that might be sought. I wondered what your comment might be as to the advisability of having the Governor participate in this program. Mr. CLARK. I see what you mean. I think the answer contemplated by the bill is that your planning applications under title I are for title II programs. So when you look at 204, for instance, of title II, you see that we provide, under 204 (b), they will be encouraged to look at all other jurisdictions. Under 204 (a) that will include all of the criminal justice agencies that are operating under their direct jurisdiction. So that will certainly tend to bring, if not bring, the different jurisdictions withn a State together in terms of their planning outlook.

Mr. MACGREGOR. I do not so read section 204, but I will read it again more carefully, Mr. Attorney General. I do not read that there is any necessity at all for a unit of general local government to bring the Governor into the picture. But perhaps we will consider that more fully.

Mr. CORMAN. If the gentleman would yield for one question at that point, if the county of Los Angeles applied for a grant under I, and it was justified in your view, the Governor of the State would not have veto power over that application?

Mr. CLARK. That is correct; 204(b), 1 and 2—it is actually in 204 (a), too—says:

encourage State and local initiative in developing comprehensive law enforcement and criminal justice plans;

Encourage plans which encompass the entire metropolitan area.

Encourage plans of all law enforcement and criminal justice agencies in the

area;

So certainly what we are trying to do there is to encourage these agencies to come together and work together to provide the best cooperation and coordination and consolidation where indicated.

Mr. MACGREGOR. Let us talk about that a little more fully. We are referring to page 8 of the bill, section 204.

Mr. CLARK. That is right.

Mr. MACGREGOR. Section (b) (2) says:

In implementing this section, the Attorney General shall

(2) Encourage plans which encompass the entire metropolitan area, if any, of which the applicant is a part;

In the State of Minnesota and the metropolitan area of Minneapolis-St. Paul, you have one city of under a half million people and one city of just over 300,000 people, a third city of approximately 75,000 people, and then a number of suburban municipalities ranging in size from a few hundred up to 50,000 and more.

I take it that in administering this particular section you would tend to look much more favorably on a proposal which encompassed the entire five-county area, because our metropolitan area does encompass five counties, rather than an application from one of the municipalities involved.

Mr. CLARK. If it was realistic to do so. I think we will find in some areas that is just not realistic and we would go forward with them individually. As you say, we would tend to, and I think that is true.

Mr. MACGREGOR. Referring for a moment to pages 4 and 5 of the bill, for purposes of giving us a better idea of what is contemplated, I call your attention to section 2, beginning on line 23 of page 4, pro

viding that "not more than one-third of any grant under this section shall be expended for the compensation of personnel, except that this limitation shall not apply to the compensation of personnel for time engaged in conducting or undergoing a training program and specialized personnel performing innovating functions."

Would you give us some examples of specialized personnel performing innovating functions?

Mr. CLARK. For instance, if you were establishing automatic data processing, we could use funds in excess of the one-third for personnel operating that. If you were working with a new tactical police squad in a high crime area, that could be considered to be of that nature. If you established new intensive programs, instructors, either brought in or hired and made a part of the department, it could be included there.

Mr. MACGREGOR. For personnel of this type the Federal Government could pay up to 100 percent of their compensation.

Mr. CLARK. No; it would have to be under the general formula of a match, not to exceed 60 percent under title II, or for personnel engaged in planning, 90 under title I.

Mr. MACGREGOR. For a further understanding, let me call your attention to pages 6 and 7 of the bill. Section 203, beginning on line 22, page 6:

The Attorney General is authorized to make grants to States, units of general local government, or combinations of such States or units for the construction of buildings or other physical facilities which fulfill a significant, innovative function.

Then there is language indicating that you may pay up to 50 percent of the cost of such physical facilities or buildings. Would you give us some examples there, Mr. Attorney General, of the buildings or physical facilities fulfilling a significant innovative function for which you might be allocating money.

Mr. CLARK. Yes. Let me point out first that in section 501 (h) innovative function is defined.

Mr. MACGREGOR. We have a definition but I think it would help us to have examples.

Mr. CLARK. Yes. We see from our experience that community correctional facilities offer a great potential for rehabilitation. California has had an experience that indicates that the kids who have been selected on a random basis, excluding those who commit serious crime, and who have gone through community corrections facilities compared to your old conventional jail or prison way out in the country someplace repeat half as often as those handled in the conventional way. We need to do a lot in this field. So small correctional units, in an apartment house, perhaps a floor of a YMCA, or something like that, which has been suggested to us; so that you would be building into an old structure some potential for confinement there, that could be something innovative. It might include a new type of police communications center, or police precinct center that would bring police close to the people; but at the same time not deploy your management so that you lost efficiency. We would have a high requirement there. It would have to be innovative because at least in our judgment at this time we should not be spending a large proportion of these Federal funds on bricks and mortar.

Mr. MACGREGOR. I have one final question, Mr. Attorney General. In talking about a funding level of $300 million for fiscal year 1969, do you anticipate that will grow in the future?

Mr. CLARK. Yes.

Mr. MACGREGOR. Can you give us any indication as to how great that growth might be?

Mr. CLARK. I am not sure that it is very meaningful to estimate now, but we seek authorization here for 4 years beyond 1968. I think within that period of time it could well be that the annual Federal contribution might exceed a billion.

Mr. MACGREGOR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman CELLER. Mr. McClory.

Mr. McCLORY. I thought there was going to be an adjournment at this time.

Chairman CELLER. Do you want to adjourn?

Mr. McCLORY. I would prefer to start at 2:30.

Chairman CELLER. The committee will now adjourn and resume at 2:30.

Can you return, Mr. Attorney General?

Mr. CLARK. Surely, Mr. Chairman.

(Whereupon, at 12:25 p.m., the committee adjourned, to reconvene at 2:30 p.m. of the same day.)

AFTERNOON SESSION

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice at 2:30 p.m., in room 2141, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Emanuel Celler (chairman of the subcommitte) presiding.

Present: Mr. Celler, chairman, Messrs. Rodino, Rogers, Donohue, Corman, Mathias, McClory, Railsback, and Biester.

Staff present: William R. Foley, general counsel; Donald E. Santarelli, associate counsel.

Chairman CELLER. The committee will come to order.
Mr. McClory.

STATEMENT OF HON. RAMSEY CLARK, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF
THE UNITED STATES; ACCOMPANIED BY FRED M. VINSON, JR.,
ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL IN CHARGE OF THE CRIMI-
NAL DIVISION-Resumed

Mr. McCLORY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First of all I would like to comment, if I may, Mr. Attorney General, in response to the remark you made with regard to the four cases that go under the general title of the Miranda case. You stated in substance that since in three of the four cases convictions have occurred again, without the benefit of the confessions, this fact confirms your opinion that confessions are not important elements in the prosecution of crime. On the contrary, I feel that voluntary confessions are important pieces of evidence for juries to consider. I would like to make the observation that, in my opinion, the verdict of guilty in the retrials-where the confessions were excluded confirms the fairness and propriety of the original trials where the confessions were received in evidence. If in the retrials the defendants had been found innocent it would

have indicated that the States did not have evidence of guilt independent of the confessions and without the confessions the guilty would have gone free. It seems to me that the practice followed before the Miranda decision, wherein confessions were admitted into evidence after a determination that they were voluntary or as a result of the jury's finding of voluntariness, was fair and just.

I would like now to inquire as to various provisions of the bill that is before us. First of all, I would like to inquire as to the length of term of this legislation that you envision. How long is this Federal legislation supposed to be in effect?

Mr. CLARK. We asked authorization for 4 years beyond June 30, You will notice also in 204 (b) that we talk about encouraging the States to demonstrate the States and local agencies-to demonstrate their ability to pick up the contribution, the increase the Federal Government has participated in.

Mr. McCLORY. So you contemplate that this legislation would extend through the calendar year 1973 as indicated on page 6 of the bill. Then presumably at that time the States and municipalities would be urged to carry on their own programs without the Federal participation.

Mr. CLARK. Yes. I think it goes June 30, 1972. Then in 204 (b) (6) we would encourage plans which demonstrate the willingness of the applicant to assume the costs of improvements funded under this title after a reasonable period of Federal assistance.

Mr. McCLORY. As I see the bill, it authorizes the figure of $50 million for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1968. But in your testimony, you refer to an expenditure of $4 billion. Is that to follow the initial $50 million authorization?

Mr. CLARK. No, I do not believe I said anything about $4 billion. I said $300 million for fiscal 1969. The $4 billion that is in the statement is the gross expenditure of State, local, Federal Government for all aspects of criminal justice. That is not a Federal expenditure.

Mr. McCLORY. So the Federal expenditure is $50 million for the first fiscal year for all of the programs included in this safe streets legislation. Beyond that, you suggest that there would be a request for an appropriation of $300 million.

Mr. CLARK. For fiscal 1969, yes.

Mr. McCLORY. Do you have any estimates as to subsequent years? Mr. CLARK. I stated earlier that while it is very difficult to foresee, and while we can make a wiser judgment after a little experience, that it could possibly reach as much as a billion in a given year within this period of authorization contemplated.

Mr. McCLORY. It would reach how much?
Mr. CLARK. It would reach a billion dollars.

Mr. McCLORY. That would be before the legislation expires?
Mr. CLARK. Yes.

Mr. McCLORY. When you state in your testimony that the $4 billion total for Federal, State and local expenditures is not nearly enough, tell me how much is enough.

Mr. CLARK. It depends on how wisely we spend it. Of that $4 billion-and these estimates are fairly rough, these are Crime Commission estimates-about 10 percent is Federal. I think they estimate $339 million. About 30 percent is State, just over a billion. The

remainder is local. I think we can see that the 5 percent annual increase in criminal justice investment the public is making today is not nearly enough. What we have indicated here would authorize a threefold increase in that investment rate. If you went at a 15percent increase for several years it would take but a few years to make a substantial difference. I think the $4 billion is a very small amount for us to pay for justice, which is our great concern, and for the public safety, which is the first order of business of government. I think we are just going to have to go down the road and see how much it will take because we have to afford whatever it costs.

In terms of the national budget, in terms of the wealth of the Nation, the gross national product, it is not a lot of money.

Mr. McCLORY. Don't you have an estimate as to how much would be needed? Here we are dealing with perhaps the most crucial domestic problem, and if we should be appropriating for Federal, State and local use $20 billion or $50 billion and we are only appropriating $4 billion, it seems to me that we are not getting anywhere near solving the problem at all. I would think that you would come forward with some estimate as to what is needed in order to solve the problem.

Mr. CLARK. I really think it would be unrealistic to try to make a comprehensive estimate, 50 percent or more of this or 100 percent more of this would not be particularly meaningful. I would say in corrections if we spent a billion more than we do now, and we just spent over a billion now, if we spend it wisely, we would be repaid many times over in direct savings because of the immense economic loss caused by people who repeat crime. It is even more important in terms of the public protection. So I would say that when we can tool up to know that we will do an efficient and effective job in corrections that we can well afford to double our expenditures there. In police protection, it varies across the country. I think there may be some areas where you need to double expenditures. I think there are some where you may be quite close to an adequate level at this time. Mr. McCLORY. What surveys has the Department made, or what statistical information is the Department relying upon when it comes forward with the request for an initial authorization of $50 million and $300 million in the following year and long-range requests for billions in order to carry out this program?

Exactly what is the basis for making these requests?

Mr. CLARK. About $20 million of the $50 million is the continuation of the Law Enforcement Assistance Act program. The Law Enforcement Assistance Act would be repealed. The $30 million is our estimate of what we should have to provide planning resources under title I for the commencement of operations under the act.

Mr. McCLORY. Do you have any idea of how many applications you are going to receive under title I or title II or title III? Do I understand that under title III-an area covered under the Law Enforcement Assistance Act we enacted at the last session-that $19 million, in your opinion, is sufficient to fund the applications you expect to receive under title III? Is that correct?

Mr. CLARK. Yes. We think we can wisely and efficiently expend $19 million for Law Enforcement Assistance Act purposes next fiscal

year.