even then usually with relatively limited power. In other words, a stick of dynamite is hazardous, no matter what; a can of propellent or sack of ammonium nitrate fertilizer must deliberately be made hazardous.

In drafting legislation, Congress should bear in mind that smokeless propellents, small arms primers and bombs and incendiary devices are already regulated under the provisions of the Gun Control Act of 1968, Chapter 44 of Title 18, United States Code.

I propose the following definition be substituted for the existing definition in any legislation enac ́ed:

"As used in this title, the term 'explosive' means substances classified in standard reference works as high or detonating explosives such as dynamite, TNT or nitroglycerin, and the substances and devices intended to be used to detonate such high explosives; the term 'explosive' shall not include small arms ammunition primers regulated by Chapter 44, Title 18 United States Code, nor chemical substances classified in standard reference works as low or deflagrating explosives or propellents such as ammonium nitrate, smokeless propellents or gasoline unless such substances are contained in a chemical or mechanical mixture, packing or device which upon ignition by fire, by friction, by concussion, by percussion, or by detonation will create, or is designed to create, an explosion or incendiary effect."

This definition, by grouping materials according to effect, would eliminate the possibility of inadvertently exempting certain types of bombs and incendiaries. At the same time it effectively includes difficult-to-define Molotov cocktails, which are made with the low explosive gasoline. It would eliminate special controls over ammonium nitrate, smokeless propellent, black powder and other substances which are primarily used for non-explosive purposes, yet would in. clude all bombs and incendiary devices made from those or any other substance. even the simple incendiary made by laying a burning cigarette across a book of paper matches.

The fact that this definition would exempt from special controls our oldest explosive, black powder, requires some comment: black powder, though easily ignited, has far less power than easily made more modern explosives and is itself quite easy to make. I, along with some other youngsters, made the stuff while I was in the seventh grade. The grade we produced was of poor quality, but would be almost as effective as commercial grades in a bomb or as an igniter. However, black powder suitable for use in muzzle loading firearms, as used by the North-South Skirmish Association and the National Muzzle Loading Rifle Association, cannot be home-made. Black powder is seldom used for commercial blasting, but it is regulated by existing state and federal controls, including the Gun Control Act of 1968. In my opinion, the elimination of additional special controls upon black powder would not materially affect the effectiveness of any new law, in fact would make it possible to write a more restrictive law since all explosives of equivalent power would be given equal treatment.

As I have outlined, it is impossible to repeal the wide-spread knowledge concerning easily made explosive and incendiary devices, and it is equally impossible to regulate all of the materials which may be made into such explosives. By regulating materials designed and used as high explosives and placing similar restrictions upon the manufacture and possession of all incendiary and explosive devices, whatever their ingredients, Congress will achieve the maximum effect of any law designed to control sales, interstate transportation or possession of explosive or incendiary devices. But such a law would not unfairly discriminate against users of substances such as propellents and ammonium nitrate fertilizers. However, even such a law is unlikely to curtail terrorist bombings unless severe penalties are promised for violation of the law, or for the unlawful destruction of property and the injury of persons by the use of explosive or incendiary devices. Any other form of explosives control legislation may have the appearance of positive action but it is unlikely to successfully reduce bombings. As evidence, note the testimony of New York City Police before the Senate. Although they stated that high explosives are "extremely well controlled" in the state, I note that most of New York's major blasts have involved those "well-controlled" high explosives. Also, they testified that information on how to make bombs is being distributed in the schools, yet they urged the adoption of federal controls which emulate their own stringent but ineffective control laws. Does anyone honestly believe that federal controls can accomplish what tough state and local laws have failed to accomplish? I think the key to New York's bombing problems is that some bombing cases have been pending in the courts for as much as five years.

Severe penalties are included in both the bill introduced by the Chairman, Mr. Celler, and by Mr. McCulloch. Of the two bills, I feel the Administration bill introduced by Mr. McCulloch offers the greater likelihood of achieving its objectives, provided the definition were changed as I have proposed. I find the bill introduced by Mr. Celler unworkable for several reasons, principally because it copies the provisions of a law structured to control the sales of firearms and ammunition. The bulk of Mr. Celler's bill consists of the wording of the 1968 Gun Control Act with the word "explosives" substituted for "firearms," except in one place where "firearm" was inadvertently left in the bill.

Applying the provisions of the Gun Control Act to explosives would work many hardships upon the lawful users of high explosives—for instance, highway contractors who could not bid on out-of-state jobs for it would be unlawful for them to obtain explosives outside their state of residence. At the same time, the Celler bill would work a hardship upon firearms dealers who sell smokeless propellents, for due to the identical provisions of two separate laws they would be required to buy two separate licenses and maintain two separate record books to record each sale of a single product. At the very least, the Celler bill should be amended to not include the small arms ammunition components regulated by the Gun Control Act.

Gentlemen, until the bills before you were introduced I knew absolutely nothing about explosives other than the characteristics and uses of propellents used in firearms. I have never taken a chemistry course in my life, but from what I have learned in the past three months from books available in any public library I assure you that, if I were inclined to do so, I would have not the slightest difficulty in damaging or destroying any number of private and public buildings and/or people with a wide variety of explosive and incendiary devices. And whether or not you pass any of the legislation before you would not make the slightest difference.

Any radical with the ability to read and the will to carry it out could do the same thing. The only possible way to deter him would be to enact legislation promising such severe punishment that he would be afraid to take the risk.

I thank you for being allowed to appear before the committee.

Mr. KNOX. I think I can sum up my statement very rapidly by saying, first, that it was written before introduction of the new Administration bill, which excludes smokeless propellants. The new administration bill, H.R. 18573, was very carefully drafted to do so, for the very reasons that I have included in this statement. You are talking about two different types of legislation today. (1) Control of commercial high explosives: (2) antibombing legislation. You must separate these areas because they cannot be together; they are not the same. Smokeless propellant is a low explosive. When it is ignited in a gun it produces great quantities of gas which literally push the bullet out the barrel. If the barrel is plugged, the pressure within the barrel will increase to the point where the barrel ruptures. The effect is much like a miniature boiler explosion, but it is not a detonation in the sense that dynamite detonates.

High explosives, such as dynamite, nitroglycerine, TNT and many others, are used commercially as explosives. These are totally different from low explosives, and we feel that you should separate the low explosives from high explosives in any legislation enacted. The new Administration bill has done this.

In the case of bombing you are going to see, as Mr. Teller said a minute ago, that anything can be used to create a hazardous bomb. You are not going to stop bombing with controls on smokeless powder. We will strongly object if you put low explosive smokeless propellant into a law without similarly controlling all other substances which are equally explosive if subjected to similar treatment.

The CHAIRMAN. How can we have any kind of a statute then?

Mr. KNOX. You would have to define "explosives" as high explosives only; in other words, the commercial explosives that are designed for use in blasting. You can make a pipe bomb out of smokeless propellant, but you can make a more powerful bomb from ammonium nitrate fertilizer. Take ammonium nitrate, add fuel oil and you have a commercially used blasting agent. It will not detonate when unconfined with a blasting cap. But you take that same mixture, put it into a pipe bomb with a No. 8 blasting cap and it will detonate with 20 percent more power than TNT.

Some of the material in my statement is to be off the record; I prefer not to have this published anywhere. I would like this to be off the record.

The CHAIRMAN. Off the record.

(Discussion off the record.)

The CHAIRMAN. We will go back on the record now.

Mr. KNOX. I must disagree with the statement made a few minutes ago by Mr. Both. He said that the ammonium nitrate-fuel oil mix will not detonate unless set off by dynamite or other high explosives. That is correct only if you are talking about the standard mixture used as a commercial blasting agent, and only if it is not confined. If confined, as in a steel pipe bomb, it can be detonated with a blasting cap. The sensitivity of the mixture can be increased by varying the percentage of fuel oil; but ammonium nitrate fertilizer can be detonated easily if it is mixed with another explosive substance, even gasoline. In a pipe bomb it would be both extremely powerful and extremely easy to set off-even a powerful firecracker would do it.

The CHAIRMAN. Are you an explosive expert?

Mr. Knox. No, sir. But I have been talking with people from Du Pont and Hercules who are experts and who work for the gentlemen who just testified for IME.

Three months ago I knew nothing about explosives. I have been reading in standard reference works, and in reprints such as this Special Forces-this is an original-a Special Forces Manual on Conventional Warfare Devices and Techniques, which tells you how to make limitless types of explosives. It is commonly available.

This is a booklet called "The Militants Formulary," which is available by mail order. I did not have to refer to those. The same information is available in any library. If I were of a mind to I could make the Mad Bomber of New York look like a piker, because in 3 months I have learned enough about explosives that I could do damage throughout the Nation, whether or not you enact any of this legislation. That would not make the slightest difference. I will give you another example, sir, and this should be off the record.

(Discussion off the record.)

The CHAIRMAN. Despite that, would you oppose Federal legislation to license explosive manufacturers and dealers?

Mr. KNOX. Since we are not involved in high explosives, I would not be opposed to any of the legislation, provided smokeless propellants are not included. The new administration bill, H.R. 18573, as I said, is carefully drafted to eliminate smokeless. I would have no objection to that bill, nor, I am sure would the National Reloading Manufacturers Association, which I also represent.

The CHAIRMAN. You want to be extremely careful as to what the definition of explosive is.

M. KNOX. Yes, sir. As Mr. Teller said, and he gave several examples, almost anything-I have learned-anything, if a person wants to make it into an explosive, can be used as an explosive. I would recommend that manufacture or possession of any explosive device made out of smokeless propellant or ammonium nitrate, or whatever, be severely punished. We have no objection to that type of legislation because we do not make destructive devices out of smokeless propellant. If someone does and he is caught with it, he can be sentenced under the C'un Control Act of 1968. title 44 of the United States Code.

The CHAIRMAN. The analogy would be that you would not want to control the manufacture or use of knives because people could cut themselves with knives, is that it? That is the analogy?

Mr. Kyox. Yes, sir: that is very true. It would be like controlling knives without also controlling razors. This is what I think the proposed legislation, except for the new administration bill, would do. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. MacGregor.

Mr. MACGREGOR. Mr. Chairman, I simply would like to say that I have read carefully the seven-page statement of Mr. Knox and I want to thank him for the contribution he has made, and particularly for the proposal contained on page 6 of his statement, which would refine the definition of explosives. I think you have been very helpful to us. Mr. Knox.

Speaking for all the members of the subcommittee, we apologize for the timing of your appearance here and for the fact that our presence is required in the House of Representatives in about 6 minutes, according to my judgment.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much.

Mr. Knox. Thank you very much, sir. I appreciate the time.

The CHAIRMAN. I insert in the record a statement I received from the Committee for Effective Crime Control.

(The statement follows:)

THE COMMITTEE FOR EFFECTIVE CRIME CONTROL,

JULY 19, 1970.

Hon. EMANUEL CELLER,

Chairman, House Judiciary Subcommittee No. 5,

House of Representatives,

Washington, D.C.

DEAR CONGRESSMAN CELLER: Our group is quite concerned that explosives control laws be properly directed.

We are enclosing a copy of our statement on the subject from the Congressional Record.

Please give this statement your consideration and, if possible, have it read into the testimony.

Thank you.

Yours truly,

[Enclosure]

JON WILLAND, Secretary.

[From the Congressional Record, June 22, 1970]

COMMITTEE FOR EFFECTIVE CRIME CONTROL STRESSES VIEWS REGARDING EXPLOSIVES

(By Hon. Ancher Nelsen, of Minnesota)

Mr. NELSEN. Mr. Speaker, the Committee for Effective Crime Control, a group representing more than 250,000 Minnesota sportsmen, has sent me a copy of its statement on control of explosives. So that my colleagues may be aware of the views of the Committee for Effective Crime Control on this matter. I insert the text of the committee's statement at this point in the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD:

"STATEMENT OF THE COMMITTEE FOR EFFECTIVE CRIME CONTROL ON THE CONTROL OF EXPLOSIVES

Terrorist bombings have produced a call for further controls over explosives. We believe that legislation should be directed toward controlling access to high explosives, blasting caps, and detonators. The wording of any legislation, however, must be sufficiently discriminating so that criminal elements rather than honest citizens will bear the burden of the law.

"A thoughtful and discriminating approach must recognize that there is a great deal of difference between propellants and high explosives, Gunpowder, be it black or smokeless, is relatively ineffective for bombs and consequenty is rarely used. Gunpower is, however, absolutely essential to sportsmen. A terrorist could make a crude gunpowder from commonly available materials. Gunpower for sportsmen, however must be manufactured with such qualities as granulation and burning time carefully regulated. Inflated prices of factory loaded cartridges have increasingly forced sportsmen to take up hand loading of ammunition. Black powder shooters, whose antique-type firearms were quite properly left untouched by the Gun Control Act of 1968, are in danger of having their sport crippled or eliminated. A per capita exemption on purchase and possession is not the answer, for shooters of antique-type muzzle-loading cannons need black powder in quantity. Though few congressmen may be aware they exist, a number of cannon shooting groups, including the Minneapolisbased Midwest Cannon Shooters Association, are active around the country.

"Among Minnesota's most famous cannon groups in the battery at New Ulm. The four cannons, six limbers, and three caissons sent for defense of New Elm during the Sioux Uprising in 1862 have been carefully preserved and are displayed and demonstrated on various occasions. Powder possession restrictions would hurt these shooters, for they burn a pound of powder per shot. Minnesota has other batteries as well. Many of them compete at the annual July 4 cannon shoot at Mayer. This is one of the largest shoots in the nation and has been nationally televised. These sportsmen are honest citizens whose interest in historical ordnance is for the public good.

"Legislation should not stifle legitimate activities. We urge the Congress to exempt all smokeless and black powders from regulation. Do not set up a quota system that will destroy the sport of cannon shooting. Do not make 3/32inch cannon fuse inaccessible. (Remember that bomb makers almost exclusively use electrical or chemical detonators.) Do not define a "bomb" so loosely that a citizen who enters a post office with a cartridge or a firecracker in his pocket is as guilty as a criminal who plants a dynamite bomb. Do not pass vague and inclusive legislation with unclear exemptions, lest honest citizens be harassed by federal agents, as they were after passage of the Gun Con trol Act of 1968. Do not allow federal enforcement agencies to allow felons and perpetrators of felonious acts to go uncharged, as has been the case under the Gun Control Act of 1968. Such action, or lack of it, makes a mockery of congressional intent."

The CHAIRMAN. This closes the hearing for this morning and we wil meet again tomorrow morning at 10 o'clock when we will hear from Members of Congress on this important legislation. The meeting will now adjourn.

(Whereupon, at 12:30 p.m., the subcommittee adjourned, to reconvene at 10 a.m., Thursday, July 30, 1970.)