CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP80S01268A000200010036-2
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 4
• Document Creation Date: December 20, 2016
• Document Release Date: February 22, 2006
• Sequence Number: 36
• Publication Date: January 25, 1977
• Content Type: OPEN

S1338
Talmadge An. roved For
NOT VOTTNO-'5
Bartlett McIntyre
I~cy~uov
O'YGRESSIONAL RECORD -- SENATE Janual? f 25, 1 977
read the excellent brief prepared in sup- Idaho is more comfortable with, and the
port of the nomination of Judge Bell. Br le which Judge Bell wrote In
Indiana to that portion which deal with pressed concern over his unwillingness
intelligence operations, accountability in the Brown case to provi:ir? the kind of
and control, beginning on page 1 and protections that I thought were neces
extending through page 2 and parts of sary.-He was quick to point out that if
page 3. I read from the brief: he had to write that Brown decision to-
Judge Bell pledges to Control intelligence day in light of everything that had hap-
operations under his authority in a manner pened, he would not provide for broad
which would protect the rights of Amer,- power to the Government as he did. :._.
can citizens while, at the same time, being As I recall, we had no problem with
careful to protect the security of 1-bo Nstion? Judge Bell's attitude as fc" as -domestic
.. So the motion to recommit was re-
jected.
(Subsequently the following occurred:)
Mr, BIDEN. Mr. President, I ask unan-
imous consent that my vote on the last
vote be changed from "aye" to "no."
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. MoR-
cAN). Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent to change my vote
from, "aye" to "nay." I thought I was
voting on confirmation, rather than re-
committal.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there
objection?- Without objection, the vote
will be so changed.
(The foregoing tally reflects the above
Of course, that statement is so general 'cases are concerned. He re'ognized what
-some restraints where you u'ouzid safeguard t the kind of abuse that w ye seen.
the rights of American citlvens. As a gee- L He went further. in r onse to my
motion was rejected. stand it, it is not possiblo to lawfully should all be covered by `?he same war-
Mr.. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President, wiretap an American cit?hen. without a rant procedures.
I move to lay that motion on the table. warrant issued by a court, upon a finding Mr. CHURCH, The ciica.l question,
The motion to lay on the table .was that probable cause exi bo to believe that as the Senator know, is , ,t .)btaii,ln, a
Mr. BAYH. I asked 1 'm specifically
whether he thought Vic I -:v-sions of the
sent to the nomination of Griffin 13. Bell? we found widespread abuse in. the elec- within the broad purvinv of national
Mr. CHURCH. Mr. President, I should tronic surveillance of young student security, the court's act s then purely
like to put sonic, questions to the Senator groups who were. not suspected of orimc, ministerial, it means not Iai. We must
from Indiana, on thg assumption that but who were protesting against t c. war, find a suitable ,,tands rd: recognize- that
those questions might follow this vote. which the Constitution entitled theist to the Senator from Indian ha? been neck- j'
Mr. ROBERT Q. BYRD. Mr. President, do. We found months of harassment eon- ing such a 'standard. In any opinion, he
all time has expired. I wonder if, in view ducted against. Martin Luther King, Jr., greatly improved the oris-:nal bill which
of the fact that the Senator from Idaho not because he was suspected of crime, came out of the Judici -'y Committee
wants to ask a few questions, we could but for political reasons. We found other last year by attempting to define a very {
get just a little time by unanimous minority groups harassed unlawfully, not narrow class of cases where electronic
consent? _ because crimes were being committed, surveillance might be arthorized with
How much time does the Senator need? but, because they sought recognition of out need of showing pr-Viable cause. I
Mr. CHURCH. I should think that their rights under the law. All these Im- wonder if the Senator v:iil tell me his
these questions and the answers could proper activities were conducted under general impression of Judge Bell's view,
be accommodated in 10 minutes, 15 at the guise of national security. with respect to the need, to write that
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President, showed with respect to Judge Bell's feel-
I ask unanimous consent that Mr. BAYI3 ing about establishing a sufficient court
may have an additional 10 minutes--that test in this broad xmtior:'el semi ity field
there be not to exceed 15 minutes, to be that would adequately safei;nf,rd the lib-
equally divided between Mr. BAYS and erties of the American people?
Mr. MATaxiAs. - Mr. BAYH. First, let me say' that I
Mr. BUMPERS. Is it anticipated there would like to speak fro;ra tlic staricli,oint
will be a rolleall vote? of a personal. conversation I had with-
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Oh, yes, there Judge Bell, as well as the matter that is
will be rollcall votes. in the record. As the Senator knows, I
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there happen to be one of the Senators who
objection? has been chosen to serve on the Select
Without objection, it is so ordered. Committee on Intelligence with the dis--
Who yields time? tinguished Senator from. Hawaii, our
Mr. HATFIELD. Will the Senator yield chairman. In that capacity, I. was called
for a unanimous-consent -request? ? on, as chairman of the Subcommittee on
Mr BAYH I yield the Rights of Americans to give study to
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President, a wiretap bill that was reported out of t ard. So in that bill, we required the
may we have order? the Committee on the Judiciary. We same standard for fore -.Cl intelligence
The PRESIDING . OFFICER. Let us worked with the Senator from Massa- gathering as for dor,te :ic intelligence
have order in the Senate, chusetts and several other colleagues and, gathering, except whei a it could be
Mr. BAYH. Mr. President. I ask unan- I think, did a very credible job of proved that a person we an agent, of a
imous consent that Mr. Ken Feinberg strengthening the provisions UC that bill. foreign power, transniitt: g inforuia.tion fi
of Senator KENNEnY's staff be permitted Because of this experience, I was con- In a clandestine manner to the detri-
the privilege of the floor during the re- screed with Judge Bell's background. ment of this Nation's security. That per-'],
mainder of this matter? ? His decision in the Bk ow ii case caused son would be a spy. Whr u can prove'
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without me concern. As the S'dh I:r knows, the somebody is a spy, even if e is an f:meri
objection, it is so ordered. law is unclear regarding warrant re- can citizen, if you can prove he is on th i
Who yields time? quirements for electronic surveillance in payroll of another goveniment asp '
i
Mr. BAYH. I yield to the Senator from national security cases. There is the of their intelligence. net ~ ;, trarxsnnsii.
Idaho. Zweibon rule, which I am more comfort- tang material and operas h -w secretively
bill to which I allucu c, w: was a pro-
duct of the work. of ou, >u`:conimittee,
assisted by the Senator f , -a ilassachu-,
setts and the Committee on the Judi
elaiy, was the kind of sa : z and that he
was talking about, and be said "Yes," -tyJ
Now, generally, as I ti- ik the Senator !
from Idaho knows, I wtjuld feel much ti
more comfortable, if we applied a stand-
of probable cause of ?me across the
ard
board to electronic surveillance. I have
to say, however, that, frr'n a very prac-
tical standpoint, there i :. narrow area
regarding foreign intelligence, where it
Approved For Release 2006/03/17 : CIA-RDP80SO1268A000200010036-2
 ~"d nua- J 25, Xph'i~oved For 0200010036-2
S1339
then I a1)h Prepared to establish a dif-
JARTJARY 19, 1977. that Judge Bell came before the com-
tellrt standard. Ilion. HFntvzAly E. ZALTdADGE,
The PRESIDING OFFIC.F>a_ The time U.S. S iiete Senate Office Bitilaimittee with one attribute which no other
, L)
.
S&L WIR5
, MATHIAS. r3o the Senators-re_ DEAR SHNATOR
TwMAOCr : It appears from eT , a public record. Judge Bell's years
quire more time? press reports that the Senate Judiciary Com- on the bench have resulted in a full and l"IttIm Mr. CHURCH, Just 1 minute, If the Senate that GriinnoBell become t he Attorney other subjects a of opinions on this and
Senator will allow me, to conclude this, General of the United States. When Griffin
Colloquy Second, the opposition centered on
. Bell's nomination reaches the Scoots, would
Mr- MATHIAS. I yield that time. you pl se enter the following statement on certain opinions of Judge Bell, and wit-
Mr. CHURCH. I take it, from what the my behe.li in the official Senate record: nesses included plaintiffs in some of the
Judge r has said, that in his judgment -of Oeorge I in 19701 was afeated Gavernor school cases. Tn in the 1 esses other black leaders testified on be-
Judge Bell, as Attorney General, will Co- General r,hcctlon by the man who is now half of the nominee and recommended
operate with the Committees of the Sen- the Pre 1deut of the United States, him highly. They Included participants
ate In attempting to work out a standard While -there may still be many areas of po-
of the kind . the Senator has described, litical disagreement between myself and in the law suits and observers on the
sc
and that he will also work with +i President Carp- I d ene at the time
Xntelllgence Committee for the purpose nomtuatioil of Judge Gr=fllnn Belltto serve h his
Lonnie Ki11g, former president of the
as
Of writill asic charters whiclidefu~I7 the Attorney General of the United States. Atlanta chapter of the NAACP, contra-
jla~s~r fiction of le lit- the C ZA and the prior to entering the political arena in Geor- dieted the conclusions of opposition wit-
gia in 1970, I worked as a Journalist in the messes
NSA, which wi ke fiitq Cojls~C
A J
Coo
e
r
ti
.
.
p
g
a
on state f
r mayor of Prithd
,car,
or wore than 16 years and became Ala., also chairman of the Southern
the reconunelidations of the select com- familiar with and I believe knowledgeable Black
I mnittee I chaired? about Griffin Bell's honorable service in for- ,,,.,...,o _Mayors Conference, testified on
toj Mr 'nAVLi v....
--
.--, +.wvc uv .may -- rus,ulver's aamnllstra-
-- ?"'d`~.cu. irtayur L'ooper llad
that was one of thelarr>t questions I asked - tion and later as a distinguished member of been Counsel in several lawsuits, ireful-
about, even before the hearings' started, the Court Of appeals. ing school cases, before Judge Bell, and
Iwas concern
ybelieve
i
d st
e
out the Brow du
d him as fiilli
ne- sbstantiall tow ard heling resolve man of andar, wng to listen
pt
vision and our job of drafting legislation. the difficult problems faced by the citizens of legal peg change views when given a solid
If I were not eoriviilrpri in ni- - -4-A G
i
eorg
a'luring
- the
- e public school system. forceful In Insisting4 that defendants
standard and Urge the President to follow bed During o time when it was politically ex comply with the law.
his lead. I would not be standing here A quiet about cue's views re-
supporting his nomination. garding the Integratioil of eorgifa% schools, Other opposition centered around
Mr. CHURCH. I thank the Senator oa to play the e role role of a segregationist demo- ' Judge Bell's service as a la
f
wyer
or Gov
-
very much for his responses. to these st nd p1nd belcounhad tehdmon those who -was a Vandiver from 1959 to 1961. Bell
questions. sought reasonable, among _ ppointse thed ed along
with other lawyers
I conclude by saying, Mr. President, lneaus of complying practical,
FederalnCou t seer l of school deseg egation. Ju the question
that I have reviewed carefully the objet- sioils? d Bell
tions raised by the distinguished Senator It Would be dishonest to pretend i agreed
vised the Governor on how t to o keep the
the
from Maryland, I believe that if this
with every decision rendered by the Appeals schools open and remain within the law. B nomination were for the Supreme Court judiciallbody; gitlwou de1bl's e service more th an dis-t Sibley CommIssion,I led sb bIiahidg th-
of the United States, I would have to cast honest to pretend that intelligent and shicere guished Citizen of AtlIanta, which thlougil met
8 Y a dihout
my vote against it, :mainly on the basis men and women do not And themselves in with black said white
{ of the Bond decision. But since it is for houest disagreement on many-controversial the State and allowed the views of the
the Office of Attorney General, and since m n'oups ut
atters
the Attorney General functions at the Z resp;ocifully urge the members of the people to be heard. The schools re-
pleasure of the Presid
maimed
M
t
t
a
en
es senate to uip
and under his
open Bell ttifidh
provenanmously a-.ese tat at he he was
general direction, I have concluded that prove Grillin Bell as the Attorney general of ? a moderating influence in this time and
my doubts should be resolved in favor of the United states because I believe he will that he was proud of his accomplish-
the President, conscientiously carry out the duties of that ment. This view was supported by Virar-
On that basis. Iwill onu,,ffice'as-a.Pair, impartial, and dedicated nub- - ren Coehrana ? 1,,.,..,_ , _ _
__
i?.~ for th
e
h
w
o P0111TIect out that Judge Bell had
anu-rrzosr,u, STAvin,rEdrs sus errrEn orr sere continually- met with black
H AL C. Svrr. first time such a thing had happened. the
riosnueArlox Mr. l AsTL~AND, Mr. President, I felt that Judge Bell, by his atiolns~fur He.
Mr
TALMADGE. Mr. president, I re-. would like to say a few words on behalf thered the cause of education, helped
ceived today as letter from Mr. Hal Suit of Judge Griffin Bell. The Committee on prevent violence, and began the move-
of Atlanta with respect to the nomination the. Judiciary held full, and complete meat to compliance with the law.
of Griffin Bell to be Attorney General of hearings on this nomination, and the
the United States, snembo c'ss interrogated Judge Bell In I feel that it is Impossible to judge
Mr. Suit, as he points out in his letter, depth. In addition, the committee heard political actions
or of the times, reference to the
was a Journalist in Atlanta during the 37 witnesses both pro and con. We sched- mony was The fell
difficult years in Georgia and the South uled all extra day of hearings In order to persuasive on
great issue. I feel
in which Judge Bell occupied a role of hear some opposition witnesses who had sionthat in situation
Bell i was of
a moderating t in-
leadership and moderation, Mr. Suit de- not been scheduled. The committee voted fluence on those who might ' Judge
i scribes Judge Bell as a "dedicated sere- to recommend that Judge Bell be con- lated the law, and that he was attempt-
ant" who had the "moral courage to firmed as Attorney General. tog to change the Prevailing attitude in
stand up and be counted among those I am not going into any detail on Judge Georgia because lie was committed to'
who sought -reasonable, practical and Bell's background, as that Is set out In the observance of the law.
peaceful means of complying with Fed- the committee's report. I will say that . Questions were raised during the
hear- eras court decisions." Mr., Suit urged the nominee served for 141
Senate approval of Judge Bell as Attor- U.S. Court of Appeals for the years
the $li on for Judge Bell's majhich Judge ney General. I bring his letter to the at- cuit. he Fifth Cir- upheld the r a three-
the a court which
tention of the Senate and I ask unani- Several areas were raised by some op- ture to deny Julian (Bond his seat in
moos Consent, that it be printed In the Georgia Legisla-
m> colic positions witnesses which I shall touch on " that body. The question in the case was
briefly. the power of the legislature to pass on
There being no objection, the letter First, was Judge Bell's civil rights rec- the qualifications of its own members.
was ordered to be printed In the RECORD, Ord, and particularly the area of deseg- Citing Precedents Involving the U.S.
as follows:
regation of schools. I will point out her
Senat
.,
e
e
Approved For Release 2006/03/17 : CIA-RDP80SO1268A000200010036-2
 January 25, 1977 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE S1329
Approved For Release 2P
(~6/03/.~7 : CI -R1~ S 1p 8A,949 ?dq ,4 t amendment la v.
he makes it, but I annot go with him In a rness 1 mus a sa 1
on this one. 14", years on the bench, judge Bell No case before Bond, or since, has ever
Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, a moment wrote many opinions protective of Conti- held that the State government can pro-
ago, I just wanted to correct the record. tutional rights. In many of the cases scribe or limit speech under the justifica-
I am sure the Senator from Maryland however, the record and the applicable tion of separation of powers. The argu-
would not intentionally misspeak. How law was cl,-ar. It is the difficult oases ment is indefensible on its face. The first
ever, if we look at the Jaworski testi- - press ;nting novel or unresolved questions amendment protects freedom of speech
t -r-in ements by the G
an g
overn-
loony, we will find, first of all, that Mr. of law, which may best convey a sense of -gas
Jaworski was serving as the chairman of Bell's thinking and an indication of out- ment. This protection applies as much to
the screening committee for the Ameri- look he would bring to the Attorney Gen- the action of the State legislature when
can Bar Association in the fifth circuit. ei?al's office. I find two such difficult it tries to exclude a member as it would
in that capacity, he talked to a number cases--Bond against Floyd and Brown when the State legislature passes a law.
of people In the fifth circuit, one of whom against United. States-to be particularly The first amendment certainly prohibits
was Mr. Block. Mr. Block had been his troubling, the legislature from punishing a person
immediate predecessor in the same ca- In Bond v. Floyd, 251 F. Supp. 333 from exercising his first amendment
pacity, and it was for that reason that .(1965), Bell wrote the opinion for the rights. In general, regulation touching
Mr. Jaworski had talked to Mr. Block. majority of the three-judge court, up- on first amendment rights must serve a
If. one examines the hearings, he will holding the right of the Georgia House compelling interest and be as carefully
And the names of several other individ- of Representatives to exclude Julian drawn as possible so as to leave the
uals who also were consulted by Mr. Bond because of his endorsement of a breathing room needed for first amend-
Jaworski. strong -statement by SNCC criticising ment rights to flourish. Bell certainly
Mr. MATHIAS. Mr. President,aloes the. U.S. policy in Vietnam and the American knew these general principles of the first
Senator from Indiana wish to go for- treatment of minorities at home and amendment, and has written many opin-
ions upholding first amendment rights.
ward with any other speakers? We have abroad. The Georgia House excluded
had several on this side. - Bond on the ground that the principles It is hard to avoid concluding that Bell
allowed his personal distaste for Bond's
Mr. NETAON addressed the Chair. of the SNCC statement which he, en '.
opinions color his judicial judgment.
Mr. MATHIAS. Mr. President, I yield dorsed indicated that he could not sin=
10 minutes to the Senator from Wiscon ce.r.ly.take the oath of loyalty to the After balancing Bond's first amendment
sill. Constitution which the Georgia House rights against the State legislature's pre-
fi Mr; NELSON'. :MTr. President, I will cast required. `.Tell recognized that Bond's rogatives, Bell proceeds to write a state-
a negative vote on the confirmation of first amendment rights were involved, went that is nothing short of astonish-'
the nomination of Mr. Bell because of bur, .he concluded that the right of the mg'
my concern about where he will come Georgia House to pass on the qualifica- The SNCC statement is at war with the
down on certain vital decisions that he. tions of its members overrode Bond's national policy of this country: To make
i make as Attorney General. certain that every citizen stands equal before
will have to
r constitutional rights:. 't - the law; to make certain that every citizen 11 %, My reservations about this appoint- . We hold that the free'speech issues'should' has a fair: chance to.benefit in the freedom
went are prompted by decisions made be resolved in the context of giving effect and opportunities and bounties of this
and positions taken by Mr. Bell In the to the separation of powers principle, and country; to export these same principles of
extent that it democracy to the balance of the world
li
th
d
f
era
sm
e
e
past on important Constitutional ques- our system of
tions. Involved were major questions of permits self-government to the states under wherever and whenever possible, even to the
extent of lending military assistance where
of thefederal Constitu-
the su
reiriacy
..
p
.
civil rights, free speech, and Tights of
privacy. These Issues run to the very - tion self-determination is denied In order that
? those --denied may choose' freedom if they.
heart of what this country and its Con- ? - Based on the content of the SNCC so desire.
stitution are all about. statement, Judge Bell found the Georgia ;But the statement does not stop with this.
I have no doubts about Mr. Bell's in- House had a rational basis for its deer- It is a call to action based on race; a call"
He also alien to the concept of the pluralistic society
intelligence
or dedication to sioii -A that was all it needed
tegrity
.
,
,
public service. My objections are not per- concluded that a legislator had less right which makes this nation. It aligns the or-
le in
eo
ith _ =ootozed
ti
i
p
p
on w
za
sonal or philosophical. Some of the same to free speech than a private citizen not= gan
such other countries as the Dominican Re-
issues touching the same Constitutional ing that- public, the Congo, South -Africa, Rho-
questions that were before Mr. Bell as - Nir Bond's right to,speak and to dissent desia * * * It refers to its Involvement in
Federal judge will be before him again as a private citizen Is subject to the rim- - the black people's struggle for liberation and
It Is my hope that President Carter's nhi( in the,Touse. "Vietnamese are murdered because the judgment will be rewarded and all my ')'tae Supreme me Court reversed, 9 to 0, 385 United States is pursuing an aggressive policy
doubts happily resolved when Mr. Bell in violation of international law." It al-.
de is with these issues In the future. U.S, 116 (1966). The Court pointed out leges that Negroes, referring to American
I am not unmindful that, particularly that Bond was willing to take the loyalty servicemen; are called on to stifle the libera-
in the realm of politics, it is not possible oath; that the State admitted that his Lion of Viet Nam.
to predict with any certainty from his- expression of admiration for those who _ ' We all hope that the Carter years will
tory how an individual in a different era; op s the warms and resisted the d+aft be a period of domestic tranquillity.
the future. _ The requirement (of an oath) does not au- the United States, we must allow for the
thorize the majority of state legislators to
'it is probably unnecessary for me to test the sincerity with which another duly likelihood of future unrest and pay close
say that if this were a Republican Pres- elected legt stator can swear to uphold the attention to the attitudes of that person
identical appointment I would vote Constitution. Such a power could be utilized toward peaceful dissent. We must also
against it as I did on two previous to restrict the right of legislators to dissent recognize that first amendment rights of
at stake as in this appointment. Obvious- jortty of their colleagues under the guLse of many of the major tasks facing the At-
t
i
u
on. torney General, such as the enactment
iy, I cannot properly defend two stand- judging their loyalty, to the const
ards for Presidential appointments, one The Court flatly rejected the notion of legislative controls on the FBI's
for Democrats and another for Re- that the State could grant its legislators gathering of domestic intelligence and
publicans. I voted against a Republican less freedom than other citizens. Those the recodification of the criminal code.
nominee for Attorney General because of seeking or holding office needed freed On this score, the Bond opinion is not
my reservations about his position on to express themselves about impo W assuring.
civil rights questions and against a Re- - issues of Government policy; oth .ILUnited States v. Brown, 484 F. 2d
-
ir1 ie ,se f e-
publican nominee for Secretary of State the representative would be .effect ?1 418 (5 hir. 1973 ,
in a c conviction, Judge Bell
.because of my concern about his lack of chilled from meeting his responsibil ties. view
imriprefwmiina' of constitutional ,-faits In his n.nna.rent desire to uphold the encountered-the-claim that the President
1: in the area of wiretapping. State legislature's action, Bell designed a naa --mnerenL - auLnurity w ttut.,,vri~c
Approved For Release 2006/03/17 : CIA-RDP80SO1268A000200010036-2
 S 1330 CONGRESSIONAL-RECORD -SENATE January 25, 1977
q?arrantleca n,trP _a aingt AmgilC~x1 those charged with this investigative and at a t i h the rights of privacy
,
gitlziKi or farei~'1F as;M0 8/d x 16bAUREWSOM 269Ar O ~ liah2 amendment or the
of when to utilize constitutionally
e
d
g
s
right of free speech.
The fifth circuit had faced the question Ju
sensitive means In pursuing their tasks. The
once before, in the case Of States historical judgment, which the Fourth The questions in my mind, still re-
v. Clay, 430 F. 2d 165 (5th G'ir. 1970), an Amendment accepts, is that unreviewed ex- ]~tlarra~s-How, Yn the fufure; w1~21VIi--$eU
had withheld the President's right to ecutive discretion may yield too readily to Construe an m erprfftlies c ~-
authorize warrantless surveillance based pressures to obtain incriminating evidence t 1-171 s wfien;B o&&-7
on his status as Commander in Chief. In and overlook potential invasions of privacy Though f am encouraged by Mr. BeII's
the interim, however, the Supreme Court and protected speech. testimony before the Judiciary Commit-
had decided United States v. United The PRESIDING OFFICER.. The Sen- i tee, my reservations impel me to vote in
40
States D ritual l.vu, t,.^L?M ?1ea ++ case,
ator"s time has expired.
U.S. 297 (1972) hoidinx that the Press- Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, will the . Mr. President,. I yield the floor.
de had no inherent power to disregaard? Senator yield 2 or 3 additional minutes? The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who
the four amen - n and autYstlrize Mr. MATHIAS. I yield the Senator 3 yields time?
warrantless electronic s-u-rv-QX once Ill additional minutes. Mr. MATHIAS. Mr. President, I yield
cases involving internal security. Despite The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sea- 10 minutes to the distinguished Senator
-7u3g'e T3e11 u- p"FielcFt ator may proceed. from New Mexico (Mr. SCH vtITT) .
the-Reitli case
,
o rent" Pi esirte _ ower Mr. NELSON. In sharp contrast to Mr. SCHMITT. Mr. President, I came
withouE t ell sZigFt?st cM91deration of the Judge Bell's treatment of the issue, when to this Chamber this morning under 1ded
as to
ure men rl'fs~. the Court of Appeals for the District of the question of the nomination of
~gg~erv-aiTfngt
it is extraordinary that Judge Bell Columbia faced the questiop of whether Griffin Bell to be Attorney General. I
could fail completely to consider the warrantless electronic surveillance in have been listening to the arguments for J
analysis of the Supreme Court in Keith. foreign intelligence cases could be and against with Consi(ierable interest, I
Although the Keith case dealt only with squared with the fourth amendment, it think with the net insult that I have
Internal security, the Court's balancing carefuly considered the reasoning and been educated greatly by the distin-
of fourth amendment rights against the. effect of Keith and held that a warrant gUished Senators on both. sides of the
reasons asserted by the Government for was required for a foreign Ifitel7l - el ce ale and both sides of the issue.
.~ warrantless surveillance was clearly rel-~t"aYI?e`r citizen, at leas? I find, however, that the arguments
taps for the nomination of. Mr. Bell have, in
avant to the issue of foreign intelligence rail glare was no coillabara ion wa
. any judgment come out circuitous and
' 2df ia' T9757 seem to be. an a.i;i:eli,pt; to rationalize iii
o sign pow~Y Z1~~ 7lritcttclr ul r~ not very convincing pt to ration rob- .
In Keith the Justice Department ad-
t p
e S
(
i
~
ous
u> rerne
Y~ia ti
ze
vanced three reasons why a warrant reco'ri
should not be required In an Intelligence has no yet ruled on t e CoiuStit-'ut3oria ity lams in the record that Mr. Bell has pre-
tap: First, the purpose of the surveil- offwarran ess oreign inte111ger,ce "w red seated to us.
lance was to gather intelligence, not evi- ag ms1-Mnet7~ali tide If-TttBge On the other hand, the arguments
dence for prosecution: second, the Judi- lullyy analyze d li lpaet-- against the nomination, as much as I
of KeiL zI an I-eonCTtided tYiet fareagi . --- hate to'be against things-I would much
ci expertise evaluating threats to 1 igence Saps were diifei c tit Ali i Yz rather be positive in my actions as a
tion was made-
N
f th
"
a
e
o
the e security
from--lcomes c securi y tali to justify Senator-nevertheless, the arguments
quate; and third, there was a danger of against the nomination seem to be based
security leaks if this information had to would t,_tYiz xapitliail solidly in fact, and. seem to create a
be disclosed in Court. The Court rejected 1d hays had some Plausibility-al- fairly consistent pattern of activity by
each of these, singly and collectively, as though would not have agreed. Haildl W' Mr. Bell that mitigates against his fu-
owever r _ - ra ed tore performance as Attorney General.
insufficient to justify overriding the tar-
get's fourth amendment rights. In reach- a disturbing willingness to accede to the
ing its conclusion, the unanimous Court rliiim o err a mower wiiaa c r8- I emphasize that they seem to repre-
made a 'number of statements suggest- ful analysis. ---sent a pattern rather than isolated in-
ing that the fourth amendment rights of Judas y^u~.atatemenl,LabOtlt the issue stances or isolated problems which can;
Americans could not be disregarded o Inherent Presidential power at his be rationalized away.
., . y vaTa x Pin Mr n-ialcr,t- rnl?n~~nFl.. 7 ?ili?
aaaaa v. U- ?? --?--~---- --- --~, - were more eneoura While he re not vote to confirm ,vi.r. Gririlil Bell :3s
the justification of national security: mg rained 'role Attorney General, not because I do.
udg rag whether the con-
nment to
It the legitimate need of Gover safeguard domestic security requires the use stitutional power existed, 1-it xl?a` sad want the President of the United State;
of electronic surveillance. the question is S Lat?4Tt#Al: CR1$I.BtiozLt~P53F-1~1is war- to have Cabinet members in whom he
whether the needs of citimns for privacy rant procedure L+~a1i-electronic-slif'veif- has complete persona) confdence-, but
and free expression may not be better pro- once n the Uni It gatll i, f'of~- because I believe Mr. Bell's record aloes.
tected by requiring a warrant before such 1sign intelligence. He also said that hi-, not demonstrate the required impartial-
surveillance is undertaken. We must also ask woiia couff i~res e1? Z g:,Ci`. !i -to sty and adherence to Ctbic't standards,
whether a warrant requirement would un- sse any claim to inherent Presidential I hope that we will all confider his rec-
duly frustrate the efforts of Government to utho---ri~y - Ord with the same nonpartisan wisdom ?
protect itself from acts of subversion and SIDING OF`F'ICER The Sen- that eventually came to bear on events
overthrow directed against it. surrounding the Watergate affair.
* * * tor's additional time has expired.
National security cases .. often reflect a Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, will the I am particularly concerned by first,
convergence of First and Fourth Amendment Senator yield 2 additional minutes? his failure to disqualify himself as a
values not present in cases of "ordinary" Mr. MATHIAS. I yield the Senator 2 judge In the school desegration case of
crime. Though the investigative duty of the additional minutes. Calhoun against Latimer in which he had
executive may be stronger in such cases, so The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen- originally been "of counsel" to the Gov-
also is there greater jtopardy to constitution- - ator is yielded 2 additional minutes, and ernor of Georgia; second, his failure to
ally protected speech ... History docu-
ments the tendency of Government-how- he may proceed. disqualify himself as a judge in a test
ever benevolent its motives-to view with Mr. NELSON. Nevertheless, the Brown case Involving the exclusion of certain'
suspicion those who most fervently dispute an and cases can--notTe ovef?Iao-ems ethnic groups from a private club whiles
its policies. - T eF y did not involve pEie y pcigOernl-or at the same time being a member of such
* ? * * * minor matters. Mr. Bell did not address clubs; third, his admitted error in judg-
These Fourth Amendment freedoms cannot these issues in some casual, informal en- anent in the case of seating Julian Bond`.
properly be guaranteed if domestio security virenment. These cases were tried in in the Georgia State Legislature; fourth'
surveillances may be conducted solely with-,,
formal judicial proceedings with argu- his failure to report certain gifts as re-!
in the discretion of the executive branch- ments made and briefs filed. These deer quired by the Judicial Conference of they
ti sinus represented a carefully considered United States; and fifth,. his general at
plate The the Fourth-
executive tive officers of does not to Ga as s
Government
neutral and disinterested magistrates. Their judgment of the merits. Fundamental titude toward ethical conduct, as re-i
duty and responsibility are to enforce the first principles were at stake. Of all the ported in the record of the Senate Judi?
laws, to investigate and to prosecute. But rights shielded by the Constitution none clary Committee, is not the. attitude thif
Approved For Release 2006/03/17 : CIA-RDP80SO1268A000200010036-2