« PreviousContinue »
him when inquiries into these allcgations have been completed. In addition, the internal inspection units of the Department (or where there are no such specific units, any units or offices discharging comparable duties) should continue to submit monthly reports to the Counsel detailing the status and results of their current investigations.
APPENDIX 6.—LETTER OF August 15, 1977, FROM FBI DIRECTOR CLAR
ENCE M. KELLEY, RESPONDING TO QUESTIONS FOR THE RECORD FROM JULY 27 HEARING
During my appearance before your Subcommittee
You asked what action the FBI took concerning
The Church Committee recommendations appear in its report entitled, "Intelligence Activities and the Rights of Americans," Book II, and many of them pertain to the FBI. As I am sure you are aware, many of the recommendations cannot be implemented absent legislative action. Examples of such recommendations would be Recommendation 84, which limits the term of the Director of the FBI to eight years, or Recommendation 75 calling for each agency to have a General Counsel nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate. There are other general recommendations concerning mail opening, electronic surveillance, and other investigative techniques, which would, of course, as recommended require legislative initiative. The FBI in
conjunction with the Department and other Executive Branch representatives, as well as congressional staffers, has drafted legislation concerning foreign counterintelligence electronic surveillances. This legislation has been the subject of hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee and the Senate Committee on Intelligence. The Attorney General has testified in prior congressional hearings that other investigative techniques such as mail opening and surreptitious entries are under review with the view towards developing legislation.
Many of the recommendations also involve legislative guidelines concerning domestic security and foreign counterintelligence investigations. This subject is the topic of discussion between congressional committee staffers, representatives of the FBI and the Department of Justice; the intended result is to draft a legislative charter for the FBI governing these investigations.
Other recommendations call for action by the Attorney General. Examples of these recommendations are contained in Section F of the aforementioned report captioned, "Attorney General Oversight of the FBI," and would more properly be responded to by the Attorney General; however, I may note that Recommendation 69 which pertains to Departmental review of FBI domestic security investigations is being complied with and this has been the case for over a year under the provisions of the Attorney General's Domestic Security Guidelines.
In some instances where statutory authority was necessary, such authority has already been embodied in either a congressional resolution and/or statute. In particular, Recommendation 89 suggests the FBI and other intelligence agencies be required to seek annual statutory authorization for their programs. We are now required to do so before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence pursuant to Senate Resolution 400 of the 94th Congress, and the House Judiciary Committee, by legislation, has authorization responsibilities. The newly created House Permanent Select Intelligence Committee will also have authorization authority under House Resolution 658 of the 95th Congress. This authorization authority will be similar to that currently being carried out by the Senate Committee on Intelligence.
Some of those instances where I had the authority to implement the recommendations, they have so been implemented. Examples of these would be Recommendation 70(a) which asks that the "General Counsel and Inspector General of the FBI" should have unrestricted access to all information in possession of the agency and should have the authority to review all agency, activities and that the Attorney General and the Office of Professional Responsibility should have access to all information which in the opinion of the Attorney General is necessary for an investigation of illegal activity. Another example is the recommendation concerning the General Counsel of the FBI reviewing significant proposed agency activities to determine their legality and constitutionality. Where there is a question of legality or constitutionality of an FBI proposed program or investigative activity, the Legal Counsel Division conducts a review of that matter. In summary, I would like to state that those recommendations by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, which are within my authority to implement, have in many instances been implemented and others are under consideration.
Congressman Paul N. McCloskey, Jr., asked whether the Department of Justice decision not to prosecute CIA employees involved in the mail opening matter could be compared to the indictment of former FBI Agent John Kearney.
I have considered this question, and I am not able to comment or compare the Department of Justice decisions in the CIA mail opening matter to the indictment of former Special Agent John Kearney. This is prompted by the fact I am not in possession of the facts surrounding the indictment of Mr. Kearney which would be essential to any comparison to the Department's decision in the mail opening matter.
Congressman Michael Harrington inquired whether there was an effort made to determine the source of information on which a series of articles was written based on personal documents belonging to Orlando Letellier which were recovered by the Metropolitan Police Department, Washington, D. C.
I have determined that the FBI interviewed personnel who had information which was later disclosed in the news media relating to our investigation into the death of Mr. Letellier. This inquiry was not limited to the news columns alluded to by Congressman Harrington, but rather to determining whether FBI personnel were the source of any of the series of leaks of information relevant to this investigative matter. I am satisfied based on the results of this investigation that there was no FBI involvement in these disclosures. I understand similar inquiries were conducted by the Department of Justice, Criminal Division, and the Executive Office for United States Attorneys. I want to reiterate that improper disclosure of information derived from investigative matters is against FBI rules, and personnel involved in such conduct would be subject to severe administrative action.