Document Type: 
Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): 
Release Decision: 
Original Classification: 
Document Page Count: 
Document Creation Date: 
December 9, 2016
Document Release Date: 
August 27, 2001
Sequence Number: 
Case Number: 
Publication Date: 
June 16, 1975
Content Type: 
PDF icon CIA-RDP77M00144R000800110070-8.pdf2.11 MB
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