I got the following transcript from
Len Savage. It addresses the amendment to the
BATFU budget
discussed last Friday here at
WarOnGuns.
At the moment, I can seem to find a working link, so if anyone has one, feel free to post it in "Comments," below.
TITLE VII--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS
Sec. 701. None of the funds appropriated by this Act may be used by the Director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives to pay the compensation of employees of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives to test and examine firearms without written and published testing standards.
Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Chairman, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, BATFE, has been in operation without substantial changes since the days of prohibition, bootlegging and gang violence in the 1920s and 1930s.
Last year the House Judiciary Committee considered legislation that would have introduced real reform to BATFE, updating the agency for the 21st century, although time ran out before Congress could get anything accomplished.
One issue of reform I remain particularly concerned about is how BATFE actually tests firearms submitted by law-abiding firearm designers and manufacturers seeking approval to put their product on the market.
Mr. Chairman, without written and uniform standards, gun manufacturers are left guessing about which agent will inspect the firearm this week, whether or not they will be able to ship a product out to potential customers, and whether or not BATFE agents might even prosecute someone because of a shipping mistake or a firearm malfunction. So I have introduced legislation called the Fairness in Firearms Testing Act to address this problem, and it requires BATFE, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, to actually videotape firearms tests for the purpose of general oversight, and encourage the agency to adopt these testing standards. However, the amendment I'm offering today would cut right to the point by withholding funds to BATFE if they do not write and publish these testing standards.
More specifically, this amendment creates a level playing field for all United States firearm manufacturers who depend on getting a firearm patented and on the market as soon as possible.
Mr. Chairman, without written procedures, BATFE has literally a free rein to mistreat manufacturers, change their mind after the fact, and leave both manufacturers and customers at a legal and financial disadvantage. In fact, BATFE regulations are so inconsistent that some manufacturers have been threatened with prosecution after receiving written approval for their products from other BATFE personnel.
Since 2002, 85 percent of American firearm manufacturers have been forced to close their doors. Let me repeat that, Mr. Chairman. Since 2002, 85 percent of American firearm manufacturers have been forced to close their doors. There are only 373 licensed firearm inventors and manufacturers left in America. Moreover, with the increase in number of imported firearms purchased by civilians and law enforcement alike, our Nation is at a strategic defensive disadvantage.
Mr. Chairman, I realize that the chairman has reserved a point of order, and he will explain that, I'm sure, momentarily, but it's my understanding that if I do agree to withdraw this amendment, that the chairman and the committee will work with me to help bring reforms to the BATFE, including these written standards, to help United States firearm manufacturers. I would be happy to yield to the chairman and to engage in a colloquy with him regarding that. Otherwise, in the absence of an agreement, then certainly I want to go forward with my amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the chairman.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. We would, at that point, talk about the point of order a little more.
We want to be responsive to the gentleman. I have not gotten deeply into his concerns, so I'm not sure exactly where he's coming from on this. But I can commit to him that we're willing to talk about it, we're willing to understand more clearly what his concerns are and in good faith work with him. And if there is an accommodation, we certainly want to make it in good faith. But I certainly cannot telegraph or represent to the gentleman an outcome; I can only promise him the process to work with him in good faith on this issue.
Mr. GINGREY. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I understand exactly what the chairman is saying. I'm not necessarily expecting any hard and fast promises on his behalf.
And I didn't mean, Mr. Chairman, for the amendment to catch the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee by surprise in any way, not to be blind-sided or coming up at the last minute. We've had the amendment, we filed the amendment. In fact, I had, Mr. Chairman, introduced legislation pertaining specifically to this effect last year in the 109th Congress, so this amendment basically is a follow-up to that legislation.
I want to thank the gentleman from West Virginia, the distinguished chairman. I appreciate your spirit of cooperation. And I know there are some concerns about the amendment, I appreciate that. But I welcome your support on this matter, and I look forward to working with you. Let's discuss it and make sure you understand exactly where I'm coming from in regard to the amendment. I think it makes a lot of sense, and I hope I can convince you of the same.
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the amendment is withdrawn.
There was no objection.
Way to go down swinging at every pitch, there, Mr. Gingrey.
You eloquently summarized a rogue agency imposing impossible-to-meet standards on a right the government has no business infringing in the first place, and detailed real injustices that are SOP. Hell, gun dealers and manufacturers would be on the endangered species list and eligible for federal
protection if this government applied consistent standards.
The chairman basically pleaded ignorance--even though he is responsible to know matters brought before him (As stated--WarOnGuns readers knew about this, and we're to believe
he did not?). It's hard to think of any valid reason why he would be in the dark on legislation introduced a year ago. It's not hard to believe he's well versed on the matter and chose to kill it in committee for reasons that are of benefit to his position, power and prospects of advancement.
And what did you get for withdrawing your amendment, Mr. Gingrey, and apologizing to "the gentleman from West Virginia" for his--at best--dereliction of duty? More importantly, what did
We the People get?
Nothing. Some weasel words to be willing to talk about it at some unspecified later date, with no promises that the same thing won't happen again. Meanwhile, nothing will change. BATFU will continue with the plan. And Americans who have tried to play by "the rules" (as made up on the spot by the
thug du jour) will continue to have their livelihoods--and in some cases, their lives--destroyed.
I understand Mollohan has
a pretty good reputation with gun owners. Perhaps it's time for his constituents to reevaluate their support.
Good thing for him this information is confined to a lowly blog that hardly anybody will see, and even fewer will do anything about.
