JOURNAL - OFFICE OF LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL

Document Type: 
Collection: 
Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): 
CIA-RDP79-00957A000100040070-9
Release Decision: 
RIPPUB
Original Classification: 
C
Document Page Count: 
3
Document Creation Date: 
December 16, 2016
Document Release Date: 
July 14, 2005
Sequence Number: 
70
Case Number: 
Publication Date: 
July 18, 1974
Content Type: 
NOTES
File: 
AttachmentSize
PDF icon CIA-RDP79-00957A000100040070-9.pdf553.44 KB
Body: 
25X1 25X1 Approved For Release 2005/07/20 : CIA-RDP79-00957A000100040070-9 Journal - Office of Legislative Counsel Page 4 Thursday - 18 July 1974 CONFIDENTIAI: 12. Talked to Jim Oliver, International. Affairs Division, OMB, who told me that he had cleared the Director's letter on H.R. 15845 to Chairman Lucien N. Nedzi (D., Mich.) Intelligence Subcommittee, House Armed Services Committee, with Ed Strait in. OMB and had reviewed it with George Gilbert, Legislative Reference Division in OMB. Gilbert feels that it is necessary for further review with the NSC staff and Justice Department. Oliver will call as soon as the necessary circuits are closed. Mr. Warner, CCC, has been advised. 25X1 13. and I met with Mr. Jack Goin and Mr. John Manopoli, Director and Deputy Director respectively, of the Office of Public Safety, AID, to discuss Senator Abourezk' s a _?_?,41-, No. 1151 to S.33 which amends the Foreign Assistance See IVIemora.ndum for the Record. 25X1 25X1 25X1 ct of 1961. CC: 0/DDCI Ex. Sec. DDI DDM&S DDS&T Mr. Warner Mr. Lehman Mr. Thuermer EA/DDO Compt EC) GE L. CAR Legislative Counsel CONFIDENTIAL Approved For Release 2005/07/20 : CIA-RDP79-00957A000100040070-9 25X1 Wir10100040 70-9 S 12367 it/ 15, 49 pproved For R40464 Steri(241:? ilikAitiM9=06?HA Jurisdiction by IndianVibes and by theAM/Ailill.bri*' ei'rtrs ?on STAMP ACT OF 964-AMENDMENT tes over crithinal offenses and n3atterS in ndian country. AM.? DMENT NO. 1! bl - rtera, T., be Printeti Ind referred Miuiiit o Mr, AV1Th, th r 'Tog, _Vetnitifit alr:SrAfrosiD, porestry..) Senator ffont?Minnesota (Mr. Mr'. DOMLNICI. Mr. President on 'Et) -dna the -Seiattor- from May 14, 1974. introduced 13. 3498, a bill Maine Were added as: to amend sec Lion 5 of the Food Stamp '4"005iisbi's 'itt /43:the RaTI-Pabseuger Act of 1964 t.. broaden the authority of ee AIrendrnents of I974-. thefieeretap .af Agriculture to provide e to the Comm' -tee on Agriculture and r' ? ? tieSt-al .HANSEN, the disasters. alier Yinro -7Tortii Carolina (Mr, Today f_arr .atroducing this bill in the 'ilie-7Seriatak- Train thI?h4r. orm of ana 4fidinent to 15. 3726. I am 6-n4 :the Senator TiOni teller-6de pleased to be iabied in int:r.nduting this )oMnq1clt) were 'added as CosPOn7 aniendrrierit 1,- the distinguished Sena- . - _ - ? , Aors, "S. ,:$04:i hill to amend the Con- tors from le ,siSSippl (Mr. EASTLAND), flio1i4ate4Wrgi and Rural Development _ 'Tennessee (Mr /2Arciat) ,Ohio (Mr. TAFT), :AO 'to prescribe Certain safeguards for and North D4'.,?ota- (Mr. BURDICK). the processing of anpflteatiaris for as Irnder erisi I -g law, an individual must Snell at. go through M lengthy certification pro- ' ;Offi,tettire fetid stfinalib. In the - - _ - , ameggency Satistance to victirriS,of: wti of r.TO A, 1,1* yq y the event by nal atter s aI3 the floods 'ator from Rhode _Island (Mr. Pss7 and torrradrr r, we experienced earlier , the Senator from 1161Ah Dakota -this year, thof , individuals involved must aVIr, Yourra) thc Senator Train Califor- obtain hellI mediately. . Nagy , e ato Irani tile Mr Under prescr-t law, an immediate tem- 'finva" r.-diask5 thOtenator Irani iffa= Porarg ernerf (-icy issue of food stamps Jiiciaii), -the Senator Trona lett' net be fertbecolIng because the for' (lkirr 'lister-610 the Senator Thal applicattlii process may take longer i2o9, (Mr. lisarfts) ?the Senator than the temporary need of the appli- Wycaning (111r. MeGlej; the Seri:- cant. torfrom cildo(Mr.the Senator The amenerients we suggest will pro- the vide the Ser:ritary of Agriculture the ermat14!?n1- '(11.14/1.:1?t-- Tc6F'sti,in; and authority, ir emexaency situations, to ...41fifeSenatOrirlintra5taS11-efifr. lz.714-1C1-Tnsa-i 'NV-ere'7wiliniteahltit needi,te tIuTeIltsly delay tt:egprouircerssenofts 24, to aiithniii7e"andrequess!lertr:3"1tr , e Pres "t to 'faint inintially a proela= 440,tion designating January laf each year as "March Of DM:tea-Birth D:efeds Pre- . ,antion dad as gers,:giolidera ol 'Senate Joint - _-A:84_e AMENDM EN r OF THE FOREIGN ASSIST/ N ACT AM OESORS OF tN COO ega VW Rimy, onsor_ of :Senate the partiCipa- s an inter- e risk of ering of 44r. Acerda C -BTR4, ?frai4,44Pirkg. _;(*, F'AFAT), =tor, from Tms (IVIr BE;yregic) OrligOrJr-411.,NoMi70?PY(Mr. _ASE e00,1:? 4ti-OilXP1144 U41: TA** CPIWOI9, PA-OW-kW S,Trilt- Y74:..) Th Senator from . t, , aviator from PJoLs),, the Senator from Alsr4.4),, the Senator Asaajticfc,), the Oar- orwoinWyorehis 7.AISPAR9.115er6 rf.11114914.-J2 . to authorize ImunAke .141- -POPMierf4- to; stklAT the policy and role ?A_ the Federal Gov- - vat Lt6tatei. - the * referred 'Idr.'Aft(YrrrEZIC. 'Mr. President, for thellitt tine lait, Year, to Irdirwledge, the_Congreas :-2..nacted a provision which .afirled_ a ,nev. section to the law that. expressed it:- concern for the human zights of pt,cple who an citizens in countries_ wh:,Ji receive U.S. foreign aid. The Cengres4_, L:stahlisheci that it was the sense of ?VoLnress that no funds shall guy, country which holds the furIlofes.-111atpro- vision as b'incorporated- hi Sieben 32 of the ASsittance Act. understands that sente -on ,;ress resolutions suc'h as thia dd,,e the force or autharr ah-Outi be dear to every:0k That Stii lie 'Ignored either: - If was- th somewhat alarming fo learn 'that o 'State Degartment -and, AtI liaie us Tar almost entirely gnord neettm '32- of the :law. In hear- ingS before noise Foreign Affairs questioning fromeeitigee,Smad 'Ora- len A SiR, Assistant sec- retary of S.,Ae Tor East Asian and -Paalffe Affef -s Robert S. Ingersoll, admitted th th- section of the law has- not had, Ply impact, gp Our policies in (ingresionan Fusg? jr- asked Mr. Ingersoll to What extent there has been an implementation of that pro- -vision in the law, the Assistant Secre- tary _simply stated, "I know of none." When asked specifically by FRASER about the application of this section to the situation in South Korea, Ingersoll kdroitted that some kind of inquiry had been sent out a mere 6 weeks ago but neither he nor his aides had any idea whatsoever what the inquiry entailed or why it only went out less than 2 months ago. I understand that in subsequent letters to the committee, Assistant Secretary Ingersoll has indicated a more positive attitude in this regard and has now described the somewhat half-hearted effort on the part of the State Depart- ment and AID in taking into considera- tion section 32. Although this Information is dis- concerting, it is not suprising. There _seems to be little doubt that until the Congress requires them to do so, the officials in executive branch will con- tinue to disregard its responsibility which is clearly defined in the State- ment of Policy of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961. Under section 102, the act states that: It is the policy of the United States to sup- port the principles of freedom of the press, Information, and religion, and ...recognition of the right of all private persons to travel and pursue their lawful activities without discrimination as to race or religion. Yet, while this is the law, it has been extremely difficult to determine what if any support the United States has given to such commendable and high-minded statements of policy. It would be a safe bet to say that there has been none at all. Opponents to the implementation of this policy continue to insist that the consideration of human rights is a do- mestic matter and that the overriding economic, military, and political consid- erations leave little room for human zig,hts. Yet, various State Department of- ficials and other leaders in our Govern- ment are Quick to criticize the govern- ments of those countries with whom we have unfriendly or distant relations when the rights of their citizens are being Infringed upon- , _ llkkr..Efeddt.3 strongly disagree with Vala -ratinnale And??Isonnot think of a poorer argument than that of "meddling in domestic rdfairs" for such a gross negligence of responsibility. If this coun- try is concerned about whether or not thelieenle in foreign _countries are ob- taining limper medical treatment and a satisfactory nntritional intake, then cer- tainly they, should be as equally con- cerned about whether they are being tor- tured or not?or more fundamentally, whether their most basic human rights are being Insure. Wit* in?mind, I am submitting an amendment to the Foreign Assistance AO of 1974, S. 3394, which would ask the agencies which compile the report re- smired by section 657 of the Foreign As- sistance Act to include a section in the ?report whfeh Would inform the Congress ' 5/07120 : aIA-RDP79-06957A S 12368 Approved turlitimssigiNN271fficablaDMITROM7A0001000Lloontp 15, 1914 of what considerations have been made and what measures have been taken to implement section 32 of the act dealing with political prisoners. Until we require such a written report, I am convinced that we will continue to receive the testi- mony like Mr. Ingersoll's and others who freely admit that the question of human rights is hardly a consideration in the determination of U.S. foreign policy. It is significant to note that the Sub- committee on International Organiza- tions and Movements of the House For- eign Affairs Committee in its report of March 27, 1974, listed as one of its rec- ommendations that the Department of State treat human rights factors as a regular part of the U.S. foreign policy de- cisionmaking. They also recommended that the Department prepare human rights impact statements for all policies which have significant human rights MI- N/cations. There is little doubt that U.S. foreign aid would certainly meet that criterion. Mr. President, I ask unanimous con- sent that part 1 of the committee report, entitled "The Human Rights Factor in U.S. Foreign Policy," be printed in the RECORD at this point. There being no objection, the excerpt was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as followb: PART I?THIS ROMAN RIGHTS FACTOR IN US. FOREIGN POLICY The human rights factor is not accorded the high priority it deserves in our coun- try's foreign policy. Too often it becomes Invisible on the vast foreign policy horizon of political, economic, and military atfalrs. Proponents of pure power politics too often dismiss It as a factor in diplomacy. Un- fortunately, the prevailing attitude has led the United States into embracing govern- ments which practice torture ante un- abashedly violate almost every human right-5 guarantee pronounced by the world com- munity. Through foreign aid and occasional Intervention?both covert and overt?the United States supports those governments. Our relations with the present Governments of South Vietnam, Spain. Portugal, the Soviet Union, Brasil, Indonesia. Greece, the Philippines, and Chile exemplify how we have disregarded human rights for the sake of other assumed Interests. Many human rights practices in other countries are not and should not be of ma- terial concern to our Government In deter- mining bilateral relations of our policy in international organizations. Moreover, hu- man rights should not be the only factor, or even always the major factor, in foreign policy decision-making. But a higher priority is urgently needed If future American lead- ership In the world is to mean what It has traditionally meant?enoouragement to matt and women everywhere who Cherish In- dividual freedom. Describing the high exam- ple the world expects of the United States, Congressman John Buchanan quoted Chaucer; "If gold doth rust, what will iron do?", Respect for human rights is fundamental to our own national tradition. It is expressed unequivocally in our Constitution. Respect for human rights in other countries is a Testitmcny by Representative John Buchanan of Alabama at a joint hearing of the Subcommittee on International Or- ganitettions and Movements and the Sub- committee on Africa, Oct. 17, 1973. rightful oreacern of Americans not because Of any essurned minion on our part to Im- pale our own etandards on others; rather, it Is that not only have many other coun- tries used our Bill of Rights as a model for their uortatItutions, but International stand- ards have been established. by the U.N. Ohio Lot and oiher tresteles -which obligate governnientri to uphold meet of the same rigles wheel are basic in cur own ;astern. Furthermore, run increasingly interde- pendent world _means that disregard for htuneu rights le one country can have reper- cussioas in others. The hornets atrocities of Ni Gerrr.any and the track IllitILSItare in Banelieleali are examples of Low gross viola- tione of human rights precipitated bloody wars The situations in southern Africa of racism end colonialism have the potential for internationel conflagration. Thus, con- sideration for human rights in foreign policy ts both morally Imperative and practically nece y. USIA SMITS 11',1 VISALIA to1.1CY The subcommittee's inquiry into U.S. bi- lateral policy was limited to aituateous abrood wire cn represented the most serious violations of lemman rights, such as nue:sacra, torture, and reeled, ethnic, or religious discrimination. The hearings undertook several case studies: numsescre in iseargiadesti in Mi, massacre in Buruedi en 1971; widespread torture In Brazil and Chile; and racial discrimination in southern Africa.' In these awes the subcom- mittee found the response of the Uzi Gov- ernment to be lacking in view of the magni- tude of the violations committed. The State Department too often bas taken the position that human rights is a domestic matter and not a relevant factor in determin- ing bilateral relations. When charges of seri- ous violations of human rights do occur, the moat that the Department is likely to do is make private inquiries and low-keyed appeals to the government concerned. It is rarely known whether these acts of "quiet diplo- macy" have desirable effects. However, the effectiveness of quiet diplo- ma.) would obviously be enhanced were the government concerned to realise that other actioait with awte sesious; effects would take place 11 quiet diplomacy failed to bring re- sults Stich actions could Include public con- delta:salon of the violations, raising the mat- ter before an appropriate organ or agency of the Untied Natems, suspension of military assist ante or sake, and suspension of eco- non 11.1.41.8 It is easeutiel that a policy of "even luandednees" be applied in reviewing the practiceii of atesee. We must not Impose litglite etenclard on those eountries with whom we have unfriendly or distant rele- teems 'foo often we criticiite them but remain anew. sieout equally serious vkletlons In frieselly countries. Au the importance of ideol ,g1* in International relations oentinues to were. our Government should adhere to objec eve human rights standaeds?Usate that have been articulated by the InteruatIonal comnewity. Uertalnly proteceon of human ripe. Is clam a 'better measure ol the per- form:eke of government than is ideology. During the hearings Mrs. Rita Heuser, neneisr U.S. Itepreeentative_to the U.N. Com- setae on on Human Rights, eriticked this donine standard in U.S. foreign policy as fel- IOWa elNs sleak ote against violations of coun- tries .se arc eet earticularly close to us where we f(ci se can do so with scene meesure of 1 Hearings, Suiscommittee on International Organizations and Movements, enternationed Proteetton of Haman Rights. The Work of Internotion& Organizations and the Role of U.S. Par.-nun Policy, Sept. 19, 27; Oct. 3, 18: and Dec. 7, 1173. safety pc ',ideally, and we are largely silent, as are other countries, when human rights violation: occur and on the pert of our allies or friend)? countries we do not wish to offend. "I trunk myself that has been the funda- mental tailing in the whole approach Ls basic violations of human rights. If you as- autne, aS we do, substantive standards by which we can judge countries and their be- havior, it seems to me imperative that we be objective to the maximum of our ability and Judge ire ndly. neutral and unfriendly coun- tries equelly."3 Mrs. Hauser cited the case of Northern Ire- land as au example. She reported that while serving a; U.S. Representative to the U.N. Commiaal nit on Human Rights, she urged the State Department to take a position against ? Mations in Northern Ireland, but was told that our Government would not take a petition offensive to the government involved, the United Kingdom, because of out tradl .lousily friendly relations with it. Traditk nally, the United States has not hesitated to criticize violations of human rights in the Soviet Union and other Com- munist states. Current U.S. policy, however, has made it clear that Soviet violations of human tights will not deter efforts to pro- mote dee nte with the Soviet Union. Indic- ative of ibis policy Is a cautious statement made by Secretary of State Kissinger after the expultion of Nobel Laureate Alexander Solzhenie yn from the Soviet Union: "The necessity for detente?does not reflect ap- probation of the Soviet domestic structure." Certain y it is in the interest of national security ii Sod areas of cooperation with the Soviet Union. But cooperation must not ex- tend to the point of collaboration in main- taining a police state. U.S. policy, therefore, must be ever mindful of the clear evidence that the Soviet Government is intensifying efforts to ierpetuate the closed society as of- /fetal con -acts with the West are widened. Soviet leiders are not insensitive to inter- national pressures on human rights, as can be seen Li the commutation of death sen- tence', tot the Leningrad hijackers and in- creased et ligration of Soviet Jews, for exem- Recommendations 1. The Department of State should treat human rights factors as a regular part of U.S. foreign policy decision-making. It should prepare It mien rights Impact statements for all polices which have significant human rights implications. 2. The Lepartnieut of State should discour- age gover intents which are committing se- rious viola tions of human rights through va- rious mesitues such as: private consultation with the government concerned; public in- terventlots in U.N. organs and agencies; withdrael I of military assistance and sales; withdrawal of certain economic assistance programs. Normal diplomatic relations with the goveniment concerned should be main- tained. 3. The L epartment of State should respond to human rights practices of nations in an objective .nanner without regard to whether the government is considered friendly, neu- tral, or un 4. The Department of State should up- grade the consideration given to human rights in determining Soviet-American rela- tions. WIS Is pursuing the objectives of de- tente. the United States should be forthright in denom zing Soviet violations of human rights ant should raise the priority of the human debts factor particularly with regard to policy- decisions not directly related to national security. 1 Teeth m my by Mrs. Rita Hauser before the Subcomm ttee on IntematIonal Organize- Mons and etovements, Oct 9,1078. Approved For Release 2005/07/20 : CIA-RDP79-00957A000100040070-9