CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 4 INTELLIGENCE IDENTITIES PROTECTION ACT

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP85-00003R000200060004-6
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 14
• Document Creation Date: December 21, 2016
• Document Release Date: September 25, 2008
• Sequence Number: 4
• Publication Date: June 3, 1982
• Content Type: OPEN SOURCE

Approved For Release 2008/09/25: CIA-RDP85-00003R000200060004-6
June 2, 1982 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE H 3141
available. This insurance can be issued determines it is appropriate. Of the gentleman from California (Mr.
either with or without premiums, the course, it can only be issued where MINrrA) that the House suspend the
Mbte.r being the case when the oper- commercial insurance cannot be ob- rules and pass the bill, H.R. 5930.
ation is being conducted pursuant to a tained at reasonable rates and condi- The question was taken; and (two-
contract between the air carrier and tions. thirds having voted in favor thereof)
the Departments of Defense or State. The program contemplates two dif- the rules were suspended and the bill
In the event premiums are collected ferent types of insurance-premium was passed.
from the particular air carriers in- and nonpremium. If the above condi- A motion to reconsider was laid on
volved, they are placed in a revolving tions are met, the premium program the table.
fund which would be used If the Gov- generally applies. However, if the op-
ernment is subsequently required to eration is being conducted pursuant to GENERAL LEAVE
pay out on a policy. The aviation war a contract which the carrier has with
risk insurance revolving fund now has the Departnbts of Defense or State, Mr. CLAUSEN. Mr. Speaker, I ask
a balance of $22.6 million and is now no pre miums are Ci rged to the carri- unanimous consent that all Members
in a position where it could absorb a ers although DOD or the State De- may have 5 legislative days in which to
substantial claim if it were required to partment must indemnify the Secre- revise and extend their remarks on the
do so. The revolving fund is also used tary for any payouts which occur on bill just passed.
to pay administrative expenses assoet- the policy An example of this is the The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is
ated with operating this Important' operation of the Civil Reserve Air there objection to the request of the
program, such as employee salaries. Fleet (CRAP). In the event CRAP air- gentl from, California?
Although the very nature of the pro- craft are needed by our Government, There was no objection.
gram is such that it is infrequently the nonpremium program permits thg
red
- erefo
ant that the
to be
it i
im
-_-
....,.
operation
po
s
used, I believe
authority be in place should it become protects the carrier from any 1 CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 4,
necessary to assure the continuation which may arise_ INTELLIGENCE IDENTITIES
of essential air transport operations Although the Government war PROTECTION ACT
outside the United States. insurance is issued only on rare occa- Mr. BOLAND. Mr. Speaker, I call up
As my colleagues are aware, the avi- sions, I believe that it is necessary to the conference report on the bill (H.R.
ation war risk insurance program has extend the current authorization so 4) to amend the National Security Act
been extended by the Congress on nu- that the lack of commercially avails- of 1947 to prohibit the unauthorized
morons occasions in the past, and most ble insurance will not deter this coon- disclosure of information identifying
of those extensions were for 5-year pe. try from conducting operations which certain U.S, intelligence ' officers,
riods as provided for in H.R. 5930. are determined by the President to be agents, informants, and sources.
The last time we examined this pro- in our best interests. The Clerk read the title of the bill.
gram was In 1977 where we also made Aecordiagty, I would urge my col- The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursu-
other changes to the statute which leagues to adopt H.R. 5930 so we can ato the rule, the conference report
were- designed to fill potential gaps in extend this important program before ant
considered as having been read.
the Secretary's authority to issue this it expires at the end of the current port and stale-
see conference a re re of the House e.
insurance. Those amendments accom- fiscal year.. (For meat, (For
plished their intended purpose and the ? Mr. HOWARD. Mr. Speaker, I rise May 20, see proceedings
administration, as well as the U.S, air in support of this legislation to
carriers, believe that a simple exten- reauthorize, through fiscal year 1987, The gentleman from (Mr.
The
sion of the program is all that is neces- the aviation insurance program, com- gentleman will be reMa sach for 30 min-
Accordingly, at this time. manly referred to as the war risk in- BOLAND)
gentleman from Illinois
Accordingly, I would urge my col- surance program. Utes and McCi the will be recognized for
leagues to support H.R. 593? so we can Although this program is not well (Mr. minutes.
assure that this important program known, it is one that is very important 30 es the gentleman
will continue in the years ahead. to the implementation of our Nation's The Chair recognizes to entl
?,Mr. SNYDER. Mr. Speaker, as the foreign policy. from om Massachusetts Cha ( Speaker, I yield
chairman of the Aviation Subcocnmit- Under this program, the Federal Mr.
sBOLAND. uch time M I may Speaker, consume.
tee has indicated, today we are consid- Aviation Administration provides in. myself the conference report
ering legislation (H.R. 5930) to extend surance to US- airlines for air service Mr. Speaker, ker
we take up today was the report
sub-
the aviation war risk insurance pro- to foreign countries when commercial which
gram for 5 years through the end of insurance cannot be obtained on rea- ject of many long and hard discussions
fiscal year 1987. Because of the impor- sonable terms and conditions, and and eventually of compromise. It
tance of assuring that vital air trans- when the President determines that might not have appeared on the sur-
port operations can continue in the the continuation of air service is neces. face that there were many substantial
face of instability abroad. I would urge sary to carry out the foreign policy of differences between the two Houses.
my colleagues to support H.R. 5930. the United States. But from the beginning, it was, In the
Actually, the name "war risk" is Though this program has not been opinion of this, Member, important to
somewhat of a misnomer since the called upon since the last time it was create a legislative history in the state-
statute no longer specifies the types of authorized 5 years ago, it does not ment of managers that explains the
risks which are eligible for Govern- take one long to conceive of instances crucial section of this legislation-see-
ment insurance. The last time the in the world today where a govern- tion 601(c). It was important, because
Congress extended this program, back ment insurance program for service to in the House, there was not a report
in 1977, we determined that the Secre- high risk areas would be necessary. which explained the effect of the Ash-
tary of Transportation would have Mr. Speaker, I. urge the House to brook amendment, the language of
greater flexibility if eligibility for Gov- pass this bill. Our Nation's foreign 601(c). In the other body as well, there
ernment insurance depended, in part, policy interests will be well served by was no committee report explaining
on a Presidential determination that it.& the language of 601(c), which had also
the particular operation was in the Mr. MINETA. Mr. Speaker, I have been offered as a floor amendment, in
foreign policy interests of the United no further requests for time, and I this case by Senator Cis . Further,
States. yield back the balance of my time. it was Important that the differences
Accordingly, such insurance can be Mr. CLAUSEN. Mr. Speaker, I have between the two Houses on the ques.
issued to cover a variety of risks; that no further requests for time, and I tion of protecting cover for U.S. intel-
is, civil disturbances, terrorist activi- yield back the balance of my time. ligence officers and agents be resolved
ties, provided it Is an operation outside The SPEAKER pro tempore. The in light of the need to better protect
the United States and the President question is on the motion offered by such individuals and in order to guar-
Approved For Release 2008/09/25: CIA-RDP85-00003R000200060004-6
 Approved For Release 2008/09/25: CIA-RDP85-00003R000200060004-6
H 3142 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE June 2, 1982
antee that cover is sufficient to justify Not everyone is happy with it, as The Conferees expect that the Depart-
the criminalization of its disclosure. perhaps today's proceedings will em- ment of Justice and the Federal Courts will
The House should also know that I phasize. The explanation provided in limit the application of Section 691(p~ y
began the process of discussions about the statement addresses the central those engaged in the pernicious business of
these issues in some doubt about the issues of proof and what activities naming names as that conduct is described
constitutionality of the bill. Nonethe- would constitute a violation of the in the legislative history of this Act.
less, I felt it was my duty to bring back statute. As one who had serious doubts about
a bill to the House because it was the The principal point of this part of the constitutionality of this bill as it
will of this body that H.R. 4 become the statement is to emphasize what is passed the House, and who returns
law. I also thought it was my duty- and what is not covered by the con- with a conference report substantially
and I believe all the conferees join me cept of "pattern of activities" in con- similar to that bill, I must say that,
in this-to provide a bill which could junction with the "reason to believe" based on the interpretation of this
meet constitutional muster, that was standard. What is proscribed by the statute as provided in the statement of
as narrowly prescribed in its coverage bill, "naming names" as it is euphemis- managers, I believe that this statute
as was necessary to criminalize the tically called, is a limited type of activ- can be considered constitutional. I be-
wholesale exposure of intelligence ity. It is not intended to embrace "le- lieve that it has a good chance to with-
operatives while treading as lightly as gitimate journalism." Now I use this stand the test of judicial scrutiny. It
possible upon the first amendment. phrase gingerly, because the first can do so because of its narrow focus
The principal effort of the conferees amendment makes it clear that Con- and explicit avoidance of proscribing
concerning this bill was to resolve this gress is not to sit in judgment on what protected speech.
particular issue in terms of the state- "legitimate dissent" or "appropriate" With all my heart I trust that it will
ment of manager's language explain- speech is or ought to be. That is the serve to ensnare only those few who
ing section 601(c), particularly its two point of the language provided in the have made it their business to system-
principal elements-the terms "pat- statement of managers-to help to atically identify and expose our under-
tern of activities" and the "reason to identify activities which are not pro- cover intelligence officers. Like all in
believe" standard. scribed by the statute, and to explain this body, I sincerely desire to see an
Substantively, the conference report how prosecutors and judges should in- end to that unpleasant and illegal ac-
which we bring back to the House is terpret the statute. tivity. I have confidence that, based on
the House bill with several exceptions. Mr. Speaker, that language in the the intent of Congress as expressed by
We have accepted the Senate amend- statement of managers speaks for the conference report and the accom-
ment which permits an individual to itself. It is the only explanation con- panying statement of managers, these
disclose information that solely identi- ferees intend to offer on what those goals are both attainable.
fies himself as a covert agent. We have crucial phrases mean. I, myself, could ^ 1300
accepted the Senate amendment limit- wish that is was even more explicit in
ing the definition of covert agent to some areas than it is. But I understand Mr. McCLORY. Mr. Speaker, I yield
active officers or employees of intelli- well, as I am sure Members of this myself such time as I may consume.
gence agencies and to present agents, body do, that in the process of com- (Mr. McCLORY asked and was given
sources and informants. We have ac- promise and debate that resolves permission to revise and extend his re-
cepted a substitute cover section that issues of this kind, we must eventually marks.)
resolves the concerns of the other vote yea or nay. Mr. McCLORY. Mr. Speaker, first
body, about the protection of the Before I conclude my statement, Mr. let me commend the gentleman from
Peace Corps from use for intelligence Speaker, I would be remiss if I did not Massachusetts for his leadership and
operations. add some words of praise. The first also to express my appreciation for his
The compromise provision on cover should go to RON MAZZOLI, the chair- generous remarks on my behalf. It is a
requires an annual report to Congress man of the Legislative Subcommittee real privilege to serve on this impor-
on the effectiveness of cover so as to who has worked so long and hard on tant committee of the Congress and to
monitor necessary improvements in this statute. Without his perseverance, participate in the legislative efforts of
cover arrangements and to guarantee patience, and good judgment, we our committee, including the legisla-
th the ove ar identities of covert agents guarantee would not be here today. tion emanating from this committee
c
masked adequately to justify riminal Second, I would like to pay tribute under the leadership of my colleague,
masked proscription adequately their o disclosures. y cand special thanks to the gentleman the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr.
from Illinois, BOB McCLORY, who will MAZZOLI), chairman of the Subcommit-
In structuring statement of manag- be leaving the Permanent Select Com- tee on Legislation.
er's language to explain section 601(c), mittee on Intelligence at the end of Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the
the so-called Ashbrook or Chafee this Congress and whose able work conference report on H.R. 4, the Intel-
amendment, the conferees noted that and bipartisan attitude on this legisla- ligence Identities Protection Act of
there had been little explanation in tion. Both as ranking minority 1982.
the House of the Ashbrook amend- member on the Subcommittee on Leg- The record is both long and convinc-
ment. The most satisfactory sources of islation, and as ranking minority ing on the need for legislation protect-
explanation were those referred to in member on the Committee on the Ju- ing the identities of U.S. covert intelli-
the Senate debate-the explanation diciary, He has assisted the committee gence agents. Our intelligence officers,
provided by the 1980 report of the and has assisted the efforts of this and the people whom they recruit to
Senate Select Committee on Intelli- House in fashioning national security provide information and assistance,
gence to accompany S. 2216, the legislation protective of individual work on behalf of our country's secu-
Senate forerunner of this bill in the rights. rity-often at significant risk to their
96th Congress, and a colloquy between Last, I would like to pay tribute to a lives. The bill now before us would
Senators CHAFEE and DURENBERGER former colleague of ours, John Ash- help minimize these risks by providing
which drew from and expanded upon brook, who was clearly most influen- criminal penalties for the unauthor-
this same report. tial in the debate of this body on H.R. ized disclosure of the identities of
It was the intention of the conferees 4 and whose amendment to the com- these outstanding men and women.
that these sources constitute the legis- mittee bill helped shape the course of In this body, prior to the adoption of
lative history of this statute. There- this legislation. We all miss his pres- the "reason to believe" language of-
fore, the conferees very carefully ex- ence in the Intelligence Committee fered by our late distinguished col-
cerpted text from these sources. Every and on this floor. league, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
word was scrutinized and carefully Mr. Speaker, I urge the adoption of Ashbrook), and in the other body
considered. The resultant explanation ' the conference report and close with prior to the adoption of identical Tan-
is, I should emphasize, the best the an admonition that is contained in the guage, the debate was long and com-
conferees could agree upon. statement of managers, and I quote: plex-and, at times, even confusing.
Approved For Release 2008/09/25: CIA-RDP85-00003R000200060004-6
 Approved For Release 2008/09/25: CIA-RDP85-00003R000200060004-6
June 2, 1982 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE
Some have suggested that during this
debate the effect of the "reason to be-
lieve" standard was inaccurately
stated. In this light, it was the effort
of the conferees. In the statement of
managers. to clarify the meaning of
the statutory language and to some
extent, this goal was met. However, I
am concerned that some portions of
the statement are not entirely clear
and therefore do not do complete jus-
tice to the words both Houses over-
whelmingly agreed to insert Into this
legislation.
Of course, it is generally accepted
that the meaning of a law can best be
found in the plain meaning of the
words used to comprise It. As the
newest Justice of the Supreme Court
stated last week in the case of FBI
against Abramson (dissenting).
While ft is elementary that the plain lan-
guage interpretation of a statute enjoys a
robust presunwtion in its favor, it is also
true that Congress cannot, in every in-
stance, be counted on to have said what it
meant or to have meant what it said. Stat-
utes, therefore, "are not to be construed so
strictly as to defeat the obvious intention of
the legislature." Thus, a "clearly expressed
legislative intention" to the contrary could
dislodge the meaning apparent from the
plain language at is statute} even though
that meaning "must ordinarily be regarded
as conclusive." Therefore, only to the extent
that the Statement is unequivocally clear
can it modify the words of the statute, and
then only if there is a lack of clarity in the
statute itself.
Justice O'Connor best made her
point by quoting Chief Justice Mar-
shall:
The intention of the legislature is to be
collected from the words they employ.
Where there are no asbiguttles in the
words, there is no roes for caestructioa.
Mr. Speaker, It is my motion
that in the bill before us now there is
no ambiguity in the words we have
employed, for they clearly speak of
our intent to put an end to the perni-
cious act of wantonly exposing the
identities of our covert intelligence
agents. Simply stated, if an individual
meets the elements set out in either
subsection (A), (B), or (C) of section
601-even if the defendant cairns to
have had some ulterior motive or some
higher moral purpose-then a crime
has been committed and punishment
must follow, to do anything less would
cause a disservice to our mince
agents-and to our country's security.
Mr. Speaker, last week we consid-
ered the first budget resolution.
There, we debated how much money
should be collected by the Govern-
ment-and from what sources-and
how much- should be spent-and for
what. I would be surprised if there
were fewer than 435 points of view ex-
pressed during the debate, and, all we
were. talking about was money.
Today, on the other hand, we are
considering a matter which calls on
this body to effect public policy while
remaining within the constraints of
the document which provides us with
our most basic authority-the Consti-
tution. Certainly, when working in an
area fraught with oonstbutioaal con-
cerns, it should not seem surprising
that there are more than a few points
of view on the proper csu to follow.
The difference between the budget
resolutim and the Ike Identi-
ties Protection Act is that here we
have agreed upon a text. though there
is some disagreement on hw it can
best be described.
We need this legislation. and I do
not feel that some lack of clarity in
the statement of managers justifies
opposition to its enactment. I have
faith in the judiciary's ability to recog-
nize the intent of Congress from the
plain meaning of the words we have
used to construct the legation, and
in the final analysis that is what
counts
I urge the adoption of the confer-
ence report.
Mr. BOLAIiD. Mr. Speaker, I yield
such time as he may consume to the
distinguished gentleman from Ken-
tucky (Mr. Maxxo s), the chairman of
the Subcommittee on Legislation.
Mr. MA LL Mr. Speaker, I rise in'
support of the oooference report on
H.R. 4.
Today's vote is the culmination of a
bipartisan legislative effort that began
in 1945 when the first names of agents
frills were introduced soon after the
tragic death of Richard Welch in
Athens.
Since then four congressional com-
mittees have considered the matter, is-
suing seven reports in the process. The
Subcommittee on legislation of the
House Permanent Select Committee
on Intelligence, which I chair, has con-
sidered this issue in three different
Congresses.
The complex constitutional, legal,
and policy questions which lie at the
heart of H.R. 4 have been fully de-
bated on the floors of both Houses, in
the editorial pages of the Nation's
newspapers, on television, and in the
law journals-as well they should have
been. -
While it has taken a long time to
arrive at where we are today, it was
time well spent. The First Amendment
issues were difficult to resolve, but
they have been resolved rather than
avoided. We have striven to work
within the boundaries of the First
Amendment, not to work around
them.
The difficulties arose, of course, pri-
marily In connection with section
601(c), which applies to those who
have not had access to classified infor- '
mation and who disclose information
theoretically obtainable from nonclas-
sified sources. The Committee of Con-
ference was very careful in explaining
these provisions In the statements of
managers.
I and the majority of the members
of the Intelligence Committee pre-
ferred a version of section 601(c) other
than that adopted. I am hopeful, how-
ever, that the provision, as explained
by the statement of managers, *i11 be'
upheld by the courts.
H 3143
The statement of managers about
6014c) does not satisfy some members.
But all it does. in my opkaion, is lend
emphasis to what I think is clear from
the language of the bill; and that is,
that section 601(c) is directed at those
whose demonstrated purpose is to un-
cover and disclose the identity of any
and all covert agents. wherever they
may be and no matter what the cir-
c:unwianc es of their service.
It seems to me that it Is not difficult
at all, and I trust the Justice Depart-
ment and the jury will have no diffi-
culty, in distinguishing between those
I have just described who are in the
business of naming names. and those
whose speech or writing disclose
an agent's identity but who have not
spoken of written
In the gouge of a pattern of activity in-
tended to idmtHy and expose covert agents
and with reason to believe that such activi-
ties would impair or impede the foreign in-
telligence activities of the United States.
The other Wane of prime concern to
the conferees was the definition of
covert agent.
The definition is, of coarse, crucial
because it is the disclosure of the iden-
tity of a covert agent that subjects one
to criminal prosecution.
The conferees adopted the definition
contained in the senate amendment.
In so doing, the conferees chose lan-
guage Identical to that reported by
every committee that has considered
the issue The House, however, had de-
cided on the different language of-
fered as a floor amendment by the
gentleman from New York, Mr. SoLO-
MON.
The primary difference between the
two versions is that the Solomon
amendment included many more
people within the definition of covert
agent than did the other version. In
the case of intelligence agency em-
ployees, the Solomon amendment in-
cluded former as well as present em-
ployees. In the case of those who are
U.S. citizens but had not been employ-
ees, the Solomon amendment included
former as well as present informants
and sources.
In agreeing to the Senate amend-
ment, the majority of the House con-
ferees were influenced by the follow-
ing considerations:
'First, at no time during the consider-
ation of the legislation did the CIA,
the FBI, or the Department of De-
fense urge that the broader definition
be adopted;
Second, the narrower definition
itself enlarged the scope of the bill
well beyond the undercover CIA offi-
cers who have been the target of the
naming names columns. and
Third, the broader definition could
include with it such people as Edwin
Wilson and Frank Terpil, former CIA
employees who provided arms to
Libya.
The definition chosen, in my opin-
ion, is sufficient to protect the identi-
ties of all those whose disclosure could
Approved For Release 2008/09/25: CIA-RDP85-00003R000200060004-6
 Approved For Release 2008/09/25: CIA-RDP85-00003R000200060004-6
H 3144 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE June 2, 1982
harm U.S. intelligence or expose them- Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speak- Mr. MAZZOLI. I yield to the distin-
selves to harm, and who reasonably er, will the gentleman yield? guished chairman.
can be considered subject to the activi- Mr. MAZZOLI. If the chairman has Mr. BOLAND. Mr. Speaker, in his
ty which has been identified to the time to permit me to yield, I will yield interpretation of what the statement
Congress as a problem. To go further to the gentleman from Florida. of the managers on the part of the
and unnecessarily broaden the reach Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I thank the House signifies with reference to wa-
of a statute regulating speech could gentleman for yielding. tering down the bill itself, I would
serve no useful purpose and would fur- Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the work agree with the explanations given by
ther subject the statute to constitu- that the gentleman did as chairman of the distinguished chairman of the
tional questions. the subcommittee to get this bill to Subcommittee on Legislation in re-
Before closing. I would like to the point that it is today. I appreciate sponse to the Member from Florida,
extend my thanks to the ranking mi- the comments that he had to make Mr. YOUNG.
nority member of my subcommittee, today about the statement on the part Mr. MAZZOLI. I thank the chair-
the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. of the managers. There are some of us man.
He and I have sat through who are concerned that this statement Mr. McCLORY. Mr. Speaker, I want
many hours of testimony and markups was an effort to water down or dilute to express appreciation for the re-
on H.R. 4 and its predecessors, both in the effectiveness of the legislation marks of my colleague from Kentucky,
the Intelligence Committee and the that we consider. the chairman of the Subcommittee on
Judiciary Committee. We have always Could the gentleman state categori- Legislation. This legislation which
agreed that legislation was needed to cally that that is not the case, and emanated from the subcommittee
stop those in the business of naming that that is not the intent? under the gentleman's able leadership,
names and have more often than not Mr. MAZZOLI. If the gentleman will is extremely important, it seems to me,
agreed on what it should contain. He yield, I would be very happy to answer for it significantly enhances effective-
has brought to the deliberations over the gentleman categorically and ness of our various intelligence agen-
this bill the same dedication, intelli- strongly that there was no intention ties.
gence, and courtesy that has always on the part of the managers in writing Mr. Speaker, I now yield 3 minutes
characterized his service in this body. this language to water down the bill to the gentleman from Virginia, Mr.
The Intelligence Committee, the Judi- which was passed in the House of Rep- Ro hxsoN, the ranking member of the
ciary Committee, and the Congress resentatives which bore, as we men- Select Committee on Intelligence.
will miss him. tioned earlier, the imprimatur of the (Mr. ROBINSON tee o
I also want to give tribute to our late gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Ashbrook. given permission asked and wS to revise and and was
extend
colleague, Mr. Ashbrook. While John It is only to identify those areas for
and I, often disagreed-as we did on the future counsel of prosecutors and his remarks.)
the intent standard of this bill, he was jurists who will have some responsibil- Mr. ROBINSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise
a fine representative of his constituen- Ity for interpreting the provisions that to commend my colleagues on the
cy, and an effective member of the In- we pass. The effort of the mangers- House Permanent Select Committee
telligence Committee in the House. and I have always appreciated the sup- on Intelligence for a job well done.
I urge that the conference report on port of the gentleman from Florida-is This bill to protect our intelligence
H.R. 4 be adopted. to protect the people who serve this personnel is long overdue. It is on the
Nation in undercover capacities in verge of becoming law because of the
^ 1315 dealing with our national intelligence hard work of a number of our col-
Before closing, Mr. Speaker, I would from the reprehensible and thorough- leagues. The chairman of the House
like to extend my thanks to the rank- ly disgusting activities of identifying Intelligence Committee, the gentle-
ing minority member of our subcom- these people, subjecting them to harm man from Massachusetts (Mr.
mittee, the gentleman from Illinois, or in effect to ruin their ability to per- BOLAND), the chairman of the Subcom-
Mr. MCCLORY. He and I have sat form for this Government, which has mittee on Legislation, the gentleman
through numerous hearings on this triggered this bill, H.R. 4. The state- from Kentucky (Mr. MAZZOLI), and the
matter of H.R. 4 and its predecessors, ment of the managers is only to give ranking minority member of the sub-
both in the Intelligence Committee guidance in the prosecution of those committee, the gentleman from Illi-
and in the Judiciary Committee. We people, and hopefully to be sure that nois (Mr. MCCLORY), put in long hours
have always agreed that there should the challenge which probably it will and hard work to reach the goal we
be legislation, even though we may receive on its constitutional basis will have achieved today.
have disagreed from time to time on be survived. But, in a number of important ways,
some of the details. But Mr. MCCLORY Mr. YOUNG of Florida. So the gen- this bill is a tribute to our late col-
has brought to the deliberations on tleman assures us that the legislation league, John Ashbrook, of Ohio. It was
this bill the dedication, the intelli- itself is every bit as effective and as Congressman Ashbrook's amendment
gence and the courtesy which has strong as we expected it to be and in. that strengthened the bill by replacing
always characterized his service, and tended it to be when the House passed the intent provision with a "reason to
as our chairman has said, he will soon it in the first place. believe" standard. Now anyone who in-
be leaving us and we are sorry to see Mr. MAZZOLI. I can assure the gen- tentionally identifies and exposes
him go. We will certainly miss him on tleman of that. And I would not have covert agents with reason to believe
the Intelligence Committee. signed as a manager on the part of the that it would impair or impede foreign
I would also like to pay tribute at House were I to have felt that in any intelligence activities would be covered
this time to our late colleague, John part of this we have watered down or by this bill. Mr. Ashbrook's amend-
Ashbrook. While John and I also did made impotent the stretch and reach ment was passed by this House by a
not always agree,, we served together and effectiveness of H.R. 4. There has vote of 226 to 181. The bill with the
from the very first day I walked into never been any disagreement about Ashbrook amendment was passed by a
the Congress. We were first together proscribing what the statement de- vote of 354 to 56.
as colleagues on the Education and scribes as naming names. The only dis- In addition, John Ashbrook and our
.Labor Committee, and then on the Ju- pute was on the elements of proof re- colleague from Florida (Mr. YOUNG)
diciary Committee and on the Intelli- quired by the intent or reason to be- succeeded during the discussions,
gence Committee. John was a fine lieve standards. while the bill was being drafted, in in-
person, a fine Representative, a very Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I thank the cluding FBI informants in the foreign
effective member of all the commit- gentleman for yielding to me. counterintelligence and counterterror-
tees on which he sat, and he will be Mr. MAZZOLI. I thank the gentle- Ism programs. Mr. YOUNG was mainly
missed. man. responsible for keeping that provision
Mr. Speaker, I urge support of the Mr. BOLAND. Mr. Speaker, will the in the bill during the various phases of
conference report. gentleman yield? rewrite and redrafting. This means
Approved For Release 2008/09/25: CIA-RDP85-00003R000200060004-6
 Approved For Release 2008/09/25: CIA-RDP85-00003R000200060004-6
June 2, 1982 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE H 3145
that all of those people who aid the . The fundamental flaw in this legisla- executive branch effort which curtails
FBI in its work of protecting our coun- tion is simply this: It seeks to punish liberty in the name of national secu-
try against hostile intelligence services private citizens for publishing availa- rity and stands in opposition to the
and those who act on their behalf, are ble information. Strip away all the ele- basic principles of the Constitution
protected by this bill, if their identi- ments of proof that are required; strip and the Bill of Rights. For, ultimately,
ties are classified. away all the careful drafting and cau- it is the respect and protection we
I urge my colleagues to again pro- tious report language, and we are left afford free speech that distinguishes
vide an overwhelming vote for this im- with the simple fact that this bill at- us from the nations within which the
portant and long delayed legislation. tempts to do the undoable. It attempts CIA secretly operates. If a free society
Mr. BOLAND. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 to tell private individuals that they. is sacrificed for a better intelligence
minutes to the distinguished gentle- will be subject to criminal penalties system, we have compromised our very
man from California (Mr. EDWARDS) for printing, publishing, repeating, goal.
who was a conferee from the Commit- speaking, or otherwise disclosing infor- [From the New York Times, Mar. 4, 19821
tee on the Judiciary. mation that is not classified and has TRz Spy Bra. WRAPPED IN THE FLAG
(Mr. EDWARDS of California asked been obtained totally by lawful means.
and was given permission to revise and In the final analysis, it is the mere The the "Intelligence closer the Senate gets is to toc voting g on
o"
extend his remarks, and to include ex- fact of publication which makes their the clearer it becomes that this bill danger-
ously matter.) action punishable. Azrd in the final ously exceeds its announced purpose. It was
Mr. EDWARDS of California. Mr. analysis, it is this fact that will cause prompted by former agents who break their
Speaker, the debate on this legislation this statute to fall before the require- oaths and expose American secret agents in
has now extended over two Congress- ments of the first amendment. risky intelligence work. But Congressional
es. Throughout that process, I have What disturbs me the most about anger soon spread to individuals who never
supported the effort to punish those this legislation is that it is not an iso- worked for the Government but engage in
who would abuse their positions of lated case. It is, I believe, part of a new similar exposures using publicly available
trust to the detriment of the lives and climate of Government conduct, to op- information. And that, in turn, has raised
safety of our intelligence agents over- erate in greater secrecy, to withhold concern about the possible use of the act
seas as well as U.S. national security more information from the public, and against news organizations.
interests. But this bill, however well- to punish those who attempt, however If there was any doubt tha the act a
tends that far, it has now been been put to rest .
t.
intentioned in its effort to prevent ex- lawfully, to pierce this veil of secrecy. Senator John Chafes, a chief sponsor, has
posure of our covert agents, goes far For example, the administration. has clarified the bill's threat to conventional.
beyond that goal to trample on first promulgated a new executive order ex- journalism-and public discussion generally.
amendment freedoms. For the first panding the powers of the CIA to'spy Asked whether a prosecutor could use the
time in American history, the publica- on Americans both in this country and bill against reporters and news organi"-
tion of information obtained lawfully abroad and to mount covert operations tions for exposing crimes and abuses by
from publicly available sources would inside the United States. Through yet agents and informants, the Senator had this
be made criminal. another executive order, it has put in reply: "I'm not sure that The New York
I will not take the time of this body place a massive expansion of the secu- Times or The Washington Post has the
to repeat my objections at length rity classification system which en- right to expose names of agents any more
than Mr. Wolf or Mr. Agee," two of the
here-they appear in my earlier state- shrouds the uses of these new intelli- bill's main targets. "They'll just have to be
ment when this bill was considered on Bence powers in permanent secrecy. careful about exposing the names of
the floor last September. I also joined At the same time, the administration agents:"
in the dissenting views of a number of is pressing Congress to eliminate key Senator Chafee makes the bill's danger
members of the House Judiciary Com- sections of the Freedom of Informa- explicit without seeming to understand its
mittee when that committee. consid- tion Act, and CIA officials have urged cost to public discussion of security issues.
ered and reported similar legislation 2 private scientists to submit sensitive- Perhaps inadvertently, he makes the case
years ago. (See House Report 96-1219, research plans to the Government for for islation. No trimming back this assurances that inflated the piece law of leg-
would
part 2, pages 12-18). "preclearance" so that the fruits of be carefully administered can suffice when
Let me just say that the changes their research can be classified and the warning to reporter,, is: be careful about
that have been made in the bill be- kept secret from "our foreign adver- getting the Government mad.
tween then and now do not lessen my saries." These efforts have all been un- Unfortunately, to -cite a case in The
concern. I believe that no amount of dertaken in the name of national secu- Times's experience, being careful doesn't
tinkering-either with the statutory rity. But it is in this particular con- help decide how to deal with former spies
language itself or with the report-can text-when it is armed with the crimi- like Edwin Wilson and Frank Terpil. The
render this bill constitutional as long nal law-that national security pre- Times put together-carefully-stories
as it seeks to criminalize publication of sents its gravest threat to the first about how the former agents trained terror-
unclassified information or informa- amendment. For this reason it has fists abroad and engaged in suspicious weap-
ons and technology deals. The stories raised
tion already in the public domain. never been a crime simply to' publish questions about the former spies' connec-
Of course, I recognize and applaud classified information relating to the tions to the Central Intelligence Agency,
the efforts of the House Intelligence national defense. Since 1917, the espio- whether real or feigned.
Committee to narrow the scope of the nage laws have applied only to situa- At a minimum, these foreign adventures
bill. Those efforts, nevertheless, were tions in which such information is se- challenged the country's ability to avoid em-
rejected by the House of Representa- cretly passed to a foreign government barrassment by once trusted employees.
tives as were similar efforts by the ap- for the specific purpose of injuring the The stories brought about other investiga-
propriate committee in the other United States. Even during both world tions, by Congress and the C.I.A. itself.
body. I also' recognize the efforts of wars, Congress declined to make it a But it doesn't seem to matter how much
doesn't
care went into
the conferees, led by the distinguished crime to publish national defense in- matter how much those stories. It
d
mthey have been supported
chairman of the House Intelligence formation on the ground that to do so, by official investigations. None of that
Committee, to draft report language no matter how compelling the security would protect the paper against a wrathful
which would make it clear that this argument might be in any particular prosecutor armed with the pending bill.
new statutory language adopted on case, would undermine the first The Senate should restrict it to the pun-
the floor over the objections of the In- amendment. ishment of people like Philip Agee, the
telligence Committee was not intended This legislation breaks with that tra- former spy who first specialized in agent ex-
to broaden the coverage of the bill, dition. It is the first of the adxninistra- posure. Congress cannot reach private citi-
but only to change the Justice Depart- tion's initiatives to stifle public discus- zees like Louis Wolf, publisher of the
rt Action e precious ujoin, wism
ment's burden of proof. But no matter sion of national security issues to out c Covert other, , more mare
how well-intentioned this effort,' it is move through the legislative process. and debate. ouIn n6 can can an the e Senate Senate re.
re-
doomed to failure by language of the Let it be the last. We must reject all aponsibly follow the House's reckless exam-
bill itself. legislation and we must oppose every ple and make it a crime to identify an agent
Approved For Release 2008/09/25: CIA-RDP85-00003R000200060004-6
 Approved For Release 2008/09/25: CIA-RDP85-00003R000200060004-6
H 3146 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE June 2, 1982
without even requiring proof of criminal should hope the courts will wipe the law will adopt. A crucial choice is expected early
intent. from the books. next week in the Senate.
Until now, the Reagan Administration has - U nfortun
t
l
th
_.__- ._
a
e
y
e House has
m
y - spy agencies and is surely uncon-
public knowlege on which true national se- The Senate has begun consideration of a stitutional.
curity rests. There is a difference between bill that would outlaw the activity of a small A far better version being considered by
patriotism and.chauvinism. Senators Biden, band of individuals determined to destroy the Senate could deal with the problem that
Bradley, Leahy, Specter and Quayle have America's foreign concerns Congress without insulating the
been in the forefront of those who have ex- revealing the names of es of intelligence
covert intelligence a ithe CIA from legitimate inquiry. g
posed at least some of the bill's excesses. It deserves
The entire Senate needs equal courage and agents. The practice, associated with author the support of Senators Ford and Huddles-
wisdom. and former CIA officer Philip Agee, has al- ton.
ready been cited as leading to the murder of No one seriously objects to portions of the
the CIA station chief In Athens in 1975 and bill that would punish former agents who
[From the New York Times, Mar. 22, 1982] to an assassination attempt on the life of deliberately disclose secrets and betray erst-
THE RIGHT To NAME NAMES another American official in Kingston, Ja- while colleagues.
"shall make no lsays the maica, in 1980. Mr. Agee has revealed the But there are important differences in the
"Congress C "abridging law,"
the fnames of 1,000 alleged CIA officers, and a provisions that apply to the rest of us-
First Amendment,
ore antt, , press." But freedom
angry, newsletter, Covert Action Information Bul- Americans who do not have classified infor-
letin, edited by Louis Wolf, has printed mation, but do have an interest in finding
flag-waving Congress is making it a crime to 2,000. Legislation to inhibit such practices is out whether intelligence agencies operate
print names the Government doesn't want not a bad idea as such. within the law.
published, even when they are derived from Prosecuting private citizens for publica- The House went seriously astray when it
public sources. Last week the Senate refused tion of any material has constitutional im- decided that a person could be guilty of a
to be outdone by the House in making the plications, however, and special care must crime if he disclosed an agent's identity
Intelligence Identities Protection Act offen- be taken to delineate the conduct Congress with reason to believe that intelligence ac-
sive to the Bill of Rights. wants to inhibit while protecting legitimate tivities would be impaired. A reporter or
We understand, indeed share, much of the activities where no intent to disrupt intelli- other citizen who exposes CIA abuses could
anger. It is engendered by Philip Agee, a gence activities exists. Readers will note go to jail under that standard.
former C.I.A. agent, and Louis Wolf, an ally that this newspaper, like all others, has a That's why it's imperative that the Senate
who never worked for the Government. strong interest in preserving broad latitude insist w3-the version which requires the gov-
They have published lists of covert agents in reporting foreign affairs. ernment to prove a person acted with intent
in efforts to hobble Amercan intelligence. The best way to ensure that the real cul- to damage intelligence activities.
They claim a journalistic mission but their prits are reached by the law while others This language would apply to those whose
listings, about as journalistic as a phone are protected is to require the government sole purpose is to impair intelligence but
book, expose the nation's undercover agents to meet a standard of proof that includes not, most observers agree, to publication of
with little regard for possible illegalities. "intent to impair or impede the foreign in- legitimate information.
Some response to such irresponsibility was telligence activities of the United States." Moreover, the "intent" version is accept-
warranted. Congress properly set out to de- This is the language of the bill that was re- able to the CIA. If there must be a law, this
clare it a crime for Mr. Agee to misuse tnfor- ported by the Senate Judiciary Committee one does what Congress wants in the least
mation acquired in his work for the Govern- last fall and that is now being considered by offensive manner.
ment. But despite warnings that it would be the full S
t
It i
ena
e.
s expected, however,
constitutionally impossible to prohibit the that an amendment will be offered that
activities of Mr. Wolf, a private citizen, the would substitute for the intent standard a
House tried anyway last fall and the Senate simple requirement that the accused simply
has now followed suit. "had reason to believe" such a result would
The results are bills that would remedy ir- occur. This amendment is identical to one
responsibility of one sort with Irresponsibil- that was adopted on the House floor when
ity of another. Any legislation aimed at Mr. that body passed the bill last September. It
Wolf was fraught with danger for all jour- is the version preferred by the administra-
nalists, but the Senate and House rejected tion, though Richard Willard, the attorney
measures that were at least arguably closer general's counsel for intelligence policy, has
to constitutional standards. They refused to stated that either version of the bill is ac-
require strict proof of deliberate intent to ceptable so long as some bill is enacted with-
impair or impede American intelligence out further delay.
through exposure of agents' Identities. The requirement that intent be proven in
Without that, they leave no room for impor-
tant journalism that necessarily names
names.
The C.I.A. held out for an easier burden
for prosecutors, proof only of a "reason to
believe" the exposure would harm intelli-
gence. The Reagan Administration went so
far as to make this relaxed rule a test of loy-
alty; fearing that they would be called soft,
many senators melted.
"Reason to believe" that a published fact
will somehow damage Government is too
easily charged. It amounts to saying a re-
porter should have known that some official
would think an article harmful, as some of-
ficial always does. It's a standard better
suited to negligence cases than criminal law.
Indeed, Senator Chafee of Rhode Island, a
leading advocate of reason-to-believe for
[From the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Sept.
28, 1981]
AN UNSOUND SPY LAW
Like other human beings, journalists are
sometimes tempted to exaggerate the dan-
gers to society of measures that might limit
their freedom of operation. So there is un-
doubtedly some hyperbole in dire predic-
tions that investigative journalism will be
fatally crippled by a bill in Congress that
would punish the publication of CIA agents'
names. It will take more than one clumsily
drafted (or even unconstitutional) law to
a. -c-ueii vl prevent journalists from investigating
Anglo-Saxon jurisprudence. It is especially abuses by any government agency, the CIA
important that it be preserved in this in- in
l
d
d
c
u
e
.
stance because a lesser standard may inhibit Still, that is no argument for the enact-
the exercise of legitimate First Amendment ment of a bill that might needlessly inter-
rights by those having absolutely no desire fere with journalistic investigation of the
to cripple our intelligence services, sort -of illegal CIA spying on Americans that
[From the Louisville Times, Feb. 26, 19827 the agency would like to have the nation
forget. And a bill passed last week by the
SENATE VERSION or SPY DISCLOSURE Is House fits just that sorry description.
BEST-IT MUST NOT ADOPT OPPRESSIVE Designed to deal with the identification of
HOUSE VERSION, WHICH GOES Too FAR CIA agents by agency renegades like Philip
Congress appears determined to pass a Agee, the bill as it emerged from the House
new law this year that will make it a crime Intelligence Committee would have made it
for citizens to disclose the identity of Ameri- a crime to identify intelligence agents only
can intelligence agents, even when the in- if the person making the revelation did so
formation comes from public or unclassified with the "intent to impair or impede the
sources. foreign intelligence activities of the United
The object is to crack down on a few anti- States." That careful language obviously
CIA zealots who
li
i
l
'
ma
c
ous
y publish agents
was designed to deal with the discrete prob-
last year that reason-to-know was too tough names and whose dirty work has had tragic ley that prompted legislation in this area in
a test in prosecuting corporate officials for results. the first place-the deplorable campaign by
tolerating bribery abroad. While Congress is justly angry about such avowed opponents of U.S. foreign policy to
What happens when Congress thus ig- disclosures, its remedy could do more to cripple the CIA abroad.
nores the Constitution? Courageous mem- deny the public legitimate information Unfortunately, on the House floor,
bers will continue to fight the issue in about the government than to protect U.S. conservative Republican Rep. John Ash-
House-Senate conference. Resourceful jour- spies, brook succeeded in having that qualifying
nalists will maintain their vigilance against Since there's little doubt that a "names of language stricken and replaced with a less
official secrecy. Government can forbear agents" law will be passed, however, the precise provision making persons criminally
and use its illegitimate power sparingly. All issue is which of two versions the lawmakers liable if they "had reason to believe" that
Approved For Release 2008/09/25: CIA-RDP85-00003R000200060004-6
 Approved For Release 2008/09/25: CIA-RDP85-00003R000200060004-6
June 2, 1982
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -HOUSE H 3147
disclosure of an agent's name would harm
the national interest. -
The difference between the two formulas
might seem a matter for legal hairsplitters.
But the Ashbrook language, endorsed, by
the Reagan administration could be used
against not only the Philip Agees of the
world but also journalists who happened on
CIA activities directed (illegally) against
American citizens or In contravention of
presidential or congressional directives. ,
Depressingly, similarly broad language
has been adopted by framers of a Senate
version of the spy bill. That makes it unlike-
ly that a conference committee will take
the-admittedly speculative-fears of jour-
nalists into account when writing a compro-
mise measure. But those senators and repre-
sentatives who believe that seemingly fine
distinctions can be important should press
for a defeat of the broader bill In the respec-
tive chambers.
[From the Chicago Tribune. Oct. 27, 1981]
... AND LrhiTING A DAUGaaOU5 3IIL
The U.S. Senate is about to consider a bill
that could here a serious Impact on the
ability of Americana to discuss the govern-
ment's intelligence activities. It makes it a
crime,, under certain circumstances. to di-
vulge the name of a secret U.S. intelligence
agent.
The goal-to protect agents abroad from
the kind of campaign of disclosure that has
been mounted by ex-CIA agent Philip
Agee-cannot be faulted. But when the
House of Representatives got its hands on
this idea, it pushed it well beyond the Agee
situation and passed a bill that puts at his
peril anybody who for any reason decides
even to talk about the subject.
One particularly dangerous feature of the
bill passed by the House does not yet appear
in the Senate version that cleared commit-
tee and is heading for a floor vote. The
House version requires that prosecutors
only show that a person accused of violating
the law had "reason to believe" the disclo-
sure would "impair or impede" the work of
U.S. intelligence agencies.
This language, written into the bill at the
last minute, renders the motivation of the
disclosure irrelevant, putting the university
president concerned about having Intelli-
gence agents on his faculty or the journalist
reporting the misdeeds of a rogue operative
on the same footing as the notorious Agee.
And it strikes so deeply into the ordinary
fabric of expression-forbidding all discus-
sion of a matter that certainly can be of le-
gitimate interest to the public and even for-
bidding discussion motivated by a reason-
able concern that one's employee have undi-
vided loyalties-that it makes what is a
questionable law to begin, with almost cer-
tainly unconstitutional.
The CIA has said that it does not object
to the Senate version, which would require
prosecutors to prove an intention to do
damage to intelligence activities before they
could get a conviction. There is no reason to
push any further this troubling law-which
would punish disclosures even if the infor-
mation is gleaned from purely public source
material.
Undoubtedly there will be a move on the
Senate floor to amend the bill to conform to
the House's foolish version; if the bill itself
cannot be voted down, at least this amend-
ment must be,defeated.
[From the New York Times, Nov. 2, 19811
SnowrnG Orr or Sr czwT Acaxrs
Should Congress decree that information
in the public domain may not be publicly re-
peated? The very idea represents a radical
departure from the American tradition of
free speech and press. Yet Congress is seri-
ously considering a bill to make publishing
names of covert intelligence agents, even on
the basis of publicly available knowledge, a
crime. The House passed such a measure
last month and a similar bill, almost as ob-
jectionable, awaits a vote by the Senate.
The Senate should bring aandreas to its
senses and reject this proposal.
Government Is free to keep its secrets-in
ways that do not offend the First Amend-
ment. It may swear employees in sensitive
yobs to secrecy and It may punish violations
of their oaths. But to pass a law that de-
clares non-secrets off limits Is to abridge the
freedom of speech and press. Congress may
not do that.
The legislation has strayed from an earli-
er. more reasonable course. Congress was
rightly angry that Philip Agee. a former
C.I.A. agent, misused Inside information
when he published lists of secret American
agents for the avowed purpose of destroying
their effectiveness. Present and former
agents may not violate their secrecy oaths
even In pursuit of their Pint Amendment
rights.
But then the bill's drafters went further,
provoked by the antics of Louis Wolf, who
never worked for the Government and was
never entrusted with its secrets. Working
from public documents, he has compiled
and published similar lists of supposed
agents.
However reprehenstbie such activity may
be, it is simply unconstitutional to try to
punish outsiders for trying to figure out,
talk about and write about those secrets. It
is also unwise, for it could reach more con-
ventional reporting, which often must and
should say things that Government doesn't
want said.
Even more dangerous is the loose stand-
ard of proof in the House version. A pros-
ecutor scald bring a charge, and a jury
could convict, if the evidence merely showed
that the publisher had "reason to believe"
the disclosure would hurt U.B. intelligence.
That is, whatever his state of mind, the de-
fendant should have known better. At least
the pending Senate bill requires evidence
that the accused fully intended to impair or
impede American Intelligence by the very
act of disclosing a secret name.
The Reagan Administration wants the
looser version but doesn't need it. William
Casey, the C.I.A. chief. wrote Congress last
spring that either version would meet the
Government's needs. Congress has every
reason to believe that both versions are un-
constitutional, so a Senate vote this week
for either amounts to posturing, showing
off a reckless patriotism. And there is no
excuse at all for choosing the more offen-
sive version.
[From the New York Times, Sept. 26, 1981]
A Dumm Drrswss or INTELLIGEBcz
The House of Representatives voted the
other day to prohibit the identification of
present and former American intelligence
agents, even if the knowledge is gained from
public sources. Fortunately this legislative
folly is forbidden by the Constitution,
which says congress shall make no law
abridging free speech and press. Unfortu-
nately for freedom-and national security-
such a law could inhibit a lot of worthy
speech before the courts administer the
final constitutional rites.
It's a case of blind zeal and misdirected
anger. Understandably incensed by a few in-
dividuals who specialize in blowing the cover
of secret operatives abroad, the House
would Indiscriminately suppress reporting
that exposes intelligence abuses and stirs
reform. Perhaps it will still be rescued by a
clear-eyed Senate Judiciary Committee.
Congress's anger was first drawn by Philip
Agee, a former C.I.A. agent who practiced a
crude and brutal form of politics. Applying
his knowledge of spying, he tried to destroy
covert operations by figuring out which
Americans were stationed abroad under
false cover and publishing their names.
Louis Wolf, a writer who never served in
Government, does the same thing, appar-
ently without the benefit of Inside Informa-
tion.
"The Philip Agees of this world" are said
to be the targets of this reckless legislation
and Mr. Agee, at least, has had few defend-
ere He has obviously violated his oaths and
obligations to protect Intelligence secrets
gained on the job. But outlawing what Louis
-Wolf does strikes at every reporter and
scholar who would publish facts that Oov-
ernment prefers to keep concealed.
Constitutional freedoms aside, such a pro-
hibition is profoundly unwise. Most report-
ing, even in embarrassing terrain. advances
American interests. In recent weeks, for ex-
ample, this newspaper has published numer-
ous articles about the shady activities of two
former American apies. Edwin Wilson and
Francis Terpil. This ambiguous ties to the
C.I.A. and their dealings with terrorists
have damaged the United States and fos-
tered violence abroad. Names are indispens-
able In such stories.
The House bill ,is so loosely drawn that a
prosecutor more interested in secrecy than
reform could well consider The Time's sto-
ries Illegal. Never mind that they have in-
spired official sculosearching and a neces-
sary Senate hmod y.
The danger within the danger is this bill's
standard of legal proof it would ask a Jury
to decide whether a publisher had "reason
to believe" that disclosing an agent's Identi-
ty would damage national security; In other
words, the mere assertion by a protective
Government that It it suffer damage
would become evidence of a cri ne of speech.
The House refused to settle for a more
rational standar& requiring proof of "intent
to impair or impede" the nation's foreign in-
telligence. Not even the Director of Central
Intelligence, William Casey, wanted to go
beyond that.
National security Is not synonymous with
secrecy at all costs. Prudent safeguards
against the Irresponsible do not require a
sacrifice of constitutional liberties. Members
of Congress are paid to know the difference.
[From the Christian Science Monitor, Sept.
29, Iasi]
Throughout United States history there
has always been an uneasy tension between
those persons who have sought to protect
national security and state secrets and civil
libertarians who favored maximum freedom
of speech and the abassiute accountability
of public officials. Sometimes the tension
has equalised itself out. All too often, how-
ever, there have been periods of excess
when the hand of authority was used to
stifle dissent, as in the case of the Wilson
administration during World War I when it
vigorously sought to jail "subversives" and
Congress enacted the Espionage and Sedi-
tion acts.
While the present period obviously repre-
sents nothing like the darma of those years,
there is a certain mood in the land which,
unless carefully controlled, could invite a
return to the kind of secrecy and lack of ac-
countability that offer marked government
before the Watergate-era reforms of the
mid-1970s. Efforts are currently underway
to so shroud U.S. intelligence agencies in a
privileged shield of secrecy as to make such
agencies virtually unanswerable to the in-
quiries of a free press or a critical public.
Approved For Release 2008/09/25: CIA-RDP85-00003R000200060004-6
 Approved For Release 2008/09/25: CIA-RDP85-00003R000200060004-6
H 3148 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE June 2, 1982
Two recent manifestations of this trend are The issue has always been how to treat ports an effort to adopt the House bill on
noteworthy: the disclosure of agents' names by persons the Senate floor.
1. The House last week enacted a measure never with the intelligence community; that Supporters suggest that only the House
that would make it a crime for private citi- is, by reporters and scholars. Years have bill would adequately protect the country's
zens to disclose the identity of a U.S. intelli- been spent trying to draft the narrowest secret agents. But this contention is far
gence agent, even if the information came possible language. overdrawn. Either bill in Congress would
form public sources. Lawmakers have The House Intelligence Committee, led by supply a legal sanction to move against the
sought such a measure for the past five Rep. Edward Boland (D-Mass.), ultimately Philip Agees, the unprincipled people who
years after a CIA station chief in Athens agreed on careful wording that made it a have made a practice of blowing the cover
was assassinated following publication of his crime for those without direct access to clas- of American agents in order to disable the
name. sified information to name agents only if CIA. Even the Reagan Justice Department
2. CIA chief William Casey is urging Con- they disclosed indentities with the specific now accepts that there is no potential Philip
gress to exempt national intelligence agen- "intent to impair or impede the foreign in- Agee beyond the prosecutorial reach of the
cies from the Freedom of Information Act, telligence activities of the United States." Senate bill; that legislation is, a department
which allows private citizens (including This wording would not have prevented a official says, "enforceable and constitution-
journalists) the right to petition govern- reporter or scholar from reporting the activ- al."
ment agencies for nonclassified information. sties of intelligence agents in a foreign coun- But where the House bill bites deeply into
Admittedly there is something to be said try if the intent was to report on the activi- the First Amendment, the bill reported out
on behalf of both moves. Identitying names ties of the American government-that is, to of Senate Judiciary bites less severely. The
of secret agents is reprehensible. The press, inform the American public about actions House measure targets not only the Philip
for its part, must exercise the highest being taken in their behalf-not more nar- Agees but, potentially, also legitimate jour-
degree of responsibility and professionalism rowly with the specific purpose of under- nalists. The Senate Judiciary bill strikes
in national security matters. mining the work of those agents. just at the Philip Agees. That is the reason
What is worrisome, however, is that the On the House floor, however, that word- why, of the two, we believe the Senate Judi-
way the house bill has been drafted could ing was stricken and new language inserted. ciary bill deserves to be carried on the floor.
prevent the disclosure of abuses by intelli- It allows for the criminal prosecution of per- But we trust that senators will note, at least
gence agencies. The measure says that a sons who report the names of agents if they in passing, that both infringe, to one degree
person, including a journalist, would be cri- "had reason to believe" it would harm na- or the other, a constitutional right.
minally liable If he or she had "reason to tional security interests. That language is so
it i
o
th
ti
ti
f
gn
-w
e ===v
va
on o
4110 [From the Indianapolis News, Oct. 12, 1981]
tity would harm national security interests. writer involved. It could well chill efforts,
This was a change from a more restrictive whether by scholars or journalists, to un- SAVING FREEDOM Two WAYS
House Intelligence Committee version that derstand and publish accounts of American The Reagan administration appears to be
said criminal liability would result if the intelligence activities, including activities passing up a good opportunity to take a
person doing the disclosing had specific that would be abhorrent to the vast major- stand on behalf of freedom of the press and
"intent to impair or impede the foreign in- ity of Americans if revealed. still establish firmer protection for U.S. in-
telligence activities of the United States." The next move is up to the Senate Judici- telligence operations.
The Senate- should reject the House ary Committee where there is certain to be The issue is a law to make it a crime to
phrasing and adopt the stricter-intent re- a close vote on the precise language involv- identify undercover U.S. intelligence agents.
quirement. The fact is that in recent years ing those, without direct access to classified The House of Representatives, with the sup-
there have been disclosures of a number of information, who reveal the names of intel- port of the Reagan administration, has ap-
cases where federal officials and intelligence ligence agents. The active involvement of proved a sweeping version of legislation to
officials have misused their authority and Sen. Edward Kennedy particularly could be make it Illegal to identify agents. The
violated the law. Would the public be better the key to approval of a reasonable bill that Senate Judiciary Committee, on the other
served for not having had the abuses come seeks to prevent the sabotaging of bona fide hand, has approved similar legislation, but
to light, or even letting thespesons involved intelligence efforts without undermining with a provision designed to protect free-
continue in their worngdoing? the House First Amendment rights. dom of the press.
bill invites coverups based on "national se- The difference between the two bills ap-
curity" allegations. [From the Washington Post, Oct. 27, 1981] pears on an ordinary reading to be a matter
As for totally excluding the CIA and other NAMING AGENTS of splitting hairs. The House bill would
intelligence agencies from the Freedom of Congress is intent upon ending the prac- make it a crime for anyone to identify an
Information Act, such a step would be injur- tice of a few spoilers' exposing the names of agent or informer in the course of a pat-
ious to the public. The Freedom of Informa- the United States' secret intelligence, agents. tern of activities intended to identify and
tion Act already excludes the release of a This is a worthy purpose, but it gives rise to expose covert agents and with reason to be-
broad range of classified information. To a troubling complication. The two main leg- lieve that such activities would impair or
exempt a spy agency entirely from any islative proposals offered to punish namers impede" foreign intelligence operations.
measure of accountability is to make that of names would penalize publication, includ- The proposal approved by the Senate Judi-
agency in a sense the master of the public. ing in some instances publication of unclas- ciary Committee would make exposure Il-
For lawmakers and the Reagan adminis- sified information available in the public legal when it is done "with the intent to
tration, the delicately balanced goal must be domain, and thus both of the proposals impair or impede" foreign intelligence activ-
to protect US agents and spy agencies-as would cut into the integrity of the First ities "by the fact of such identification or
well as the public and nation they are called Amendment. One of the proposals, however, exposure."
upon to serve. would cut a good deal less than the other. It Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr., D-Delaware, of-
is the Boston Globe, Sept. 29, 1981] is important that Congress recognize this fered this amended version of the legisla-
difference as the crucial stage of Senate tion to avoid putting a damper on legitimate
The overwhelming House approval of floor action draws near. investigative reporting. A reporter could be
sweeping legislation making it a crime to The House last month passed a bill that prosecuted, for example, for uncovering and
disclose the names of US intelligence agents would criminalize publication of an agent's naming a Soviet spy in the CIA or for
poses a threat to the workings of the press name merely, if there was "reason to be- naming former CIA operatives engaged in
and could limit the opportunity of Ameri- lieve" publication would impair foreign in- narcotics smuggling.
cans to learn about the doings of their own telligence activities. This is dangerous legis- A Reagan Justice Department official.
government. lation. It is not at all difficult to see how Richard K. Willard, acknowledged before
So-called "names of agents" bills have language of that sweep and looseness ceuld the Senate Judiciary Committee that the
been a staple of the legislative diet in Wash- be applied to journalists or others who House legislation could be used to thwart
ington for five years. The primary target of brought news of American intelligence to ordinary news media reporting, but he said
all of the bills has been one man, former light. Journalists regularly publish informa- it probably would not be used that way in
CIA agent, Philip iAgee, who has made a tion that they suspect will have a negative practice.
career of ferreting out and exposing the impact. The First Amendment assures them That's nice. The Reagan administration,
names of clandestine US agents abroad. their right to do so. we keep hearing, is made up of pretty nice
The object of Agee's work is to undermine The Senate Judiciary Committee has guys who mean no harm to anyone. But the
US intelligence efforts and he does not have since voted out, 9 to 8, a more acceptable Reagan administration will not be around
and should not have any political support. bill. It opens namers of names to prosecu- forever, and a future administration might.
Thus, there is no opposition to provisions of tion only if they acted with an "intent to not see things quite the same way.
the bill enacted by the House which would impair or impede" intelligence activities. Why legislate a potential threat to a basic
make It a crime for persons with access to Such an intent-the traditional criminal constitutional principle? The amended ver-
classified information to make public the test-would hardly be a part of most jour- sion of the bill should serve just as well to
names of agents. nalism. Meanwhile, the administration sup- prosecute persons such as Philip Agee, a
Approved For Release 2008/09/25: CIA-RDP85-00003R000200060004-6
 Approved For Release 2008/09/25: CIA-RDP85-00003R000200060004-6
June 2, 1982
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE H 3149
In all intellectual modesty, one must ask
how "secret" agents whose mouse are al-
ready in the public domain are endangered
by the publication of their names. Certainly
the "enemy," whomever that might be at a
given time, would already have ferreted out
this information. Under this bill as it stands,
it really seems that it is the bureaucracy
which is the main object of protection,
rather than CIA agents. And it is the public
which is most injured.
The Senate Judiciary Committee is sched-
uled to vote tomorrow and Nevadans should
object vigorously to the bill in its present
form. Tune is short, but the bill can be de-
feated even now, if the public shows it
knows the dangers created by the bill.
Let us protect overseas agents Indefinite-
ly. But let us do so through constitutional
means which protect our control of govern-
ment as well as the agents.
former Central Intelligence Agency agent,
and others who have published lists of
agents for the stated intent of hindering in-
telligence operations.
The Reagan administration has already
established a disturbing pattern of efforts
to close off the free flow of information re-
quired by the Freedom of Information Act.
Lining up on the side of the Senate Judici-
ary Committee version of this bill would
offer a chance to reverse that pattern. The
Biden amendment also provides a way to
protect intelligence agents as well as free-
dom of the press.
[From the Nevada State Journal, Oct. 5,
1981]
Srarnnrrc Suor AxoTmm Most
Here they come again, closing public doors
faster than the public can turn around -to
we the doors slam shut.
"They" are our Washington representa-
tives..And what they are closing, steadily.
surely, and with increasing speed, is access
to government.
In the latest instance, the House rode
roughshod over its own Intelligence Com-
mittee Sept. 23 and voted to make it a feder-
al crime to disclose the identity of a U.S. in-
telligence operative even if the operative's
name is a matter of public record. And the
act would be a crime no matter what the cir-
cumstances involved.
The committee had recommended making
disclosure a crime only when there was
"intent to impair or impede the foreign In-
telligence activities of the United ' States."
But the House would have now of this, and
voted 354 to 56 to install a sudden floor
amendment to make disclosure a crime even
if the news media were reporting the names
of agents engaging in illegal activities, or
trampling on citizens' rights.
The penalty: 10 years in prison and a
$50,000 fine for past or present government
officials, and three years in prison and a
$15,000 fine for journalists.
This bill of course arose from a legitimate
concern about the safety of agents. Former
CIA officer Philip Agee has made a new and
despicable career out of exposing agents, en-
dangering their lives, and damaging the
overseas operations of the CIA. And publi-
cations such as that Covert Action Informa-
tion Bulletin and Counterspy routinely
print the names of overseas CIA agents with
the vowed intent of hindering their work.
One would be hard pressed to defend any of
these activities; and, in fact, few have-
while many have quite properly condemned
them.
Yet the House of Representatives, in its
concern about these revelations, is creating
an equal ganger. It has declared that public
records are not public, that intent is no
factor, and that constitutionality does not
matter.
For make no mistake about-the House
bill's constitutionality is clearly question-
able, according to legal scholars and other
experts who testified before the committee.
What the floor amendment did was make
the disclosure of an identity a crime when-
ever the government has reason to believe it
might impair or impede foreign intelligence
activities. This makes the government the
accuser, the witness and the judge; i.e., it
places the government, in the role of dicta-
tor, able to conceal its own mistake as well
as disclosure of agents, without let or hin-
drance.
But there is more: Rep. Ted Weiss, D-
N.Y., complained that this bill "presents an
incursion on the First Amendment,unparal.
leled in the history of the nation during
peacetime. Never has the publicaton of In-
formation In the public domain by private
citizens been made an offense."
IFrom the Richmond Times Dispatch, Oct.
15, 1981]
PROTECTING U.S. SPIES
Philip Agee, a former CIA agent, indulged
in the despicable practice of publishing the
names of U.S. intelligence agents abroad in
an effort to destroy their effectiveness. In
the process, he gravely endangered the lives
of these persoos.
A law is needed to enable the government
to move forcefully against anyone who in-
tentionally puts our secret agents in jeop-
ardy by revealing their identities. Congress
is in the process of enacting such legislation.
The House of Representatives passed a
bill designed to achieve that goal, but many
people wont' that while the bill's intent is
laudable, its warding runs stool of the First
Amendment's protection of free speech. the
bill would make it a crime for anyone to
Publish such names if he had "reason to be-
lieve" it could endanger the persons named.
The fear Is that a newspaper or broadcast-
ing station or an individual writer might ef-
fectively be prevented from making public
information about government corruption
involving an intelligence agent if a govern-
ment representative warned in advance that
the publication could damage the agent.
So the Senate Judiciary Committee has
voted 9-to-8 to narrow the lilt to the.extent
that a person could be prosecuted for re-
vealing agents' names only if he acted with
specific "intent to impair or impede" the na-
tion's Intelligence activities. There was not
the slightest doubt that Philip Agee acted
from such a motive.
It is not easy to draft a bill that attains
the proper balance between protecting
agents' identities, on the one hand, and
First Amendment rights, on the other. The
most effective protection of the agents
might be -provided by making it illegal to
publish their names under any conditions,
but that would do violence to the principle
of free speech, since there could be unusual
situations in which such publication would
be justified in the overall national interest.
The Senate committee amendment ap-
pears to represent a reasonable effort to
strike the proper balance.
[From the Louisville Times, Oct. 21, 19811
BAD BILL, BErTzR BILL-SaxaTE SHOULD
REm cT HousE CIA Massuas
If there's a lesson to be learned from the
government's lethargic reaction to the dis-
closure that former CIA agents helped
Libyan terrorists, it's that public scrutiny of
the intelligence agency is more necessary
than ever.
Yet the House of Representatives, urged
on by the Reagan administration, has
passed a bill that could severely penalize
newsmen and other researchers who dis-
close names of spies when reporting on in-
telligence activities.
Senators Huddleston and Ford can help
had off this Ill-conceived measure by back-
ing a much tighter Senate version. which
could come to the floor as early as this
week. Mr. Huddleaton has a special interest
since he helped draft a charter designed to
keep the CIA within constitutional bounds.
Both bins have the worthy goal of pro-
tecting undercover agents stationed abroad.
On two occasions, CIA employees were at-
tacked after anti-agency zealots disclosed
their identities.
The trouble is that reporters and scholars
and, for that matter, all private citizens,
could be fined and Jailed even if they
"reveal" names gleaned from unclassified
sources.
One result, whether intended or not,
would be to discourage legitimate, necessary
discussion of CIA failures, blunders and
abuses, of which there have been plenty.
Under the' Howe bill, a prosecutor would
only have to prove a reporter had "reason to
believe" his investigation would impair or
impede intelligence activities. Well docu-
mented stories often "impair or Impede"
misguided government programs.
Defenders of this approach argue lamely
that newsmen and other citizens could
report Intelligence misdeeds to Congress,
the CIA director or the Justice Department.
These, of cause, are the same folks who
have been less than eager watchdogs in the
Pant.
Or, goes the argument, critical material
could be published without the names of
wayward agents. In' many cases, however,
such self-restraint would simply contribute
to a cover-up.
The Senate Judiciary Committee has
come up with a better bill, said the Ken-
tucky senators should join those who hope
to fend off amendments. Under the Senate
version, a citizen could be successfully pros-
ecuted only If he disclosed names with mali-
cious intent to disrupt intelligence work.
That language could not easily be stretched
to cover legitimate reporting.
President Reagan has given the senators
another excellent reason to resist changes
in their bill He is considering a plan to
allow the CIA to apy on American citizens,
open mail, infiltrate legal groups and all the
rest. This is not the time, in short, to relax
surveillance of the Intelligence community.
Mr..McCLORY. Mr. Speaker, I yield
4 minutes to the gentleman from Illi-
nois (Mr. Hrnu,)
(Mr. HYDE asked and was given per-
mission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, as ranking
minority member of the Civil and Con-
stitutional Rights Subcommittee of
the House Judiciary Committee, I
have been a consistent and strong sup-
porter of legislation to make it a Fed-
eral offense to disclose the identities
of covert intelligence agents under cer-
tain egregious circumstances, It was
therefore with great regret that I
chose not to sign the conference
report on H.R. 4. Although the bill
itself is deserving of high praise, and I
strongly urge my colleagues to vote in
favor of it, the statement of managers
which purports to interpret the bill
contains so many contradictions and
inaccuracies about the clear language
in the bill that the courts would do
well to ignore it.
Approved For Release 2008/09/25: CIA-RDP85-00003R000200060004-6
 Approved For Release 2008/09/25: CIA-RDP85-00003R000200060004-6
H 3150 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -- HOUSE June 2, 1982
Mr. Speaker, when the House Judici- to identify and expose does not ab- tional lawyer I would say he is one of
ary Committee favorably reported the solve him from guilt." This means, Mr. the best in this body. I appreciate very
predecessor of this bill by an over- Speaker, that, so long as the defend- much the remarks of the gentleman
whelming margin in 1980, I described ant possessed this requisite intent, his from Illinois.
it as "our response to the erosion of additional intents are not exculpatory. Any Member of this body, of course,
our intelligence facilities and services Remarkably, and unfortunately, the is entitled to his own opinion. Howev-
in a very dangerous world." That ero- bulk of the statement of managers er, let me just emphasize that the
sion has continued unabated and the suggests just the contrary: that cer- statement of the managers accompa-
danger has increased proportionally. I tain beneficient motives would neces- nying the conference report is the au-
am therefore relieved that, at long sarily negate the intent to identify and thoritative statement as the intent of
last, we are prepared to send a bill to expose covert agents. the conferees and the meaning of the
the President for his signature. The Mr. Speaker, I cannot envision a statute. I am sure the courts will have
conference report which we have case, no matter how heinous, where some fun looking at some of the pro-
under consideration'comports with the the defendant will fail to assert a para- ceedings of this House today, and I am
dictates of the first amendment to our mount goal to justify his action-some sure, in looking at the specific lan-
Constitution. In addition, if interpret- "redeeming social value." Even the guage of the bill itself, which of course
ed correctly, it will serve as a highly perpetrators of the "Naming Names" is controlling, but where the bill itself
effective deterrent to the unconscion- publications profess another intent; lacks some clarity as it does, and
able and dangerous revelations that it namely, the frustration of certain ac- where no particular definition was
has been our misfortune to witness in tivities by our intelligence personnel. given either in the House or in the
recent years. This body, and the various committees Senate vis-a-vis the "reason to be-
Mr. Speaker, let me describe what involved, never intended that the lieve," then I think there has to be
we did in crafting this legislation and, criminality of conduct would be de- some clear legislative interpretation of
even more emphatically, what we did pendent upon whether the Govern- it, perhaps a little authoritative legis-
not do. While the first amendment is ment approved of the defendant's lative history. We have tried to do
not absolute, and thus permits us to higher motives, because that would be that in the statement of managers,
place some restrictions on speech to offensive to our precious first amend- and hopefully the courts will appreci-
safeguard our national security inter- ment. We concentrated instead on the ate that effort, since it is the official
ests as well as certain other restric- intent to engage in a certain type of explanation provided to, and adopted
tions, it does impose a strict duty to conduct-identification and exposure by, each House.
use the least restrictive means possible of agents-that is unquestionably dan- Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the
to address the evil that we have identi- gerous. gentleman from New York (Mr.
fied. This was a relatively simple task Mr. Speaker, in constructing this bill WEISS).
with respect to persons who have been over the course of two Congresses, we (Mr. WEISS asked and was given
given authorized access to classified in- diligently followed the dictates of the
re-
formation and a corollary responsibili- first amendment. To that end, we permission to revise and extend his re-
ty not to disclose that information. identified a certain limited course of marks.)
With respect to others, the job was conduct that was a, threat to our Mr. WEISS. Mr. Speaker, I pity the
more difficult, but I believe this legis- agents and national security and made poor courts after listening to the collo-
lation passes the constitutional test, it illegal. We identified not only an ac- quy today. If we are confused to here,
with flying colors. tivity, but a state of mind, that occur- and those who participated in drawing
We have required that any disclo- ring together, comprised the conduct up both the conference report and the
sure be made "in the course of a pat- that we wanted to prevent. Any addi- statement of the managers are con-
tern of activities intended to identify tional intent was something that we fused as to exactly what the import of
and expose covert agents." We have chose not to judge, because the this legislation is-and this just hap-
further required that those activities damage that is done is the same, irre- pened recently and the Members are
be engaged in with reason to believe spective of the, good intentions of the all here-I can imagine what the
that they would impair or impede the person doing that damage. courts will do with this.
United States foreign intelligence ac- Mr. Speaker, I commend the chair- I assume that when the gentleman
tivities. Finally, we have required that men and ranking minority members of from Illinois denied that the interpre-
the disclosure be made with the the full Intelligence Committee and tations that are set forth by the man-
knowledge that a covert relationship is. the subcommittee for their diligent ef- agers are not accurate, he was refer-
being disclosed and that the Govern- forts in drafting H.R. 4 and in moving ring to some of those interpretations
ment is taking affirmative measures to it through this Congress. I believe which appear on page 10 of the confer-
conceal the classified relationship in- that it is a constitutional and effective ence report, where it says:
volved. Mr. Speaker, the multifaceted response to the dangerous problem An effort by a newspaper intended to un-
state of mind, which the prosecution posed by the callous revelation of the cover CIA connections with it, including
will be required to prove beyond a rea- identities of our covert intelligence learning the names of its employees who
sonable doubt, limits the applicability agents. I urge my colleagues to vote in worked for the CIA.
of the offense to those whose activities favor of the conference report, but, at Or-
pose the greatest danger to the nation- the same time, I urge the courts to An effort by a university or a church to
al security and the safety of our intel- consign the statement of managers to learn if any of its employees had worked for
ligence officers. the oblivion it deserves, and take the CIA. These are activities intended to en-
It is with respect to this carefully solace at the fact that the clear lan- force the internal rules of the organization
constructed state of mind, Mr. Speak- guage of this legislation requires no and not identify and expose CIA agents.
er, that I must part company with the obfuscatory interpretation as prof- I assume the gentleman from Illinois
letter and spirit of much of the state- fered by the manager's statement. interprets that as being one of those
ment of managers accompanying this We often ask our covert agents-and double intents, and only one intent is
conference report. The clear import of their sources of intelligence-to risk really the one that matters:
most of that statement is that an addi- their ' lives in the national interest. An investigation by a newspaper of possi-
tional motive or a certain status may The very least we can do is protect ble CIA connections with the Watergate
negate the criminal state of mind we their identities from assassins and ter- burglaries. This would be an activity under-
have outlined. This is a premise I rorists. taken to learn about the connections with
firmly reject. the burglaries and not to identify and
In one instance, the statement of ^ 1330 expose CIA agents.
managers correctly notes that "the Mr. BOLAND. Mr. Speaker, the gen- I want to credit the gentleman from
fact that a defendant claims one or tleman is always persuasive and Massachusetts, the chairman of the
more intents additional to the intent always charming, and as a constitu- committee, Mr. Speaker. I think that
Approved For Release 2008/09/25: CIA-RDP85-00003R000200060004-6
 Approved For Release 2008/09/25: CIA-RDP85-00003R000200060004-6
June 2, 1982 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE H 3151
he has tried to do a yeoman Job under There is some controversy about the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. HYDE).
very impossible circumstances. I think statement of the managers which ac- As the ranking minority member of
that he came as close as possible with- companies H.R. 4. I just have to say, the Subcommittee on Civil and Consti-
out really being able to achieve the Mr. Speaker, -I do not really consider tutional Rights, you have been a
impossible. Because of that, I, wish he this a statement on. the part of the strong ally of our covert agents and
had stuck with his original conoll sion, managers because most of the manag- the national security interests that
which was that indeed, the legislation, ers that I know of had nothing to do they serve. Your expertise has proved
because of reasons given by the gentle- with its preparation. This is not a con- invaluable in the delicate area of first
man from California, in fact is u3gcon- ference product. The conference com- amendment concerns that have arisen
stitutional. mittee did not meet on the subject of in connection with this bill.
I recall that when - the House Sub- the statement of the managers. It was Mr. HYDE. I thank the gentleman
committee on Government Informa- a foregone decision presented to at for his kind words. As the gentleman
tion and Individual Rights of the Gov- least some of us only when we were knows, the language in section 601(c)
ernment Operations Committee held asked to sign it, and so as we are estab- of the bill was carefully crafted with
hearings last year, we had columnist lishing legislative history, I do not those first amendment concerns con-
Jack Anderson before us. He referred think we ought to take this statement stantly in mind. As the gentleman and
back to that awful tragedy where the as a conference product or as being ap- I have discussed, in the national secu-
head of mission in Greece, the CIA proved by the conference committee, rity area, the first amendment de-
head of mission, had been assassinat- for it was not. The conference commit- mands that we carefully define a prob-
ed. He pointed out that it was not that tee did not even meet on the subject. lem and address it with the least re-
the man's name had appeared in one Now it is important that we. proceed strictive means possible. However, it
of these awful publications which are despite this confusion and despite the has never been my understanding that
in the business of disclosing the names disagreement on the statement of the the first amendment requires us to in-
of CIA agents, but that the CIA had managers. It is important that we pro- terpret legislation in such a way as to
an unbroken habit of some 30 years of ceed and enact this legislation. It is endanger its effectiveness.
placing its head of mission, no:matter late; it is far past due. We should have
what the cover was, in that particular had it years ago as we began to rebuild ^ 1345
residence; and that Greek guides our intelligence capability in the McCLORY. The gentleman
would take tourists through the town United States, a capability so neces- from Mr. Illinois entirely correct. gentleman
and point out where the head of the sary to our overall security. And it is tion Illino of the bill cquicts the
CIA mission was residing. important that we protect those Government to prove beyond a reason-
So, it seems to me that what: we are people who work in intelligence, who able doubt various elements of the of-
trying to do in a very unconstitutional are basically responsible for being, our fense, including the fact that the dis-
manner in this piece of legislation eyes and our ears in a world that is closure was made in the course of a
somewhat hostile. It is extremely im-
and welwould be bebe done tte off probablylin portant if we are going to have an ade- fyt and exp tiv vert teagents nds and with
trying to get the CIA to straighten out quarin national defense. reason to believe that such activities
its act so that it does not subject its I rise strong support of this bill, would impair our foreign intelligence
people possible harm and loss of life. and I hope the House will pass it with activities. This element alone will pose
an overwhelming vote and establish
is great demands on the Government in
Mr. McCLORY. Mr. Speaker, I yie that as legislative history, , that it t is
3 minutes to the gentleman from Flor- the intent of the Congress of the terms of proof which will be met only
? ida (Mr. YOUNG). United States to provide for a strong in the most egregious cases.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speak- national defense and to recognize that Mr. HYDE. I agree with the gentle-
er, I rise in support of H.R. 4 and the a strong intelligence capability is a man that the burden on the Govern-
conference report to come become the part of that strong national defense, ment is a great one, as it should be
House. I am sorry that our colleague, and the protection of the people who when we are dealing with first amend-
John Ashbrook, is not here today, be- work in it on a. daily basis, the protec. ment concerns. However, the state-
cause I know he would rightfully be tion of their lives and the protection ment of managers suggests that the
proud of this product. John was a of their involvement in our national prosecution may encounter certain
leader in arriving at the point we are defense is also essential problems in proving those elements
at today, and he was dedicated to the Mr. McCLORY. Mr. Speaker, I yield which are clearly spelled out in the
protection that we are about to pro- such time as he may require to the language of the act. It seems to sug-
vide for those who serve us in our in- gentleman from Illinois (Mr. HYDE) gest that the fact that the defendant
telligence community. I know John for the purpose of a colloquy. had an additional, but beneficient,
also would share the comments that I Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I thank my intent in making a disclosure could
make now about our distinguished colleague from Illinois. place him beyond the reach of this
chairman. I know of John's sincere Although we are both strong sup- law. Furthermore, it- implies that the
feeling of respect and admiration for porters of H.R. 4 and urge the adop- status of the defendant-as a newspa-
EDDIE BOLAND and our ranking minor- tion of this conference report, I under- per reporter, academician, or private
ity member,. KEN ROBINSON and I cer- stand that the gentleman from Illinois organization-might be exculpatory.
tainly share that. (Mr. MCCLORY) shares some of the For instance, on page 8, it states that
John and I worked together on a lot concerns I have expressed about the section 601(c) "does not affect the first
of items, important matters, before statement of managers. As ranking mi- amendment rights of those who dis-
the Select Committee on Intelligence, nority member of the Intelligence lose the identities of agents as an inte-
I think much to the chagrin of our Subcommittee on Legislation and of gral part of another enterprise such as
chairman on occasion, but he always the full Judiciary Committee, he. was news media reporting of intelligence
understood what we were about, and "present at the creation" of this im- failures or abuses, academic studies of
certainly treated us with total fair- portant legislation and throughout its the U.S. Government's policies and
ness. long journey through this and the last programs, or a private organization's
He has taught me a lot, and he just Congress. He is thus thoroughly famil- enforcement of its internal rules." Is it
now taught me something else when iar with the legislative intent behind the gentleman's understanding, based
he was talking about the debate we H.R. 4. I would like to solicit his reac- on his lengthy involvement in the de-
have here today establishing the legis- tion to some of the assertions made in velopment of this legislation, that an
lative history on this legislation. I was the statement of managers. individual's additional intent or his
not going to make this comment, but I Mr. McCLORY. Mr Speaker, if the status in connection with a given en-
think as we do establish legislative his- gentleman will yield, I am glad to dis- terprise will place him beyond the
tory, that maybe I had better. cuss our mutual concerns with the reach of section 601(c), if he has en-
Approved For Release 2008/09/25: CIA-RDP85-00003R000200060004-6
 Approved For Release 2008/09/25: CIA-RDP85-00003R000200060004-6
H 3152 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE June 2, 1982
gaged in the requisite pattern of activ- States would be covered under the bill discerned by any court that has an op-
ities intended to identify and expose so long as that relationship is classi- portunity to intepret it. I also think
covert agents? fied and that person is serving, or has that it is perfectly clear that any
Mr. McCLORY. It certainly is not. served, as an informant or source of statements made here or at any other
While the gentleman is correct that operational assistance? point in the legislative history which
the statement of managers may imply Mr. McCLORY. The gentleman is are inconsistent with the plain lan-
such an interpretation, the language again correct. There was never any guage of the bill are going to be disre-
that you have quoted contradicts intent to exclude so-called private citi- garded.
other language in the statement that zens from the protection of this act so At this point, Mr. Speaker, I yield 3
reflects our true intent. I refer the long as they fulfilled all of the re- minutes to the gentleman from New
gentleman to page 9 of the statement, quirements of the definition and the York (Mr. SOLOMON).
wherein the managers state without other requirements of the bill were Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I am
qualification: met. pleased the Congress is finally ap-
Of course, the fact that a defendant Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the proving legislation establishing crimi-
claims one or more intents additional to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. nal penalties for the disclosure of in-
intent to identify and expose does not ab- MCCLORY).
solve him from guilt. It is only necessary Mr. BOLAND. Mr. Speaker, may I l geonceiageidentifying A am very dis-
that the prosecution prove the requisite inquire as to how much time remains n e the However I am ve d
intent to identify and expose covert agents. appointed the conference disapproved
on either side?
On page 10, the statement notes The SPEAKER
pro ternpore (Mrfor er ntelli of the bill to include
that a defendant may rebut the Gov- T
former intelligence agents.
h
Ch
i
r will stthat
e
will state
ernment's proof of an intent to identi- the gentleman
from a
fy and expose by demonstrating "some the Massachusetts
alternative intent." I would call the and the e gentleman n)has 3 minutes remaining
gentleman's attention to the use of and Illinois .
the word "alternative," rather than MCCLORY) has 7 minutes tes remaining.
"additional" here. The intent shown Mr. BOLAND. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1
must be to the exclusion of an intent minute e to to the the gentleman from Ken-
MAZZOL
. D.
to identify and expose, not in addition Mr. (Mr.
to that intent. . MAZZOLI. Speaker, I take
I think my colleague from Illinois this time to pay tribute to one
nd I would agree that ttwo state- Member in the Chamber, the gentle-
and I have hat t the
accurately man from Florida (Mr. BENNETT), who
ments that
played a very role the
represent our legislative intent in formation of the legislation early
we are
drafting this provision. The contradic- dealing with sey to protect the
tory passages to which he referred do agents, with
work ot accurately reflect that intent. and those people who woun-
Mr. HYDE. I thank the gentleman Also, I I for think the it t United would betSw.
for his explanation, with which I am woul be wrong not
the
in total accord. Is it correct to con- to make mention of the fact of the
clude from the gentleman's remarks strong support given this bill from
that the illustrations which appear on start to finish by the majority leader,
page 10 of the statement are some- the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
what misleading as to our legislative WRIGHT), and the minority leader, the
intent to the .extent that they are gentleman from Illinois (Mr. MICHEL),
based on the general principle that we both'of whom came before our com-
have repudiated-namely, that an ad- mittee and both of whom urged the
ditional intent can be exculpatory? adoption of bills like this, and both of
Mr. McCLORY. The gentleman is them, of course, cleared this matter
again correct. The danger in the prem- for early floor consideration.
ise the gentleman has identified is I just wanted, Mr. Speaker, to pay
that many defendants-even those in tribute to those Members and the
the business of "naming names"- many, many others who played strong
could probably point to an additional and particularly pivotal roles in this
intent. The statement of managers ac- legislation.
knowledges this fact on page 7 and If I have any part of my 1 minute re-
notes that such motives are irrelevant maining, I thank the gentleman from
to the protection of our national secu- Illinois (Mr. MCCLORY) and the gentle-
rity interests. Unfortunately, that sen- man from Illinois (Mr. HYDE) for that
timent was not consistently reflected colloquy in which they engaged. There
throughout the statement. is a clear need to be sure that we are
Mr. HYDE. I wonder if I might solic- putting this bill in a position to drive a
it the gentleman's learned opinion on wooden stake into the hearts of those
another suggestion in the statement of people who practice the nefarious
managers which has troubled me. trade of identifying Americans who
With respect to the definition of are trying to do the job of protecting
"covert agent," the statement on page this country. This bill does that, as the
11 observes that the definition is craft- statement of managers very clearly
ed to insure that, sets forth. I thank the gentlemen for
As it applies to those who are not under- their explanation, but as the chairman
cover intelligence agency employees, [it] has just indicated, the authoritative
does not include those private citizens who statement as to the intent of the con-
might provide information to the CIA or ferees and the meaning of the confer-
FBI, but whose public identification, ence report we are about to adopt is
y,
espec
, opposed it,
though causing personal embarrassment, the statement of managers. but obviously it carried the day in the
would not damage the national security. Mr. McCLORY. Mr. Speaker, I yield House.
Is it the gentleman's understanding myself 1 minute. I thank the gentleman for recogniz-
that the intelligence relationship of Mr. Speaker, I think that the clear ing the need to move forward with the
these private citizens to the United intent of this legislation is going to be essential elements here, which are to
As you recall, this amendment,
which I offered in the House, was
overwhelmingly supported in the
House with over 300 votes in the af-
firmative.
By protecting former agents my
amendment strengthened H.R. 4 in
several ways:
First. It would protect former agents
from possible harm as a result of the
disclosure of their true identities;
Second. It would protect active oper-
atives who may have assumed the
former agent's position overseas; and
Third. It would protect the entire in-
telligence network which may have
been passed on to the former agent's
successor.
Mr. Speaker, after the President
signs the Intelligence Identities Pro-
tection Act (H.R. 4) into law, I will be
introducing legislation to reinstate
this important provision of the act. At
that time, I will be requesting the 313
Members of the House who approved
the original amendment, to expand
the law to cover former agents, to join
me in sponsoring the legislation.
Mr. Speaker, on a related matter, I
would like to express my grave con-
cern over the subject of American sci-
entific information being transfered to
the Soviet Union. I am placing in the
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD a speech made
by a person who is a friend and one of
our country's greatest intelligence offi-
cers, Admiral Inman. Admiral Inman's
comments on the transfer of scientific
information are of vital importance to
the security of our country.
Mr. MAZZOLI. Mr. Speaker, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. SOLOMON. I am glad to yield
to the gentleman from Kentucky.
Mr. MAZZOLI. Mr. Speaker, I thank
the gentleman for yielding, and I very
much appreciate his constructive atti-
tude about the bill today. I know that
the gentleman was successful in the
House in having the Solomon amend-
ment adopted. The gentleman from
Kentuck
with r
t
Approved For Release 2008/09/25: CIA-RDP85-00003R000200060004-6
 Approved For Release 2008/09/25: CIA-RDP85-00003R000200060004-6
June A, 1988
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE H 3153
protect the people who do serve this
Nation in many very dangerous and
precarious positions, and if I remain
chairman of the subcommittee In the
next Congress, the gentleman's bill
will be given a full and fair hearing
and an opportunity to become the law
of the land.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I
thank the gentleman from Kentucky
(Mr. Mezzors), for his remarks, and I
would also like to commend the gen-
telman from Massachusetts, the gen-
tleman from Illinois, and all the mem-
bers of the select committee for the
excellent work they have done.
Although I am not completely satis-
fied, this does put some teeth back
into our counterintelligence agency
operations and the gentleman is to be
commended. I am sure that If John
Ashbrook were here, he would be ex-
tending those same commendations to
all of you.
Mr. Speaker, I will be asking for a
vote on this legislation bye I think
it is extremely important that we
show Overwhelmingly favorable re-
corded support for this legislation In
the future.
Mr. McCLORY. Mr. Speaker, I yield
myself such additional time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, I have had occasion in
the course of my experience to confer
individually with Intelligence agents,
including intelligence 6, , who
serve our country overseas undercover.
and I can assure the Members of the
House that they regard this legislation
as vital to their own survival and to
their own service in behalf of our
Nation.
There is no legislation which will
come before this Congress which in
my view can do more to help enhance
our own national security because,
Indeed, the work of our intelligence
agents do assure our national security
as completely and as thoroughly, and
sometimes in a better way, than do our
Armed Forces.
So I think we can be very proud of
supporting this legislation and recog-
nize that we are performing an act in
behalf of our own survival as a nation.
Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the
leadership for scheduling this meas-
ure. I commend my chairman, the gen-
tleman from Maasaehusetta (Mr.
BOLAND), for his active support of the
measure, and. as he indicated. the
leadership on both sides of the aisle in
recognizing the importance of this
measure that is before us. Indeed, It
was the distinguished Republican
leader, my colleague from Illinois (Mr.
MicuEL), who introduced the original
agents' identities bill some 6 years ago,
and I applaud my colleagues on the
other side of the aisle for recognizing
its merit.
Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge adop.
tion of the conference report by the
House.
Mr. BOLAND. Mr. Speaker, I yield
myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, as the statement of
managers indicates, neither House, to
adopting the crucial reason-to-believe
standard, "intended to change the
scope of conduct which this act seeks
to proscribe. Rather, the change was
made to deal with elements of proof at
trial." The statement does not change
the bill. It explains what has been said
about It for Years.
The bill proscribes the so-called
naming of names, which is a phenom-
enon Involving the systematic expo-
sure of U.S. intelligence officers in
wholesale fashion. The statement
makes the point that this is what the
Congress has always sought to crimi-
nalize.
The statement also makes a point of
what the bill does not proscribe, that
is, regular or even "irregular" journal-
ism. Reporting which includes the
Identities of undercover operatives is
not covered unless it meets the re-
quirements of the bllx that is, unless it
rises to the level of a "pattern of activ-
ities intended to Identify and expose"
such undercover operatives.
If prosecutors and judges pay atten.
tion to the statement, there likely will
be very few prosecutions, but those
that do take place should result In the
vindication of HR. 4 as constitutional
and effective.
? Mr. DROOMFUMD. W. Speaker, it
was approxhuatey 6% years ago that I
coo; onsaeea the !hat version of the
meawu-m now before as That original
proposal was lred by our distin-
guished zainor'By leader, Mr. Mzc n ,
and was triggered by the December 23.
IYI5, aseasshration of Richard Welch,
the then-CIA Station Chief in Athena,
Greece, whose cover was blown in
Counter Spy magazine.
Since the Welch tragedy, a number
of other U.S. intelligence: officers have
had their identities disclosed, and
their lives Jeopardized by those who
are bent on destroying our intelligence
capabilities abroad. Leaping to mind in
this connection are the episodes in Ja-
maica In July 1981. Specifically, I am
referring to the attacks upon the
homes of our ILsabeasy's first secretary
and an AID employee shortly after
each was said to have CIA ties at a
press conference held by the American
editor of Covert Action Information
Bulletin.
What effect do you think these dis-
closures have on our sources overseas?
Put yourself, for a moment, in the
shoes of an individual who discovers
one morning that the CIA case officer
with whom he has been seen and to
whom he has been passing valuable in-
telligence information for years has
just had ' his cover blown by the likes
of Philip Agee. I do not think many of
us in Congress realize what the poten-
tial consequences are to a source who
finds himself or herself in that kind of
a situation. If we did, I do not think
we would have taken so long to ap-
prove this legislation.
Not only have these disclosures cost
us existing sources, but It has also
caused many "would be" sources to
forego association with the CIA. Can
you blame them? Given the CIA's In-
ability to protect the Identities of its
own employees, how can one assume
that it can guarantee the confidential-
ity of a "would be" Informant?
Over the past year, much has been
said and written about the first
amendment questions of this bill.
Those in the journalistic profession
have expressed special concern. I want
to assure my Journalistic friends that
those of us backing this remedial legis-
lation are very sensitive to those con-
cerns and believe they have been
taken Into full accosnst.
In this regard, however, one must
bear in mind that there are instances
when discretion must be exercised as
to what one says. This point was made
by Richard K. Willard, who has served
as a counsel for intelligence policy to
the Attorney General Responding to
media criticism about this bill, Willard
observed in a compelling article ap-
pearing in the November 17. 1981. edi-
tion of the Washington Post that:
The Supreme Court his long held that
the first amendment does not absolutely
protect statements whose "very utterance
inflicts ininry"(Ozaatinaily v. New Hemp-
be). We are 'all with Justice
Holmes' observotion that "falsely shouting
Ike is a tbestss sang easing a panic" is not
protected by the Cosrialtatiso.
In the resent on. d Akio v. Aoe& the Su-
pseste COUIt.rvtheaed the.iint swam
claims d e -CA asset Pip Ages: whose
passpeet was mvobsd its list bsemrss M "his
repented drolosares d ietelHSeosp'+rper-
atioos and the.nanss of inleiugenee Person-
1W Ca=t eseoiaded that such disclo-
sures "are clearly list psotected by the Can-
stitution." In arenesry. the first amensd-
m of does not peesiuds legislation that pro-
hibits the systeseafie exposure of agents'
identities under circunv*naees that pose a
clear threat to iotelHgeese activities vial to
the Nation's defeme.
Mr. Speaker, I spoke at length on
the merits of this measure when we fa-
vorably acted upon It last fall. There.
fore. I will be brief today and sum up
by saying that this long overdue legis-
lation represents a careful balancing
of our national security and civil lib-
erties concerns and consequently war-
rants immediate adoption. As I stated
on the House floor nearly 9 months
ago, it is the least we can do for those
who litgrally put their lives on the line
for us.?
? Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise
in support of the conference report on
H.R. 4, which will prohibit the unau.
thorized disclosure of information
identifying certain U.S. officers,
agents. and sources whose Identities
have been properly classified.
Disclosure of the names of agents
may take many forms:
From the disgruntled former CIA of-
ficer who derides to turn on his fellow
workers, to the respected reporter who
may identify an agent incidentally in
the course of a legitimate expose on
newspaper reporters working covertly
for the CIA.
Approved For Release 2008/09/25: CIA-RDP85-00003R000200060004-6
 Approved For Release 2008/09/25: CIA-RDP85-00003R000200060004-6
H 3154 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE June 2, 1982
In. this bill, H.R. 4, we are not pro- lieve would certainly be the ease with which Congress, and the American people,
posing that every individual revealing the name of a covert agent was identified should not be subjected to these haz-
an agent's identity under any circum- and the extent to which it was widely and ards. They should not be exposed by
stances be subject to criminal penal- publicly known. fellow Americans without some protec-
ties. Such an across-the-board prohibi- Today we will hear criticism on both tion in U.S. law. Finally, large major-
tion would have a chilling effect on sides: Some may argue that we have ities of both Houses have given us this
free speech and would no doubt be un- drawn the language too tight; others intelligence identities protection bill.
constitutional. that we have not drawn the language The President has assured us that he
Rather, we are restricting the legis- tight enough. I believe that we have will sign it. It took a long time since
lation only to three types of unauthor- carefully weighed the alternatives and Richard Welch was killed in Athens
ized disclosure: that we have arrived at a proposal but finally we have a law that will
First, disclosure by Government offi- that strikes a reasonable balance: make it a crime to finger an American
cials and others entrusted with access We have drafted language that intelligence employee, an action from
to classified information that idehti- makes illegal disclosure by those en- which many complications flow, in-
fies covert agents; trusted or by those in the business of cluding the loss of life.*
Second, disclosure by those with naming names, and we have carefully Mr. BOLAND. Mr. Speaker, I move
access to classified information that avoided being overzealous and possibly the previous question on the confer-
allows them to discern such identities; ensnaring unintentionally those we do ence report.
and not wish to catch, that is, legitimate The previous question was ordered.
Third, disclosure by those without journalists or whistleblowers. The SPEAKER pro tempore. The
access to classified information "in the Mr. Chairman, I urge the adoption question is on the conference report.
course of a pattern of activities intend- of the conference report on H.R. 4.0 The question was taken; and the
ed to identify and expose covert agents ? Mr. DERWINSKI. Mr. Speaker, in Speaker pro tempore announced that
and with reason to believe such activi- January 1976, my distinguished col- the ayes appeared to have it.
ties of the United States"; that is, league from Illinois, BOB MICHEL, in- Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, on
those in the business of ferreting out troduced an intelligence identities pro- that I demand the yeas and nays.
and naming names. tection bill, which I cosponsored. That The yeas and nays were ordered.
The bill does not apply to casual dis- bill was offered in the immediate The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursu-
cussion, political debates, legitimate aftermath of the tragic murder in ant to the provisions of clause 5, rule
journalism, and the like. Athens of Richard Welch, CIA chief I, and the Chair's prior announce-
The statement of managers accom- of station. Welch had earlier been ment, further proceedings on this
panying the conference report is very named as an intelligence officer by a question will be postponed.
important in understanding the reach publication produced here in the
of this third category and bears em- United States.
phasizing. The statement notes, in The particular publication that 0 1400
regard to "pattern of activities" that: named Welch, Counter Spy, predeces- GENERAL LEAVE
In order to fit within the definition of sor of Covert Action Information Bul-
"pattern of activities," a discloser must be in letin, was published by, among others, Mr. BOLAND. Mr. Speaker, I ask
the business, or have made it his practice, to Philip Agee, a former officer of the unanimous consent that all Members
ferret out and then expose undercover offi- CIA, who after leaving the Agency de- may have 5 legislative days in which to
cers or agents where the reasonably foresee- scribed himself as a "revolutionary revise and extend their remarks on the
able result would be to damage an intelli- Communist" and undertook a career conference report just under consider-
gence agency's effectiveness. Those who re- of exposing American intelligence per- ation.
publish previous disclosures and critics of sonnel and hindering U.S. intelligence would all stand beyond the the work of the The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is
reach of the law if they did not engage in a U.S. intelligence services. there objection to the request of the
pattern of activities intended to identify and A terrorist group in Greece actually gentleman from Massachusetts?
expose covert agents. did the killing of Welch but the pub- There was no objection.
A journalist writing stories about the CIA lishers of Covert Action Information
would not be engaged in the requisite "pat- Bulletin expressed no sorrow. Agee's
tern of activities" even if the stories he colleagues in Covert Action actually THE CARIBBEAN INITIATIVE:
wrote included the names of one or more claimed, in referring to Welch, it "was HOW TO EXPORT U.S. JOBS
covert agents, unless the Government
proved that there was an intent to identify his career * * * his job;" that caused The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under
and expose agents. To meet the standard of his death. They were not the least bit a previous order of the House, the gen-
the bill, a discloser must be engaged in a remorseful. tleman from Pennsylvania (Mr.
purposeful enterprise of revealing identi- Agee and his colleagues have since GAYnos), Is recognized for 60 minutes.
ties-he must, in short, be in the business of named thousands as intelligence em- ? Mr. GAYDOS. Mr. Speaker, com-
"naming names." ployees. In addition to publishing mittees of the House now are consider-
As to the meaning 6f "reason to be- their magazine, they have visited for- ing the administration's Caribbean
lieve," the explanation of the confer- eign countries and with considerable Basin Initiative, which really is a pro-
ees states: publicity have identified CIA station posal to ship out an unknown number
The "reason to believe" standard is met personnel. Local media have then of American jobs in the guise of eco-
when the surrounding facts and circum- often repeated the information. At- nomic aid.
stances would lead a reasonable person to tacks have been carried on U.S. em- This initiative condenses into one
believe that the pattern of activities would ployees and their families after these proposal all the misconceived efforts
impair or impede the foreign intelligence ac- accusations. They and their depend- of the past 40 years to pull the world
tivities of the United States. A government
warning to a news reporter that a particular ents, of course, fear for their lives. up by the bootstraps of U.S. workers,
intended disclosure would impair or impede Key sources are obviously more re- and it would replicate and increase the
foreign intelligence activities could be con- luctant to talk to U.S. Government of- generosity that has given away whole
sidered by the jury, but the ultimate ques- ficials after their public exposure. The industries.
tion for the jury would be whether the gov- jobs of American officials become Furthermore, it would make the Ca-
ernment had demonstrated that a reason- more difficult and the effectiveness of ribbean nations into fronts and stag-
able person would believe that the pattern American efforts overseas is reduced. ing areas for further and easier de-
of activities in which he had engaged would The cost of U.S. Government oiler- struction of the U.S. economy by those
impair or impede the foreign intelligence ac-
tivities of the United States. Thus what ations abroad is greater after these who already wage trade war on us in
would be relevant would be the objective malicious attacks. steel and other goods.
facts about likely harm. Among the objec- American officials sent overseas by Leaders of the steel caucus have tes-
tive facts to be weighed by the jury in deter- their Government to carry our func- tified on this initiative before a sub-
mining what a reasonable person would be- tions approved by the President, the committee of the Committeee on Ap-
Approved For Release 2008/09/25: CIA-RDP85-00003R000200060004-6