Mr. ROONEY. This is an appropriation request to implement the bill which was passed in the House of Representatives on the day before yesterday. As I recall from the discussion in the House, $1.1 million of this is for the National Commission and $400,000 is for the District of Columbia Commission. Am I correct in this? Mr. KATZENBACH. Yes, Mr. Chairman. GENERAL STATEMENT Mr. ROONEY. Do you have a general statement with regard to this, Mr. KATZENBACH. I have a general statement here, Mr. Chairman. Mr. ROONEY. The committee members may want to hear it and find out what this is all about. Mr. KATZENBACH. I am perfectly happy. Mr. ROONEY. I have a clipping here where some newspaper writer points out that this $12 million would be enough to hire 214 additional policemen for a year. Perhaps that would be a better approach to the crime situation? Mr. KATZENBACH. I doubt it, Mr. Chairman. Mr. ROONEY. We shall be glad to hear from you. Mr. KATZENBACH. I am happy to appear before you on behalf of the President's Commission on Law Enforcement and the Administration of Justice, of which the President has named me Chairman. With me is Herbert J. Miller, Jr., whom you will remember as the very able Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Criminal Division until this past April. He will testify today on behalf of the President's Commission on Crime in the District of Columbia, of which he is Chairman. There is no need to emphasize to the members of this committee the urgency and importance of dealing with crime in this city and in the Nation. Mr. ROONEY. We are all against crime. Mr. KATZENBACH. No part of the country, no level of society, no age group has been spared. Mr. ROONEY. Now I know why you were reluctant to read the statement. You have had a scenario writer on the job. Mr. KATZENBACH. So far as the request for the money is concerned, the objective is to make recommendations with respect to the whole process of crime in this country, that is, to examine possibilities of deterrents, the problems which the police forces have, their organization, and to make recommendations in that respect, and to examine relations between the police, prosecutors, and the courts. We are to examine how the courts dispose of people, problems of parole, probation, the speed with which cases are tried, and to make recommendations with regard to that. We will also look at the penal system as it exists throughout the country, the training of people there, the numbers of people there, contributions made and not made, defects, and make recommendations with respect to that. In other words, we are to try to get a unified picture of what is going on in this country and to make recommendations as to how this might be improved. That, in essence, is the purpose of the national Commission. The purpose of the District of Columbia Commission is to focus in on a narrower area. This I know has been of particular concern to the President, and I think to Members of Congress of both parties, to see whether, by putting the best talent we can muster on this task, we can do something to cut the crime rate within the District of Columbia and to make people safer on the streets of the Nation's Capital. CALIFORNIA STUDY ON CRIME Mr. ROONEY. That is a very commendable purpose, Mr. Attorney General, but I read within the past 24 hours something about the expenditure of $100,000 in the State of California for this sort of thing, for a study. All the study came up with, so far as I could see, was a lot of abracadabra. Mr. KATZENBACH. I have not read the study. I saw the newspaper clipping. Mr. ROONEY. I think this was reported in Time magazine. Mr. KATZENBACH. I remember reading about it in the press. Mr. ROONEY. The only sensible things contained in the report as I interpreted the item covered things which could have been arrived at without ever spending $100,000. Mr. KATZENBACH. I am not in a position, Mr. Chairman, to defend what was done in the California report. I do think I recall that they made some studies as to further use of computers and electronic equipment, which they have been very interested in doing in California, and which have produced some results there and in other cities. It is something I know the State of New York is spending money on— $35 million, or something like that. Mr. ROONEY. As I read the article, these were things which should have been known without ever using a computer. For instance, they found that there was a possibly dangerous situation in the Watts section of Los Angeles. You didn't need a computer to know that. Everybody knew, from Chief Parker down, that this is where the greatest number of arrests were made, that this is where most of the crime was committed. Mr. KATZENBACH. Well, Mr. Chairman, in that connection I was in California on two occasions, and I talked at length with a number of distinguished businessmen and lawyers about some race problems we had. To a man, everyone denied there was a problem in Los Angeles. that there could be difficulty in Los Angeles. At least there were some people in Los Angeles who didn't anticipate that riot. Mr. ROONEY. That is pretty hard to understand. I am not questioning the fact that you had such a conversation but this is utterly difficult to believe. Mr. KATZENBACH. This morning at a meeting of the Crime Commission Otis Chandler, publisher of the Los Angeles Times, said very much the same thing. Mr. ROONEY. He said he didn't believe Mr. KATZENBACH. He said people in Los Angeles simply didn't believe that a riot of this kind could occur within their city, and that they were surprised and shocked by it. Mr. LIPSCOMB. Was this after the fact or before? Mr. KATZENBACH. Before the fact. They were surprised. He said this after the fact. I was merely referring to the chairman's views. My view when I visited Los Angeles was that there was a good deal of satisfaction within the community, probably justified, that they thought they had extremely good race relations in Los Angeles, that problems did not exist there. I think what was demonstrated by the riot was that problems did exist. NEED FOR FEDERAL EFFORT I would agree with you, Mr. Chairman. I would think we know these problems exist in a number of other big cities in the United States. But I think there is still some question. I don't think everybody is sure of exactly how you prevent them or how you deal with them. You must get into their causes. I don't think everybody knows-certainly I don't know, Mr. Chairman-how to deal with the growing crime rate, where the responsibility lies, how things could be improved. We spent a good deal of time, for example, just examining the lower courts here in the court of general sessions in the District of Columbia to see what can be improved there. We find a lot of cases never getting to trial, simply being dropped because the prosecutor has more important cases he feels he should bring up, and in view of the amount of judge time available, and so forth, there is considerable reluctance to press forward with relatively minor cases. There are many things we do not know about. I think many improvements could be made. The size of police force in Philadelphia, Pa., for example, is smaller today than it was in 1950. The police force in San Francisco has about 150 more people today than it had in 1950, with a population expansion-you would know, Congressman Lipscomb running hundreds of thousands more people, and only 150 more policemen. I think it is important that the public become aware of these problems. I think it is important that the facts be gathered, that concrete proposals be made which can be followed out by cities and States. I think the problem of crime-I am sure the President feels this way-has gotten to Federal proportions. It is something we should look at, an area where we should make every effort to give leadership, and I think only the Federal Government, through a commission of this kind, can focus public attention on the problems, can make concrete recommendations. Among those concrete recommendations should be how police forces can be strengthened, how courts can become more expeditious in dispensing justice, how we can get rid of some of the intolerable delays which do not do law enforcement one bit of good, what we can do with respect to sentencing, getting something more uniform so that you do not have hardened criminals simply put on parole by some judges, and first offenders sentenced to extremely long sentences by others. There is a whole range of Mr. ROONEY. We don't need to spend one and a half million dollars to find that out. We all know that. Mr. KATZENBACH. Mr. Chairman, you may know it. I don't know it. This is with all due deference. Mr. ROONEY. You don't know that different judges give different sentences and this has a whole lot to do with the situation? Mr. KATZENBACH. I don't know what we should do about that, Mr. Chairman. We have made some efforts with respect to sentencing. Should there be a mandatory sentence given? How should the proble be dealt with? How would you deal with the problem here in the general sessions court? Do you know the dimensions of the problem? I don't. We have been studying it and trying to find out something about it. What is the average length of time from the time you make an arrest to the time a person ends up in jail? What can we do to speed up that period of time? I think we can say that there is a problem there. We know the time is too long now. At least I have strong feelings the time is too long now. How can we concretely shorten that period of time? It is extremely important, I think, both as a matter of equity to the person charged and even more importantly I think as a matter of respect for law enforcement-when people get arrested there should be a prompt trial, a prompt disposition, and if they are found guilty there should be prompt judgment. I can state the problems, sir, but I don't know the answers to them. Mr. Chairman. LANGUAGE REQUEST Mr. ROONEY. I wonder if you would know whether or not this sug gested language which you want us to incorporate in an appropriation bill is authorized by law? Mr. KATZENBACH. Which particular language do you refer to, Mr. Chairman? I know of nothing in there that isn't. Mr. ROONEY. Personal services without regard to the civil service laws and the Classification Act of 1949, as amended. Mr. KATZENBACH. Yes, Mr. Chairman; I think that is proper. It has been done in the case of about 17 other commissions which I can name. Mr. ROONEY. You are saying that if we were to include this language in a supplemental appropriation bill that it would not be subject to a point of order? Mr. KATZENBACH. I don't believe it would, Mr. Chairman, for a commission of this kind. I don't think it is substantive legislation. It has been included in a great many other appropriations bills. (Discussion held off the record.) Mr. ROONEY. You also have here a provision that this money, if appropriated, would be available from July 16, 1965, and to remain available until April 30, 1967. What would be the authority for that? Mr. KATZENBACH. Because of your annual appropriation? (Discussion held off the record.) FINANCIAL NEEDS Mr. ROONEY. Let us get into the money aspects of this. This bill was discussed on the floor of the House on the day before yesterday. There was a rollcall vote on it. In your statement there is not a single dollar figure. Am I correct in this? Mr. KATZENBACH. I thought the estimate of the appropriation had been Mr. ROONEY. We have incorporated that. We want to be told about this. There was no discussion with regard to money on the floor of the House, explaining how the one and a half million dollars was arrived at. I am just wondering now if a couple hundred thousand dollars should not suffice for this sort of thing. Mr. KATZENBACH. Not if you want to do something about it, Mr. Chairman. In fact, I think the one and a half million dollars is too low. Mr. ROONEY. How did you arrive at that figure? Mr. KATZENBACH. I think it is expressed here in the breakdown. I can go through it in somewhat more detail if you want. We take up the National Commission separately, for example. If you want to take a look at it, we have $430,000 for 25 permanent positions. Mr. ROONEY. You would have an Executive Director at $28,000? Mr. KATZENBACH. An Executive Director at $28,000. Mr. ROONEY. That is pretty high, is it not? Mr. KATZENBACH. No, sir; I don't believe it is for the importance of the work involved, particularly when you ask a man to come for 18 months. The other staff we contemplated would be distributed in about seven areas of investigation. We would need one senior and experienced person in each particular field and junior people to assist him on a permanent basis. With supporting clerical and other personnel we came out to a figure of approximately 25. Mr. ROONEY. Do you want to settle this request for $750,000 at this point? Mr. KATZENBACH. For the first 12 months? Yes, sir. Mr. ROONEY. Suppose we were to say yes to that? Mr. KATZENBACH. That is all right. Mr. ROONEY. We will save some money? Mr. KATZENBACH. I will have to be back here. You anticipate I would have to be back here to finish up the work. Mr. Chairman, when I said $750,000 I was thinking of the $1.1 million portion. Mr. ROONEY. I was thinking of the $1.5 million request. Mr. KATZENBACH. I just thought you might be thinking of the $1.5 million. Therefore, I would say I would be willing to settle for $750,000 on the $1.1 million figure. The other is a 12-month proposition. I think Mr. Miller can give you a breakdown on that. Mr. ROONEY. Mr. Bow raised a question on the floor of the House with regard to Mr. Miller's end of it, the fact we have a home rule bill pending, and what that might have to do with this. I expect he will direct himself to that question this morning. |