So I ask this question: Is this another piece of legislation which if enacted is going to fuel the charge that we are engaged in repression?

Mr. CRAMER. Anyone who has the intent and purpose of bombing any property should be repressed. If someone wants to charge me with repressing them, I accept the charge gladly, as I did under the Antiriot Act.

So far as I am concerned, that act is helping to put some of these radical revolutionaries out of business. And, I hope this Congress will act to get the Bail Bond Act amended to where the judge can keep them in jail when they are obviously a menace to society. So far as I am concerned, this legislation is essential and must be passed to repress the bombers.

Mr. McCLORY. In other words, it is much more valid to say that for the law-abiding American citizen to enjoy his individual constitutional rights, it is essential that we do not have those rights abused by people such as those you have characterized.

Mr. CRAMER. Mr. McClory, it is my view that the law must keep pace with the time. This is a new vehicle, a new device, a dangerous device that could be employed against any unsuspecting citizen at any time. There is no real reason and logic to exactly what and why they bomb. It is bomb for bombing's sake against the establishment. I guess we are all the "establishment." So it means anybody. It has clearly been shown this is their new weapon just as, when the antiriot bill was considered, their weapon at that time was rioting in the streets. Now the weapon is bombing, surreptitiously, with no real motive involved except to get at the establishment. The Congress has a duty to protect its citizens.

The CHAIRMAN. If the gentleman will yield, the Supreme Court has yet to pass on the question of intent as used in the Anti-Riot Act. They have not passed on that.

Mr. CRAMER. Yes, I am well aware of that. I am convinced they will uphold it. You and I had some interesting discussions about that, Mr. Chairman, not too many years ago. I appreciate your view, and with the two new strict constructionists on the Court, I think I have a fighting chance, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. McCLORY. I want to indicate my support of the position which the gentleman has expressed. I think he has responded very adequately to this charge of repression which is constantly bandied about without any real basis.

I feel, too, that this legislation is consistent with the needs of the times and the desires of the people. It is certainly not repressive with respect to anyone, as the gentleman says, who does not deserve to be repressed.

Mr. CRAMER. I think we were all repulsed at the bombings of churches in the South. We did something about it. I am equally repulsed about the bombings that are taking place in the rest of the contry and we have to do something about them.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Cramer.

Mr. CRAMER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. There will be a number of insertions placed in the record at this point.

First, the statement of Hon. John V. Lindsay, the mayor of the city of New York.

(The statement follows:)

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN V. LINDSAY, MAYOR, THE CITY OF NEW YORK

A society committed to justice and order cannot tolerate violent means to achieve political ends. In particular, it cannot tolerate the use of explosive devices to advance extremist causes. Following the first bombing assaults against the civil rights movement-from 1955, in Montgomery, against the family of Dr. Martin Luther King, to 1963, in Birmingham, against a Sunday School class in a small Baptist church-our nation responded with too much indifference and too little action. The long ago fate of children maimed and killed by bomb fragments should have inspired more than expressions of sympathy and indignation. But it did not, and a significant legislative drive against violence by explosives comes only now, as the threat touches the rest of America. This is not the time for a further review of the past. All law-abiding American, black and white, rich and poor, old and young, North and South, face this crisis together. The incidence of bombings has risen alarmingly. Thus, while it is tragic that the federal government has waited so long, it is reassuring that it is now apparently ready to act.

Punitive measures are one necessary response. Anyone who jeopardizes the lives of innocents by bombing an office building or a school, a police station or a private home, must be punished in accordance with the gravity of his crime.

But punishment is not enough. It is an uncertain deterrent device; despite severe penalties, bombings continue to increase. More important, the effects of punishment are felt only after the crime has been committed and the damage done. Punitive measures cannot rebuild shattered buildings or restore lost lives. So the purpose of sensible legislation in this area must reach beyond punishment to prevention through regulation. Strong law enforcement must include a practical regulatory system that will protect people and property from assault by explosion.

The regulation of firearms presents a similar case. Existing laws against murder and assault are punitive and deterrent in nature. Nonetheless, murders still occur, often by the use of firearms. The goal of effective law enforcement should be not only the apprehension of murderers, but the prevention of murders. That means, among other things, making it harder for the potential criminal to get a gun.

We must have the same kind of preventive approach in anti-bombing legislation. A federal statute with strict nationwide standards is required to regulate and restrict explosives. New York City has learned from hard experience that nothing else will work.

New York City has the nation's most comprehensive legislative controls on the manufacture, sale, possession and use of explosives and explosive devices. The heart of the controls is a rigidly enforced permit, records, and certificate system. A permit-issued only to those who meet well-defined standards—is a prerequisite to the purchase or sale of any explosive. Both buyers and sellers must maintain detailed records of all transactions. Sellers' records, for example, must list the name and address of each purchaser, the kind and quantity of explosives he received, and identification numbers for each item or unit purchased. The sellers' records are inspected daily. And safety standards for the storage and detonation of explosives require constant monitoring by skilled personnel holding a certificate of fitness from the City.

The dramatic events of the last several months have made it apparent that this careful scheme is not enough. Local or even state regulations alone cannot effectively prevent bombings. The inherent problem is not the regulations themselves, but their necessarily limited geographical scope.

Because few states have effective laws on the sale and possession of explosives, New York City's restrictions can be evaded with little difficulty. Someone who wants to set off a bomb in the city can obtain the ingredients in a host of neighboring states. It has happened time and again.

For example, the dynamite that demolished a Greenwich Village Townhouse and took three lives was purchased in a perfectly legal transaction in Keene, New Hampshire. The purchaser had only to prove that he was eighteen years old. That transaction could not have occurred in New York City-but its effects were deeply and tragically felt there.

Our city has a tradition of innovation and reform in law enforcement. We have pioneered in the local application of preventive principles to the control of explosives, just as we have pioneered in many other areas of criminal justice. In discussions among city officials and law enforcement professionals, we have de

veloped specific recommendations for the federal regulation of explosives. Another committee heard those recommendations a week ago from Police Commissioner Howard Leary. Given the pressing need for the right kind of federal antibombing legislation, we are happy to contribute in any way we can.

It is angering and more than a little frightening to reflect on the bombing here in the United States. Our country should not become a battlefield. But that could happen. The incredible bombing of New York City's Police Headquarters demonstrates how profound the threat is. Professionals trained to keep order were made the victims of disorder in the one place where they should have been most secure.

It is time to act. Congress should pass the strongest preventive legislation it can devise. That legislation should aim at two major goals: to prevent bombings against persons and property and to punish those who perpetrate them. Not until we have both effective punishment and effective prevention can we be satisfied that we have done enough.

The CHAIRMAN. The statement of Honorable Gerald R. Ford, U.S. Representative in Congress from the State of Michigan.

(The statement follows:)

STATEMENT OF HON. GERALD R. FORD, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN

Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee on the Judiciary: The rash of bombings which has swept across this country in recent months is a development which must be stopped.

These senseless bombings have spread fear throughout America, have taken the lives of 43 people, and have destroyed $22.6 million worth of property. The horrible record just cited was written in the period from January 1, 1969, to April 15, 1970, when there were 4,330 bombings, 1,475 attempted bombings and 35,129 bomb scares.

My deep concern about this situation prompted me to co-sponsor H.R. 16699. which was introduced on March 26, 1970, and to join now in sponsoring H.R. 18573.

It is not enough to make it a federal crime to bomb a federal building or a business affecting interstate commerce or to telephone a bomb threat or bomb scare, as H.R. 16699 would do. We must also make it more difficult for would-be bombers to obtain explosives, and H.R. 18573 would serve that end.

I believe it is mandatory, as provided by H.R. 18573, that we limit interstate traffic in explosives to licensees and permittees. We must also strive to keep explosives out of the hands of minors, felons, fugitives from justice, drug addicts and mental defectives, as further provided by H.R. 18573. I urge the enactment of H.R. 18573 and I hope that every state will follow up by adopting strong licensing laws governing business in explosives within its borders. These bombings must be stopped.

It is obvious that many of these bombings are the work of anarchists and political fanatics. The only way to deal with these potential murderers is to bring the full power of Federal, state and local law enforcement to bear on the situation.

We in the Congress must do everything we can to help state and local authorities deal with these acts of terrorism. Enactment of H.R. 16699 and H.R. 18573 would facilitate the achievement of that objective.

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I urge the approval of these bills. The CHAIRMAN. The statement of the Honorable Clarence E. Miller. U.S. Representative in Congress from the State of Ohio. (The statement follows:)

STATEMENT OF HON. CLARENCE E. MILLER, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS

FROM THE STATE OF OHIO

Mr. Chairman. I appreciate having the opportunity to address myself today to what I consider to be the urgent need for emergency legislation to halt the alarming increase in the number of criminal and terrorist bombings occurring throughout the United States.

As co-sponsor of H.R. 16699, I am deeply concerned with the unchecked accessibility of explosive materials and the lack of meaningful Federal Statutes to deal with the illegal use, transportation, and possession of explosives. I am shocked as are all Americans by the recent upsurge of bombing activities which have led to the injury and death of many innocent people and the destruction of millions of dollars in property. Recent estimates place the number of dead at 43 as a result of bombings during a period from January 1, 1969, through April 15, 1970. During this same time, there were 4,300 reported bombings, 1,475 unsuccessful bombing attempts, and a shocking 15.129 bomb threats.

For many years airlines have been plagued by bomb threats, but now schools and other public buildings, including many Federal offices here in Washington, are now being increasingly victimized and harassed by anonymous phone calls. The menace of bombing is not a new phenomenon in this country. A wired ignition or a carefully concealed time bomb have long been devices used by organized crime and bomb maniacs. However, during the last decade, bombings have spread to horrifying proportions. Americans well remember that fateful day seven years ago in a Birmingham, Alabama, church where four young school girls were killed by a dynamite blast. Two years later (just outside of Washington), a cache of dynamite was discovered in a woodland area said to be the training site of the paramilitary organization, the Minutemen. Later Americans were horrified to learn that the FBI had uncovered a diabolical plot to blow up several national monuments. The urban riots of the summer of 1967 brought extensive firebombing and the molotov cocktail became a permanent part of the terrorists' arsenal. Recently, thirteen members of the radical Weatherman organization were indicted on charges of conspiring to build a nationwide revolutionary network to bomb and kill. Their plans called for the use of bombs and explosives to destroy university buildings and police stations and kill and injure anyone who might be in them.

The politics of protest are degenerating into the tactics of terror. The calculated and coordinated plans or these hard-core criminals parading as romantic revolutionaries are producing an atmosphere of fear and frustration in our

country.

I think the important point we must realize is that such activities have taken a dramatic upsurge in the last several years and will continue to increase unless the Congress takes the necessary action to stop it. H.R. 16699, I believe, is an important initial step to crack down on this problem by providing new and more effective means to halt the proliferation of explosives and increasing the severity of the penalties for illegal use. The time for action is past due. I sincerely feel that we can meet this problem and preserve every American's right of life and safety. I therefor strongly urge favorable and expeditious action in reporting this necessary legislation.

I would like to comment in closing that I have also co-sponsored complimentary legislation to H.R. 16699 which would go a step further by regulating the impor tation, manufacture, and sale of explosives. Not only do we have to deter the illegal use of explosives, but we must also make it more difficult for the criminal to obtain the materials to spread his terrorism.

The CHAIRMAN. The statement of Hon. William E. Brock III, U.S. Representative in Congress from the State of Tennessee.

(The statement follows:)

STATEMENT OF HON. WILLIAM E. BROCK, III, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS

FROM THE STATE OF TENNESSEE

Mr. Chairman, I am especially grateful for this opportunity to be here and speak in behalf of my bill HR 18409, which would strengthen the federal criminal laws concerning the illegal use, transportation and possession of explosives. Specifically, it would make threats, illegal transportation, use or possession of explosives a federal offense, but exempts the use by sportsmen of black and smokeless powder.

I have been most disturbed by the rash of bombings and threats which have plagued this nation in the last few years. The recent statistics indicate that bombings have been responsible in the period from January 1, 1969, to April 15, 1970, for the deaths of 40 people and $21.8 million of property damage. In my own state of Tennessee, 26 bombings and 11 attempted bombings have actually

been reported. These figures do not take into consideration numerous unreported incidents. Tennessee papers have carried particularly disquieting accounts of bomb threats lodged at our primary and secondary schools.

I urge that prompt action be taken on my bill designed to strengthen the federal laws dealing with the demented terrorist who resorts to the bomb and the anonymous threat. It is particularly urgent that something be done to protect our children before the opening of schools next fall.

The CHAIRMAN. The statement of Hon. John M. Murphy, U.S. Representative in Congress from the State of New York.

(The statement follows:)

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN M. MURPHY, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to appear today before this distinguished committee which is attacking the nefarious proliferation of terroristic and criminal bombings that have broken out in the United States.

The increased incidence of bombing sabotage and arson which have plagued the nation during the last year and a half clearly indicates that the United States is experiencing a phenomenon unparalleled in our history. Deaths, injuries, extensive property damage, and public fear have burgeoned with each blast.

From January 1969 to April of this year, this nation suffered a total of 4,330 bombings, an additional 1,475 attempted bombings, and a reported 35,129 threatened bombings-a combined total of 40,934 bombing incidents.

Of the 4,330 actual bombings, 3,355 were incendiary in nature, and 975 were explosive.

In this scant 15 month period, bombings were responsible for the deaths of 43 people and $21.8 million in property damage.

In New York alone, there were 121 explosive bombings and 177 incendiary bombings for a 298 total. There were 163 attempted bombings and 9,412 separate bomb threats. Losses in property damage totalled an astronomical $2 million. And the gory statistics show that eight persons lost their lives and 106 were injured during this rampage of terror. According to statistics supplied by state and local law enforcement agencies, only four states-Idaho, North Carolina, North Dakota, and Rhode Island-escaped the warped wrath of mad bombers during this period.

We have witnessed an explosion which severely damaged the headquarters of the nation's largest police department in New York City; the blasts in numerous New York skyscrapers and the detonation of a Greenwich Village "bomb factory" occupied by known revolutionaries dedicated to violence-the Weatherman wing of the Students for a Democratic Society.

And on Monday of this week a pre-dawn explosion by alleged Weathermen ripped a marble slab from the vestibule wall of the Bank of America at 41 Broad Street, the heart of the New York financial district. The Bank of America, the nation's largest financial institution, has been a target twice before. In February, the bank's branch at Santa Barbara, California, was bombed and gutted. In April, a student at the nearby University of California was fatally shot when the bank was again severely damaged by fire.

At Monday's latest episode, a torn Viet Cong flag and a Cuban pennant were found at the scene as well as parts from a pipe bomb. An anonymous caller telephoned the New York Daily News shortly after the blast 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 Viet Cong flag. We did it in honor of the Cuban revolution and our brothers who died on the Isla Vista. Tell John Mitchell (U.S. Attorney General) that no matter what he does we cannot be stopped."

Mr. Chairman, the blast coincided with the anniversary of the abortive Cuban revolution of July 26, 1953. It also happened within hours of the release on $10,000 bond of Dianne Donghi, one of the 13 members of the Weathermen's group indicted by a federal grand jury last week on charges of conspiring to blow up police stations and other buildings.

While there is no connection between Miss Donghi's release and the latest bombing, I must say that I am incredulous about the release itself on a personal recognizance bond.