Document Type: 
Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): 
Release Decision: 
Original Classification: 
Document Page Count: 
Document Creation Date: 
December 21, 2016
Document Release Date: 
September 25, 2008
Sequence Number: 
Case Number: 
Publication Date: 
June 10, 1982
Content Type: 
PDF icon CIA-RDP85-00003R000200060002-8.pdf1.28 MB
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 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