INTRODUCTION OF LEGISLATION REGARDING THE INTERCEPTION OF TELEPHONE CONVERSATIONS

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP86B00338R000200320005-2
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 25
• Document Creation Date: December 21, 2016
• Document Release Date: September 18, 2008
• Sequence Number: 5
• Publication Date: January 25, 1984
• Content Type: REGULATION

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