Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
4526183
label
Panel Discussion on Crime and Law Enforcement, St. Louis, MO, February 20, 1969
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
4526183
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
Panel Discussion on Crime and Law Enforcement, St. Louis, MO, February 20, 1969
citationUrl
collections
Gerald R. Ford Congressional Papers
Speeches
subjects
Crime
Law enforcement
Legislation
iiifBase
thumbnailUrl
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
4526183
coverageEndDate
logicalDate
1969-02-28
month
2
year
1969
coverageStartDate
logicalDate
1969-02-01
month
2
year
1969
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
url
mediaId
4896a035066e7615
ocrText
The original documents are located in Box D26, folder "Panel Discussion on Crime and
Law Enforcement, St. Louis, MO, February 20, 1969" of the Ford Congressional Papers:
Press Secretary and Speech File at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.
Copyright Notice
The copyright law of the United States (Title 17, United States Code) governs the making of
photocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted material. The Council donated to the United
States of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.
Works prepared by U.S. Government employees as part of their official duties are in the public
domain. The copyrights to materials written by other individuals or organizations are presumed to
remain with them. If you think any of the information displayed in the PDF is subject to a valid
copyright claim, please contact the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.
NOTES FOR PANEL ON CRIME AND LAW ENFORCEMENT
2/20/69
Judge Wennaten
St. Louis, M6
WHERE ANTI-CRIME LEGISLATION IS CONCERNED, THE
91st CONGRESS HAS A VERY TOUGH ACT TO FOLLOW. THERE IS NO
DISPUTING THE FACT THAT THE 90th CONGRESS ENACTED MORE
LEGISLATION AND MORE SIGNIFICANT LEGISLATION IN THIS FIELD
THAN ANY OTHER CONGRESS IN HISTORY. AMONG THE MAJOR BILLS
IN THE FIELD OF LAW ENFORCEMENT AND CRIMINAL JUSTICE WHICH
BECAME LAW DURING 1967 -- 68 ARE:
-2-
1. A STATUTE MAKING IT A FEDERAL CRIME TO
INTIMIDATE WITNESSES AND OTHERWISE OBSTRUCT FEDERAL CRIMINAL
INVESTIGATIONS;
2. A COMPREHENSIVE OMNIBUS CRIME CONTROL BILL,
PARTICULARLY FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA;
3. ANTI-RIOT PROVISIONS IN THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT
OF 1968;
4. ANTI-LOANSHARK OR EXTORTIONATE CREDIT
TRANSACTION PROVISIONS IN THE CONSUMER CREDIT PROTECTION
(TRUTH-IN-LENDING) ACT; AND
Digitized from Box D26 of the Ford Congressional Papers: Press Secretary and
Speech File at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library
-3-
5. THE FEDERAL GRANT-IN-AID PROGRAM ESTABLISHED
IN THE JUVENILE DELINQUENCY PREVENTION AND CONTROL ACT TOO
ASSIST STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS IN COMBATTING JUVENILE
DELINQUENCY.
Bloc Armt
THE 90th CONGRESS ALSO ENACTED MEASURES WHICH,
WHILE NOT SPECIFICALLY ANTI-CRIME MEASURES IN THEMSELVES,
NEVERTHELESS WILL HAVE AN EFFECT IN THIS AREA BY GENERALLY
SPEEDING UP THE PROCESS OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE. BOTH THE FEDERAL
MAGISTRATES ACT, WHICH UPGRADED AND EXPANDED THE FUNCTION OF
THE OLD OFFICE OF U.S. COMMISSIONER, AND THE BILL
-4-
ESTABLISHING A FEDERAL JUDICIAL CENTER ARE ENACTMENTS OF THIS
TYPE,
BUT, FAR AND AWAY THE MOST SIGNIFICANT ANTI-CRIME
ENACTMENT OF THE 90th CONGRESS WAS, OF COURSE, THE WIDELY
HERALDED OMNIBUS CRIME CONTROL AND SAFE STREETS ACT OF
1968
ITS SEVERAL PROVISIONS INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING, ANY ONE OF
WHICH MIGHT PROPERLY HAVE BEEN A SEPARATE BILL ITSELF:
1. THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A MULTI-MILLION DOLLAR
FEDERAL GRANT-IN-AID PROGRAM TO ASSIST STATE AND LOCAL LAW
ENFORCEMENT;
-5-
2. THE CREATION OF A NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF LAW
ENFORCEMENT AND CRIMINAL JUSTICE TO CONTRACT FOR AND CARRY
ON TRAINING, EDUCATION, RESEARCH AND DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS
ON THE STRENGTHENING OF LAW ENFORCEMENT, CRIME PREVENTION
AND CORRECTION PROCEDURES;
3. THE ESTABLISHMENT OF "VOLUNTARINESS" AS THE
PRINCIPAL CRITERION UPON WHICH THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
CONFESSIONS IN FEDERAL COURTS IS DETERMINED;
4. MODIFICATION OF THE SO-CALLED "MALLORY RULE"
CONCERNING CONFESSIONS IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA (UP TO
-6-
SIX HOURS -- NO VIOLATION);
5. A PROVISION WHEREBY EYEWITNESS TESTIMONY
IDENTIFYING A DEFENDANT AS THE PERPETRATOR OF A CRIME IS
ADMISSIBLE REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THE SUSPECT'S LAWYER WAS
PRESENT AT THE TIME THE IDENTIFICATION WAS MADE;
6. A COMPREHENSIVE ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE STATUTE,
OUTLAWING ALL FORMS OF SUCH SURVEILLANCE EXCEPT BY LAW
ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS ENGAGED IN THE INVESTIGATION OR
PREVENTION OF CERTAIN ORGANIZED-CRIME TYPE OF OFFENSES, AND
THEN ONLY PURSUANT TO COURT ORDER AND UNDER STRICT COURT
att. Nin, mitchell
SUPERVISION;
-7-
7. A BROAD WITNESS IMMUNITY STATUTE APPLICABLE
TO MOST ORGANIZED-CRIME TYPE OF OFFENSES;
8. A COMPREHENSIVE STATE FIREARMS CONTROL
ASSISTANCE PROVISION PROHIBITING AND REGULATING INTERSTATE
TRAFFICKING IN FIREARMS;
9. THE BANNING FROM FEDERAL EMPLOYMENT FOR UP TO
FIVE YEARS OF PERSONS CONVICTED OF RIOT-CONNECTED OFFENSES;
10. A PROVISION REQUIRING SENATE CONFIRMATION FOR
FUTURE NOMINEES TO THE POSITION OF DIRECTOR OF THE F.B.I.;
11. A PROVISION MAKING IT A FEDERAL CRIME FOR
-8-
CERTAIN PERSONS (e.g. CONVICTED FELONS, MENTAL INCOMPETENTS,
ETC.) TO TRANSPORT FIREARMS IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE;
12. A PROVISION AUTHORIZING THE GOVERNMENT TO
APPEAL FROM PRE-TRIAL DECISIONS OF FEDERAL JUDGES GRANTING
MOTIONS FOR THE RETURN OF SEIZED PROPERTY OR TO SUPPRESS
EVIDENCE;
13. MODIFICATION OF THE FEDERAL LAW CONCERNING THE
ISSUANCE OF SEARCH WARRANTS IN ORDER TO AUTHORIZE SEARCHES
FOR PURELY EVIDENTIARY MATERIAL IN ADDITION TO CONTRABAND
AND THE FRUITS AND INSTRUMENTALITIES OF THE CRIME; AND
-9-
14. A NEW LAW PROHIBITING EXTORTION AND THREATS IN
THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
THUS, IT SHOULD BE EVIDENT TO ALL THAT THE 90th
CONGRESS PRODUCED A TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF LAW ENFORCEMENT AND
CRIMINAL JUSTICE LEGISLATION. OTHER WORTHWHILE BILLS WERE
INTRODUCED WHICH, FOR ONE REASON OR ANOTHER, DID NOT PASS
EITHER OR BOTH HOUSES OF CONGRESS. MOST OF THESE HAVE BEEN
REINTRODUCED IN THE 91st CONGRESS AND IT IS REASONABLE TO
EXPECT THAT SOME OF THEM WILL BE FAVORABLY ACTED UPON. THERE
ARE, MOREOVER, SEVERAL NEW MEASURES THAT HAVE BEEN INTRODUCED
-10-
THIS YEAR FOR THE FIRST TIME AND AGAIN IT IS REASONABLE TO
EXPECT THAT SOME, AT LEAST, WILL RECEIVE FAVORABLE ACTION
DURING THE NEXT TWO YEARS.
LEGISLATION THAT HAS ALREADY RECEIVED CONSIDERABLE
ATTENTION AND WIDESPREAD NOTORIETY DURING THE EARLY DAYS OF
THIS CONGRESS IS THAT INVOLVING "REFORM OF THE BAIL REFORM
ACT OF 1966." THE 1966 ACT HAD AS A LAUDABLE OBJECTIVE THE
ELIMINATION OR CURTAILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENT THAT CRIMINAL
DEFENDANTS POST MONEY BOND AS A CONDITION OF THEIR RELEASE
PENDING TRIAL. THE MONEY BOND SYSTEM IS ANALAGOUS TO
-11-
"IMPRISONMENT FOR DEBT" AND IT IS GENERALLY RECOGNIZED THAT
ONLY THE BOUNDSMAN PROFITS FROM IT. TO COUNTERACT THIS,
CONGRESS IN 1966 ESTABLISHED AN ELABORATE SYSTEM FOR FEDERAL
COURTS WHEREBY MOST DEFENDANTS EXPECT THOSE CHARGED WITH
CAPITAL OFFENSES COULD OBTAIN PRE-TRIAL RELEASE ON THEIR OWN
RECOGNIZANCE, SUBJECT TO THE CONTROL AND SUPERVISION OF
AGENCIES CREATED FOR JUST THAT PURPOSE.
HOWEVER, EXPERIENCE WITH THE 1966 ACT HAS
DEMONSTRATED, PARTICULARLY IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, THAT
THIS SYSTEM JUST ISN'T WORKING OUT. FOR ONE THING THERE HAVE
-12-
BEEN MANY COMPLAINTS EVEN FROM THE JUDGES WHO ADMINISTER
THE ACT, THAT THE LANGUAGE OF THE ACT IS so RIGID THAT THE
ONLY THING THEY MAY CONSIDER IN DECIDING WHETHER TO RELEASE
A DEFENDANT IS WHETHER HE WILL SHOW UP FOR TRIAL. THE NATURE
OF THE OFFENSE AND THE POTENTIAL DANGER TO THE COMMUNITY OF
THE RELEASED OFFENDER MAY NOT BE CONSIDERED. AS A RESULT
OF THIS IT HAS BEEN DETERMINED THAT A SUBSTANTIAL NUMBER OF
CRIMES ARE BEING COMMITTED BY PERSONS WHO HAVE ALREADY BEEN
CHARGED WITH ONE CRIME AND WHO HAVE BEEN RELEASED TO THE
STREETS ON THEIR OWN RECOGNIZANCE AWAITING TRIALS WHICH MAY
-13-
BE AS MUCH AS A YEAR IN THE OFFING. ANOTHER CRITICISM OF THE
WAY THE 1966 ACT HAS WORKED OUT CONCERNS THE PRACTICAL
ASPECTS OF MAINTAINING CLOSE SUPERVISION OVER THE ACTIVITIES
OF THE RELEASED DEFENDANTS. IT MAY BE PRECISELY AS MANY
HAVE CLAIMED -- THAT CONGRESS HAS NEVER APPROPRIATED ADEQUATE
FUNDS TO STAFF THESE SUPERVISORY AGENCIES, BUT IT MAY ALSO
BE THAT THE REQUIRED DEGREE OF INDIVIDUAL SUPERVISION CAN
NEVER BE ATTAINED REGARDLESS OF STAFFING so LONG AS THESE
RELEASED DEFENDANTS HAVE NO REAL INCENTIVE TO REFORM FROM
COMMITTING ADDITIONAL CRIMES.
-14-
21 on our side
IN THE FIRST WEEK OF JANUARY I, ALONG WITH ABOUT
TWENTY OTHER HOUSE REPUBLICANS, INTRODUCED A BILL WHICH
ATTEMPTS TO DEAL WITH SOME OF THESE PROBLEMS, I WOULD CALL
THE BILL "REFORM OF THE BAIL REFORM ACT." A SIMILAR BILL
HAS ALREADY THIS YEAR BEEN THE SUBJECT OF HEARINGS IN THE
SENATE BY SENATOR SAM ERVIN'S CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS
SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
I HAVE FOLLOWED THOSE HEARINGS AND I THINK IT IS
ACCURATE TO PREDICT THAT SOME REFORM WILL BE RECOMMENDED BY
THAT COMMITTEE AND THAT SOMETHING IN THIS AREA WILL ULTIMATELY
-15-
BE ENACTED BY THE 91st CONGRESS. THE PRINCIPAL BONE OF
CONTENTION AT THIS TIME CONCERNS WHAT HAS BECOME KNOWN AS
"THE ISSUE OF PREVENTIVE DETENTION." I FAVOR EXPANDING
THE DISCRETION OF THE COURTS so THAT THEY MAY CONSIDER A
DEFENDANT'S POTENTIAL DANGER TO THE COMMUNITY IN DETERMINING
WHETHER HE IS ENTITLED TO PRE-TRIAL RELEASE. I RECOGNIZE
THAT THIS IS A FORM OF "PREVENTIVE DETENTION." I KNOW THAT
CONCEPTUALLY IT IS ABHORRENT TO THE AMERICAN SYSTEM OF
JUSTICE.
SENATOR ERVIN HAS INDICATED OPPOSITION TO
-16-
PREVENTIVE DETENTION IN ANY FORM, AND HE HAS A GREAT NUMBER
OF ALLIES. AT THE SAME TIME, SENATOR JOSEPH TYDINGS,OF
MARYLAND APPROVES OF IT, IN A LIMITED FASHION. HE TOO HAS
CONSIDERABLE SUPPORT, EVEN AMONG CIVIL LIBERTARIANS AND THE
TRADITIONALLY LIBERTARIAN-ORIENTED WASHINGTON POST.
I BELIEVE A COMPROMISE OF VIEWS WILL EVENTUALLY
COME ABOUT. PROBABLY POTENTIAL DANGER TO THE COMMUNITY WILL
NOT BE A PERMISSIBLE FACTOR TO CONSIDER WHERE FIRST OFFENDERS
ARE CONCERNED. ON THE OTHER HAND, WHERE AN INDIVIDUAL IS
ALREADY CHARGED WITH ONE CRIME AND IS THEN ARRESTED FOR A
-17-
SECOND, IN THIS INSTANCE, DANGER TO THE COMMUNITY WILL BE A
FACTOR TO BE CONSIDERED AND IN THOSE SITUATIONS AT LEAST,
A FORM OF PREVENTIVE DETENTION WILL BE THE RESULT.
UNDOUBTEDLY, CONGRESS WILL BE ASKED TO APPROPRIATE
ADDITIONAL FUNDS TO STAFF BOTH PRE-RELEASE INVESTIGATIVE
AGENCIES AND POST-RELEASE SUPERVISORY AGENCIES. THAT IS
ALL WELL AND GOOD so LONG AS SOMETHING IS ALSO DONE TO MAKE
IT EXTREMELY UNATTRACTIVE FOR PERSONS TO COMMIT ADDITIONAL
CRIMES WHILE AWAITING TRIAL ON A FIRST CHARGE. I HAVE HIGH
HOPES THAT SOMETHING ALONG THESE LINES WILL BE THE VERY
-18-
LEAST THAT WILL COME OF OUR EFFORTS IN THIS AREA.
AT THE PRESENT TIME AND PARTICULARLY IN THE DISTRICT
OF COLUMBIA, WHEN AN INDIVIDUAL IS ARRESTED FOR A CRIME AND
THEN RELEASED TO THE STREET TO AWAIT TRIAL, THERE IS REALLY
NO INCENTIVE OR, CONVERSELY, NO DETERRENT FOR HIM TO REFRAIN
FROM COMMITTING OTHER CRIMES. BECAUSE OF COURT BACK-LOGS
AND THE TRADITIONAL TENDENCY OF BOTH COURTS AND PROSECUTORS
TO OBTAIN A CONVICTION AND SENTENCE ON ONE CHARGE AND FORGET
THE REST, A DEFENDENT USUALLY FEELS THAT HE CAN COMMIT
ADDITIONAL CRIMES AT NO RISK OF ADDITIONAL IMPRISONMENT.
-19-
HE BELIEVES HE WILL BE TRIED ON ONE CHARGE AND THE OTHERS WILL BE
DROPPED, OR THAT EVEN IF HE IS TRIED ON MORE THAN ONE CHARGE,
CONCURRENT RATHER THAN CONSECUTIVE SENTENCES WILL BE
IMPOSED.
IT IS HERE THAT I BELIEVE WE WILL MAKE A
SUBSTANTIAL CONTRIBUTION IF WE ENACT A LAW THAT WILL PROVIDE
FOR STIFF, MANDATORY, ADDITIONAL PENALTIES FOR PERSONS
CONVICTED OF OFFENSES WHILE ON RELEASE TO THE STREET PENDING
TRIAL FOR PRIOR OFFENSES.
THIS LEADS UP TO A SECOND AREA THAT I BELIEVE WILL
-20-
BE THE SUBJECT OF CONGRESSIONAL ACTION THIS YEAR OR NEXT --
THAT OF MANDATORY PRISON TERMS, PARTICULARLY FOR OFFENSES
INVOLVING THE USE OF FIREARMS. I AM AWARE OF THE FACT THAT
THERE IS A [ BODY OF OPINION TO THE EFFECT THAT
MANDATORY PRISON TERMS, IN ALL FORMS, ARE BAD. THEY HAVE
BEEN TERMED ARCHAIC AND BARBARIC AND EVEN COUNTER-PRODUCTIVE
IN THAT JURIES ARE SAID TO SOMETIMES ACQUIT RATHER THAN
CONVICT WHEN THEY KNOW THAT TO CONVICT IS TO SEND A MAN TO
PRISON AUTOMATICALLY FOR A LONG PERIOD OF YEARS. MOST OF
OUR EXPERIENCE WITH MANDATORY MINIMUMS HAS BEEN CENTERED
-21-
ABOUT THE NARCOTICS LAWS WHERE SIMPLE POSSESSION ON THE
FIRST OFFENSE RESULTS IN A MANDATORY FIVE-YEAR PRISON TERM.
RECOGNIZING THE VALIDITY OF ALL OF THIS, I
NEVERTHELESS BELIEVE THERE IS A PLACE IN OUR LAWS FOR
MANDATORY TERMS so LONG AS THEY ARE NEITHER OPPRESSIVELY LONG
NOR ARBITRARILY UNSUITED TO THE OFFENSE TO WHICH ATTACHED.
I BELIEVE THERE SHOULD BE ATTACHED TO EVERY FEDERAL OFFENSE
WHICH INVOLVES THE USE OF A FIREARM A MANDATORY PRISON TERM
OF NOT LESS THAN ONE YEAR AND UP TO FIVE YEARS FOR THE FIRST
OFFENSE. THE SCALE SHOULD BE FIVE TO TWENTY-FIVE YEARS FOR
-22-
SUBSEQUENT OFFENSES, WITH THESE TERMS IMPOSED IN ADDITION TO
AND NOT CONCURRENT WITH THE SENTENCE ON THE SUBSTANTIVE
OFFENSE FOR WHICH THE INDIVIDUAL IS CONVICTED. THESE
ADDITIONAL TERMS SHOULD NOT BE SUBJECT TO SUSPENSION OR
PROBATION.
THE HOUSE PASSED PRECISELY SUCH A MEASURE IN THE
90th CONGRESS AS AN AMENDMENT TO THE GUN CONTROL ACT OF 1968.
WE PASSED IT OVERWHELMINGLY, 412 to 11, BUT THE MANDATORY
PROVISIONS WERE CONSIDERABLY WEAKENED IN THE SENATE VERSION
WHICH EVENTUALLY PREVAILED. THE AMENDMENT,
FIRST SPONSORED
-23-
BY CONGRESSMAN DICK POFF HAS BEEN REINTRODUCED AS A SEPARATE
BILL THIS YEAR. THERE IS AN EXCELLENT POSSIBILITY
THAT IT WILL PASS BOTH HOUSES THIS TIME.
THERE ARE TWO OTHER ITEMS OF LEGISLATION WHICH
DEAL WITH SENTENCING THAT WILL, IN ALL LIKELIHOOD, BE THE
SUBJECT OF SOME ACTION BY THE 91st CONGRESS. THE FIRST IS
THE MATTER OF EXTENDED TERMS OF IMPRISONMENT FOR CERTAIN
HARD-CORE OR PROFESSIONAL CRIMINALS. THE PRESIDENT'S CRIME
COMMISSION RECOMMENDED A SEPARATE PENALTY STRUCTURE
APPLICABLE TO LEADERS OF ORGANIZED CRIME CONVICTED OF
-24-
FEDERAL CRIMES. THE COMMISSION SPOKE IN TERMS OF EXTENDED
SENTENCES -- OF UP TO 30 YEARS -- FOR RACKETEERS ONLY. I
BELIEVE THE SAME SORT OF ADDITIONAL PENALTY STRUCTURE ALSO
IS APPROPRIATE FOR HABITUAL OFFENDERS OR RECIDIVISTS.
UNLIKE MANY OTHER JURISDICTIONS, THERE IS NO RECIDIVIST
STATUTE IN THE FEDERAL SYSTEM. I SUPPORT LEGISLATION WHICH
WOULD CREATE SUCH A LAW.
THE SECOND AREA OF POSSIBLE LEGISLATIVE ACTION IN
THE FIELD OF SENTENCING CONCERNS APPELLATE REVIEW OF SENTENCES.
THE AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION, AMONG OTHER GROUPS, SUPPORTS
-25-
SUCH REVIEW.
WHILE I AM NOT COMMITTED ONE WAY OR THE OTHER
ON THE SUBJECT, I DO FEEL THAT IF STEPS ARE TAKEN TO
PROVIDE DEFENDANTS THE RIGHT OF REVIEW OF LENGTH OF SENTENCE,
WITH A VIEW TOWARD DOWNWARD ADJUSTMENT, CONSIDERATION OUGHT
ALSO TO BE GIVEN TO PROVIDING FOR UPWARD ADJUSTMENT OF
SENTENCES IN APPROPRIATE CIRCUMSTANCES, AT LEAST WHERE A
DEFENDANT MAKES AN APPEAL.
THE SPECIAL PROBLEM OF ORGANIZED CRIME WILL
DEFINITELY BE THE SUBJECT OF ADDITIONAL LEGISLATION DURING
THIS CONGRESS. SENATOR McCLELLAN OF ARKANSAS HAS ALREADY
-26-
INTRODUCED AN OMNIBUS ORGANIZED CRIME BILL IN THE SENATE,
AND HAS ANNOUNCED HIS INTENTION TO HOLD ORGANIZED CRIME
HEARINGS BEFORE HIS CRIMINAL LAWS SUBCOMMITTEE IN THE NEAR
FUTURE.
ONE MEASURE I HAVE ALWAYS FAVORED IS THE CREATION
OF A JOINT CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEE ON ORGANIZED CRIME.
REPRESENTATIVE BILL CRAMER OF FLORIDA INTRODUCED A RESOLUTION
ESTABLISHING SUCH A COMMITTEE DURING THE 90th CONGRESS. IT
RECEIVED WIDE BI-PARTISAN SUPPORT AND THE SPECIFIC
ENDORSEMENT OF THE PRESIDENT'S CRIME COMMISSION. LATER,
-27-
ANOTHER RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING A JOINT COMMITTEE ON CRIME
IN GENERAL REACHED THE FLOOR OF THE HOUSE. TA A SUBSTANTIAL
NUMBER OF REPUBLICANS LINED UP BEHIND IT WHEN IT WAS
SPECIFICALLY AGREED THAT A SEPARATE SUB COMMITTEE ON
ORGANIZED CRIME WOULD BE CREATED WITHIN THE FULL COMMITTEE.
with agreement on the exclaiment of
THE RESOLUTION PASSED THE HOUSE BY A WIDE MARGIN BUT IT
come organical sub.
an
NEVER CAME TO A VOTE IN THE SENATE.
com.
THERE ARE THO REASONS, APART FROM THE PURELY
LEGISLATIVE FUNCTION, WHY A JOINT COMMITTEE OUGHT TO BE
ESTABLISHED TO INVESTIGATE ORGANIZED CRIME IN PARTICULAR.
-28-
FIRST, THE CONGRESS HAS A VERY IMPORTANT AND PROPER ROLE IN
E.
EXERCISING OVERSIGHT OVER THE CONDUCT OF THE AFFAIRS OF THE
EXECUTIVE BRANCH -- IN THIS CASE, ITS CONDUCT OF THE WAR
AGAINST ORGANIZED CRIME.
LAST YEAR REPUBLICANS SUPPORTED THIS
MEASURE WHEN THERE WAS A DEMOCRATIC ADMINISTRATION, AND WE
SHOULD NOW CONTINUE TO DO SO
THE SECOND REASON WE SHOULD
CREATE SUCH A COMMITTEE CONCERNS THE RIGHT OF THE AMERICAN
PUBLIC TO BE INFORMED CONCERNING THE DANGERS OF ORGANIZED
CRIME.
[
IT IS NOT THE FUNCTION OF THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT TO
DO THIS. UNLESS CONGRESS UNDERTAKES THIS LEGITIMATE ROLE
-29-
AND EXERCISES IT THROUGH THE HEARINGS PROCESS, THEN THE
ENTIRE TASK WILL BE LEFT TO THE NEWSPAPERS ON A CATCH AS
CATCH CAN BASIS.
IT IS REASONABLE TO EXPECT THAT CONGRESS WILL ALSO
ACT UPON A BROAD GENERAL WITNESS IMMUNITY STATUTE DURING
THIS CONGRESS AND WILL ALSO EXPLAND THE REACH OF THE FEDERAL
CRIMINAL LAWS IN THE GAMBLING AND NARCOTICS FIELDS. LAST
YEAR PRESIDENT JOHNSON ASKED THE NATIONAL COMMISSION ON THE
REFORM OF THE FEDERAL CRIMINAL CODE TO GIVE PRIORITY ATTENTION
TO REVISING THE NARCOTICS LAWS, so WE CAN EXPECT TO HEAR
-30-
SOMETHING ON THAT. ALSO LAST YEAR THE SUPREME COURT VOIDED
THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE FEDERAL WAGERING TAX LAWS. A BILL
RECENTLY WAS INTRODUCED IN THE HOUSE TO REINSTATE THIS TAX
AND RETURN THE ENFORCEMENT POWERS OF THE TREASURY DEPARTMENT
TO THE FIELD OF INVESTIGATING GAMBLING VIOLATIONS. I THINK
THERE WILL BE ACTION ON THIS PROPOSAL, TOO.
I HOPE THAT TWO OTHER ORGANIZED CRIME BILLS RECEIVE
ATTENTION THIS YEAR. BOTH ARE AIMED PRIMARILY AT RACKETEER
INFILTRATION OF LEGITIMATE BUSINESS -- SOMETHING WE HAVE
SEEN A GREAT DEAL OF IN RECENT YEARS. THE FIRST BILL
-31-
PROHIBITS THE INVESTMENT OF INCOME DERIVED FROM CERTAIN SPECIFIED
CRIMINAL ACTIVITIES, OF THE USUAL ORGANIZED-CRIME TYPE, IN
ANY BUSINESS AFFECTING INTERSTATE OR FOREIGN COMMERCE.
ORGANIZED CRIME HAS MADE SUBSTANTIAL INROADS INTO THE
LEGITIMATE BUSINESS COMMUNITY THROUGH THE INVESTMENT OF MONEY
ACQUIRED FROM GAMBLING, BRIBERY, EXTORTION, COUNTERFEITING,
NARCOTICS TRAFFICKING, WHITE SLAVERY AND so FORTH. THE
PROPOSED STATUTE OUTLAWS THE INVESTMENT OF FUNDS DERIVED
FROM THESE AND RELATED RACKET ACTIVITIES AND IT ALSO GIVES
FEDERAL INVESTIGATORS BROADER AND MORE CERTAIN JURISDICTION
-32-
TO INVESTIGATE THE ACTIVITIES OF SYNDICATED CRIME AND IDENTIFY
ITS SOURCES OF ILLEGAL REVENUE
THE SECOND BILL WOULD AMEND THE SHERMAN ANTITRUST
ACT TO PROHIBIT THE INVESTMENT OF INCOME, UPON WHICH FEDERAL
INCOME TAX HAS NOT BEEN PAID, IN ANY BUSINESS AFFECTING
INTERSTATE OR FOREIGN COMMERCE. APART FROM ALL OTHER
CONSIDERATIONS, IT IS AXIOMATIC THAT RACKETEERS WHO DO NOT
PAY INCOME TAXES HAVE SUBSTANTIAL ADVANTAGES IN COMPETING
WITH HONEST BUSINESSMEN. THIS BILL IS INTENDED TO DIMINISH
THAT ADVANTAGE. IT HAS THE ADDITIONAL FEATURE OF BRINGING
-33-
TO BEAR THE MULTIPLE DAMAGES PROVISIONS OF THE SHERMAN ACT
WHERE IT CAN BE SHOWN THAT BUSINESSES HAVE, IN FACT, BEEN
DAMAGED BY UNFAIR COMPETITION FROM RACKETEERS.
CONGRESS, OF COURSE, WILL ALSO BE CALLED UPON TO
MAKE APPROPRIATIONS FROM THE OPERATION OF THE GRANT PROGRAM
ESTABLISHED IN THE OMNIBUS CRIME BILL AND FOR VARIOUS
INCREASES IN LAW ENFORCEMENT AND COURT PERSONNEL WITHIN THE
FEDERAL SYSTEM. PROMPT ACTION ON THESE APPROPRIATION REQUESTS
IS TO BE ANTICIPATED ALTHOUGH IT IS TOO EARLY TO SAY WHETHER
ALL THE AMOUNTS SOUGHT WILL BE APPROVED
I MIGHT POINT OUT
-34-
THAT THE OMNIBUS BILL AUTHORIZED AN EXPENDITURE OF UP TO
$101 MILLION FOR FISCAL 1969 AND OF UP TO $300 MILLION FOR
FISCAL 1970. THE AMOUNT ACTUALLY APPROPRIATED FOR FISCAL 1969
WAS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD OF $62 MILLION. THERE IS MUCH MORE
REASON TO EXPECT A FULL APPROPRIATION UP TO THE
AUTHORIZATION FOR FISCAL 1970, HOWEVER, SINCE THE GRANT
PROGRAM OUGHT TO BE IN FULL SWING BY THE BEGINNING OF THAT
YEAR.
ONE LAST AREA I WOULD LIKE TO TOUCH UPON IN THE
ANTI-CRIME FIELD INVOLVES THE SADLY NEGLECTED PROBLEM OF OUR
-35-
CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION INSTITUTIONS. IT IS A FACT
THAT THEY NEITHER CORRECT NOR REHABILITATE. A SUBSTANTIAL
AMOUNT OF OUR STREET CRIME TODAY -- PERHAPS AS MUCH AS
50% -- IS COMMITTED BY REPEATERS, THOSE WHO HAVE BEEN
PREVIOUSLY CONVICTED OF A CRIME ON ONE OR MORE OCCASIONS.
ANOTHER ALARMING STATISTIC IS THAT FULLY TWO-THIRDS OF OUR
RELEASED CONVICTS COMMIT ANOTHER CRIME AND ARE RETURNED TO
PRISON WITHIN THREE YEARS. CONGRESS MUST TAKE STEPS TO BREAK
THE CYCLE OF RECIDIVISM, AND IT CANNOT BE CONTENT TO WORK
REFORMS SOLELY IN THE FEDERAL SYSTEM. FROM 90 TO 95% OF OUR
-36-
PRISON POPULATION IS HOUSED IN STATE INSTITUTIONS. so IF
FEDERAL PROGRAMS ARE TO HAVE ANY MEANINGFUL IMPACT AT ALL THEY
MUST BE EXTENDED TO STATE SYSTEMS.
DOUBTLESS STATES MAY USE GRANTED FUNDS UNDER THE
OMNIBUS BILL TO UPGRADE THEIR PRISON SYSTEMS. BUT BECAUSE so
MANY OTHER LEGITIMATE NEEDS OF LAW ENFORCEMENT AND THE POLICE
EXIST, IT IS MY FEAR THAT NOT VERY MUCH WILL BE DONE IN THIS
AREA, AT LEAST AT THIS TIME. I BELIEVE THERE IS A NEED FOR
A SEPARATE FEDERAL CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION PROGRAM --
AIMED PRIMARILY AT STATE INSTITUTIONS -- AND THAT IT WILL
-37-
TAKE SEPARATE LEGISLATION TO CREATE IT.
I AM NOT SURE AT THIS POINT WHAT FORM THIS PROGRAM
SHOULD TAKE.
CONCRESSMAN DICK POFF HAS MADE A VERY INTERESTING
PROPOSAL, HOWEVER, AND I FEEL THAT IT OUGHT TO BE AT THE
LEAST A STARTING POINT FOR CONGRESSIONAL HEARINGS ON THIS
PROBLEM.
CONGRESSMAN POFF BELIEVES, AS I AND so MANY OTHERS
DO, THAT THE KEY TO REHABILITATION LIES IN EDUCATION AND
2.
JOB TRAINING. HE SAYS THAT GOVERNMENT -- FEDERAL, STATE OR
asan atternative 2
LOCAL -- IS UNABLE TO PROVIDE SUCH TRAINING, BUT SUGGEST$ THAT
2
PRIVATE INDUSTRY IS. HE WANTS TO "BRING PRIVATE INDUSTRY
-38-
INTO THE PRISONS -- BEHIND PRISON WALLS" TO TEACH INMATES
JOB SKILLS AND, IF NECESSARY THE EDUCATIONAL FUNDAMENTALS.
2 suggest HE WOULD DO THIS THROUGH ECONOMIC INCENTIVES -- EITHER ON
A STRAIGHT CONTRACT BASIS OR THROUGH TAX ADVANTAGES.
I REALIZE THAT THIS HAS BEEN DONE AND IS BEING
DONE RIGHT NOW, BUT ON A LIMITED BASIS. I AM TOLD THAT AN
AIRCRAFT MANUFACTURING COMPANY HAS GONE INTO ONE PRISON TO
TRAIN AIRCRAFT MECHANICS AND THAT, AFTER THEY ARE TRAINED, THEY
OFFER TO PLACE THESE MEN IN JOBS. THIS IS VERY GOOD. BUT
EVERY ONE DOES NOT HAVE THE APTITUDE TO BE A MECHANIC. I THINK
-39-
THIS TYPE OF THING SHOULD BE DONE IN AS MANY FIELDS OF
OCCUPATIONAL SKILL AS POSSIBLE. I ALSO BELIEVE A FEDERAL
BONDING PROGRAM MIGHT BE NECESSARY TO ENABLE THOSE CONVICTS
WHO HAVE BEEN TAUGHT SKILLS IN PRISON TO COMPETE FOR JOBS
ON AT LEAST AN EVEN BASIS WHEN THEY ARE RELEASED. THESE ARE
BUT TWO OF THE MORE WORTHWHILE PROPOSALS THAT HAVE COME TO MY
ATTENTION IN THIS AREA AND WHICH I HOPE CONGRESS WILL GET
GOING ON BEFORE TOO LONG.
NOTES
ST. Louis, Mo.
FEB. 20, 1969
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, U.S.
Herald R. 3rd
OFFICE OF THE MINORITY LEADER
PUBLIC DOCUMENT
M.C.
OFFICIAL BUSINESS
THURSDAY
EVENING
PANEL DISCUSSION
CRIME W LAW ENFORCEMENT
RALD GERALD'S LEORD