While law enforcement is primarily a state and local responsibility, there is a great deal the federal government can do to assist them in controlling crime. The first step should be one which will require no legislation, and will cost no money. This simply involves a change of attitude on the part of high officials of this Administration. The local police forces in cities across America are the front line in the war against crime. They face danger every day in attempting to make the streets safe for law-abiding citizens. Yet the all too large class of our citizenry which has contempt for the police, and continuously obstructs them in the performance of their duty, is condoned and even encouraged by high federal officials, from the Vice-President on down. No war on crime can be at all effective until these men learn that it is the victims of crime who merit sympathy, not the criminals and their supporters. We feel that action is necessary to correct the disastrous effects of recent Supreme Court decisions which have made it difficult, if not impossible, for police officers to secure confessions which will stand up in court. Liberty Lobby takes no position at this time as to whether a Constitutional amendment is necessary to achieve this purpose, or whether legislation, such as S. 1194, introduced by Senator Ervin, will be adequate. We do believe, however, that the traditional rule, to the effect that the admissibility of a confession is determined by whether or not it is in fact voluntary, with the trial judge determining whether it is or not, must be restored. The Miranda and Escobedo decisions have played havoc with effective law enforcement, and it is essential that Congress return to the police officer the tools with which he can do his job. If we continue to send policemen onto the street with their hands tied behind their backs, we must expect a continued and increasing crime wave. It is clear that one of the prime causes of disorder today is the excessive freedom allowed to professional demogogues and rable rousers who move from city to city inciting riots in the name of civil rights. These troublemakers are dangerous from two points of view. First, of course, their "demonstrations" almost invariably turn into riots. But perhaps even more important is the effect they have on the already unstable inhabitants of our large cities, who view the "movement" as an excuse to rob, rape, and burn long after the civil rights caravan has left town. For this reason, we strongly support enactment of legislation, such as H.R. 421 introduced by Rep. Cramer, which would make it a federal offense to travel in interstate commerce, or use interstate facilities, with the intent of inciting a riot or other form of civil disobedience. This legislation was passed overwhelmingly by the House in the 89th Congress, and should be among the first order of business in any anti-crime program this year. We agree that well-trained police officers are essential to any successful program of combating crime. However, we do not see the necessity for the establishment of elaborate new programs to accomplish this. For many years, the F.B.I. Academy has been doing an outstanding job of training police officers from all parts of the country in the most modern and effective techniques of fighting crime. We support expansion of this program, and feel that it will adequately meet the need. Finally, we believe that the Congress should attempt to make the District of Columbia a model of strong and effective law enforcement rather than a jungle of unpunished crime. A start can be made in this direction by enactment of H.R. 320, successor to the Omnibus Crime Bill, unfortunately vetoed by the President last year. Before cleaning up its own mess in the Nation's Capital, the federal government would appear to have nothing constructive to offer in the way of advice to the states and localities, most of which are doing a far better job on their own. The state and local governments of America are well capable of controlling local crime and if the federal government will assist them through the measures we have discussed, instead of hindering them through harassment and unreasonable federal court decisions, the war against crime can be won. Mr. ROGERS. The committee will recess until tomorrow morning at 10 o'clock. (Whereupon, at 5 p.m., the subcommittee recessed, to convene at 10 a.m., Thursday, March 23, 1967.) ANTI-CRIME PROGRAM THURSDAY, MARCH 23, 1967 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, The committee met at 10:09 a.m., in room 2141, Rayburn Building, Hon. Peter W. Rodino, Jr. (acting chairman), presiding. Present: Messrs. Celler (chairman), Rodino (acting chairman), Kastenmeier, Corman, McCulloch, MacGregor, McClory, and Biester. Staff present: William R. Foley, general counsel; Donald E. Santarelli, associate counsel; and John W. Dean III, associate counsel. Mr. RODINO. The committee will come to order and resume its hearings. The first witness for this morning will be the Honorable Charles A. Vanik. Congressman Vanik, we are pleased to have you with us this morning. I am sure that your testimony will be of invaluable use to our committee. Please proceed as you see fit. STATEMENT OF HON. CHARLES A. VANIK, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OHIO Mr. VANIK. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I have a very brief statement which I would just like to read to the committee at this time. I appreciate first of all, the opportunity to appear before the committee to testify on the "Safe streets and crime control bill of 1967." Like many of my colleagues who represent city areas, I am deeply distressed by the rate of terror that is imposed on the great mass of urban residents by the lawless activities of a tiny minority. In city after city across the country, dusk brings a curfew to honest citizens who are afraid to venture out at night, who are afraid to ride the buses, and who are afraid of every stranger on the street and every knock on the door. The slums of our city result from poverty, poor housing and social distress. Most of all, however, they result from the terror of the streets. A family may suffer through poverty, a family may exist in humble quarters, a family may face bleak days of distress; but no one can long exist in an environment that is filled with fear. While I appreciate the high purposes of the President's proposal, I find it deficient in that it fails to put the money and the effort where the trouble is. It endeavors to distribute Federal resources in a wide spectrum of crime research, instead of directing the efforts to the streets where the crime is conceived. The grant funding formula should be revised to provide a maximum application of resources, in those census tracts or portions of urban areas where the crime index has reached intolerable proportions. It is in these same areas that living standards have most rapidly deteriorated because of the fear resulting from crime. The abatement of crime in these settings will contribute to the housing rehabilitation of these areas and reduce the consumption of criminal acts to be executed in other places. Crime must be rooted out at the focal point of germination. The grant formula, set forth in section 202 of your bill, provides for grants to communities which show an accelerated increase in police and public safety spending. Those communities showing a 5-percent annual in spending become and remain elegible for grants. Now, this is fine and dandy for the young cities and the urban communities which are on the threshold of great expansion and growth. For them this formula is no problem. This formula, however, is discriminatory to the older cities, those suffering population decline and increased crime. As a matter of fact, there seems to be a definite relationship between population decline and an intolerably high crime index. It seems to me that a change must be made in the grant formula on this point. The funds must be directed to the focal point of need, so that the crime problem can be treated before it is dispersed and spread its blight. To achieve this goal, I would recommend a 90-percent Federal contribution grant to those city government and urban areas, suffering areas of high crime, which present a program of effective and immediate crime control. Other grants should be made to encourage the establishment of metropolitan or areawide consolidation of essential police functions, such as a common crime laboratory, confinement areas, and automatic data record systems, and a consolidated dispatch system. Crime never stops at the city limits. The multiplicity of local governments and police systems in many areas creates a maze which helps the criminal commit his ill deed. Planning toward these goals is not enough. The planning grant should be authorized only where it is likely to result in an efficient, consolidated system. The funds authorized by this act will not begin to eliminate crime in the United States. The bill as presented provides a splendid opportunity to dissipate $50 million to provide information and procedures we already know. On the other hand, if these resources are zeroed in, if they are zeroed into areas of pinpointed need, the effectiveness of the method can be demonstrated on the streets and in the neighborhoods. Finally, the administration of this act must be coordinated with the Department of Housing and Urban Development and the economic opportunity programs. In urban renewal areas and under the model cities program, HUD can assist cities in developing safe streets by developing offstreet parking in densely populated areas. Parked automobiles, lined along darkened streets, provide a haven for the street criminal. HUD can insist on programs to provide cleared streets and better illumination. HUD can also insist on the demolition of abandoned or condemned buildings, which can harbor crime. I have always believed that the Office of Economic Opportunity should support programs directed toward neighborhood safety, such as police supervised escort patrol by neighborhood youth for neighborhood residents, particularly the women and the elderly. Youth leaders should be selected to direct specially designed youth activities in offstreet recreation areas designed by HUD programs and supported through OEO funds. A crime control program utilizing these other important components could make giant strides toward safer streets and toward better neighborhoods. This combination of resources, which I suggest, could multiply the effect of our spending. This approach would involve the people of the community in the betterment of their own neighborhood. It would establish a machinery of self-help and community pride, which is an essential ingredient in this program. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. RODINO. Congressman, thank you very much. I personally think that your suggestion, your recommendations are certainly valuable and should be given serious consideration. However, would you be able to tell me how we might be able to distinguish between the city, which is crime infested as you say now, which is that which we should make a target area, and those other urban areas? And I understand from the Crime Commission report that those areas that have a population of less than 10,000 are those where crime flourishes even more. There has been a substantial increase in crime over those cities with the hundred thousand. Now, would you make a distinction between those cities which you say are already crime infested and those cities where crime is beginning to flourish and target this money in that direction and ignore the others? Mr. VANIK. What I suggest, Mr. Chairman, is that we can certainly determine by census tract, or some device of that kind, where the highcrime areas are, where the intensity of crime is most serious. Now, while I agree that crime has risen at a proportionally higher rate in the smaller communities and in some measure in the suburban areas, yet it doesn't reach the high intensity that it does in the very difficult central city areas where the rate of crime, the incidents per capita, is far, far more than it is in any of the areas in which it is so drastically increased. I contend that these are the places where crime is germinated, and that I think it could be proven pretty conclusively that crime that occurs in other places probably germinates in the areas where it festers, in the central city areas where the plan and where the criminal act, or the atmosphere or the climate is so much more seriously intensified.. Mr. RODINO. Well, in other words, though, your formula does not intend that we ignore those areas which have a lesser rate of crime, but your formula proportionately appropriates the sufficient moneys. and grants which might do the necessary job? This is what I am asking. Mr. VANIK. Mr. Chairman, I don't deny, and I think there is a great reason for this work to go on in the other areas and for experiences to be developed, but the formula as designed in the bill would dis |