effort that you and the staff are giving to the serious problem of the relation between crime and the accessibility of firearms. The evidence produced by your several years of hard work points clearly to the need for improving gun control laws, and we want to help if we can.

We also feel strongly that there has been a lot of confusion on the subject of imports which we would like to point out, both in our own self-interest and the interest of the integrity of a serious and constructive crime control bill.

The embargoes on imports proposed in section 3 (e) of the bill would be bad law for three reasons: first, they are unnecessary and ineffective to the purposes of this bill; second, they are discriminatory in violation of American traditions of minimal and fair Federal regulation of commerce and the consumer's right to decide how he spends his own money; and third, the section, deliberately or otherwise, exploits gun industry politics in a way which is likely to impair passage of an otherwise constructive bill, which is apparently being hammered out of S. 1592.

The testimony we have seen before this committee, and above all, before the House Ways and Means Committee, has left complete confusion as to the composition of the allegedly objectional imports. Both the Attorney General and the Commissioner of Internal Revenue presented the committee with a now-you-see-it, now-you-don't presentation of the object of the proposed embargo, both of them carefully avoiding disclosure of any breakdown between the categories of weapons to which section 3 (e) apply and those to which it would not. They imply that the target is a million firearms imported annually, a figure which, incidentally, I seem to see reflected on this map of the world to the right of me here.

(The map referred to, entitled "Countries of Origin of Imported Firearms," was marked "Exhibit No. 148," and follows on p. 691.)

Mr. CUMMINGS. Let's look a little closer. There are 4 distinct cate gories of imports which make the 573, 474 firearms of all types, cal bers, and price ranges which were imported in 1964, according to the Bureau of the Census statistics. This is about half of the "1 million" figure annually so frequently mentioned by proponents of this bill. The breakdown of these imports is really as follows:

First, there is a growing trade in high-cost foreign shotguns, rifles. and handguns which are manufactured abroad with an eye on the large U.S. market for sporting firearms. Illustrative is the recent competition from Japan in expensive over-and-under shotguns which are made to the order of Winchester, the Olin Mathieson firearms subsidiary. The proponents of the present bill repeatedly proclaim that they do not intend to interfere in the source of supply of such "quality" items, but never exactly define where they would draw the

line.

Second, there are the low-cost, newly made .22-caliber foreign nonmilitary firearms, heavily sold through the mails. Handguns of th type are cited by some law-enforcement officers as a major aggravation. of their local crime problem. But caliber .22 handguns and rifles are made in this country at a very low cost. We accept the evidence thai mail-order sales of foreign newly made .22-caliber handguns which are not mitilary surplus, have featured prominently in firearm crimes : certain of the large cities. In fact, I would again point to your owa

displays here to the rear of me where you have a board listing coniscated sample mail-order type guns and by far the great majority of hem are exactly these type of imported .22-caliber revolvers. The National Rifle Association condemns the quality of these imports by implication in refusing to advertise them in their magazine, the American Rifleman. We join with many others in wishing that there were a legitimate method of keeping these $10 items out of the hands of uveniles and criminals. It would appear that the proposed mailorder restrictions go a long way to meeting the problem.

May I note, also, that if the United States had a standard national proof act for firearms, such as any other Western country in the world possesses, these type of weapons could not be sold, because they very simply would not pass the normal proof requirements for their calibers. Third, there is a very small trade in imported high-caliber military surplus, such as bazookas, antitank guns, and mortars, without live ammunition. The market is largely the suburban residence which occasionally sports a cannon on the lawn for conversation and decoration. The amount of this trade is negligible, but several isolated episodes with these destructive devices has provided proponents of this legislation with a shocker. Our company and others would be most grateful to Congress, or the State Department which presently regulates surplus imports, for preventing the importation of these crew-served weapons which have no commercial significance and present a public relations problem.

Fourth, and the final category, there are the military surplus small arms, about 80- to 85-percent centerfire rifles, which have been opposed for 10 years by the domestic manufacturers, as foreign competition.

These firearms have opened up a legitimate new market for a good low-cost sporting and target shooting weapon, frequently a collection item, and generally at prices ranging from $25 to $40 in recent years.

To us the main controversy presented by section 3 (e), and its main impact relates to this fourth category: small arms military surplus imports. They have no more to do with the crime problem than the new and second-hand domestic centerfire rifles, which are very rarely used in crime because they are too big to conceal, too loud and too long range. It has been amply demonstrated by the American consumer that there is a legitimate market composed of about 2 million purchases of imported military rifles over a decade. These law-abiding gun hobbyists and sportsmen, and no one claims they are criminals have long since resolved the question of whether or not these rifles are "particularly suitable for lawful sporting purposes"-the justification for embargo implied by the proposed bill.

There is no inherent difference between bolt action centerfire rifles, whether made for sporting purposes or for military purposes, whether made in the United States or made abroad, whether new or used The price ranges overlap to a surprising degree. Any used rifle naturally sells at a discount, but, in the general range of $35 to $150, you will find second-hand military rifles, second-hand U.S. sporting rifles, and lower priced new sporting rifles. To show the similarity, I offer as exhibits before this committee, photographs of a Winchester 70 series new sporting rifle which retails at $139; a deluxe sporter remanufactured from a World War II military Mauser retailing at $79; an imported German Mauser military rifle "as is" which retails at $30; and a U.S. Springfield 1903 surplus rifle which retails commercially at $40, and has been sold in large volume to members through the National Rifle Association at $15 in recent years by the U.S. Gorernment. I will pass these on to you.

(The photographs referred to were marked "Exhibits Nos. 149, 15. and 151 and are as follows:)

EXHIBIT NO. 149.-Winchester 70 series new sporting rifle retails at $252. Caliber .30-06

MADE WITH ONE IMPORTED MILITARY ACTION AND 16 PARTS MADE IN 7 STATES

EXHIBIT NO. 150.-M98 Mauser Deluxe Sporter, remanufactured from a World War II military Mauser retailing at $79

EXHIBIT NO. 151.-Imported German 98 Mauser military rifle "as is" which retails at $30. Caliber 8 millimeters

U. S. SPRINGFIELD MODEL 1903 A3 CALIBER .30-06

EXHIBIT NO. 152.-U.S. Springfield 1903 surplus rifle retails commercially at $40, and has been sold in large volume to members through the National Rifle Association at $15 in recent years by the U.S. Government. Caliber .30-06

Senator DODD. Very well. Go ahead.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Section 3(e) of this bill would apparently make both these Mausers illegal for distribution in the United States, but not so the Winchester or the Springfield sold through the National Rifle Association by the U.S. Government. It is submitted that there

are no crime statistics and no evidence from this subcommittee's hearings, this year or last, to establish that any of these weapons are a likely choice for a man contemplating a crime. Crime statistics, such as the ones mentioned by the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, as published in the Washington Post on January 10, 1965, place centerfire rifles at the bottom of the list of weapon types used in crimes. The very statistics published in the "Uniform Crime Reports for 1963" indicate that only 10 percent of homicides are attributed to rifles of all types. Based on press reports it is obvious that a large part of these 10 percent and nonmilitary .22-caliber rifles of U.S. manufacture. Therefore, section 3 (e) is patently discriminatory insofar as there is no evidence of any significant difference between military and sporting centerfire rifles, domestic and foreign, from a crime standpoint.

There have been charges that imported military rifles are "junk”; this charge is pertinent to the pending legislation because, if true, it could be said that they are unsuitable for sporting purposes. The fact is that our company alone has sold over a million of such rifles in the United States over a decade, perhaps half of all sales. Most of these sales in the last 3 years have been at prices ranging from $25 to $40. This many Americans would not be likely to spend this much money on junk. The fact is that men who know guns recognize that these weapons, imported military weapons, have been manufactured to specifications far more stringent than most of the sporting firearms on the market today. Recently, H. P. White, America's leading independent firearms testing laboratory which serves the entire industry. performed an exhaustive series of tests covering a total of 16 different types of military and 6 different types of U.S. commercial rifles of current production. All rifles passed these destructive tests in a satis factory manner without qualifications. The experience of our insurers against product liability has been excellent, and we enjoy insurance rates on foreign military rifles comparable or lower to the rates for new sporting firearms. The National Rifle Association's authoritative magazine, the American Rifleman, takes advertising only of firearms which meet standards of safety and performance ascertained in their own test programs. Interarmco's foreign military rifles and military handguns are accepted by NRA for such advertising, and the NRA itself sells identical products provided by the U.S. Government. Most of the rejected advertising are the cheap caliber .22 handguns. some made in the United States, which plague the industry as well a law enforcement in the United States. We do not handle them, and we have never handled them.

Less than 20 percent of the surplus military imports are handguns Most of these are high quality weapons manufactured to military specifications such as the German Luger and bring retail prices of from $35 to $80. We recognize that handguns, being concealable, are inherently susceptible to illegal use. Whatever controls are legislated for domestic handguns should be applied to the imports. No justification appears for discriminating against weapons on the basis of country of origin. If foreign military handguns are a frequent mailorder item, we hope that appropriate mail-order restrictions will reduce their availability to juveniles and criminals.