INTELLIGENCE IDENTITIES PROTECTION ACT-CONFERENCE REPORT

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP85-00003R000200060002-8
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 8
• Document Creation Date: December 21, 2016
• Document Release Date: September 25, 2008
• Sequence Number: 2
• Publication Date: June 10, 1982
• Content Type: OPEN SOURCE

Approved For Release 2008/09/25: CIA-RDP85-00003R000200060002-8
S 6632 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE
they are worth protecting fully and ef-
fectively.
Mr. President, I commend my col-
league on the Senate Select Commit-
tee on Intelligence, Senator JoHN H.
Cxer?EE of Rhode Island, for his cour-
age and persistence in pursuing this
legislation. He was an original cospon-
sor of this bill in 1980.
He worked to mold it into its current
shape when the committee reported
the bill out in the summer of 1980, and
he has worked long and hard in get-
ting this legislation through the Con-
gress ever since. He has done a great
job for the committee, for the Con-
gress, and for the Nation. We should
be pleased and proud that there are
men like this in the U.S. Senate. I, for
one, consider it a high point of my
chairmanship of the Senate Select
Committee on Intelligence that I am
chairman at the time this bill has
passed the Congress and will be signed
into law. This is a great event and I
am proud to be a part of it.
Mr. President, in concluding my re-
marks today, I say, thank God for pa-
triotic Americans like Richard Welch,
the Kinsman family, Jesse Jones, and
many others who serve their Nation
loyally on difficult and dangerous mis-
sions abroad. These patriotic Ameri-
can families carry the torch of free-
dom to the dark corners of the world.
Their work, their knowledge and their
understanding enlightens our Govern-
ment and our policymakers. We owe
them far more than the simple protec-
tion this law provides. They consti-
tute, in effect, the first line of defense
of the free world. They are soldiers in
the war against ignorance, and they
perform their duties amidst great
hardship, difficulty and danger. Our
support of this bill and of this confer-
ence report is a reflection of the Sen-
ate's understanding and support for
their sacrifice and their contribution.
Thank God for these patriotic Ameri-
can citizens.
Mr. CHAFES. Mr. President, I thank
the distinguished chairman of our full
committee, the Senate Select Commit-
tee on Intelligence, for that fine state-
ment. I also take this opportunity to
express my personal thanks to him for
the support he has given us in this
long and arduous trip we have been
on, attempting to achieve passage of
this legislation.
I see the distinguished chairman of
the Committee on the Judiciary in the
Chamber. This measure, of course, was
jointly referred, and it also went to
the Judiciary Committee. I will be
glad to hear from the senior Senator
from South Carolina at this time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr.
MATTINGLY). The Senator from South
Carolina.
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, as
the senior member, I was the chair-
man of the conference. This matter
has been worked out in a way that we
think is satisfactory, and I am ' very
pleased that action is finally being
taken. It has taken a year or two to do
something we should have done in 30
days in view of the high priority of
this matter.
I commend the able Senator from
Rhode Island.
Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, if the
Senator will yield for 1 minute, I think
we have present in the Chamber a suf-
ficient number of Senators for a roll-
call.
Mr. President, at this time, I ask for
the yeas and nays on this conference
report.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is
there a sufficient second? There is a
sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. CHAFEE. I thank the Chair and
I apologize for the interruption.
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I
commend the able Senator from
Rhode Island for the great service he
has rendered on this piece of legisla-
tion. He has worked very diligently
day and night to try to bring into
being a law that should have been
acted on long ago.
In my opinion, there should not
have been any question about the pas-
sage of this legislation long before
now. At any rate, there was objection,
but I am glad that the differences
have been ironed out and that the bill
can pass.
Mr. President, I also commend the
fine statement by the chairman of the
Intelligence Committee on this report,
and I hope that this matter will be
speeded and the President will sign
this bill promptly so we can give the
protection that should have been done
long ago to important agents of this
Government who are trying to protect
our people.
The conference report on H.R. 4 rep-
resents the culmination of a great deal
of work during at least two Congress-
es. Legislation of this nature has been
examined in one form or another by
both the Select Committee on Intelli-
gence and the Committee on the Judi-
ciary since early 1980. Hearings have
been held, there has been lengthy
debate, and each and every section has
been closely and carefully scrutinized.
I do not believe that there is much dis-
agreement in the Senate as to whether
or not legislation of this type is
needed. I think that it is time for the
Senate to say with a loud and clear
voice that we do not condone the type
of action prohibited by this bill.
This measure aims at protecting the
identities of those individual whose
anonymity serves the interest of the
country. Moreover, this legislation
would insure an appropriate balance
between individual rights and the ab-
solute necessity for secrecy in intelli-
gence collection vital to the security of
the Nation.
The prohibitions contained in H.R. 4
are directed at punishing those indi-
viduals who intentionally and without
authorization disclose information
identifying intelligence officers and
agents of the United States. This bill
is not intended to apply to members of
June 10, 1982
the press or others engaged in legiti-
mate activities protected by the first
amendment. It is intended, however,
to stop those people who are in the
business of "naming names" of our
covert agents.
We must keep in mind the special
needs of the brave and unsung em-
ployees of the intelligence agencies of
this country. We must remember, too,
that uninformed policymakers cannot
properly serve the people, and without
the information these agents provide,
the American people will suffer.
I take this opportunity to commend
our distinguished colleague from
Rhode Island, Senator CHAFES, for the
exemplary service he has done the
country in shepherding this legislation
through Congress and for his tenacity
and determination in seeing the meas-
ure become law.
If the Senate approves this confer-
ence report on H.R. 4, I am confident
the President will sign the bill into
law, and when that day comes Senator
CaArEE should be given a major share
of the credit for enactment of this
overdue and clearly beneficial statute.
I also feel that the Senate should re-
member the superb work done in the
final days of his life by Representative
John Ashbrook, of Ohio, a man held
in high esteem by his colleagues in the
House of Representatives and admired
and respected by the Senate.
Representative Ashbrook was re-
sponsible for a significant strengthen-
ing improvement in this bill which he
obtained on the floor of the House of
Representatives. That action was typi-
cal of his long and distinguished
career as a legislator.
I believe it is particularly fitting to
remember Representative Ashbrook at
this time, while the Senate is acting on
one of the many bills to which he de-
voted his skill and labor.
For that reason I ask unanimous
consent that immediately prior to the
conference report on H.R. 4 there be
printed in the RECORD the speech
made by Representative Ashbrook on
the floor of the House of Representa-
tives on Wednesday, September 24,
1981, when the House had under con-
sideration the legislation now before
the Senate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. With-
out objection, it is so ordered.
(See exhibit 1.)
Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, before
moving passage of this legislation, I do
wish to extend my thanks to a host of
people who have helped me and have
worked so diligently and effectively in
achieving passage of this legislation.
We started on this in January 1980.
So, as I mentioned, it has been a long
road. I have had the help of a whole
host of people. I was an original co-
sponsor of this legislation. Since that
time, many of my distinguished col-
leagues have lent a strong and able
hand to assist in getting this legisla-
tion to the point where it now can be
signed into law.
Approved For Release 2008/09/25: CIA-RDP85-00003R000200060002-8
 Approved For Release 2008/09/25: CIA-RDP85-00003R000200060002-8
June 10, 1982 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ?- SENATE
First of all. I thank the distin-
guished chairman of the Judiciary
Committee, Senator Tsvauorm, who
has done such an excellent job and
given such fine support, and also his
able members on that committee, Sen-
ators DENrox and EAST who have
shown great enthusiasm and support.
These men played a key role. in con-
ducting hearings and getting the bill
reported from the Judiciary Commit-
tee last fall.
Senator THURMOND has also played
an important role during the confer-
ence.
I also thank the distinguished senior
Senator from the State of Washing-
ton, Senator JACKSON, who joined me
as principal cosponsor to our amend-
ment on the floor of the Senate this
spring. He rendered yeoman service in
having that amendment agreed to by a
vote of 55 to 39, and without his help
we certainly would not be here today.
I also thank the majority leader,
Senator BAKER, and, of course, as I
mentioned earlier the outstanding
chairman of our Senate Select Com-
mittee on Intelligence, Senator GoLD-
WATER, who has previously spoken,
who have given their unqualified sup-
port for our efforts in these long and
difficult days. They have worked long
and hard in bringing this bill to the
floor and in promoting its final pas-
sage. There are many others who I
wish to thank as well, but I find the
list is just too long.
Mr. President, at this time I shall
take a moment to comment on the
roles played by two Members of the
other body regarding this important-
indeed historic-legislation.
First, I pay tribute to the late' John
Ashbrook, whose floor amendment to
H.R. 4 last year incorporated the cur-
rent language of section 601(c) Into
the bill. John and I did not see eye-to-
eye on all the issues, but when it came
to the protection of American intelli-
gence officers, we were of one mind.
He was a man of unique integrity,
great energy, and enduring tenacity.
John was a leader in arriving at the
point where we are today, and he was
dedicated to the protection that we
have provided for those who serve us
in our intelligence community. I regret
that John Ashbrook is not here with
us today and that he has missed seeing
this body, this Congress, pass this bill
in a manner in which I know he would
approve.
Second, I praise the distinguished
chairman of the House Permanent
Select Committee on Intelligence, the
Honorable EnwArw P. BoI.AND, a Rep-
resentative in Congress from the
Springfield area of Massachusetts. I
was designated by the chairman of the
Judiciary Committee, Senator THVR-
MoND, as the one to conduct the nego-
tiations with Chairman BozaND.
Over the past 2 months, I have dis-
cussed the issues which this legislation
involves with Chairman BoLAxo on nu-
merous occasions. His intimate knowl-
edge of the subject, integrity, and
great fairness in compromising on
many points were largely responsible
for the statutory language which we
have voted on today. I commend him
for the great service he has performed
for the Congress and the Nation in
this regard.
Finally, Mr. President, I thank Will
Lucius and Quentin Crommelin of
Senator Tnmu oxda staff, Joel Lisker
and Bert Milling of Senator DaxrON's
staff, and Sam Francis of Senator
EAST'S staff for their untiring efforts
in getting this legislation through the
Judiciary Committee last year and
through the conference this spring. I
thank, of course, Rob Simmons, who is
the staff director of the Senate Intelli-
gence Committee, the counsel for, that
committee, Victoria. Toensing, and
Larry Kettlewell, Chip Andreae, and
Rose Nahrgang, all. who helped us a
great deal and for their untiring ef-
forts in support of this important leg-
islation.
Mr. DENTON. Mr. President, I wish
to add my voice to those who have
spoken in support of Conference
Report 97-580 on the Intelligence
Identities Protection Act of 1982 (H.R.
4). The report has the overwhelming
support of the House of Representa-
tives, which passed it on June 3 by a
vote of 315 to 32.
The report has been signed by all
the Senate conferees.
Mr. President, this report is not per-
fect. In some areas I would personally
have preferred tougher language, es-
pecially in dealing with section 601(c).
Nonetheless, I believe that any com-
promise _requires that all the parties
accept- less than' they would ideally
like.
In my view, Mr. President, it was im-
perative to do all that we could to
insure that the Intelligence Identities
Protection Act of 1982 became law. I
believe that desirable result will now
be achieved.
The disclosure of the identify of a
covert agent is an immoral act, nation-
ally and personally harmful, which
cannot be tolerated. The conference
report makes clear that prohibition of
this activity, as it is defined by the bill,
would in no way inhibit an individual
from speaking about Government pro-
grams that are wasteful. Nor would it
impede the -whistle-blower who seeks
to enhance his Government's ability to
perform more efficiently by bringing
to the attention or those in responsi-
ble positions deficiencies, fraud, or
waste.
The reprehensible activities that
this bill makes criminal have repeated-
ly exposed honorable public servants
to personal peril and vastly reduced
their effectiveness in pursuing their
endeavors. This has produced a signifi-
cant detriment to the national secu-
rity. The insenal&vity, irresponsibility,
and amorality shown by those who
seek to undermine the effectiveness of
our intelligence capability are so inimi-
cal to our American democratic system
that it seems certain that what we are
S 6633
about to do today should not be neces.
sary. This bill is indeed overdue for
passage.
Although in a free society we must
welcome public debate about the role
of the intelligence community as well
as about other components of our
Government, the irresponsible and in-
discriminate disclosure of names and
cover identities of covert agents serves
no useful purpose whatsoever. As
elected public officials, we have the
duty, consistent with our oaths of
office, to uphold the Constitution and
to support the men and women of the
U.S. Intelligence services who perform
important duties on behalf of their
country, often at great personal risk
and sacrifice.
I urge my colleagues to vote for this
report.
Mr. DURENBERGER. Mr. Presi-
dent, the Intelligence Identities Pro-
tection Act, as amended and reported
out of conference, should put an end
to years of controversy. All of us want
to protect our country against those
who would maliciously expose Ameri-
can intelligence officers. Yet none of
us wants to undermine a free and
probing press, whose contributions to
an informed public are a bulwark of
democracy. Thanks to the hard work
of many people, this bill now meets
both tests.
The lion's share of the credit for this
successful result must go to my good
friend from Rhode Island, Senator
Caeras. He guided this bill through
the Senate since its earliest days. He
steered a steady, constitutional course
despite pressures to weaken the bill or
to undermine the freedom of the
press.
When the Select Committee on In-
telligence reported out an earlier bill
in 1980, we wrote a report that set
clear limits on the type of conduct this
bill would reach. When the Chafee
amendment to the current bill was
proposed last winter, many feared that
it would have s chilling effect on the
press. Senator CnASSS and I recog-
nised that the report language of 1980
was needed to underline congressional
intent that the press not be harmed.
So he and I engaged in a colloquy last
March on the floor of the Senate to
reiterate and update the 1980 report
language and make it part of the cur-
rent bill's legislative history.
The conference committee wisely
relied upon the legislative history that
Senator CRAY= and I had created.
The chairman, of the House Intelli-
gence Committee, Representative
Bor.aNm, cited our role in his floor
statement of June 2:
In structuring statement of managers lan-
guage to explain section 501(c), the so-called
Ashbrook or. Chafee amendment, the con-
ferees noted that there had been little ex-
planation in the House of the Ashbrook
amendment. The most satisfactory sources
of explanation were those referred to in the
Senate debate-the explanation provided by
the 1980 report of the Senate Select Com-
mittee on intelligence to accompany S.
Approved For Release 2008/09/25: CIA-RDP85-00003R000200060002-8
 Approved For Release 2008/09/25: CIA-RDP85-00003R000200060002-8
S 6634 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE
2216, the Senate forerunner of this bill in
the 96th Congress, and a colloquy between
Senators Chafee and Durenberger which
drew from and expanded upon this same
report.
It was the intention of the conferees that
these sources constitute the legislative his-
tory of this statute. Therefore, the confer-
ees very carefully excerpted text from these
sources.
The conference, report is the pri-
mary element of legislative history,
and I am certain that the courts will
heed its message of moderation. It is
this moderation-in the 1980 report,
the Chafee-Durenberger colloquy, and
now the conference report-that has
won over many former opponents of
this bill. Senators B= N, BmTsrsx, and
LEAKY all opposed the Chafee amend-
ment, with Senator Bmsa opposing
the bill as a whole. All three have
signed the conference report, as have
seven House Intelligence Committee
members who originally opposed this
language. Representative BoLAND has
acknowledged the constitutionality of
the current bill, once this legislative
history is taken into account:
Al one who had serious doubts about the
constitutionality of this bill as it passed the
House, and who returns with a conference
report substantially similar to that bill, I
must say that, based on the interpretation
of this statute as provided in the statement
of managers, I believe that this statute can
be considered constitutional. I beli@ve that
it has a good chance to withstand the test of
judicial scrutiny. It can do so because of its
narrow focus and explicit avoidance of pro-
scribing protected speech.
Senator CHAFES and I always knew
that his language had a narrow focus
and did not proscribe protected
speech. The fact that both Houses of
Congress have come to support this
stand so overwhelmingly is testament
to the importance of preserving this
sense of proportion in legislative histo-
ry. Senator CHAFES is to be saluted for
his role in maintaining this delicate
balance.
THE INTELLIGENCE AGENTS IDENTITIES
PROTECTION ACT
Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I
rise to comment on H.R. 4, the Intelli-
gence Agents Identities Protection
Act, which the Senate approved by a
wide margin on March 18. On May 20,
the committee of conference favorably
reported H.R. 4 in slightly modified
form. I felt constrained to vote in the
negative on March 18 and I regret that
I must also do so today. The clear
weight of scholarly legal opinion is
that a major provision of this bill is
unconstitutional. Moreover, this provi-
sion is, by any measure, imprudent.
For we had before us an alternative
which was less subject to constitution-
al objection; recommended by the
Committee on the Judiciary as well as
by the House Intelligence Committee;
acceptable to the Central Intelligence
Agency; and enforceable in the opin-
ion of the Justice Department. Unfor-
tunately, it was the will of the Senate
and the House to reject this approach,
opting instead for a standard of culpa-
bility which is preferred by the admin-
istration because it will facilitate suc-
cessful prosecutions. It now appears
that we will soon have a law which,
while making it easier to convict
scoundrels, will chill the exercise of
first amendment rights.
Let me say that I do not take any
pleasure in voting against H.R. 4.
Indeed, it was perhaps the most diffi-
cult vote in my 5 years in this body. I
sponsored the predecessor of this leg-
islation in the last Congress, when it
was considered by the Select Commit-
tee on Intelligence, of which I was
then a member and now serve as vice
chairman. I felt strongly then, as I do
now, that the existing espionage laws
need to be supplemented by clear
criminal prohibitions against unau-
thorized disclosure of the identities of
our Nation's undercover intelligence
operatives. Two provisions of H.R. 4
would penalize the unlawful disclosure
of a covert agent's name by persons
who have had authorized access to
classified information relating to the
agent's identity. These provisions are
sound and have received widespread
support. However, a third provision of
the bill, proposed section 601(c) of the
National Security Act, applies to per-
sons who have not had authorized
access to classified information. It
would make it a crime to identify pub-
licly a covert agent even if the identify
was discovered from public source in-
formation and even if there was no in-
tention to harm the national interest.
It is this section which, in my view, is
unconstitutional. As a consequence, I
could not vote for H.R. 4 and in good
conscience believe that I had kept
faith with my oath to support the
Constitution.
Mr. President, I would ask the
Chair's indulgence while I discuss the
considerations which underlie my posi-
tion.
Section 601(c) would impose criminal
sanctions on a person if he discloses an
agent's identity-
In the course of a pattern of activities in-
tended to identity and expose covert agents
and with reason to believe that such activi-
ties would impair or impede the foreign in-
telligence activities of the United States ...
By a vote of 55 to 39, the Senate
substituted this version for the one rec-
ommended by the Committee on the
Judiciary which would have imposed
criminal liability on a person who dis-
closed an agent's name-
In the course of an effort to identify and
expose covert agents with intent to impair
or impede the foreign intelligence activities
of the United States by the fact of such
identification and exposure.
Section 601(c) as approved by the
Senate, as well as the Judiciary Com-
mittee's formulation, would crimina-
lize the publication or other disclosure
of information which could be drawn
entirely from unclassified or public
sources. There was general agreement
among the Members of this body that
the national security interest in an ef-
fective clandestine service was suffi-
cient to warrant a proscription on
June 10, 1982
what are, in essence, private counter-
intelligence operations which ferret
out and expose the identities of covert
agents for the propose of disrupting
U.S. intelligence activities. The dis-
agreements arose over how to reduce
to statutory language our desire to
punish those in the business of
naming names without inhibiting le-
gitimate press activity and political
debate.
Many law professors and legal schol-
ars expressed doubt that any legisla-
tion could be devised which would
outlaw such conduct without violating
the first amendment's guarantees of
free speech and press. This advice
could not be lightly dismissed. Howev-
er, the notion that it was impossible to
reconcile the interests of national se-
curity and first amendment rights was
unacceptable.
The sharpest and most succinct
scholarly comment came from Philip
B. Kurland, professor of law at the
University of Ch l;ago and one of the
Nation's leading constitutional law-
yers. In September 1980 he wrote:
I have little doubt that it [Section 601(c)]
is unconstitutional. I cannot see how a law
that inhibits the publication, without mali-
cious intent, of information that is in the
public domain and previously published can
be valid. Although I recognize the inconsis-
tency and inconstancy in Supreme Court de-
cisions, I should be very much surprised if
that Court, not to speak of the lower federal
courts, were to legitimize what is for me. the
clearest violation of the First Amendment
attempted by Congress in this era.
fessor Kurland's warning to heart and
amended the bill as introduced to
impose a requirement of proof that a
defendant specifically intended to
impair or impede U.S. intellience activ-
ities by naming names. By putting the
Government to a more exacting
burden of proof, the intent standard
reflected the traditional judgment of
our Nation that our interest in pre-
serving free speech and press tran-
scends in importance the value of
prosecutorial convenience. This stand-
ard of proof properly takes into ac-
count that the chief characteristic
which distinguishes a person who en-
gages in the business of naming covert
agents as against a journalist who re-
veals agents' names as part of a legiti-
mate news story is the intent with
which each acts. The manner of
names intends to expose the identity
of covert agents with the ultimate pur-
pose of disrupting intelligence oper-
ations. The journalist's purpose in dis-
closing the identity of a covert agent is
not to disrupt intelligence activities,
but to inform his readers, for example,
of possible wrongdoing.
In rejecting the Judiciary Commit-
tee's recommendation, the supporters
of the "reason to believe" version of
section 601(c) have maintained that it
would not affect the first amendment
rights of those who disclose the identi-
ties of agents as an integral part of an-
other enterprise such as news media
Approved For Release 2008/09/25: CIA-RDP85-00003R000200060002-8
 June 10, 1982
Approved For Release 2008/09/25: CIA-RDP85-00003R000200060002-8
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE S 6635
reporting of intelligence failures or
abuses. The statement of the manag-
ers in the conference report on H.R. 4
expressly embraced this interpreta-
tion. However, saying it does not make
it so. There is nothing on the face of
this provision which codifies such a
limitation. In a September 1980 letter
to the Judiciary Committee, another
University of Chicago professor of law,
Geoffrey R. Stone, pointed out that:
[Ala drafted, . [this provision]
relies coley. upon the "pattern of activities"
clause to limit the bill's scope. This 'is inad-
equate. The clause is ambiguous and is sub-
Ject to easy manipulation. Moreover, it
might (and probably would) cover a newspa-
per or other publication that made a regular
practice of investigating undercover activi-
ties in order to expose abuse.
Professor Stone went on to conclude,
as did his colleague Professor Kur-
land, that a malicious intent standard
is "essential if the legislation is to
comport with the First Amendment."
I am deeply saddened that the
Senate has foresaken the opportunity
to codify its desire not to infringe
upon the exercise of press freedom.
Neither the press nor any member of
this body can or should take any com-
fort in seeingly benign interpretations
of section 601(c) offered by its propo-
nents and the conferees. Indeed, the
Senate voted down an amendment of-
fered by the Senator from New Jersey
(Senator BRADLEY) which would have
codified one such interpretation.
Moreover, the arm of Government
which will be responsible for enforcing
this law has given every indication
that it will not apply the law benignly.
During congressional consideration
of this legislation, the Justice Depart-
ment spokesman plainly stated that
the language of section 601(c) would
be construed to minimize the possibil-
ity of a successful defense based on a
claim that a disclosure of an agent's
name was intended to inform the
public about wrongdoing or abuse by
intelligence agencies. He stated that
this provision would permit prosecu-
tion of someone who was merely "neg-
ligent" In overlooking the adverse con-
sequences of his disclosure on intelli-
gence activities. Asked-how this provi-
sion would apply to a Journalist who
engages for 3 years in a pattern of ac-
tivity intended to identify double
agents or moles in the CIA and writes
articles naming such agents, the
spokesman acknowledged that this hy-
pothetical at least raises a "question"
whether a crime would be committed.
Do we want Journalists to be at risk
of prosecution and conviction if they
reveal covert agents' names in order to
expose misconduct such as occurred in
the news stories on the Wilson-Terpil
affair? Do we want to put a newsman
in jail for negligent conduct? Every
Member of this body most assuredly
would answer "no." But where are the
words in the statute that permit the
journalist to predetermine that the ex-
ercise of his first amendment rights
will not constitute a crime in the eyes
of the Government? The answer is
simply that there are none.
By failing to differentiate between
protected first . amendment activity
and conduct which properly may be
made criminal, section 601(c) forces a
journalist, at his peril, to speculate as
to whether the disclosure of certain
information would constitute a viola-
tion. The risk which proceeds from
the uncertainty in the statutory lan-
guage is the very essence of a "chilling
effect." "Due process" requires fair
notice or warning. This requirement is
greatest when first amendment values
are at stake. Legitimate legislative
goals cannot, according to the Su-
preme Court, "be pursued by means
that broadly stifle fundamental person
liberties when the end can be more
narrowly achieved." Shelton v. Tucker,
364 U.S. 478,488 (1960). The Court has
also said:
It has long been recognized that the First
Amendment needs breathing space and that
statutes attempting to restrict or burden
the exercise of First Amendment rights
must be narrowly drawn and represe:I:.
considered legislative Judgment that a ticular mode of expression has given way to
other compelling needs of society. Broad-
rick v. Oklahoma, 413 U.S. 601.607 (1972).
I regret that this distinguished body
has departed from' these principles in
passing H.R. 4. This bill does not take
the narrower path. Nor does it allow
the press' the breathing space that is
so vital to its effectiveness.
In closing, Mr. President, I must
admit that 1-did consider the possibil-
ity of voting for passage on the theory
that the judicial branch would save us
from mischief that might be done in
the enforcement of section 601(c). I
suspect that many of my colleagues
have predicated their "aye" votes on
just this rationale. However, I think
we serve the Republic best when we
are mindful of the teaching of Justice
Oliver Wendell Homes that "legisla-
tures are ultimately guardians of the
liberties and welfare of the people in
quite as great a degree as the courts."
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, the
Senate is about to finish one of the
most difficult tasks which it has un-
dertaken in the last several years. We
have been called upon to strike a care-
ful balance between the very real
needs of the men and women who are
serving our country. in the intelligence
services and the stringent dictates of
the first amendment.
We have before us a conference
report which, I believe, strikes that
balance in a proper and constitutional
way. The debate over this bill has
always been a debate over a handful of
words. But this handful of words have
the most important implications for a
free press and free speech in this
country of any I have debated since I
have been in the Senate.
The Joint explanatory statement of
the Committee on Conference pro-
vides the crucial piece of legislative
history which underscores the Con-
gress commitment to preserving legiti-
mate first amendment rights. As the
conference report notes, both those
who argued for the "reason to believe"
language, as well as those of us who
argued for the intent standard, sought
to proscribe the same scope of con-
duct. Both sides were seeking to reach
only those individuals engaged in the
business of "naming names," " the in-
tentional "blowing" of cover. The con-
ference report makes clear that Con-
gress did not intend to invade the
province of legitimate commentary by
newspapers or scholars.
The focus of the report concerns sec-
tion 601(c) of the bill. Section 601(c)
established three elements of proof
not found in section 601(a) or (b). The
United States must prove: First, that
the disclosure was made in the course
of a pattern of activities, that is, ? a
series of acts having a common pur-
pose or objective; second. that the pat-
tern of activities was intended to iden-
tify and expose. covert agents; and
third, that there was reason to believe
that such activities would impair or
impede the foreign intelligence activi-
ties of the United States.
The conference report makes quite
clear that the Government must prove
that the defendant engaged in a pat-
tern of activities both intended to
identify and intended to expose a
covert agent. In my view; it is the
latter element which limits the reach
of this bill to those individuals not en-
gaged in legitimate first amendment
activity. The process of exposing
covert agents must involve the deliber.
ate exposure of information identify-
ing the agents. In other words, it must
involve the intentional "blowing" of
intelligence identities. As the Judici-
ary Committee report states, this in-
tentional "blowing of cover" implies a
design to neutralize a covert agent or
to damage an Intelligence agency's
ability to carry out its functions.
The conference report, thus. nar-
rows the scope of coverage. of section
601(c), and. I trust, the courts will
seize upon this report to give a narrow.
constitutional construction to this act.
Finally. I want to commend my dis-
tinguished colleagues, Senator Castna
and Senator Bmsx, as well as their
staffs, for the countless hours they
have devoted to this vital legislation.
Mr. CRANSTON. Mr. President, I
want to express my deep appreciation
to the distinguished Senator from
Rhode Island (Mr. Cnarzx), the rank-
ing minority member of the Judiciary
Committee (Mr. BLnax), and the other
Senate conferees for their efforts in
achieving a satisfactory resolution of
the differences between the House bill
and the Senate amendment relating to
section 603 of H.R. 4. Section 603 of
the House-passed bill contained provi-
sions requiring, in essence, cooperation
by Federal agencies in providing
"cover" for intelligence agents. Be-
cause of the concern that I and other
Members of the Senate expressed re-
garding the potential adverse implica-
tions such a policy might have on the
Approved For Release 2008/09/25: CIA-RDP85-00003R000200060002-8
 Approved For Release 2008/09/25: CIA-RDP85-00003R000200060002-8
S 6636 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE
Peace Corps and its historic policy of
complete and total separation from in-
telligence activities, the Senate Judici-
ary Committee voted to provide an ex-
plicit exception from this requirement
for the Peace Corps, thus reaffirming
once again congressional support for
the complete and total separation of
the Peace Corps from intelligence ac-
tivities.
When the Senate amendments to
H.R. 4 were considered on the floor,
the distinguished Senator from Rhode
Island, author of the Senate bill, S.
391, offered an amendment to delete
the entire section 603 with the under-
standing, expressed in a colloquy be-
tween myself and the Senator from
Rhode Island, and a number of mem-
bers of the Judiciary Committee, that
the Senate conferees would insist that
if section 603 was retained in the con-
ference bill, it would include the ex-
press exemption for the Peace Corps
that had been approved by the Senate
Judiciary Committee.
I am pleased to report that this un-
derstanding was fully adhered to in
conference. The conferees worked out
an agreement which substituted, for
the original House version of section
603, a provision providing merely for a
report on measures taken to protect
the identity of intelligence agents.
This, along with language in the con-
ference report joint explanatory state-
ment reiterating the strong congres-
sional support for the maintenance of
the historic separation of the Peace
Corps from intelligence activities, was
a totally satisfactory resolution with
respect to the concerns which I and
other friends of the Peace Corps had
regarding the House version of H.R. 4.
I greatly appreciate the adherence
of the Senate conferees to their com-
mitments and their achieving full vin-
dication of the Senate's very strong
views on this issue. I am also grateful
to the House conferees for their coop-
eration in resolving this matter in a
manner that would protect the Peace
Corps from even the slightest appear-
ance of connection to intelligence ac-
tivities. I wish also to acknowledge
gratefully the great courtesy of the
Senators from Rhode Island and Dela-
ware and of their staffs-especially
Rob Simmons of the Intelligence Com-
mittee staff-in consulting fully with
me and my staff throughout the weeks
of efforts to reach a conference agree-
ment. Their cooperation was truly re-
markable and of great value to me.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous con-
sent that excerpts of the conference
report joint statement relating to the
disposition of the difference between
the House and Senate relating to sec-
tion 603 of the House version of H.R.
4, along with a copy of a letter I sent
to several of the House conferees be
reprinted in the Racoon at this point.
There being no objection, the mate-
rial was ordered to be printed in the
REcoaD, as follows:
SECTION 603
The House bill contained section 603
which deals with procedures for establish-
ing cover for intelligence officers and em-
ployees. This section required the President
to establish procedures to ensure the protec-
tion of the identities of covert agents. Such
procedures were to include provision for any
federal department or agency designated by
the President to assist in maintaining the
secrecy of such identities.
The Senate struck section 603 by unani-
mous consent.
The conference report contains a substi-
tute section 603 requiring an annual report
from the President on measures to protect
the identities of covert agents. The confer-
ees expect such report to include an assess-
ment of the adequacy of affirmative meas-
ures taken by the United States to conceal
the identities of covert agents.
The conferees stress, however, as was
made clear during consideration of this
measure in both bodies, that nothing in this
provision or any other provision of H.R. 4 or
in any other statute or executive order af-
fecting U.S. intelligence activites in any way
diminishes the 20-year old Congressionally-
sanctioned Executive Branch policy of
maintaining the total separation of the
Peace Crops from intelligence activities.
The importance to the effectiveness of the
Peace Corps of maintaining this policy and
its essential components was spelled out in
detail in the reports of the Senate Judiciary
Committee and the House Permanent
Select Committee on Intelligence and in the
debate on this measure in both bodies and
the conferees wish to reemphasize this
point and call attention to the strong views
of both bodies as set forth in that legislative
history.
U.S. SENATE,
OFFICE or THE DEMOCRATIC WHIP,
Washington, D. C., April 20, 1982.
Hon. PETER W. RoDINO, Jr:,
Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary,
House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.
DEAR PETE, I'm writing to you in your ca-
pacity as a conferee on H.R. 4. the "Intelli-
gence Identities Protection Act of 1981". En-
closed is a copy of a note I recently sent to
John Chafee regarding section 603 in the
House bill and the matter of the Peace
Corps' being in any way connected with the
concept of United States intelligence-cover
activities. Also enclosed are copies of a
March 1 colloquy I had with a number of
Senators and of a May 4, 1981, letter from
Dean Rusk on this point.
The long and the short of it is that I feel
very strongly that enactment of H.R. 4 with
section 603 in it (without a specific Peace
Corps exception) could be potentially very
damaging to the future effectiveness of the
Peace Corps program. Congress has Just
taken steps to reinvigorate the Peace Corps
by restoring its independence as a separate
agency. An integral part of that independ-
ence is the maintenance of the historic,
total separation of the Peace Corps from in-
telligence activities. In the opinion of Dean
Rusk, Ed Muskie, and Cyrus Vance as well
as the Senate Judiciary Committee, enact-
ing section 603 without a Peace Corps. ex-
ception would undermine that historic
policy at the very time that it most needs
reemphasis.
The Senate agreed to Senator Chafee's
amendment to drop section 603 from the
bill only with the express understanding
that either that result or a section 603 with
an explicit Peace Corps exception would be
an acceptable result in conference. I remain
fully committed to that principle, and I be-
lieve that will be the firm posture of the
Senate conferees on H.R. 4.
June 10, 1982
With regard to the necessity of having a
section 603 in the bill. I think it is signifi-
cant that the recent Executive Order No.
12333 (section 1.6(a)) on intelligence oper-
ations deals with the obligations of Federal
agencies to support intelligence activities
and that the CIA does not see the need for a
statutory provision to that effect. It seems
to me that a statement of the conferees in
the Joint Explanatory Statement accompa-
nying the conference report on H.R. 4 (to
the effect that the conferees recognize the
existence of this intelligence-support provi-
sion in the Executive Order-at the same
time making clear Congress' understanding
that the Order in no way alters the funda-
mental Peace Corps separation from intelli-
gence activities) would be a reasonable way
to accommodate the differing positions of
the conferees on the section 603 question.
Peter, I very much hope that you will give
this matter your close personal attention
and will support either deleting section 603
from the conference report (with language
in the Joint Explanatory Statement along
the lines I've suggested) or amending it to
include a Peace Corps exception in the form
reported by the Senate Judiciary Commit-
tee.
I will greatly appreciate any help you can
provide.
With warmest regards.
Cordially,
ALAN CRANSTON.
Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I have
carefully reviewed the conference
report on H.R. 4 the agent's identities
legislation and am pleased with the
result. As a conferee on the bill I
worked for the narrowest possible con-
struction of the so-called reason to be-
lieve language. We largely achieved
that goal in the conference by incorpo-
rating the so-called Durenberger collo-
quy into the Joint statement of the
managers. Therefore I signed the
report but I do not feel that that obli-
gates me to vote for passage of the bill
in its final form.
In essence what we accomplished in
the Joint statement of the managers
was to incorporate into the bill the
language that Senator BRADLEY at-
tempted to have adopted on the
Senate floor requiring that the main
direction of the reporter's pattern of
activities must be toward naming
names. It would not be sufficient
under this interpretation to prove that
the reporter intended to name the
names by writing the story with the
names or that the reporter should
have known that the naming of the
names in the article would jeopardize
their cover.
Therefore, the conference attempted
to make the reason to believe language
into the intent standard. For now the
Government must prove that the re-
porter really intended to harm the in-
telligence collecting apparatus of our
Government by the fact of disclosure
which is exactly what my amendment
of the bill was intended to accomplish.
Unfortunately, the Senate rejected my
amendment. Furthermore, I am con-
cerned that neither the Justice De-
partment nor the courts will feel con-
strained to follow the language in the
joint statement since it is mere legisla-
tive history and indeed appears to be
Approved For Release 2008/09/25: CIA-RDP85-00003R000200060002-8
 June 10, 1982
Approved For Release 2008/09/25: CIA-RDP85-00003R000200060002-8
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE S 6637
inconsistent with prior action by both
Houses in rejecting the intent stand-
ard.
I was strongly tempted to vote for
-the conference report because we had
accomplished so much In conference
and because I feel that the provisions
of the agent identities legislation that
"do not cover the legitimate media
ought to be enacted. However, upon
reflection I have decided to cast my
vote against the report and the bill. I
fear that the Justice Department and
the courts will not comply with the
legislative history set out in the Joint
statement.
Continued intransigence on the part
of the advocates of the reason to be-
lieve language not only raises grave
doubts in my mind but Is short-sight-
ed.' To the extent that the major
media organizations of this country
fear that the bill will be used as a
device for Censoring their coverage of
intelligence and foreign policy the De-
partment of Justice and the intelli-
gence community can be assured of s
serious legal confrontation In the
courts. From experience in reviewing
the way past administrations and in
particular the Department of Justice
deal with enforcement of espionage
and leak statutes when faced with seri-
ous and sophisticated legal challenges,
I predict that the agent identities leg-
islation may become dead letter. as has
Its predecessor section 893 of title 18
which creates a similar strict liability
criminal sanction for leaking commu-
nications intelligence.
When I was chairman of the Secrecy
Subcommittee of the Intelligence
Committee, I learned that there were
numerous explicit and undisputed vio-
lations of section 898 brought to the
attention of the Justice Department
since that statute was enacted in the
1950's that were not prosecuted. They
were not prosecuted because experi-
enced prosecutors in the Department
of Justice knew that they would face
sophisticated and well financed chal-
lenges to their prosecutors that fo-
cused both on the gray-mail technique
and direct constitutional challenges to
the statute. The Department was
never willing to have that issue put
before the courts because of their own
doubts about Its constitutionality.
Therefore serious leaks went unprose-
cuted.
To the extent that the impasse that
stalled this bill for years in the Con-
gress continues after its enactment,
the statute may become dead letter be-
cause of a misguided insistence, on cov-
ering the legitimate media If this
occurs we will have achieved the worst
of all worlds. We will have sent a mes-
sage to the intelligence community
and to allied services abroad that our
secrets are secure from deliberate ef-
forts to name names by phony Jour-
nalists, but the statute will remain un-
enforced because of these fears by ex-
perienced prosecutors. So that major
leaks that violate this statute, like the
violations of 898, will go unprosecuted.
Furthermore, If a prosecution goes
ahead and a serious test goes up to the
Supreme Court the statute could well
be held unconstitutional. If either of
these developments occur we In Con-
gress will have on the one: hand given
the impression that our intellegence
secrets are secure and our the other
laid the groundwork for a successful
court challenge to the bill which
might well obliterate the legal protec-
tions we purport to be giving.
In conclusion. I ask that a recent ed-
itorial in the Washington Post making
many of these same points be printed
at this point in the Racoon.
The editorial follows:
[Editorial from the Washington Post, June
6, 19821
lies Tay, BUT No Crane
A bad piece of legislation made some prog-
ress on the road to enactment last week.
The House accepted a conference report on
a bill that makes it a crime to disclose Infor-
mation Identifying certain American intelli-
gence officers, agents. Informants and
sources. The prohibition applies to private
citizens as well as government employees
and even covers information that is not clas-
sified Supporters intended to pat a stop to
the activities of a small band of Individ-
oals?-former CIA agent Philip Awe among
them-who have revealed the names of over
2,000 American agents with the express pur-
pose 9f destroying the American ioreign in-
telligence apparatus. But "'bill goes far
beyond that narrow objective by enmating
the element at intent from the Criss..
Both Bouse and Sepate, ewamittees re-
ported bills that would have required pros-
ecutors to meet a standard proof that in-
cludes "Intent to impair or Impede the for-
eign Intelligence activities of the United
States." On the floor of each ho ere howev-
er. this was changed so that a person could
be convicted damply because he had- -'had
reason to believe" that damage to the Intel.
ligence apparatus would occur. In practical
terms, this language will inhibit the publica-
tion of information on such matters as cor-
ruption and illegal or unauthorized activity
by intelligence operatives even where there
is absolutely no intention of disrupting le-
gitrnate intelligence activities.
Because there were minor differences be-
tween the House and the Senate versions of
the bill-though not in the section described
above -a conference committee was appoint-
ed to work out a compromise, which it
quickly did. Then it did something quite un-
usual. It issued a conference report that
dealt at great length with a matter that was
not in controversy-the government's
burden of proof in cases arising under the
proposed statute. Both the House and the
Senate had rejected the Intent standard by
record votes. Yet the conferees sought to
minimize the meaning of these votes and to
assure judges who will be faced with inter-
preting the statute that it should ve viewed
narrowly.
"The standard adopted In section 601(c)"
the conferees wrote, "applies criminal pen-
alties only In very limited circumstances to
deter those who make it their business to
ferret out and publish the Identities of
agents. At the same time, it does not affect
the First Amendment rights of those who
disclose .the identities of agents se an inte-
gral part of another enterprise, such as
news media reporting of Intelligence failures
or abuses, academic studies of U.S. govern-
ment policies and programs, or a private or-
ganization's enforcement of its internal
rules." Would that it were am
The conferees, apparently concerned that
Congress had gone too far In eliminating
the Intent standard, mads, a well-inten-
tioned efort.to soften the clear language of
the bill. Unfortunately. the courts have to
work with the text of the law first. They
only look at legislative history If the law is
unclear. Even them in this case they would
look at the House and Senate votes to elimi-
nate the intent standard and have, a clear
understanding of what Coagres meant to
do. A conference committee report that is at
odds with both text and recorded votes is
unlikely to be relied on by the courts.
The House has voted to accept the final
version of the bill, and the Senate will act
soon. Senators cannot duck the Important
ooneltutional question presented here by re-
lying on the assurances of the conference
report instead of confronting the plain lan-
gaugevf the bill. Both should be rejected.
rmsrslr I
[From the Congressional Record, Sept. 24,
19811
Isxsr uuaxcs Inssrtxu=s Paovocrsom ACT
(Speech of Hon. John M. - Ashbrook. Of
Ohio, in the House of Representatives,
Wednesday. September 23, 1l1L1
The House in Coaomdttee of the Whole
House an the State of the Union had,under
consslderatiaa the bill (H.R. 4) to amend the
National Security Act at 1141 to prohibit
the mnanthorlsed disdesQO of Information
Identifying-certain U8, bAsElrsaoe officers,
agents, informant , and snares.
Mr. Asasaoox. W. Chapman, I rise to
support H.R. 4 with sneendments. This bill
is long overdue. For the past 1 years. a small
group of anti-Ameriosis extremists have
been engaged in spying ea Aseericam to
identify than who are eadmeed in gathering
Intelligence for our asar4a-y. Some, like
Philip Agee, are former employees of the
CIA Others, like Look Wolf, come out of
the NOW Left antiestslnlWra.nt movement.
They have united with Use she of disrupt-
ing our Intelligence capabilities. As we
know, without adequate Intellige ce. our po-
licymakers will be blinded In a hostile envi-
ronment.
In 1968, the KGB began the program of
exposing American Intelligence officers. The
assignment to do this was given to the East
German and Czech intelligence services.
The product of their labsrs was a book
called, "Who's Who In The CIA," by Julius
Mader, printed In FbSUsh In East Germany
In 1918.
Ladislav Bittman, a former official of the
Czech Intelligence Service who worked on
the book, testified before the House Intelli-
gence Committee on February 19, 1980. that
only about half the names in the book were
real CIA officers. The rest were put in to
disrupt other U.S. Government activities.
When the Tupamaro terrorists murdered
an AID employee. Dan Mitrione, the Cuban
Communist newspaper "Oranma" justified
the murder on the grounds that he had
been listed in the Mader book. The listing
was one of the false idmtifloations.
In 1973, the focus of the exposure activity
shifted to the United States with the publi-
cation of the magazine "Cbunterfpy." Since
then, much of the campaign to Identify and
expose U.S. covert agents has centered
around Phillip Agee, a renegade former CIA
officer who openly admits his close ties to
the Cuban Government and Communist
Party.
Agee is affiliated with a publication called
"CovertAction Information Bulletin." He
was formerly associated with the publica-
tion "Corpterspy." Both of these maga-
zines are actively engaged In attempting to
identify and expose U.S. covert agents.
Approved For Release 2008/09/25: CIA-RDP85-00003R000200060002-8
 Approved For Release 2008/09/25: CIA-RDP85-00003R000200060002-8
S 6638
They also are extremely active in promoting
Soviet and Cuban propaganda lines. "Cover-
tAction Information Bulletin," for example,
reprinted a Soviet forgery of a purported
U.S. Army document that pretended that
the United States supports terrorism. De-
spite worldwide exposure by the United
States of that document as a forgery, it was
disseminated in our own country by Phillip
Agee and his cohorts. "Counterspy." in ad-
dition to naming alleged U.S. covert agents,
has published a whole series of propaganda
articles closely following the Soviet and
Cuban line attacking not only the United
States, but each of our allies such as
Turkey, Israel, and so forth.
Although it has been 6 years since the
CIA chief of station in Athens, Richard
Welch, was murdered after his name was ex-
posed in CounterSpy, we have done nothing
to stop this kind of irresponsible naming of
names. The House Intelligence Committee
has been working on the bill for 2 years, but
last summer's violence against American
diplomats in Jamaica has called public at-
tention to the urgent needs for this legisla-
tion. On July 2, 1980, Louis Wolf, Phillip
Agee's associate in the CovertAction Infor-
mation Bulletin, held a press conference in
Jamaica in which he identified 15 Ameri-
cans as CIA officers. He not only listed
names, but home addresses, license plate
numbers, and the descriptions of their cars.
A number of his identifications were incor-
rect; however, gunmen attacked the homes
of two of those named. Richard Kinsman,
the victim of the first attack, is the first sec-
retary of our Embassy in Kingston. Mr.
Kinsman's home was attacked by persons
using a submachine gun and grenades.
Shortly thereafter, gunmen attacked the
home of a young AID employee, Jesse
Jones. The gunmen exchanged fire with
police officers who have been assigned to
protect the Jones' home after the attack on
the Kinsman home. Mr. Jones, who is in no
way connected with the CIA, has left the
Government service, rather than risk his
own life and the lives of his family in the
light of the violence. Mr. Jones is now suing
Louis Wolf and CovertAction Information
Bulletin.
These are posters put up in Jamaica right
after Louis Wolf named the American diplo-
mats as alleged covert agents. You will
notice on one poster we have the pictures of
some of these people, including Kinsman
and Jones. On the other poster, we have the
home addresses, license plate numbers, and
descriptions of cars. While Wolf disclaims
responsibility for the posters they are iden-
tical to the press release that he distributed
in Kingston, Jamaica.
Last year, the House Intelligence Commit-
tee unanimously reported out H.R. 5615
after careful consideration. However, now
the bill has been considerably weakened by
an amendment suggested by the ACLU and
the Center for National Security Studies. As
a result, I would prefer the Senate language
in place of 601(c), which says it is sufficient
for the defendant to have reason to know
that it would impede or impair the intelli-
gence activities of the United States.
It is my intention to offer an amendment
to bring the House language closer to that
of the Senate which I believe is a more ap-
propriate solution to the problem and which
protects constitutional rights while penaliz-
ing those who knowingly jeopardize the
lives and effectiveness of our covert agents.
I also intend to introduce an amendment
that would make it a crime to knowingly
jeopardize someone's life by identifying a
person as a covert agent. This would protect
real covert agents as well as those falsely
identified.
Phillip Agee wrote in the introduction to
the book, "Dirty Work," coauthored with
Louis Wolf.
"Once the list is fully checked, publish it.
Then organize public demonstrations
against those named-both at the American
Embassy and at their homes-and, where
possible, bring pressure on the Government
to throw them out. Peaceful protest will do
the job. And when it doesn't, those whom
the CIA has most oppressed will find other
ways of fighting back."
This open invitation to violence against
Americans both intelligence officers and
other diplomats makes it imperative that we
protect our overseas personnel from this
kind of attack.
I urge my colleagues to support this bill's
passage to assure both our intelligence per-
sonnel and our enemies that we intend to
protect those whose jot it is to provide us
with the vital information needed for
American security.
Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, the
yeas and nays having been ordered, I
move passage of the conference
report.
The PRESIDING . OFFICER. Is
there further debate?
If not, the question is on agreeing to
the conference report.
On this question, the yeas and nays
have been ordered, and the Clerk will
call the roll.
June 10, 1982
Chiles
Heflin
Pell
Cochran
Heinz
Percy
Cohen ,
Helms
Proxmire
D'Amato
Hollings
Pryor
Danforth
Huddleston
Quayle
Denton
Humphrey
Randolph
Dixon
Inouye
Riegle
Dodd
Jackson
Rudman
Dole
Johnston
Sarbanes
Domenic[
Kassebaum
Simpson
Durenberger
Kasten
Specter
Eagleton
Kennedy
Stennis
East
Laxalt
Stevens
Exon
Leahy
Symms
Ford
Levin
Thurmond
Garn
Long
Tower
Glenn
Lugar
Tsongaa
Goldwater
Mattingly
Wallop
Gorton
McClure
Warner
Grassley
Melcher
Weicker
Hatch
Metzenbaum
Zorlnsky
Hatfield
Nickles
Hayakawa
Nunn
NAYS-4
Biden
Mathias
Hart
Moynihan
PRESENT AND GIVING A LIVE PAIR, AS
PREVIOUSLY RECORDED-1
Cranston, against.
NOT VOTING-14
Baker
Matsunaga
Roth
Bumpers
Mitchell
Sasser
DeConcini
Murkowski
Schmitt
Hawkins
Packwood
Stafford
Jepsen
Pressler
So the conference report was agreed
The legislative clerk called the roll. 'Mr. CHAFEE. Madam President, I
Mr. CRANSTON [after having voted move to reconsider the vote by which
in the negative]. Mr. President, I have[( the conference report was adopted.
a live pair with the Senator from Ten- Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I
nessee (Mr. SASSER). If he were here move to lay that motion on the table.
present and voting, he would vote The motion to lay on the table was
"yea." I have voted "nay." I therefore agreed to
withdraw my vote.
Mr. STEVENS. I announce that the
Senator from Tennessee (Mr. BAKER),
the Senator from Florida (Mrs. HAw-
KINS), the Senator from Iowa (Mr.
JEPSEN), the Senator from Alaska (Mr.
MURxowsxl), the Senator from
Oregon (Mr. PACKWOOD), the Senator
from South Dakota (Mr. PRESSLER),
the Senator from Delaware (Mr.
ROTH), the Senator from New Mexico
(Mr. SCHMITT), and the Senator from
Vermont (Mr. t$TAFFORD), are nec-
essarily absent.
I further announce that, if present
and voting, the Senator from Florida
(Mrs. HAWKINS) and the Senator from
Oregon (Mr. PACKwooD) would each
vote"Yea."
Mr. CRANSTON. I announce that
the Senator from Arkansas (Mr. BUM-
PERs), the Senator from Arizona (Mr.
DECONCINI), the Senator from Hawaii
(Mr. MATSUNAGA), the Senator from
Maine (Mr. MITCHELL), and the Sena-
tor from Tennessee (Mr. SASSER) are
necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs.
KASSEBAUM). Are there any other Sen-
ators in the Chamber desiring to vote?
The result was announced-yeas 81,
nays 4, as follows:
(Rollcall Vote No. 170 Leg.]
YEAS-81
Abdnor
Boren
Byrd,
Andrews
Boschwitz
Harry F., Jr.
Armstrong
Bradley
Byrd, Robert C.
Baucus
Brady
Cannon
Bentsen
Burdick
Chafee
VOTING RIGHTS ACT
AMENDMENTS OF 1982
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
question recurs on the motion to pro-
ceed to the consideration of S. 1992,
the Voting Rights Act Amendments of
1982.
Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I
ask unanimous consent that Senator
MATHIAS be designated at the floor
manager on this side of the aisle for
today.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. With-
out objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Alaska.
Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I
yield to the Senator from West Vir-
ginia.
ORDER OF BUSINESS
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Madam
President, I would like to ask the
acting majority leader what the sched-
ule is for the rest of the day and the
rest of the week.
Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, in
response to the distinguished minority
leader's question, I can say that we are
now back on my motion to bring
before the Senate for consideration
the Voting Rights Extension Act. It is
my understanding there will be some
debate on that, today.
We are still waiting to get an agree-
ment on the military construction bill
for Monday. If we can get that agree-
ment to take up Calendar Order No.
Approved For Release 2008/09/25: CIA-RDP85-00003R000200060002-8