H.R. 11383, THE 'U.S. ACADEMY FOR PEACE AND CONFLICT RESOLUTION COMMISSION ACT OF 1978,' H.R. 11326, A BILL TO ESTABLISH AN INSTITUTE FOR HUMAN RIGHTS AND FREEDOM AND H.R. 11548, A BILL TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL POLICY FOR THE APPLICATIO

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP81M00980R000700010010-3
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 4
• Document Creation Date: December 15, 2016
• Document Release Date: May 11, 2004
• Sequence Number: 10
• Publication Date: April 26, 1978
• Content Type: MFR

Approved For Release 2004/05/21 : CIA-RDP81 M00980R0007001
11
OLC 78-1774
26 April 1978
Ma]ORANDUM FOR THE RECORD
SUBJECT: H.R. 11383, the "U.S. Academy for Peace and Conflict
Resolution Commission Act of 1978," H.R. 11326, a Bill
to Establish an Institute for Human Rights and Freedom
and H.R. 11548, a Bill to Establish a National Policy
for the Application of Science and Technology to.U.S.
Foreign Policy
1. On 21 April I called the Subcommittee on International Operations
of the House International Relations Committee to check on the status of
H.R. 11383, a bill to establish a Commission on Proposals for a United.
States Academy for Peace and Conflict Resolution (formerly numbered
H.R. 10192 and H.R. 10585). I was informed that the Subcommittee had
scheduled a foreign. relations authorization mark-up for 26 April and
1-2 May and that H.R. 11383 would probably be included in the mark-up.
I asked if any other bills were to be considered during the mark-up and
was told that H.R. 11326 and H.R. 11548 (respectively, a bill to establish
an Institute for Human Rights and Freedom and a bill to establish a national.
policy for the application of science and technology to U.S. foreign policy)
would also be considered.
2. Each of the subject bills have been under scrutiny in this office,
and two of the three (H.R. 11383 and H.R. 11548) may create problems for
the Agency if enacted.
3. H.R. 11383 would establish a "Commission" which itself would under-
take a study to consider "whether to establish a United States Academy for
Peace and Conflict Resolution." (H.R. 11383, 95th Cong., 2d Sess., section
4(a)(1) (1978)). It is section 7(c) of the bill that is problematic for
the Agency. Section 7(c) provides:
"(c) The Commission may secure directly from any Federal
agency information necessary to enable it to carry out
this Act. Upon request of the Chairman [of the Commission],
the head of any such Federal agency shall furnish such
information to the Commission." (emphasis added)
The second sentence of subsection (c) cited above arguably places a statutory duty
.on the DCI to furnish to the Commission a information which the Commission
deems necessary to enable i t . carry out its responsibilities under the Act.
Approved For Release 2004/05/21 : CIA-RDP81 M00980R000700010010-3
 Approved For Release 2004/05/21 : CIA-RDP81 M00980R000700010010-3
(Note that section 11(4) of the bill defines the term "Federal Agency"
as " any agency, department, or independent establishment in the
executive branch of the Federal Government, including any Government
corporation." (emphasis added)). It is conceivable that the informa-
tion requested by the Commission may contain intelligence sources and
methods information. Since the DCI is made personally responsible
for "protecting intelligence sources and methods from unauthorized
disclosure" (50 U.S.C.A. section 403(d)(3)), a conflict is possible
between the bill and the sources and. methods provision of the National
Security Act of 1947, as amended.
4. H.R. 11548 would establish in the Executive Office of the
President a "Science, Technology, and Diplomacy Policy Board" on
which "Board" would sit the DCI, among others. (H.R. 11548,
95th Cong., 2d Sess., section (2)(a) (1978)). The primary
function of the "Board" would be to advise the President with
respect to U.S. policy in the area of science and technology
and its application to U.S. foreign policy. In addition the bill
charges the Board to:
"(3) coordinate the international activities of all.
Federal Agencies involving science and technology;
(4) assist the Secretary of State as Vice Chairman
of the Board in the negotiation, implementation,
and coordination of bilateral and multilateral
agreements substantially involving matters of science
and technology; [and]
(6) implement measures to insure that the Secretary
of State is adequately informed and consulted before a
initiative involving science or technology is taken by
an agency of the United States in relation to any
foreign government or international organization."
(emphasis added)
The paragraphs (3), (4) and (6) cited above are problematic from the
point of view that they would vest authority in the hands of the
Secretary of State to negotiate, implement and coordinate all
"bilateral. and multilateral agreements substantially involving
matters of science and technology" entered into by any agency of
the United States. Moreover, the bill would direct the "Board" to
implement measures which would require a agency of the U.S. Government
to inform and consult with the Secretary of State before any science or
technology initiative is undertaken vis-a--vis any-foreign government or
international organization. The bill as drafted does not take into
account the fact that the Agency enters into agreements
Approved For Release 2004/05/21 : CIA-RDP81 M00980R000700010010-3
 Approved For Release 2004/05/21 : CIA-RDP81 M00980R000700010010-3
involving matters of science and technology in support of its operations
abroad and does so independent of the Secretary of State. The Secretary
of State through the country ambassador may be made knowledgeable of the
agreement. However, the operative effect of H.R. 11458 would be to cut
the CIA out of the whole process of science and technology agreements
with foreign governments for operational. support or would require that
any CIA initiative in this regard be underwritten by the Secretary of
State. It is the Agency's position that this is unnecessary and
unacceptable. This matter is further exacerbated since nowhere in
H.R. 11458 is the phrase "science or science and technology agreements"
defined.
5. Of further concern in H.R. 11548 is the fact that the bill would
require that the Secretary of State
"...submit an annual report to the Congress with respect
to all science or science and technology agreements
between the United States and foreign countries and all
commissions involving science or technology of which
the United States and one or more foreign countries
are members. Such report shall include an accounting
of expenditures and a description of programs initiated
under such agreements and commissions..." (H.R. 11548,
95th Cong., 2d Sess., section 3(d) (1978)).
Subsection (d) as written would direct the Secretary of State to report
annually all agreements, even those highly sensitive agreements entered
into by the Agency, which agreements are already reportable under the
Case Act.
6. After reviewing the three bills to determine problem areas, I
called Tracey Cole, OMB, to find out if the Administration had formulated
positions thereon. Ms. Cole informed me that the Administration is
firmly opposed to H.R. 11383. I asked if OMB would be against our
going to the Subcommittee to express our particular concerns with the
bill, and she saw nothing wrong with this as long as the Agency opposed
the bill in total. With regard to H.R. 11.326, Ms. Cole indicated that
the Administration is actively reviewing it and Dr. Brzezinski is pushing
it and even wants the President to personally support it. Ms. Cole said
further that State Department supports the bill in general but would
advocate specific changes. 0MB on the other hand, according to Ms. Cole,
does not agree with Dr. Brzezinski or State. As of 21 April, then, no
Administration position had been formulated with regard to H.R. 11326.
Approved For Release 2004/05/21 : CIA-RDP81 M00980R000700010010-3
 Approved For Release 2004/05/21 : CIA-RDP81 M00980R000700010010-3
As for H.R. 11548, Ms. Cole indicated that hearings were held in mid.-
April with State Department testifying. To her knowledge State presented.
no prepared statement with regard to the bill. Ms. Cole suggested I
call Jim Barie, also of OMB, to inquire further of H.R. 11548. Mr. Barie
said that the Administration had not yet formulated a position and
probably would not do so by Wednesday, 26 April, the first day of
Subcommittee mark-up. However, he had no problem with our going
to the Subcommittee informally to air our particular problems.
7. Not long after I had concluded my conversation with Mr. Barie,
I received a call from Cy Alba, of the State Department, who said he
had been informed that CIA was inquiring as to H.R. 11548. I indicated
that the bill in general did cause us problems without going . into
the specifics. Mr. Alba informed me that State had testified on a third
subsequent draft of H.R. 11548 which now is in the form of an amend-
ment to the authorization bill. I asked if he had a copy of the
amendment as currently being considered and if so could he make it
available to us. Mr. Alba did have a copy and provided it to us
via special courier (see attachment).
8. I next called Tom Smeeton, Minority Staff Consultant on the
staff of the House Committee on International Relations, to inform him
that we have some problems with H.R. 11383 and H.R. 11548 and would
like to communicate these to the Subcommittee staff before mark-up,
Mr. Smeeton asked Bill Fite, also of the staff, to get on the line
with us, and they seemed more than willing to meet with us to discuss the
problems. I indicated that I would be getting back to them to discuss
the matter on Monday (24 April).
9. A quick review of the amendment language provided by Mr. Alba
indicates that it could pose serious problems to the Agency if adopted.
25X1
Assistant Legislative Counsel
Distribution:
1 - OGC
1 - DDS&T
1 - OLC Subj.
1 - OLC Chrono
OLC:RJW:sm (26 April 78)
Approved For Release 2004/05/21 : CIA-RDP81 M00980R000700010010-3