Mr. COLLINS. Could you demonstrate that?

Senator WILEY. Yes, would you mind giving us a concrete illustration of that?

Mr. SMITH. I couldn't with respect to the courts themselves, because it has not been required in the past. But to illustrate from an example that might happen

Senator WILEY. Yes. You look like a man with a good imagination.

Mr. SMITH. As Captain Jones stated, sir, we might be at some distance from the court itself when it was found necessary or desirable to place a tap on a line. And those things occur momentarily. To have to go some distance, or even a short distance for that matter, to obtain a written order from the court, our opportunity to gain the information and the evidence desired might have passed and would not recur again.

Senator WILEY. What offenses would you limit it to?

Mr. SMITH. I would limit it to those categories, sir. I believe that would be a protection. It would prohibit any wiretapping outside of those categories, at least the admission of evidence outside of those categories of espionage, counterespionage, sabotage, and subversion.

Senator WILEY. There has been some thought, in view of the fact that you do wiretap, that there might be a possibility of making evidence competent after you have gotten it. What have you to say

about that?

Mr. SMITH. Well, that would certainly help the problem to some extent. As to what extent, I don't know just yet. But it would certainly alleviate the situation.

Senator WILEY. What do you say as to the issue that is also raised, in view of the fact that there has been considerable wiretapping, that the competency included not only the future, whether it is authorized by a court or not, but make it competent as to past evidence?

I am talking now about that which has been accumulated, and I am talking about the other instance. In other words, we get the stuff first, and the competency second, under the order. I would like to know about your ideas on that.

Mr. SMITH. Sir, that, as I said before, would certainly make the problem a lot more workable than it is right now.

Senator WILEY. Have your legal authorties studied that?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir; they have studied it to some extent. As to how far back they have gone, I don't know.

Senator WILEY. Does anyone want to speak on that?

Captain JONES. Well, sir, as to the first point, as it may relate to matters already pending, I am informed that as far as the Defense Department is concerned, that is academic. There are no situations known to use where evidence has been collected by this means, which would be made competent by legislation. In other words, we have no direct interest in section 1, H. R. 8649.

As to future cases, I think the point is well taken that individuals concerned would be amply protected if the court passes on the question of competency at the time the evidence is adduced at the trial, or at the hearing, and that they have ample protection if the Attorney General authorizes in the first instance the placing of taps in a particular case by a particular agency.

Senator WILEY. Do you want to say something about that?

Mr. LEVY. I would like to speak about the operations of the military as distinguished from those of the FBI, particularly as our operations are far flung throughout the world, wherever we have military personnel stationed. More often than not, in your espionage type case, when you engage in a telephone tap operation it is not centralized in one particular geographic area, which would necessitate, under the present proposal, that you would get the permit in the geographical area where this exists. Under these conditions, we feel that to interpose another element of permission merely blocks the possibility of getting speed on your necessary operations.

Sometimes you may have very short notice of a meeting or a gathering that is going to take place involving subversive type activities, and it would be very difficult if you had to go through a series of judges in order to get that necessary permit.

Senator WILEY. How do you differentiate that, say, from what takes place in New York? What is the distinction there? They even get a court order for minor offenses, as it were, I understand. They have to appear before the court, and as far as I know, there isn't any question of leaks.

Do you think in those cases the distinction is that it is a question of wanting to catch them after they have performed, whereas you want to catch them before they have performed as well as after? Mr. LEVY. In the act, sir.

Senator WILEY. How many States have laws in this regard, Counsel?

Mr. COLLINS. Thirty-two.

Senator WILEY. There are 32 States in which there are some provisions making competent wiretapping evidence. And a number of these States, as I understand it, require a court order. Of course, that is in the manner of police. I can see a distinction between that and the question of overall safety of the country.

I am interested, however, in getting the opinion of all competent folks. Is there any further testimony you want to offer?

Captain JONES. Except to add to the last point made that there is a difference, as I see it, in the farflung nature of a conspiracy intended to perform sabotage or espionage or subversion, as disinguished from local bank robbery, for instance. There is that essential difference.

Senator WILEY. I just wanted to make this suggestion, because this thought comes to my mind: We have opposition to the House bill on the theory that a good many folks say there can be no bill unless we get a court into the picture. What we need is something to meet this evil, and I am hoping that out of our interrogation of the various witnesses we can find the road, find the way, without squabbling about the means, if the means become effective.

All right, Counsel. Any questions?

Mr. COLLINS. Yes, I have one that I started to ask Mr. Smith, as to the position of the Defense Department urging that approval be vested in the Attorney General rather than an ex parte order by a court. As I understand your position, you feel that it would be more expeditious. Well, according to the bill, before you can intercept any communication, you have to have the express approval of the Attorney General. So if you were out in the field somewhere, in some far part of the country, you would still have to contact Washington and contact the Attorney General to get his approval first.

Now, with that in mind, why wouldn't it be just as easy and just as expeditious, as long as you have to contact Washington, to get the express written approval of the Attorney General, that that is being obtained here in Washington, and almost as a part of the same operation you could contact a Federal or an appellate judge here in Washington? Wouldn't that be as expeditious?

Mr. LEVY. Mr. Chairman, may I say something on that point, please, sir?

I think there are two factors to be considered. No. 1, our military courts follow the procedures as set down by the Federal courts. In our areas overseas we, of course, will not have a Federal judge available to us. Therefore, without that permission, even though we had the Attorney General's permission, without the permission of the Federal judge as now proposed, that evidence would not be admissible either in a military court overseas or in a proceeding here in the United States, in accordance with the proposed bill.

I don't know whether I can make myself clear on that, but we just have no Federal judges in our overseas areas.

Mr. COLLINS. But that would apply only to your operations overseas. In this country there would be no difficulty.

Mr. LEVY. There would be difficulty, sir, but we would have that available to us.

In other words, we feel it would be another stumbling block in our way, but it would be accessible to us. But not in the overseas areas. Senator WILEY. There is this distinction. And first it is a question of how to make the evidence competent. That is the real issue here. Next: What is the better way or the best way of making it competent? Would the Attorney General's approval make it competent overseas before the court?

Mr. LEVY. I would assume so, sir, if that was the way the proposed law was finally passed.

Senator WILEY. In other words, it would be dependent on the statute. Well, couldn't a statute be drawn that when an order was granted by a competent Federal court, that would be competent evidence in any military tribunal under the jurisdiction of the officers of this Government? Just the same as you make the Attorney General the condition precedent for competency.

Mr. LEVY. Yes, sir, with the possible except of what Federal judge would give that permission for an operation, let us assume, in Germany, or an operation, let us assume, in some other foreign country.

Senator WILEY. I think you make a point. I think there is something really to consider there.

Have you any other suggestion as to how to make evidence competent to military tribunals except under the approval of the Attorney General?

Mr. LEVY. In connection with this proposed bill, no, sir.

Senator WILEY. Any further questions?

Mr. COLLINS. No, sir.

Senator WILEY. That is all.

Thank you.

We have with us Mr. Coar, who has kindly consented to come over and give us a demonstration on how to tap wires and what can happen if you have a crook that is doing the tapping.

Is that right?

Go ahead and qualify yourself, if you will.

STATEMENT OF ROBERT COAR, DIRECTOR, JOINT HOUSE-SENATE RADIO FACILITY

Mr. COAR. Some 20 years ago I was district plant engineer for the New York Telephone Co., and in that capacity one of my assignments was to make searches for wiretaps, at that time particularly in the racing business. And in those cases most wiretaps were physical wiretaps. By that I mean there was a wire connected to another telephone line and fed to some other receiving point, where it was either taken down in short hand or taken down on a dictaphone disk or cylindrical recorder.

Subsequent to that, I have, prior to coming to Washington and shortly after I came to Washington some 19 years ago, done some development work for the FBI in the design of wiretapping equipment, which they subsequently purchased in considerable quantity. In those days, it was a disk-type recorder. And I think that gives you enough background to indicate that I have had some experience in the past.

I thought first you might be interested in knowing some types of equipment which are generally available to the public. Anybody can buy it; anybody can use it. And as of today, it is not necessary to make a physical tap of the telephone line to record a conversation. As a matter of fact, it is common practice in the field, both by Government agencies and others, to use induction coils sometimes as far as 5 to 10 feet away from the telephone instrument or the bell box. In addition to that, with the proper induction coil, it is possible to, where you have a single telephone line, take by induction any messages going over that telephone line. That method being generally available to the public, it can be purchased.

I will show you a few of the units. This is one type of induction coil which is available to the public for about two dollars and a half. It can be used with any type of recorder. Simply place a telephone on top of the induction coil, and it will pick up anything that comes in.

Some of the recorders have starting relays on them which can be left in a hotel room and turned on, and will not run until a pulse goes over the line. As soon as that occurs, a plate current drain is introduced to operate the relay, and the tape recorder will start and operate and continue recording for some 30 seconds as long as sound is continued. As soon as that sound stops, the recorder will stop operating. In that way, any agent, be he Government or otherwise, can take a relatively small piece of equipment into a hotel room adjacent to somebody's phone in another room and leave the room, and it will operate unattended.

The recording equipment available can record up to 6, 8, or 10 hours continuously, if it is desirable to have that. That is common equipment, commonly available on the market.

This is another type of recorder developed in Germany during the war. It will record for an hour. It is battery operated. You can carry it in your pocket, and you can go up against a telephone line, lean against a wall, and record everything that is going on over

that line.

Senator WELKER. May I interrupt you, Mr. Witness? I am Senator Welker, of Idaho, and I regret that I missed the first part of your testimony. That will not only record a telephone conversation, but it will record a conversation of Senator Wiley and Senator Welker or any other person. Am I not correct?

Mr. COAR. Yes, sir.

Senator WELKER. And that evidence is perfectly admissible and legal?

Mr. COAR. I was confining myself mainly to wiretap.

Senator WELKER. I just merely wanted to get that into the record. This instrument here can be used in recording a conversation between the Senator and myself, and be perfectly admissible in a court of law. Am I correct in that sir?

Mr. COAR. Yes, sir. It is commonly used. This is a microphone, although it looks like a watch, and you can stand with a group of people with this microphone on and this in your back pocket, and, as you say, get a recording of the entire conversation in this hearing or anywhere else.

There is a smaller unit than this now available, which doesn't require the presence of anyone. It is a miniature radio transmitter. It has a self-contained microphone and has an induction coil as well. So it can be concealed behind a picture in a room. The range of that transmitter in a building is roughly about 500 feet. And with that much range, almost anybody can get a receiver within that distance of that room, either out in a car on the street or anywhere, and there take the transmission of the signal from this small unit on a tape recorder and record everything in the room or everything that is going over the telephone line.

Mr. COLLINS. Mr. Coar, when you play back and record the information obtained, can that tape recording be altered?

Mr. COAR. Yes. I have a graphic demonstration of that. This happens to be a wire recorder. This is the wire that it is recorded

on.

It is almost as fine as a hair. This wire recording can also be altered. Simply by playing it back on to a plastic tape, recording on the tape and rerecording from the tape back to the wire, there is no way at all anyone can tell that there have been changes made in what was on the original wire. That is so even with the telephone beep, which is presumably to be used by all subscribers who have recording devices. You have heard it on the radio many times and probably had testimony on it. Where you have a recording device you are supposed to notify the person on the other end of the wire that a recording is being made, plus the fact that every 15 seconds you have a tone superimposed on the signal. That also can be made to appear as an authentic signal when in fact it isn't. We have a demonstration here of that.

You probably have this. I don't know. But this is a catalog in which there are thousands of them issued twice a year. All the radio amateurs get them, and people who have tape as a hobby. And if you look on page 41, Senator, you will see various forms of induction coils which can be purchased for varying prices from $2 on up. These are the coils I am referring to here. You can see that they run from $7 down to $4.50. Now, any citizen can buy that and plug it into this tape recorder, which is about a $129 tape recorder that anybody could