You are really comparing thousands with 20. But everything done on the Nazi work is done on one payroll.

Mr. SAWYER. You are saying, though, that the high amount relative to other things is not from any political concerns?

us.

Mr. HEYMANN. It's not political with me. And it's not political with

If I were I don't have any doubt in the projection of the actions of Congress, Mr. Sawyer, that even if I thought that that amount of money should be $1 million instead of $2.2 million-there would be a substantial and likely successful move in both Houses of Congress to insist that the operation once and for all spend the money necessary to clean up that backlog and lay the question behind us.

And that's what my prediction would be. There is such a strong feeling among the Jewish groups, among a number of Congressmen and Senators that that would happen. And I happen to agree with them.

And I think we ought to just get it done, get it behind us.

I think the size of the outlay was picked by Congress presumably in a somewhat arbitrary way, $2 million, $2.2 million; but we are borrowing to feed that unit.

I perhaps shouldn't tell you, Mr. Sawyer, but I would send some other people in there off of my staff, young honors graduates, just out of law school, to spend some time helping out.

The FBI will contribute some agents' time as well because we want to do the job, do it well, do it accurately, do it fairly because it's a terrible place to make a mistake-and then get it behind the country. Mr. DRINAN. The gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Gudger? Mr. GUDGER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I want to commend the explanation which has been afforded on the Nazi war crimes issue, a matter of considerable concern to me. I have supported this endeavor quite earnestly because it was a short-term investment, and one that needed to be fully discharged and then finally reported, and gotten behind us.

And I commend the Department on what you have been doing in that regard; and I will be relieved and I am sure you will be relieved when the final page of this sad history is past us.

I want to address a certain point of concern.

In the first place, I come from a State where all appellate work is handled by the attorney general of the State. That differs of course from the general practice in the Federal system where the U.S. attorney takes a case up in the ordinary circumstances to the court of appeals.

As I look at your justification on the authorization request, on appellate work, I see you are virtually holding present levels and with not much expansion. And yet I see your authorization request pointing up your positive interest in getting to more sophisticated crime and that sort of thing.

Don't you foresee that as the nature of prosecutions at the trial level moves into the white-collar classification, syndicated-type crime, and racketeering, that the form of the appellate level function is going to become more and more expanded, and particularly more demanding at the Department of Justice level, rather than the U.S. attorney

Would you comment on that very briefly?

I realize how you have done it in this budget and I realize there's probably not going to be an immediate result; but what do you see down the road?

Mr. HEYMANN. I see down the road exactly what you just foresaw, Mr. Gudger.

I began my statement talking about a world of U.S. attorneys and State and local prosecutors, and what is the essential function for a headquarters operation.

One of the special functions is to handle major appellate matters which affect a number of districts.

I forget the U.S. attorney in your district, Mr. Gudger, but the entire fifth circuit, which must have somewhere between 15 and 25 U.S. attorneys in it, is affected by the position that the U.S. attorney takes on appeals.

On major appeals we have to take a stronger central hand.

It happens that we have a near-famous prodigy as head of the appellate section. I would like to claim credit for that. His name is Bill Bryson. He is a fabulous lawyer; he only works about 120 hours a week. And he's getting known throughout the U.S. attorneys' world. And they want to bring him work.

I am going to start staffing him with some of the best young attorneys that anybody has seen. The Attorney General is going to be envious when he sees it.

And it's going to be relatively small. Most of the appeals, overwhelmingly, ought to be handled in the field. But in a major matter like the Dresser case in the District of Columbia, and the Sutton case in the sixth circuit, these are a number of cases that are major to the Federal system.

I am going to exercise a stronger and stronger hand through Bryson and that group.

Mr. GUDGER. I fully sympathize with that objective, and I am delighted to hear you declare it, although I certainly realize that in the routine case the trial attorney must appear before the appellate court because he knows what the case is about.

But in the more sophisticated crimes I certainly can see the Department of Justice acting to structure the law for future appellate cases. May I just ask one more question?

I am delighted to see the emphasis being given to State-Federal cooperation and coordination, and I am pleased that you have completed this study and provided guidelines for declination of alleged violation of Federal criminal laws. I image it addresses not just the routine declinations, because you don't have the subject's name, or you don't have certain elements of information; but there must be some discretionary guidelines involved in this study.

Is that correct?

Mr. HEYMANN. I actually have a right to be a little bit embarrassed before this committee on the declination study; and I also have an awfully good explanation.

This committee, Mr. Gudger, asked for a study of declination guidelines and policies throughout the Federal system since there are 94 U.S. attorneys with guidelines saying we won't prosecute for less than this or that.

And it's only the first stage of that study that we sent you. The first stage of that study tells you in this form, what it looks like across the country. (See app. 2 at p. 185.)

There is a second stage to take place, and that is to tell you what the procedures are by which prosecutors decline cases either on an individual basis or on a broader basis; and who they tell about their declination guidelines. We will also tell you what we can from a massive review of individual cases that we undertook-some 14,000 individual cases; something that was quite massive for us to do.

As we do that, we are going to be able to bring in still another input that will be very interesting to the committee. We have gone around the country in the area of white-collar crime, including public corruption. We have asked some 240 Federal investigative and prosecutorial units to give us a rather detailed description of what they see as the problems of white-collar crime in their area. (See app. 4 at p. 365.)

I made a prediction to Mr. Conyers that large corporations would only be in certain areas; well, that was a guess on my part.

We are very shortly going to be able to give you at least the intelligent estimates of a massive array of Federal investigative and prosecutorial arms.

When we do that, then we will be able to come back to you and say, "Here's what going on, and here are the declinations; they do or don't make sense in terms of what's going on, what the investigators think is going on out there; here's what we got from our 14,000 sample cases; and here's the way it's handled." (See app. 3 at p. 303.)

Mr. GUDGER. This leads me to one final question.

We have been impressed with the priority you have given to narcotics and drugs investigation and prosecution; and some of us have thought that perhaps the drugstore robbery jurisdiction ought to be given to the Department of Justice in a pattern situation, and there, of course, you could decline to prosecute these cases where there is a parallel State jurisdiction.

I wonder if this is a logical thought, if there should be areas in which there may be cases with hints or suggestions pointing to various racketeering involvement-where there is merely a suggestion of thisshould there be Federal jurisdiction so you can move if you think the move will help you with your investigation and the discharge of your priorities?

Or, should you be forced, because of our not giving you that authority, to decline all prosecutions in this area of drugstore robberies?

Mr. HEYMANN. I guess I don't have a sense, Mr. Gudger, and I'd want to talk to Peter Bensinger about whether it looks to them like a major problem.

I can express to the committee my own sense that where there's some legitimate basis for believing that, maybe the Federal Government ought to be in there. It's a wise idea to have Federal power and to rely on the mechanisms of State-Federal coordination that we've set up, to keep us from doing what we shouldn't and don't have the resources to do.

In this particular area, I don't have a sense as to whether it's a big problem or a little problem. We'd be happy to respond.

I would like to talk to DEA on it.

Mr. DRINAN. If the gentleman from North Carolina would yield for a moment?

Mr. GUDGER. Yes, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. DRINAN. We will have Mr. Bensinger to testify here at 1 o'clock today; and in his statement he talks about a task force that he has organized that exists in several States and it has sharply curtailed break-ins and robberies of pharmacies.

Mr. GUDGER. Yes; may I pass that up for just one other question: One of the cases I tried about 6, 7 years ago, involved 25, or, around 30 automobile larcenies, involving Virginia, North Carolina, and Tennessee several States-in the conspiracy. The acts involving furtherance of the conspiracy indicated that Federal prosecution was proper. And yet each of those separate instances would have been more likely candidates for State prosecution even though State lines had been crossed.

Would you undertake to talk on that area of concern, and just briefly, do you see that these types of prosecutions should be passed on to the States, even though the Federal element is there? We don't want to clutter up the courts with trivialities.

Mr. HEYMANN. I couldn't tell, Mr. Gudger, whether your example had a single outfit engaged in a number of larcenies.

I think there's a legitimate Federal role, and we assume it, to tell you the truth, using the RICO statutes, whenever you find a single outfit with 5, 6, 8 people engaged in a system of larcenies, robberies, going across State lines-we assume the role.

And that doesn't mean to the exclusion of the States.

I don't think we ought to do a single larceny. We practically never do a single robbery.

But if you have an organization that's doing it wholesale, doing robberies, we get into it; and I think we should.

Mr. GUDGER. This of course is where you have a larceny situation that occurs in Norfolk or Richmond, and then it's carried on to North Carolina and Tennessee and South Carolina.

Otherwise it would not make sense.

But what I was trying to draw was the distinction between the single case which may have all the Federal elements, but lacks the element of conspiracy or multistate involvement.

Mr. HEYMANN. Once again, I agree with you 100 percent, Mr. Gudger.

I don't think it makes a lot of difference if the crime crosses State lines. It makes a difference constitutionally, because it's often the handle on which Federal authority is hung.

But simply crossing a State line isn't a good enough reason to take it away from State law enforcement. It ought to be a State law enforcement matter in most cases if that's all that happened.

If it's a sizable organization, one that is somewhat sophisticated, difficult to prosecute, difficult to investigate because it's in several States-that's a Federal job.

Mr. GUDGER. May I make one comment:

I like that concept in view of an occurrence in my own State of PCB wastes being actually thrown on the highway down in North Carolina. This sort of thing, of course, comes out of an industrial plant, and you don't know just where. Then it is discharged into fields and gorges and that sort of thing all over the Southeast.

I see this as an area in which you might want to proceed, but you might not want to proceed in an isolated case, but in the multiple case where there is serious involvement perhaps perpetrated by a group of individuals.

Do you see this as a justification for moving into this area, with restraint where you are not going to deal with each and every issue? Mr. HEYMANN. We have to be very restrained in using the "reckless endangerment" offense. I think we should treat the question of toxic wastes, if it ever develops as an illegal and substantially organized activity, as an item of major Federal concern.

We are waiting for those cases. We have some and we are looking for more.

Mr. DRINAN. Thank you, Mr. Heymann.

I have just a couple of questions, then I will yield to Mr. Lungren and Mr. Hall.

On page 4 of your testimony, you speak of the economic crimes field unit; is that economic crimes unit synonymous with white-collar crimes?

Mr. HEYMANN. Yes; it is, Mr. Chairman. I don't know of any distinction that I could think of.

By economic crime, we simply mean public corruption and whitecollar crimes in the same double scope. As I told Mr. Conyers, I shall submit a report on these units. (See app. 1 at p. 63.)

Mr. DRINAN. Tell us about the approximately 17 additional units that are needed. Have the places they would go been designated? If not, what are the norms by which these 17 units are added to the 13 units now set up?

Mr. HEYMANN. I think we have a tentative designation, but I will turn it over to Mr. Richard, as to the designation and the status.

Mr. RICHARD. As Mr. Heymann indicated, we project approximately 27 or so of these units established across the Nation. The units are staffed with economic-crimes specialists who have jurisdiction over more than one State.

At the present time we have 13 units in place. I can provide the committee with a list of those 13 jurisdictions and a list of our implementation plans for the balance of these units, specifying the locations. (Exhibit 1)

Mr. DRINAN. I would appreciate it if you would supply that for the record. I think it would be very helpful.