organized crime, where the communications media, particularly the telephone, are used so extensively and in an interstate context, to effectively investigate organized crime, to use wiretaps, at least for the purpose of investigation, even though the material which is received itself is not admissible, but to lead toward admissible evidence which the prosecution requires in order to prosecute organized crime?

Mr. CLARK. There are a great many problems about that. First, as you know, the Supreme Court has before it the Berger case from New York which raises a series of questions about the constitutionality of the use of evidence secured by this means. That would also perhaps include leads developed from this type of surveillance. I think first that there is a very, very heavy burden on those who would seek to permit wiretaps to show that it is essential. The evidence that I have does not indicate that at all. I think we may not know all that we need to know to make a final judgment, but we know this, for instance. We know that there were more indictments returned last year involving more people by more than 25 percent under the Federal organized crime statutes than in any preceding year. We know that the evidence that went into securing those indictments was not developed through the use of any electronic surveillance. Therefore, we have to assume that we can be effective without it. We might question why it is that so many jurisdictions local jurisdictions that use wiretaps have been ineffective in eliminating organized crime from their jurisdictions when other jurisdictions that have not used wiretaps don't find organized crime present there.

Chairman CELLER. Mr. Attorney General, as I understand it—I probably have been an offender-your idea was to touch and cover wiretapping in tomorrow's session, and that you desire to limit your testimony today to the bill called Safe Streets and Crime Control Act of 1967. Am I right in that regard?

Mr. CLARK. I would much prefer that if it would please the Committee, because in my judgment the Crime Control Act offers a thousand times the potential to control crime, to reduce crime, to protect the people of this country, than these other bills.

Chairman CELLER. I am sorry, I did not follow the procedures myself.

Mr. McCLORY. I will be better prepared to ask the questions tomorrow, too.

Mr. CLARK. I will be better prepared to answer them, I hope.
Chairman CELLER. Mr. Donohue.

Mr. DONOHUE. Tell me, Mr. Attorney General, do I understand that in the bill before us incorporates all the provisions contained in the Law Enforcement Act of 1965.

Mr. CLARK. Yes, sir, that is correct. Title III provides for the full potential of the Law Enforcement Assistance Act of 1965 and expands on it just a little. Titles I and II are the new and vitally needed measures that we seek.

Mr. DONOHUE. Under the Law Enforcement Assistance Act of 1965 there was appropriated about $10 million for implementing and carrying it out.

Mr. CLARK. Since its enactment there has been approximately $142 million appropriated. That covers 2 fiscal years.

Mr. DONOHUE. A certain portion of that $14 million was allocated to schools and colleges for the purpose of inaugurating courses that

77-540-67

might be helpful to police departments in training in the science of law enforcement.

Mr. CLARK. That is exactly correct. I think it has been one of the major accomplishments under the act.

Mr. DONOHUE. Tell me, Mr. Attorney General, who sets up the formula or the courses for these colleges?

Mr. CLARK. They are developed by the applicant. The applicant consults with the Department of Justice frequently, but by and large they have an experience that well enables them to develop and establish these courses.

Mr. DONOHUE. Must these courses be approved by the Department of Justice before you make a grant to them?

Mr. CLARK. The application has to be approved. If the course content is prepared by qualified people, and if it would enhance the quality of law enforcement, it would be approved. We would not look at the details of the courses themselves.

Mr. DONOHUE. To whom would these courses be available, to college students or members of police departments?

Mr. CLARK. It varies with the courses. For instance, Mr. McClory would be interested in two grants that were made in Massachusetts to law schools to provide courses to teach young lawyers how to prosecute criminal cases. In addition we have courses for chiefs of police in administration and in management of major police departments. We have courses designed for young fellows that we just hope will go into law enforcement because it is so important, so that they can get police science training in college through these courses. We have had courses for corrections officers. We have had courses that would be helpful to courts and court administrators.

Mr. DONOHUE. Tell me, Mr. Attorney General, in order to be admitted to one of these colleges for the purpose of availing one's self of the training that one would get, what must be the person's basic qualifications?

Mr. CLARK. That would be up to the institution offering the courses. If it is a college course in police science, the individual would have to meet the entrance requirements for the college and for the course. Mr. DONOHUE. Having in mind that most policemen do not have the basic qualifications to get into college, how do they get in to benefit by such a course?

Mr. CLARK. There have been special courses devised by police departments themselves, for policemen now on the force. These college courses that we are talking about tend to be for people in police departments who have shown the potential for development for people who the administrators of the universities and the local police departments, which have always cooperated with them, would hope would enter law enforcement. These courses generally have not been college courses for privates in police departments at the present time.

Mr. DONOHUE. Do you make any grants to police schools that are set up, say, by States or local communities for the better training of

their officers?

Mr. CLARK. Yes, we have. We feel this is a very important area. We think this is an area that needs to be greatly expanded under title II of the bill before you.

Mr. DONOHUE. Under the Law Enforcement Assistance Act of 1965, was any money granted directly to local or State law enforcement agencies?

Mr. CLARK. Yes, indeed. Funds were granted to specific police departments, specific agencies of State government, for a variety of training programs within those agencies, such as police-community relations. There have been a large number of grants for police community relations to police departments.

Mr. DONOHUE. How much of the $14 million was distributed for the particular purpose that we have been talking about?

Mr. CLARK. Training generally?

Mr. DONOHUE. Yes.

Mr. CLARK. The information I have undertaken to submit will show it to be the largest of any area under the act, in my judgment. (The information referred to appears at pp. 160-201.)

Mr. DONOHUE. These college courses have been set up in approximately 15 States.

Mr. CLARK. There have been 20 to date that have been set up, I think. A majority of the States at the time of the enactment of the Law Enforcement Assistance Act offered within their boundary no police science courses in any college. I think among these 20 grants that have been made, 15 have been in States that had theretofore no police science college courses.

Mr. DONOHUE. The colleges in order to qualify must be accredited, I assume.

Mr. CLARK. That is correct.

Mr. DONOHUE. What about junior colleges?

This

Mr. CLARK. There have been grants to junior colleges. Some of the States have made great advances in these areas. I think California has more than 30 colleges that offer police science courses. naturally includes your junior colleges, your State college system. Mr. DONOHUE. Thank you very much, Mr. Attorney General. Chairman CELLER. Mr. Brooks.

Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Chairman, I want to say first that I am delighted to see the new Attorney General here today. He not only is an old friend of mine, but he is a man and lawyer for whom I have the greatest respect. I might point out that it is interesting that he is accompanied by Fred Vinson, the Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Criminal Division, and that both of them are sons, formerly and currently, of Supreme Court Justices who have rendered this country great service. I want to say in my own personal behalf that I am delighted to see both of you here. I want to say that I hope to work with you on this legislation. I think it is essential. One example of that is that the police chief in my hometown, just a small east Texas city, is heartily in favor of this proposal and of the continuation of the services he feels will be available to him in his efforts to provide for better police protection in Beaumont, Tex. I think this is indicative of the reception that it will receive from the responsible, progressive leadership in local police enforcement agencies. I might add that I endorse your and the President's proposal here in this particular program, and your offer of assistance and help in modernizing and coordinating the efforts to wipe out crime in these local areas where it does occur. I think this proposal will make the

streets safer, and they have not, in anybody's lifetime, been entirely safe. The millennium, as Mr. Rodino has pointed out, will not occur in my lifetime, I do not believe. I think the proposal will give assistance to the States, some to counties, municipalities, in developing plans and programs for new techniques and procedures for law enforcement, and judicial processing, while at the same time keeping that control in the local agencies where most of the money is spent, where most of the responsibility is exercised, has been, and will be. I think it is imperative that the Congress act promptly on this bill. I am hopeful that this committee will act on it without too much delay.

I want to commend our chairman, Mr. Celler, for holding these hearings promptly, for making every effort to contribute to a safer United States. I have one question I would like to ask. Do you know how much, Mr. Attorney General, has been budgeted for this program?

Mr. CLARK. We are seeking

Mr. BROOKS. You may have answered that and I apologize for being here a couple of minutes late.

Did we have a statement on the budgeted funds?

Mr. CLARK. There has been a brief reference. I could expand on it just a little. We seek $50 million for fiscal 1968. Of that about $30 million would go to title I planning, about $20 million to the Law Enforcement Assistance Act continuation or title III purposes. For fiscal 1969 we would seek $300 million. This would be primarily for title II, the new action programs, and this is the area where we feel so much can be done to improve the quality and quantity of effective law enforcement for public safety.

Mr. BROOKS. Do I understand this was in the budget request?

Mr. CLARK. The $50 million? It should be. The $300 million has not been submitted yet. The President has indicated that will be the dimension of his request. We came in before submission of this act at $19 million for the Law Enforcement Assistance Act, which is about $20 million of the $50 million I was talking about, and have or will seek the additional $30 million.

Mr. BROOKS. You think there will be no problem about the Presidential request for whatever is necessary to fill out this $50 million request for safer streets and crime control?

Mr. CLARK. There will be no problem about that and we will need all of those funds.

Mr. BROOKS. Thank you.

Chairman CELLER. Mr. Kastenmeier?

Mr. KASTENMEIER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to join my colleagues in congratulating the Attorney General on his appointment and welcome him to the committee.

Following up on the questions, Mr. Attorney General, that the gentleman from New Jersey asked, I notice in your conclusion you state that the number of serious crimes did not increase 11 percent, but this was serious crime reported to the police. Is there any part of this 11 percent that could be accounted for by the reporting process itself? For example, in cancer we now detect and cases are diagnosed as cancer more effectively presently than in former years. In other words, that the reporting procedure itself had anything to do with

the 11 percent, or are you convinced that serious crimes themselves have increased 11 percent?

Mr. CLARK. I do not believe we can equate the reporting of crime with the incidence of crime. I think we can see enough to determine that crime is increasing faster than population. It is, of course, possible that reporting of crime is declining in relationship to the actual commission of crime. It would be my judgment, however, that we are having a more effective reporting all the time, and therefore that part of the 11 percent would really reflect this more efficient and effective police work in reporting crime.

Mr. KASTENMEIER. A rather large question which is directly our responsibility, I think it is necessary for us to examine, and you have referred to it. As observed by the National Crime Commission and the President it is important to strike at the causes of crime. For example, is it your view that poverty, ignorance, social tension and despair, family breakdown, dehumanization of mass culture, and injustice is on the increase in this country?

Mr. CLARK. That those are increasing as a cause of crime?
Mr. KASTENMEIER. Yes.

Mr. CLARK. I do not think so. I think we know that poverty, for instance, is diminishing somewhat. If we can assume that President Roosevelt was right when he said we were one-third ill-housed, illclothed, and ill-fed in 1933, except for the Negroes among us who are still 39 percent below the poverty level, that we could say we may have cut the proportion living in poverty perhaps in half since 1933. Even so, I think that all of these things that we tend to call the underlying causes of crime in combination are contributing and must be contributing to the trend toward unlawfulness, as we call it.

Mr. KASTENMEIER. I agree with you. In fact, my question is really this: Most people would observe that we are probably making progress in most of these areas, poverty, ignorance, and so forth, nationally and locally. Why is it that the incidence of crime increases? Then presumably these are not directly causing the result in the increase of crime. Something else must be. What is it? How do we account for the increase in crime?

Mr. CLARK. I am not sure I would agree to your last assumption. there. I think maybe the most significant fact of our time is change. Things are changing at a tremendous rate. The rate of change is accelerating. The numbers of people, just the sheer numbers of things that we deal with, everything that we deal with, all of this change when it is molded into poverty, into ignorance and these other conditions that we describe, can give you an overriding effect of instability in your people and their sense of right and wrong, and in their sense of respect for their fellow human beings. We have seen more change in the first two-thirds of this century than in recorded history, it is my judgment. That is the sort of thing we have to anticipate and meet. Mr. KASTENMEIER. Then it would be your observation and counseling to us that as far as change goes there is very little we can do about change in and of itself? In fact it will probably increase and to that extent may be a factor in combination with these other things in your presentation, be just as strong in the future. Would that be your observation?

Mr. CLARK. Yes, I think that tends to be right. I think the rapid rate of change puts a burden on us not to delay. It an urgency to the