Senator PROXMIRE. The subcommittee will come to order.

Our witness now is the Reverend Christopher G. Raible, of the Unitarian Universalist Association.

STATEMENT OF REV. CHRISTOPHER G. RAIBLE, ASSISTANT TO PRESIDENT, UNITARIAN UNIVERSALIST ASSOCIATION; ACCOMPANIED BY WILLIAM B. DUFFY, JR., ASSOCIATION ATTORNEY

Reverend RAIBLE. With me is William B. Duffy. Jr., attorney for our association.

Senator PROXMIRE. Fine.

Mr. Raible, as you know, there are other witnesses, and the hour is getting along, so I would appreciate it if you would try to limit your statement as much as possible and put the entire statement in the record.

Reverend RAIBLE. Thank you, Senator Proxmire and other members of the Subcommittee on Financial Institutions, for affording me an opportunity to testify in support of Senate bills 3828 and 3814, bills which have been designated the Citizens Privacy Protection Act of

1972.

I am Christopher Raible, assistant to the president of the Unitarian Universalist Association. My purpose in testifying is to recount to you an experience which is directly relevant to these legislative proposals. Last fall, our church suffered a disturbing violation of our constitutional rights when we were subjected to investigation of our bank records by the Internal Security Division of the Department of Justice.

I can speak of this incident from personal knowledge, since I was one of the church officials who assisted the president of our association, Dr. Robert West, in our handling of the situation.

Dr. West, by the way, would be here to testify personally, but he is in Europe attending an international church convention.

I have with me, and would like to file, an affidavit he filed last January in one of our court actions.

Senator PROXMIRE. Without objection, it will be accepted for the record.

(The information follows:)

AFFIDAVIT

BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS.

I, Robert Nelson West, a Unitarian Universalist Minister and President of Unitarian Universalist Association and its chief executive officer, depose and say: 1. The Unitarian Universalist Association is the denomination of Unitarian and Universalist congregations in the United States. Its membership consists of 958 congregations in the United States plus 67 congregations in Canada and other countries. The Association was formed in 1961 by a consolidation of two corporations, The American Unitarian Association and the Universalist Church of America, founded in 1825 and 1833 respectively.

2. Functions of the Association include the recruitment, education and placement of ministers; religious education of children; adult education; publications; social responsibility; churchmanship and missions; Beacon Press; fund raising: youth programs; and overseas programs.

3. At the core of the Unitarian and Universalist religion are freedom of conscience, individual freedom of belief, and the application of ones religion in daily actions of public and private nature. Our churches are non-creedal. Our denomination is voluntary association of congregations.

4. Beacon Press is the publishing operation of our Association. Beacon Press publishes books in such areas as religious education, religious history, religious thought, worship, contemporary religion, Unitarianism and Universalism, and hymnals as well as world affairs, philosophy, ethics, child guidance, education, anthropology, poetry and the fine arts. Beacon Press is a non-profit tax exempt publishing operation which is not incorporated and is not a separate entity. In carrying out the practice of the Unitarian Universalist religion, which emphasizes that participation in matters of social concern and working to improve the condition of human beings is as much a part of one's religion as is theology, Beacon Press has published books of a controversial nature which other publishers are unwilling to publish.

5. The operating budget of the Association for the current fiscal year is $1,730,000.

6. Approximately two-thirds of the operating budget is received from the current contributions of congregations and individual donors. Nearly all the remaining one-third is derived from income on invested funds received from past donations. Only a summary form of the budget is publicly distributed.

7. The funds raised by the Association and used in financing all its activities are raised by a department of the Association working under my supervision and with my personal assistance.

8. Unless a donor indicates otherwise, it is and has been our uniform practice not to disclose the identity of individual donors, and many of our donors rely upon our continuing that practice. Some of our donors specify that their identity as donors be kept confidential.

9. Disclosure to a federal grand jury and to government attorneys and investigators working with them of the identity of those donors and the amounts which they have contributed would result in the breach of the anonymity which not only protects them but promotes confidence in prospective donors. Such disclosures would have an adverse effect upon the fund raising on which our Association depends for its existence and programs.

10. Those individual, congregational and institutional donors who for business, professional or personal reasons find it inappropriate to be publicly identified would in many if not all instances withdraw their support if their identity should be revealed by any over broad investigation and this could cause me to recommend to the Association's Board of Trustees the curtailment or termination of some of the programs and activities of the Association which depend upon the gifts of such individual and institutional donors.

11. It is well recognized in fund raising that a donor's desire for privacy often relates not to a particular gift, but to the disclosure of his financial ability to make substantial gifts and his consequent exposure to numerous other solicitations.

12. Also, I believe that a broad investigation which involves the FBI, grand jury, and Justice Department probing into the Association's affairs would adversely affect our fund raising because of the possible connotation of wrongdoing and criminality often associated with those agencies in people's minds.

13. Such an investigation also has the effect of intimidating present and prospective members of our denomination and interferes with their rights to freedom of association.

14. Our existence and health are dependent on our being able to keep present members and add new ones. The broad investigation contemplated here would have an adverse effect upon the number of and rate of new members joining our denomination.

15. I object to any investigation under which the government would gain access to records which show in minute detail the receipts and expenditures of the Association for a period extending for 42 months. Such information at present is available only to authorized officials of the Association and their agents.

16. The broad investigation referred to and described in the Complaint to which this affidavit is attached violates the religious freedom guaranteed by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and constitutes an unwarranted intrusion by the government into the affairs of a religious denomination.

17. Throughout its history the Association has played an active role in controversial causes. Such causes in modern time include early and continuing opposition to the war in Viet Nam, the repeal of anti-abortion statutes and support of practical steps to achieve racial justice. These efforts and many like them are part of the expression and practice of the Unitarian Universalist religion.

18. Such broad access and investigation by the FBI, grand jury and Justice Department regarding details of the finances and programs of the Association with the resulting connotation of possible wrongdoing and criminality would tend to inhibit and impair the full practice and expression of the religion of some members and decisionmakers in our denomination.

19. I believe that such broad access and investigation would subject our denomination to governmental intimidation and harrassment, repress legitimate dissent, and infringe upon the religious freedom and the freedom of the press guaranteed by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.

In witness whereof, I have set my hand this eighth day of January, 1972. ROBERT NELSON WEST.

Reverend RAIBLE. On Thursday, November 4, 1971, the treasurer of our association received a call from the vice president and cashier of the Boston bank where we deposit virtually all our funds, notifying us that the FBI had a number of its agents at the bank examining our financial records. The vice president said they had been served with a subpena calling for the production of copies of UUA and Beacon Press checks. Beacon Press, as you may know, is a department of our association that publishes books on a nonprofit basis.

Our reaction to this news was one of shock and dismay. We knew that the Constitution insures the separation of church and state, and the guarantee of freedom of religion. We thought that the Government had no right to be surreptitiously studying financial records of our religious denomination.

It was late in the afternoon when we were first notified of this FBI investigation and it was impossible that day to take any formal steps to halt the investigation. When we called the bank vice president again, we were told that the FBI had come to the bank to look at all eight UUA accounts; that the agents had first appeared at the bank early in the preceding week asking to look at the UUA records but had been refused; that the agents returned later that same week with a subpena for the records; and that they had been examining the records for at least 2 days.

We also learned that, after being served with the subpena, a subordinate bank official had called the office of the U.S. attorney and complained of the heavy burden of producing the quantity of records called for. He was told that the FBI would furnish the manpower to go through the bank's microfilms. Upon learning all this, we insisted that the bank withhold records from the FBI until we had an opportunity to halt the investigation by legal means.

Later that evening, we again called the bank vice president at his home. We then learned that the subpena called for all checks drawn on and all deposits made to all our accounts during the 41/2-month period from June 1, 1971 to October 15, 1971. We also learned that the subpena served upon the bank was a grand jury subpena that did not call for the production of our bank records until the following Wednesday, November 10, 1971.

We, understandably, expressed our surprise and dismay that the FBI had already examined our accounts since the subpena did not call for the production of our records for several more days, and then only to the grand jury. The bank vice president then agreed to refuse to permit further inspection of our records until we had an opportunity to determine more fully what the FBI had seen and to decide what steps we could take to bring a permanent halt to the investigaton.

Early the next morning, Friday, November 6, our representatives went to the bank. The subordinate official who had personally dealt with the FBI asserted, contrary to what we had earlier been told, that the FBI had not examined any of the records of the association; that they had not been in the bank prior to the afternoon of November 4; and that all that occurred that afternoon was a discussion of the process by which the records could be efficiently and economically collected for grand jury presentation. The subordinate bank official also said the FBI called earlier that morning and had withdrawn the subpena.

In the midst of this conversation, a call was received from the First Circuit Court of Appeals Clerk's Office summoning us to court. The Chief Judge of the First Circuit Court of Appeals had called an emergency hearing to determine whether the FBI was indeed inspecting the records of the association. The hearing was called on the petition. of attorneys for Senator Mike Gravel. The precise issue at the hearing was whether or not the FBI had by its actions in subpenaing and examining our records violated a court of appeals stay barring grand jury inquiry into any aspect of the publication of the Pentagon Papers by Senator Mike Gravel and his agents.

At this November 5 hearing, the FBI agent assigned to the investigation was called to the witness stand. He said that he went to the bank on Wednesday, November 3, with another agent. He admitted that in the course of his investigation at the bank he had in fact examined the monthly statements of all eight of our accounts. He claimed he saw no microfilm of checks or deposits. But he conceded that. after examining our records, he was able to limit the subpena to all checks above $5.000 and to two principal accounts, the UUA general account and the UUA Beacon Press account.

He also conceded that he had arranged for the bank to call him when the collection of the records was complete so that he could pick up the records and take them to the FBI Office.

These confusing and conflicting accounts of the investigation raise in our view many questions about what actually happened. However, five inescapable conclusions can be drawn:

1. The FBI did inspect bank records of our church without our receiving any prior notification of the investigation and therefore without our knowledge;

2. The data which the FBI admits they saw could have provided them with information that they had no business under the Constitution acquiring;

3. The Internal Security Division of the Justice Department and the FBI were clearly asserting the right to conduct a broad-scale investigation of our bank records without concern for the impact of that investigation upon the liberties guaranteed us under the Constitution; 4. The Internal Security Division and the FBI had, in the 6-day period from October 29 through November 3, the opportunity to collect without our knowledge the names of donors and members of our association;

5. If we had not intervened, the FBI would have collected for their files data from which they could easily assemble lists of our donors and members.

As a result of the November court of appeals hearing, the Government stipulated that it would call off its investigation, at least until the appeal by Senator Gravel was decided.

In early January of 1972, the court of appeals rendered its opinion. The FBI thereupon immediately notified our bank that the subpena for our UUA records was being reissued.

At this point, we went to court to quash the subpena on the ground that its overbreadth would result in infringement of the constitutional right of our members to associational privacy. Our attorneys had advised us that there was no limit that we could impose on the Government's use of the records once they obtained them. So, we were deeply distressed about the impact on our members and contributors when they learned that they ran the risk of being included in dossiers maintained by the Internal Security Division of the Department of Justice or the FBI.

Before our suit could be heard, however, the Government once again decided to withdraw the subpena, apparently to avoid a confrontation on the constitutional issue we were raising.

I have gone into such detail because I believe our experience illustrates the need for legislation safeguarding the rights of bank customers when subpenas are issued for their bank records.

Under present procedures, the Government, by the use of its subpena powers, can infringe upon the constitutional rights of bank customers without their knowing that their rights are being violated and without their even being afforded an opportunity to protect their rights. All that customers of banks can rely on now is voluntary action by the bank. As our experience indicates, reliance on the bank to give notice voluntarily is obviously not adequate.

The inadequacy of the present law with respect to bank subpenas is especially critical because it puts in jeopardy important constitutional protections. The recent Treasury regulations under the Bank Secrecy Act increase the threat to constitutional liberties even more. These new regulations permit Federal investigators to obtain bank records without even the formality of a subpena.

There are those who claim that the Government's ability to investigate organized crime will be unduly impaired by passage of these bills. The prior-notification requirement in these bills means that those suspected of criminal activity will know that they are being investigated, but this is true of most Government investigations. More important, a serious loss of constitutional rights results if such prior notification and court proceedings are not required.

Bank record subpenas cannot be compared to search warrants. Bank records contain recorded financial information, not contraband. The risk of destruction of such information is minimal, if not nonexistent. We, therefore, strongly support the requirements that there be prior notification and the opportunity for a judicial hearing before the Government examines a customer's bank records. Thank you.

Senator PROXMIRE. What was the reason for the FBI inquiry? Reverend RAIBLE. We discovered afterward that the inquiry had to do with their broad-scale investigation of the publication of the Pentagon Papers, which was published by our Beacon Press at the request of Senator Mike Gravel.

Senator PROXMIRE. Your Beacon Press; that means your church owns the Beacon Press?

Reverend RAIBLE. That is correct. The Beacon Press is the publishing department of our association which publishes books.