Why don't I have a right to seek to persuade the court as to the relevance or lack of relevance.

Attorney General MITCHELL. Well, Senator, I am sure that that is the argument that has been made in these cases and it is, in effect, the holding of the court.

We are confronted here with the problem, as I say, of national security and defense, of the protection of witnesses, and it is the opinion of the Department that a court in camera is qualified to make that determination.

Senator HART. I would tend, sitting in the bleacher seats, to think that the court acted responsibly. I haven't read the briefs either.

But the assertion merely that the presecution is inhibited or restricted as the result of this or that court decision increasingly in the public tends to indicate that the decision is wrong. Whenever we have a chance we ought to remind, whether it is popular or not, that restraints and inhibitions on the police was the purpose of the Bill of Rights, and the fellow ultimately responsible for delivering on the guarantees of the Bill of Rights is the court. So that merely saying that this makes it tough on the policeman is in a sense a so what argument, because that is precisely what the Bill of Rights is intended to do.

I know that at the moment there is a very broad surge of opinion across the country that anything that inhibits the policeman is wrong. That is an attitude that is wrong and law enforcement leadership itself should say so. Would you agree?

Attorney General MITCHELL. I would certainly agree, sir, that the police should be subjected to the restrictions and restraints of the Bill of Rights. As to the specifics of a particular situation, that, of course, is determinative in the individual case. There is no thought, I am sure, in the Department of Justice or any other place to give the law enforcement officer an unbridled approach to the matter about which we are speaking.

Senator HART. At the cost of repetition, merely responding to a court decision with a comment that that makes it more difficult for the policeman does not contribute to the public enlightement as to the prudence or the appropriateness of the decision.

Attorney General MITCHELL. No, it does not, unless the specifics of the situation are brought out and discussed and evaluated.

Senator HART. The charts that Senator McClellan put in contain a statement attached on the back and it was a part of his floor speech, that very effective floor speech to which you made reference, it quotes the President's Crime Commission, concluding its chapter on organized crime with these words:

"The extraordinary thing about organized crime is that America has tolerated it so long." It is extraordinary, and the charts that are reported here would indicate that the war on organized crime, at least statistically, didn't begin until 1961. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator MCCLELLAN. Yes, sir; thank you.

Senator Thurmond?

Senator THURMOND. Mr. Chairman, thank you.

Mr. Attorney General, I observe that in your statement you outlined a number of steps to focus on the role of the Federal Government on

the matter of controlling organized crime, and in addition you also made the statement that our State and local police and prosecutors are the Nation's first line of law enforcement and that is what I wanted to comment on for just a moment, because it seems that so many people today feel that the Federal Government should inject itself into every facet not only of law enforcement but every other facet of the life of our people.

As I construe your position, it is your intention to work within the Federal structure to enforce the laws by the Central Government. Then in addition you recognize the responsibility of the State and local police and prosecutors of the Nation and you are going to assist them in such way as you can in accord with the Constitution?

Attorney General MITCHELL. That is our full intention, Senator Thurmond. A great deal of crime, particularly street crime, of course, falls within the jurisdiction of State and local government, and it is only by way of assistance by the Federal Government that we can get at that. Such crime is within the province of State and local government and we certainly are not going to impair or direct in any way their activities of carrying out their responsibilities and functions.

Senator THURMOND. The State and the local communities have the responsibility for law enforcement on violation of State laws. I observe you have mentioned a number of things that could be done to assist, and I was impressed with these that you offer the State and local governments the experience and benefits of tested programs that have proved successful in fighting organized crime, and I presume by that that you would forward to the States the experience of the Federal Government and of the other States of the Nation so that any State could get the benefit of that experience?

Attorney General MITCHELL. That is correct, sir.

Senator THURMOND. I notice also to develop model organized crimes laws, crime control laws for the States and to urge their adoption.

You do plan to prepare some model laws that you feel would be worthy of consideration by the States, to become the law of the different States of the Nation?

Attorney General MITCHELL. Yes; we do, Senator. We will prepare them as draft legislation and recommend them to the State legislatures for their consideration.

Senator THURMOND. And also to assist the States, I believe, you have suggested to support and assist in the recruitment and training of special organized crime investigators, prosecutors, accountants, statisticians, and other necessary technical personnel.

Now, for a long time I have felt that the States did not have the facilities or maybe didn't assume the responsibility it should in these fields that you just mentioned here. I wondered just how far you contemplate going in that. Would you bring people to Washington for training, would you set up training centers in different States or sections, areas in the country or just what approach would you use in it? Attorney General MITCHELL. I think it will vary, Senator Thurmond, depending upon the circumstances involved.

Take an activity such as that which is being carried on in Massachusetts where with that States's organized crime commission, if that be the name, they have proceeded down the road on their own to some

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