INTELLIGENCE IDENTITIES PROTECTION ACT OF 1981

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP85-00003R000200060007-3
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 10
• Document Creation Date: December 21, 2016
• Document Release Date: September 25, 2008
• Sequence Number: 7
• Publication Date: March 18, 1983
• Content Type: OPEN SOURCE

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