Document Type: 
Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): 
Release Decision: 
Original Classification: 
Document Page Count: 
Document Creation Date: 
December 21, 2016
Document Release Date: 
September 18, 2008
Sequence Number: 
Case Number: 
Publication Date: 
January 25, 1984
Content Type: 
PDF icon CIA-RDP86B00338R000200320005-2.pdf3.96 MB
Approved For Release 2008/09/18: CIA-RDP86B00338R000200320005-2 Janudry f15, 1984 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -- HOUSE proximately $800 million in Federal, State, and local taxes. As Federal housing. assistance con- tinues to dwindle, State and local gov. ernments are faced with greater responsibility in meeting housing needs. Mortgage bonds have proven highly successful in responding to that chal- lenge and are one of the only home fi- nancing tools available at the State and local level. My bill would assure that this success story can continue for at least the next 5 years. A NEED FOR DISABILITY REFORM LEGISLATION (Mr. SHANNON asked and was given permissioA to address the House for 1 minute and to revise, and extend his remarks.) Mr. SHANNON. Mr. Speaker, I was also shocked, as was the gentleman from Texas, to learn that the adminis- tration today has announced that it does not intend to support any disabil- ity reform legislation this year. I think that there is no more press- ing concern for millions of Americans and returning. some semblance of hu- manity and decency to our disability program. All of us in this body have heard from our constituents as to the terrible cases of injustice that have taken place In the past few years. The Ways and Means Committee re- ported out a substantial piece of legis- lation on a bipartisan basis to reform that program. If we fail to act now, de-, spite what the administration has said, we will be doing an injustice, not only to our constitutents, but to a program that millions of Americans have come to rely on. I hope that the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee will bring that legislation to the floor as quickly as possible. I hope we can keep a strong bipartisan commitment to bringing it about, and I hope we can get the other body to act in its turn. ,'g_ q~ 01530 INTRODUCTION OF' LEGISLA- TION REGARDING THE INTER- CEPTION OF TELEPHONE CON- VERSATIONS (Mr. LEVINE of California asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. LEVINE of California. Mr. Speaker, today .I am joined by my col- leagues Howard Berman and Larry Smith in introducing legislation which would make the tape recording of con- versations without the consent of all parties a Federal crime. Current Federal law regards the un- authorized interception of wire or oral conversations as a felony in most cases, punishable by a fine of $10,000 The bill we are introducing would strike the one-party-consent language from current 'law. The elimination of this Provision would mean that all par- ties to a conversation being taped must have knowledge that their 'dis- cussion is being recorded, or face possi. ble criminal- prosecution. Exceptions for law enforcement officials, however, would remain in effect. . Although this legislation was :initial- ly prompted as a result of the actions of Charles Wick, who secretly tape re- corded over 100 telephone - conversa. tions, its results will go a long way. in protecting against similar abuses of the public trust in the future. We encourage our colleauges to join this effort. HELP SAVE TAB-EXEMPT MORTGAGE REVENUE BONDS (Mr. LEHMAN of California asked and was 'given permission to address the House for 1 minute.) Mr. LEHMAN of California. Mr. Speaker, the Federal Government's tax-exempt. mortgage revenue bond program was allowed to expire on De- cember 31, 1983. This program has successfully asoist- ed thousands of low- and moderate- income families in the purchase of their first home. The mortgage reve- nue bond program also works to stimu- late the homebuilding industry and to provide fobs for thousands of con- struction workers. In my home State of California, the $1.45 billion worth of mortgage reve- nue bonds that were issued in 1983 ac- counted for. 43,000 jobs and $4.4 billion worth of economic activity. I am sure that these bonds provide similar re- sults in every State. It is because of the proven effective- ness of this program that I am intro- ducing legislation today to extend the mortgage revenue bond program until December 31, 1988. Without an extension of this pro- gram thousands of potential home buyers will be priced out of the hous- ing market. Scores of jobs in construc- tion and related industries will be lost. The total economic effects of the loss of this program would be enormous. I urge my colleagues to support ef- forts . to reauthorize this important Program as soon as possible. IN BEHALF OP WEATHERIZA- TION AND EMPLOYMENT ACT (Mrs. BYRON asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend :her remarks.) Mrs. BYRON. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this time to voice my strong support for H.R. 2615, the Weatherization and Employment Act, which Passed the House est d y er ay. exception to that- law states that it is Like many of my colleagues, I have not considered a felony if one party to recently '-finished visiting various the conversation is aware that it is towns and communities in the District. being taped. One Federal program which received H 125 widespread support was the low income weatherization program. Gar- rett and Allegany County, which are on the western end of the Sixth Dis: trict have significant pockets of citi- zens living in inadequately heated housing. Winters such as the one we are now experiencing can be fatal to many of these people due to the lack of heat. However, thanks to the low income weatherization program, we have made modest gains in protecting those on low and fixed incomes from the extremes of the weather. I know that many of my colleagues may be disappointed that a higher funding level was not approved. However, I be- lieve that the funding level incorporat- ed into the bill which passed still rep- resents ' a continued commitment to weatherizing our Nations poorly insu- lated housing stock. ELECTION OF CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AF- . FAIRS Mr. LONG of Louisiana Mr. Speak- er, I offer a privileged resolution (H. Res. 396) and I ask unanimous consent for its immediate consideration. The SPEAKER. The Clerk will report the resolution. The Clerk read the resolution, as fol- lows: H. Ras. 396 Resolved, That Dante B. FaaeeU. Florida, be. awl., he is hereby, elected chairman of the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Louisiana? There was no objection. The resolution was agreed to. A motion to reconsider was laid on the table. REPORT ON RESOLUTION PRO- VIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION 203, TO ESTABLISH STATE COMMISSIONS ON TEACHER EXCELLENCE Mr. BONIOR of Michigan, from the Committee on Rules, submitted a privileged report (Rept. No. ? 98-591) on the resolution (H. Res. 399) providing for the consideration of the bill (H.J. Rea 203) to establish State commis- sions on teacher excellence, which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed. REPORT ON RESOLUTION PRO- VIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2465. EARTHQUAKE HAZARDS REDUCTION ACT OF 1977 AND FEDERAL NUE PRE- VENTION AND CONTJ0OL ACT OF 1974 AUTHORIZATIONS, 1984 AND 1985 Mr. BONIOR of Michigan, from the Committee on Rules, submitted a priv- ileged report (Rept. No. 98-890) on the Approved For Release 2008/09/18: CIA-RDP86B00338R000200320005-2 Approved For Release 2008/09/18: CIA-RDP86B00338R000200320005-2 H 126 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE January 1.i 1984' resolution (H. Res. 398) providing for the consideration of the bill (H.R. 2465) to authorize appropriations for the Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act of 1977 and the Federal Fire Pre- vention and Control Act of 1974 for fiscal year- 1984 and fiscal year 1985, and for other purposes, which was re- ferred to the House Calendar and or- dered to be printed. REPORT ON RESOLUTION PRO- VIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2878, LIBRARY SERV- ICES AND CONSTRUCTION ACT AMENDMENTS OF 1983 Mr. BONIOR of Michigan, from the Committee on Rules, submitted a privileged report (Rept. No. 98-589) on the resolution (H. Res. 397) providing for the consideration of the bill (H.R. 2878) to amend and extend the Li- brary Services and Construction Act, which was referred to the House Cal- endar and ordered to be printed. CALENDAR WEDNESDAY The SPEAKER. This is the day of Calendar Wednesday. The Clerk will call the committees. AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTIVITY ACT OF 1983 Mr. DE LA GARZA (when the Com- mittee on Agriculture was called). Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Commit- tee on Agriculture, I call up the bill (H.R. 2714) to direct the Secretary of Agriculture to take certain actions to improve the productivity of American farmers, and for other purposes, and I ask unanimous consent that general debate be limited to not more than 1 hour, to be equally divided and con- trolled by the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. SKEEN) and by myself. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Texas? There was no objection. The Clerk read the title of the bill. The SPEAKER_ This bill is on the Union Calendar, and under the rule, the House automatically resolves itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union. IN THE COMMITTEE Or THE WHOLE Accordingly the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill (H.R. 2714) with Mr. PICKLE in the chair. The Clerk read the title of the bill. By unanimous consent, the first reading of the bill was dispensed with. The CHAIRMAN. Under the unani- mous-consent agreement, the gentle- man from Texas (Mr. DE LA GAxzA) will be recognized for 30 minutes and the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. SKEEN) will be recognized for 30 min- utes. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DE LA?GARZA). Mr. aE LA GARZA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may con- sume. (Mr. Dig LA GARZA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. aE LA GARZA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may con- sume. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to bring for consideration of the Members H.R. 2714, the Agricultural Productivity Act, of which Mr. WmvEa, our' distin- guished colleague from Oregon, is the prime sponsor. He was joined by some 60-odd Members, colleagues of the House, in presenting this legislation. It was approved overwhelmingly by the Committee on Agriculture and we bring _it up under this procedure now of Calendar Wednesday. The Agricultural Productivity Act of 1983 (H.R. 2714) provides for the De- partment of Agriculture to conduct a research program to investigate farm- ing systems designed to help farmers reduce production costs, conserve water and energy, and control erosion, by making use of modern organic-type agricultural technologies, and to con- duct an extension program to promote the. understanding of such farming systems. In addition, it authorizes financial assistance under the ongoing agricul- tural conservation program to farmers who utilize intercropping systems to establish a vegetative cover that im- proves nitrogen fixation, rebuilds the soil, and reduces soil erosion. Inter- cropping is the practice of planting le- gumes, grasses, or other soil conserv- ing crops between rows of crops such as corn, wheat, or soybeans. Although American farmers are the most productive in the world, our agri- cultural system faces an uncertain future. Tried and true farm programs are in disarray, production costs are rising sharply, soil erosion is increas- ing at an alarming rate, and farm income continues to decline precipi- tously. This is clearly a time of stress for American farmers and their land. Many farmers are looking to the De- partment for technical advice about farming systems that will help them cut production costs, conserve water and energy, and control soil erosion. The USDA recognizes its crucial role in providing farmers with this infor- mation, and the Agricultural Produc- tivity Act will assist them in meeting this objective. Mr. Chairman, this legislation is aimed, one, to coordinate within the Department of Agriculture and hope- fully within the United States, the ex- pertise of farmers, institutions, the Department of Agriculture, and hope- fully other agencies of the Govern- ment that might impact on the modern organic-type agricultural tech- nologies. And it is designed also to con- duct an extension program to promote the understanding of such farming systems. Mr. Chairman, I might mention that this is but a very small first step to bring coordination to an area that hopefully can be the salvation of American and world agriculture in the years to come. You will not have a more important bill this year on agriculture than this bill. I would like to explain very brief- ly why. The world finds itself in a very deli- cate and sad situation in that in a few years the population of the world will be such that even with advanced tech- nologies and great productivity in areas such as ours, because of de- mands on infrastructure, transporta- tion, refrigeration, water, housing, et cetera, and lack of income in the other countries, there is not going to be enough food to feed the people of the world. ^ 1540 They then will have to resort to the most available use of agriculture. And there the high technology, the huge machinery, that which makes us the most productive nation in the world is going to be for naught, because this is going to have to be done by poor na- tions, in poor areas, where every avail- able technique of what we speak of here will need to be utilized. So, when we might impact on the survival of millions of people. $10 mil- lion, Mr. Chairman, is such an infini- tesimal sum that I am almost ashamed to say that we are asking for such a small amount for coordination of pro- grams that may well be the survival of millions and millions of people in the undeveloped and underdeveloped countries of the world. And this is but a very small first step in a sincere effort to coordinate all related , activi- ties within the Department of Agricul- ture, our Institutions, the private sector and with the private farms, toward the realization of such goal. We have seen what can happen when we are short of energy, when we are short of fossil fuels. That you have to rely on tried and natural techniques of the original farmers, but which have been abandoned and lost because of our great technological advances. Since the 1973 oil embargo, farmers production costs have spiraled steadily upward. By 1982, farm expenses ex- ceeded farm receipts-by $400 mil- lion-for the first time in history. Gov- ernment projections provide little hope for improvement in the near future. The Department of Agricul- ture estimates in a recent report enti- tled "Inputs Outlook and Situation II" that farmers will spend an unprec- edented $40 billion for pesticides, fer- tilizer, energy and farm machinery in 1984. Further, a 1983 report by the Department of Commerce predicts that rising natural 'gas prices could double the cost of nitrogenous fertiliz- er by 1985. While production costs have climbed, water supplies for Irrigation Approved For Release 2008/09/18: CIA-RDP86B00338R000200320005-2 Approved For Release 2008/09/18: CIA-RDP86B00338R000200320005-2 S636 Borneo Territories, British West African Territories, French Cameroon, French Equatorial Africa, French Oceania. French 801u~ French Africa, Hong Kong, Indochina, ~Madagasear, Morocco (irremb protectorate), Netherlands Antilles? Netiwdonds um guftea, Now C& edonia, Portuguese Best Africa, Portuguese West Africa, Spanish .Morocco, Spanish Guinea Territories, Surinam, Tunisia. Tna LIEw-a: or CoNcRESS, Ii(iI83ATI'JI R==Rznft SgavICE. Was iingtou 25, D.C, July-13,1955. ALL BM M* mss, Subcommittee on Internal Security, United Stales Senate, Washington 25, D.C. DEAR Ma. M,usan.: I am returning here. with the study on the international treaties and their violation by the Moscow govern, ment. I am very glad indeed that the Legislative Reference Service was able to be of assist- ance to the committee In the carrying out of this highly important project. Several members of the LRS staff have re- viewed. within the its of available time, the text of the study and I do hope that the various suggestions they were able to make regarding the improvement of its contents study. The intended publication undo brings together an impressive body of hiss- torical information and first-rate evidence about the continued violations of the var- ious international agreements by Moscow. The American people as well as the peoples of the Free World will certainly benefit from having these facts placed before then. Sincerely youm; ERRae' S. Gairpnii, Director. Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will can the roll. The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll. Mr. METZENBAUM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescind- ed. The PRESIDING OFFICER. With- out objection, it is so ordered. ORDER OF PROCEDURE . Mr. ME77Z1gBAUM. Mr. President, we are still in morning business, are we? The PRESIDING OFFICER.' The Senate is still in morning business. Mr. METZENBAUM. Does the Sena- tor from Ohio have the right to the floor under the circumstances? The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator does. Mr. METZENBAUM. Mr. President, I rise to Indicate that I came to the floor at 11 ?o'clock because of my un- derstanding that the leadership wanted to proceed in connection with the pending measure. Senator Bump- mis came to the floor at it o'clock. I have no problem at all with the lead- ership taking such time as it needs, but I think at a later' point in the day we may find ourselves pressed In order to bring this matter to a conclusion, to cut off. the debate, to move forward. I take this means of pointing out that we are here ready, willing, and I am CONGRESSIONAL, RECORD - SENAlits ' February 1, 1984 not sure if we are able but certainly willing to try to be able to go forward with the subject matter. I know that the luncheon hour is rapidly ap- proaching. Many of us may have com- mitments at that time, and I would hope that we could :get started and put the show on the road. I suggest the absence of a quorum. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll. The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll. Mr. 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. CONCLUSION OF MORNING BUSINESS The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further morning business? If clerk will report the pending business. The bill clerk read as follows: A bill (S. 1702) entitled the "Comprehen- sive Crime Control Act of 49833." The Senate proceedea to consider the bill. Mr. BAKER. Mr. President, I indi- cated earlier, during the obening period of the Senate, that I hoped we could finish this bill today, and indeed I do. We have five other bills that are related one way or the other to this subject, which have to be dealt with, and I hope we can do them this week. I am advised that there is more debate to ensue on the pending amendment. perhaps more negotia- tions on it. But I do not anticipate that there will be a tabling motion in the near future, meaning the next hour. So I urge Senators to go ahead with debate, and we will take another ,look at the matter in 30 or 45 minutes. Mr. ME'I"ZENBAUM. Mr. President, will the majority leader yield to me so that I may make an observation on the subject? Mr. BAKER. I am glad to yield. Mr. METZSNBAUM. I say to the majority leader that I am the sponsor of this amendment and Senator Buiep- xas is a cosponsor, as well as a number of other Senators, and we have no desire to drag out this matter. We are prefectly willing to accept any amend- ments that seem reasonable. So far, we have not turned down any from any group. such as the Attorney General, the CIA, the NSA. or any other legiti- mate arm of Government that thinks our amendment would interfere in some way with their legitimate and reasonable undertakings. So that that matter can be clarified, we are amena- ble to accepting amendments if they are needed by Government agencies. With respect to the amendment itself-- Mr. BAKER. Mr. President, will the Senator permit me to yield the floor, and the Senator can gain recognition in his own right? Mr. METZERBAUM. I want to speak to the majority leader for one moment. Mr. BAKER. Then, I will retain the floor. Mr. METZENBAUM. The main point I want to state to my friend, the majority leader, is that *-feel strong- ly that there should be an up and down vote on this amendment. I think I speak for my cosponsors as well as myself in indicating that if the major- ity leader wishes to make a time cer- tain for that vote, we are not opposed to doing that. Mr. BAKER. I have not fully decid- ed to make a tabling motion. I may do that. That is one of the matters I am going to think about in the next 30 minutes or no, while I understand there are other things to discuss on he wishes to say, and we liave a couple of requests. I do not expect that it will take too long. I say to the Senator Aram Ohio that I cannot relinquish the right to make a tabling motion at this point, but it is not certain that I will do that or some- body else will. In the meantime, t hope Members will get on with their conversations on this subject. I hope we can have a vote on this amendment and then on the bill itself by the middle of the after- noon. I think we should go on with the matter. Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, if the majority leader will yield. I say to him that if the leader and those who are opposed to this amendment wish a time certain, we are certainly in a posi- tion to agree to that. The agreement would necessarily have to embody the terms the Senator from Ohio has just described with respect to a tabling motion. May I make another observation, for whatever it is worth: I certainly do not see this amendment or this issue in partisan terms. I regret that the Washington Post seemed to couch it in those terms this mottling, It seems to me that this, is a very good amendment, one that should be supported in a bipartisan faabioo. It is not designed to be a slap St Charles Wick or anybody else. AS I said yester- day. that incident dramatied what I consider a big void in the law which we are trying to remedy. I hope it does not get tied up in partisanship. Mr. BAKER. I say to the Senator that I do not think it is a Wick amend- ment. As. a matter of fact, I am not sure that it is all bad. There may be some aspects with which I would agree. But I recall that it took us 3 years to wdrk out that bill before, and 4 Years,. I think, to work out. the Intel- Approved For Release 2008/09/18: CIA-RDP86B00338R000200320005-2 February 1, 1984 Approved For Release 2008/09/18: CIA-RDP86B00338R000200320005-2 ration by United Nations, January 1, 1942, also "subscribed" to the charter. WARTIME ALLIANCE OF THE UNITED NATIONS The Declaration by United Nations was signed States, Greece, Guate Luxembourg, (February 7, 1945), Peru (Feb 1945), Chile (February 12, 1945), ary 27, 1945), Saudi Arabia (March 1, 1945), Lebanon (March 1, 1945), Syria (March 1, 1945). Mexico (June 5, 0, 1942), Ethiopia UNITED NATIONS The original members of the United Na- tions are those which participated in the United Nations Conference on International Organization at San Francisco or had previ- ously signed the United Nations Declaration of January 1, 1942, and which signed and ratified the charter. The members are: Ar- gentina, Australia, Belgium, Bolivia, Brazil Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic, Canada, Chile, China, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Ethiopia, France, Greece, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, India, Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Liber- ia, Luxembourg, Mexico, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Panama, Para- guay, Peru, Philippines, Poland (although Poland was not represented at San Francis- co, it was agreed that it should sign the charter subsequently as an original member), Saudi Arabia, Syria, Turkey, vember 19, 1946), Iceland (No)(ember 19, 1946), Sweden (November 19,/1946), Thai- land (Siam) (December 16, 1946), Pakistan (September 30, 1947), Ye 30, 1947), Burma (April 19. The Soviet Union part' ipates in 5 of the 10 Specialized Agenci of the United Na- Soviet Russia is no a member of the Food and Agriculture Organization, the Interna- ternational Ban for Reconstruction and Development, the International Mone- tary-Fund. So et Russia withdrew from the World Healt Organization but, since there is no provisi n for withdrawal, she is regard- ed as an inactive member. The me bership of the specialized agen- cies in ich the Soviet Union participates and th? one in which she is an inactive mem r follows: IL International Labor Organization t,ONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE S 635 Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Pakistan, Egypt, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Finland, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Phi pines, France, Federal Republic of Germany, Poland, Portugal, Portuguese Pr inces of Greece, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Hun- West Africa, Portuguese Prow UNESCO-United Nations Educational, via. Scientific and Cultural Organization G Afghanistan, Argentina, Australia, Aus- tria, Belgium, Bolivia, Brazil, Burma, Byelo- russian Soviet Socialist Republic, Cambodia, of Soviet Soc dom, United lia, (Austria, Belgium, Bolivia, Brazil, Bulgar- ia, Burma, Byelorussian Soviet, Socialist Re- public, Canada, Ceylon, Chile, China, Co- lombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Czechoslovakia, n, is temporarily precluded from acceding' the convention and the agreements. epublics, United King- Uruguay, Venezuela, Gold Coast, Sierra dies Territories, Brit- Organization member), Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Pakistan, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland,' Portugal, Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland (associate member), Rumania,' Saudi Arabia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Syria, Thailand, Tuni- sia (associate member), Turkey, Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic,' Union of South Africa, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics,' United Kingdom, United States, Uruguay, Venezeula, Vietnam, Yemen, Yugoslavia. UPU-Universal Postal Union WMO Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Belgian Congo, Bolivia, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burma, Byelorus- sian Soviet Socialist Republic, Cambodia, b' Canada, Ceylon, Chile, China, Colour Ia, Hungary, Iceland,~1ndia, Indonesia, Iraq, Costa Rica, Cuba, Czechoslovakia, Den- Ireland, Israel, Italy,, Japan, Lebanon, Lux- mark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, embourg, Mexico, Netherlands, New Zea- French Salvador, Ethiopia, Finland, France, land, Norway, Pakistan, Paraguay, Peru, French Morocco, French Overseas Territo- Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Rumania, ries, Germany, Greece, Guatemala, Haiti, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Syria, Thai- sia, Iran, Iraq, gnIa Iceland, Israel, Italy, and, Turkey, Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Re- Jordan, Korea, Ireland, Isra, Ital taly, Japan, public, Union of South Africa, United King- Libya, Luxembourg, Mexico, Lebanon, Liberia, b, dom, United Staes; Union of Soviet Socialist namNew Republics, Uruguay, Venezuela, Vietnam, N, Antilles and Mexico, Surinam, New Netherlands, Netherlands ethe N 'Nine governments have notified WHO of their Belgian Congo, Bermuda, British carib- withdrawal. The Third World Health Assembly in 1950 resolved that WHO would welcome their bean Territories, British Central African resumption of active membership at any time. Territories, British East African Territories Approved For Release 2008/09/18: CIA-RDP86B00338R000200320005-2 Chile, China, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, Dominican Re- public, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Ethio- pia, Finland, France, French Protec- torates of Morocco and Tunisia, Overseas Territories of the French Republic and Ter- ritories administered as such; French Re- public of Germany, Greece, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Jordan, Korea, Laos, Lebanon, Liber- ia, Libya, Luxembourg, Mexico Monaco, Netherlands, Surinam; Netherlands Antilles and New Guinea; New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Pakistan, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Phillippines, Poland, Portugal, Portuguese Overseas Provinces, Rhodesia and Nyasa- land, Federation of; Rumania, Saudi Arabia, Spain, Spanish Protectorate in Morocco and the totality of Spanish possessi4 ins; Sweden, Switzerland, Syria, Thailand, Turkey, Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, Union of South Africa and Territor i of South- West Africa, Union of Soviet Socialist Re- publics, United Kingdom, Colo pies. Protec- torates, Overseas Territories, ind Territo- ries under mandate or trustees!) in of United Kingdom; United States, Territories of Australia, Austria, Belgium, il, Bulgaria, Burnia, Byelorus- Approved For Release 2008/09/18: CIA-RDP86B00338R000200320005-2 February 1, 1984 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -SENATE ligence authorization bill dealings with under the -direction and control of such an thi s same subject in part. officer, or I want to make sure for my part that "(3) acting with authorization from the I fully understand the consequences of Attorney General in accordance with the this matter before I make a decision regulations issued by the Attorney General on tlte?~art of the leadership here to intercept a wire or oral communication, o the P proceed. where such person is a party to the commu- nication or where one of the parties to the It wiHAcos ne as no surprise to my two communication Jas given prior consent to friendk"Aere who are the prime spon- such intereeptlon,or where the eommunica- sors oTte bill to know that the lead. tion constitutes a criminal or tortuous act in erahIlLaw this side has asked for com- violation of the laws of the United States or ments from various agencies and de- of any State- partments of Governments who might Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I be affected, and I have also asked him always wonder what my English teach- to do that promptly, meaning within er thinks when she hears me say, "I the next hour or so so that we have ask unanimous consent that further their views. Their views are not neces- reading be dispensed with," because I sarily controlling but I feel the respon- was taught that one absolute "no-no" sibility to hear them. in English is never to end a sentence But as I said earlier, I am not deter- with a preposition. So I just trust she mined to make the tabling motion. I will forgive me one of the little india- reserve that option. But it may be that cretions that is demanded by the great we may get to a vote on the merits or deliberative body. It may be we will have a tabling Incidentally, You remember Winston motion. Churchill said, "Ending a sentence But in the meantime I think we with a preposition is something up should sort of stay loose and see where with which I will not put." we get to with it. Mr. President, this amendment that I hope that by 1:30 or 2 p.m. we can I Just sent to the desk .takes care of be voting on something, and I think what I hope will be any concerns that we probably can. the intelligence community might Mr. BUMPERS. I thank the major- have or that the Attorney General ity leader. might have,- A suggestion has been Mr. BAKER. I thank my friends made that if you simply exclude law from Arkansas and Ohio, enforcement activities and law en- umtoamtr NO. 2650 forcemeat officers, that term may not (Purpose: To Prevent Government officials be broad enough to take care of intelli- Prom Secretly Taping Conversations With gence and counterintelligence activi- Others) ties, and also,certain activities that the Mr- BUMPERS. Mr. President, I Attorney General might want to au- send an amendment to the desk and thorize but which might not be techni- ask for its immediate consideration. (aY within the definition of law en- The PRESIDING OFFICER. The forcement officers. amendment will be stated. So in order to avoid any possible The bill clerk read as follows: problem with that, and to make a leg- The Senator from Arkansas (Mr. Bump- islative record to guide any court in. ERs) proposes an amendment numbered terpreting this amendment In the 2690 to amendment numbered 2689. future, we have added that provision. Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I ask We have said not only does this unanimous consent that further read- amendment not apply to law enforce- ing of the amendment be dispensed ment officers, but we are also saying it with. does not apply to intelligence- and The PRESIDING OFFICER. With- counter-Intelligence-gathering activi- out objection, it is so ordered. ties. Nor does it apply to those people The amendment is as follows: who by regulation have been ordered Amend amendment No. 2687 by striking do something by the Attorney Gen-eral. line 1 and all that follows and Insert in lieu thereof on page 375, between lines 15 and It seems to me that that is broad 16, insert the following: Part J-Tlaperecording by Government Officials, Sea 1120, Section 2511 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by striking out subsection 2(c) and inserting in lieu thereof: "(c) Under this chapter, it shall be unlaw- A l for any person who is an official, elected official, appointed official, employee or agent of the United States not described in the following sentence to intercept a wire or oral communication, unless all parties to the communication have given prior consent to such interception. It shall not be unlawful under this chapter for a person acting under color of law who Is- "(1) an. Investigative or law enforcement or foreign intelligence or counterintelli- gence officer acting within the normal course of his or her employment: or .1 (2) performing a law enforcement foreign intelligenee. or counterintelligence function u c - through. It should be broad enough to ary Committee and I have not been alleviate any of the concerns that I privy to everything they have w k d or e have heard about this amendment, out on this bill. I do not want to repeat most of what The opponents have said we should I said yesterday, but I do want to wait and offer this on something else. reemphasize that this amendment is Why wait if you have something good? not nearly as broad as my bill that I I have learned around here that wait- introduced here last week. I would feel ing can be a very dangerous occupa- much more comfortable with that bill, tion. S. 2205, because it goes way beyond I practiced trial law for 18 years Just Federal bureaucracy. It says that before I ever ran for public office. I no one in this country may tape a tele- was not engaged in' trying criminal Phone conversation without telling cases. I used to take a couple criminal the other party, exempting people cases each year just to stay up on acting under color of law and all those what the Supreme Court had done in people who have a legitimate excuse interpreting the Constitution as it re- for taping a telephone conversation. garded the crwlniaaf laws of the var- As I said, it is offensive to me, to loos States and the United States, I think about someone gratuitously call- must say I found trying criminal eases S 637 Ing up someone else and leading him into a conversation while they tape it without the convent or knowledge of the party on the other end. While this Is not directed at Charles Wick-Charles Wick has repented and said he will never do it again, and I assume that he will not---I cannot help but think about how Mr. Wick would have felt If he had been on the receiv- ing end of that treatment. What if someone called Charles Wick and led him into a conversation? He seems to be fairly well attuned politically. What if someone called Charles Wick and said, "How about you calling some of your close friends out in Ohio to attend this little fundraiser tonight and cough up $5,000 each toward this political action committee? So and so's son wants a job at USIA and if you give his son a job I believe he will kick in five grand tonight." That is hypothetical but I can tell you there Is not a Senator in this body who cannot relate to what I am saying. I think that Charles Wick would have been Insulted, offended, and out- raged, as any normal human being would be if he found he had been taped without his knowledge. One Senator has told me "I always assume I am being taped." That is fine. But I am telling you even when you assume you are being taped, you can wind up ' in a trap. Good Lord, Richard Nixon taped himself and im- plicated himself on his own tapes. I consider what Richard Nixon did foolish, but more foolish still to say things knowing that his own tape re- corder was going, even though no one else knew it. It is just bad practice. It is uncivil. - The majority leader said a while ago that this bill has been 3 or 4 years In the making and that this agreement had been reached on this bill. An agreement reached by whom? No one called me and said, "Are you all wired now to this bill so that you will not accept any amendmieflt 14o matter how valid, no matter horiigoddr The Judiciary 00dit ittees of the House of Represehtatives and the Senate have been work *gfor years on this. I am not a member of the J di i Approved For Release 2008/09/18: CIA-RDP86B00338R000200320005-2 Approved For Release 2008/09/18: CIA-RDP86B00338R000200320005-2 S 638 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE February 1, 1984 a couple times a year pretty exhilarat- I said, "Well, that is a little tenuous, they cannot entrap you by telephone ing. but you do have a defense. We will see taping without telling you on. the You know, trial lawyers will bore about it." front end. you to death with all their experi- I said, "How big a lift is it? How AMENDMENT NO. 2690, AS MODIFIEI) ences. My brother was educated in one much does it weigh?" Mr. President, I send to the desk a of those elite eastern law schools and He said, "About 300 pounds." modification of the amendment I of- he says that when he is around me And I said, "Could one person fered just a moment ago as substitute. and other trial attorneys, it just drives handle it?" The PRESIDING OFFICER. The him up the wall. He has never prac- "No" he said, "it would take two or amendment is so modified. ticed law. He became a corporate ex- three people." The clerk will report. ecutive. And I said, "Was it attached to the The PRESIDING OFFICER. The tractor?" He said, "Oh, no, it was just I know that those of us who prac- bill clerk read as follows: ticed trial law can hardly wait for the lying out there in the field." Amend amendment No. 2687 by striking other lawyer to get through with his And it dawned on him immediately line 5 and all that follows and insert in lieu story so we can tell one bigger. that he could not have known it was therein: But I always used to take the posi- not attached to the tractor and it was "(o) Under this chapter, it shall be unlaw- tion in a trial case that when you get lying out in the field if he had not ful for any person who is an official, elected the whole resources of the State been helping carry it. official, appointed official, employee or against one person as the defendant- When he said that, I said, "Son, you agent of the United States not described in and that is the way they announced better go find another lawyer," and he the following sentence to intercept a wire or the case, the State of Arkansas against did. And the other lawyer got him sent oral communication, unless all parties to the to the penitentiary. communication have given prior consent to Jones-it does not look like very fair such interception. It shall not be unlawful odds, does it? Even just announcing Well, those are interesting cases. under this chapter for a person actini? under the style of the case, such as the And trial lawyers can just tell you in- color of law who is- United States against Jones. That is teresting stories forever about that. "(1) an investigative or law enforcement an ominous sound. By my point is, I learned something in or foreign intelligence or counterintelli- I used to feel that if a State was 18 years of trial practice about the gence officer acting within the normal going to bring all of its resources to fact that every prosecutor is not course of his or her employment, or bear against this defendant and I was always weighing justice on the same "(2) performing a law enforcement, for- scales that you and I do. Prosecutors eign intelligence or counterintelligence representing him, I had the right to are like Senators-a lot of times they function under the direction and control of use every tactic I could think of to try want to be reelected, and they want to such an officer; or to exonerate my client. be able to go on television and tell you "(3) acting with authorization from the People often say, "I wonder if crimi- how many cases they prosecuted suc- Attorney General in accordance with the nal lawyers have a feeling about regulations issued by the Attorney General whether wdefendant is guilty or inno- cessfully, how many people they sent to intercept a wire or oral communication, cent." And any criminal lawyer who to the penitentiary, and so on. It is where such person in a party to the i:ommu- tells you he never worried about that sort of like how many notches you nication or where one of the parties to the have on the butt of your gun. communication has given prior consent to is not being truthful with you. Of And I found that a lot of witnesses such interception or where the com:nunica- course, you always have some idea in these cases were not always abso- tion constitutes a criminal or tortious act in about the guilt or innocence of your lutely truthful. Quite often in divorce violation of the laws of the United States or client. And I never had a client that cases, a husband would say to me, of any State. wanted to go to court and try his case; "How about me calling my wife up and Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I I never had one admit he was guilty recording this conversation so you will suggest the absence of a quorum. unless he wanted to plea bargain or do know that I am telling the truth and The PRESIDING OFFICE}' (Mr. something else. I never took a case to she is lying? She told me this morning HUMPHREY). The clerk will call the trial with a jury in which the defend- she was going to get on the witness roll. ant had told me he had done it or, stand and swear that I did so-and-so. The bill clerk proceeded to call the where in my heart I really believed he And I would like to call her on the roll. had done it. phone and just reiterate that conver- Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I Mr. President, we are not accom- sation and let you either listen in or I ask unanimous consent that th,~ order plishing much now, so I will just tell will tape it." for the quorum call be rescinded. you some interesting stories. I remem- But I never did that. I have never The PRESIDING OFFICER. With- ber a client came into my office and he tape recorded a conversation in my out objection, it is so ordered. said, "Mr. Bumpers, I am charged with life, not even with telling somebody on Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I stealing a hydraulic lift off of a man's the other end that I was taping it. rise in opposition to the i ending farm." So, Mr. President, to go back to what amendment. I said, "Well, did you steal it?" He I was about to say a while ago about First, I want to say that crime in said, "No, sir, I didn't." all the negotiations that have been this country has reached enormous I started talking to him about the going on, I hope the negotiations are proportions. A major FBI index of- case and he said, "We were all drunk going on because somebody is con- fense is committed every 2 seconds. A and I was in the back seat of the car cerned about how this might affect murder is committed about every 25 asleep when this happened." I said, some legitimate interest the adminis- minutes; a robbery every minute; a "You didn't know they even went tration has in tape recording conversa- rape every 7 minutes. A burglary is down to the man's farm." tions. But I hope none of the negotia- committed every 9 seconds. "No, sir," he said. tions bear on the proposition or deal The administration has taken steps "You didn't know they got it?" with this as though it is a partisan to focus on crime. For several years "No, sir." issue, because it is not. some of us have been attempting to do "How did you wind up being We have two or three cosponsors on the same thing. charged?" I asked. this from the other -side of the aisle. The members of the Judiciary Com- He said, "Well, we drove back into And I might say that those cosponsors mittee, the minority and the majority, town. We stopped at a stoplight and are people who have a good under- worked out this crime package in a all of the sudden a cop with his lights standing of the criminal-laws of this way that we hoped no amendments blazing pulled up beside us and told us country. But if we are going to build would be offered. We deleted from it to pull over, and we did. And he any kind of confidence in the people several provisions that were recom- searched the trunk and he found that of this country, it is just a little, bitty, mended by the administration. For in- hydraulic lift in the trunk. And that is granular step to say that the Federal stance, capital punishment is contro- the first I knew about it." Government can do a lot of things but versial, so we took it out of the pack- Approved For Release 2008/09/18: CIA-RDP86B00338R000200320005-2 Approved For Release 2008/09/18: CIA-RDP86B00338R000200320005-2 February 1, 19&4 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD = SENATE S639 age. There was some objection to habeas corpus-not-as much as capital Punishment-,eo we took- that out. There was some objection to the ex- clusionary ru)e so we took that out. There, wcs some objection, to Federal Torts Dims Act amendments; so we took that obt., In other words, we have -brought to the Senate a Package agreed upon by the majority and the minority In the Judiciary Committee. Senator BmEx and Senator KnrxESZ have worked hard on this package. A number on the Republican side have worked hard on this package. This package ought to pass. It contains many provisions that are badly needed. I will not go into detail at this time, but, for in- stance, sentencing reform. bail reform, forfeiture. Increase in drug penalties, justice assistance, and various other matters which are important to the public. This package has been carefully and sensibly worked out in a way we hoped would draw no amendments. Now this amendment has come about tape record of telephone conversations without the consent of all the parties. barrass the President. Some people Dana Ma. L.Ru W: This is In response to feel it is an opportunity to try to take your request for the views of the Depart- a slap at President Reagan. Some ment of Jintice concerning the proposed people feel that it is a matter which is amendment to 18 U.S.C. 2511(2)(c) which apparently r very complex, that deserves a lot of ernment officials to prohibit from recording Federal wir e e o or study. and feel it should not be on this oral communications to which they are a bill. party except in certain specified circum- I have appealed to the sponsors \of stancem this amendment to introduce a sepa- Initially, we should point out that the rate bill and let it be considered in the wiretap statute was the product of a three- Judiciary Committee in due form. This year drafting effort. is a matter which deserves hearings. Mr. President, let me comment on This is a matter which Senator P*UL that Three years spent studying and LpxALT, the chairman of the Criminal considering electronic surveillance leg- Law Subcommittee, has agreed to hold islation before finally acting on a bill hearings on and to hold them prompt- some 15 years ago. ly. I have agreed as chairman of the The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act full committee, after the subcommit- was developed over a 4-year period. These tee acts, to take the matter up prompt- statutes cover a broad range of law enforce. t ly elaborate o and act on it. ment and intelligence activities and involve We think that is reasonable. We iouss sections. In hem among the here that is fair. But to come in here with one of the moat complex andsesensitive at this late date with an amendment areas of law enforcement and intelligence that involves very complicated Issues- activity. We are, therefore, deeply con- that could involve the security and the eerned as to the severe damage which can Inadvertently be done through 111-conceived intelligence process of this coon and hastRy other matters-in my judgment is NW technical drafted closely Inter-re to tFed- completely unreasonable. I want to eral laws. seem to be well tell the proponents. I think it is com- founded as evidenced by the frequent tele- pletely unreasonable. There are alter- phone calls we received yesterday asking for natives. Let them offer it to some instant analyses of a wiretap amendment other bill later rather than jeopardize which seemed to change every hour on the this whole crime package. We have hour as grave deficiencies were recognized, these other bills coming up-habeas The "final" amendment with which we were exam- corpus, exclusionary rule, and various presented last legislative draftsmanship an incredible exam- others I have mentioned. They can a ho of ma. which raises offer it to those. Why do they have to I want to deviate a minute from the offer It to this delicately worked-out letter. I spoke to the distinguished crime package that has been worked Senator from Ohio and suggested that on for mnn+rw and _ could enact major legislation aimed at reducing crime in this country? Why come in here with this very controver. sial amendment at this time and delay this important crime bill? amehdment. They have had to repeat- edly 'amend this Amendment on their own Initiative. The distinguished Senator from Ohio says, "We'll, take any other amendment that ' you` ,rant to offer here." Why are they so Insistent to pass It on this bill? Why are they so insistent to take it tip' right at this time? It is a serious question` here of just what is behind this effort. Mr. President, to continue with the letter. First, it should be noted that the wiretap laws were directed at eleetrasde eavesdrop- ping by nary-parties to communications. Ob- viously, such eavesdropping bias the poten- tial for being extremely prhscy ntruaiv,e as the communication In quess ss may be be- tween one spouse and another, between a client and an attorney, a doctor and patient, or a priest and penitent. ?8ection 2511 of title 18 properly makes stilts eavesdropping a five-year federal felony. Yet the amend- ment before us would make recording of communications by a }party thereto a five- year federal felony as well. To equate eaves- dropping with recording of eommun$eationre to which a person to a party Is to make a leap that can only be accomplished In politl- cal hyperbole, not in reason or logic. The amendment Itself recognizes that re- cording of communications by a party Is dif- ferent from eavesdropping- as it does not seek to prohibit such recording by parties to communications where the pem(ti doing the recording is a State or local government em- ployee or a private ettisen. Only when the party recording the communication Is a,fed- eral employee does the activity become a five-year federal felony. This seems bizarre in the extreme. Adding to the curious nature of this amendment is that even Federal employees may record wire eommunioaYttona If they do so by shorthand or speedwriting rather than by aural device: It strikes us as strange that a stenographic transcription of a tele- phone conversation Is lawful while an elec- tronic recording under the same circum- stances is a five-year felony. We seriously question that this result would be suggested If this matter had been given the careful study which it deserves. As to the shocking severity of punishment provided for conduct which would be lawful if undertaken by anyone other than' Federal officials, this seems particularly inappropri- ate in view of the broad range of adminis- trative disciplinary proceedings available to punish Federal employees. This factor as well as those discussed above would strongly indicate that If any action is to be taken in this area, it should be In title 5 of the United States Code rather than as an amendment to the wiretap laws in title 18. There are other more specific problems with this amendment. First, the effort to provide an exception for consensual moni- toring by undercover law enforcement and intelligence officers and Informants appears so vague as to provoke endless litigation. At the very least, defense attorneys for drug traffickers, organised crime leaders and cor- rupt public officialf will be able to raise questions concerning any Investigation in- volving consensual monitoring due to vague concepts in the amendment - th g was e feted to have hearings, He said he cover of law"; was theiaw enfor meat 0u,- wanted it on this bill. He felt this bill cer "acting within the normal course of his , at in-t would be the one that would fly. But, acting und co~~of was informim Mr. President,' this Is too complicated formant "performing a law enforcement a subject to come up here with an function". was the informant, at the time Mr. President, I appeal to the distin guished Senator from Arkansas- appeal to his Patriotism, his 'public spiritedness, his love for law enforce- ment. He has, been the governor of a State. He bas beh redponsible for the law enforcement of a State as the chief executive officer. I am sure he knows the need for this anticrime leg- islation. Why jeopardize it and delay it, which they have done, to try to get on their particular amendment here? I do not know whether the purpose is to embarrass the President or what the Purpose is. But they have time to do this in a separate bill with hearings. Or they have time, if they insist on doing it at once, to amend other bills right after the crime package passes Let them offer it to one of those. Do not jeopardise this entire crime pack- age. Mr. President, this Is a very compli- cated subject.. I contacted the Depart- ment of Justice and asked their re- sponse to this amendment. I want the distinguished Senator from Arkansas, who is kind enough to be listening to me, to listen to this response to show how complicated the issues are. This is Approved For Release 2008/09/18: CIA-RDP86B00338R000200320005-2 Approved For Release 2008/09/18: CIA-RDP86B00338R000200320005-2 S640 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE - February 1, 1984 the recording occurred, "under the direction and control" of law enforcement officers, etc. Busy prosecutors and federal courts can be assured of expanded litigation in the years ahead given these new limitations on law enforcement activities. Second, the effort to except out intelli- gence activities at the last minute- and that is what I understand they have attempted to do. appears to be seriously defective. Intelli- gence officials, like law enforcement offi- cials, use informants and double agents, yet these informants or double agents would not be permitted to record communications to which they are a party. While title III de- fines "investigative or law enforcement offi- cer", there is no comparable definition of foreign intelligence or counterintelligence officer, thus leaving uncertainty as to the officials exempted from this prohibition. As written, the amendment permits inter- ception by law enforcement or intelligence officers only where they are parties or have nity to review and comment upon such legis- lation. And of course that would be done in hearing. Such careful review is, we believe, essen- tial to avoid producing adverse effects far beyond those intended by the authors of the amendment. As currently written, the amendment would be a serious impediment to law enforcement and intelligence activi- ties at a time when we should be strength- ening our ability to deal with crime and ter- rorism. Sincerely, RoazRT A. McCONNELL, Assistant Attorney General. Mr. President, how can anyone listen to that letter by the Justice Depart- ment and feel that we should proceed rather than take time to give study to this serious and complex subject? Why not hold a hearing, let the public be heard, let the various agencies of the Federal Government be heard and then bring in a bill that is fair and Just to all concerned, taking into considera- tion the concerns of the public, the concerns of the Federal agencies, and the concerns of the different Members of Congress. - Mr. President, we think that would be the reasonable course to pursue. I again implore my friends-and they are my friends-the distinguished Sen- ator from Arkansas and the distin- guished Senator from Ohio, to give consideration to letting this amend- ment be offered to another bill when there is more time to consider it. Still better, this matter should go to the Judiciary Committee Criminal Law Subcommittee. It could hold hearings where everyone expresses themselves. Then a sound bill can be written that will meet the approval of the public, meet the approval of the Congress, the consent of a party to the communica- tion or the communication itself constitutes a crime or tort. No provision is made for the collection of positive intelligence, assess- ment or recruitment information, testing of equipment or training intelligence person- nel, or collecting information on terrorist activities abroad which may not violate United States laws. Third, despite the effort to accommodate the suggestion in our letter of yesterday concerning recording of communications re- lated to criminal acts, the effort to except out such recordings fails to accomplish its purpose. The way the provision is written, the only federal officials who are authorized to record bomb threats, extortion demands, bribe offers, etc. are law enforcement and intelligence officers and informants. Even if this were corrected, however, the language is. still much too narrow as not all comunica- tions which we described in our last letter would "constitute a criminal or tortious act". In the case of a bomb threat, for exam- ple, the call to warn that a bomb has been placed in a public building and that it is set to explode at a particular time would not necessarily "constitute" a criminal offense, although it would be related to a criminal offense. We believe, however, that there are other situations where a federal employee should be able to record oral communications. Assume, for example, that a female employ- ee has been subjected to sexual harassment by a male supervisor and that her previous complaints have been dismissed because her claims were not believed. Her use of a re- corder to "intercept" sexual solicitations of the supervisor would be, a form of "self-de- fense" but would constitute a five-year fed- eral felony under the amendment because the sexual propositions of the supervisor ered b , ..- -- ^--- --- -- lex subject. or tortious act. There may also be situations activity cov where the amendment would undermine so- many areas, we do not know what p called "whistle-blower" laws by prohibiting should be offered and what should How many times-oh, Lord, how consensual recording necessary to prove not. We think it deserves thorough many times-in the last 9 years have I waste or abuse in connection with Federal consideration. Then come to the heard this: "We need to hold hearings programs. Senate with a bill that we feel protects on that. This is immensely complicat- In sum, Mr. Chairman, 'we believe very public interest, protects the em ed. Don't put it on this bill. Wait and strongly that the amendment at hand is a the gravely flawed product and that its approval ployees of the Federal Government, put it on something else." at this time would be the height of irrespon- and protects all concerned. If it is logical that we ought not dis- sibility. Were we to endeavor to draft such a Mr. President, I again, as I say, im- turb or offer one single word change prohibition in the form of an amendment to plore my good friends, take time. in this bill because it has been careful- the very technical and closely inter-related There is no rush on this. ly crafted, then I can just go to Arkan- wiretap laws, we would proceed with utmost Will you please take this under con- sas and make some speeches and see caution and subject such a proposal to care- ful sideration? Especially consider letting my constituents and let the cs uassticice but not am monng all other within the Federal Department a hearing be held on this matter, so tees bring to the floor these carefully agen- commit- i of think that when a bill is considered, it prob- worked-out bills which are not to be cies as well. In addition, , we we would uld think that the public should be given an opportu- ably will be a bill we all can support. disturbed or amended in any way. , and meet the approval of the execu- Chamber in the past hour, I think I tive agencies of the Government as am beginning to understand why we being fair and Just. are on hold. I think we are on hold be- That is all we want. But you cannot cause the administration has begun to say that this bill is sound when it in- turn the dogs loose, and everybody is volves such complicated matters. It calling up here and saying, "You've has been gotten up here in haste, got to be careful. This is an immensely amended several times already, and complicated proposition." the distinguished Senator from Ohio Mr. McConnell, the Assistant Attor- if has we have offered to them. take We are other not in a posiamendments ney General, has gone to the trouble tion to list detailed exceptions to the of composing over three single-spaced blanket prohibition sought to be im- pages of what he obviously thought posed by the amendment. Because of was compelling logic on why we ought .- ... t wait wht, we ought. to hold hear- o In that event, the public interest would be well-served. Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, first of all, I do not know Robert A. McCon- nell, who is the Assistant Attorney General. But I find It difficult to be- lieve that a man who has no more knowledge of existing law, to say noth- ing of this amendment, and is a gradu- ate of a reputable law school would write a letter such as this. I attempted to Just take it sentence by sentence and dissect it so that my colleagues will understand that there is not a single point in this letter, not one. I will come back to that In just a moment. My distinguished colleague from South Carolina, one of the most re- vered men in this body, the chairman of one of the most important commit- tees in the Senate, which deals with the criminal laws among other issues, is an honorable and noble man. He feels very strongly about the amend- ment, and he has expressed that very well. But, as Anthony said at Caesar's funeral, "There is a lot of misinforma- tion here." A slap at the President? Does this mean that the President wants to go out and campaign on the proposition that he was violently opposed to a law which, in effect, stops Peeping Toms? That is as good an analogy as I can think of to somebody calling another person on the phone and, without that person's knowledge, taping the conver- sation. Only one party knows about it. That is what happens with window peepers. Only one party knows the window peeping is going on. That is an offense, as it should be. A slap at the President? I must say based on my observation in this that Approved For Release 2008/09/18: CIA-RDP86B00338R000200320005-2 Approved For Release 2008/09/18: CIA-RDP86B00338R000200320005-2 February 1, 1984 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -SENATE I am very pleased at the work of the or a violation of the criminal laws or distinguished Senator from South whatever-to telephone tap.,So that Carolina and the distinguished Sena- part of Mr. McConnell's letter is abso- tor from Massachusetts. Everybody lutely a red herring, specious. knows- that when Senator THmu*6No As to that part of his letter that says and Senator Ksan mm agree on some- you could not even let a secretary who thing, it' must be good. I am going to has been improperly solicited for vote for the bill; whether this amend- sexual purposes under threat of losing ment passes or not, and I applaud her job or anything else-why, I am them for their efforts. That has noth- amazed that the Assistant Attorney ing to do with the merits of this General, Robert A. McConnell, says amendment. But, no bill is ever so you cannot do that. You can do that sacred that It cannot be improved. right now, under existing law, and our None. amendment, does not change it; be- I hear that so often in this Chamber, cause one of the aspects of existing "We have worked so hard." And they law is "or anytime there is a criminal have. I applaud that. I am not Beni- or tortious act in violation of the laws grating that. I am simply saying that of the United States." that is not what the people of Arkan- It is a tort, an unlawful tort for sas elected this Senator to do, to take someone to solicit a sexual favor and a dive every time somebody says, say that "If it is not honored, you may "This is a very carefully crafted bill." lose your job," or even hint at it. That If we are going to do that, we should is a tort covered by existing law. It have electronic voting, so we do not may also be a crime. We do not change have to come to the floor. We can that. simply sit in the office and push a Here is the Assistant Attorney Gen- button. eral of the United States who obvious- I do not believe that the President of ly hose read the law. It is one of the the United States is going to run this most peculiar letters, I have ever seen fall on the proposition that he believes in my life. in indiscriminate taping of telephone But you know the administration- conversations. But apparently there is not just this one, all administrations- this great perception that this is a slap expect all the Senators on their side of at the President, when it has nothing the aisle to jump under the desk when to do with the President. If I were they send a letter such as this over going to slap the President, I would here saying it is immensely complex. have done ft a long time ago, when he His first argument is "No provision did not fire Charles Wick. He should is made for the collection of positive have fired him in a New York minute. intelligence assessment or recruitment What is complicated about saying that We make a very. precise exception when you. are talking to somebody on for it. He is wrong in that paragraph. the telephone, if you are going to Second, he says the way the provi- report what they are saying, you sion is written, the only Federal offi- should at least have the decency to caals who are authorized to record say, "Do you mind if I record this con- bomb threats, extortion demands, versation," or, "I am recording this bribe offers, are law enforcement offi- conversation"? Is that complicated? I cers, intelligence officers, or inform- do not think it is. ants. Wrong again. Existing law allows Mr. McConnell says that it could you to record a bomb threat, an extor- affect intelligence-gathering oper- ations. No. 1, existing law says that you are exempt from the prohibition agiinst telephone taping if you act under color of law. What is color of law? Their "ain't" no end to what that tions which I have just covered for tion, and so forth. We have more Intel- means. It does not have anything to do you. ligenee gathering operations than any with the criminal laws of the country. Finally, he says this amendment other nation on Earth and they are all It can be an IRS investigation into a could lead to endless litigation. I will exempt from this amendment. civil case. tell you one thing. If you do not adopt As a matter of fact we are clarifying If Charles Wick had been charged this amendment there will be more the law for them. They would be sub- with taping a telephone conversation, litigation because the present civil ject to litigation under existing law. unquestionably would have used as his cause of action is obviously not a suffi- We make it an ironclad certainty that defense that he was operating under cient deterrent to wrongful conduct they cannot litigate whatever they color of law and thereby exempt under such as Mr. Wick's. decide to do. section 2511(c). And it probably would Mr. President, this world is explod- I was reading the paper this morn- have been successful, because the law ing with electronic technology. I occa- ing, and Amin Gemayel, the President right now exempts anybody operating sionally like to go see one of" those of Lebanon, was quoted on the front under color of law. . James Bond-type movies just to see all page of the Washington Post as saying However, just to satisfy the intelli- that electronic equipment. Some of if the United States pulls its marines gence community, we have clarified these people are technical experts. out of Lebanon, guess what? You existing law by saying that intelli- And I love to see all that equipment guessed it-those dirty Russians will gence and counterintelligence-gather- that James Bond uses. They have di- move right in. If you really want to get fag activities are specifically exempt rectional microphones where they can someone's attention in this country. from this amendment. We have even pick up a casual conversation a half a just tell them the Russfana are gone further We have said that the block away. coming. Attorney General can authorize When} I was a child all telephone You know what Amin Gemayel is people-whether it is just a regulation conversations went through wires on telling us, is that he is President of law. That is the law now. Strike that child in the United States, with those paragraph. exceptions, the CIA. the NSA, the 5641 poles. Today no long-distance call goes through a wire. It is communicated by satellite or by microwave. They go through the air. We can intercept mil- lions and millions of -conversations a day. We have the ability to do it. And here we are with a little, old amendment that does not do anything except bring a little decency to the American people by assuring them that some two-bit bureaucrat is not going to record a telephone conversa- tion with them, because he happens to be paranoid or is worried about his job, without telling people that he is doing it. Complicated? Mr. McConnell goes so far In his letter to refer to wiretaps. He calls this a wiretap bill. This is not really a wire- tapping bill. A wiretap is where a third party goes in and taps a conversation between two parties, neither of whom knows it is going on. And we have a pretty stout wiretap- ping law in this country. It is so stout we say you have to have a court order to wiretap, and I think that is a good idea, and I bet you the Senator from South Carolina thinks that is a good idea. It is an invasion of privacy. Is it any less an invasion of privacy when there are only two parties and one knows the other's privacy is being invaded but the one whose privacy is being in- vaded does not know it? Does that make it less harmful? Does that make it more appropriate, more acceptable? Mr. President, 13 of the 50 States al- ready have this law. U they had waited around for the perfect vehicle to put It on, if they had said this is too complicated for us, do not tinier with it, you might interfere with something or other, do you think those 13 States would have the law? The truth of the matter is this amendment should be much, much broader. It should go way beyond the Federal bureaucracy. It Approved For Release 2008/09/18: CIA-RDP86B00338R000200320005-2 Approved For Release 2008/09/18: CIA-RDP86B00338R000200320005-2 S 642 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE February 1. 198/ that country but yet he represents a nents of this amendment wants to interfere Mr. THURMOND. I am gad to minority. He represents the Maronite in any way with the law enforcement activi- yield. ties of the United States, and we have pro Christians who are a fairly big minor vided language on that very point. If there Mr. BUMPERS. Mr, President, if I ity but they are a minority. And the is something else they want, we will provide. may, I think the Senator from South Moslems are saying that unless Ge- that. Carolina is entitled to an an: wer. I mayel is' willing to share power with If it passes the Senate and they find that suggest that if the Senator or anybody the majority, there will be no peace in it needs to be changed at a later point, we from the administration , has an Lebanon. That certainly is not diffi- will agree and urge the House to change it amendment, they ought.. to b ^ing it cult for me to understand. And Ge- over there. over here and let us ir. As I mayel is saying the constitution gives Then further on in the RECORD from say, I cannot speak for the k,enator the Maronite Christians the right to a yesterday, the distinguished Senator from Ohio, but I can tell you l would majority, and I do not know that be- from Ohio said: not accept just any old amendment cause at one time they were a majority I said previously that should the Depart- anybody decided to bring up here. But when their constitution was written. ment of Justice or anyone in any of our law I certainly would cooperate in the But I am not at all sure that the Mos= enforcement agencies indicate that there is utmost good faith with the senator lems are not asking for control, they anything in the draft of this legislation that from South Carolina on any amend- are simply saying "You have to be traordinary with their activities, e e ment that would improve the amend- fairer with us than you have been." support s an , amendment. we are e prepared t to ment, and I know the Senator from pport And he does not want to do that. I Now, I understand the distinguished South Carolina would not offer one do not know what the administration's Senator from Ohio repeated that that did not. position is, whether they want him to today. Does the Senator feel the same Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I or not. But I do know this is a very way, that this amendment could be would like to ask the Parliametarian clever tactic on his part. Tell those improved? again: Is any amendment in order to people in the United States that if Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I this amendment now being- consid- they pull out, the Russians are almost would not presume to speak for the ' ered? certain to take over Lebanon. So you Senator from Ohio. I will say this: Ob- The PRESIDING OFFICER. The must leave the marines here. viously, the Senator from Ohio did not amendment is not subject to amend- And I ask everyone within earshot intend to say that he would accept any ment. how many times have you heard that amendment or an amendment that argument in the last 30 years? would negate the effect of our amend- The difference between statesmen ment. I feel quite sure what he was Presiding Officer. He says the amend- and other people is that statesmen saying was that if there is some legiti- went is not subject to any amend really try to think things through, mate interest in telephone tapping by mther. ent. You cannot amend it any fur- people who just do not accept those law enforcement or other administra- You have taken a course of arguments at face value but who ask if tive agencies that makes any sense, action to block any amendments. How they have merit, analyze it, and act on they ought to let us know. can you amend it? And why `lid you it. But if it is just another red herring That is the kind of amendment I say yesterday and today that if you to try to keep 1,500 marines not stand- feel sure he was talking about. Howev- have any amendments, bring them in, Ing tall but buried 15 feet under- er, he can speak for himself. and then a course of action was fol- ground, then you should act on that. I would say to the Senator from lowed to block amendments? As a former marine, I can tell you Ohio, who is now on the floor, that I Mr. METZENBAUM. Will the Sena- those 1,500 marines are so frustrated. I would not accept just any old amend- tor from South Carolina yield for a can tell you I was not trained to dig a ment that was sent over here. question? hole 15 feet in the ground and sit Mr. THURMOND. The Senator Mr. THURMOND. I am glad to there while people took potshots at would not object to consideration of yield. me and particularly to guard a civilian some reasonable amendment? Mr. METZENBAUM. The Senator airport. That is another subject. We Mr. BUMPERS. I think the Senator correctly quoted me on the floor of will get back to that later on, I am from Ohio was saying that, but I will the Senate and I want to repeat it. If quite sure. let him speak for himself. you have an amendment, we know But here is a simple amendment Mr. THURMOND. I would like to how to handle the parliamentary pro- that the Justice Department has tried ask the Senator from Arkansas, if he cedures around here in order to to torpedo with the most outrageous, feels some reasonable amendment achieve an appropriate objective. Does specious, fallacious reasons I have ever could be considered. the Senator from South Carolina have seen in my life. Occasionally those let- Mr. BUMPERS. Certainly. an amendment that the Justice De- ters that come over from the adminis- Mr. THURMOND. Then I would like partment feels should be considered tration or one of the agencies have to ask the question: Why did the Sena- on this bill? some embryo of reason to it. This has tor from Arkansas offer a second- if we had it. had none, degree amendment that now precludes Mr. Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, all amendments? I would like to ask one . the we Presiding Officer say that no that nd will the Senator yield for a question? the Parliamentarian: What is the situ- Mr. BUMPERS. I yield the floor. ation now about this amendment? Can amendment is in order. The distin- Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, it be amended? guished Senator from Arkansas of- yesterday, the distinguished Senator The PREfIDING OFFICER. The fered a second-degree amendment and from Ohio made this statement: amendment is a second-degree amend- your amendment cannot be amended We have said to the Justice Department: ment and is not subject to amend- any further. "If you don't think that this bill is adequate ment. Mr. METZENBAUM. I say to the or does it in the manner you think it should Mr. THURMOND. The Parliamen- Senator from South Carolina, who has be done, tell us what amendments you want, tarian says it is not subject to amend- been around here longer than any of and,we will accept those amendments." ment, and that is what I was told. The us, that he well knows that that which He further said: distinguished Senator from Arkansas the parties want to do can be achieved I said: "Tell me what your problems are, offered a second-degree amendment. under the parliamentary procedures if and we will amend the amendment." He has placed this thing in concrete. there are not objections. So I say to I will say it publicly: If Justice does not you say, "Bring forth your amend- him that if the Justice Department or like the way some particular provision of menu," and you have blocked it so we the NSA or the CIA or whatever has sayu is tteand it with law they think enforce- in cannot offer any amendment. an amendment, if he is good enough to soom me w way it e it will interfere menu activities, we will change it. They will Mr. METZENBAUM. Will the Sena- acquaint us with it then I am certain not have to persuade us: They will not have tor from South Carolina yield for 'a we will work out the parliamentary to twist .ourarms. Not one of the propo-- question? procedure. Approved For Release 2008/09/18: CIA-RDP86B00338R000200320005-2 Approved For Release 2008/09/18: CIA-RDP86B00338R000200320005-2 February 1, 1984 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -- SENATE S 643 But it is certainly understandable you have some merit on your side, if officials have taped. We do know that that the Senator from Arkansas would the CIA or the Justice Department or Mr. Wick is not the only one. The Di- offer an amendment to keep our the Attorney General or the NSA has rector of the Peace Corps also has ad- amendment clean of having any an amendment that has merit, come mitted that she secretly taped conver- amendments that would just be con- forward with it. Do not tell us about sations with one of her employees. fusing or would do violence to the the parliamentary procedures. Those Yet from Watergate to Charlie Wick original objectives of the proposals. It can be worked out. to other instances of taping. Congress is a procedure used oftentimes around Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, he has failed to address this problem. here and certainly I think the Senator says if it is meritorious. He will decide What we have here is a very simple from Arkansas was well within his whether I can offer it. He will deter- amendment which has already been rights. If there is such an amendment mine If I can offer an amendment. amended to accommodate the con- that the Justice Department has or You have it so that I cannot offer an cerns of the intelligence agencies and the NSA or the CIA or the Attorney amendment, which has been amended in the first General, then acquaint us with the I will ask the Presiding Officer again instance to take care of the concerns language of that amendment. If it if any amendments are in order, of the Attorney General. We have at- does not do violence to the original ob- The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under tempted to accommodate all of the jectives of the proposals, then I am the present circumstances, no further concerns of the Justice Department certain we would be more than willing. amendments are in order.. and other agencies. They wanted in- to consider it and more than willing to Mr. THURMOND. There is your formers to be able to secretly tape and proceed to see to it that it is adopted answer. we amended it to achieve that objec- as a part of the bill. Mr. METZENBAUM addressed the tive, to make that possible. Anyone Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I Chair. who is working under the supervision believe the Senator from Ohio said The PRESIDING OFFICER. The of a law enforcement officer would not today: Senator from Ohio. be prohibited from taping under the I say to the majority leader that I am the Mr. METZENBAUM. Mr. President, provisions of this amendment. sponsor of this amendment and Senator I would like to talk a little bit more Concerns were expressed about for- Bumpers Is a cosponsor, as well as a number about this measure, not too long, and eign intelligence and oounterintelli- of other Senators, and we have no desire to indicate that I am speaking for myself gence officers, so we included an ex- drag out the matter. We are perfectly will- and those who are sponsors for this ing to accept any amendments that seem measure when I , say we are prepared emption for them. reasonable. So far, we have not turned down to vote on the amendment. Concerns were raised about officials any from any group, such as the Attorney Before doing so, I want to be certain who needed to tape to protect the se- General, the CIA, the NSA, or any other le- that all the cosponsors of this amend- our amendment would interfere in some curity of other Government officers gitimate arm of Government that thinks ment are identified properly. During and about investigators who looked for way with their legitimate or reasonable un- the debate yesterday, I was proceeding violations of civil law. So we have in- dertakings. to add additional ones and found that eluded an exemption for such officers Again, I ask the Chair: If the CIA some of them did not show up in the as the Attorney General authorizes to came to me with an amendment now RECORD. Therefore, I ask unanimous tape secretly. and said this amendment is needed to consent that the RacoRn reflect the I have said it before and I Will say it protect the security of this country, or fact that the following are cosponsors again, if there is some proposal that the NSA came to us, or the FBI; or of this amendment: Myself and Sena- one of the agencies of our Govern- any Government agency, I ask the tors BUSSrsaes, LnAxY, RnEOI.a, RunnuN, ment feels is imperative~to be included Presiding Officer is any amendment in RANDOLra, Hvnni asTON, Brno, CRAN- in this measure, I am certain that we order? ETON, ExoN, HART, FORD, MrscHEt, will have no difficulty in agcommpdat- The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. LAUTZNBSRG, LEVIN, Dixon, 8 ARSAN6&, ing those concerns with an appropri- 000HRAN). The amendment of the Sen- DODD, and MATSUNAGA. ate amendment. ator from Arkansas is an amendment The PRESIDING OFFICER. With- Frankly, we cannot accommodate in the second degree and is not amend- out objection, it is so ordered. those concerns until we know what able. Mr. METZENBAUM. Mr. President, the concerns are and what language Mr. THURMOND. As I understand we do not get excited about this mess- they think they will need. But we have it, no further amendments are in order ure because it is not anything to excite not been hard to reach. We have not here, is that correct? That was the anyone. We are talking about personal been difficult tb talk with. We have ruling of the previous Parliamentar- privacy, which is a long-cherished not indicated a standoffish attitude. ian. American value. Every time there is a We have said over and over again, "If The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under government intrusion on our privacy, you have some problem with one of the present circumstances, no further conservatives and liberals, Democrats the law enforcement agencies or one amendments are in order at this time. and Republicans, and the general pop- of the information-gathering agencies Mr. THURMOND. There is your ulous view that kind of invasion or in- of our Government, let us know what answer. No further amendments are in trusion on our privacy with outrage. language you need, and we will see to order. And even though you have a Therefore, when we learn about Gov- it that it gets into our amendment." defect In the amendment, you put ernment officials-and I say officials Frankly, it is heartening to note that yourself in a position now where it in the plural-who secretly tape record Mr. Wick, who is the one that caused cannot be corrected. our conversations, we find that we all this matter to become a cause celebre, Mr. METZL+.NBAUM. Mr. President, feel that it violates the fundamental has himself come to recognize the I point out to my good friend from precepts of privacy and violates' the error of his own ways. He has publicly South Carolina that, indeed, it can be public trust in our Government. conceded that his conduct was insensi- corrected. If you have an amendment, We all know that this Nation and tive and unfair. let us see It. Do not make speeches the world gave tremendous attention So this is not a Wick amendment. about it, let us see the amendment. to this entire issue of the taping of This is an amendment to do that Mr. THURMOND, How can I offer it conversations during the Watergate which Congress should have done a when the Presiding Officer said that investigation. What is so hard to un- good many years ago. no amendment- derstand and hard to believe is that I think many of us thought it prob- Mr. METZENBAUM. We can offer It after that tragic episode, it is absolute- ably was unlawful to tape a conversa- on your behalf. By unanimous con- ly unbelievable that Government offi- tion. We find that it is not, so we are sent, it can get into the RacoRD. So cers would repeat former President attempting to correct that situation. that' is a specious argument that you Nixon's mistakes. Yet they do. Many States have already recog- are making. We can offer It. We will As I said, public officials is in the nized that taping by government offi- get it in. Let us aft the amendment. If plural. I do not know how many public cials Is wrong. This proposal does not Approved For Release 2008/09/18: CIA-RDP86B00338R000200320005-2 Approved For Release 2008/09/18: CIA-RDP86B00338R000200320005-2 S 644 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE February 1, 1984 go as far as Senator BUMPERS' amend- ment would go, and I support Senator BUMPERS' amendment, to make it il- legal across the country for all people to tape. This only applies to ourselves and to other people who are agents of the Federal Government or who are officials of the Federal Government. States with laws restricting taping of a similar nature for their executives or employees or agents or officials are Arkansas, California, Delaware, Flor- ida, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Montana, North Carolina, Ohio, Okla- homa, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Washington, and Wyoming. Secret tad;,-'g should be illegal across the ecur.Lry under Federal law. Not only are we on the floor saying that, but editoria's in n" ;papers across the country have spu ;:n to this specific issue. The Wall Street Journal charac- terized the tapings of Mr. Wick as being "stupid" on January 9, 1984. Newsweek said: If the Watergate scandal taught politi- cians anything, it was the danger of making secret tape recordings and the peril of trying to deny an embarrassing truth. Both lessons were apparently lost on Charles Z. Wick, California entrepreneur and long- time friend of Ronald Reagan, who runs from ruckus to ruckus as head of the United States Information Agency. A New York Times editorial, written by William Satire, explains why the secret tapings were so offensive. It begins by asking: What is so bad about secretly recording what people say on the telephone? Doesn't taping serve the cause of accuracy? Doesn't everybody in government and top business management do it? The editorial then answers itself. When you engage in conversation with an- other person, you and he make the assump- tion that nobody is eavesdropping. Both of you speak more freely on that assumption; if you convey a confidence to the other party, and he betrays that confidence by blabbing to others, you have the protection of saying he didn't get it quite right, or of denying it outright. When a third party says "Joe says you said I was a jerk." you can say "I said you were a loveable jerk," or "you know Joe-he's trying to drive a wedge be- tween us." But when Joe tapes your conversation, he makes it possible for the whole world to eavesdrop. He owns your voice, and you are left with the feeling of the aborigine who fears that a picture taken of him steals his soul. Without your permission, he can play your performance to his friends or your en- emies, to his advantage or your chagrin. You are stripped of the protection of your privacy. He states that: Secret taping is wrong-unethical-be- cause it erodes trust and engenders suspi- cion, thereby reducing human communica- tion. If you suspect your friend puts a re- corder in his pocket, you are not likely to confide in him. His motives may not be blackmail; he may desire to have your voice as his souvenir, or your technical expertise for his Instant replay, or your views for his- tory-but a pure motive does not ameliorate the ethical lapse in the action. The editorial concludes: No, not everybody in Washington does it. I From the St. Louis Post, Dispatch, Jan. 10, The people who do it routinely are the CIA, 19841 which operates in a different ethical world. MR. REM:AN SAYS IT'S OxnY Unfortunately, the no-holds-barred stand- ards of the CIA-lie detectors, antipublica- tion oaths and now secret taping-are being applied throughout the Reagan administra- tion. Our spooks used to be the ethical ex- ception; now they set the ethical standard. Accuracy is a value, but trust is the great- er value. Do we want to live in a society where everything we say-between partners, friends, husbands and wives--may be held against us? That is why secret taping, now so easy, is so wrong. That is why the Presi- dent of the United States, in failing to promptly and vigorously condemn this ethi- cal lapse by the head of the U.S. Agency that asks for the world's trust, should be ashamed of putting personal friendship before his duty. The Washington Post ran three edi- torials attacking these "abusive and offensive" and "offensive" tapings. The third summarized the Post's view: That was a good and gracious apology that Charles Wick, Director of the U. S. In- formation Agency, offered on Monday for his phone-tapping adventures. Mr. Wick now concedes that the taping of some of his phone calls, without notice to the callers, was an unfair practice, an invasion of his callers' privacy and something that "can lead to other, more dangerous practices." Though his purpose was simply "to extend the reach of my own memory, never to threaten or humiliate others," He said, "It has become quite clear to me that in trying to be meticulous about my own managerial tasks, I frequently ignored the potential impact on others." Mr. Wick also acknowledged responding to early press queries about the tapings with "misinformation," on account of "my anxi- ety and faulty recollection," and he offered his regrets for that, too. We wish Mr. Wick had made such a state- ment the minute the story about his phone taping broke. The impression he gave then was that he was doubly Insensitive: To the offense he had committed against his callers and to his obligation to the President and the public to make a prompt, full explana- tion. But he has now remedied that. And the fact that he needs prompting to do the right thing is less Important than that he now appears to be doing it-in private apolo- gies to his callers, in public statements, and in testimony to the several official inquiries into his phone habits. So now the president of the United States has exonerated a high government official who has been caught surreptitiously taping private telephone conversations. The offi- cial, Charles Z. Wick, director of the United States Information Agency, is not "a dis- honorable man in any way," said President Reagan, adding that Mr. Wick would not be fired. Mr. Wick's unauthorized taping of conversations, the president said, was only intended to provide suggestions f)r improv- ing USIA programs. Mr. Reagan's opinion of secretly recording conversations is at variance not only with the views of members of his official family but also with those of the American Bar As- sociation and the laws of a daren states, which make the practice a crime. James Baker, White house chief of staff and one of Mr. Wick's victims, says the tapings were "unacceptable." Presidential counselor Edwin Meese describes such tapings as "un- ethica." The ABA's committee on professional re- sporisibility has declared that secret record- ings by attorneys of telephone conversa- tions is unethical. Mr. Wick Is a lawyer. Two congressional committees and a state's at- torney in Florida, where such recordings are illegal and where Mr. Wick did some of his tapings, are investigating the case. Of Mr. Wick's own ethical standards this much can be said. Not only did he surrepti- tiously record hundreds of conversations, stopping only after his own staff warned him that the practice was improper, but he later denied having done so. That he should continue to head an agency whose mission Is to transmit America's values to the world is an outrage. Mr. Reagan's blindness to ethics and pro- priety, however, is even more appalling. Would he be so tolerant if he knew that people with whom he assumed he was speaking privately had covertly and routine- ly taped his conversations to be passed around their offices? The St. Louis Post-Dispatch, in a January 28, 1984, editorial, called for stronger safeguards as follows: [From the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Jan. 28, 19841 STRONGER SAFEGUARDS FOR PRIVACY Having concluded that U.S. Information Agency Director Charles Z. Wick violated federal regulations against the secret re- cording of telephone conversations, the It remains for President Reagan to find General Services Administration is propos- occasion to make It perfectly clear that he ing additional rules to protect the privacy of too understands why no one in his adminis- such communications. Existing regulations tration should abuse the confidence that prohibit the taping of phone conversations every phone caller has the right to expect "without prior consent of all parties in- and tape a call with a caller who has not volved," Mr. Wick, the agency declared in a been duly warned. formal report, not only failed to "Implement It is not only the New York Times and the Washington Post. The San Francisco Examiner, on January 9, 1984, editorialized: The U.S. Information Agency Chief does not display enough good sense to be in charge of a costly program to present an honest and favorable image of the Nation in the rest of the world. His promotion of "Project Truth" is not likely to earn more than a smirk. Wick should offer his resigna- tion and save the President the discomfor- ture of requiring it. The St. Louis Post-Dispatch stated on January 10, 1984, "Mr. Reagan Says It's Okay.", properly the regulations" but cortinued his clandestine taping of telephone calls until Dec. 23, 1983-although he had been in- formed in 1981 that he was acting improper- ly. Although Mr. Wick attempted to deny his actions, he later issued an apology to those whose calls he recorded. And President Reagan, who sees no impropriety in the con- duct of the man who heads the agency charged with spreading America's values in the world, has praised Mr.. Wick and has said he will stay on at his job. So it would appear that the best that can be hoped for to come out of this sorry episode are strong- er safeguards against such covert tapings. The GSA recommends that federal agen- cies provide transcripts to all parties on the Approved For Release 2008/09/18: CIA-RDP86B00338R000200320005-2 Approved For Release 2008/09/18: CIA-RDP86B00338R000200320005-2 February 1, 1984 'CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ' SENATE line when a call is being taped; that they publish procedures for recording telephone conversations; that they obtain GSA ap-. proval before purchasing or installing re- cording devices and that they keep logs of all recorded calls. Such rules alone will not deter someone determined to tape his tele- phone conversations. But they would make federal government policy on the subject even more explicit; and they would make it more difficult for a president to wink Jovial- ly at such transgressions against privacy. This is a stronger safeguard against such tapings: We should not need to have legislation, but obviously, we do. Mr. President, the,condition of the floor at the moment is the following: There- is an amendment offered, and an amendment in the second. degree. The yeas and nays have' not been asked for, which we will do in due course. But if the Justice Department or anyone else speaking for one of the agencies of our Government has a pro- posal to make, a suggestion to make, then we, who are the sponsors of the amendment in the first degree and the second degree, are still in a position to do it without needing any consent. If there Is such a proposal, we would be very happy to hear of it before we go forward with a vote on this-measure. Mr. GOLDWATER. Mr. President. The PRESIDING OWICER. The Senator from Arizona. Mr. GOLDWATER. Mr. President, I can certainly understand the feelings of my friend from Ohio with regard to this taping that was done illegally. 1, can understand his desire to make it totally illegal. But I think he is into - a subject that will take more than lust discussion here on the floor to under- stand what -we are talking about and the, ramifications of it. I happen to be chairman of the in- telligence Committee and wiretapping is a subject that we 8iscuss quite often. I oppose this amendment. The intelligence agencies were not told of this amendment until yesterday after- noon. No one has had time to consider carefully what effect this amendment has on national security. The General Counsel of some of these agencies have said they do not think they 'can continue doing their job under this legislation. They have asked for, some short" period of time, a week, to see how this affects their job and how they could help draft legislation to stop the abuses-abuses, I must say, that we all are concerned about. I am asking, Mr. President, or suggesting that we have some time to have this considered either by the Judiciary Committee or by the Intelligence Oversight Committee, whatever the Senate might choose, to make sure that we do not harm national security. We do not know yet what language we need. I suggest we have a week or maybe more and I think we can come up with something.. - Mr. President, I am against taping people's conversations but can we not wait a short time to see how this -bill affects NSA, CIA, and the FBI, not to mention the other 16 members of the intelligence family working in this community? The NSA General Coun- sel was given a. copy of this amend- ment only this morning, Mr. Presi- dent. We cannot expect them to make these suggestions that the Senator from Ohio insists on in a few hours. If the offer of the Senator from Ohio to accommodate national security is genuine, then he will give these agen- cies more than Just a few hours to pro- vide amendments. Now, the thing that can very well happen to this amendment is that it will be tabled and that will be the end' of it, -where if the Senator from Ohio would like to go through that motion and' then submit. it for proper hearing before the committees chosen to hear it, I think we can come up' with some- thing Mr. President, just to give you a rough idea of what we are into, the Justice Department has said: Initially we should point out that the wiretap statute was the product of a 3-year drafting effort. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act was developed over a 4- year period. These statutes covered a broad range of law enforcement and intelligence activities and involved elaborate cross-refer- ences among the various sections. In short, we are dealing here with one of the most complex and sensitive areas of law enforce- ment and intelligence activity. We are, therefore, deeply concerned as to the severe damage which can inadvertently be done through ill-conceived and. hastily-drafted amendments to these very, very technical and closely interrelated Federal laws.. Our concern seemed to be, well founded- as evi- denced by the frequent telephone calls we received yesterday asking for instant analy- sis of-a wiretap amendment- which seemed to change every hour on the hour as grave ' deficiencies, were recognized. The final amendment with which we were presented last night is an incredible example of legis- lative draftsmanship which raises a host of problems. That comes from the Department of Justice, which permission is required now for any member of intelligence or any member of the Government to wiretap. But let me mention a few things that the Senator from Ohio is com- pletely overlooking. For example, is it not related to wiretapping for a televi- sion man to hold a microphone in back of you without you knowing it? Is it not similar to wiretapping if a man does the same thing with radio, has a mircophone that you cannot see or that he hides from you, not necessar- ily purposely but you are saying things that you do not know are recorded? Every single Member of this Senate has had that happen to him and then has read in- the paper or heard some- thing over the air and said, "My golly, when did I say that?" I think that probably is a second cousin to wiretap- ping. Now, let -me go. a step further. I happen to be an amateur radio opera- tor I am privy to listen to' every band in the spectrum from one kilohertz to the gigahertz, and I do. I listen around to see what is going on in this country, 8645 what is going on in other countries in the world. Is that not the same as wiretapping? We are not supposed as amateur radio operators 'to disclose what we talk about, but we can listen; listen all day. So we are not doing any- thing to try to control that,-and I do not want to do anything to control that. We get into the matter of satellites. I think I described quite briefly the other day how it is possible in the re- ception of television programs from a satellite, if you know what to do, to listen to telephone conversations. They do not come over loud M d clear. I' have to tell you, but you can do it. There is nothing in this 'legislation that provides any preventive action in that field. It is possible-and I know many Members of this body have looked into these things-for me to buy a minia- ture olive that is a tansmitter, put it in a martini and have a martini with you and 200 feet away everything you say is heard. Now, not only that, you can do similar things with toothpicks, with fountain pens, and with flashlights. So I point these things out to my good friend from Ohio to demonstrate that merely adding this amendment is not going to stop all of this. There are catalogs that are completely filled with devices that allow the owner to listen to practically anything., Ypu can listen through walls. That is,, t -pre vented by law.,You canlisten .through, floors. That is not prevented., by law. You can 'listen through wired circuits of homes. You have got to cover that if you are going to stop, everything. I might point out, Mr. President, that we seem to be the only country, in the world that has a great fear and a great apprehension about the use of wiretap or any other device to pick up information for the purposes of intelli- gence. Now, I am completely with my friend from Ohio in his attempts to work out some way that we can pre- vent what has just happened, a man, whether he is a member of govern- ment or not, bugging somebody's phone and recording it. I do not think that should be allowed. It is not al- lowed actually under the laws that we have. It is a very difficult thing to police. It is a very difficult thing to control. That is why I would suggest, knowing the earnestness of my friend from Ohio, that he rethink this amendment, resubmit it in the form of legislation and also in the form that would cover these things that I have been mentioning. I have only touched the surface. It is absolutely amazing how I can find out what you are saying without you knowing it, and you can do the same to me. It takes a little money, but if you have a little money you can do most anything. Now, another thing that concerns me about this-and this is after the amendment had been changed last evening-I read from the further Approved For Release 2008/09/18: CIA-RDP86B00338R000200320005-2 Approved For Release 2008/09/18: CIA-RDP86B00338R000200320005-2 S 646 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE printed amendment No. 2689-it men- tions Government employee "unless prior consent to such interception has been given." It provides an exception for investigative or law enforcement officers. It provides an exception for others acting under direction and con- trol of such investigative or law en- forcement officers. But, Mr. President, it does not men- tion the National Security Agency. It does not mention the FBI. It does not mention the CIA. I think if we are going to have an amendment like this, it should specifically eliminate those 19 different agencies of our Govern- ment that are charged with collecting intelligence as to what our potential enemies might be doing. I can relate to this group that all over the various buildings owned by the Soviet Union in this town are an- tenna systems that do nothing all day long but intercept telephone calls, whether they are personal, private, business, or what. The city of San Francisco has a Soviet office out there that has even a greater abundance of wiretapping equipment. Now, I do not say that to justify any individual just willy-nilly putting a tap on my phone or your phone or the phone of the Senator from Ohio. But I do think that when we get down to the fine grind and find that you have to be an officer or a person acting under di- rection and control of law enforce- ment officers, that in itself is going to eliminate the 19 members of our family, particularly the National Secu- rity Agency. I cannot get into what they do; it is so highly classified, but I can tell you as a person who has been in communications for over 60 years it is unbelievable. It is unbelievable what they can do, and yet this amendment can very well stop the National Secu- rity Agency from operating. I know the author says it cannot be- cause he has altered the language to satisfy himself, that it does give these employees a chance to do it. But it does not give the agency the opportu- nity to do it. Mr. President, the English abhor wiretapping. They have pretty good control over it-not all the way. Israel, a country which I think has one of the two best intelligence-gathering sys- tems in the world, wiretaps all over the place. I do not think they allow in- dividuals to do it. I do not want to allow individuals to do it, and I would go along with my friend from Ohio in trying to help him draft legislation of a comprehensive nature that could put the stop to what we have just gone through with a member of our Government wiretap- ping for no good reason, just for wire- tap purposes. I guess he enjoys it. I can give him some good television shows at night, if he has nothing to do, but they are not worth listening to, so I cannot help him much. Mr. President, I hope that the Sena- tor from Ohio will pull down this amendment. If he does not pull it down, I agree with the parliamentar- ian-I think it is illegal, and I think it is perfectly proper to entertain a motion to table this amendment. Even if it is tabled, I would say let us go ahead and sit down and have hearings on this subject, so that we can come up with something that will say to an American citizen, "No, no, no," and with a penalty that will back it up. Today, the "no, no, no," really does not mean much. But this legislation is not going to help, and it is going to harm. Mr. President, that is all I have to say on the subject, and I yield the floor. Mr. METZENBAUM. Mr. President, I very much appreciate the comments of my good friend from Arizona, for whom I have the highest respect. I want to make certain that we are on the same wavelength, and I am not talking about a taping wavelength but, rather, our communication with each other. First, I want to be certain that the Senator from Arizona understands that this is applicable only to Govern- ment employees or Government offi- cials, whether appointed or elected, or Government agencies. So, with respect to anything that would have to do with a radio or TV station having a microphone near us, unless they happen to be a Government employee, they would not be barred by this legis- lation, nor would they be affected in any way. With respect to the exemption, I am not certain that the distinguished Sen- ator from Arizona saw this morning's modification to a second degree amendment offered by the Senator from Arkansas, with respect to which I totally agree. But we provided an- other exemption. I will read the total exemptions: It shall not be lawful under this chapter for a person acting under color of law who is- (1) an investigative or law enforcement or foreign intelligence or counterintelligence officer acting within the normal course of his or her employment, or (2) performing a law enforcement, foreign intelligence or counterintelligence function under the direction and control of such an officer, or (3) acting with authorization from the At- torney General in accordance with the regu- lations issued by the Attorney General. It is the last one that I believe would adequately protect the NSA or any other agency, because the Attorney General would be in a position to pro- vide by regulation that the proper ac- tivities of the NSA, or whomever else he might designate, would be permissi- ble. What we are calling for is to make that which is done in the way of taping previously authorized by the Attorney General. We do not want to stop any agency of Government from using taping, if the Attorney General says it may be done. As I said on the floor of the Senate, if somebody has an amendment they February 1, 1984 think we should include, we certainly are willing to consider it and in all probability will accept it. So far, we have had no difficulty in accepting any amendments that have been pro- posed by the various Government agencies. With respect to the other point my good friend makes-that is, to take down the amendment and go through the hearing process and not be able to proceed-I do not believe that would be adequate. First of all, we anticipate having a short session. Second, the Judiciary Committee has a heavy agenda. Third, in the milieu in which we operate, you need a vehicle that has a "go" signal on it to be called to the floor and then to be brought up for action in the other house. The crime package is such a vehicle. If the sponsors of this measure really feel they need additional time and want to lay aside the entire crime package till a time certain, whether it be 5 days, a week, 2 weeks, or what- ever, leaving our amendment pending as is, I certainly would have no objec- tion to doing that. But absent that- and I have not heard any indication that they desire to move in that direc- tion-we are prepared to go to a vote. We have discussed with the majority leader-and I say this to my friend from Arizona-that the condition of the floor is such that if a tabling motion is made, it does not preclude our coming back with additional amendments, with slighr modifica- tions, at a subsequent point. We have indicated that we would like this matter brought to an up and down vote. We are prepared to vote on it. If we win, fine. If we lose, we will take our lumps and walk away, and not offer additional amendments. I have made that clear to the majority leader, Senator BUMPERS has made that clear to the majority leader, and I hope the Senator from Arizona will not see fit to offer a tabling motion, but he is cer- tainly within his rights. But we would be within our rights to come back with additional amendments thereafter. If we have an up and down vote, we would consider the matter concluded upon the adoption or defeat of the amendment. Mr. GOLDWATER. I thank the Sen- ator for his comments. What he says only ]ends credence to the idea that we have to have some hearings in this matter. As chairman of the Intelligence Committee, I would be very happy to hold hearings on this matter, and I think the Senator will find our com- mittee adequately prepared to go into this matter very thoroughly. The National Security Agency, in re- action to the last part of the amend- ment, paragraph 3, said that that does not help them. I think it is far more important, for the purposes of the Senator from Ohio, to work on legislation that Approved For Release 2008/09/18: CIA-RDP86B00338R000200320005-2 Approved For Release 2008/09/18: CIA-RDP86B00338R000200320005-2 February 1, 1984 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -- SENATE makes this act illegal-not just among Government employees. I can recall when Franklin Roose- velt, before the days of tapes, had a big air ventilator behind his desk, big enough for his secretary to sit on an- other floor, at a lower level, and studi- ously write down everything that went on. That was not electronic. It prob- ably was better than electronic. That type of thing also has to be consid- ered. I do not like to feel that only Gov- ernment employees are acting in the capacity that this unfortunate gentle- man, Mr. Wick, did the other day. I think it goes on far more out in the industrial field, the corporate field, and the labor field. The Senator has been a very successful businessman and, as I have said before, I have been a businessman also and my constant efforts were to find out something about what my opposition was doing that enabled him to stay up with me or ahead of me. Most of the time it was word of Ioouth. Nowadays I have a bunch that electronic surveillance can be employed. Electronic surveillance is used thoughout America and it is either legal or it Is Illegal. I like to think that the Senator would reintroduce this amendment in the form of legislation so that we could make a proper determination as to just what fields we want to cover, and I agree with the Senator. What I consider private is my own business and I do not want the world knowing it. But I notice now we have a Freedom of Information Act and in the morn- ing's paper is a personal letter that -I wrote the head of the CIA as a friend over 2 years ago. I call that the same thing as wiretapping. Everyone In this town is a snooper going around with long noses like a bloodhound just sniffing and whether they sniff anything or not they come up with a story. I would like to stop all of this fool. ishness. I. do not think we ever can, but I think we can make great strides in putting an end to the use of elec- tronic devices, telephones, et cetera, for spy purposes or intelligence pur- poses gotten for your own effect. I have nothing more to say on this, Mr. President. I think the time is ap- proaching when we are supposed, pardon me, to go into secret session, and again -a secret session in this Chamber is a laugh because the best way to get bunch up there all excited is say it is going to be secret and before we get back to this room from where we are going, it will be in the news all over this country. So we are not just talking about the blood- hounds that. we have in here or the bloodhounds who work in certain of- fices, we are talking about the whole problem of secrecy In the Federal Gov- ernment. I want to see us get a little bit of it. I yield the floor. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. TRIBLE). The Senator from Idaho is recognized. TEE EfsTeY 00 ARYS COITTROL TREATY VIOLATIONS Mr. Mc Ci vRS. Mr. President, arms control treaty violations are not new. During the 1930's there was wholesale violation of existing arms control trea- ties: There was violation of the Washing- ton and London Naval Treaties by Japan and Italy. There was German violation of the Treaty of Versailles. There was Italian use of chemical weapons in Ethiopia. The United States reacted to these violations the way some would have us react to the Soviet violations today- we continued to abide by the.Washing- ton and London Naval Treaties after the Japanese had publically abrogated them. During the 1930's Winston Churchill public ally challenged the British Gov- ernment to admit that the Germans were violating existing treaties. It re- fused to for a long time. In November 1934 in the House of Commons, Winston Churchill stated, and I quote from the words of the great statesman: According to the Treaty of Versailles, the German Government are not allowed to build any military aircraft or organize any military air force ... What was meant for a safeguard for the Allies has in fact become only a cloak or a mask for a potential ag- gressor. With any other country the facts about its air development would have been stated. quite promptly... . In fact, the League collects these figures... With any other country this would make no difficulty, but it is Just because Germany is under this special disability. I understand how it has arisen. It has not been considered etiquette, or at any rate the Government has shrunk hitherto from stating this would make no difficulty, but it is Just because the fact which they know well-I am sure they know about German rearmament, and very natu- rally, because. If the Foreign Secretary had said that there was this or that they were doing contrary to the Treaty, he would im- mediately have had to make good his state- ment, or perhaps stand by his statement, that he was charging a great Power with a breach of the Treaty, and I can understand that until certain disclosures which have been made on the Continent had been made, it was necessary for the Government to proceed with great caution in this re- spect. But the time has come when what was meant to be a protection for others must no longer be a cloak or mask for Germany. The time has come when the mystery surround- ing the German rearmament must be cleared up. We must know where we are. This House naturally in these matters leaves the main responsibility to the Execu- tive, and that is quite right, but at the same time, it cannot divest itself of responsibility for the safety of the country, and it must satisfy itself that proper measures are being taken. The some type of intelligence collec- tion problesas we now face were cited as relnssag for not taking actions when violations were discovered. Winston Churchill ridiculed this: S647 I do not know how the Admiralty came to be without information that even battle- ships, contrary to the Treaty, were being laid down before the end of 1934. We always believed before the War that battleships could never be laid down without our knowl- edge. The Germans were entitled to build 10,000-ton ships according to the Treaty, but they, by a concealment which the Admi- ralty were utterly unable to penetrate, con- verted these into 28.000 ton ships. If Sir Winston had lived to read some of the intelligence reports pro- duced on the SS-X-25 over the last 10 months he might have smiled. Mr. President, I ask unanimous con- sent that a list of Soviet SALT viola- tions and Soviet violations of other arms control treaties be printed in the RECORD. I also ask unanimous consent that the President's -Report to the Congress on Soviet Non-Compliance With Arms Control Agreements be printed in the RacoaD. Finally, I ask unanimous consent that my unclassi- fied analysis of the recent Soviet accu- sations of alleged U.S. SALT violations be printed in the RECORD. There being no objection, the mate- rial was ordered to be printed in the RECoRD, as follows: SOVIET VIOLATIONS Or 1979 SALT II TREATY 1. SS-18 rapid reload and refire capability. 2. Covert deployment of 100 to 200 SS-16 mobile ICBMs at Plesetsk test range. 3. AS-3 Kangaroo long range Air-to-Sur- face Missile on 100 TU-95 Bear bombers. 4. Deployment of long range ASMa on Backfire bombers. 5. Production of 32 to 36 Backfire bombers per year. 6. Arctic deployment of Backfire bombers. 7. Almost total encryption (95 to 100%) of telemetry: ICBM: SS-18 Mod X. PL-4 (S8-X-24). PL- 5 (SS-X-25). SLCM: SS-NX-19, SLBM: SS-NX-20. IRBM/ICBM: SS-20. 8. Two new type ICBMs in development testing SS-X-24.SS-X-25. 9. Increased and large scale strategic cam- ouflage, concealment, and deception. 10. Testing of a new heavy SLBM-S8-NX- 23. 11.. Soviet admission of exceeding 820 and 1200 MIRV missile launcher ceilings, and 1320 MIRV/ALCM ceilings, counting those launchers and bombers under construction. 12. Soviet failure to reduce strategic nucle- ar delivery vehicles to 2400 and to 2250 cell- SOVIET VIOLATIONS or TEE 1972 SALT I Aim-BALLIsric MISSILE (ABM) TREATY 1. Soviet SAM testing in ABM mode- SAM-5, SAM-10, SAM-12. 2. Deployment of 6 ABM Battle-Manage- ment radars in interior of the U.S.S.R. not facing outward-Abalakovo. 3. ABM camouflage and concealment. 4. Falsification of ABM deactivation. 5. Creation of new ABM test range with- out prior notification. 6. Development of a rapidly deployable, mobile ABM system. 7. Testing of a rapid refire ABM capabili- ty. 8. Deployment of a nationwide ABM de- fense, using 6 ABM BattlS-Mapsgemennt radars, SAMS 5, 10, 12, and mobile ABM-3. 9. Deployment of more than IA9 ABM launchers around Moscow. Approved For Release 2008/09/18: CIA-RDP86B00338R000200320005-2 Approved For Release 2008/09/18: CIA-RDP86B00338R000200320005-2 S 648 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE February 1, 1984 SOVIET VIOLATIONS AND CIRCUMVENTIONS OF THE 1972 SALT I INTERIM AGREEMENT ON OFFENSIVE NUCLEAR WEAPONS 1. Deployment of the heavy SS-19 ICBM as the replacement for the light SS-11 ICBM. 2. Failure to deactivate old ICBMs on time, and continuous falsification of official deactivation reports. 3. Bringing back ICBM equipment to de- activated ICBM complexes. 4. Keeping 18 SS-9 ICBMs at an ICBM test range illegally operational. 5. Soviet deployment of "IIIX" silos with a configuration too similar to a missile launch silo. 6. Increased use of deliberate camouflage, concealment and deception: Encryption of missile telemetry. Camouflage of ICBM testing, production, and deployment. Concealment of SLBM submarine con- struction, berthing, dummy submarines, and construction of berthing tunnels. 7. Constructing over 68 strategic subma- rines, when only 62 were allowed. 8. Violation of Brezhnev's pledge not to build mobile ICBMs. 9. Deploying SS-11 ICBMs at SS-4 Medium Range Ballistic Missile (MRBM) sites for covert soft launch. 10. Keeping about 1,300 to several thou- sand old ICBMs stockpiled for both covert soft launch and rapid reload of silos for refire. SOVIET VIOLATIONS OF THE 1962 KENNEDY- KHRUSHCHEV CUBA AGREEMENT 1. Soviet offensive capabilities deployed to Cuba: Combat Brigade. Golf and Echo Class equipped submarines. Cienfuegos strategic submarine base with nuclear warhead storage facility. Nuclear delivery-capable aircraft: MIG 23/27, Floggers Bear TU-95 D, F, with oper- able bombbays. Military communications center. 2. Use of Cuba as a revolutionary base to export subversion and aggression. Training terrorist and revolutionary forces. Equipment supply to revolutionary forces. DGI 4th largest intelligence service in world. 3. Probably biological and Chemical War- fare facility. SOVIET VIOLATIONS OF THE 1974 THRESHOLD NUCLEAR WEAPONS TEST BAN TREATY (TTBT) Over 15 Soviet underground nuclear weap- ons tests with estimated yield over the 150 kiloton threshold limit. Some. of these tests were at over 300 kilotons, and we have 95% confidence that they were violations. Over 50 Soviet treaty violations since 1917, mostly of non-aggression pacts, according to 1962 Defense Department book entitled, "Soviet Treaty Violations," an official U.S. Government source. THE PRESIDENT'S REPORT TO THE CONGRESS ON SOVIET NONCOMPLIANCE WITH ARMS CONTROL AGREEMENTS The following is the text of a message to the Congress transmitting the President's Report on Soviet Noncompliance with Arms Control Agreements as required by the FY 1984 Arms Control and Disarmament Act: To the Congress of the United States: If the concept of arms control is to have meaning and credibility as a contribution to global or regional stability, it is essential that all parties to agreements comply with them. Because I seek genuine arms control, I am committed to ensuring that existing agreements are observed. In 1982 increasing concerns about Soviet noncompliance with arms control agreements led me to establish a senior group within the Administration to examine verification and compliance issues. For its part the Congress, in the FY 1984 Arms Control and Disarmament Act, asked me to report to it on compliance. I am here- with enclosing a Report to the Congress on Soviet Noncompliance with Arms Control Agreements. After a careful review of many months, and numerous diplomatic exchanges with the Soviet Union, the Administration has determined that with regard to seven initial issues analyzed, violations and probable vio- lations have occurred with respect to a number of Soviet legal obligations and polit- ical commitments in the arms control field. The United States Government has deter- mined that the Sgvlet Union is violating the Geneva Protocol on Chemical Weapons, the Biological Weapons Convention, the Helsin- ki Final Act, and two provisions of SALT II: telemetry encryption and a rule concerning ICBM modernization. In addition, we have determined that the Soviet Union has almost certainly violated the ABM Treaty, probably violated the SALT II limit on new types, probably violated the SS-16 deploy- ment prohibition of SALT II, and is likely to have violated the nuclear testing yield limit of the Threshold Test Ban Treaty. Soviet noncompliance is a serious matter. It calls into question important security benefits from arms control, and could create new security risks. It undermines the confi- dence essential to an effective arms control process in the future. It increases doubts about the reliability of the U.S.S.R. as a ne- gotiating partner, and thus damages the chances for establishing a more constructive U.S.-Soviet relationship. The United States will continue to press its compliance concerns with the Soviet Union through diplomatic channels, and insist upon explanations, clarifications, and corrective actions. At the same time, the United States is continuing to carry out its own obligations and commitments under rel- evant agreements. For the future, the United States is seeking to negotiate new arms control agreements that reduce the risk of war, enhance the security of the United States and its Allies, and contain ef- fective verification and compliance provi- SOVIET VIOLATIONS OF THE 1925 CHEMICAL We WARFARE PROTOCOL: SOUTHEAST ASIA, sions SOUTHWEST ASIA We should recognize, however, that ensur- ing compliance with arms control agree- Soviet violations of the 1972 Biological ments remains a serious problem. Better Warfare Convention: Southeast Asia, verification and compliance provisions and Southwest Asia, Sverdlovsk 1979 explosion, better treaty drafting will help, and we are 8 facilities expanded, Cuba BW/CW facility, working toward this in ongoing negotia- International terrorists with BW/CW capa- tions. It is fundamentally important, howev- bilities. er, that the Soviets take a constructive atti- Over 30 unambiguous Soviet ventings of tude toward compliance. nuclear debris outside the borders of the The Executive and Legislative branches of USSR, in violation of the 1963 Limited Test our government have long had a shared in- Ban Treaty. terest in supporting the arms control proc- Over 14 documented cases of Soviet SALT ess. negotiating deception, 120 cases of forgeries, Finding effective ways to ensure compli- active measures, propaganda campaigns. ance is central to that process. I look for- ward to continued close cooperation with the Congress as we seek to move forward in negotiating genuine and enduring arms con- trol agreements. Sincerely. RONALD REAGAN. The Fact Sheet provided to the Congress with the classified report is quoted below: The President's Report to the Congress on Soviet Noncompliance with Arms Control Agreements Commitment to genuine arms control re- quires that all parties comply with agree- ments. Over the last several years the U.S.S.R. has taken a number of actions that have prompted renewed concern about an expanding pattern of Soviet violations or possible violations of arms control agree- ments. Because of the critical importance of compliance with arms control agreements, about one year ago the President estab- lished an interagency Arms Control Verifi- cation Committee, chaired by his Assistant for National Security Affairs, to address ver- ification and compliance issues. In addition, many members of Congress expressed their serious concerns, and the Congress mandat- ed in the FY 84 Arms Control and Disarm- ament Act Authorization that "The Presi- dent shall prepare and transmit to the Con- gress a report of the compliance or noncom- pliance of the Soviet Union with existing arms control agreements to which the Soviet union is a Party." The President's Report to Congress covers seven different matters of serious concern regarding Soviet compliance: chemical, bio- logical, and toxin weapons, the notification of military exercises, a large new Soviet radar being deployed in the Soviet interior, encryption of data needed I o verify arms control provisions, the testing of a second new intercontinental bailistic missile (ICBM), the deployment status of an exist- ing Soviet ICBM, and the yields of under- ground nuclear tests. Additional issues of concern are under active study. Soviet violations of arms control agree- ments could create new security risks. Such violations deprive us of the security benefits of arms control directly because of the mili- tary consequences of known violations, and indirectly by inducing suspicion about the existence of undetected violations that might have additional military conse- quences. We have discussed with the Soviets all of the activities covered in the report, but the Soviets have not been willing to meet our basic concerns which we raised in the Stand- ing Consultative Commission in Geneva and in several diplomatic demarches. Nor have they met our requests to cease these activi- ties. We will continue to pursue these issues. THE FINDINGS The Report examines the evidence con- cerning Soviet compliance with: the 1972 Biological Weapons Convention (BWC) and the 1925 Geneva Protocol and customary in- ternational law, the 1975 Helsinki Final Act, the 1972 ABM Treaty, the unratified SALT II Treaty, and the unratified Threshold Test Ban Treaty (TTBT) signed in 1974. Preparation of the Report entailed a com- prehensive review of the legal obligations, political commitments under existing arms control agreements, and documented inter- pretations of specific obligations, analyses of all the evidence available on applicable Soviet actions, and a review of the diplomat- ic exchanges on compliance issues between the U.S. and the Soviet Union. Approved For Release 2008/09/18: CIA-RDP86B00338R000200320005-2 ? Approved For Release 2008/09/18: CIA-RDP86B00338R000200320005-2 F e b r u a r y 1, 1 4 . - : CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SSE?NATE ..S655 directs the Sergeant-at-Arms to' clear with all the Members of this body, as 20 minutes of debate, equally divided, the galleries, close all doors of the well as those in the security communi- to be under the control of the distin- Chamber, and exclude from the ty, who have indicated their concern. guished Senator from Ohio, who is the Chamber "and the Immediate corridors Mr. GOLDWATER. Mr. President, I first and principal sponsor, and the all employees and officials of the want to answer that by saying that I distinguished chairman of the commit- Senate who under the rule are not eli- cannot speak for the chairman of the tee. At the end of that 20 minutes, we gible to attend the closed session and Judiciary Committee or the majority would vote on the amendment, as who. are not sworn to secrecy. leader, but I assure my friend that if modified. (At 2 p.m. the doors of the Chamber that is what he wants to do, I am not Now, that is the proposal I would were closed:) sure we can d it i o k LEGISLATIVE SESSION Mr. BAKER. Mr. President, I see no other Senator, seeking recognition in closed session. I move. the Senate now return to open session. The PRESIDING OFFICER. With- out objection, the motion is agreed to. (Thereupon, at 3;40 p.m., the doors of the Senate Chamber were opened, and the Senate returned to legislative session.) Mr. BAKER. Mr. President, I believe it is necessary to gain a little time for us to restore the Senate to open condi- tion. In order to provide for that time, I suggest the absence of a quorum. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll. The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll. Mr. METZENBAUM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescind- ed. The PRESIDING OFFICER. With- out objection, it is so ordered. COMPREHENSIVE CRIME CONTROL ACT . - The- Senate continued with the -con- dideration of S. 1762. Mr. METZENBAUM. Mr. President, I want to repeat, in the presence of more Members who are on the floor now than there were before, that some mention has been made today, certain. ly by the distinguished Senator from Arizona, that some portions of the se- curity community have some concern about the language of this proposal. I said earlier, and. repeated time and time again, that I would be prepared to accept an amendment, either at this point or accept an amendment if the bill should be passed with this amend- ment in it, in order to accommodate that portion of the security communi- ty. We were advised by the distin- guiehed chairman of the intelligence Committee that if we had more time with respect to this measure, perhaps the security community would be in a position to work out appropriate lan- guage which we could then accept. I say to the manager of the bill and to the majority leader, as well as the chairman of the Intelligence Commit- tee,. that if it be their disposition to set the bill aside for a day, 2 days, or a week, and leave the matter pending as it is, this Senator has no objection to that, because this Senator is particu- larly concerned and particularly will- ing to cooperate in every way possible n a wee . But we can make if it meets with general approv- get a much, much better bill than his al. I do not now make it. amendment. His amendment right I yield to the Senator from Ohio, if now, in my opinion, is dangerous. But he wishes to comment. knowing what he wants to do, I think Mr. METZENBAUM. Mr. President, we can work out something that is not I would be very happy to comment going to put a peril on the intelligence and state- that that would be very sat- family. isfactory to me. I' assume that vie are Mr. METZENBAUM. I thank the talking about when we vote it' would chairman of the Intelligence Commit- be an up or down vote. tee . I am prepared to vote, but I wanted to make it clear that if there are others in this body who feel that it would be better to set this measure aside, for whatever period of time, with our amendment pending as it is, I would have no objection to that ar- rangement. Absent that, I am. pre- pared to go forward with the measure. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Tl%e clerk will call the roll. The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.. Mr. NUNN. 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. SPECTER assumed the chair.) Mr. BAKER. -Mr. President, _ may I report to our colleagues; that since the open session began, there have been ef- forts to see if we could find some manner of accommodation for the con- flict we now have before us. We ex- plored the possibility of postponing consideration of this matter-that is to say, the Metzenbaum and Bumpers amendments =until . tomorrow or taking up something else in the inter- im and, for a variety of reasons, none of the proposals appear practical. I am inclined to think the best thing to do is to keep on going and to do the best we can with this bill and these amendments. mous-consent request that the major- I am not now going to propound a ity leader indicated he might make, unanimous-consent request, but let me, then we would resolve that issue at describe one, Mr. President, that I the same time. I would -prefer to pro- hope Member might consider. 'If it is ceed in that manner. Well received, I will propound this or a Mr. BAKER Mr President ?I . . ; am similar unanimous-consent request in perfectly willing to frame the request a few minutes: so the second-degree amendment is in- I would like to propose that we get cluded in the first degree amendment on with a vote, up-or-down, not ta- and no other amendment on the first- bling, on- the issue. But, in order to do degree amendment or on this subject that, since there are two amendments, would be in order. a second-degree and a first-degree Mr. METZENBAUM. I am prepared amendment, it would be necessary to to agree to that. combine the two and it would require Mr. BAKER. Mr. President, I now unanimous consent, I guess, to modify make that request. Let me restate the the first-degree amendment. to em request for the consideration of Sena- brace the provisions of the second- tors. degree amendment and-to provide that - - Mr. President, I ask unanimous con- no other amendments on this subject sent that the first-degree amendment would be, in order, and then to provide of the Senator from Ohio be modified Mr. BAKER. Yes, it would. Mr. METZENBAUM. That would be agreeable to me, and I feel certain I am speaking for the Senator from Ar- kansas, as well as our cosponsors. I am not in a position to speak for the mi- nority leader. Mr. BYRD. Has the Senator accept- ed the second-degree amendment as a modification? Mr. METZENBAUM. The second- degree amendment would be accepted as a modification to the first-degree amendment. - -Mr. BYRD. The Senator could do that without unanimous consent. Mr. METZENBAUM. I understand that. I, wanted to f c' 'tafn that "was in the unanimous-constit agreement In order to. preclude any' amendment. Mr. BYRD. Yes,- that would require -unanimous consent. ' If the Senator wanted to Modify his amendment, he could do that. . Mr. 'President, I understand no action has been taken on either amendment. I guess the distinguished Senator from Ohio could modify his amendment to incorporate the second- degree amendment without any action or unanimous consent. Mr. METZENBAUM. The Senator from Ohio Is aware of that but the amendment would be open for another second-degree amendment. If we Approved For Release 2008/09/18: CIA-RDP86B00338R000200320005-2 S656 Approved For Release 2008/09/18: CIA-RDP86B00338R000200320005-2 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE February 1, 1984 as he has suggested he is agreeable to by inclusion of the language of the second-degree Bumpers amendment, and that no other amendments to the first-degree amendment, as modified, be in order, and that no other amend- ments on this subject be in order to this bill. I further ask unanimous consent that there now be 20 minutes of debate on this amendment, as modi- fied, to be equally divided and con- trolled by the distinguished chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Mr. THURMOND, and the distinguished Sen- ator from Ohio, the principal sponsor of the amendment, Mr. METZENBAUM, and at the end of the 20 minutes so provided that a vote occur on the amendment and that no tabling motion be in order. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Mr. BAKER. Mr. President, so that we can permit the minority leader to complete his clearance process, I will leave the request pending. I now sug- gest the absence of a quorum. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll. The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll- Mr. LAXALT. 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. LAXALT. Mr. President, I wish the record to indicate and my col- leagues to know that in respect of the so-called Metzenbaum amendment, I have been in touch with the distin- guished Senator from Ohio since the inception of this amendment. He has been more than considerate and more than cooperative. As I have indicated to him, however, while the amend- ment seems simplistic and would appear to achieve the results that he wants to achieve, that is not what I am hearing. Many of my colleagues here indicate that this is a very sensi- tive, very important piece of legisla- tion. I suppose the fact that this particu- lar area has not been touched histori- cally should tell us something in itself, because it is the type of activity that seemingly would be met very quickly by appropriate Federal legislation. The Department of Justice and our defense agencies have uniformly ex- pressed strong reservations to this chairman of the subcommittee about proceeding forward now with this amendment. They feel that there may be unanswered questions, pitfalls of the type that none of us can reason- ably anticipate now. What I am saying essentially to Sen- ator BIDEN and to Senator THURMOND and to the Chair and certainly, our leader (Mr. BAKER), is that as far as this chairman is concerned, I think a far better result would be for us to defer a vote at this time on this partic- ular amendment. I assure all concerned that I shall promptly convene. as chairman of the subcommittee,. any and all hearings that are appropriate to this amend- ment may be fully heard and explored. We shall invite members of the public, members of the agencies, and whoever among our colleagues wish to be heard. It is on that basis respectfully, Mr. President, that I ask the distinguished Senator from Ohio to reconsider and perhaps withdraw this amendment so we can consider it fully during the course of the next few weeks and months. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll. The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll. Mr. THURMOND. 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. THE INCLUSION OF THE NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF JUSTICE AND THE BUREAU OF JUSTICE STATIS- TIC WITHIN THE NEW OFFICE OF JUSTICE AS- SISTANCE Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, in response to some concern voiced on the floor yesterday regarding the re- structuring of the Department of Jus- tice under the justice assistance provi- sions of title VI, I would like to send to the desk language from the Commit- tee on the Judiciary report accompa- nying this bill regarding the autonomy and integrity of the National Institute of Justice and the Bureau of Justice Statistics. I believe this language will clarify the position of the committee and lay to rest the concerns raised yes- terday. The excerpt follows: The Committee feels that by placing the National Institute of Justice and the Bureau of Justice Statistics within the new structure of the Office of Justice Assistance, the overall coordination and resulting pro- ductivity of that branch of the Department of Justice will be enhanced. While the Com- mittee recognizes the great value of re- search and statistics in this area and their productive results, current economic limita- tions on available resources and past experi- ences with bureaucratic complexity dictate the need for a move efficient and focused approach. The Committee therefore concluded that while the day-to-day operations, research, and statistical responsibilities would remain with the individual bureau directors, the As- sistant Attorney General could better co- ordinate the efforts of these branches of the Office. Because the directors will have practical experience in their fields and the bill clearly defines the duties and responsi- bilities of the various bureaus within the Office, the National Institute of Justice and the Bureau of Justice Statistics will be free to pursue their academic and statistical en- deavors unfettered by any bureaucratic or political constraints. It is the Committee's belief that this new structure will reduce red tape and increase the overall productiv- ity of the Office of Justice Assistance, with- out reducing the scientific integrity or autonomy of the Bureaus involved. Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, S. 1726 is a compilation of 12 criminal reform titles that have been under consideration for more than 10 years, and furthermore, this is the third time the Senate has passed some of these measures. With only one of two excep- tions the reforms are part of the Presi- dent's crime package. It is my hope that the House will act quickly and take up this very much needed legisla- tion because the urgent need for this legislation is chronicled in our Na- tion's newspapers and televised on the nightly news. The pendulum is swing- ing from concern for criminals to con- cern for the law-abiding citizens who suffer, directly or indirectly, from crime. Among criminals, the rumor on the street is that crime pays. Leniency in our system is an added incentive. It is incumbent upon this Congress to make the criminal pay. S. 1762 is a step in that direction. The violence is appalling, its preva- lence is astounding, its impact on our citizens is unacceptable. The spectrum of victims is far reaching. However, the elderly, because of t heir vulner- ability, are victimized more than any other segment of our society. Instead of controlling crime. crime is controlling us. The potential of being the victim of a senseless crime has had its impact. Every 24 seconds some- where in the United States a violent crime is committed. Every 6 minutes a woman is raped, every 55 seconds a robbery occurs and every 23 minutes a murder is committed. We organize our lifestyles so as to avoid the terror. We have deadbolt locks, window bars, guns, doormen, security systems, and guard dogs. We don't go out at night. We avoid certain streets. We are afraid, and with good reason. Crimi- nals have drastically reduced the per- sonal freedom and security that Americans used to know. Even in the smallest communities the day is gone when the family could leave the door unlocked when no one is home. Many of our citizens lock their doors when they are at home, and set the alarm system when they leave. People today feel tisolation and powerlessness. They feel vulnerable and entrapped. They don t know what to do. It is clear they want more strin- gent laws, longer sentences and more actual time served by criminals. They are depending upon Congress. S. 1762 gives muscle tone to our flabby crimi- nal system in several important areas. I am going to vote for this bill and urge my colleagues to do likewise. The bill is composed of 12 very nec- essary titles which together form a co- herent approach to crime: Bail; sen- tencing; forfeiture; insanity defense; drug penalties; justice assistance; sur- plus Federal property for corrections purposes; labor racketeering; crime amendments; miscellaneous nonvio- lent offenses; and procedural amend- ments. The bill includes provisions that would allow judges to deny bail if Approved For Release 2008/09/18: CIA-RDP86B00338R000200320005-2 Approved For Release 2008/09/18: CIA-RDP86B00338R000200320005-2 February 1, 1,984 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE the defendant is considered dangerous to the community, creates a Federal sentencing procedure through the cre- ation of a new system of sentencing guidelines, fixed sentence abolition of parole and limited credit for good time, and an Increase in penalties for major drug offenses Federal bail provisions are for the most part governed by the Ball Reform Act of 1966 and the only Issue that may be considered by the judge in making a bail decision is the likeli- hood that the accused will appear for trial if released. Although an accused seeking release on bail may pose a sig- nificant risk to the safety of the com- munity, the courts may not deny ball on that bads. This bill will correct this deficiency. I have seen several studies regarding crimes committed by persons out on bail. Some a theme figures struck me as good evidence that our policy re- garding bail must be changed. One study showed that 74 percent of those persons arrested for robbery were rearrested while on bail; 65 percent of those released after an arrest for auto theft were .taken into custody for an- other auto theft while out on bail. An- other study,.dluelosed that 28 percent of the murders, 19 percent of the rapes, 31 percent of the robberies and 32 percent of the burglaries and 11 percent of the assaults were commit, ted ,.by persons free on some- form of conditional release: Another study diw closed that for a defendant with a pre- vious record of two or -more prior ar- rests the chance of rearrest before trial was twice as great as for those with one or no previous arrests While all of the studies do not agree as to the exact percentage, it is clear that the number of crimes committed by persona out on bail to staggering. These studies indicate the need for changing the standard for pretrial re- lease and detention so that Judges can openly consider the possible threat a suspect poses to community safely. These examples. lead me to believe that the freedom ball provides -should not be for sale at any price for career criminals. Title I of B. 1762 also contains an- other Important bail provision. It is the presumption that a partleiiisr in- dividual Is a danger to the community if he committed a serious drug traf- fickitng offense or used a firearm during the eosrntnisesten of a violent crime. Title 11 of this bill addresses sen- tencing and parole. There is wide- spread agreement that the present Federal approach to sentencing is out- moded and unfair to both the public and persons convicted. It is based on an outmoded rehabilitation model in which the judge is supposed to set the maximum term of imprisonment and the Parole Commission is to determine when to release the prisoner because he is rehabilitated. Federal fudges now have essgtially. unlimited and unguid- ed discretion in Imposing sentences. As a result, offendem with similar back- grounds who commit similar crimes often receive very different sentences in the Federal courts. Soma defend- ants receive sentences that may be too lenient for the proper protection of the public and others may be given sentences that are unnecessarily harsh. Under the present sentencing structure, the length of time that a prisoner actually spends in prison is determined by the U.S. Parole Com- mission. The sentencing provision of this bill creates a sentencing commission within the judicial branch that is di- rected to establish sentencing guide- lines. They will recommend to the sen- tencing judge an appropriate kind and range of sentence for a given category of offense committed by a given cate- gory of offender. In addition, sen- tences are fully determinates The sen- tence imposed by the judge is the seen- tence that will actually be served sub- ject. only to modest good time credits. The bill provides a truth-in-sentencing package that will inform both the public and the offenders of the real penalty being imposed on each defend- - ant. I see this title as also addressing the career criminal Problem. With stiffer mandatory sentences we will be lock, ing up for a longer period of time the worst criminal'. These defendants commit an an average 10 crones for every one on which they are convicted. If we put away 10,604 car criminals we can prevent 104,900 crimes. Title III is designed to take the profit out of organised crime , especial- ly drug trafficking. The bill enhances the use of forfeiture, and in particular the sanction of criminal forteitsare: as a law enforcement tool in combatting two of the most serious crime prob- lems facing the country-racketeering and drug tsaitle kiasg_ The bill provides for the. foreeetture of a er1aairai's oars, boats, and airplanes that he" used in his illegal business as well as the prof- its. The. bill also provides that where property found to be the ,subdeet 'of forfeiture Is-no, longer avaiiabio-st the time of conviction, the court is author' ized to order the defendant to forfeit substitute assets of equivalent value. This bill also provided for surphu property to. be donated to Stiates for construction and modernisation of criminal Justice facilities. Title N of the bill addresses the in- sanity defense. Should an accused bear the burden of proving himself insane, or should the.proseoution bear the burden of proving his sanity? Who is the better expect on a defendant's competence to stand trial, a psychia- trist or a lawyer? What should psychi- atrists be allowed to say to juries? How many experts should be aldowed,, to rebut and rebut the opposing experts? These are the questions that fuel the intellectual' debate on reforming the ln~ These question however, have litle impact on the public's views. The S 657 public believes that too many murder- ers are using the insanMr pies: to avoid Jail. A vast majority believe that the defense should be banned altogether in murder eases The public perceives the insanity defense as: an easy route by which defendants in grisly murders, attempts on the lives of national lead- ers and bizarre sex crimes can hope to avoid punishment. The unity de- fense is eating at the Attneriean people like a cancer. Congress has the respon- sibility to do surgery and to effectively cut out the abuse of the branity de- fense. Under present law the Insanity de- fense is based upon the American Law -Institute Test. According to this model: A person is not responsible for criminal conduct If at the time such conduct, as a result of a mental disease or defect he lacks substantial capacity to understand the wrongfulInns of his conduct or to conform to the regvirementsof the low. This test is based on knowhlg right from wrong or posseagdiag an' Irredst a ble impulse or lam subsea did ca. pacity. This test irrrites the presenta- tion of massive nouns t of tonflicting and irrelevant evidence by psychiatric experts. The defense has been denounced as a rich man's defense. The defense has also been criticized by legal .scholars, bar association representatives, and psychiatrists as time confiding.. con- fiiaing and expensive. Recent memory brings to mind the John W. iii[lnckley, Jr. tribal. It has been ttsttmatad to have cost the Government and Mckley's parents more than $3 million. The ex- tensive roe played by no lea than nine psychiatrists made the case one of the most expensive prosecutions in the history of the Imandt, defense. The Government spee $aou000 on three private psychist ta. =and one psychologist. HIMCkl0V%-dWkftft also employed a team ot''i 11rt bill for their services was iimmnd ?$ZCi;,809, Two $57.000 per 7aax,. assytsnt U.S. attorneys spent full tripods. preparing the case for trial. Tl a~saak Item. chal- lenging their legal skfl i s.the insane ity Issue. The costa associated with the jury exceeded $g00u and the tran- script of all this expert testimony was price tagged at $70,009. It is obvious that this trial was time. eQnsunaing. confusing. and exenstve. Another problem with the insanity defense as It is presently written is that the decision on who gets an in- sanity acquittal has more to do with the state of mind of,the jury than the state of mind of the accused. This is because the present test requires the jury to determine the motive. That is a difficult and unpredictable task. States have made the first move to bring some consistency and predict- ability to the insanity Michi- gan, Georgia, n}lM66, and Indiana have adopted a ^asntal>a Ill vesd ct. More than edtet. the remahL. Ing States' leddabm-age ssosiiaring Approved For Release 2008/09/18: CIA-RDP86B00338R000200320005-2 Approved For Release 2008/09/18: CIA-RDP86B00338R000200320005-2 S 658 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE the same approach. Montana and Idaho went even further and have ef- fectively eliminated the separate de- fense of insanity. The bill provides that a person could be found not guilty by reason of insan- ity only if, as a result of mental dis- ease or defect he was unable to appre- ciate the nature and quality of the wrongfulness of his acts. The new test would eliminate refer- ence to knowing right from wrong and having irresistible impulses or lacking substantial capacity to conform with the law. It is a more stringent test. It will also make the outcome more reli- able. The bill also shifts the burden to prove the defense to the defendant claiming it. The practical ramifica- tions of this stricter test is to protect the community. A mental disease or defect would be no defense if a defend- ant acted out of an irrational or insane belief that his act was morally justi- fied because the victim was an evil man whose death would end injustice, but just recompense for past wrongs or lead to a social utopia. Reforming the insanity defense will help correct those inequities which have ebbed the confidence of the American people in our Nation's system of justice. As I mentioned, this bill contains 12 titles, each representing a significant and unnecessary reform in our judicial system. I believe the combination of these various provisions is a coherent approach to strengthening the frame work for criminal justice. Today we will pass the crime bill, S. 1762. It is the product of more than a decade of effort to improve the crimi,aal code. I want to commend Senator THURMOND and his committee for the hard work on this vital issue. Thank you, Mr. President. ? Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, today we continue to debate a problem which may be one of the most impor- tant issues the Senate addresses this session. Surely, the American people view it as such. Crime-the most per- vasive common negative factor we as citizens of the United States face each day of our lives. The Federal Bureau of Investigation reported that in 1982-the last full year for which statistics were availa- ble-21,012 persons were murdered in the United States. That is a grim aver- age of one murder every 25 minutes. Reported rapes totaled 77,763. The FBI reports that there is one violent crime being committed every 25 sec- onds and one crime against property being carried out every 3 seconds. The crime rate is a frightening one, and it has become a major concern to persons in all walks of life and in every .geographic area of our Nation-and because of that concern, I am very pleased that all of the members of the Senate Judiciary Committee have joined together to support S. 1762 in a bipartisan manner-which is an action becoming increasingly characteristic of this body when dealing with such important national problems. In that regard, I would wish to commend all of the members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and in particular my fine friend and mentor Senators THUR- MOND, PAUL LAXALT, JOE BIDEN, and TED KENNEDY for the fine, conscien- tious efforts put forth in the further- ance of this vital measure which now gives the Federal Government the proper tools needed to be effective in its crime fighting role. I urge passage of this legislation as swiftly as is possi- ble.* ? Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I would like to call the attention of the Senate to a particular provision of S. 1762 which I fear may result in in- stances of injustice. Section 4243 of this bill provides that a defendant who is acquitted by reason of insanity and subsequently committed to an institution will not be released until the facility's administra- tor determines that he is no longer mentally ill or dangerous. In the alter- native, the defendant could gain his release by proving that he is no longer mentally ill or dangerous. This stand- ard is substantially more difficult to satisfy than that which applies to non- criminal mental commitments who must be released unless the State can periodically demonstrate the need for continued confinement on the basis of mental illness or dangerousness. It is argued that the difference be- tween the standards is justified by the fact that an insanity acquittee has been demonstrated to have committed a criminal act and found by a court to be insane. The fact of demonstrated criminality is said to magnify the pub- lic's interest in confinement. And the judicial finding of insanity at the time of the criminal act is said to diminish the acquittee's right to have Govern- ment continually demonstrate the need for institutionalization. This ar- gument has, in fact, been apparently constitutionally validated by the Su- preme Court in the recent case of Jones against United States. And while I believe it remains subject to disagreement, it is a rationale which Congress might reasonably adopt in this matter. What I find disturbing, however, is that the stricter criminal standard for release is apparently to be applied for an indefinite period regardless of the nature of the crime an acquittee is al- leged to have committed. A misde- meanant or class C felon is thus poten- tially subject to a life sentence as a criminally insane person. This poten- tial consequence was also validated in the Jones decision. But constitutional sufficiency does not necessarily insure the wisdom of a law. Rather, it assures only that the minimal requirements of fundamental fairness are satisfied in the minds of, in this case, five of the Justices of the Court., Mr. President, the very existence of the insanity defense is based on our belief in the principle that it is wrong to punish those who are not responsi- February 1, 1984 ble for their actions. This bill and other alternative formulations at- tempt to implement this principle in a fashion that will not permit abuse or unreasonably endanger society. But I cannot help but believe that uniform indefinite life sentence as a criminal acquittee, albeit to a mental institu- tion, constitutes punishment and re- flects the community's fear of mental illness more than it serve.,, to insure treatment. If a person is actually convicted of a crime, unless a life sentence is im- posed, he is insured by the existence of a maximum sentence that there will come a time when society's depriva- tion of his liberty as a result of his criminal conduct will come to an end. Under this bill, the insanity acquittees are provided with no such assurances. I believe that this constitutes nothing less than a sanction for having utilized the defense and, therefore, is contrary to the nature and purpose of the de- fense. If a criminal act is to trigger a stricter release standard, Mr. Presi- dent, I believe that fairness dictates that the application of this standard not exceed the maximum term of im- prisonment for the crime he was al- leged to have committed. The legal consequences of a crime simply should not extend further for one found not guilty than it might for one found guilty. This would, of course, have little effect for the more serious crimes. But it would assure that the criminal authority of the Federal Gov- ernment does not extend for an unrea- sonable time over those who have committed minor infringements. It is not my intention to seek this change in the bill at this late date, however, whether or not this particu- lar measure becomes law. I will at- tempt to insure that the Judiciary Committee reexamines this matter. The fine and difficult work. they have done to date on this measure is, of course, to be commended and I trust, and will attempt to insure, that this concern will be substantively ad- dressed when it returns to this issue. I would also like to take this oppor- tunity to further commend the com- mittee on its decision to include psy- chologists as among the mental health professionals qualified to perform court-ordered evaluations. I am con- vinced that this measure will not only reduce costs at no loss of quality, but that it will assure judicial access to many more qualified examiners.? FEDERAL IDENTIFICATION SYSTEMS Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I had an amendment to the Federal Criminal Code to move toward the positive iden- tification of persons holding identifi- cation documents. This proposal is in- tended to serve as as interim measure to begin to deal with the confusion, conflict, and redundancy which now exists in the various Federal Identifi- cation systems. Approved For Release 2008/09/18: CIA-RDP86B00338R000200320005-2 Approved For Release 2008/09/18: CIA-RDP86B00338R000200320005-2 February 1, 1984 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE S 659 The May 12, 1983, report of the (Public Law 97-2721 This legislation ful in tracking down fraud schemes. Senate Permanent Subcommittee on authorized expansions of the FBrs However, these projects were limited Investigations dealing with Federal National Crime Information Center, to in scope. If we are to stop this unnec- identification fraud underscores the include Information contributed from essary waste and criminal activity, it tremendous need for reforms in the either State or local criminal Justice must become a nationwide cooperative current system. The report sham that agencies or concerned parents of miss- effort. this fraud is costing. the taxpayers, tug children. Very few children have throught various Federal? State, and been fingerprinted. While it is true KXM s of the local agencies, in. excess of $24 billion that In many Jurisdictions, s baby's Se ate Subcommittee on tree, which I anomini nually. Illegal aliens have easy footprint is taken at the time the birth en ate Judiciary ly held whch access to identification documents Certificate is issued, these prints are Chair, has recently held Uwee hear-1706 such as social security cards, birth cer seldom used subsequently for indents- and ~ an Sf cus ste tte to nuio an the n antb e abuse-tion tificates, and drivers licenses. At ficatlon purposes. This Is* of docu- at o Identification a Testifying . present, more that 7,000 agencies mentatson makes it ditfficult to estab- our 29, 923. w r Mr. using more than 21,000 different for- liah the poaitinde Identity of a child Gary at our July a 1fro hearing Bureau mats issue original or duplicate birth when a missing report is filed with law M 'me' the iIs is Depart- certificates. These certificates are enforcement officials: me Identification of Law of terst; s then used to obtain drivers licenses, Third, in the 198'2 amendments to meat of Law Er~foeoena Mr. Robers Leard. passports, social security cards, food the food stamp legislation Congress; fir of the r. Louis stamp identification cards, and innu- authorized the development of auto- Food and Nutrition Service; ldr. Lous merable additional documents. These mated systems for the dispensing of Enoff, Acting Dep$y Commissioner of documents then enable fraud artists to food stamps: Currently, almost $11:.bS- the Social Security Ad ministration's collect unemployment benefits, food lien of this Federal assistance is re- Progranea and Pmt DIsieinn; Mr. stamps, tax refunds, student loans, eeived by app eximatft 20 million Clayton Hatch, Dlreetsrot the Trans- and other Government benefits. The People. In his recent state of the portation Department's National problem is serious and its magnitude Union address, President Reagan es1Fi- Driver Register;- W. 00"M Blevins, expands with each passing year. mated that over $1 billion of this as- Deputy -Assistant. etary of pass- This amendment would amend the sistance was wasted through fraud, in- port Services from tide. went of False Iderbtificstion: Crime (control Act eligibility, or other misuse of the State; Col. Michael GlIpartki, Direc- .of 1982 (Public Law 91-Mg). This act system,. At the center of the problem for of Personnel from the Department added new penalties to the Federal is the fact that current methods of din of Defense; and fy .;panel'- of witnesses Criminal Code Boer certain false. silents- penning food stamps do not require from the Department. of 'lleasury fication related ctimea The amend- Positive Identilleaiiog. of recipients, which included Mr. David Ray and Mr. menu would add new provisions to-tire thus opening the door for abuse of the Neal Pindley from the Secret Service, law with the following features: system. Mr. 'James - Owens, Deputy' Commis- Agencies n tak4ng Identification . In this Congress, the Senate recently sinner of the Interns? Revenue Service systems would be egpouraged to use passed S. 529, a. bill to comprehensive- and Mr. John Hurley from the U.S. comuaon descriptive terms for personal iy revise our immigration laws. Includ- Customs Service. identification information; ed In this bill is a provision which di- On October 5, 1983, witnesses were A Federal. policy would be estab- recta the President to develop a secure Mr. John Walker, Jr., Assistant Sect e- lished to reduce redundancy and dupli- system within a 3-year period for the tary for Enforcement and Operation's cation In these Identification systems: identification of those persons lawful- from the Department of Treasury; Mr. The systems would be redesigned to, ly admitted to and entitled to work in Donald IMeTtm, from the Department encourage "positive Identification" of t h e United S t a t e s as. wall as t h o s e cuts- of S t a t e ; Mr. Steven f winger, Dt- holders of identification documents; zees of the United States who would rector of the Bureau of Justice Statis- The. President, within 3 years, would be employed by companies having four tics and Prof. Joseph Worn from the have to report to Congress and make or more employees. Criminal sanctions University of Pittsburgh. recommendations for comprehensive would be imposed as emplaoyers who At the last hearing held on October legislation in the area. Among other knowingly hire persons not lawfully 21, we received testimony from Inspec- things, the recommendations must able to work in the United States. tor Conrad Rarmer, Deputy Assistant give due consideration to the protec- The recent legislation and pending Director of the PSPs Identification tion of privacy and the developn;ent of proposals have a common thread: Division, Mr. David Nemecek, Section appropriate sanctions for misuse of They involve forms of Federal identiff- Chief of the FBI's National Crime In- identification Information. cation that already extend to tells of formation Center and Mr. Roger P. In the 97th Congress, legislation was mfMons of our citizens. To- say the Brandeme III), Acting Associate Com- enacted in three diverse areas which least, concerted action needs to be missile her, from the U.S Immigration suggest some of the dimensions of the taken to reduce duplication and redun- and Naturalization Service. problem: First, drunk driving Iegisla- dancy, to protect the privacy of per- CRIMINAL JUSTICE' ID&NTtnCATION SYSTEMS tion last year authorized the establish- sons who are subjects of these files, to After 15 years of effort between Fed- ment in four States of pilot programs develop sanctions for unauthorized eral. State, and local enforcement to develop an automated national driv- use of disclosure of the Information agencies, a high degree of Interface ers registry. This will be a system contained In them, and to provide for and cooperation has been achieved be- within the Department of Transports- coordination of interested Federal, tween them on stern of tion which will contain Information State, and local agencies and authors- identification information aqd for- contributed from several States on bad ties who have legitimate uses for this mats. Testimony received from Search drivers. Included?would be Information Information. Group, Inc. and the FBI amply dem- concerning persons whose licenses The problem lies In the inability to onstrated that operational systems have been revoked for drunk driving establish positive Identification in the can be developed under enabling legis- convictlons. The drivers license system current system. Agencies such as. the lation which provides safeguards has been subject to abuse by these Social Security Administration, the In- against invasion of privacy and pro- whose licenses have been revoked due ternal Revenue Service, the Immigra- vide sanctions for misuse or unauthor- to the lack of such coordination. tfon and Naturalization, Service and ized disclosure of sensitive informa- These drivers can simply apply for an- the State Department as well as State tion. This experience can well be appli- other license under an assumed name and local agencies need to develop cable to other noncriminal, Justice or in another State where their previ- better programs to mreover fraud. The identification systems. ous record is unknown. Subcommittee on Investigations listed Mr. President, as I said at the outset, Second, last year the Congress In its report several projects in which S. 1706 and my amendment were de- passed the Missing Children Act agencies cooperated and were success- signed to be interim measures. The Approved For Release 2008/09/18: CIA-RDP86B00338R000200320005-2 Approved For Release 2008/09/18: CIA-RDP86B00338R000200320005-2 S 660 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE February 1, 1984 President would be given 3 years to undertake a comprehensive review of the status of Federal identification systems and then send recommenda- tions to Congress for comprehensive legislation. Although repeated re- quests have been made by letter and in the course of the hearings, so far the administration has yet to take a posi- tion on the bill. It may well be that comments will be received at a later time. If so, changes and modifications can be made as appropriate. In view of the magnitude of the problem and the billions of dollars of Federal funds in- volved, the first steps to deal with the problem should not be delayed any longer. As the Roth report pointed out, the Justice Department conduct- ed a comprehensive study of identifi- cation fraud in the mid-1970's. If any- thing, the problems have grown much worse in the intervening years. Some will say that this measure will lead to a national identification system and pave the way for big brother in Orwellian fashion to con- trol pur lives in every detail. Indeed there are very important consider- ations of privacy and security which must be addressed in the context of this legislation. But if current identifi- cation systems are allowed-by de- fault-to develop, automate and expand as they are now, the situation can be much worse than if a coordinat- ed, logical policy is developed. This amendment encourages decentraliza- tion and separate, but coordinated de- velopment of the major systems, not Federal preemption and consolidation. Testimony received from several agencies including the Departments of Defense, Agriculture, and Justice have amply demonstrated that vast sums are being spent on automation, yet with very little coordination and inter- face. Although it is possible that the administration could come back to Congress with a recommendation for a national system, this is only one of several options. If the experience of the criminal justice community is ex- amined, it will become readily appar- ent that existing Federal and State and local systems can be upgraded, automated and interfaced without resort to a national system. Whatever might be recommended 3 years hence, Congress must still make the policy determination as to what would be needed. Mr. President, in conclusion I thank the floor managers of S. 1762 for their cooperation and support for the meas- ure. WITNESS SECURITY Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, the General Accounting Office, at my re- quest, completed a study on March 17, 1983, of the witness security program. I had an amendment that corrects a deficiency in the program that was dis- cussed in the GAO report. As Iam sure my colleagues know, through the witness security program the Federal Government provides indi- viduals with new identities and relo- cates them because their lives have been endangered as a result of their testimony in Federal and State pros- ecutions. As a result of this program, the Government has successfully pros- ecuted and convicted many criminals. However, this program is not with- out problems. Protected witnesses have committed criminal acts after being admitted to the program and have used their Government-created identities to avoid legal obligations. GAO's jnost recent review of this program found that during one 6- month period, various creditors were seeking to recover over $7.3 million from 36 relocated witnesses. Included parties who have had dealings with protected witnesses. Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, part B of title X is designed to criminalize the offense of solicitation to commit a Federal crime of violence. The pro- posed amendment is designed to avoid any possible concern that such an of- fense might impinge on constitutional- ly protected speech, petition, and as- sembly rights under the first amend- ment. Criminal solicitation is an inchoate offense which is primarily designed to be invoked when the person solicited does not engage in the solicited crimi- nal conduct Unlike the inchoate of- among the creditors were doctors seek fenses of conspiracy and attempt, the dered, nonrelocated parents seeking to collect child support, a women seeking to recover a personal loan, a State bro- kerage firm seeking to recover money from a former employee, and Govern- ment agencies seeking to recover unpaid criminal fines and unpaid taxes. When problems with creditors or nonrelocated parents occur, the De- partment of Justice faces a dilemma. Should it continue to conceal a wit- ness' new identity to a third party and thus potentially endanger the safety of the witness? In the past, the Justice Department had a blanket policy of not disclosing information on protected witnesses to assist third parties. In April 1982, an internal memorandum was issued which changed this policy. The Justice Department says it will now consider disclosure on a case-by-case basis. The GAO complimented the Department of Justice for its initiative, but be- lieved that additional safeguards were needed to protect society from the un- scrupulous actions of some witnesses. I agree with GAO's findings. My amendment establishes a proce- dure by which an individual with a ju- dicial order or judgement may petition a Federal court for the appointment of a special master to enforce his or her rights against the protected witness. The special master, under the direc- tion of the Federal district court judge where the judgment holder resides, will be furnished the new name and lo- cation of the protected witness in order to enforce the rights of the judgment holder. This procedure as- sures that the identity of the protect- ed witness is not publicly disclosed while providing an opportunity to an individual with a legitimate order or judgment to have it enforced. The costs of this program are apportioned between the judgment holder and the protected witness. Mr. President, I am sure that all of my colleagues agree that we need to do all we can to fight crime. The wit- ness-security program is an important tool in the Federal fight against crime. criminal solicitation offense contains no requirement that any act be taken in furtherance of the crime. Thus, the essence of solicitation is to criminalize the attempt to induce another to commit a crime through the utterance of mere words. Over the past several Congresses, the Judiciary Committee has grappled with the problem that any criminal so- licitation statute will often intersect with the first amendment. The com- mittee has considered a general crimi- nal solicitation statute both in the context of criminal code reform as well as omnibus crime legislation. In considering these proposals to create a criminal solicitation statute, the com- mittee has often noted the difficult problem of distinguishing constitu- tionally protected speech in the form of mere advocacy from advocacy di- rected to inciting or producing immi- nent lawless action under circum- stances likely to incite or produce such action. To guard against proscribing constitutionally protected advocacy, the committee during its deliberations on the criminal code reform limited application of the solicitation offense to a list of 33 egregious felonies.' In a similar spirit, the committee limited the solicitation offense in S. 1762 to "crimes of violence." However, the definition of the term "crime of vio- lence" was designed to encompass all of the uses of the term in title 18, United States Code, and was not spe- cifically tailored to the crime of solici- tation. To guard against infringement of first amendment rights and to respond to suggestions that the solicitation of- fense as currently defined in S. 1762 would present the potential for abuse, the proposed amendment limits sec- tion 1003 to "felonies that have as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person or property of an- other." This narrower definition is consistent with the recommendations of the final report of the National Commission on Reform of Federal Criminal Laws. Approved For Release 2008/09/18: CIA-RDP86B00338R000200320005-2 Approved For Release 2008/09/18: CIA-RDP86B00338R000200320005-2 February 1, 1,984 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE Mr. DENTON. Mr. President, I had law, punishment will result. I believe an amendment' to sectin 219 of title 18, that a determinate sentencing atruc- United States Code, substitutes the ture such as we adopt today will send words "Public Official" for "Officer or that clear signal. It is the most effec- employee" of The executive legisla- tive type of sentencing structure possi- tive, or Judicial branch of Govern- ble to deter criminal acts. ment. Fairness is needed to remove the dis- In my view, this is a long overdue parity in sentences which courts clarifying amendment. After nearly 4 impose on similarly situated defend- years Agents Reg- down by Judges in the same district refinement hearings, Foreign titration Act. These amendments to and by judges from different districts this 1938 statute became effective in and circuits in the Federal system. 1966. One Judge may impose a relatively One of the amendments was a new long prison term to rehabilitate or in- provision in the law which effectively capacitate the offender. Another precluded most Federal Government Judge, under similar circumstances officials from violating their oaths of may sentence the defendant to a office by representing the interest of shorter prison term simply to punish any undisclosed foreign principal. In him, or the Judge may opt for the im- so doing, the Congress by omission, position of a term of probation in probably due to oversight, failed to Order to rehabilitate him. specifically include itself among the For example, in 1974, the average elected and appointed officials barred Federal sentence for bank robbery was from such activity. 11 years, but in the northern district Mr. President, in the past 8 years, of Illinois it was only 5%. years. Fur- scandals involving Members of Con- ther probative evidence may be de= gress and foreign governments have rived from another 1974 study in resulted in substantial embarrassment which 50 Federal district cobrt judges to this institution. I believe it would be from the second circuit were given 20 extremel usef l t l if y u o c ar y the pro- identical files drawn from actual cases scription against such activity by using and were asked to indicate what Sen- a term, the meaning of which is tence they would impose on each de- spelled out in the bribery, statute 18 fendant. The variations in the judges' U.S.C. 201, Adoption of this amend- proposed sentences in each case were ment and thereby the term "public of- astounding. In one extortion case, for ficial" in lieu of "Officer or employee" example, the range of sentences varied will serve to state unequivocally that from 20 years' imprisonment and a we in Congress are no more entitled to $64,000 fine to 3 years' imprisonment escape the provisions of the conflict- and no fine. of-intererst law than anyone else who Under the provisions of this bill, for has taken the solemn oath of office. the first time, Federal law will assure This amendment would demonstrate that the Federal criminal justice to the public at large that we are not system will adhere to a consistent sen- above the law. tencing philosophy, which along with Mr. DURENBERGER. Mr. Presi- sentencing guidelines will result in dent, I rise today to speak in favor of fairer and more consistent treatment S. 1762, the Comprehensive Crime in the imposition of sentences. Control Act. I commend my colleagues Again, I applaud my colleagues for on the Judiciary Committee for the their efforts on this bill, and I urge its fine Job they have done in creating a passage. tough but fair crime control package. Mr. BAKER addressed the Chair. I am particularly pleased that the The PRESIDING OFFICER. The sentencing provisions of title II were majority leader is recognized.- included in the bill. Minnesota has Mr. BAKER. If there is a measure or been a pioneer in implementing this quotient of frustration, Mr. President, type of sentencing structure. Minneso- it would be near the top right now be- ta's unique system developed by legis- cause we have tried very hard to get lative mandate has resulted in sen- this situation in shape so we can vote tencing guidelines which have con- this afternoon, and I still hope we can. trolled the growth of the State's I am referring to the Metzenbaum/ prison population and made the impo- Bumpers amendments. But it would sition of sentences much more fair and appear, Mr. President, that for the equitable. I am proud that Minnesota next few minutes I am stymied. sentencing law was the model for the I am loathe to fritter away this time. Federal sentencing reforms, and I Therefore, I have consulted with the have long advocated these changes on minority leader about going to an- the Federal level. As Senator Kenne- other matter; that is, the so-called dy, who has been a leader on restruc- Christopher Columbus bill, which will turing the Federal sentencing laws, require a rollcall vote. said earlier Minnesota has had ex- I have not yet been able to reach the traordinary success. In the last two managers of the bill on this side. I am Congresses I have cosponsored the leg- authorized to say on behalf of the mi- islation upon which title II is based. It nority leader that there is no objec- ts time wse put certainty and fairness tion to proceeding to the consideration back into our sentencing system. of this matter and the underlying Certainty is needed to send criminals budget waiver, I assume, and in a a clear signal that if they break the moment I intend to do that. `S '661 I should also say to Senators, howev- er, that after we do Christopher Co- lumbus, we are going to come back to this crime package. Today Is Wednes- day. By this time we were supposed to be well into the collateral and ancil- lary bills that are to accompany this measure. So we may be around a little while. Mr. President, first I ask that the Chair lay before the Senate the budget waiver to accompany Calendar Order No. 316, S. 500. Mr. President, there is a unanimous- consent agreement pending and we are on another matter, and I do not want it to go back on the calendar. First of all, I withdraw the unani- mous-consent request. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The request is withdrawn. Mr. BAKER. Now, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pend- ing measure be temporarily laid aside to recur after the disposition of the matter I am about to, address. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? The Chair hears none, and it Is so ordered` BUDGET ACT WAIVER Mr. BAKER. Mr. President, I ask the Chair lay before the Senate Calen- dar Order No. 387, Senate Resolution 189, the budget waiver to accompany 8.500. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? The Chair hears none, and it is so ordered. The resolution will be stated. The assistant legislative clerk read as follows: A Senate resolution (S. Rea. 189) waiving section 402(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 with respect to the considera- tion of S. 500. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the budget resolution waiver. The resolution (S. Res. 189) was agreed to as follows: S. Rss. 189 Resolved, That pursuant to section 402(c) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the provisions of section 402(a) of such Act are waived with respect to consideration of S. 500. Such waiver in necessary because S. 500, as reported, authorizes the enactment of new budget authority which would first be- come available in IIscal year 1984, and such bill was not reported on or before May 15, 1983, as required by section 402(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 for such authorizations. The budget waiver will allow Senate con- sideration of S. 500 which provides for the establishment of a thirty member Commis- sion, plus a nonvoting participant from Spain and a nonvoting participant 'from Italy, to plan, encourage, coordinate, and conduct the commemoration of the quincen- tennial of the voyages of Christopher Co- lumbus. S. 500 authorizes the appropriation of an estimated $220,000 for fiscal year 1984 and $220,000 for each of the fiscal years begin- ning on October 1, 1984, and ending before October 1. 1992, and $20,000 for the period from October 1, 1992, through November 15, Approved For Release 2008/09/18: CIA-RDP86B00338R000200320005-2 Approved For Release 2008/09/18: CIA-RDP86B00338R000200320005-2 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE February 1, 1984 1992, resulting in a total appropriation of $2,000,906. Mr. BAKER. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the resolution was agreed to. Mr. THURMOND. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. UNANIMOUS-CONSENT AGREEMENT Mr. BAKER. Mr. President, since the budget waiver has been accom- plished, I am prepared to ask the Senate to go to S. 500. Before I do, I want to propound a unanimous-con- sent request that I understand has been cleared all around. Mr. President, I ask unanimous con- sent that when the Senate proceeds to the consideration of Calendar Order No. 316, S. 500, only one amendment will be in order and that is an amend- ment by the distinguished Senator from Maryland (Mr. MATHIAS), which amendment is at the desk. I further ask unanimous consent that there be a limitation on debate of 40 minutes, equally divided, on the bill as amended, to include the debate on the amendment which will be in order. I further ask unanimous consent that after the adoption of the amend- ment, it be in order to proceed to the consideration of the companion House bill, H.R. 1492, Calendar No., 56, and that only one amendment be order, and that is an amendment to strike all after the enacting clause and insert in lieu thereof the text of S. 500 as amended, if amended, and that no debate be in order on that motion. Mr. President, I ask that the con- trol of the time be in the usual form. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? The Chair hears none, and it is so ordered. mended for their historic role and contribu- tion to those voyages; (3) all persons in this country should look with pride on the achievements and contri- butions of their ancestors with respect to those historic voyages; and (4) as the Nation approaches the quincen- tennial of the voyages of discovery of Chris- topher Columbus, it is appropriate to cele- brate and commemorate this anniversary through local, national, and international observances and activities planned, encour- aged, coordinated, and conducted by a na- tional commission representative of appro- priate individuals and public and private au- thorities and organizations. ESTABLISHMENT', COMPOSITION Sac. 3. (a) There is established a commis- sion to be known as the Christopher Colum- bus Quincentenary Jubilee Commission (hereinafter in this Act referred to as the "Commission") to plan, encourage, coordi- nate, and conduct the commemoration of the voyages of discovery of Christopher Co- lumbus. (b) The Commission shall be composed of thirty members as follows: (1) seven members appointed by the Presi- dent upon the recommendation of the ma- jority leader of the Senate in consultation with the minority leader of the Senate; (2) seven members appointed by the Presi- dent upon the recommendation of the Speaker of the House of Representatives in consultation with the minority leader of the House of Representatives; (3) ten members appointed by the Presi- dent, which members shall be broadly repre- sentative of the people of the United States, and not otherwise officers or employees of the United States; (4) the Secretary of State; (5) the Archivist of the United States; (8) The Librarian of Congress; (7) the Secretary of the Smithsonian atitution; prehensive report incorporating its recom- mendations for the commemoration of the quincentennial of the voyages of discovery of Christopher Columbus. The report re- quired by this subsection shall include- (1) recommendations for appropriate ac- tivities for the commemoration, including- (A) the production, publication, and distri- bution of books, pamphlets, films, and other educational materials focusing on the histo- ry, culture, and political thought of the lands Christopher Columbus traveled from and to during the voyages of discovery; (B) bibliographical and documentary proj- ects and publications; (C) conferences, convocatiol,s, lectures, seminars, and other similar programs; (D) the development of libraries, muse- ums, and exhibits, including mobile exhib- its; (E) ceremonies and celebrations com- memorating specific events; (F) programs focusing on the internation- al significance of the voyages of discovery of Christopher Columbus; and (G) the design, inscriptions, and other specifications relating to the issuance of commemorative coins, medals, and stamps, by the United States; (2) recommendations for the allocation of financial and administrative responsibility among the public agencies and private orga- nizations recommended for participation by the Commission; and (3) recommendations for such legislation and administrative actions as -.he Commis- sion deems necessary to carry ')ut the com- memoration of the voyages of discovery. The President shall transmit the Commis- sion's report to the Congress together with such comments and additional :-ecommenda- tions for legislation and administrative ac- tions as the President deems appropriate. (c) The Commission shall prepare and submit to the Congress an annual report on the activities of the Commission, including an accounting of funds received and expend- (8) the Chairman of the Federal Council on the Arts and Humanities; and (9-) the Secretary of Commerce. ed. (c) The President is hereby authorized (d) In preparing its plans and programs, and requested to invite the governments of the Commission shall consider any related Spain and Italy each to appoint, before Oc- plans and programs developed by State and tober 1, 1983, one individual to serve as a local, and foreign government';, and private nonvoting participant in the activities of the groups, including the 1992 World's Fair to Commission. be held in Chicago. Illinois, and in Seville, (d) The Secretary of State shall call the Spain. The Commission shall endeavor to first meeting for the purposes of electing a plan and conduct its activities in such Chairman and Vice Chairman, both of manner as to ensure that activities conduct- whom shall be from among the members of ed pursuant to this Act do not duplicate ac- the Commission appointed under subsection tivities of the 1992 World's Fair. honor- (b)(3). The Commission may appoint honor- (e) The Commission may designate special ary members, and may establish an Adviso- committees and invite representatives from ry Council to assist the Commission in its such public agencies and private organiza- work. tions to assist the Commission in carrying (e) Appointments under subsection (b) out this section as the Commission deems shall be made within a reasonable time after appropriate. the date of the enactment of this Act, but ADDITIONAL FUNCTIONS not later than October 1, 1983. Vacancies shall be filled in the same manner in which Sac. 5. In carrying out the purposes of this the original appointments were made. Act, the Commission is authorized to pro- vide for- CHRISTOPHER COLUMBUS QUINCENTENARY JUBILEE ACT Mr. BAKER. Mr. President, I ask the chair to lay before the Senate Cal- endar No. 316, S. 500. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill will be stated by title. The assistance legislative clerk read as follows: A bill (S. 500) entitled the "Christopher ide d t d o cons e me Senate procee SEC. 4. (a) it snail be the duty of the orn- the bill, which had been reported from mission to prepare a comprehensive pro- nation, exhibition, and sale of historical, the Committee on the Judiciary with gram for commemorating the quincenten- commemorative, and informational materi- an amendment to strike out all after nial of the voyages of discovery of Christo- als and objects which will contribute to the' enacting clause and insert. pher Columbus, and to plan, encourage, co- public awareness of, and interest in. th" ordinate, and conduct observances and ac- quincentennial, except that any commemo- Act". rative coins, medals, or stamps issued by the That this Act may be cited as the "ehris tivities commemorating the historic events topher Columbus Quincentenary Jubilee associated with those voyages. In carrying United States shall be sold only by an Act". out this subsection, the Commission shall agency of the United States; FINDINGS AND DECLARATIONS particularly examine the historic role of the (2) competitions, commissions, and awards SEC. 2. The Congress finds and declares government and people of Spain in order to for historical, scholarly, artistic, literary, that- , promote a greater public awareness, under- musical, and other works, programs, and (1) October 12, 1992, marks the five hun- standing, and appreciation of the contribu- projects relating to the quincentennial; and dredth anniversary of the voyages of discov- tions made by Spain with respect to those (3) a quincentennial calendar or register ery of Christopher Columbus; voyages. of programs-and projects, and in other ways (2) the governments and people of Spain (b) Not later than October 1, 1985, the provide a central clearinghouse for informa- and Italy should be recognized and com- Commission shall submit to Congress a com- tion and coordination regarding dates, Approved For Release 2008/09/18: CIA-RDP86B00338R000200320005-2 Approved For Release 2008/09/18: CIA-RDP86B00338R000200320005-2 The Senate was cruising smoothly. toward passage of a crime bill yesterday when it was blind-sided by Sens. Howard M. z.Metzenbaum (D-(yio) and Dab "Bumpers (D-Ark.), who of- fered an amendment that would .,create. a ow crime. They urged their colleagues to make It illegal for a federal employe to tape-record a tale- phone conversation without the permission, of all p M the DednoceMe proceeded to make exceed ing)y clear, the measure was aimed squaselyt at Charles Z Wick, President Reagan'e -, friend and head of the U.S. Information Agen- cy. Wick recently admitted, after initially deny- ing it, that be had secretly taped telephone con- versations with a variety of callers, including administration officials. Senate Republicans first asked Metzenbaum and Bumpers to withdraw their amendment, promising to bold hearings on the taping ques- tion in return. But the Democrats, refused to back off, and members of both parties said that the amend- ment may pass when it comes to a vote, pos- sibly today. The trims b91 is a partial revision of the fed- eral criminal code that, among other things, would give federal judges greater authority to deny bail to accused persons prior to trial and would create a federal commission to issue guidelines to. make criminal sentences more uni- form. % The bill also would reverse' current law on the insanity defense. Under the pending legislation, a defendant would, have the burden of establishing he was not am at the time of the crime. Willy, the prosecution has borne the burden of proof on this and other key questions in a crirstinal trial. ment by a Democratic freshman, all but elim- inated a spending increase for a"Program to weatherize the homes of poor people. But yesterday the. House agreed, 357-39, to reauthorize and increase fiunding over the .next four years for library services and sonstruction. Among the amendments offered was one-to em- phasize the importance of rural library services, which passed, and another to give. the president not. The adminiatra on ;did npt adppeet the pro- gm m, it "it no loam rseeded because state and local governments should bear the responsibility ' for ensgting -'adequate local li- braryc services. The Congressional Budget Office estimated the, program would colt $684 million. over the .next five years. But, "tell me, who's gonna vote against li- braries?"gone House aide asked. Along with the eoartinuing; debate about Leb- anoe, the House is acheiduled to vote on moth., er touchy foreign polict`?ieetao tying military aid for El Salvador, to human lie progress in that country. Democratic leadership aides said yesterday that the bill requiring administration certifica- tion of human rights pt in El Salvador is scheduled to coma to the House floor Monday or Tuesday. They said that they antic pate no trouble getting the bill passed, since a similar one passed easily last year. But they began a heed, count this week just to make sure. Since 1981 Congress has required the White House to certify that El Salvador was making a*" Some spending Increases are always popular. Lest week the Howe, acting on an amend- prop+ees in human aunts and laws reform in order for that aouatty to continue receiving mu. r ~ fall, Congress voted to extend the eer? tification requireme ' But while Congress was on its Ciwisteees va. cation. PreeWert Reagan pocket-vetoed the ex- teneioa. Since throe, Pap Michael D. Barnes (D-,1 4.), c ~ n l i r a n s g s Q[tt i- Poreigr AI i edbco mk* ap hors igtdttgi,,a bill to re*xi8th9,i_A_'_1 requirement It loop as if the House will -quiday follow- the Sena*% lead in eliminating the congres- sional peg-)aise that toot affect Jans. 1. 'hat means to s nbws', salary will? be cpt tom $12,200 basil $ $69,80Q. Haar had dui tineaabers wrotk? The flow drip has issued a ec hedure f o t ~ daily w e i 2 tt hough may. It c for the House top into session at neon each : Monday and Tueedsy, at 3 p.m. on Wednesdiam and ii a.m. Thursdays. The repreeentegives will thsorstiosib- sorrel at 11 on Fridays, too, except that they almost never mest~dpat day because so margt nsssbels leave tam Theesde y night. The readers :q( both hbq es have also issued their regiaiae cenlendars of strict wcck ods," as they 1% to all time back home. qcn- gress:will shut down A" times before adjourn- ment this fall. The House calendar hats recesses for Lin- coln's Birthday (Feb. 10 to 21), Easter (April 16 to 24), Memorial Day (May 25 to 30), Indepen- dence Day and the Democratic con vetntion (July 2 to 23) and Labor Day and the Repub- lican convention (Aug. 13 to Sept. 5). The Sen- ate schedule is atmost'identical. - Both houses have set a "target date" of Oct 4 for adjournment. But many. ra rnbers say that they be back fora 11eiudc session in I'.fg data adllt p~ o Approved For Release 2008/09/18: CIA-RDP86B00338R000200320005-2