Mr. COTTER. It would normally be the head of the department, the individual, his request, in his name; also in writing.

Mr. DRINAN. There is no list of certified people. In other words, any law enforcement agency can write in and request it.

Mr. COTTER. That's correct.

Mr. DRINAN. Including a Royal Canadian Mounted Policeman. Mr. COTTER. That's correct, with whom we work very closely on across-the-border cases.

Mr. DRINAN. Is it reciprocal, I mean

Mr. COTTER. Yes.

Mr. DRINAN. In other words, the Canadian police officials would cover our mail.

Mr. COTTER. I don't know about that, Congressman Drinan.

Mr. DRINAN. Well, then it is not reciprocal: yes, or no?

Mr. COTTER. I was thinking about reciprocity in a broad sense.

Mr. DRINAN. Well, I want to know whether my mail, going to Canada

Mr. COTTER. I don't know, sir.

Mr. DRINAN. I think that is a pretty simple question, you said it was reciprocal.

Mr. COTTER. Yes, sir; and I will certainly find out for you, Congressman Drinan. It is reciprocal in the broad sense, how close we work with the Canadian Mounted Police in the overall criminal mission.

Mr. DRINAN. Mr. Cotter, on page 19 you state this, and this was news to me, that "the payment of the lower rate is considered consent by the sender to examination of the mail contents since the sender is free to choose the greater privacy of first-class mail." And you cite some recommendations here.

Do you think that any great disaster could happen to the Commonwealth, the Republic, if H.R. 214 actually went through. Mr. Kastenmeier referred to that and related matters, related bills, that require in all cases court orders for the opening of any mail. I'm not sure that this bill stretches to the cover.

But what great disaster would happen if we had to go to court and get a court decree that even for a mail cover a court order would be necessary?

Mr. COTTER. As far as I'm concerned. Congressman Drinan, I do not think it would be the end of the world. I think perhaps it would slow down our operation and effectiveness in the area of consumer fraud protection, perhaps getting into mail fraud cases. I believe we would be able to work pretty quickly in getting a mail cover in a fugitive type of case. In national security, that is something else again, I would defer to the other agencies who are sensitive as to what they could be discussing in the court with regard to national security. I'm talking, perhaps, more in the foreign world, and I would defer to the Federal Bureau of Investigation and other agencies in that area.

Mr. DRINAN. Well, are you going to testify on behalf of the bill, or would you oppose the bill if it moves forward in this subcommittee? Mr. COTTER. I would oppose it. However, I made my point, it is not the end of the world as far as I'm concerned. I do believe that the American people would lose out by it in the vital area of consumer fraud protection with which we are so concerned today-the "little

old woman" work-at-home type of scheme. We can so much more quickly stop that kind of thing. It's only costing the woman $2, but still, we try to stop that type of case.

In the interest of the American people, I think it would be more difficult to operate if we had to get court orders every time we wanted to get a mail cover. But it's not the end of the world by any means.

Mr. DRINAN. And the American people have, in essence, greater security if the courts are, in fact, protecting this privacy that they have.

Mr. COTTER. Perhaps.

Mr. DRINAN. Would you have any suggestions as to what the Congress can do to help you in all these matters which you are involved with; do you want any legislation that would assist you in this area?

Mr. COTTER. Well, a lot of people suggest there certainly should be some legislation passed which would preclude the illegal opening of mail; and I would suggest that is not necessary since it is already on the statute books.

I would welcome guidance of some sort as to what standards I should use in making my judgment with regard to a national security mail cover, for example.

Mr. DRINAN. Apparently you have no standards.

Mr. COTTER. There are no standards.

Mr. DRINAN. No standards whatsoever?

Mr. COTTER. No, sir.

Mr. DRINAN. You really want to say you have no standards, whatever the FBI says

Mr. COTTER. No, no

Mr. DRINAN. That is what you said.

Mr. COTTER. If they met the standards and it was in the national interest, and so on.

Mr. DRINAN. But there is really nothing, I mean, you have nothing that you can put down.

Mr. COTTER. Well, again back to this point, you might well say to me, you have some audacity suggesting that because an individual is a member of such and such an organization, you put a mail cover on him.

Mr. DRINAN. I would say that.

Mr. COTTER. And there is a big difference of opinion between you and the FBI. So, I make a judgment, I go in the direction of the FBI's judgment and go along with the mail cover. Now, if there were some technique whereby there could some consensus approach, whereby these organizations would be recognized by both parties, I would be delighted.

Mr. DRINAN. As you know, the Supreme Court said we can't characterize and blacklist organizations, so you can't have another Attorney's General list of subversive organizations.

Mr. COTTER. Yes.

Mr. DRINAN. In the absence of that, why don't you recommend that we, at least in those cases of national security, that you would be protected, getting a court decree?

My 5 minutes are up, sir. Thank you very much.

Mr. KASTEN MEIER. The gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Railsback.

Mr. RAILSBACK. Mr. Cotter, how many people in your service monitor mail for possible fraud, or misuse?

Mr. COTTER. Monitor mail for possible misuse? Perhaps not paying enough postage, something in that area?

Mr. RAILSBACK. No; for fraud. In other words, the Postal Service has initiated many mail covers.

Mr. COTTER. Right.

Mr. RAILSBACK. Who are the people, and how many are there that initiate that?

Mr. DANIELSON. Would the gentlemen yield? What does the gentleman mean by "monitor mail"?

Mr. RAILSBACK. In other words, the Postal Service becomes, on occasion, suspicious that somebody is misusing the mail, and then they seek a mail cover.

Mr. DANIELSON. You mean by "monitor," you mean the mail cover? Mr. RAILSBACK. No. I mean how many people are monitoring to determine if a mail cover would be useful.

Mr. DANIELSON. I don't know if the witness knows what you mean by "monitor."

Mr. COTTER. I think, Mr. Danielson, what Mr. Railsback means, how many inspectors do I have working in the fraud area.

Mr. RAILSBACK. Yes.

Mr. COTTER. I would estimate, 225. I'm just estimating, I can get you a firm figure, I know it's around 200. We have 21 division headquarters around the country, covering Alaska, Puerto Rico, and so forth; and I would say at least 200 fraud specialists. And then, again, any inspector, if an inspector is out in the territory, he will investigate a fraud case, handle a small case, reacting to a customer's complaint, or something. We have a couple hundred specialists.

Mr. RAILSBACK. What do they do, review newspapers?

Mr. COTTER. We have some in the medical fraud area. For example, we have two inspectors in Washington, D.C., who look for these crackpot medical fraud schemes, who work closely with the FDA, and so forth here in Washington, D.C.; they actually send in "quickie" weight reducers, bust developer aids, and all that kind of quackery. Now, we have had criminal prosecutions, but, furthermore, the administrative action will stop this type of thing. Again, that is defensive action. And again, if you ask why are we doing it, we are doing it in the interest of the people.

Mr. RAILSBACK. Thank you.

Mr. KASTEN MEIER. The gentleman from California, Mr. Wiggins. Mr. WIGGINS. Mr. Chairman, I am not fully prepared to ask in-depth questions at this time, but I am confused with respect to your presentation-and perhaps my confusion comes from misunderstanding-of mail covers and mail openings.

Am I correct that when you refer to the general term "mail cover," you refer only to the inspection of the exterior content of it? Mr. COTTER. That is correct, sir.

Mr. WIGGINS. Why would you fail to inspect the exterior of an envelope when the addressee is the known attorney of a sender?

Mr. COTTER. We don't want to have anything to do with interference in a client-attorney relationship. And we have had some criticism on

57-282-76-pt. 1-21

that, back, again, in 1965; just the fact that we were recording the frequency of communication between the individual and lawyer. And we give direction to the postal clerk in the post office if we know the name of the lawyer, not to even record that piece of correspondence.

Mr. WIGGINS. You would not record the address of the sender? Mr. COTTER. That's correct, we would just forget that letter. Mr. WIGGINS. I don't understand the policy. I take it that on the exterior of the envelope, there is the name of the sender in some cases, it contains a postmark, and it contains the name and address of the addressee; and you are also monitoring in terms of frequency. That's about all I can understand you get. Is there some other investigative information that is generated?

Mr. COTTER. No, sir; you hit it completely. And that brings to my attention the question-and I wasn't there at the time-back during the Senator Long hearings on mail covers in 1965 this question came up, and we had an agreement, the post office and Senator Long's committee, that certain things would be done, and certain things wouldn't be done. And this particular item was one that the Senate felt rather strongly about.

Mr. WIGGINS. Do you mean to say that if a letter was called to your attention addressed to John Jones, Attorney at Law, at a specific address, and the return address indicated Patty Hearst's address, you would feel that you could not utilize that information for the purpose of apprehending, or aiding in the apprehension of Patty Hearst? Mr. COTTER. Under our regulations, if he were her attorney of record that we knew about, that would be prohibited.

Mr. WIGGINS. I see. Perhaps I have given you a hard case, but if that is the answer in that case, I, as one member of the public, find that a ludicrous regulation.

Mr. COTTER. I agree, Mr. Wiggins. But its genesis was back in 1965. That was a strong point in the mind of Congress, that we should not record any data with regard to correspondence between attorney and client.

Mr. WIGGINS. Can you use this information in any way? That is, can it be communicated in any way to a law enforcement official for the purpose of pursuing that address?

Mr. COTTER. Under our present rules, no, because the postal clerk is furnished the name of the lawyer and doesn't even record that information.

Mr. WIGGINS. Well, I would suspect that such a rule, if it were honored by the police, would produce ludicrous and absurd results. Is it, in fact, honored by its breach?

Mr. COTTER. Not to my knowledge, Mr. Wiggins.

Mr. WIGGINS. That's all.

Mr. KASTENMEIER. The gentleman from New York.

Mr. PATTISON. I have no questions.

Mr. KASTEN MEIER. Mr. Cotter, the recent audit of electronic equipment by the National Wiretapping Commission revealed that the Postal Inspection Service purchased in 1972 a number of roombugging devices disguised as electrical wall sockets. Did you happen to bring one with you?

Mr. COTTER. Unfortunately, I neglected to bring one. They look just like regular wall outlets.

Mr. KASTENMEIER. Could you explain why the Service purchased the devices, and how they are being used?

Mr. COTTER. Mr. Chairman, if I may, your staff mentioned to me you might be going into this particular area, and I brought with me my officer in headquarters who monitors this type of activity. I wonder if I might ask him to join us at this time?

Mr. KASTEN MEIER. Of course.

Mr. COTTER. Mr. Don Diseroad, Manager, External Crimes Branch, Chief Inspector's Department.

Mr. Diseroad, I wonder if you might respond to the chairman's question.

Mr. DISEROAD. The equipment was purchased for use by the Inspection Service in criminal investigations

Mr. DANIELSON. Mr. Chairman, would the gentleman speak into the microphone?

Mr. DISEROAD. The equipment was procured for use by the Inspection Service in criminal investigative work. It would be used, of course, under the guidelines of the Attorney General in the case where prior consent from the party was communicated, or if not, court orderMr. WIGGINS. I can't hear.

Mr. KASTEN MEIER. Would you speak up, sir, we did not hear you completely.

Mr. DISEROAD. The equipment was procured for use in criminal investigations. It would be used under the legal standards, in one case with prior consent by one of the parties, or under title III, court order. Mr. KASTENMEIER. Have you employed it pursuant to court order? Mr. DISEROAD. We have not used those particular items of equipment at all. They have never been used.

Mr. KASTENMEIER. They have never been used?

Mr. DISEROAD. Operationally?

Mr. KASTENMEIER. They have never been used. Would you explain then why, if they were purchased in 1972-they were in fact purchased for what contemplated use?

Mr. DISEROAD. They were purchased as potential for use in the Inspection Service, if we would have occasion to use such equipment. Mr. KASTENMEIER. I still don't understand why the Postal Service would pursue the use of such equipment, need such equipment to pursue criminal investigations, rather than the Department of Justice, or the Federal Bureau of Investigation, who are agencies which would pursue violations of the law.

Mr. DISEROAD. Well, we have responsibility for investigations of a number of criminal statutes; under some we have exclusive jurisdiction. We use electronic surveillance on offenses, violations involving the theft of checks from the mails, money orders from post offices.

Mr. KASTEN MEIER. Have the devices been used in connection with third-party consent?

Mr. DISEROAD. Those particular devices have not been used operationally at all.

Mr. KASTEN MEIER. Do you have other electronic surveillance devices?