Hon. EMANUEL CELLER, Chairman, House Judiciary Committee, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR CHAIRMAN CELLER: Thank you very much for permitting me to appear before your committee this morning. Per your request, I have attached a list of those testifying before Senator McClellan's investigating committee. The crux of their remarks is cited in paragraph five of my written testimony, presented to your committee this morning. Senator McClellan's committee informed me that testimony before the com. mittee will continue for at least another three or four weeks and that published testimony will be available in approximately five weeks. Again, thank you for your courtesy. BARRY M. GOLDWATER, Jr., PERSONS WHO HAVE TESTIFIED BEFORE SENATOR MCCLELLAN'S INVESTIGATING COMMITTEE Eugene Rossides, Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Enforcement and Operations. Howard Leary, Police Commissioner of New York City. Hart Mankin, General Counsel for the General Services Administration. Will Wilson, Assistant Attorney General, Criminal Division. Charles Sirgausa, Executive Director, Illinois State Crime and Investigating Commission. Charles O'Brien, Chief Deputy Attorney General of California. Richard Turner, Attorney General of Iowa. Wendell Nichols, Chief of Police of Des Moines, Iowa. Wesley Uhlman, Mayor of Seattle, Washington. Major Neil Maloney, Chief of Detectives, Police Department, Seattle, Washington. Captain Joseph Sanchez, Deputy Chief of Intelligence for the Puerto Rico Police. Mr. GOLDWATER. Another college campus that came under attack by these revolutionaries was San Francisco State College. The college administration and creative arts building were bombed, as was the home of a college professor. From just a cursory observation, it is easy to see that bombings are becoming almost commonplace in our academic community. However, bombings are not restricted to colleges alone-in Colorado, as was brought out just a moment ago, two electric service towers were dynamited; in Berkeley and San Francisco power transmitters were blown up, knocking out all electrical service in central city areas. San Francisco Police precinct stations have boarded their windows because of intensive bombings by militant groups. Twenty-four sticks of dynamite blew up a New York City building and all of us will remember the fire bombing of the Bank of America's branch at the University of California at Santa Barbara and the resulting death of an innocent Saratoga, Calif., student. As recently as this past Monday, July 27, five bombings were experienced across the country, including a bombing of a San Francisco Army facility, and three bombings of an Army training camp in Wisconsin. In New York City, a pipe bomb, wrapped in what appeared to be a Vietcong flag, exploded outside the Wall Street Bank of America building. It shattered the entrance doors. About 5 minutes after the blast, a man called the Daily News city desk and said, "This is a Weatherman. Listen close. I'll only say it once. We have just bombed the Bank of America. We left a Vietcong flag. We did it in honor of the Cuban revolution and our brothers who died on the Isla Vista. Tell (Attorney General) John Mitchell that no matter what he does, we cannot be stopped." I could cite case after case after case, but, what is the answer? First of all, let's not fool ourselves. We cannot totally eliminate bombings. Seventy-five percent of them are done with the use of incendiary devices and we certainly cannot register gasoline, rags, and bottles. However, we can define such devices as the Molotov cocktail under present law as an explosive and increase the penalty for their use, transportation or possession. As for actual explosive devices, we can exert more control and also increase the penalties for their misuse. Present law provides for 1 year and/or a $1,000 fine for transporting or possessing explosives with an intent for illegal use; the proposed legislation will increase the penalty to 10 years and/or a $10,000 fine. If personal injuries occur, the penalty would be raised from 10 years and/or a $10,000 fine to 20 years and/or a $20,000 fine. Both House bills contains these provisions along with several other changes. As a sportsman and reloader of ammunition myself, I support the Justice and Treasury Departments view that this legislation should be amended to provide for the exception of small quantities of black powder and small arms ammunition and components. There are estimated over a million sportsmen who reload ammunition and numerous muzzleloaders and pistol enthusiasts. One firm that manufactures muzzle loading gun replicas estimates the market at 100,000 guns a year. Twenty States now have special hunting seasons for muzzle loading weapons. Therefore, I feel that this proposed exemption should be added to the legislation I am discussing today. In summary, this legislation makes good sense and certain brings explosive laws in line with present penalties governing the illegal use of firearms. I urge passage in the hope that it will help to bring the rising number of bombings under control and reduce the resulting destruction to human life and property. Thank you. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Goldwater, just for clarification, as I look at your bill H.R. 16970, it provides for penalties for transportation of explosives in commerce. Do you have your bill before you? Mr. GOLDWATER. Yes. The CHAIRMAN. Then if you turn to page 4 as I read it, the bill's scope is limited to personal property and real property used for "business" purposes. The section would not cover the bombing of a church or a university dormitory. Is that your intention? Mr. GOLDWATER. No, sir; I believe this bill should include any building, vehicle or any real property. The CHAIRMAN. Used only for business purposes? Mr. GOLDWATER. No, not just businesses. My intention would be to cover churches, schools, any real or other property. The CHAIRMAN. At the present time bombing of churches and universities would be covered by State law, would it not? Is there a State law covering that in California? Mr. GOLDWATER. In certain States this would be true, but unfortunately, as I understand the law, the law is not quite as strict in California and many other States. As a result, this law would cover those areas of those States that did not measure up to the degree of penalty that we are speaking of today. The CHAIRMAN. Then you might have duplication, of State and Federal law, would you not? Mr. GOLDWATER. That is correct. However, there is no preemption of State statutes. The CHAIRMAN. Would you want that duplication? Mr. GOLDWATER. Yes. It is not necessarily duplication. The CHAIRMAN. Would you care to have that duplication of State and Federal law covering churches or private homes? Mr. GOLDWATER. I think that that would be necessary. My legislation would not, and I do not believe it should supersede State law where the State law is more restrictive or as strict as the Federal law. The CHAIRMAN. So if your State or any other State law would cover churches, police stations, private homes, other properties not used for business, you would let the State law take care of that, but the Federal law would take care of other properties affected by interstate commerce and Federal buildings and so forth? Mr. GOLDWATER. Yes, the legislation should be amended. The CHAIRMAN. Then we would have to change the wording, of course, of your bill. Mr. McCulloch? Mr. McCULLOCH. Yes. I have reread your statement two or three times since it was handed to us this morning. Of course, the facts recited particularly on page 1 should give all liberty-loving Americans cause for thought so that we may do something about this bombing. This is a very difficult question. I would hardly expect you to be able to answer it. But I wonder if by any chance you have any estimate of the number of indictments that were brought against the people who were involved in the bombings described in your statement? Mr. GOLDWATER. I think you are correct. I really could not give you a specific number. But in my study I have seen few indictments. Mr. MCCULLOCH. Is that not caused by the lack of adequate State legislation in this field? Mr. GOLDWATER. I believe in many instances this is true. However, in most instances it is difficult to actually determine who is the culprit. Mr. McCULLOCH. We have some Federal law which does not neces sarily supersede State law, but is effectivly used alongside of the State law, have we not? Mr. GOLDWATER. Yes. Mr. McCULLOCH. I think perhaps the Lindbergh kidnaping law is one of those laws. Mr. GOLDWATER. Yes, sir. Mr. McCULLOCH. You would have no objection, if it can be done, to enacting legislation covering these criminal acts both from the standpoint of the Federal and the State Governments? Mr. GOLDWATER. Yes, sir. I think that these penalties need to be stricter and I believe that they need to be uniform across the country. Where State laws are lax, I believe the Federal Government with Federal law should intervene. Mr. McCULLOCH. Might I ask you this leading question: And do you, too, believe that when a person is indicted, tried and found guilty, the penalty finally assessed should be more than a slap on the wrist? Mr. GOLDWATER. Absolutely. Mr. McCULLOCH. Do you know whether there is evidence that the sentences imposed on the guilty, at least in some jurisdictions, have been gradually growing less and less severe ? Mr. GOLDWATER. I could not prove that, but from my feeling about the general problem of penalties for criminal convictions, I would imagine they have been less severe. Mr. McCULLOCH. I thank you very much for your interest in this legislation. I think it is apparent to all those who are interested that something must be done without any unnecessary delay. Mr. GOLDWATER. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. McClory? Mr. McCLORY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just want to say that I think the gentleman's testimony is particularly significant, partly because he is a young man and a young Member of the House of Representatives, and also because of The CHAIRMAN. We are all young. Mr. McCLORY. A younger Member of the House of Representatives and also because of his representing a district in the State of Califor nia, which I think is a special area of concern for the Congress and for the Nation with regard to this threat, this serious situation with regard to bombings. I judge from your presentation, Mr. Goldwater, that you feel that increasing the penalties and perhaps also increasing the Federal juris. diction would have a deterrent effect insofar as these bombing are concerned, is that correct? Mr. GOLDWATER. As I mentioned in my testimony, I do not think we should try to fool ourselves, we cannot stop all bombings. Bombs, themselves, are easy to make, with materials relatively easy to obtain. It is a fact that 75 percent of these identifiable explosive bombings are done with dynamite. Therefore, we must not only increase the penalties, but also the regulation and licensing of the handling of regular commercial explosives. I think this is important to reduce the chances of someone using dynamite, specifically, as an explosive device. Mr. MCCLORY. So you would also favor a licensing law such as the one which the administration has recommended? Mr. GOLDWATER. Yes. Mr. McCLORY. I gather the Federal jurisdiction with regard to prosecutions under your bill would be overlapping and in addition to State jurisdiction. Mr. GOLDWATER. Yes. Mr. McCLORY. In the final paragraph of section 1, you indicate that the Attorney General should be able to determine which cases the Federal Government would prosecute. Is it your idea that if there is some kind of a sensational case, some kind of a case which involves or appears to involve these revolutionaries about which you have expressed yourself in your testimony, such a case is more in line for Federal prosecution than the kind of a grudge case where somebody puts a bomb in a fellow gangster's automobile and blows him up? Mr. GOLDWATER. That determination of course would have to be made by the Attorney General, but I think it would be appropriate in cases where State law was not sufficient to cope with the situation, or in fact where there was alternate implications other than just a mere grudge bombing. Mr. McCLORY. You mentioned he would undertake investigations and prosecutions where in his judgment investigation or prosecution by the United States is in the public interest. Does "public interest" refer not only to wide public knowledge of a bombing but also to the inadequacy in State laws? Mr. GOLDWATER. Yes, and perhaps where there is an implication of some subversive nature, or threat of future bombings. I think this would be an area where he would intervene. He could possibly intervene in such cases involving our educational system or post offices. Perhaps, if it is to the Attorney General's interpretation that this could begin sort of a chain reaction, it might be something that he could get involved in. Basically, the Justice Department could get involved where the State did not have the law to cope with the problem. Mr. McCLORY. I judge that the area of principal concern on your part is violence which emanates from unrest on the college campus, particularly among students and faculty or those off-campus radicals who come on to the campus and create trouble and disturbances there. Mr. GOLDWATER. Well, not necessarily. I am concerned no matter where the bombings take place or whoever does them. It just so happens that about 89 percent of those traceable bombings can be traced to these types of extremist minded individuals. So I think the concern would have to be centered particularly on those types of people. Mr. MCCLORY. Thank you very much. Mr. McCULLOCH. Mr. Chairman, I would like to return to a question that I asked. Since you have indicated, and since we know of the bombings of induction centers in California and elsewhere, do you have any knowledge of whether or not there were any indictments of persons involved in those types of bombings? Mr. GOLDWATER. To my knowledge there were none. I understand that individuals who own federally leased buildings have not been compensated by the Federal Government for the bombing or for the destruction of the property. That is, of course, another problem, but one I think has to be faced one of these days, the problem of the increase in the defacing and destruction of our buildings owned or leased by the Federal Government. Free enterprise is being jeopardized by the lack of protection of these facilities. |