letter, a copy of the letter that we had sent the FBI in April, nor a copy of another letter that we had sent them in October, I felt that perhaps if I appealed to the Attorney General himself, that that would bring some results.

Mr. KASTEN MEIER. To summarize the gist of your complaints to the Attorney General, what was the thrust of your letter to him?

Mr. FARRIS. Basically, I gave him a summary of how the initial investigation started, where we were at that point. I sent copies of our exhibits, if you will, of letters sent by me and received by me, including one from the local District Attorney, about having turned over some information to the FBI in the fall of 1973, and generally gave them an outline, including excerpts of some transcripts of the court proceeding, and the prosecution that we handled of a private wiretap, and asked that the IRS agents, the same IRS agents be brought back and assigned to the case. I believe I also mentioned that local FBI agents should not be used.

Mr. KASTEN MEIER. Now, this was written December 17, 1974. What response did you get from the Attorney General?

Mr. FARRIS. Zip. None.

Mr. KASTENMEIER. So, not only did you get no cooperation from the Federal Bureau of Investigation of any note, but you did not get a response from the Attorney General, from the Justice Department itself?

Mr. FARRIS. None from the Attorney General, the Deputy Attorney General, the head of the Criminal Division, the Chief of the General Crimes section, the Assistant Chief, or even any of the minor lawyers in the general crimes section.

Mr. KASTENMEIER. Yet, the public in Houston, through the newspaper revelations and the like, and through the prosecutions already undertaken, knew, as a matter of fact, that this practice was widespread and was illegal and yet you could not get the cooperation of these Government agencies?

Mr. FARRIS. That is correct.

Mr. KASTEN MEIER. I think that is outrageous, and I think it is incumbent upon this committee to see if we can help rectify that situation.

I yield to the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Railsback.

Mr. RAILSBACK. No questions. Thank you for your testimony. We appreciate it.

Mr. FARRIS. Thank you, sir.

Mr. KASTEN MEIER. The gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. Drinan. Mr. DRINAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Farris, for your testimony. When did you leave the office of U.S. attorney in 1975?

Mr. FARRIS. I left December 30, 1974.

Mr. DRINAN. Prior to your losing the total faith in the FBI, as indicated in your letter here, and your letter of that date on page 6 says that "Further reliance on the Federal Bureau of Investigation *** will be disastrous," had you checked with Clarence Kelley? Mr. FARRIS. No, sir, I had not.

I would like to correct one part of your question there, sir. I had not lost total faith in the FBI. I had lost total faith in the FBI in this case. I had not checked with Clarence Kelley, but then we had asked

Bill Cleveland, I say we, five U.S. attorneys, members of a subcommittee of the U.S. Attorneys Advisory Committee to the Attorney General in the fall of 1973, we had asked Bill Cleveland of the FBI to make arrangements in cases involving investigations of corruption or violations of Federal laws by police departments to make arrangements to bring in agents from other parts of the country, because we felt that it would not be healthy, and it would not be good to use the local agents who had to constantly deal with the police departments. And all Federal agencies have a mystique or something about keeping a rapport with the local law enforcement people, and I see nothing wrong with that. But, if the same agents that are supposed to be keeping a rapport with the police departments are also asked to investigate the police departments

Mr. DRINAN. Nonetheless, sir, you dealt with Mr. Thomas Jordan regularly, did you not?

Mr. FARRIS. Yes, sir.

Mr. DRINAN. He was, and apparently is not now the Special Agent in Charge of the FBI?

Mr. FARRIS. Yes, sir.

Mr. DRINAN. Was he transferred for any reason connected with this investigation?

Mr. FARRIS. No, sir. He took, I believe he took an early retirement in May of 1974.

Mr. DRINAN. Well, in April, April 29 specifically, you sent to that office four allegedly illegal intercepter tape recordings and do I take it that Mr. Jordan's office defied the U.S. attorney?

Mr. FARRIS. No, sir, they did not defy the U.S. attorney. They just dragged their feet.

Mr. DRINAN. And why didn't you go to Clarence Kelley?

Mr. FARRIS. I hoped that the people on the scene here, the Criminal Division and the General Crimes Section particularly, would do that. They had done it in other cases. They had taken an interest in other cases always.

Mr. DRINAN. Well, it is still unusual, sir, that you write at the end of your tenure to the Attorney General setting forth the entire record with the FBI and particularly Mr. Jordan, the Special Agent in Charge, had quite literally defined the U.S. attorney and had failed to move forward with his duty to cooperate with the U.S. attorney. And I find it a little anomalous.

What is the U.S. attorney doing about the matter?

Mr. FARRIS. I do not know, sir. I have not discussed the matter with him.

Mr. DRINAN. Why have not the nine indicted been tried?

Mr. FARRIS. They were first indicted in February of 1974. The indictment was dismissed because of a technicality, and they were reindicted in May. And then we discovered that the same lawyers were representing all of the defendants including witnesses. We filed a motion asking that the court force the lawyers out and make them break it up so that the nine HPD would have separate lawyers.

The matter was, the ruling was handed down by the judge agreeing with the Government, and saying that all of the lawyers would be out. They then appealed the matter to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals and that is what is holding up that particular thing.

Mr. DRINAN. So it is not any political involvement, not foot dragging on the part of the FBI, it is just these legal technicalities, shall we say?

Mr. FARRIS. Yes, that is correct. But, of course, that case was an IRS case.

Mr. DRINAN. But, nonetheless, you are vindicating the administration of justice on the criminal side and you are saying, if I understand you correctly, there is no negligence whatsoever with respect to the delays caused in the trials of these nine indicted police officers? Mr. FARRIS. None at all, sir.

Mr. DRINAN. Consequently you are denying what the Chief said, that there has been some delay here for political reasons?

Mr. FARRIS. I don't know if the Chief was conversant with the facts.

Mr. DRINAN. He intimated that. He did not say it. But, in any event, we have your testimony, and we will let him speak for himself. Would you agree with Chief Lynn that there has been some involvement by the phone company? Chief Lynn says there are 200 employees of the Southwestern Bell that have been involved in complicity with wiretapping.

Mr. FARRIS. Sir, that brings us to rule 6 (e), and I heard a lot of the testimony before the grand jury, and I cannot answer that question. Mr. DRINAN. Because of the secrecy of the grand jury?

Mr. FARRIS. Yes, sir.

Mr. DRINAN. During all of this time, as the U.S. attorney, did you make any formal complaints against the negligence and the willingness to obey of the FBI? They were obviously impeding your investigation which you felt strongly and deeply about, and yet during all of these months, if I understand you correctly, and you state here on page 5 of your letter to Mr. Saxbe, "Numerous telephone calls and conferences with the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Houston, Tex., during which we expressed our concern and displeasure with the course of the investigation has resulted in no improvement."

But, I take it that you continued to spin wheels with the people in Houston, and you did not go to any other higher authority, either the Attorney General or Clarence Kelley, until this letter of December 17, 1974, which was really on the day of your departure, practically? Am I correct in saying you did not go to Washington?

Mr. FARRIS. Well, sir, I pointed out that we had sent copies of the correspondence to the Criminal Division and I hoped that, as they had done in the past, that they would rise to the occasion and do the right thing.

Also, since we had been turned down on the matter being investigated by the IRS, all we had left was the local FBI.

Mr. DRINAN. Yes, you knew, and this is what you revealed on December 17, 1974, that you knew that there was, that the police department in Houston had utilized illegal electronic surveillance on a large scale. Now, you lived with that knowledge for many months. And why did Mr. Tom Jordan, the special agent in charge, drag his feet? And are you suggesting, or intimating that he was involved, or was he just incompetent and negligent?

Mr. FARRIS. I am not suggesting that he was involved. I am not

suggesting that he was incompetent. I am not suggesting that he was negligent.

Mr. DRINAN. Well, you have said that, sir. You said he is negligent, you negotiated with him in numerous telephone calls and conferences. You cannot get off this question, sir. You have to say that he was negligent, or incompetent, if you want to, he was involved. You have to admit that he was negligent, he defied your orders, and he is the FBI agent in charge who allowed months and months to go by, where we have you writing to the Attorney General of the United States saying that the local FBI person here has really not cooperated, and that now this man has taken early retirement.

I am not sitting in judgment on him, but I have to tell you, whether this is sheer negligence on the part of the FBI or whether you are suggesting or intimating that the FBI is so involved with the local police officials that they were, shall we say, tainted with some corruption.

Mr. FARRIS. I am saying they were unconcerned, including the agent in charge, including the supervisors in that particular matter, and that also they were worried so much about keeping rapport with the police department that they did not want to stir things up.

Mr. DRINAN. You are accusing them of negligence in their duty, and practically going against that to which they have taken an oath to do; namely, to carry out impartially and objectively the administration of criminal justice. And over a period of months, this has gone on.

I have your testimony, and I thank you for it, and all I can say is that I wish at that time that the FBI at the higher levels had taken action and had been fully informed of this negligence that went on for a long time. We thank you, sir, for your testimony.

Mr. FARRIS. Thank you.

Mr. KASTENMEIER. I have no particular wish to quarrel with my friend from Massachusetts, but I think you were correct in bringing the matter to the attention of the Attorney General, with whom you have a direct line of responsibility, rather than to Mr. Kelley, to whom you are not directly responsible, nor is he directly responsible to you. I think it was a failure of the Office of the Attorney General to take seriously your complaint, because the Attorney General is responsible for the Federal Bureau of Investigation and Mr. Kelley, and was the proper person, it seems to me, to lean on Mr. Kelley. So, I think you did the right thing in terms of whom you went to ultimately for the purpose of redress here.

I would like to yield to the gentleman from New York, Mr. Badillo. Mr. BADILLO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I am concerned about the involvement of the FBI with the Houston police in the illegal wiretapping. And you have said that the FBI wanted to maintain rapport with the police department. The Chief indicated that he has reports that when there was illegal wiretapping taking place, that an FBI agent was sitting there and listening in too. Is that what you would call rapport?

Mr. FARRIS. I would not call that rapport, if, in fact, that happened. And I do not know that it happened, but if, in fact, FBI agents were sitting by and watching any law enforcement agency, any non-Federal law enforcement agency conduct an illegal wiretap, then they should be charged as accomplices, if the statute of limitations has not run out.

Mr. BADILLO. I say this because in your letter you say that Captain Bond from the narcotics division of the Houston Police Department delivered information to your office which confirmed that the police department had utilized illegal electronic surveillance. And you say: "This information further confirms positively that the best interest of society would not be served by allowing the Federal Bureau of Investigation to investigate this matter." Was there any information given by Captain Bond which indicated that the FBI was actively participating with the Houston Police Department in the illegal wiretapping?

Mr. FARRIS. I do not know whether it was from Captain Bond, or Chief Lynn, or perhaps in one of the transcripts, but I did get information late in November of 1974, just before I wrote the letter to General Saxbe, that at the very least one or two agents had been on the premises of an apartment where there was an illegal wiretap going on by police officers and had stood by. And, of course, we received no report of that from the FBI, so this was the first time we learned that this might have happened.

Mr. BADILLO. Do you know whether those one or two agents have ever been questioned, or were they questioned by you as to whether this happened?

Mr. FARRIS. No, sir. As I say, this was just before I wrote the letter to the General.

Mr. BADILLO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. KASTENMEIER. The gentleman from New York, Mr. Pattison. Mr. PATTISON. I have no questions.

Mr. KASTENMEIER. Does anyone have any further questions either of Mr. Farris or Chief Lynn?

Mr. DRINAN. Mr. Chairman?

Mr. KASTENMEIER. The gentleman from Massachusetts.

Mr. DRINAN. Mr. Farris, would you have any suggestion as to what this committee could do to draw tighter regulations or to alter statutory law so that it would be easier for U.S. attorneys or easier for law enforcement officials to prevent the FBI from condoning illegal wiretaps? I assume from the testimony that some evidence exists along that line. Would you have any suggestions as to how we could carry out our oversight duty, or how we could make regulations or laws with respect to electronic wiretapping that would prevent that happening again, what presumably has happened in Houston?

Mr. FARRIS. I think if you could prevail upon Director Kelley to promulgate a policy whereby agents are brought in from another area to investigate corruption in a police department, that would be certainly one giant step. It will never work, or hardly ever work. When we, the five U.S. attorneys in Arizona in 1973, when we brought this to the attention of Bill Cleveland, the only thought that Bill and the other fellows from the FBI had here in Washington is that they were affronted, they thought we were questioning their integrity, and they were ready to protect their flanks.

Well, that was absurd. We wanted to tighten up on an investigatory procedure, and it had nothing to do with questioning anybody's integrity. And if this committee could prevail upon the Director to promulgate that policy of bringing in agents from across the country