PROHIBITING CIA'S ENGAGING IN DOMESTIC LAW ENFORCEMENT

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP75B00380R000600110008-0
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 4
• Document Creation Date: November 17, 2016
• Document Release Date: July 20, 2000
• Sequence Number: 8
• Publication Date: June 6, 1973
• Content Type: OPEN

BR roved For ReedwARM/2L7
A iRitiPPTIRA(1380R000600110008.7.0
June 6, n 4399
ARE COX'S WATERGATE PROSECU-
TQRS PARTISAN?
(Mr. DEVINE asked and was given
permission to address the House for 1
minute, and to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. DEVINE. Mr. Speaker, when Elliot
Richardson was before the Senate for
confirmation as Attorney General of the
United States, there was much hub-bub
about the selection of a special prosecu-
tor for the Watergate case.
Some Senators were insistent that the
special prosecutor be above reproach,
completely independent of any control or
direction from this administration and
ultimately Prof. Archibald Cox was se-
lected.
As a former FBI agent and a former
prosecuting attorney in a large metro-
pOlitan area, Including the capital city
of my State, I think I have some knowl-
edge of investigations, prosecutions, law
enforcement, and administrative deci-
sions in directing prosecutive staffs.
It is most intriguing to note the direc-
tion Special Prosecutor Cox is taking. He
was, of course, Solicitor General of the
United states during the Kennedy ad-
ministration. The late Bobby Kennedy
was Attorney General, and the stable of
special prosecutors being assembled by
Professor Cox seem to be 100 percent
Kennedy worshipers. Many were in the
Justice Department with Kennedy.
The newspapers have announced Cox's
selections thus far as James Vorenberg,
who was an associate employee and de-
voted to the late Attorney General Rob-
ert F. Kennedy. Thomas McBride, for-
merly of Justice, and more recently top
attorney for the Police Foundation of
itinerant Police Chief "Pat" Murphy,
late of Syracuse, Washington, D.C., and
New York City. James Neal of Nashville,
who successfully prosecuted Jimmy
Hoffa as an assistar U.S. attorney, and
was rewarded by b Mg chosen by Ken-
nedy as U.S. attorney in Nashville. For
the past 6 years he has been in the pri-
vate practice in Nashville. Also, Cox's
former aide in Justice under Kennedy,
Prof. Phil Heyman.
And, I am reliably informed other
former aides of the late Bobby Kennedy
are presently being besieged to represent
those who are or may be involved in the
so-called Watergate matter.
One is compelled to wonder whether
there are not any present or past Repub-
lican assistant U.S. attorneys, U.S. at-
torneys or State attorneys general avail-
able to give at least semblance of a bi-
partisan approach by Special Prosecutor
Cox. Is it going to evolve into a Demo-
cratic "witch-hunt" aimed at Republi-
cans, and "escape-hatch" for the clients
of the fonner,Kennedy lawyers?
Mr. Speaker, Senator Eavnes commit-
tee at least suggests an investigation rel-
atively free of pure partisanship how-
ever, it might be a real eye-opener if his
Inquiry probed into the allegedly fabu-
lous sky-high fees being paid to the
lawyers in the Watergate case.
It has been reported lawyer William
Bitmann was paid $85,000 to plead his
client E. Howard'Hunt guilty. Imagine--
for a guilty plea. What would It have
been for a trial? Maybe Bitmann set a
Precedent with an unbelievable guilty
fee for Spiegel Co. in the Brewster case.
The Grievance Committees of the Dis-
trict of Columbia Court of Appeals, and
the U.S. District Court might well con-
cern themselves in this fee area.
In any event, some balance in the pros-
ecuting team is certainly the responsi-
bility of Professor Cox, unless he plans
to operate an anti-Nixon vendetta, with
a group of lawyers from the snakepits of
former adversaries. ALR , C 3
PROHIBITING CIA'S ENGAGING IN
DOMESTIC LAW ENPORCEMENT
(Mr. KOCH asked and was given per-
mission to address the House for 1 min-
ute, to revise and extend his remarks and
Include extraneous matter.)
Mr. KOCH. Mr. Speaker, in response to
a New York Times article last December
stating that the CIA has been involved in
the training of New York City police-
men, I wrote to Richard Helms, then
Director of the CIA, requesting the fol-
lowing information:
First. The number of police officers
from local police departments through-
out the country who had received CIA
instruction within the last 2 years;
Second. A description of the training
provided by the CIA;
Third. The cost of this training and
the source of the funds;
Fourth, The purpose of this training
and the legislative authority for CIA in-
volvement; and
,Fifth. Whether the CIA intends to
continue training local police officers.
It was my understanding that the CIA
was precluded by the law under which it
was created, The National Security Act
of 1947, from engaging in domestic law
enforcement activities.
On January 29, 1973, I was advised by
John Maury of the CIA that there was no
specific law which authorizes the CIA to
undertake the training of local police
forces but that the CIA believes that the
statute which created LEAA indicates an
intent that all Federal agencies should
assist in law enforcement and crime pre-
vention efforts in America. He also said
that training was provided on request of
police departments in about a dozen
jurisdictions, and that such training dealt
with the handling of explosives and for-
eign weapons as well as the detection of
wiretaps and bugs in which foreign in-
terests are involved.
Mr. Maury informed me of the CIA's
authority, as the Agency interprets it, to
conduct such activities. I quote from his
letter:
Regarding the Agency's authority to con-
duct such briefings, the National Security
Act of 1947 (P.L. 80-253, as amended) specif-
ically provides that "the Agency shall have
no police, subpoena, law-enforcement powers,
or internal security functions." We do not
consider that the activities in question vio-
late the letter or spirit of these restrictions.
In our judgment they are entirely consistent
with the provisions of the Omnibus Crime
Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (PL.
90-351, 42 USCA 3701 et seq). In enacting
that law it was the declared policy and pur-
pose of Congress "to assist State and local
governments in strengthening and improving
law enforcement at every level by national
44,
assistance" and to ". . . encourage research
and development directed toward the im-
provement of law enforcement and the de-
velopment of new methods for the prevention
and reduction of crime and the detection
and apprehension of criminals" (42 USCA
3701). By the same law Congress also au-
thorized the Law Enforcement Assistance
Administration to use available services,
equipment, personnel and facilities of the
Department of Justice and of "other civilian
or military agencies and instrumentalities" of
the Federal Government to carry out its
function (42 USCA 3756).
In an attempt to determine the via-
bility of this interpretation of the law, I
requested the General Accounting Office
to study the matter and give me its opin-
ion. In its response, the GAO noted that
its examination of the National Security
Act of 1947, as amended, "fails to disclose
anything which reasonably could be con-
strued as authorizing such activities (CIA
training of local police forces) ". How-
ever, the GAO did acknowledge that in
the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe
Streets Act of 1968 Congress authorized
the LEAA to use available services, equip-
ment, personnel and facilities of the
Justice Department and of "other civilian
and military agencies and instrumentali-
ties" of the Federal Government to carry
out its function. In addition, the GAO
noted that the Intergovernmental Co-
operation Act of 1968 authorizes "all de-
partments and agencies of the executive
branch of the Federal Government?
which do not otherwise have such au-
thority?to provide reimbursable special-
ized or technical services to State and -
local governments." Thus it would appear
that while the authority for these CIA
activities is not specifically established
in law, a loophole has apparently been
created by the provisions of the Omnibus
Crime Control Act and the Intergovern-
mental Cooperation Act.
I am therefore introducing legislation
today which I believe would establish in
law the intent of the National Security
Act of 1947 that the CIA be prohibited
from becoming involved in internal se-
curity functions. This legislation would
specifically prohibit the CIA from pro-
viding training or other assistance di-
rectly or indirectly in support of State
or local law-enforcement activities. It
would supercede the provisions of the
Omnibus Crime Control Act of 1968 and
of the Intergovernmental Cooperation
Act of 1968 under which the CIA draws
its present tenuous authority, and would
thus make further CIA involvement in
"internal security functions" a clear
violation of our laws.
The matter of the CIA's involvement
in domestic affairs is a very serious one.
The American public was recently
shocked by disclosures that the CIA had
been involired in the burglary of the
office of Dr. Daniel Ellsberg's former
psychiatrist. Neither Members of Con-
gress nor officials in our judicial system
are in a position at this point to deter-
mine the extent of CIA involvement in
similar matters. The very fact that the
CIA is carefully exempted from the usu-
ally required reports to the Congress?
indeed its budget is confidential and not
available to individual Members?poses
the greatest of dangers. The operational
Approved For Release 2000/08/27 : CIA-RDP75600380R000600110008-0
Approved For Release 2000/08/27 : CIA-RDP751300380R000600110008-0,
H 4400 CONGRESSION AL RECORD - HOUSE Jotria 6, 1973
authority of the CIA as a foreign
gence agency must be limited anti cleaf ly
defined in law, and its activities must be
more vigilantly supervised. But in atlY
event the law must be changed so not to
give the CIA even the color of consent to
engage iu domestic surveillance of the
citizens of this country.
We m.Ust be alert to abuses of the
CIA's authority so that we don't wake
lip some Morning to find that an agency
we established to protect ourselves from
outside subversion has become a Trojan
horse in our midst invading the private
Lives of our own people. We have already
had an instance, With the Ellsberg case,
in which the facilities of the CIA were
used to invade the private life of ar. in-
dividual. Such activities and the rela-
tionship that necessarily evolves from
local police training programs must be
avoided.
The response I received from the GAO
f allows :
COmPTROLLER GENERAL OF
THE UNITED STATED,
Washington, D.C., May 30,1973.
Hon. EDWARD I. 'Coen,
House of Representatives.
Dame Me. Kocer: Reference is made to
your letter Of March 5, 1973, and subsequent
correspondence resulting from :in aeticle
which appeared in the New York Times for
December 17. 1972, stating that 14 New York
policemen had received training from 'the
Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) in Sep-
tember.
Enclosed for your information it; a copy of
our letter of today to the Director, CIA, ad-
vising that the CIA has no authority to pro-
vide such training, except in accords-nee
with the provisions of the Omnibus Crane
Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 or the
Intergovernmental Cooperation Act of 1968.
We trust that this will be of assistance to
you.
Sincerely yours,
ELmER B. ST IATs,
COMptrOiter General of the United Sta tes.
COMPTROLLER GENERAL or
THE UNITED STATL's,
Washington, D.C., May 30, 1.973.
Hon. JAmits R. Scnarsretena,
Director, Central Intelligence Agency.
DEAR M. Stemetneresta: The Honorable Ed-
ward I. Ie.och, of the House of Representa-
tives had referred to us for a ruling copies
of correspondence with your office an :ier-
tain material which appeared in the Congres-
sional Record for February 6, 1972, page
H726 and March 5, 1973, pages 111352-136a,
which MLR prompted by an article in the New
York Tittles for December 17, 1472, which
stated that fourteen New York policemen
had received training from the Central In-
telligence Agency (CIA) in September.
Because of an informal contact from your
office we E.u,ggested that a statement bc tent
from your office as to exactly what was done
and the :specific statutory authority relied
upon therefor. As a result, we received a let-
ter dated March 16, 1973, from your Deputy
General Counsel which enclosed (1) an ex-
tract of the Congressional Record for Murch
5, 1973, supra, that contained Congressrean
Chet Holifield's discussion and report of the
inquiry into the matter by the House Com-
mittee on Government Operation; at the re-
quest of Congressman Koch, together with
related correspondence and (2) a copy of
Congressman Koch's letter of December 28,
1972, to the CIA and a copy of the response
of January 29, 1973, signed by 'your Legisla-
tive Counsel. It was stated that It 'would
appear that all the information 'needed was
contained in those enclosures. we were also
assured that ihe CIA does not run a formai
Institution for traming a police officers in
the Mall ner of the FBI Academy located at
"Fort Belvoir." (Tie FBI Academy is located
at Quantico, V irg Ma.)
It is noted that the Congressional Record
for March 5, 1973, page 1353 also includes re-
lated remark.; of Congressman Lucian N.
Nedzi, Chairman of the Special Subcom-
mittee ,on Iatelligence, House Conmeittee on
Armed Services, an to the activity of that
Subcommittee in the matter, in which he
emphaeizes that the basic jurisdiction in CIA
matters; remains with the Armed Services
Committee and that the Subcommittee has
been diligent In fulfilling its responsibilities.
He also stated that he shared the view "that
the CIA should refeain from domestic law in-
forcement aceivities and that some of the
activities described by our colleague Mr.
Koch, and ths ageacy itself could have been
?performed moch more appropriately by other
agencies."
It appears from the material referred to
above that wind ti ;he last two years less than
fifty police olleene from a total of about a
dozen city and county police forces have re-
ceived some kind of CIA briefing.
As to the New York police it appears that
with the assistance of the Ford P'oundation
an anelysist end evaluation unit wits devel-
oped within she ratelligence Division of the
New /ork City police department. At the
suggeetion of a Fiord Potmdation representa-
tive it sough-, aseistance from the CIA as to
the best system for analyzing intelligence.
Althmigh the Cl/'s techniques and proce-
dures involve only foreign intelligence they
were considered basic and applicable to the
needs of the New York police. A 4-day brief-
ing was arranged at which a ground of New
York City pellet) was briefed on the theory
and technique of analyzing and evaluating
foreign intelligence datto the role of the an-
alyst, and the handling and processing of
foreign inteu igence infcirmatlon.
The briefir g was given by a CIA training
staff, based upon material used in training
the CIA analysts and without any significant
added expense. epecific guidance wa.s not
given as to how the New York City police sys-
tem should be set up but the CIA presented
its basic appdosch.
CIA aSSIStanCe to local law enforcement
agencies has beer. of two types. In the first
type of assistance one or two officers received
an hour or two of briefing on demonstration
of techniques. 'Pence officers from six local
or State jurisdictions came to CIA head-
quarters for this type of assistance. In the
second type of assistance, the briefing lasted
for 2 or 3 days. Instruction was given in such
techniques Ps reeord handling, clandestine
photography surveillance of individuals, and
detection and identification of metal eaad ex-
plosive deviess, l'ime metropolitan or county
jurisdictions sent officers for this type of in-
struction. Assistance given was at no cost to
the recipients and has been accomplished by
makipg avatable, insofar as their other du-
ties permit, qualified CIA experts and in-
structors. Cost to the CIA has been minima).
It is stated that all briefings have been
conducted in response to the requests of the
variODS reeipients. It is also stated that the
CIA intends to continue tq respond to such
requests within 1:4 competence and author-
ity to: the extent possible without interfering
with Its primary raission.
No provisiofl of that part of National Se-
curity Act of 1947, as amended, 50 U.S.C.
403, et seq., whiter established the Central
Intelligence Agency has been cited as au-
thority for the activities undertaken and our
examination of that law fails to disclose any-
thing; 1;9111th reasonably could be construed
as authoriziag torch activities. However, in
his letter of January 29, 1973, to Congress-
man 'Koch, your Legislative Counsel stated
that these antivitles were entirely consistent
with the provisions of the Omnibus Crime
Control and Sate Streets Act of 1968, 42
7J.S.C. 3701, el: seq. He noted that in 4.2 II.S.C.
3701 it a-as the declared policy of the Con-
gress "to assert State and local governments
in strengthening law enforcement at every
lever' and that it Was the purpose of that
law to "encotrage research and development
directed toward the improvement ,of law
enforcement and the development of new
methods for the prevention and reduction of
crime and the detection and apprehension of
criminals." 4e1J.S.C. 3721. He also noted that
in the same law at 42 U.S.C. 3756 Congress
authorized the Law Idefercement Assistance
Administration to use available services,
equipment, personnel, and facilities of the
Department ed Justice and of "other .civilian
and military agencies and instrumernalities"
of the Federal Government to Carry' OUt its
function. It should also be noted that the
section authorizes such use on a reimburs-
able basis.
There is nothing in the Cauribue Crime
and Safe Streets Act of 1968 which authorizes
a Federal agency of its own velition to pro-
vide services which it is net otherwise au-
thorized to provide. As previously stated there
iS nothing in the legislation establishing the
CIA which would authorive the activities in
question. Nether does it appear that those
services, equipment, personnel, and facili-
ties utilized were utilized by the Law En-
forcement Assistance Administration or evea
at its request. As, stated in Congressman
Holifleld In leis letter of February 23,1973, to
eau and quoad in the Congressional Record
for March 5, :.973:
Since the Law Enforcement Adsistance
Administratirn is the agency primarily con-
cerned with !Rich matters, particulaaly where
Federal siesistance funds are involved, it
would seem that the need for Federal agency
assistance to local law enforcement agencies
should be coordinated by that Administra-
tioIn.
In
that same letter of February id3, 1973,
Congresemar. Holifield invited attention to
the Intergovernmental Cooperation Act of
1968,, Pub. L 90-577, az Stat. 1102, approved
October 16, 1968, 42 U.S.C. 4201, et seq., as
implemented by Budget Circular No. A-9'7
of August 21), 1969. Among the purposes of
title III of that act, as stated in section 301
thereof, is to authorize all departments and
agencies of the executive branch of the Fed-
eral Government--which do not otherwise
have Such authority-to provide reimburs-
able specialized or technical services to
State and local governments. Section 302 a
the act states that such services shall include
only those which the Director of the Office
of Management and Budget through rules
and regulations determines Federal depart-
ments and agencies have a special compe-
tence to provide. Budget Circular No, A-97
covers speciee services which may be pro-
vided under the act and also provides that if
a Federal agency receives a request for spe-
cialized or technical services which are not
specifically covered and which it believes is
consistent with the act and whic:a it has
a special competence tc, provide, it should
forward suc:a request to the Bureau of the
Budget (now Office of Management and
Budget) for action. The same procedure is
to be followed if there is doubt as to. whether
the service requested is included within the
services specifically covered. ;section 304 re-
quires an annual summary report by the
agency head to the respective Committees on
Government Operations of the Senate and
House of Representatives on the scope of the
Services provided under title III of the act.
:Possibly future requests for briefings from
State or local police agencies could be con-
sidered under the provisions of that act and
the implementing budget circular.
In the letter of Januar? 2e, 1973, to Con-
gressman leech from your Legislative Coun-
Approved For Release 2000/08/27 : CIA-RDP75600380R000600110008-0
June 6,Nnsoved For Reltm2ROMEGI itqR5A91117ARM8OR000600110008-iik 4401
sel it is also stated that the activities in ques-
tion were not considered to violate the letter
or Spirit of the provisions of the National
Security Act of 1947 which states that "the
Agency shall have no police, subpoena, law
enforcement powers, or internal-security
functions." See 50 11.S.C. 403(d) (3). We do
not regard the activities as set out above as
being in violation of these provisions, but
as previously indicated, we have found no
authority for those activities by your agency,
unless provided on a reimbursable basis in
accordance with the Intergovernmental Co-
operation Act of 1968, or at the request of
the Law Enforcement Assistance Adminis-
tration under the provisions of the Omnibus
Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968,
which was not the case here.
Copies of this letter are being sent to the
Members of Congress referred to above.
Sincerely yours,
ELMER B. STAATS,
Comptroller General of the United States.
YOUTH CONSE'RVATION CORPS
(Mr. MEEDS asked and was given per-
mission to address the House for 1 min-
ute, and to revise and extend his remarks
and include extraneous matter.)
Mr. MEEDS. Mr. Speaker, today I am
introducing, with 58 of our colleagues, a
new youth conservation corps bill to ex-
pand the program and make it perma-
nent.
The original YCC legislation, which
was passed in 1970, established a 3 year
pilot program for young people 15
through 18 years of age from all socio-
economic and racial backgrounds. At
that time Senator JACKSON and I, as the
original sponsors of the legislation, con-
templated a program in the magnitude of
$150,000,000 serving 150,000 young men
and women. But decided to start with a
pilot program. We could learn from mis-
takes made on a small scale, see what
techniques work best and then expand
the program with a minimum of stress.
Last year the -Congress stairstepped the
expansion of YCC by providing a fiscal
year 1973 authorization of $30 million
and $60 million for fiscal year 1974.
Considering the success of the Youth
Conservation Corps, it appears from this
vantage point that we may have been too
cautious. The program has encountered
no serious problems; we hear only praise.
It is time that the Youth Conservation
Corps be made a permanent program and
expanded to meet the summer employ-
ment needs of our youth and the main-
tenance needs of our public lands.
The bill introduced today includes a
Federal-State cost sharing program,
whereby 30 percent of the YCC funds
would be devoted to grants to States for
YCC projects on State lands. The provi-
sion has the effect of bringing the YCC
to the East where many young people
reside but where there are few Federal
lands. Assuming full funding and that
the Federal Government pays 50 percent
of the cost of the State grant Program,
70,000 young people would be hired each
summer to work on State laws; 80,000
would be employed on Federal lands.
An important part of the Youth Con-
servation Corps is its requirement that
there be a mix of young people in the
prograni. All socioeconomic and racial
classifications are _represented in the
corps. The heterogeneous nature of the
program is one of its strengths. Young
people from all segments of society,
working together, find they have many
things in common not before discovered.
I recently acquired a copy of a letter ad-
dressed to an administrative officer of
the Ochoco National Forest in Prine-
ville, Oregon from a Portland, Oreg.,
high school counselor which I think is
significant:
Last year, one of our Wilson students had
the good fortune to be accepted in the Youth
Conservation Corps. The change for the good
In that young man was absolutely inde-
scribable. His Counselors and teachers had
absolutely given up on him and he was sus-
pended from school. However, when he came
back he had a positive attitude about him-
self as well as school and most people who
knew him at Wilson could not believe the
change.
The experience offered in the Youth Con-
servation Corps is much more valuable to
Wilson students than most others because
it is so different from their past experience.
It is because of this that I hope you will be
able to take all four of our applicants. I am
absolutely certain it will be the most valuable
experience any of the four have ever had in
their life time.
In hearings last year, a number of
corps participants talked about how the
work they did in YCC was something
worthwhile. Dr. Beverly L. Driver of the
University of Michigan's Institute of So-
cial Research, testified concerning the
independent evaluation of the program.
The evaluation showed that 98.6 percent
of the participants felt their experience
was worthwhile and highest ratings were
given to the quantity and quality of work
accomplished. Young people today do not
want make-work jobs, merely to be on
the receiving end of a paycheck. Cer-
tainly compensation is important, but
the job must be meaningful.
It is also noteworthy that the Univer-
sity of Michigan study shows that youth
in the 1972 YCC program gained envi-
ronmental understanding and awareness
equivalent to a full year of study in a
normal high school setting.
The Youth Conservation Corps is a
people oriented program, but it is -also
an environmental and resource mainte-
nance program. Not only does YCC pro-
vide summer employment for our young
people, but the Nation is nearly repaid
the cost of the program in improvements
on our public lands. In upgrading our
public lands, YCC corpsmen work in
areas of erosion control, campground
construction and maintenance, tree
planting, timber production, trail con-
struction, and maintenance and wildlife
habitat improvement, to name a few.
The backlog of needed work on our
public lands increases every year. The
experience of the pilot YCC shows us
that 150,000 hardworking young people,
enthusiastic about their summer jobs,
will certainly be able to hold that back-
log to a minimum.
At a time when our young people need
summer jobs and there's work to be done
on our public lands, the new Youth Con-
servation Corps bill provides us with a
unique opportunity to attack two prob-
lems with one solution.
POSTCARD VOTER REGISTRATION ?
(Mr. WAMPLER asked and was given
permission to address the House for 1
minute, to revise and extend his remarks,
and include extraneous matter.)
Mr. WAMPLER. Mr. Speaker, the
House of Representatives will soon be
considering the Senate-passed bill that
would permit voter registration by mail.
Post cards would be mailed from the
Census Bureau to every household in the
United States, and anyone who signed
one and returned it would be duly regis-
tered to vote. I strongly oppose this
legislation.
In my opinion, it would open the very
real possibility of widespread fraud,
error, and confusion. The right to vote
is a unique privilege, but it carries with
it some measure of responsibility as well.
I believe most Americans are more than
willing to bear the small inconvenience
imposed by the requirement that they
register in person in order to verify their
eligibility to vote.
I would like to bring to the attention
of my colleagues, first, a letter I received
from Mrs. John M. Payne, president
of the Virginia Electoral Board Asso-
ciation, which clearly states the hazards
inherent in this bill. I would also like to
commend to your attention, an editorial
from the Roanoke Times of June 5, 1973,
which raises additional questions and
suggests alternatives. Both the letter and
the editorial follow:
THE CITY OF LYNCHBURG, VA.,
May 24, 1973.
HOE.. WILLIAM C. WAMPLER,
Con grss of the United States,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR BILL: The Executive Committee of
The Virginia Electoral Board Association met
Tuesday, May 21 at 11:00 A.M. at the Capitol
Richmond:At this meeting the Executive
Committee went on record unanimously op-
posing S. Bill 352?Post Card Registration.
For Congress to pass this bill even though
the Senate did pass it is unbelievable!
A bill which would allow Americans to reg-
ister for Federal elections by simply mailing
a post card is preposterous. Under this in-
sane proposal, millions of post cards with re-
turn cards attached would be mailed to street
and rural addresses, not to named individuals
but to the "Occupant" or "Householder" as
we understand this proposed legislation. The
estimated cost of the program could run as
high as 8300 million a year.
As you know here in Virginia we have been
striving to put a stop to illegal practices in
the Election System and in the last three
years have made tremendous stride in this
direction. The Central Voter Registration Sys-
tem is just one of many things which we
have developed recently in Virginia to help
prevent fraud.
Should this Bill pass and become law does
anyone have any clear idea how the system
would work? I understand that the Census
Bureau and the Postal Service opposes it.
There is not a single valid argument that
can be made in its favor and many, many
arguments against it.
The Exectuive Committee of The Virginia
Electoral Board Association has instructed
me as its President, to issue a statement in
opposition to Post Card Legislation and to
make our position known to the members of
Congress from the Commnwealth of Virginia.
With my best wishes.
Sincerely,
MTS. JOHN M. PAYNE,
President, the Virginia Electoral Board
Association.
Approved For Release 2000/08/27 : CIA-RDP75600380R000600110008-0
4402Approved For ReleenaliMpitu Walilp_7_WiS8OR000600i I coot 1973
[Editorial from the Roanoke Times, June 5,
19731
POSTCARD REGISTRATION
Patrons of the bill to permit registration
by postcard must not be acquainted with
voting practices in the old Ninth District oe
Virginia, prinffipally the Southwest. Ul
mately those brought down the wrath of a
U.S. district judge. They must have forgot-.
ten the voting practices in Chicago, Ill..
which left at least a smidgen of doubt three
President John F. Kennedy was fairly cite
-
ted in 1960. Senators, who helped pass the
bill, must have forgotten the occasional smell
that follows an election in Texas.
The voting scandals in the Southwest V.r.
girlie counties usually involved the use or
the absentee ballot, which has some relation
to registration procedures. Some people in
the cemetery, but still registered, wan,
thought to have cast ballots. Registration
may not have played much of a part in the
doubts about the election of 1960 in Chicago.
But taken all together, the scandals wad
near-scandals suggest that voting proceduree
must have at least a minimum of regulation.
to guarantee fairness.
Registration by postcard can be abused.
Counterfeit cards can be made even more
easily than counterfeit money. If the regls-
tration official is in cahoots with the coun ?
terfeiter, it would be easy for the crook to
vote in two or more precincts, two or more
counties or, along the border, in two or mon:
states. In the light of past history, who can
be sure this won't happen?
A philosophical objection also car ? be en-
tered. It is no longer necessary to be literate
or 21 to vote; residence requirements have
been markedly reduced. Is it too much to ask
that a citizen be interested enough in hie
government to go to a registration office and
make out a simple form?
Improvements can be made in registration
procedures in Virginia, at least. More regis -
trars in more places during more hours, es -
pecially night hours, would make registration
less burdensome. These reforms can lee made
without the risks of registration by poet
caeds The Senate has passed the bill. Tho
House should look at the bill more critically
and kill it.
IN THE NAME OF PROFITS
(Mr. POIDELL asked and was given
permission to address the House for
minute, to revise and extend his remarks,
and include extraneous matter.)
Mr. PODELL. Mr. Speaker, it was le-
cently announced by the adrnintstratioti
that this country would be selling be-
tween 24 and 30 F-4 Phantom jet bomb-
ers to Saudi Arabia.
As we at know, these are the planes
which we have traditionally been supply-
ing to Israel. In recent years, the Israeli
Government has repeatedly been threat-
eried with an end to the delivery of
Phantoms, or delivery in numbers far
lower than had originally been agreed
upon. Ostensibly, these proposals were
put forth as a means of bringing about
peace in the Middle East by cooling down
the arms race. However, with the Soviet
and French Governments continually
selling greeter and greater numbers of
weapons to the Arab States, it would have
been errant foolishness for us to renege
on our commitments to Israel.
A few weeks ago, it was revealed thae
Mirage lighter jets that France had sold
to Libya were winding up at airbases iii
Egypt, poised for attack on Israel. The
'Israeli Ambassador informed the French
Government that it had irrefutable proof
of the transfe:e? of planes from Libya to
Egypt, even though the sales agreement
stipulated that no such transfers were to
take place.
The reason I mention this is because
it is more than likely that ,should the
sale of Phantoms to Saudi Arabia go
through, we will see a repeat of these
transfers. The Stite Department has
indicated that it will be a provision of
our sales agreement with Saudi Arabia
that these planes are not to be trans-
ferred. However, when asked what could
be done if the agreement is violated in
this respect, the silence from the admin-
istration is deafening.
The reason given for this sale is that
Saudi Arabia's defenses need upgrading.
I want to know, for what purpose? Is
Saudi Arabia sericusly threatened with
attack from the entside? Is the security
of Saudi Arabia and other Persian Gulf
states that much in peril? Or is this
merely an attempt to placate one of the
world's greatest oil-producing nations,
an effort to show that we are not uni-
laterally biased in Israel's favor.
This proposal by the administration is
highly dangerous. It is a threat to Israeli
security if the planes ate transferred to
Egypt or another Arab state bordering
on Israel. It could lead to a serious es-
calation Of the arms race in the Mid-
dle East. Once Saudi Arabia can buy jets
from the United States, other Arab na-
tions, even the tiny, Persian Gulf sheikh-
doms, will feel thm: they have legitimate
"security" needs that justify the pur-
chase of vast amounts of weapons, not
only from the United States, but from
the Soviet Union, France, and any other
nation willing to turn a fast profit and
insure its oil :;upn.y. The possibility for
economic blackmail is rich and fright-
ening.
It should be recalled, when the no-
transfer agreement is mentioned, that
American tanks given to Jordan with
the proviso that they were not to be
used across the J)rdan River, were in
fact deployed against Israel in the 1967
war. Both this incident, and the recent
incident involving Libya and the French
Mirages, leads me to believe that the no-
transfer agreemeit would be more hon-
ored in the breach than the observance.
The ahortsightedness of this adminis-
tration when it comes to the Middle East
is appalling. We have been fortunate in
the last 2 years, shat there have been
no serious outereales of fighting between
Israel and het Arab neighbors. This sale
of Phantoms 'so Saudi Arabia will upset
the tenimus balance of power that has
been achieved at :uch a great cost, and
may perhaps destroy any hopes of peace
in the foreseeable future. I call upon the
administration to abandon this ill-con-
ceived plan immediately.
.mosonew.
AMERICA SHOULD HAVE ONE TERM
OF 6 YEARS FOR THE PRESIDENT
(Mr. BIKES asked and was given per-
mission to address the House for 1
minute, to revise and extend his remarks,
and include egtraneous matter.)
Mr. BIKES. Mr. Speaker, the sugges-
tion that Presidential terms be limited
to one of 6 years has merit. It deserves
more consideration than it has received.
It is generally accepted that a sitting
President, concerned about his reeledtion,
Is less effective as a leader than a ;man
who knows he need not be political in his
actions. He spends too much of his first 4
years seeking to be reelected. It is only
natural that his decisions be weighted
at least in part with political considera-
tions.
Recent revelations tend to support this
hypothesis. Watergate would not :have
happened if some of those around the
President had been more concerned with
what was right than with what was
politically expedient.
When the framers of our Constitution
established the Presidency, there was no
limitation as to the number of terms he
could serve, but tradition dictated over
the years that two 4-year terms would be
the rule. It was only in this century that
tradition was broken, and then by. only
one President, Franklin D. Roosevelt.
Congress later approved an anliend-
ment limiting Presidential service to no
more than two terms, largely to avoid
the establishment of a political machine
which the people could not overturn at
the ballot box. I believe that was a. wise
decision, but we must change with the
times. The Founding Fathers were seek-
ing an ideal situation. They had few
precedents. We have the benefit of ex-
perience. Other nations have successfully
tested the concept of one 6-year term.
Mexico is a good example. Few govern-
ments in modern times have been as
stable.
That the suggestion for one 6-year
term has been endorsed by President
Nixon is worthy of note. A constitutional
amendment is required and this in ;Itself
is a slow process. It is time for a begin-
ning. For the good of our political system
and our Nation, this Congress should give
prompt and thoughtful consideration to
the President's recommendation.
A REDUCED SALARY PAYS OFF
IMr. VAN DEERLIN asked and was
given permission to address the House
for 1 minute and to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. VAN DEERLIN. Mr. Speaker, the
pay cut which Max Hernandez agreed to
take nearly 5 years ago has paid off in
rich dividends for the Spanish-speaking
community of San Diego.
Mr. Hernandez consented to a reduced
salary when he took over as first direc-
tor of Operation SER in San Diego, SER
was a then relatively unproven program
which sought to prepare persons of
Spanish heritage to compete for jobs in
the often unfriendly U.S. market.
In 1968, Mx. Hernandez, who left a
comfortable position in a labor organi-
zation, had one assistant in the fledgling
SER effort. No one knew for sure
whether the SER methods for overcom-
ing old hostility and prejudice would even
work. But Mr. Hernandez never had any
doubt. He says today?
From the start I was a little bit closer to
the people than ever before.
The story of SER in San Diego has
been typical of its success throughout the
Southwest United States.
Approved For Release 2000/08/27 : CIA-RDP75600380R000600110008-0