Document date: 00/00/0000

## Page 1

File #:

662-112-116395

Serial Scope:

128,5

55174

Docld:32989566

Page 1

---

## Page 2

6

* .

IAX: 55124 DocId: 32989566

Page 2

ENCLOSURE

149395-12855

---

## Page 3

238-18453

wisen

'iseen.

4r 55124

t a some 2.

DocId:32989566 Page 3

---

## Page 4

FARHA CHURCH, IGARO, CHAIRLiAT"

JOHN G. TOWEN, TEXAS, VICE CHAIRNAN

19111Р А. НАПТ, МІСЯ.

HOWARD H. BAKEN, JR., TENS..

WALTER F. MONDALE, MINI.

¡ARMY GOLDVIATER, ARIZ.

WALTEND, HUDOLESTON, KY.

CHARLES IAC C. MAT!ILAS, JR., iNS.

ACCERY MONGAIN, N.C.

GAHY SANT, COLO.

WILLIAM G. MILLER, STAT" DIRECTOR

FREDERIOX A. D. SCHIVARI, JEe, CHIE!' COUNSTi.

CURTIS R, SMOTHERS, MINC 'TY COUNSEL

TO: The Honorable Clarence M. Kelley

Director, Federal Bureau Of

Investigation

Washingion, D.C.

20535

Date December 12, 1975

Dried Saurs Desole

SELECT COMMITTE TO

STUDY COVERNMENTAL OPERVTIONS WITH

• RESPECT TO INTELLIGENCE ACTIVITIES

(PURSUANT TO E, RES, 21, SITH CONGRESS)

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20510

Ref: Hearing onControls of the

FoBolo

Date

December 10, 1975

Copy # 5

Attached is a copy of your recent testimony before the Select Committee to .

Study Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence Aclivities. Please

review and

return with your corrections enteres directly onto the transcriptir

red or in inis.

Do not retype the entire transcript.

if necessary, an insertion

should be stapled onto the page front, clearly marked to identify the point of

insert.

Kindly mail che transcript in the enclosed envelope, which needs no postage,

in time to reach the Committee by

December 30, 1975

IT we do not hear from you, by that time we shall assume that you have no

corractious nor changes, and the transcriat will be sent to the printer as it

is. Your transcript must be returned, however, whether ar not you desire any

changes. It should not be duplicated

nor distributed in its present ford.

Please return this sheet with your transcript and ascertain the correct

ness of your

mailing address.

A copy of the printed hearing containing your

testimony will

he sent to you when published.

Thank you for cooperation.

Curie, IN Shriy

Audrey H, Hatry

Clerk of the Committee

NH 55124 DocId: 32989566

Page 4

---

## Page 5

Vol.

20

Or Waited Staten Gruute

Report of Proceedings

Hearing held before

Select Committee to Scudy Governmental Operations

Wich Respast to Intelligence Activities

INPELEIGRNCE AWESDIGRUZON

Wednesday, December 10, 1975

Washington, D. C.

-

WARD & PAUL

410 FIRST STREET, S. 5.

WASHINGTON, D. C. 20003

(202) 541-6000

WW 55124 DocId: 32989566 Page 5

---

## Page 6

phone (Ares 202) 544-6000

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

CONTENT

STATEMENT OF :

PAGE

The Honorable Clarence M. Kelley,

Direcotor, Federal Bureau of Inve-

stigation

2451

WARD & PAUL

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

410 First Streot, S.E., Washington, D.C. 20003'

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

HH 55124

pocId: 32989566 Page 6

---

## Page 7

/ sinhl

phonafAros 202) 548-6000

2447

1

2

3

4

5

6

INTELLIGENCE INVESTIGATION

ais

-

Wednesday, December 10, 1975

United States Senate,

Select Committee to Study Governmental

Operations with Respect to

Intelligence Activities,

Washington, D. C.

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:10

o'clock a.m., in Room 318, Russell Senate Office Building,

the honorable Frank Church (Chairman of the Committee)

presiding.

Present: Senators Church (presiding), Hart.of Michigan,

Mondale, Huddleston, Hart of Colorado, Baker, Goldwater and

Mathias.

Also present: William G. Miller, Staff Director; Frederick

A. 0. Schwarz, JI., Chief Counsel; Curtis R. Smothers, Minority

Counsel; Paul Michel, Joseph diGenova, Barbara Banoff, Frederick

Baron, Mark Gitenstein, Loch Johnson, David Bushong. Charles

Lombard, John Bayly, Charles Kirbow, Michael Madigan, Bob

Kelley, John Elliff, Elliot Maxwell, Andy Postal, Pat Shea,

Michael Epstein and Burt Wides, Professional Staff Members.

First

6,10

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

The Chairman. The Committee's witness this morning is

HH 55124

PocId: 32989566 Paye 7

---

## Page 8

smn. 2

phone (Area 202) 544-6000

2448

WARD

410 First Street, S.E., Washington, D.C. 20003

1

the Honorable Clarence M.. Kelley, the Director of the Federal

2

Bureau of Investigation.

3

4

5

6

8

9

10

11

12

13

1.4

25

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Mr. Kelley was appointed Director in July of 1973 in a

troubleâ time for the FBI. His experience as an innovative

law enforcement administrator in charge of the Kansas City

Police Department for over ten years, and his previous work as

a Special Agent of the FBI have made him uniquely qualified

to lead the Bureau.

The Select Committee is grateful for the cooperation

extended by Director Kelley in the course of its inquiry over

the past months. The Committee is also impressed by the

openness of the FBI's witnesses before this Committee, and

their willingness to consider the need for legislation to

clarify the Bureau's intelligence responsibility.

It is important to remember from the outset that this

Committee is examining only a small portion of the FBI's

activities. Our hearings have concentrated on FBI domestic

intelligence operations. We have consistently expressed our

admiration and support for the Bureau's criminal investigative

and law enforcement work, and we recognize the vital importance

of counterespionage in the modern world. But domestic

intelligence has raised many difficult questions.

The Committee has also concentrated on the past rather

than on present FBI activities. The abuses brought to light

• HH 55124

in our hearings occurred years and even decades before Director

pocId: 32989566 Page 8

---

## Page 9

1945

Phona (Aroa 202) 544-6000

]

2

3

4

5

6

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Kelley took charge.

The Staff has advised the Committee that under Director

Kelley the FBI has taken significant steps to rethink previous

policies and to establish new safeguards against abuse.. The

FBI is now placing greater emphasis on foreign related intelli-

gence operations, and less on purely domestic surveillance.

The FBI is working more closely with the Justice Department in

developing policies and standards for intelligence, These

are welcome developments.

Nevertheless, many important issues remain unresolved.

Therefore, we have invited Director Kelley to share with the

Committee his views on some of the considerations the Congress

should take into account in thinking about the future of •

FBI intelligence. Among these issues are whether FBI surveil-

lance should extend beyond the investigation of persons

likely to commit specific crimes; whether there should be

outside supervision or approval before the FBI conducts certain

types of investigations or uses certain surveillance techniques;

whether foreign related intelligence activities should be

strictly separated from the FBI's domestic law enforcement

functions, and what should be done to the information already

in the FBI files and that which may go into those files in

the future.

The Committee looks forward to a constructive exchange

NH 55121

of views with Director Kelley this morning, with Attorney

DocId: 32989566 Page 9

---

## Page 10

ămn 4

2450 -

Phone (Arda 202) 546-6000

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

General Levi tomorrow, and with both the FBI and the Justice

Department in the next months as the Committee considers

recommendations that will strengthen the American people's

confidence in the Federal Bureau of Investigation. That

confidence is vital for the effective enforcement of Federal

law and for the security of the nation against foreign

espionage.

Director Kelley, we are pleased to welcome you, and if

you would have a prepared

statement you would like to lead off

with, please proceea.

12

13

14

15

. 16

17

18

410 First Street, S.E., Washington, D.C. 20003"

19

20

21

22

23

24

NW 551225 DocId: 32989566 Page 10

---

## Page 11

smn 5

544-0000

2451

• .

Fiona

3

5

6

WARD

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE CLARENCE M. KELLEY,

DIRECTOR, FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

Mr. Kelley. Thank you very much, Senator Church and

gentlemen.

I welcome the interest which this Committee has shown in

the FBI and most particularly in our operations in the intelli-

gence and internal security fields.

I share your high regard for the rights guaranteed by the

Constitution and laws of the United States. Throughout my

35-year career in law enforcement you will find the same insis

tence, as has been expressed by this Comnittee, pon programs

of law enforcement that are themselves fully consistent with

law.

8

9

10

I1

12

13

14

I also have strongly supported the concept of legislative

15

oversight.

16

the FBI

In fact, at the time my appointment as Director of

was being considered by the Senate Judiciary

17

Committee two and one half years ago, I told the members of

18

that Committee of my firm belief in Congressional oversight.

19

20

21

This Committee has completed the most exhaustive study

of our intelligence and security operations that has ever been

undertaken by anyone outside the FBI other than the present

22

Attorney General. At the outset, we pledged our fullest

23

cooperation and promised to be as candid and forthright as

24

possible in responding to your questions and complying with your

WW 55125

requests.

Docid: 32989566

Page 11

---

## Page 12

smn 6

2452

WARD

4

5

6

7

8

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

•I believe we have lived up to those promises.

The members and staff of this Committee have had unprece-

dented access to FBI information.

You have talked to the personnel who conduct security-type

investigations and who are personally involved in every facet

of our day-to-day intelligence operations.

You have attended numerous briefings by FBI officials who

have sought to familiarize the Committee and its staff with

all major areas of our activities and operations in the national

security and intelligence fields.

In brief, you have had firsthana examination of these

matters that is unmatched at any time in the history of the

Congress.

As this Committee has stated, these hearings have, of

necessity, focused largely on certain errors and abuses. I

credit this Committee for its forthright recognition that the

hearings do not give a full or balanced account of the FBI's

record of performance.

It is perhaps in the nature of such hearings to focus

on abuses to the exclusion of positive accomplishments of the

organization.

The Counterintelligence Programs which have received the

lion's share of public attention and critical comment constituted

an infinitesimal portion of our overall work.

25

HH 55124

A Justice Department Committee which was formed last year

DocId: 32989566 Page 12

---

## Page 13

a 7=

phone (Area 202) 544-6000

2453

WARD & PAUL

410 First Street, S.E., Washington, D.C. 20003

1

2

3

4

5

6

8.

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

.9

20

21

22

23

24

to conduct a thorough study of the FBI's Counterintelligence

Programs has reported that in the five basic ones it- found

3,247 Counterintelligence Programs were submitted to FBI

Headquarters From 1956 to 1971. Of this total, 2,370,

less than three fourths, were approved.

I repeat, the vast majority of those 3,247 proposals were

being devised, considered, and many were rejected, in an era

when the FBI was handling an average of 700,000 investigative

matters per year.

Nonetheless, the criticism which has been expressed

regarding the Counterintelligence Programs is most legitimate

and understandable.

The question might well be asked what I had in mind when

I stated last year that for the FBI to have done less than it

did under the circumstances then existing would have been an

abdication of its responsibilities to the American people..

What I said then, in 1974, and what I believe today, is

that the FBI employees involved in these programs did what they

felt was expected of them by the President, the Attorney General,

the Congress, and the people of the United States.

Bomb explosions-rocked public and private offices and

buildings; rioters led by revolutionary extremists laid seige

to military, industrial, and educational facilities; and

killings, maimings, and other atrocities accompanied such

25

acts of violence from New England to California.

HH 55124

PocId: 32989566 Page 13

---

## Page 14

SIRn 8

2454

PhOnO (Are: 202) 544-5000

PAUL

NARD

20003

310 First Street, S.E., Washington, D.C.

1

2

5

6

10

11

]

2

1

3

14

15

17

18

19

20

21/

2

23°

2.4

25

The victims of these acts were human beings, men, women,

and children. As is the case in time of peril, whether real or

perceived, they looked to their Government, their elected and

appointed leadership, and to the FBI and other law enforcement

agencies to protect their lives, their property, and their

rights.

--...

There were many calls for action from Members of Congress

and others, but few guidelines were furnished. The FBI and other

law enforcement agencies were besieged by demands, impatient

demands, for immediate action.

FBI employees recognized the danger; felt they had a

responsibility to respond; and in good faith initiated actions

designed to countes conspiratorial efforts of self-proclaimed

revolutionary groups, and to neutralize violent activities.

In the development and execution of these programs,

mistakes of judgment admittedly were made.

Our concern over whatever abuses occurred in the Counter-

intelligence Programs, and there were some substantial ones,

should not obscure the underlying purpose of those programs.

We must recognize that situations have occurred in the

past and will arise in the future where the Government may well

be expected to depart from its

traditional sole, in the FBI's

case, as an investigative and intelligence-gathering

agency, and take affirmative steps which are needed to meet

HH 55124

an imminent threat to human life or property.

NocId: 32989566 Paye 14

---

## Page 15

smn 9

2455

hono (Arca 202) 564-6000

WARD & PAUL

1

• In short, if we learn a murder or bombing is to be carried

2

3

lout now, can we truly meet our responsibilities by investigating

only after the crime has occurred, or should we have the

4

5

6

81

9

10

11

13

14

15

16

17/

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

ability to prevent? I refer to those instances where there is

a strong sense of urgency because of an imminent threat to

human life.

-..-

--.-

Where there exists the potential to penetrate and disrupt,

the Congress must consider the question of whether or not such

preventive action should be available to the FBI.

These matters are currently being addressed by a task

force in the Justice Department, including the FBI,

and I am confident that Departmental guidelines and controls can

be developed in cooperation with pertinent Committees of Congress

to insure that such measures

are used in an entirely responsible

manner.

Probably the most important. question here today is what

assurances I can give that the errors and abuses which arose

under the Counterintelligence Programs will not occur again?

First, let me assure the Committee that some very sub-

stantial changes have been made in key areas of the FBI's

methods of operations since I took the oath of office as

Director on July 9, 1973.

Today we place a high premium on openness, openness

both within and without the service.

I have instituted a program of open, frank discussion

HH 55124

DocId: 32989566 Paye 15

---

## Page 16

SMn

10

Phone (Arsa 202) 544-6000

PAUL

WARD

410 First Street, S.E., Washington, D.C. 20003

1

2

3

5

6

8

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

2,5

HH 55124

2456

in the decision-making process which insures that no future

program or major policy decision will ever be adopted without a

full and critical review of its propriety.

Participatory management has become a fact in the FBI.

I have made it known throughout our Headquarters and

Field Divisions that I welcome all employees, regardless of

position or degree of experience, to contribute their thoughts

and suggestions,

and to voice whatever criticisms or

reservations they may have concerning any area of our operations.

The ultimate decisions in the Bureau are mine, and I take

full responsibility for them. My goal is to achieve maximum

critical analysis among our personnel without in any manner

weakening or undermining our basic command structure.

The results of this program have been most beneficial to

me personally, to the FBI's disciplined performance, and to

the morale of our employees.

In addition, since some of the mistakes of the past

were occasioned by direct orders from higher authorities outside

the FBI, we have welcomed Attorney General Edward Levi!s

guidance, counsel, and his continuous availability, in his.

own words, "as a 'lightning rod' to deflect improper requests."

Within days after taking office, Attorney General Levi

instructed that I immediately report to him any requests

or practices which, in my juagment, were improper or which,

considering the context of the request, I believed presented

DocId: 32989566 Page 16

---

## Page 17

• smnll

2457

phono (Arca 202) 544-5000

PAUL

WARD

410 First Street, 5.E., Washington, D.C. 20003

1

2

4

5

6

9

.10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

the appearances

of impropriety.

I am pleased to report to this Committee as I have to the

Attorney General that during my nearly two and one half years as

Director under two Presidents and three Attorneys General, no

one has approached me or made overtures, directly or otherwise,

to use the FBI for partisan political or other improper

purposes.

I can assure you that I would not for a moment consider

honoring any such request.

I can assure you, too, in my administration of the FBI

I routinely bring to the attention of the Attorney General and

the Deputy Attorney General major policy questions, including

those which arise in my continuing review of our operations and

practices. These are discussed openly and. candidly in ordes

that the Attorney General can exercise his responsibilities

over the FBI.

I am convinced that the basic structure of the FBI today

is sound. But it would be a mistake to think that integrity

can be assured only through institutional means..

Integrity is a human quality. It depends upon the

character of the person who occupies the office of the

Director and every member of the FBI under him.

I am proud of the 19,000 men and women with whom it is

my honor to serve today. Their dedication, their professionalism,

their standards, and the self-discipline which they personally

HH 55124

NocId: 32989566 Paye 17

---

## Page 18

smn 12

Phono (Aras 202) 544-6000

First Street, S.E., Washington, D.C. 20003

410

1

2

3

4

5

• 6

8

9

10

11

12

13

I4

15

16

17

• 18

19

20

21

22

23

24

2458

demand of themselves and expect of their associates are the

nation's ultimate assurance of proper and responsible conduct

at all times by the FBI.

The Congress and the members of this Committee in

particular have gained a great insight into: the problems

confronting the FBI in the security and intelligence fieldsy

problen whica all too often ne have foste to sezolve richout

sufficient guidance from the Executive Branch or the Congress

itself.

As in all human endeavors, errors of judgment have been

made. But no one who is looking for the cause of our

failures should confine his search solely to the FBI, or even

to the Executive Branch.

The Congress itself has long possessed the mechanism for

FBI oversight; yet, seldom has it been exercised.

An initial step was taken in the Senate in 1973 when the

Committee on the Judiciary established a Subcommittee on FBI

oversight. Hearings had been commenced, and we were fully

committed to maximum participation with the members of that

subcommittee.

I laud their efforts. However, those efforts are of very

recent origin in terms of the FBI's history.

One of the greatest benefits of the study this Committee

has made is the expert knowledge you have gained of the complex!

HH 55124

25

problems confronting the FBI. But I respectfully submit that

DocId: 32989566 Paye 18

---

## Page 19

2459

mn 13

410 Flrst Street, S.E., Washington, D.C. 20003

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

1]

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

.25

those benefits are wasted if they do not lead to the next step,

a step that I believe is absolutely essential, a legislative

charter, expressing Congressional determination of intelligence

jurisdiction for the FBI.

Action to resolve the problems confronting us in the

security. and intelligence fields is urgently needed; and it

must be undertaken in a forthright manner. Neither the Congress

nor the public can afford to look the other way, leaving it to

the FBI to do what must be done,

as too often has occurred in

the past.

This means too that Congress must assume a continuing role

not in the initial decision-making process but in the review of

our performance.

I would caution against a too-ready reliance upon the

courts to do our tough thinking for us. Some proposals that

have been advanced during these hearings would extend the role

of the courts into the early stages of the investigative

process and, thereby, would take over what historically have

been Executive Branch decisions.

I frankly feel that such a trend, if unchecked, -woula

seriously undermine the independence of the Judiciary and cast

them in a role not contemplated by the authors of our •

Constitution. Judicial review cannot-be a substitute for Con-

gressional oversight or Executive decision.

The FBI urgently needs a clear and workable determination

HH 55124

HocId: 32989566 Page 19

---

## Page 20

14

]

2

3

4

5

6

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15.

• 16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

2.4

2460

of our jurisdiction in the intelligence fieldy à jurisdictional

statement that the Congress finds

to be responsive to both

the will and the needs of the American people.

Senators, first and foremost, I am a police officer, a

career police officer. In'my police experience, the most

frustrating of all problems that I have discovered facing

Law enforcement in this country"Federal, state, and localy

ARE WHEN

When demands are made of them to perform their traditional

role as protector of life and property withoutclear and

understandable legal bases to do so.

I recognize that the formulation of such a legislative

charter will be a most precise and demanding task.

It must be sufficiently flexible that it does not stifle

the FBI's effectiveness in combating the growing incidence

of crime and violence across the United States. That charter

must clearly address the demonstrated problems of the past;

yet, it must amply recognize the fact that times change and

so also do the nature and thrust of our criminal and subversive

challenges.

The fact that the Deparcment of Justice has commenced

the formulation of operational guidelines governing our

intelligence activities does not in any manner diminish the need

for legislation. The respousibility for conferring juris-

diction resides with the Congress.

25

In this regard, I am troubled by some proposals which

HH 55124

DocId: 32989566 Page 20

---

## Page 21

smn 15

2461

410 FIrst Streat, 5.E., Washington, D.C.

1

2

4

5

6

8

9

10

11

12

13

1,4

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

HH 55124

question the need for intelligence gatheringy suggesting that

information needed for the prevention of violence can be

acquired in the normal course of criminal investigations.

As a practical matter, the line between intelligence

work and regular criminal investigations is often difficult

to describe. What begins as an intelligence investigation may

well end in arrest and prosecution of the subject. But there

are some fundamental differences between these investigations

that should be recognizedy differences in scope, in objective

and in the time of initiation. In the usual criminal case, a

crime has occuried and it remains only for the Government to

identify the perpetrator and to collect sufficient evidence

for prosecution. Since the investigation normally follows

the elements of the crime, the scope of the inquiry is

limited and fairly well defined.

By contrast, intelligence work involves the gathering of

information, not necessarily evidence. The purpose may well be

not to prosecute, but to thwart crime or to insure that the

Government has enough information to meet any future crisis

or emergency. The inquiry is necessarily broad because it

must tell us not only the nature of the threat, but also whether

the threat is imminent, the persons involved, and the

means by which the threat will be carried out. The ability

of the Government to prevent criminal acts is dependent on

our anticipation of those criminal acts. Anticipation,

DocId: 32989566 Page 21

---

## Page 22

smi: 16

2462

1

4

5

6

WARD & PAUL

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

NH 55121

in turn, is dependent on advance information,

" that is, intelli-

gence.

Certainly, reasonable people can differ on these issues.

Given the opportunity, I am confident that the continuing need

for intelligence work can be documented to the full satisfaction

of the Congress.

We recognize that what is at stake here is not

the interests of the FBI, but rather the interests of every

citizen of this country. We recognize also that the resolution

of these matters will demand extensive and thoughtful

deliberation by the Congress. To this end, I pledge the

complete cooperation of the Bureau with this Committee or

its successors in this important task.

In any event, you have my unqualified assurance as

Director that we will carry out both the letter and the spirit

of such legislation as the Congress may enact.

That is the substance of my prepared statement.

I would also like to say extemporaneously that I note

that on this panel are some gentlemen who were on the Judiciary

Committee which heard my testimony at the time I was presented

to them for candidacy as Director of the FBI. At that time,

I took very seriously the charge which may possibly result

in the deliberation of this Committee and of the full Senate.

I have been well aware of the problems of the FBI since that

time. I have also been well aware of the capabilities of

the FBI to discharge those responsibilities. I don't take

pocId: 32989566 Page 22

---

## Page 23

mn 17

Phono (Aroa 202) 544-6000

2463

3

4

5

• 6

7

8

$10 First Street, 5.E., Washington, D.C.

20003

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

HH 55124

them lightly. I am of sufficient experience and age that I

have pledged myself to do what is good and proper. I say this

not as a self-serving statement but in order that we might

place in context my position within the FBI. I could seek

sanctuary and, perhaps a safe sanctuary, by saying during the

period these things occurred

I was with the local police

department in Kansas City, Missouri. Prior to that time,

however, I was in the FBI.

and

During the time I was with the FBIghduring the time I

was with the police department, I continued throughout that

period a close acquaintance with, and a strong affection for,

the FBI.

I only want to point out that based on those years, based

on those observations, we have here a very fine and very

sensitive and a very capable organization.. I feel that there

is much that can still be done. I know that we are not without

the

fault. I know that from those experiences I have had. We

will not be completely without fault in the future. But I

assure you that we look upon this inquiry, we look upon any

mandate which you may feel you have that you should looK at

this is good and propero

andwedomnat.intend. I only want

to place in your thinking the fact that you have here a

matchless organization, one which I continue to say vas

moST

not notivated in some of these instances,

andeinnest..of

heland I cannot justify some, But the motivation was of the

DocId: 32989566 Page 23

---

## Page 24

Shit 25

2464

2

3.

4

. 5

6

best. I am not pleading, as does a defense attorney.

I am

only putting in your thinking my objective observations as .

a citizen who is somewhat concerned about the future of this

organization. It is too precious for us to have it in

a condition of jeopardy.

Thank you very much.

The Chairman.

Thank you, Director Kelley.

I want to turn first to Senator Hart who won't be able

to remain through the whole morning. I think he has one

question he would like to ask.

--

8

9

t. l 10

11

-

410 First Street, S.E., Washington, D.C. 20003

12

13

14

15

16

"17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

• 25

HH 55124

nocId: 32989566 Paye 24

---

## Page 25

: GSH

544

Phone (Area 202)

2

4

5

6

8

10

1]

.12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

2465

Senator Hart of Michigan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator Mathias and I have Judiciary Committee hearings at 10:30.

I HAVE

dalve several questions, and I'm sure they'll be

covered by others, but the ones that I have is a result of

reading your testimony and listening to it this morning, and

it relates to your comment at the foot of page 10 and at the

top of 11.

There you are indicating that you caution us about

extending the court's role in the early stages of investigations

suggesting that this might take us beyound the role contemplated

for the courts under the Constitution.

Now, as you have said, aside from the so-callea national

security wiretap problem, the main focus of our discussions

and concern has been on the possibility reguiring court

approval for the use of informants, informants directed to

penetrate and report on some group.

And one of the witnesses yesterday, Professor Dorsen,

pointed our that really those informants are the most pervasive.

type of an eavesdropping device. It is a human device. It's

really, an informant is really more intrusive on my privacy

than a bug or a tap because he can follow me anywhere. He

can ask me questions to get information the government would

like to have.

Now, we certainly involve the courts in approval of the

1H 55124

wiretaps for physical searches

with the intent of the drafters

PocId: 32989566 Page 25

---

## Page 26

PHOnO (Area 202} 544-6000

2466

2

5

6.

of the Constitution to have a neutral third party magistrate

screen use of certain investigative techniques. And the

informant is such a technique.

He functions sort of like a

general warrant, and I don't see why requiring court approval

would violate the role envisaged for the courts.

And as I leave, I would like to get your reactions to

my feelings.

Mr. Kelley. I do not feel that there is any use of the

informant intrusion, which is to this extent objectionable.

The concept of the informanty

PAUL

WARD

410 First Street, S.E., Washingion, D.C. 20003

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

1.6

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

MAS

BEEN APPROVES

numerous court decisions.

Let us go down

not to the moral connotation of the use

of the informant... •

I think, as in many cases, that is a matter of balance.

You have only very few ways of solving crimes,

basteal yoin the use of the informant,

I thinkthe.protection

ofthe rightf the-viceim to be votimized You have within

the Constitution certain grants, that are demandina

cixcamstanges.abrogatton..of rights.

seizeser

RAI

The right of search and

which.of..course...can't.besunreasonables.but.nones

theless you have. the

right.

I think that were we to lose the right of the informant,

we would lose to a great

measure our capability of doing our

job.

How, I'm not arjuing with you, senator, that it is not an

HH 55124

NocId: 32989566 Page 26

---

## Page 27

2467

Phono (Area 202) 544-6000

PAUL

WARD

110 First Street, S.E., Washington, D.C. 20003

1

unusual procedure. I'm not even going to say that it is not

?,

3

an intrusion, because it is. But it has to be one, I think

THE

thatsissby virtue.of the benefits must be counted.

4

5

6

7

8

9.

10

11

12

13

14.

15

16.

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

We don't like to use it. We don't like the problems that

are attendant. We take great care.

Now, you say about the court having possibility taking

jurisdiction over them and guiding. I think that possibly we

could present the matter to the court but what are they going

to do insofar as monitoring their effort? Are they going to

have to follow it all the way through?

Also, there is, of course, urgency in the other contacts.

Must the court be contacted

for each and approval of the court

given for each contact?

•.

There are a great many problens insofar as administration

of it.

I frankly feel, and again, all I

can do is give you my

idea -- I frankly feel that there is a satisfactory control over

the informants as we now exercise it today. Yes, there are

going to be some who will get beyond our control, but this

is going to happen no matter what you do.

Senator Hart of Michigan. Well, I appreciate your

reaction.

I was not suggesting

I that there is consideration here to

prohibit informants. I was reflecting a view that I felt and

hold that the use of an informant does require some balance,

WH 55124, DecId: 32989566 Page 27

---

## Page 28

2468

202) :

410 First Street, S.E., Washington, D.C. 20003

2

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

.14

15

16

17

18

• 19

20

21

22

23

2.4

25

you yourself said, and I would be more comfortable with a

third party making a judgment as to whether the intrusion is

warranted by the particular circumstance. But I do understand

your position.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Hart.

(Senator Hart leaves the hearing room.)

The Chairman. Senator Baker, do you have questions?

Senator Baker. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.

Mr. Kelley, I have a great respect for you and your

organization and I personally regret that the organization is

in political distress, but we've both got to recognize that

it is, along with other agencies and departments of the

government.

I think you probably would agree with me that even though

that is extraordinarily unpleasant and in many respects

unfortunate, that it also has a plus side. That is, it gives

us an indication of our future direction and the opportunity,

at least, to improve the level of competency and service. of

the government itself.

With that hopeful note, would you be agreeable then to

volunteering for me any suggestions you have on how to improve

the responsiveness of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, or

indeed, for any other law enforcement agencies of the government,

17H 55124

to the Congress, to the Attorney General, to the President, and

DocId: 32989566 Page 28

---

## Page 29

Phono (Aroa 2021344-6000

2469

1

3

4

5

6

First Street, S.E., Washington,

D.C. 20003

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

2.4

25

HH 55124

beyond that, would you give me any sugyestions you have on

how you would provide the methods, the access, the documents,

the records, the authority, fox the Congress to perform its

essential, I believe, essential oversight responsibility to

see

that these functions, these delicate functions are being

undertaken properly?

And before you answer, let me

tell you two or three things

I am concerned about.

It hasn't been long ago that the FBI Director was not

even confirmed by the Senate of the United States. I believe

you are the first one to be confirmed by the Senate of the

United States. I think that is a movement in the right

direction. I think the FBI has taken on a stature that? and

additional importance that requires it to have closer supervision

and scrutiny by us.

At the same time, I rather doubt that we can become

involved in the daily relationship between you and the Attorney!

General.

Therefore, I tend to believe that the Attorney General

needs to be more directly involved in the operations of the

FBI.

I would appreciate any comments on that.

second, I rather believe that major decisions of the

intelligence community and the FBI ought to be in writing, so

that the Congress can, if it needs to in the future,

PocId: 32989566 Page 29

take

---

## Page 30

2470

Phono (Area 202) 544-6000

WARD & PAUL

410 First Street, S.E., WashIngton, D.C. 20003

1

2

3

4

5

6

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

look at these decisions and the process by which they were

made to decide that you are or you are not performing your

services diligently.

I don't think you can have oversight unless you have

access to records, and in many cases records don't exist

and in some cases the people who

• made those decisions are now

departed and in other cases you have conflicts.

How would you suggest then that you improve the quality

of service of your agency? How would you propose that you

increase the opportunity for oversight of the Congress of the

United States? What other suggestions do you have for improving

the level of law enforcement in the essential activity that

is required?

Mx. Kelley. I would possibly be repetitious in answering

this Senator, but I get a great deal of pleasure from telling

what I think is necessary and what I hope that I have followed,

One which is beyond my control, but which I think is very

important, is that the position of Director tre one to which

great attention should be paid in choosing the man, who wil

properly acquit hinself

• I feel that the Judiciary Committee, at least in going

over me, did a pretty good joo. I feel that it is most

necessary that care be taken that his philosophy, his means

of management, his facility to adapt to change, his tendency

HH 55124

toward consulting with other members of the official family.

DocId: 32989566 Page 30

---

## Page 31

2471

Phono (Area 202)

2541.6000

WARD

First Streat,

S.E., Washington, D.C. 20003

1

2

3

5

6

8

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

that he be willing to, for example, go through oversight with

no reticence, and that I think that he should be chosen very

carefully.

I think further that he should be responsible for those

matters which indicate impropriety or illegality.

Senator Baker. Could you stop for just a second? Who

does he work for? Does the Director, in your view, work for

the President of the United States, for the Attorney General,

for the Justice Department, for

the Executive Branch?

Who does the executive. of the FBI, the Director of the

FBI, be responsible to,. who should he be responsible to?

Mr. Kelley. Jurisdictionally, to the Attorney General,

but I think this is such an important field of influence that

it is not at all unlikely that we can expand it to the

judiciary, the lesislative, and, of course, we are under the

Attorney General.

Senator Baker. Do you have any problems with the idea

of the President of the United States calling the Director of

the FBI and asking for performance of a particular task?

Does that give you any difficulty? Or do you think that

the relationship between the FBI Director and the President

is such that that is desirable, or should it be conduited

through the Ittorney General?

Mr. Kelley. I think it should be in the great majority

25

ITH 55124

of the cases conduited through the Attorney General. There

PocId: 32989566

Page 31

---

## Page 32

Phone (Arca 202)

544-6000

•8

2472

1

2.

3

4

5

8

9

10

11

WARD & PAUL

12

13

14

15

16.

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

17H 55124

has been traditionally some acceptance of the fact that if

the President wants to see and talk with the director, he

may do so, call him directly.

It has been my practice in such an event to thereafter

report to the Attorney General, whoever it might be, that I

have been called over and I diseussed and was told And this

was revealed in full to themy wHAT wAs discusseD.

Senator Baker. I suppose we could pass a statute that

says the President has to go

through the Attorney General,

although I rather suspect it would be a little presumptuous.

But to go the next step, do you think it is necessary

for the pursuit of effective oversight on the part of the

Congress, to have some sort of document written, or at least

some sort of account of a Presidential order or an order of

the Attorney General given to a Director of the FBI?

Do you think that these things need to be handled in

a more formal way?

Mr. Kelley.

Personally, it would be my practice in

the event I receive such an order, to request that it be

documented. This is a protection as well as a clarification

as to whether or not it should be placed as part of legislation,

I frankly would like to reserve that for some more considera-

tion.

I don't know whether it would be, but I think that it

can be worked very easily.

DocId: 32989566 Page 32

---

## Page 33

2473

Phona (Area 202) 514-6000

10 .

410 Flist Street, S.E., Washington, D.C. 20003

2

3•

4

5

6

8

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Senator Baker. Mr. Kelley, Attorney General Levi, I.

believe, has already established some sort of agency or

function within the Department that is serving as the equivalent

I suppose,. of an Inspector General of the Justice Department,

including the FBI.

Are you familiar with the steps that Mr. Levi has

taken in that respect? I think he

calls it the Office.of

Professional Responsibility.

Mr. Kelley: Yes, sir, I'm familiar with it.

Senator Baker. Do you have any comment on that? Mill

you give us any observations as to whether you think that

will be useful, helpful, or whether it will not be useful or

helpful, how it affects the FBI, how you visualize your :

relationship to it in the future?

Mr. Kelley. I don't object to this, which is to some

extent an oversight within the Department of Justice under the

Attorney General.

Frankly, it just came out. I have not considered it

completely, but to the general concept, yes, I very definitely

subscribe.

Senator Baker. How would you feel about extending that

concept of government-wide operation,

a national Inspector

General who is involved with an oversight of all of the

agencies of government as they interface with the Constitutionally

protected rights of the individual citizen? Would you care

NW 55124 DacId: 32989566 Page 33

---

## Page 34

:24.74

Phono (Aroa 202) 544-6000

10

1

2

3

4

5

6

to comment on that, or would you rather save that for a while?

Mr.. Kelley. I would like to reserve that one.

Senator Baker. I'm not surprised. Would you think about

it and let us know what you think about it?

Mr. Kelley. I will..

Senator Baker. All right.

Mr. Chairman, thank you very

much.

WARD & PAUL

410 FIrst Street, S.E., Washington, D.C. 20003

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

• 25

HH 55124

The Chairman. Senator Huddleston.

, Senator Huddleston. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Kelley, you describe on page 4 the conditions that

existed when much of the abuse that we have talked about during

this inquiry occurred, indicating that the people within the

Bureau felt like they were doing what was expected of them

by the President, by the Attorney General, the Congress and

the people of the United States.

Does not this suggest that there has been a reaction

there to prevailing attitudes that might have existed in the

country because of certain circumstances rather than any

clear and specific direct instructions that might have been

received from proper authorities? And if that is the case,

is it possible in developing this charter, this guideline,

to provide for that kind of specific instruction?

Mr. Kelley. I think so, yes. I think that they can

logically be incorporated and that

Senator Huddleston. You can see there would be a continuing

PocId: 32989566

Page 34

---

## Page 35

phone (Arca 2021-544-5000

C: PAUL

WARD

1

2

3

4

5

6

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18°

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

2475

danger if any agency is left to simply react to whatever the

attitudes may be.at a specific time in this country because ...

Mr. Kelley. Senator, I don't contemplate it might belne

a continuing danger, but le certainly fould be. a very acceptabite

guidepost whereby we can, in the event such a need seems

to arise, know what we can do.

Senator Huddleston. Well, in pursuing the area which

Senator Hart was discussing, that is whether or not we can

provide sufficient guidelines would replace a decision by the

court in determining what

action might be proper and specific.-

ally in protecting individual's rights, can't we also

provide the restrictions and guidelines and the various

techniques that might be used?

For instance, supposing we do establish the fact, as

has already been done, that informants are necessary and

desirable. Hor do we keep that informant operating within the

proper limits so that he, in fact, is not violating individual

rights?

Mr. Kelley. Well, of course, much of the reliance must

be placed on the agent and the supervision of the EBI to assure

that there is no infringement of rights.

arac

Senator Huddleston. But this is an

aware we've gotten

into some difficulty in the past. We have assumed that the

particular action was necessary, that there. was a present

NH 55124

threat that some intelligence prograns should be initiated, but

DocId: 32989566 Page 35

---

## Page 36

2476

12

5

6

8

10

WARD

in many cases it has gone beyond what would appear to have been

necessary to have addressed the original threat.

How do we keep within the proper balance there?

Mr. Kelley. Well, actually, it's just about like any

other offense. ' It is an invasion of the other individual's

right and it is by an officer and an FBI agent is an officer.

There's the possibility of criminal prosecution against him.

This is one which I think might flow if le counsels"

the informant.

Now, insofar as his inability to control the informant,

I don't suppose that would warrant prosecution, but there is

still supervisory control over that agent and over that

informant by insisting that control is exercised on a continuing

basis.

Senator Huddleston. It brings up an interesting

point

as to whether or not a law enforcement agency ought to be

very alert to any law violations of its own members or anyone

else.

12

13

14

15

• 16

17

18

19

If a White House official asks the FBI or someone to do

20

something unlawful, the quescion seems to me to occuí as to

21

whether or not that is not a violation that should be reported

22

by the FBI.

:

23

Mr. Kelley. I think that any violation which comes to

24

25

HH 55124

our attention should either be handled by us or the proper

authority.

DocId: 32989566 Paye 36

---

## Page 37

2477

h

Phone (Arca 202) 549-6000

1

3

Senator Huddleston.. But that hasn't been the case in the

past.

3.

4

5

6

Mr. Kelley. Well, I don't know what you're referring

to but I would think your statement is proper.

Senator Huadleston. Well, we certainly have evidence

of unlawful activity taking place in various projects that

have been undertaken, which certainly were not brought to

light willingly by the FBI or by other law enforcement agencies!

The question that I'm really concerned about is as

- •

we attempt to draw a quideline and charters that would give

the Agency the best flexibility that they may need, a wide

range of threats, how do we control what happens within each

of those actions to keep them from going beyond what

was intended to begin with?

WARD & PAUL

2

410 First Street, S.E., Washington, D.C. 20003

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

• 17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

HH 55124

DecId: 32989566 Page 37

---

## Page 38

/smnl

3°

phone (Area 202) 544-6000

2478

410 First Street, S.E., Washington, D.C. 20003

2

4

ir.

6

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

MI.

Kelley.

You're still speaking of informants?

Senator Huddleston. Not only informants but the agents

themselves

as they go into surveillance, wiretaps, or whatever

intelligence gathering techniques.

The original thrust of my question was, even though we

may be able to provide guidelines of a broad nature, how do

we control the techniques that might be used, that in themselves

might be used, that in themselves might be a serious violation

of the rights.

MI. Kelley. Well, first, I don't know whether it's

germane to your question but I do feel that it should be pointed

out that the association to, the relationship between the

informant and his agent handler is a very confidential oné,

and I doubt very seriously whether we could have any guide-

lines, where there might be an extension of any monitors here

because thereby you do have a destruction of that relationship.

Insofar as the activities of agents, informants or others

which may be illegal, we have on many occasions learned of

violations of the law on the part of informants, and either

prosecuted ourselves, through the reporting of it to the

United States Attorney, of turned it over to the local authority.

We have done this on many a time, many occasions. Insofar

as our own personnel, we have an internal organization, the

Inspection Division, which reviews this type of activity, and

HH 55124

if there be any violation, yes, no question about it, we would

PocId: 32989566 Page 38

---

## Page 39

sms 2

Phono (Area 202) 544-6000

2

3

4

6

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

• 25

HH 55124

2479

pursue it to the point of prosecution.

Senator Huddleston. But it could be helped by periodic

review.

Mr. Kelley. We do, on an annual basis, review the

activities of our 59 offices through that same Inspection

Division, and they have a clear charge to go over this as well

as other matters.

Senator Huddleston. Mr. Kelley, you pointed out the

difference in the approaches when gathering intelligence, in

gathering evidence after a crime has been committed.

Would there be any advantage, or would it be feasible to

attempt to separate these functions within the Agency, in the

departments, for instance, with not having a nixing of

gathering intelligence and gathering evidence? Are the techniques

definable and different??

Mr. Kelley. Senator, I think they are compatible. I

see no objection to the way that they are now being handled

on a management basis. I think, as a matter of fact, it is

a very fine association whereby the intelligence, stemming as

it does from a substantive violation, is a natural complement.

Senator Huddleston. Now, another area, the FBI furnishes

information to numerous government agencies.

Is this properly restricted and controlled at the present

time in your judgment as to just who can ask the FBI for

information, what kind of information they can ask for, and

PocId: 32989566 Paye 39

---

## Page 40

smn 3

Phono (Area 202) 544-6000.

2480

1

2

3

4

probably even more importantly, what restrictions can be put

on the use of that information once it has been supplied by

the FBI?

Mr. Kelley. I think so, Senator.

Senator Huddleston. You think there are proper restrictions

6

now?

WARD & PAUL

410 First Street, S.E., Washington, D.C. 20003

8

9

10

1].

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Mr. Kelley. I don't know that we can ourselves judge

in all cases whether or not there is good and sufficient reason

for an Agency to inquiry. I think that there should be a

very close delineation by the agencies as to what they're

going to ask for, but I think that we do have sufficient rules

that at least to us we are satisfied.

Senator Huddleston. You're confident that the information

your agency supplies is not being misused, to the detriment

of the rights of any individuals.

Mr. Kelley. Senator, I'm only confident in what I

do myself. I would say that I am satisfied.

Senator Huddleston. I was wondering whether some

inclusion ought to be made in whatever charter is inade as to

who specifically can request, what limits ought to be placed

on what the request, and what they can do with it after they

get it.

Mr. Kelley. Yes.

Senator Huddleston. I have some concern about the fact

HIH

55124

that in intelligence gathering, you gather, you are just

PocId: 32989566 Page 40

---

## Page 41

smn 4

2482

Phone (Area 202) 544-6000

2

3

4

-5

6

8

bound to gather a great deal of information about some

individual that is useless as far as the intent of the intelli-

gence gathering is concerned, but might be in some way embarras

sing or harmful to the individual, whether or not there's any

effort to separate this kind of information out of a person's

file that is really initiated for a purpose, for a specific

purpose unrelated to this information.

Is there any effort, or could any direction be given to

doing that?

Mr. Kelley. We would be very happy to work under the

guidelines of rules or anything else to purge material which

is extraneous, irrelevant, or for any other reason objection-

an- a res

--.-.

able.

Senator Huddleston. And how about the length of time

that these files are kept in the agency?

Ms. Kelley. We are willing to work within that framework,

10

I]

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

too.

Senator Huddleston. I think that might be done.

Now, I think in developing the chain of command, so to

speak, it certainly would be very difficult to prevent the

President of the United States from calling up the head of

the FBI or anyone else and discussing any law enforcement

problem he might so desire, and perhaps even give direction

to the agency.

25

But how about that?

What about white House personnel

NH 55124 PocId: 32989566 Page 41

---

## Page 42

Sma 5

Phone (Arca 202) 544-6000

Irst Street, S.E., Washington, D.C. 20003

1

2

3

6

8

9

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

248,0

who might also be inclined to call the Director and ask him

to do specific things?

Could there be some clearcut understanding as to whether

or not the Director would be obligated to undertake any such

project, that just anybody at the white House might suggest?

Mr. Kelley. It's very clear to me that any request must

come. from Mr. Buchen's office, and that it be, in any case,

wherein it is a request for action, that it be followed with

a letter so requesting.

This has come up before, during the Watergate hearings,

as -

I think it has been placed very vivialy in our minds; in tRothe

take care that you just don't follow the request of some

underling who does not truly reflect the desire of the President.

Senator Huddleston. Just one more question about

techniques, aside from the guidelines of authority on broad

projects undertaken.

Would it be feasible.from time to time in a Congressional

oversight committee, would be able to discuss with the Department.

with the Bureau various techniques so that they could have

some input as to whether or not these actions are consistent.

with the overall guidelines, to start with, and consistent

with the very protections?

Mr. Kelley.

Senator, I have already said.to.the

översight committee of the Senate that so far as I can now

HH 55124

see, the only thing that would be withheld is the identity of

DocId: 32989566 Page 42

---

## Page 43

SKN

6

2483

Phone (Area 202) 544-6000

2

3

4.

.. -5

PAUL

WARD

120 First Street, S.E., Washington, D.C. 20003

6

8

9

10

11.

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

informants.

We'll discuss techniques, we'll discuss our

present activities. I think this is the only way that we can

exchange our opinions and get accomplished what you want to

accomplish and what I want to accomplish.

Senator Huddleston. I feel that is an important aspect

of it because even though you have a charter which gives broad

direction for all the guidelines and to the types of projects

that enter into it, if we don't get down to specifics, such

things as how intelligence is to be collected, how evidence

is to be collected, what is done after it is collected, this

type of thing, it seems to me we are leaving a wide gap

again for the Bureau to assume that it has total instruction

and total permission to move in a certain direction and go

beyond what is intended or what was authorized.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Mr. Director.

The Chairman. Senator Goldwater?

Senator Goldwater.

Mr. Kelley, as part of the FBI

electronic surveillance of DI. King, several tapes of

specific conversations, and later a composite King tape were

produced.

Are these tapes still in the possession of the FBI?

Mt. Kelley. Yes, sir.

Senator Goldwater,

Have they been reviewed by you?

Mr. Kelley. No, siI.

Senator Goldwater.

DocId: 32989566 Page 43

Have they been reviewed by any of your

17H 55124

---

## Page 44

2484

staff, to your knowledge?

Mr. Kelley. Senator, I think that they have been reviewed.

I know that at least some have reviewed it within the area of

this particular section.

There has been no review of them

since I came to the FBI, I can tell you that.

Senator Goldwater. Would these tapes be available to

the Committee if the Committee felt they would like to hear

them?

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

ITH 55124

Mr. Kelley. This, Senator Goldwater, is a matter which is

of, as I said before, some delicacy, and there would have to

be a discussion of this in an executive session.

The Chairman. I might say in that connection that the

Committee staff gave some consideration to this matter and •

decided that it would compound the original error for the

staff to review the tapes, because that would be a still

further invasion of privacy, and so the staff refrained from

insisting on obtaining the tapes, believing that it was

unnecessary, and quite possibly improper, in order to get at

what. we needed to know about the King case.

So the staff did refrain, and for that reason the issue

never came to a head. I just wanted to lay that information

before the Senator.

Senator Goldwater. I realize that's a prerogative of

the staff, but it's also the prerogative of the Committee if,

and I'm not advocating it, if we wanted to hear them to

| DocId: 32989566 Page 44

---

## Page 45

8 -

phono (Area 202) 544-6000

PAUS

WARD

410 First Street, S.E., Washington, D.C. 20003

2

4

6

8

. 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

2485

ourselves whether Mr. Hoover was off on a wild goose chase

or whether there was, in effect, some reason. Again, I am

not advocating it; I am merely asking a question. They would

be available if the Committee took a vote to hear them and

decided on it.

÷ 4:

Mr. Kelley. I don't think it would be within my juris-

diction to respond to this, Senator.

It would have to be the

Attorney General.

Senator Goldwater. I see.

Now, are these tapes and other products of surveillance

routinely retained even äfter an individual ceased to be a

target of inquiry?

-.

Mr. Kelley. They are retained usually for ten years:

Senator Goldwater. Ten years.

MI. Kelley. Yes, sir.

Senator Goldwater. What is the future value, if any,

to the Bureau of retaining such information?

Mr. Kelley. If there be guidelines that set out a

destruction or erasure, we will abide by it. We will, on those

occasions where we think that matters might come up within

that period of time which may need the setention of them, we

will express our opinion at that time, but other than that

we would be guided by guidelines.

-

Senator Goldwater. Is it your view that legitimate

HH 55124

25

law enforcement needs should outweigh privacy considerations

docId: 32989566 Page 45

---

## Page 46

san 9

2486

1

2

3

4

5

6

S.E., Washington, D.C. 20003

8

9

10

i]

12

13

14

15

16

17

1:8

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

HIH 55124

with respect to retention of such information, or do we need

the clear guidelines on the destruction of these materials

when the investigation purposes for which they were collected

have been served?

Mr. Kelley. We feel that there should be a good close

look at the retention of material, and we would, of course, like

to have an input. But we welcome consideration of this.

Senator Goldwater. That is all I have, Mi. Chairman.

you very much.

The Chairman. Thank you, senator.

Senator Mondale?

Senator Mondale. Mr. Director, it seems to me that the

most crucial question before the Congress is to accept the

invitation of the FBI to draw Congressionally imposed lines,

limits of authority so the FBI will know clearly what you can

and cannot do, so you will not be subject to later judgments,

and the question is, where should that line be drawn?

As you know, in 1924 when the FBI was created, and

Mr. Stone later became the Chief Justice, he drew the line at

criminal law enforcement. He said that never again will we

go beyond the authority- imposed upon us to get into political.

ideas. We will stay in the area of law enforcement.

Would you not think it makes a good deal of sense to

drai the guidelines in a way that your activities are

restricted to the enforcement of the law, investigations of

DocId: 32989566 Page 46

Thank

---

## Page 47

smn 10

Phone (Ar3a 202) 544-6000

2487

2

3

4

-

*5

6

WARD

& PAUL

8

9

10

11

12

13

1.4

15

16

I7

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

NW 55124

crime, investigations of conspiracies to commit crime rather

than to leave this very difficult to define and control area

of political ideas?

Mr. Kelley. I don't know whether I understand your last

statement of involving the area of political ideas. I say that

I feel that, certainly we should be vested and should continue

in the field of criminal investigations as an investigatory

objective. These are conclusions, of course, which are based

on statutes in the so-called security field, national or

foreign.

These are criminal violations. I feel that they should

be in tandem. I feel, having worked many years in this

--.

atmosphere, that you have more ears and eyes and you have.

more personnel working together, covering the same fields..

I do not think there should be a separation of the intelligence

matters, because it is a concomitant. It naturally flows

from the investigation of the security matters and the

criminal.

Senator Mondale: Mr: Kelley, what Mr: Stone said was

this, that the Bureau of investigation is not concerned

with political oi other opinions of individuals.. It is

concerned only with such conduct as is forbidden by the laws

of the United States. When the police system goes beyond

these limits, it is dangerous to proper administration of

justice and hunan liberty.

pocId: 32989566 Page 47

---

## Page 48

smn 11

2488

SYARD & PAUL

410 First Street, S.E., Washingion, D.C. 20003

1

2

3

4

•5

6

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

• 15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24:

25

Do you object to that definition?

MI. Kelley. I think that life has become much more

sophisticated and we have added to the so-called policeman's

area of concern some matters which were probably not as important

at that time. I think that the fact that the FBI has been in

touch with the security investigations and the gathering of

intelligence is something which has proved to be at times

troublesome and given us great concern, but it is a viable,

productive procedure.

I don't know what Mr. Stone was thinking of entirel.

of this course, but I can tell you about the procedure today:

Senator Mondale. You see, I think you recognize, if

that further step is taken, as you're recommending here, that

at that point it becomes so difficult to guarantee, and in

fact, in my opinion, impossible to guarantee that we won't

see a recurrence of some of the abuses that we've seen in

the past, and I don't know how you establish any kind of

meaningful oversight.on a function as nebulous as the one

you've just defined.

If the FBI possesses the authority. to investigate

ideas that they consider to be threats to this nation's

security, particularly in the light of the record that we have

seen how that definition can be stretched to include practi-

cally everybody, including moderate civil rights leaders,

HTH 55124

war dissenters and so on, how on earth can standards be developed

DpcId: 32989566 Page 48

---

## Page 49

smn 12

2489

phono (Aroa 202) 544-6000

WARD & PAUL

410 Flrst Street, S.E., Washington, D.C. 20003

1

2

3

4

5

6

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

that would provide any basis for oversight?

How can you, from among other things, be protected from

criticism later on that you exceeded your authority of didn't

do something that some politician tried to pressure you into

doing?

Mr. Kelley. It might well be, Senator, that ten years

from now a Director of the FBI will be seated here and will be

criticized for doing that which today is construed as very

acceptable.

Senator Mondale. Correct. And I have great sympathy

for the predicament the FBI finds itself in.

Mr. Kelley. And the Director.

.. Senator Mondale. And the Director especially, and that is

why I think it's in the interest of the FBI to get these lines

as sharply defined as possible, so that when you are pressured

to do things, or when, after the fact, people with good 20/20

hindsight can criticize you of the Bureau, that you can say

well, here are the standards that you gave us, and they specific

ally say this, and that is your answer. We have to live by

the law. If we don't define it specifically, it seems to me

that these excesses could reoccur, because I don't think it's

possible to define them, and the FBI is inevitably going to

be kicked back and forth, depending on personal notions of what

you should have done.

25

Don't you fear that?

IN 55124 DpcId:32989566 Page 49

---

## Page 50

smn 13

Phona (Arca 202) 544-6000

WARD & FAUL

410 First Street, S.E., Washington, D.C. 20003

2

3

4

- "5

6

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

: 23

24

25

2490

Mr. Kelley. Not too much, Senator. I think we learned a

great lesson by virtue of Watergate, the revelations that have

come up as a result of this Committee's inquiries, the fact

that I think that we have a different type of spirit today

in the Bureau, the fact that, as I said before, you came in,

that I think the Bureau is a matchless organization, and they

are eager to do that which is vital and proper, and the fact

that we are getting a number of very fine young people in the

organization, people of the other ethnic backgrounds than we -

had years ago. I think there is a greater understanding in

the Bureau today of what is the proper type of conduct.

We may not be able to project this on all

occasions,

because we must equate this with the need and with our :

experience, but if the precise guidelines be the goal, you're

going to have trouble. If, on the other hand, there be?

flexibility, I think that we can work very well within those

guidelines.

Senator Mondale. I think, as you know, I don't think

there is a better trained or higher professionally qualified

law enforcement organization in the world than the FBI. I

think we all agree it is superb. But the problem has been,

from time to time, that when you go beyond the area of

enforcing the law into the area of political ideas, that you

are subject to and in fact you leave the criminal field, you

NH 55124

get into politics. And that is where, it seems to me, that the

PocId: 32989566 Page 50

---

## Page 51

sms 14

phono (Aroa 202) 544-6000

WARD&-PAUL

B20 First Street, S.E., Washington, D.C. 20003

1

3

4

5

6

8

9

10

11

12

13

1.4

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

2491

great controversy exists,

and where you are almost inevitably

going to be subjected to fierce criticism in the future, no

matter how you do it.

Once you get into politics, you get

into trouble.

Mx. Kelley. I agree to

that, and I point out that in almost

every branch of the government and in every part, as a matter

of fact, every segment of our society, there are some who deviate

from the normal course. I feel that within the Bureau there is

less likelihood of this to happen, and I think that working

with you we can at least make some achievements that will be

significant.

Now, whether it

be lasting, I don't thinkso, but I

think we've made a good start.

Senator Mondale. In your speech in Montreal on August

9th, you said we must be willing to surrender a small measure

of our liberties to preserve the great bulk of them.

Which liberties did you have in mind?

MI. Kelley. Well, of course, this speech has been mis-

understood many, many times.

Senator Mondale.

Well, I want you to have a chance to

clear it up.

-

Mx. Kelley. All that was intended here was a restatement

of the approach which the courts historically have used in

resolving most issues of Constitutional importance, and its

1H 55124

recognition that rights are not susceptible to absolute

PocId: 32989566 Paye 51

---

## Page 52

smn 15

2492

phone (Ared 202) 534-6000

1

2

3

4

5

6

protection. It's a matter of balance. Even in the Fourth

Amendment, for example, which protects the right of privacy, it

AS

ed

does not prohibit searches and seizures.

I mention,

it only

refers to those that are unreasonable.

I came from the police field. What is more restrictive

to more people than traffic regulation? But what would be

more chaotic is of you did not have traffic regulation. We

do have to, in order to love in the complexities and

intricacies of today's life, have to give up some of our

rights.

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

Some may construe this as an extravagant statement.

If

it

is @s, I wish to say that I only was pointing out that there

has to be a balance:

Senator Mondale.

So that when you say we have to give

up some liberties, or as you just said, some rights, what you

mean - let me ask. Let me scratch: that and ask again, you

have to give up some fights.

Which rights would you have us

give up?

Mr. Kelly. Well, under the Fourth Amenament you would

have the right for search and seizure.

Senator Mondale. "You wouldn't give up the Fourth Amend-

ment right.

Mr. Kelley. Ohy no, not the right.

,...

- --

Senator Mondale. What right do you have in mind?

25

Mr. Kelley.

The right to be free from search and seizure.

HIH 55124

DocId: 32989566 Page 52

---

## Page 53

smn 16

2493

• .

Phono (Aroa 202) 544-6000

1

WARD & PAUL

410

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

NH 55124

Senator Mondale. There's no such right in the consti-

tution. You can have such seizures, but they must be reasonable,

under court warrant.

, Did you mean to go beyond that?

Mr. Kelley. That's right.

Senator Mondale. That you should be able to go beyond

that?

Mr. Kelley. No, no. I do not mean that we should ever

go beyond a Constitutional right guarantee.

Senator Mondale. Well, would you say, Mr. Kelley, that

that sentence might have been inartful in your speech?

MI. Kelley. I said that if it was misunderstood, I

made a mistake, because I should never make a statement which

yes, it was inartful.

Senator Mondale. I think I know about your record in

law enforcement well enough to tell you that I think you were

saying something different, that it was taken to mean something

different than I think you intended:

What you are saying is that in the exercise of your law

enforcement powers, the rights of individuals is determined

by the laws and the courts, but the courts, in the handling

of those issues, have to balance rights and other values.

That's what you're essentially saying, is that correct?

Mr. Kelley. Senator, I ought to have you write my

speeches so that I don't have any misunderstandings. I didn't

PocId: 32989566 Page 53

---

## Page 54

sinn 17

2494

Phono (Aroa 202) 547-6000

3

410 Flrst Street, S.E., Washington, D.C. 20003

3

4

5

6

7

8

. 9

10

11

12

13

1,4

• 15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

HH 55124

understand that to be at the time anything that was unusual.

I have to admit that maybe I made a mistake.

Senator Mondale. What you are saying in effect is that,

in effect, the rights; of the American people can be determined

not by the director of the FBI but by the courts and by the

law.

You meant that.

Mr. Kelley. Indeed, yes, sir.

Senator Mondale. All right.

Thank you..

--

--

• . .

---

• .

PocId: 32989566 Page 51

---

## Page 55

o: CSH

Open

50 / 75

Phono (Area 202)

2

3

--

5

WARD & PAUL

410 First Street, S.E., Washington, D.C. 20003

6

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

2495

The Chairman.

Senator Hart.

Senator of Colorado. Mr. Kelley, in response to

a question by Senaoty Mondale, one of his first questions about

laying down guidelines, it seems to me what you were

saying was

we could work together:

That is to say the Bureau and the

Congress, lay down guidelines that would not unreasonably

hamper you from investigations of crime control in the

country.

But I think implicit in his question was also an area

that you didn't respond to, and that is how do you, what kind

of guidelines do you lay down to protect you and the Bureau

Erom political pressure, the misuse of the Bureau by political

figures, particularly in the White House?

And we've had indications that at least two of your

predecessors, if not more, obviously were corrupted ana Mr.

Gray was under great pressure from the White House to use

the facilities of the Bureau and their capabilities to accomplish

some

plitical end.

Well, it seems to me you were arguing in favor of fewer

restrictions so you could get on with your job, but that is

not what Senator Mondale and the rest of us are interested in.

What kindof restrictions can we lay down to protect you

from political pressures? I'd be interested in that sign of the

NH 55124

coin, if you would.

NocId: 32989566 Page 55

Mr. Kelley. I would welcome any guidelines which would

---

## Page 56

2496

phono (Area 20215544-6000

1

2

3

4

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

protect me or any successor from this type of thing. I think

that would be splendid. I have not reviewed the guidelines

as prepared to the present date by the Department. It might

be that they are well defined in there. But I welcome any

consideration of such directives.

Senator Hart of Colorado. Do you think this is a problemp

Hix.

Kelley. No, sir, not with me.

Senator Hart of Colorado. Do you think that it has been

a problem for the people that preceded you?

Mr. Kelley. I think so.

Senator Hart of Colorado. And that's a problem the

Congress ought to address?

Mr. Kelley. I think so. -

Senator Hart of Colorado. The Committee received a

letter from the Department of Justice a couple of days, the

Assistant Attorney General asking our cooperation in carrying

out the investigation or their efforts to review the investi-

gation conducted by the FBI into the death of Martin Luther

King, Jx., in order to determine whether that investigation

should be re-opened. They asked our cooperation, they asked

for oux transcripts, the testimony before the Committee, all

material provided to the Committee by the FBI which relates

to Dr. King and the Southern Christian Leadership Conference.

I guess my question is this: Why is the Justice Depart

HTH 55124

ment asking this Comnittce for FBI files?

PocId: 32989566 Page 56

---

## Page 57

2497

Phono (Area 2027544-6000

2

4

5

6

Mr. Kelley.

I don't think they're asking for files.

I think they're asking for what testimony was given by

witnesses whose testimony has not been given up. I don't know.

Senator Hart of Colorado. I'Il quote it. "And all.

material provided to the Comnittee by the FBI which relates

to DI. King and the Southern Christian Leadership Conference."

I repeat the question. Why is the Justice Department

asking this Committee for material provided to us by the

FBI?

410 First Street, S.E., Washington, D.C. 20003

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

24

25

Mr. Kelley. Frankly,

I don't know.

Do you mind if I

just ask -

(Pause)

Mr. Kelley. I am informed, and I knew this one.

Everything that was sent to you was sent through them. Did

they have a copy also? Yes, they had a retained copy. I

don't know why.

-.

Senator Hart of Colorado. So there's nothing you

provided us that's not available to the Justice Department?

Mr. Kelley. That's

right.

Senator Hart of Colorado. And you can't account for why

an official of the Justice Department would ask this Committee

for your recoras?

Mr. Kelley. No, sir.

Senator Ilart of Colorado.

You released a statement on

HH 55124

Movember the I8th of "74 regarding the FBI's. counterfintelligence

focId: 32989566 Page 57

---

## Page 58

phone (Arsa 2025544-6000

2498

1

2

3

4

-- -5

6

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

program and you said you made a detailed study of COINTELPRO

activities and reached the following conclusions, and I quote:

"The purpose of these counterintelligence programs was

to prevent dangerously and potentially deadly acts against

individuals, organizations and institutions both public

and private across the United States."

Now, we had an FBI informant in the other day before this

Comnittee and he stated he told the FBI on a number of.

occasions he planned violent acts against black people in

groups. And yet, he said few, if any, instances in which the

FBI actually prevented violence from taking place.

How does his testimony square with your statement that

I have quoted?

-

Mr. Kelley. It doesn't, and I don't know if any of

whichare;

that

his statementsncontrary to what we have saidnis the truth.

We don't subscribe to what he said. We have checked into it

and we know of no instances where, for example,n15-minutes stary

occurred and we falled to take some action.

and that- type-of thing has-been substantiated.

Senator llart of Colorado. You're saying the testimony

he gave us under oath was not accurate?

Mic. Kelley. Right.

Senator Hart of Colorado. You also said in that statement,

anã I quote: "I want to assure you that Director Iloover did

IN 55124

not conceal from superior authorities the fact that the FBI

was engaged in neutralizing and disruptive tactics against

PocId: 32989566 Page 58

---

## Page 59

WARD

& PAUL

2499

1

2

4

- -5

6

8

9

10

11

12

13

-1,4

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

revolutionary and violence-prone groups.

Now, the Committee has

received testimony that the New

Left COINTELPRO programs was not, in fact, told to higher

authorities, the Attorney Gereral and Congress.

Do you have any information in this regard?

I know in that statement you cite ony or two instances,

but in terms of the bulk of cOINteL programs, the record

seems

to date at least to be clear that there was not systematic

information flowing upward through the chain of command to

Director Hoover's superiors:

Mr. Kelley: May I ask that I be given the opportunity

to substantiate that with documentation?

Senator Hart of Colorado.

Sure.

Mr. Kelley: Or respond to it.

Senator Hart of Colorado. Dorector Kelley, just in

passing, do you agree with the statement made by President

Ford that those responsible for harassing and trying to destroy

Dr. King should be brought to justice.

Kelley. Those who

directly responsible, and upon. whose orders

the activities were taken responsible. I don't know if he inténded to say

that, but if he did not, I would say that it would be more proper. Insofar

as my own opinion is concerned, that

it be centered on those who said

to do it and those who are responsible.

I: took the responsibility for any such program and I

25

don't expect that those under me would be not acting in

55124

DecId: 32989566 Paye 59

---

## Page 60

phono (Area 202) 544-5000

2500

WARD &PAUL

410 First Stroet, S.E., Washington, D.C. 20003

1

2

3

4

6

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

accordance with what they think is proper and may even have

some reservation, but they do it on my orders. I accept that

responsibility.

I think that it should rest. on those who instructed that

that be done.

Senator Hart of Colorado.

But you agree that the people

who give the orders should be brought to justice.

Mr. Kelley. I do.

The Chairman.

Aren't they all dead?

Mr. Kelley.

No.

The Chairman. Not quite?

Mr. Kelley. Not quite.

Senator Hart of Colorado.

That's all, Mir. Chairnan.

The Chairman. Thank you, Senator.

Director Kelley, in the Committee's review of the

COINTELPRO program and other political involvements of the

FBI, it seems to me that we have encountered two or three

basic questions.

Since the investigation is over insofar as the Committee

is concerned, we're now turning our attention to remedies for

the future, what I would think vould be our constructive

legislative vork, it is very important that we focus on what

we learned in that investigation.

-=-*

And one thing that we have learned is that Presidents of

HW 55124

the United States have fron tine to time ordered the FBI to

D@cId: 32989566 Page 60*

---

## Page 61

phone (Area 20375544-6000

2501

WARD

410

First Street, S.E., Washington, D.C. 20003

2

4.

5

6

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

• 18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

HH 55124

obtain for them certain kinds of information by exercising the

necessary surveillance to obtain: and to have a purely

political character, that they simply wanted to have for their

own personal purposes.

I think that you would agree that that is not a proper

function of the FBI,, and you agree.

Xet, it's awfully difficult for anyone in the FBI,

including the Director, to turn down a President of the United

States if he receives a direct order from the President. It

is always possible, of course, to say no, and if you insist,

I will resign. But that puts a very hard burden on any man

serving in your position, particularly if the President puts

a good face on the request and makes it sound plausible or

even invents some excuse. It is always easy for him to say,

you know, I am considering Senator White for an imporcant

position in my administration, and I need to know nore about

his activities, particularly of late. I've had some cause

for concern and I want to be certain that there is nothing in

his record that would later embarrass me, and I just want you

to keep careful track of him and report to me on what he's

...

been doing lately.

It's difficult for you to say back to the President, Mr.

President, that's a very questionable activity for the FSI,

and I frankly don't believe that you've given me the real

reason why you want this man followed. I think his opposition

PocId: 32989566 Page 61

---

## Page 62

25.02

8

]

2

4

5

6

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

• 15

16

17

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

to your current policy is politically embarrassing to you and

you want to get

something on hin.:

I mean, you know, the Director can hardly talk back that

way,

and I'm wondering what we cauld do in the way of protecting

your office and the FBI from political exploitation in this

basic charter that we write.

Now, I want your suggestions, but let's begin with one

or two of mine. I would like your response.

If we were to write into the law that any order given you

either by the President or by the Attorney. General should be

transmitted in writing and should clearly state the objective

and purpose of the request and that the FBI would maintain

those written orders and that furthermore they would be

available to any oversight committee of the Congress. If the

joint committee on intelligence is established, that committee

would have access to such a file.

So that the committee itself would be satisfied that

orders were not being given to the FBI that were improper or

unlawful.

What would you think of writing a provision of that kind

into a charter for the FBI?

Hr. Kelley. I would say writing into the law any order

issued by. the President that is a request for action by the

Attorney General should be in writing, is certainly, in my

HW 55124

opinion, is a very plausible solution. I'm sure that in

DocId: 32989566 Page 62

---

## Page 63

2503

phone (Area 202) 544-6000

9

1

2

3

4

5

6

WARD & PAUL

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20.

21

22

23

24

HH 551245

contemplation of this there would be some that will say yes

or some that will say no, but I think we could define an

area where you are trying to cure the abuses and we could

do that.

Now as to the availability to any oversight committee

of Congress, I would say generally that I certainly would have

no objection to this, but d' again, there may be some request

for something of high confidentiality that the President might

put in writing such as some national or foreign security

matter.

I would like to have such a consideration be given

great deal of thought and that the oversight committee review

be conditioned with that possibility. I don't think it would

present a problem.

I have said previously that I feel I can discuss every-

thing except the identity of the informants to the oversight

committee.

I welcome that.

The Chairman.

well, that has been, of course, the way we

proceeded with this Conmittee. It has worked pretty well,

I think.

-

-

Now, Senator Goldwater brought up a question on the

Martin Luther King tapes. I would like to pursue that question

If these tapes do not contain any evidence that needs

to be preserved for

•m going

criminal investigations, and since

PoyEd: 3Ri996fasayerfg since been violently removed from the scene,

---

## Page 64

2504-2505

Phone (Aroa

544

1

.0

4

5

6

•7.

8

WARD

10

11

12

13

14

i5

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

HH 55124

thousands

DocId: 32989566

it a.

why are they preserved? Why aren't they simply destroyed?

Is there a problem that we can help through new law to enable

the FBI to remove from its files so much of this information

that is has collected that it is no longer needed or may never

have connected the person with any criminal activity? And

yet, all of that information just stays there in the files

year after year.

What can we do? How can a law be changed? If that's

not the problem, then what is?

ithy are these tapes still down

there at the FBI?

Mr. Kelley. Well, of course, we do have the rule that

they are maintained ten years.

Now, why the rule is your

question

and why, right now, are they maintained? Since we

do maintain everything since the inquiry has started and until

that's lifted, ve.can't destroy anything.

I would say that this is a proper area for guidelines

or legislation and again, as I have said, there should be

some flexibility and I know that's a broad statement but there

might be some areas wherein that the subject of the investigation

himself may want them retained because it shows his innocence.

I think you have to deliberate this very carefully, but

it can be done and we are willing to be guided by those

rules.

The Chairnan. Let me ask you this. The FBI is conducting

investigations every year on possible appointees

Page

---

## Page 65

2506

544-6

000

1

2

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

410

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

WH 55125

to federal positions. As a matter of fact, the only time I

ever see an FBI agent is when he comes around and flashes his

badge and asks me a question or two about what I know of Mr.

so and so, who's being considered for an executive office.

And we have a very brief conversation in which I tell him that

as far as I know, he's a loyal and patriotic citizen, and that

is about the extent of it.

Then when this file is completed and the person involved

is either appointed or not appointed, what happens to that

file? I know it's full of all kinds of gossip because it is

in the nature of the investigation to go out to his old

neighborhoods and talk to everybody who might have known him.

What happens to the file? Is that just retained forever?

Mr. Kelley. We have some capability of destroying some

files and they are rather lengthy insofar as retention. We

have some archival rules which govern the retention of mateial

whit

and is

developed in cases involving certain members of the

Executive Branch of the government.

see no reason why this would not be a proper area

for consideration of legislation.

The Chairman.

Can you give me any idea of how much -

do you have records that would tell us how much time and money

is being spent by the FBI just in conducting these thousands

of routine

investigations on possible Presidential appointents

Dotra sodernt aragécess?

---

## Page 66

2507

212

Phone (Area

1

2

3

4

5

6

410 First Streot, S.E., Washington, D.C. 20003

8

• 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

551215

Mr. Kelley.

I feel confident we can get it.

I ão not

have it now, but if you would like to have the annual cost

for the investigation of Federal appointees -

The Chairman. Yes. Plus, you know, plus any other

information that would indicate to us what proportion of the

time and effort of the FBI was absorbed in this kind of

activity.

Mr. Kelley. I can tell you it is relatively small, but

I can get you, I think, the exact amount of time and the

approximate expense.

The Chairman.

I wish you would do that because this is

a matter we need more information about. And when you supply

that data to the Committee, would you also supply the number

of such investigations each year?.

You know,. I don't expect you to so back 20 or 25 years,

but give us a good idea of the last few years. For example,

enough to give us an idea of how much time and how broad the

reach of these investigations may be.

Mx. Kelley. Through '70?

The Chairman. That would be sufficient, I would think.

The other matter that is connected to this same subject

that I would like your best judgment on is whether these

investigations could not be linited to offices of sensitivity.

That is to say where legitimate national security interest might.

potta 12689%84 page fat there is a reason to make a close chect on

---

## Page 67

2508

410 First Strect, S.E., Wastington, D.C. 20003

1

13

2

3

4

5

6

8

9

10

11

12

1.3

14

i5.

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

past associations, attitudes and expressions of belief.

I have often wondered whether we couldn't eliminate

routine Federal offices that are not particularly sensitive

in the national security sense from the reach of these FBI

checks.

And so when you respond to the series of questions, I

wish you would include the offices that are now covered by

such checks and give us an idea of how far down into the

Federal bureaucracy this extends.

Could you do that?

Mr. Kelley. Yes, sir.

The Chairnan. Fine.

Now there is a vote. The vote always comes just at

the wrong time, but Mr. Schwarz wants to ask you some additional

questions for the record, and there may be other questions:

too that would be posed by the staff, after which I will ask

Mr. Schwarz to adjourn the hearings. It looks like ve're going

to be tied up on the floor with votes.

But before I leave I want to thank you for your testimony,

lix. Kelley, and to express my appreciation to you fox

• the

way you have cooperated with the Conmittee in the course of

its investigation during the past months.

Mr. Kelley. Thank you.

The Chairman. And I hope, as you do, that as a result

25

NW 55124

pocrat38996 Payehg Committee ve can write a generic law for

---

## Page 68

2509

cape

ono (Area 20g

544-0000

1

2

the FBI

that will help to remedy many of the problems ve'll

encounter in the future.

Thank you:

:

4

5

6

8

WARD & PAUL

410 First Street, S.E., Washington, D.C. 20003

10

1

.1

12

13

14:

15

• 16

17

18

19

20

21

22.

23

24

HW 551245

-

PocId: 32989566

Page 68

---

## Page 69

smn?

Frono (Aroa 202) 544-6006

2510

410 First Street, S.E., Washington, D.C. 20003

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

20

21

22

23

24

25

MI. Schwarz. Mr. Kelley, I'll try to be very brief.

On page 5 of your statement --

Mr. Kelley. What?

Mr. Schwarz. On page 5 of your statement, the third

full paragraph, you said the following, and I would like then

to question about what you said.

"We must recognize that

situations have occurred in the past and will arise in the

future where the Government may well be expected to depart from

its traditional role, in the FBI's case, as an investigative

and intelligence-gathering agency, and take affirmative steps

which are needed to meet an imminent threat to human life or

property."

Now, by that you mean to take what kind of steps in what

kind of situation?

And can you give some concrete examples under your general

principles statement?

Mr. Kelley. I think that Mr. Adams addressed himself to

that the other day, where you have an extremist who is an

employee at the waterworks, and he makes a statement that he's

going to do something which is devastating to the city, and you

have no way to attack this under the ordinary procedures, and

so,thereforep you must take some steps to meet that imminent

threat to human life or property.

Mr. Schwarz. So let us take that case as a test of the

NH 55124

principle. You are saying the extremist has said he is going

DocId: 32989566 Page 69

---

## Page 70

2511

Prona (Area 202) 544-6063

in

WARD & PAUL

410 Flrst Street, S.E., Washington, D.C. 20003

1

2

3

4

5

6

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

to do something to the waterworks, poison it or something, and

he is on the way down there with the poison in his car.

Is that the presumption?

Mr. Kelley. We hadn't gone that fat, but all right, you

d

can exten it.

Mr. Schwarz. All right, now, in that case you have the

traditional law enforcement tool, which is the power of arrest.

Mr. Kelley. Not under probable cause where he has not

gone down there. The hypothetical we gave was one where he had

not taken any overt acts in perpetration of this.

Mr. Schwarz. Well, if he hasn't taken any overt acts,

are you then in what you would call in imminent threat of

human life or property?

Mr. Kelley. I think so.

Mr. Schwarz. How so? Unless he has taken an overt act

to buy the poison or to get in the car with the poison, there

is not by definition any threat to life or property.

Mr. Kelley. Mr. Schwarz, I've been around in this business.

a long time. I've heard a number of threats which were issued,

and they thereafter materialized into actions. I don't think

take

" these threats as being empty ones, because so many times

they have been acted upon.

25

HH 55124

I was criticized one time when there was a threat made to

Kill me, and it was said later ong it's he rhetorico It's

not chetoric to me, because when they say they're going to

DocId: 32989566 Page 70

---

## Page 71

smn

3

:

2512

phone (Aroa 202) 544-6000

First Street, S.E., Washington, D.C. 20003

1

2

3

4

5

6

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

18

20

21

22

23

24

kill me, that just means one thing.

Mr. Schwarz. But I'm not disagreeing with you.

Mr. Kelley. But you are disagreeing with me. You're saying

on the basis of experience that you cannot detect a possible

threat.

That's the whole area of concern that we have here, where

we don't lose t

the capability of doing something. We don't

say we should initiate

ourselves. We say that we should go to

the Attorney General. We do not subscribe to the idea that

we should act independently because maybe we don't have the

judicial reviery the capability of determining, but we do

think that we should report it and thereafter see what can

be done.

Mr. Schwarz.

Well, have you changed in the course of

our discussion the standard on page 5.

On page 5 you're talking about an imminent threat.

Mr. Kelley. Yes.

• Mr. Schwarz. And I hear you now as saying a possible

threat.

MI. Kelley. An imminent possible threat.

Mr. Schwarz. An imminent possible threat. All right.

Now, would a fair standard for either action, other than

arrest, I don't know what you

have in mind, but something to

prevent the person from carrying out his activities, other

than arrest, for instance, what is an example of what you have

25

in mind?

HH 55124

pocId: 32989566 Page 71

---

## Page 72

5mn A

Phono (Area 202) 544-6000

.. .

WARD & PAUL

E., Washington, D.C. 20003

First Street,

1

3

4

•5

• 6

8

.9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

2513

Mr. Kelley. Removing him from his position or whatever

is necessary in order to make it impossible or at least as

impossible as possible to perpetuate this thing.

Mr. Schwarz. You mean have him lose his job oI -

Mr. Kelley. I don't know what it would be.

Mr. Schwarz.

Isolate him in some fashion.

Mr. Kelley. In some fashion perhaps.

Mr. Schwarz. Now, for such activity and for opening

an investigation into a domestic group, could you live with

a standard which said you would have to have an immediate

threat that someone was likely to commit a serious federal

crime involving violence?

_ Mr. Kelley. I think that this thing could be worked out

so that there could be an adequate basis for an evaluation.

Mr. Schwarz. So those words, without trying to commit

you entirely to them, do not seem to you to depart far from

what you think would be an acceptable standard.

Mx. Kelley. Well, an imminent, immediate threat might

be, by virtue of the word "immediate" that he's going to

ThAT YOU ARE

do it the next minute. In that case it may be necessary for

you to, not with the presence of the possibility not able

to do anything except put him under arrest, or anything

Mr. Schwarz. Of course, of course.

And nobody would at all disagree with that kind of action.

HH 55124

Mr. Kelley. I don't think they would either.

pocId: 32989566 Page 72

---

## Page 73

2514

simn &

Phong (Arca 202) 594-6

2

3

4

5

6

410 Fid' Straet, S.E., Washington, D.C. 20003

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21.

22

27

24

•25

HH 55124

Mx. Schwarz. But on the question, let's take the opening

of an investigation into a domestic group.

Is it basically consistent with practicality to make the

test immediate threat of a serious Federal crime involving

violence?

Mr. Kelley.

To open a domestic security case.

Mr. Schwarz. Yes.

MI. Kelley. It appears to me that this is a terrorist

activity, in effect. We certainly have terrorist activities

under our jurisdiction as a threat against the United States.

Mr. Schwarz. Now, are there other circumstances where

it is justifiable to open an investigation of the domestic

group where you do not have an immediate threat of serious.

federal crime involving violence?

Mr. Kelley. Oh, I think there are other criteria, and.

they have been well defined as to what is the possible

opening, the basis for a possible opening. We haven't been

discussing that, we 'have been discussing particular instances,

but there are other criteria that are used, yes.

Mr. Schwarz. What would the other criteria be?,

Mr. Kelley. Well, the possible statutory violations

over which we have jurisdiction are, generally speaking, the

most used of thebasis. And then you have, of course, some

intelligence investigations which should, of comesey be of

Centrates

short durationo

At there is no showing of this into aetion

PocId: 32989566 Page 73

---

## Page 74

2515

1

2

3

4

5

6

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

410 First Street, S.E., Washington, D.C. 20003

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

HH 55124

or a viable intent.

Mr. Schwarz.

So that's what you're looking for in the

intelligence investigation?

Mr. Kelley.. By intelligence investigation, yes, you

are looking to prevent.

. •

Mr. Schwarz. And what you are looking to prevent, and

what you're looking to find is a likelihood of action combined

with an intent to take an issue?

MI. Kelley. And the capability.

Mx. Schwarz. And the capability.

All right. I just have two other lines, Mr. Kelley, and

I appreciate very much your time.

•Mr. Kelley. That's all right.

Mr. Schwarz. Assuming a legitimate investigation has •

been started into a domestic intelligence matter, is it legiti-

mate for the FBI, in addition to obtaining information that

relates to what we've just been talking about, the likelihood

of violent action, is it also legitimate for the FBI to

collect, A, retain, B, disseminate, C, information concerning

let's say the sex life of a person on the one hand, and the

political views of a person on the other?

Mi. Kelley. I think, Mr. Schwarz, that this is just what

many of our problems

and perhaps the guidelines can define Them.

this type di thingn

I think probably you will agree that

within the determination of the deviations possibly of sex

PocId: 32989566 Paye 74

---

## Page 75

2516

WARD & PAUL

410 First Street, S.E., Washington, D.C, 20003

].

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

lives, there might be something that is relevant. I would say

ordinarily it's not. And so far as political views, yes, I

think that this could be, if he is espousing some cause of

some view that advocates violence or the overthrow of the

government.

Mr. Schwarz.

Would those be the two limits on political

views?

Mr. Kelley. What?

Mr. Schwarz. Would those be the only limits on political

views that you think are okay to collect, advocants of violence

or advocants of overthrow?

Mr. Kelley. Well, I don't think because he's a Democrat

or a Republican it would be anything that would be damaging,

but it might on the other hand counter the report that he's

a member of some other organization.

Mr. Schwarz. Is the standard you used on collection of

sex life information, might be relevant? I suppose anything

night be relevant, but don't you think that as a function of

balance, it has to have a high degree of relevance before it's

justifiable to collect that kind of information on American

citizens who are not suspected of having committed crimes?

Mr. Kelley. Insofar as doing it presently, it has been

included in some reports as a result of the requirement that

that is what is required by our rules, that when a person

HH 55124

reports something to us, we do a report of the complaint.

Insofar

PocId: 32989566 Page 75

---

## Page 76

s mn8

2517

Phono (Aroa 202) 544-6000

WARD & PAUL

410 First Street, S.E., WashIngton, D.C. 20003

1

2

3

5

6

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

.15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

as a determination by guidelines that might be prepared later,

I think that we can certainly deliberate on this to see whether

or not this is something we should retain, and we would not

object to anything reasonable in that regard.

Mr. Schwarz. I just have one final question.

Taking the current manual and trying to understand its

applicability laid against the facts in the Martin Luther King

case, under Section 87 there is a - permission is granted to

open investigations of the infiltration of non-subversive

groups, and the first sentence reads: "When information is

received indicating that a subversive group is seeking to

systematically infiltrate and control a non-subversive group

or organization, an investigation can be opened."

Now, I take it that is the same standard that was used

in opening the investigation of the Southern Christian Leadership

Conference in the 1960s, so that invéstigation could still be

open today under the FBI manual, the current FBI manual.

Ms. Kelley. We are interested in the infiltration of

clearly subversive groups into non-subversive groups inasnuch

as this is a ploy that is used many times, and having infil-

trated, they then get control, and they have a self-laundered

organization which they can use, and not, certainly, to the

benefit of the country.

Mr. Schwarz. But is the answer to my question yes, that

HH 55124

under that standard, the SCIC investigation could still be

PocId: 32989566 Page 76

---

## Page 77

smng

phona (Area 202) 544-5000

2518

WARD& PAUL

410 First Street, S.E., Washington, D.C. 20003

opened today?

2

3

5

6

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

Mr. Kelley. I think so.

Mr. Schwarz. All right, then, just one final question.

Do you agree that special care needs to be taken not only

of the standards for initially opening an investigation of a

group, but perhaps extra care needs to be taken when the investi

gation goes beyond the initial

target group to individuals

or people who come into contact with it?

Mr. Kelley. I don't know if I agree with that entirely.

If

you mean that we go into the non-subversive groupy that we

then investigate people in that non-subversive group, not the

whiltra tors -

infiltrators, but the none

that we conduct a lengthy investigation

of them without any basis for doing so other than that they

are in an infiltrated group, I would likely have said - but

off the top of my head I would say probably that's not necessary.

Mr. Schwarz. Thank you very much.

Mr. Smothers. Just a couple of very brief lines of

inquiry, Mr. Kelley.

I think that the questions of the Chief Counsel. was

raising is one that goes further into your statement, when you

talk about the difficulty of setting out the line between .

intelligence gathering and law enforcement kinds of functions..

Nevertheless, though, I think that you have made an effort,

indeed, the Bureau's organizational scheme reflects

in eisort

25

to distinguish some of this has been made.

NH 55124

DpcId: 32989566 Page 77

---

## Page 78

smn 10

.

2519

Phone

& FAUL.

WARD

410

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Putting aside for one moment the counterespionage

effort, and looking strictly at what we have been calling the

Domestic Intelligence, is it your view that the retention of

this function in the Bureau is critical to the Bureau's

law enforcement position?

Mr. Kelley. My personal opinion is that the Bureau does

splendid job in this area. I feel further that the background

of criminal investigatory activities and experiences which

all counterintelligence people have is very helpful. It is help-

ful not only in gathering knowledge and experience, it also

enters into

this field, a person with broad understanding

of the rights and privileges, and you don't have so much

nat

spy type; that cloak and dagger, that very, very secret

• type

of an operation.

-

I subscribe to the present system heartily.

Mr. Smothers. Would it be of assistance to your mission

if within the Bureau guidelines were established that

effectively limited access or controlled dissemination of

the intelligence product? In other words, if we had a

situation where the intelligence product is critical to assist

the law enforcement effort, I don't think there's any question

that there should be access to it.

Isn't our problem one of controlling the use of that

intelligence product and preventing the kind of murky crossing

of lines there with the information legitimately needed for

HIH 55124

NocId: 32989566 Paye 78

---

## Page 79

smn 11

2520

phone (Are: 202) 544-5000

]

3

4

5

6

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

.23

24

25

law enforcement?

Mr. Kelley. There is always a problem when there is wide

dissemination, because that just numerically increases-the

possibility of misuse, abuse or slander, libel, or anything

of that matter, and I think that it would be well worthwhile

to review the dissemination rules to make them subject to

close guidance in the guidelines that we're speaking of.

Mr. Smothers. Let me just raise one final area with you.

We talked a little bit about, or a question was raised about

the investigation now being conducted by the Justice Department

regarding the improper actions on the COINTELPRO, and the

King case in particular.

As we look at allegations of impropriety by your personnel,

I think it would be helpful for our record. here to have sóme

insight into the procedure the Bureau would normally follow.

What does the Bureau do when you get an allegation that

an agent or administrative official in the Bureau has behaved

improperly?

Is an investigation conducted internally, or is it

routinely referred to the Justice Department?

Mr. Kelley. There may be a revision in this type of

procedure as a result of the establishment of the Council for

Professional Responsibility. At present it would be in the

susacation

great majority of the cases turned over to our investigativa

NH 55124

Division for investigation. There might, on some unusual

PocId: 32989566 Page 79

---

## Page 80

smn 12

2521

Phone (Area 202) 549-6000

1

2

3

5

6

occasion, be a designation of a special task force made up,

perhaps, of division heads. That is most unlikely, but it is

handled internally at present.

Mr. Smothers. Would these internal determinations be

reviewed by Justice, or do you think that is a necessary

step?

WARD & PAUL

410 First Street, S.E., Washington, D.C. 20003

8

10

11

12

13

1,4

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

55124

I guess what we are searching for here is, first of all,

I think you answered that, well, to what extent does the

Bureau police itself; and then secondly, is the Department of

Justice involved in the police determinations?

For instance, what if the Attorney. General disagreed with

the assertion that only the higher up officials who ordered

the action against King should be the subject of investigation

and maybe prosecution?

How does the interplay work there between you and Justice?

Mr. Kelley. We do report to the Attorney General those

activities which we construe as improper or possibly illegal.

There is a possibility that the Department, having been advised

of the situation, might take it on their own to do their own

investigating, and this is something that we feel is a

decision to be made only rather rarely, because we feel we

have within our own organization sufficient capability to

handle that. But we do not protest it. It is handled

independently of us.

Mr. Smothers.

Thank YOU.

NocId: 32989566 Page 80

---

## Page 81

2522

That is all I have.

MI. Schwarz. Thank you.

(Whereupon, at 12:12 o'clock p.m., the Committee recessed

subject to the call of the Chair.)

4

5

6

8

WARD & PAUL

-..

- ...

-

410 First Street, S.E., Washington, O.C. 20003

10

11

12

13

1.4

15

]

17

18

19

. 20

21

22

23

24

25

HH 55124

pocId: 32989566 Page 81

---