extent, and in this particular instance, our efforts would be more in the nature of refinements of their program with our intelligence, and the training of more selected people to fit into the specific spots. In other States, of course, we would have to start from scratch and provide them with training. Of course, the FBI's academy is one of the sources from which local police officers acquire training, and I am sure that, as the program develops, there will be, undoubtedly be, other schools and seminars to provide the requisite personnel on the State level with the information and education that they need.

Senator THURMOND. I presume on account of the vast number that would have to be trained that you would contemplate conducting schools and training some of the leaders and cadres and then let them go back to the States and train others?

Attorney General MITCHELL. Yes, this is frequently done, as you know, in law enforcement work.

Senator THURMOND. Next you mention assistance in establishing statewide organized crime investigative and prosecutorial units whose expertise will also be available to local prosecutors and police.

Had you given thought to just the procedure to be used there? Attorney General MITCHELL. I do not get the thrust of your question, Senator.

Senator THURMOND. The procedure that you would use in establishing organized crime investigative and prosecutorial units.

Attorney General MITCHELL. Well, the concept is that the States would follow the patterns that have been developed in our organized crime and racketeering section, such as providing the requisite type of investigating power, prosecuting power and all of the other aspects of intelligence collection and analysis to the point where States would have on the local level a complete unit comparable to the ones that we are developing or are in the process of developing, in the Department. Senator THURMOND. Then next,

Assist in developing strategic and technical intelligence units and whenever appropriate make our intelligence available.

Now, my experience has been that, that should be a very valuable asset. There has ben a great shortage, I think, in intelligence in the matter of law enforcement.

Attorney General MITCHELL. That is correct, Senator, and of course, in organized crime the great impediment to its destruction is the lack of intelligence. Until we have full intelligence in the area, the task is much more difficult.

Senator THURMOND. I am opposed to a national police system. Mr. Hoover has, I believe, taken that position that he opposes converting the FBI into a national police system. It is an investigative agency. I just wondered if you had given any thought to this particular item? Attorney General MITCHELL. Well, I have stated on a number of occasions, Senator, since assuming the office I now hold, that I am diametrically opposed to any national police organization, and I subscribe to your statement with respect to the Federal Bureau of Investigation. It should continue to carry out the functions that it is doing now and should not be given any other powers that will tend to make it a national police organization.

Senator THURMOND. I notice you state that you do not plan, speaking of the States, you do not plan to dictate.

Rather we hope to assist the State and local governments in improving their capabilities for dealing with organized crime.

I think that is a very fine attitude, and in proceeding under that presumption, I think you will get the splendid cooperation of the States and the local communities.

I just want to commend you on your statement as a whole and on this relationship with the States in which I am so vitally interested, especially for your excellent statement.

Attorney General MITCHELL. Thank you, Senator.

Senator MCCLELLAN. Senator Hruska, we are glad you were able to get through with your other responsibilities and be able to arrive before we recessed this morning. I am glad you can be here.

Senator HRUSKA. Mr. Chairman may we go off the record? (Discussion off the record.)

Senator HRUSKA. On the record; Mr. Chairman, I am pleased that the subcommittee has been able to schedule hearings on organized crime early in the 91st Congress. The target presented by organized crime, as all of us know, is elusive, the danger is great, and the solution complex. The chairman of the subcommittee is noted for his painstaking preparation and his perseverance and his resourcefulness. I take great comfort in knowing that the hearings will proceed under his leadership. Each of his virtues will be needed in great measure to successfully deal with the problem at hand.

Mr. Chairman, I have a longer statement which I have prepared for this occasion which I should like inserted in its totality. I shall refer to only one or two points at this time.

Senator MCCLELLAN. Let the statement be printed in the record-I like what I have heard of it so far. [Laughter.]

Senator HRUSKA. Let me continue then. I do not believe that there is anyone who can excel and even equal, the record of the chairman for his thoroughness, competence, and excellence.

Mr. Chairman, I have been working for the last few weeks to perfect a bill entitled "The Wagering Tax Amendments Act of 1969.” I have also been working on a bill incorporating features of S. 2048 and S. 2049, two bills that I introduced in the Congress last year, containing many of the effective devices found in the Sherman Anti-Trust Act. My new proposal, however, will not amend that Act.

This bill is designed to apply the antitrust or civil features of our law to the invasion of legitimate businesses by members of the organized crime community.

These bills will be introduced on Thursday of this week. I shall ask that they be appropriately referred and in due time transmitted to the Attorney General for his analysis, his advice, and his comments. I hope these bills will be considered in conjunction with the present bill, S. 30, introduced by the Chairman early in this session.

(Statement follows:)

STATEMENT OF HON. ROMAN L. HRUSKA

Mr. Chairman, I am most pleased that the subcommittee has been able to schedule hearings on organized crime early in the 91st Congress. The target presented by organized crime is elusive, the danger is great, and the solution is

complex. The Chairman of the Subcommittee is noted for his painstaking preparation, his perseverance, and his resourcefulness. I take comfort in knowing the hearings will proceed under his leadership because each of these virtues will be needed in great measure to successfully deal with the problem before us.

There is no greater scourge in this nation than the deliberate use of violence and vice that is the trademark of organized crime. This insidious disease exists at all levels of our society from the very highest to the very lowest. The jobless and the corporate executives equally are prey. Physical and economic extortion equally are the means.

The public must become better informed on the extent of the organized crime threat. The Congress must devote energy to legislation that will cripple it, and the Executive must step up its investigation and prosecutions. I noted with dismay the figures placed in the Congressional Record on March 11 by the Chairman showing a decrease in the Department of Justice organized crime effort from 1964 through 1967. The momentum lost will hamper anticrime efforts for years to come.

On the other hand, the attitude toward organized crime expressed thus far by President Nixon and Attorney General Mitchell is most heartening. The effective leadership offered by the Nixon Administration will be the critical factor in the course of the future war on organized crime. I commend the Attorney General for having spoken out on this issue, and I look forward to his assistance today and in the future.

Much can be done by the Congress to give the Administration an increasingly effective arsenal with which to combat crime. We should not hesitate, Mr. Chairman, to use every lawful means that can be devised by man. Organized crime has spared no effort to see that special treatment is accorded their victims and the American public. We, in turn, must be resourceful in seeing that organized crime receives special treatment from the Congress, the courts, the executive, the states, and the American people.

The Constitution of the United States provides guarantees against encroachment upon the individual by the government. When I urge zealous prosecution of organized crime, I do so in the constitutional context. The provisions of the Constitution are not road blocks in our path, but rather sign posts which can guide the Congress and the Attorney General. We have fashioned, and the Attorney General is using, a wiretapping law conceived in just this manner. The rights of the individual are protected and the sanctuary of organized crime is threatened.

This is the approach which will be taken in these hearings. S. 30 is indeed an omnibus bill which raises controversial questions and stimulates a great deal of thought. The questions are not easy ones and the possibility of constitutional problems will not be taken lightly.

The subjects covered by S. 30-the grand jury, immunity, recalcitrant witnesses, false statements, witness facilities, depositions, co-conspirator declarations, and special sentencing-all merit careful examination. It is my hope that each of these ideas can be molded into legitimate legislation which Congress can approve.

There are other steps, also, which can be taken. A serious need exists to correct the damage done by the Supreme Court's decisions in Marchetti v. United States, 350 U.S. 39 (1968) and Grosso v. United States, 390 U.S. 63 (1968). I say this, not in criticism of the Court or its interpretation of the Constitution, but in recognition of the fact that the wagering tax laws have been rendered ineffective. The loss suffered by law enforcement can be shown that during Attorney General Kennedy's tenure, he estimated that 60 percent of the racketeering convictions resulted from Internal Revenue Service investigations. Most of these were wagering tax violations.

Mr. Chairman, a bill entitled the Wagering Tax Amendments of 1968, has been prepared and I will introduce it in the Senate within a few days.

I also propose to introduce within a few days, a bill which incorporates the features of S. 2048 and S. 2049 of the 90th Congress. The bill contains many of the effective devices found in the Sherman Anti-trust Act, but it does not amend that Act. It is my hope this legislation can be promptly referred to this subcommittee for its consideration during this series of hearings. This proposed legislation will significantly broaden available federal jurisdictional bases and will greatly increase the availability of discovery procedures. It aims specifically at the infiltration of legitimate business. Adapting antitrust machinery for the assault

on organized crime is an innovative approach. I hope we will see more innovation and ingenuity as we progress through the hearings.

I look forward to hearing the witnesses who have been scheduled, Mr. Chairman. I am particularly eager to hear our first witness, Attorney General Mitchell. Senator HRUSKA. With that introduction, I should like to ask a question or two of the Attorney General.

In the newspaper this morning, there was a story that at last the FBI has joined the other people who are seeking to fight organized crime, and that they are doing it willingly and wholeheartedly. The story discussed their participation in the strike forces established by your predecessor, Mr. Attorney General, which I understand you will

continue.

The story appeared on March 18.

Senator MCCLELLAN. Today.

Senator HRUSKA. I ask that the article be put in the record at this point.

Senator MCCLELLAN. Without objection.

(The article follows:)

[From the Washington Post, Mar. 18, 1969]

HOLDOUT AGAINST "STRIKE FORCE" ENDED-FBI JOINS INTERAGENCY WAR ON CRIME

(By John P. MacKenzie)

To the surprise and joy of the Federal men who wage war on organized crime, the FBI is joining the fight in a big way, ending its long holdout against the Justice Department's "strike force" method of coordinated attack.

If the trend of recent weeks continues, the enlisting of the FBI in this cooperative anti-crime venture could become one of the memorable achievements of the Nixon Administration, or of any of the seven previous Administrations that have dealt with powerful Director J. Edgar Hoover.

Strike forces are teams of Federal narcotics, tax and other agents assigned to six crime centers to launch multi-faceted attacks on the local Mafia.

For more than two years the FBI, in keeping with a tradition of independence. has remained aloof from the strike forces. It has maintained only a "liaison" relationship with this or any other anti-crime approach that threatened to dilute its own resources or reduce its record of successful investigations.

Even now, the FBI is said to be stopping short of full partnership or membership in any strike force. Justice Department officials, anxious not to disturb the flowering relationship with the FBI, declined to be more precise than to say that they were "delighted with the Bureau's attitude."

The attitude is being manifested, the lawyers eindicated, by extra agents being committed to local FBI offices-doubling and tripling it in some cities-specially for organized crime.

Close observers of the war on syndicated crime say the 74-year-old Hoover is beefing up his efforts at considerable sacrifice to the agency he has headed for 45 years.

He is trading the certainty of present operating methods—with a control over his own personnel that is the envy of other agency heads--for the uncertainties of a program that consumes man-hours without promising to enhance the Bureau's reputation for success. Credit for successes against the Cosa Nostra will have to be shared with other Federal investigators.

He is subjecting the Bureau, which has been virtually immune from political counterattack, to the hazards that go with combatting official and police corruption.

And Hoover is said to realize that when the counterattack does come from burned politicians, his own prestige may not be available to protect the agency that he has helped to make so powerful and so widely respected.

Although he began on the customary note of mutual admiration with the Nixon Administration-Hoover's automatic retention well beyond the retirement age of 70 was one of the President's first post-election actions-there are signs that Hoover's superiors in Government are itching for a change.

Not only are some Administration officials looking forward to a propitious moment to make Hoover the FBI's Director Emeritus, they are even leaning toward the "new blood" idea that his successor could come from outside the FBI without harm to effectiveness and morale.

At first, Hoover sought to report directly to President Nixon, bypassing his 16th Attorney General, John N. Mitchell. After one or two instances of this, he now reports to Mitchell.

Many Mafia fighters, including some FBI critics, are reluctant to attribute Hoover's cooperative conduct to the struggle for survival.

Instead, they give most of the credit to Administration officials who made clear that the strike force method was producing concrete results-indictments and convictions and that the FBI would be expected to help deliver.

Senator HRUSKA. Mr. Attorney General, are you familiar with this news account entitled, "Holdout Against 'Strike Force' Ended-FBI Joins Interagency War on Crime"?

Attorney General MITCHELL. Senator Hruska, I have not read the story. I have heard quite a bit about it coming up in the car from my assistants here, so I think I have a general knowledge of its import. Senator HRUSKA. Would you prefer to take time to study the story and analyze it, and then insert your comments in the record? Is that agreeable, Mr. Chairman.

Senator MCCLELLAN. Mr. Attorney General, you may make such comments as you care to now. You say you are familiar with it. You can later, if you like, submit any additional material.

Senator HRUSKA. That would be completely satisfactory.

Attorney General MITCHELL. I would comment to the effect that we have had numerous conferences and exchanges of memorandums on the subject matter of organized crime and the strike forces between Mr. Hoover and my office and Mr. Hoover is cooperating completely in our plans. His Bureau agents are cooperating with the strike forces now in the field. As this program that we are undertaking develops, top personnel will be assigned to our strike forces and will be completely onboard the same as our attorneys and everybody else in the operation. I have received from him the complete cooperation in the design of our proposed activities and in all other circumstances with respect to our fight on organized crime.

Senator HRUSKA. Well, thank you, sir.

I think the problem as outlined so well by the chairman of this subcommittee, as well as by you in your statement, indicates that it is going to take the combined cooperative efforts of every agency, including the public at large, in order to make any progress in this field.

If there is any disposition on your part to comment additionally on this news account, please do.

Senator MCCLELLAN. Would you yield at that point?

Senator HRUSKA. Surely

Senator MCCLELLAN. Just one question. I glanced at that news article. Its thrust is that Mr. Hoover had been holding out, dragging his feet, not cooperating up until now, but finally he has capitulated and is going to cooperate. Is there any justification for that sort of inference?

Attorney General MITCHELL. I certainly would not approach it in that context. Not having had the personal contact with Mr. Hoover prior, of course, to my arrival here on the scene on January 20, in this area, I am not quite certain as to the dialog between the previous

30-902-69-11