« iepriekšējāTurpināt »
pany had conducted millions of monitorings of its customers on a random basis in order to determine whether there might be any misuse of telephone facilities, presumably by devices which would obviate the necessity of paying a long distance toll charge, and if so, have you made any conclusion with respect to it?
Mr. GOLDWATER. Mr. Chairman, that revelation came out subsequent to our report on the activities of the telephone company. Now, I can appreciate their concern, and perhaps legitimate right to know if their equipment or if their facilities are being misused. But certainly, I do not think it is in their right to surreptitiously conduct such activities.
But, what I think we are all aiming to do in all of this legislation. pertaining to privacy is at least to get a sense of responsibility toward the individual, that the individual has the right to know what is going on. If that is the standard practice of the telephone company, then certainly that individual who is the subscriber should know that and it should be spelled out clearly that the telephone company will use certain methods to determine whether their equipment is being misused. It would be up to the courts to determine whether that is a legal practice or not, but certainly to do it in secrecy is against the principles of law and the intent of this particular kind of legislation. Mr. KASTEN MEIER. Yes, I think in fairness to them. I should say that they conducted that sort of surveillance at one time but now desist from employing random recording of conversations. But there remains the question of whether existing law is too broad in terms of what it permits the telephone company to do.
In any event, I want to thank you for your testimony and yield to the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Railsback.
Mr. RAILSBACK. I want to thank my friend and ask him if you might just tell us how you went about preparing the report, the Republican task force report?
Mr. GOLDWATER. Mr. Railsback, this was a voluntary effort by some 15 to 20 Republicans that had an interest in one or two particular areas of privacy. Each member of the committee selected an area of their concern and put together a draft paper. This particular draft paper then was reviewed by the entire task force, approved, and submitted to the Republican House Conference for its approval, and then submitted to the Congress.
From what I understand, it was the most comprehensive paper on the entire subject of privacy.
Mr. RAILSBACK. In reading your report, I think it is significant to note that you do not just deal with surveillance, but actually the Census Bureau, financial reports, consumer reporting, school records, juvenile records, arrest records, medical records, computer data banks and you cover, really, the whole realm. I just want to say that I think it is a significant contribution not just to us, but to the Congress. And I want to commend you for it.
Mr. GOLDWATER. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. KASTENMEIER. The gentleman from New York, Mr. Pattison. Mr. PATTISON. In your testimony you say that by defining the term surveillance this legislation takes a giant step toward eliminating confusion. But, I am a little bit concerned about this definition of the term
surveillance. I do not really see how the definition deals with one of the issues that we discussed with the previous witness-the area of physical surveillance as opposed to interception of oral communications.
Do you conceive of that as being covered by your bill, the problem of shadowing or of physical surveillance as opposed to interception of oral communications or written communications?
Mr. GOLDWATER. I think it is more implied than it is specifically addressed in this particular legislation. But, yes, I would include that in the broad category of surveillance.
Mr. PATTISON. If it is going to be included, it probably should be more specifically defined to remove some of the confusion?
Mr. GOLDWATER. I think that question has arisen here today during the discussion, and I would agree that the bill does not specifically refer to it, and perhaps that should be covered.
Mr. PATTISON. I have nothing further.
Mr. KASTEN MEIER. I thank the gentleman from New York.
We were talking, of course, about physical surveillance. If it were to be covered by this bill, the term, surveillance, would have to be defined precisely to include that. We are talking about agencies of the Federal Government and not about private detectives, or agencies of local or State law enforcement authority. So we would have to conceive of what interests agencies of the Federal Government have in conducting physical surveillances without some sort of immediate judicial accountability. That seems to be an area we will have to examine more closely.
I want to express the thanks of the committee for the appearance here this morning of Congressman Goldwater.
Mr. GOLDWATER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. RAILSBACK. Thank you.
Mr. KASTENMEIER. The Chair would like to now call upon Congressman Parren Mitchell of Maryland. Congressman Mitchell has been most active, both nationally and in his community on the question.
And we are most pleased to have you appear, Congressman Mitchell; you may proceed.
TESTIMONY OF HON. PARREN J. MITCHELL, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MARYLAND
Mr. MITCHELL. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee. I recognize the severe time constraints that are on all Members of Congress. I would suggest that since each of you has a copy of my testimony, with your permission I would merely like to extract certain portions of that testimony, rather than going through the entire presentation. I ask unanimous consent that the entire statement be considered as a part of the record.
Mr. KASTEN MEIER. Without objection, your statement will be received and made a part of the record.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Parren J. Mitchell follows:]
STATEMENT OF HON. PARREN J. MITCHELL, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MARYLAND
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, I am very pleased to appear before you today, to express my strong support for H.R. 3113, a Bill which I have co-sponsored and a Bill, which in my opinion, is desperately needed.
Other witnesses who will appear before this Subcommittee will probably focus their attention on the Federal Agencies and their possible violations of the Bill of Rights procedures. However, I want to approach the importance of this Bill in terms of a local Police Departments activities.
I ask you to bear with me as I provide a necessary background to make my approach clear.
On February 14, 1975, a hundred and thirty one persons sent the following statement to the Governor of the State of Maryland.
"As we approach the bicentennial of the founding of our nation, we are troubled by mounting evidence of police encroachment on rights guaranteed to citizens in the Amendments to the Constitution. The published list of names of 125 organizations on which the Baltimore Police Department gathered information suggests the frightening and indiscriminate scope of their activity. When there are real crime problems, why has the Police Department wasted half a million dollars a year of taxpayers money in surveillance of such groups as the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, the American Friends Service Committee, the Baltimore Tutorial Project and the Interdenominational Ministerial Alliance?
"While we recognize the necessary role of the police to maintain order and to prevent crime, for the Police Commissioner to justify blanket surveillance of these groups listed to 'prevent disorder, revolution and strife' is absurd and tragic. The majority of people involved were not remotely connected with any activities that could be considered criminal. They were persons who care about America and were exercising their Constitutional rights to assemble, to enjoy free speech, a free press, to seek redress of grievances, 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 victories 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 presence of police photographers and infiltrators 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 admissions concerning: Infiltration of Peace and Civil Rights groups. Routine photography 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 Attorney and the head of the Community Relations Commission. Surveillance of Black Clergymen.
ISD collection of reports on recent striking hospital workers.
ISD collection of reports on individuals and license numbers of persons entering the Friends Meeting House and other places in Charles Village. Routine forwarding of surveillance records from the Police Commissioner to Army Intelligence and to the FBI.
"The whole network of American Constitutional Rights-especially those of free speech, press, assembly and religion; securing persons, houses, papers and effects from unreasonable search and seizure-was established to curtail government interference with peaceful dissent. These Constitutional Rights have been routinely violated by the Baltimore Police Department.
"Persons who express themselves on controversial public issues have a right to he free of government surveillance of their private lives. On the other hand, public officials and agencies do not have a right to be free of public review of their policies since the Police Department exercises a great deal of power over citizens lives, what the Police Department does should be known by the public.
"We believe that the expression of Watergate mentality and morality must come to an end in Baltimore. The infection of illegal and immoral police action has undoubtedly spread from the top down, from national intelligence agencies
and from the Army (e.g., ISD agents were trained by Army Intelligence). But the local violation of rights recognized in the First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth and other Amendments can and must be faced and stopped in Baltimore by citizens and political leaders. If not, the contagion of political surveillance will result in ever more dossiers on ever more innocent people.
"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 Commissioner 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 activity by the Police.
(2) Inform the public of the nature and scope of the activity (methods, not disclosure of individual files), of the 'Red Squad.'
(3) Inform persons if they have been under political surveillance and no criminal chages 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 infiltration; restrict Police investigation to areas where there is evidence of criminal activity.
(5) Develop a system of accountability, giving an idependent 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 sympathetic to the rights of privacy." Included among the 131 signers of this statement were the names of over forty religious leaders including Bishop Joseph Gossman, The Reverend Hugh Dickinson, and The Reverend Vernon Dobson; from the NAACP, Enolia P. McMillan, President, and Leonard L. Saunders, Vice-President; also representatives from Johns Hokpins University and Medical Institutions; representatives from Goucher, Towson State, Loyola and C.C.B.; from the American Civil Liberties Union, the Director, John Roemer, along with ten Lawyers; included also are representatives of the American Friends Committee.
Based upon information made available to me to date, I am firmly convinced that a national domestic espionage apparatus existed in America. I further firmly believe that this apparatus involved the Federal Bureau of Investigation; The Army Intelligence; and local Police Departments. In this domestic espionage apparatus, information gathered, without benefit of court orders, was exchanged between local Police Departments and Federal Agencies. The information 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 hopefully 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 explain 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, is 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 information to the police department's Inspectional Services Division (ISD), a clandestine intelligence 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 Campaigns similar infiltrations by paid or unpaid police agents took place. These persons could have, and I believe did, inspect 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 deals with Section 2519, "Reports concerning intercepted wire, oral and other communications." 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 gathered ought be advised some where down the line that he was the object of such activities. Obviously, if the intercepts result in a specific criminal charge, then the person would know.
However, if intercepts do not result in such a charge (or charges) or if indeed intercepts prove that the individuals conduct 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 continue to support H.R. 3113 because it is legislation needed to protect basic civil liberties which are guaranteed by the Constitution.
Mr. KASTENMEIER. And you may continue as you wish.
Mr. MITCHELL. I am very pleased to appear before you today to express my strong support for H.R. 3113-and the other numbered pieces of legislation-a bill which I have cosponsored and a bill, which. in my opinion, is desperately needed.
As I understand it, the other witnesses who have appeared before this subcommittee have focused on the Federal agencies primarily and their possible violations of the Bill of Rights. It is my understanding that subsequent witnesses will focus on the Federal agencies also.
However, I want to approach the importance of this bill in terms of a local police department's activities, because I think there is an essential relation between the local police department and the Federal agencies.
I will ask you to bear with me as I provide the necessary background to make my approach clear.
On February 14 of this year, 131 persons sent a statement to the Governor of the State of Maryland. You have a copy of the statement and, therefore, I will not read it. But I will read what the concerns of the 131 signers of this statement were, and those concerns appear on page 3 of my testimony.
Their concerns were: Infiltration of peace and civil rights groups; routine photography of demonstrators for several years.
Collection of information on reporters writing stories unfavorable to the Police Commissioner of Baltimore, 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 Attorney, who at that time was Milton B. Allen, and the head of the Community Relations Commission; surveillance of black clergymen.
ISD, and that is Inspectional Services Division of the police department, collection of reports on recent striking hospital workers; ISD collection of reports on individuals and license numbers of persons entering the Friends Meeting House-that is a Quaker organizationand other places in Charles Village.
Finally, routine forwarding of surveillance records from the Police Commissioner of Baltimore to Army Intelligence and to the FBI.
May I digress from my testimony just a moment to point out that I have in my possession two documents which were reports from police agents to the police commissioner, and these two documents clearly