Lapas attēli

☛ Merritt, James E., attorney, Morrison and Foerster, counsel to the Page

Crocker National Bank of San Francisco___.


Prepared statement.


Mitchell, Hon. Parren J., a Representative in Congress from the State
of Maryland__


Prepared statement___.


Terry, Robert H., Commissioner, Accounts, Collections, and Taxpayer
Service, IRS_




Whitaker, Meade, Chief Counsel, Internal Revenue Service__.
Wolfe, Singleton B., Assistant Commissioner, Compliance, IRS-
Additional material-

"A Bankers Guide to IRS Procedures for Examinations of Customer
Records and Levies on Customer Accounts," by the American Bank-
ers Association_.

Caming, H. W. William, attorney, letter dated March 18, 1975, to
Bruce A. Lehman, counsel, House Committee on the Judiciary_
Cotter, William J., Chief Postal Inspector, letter and attachments
dated March 14, 1975, to Hon. Robert W. Kastenmeier___.
Farris, Anthony J. P., U.S. attorney, Department of Justice, letter
dated December 17, 1974, to Hon. William Saxbe, Attorney General_
Financial Recordkeeping by banks, requirements under the Internal
Revenue Code__.

"United States Treaties and Other International Agreements," vol. 23,

pt. 3, 1972___

Kastenmeier, Hon. Robert W., chairman, Subcommittee on Courts,
Civil Liberties, and the Administration of Justice, letter dated
March 21, 1975, to the President of the United States___-

Mandelkern, Irwin, attorney, letter dated March 3, 1975, to House

Judiciary Committee___








"Operational Guidelines for Compliance by Commercial Banks with
the Treasury Regulations," by the American Bankers Association___

Right to Privacy-Recommendations of the House Republican Task

Force on Privacy--

Task Force Report No. 9, Confidentiality and Third Parties, American
Psychiatric Association__.

[blocks in formation]
[blocks in formation]
[merged small][merged small][ocr errors]

Excerpt From U.S. News & World Report, June 19, 1975-‒‒‒‒‒

Appendix 20-Supreme Court of the United States:

United States v. U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Michigan, et al-No. 70-153-Argued February 24, 1972;
Decided June 19, 1972-


Opinion of Court, delivered by Mr. Justice Powell-
Concurring opinion, Mr. Justice Douglas_-_-
Concurring opinion, Mr. Justice White--




Appendix 21-U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia

Zweibon v. Mitchell__


Appendix 22-Supreme Court of the United States:

United States et al. v. Bisceglia-No. 73–1245-Argued Novem-
ber 11-12, 1974: Decided February 19, 1975_


Opinion of Court, delivered by Mr. Chief Justice Burger_.
Concurring opinion, Mr. Justices Blackmun and Powell.
Dissenting opinion, Mr. Justices Stewart and Douglas_____.




[blocks in formation]
[blocks in formation]






Washington, D.O. The subcommittee met at 10:10 a.m., pursuant to call, in room 2141, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Robert W. Kastenmeier [chairman of the subcommittee] presiding.

Present: Representatives Kastenmeier, Danielson, Drinan, Badillo, Railsback, Wiggins, and Cohen.

Also present: Bruce A. Lehman, counsel; Timothy A. Boggs, professional staff member; and Thomas E. Mooney, associate counsel. Mr. KASTEN MEIER. The subcommittee will come to order. The Subcommittee on Courts, Civil Liberties, and the Administration of Justice is meeting this morning on the matter of wiretapping, electronic eavesdropping, and other surveillance conducted by the Government. In the past there have been occasional intermittent revelations of unethical conduct by Government investigators. However, in recent weeks and months we have been confronted with a plethora of revelations cascading upon us on almost a daily basis concerning secret surveillance and intelligence gathering reaching into the private lives of Americans.

Meanwhile congressional and public concern has been welling up about the stories of eavesdropping and snooping which fill our daily papers. Our job as a subcommittee is to learn what is happening and develop legislative remedies.

Much has been made about surveillance of public officials lately. However, the concern, the threat does not end there. For example, last year the Federal Bureau of Investigation admitted conducting surveillance of the mail of a 16-year-old New Jersey schoolgirl after she wrote a letter to the Socialist Workers Party as part of a class project. If this young woman is not secure from the Government spy, what can we assume about those more actively involved in the intellectual and political life of the Nation?

Of course, surveillance has not stopped with reading other people's mail. As testimony before this subcommittee last spring demonstrated, the forms of eavesdropping on private lives have included wiretapping of telephones, the use of surreptitious entry, and the bugging of homes.


The most insidious form of surveillance of all is the so-called warrantless wiretap or electronic surveillance which is conducted without the subject ever knowing that his privacy is being or has been invaded. And, warrantless wiretapping is normally conducted with regard to the subjects' political activities, raising the gravest questions of firstand fourth-amendment violations. It is warrantless wiretapping and electronic eavesdropping with all the variations made possible by modern technology which could form the cornerstone of a future police


On April 24, 26, and 29 of last year, our subcommittee began its inquiry with regard to surveillance by holding hearings on wiretapping and electronic eavesdropping. During those hearings the subcommittee heard a wide range of testimony, including that of Government witnesses such as Assistant Attorney General Henry Petersen, as well as spokesmen for the FBI and the Department of Defense. A former FBI agent turned private investigator, William Turner, testified about his knowledge of both Government and private snooping. Colleagues from the Congress also testified on over 13 different bills then pending in the subcommittee. We also heard from the chief security officer of the American Telephone and Telegraph Co., and two of the individuals who will appear here this morning, Attorneys Leon Friedman and John Shattuck. Unfortunately, we were unable to continue to examine the subject in greater detail because of the intervention of the full committee's impeachment inquiry, and the subsequent confirmation hearings for the Vice President.

However, neither public nor congressional interest in the question of surveillance has waned since we temporarily laid aside our inquiry. Within the month since the 94th Congress convened, more than 13 bills relating to surveillance with over 70 House sponsors have been introduced and referred to the subcommittee. Without objection, at this point these bills will be inserted in the record.

[The bills referred to follow :]

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »