[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 39 (Monday, April 3, 2000)]
[House]
[Page H1632]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 ADMINISTRATION'S COERCION OF SMITH AND WESSON POSES SERIOUS THREAT TO 
                         OUR FORM OF GOVERNMENT

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 19, 1999, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns) is 
recognized during morning hour debates for 5 minutes.
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, on March 17, President Clinton announced 
that the firearms manufacturer, Smith and Wesson, had agreed to a 
certain number of gun safety proposals and the agreement reached, 
quote, ``an unprecedented partnership between the government and the 
gun industry,'' end quote.
  Partnership: now there is a very euphemistic term of what was 
accomplished. It obviously was high-handedness, to say the least. The 
Wall Street Journal ran an article on March 21 regarding this action by 
the administration. Here is a brief description of how the 
administration approached the CEO of Smith and Wesson, Ed Shultz. 
Quote, ``In late January two young Clinton administration lawyers flew 
to Nashville, Tennessee, where they handed Mr. Shultz, the chief 
executive officer of Smith and Wesson, a list of gun control demands. 
Agree to this, the government attorneys said, and the legal assault on 
the Nation's largest handgun manufacturer would be called off.''
  Now, I am not sure exactly where this so-called partnership began, 
but such a story reeks of coercion. It reminds me of the old protection 
racket, pay up because you need my protection; otherwise, bad things 
can happen to you.
  Mr. Speaker, this action taken by the administration is a serious 
threat to our form of government. Our President should not attempt to 
change public policy by threatening a company with bankruptcy by way of 
lawsuits. As such, I have introduced legislation disapproving the use 
of this heavy-handedness by the administration. This agreement 
establishes a terrible precedent, one that can have enormous 
ramifications on our society. Where will the administration turn next? 
HMOs, utilities, pharmaceutical companies, tobacco companies and maybe, 
liquor, beer and wine companies?
  Mr. Speaker, there is a Washington Post editorial of April 2, Sunday, 
which I will make a part of the Record at this point.

                [From the Washington Post, Apr. 2, 2000]

                      Government by Lawsuit . . .

       For those who favor robust federal regulation of tobacco 
     and strict controls on handguns, as we do, it is tempting to 
     cheer any use of the courts to circumvent Congress' 
     unwillingness to implement common-sense policy. Litigation 
     has caused tobacco companies to improve the way they operate. 
     A recent deal with gun maker Smith & Wesson, is, in 
     substance, similarly in the public interest.
       But the process is worrisome--prone to abuse. Filing 
     lawsuits is generally speaking a bad way to make policy. The 
     government has nearly unlimited resources; should it use 
     them, in court, against law-abiding companies that it happens 
     to dislike? Even a weak case can be used to bully those who 
     lack the resources to fight to the end. So where is the line 
     between legitimate governance and extortion?
       The tobacco case falls on the legitimate side of the line. 
     The government has at least put its name on a complaint. 
     Attorney General Janet Reno is politically accountable for 
     that suit, which the industry is now asking the court to 
     throw out. If she loses, Ms. Reno will have to answer for 
     filing litigation the courts deemed frivolous. Moreover, the 
     tobacco companies for decades misrepresented the state of 
     their knowledge about the lethality of their products, 
     engineered them to be addictive and marketed them to 
     children. The government's argument that it has a cause of 
     action under federal law remains untested, but it isn't 
     laughable.
       Against the gun makers, the government does not even claim 
     to have its own cause of action. Rather it is organizing a 
     suit by local authorities and then stepping into negotiations 
     to push its policies as a basis for settlement. If this is a 
     legitimate strategy, it's hard to see why an anti-abortion 
     administration, say, could not encourage litigation against 
     drug companies marketing abortion-inducing drugs and then 
     demand that those drugs be withdrawn as a condition of 
     settlement. Abortion foes might cheer then as gun foes do 
     now.
       Federal lawsuits can redress unjust readings of the law, as 
     in the civil rights era. Novel legal theories surely have a 
     place in government litigation. But this is not a broad 
     license to use suits or the threat of suits to get around 
     democratic policymaking. To do so undermines the legislative 
     branch, demeans the judicial and poses threats to the liberty 
     of those who obey the law but fall out of official favor.

  This article goes on to say, quote, ``The government has nearly 
unlimited resources. Should it use them in court against law-abiding 
companies that it happens to dislike? Even a weak case can be used to 
bully those who lack the resources to fight to the end. So where is the 
line between legitimate government and extortion,'' end quote?
  Mr. Speaker, the administration's action was wrong, and it speaks 
directly to the point of my resolution. The Constitution, article 1, 
section 1, states that all legislative power herein granted shall be 
vested in the Congress of the United States. The framers of our 
constitution created this body to formulate public policy. What they 
did not intend was for the executive branch to circumvent Congress any 
time it disagrees with our actions.
  Furthermore, we in Congress are elected to uphold the Constitution 
and represent the views of our constituents, most of whom believe we 
need to enforce the 20,000-plus gun laws that are on the books to 
reduce gun violence.
  Now, the administration may use polling, but 800 or 1,000 people who 
are polled is hardly an indication of where Americans all stand on a 
particular issue.
  It is well known that any question can be skewed towards getting a 
specific answer. The administration consistently presents Americans 
with a one-sided version with regard to gun violence in this country. 
Why do we not hear from the administration that it has failed to 
enforce the 20,000-plus gun laws that are already on the books?
  In fact, Syracuse University did a study, and it shows that this 
enforcement is down 44 percent since 1993. So, the President, and the 
media, by not reporting things accurately, have demonstrated to 
Americans the extraordinary ability to change facts and statistics and 
season them with emotional hype while at the same time neglecting the 
information that may give Americans an equal opportunity to make an 
informed decision on guns.
  So I urge my colleagues to support my House resolution, which I 
intend to drop today. It basically says we cannot have government by 
lawsuit, and it talks about our country is a Republic while the 
government is the supreme power, it's power is vested in a its citizens 
who select and elect officers and representatives who govern them 
appropriately. We can not have the Government go out and use high-
handed techniques to force corporations to comply with their wishes and 
omit the legislative process.

                          ____________________