LETTER TO MR. JAMES M. FREY FROM FREDERICK P. HITZ

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP81M00980R001600110085-0
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 4
• Document Creation Date: December 15, 2016
• Document Release Date: July 6, 2004
• Sequence Number: 85
• Publication Date: July 18, 1978
• Content Type: LETTER

THE DIRECTOR OF CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE OI'C 78--2002/N
Approved For Release 2004/07/16 : CIA-RDP81 M0098OR00160011M0$5=
J UJ l 10 'ta
Mr. James M. Frey
Assistant Director for
Legislative Reference
Office of Management and Budget
Washington, D. C. 20503
We have received your office's request for views on the Department
of Sta e's proposed submission to the House-Senate conferees on H. R. 12598,
the "Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Year 1979. to Our views
on this legislation are contained in my letter and attachment containing
proposed language to you, dated 17 July 1978. I would like to offer a
few comments keyed to the Department of State's proposals.
1. Tab 28,, subsection 119(2) of the Senate bill, amending
the so-cal Roles- e m assa3or egis anon . S: ,
2680a . While we certain-~y concur wit the state ministration.
position opposing subsection 119(2) in the Department of State's
proposal, I believe the proposed language contained in the
material I sent you on 17 July 1978 provides the necessary
and more appropriate substantive points in opposition to sub-
section 119(2). In particular, I think it is important that the
Administration note the potentially serious adverse effects
on the President's discretionary authority under 22 U. S. C.
2680a if the language proposed by subsection 119(2) were adopted.
2. Tabs 32A through 32E, Title V of the House bill,
"Science, Technology, and American Diplomacy. In our
view, the Administration should oppose this title. Not
only would the provisions of Title V be extremely burden-
some to implement and enforce, but the basic terms---
"science and technology" activities. initiatives and agree-
ments---are nowhere defined in the legislation; this would
present additional practical burdens.
It is our understanding that intelligence activities,
which may involve liaison activities that in turn could
concern "science or technology" matters, are not intended .
to be covered by Title V of the House bill. I therefore
request that absent general opposition to this title, the
Administration position include a specific recommendation
that the title be amended as follows to make clear that
intelligence activities are not covered,- [Subsection 503(c)
Approved For Release 2004/07/16 : CIA-RDP81 M00980R001600110085-0
 Approved For Release 2004/07/16 : CIA-RDP81 M00980R001600110085-0
of H.R. 12598 be amended to read as follows with addi-
tional language underscored and language to I ,a deleted
stricken through]
"(c) Except as otherwise provided 7 y law,
nothing in this seetio title shall be cons" rued as
requiring the public disclosure of sensiti.-e informa-
tion relating to intelligence sources or rr ethods. or to
persons engaged in monitoring scientific :3r technological
developments for intelligence purposes.'
It is further recommended that the congressi. nal report
accompanying this legislation include the folly: wing language
with respect to subsection 503(c): "Section 5( 3(c) makes clear
that intelligence activities, initiatives and ag eements do not
come within the provisions of this title. " Th 3 point also should
be included as part of the Administration's pc >ition.
3. Tab 36, section 108 of the Senate bill "Clarification
of' Information eportinR Re ents. recommend
deletion of the phrase... clarifies the inten of the Congress
concerning ... in the proposed explanatory I inguage included
in the Department of State paper. In our vier-, proposed
section 108 does not clarify anything. The ex Dlanatory
language, therefore, should begin as follows: "Senate.
Section 108 concerns reporting responsibilitif s.."
We concur in the position that the Admin 5-tration
oppose enactment of section 108. Our reason :s in support
of this position, as outlined in my letter to yc. i of 17 July
1978, go beyond those contained in the Depart nent of State's
proposal, and we request that these additional arguments
be included as part of the Administration's m t.terial to the
conferees. We also request that the final sere:ence of the
proposed Administration position submitted b the
Department of State, which refers to section 02 of the
National Security Act of 1947, as amended, b deleted.
In our view, the argument that section 102 of he National
Security Act is inconsistent with section 108 c f the bill, is
not clear and is therefore not the strongest ai gument the
Administration could put forward.
.. Tab 67, section 501 of the Senate bill, amendments
to theCase- Zab oc i_ ct. ith regard to sub section SDfO,
which concerns oral agreements, we believe i-ie Administration
position should include, in addition to the arg ment contained
in the Department of State's proposal [that the provision would
Approved For Release 2004/07/16 : CIA-RDP81 M00980R001600110085-0
 'Approved For Release 2004/07/16 : CIA-RDP81 M00980R001 600110085-0
be extremely difficult to enforcel, the points in my letter to
you of 17 July 1978. These points explain in more detail
why subsection 501 (a) would be unacceptably burdensome
and difficult to enforce, and note that the provision could have
a significant adverse impact on intelligence activities in
particular. I believe this is a telling argument, and one the
Administration should put forward.
As concerns subsection 501(b), regarding reporting of
late transmittals, we support the position in the Department
of State proposal.
Subsection 501 (c) concerns the prior approval of the
Secretary of State or the President. The proposed Department
of State position leads off by stating that the Administration
favors this subsection, with a recommended amendment.
While we would accept this position, we see no reason why
the Administration should endorse this subsection. Rather,
in our view, the position should be that the Administration
opposes subsection 501(c) as unnecessary and inappropriate,
but t at the Administration could accept the amendment as
proposed by the Department of State.
The Department of State proposal is silent with regard
to subsection 501(d) of the Senate bill. As noted in my letter
to you of 17 July 1978, we recommend that the Administration
propose the following language be deleted from the subsection:
' . through the Secretary of State ... " The reasons for
this position are contained in the above-mentioned letter.
5. Tab 68, section 502 of the Senate bill, "Approval of
Certain International Agreements." Rather than state merely
that the Administration is prepared to develop, in cooperation
with Congress, an improved process of consultation, it we
recommend that the Administration also state its opposition
to this provision. We see no positive reason to support this
subsection, which could, insofar as intelligence matters are
concerned, be construed to require prior consultation with the
Congress before certain intelligence agreements are concluded
(it should be emphasized that the language of the subsection
specifies that such consultation be undertaken "prior to and
during the negotiation of such agreement").
Approved For Release 2004/07/16 : CIA-RDP81 M00980R001600110085-0
 Approved For Release 2004/07/16 : CIA-RDP81 M00980R001600110085-0
'_-"hank you for the opportunity to comment of these matters. I
look forward to assisting in the further preparati n of the Administration's
position on these provisions in H.R. 12598. P1e. se let me know if there
are any questions with regard to including in that material the matters
discussed in this letter and in my 17 July 1978 le er to you.
/Frederi k P. Hitt
Legislate re Counsel
Distribution:
Urig Addressee
1. UGC
1 DDO/PCS
1. JJDSF;T
1 O LC Subject
1 OLC Chrono
CLC:RLB-sm (18 Jul 78)
Approved For Release 2004/07/16 : CIA-RDP81 M00980R001600110085-0