COMMENTS: ISSUES - TITLE II - RESTRICTIONS [15 MAR - 78) (KEYED TO ISSUES PAPER PARAGRAPHS)

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP81M00980R000800040036-1
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 3
• Document Creation Date: December 16, 2016
• Document Release Date: October 7, 2004
• Sequence Number: 36
• Publication Date: March 21, 1978
• Content Type: STATEMENT

Approved For Release 2004/10/28 : CIA-RDP81 M00980R000800040036-1
Comments: Issues - Title II - Restrictions (15 Mar. 78)
(Keyed to Issues Paper Paragraphs)
5. I do not understand your comment, there are no
Sections 241 through 246 in Title I.
6. The term "confidential records" as printed in 5-2525
is inadequate. I believe your fix-is an improvement but I
raise the question, should we delete the word "material"
used in the Bill? I am uncertain what the drafters had in
mind by including the word but I find it is broadening to
the definition and we lose nothing by keeping it. I also
.raise the point of limiting the definition to "prohibited
by law". Information is now classified according to
EO 11652, soon to be replaced.
15. I believe your suggested change would lead to
confusion. The drafters wrote Part B for "Collection"
and Part C for "retention and dissemination".
24. The suggested addition of a new paragraph (5)
to Section 214, I believe adds confusion since Section 21.4
addresses the collection of information concerning U.S.
persons and Section 219 addresses the collection of foreign
information in the possession of U.S. persons.
26. I prefer to leave paragraph (1) of Section 215
as stated. By including tax records in paragraph (5)
you must include the phrase "in accordance with applicable
law" and by so doing you are limiting the requests for all
of the other types of information desired "to applicable
law". The other types of information listed may be requesi d
and obtained by a "written finding of the AG or ...6f
29. As I understand Section 216 (b) collection may
continue beyond 180 days upon the written finding of a
designated official of the intelligence community. This
could mean "forever". Your suggested change would require
"renewal" every 90 days, why impose additional administrative
burden when the drafters provide an open-ended provision?
30. Section 216 (c) deals only with Members of the
Armed Forces. If the drafters were only concerned with the
Armed Forces why do we wish to add the administrative burden
on all intelligence community entities for all employees?
Approved For Release 2004/10/28 : CIA-RDP81 M00980R000800040036-1
 Approved For Release 2004/10/28 : CIA-RDP81 M00980R000800040036-1
34. Section 219 (3) should not limit the collection
of information in the possession of-U.S. persons only to
interviews of other persons. Other techniques are availabt
and should be use-an-d provisions for approval be provided-
37. See my comments above in paragraph 26 concerning
your suggested change for Section 222 (c), (1) and (5)..
38. I believe that. the separation of Section 225
paragraphs (1) and (2) is desirable and serves clarity,
rather than combining the two paragraphs as suggested in
the issues paper.
46. In order to correct the deficiencies of Section 244
and provide clear understanding and guidance I recommend that
a study be made of EO 12036 and the procedures which have
been recommended by /OGC and his working group to
implement Sections 2-207 and 2-307 of EO 12036 on Undisclosed
Participation in Domestic Organizations. The wording of the
implementation procedures are precise and carefully constructed
so as to establish clear prohibitions and permitted activities.
48. I believe that the drafters in Section 246
intentionally worded this section to include all research
.
on any human subject and not limit the research to "biomedi4:a1
and behavioral" as suggested in the issues paper. Current
Agency policy includes all research involving human subjectL.
and we find that we can abide by, use and operate within
the HEZV Guidelines. I do not object to the suggested change
but I feel that it will be difficult to change the drafters
intent.
49. The amendment to title 18 U.S.C. 2235 is referred
to in Section 251 (b) rather than 251 (a) as stated in the
issues paper.
50. See my comments above re: paragraph 48 of the
issues paper.
53. Agree that Section 256 on Statute of Limitations
needs clarifying. However, the Statute of Limitations
should not be based on when information is declassified or
made available to the public, currently this may be as
Iona as 30 years with extensions, a proposed new EO will
state 20 years with extensions.
-- 2 -
Approved For Release 2004/10/28 : CIA-RDP81 M00980R000800040036-1
 N t'iAL
- Q UNCLASSIFIED El I
Ilc; fMi r
^ CONFIDENTIAL
Approved For Releepe)ftl&2~,AR~ 0 _ -
STAT
STAT
STAT
SECRET
T-
^ SECRET ^ CONFIDENTIAL ^ USEINTERNAL
ONLY ^ OINCLASSIF1ED__