U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

65–463 CC WASHINGTON : 2000

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

(II)

COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM

DAN BURTON, Indiana, Chairman

BENJAMIN A. GILMAN, New York

CONSTANCE A. MORELLA, Maryland

CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut

ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida

JOHN M. MCHUGH, New York

STEPHEN HORN, California

JOHN L. MICA, Florida

THOMAS M. DAVIS, Virginia

DAVID M. MCINTOSH, Indiana

MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana

JOE SCARBOROUGH, Florida

STEVEN C. LATOURETTE, Ohio

MARSHALL ‘‘MARK’’ SANFORD, South

Carolina

BOB BARR, Georgia

DAN MILLER, Florida

ASA HUTCHINSON, Arkansas

LEE TERRY, Nebraska

JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois

GREG WALDEN, Oregon

DOUG OSE, California

PAUL RYAN, Wisconsin

HELEN CHENOWETH, Idaho

DAVID VITTER, Louisiana

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California

TOM LANTOS, California

ROBERT E. WISE, JR., West Virginia

MAJOR R. OWENS, New York

EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York

PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania

PATSY T. MINK, Hawaii

CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, Washington,

DC

CHAKA FATTAH, Pennsylvania

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland

DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio

ROD R. BLAGOJEVICH, Illinois

DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois

JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts

JIM TURNER, Texas

THOMAS H. ALLEN, Maine

HAROLD E. FORD, JR., Tennessee

JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois

———

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont

(Independent)

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

BENJAMIN A. GILMAN, New York

CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut

ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida

MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana

STEVEN C. LATOURETTE, Ohio

ASA HUTCHINSON, Arkansas

DOUG OSE, California

PATSY T. MINK, Hawaii

EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland

DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio

ROD R. BLAGOJEVICH, Illinois

JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts

JIM TURNER, Texas

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

(III)

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

(1)

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 NaVerDate 11-MAY-2000 08:51 Nov 27, 2000 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\65463.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
2

tion, 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.

3

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:]

4

5

6

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.

7

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

8

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 witVerDate 11-MAY-2000 08:51 Nov 27, 2000 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\65463.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
9

nesses 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

10

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.

11

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.

12

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:]

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

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?

25

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?

26

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

27

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 statVerDate 11-MAY-2000 08:51 Nov 27, 2000 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\65463.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
28

ute, 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.

29

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.

30

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.

31

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

32

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.

33

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.

34

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 commitVerDate 11-MAY-2000 08:51 Nov 27, 2000 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\65463.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
35

tee. 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 AfricanAmerican, 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 per- cent 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 righton. 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

36

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 atVerDate 11-MAY-2000 08:51 Nov 27, 2000 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\65463.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
37

tempting 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

38

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.

39

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

40

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.

41

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.

42

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.

43

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

44

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.

45

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

46

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

47

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

48

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:]

49

50

51

52

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 freefor-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?

53

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:]

54

55

56

57

58

59

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.

60

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 selfdefense.

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:]

61

62

63

64

65

66

67

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.

68

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

69

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:]

70

71

72

73

74

75

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

76

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:]

77

78

79

80

81

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.

82

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

83

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.

84

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.

85

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

86

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?

87

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.

88

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:]

89

90

91

92

93

94

95

96

97

98

99

100

101

102

Æ