While our commission does not conduct grand jury investigations, our private hearings, conducted as part of our investigations, are somewhat analogous to the grand jury function. It is at these private hearings that we obtain vital evidence and information. We cannot stress too strongly the importance of the right of the district attorney, in his good discretion, to grant immunity to witnesses who believe that their testimony may incriminate them. Our experiences, from the commission's earliest investigation of the notorious Apalachin convention of November 14, 1957, to our most recent investigation, concluded just last week, have demonstrated that this statutory aid to extract essential evidence is vital to effective law enforcement.

There are generally three situations in which the grant of immunity may be essential to offset the constitutional privilege of self-incrimination under the fifth amendment, and to obtain valuable information in a pending investigation.

In the first category are those individuals who, although innocent of any intentional wrongdoing, become involved in questionable transactions because of their employment and the directions they receive from their superiors. As an example, there was the bookkeeper who was directed by his superior to make certain cash payments to a member of his company and to record these payments in the books as traveling expenses. The fact was, as developed in our most recent investigation, that this money was actually being turned over to racketeers for labor peace. However, the bookkeeper, upon advice of counsel, would not divulge this information until he received a grant of immunity. He felt that someday some other law enforcement agency looking into his company's affairs might consider him as an accomplice to illegal transactions. In any event, his testimony was very important to our commission because it explained the true nature of the payments and thus opened the door for further inquiry. It also exposed the company's involvement with racketeers.

In the second general category are persons who are to some extent accomplices of or involved with racketeers. A perfect illustration of this situation is our businessman on Long Island whom I mentioned previously. This witness would not tell the commission anything at the private hearing until he was granted immunity. In other words, if he had not received immunity, his connection with racketeers and the huge protection payments which he made, would not have been exposed.

Finally, there are the racketeers. It is well known that a racketeer will always assert his constitutional privilege and refuse to answer questions before a grand jury or any other investigative body. In the investigation of the Apalachin meeting, district attorneys who subpenaed several of the persons who attended the meeting to appear before a grand jury were rebuffed by the witnesses who, as they say, took the fifth and walked out. The revolving door procedure gave some racketeers the impression that investigations were meaningless.

However, in the subsequent investigation of Apalachin, conducted by our Commission, those New York State racketeers who were subpenaed were granted immunity. This was done, of course, after the commission first obtained clearance from the attorney general of the State and the appropriate district attorney. The racketeers per

sisted in refusing to answer questions, asserting numerous legal objections. The commission obtained orders of commitment and the witnesses were confined to jail during the pendency of their appeals. Eventually they all testified and were released from jail. One of these individuals remained in jail for about 17 months. Even though the stories given by these racketeers were obviously fabricated and untrue, the important thing is that they had to testify. And in testifying, they were subjecting themselves to possible perjury indictments. In fact, the son of the host of the Apalachin meeting was indicted and convicted of perjury. Unfortunately, sufficient evidence of perjury could not be obtained against the others.

Therefore, the Commission believes that the immunity aspect of S. 30 has the potential to make investigations of organized crime and racketeers far more fruitful than heretofore. The bill's novel approach which, instead of immunizing the witness from prosecution for any crimes about which he testifies, would simply prohibit the use against the witness of any evidence disclosed by his testimony. This should prove extremely helpful in the Government's fight against organized crime.

This leads me to point out that the grant of immunity itself will not necessarily produce evidence. With this grant of immunity must be coupled the right of compulsory process to produce the witness, and also the right, most importantly, to take appropriate and meaningful action against recalcitrant witnesses. They must know that if, after receiving immunity, they do not testify, they will go to jail until such time as they are prepared to testify. This provision of S. 30 for an indefinite jail term will make it clear that the Government really means business.

The further provision in S. 30 which would abolish the two-witness rule adds further meaning and substance to the program of fighting organized crime. While the threat of imprisonment, or actual imprisonment, will compel a witness to testify, something more is needed to assure that the testimony given will be truthful. The knowledge by the witness that liberalized rules of evidence could well lead to a successful perjury prosecution against him can provide some guarantee that his testimony will be truthful.

I believe that this package of investigative tools, if I may so refer to the immunity, contempt and the false statements provisions of S. 30, will be of immeasurable help to law enforcement officials. Although not part of S. 30, I should like to comment that the liberalization of certain provisions of the recently enacted Federal wiretap statute would add still further strength to the investigative tools. At our recent public hearing, a New York City Police official who testified, deplored the fact that under the Federal wiretapping law the entire wiretapping procedure has been made too difficult, too restrictive, and is therefore far from fulfilling law enforcement needs.

While S. 30 may not offer a complete solution to the problems of organized crime, the Commission believes that the provisions which I have discussed are strong steps in the right direction. And we fully agree with Senator McClellan that the time has come to accelerate our movement in that direction-resolutely.

I notice your suggestion about liberalization of the provisions of the statute enacted last year regarding wiretapping and electronic surveillance. While they could be made more effective if they were liberalized, I am not sure that they would be held constitutional if liberalized to the degree possibly that you imply.

Mr. CURRAN. Senator, if I may

Senator MCCLELLAN. Yes.

Mr. CURRAN. I had one specific thought in mind. New York State adopted legislation just prior to the Federal bill, which would have authorized, would have permitted, in addition to the attorney general of the State, and the 62 district attorneys, one in each county, to apply for wiretap orders it would have permitted the superintendent of State police and the police commissioner of the city of New York to so apply.

The appropriate people in State government have interpreted, and we agree with them, the Federal legislation as having placed a limitation on that, to the extent that the superintendent of State police and the police commissioner of the city of New York, can no longer apply for those orders and they are not so doing.

Senator MCCLELLAN. I am quite sure it could be more effective if they had the right to apply themselves as you suggest. The enforcement of law would be more effective if you eliminated the fifth amendment; you could make it more effective in many ways, but the problem-at least one problem-is that now we have a very liberal Supreme Court. Many of us think that it searches for technicalities to turn people loose, and in light of its recent decision in Spinelli, I think that is a pretty strong indication that it is necessary, so far as trying to have a valid statute, one that the Supreme Court will sustain, that it be very strict. I personally have no objection to it being strict. I don't want a loosely drafted statute to permit promiscuous wiretapping or eavesdropping. I think the privacy of our citizens should be protected, and in the statute I believe we have done this. Whether you could liberalize it some and still give them the protection that I would like to see, I am not sure. But I do think we should have this weapon. I think it is a necessary weapon, particularly in fighting organized crime, and I hope this statute that we enacted last year will be sustained, and though it may not be as effective as we would like to see it, it certainly can be very useful, I think, in this fight on organized crime.

Mr. CURRAN. We agree with that, Mr. Chairman.

Senator MCCLELLAN. I wonder what happened to this businessman you referred to. Were there any prosecutions?

Mr. CURRAN. Well, sir, he testified at a private hearing after being immunized and when the public hearings began he was subpenaed, I believe on February 24 to appear last week, March 11, a week ago Tuesday, and on March 5, or 6 he went into the hospital and I believe he is still in the hospital suffering from a back ailment.

Senator MCCLELLAN. Has the grand jury made an investigation, is it making an investigation of it?

Mr. CURRAN. We understand that an investigation is now being conducted; yes, sir.

Senator MCCLELLAN. In other words, prosecution is still in process?

1 Spinelli v. United States, 393 U.S. 410 (1969).

Mr. CURRAN. That is our understanding; yes, Mr. Chairman, very definitely.

Senator MCCLELLAN. Mr. Chairman, now I am speaking to you as Chairman of the Commission, the President's Crime Commission indicated that New York has one of the Nation's most aggravated organized crime problems.

Your Commission has been investigating organized crime in New York now for over a decade. Based on that experience, do you think we have begun to arrest or to reverse the growth of organized crime in your State? The question is limited to your State.

Mr. CURRAN. Mr. Chairman, I don't believe we have begun to stop organized crime in New York State. I do believe that this Commission, and other local and Federal law-enforcement activities within New York State have at various times in various respects hurt organized criminals by putting them in jail or bringing their activities to light. But certainly much more can be done and much more has to be done. Senator MCCLELLAN. In other words, notwithstanding all that has been done, some of which has been effective, organized crime is still gaining in its power and in its profits, is it not; and in the number of victims?

Mr. CURRAN. That would seem to be the case, Mr. Chairman, yes.

Senator MCCLELLAN. Therefore, the effort that we have made in the past obviously then is not adequate, it is not sufficient, it must be accelerated, and enlarged in the hope that we can cope with it and arrest the growth of it, and ultimately reverse its growth and power. Mr. CURRAN. Yes, sir.

Senator MCCLELLAN. In what fields of activity would you say now that the growth of organized crime in your State has been the greatest during the past few years?

Mr. CURRAN. Well, Mr. Chairman, the evidence available to us, and I think this most recent or just concluded public hearing showed it, I think that organized crime and organized criminals will go into any business area where they can make a fast buck. According to our last investigation, it ranges from the bagel business, meats, butcher tools, a relatively small business, to phony union locals in the so-called independent unions, up to this last example of plastics company, and even conglomerates.

Senator MCCLELLAN. You don't single out any particular area then. They are prepared to enter into any field, any area, any aspect of business, legal or illegal, that gives promise of a quick profit.

Mr. CURRAN. I think that is correct, Mr. Chairman.

Senator MCCLELLAN. In the first legislative report filed in 1953 by your predecessors, I believe, they attributed a major role in the growth of organized crime to the debilitating effect on local government of corruption, improper political influence, and incompetency.

Do you still consider that judgment valid? Would you agree that those conditions still prevail.?

Mr. CURRAN. Well, Mr. Chairman, I think that corruption of public officials is an ever-present threat, and it is something that we have to be constantly on guard against.

I do not think personally that the problems in New York State are as bad as they were in 1953 in this respect.

Senator MCCLELLAN. I see.

Mr. CURRAN. I think they are considerably improved.

Senator MCCLELLAN. That is encouraging. I am not trying to reflect upon New York State. I would say the same thing of Arkansas or anywhere else, wherever they are able to corrupt local officials they can operate, but we have got to try to eliminate it wherever it is. We have got to combat it wherever it is. But since a number of the so-called Cosa Nostra families are located in your State-I know the Cosa Nostra is very active there-you have gained experience that makes you competent to testify in these fields, and I am just trying to get the benefit of your views.

Mr. CURRAN. Mr. Chairman, the question of corruption of public officials is one, looking into that question is one, of our statutory mandates, and it is the Commission's view that this problem is not now as great as it was in 1953 and that in fact the situation has improved considerably.

Senator MCCLELLAN. Well, thank you, sir.

Another final question, do you think we need more laws or more resources to enforce the laws that we now have, or both?

Mr. CURRAN. Well, Mr. Chairman, speaking very generally, I think the laws on the statute books now, I think they can always be improved, I think Senate 30 is an example of how they can be improved, I think the laws generally speaking are adequate. I think more personnel, and more good personnel, can always be used in the fight.

But I think probably most important, and we are trying to do this, it is part of our statutory mandate, is to arouse the public, to get citizens concerned about this problem and to show them, to expose how this kind of activity affects their daily lives, be it in terms of their personal safety or the prices they have to pay, artificially fixed or inflated prices. It is very insidious. Very often organized crime and organized criminals are, you know joked about. You have heard jokes about the Mafia and Cosa Nostra and all that sort of thing and we feel very strongly it is not really funny at all. It has a deep effect on every citizen of our State and of the country, and that more has to be done to get the public concerned and really aroused and keep them aroused. Senator MCCLELLAN. One of the principal functions of your Commission, one of your objectives, is to inform and alert the public and encourage their support of law-enforcement officials, make them conscious of the problem, the seriousness of it, in the hope that as good citizens they will give their cooperation to law enforcement officials.

Mr. CURRAN. Yes, sir, to come forward and testify, and if they are really fearful and don't want to give even a name and address, at the very least send an anonymous letter to the district attorney or to the appropriate commissioner or to one of our personnel, even the FBI, if they don't want to identify themselves. But at least give their knowledge of criminal activity.

Senator MCCLELLAN. Thank you very much.

Mr. Silver, any comment?

Judge SILVER. Yes, Mr. Chairman.

I simply want to say we make an error when we talk about or mislead people when we say the Cosa Nostra has now gone into legitimate business. I think it ought to be clear they go into business that some people are legitimately in but when they go into it they don't go