which was on this fellow's family in Mississippi. They sent me the information that a card was received by his family in Mississippi. There was no return address on it; however, the card came from this city, Sweet Home, Oreg. I checked the subject's name, the fellow was in the phone book. I went and said hello, and he said, "How in the world did you find me?"

Mr. DANIELSON. To make a long story short, it worked. I will yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. KASTEN MEIER. The gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. Drinan. Mr. DRINAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Cotter, your organization has made regulations as of March 12, this year which closed many of the loopholes, and now for the first time a written request is necessary from the FBI; and you also said that can be in existence for only 30 days. Were these stricter regulations adopted for the first time because you anticipated coming before this committee?

Mr. COTTER. No, sir, Congressman Drinan. These regulations have been in effect since 1965; we just republished them recently.

Mr. DRINAN. But wasn't an oral request permissible from the FBI for a national security cover prior to March 12 of this year?

Mr. COTTER. No, sir, except in an emergency situation. But to my knowledge, since I have been there, I have never had any verbal request for any mail cover at all.

Mr. Ansaldi tells me they have to follow up within 2 working days with a written request. But I don't recall having had a verbal request. Mr. DRINAN. Who keeps all the written requests from the FBI? In the year 1973 you had 284 mail covers in the name of national security; and in 1974 you had 260, and I assume in 1975 you have the same number going. The average number of days in 1973 was 116; in 1974 it was 119, and I assume that all of these are going forward. Have you seen the actual written requests?

Mr. COTTER. Yes, sir, I have seen these; each one.

Mr. DRINAN. Are they all the same?

Mr. COTTER. No, sir, they vary.

Dr. DRINAN. What organizations and name?

Mr. COTTER. An organization, Al Fatah.

Mr. DRINAN. And you just take it on faith from the FBI that this is a subversive organization. Have you ever turned down any request by the FBI?

Mr. COTTER. Yes.

Mr. DRINAN. How many?

Mr. COTTER. One reason, perhaps

Mr. DRINAN. How many?

Mr. COTTER. I'm getting that now, sir; but I might comment?
Mr. DRINAN. Go ahead.

Mr. COTTER. I'm sensitive, perhaps, to Al Fatah because in November of 1972 we had a deluge, as you know, of Black September letter bombs coming into this country. Perhaps I became hypersensitive to the fact that if anybody started mailing these types of things within the United States I would have a dreadful time trying to deal with it. Therefore, I was in sympathy with the FBI's requesting of me Suspects they had

Mr. DRINAN. Mr. Cotter, answer the question. You had 284 mail covers one year, 260 the next year. Did you refuse and how many,

of the FBI?

any,

Mr. COTTER. In the second quarter of fiscal year 1975 we turned down on national security of the FBI, two.

Mr. DRINAN. Out of how many requests? Out of the total number of requests you turned down two?

Mr. COTTER. Yes.

Mr. DRINAN. Could you give us the reason?

Mr. COTTER. No, sir, offhand I can't.

Mr. DRINAN. But in general, if the FBI requests it, you go ahead and do it. Who in the FBI is in charge of this, how high does that get? Is there a name of an individual who sends these things over? Mr. COTTER. Well, they are signed by Clarence Kelley. The actual fellow who does all the work, I don't know.

Mr. DRINAN. All right. And you do actually see every single one? Mr. COTTER. I sign each one myself.

Mr. DRINAN. And now you have this 30-day regulation, except in cases of national security, and they go on, I guess, forever. Is there any limit on the national security cover?

Mr. COTTER. No. However, in 120 days it has to be approved again by the Chief Postal Inspector.

Mr. DRINAN. All right. Have you ever turned down a continuation of a national security cover?

Mr. COTTER. I don't recall having turned down a continuation. Mr. DRINAN. So, in other words, if the FBI says, "We want a mail cover on Mr. X because he corresponds with Al Fatah," you put that on, and there really is no record that you ever discontinued that; it goes on, unbeknownst to the person whose mail is being covered. Mr. COTTER. That is conceivable.

Mr. DRINAN. That is correct. I mean, that's what goes on, you have no knowledge that any mail cover initiated has ever been terminated on the national security grounds. Is that right?

Mr. COTTER. I really have no recollection of having done so, Congressman Drinan. It well may have happened, I can review the records to see whether I did, in fact.

Mr. DRINAN. You see my point, there is really no protection to the individual, it goes on and on, and the organization may have been out of existence, and he may not be receiving any mail from the organization, yet the mail cover goes on and on and on.

And I can assume that the 260 that had mail covers for national security reasons alone in 1974, are probably included, are on the same persons as the 284 mail covers in the previous year.

Mr. COTTER. I would doubt that. But I would have to checkMr. DRINAN. Did the FBI ever write and say, let's discontinue this mail cover?

Mr. COTTER. Yes.

Mr. DRINAN. How often did that happen?

Mr. COTTER. I don't know.

Mr. DRINAN. If you could supply that information, that would be helpful. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. KASTENMEIER. The gentleman from New York, Mr. Pattison.

Mr. PATTISON. I just have one question. Other than the publication of the regulations in the Federal Register, how do you advise the public that their mail might be subject to a mail cover; do you do that at all? Are there signs in the Post Office, or warnings, like on a cigarette pack? Mr. COTTER. No, sir; we don't. It is published, as you mentioned, in the Federal Register and picked up in the newspapers, articles in the newspapers. Within the last couple of years the Wall Street Journal had a very comprehensive article on the subject. And, of course, recently there are articles that appear in the newspapers with regularity, although I must say that in many cases they are confusing because they equate the opening to the exterior review type of thing.

Mr. PATTISON. Would it bother you if there were requirements that each postal facility would have a sign posted to notify people that under certain circumstances their mail may be subject to cover? Mr. COTTER. Not at all. Not at all.

Mr. PATTISON. I yield back.

Mr. KASTENMEIER. Mr. Cotter, to continue, in terms of your procedure, are you required to inform anyone else, the Postmaster General, or the Attorney General, with respect to post covers?

Mr. COTTER. No, sir.

Mr. KASTENMEIER. Let me ask you, in connection with pending legislation, how you feel. Would you oppose the establishment of a warrant requirement, or some other statutory limitations on mail covers? I ask you that in the context of the question by the gentleman from California, Mr. Danielson.

Mr. COTTER. Are you suggesting, Mr. Chairman, that a warrant would be required before a mail cover could be placed?

Mr. KASTENMEIER. Yes.

Mr. COTTER. In certain types of cases I could see that would not necessarily be a problem. In a fugitive case, for example, there is enough time to go in and get one, and there is good probable cause to get that warrant.

On the other hand, I understand from my fellows who have been involved in the consumer fraud protection area, the mail cover really is an investigative technique; and when it is employed in the early stage of an investigation, you probably wouldn't have sufficient grounds, probable cause grounds, to support the judge's issuing a warrant to give you the opportunity to use the mail cover. Actually, you use the mail cover to help develop the probable cause. That would be a problem, I understand.

Again, for example, our people carry out reviews of publications and ads, "Cure for cancer in 2 weeks," price $2. We well might, after some preliminary inquiry, write a letter and buy the publication and see if it is a big fraud; take it to the appropriate Government agency, and they agree it is a fraudulent publication. We well might put a mail cover on that fellow to see the extent of the business and develop more witnesses for this type of thing.

Mr. KASTENMEIER. And you would want to do so without obtaining

a warrant.

Mr. COTTER. I wonder whether or not we would have sufficient grounds to get the warrant without the mail cover, to get the witnesses to testify to the fact they have purchased this thing, and so forth.

Mr. KASTENMEIER. So, your answer is, in some areas it could be required, and in other areas it would interfere with the investigation.

Mr. COTTER. Yes. I might add, Mr. Chairman, in the national security area it is something else again. Since I have nothing to do with the substantive aspects of those, I would have to defer to the FBI for their

reaction.

Mr. KASTENMEIER. In 1965 there was a New Republic article in which it was alleged that postal inspectors contacted employers of individuals who had been discovered as receiving obscene materials without such evidence ever having been used for criminal prosecution.

Can you state whether or not you are aware of information obtained by your service has ever been used in such a manner during your term of office?

Mr. COTTER. I'm not precisely clear on that point, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. KASTEN MEIER. The allegation was that 10 years ago postal inspectors contacted the employers of individuals who had been receiving obscene materials in the mail, presumably for the purpose of having the employer talk to the individual. Have you ever heard of such a thing during the period of your time in office?

Mr. COTTER. Beg your pardon?

Mr. KASTENMEIER. You are not aware of anything like that during your period of service?

Mr. COTTER. No, sir. As a matter of fact, as Mr. Ansaldi brings to my attention, we don't focus attention on individuals receiving obscene material in the mail. The parties with whom we are concerned-who brought us into action several years ago, with a big thrust in emphasis from the Congress are the big dealers, flooding the market with obscene advertising, and so forth. Those are the people upon whom we are focusing our attention, not upon the individual.

Mr. KASTENMEIER. Could you give the committee a general breakdown of the subject matter covered in the 332 mail openings, accomplished directly at the request of the Postal Inspection Service during the 2 years involved, 1973 and 1974; what was the general subject matter?

Mr. COTTER. One that quickly comes to mind, where many thousands of pieces of mail were involved, was in lotteries. These are lotteries coming in from abroad, from the Islands, the Bahamas, and so forth. We get an indication somehow or other, perhaps we have somebody who is on the mailing list, and they get a batch of lottery tickets. Then we get an indication when this large mailing of lottery tickets is coming into the United States, and we go into court and get a court order for permission to open this mail because there is probable cause to believe there is a violation of the law; hold it, and proceed with

court action.

Mr. KASTENMEIER. What percentage of the 323 mail openings were lottery related?

Mr. COTTER. Lottery, 72 out of 323. The largest number, 240 out of 323, involved the illegal mailing of narcotics. Those are the two big ones. Fraud, firearms, and burglaries are included in the total figure. The 2 big ones, narcotics cases, 240; lotteries, 72.

Mr. KASTENMEIER. Thank you.

To what extent are they used for obscenity cases?

Mr. COTTER. Very rarely. I chatted just before coming up here today with my manager who works in this area, and he said the last one that comes to his mind, in the last couple of years, was in Pennsylvania where, I think, 17,000 obscene mailings were in a warehouse. We received information, obtained a court order, seized them, took them into court, held them as evidence, and the court agreed and ordered the destruction of the materials.

Mr. KASTENMEIER. I would like to yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. DANIELSON. Is mail fraud still a problem, your probably most frequently encountered offense in the Postal Service?

Mr. COTTER. No, sir. I think the most troublesome and worrisome is house letterbox theft; they are after welfare checks.

Mr. DANIELSON. Mail fraud is still a big one.

Mr. COTTER. It is a "biggie."

Mr. DANIELSON. I notice in the frequency of mail covers, as well as mail openings, the Postal Service leads the field in the 2-year statistics you have supplied to us. As a matter of fact, on mail openings, the Postal Service conducted 323, Drug Enforcement Agency 62; you've got the bulk of the openings; the local police, and sheriffs, had only 16. I don't think a lot of people realize the impact of mail fraudshortly after President Truman died, there was a case in which an ad was in the paper that people could obtain a steel engraving of President Truman for $5. And when they sent in their $5, they received back a memorial postage stamp that cost four cents. That sort of fraud is prevailed on the public all the time

Mr. COTTER. Indeed, it is.

Mr. DANIELSON [continuing]. By artful dodgers around our country. Mr. COTTER. It certainly is.

Mr. DANIELSON. One more comment, and that's all. I notice in your 1973 mail cover tabulation you have a total of 284, which would be 23.66 per month. In the year 1974 you have a total of 260, which is a total of 23.33 per month, which looks like you are holding a pretty even average.

Let's go back to the FBI. They had 268 mail covers in 1973. The average was 116 days, which would mean, obviously, that some had to be terminated, or you couldn't get that kind of figure from the total 284 mail covers. And a similar figure holds true for 1974, where out of 245 mail covers the average was 119.4 days. Is that not correct, from your charts?

Mr. COTTER. Yes, sir.

Mr. DANIELSON. From that, would you say it is a safe assumption that some of them had to be terminated?

Mr. COTTER. There is no question about it.

Mr. DANIELSON. I have no further questions.

Mr. KASTENMEIER. The gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Railsback?
Mr. RAILSBACK. No questions.

Mr. KASTENMEIER. The gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. Drinan. Mr. DRINAN. I know, Mr. Cotter, that of your mail cover requests 180 were from police and sheriffs in calendar year 1974.

Is there any list of individuals who are authorized to request mail covers, or can any policeman, or police department, or any sheriff request this and obtain this?