imports and others, that we ban something on one
hand and we end up getting it in large quantities from foreign
source manufacturers. Would you think that this might happen,
Mr. Reh?
Mr. Reh. It is certainly possible. What you would be likely
to see would be companies that have not traditionally sold in
the U.S. market now trying to enter the market after the long-
established, well-respected, and recognized companies leave.
So, you might be more likely to see former Eastern Bloc
manufacturers come in the country or from other markets.
Mr. Mica. Are not most of the guns, and I do not know the
statistics, I am not an expert on this, that are used in the
commission of a crime, illegally obtained in the first place?
Would anyone know? Mr. Jannuzo.
Mr. Reh. I can probably give you some information on that.
Mr. Mica. Mr. Reh.
Mr. Reh. Sir, most guns that are used in crimes are
obtained second hand. They are purchased from family members,
or from acquaintances who can lawfully purchase a gun. When I
use the word ``acquaintence,'' I am including within that gang
members, fellow people involved in crime who have not yet been
convicted and have not yet been barred from purchasing a
firearm. A fair percentage are stolen either from home theft or
other people who have guns. Then a certain percentage comes
from dealers.
Mr. Mica. Chief Bunch, you have certainly seen a great deal
of law enforcement experience and also I guess activity in
public housing. Your testimony started out and you said you saw
sort of a progression of violence in crime from hand- by-hand,
and I think you said other weapons, stabbing, et cetera. Now,
we see this gun problem.
Is there any relationship between the violence you see and
another problem that is of particular interest to our
subcommittee, and that is illegal narcotics? Is there much of a
correlation between illegal narcotics and the crime that you
have seen?
Mr. Bunch. Yes. It is one of the tools that a drug dealer
uses as a weapon to either intimidate or enforce his territory.
Mr. Mica. Of the 91 murders in the housing projects in
Baltimore, what percentage would you say were drug-related?
Mr. Bunch. I would probably say at least 50 percent or
more.
Mr. Mica. Do you feel that the Federal Government is doing
enough to go at the root problems, drugs and illegal narcotics,
unemployment, some of the other social things? People just do
not pick up a gun and shot somebody. A few do who are deranged.
I would imagine that happens. There have to be some root
problems. What would you attribute as a responsibility for the
Federal Government to deal with solving these basic fundamental
problems?
Mr. Bunch. I think one of the first things, and I think it
is being done with this kind of committee to even discuss the
issue. When I was talking about having seen an increase in
violence from one vehicle to another, I will go back to my
childhood. When we had a dispute, we would go to the fists. Now
when a dispute happens, people go to the gun because it is so
easy for them to get.
I have had people, in the last several months, ask me where
can they get a gun. Naturally, I gave them the correct answer,
but people who would never have even thought about a gun now
are looking for them. There is no question in my mind that some
of those people will go the easiest route to get guns.
Mr. Mica. Is that for their own protection?
Mr. Bunch. Well, I think that the fear is out there, that
everybody has a gun. Everyone needs a gun, but that is the
problem. When they are so accessible, you can go on probably
any corner in the city and buy a gun. They are that available.
Mr. Mica. And that action would be illegal?
Mr. Bunch. Most definitely.
Mr. Mica. I will yield to our ranking member, Mrs. Mink.
Mrs. Mink. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I also want to welcome you, Chief Bunch and other witnesses
who have testified. The issue actually before this committee is
the propriety of the Department of Housing and Urban
Development in engaging itself in this whole question of
whether the other housing agencies that have embarked on
litigation against gun manufacturers is something that HUD
ought to be concerned about, looking at, becoming knowledgeable
about, and doing research in connection therewith.
It is troubling to me that we have to bring such a basic
matter of the jurisdiction of the Department, because as you
said, Chief Bunch, if they did not care about it, if they did
not do anything about it as a landlord, they could be held
responsible. So, in that connection, Chief Bunch, could you
tell me what kind of a police force you have under your command
to handle all of the police issues that affect the housing
authority for Baltimore City?
Mr. Bunch. Yes. We have a police department that has
approximately 110 sworn officers, another 125 civilians who
also are responsible for access to buildings, our building
monitors. Then we have maybe 10 or 15 support staff. We provide
an above-base line services to public housing in Baltimore.
Even at that, we do not provide it to every development. We are
very limited in the developments that we actually provide the
service.
Our strength is in partnerships with other law enforcement
agencies, both on the Federal, State, and local levels. We try
to get involved in a number of initiatives that go on in and
around public housing. That is the way we basically operate.
Mrs. Mink. So, would you have any familiarity then with the
budget requirements for your force, as well as all of the other
security requirements that go along with your responsibility
for these housing agencies?
Mr. Bunch. I can only talk about Baltimore.
Mrs. Mink. We heard earlier that it ranges between 35 and
40 percent of the total budget.
Mr. Bunch. Right. It is about the same with us. It may be a
little less. For instance, my Department only has an annual
budget of around $12 million. That is for everything,
materials, equipment, and everything. So, it is probably about
the same.
Mrs. Mink. I have no further questions, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Mica. Thank you. I would like to yield now to the
gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Barr.
Mr. Barr. Thank you. Mr. Chambers, we heard the Chief
mention, and this is not a new argument, that we have more
crime involving guns because guns are more available. As a
matter of fact, is it not true that guns have been very
available, as a matter of fact, even more readily available to
law abiding citizens and the general population than years and
decades past before gun control laws started to be enforced,
yet, we had less crime?
Mr. Chambers. Yes, sir. Pre-1968, the per capita gun
accumulation in the United States was about the same as it is
today. I can go back to my childhood and I remember, as the
Chief does, that we settled arguments with fists, not because
that guns were not available, because they were.
I grew up around guns. They were in my home. Everyone had
guns in their home in my hunting community. For some reason,
that society, that era, that is how we solved our problems. We
never thought about getting a gun and solving it. Gun access
was readily available as it is now.
Mr. Barr. With regard to the impact on the legal firearms
and ammunition industry in America, if you would please recap
how many Americans are employed generally in the business? What
is the payroll?
Mr. Chambers. If you take in the entire shooting and
hunting sports activities, you are looking at somewhere around
a $39 billion a year industry that employs somewhere around
900,000 people in that pursuit.
Mr. Barr. Do you have ballpark figures to contrast that
with the size of the tobacco industry, which is the industry
that unfortunately has given rise to emboldening lawyers and
now government agencies to sue private industry?
Mr. Chambers. No. I would like to go back. When you asked
the question, are you talking about only the manufacturers of
firearms? I am talking about the widespread hunting, shooting,
fishing.
Mr. Barr. I am just talking about the manufacturing.
Mr. Chambers. Then we are less than a $2 billion industry
and employ much less than the tobacco, and no comparison at all
to them.
Mr. Barr. So, if there is some notion out there that there
are these huge deep pockets in the firearms industry, similar
to the tobacco industry, that would not be accurate; would it?
Mr. Chambers. That is not an accurate figure. Our entire
take in the entire firearms industry is less than a Walmart
concern per year.
Mr. Barr. Mr. Jannuzo, you are an attorney. Is that
correct?
Mr. Jannuzo. Yes.
Mr. Barr. You have heard some of the legal theories
discussed here today about the need, or lack of need depending
on whom you talk to or who is speaking, for an expressed legal
authority before a government agency can act. I would like your
views on that. If you would, put it in the context of answering
the following question.
If, in fact, HUD is allowed to proceed in some form or
fashion, and they would not give us a categorical answer, no,
that they would not, and involve the resources of the Federal
Government, just one Federal agency we are talking about today,
in suing the firearms industry, would you see the possibility
that other Federal agencies could follow that same logic and
join in lawsuits against the gun industry?
For example, there are gun crimes committed within the
jurisdiction of other Federal agencies. So, if we open the door
to Federal agencies generally being able to involve themselves,
either directly or assisting lawyers and municipalities in
suing the gun industry, could this very quickly drown the
ability of the firearms industry to defend itself against that
legal onslaught?
Mr. Jannuzo. Certainly, Congressman. In answer to your
previous question of Mr. Chambers, tobacco makes in a day and a
half what we make in a year. If other Federal agencies and HUD
all decided to file against our industry, it would devastate
the industry and it would certainly impair cities, States, and
local municipalities the ability to give their law enforcement
officers the most important tool that they have when they are
out in the street.
Mr. Barr. We have heard a lot of discussion in recent
years, particularly in recent months about smart guns; a
technology that can guarantee that a gun will not be misused, I
suppose. Is that technology fairly expensive to develop?
If, in fact, these lawsuits are allowed to proceed, is it
reasonable to conclude that the cost of defending against those
lawsuits will impair the ability of the firearms industry to
proceed forward with the research and development of the very
technology that the gun control activists want to develop?
Mr. Jannuzo. Most definitely. Mr. Zilkah made that point
this morning that the U.S. military had spent $30 million last
year trying to develop an electronic rifle. The Federal
Government also commissioned a study at Sandia National
Laboratories, and I think over a period of 3 years, spent some
$36 million, and still did not come up with a workable product.
Their final conclusion was that it was at least a
generation off, both in the confidence level of the user and in
technology. If these suits are allowed to continue, you can be
sure that is going to be two generations off.
Mr. Barr. I guess if it took place at Sandia, I guess the
Chinese probably know how to crank out the technology now more
than we do. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Mica. Thank you. Mr. Tierney.
Mr. Tierney. Thank you. First, Mr. Chairman, I might have a
problem with the inquiry. Since Mr. Zilkah undertook to leave,
might we just disregard his testimony and wipe it from the
record, or is this an opportunity for him to speak and then
run? I certainly found his testimony shocking and, in many
ways, inappropriate.
Mr. Mica. We will be glad to submit to any of the witnesses
written questions. He was under a time constraint and had
advised this subcommittee in advance. His testimony can stand
on the record. If you would like to submit questions to him, we
will be glad to do it.
Mr. Tierney. I am not sure it is worth the time and energy,
but we will see.
Mr. Reh, you seem to have an extreme distrust for our court
system. Would that be an accurate reflection of your feeling
about our judicial system?
Mr. Reh. I am concerned about any system in which people
can file lawsuits without having a substantial basis for doing
so.
Mr. Tierney. Are you a lawyer, sir?
Mr. Reh. Yes, I am.
Mr. Tierney. So, it is your opinion then that every single
lawsuit that has been filed so far has no basis?
Mr. Reh. Yes, sir.
Mr. Tierney. Whenever you make that decision, not regarding
what a judge may think, in your impression, then your decision
should carry and they should not be allowed to proceed for
their rights.
Mr. Reh. Well, I have to pay for the cost of the defense.
So, that is a concern to me no matter what the basis of the
suit is.
Mr. Tierney. So, does your company hire lawyers?
Mr. Reh. Yes, we do.
Mr. Tierney. Those are the good guys and all of the other
lawyers are the bad guys?
Mr. Reh. That is how I see them at this point.
Mr. Tierney. Oh, I am sure that is how you see it, sir.
Mr. Chambers, you also seem to have a pretty low tolerance
level for the judicial system these days. Is it your
understanding that the courts are somehow incapable of deciding
whether any of these causes of actions have merit or not?
Mr. Chambers. I think the actions that they are attempting
to take ought to be taken by Congress and not by the court
system.
Mr. Tierney. But you are aware, are you not from your
earlier history courses, that we have three branches of this
government; one of which is the judicial system?
Mr. Chambers. I am very aware of that.
Mr. Tierney. I was not sure when I heard your testimony. I
could have counted the number of times that you undertook the
buzz word ``trial lawyers.'' You have some problem with people
in the judicial system being represented by counsel?
Mr. Chambers. Only those greedy lawyers, sir.
Mr. Tierney. And you know which ones are greedy and which
ones are not?
Mr. Chambers. I have a pretty good idea.
Mr. Tierney. And the ones that work for companies like
yours certainly are not greedy at all?
Mr. Chambers. They are not.
Mr. Tierney. Whatever they get period?
Mr. Chambers. No, sir.
Mr. Tierney. Now, you are aware of the fact that it took
litigation to stop the Pinto from being made with the gas
engine too close to the rear of the car?
Mr. Chambers. I am aware of that.
Mr. Tierney. Those are greedy lawyers that preceded that
case?
Mr. Chambers. I do not know what preceded that case. I am
not that familiar with what motivated them.
Mr. Tierney. And you are familiar with cases that finally
stopped some clothing manufacturers from making pajamas that
were inflammable and were resulting in the injury of little
children?
Mr. Chambers. Yes, sir, and those were defective products;
were they not?
Mr. Tierney. They may well have been, but are you thinking
that the lawyers who brought that case under that theory were
greedy little lawyers?
Mr. Chambers. Maybe.
Mr. Tierney. Of course, all of the lawyers involved in the
tobacco case must be greedy lawyers.
Mr. Chambers. I did not say that.
Mr. Tierney. Well, is that your opinion?
Mr. Chambers. I would say that some of them are motivated
by greed.
Mr. Tierney. Would it be your opinion that people ought to
be deprived of the opportunity to go to court to press a legal
theory that they believe is just and fair?
Mr. Chambers. No, I do not.
Mr. Tierney. So, that you do not have any problem then with
people undertaking the use of the judicial system to press a
claim that they believe is merited?
Mr. Chambers. For a defective product, no sir.
Mr. Tierney. Any legal claim that they believe has merit;
do you believe that people have the right to go to court to
press that claim?
Mr. Chambers. Certainly, they do.
Mr. Tierney. Now, are you familiar with any of the cases
that are now pending by these municipalities having yet been
thrown out of court on the basis that they did not have merit?
Mr. Chambers. No.
Mr. Tierney. Do you trust the judicial system, a judge in
particular, to be able to make the determination whether or not
the cases ought to proceed because they have merit or not
proceed because they do not have merit?
Mr. Chambers. I think the system ought to work the way it
is designed to work, yes.
Mr. Tierney. If it did so, then you would not have any
problem with it?
Mr. Chambers. No.
Mr. Tierney. Now, are you telling us that if the cases are
allowed to proceed, then you do not think the system is working
the way it was designed to work?
Mr. Chambers. If they fail on appeal, or if they are judged
that way, who knows?
Mr. Tierney. If these cases were to proceed all the way to
trial?
Mr. Chambers. OK.
Mr. Tierney. And the jury was to come back with a finding,
after instructions by the judge as to what the law was. The
finding was in favor of the plaintiffs. Are you then saying
that you think this whole thing would be----
Mr. Chambers. Juries are not infallible.
Mr. Tierney. None of us are.
Mr. Chambers. Juries make wrong decisions, wrong judgments.
Mr. Tierney. So, and legislators do, and executive branches
do, and judicial branches do. The fact of the matter is, this
is our system. Are you saying that you would deprive people of
a system of the jury system for an opportunity to go to court?
Mr. Chambers. I do not know where you got that idea, sir.
Mr. Tierney. Well, I think maybe from the language during
your testimony where you seem to be taking on trial lawyers,
and the court system, and thinking that it was inappropriate
for people to use the judicial system to press what they think
is a legitimate claim.
Mr. Chambers. I have seen their actions with the city
mayors who are filing lawsuits against my industry; yes, sir.
Mr. Tierney. If a judge allowed those to proceed because
the judge believed that the claims had merit, and a jury came
back and made a finding, that I guess would indicate to us that
the people were on the right track and not the wrong track;
right?
Mr. Chambers. Not necessarily.
Mr. Tierney. Mr. Jannuzo, beside your also obvious dislike
for the litigation system, despite the fact you are a lawyer,
you indicated that you are proud that your company supplied the
military, the FBI, and other branches.
Mr. Jannuzo. I did not say the military, sir.
Mr. Tierney. All right; the FBI. I think Mr. Zilkah wanted
to tell us that if we did not keep making as many guns
commercially as we make, then we would not be able to make them
for the military. It is your case that if we do not make as
many guns as possible, flood the streets with them, then we
will not be able to have people making guns for the FBI or
other security people. Is that what your testimony was?
Mr. Jannuzo. I do not think you could have been here when I
testified, sir. I did not say that.
Mr. Tierney. Well, the impression I got was that one of the
things that you were inferring was that if the cost of guns
were to go up so high, it would be prohibitive if you were not
allowed to keep making guns at the rate you are making them.
Mr. Jannuzo. I said nothing about the rate, sir. I said
about the cost of litigation. The rate never entered any
statement that I made.
Mr. Tierney. How did you determine the cost of litigation?
Mr. Jannuzo. I took a number out at random and I said that
when I said the number, sir.
Mr. Tierney. And the cost you took out was the increased
cost of guns for law enforcement officers?
Mr. Jannuzo. The cost I took out would be added cost as the
result of litigation, sir.
Mr. Mica. To be fair.
Mr. Tierney. You are going to stop me when you did not stop
the others?
Mr. Mica. I stopped Mr. Barr approximately one question
after the red light.
Mr. Tierney. Fine.
Mr. Mica. It is up to the ranking member as to how we want
to proceed.
Mr. Barr. I am getting a kick out of this, let him proceed.
It is fine with me.
Mr. Mica. Whatever you want to do.
Mrs. Mink. Conclude.
Mr. Mica. I usually go further.
Mrs. Mink. Conclude.
Mr. Mica. OK. Well, the time of the gentleman has expired.
All time for the hearing has expired. Without objection, we
will leave the record open for 3 weeks.
Mrs. Mink. Fine for questions.
Mr. Mica. If Members on either side have questions of any
of the witnesses or the agency, we would be glad to submit
them.
No further business to come before this subcommittee today,
I would like to thank each of our witnesses for participating
and for your contributions.
This meeting of the subcommittee is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 1:25 p.m., the hearing adjourned.]
[The prepared statement of Hon. Edolphus Towns and
additional information submitted for the hearing record
follow:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5463.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5463.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5463.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5463.040
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5463.041
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5463.042
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5463.043
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5463.044
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5463.045
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5463.046
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5463.047
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5463.048
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5463.049
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5463.050
-