PREPARED STATEMENT OF STANSFIELD TURNER, DIRECTOR OF CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE ON PROPOSED LEGISLATION TO GOVERN ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE FOR FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE PURPOSES BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON LEGISLATION HOUSE PERMANENT SELECT COMMITTEE ON

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP99-00498R000300020005-5
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 4
• Document Creation Date: December 20, 2016
• Document Release Date: February 28, 2007
• Sequence Number: 5
• Publication Date: January 10, 1978
• Content Type: OPEN SOURCE

Approved For Release 2007/03/06: CIA-RDP99-00498R000300020005-5
10 January 1978
PREPARED STATEMENT
OF
STANSFIELD TURNER, DIRECTOR OF CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE
ON PROPOSED LEGISLATION TO GOVERN
ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE FOR FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE PURPOSES
BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON LEGISLATION
HOUSE PERMANENT SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of this Subcommittee, for your
invitation to appear and express my views on proposed legislation governing
electronic surveillance for foreign intelligence purposes. Last summer I
appeared before the Senate Judiciary Committee and the Senate Select Committee
on Intelligence to testify concerning S. 1566, the Senate counterpart of H. R. 7308.
At that time I indicated my support for S. 1566, and for the judicial warrant
requirement that is a central feature of that bill. I reaffirm that support today,
and in the interest of saving time I would like to submit my previous Senate
statements for the record, make a few additional remarks, and_ then proceed
to answer any questions you may have.
We are concerned here with activities that have never before been regulated
by statute, the whole field of national security surveillance, at least in its foreign
intelligence aspects, having been left aside when the Congress enacted the Omnibus
Crime Control and Safe Streets Act in 1968. To legislate comprehensively in this
field, as H. R. 7308 and S. 1566 seek to do, is a difficult and complex business. To
begin with, the foreign intelligence surveillance activities themselves are diverse,
as to purpose, as to technique, and most importantly as to degree of threat they pose
to the rights of Americans to communicate in private without fear of being overheard
 Approved For Release 2007/03/06: CIA-RDP99-00498R000300020005-5
by their Government. Beyond this pattern of factual diversity lie the hard legal
and policy issues that have caused such long debate and heated controversy.
Who are the permissible targets of this sort of surveillance; what circumstances
justify the intrusion, particularly where the communications of Americans are
concerned, and what level of proof should be required to demonstrate the existence
of those circumstances; how should responsibility be fixed within the executive
branch, and to what extent should the approval function be shared with the
judicial branch; how long should such surveillance be allowed to continue;
how should incidentally acquired information be controlled; and what happens
if a party to an intercepted communication subsequently becomes a criminal
defendant and demands to know whether he has been overheard, or if the
Government seeks to use the. fruits of surveillance as affirmative evidence of
a criminal offense?
Among the various bills that have been introduced, it seems to me that H. R. 7308
and S. 1566 represent the best and the most careful accommodation of the various
interests to be served. On the one hand, unlike H. R. 5632, which has a criminal
law orientation, they recognize foreign intelligence surveillance activities
for what they are in fact -- namely, means of obtaining necessary information
about foreign powers and their agents rather than aids in the detection and
prosecution of a crime. Secondly, the provisions of these bills differentiate
between the activities that are most likely to result in the acquisition of U. S.
person communications, and therefore are most open to abuse and most
threatening from a civil liberties standpoint, and those other activities, directed
 Approved For Release 2007/03/06: CIA-RDP99-00498R000300020005-5
against official foreign power targets, that present very little likelihood
that the privacy of American communications will be invaded or that private
information about Americans will be acquired. It is in that regard, for example,
that the bills provide for a two-tier warrant procedure, altering the approval
and other requirements as between surveillance directed against official foreign
power targets and the other permissible targets of surveillance. The distinctions
made in this respect, which appear throughout the bills, are crucial and in my
opinion mark a real improvement upon S. 3197, the forerunner of S. 1566 in the
Senate and the counterpart of H. R. 5794. Additionally, and obviously a matter
of key importance, the two bills contain an impressive array of safeguards
designed to assure that U. S. persons are not monitored in the exercise of their
First Amendment rights or because of legitimate political activities in which they
may be engaged, and that no improper use is made of any information about
Americans that might be picked up as a surveillance by-product.
I have said before that there are certain risks associated with the statutory
approaches reflected in H. R. 7308 and S. 1566. The proliferation of sensitive
information always involves risks, and the statutory procedures will unquestionably
lead to such a proliferation. But on balance I believe the risks should be
accepted, and while compliance will be somewhat onerous, I cannot say that
any proper or necessary governmental purposes will be frustrated by these
statutes or that vital intelligence information, having such value as to justify
electronic surveillance as a method of collection, will be lost.
It should also be undertood, as I am sure it already is by the members of
this Subcommittee, that the CIA is not itself involved in the conduct of surveillance
 Approved For Release 2007/03/06: CIA-RDP99-00498R000300020005-5
activities that will be authorized by these bills. However, as matters now stand
I have a role in the process through which some of these activities are considered
within the executive branch and are forwarded to the Attorney General for his
approval, and I would expect to assume a comparable role as a certifying officer
were this legislation to become law.
In sum, my overall view is that H. R. 7308 and S. 1566 strike the correct
balances, and I believe those balances could easily be upset by the substitution of
alternate legislative approaches.