INTELLIGENCE AUTHORIZATION ACT 1976

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP79M00983A001800060002-2
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 9
• Document Creation Date: December 16, 2016
• Document Release Date: March 31, 2005
• Sequence Number: 2
• Publication Date: June 22, 1977
• Content Type: OPEN

opt3A001800060002-2 ? S 10499
Approved FebRgengsieffE/1R3kCclai51:212ma
June 22, 1977
Dick Harris, and on the minority side,
Harold Brayma,n and others, who par-
ticipated in a fine presentation. I thank
particularly the chairman of the com-
mittee (Mr. RANDOLPH) .
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President,
I thank the managers of the bill on both
sides of the aisle (Mr. GRAVEL and Mr.
DomENIci) and also the chairman and
ranking member of the committee and
other members of the committee, for the
superb job they have done in managing
the bill; and prior to that, for their way
of conducting the hearings and marking
up the bill and making it possible for the
Senate to act so quickly.
Mr. GRAVEL. I thank the majority
leader. I am happy to have contributed
to his keeping on schedule.
Mr. BAKER. Will the Senator yield so
I may join the majority leader in paying
my respects to the Senator from Alaska
and the Senator from New Mexico for
their outstanding performance on the
floor today. They successfully shepherded
a controversial piece of legislation
through the Senate in a remarkably
short; time, given the complexity of the
measure. I extend to them my congratu-
lations, as I do to the staff who assisted
them in that matter.
Mr. GRAVEL. I thank the Senator
and I yield the floor.
INTELLIGENCE AUTHORIZATION
ACT, 1978
The PRESIDING Oki. J.CER. Under
the previous order, the Senate will turn
to consideration of S. 1539, which the
Clerk will state.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (S. 1539) to authorize appropriations
or fiscal year 1978 for intelligence activities
of the 'U.S. Government, the Intelligence
Community staff, the Central Intelligence
Agency Retirement and Disability System,
and for other purposes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there
objection to the present consideration of
the bill?
There being no objection, the Senate
proceeded to consider the bill.
The PRESIDING OteraCER. The Sen-
ator from Hawaii is recognized.
Mr. CASE. Will the Senator yield for
a unanimous-consent request?
Mr. INOUYE. lain happy to yield.
Mr. CASE. I ask unanimous consent
that during consideration of this bill, the
members of the committee staff desig-
nated by me under Senate Resolution 60
be granted the privilege of the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. INOUYE. Mn President, I ask
unanimous consent that the following
staff members of the Committee on In-
telligence be granted the privilege of the
floor during consideration of this
measure and during any votes, if any, on
the bill: Wiliam G. Miller, Earl D.
Eisenhower, George Pickett, Daniel
Childs, Michael Epstein, Mark Giten-
stein, David Bushong, Elliot Maxwell,
and Thomas Moore.
The PRgSIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, this au-
thorization bill marks an important
milestone, because this is the first time
that the Senate will be able to vote spe-
cifically on moneys for intelligence ac-
tivities of the United States.
During this past year, the Select Com-
mittee on Intelligence devoted a great
deal of time and effort examining all as-
pects of the U.S. intelligence system. The
Budget Authorization Subcommittee,
chaired by Senator WILLIAM D. HATH-
AWAY, the distinguished Senator from
Maine, spent many hours during the last
few months reviewing in detail the in-
telligence community's fiscal year 1978
resource needs. This included, among
other things, an item-by-item review of
all covert action activities?their cost,
risk, and relevance to U.S. policy.
As Members of the Senate are aware,
on behalf of the committee, I sent a let-
ter on May 17 to each Senator inform-
ing him that consistent with the provi-
sions of Senate Resolution 400, the c6m-
mittee's classified report detailing the
items contained in the authorization bill
would be available for any Senator's re-
view in the committee offices, G-308,
Dirksen Senate Office Building. We have
tried to make it possible for every Sen-
ator in the Senate to have the opportu-
nity to review in detail the provisions
contained in the authorization for in-
telligence activities.
(At this point, Mr. DECONCINI assumed
the chair.)
Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, the pres-
en bill before th nate doe no on-
tan any i ? ge aryjporma o
tlie committee is nibited
rom
osm a sus - a
. .in e igenc ac lvi es a this me.
Vursuanu to aenate ffesofutlofl1 400. the
Senate will; at a later time &terminal
. - sis _tale u - ? ?-tion
n eence ac ies hould be disclosed
is in the sub i ?
wan o a the Senate Armed
Services Committee and particularly
IChairman Jomv STENNIS for the co-
operation that he has shown in this first
year of the committee's life. We have
been pioneering in many respects in this
first authorization. New problems arose
every step of the way. Senator STENNIS
and his fellow committee members were
able to help us meet some of the juris-
dictional problems and resolve them in
a way which I think is in the best inter-
est of the Senate.
Mr. President, it is my under
that in the next few we-eke-The se
wricreate a couraprnavt committee to
Senate Select Committee n
nerMh-reVeit-Th-T-th-111ae o ?
-r rargrem-
_year the authoriza ion c um. Tilh s
el iaeyneeraxer.
the
to that committee ra ,
88 -
ton and app-r61311ate acL n
however in the absence of a ilmise_p_eami-
m1E-77-,r committee, the matters contagad
in the authorization bill were handrEaT,
e Armed Services committee an p-
propriations Committee of-TirriroirAp.
Senate Resolution 400 has proved to be
a reasonable set of guidelines for the
work of the Senate Select Committee on
Intelligence. It has provided a way which
makes it possible for the Senate through
its designated committee to have access
to necessary information to write an au-
tliorization bill for necessary secret ac-
tivities. Further, Senate Resolution 400
enables every Senator to have access to
this information. In my view, this process
is a significant step in enabling neces-
sarily secret activities to be conducted
within a constitutional framework. This
is a great advance from the practice of
years past.
Finally, I want to commend Senator
HATHAWAY and the members of the Sub-
committee on Budget Authorization fin?
the excellent work they have done this
past year in making an authorization
process for the intelligence activities for
the United States a practical reality.
Mr. HARRY F. BYRD, JR. Will the
Senator yield?
Mr. INOUYE. I am very happy to yield.
Mr. HARRY F. BYRD, JR. Mr. Presi-
dent, this year for the first time the Sen-
ate is considering legislation to authorize
a budget for the Intelligence community.
Senate Resolution 400 passed during the
last Congress established the ground-
work for this legislation.
I would like to commend the distin-
guished Senator from Hawaii (Mr.
INotrYE) , for his leadership in this pio-
neering effort during this first year. I
feel that the policies and procedures
which he has established will enhance
our intelligence capability which is so
importance to our national defense.
One provision of Senate Resolution 400
Is especially important and I call the at-
tention of my colleagues to subsection
3(b). This section provides that any
committee chairman may request se-
quential referral of legislation reported
by the Intelligence Committee when
overlapping jurisdictions exist.
To quote specifically from Senate Res-
olution 400: ?
"(b) Any proposed legislation reported by
the select committee, except any legislation
involving matters specified in clause (1) or
(4) (A) of subsection (a), containing any
matter otherwise within the jurisdiction of
any standing committee shall, at the request
of the chairman of such standing comm,ttee,
be referred to such standing committee for
its consideration of such matter and be
reported to the Senate by such standing com-
mittee within thirty days after the day on
which such proposed legislation is referred
to such standing committee.
Many of the matters in the bill, S. 1359,
reported by the Intelligence Committee
this year are within the jurisdiction of
the Senate Committee on Armed Serv-
ices.
However, there are two committees
that worked together during the consid-
eration of this bill and in areas of con-
current jurisdiction we are in complete
agreement.
I speak today as chairman of the Sub-
committee on Intelligence of the Armed
Services Committee and for the chair-
man of the Armed Services Committee,
the Senator from Mississippi (Mr. STEN-
HIS), in saying we do not intend to ask
for sequential referral of the intelligence
bill to the Armed Services Committee
this year.
I do iimert to emphasize that both the
chairman of the Armed Services Com-
mittee and the chairman of the Intel-
ligence Subcommittee, the Senator from
Virginia, considers the provision in Sen.-
Approved For Release 2006/04/13 : CIA-RDP79M00983A001800060002-2
S 10500
oak
ook
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : CIA-RDP79M00983A001800060002-2
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? NATE
ate Resolution 400 which permits sequen-
tial referral to be a very important pro-
vision which may be exercised in future
years. It is being voluntarily waived this
year.
In ending, I would like to reiterate my
strong endorsement of the work done by
the Senate Select Committee on Intel-
ligence and I look forward to working
even more closely next year.
Mr. BAYH. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I would
like to thank my able friend from Vir-
ginia for his kind words and, once again,
commend his subcommittee and com-
mend the Committee on Armed Services
for the work they have done in the past
and to thank them for the cooperation
they have shown this year.
They have been extremely helpful to
this new baby comtnittee and I thank
them very much.
I yield to the Senator from Indiana.
Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, I would just
like, as a member of the committee, to
express my deep appreciation for the
way in which our chairman has handled
his very difficult role as chairman of the
committee at a time in which there was
significant question as to whether this
committee could work and do its job.
I think because of his leadership we
have been able to do that. I think we all
owe him a debt.
Also, I would like to reiterate what he
said relative to the exceptional way in
which the distinguished Senator from
Maine handled his responsibility which
brings us to this moment with the au-
thorization of the budget.
Mr. President, the Intelligence Au-
thorization Act, reported by the Select
Committee on Intelligence, is a land-
mark in the development of congres-
sional oversight of U.S. intelligence
activities. The committee, and especially
Senator HATHAWAY'S Budget Subcom-
mittee, has done a thorough and re-
sponsible job in reviewing the intelli-
gence programs for the next fiscal year.
The committee's deliberations included
the most sensitive activities. As a mem-
ber of the committee, I strongly en-
dorse passage of the Intelligence Au-
thorization Act. I share the committee's
view that the bill represents a reason-
able balance between necessary intelli-
gence requirements and prudent cost.
I would also like to call attention to
one particular provision of the bill. Sec-
tion 101(c) states:
Nothing contained in this Act shall be
deemed to constitute authority for the con-
duct of intelligence activities which are not
otherwise authorized by the Constitution
and laws of the United States.
The purpose of this provision is to
make sure that the executive branch
does not consider the Intelligence Au-
thorization Act as a substitute for char-
ter legislation. The act authorizes that
funds be appropriated for the conduct
of certain intelligence activities. It does
not authorize the activities themselves.
At present, the intelligence activities
for which funds are authorized by this
act rely for their legal authorization
upon a combination of statutes and ex-
ecutive orders. The Select Comm1tte nn
Intelligence is engaged in a compret
sive study, pursuant to the mandat of
Senate Resolution 400, of the need to e-
nlace these statutes and orders wit
new framework of leglslateve authoi Y.
If such a legislative charter is o-
acted, it will be possible to key ant :al
authorizations to its terms. This ill
make it easier to understand the b ic
elements 91 the programs covered by he
annual authorizations. In the Intel en
the select committee has used very g 11-
eral language to describe the actial es
for which funds are authorized. The e-
tails have been left to a classified rep et.
available to each Senator.
I hope the Members of the Senate tU
understand why such a procedure as
been necessary.
There is another item I think is imp,
tent to discuss briefly at this time * a
member of the Select Committee on
telligence, I vi wi, ? to
the members
omm
na e disclose
oimotienoontsatoltrilr4,1 ? ? 11I -
es for i
e ? a?cie A
gasikOtione a.
I.
; I u a the
Sc osure of s aggr
would fulfill our contltutlo al
obligation to publish a "regular ste
merit and account of the receipts i id
expenditures of all public money." It
would do so without impairing the se t-
rity of the United States or the ell e-
tiveness of our intelligence commure Y.
First of all, let me stress what. ie
Senate is not being asked to do. e ie
select committee does not reconunt ld
disclosure of the budgets of each of le
particular intelligence agencies wll ii
fall within the aggregate amount. ? is
solves many of the problems raised or
the opponents of disclosure. For w
ample, former CIA Director Co ly
argued that publication of the CIA bta ;-
et at the time of development of the 1 2
aircraft might have given valuable 1-
formation to our adversaries. But expc
once demonstrates that the aggreg ?e
amount for all national foreign int I-
ligence activities would not identify at h
particular new programs, so long as I e
figure is not broken down agency-I r-
egency.
Ray Cline, who served as Deputy C
Director for Intelligence from 1962 o
1966 and later as Director of the Sti e
Department's Bureau of Intelligence a d
Research, has put the matter this we :
In my view, a very broad program bud i -t
giving only the total of national intelligel
expenditures could be published anint#
without giving more than marginal adv i -
tags to foreign intelligence agencies.
society is so open that any sophisiicin d
espionage organization can easily deter= 1
the general dimewdons of the U.S. imam '1
intelligence program.
Dr. Cline concludes- -I believe Ok
rectly?that:
The marginal value of this informatl
over and above what Soviet and other sp
can now get is so small that it is less imp,
taut than the gain in Congressional ti d
public confidence in the accountabilit' of
our intelligence bysteni that probably woi 4
thine 22. 1977
come item publication of total budget costs.
In the public media tbe,e are usually grossly
exaggerated.
The Senate has established two select
committees to examine this matter. Both
have reached the same conclusion. The
committee chaired by Senator CHURCH
concluded "that publication of the ag-
gregate ileum for national intelligence
would begin to satisfy the Constitutional
requirement and would not damage the
national recurity." Our committee un-
dertook to review the issues in detail and
reached the same conclusion. Each com-
mittee found the arguments for con-
tinued blanket secrecy not to be persua-
sive, particularly when weighed against
a specific constitutional principle.
If the Constitution were silent on the
question of the disclosure of how the
taxpayers money is spent, we might have
greater leeway.
But the Constitution imposes a spe-
cific duty, and we must make every pos-
sible effort to perform it. Therefore, se-
cret expenditures cannot be justified
merely on the grounds of convenience or
utility. To rest the case for secrecy Ort
such grounds would violate one of the
fundamental princ pals of free govern-
ment?the people's right to know.
Many of my colleagues are reluctant
to face this constitutional question. They
take the position that it is for the Su-
preme Court to decide constitutional is-
sues. But the Constitution of the United
States is more than a body of law applied
by the courts. It speaks directly to each
branch of government. Where the courts
fail to decide a question because it Is
not suitable for judicial determination,
the other branches must make certain
that their own actions conform to basic
constitutional princ ipals
This is the case with the issue before
us today. In 1974 the Supreme Court
ruled that an individual taxpayer did not
have standing to raise the question of
Intelligence budget disclosure in the judi-
cial forum. Some have suggested that we
pass legislation grantine such standing
to an individual taxpayer, so that the
Supreme Court could resolve the issue.
However, even if we did this, it would
not relieve us of the primary obligation
to abide by the Constitution pending a
Supreme Court decision.
The Constitution imposes upon us a
duty beyond our ordinary legislative re-
sponsibilities. We must consider not only
our personal or political preferences, but
also the basic principals which underlie
our form of government and are ex-
pressed in its founding charter. Of
course, as with almost every difficult Con-
stitutional question, the answer cannot
be framed in absolute terms.
The Constitution specifically recog-
nizes the need for secret legislative ac-
tion in some cases. It requires each House
to Publish from time to time a journal
of its proceedings, "except such parts as
may in their judgment require secrecy."
However, where the expenditure of pub-
lic money is at stake, no similar restric-
tion upon publication is mentioned. This
accords with the belief that the people
have a right to know how their taxer, are
being spent,
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : CIA-RDP79M00983A001800060002-2
19 7 7 Approved Fot8f4taRRAWAlf:141?Eaka9137?14.R9i9NA001800060002-2
June 22 , S 10501
But that right, too, is not absolute
Congress is empowered to determine the
exact form a "regular statement of ac-
count'' shall take. In the course of our
history, the Congress has used this power
to preserve the secrecy of particular de-
tailed expenditures. Although history
cannot validate an unconstitutional
practice, it does suggest that there is
sufficient flexibility in the Constitution
to allow a degree of secrecy.
The Constftution is a living document
which must be interpreted to meet
changing circumstances, so long as its
fundamental values are kept in tact. But
it is those values?and not the claims
of short-run expediency?that should
guide our decisions. After World War II,
the great crises of international affairs
led our predecessors to disregard the
conStitutional implications of seeret ex-
penditures for intelligence activities. The
issue did not receive attention until re-
cently. Now that we have studied the
question, we have an obligation to draw
the line between secrecy and disclosure
with great care. I am convinced that we
would be delinquent in our duty under
the Constitution if we adopted a blanket
policy of secrecy not based on grounds
of compelling necessity.
The Intelligence Committee, on the
basis of its study thus far, believes that
there may be a compelling necessity, for
keeping secret the details of exnenditures
for national foreign intelligence activi-
ties. But it has concluded not only that
there is no compelling necessity for keen-
ing the aggregate amount secret, but also
"that there is little or no risk to the na-
tional security posed by such disclosure."
Th. ' 0 favor secrec cite t te
-n 1
tgagto, inner as as
In e ence,
" e na ural inclination of
eery nteMgence orncer is to witnnoid
ashtucu inTormarran a Is reasona-bie
because ere
cfimg ?
Inte gence,
" But as Director
en r.l
ra rner is no
ea
litesictent?and we in tile Srenate?nave
t much Matter nerspretive.
As Admiral-Turner told our committee,
"We are a free and open society. It is ap-
propriate that our citizens be ,kept well in-
formed of the activities of their government.
They are in fact, the best oversight body in
the prevention of any possible excesses of
governmental action. The public's right to
understand the workings of our intelligence
process is a part of their being adequately
Informed of our governmental process. Some
compromise then is necessary between the
risks of giving the enemy an unnecessary ad-
vantage over us and of protecting the basic
openness of our society. Accordingly, Presi-
dent Carter has directed that I not object to
your releasing to the public, the single over-
all budget figure of the U.S. intelligence com-
munity."
an
In fact, as the committee's report
?
rectori oCentral Tntelligence Turner
a
sciosethe aggregate figure i n
n e com-
mittee's open nearing. a MB was not aone
at our request, so tint we could carefully
study the possible consequences before
such disclosure took place.
is whether the
Se te vrt?pmi't-trirf
the _President Admiral Turneri and its
own Select Committee on Intelligence to
achieve a better-baian e betweer secrecy
a an has existe in the
62E_Gt Tne basic issue does not just in-
ToTre budget disclosure. It will determine
how the public views our whole approach
to national intelligence problems. Are we
going to draw the lines carefully, taking
fully into account the requirements of
the Constitution and the values of a free
society? Will we take responsibility for
making hard choices which do not have
much political payoff? Or will we signal
to the American people that national in-
telligence is so sacrosanct that, even
when the President and the Director
of Central Intelligence accept the need
for change, the Senate will go back to
business as usual?
Excessive secrec:,- was at the root of the
abuses of power uncovered by the Church
committee. That committee concluded in
its report on "Intelligence Activities and
the Rights of Americans," "secrecy
should no)onger be allowed to shield the
existence of constitutional, legal arid
moral problems from the scrutiny of all
three branches of Government or from
the American people themselves."
Disclosure of the national intelligence
budget is a step in that direction. It will
help clarify the public debate by refuting
exaggerated notions of intelligence ex-
penditures. It will put into better per-
spective the overall function of our na-
tional intelligence programs, so that we
can move on to the important task of
developing a firm legislative foundation
for those programs. It will build confi-
dence in the ability of the Senate to ad-
dress these major legislative responsibili-
ties with full respect for constitutional
principles.
The credibility of the executive branch
is not at stake here. The President and
Admiral Turner have taken themselves
out of the line of criticism by agreeing
to intelligence budget disclosure. Instead,
the credibility of the Senate is at stake.
We are in the midst of a long and dif-
ficult process of drafting and enacting
charters for the U.S. intelligence agen-
cies. That is the mandate of Senate
Resolution 400, which established the Se-
lect Committee on Intelligence. We will
be engaged in tough negotiations with
the executive agencies over the terms of
Charter legislation. In these efforts we
need to know that we have the support
of the Senate in making hard decisions
on the basis of classified or confidential
information which cannot come out in
public debate or when the charters reach
the floor.
Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to
consider these larger implications of our
decision. Today we believe the oversight
of intelligence activities being provided
by our committee is adequate to the task.
The Budget Subcommittee under Sen-
ator HATHAWAY has done an outstanding
job of reviewing the programs of the
agencies. Senator STEVENSON'S Subcom-
mittee on the Quality of Intelligence is
conducting studies which, I believe, will
contribute significantly to the improve-
ment of the effectiveness of the intelli-
gence community's performance. Senator
HUDDLESTON'S Charter Subcommittee and
my Subcommittee on Intelligence and
the Rights of Americans are deeply in-
volved in the development of major new
legislation. I do not want to see the mo-
mentum behind these efforts cut back.
Nevertheless, this could be the effect of
a decision by the Senate to disregard the
select committee's recommendation on
budget disclosure. The tasks we are en-
gaged in are too important for the future
of this Nation and for the long-term ef-
fectiveness of our intelligence programs
for this to happen.
Mr. INOUYE. I thank the Senator
very much.
Mr. President, I yield to the Senator
from Colorado.
Mr. HART. I thank the committee
chairman.
Mr. President, I want to add my word
of congratulation to the full committee
chairman and to the distinguished Sen-
ator from Maine (Mr. HATHAWAY) for his
efforts as chairman of the Subcommittee
on the Intelligence Budget.
He devoted himself unstintingly to
establishing the first comprehensive con-
gressional review of the intelligence
budget.
Not only is this the first time that Con-
gress has reviewed the intelligence budget
as a whole, this is the first time that
there has even been such a budget. Until
now, spending on national intelligence
has been fragmented among various
agencies and departments, a practice
which made duplications of effort hard
to identify and comparisons of various
Intelligence programs virtually impos-
sible.
Because this is a new effort, the com-
mittee has moved with care and delibera-
tion in its review of the intelligence
budget. It did not attempt to set some
radically different direction in intelli-
gence or impose a new set of priorities.
Nevertheless, this first review has con-
vinced me that the budget authorization
process will become one of the Select
Committee on Intelligence's most effec-
tive and valuable tools in fulfilling its
mandate to provide continuing oversight.
The committee review of intelligence
spending, however, is not without its
challenges. Let me briefly outline some of
the key issues: It tisfac
Jr 4. ? ? ? 4 " t e e ?U' by
con
n rat
nealnliamiallswa(00Wit
a ecause man intelli:ence in a-
F011itcal 010 110.W.Iir40) 01*.rilaialgrAt*
U 0 COS
* V- 5 IIIPTERF441.1K-In
ea
a
very
ar
con
uui e cam. se ex:
I Fel 111:34e4 Kra II
r4.4 * "
'a s .
e igence a so foes no en. i e
readily to either unit cost or similar
measures of cost effectiveness. How much
Is an item of critical intelligence worth?
A key piece of intelligence about a Soviet
missile system, for example, could affect
billions of dollars of our own defense
spending. But that characteristic of
intelligence cannot be allowed to lead to
a willingness to fund collection at any
cast.
The committee also found it was diffi-
cult to make budget comparisons between
various means of collecting intelligence,
rovers .
COU
US
rim
sma
ese
tonal
scru
my in
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : CIA-RDP79M00983A001800060002-2
S 10502
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : CIA-RDP79M00983001800060002-2
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -* S NATE June 22, 1977
because both the techniques and results
are so different. For example, it is diffi-
cult to measure the value of a million
dollars allocated to the National Secu-
rity Agency for electronic communica-
tions collection, and the same amount
devoted to the more conventional human
source collection which is the responsi-
bility of the CIA. But this is the first
year we have had a consolidated national
intelligence budget and we can hope that
the tools for making these comparisons
will become more refined in the coming
years.
Finally, the business of intelligence is
an ongoing one so it is primarily a level-
of-effort, rather than programmatic,
budget.
It requires careful scrutiny to identify
the key trends and then to try to reach
some sort of conclusion about whether or
not this is the direction in which we
should be going.
Despite these problems, Mr. President,
I believe that the budget review will
prove its worth as one of the Senate's
most effective tools for oversight and
control over our intelligence operations.
I close by urging the Senate support for
this measure, our first authorization of
the national foreign intelligence budget.
Once again, I thank the full commit-
tee chairman, the Senator from Hawaii,
and the subcommittee chairman, the
Senator from Maine.
Mr. CHURCH. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield?
Mr. INOUYE, I am happy to yield to
the Senator.
Mr. CHURCH. First, I commend the
distinguished chairman of the Senate In-
telligence Committee for bringing this
bill to the floor, and I commend other
members of the committee who have
been busily engaged in sorting out the
work that the committee must do.
I know, from my conversations with
the chairman, that the committee has
addressed itself, first of all, to the ques-
tion of the budget; that the committee
has gone carefully through that matter,
line by line, and, for the first time, has
taken an overview of the money we au-
thorize to finance the whole of the intel-
ligence community. For this, I commend
the chairman.
As the chairman knows, we have not
yet had the overall figure, the aggregate
figure, made public; nor does this bill
contemplate doing that. Nevertheless,
the issue must be faced. I know that the
committee intends to place that issue
before the Senate a few weeks from now.
I hope that at that time the Senate rec-
ognizes that the practice of concealing
this figure, in effect, both from Congress
and the American people, constitutes a
violation of the Constitution of the
United States. It is a practice that should
be stopped on that ground alone.
However, beyond the constitutional re-
quirement for making public the ex-
penditure of taxpayers' money, we have
the testimony of every former Director
of the CIA that the disclosure of the ag-
gregate figure would constitute no seri-
ous security risk for this country. In the
face of that testimony, I certainly hope
that the Senate will put to an end the
practice of concealment and make the
aggregate figure available to all he Al-
bers of the Senate and to the publi at
large.
Beyond this, I say to the chain en
that I think that the first priority, a "er
the question of the budget and its pn er
handling has been settled, is the refo 3.ns
that were so clearly shown to be nes .ed
by the investigation of the select e ee-
mitttee, all of which have been tie ed
over now to the permanent cornral ee
for implementation.
Many months have passed. I um
stand that the permanent committee as
been preoccupied by consideratioru of
the budget and has had to put its ,vn
house in order. But I express the I Ape
that we now can move forward, 4 ice
these matters have been settled, to he
serious problem of considering statu sry
protection for the constitutional righ, of
American people, which were shown t be
so badly disregarded by practices of ti "se
agencies in the past; and, finally, tha we
shall have charters that properly cis sue
the jurisdictional limits of these al n-
cies in which we have confided so 11'4 ,ch
power and which we permit to ope ite
in so much secrecy.
After all, our first consideration r
be the preservation of a free societ in
this country.
As one who directed the investiga on
of abuses in the intelligence field. I
wanted to express to the able chain ,an
the hope that these reform measures ill
be considered soon and that bills we be
reported to the floor in an orderly ad
forthcoming way.
Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, 1 tt tik
my able friend for his generous rems
I assure him that at this ?me /se
4
e nentie Sep y for
1.1.O4D12 6TOT .
41k
r--s an. trairMICTADIMPLAVOU
fo
"OW
e is,ere eady to rope r; a
m .sur-
e e in
!MEM .0TMIlleieTaleneM
act all'ILUMM.VIUMIreee.
iden
SCU
am g a. . ear Si.
I want the Senator to know th s I
speak today to praise him foi the airk
he has done and to express the hope aat
that work continues to go forward nd
that we will begin soon to grapple ith
the very serious need for reform that air
investigation exhibited.
Mr. HUDDLESTON. Mr. Pres
will the Senator yield?
Mr. INOUYE. I am happy to yield
Mr. HUDDLESTON. Mr. Preside I
wish to reiterate what the distingui
chairman has stated: The Subcomm tee
on Charters has been active and dile nt,
working on individual charters for xh
of the entities of our intelligence m-
munity, as well as a proposal for resi
ic-
turing the entire community, We ave
been in constant contact with the ea eu-
tive branch, and we are working to ?rd
what we believe will be very impel alt
pieces of legislation. These will be of red
to this body before the year is over.
Mr. CHURCH. I am happy to I ow
that and to hear it from a Senator who
was a valued member of my committee.
I appreciate the importance that he
would attach to that task. I look forward
to the finished product. I commend him
for his work.
Mr. HUDDLESTON. I thank the
Senator.
Mr. President, as a member of the Se-
lect Committee on Intelligence, I add my
commendation of our distinguished com-
mittee chairman, the senior Senator
from Hawaii, for the outstanding erork
he has done. I also commend the sub-
committee chairman, the junior Senator
from Maine, and his ranking member,
the Senator from Wyoming (Mr. WAL -
LOP) for their work on the measure we
are now considering.
As has been pointed out by ins, col-
leagues, this is a historic occasion. Not
only is this the first time that the Senate
has been asked to authorize funds for
our intelligence operations, but this is
also the first time that every Member of
this body has had an opportunity to re-
view an extensive report detailing the
various activities for which these funds
are sought.
This is another step in the very impor-
tant job we have to do to strengthen our
intelligence operations, to give them the
legitimacy they deserve and to bring
them out of the shadows, to the extent
possible consistent with the security re-
quirements of this Nation.
We all recognize that in the world in
which we live today, we have to have ef-
ficient and effective intelligence-gather-
ing agencies. All policymakers need the
Information that these vital organiza-
tions supply.
We all recognize, too, there are certain
activities that have occurred in the past
that ought to be restrained, or restricted,
or even totally eliminated. It is toward
this objective that the committee eon-
tinues to work.
But here today we have taken an im-
portant step assuring that these neces-
sary and important activities are made
accountable to the Senate and to the
American people, and we are doing it
without in any way jeopardizing the se-
curity interests of the United States.
I commend the subcommittee that has
brought us to this point and I want to
repeat my thanks to our distinguished
chairman.
Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield me a couple of minutes?
Mr. INOUYE. I yield to the Senator
from Rhode Island.
Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I would
like to join in the tributes to the able
work of our chairman of the Intelligence
Committee on which I have the privilege
of serving
I also would like to pay tribute to the
vice chairman of that committee, Sena-
ator GOLDWATER, because between these
two gentlemen they run the affairs of
that committee with a very even hand,
and I think we can assure the Members
of the Senate and the public-at-large
that that committee is vigorously over-
seeing the intelligence community, see-
ing to it that both the rights of Ameri-
cans, that the Senator from Idaho was
concerned about, are protected, but also
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : CIA-RDP79M00983A001800060002-2
'tticellfo
June 22, 1977 Approved F ihM161W1MCORAINEESUITOM3A001800060002-2 S 10503
seeing that we are receiving the best
possible intelligence service that our Na-
tion can provide.
So I would like to join in this tribute
to the leaders of that committee and also
to the chairman of the Budget Subcom-
mittee on which I had the privilege of
serving for a while, the junior Senator
from Maine.
I thank the Chair.
Mr. INOUYE. I thank the Senator.
I wish to yield to the Senator from
Maine, Senator HATHAWAY, my distin-
guished colleague, upon this historic day.
Mr. HATHAWAY. I thank the Senator.
Mr. President, first of Ml, I would like
to thank all o,f those who have extended
commendations. I pass ?.,n the lion's share
of those commendations to the excellent
staff members we had working with us
in the subcommittee, both those assigned
to the subcommittee and those to the
full committee. I want to name the fol-
lowing staff members who worked with
skill and dedication on this authorization
process: William Miller, Earl Eisenhower,
Thomas Moore, Michael Epstein, Elliot
Maxwell, Jean Evans, Edward Levine,
George Pickett and Dan Chilos. But I
think at one time or another almost all
of the members of the staff on both the
subcommittee and the full committee
were involved in this effort, and since it
was a first-time effort on behalf of most
of us, although some members of the full
committee have served on the previous
Church committee, it was a novel experi-
ence for us, and it took many, many
hours for us to penetrate and to under-
stand the entire intelligence community.
I am not sure that all of us, including
myself, know all we want to yet. Never-
theless, I think with the aid of the ex-
perts we had on our staff, we have been
able to come up with an authorization
that is realistic.
I would also like to extend to Chairman
INOUYE, Senator GOLDWATER, Senator
WALLOP and the other members of the
committee my thanks for their coopera-
tion and for their dedication for the long
hours they put in through hearings and
investigation as well as the markup on
the bill we have before us.
(At this point Mr. BURDICK assumed
the chair.)
Mr. HATHAWAY. This is the first time
in the 200-year history of this body that
a separate budget authorization bill has
been introduced for intelligence.
This bill authorizes appropriations for
those intelligence activities of the U.S.
Government which serve the intelligence
needs of bur national policymakers, as
well as certain military intelligence ac-
tivities which, although integral to the
military force structure, also make sig-
nificant contributions to national intel-
ligence.
This bill represents the culmination of
months of detailed analysis of each of
the major inteligence programs and their
resource requirements. Between Febru-
ary and April of this year, the Budget
Authorization Subcommittee undertook
a series of comprehensive hearings on
the fiscal year 1978 budget request. Testi-
mony was given by all managers of in-
telligence organizations and activities in
the Government. This included such in-
dividuals as the Director of Central In-
telligence, the Attorney General, the Act-
ing Assistant Secretary of Defense for
Intelligence and the Directors of DIA,
NSA, and a number of special intelli-
gence activities.
More than 45 hours of hearings took
place involving over 500 questions for the
record and 1,300 pages of testimony. In
addition sonie 2,000 pages of written pro-
gram justification material was providV
to the committee and its staff by the ex-
ecutive branch.
The committee found that under-
standing the scope of U.S. intelligence
and making judgments on its resource
needs are extremely complicated tasks,
for a number of reasons that are perhaps
unique to the world of intelligence:
First. The intelligence budget, al-
though relatively small by comparison
to other Government programs, is ex-
tremely complex; its activities cover a
broad spectrum, ranging from normal
administrative and housekeeping func-
tions to activities requiring the applica-
tion of highly sophisticated technology;
Second. Intelligence by its very nature
requires a certain amount of built-in re-
dundancy and duplication; and
Third. It is difficult to evaluate the
relative value of the contribution of
many activities to the national, depart-
mental or military decisionmaking.
0 the whole t O.
SU
a I WM ?
e ence comm
ell-manage
an
e merican
ax-
payer
tt omm -e ?e eves
.a in general, t e into :ence cam-
munity is Tlig'nfirreglMis-Ive o the needs
o cis onmaxm: in ne iurinuitiumn df
- ? . Is nii: r ii
e comm.' . ecommenda-
tions for fiscal year 1978 provide suffi-
cient resources to reverse the trend of
the past several years, which has seen
the impact of inflation erode the pur-
chasing power of intelligence. It also pro-
vides for some growth to modernize ex-
isting capabilities and to begin certain
new initiatives which will be required to
keep pace with our intelligence needs in
the 1980's. At the same time, the com-
mittee was not convinced that the total
amount requested for fiscal year 1978
was fully warranted, and has, therefore,
recommended the deferral of certain
proposals and the elimination of others.
Because of the sensitivity of our, in-
telligence operations and the potential
for compromise through- countermeas-
ures by our adversaries, I cannot discuss
in open sessions the details of the com-
mittee's recommendations. These have
been set forth in a classified committee
report which has been available for, re-
view by any Member under the provi-
sions of Senate Resolution 400. Copies
are currently available in the Vice Pres-
ident's Ceremonial Room just off the
Senate gallery for those Members who
might still want to look at them before
we vote on final passage.
In summary, Mr. President, I would
like to say that to a large extent. we have
all been exploring unchartered waters
during the past year in our efforts to
strengthen legislative oversight of intel-
ligence. I
strengthen,
convinced that appropri-
ate mechanisms have been established to
ensure effective oversight and account-
ability. I am equally convinced that the
budget authority recommended in this
bill for intelligence activities for fiscal
year 1978 represents a realistic balance '
between needed intelligence capabilities
and the cost of obtaining them.
Mr. GOLDWATER. Mr. President, will
the Senator from Hawaii yield?
Mr. INOUYE. I would be ver, happy
to yield to my vice chairman, the distin-
guished Senator from Arizona.
Mr. GOLDWATER. Mr. President, I
cannot let this opportunity pass without
commending the Senator from Hawaii.
In my many years in the Senate I have
served under many people in the
capacity of chairman, and I never had
the pleasure of serving with such a dedi-
cated man as the Senator from Hawaii.
He understands the seriousness of in-
telligence; he has joined us together
with a very fine staff in a way that the
Senate can be proud of.
I was very happy to hear the distin-
guished Senator from Maine commend
the intelligence community that we over-
see. I do not agree entirely with a former
member of the committee on which I
served. We have had bad intelligence and
we have been abused by intelligence, but
intelligence is a necessary function dur-
ing war. It is even more important dur-
ing peace. We can keep peace with ade-
quate intelligence, but we cannot keep
peace nor can we expect the best out of
people if we continually harass them- in
the press, television, and radio.
I would hope that that day has come
to an end with the recognition that this
committee is going to surveil everything
that takes place in the intelligence com-
munity, and that we can begin to recog-
nize the fine intelligence we have been
able to provide our forces in peace and
in war.
I look forward to serving a long time
with my friend from Hawaii in spite of
certain remarks he has made to me. I
will say "Aloha" as you go home this
evening.
Mr. MATHIAS. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield to me?
Mr. GOLDWATER. I yield.
Mr. MATHIAS.? I want to associate
myself with the Senator's remarks and
commend the chairman of the commit-
tee for the kind of leadership he has
given us.
I would particularly like to point to
the kind of emphasis he has put on the
quality of intelligence, because that is,
after all, the ultimate function of our
committee, to make sure that this coun-
try has the quality of intelligence which
makes it possible for us to carry out the
duties of Government as they are defined
by the Constitution of the United States.
I think the chairman has that very
clearly in mind, and we are gratefully in
his debt for the kind of leadership he has
given the committee.
Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, it is my
good fortune and privilege to serve with
the Senators from Arizona and from
Maryland.
Much has been said about the good
work lam supposed to have done, but
needless to say, any chairman who is
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : CIA-RDP79M00983A001800060002-2
S 10504
Auk
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : CIA-RDP79M00983A001800060002-2
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ENATE June 22. 1977
successful is successful because he has a
good committee.
Oftentimes we Senators have been giv-
en labels as conservative or liberal, but I
found in the year of working on the In-
telligence Committee these labels have
very little meaning whatsoever.
I think only one label applies when we
serve on this committee: Our concern for
America's defense; our concern for
America's security; and our concern for
the rights of our citizens.
Before yielding the floor, I once again
commend the subcommittee chairman,
Mr. HATHAWAY, for a great job he has
done for this historic moment.
Mr. WALLOP. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield?
Mr. INOUYE. I yield to the 'Senator
from Wyoming.
Mr. WALLOP. Mr. President, I shall
only add me own endorsement to my col-
league's remarks. It has been a particular
privilege for me as a freshman Senator
to have been appointed to serve on the
Select Committee on Intelligence and
even more so, to serve with the distin-
guished Senator from Maine as vice
chairman of the Budget Subcommittee.
I think we have learned a great deal
in our examination of the intelligence
budget. We have approached the task
with a considerable amount of serious
thought and I believe the results of our
effort has been good.
Intelligence is a critical asset to the
establishment, implementation and pro-
tection of U.S. policies to provide for our
national security. As such, it deserves our
rigorous attention to protect and en-
hance its capability. It also, however, re-
quires our constant and careful attention
because of the unique and potential con-
tradictions which can develop between
the inherent need for secrecy in intelli-
gence on the one hand and the require-
ments of this democratic society for open
and public exchange of information
about its Government and what it is
doing.
This committee and this bill represent
a first attempt to blend these two re-
quirements in the legislative arena. The
protection accorded to sources and meth-
ods has been impressive both to me and
to others. The attention to controlling
intelligence and preserving the rights
and liberties of U.S. citizens have been
given equal if not greater treatment by
the members of this committee. '
I thoroughly endorse the statements
of my colleagues and feel that this bill
deserves the unanimous support of the
Senate.
I only wish to add my endorsement to
Senator GOLDWATER'S remarks, express
say own respect to Senator INOUYE as
chairman of the committee, and commu-
nicate my respects to my friends and
thank them very much for the work we
have been able to do together.
Mr. HATHAWAY. I thank the Sena-
or.
I return the compliment because I
have enjoyed working with the Senator
from Wyoming.
Mr. CASE. Mr. President, will the Sen-
ator yield?
Mr. INOUYE. I am happy to yield to
the Senator from New Jersey.
Mr. CASE. Mr. President, how n a
man sit in this Chamber and not j a in
this happy occasion?
I am not joking about it at all. t is
a happy occasion. The experient we
have had in getting better acque ited
with each other on the committe, and
with the assistance of a wonderful tail,
headed by Bill Miller and compris 1 of
men and women, any one of who we
have the utmost confidence not ot v in
their discretion but in their ability and
the relationships that we are Me ling
with the executive branch are wee ions
for very great satisfaction and the 'ad-
ership that our chairman, his sut orn-
mittee chairman, arid our rankint mi-
nority member, excluding, of co urn the
present speaker' have provided, has leen
an inspiration to people who are a &le
bit skeptical about this whole area.
They need not be, and I hope the our
committee will increasingly demons ate,
and I am confident that it will, tha it is
possible, both to be effectively de-
guarded and also not abused.
Mr. INOUYE. I thank the Senatot cry
much.
Mr. President, I wish to yield bat all
of the remainder of my time.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. Presi cut,
I wish to join others In complime Ting
the chairman and the ranking mit rity
member of the committee and mer tiers
of the committee and also the chai rise'
and the ranking minority member C the
subcommittee.
I think the country is fortunate and
the Senate is fortunate in havtrat
this historic point in time the parti ilar
members who make up this extrt 'ely
vital and important committee.
Having had a rather active part I the
creation of the committee througl the
enactment of Senate Resolution 4 0, I
take exceptional pride in the work hat
is being done by this committee an ex-
ceptional pride in the membership e the
committee.
I believe that work of this comm tee,
its supreme dedication to duty ai ; to
patriotism have entitled it to the es -em
and high regard and respect not or,of
the Senate but of the country.
I salute the committee and its c
man, and may I say in my judg lent
the Senate and the country are ii the
committee's debt.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Thi bill
is open to amendment.
If there be no amendment to be ,ro-
posed, the question is on the eng
55-
merit and third reading of the bill,
The bill was ordered to be engts sed
for a third reading, was read the T.
time, and passed, as follows:
S. 1639
Be it enacted 14 the Senate and Hot
Representatives of the United State, of
America in Congress assembled, That this
Act may be cited as the "Intelligence en-
thorization Act for Fiscal Year 1978".
TITLE I--INTELLIGENCE Acerivrie
SEC. 101. (a) Funds are hereby autlit zed
to be appropriated for fiscal year 197 for
the conduct of the following intern/ ore
activities of the United States Governs mt.
as define in S. Res. 400. Ninety-fourth ous
geese, second session:
(1) activities of the Central Telellit
Agency!
(2) %clergies of the Defense Intelligence
Agency;
(3) intelligence activities of the Office of
the Secetruiy of Defense;
(4) intelligence ectivities of the National
Security Agency;
(5) intelligence and intellieence-related
activities of the military service;
(6) intelligence activities of the Depart-
ment of State;
(7) Intelligence activities of the Depart-
ment of the Treasury;
(8) intelligence activities of the Energy
Research and Development Administration:
(9) intelligence activities of the Federal
Bureau of Investigation; and
(10) intelligence activities of the Dreg
Enforcement Administration.
(b) A classified report shall be prepared
by the Select Committee on Intelligence
of the Senate to reflect the final action of
the Congress with respect to the authoriza-
tion of funds for fiscal year me for intelli-
gence activities of the United States Gov-
ernment, including specific amounts for ac-
tivities specified in Subse ctlon (a). Copies
of such report shall be made available to the
Committees on Appropriations of the Senate
and the House of Repteeentellyes and to
the appropriate entitles of the Intelligence
Community for which funds are authorized
by this Act.
(e) Nothing contained in this Act shall be
deemed to constitute authority for the con-
duct of any Intelligence activities which are
not otherwise authorized by the Constitu-
tion and laws of the United States,
TITLE II?INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY
STAFF
SEC. 201. (a) There Is authorieed to be ap-
propriated for the Intelligence Community
Staff for fiscal year 1978 the sum of $8.950,-
000 to provide the support necessary to per-
mit the Director of Central Intelligence to
fulfill his responsibility for directing the
substantive functions and managing, the re-
sources of the Intelligence Community.
(b) (1) For the fiscal year beginning Oc-
tober 1, 1977, the Intelligence Community
Staff is authorized an end strength of 170
full-time employeee. Employees of the In-
telligence Ccemmunity Staff may be perma-
nent employees of such staff or employees de-
tailed from other entities of the Intelligence
Community, or may be a combination of
permanent employees and employees so de-
tailed.
(2) The Intelligence Community Staff
shall comply with the guidelines and policies
set forth in the Joint Statement of the Con-
ferees mod in the Senate and the House of
Representatives by the Managers on the part
of the Senate and the Managers on the part
of the House of Representatives with the
bill (H.R. 4877 of the Ninety-fifth Congress)
providing supplemental appropriations for
the conduct of intelligence activities during
the fiscal year 1977,
(c) Except as provided in subsection ( b
and until otherwise provided by law, the ac-
tivities of the Intelligence Community Stall
shall be governed by the Director of Cen-
tral Intelligence in accordance with the pro-
visions of the National Secnrity Act of 1947
(50 U.S.C. 402) and the Central Intelligence
Agency Art of 194i) (50 U.S.C. 403a-403j).
errisE III?CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE
AGENCY RETIREMENT AND DIS.5.13IL-
ITT SYSTEM
Sc. 301. (a) Ther is authorized to he
appropriated for tee central Intelligence
Agency Retirement and Disability 51.?,-;1 em fir
the fiscal scar beginnirip October I. 11)77. the
sum of 835,100,000.
Mr. HATHAWAY_ Mr. President. I
move to reconsider the vote by which
the bill was passed.
Mr. INOUYE. I Mose to lav that mo-
tion On the table.
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : CIA-RDP79M00983A001800060002-2
'44.0
June 22, 1977 Approved FottftanglaWil3iETUBP7M0
AA001800060002-2
S 10505
? The motion to lay on the table was
agreed to.
NATIONAL MASS TRANSPORTATION
ASSISTANCE ACT OF 1977
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk
will state Calendar Order No. 156, S. 208.
The assistant legislative clerk read as
follows:
A bill (S. 208) to amend the Urban Mass
Transportation Act of 1964 to extend the
authorization for assistance under such Act,
and for other purposes.
The Senate proceeded to consider the
bill, which had been reported from the
Committee on Banking, Housing, and
Urban Affairs with an amendment in the
nature of a substitute.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time
Is under control on this bill.
Who yields time?
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President,
I ask unanimous consent that no time
be charged against the bill today.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
ROUTINE MORNING BUSINESS
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President,
I ask unanimous consent that there be a
period for the transaction of routine
morning business at this time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
Is there further morning business?
1977 WHEAT AND FEED GRAIN LOAN
LEVELS
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President,
I understand that S. Res. 193 has been
cleared on both sides for passage by
unanimous consent. That is Calendar
Order No. 248.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous con-
sent that the Senate proceed to the con-
sideration of that measure at this time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The res-
olution will be stated by title.
The assistant legislaitve clerk read as
follows:
A resolution (S. Res. 193) relating to the
need to increase the loan levels for the 1977
crops of wheat and feed grains.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there
objection to the present consideration of
the resolution?
There being no objection, the Senate
proceeded to consider the resolution.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, cur-
rently on the calendar is Senate Resolu-
tion 193, a resolution that states:
That it is the sense of the Senate that the
Seeretary of Agriculture exercise his- au-
thority under existing law to increase loan
levels for the 1977 crops of wheat and feed
grains.
This resolution has major policy im-
plications, and for that reason, as chair-
man of the Budget Committee, I wish to
comment upon it. While Senate Resolu-
tion 193 does not require the Secretary
of Agriculture to do anything to raise
loan levels for wheat and feed grains an
the 1977 crops, it does tell him that he
ought to raise those loan levels that have
already been announced and substan-
tially increase outlays for these 1977
crops. As I pointed out during the con-
sideration ?VS. 275, the omnibus farm
bill, only a few weeks ago, that bill as
it passed the Senate will lead to a breach
of the first budget resolution for fiscal
1978 by more than $0.5 billion. Now we
of the first budget resolution for fiscal
come along with a sense of the Senate
resolution urging more spending which
was not contemplated in either the third
budget resolution for fiscal 1977 or the
first budget resolution for fiscal 1978.
From the budget standpoint, I view this
as particularly objectionable.
I would demand a rollcall vote to de-
feat this resolution if I thought that it
would have any effect upon the actions
required of the Secretary of Agriculture.
However, I do not think that it will have
any effect. The Secretary of Agriculture
has assured me in writing that the ad-
ministration does not favor this resolu-
tion. The Secretary assures me that he
does not intend to go above the an-
nounced loan levels or those that may be
mandated by law.
Let me just briefly point out what
could occur in budget exposure if the
Secretary of Agriculture chose to raise
loan levels to the maximum under cur-
rent law. 'This bill does not suggest how
high he should go, but does put the Sen-
ate on record in urging he use his power
to raise loan rates for the 1977 wheat
and feed grains crops.
The current U.S. average market price
for wheat is at the loan rate of $2.25 per
bushel. Therefore, any increase in the
loan rate will increase the budget out-
lays in the agriculture function and will
reduce U.S. exports of wheat, because it
will raise the U.S. market price. If this
occurs, we will have to use export sub-
sidies to make wheat competitive in the
world market.
The current loan rate on wheat is
above the minimum required by law
by $0.88 per bushel. The maximum loan
rate for wheat under current law, ac-
cording to the report of the Senate
Agriculture Committee filed with this
bill, is 100 percent of parity or $5.09 per
bushel. Since this resolution sets no
limitation on the loan level, the maxi-
mum budget exposure if the Secretary
chose to carry out the resolution to the
fullest would be about $3 billion above
current policy in fiscal year 1977 for
loans and export subsidies on wheat
alone, according to the Congressional
Budget Office. This calculation assumes
a loan level of $5.09 per bushel. Ad-
mittedly it is not likely_ to happen with
President Carter in the White House,
and Bob Bergland as Secretary of Agri-
culture, but I say this to show what
could happen if the Secretary chose to
implement the resolution to the fullest
extent of his powers. In addition, I
might add, the Congressional Budget
Office says that there would be an ad-
ditional $1 billion maximum budget ex-
posure above current policy for fiscal
1978, under the same assumptions.
Increasing the loan level for the 1977
corn crop would also have major budget
consequences. Although the projected
average corn price for the 1977 crop is
above the current loan rate of $1.75 per
bushel, any increase in the loan rate will
also risk an increase in budget outlays
and perhaps also reduce the competi-
tiveness of U.S. corn in the world
market.
The current loan rate on corn is $0.65
per bushel above the statutory mini-
mum. The maximum loan rate under
current law is 90 percent of parity. Ac-
cording to the report of the Senate Agri-
culture Committee filed with this reso-
lution, parity for corn is $3.49 per bushel.
So if the Secretary increased the loan
level for corn to 90 percent of parity,
that would be $3.14 per bushel. Since
most of the 1977 crop will not be har-
vested until October 1977, there would
be a negligible impact on the fiscal 1977
budget, but the maximum budget ex-
posure for fiscal 1978 could be an in-
crease of as much of $2 billion above
current policy for corn loan and export
subsidies.
Because we are assured this resolu-
tion will not be implemented, and be-
cause I do not want to embarrass any
colleagues concerning this resolution, I
will not ask for a record vote on this
resolution.
But this type of resolution is wholly
inconsistent with the discipline of the
budget process. I hope that we will not
be faced with another such resolution
which urges the administration to ex-
ceed the target levels of budget resolu-
tions that have been agreed to by the
Congress.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous con-
sent that a letter dated June 17, 1977,
from the Department of Agriculture be
printed in the RECORD.
There being no objection, the letter
was ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
as follows:
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE,
Washington, D.C., June 17, 1977.
Hon. EDMUND S. MITSKIE,
Chairman, Committee on the Budget,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR M. CHAIRMAN : This is IO advise you
that this Department opposes S. Res. 193.
S. Res. 193 expresses the sense of the Senate
that the Secretary should exercise his au-
thority to increase the loan levels for the 1977
crops of wheat and feed grains.
Loan levels for 1977 crop of feed grains
have already been increased substantially
over those announced by the previous Ad-
ministration. ,
The feasibility of Increasing 1977 crop loan
rates for wheat has also been thoroughly
reviewed by the Department and others of
the Executive Branch. It was concluded that
a further increase in the 1977 loan rate for
wheat could not be justified.
The 1977 crop wheat harvest is already in
progress. Because any significant increase in
loan rates would likely affect market prices,
an increase in wheat loan rates at this time
would be highly inequitable for wheat farm-
ers Who have already sold all or part of
their 1977 wheat crop.
In view of the foregoing, we would not ex-
pect the Secretary to exercise his adminis-
trative authority to increase the 1977 crop
wheat and feed grain loan rates, even if S.
Res. 193 were adopted.
Sincerely,
JOHN C. WHITE,
Acting Secretary.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent that a memorandum
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : CIA-RDP79M00983A001800060002-2
S 10506
Approved For e ase 201.5/04/13 : CIA-RDP79M00983n01800060002-2
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ---S NATE
with reference to Senate Resolution 193
be printed in the RECORD.
There being no objection, the memo-
randum was ordered to be printed in the
Reroina. as follows:
COMMITTEE ON THE BUDGET,
Washington, D.C.
'NiEMORANDLYM
TO: Senator MUSHIE.
From: John Gaas and Dan Twomey.
Date: June 17, 1977.
Subject: S. Res. 193, a Resolution Relating
to the Need to Increase the Loan Levels
for the 1977 Crops of Wheat and Feed
Grains.
S. Res. 193 Is on the Senate Calendar. The
leadership would like to move this to the
unanimous consent calendar, but there is
currently a Budget Committee hold on the
bill.
S. Res. 193 states that It is the sense of
the Senate that the Secretary of Agriculture
should administratively adjust the price sup-
port program in a way that would increase
Outlays In FY 1977 and FY 1978. There Is no
comparable Douse resolution, and the Ad-
ministration position is that no such ad-
ministrative change should or will be made.
The Department of Agriculture has assured
you In writing that the Administration does
not Intend to increase the announced loan
levels,
Staff recominesds that you make the at-
tached floor statement indicating your con-
cern about the resolution's implications for
the budget process. Staff recommends that
you make ths statement at your earliest
convenience and then permit the bill to be
moved to the unanimous consent calendar.
DESCRII T1ON OF THE RESOLUTION
S. Les. 193 states (1) "that it is the sense
of the Senate that the Secretary of Agricul-
ture should exercise his authority under
existing law to increase the loan levels for
the 1977 crops of wheat and feed grains,"
and 12) that "the Secretary of the Senate
shall transmit a copy of this resolution to the
Secretary of Aariculture."
This resolution does not require Secretary
Pergiand to do anything and it recommends
no specific increase in wheat sant corn loan
rates. It has policy implications as a Senate
reeonimendation.
The resolution urges the Secretary to use
discretionary authority vested in him to in-
crease loan rates under current law (the
Agriculture Act of 1949, amended by the
Agriculture and Consumer Protection Act of
1973). Under that authority the Secretary
could set loan rates for wheat as high as
parity ($5.09 per bushel as of May 15) and
for corn as hiph tas 90 percent of parity (F3.14
per bushel as of May 15).
Loan rates are the support levels which
eligible farmers can receive as Government
loans on their crops. Farmers can either re-
pay the loans and redeem their crops, or
forfeit the crop in full satisfaction of the
loan depending upon the market price and
which is more advantageous. Outlays occur
when the loan is made. Offsetting receipts
occur when loans are repaid or when for-
feited commodities are subsequently sold by
the Government.
For wheat, the current, U.S. average market
price is at the loan rate of. $2.25 pec? bushel.
any increase in the loan rate, therefore, will
illereaae budget outlays and will reduce U.S.
exports, because it will raise the U.S. price
ii. iv- the world price. If this occurs, export
tiissidses will be needed to keep wheat corn-
acistave in export channels. C1-30 estimates
a at the maximum budget exposure (above
u rrent policy) would be about $3 billion for
fT 1977 for loans and export subsidies with
an additional $1 billion in budget exposure
fos FY 1978 in wheat.
For corn, the paajected U.S. average .cc
for the 1977 crop is above the current, sn
rate. However, any increase in the loan At,
will also increase budget outlays and pert; ,ps
also reduce the competitiveness of U.S, tn
in the world market, CSO estimates :at
there would be no FY 1977 impact from ais
resolution, because most of the 1977 op
will not be harvested until October 1977,
that the maximum budget exposure (at ,vs
current policy) would be $2 billion in S'Y
1978. This includes both loan and export r b-
sidles for feed grains.
The following table indicates the rele is
Information concerning the Secretary's au-
thority to set loan rates for the 1977 WI ar
and corn crops, and possible budget imp t.
1977 crop
Per blishe
Wheat I ru
Statutory minimum loan
rate 81. 37
Announced loan rate (cur-
rent level) $2.25
Statutory maximum loan
rate '$509
Rate of increase loan outlays:
Fiscal year 1977
Fiscal year 1978____... _ (2)
Maximum budget exposure tC130
mate) :
Fiscal year 1977_ _
Fiscal year 1978----------'$1 $2
Parity.
290 percent of parity.
2 $30 million per 10 cents increase,
No effect (1977 crop year begins ?Mob 1,
1977).
$10 million per 10 cents increase
$50 million per 10 cents increase.
7 Billions.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The ql s-
tion is on agreeing to the resolution.
The resolution (S. Res. 193) was agi ed
to.
The preamble was agreed to.
The resolution, with its preambl,.:, It ds
as follows:
Whereas a strong and vigorous agrictS ire
is essential to the Nation's well-being; ud
Whereas through the Federal price tp-
port program farmers may receive loan, on
the wheat and feed grains they prof
thereby affording them the opportunit to
exercise greater inaepenclence in their a fix-
keting operations and benefit from print in-
creases for such commodities that often i ne
later In the season after harvest; and
Whereas under existing law the Seen iry
of Agriculture is authorized to establish -an
rates for wheat and feed grains at levels tat
protect farm income; and
Whereas the announced loan level: fen he
1977 crops of wheat and corn are $2.25 .rid
$1.75 per bushel, respectively: Now, ti
fore,
-e-
fore, be it
Resolved, That it Is the sense of the St ate
that the Secretary of Agriculture shoula ex-
ercise his authority under existing la, to
increase the loan levels for the 1977
of wheat and feed grains.
Scc. 2. The Secretary of the Senate ;. an
transmit a copy of this resolution to he
Secretary of Agriculture.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD, Mr. Presie. at,
I move to reconsider the vote by wl ,ch
the resolution was adopted.
Mr. BAKER. I move to lay that mc on
on the table.
tee
.1977
The motion to lay on the table was
agreed to,
NATIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE
ON OCEANS .AND ATMOSPHERE
Mr. ROBERT C. 13Y11 1). Mr. President,
I ask the Chair to lay before the Senate
a message from the House of Represent-
atives on H.R. 3849, a bill to establish
qualifications for individuals appointed
to the National Advisory Con imittee on
Oceans and Atmosphere and to authorize
appropriations for the Committee for fis-
cal year 1978.
The PRESIDING OFFICER laid be-
fore the Senate the following message
from the House of Representatives:
Page 1, line 4, of the Senate engrossed
amendment, strike out "15" and insert: "18"
Page 2, strike out lines I through 14, in-
clusive, of the Senate engrossed amendment
and insert' "qualified by way of knowledge
and expertise in the foncriving areas of direct
concern to the Committee?
"(1) one or more of the disciplines and
fields included in marine science and tech-
nology, marine industry, marine-related
State and local governmental functions,
coastal zone management, 01 other fields
rectly appropriate or conaaleration of mat-
ters of ocean policy; or
"(2) one or more of the disciplines and
fields included in atmospheric science, at-
mospheric-related State anti local govern-
mental functions, or other fields directly ap-
propriate for consideration of matters of
atmospheric policy."
Page 2, lines 17 and 18 of the Senate en-
grossed amendment, strike out "5" each place
it appears and insert: "8".
Page 6, line 15, of the Senate engrossed
amendment; strike out "$480" and insert:
"$520,".
Mr. HOJJ ANS. Mr. President, earlier
this session the Senate and the House
passed different versions of HR. 3849
(S. 1347), a bill to extend and modify
the National Advisory Committee on
Oceans and Atmosphere --NACOA. I now
am pleased to announce that the rele-
vant Senate and House committees have
worked out their differences. A new ver-
sion of the bill, which includes the
amendments agreed upon, passed the
House on June 21. It is before us today,
and I urge my Senate colleagues to ac-
cept it. This agreement eliminates the
need for a formal conference on H.R.
3849, and is, I believe, an excellent ex-
ample of cooperation between the two
Houses.
The agreement is, to accept the Senate
version of the bill, with three important
changes.
First, the Members from the Senate
and House committees suggest that the
number of NACOA members be 18. The
Senate version of the bill called for 1.5
members, the original House version
called for 25.
Second, the Members propose a 1-year
NACOA authorization of $520,000. The
Senate figure was $480.000, the House
number $560,000.
Third, we propose new language on the
qualifications for NACOA membership
This qualifications section is an especial-
ly important part of the NACOA bill,
When NACOA firet was created in 1971,
it was clear that Congress wanted an ad-
visory committee of experts and others
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : CIA-RDP79M00983A001800060002-2
UNCLASSIFIED IuNsTEE R:ty
ar 7IDENTIAL
Am.." Neer
Approved For Meals:W*1W lvtitA-Neatiyogiteglol Tre27-- ' 1""

SUBJECT: (Optional) Exec ee }Wailer!
V: /o- 1?
FROM:
Legislative Counsel
6C19 HQ
EXTENSION
NO.
lea-- t
ST1
DATE 23 N 194411-d9L
TO: (Officer designation, room number, and
building)
DATE
OFFICER'S
INITIALS
COMMENTS (Number each comment to show from whom
to whom. Draw a line across column after each comment.)
RECEIVED
FORWARDED
1.orDirector
24:11M
Attached
the 22
Record
is the debate from
June 1977 Congressional
2.
on S. 1539, the Intelligence
Act of 1978. The Erp
subsequently passed by the
Authorization
bill was
Senate
3.
,
,
4.
25
JUN7A
19
e-orge L. Cary
L-gislative Counsel
5.
6.
0 te."1-?
SSCi
1.
77., C:$4181/11?
7.
-
.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
FORM 610 4DREtrenorstehafe 2oniutoicrittinom0109p311110NISE1006000P=2
E__] UNCLASSIFIED
3-62 USE ONLY