"(5) Restrictions on disclosure to protect the integrity of the investigation o prosecution and prevent prejudicing the rights of defendants or those unde investigation.

"Disclosure of logs should be made directly to an appropriate congressiona committee or to the Government Accounting Office on request of that committee Release or dissemination of disclosed logs should occur, if at all, only after specific approval by the full committee.

"The Attorney General should promulgate regulations governing the logging and recording of requests for investigations or other action by the Departmen emanating from the White House or the Executive Office of the President. Con gress should enact legislation mandating such regulations and include guideline: for the Attorney General . . .” (pp. 63–4, 69).

The March 1974 report by a Panel of the National Academy of Public Admin istration ("Watergate: Its Implications for Responsible Government") recom mended:

"The Panel believes that the Justice Department should move to enforce the existing requirements that all employees keep a record of contacts by outside individuals seeking to influence the disposition of particular matters." (p. 62). Senator RIEGLE. Thank you very much.

Senator ABOUREZK. Charlene Mitchell.

Once again, I really do not like to do this but I have to ask the committee members not to go into a series of questions to Ms. Mitchell If there are questions you need to ask, could it be done in writing and submitted to her because we will have a very serious conflict if we do not finish her testimony before 11 o'clock.

I welcome you to the committee, Ms. Mitchell.

Ms. MITCHELL. Thank you.

Gentlemen, and I wish I could say ladies and gentlemen, maybe one of these days that will happen in this committee.

Senator ABOUREZK. Did you support Bella Abzug or not?

Ms. MITCHELL. I will leave my support for later but I would have supported a woman had she been able to run for the Senate, yes. Mr. RIEGLE. I did, Mr. Chairman, just for the sake of the record. Senator ABOUREZK. So did I. I did that, however, by endorsing her opponent in New York.

[Laughter.]

TESTIMONY OF CHARLENE MITCHELL, EXECUTIVE SECRETARY OF THE NATIONAL ALLIANCE AGAINST RACIST AND POLITICAL

REPRESSION

Ms. MITCHELL. My name is Charlene Mitchell and I am executive secretary of the National Alliance Against Racist and Political Repression.

I have a statement which I hope you all have that I will read but I would like to take a minute to preface that with just some notes.

I think that the fact that the questioning of racism on the part of anyone would be in public office is an extremely important criteria. It is important because how one stands on that question will very often determine how one stands on any other question that faces our country. Therefore, when people talk about practical and pragmatic politics versus principled responsibility to our people I don't think that we have big differences here. I think that if politics are to be practical, they have to be principled, otherwise they will not bear fruit.

In that respect I feel that we cannot afford for regional differences to divide our people. With that, I would like to begin my prepared.

statement.

Griffin Bell stated recently that the Attorney General of the United States stands as a symbol of equality before the law and of the quality of justice of our country. We agree. The Attorney General as the highest law enforcement official of the land must be the lawyer of all the people.

He must share or at least understand their values, aspirations and problems. He must fight on their side. He should not be a representative of narrow, selfish interests, isolated from the people he is sworn to represent.

Mr. Bell's record convinces us, unfortunately, that he is not the kind of leader this post demands. At every major juncture in his career he has resisted social progress and answered the call of those who defend privilege and the status quo.

Over the last decade, as Americans of every race and color demanded social, economic and political justice, an end to war and the legal ramparts of discrimination, where was Griffin Bell? He showed no comprehension, understanding or compassion. Rather he resisted change both actively and passively.

This committee has an obligation to probe deeply into Mr. Bell's record and his views on the most important questions facing America. When the first black man since Reconstruction was elected to the legislature in Georgia-and I know this has been stated but I want to go at it from a different level-Griffin Bell, then sitting in the U.S. court of appeals for the first circuit, legally barred the door to Julian Bond.

This incident merits serious consideration. Julian Bond was an activist in the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee and a critic of the war in Vietnam. Griffin Bell ruled "The SNCC statement is at war with the national policy of this country . . . We are committed in Vietnam.”

The people of the United States were not "committed in Vietnam." Only the administration, the Pentagon, and the cold warriors of the corporate elite were "committed in Vietnam."

The voters who elected Julian Bond did not agree with Griffin Bell that opposition to the Vietnam war was in conflict with the Constitution and it soon became clear that the people of the United States as a whole shared Senator Julian Bond's views, not Griffin Bell's.

Mr. Bell disenfranchised the voters of a black district in Atlanta for freely electing someone with whom he disagreed. This committee should ask itself in what way this qualifies Mr. Bell to be the top legal officer in the country.

The Supreme Court at that time unanimously repudiated Bell's ruling. Today you must ask yourselves how Griffin Bell will address the growing conservative thrust on the Supreme Court.

Griffin Bell's identification with the values and interests of an upperclass white elite is a consistent pattern in his career. His 20-year membership in two segregationist, anti-Semitic and all male social clubs cannot be dismissed as merely personal and irrelevant to the post of Attorney General.

He did not join intending to challenge this exclusionism. As he stated. "I didn't read the bylaws... Everything was segregated back then." But are these merely social clubs? They are bastions of power and privilege, the meeting grounds for business and political connections, influence and powerbroking.

This committee must closely examine this man who chose to restric his social and political contacts to a homogenized clique in which only the white and wealthy were welcome. You must consider whethe this qualifies him to represent all the people of the United States fo the Piedmont Driving Club is not America.

The people of our country are working people, black, white, Puert Rican, Chicano, Asian, and Native American. They have little, if any thing, in common with Griffin Bell's closest friends and associates.

If proof is needed, we have only to look at Mr. Bell's endorsemen of G. Harrold Carswell for the U.S. Supreme Court. Here is a cas of social cronyism become political cronyism.

When Mr. Bell wrote, "I recommend Judge Carswell for confirma tion without any hesitation or reservation whatever," and then flatly denied having endorsed Carswell, he demonstrated a willingness to sacrifice the truth for political expediency, a willingness from which we have suffered gravely in recent years.

If confirmed, Griffin Bell will promptly face a social problem de manding sensitivity and compassion. We stand on the verge of resum ing executions after a 10-year reprieve. A glance at the death row: around the country shows that it is the racially oppressed and the poor who are concentrated there.

Nowhere is this more apparent than in Georgia where 77 await death in the State which has executed more people, 80 percent of them black, than any other State in our history.

This committee should consider whether Mr. Beil's background and experience and close allegiance to the man who framed Georgia's death penalty law, Jimmy Carter, equip him to handle this explosive issue.

If confirmed Mr. Bell will oversee the Federal Bureau of Prisons The rising movement among prison inmates and the public outcry against behavior modification and experimentation on prisoners demand farsightedness and respect for basic human dignity.

In this respect I would like to mention the case of Andres Cordero. the Pureto Rican nationalist prisoner to whom the Bureau has denied the company of his family in his dying days.

We see no signs that Mr. Bell would make the simple human gesture of releasing Cordero.

In recent years the transformation of the grand jury from a buffer against prosecutorial abuse into an investigative arm of the FBI has aroused widespread alarm. Today Phil Shinnick, Olympic champion long jumper, who has not even been charged with a crime sits in Allenwood, a victim of this new "star chamber."

For 400 years, beginning with slavery until the mid-1960's, racial discrimination had the full force of law. To reverse that heritage, the full force of the law must be employed. Affirmative action to achieve racial equality is a critical necessity.

We question whether Griffin Bell, who was described by Nathaniel R. Jones. general counsel of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, as "the evil genius of the fifth circuit, always inventing new barriers to delay relief and frustrate the claims of black plaintiffs" is qualified for the job.

The deep wounds of the Vietnam war are not vet closed. Universal and unconditional amnesty would help to assure the American people

that the abusive prosecutions of antiwar activists in the Nixon-Mitchell era will not be repeated.

We appreciate the sacrifices suffered and the services rendered to the conscience of our Nation by those who resisted the war. We do not ask of Griffin Bell that he share our gratitude, but we do not see in the man who persecuted Julian Bond for his antiwar beliefs an Attorney General who will help end the persecution of those who helped to end the war.

As Attorney General, Griffin Bell will oversee one of America's most threatening institutions, the FBI. It is now indisputable that the FBI's 50-vear record from the Palmer "Red Raids" through the Rosenbergs, Martin Luther King and Malcolm X to the Chicago Eight, commonly known as the Chicago Seven, the Cointelpro program and the Reverend Ben Chavis and Dr. James Grant merit it the title of "Masters of Deceit."

Consistently, under Democrats and Republicans, under liberal and conservative administrations, the FBI has bugged, framed, infiltrated. spied on, and burglarized those who fought for democracy, peace, and justice.

The FBI is the germ of a police state in our society. We do not want an Attorney General who will propose another Senate bill 1, expanded wiretap laws, or who will continue the surveillance and infiltration of left and progressive organizations and independent political parties such as the Communist Party, the practice that brought us to the brink of tyranny.

Nothing in Griffin Bell's record of subservience shows us the strength and courage required to dismantle the FBI's machinery of repression.

We want to know the full details of former Assistant Attorney General Robert Mardian's involvement in the frameup prosecution of Dr. James Grant and the Charlotte Three, of Reverend Ben Chavis and the Wilmington Ten, leaders and activists of the black community in North Carolina.

These freedom fighters were convicted on the testimony of informants paid by the Federal Government. The committee should learn from Griffin Bell if he will make a clean break from these past policies and will reveal the truth about the involvement of predecessors.

This committee must ask: Will Mr. Bell continue the policies of developing and consolidating the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration's training, supplying and coordinating of 40,000 local police departments as paramilitary units, complete with weapons like the dumdum bullets outlawed for use in war, and special units like the snooping "Red Squads" and the sniping "SWAT Squads?"

You, the members of the Judiciary Committee, will breach your duty if you close your deliberations without straight answers to these questions. Mr. Carter has urged, "There is a simple way to restore trust in government-to be trustworthy." But trust must be based on experience, facts, and thorough knowledge. This is not a day for blind faith.

Thank you.

Senator ABOUREZK. Thank you very much, Ms. Mitchell.

There are a lot of things that I agree with in your statement. I wish I had time to question you. I wish the committee had time to ask

questions, but I think you are aware of the time problem we have with other witnesses.

Ms. MITCHELL. Thank you very much.

Senator ABOUREZK. I want to thank you very much for your state ment and your appearance.

The next witness is Roy Innis.

We would like to welcome you and your group to the committee: If you would introduce the people with you, it would be helpful.

TESTIMONY OF ROY INNIS, NATIONAL DIRECTOR, THE CONGRES OF RACIAL EQUALITY

Mr. INNIS. Thank you.

I have with me at my right my deputy, Ms. Mary Dennison. On my left is Mr. Waverly Yates, CORE's Washington representative.

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am Roy Innis national director of the Congress of Racial Equality, CORE.

For my organization and myself, I would like to express my appreciation for this opportunity to address you. I will address you also as a member of that vast unsung silenced majority in the black community.

Although we have not been silent in our protest, our voices have been muffled. We have not been able to advise you on matters of importance to us. In essence, a veritable Gordian knot strangles the passageway through which a proper articulation of our true goals and aspirations and our choice of the means to achieve them can be expressed.

This has not been good for us, and it has not been good for America. We are here today at the invitation of the Senate Judiciary Committee to present relevant testimony on the question of Griffin Bell's suitability to serve as the next Attorney General of the United States. Our position on this issue has been stated nationally-we support the nomination and expect confirmation of Griffin Bell.

The significance of this particular session extends beyond the question of Griffin Bell, the man. The dissenting view to our own has had more than ample opportunity to unearth any concrete evidence against Bell, but in our mind it has failed to do so. Instead, a furor has been raised around the Bell nomination that has obscured in the minds of many just where the black community stands in terms of Bell, the Carter administration, and each other.

Without fully exploring these unknowns, CORE cannot leave this session feeling comfortable with our participation in or the after effects of this hearing.

As the white community prides itself in-and indeed encouragestolerance of diversity of opinion from within, this same unwritten right does not exist in the black community. Blacks have been characterized and stigmatized as a monolithic entity or, the other extreme, a disorganized disunited rabble.

There are many culprits in this fraudulent attempt to imply that any one voice or group has been ordained to speak for all of us or that we are incapable of reaching a consensus.

We are a young human rights organization-we've existed less than twoscore years-relative to the likes of NAACP, the Urban League