Mr. McCULLOCH. Do you have any fears about the effectiveness of those who oppose licensing of manufacturers and those who deal in such explosives?

Mr. GOLDWATER. Yes, I can appreciate their fear, and, as I mentioned in my testimony, I believe that these laws that we are talking about today should make exception, especially in the area of black powder and for those powders which are used by sportsmen, for muzzle loading, that type of activity.

I think if there are certain protections in this area, I believe the manufacturers, perhaps, and also the sportsmen would be a little more sympathetic toward the kind of legislation we are talking about.

Mr. McCULLOCH. If the exceptions that you have in mind were made, would you favor Federal legislation that required the ultimate user to have a license?

Mr. GOLDWATER. Yes. I would favor legislation that would license and regulate the manufacture and sale of high explosives, with the exceptions for the user, maybe not so much the manufacturer but the user and distributor of black powder and powder being used for sporting type enjoyment devices. The administration's regulatory bill does contain such exceptions.

Mr. McCULLOCH. How about the use of black powder for purposes other than for small arms?

Mr. GOLDWATER. This, of course, is an exception. There are very few documented cases where, actually, black powder has been used. Black powder, of course, is triggered by a spark and is slow burning and is not usually used as a destructive device.

We can recall the western movies where the bandits place the powder keg under a bridge and blow it up. That just cannot really occur.

Mr. McCULLOCH. It has been suggested that as we make it more and more difficult for really high explosives to be bought and used, that black powder will be used in increasing amounts by these people who are bent on destruction?

Mr. GOLDWATER. Not necessarily, because there are more readily attainable materials, other than black powder, which can be used for greater destruction than black powder such as ammonium nitrate. Black powder, in itself, say in a shell or in some forms next to heat, take quite a bit of doing to set off. However, I do support regulation of large quantity sales.

I think the explosives we are most concerned about are dynamite, other high explosives and detonators, fuses, things of that type.

Mr. McCULLOCH. As I recall, some State legislatures in the past have not taken that kindly a view toward users of black powder in quantity. There are some States that, in addition, want to include black powder which can now be sold in commerce.

Mr. GOLDWATER. I would concur with that statement, that the quantity of black powder should be regulated, regulation of some sort should be placed on it, to the small-bore rifleman or sportsman. It is not necessary for him to have a large keg of powder. He can do very readily with 5 or even 10 pounds at the maximum.

Mr. McCULLOCH. And I have no quarrel with the users of black powder for sporting purposes. When I was very young, I used it for that kind of purpose. But as we proscribe high explosives, there is a

possibility that we force people so minded to look to black powder, which can be very effective in some fields.

Mr. GOLDWATER. Yes, sir, there is a possibility.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Smith?

Mr. SMITH. No questions.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Hutchinson?

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Chairman, thank you.

There has been much reference to an inadequacy of State laws. Can you tell us what the law is in California so far as State laws are con cerned on this subject?

Mr. GOLDWATER. I know California law is not as strict as my legislation but I can provide more specific information for you.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. What I am interested in is whether, as a result of our recent experience of bombings, the California Legislature has addressed itself at all to this subject.

Mr. GOLDWATER. Yes. It is my understanding there are currently pending in the State legislature some rules or possible legislation in this area. I am not familiar with what is being proposed.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. We keep talking about the inadequacy of State law. In this Federal Republic of ours, I am curious as to why we do not then go back to the State legislatures and get adequate State laws. It seems to me that the Federal jurisdiction probably could not constitutionally be extended to cover all situations, and that in order to get at this problem totally, we must resort to State legislation. Yet we repeatedly assert that State laws are so inadequate that we have to have Federal legislation.

I would be glad to hear your comments on that philosophy of government.

Mr. GOLDWATER. I can appreciate that philosophy, because I would like to see States look after their own house.

It seems, however, in some areas the Federal Government must take the leadership. Law, with relation to bombings, is perhaps an

area.

We would certainly hope that States would be responsible in this area. Maybe in time they will be, but with current violence I do not believe the American people can wait for the States to act if, in fact, they are not.

I believe Federal law is needed, especially in the area of interstate commerce, especially in the area of Federal property.

I would agree with you, I would like to see States enact their own laws.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. I certainly do not want to appear to quarrel with the gentleman at all. I do not want to do that.

I think I make a correct statement when I say that the legislatures in those States where this problem is the greatest are legislatures which meet not only every other year but rather most of the time all of the year. I know that is what has developed in Michigan. I suspect it is true in California and in other industrial States.

Since the State legislatures are in session most of the time now, I am wondering why the people of the United States are too impatient to go to their State legislatures and request laws which admittedly, according to the theory of our Federal Government, are primarily within the realm of the State. I do not quarrel with the proposition that we

do need Federal law in the area. We need Federal law developed within the scope of interstate commerce to assist the States because certainly a State cannot reach beyond its own boundaries. But this whole idea that the Federal Government has to do it because the States do not act or because the people are impatient that the States will not act is alien to me. I wonder what is happening to the American people in that regard.

Mr. GOLDWATER. I share your concern, Mr. Hutchinson.

As a matter of fact, the area of explosive penalties and laws is only one of many areas where States certainly should be more involved. I remember in the State of California there are over 1,000 pieces of legislation on the books just in the area of environment. Yet here at the Federal level we are trying to set standards on air pollution.

I would venture to say that the same thing is happening in this area also. But it seems to me that at the Federal level we can set a standard which can be used for all States to model their own particular pieces of legislation after, especially in the area of licensing, and control of manufacturing, and also where it involves interstate use and bombings of Federal buildings and property.

This is something we should address ourselves to. I believe the administration's new explosive regulations bill will rectify any problems in this area.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. I thank the gentleman.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Goldwater. We appreciate your coming. It is very comforting to know that you have given careful study to this very important subject. We are very grateful to

you.

Mr. GOLDWATER. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. Our next witness is our distinguished Representative from the State of Ohio, the Honorable Chalmers P. Wylie.

STATEMENT OF HON. CHALMERS P. WYLIE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OHIO

Mr. WYLIE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Will you identify the very good looking gentleman on your right?

Mr. WYLIE. This is Mr. Charles Wegner, my legislative assistant, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you.

Mr. WYLIE. I thank you, Mr. Chairman, and distinguished members of the subcommittee for inviting me to testify this morning. I want to thank Mr. McCulloch for the opportunity of allowing me to be a cosponsor of the bill which he got together and providing this format for me to express myself on this subject.

I think rather than follow the prepared testimony which I have, I would ask the distinguished chairman if I might have this statement printed in the record.

I think I will just capsulize it, and if there are questions I will give you that opportunity.

The CHAIRMAN. We will accept your statement in toto for the record. Mr. WYLIE. Thank you.

(The statement follows:)

STATEMENT OF HON. CHALMERS P. WYLIE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OHIO

Mr. Chairman, distinguished members of the Subcommittee, I would like to thank you for inviting me to testify this morning on the illegal use of explosives and the bill, H.R. 16700, which is designed to deter and punish those who engage in such unlawful activities.

These hearings are most timely for on Tuesday of this week a series of stories on the most recent terrorist bombings appeared in the Washington Post. According to a U.P.I. article, a pipe bomb wrapped in a Vietcong flag exploded outside the Bank of America's Wall Street office. Fortunately, no one was injured but property was damaged. Shortly after the early morning blast an unidentified man called the Daily News to inform the newspaper that the explosion was the handiwork of the Weatherman faction of the S.D.S. The anonymous caller said the bombing was in "honor of the Cuban revolution" and that there was nothing the law could do to stop such activities in the future.

Following this article were two AP stories headlined "Time Bomb Damages San Francisco Army Garage," and "Training to Continue Despite Base Bombing." The second headline referred to a series of explosions at the Army's reserve training base at Camp McCoy in Wisconsin.

I recently received information from the F.B.I. dealing with student agitation. During the 1968-69 school year, there were 61 instances of arson and/or bombings attributed to the street revolutionaries of the student left.

In recent years, school, churches and synagogues have been bombed by racial extremists and political fanatics. In addition, numerous bomb threats and crank calls have cost commercial concerns and common carriers large sums by causing a disruption of normal business activities as buildings are evacuated and the police search for explosives.

On July 16, the Honorable Eugene T. Rossides, Assistant Secretary of the Treasury, supplied the Subcommittee with comprehensive statistical data on the contemporary scope of bomb terrorism in the United States. This indeed was disturbing testimony.

The alarming increase in the use of bombs as weapons of terror, intimidation, destruction and death is a threat to social decorum and innocent law-abiding citizens that this society can no longer tolerate. The first duty of any government, no matter what its ideological underpinnings, is to preserve the public peace, protect its citizens from mindless violence, and remove the malefactor from the mainstream of society. This is a bare essential of a civilized society.

In June, I conducted an opinion poll in my district. One of the questions asked was to list, in order of priority, the problems confronting the nation. The number one response was not the war, not inflation, but "crime and violence." The existing Federal law dealing with the illegal use of explosives is lacking in several respects. To help remedy this situation, I co-sponsored H.R. 16700. The bill would amend section 837 of Title 18, U.S.C. pertaining to the illegal use or possession and threats or false information concerning attempts to damage or destroy real or personal property by fire or explosives.

The authority of the legislative branch to pass laws governing explosives and their use is based on the Constitutional power of the Congress to regulate interstate and foreign commerce (Art. I, Sec. 8, U.S. Const.). I feel a brief analysis of the bill is in order at this time.

Since we are dealing with explosives transported in interstate and foreign commerce, subsection (a) of the bill broadly defines "commerce" to include all geographical transportation of explosives except those movements that are solely intrastate in nature and therefore are beyond the scope of Congressional action. For practical purposes, there would be few instances where an explosive material would not be moved in commerce at some point from its manufacturer to ultimate user.

In the second part of subsection (a), the term "explosive" is defined in language that covers every conceivable explosive material, from simple black gunpowder to detonators to sophisticated incendiary devices.

Subsection (b) provides criminal sanctions for an individual who "transports or receives, or attempts to transport or receive," in the instrumentalities of "commerce any explosive with the knowledge or intent that will be used to kill, injure, or intimidate," any person or damage real or personal property. The basic penalty for violation is a prison sentence of not more than ten years and/or a fine of up to $10.000. If personal injury results from the aforementioned illegal use of explosives, the penalty can be increased to 20 years and/or a $20,000 fine.

If a death results, the sentence can be for any term of years, life, or even the death penalty.

By comparison, the language of subsection (b), as presently on the books, has several shortcomings. The present law speaks only in terms of one who transports or aids and abets another in transporting explosives in interstate commerce with the knowledge or intent that it will be used to destroy property for the purpoes of interferring with its use for educational, religious, charitable, residential, business, or civic objectievs, or for intimidating a person pursuing such lawful objectives. By including those who "receive" explosives, and those who attempt to transport or receive explosives, the coverage in the bill is expanded to include parties privy to a bomb plot, in addition to those transporting the explosives in commerce. The bill eliminates the aforementioned laundry list of property uses that one could illegally interfere with by bombing activities, and expands the coverage to include knowledge of and intent to bomb any property, no matter what its use or purpose.

The present section speaks in terms of intimidating any person pursuing the objectives contained in the laundry list of property use. The bill fills an obvious gap in respect to potential victims by covering not only intimidation but injury or killings.

Subsection (c) of the bill provides that those who use interstate communications systems or commerce to willfully threaten or maliciously convey a false threat concerning a bombing attempt or an alleged bombing attempt to damage property or intimidate, injure, or kill individuals shall be imprisoned for up to five years and/or be fined $5,000.

Again, the corresponding section in the present law deals with bomb threats designed to interfere with the same laundry list of property uses or the intimidation of persons. The bill under consideration strengthens this provision hy covering all genuine or crank bomb threats.

Subsection (d) of H.R. 16700 provides that those who maliciously damage or attempt to damage by explosives any property in which the United States has proprietary interest will be subject to the same penalty provisions of subsection (b) of the bill. This language is infinitely superior to its present counterpart, subsection (c) of 18 U.S.C. 837, which does not mention federal properties but takes the same laundry list/intimidation approach. Present law also creates a rebuttable presumption that the explosive was transported in commerce in violation of the Act by the perpetrators. My bill clearly improves enforcement by covering actual and attempted bombings of government property. In the bill, the commerce issue does not enter into the bombing of government property and therefore eliminates the need for complicated jury instructions on the theory of the law of presumptions and their rebuttal. From my own experience as an attorney, I believe that juries have great difficulty in comprehending, let alone properly applying such legal subtleties as the theory of presumptions.

Subsection (e) is new and has no counterpart in 18 U.S.C. 837; it makes possession of an explosive in any building in which the Federal Government has a proprietary interest a criminal act. An exception is provided for those who have written permission from proper federal authorities to possess explosives on federal lands. The penalty for violation is up to one year in jail and a fine of up to $1,000.

Subsection (f) is also new. It covers those who maliciously damage or attempt to damage by explosives any property used for business purposes by one engaged in commerce or affecting commerce. The penalties are the same as those of subsection (c) of the bill.

Subsection (g) is a catch-all which proscribes possession of explosives with the knowledge or intent that they will be transported or used in volation of the provisions of H.R. 16700. The penalty here is up to five years and/or a $5,000 fine.

This bill closes the obvious loopholes in Sec. 837 as is presently written, by providing comprehensive coverage to prosecute almost any and all persons connected with a bomb plot. In addition, the bill only subjects to criminal sanctions those who actually bomb, threaten or attempt to bomb, or have knowledge or intent that an explosive will be used for some illegal purpose within the meaning of the Act. By putting the language in this context, the bill will not interfere in any way with sportsmen, farmers, and others who lawfully and for constructive purposes possess and transport explosive materials. Hopefully, the stiff penalties will deter at least a portion of the violence by bombing that now increasing plagues the land. For those not deterred, H.R. 16700 will give the Depart