THE PEOPLE'S 'NEED TO KNOW'

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP77M00144R000800070106-3
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 4
• Document Creation Date: December 12, 2016
• Document Release Date: November 26, 2001
• Sequence Number: 106
• Publication Date: February 24, 1976
• Content Type: OPEN

Approved For Release 2002/01/02 : CIA-RDP77M00144R000800070106-3
February 24, 1976 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -HOUSE
of the specific complaints and allegations
made &bout the program and why it will not
17 In
t
.y end up costing the
grey in the following
shift ($1400 night differ
e
$184,000.
25% premium pay, $136,000.
d. Retraining clerks for
$21,000.
dow jobs,
,000.
rep-
d1V
r.,
Aetna, G. Fox's) send their mail to the
office in the morning. This mail is
oyees, $250,000. .
kinployees to night
ial per person),
5. A mail sorter (referred to by employees
as the "octopus") was purchased in June
1976. After a loss of money and after griev-
ances were filed to show its inefficiencies, it
was "quietly" removed and the losses suf-
fered.
6. The overall morale of the employees in
the Hartford Post Office is at an "all time
low." The employees believe that increased
efficiency is impossible as long as the workers
are not consulted before drastic changes such
as these are put into effect.
These are very serious charges and I would
appreciate an immediate and detailed in-
vestigation.
Sincerely,
WILLIAM R. COTTER,
Member of Congress.
RESPONSE TO COMPLAINTS AND ALLEGATIONS AS
.STATED IN REPRESENTATIVE COTTER's LETTERS
OF JANUARY 14 AND FEBRUARY 10, 1976
(NoTE.-Complaints and allegations itali-
cized.)
1. The Hartford Postmaster reported that
overnight delivery of first-class mail increased
from 88% in FY 1974 to 93% in FY 1975 be-
fore the implementaion of PIP.
The statement is true.
2. The figures provided to you by APWU
Local 147 on the cost of implementing the
PIP Program at Hartford are not factual.
A. Salaries of PIP Employees.
All PIP team members were Postal Service
employees detailed from Headquarters, Re-
gion, District and local offices who were draw-
ing their regular salaries. To utilize engineers
from Headquarters, region and district offices
on field assignments is a normal course of
business and their salaries are paid from nor-
mal budgets. Local management personnel
utilized were given temporary assignments
on PIP teams by rescheduling vacations and
by distributing the work among other man-
agement personnel. There is no basis for a
$250,000 figure.
B. Cost of Moving 71 Employees to Night
Lift.
ce flowing through mail processing opera-
tio were analyzed over a three week period.
Peop . were assigned to those hours where
mail available to be worked. The maxi-
mum a ated cost of night differential pay
would be proximately $79,000 per year. On
the basis less hours worked annually per
employee, minimum cost would be ap-
proximately 3,500. By matching employee
workhours wi mail availability, we elimi-
nate much ove N me pay. There is no basis
for the $184,000 re.
C. Cost of Manz Clerks to Sunday with
hours for an annual st of approximately
$57,000. Additionally, by .orking regular em-
ployees on Sundays, we ill eliminate 65
casuals (limited term wor orce) for a sav-
ings of $194,000. "This actio , will also con-
siderably reduce Sunday ove me. There. is
THE POSTMASTER GENERAL,
Washington, D.C., February 23, 1976.
Hon. WILLIAM It. COTTER,
House of Representatives,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR CONGRESSMAN COTTER: Thank you for
your letters of January 14 and February 16,
requesting an investigation with respect to
observations made to you about the Pro-
ductivity Improvement Program at Hartford.
A detailed investigation was made with
reference to the points outlined in your let-
ter. The findings have been compiled and are
set forth in the attachment to this letter.
We have dealt in good faith with the Na-
tional and Local unions on this matter. While
the concern of union officials is understand-
able, the provisions of the National Collec-
tive Bargaining Agreement have been fol-
lowed.
Grievances have been filed regarding the
implementation of the Productivity Improve-
ment Program in Hartford, and are being
processed in accordance with the grievance-
arbitration procedures of the National Agree-
ments.
While there may be union disagreement
over the Productivity Improvement Program,
we must schedule manpower in keeping with
mail processing needs and the overall Inter-
ests of postal efficiency.
Sincerely, '
11 not save the LISPS money, and will
se its efficiency.
rtford Postmaster reported that
very of first class mail increased
74 to 93% 1nFY75. The union
this was before the imple-
D. Retraining Clerks for Win Jobs.
Forty bids are, assigned to windo - nd cen-
tral mark-up. Training for emplo es will
cost approximately $10,000. There is _basis
E. Training Employees for Letter So
Machines.
H 1257
in the morning, resent and reworked in Hart-
ford in the evening.
It is true that 50% of the managed mail
does arrive between 7:00 AM and 1:00 PM.
This mail is scheduled to be worked as it
arrives. During 1975 mail was sent outside
the Hartford Post Office for processing, once
to Waterbury (June 7) and four times to
New Britain to meet service standards.
6. Mail sorter (octopus) was "quietly" re-
moved and losses suffered after grievances
were filed to show its inefficiencies.
The above Mail Distribution Ring was
purchased for the new building which will
be occupied in August. A Regional Head-
quarters decision was made that the system
would be given a trial in the present build-
ing. It was obvious from the start that there
was not sufficient room for the system in
the present building, and four union safety
grievances, a management decision was made
to remove the system to storage. The Dis-
tribution Ring System has had considerable
success in several offices around the coun-
try. There is presently a distribution ring
operating efficiently at the Murphy Road
Annex. There will be adequate space at the
new facility for this unit. The Distribution
Ring will be operating in the new building.
7. The morale of the employees is at an
"all time low," and- increased efficiency is
impossible as long as workers 'are not con-
sulted before drastic changes are put into
effect.
During regular Management-Union meet-
ings held at the Postmaster's office, progress
of the PIP team was given as a point of dis-
cussion.
8. Several planned meetings were held be-
tween the PIP Team Leader/Postmaster and
local union representatives to discuss the
up-to-date progress of the program. Specific
May 1, 1975-Meeting was held to give a
complete explanation of the PIP program
(results of the study and procedure used to
get the savings). The local president and
vice-president walked out of the meeting, the
regional union vice-president stayed for the
July 10, 1975 (115100 AM)-Meeting was
held with local APWU representatives to dis-
cuss minor adjustments which had been
made in the scheduling and staffing plan.
August 8, 1975 (10:00 AM)-Meeting was
held in Washington between, Headquarters
officials and APWU national ofcers and staff
to discuss impact of Hartford study. APWU
requested to examine the basic data in the
Hartford study. Permission was granted.
The LSM training will create a significant'
savings and will cost approximately $18,500.
There is no basis for the $48,000 figure.
3. Estimates supplied by the union indicate
that the PIP program may cost the USPS an
additional $639,000.
The PIP study has indicated a savings of
$1.1 million in the Hartford office due to
rescheduling and staffing with an expendi-
ture of approximately $164,500 to achieve-
that savings.
4. Large mailers in Hartford send their
mail to the post office in the morning. This
mail is not worked until the evening.
Mail which comes in before 1:00 PM is
insufficient in volume to warrant full staffing
at that time. The bulk of the insurance mail
is received three times per month (5th, 15th
and 25th). This mail is scheduled to be
worked as it arrives on those days.
5. Over 50% of managed mail arrives in
the post office between the hours of 7:00
AM and 1:00 PM. It is shipped to satellites
Rate-Operational Analysis
Current Surfad
Schedules.
Management Op
Handbook.
MPLSM-Performance':*valuatfon Report,
A/P 6, week 3. 41
Present number of LSM operators, categor-
Approved For Release 2002/01/02 : CIA-RDP77M00144R000800070106-3
 H 1258
Approved For Release 2002/01/02 : CIA-RDP77M00144R00080Q,070106-3
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOL SE e ruary 24, 1976
Ized by tour, scheme and position, and num-
ber of employees in training.
List of Operations studied in PIP, and not
studied in PIP.
Copy of Original Operation Detail Reports.
Copy of Current. Operation Detail Reports.
Proposed Staffing and Scheduling Plan:
December 17, 1975-Meeting was held in
Washington between Headquarters postal of-
ficials and the APWU national officials and
consultants to discuss their analysis of the
Hartford based data.
January 2, 1976-Meeting was scheduled
at 9:00 AM with Hartford Post Office man-
agement and Local 147 representatives to
discuss PIP Implementation. Union repre-
sentatives did not show up. Meeting was re-
scheduled for 1:30 PM, but again Union rep-
resentatives did not appear. After repeated
attempts to get representatives to accept bid
package, it was sent via Certified Mail to the
local Union office.
January 2. 1976-Letters were sent to
homes of 71 employees who were being ex-
cessed from Tour 2.
January 5, 1976-Letters were sent to all
remaining Tour 2 employees advising them
of their status.
January 8, 1976-Meeting was held be-
tween the Postmaster, PIP Team and APWU
representatives to discuss the status of Tour
2 employees.
January 10, 1976-The complete bid pack-
age was mailed to the homes of all bargain-
ing unit employees.
January 12, 1976-The bid package was
officially posted on all bulletin boards at
the Main Post Office, stations and branches.
February 5, 1976-List of successful bid-
ders was posted for Tour 2 positions. Approx-
imately 45- successful bidders were placed in
their new positions effectve February 14,
1976.
9. Security of fobs for veterans and dis-
abled veterans.
All changes in Hartford personnel will be
handled in accordance with the National
Collective Bargaining Agreement.
LEGISLATION TO CLARIFY TAX
CODE PROVISION THAT COULD
HARM MANY CHARITIES IN AMER-
ICA
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a
previous order of the House, the gentle-
man from Hawaii (Mr. MATSUNAGA) is
recognized for 10 minutes.
Mr. MATSUNAGA. Mr. Speaker, today
I am introducing legislation to clarify a
provision in the Internal Revenue Code
which, if the current IRS interpretation
is permitted to stand, could prove ex-
tremely harmful to charitable organiza-
tions across the country.
I refer to the position taken by the IRS
that liens securing assessments for off-
site improvements are "acquisition in-
debtedness," thus making the charitable
organizations holding the assessed prop-
erty liable for taxes on the income pro-
duced from the property.
It is my understanding, Mr. Speaker,
that the. intent of Congress in enacting
section 514 of the code was to prevent
tax-exempt organizations from, in effect,
trading on their exempt status in trans-
actions involving the sale or lease of
pro: erty held for activities unrelated to
the charitable function. Quite clearly, an
assessment by a municipal or State gov-
ernment to defray the costs of offsite
improvements such as curbs or sewers
is not subject to the kind of manipula-
tion toward which section 514 was rightly
directed.
ft is especially noteworthy that the
IRS has concluded, in its applicable reg-
ulations. that real estate taxes are not
"acquisition indebtedness" within the
meaning of the code, unless the char-
itable organizations have defaulted in
paying chose taxes. Yet there is little
substantive or procedural difference, for
this purrpose, between real estate taxes
and assessments for local benefits. Some
'State and local governments use both
devices to finance similar projects and,
in pure economic terms, real estate taxes
due in future years are just as concrete
an obligation as assessments due in fu-
ture years to cover the costs of local
benefits.
The Bishop estate in Hawaii, which
operates the-entire system of Kameha-
meha Schools, isone of the entities that
would suffer substantially if the IRS
position is allowed to stand. Kameha-
meha Schools not only provides quality
education to its own student body, but is
also dev?losing a number of exciting new
piogran s for the Hawaii public school
system. If, the estate's income from nu-.
merous Nieces of property is subjected to
Federal income tax because of the IRS
misinterpretation of section 514, it is the
children of Hawaii who will suffer, for
these innovative programs would surely
be curtailed.
This is a matter which would involve
minimal revenue loss to the Federal Gov-
ernment,: its impact, however, on the
charitable activities of thousands of or-
ganizations in Hawaii and across the
country, would be substantial.
I trust. Mr. Speaker, that the bill I in-
troduce today will receive favorable and
timely attention by the Ways and Means
Committee and the House as a whole.
At this point I include the text of the
bill:
H.R. 12052
A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code
of 1964 to provide that indebtedness aris-
ing out of taxes or special assessments im-
posed by State or local governments will
not be heated as acquisition indebtedness
for purposes of the tax on unrelated busi-
ness it come
Be it enacted by the Senate and House
of Repro sentatives of the United States of
America in Congress assembled, That (a)
paragraph (6) of section 514(c) of the In-
ternal Revenue Code of 1954 (defining ac-
quisition indebtedness) is amended to.read
as followz:
"(6) Ceavssn 1'nnAsrcnss.--For purposes of
this section, the term 'acquisition indebted-
ness' does not include-
"(A) an obligation to the extent that 11
is insured by the Federal Housing Adminis-
tration, to finance the purchase, rehabilita-
tion, or construction of housing for low- and
moderate-income persons, or
"(B) any indebtedness to the extent that
it arises out of a tax or special assessment
imposed by a State or any political subdivi-
sion thereof."-
(b) The amendment made by subsection
(a) shall apply to taxable years beginning
after December 31, 1969.
THE' PEOPLE'S "NEED TO KNOW"
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a
previous order of the House, the gentle
woman from New York (Ms. AszuG) is
recognized for 10 minutes.
Ms. ABZUG. Mr. Speaker, I am today
Introducing a bill to amend the Privacy
Act of 1974 to require that Federal agen-
cies maintaining files on individuals or
organizations who were subjected to il-
legal surveillance be informed of that
fact and of the fact that they have cer-
tain rights under the Privacy Act and
the Freedom of Information Act. The
bill also gives the subject the right to
require that every copy of the file be de-
stroyed.
In all of the furor in the past few
weeks over "leaks" of classified informa-
tion, we are losing sight of the fact that
we have done virtually nothing to rem-
edy the wrongs done to innocent victims
by the intelligence agencies in the name
of national security. The first step in af-
fording a measure of justice to the peo-
ple and organizations which were sub-
jected to snooping and harassment is
simply to advise them that the Govern-
ment still maintains files about their
perfectly legal activities. The next step
is to allow them the option of having
every trace of such files destroyed.
No one should have to guess whether
he or she was the object of illegal, un-
constitutional, or improper activity by
the intelligence agencies. Many people
may not even be aware of thefact that
the Government opened their mail or
tapped their phone or otherwise' had
them under surveillance for doing noth-
ing more than exercising their consti-
tutional rights. These people have. the
right to be informed, to obtain their
files under the Freedom of Information
Act, and, if necessary, to seek legal rem-
edies. It is for these reasons that I offer
this bill which I believe answers the peo-
ple's "need to know." The requirement
of notice and the right to destroy one's
file would apply to the following pro-
grams or operations:
First. Central Intelligence Agency and
Federal Bureau of Investigation mail
openings: As a result of the work of vari-
ous House and Senate committees, the
public has become aware of the shocking
program of mail openings carried on by
the CIA and the FBI for 20 years with
the conscious knowledge that they were
acting illegally. According to testimony
before the Senate Select Committee on
Intelligence, the New York program alone
involved the opening of over 200,000 in-
dividual letters. Although "watch lists"
were supplied by the CHAOS program
and by the FBI,, mail- openings were not
confined to those on the lists. Many in-
nocent people, including Members of
Congress, were subjected to this indecent
invasion of privacy under the guise of
national security when they had neither
committed nor were they suspected of
committing any crime. Every person or
organization subjected to a nail opening
should be informed that there is a file or
an index resulting from that event, and
should be given the right to have every
trace of this Invasionof privacy removed
from the public record.
Second. National Security Agency
monitoring of international communica-
tions: According to the Rockefeller Com-
 February 2f pR tfd For Rel 43?lA' NALCI ft -BNIO(A Q0800070106-3 H 1259
mission report, part of the CHALS pro-
gram conducted by CIA included the
monitoring of international communica-
tions of individuals and organizations. In
hearings held by the House Subcommit-
tee on Government Infol-mation and In-
dividual Rights which I am privileged to
chair, information was developed that
commercial cable companies had been
cooperating with the FBI and the Na-
tional Security Agency for over 30 years
in monitoring cable and telex traffic. Sub-
sequently, the Senate Select Committee
on Intelligence released a report on Op-
eration Shamrock, the cover name given
to this message-collection program, indi-
cating that international cables were
routinely turned over to NSA. The Sham-
rock report states that "telegrams to' or
from, or even montioning, U.S. citizens
whose names appeared on the watch list
in the late 1960's and early 1970's would
have been sent to NSA analysts, and
many would subsequently be dissemi-
nated to other agencies." Mr. Speaker,
these people have a right to know that
the Government read their private com-
munications without court order, and my
bill will reauire that they be so informed.
Third. Burglaries: Both the FBI and
CIA have stated publicly that they en,
gaged in illegal burglaries and it is clear
that many of these were directed against
domestic dissident organizations. The
FBI conducted some 238 entries in con-
nection with the investigation of 12
"domestic security targets" in just one
program. The Rockefeller Commission
report states that the CIA conducted at
least 12, unauthorized entries. Surely, the
victim of a burglary ought to be informed
that it was the Government itself which
engaged in this incredible behavior.
Fourth. Warrantless wiretaps: By now
it is well known that the FBI conducted
a large number of electronic surveil-
lances where the object of the tap was
not a foreign power or its agents. In fact,
the objects of the "Kissinger taps" ap-
pear to be restricted to newsmen and
former employees of , the NSC. Mr.
Speaker, as a spinoff of Watergate and
Its penumbra, we have learned of a sub-
stantial number of these taps, but how
many more were there about which we
know nothing? My bill would require
that every sender and receiver of an in-
tercepted communication conducted
without warrant must be informed that
there exists a file on him or her as a
result of the surveillance. Perhaps more
important, it would give the subject of
the file the right to have the contents
destroyed. Why, for example, should the
Government continue to maintain the
logs of private conversations conducted
over a period of almost 2 years on the
home telephone of someone like Morton
Haperin? It is clear that it should not
perpetuate such a grievous invasion of
personal privacy by continuing to main-
tain the fruits of wrongful surveillances.
Fifth. Operation CHAOS: This CIA
program, which began as a survey of the
extent of any foreign connections with
domestic dissident events, evolved into a
massive collection of data on American
citizens and organizations. The Rocke-
feller report concluded:
The Operation became a repository for
large quantities of information on the do-
mestic activities of American citizens. .
Much of the information was not directly
related to the question of the existence of
foreign connections with domestic dissidence.
Mr, Speaker, the Rockefeller report
concludes that the files of the CHAOS
project which have no foreign intelli-
gence value should be destroyed at the
conclusion of the current congressional
investigations. I agree, but not before
the subjects of the files are made aware
that they exist.
Sixth. COINTELPRO: From 1956 to
1971, the FBI engaged in a "Counterin-
telligence program" targeted against five
domestic groups, including "the new left,
white hate groups, and black extremist
organizations." The recent revelations
about the harassment and invasion of the
Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr.'s,
privacy was shocking to almost all Amer-
icans. Yet we do not know how many
others were subjected. to similar 'disrup-
tive tactics which the FBI admits having _ , legally maintained, timely, or complete; or";
engaged in. Some of these tactics include,
dissemination of false or fictitious mate-
rial about individuals or groups; use of
informants to disrupt a group's activi-
ties; informing employers and credit
bureaus of members' activities; establish-
ing sham organizations for disruptive
purposes; informing family or others of
radical or immoral activity; and more.
Once again, Mr. Speaker, there are peo-
ple in America today who are not aware
of the fact that the troubles which were
visited upon them a few years ago was
the work of the FBI. Is it not our duty to
so inform them?
Seventh. Internal Revenue Service spe-
cial service staff. In 1969, the IRS created
this 'unit focused on "ideological, mili-
tant, subversive, radical, and similar type
organizations." By 1973 there was a total
of 11,458 SSS files on 8,585 individuals
and 2,873 organizations. Many of the
organizations and individuals targeted by
IRS were antiwar and "new left" groups
and their leaders and members. There
are also a number of files on "liberal es-
tablishment" organizations such as
church groups. Clearly, these files were
collected so IRS could provide "special"
tax treatment to these individuals and
organizations. Would it not now be
proper to inform people that the tax
audit they had several years ago was a
result of the file kept by the Special
Service Staff of IRS?
Mr. Speaker, as I indicated previously,
the Rockefeller Commission recommends
that files of the CHAOS project be de-
stroyed after the completion of the cur-
rent Congressional investigations into
intelligence agencies. Senator FRANx
CHURCH, chairman of the Senate Select
Committee on Intelligence, has obtained
agreement from the intelligence agen-
cies that nothing will be destroyed until
his committee has reported and gone
out of business. That day will soon be
here. and the shredders may be warming
up right now to destroy and bury forever
the record of one of the sorriest chapters
in American history. Accordingly, I am
today requesting that all 'intelligence
agencies refrain from destroying any
files or records until such time as Con-
gress has acted on the bill I am today
introducing.
Finally, the bill I am introducing
would eliminate the virtual blanket ex-
emption which the Privacy Act now gives
to the CIA. It is my view that no agency
should be exempt from the operation of
the Privacy Act, but that the CIA should
be required to show serious damage to
national defense or foreign policy before
it may withhold an individual's file.
The text of the bill follows:
- H.R. 12039
A bill to amend the Privacy Act of 1974
Be it enacted by the Senate, and House
of Representatives of the United States of
America in Congress assembled, That section
552a of title 5, United States Code, is
amended-
(1) by striking out subsection (d) (2) (B)
(1) and inserting in lieu thereof the fol-
lowing:
"(1) correct, expunge, update, or supple-
ment any portion thereof which the indi-
(2) by striking out "and" at the end of
paragraph (10) of subsection (e), by strik-
ing out the period at the end of paragraph
(11) of such subsection and inserting in lieu
thereof "; and", and by inserting immedi-
ately thereafter the following new paragraph:
" (12) inform each person who was-
"(A) the sender or receiver of any written
communication, or communication by wire,
cable, radio, or other means which was inter-
cepted, recorded, or otherwise examined, by
such agency, or any officer or employee there-
of, without a search warrant, or without the
consent of both the sender and receiver; or
the occupant, resident, or owner of any
premises or vehicle which was the subject
of any search, physical intrusion, or other
trespass, by such agency, or any officer or
employee thereof, without a search warrant,
or without the consent of such person;
"(B) the subject of a file or named in an
index created, maintained, or disseminated
by such agency, or any officer or employee
thereof, in connection with an operation or
program known as "CHAOS", which operation
or program is described in the Report, dated
June, 1975, to the President by the Commis-
slon on CIA Activities Within the United
States;
"(C) the subject of a file or named in an
index created, maintained, or disseminated
by such agency, or any officer or employee
thereof, in connection with an operation or
program known as "Counterintelligence Pro-
gram" or "COINTELPRO", which operation
or program is described in the Statement of
Hon. William B. Sax-be, and the hearings of
Subcommittee of the House Judiciary Com-
mittee on November 20, 1974;
"(D) the subject of a file or named in an
index created, maintained, or disseminated
by such agency, or any officer or employee
thereof, in connection with an operation or
program of the Internal Revenue Service
known as "The Special Service Staff", which
operation or program is described, in the
Joint Committee on Internal Revenue Taxa-
tion Committee Print entitled "Investigation
of the Special Service Staff of the Internal
Revenue Service" dated June 5, 1975; that
he, she, or it is or was such a person, pro-
vide each such person with a clear and con-
cise statement of such person's rights under
this section and section 552 of this title, and
provide each such person with the option of
requiring that agency to destroy each copy
of such file or index in its possession.
(3) by striking out "(e) (6), (7), (9), (10,
and (11) " in. subsection (j) and inserting In
Approved For Release 2002/01/02 : CIA-RDP77M00144R000800070106-3
 H1260
Approved Fir&qft" f i10 j c9 DP7IM00144R00080lql~~ -~ 241 1976
lieuthereof"(e) (6), (7), (9), (10), (11),and
(12)'
(4) by striking out paragraph (1) of such
subsection; and
(5) by striking out paragraph (3) of sub-
section (k) and redesignating the folowing
paragraphs accordingly.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a
previous order of the House, the gentle-
man from Ohio (Mr. VANlx) is recog-
nized for 5 minutes.
[Mr. VANIK addressed the House. His
remarks will appear hereafter in the Ex-
tensions of Remarks.]
SPECIAL ORDER INVESTIGATING
THE LEAK OF THE HOUSE CIA
REPORT
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a
previous order of the House, the gentle-
man from Connecticut (Mr. DODD) is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. DODD. Mr. Speaker. I would like
to address myself to the serious issues
raised by the passage of Mr. STRATTON's
privileged resolution, which requires that
the Committee on Standards of Official
Conduct investigate the leak of the
House Intelligence Committee report.
I do not mean to sound overly pessi-
mistic, but I am very much upset by the
vote to sustain House Resolution 1042,
and I feel that it is one that many re-
spected Members of this House may come
to regret.
I say this only after long moments- of
uncertainty and reflection. My decision
to vote against this resolution was a dif-
ficult one, and I think that it is my duty
to share the reasons for this decision
with my constituents and my colleagues.
Much of my concern was aroused by
the fact that the issue that we all faced
last Thursday was not at all a clear-cut
one. Unquestionably, a wrong-doing had
occurred, and a majority decision of the
House to withhold the publication of the
committee report had been violated.
I do not choose to ignore this violation,
or its origin, but I do dislike the solution
that was put before this Congress and
that was subsequently adopted after a
single hour of floor debate.
Specifically, I question the method in
which the House decided upon this In-
vestigation, the thrust of this investiga-
tion, as well as its potential conse-
quences.
First of all, I very strongly support
the responsible position voiced by the
majority leader, Mr. O'NEILL. Indeed,
Mr. STRATTON'S resolution should have
been referred to the Committee on Rules,
and not brought directly to the-floor in
an atmosphere of emotional fervor.
If regular procedure had been fol-
lowed, we would have had time to weigh
in our own minds the best manner in
which to conduct an investigation, and
time to consider other reasonable alter-
natives, including Mr. PEYSER's resolu-
tion.
As it stands now, the Committee on
Rules has been bypassed, and the House
has dictated who will conduct the inves-
tigation and how.
Second, I am uncomfortable with the
text of the resolution, which specifically
mentions by name both Mr. Daniel
Schorr and the Village Voice.
Frankly, I am worried that the focus
of attention will prove to be the press,
rather than the circumstances which re-
sulted in the report being disclosed to
the press without the assent of the mem-
bers of the House.
I do not condone Mr. Schorr, but the
issue of concern to the Congress is not
who publicized the leaked material, or In
what newspaper, but who Instigated the
leak in the first place.
This is an internal problem and It must
be solved internally. Any party guilty of
this breach of confidence should be held
accountable for his or her acts. Clearly,
some form of disciplinary action must be
taken In order that the credibility of this
House be fully restored.
The question, again, Is how we go
about this; and I am not sure that this
particular resolution can accomplish
these goals without serious repercussions.
I do not think that the manner In
which the Investigation is handled should
result in obscuring the underlying Issues
that are Involved here. The real issues
remain the overciassification of a great
many governmental documents,, the sec-
ond-class status of Congress in the eyes
of.the intelligence community, and the
extent of the powers of- this community.
If we become carried away with a
single violation, we will be further con-
tributing to the counterproductive back-
lash that Is already taking place in the
administration.
Sadly, the revelations of business and
Government wrongdoings have not re-
sulted in a decrease in the number of
these wrong-doings. In fact, we are now
being confronted with an increasing
volume of executive and legislative pro-
posals that actually broaden the powers
of our largely unaccountable intelligence
agencies.
I am not certain if, and how, we can
turn this tide around. I am certain, how-
ever, that if we allow this action to
follow its present course, we will see the
civil liberties of the American public suf-
fer a notable setback. There will be more
Government secrecy rather than less, and.
less public accountability rather than
more.
Thus, given this state of affairs, I feel
that it is incumbent upon this Congress
to restore a climate of moderation and
fairness to a debate that has already become far too inflammatory.
It is precisely. because I do not perceive
the Stratton resolution as furthering
such an effort that I cast my vote against
it. I hope that, despite its passage, the
House can succeed ,in reestablishing its
own integrity and return to the business
of restructuring our intelligence system''.
In a constructive fashion.
SOVIET SPENDING ON ARMS
UNDERESTIMATED
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a
previous order of the House, the gentle-
man from New Jersey (Mr. Dor xcK V.
DANIELS) is recognized for 10 minutes.
Mr. DOMINICK V. DANIELS. Mr.
Speaker, I wish to bring to the atten-
tion of my colleagues an article that ap-
peared in yesterday's New York Times
regarding revised estimates on military
spending by the U.S.S.R.'
-
For many years, it has been generally
estimated that the Soviet were spend-
ing 6 to 8 percent of their gross national
product on defense. In contrast, the
United States has been spending 5.5 to
6 percent of its GNP for defense.
However, new investigations by the
CIA and the Defense Intelligence Agency
conclude that Soviet spending is prob-
ably much closer to 10 to 15 percent of
GNP.
Soviet defense spending has been rising
at a rate of about 3 percent per year,
while concomitant spending by the
United States has declined, with the ex-
ception of this year.
Thus. on a dollar basis, it has been
concluded that the Soviet Union is out-
spending the United States on defense by
a factor of 35 percent.
Mr. Speaker, there has been much dis-
cussion lately on the value of our detente
policy with the Soviet Union. If detente
is simply being used by the Soviets to
buy time while they increase their mili-
tary edge over the United States, then
our policies should be carefully reex-
amined.
I believe it is unfortunate when legiti-
mate questions concerning detente are
raised by the Congress, the Secretary of
State replies that such questions are, de-
structive. The distinguished secretary
implies that the only alternative to de-
tente is cold war. Thus, he would. have
those of us in Congress who raise such
questions to be placed in the role of war-
mongers and disturbers of the interna-
tion peace.
I suggest to my colleagues that an al-
ternative stance is achieveable for Amer-
ican foreign policy-a stance that avoids
the perils of detente at the one extreme
and stark cold war on the other.
Prof. Warren G. Nutter of the Univer-
sity of Virginia, formerly Assistant Sec-
retary of Defense for International Se-
curity Affairs, recently published an
analysis of our detente policies. His anal-
ysis, prepared for the American Enter-
prise Institute for Public Policy Research
concludes that-
Such a new foreign policy stance by the
U.8. would involve the restoration of western
confidence and resolve, reconstituting deter-
rence, basing negotiation firnily on the prin-
ciples of reciprocal concession and unim-
paired security, and bargaining accordingly.
I share Professor Nutter's belief that
detente has lulled this Nation into a
state of complacency about the ultimate
intentions of the Soviets. This relaxation
mode in our foreign policy does not serve
the best long-range interests of the
United States. Some serious reevaluation
needs to be conducted, and Congress
hould have an opportunity to make
recommendations and express concerns
about the direction of United States-
U.S.S.R. relations without being ma-
ligned as diplomatic neanderthals by the
State Department.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to share with
my colleagues the article from the New
York Times on the Soviet arms buildup,
together with another article that ap-
peared in the February 23 issue of the
Approved For Release 2002/01/02 : CIA-RDP77M00144R000800070106-3