"(2) to enter or to remain in the gallery of either House of the Congress in violation of rules governing admission to such gallery adopted by that House or pursuant to authorization given by that House;

(3) to enter or to remain in any room within any of the Capitol Buildings set aside or designated for the use of either House of the Congress or any Member, committee, subcommittee, officer, or employee of the Congress or either House thereof with intent to disrupt the orderly conduct of official business;

"(4) to utter loud, threatening, or abusive language, or to engage in any disorderly or disruptive conduct, at any place upon the United States Capitol Grounds or within any of the Capitol Buildings with intent to impede, disrupt, or disturb the orderly conduct of any session of the Cougress or either House thereof, or the orderly conduct within any such building of any hearing before, or any deliberations of, any committee or subcommittee of the Congress or either House thereof;

"(5) to obstruct, or to impede passage through or within the United States Capitol Grounds or any of the Capitol Buildings; or

"(6) to engage in any act of physical violence upon the United States Capitol Grounds or within any of the Capitol Buildings; or

"(7) to parade, demonstrate, or picket within any of the Capitol Buildings." "(c) Nothing contained in this section shall forbid any act of any Member of the Congress, or any employee of a Member of the Congress, any officer or employee of the Congress or any committee or subcommittee thereof, or any officer or employee of either House of the Congress or any committee or subcommittee thereof, which is performed in the lawful discharge of his official duties."

(c) Section 8 of that Act (40 U.S.C. 193h; D.C. Code 9–125) is amended to read as follows:

"SEC. 8 (a) Any violation of section 6(a) of this Act, and any attempt to commit any such violation, shall be a felony punishable by a fine not exceeding $5,000, or imprisonment not exceeding five years, or both.

"(b) Any violation of section 2, 3, 4, 5, 6(b), or (7) of this Act, and any attempt to commit any such violation, shall be a misdemeanor punishable by a fine not exceeding $500, or imprisonment not exceeding six months, or both.

"(c) Violations of this Act, including attempts or conspiracies to commit such violations, shall be prosecuted by the United States attorney or his assistants in the name of the United States. None of the general laws of the United States and none of the laws of the District of Columbia shall be superseded by any provision of this Act. Where the conduct violating this Act also violates the general laws of the United States or the laws of the District of Columbia, both violations may be joined in a single prosecution. Prosecution for any violation of section 6(a) or for conduct which constitutes a felony under the general laws of the United States or the laws of the District of Columbia shall be in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. All other prosecutions for violations of this Act shall be in the District of Columbia Court of General Sessions. Whenever any person is convicted of a violation of this Act and of the general laws of the United States or the laws of the District of Columbia, in a prosecution under this subsection, the penalty which may be imposed for such violation is the highest penalty authorized by any of the laws for violation of which the defendant is convicted." (d) The proviso contained in section 12 of that Act (40 U.S.C. 193k) is repealed. (e) Section 16(a) of that Act (40 U.S.C. 193m; D.C. Code 9-132) is amended to read as follows:

"SEC. 16. (a) As used in this Act

"(1) The term 'Capitol Buildings' shall be construed to include all buildings situated upon the United States Capitol Grounds and all subways and enclosed passages connecting two or more of those buildings.

"(2) The term 'firearm' shall have the same meaning as when used in section 1(3) of the Federal Firearms Act (52 Stat. 1252, as amended; 15 U.S.C. 901(3)).

"(3) The term 'dangerous weapon' includes all articles enumerated in section 14(a) of the Act of July 8, 1932 (47 Stat. 654, as amended; D.C. Code 22-3214(a)) and also daggers, dirks, stilettoes, and knives having blades over three inches in length.

"(4) The term 'explosive' shall have the same meaning as when used in section 1(1) of the Act of October 6, 1917 (40 Stat. 385, as amended; 50 U.S.C. 121).

"(5) The term 'act of physical violence' means any act involving (1) an assault or any other infliction or threat of infliction of death or bodily harm upon any individual, or (2) damage to or destruction of any real property or personal property."

SEC. 2. Section 15 of the Act of July 29, 1892 (27 Stat. 325; 40 U.S.C. 101; D.C. Code 4-120, 22–3111), is amended by deleting "shall, upon conviction thereof, be fined not more than $50.", and inserting in lieu thereof: "shall be fined not more than $500, or imprisoned not more than six months, or both.".

SEC. 3. Prosecutions for violations of the Act of July 31, 1946 (60 Stat. 718; 40 U.S.C. 193a et seq.; D.C. Code 9-118 et seq.) and of section 15 of the Act of July 29, 1892 (27 Stat. 325; D.C. Code 4-120, 22-3111), occurring prior to the enactment of these amendments shall not be affected by these amendments or abated by reason thereof. The privisions of this Act shall be applicable to violations occurring after its enactment.

Mr. FALLON. Our witness this morning is the Honorable David G. Bress, U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia.

STATEMENT OF HON. DAVID G. BRESS, U.S. ATTORNEY, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, ACCOMPANIED BY MARY C. LAWTON, ATTORNEY ADVISER, OFFICE OF LEGAL COUNSEL, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, AND W. CAREY PARKER, SPECIAL ASSISTANT TO THE ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, CRIMINAL DIVISION, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Mr. FALLON. Mr. Bress, do you have a copy of the bill introduced by Mr. Cramer and myself and Mr. Boggs yesterday?

Mr. BRESS. Yes, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. FALLON. Does that bill cover everything that their conference intended to cover and, in addition, is it compatible with the Senate bill that was reported from the committee?

Mr. BRESS. It is, from my limited examination of it, consistent with the Senate bill. I do not believe that it is any different from the final print, print No. 3, of the Senate bill as I have seen it.

Mr. FALLON. As I understand it, the only change that was made, we added the Rayburn Room to one section of the bill. The fact was that the Marble Room was in the Senate bill and we included the Rayburn Room in the House bill in 6(b)(1).

Mr. BRESS. I note that has been added to paragraph (6)(b)(1). Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman?

Mr. FALLON. Yes.

Mr. CRAMER. We will discuss the necessity of enacting this bill later, so I would like to address specific questions to the witness now. I think there was discussion in our preliminary conference yesterday that, as I understand it, the Justice Department supports this bill? Mr. BRESS. Yes, sir.

Mr. CRAMER. I base this question on remarks that appeared in the Congressional Record of August 22, 1967, referring to H.R. 10957 by Congressman Poff. Are you familiar with those remarks in which he analyzed the present law in the District and on Capitol Hill relating to this subject matter, pointing out prosecution problems, such as who prosecutes under the present law where you have both fine and prisonterm penalties; particularly when you have inconsistencies in the amount of money penalty?

Mr. BRESS. I have read Mr. Poff's address in the House.

Mr. CRAMER. Is it your opinion that this legislation is needed to clarify that much-confused situation?

Mr. BRESS. Yes; I think this legislation is much needed and I think it goes beyond the point as I remember raised in the Poff discussion.

Mr. CRAMER. It spells out new forms of crimes but it does not at the same time solve that problem, does it? Specifically I am referring to who prosecutes, on page 5, at Section 8(c). That begins on line 11, where conduct in violation of "the general laws of the United States or the laws of the District," both violations may be joined in a single prosecution. Prosecution for any violation of section 6(a) or for conduct which constitutes a felony under the general laws of the United States or laws of the District of Columbia shall be in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.

"All other prosecutions for violations of this act shall be in the District of Columbia Court of General Sessions."

Section 6(a), of course, is a heavy penalty: $5,000 or 5 years?
Mr. BRESS. Yes, sir.

Mr. CRAMER. Right?

Mr. BRESS. Yes, sir.

Mr. CRAMER. The balance will be prosecuted by the District of Columbia?

Mr. BRESS. Yes, sir.

No. All violations of this act are required to be prosecuted by the United States Attorney, not by the District of Columbia, as in the very sentences on page 5 that you have just read.

Mr. CRAMER. What language so provides? "All other prosecutions and violations of this act shall be in the District of Columbia Court of General Sessions."

Mr. BRESS. The U.S. Attorney prosecutes misdemeanors in the District of Columbia court of general sessions.

Mr. CRAMER. The U.S. attorney would be prosecuting in all instances; is that correct?

Mr. BRESS. Mr. Cramer, if I might call your attention to lines 5 to 8 of paragraph (c), it expressly provides that all violations under this act are prosecuted by the U.S. attorney.

Mr. CRAMER. That clarifies the problem pointed out in the Poff memorandum in the Congressional Record I mentioned; right? Mr. BRESS. Yes.

Mr. CRAMER. As it relates to prosecution under this act?

Mr. BRESS. Yes, sir.

May I, sir, since you have just read line 18, note the word "shall" is included there. I think that was also in the Senate bill. I believe that there is good reason to change that word "shall" to "may." That is on page 5, section 8(c), line 18.

Mr. CRAMER. Why?

Mr. BRESS. This sentence would seem to make it mandatory that all misdemeanors be prosecuted in the court of general sessions. The District of Columbia has concurrent jurisdiction for misdemeanors in the district court.

Earlier there, this same paragraph, there is a provision for joinder of offenses. There is very likely to be a joinder of a felony and a misdemeanor offense. I would think that I would encounter difficulties if the felony was to be prosecuted in the district court and the statute said that the misdemeanor shall be prosecuted in the general sessions

court. I would therefore recommend that that word "shall" be changed to "may."

Mr. CRAMER. Both could be prosecuted in other than the general sessions court?

Mr. BRESS. In the district court. Yes, sir.

Mr. CRAMER. Felony and misdemeanor?
Mr. BRESS. That is correct.

Mr. ROBERTS. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. CRAMER. Yes.

Mr. ROBERTS. As you know, I have been out of town and out of the committee and this is the first time I have seen this. My first reaction is, why is this going to deter anybody from committing a felony? If he is going to throw a hand grenade in the House, why a $500 or $5,000 fine? The next thing, there are at least 10 Members of Congress that I know of that are licensed gun collectors. I happen to be one of them. There is a gun in my office or my automobile practically all the time.

I noticed when I was gone there were two or three appraisals going on. Under this law I would be guilty and so would all the other gun collectors on the Hill.

Mr. BRESS. That is not correct.

Mr. ROBERTS. Why is it not correct?

It says,

have accessible to any person, any individual upon the U.S. Capitol Grounds."

Mr. BRESS. Page 4, paragraph 7(c), beginning at line 14, provides that:

Nothing contained in this section shall forbid any act of any Member of the Congress **

Mr. ROBERTS. These were delivered by the post office. He delivers a gun to me. I saw a whole case of guns there this morning for appraisal. They delivered them here because they are not handed out in the county. A postman violated the law.

Mr. BRESS. I would have some doubt about that, sir, in view of the lack of any scienter on his part, any knowledge on his part that he was transporting them.

Mr. ROBERTS. If anybody was going to shoot any member of this committee or anybody else, throw a hand grenade over the balcony, why is it going to deter him to have a fine? Why do you think he would do something he knows he is going to get the hot seat for, if it is going to stop him to have a fine placed against him?

This is almost as bad as some of the other legislation proposed by the Justice Department.

Mr. BRESS. As far as providing remedies against improper conduct, the most the law can do is to provide for punishment. This does provide the deterrent which I believe is reasonably adequate for imprisonment and fine.

Mr. SNYDER. If the gentleman would yield for a second, I do not think section 6(c), despite what the counsel says, protects the gentleman. It says, 66* **performed in the discharge of his official duties." I do not think gun collecting is a discharge of the official duties. I do not think it would give him protection.

Mr. CRAMER. If the gentleman would yield, I think he raised a good point. It is a point I raised yesterday in initially discussing the bill. Mr. ROBERTS. There are at least 10 that I know.

85-943-67-2

Mr. CRAMER. I asked that Mr. Bress come prepared to answer the question: When and under what circumstances, if at all, would a Member of Congress be guilty of any of these crimes himself? Under this exception which you referred to on page 4, beginning on line 14. In other words, not the act of a Member of Congress "** * which is performed in the lawful discharge of his official duties."

Mr. BRESS. I have considered that suggestion yesterday, Mr. Cramer.

Mr. CRAMER. That is what the gentleman is talking about, is it not? Mr. BRESS. My answer to it is this: If it is the desire of this committee to make these provisions wholly inapplicable to a Member of Congress as distinguished from an employee of the Congress, the simpler way to do it is to divide paragraph (c) into two sentences. In the second line, line 15, second line of the paragraph, put a period there instead of a comma after the word "Congress." The first section would read,

Nothing contained in this section shall forbid any act of any Member of the Congress ***.

And then insert to begin the second sentence:

Nor shall anything in this section forbid any act of any employee of a Member of Congress ***which is performed in the lawful discharge of his official duties. Mr. WALDIE. Would the gentleman yield?

Mr. CRAMER. Yes.

Mr. WALDIE. It seems to me that on page 2, line 7, which says, "It shall be unlawful for any person or group of persons except as authorized by regulations which shall be promulgated ***"-it would occur to me that that gives you all the avenue you need to exempt these people. They ought to be exempted but I personally would think it would be a grave mistake to exempt Members of Congress or their staffs from the provisions of this law which is designed to prevent violence and disturbance from any source.

Certainly the gun-collection situation could be handled very readily under the regulations that might be promulgated by the Capitol Police.

Mr. BRESS. I quite agree with that. That was the second alternative. Mr. CRAMER. Is that the second alternative, through rules and regulations relating to guns?

Mr. BRESS. That is correct.

Mr. CRAMER. The Capitol Police Board is made up of whom?
Mr. BRESS. I think-

Mr. CRAMER. Sergeant at Arms of the House and Senate?

Mr. BRESS. And the Chief of the Capitol Police.

Mr. CRAMER. The Capitol Architect?

Mr. BRESS. Architect of the Capitol and the two Sergeants at Arms. Mr. CRAMER. The persons making the regulations are those who are employees of the House and Senate?

Mr. BRESS. That is correct.

Mr. CRAMER. The protection available, as the gentleman from Texas suggests, which I too think should be accomplished, could be accomplished through those regulations?

Mr. BRESS. Yes, sir.