formation in the Kennedy assassination, and I don't think the media went back and corrected that information later.

Mr. KNIGHT. I think, Judge, there is one other factor in this equation that can't be ignored, and that is that in the case of the President, at least, his press secretary would be present, and I certainly think that is a factor that has to be considered in this entire matter.

Mr. PREYER. Thank you.

Chairman STOKES. The gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Edgar. Mr. EDGAR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I only have one question of the witness.

In 1964 the President created the Warren Commission to look into the death of President Kennedy. In effect, it shifted the onus of decisionmaking in the investigation from the Department of Justice and the Bureau to the Commission.

Do you think a similar agency should be created in the future, if in fact there is an assassination?

Mr. KNIGHT. Well, it strikes me that there are two important things in the question you have just asked me. No. 1, will an investigation ensue with the hopes of successful prosecution, and will the defendant have a fair trial and, second, will the American people have confidence in the agencies that conduct that investigation?

Unless there is overriding evidence or indications that the Justice Department is in some way connected with the assassination, I would prefer to see it left in their hands so that the rights of the accused are preserved as well as the rights of the American people. It is possible, I would not rule it out, that circumstances may be such that a Warren Commission or a special prosecutor might be preferable. But my rule of thumb thinking would be to leave it in the established criminal justice procedure.

Mr. EDGAR. Thank you.

I yield back my time.

Chairman STOKES. The gentleman yields back the balance of his

time.

Mr. Knight, let me ask you this: There are a variety of penalty provisions applicable to Federal homicide statutes. A recent Supreme Court decision, Furman v. Georgia, has declared that most of them are probably unconstitutional, capital punishment provisions in the context of either Presidential or other political assassinations.

My question to you would be, do you favor capital punishment in the event or in the area of Presidential assassinations?

Mr. KNIGHT. I have a difficulty with capital punishment, if it is mandatory, and I base that only on the sense that perhaps juries are reluctant to convict, if they know by so doing, they are in effect killing someone. I am not convinced either. And I again beg your indulgence as not being your best witness on this. But I am not sure that, in the case of an assassination, it is necessarily a deterrent, which is theoretically at least part of the factors involved in punishment.

Chairman STOKES. I guess one of the concerns that the committee would have in that particular area is the question of killing the assassin as a result of a trial and a finding of guilty, and then, of

course, not having him available for any other reasons later on, in light of other information that may come to light. That, of course, is one of our concerns, in terms of trying to draw up any loopholes in the law.

Let me ask you this: The Congress has in recent years enacted a variety of statutes dealing with access to third party records. Some of them were mentioned earlier. But the most recent one, the Right to the Financial Privacy Act of 1978, makes an exception for certain of the Secret Service's protective functions and foreign counterintelligence functions of the FBI.

Do you think that similar exceptions would be helpful or necessary to assassination prevention or investigation not only to this act but others similar to it?

Mr. KNIGHT. I would think so, yes, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman STOKES. I have just one further question.

In 1964 President Johnson created the Warren Commission. By virtue of the creation of the Commission, the onus of decisionmaking, in terms of the investigation, was transferred from the FBI over to the Warren Commission, and, of course, in terms of the overall investigation, particularly with the FBI having the primary responsibilities, that appeared to create some problems, and I was just wondering if you have any views with reference to whether, in the event such a tragic occurrence ever does occur again, we ought to consider having a Warren-type commission.

Mr. KNIGHT. My most immediate reaction to that, Mr. Chairman, is that I would prefer to see it remain within the established criminal justice system, unless there was strong evidence or strong indication that they could not handle it, or were somehow involved in the assassination.

Chairman STOKES. I guess one of our concerns in that area is the public perception of things at that moment, with the kind of trauma that comes from such an occurrence. And one of our concerns, of course, is the fact that the Attorney General is the lawyer for the person who is next in line for succession, that is the Vice President, and our concern is whether that kind of impropriety, or at least appearance of impropriety, ought to be removed and lodged maybe in a special prosecutor type of situation.

Mr. KNIGHT. I certainly think that is a valid concern. I'm not certain that just by virtue of having that office he necessarily has to be disqualified. I think you would agree to that.

Chairman STOKES. Yes.

Mr. KNIGHT. It is more the appearance.

Chairman STOKES. Right.

Mr. KNIGHT. I agree with you that there are certainly some people in this country who would look askance at that relationship. Whether that requires that you set up an entirely new and different and separate operation to handle this is a question that really I think of a policy nature that someone else could better answer than myself.

Chairman STOKES. Thank you very much. I have no further questions.

Does anyone else seek further recognition?

Mr. PREYER. Mr. Chairman.

38-028 - 79-8

Chairman STOKES. The gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Preyer.

Mr. PREYER. I would just like to ask one question, following up on the chairman's comments about the exception in the Financial Privacy Act-

Mr. KNIGHT. Yes.

Mr. PREYER [continuing]. Which we just passed at the end of the session for certain of the Secret Service's protective functions and foreign counterintelligence functions.

Have you drawn up any rules or regulations relating to how you would deal with that exception?

Mr. KNIGHT. Not as yet. It is my understanding that that act is not in effect for another hundred and-well, perhaps 100 days now. Certainly we shall.

Mr. PREYER. Good. I am glad to hear that, because I do think it is not the intention of Congress-Mr. Edgar brought out this pointto just allow a blanket search into an individual's bank records. The question of invasion of privacy is an important one, and I believe that you answered Mr. Stokes that you felt this sort of exception did need to be written into other statutes.

Mr. KNIGHT. Yes, sir, I did.

Mr. PREYER. Such as medical records, insurance records and so forth.

Mr. KNIGHT. Right.

Mr. PREYER. As well as bank records.

I would think that it would be very important in getting Congress consent to write exceptions into those areas; that Congress be convinced that you are seeking blanket entrance into the records, and that it would be important that you have some guidelines drawn up to make sure that you recognize the rights of privacy as well as the needs for security.

Mr. KNIGHT. Yes, sir.

Mr. PREYER. Thank you for your testimony, Mr. Knight.

Mr. KNIGHT. Thank you.

Mr. EDGAR. Mr. Chairman.

Chairman STOKES. The gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Edgar. Mr. EDGAR. Thank you.

The question of capital punishment was raised, which begs the next question, which deals with gun control.

Have you personally, as a law enforcement person, had any views relating to how any form of gun legislation or gun control might assist you in the pursuit of your duty?

Mr. KNIGHT. Well, as a preliminary to answering that question, as you are aware, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms enforces the firearms law. They are in the Department of Treasury as we are in the Department of Treasury. Treasury has taken a position on the subject that you have asked me. My standard response to that question, and I don't mean to say standard in the sense that I dismiss it, because I don't have the answer. Ideally, if we could prevent those who are mentally ill, those with criminal records, and those who have a propensity for violence, from possessing or having access to firearms, you know I would be in favor of such a thing.

I am not at all confident that we can legislate or draw up laws or perhaps even create a monstrous bureaucracy to administer it that would be effective, so in that sense, I cannot be responsive to your question, except, just some of my personal thoughts on the matter. Mr. EDGAR. Thank you.

Mr. Chairman, I would just like to say I have been personally impressed with the Director's comments this morning, and his cooperation in sharing with us his thoughts about the issues, and I have no further questions.

Chairman STOKES. Mr. Knight, let me on behalf of the committee concur in the remarks of Mr. Edgar. We also would like to thank you not only for your appearance here this morning, and the help and assistance you have provided this committee here today, but also the cooperation you and your entire staff have given Professor Blakey and all of our staff people during the course of the investigation, and we appreciate very much the kind of assistance the Service has granted this committee.

Mr. KNIGHT. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman STOKES. Thank you, sir.

There being nothing further at this time, the committee will reconvene at 2 o'clock this afternoon.

[Whereupon, at 10:25 a.m., the committee was recessed, to reconvene at 2 p.m.]

AFTERNOON SESSION

Chairman STOKES. The committee will come to order.

The committee's witness this afternoon is Mr. Benjamin R. Civiletti, Deputy Attorney General of the United States.

Mr. Civiletti, welcome to our hearing, and at this time we will accept your presentation of your testimony in any way you so desire.

STATEMENT OF BENJAMIN R. CIVILETTI, DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL

Mr. CIVILETTI. Thank you, Chairman Stokes.

I have a short formal statement, parts of which I will read and introduce in its short entirety into the record, and then I will be pleased to address any questions or subjects or issues which will be of assistance to the committee.

I know you have already heard directly from the Bureau and the CIA and the Secret Service concerning their needs and plans to respond on this series of subjects.

As you also have heard, the Service and the Bureau have the immediate operational and specific statutory responsibility for the protection of the President, on the one hand, and investigation of Presidential assassinations or attempts as well as other crimes against U.S. officials, and foreign officials and guests, on the other. I would like to discuss briefly current Federal authority to handle political assassinations.

Our current legal posture with respect to Presidential assassinations is very different from what it was in 1963 when President Kennedy was assassinated.

It is now a Federal crime to kill, kidnap, attempt to kill or kidnap or assault the President, the President-elect, the Vice Presi

dent-elect, the individual next in order of succession to the Presidency if there is no Vice President, a Member of Congress or Member of Congress-elect.

The criminal code reform that we have proposed would continue this coverage and extend it as well to Supreme Court Justices and Cabinet members. In addition, many crimes that could likely be termed political assassinations may be prosecuted federally under the civil rights laws.

It is now also a Federal crime to kill or attempt to kill, kidnap or assault foreign officials in the United States and protected foreign guests and their families. The proposed criminal code again would continue those provisions and would add a provision new to the law that would make it a Federal crime to conspire within the United States to assassinate a foreign official outside the United States.

We believe that the current statutes very clearly establish Federal authority to investigate and prosecute these particular political assassinations. The statutes provide specifically that the exercise of Federal jurisdiction suspends State or local jurisdiction until the Federal action is terminated.

The statutes charge the Bureau with handling the investigation and authorize the FBI to request assistance from any other Federal, State, or local agency, specifically including the Army, Navy, and Air Force, notwithstanding any other rule, regulation, or statute that might limit the assistance those agencies would ordinarily provide, such as the Posse Comitatus Act.

We are, therefore, in a position where we can call on help as needed, but where it is clear that the Federal authorities will be conducting the investigation entirely.

Director Webster has already discussed with you particular operational plans and arrangements currently in force that could be put into effect in the event of a Presidential assassination.

Basically, I think it is the major case or major investigation plan. Because we are aware that the Secret Service would already be on the scene before the FBI would arrive, the FBI and Secret Service have a working understanding of procedures and practices to assure that the area is secured and evidence retained. These procedures and others are currently being reviewed by the Secret Service and the FBI as to their efficacy.

There are three additional points that I know are of concern to this committee that I would like to mention.

First, the question of access to materials in the possession of the media. It is very possible that any incident involving a political assassination or attempted political assassination would occur in the presence of the media and be recorded at least in part on film or tape.

We are confident that in the unhappy event of such an incident the media would be cooperative with us in providing us with any recordings, photographs, tapes or other materials they might have. The Department of Justice has available to it the power to subpena such materials or, if necessary, to search for them, and would use those powers in accordance with the applicable law and governmental regulations, if necessary, in the conduct of a complete investigation.