education and traffic enforcement. In addition to more extensive use of existing Federal funds now allocable to present highway safety programs, there must be new sources of funding to finance an expanded grade crossing program. 8. The Federal Railroad Administration should revise, in consultation with railroad management, labor, and State regulatory commissions, its rules for reporting of accidents. The aim should be to make the data fore current, more uniform, and to identify causes more accurately. 9. The Secretary of Transportation in consultation with and assistance of the Task Force and appropriate congressional committees should draft proposed legislation to implement these recommendations. R. N. Whitman, Chairman, Federal Railroad Administrator; George E. Leighty, subchairman, chairman, Railway Labor Executives' Association; Al H. Chesser, vice president, national legislative representative, United Transportation Union; Donald S. Beattie, executive secretary, Railway Labor Executives' Associa tion; William E. Skutt, assistant grand chief engineer, Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers; Charles J. Fain, subchairman, commissioner, Missouri Public Service Commission; Willis F. Ward, chairman, Michigan Public Service Commission: John P. Vukasin, Jr., commissioner, California Public Utilities Commission; Thomas M. Goodfellow, subchairman, president, Association of American Railroads: William D. Lamprecht, vice president-systems operations, Southern Pacific Co.; James R. Thorne, vice president-operating department, Seaboard Coast Line Railroad; C. V. Cowan, vice president-operating group, Baltimore & Ohio/Chesapeake & Ohio Railroad Co. DECEMBER 18 (legislative day, DECEMBER 16), 1969.-Ordered to be printed Mr. TYDINGS, from the Committee on the District of Columbia, submitted the following REPORT [To accompany S. 2981] The Committee on the District of Columbia, to which was referred the bill (S. 2981) to revise the laws of the District of Columbia on juvenile court proceedings, having considered the same, reports favorably thereon with an amendment and recommends that the bill as amended do pass. The amendment, as indicated in the bill as reported by linetype and italic, is as follows: Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert new language as a substitute. PURPOSE OF THE BILL S. 2981 as amended in committee constitutes a vital measure for the reduction of crime committed in the National Capital, as the bill's principal purpose is to break the crime cycle whereby juvenile offenders graduate from the juvenile system as adult criminals. More specifically, the bill S. 2981 as reported has the following objectives: to expedite the adjudication of juveniles and enhance their rehabilitation, and to improve court procedures for juveniles so as to provide them their due process of law. To these ends, the bill (S. 2981) recommended by this committeeEstablishes time limits for the principal juvenile proceedings; Telescopes many of the proceedings which a juvenile may have to undergo; Provides separate treatment or disposition for the different categories of juveniles; Requires proof of involvement beyond a reasonable doubt, while eliminating cumbersome and inappropriate trial by jury; Provides a right to counsel and to be informed of the specific charges at the earliest practicable juncture; and 37-010-69-1 Relieves the juvenile system of those repeated offenders whom the system cannot realistically handle. NEED FOR LEGISLATION A soaring caseload of crime-related charges against juveniles in the National Capital, together with the inability of the existing juvenile court in the District of Columbia to meet the demands placed upon it, have had the effect in combination of perpetuating the juvenile crime cycle in the District, and have practically assured that a juvenile offender in the District will later become an adult offender. The act S. 2601, passed by the Senate on September 18, 1969, responds to the problem, in part, by replacing the existing three-judge juvenile court with a Family Division (of the proposed local Superior Court) of a size expandable to meet any pending caseload. Further legislative response is imperative, however, in order to correct the outmoded, inefficient, and unfair procedures presently followed in the juvenile court. The Senate District Committee has devoted much of its attention during this session of Congress to the alarming increase in crime in the National Capital. The committee's hearings and investigations have determined that in no other area is the crime problem as severe as in that of juvenile offenses. Metropolitan Police Chief Jerry Wilson in a recent White House meeting on crime in the District stated that as much as 45 percent of the serious crime in the National Capital is committed by persons under the age of 18. Testimony before the committee has indicated that, between 1963 and 1969, the number of cases referred to the juvenile court involving serious crimes committed by juveniles over 16 increased by the following percentages: Aggravated assault_ Robbery 1 150 percent of the robberies were armed robberies. Up 91 percent The annual report of the juvenile court indicates that, during the 12-month period ending June 30, 1969, cases involving 29 homicides, 37 rapes, 780 robberies, 1,115 burglaries, and 537 assaults were referred to juvenile court. While these statistics are alarming of themselves, they assume even greater significance when compared with the high rate of recidivism among juveniles. During the fiscal year 1969, 33 percent of the juveniles referred to juvenile court had previously been adjudicated delinquent. Approximately 33 percent, in other words, had been previously found to be involved in a law violation. With the persistent rise in juvenile crime, especially crimes of violence since 1963, the District of Columbia juvenile court has been falling further and further behind in disposing of the cases referred to it. The backlog has grown to outrageous proportions: as of June 30, 1969, the total number of cases waiting to be heard by the court had reached 3,483, with a total of approximately 7,000 new juvenile cases being referred to the juvenile court each year. This backlog of cases has been a major cause of the intolerable delays which now exist in the court. It is not unusual for a juvenile released to |