through the canges in top echelon personnel. Indeed, at times the effort has waned. Since 1966 and the Presidential directive of that year, the Organized Crime Section has again been spurred into action. However, the recent momentum does not detract from the history of ebb and flow of the section's activities. (See hearings, Measures Relating to Organized Crime, pp. 163-171.) Another decline in interest and activity should not be risked. The legislative creation of a permanent Assistant Attorney General whose paramount responsibility will be to fight organized crime would obviate this risk.

Third, the Organized Crime Section has already taken on the appearance of a division. The section, at present time, is larger in manpower than the Internal Security Division of the Department of Justice, and comparable to the Civil Rights Division and the Lands Division. In addition, the present section, like a division, is divided into a number of units. Yet, without an Assistant Attorney General as director, the section lacks prestige and administrative clout so important in the necessary cross contact with various law enforcement agencies (see hearings, p. 169).

Fourth, the important new weapons given by S. 30 to the Department of Justice to fight organized crime make it more important than ever to coordinate the antiorganized-crime effort at a division level under the direction of an Assistant Attorney General.

Some of the weapons given the Department of Justice include: (a) title I-special grand juries in a judicial district with more than 4 million inhabitants; (b) title II-authority for a testimonial immunity order; (c) title V-protective housing facilities; (d) title IXcivil investigative demands almost identical to those used in antitrust matters under the supervision of the Assistant Attorney General for Anti-trust; (e) title IX-forfeiture proceedings against one convicted of a designated racketeering offense; (f) title IX-civil divestiture proceedings against racketeering; and (g) title X-procedures to seek an increased sentence for dangerous offenders. If these newest weapons are to be properly utilized against organized crime, the Department must provide high-level impetus, direction, and control, the kind that can only be given by an Assistant Attorney General charged solely with fighting organized crime.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, an Assistant Attorney General in charge of an Organized Crime Division will appreciably enhance the accountability and visibility of the organized crime effort. The Assistant Attorney General for Organized Crime would be a Presidential appointee subject to Senate confirmation. In addition, the Organized Crime Division would have a separate, definable budget.

In brief, I do not believe that the Federal Government's antiorganized-crime machinery will be equal to the tremendous task set for it without top-echelon leadership, divisional status in the Justice Department, and a clear statutory mandate of authority and responsibility.

There is widespread support for the statutory creation of an additional Assistant Attorney General who shall be responsible for the antiorganized-crime effort. In addition to the support for this proposal which has been given by the President's Crime Commission, the idea has been endorsed by the American Bar Association (hearings, p. 267.. a good change in structure within the Department of Justice.");

Prof. Henry Ruth, University of Pennsylvania School of Law (hearings, p. 347); John P. Diuguid, general counsel, Association of Federal Investigators (hearings, p. 277); Edwyn Siberling (hearings, at 531532); Milton R. Wessel (hearings, p. 533); and William G. Hundley, former Chief of Organized Crime Section (hearings, pp. 425-427).

Mr. Hundley's comments at the hearings on S. 30 before the Subcommittee on Criminal Laws and Procedures are particularly relevant to a discussion of the need to elevate the Organized Crime Section to divisional status (hearings, pp. 425-426):

Mr. HUNDLEY... I, of course, favor elevating the Section to division status. I favored it when I was down there. When I left as Chief of the Section we had about 60 attorneys in the Section and it was becoming unmanageable as a Section then. I understand they have over 70 now, and that, if they receive supplemental appropriation they will have 89 and if they receive the requested appropriation for next year, they will have 140 attorneys.

Now, it just doesn't make any sense to me to ask for $65 million for an organized crime drive, which I agree with, by the way-ask for 140 attorneys, and then seem to quibble on whether or not it ought to be a division. It just seems to me that it just flows naturally that it ought to be a division. I agree with Senator Tydings' bill on that.

I am aware that the Attorney General has asked that no legislative action be taken to create an Assistant Attorney General for Organized Crime Control until the completion of a report of the President's Advisory Council on Effective Organization. Such review has been underway for more than 7 months and no resolution of the bureaucratic infighting has appeared. Furthermore, no delay in the passage of S. 30 is requested, and this legislation, as noted above, will give the Department new weapons to use against organized crime which surely will place new burdens on the already strained organization.

A chief fear expressed by opponents of this legislation is that "there would be complex problems of determining which Division, either the Criminal Division or the Organized Crime Division, should have jurisdiction [over a particular Federal criminal prosecution.]" (hearings, pp. 391, 530, 531, 532). Such problems may occur; indeed, they occur today as the various sections within the Criminal Division vie for control of a particular prosecution. Yet, those problems are worked out regularly and without undue difficulty (hearings, pp. 426, 167). A second expressed concern is that, without the organized crime function as a part of the Criminal Division, that Division would have little left to do and it would be difficult to attract a "high-quality person to head the Criminal Division" (hearings, p. 530; see also pp. 426, 532). Almost two-thirds of the attorneys in the Criminal Division are assigned to sections other than the Organized Crime Section. Consequently, elevating the Section to Division status will hardly gut the Criminal Division. As for recruiting a highly qualified individual to head a Criminal Division which does not control organized crime prosecutions, it must be noted that interest in criminal justice has expanded immensely in recent years and surely there will still be well qualified men interested in that field in the future as there are today.

The real objection, I feel certain, to creating a division with an Assistant Attorney General for Organized Crime Control is bureaucratic inertia and prerogatives.

As Congress confers new powers on the Department and sanctions a new impetus against organized crime, there should be a clear congressional mandate for a permanent commitment to a war on organized crime. The surest way of stating that commitment is through legislative action to create an Assistant Attorney General and a Division for Organized Crime Control.

JOSEPH D. TYDINGS.

ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF MR. SCOTT

The Judiciary Committee has voted to report S. 30, the "Organized Crime Control Act of 1969." I concur with the committee's report and their action in favorably reporting the bill. S. 30 consists of ten substantive titles derived from some eight separate bills introduced by Senators on both sides of the aisle. Its provisions are designed to correct several defects in the evidence-gathering process which are especially troublesome in organized crime cases, to limit defense abuse of pretrial proceeding to extend Federal jurisdiction over major cases of gambling and corruption, to curb organized crime infiltration of legitimate organizations, and to authorize extended sentences for special offenders. The bill incorporates the best recommendations of the President's Crime Commission, the National Commission on Reform of Federal Criminal Laws, the American Bar Association Project on Minimum Standards of Criminal Justice, the Model Penal Code, the Model Sentencing Act, and witnesses who represented the National Council on Crime and Delinquency, the Association of Federal Investigators, the New York County Lawyers Association, the American Civil Liberties Union, the New York State Commission of Investigations, the National Association of Counties, the National Chamber of Commerce, and the New York State Bar Association in hearings held by the subcommittee. The Justice Department supports every title of the bill with amendments made by the subcommittee. I would like briefly to discuss certain implications of the organized crime problem and of the measures which S.30 proposes for dealing with that problem.

One of the most disturbing aspects of organized crime today is the fact that its preponderant impact is upon those least able to pay the price that organized crime exacts: the urban poor. As President Nixon stated in his organized crime message to the Congress of April 23, 1969: "The most tragic victims [of organized crime], of course, are the poor whose lack of financial resources, education and acceptable living standards frequently breed the kind of resentment and hopelessness that make illegal gambling and drugs an attractive escape from the bleakness of ghetto life." (Message from the President of the United States relative to the fight against organized crime, H. Doc. 91-105, 91st Cong., first session, 2 (Apr. 23, 1969).)

Organized crime bleeds those citizens in an insidious variety of ways. It's most obviously predatory method is the promotion of the use of "hard" narcotics, which, as the President's Crime Commission has documented, are imported and distributed wholesale by national crime syndicates. (President's Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice, "The Challenge of Crime in a Free Society," 218 (1967).) The end points of that system of drug distribution are found primarily in the low-income neighborhoods of our major cities. The addicts themselves, of course, suffer untold agonies of body and mind. The New York Times has reported evidence that, in New York

City, heroin use killed 700 persons, including 170 teenagers in the first 10 months of this year. (New York Times, Oct. 23, 1969, p. 51, col. 2.) Heroin now is the leading single cause of death among persons 15 to 35 in New York City.

The harm done in the ghettos by the promotion of hard-drug use reaches beyond the addicts to the vast majority, the honest, decent citizens. One of the causes of violence in our major cities is the failure of the authorities to crack down on those who traffic in narcotics. Addicts, desperate for money to support their habits, commit a large proportion of all crime against person and property and, as the President's Crime Commission stated, "(o)ne of the most fully documented facts about crime is that the common serious crimes that worry people most-murder, forcible rape, robbery, aggravated assault, and burglary-happen most often in the slums of large cities." (President's Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice, "The Challenge of Crime in a Free Society" (1967).) Society as a whole cannot, in justice, close its eyes to that ghetto crime. We must recall the words of the National Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders:

Two facts are crucial to an understanding of the effects of high crime in racial ghettos; most of these crimes are committed by a small minority of the residents, and the principal victims are the residents themselves. . . .

As a result, the majority of law-abiding citizens who live in disadvantaged Negro areas face much higher probabilities of being victimized than residents of most higher income areas, including almost all suburbs. . . . (Report at 134-135 (1968).)

While the exploitation of disadvantaged groups may be most obvious where addiction and resulting street crime are involved, that exploitation takes other forms, equally subversive of the struggle of minorities for dignity and fulfillment. Ubiquitous numbers and booking offices, often operated directly by syndicates, drain the meager assets of the urban poor by cultivating the illusion of a chance for wealth. Furthermore, organized crime, as President Nixon has stressed, "... is increasing its enormous holdings and influence in the world of legitimate business." (Message from the President of the United States relative to the fight against organized crime, H. Doc. 91-105, 91st Cong., first session I (Apr. 23, 1969).) One of the principal means of that expansion is foreclosure on debts to loan sharks, and the small marginal, local businessman in the concentrated areas of the urban poor is a primary victim of organized crime loan sharking. These and other organized criminal enterprises yearly take large sums from their direct victims and, by raising prices on necessary commodities and services, plunder the funds of all slum residents.

Organized crime views corruption of police and other officials, which the President's Crime Commission found to be common in areas marked by organized crime, as a means of protecting its profitable operations. The Congress, however, must recognize that corruption represents a distinct evil, one which is especially abhorrent to our national values. Police officials whose dedication to our laws has been sold out are ineffective not only in curbing organized crime; they have forfeited their initiative and opportunity to fairly and fully enforce