(d) Estimate of Money Presently Spent: No estimate given except that "state spends very little". Local situation pathetic, desperate need. (e) Reaction of Local Law Enforcement Officials to Proposal: Crime Commission favors Federal aid. (f) Suggestions in Improvement of Proposal: See (a) and (b). Grants should go to State agency for local distribution. Federal controls feared. PENNSYLVANIA (a) The Wisdom of Establishing a Federal Grant and Aid Program for State and Local Law Enforcement: Favors federal grant and aid program and favors this proposal. On the other hand the Governor emphasizes crime as a local problem and suggests aid should be given by agreement between Federal and State governments for specific programs. The administration and application of funds thereto should be a "matter of State or local control", the "single concern" of the Federal Government is to see that the funds are applied as agreed upon. (These two positions seem somewhat contradictory.) (b) Procedures for Distributing Such Federal Money: Not spelled out. See (a). (c) Benefits Accruing to State from Proposal: Position not yet firm as Penna. Crime Commission just formulated. Suggested are improved training and training facilities. (d) Estimate of Money Presently Spent: No estimate given. (e) Reaction of Local Law Enforcement Officials to Proposal: Reaction not sought. It is believed, however, to be generally favorable. (f) Suggestions in Improvement of Proposal: No specific suggestions others than general comments in (a) . UTAH (a) The Wisdom of Establishing a Federal Grant and Aid Program for State and Local Law Enforcement: Favorable reaction to grant and aid program. However, objection to qualifying formulae and prefers block grants to State for distribution thereunder. (b) Procedures for Distributing Such Federal Money: Objects to qualifying formula. Prefers block grants and would distribute funds themselves. (c) Benefits Accruing to State from Proposal: Expanding training programs adding new equipment for detection and prevention. Engage computer assistance, supplement salaries. (d) Estimate of Money Presently Spent: $8.8 million for law enforcement for fiscal 1964-1965. (e) Reaction of Local Law Enforcement Officials to Proposal: No reaction received. (f) Suggestions in Improvement of Proposal: Estimate favorable reaction to any assistance. VERMONT (a) The Wisdom of Establishing a Federal Grant and Aid Program for State and Local Law Enforcement: Favorable reaction. (b) Procedures for Distributing Such Federal Money: Approves proposal. (c) Benefits Accruing to State from Proposal: Construction of State police academy. Subsequently available to local agencies. (d) Estimate of Money Presently Spent: Unable to estimate local expenditures. (e) Reaction of Local Law Enforcement Officials to Proposal: Reaction favorable. (f) Suggestions in Improvement of Proposal: No suggestions. VIRGINIA (a) The Wisdom of Establishing a Federal Grant and Aid Program for State and Local Law Enforcement: Answer forthcoming, however, the Governor feels that a greater weapon against crime than additional expenditures would be an emphasis on "certainty of punishment". Governor deplores recent court decisions placing "rights" of criminals above society. (b) Procedures for Distributing Such Federal Money: Answer forthcoming. (c) Benefits Accruing to State from Proposal: Answer forthcoming. (d) Estimate of Money Presently Spent: $23 million for "this biennium" for State police. No other statistics. (e) Reaction of Local Law Enforcement Officials to Proposal: Answer forthcoming. (f) Suggestions in Improvement of Proposal: See (a). Emphasis on certainty of punishment. Further answer forthcoming. WASHINGTON (a) The Wisdom of Establishing a Federal Grant and Aid Program for State and Local Law Enforcement: Federal grant aid desirable. Block grant to State preferred. Self-administration of program and funds preferred. Desire to coordinate statewide through Federal-State administration preferred. Cites frictional feeling between local police and U.S. Justice Dept. Feels local administration more workable. (b) Procedures for Distributing Such Federal Money: Section (a). Block grants for statewide federal control and State-Federal friction feared. (c) Benefits Accruing to State from Proposal: Expanded training and education of both police and citizenry for war on crime. Establishment of academic training school programs suggested. (d) Estimate of Money Presently Spent: $41 million on law enforcement in 1966 "throughout the State", estimated. (e) Reaction of Local Law Enforcement Officials to Proposal: Favorable to grants in aid but re-emphasizes State and local administration and control. (f) Suggestions in Improvement of Proposal: See (a), Block grants to State and State and local administration and control. WISCONSIN (a) The Wisdom of Establishing a Federal Grant and Aid Program for State and Local Law Enforcement: Federal aid desirable and necessary. Local autonomy must not be "impaired". Less emphasis on innovation. More emphasis on expanding existing effective programs. (b) Procedures for Distributing Such Federal Money: Distribution based on improved programs and less emphasis on innovation. (c) Benefits Accruing to State from Proposal: Improved training and education, emphasis on existing effective programs. Coordination also sought. (d) Estimate of Money Presently Spent: $50 million for law enforcement courts and prosecution. $20 million for corrections. (e) Reaction of Local Law Enforcement Officials to Proposal: No reaction sought except that enthusiasm for a State minimum standards program. (f) Suggestions in Improvement of Proposal: Care to retain autonomy of local law enforcement. Funds should be directed to improve and upgrade local law enforcement. De-emphasize innovations. WYOMING (a) The Wisdom of Establishing a Federal Grant and Aid Program for State and Local Law Enforcement: No enthusiastic support as program felt not needed in Wyoming. Concern for Federal controls. Grants should be with no strings attached. (b) Procedures for Distributing Such Federal Money: See (a). Favor block grants with no federal controls. (c) Benefits Accruing to State from Proposal: Speculative benefit for future, establishment of State crime laboratory. Other needs not yet manifest. (d) Estimate of Money Presently Spent: State and local law enforcement penal and correctional costs $1 million annually. (e) Reaction of Local Law Enforcement Officials to Proposal: Generally favorable to Federal assistance. (f) Suggestions in Improvement of Proposal: See (a) and (b). Prefer grants to State or locality only when every other means "exhausted". Grants should be with no strings attached. Wyoming feels it does not presently need such assistance. Mr. POFF. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Poff. Our next witness is one of our distinguished colleagues from New York, the Honorable Frank Horton, who has offered H.R. 710. Without objection, H.R. 710, and H.R. 7094, a similar bill, introduced by Mr. McClory will appear in the record at this point. (H.R. 710 and H.R. 7094 follow:) [H.R. 710, 90th Cong., first sess.] A BILL To amend chapter 73, title 18, United States Code, to prohibit the obstruction of criminal investigations of the United States Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That (a) chapter 73, title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end thereof the following new section: "1507. Obstruction of criminal investigations "(a) Whoever willfully endeavors by means of bribery, misrepresentation, intimidation, force, or threats thereof to obstruct, delay, or prevent the communication of information relating to a violation of any Federal law by any person to a criminal investigator; or "Whoever injures any person in his person or property on account of the giving by such person or by any other person of any information to any criminal investigator in the course of the conduct of any criminal investigation "Shall be fined not more than $5,000, or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. "(b) As used in this section "(1) The term 'criminal investigation' means any investigation conducted by any department, agency, or armed force of the United States for the purpose of ascertaining whether any criminal offense under the laws of the United States within the cognizance of such department, agency, or armed force is being or has been committed; and "(2) The term 'criminal investigator' means any individual duly authorized by a department, agency, or armed force of the United States to conduct or engage in a criminal investigation." (b) The chapter analysis of chapter 73, title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end thereof the following new item: "1507. Obstruction of criminal investigations." [H.R. 7094, 90th Cong., first sess.] A BILL To amend chapter 73, title 18, United States Code, to prohibit the obstruction of criminal investigations of the United States Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That (a) chapter 73, title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end thereof the following new section: "§ 1510. Obstruction of criminal investigations "(a) Whoever willfully endeavors by means of bribery, misrepresentation, intimidation, or force or threats thereof to obstruct, delay, or prevent the communication of information relating to a violation of any criminal statute of the United States by any person to a criminal investigator; or "Whoever injures any person in his person or property on account of the giving by such person or by any other person of any such information to any criminal investigator "Shall be fined not more than $5,000, or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. "(b) As used in this section, the term 'criminal investigator' means any individual duly authorized by a department, agency, or armed force of the United States to conduct or engage in investigations of or prosecutions for violations of the criminal laws of the United States.' (b) The chapter analysis of chapter 73, title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end thereof the following new item: "1510. Obstruction of criminal investigations." The CHAIRMAN. We will be very glad to hear you, Mr. Horton. STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK HORTON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK Mr. HORTON. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I appreciate the opportunity to appear today in support of my proposal, H.R. 710, to strengthen the statute prohibiting the obstruction of criminal investigations of the United States. Under the present law, contained in chapter 73 of title 18 of the United States Code, it is a Federal offense for anyone to intimidate or use force on a witness or juror in a judicial proceeding or congressional inquiry. As you know, the courts have placed a rather narrow interpretation on this law, judging it to mean that protection is not extended to witnesses or informants prior to the initiation of actual court proceedings. The obvious result is a loophole in our criminal law. As former Attorney General Katzenbach said in his testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee a year ago, the present law leaves "a gaping hole in the protection the Government can now provide to its own witnesses." I have proposed therefore that a new section be added to chapter 73, making it a Federal offense for anyone to obstruct, delay, or prevent the communication of information concerning a Federal crime to a Federal investigator, by means of bribery, misrepresentation, intimidation, or force or threats of force. In other words, my bill would afford protection to potential witnesses and informants in Federal investigations regardless of whether actual court proceedings had been initiated. At the same time it would allow the Federal authorities to take punitive action against any person who might try to silence such witnesses. As you know, this matter has been brought to the attention of Congress before. During the last session I introduced a measure identical to H.R. 710. On the Senate side, hearings were held on a like proposal introduced by Senator McClellan. Favorable action was taken by the Senate, which passed the bill last August. I feel certain that if we give our consideration and our approval to this legislation now, it will meet with no obstacles in completing the legislative process. Surely there can be no reason to delay action which will only serve to rectify a dangerous situation now permitted by law. When I refer to the existing situation as dangerous, I do not exaggerate the case. Organized crime in particular benefits from the present law, which allows potential witnesses to be silenced and criminal investigations to be frustrated without threat of Federal prosecution. Organized crime typically resorts to the most brutal methods, including murder, to prevent the success of investigations which threaten its existence. In his testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Mr. Katzenbach referred to "dozens of cases of witnesses beaten with baseball bats and tortured with acetylene torches." He observed further that "for every identifiable case of intimidation or attack, there are many more cases of sudden, unexplained silence" on the part of witnesses or potential witnesses. The recent report of the President's Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice talks about the difficulties faced by law enforcement agencies in getting people to testify against organized crime. "Even the true victims of organized crime," the report reads, "such as those succumbing to extortion, are too afraid to inform law enforcement officials." If law enforcement officials are able to develop informants, despite this fear, members of the criminal organization use "torture and murder to destroy the particular prosecution at hand and to deter others from cooperating with police agencies. Informants who do furnish intelligence to the police often wish to remain anonymous and are unwilling to testify publicly." It would not be hard to continue with evidence of organized crime's willingness to employ drastic measures to obstruct justice. What concerns me is that gangsters and other criminals are actually being protected from punishment by our Federal law, because there is no statute to prohibit them from threatening or harming witnesses in order to prevent the initiation of court proceedings. There is no doubt in my mind that "this frustration of criminal investigations,” as Attorney General Ramsey Clark says, "is inimical to our system of justice. And when justice is frustrated, all of our citizens are injured." By delaying favorable action on H.R. 710, we would be in effect perpetrating a crime on the American public by violating our standards of justice. At the same time, we would be thwarting our own sincere efforts to reduce the incidence and the threat of crime in this country. There is no justifiable reason for failing to approve a piece of legislation which will plug a loophole in the Federal criminal law. I therefore urge the members of this subcommittee to recommend the passage of the proposal to prohibit intimidation, harassment, or the use of force against potential witnesses and informers in judicial proceedings of the United States. Seldom in our work here in Congress is the right course of action so plainly evident. Let us take good advantage of this opportunity without hesitation. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and distinguished members of this subcommittee, for giving me the opportunity to support this measure here today. The fact that you have decided to hold hearings on this legislation so early in the session demonstrates the laudable concern of your committee for the growing problem of crime in America. The CHAIRMAN. As I understand, you want an entirely new section in title 18. Section 505, as presently in the law, deals with proceedings. You are interested in investigations prior to proceedings. Mr. HORTON. That is correct, Mr. Chairman. To extend this same benefit to those proceedings or investigations before you actually get to the proceedings. It seems to me this is a loophole under which we are protecting criminals rather than permitting the police and others in charge of investigations to have witnesses willing to cooperate. The CHAIRMAN. You don't think when the word "proceedings" is used in section 1507 that that doesn't include investigations? Mr. HORTON. The courts have limited it, as I understand it. Hon. EMANUEL CELLER, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Chairman. Subcommittee No. 5, Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR MANNY: During my testimony before your Subcommittee yesterday in support of H.R. 710, my bill to prohibit the obstruction of Federal criminal investigations, several questions were raised which I should like to clarify. First, my statement that "the courts have placed a rather narrow interpretation on this law, judging it to mean that protection is not extended to witnesses |