PRIVACY RIGHTS AND GOVERNMENT SURVEILLANCE

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP77M00144R000800110042-9
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 13
• Document Creation Date: December 9, 2016
• Document Release Date: August 27, 2001
• Sequence Number: 42
• Publication Date: June 16, 1975
• Content Type: OPEN

F-1 UNCLASSI+ oved F?TeI &d U01/08/30 :'CIA-RDP77M01 ap5P?Ng1M1042-9 SECRET ONLY
ROUTING AND RECORD SHEET
SUBJECT: (Optional)
FROM:
EXTENSION
NO.
islative Counsel
Le
6121
g
E
DAT
18 JUN 1975
TO: (Officer designation, room number, and
buildin
)
DATE
OFFICER'S
COMMENTS (Number each comment to show from whom
g
INITIALS
to whom. Draw a line across column after each comment.)
RECEIVED
FORWARDED
Director
s on
ement
are statements
t
at
Attached
---,
.,-,-,
_----
made
surveillance
electronic c
nsoring
are spo
who
by
legislation which would
prohibit all warrantless
3.
electronic surveillance. Not-
withstanding the many referenc
to protecting the rights of
4.
itizens, these bills
American citizens,
will, in fact, go far beyond
this. The main bill pending
before the House Judiciary
Subcommittee on Courts, Civil
and the Administra-
Liberties,
6.
HR 214
tion of Justice is
which the subcommittee itself
states "effectively abolishes
7.
national security surveillance
for intelligence purposes.
8.
You may recall reviewing this
offices memorandum on elec-
tronic surveillance legisla-
9.
tion last month. This memo
has been forwarded to the Whit
~..~
---
House, the Ad Hoc Group,
10.. ..:.
and at your suggestion, our
oversight committees. We are
also briefing several key
11.
Senators and I have r.ecommende
to you that John Warner raise
this issue with the general.
12.
counsels of. USIB agencies in
conjunction with their legis-
----
lative counsels.
13.
14. STATINTL
eor e L. Care
is.
gisiative Counsel
Approved For Releas
e 2001/0
/30 : CI
RDP77M
0144R000800110042-9
;
s
 June 16, A'b oved For RelearsO NCUA RRRP IID94444 .i 00110042-9
the Veterans' Disability Compensation But I think it also Is important for us
Survivor Benefit Act (H.R. 7767). I was to look beyond the actual events to their
conferring with some other Members implications.
and missed the vote. Mr. Speaker, I ~ am especially con-
Had I voted, I would have voted for cerned by the "chilling effect" of war-
passage of the act: rantless Government surveillance. The
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
but a far larger number of people do be-
(Mr. KEMP askedand was given per- gin to fear that they are being secretly
mission to address the House for 1 min- monitored by the Government. --
ute), It is not uncommon for me, or for any
Mr. KEMP. Mr. Speaker, on the Arm-_ to receive aretThr
strong amendment Iwas temporarily de- from a constituent that be ins or en s
layed In my office with constituents. Had "I ow I'll probably en up in some FBI
I been present I would have voted "aye." or CIA file for making this coznTaint
?' ' "' Ofcourse. sal ears are essen-
tiallyneedless, but they are real and
Mr.: DOWNEY 'of `New York. Mr.
Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that
all Members. may have 5 legislative days
in which.to revise and extend their re-
marks and to include therein. extraneous
material on the subject of the special
order today by the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. ETLBERG).
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Mc-
FALL)-. Is there objection to the request
of the., gentleman from New York?,
There was no objection..
PRIVACY RIGHTS AND GOVERMENT
. _SURVEILLA.NCE ..
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under
a previous order of the House, the gentle
man from Ohio '(Mr. MOSHER) is recog-
nized for 60 minutes.
(Mr. MOSHER asked and. was, given
permission to revise and extend his remarks.).,..,
Mr. MOSHER. Mr. Speaker,.'in re-
cent years we have become increasingly:
aware of the-dangers that are posed to
the.rights to privacy of American citi-
zens. -In particular; we have become
aware of the dangers of warrantless'
Government surveillance activities.
It is the purpose of this special order
to publicly. express the concern felt by,
many Members of Congress over the dual
issues of rights-to-privacy and Govern-
ment surveillance activities.
Joining me today as cosponsor of this
special--order is the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. KASTENMEIER). We be-
lieve a? blpartisan group of Members will
join us in this dialog.-
When we requested the time for this
order we could not know that it would
come just a few days after the release of
the Rockefeller Commission's report to
the President. Certainly that report
makes this special order especially time-
ly and topical today.
Mr. KASTENMEIER and his Subcommit-
tee on Courts, Civil Liberties and the Ad-
ministration of Justice have done a com-
mendable job of disclosing and docu-
menting questionable surveillance activ-
ities, and other congressional panels also
are bringing to light various abuses of
the Government's surveillance authority.
Other Members participating in this
special order may be discussing those
specific abuses or usurpations of rights-
should examine here w y aw-a idina
by h..,jr own Government
'We have no way of measuring how
many "citizens fear to petition their
elected representatives for a "redress of
grievances" simply a right assured by the
Constitution, fear because they believe
their names will be placed in some omi-?
nous Government file. We cannot count
how many citizens have been kept away
from political gatherings for fear that
they would be photographed and in-
dexed into someone's file. No one knows-
how many individuals, decline ' to con-'
tribute to political organizations for fear
of being identified as "subversives" by
their Government. .. - ? ..
We have no way- of"telling how many
people are afraid to talk freely on their
telephones, because- they suspect that a
click or a buzz on-the line may be a
telltale sign of a wiretap installed by
Big Brother. - .
The point of all :this Is that " many
individuals are living in fear that their
the Government;'. The chilling effect of ? The scope of surveillance uractces and
this is that many citizens consequently , resu rnnvasions of persona-1 ?r_iva is
refrain from writing to their represents- Q_y.Ut that it is difficult to delizie nar-
tives, refrain from. writing letters to rowly -tD-"11W t?_;e1cuiringc1ose con
newspaper editors,-stay away from po e i >ZalQrutiny and e
litical meetings, and otherwise shy away x?eform, .
from the lawful exercise of their consti--- For example, the eavesdro ?trer maybe tutional rights. It Is a shame that any a bled erax rator or an rn epic once
American citizen would live in fear of agent. a locald)aliceman or a rivate in
our own Government-the Goverment vest, ator a sol-dies or a civilian. I may
which is supposed to protect and pre- cfretan or a uQ: He may s n-a,
sserve our rights. method totally unrelated to electronic
To remedy this situation,. Senator technology, such as examining our credit,
MATHIAS and I have introduced the Bill bank, medical,' or business records. Fie.
of Rights Procedures Act (H.R. 214). -I may open mail or he may cover mail----
am pleased to note that we are joined examine outside of envelopes sent to us.
by more than 70 cosponsors -in the Ile may engage In eavesdropping pm-su- -
I-louse; and I see that many of them are ant to a. court order or he may simply
here to participate in this evening's claim that the national security re-
special order. quires it. His surveillance may be legal or
Essentially, the Bill of Rights Proce- illegal.
dures Act provides that no agent of the My Judiciary Subcommittee on Courts,
Federal Government can conduct any Civil Liberties and the Administration of
form of surveillance on an American Justice has already held a number of days
citizen-for any reason-unless a court of hearings both this session and in the
order is obtained upon a showing of prob- 93d Congress each. dealing with a differ-
able cause. Any person who participates ent aspect of the problem, and we intend
in a warrantless wiretap or any other to continue our work with the twin goals
warrantless surveillance activity would of providing the Congress with sound leg-
be personally liable to criminal penalties, islation and assuring the enforcement of
Mr. Speaker, I think we must recog- existing laws through vigorous oversight,
nize that surveillance, or any other in- These hearings have, without a doubt,
H 5543
zen's constitutional rights. In my view,
only the courts should have the authority
to permit abridgments of the individ-
ual's constitutional rights.
Pr s n dy,,,,5 have yielded to the ex-
ecutive branch fri eni m ~rnoun_~ of
c iscretioziary,,,,,authorit in the area of
surveillance. I think it-Is naw time That,
we in a 'ongress move to restore the
proper safeguards for citizens'. rights.
The Bill of. Rights Procedures -Act is
not the only rights-to-privacy bill now.-
pending in the Congress. There are many.
other bills as well. Regardless of which
13111 or bills finally are accepted, the ob-
ject remains clear. We must act quickly
to assure private citizens that they shall,
not be subject to capricious surveillance-
by the Government. '
We must remove the Executive's clis
cretionary authority to invade citizen's
privacy. We must restore the courts to
their proper role as arbitrator' between
the citizens' rights to privacy and the
State's need to protect society.
It is our hope that this special order
,will help to illustrate the intensity of con-
gressional feeling on rights-to-privacy
and. the dangers posed by our present
state of virtually unlimited authority for
Government surveillance activities.
Mr. KASTENMEIER. Mr. Speaker, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. MOSHER. I yield to the gentleman
from Wisconsin:
(Mr. KASTENMEIER asked and was
given permission to revise and extend his
'
r. emarks.) . .
- Mr. KASTENMEIER. Mr. Speaker,' as
chairman of the House subcommittee
now considering a number of. legislative
proposals designed to limit the scope of.
Government "surveillance of Americana
I am pleased to join with ray colleague
to-privacy, and these will be helpful In fringement of a person's basic right-to- established that the fundamental right,
illustrating tlAp ` 6dtftriR t se 20 8I3().x (NAARDRIT IVI0O*44R00Q U)c44P042 $ rica is today In a state
 I4 5544
Approved For Release 2001/08/30 I -RDP7 T019 g~4R00080011004,2-9
CONGRESSIONAL R R June 16, 1975
of siege. Consider for a moment these ex-
amples from the testimony presented to
our subcommittee.
National security wiretapping, Despite
the plethora of revelations cascading
-own upon us almost a y umg t Ye
_1ast ilr about the abuses of the sso-
I'll_ri ratios Ql:,_
erment surveillance, the Department of
Justice continues to conduct approxa=
-M. Jv 10Q warrantless wiretaps eac l
year. These wiretaps are not supervised
py any ccourt: they are n reporttedd tto-
tlie Cgnaress: the subject of the wire-
jF is never notified that he has been
surveilled; he has no protection excep
the goodwill of the intelligence ga-ther--
ins bureaucracy These nations securi-
ty wiretaps may go on indefinitely. In-
deed, we heard testimony about one- tap
directed against a domestic organization
which lasted for 25 years. --
Telephone company monitoring: In
addition -to- indefinite warrentless wire-
tapping by Government - intelligence
agencies we have also received extensive
evidence of the highly questionable
eavesdropping practices of the Nation's
largest telephone -- system-American
Telephone and Telegraph Co. Between
1965 and 1970, according to testimony of
Bell executives, the company secretly
monitored over 30,000,000 telephone calls
made by its customers. The subjects of
these surveillances were never notified
even though. the purpose of the moni-
toring was to gain information which
might lead to criminal charges against
them. I should note that this practice
is justified under a questionable excep-
tion to Federal wiretap laws which allows
the phone company even greater freedom
in conducting wiretapping than law en-
forcement agencies enjoy.
Police wiretapping: The subcommittee
heard testimony from the chief of police
of a major U.S. city describing systematic
use of illegal wiretapping by police offi-
cers. In some cases this wiretapping was
conducted with the knowledge of the
very Federal law enforcement agents
charged with enforcing existing anti-
eavesdropping laws. What is particularly
shocking is that evidence from these
wiretaps was often disguished as having
come from unidentified Informants and
used as the basis for search and arrest
warrants which ultimately led to con-
victions and prison terms for the unwit-
ting subjects of the surveillances. This is
completely repulsive to our centuries old
concept of due process of law.
illegal private political wiretapping:
The same police chief who revealed ex-
tensive police wiretapping also made the
shocking observation that any person in
his city in a "controversial position
which possibly includes everyone in po-
litical life" is probably wiretapped "on a
fairly regular basis," in many cases by
private wiretappers operating wholly
outside the law.
Other forms of surveillance: We have
also learned that the pervasive use of
surveillance does not stop at wiretapping.
it includes inspection of personal, sup-
Henry fielding, a psychiatrist whose of-
fice they burgled, was by examining rec-
ords of his checking account, supplied
by a friendly bank teller. -
Not only are our telephones and pri-
vate records subject to outside scrutiny,
but our mail as well. The Chief Post In-
spector of the United States told our sub-
committee that for 20 years the Central
Intelligence Agency opened and read the
mail of American citizens, knowing that
this practice was a violation of existing
Federal law. -
Not only has mail been opened and
read, but every year the correspondence
of thousands of Americans is monitored
regularly, by the process known as a mail
cover-the systematic recording of in-
formation contained on the outside of
envelopes. By this means any State, lo-
cal, or Federal body claiming to be an
investigative agency can find out how
many letters you send or receive and with
whom you are corresponding. There are
presently no statutory safeguards
against abuses of this practice. The Pos-
tal Service admits that it regularly con-
ducts mail covers for agencies with such
questionable connections with normal
police work as a local real estate, com-
mission, a welfare department, and a
State fish and game commission..
Fortunately, the abuses of Government
power and of modern technology which
I have just described have not gone un-
noticed by Members of the House. At the
present time 24 bills directed to the prob-
lem, sponsored by over 100 Members,
are pending in my subcommittee. -
It is my hope that after further analy-
sis by the subcommittee and the full
Judiciary Committee, this House as -a
whole, will have an opportunity to de-
bate and vote on one or more of these
proposals. -
I am -taking the liberty of inserting
into the RECORD a short description of
these pending bills.
Mr. Speaker, at this time I would re-
quest unanimous consent that the record
remain open for 5 business days so that
Members not present may submit their
views on this important subject.
SURVEILLANCE BILLS PENDING IN SUBCOMMIT-
TEE GV COURTS, CIVIL LIBERTIES AND THE
ADMINISTRATION Or JUSTICE -
H.R. 141 by Mr. Kastenmeier (Surveillance
Practices and Procedures Act of 1975). Re-
quires a court order for national security
wiretaps. Also mandates regular reports to
House and Senate Judiciary and Foreign Af-
fairs Committees on national security wire-
tapping and electronic surveillance.
H.R. 142 by Mr. Kastenmeler (Freedom
from Military Surveillance Act of 1975).
Makes investigation, surveillance, and rec-
ord keeping regarding the beliefs, associa-
tions, political activities or private lives of
civilian citizens by the military a crime pun-
ishable by up to two years imprisonment or
$10,000 tine. Also provides for civil cause
of action, including class action, for actual
and punitive damages in the case of such
surveillance.
(Identical bills are: H.R. 266, Boland. H.R.
2753, 2754, 2862 and 3284, 4339 Steelman and
49 others.
H.R. 539 by Holtzman and H.R. 2556 by
Abzug are the same bill with slightly differ-
illegal, unless pursuant to a court order.
(Same effect as H.R. 620 by Long.)
H.R. 214 by Mr. Mosher (Bill ofRights Pro-
cedures Act of 1975). Prohibits interception
of any communication by electronic or other
devices, surreptitious entry, mail opening. or
the Inspection or procuring of bank, tele-
phone, credit, medical, or other business or
private records without a court order based
on probable cause a crime has been or is
about to be committed. Because robabie
cause is required. this bil e ec five v u~u1-
fishes national security surveillance for in-
telligenc eu~rposes.
(Identicalills re: H.R. 414, Fish and HR.
2330, 2603, 2604, 3113, 3487, 3855, 3874, Mosher
and 71 cosposors.)
H.R. 620 by Mr. Long of Maryland. Same
effect as H.R. 171 by Ms. Abzug. Makes wire- -
tapping, recording, and electronic surveil-
lance conducted with the consent of one or
more parties to a conversation, but without
the consent of all parties, illegal unless au-
thorized by a court order.
(H.R. 620 has 13 co-sponsors; H.R. 2453, an
identical bill, has 1 cosponsor for a total of
1.4 co-sponsors.) -
H.R. 1603 by Mr. Drinan. Makes all wire-
tapping and electronic surveillance illegal by
deleting those sections of the law currently
authorizing such activity when authorized by
a court order. - -
H.R. 1864 by Mr. Kastenmeler (Freedom -
from Surveillance Act of 1975). Makes in-
vestigation, surveillance, and record keeping
regarding the beliefs, associations, political
activity or private affairs of American citi-
zens punishable by one year imprisonment,
$10,000 fine or both, unless such activity is
conducted upon reasonable grounds to be-
lieve that the subject of the surveillance has
committed a felony or Is an applicant for
federal employment.
BILLS WITH MULTIPLE COSPONSORS- -
H.R. 214 (Bill of Rights Procedures Act, Mr.
Mosher, chief sponsor) total-72 Sponsors.
H.R. 414 (H.R. 2330, Mosher and 25 co-
sponsors) : Fish, Abzug, Anderson (Calif.),
Badillo, Conte, Conyers, Coughlin, Duncan,
Forsythe, Harrington, Helstoski, Holtzman,
McCormack, McKinney, Moorhead (Calif.),
Pettis, Quie, Regula, Roe, Ruppe, Sarasin,
Seiberling, Stark, Talcott, Charles - Wilson
(Tex.), Won Pat.
H.R. 2603, Mosher and 14-co-sponsors) :-
Anderson (Ill.), Andrews (N.D.), Ashley, Bell,
Brown (Calif.), Esch, Frenzel, Heinz, O'Brien,
Pritchard, Richmond, Solarz, Symington,
Whalen.
(H.R. 2604, Mosher and 7 co-sponsors) :
Goldwater, Conlon, Heckler, Hinshaw, Hor-
ton, Lagomarsino, Thone. -
(H.R. 3113, Mosher and 13 co-sponsors) :
Biester, Boggs, Cohen, Fenwick, Hechier
(W. Va.), Jeffords, McCloskey, Meicher,
Mitchell (Md.), Patterson (Calif.), Rangel,
Schroeder, Studds.
(H.R. 3467, Mosher and 8 co-sponsors) :
Baldus, Fauntroy, Howe, Jeffords, Matsunaga,
Spellman, Steelman, Stokes.
(H.R. 3855) : Hammerschmidt.
(H.R. 3874, Masher, Hammerschmidt and -
2 others) : Keys, Long (Md.). -
H.R. 142. (Freedom from Military Surveil-
lance Act of 1975, Mr. Kastenmeler, chief
sponsor, and Mr. Steelman, total 72 spon-
sors.)
H.R. 266: Boland. -
H.R. 3753: Steelman, Goldwater, Horton,
Koch, Vigorito, Martin, Meicher, Regula, For-
sythe, Solarz, Spence, Pritchard, Mathis.
Thone, Keys, Charles Wilson (Tex.), Brown
(Calif.), Symington, Charles Wilson (Calif.),
Hefner, Edgar, Ryan, Anderson (Ili.), Mosher,
Talcott.
posedly private records as well. For ex- entlangu.uage). (II.R. 2754 Steelman, Goldwater, Horton
example, the way tl]~fl Ji l ld ral~f i PIRY 14g- F sF7i FtlR'k~)F&1f11$~$4~f1APIRP 1$'~ ~1d c inney. Edwards
 June 16, 1971 roved For 7M 00800110042-9
pp ~~7~i: '-- ]EST 5545
and an inquiry into her activities was speeches, or any of the other entirely
undertaken. Of course, the investigation lawful activities described in my file No-
did not uncover any unlawful activity where Is the FBI or any other agency
nor anything resembling illegality. But given the power to monitor the political
the data collected was used to open an beliefs and activities of American citi-
FBI file on the unsuspecting student and zens who are exercising their constitu-
retained by the FBI until the U.S. dis- tional rights under the protection. of the
trict court ordered it destroyed. law.
Nor did the surveillance activities stop Because the Justice Department has
at the borders of the United States. Fed- refused to cooperate fully with our sub
eral agents kept watch over the activi- committee, it is impossible to specify the
ties of Americans In foreign countries, scope of this type of surveillance and
including members of the Armed Forces. recordkeeping by the FBI. If my file is
I am sure this body recalls the snoop- any indication, however, the total num--
ing. by Government agents into the lives ber of persons and doctunents involved
of American citizens residing in Ger- is staggering. Based on the limited ilifor
many. It appears that such surveillance mation available to us, It Is fair to say
was directed again at war dissenters and that the FBI presently has millions of
persons who supported the Democratic entries describing. perfectly lawful activ-
candidate for President in 19'72. Such ities of American citizens. How many
surveillance must be considered a seri- more such files are maintained by dozens
ous invasion of the constitutional rights of other Federal and State investigatory
of citizens. agencies is unknown. We can onl
Federal agents have not allowed the elate on how many of the FBI's 19,178
doctrine of separation of powers to in- employees and huw much of the Bureau's
terfere with their information gather $444.2 million budget- is wasted on. this
ing on Members of Congress. We do not insidious and unauthorized activity,
yet have an accurate picture of the ex-, TIIE F,xsCC7'1'IVE 77RANCH HAS NOT CURBE
D
tent t
hi
o w
ch the FBI and other agen- AB sYS
executive branch into the lives of our tit-
eZens and elected officials, few persons ties maintained flies on elected Members What has been the Government's re
ever expected such revelations to reach of-the National Legislature. When At- pause to these rev
L__ . _ __
, ti
e
it
R.R. 2882: Charles H. Wilson (Calif.).
If-R. 3284 (Steelman, Goldwater, Horton
and 15 co-sponsors) : Gude, .Tsongas, Har-
rington, Patttson, Obey, Coughlin, Qule,.
Riegle, Lent, Leggett, Hannaford, Biester,
Matsunaga, Chisholm, Buchanan.
(H.R. 4339 Steelman, Goldwater, Horton
and 3 co-sponsors) Hamnlerschmidt, Mc-
Cormack, Hawkins..
H.R. 620 (Abolishing One Party Consent
Eavesdropping, by Mr. Long (Md.) . chief
sponsor) : Hechler (W. Va.) Riegle, Brown
(Calif.), Chisholm, Moss, Charles Wilson
(Tex.), Mitchell (Md.), Diggs, Rangel, Hel-
stoski, Collins, Harrington, Mink.
H.R.2453 (Long and one cosponsor): Leg-
gett.
Mr. DRINAN. Mr. Speaker, will the
gentleman yield? "
Mr. MOSHER. Yes, I will yield to the
gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. DRINAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the
gentleman for yielding.
(Mr. DRINAN asked- and was given
permission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. DRINAAN. Mr. Speaker, when the
newspapers and the committees of Con-
gress only a few years ago began to un-
cover the surveillance activities of the
closures, such as the wiretaps of the 17
public officials and newspaper reporters
in connection with alleged national secu-
rity materials, were considered by many
to be abberations by an overzealous Ex-
ecutive seeking, in good faith, to protect
the Nation against subversion.
THE--WIDENING SCOPE OF SURVEILLANCE
What followed; however; was a series
of ' disclosures which widened the circle
of persons who were considered proper
subjects of surveillance by the investiga-
tory units of the executive branch. We
soon learned, for example, that during
the sixties and the seventies, the U.S.
Army, in cooperation with the FBI and
other agencies, engaged in an extensive
program of surveillance over the lawful
activities of American citizens who were
merely exercising their constitutional
rights in protesting a terrible war in
Southeast Asia and other social and po-
litical injustices. -
Civil rights groups, dissident organi-
zations, splinter political parties, and
others became the targets of extensive
surveillance by Federal and State In-
vestigators into permissible and pro-
tected conduct.
These surveillance activities did not,
to be sure, stop at the organizational
level. Not only did Government agents
consider members of these groups as
fair game for their intrusions into polit-
ical beliefs, but they also spied on per-
sons who had any connection with such
groups or their members. A few years
ago, a high school student in New Jersey
wrote to an organization which was then
the subject of Government surveillance,
apparently because someone in the Jus-
tice Department disagreed with its polit-
ical viewpoint. The student had written
Subcommittee on Civil and Constitu- a gruaging admission of the surveillance
tights of the House Judiciary'. activities, a limited attempt to disclose
tional o l Rights s -which I am a ipublicly their extent, and a total failure
Committee, sketched the scope member,
to take adequate remedial measures. 7'he
he
activit of e sketch d the scope of the agents surveillance inl the press and the committees of Congress
h
lives of legislators. While athat have not even been able to get a complete
this data llor was admitting
totally dmit unwar- that picture of the matter. For example, only
after
ranted, Mr. Levi declined to give us any- e did many, the many months t pitched hat-
thing but the most general outline of documents, highly "sanitized," :hthese intrusions in the legislative sphere, re s and t tmittee e rra" to the
n
Since that time, the Justice Depart- the press and Coliatelpro our subcommittee operation to
ment has steadfastly refused to provide disrupt lawful activities l the opl priv to
sufficient access to our-subcommittee so. groups. The awJustice Department, includ-
that we might make an independent de- Ing the Attorney General, has been
- Ing the new ant t General, has been
termination of the nature and scope of equally reluctant t
these surveillances. to provide us complete
information on other surveillance activi-
A CASE STUDY OF UNWARRANTED SURVEILLANCE tiesThus the attempts by Congress to
Only by actually examining one of exercise its proper oversight responsibili-
these files can one fully appreciate the ties have been thwarted by the executive
unwarranted invasion of privacy and the agencies, which, in my judgment, -have
wastefulness of the activity engaged in an obligation to disclose such data to the
by the FBI. I recently had occasion to Congress when requested to do so.
examine my own file which the FBI has Of course, some of these agencies,
maintained for many years. After I had which engaged in ?urvelllance, claim
spent more than 2 months pursuing my they have taken corrective steps. After
rights under the Freedom of Information Senator Ervin's inquiry into the Array
Act, Director Kelly finally released to me surveillance program, that department
a copy of most of the material contained stated that it had destroyed Its files re-,
in my file. He refused to provide certain lating to the lawful conduct of Ameri-
documents. Director Kelly stated that I cans. No one -has ever really checked to
had never been a subject of a criminal confirm that action. Even if the Army
investigation. Nevertheless, the FBI had has destroyed the files, it is important to
assiduously collected 81 pages of mate-? note that the Army was never the sole
rial concerning public activities of mine repository of the data collected. Such
both before and after my election to. Con- information was freely circulated among
gress. . various Federal investigatory agencies,
I will reproduce in the CONGRES5rQNA7, including the FBI, It was part of the co-
RECORD, in the immediate future, a copy perative effort of these agencies to car-
of the file provided to me by the FBI. I bon copy every bit of information col-,
will also attach an exchange of letters lotted and distribute it to the participat-
with Attorney General Levi on this sub- ing agencies. We have never received any
ject. I am placing this material in the assurances from these Other units that
RECORD so that all of my colleagues can the "Army files" were destroyed.
see for themselves how the FBI Is spend- The Justice Department takes the view
Ing the taxpayers' men
a course in political thought. Because the stat}~ e }}fir to I.Y. own ere in that, It any citizen seeks access to his or
the FBI then had a q~orM~{oidfhRe46Ak16SiQZ~dlQrb~~1VJ#tit ~ P O f such data will disclosed. ed One
group, the student's name was acquired mation on civil rights work, antiwar of the problems with this approach is
 11 5.54G CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -HOUSE ~7 u e 16, 1975
Approved For Release 2001/08/30: CIA-RDP77MOO 44R0008001100 2-9
that many citizens, who may have been tivities of citizens which they choose to forced by action. If the bicentennial an-
subjected to surveillance, do not know investigate. niversary of our democracy is to have
that information about them is on file
at the FBI or another investigating
agency. For example, in connection with
the Cointelpro operations, the Federal
agents must have collected thousands
of names and indexed them in files which
still exist. When Attorney General Saxbe
and then Levi admitted that much of this
activity was improper, they were asked
if the Justice Department planned to
contact all persons who were affected by-
the program. They declined to do so. If the Department of Justice refuses
to advise citizens that they were sub-
jects of improper Government activity,
such as the insidious Cointelpro program,
and if the Department refuses to dis-
close fully the nature of such activities
to the Congress, what. other avenues do-
we have to check unbridled executive
behavior. in these sensitive areas? The
only answer.. is continued attempts by
Congress to exercise its oversight respon-
amend existing laws to allow easier ac-
cess by citizen to files maintained about
them. Despite the new amendments to
the Freedom of Information Act, there
are indications that additional changes
may be necessary. A recent article in the
Nation, "You Still Need a Can Opener,"
catalogs some of the difficulties which
have arisen under the new act; and
fourth, at least with respect to investi-
gatory agencies, we should alter our
rules so that the legislative committees
have authority over the appropriations
of those units. It makes little sense for
the subcommittee of one standing com-
mittee to examine the budget of the FBI,
while another subcommittee of another
standing committee conducts oversight
of its activities. If Congress really means
to check excesses of the Executive, It must
be prepared to reform its own legislative
machinery to maximize its ability to re-
will control such operations. And if we
have to legislate partly in the dark be-
cause the executive refuses to divulge
sufficient data, I am one Member who
is prepared to do so.
LEGISLATIVE SR1[EDIES ASE NEEDED
The Congress began last fall to enact
legislation to control the executive
branch in its data collection activities.
First, we passed the Freedom of In-
formation Act amendments over the veto
of President Ford. That any President
should dare to reject a measure which
seeks to secure constitutional freedoms
by opening up files to citizens should
stand as an indication that the present
Chief Executive will not, on his own,
exercise the necessary restraint in
managing the executive bureaucracy.
Second, in December, Congress passed
the Privacy Act of 1974. Although this
law does not take effect until Septem-
ber 27; 1975, it will open additional files
to private citizens wishing to learn what
records their Government is maintaining
on them. While the law has a number of
deficiencies, it should provide a new
remedy for those who wish to look be-
hind the paper curtain which executive
employees have drawn across their file
cabinets. - -
There are a number of other measures
which Congress must enact if the con-
stitutional rights, including privacy, of
American citizens are to he restored to
their proper place in our scheme of gov-
ernment. At a minimum, we must: First,
press our right to examine clearly the
operations of the executive branch.. If
the Justice Department or any other
agency refuses to disclose data which we
consider essential in performing our
overight functions, this House must be
prepared to issue subpenas to obtain the
materials; second, enact laws which will
prohibit executive agencies, particularly
the FBI, from collecting any informa-
tion which is unrelated to investigations
into criminal conduct or into the quali-
fications.of a nominee for high office. We
cannot permit the agencies which we
resolution which would assign appro-
priations authority over the Justice De-
partment to the Judiciary Committee
should be passed at the earliest possible
time.
We must act swifter torevent the un-
warranted surveillance an in oizria iqn
x1 h n_a which has gone on for so long
to continue into the future. Before appro-
priating . undsito'tFie?3epartment of Jus-
tice for the upcoming fiscal year, we
should insure that these funds will not
be used to conduct surveillance and
maintain files which are outside the
bounds of the Department's legitimate
law enforcement responsibilities. Conse-
quently, when appropriation bills for the
Departments of State, Justice, Com-
merce, the Judiciary, and Related Agen-
cies come before the House next week, I
-intend to offer an amendment to prohibit
any sums appropriated for the activities
of the FBI to be used to gather informa
tion and maintain investigative files
which are not related to criminal inves-
tigations or other specific responsibilities
of the FBI which are authorized by law.
The adoption of such an amendment will
save the American taxpayers the money
presently being used to collect the kind
of information reflected in the contents
of my own file.
Mr. Speaker, I extend my gratitude for
arranging this special order to the l,en-
tlenien from Ohio (Mr. MOSSIER) and
from Wisconsin (Mr. KASTENMEIER), who
is also the distinguished chairman of the
Subcommittee on Courts, Civil Liberties,
and the Administration of Justice, which
has examined some of these problems in
depth. It provides an opportunity for
each of us, outside the normal course of
our legislative duties, to bring to the col-
lective attention of other Members dif-
ferent thoughts and perspectives on the
whole range of problems created by the
untoward and outrageous surveillance
activities of the Executive.
But speeches alone are not adequate
for the task of eradicating the evils
which flow from the indiscriminate sur-
significance, we must reaffirm In deeds
the principles upon which our ancestors
found this Nation 200 years ago. Noth-
ing short of that should be our goal.
Mr. MITCHELL of Maryland. Mr.
Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. MOSHER. Yes, I will yield to the
gentleman from Maryland.
(Mr. MITCHELL of Maryland asked
and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. MITCHELL of Maryland. Mr.
Speaker, for many- years I have argued
that the most grave threat to the demo-
cratic form of government does not come
from the Union of Socialist Soviet Re-
publics, nor from the People's Republic
of China, but that it comes from within
this Nation. That threat Is the illegal
trammeling of civil rights and civil lib-
erties done in the name of national se-
curity. The threat grows out of an over
reaction to peaceable protest, an almost
paranoic reaction to the exercise of the
right to dissent, and an all pervasive,
unreasoning fear about "the Communist
takeover."
The recent disclosures about the illegal
and unethical practices of the Central
Intelligence Agency, the Federal Bureau
of Investigation, the Internal Revenue
Services, and other agencies of Govern-
ment reveal how widespread and endemic
have been these practices. --
I think we in this Congress have not
done enough to disclose the extent to
which local police departments, acting In
-collusion with Federal agencies, have
violated the constitutionally guaranteed
rights of citizens, especially black citizens
and those who protested against the il-
legal war in Vietnam.
On March 4 I testified before the sub-
committee on Courts, Civil Liberties, and
the Administration of Justice. I testified
in support of H.R. 3113.
In my testimony, I established the ex-
tent to which unlawful surveillance of
citizens was done by the Baltimore City
Police Department. This evening I want
to share portions of that testimony with
you.
On February 14, 1975, 131 persons sent
the following statement to the Governor
of the State of Maryland:
As we- approach the bicentennial of the
founding of our Nation, we are troubled by
mounting evidence of police enroachmcnt
on rights guaranteed to citizens in the
Amendments to the Constitution. The pub-
lished list of names of 125 organizations on
which the Baltimore Police Department
gathered information suggests the frighten-
ing and indiscriminate scope of their activity.`
When there are real crime problems, why
has the Police Department wasted half a
million dollars a year of taxpayers money
in surveillance of such groups as the Na-
tional Association for the Advancement of
Colored People, the American Friends Serv-
ice Committee, the Baltimore Tutorial Pro-
ject and the Interdenominational Ministerial
Alliance?
While we recognize the, necessary role of
the police to maintain order and to prevent
crime, for the Police Commissioner to, justi-
fy blanket surveillance of these groups listed
to "prevent disorder, revolution and strife"
Is absurd and tragic The malorlty of people
established to have unbridled invests- veillance by government of the lives of involved were not remotely connected with
gatory authority to 1(A6OF6AIF ' Rg a lti72$b1T68/ 'dr~t l?-0,['P-f?i'oolV4 `i 6 66 ' u .-u eaonsldered crim-
 June 16, 1975 1975 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE 115547
Approved For Release 2001/08/30: CIA- DP77MR0144F200d0 Q~~Q~- n
incl. They were persons who care about Goucher, Townson State, yola an due an e i t been inimical
America and were exercising their Constitu- CCB; from the American Civil Liberties to the best interests of the country, I
tional rights as assemble, to enjoy free Union, the director, John Roemer, along. think the person has the right to know
speech, a free press, to seek redress of grlev- with 10 lawyers; included also are repre- that he was under surveillance and why
antes, hoping to make the nation more free sentatives of the American. Friends the surveillance took place.
and more just. ..
With Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, we Committee. Hopefully, you can clarify these: two
believe our Constitution was made for Based upon Information made avail- problems for me. I have and will con-
people of fundamentally differing views. The able to me to date, I am firmly convinced : tinue to support 1-1.11- 3113 because it Is
strength of the United States has been in that a national domestic espionage ap- ; legislation needed to protect basic civil
diversity, in capacity to accept difference paratus existed in America. I further liberties which are guaranteed by the
end to profit from dissent. Civil Rights via- firmly believe that this apparatus in- Constitution..
tortes were won in the 1960s because citizens volved the Federal Bureau of'Investiga- Ms. ABZUG. Mr. Speaker, will the gen-
their to.protest and
and njusticce.-rhe Vietnam war art was halted inequality Lion; the Army. Intelligence;. and local tlemanyield?
lit large ge measure e because citizens used their police departments. In this.- domestic Mr. MOSHER. I yield to the gentle
right to dissent. espionage apparatus, information gath- woman from New York
Although some were aware of the pres-__.ered, without benefit of court orders, was (Ms. ABZUG asked and was given per-'-
once of police photographers and infiltra exchanged between local police depart-, mission to revise and- extend her- re--
tors in the 1960s and early 1970s struggle for merits and Federal agencies..The Infor- mar s
human rights and peace, only now is the mation was gathered and exchanged on ABZUG. 1 Speaker, I would like
d appreciation to the gentle-
magnitude and threat of police spying In persons and organizations that were. not to ex en my ppr
Baocimrb becoming apparent, we are involved in criminal activity. man from Ohio- (Mr. MOSHER) and the
American by Civil l Liberties reports from the the Union and otpe,thers, the Obviously had the provisions of H.R. gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Knsrm-
others, mslEx) for the foresight and insistence
and by the Police Commissioner's own ad- 3113 been: In effect, this dreadful this issue of foresight and insistence
privacy
concerning: Infiltration of Peace Kafkaesque situation could not have that
and Civil Rights groups. Routine photog- developed in my city and in other cities be significally aired at this time. -
raphy of demonstrators for several years. across the Nation. Mr., Speaker, I believe that it Is tin-
Collection of Information on reporters H.R. 3113 is a good, needed bill. I have portant because we have yet to complete
writing stories unfavorable to the Police one or two areas of concern that hope- the responsibility that is placed upon us
Commissioner, or sontmverslal issues. fully can be cleared up today. by the Constitution and by the electorate
Surveillance of pe persons who write letters to make certain that those pacts. which
to editors of Newspapers. The first is with the language referring at Watergate will not be
Surveillance of Congressman Parren to. "private dwelling used and occupied we uncovered
Mitchell; infiltration of a meeting of the as a dwelling." I think this language covered over by a continuation of those
Congressman's campaign staff. needs to be broadened and I shall ex- same activities through various agencies
Surveillance of numerous other public plain why. During. my primary campaign of the executive branch of Government,
officials, including the Baltimore State's At- - in 1974, ' infiltration of. my campaign My own 'committee, the Subcommittee
torney and the head of the Community-Re- headquarters took place. Here is the on Government Information and Indi
rations Commission. visual Rights, has Jurisdiction, an the
Surveillance of Black Clergymen.. story as reported by the local press: Members know, over the Freedom of In-
ISD collection of reports on recent strik-. Leonard Jenoff, the secret police operative
ing hospital workers. .. who worked for dope trafficker_John (Liddie) formation Act and the Privacy Act, and
ISD collection of reports on individuals Jones' lawyer, also infiltrated the offices of in both of those connections we are i,ur-
and license numbers of persons entering the Rep. Parren Mitchell, it has been learned. - suing very extensively the oversight of
Friends Meeting House and other places in Jenoff 'volunteered to work "morning, various agencies which have been col
Charles Village. night, plus weekends" In Rep. Mitchell's last lecting information on the American
As citizens concerned for the well being election campaign. He also took photographs people. Our citizens have the right to
and enhancement of Baltimore, Maryland of Mitchell's campaign workers.. . know, and under the Privacy Act they
and the nation, we ask you as head of State Jenoff is an admitted supplier of informa- have the right to obtain all of the in-
and as the authority to whom the Commis- tion to the police department's Inspectional formation and data which these agencies
sioner of Police is responsible, to bring to Services Division (ISD), a clandestine Intel-
an end the illegal and immoral activity of the ligence gathering unit that reports directly- have maintained.
Police Department and to help restore an and only-to Commissioner Pomerleau. In the course of our preliminary hear-
atmosphere of. respect and trust In this one of Mitchell's aides said Jenoff asked it . trigs to date, we have been shocked: to.
branch of the government. We urge that you: he could take pictures of campaign workers find that there have been extensive and
(1) End all surveillance of peaceful ac- "for a photography course he said be was' deep violations of fundamental rights':
tivity by the Police. taking." He turned over 10 to 15 pictures to of privacy, as well as first amendment
(2) Inform the public of the nature and us. I don't know if any were given to the rights, of many, mane untold numbers
scope of the activity (methods, not disclo- police. - ' of American citizens in: this country.
sure of individual files), of the "Red Squad.". There is strong evidence to suggest. - Mr. Speaker, only last week we dis-
l Inform persons if they have been
political surveillance and d no no criminal l charges that in my previous congressional cam- covered that instead of the Army's hav-
have been filed against them. Grant them the paigns similar infiltrations by paid or Ing really destroyed all of the files of
right to examine their files, to destroy them unpaid police agents took place. These civilians whom they hiue had. under sur--
If they wish, and authorize the destruction persons could have, and I believe did, in- veillance, they discovered by accident
of duplicate files... spect records of telephone calls, credit some more files, now numbering at least
(4) Develop written standards controlling records, and the like. Therefore, I.would 9,000. The Secret Service has Indicated
Police Department surveillance and infiltra- like to see the language broadened to It is maintaining surveillance on 47,000
tion; restrict Police investigation to areas
where there is evidence of criminal activitycover that kind of situation. citizens, although they admit only 300
.
(5) Develop : a system of accountability, My second area of concern deal with of those persons could actually constitute
giving an independent civilian body the section 2519, "Reports concerning inter- a threat to the life and safety Of the
power to review Police methods, files, etc. cepted wire, oral and other communica- President or his family and other per-
(6) Place the Office of Police Commissioner tions." I am aware of the complexity of sons under their protection.
under the Mayor, and encourage leadership legal, bona fide information gathering by _ The CIA as we all know ha?, cenriciugW
sensitive to individual liberty and sympa- agencies and I am keenly aware of the massive curve ante over the activities
thetic to the rights of privacy. need for confidentiality to govern such American citizens. These facts have
Included among the 131 signers of this ? operations. However, I do feel that the yen eve oe n_ hearings -benlg eon-
statement were the names of over 40 person on whom information was gath_ cCiieiecf by fileeect 'FL_ of `tie
religious leaders including Bishop Joseph ered ought be advised somewhere down Senate, b rriycommTtEee b other co" i
Gossman, the Reverend Hugh Diekin- ? the line that he was the object of such music in Con ess,me u in ?~iedG?o'-
son, and the Reverend Vernon Dobson-,, activities. Obviously, if the intercepts- re- mittee on the Judiciary, as well 'as fge
from the NAACP, Enolia P. McMillan, suit in a specific criminal charge, then ...3Q0]$ Cplx}1pEign
president, and Leonard L. Saunders, vice- the person would know. - We find there have been serious inva-
president; also representatives from However, if intercepts do not result in sions of. privacy through surveillance not
Johns Hopkins University and Medical such a charge-or charges-or if indeed only' by the CIA but also by the FBI In
Institutions; representatives from intercepts prove that the individuals con- an unauthorized manner, including vio--
Approved For Release 2001/08/30 : CIA-RDP77M00144R000800110042-9
 -- ~aE acne- 16, 1975
XONGRESSION COZI?
lation of the postal laws, in that first-
class mail was illegally opened. We have
also discovered unauthorized wiretaps,
infiltration of political groups, and out-
right burglary.
Legislative control must be exercised
in this area. The Congress must not only
continue its oversight activities, but must
enact legislation which will stop the kind
of abuse-we have recently discovered..
M su ommlt~Qe will continue its
oversight in our jurisdictional area of
dovernment information an rivac .
'y gilation defined
to control the ex .g,~P9 pf t$e Govern-
0t1n111: uoliceagencies. Hearings have al-
gfi4ty begin on amendments to the Si -
Aci ' r p m menu wi Il move
R
e ease / - DP 441(000800110 42-9
that this kind of activity has on the atmosphere of fear has, which I empha-
whole free society, because there is the sized in my earlier remarks. This seems
danger that, through surveillance or
even because of the popular belief that
there is the existence of surveillance, we
will discourage the kind of full, free, and
unrestrained exchange of ideas and view-
points on -which democracy is based.
When people and citizens and partici-
pants in political debate feel they must
restrain their utterances, that they must
watch their tongues, that they must have
a care about which groups they join or
which candidates they vote for and who
they write letters to or who they receive
letters from because somebody might be
watching them, we are taking that first
step-but it Is a very long step-toward
the very totalitarianism that these ac-
tivities are proclaimed-to prevent and
deter; then we are in our way In America
reaching toward the kind of closed soci-
ety that the CIA, the FBI, and all the
other intelligence-gathering agencies as-
sure us in the defense of their- actions
they are trying to keep from happening.
It has long been the hallmark of to-
talitarian societies that only approved
persons ought to participate in the polit-
to me to be a matter of extreme concern.
Mr. Speaker, I now yield to the gentle-
man from New York (Mr. BADILLO).
(Mr. BADILLO asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his re-
marks.) - -
Mr. BADILLO. Mr. Speaker, I want to
commend the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
MOSHER) and the gentleman from Wis-
consin (Mr. KASTENMEIER), for having
brought up this special order which I
think is particularly appropriate for dis-
cussion at this time in view of the report
of the Rockefeller Commission.
I think that the statements and the
recommendations of the Rockefeller
Commission, which merely call upon the
President to tell the postal authorities
and the- CIA not to do it again, that is,
not to violate the law, cannot be ac-
cepted by this Congress. I think in view
of those recommendations, it is urgent
that our subcommittee and the Com-
mittee on the Judiciary, of which I am
a member, take action at.this session to
pass either the bill advocated by the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. MosslEa) or
CZp~tillsj~ecret Service in the origi-
11-1 bill. The facts that have recently
_c. ke it imperative that
the CIA aud. the Secret Service be e
gcS4ltIltab2le to each American citizen
whose rights have been abridged by their
activities.
In addition I am considering legisla-
tion which. will control the spread of
computers throughout the Govern-
ment-especially the linking of various
computers through advanced communi-
cations networks. I have also introduced
legislation which would prohibit the in-
terception of certain communications
unless all parties to the communication
agree to the monitoring or interception.
Mr. Speaker, I especially want to com-
pliment again the gentleman from Ohio
(Mr.-MOSHER), who brought thisspecial
order, because we can do a lot more to
bring this matter to the attention of the
Congress and the public. -
(Ms. ABZUG asked and was given
permission to revise and extend her
remarks.) - -
Mr. M.IKVA. Mr. Speaker, will the gen-
tleman yield?
Mr. - MOSHER. I yield to the gentle-
man from Illinois (Mn MncvA)..
Mr. MIKVA. Mr. Speaker, I want to
join my colleagues in commending the--
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. MOSHER) for
his concern about this problem and -for
his focusing the attention of the Con
gress and of the people on this problem.
It is a problem that has not gone away,
and it will not go away unless all of us
express the kind of concern that he has
shown.
There is a feeling extant in the coun-
try that if one has nothing to hide, if
one has done nothing wrong, what dif-
ference does it make if somebody is fol-
lowing him around or if somebody is lis-
tening in on his telephone conversations?
And indeed there is also a feeling that,
after all, if a few thousand people or even
10,000 people are being -watched and
spied upon and their activities are being
reviewed, In a country containing 213
million citizens this somehow is not a
very serious problem.
Mr. Speaker, I think, in addition to
the violations of the rights of people who
are being followed and who are being
interdicted and their freedom threat-
ened, that there is a much more serious
problem, and that Is the deterrent effect
ical process- - an appropriate bill that will deal with
If we did not have the right ideas, if the question of surveillance. -
we did not vote for the right people, and I just want to cite one example of the
if we did not have the right relationships need for urgency. The Rockefeller Com-
with other people in the public arena, mission report points out that there were
then we ought not get involved. a limited number of mail openings that
There was and is a deliberate effort took place during the 20-year period
in totalitarian states to keep people from where the mail was being opened, but
getting. involved in political processes, Mr. Cotter, who testified before our sub-
and if wedo not want that kind of deter- committee and who is the chief postal
rent here, then we must finally put a inspector, indicated clearly that the ar-
check on the kind of- Government sur- rangement for the opening of the mail
veillance of activities, particularly in the was such that there really was no way
political arena, which is going to put a in which the -postal Inspectors could
chill on that kind of. thing in the po- know how many letters, in fact, were
litical arena opened by the CIA and the FBI per-
I. suppose- that one of the problems sonnel who were involved. -
about trying to - do anything about it is - Therefore, in the light of that, to- sug-
that most of- the time the Government gest that it is enough merely for the
agencies which are involved end up by President to say to the agencies involved
saying, "We did not do it, and we promise not to take this action, I think is totally
to stop." - inadequate. I think, therefore, we should
It is always a very ephemeral kind of take action now.
proof That one has about who is being I. think we have to go even further,
of the surveillance exists. There is always o
some kind of justification for it. agreed for a period of 20 years not to
Mr. Speaker, I would only say that if prosecute anvone who was violating the
the Congress does not begin to treat with law and who was a member of the CIA
seriousness of the problem that-the gen- because- they agreed to let the CIA, ip
tleman from Ohio (Mr. MOSHER) sug- e ect?. iilvesti;a e i tself
gesss and my distinguished colleague, the i think, under those circumstances,
gentleman from Wisconsin, my former the fact that President Ford said last
chairman, suggests, I think we are going week that he was referring all of the
to deserve the kind of trouble we have materials received from the Rockefeller
because, when all Is said and done, If we Commission to the Justice Department
cannot abide the very freedom that dis- is an inadequate recommendation be-
tinguishes this society from totalitarian cause it is the Justice Department which
states, then the Government agencies itself is violating the law.
which are engaged in that surveillance I think that not only do we havetto._
are going to be the best justification of tasEe action nabil this sessio1i,1m.j
all for engaging it because we will not be think we have to establish a special pros.-
able to exist in any other way. ecutor to see to it that those who _at;,p,
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for I aj qnt nrpro3e-
yielding. c ted including those eo le wh
Mr. MOSHER. Mr. Speaker, I especial- t11e Jus ice Department right
ly appreciate the emphasis the gentle- now.
man from Illinois (Mr. MIXVA) has just So I think it is very appropriate that
placed on the chilling effect that the we begin a dialog on this subject, and
Approved For Release 2001/08/30 : CIA-RDP77M00144R000800110042-9
 June 16, 1975 Approved For & f ?S E O &-W1 77 fflQfflR000800110042-9
H 5549
that we complete the bill, report out a . _ The Privacy Commission has had to be any electronic surveillance, regardless
bill from our. subcommittee, the. full nearly a 6-month delay in getting started Of its form, of American citizens, it.should be
committee, and on the floor of this because all of its members had not been only with prior Judicial scrutiny and ap-
House, and from the other body. appointed. But now that the President proval-with a court order. A substantial
Mr. MOSHER: Mr. Speaker, I very has announced his appointments, allformajority recommended that no itted.lla nce
s p much welcome the expression of sup- seven members will get together shortly cover, any if if any y electronic iro n ic surveillance b pewere an-
port -
port of the gentleman from New York to begin our work. I am pleased that the thorizea., it should hoLiid be only for solving ng spe-
(Mr. BADILLO) for the legislation that private sector and State governments are ciao crimes and not for obtaining general
is before the gentleman's committee. represented on the Commission. I Intend, intelligence about particular Individuals or
Mr. KOCH. Mr.. Speaker, I am pleased as I hope the other members do, to pur- groups.
to participate -in the special order on pri- sue hearings regarding the impact of The Conference also overwhelmingly rec-
vacy called for by our colleagues, privacy legislation with an open mind. ?mmended a series of procedural and other
CHARLES MOSIHER and ROBERT KASTEN- We have to be made aware of much 1n- whatever e. It eral elec a requirement rement toot,
MEIER. In the 93d Congress on April 2, formation from the private sector in de- done, it should lbe one conducted only by the
1974, Congressman BARRY GOLDWATER, veloping our report and I encourage or- Department of Justice, subject to criteria
Jr. and I sponsored a special order on the ganiza.tions to submit their reactions and procedures examined at public hearings,
issue of privacy and we were pleased to us. -' - :. and tinder close scrutiny by congressional
with the response of the members to our The special order called for today 1s -committees. Also, the Conference urged that,
concerns. The 94th Congress must be devoted to the specific issue of domestic persons subjected to illegal electronic aur-
concerned with the preservation of the surveillance activities. of the U.S. Gov- rom th be permitted to recover damages in
individual's right of privacy and I am ernment. Last from the governmental agencies engaging in
year the Annual chief such activity,
hopeful that today's dialog will elicit Justice Earl Warren Conference on Ad-
some new thoughts and serious discus- vocacy: sponsored by the Roscoe Pound- REC?Me no electronic
si0I1 on this Issue. . American.TrialLawyers Foundation held There should be no surveillanice
Last December 31, the President signed a conference on the subject of Privacy in for don (Adoptpteed do by substa intbstantiaY pmajnrit x
n )
into law the Privacy Act of 1974. This a Free Society. Three areas were dis- Commentary: While disagreement I?e-
was the culmination of a 6-year effort on cussed-data banks and dossiers, elec- mimed as to whether electronic surveillance.
my part and that of many of. our col- tronic surveillance, and political Inform- with restrictions, is permissible when related
leagues to place controls on the Federal ing. I am appending from the report of to detection and prosecution of specific
Government's collection, use and dis- the conference, in which I participated, crimes, a majority or the conferees deter-
semination . of personal information . the recommendations on electronic sur- mined that electronic surveillance for domes-
about citizens. veillance. intelligence should not be permissible,
year-
Earlier this year Congressman GOLD- - The material follows: c` RECOMMENnATroN 1T
111 - H.R. 1~6~t WmCrl FINAL REPORT-PRIVACY IN A I~'REE SOCIETY lnere snould be no electronic surveillance
provides that controls similar to those for law enfoby a
en L r margin=
PART A-RECOMMENDATIONS; ELECTRONIC (Adopted by nrowmar
in the Privacy Act be placed on State and gin)
SURVEILLANCE Conzmentar This vote . represents the
local governments and organizations in = d:
the private sector. The provisions of this Summary fundamental division among the Conferees.
(Note: Final Recommendations on rlec- . While there was general skepticism regard-
bill are by no means sealed in cement. ironic Surveillance emanating from the Con- inns the effectiveness of electronic surveil-
We have sent a questionnaire to orga- ference together with commentaries follow lance, a narrow majority believed that law
nizations affected by this legislation to this summary.) enforcement authorities should not be.al-
ascertain the reactions to it. Approxi- The Conference undertook the study of lowed to use electronic surveillance even for
nlately 500 responses have been received electronic surveillance in two areas-domestic believed dethatio l ironc su veil a e s o ld
d that electronic ovillance should
and we will be tabulating the results intelligence and law enforcement.~The Con- r
believe ila law
shortly. The results will be made avail- Terence expressed strong opposition this group insisted at it used d only
able to our colleague, tronic surveillance for domestic, intelligence for intelligence very serious offenses, it d erd only
DON EDWARDS, who , and under very strict
chairs the Judiciary Subcommittee on purposes. It opposed, by a narrow margin, the controls. There was a group of Conferees who,
Civil Rights and Constitutional Rights, use of electronic surveillance for law enforce- whatever their Individual predilections on.
and who will be holding hearings during meat purposes. this issue; made the point that our current
in discussing, two methods of electronic knowledge -concerning electronic surveil-
this Congress on the legislation. surveillance, the Conferees were opposed to
The legislation which BARRY GOLD-- both telephone to in and room bugging. lance atall levels of law enforcement (-fed-
pp g oral, state and local) is inadequate. Addi-
WATER, Jr. and I have introduced and However, they felt that room bugging was . tional empirical studies are needed to deter-
Which we consider the basic draft is for, more insidious than telephone tapping be- mine the extent and the effectiveness of its
the purposes of eliciting comments. Un- cause of the much greater and less controll- use.
doubtedly, there must be additions, de- able invasion of privacy resulting from room
surveillance. RECOMMENnATI' Q N Ill
letions and changes. That is why the A broad consensus of the Conferees revealed State and local authorities should not be
Privacy Protection Study Commission general skepticism toward electronic surveil- allowed to engage in electrpnic surveillance?
Caine into being so as to provide the lance as a tool and towards methods for con-
forum for that testimony. trol of its use. It Is Interesting to note that ' Mr. Michael Kenney wanted to be on rec-
The Privacy Act of 1974 calls for the this general skepticism was shown among ord as -being opposed to all electronic sur-
establishent of report privacy COrrimisSiOri members of such a diverse group including veillance. His singly Recommendation in this
which Wm eport to the President and many with long experience in law enforce- area would be: "There .should be no elec-
ment and in law. The opponents of electronic tronic surveillance."
the Congress in 2 years on the results of surveillance based their conclusions on a 'Mr. Kenneth Conboy dissents from this
its study on data banks in governmental, belief that electronic surveillance was of rela- Recommendation and adds the following
regional, and private organizations. The tively little value to conventional law en- statement: "I cannot subscribe to the duhi-
Commission is to determine what must forcemeat, was used primarily for minor' our logic of the proposition that, because
he done to protect personal information, offenses, produced. very serious invasions of too many gambling warrants have been is-
and the privacy of individuals. The Corn- privacy, and was uite difficult to control.. It sued in the past several years, no authority,
rn d i privacy of
are Muals h State should be noted that there was some discus- regardless of how circumscribed in execu
Senator Robert Tennessee; William sion about the validity of the available sta- tion, should be vested in the courts to issue
tistics, which indicated that electronic sur- warrants in cases involving, for example, im-
Dickinson, retired managing editor of veillance was Invoked most often in cases of minent bombings, aircraft hijacks, random
the Philadelphia Bulletin; William O. "minor offenses." killings or barbarous
g n wished murders."
Bailey, executive vice president of Aetna There were Conferees supporting some Ms. Mary C. Lawton wished it it noted
d that
Life and Casualty; David F. Linowes, a electronic surveillance for law enforcement she abstains on propositions relating to elec-
partner with Laventhol, Krekstein & Hor- purposes, who believed that the technique tronic surveillance. She felt that more pre-
??ath; Willis H. Ware, corporate research should be used only for crimes of the utmost cise definitions of terms used in the dis-
wat .,..,.... s.,.- ..n a.L_ ,-,___, ... gravity and only if controls ore ~~.......,..._.. ___
wiun snose currently in the 'Mr. Conboy did not su art the .lteoom-
myself. BARRY GOLD Approved For F to at f 1x fit' D7 M009 F~O08a-041'0t#4~ t9 supports the
myself. pp ftcFl s~ 1 th`f!'iYc'tH~Mr~ wre cone slon that state authorities. have been
 Approved Fe(EG&I kSM 13(RECMUIM'7x11QWSIF4R00080011004 %e 16, 1975
(Vote evenly divided)
Commentary: There was a sharp split over
whether state and local law enforcement of-
ficials (as opposed to federal officials) really
need electronic surveillance, whether they
have used it excessively and indiscrimin-
ately, and whether the judicial and other
controls in the statute do or can function
properly on the state level.
11 RECOMMENDATION IV
No electronic surveillance should be carried
out without a court order for any purpose
on American citizens on United States soil
or on American citizens in foreign countries.
(Adopted overwhelmingly)
Commentary: The Conferees drew atten-
tion here to the Supreme Court's decision
the United States vs. U.S. District Court, 407
U.S. 297, 92 S. Ct. 2125, 32 L. Ed. 2d 752
(1972), which suggested in an 8-0 decision
that, in all cases of electronic surveillance
on American citizens or organizations for
intelligence purposes, that is, for purposes
unrelated to solution of a specific crime, a
court order is required. Also, the Executive
Branch has no inherent power to invade a
citizen's right to privacy without satisfying
an impartial magistrate that a justification
exists for such an intrusion.
This Recommendation expresses the Con-
ference's conviction that there be no war-
rantless electronic surveillance, under any
circumstances on American citizens.
RECOMMENDATION V - .
To the extent that electronic surveillance
is permitted for law enforcement purposes,
it should be limited to crimes of the utmost
gravity.
(Adopted by large' majority)
Commentary: While there was some dis-
cussion on the meaning of "crimes of utmost
gravity," the Conference reached no final
definition of the concept, except that it
would almost certainly include an imminent
threat to life.
RECOMMENDATION VI If used at all, electronic surveillance for
law enforcement purposes- should be per-
mitted only by court order and on probable
cause subject to the following conditions:
(A) It must be directly related to specific
criminal acts or activities;
(B) There must be a specific limitation of
the time during which the device remains
in place or in use; and the length of time
permitted should be the shortest possible;
(C) There must be a definite demonstra-
tion of the need for installation of the
device;
(D) There must be no other law enforce-
ment technique available for obtaining the
information, and the applicant must demon-
strate this fully;
(E) There must be restraint-responsible
action and accurate reporting by the law
enforcement officials carrying out the order.
(Adopted overwhelmingly)
Commentary: This Recommendation re-
flects specific problems in the present opera-
tion of the electronic surveillance statute,
and is intended to supplement and make
more effective the statutory controls.
RECOMMENDATION VII
Even when electronic surveillance 1s used
with regard to crimes of utmost gravity, there
should be no electronic surveillance of
rooms-no bugging of a room.
(Adopted by large majority)
Commentary: Bugging should not be
utilized under any circumstances. Bugging
was seen as a more serious Invasion of pri-
more discriminating in the use of electronic
surveillance than federal authorites. For ex-
ample the huge number of gambling. war-
vacy than wiretapping since, while one can
refrain from using a telephone and thereby
avoid a wiretap, the presence of a room bug
in one's home or office .makes it impossible
to be free from surveillance.'
RECOMMENDATION VIII
If any federal electronic surveillance is to
be permitted, the authority for all warrants
for wiretapping should be limited to a single
governmental agency-the United States
Justice Department. The Justice Department
should be the only federal agency to install
wiretaps on United States soil and on Ameri-
can citizens abroad.
(Adopted overwhelmingly)
Commentary: Since electronic surveillance
is difficult to detect in the first place, a pro-
liferation of federal agencies engaged in wire-
tapping would Ineluctably result in more
privacy abuses than would result if all legal
wiretapping were the responsibility of only
one agency.
The Conferees were mindful of the diver-
sity of government agencies engaged in elec-
tronic surveillance which were uncovered
during the Watergate investigations-some of
them accountable to no one but the Presi-
dent-with the Justice Department and the
courts being entirely by passed.
RECOMMENDATION IX
The procedures and criteria by which wire-
taps and other forms of eavesdropping are
sought, and warrants for their use issued,
should be clearly and properly prescribed by
the United States Justice Department only
after complete public hearings on these pro-
cedures and criteria, such hearings to be held
in various parts of the country.
(Adopted overwhelmingly)
Commentary: If the Justice Department is
established as the only agency with the re-
sponsibility for federal electronic surveil-
lance, the citizenry should be made aware
of this. Furthermore, the citizenry should
be made aware of the precise processes by
which eavesdropping is permitted by the
courts and carried out by the Justice Depart-
ment. In this way the widespread fear that
government eavesdropping is pervasive can
be countered by a precise vesting of limited
authority-and accountability for any abuse
of that authority-in this one agency.
RECOMMENDATION X
A very strong congressional oversight com-
mittee should be established in both
branches of Congress to review all wiretaps
by federal agencies. This would apply to the
United States Justice Department if it were
established that it were the only govern-
mental agency authorized to wiretap.
Commentary: The unanimous approval of
this Recommendation reflects the strong con-
viction of the Conferees concerning the es-
tablishment.of an active monitoring system
by Congress-representatives selected by the
citizenry-to ensure accountability on the
part of those involved in limited, carefully
restricted, use of electronic surveillance.
' Mr. Conboy dissented from this Recom-
mendation and explained how he saw its re-
suit: "the law would simultaneously author-
ize (wiretapping) and condemn (room
bugging) electronic surveillance of the im-
minent criminal, contingent solely upon the
mode (phone conversation or face to face
meeting selected by him.)"
5 Professor John Elliff suggests that "the
United States Department of Justice should
not be the agency to install wiretaps over-
seas, since its investigative jurisdiction is
primarily within the United States. How-
ever, the Attorney General might properly
be required to approve any wiretaps in-
stalled by another agency on American citi-
zens abroad."
RECOMMENDATION XI
A reporting system should be undertaken
by the Justice Department, subject to prop-
er regulations to maintain confidentiality,
so that all information disclosed by taps can
be given to Congress for it to properly exer-
cise its oversight function. .
(Adopted unanimously)
Commentary: The information would in-
clude: the duration or the wiretap; the need
for the tap; an affidavit submitted for the
issuance of a warrant for the tap; the author-
ization by the Attorney General of specific
taps; what Information the tap revealed and
the consequences of the tap, that is, whether
there was an arrest, conviction or any other
disposition.
RECOMMENDATION XII
A specific minimum amount of damages,
plus attorney's fees, should be available for
any violation of the wiretapping or other
eavesdropping statutes by federal, state or
local officials. These damages should be re-
coverable In a federal court from the partic-
ular governmental agency engaged in such
eavesdropping.
(Adopted overwhelmingly)
Commentary: The Conferees believed that
effective sanctions must be provided against
all who violate statutes concerning the use of
electronic surveillance.
Mr. BIESTER. Mr,. Speaker, I wish to -
commend the distingunished gentleman
from Ohio (Mr. MOST-TER), and the dis-
tinguished gentleman from Wisconsin
(Mr. KASTENMEIER), for their leadership
in further bringing to the- attention of
the House and of the American public
the need for legislation in the field of
Government surveillance of private citi-
zens. I know firsthand the dedication to
civil liberties and indiivdual rights which
these two Members of Congress :have ex-
hibited in their work in the House.. . -
In March of this year, it was my privi-
lege to appear before the Subcommit-
tee on Courts, Civil Liberties, and the
Administration of Justice, chaired by Mr.
KASTENMEIEE. I testified on behalf of leg-
islation known as the Bill of Rights
Procedures Act, introduced by Mr. MosH-
ER in the House, and by the distinguished
gentlemanfrom Maryland, IVIr. MATHIAS,-
in the Senate.
The Bill of Rights Procedures Act
would require any Federal agent to ob-
tain a court order before he or she could
conduct any form oL: surveillance on a
private citizen. The--Government would
be required to der onstrate probable
cause that a crime had been or was about
to be committed before any warrant for -
surveillance could be issued. The legisla-
tion is intended to be comprehensive in
scope, to cover all forms of surveillance,
Including bugging, wiretapping, and all
other forms of electronic surveillance,
opening of mail, mail covers, entering of
dwellings, and the inspection or procure-
ment of the records of telephone, bank,
credit, medical, or other private transac-
tions.
Mr. Speaker, I believe the need for
new legislation in the field of govern-
mental surveillance of private citizens
is clearcut. The fourth amendment to
the Constitution of the United States
proclaims the right of the people to be
"secure in their persons, houses, papers
rants obtained were predominantly obtained Mr. William D. Ruckeishaus Informed the Congress about the FBI's involvement in
by theFBI. Also, jurisd a6VddeF7 1ReJeq_Vn 04/ IV FCtA PO ,t]AgM( {y1~i.~2tS~'a ;11n ,g9 not in the pub-
serious crime in terms of e ty-murder- ays ur ng w c was Asti a or i s I~f{i ctivity to go un-
is almost exclusively with state officials." of the FBI, was I called on to testify before monitored by the Congress."
 June 16, 197Approved For Rt]G- ALQkA 7 Q ?V00800110042.-9 U 5551'
and effects against unreasonable search- deal with such legitimate national secu restrained by any check--imperils our
es and seizures. Security, however, must rity concerns within our constitutional constitutional system, and thus under-
be more than an abstract legal proposi- framework-to subject governmental mines the very national security it is
tion. If security is to have any meaning surveillance to proper and reasonable ostensibly designed to protect.
at all, it'must be a sure perception of standards of procedure, and to minimize If we are to protect our genuine na--
one's condition. thescope for individual caprice or abuse tional security interests as well as safe ?
I seriously doubt that the American of power. guard individual rights within our con-
people today consider themselves secure With regard to national security, what .stitutional framework, Congress must
against unreasonable .searches and seiz- balance do we properly strike? Where, respond to the complex. challenge of
ures. Twentieth century technology has indeed, do we draw the kind of line which enacting new legislation on surveillance.
given governments and indeed private ? protects both the individual and society I feel confident that with dedicated
institutions the ability to intrude into at large? Members like CHARLES MOSHER and Bon
the private realm of an American's life - I would contend that under existing ICASTENMEIER helping to lead the way,
with staggering efiicieincy, sophistica- procedure, the rights - of the individual Congress will adequately meet this difTi.,
tion, and secrecy.:.The technological ca- under the fourth amendment are inade- cult challenge. -
pacity for an unprecedented degree and quately protected. - Mr. GOLDWATER. Mr. Speaker, I am.
scope of governmental intervention into The law presently allows surveillance very pleased that my distinguished col-
peoples lives exists today. Without new, to be undertaken on the authority of the league from Ohio, Representative
stricter safeguards and more effective President-with such authority usually - CHARLES MOSHER, and the chairman of
means of oversight and control, there is executed by the Attorney General-?--when the Judiciary Subcommittee on. Courts,
little reason to doubt that such tech- national security is considered to be at - Civil Liberties, and the Adinini.stration
nology will eventually be used, if indeed stake. of Justice, Representative ROBERT KAS-
aspects of it have not already been -it seems clear to me that such a pro- TENMEIER, have taken this special order
employed. cedure-involving individual interpre- on the subject of surveillance and tha
The American people today are sus- tation of such a broad and ambiguous interception of communications by elec-
picious of government. They are skepti- term as "national security" does, indeed, tronic and other devices of citizens of
cal not only of its ability to solve prob- allow for abuse of power. the United States. I have had the pleas-
lems, but they even question govern- The Bail of Rights Procedures _ Act iue of testifying before Mr. KASTsi&-
ment's basic motives. That skepticism is 11Q11d`LeSlt'Fy ?kka Si o_n linking MEIER'S subcommittee on Congressman.
tu.t __...
healthy to the -degree it results in de- 11 s iTV ills.ncP-anc~uciin~ that under- MosHER's bill, HR. 26K the Bill of
maids that the Congress of the United takenon grounds of national security- Rights Procedures- Act of 1975. I am a
States act forthrightly to end unneces- to a court order based on bro aT-Me cause cosponsor of that legislation, as I was in,
sary and-illegitimate intrusions into peo- -that a crime had been or was about to be the preceding Congress.- This is impor-
ple's private lives. Only - by responsibly ` comma e - tart legislation and Congressman
addressing itself to this very basic but fn~Fie case of national securit such MosiHER is to be congratulated for being
complex problem can Congress restore an order would have to be linked to sus- its author and chief proponent in the
to the American public a-_ f i r m sense of pec a sa o ale esionage. reason or House of Representatives.
security, a justified perception that one similar crimes. I do not believe that there is anyone
is indeed safe against unreasonable and Ts-this an unreasonable restraint on who can question the Interest of myself
arbitrary - or, capricious governmental executive power? Would such a require- or my family in the quick and successful
intrusion, ment hamper the proper stewardship of . combating of individual and organized
Clearly-the questions at stake in con- our national safety?- Would it Indeed . crime in the United States. I agree fully
sideration of, the whole issue of govern- swing the judicial pendulum dangerously with former Chief Justice Earl Warren's
mental surveillance go to the very core in the -direction of individual rights at statement that the modern law -enforce---
of the democratic process. This issue the expense of societal security? - ment community must utilize .all that is
forces us-; to contend with perhaps . the - -- I think not. Such a requirement is In- legitimately available- to it, including the
most basic question faced by a free so- herently reasonable and proper, and fruits of modern technology, in its battle,
ciety: where do we draw the line between would not have to subject our society to to stop crime and end lawlessness. The
the rightsof the individual and the legit- risk. - quality of our life, and the future of our
imate and necessary functions of society I am supported In this belief by the society are at stake in this battle against
as embodied In the -Government? Honorable William D. Ruckelshaus, for- crime. - - -
Stich a question has never been easy finer Deputy Attorney General and for- My support for this bill sms from my -
to answer, and it is particularly difficult mer Acting Director of the Federal - deep and sincere belief that the inallen-
in this complex and technically sophis- Bureau of Investigation. Hardly a man able rights and liberties found in the
ticated age. The introduction of national oblivious to legitimate national security Constitution and the Bill of flights
security considerations further compli- considerations, Mr. - Ruckelshaus last especially the 1st, 4th, and 14th amend-.
Cates the issue. Year stated before joint hearings of the meats relating to freedom of speech and
As a-member of the Committee on In-, Senate Committees on the Judiciary and association, securit;? in one's property
ternational Relations, a member of the Foreign Relations that he sees- "no rea- and personal possessions, and the right -
Subcommittee on National Security dur- son why all wiretaps should not be sub- to due Process.-are-being erroded by the
ing the 93d Congress, and a former mem- ject to court warrant." increasing use of surveillance as a
pri-
ber of the Judiciary Committee, I would To restrict wiretaps and other forms mary tool and investigative aid by the
particularly like 'to examine the question of surveillance to instances approved by law enforcement community. There is
of governmental surveillance in matters a Federal court, simply means the Gov- - loose an idea that electronic gadgets and
pertaining to national security. ernment must establish to the -satisfac- surveillance are by definition helpful in
Clearly all those in positions of public tion of an independent arbiter that a the prevention pf crime and in the sue-
responsibility must approach national reasonable suspicion exists as to the com- cessful prosecution of criminals. This at-
security considerations with a weighty mission of a crime affecting the national titude is apparently an outgrowth of
concern for the dangers inherent in the security of the United States. The Bill American technocracy: that things sct-
prevailing International political system, of Rights Procedures Act would thus not -entific and technical in their general ap-
and the peculiar obligations which our bar necessary national security surveil- placation to daily life are good, healthy,
position within that system imposes on lance; it would simply subject the need and desirable. It causes citizens and
the Government of the United States. for that surveillance to prior assessment members of the law enforcement commu-
Few would dispute the need for the Gov- by the judicial branch. Such a prior as- nitY to assume that the activity is com-
ernment to deal with some especially sessment simply, but significantly re- patable with our, basic rights and liber-
sensitive matters In secrecy.. Few would :moves national security surveillance ties. But, such applications, when, left
dispute the need for the Government to from the realm of possibly arbitrary, unquestioned, can clearly lead to abuse
preserve international trust In the eon-
But eqw le aVlilatLG ulscussu nos, Gove 3 u Vii 1 4r gitly received Its
But e rally ly :clear peeved ~el 1 n e Watergate break.''-In
 H 5552 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE June 16, 1975
e GAO report and
and in the illegal surv rproced F~ucCe_rC salinp15TLY3'e11`a`tLrS ih aliiiz$ bYrtY's&d sei"Qs14A99 qQPqP
by the so-called plumbers unit. There, on revelations concerning misuse of intend to forward such Information as
surveillance was conducted that directly power within the Federal executive may be gathered in congressional inves-
violated our Constitution. Some of it branch. tigations for them to act upon.
was accomplished through the misuse of These same kinds of abuses, on State The Office of Revenue Sharing has the
legitimate law enforcement -operations. and local levels, have not yet been so authority to conduct its own investiga-
In a-few instances, Federal law enforce- well documented. Enough of these activ- tion into matters such as this. If they
mnent personnel unwittingly contributed ities have been disclosed, however, to determine that "improper" use of rev-
to the problem because they had no com- give us a strong indication that the Fed- enue-sharing funds has occurred, they
prehensive, commonly identified and eral Government was not alone during may take action on one of several levels,
agreed with criterion for judging the the past 10 years in its illegal surveil- including demanding that the funds im-
legitimacy of the activity. lance. - properly used be returned to the Federal
I have a sense of urgency about this We have seen cases of State and local Treasury.
area of activity for each of us knows that agencies, in some cases using Federal There is no doubt that the responsibil-
recent events do not stand alone. They funds, maintaining improper and pos- ity of the Office of Revenue Sharing is
are not an abberation. To varying and sibly illegal surveillance on private citi- clear in these cases of policy spying. 11-
often lesser degrees, we know of events zees. In my home city of Chicago, for ex- legal surveillance certainly constitutes
like Watergate and of excesses in the ample, it has become clear that the police improper use of Federal funds. If it can
general law enforcement community intelligence division was used, at least In be determined by either the courts or by
going back over 30 years. And, the part, to maintain surveillance upon thou- a committee of the Congress, that such
current situation at the Federal level sands of Chicago area residents who
cries for improvement. Simply put, there never had been the subject of criminal
is too much vaguely defined administra- investigations. Police officials have ac-
tive authority within the executive knowledged of ter months of denials, that
branch that applies to the area of sur- surveillance was maintained and files
veiilance. Operational authority is so were kept on literally thousands of -Chi-
widely dispersed as to undermine stand- cagoans whose only "crime" was some
ardization of surveillance criterion and connection with any one of dozens of
decisions. And, the situation has not been political, civic, and community groups
made any better by the recent conflicting within the city who the administration
and contradictory court decisions that perceived as a threat to its policies. Fales
have been added to the "surveillance were maintained on, among other people,
mix." Senator CHARLES PERCY: myself; Father
Clearly what Is needed is legislation Theodore Hesburgh, president of Notre
that defines the term surveillance, re- Dame University; Arthur Woods, chair-
stricts and regularizes the authority for man of the board, Sears, & Co.; Illinois
undertaking surveillance, and that estab- State Attorney Bernard Carey; and illi-
lishes strong penalties for violations of nois State representative; and at least
basic civil rights through illegitimate three aldermen of the city of Chicago.
surveillance. The Mosher bill, H.R. 2604 In addition, secret grand jury te::.ti-
does these things. For that reason I com- mony of the former superintendent of
mend It to tile careful attention of the the Chicago Police Department, made
House. And, I thank my colleague for available to the press indicates that the
arranging for this special discussion and Superintendent was aware of illegal sur-
giving me the opportunity to participate. veillance activities, including wiretap-
Mr. METCALFE. Mr. Speaker, every- ping and burglaries which were under-
where we turn today, we see Govern- taken by the intelligence division.
ment Infringing on the civil liberties of The General Accounting Office has re-
its citizens. This Government surveil- cently completed, at the request of myself
lance, this keeping of dossiers, these and others, an investigation into the
dirty tricksy seem to pervade every level use of Federal funds for these activities.
of American Government today. These It has determined that nearly $10 mil-
activities have taken many forms, they lion was spent on the police intelligence
have been overt and covert, they have division between 1972 and 1974. Nearly
been insidious and they have been un- $5 million of these funds were Federal
disguised. moneys-$3.9 million to LEAA funds and
The -list of those Government de- between $539,000 and-$779,000 in revenue
partments and agencies Involved in this sharing funds.
spying seems endless. The White-House, The GAO was unable to determine
the FBI, the CIA, the IRS,- the Secret whether or not revenue sharing funds
Service, the U.S. Army, and State and were used to pay salaries of those offleers
local government in at least four States, who engaged in the political spying of the
have allegedly been involved In main- intelligence division. Its lack of subpena
twining files or improper surveillance on power and a continuing State grand jury
tens of thousands of American citizens. investigation severely limited its inveti-
A pattern of abuse is clear. On every gation in this respect.
governmental level, we see elected rep- Enough information was gathered by
resentatives of the people and A heir the GAO, however, to warrant further
agents conducting improper and illegal investigation. Therefore, I have written
surveillance activities for the sole pur- Chairman RODINO of the House Judiciary
pose of identifying and harassing dis- Committee and Chairman ULLMAN of the
senters and political opponents who, for Ways and Means Committee, whose com-
the most part, exercise their constitu- mittees, of course, do have subpena
tionally guaranteed rights in a legal and power, asking them to determine pre-
lawful manner. cisely what role Federal funds played in
Abuses on the Federal level have been the political intelligence activities of the
well documented In recent months. The Chicago Police Department.
laundered Rockefeller Commission re- In the case of the revenue-sharing
port, even with its extensive gaps, Is funds, I have also Informed the Office of
hope that the Office of Revenue Sharing
uses its authority in this matter to apply
the most strict penalties against States
and cities that use Federal revenue-
sharing funds in this manner.
The General Accounting Office report
outlined the use of LE-A.A funds, as well,
by the police intelligence division. Nearly
$4 million of these funds was used by the
city of Chicago to establish a computer
system to which many city agencies, in-
cluding the Intelligence division, seem to
have had access. In light of the wide-
spread misuse of such data banks by both
government and private groups, this too
would seem a matter for further study.
The General Accounting office ob-
tained informationon one other aspect
of intelligence activities in the Chicago
area. This concerned the 113th Military
Intelligence Group and its alleged sup-
port of right-wing terrorist activities. Ac-
cording to these reports, this Regular
Army unit provided Information and
weapons to militant groups such as the
Legion of Justice and assisted them In
the systematic disruption of various lib-
eral organizations in the Chicago area.
These same reports alleged that the 113th
Military Intelligence Group exchanged
information and received assistance from
the intelligence division of the Chicago
Police Department. --
The GAO, in Its Investigation, could
only determine that most files of the
113th Military Intelligence Group had
been burned in 1972 and those that had
not been destroyed "were not readily
available."
1,,Mr. Speaker, Chicago may be one of
the most blatant examples of such mis-
use of authority by high administrative
officials, but it is certainly not the only
example. Similar cases have been report-
ed in Philadelphia, Baltimore, and Hous-
ton in recent months and this, too, may
only be the tip of the iceberg.
At the time the GAO report on police
Intelligence activities in Chicago was re-
leased, I called the activities it outlined
"an obscene misuse of governmental
authority."
What I said about Chicago Is equally
true about other cities where this may
have happened and equally true about
the Federal Government's illegal surveil-
lance activities.
. These abuses have Infected nearly
Approved For Release 2001/08/30 : CIA-RDP77M00144R000800110042-9
 June 16, 1975 Approved For M Rgg"Np : 7711 -9AU1W000800110042-9
II 555
every level of government in this country, citizens of the country. There is an ob- "bigness" of these institutions, In rela-
and in almost every single case, the Fed- vious need to eliminate such stigmatizing tion to the individual and the exercise of
eral Government seems involved, either effects and to allow the Individual to be- free choice, but such "bigness" does ac
directly or indirectly. come a member of society with a clear centuate the problem. It tends to"reduce
Whether it is the use of Federal money slate. the range of alternative choices of con-
to fund the intelligence activities of local I am especially hopeful that violations duct available to the individual.
police departments-or the improper use of the-right to privacy will soon become In the 20th century, particularly in our
of Federal data banks or Army support a relic of the past. The right to privacy Nation, it has been the growth of-the
of right-wing terrorists or Cointeipro or is a freedom that should be guaranteed "bigness" of-government which has-
the White House plumbers or any of the and cherished by all. posed the single greatest threat to hu-
others, these sickening abuses of the Mr. KEMP. Mr. Speaker, I wish, first, man liberty. This growth in government
""Constitution have gone far enough. to commend my colleague, the gentleman is occasioned by the erroneous notions
If unchecked, these activities could in from Ohio (Mr. MOSHER), for providing that only government can solve the ma-
f} very real sense, mean the end of Amer- Members an opportunity this afternoon jor social, economic, and societal prob-
ican democracy as we know it. "Should to address the problems associated with lenis of our era, and that government
they continue on the massive scale that assuring the individual's right to privacy. schemes and regulations are preferable
they have existed in recent years, a The gentleman has been in the forefront to the laws' of supply and demand and
cornerstone of our system of govern- of efforts to safeguard privacy---efforts the exercise of free choice by individuals,
went-the right of dissent-would be in which have been, and are continuing to Woodrow Wilson, a doctor of philoso-
serious jeopardy... be, transformed into legislation and en- phy in history and a recognized scholar
Corrupi, and power hungry officials and acted into law. Together with other Mein- - on the processes of maintaining indi-
petty despots to the contrary, however, hers, such as the gentleman from Cali- vidual rights before coming to the Presi
the first amendment Is still with us. fornia. (Mr. GOLDWATER), he has helped dency, warned that-
Those of us who see injustice and in to increase substantially the conscious- Liberty has never come-from government.
equality in this country will continue to ness of Members and the public on the, . . The history of liberty is the history of
speak out in order to make this a better nature of the threat to personal privacy, limitations of government power, not the
country. We will not be deterred. We will This has been one of the principal is- increase of it.
not be intimidated. sues in which I have been involved also. In contradistinction to the classical
Activities such as those I have outlined -Ithink the protection of personal privacy liberalism embodied in these profound
here today, will only redouble our efforts is fundamental to the rights of free men observations of Jefferson and Wilson, de-
.to speak out against these abuses. and women-the specific rights enumer- spite the clear warnings from history as
This Congress, however, must put a ated in our Constitution and the prom-
stop to these activities wherever, they ises which: underlie them., It is a pro- prior human experience, and even the
occur. If 1 cent of Federal money, money tection against the unwarranted inteu- spite the o all-too-apparent of enmresults in our mode
that we appropriate, is used for these sion" of.someone else into the life of the rapid growth of government in our have
-
abuses, it is our responsibility, our obli- individual, and if.one examines the mul- learned ern. age; we seem, th a people, to have le. gation, to expose; it and end it, once and titude of actual and alleged violations of grown disproportionate For, at. l to tlZehe who has
for all. this right to privacy in recent years one society indisputable, _ d t of
Mr.
Mr. GUYER. Mr. Speaker, as indicated can see quite clearly that "someone else" such is factually sand hat
by
Vice President ROCKEFELLER's recent is most often an instrument of growth has occasioned an ever-
on the CIA; there is a definite need ment. govern- growing threat to individual liberty is, in
for more powerful- legislation to further The intrusions upon privacy and the my opinion, equally indisputable.
protect the individual's right to privacy. growth of government have been coexist- government's olroe the percentage terms,
Despite the fact that most States have ent. without r sir growth during been virtually
enacted laws to protect the individual, Nothing is more to blame for-the rise half century. r It g the past nearly
speceded all bounds
the right of privacy is- often routinely in government interference -and inter- of half sn has
violated. I am referring to cases in which vention in our private lives and security necessitty and perspective.
0 and 1
individuals are victimized by information than the notion that government can Between facts?
- What are 194the
on mailing lists that Government agent solve all our problems and must be given, sal and rnm
ties unethically make available.. Citizens therefore, the unrestricted range of au- al The rose by 42ti's gross ti$-
from $7
are forced to provide personal Informa- thority to do so. billion null revenue v to e rose billion;
tion about their public and private lives Orly when we-come to full grips with Total eder.5 expenditures -
to such organizations as census bureaus, those notions will we ever secure our- Federal expenditures rose by times-35
froin associations, police files, and selves and our posterity against infring,e-, h nddom $1 pr ab y to even bch
others. Even information from personal ments on the right of privacy. . will probably go even much
income tax reports is often not kept con Jefferson observed that: higher gher i n The Federal fidential. ? The Federal debt outstanding rose by
It is the' natural course of events that 14 times--from $42 billion to $605-plus
Personal records are almost as readily liberty-recedes. and government grow& billion;
available as the daily newspaper-and all While accurate, Jefferson's observa- Federal expenditures per person rose
too often, the individual is unaware that tion stated only one specific aspect of by over 15 times; -
the information contained in his records a larger and more complex equation. To The Congress enacted nearly 15,000
is being clandestinely used. wit: As external, collective human con- public laws;
The continuance of Invasion of per- trol over, and interference with, a per- Federal employment zoomed -to 'over
sonal privacy is not only degrading and son's life intensifies, individual liberty 2.8 million people;
embarrassing but. is an outright con- shrinks proportionally. - Federal forms, to be painstakingly
tradiction to the spirit of the fourth In this larger sense, the real threat to filled out by individuals and corporations,
amendment. In a nation where individ- individual liberty is the collective will of grew and grew in number and cam-
uaiity Is so greatly treasured, tolerance any'instittition or group of people which plexity; -
of such invasion is unpardonable. has the power--economic, political, or Federal investigatory surveillance, and
From my participation in' the Repub- whatever-to coerce, intimidate, control, monitoring staffs grew to enforce each
lican task force on privacy, I became deny, or even give. The recognition that and every measure;
acutely aware of the many abuses made it Is the natural course of events for lib- The number of Federal initiatives,
on the Individual with regard to loss of erty to recede a$ government grows is, most of which are reinforced through
privacy. During our concentrated efforts then, only one manifestation of threats interventionist regulatory powers and
to protect the rights of juvenile offenders, to liberty, albeit the most evident threat policies, mushroomed; and
we unearthed countless cases where, due In both Jefferson's and our times., ' - The Federal agencies which execute
to readily accessible court and police rec- The lessons of history teach us that these powers and policies-and, fre-.
ords, these Individuals have been branded this growth of collective power can r r w accordingly.
criminal" for life, an"We f01F tWs6s , c/0$/3*eC1&,R ? 00 t, ( ~' ~ e o Itemize- the
denied equal opportune e wi h other ment. The problem is not singularly the- areas of conduct now subject to Federal
 1-151554
Approved For Release 2001/08/30 : CIA-RDP77M00144R000800110042-9
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE June 10, 1975
control because there are so many, but GENERAL LEAVE
a cursory examination of any Govern-
inent organization chart shows us the
areas of our lives now subject to Govern-
ment regulation: health, education, wel-
fare, labor, commerce, housing, trans-
portation, finance, agriculture, environ-
ment, communications, wages and prices,
energy, labor-management relations,
trade, alcohol, tobacco, firearms, savings,
community relations, civil affairs, land
and natural resource uses, recreation,
commodities, securities, insurance, mar-
keting, consumer affairs, productivity,
nutrition, research, . forestry, product
standards, travel, economic development,
shipping, vocational and career oppor-
tunities, employment standards, occupa-
tional safety, child development, retire-
ment and income security, rehabilitation,
interest rates, credit availability, land
sales, aviation, railroads, highways,
safety, institutionalized voluntarism, arts
Mr. KASTENMEIER. Mr. Speaker, I
ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days In which to
revise and extend their remarks on tree
subject of the special order today of tie
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Mosxsx).
The SPEAKER. Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from Wis-
consin?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. (Mr.
MCFALL).. Under a previous order of the
House, the gentleman from Pennsyl-
vania (Mr. COUGHLIN), is recognized fcr
60 minutes.
[Mr. COUGHLIN addressed the House.
His remarks will appear hereafter in the
Extensions of Remarks.]
and humanities, equal employment op- ANNIVERSARY OF THE LENINGRAD
portunity, export-import terms, truck- TRIAL
ing, small business, veterans, postal serv-
ice. ad infinitum. The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under
The unfortunate, yet perhaps inescap- previous order of the House. the gentle-
able, impact of the exercise of- this vast man from Pennsylvania (Mr. EiaussG),
amount of Government authority was In- is recognized for 30 minutes.
fringement upon privacy. Mr. EILBERG. Mr. Speaker, on this
The manifestations were myriad: data date 5 years ago the Russian Govern-
banks, -wiretapping, electronic surveil- ment shocked, and outraged the world
lance, eavesdropping, credit histories, by sentencing 11- persons, 9 Jews and 2
medical histories, income tax informa- Christians, to death or lengthy prison
tion, Information systems, regulatory terms for simply trying to act as free
report filings, disclosure statements, men are supposed to be allowed to act.
data exchanges. The sentences, which were imposed to
Separately-and, most assuredly, deter other persons from their "dissi-
when taken collectively-these devices dent" activities were partially reduced
and procedures add up to a growing In- after protests poured in from around the
fringement on the right to be let alone,- world.
the right to privacy. Despite the harshness of the sentences
We simply must come to better under- and other continued and brutal harass-
stand the relationship between the ex- ment by the Soviet Government the Jews
tent of government and the threats to -of Russia are still trying to emigrate to
privacy. Government can carry out its
almost unlimited functions only through
Information gathering, analysis, dissem-
ination, and exchange. Thtts, we should
reduce the range of those functions.
We can, and we should, do those things
which we think are necessary to protect
the right of privacy, and such measures
as the Privacy Act of 1974 are definitely
.
freedom.
Last month I visited Russia with some
other Members of Congress and we were
able to meet with some of these men and
women in Moscow and Leningrad. In
Kiev the people whom we were supposed
to see were ordered out of the city for
the duration of our visit, but we were
able to meet with the-wife of one of the
- steps In the right direction. - men who had applied for an exit visa.
I think most Members are aware of my In Moscow we spoke with: Vitaly
efforts in that regard-the sponsorship Rubin, Leonid Raines, Irma Chernyak,
of legislation which was incorporated Sophia Belotserkovskaya, Alexander
Into that act, the Goldwater-Kemp pri- Lerner, Ida Nudel, Vladimir Slepak,
vacy amendments to the Federal Energy Anatoly Scharansky, and Joseph and
Act of 1974, the support for additional Dina :Berlin.
protection of student records, the intro- Our Leningrad meetings were with;-
duction of the first comprehensive medi- Leopold Ekchilevsky, Boris Krumgalz,
cal privacy proposal. But throughout that Mark Freydin, Vladimir Sverdlin, Alex-
work I was, and I remain, constantly andr and Oksana Chertin, George Saki-
aware of the more fundamental causes dusky, Ilia and Elleonora . Ginsburg,
of the intrusions we are trying to guard Jeaniette "Janna" Kartseva, Felix
against-the growth In Government in- Aronovich, and Ilya Shostakovsky.
tervention in our private lives. As I stated previously, the people with
We can address the causes of invasion whom we were supposed to meet In Kiev
of privacy with substantial effectiveness . were ordered out of the city-Their names
only when we address the size and ex- are: Ilya Zlobinsky, Vadim Sheinis,
tent of government and set about to re- Aleksandr Miznikhin, Vladimir Kislik,
duce and limit it, and Kim Fridman.
'I'bis, I think, we must very soon do, or We were, however, able to meet and
our entire way of life will be substanti- talk to Mizrukhln's wife, Mils.
ally altered-and it will not be for the Every one of these people, without hes-
and themselves individually to get as
much publicity and support as possible.
They all asked us to mention their names
to the Russian officials with whom we
would be meeting later.
They absolutely contradicted the peo-
ple In this country who claim we are
hurting them or the cause of Soviet
Jewry by publicly supporting them or
putting pressure on the Soviet Govern
ment in their behalf. - -
At this time Mr. Speaker, I would like
to place on the REcoan a statement of
support for the- persons sentenced 5
years ago today at the Leningrad trials
and the more than 40 Soviet Jews who
have been imprisoned for trying to reach
freedom.
STATEMENT OF SUPPORT SOR PERSONS
SENTENCED -
Five years- ago today, justice was a victim
-of the Soviet legal system,
On this date in 1970, the Soviet govern-
ment shocked the world with the arrest of
eleven persons. All received harsh prison
terms, some as long as 15 years. One was sen-
tenced to death, but in response to cries of
outrage from the free world, the sentence
was commuted to 15.years.
Nine Jews and two Christians. They were
the "criminals" of the First Leningrad Trial.
For keeping typewriters in their homes,
they were criminals.
For owning books with the word "Jew"
In them, they were criminals. And for pos-
sessing letters from relatives in Israel, they
.were criminals.
What followed their arrest was part of a
systematic plan to subdue the remarkable
Jewish national movement that emerged In
the USSR. It was a plan whose goal was to
silence and intimidate Jews seeking to emigrate to Israel. The defendants were charged
with such crimes as "betrayal of the father-
land;" "responsibility for the preparation of
a crime and for attempted crimes;" "misap-
propriation of State or public property;"
"anti-Soviet agitation or propaganda;" and
"participation ,in an anti-Soviet organiza-
tion."
Sadly, the Leningrad Trial . was only the
beginning. Since then. the Soviet Union has
used its legal system to harass Soviet Jews
whose only crime is the desire to emigrate
to their ancient homeland, Israel--a right
guaranteed by Soviet law and international
law. -
Within. recent months Mark Nashpits and
Boris T31tlionik were attested and sentenced-
to five years in exile $nr demonstrating On
behalf of Soviet Jewish -prisoners of consci-
ence; including those convicted in the Len-
ingrad Tl'ials of 1070.
Mikhail Leviev, a Soviet Jew who sought an
exit visa, was tried and sentenced to death
for "economic crimes"; and Dr. Mikhail
Shtern, a highly respected Vinnitsa physi-
cian, has been sentenced to eight years hard
labor on trumped-up charges of accepting
bribes from his patients. - -
In these and other cases the defendants
were refused counsel of their choice. Testi-
mony on their behalf was suppressed and
documents fraudulently altered in order to
convict them.
The arrests that took place on June 15th,
1970 are a reminder of the extremes to which
Soviet authorities will go in seeking to pre-
vent Soviet Jews from emigrating to -Israel.
But those arrests were not accepted in
silence by men and women of conscience
throughout the free world. Just today, for
instance, more than 5o0 lawyers from
throughout Greater Philadelphia have joined
to publish a newspaper advertisement vote-
Approved For Re ? '1' 2 1/3f'3(Ya A- 7 1 014-4 'ur 6 86 ffif ' U 04M Oc ery of 3 tice.