genuinely fear their neighborhood streets after dark, and their notion of defending ones' self and one's family rather than relying solely on the police, has apparently gained great appeal, despite the proven impracticality and ineffectuality of such efforts.

There are now approximately 40 million privately owned handguns and an additional 2.5 million enter circulation each year. Yet, we find ourselves lending legitimacy to gun control proposals which we know will not address the full scope of our handgun problem.

Legislation which would ban the "Saturday Night Special" or mandate registration and licensing are measures which have extremely limited application. Much like the emasculated Gun Control Act of 1968, these provisions will have little impact on the numbers of deaths and injuries by handguns each year.

This is particularly true of the "Saturday Night Special" legislation now being considered by this Subcommittee. In addition to the difficulties encountered in finding a definition for "Saturday Night Specials" which is not easily circumvented by the manufacturer, a wealth of documentary evidence indicates that only a small percentage of voilent crimes are committed with these cheap, poorly manufactured handguns.

Studies conducted by the New York City Police Department have determined that less than 30 percent of the firearms seized from arrested perpetrators were "Saturday Night Specials". Another study by the same source reports that within a fifteen day period seven police officers were killed with handguns. None of the handguns used in these crimes were identified as "Specials". This same study emphasized that while "Saturday Night Specials" are an important part of the handgun problem, eliminating them would not come close to fully eradicating the problem. In fact, I would suggest that "Saturday Night Special" legislation might in some ways prove counter-productive.

It has become apparent that the major handgun manufacturers in this country quietly support banning the "Special." This is not totally unexpected since such a measure would eliminate existing competition from roughly 300 small manufacturers. The top ten manufacturers would then be free to totally monopolize the handgun market and as a result, be financially capable of marketing what are now expensive revolvers and pistols for considerably less. I am firmly convinced that the passage of "Saturday Night Special" legislation would not only fail to reduce the alarming amount of violent crime presently being committed, but would also play into the hands of the major gun manufacturers who share perhaps the greatest responsibility for the maintenance and cultivation of this country's obsession with guns.

Although licensing and registration measures provide a more logical, enforcible alternative to "Saturday Night Specials" legislation, they too are similarly lacking in scope. Legislation of this nature would require that each gun be registered and that each owner be licensed after the completion of a thorough police check. These provisions would of course restrict the availability of handguns to those who are theoretically responsible lawabiding citizens. It has been amply demonstrated, however, that accidents or "crimes of passion" between people who are either related or acquainted account for approximately 73% of handgun deaths yearly. Licensing and registration legislation is, in the final analysis, another inadequate measure which has gained legitimacy in our avoidance of the difficult but necessary solution.

Former Attorney General Ramsey Clark in his book "Crime in America" stated the case well when he wrote:

"If government is incapable of keeping guns from the potential criminal while permitting them to law-abiding citizens then perhaps government is inadequate to the times. The only alternative is to remove guns from the American scene."

I strongly urge the Subcommittee to avoid proposals which do not go to the heart of the problem and follow the responsible precedent set by other nations by imposing a total ban on the private possession of all handguns.

Tokyo, a city of ten million had three handgun murders in 1973, as compared to New York City which had 800 murders committed by handguns in the same year-a rate which is 266 times that of Tokyo. In England and Wales, with a combined population of 50 million, there were 35 murders committed with firearms compared to 13,072 murders committed in the United States.

I have proposed legislation which would eliminate the handgun from the home and the streets by prohibiting the sale, manufacture and possession of the weapons.

In recognition of the limited legitimate uses of handguns, my bill, the Handgun Control Act of 1975, provides exception to pistol clubs, antique collectors, peace officers, and licensed security guards. The bill also provides for a six month amnesty period in which the owners of handguns could turn in their weapons to the local police for its fair market value.

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I would like to suggest that our collective efforts to limit the domestic arms race may be misdirected. Perhaps greater emphasis and attention should be directed to the $1.5 billion industry which profits from the proliferation of handguns rather than the individual gun owner who is merely reacting to an environment riddled with fear.

As I noted earlier, the major gun manufacturers play a primary role in fostering the gun mania that pervades this country today. This profitable industry is the financial mainstay of the National Rifle Association and its many constituent organizations. The industry's money also goes directly into the coffers of sympathetic politicians.

It seems to me that there is some legitimacy to the notion that the industry should be held in some way accountable for the violence and senseless deaths caused by the destructive tools they manufacture.

In the weeks ahead, I intend to explore the legal possibility of extending the chain of responsibility for violent crimes to the manufacturer. I likewise urge this Subcommittee to explore the potential for the development of legislation which would address the gun control issue in this manner. I am convinced that as long as handgun manufacturers are permitted to market their weapons, violence will continue to be a way of life in America.

Mr. HARRINGTON. There has been an increasing awareness fostered by very visible components of the political structure in this country, most recently Attorney General Levi, all of whom are beginning to appreciate, perceive, and to a degree address the dimensions of the problem presented by the gun culture which we have tolerated, for reasons which are perhaps best explained by psychologists rather than Congressmen.

I am concerned with what appears to be the most promising season we have seen out of the trauma and the tragedy developed over the last generation, that we take full advantage of that heightened awareness in the course of this season and in the course of the forum provided by your own substantial interest in the field. And I am hopeful that whatever may emerge from the efforts which have been ongoing since the beginning of this Congress, that the tendency to go in the direction of the appearance of action, which is something that the Congress institutionally specializes in, will be avoided to the degree that we can address some of the very substantive problems that I still think remain below the surface.

A great deal of expectation has been generated by the hope that if something dealing with the cheaper version handgun can be the net result of congressional activity during the season that it will be a start.

I am not sure that I share the majority of views that such legislative action would constitute a start, and perhaps not an exercise in delusion, and to a degree an avoidance, if that is where the effort ends during the course of the 94th Congress. Much of my concern, and much of the data that would document the growing evidence of handguns as the component part of the homicide rate in this country, has already been developed by both your committee and by witnesses that preceded me.

What I hope might be done with the superior resources we have, and the collective efforts of those that are concerned is to go back further in that chain. In addition to appreciating the very real fear that exists on the part of a segment of this country that do not hold

cards of the National Rifle Association, that do not consider themselves members of other types of efforts that are directed toward not having this law changed, that runs essentially to a concern that out of a government that increasingly has been the object of distrust, will come as a net result of any success in this field, a chance to impose a degree of control over society which these people in their belief and their perception of things feel is a likely end result of where we have been going in recent years. I do not share that fear, but I think it is one that is legitimate enough in a number of ways to have the committee address itself to it.

The other area I am most concerned about, and one that I think has escaped substantial attention is one that I frankly still find myself fallow when it comes to ideas about attempting to go to I think a far more appreciated area of this whole subject, the manufacturing end of the spectrum, where we have a number of people who are in the business, and very successfully for the most part, and make a great deal of money as a result of the activity which has seen a proliferation of the small weapons industry in this country, many of whom, ironically, are located in my own region, Massachusetts and Connecticut. I think the hand-gun manufacturers are far less sympathetic as would be subjects of committee and political concern, than the vast constituency of individual gun owners. I refer specifically to the question of attempting to impose liability on the manufacturer in some fashion by broadening the area of the law which already exists, or attempting to learn a great deal more about the nature and the makeup of this industry as it uses its economic leverage to bring about desired results of nonaction on the part of the political process. I think it may provide far more fruitful direction to this committee's consideration during the course of this session, and perhaps the efforts either at dealing with cheaper handguns or the registration process or any one of a number of other things, all of which are useful in themselves.

However, while I do not want to denigrate for a moment those efforts, we cannot afford to lose sight, of information provided by the Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms Branch of the Treasury, or information developed independent of that indicate that a far greater proportion of the deaths that occur are occurring with weapons that do not meet the category of the cheaper, inexpensive models which are the subject of expectation this year. And I think it might be useful as a means of political strategy to both avoid that rather narrow address to the issue, and also avoid getting into what may very well be a contest with very well organized millions of people, looking at the demonstrable record in letter writing, lobbying, and political activity in the past, and begin to try to address ourselves to the finite, and as I have said, the far less sympathetic end of the process that engages in the manufacture, or the import of component parts. And whatever may come out of this might very well reflect both in terms of the good politics of it and the recognition that eventually this is an area that we would have to inevitably get that look at and question the beginning of this chain, whether domestic in origin or foreign in origin. So this morning I come really to say that I hope over the course of your deliberation and the developed interest on the part of the people that are here, we can broaden the concern to go back to that part of

the chain, and we can begin to think in terms of either the development of theory legally, or other solutions which will involve us in getting at the gun manufacturing industry in this country, and not attempt to address that far more difficult political and numerical end, the actual owner and possessor of the gun, who we have usually had at the cutting edge in a negative way in the course of an effort like this. Mr. CONYERS. Would you indulge in an interruption?

Mr. HARRINGTON. Well, that is really the conclusion, Mr. Chairman, and I will certainly indulge an interruption.

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you. While I cannot reach a conclusion at this time, when I get both my friends here I want to clarify the issue so that we can get right into it. Let me put it this way. You suggest that it might be more productive to focus on banning or controlling the manufacture of guns than to try for a law that would control the distribution of guns and thereby run the risk of another onslaught by the traditional gun lobbyists. In effect, you are saying, control the problem at its source.

This is not like the drug problem where illegal, mysterious sources are spreading poison in our society. These are licensed, legitimate business activities that are spawning weapons of destruction at the rate of at least 212 million per year. My perception so far is that we have an increasing rate of weapons being introduced annually into our society, and the question is how to turn that phenomenon around, how to reduce the availability of weapons. Until we begin to deal with that, everything else to me-is secondary.

We sent out-feeling much the same as you-a letter to the handgun manufacturers which I want you to look at. Question 11 asks:

Annually for each of the fiscal years of 1968 through 1974 the net profits from the sale of each caliber and type of handgun manufactured, imported or assembled by your firm.

And another question asks:

Annually for each of the fiscal years 1968 through 1974 the names and addresses of the major distributors and/or dealers, the number, caliber and type of handguns manufactured, imported or assembled by your firm which each major dealer purchased directly from your firm.

We have had five responses and at least one company has indicated that it would answer in the near future. This letter has gone out to 34 manufacturers around the country.

Now, first of all, the Alcohol, Firearms and Tobacco unit that is charged with the administration of the 1968 Gun Act, which was the first major law since 1938 on the subject of firearms and the major law in the 20th century on the subject suggests that there has not been much Federal concern about the gun problem. It was not until the thirties that we got into the crime picture, its interstate ramifications and the expansion of FBI jurisdiction. If we could develop ATF which is only really a handful of people supposedly coordinating this problem, and if we could close the wide and obvious loopholes in the 1968 Gun Act we would go a long way, in my judgment, toward solving our present problem.

We might want to consider applying to domestic guns the factoring criteria, which now keep out cheap foreign handguns and notice that I did not use the phrase Saturday night special-and we might consider the Federal licensing of all handgun purchasers, the registration

of all handguns and recording of subsequent sales. As we all know now, these records are not now centralized, and further, on second hand sales there is no requirement for recordkeeping.

There are other approaches to the problem, like the HarringtonDellums-Bingham approach of barring manufacture, sale and pos session. We have the Mikva approach, with others, of abandoning manufacture and sale, but allowing present possession. We have the consideration of the taxing power, and finally, the observation in your statement that frequently when we legislate, we are not legislating effectively. I have begun to feel the weight of trying to raise this question in a responsible way, to crystalize what ought to be done, and then try to get accomplished legislatively as much as we can. I was glad that I was able to interrupt you, because I wanted both you and Congressman Dellums to catch that to better understand my position so we can make this an even more meaningful hearing.

Mr. HARRINGTON. I certainly could not add anything in terms of the scope of your conclusion and general sympathy for the position you have described any more to what my hope might be. I just would really not want to contribute to the building of an illusion when it comes to either what we might do on the House side, or what might be done on the Senate side that will not really go of necessity to the very many core problems that I do not think in many quarters are yet shared. But, I do not have anything further to add, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Dellums has been patient, and I do not really want to intrude on his time any further.

I would hope that we could cooperate to any extent with your committee on any information developed in the past from the Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, or any efforts that might be useful in dealing with the manufacturing side which may be helpful to what you already have.

Mr. CONYERS. Well, thank you very much. I count you as one of our friends and strongest supporters in the effort that this subcommittee has undertaken.

I would like now to ask Congressman Dellums to join us. He is one of my closest associates in the Congress, a man whom I have come to respect for his forceful and clear articulation of the problems that we have been confronted with.

He serves in the Congress on the Armed Services Committee where his concerns with peace and justice, and his opposition to the war have brought him distinction. And of course, he is on the District of Columbia Committee, and more recently was appointed to the Select Committee on Intelligence.

Ron, we welcome you before this subcommittee. We know of the disturbing loss of a relative that touched all of your friends, not only in the Congress but across the Nation, and we are very pleased to have your statement.

TESTIMONY OF HON. RONALD V. DELLUMS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Mr. DELLUMS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am deeply appreciative of your kind and generous remarks.