PRIVACY RIGHTS AND GOVERNMENT SURVEILLANCE

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP77M00144R000800110070-8
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 12
• Document Creation Date: December 9, 2016
• Document Release Date: August 27, 2001
• Sequence Number: 70
• Publication Date: June 16, 1975
• Content Type: OPEN

June 16, 1 roved For Rel~ffl~JjA1ft7llM0($0800110070-8
the Veterans' Disability Compensation
Survivor Benefit Act (H.R. 7767). I was
conferring with some other Members
and missed the vote.
Had I voted, I would have voted for
passage of the act.
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
(Mr. KEMP asked and was given per-
mission to address the House for 1 min-
ute).
Mr. KEMP. Mr. Speaker, on the Arm-
strong amendment I was temporarily de-
layed in my office with constituents. Had
I been present I would have voted "aye."
GENERAL LEAVE
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. EILBERG).
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Mc-
FALL). Is to objection to the request
There was no objection.
PRIVACY RIGHTS AND GOVERMENT
SURVEILLANCE
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 re-
marks.)
Mr. MOSHER. Mr. Speaker, in re-
cent years we have become increasingly
ware of the dangers that are posed to
the rights to privacy of American citi-
zens. In particular, we have become
aware oi' 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 bipartisan 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-
to-privacy, and these will be helpful in
illustrating the nature of the problem,
But I think it also is important for us
to look beyond the actual events to their
implications.
Mr. Speaker, I am especially con-
cerned by the "chilling effect" of war-
rantless Government surveillance. The
number of persons who are actually sub-
ject to surveillance is relatively small,
but a far larger number of people do be-
gin to fear that they-are being secretly
monitored by the Government.
It is not uncommon for me, or for any
Member of Congress, to receive a letter
from a constituent that begins or ends,
"I know I'll probably end up in some FBI
or CIA file for making this complaint
* * *" Of course, such fears are essen-
tially needless, but they are real and
widespread nonetheless. I suggest we
should examine here why law-abiding
citizens live in fear of being spied upon
by their 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
private activities may be monitored by
the Government. The chilling effect of
this is that many citizens consequently
refrain from writing to their representa-
tives, refrain from writing letters to
newspaper editors, stay away from po-
litical meetings, and otherwise shy away
from the lawful exercise of their consti-
tutional rights. It is a shame that any
American citizen would live in fear of
our own Government-the Goverment
which is supposed to protect and pre-
serve our rights.
To remedy this situation, Senator
MATHIAs and I have introduced the Bill
of Rights Procedures Act (H.R. 214). 1
am pleased to note that we are joined
by more than 70 cosponsors in the
House; and I see that many of them are
here to participate in this evening's
special order.
Essentially, the Bill of Rights Proce-
dures Act provides that no agent of the
Federal Government can conduct any
form of surveillance on an American
citizen-for any reason-unless a court
order is obtained upon a showing of prob-
able cause. Any person who participates
in a warrantless wiretap or any other
warrantless surveillance activity would
be personally liable to criminal penalties.
Mr. Speaker, I think we must recog-
nize that surveillance, or any other in-
fringement of a person's basic right-to-
privacy, is an infringement of the citi-
NR0,,A
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.
Presently, we have yielded to the ex-
ecutive branch frightening amounts of
discretionary authority in the area of
surveillance. I think it is now time that
we in the Congress 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
bill 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 dis-
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
remarks.)
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 Americans
I am pleased to join with my colleague
from Ohio, Congressman MOSHER, in
sponsoring today's special order.
The scope of surveillance practices and
resulting invasions of personal privacy is
so vast that it is difficult to define nar-
rowly the subjects requiring close con-
gressional scrutiny and legislative
reform.
For example, the eavesdropper may be
a Federal investigator or an intelligence
agent, a local policeman, or a private in-
vestigator, a soldier or a civilian. He may
use a wiretap or a bug. He may choose a
method totally unrelated to electronic
technology, such as examining our credit,
bank, medical, or business records. He
may open mail or he may cover mail-
examine outside of envelopes sent to us.
He may engage in eavesdropping pursu-
ant to a court order or he may simply
claim that the national security re-
quires it. His surveillance may be legal or
illegal.
My Judiciary Subcommittee on Courts,
Civil Liberties and the Administration of
Justice has already held a number of days
of hearings both this session and in the
93d Congress each dealing with a differ-
ent aspect of the problem, and we intend
to continue our work with the twin goals
of providing the Congress with sound leg-
islation and assuring the enforcement of
existing laws through vigorous oversight.
These hearings have, without a doubt,
established that the fundamental right
to privacy in America is today in a state
Approved For Release 2001/08/30 : CIA-RDP77M00144R000800110070-8
 H 5544
Approved F86?ss8/COLS/&6IDPH7(144R000800110R816, 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
down upon us almost daily during the
last year about the abuses of the so-
called national security rational for Gov-
erment surveillance, the Department of
Justice continues to conduct approxi-
mately 100 warrantless wiretaps each
year. These wiretaps are not supervised
by any court; they are not reported to
the Congress; the subject of the wire-
tap is never notified that he has been
surveilled; he has no protection except
the goodwill of the intelligence gather-
ing bureaucracy. These national 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 oases 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-
posedly private records as well. For ex-
example, the way the famous White
House plumbers found out that Daniel
Ellsberg was using the services of Dr.
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 ON COURTS, CIVIL LIBERTIES AND THE
ADMINISTRATION OF 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 1978).
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 fine. Also provides for civil cause
of action, including Glass 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-
ent language).
H.R. 171 by Ms. Abzug. Makes wiretapping
and electronic surveillance conducted with
the consent of one party to the conversation
illegal, unless pursuant to a court order.
(Same effect as H.R. 620 by Long.)
H.R. 214 by Mr. Mosher (Bill of Rights Pro-
^edures 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 probable
cause is required, this bill effectively abol-
ishes national security surveillance for in-
telligence purposes.
(Identical bills are: H.R. 414, Fish and H.R.
2330, 2603, 2604, 3113, 3467, 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
14 po-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,
Seiberlin.g, 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, Hechler
(W. Va.), Jeffords, McCloskey, Melcher,
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, Mosher, Hammerschmidt and
2 others) : Keys, Long (Md.).
H.R. 142. (Freedom from Military Surveil-
lance Act of 1975, Mr. Kastenmeier, chief
sponsor, and Mr. Steelman, total 72 spon-
sors.)
H.R. 266: Boland.
H.R. 3753: Steelman, Goldwater, Horton,
Koch, Vigorito, Martin, Melcher, Regula, For-
sythe, Solari, Spence, Pritchard, Mathis,
Thone, Keys, Charles Wilson (Tex.), Brown
(Calif.), Symington, Charles Wilson (Calif.),
Hefner, Edgar, Ryan, Anderson (I11.), Mosher,
Talcott.
(H.R, 2754 Steelman, Goldwater, Horton
and 6 co-sponsors) : McKinney, Edwards
(Calif.), Mitchell (Md.), Studds, Anderson
(Calif.), Heckler (Mass.).
Approved For Release 2001/08/30 : CIA-RDP77M00144R000800110070-8
 June 16, .roved For Reletr6*WVgg 00144R000800110070-8
~(I~~ H 5545
H.R. 2882: Charles H. Wilson (Calif.), HOUSE an. inquiry into her activities was s
H.R. 3284 - (Steelman, Goldwater, Horton and an peeChes, or any of the other entirely
and rs co co-sponsors) : dude, Goldwater, Tsongas, Har- undertaken. Of course, the investigation lawful activities described in
rington, Pattison, obey, Coughlin, Quie, did not uncover any unlawful activity where is the FBI my file. No-
Riegle, Lent, Leggett, Hannaford, Biester, nor anything resembling illegality. But any other agency
Matsunaga, Chisholm, Buchanan. the data collected was used to open an beliefs and activitiesorof Americpan iciti - l
(H.R. 4339 Steelman, Goldwater, Horton FBI file on the unsuspecting student and zens who are exercising their constitu-
and 3 co-sponsors) : Hammerschmidt, Mc- retained by the FBI until the U.S. dis- tional rights under the protection of the
Oormack, Hawkins,
H .R. court ordered it destroyed. law.
620 (Abolishing One Party Consent
Eavesdropping, by Mr. Long (Md.) chief Nor did the surveillance activities stop Because the Justice Department has
sponsor) : Heckler (W. Va.), Riegle, Brown at the borders of the United States. Fed- refused to cooperate fully with our sub-
(Calif.), Chisholm, Moss, Charles Wilson eral agents kept watch over the activi- committee, it Is impossible to specify the
(Tex.), Mitchell (Md.), Diggs, Rangel, Het- ties of Americans in foreign countries, scope of this type of surveillance and
stoski, Collins, Harrington, Mink. Including members of the Armed Forces. recordkeeping by the FBI. If my file is
H.R. 2453 (Long and one cosponsor) : Leg- I am sure this body recalls the snoop- any indication, however, the total num-
gett. ing by Government agents into the lives ber of
Mr. DRINAN. Mr. Speaker, will the of American citizens residing in Ger- Is staggering. Basand Involved
ed ondocuments
the limited infor-
gentleman yield? many. It appears that such surveillance nation available to us, It is fair to say
Mr. MOSHER. Yes, I will yield to the was directed again at war dissenters and that the FBI presently has millions of
gentleman from Massachusetts. Persons who supported the Democratic entries describing perfectly lawful activ-
Mr. man from DRINAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the candidate for President In 1972. Such ities of American citizens. How many
gentleman for yielding, surveillance must be considered a seri- more such files are maintained by dozens
(Mr. gentleman DRINAN for y asked and was given ous invasion of the constitutional rights of Other Federal and State investigatory
permission
permission to revise and extend his en of citizens. agencies is unknown. We can only spec-
pec-
per is re- Federal agents have not allowed the ulate on how many of the FBI's 19,178
Mr. DRINAN. Mr. Speaker, when the doctrine of separation of powers to In- employees and huw much of the Bureau's
newspapers
newspapers and the cm aker, she the terfere with their information gather- $444.2 million budget is wasted on this
only a few years ago began to un- ing on Members of Congress. We do not insidious and unauthorized activity.
gress the a few llar activities to tun- yet have an accurate picture of the ex- THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH HAS NOT CURBED
executive branch into the lives of our the tent to which the FBI and other agen-
ties maintained files on elected Members ABUSES
re-
izens and elected officials, few persons of the National Legislature. When At- What has been the Government's ations? It has been sponse ever expected such revelations to reach torney General Levi appeared before the a grad to these scion of the It has surveillance
the magnitude they have. The initial dis- Subcommittee on Civil and Constitu- activities, grudging admission tt m e suovdislo
clpsures, such as the wiretaps of the 17 tional Rights of the House Judiciary pub publicly their liexten attempt total iailre
public officials and newspaper reporters Committee, of which I am a member, to t kl dequ extent, and a afailure
in connection with alleged national secu- he sketched the scope of the surveillance press take adequate remedial s of Congress
The
rity materials, were considered by many activities of the Federal agents into the pand the committees of Congress
to be abberations by an overzealous Ex- lives of legislators. While admitting that have not even been able to get a complete
pi of ecutive seeking, in good faith, to protect this data collection was totally unwar- after m n the many For example, Nation against subversion. ranted, Mr. Levi declined to give us any- after did the many months t ent give up
THE WIDENING SCOPE OF SURVEILLANCE thing but the most general outline of de did the Justice Deanrm" give the
What followed, however, was a series these intrusions in the legislative sphere. o ss and to our highly subcommittee rra tug
of disclosures which widened the circle Since that time, the Justice Depart- the press and Cointelpro ation o
of persons who were considered proper ment has steadfastly refused to provide pt lawful the of private
tsubjects of surveillance by the investiga- sufficient access access our subcommittee so disrupt lawfus activities of includ-
tory units of the executive branch. We that we might make an independent de- Ing the new e Attorney General, has been
soon learned, for example, that during termination of the nature and scope of
the sixties and the seventies, the U.S. these surveillances. information on reluctant ho cur oc
provide us comp
activi-
Army, in cooperation with the FBI and A CASE STUDY OF UNWARRANTED SURVEILLANCE ties. Thus the attempts sby lCg ens to
vi-
other agencies, engaged in an extensive Only by actually examining one of exercise Its proper rght responsibili-
program of surveillance over the lawful these files can one fully appreciate the ties have been thwarted by the executive
activities of American citizens who were unwarranted invasion of privacy and the agencies, which, in my merely exercising their constitutional wastefulness of the activity engaged In an obligation to disclose such ata to the
rights in protesting a terrible war in by the FBI. I recently had occasion to Congress when requested to do so.
Southeast Asia and other social and Po- examine my own file which the FBI has Of course, some of these agencies,
litical injustices. maintained for many years. After I had which engaged in surveillance, claim
Civil rights groups, dissident organi- spent more than 2 months pursuing my they have taken corrective steps. After
zations, splinter political parties, and rights under the Freedom of Information Senator Ervin's inquiry into the Army
others became the targets of extensive Act, Director Kelly finally released to me surveillance program, that department
surveillance by Federal and State in- a copy of most of the material contained stated that it had destroyed its files re-
vestigators Into permissible and pro- in my file. He refused to provide certain lating to the lawful conduct of Ameri-
tected conduct. documents. Director Kelly stated that I cans. No one has ever really checked to
These surveillance activities did not, had never been a subject of a criminal confirm that action. Even If the Army
to be sure, stop at the organizational investigation. Nevertheless, the FBI had has destroyed the files, it is important to
level. Not only did Government agents assiduously collected 81 pages of mate- note that the Army was never the sole
consider members of these groups as rial concerning public activities of mine repository of the data collected. Such
fair game for their intrusions into polit- both before and after my election to Con- information was freely circulated among
ical beliefs, but they also spied on per- gress.
sons who had any connection with such I will reproduce in the CONGRESSIONAL invarious cluding the FBI. It was part of the co-agenies,
groups or their members. A few years RECORD, in the immediate future, a copy perative effort of these agencies to car-
ago, a high school student In New Jersey of the file provided to me by the FBI. I bon copy every bit of information col-
wrote to an organization which was then will also attach an exchange of letters lected and distribute it to the participat-
the subject of Government surveillance, with Attorney General Levi on this sub- ing agencies. We have never received any
apparently because someone in the Jus- ject. I am placing this material in the assurances from these other units that
tice Department disagreed with its pblit- RECORD so that all Of my colleagues can the "Army files" were destroyed.
ical viewpoint. The student had written see for themselves how the FBI is spend- The Justice Department takes the view
for some information in connection with ing the taxpayers' money. Nowhere in that, If any citizen seeks access to his or
a course in political thought. Because the statute which establishes the FBI Is her file under the Freedom of Informa-
the FBI then had a mail cover on the contained the authority to amass infor- tion Act, such data will be disclosed. One
group, the student's name was acquired mation on civil rights work, antiwar of the problems with this approach is
Approved For Release 2001/08/30 : CIA-RDP77M00144R000800110070-8
 Approved CF'oor Release 6041 B fQCC~RD NQ144R00080011J7@-8(0, 1975
H 5546
n-
that many citizens, who may have been tivities of citizens which they choose to forced niversary by actioo rid the iaeY enniaha a
is to
subjected to surveillance, do not know investigate.
that information about them is on file Additionally, Congress should: Third, significance, we must reaffirm in deeds
at the FBI or another investigating amend existing laws to allow easier ac- tale principles upon which our ancestors
agency. For example, in connection with cess by citizen to files maintained about f )und this Nation 200 years ago. Noth-
the Cointelpro operations, the Federal them. Despite the new amendments to 1 ig short of that should be our goal.
agents must have collected thousands the Freedom of Information Act, there Mr. MITCHELL of Maryland. Mr.
of names and indexed them in files which are indications that additional changes E peaker, will the gentleman yield?
still exist. When Attorney General Saxbe may be necessary. A recent article in the Mr. MOSHER. Yes, I will yield to the
and then Levi admitted that much of this Nation, "You Still Need a Can Opener," gentleman from Maryland. HELL
asked activity improper, they were asked catalogs
arisen the new act; and ind was g ven perm ssionatolrevse and
if f the Justice Department planned to have
contact all persons who were affected by fourth, at least with respect to investi- extend his remarks.)
the program. They declined to do so. gatory agencies, we should alter our Mr. MITCHELL of Maryland. Mr. I
have
argued If the Department Justice refuses rules
appropr appropriations ' hat the most grave theat to the demo-
a have authority1o over the legislative
to improper that t they were sub-
activity, of those units. It makes little sense for ratic form of government does not come
ects as the insidious Government ogmthe subcommittee of one standing com- from the Union of Socialist Soviet Re-
such and if the Department refuses Cointelpro program, mittee to examine the budget of the FBI, )ublics, nor from the People's Republic
and if the Department rto dies while another subcommittee of another if China, but that it comes from within
close fully gre natha oo f such enuestieo standing committee conducts oversight his Nation. That threat is the illegal
w t unbridled executive of its activities. If Congress really means trammeling of civil rights and civil lib-
we the have e to ore check weck hat bher avenues do
behavior in these sensitive areas? The to check excesses of the Executive, it must ?rties done in the name of national se-
only answer is continued attempts by be prepared to reform its own legislative rarity. The threat grows out of an over
Congress to exercise its oversight respon- machinery to maximize its ability to re- reaction to peaceable protest, an almost
sibilities and to enact legislation which strain the other branch. The pending 3aranoic reaction to the exercise of the
will control such operations. And if we resolution which would assign appro- right to dissent, and an all pervasive,
have to legislate partly in the dark be- priations authority over the Justice De- unreasoning fear about "the Communist
cause the executive refuses to divulge partment to the Judiciary Committee takeover."
sufficient data, I am one Member who should be passed at the earliest possible The recent disclosures about the illegal
time. and unethical practices of the Central
is prepared to do so. Intelligence Agency, the Federal Bureau
I.EGLSLATIVE REMEDIES ARE NEEDED We must act swiftly to prevent the un- the internal Revenue
The Congress began last fall to enact warranted surveillance and information of of vices, and other , the e inters l e venue
legislation to control the executive gathering which has gone on for so long ment reveal how widespread and endemic
branch in its data collection activities. to continue into the future. Before appro- have been these practices.
First, we passed the Freedom of In- priating funds to the Department of Jus- I think we in this Congress have not
formation Act amendments over the veto tice for the upcoming fiscal year, we done enough to disclose the extent to
of President Ford. That any President should insure that these funds will not which local police departments, acting in
should dare to reject a measure which be used to conduct surveillance and collusion with Federal agencies, have
seeks to secure constitutional freedoms maintain files which are outside the violated the constitutionally guaranteed
by opening up files to citizens should bounds of the Department's legitimate rights of citizens, especially black citizens
law enforcement responsibilities. Conse- and those who protested against the il-
stand as an indication that the present quently, when appropriation bills for the legal war in Vietnam.
Chief Executive wetll r restcexercise yt, on his own, Departments of State, Justice, Com- On March 4 I testified before the sub-
managing neceive bureaucracy. y in merce, the Judiciary, and Related Agen- committee on Courts, Civil Liberties, and
managing in executive
December, Congress s passed come before the House next week, I the Administration of Justice. I testified
Secrva y ssed intend to offer an amendment to prohibit in support of H.R. 3113.
law Privacy not tae effect until Although Septem- this any sums appropriated for the activities In my testimony, I established the ex-
ber 7, 1975, take effect s of the FBI to be used to gather informa- tent to which unlawful surveillance of
bet r v tee citizens will open ado lea learn files what tion and maintain investigative files citizens was done by the Baltimore City
to priath ctizens wishing to horn whhat which are not related to criminal Ines- Police Department. This evening I want r oecords their Government is maintaining tigations or other specific responsibilities to share portions of that testimony with n deficiencies, them. i t the law
should has a provide numba er of of the FBI which are authorized by law. you.
it e who wish look be- The adoption of such an amendment will On February 14, 1975, 131 persons sent
remedy for those exec across save the American taxpayers the money the following statement to the Governor
hind the paper curtain which hexecutive presently being used to collect the kind of the State of Maryland:
employees have drawn wn across their file of information reflected in the contents As we approach the bicentennial of the
Cabinets. of my own file. founding of our Nation, we are troubled by
There are a number a other measures Mr. Speaker, I extend my gratitude for mounting evidence of police enroachment nact which nal rights, must including if the con- arranging this special order to the gen- on rights guaranteed to citizens in the
American rights, including restored of tlemen from Ohio (Mr. MOSHER) and Amendments to the Constitution. The pub-
American citizens are to be restored to from Wisconsin (Mr. KASTENMMMER) , who lished list of names of 125 organizations on
their proper. place in our scheme of gov- which the Baltimore Police Department
is also the distinguished chairman of the gathered information suggests the frighten-
At m, we a ight t to imumexamine must: First, Subcommittee on Courts. Civil Liberties, ing and indiscriminate scope of their activity.
press our r
operations our r the executive branch. the and the Administration of Justice, which When there are real crime problems, why
operations of p or branch. If has examined some of these problems in has the Police Department wasted half a
the Justice Department any other depth. It provides an opportunity for million dollars a year of taxpayers money
agency re efuses to disclose data which we each of us, outside the normal course of in surveillance of such groups as the Na-
consider essential in performing our to the col- tional Association for the Advancement of
overight functions, this House must be our legislative duties, to bring Colored People, the American Friends Serv-
lective attention of other Members dif- ice Committee, the Baltimore Tutorial Pro-
s which obtain will the ferent thoughts and perspectives on the ject and the Interdenominational Ministerial
materials; ar to ensue , enact subpenas to
second, anenlaw s whole range of problems created by the Alliance?
the FBI, from co agencies, particularly n ormauntoward and outrageous surveillance While we recognize the necessary role of
the FBI, from collecting any informers activities of the Executive, the police to maintain order and to prevent
into which is criminal conductt s ro to the quans But speeches alone are not adequate. crime, for the Police Commissioner to justi-ali- surveillance of
n and strife"
fic tt ns of nominee for high tofii e. We for the task of eradicating the evil to "pre fo "prevennt t disorder, , der rev volluttio iou groups listed
cannot permit the agencies which we which flow from the indiscriminate sur- is absurd and tragic. The majority of people
established to have unbridled investi- veillance by government of the lives of involved were not remotely connected with
gatory authority to look into any ac- our citizens. The words must be rein- any activities that could be considered crim-
Approved For Release 2001/08/30 : CIA-RDP77M00144R000800110070-8
 June 16, 1 roved For ReIGONOMMORAAI Rfh1.A0 9fl0800110070-8 H 5547
anal. They were persons who care about
America and were exercising their Constitu-
tional rights as assemble, to enjoy free
speech, a free press, to seek redress of griev-
ances, hoping to make the nation more free
and more just.
With Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, we
believe our Constitution was made for
people of fundamentally differing views. The
strength of.the United States has been in
diversity, in capacity to accept difference
and to profit from dissent. Civil Rights vic-
tories were won in the 1960s because citizens
used their right to protest against inequality
and injustice. The Vietnam war was halted
in large measure because citizens used their
right to dissent.
Although some were aware of the pres-
ence of police photographers and infiltra-
tors in the 1960s and early 1970s struggle for
human rights and peace, only now is the
magnitude and threat of police spying in
Baltimore becoming apparent. We are
shocked by reports from the newspapers, the
American Civil Liberties Union and others,
and by the Police Commissioner's own ad-
missions concerning: Infiltration of Peace
and Civil Rights groups. Routine photog-
raphy of demonstrators for several years.
Collection of information on reporters
writing stories unfavorable to the Police
Commissioner, or on controversial issues.
Surveillance of persons who write letters
to editors of Newspapers.
Surveillance of Congressman Parren
Mitchell; infiltration of a meeting of the
Congressman's campaign staff.
Surveillance of numerous other public
officials, including the Baltimore State's At-
torney and the head of the Community Re-
lations Commission.
Surveillance of Black Clergymen.
ISD collection of reports on recent strik-
ing hospital workers.
ISD collection of reports on individuals
and license numbers of persons entering the
Friends Meeting House and other places in
Charles Village.
As citizens concerned for the well being
and enhancement of Baltimore, Maryland
and the nation, we ask you as head of State
and as the authority to whom the Commis-
sioner of Police is responsible, to bring to
an end the illegal and immoral activity of the
Police Department and to help restore an
atmosphere of respect and trust in this
branch of the government. We urge that you.
(1) End all surveillance of peaceful ac-
tivity by the Police.
(2) Inform the public of the nature and
scope of the activity (methods, not disclo-
sure of individual files), of the "Red Squad."
(3) Inform persons if they have been under
political surveillance and no criminal charges
have been filed against them, Grant them the
right to examine their files, to destroy them
if they wish, and authorize the destruction
of duplicate files.
(4) Develop written standards controlling
Police Department surveillance and infiltra-
tion; restrict Police investigation to areas
where there is evidence of criminal activity.
(5) Develop a system of accountability,
giving an independent civilian body the
power to review Police methods, files, etc.
(6) Place the Office of Police Commissioner
under the Mayor, and encourage leadership
sensitive to individual liberty and sympa-
thetic to the rights of privacy.
Included among the 131 signers of this
statement were the names of over 40
religious leaders including Bishop Joseph
Gossman, the Reverend Hugh Dickin-
son, and the Reverend Vernon Dobson;
from the NAACP, Enolia P. McMillan,
president, and Leonard L. Saunders, vice-
president; also representatives from
Johns Hopkins University and Medical
Institutions; representatives from
Goucher, Townson State, Loyola and
CCB; from the, American Civil Liberties
Union, the director, John Roemer, along
with 10 lawyers; included also are repre-
sentatives of the American Friends
Committee.
Based upon information made avail-
able to me to date, I am firmly convinced
that a national domestic espionage ap-
paratus existed in America. I further
firmly believe that this apparatus in-
volved the Federal Bureau of Investiga-
tion; the Army Intelligence; and local
police departments. In this domestic
espionage apparatus, information gath-
ered, without benefit of court orders, was
exchanged between local police depart-
ments and Federal agencies. The infor-
mation was gathered and exchanged on
persons and organizations that were not
involved in criminal activity.
Obviously had the provisions of H.R.
3113 been in effect, this dreadful
Kafkaesque situation could not have
developed in my city and in other cities
across the Nation.
H.R. 3113 is a good, needed bill. I have
one or two areas of. concern that hope-
fully can be cleared up today.
The first is with the language referring
to "private dwelling used and occupied
as a dwelling." I think this language
needs to be broadened and I shall ex-
plain why. During my primary campaign
in 1974, infiltration of my campaign
headquarters took place. Here Is the
story as reported by the local press:
Leonard Jenoff, the secret police operative
who worked for dope trafficker John (Liddie)
Jones' lawyer, also infiltrated the offices of
Rep. Parren Mitchell, it has been learned.
Jenoff volunteered to work "morning,
night, plus weekends" in Rep. Mitchell's last
election campaign. He also took photographs
of Mitchell's campaign workers.
Jenoff is an admitted supplier of informa-
tion to the police department's Inspectional
Services Division (ISD), a clandestine intel-
ligence gathering unit that reports directly-
and only-to Commissioner Pomerleau.
One of Mitchell's aides said Jenoff asked if
he could take pictures of campaign workers
"for a photography course he said he was
taking." He turned over 10 to 15 pictures to
us. I don't know if any were given to the
police.
There is strong evidence to suggest
that in my previous congressional cam-
paigns similar infiltrations by paid or
unpaid police agents took place. These
persons could have, and I believe did, in-
spect records of telephone calls, credit
records, and the like. Therefore, I would
like to see the language broadened to
cover that kind of situation.
My second area of concern deal with
section 2519, "Reports concerning inter-
cepted wire, oral and other communica-
tions." I am aware of the complexity of
legal, bona fide information gathering by
agencies and I am keenly aware of the
need for confidentiality to govern such
operations. However, I do feel that the
person on whom information was gath-
ered ought be advised somewhere down
the line that he was the object of such
activities. Obviously, if the intercepts re-
sult in a specific criminal charge, then
the person would know. We find there have been serious Inva-
However, if intercepts do not result, in sions of privacy through surveillance not
such a charge-or charges-or if indeed only by the CIA but also by the FBI In
intercepts prove that the individuals con- an unauthorized manner, including vio-
duct and behavior has not been inimical
to the best interests of the country, I
think the person has the right to know
that he was under surveillance and why
the surveillance took place.
Hopefully, you can clarify these two
problems for me. I have and will con-
tinue to support H.R. 3113 because it is
legislation needed to protect basic civil
liberties which are guaranteed by the
Constitution.
Ms. ABZUG. Mr. Speaker, will the gen-
tleman yield?
Mr. MOSHER. I yield to the gentle-
woman from New York.
(Ms. ABZUG asked and was given per-
mission to revise and extend her re-
marks.)
Ms. ABZUG. Mr. Speaker, I would like
to extend my appreciation to the gentle-
man from Ohio (Mr. MOSHER) and the
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. KASTEN-
MEIER) for the foresight and insistence
that this issue of surveillance and privacy
be significally aired at this time.
Mr. Speaker, I believe that it is im-
portant because we have yet to complete
the responsibility that is placed upon us
by the Constitution and by the electorate
to make certain that those pacts which
we uncovered at Watergate will not be
covered over by a continuation of those
same activities through various agencies
of the executive branch of Government.
My own committee, the Subcommittee
on Government Information and Indi-
vidual Rights, has jurisdiction, as the
Members know, over the Freedom of In-
formation Act and the Privacy Act, and
in both of those connections we are pur-
suing very extensively the oversight of
various agencies which have been col-
lecting information on the American
people. Our citizens have the right to
know, and under the Privacy Act they
have the right to obtain all of the in-
formation and data which these agencies
have maintained.
In the course of our preliminary hear-
ings to date, we have been shocked to
find that there have been extensive and
deep violations of fundamental rights
of privacy, as well as first amendment
rights, of many, many untold numbers
of American citizens in this country.
Mr. Speaker, only last week we dis-
covered that instead of the Army's hav-
ing really destroyed all of the files of
civilians whom they have had under sur-
veillance, they discovered 'by accident
some more files, now numbering at least
9,000. The Secret Service has indicated
it is maintaining surveillance on 47,000
citizens, although they admit only 300
of those persons could actually constitute
a threat to the life and safety of the
President or his family and other per-
sons under their protection.
The CIA, as we all know, has conducted
massive surveillance over the activities
of American citizens. These facts have
been developed in hearings being con-
ducted by the Select Committee of the
Senate, by my committee, by other com-
mittees in Congress, including the Com-
mittee on the Judiciary, as well as the
Rockefeller Commission.
Approved For Release 2001/08/30 CIA-RDP77M00144R000800110070-8
 H 5548
Approved F6 ft1 "g 2 98/ JC Ql1 Q~144R00080011 1 816, 1975
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. .
My subcommittee will continue its
oversight in our jurisdictional area of
Government information and privacy.
We will also consider legislation designed
to control the excesses of the Govern-
ment police agencies. Hearings have al-
ready begun on amendments to the Pri-
vacy Act. These amendments will remove
the blanket exemptions granted to the
CIA and the Secret Service in the origi-
nal bill. The facts that have recently
come to light make it imperative that
the CIA and the Secret Service be held
accountable 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 this special
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. MIKVA. Mr. Speaker, will the gen-
tleman yield?
Mr. MOSHER. I yield to the gentle-
man from Illinois (Mr. MIxvA).
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
that this kind of activity has on the
whole free society, because there is the
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-
ical process.
If we did not have the right ideas, if
we did not vote for the right people, and
if we did not have the right relationships
with other people in the public arena,
then we ought not get involved.
There was and is a deliberate effort
in totalitarian states to keep people from
getting involved in political processes,
and if we do not want that kind of deter-
rent here, then we must finally put a
check on the kind of Government sur-
veillance of activities, particularly in the
political arena, which is going to put a
chill on that kind of thing in the po-
litical arena..
I suppose that one of the problems
about trying to do anything about it is
that most of the time the Government
agencies which are involved end up by
saying, "We did not do it, and we promise
to stop."
It is always a very ephemeral kind of
proof that one has about who is being
wiretapped, and about where the extent
of the surveillance exists. There is always
some kind of justification for it.
Mr. Speaker, I would only say that if
the Congress does not begin to treat with
seriousness-of the problem that the gen-
tleman from Ohio (Mr. MOSHER) sug-
gests and my distinguished colleague, the
gentleman from Wisconsin, my former
chairman, suggests, I think we are going
to deserve the kind of trouble we have
because, when all is said and done, if we
cannot abide the very freedom that dis-
tinguishes this society from totalitarian
states, then the Government agencies
which are engaged in that surveillance
are going to be the best justification of
all for engaging it because we will not be
able to exist in any other way.
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for
yielding.
Mr. MOSHER. Mr. Speaker, I especial-
ly appreciate the emphasis the gentle-
man from Illinois (Mr. MrKVA) has just
placed on the chilling effect that the
Ltmosphere of fear has, which I empha-
;ized in my earlier remarks. This seems
to me to be a matter of extreme concern.
Mr. Speaker, I now yield to the gentle-
inan 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.
7M OSHER) and the gentleman from Wis-
consin (Mr. KASTENMEIER), for having
brought up this special order which I
hink is particularly appropriate for dis-
cussion at this time in view of the report
(.f the Rockefeller Commission.
I think that the statements and the
-ecommendations of the Rockefeller