April 14, 1971
Page 10313
FBI SURVEILLANCE
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss a matter of grave concern to our Nation. I believe the present scope of surveillance by Federal intelligence agencies of the legitimate political and personal activities of our citizens represents a dangerous threat to fundamental constitutional rights. There is ample evidence to justify this conclusion from the searching and responsible hearings held by my respected colleague, the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. ERVIN).
But this threat to our privacy and freedom has been shockingly and dramatically demonstrated to me in another way. I have recently read an FBI intelligence report written by an agent assigned to cover the Earth Day rally in Washington last year. Among those whose political actions were reported for the benefit of our criminal, military, and security intelligence agencies was myself. This FBI report mentions no hint of violence, no threat of insurrection, and no foreboding of illegal behavior.
I ask unanimous consent that the FBI report on Earth Day activities which took place in Washington on April 22, 1970, be printed in its entirety in the RECORD at the conclusion of my remarks.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(See exhibit 1.)
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, this FBI report details the preparation, the planning and the occurrence of this environment rally. It briefly notes who spoke and what was said. It duly records that I, among others, spoke at this meeting.
Before I discuss the implications of this FBI report, I would like to establish a few simple facts about it.
First, this report was not taken from the Media, Pa., FBI files, and is in no way connected with that theft of FBI material.
Second, this report contains no classified designation. Therefore, I feel free to discuss it in detail and insert it in the RECORD.
Third, it should be understood that while this is obviously a report by an FBI agent, it was not intended solely for FBI internal use. This report, and evidently many others like it, have been circulated widely to the entire intelligence community, and perhaps even to local police. This report, and others like it, have been read by a wide range of policy and security personnel.
Finally, I understand that this is but one of about 40 to 60 FBI reports of Earth Day rallies on April 22, 1970. I know that at least one other Member of this body, and probably others, had some of their speeches and participation in Earth Day rallies subject to FBI surveillance. We must find out the scope of this surveillance over environmental groups and gatherings.
This document raises far-reaching questions over the present surveillance operations of the FBI.
If there was widespread surveillance over Earth Day last year, is there any political activity in the country which the FBI does not consider a legitimate subject for watching? If antipollution rallies are a subject of intelligence concern, is anything immune? Is there any citizen involved in politics who is not a potential subject for an FBI dossier?
How much of American political life is recorded, from the perspective of the FBI, and stored for quiet use by Federal and local agencies?
Mr. President, what possible legitimate use could this report serve? Why does the FBI need to know who attended and what was said at Earth Day rallies across the Nation?
No crime or threat of crime was involved nor was any violence threatened. Even if our intelligence agencies believed Earth Day might turn into a threat to our national security or a scene of violence requiring Federal troops, that would not justify a report about the rallies afterwards, when it was clear that no threat to our Government did occur. And why is the report of nonviolent and noncriminal events distributed to other agencies of our Federal Government?
These questions can only be fully answered after there is a complete and searching review of the intelligence communities' domestic surveillance operations. Until this is done, we will not know who or what is being watched and why. All of us will live with the uneasiness that our actions and words, plus unsubstantiated or inaccurate reports about our lives and characters, are filling a secret file in Washington.
That uneasiness is intolerable in a free society.
Although we cannot tell precisely the scope of domestic surveillance, this report on Earth Day, and the evidence already revealed by the Senate Subcommittee on Constitutional Rights, makes the implications of what we know clear enough.
First, surveillance is more than excessive zeal by the FBI. It is a threat to our freedom.
Surveillance leads to fear.
Secret surveillance which produces secret files to be used by unknown persons; these are the ingredients for fear.
Every dictator knows that elementary rule.
Such fear is recognized in our constitutional law; it is called the chilling effect. When Government action creates such fear in citizens about participating in political activity or speaking out on controversial issues it "chills" their freedom of speech, then the Supreme Court has held that this violates their constitutional rights under the first amendment.
What is a more proper or protected activity for an American than a rally to bring to the attention of our Government a concern for a cleaner environment? Is this not free speech? Is this not a redress of grievance? How many Americans will now hesitate, will not attend meetings and will not raise their voices because they feel what they do will become part of an FBI dossier? One American so quieted would be too many.
But I am certain many are now afraid. As pointed out by others, a large percentage of Congressmen believe their phones are tapped. If this is what our congressional leaders think, how does an ordinary citizen feel when deciding whether to participate in a rally, to write a letter, or give a speech critical of the policy of the Government which also keeps notes on his activities?
Freedom of speech and freedom of political action are more than the mere absence of laws that forbid such activity, or of prosecutions that punish it. Freedom is a feeling about what can be done by a citizen without possible future harm, and without secret surveillance. Liberty is an attitude of trust toward our Government, and of openness in our society.
Freedom in America can be maintained in practice, as well as in theory only if we end the unnecessary surveillance over lawful activity in our Nation. Only this concrete action will quiet the reasonable fears of so many Americans.
This spreading fear of surveillance is doubly tragic. It comes at a time when our policies and our institutions need so much change. And the best way to effective change is through political association. As De Tocqueville noted over a century ago, American democracy is given life through political associations. One man alone against a massive government is nothing. But groups of citizens, all joined for one political end, have influence. Surveillance of the kind demonstrated here threatens to scare those who want to join together to make their institutions more responsive to people. It will drive many of them into silence. It will keep them powerless through fear.
It may be argued that bringing this FBI document to light today will arouse such fears of surveillance. But silence would only be acquiescence in activities that threaten the freedom of our society. As a Senator, it is my responsibility to speak out and arouse others in order to protect our liberty and to calm our fears by eliminating those practices which determine our fundamental rights.
I suppose some would also question my prudence in publishing a document which contains my name and concludes with a dissertation on the Students for a Democratic Society and the Progressive Labor Party. This very coincidence underscores my concerns. Here is a report that identifies me as a speaker to an Earth Day audience; describes certain other speakers as having associations with those far-left organizations; and then wraps it all up – all the concern and indignation people felt that day about the spoiling of the American environment – with a brief outline of two radical political groups. This document is then distributed to various other intelligence organizations, and perhaps elsewhere. What is the inference? Unless one is accustomed to this kind of thing and therefore hardened to it, the inference is that Earth Day, Senator Muskie, and many thousands of Americans who gathered together to protest pollution were somehow related to SDS and the Progressive Labor Party. And that inference is hardly removed by the standard closing lines, "This document contains neither recommendations nor conclusions of the FBI."
Second, there is no justification for any part of the Federal intelligence community surreptitiously observing and reporting on legitimate political events which do not affect our national security or which do not involve a potential crime.
Our Federal Government is one of limited powers. Every power it exercises must flow from a constitutional grant of that power. There is no such grant of power for general political surveillance. Indeed, such a concept would be repugnant to the most basic notions of our Founding Fathers.
It is repugnant to me.
This limitation on Executive power is recognized by the Justice Department Itself. In testimony delivered March 9 of this year, before the Senate Subcommittee on Constitutional Rights, Assistant Attorney General William Rehnquist stated that the Department of Justice's authority to use investigative techniques includes "combating organized crime, preventing acts of violence, controlling civil disorders where appropriate, and enforcing numerous Federal statutes."
Even this broad reading of Federal power, which covers much of the duty of local and State governments to maintain order and prevent violence, does not include general political surveillance. Mr. Rehnquist states that data stored by the Internal Security Division "relates to specific incidents in which there is evidence that a law has been or may be broken." Despite the fact that this statement seems to imply that the division investigates the violation of any law, State or Federal, whether or not any question of national security is involved, it again does not provide for general surveillance. Finally, if there are excesses of information gathering, the Assistant Attorney General tells us that "self-discipline on the part of the executive branch will provide an answer."
The existence of the FBI report on Earth Day and the Justice Department's position on surveillance of a year later can mean only one of two things. First, the FBI and Justice Department believed that reporting about the Earth Day rallies of 1970 was necessary to prevent threats to the national security, or possible violence needing intervention of Federal troops, or probable violation of Federal law. If that is the case, the Justice Department's self-imposed limitations upon surveillance are meaningless.
Or, the Department might not know about, or be unable to control, the Earth Day surveillance by the FBI. In this case, also, the Department's self-imposed limits are meaningless.
Self-discipline evidently means no discipline.
Finally, Mr. President, this FBI report reveals a monumental waste of the taxpayers' money and of the valuable time of trained FBI agents. Every Government agency must choose the most effective means of utilizing its limited resources and personnel. This and other evidence shows that the FBI does not seem to be able to make reasonable choices. Many agents were assigned to spy on Earth Day rallies, and the FBI apparatus was involved in the preparation and dissemination of the many reports on Earth Day. With the problems of organized crime, of international drug traffic, and of actual bombing of Government buildings, I think better use could be made of these highly trained and dedicated men.
I take no pleasure in this criticism of the FBI. The FBI has in the past, and I hope in the future, performed valuable services in preserving the security and safety of this country. Its agents' initiative and dedication are justly famous. Some young people may not remember a time when fast-moving criminals and murderers completely out-maneuvered local police. Using the mobility and power of a national organization, the FBI in a few brief years, brilliantly subdued those free-wheeling criminals of the 1930's. And again, during the Second World War, the FBI tracked down foreign agents who threatened our security in war. Today, the Bureau continues its role as an efficient Federal law enforcer as well as a major force in upgrading local police with its training programs and its example of professionalism. I acknowledge the FBI's past achievements, not to minimize the seriousness of what I believe I have said today, but to acknowledge the Nation's debt to this agency.
It is clear that internal self-restraint in the Federal intelligence community is not adequate to safeguard our rights, and to keep the Government's surveillance within legitimate bounds. That is not surprising. Any agency charged with the responsibility to investigate and provide intelligence will want to find out more and more. That is only doing the job better. And it is too much to expect that those who must gather facts about crime and subversion can weigh constantly the need to limit surveillance in order to protect our individual rights.
It does not appear that those in the executive branch who are responsible for the supervision of the FBI, the Attorney General and the President, will do anything to change this situation. The President, in the face of reports, of investigations that should outrage the Nation, remains silent. There is no indication that he intends to issue new directives to limit the scope of FBI surveillance or create the institutions to do this. The Attorney General, as represented by the Assistant Attorney General vigorously defends the present scope of surveillance and the system to limit it.
Further, the traditional checks upon executive power, congressional legislative and appropriate powers, have obviously not been enough to curb the scope of intelligence surveillance to reasonable bounds. Therefore, new institutions must be created to protect every American's liberty.
As a first step, I propose that Congress create a Domestic Intelligence Review Board, to supervise the activities of all agencies of Government in this field.
Such a board should be composed of the most distinguished members of the intelligence community, of Congress, of the Judiciary, of the practicing bar, and of our law schools. The board should review the claims of those who must gather intelligence to protect our community and of those who are most sensitive to protecting our liberties should be presented so the needs of information and the requirements of a free society are balanced.
The board should be appointed by and responsible to both the President and the Congress. It should report yearly to the public in general terms, about the scope and need of civilian and military domestic surveillance and its effect. It also should produce a much more extensive and detailed report on domestic intelligence activities, including budget details. This should be made available only to the President and the Members of Congress: This will allow these annual reports to be comprehensive enough but without prejudicing our intelligence gathering operations. The board's most important responsibility must be to recommend Executive orders and legislation required to curb the unnecessary use of surveillance in our society.
I am not convinced that creation of this Board, by itself, will be adequate. I believe that Congress will have to legislate precise limits over the scope of domestic surveillance and over the use of collected information. But such a board is a good beginning.
I believe our Government has reached a critical juncture in its intelligence activities. We have clearly gone beyond the limits that a free society should impose on our Central Government's surveillance.
We have just become politically conscious of that fact. We can continue ahead, brushing aside the delicate and immense requirements of liberty. This choice will cost us much of our freedom.
Or we can pause and examine our course to see that it will destroy much of what we value most.
If we do, and if we redefine our intelligence needs in light of the requirements of freedom, we will have to change many of our present surveillance operations. This will be painful and it will involve a certain amount of risk. But that always is the cost of freedom. And I believe we dare not sacrifice our freedom, no matter what the cost.
EXHIBIT 1
NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL ACTIONS, APRIL 22, 1970
On April 6, 1970, Mr. Robert Waldrop, local representative of the Sierra Club, 235 Massachusetts Avenue, N.E. Washington, D.C. (WDC), made application for the use of National Capitol Parks to "peacefully petition the government for immediate action to preserve the environment and to express citizen's concern for environmental problems.” Waldrop stated the request was being made by the Washington Area Environmental Action Coalition for a National Environmental Teach-In Day, April 22, 1970. He requested the use of the Parklands Playing
Fields at Constitution Avenue and 21st Street, N.W., from 1:30 p.m. until 2:30 p.m., and the Sylvan Theatre on the Washington Monument Grounds from 3:30 p.m. to 9:30 p.m.
Waldrop stated that the Washington Area Environmental Action Coalition includes residents of the metropolitan region, community groups, and students from local universities. "We are closely coordinated with the nation-wide Environmental Teach-In sponsored by Senator (Gaylord) Nelson and Representative (Paul N.) McCloskey, (Jr.)."
The Sierra Club is a western based conservation organization located at 1050 Mills Tower, San Francisco, California.
On April 14, 1970, "The Washington Post" a paper located in WDC, reported under the caption, "Area Students Mobilize for Earth Day”, that the dangers to the earth's environment, including overpopulation, have been the concern of a student organization in the WDC area. since February, 1970, a "movement" has gotten under way made up of a coalition of students and conservation organizations, with support coming largely from the white, middle class. April 22nd, "Earth Day"will climax with a march to the Interior Department in the afternoon by students and conservation organizations headed by representatives of the Sierra Club.
On April 14, 1970, the Washington Area Environmental Coalition held a press conference at the Dupont Plaza Hotel; WDC. Robert Waldrop spoke for the coalition and stated that "Earth Day" activities on April 22nd, were being organized by the coalition which consists of interested students from American University, Catholic University, Trinity College, George Washington University, and Prince Georges Community College, Maryland, working closely with the Emergency Committee on the Transportation Crisis (ECTC). Environmental Teach-Ins were planned for the respective campuses on April 22, 1970.
It was announced that the Coalition would picket the Washington Hilton Hotel, 1919 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., on April 21, 1970,. where Secretary of Transportation John A. Volpe would be speaking before the highway users conference.
Waldrop announced plans for April 22nd, saying that the march past the Department of Interior would be "symbolic" since the Department of Interior "has become the symbol of the Government's environmental insanity. The Nixon administration has tried to make the environment its issue.”
Others present at the press conference were: Timothy Paulis from Catholic University, Matthew Andrea representing Environment, Incorporated, 917-15th Street, N.W., Sammie Abbott, publicly director for ECTC, Gene Goldman from American University, Philip Michael, described as a recent returnee from the Peace Corps in Africa, and Professor "Bud" Ivan Hames from American University.
Sammie Abbott has been publicly identified in the past as a Communist Party leader. His activities on behalf of the ECTC have led to local publicity and several arrests.
The ECTC is a foe of inner-city freeways. Among the coalition of local participating organizations for Earth Day are: Environmental Teach-In, Incorporated, 2000 P Street N.W., WDC, Environmental Action, headed by Steve Cotton, who according to a press release is on leave from Harvard Law School, Environment, Incorporated, supra, headed by George Washington University student James "Skip" Spensley, Zero Population Growth and Friends of the Earth, both located at 917 15th Street, N.W.
Environment, Incorporated, is self-described as a non-profit organization organized in the District of Columbia for the purpose of providing posters, buttons and information about speakers to schools and community organizations. It has announced plans to keep its downtown office and campaign going after April 22nd. The organization publishes a newsletter, called "Environment".
"The Mound Builders Gazette" newsletter, published by the Environment News Cooperative, 7321 Takoma Avenue, Takoma Park, Maryland, made its debut a week or more prior to April 22, 1970, stated it will provide in-depth coverage of the polluters and the protectors of the environment. It will be published bi-weekly beginning in September, 1970. Its editor is Bill Hobbs.
William (Bill) Hobbs, above, according to another Government agency, was formerly associated with the Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) at George Washington University, with the Southern Christian Leadership Conference and was one of the prime movers in the Action Coordinating Committee to End Segregation in the Suburbs, better known as ACCESS.
The SDS is characterized in an appendix page attached hereto.
On April 21, 1970, representatives of the FBI observed the following activities at the Washington Hilton Hotel, from about noon until 1:20 p.m.
A group numbering about 60 persons picketed on the sidewalk in front of the hotel. Literature passed out stated the demonstration was called to coincide with the Tuesday luncheon of the Highway Users Federation for Safety and Mobility at which Secretary Volpe was scheduled to speak. Picket signs indicated the group represented the National Coalition on the Transportation Crisis, ECTC, Student Committee on the Transportation Crisis and Washington Area Environmental Coalition. Signs displayed accused the Federation of being a highway lobby, and "polluters and plunderers."
Sammie Abbott and Matt Andrea, previously mentioned, were observed directing the pickets.
There was no incidents or arrests.
On April 22, 1970, "The Washington Post" published on "Earth Day" schedule for the Washington area which related that a number of events were scheduled to be held at various high schools and colleges in the area between 9 a.m. and 9:15 p.m. The day's main events commenced with a rally at 21st Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W., followed at 2 p.m. by a march past the Interior Department to the Sylvan Theatre where a program featuring folk singers and speakers was scheduled.
On April 22, 1970, representatives of the FBI observed about 200 persons on the Playing Fields
Shortly after 1:30 p.m. They were joined a few minutes later by a contingent of George Washington University Students who arrived chanting "Save Our Earth".
A brief speech followed by which an unidentified GWU Law School student spoke out against Secretary of the Interior Hickel and the administrations of both Presidents Johnson and Nixon. He said it was time for some action regarding pollution.
About 2 p.m., the group, numbering about 750 persons, moved out in the direction, of the Interior Department. Some of the signs carried were: "Save Our Earth--Concern, Inc." "Save Our Seas; We Demand A Moratorium On All Off Shore Drilling", and "End the Fascist Rape of America." Some persons wore paper surgical type masks and one had a gas mask.
Shortly after 2 p.m., the crowd then estimated to be eight to nine hundred persons, gathered on the Virginia Avenue side of the Department of Interior at 19th and C Streets, N.W. An unidentified male read a "Declaration of Independence" and the crowd chanted, "We want air, we want water, we want Hickel."
About 2:30 p.m., the group at the Interior Department left and joined another group gathered at the Sylvan Theatre. The two groups totaled an estimated 2,500 or more. A sign was noted which read, "God is Not Dead; He is Polluted On Earth." There were not speeches, but several musical groups entertained the crowd until after 8 p.m.
Shortly after 8 p.m., Senator Edmund Muskie, (D), Maine arrived and gave a short anti-pollution speech.
Senator Muskie was followed by W DC journalist I. F. Stone, who spoke for 20 minutes on the themes of anti-pollution, anti-military and anti-administration.
Dennis Hays, National Coordinator for Environmental Action, WDC, followed and gave a short anti-Vietnam war and anti-pollution talk.
Phil Ochs was the next speaker. He made a few anti-war, anti-administration remarks and then introduced Rennie Davis, one of the convicted defendants in the Chicago Conspiracy Trial. Davis spoke for approximately ten minutes.
Davis began by saying that the events he was involved in in Chicago were not a conspiracy, but there is one now, a capitalistic conspiracy and he called for tearing down the capitalistic structure. He said that people in "Agnew Country", meaning government officials in Washington, believe the ecology issue will divert the attention of people in the United States from the Vietnam war. He said the movement knows its history and this tactic will not work. He said The Conspiracy is joining forces with such groups as Women's Liberation, the Black Liberation Struggle and ecology forces to fight at every level of our society to end the war in Vietnam.
At this point, Davis was interrupted by heckling from someone in the audience. He made an obscene remark to the effects that any "pigs" in the audience should get out while they could. He then said he opposed all pollution except "light up a joint and get stoned". "One way to fight for ecology is to go to New Haven on May 1st to stop Bobby Seale's trial," referring to the trial there of the Black Panther Leader.
At about 10:15 p.m., Roger Priest, Navy enlisted journalist, then under court martial proceedings in WDC on charges of making disloyal and seditious statements in his antiwar publication "Off", spoke for several minutes. He said that "tomorrow" would be the last day of his trial and that the day after the verdict is given, the slogan will be "Sink the Navy".
At 12:25 a.m., April 23, 1970, Pete Seeger, the folk singer, made a few remarks about ecology and cleaning up society and the Potomac river. At this point, the power was shut off. Seeger and Reverend Frederick B:irkpatrick, a Negro folk singer, sang a few songs through a bullhorn, and the crowd began thinning rapidly. The program ended at 1 a.m., with approximately 50 persons remaining behind to clean up the area.
STUDENTS FOR A DEMOCRATIC SOCIETY
A source has advised that the Students for a Democratic Society (SDS), as presently regarded, came into being at a founding convention held June, 1962, at Port Huron, Michigan, From an initial posture of "participator democracy" the line of the national leadership has revealed a growing Marxist-Leninist adherence which currently calls for the building of a revolutionary youth movement. Concurrently, the program of SDS has evolved from civil rights struggles to an anti-Vietnam war stance to an advocacy of a militant anti-imperialist position. China, Vietnam and Cuba are regarded as the leaders of worldwide struggles against United States imperialism whereas the Soviet Union is held to be revisionist and also imperialist.
At the June, 1989, SDS National Convention, Progressive Labor Party (PLP) forces in the organization were expelled. As a result, the National Office (NO) group maintained its National Headquarters at 1608 West Madison Street, Chicago, and the PLP faction set up headquarters in Cambridge, Massachusetts. This headquarters subsequently moved to Boston. Each group elected its own national officers, which include three national secretaries and a National Interim Committee of eight. Both the NO forces and the PLP forces claim to be the true SDS. Both groups also print their versions of "New Left Notes" which sets forth the line and the program of the particular faction. The NO version of "New Left Notes" was recently printed under the title "The Fire Next Time" to achieve a broader mass appeal.
Two major factions have developed internally within theNO group, namely, the Weatherman or Revolutionary Youth Movement (RYM) I faction, and the RYM II faction. Weatherman is action-oriented upholding Castro's position that the duty of revolutionaries is to make revolution.
Weatherman is regarded by RYM II as an adventuristic, elitist faction which denies the historical role of the working classas the base for revolution. RYM II maintains that revolution, although desired, is not possible under present conditions, hence emphasizes organizing and raising the political consciousness of the working class upon whom they feel successful revolution depends.
Although disclaiming control and domination by the Communist Party, USA, leaders in these two factions have in the past proclaimed themselves to be communists and to follow the precepts of a Marxist-Leninist philosophy, along pro-Chinese communist lines.
A second source has advised that the PLP faction which is more commonly known as the Work Student Alliance is dominated and controlled by members of the PLP, who are required to identify themselves with the pro-Chinese Marxist-Leninist philosophy of the PLP. They advocate that an alliance between workers and students is vital to the bringing about of a revolution in the United States.
SDS regions and university and college chapters, although operating under the outlines of the SDS National Constitution, are autonomous in nature and free to carry out independent policy reflective of local conditions. Because of this autonomy internal struggles reflecting the major factional interest of SDS have occurred at the chapter level since the beginning of the 1969-70 school year.
The PLP is characterized separately in the Appendix.
PROGRESSIVE LABOR PARTY – PLP
"The New York Times" city edition, Tuesday, April 20, 1965, page 27, reported that a new party of "revolutionary socialism" was formally founded on April 18, 1965, under the name of the PLP which had been known as the Progressive Labor Movement.
According to the article, "The Progressive Labor Movement was founded in 1962, by Milton Rosen and Mortimer Scheer after they were expelled from the Communist Party of the United States for assertedly following the Chinese Communist line."
A source advised on June 3, 1968, that the PLP held its Second National Convention in New York City, May 31 to June 2, 1968, at which time the PLP reasserted its objective of the establishment of a militant working class movement based on Marxism-Leninism. This is to be accomplished through the Party's over-all revolutionary strategy of raising the consciousness of the people and helping to provide ideological leadership in the working class struggle for state power.
The source also advised that at the Second National Convention Milton Rosen was unanimously re-elected National Chairman of the PLP and Levi Laub, Fred Jerome, Jared Israel, William Epton, Jacob Rosen, Jeoffrey Gordon, and Walter Linder were elected as the National Committee to lead the PLP until the next convention.
The PLP publishes "Progressive Labor," a bimonthly magazine; "World Revolution," a quarterly periodical; and "Challenge-Desafio," a monthly newspaper.
The April, 1969, issue of "Challenge-Desafio" sets forth that "Challenge is dedicated to the people’s fight for a new way of life – where the working men and women control their own homes and factories; where they themselves make up the entire government on every level and control the schools, courts, police and all institutions which are now used to control them."
Source advised on May 8, 1969, that the PLP utilizes an address of General Post Office Box 808, Brooklyn, New York, and also utilizes an office in Room 617, 1 Union Square West, New York, New York.
This document contains neither recommendations nor conclusions of the FBI. It is the property of the FBI and it is loaned to your agency; it and its contents are not to be distributed ouside your agency.
(The above is a stamp.)
INTELLIGENCE COLLECTING AGENCIES
Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, I was very impressed by the comments of our distinguished colleague from Maine (Mr. MUSKIE). I wholeheartedly agree that the overzealousness of some of our security and intelligence-collecting agencies give cause for alarm. I have been a member of the Senate Subcommittee on Constituitonal Rights since coming to the Senate more than 8 years ago.
During that time I have followed with great interest the hearings conducted by the distinguished chairman of that subcommittee, the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. ERVIN). I want to join the Senator from Maine in praise of the Senator from North Carolina.
It is alarming to see the FBI's involvement in certain inappropriate intelligence-gathering endeavors. I was likewise distressed, over a month ago, by the disclosure of the Army's involvement in spying – and that is what it is – on peaceful civilians.
The Army has admitted maintaining dossiers on at least 7 million Americans. I fear these dossiers include substantial amounts of information which is not about the individual who is essential to national security. Too much of it is unreliable hearsay.
And the problem of overzealous collection is further exacerbated by the lack of safeguards against unwarranted and illegal distribution of the information once collected. Some agencies have been irresponsible – or promiscuous – in disseminating supposedly secret documents. One witness appeared before our committee and documented, chapter and verse, the number of documents from six separate Federal agencies – documents that plainly had "confidential" written across their faces – which had been made available to private persons who clearly had no right of access to such data.
In conclusion, I think we have two problems, collection and dissemination. Congress certainly should take positive action soon. But we all know that passing one law is not enough. Senator MUSKIE has just made one proposal; the Citizens Privacy Act, which I recently introduced, charts a different course. Both deserve the full attention of this body. Whatever method is chosen, it is essential that the Congress and the executive branch take all the necessary steps to insure that our intelligence gathering agencies respect the right of privacy of each American citizen.