S.1: BEYOND SALVATION

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP77M00144R000800020025-8
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 6
• Document Creation Date: December 9, 2016
• Document Release Date: August 31, 2001
• Sequence Number: 25
• Publication Date: March 11, 1976
• Content Type: OPEN

Approved For Release 2001/09/03 : CIA-RDP77M00144R000800020025-8
March 11, 1976 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? Extensions of Remarks E 1245
trust as chief of the department, con-
ferred by Mayor Bay, on January 1, 1972.
Throughout his lifetime Chief Kenyon
has forged ahead 'with dedication, devo-
tion and sincerity of purpose in com-
batting crime and protecting the life of
our people. We applaud his knowledge,
training, hard work and personal com-
mitment that has enabled him to achieve
the fullest confidence and strongest sup-
port of the people of our community.
He has always applied the most sophis-
ticated and advanced techniques of his
profession. Soon after his appointment
to the Hawthorne Police Department he
attended the first municipal police class
at West Trenton, N.J. He is a graduate
of the Delehanty School of Police Prac-
tice, Procedures, and Sciences and has
pursued courses of study in some of our
Nation's most highly selective law en-
forcement educational facilities includ-
ing the FBI, New Jersey State Police,
Bergen County Police Academy, New
Jersey Police Chiefs Association, Rutgers
University and supervisory classes under
the instruction of the New Jersey Police
Training Commission.
It is interesting to note that Chief
Charles Kenyon is a lifetime resident of
my congressional district. He was born
In Paterson, N.J., the son of the highly
respected family of our community, Ruth
and Charles Kenyon, Sr., and raised in
Hawthorne, N.J., where he attended Lin-
coln School and Hawthorne High School.
He enlisted in the U.S. Marine Corps on
July 21, 1941 and served for 41/2 years,
23 months in the Pacific theater of World
War II with the 4th Marine Division,
participating in the battles of the Mar-
shall Islands, Saipan, Tinian, and Iwo'
Jima.
On July 25, 1942 he married the former
Dorothy VanderPlaat of Clifton, N.J.
The deep admiration and respect that
their two sons have for their father is
mirrored in their career choices. His son,
Robert C. is a member of the New Jersey
State Police and Thomas P. is a patrol-
man on the Hawthorne Police Depart-
ment. They have four grandchildren:
Robert C. Jr. and Michael _T., the chil-
dren of Robert and Chris Kenyon;
Maureen L. and Thomas P. Jr., the
children of Thomas and Barbara Ken-
yon.
Chief Kenyon is past president and
secretary of P.B.A. Local No. 114;. mem-
ber, Hawthorne P.B.A. Lolcal No. 200; In-
ternational Association of Chiefs of Po-
lice; New Jersey State Association of
Chiefs of Police; Passaic County Police
Chiefs Association; Past Commander,
VFW, William B. Mawhinney Post No.
1593; past president, William B. Ma-
whinney Memorial Ambulance Corps;
member since 1948 and presently trustee,
Corps Executive Committee; 4th Marine
Division Association; Hawthorne Ma-
sonic Lodge No. 212, F. & A. M.; past
president and secretary, Hawthorne
Craftsmen's Club; Court House Square
Club of Bergen County; and the Grand
Order of the Sword of Bunker Hill.
Mr. Speaker, during this Bicentennial
Year as we celebrate the 200th anni-
versary of the birth of our Nation, it is
indeed appropriate that we reflect on
the deeds and achievements of our peo-
ple who have contributed to the quality
of our way of life here in America and
I am honored and privileged to call your
attention to the lifetime of outstanding
public services of Chief Kenyon and seek
this national recognition of his contribu-
tion to our country in placing others
above self in providing safety on the
streets, security in the home and opti-
mum public safety for all of our people.
We do indeed salute Chief Charles F.
Kenyon, Jr. of Hawthorne for his con-
tribution to the quality of life for the
people of our community, State, and
Nation.,
TRIBUTE TO WRIGHT PATMAN
HON. MARIO BIAGGI
OF NEW YORK
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Thursday, March 11, 1976
Mr. BIAGGI. Mr. Speaker, the death
of our distinguished and honored col-
league, the gentleman from Texas, Mr.
Patman, is a great loss not only for th
body, but for this Nation.
Oh, there are some in the board roo
of rich and powerful banks and corpora
tions who probably are breathing a sigh
of relief that Wright Patman's personal
brand of fire and brimstone will no
longer be coming their way. But for the
man in the streets, the man who has felt
lost in his fight for survival against the
might and privileged in our society, the
mourning for the death of Wright Pat-
man will be great.
He was a man of courage who never
shied away from controversial causes.
He was a leader, who stepped out proud-
ly. He walked alone if necessary until
others saw he was traveling the right
path and soon followed him.
He was a fighter for those who were
defenseless against the monied and spe-
cial interests who had great influence in
the legislature.
Some called him a liberal and others
said he was conservative; neither labels
are correct. He had only one interest in
mind, the people's interest. He may not
have always been right, but he fought
for what he thought would benefit the
little guy.
He had no time for the fancy parlia-
mentary activities of the House. He felt
if a piece of legislation was goad for the
people, it should be approved by the rep-
resentatives of the people without a lot
of phoney bantering about. Too bad his
philosophy is not more prevalent today.
He had a particular interest in work-
ing on behalf of World War I veterans.
Earlier in his career, he managed to will
passage of his legislation to pay all First
War veterans a bonus. In recent years,
he has led the fight to guarantee all
World War I veterans a pension.
Wright Patman was a man of vision.
He was quick to see the need for legisla-
tion to correct problems. Frequently he
was years ahead of his time on his pro-
posals. Yet, ideas for which he was de-
nounced at one time, more often than
not became the key elements of the con-
gressional legislative program in later
years. I am glad he was able to serve in
the House so long to enjoy the fruits of
these somewhat belated victories.
There are still other battles that he
did not win. Most notably his attempts to
have the operations of the Federal Re-
serve audited and the regulation of banks
centralized in the Federal Government.
Some called his efforts a vendetta, yet
others?myself included?know that his
only interest was to see that a system
that has such great influence over the
lives and actions of the people is some-
how accountable to the people's repre-
sentatives.
I was deeply saddened when he relin-
quished the chairmanship of the House
Banking and Currency Committee at the
beginning of this Congress. He was dedi-
cated to overseeing and regulating in the
public interest those areas under the
Jurisdiction of that co , ttee.
Wright Patman, thoug , has mad his
mark. His ideas, jlilosophy, and
achievements will llveLoii. His-, courage
and vor ess will us re others to
take up dard continue the
fight. H treat him well.
S. I: BEYOND SALVATION
HON. ABNER J. MIKVA
OF ILLINOIS
IN THE HOU 0 OF REPRESENTATIVES
Thursday, March 11, 1976
Mr. 1VIIKVA. Mr. Speaker, there is lit-
tle disagreement on the need to reform
the Federal criminal laws. There is, how-
ever, substantial disagreement over what
those reforms should include. Much of
the current disagreement centers around
one bill, S. 1, Which is now being con-
sidered in the Senate Judiciary Commit-
tee.
There has been widespread criticism
of S. 1, criticisms which has shown S. 1
to be more of a regression than a reform.
In the face of such criticism, supporters
of S. 1 have indicated a willingness to
strike several of the more objeational
features of the bill. But with a bill as
large and complex as S. 1, a salvage job
at this point is too little, too late. Even
a "better" S. 1 is still an "invitation to
danger," as a Los Angeles Times editorial
called it on February 29, 1976.
I would like to share this excellent
editorial analysis of S. 1 with my col-
leagues and at this point insert it in the
RECORD:
INVITATION TO DANGER
Sens. Mike Mansfield and Hugh Scott, re-
spectively the majority and minority leaders
of the Senate, have moved to break the im-
passe on Senate Bill 1 by proposing to slice
from the legislation a series of some of its
most controversial sections.
8 1, a huge (799 pages) and hugely com-
plicated measure, is designed to codify, re-
vise and reform the federal criminal law. It
would do all that, but with such an authori-
tarian tilt that the legislation has become
a philosophical battleground over the way
this nation should be governed.
In their maneuver for a compromise, the
Senate leaders grant this. They say, "On the
one hand are those sections of the bill that
are deemed to be repressive, that change the
existing law and existing procedures in ways
Cat even the courts might strike down
Approved For Release 2001/09/03 : CIA-RDP77M00144R000800020025-8
Approved For Release 2001/09/03 : CIA-RDP77M00144R000800020025-8
E 1246 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD Extensions of Remarks March 11, 1976
in the face of the Constitution. On the
other hand, the liberals Would in some in-
stances like not only to 'eradicate' the more
repressive features of the bill but to lib-
eralize' the existing law and in effect We
the ?4 1 vehicle to overturn court decisione
that have supported so-called law-enforce-
ment interpretations."
The latter assessment is overdrawn, be-
cause to date supporters of the bill have been
in full control of the legislation and oppon-
ents have been conducting a rearguard ac-
tion, but the senators are correct in noting
the sharp division over S 1.
They would bridge this gulf by deleting
from th i11 the most dangerous sections
11121-28i on espionage and related offenses.
With broad definitions of crimes in various
categories and severe penalties, both aganist
government employes who release "national
defense information" and those in unau-
thorized possession of the. information, these
provisions would create what in effect would
be an Official Secrets Act.
Supporters of the law say this interpreta-
tion is unwarranted because its provisions--
forbidding the disclosure of classified infor-
mation exempt the recipient (a news report-
er, for example) from presecution. But an-
other section would require that anyone in
unauthorirea possession of "national defense
information" (the Pentagon Papers, for ex-
ample) would have to return it to the govern-
ment. Failure to comply could mean im-
prisonment for up to seven years. News re-
porters could be brought before official bodies
and citied for contempt for refusing to dis-
close sources of information.
Perhaps the most dangerous provision of
Sections 1121-28 is Section 1124, which would
criminalize the disclosure of classified in-
formation. This would cut off the public from
a vast amount of information that is classi-
fied for no more substantial reason than the
handy availability of a classification stamp.
Former Supreme Court Justice Arthur Gold-
berg has mild that in his opinion 75% of
classified information does not fall within
the category of information that properly
should be classified.
Mansfield and Scott would be willing to
eliminate or modify 12 other subject areas in
the bill thet have drawn persistent criticism.
These include the imposition of death for a
category of crimes, the . narrowing of in-
sanity as a defense against a criminal charge.
the so-called Watergate defense granted to
public officials who violate the law, and a
wiretap provision that Would reaffirm the
authority ,pf federal officials, under some cir-
cumstances, to conduct electronic surveil-
lance without a warrant. The two Senate
leaders 'deo would be willing to drop a pro-
vision that would give undercover agents
greater license to entrap Suspects, and a sec-
tion on the dissemination a obscene mate-
rial.
In ite eentencing provisions. S 1 favors
harsher y enalties, more certain imprison-
ment and less emphasis on alternatives to
Incarceration, all of which run counter to
recommendations of the American Bar Assn.'s
Committee. on Criminal Justice Standards
and Goals Mansfield and Scott, in their com-
promise e: fort, said these sections should be
-shaped no," by which they apparently mean
"notified.
If the compromises Urged by the two
Senate leaders; were accepted, the legislation
would be improved substantially. That is
not the same thing as Saying, as Mansfield
and Scott suggested, that the remainder
of the bill (90% was the figure they used)
ehould be passed.
In many respects, the legislation would
rationalize and improve the criminal-justice
system. Cneetructing A federal election would
be a crane, a significant provision after
Watergate. Victims of violent crimes would
be compensated. Sentences would come
under appellate review to correct disparities.
Like offenses would become suhject to like
oeritences The bill would restrict inquiries
Into the seeUtti history Of the victim 'of a
sex offense, and 'would 'expand the law to
ineligle sex offenses against males. Sex dis-
crimination would become a civil-rights
offense. The legislation woule provide for
extensive consolidation of federal criminal
laws, and wotild outline, for the first time,
the Mule of the criminal-justice system for
the guidance of the courts, enforcement aft-
eials and officers of correction agencies.
These and other improvements are stressed
in the argument for :compromise to secure
the passage of El 1, which, its supporters con-
tend, is largely a noncontroversial moderni-
zing of a long-antiquated system.
But even if the Mansfield-Scott com-
promises were adopted, the bill contains
many other sections that would raise serious
difficulties. Carole -E. Goldberg, acting pro-
fessor of law at UCLA, illuminates these
problems in a comparative analysis of S 1
and legislation -introduced In the House to
revise the criminal code. The House bill (HR
10950), sponsored by three members of the
National Commission on the Reform of the
Federal Criminal Laws, reflects the advanced
thinking of that commission. Hundreds of
significant differences distinguish the two
measures, to the credit of the House version.
S 1 would make it a crime for a person in
time of war, and with intent to aid the
enemy or to interfere with the ability of the
United States to engage in war or defense
activities, to give a false statement about
"losses, plans, operations or conduct of the
military forces of the -United States, of an
associate nation or of the enemy." It also
would punish a- false statement about a
civilian or military catastrophe or "any
other matter of fact that, if believed, would
be likely to affect the strategy or tactics of
the military forces of the United States or
would be likely to create a general panic..
A
A statute so loosely drawn would give the
government power to impose criminal lia-
bility on the press for good-faith errors on a
wide variety of subejcts. The House bill would
elimiriate this provision.
In S 1, "time of war" is not defined. The
House bill defines war as congressionally
declared war, and this is a vital difference,
affecting a wide category of crimes.
-Sabotage under section 1111 in S 1 in-
duties damage to any property "peculiarly
suited to national defense," and damage to
any "public facility." Under this section. al-
most any public demonstration would be
subject to criminal sanctions, at the caprice
of a prosecutor. HR 10850, in contrast, would
limit the definition of sabotage to damage to,
or interference with. "military property" and
facilities engaged in whole or in part in mili-
tary production. Similarly, definitions of lame
applying to other public disorders are strict-
ly defined in the House bill; incitement to
riot would have to lead to "immediate un-
tearful action," for example. Under 8 1, as
few as 10 persons involved in a disturbance
could constitute a riot.
Many additional sections of S 1, if exam-
ined closely, undermine the contention of
supporters of the legislation that most of it
concerns only competent reordering of law.
The board of trustees of the Los Angeles Bar
Assn. says that S 1, "as proposed, would rad-
ically alter existing law, subject areas pre-
viously protected by the First Amendment to
criminal sanctions, and reduce the availa-
bility of procedural protections and defenses
to criminal charges." The Society of Amer-
ican Law Teachers says the bill is "riddled
with defeets." The Assn. of the Bar of the
City of New York says the measure as it
relates to defense secrets and espionage un-
dercuts the First Amendment.
Reorganization of federal criminal laws is
important, but it is not critically impor-
tant; there is no compelling need to rush
this legislation into existence. Interpreta-
tions may differ on hundreds of 'specific pro-
visions in this massive bill, but there is no
doubt whatever that the measure as a whole,
in its present form, would fundamentally
alter the relationship between government
and the people. It would accomplish this by
greatly increasing the power of the executive
branch to control information. It is infor-
mation on whieh the sovereignty of the peo-
ple depends.
We do not think that so complicated a bin
of such length, with so many disputable pro-
visions throughout, can be amended satis-
factorily, nor do we think the -Mansfield-
Scott proposal is a solution.
The prudent course would be to withdraw
the bill for a complete redrafting.
THE MARONITES OF LEBANON
HON. JAMES G. O'HARA
or MICHIGAN
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Thursday, March 11, 1076
Mr. O'HARA. Mr. Speaker, the Maron-
ites of Lebanon are a people with a re-
markable history. The Maronites are
Christians who have long been affiliated
with the Catholic Church, while adhering
to the Maronite rite. For centuries they
have served as a geographical and spiri-
tual outpost of Christianity.
It is self-evident that the Maronite
Catholics of Lebanon had to have a spe-
cial brand of ability, toughness, and
shrewdness to survive. Their difficult cir-
cumStances have been dramatized by the
bloody civil war of the last year.
In this century, many Maronites have
emigrated to the United States and
Syria. The majority of Lebanese and
Syrians in the metropolitan Detroit area
are Maronites and they form the largest
such community in the Nation. Indeed,
the distinguished titular head of the
Maronites in the United States, Bishop
Frances M. Zayek, has his chancery in
Detroit.
Foreign correspondent Jonathan C.
Randal, writing in the March 7, 1976
issue of the Washington Post, had a
probing historical and political analysis
of the position of the Maronites. His
analysis deserves our attention and un-
der leave to extend my remarks in the
RECORD, the article follows:
LEBANESE STRIFE SOURS MAROSHTES ow
THEIR FUTURE
(By Jonathan C. Randal)
BEIRET.--We Maronites built Lebanon,"
the cultivated Lebanese gentleman said
matter-of-factly. "We bear Inore than our
share of responsibility for its destruction and
our best sons are leaving it." ,
These are pessimistic words, even in these
somber days when Lebanese are weighing the
heavy costs of a ChM AVIV that has shaken
faith in the country's future both here and
abroad.
But the speaker's pessimism reflected a
feeling that luck?or perhaps more ac-
curately, shrewd leadership?bad finally
deserted the Maronite Catholics after more
than a millenium,
Historian Kemal Sante, a professor at the
American University of Beirut, believes the
Maronites over the centuries have shown a
peasant shrewdness for survival that made
them "the only Christians living in the Is-
Approved For Release 2001/09/03 : CIA-RDP77M00144R000800020025-8
4 - D 77M00144R00
Q1 (2- o8--,----
s $ $ 00
_...
Approved F egrs'eL2t10-1/09/C1
United States
of America
Congressional Record
PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE 94
th
CONGRESS, SECOND SESSION
Vol. 122
WASHINGTON, TUESDAY, MARCH 9, 1976
No. 33
The Senate met at 11 a.m. and was
called to order by Hon. GEORGE McGov-
ERN, a Senator from the State of South
Dakota.
PRAYER
The Chaplain, the Reverend Edward
L. R. Elson, D.D., offered the following
prayer:
Let us Pray:
0 Lord, our God, create in us clean
hearts, and renew a right spirit within
us, as we dedicate our lives to Thy serv-
ice this day. Renew our confidence in the
far off divine event toward which the
course of man and nations moves. Keep
us alert and expectant for that break-
through in history, that Godly interven-
tion, which will turn all men and all na-
tions to live as children of Thy king-
dom. Confirm our faith in the Lord of
History through an understanding of the
days of our own years, through compan-
ionship with great souls, through mo-
ments of quiet withdrawal, through con-
stant communion with nature, with his-
tory, and with Thee. Help us so to live
with Thee this day that at the end we
may join the Psalmist in saying:
"0 praise the Lord, all ye nations:
praise Him, all ye people. For His merci-
ful kindness is great toward us: and the
truth of the Lord endureth for ever.
Praise ye the Lord."?(Psalm 117).
Amen.
APPOINTMENT OF ACTING PRESI-
DENT PRO TEMPORE
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk
will please read a communication to the
Senate from the President pro tempore
(Mr. EASTLAND).
The assistant legislative clerk read the
following letter:
U.S. SENATE,
PRESIDENT PRO TEMPORE,
Washington, D.C., March 9, 1976.
To the Senate:
Being temporarily absent from the Senate
on official duties, I appoint Hon. GEORGE Mc-
GOVERN, a Senator from the State of South
Dakota, to perform the duties of the Chair
during my absence.
JAMES 0. EASTLAND,
President pro tempore.
Mr. McGOVERN thereupon took the
chair as Acting President pro tempore.
Senate
THE JOURNAL
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent that the reading of
the Journal of the proceedings of Fri-
day, March 5, 1976, be dispensed with.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tem-
pore. Without objection, it is so ordered.
COMMITTEE MEETINGS DURING
SENATE SESSION
_Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent that all committees
be authorized to meet during the session
of the Senate today.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tern-
pore. Without objection, it is so ordered.
CONSIDERATION OF CERTAIN
MEASURES ON THE CALENDAR
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent that the Senate turn
to the consideration of calendar items
Nos. 651, 652, and 653.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tern-
pore. Without objection, it is so ordered.
DISAPPROVAL OF DEFERRAL OF
CERTAIN BUDGET AUTHORITY
RELATING TO THE YOUTH CON-
SERVATION CORPS
The resolution (S. Res. 385) disap-
proving the deferral of certain bue get
authority relating to the Youth Conser-
vation Corps, was considered and agreed
to, as follows:
Resolved, That the Senate disapproves the
proposed deferral of budget authority for the
Youth Conservation Corps (numbered D 76-
101).
DISAPPROVAL OF DEFERRAL OF
CERTAIN BUDGET AUTHORITY
RELATING TO INDIAN SCHOOL
CONSTRUCTION
The resolution (S. Res. 388) disapprov-
ing the proposed deferral of budget au-
thority for construction grants to public,
schools in Indian reservation areas, was
considered and agreed to, as follows:
Resolved, That the Senate disapproves the
proposed deferral of budget authority (defer-
ral numbered D 76-103) for construction
grants to public schools in Indian reservation
areas set forth in the special message trans-
mitted by the President to the Congress on
February 6, 1976, under section 1013 of the
Impoundment Control Act of 1974.
DISAPPROVAL OF DEFERRAL OF
BUDGET AUTHORITY FOR IN-
DIAN HEALTH FACILITIES
The Senate proceeded to consider the
resolution (S. Res. 366) disapproving the
proposed deferral of budget authority for
Indian health facilities, which had been
reported from the Committee on Appro-
priations with amendments as follows:
On line 2, after "Deferral" insert "D 76-39
and";
On line 4, after "on" insert "July 26, 1975,
and";
Bo as to make the resolution read:
Resolved, That the Senate disapproves the
proposed deferral of budget authority (Defer-
ral D 76-39 and D 76-97) for Indian health
facilities set forth in the special message
transmitted by the President to the Congress
on July 26, 1975, and January 23, 1 6, unfler
section 1013 of the Impoundmen ontrof ct
of 1974. t
The amen
The resol
agreed to.
amended, was agreed
8.1
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, on
esterday, the distinguished Republican
leader and I met with various members
of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary
and their staffs. The purpose was to fol-
low up on the statement which we issued
a few weeks ago, directed to all members
of the Committee on the Judiciary, and
to seek a way to break an impasse on
S. 1, which has generated so much con-
troversy from both the right and the left.
This was done in our capacities as the
Senate's leaders and, certainly, was in-
tended in no way to infringe upon the
responsibilities of the Senate Committee
on the Judiciary. Furthermore, I could
not speak as one with authority on sub-
stance, because I am not a lawyer. But
I am interested in legislation and, on the
basis of the commitment made that the
joint leadership would meet with the var-
ious members of the Committee on the
Judiciary, that meeting was held in my
office on yesterday afternoon.
When the meeting convened, I made
the following statement:
82965
Approved For Release 2001/09/03 : CIA-RDP77M00144R000800020025=8
Approved For Release 2.08,1/9NOLEgtil3DID7MHAR000800020%5(pch 9,
S 2966 CONILTESN 1976
GENV.ENN N: I asked to meet with you on
5. 1 to express my concern about the status of
the Matter.
First, I agree that there is need to bring
revision to the Criminal Code, to provide
more uniformity, consistency, and logic to
its complex and often confusing applications.
In that sense, I am in full accord with the
Brown Commission's study and recommenda-
tions.
I am interested in S. 1 as well because it
contains two features which I consider of
paramount importance to the Criminal, Code
One would provide a program to provide COM-
pensation to crime vletims?an endeavor
which I have advocated for years, and which.
if my memory serves me correctly, the Sen-
ate has passed on five different occasions,
but the House has taken no action on.
Second, I am interested in those provisions
which would stiffen penalties and impose
mandatory jail terms against gun criminals,
those who not only commit crime but who
resort to wcwjons of violence in perpetrating
their offs nse.
The carrying of a gun in the commis-
sion of a crime, under my proposal, would
be a separate offense. I repeat, a sentence
imposed for this infraction of the law
would rot run concurrently but would
be in addition to the sentence imposed
for the crime. That, bill, likewise, has
passed this body once, at least. It has not
been taken up in the House:
therefore, support a great deal of what
is contained in S. 1?perhaps 90 percent of
its contents. But there ere provisions I can-
not support and because Of them I would
vote against the measure unless some sub-
stantial changes or deletions are made.
It was with that view in mind that I ap-
proachect Senator Scott the distinguished
Republican leadersin mid February. Togeth-
er we delineated some?let me repeat that
word, some?of the provisions of the bill that
are acutely sensitive, controversial or which
we find particularly offensive. There are prob-
ably others.
In any case, it has become clear to both
of us, L believe, that unless the various and
diverse interests come together soon on these
Issues and on the question of what to do
?about them, there is little or no hope for
any measure of criminal law reform. More-
over, tho House has licit acted and probably
will not act unless there is movement on this
side,
So what I suggest?and I think Senator
Scott jcins me in this?is that this bill be
rewritten to extract as much as possible that
impairs its present' form: that, it be rewrit-
ten and introduced as a brand new criminal
Code reform bill. If that is possible, then I
would hope the job can be done as soon as
possible?this week perhaps. If not, then I
think we might well cOnsider the issue dead.
For the longer these matters linger, then the
longer the dissension and disaffection remain
and neither frankly reflect well upon this in-
stitutio a.
Gentlemen. I am not a member of the
Committee. I have made my suggestions
along with Senator Scott but I make no
pretenses about what might be done sub-
stantsvely in all respects to achieve this ob-
jective. 'I here are times, however, when we
can agree on substance and, it no agreement
is
possible, then we can vote?up or down?
on these issues on which there is no accord
If we can go that far?to at least identify
and act upon the issues involved in Criminal
law reform?it will be a major achievement
for the Senate.
The question as to What to do about S. 1?;
if anything?reposes in the Judiciary Com-
mittee.
Mr. HUGH SCOTT. Mr. President, will
the distinguished majority leader yield?
Mr. MANSFIELD. Yes, indeed.
Mr. HUGH SCOTT. Mr President, I
simply rise to say that I am in general
agreement with what the distinguished
majority leader has said. Part of ?Ur
Purpose has been to advance and pro-
mote _legislation. This bill has many fea-
tures which are objectionable to many
of us, including myself, as I have said
before in colloquy on this floor.
rwould like to see that part of the bill
which consists of a simple recodification
of existing law passed.
I would favor the two elements men-
tioned specifically by the distinguished
majority leader, and I would favor other
elements in the bill. I would not favor
the very strict provisions which, in my
opinion, impinge on the freedom of the
press. There are other objectionable pro-
visions.
I think the essential point to remem-
ber is that the staffs of the various Sen-
ators on the Judiciary Committee have
been in touch with each other for a pe-
riod of time in an effort to work out a
markup of a bill.
We have suggested to them that they
let us know Within the next 2 weekt
whether such a markup is possible. If et
is, we should proceed with it. If it is not
I agree that the bill would have little
chance in the other body in view of the
delay in this body.
As to the use of my own time, MI
President, I ask unanimous consent that
I may transfer it to the distinguished
Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. BARTLETT)
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tem-
pore. Without objection, it is se orderee
The Senator from Oklahoma is rec-
ognized.
ECONOMIC AID TO AFRICAN
NATIONS
Mr. BARTLETT. Mr. President,
thank the distinguished minority leadei
The clistiaguished Senator from Cali-
fornia (Mr. TENNEY) On Thursday of
last week spoke in this Chamber In
favor of economic aid to Zambia and
Mozambique.
First, let me make it clear that I dts-
agreee completely with the apartheid
Policies of Rhodesia and South Africa,
as well as the many internal policies of
Russia and China which violate basic
freedoms.
The distinguished Senator said tlit t
economic aid is the right way to estab-
lish peace in Africa, to help avoid a
racial war?a war that I believe might
spread to South America and could
strain racial harmony in the Unita cl
States.
Maraist Samora Macfiel, President of
Mozambique, has declared a state of
war and closed the border with Rho-
desia. There have been recent moors
that indicate Cuban soldiers disambarh-
- Ing, Soviet ships arriving in the port of
Beira, apparently with Soviet arms in-
cluded in their cargoes, and that Soviet
technicians are present in Mozambique.
Mozambique has been a training area
for guerrilla activity and its role as a
staging area for active military incur-
sions in Rhodesia will increase. Presi-
dent Machel's government is clearly
abetting a racial holocaust in southern
Africa and may be getting ready to
throw on gasoline and apply a match.
Closing the Mozainbieue-Rhodesia bor-
der will strain the economy of Mozam-
bique, and is critical to Rhodesia's econ-
omy as well.
Obviously, economic aid from the
United States to Mozambique would aid
its effort to mobilize for war by lighten-
ing the economic burdens and would be
helpful to underpin its military capa-
bilities.
Because the distinguished Senator says.
this proposed American economic aid
would help bring peace to Africa, would
he explain to the Senator from Oklahoma
why he desires to help a Communist
country such as Mozambique and why
such economic aid would not better en-
able Mozambique, Russia, and Cuba to
escalate a bitter war between the races
in Rhodesia and Southern Africa?
Certainly, economic aid to Zambia, as
well as neighboring Zaire, both moderate
,well
friendly to this country, is in
order. Both countries have opposed
Soviet and Cuban intervention in Angola
and their aggression to implant blatantly
the MPLA as the government of Angola.
The economies of Zambia and Zaire
are seriously distressed. The price of
copper, which represents 90 percent of
Zambia's foreign exchange and 70 per-
cent of Zaire's, is unusually low. In addi-
tion, the MPLA in Angola, by controlling
the Benguela railroad which transports-
the copper to the Atlantic port of Lobito,
controls the life blood of both countries.
The passage of the Tunney amend-
ment on December 19, 1975, which cut off
military aid to the UNITA-FNLA forces,
gave significant military advantage to
MPLA's Soviet equipped Cuban Army,
encouraged the South Africans on De-
cember 23 ,1975, to disengage from the
Cubans and on January 12, 1976, to
withdraw to the area of the Angola-
Namibia border, and signaled the end of
the conventional war with the UNITA-
FNLA forces fighting for constitutional
government, free 'elections, and basic
freedoms.
My distinguished friend wants to fight
military power in? Africa with economic
aid. I ask him why his amendment cut-
ting off military aid te the UNITA-FNLA
forces did not merely substitute eco- -
nomic aid for military aid to these forces,
or would he have preferred giving eco-
nomic aid to the MPLA? Does the Sena-
tor favor containing Russia and the
Warsaw Pact nations with economic aid
rather than NATO military forces?
Wkthotit using American troops or
civilians in Africa, we must remember
the Teddy Roosevelt philosophy of "walk
softly but carry a big stick"?and that
the big stick he referred to was not eco-
nomic aid.
Mr. President, I suggest the absence
of a quorum.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tem-
pore. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk pro-
ceeded to call the roll?
Mr. GlIarrIN. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent that the order for the
quorum call be rescinded.
Approved For Release 2001/09/03 : CIA-RDP77M00144R000800020025-8
E 1106
Approved For Release
CONGRES
the justifiable ground that lawmakers need
"inside" information to keep abreast of
what those sneaky policymakers and bureau-
crats are up to. (The "leak" is really Con-
gress' and the public's best friend, because
it keeps officials from hiding what the public
ought to know.)
Yet, by a resounding margin earlier this
month, the House voted to clamp a lid on its
own CIA report, which already had largely
leaked out anyway, and acted outraged when
CBS reported Daniel Schorr slipped the full
report to a New York newspaper.
It would all be very funny were it not for
two things:
First, by its own self-diversion, Congress,
especially the House, is now chasing its tail -
in a fruitless exercise to find out who leaked
the report to Schorr, when It should be con-
centrating on the CIA's violations of the law,
the CIA's and the FBI's gross abuses of indi-
vidual rights, and the negligence of various
Presidents who allowed it (even abetted It)
to happen.
Second, there is a move afoot in both
houses, with the support of Rep. Sam Strat-
ton (D-N.Y.) and Sen. Robert Taft Jr. (R-
Ohio), to cite reporter Schorr for contempt
of Congress.
Aside from the pure asininity of this exer-
cise, it demonstrates an appalling lack of
respect for and sensitivity to the First
Amendment's guarantees of free speech and
a free press.
When the ,day arrives that an American
reporter is punished for revealing the mis-
deeds and errors of public officials, that's the
day we had all better light out for the moon.
If there is any quarrel to be joined with
Daniel Schorr. it is over the way he handled
the report after it was leaked.
Instead of selling it to the Village Voice
(with the proceeds of the sale going to the
Reporter's Committee for Freedom of the
Press), Schorr would have been better ad-
vised to release it openly under his own
name?preferably in a byline article.
"Selling" such news under covert circum-
stances, even for a worthwhile cause, blots
the integrity of the news itself and blemishes
the craft of journalism.
But, apart from that, what has Schorr
done wrong?
He certainly had no venal or self-serving
interest
Indeed, he was motivated by one of Jour-
naltsm's highest principles: the duty to re-
veal to the people the negligence, misjudg-
ments and sordid capers of public officials
and bureaucrats.
Since when is a democracy so effete that
it cannot bear to know what mischief its of-
ficeholders and public servants are capable
of?
As for the vaunted "secret" report itself,
Schorr and other reporters already had dis-
closed vast portions of it. The Ford Admin-
istration had leaked information contained
in it. And the Rockefeller Commission had
covered some of the same ground
None of the information containes1 ':.n 1t?
by even the remotest stretch of the imagina-
tion?could be said to be damaging to na-
tional security.
On the contrary, in revealing the depths
of sordiness to which some of our national
policymakers and intelligence chiefs are cap-
able of plunging, the report served a highly
useful public purpose: It warned us that in-
- telligence operatives left unsupervised are
perfectly apt to run amok.
Yet this valuable lesson is now being lost
in all of the furor over the leak of the House
report.
? And the Sam Strattons and Robert Tufts
are doing the nation no service by trying to
divert its attention from that stark lesson.
CIA-RDP77M00144R000800020025-8
AL RECORD-- Extensions of Remarks March 5, 1976
S. 1?CRIMINAL JUSTICE REFORM
ACT OF 19'75
HON. ROBERT P. GRIFFIN
OF MICHIGAN
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
Friday, March 5, 1976
Mr. GRIFFIN. Mr. President, the value
of a codified system of criminal laws has
long been recognized by ancient and
modern societies. A well-organized crimi-
nal code not only provides better notice
of what the criminal laws are, but it
can serve to deter crime and to accord
more justice and fairer treatment to all
citizens.
Strange as it may seem, the United
States has never had a codified system of
Federal criminal laws. Throughout the
200 years of our Nation's history, the
Federal criminal laws have been written
piecemeal, as Congress has responded on
a case-by-case basis to particular prob-
lems.
The result is a hodge-podge of statutes
which reflect a good deal _of conflict,
overlapping, and confusion. To cope with
the situation, Congress in 1966 created a
National Commission on Reform .of the
Federal Criminal Laws, commonly re-
ferred to as the Brown Commission.
After the Brown Commission com-
pleted its work in 19'71, several versions
of a comprehensive Federal criminal code
were submitted to the Senate but died.
Finally, in January 1975, a new bill de-
signed to consolidate all of the earlier
efforts?including the 8,000 pages of
testimony, statements, and exhibits from
the Senate Judiciary Committee?was
Introduced in the 94th Congress. This is
S. 1, the Criminal Justice Reform Act.
Recognizing the importance of, and
great need for codification, the joint bi-
partisan leadership of the Senate, of
which I am a part, agreed to cosponsor
the legislation. However, I would be less
than candid if I were not to concede that
the leadership was not fully aware then
of the controversy that would later de-
velop around a few of the many provi-
sions included in the 799-page bill?con-
troversy that now threatens prospects for
enactment of the bill as a whole, 95 per-
cent of which is nonoontroversial.
Unfortunately, some of the critics of
S. 1 have overlooked altogether the fun-
damental purpose and merit of the legis-
ltaion. For example, in the January 1976
edition of Judicature, a highly respected
legal publication, Theodore Vorhees, as-
sistant dean of the Law School at Catho-
lic University, and a former member of
the Brown Commision, warned that--
To vote down S. 1 would doom the country
to a continuation of totally unsatisfactory
criminal law at the Federal level and a dearth
of reform in many State and local jurisdic-
tions.
Dean Vorhees further observed that?
Opponents of S. 1 have overlooked two fac-
tors of great importance. First, mere defeat
of S. 1 would leave intact many of the provi-
sions to which they are opposed since they
are carryovers from existing law. Second, and
more important, the critics have been ig-
norant of, or have ignored, the fact that at
least ninety percent of the provisions of the
bill constitute law reform that is virtually
beyond the realm of serious controversy.
It is significant that other members of
the Brown Commission, including its
Chairman, the former Ger "Pat" Brown,
have agreed with Dean Vorhees. In a
recent letter to the New York Times,
Governor Brown wrote:
I have watched with deep concern the ef-
forts . . . to kill S. 1 . . . That bill incor-
porates a very substantial portion of the rec-
ommendations of our Commission, and 95
per cent of its provisions constitute a major
improvement over aisting Federal criminal
law.
While Governor Brown objects to sev-
eral provisions, he urges modification?
not defeat?of the bill. To defeat the bill,
he emphasized:
Would be a severe blow to criminal law
reform in this country.
This view is shared by Louis B. Swartz,
presently the Benjamin Franklin profes-
sor of law at the University of Pennsyl-
vania, who has written:
If there ever was a counsel of despair, of
throwing the baby out with the bath water,
it is the suggestion . . . that S. 1 be aban-
doned rather than amended, as it easily can
be, to remedy its defects.
He opined that he would "make the
bill acceptable" in 1 week.
On February 9, the Senate's majority
and minority leaders?Senators Mans-
field and Scott?who are among the co-
sponsors of S. 1, wrote to members of the
Judiciary Committee and expressed their
concern about the apparent impasse that
has developed with respect to the bill.
After noting the great importance of the
bill, S. 1, and the fact that 95 percent of
Itis noncontroversial they proposed that
the committee report a new or modified
version of the bill which would omit the
few controversial provisions of S. 1.
I believe this has great merit and I
have associated myself with the sugges-
tion. Such an approach could enable
Congress finally to reach the laudable
and important objective of codifying
most of our criminal laws, a goal which
the Brown Commission and many others
have worked very hard and very long to
achieve.
GEORGE B. STORER
SPEECH OF
HON. CLAUDE PEPPER
OF FLORIDA
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Thursday, March 4, 1976
Mr. PEPPER. Mr. Speaker, on Novem-
ber 4 one of the noble and notable men
of America passed away, George B.
Storer. Mr. Storer, at the time of his
death was cofounder and retired chair-
man of Storer Broadcasting Co. He would
have been 76 years old 6 days after his
death. Mr. Storer was a power in the field
of broadcasting and the cofounder of
Storer Broadcasting Co., one of the first
and largest group broadcasters. He was
always prominent in civic affairs, one of
the principal supporters tif the Miami
Heart Institute and the Storer Founda-
tion for Medical Research. Indeed, he was
Approved For Release 2001/09/03 : CIA-RDP77M00144R000800020025-8
Approved For Release 2001/09/03 : CIA-RDP77M00144R000800020025-8
March 5, 1976 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD Extensions of Remarks
lives have been brightened up and made
more tolerable or how much this would have
cost to provide their sereices on a paid basis.
Now these people are being told they cannot
continue to enjoy their Senior centers. . ."
(Mrs. Helm Iltrsch, Chairlady, Social Action
Committee, Serdor Center of Far Rockaway,
Far Rockaway, istev York)
There is no need to add anything, after
these pois,nant andteartfelt comments. They
come from our eldtly citizens who speak
from tiler own expetence. We need to lis-
ten to what they say nd to react to their
request. 'Me need to h or them by acting
as they wish us to act, D. repeal the Means
Test For Senior Citizens!
EMBARGO LI
HON. HENRY J. HUE
OF ILLINOLEI '?k
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTA ES
Thursday, March 4,_1976
Mr. HYDE of Illinois. Mr. Spe er,
yesterday this House voted to lift e
embargo on trade with Vietnam. I St
am appalled at the double standard o
those who express outrage at the abuses
of civil liberals in Chile, the Philippines,
Argentina, and Indonesia, and yet who
are so insensitive to the depradation.
upon human decency in Communist-
dominatixi countries such as Vietnam.
Their selective indignation is always di-
rected against the "right," and their
myopic compassion is directed toward
the "left" Opression is the same no mat-
ter where it exists, and I question if one
is really opposed to slavery anywhere If
one does:a't oppose it everywhere. ,
On the subject of trading with Com-
munist Vietnam, I have recently had oc-
casion to read a parable written some
years ago by Joe Bartlett, for whom all
of us in the House have such respect and
affection. I trust my colleagues will see
its appropriateness to the lifting of the
trade embargo with Vietnam:
STRANGE LEGEND: CURI0178 RIDDLE
A parable by Joe Bartlett)
Congressman Carlton had the strangest
dream.
Sitting on the south portico of the Capitol,
Rex Carlton had watched the descending
sun skewer itself on the famous obelisk that
is the Washington Monutnent.
At least an hour had passed since four
bells had signaled the adjournment of the
House of Representatives. The legislative
scene was deserted for another day, except
for Representative Carlton, who had lingered
behind to indulge himself in the luxury of
some uninterrupted meditation.
Like most congressmen, Carlton's days
were suc:a a maelstrom of entreaties and
demands, diagnoses and decisions, that the
thing for which he felt the greatest need
was simply time to think.
This day he felt a particular, need to re-
examine his reasoning on a matter that
seemed to him so clear; so obviously- wrong.
Trading with an enemy was, to Carlton,
such an abominable practice, he was stunned
to learn there were those who professed in-
genuous support of sending supplies to those
engaged in deadly combat with our own
countrymen.
This incredible point of view had been
impressed. upon the congressman by a bar-
rage of situperation that had been zeroed
in on him since recent publicity concerning
his efforts to legislate an embargo upon trade
with North Vietnam.
For time =watched. Carlton immersed
himself in the moat critical introspection. He
tested his reasoning and tormented his own
logic from every attack be could imagine.
He could dismiss the harangues of the
avowed communist sympathizers, though he
despised them for their perfidy.
He could find a sickening pity for the pious
Pollyanna who could somehow put the
"brotherhood" of this life, above the very
life of his brother.
But he was unprepared for the perplexing
protests from average, ordinary, God-fearing,
well-meaning, run-of-Main -Street citizens!
As he lingered in thought, the warmth of
she fading sun, and the weariness of the long
day, crept up on Carlton. And a kindly slum-
,ber carried him away.
It was, of course, only a dream, but this
is how it went:
Par away, in the land of Samaria, there
lived a woodworker named Naivius. The
source of his fame, and his hope for fortune,
were in the timbers he marketed from his
small grove of the finest trees to be found
within several days journey.
So tall and straight were these trees, and
so skilled was Naivius in working the lumber,
that it was eagerly sought by those who would
build the very best. Wielding an adz of his
wn design, with strokes so strong and sure
man could match them. Naivius finished
b ms so perfect and precise they were recog-
ni and valued throughout the land.
T reputation reached the Roman au-
thor s in Judaea. who required for their
own =it the better things to be had.
So, to etTaitrius in Samaria a message was
dispatchek commanding him, in the name
of the R0/114,1 Procurator, to prepare a ship-
ment of hiaspnest timbers, and promising
that if theyere promptly and skillfully
finished, a nished, a han me compensation would be
forthcoming. 4
The message wat eceived by Naivius with
mixed emotions. prospect of a ready
profit was pleasing e eh. but the Romans
were a disconcerting d Mien over the peo-
ple, and he doubted tha e should do busi-
ness with them.
Tales of tyranny by the urator, and by
the High Priest. troubled Na s.
"Why send supplies that sld enhance
the power of the Procurator's thorny in
Jerusalem?," he debated with him
The same question he put to his ily, to
his helpers, and to his neighbors. Atilt their
rebuttal was as plausible as frs. was
prenonderant. --,\
"Naivius," they rejoined, "your timbers
not irredernents of conflict. They will not a
to the areenal of the oppressors.
"In truth," they persuaded, "these timbers
will surely be used to build shelters and ac-
commodation.; for the poor people of Judaea.
"It should be gratifying to you Naivius, to
know the products of your labor will be serv-
ing to better the lot of the hapless multitudes
with whom you sympathize.
"Even in the hands of tyrants, your vied
mores will be a great benevolence unto the
peonle. They will see your kindness and they
will know that Naivius is a good Samaritan.
"And we will nrcemer 1"
His own anorehennions so thoroughly re-
jected, Naivete; and his company went to work
to fill the order.
Long and well did theyeetber, and soon the
coneienment was finished and on its way to
Jerusalem.
Time passed, but still the earnest Naivius
was plagued with a puzzlement about his
dealings with the Romans.
Finally, he would no longer be satisfied
but that he should go to Jerusalem to SOO
what were the good works to which his tim-
bers had been put.
E1105
Journeying to the south, Naivius had vi-
sions of fine public buildings being supported
by timbers of his distinctive hew: Shelters
for the huddled masses; sanctuaries for the
innocent and the infirm; places of learning
for the children.
These happy anticipations hastened his
steps and he reached Jerusalem just as dark-
ness and the quiet of the Sabbath settled
over the city.
Coming to the top of a hill, and being
somewhat out of breath, Naivius stopped to
rest for a moment. A crossbeam lying on the
ground provided a handy place to sit down,
but hardly had he sat than his hand felt a
familiar pattern in the wood. Even in the
dimming light his eyes confirmed it to be
one of his own.
Excitedly he explored its surface to try to
determine for what use it was intended. Too
dark to be sure, but above the crossing beam
he thought he could make out the words:
"The King of the Jews."
Strange legend; curious riddle; what could
it mean?
In the light of the morning, he would be
sure.
Around the campfire? of the night, soldiers,
then, as now, discussed the ways of war. And
then, as now, they pondered the words of
Moses, and the laws he said should be ob-
served in war:
". . . When thou comest nigh unto a city
to fight against it, then proclailn peace unto
it . . . and if it will make no peace with
thee, but will make war against thee, then
thou shalt besiege it." 1
". . . and thou shall; build bulwarks
against the city that maketh war with thee.
until it be subdued."
Amen.
MISDIRECTED FUROR
HON. MICHAEL HARRINGTON
OF MASSACHUSETTS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Thursday, March 4, 1976
Mr. HARRINGTON. Mr. Speaker, I
was pleased to read a recent column by
David Hess of the Knight Newspaper
chain condemning the current preoccu-
pation of some Members of Congress
with the leak of the House CIA report.
As Mr. Hess notes, the impending in-
vestigation of the leak not only offends
first amendment printiples, but also
serves to detract from the far more im-
rtant controversy surrounding the
S. intelligence community which the
report sought to address. I commend
Mr. ess for his forthright resistance to
the ti-leak hysteria that currently
grips e Congress and much of the
Fourth tate; the article is reprinted
below to e benefit of my colleagues:
FUROR 0 LEAKING SECRETS OFF TARGET
WAsemearo The trouble with the
clamorous deb over what to do about the
news leaks of t House CIA report is that
lawmakers are f sing on the wrong issue.
In a city wher ews leaks are the rule
rather than the ex tion, Congress' "horri-
fied" reaction to th leale of its own report
borders on the absur
In fact, it puts Con ess in the defensible
position of condoning a ouble standard.
Congress literally dote on leaks from the
executive branch?either 41rectly or through
the news media?and eneourages them on
1 Deuteronomy 20-10.
2 Deuteronomy 20-20.
Approved For Release 2001/09/03 : CIA-RDP77M00144R000800020025-8