District of Columbia it is virtually impossible for arresting officers to interrogate suspects at all with any assurance that resultant confessions will be acceptable in court.

Since I am convinced that some stationhouse questioning of suspects is an indispensable tool of effective law enforcement, the situation in the District of Columbia, and to a lesser extent in the other Federal districts, demands that the Mallory rule be changed by legislation.

In essence, S. 2578 would reinstate in Federal courts the pre-McNabb rule of evidence that confessions are admissible if given voluntarily and that delay in presentment is one factor in the equation, but not necessarily the determining one. The bill would permit the police to carry on necessary questioning of arrested individuals, but under clearly defined criteria embodying safeguards to protect the accused from improper police practices. The bill specifically provides, in that regard, that a confession cannot be admitted in evidence unless the accused was previously advised of the nature of the crime of which he was suspected and of his right to remain silent, and given an opportunity to retain and consult counsel. Those safeguards are, in my judgment, adequate to protect the rights of suspects.

It has often been said that the manner in which a society administers criminal justice measures the value it places on the liberty and dignity of the individual. But it also is a test of society's ability to safeguard the community from those who break the law. The individual has fared extremely well in our Federal courts. The rights of defendants have been safeguarded to the utmost, even to the extent that guilty men occasionally escape punishment. On the other hand, conviction of the innocent is practically unknown in our courts. Our present concern, I believe, must be to insure that victims of crime and potential victims of crime receive at least the protection that perpetrators of crime now receive.

I shall not comment further, Mr. Chairman, except to say that I look forward with great interest to hearing the testimony of the excellent witnesses who have consented to appear before this subcommittee. Senator MCCLELLAN. Thank you very much, Senator Ervin. Senator Hruska, do you have a statement?

Senator HRUSKA. I have a brief one, Mr. Chairman.

It was with pleasure that I responded to the assignment to become a member of this subcommittee on criminal laws and procedures when it was proposed. I supported its approval in the Senate—I don't know that it was necessary to have done that because the chairman of this subcommittee is certainly not only one of the most respected Members of the Senate but he is also a Senator with a solid and proven record as a crime fighter.

His work through the years in exposing organized crime and racketeering has no equal in the history of the Congress. The Nation owes an everlasting debt to him for his contributions in this field.

In considering the six bills which have been introduced by him, we are continuing in that same line of work in which he has distinguished himself so well.

I am sure that during the hearings there will be some changes suggested that might point to the improvement and strengthening of these

bills. However, I want to say I support the underlying purpose of each and every one of them.

In addition to this package of six bills the chairman has introduced, the Attorney General has sent up three bills along similar lines. One is S. 3063, which will amend the Law Enforcement Assistance Act of 1965 by broadening its scope somewhat.

It was under the leadership of the Senator from North Carolina that the Law Enforcement Assistance Act was enacted into law last year. During the consideration of this legislation the Attorney General and I had an exchange of correspondence in which I called for a broad-scale scientific effort to identify and attack the root causes of crime.

It is my understanding that work in this field is going ahead within the New Office of Law Enforcement Assistance. It is certain that a detailed accounting from the Attorney General of the progress that is being made will be of great assistance to this subcommittee and others who will consider legislation in this general area.

The second bill, S. 3064, which the Attorney General transmitted, is a measure to establish a Commission on the Revision of Federal Criminal Laws.

Just 3 weeks ago during the hearings on S. 2722, my bill to provide appellate review of Federal criminal sentences, I made a call for such a study.

It is gratifying to know that in all likelihood such a proposal will be contained in a bill.

This subcommittee must decide whether we should proceed by way of a Commission such as is contemplated by S. 3064 or whether we should undertake a revision study within our own subcommittee.

That is something which will no doubt be considered in greater detail.

A third bill, S. 3065, would create a U.S. Correction Service on a unified or consolidated basis. I don't think it is divulging a secret to suggest there is a dispute in regard to this bill. The Judicial Conference of the United States, I understand, has taken a stand against it. However, that should not bar and will not bar hearings on the bill and a consideration of the merits, as well as demerits, which might attach to it.

Mr. Chairman, again I want to congratulate the chairman and members of his staff for having laid a fine foundation for the hearings on which we are about to embark.

Senator MCCLELLAN. Thank you very much, Senator Hruska. Senator Scott?

Senator SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, today we read of an attack with a weapon on a Member of Congress within the House Office Building. This Member had also been assaulted with a weapon on a previous occasion quite near his residential area when going to the assistance of a woman who was herself being assaulted.

I was a member of the original National Crime Commission-by proxy, from the district attorney of my county--and the Commission was headed by Franklin D. Roosevelt, then a private citizen-and the secretary, Loy McHenry. It met and was presided over by Newton Baker; committee expert, Mr. Raymond A. Moley.

The very first session Mr. Moley impressed me by raising this question-he said, "We are formed to combat an increasing crime wave in the United States and therefore I suggest that our first inquiry should be to determine whether or not there is, in fact, an increasing crime wave in the United States."

Here I see that in this series of hearings, which I am sure will be extremely important-and I think it is most gratuitous our distinguished chairman is conducting these hearings-our question is to determine whether or not there is a rising crime rate in the United States.

It is essential that we lay the groundwork for these hearings on a factual basis. It happens to be my belief that there is a rising crime rate. There is a rising population and I would be interested to know whether the crime rate is increasing in ratio with the population increase or not, for example.

I certainly believe that the protection of the people of this country is not keeping pace with the crime rate. I am not here to find fault with court decisions but to observe that recent decisions of great importance to the protection of the individual accused of a crime have in themselves raised new questions of criminal law enforcement.

The Mallory rule cited by the distinguished Senator from North Carolina is an example. Another is modification of the old McNaughton rule as to the test for insanity-it also raised an entirely new set of problems for police officers and enforcement officials.

This applies perhaps in another case recorded in the daily papers of a person allegedly involved as a rapist in connection with at least two and perhaps four or more rapes committed in a quiet residential neighborhood of Washington in which I live.

I think it is certainly true that the streets of Washington are less safe today than the streets of Kabul, Afghanistan-this is not made as an extreme statement-I think if you check the records of Kabul you will find it is safer for women who walk on the streets there, relatively, than here.

In the Capital of the United States this situation is an affront to the administration of justice and the situation is the same in my city of Philadelphia-as in many other areas of the United States.

Therefore, I hope that we will go into, Mr. Chairman, the whole matter of law enforcement and how it may be improved; the matter of protection of the individual against the criminal as well as the criminal, or alleged criminal, against the individual; and, certainly, the protection of innocent people against the majesty of the law.

And all of these things will provide, hopefully provide new information, new suggestions, new directions for the enforcement officers of this country.

I am, myself, particularly interested in several of these bills, notably the one providing for the civil commitment of narcotic addicts.

It is known that the approximate price received for a television set at the pawnshop runs from $20 to $35. The cost of a so-called narcotics fix may run as high as the pawn rate for one or two television

sets.

There may be a connection between this and my figures as to the cost of a fix-depending on the kind of dope fix involved-there may

62-775-66- 3

be a connection between the urgent need of the addict and the incidence of burglary, robbery, assaults, and serious crimes of which we hear so much.

In any event we start where we are today-a nation fearful of its safety-its women believe it is unsafe to walk the streets, and even in the daytime, where murders have been committed in my neighborhood and others.

The Nation is terribly interested in protecting all of the rights of individuals but certainly, at the very least, equally interested in enforcing the criminal law and in improving its legislation to better enforce that.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator MCCLELLAN. Thank you very much, Senator Scott.

If I may make this further, brief observation-while these hearings are primarily scheduled for the purpose of considering these six bills which are under the jurisdiction of the committee-I think it would defeat the purpose of this subcommittee, as we proceed with the mandate and assignment that we have been given, not to study many of the aspects of crime and criminal problems and take into account what other legislation may be needed to help combat the lawless element in this country. While the testimony of witnesses scheduled will be primarily directed toward these measures that we are considering, any other evidence witnesses care to give, particularly with respect to suggested legislation that may be needed or any amendments that they care to make about the overall criminal problem in general, will be welcome.

From time to time we will schedule hearings dealing with various aspects of the problem. It is impossible to hear all aspects of the problem at one hearing or one series of hearings.

I want to make this statement so the record may be clear that we are not limiting or restricting our efforts to the bills now before this committee before we proceed to hear the witnesses.

We are very happy to welcome today the witnesses who have agreed to appear, and the first is Attorney General Katzenbach.

We welcome you and we are very glad to have you testify and give this committee all the assistance possible on these bills we are now considering and we hope you will return on other occasions when we have further hearings scheduled from time to time and give us the benefit of your counsel and the viewpoint of your Department on administration and other legislative aspects of the crime problem which this subcommittee may be considering.

We appreciate your appearance-you may proceed.

STATEMENT OF HON. NICHOLAS deB. KATZENBACH, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES

Mr. KATZENBACH. I am accompanied here by Mr. William Hundley, who is the head of our organized crime section and who is responsible for the really magnificent record we have made in the past 5 years. Senator MCCLELLAN. I am glad to welcome you and you may feel free with the approval of your Chief-to make any comments you may care to make.

Mr. KATZENBACH. I have a prepared statement, Mr. Chairman.
Senator MCCLELLAN. Very well-would you care to read it in full?
Mr. KATZENBACH. I think I would-if I may.
Senator MCCLELLAN. Very well, you may proceed.

Mr. KATZENBACH. Crime, historically a local problem and of local concern, has become, decidely, a national problem and a national

concern.

As President Johnson observed in his crime message 2 weeks ago, the fact and the fear of crime mark the life of every American. He called on the Congress and the Nation to join in a national strategy to halt and eventually reverse the increasing rate of criminal activity across the country.

The measures being considered by this subcommittee relate closely to that national strategy in two ways:

First, three of the bills under consideration relate to organized crime racketeering which has mushroomed into an intercity, interstate network beyond the scope and power of local law enforcement.

Second, the other three measures relate to Federal steps which, while important in their own rights, bear significantly on the capability of law enforcement generally.

Federal responsibility is not to control or dictate. Our historic insistence on local control over law enforcement is to be prized and protected. Rather, the responsibility of the Federal Government is to provide the most effective possible law enforcement in its own sphere and the most useful assistance and leadership in the more general areas of law enforcement that go beyond narrow Federal jurisdiction. I applaud the subcommittee's recognition of these needs and I am happy to have this opportunity to testify concerning these six

measures.

Organized crime: The Congress of the United States has played a central role in awakening the Nation to the power and the danger of the rackets.

The hearings conducted by Senator Kefauver and the later investigations conducted by Senator McClellan shone a clear, cold light on the nature of the methods of organized crime.

And I would like to add there is no person who has contributed so much as you have, Mr. Chairman, to exposing this national evil.

Those hearings demonstrated that there is no part of the country free of the grip of the rackets.

They demonstrated how gambling, extortion, labor racketeering, prostitution, narcotics, and other manifestations of organized crime generate immense amounts of capital.

The hearings demonstrated how that capital is used to develop still further racketeering enterprises, including the infection of areas of legitimate business through loan sharking and bankruptcy fraud.

And the hearings demonstrated how the rackets preserve their first line of defense-the conspiracy of silence.

This is silence secured most dramatically through terror. When the tortured body of an underling is found hanging from a hook in a meat freezer, he cannot talk and his associates are not likely to.

It is a silence secured even more damagingly through corruption. The corrosive impact of bribing a police captain or a mayor is not,