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: 
March 18, 1983
Content Type: 
PDF icon CIA-RDP85-00003R000200060007-3.pdf1.52 MB
Approved For Release 2008/09/25: CIA-RDP85-00003R000200060007-3 March 18, 1982 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE S2353, ? because this section was considered to anybody. I do not think I have per- am I playing with here? What team have serious adverse implications for suaded 15 people overnight to change did I sign onto? Where am I?" the Peach Corps. As a result, Senators their votes from yesterday. I said the And we are going to be back to block CRANerox, BAIICQS. TsoNaas. BTsN. train has left the station. 1. I hope I am wrong about that.1$ut I i t Doan, and I agreed to eliminate this language from the bill. Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, when I first came to the Senate, I heard a senior colleague of mine. In 1973. speak with reference to a piece of leg- islation which was very controversial. an important amendment that impact- ed upon what that piece of legislation meant. The amendment changed the direction of the legislation. There was an attempt to follow an and modify the change that had been made, to try to move it back toward what the origi- nal language was. That is what we are doing with the Bradley language. I do not want to get the Presiding Officer, the Senator from Washington (Mr. GoasoatE, in trouble, but it fs really the language of the Presiding Officer that Senator Rotors: Is introducing here today. That is what we are trying "to do here; The creator colleague to whom I re- ferred. Long gone from the Senate, stood up and said. "Gentlenoesn. Pen going to vote for this language." Do not think that I do not wand that the train has left, the station The train has left the station. As a mattes of fad, not only did I not make it on the train. but also, I am not sue where the train went. It left so fast and with so many more can then I thought it had, that I am not sure this exericise we are going through now is of any practical consequence in terms of whether or not it will succeed. But I .believe it in of serious consequence in terms of making a record in this body. It Is misleading to call this the Brad- ley language, but I have not asked the permission of the Presiding Officer to call it his language. However. the Bradley language. which I strongly en- dorse, and which requires that there be a main direction. If you will, is very important-very, very important. I believe that what the language does, which Senator BaAni.zY is at- tempting to insert here to define a pattern of activity. is totally consistent with what many Members of this body thought the Chafee and Durenberger colloquy established. We witnessed the reluctance of Sen- ator CaArsz and my distinguished col- league on the Judiciary Committee, Senator DnrroN. and others to accept that language. So we are in a bit of a quandary here. Here we have a record that has been built with the greatest care, because we know it is going to be challenged immediately, which says this is what we meant by pattern of activity. Senator DuREnfBERGL-a, in his usual eloquence, lays it all out about what we meant. The manager of the l?M1 Senator Crraram, the chief sponsor of the so-called Chafee amendment, said, "Yes, that is what we mean." Now, we come along and we are about to vote down that language. I am not naive. I do not want to mislead o go ag o In effect, we are going to vote down truly believe Lhat fs what that colloquy. We are about to say, happen. "Nope, that ain't what we meant. That It is very dangerous to make any is not what it means." So here we go. predictions in this Chamber about This presents some of us with a real" anything. I am running the risk of not quandary, a really difficult .question. having made more than probably one How are we going to vote on final pas- prediction in 10 years speaking in this sage? I do not want to be on record as Chamber. I am about to make my saying that I, in fact, voted against the second prediction. bill that was out there to protect The first prediction I made was agents. President Nixon was not going to be I am going to say something that is around very long when I stood up and very presumptuous and self-serving. called for impeachment. One of the first pieces of legislation My second prediction is that we are that recognized the need to protect going to be back on this bill It may agents and classified information not be this year. It is going to be next which Identified agents was a bill that year. But we are going to be back on I was a major sponsor of and wrote the bill because I am afraid it is going and helped get passed that was called to be declared unconstitutional. the graymail legislation. And we said When that happens I suspect we will in the original graymail report in 1977 not have much --problem moving that we have to protect these agents. through intent language or language not in the actual verbiage of the legis- as the Senator from Washington ration but In the report. drafted and the Senator from New So I start off on this, having de- Jersey is introducing. I really and signed, desired, and been involved in truly think we are better served with calling for the need for protecting the this language which If we voted down agents. in a sense we have done the worst of We are at a point where If the Brad all worlds I almost wish we never fully expect it will, we then have to decide do we vote for a bill that Is un that has been brought up. I under- constitutional. And let us assume for stand why we did it. It is a calculated the sake of discussion that when we risk, it was important to do it. balance the life of an agent versus the Belt what worries nu now is it is Constitution. some would say the Cbn- before this body and votlnt It down is ooftQUY. stitution is not all that important. I do a refutation of the not happen to share that view, but let As the Presidlrng aide OiiLoer and my col us assume that. Let us assume It is leagues who are attoenejs know. the really an issue between the life of an first thing the courts do in determin- agent and the Constitution. ambiguity in legfisfartienn is to look That makes it a little difficult vote. to the legislative intent. They to to What' I am afraid Is going to happen the Record and they pick it up and hbre, Mr. President. and I mean this they read It. And they would then sincerely, this is going to be passed been able to find a rationale for a con- today, and it Is gig to go through stibrtionally-protected action that was overwhelmingly. I would not be sur- taken, an action that was constitution- prised if 99 percent of those Senators al as reflected in the so-called Duren- who are here today vote for the bill. beige r-Chafee Colloquy. Then we will get a conference pretty Now we are saying we do not mean quickly, and it will get passed. The that, which I think farther increases President will sign it real quickly. and the prospect that this Is not going to there is going to be reason to believe- survive a court test. no pun intended-on the part of the There are three sections of the bill, agency and all other intelligence agen- and 'I will end In just a moment, be- lles around the world that we have cause I know everyone else has other now protected these agents.'and there busine6s, and we heard these argu- will be a mild euphoria which Is under- meats 1.000 times, and it is probably standable, and we need to protect Important to no one but me in terms them, of how it ie. clear an the RzcoFm of Then within months we are going to how I feel about this. be in court. We are going to be chal- We have adopted the reason to be- lenged. whether it is ACLU challeng- lieve language. I will not make all the ing us or whomever it is going to be. arguments about why I think that is There is going to be a court case. basically a negligence standard. We There is going to be a test case, and we are about to' eliminate the legislative are going to Mid out. history on what pattern of activity We are going to lose in that test case means to make it mean what I am all these agents who thought they afraid it meant all along and obliterate were covered; all these agents' who the Durenberger colloquy. and we are thought we had done something post- about to peas a bill that Is going to be the for them are going to once again signed into law by the President. be looking up on the Hill and say, There are three parts to the bilL "What in god's name kind of ball club The first part says if you are working Approved For Release 2008/09/25: CIA-RDP85-00003R000200060007-3 Approved For Release 2008/09/25: CIA-RDP85-00003R000200060007-3 S 2354 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE March 18, 1982 for the Government and you name a said to me once. That was the chair- name, you are in seriqus trouble. No man of the Judiciary Committee, Sen- one argues about that. The second ator Eastland. I went to ask him for kind of person covered is if you did some help on a matter. This is a true work for the Government and you name story. I asked help on the matter a name you are in trouble. The third whether or not I could gain access to part relates to those people who nei- the chairmanship of a subcommittee. ther worked for the Government nor He looked at me and said: "Joe, can are working for the Government. you count?" I said: "Beg pardon, Mr. That is what is in question. I think Chairman." we would be better served to make this He said: "Can you count." severable and pass the law with regard I did not know what he said. I did to the first two sections, pass it as a not know whether that was counter or bill, call it the Chafee bill, call it the count. So I said, "I beg your pardon, Senate bill, call it anything, pass it, Mr. Chairman." and then pass a separate piece of legis- He said, "Can you count, boy?" lation that in fact covered the third And I said, "Yes, I think I can count, category of people, as the Senator Mr. Chairman." from Rhode Island now has it drafted He said, "Have you counted?" with a reason to believe standard. And I said, "No." That way if I am right and he is He said, "Come back to me when you wrong, and this is unconstitutional as count it." it relates to the third section and they So I went out and counted my col- knock it out, we are not faced with the leagues. problem of not being able to do any- Well, I counted my colleagues yes- thing about Philip Agee for the next 6 terday, and the Senator from Rhode months or a year or however long it Island counted our colleagues yester- takes us to get back in the ball game. I day. And guess what? think that would be a wiser way for us Where did the Senator from Rhode to do it. Island go to college? It was Yale, was Quite frankly, I have not figured out it not? mechanically how to do it and as a Mr. CHAFEE. Yes. matter of fact I think the train has Mr. BIDEN. It only goes to prove left the station. If I do it, I think I am that a Yale education is better than a probably delaying the Senate's time. University of Delaware education be- I wish to reemphasize that as to the cause he can count better than I can Philip Agees of the world, the present count. and former employees of the world, As a matter of fact, he counted so none of us have any argument about. I well he added a number to his count believe that is language for a lot of that I was unaware of. As a matter of reasons I will not go into again that is fact, he promised he would share his clearly constitutional because of the list with me after the vote was all makeup and the nature of the rela- over. I want to see-I cannot figure tionship of the persons naming the out how he got as many as he got. name to the entity that they are ex- Nonetheless, he deserves a great deal posing. of credit. The fact of the matter is the third In conclusion, Mr. President, I want section I believe is unconstitutional to compliment the Senator from and I believe passing it here now sends Rhode Island. I do not have any doubt out the word. "We have it fixed, folks, in my mind that he believes with all you are safe, and there is a remedy." his heart and soul that this is fully But if the court is going to come constitutional. I do not have any down and knock it all out, we are doubt in my mind that he thinks this going to all be in trouble. is going to do the job. I never have So, Mr. President, it is going to be a questioned nor do I now question his very difficult vote, being very blunt motivation to protect the Agency or about it, and even more difficult to ex- his dedication to constitutional princi- plain. I mean I can see the full-page pies and that of the First Amendment. ads now in 1984. I am not suggesting I have no doubt whatever that it has the. Senator from Rhode Island in any been a pleasure working with him. way subscribes to this. But I can see The Senator From Rhode Island (Mr. the full-page ads now when I am run- CHAFEE), and I have been doing this ning for reelection. I can see it now off and on for close to 2 years, and I saying something to the effect of do not remember any time where we "Biden voted to kill CIA agents by re- have not crossed swords, but we have fusing to protect them." not crossed words at all. I suspect that little thought ran I want to compliment him on the through a number of people's minds as able staff work he has had. He won those vote counts changed yesterday. straight up, but I am afraid that in It was like a moving crap game here-I winning he may have lost. I am afraid mean the numbers change pretty rap- in winning the battle he may have lost idly, and it was a decisive victory and the war. I hope I am wrong. I hope it tee a year and a half ago. The Senator to Mr. CHAFEE'S great credit, and I is going to be shown that this turns from Delaware very clearly made his mean this sincerely, I want to publicly out to be constitutional and does get views known then. He was one of the commend the Senator from Rhode the job done. I am afraid it will not. few who voted against that measure, Island for the masterful job he did. I think we would be better served in so he has been entirely consistent and That reminds me of what the Sena- passing the first two sections as one sincere in his opposition to this point tor from the great State of Mississippi bill and the last section as it relates to of view we have taken. His opposition' employees or non-Government em- ployees as a separate bill and let it run its course that way. In that way, if i am right, it does not all go down, we still grab the Philip Agees. As I say, the train has left the sta- tion, but I predict it will be back in the station, and when it is back in the sta- tion I have no doubt in my mind we will be able to get a bill through this body in a matter of 20 minutes be- cause we will have it first refined by the court. But I think it is a mistaken way to do business. I have already taken too much of the Senate's time, not just today but throughout this. I am going to vote for the Bradley amendment because I think it is a substantial improvement. I think the Senator from the State of Washington, who is presiding now, and I am going through this and it sounds like a swan song, but it is true, it is not often that freshmen come into this body and make the kind of impact in such a specific and detailed way that the Senator from Washing- ton (Mr. GORTON) has, not only in this legislation but in all other legislation. 1. admire the way in which he ap- proaches a subject. He does it with profound intellect and a sincere dedi- cation to what he set out to do, and I want to publicly compliment him. It is easy to do it now because he cannot respond from the Chair, and that is the way I like it best. I compliment him in the way in which he went about it. I also want to compliment my good friend from Alabama. We serve on the Judiciary Committee together, and it has been good working with him. I hope he and others are right so we will not be working on this again, but I am afraid we will get a chance to work on it again. I plan on voting for the Bradley amendment. If it fails I plan on voting against the bill because to do other- wise would be totally inconsistent with what I have said in the past 2 years. I thank the Chair and I yield the floor. Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, first, I would like to express to the Senator from Delaware my appreciation for the joy that we have had working to- gether on this measure. He was accu- rate in saying that although we have crossed swords there have not been any crossed words. This has gone on now for over 2 years. Our positions have been opposed on the Intelligence Committee, but they were forthrightly expressed. We had a measure very similar to this, that includes the so-called Chafee-Jackson amendment, that Approved For Release 2008/09/25: CIA-RDP85-00003R000200060007-3 S 2356 Approved For R tI V1NtyXhbIV1NALCi1Ch%_Uiw -0ONbINAR00~0200060007-3 March 18, 1982 I would also like to thank the Sena- tor from Iowa, Senator GRASS=, for his remarks yesterday. In conclusion again I say to that happy warrior from the other side, the Senator from Delaware, that I have enjoyed this. From it I emerge one luncheon richer than when I started. It has been a pleasure. I would hope that in the future we could be able to blend our talents and work together on legislation as we have in the past and as I am confident we will in the future. Mr. BIDEN. If the Senator will yield, the lunch is one that I owe the Senator from Rhode Island. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama. Mr. DENTON. Mr. President, I just want to add my own testimony to that of the distinguished Senator from Rhode Island regarding the possibility of any newspaper ads which might be placed attacking the distinguished Senator from Delaware. I serve with him on the Subcommittee on Security and Terrorism. I would like to acknowledge that in the field of intelligence, particularly in matters regarding the FBI and the field of drug enforcement, Senator BIDEN has shown not only extreme pa- triotism but he has also contributed greatly in focusing our attention on the real cause for the continued mas- sive proliferation of drug traffic in our country, namely, the profit motive. In that vein, he has also been a leader in pointing out the need to look at the fi- nancial institutions and the banks, where the drug money is laundered. I have found his advice and initiative to be of great value to me in my capacity as chairman of that subcommittee. I wish to acknowledge that and to thank the Senator. Mr. BIDEN. The Senator is very gra- cious. I thank the Senator. Mr. DENTON. I would like to rester, ate that two administrations, the Carter and the Reagan administra- tions, have had Departments of Jus- tice which consider the wording of the Chafee amendment and the bill, as it now stands, to be constitutional. Although I respect the opinions of others, I do not share their gloomy predictions about the alleged unconsti- tutionalityaof this measure. It seems there are no further re- marks to be made at this time. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roil. - The assistant legislative clerk pro- ceeded to call the roll. Mr. BAKER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded. The PRESIDING OFFICER. With- out objection, it is so ordered. Mr. BAKER. Mr. President, there is an order, I believe, to proceed to a roll- call vote at 2 p.m. on the Bradley amendment No. 1339 to S. 391. Is that correct? The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is correct. RECESS UNTIL 1:45 P.M. Mr. BAKER. Mr. President, I believe both cloakrooms have contacted their Members with regard to speaking re- quirements. They find that no Member seeks recognition. In view of that, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now stand in recess until the hour of 1:45 p.m. There being no objection, the Senate, at 12:42 p.m., recessed until 1:45 p.m.; whereupon, the Senate reas- sembled when called to order by the Presiding Officer (Mr. ANDREWS). The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair, in his capacity as a Senator from the State of North Dakota, sug- gests -the absence of a quorum. The clerk will call the roll. The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll. Mr. DENTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded. The PRESIDING OFFICER. With- out objection, it is so ordered. Mr. ' DENTON. Mr. President, I want to take this opportunity to thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle who have labored so long and hard over this vital piece of legislation. It is gratifying. for me to know, as a result of this experience, how energetic, re- sourceful, and effective we can be as a body in contributing to the successful passage of an important piece of legis- lation such as the Intelligence Identi- ties Protection Act of 1981. I observe with satisfaction the bipartisanship in- volved in the vote on that passage. I want to express my sincere appre- ciation to my colleagues on the Sub- committee on Security and Terrorism, Senators HATCH, EAST, BIDEN, and LEAHY. I also want to thank the distin- guished chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Senator THURMOND, and the distinguished chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Sena- tor GoLDWATER, and, of course, the dis- tinguished Senator from Rhode Island, JOHN CHAFEE, without whose masterful guidance and continued sup- port we would not be voting on this historic legislation today. I would also like to thank the respective staffs on both sides of the aisle who labored so diligently and for so long on this bill. AMENDMENT NO. 1339 The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the hour of 2 p.m. having arrived, the Senate will now proceed to a vote in connection with amendment No. 1339 offered by the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. BRAD- LEY). The yeas and nays have been or- dered and the clerk will call the roll. The assistant legislative clerk called the roll. Mr. STEVENS. I announce that the Senator from Maryland (Mr. MATHIAS) is necessarily absent. Mr. CRANSTON. I announce that the Senator from Nevada (Mr. CANNON) and the Senator from Louisi- ana (Mr. LONG) are necessarily absent.. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. NICKLES). Are there any other Sena- tors in the Chamber wishing to vote? The result was announced-yeas 37, nays 59, as follows: [Rollcall Vote No. 54 Leg.] YEAS-37 Baucus Hatfield Proxmire Biden Hollings Quayle Bradley, Huddleston Randolph Byrd. Robert C. Kennedy Riegle Cohen Leahy Roth Cranston Levin Sarbanes DeConcini Matsunaga Sasser Dodd Melcher Specter Eagleton Metzenbaum Stafford Exon Mitchell Tsongas Ford Moynihan Weicker Gorton Packwood Hart Pressler NAYS-59 Abdnor Durenberger Lugar Andrews East Mattingly Armstrong Garn McClure Baker Glenn Murkowski Bentsen Goldwater Nickles Boren Grassley Nunn Boschwitz Hatch Pell Bumpers Hawkins Percy Burdick Hayakawa Pryor Byrd, Heflin Rudman Harry F.. Jr. Heinz Schmitt Chafee Helms Simpson Chiles Humphrey Stennis Cochran Inouye Stevens D'Amato Jackson Symms Danforth Jepsen Thurmond Denton Johnston Tower Dixon Kassebaum Wallop Dole. Kasten Warner Domenici Laxalt Zorinsky NOT VOTING-3 Cannon Long Mathias So Mr. BRADLEY'S amendment (No. 1339) was rejected. Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the` amendment was rejected. Mr. TOWER. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. 9 Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I am pleased that the Senate will today pass the Intelligence Identities Protec- tion Act of 1981. The intelligence com- munity is our Nation's first line of de- fense. S. 391 protects our intelligence network by making it a criminal penal- ty to name names. In recent years the disclosure of the identities of our agents has placed our agents in grave danger while also serving to compro- mise the effectiveness of our Nation's covert operations. I commend Senator CHAFES for his efforts in S. 391. While S. 391 serves to protect the true identities of our agents, some- thing must be done to prevent the fur- ther weakening of the CIA as a result of sensitive information which is pres- ently obtainable under the Freedom of Information Act. The dissemination of such information has resulted in the publicizing of CIA' methods and the undermining of CIA operatives. OI; May 20, 1981, together with Senators, GOLDWATER, NICKLES, GRASSLEY, DOLE and HELMS, I introduced S. 1235, a bill which would modify the Freedom of, Approved For Release 2008/09/25: CIA-RDP85-00003R000200060007-3 Approved For Release 2008/09/25: CIA-RDP85-00003R000200060007-3 March 18, 1982 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE Information Act to exempt all CIA 'materials involving personnel selec- tion, training, reorientation, internal operations, office -management, and organization of the CIA. S. 391, the Intelligence Identities Protection Act is a major step in re- storing the safeguards which are vital to an effective intelligence community. I am hopeful that the Senate will con- tinue to move in this direction and that we can take action in the near future on S. 1235.? ? Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I will vote for final passage of S. 391, the In- telligence Identities Protection Act. but I will do so with reservations. I be- lieve that the Senate vote yesterday adopting the amendment offered by the distingushed Senator from Rhode Island, Mr. Cmras, was unfortunate, but It is essential that we enact legisla- tion now to halt the insidious practice of deliberately disclosing the names of covert intelligence agents. As I said when I announced my op- position to the Chafee amendment on Monday, I believe the "reason to be- lieve" standard for prosecution con- tained in the Chafee amendment is unnecessarily broad and could have a chilling effect on legitimate news re- porters and broadcasters. I felt that it would have been better for the Senate to adopt a more stringent "intent" standard, and then watch to see if the law accomplished its purpose, or whether some other standard of pros- ecution might be necessary to provide 'for the conviction of violators. Now that the Senate has decided to adopt the "reason to believe" stand- ard, however, those of us who are de- 'termined to halt the systematic publi- cation of agents' names must vote for this measure and hope that it proves effective without becoming an instru- ment for stifling the, flow of informa- tion to the public. The reprehensible activities 'of such publications as the Covert Action Information Bulletin must be halted before any further harm is done to the national security for to the safety of our covert agents and their families. S. 391 as amended is now the vehicle available to us to ac- complish that goal, and for that reason I will vote for its passage.. ? Mr. HART. Mr. President, as a former member of the Select Commit- tee on Intelligence, I have consider. able sympathy with the concerns which gave rise to S. 391, the Intelli- gence Identities Protection Act. The United States and its intelligence agencies are ill-served by sensation- seekers who endanger the lives of our intelligence personnel and put at risk this country's national security. We are correct in trying to seek properly balanced legislation which will prevent these-abuses. The key phrase is "properly bal- 'anced." Press representatives across the country have expressed great concern about the Implications this bill has for first amendment freedoms. It Is one thing to make criminal the public dis- closure of the identities of U.S. intelli- gence personnel. It is quite another to hold the sword of possible prosecution over the head of a Journalist for doing his or her Job to report on the Central Intelligence Agency. We should be prepared to support efforts to punish unprincipled people who, intend to disable the CIA. We should not be prepared to support looser language which imposes crimi- nal penalties on individuals when there is only reason to' believe that publication of information.will impede our intelligence ' work. We need legislation which clearly protects those who courageously risk their lives for our national security and at the same time clearly preserves first amendment rights of free speech and free press. The intent language which had been in this bill before the Chafee amend- ment passed Wednesday struck the necessary balance. Many of us were prepared to vote for such a bill. Senator BmD is amendment, which would have required prosecu- tors - to prove that a defendant's pat- tern of activities had been specifically designed to identify and expose covert agents, would also have struck the necessary balance. Many of us were prepared to vote -for a bill containing this language. However, I cannot support legisla- tion which raises as many, first amend- ment concerns as this bill does. Our country's national security is also served by a free and vigorous press. We must not take steps which impair that freedom. I hope that in confer- ence there will be thorough reconsid- eration of the ways in which Congress can properly provide for the protec- tion of national security and the pro- tection of free speech.* Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I am voting for S. 391, the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, even though its constitutionality, in my judgment, is subject to serious challenge. Ulti- mately, it may be Invalidated by the courts. If so, rather than protecting agents' identities, it will only have cre- ated the illusion of protection. Five years from now, after such a court decision, we may once again be considering this subject In the U.S. Senate.. Meanwhile, those who are in the evil business of naming names may be able to continue to do so with impu- nity. Even in the short term, the bill may be applied Infrequently, If at all, be. cause of graymail and other prosecu- tion problems. The better course, for the Senate would have been to reshape the bill into a more effective tool to protect in- telligence agents. However, there is no consensus for further work. The intelligence agencies have been seeking protection for more than 5 Years already, and some legislation is necessary. Given the extensive debate, the courts will have substantial guid. S2357 ance to interpret the bill to protect first amendment rights. -With reserva- tions, I consider it the lesser of the evils 'to vote for the bill. Mr. BRADLEY. Mr. President, I firmly believe that America must pro- tect its covert agents from wanton or malicious disclosure of their Identities. Such disclosure both threatens their lives and impairs U .S. intelligence ac- tivities. At the same time. I believe we must be careful that our legislation does not conflict with basic freedoms in America. In my judgment, both the bill re- ported by the Senate Judiciary Com- mittee and the substitute bill I offered yesterday after adoption of the Chafee amendment strike the proper balance. These bills protect covert agents from reckless or malicious dis- closure. But they also guard the con. stitutional rights of all Americans to freedom of speech, a free press, and the public's right to know. The bill before us does not do these things. Although its supporters say it will not interfere with the ability of the press to present the news fully and fairly, nothing In the language of the statute or its legislative history per- suades me this is so. I am also unpersuaded that this bill only punishes "naming names." Indeed Senator CuArn's statements to this effect are belied by the statutory language. The statute punishes disclo- sure of "any information that indenti- fies an individual as a covert agent." The Senate report accompanying S. 391 also indicates that naming names Is not required. The report states the "though the identity disclosed must be classified, the actual information dis- closed need not be.,, In other words, it is sufficient to publish any informa- tion that identifies a covert agent. Re. vealing his or her name is unneces. sary. Finally, I believe the courts will de- clare this bill to be unconstitutional. Thus, it will serve neither our agents' nor the public's interest. it also means that the protection the Senate is sup- posedly providing covert agents is illu- sory. No court can convict someone for disclosing an identify if the criminal statute on which the conviction is based 'Violates the first amendment. By passing this bill instead of the Ju- diciary - Committee version or the Bradley substitute we have lost the opportunity to enact legislation that would have given our intelligence com- munity the genuine protection it needs and deserves. Thus, I remain concerned that dis- closures of serious illegality in Govern- ment or egregious breaches of official policy would subject those making the disclosures to criminal sanctions. This will inevitably have a chilling effect on news reporting and deny the American people access to information that is in the national interest for them to know. Approved For Release 2008/09/25: CIA-RDP85-00003R000200060007-3 S 2358 Approved For Release 2008/09/25: CIA-RDP85-00003R000200060007-3 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE March 18, 1982 In offering a substitute for S. 391 as amended, I hoped to provide a vehicle that would protect the identity of our covert agents yet guarantee funda- mental American freedoms. My amendment was defeated. Thus, even though I am reluctant to oppose this bill, I have no choice but to vote against it. IMPORTANCE OF COMPLETE SEPARATION OF PEACE CORPS PROM INTELLIGENCE ACTIVITIES Mr. CRANSTON. Mr. President, consistent adherence to the, long- standing policies insuring the com- plete separation of the Peace Corps from intelligence activities is vital to the continued effectiveness of the Peace Corps and the safety and well- being of Peace Corps volunteers and staff overseas. On several occasions during the past year, however, these policies and their appropriate applica- tion and ramifications have been the subject of debate and some controver- sy. Thus, I would like to take a moment to discuss them and under- score their importance-particularly in light of the issues before us in the con- text of the pending legislation. As a whole, these policies are de- signed to make it possible for Peace Corps volunteers and staff, by avoid- ing assiduously even the appearance of any connection between the Peace Corps and intelligence activities, to achieve the essential programmatic goals of the Peace Corps-building links between the United States and the peoples of developing countries at the grassroots level; providing practi- cal and humanitarian assistance on a voluntary basis; and demonstrating through the personal commitment of the volunteers the concern of Ameri- can citizens for the welfare of individ- uals in developing countries. In a May 4, 1981, letter to Senators DENTON and BIDEN, former Secretary of State Dean Rusk noted that, in ad- dition to being essential to the effec- tiveness of the Peace Corps, the policy of absolute separation from intelli- gence activities-which was first enun- ciated while he was Secretary-is nec- essary for the safety of the volunteers. Urging that any statutory requirement that Government agencies provide as- sistance to intelligence agencies in- clude a Peace Corps exception, he stated that, in his opinion: [Alny action that suggests that the United States had modified the policy of ab- solute separation between the Peace Corps and intelligence would also increase the danger to Peace Corps volunteers and staff. During the last twenty years there. have been countless examples of volunteers con- tinuing to perform their duties despite civil strife. Indeed, they have many times been protected by the ordinary citizens with whom they live and work from any harm. Instability and terrorism have already sub- stantially increased the dangers to Ameri- cans abroad. These dangers Peace Corps vol- unteers necessarily assume. The United States should do nothing to increase these risks. Thus, very strict policies of the U.S. Government precluding both the reali- ty and the appearance of any connec- tion between the Peace Corps and in- telligence activities have been careful- ly developed and maintained through- out the Peace Corps' 20-year history. These policies fall into three sepa- rate categories, each one being critical- ly important. First, a set of policies to- tally prohibits any involevment of Peace Corps volunteers and staff in in- telligence activities. These policies prohibit Peace Corps volunteers and staff from participating in intelligence activities and prohibit the intelligence community from in any manner using Peace Corps volunteers or employees as cover and, more specifically, from contacting, questioning, or in any other way seeking to use Peace Corps volunteers or staff as intelligence sources. Second, to avoid any appearance of Peace Corps involvement with intelli- gence activities, strict Peace Corps policies prohibit former Central Intel- ligence Agency employees from ever serving as Peace Corps volunteers or staff. In addition, any Peace Corps vol- unteer or staff applicant with a back- ground in any non-CIA-type intelli- gence activities is barred from Peace Corps service for a period of at least 10 years following the cessation of the in- dividual's involvement in intelligence. Even after that 10-year period has ex- pired, an applicant's suitability is re- viewed if his or her non-CIA intelli- gence activities were particularly ex- tensive or involved covert activities. Third, also to preclude the appear- ance of Peace Corps involvement in in- telligence activities, CIA policy prohib- its that agency from employing Peace Corps volunteers or staff until after a 5-year period following their Peace Corps service has expired and prohibit former volunteers and staff from ever being assigned to any intelligence duty in any country in which they served in the Peace Corps. Other intelligence agencies have similar bars to the em- ployment and assignment of former Peace Corps volunteers and staff. These policies were recently outlined by the Judiciary Committee in its report on the pending legislation (S. Rept. No. 97-201, pages 13 and 14 (Star print)). Earlier this year, the policy re- garding the second leg of this triad of policies-the intelligence-back- ground bar-received considerable at- tention in connection with the nomi- nation of Thomas W. Pauken to be the Director of the ACTION Agency. Be- cause of Mr. Pauke>YI's extensive train- ing and experience in overseas covert intelligence operations during his mili- tary service from which he was dis- charged in 1970, I strongly believed that his nomination to be the head of the umbrella agency under which the Peace Corps functions was highly in- advisable. In a statement appearing on pages 53896 through 83996 of the daily edition of. the RECORD for April 27, 1981, I urged that Senate action on that nomination not be taken while the Peace Corps was still within the ACTION Agency. It was my position then that for him to serve as the Di- rector of the ACTION Agency while the Peace Corps was still a part of that Agency would create an appear- ance of a connection between the Peace Corps and intelligence that should be avoided. In substantial part because of the issues that the Pauken nomination raised, I became convinced that the time had come to separate the Peace Corps from the ACTION Agency. Sub- sequent events have intensified my conviction in this respect, On April 27, 1981, I introduced legislation to make the Peace Corps a fully independent agency within the executive branch. That legislation was incorporated into S. 1196, the International Security and Development Corporation Act of 1981, and was enacted as Public Law 97-113 on December 29, 1981. At the time of Senate consideration of the confer- ence -report on that measure, I out- lined again the importance of securing the Peace Corps as an independent entity-CONGRESSIONAL REcoxn, daily edition, December 15, 1981, 515298. Recently, during the pendency of the Peace Corps separation legislation before the Congress, an incident oc- curred that dramatically highlighted the need for Peace Corps independ- ence and, I also believe for the Con- gress to express itself on the policy of the separation of the Peace Corps from intelligence activities. In the No= vember 1. 1981, issue of the New York Times, an article dealing primarily with Peace Corps budget issues noted-in my view, accurately-that the movement in the Congress to re- store the Peace Corps' independence had been given impetus by the ap- pointment of Mr. Pauken to be Direc- tor of the ACTION Agency and that the Peace Corps has a strict prohibi- tion against former intelligence agents within its agency. In response, Donald Thorson, the ACTION Agency's As- sistant Director for Legislative Af- fairs-as part of that Agency's con- tinuing campaign against the Peace Corps autonomy legislation by at- tempting to discredit the intelligence- background bar and promote a totally absurd thesis of discrimination against Mr. Pauken because his military serv- ice was in Vietnam-wrote a letter to the editor of the Times, which ap- peared in the November 27 issue. In that letter, he flatly stated that the statement regarding the "strict prohi- bition" was "not true". Indeed, the current Director of the Peace Corps, Loret Ruppe, and her predecessor, William G. Sykes, in a March 18, 1982, letter to me in connection with Ms. Ruppe's confirmation then under con- sideration by the Foreign Relations Committee, described the intelligencd-' background bar as I outlined it above and pledged "to enforce the policy strictly, as has been done for the past two decades." Approved For Release 2008/09/25: CIA-RDP85-00003R000200060007-3 Approved For Release 2008/09/25: CIA-RDP85-00003R000200060007-3 March 18, 1982 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE ? Mr. President, I was truly astonished by Mr. Thorson's reckless assertion that such a prohibition does not exist. In a December 9, letter to the editor that appeared in the Times today, I noted- It is a sorry state of affairs that a high of- ficial of the ACTION Agency, in his deter- mination to keep the Peace Corps within ACTION at any cost, is willing to jeopardize a policy intended to protect the integrity of the Peace Corps and the safety of its volun- teers and staff. Mr. President, I ask unanimous con- sent that the Times article and these letters be printed in the RECORD at the conclusion of my remarks. The PRESIDING OFFICER, with- out objection, it is so ordered. (See exhibit 1.) Mr. CRANSTON. Also, Mr. Presi- dent, in light of the vital importance of the complete separation of the Peace Corps from intelligence activi- ties and the great need to avoid any appearance of involvement, I was deeply disappointed that the Decem- ber 4,. 1981, Executive order on "United States Intelligence Activi- ties"-E.O. 12333-did not provide an express exception for the Peace Corps from the general requirement in sec- tion 1.6(a) that executive branch de- partments and agencies give the Direc- tor of Central Intelligence access to all information relevant to national intel- ligence needs and generally cooperate with the Director. The omission of a whether or not the conference report on the pending measure includes a sec- tion 603, the conferees should state that section 1.6(a) of the Executive order should not be construed as alter- ing in any way the historic policy of complete separation of the Peace Corps from Intelligence activities. Such an unequivocal statement of principle in the joint explanatory statement accompanying the confer- ence report would clearly reassert the strong position of the Congress on this important matter and confirm its strong commitment to maintenance of the policy of total separation. (ExHISIT 1) (From the New York Times, Nov. 1, 1981) PEACE CORPS ASKS A REvizw or CUTS (By Barbara Crossette) WASHINGTON, Oct. 31-The Peace Corps, with its modest $105 million budget cut this year to $53.6 million, has appealed to the Administration for reconsideration. Loret Miller Ruppe, the organization's di- rector, -said yesterday in her office just before setting out on a month-long tour of volunteer outposts in North and West Africa, that she had met with Secretary of State Alexander M. Haig Jr. about the budgetary problem and had found him "very supportive." - "He said what we were doing was right in line with the Administration's foreign policy.," she said. _ "But we haven't heard anything yet about our appeal." The Peace Corps, now 20 years old, is very different from what it was in the 1950's. The average age of volunteers is higher- S 2359 Corps to budget cuts with his support for "the President's move toward restoring sound fiscal policy." In line with Administration moves in other agencies-notably the Agency for In- ternational Development, with which the Peace Corps works closely overseas-the Corps has created an office for liaison with the private sector. Its director is John Calvin Williams Jr., a former Peace Corps volunteer in Morocco and Niger who is on leave from Chase Manhattan Bank, where he directed activities in French-speaking Africa. The Peace Corps offices are shared with several other volunteer agencies, including Volunteers in Service to America and the Foster Grandparent Program, all of which were combined by President Nixon in 1971 into a coordinating agency called Action. MOVES TO RESTORE INDEPENDENCE There have been moves in Congress to re- store the independence of the Peace Corps, which many feel has lost its identity under the Action umbrella. The movement was given new impetus in March, when President Reagan appointed Thomas W. Pauken director of Action. Mr. Pauken had served as a military intelligence officer in Vietnam, and the Peace Corps has a strict prohibition against former intelli- gence agents within its agency. Rumors of Central Intelligence Agency links to the Peace Corps, never proved, cost the Corps its India program, which was terminated by New Delhi in 1976. Senator Alan Cranston of California led a successful Democratic drive to write Peace Corps autonomy into legislation this year. This month the full Senate upheld that leg- islation. Mrs. Ruppe says that the legisla- tion was not necessary because she had been assured she would continue to report direct- ly to the executive branch. EVALUATION IS UNDER WAY Peace Corps exception in that context' about 27. There are fewer of them-about can be seen as presenting the same 5,000 in 60 countries compared with 11,115 issue that the' enactment of section' in 57 nations in 1967. 603 of the pending measure without a - FISHERIES AN IMPORTANT PROGRAM Peace Corps exception would raise and Most important to the Peace Corps now is which I discussed on March 1 in a the development of programs in agriculture lengthy colloquy with the sponsors of and alternative sources of energy. Jody this measure and others concerned Olsen, the regional director for North about the Peace Corps, Africa, the Near East, Asia and the Pacific, Mr. President, I would note that I said that among these progams, training in fisheries was one of the most important. appreciate the statements last summer "This is bringing protein into areas where by the current Director of Central In- it is almost impossible to get meat," Miss telligence and the current Director of Olsen said. She also described projects in the Peace Corps-in their July 15, teaching simple market gardening in pri- 1981, and June 25, 1981, letters, which wary and secondary schools and the raising the Senator from Rhode Island (Mr. of rabbits for food supply. Agriculture spe- CHAFEE) inserted in the RECORD during cialists are in great demand by the Corps. the March 1 colloquy-that they have In its training program, volunteers are taught not to expect to see changes in their no intention of deviating from the two-year period of service. long-standing policies of total separa- "With rabbits, for example," Miss Olsen tion of the Peace Corps from intelli- said, "it may be easier to raise rabbits than gence activities. Unfortunately, there has been no comparable statement by the President of the United States. Hence, I believe that a strong state- ment of congressional policy is very desirable in order to provide needed clarification and to bolster the assur- ance in the nations where the Peace Corps serves that its complete separa- tion from intelligence activities is being maintained. Thus, I am most gratified that the distinguished Senators from Rhode Island (Mr. CHAFEE), Delaware (Mr. BIDEN), Alabama (Mr. DENTON) and Vermont bMr, LEAHY), among others- as expressed in a colloquy on March 1, 11982, CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, daily edition, 51257-share my view that, According to Mr. Randall, the associate di- rector, the Peace Corps is in the process of "global evaluation" of its programs. Mr. Randall, who worked with the Agency for International Development in Thailand, said that, especially in a period of tight budget restraint, "the aim of the Peace Corps is to leave a country." He said that as soon as a country's per capita income and quality of life had reached an acceptable level, the Peace Corps would disengage itself, as it has done recently in Chile, leaving the work in the hands of local officials and allowing the Corps to concentrate its resources on the "poorest of the poor." The degree to which a country contributes to a Peace Corps presence has become im- portant to whether the agency will agree to build fisheries, but you have to introd set up or expand programs. There are still the concept of eating rabbits, and of cook- many more requests for Peace Corps volun- ing rabbits. In some places that could take teers from foreign countries than the six to eight years." agency can have to meet. The leadership of the Corps, struggling to live within the new financial restraints, is made up of loyal Republicans. Mrs. Ruppe, a Midwesterner, worked on Vice President Bush's campaign for the Presidency and went on to become cochairman of the Reagan-Bush committee in Michigan. VIRTUES OF SELF-HELP EXTOLLED, She extols the virtues of self-help in public speeches, saying the work of the Corps is "right up Mr. Reagan's alley" in teaching self-sufficiency. Lon Randall, a graduate of Fort Wayne Bible College and the president of Malone College in Canton. Ohio, who is now asso- ciate director for programs, prefaces re- marks about the response of the Peace (From the New York Times, Nov. 27, 19811 THE PROPER PARENT FOR THE PEACE CORPS WASHINGTON, D.C., November 6, 1981. To the EDITOR: Your Nov. 1 news story "Peace Corps Asks a Review of Cuts" con- tained a number of inaccuracies on the issue of the Peace Corps' separation from the Action agency. The article stated that there have been moves in Congress to "restore the independ- ence of the Peace Corps." But the. Peace Corps has never been independent. From 1961 to 1971 it was under the State Depart- ment; in 1971 it became a part of Action. The article also declared that the "Peace Corps has a strict prohibition against Approved For Release 2008/09/25: CIA-RDP85-00003R000200060007-3 S 2360 Approved For Release 2008/09/25: CIA-RDP85-00003R000200060007-3 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE March 18, 1982 former intelligent agents within its ranks." This Is not true. In fact, the deputy director of the Peace Corps from 1969 to 1971, Tom Houser, served in Army counterintelligence In the mid-1950's. It is true that some supporters of separa- tion have attacked the appointment of Tom Pauken as Action director because he served In Vietnam In military Intelligence. The ob- vious question arises: Why Is a Vietnam vet- eran being treated differently from a 1950's veterans with an equivalent background? It is significant that the -Reagan Adminis- tration strongly opposes the separation of the Peace Corps from Action because such a move would cost the taxpayers more money. New independent agencies always require additional funds. To create another Federal agency during a period of budget cuts makes no sense whatsoever. DONALD THOasON, Assistant Director, for Legislative Affairs, Action. PEACE CORP SAFE DISTANCE PROM C.I.A., ET AI< WASHINGTON, D.C., December 9, 1981. To THE EDIToa. As the principal Senate sponsor of legislation to separate the Peace Corps from the ACTION agency. I was as- tonished by the letter (Nov 27) from Donald Thorson. ACTION's assistant direc- tor for legislative affairs, accusing The Times of inaccurate reporting. It is Mr. Thorson who is inaccurate. Mr. Thorson states that it is "not true" that the Peace Corps has a strict prohibi- tion against former intelligence agents within its ranks. The truth is that ever since its inception in 1961 the Peace Corps has had a policy designed to preclude even the appearance of a connection with intelli- gence activities. This policy bars any former agent or em- ployee of the C.I.A. from ever serving as a Peace Corps volunteer or employee. And it strictly prohibits anyone else from serving if he or she has engaged in intelligence activi- ties in the preceding 10 years. Thomas Pauken, director of ACTION, Loret Ruppe, director of the Peace Corps, and William Casey, director of the C.I.A., have said that they intend to continue this policy. Mr. Thorston states that Thomas Houser served in Army counterintelligence 13 years before he became deputy director of the Peace Corps in 1969. However, no informa- tion to that effect was brough to the atten- tion of the Senate at the time of Mr. Houser's confirmation. Mr. Thorson also claims that separating the Peace Corps from ACTION would "cost the taxpayers more money." The evidence points in exactly the opposite direction. In- ternal Peace Corps budget documents esti- mate that, while separation will cost about $900,000 in first-year administrative ex- penses, it will save $1 million annually thereafter. Finally, the controversy over Mr. Pau- ken's nomination arose not because he is a Vietnam veteran, as Mr, Thorson falsely suggests, but over the question whether the extent and nature of his service in military intelligence violated-or appeared to vio- late-a policy indepensable to the effective- ness of the Peace Corps, if not to its very survival. The Foreign Relations Committee narrowly voted for his confirmation, 10 to 7. Making the Peace Corps an independent agency will reaffirm its fundamental policy of keeping free of all taint of an "intelli- gence connection." It is a sorry state of af- fairs that a high official of ACTION, in his deteanination to keep the Peace Corps within that agency at any cost, is willing to jeopardize a policy intended to protect the Integrity of the Peace Corps and the safety of Its volunteers and staff. ALAN Cwtsrox, U.S. Senator from California. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill is open to further amendment. If there be no further amendment to be proposed, the question is on the en- grossment and third, reading of the bill. The bill (S. 391) was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading and was read the third time. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized. Mr. BAKER. Mr. President, I moye that the Senate now proceed to the consideration of Calendar 294, H.R. 4. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill will be stated by title. The assistant legislative clerk read as follows: A bill (H.R. 4) to amend the National Se- curity Act of 1947 to prohibit the unauthor- ized disclosure of information Identifying certain United States intelligence officers, agents, informants, and to direct the Presi- dent to establish procedures to protect the secrecy of these intelligence relationships. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion of the majority leader. The motion was agreed to, and the Senate proceeded to the consideration of the bill. 4A. On page 4, line 14 through page 5 line 8, strike from the word "Procedures" to "disclosure." 5. On page S. line 17, strike the word "shall" and insert In lieu thereof the word "may". 6. On page 5, line 18, immediately preced. ing the word "Congress" insert the word "the". 7. On page 6, line 9, strike the word "a" and substitute in lieu thereof the word ?any" 8. On page 6, line 10, strike the capital "R" in the word "Rule" and substitute in lieu thereof a lower case "r". 9. On page 6, strike line 18 and all that follows through line 16 on page 7, and insert in lieu thereof the following: "(4) the term 'covert agent' means- "(A) an officer or employee of an intelli- gence agency or a member of the Armed Forces assigned to duty with an intelligence agency- "(i) whose identity as such an officer, em- ployee, or member Is classified information, and "(ii) who is serving outside the United States or has within the last five years served outside the United States; or (B) a United States citizen whose intelli- gence relationship to the United States is classified Information, and- "(I) who resides and acts outside the United States as an agent of, or informant or source of operational assistance to, an in- telligence agency, or "(ii) who is at the time of the disclosure acting as an agent of, or informant to, the foreign counterintelligence or foreign coun- UNPRINTED AMENDMENT NO. 830 terterrorism components of the Federal Mr. DENTON. Mr. President, I ask Bureau of Investigation; or unanimous consent that H.R. 4 be ( 10. On page 7, line 3, immediately follow. amended with a series of perfecting Ling the ";" add the word "or". amendments which I send to the desk r 11. On page 7, line 6, insert a "," immedi-. and which conform its taut. to S 291 lately following the word "Information". as amended, and further ask unani- mous consent that these amendments be considered and agreed to en bloc. The PRESIDING OFFICER. With- out objection, it is so ordered. The amendments will be stated. The assistant legislative clerk read as follows: The Senator from Alabama (Mr. DENTON) proposes an unprinted amendment num- bered 830. Mr. DENTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with. The PRESIDING OFFICER. With- out objection, It is so ordered. The amendment is as follows: On page 1, line 4, immediately following e word "Act" add "of 1981.". 2. On page 2, line 3, strike the word "Dis- closure" and substitute in lieu thereof "Pro- tection". 3. On page 4, line 3, strike the word "in" and all that follows up to and including the word "exposure," on line 7, and substitute in lieu thereof the following: "in the case of a person who acted In the course of a pattern of activities intended to identify and expose covert agents and with reason to believe that such activities would impair or impede the foreign intelligence activities of the United States,". 4. On page 4, immediately following line 13, insert a new subsection 602(d) as follows: "(D) It shall not be an offense under sec- tion 601 for an Individual to disclose infor- mation that solely identifies himself as a covert agent." Ing the word "classified" insert the word' "Information". 13. On page 7, line 24, strike the word "the" and insert in lieu thereof the word 14. On page 7, line 25, strike the word "components" and insert in lieu thereof the word "component". 15. On page 8, line 1, strike the word "counterterorist" and insert in lieu thereof the word "counterterrorism". 16. On page 8, line 15, strike the quotation marks and period which follow the word "Is- lands.". 17. On page 8, immediately following line 15, add the following new subsection 806(10): "(10) The term 'pattern of activities' re- quires a series of acts with a common pur- pose or objective.". 18. On page 9, in the Table of Contents, delete the word "Disclosure" from the entry for section 601 and insert in lieu thereof the word "Protection". The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on-the engrossment of the amendment and the third reading of the bill. The amendment was ordered to be engrossed and the bill to be read a third time. The bill was read the third time. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill having been read the third time, the question is, Shall it pass? Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays. Approved For Release 2008/09/25: CIA-RDP85-00003R000200060007-3