Document Type: 
Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): 
Release Decision: 
Original Classification: 
Document Page Count: 
Document Creation Date: 
December 22, 2016
Document Release Date: 
September 18, 2008
Sequence Number: 
Case Number: 
Publication Date: 
March 18, 1982
Content Type: 
PDF icon CIA-RDP85-00003R000200030004-9.pdf1.63 MB
S 2352 Approved For Release 2008/09/18: CIA-RDP85-00003R000200030004-9 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE Mach 18, 1982 should come as no surprise to anyone aware of the reality of the nature of crime. As I have pointed out In previ- ous statements, we do not have a gun problem in the United States, we have a criminal problem. Such attempts by a city or locality, no matter how well intentioned or altruistic, to attack the problem of criminal violence In this manner can only result in failure. Such attempts will end In failure be- cause as Mr. Link. an inmate at Menard, states in his editorial: When & criminal needs a handgun. In 99 percent of the cases. It iot't one stolen from a home or taken from some potential Wyatt Earp. The weapons are bought i legaily from an Infinite numbee ad sources in the criminal world. Therein lies the failure of such at- tempts, Mr. President. Such laws have no effect on those who break laws as a matter of course. Their only effect is to hinder law abiding citizens In the exercise of legitimate rights or as Mr. Link states: ITlhe law is meaning and useless In curbing crime. However, it is very' effective in curbing the general, law abiding popu- lace. This Is and ever will be the result of such control ordinances. I would hope that such ordinances which prohibit private ownership of handguns, even in one's own home. have their end in Morton Grove. Mr. Link rightly admonishes the Morton Grove City Council when he warns: No wise village fathers, you've pulled a classic boner... You may be "brave enough to attack the beast," but you are attacking the wrong beast. Even worse, you are at- tacking the tall of the snake and not the head. Mr. President, for the consideration, of my colleagues the full text of the.. Menard Time's January 22 editorial on gun control. I ask unanimous consent to have the editorial printed in they RacoRD. There being no objection. the edito- rial was ordered to be printed in the Rscoan, as follows: No RAxnomrs nr Monica Onova-Bic Dawt (By Mitchell Link) The village of Morton Grove. Illinois. has seen fit to become a trend-setter with one of the most insane laws enacted to date. In their infinite wisdom. the village fathers have banned the sale and ownership of handguns in their fair burg. OK, now what, the old arguments es- poused by gun owners and the National Rifle Association (NRA)? Well, let's not get into all that again. but try to approach It from a somewhat different angle. What is important is to take a look at what these lawmakers think they have ac- complished. To this end. I made it a point to get the view of those in the "real know"-convicts here for armed robbery; some of them ex- tremely professional individuals with years of experience in their chosen field. The comments I heard were unanimous in their one-sided view of the law: thank you Morton Grove, for making things a bit easier for usl To a man, they all said the same thing: the law is meaningless and useless in curb- ing crime. However, it is very effective in curbing the general. law-abiding populace. This coming from "hardened criminals," professionals. convicts-they are doing the talking-someone should listen! Since a sawed-off weapon is illegal, the law-abiding store owner would havc to keep a rifle or shotgun with a 30-inch barrel under the register and Baby Snooks could outdraw that maneuver! He's probably better off with no gun. Only the law-abiding citizen will tarn his handgun in, but if he doesn't, do you knock an his door at midnight became be is now a criminal too? Shades of Poland and World War III When a criminal needs a handgun in 99 percent of the cases, It Isn't one stolen from a home or taken from some potential Wyatt Harp. The weapons are bought illegally from an infinite number of sources in the criminal world. In many instances, the guns may even be the result of some "big score" in a neighboring town or state: not a home. but a sporting goods store or even an armo- Sorry, but each of those incarcerated felons said the same thing: The only way you'll even come close to keeping me from getting a handgun if I want one, is to have laws banning the We. manufacture or import of handguns throughout the U.S., and even then I could probably get one. If that didn't work. then a sawed-off weapon would be my next choice. No, wise village fathers, you've pulled a classic boner-or perhaps you feel it was po- litically advantageous? You may be "brave enough to attack the beast," but you are attacking the wrong beast. Even worse, you are attacking the tail of the snake and not the head! CONCLUSION OF MORNING BUSINESS The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further morning business? If not. morning business is closed. INTELLIGENCE IDENTITIES PROTECTION ACT OF 1981 The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will now resume the consideration of S. 391. The clerk will state It by title. The legislative clerk read as follows: A bill (S. 391) to amend the National Se- curity Act of 1947 to prohibit the unauthor. ized disclosure of information identifying certain United States intelligence officers. agents, . Informants. and sources and to direct the President to establish procedures to protect the secrecy of these intelligence relationships. The Senate resumed consideration of the bill. Mr. BAKER. Mr. President, I under- stand that there are at least two speakers who wish to proceed at this point with statements. I believe both Senators are on their way to the floor. While we await their attendance, I suggest the absence of a quorum. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll. The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll. Mr. DENTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. GoRvow). Without objection, it is so ordered. Mr. DENTON. Mr. President, I am indeed gratified that yesterday so many of my colleagues voted for and overwhelmingly adopted the Chafee- Jackson amendment to S. 391. In so doing, the Senate restored to the In- telligence Identities Protection Act the original language as reported by the Senate Intelligence Committee and the Subcommittee on Security and Terrorism of the Senate Judiciary Committee. In addressing the language which the Senator from New Jersey has In- corporated in his unprinted amend- ment, in the form of a substitute to change the definitional language of pattern activities as it now appears In section 606(10) of the bill. I offer the following: In its present form, the term "pat- tern of activities" requires a series of acts with a common purpose or objec- tive. Under the Bradley language. there Is added the sentence, "the main direction of said pattern of activities must be to identify and expose covert agents." In my judgment this language, al- though unquestionably well inten- tioned; would open an enormous loop- hole in this bill. Any defendent could claim that although he did, in fact, "name. names " the main direction of his activity was simply to educate the public or conduct research to write news articles. How could one ever mar- shall evidence to prove the contrary? Again, we would be faced with an-In- trusive standard which would require prosecutors to go beyond the action of the defendant, to get inside his head, as it were, and try to examine his mo- tivation and, of course, his political be- liefs. It is the need for "witch hunt- ing" to establish states of mind that we are trying to avoid. The Chafee-Jackson language, which we adopted yesterday by vote of 55 to 39, sets forth six stringent ele- ments of an offense: The Bradley amendment adds yet a seventh, which in my view, would destroy the effec- tiveness of the Chafee-Jackson bill. The term "main direction" as used in the substitute language of the Bradley amendment is not a'term of art. It is not a legal term. It is a term which in itself is subject to more than one in- terpretation with respect to definition. The language has never been ex- plored, to my knowledge, in a Federal criminal statute or in a court case. Moreover, it has not been the subject of any hearings at the full committee level, nor at the subcommittee level, in either house of the Congress. It is sup- ported neither by the Justice Depart- ment nor by the CIA. And it certainly is not contained in the House version of this bill, H.R. 4, which last fall passed by a vote of 354 to 56. In addition, Senator Bradley's amendment also restored section 603 to the bill, despite the fact that the Senate had agreed by unaminous con- sent on March 1, 1982, to remove it, Approved For Release 2008/09/18: CIA-RDP85-00003R000200030004-9 Approved For Release 2008/09/18: CIA-RDP85-00003R000200030004-9 March 18, 1982 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -SENATE S 2353 because this section was considered to anybody. I do not think I have per- am I playing with here? What team have serious adverse implications for suaded 15 people overnight to change did I sign onto? Where am I?" the Peach Corps. As a result, Senators their votes from yesterday. I said the And we are going to be back to block CRANSTON, BAUcus, Tsososs. BrDEN, train has left the station. 1. I hope I am wrong about that. 'nut I - - DODD. and I agreed to eliminate this In effect. we are going to vote down truly believe that Is what Is going to language from the bill. that colloquy. We are about to say, happen. Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, when I "Nope, that ain't what we meant. That it is very dangerous to make any first came to the Senate, I heard a is not what it means." So here we go predictions In this Chamber about senior colleague of mine. In 1973, This presents some of us with a real- anything. I am running the risk of not speak with reference to a piece of leg- quandary, a really difficult question. having made more than probably one. islation which was very controversial, How are we going to vote on final pas- prediction in 10 years speaking in this an important amendment that impact- sage? I do not want to be on record as Chamber. I am about to make my ed upon what that piece of legislation saying that I. In fact, voted against the second prediction. meant. The amendment changed the bill that was out there to protect The first prediction I made was direction of the legislation. There was agents. President Nixon was not going to be an attempt to follow on and modify I am going to say something that is around very long when I stood up and the change that had been made, to try very presumptuous and self-serving. called for impeachment. to move it back toward what the origi- One of the first pieces of legislation My second prediction is that we are nal language was. that recognized the need to protect That Is what we are doing to be is back on this bill. It may ins with the agents and classified Information not be this year. It Is going to be next Bradley language. I do not want to get which Identified agents was a bill that year. But we are going to be back on the Presiding Officer, the Senator I was a major sponsor of and wrote the bill because I am afraid it is going from Washington (Mr. GoRTor), in and helped get passed that was called to be declared unconstitutional. trouble, but it is really the language of the graymail legislation. And we said When that happens I suspect we will the Presiding Officer that Senator in the original graymail report in 1977 not have much problemoving BRADLxr Is introducing here today. that we have to protect these agents. through intent language or language That is what we are trying to do here. not In the actual verbiage of the legis- the Senator from Washington . as The senior colleague to whom I re- lation but in the report. drafted and the Senator from New ferred. long gone from the Senate, So I start off on this, having de- Jersey is iI really and stood up and said, "Gentlemen. I'm signed, desired, and been Involved in truly think introducing. r abetter served with going to vote for this language." Do calling for the need for protecting the not think that I do not understand agents. this language are r we which voted down worlds. I have difbetter the worst n that the train has left the station. The We are at a point where if the Brad- in a sense done otrain has left the station. As a matter ley amendment goes down, which I raised it now. That os wish never is the language of fact, not only did I not make it on fully expect it will, we then have to that has now- brought up. I under- where the train, but also, I am not sure decide do we vote for a bill that is un been did s a calculated where the train went. It left so fast constitutional. And let us assume for sit. tand It to do is i . c and with so many more can than I the sake of discussion that when we risk. ttaand But It why was what importaworrien me now is it is thought it had. that I am not sure this balance the life of an agent versus the this body and voting it down is exericise we are going through now is Constitution, some would say the Con- before this y of any practical consequence in terms atitutfon is not all that Important. I do a refutation of the colloquy. of whether or not it will succeed. But I not happen to share that view, but let As the Presiding Officer and my col- . believe It Is of serious consequence in us assume that. Let us assume it is leagues who are attorneys know, the terms of making a record in this body. really an issue between the life of an first thing the courts do in determin- It Is misleading to call this the Brad- agent and the Constitution. lug ambiguity in legislation is to look ley language, but I have not asked the That makes it a little difficult vote. to the legislative intent. They go to permission of the Presiding Officer to What I am afraid is going to happen the Record and they pick it up and call it his language. However, the here. Mr. President, and I mean this they read it. And they would then Bradley language, which I strongly en- sincerely. this is going to be passed been able to find a rationale for a con- dorse, and which requires that there today, and it is going to go through stitutionally-protected action that was be a main direction, if you w31, is very overwhelmingly. I would not be sur- taken, an action that was constitution. Important-very, very important. prised if 99 percent of those Senators al as reflected in the so-called Duren. I believe that what the language who are here today vote for the bill. - berger-Chafee Colloquy. does, which Senator BRADLEY is at- Then we will get a conference pretty Now we are saying we do not mean tempting to insert here to define a quickly, and it will get passed. The that, which I think further increases pattern of activity. Is totally consistent, President will sign It real quickly. and the prospect that this is not going to with what many Members of this body there Is going to be reason to believe- survive a court test- thought the Chafee and Durenberger no pun intended-on the part of the There are three sections of the bill. colloquy established. agency and all other Intelligence agen- and I will end In just a moment, be- We witnessed the reluctance of Sen- cies around the world that we have cause I know everyone else has other ator CnAm and my distinguished col- now protected these agents,'and there business, and we heard these argu- league on the Judiciary Committee, will be a mild euphoria which is under- ments 1,000 times, and it Is probably Senator D= Tow, and others to accept standable. and we need to protect important to no one but me In terms that language. So we are in a bit of a them. of how It is clear on the RECORD of quandary here. Here we have a record Then within months we are going to how I feel about this. that has been built with the greatest be in court. We are going to be chal- We have adopted the reason to be. care. because we know it Is going to be lenged. whether it is ACLU challeng- lieve language. I will not make all the challenged immediately. which says Ing us or whomever it is going to be. arguments about why I think that is this is what we meant by pattern of There is going to be a court case. basically a negligence standard. We activity. Senator DURENBERGER, In his There is going to be a test case. and we are about to' eliminate the legislative usual eloquence, lays it all out about are going to find out. history on what pattern of activity what we meant. The manager of the We are going to lose In that test case means to make it mean what I am bill, Senator Cna sz, the chief sponsor all these agents who thought they afraid it meant all along and obliterate of the so-called Chafee amendment. were covered; all these agents' who the Durenberger colloquy, and we are said, "Yes, that is what we mean." thought we had done something- posi- about to pass a bill that is going to be Now. we come along and we are tive for them are going to once again signed into law by the President. about to vote down that language. I be looking up on the Hill and say, There are three parts to the bill. am not naive. I do not want to mislead "What in God's name kind of ball club The first part says if you are working Approved For Release 2008/09/18: CIA-RDP85-00003R000200030004-9 S 2354 Approved For Release 2008/09/18: CIA-RDP85-00003R000200030004-9 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE March 18, 1982 for the Government and you name a name, you are in serious trouble. No one argues about that. The second kind of person covered is if you did work for the Government and you name a name you are In trouble. The third part relates to those people who nei- ttt~er worked for the Government nor dire working for the Government. That is what is in question. I think we would be better served to make this severable and pass the law with regard to the first two sections, pass it as a bill, call it the Chafee bill, call it the Senate bill, call it anything, pass It, and then pass a separate piece of legis- lation that in fact covered the third category of people, as the Senator from Rhode Island now has It drafted with a reason to believe standard. That way if I am right and he is wrong, and this Is unconstitutional as it relates to the third section and they knock it out, we are not faced with the problem of not being able to do any- thing about Philip Agee for the next 6 months or a year or however long It takes us to get back in the ball game. I think that would be a wiser way for us to do It. Quite frankly, I have not figured out mechanically how to do it and as a matter of fact I think the train has left the station. If I do it, I think I am probably delaying the Senate's time. I wish to reemphasize that as to the Philip Agees of the world, the present and former employees of the world, none of us have any argument about. I believe that is language for a lot of reasons I will not go into again that is clearly constitutional because of the makeup and the nature of the rela- tionship of the persons naming the name to the entity that they are ex- posing. The fact of the matter Is the third section I believe is unconstitutional and I believe passing It here now sends out the word. "We have it fixed, folks, you are safe, and there Is a remedy." But if the court Is going to come down and knock it all out, we are going to all be in trouble. So, Mr. President, it Is going to be a very difficult vote, being very blunt about it, and even more difficult to ex- plain. I mean I can see the full-page ads now In 1984. 1 am not suggesting the Senator from Rhode Island in any way subscribes to this. But I can see the full-page ads now when I am run- ning for reelection. I can see it now saying something to the effect of "Biden voted to kill CIA agents by re- fusing to protect them." I suspect that little thought ran through a number of people's minds as those vote counts changed yesterday. It was like a moving crap game here-I mean the numbers change pretty rap- idly, and it was a decisive victory and to Mr. CsASta's great credit, and I mean this sincerely. I want to publicly commend the Senator from Rhode Island for the masterful job he did. That reminds me of what the Sena- tor from the great State of Mississippi said to me once. That was the chair- man of the Judiciary Committee, Sen- ator Eastland. I went to ask him for some help on a matter. This is a true story. I asked help on the matter whether or not I could gain access to the chairmanship of a subcommittee. He looked at me and said: "Joe, can you count?" I said: "Beg pardon, Mr. Chairman." He said: "Can you count." I did not know what he said. I did not know whether that was counter or count. So I said, "I beg your pardon, Mr. Chairman." He said, "Can you count, boy?" And I said, "Yes, I think I can count, Mr. Chairman." He said, "Have you counted?" And I said, "No." He said, "Come back to me when you count it." So I went out and counted my col- leagues. Well, I counted my colleagues yes- terday, and the Senator from Rhode Island counted our colleagues yester- day. And guess what? Where did the Senator from Rhode Island go to college? It was Yale, was It not? Mr. CHAFEE. Yes. Mr. BIDEN. It only goes to prove that a Yale education Is better than a University of Delaware education be- cause he can count better than I can count. As a matter of fact, he counted so well he added a number to his count that I was unaware of. As a matter of fact, he promised he would share his list with me after the vote was all over. I want to see-I cannot figure out how he got as many as he got. Nonetheless, he deserves a great deal of credit. In conclusion, Mr. President, I want to compliment the Senator from Rhode Island. I do not have any doubt in my mind that he believes with all his heart and soul that this is fully constitutional. I do not have any doubt In my mind that he thinks this Is going to do the job. I never have questioned nor do I now question his motivation to protect the Agency or his dedication to constitutional princi- ples and that of the First Amendment. I have no doubt whatever that it has been a pleasure working with him. The Senator From Rhode Island (Mr. CH"), and I have been doing this off and on for close to 2 years, and I do not remember any time where we have not crossed swords, but we have not crossed words at all. I want to compliment him on the able staff work he has had. He won straight up, but I am afraid that in winning he may have lost. I am afraid in winning the battle he may have lost the war. I hope I am wrong. I hope it is going to be shown that this turns out to be constitutional and does get the job done. I am afraid it will not. I think we would be better served in passing the first two sections as one bill and the last section as it relates to employees or non-Government em- ployees as a separate bill and let It run its course that way. In that way, if I am right, It does not all go down, we still grab the Philip Agees.. As I say, the train has left the sta- tion, but I predict it will be back in the station, and when it is back in the sta- tion I have no doubt in my mind we will be able to get a bill through this body in a matter of 20 minutes be- cause we will have it first refined by the court. But I think it is a mistaken way to do business. I have already taken too much of the Senate's time, not just today but throughout this. I am going to vote for the Bradley amendment because I think it is a substantial Improvement. I think the Senator from the State of Washington, who is presiding now, and I am going through this and it sounds like a swan song, but it is true, It is not often that freshmen come Into this body and make the kind of impact in such a specific and detailed way that the Senator from Washing. ton (Mr. GoRToN) has, not only in this legislation but in all other legislation. I. admire the way in which he ap- proaches a subject. He does it with profound intellect and a sincere dedi- cation to what he set out to do, and I want to publicly compliment him. It is easy to do it now because he cannot respond from the Chair, and that is the way I like it best. I compliment him in the way In which he went about It. I also want to compliment my good friend from Alabama. We serve on the Judiciary Committee together, and it has been good working with him. I hope he and others are right so we will not be working on this again, but I am afraid we will get a chance to work on it again. I plan on voting for the Bradley amendment. If it fails I plan on voting against the bill because to do other- wise would be totally inconsistent with what I have said in the past 2 years. I thank the Chair and I yield the floor. Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, first, I would like to express to the Senator from Delaware my appreciation for the joy that we have had working to- gether on this measure. He was accu- rate In saying that although we have crossed swords there have not been any crossed words. This has gone on now for over 2 years. Our positions have been opposed on the Intelligence Committee, but they were forthrightly expressed. We had a measure very similar to this, that includes the so-called Chafee-Jackson amendment, that came before the Intelligence Commit. tee a year and a half ago. The Senator from Delaware very clearly made his views known then, He was one of the few who voted against that measure, so he has been entirely consistent and sincere in his opposition to this point of view we have taken. His opposition Approved For Release 2008/09/18: CIA-RDP85-00003R000200030004-9 Approved For Release 2008/09/18: CIA-RDP85-00003R000200030004-9 March 18, 1982 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE S 2355 is not because he does not believe in The main direction of said pattern of no- cuss American activities in Central the objective. That is very clear. He tivities must be to Identify and expose America. And just as an aside, perhaps supports the objective of this legisla. agents as a subordinate' but nonetheless tion as strongly as I do. . That is language that, pursuant to major portion of my direction, but not But he has felt right from the begin- the request of the junior Senator from the main direction. I also listed 46 ning that my version was unconstitu. Washington, we took under considers- agents working for the CIA; Ameri- tional and, therefore, as he mentioned tion earlier this week. It was not the cans serving our country abroad in 10 in his summary, we would be winning first time that it had been considered, different countries in Central and the battle but be losing the war. but due to the sincerity and anxiety of South America." I will say that this language has the junior Senator -from Washington been reviewed by those who have in reaching some kind of a bill that he Now we cannot countenance that. given a good deal of thought to the felt he could vote for-and I know he Obviously, this legislation is not. de- Constitution. They have found It con- subscribes to the protection of the signed to affect legitimate news gath- stitutional, in their judgment. Obvi- names of the agents and protection of ering organizations that publish and ously, there are many learned people their lives as much as any of us do-he have published for many years, have on the other side who feel otherwise. felt that this would be helpful. published derogatory Information But I will say this. Those who feel so We took it up with the Justice De- about the CIA but have managed to do strongly on the other side, the great partment and also with the CIA. Natu- so without the exposure of agents or percentage of them, also believe that rally I looked at It myself, and gave it through very limited exposure per- the Senator from Delaware's version. thorough consideration. Naps. Incidentally. a name or two.ap- the intent standard in 601(c). also Both the Justice Department-the geared on occasion, but obviously would be unconstitutional So the Attorney General's office-and the there was no pattern of activities in- ACLU, Mr. Berman, and the others. CIA are opposed to that language, as tended to identify and expose covert have pointed out, and they make no am I. The reason why we are opposed agents. secret of this, that they feel we have a to it Is that there are a whole series of But those who were In the business problem here. They feel it Is really im- defenses imposed on the prosecution, of naming names can well take the de- possible to solve the problem through proofs that must be met by the pros- fense, for the very reason that we ob- legislation. They believe the proper ecution. These are the so-called six de, jected to the intent language that was route to take is for the Government to Tenses. I know the Senator from Dela- submitted by the Senator from Dela- provide better cover for its agent& ware dismisses those six defenses. ware and adopted by the full commit- The Senator mentioned that in 1984. Why he does it so blithely I do not tee, and can say. " his was not our when he runs for reelection. there know. but he is eloquent. and fre- intent." Even now there Is a new de- would be large advertisments taken in quently. he is persuasive. He has not fense. They can say this was not their the Delaware papers saying that he convinced me that those are just main direction. "Oh, true, we listed 40 was not for protecting the lives of papeer mache defenses, however. agents, but clearl that y in the CIA. Well, anybody who Those are real defenses, the proof of 3- because was say our ran advertisements like that would be which lies on the Justice Department main direction, because we say so, ' guilty of absolute misstatement. The to meet. they can claim. sincerity of the Senator from Dela- Now, a seventh defense Is raised in It was stated the other day that one ware In protecting the lives of agents the form of the Gorton language. It is could establish a defense by talking to is just as great as mine, and I would be that the pattern of activities must the wife of the defendant, or his perfectly free to so testify, or to sign have this main direction of Identifying agent. or his publisher. And the pub- any counter advertisement to that and exposing covert agents. Now, we fisher would say. "He told me specifi- went over yesteday our rationale for ca11Y that naming names wasn't his But I suspect that the Senator from objecting to that language. But I main direction." And so the wife testi- Delaware is in such good shape In that would repeat it here briefly today. fies in this fashion. and so do others. State, as was evidenced by the last Main direction-who knows what It It seems to me. Mr. President, that If election, that his concerns are mini- means? To the best of our knowledge, we should adopt the language that mal, no matter how big the advertise- it has never been in any Federal crimi- Senator BRADLrr Is proposing today, ments might be. nal statute. The Junior Senator from we go right back to square one. We Now, Mr. President, I should like to Washington said. "Well, that is no really go back to where we were when point out two things. First, the amend- reason to object to it. It, in Itself, is we started this whole debate on the ment of the Senator from New Jersey self-explanatory. Main direction-prin- Chafee-Jackson language 2 years ago. includes the language which we previ- cipal thrust." So for those reasons, Mr. President, ously struck dealing with the provision But this language is vague, not um' I would urge colleagues to vote "no" of cover. Indeed, his language does not .derstood, has no judicial definition, on the amendment that is before us at even have the language of the Judici- has had no hearings, and never was 2 o'clock. ary Committee amendment . dealing raised in the committee. You would with the Peace Corps. I suspect. per- think that in the 2 years of going Mr President, I have no further hags, that that Is inadvertent. But, in through- laborious hearings in the comments. I would like to thank all any event. there it is. So that certainly House, in the Senate Intelligence who have worked on this. I particular- runs contrary to the unanimous vote, Committee. in the Senate Judiciary ly tip my hat to the distinguished Sen- which the Senate took on March 1, Subcommittee on Security and Terror- ator from Alabama, who has worked 1982, when we eliminated section 603 ism, headed by the able Senator from hard. I express my appreciation to his completely. Alabama, in the full Judiciary Com- staff, and to Quentin Crommelin, the The next point is a more substantive mittee. and so forth. this language staff director of the Senate Judiciary one because really this vote which we might once be raised. But it never was. Committee. are taking at 2 o'clock involves lan- Another, and I think even more per- I thank the junior Senator from guage that has been added to the deft- suasive point, Is that this language Washington for the interest he has nition of "pattern of activities." does not represent the thrust of the taken in this matter. He has shown an The Presiding Officer (Senator legislation. What we wish to prevent is extraordinary diligence In this, as he GORTON) has been deeply Involved in the pattern of activities intended to has in other matters. I serve on other this, and he as well as others, princi- identify and expose covert agents. committees with him and I think it is pally the Senator from New Jersey Now, with the "main direction" lan- extraordinary that he is able to devote and the Senator from Delaware, sub- guage in there a defendant could say so much time and constructive effort scribe to the language that has been "This was not the main direction of to various matters, whether it is the added. The support describing a "pat- my activity." "My main direction was Budget Committee or the Clean Air tern of activities" further by saying; to expose the CIA in Africa or to dis- Act or this act. Approved For Release 2008/09/18: CIA-RDP85-00003R000200030004-9 Approved For Release 2008/09/18: CIA-RDP85-00003R000200030004-9 S 2356 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE March 18, 1982 I would also like to thank the Sena- The PRESIDING OFFICER. The CANNON) and the Senator from Louisi- tor from Iowa, Senator GRAssLEY, for majority leader is correct. ana (Mr. LoNG) are necessarily absent. his remarks yesterday. RECESS UNTIL 1:45 P.M. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. In conclusion again I say to that Mr. BAKER. Mr. President, I believe NxcKLES). Are there any other Sena- happy warrior from the other side, the both cloakrooms have contacted their tors in the Chamber wishing to vote? Senator from Delaware, that I have Members with regard to speaking re- The result was announced-yeas 37, enjoyed this. From It I emerge one quirements. They find that no nays 59, as follows: luncheon richer than when I started. Member seeks recognition. (Rollcall Vote No. 54 Leg.] It has been a pleasure I would ho e p In view of that, Mr. President, I ask that in the future we could be able to unanimous consent that the Senate blend our talents and work together now stand in recess until the hour of on legislation as we have in the past 1:45 p.m. and as I am confident we will in the There being no objection, the future. Senate, at 12:42 p.m., recessed until Mr. BIDEN. If the Senator will 1:45 p.m.; whereupon, the Senate reas- yield, the lunch is one that I owe the d I-11 d sembled when called to order by the Sent a or T m f Rh o o . e an The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama. Mr. DENTON. Mr. President, I just want to add my own testimony to-that of the distinguished Senator from Rhode Island regarding the possibility of any newspaper ads which might be placed attacking the distinguished Senator from Delaware. I serve with him on the Subcommittee on Security and Terrorism. I would like to acknowledge that in the field of intelligence, particularly in matters regarding the FBI and the field of drug enforcement, Senator BIDEN has shown not only extreme pa- triotism but he has also contributed greatly in focusing our attention on the real cause for the continued mas- sive proliferation of drug traffic In our country, namely, the profit motive. In that vein, he has also been a leader in pointing out the need to look at the fi- nancial institutions and the banks, where the drug money is laundered. I have found his advice and initiative to be of great value to me in my capacity as chairman of that subcommittee. I wish to acknowledge that and to thank the Senator. Mr. BIDEN. The Senator is very gra- cious. I thank the Senator. Mr. DENTON. I would like to rester, ate that two administrations, the Carter and the Reagan administra- tions, have had Departments of Jus= Lice which consider the wording of the Chafee amendment and the bill, as it now stands, to be constitutional. Although I respect the opinions of others. I do not share their gloomy predictions about the alleged unconsti. tutionality of this measure. It seems there are no further re- marks to be made at this time. Chair, in his capacity as a Senator from the State of North Dakota, sug- gests-the absence of a quorum. The clerk will call the roll. The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll. Mr. DENTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded. The PRESIDING OFFICER. With- out objection, It is so ordered. Mr.'DENTON. Mr. President, I want to take this opportunity to thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle who have labored so long and hard over this vital piece of legislation. It is gratifying for me to know, as a result of this experience, how energetic, re- sourceful, and effective we can be as a body in contributing to the successful passage of an important piece of legis- lation such as the Intelligence Identi- ties Protection Act of 1981. I observe with satisfaction the bipartisanship in- volved in the vote on that passage. I want to express my sincere appre- ciation to my colleagues on the Sub- committee on Security and Terrorism, Senators HATCH, ' EAST, BIDEN, and LEAHY. I also want to thank the distin- guished chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Senator THURMOND, and the distinguished chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Sena- tor GOLDWATER, and, of course, the dis- tinguished Senator from Rhode Island, JOHN CHAFES, without whose masterful guidance and continued sup- port we would not be voting on this historic legislation today. I would also like to thank the respective staffs on both sides of the aisle who labored so diligently and for so long on this bill. Mr. President. I suggest the absence AMENDMENT NO. 1339 of a quorum. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under The PRESIDING OFFICER. The the previous order, the hour of 2 p.m. clerk will call the roll. having arrived, the Senate will now The assistant legislative clerk pro- proceed. to a vote in connection with ceeded to call the roll , amendment No. 1339 offered by the Mr. BAKER. Mr. President, I ask Senator from New Jersey (Mr. BRAD- unanimous consent that the order for LEY). The yeas and nays have been or- the quorum call be rescinded. dered and the clerk will call the roll. The PRESIDING OFFICER. With. The assistant legislative clerk called out objection, it is so ordered. the roll. Mr. BAKER. Mr. President, there is Mr. STEVENS. I?announce that the an order,. I believe, to proceed to a roll- Senator from Maryland (Mr. MATHIAS) call vote at 2 p.m. on the Bradley is necessarily absent. amendment No. 1339 to S. 391. Is that Mr. CRANSTON. I announce that correct? the Senator from Nevada (Mr. YEAS-37 Baucus Hatfield Proxmire Biden Hollings Quayle Bradley, HuddlestoR Randolph Byrd, Robert C. Kennedy Riegle Cohen Leahy Roth Cranston Levin Sarbanes DeConcini Matsunaga Sasser Dodd Meicher Specter Eagleton Metzenbaum Stafford Exon Mitchell Tsongas Ford Moynihan ? Weicker Gorton Packwood Hart Pressler NAYS-59 Abdnor Durenberger Lugar Andrews East Mattingly Armstrong Garn McClure Baker Glenn Murkowski Bentsen Goldwater Nickles Boren Grassley Nunn Boschwitz Hatch Pell Bumpers Hawkins Percy Burdick Hayakawa _ Pryor Byrd, Heflin Rudman Harry P., Jr. Heinz Schmitt Chafee Helms Simpson Chiles Humphrey Stennis Cochran Inouye Stevens lYAmato Jackson Symms Danforth Jepsen Thurmond Denton Johnston Tower Dixon Kassebaum Wallop Dole. Kasten Warner Domenici Laxalt Zorinsky NOT VOTING-3 Cannon Long Mathias So Mr. BRADLEY's amendment (No. 1339) was rejected. Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the amendment was rejected. Mr. TOWER. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. ? Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I am pleased that the Senate will today pass the Intelligence Identities Protec- tion Act of 1981. The intelligence com- munity is our Nation's first line of de- fense. S. 391 protects our intelligence network by making it a criminal penal- ty to name names. In recent years the disclosure of the identities of our agents has placed our agents in grave danger while also serving to compro- mise the effectiveness of our Nation's covert operations. I commend Senator CHAFES for his efforts in S. 391. While S. 391 serves to protect the true identities of our agents, some- thing must be done to prevent the fur- ther weakening of the CIA as a result of sensitive information which is pres- ently obtainable under the Freedom of Information Act. The dissemination of such Information has resulted in the publicizing of CIA' methods and the undermining of CIA operatives. On May 20, 1981, together with Senators, GOLDWATER, NICKLES, GRAssLEY, DOLE and HELMS, I introduced S. 1235, a bill which would modify the Freedom of. Approved For Release 2008/09/18: CIA-RDP85-00003R000200030004-9 S 2357 ? March 18, 1982 Approved For Release 2008/09/18: CIA-RDP85-00003R000200030004-9 Information Act to exempt all CIA thing to make criminal the public dis- ante to interpret the bill to protect materials involving personnel selec- closure of the Identities of U.S. intelli- first amendment rights. With reserva- tion, training, reorientation, internal gence personnel. It is quite another to tions, I consider it the lesser of the operations, office management, and hold the sword of possible prosecution evils to vote for the bill. organization of the CIA. over the head of a journalist for doing Mr. BRADLEY. Mr. President, I S. 391, the Intelligence Identities his or her job to report on the Central firmly believe that America must pro- Protection Act is a major step In re- Intelligence Agency. tect its covert agents from wanton or storing the safeguards which are vital We should be prepared to support malicious disclosure of their identities. to an effective intelligence community. efforts to punish unprincipled people Such disclosure both threatens their I am hopeful that the Senate will con- who intend to disable the CIA. We lives and impairs U.S. intelligence ac- tinue to move in this direction and should not be prepared to support tivities. At the same time, I believe we that we can take action in the near looser language which imposes crimi- must be careful that our legislation future on S. 1235.? nal penalties on individuals when does not conflict with basic freedoms ? Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I will there is only reason to believe that in America. vote for final passage of S. 391, the In- publication of information-will impede In my judgment, both the bill re- telligence Identities Protection Act, our intelligence work. ported by the Senate Judiciary Com- but I will do so with reservations. I be- We need legislation which clearly d and the substitute bill I offered lieve that the Senate vote yesterday protects those who courageously risk mittee yesterday after adop in of the adopting the amendment offered by their lives for our national security Chafee amendment dorike the proper the distingushed Senator from Rhode and at the same time clearly preserves balance. These bills protect covert Island, Mr. CxarEE, was unfortunate, first amendment rights of free speech agents from reckless or malicious dis- tion it is essential that we enact legisla- and free press. bre the con- of now to halt the insidious practice The intent language which had been closure. . But t they also o of deliberately disclosing the names of in this bill before the Chafee amend- cl o u rights all guard and the c n. freedom of speech, , a free Americans press. to covert intelligence agents. ment passed -Wednesday struck the public's of right h know. As I said when I announced my op- necessary balance. Many of us were the freedom position to the Chafee amendment on prepared to vote for such a bill. The bill before us does not do these Monday, I believe the "reason to be- Senator BRADLEY'S amendment, things. Although its supporters say it lieve" standard for prosecution con- which would have required prosecu- will not interfere with the ability of tained in the Chafee amendment is tors to prove that a defendant's pat- the press to present the news fully and unnecessarily broad and could have a tern of activities had been specifically fairly, nothing in the language of the chilling effect on legitimate news re- designed to identify and expose covert statute or its legislative history per- porters and broadcasters. I felt that it agents, would also have struck the suades me this is so. would have been better for the Senate necessary balance. Many of us were I am also unpersuaded that this bill to adopt a more stringent "intent" prepared to vote for a bill containing only punishes "naming names." standard, and then watch to see if the this language. Indeed Senator CHAFEE's statements to law accomplished its purpose, of However. I cannot support legisla- this effect are belied by the statutory whether some other standard of pros- tion which raises as many first amend- language. The statute punishes disclo- ecution might be necessary to provide ment concerns as this bill does. Our sure of "any information that indenti- for the conviction of violators. country's national security is also Pies an individual as a covert agent." Now that the Senate has decided to served by a free and vigorous press. The Senate report accompanying S. adopt the "reason to believe" stand- We must not take steps which Impair 391 also indicates that naming names ard, however, those of us who are de- that freedom. I hope that in confer- is not required. The report states the termined to halt the systematic publl- ence there will be thorough reconsld- "though the identity disclosed must be cation of agents' names must vote for eration of the ways in which Congress classified, the actual information dis- this measure and hope that it proves can properly provide for the protec- closed need not be." In other words, it effective without becoming an instru- tion of national security and the pro- is sufficient to publish any Informa- ment for stifling the flow of informa- tection of free speech.* tion that identifies a covert agent. Re- tion to the public. The reprehensible Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I am vealing his or her name is unneces- activities of such publications as the voting for S. 391, the Intelligence sary. Covert Action Information Bulletin. Identities Protection Act, even though Finally, I believe the courts will de- must be halted before any further its constitutionality, in my judgment, slate this bill believe be unconstitutional. harm is done to the national security is subject to serious challenge. Ulti- Thus, will serve be co . for to the safety of our covert agents mately. it may be invalidated by the Taushe public's interest. h It our agenal also means and their families. S. 391 as amended courts. If so, rather than protecting nor ot is means is now the vehicle available to us to ac- agents' identities, it will only have cre- that providing ecti covert Ch ageSena sonts is sup- complish that goal, and for that ated the illusion of protection. posedly th the p urnvict gents is ufor reason I will vote for its passage.* Five years from now, after such a pose. disclosing an court identify convict is the criminal ? Mr. HART. Mr. President, as a court decision, we may once again be statute on which- the conviction is former member of the Select Commit- considering this subject in the U.S. based Violates the first amendment. tee on Intelligence, I have consider- Senate. .Meanwhile, those who are in this bill instead a the nt. able sympathy with the concerns the evil business of naming names may By Byi passing version the u which gave rise to S. 391, the Intelli- be able to continue to do so with impu- Bradley Committee iee y substitute we on th have lost the gence Identities Protection Act. The nity. legislation that United States and its intelligence Even in the short term, the bill may opportunity to given our r enact intelligence coat agencies are ill-served by sensation- be applied Infrequently, if at all, be- would genuine pretence c it seekers who endanger the lives of our cause of graymail and other prosecu- munity the needs and deserves. intelligence personnel and put at risk tion problems. this country's national security. We The better course. for the Senate Thus, I remain concerned that dis- are correct in trying to seek properly would have been to reshape the bill closures of serious illegality in Govern- balanced legislation which will prevent into a more effective tool to protect in- ment or egregious breaches of official these abuses. telligence agents. However, there is no policy would subject those making the The key phrase is "properly bal- consensus for further work. disclosures to criminal sanctions. This anced." The intelligence agencies have been will inevitably have a chilling effect on Press representatives across the seeking protection for more than 5 news reporting and deny the American country have expressed great concern years already, and some legislation is people access to information that is in about the implications this bill has for necessary. Given the extensive debate, the national interest for them to first amendment freedoms. It is one the courts will have substantial guid- know. Approved For Release 2008/09/18: CIA-RDP85-00003R000200030004-9 8 2358 Approved For Release 2008/09/18: CIA-RDP85-00003R000200030004-9 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -- SENATE March 18, 1982 In offering a substitute for S. 391 as amended. I hoped to provide a vehicle that would protect the identity of our covert agents yet guarantee funda- mentayl American freedoms. My amendment was defeated. Thus, even though I am reluctant to oppose this bill. I have no choice but to vote against it. IMPORrASCS OF cosvLXTZ SWARAXION OP PRACS CORPS PROM nrZSL IGXRCE ACTIVm,! Mr. CRANSTON. Mr: President, consistent adherence to the long- standing policies insuring the com- plete separation of the Peace Corps from intelligence activities is vital to the continued effectiveness of the Peace Corps and the safety and well- being of Peace Corps volunteers and staff overseas. On several occasions during the past year, however, these policies and their appropriate applica- tion and ramifications have been the subject of debate and some controver- sy. Thus, I would like to take a moment to discuss them and under- score their importance-particularly in light of the issues before us in the con- text of the pending legislation. As a whole, these policies are de- signed to make It possible for Peace Corps volunteers and staff, by avoid- ing assiduously even the appearance of any connection between the Peace Corps and Intelligence activities, to achieve the essential programmatic goals of the Peace Corps-building links between the United States and the peoples of developing countries at the grassroots level; providing practi- cal and humanitarian assistance on a voluntary basis; and demonstrating through the personal commitment of the volunteers the concern of Ameri- can citizens for the welfare of individ- uals in developing countries. In a May 4, 1981. letter to Senators DaxroN and BIDas, former Secretary of State Dean Rusk noted that, in ad- dition to being essential to the effeo- tiveness of the Peace Corps, the policy of absolute separation from intelli- gence activities-which was first enun- ciated while he was Secretary-is nec- essary for the safety of the volunteers. Urging that any statutory requirement, that Government agencies provide as- sistance to intelligence agencies in- clude a Peace Corps exception, he stated that, in his opinion: Way action that suggests that the United States had modified the policy of ab- solute separation between the Peace Corps and intelligence would also increase the danger to Peace Corps volunteers and staff. During the last twenty years there. have been countless examples of volunteers con- tinuing to perform their duties despite civil strife. Indeed, they have many times been protected by the ordinary citizens with whom they live and work from any harm. Instability and terrorism have already sub- stantially increased the dangers to Ameri- cans abroad. These dangers Peace Corps vol- unteers necessarily assume. The United States should do nothing to increase these risks. Thus, very strict policies of the U.S. Government precluding both the reali- ty and the appearance of any connec- tion between the Peace Corps and in- telligence activities have been careful- ly developed and maintained through- out the Peace Corps' 20-year history. These policies fall into three sepa- rate categories, each one being critical- ly important. First, a set of policies to- tally prohibits any involevment of Peace Corps volunteers and staff in In- telligence activities. These policies prohibit Peace Corps volunteers and staff from participating in Intelligence activities and prohibit the intelligence community from in any manner using Peace Corps volunteers or employees as cover and, more specifically, from contacting, questioning, or in any other way seeking to use Peace Corps volunteers or staff as intelligence sources. Second, to avoid any appearance of Peace Corps involvement with intelli- gence activities, strict Peace Corps policies prohibit former Central Intel- ligence Agency employees from ever serving as Peace Corps volunteers or staff. In addition, any Peace Corps vol- unteer or staff applicant with a back- ground in any non-CIA-type intelli- gence activities is barred from Peace Corps service for a period of at least 10 years following the cessation of the in- dividual's involvement in intelligence. Even after that 10-year period has ex- pired, an applicant's suitability is re- viewed if his or her non-CIA Intelli- gence activities were particularly ex- tensive or involved covert activities. - Third, also to preclude the appear- ance of Peace Corps involvement in in- telligence activities, CIA policy prohib- its that agency from employing Peace Corps volunteers or staff until after a 5-year period following their Peace Corps service has expired and prohibit former volunteers and staff from ever being assigned to any intelligence duty in any country in which they served in the Peace Corps. Other intelligence agencies have similar bars to the em- ployment and assignment of former Peace Corps volunteers and staff. These policies were recently outlined by the Judiciary Committee in its report on the pending legislation (S. Rept. No. 97-201, pages 13 and 14 (Star print)). - Earlier this year, the policy re- garding the second leg of this triad of policies-the intelligence-back- ground bar-received considerable at- tention in connection with the nomi- nation of Thomas W. Pauken to be the Director of the ACTION Agency. Be- cause of Mr. Pauken's extensive train. ing and experience in overseas covert intelligence operations during his mili- tary service from which he was dis- charged in 1970, I strongly believed that his nomination to be the head of the umbrella agency under which the Peace Corps functions was highly in- advisable. In a statement appearing on pages 53896 through S3996 of the daily edition of. the REcoRD for April 27, 1981, I urged that Senate action on that nomination not be taken while the Peace Corps was still within the ACTION Agency. It was my position then that for him to serve as the Di- rector of the ACTION Agency while the Peace Corps was still a part of that Agency would create an appear- ance of a connection between the Peace Corps and intelligence that should be avoided. In substantial part because of the issues that the Pauken nomination raised. I became convinced that the time had come to separate the Peace Corps from the ACTION Agency. Sub- sequent events have intensified my conviction In this respect. On April 27, 1981. I introduced legislation to make the Peace Corps a fully independent agency within the executive branch. That legislation was incorporated into S. 1196, the International Security and Development Corporation Act of 1981. and was enacted as Public Law 97-113 on December 29, 1981.- At the time of Senate consideration of the confer- ence-report on that measure, I out- lined again the importance of securing the Peace Corps as an independent entity-CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, daily edition, December 15. 1981, 815298. Recently, during the pendency of the Peace Corps separation legislation before the Congress, an incident oc- curred that dramatically highlighted the need for Peace Corps independ- ence and, I also believe for the Con- gress to express itself on the policy of the separation of the Peace Corps from intelligence activities. In the No- vember 1. 1981, issue of the New York Times, an article dealing primarily with Peace Corps budget issues noted-in my view, accurately-that the movement In the Congress to re- store the Peace Corps' independence had been given impetus by the ap- pointment of Mr. Pauken to be Direc- tor of the ACTION Agency and that the Peace Corps has a strict prohibi- tion against former intelligence agents within its agency. In response, Donald Thorson. the ACTION Agency's As- sistant Director for Legislative Af- fairs-as part of that Agency's con- tinuing campaign against the Peace Corps autonomy legislation by at- tempting to discredit the intelligence- background bar and promote a totally absurd thesis of discrimination against Mr. Pauken because his military serv- ice was in Vietnam-wrote a letter to the editor of the Times, which ap- peared in the November 27 issue. In that letter, he flatly stated that the statement regarding the "strict prohi- bition" was "not true". Indeed, the current Director of the Peace Corps, Loret Ruppe, and her predecessor. William G. Sykes, in a March 18, 1982, letter to me in connection with Ms. Ruppe's confirmation then under con. sideration by the Foreign Relations Committee, described the intelligence- background bar as I outlined it above and pledged "to enforce the policy. strictly, as has been done for the past two decades." Approved For Release 2008/09/18: CIA-RDP85-00003R000200030004-9 Approved For Release 2008/09/18: CIA-RDP85-00003R000200030004-9 March 18, 1982 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE S 2359 Mr. President, I was truly astonished by Mr. Thorson's reckless assertion that such a prohibition does not exist. In a December 9, letter to the editor that appeared in the Times today, I noted- It is a sorry state of affairs that a high of- ficial of the ACTION Agency, in his deter- mination to keep the Peace Corps within ACTION at any cost, is willing to jeopardize a policy Intended to protect the Integrity of the Peace Corps and the safety of its volun- teers and staff. Mr. President, I ask unanimous con- sent that the Times article and these letters be printed in the RECORD at the conclusion of my remarks. The PRESIDING OFFICER, with- out objection, it is so ordered. (See exhibit 1.) Mr. CRANSTON. Also, Mr. Presi- dent. In light of the vital importance of the complete separation of the Peace Corps from intelligence activi- ties and the great need to avoid any appearance of involvement, I was deeply disappointed that the Decem- ber 4, 1981, Executive order on "United States Intelligence Activi- ties"-E.O. 12333-did not provide an express exception for the Peace Corps from the general requirement in sec- tion 1.6(a) that executive branch de- partments and agencies give the Direc- tor of Central Intelligence access to all information relevant to national intel- ligence needs and generally cooperate with the Director. The omission of a Peace Corps exception in that context can be seen as presenting the same issue that the' enactment of section 603 of the pending measure without a Peace Corps exception would raise and which I discussed on March 1 in a lengthy colloquy with the sponsors of this measure and others concerned about the Peace Corps. Mr. President, I would note that I appreciate the statements last summer by the current Director of Central In- telligence and the current Director of the Peace Corps-in their July 15, 1981, and June 25. 1981, letters, which the Senator from Rhode Island (Mr. CHAFES) Inserted in the RECORD during the March 1 colloquy-that they have no intention of deviating from the long-standing policies of total separa- tion of the Peace Corps from intelli- gence activities. Unfortunately, there has been no comparable statement by the President of the United States. Hence, I believe that a strong state- ment of congressional policy is very desirable in order to provide needed clarification and to bolster the assur- ance in the nations where the Peace Corps serves that its complete separa- tion from intelligence activities is being maintained. Thus, I am most gratified that the distinguished Senators from Rhode Island (Mr. CHAFEE), Delaware (Mr. BIDEN), Alabama (Mr. DENTON) and Vermont (Mr. LEAHY), among others- as expressed in a colloquy on March 1, 1982, CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, daily edition. S1257-,share my view that, whether or not the conference report on the pending measure includes a sec- tion 603, the conferees should state that section 1.6(a) of the Executive order should not be construed as alter- ing in any way the hittoric policy of complete separation of the Peace Corps from intelligence activities. Such an unequivocal statement of principle in the joint explanatory statement accompanying the confer- ence report would clearly reassert the strong position of the Congress on this important matter and confirm Its strong commitment to maintenance of the policy of total separation. (EXHIBIT 1) [From the New York Times, Nov. 1. 19811 PEACE CORPS Asxs A REVIEW OP CUTS (By Barbara Crossette) WASHINGTON, Oct. 31-The Peace Corps, with Its modest $105 million budget cut this year to $53.6 million, has appealed to the Administration for reconsideration. Loret Miller Ruppe, the organization's di- rector, said yesterday in her office just before setting out on a month-long tour of volunteer outposts in North and West Africa, that she had met with Secretary of State Alexander M. Haig Jr. about the budgetary problem and had found him "very supportive." . "He said what we were doing was right in line with the Administration's foreign policy," she said. "But we haven't heard anything yet about our appeal." The Peace Corps, now 20 years old, is very different from what It was in the 1950's. The average age of volunteers is higher- about 27. There are fewer of them-about 5,000 in 60 countries compared with 11,115 in 57 nations in 1967. FISHERIES AN IMPORTANT PROGRAM Most important to the Peace Corps now is the development of programs in agriculture and alternative sources of energy. Jody Olsen, the regional director for North Africa, the Near East, Asia and the Pacific, said that among these progams, training in fisheries was one of the most important. "This is bringing protein into areas where it is almost impossible to get meat," Miss Olsen said. She also described projects in teaching simple market "gardening in pri- mary and secondary schools and the raising of rabbits for food supply. Agriculture spe- cialists are in great demand by the Corps. In its training program, volunteers are taught not to expect to see changes in their two-year period of service. "With rabbits, for example," Miss Olsen said, "it may be easier to raise rabbits than build fisheries, but you have to introduce the concept of eating rabbits, and of cook- ing rabbits. In some places that could take six to eight years." The leadership of the Corps, struggling to live within the new financial restraints, is made up of loyal Republicans. Mrs. Ruppe, a Midwesterner, worked on Vice President Bush's campaign for the Presidency and went on to become cochairman of the Reagan-Bush committee in Michigan. VIRTUES OF SELF-HELP EXTOLLED. She extols the virtues of self-help in public speeches, saying the work of the Corps Is "right up Mr. Reagan's alley" in teaching self-sufficiency. Lon Randall, a graduate of Fort Wayne Bible College and the president of Malone College In Canton. Ohio, who is now asso- ciate director for programs, prefaces re- marks about the response of the Peace Corps to budget cuts with his support for "the President's move toward restoring sound fiscal policy." In line with Administration moves In other agencies-notably the Agency for In- ternational Development, with which the Peace Corps works closely overseas-the Corps has created an office for liaison with the private sector. Its director 13 John Calvin Williams Jr., a former Peace Corps volunteer in Morocco and Niger who is on leave from Chase Manhattan Bank, where he directed activities in French-speaking Africa. The Peace Corps offices are shared with several other volunteer agencies, including Volunteers in Service to America and the Foster Grandparent Program, all of which were combined by President Nixon In 1971 Into a coordinating agency called Action. MOVES TO RESTORE INDEPENDENCE There have been moves in Congress to re- store the independence of the Peace Corps, which many feel has lost its identity under the Action umbrella The movement was given new impetus in March, when President Reagan appointed Thomas W. Pauken director of Action. Mr. Pauken had served as a military intelligence officer in Vietnam. and the Peace Corps has a strict prohibition against former intelli- gence agents within its agency. Rumors of Central Intelligence Agency links to the Peace Corps, never proved, cost the Corps Its India program, which was terminated by New Delhi in 1976. Senator Alan Cranston of California led a successful Democratic drive to write Peace Corps autonomy into legislation this year. This month the full Senate upheld that leg- islation. Mrs. Ruppe says that the legisla- tion was not necessary because she had been assured she would continue to report direct- ly to the executive branch. EVALUATION IS UNDER WAY According to Mr. Randall, the associate di- rector, the Peace Corps is in the process of "global evaluation" of its programs. Mr. Randall, who worked with the Agency for International Development in Thailand, said that, especially in a period of tight budget restraint, "the aim of the Peace Corps is to leave a country." He said that as soon as a country's per capita income and quality of life had reached an acceptable level, the Peace Corps would disengage itself, as it has done recently in Chile. leaving the work in the hands of local officials and allowing the Corps to concentrate its resources on the "poorest of the poor." . The degree to which a country contributes to a Peace Corps presence has become Im- portant to whether the agency will agree to set up or expand programs. There are still many more requests for Peace Corps volun- teers from foreign countries than the agency can have to meet. [From the New York Times, Nov. 27, 1981) THE PROPER PARENT FOR THE PEACE CORPS WASHINGTON, D.C., November 6, 1951. To the EDITOR: Your Nov. 1 news story "Peace Corps Asks a Review of Cuts" con- tained a number of inaccuracies on the issue of the Peace Corps' separation from the Action agency. The article stated that there have been moves in Congress to "restore the independ. ence of the Peace Corps." But the Peace Corps has never been independent. From 1961 to 1971 it was under the State Depart- ment; in 1971 it became a part of Action. The article also declared that the "Peace Corps has a strict prohibition against Approved For Release 2008/09/18: CIA-RDP85-00003R000200030004-9 S 2360 or Keiease zuuoiuyi i o : uiH-Kut oo-uuuu,5K000LUUU.5uuu4-y CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -SENATE March 18, 1.932 former intelligent agents within its ranks." This Is not true. In fact, the deputy director of the Peace Corps from 1969 to 1971, Tom Houser, served In Army counterintelligence In the mid-1950's. It is true that some supporters of separa- tion have attacked the appointment of Tom Pauken as Action director because he served In Vietnam in military Intelligence. The ob- vious question arises: Why is a Vietnam vet- eran being treated differently from a 1950's veterans with an equiyalent background? .It Is significant that the Reagan Adminis- tration strongly opposes the separation of the Peace Corps from Action because such a move would cost the taxpayers more money. New independent agencies always require additional funds. To create another Federal agency during a period of budget cuts makes no sense whatsoever. DONALD TxoasoN, Assistant Director, for Legislative Affairs, Action. PeAcE CORP SAPn DISTAncs FROM C.I.A., s'r AL - WASHINGTON, D.C. December 9, 1981. To vex EDITOR. As the principal Senate sponsor of legislation to separate the Peace Corps from the ACTION agency. I was as- tonished by the letter (Nov. 27) from Donald Thorson. ACTION's assistant direc- tor for legislative affairs, accusing The Times of. Inaccurate reporting. It is Mr. Thorson who is inaccurate. Mr. Thorson states that it Is "not true" that the Peace Corps has a strict prohibi- tion against former intelligence agents within its ranks. The truth is that ever since its inception in 1961 the Peace Corps has had a policy designed to preclude even the appearance of a connection with intelli- gence activities. This policy bars any former agent or em- ployee of the C.I.A. from ever serving as a Peace Corps volunteer or employee. And it strictly prohibits anyone else from serving if he or she has engaged In Intelligence activi- ties In the preceding 10 years. Thomas Pauken, director of ACTION, Loret Ruppe, director of the Peace Corps, and William Casey, director of the C.I.A., have said that they intend to continue this policy. Mr. Thornton states that Thomas Houser served in Army counterintelligence 13 years before he became deputy director of the Peace Corps in 1969. However, no informa- tion to that effect was brough to the atten- tion of the Senate at the time of Mr. Houser's confirmation. Mr. Thorson also claims that separating the Peace Corps from ACTION would "cost the taxpayers more money." The evidence points in exactly the opposite direction. In- ternal Peace Corps budget documents esti- mate that, while separation will cost about $900,000 In first-year administrative ex- penses, it will save $1 million annually thereafter. Finally, the controversy over Mr. Pau- ken's nomination arose not because he is a Vietnam veteran, as Mr, Thorson falsely suggests, but over the question whether the extent and nature of his service in military Intelligence violated-or appeared to vio- late-a policy indepensable to the effective- ness of the Peace Corps. if not to its very survival. The Foreign Relations Committee narrowly voted for his confirmation. 10 to 7. Making the Peace Corps an Independent agency will reaffirm Its fundamental policy of keeping free of all taint of an "intelli- gence connection." It Is a sorry state of af- fairs that a high official of ACTION, in his deteunination to keep the Peace Corps within that agency at any cost, is willing to Jeopardize a policy intended to protect the integrity of the Peace Corps and the safety of its volunteers and staff. Asia CaAssTOx, U.S. Senator/rom California The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill is open to further amendment. If there be no further amendment to be proposed, the question is on the en- grossment and third. reading of the bill. The bill (S. 391) was' ordered to be engrossed for a third reading and was read the third time. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized. . Mr. BAKER. Mr. President, I move that the Senate now proceed to the consideration of Calendar 294, H.R. 4. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill will be stated by title. The assistant legislative clerk read as follows: A bill (H.R. 4) to amend the National Se- curity Act of 1947 to prohibit the unauthor- ized disclosure of information Identifying certain United States intelligence officers, agents, informants, and to direct the Presi- dent to establish procedures to protect the secrecy of these intelligence relationships. The PRESIDING OFFICER, The question is on agreeing to the motion of the majority leader. The motion was agreed to, and the Senate proceeded to the consideration of the bill. UNPRINTED AMENDMENT NO. 830 Mr. DENTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that H.R. 4 be amended with a series of perfecting amendments which I send to the desk and which conform its text to S. 391, as amended, and further ask unani- mous consent that these amendments be considered and agreed to en bloc. The PRESIDING OFFICER. With- out objection, it is so ordered. The amendments will be stated The assistant legislative clerk read as follows: The Senator from Alabama (Mr. DENTON) proposes an unprinted amendment num- bered 830. Mr. DENTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with. The PRESIDING OFFICER. With- out objection, it Is so ordered. The amendment is as follows: 1. On page 1, line 4, immediately following the word "Act" add "of 1981.". 2. On page 2, line 3, strike the word "Dis- closure" and substitute in lieu thereof "Pro- tection". 3. On page 4, line 3, strike the word "in" and all that follows up to and including the word "exposure," on line 7, and substitute in lieu thereof the following- "in the case of a person who acted in the course of a pattern of activities intended to Identify and expose covert agents and with reason to believe that such activities would impair or Impede the foreign intelligence activities of the United States,". 4. On page 4, Immediately following line 13, insert a new subsection 602(d) as follows: "(D) It shall not be an offense under sec- tion 601 for an individual to disclose infor- mation that solely identifies himself as a covert agent." , 4A. On page 4, line 14 through page 5 line 8, strike from the word "Procedures" to "disclosure." 5. On page 5, line 17, strike the word "shall" and insert In lieu thereof the word 6. On page 5, line 18, immediately preced- ing the word "Congress" insert the word "the". 7. On page 6. line 9, strike the Ft,'d "a" and substitute in lieu thereof the word ,.,.. - 8. On page 6, line 10, strike the capital "R" in the word "Rule" and substitute in lieu thereof a lower case "r". 9. On page 6. strike line 18 and all that follows through line 16 on page 7, and insert In lieu thereof the following: "(4) the term 'covert agent' means- "(A) an officer or employee of an intelli- gence agency or a member of the Armed Forces assigned to duty with an intelligence agency- "(I) whose identity as such an officer, em- ployee, or member is classified Information, and "(U) who is serving outside the United States or has within the last five years served outside the United States: or (B) a United States citizen whose intelli- gence relationship to the United States is classified information, and- "(1) who resides and acts outside the United States as an agent of, or informant or source of operational assistance to, an in- telligence agency, or "(Ii) who is at the time of the disclosure acting as an agent of, or Informant to, the foreign counterintelligence or foreign coun- terterrorism components of the Federal Bureau of Investigation: or 10. On page 7, line 3, immediately follow- ing the `" add the word "or". 11. On page 7. line 6, insert a "," immedi- ately following the word "Information". 12. On page 7, line 19, immediately follow- ing the word "classified" insert the word "information". 13. On page 7, line 24. strike the word "the" and insert in lieu thereof the word ..a,. 14. On page 7, line 25, strike the word "components" and insert in lieu thereof the word "component". 15. On page 8, line 1, strike the word "counterterorist" and insert in lieu thereof the word "counterterrorism". 16. On page 8, line 15, strike the quotation marks and period which follow the word "Is- lands.". 17. On page 8, immediately following line 15. add the following new subsection 806(10): "(10) The term 'pattern of activities' re- quires a series of acts with a common pur- pose or objective-". 18. On page 9, in the Table of Contents, delete the word "Disclosure" from the entry for section 601 and insert in lieu thereof the word "Protection". The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on-the engrossment of the amendment and the third reading of the bill. The amendment was ordered to be engrossed and the bill to be read a third time. - The bill was read the third time. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill having been read the third time. the question is, Shall It pass? Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays. Approved For Release 2008/09/18: CIA-RDP85-00003R000200030004-9 ? Approved For Release 2008/09/18: CIA-RDP85-00003R000200030004-9 March 18, 1982 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE S 2361 The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is the Committee on Intelligence Sena- We continue to regard Libya, Syria and there a sufficient second? There is a tors CHAFEZ, LUGAR, JAcxsoN, and the People's Democratic Republic of Yemen sufficient second. BENTSEN conferees on the part of the as supporters of international terrorism. The yeas and nays were ordered. Senate. The representative, Deputy Assist- The PRESIDING OFFICER. The The PRESIDING OFFICER. The ant Secretary of State, Ernest John- clerk will call the roll. ' majority leader is recognized. ston, Jr., told the subcommittee that The bill clerk called the roil Mr. BAKER. Mr. President, I ask Libya is one of the several nations Mr. STEVENS. I announce that the Iunanimous consent that S. 391 be in- "which are today's greatest source of Senator from Maryland (Mr. MATHIAs) definitely postponed. support for terrorist activities." Is necessarily absent. The PRESIDING OFFICER. With- Accordingly, Mr. Johnston said, the Mr. CRANSTON. I announce that out objection, it is so ordered. United States is imposing strict export the Senator from Nevada (Mr, control actions in order to avoid "con- CANNON) and the Senator from Louisi- ORDER OF PROCEDURE tributing, through trade, to resources and (Mr. Loxc) are necessarily absent. used for (Libyan leader) Qadhafi's ad- The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are Mr. BAKER. Mr. President, what is ventures." there any other Senators in the Cham. the business pending before the Mr. President, I think it would be ber who desire to vote? Senate? appropriate to analyze exactly what The result was announced-yeas 90, The PRESIDING OFFICER. The the impact of President Reagan's nays 6, as follows: pending business is Senate Resolution March 10 decision will have in the [Rollcan Vote No. 55 Leg.) 344. economies of the United States and YEAS-90 Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, will Libya. First, I do not think U.S. energy Abdnor - the Senator yield? Glenn Murkowskl consumers need fear that they will be Andrews Goldwater Nickles Mr. BAKER. I yield. forced to pay a penny more on their Armstrong Gorton Nunn FLEXITIM8I.ISCISLl1TION Baker monthly oil bills or at the gasoline sta. Baucus Hatch et' Packwood Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I Pell tion. After all Libyan oil, prior to the Bentsen Hatfield Percy would like to state to the majority embargo, made up a very modest por- Boren Hawkins Proxmire leader and the Members of the Senate tion of U.S. oil imports and U.S. con- Boschwita Hayakawa Pryor that we have been attempting to work Bumpers Heflin Quayle sumption. We only imported 150,000 Burdick Hems Randolph out the flexitime bill. It is apparent barrels of oil daily from Libya-only 3 Byrd, Helms Riede that we cannot get the agreement we percent of our total imports and 1 per- Byrd. rry F? Robert Jr. C. Rotorua Huddleatoo Roth Rudman are seeking. I intend to introduce the cent of total U.S. consumption. This flexitime bill and have it referred to chafe. Humphrey Sarbanes modest amount will be easily replace- Chiles Inouye BMW the Committee on Governmental Af- able given the current world glut of oil Cochran Jackson Simpson fairs and not have it held at the desk. which has seen many oil producers D'AmMa Johnston specter -~"-- slashing prices in order to maintain Danforth Kaaeebaum Stafford PROHIBITION OF LIBYAN OIL sales. DeConcini Kasten Stennis Denton Kennedy Stevens IMPORTS What about the impact on Col. Qa- Dixon Laxat Symms The PRESIDING OFFICER. The dhafi's economy? That seems to be Dodd Leahy Thurmond Senate will now resume consideration somewhat of a different story. If he DDoomenici Lugar sgas of Senate Resolution 344. does not find alternative customers for Durenberger Matsunasa Wallop Mr. PERCY. Mr. President, will the his expensive oil which he seems un- Eagleton Mattingly Warner Senator yield for a unanimous-consent likely to do in today's market, he East McClure Weicker request? stands to lose $2 billion-roughly 25 Ex on Metae baum ~' Mr. BAKER. Just one moment. percent of his total annual.foreign ex- Garn Mitchell Mr. President, is there a vote or. change revenues. Given Col. Qadhafi's NAYS-6 .dered on Senate Resolution 344? rather ambitious and ruthless The PRESIDING OFFICER. The agenda-a $70 billion. 5-year domestic Bradley Baden Hart Cranston Moynihan Pressler sser Senate will be in order. There Is a vote development plan; and expansion of continuing his NOT VOTING-3 ordered on Senate Resolution 344. The the military, while yeas and nays have been ordered rather expensive and despicable for- Cannon Luna Mathias Mr. BAKER. Is not Senate Resolu- eign policy and terrorist objections- So the bill (H.R. 4). as amended was tion 344 identified as the Hart amend- the loss of 25 percent of his funds passed. merit with various cosponsors dealing should cause difficult economic Mr. DENTON. 'Mr. President, I move with importation of Libyan oil into the choices and constraints. to reconsider the vote by which the United States? Mr. President, I am glad to see bill was passed. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The strong bipartisan support for this Mr. CHAFER I move to lay that majority leader is correct. measure giving the Senate backing to motion on the table. MR. BAKER. I thank the Chair. the administration's strict imports and The motion to lay on the table was ? Mr. PELL. Mr. President, I support exports policy toward Libya. I believe agreed to. enthusiastically the resolution of the that Libya's Colonel Qadhaft has dem- Mr. DENTON. Mr. President, I ask Senator from Colorado (Mr. HART) ex- onstrated a disdain for sweet persua. unanimous consent that the first tech- pressing the sense of the Senate sion. He is the kind of repugnant nical amendment be amended to read strongly supporting the President's de- figure on the world's stage who can "1982" instead of 111981.11 vision to prohibit Libyan oil imports only learn the error of his ways The PRESIDING OFFICER.. With- and to deny licenses for the export to through strict and effective measures out objection, it is so ordered. Libya of oil and gas technology and by nations who abhor his activities.? Mr. DENTON. Mr. President, I move equipment of U.S. origin not readily ? Mr. QUAYLE. Mr. President, one of that the Senate insist on its amend- available from non-U.S. sources. the more important problems in the ments and request a conference with The Committee on Foreign Rela- world today is to stop the rising tide of the House and that the Chair be au- tion's Subcommittee on Near Eastern international terrorism, which threat- thorized to appoint the conferees on and South Asian Affairs received testi- ens all countries and indiscriminately the part of the Senate. mony just this morning dealing with endangers the lives of innocent people The motion was agreed to; and the international terrorism. The subcom. here and abroad. Presiding Officer (Mr. NrcxLEs) mittee was told by the Department of But our attention to terrorism is appointed from the Committee on the State that, following a thorough sporadic. We react with indignation Judiciary Senators TEURMOND, review of various nations involved in when the innocent are murdered or DENTON, EAST, BmxN, and LEAHY: from international terrorism, taken hostage. Such stories capture Approved For Release 2008/09/18: CIA-RDP85-00003R000200030004-9