if any witness wishes to submit a statement he may submit it within that period of time. We have heard from a number of witnesses. We have heard both sides. And it is my understanding that as to the number of witnesses that have appeared here before us, approximately they are about even as being for and against. The record, however, does disclose a wealth of evidence documenting a need for the restriction and prohibition of firearms in interstate traffic from mail-order firms. I think it appeared, too, from the record that the mail-order traffic is a means whereby criminals, addicts, and juveniles have circumvented the laws of the States and of the cities of this country. So that I certainly hope that within 2 weeks we can get some action on this bill.

The data that you submitted earlier will be made a part of the record at this point.

(The documents referred to were marked "Exhibits Nos. 155, 156, 157, 158, and 159," and are as follows:)

EXHIBIT No. 155

ORIGIN OF MILITARY SURPLUS

The military surplus firearms imported to the United States have their origin in any number of Western countries, both in Europe and South America. The importation of such weapons to the United States contributes actually to the overall world peace and security, inasmuch as these weapons are thus taken off the world market, and instead of providing a possible source for the illegal arms trade, they are channeled into the legitimate trade circles of the United States, winding up in the hands of hunters, shooters, and collectors. This has been established beyond a doubt many times before, but never better than when Mr. R. L. O'Connor, Administrator of the Bureau of Security and Consul Affairs of the Department of State, testified before the House Foreign Affairs Committee on March 25, 1958, as follows:

"I am frank to say that when there are questions of surplus arms cropping up abroad, which another area is bidding for it, may very often be the better part of valor and indeed the best part of our foreign relations to have them imported into this country rather than float around."

In addition, the obsolete weapons imported serve as payment for new, modern small arms needed by the various countries for defense against the East. Inasmuch as all such transactions take place in Western countries (South America and Europe), it is one more contribution to the common defense effort without costing anything to the American taxpayer.

It has been alleged the United States is being inundated with military surplus weapons from behind the Iron Curtain. The testimony of Mr. Robert N. Margrave, Director of the Office of Munitions Control of the Department of State, would indicate that it is impossible to import any firearms from the East bloc and that most thorough investigations are conducted by the U.S. Embassy's staff abroad to establish the bona fides of each transaction before an import license is granted to the importer.

We find that only two Russian rifles are involved; one the model 1891 Nagant, and the other the Tokarev. Both these weapons were imported from Finland under State Department licenses No. 794 dated February 23, 1960, No. 1040 dated March 4, 1960, and No. 3451 dated October 11, 1961, and were captured by the Finns in their heroic resistance against the Russians in 1939-40. These rifles are clearly marked with the Finnish Army abbreviation "SA" meaning "Suomi Armi." Many, if not all, of the Russian M1891 rifles imported by us were actually made under contract for the Czar in World War I by Remington and Westinghouse, respectively.

The Finnish Government has sold these weapons in an effort to obtain cash and thus strengthen their economy which, due to the closeness of the Soviet menace, suffers greatly from a drain caused by military requirements. By purchasing these weapons and importing them to the United States, we have, in a small way, contributed to the strengthening of the defense against the Eastern bloc, and we have done so at no cost whatsoever to the taxpayerstrictly by private initiative.

EXHIBIT No. 156

FIREARMS IMPORT STATISTICS

Enclosed figures, "U.S. Imports of Merchandise for Consumption-Commodity by Country of Origin," FT-110 and FT-125, 1960 to 1964, inclusive, obtained from room 3040 of the Bureau of Census, Department of Commerce, indicate that the total quantity of firearms actually imported during the calendar years 1963 and 1964 amounts to 1,134,845 units, less than one-half of the figure mentioned in previous testimony; a total of 476,318 handguns, and 658,527 rifles and shotguns of all types, calibers, and price ranges. The total quantity of military surplus rifles actually imported during calendar 1963 and 1964 amounts to only 249,923 units. The enclosed official figures also point up the significant fact that the importation of military surplus rifles has suffered a steady decrease ever since 1960: from 314,887 units imported in that year to 93,859 units imported during calendar 1964, thus indicating the institutional position imported military rifles have assumed in the market.

We can only speculate as to the reason for the discrepancy between the Department of Commerce figures and the ones mentioned by other witnesses, but would like to point out that figures obtained from the Office of Munitions Control of the Department of State, based on import licenses issued, would be misleading because the material covered by a license may also appear on a second license, or because it may never enter the United States. An import license is valid for 6 months only. Many times the packing and shipping of the material takes longer than that. Licenses cannot be renewed but an entirely new license is issued, thus resulting very frequently in two licenses being issued for the same lot of weapons during any one calendar year. In addition, many rifles imported by INTERARMCO are subsequentily reexported under a Department of State export license, thus never entering the U.S. economy.

Source: The U.S. Department of Commerce-Bureau of Census reports titled "U.S. Imports of Merchandise for Consumption-Commodity by Country of Origin," Ft. 110 and Ft. 125.

EXHIBIT No. 157

S.A.A.M.I.

Mr. E. C. Hadley, the president of the Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturers Institute, a trade organization composed primarily of the New England manufacturers such as Winchester and Remington, made a statement before Senator Dodd's Subcommittee for Juvenile Delinquency on June 4, 1965, testifying on S. 1592. Talking specifically on surplus military weapons, he said as follows:

"As early as 1958 the sporting arms industry sought to obtain a ban or restriction on trade and national defense grounds." [Emphasis ours.]

It is interesting to note that Mr. Hadley himself admits that the S.A.A.M.I. endeavors to embargo importation of military surplus rifles were based on "trade and national defense grounds" and not on any grounds of crime prevention. Inasmuch as crime prevention is the purpose of S. 1592 now before Congress, Mr. Hadley's reasons of "trade and national defense" do not have any place here whatsoever.

Just to set the record straight, between 1957 and 1964 the New England manufacturers have been responsible, directly or indirectly, for 11 separate attempts before the legislative and executive branches of the Federal Government to eliminate the importation of military surplus rifles (see detailed schedule enclosed). They have been rejected every time for lack of merit.

Further on, Mr. Hadley states, and I quote:

"We wish to make it clear that we did not then and do not now oppose the importation of quality sporting firearms of new manufacture."

This statement would not appear to agree with the statement made by Mr. Hadley on Tuesday, March 25, 1958, before the House Foreign Affairs Committee. On page 5 of his statement talking about the sporting arms industry's problems, he said as follows:

"There are four sources of the industry's problem. First, the importation of American-made rifles declared surplus by our allies abroad; second, the importation of surplus used and new foreign made military surplus rifles; third, the importation of foreign made commercial arms; fourth, the sale of surplus military firearms by the U.S. Government within the United States."

We cannot account for this discrepancy in testimony, but this committee should be aware of the fact that in the meantime Winchester has opened a factory in Japan and is importing shotguns from Japan to the United States, presumably in an effort to counter the serious competition always furnished by the Browning Arms Co. which imports their shotguns from Belgium.

This committee should know, furthermore, that of the problem areas mentioned in 1958, the New England manufacturers have succeeded to eliminate two; namely, the importation of American-made rifles declared surplus by allies abroad, and the sale of surplus military firearms by the U.S. Government within the United States.

EXHIBIT No. 158

OUTLINE OF MOVES TO OBTAIN EMBARGO ON MILITARY RIFLE IMPORTS

1. In May 1957, and January 1958, these northeastern manufacturers applied themselves to the Department of Defense and the Department of State for an administrative decision to cut off military rifle imports. Both Departments declined and the Department of Defense letter, dated July 12, 1957, stated that military security, defense mobilization, and the degree of competition were all taken into account in arriving at this conclusion.

2. Failing to persuade the agencies of the executive branch responsible for national security, these companies then turned to Congress in the spring of 1958 for legislation which would accomplish the same purpose by amending section 414 of the Mutual Security Act of 1954. After engineering a sweeping embargo of military firearms imports in the bill reported out of the House Foreign Affairs Committee (the so-called Morano amendment), they were soundly defeated by a vote on the floor of the House when the gun collectors and other gun enthusiasts became alerted to the problem. The Senate, with the benefit of advice from the Department of State and Department of Defense, followed the House in confining the broadside embargo to the reimportation of U.S.-made arms originally exported as lend-lease or military assistance. Thus the Congress witnessed a clear test of political strength between a few manufacturing companies geographically concentrated in the Northeast and the hundreds of thou

sands of gun enthusiasts and the hundreds of small businesses serving them which are spread across this country.

3. These manufacturers then turned their attention to the Department of Commerce, traditionally attentive to the problems of American business faced with foreign competition. In October 1958, one or more meetings between the representatives of the firearms manufacturers and the Department of Commerce resulted in the initiation of an investigation into the impact of both imported and domestic surplus sales of small arms on the domestic firearms industry. The resulting study, completed December 1959, was protested bitterly by the manufacturers for its failure to agree with their position and for various factual findings inconsistent with their claims.

4. Without waiting for completion of the Department of Commerce investigation, the manufacturers' next maneuver was to file a petition, dated July 29, 1959, asking the Director of the Office of Civil and Defense Mobilization (hereafter referred to as OCDM) to find that the national security was threatened by the importation of low-cost obsolete centerfire rifles on the grounds that the facilities of the six petitioning companies play an important role in the national defense and were being impaired by this alleged competition. After 3 years of the most intensive and extensive investigation into all aspects of this matter. the petition was denied. On June 4, 1962, the Director of the Office of Emergency Planning (the agency that inherited this case from the Office of Civil and Defense Mobilization) ruled that imports of military surplus rifles did not threaten to impair the national security.

5. During November 1959, a joint letter from Senators Saltonstall, Keating, and Bush is understood to have requested that OCDM in effect provide injunctive relief to the petitioners through the imposition of a temporary embargo on military rifle imports. OCDM having no authority to impose embargoes in the absence of the necessary statutory findings, referred the letter to the Department of State, which thereupon informed the three Senators and the importers concerned that it was conducting its own investigation, inde pendently of OCDM, and would issue no more import licenses until completion thereof. The State Department completed its investigation and lifted its embargo, insofar as 95 percent of military rifles were affected, during February 1960. This indicates that it determined that imports do not adversely affect the national security. For unrelated reasons, the embargo continued temporarily on military semiautomatic rifles and full automatic rifles, however, it was subsequently lifted on semiautomatic rifles. Insofar as full automatic rifles are concerned, these can be imported only under conditions defined by the Departments of State and Treasury.

6. At a hearing before the Senate Finance Committee in April 1960, these manufacturers submitted a statement opposing the widely supported King bill, designed to improve procedure for preventing firearms from falling into criminal hands and to eliminate pointless interference with legitimate trade. The statement predominantly emphasized objection to the proposed 2-inch reduction in the minimum barrel length of carbines which the then existing law classified as a concealed weapon. (Certain foreign-made carbines, due to use of the metric system of measurement, fell a fraction of an inch short of the 18-inch limit in the old law). Nonetheless, the King bill was subsequently enacted into law as an amendment of the National Firearms Act. This episode gives an added idea of the scope of the campaign against imported military firearms.

7. A press release of May 9, 1960, indicated that Senator Saltonstall called upon the chairman of the Senate Preparedness Subcommittee to investigate the importation of military surplus. It is quite evident that this was metivated by the six petitioning New England firearms manufacturers and perhaps due to the fact that as a decision approached in the OCDM investigation there was evidence of recognition by the manufacturers that their atempt to identify themselves with national security in order to obtain protective relief may not have been succeeding. This attempt followed the same past pattern of starting a new investigation before the current one had been completed. On June 7. 1960, Senator Lyndon Johnson stated in a letter to counsel for the Americas Council for Technical Products, Inc., that the Senate Preparedness Investigating Committee was not scheduling any hearings in response to the request of Senator Saltonstall because, "we are currently awaiting the results of a study by the executive branch of Government which is reviewing the matter based upon the appeal filed by the American Sporting Arms Manufacturers."

8. Also concurrent with the OCDM investigation, these New England manufacturers turned their attention to the U.S. Tariff Commission, with the hope that they would be able to provide information to the Commissioner's bearing on the advisability of an "escape clause" proceeding, primarily on the same subject as the OCDM investigation. On March 16, 1961, the Tariff Commission staff advised the counsel of the American Council for Technical Products, Inc. that the Tariff Commission was preparing a study of the sporting firearms industry. Regretfully, we are unable to cite the exact results of this report, however, it evidently did not agree with the position of the New England manufacturers, as witness their opposition to the duty reduction on imported firearms in the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 which we will allude to later.

9. On June 30, 1960, the so-called Dodd amendment was passed by the Senate as a rider to a State Department appropriation bill. The Dodd amendment stated that it was "the sense of the Senate" that the State Department "should take action as may be necessary to prevent the importation of all military firearms." It was included by action of the Senate Subcommittee on Appropriations for State, Justice, and the Judiciary, whose chairman was Senator Lyndon Johnson and included both Senators Dodd and Saltonstall. There was no explanation in the Appropriation Committee report and no comment on the floor of the Senate. Upon being informed of the Dodd amendment, various importers, manufacturers, gun dealers, gun enthusiasts and the National Rifle Association acquainted the members of the Senate-House conferees of their concern and as a result the Senate-House conferees removed this rider from the State Department appropriation bill (H.R. 11666). Congressman Rooney reported to the House that this action was taken because "this language might raise havic with the small sporting goods dealers and gunsmiths all over the country." (Congressional Record, August 24, 1960). On August 24, 1960, the Dodd amendment was again introduced as a rider to the Mutual Security appropriation bill (H.R. 12619). On August 25, the Senate-House conferees on the Mutual Security appropriation bill (a different group from the State Department appropriation bill conferees) also struck the Dodd amendment from that bill.

10. On April 4, 1962, the Sporting Arms & Ammunition Manufacturers Institute (representing seven New England firearms manufacturers) addressed a letter to the chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee protesting the substance of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 (H.R. 9900), as it pertains to the reduction of tariffs on all firearm imports. Point one of their suggested changes was a provision that the antidumping laws be amended to include imported military surplus, so this matter has already been considered by the House Committee on Ways and Means and turned down. Without itemizing the many other ramifications of this complaint, it is suffice to note that this complaint did not alter or modify the position of the Ways and Means Committee, for the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 was subsequently passed in its original form, insofar as applying tariff reductions within the province of imported firearms.

11. On August 14, 1963, Senator Saltonstall introduced S. 2043, a companion bill, H.R. 8256, being introduced in the House by Representative Conte on August 27. These bills provided that "the foreign market value of imported firearms and ammunition which have been disposed of as surplus by a foreign government shall, for the purposes of this title, be not less than the constructed value of the merchandise as defined in section 206."

An examination of the intent and substance of the Anti-Dumping Act of 1921 indicates that this disguised attempt to establish an increased tariff duty does not fall within the purview of the act. It is, as a matter of fact, diametrically opposed to the policy of the U.S. Tariff Commission as established by the restriction of duties in imported firearms in the Trade Expansion Act of 1962. Both these bills died in the past Congress but were reintroduced in the 89th Congress under S. 1448 dated March 8, 1965, and H.R. 5563 dated March 1, 1965, waiting to be voted upon.

EXHIBIT No. 159

SMALL BUSINESS MARKET

New developments in small arms technology since World War II, as well as the standardization by Western European and South American armies on the new NATO caliber, have made millions of rifles and handguns obsolete. These guns are being sold by the governments concerned, and are being bought for im