Mr. ROONEY. I am sure you will.
Mr. KENNEDY. I hope not.

That is what we have in mind there.

WIRETAPPING

Mr. ROONEY. What about wiretapping? Is that one of the bills the Attorney General sent up?

Mr. KENNEDY. No; he did not send anything up. I think this case decided yesterday in the Supreme Court goes a long way toward that.

Mr. ROONEY. I have not read the decision.

Mr. KENNEDY. I just read the newspaper accounts but from that I think it goes a long way toward clarifying the problem that exists in these various States which concern me tremendously.

Again, when I was the counsel of the committee, we made some suggestions and recommendations that legislation be passed in the U.S. Senate in order to allow and permit the States to deal with this problem as they saw fit. Because of the confusion over the Petante decisions out of the State of New York a year and a half or 2 years ago, I think the Supreme Court decision yesterday—perhaps at least from the newspaper accounts, and this is based, again, on not studying the decision that it would probably make further legislation in that particular field unnecessary. From the way it was written up in the newspapers, it would appear that the States could go ahead and use wiretapping. This was a problem and a situation to be faced by them and the Federal Government would not prohibit that. What the Petante decision did, the earlier decision, is that it prevented the Federal Government from using this kind of evidence in a Federal case. The States were then concerned that because of a judge's decision up in the State of New York, that this meant that they, in the States, could not use wiretapping. I think this decision yesterday clarified that whole situation and shows that the States can go ahead and use wiretapping, if it is permitted under State law.

Beyond that, Mr. Chairman, I think we should study this whole question of whether the Federal Government under certain circumstances such as in major cases of treason, espionage, with the permission of a judge, should be permitted to use wiretapping. We are going to study that.

WORK WITH JUVENILE DELINQUENTS

Mr. ROONEY. On page 4 of your prepared statement in the last sentence of the first paragraph, you say: "*** At present, we have no funds to guide or assist them on discharge," referring to juvenile delinquency. I take it you do refer to juvenile delinquency?

Mr. KENNEDY. Yes.

Mr. ROONEY. Who would handle this program for which you request funds?

Mr. KENNEDY. This is a matter that has been a good deal of concern to me.

After I came in as Attorney General I set up a group of people to try to study what we could do in this field and I think the Department of Justice should be interested in other than putting people in jail.

I have always been interested in trying to see what we could do to help young people who have had a more unfortunate time. At the present time, Mr. Chairman, a juvenile who gets sent to jail, after he serves his time, is released. There is very little, or any, steps taken to try to train him as to what the problems and difficulties are he will meet after he gets out of jail. That is No. 1, or train him in some vocation so that he does not just go back out on the streets, commit another crime, and get sent back to jail. We want to set up a program so these young people will be worked with in jails, that they will be given instruction and training in line with their interests.

Mr. ROONEY. We have that right now, do we not?

Mr. KENNEDY. It is less. It is very limited at the present time. If this committee permits the appropriation of the $618,000, $300,000 to be used to set up these demonstration release guidance centers so that when a young person is released from prison he will go maybe 60 or 90 days before release, to a guidance center and there he will be given training and instruction about what he can expect when he gets out and given guidance as to what steps he can take himself in order to rehabilitate himself. At the same time we are going to have three or four programs that are going to go on within the institutions to train the young people in vocations and to improve our system of education. Many of the major problems result from the fact that these young people have not been able to keep up with others in the schools, in the community. We are going to try to get them to have a greater interest in going back to school, a greater interest in learning and in gaining, particular vocational skills. That is the purpose of this. This has not really been done to the extent we believe necessary, Mr. Chairman.

I think it has been an ignored area.

Committee after committee has been set up to study juvenile delinquency and there have been more books on juvenile delinquency and what should be done about it than on almost any other subject. What we have done is to go through all of these reports, talk to experts in the field, and we have come to the clear conclusion that these would be the most helpful areas and in which we can make the most wise expenditure of funds.

That is what we intend to do.

Mr. ROONEY. Up to a minute ago we had not, as yet, received this so-called budget amendment for $618,000.

I now have a copy of the proposal in my hand and we shall take the time to study it during the course of these hearings.

Mr. KENNEDY. I could read you some other things I have prepared on that, if you would be interested.

Mr. ROONEY. Very well.

RELEASE GUIDANCE CENTERS

Mr. KENNEDY. It is proposed to establish on an experimental basis four release guidance centers. These would be located in major metropolitan areas, such as New York, Chicago, Cincinnati, Denver, and Los Angeles.

Selected juvenile and youthful offenders would be transferred to these centers approximately 90 days before their expected release date. Mr. ROONEY. That is on page 6 of these justifications which you are reading from.

Mr. KENNEDY. Fine. Then you have it here.

Mr. ROONEY. Where does the cook-housekeeper come into this? Wage board No. 6, $6,000 a year.

Mr. KENNEDY. That is to cook for those who are doing the training, plus the young people sent to these training centers.

Mr. ROONEY. Where would these centers be located, in the cities to which you refer?

Mr. KENNEDY. We are going to have to work that out and we have had some conversations and conferences with people such as Mayor Wagner up in New York City who is extremely interested in having this kind of a program undertaken. We have talked to people out in Chicago and I would hope that we can work out something with the local State authorities.

This is also going to be extremely helpful to them and anything that we learn from these projects, or any information we are able to get is going to be made available also to the State authorities. They are extremely interested in having this done. Mr. ROONEY. Very interesting.

Mr. KENNEDY. I think it is really a step in the right direction. As I say, I do not want to have just another study of what should be done. That has been done by the Department of Justice, HEW, and a number of these other agencies. I think it is about time we took some further steps to assist these people. I have been extremely interested for a long period of time in trying to do something about this problem, and after studying the matter and talking to experts in this field, these seem to me to be steps we can take that will be very helpful. We will be able to report back to you, if this goes through, in a year, on what the results are. Perhaps you, yourself, will come out to see some of these guidance centers, and see for yourself what the results are.

We hope that they will be effective.

NEW POSITIONS REQUESTED FOR ANTITRUST DIVISION

Mr. ROONEY. In requesting 36 additional or new positions at a cost of $426,000 for the Antitrust Division, do you have any definite plans at the moment with regard to that Division?

Mr. KENNEDY. One of the major problems, Mr. Chairman, is going to result from these Philadelphia electrical cases. We are going to have dozens and dozens of suits across the country against the major electrical companies.

Mr. ROONEY. Do you have any more cases such as the electrical case, which without question was the greatest case in antitrust history? Mr. KENNEDY. Not on the same scale, but we have in virtually every section of the United States at the present time a major investigation going on in price fixing. This is a widespread practice and I think that the investigations we are undertaking at the present time and that we have planned will have a major effect on the economic life of many of these communities. It might not have a nationwide. effect, such as the electrical companies where they operated all across the country, but we are going into cases in Los Angeles, San Francisco, Chicago, New York, and where a number of industries have a large economic effect upon that community, and have been involved in price fixing.

We are going into those and we are also looking carefully at mergers of some of these big companies and corporations across the United States. We are not against growth where growth takes place by the work and ingenuity of management, but where it takes place by swallowing up another company, it is a matter of concern.

I think this is an extremely important division.

Mr. ROONEY. We all think that. I do not recall that the Antitrust Division was ever cut 15 cents in all the years we have sat on this committee.

Mr. KENNEDY. We think that we can make it. It has been effective over the last year and we think that we can make it more effective and I think it can have a tremendous effect on the economic life of the United States. That is one of the major reasons we have asked for the increase in appropriations.

Mr. ROONEY. Mr. Sikes?

WORK WITH JUVENILE DELINQUENTS

Mr. SIKES. I am quite impressed, Mr. Attorney General, with the emphasis you have placed on corrective steps in the field of juvenile delinquency. This is extremely important and I certainly wish you well in work which you undertake here.

What percentage of youthful offenders who are in correctional institutions would be reached by this initial program which you suggest?

Mr. KENNEDY. It would be a relatively small number, Congressman, because these projects are mostly experimental to determine for a year or so how effective they are. One of the great problems is that these people come out of these institutions and there is no check made as to what happens to them after they are no longer under supervision. I suppose, that well over 50 percent end up back in prison at some later time. The difficulty has been that there has never been a system for following up these offenders to find out what happens later when they have finished their sentences. Nobody pays too much attention except that it is marked on their prison records and when they are caught again, they go back to prison.

This is to try to change that. It is on a relatively small scale, minor scale, but we are going to try to find out whether it is effective and whether it works.

From these people who go through these guidance centers, we will find out what happens to them and if this is effective. The centers will take a cross section of the juvenile delinquents and youth of the 5,000 we have in our custody at the present time, not the best or the worst but a cross section of them, and then trace them and find out after they go through these guidance centers, and after they have had this vocational training while they are in the institution, then we are going to trace them and find out what happens to them and try to see how effective it has been and see if these programs are effective in keeping them out of trouble. It is not going to be on a major scale at this time.

Mr. SIKES. You mentioned that 30 minutes to an hour is given to the individual now in planning and counseling.

69444-61 -2

Would you estimate the amount of time given to the individual under your program?

Mr. KENNEDY. We hope that they will get some counseling under this program 2 or 3 days a week. That is what we have in mind.

FUTURE OF EXPERIMENTAL GUIDANCE CENTERS

Mr. SIKES. Has anyone attempted to project the future of this program? Assuming that it will succeed, it is the sort of thing we will want to expand and I certainly think something of the sort is badly needed. Has anyone attempted to project what the future size and cost of the program will be?

Mr. KENNEDY. What we hope is that in a good number of these cases, the States will be able to take-we are going to have the responsibility for the ones in the Federal institutions, but the major problem of juvenile delinquency is not the relatively few in our custody, but the ones that the States have. We are in the best position to do something about it. I do not think that the cost is going to be too great for the Federal Government and the greatest gain and good that can be gotten is by the States if this program is effective.

DIFFERING STATE TREATMENT OF YOUTHFUL OFFENDERS

One of the great problems we have found, Congressman, is the fact that the way New York handles delinquents and the way Michigan handles delinquents or California or South Carolina or Arkansas are all different. There is really no coordination to discover the best and most effective programs in order to deal with the problem and we hope that through our interest in this whole matter, as well as the President's interest, and our interest in the Department of Justice, that we will pick out the best programs. We will call in these people at various times and pick out the best programs and the most effective programs across the country and have people able to come to one place in the United States and find out about this best program in order to deal with this problem, and then go back to the States and let the States run it and operate it themselves.

The President said the other night that the Federal Government has only limited jurisdiction, and properly so, in this area.

However, the Federal Government can bring together those who have done the best job, can have an experimental operation which will demonstrate what is the best way to deal with these problems, and that is what we have in mind in this program. This is a program that comes out of my office and we have had some conferences with Mr. Ribicoff and other Government agencies and this is what we feel should be done. We feel the Attorney General's Office is in the best position to deal with this program and to get something started.

The studies that have been made on this subject you could not put in this room. Everybody has made a study but nobody has done anything about it.

Mr. SIKES. That is the key. I think this is a commendable effort.

ANTITRUST ACTIVITIES

In the field of antitrust activities are there grounds upon which the Government intends to proceed to recover damages, for instance,